reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions whether hush money should be considered a campaign finance expense, citing examples like legal fees and house purchases. They draw parallels to past cases and highlight Congress's use of taxpayer money for hush payments. The discussion shifts to the potential vacating of a verdict due to legal errors and due process violations. The speaker concludes by submitting documents on hush payments and Congress's settlements for the record.

Congress has paid over $17 million in hush money for sexual misconduct using taxpayer funds. While President Trump allegedly paid $130,000 of his own money, the issue here is the use of public money for these settlements. There are questions about whether any members of Congress have benefited from this hush money. It's important to note that none of these payments have been reported as campaign finance expenses. The Federal Election Commission would investigate any complaints regarding these payments if they were submitted.

We've stopped the $8,000,000 in taxpayer subsidies for Politico subscriptions. The team is working to cancel the payments immediately. Large organizations inevitably miss things. Claims of widespread waste and abuse haven't been substantiated with evidence. We haven't seen proof of the alleged misuse of funds.

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.”

Some sexual harassment settlements, such as Kanye's, are not included in official counts because they were paid from office budgets instead of the office of compliance. Regardless, taxpayers are still responsible for these settlements.

Congress has reportedly paid over $17 million in taxpayer money as hush money for sexual misconduct within its offices. The speaker contrasts this with allegations against President Trump, who allegedly used his own money for a $130,000 payment. The speaker suggests some members of Congress may have used taxpayer funds to cover up their misconduct. The speaker calls for the release of records related to these payments and questions whether the FEC will investigate the $17 million in settlements paid out by Congress. They emphasize that none of this money has been reported as a campaign finance expense.

Capitol Hill is facing a significant reckoning regarding sexual harassment. First, this issue is bipartisan; recent allegations involve Congressman John Conyers, who settled a complaint in 2015, and Senator Al Franken, who has apologized for unwanted touching. Additionally, Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore faces multiple accusations of sexual assault from underage women. Second, the $17 million paid since 1997 to settle various disputes through the Office of Compliance includes more than just sexual harassment cases. Some settlements, like Conyers', were paid from office budgets and are not included in that total. Regardless, taxpayers ultimately bear the cost of these settlements.

The transcript asserts that the government can provide funding to a so called nonprofit with very few controls, and that there is no auditing subsequently of that nonprofit. It emphasizes that with the 1,900,000,000.0 to Stacey Abrams, those involved “give themselves extremely lavish, like, salaries, expense everything” and that the nonprofit is used to “buy jets and homes and all sorts of things” and to “live like kings and queens” within the tax paradigm. The speaker reiterates that this pattern is not isolated to a single instance but is happening at scale. It is described as not being limited to one or two cases but as something being seen “everywhere.” Key points highlighted include: - Government funding to nonprofits occurs with very few controls. - There is an absence of auditing of the recipient nonprofit after the funding is provided. - A substantial amount, specifically 1,900,000,000.0, is directed to a high-profile figure identified as Stacey Abrams. - The recipients are portrayed as granting themselves lavish salaries, paying for expenses, and purchasing luxury assets such as jets and homes. - The overall implication is that funds are used to “buy jets and homes and all sorts of things,” leading to a lifestyle described as living “like kings and queens” within the tax framework. - The speaker stresses that this phenomenon is not isolated but is happening at scale, with examples seen “everywhere.” The speaker’s framing centers on alleged governance and accountability failures in nonprofit funding, pointing to large sums of money directed to an individual and the perceived use of nonprofit resources for personal luxury. The emphasis is on the scale of the practice and the lack of oversight, suggesting systemic repetition rather than isolated incidents.

The discussion centers on whether hush money payments should be classified as campaign finance expenses. Legal fees are typically not questioned under attorney-client privilege, and while some argue that payments influencing a campaign could be seen as campaign expenses, traditional campaign finance law does not support this. Comparisons are made to past cases, highlighting inconsistencies in legal interpretations. Concerns are raised about Congress's use of taxpayer money for sexual misconduct settlements, questioning if these should be investigated similarly. There is a belief that the recent verdict against Trump should be vacated due to constitutional violations and prosecutorial misconduct. The focus is on due process errors, which are seen as critical for appeal, while evidentiary issues may be harder to challenge. Documents are submitted to illustrate the disparity in handling hush money and misconduct settlements.

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.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are allegedly funneled through nonprofits annually, lacking transparency regarding the money's destination. The speaker asserts that the American public has a right to access the financial records of any organization receiving government funds. They state that all information pertaining to the use of these funds and related communications should be considered public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs must be accountable to the public.

The speaker asserts that last year California spent $9.6 billion on health care for illegal immigrants. They claim the media has misled people by saying that no federal dollars go to undocumented immigrants, stating that this is fundamentally wrong. The speaker points to Governor Newsom, who allegedly announced that California is the first state in the nation to provide health care to illegal immigrants. They also claim that San Francisco operates the only universal health care plan in America for all undocumented residents, expressing pride in that status. According to the speaker, a key mechanism behind federal funding for care provided to undocumented individuals is the expansion of medical access through emergency departments. They contend that emergency departments are backfilled and funded at a rate of one dollar from the federal government. The implication is that any time an illegal immigrant uses the emergency room, federal dollars are brought in to cover or support that care, effectively meaning there are federal dollars being spent on illegal immigrants. The speaker asserts that the statement that there are no federal dollars going to illegal immigrants is a lie, arguing that California is facilitating this funding. They also claim that the media is lying about this issue as well. Throughout the statement, the overarching themes are the existence of substantial state spending on undocumented health care, the involvement of federal funding through emergency department backfill, and the portrayal of these facts as being misrepresented by the media. In summary, the speaker emphasizes four main points: (1) California’s reported $9.6 billion expenditure on health care for undocumented immigrants, (2) Governor Newsom’s assertion that California is leading the nation in providing health care to illegal immigrants, (3) San Francisco’s universal health care plan for all undocumented residents, and (4) the mechanism by which emergency department funding from the federal government allegedly backfills care for undocumented individuals, leading to federal dollars being spent on them. The speaker concludes by asserting that the claim of no federal dollars supporting illegal immigrants is false and accuses the media of lying.

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.

We reached a settlement to move on from this matter. The president and congress should focus on solving the issues they were elected for. Miss Jones' new counsel met our conditions, including ensuring Hirschfeld's money wasn't involved. The settlement amount is $850,000, distribution details unknown. Miss Jones' legal fees are $3-4 million, not our concern.

The speaker asserts that fraud has been legalized and concealed through unethical behavior enabled by unethical legislation, effectively allowing the fraud to go unseen, untracked, and without accountability. The speaker highlights Nexus Family Healing, a nonprofit located in Plymouth, Minnesota, as an example. According to the speaker, Nexus Family Healing is a national nonprofit with an executive director earning well over $500,000 annually, who is awarded a $1,000,000 grant contract through Hennepin County. The speaker then alleges that this $1,000,000 grant morphs into a three-year $7,000,000 ongoing contract, and claims that nobody knows how or why this transformation occurs. The speaker notes that when Hennepin County workers approached Julie Blaha in the state auditor’s office with concerns, they were met with “complete radio silence.” The speaker contends that Julie Blaha refuses to take action. The claim is made that the state auditor’s office is currently opaque, with no visible duties, no responsibility, and no accountability arising from that office. The speaker adds that the office receives $8,000,000 in biannual funding, yet allegedly does nothing beyond purported TikTok dances. The overarching claim is that there needs to be someone in the state auditor’s office who actually takes responsibility for how taxpayer dollars are managed and accounted for. The speaker uses these points to argue that the current system enables undisclosed or unaddressed fraud through a combination of perceived legislative loopholes and a lack of oversight or action from the state auditor’s office. The narrative centers on alleged improper contracting and funding flows involving Nexus Family Healing, and the perceived non-responsiveness of Julie Blaha and the state auditor’s office in the face of county concerns about these matters.

A protester, speaking during a recording, discusses an organization called Make the Road New York and its perceived financial scope as part of a broader critique of immigrant-rights organizations. The protester asserts that Make the Road New York has a budget of $30,000,000 and notes that the topic of the immigrants’ rights organization is of interest to those observing organizational funding and influence. The speaker identifies themselves as being with a union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They state that they looked at the tax returns of Make the Road New York and found there were registered 501(c)(3) entities that file Form 990, and that Make the Road New York “received $16,000,000 in grants.” This claim ties the organization to a substantial influx of grant funding, suggesting a significant level of financial support from funders or the government. The conversation shifts toward hypothetical implications of such funding, with the speaker asking, “Can you imagine what Nick Shirley could do with $16,000,000? Can you imagine what James O’Keeffe could do with $16,000,000?” This line of inquiry appears to juxtapose the perceived influence of large sums of money with recognizable figures associated with political and investigative activities, raising questions about the power and use of funds. A broader assertion follows: “The United States government is funding this.” This statement connects the funding to government support, implying that public dollars are being directed toward Make the Road New York or similar organizations. The speaker then contrasts national debt with alleged fraud, stating, “We're 36,000,000,000,000 in debt, or are we 36,000,000,000,000 in fraud?” This rhetorical question presents a dichotomy between debt and fraud on a colossal scale, underscoring the protester’s critical stance regarding government spending and accountability. Overall, the excerpt highlights concerns about the financial backing of Make the Road New York, the role of grant funding for immigrant-rights organizations, and the perceived connection to government funding, framed within a broader critique of national debt and potential misallocation of public resources.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are allegedly funneled through nonprofits annually without transparency. The speaker asserts that the American public has a right to access the financial records of any organization receiving government money. They state that all information pertaining to the use of these funds and related communications should be considered public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs should be accountable to the public.

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.

It is claimed that 7,000 politically connected NGOs receive 90% of all taxpayer money allocated to nonprofits. Approximately $300 billion in government funds are said to flow through nonprofits annually with no transparency. The speaker asserts that the American people have a right to access the financial records of any entity receiving government money. They state that all information regarding the use of these funds and related communications should be public record. The speaker concludes that these NGOs must be accountable to the public.

The first speaker contends that Congress is trying to give $5,000,000,000 of your money for refugee resettlement programs, and that money ends up in places like this. The second speaker identifies the International Rescue Committee as the largest refugee NGO in the country, noting that they get government funds and subcontract the work out to places like this. The first speaker describes the Somali American Community Center as a location that receives grants from the IRC in order to help refugees resettle in America. The second speaker reports that when they went in, they found this: an almost completely abandoned retail space that hasn’t filed taxes in almost ten years. The first speaker states that almost every business in the area is focused on getting refugees on taxpayer funded welfare programs. The second speaker asserts that this is how the largest refugee city in the country is funded. The first speaker adds that this is how over 87% of Somali immigrants end up on taxpayer funded public assistance. The second speaker notes that they spent three days in Little Somalia in Atlanta, Georgia. The first speaker concludes by saying that in the largest refugee center in the entire country, this is what they found.

Speaker 0 highlights that the report indicates the federal government wasted millions in the past year on transgender animal experiments and lab testing beagles in China, noting a contrast with funds used for voting identification. He frames the issue as a question of priorities: we don’t want to pay for people to have an ID to vote, but we’ll pay for lab testing beagles in China. Speaker 1 responds by acknowledging the presence of extensive federal spending and the need for greater oversight. He says this is the ninth year they have worked through this, and that there is always a need for more eyes on it and greater transparency. He emphasizes that the problem is not confined to a single administration or Congress, but rather that there is broad complexity requiring scrutiny and sunshine. Speaker 1 identifies the shutdown as the largest area of waste in the prior year, stating that $85,000,000,000 was lost during that period. He argues that shutdowns do have real fiscal impacts, countering a common belief that they do not affect outcomes. He then points to a specific critique: a quarter of a billion dollars was spent on transitioning mice and monkeys by NIH. He claims that American taxpayers do not want their dollars spent on such activities, and reiterates that taxpayers are more supportive of spending on national defense, education, and infrastructure, but not on what he describes as wasteful or inappropriate expenditures. Across the exchange, the speakers stress the overarching theme of government spending that does not align with the public’s perceived priorities. They emphasize the need for oversight and accountability, highlighting large-scale waste associated with shutdowns and specific research expenditures. The dialogue centers on contrasting perceived essential investments with expenditures they describe as wasteful or misaligned with taxpayer priorities, especially in the context of animal research and international laboratory activities.

The speaker outlines several policy and oversight actions within HUD and related agencies. First, they assert that non-permanent residents are no longer eligible for FHA insured mortgages, and that public housing authorities are being audited to ensure taxpayer dollars do not support illegal aliens, insisting that “American dollars should benefit American citizens and American citizens only.” Despite these emphasis on restricting benefits, the speaker notes that HUD previously provided a pathway for home ownership and supported housing affordability for more than 1,000,000 Americans through FHA and Ginnie Mae, highlighting the agency’s impact in expanding access to housing and affordability. On stewardship and accountability, the speaker emphasizes a strong focus on cracking down on waste and fraud and abuse. They cite findings from the office of the chief financial officer (CFO) regarding potential financial issues: more than $5,000,000,000 in potential payment errors and over $50,000,000,000 in total rental assistance for fiscal year 2024. They also point to a specific problem within that broader amount: money that went to nearly 30,000 dead people. The speaker characterizes these financial findings as ludicrous and unacceptable, stating that such issues are a violation of the sacred trust with American taxpayers. They assert that the problem “has to end, and it will,” signaling a firm commitment to ending waste, fraud, and abuse and to restoring confidence in the management of housing programs and related federal dollars.

We're talking about $2.3 billion saved, but where's the proof? You won't be satisfied until you see the 10,000 pages of evidence. Specifics are needed. If we have to go to Congress, we will show where the money is going. Some details have emerged, like the $59 million spent on luxury hotels, but that was FEMA money abused for migrants. I'm not saying it's okay, don't put words in my mouth. The portrayal isn't factually accurate. I saw what FEMA does, I believe it. These are congressionally appropriate funds.

This is a deep-dive into TPUSA’s financials focusing on one of the largest vendors that appeared in the forms: Resource One, a printing company. The speaker, who previously worked for the CIA/NSA and now runs a corporate intelligence firm, frames the analysis as public and for entertainment purposes only, aiming to uncover why an audit was requested and to connect the dots in the nine-nine forms. Key findings and questions raised: - In the 2022 filing, Resource One appears as a new vendor with a charge of 2,900,000. - In the 2023 filing, Resource One becomes TPUSA’s top vendor, with expenses of just over 6,000,000 for printing services. - There is a discrepancy: TPUSA reports 6.1 million in printing expenses, yet a separate line item shows only 1.3 million spent on printing, leaving about 4.8 million unaccounted in printing expenses. The speaker asks, “Where’s the other 4,800,000?” - The Tulsa, Oklahoma address associated with Resource One appears to be a front; OpenCorporates lists the actual company as Worldwide Printing and Distribution, with Resource One doing business as Resource One. The LLCs connected to Resource One trace to Delaware, but the filing address points to Tulsa. - Worldwide Printing and Distribution is connected to James Moore, who is the CEO and the chairman of Moore DM Group. Moore DM Group is described as a $700,000,000 direct mail political conglomerate that brings in over $16,000,000 from PACs per FEC filings and has 33 subsidiary companies. Their website highlights political fundraising as one of their four major service lines. - The speaker notes that a 501(c)(3) cannot spend money on political activities, and TPUSA’s revenue reportedly comes largely from donations, making the financial links to a political fundraising conglomerate appear problematic. - The unaccounted $4.8 million is suggested to have gone to a politically affiliated entity; the speaker points to TPUSA’s 501(c)(4) or related arms and questions the clarity of the relationship. - Additional payments are noted: 1,100,000 paid to Conrad, another subsidiary of Moore, via TPUSA’s 501(c)(4) filings; 1,300,000 reported as printing expenses; 4,800,000 unaccounted for in relation to the Resource One/Worldwide Printing and Distribution connections. - The speaker mentions CREW has filed complaints about these issues and states that they have not been able to connect all the dots conclusively, but believes something noteworthy has been found. - The speaker reiterates that all claims are presented as alleged for entertainment purposes, and notes the White House’s stance on audits as a broader, related context. - Teases Part Three with more to come. Throughout, the speaker emphasizes tracing the money, the murky relationship between Resource One/Worldwide Printing and Distribution, Moore DM Group, and TPUSA’s fundraising-related expenditures, while highlighting discrepancies in reported printing expenses and the potential political nature of the funding. The segment concludes with a promise of further discoveries in Part Three.

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.