reSee.it - 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.

Speaker 0 explains that not all Republicans are registered with APAC, and that many colleagues would vote with him if not for political backlash back home. He says some Republicans tell him, “that’s wrong what APAC is doing to you,” and they want to talk to their APAC person. He notes that nearly everyone except him has an APAC person, which he likens to a babysitter who is always talking to you for APAC. When these members are in DC, they lunch with their APAC contacts, who have their cell numbers and keep conversations going. He mentions that four members of Congress have said they’ll talk to their APAC person to try to get ads dialed back. He questions why this isn’t more widely known, arguing that it benefits nobody for constituents to know they have a “buddy system with somebody who represents a foreign country.” Speaker 1 asks what APAC is, and Speaker 0 explains the concept further, noting that the APAC person is connected to the congressman and that this dynamic exists on the Republican side. He says the APAC person is embedded in the caucus presence, and that conversations with them occur when members come to DC. He remarks that this arrangement is not beneficial for public disclosure, so members don’t tell their constituents about it. Speaker 1 asks if any other country does anything similar. Speaker 0 responds emphatically that they do not: “Not only do they not have a Putin guy. Look. They don’t they they don’t have a Britain guy. They don’t have an Australian guy. They don’t have a Germany dude.” He asserts that APAC is the only country with someone who uniformly matches a congressman to an APAC contact, and that there is likely a spreadsheet at APAC mapping the APAC contact to the congressman’s votes on issues. He adds that APAC pays for trips for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel; he notes he may not be the only Republican who hasn’t taken the APAC Israel trip, but he’s among a minority who hasn’t yet. Speaker 1 asks about the trip, and Speaker 0 describes it as “vacationy,” including visits to the Western Wall and other sites, and mentions swimming in the Dead Sea. Speaker 1 comments that Israel is a great country and that Jerusalem is wonderful, but clarifies that this appreciation is distinct from the government of Israel and its politics. Speaker 0 agrees that Israelis are entrepreneurial and publicly minded, and Speaker 1 shares a personal fondness for Israel, praising the country and its people, while noting the difference between the people and the government. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss their affection for Israel, with Speaker 1 distinguishing his personal love of the place from political influence, and both agreeing that Israel is a special place, with Speaker 0 emphasizing the distinction between people and government.

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 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.

Fox News reports allege wealth increases among prominent progressive lawmakers. The segment claims Ilhan Omar is worth up to $30,000,000, noting she rose from negative net worth when first elected to Congress to substantial wealth, with a husband who is a consultant. The piece centers on Ayanna Pressley, stating that when she was elected in 2018 she had a negative net worth, but today she is worth $1,300,000 with assets up to $8,000,000. It highlights property holdings in 2024: a Martha’s Vineyard rental worth up to $5,000,000 and multiple Boston rentals worth up to $1,000,000 each, contrasting with 2019 when she reportedly owned only one property in Boston. The report also notes that days before Pressley was sworn in, her husband left a $92,000-a-year Boston City Hall job to launch Conan Harris and Associates, a consulting firm. It states his income reportedly jumped while in Washington, with a client list including government organizations and one with deep ties to the Obama Foundation. The segment describes ethics concerns about using his city-issued email to pitch Walsh’s Chief of Staff on staying on as a consultant, while city officials say they did not solicit nor accept the offer and that ethics laws bar municipal employees from using official resources for personal gain. Pressed for comment, Pressley did not respond to Fox Business requests. Fox Business anchor David Asman appears to align with the report’s framing, acknowledging that wealth accumulation through government contacts is common but asserting questions arise about those who position themselves as anti-capitalist. David Asman contrasts the situation with what he describes as anti-capitalist squad members who denounce capitalism yet accumulate wealth, asserting that Pressley and her fellow squad members “condemn capitalism” while “she’s the one who’s been pillaging the government,” and noting her husband’s consulting income. The discussion broadens to Ilhan Omar, claimed to be worth up to $30,000,000, with a husband who is also a consultant and previously connected to progressive circles with alleged anti-capitalist leanings. The segment references Nancy Pelosi as part of a broader pattern, describing her as “the grand dam of all this,” and asserts she is worth about $275,000,000, with husband Paul Pelosi, suggesting insider information influenced certain trades tied to credit card companies. The speakers argue that such patterns illustrate long-standing issues, vowing continued investigation and pressure to stop perceived abuses. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 close with remarks that this situation requires ongoing scrutiny, and they thank David Asman for the discussion.

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.

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.