TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Marjorie Taylor Greene said she found the situation in a building that was “basically empty” and questioned whether members of Congress own real estate and rent to the federal government in Washington, DC. She claimed the answer was “Yeah,” and argued this should have been the beginning of addressing corruption. She emphasized she would be different and would be on the front end, aiming to eliminate corruption that has infiltrated committee systems. She acknowledged politics’ current back-and-forth dynamics but said the goal is to reduce that tension and focus on reform. Speaker 1 asked Greene, as Doge chairman, to continue the work on what appears to be a massive scandal: big federal buildings owned by members of Congress and leased back to the federal government—private buildings owned by members of Congress leased to the government—describing it as “the snake eating its tail” and “the tip of the iceberg.” Greene described the broader problem as a frustration with the system and warned against a “shotgun approach,” saying they must not be neutralized and must focus on a few targets. She identified the first focus as the IRS, noting that the big complaint with the IRS, besides “stealing your money,” is that you can’t ever reach them and that their technology is not intermingled. Speaker 1 referenced Greene’s statements about government duplication. Greene said she found through government duplication a chart that “my staff has uncovered basically over a trillion dollars of just simple duplication within these departments that nobody is willing to tackle.” She reiterated the plan to tackle this issue, even if it’s not “sexy,” and to “tackle it,” showing it to the American public, with the hope they will back efforts when changing the structure of government. Greene reiterated that the aim is to focus on a few issues, start with IRS problems, and address the broader duplication and inefficiencies uncovered by her staff. She expressed a determination to reveal these findings to the public and pursue structural changes in government.

Why did you and your husband participate in a large Visa IPO in March 2008, especially with legislation affecting credit card companies at that time? Did you consider it a conflict of interest? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with your question. Are you suggesting it's acceptable for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? You participated in the IPO while being Speaker of the House. Do you believe that wasn’t a conflict of interest or at least appeared to be one? It only appears that way if you base it on a false premise, which isn’t true. I’m unclear on which part you find untrue. Can you clarify? Yes, I can act upon an investment.

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.

A member of the Ways and Means Committee is allegedly insider trading based on her disclosures. It is claimed that proving this is easy by examining her trading activity and communications following classified briefings. The speaker questions how she became a member of the committee and then executed trades on NYCB just before Signature Bank collapsed, resulting in an 80% stock increase. The speaker dismisses the idea that this was a lucky trade, asserting it was a well-informed trade.

Is it standard for your department to meet with dark money groups secretly? I can't speak to actions taken by the former deputy secretary, who is no longer with us. But you are the secretary of the interior, correct? Yes, I am. Do the people here work for you? They work with me. So you're not in charge? I provide vision and direction. Do you take responsibility for the department? Yes, I do. Then why are your leaders meeting with dark money groups off the books? This is the first I've heard of this. I can't comment on my deputy's actions. What did they gain from canceling leases at their request? I don't know who that individual is. You seem unaware of your department's issues. We have a corruption problem in your department.

I want to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People like President Musk and Trump are using their public offices to enrich themselves by billions of dollars. Why is there silence about looking into the actions of the president and the richest man on Earth? I will say President Musk and Trump often use their public offices to enrich themselves. I will withdraw calling Trump "grifter-in-chief." It's despicable that this committee is silencing me for bringing up that Trump is making millions of dollars.

A board member at SDTC funneled $42.5 million of taxpayers' money into companies she had an interest in, enriching herself. Whistleblowers claim corruption and mismanagement at SDTC exceed $150 million. Despite this, no one has been held accountable. The chair resigned, but not at the minister's request, and the minister supports the corrupt SDTC board. The speaker questions why the minister prioritizes protecting liberal insiders who got rich improperly over addressing corruption in the Liberals' green slush fund.

The speaker is asked about accepting and participating in a large Visa IPO deal in February while serving as Speaker of the House, given pending legislation affecting credit card companies. The questioner asks if the speaker believes it was appropriate to accept a favorable stock deal and whether it constituted a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof. The speaker denies any conflict of interest, stating it only appears so if based on a false premise. They deny acting upon an investment.

The speaker accuses someone of insider trading, suggesting that it is evident from their disclosures. They mention that the person receives classified briefings as a member of a committee, and it would be easy for a competent FBI officer to investigate their trading and communication. The speaker questions how the person became a committee member and made trades just before a stock hike. They emphasize that it was not luck but a well-informed trade.

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.

The speaker expresses disbelief that the Department of Energy under the Biden administration disbursed $93 billion in 76 days between President Trump's election and President Biden taking office. The speaker confirms with an interviewee that these funds were given to entities lacking business plans and financials. The speaker characterizes this as "distasteful" and "confidence undermining."

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.

Speaker 1 is concerned about potential insider trading within the White House related to market fluctuations caused by the president's tariff flip-flops. Speaker 1 is writing to the White House to demand transparency about who knew in advance about the tariff changes and whether anyone profited from this information. While acknowledging the likelihood of the administration stonewalling, Speaker 1 believes that evidence of insider trading will eventually surface through scrutiny of individuals' financial transactions. Speaker 1 cites the administration's involvement with meme coins and alleged self-interested dealings with Elon, as well as dodging oversight agencies, as reasons to suspect the worst and to investigate further. Speaker 1 suggests Congress should investigate, but they will demand answers from the administration.

During a congressional hearing, a senator questioned a secretary about the Department of Energy's spending. The senator highlighted that $93 billion in loans and commitments were issued in the 76-day period between President Trump's election and President Biden leaving office, more than double the amount from the previous 15 years. The secretary admitted that due diligence was likely not done in many cases, with funds going to entities lacking business plans or financial solvency. The secretary stated that they are reviewing loans and grants to check for stealing and incompetence. The senator expressed concern over potential "boondoggles" and hoped for referrals of "thieves" to the Department of Justice. The secretary also confirmed a planned reduction of several thousand employees, crediting President Trump for empowering departments to make necessary changes.

Speaker 1 is concerned about potential insider trading within the White House related to the President's tariff decisions. They are writing to the White House to demand transparency about who had advance knowledge of the President's policy changes and whether anyone profited from it. While acknowledging the likelihood of stonewalling, Speaker 1 believes that evidence of insider trading will eventually surface through scrutiny of financial transactions. They highlight a broader context of alleged corruption within the administration, including involvement with meme coins and perceived leniency towards Elon Musk's businesses. Given this environment, Speaker 1 believes it is necessary to assume the worst and investigate potential wrongdoing. They suggest Congress should also investigate.

A congressperson requested unanimous consent to insert articles into the record detailing Secretary Granholm's ethics issues, including articles from Reuters, CNN, Washington Free Beacon, and Fox News, as well as the Department of Energy's ethical policies. Since January 2021, Secretary Granholm has allegedly violated the Hatch Act multiple times, owned Proterra stock while President Biden promoted the company, and had her husband own Ford stock while she promoted the company. She allegedly cashed in on millions of dollars after these transactions and failed to disclose conflicts of interest. The congressperson claims she lied under oath to Congress about owning individual stocks. The congressperson states that anyone disputing these charges can consult the articles being put into the record.

Congressman Gates took us on a tour of the Appropriations Committee, which oversees government funding. We discussed Mr. Rutherford, a member of both the Ethics and Appropriations Committees, who made significant stock trades, including buying Raytheon stock on the day Russia invaded Ukraine. This raises ethical concerns about profiting from war. We noted that energy sector trading is prevalent among congressional members, particularly those on the Energy Subcommittee, like Michael Guest, who has traded extensively in energy and online gaming stocks. Despite being on the Ethics Committee, these members are among the most active traders, showing no signs of slowing down or addressing potential ethical issues.

House oversight claims to have bank records indicating that a Chinese energy company made payments to three family members of Speaker 0 through a third party. The purpose of these payments remains undisclosed, as Speaker 0 declines to comment on the matter.

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.

Speaker 1 was questioned about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while legislation affecting credit card companies was pending. When asked if it was a conflict of interest, Speaker 1 denied any wrongdoing, stating that it was not true and that they acted upon an investment opportunity.

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."

A member of congress was asked if members of congress and their spouses should be banned from trading individual stocks while serving in congress. The representative answered, "No." They stated they did not know about a five-month review, but if people aren't reporting stock trades, they should be. The representative stated that because this is a free market economy, people should be able to participate in it.

Speaker 0: 'So what do we get for a trillion dollars a year to the US military? Do we get anything in return?' Speaker 1: 'We get some enhanced stock portfolios.' 'I haven't voted for a penny for Ukraine, I'm proud of that. It's not my dadgum war.' 'Some of those contractors we described get a multi multi billion with a B dollar, no bid contract.' 'And who do you think has bought stock in that, in that company? Members of Congress, two weeks prior to the president making that official notice.' 'Return on their, 506100% return on their investment.' 'But why is impossible as to ban stock trading for members of Congress? That's a great idea.' 'I have the bill to do it, and that's why we have a bipartisan group, we've got a bill, but it's not going anywhere.' 'Why? Because too many members of Congress, I mean, we were told by leadership that, you know, these guys can't afford to be here.'

Congressman Gates offered a tour, highlighting the Appropriations Committee's access to government funding information. He pointed out Mr. Rutherford's involvement in both the ethics and appropriations committees, noting his stock trades, including purchasing Raytheon stock on the day Russia invaded Ukraine. This raises ethical concerns about profiting from war. The discussion continued about other members, like Michael Guest, who trades heavily in energy stocks while serving on the Energy Sub Committee of Appropriations. Despite being on the ethics committee, he is a prolific trader, capitalizing on insider information. There seems to be no intention from these members to slow down their trading activities, and instead, their trading pace appears to be increasing.