TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker raises concerns about the spending and dark money flowing into Pennsylvania, and now into the "pockets of Pennsylvanians." While acknowledging Elon Musk's right to express his views and support Donald Trump, the speaker believes the flow of money into politics raises serious questions that people may want to examine.

Abdi, running for Minnesota House District 14A, owns Blooming Kids Child Care. The speaker highlights a long list of alleged violations at Blooming Kids, including: - No first aid kits - Unsanitary conditions - Not complying with CPR regulations - No supervision for the kids - Not operating within the terms of their license - Never submitted their DHS background study when requested - Children subjected to prohibited disciplinary actions - No furnishings, no equipment, no materials, and no supplies - No documents to show that the teachers were qualified to do the job - Repeated violations: same violations happen over and over - No immunization records for any of the children - Not enough staff The speaker notes they cannot determine how much state or federal funding Blooming Kids receives because that information requires access they don’t have. Regarding campaign fundraising, the speaker checked Abdi’s campaign donations and states he is not getting any from any day care centers. The speaker concludes by asking someone to tag Nick Shirley, suggesting he should look into this issue as well.

Speaker 0: The seventy six day period is the time between when President Trump was elected and President Biden left office. Is that right? Speaker 1: Correct. During that period, from the loan program office in loans and commitments, $93,000,000,000 went out the door—well over twice as much as in the previous fifteen years. There were funds that went out the door and commitments made from businesses that provided no business plan and no numbers about their own financial solvency or how this project... Speaker 0: So you’re telling me that the Department of Energy, in the seventy six day period, before their boss was going to leave office, gave our loan money to entities that had no business plan? Correct. No financials? Speaker 1: Correct. I’ve come in with great concern about how this institution, Speaker 0: this great American institution has been run and how American taxpayer money has been handled. You’re going back through and checking each one of these loans and these grants to make sure there was no stealing, aren’t you? Speaker 1: We’re looking at that, and yes, my blood pressure is rising right now just thinking about what we have seen and what did happen at the moment. Gonna tell some of these boondoggles no, aren’t you? Speaker 0: That’s correct. I am. It’s rare that I’m speechless, but I want to be sure I understood. The people running the Department of Energy for President Biden’s administration shoveled $93,000,000,000 out the door in seventy six days, and it just happened to be the time between when President Trump was elected and President Biden, their boss, was leaving. Is that right? Speaker 1: It is correct and distasteful. Confidence undermining. My god.

Speaker 0 contends that NGOs (nongovernment organizations) are not truly nongovernmental because they are funded by borrowing money and by money from donors, including billionaires. He claims they receive a large amount of funding, and the process involves borrowing funds and then distributing them to NGOs. He uses Afghanistan as an example, noting that there was a bill to defund the Taliban and that in the Senate there was opposition to adding NGOs to that effort. He argues that billionaire adversaries of the United States will put money into groups with fancy names (citing “feed the children” as a possible example)—a million dollars to start, which is "pennies on their dollars" for these donors. He asserts that these NGOs apply for federal money, and then an unelected bureaucrat in Washington declares them legitimate, leading to billions of dollars flowing to these organizations. Speaker 0 states that in Afghanistan alone, there are over a thousand nongovernment organizations operating there, and when combined with United Nations operations, the number could be multiples of thousands. He questions whether the money is being spent on certain events, asking, “do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show?” and asserts that the money ends up back in politicians’ pockets, with a paper trail that someone will uncover, though he believes it probably goes into dark money campaigns that oppose good Republicans as well. He concludes that this situation “has got to stop.” He ends by thanking Donald Trump and JD Vance.

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.

The speaker argues that there are fake NGOs functioning as fake charities and that arrests should be made in relation to them. The claim is that these organizations are predominantly operated by Democrats, with occasional involvement by Republicans who are supposedly kept quiet by those false charitable activities. The speaker describes this pattern as evidence of a broader “uniparty” dynamic, suggesting that both major parties are involved in a system designed to influence politics. According to the speaker, the majority of the money flows to Democrats through these NGOs. They assert that billions of dollars are given to NGOs run by Democrats, and these organizations then channel funds through a large network of additional non-governmental organizations. This network allegedly creates a “giant money laundering scheme,” to the point where the speaker states that the words NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Key claims highlighted include: - Existence of fake NGOs that operate as fake charities. - A call for arrests related to these fake NGOs. - Predominant involvement of Democrats in running these NGOs, with occasional Republican involvement used to quiet concerns. - A description of a uniparty dynamic, implying bipartisan collusion or alignment in this activity. - Large-scale funding (billions of dollars) flowing to NGOs run by Democrats. - A subsequent cascade through a network of additional NGOs, forming a vast money laundering scheme. - The assertion that NGO activity and money laundering are nearly interchangeable in this context. The speaker emphasizes that the overall operation constitutes a substantial financial mechanism linked to political influence, portraying the NGO network as a conduit for laundering money rather than purely charitable activity. The overall framing is that the integrity of NGOs involved in political funding is compromised by this alleged system, tying NGO activity directly to money laundering in a way that equates the two terms in the speaker’s characterization.

There needs to be Democrats who walk the walk and talk the talk because hypocrisy gets exploited to fuel cynicism. Insider trading in Congress is a prime example. Members of Congress sit on a committee, get information about a drug or a contract, and immediately make a call to their stockbroker, changing things so their portfolio swells. This is done on public trust, taxpayer finance, and public facilities while regulating the market they're trading on. The speaker questions why people act like money only corrupts Republicans.

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.

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 questions the lack of transparency regarding the sharing of royalties by officials at the CDC, NIH, and FDA who are responsible for approving drugs and vaccines. They mention that Congress needs to enforce full disclosure to eliminate conflicts of interest. The speaker reveals that NIH researchers have received significant amounts of money, but the details are not disclosed. They also highlight their unsuccessful attempts to obtain nonclassified records of NIH grants. The lack of action from the Department of Justice and Democrats further complicates the situation.

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

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.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to respond to an accusation that Nancy Pelosi became rich through insider trading. Speaker 1 responded that the accusation is ridiculous. Speaker 1 supports stopping members of Congress from trading stocks, not because anyone is doing anything wrong, but to instill confidence in the American people. Speaker 1 has no concern about investments made over time. Speaker 1's husband is into investments, but it has nothing to do with insider information. Speaker 1 stated that the president is projecting because he has his own exposure.

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.

First speaker: Calls the indictment unjust and says intimidation tactics have been pervasive, with weeks showing different members seeking sanctuary in hopes of intimidating and distracting from the Epstein files. They look forward to their day in court to prove themselves and state the truth. If Congress becomes about intimidation and scare tactics, especially attacking minorities, they will keep fighting for the district. They have received much support and will continue fighting until the district gets fair prices, housing, and fair representation in Congress. They note that those who hate the fight will come for them. They urge some colleagues to step down or resign, arguing they weren’t elected by those who are in the district. They insist they will keep fighting for the people and work to ensure only those who elected them make decisions. They reiterate that they are here for the people. Second speaker: Questions about the investigation into the congresswoman’s families, stating that this is part of congressional duties. They say the congresswoman is under investigation for congressional ethics regarding violations of campaign finances and assert that she must answer to the people of her district.

The speaker acknowledges the strong influence of donors, special interests, and lobbyists over politicians. They claim to have turned down significant amounts of money from these sources, stating that they are not accepting any money from anyone except the people of the country. Speaker 1 brings up the speaker's past relationship with Hillary Clinton, suggesting that it worked for her. The speaker responds by saying that as a businessman, it was their job to get along with people, including politicians. They emphasize that they did a good job in doing so.

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.

There are members of Congress who have become strangely wealthy, accumulating, for example, $20 million while earning $200,000 a year. It is unclear how this is possible. The goal is to figure out how this happens and stop it.

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.

General Michael Flynn has publicly claimed that he and his team have investigated Speaker Mike Johnson, and that Johnson’s refusal to investigate corruption in Minnesota and other states is connected to Johnson’s financial networks, specifically alleging that Johnson’s PAC is receiving money from Somali child care centers. Flynn, a retired Lieutenant General and former National Security Advisor, stated that his private investigation into the alleged robbery of American taxpayers led him directly to the door of House leadership. Flynn stated that he began looking into the lack of federal movement on the Minnesota daycare fraud cases. He pressed Johnson directly, asking, “Speaker Johnson, what are you gonna say about this? What the hell is going on, speaker Johnson?” He suggested that if Johnson truly considers who has subpoena and investigation power more than anyone else, it would be the House of Representatives, and questioned why they aren’t taking action. Flynn asserted that the inaction is due to financial concerns, claiming, “But I’m not shocked because if you really think about it, who has subpoena and investigation power more than anyone else? The house of representatives. Why aren’t they doing anything about it? Because that will hurt their money.” He extended the accusation beyond Minnesota, stating that “there are snakes everywhere.” Flynn concluded that if the allegations are true, Mike Johnson needs to go to prison, and offered, “God bless you. I’ll keep you updated. Stay tuned.”

The speaker pledges to push for a single stock trading ban, arguing "it is the credibility of the House and the Senate" that is at stake from "eye popping returns," observed in figures like "Representative Pelosi, Senator Wyden," suggesting "every hedge fund would be jealous of them." They assert "the American people deserve better than this" and that "People don't shouldn't come to Washington to get rich." Instead, they should "come to serve the American people," as such trading undermines trust in the system, because "if any private citizen traded this way, the SEC would be knocking on their door."

The speaker claims $5 trillion in untraceable payments exist with no record of where the money went. They allege Social Security sent out $72 billion in bad checks, and the head of Social Security resigned. The speaker finds the resignation suspicious. Speaker 1 asserts there is no waste in the Pentagon, Treasury, or HHS. Speaker 1 asks why Speaker 0 is not celebrating cuts and reforms if they agree there is waste, abuse, and corruption. Speaker 1 claims billions of dollars are being saved. Speaker 0 attempts to calm Speaker 1 down, stating they are not having a debate. Speaker 1 insists they are not trying to debate and will speak freely about saving Americans billions of dollars.