reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Senator Alex Padilla is questioning the secretary about the protection of criminals. He also wants to know how many ICE agents have been doxxed and targeted for performing their duties.

The speaker discusses Kamala Harris's relationship with Willie Brown and how it helped her rise to power. Willie Brown, a powerful figure in California politics, supported Harris and helped her secure positions and funding. The speaker also highlights how Brown's influence affected the enforcement of prostitution laws in San Francisco, benefiting certain clubs while cracking down on others. The speaker criticizes Harris for not being transparent and for perpetuating the same political system she claims to challenge. The speaker mentions their own interactions with Harris regarding public information requests and her lack of response. Overall, the speaker portrays Harris as part of the establishment and questions her record.

Parity is alive and well in California, but deep fakes and election manipulation hurt democracy, integrity, and trust. The speaker believes in truth and trust and thinks the law is sound and will be upheld in the courts. Many can seek injunctive relief under the law. The speaker just signed the law, along with 32 other bills on housing, and hasn't reviewed the specific lawsuit around a conservative blogger who seems offended by the law.

The speaker asks Senator Brown how he feels about illegal Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, eating dogs. The speaker claims Senator Brown allowed illegal Haitians into America via his votes with Kamala Harris and accuses him of voting to give them all amnesty. The speaker asks if Senator Brown agrees with Kamala Harris that fentanyl should be decriminalized. He suggests Senator Brown is afraid. He states that many of Senator Brown's constituents are worried about their dogs getting eaten in Springfield. The speaker asks Senator Brown to comment on his voting record, which he claims allowed illegal Haitians into Ohio.

The speaker claims the bill pays "lip service" to 16 and 17-year-old victims of sex crimes by watering down penalties. They assert the Democratic caucus is on the "wrong side" of the issue, influenced by an "extremist wing" that normalizes sex with minors. The speaker alleges SB 145 (2020) allows predators to molest children as young as 14 without mandatory sex offender registration and that SB 357 legalized loitering for sex trafficking under the guise of LGBT rights. As a "gay Republican," the speaker finds it offensive to use the gay community as "window dressing for sex trafficking." The speaker argues the bill removes prosecutors' ability to punish those who purchase sex from 16 and 17-year-olds and accuses the bill's supporters of trying to deceive California voters. The speaker also objects to the amendment that removes a legislator's name from the bill. They believe the bill will fail to protect 16 and 17-year-olds from sexual violence and vows to work against it.

I’ve just been informed that I’m being removed from my committees. Last week, I introduced a bill to eliminate sanctuary state protections for pedophiles in California, which the Democrats opposed. They cut off my microphone, and now the speaker of the state assembly has removed me from my committee. However, I see this as a badge of honor. It signifies that I’m doing the right thing by advocating for the people of this state and protecting children from being victimized by illegal immigrants. I’m ready for whatever comes next.

The speakers question why anyone would vote for Democrats, citing open borders, gender-affirming care, and lenient stances on child trafficking as reasons. One speaker claims Democrats in California don't prioritize punishing child traffickers. Another speaker asserts that California is attempting to lower the age of consent to 14 and is decriminalizing the sale of sex. They believe a 16 or 17-year-old should not have to prove force, fraud, or coercion in sex trafficking cases for perpetrators to be jailed. They describe this as a "slippery slope" and question how anyone can still vote for the Democratic party.

We will have 11 bills signed into law for public safety. However, an amendment in these bills states that if a ballot measure passes, they will be repealed. This allows officials to mislead voters into thinking the ballot measure would repeal the bills. Governor Newsom and others are accused of lying to Californians to protect Prop 47. They are trying to prevent changes to the law by manipulating voters, as they did in 2014.

The speaker asks Senator Brown how he feels about illegal Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio eating dogs. The speaker claims Senator Brown allowed illegal Haitians into America through his votes with Kamala Harris. The speaker asks if Senator Brown agrees with Kamala Harris that fentanyl should be decriminalized. The speaker then asks Senator Brown how he would feel if an illegal immigrant ate his dog, claiming Senator Brown allowed illegal immigrants into Ohio based on his voting record, such as invasion amnesty. The speaker states that many of Senator Brown's constituents are worried about their dogs getting eaten in Springfield. The speaker asks Senator Brown to comment on his voting record, which allegedly allowed illegal Haitians into Ohio and gave them all amnesty.

Speaker 0 raises concerns about AB 26-24, asserting it is a direct violation of the First Amendment and would hinder exposing fraud, including cases involving immigrants. They claim the bill would hinder investigations and public-interest reporting. Speaker 1 responds that legislative counsel checks the constitutionality of all bills and notes the speaker works on fraud issues, citing prior work on the budget subcommittee. They say Mia Bonta is involved through her role in pushing the bill, and remind that investigations into fraud are long-standing and handled by the attorney general. Speaker 0 alleges that Mia Bonta, who is described as the wife of the California attorney general, pushed the bill that would impede exposing fraud, and notes the bill would make it illegal for someone to go after fraud, particularly referencing immigrants and Armenians in California. They contend the bill is an assault on First Amendment rights. Speaker 1 counters that the claim is a misinterpretation of the bill and reiterates that constitutionality is reviewed with counsel. They maintain that the attorney general handles fraud investigations, framing the issue as ongoing and within established procedures. Speaker 0 asserts that the bill’s effect would be to criminalize publication of images recorded in public, and asks whether the government has the right to punish journalists for filming in public space. Speaker 1 again says this interpretation is incorrect, labeling it a misinterpretation of the legislation. They emphasize that the bill’s purpose is examined by ledge counsel and lawyers, and maintain that the First Amendment is a central consideration in their work. Speaker Rivas interjects and asks for their position on the Stop Nick Shirley Act AB 26-24, but Speaker 1 says they do not know anything about it. Speaker 0 reiterates concerns about potential conflicts of interest, suggesting there is clear evidence of a relationship between Mia Bonta and her husband, the attorney general, and states that these people won’t answer questions.

Speaker calls AB four ninety five in California “a meat market bill” and “a trafficking bill” and points to realimpact.us. He claims the bill “allows an individual to obtain this new form that comes with the bill” to name a child; e.g., “John goes to a school in California and says, I have this form, and I am asking for Susie Q to be received into my custody.” He asserts the bill “does not require a background check for this man,” “requires no identification, no driver's license, no nothing,” and “There's no requirement in the bill for the school to call you” before a custody transfer. He warns, “If this bill passes, you're gonna have to get out.” In Grock's exchange: “According to AB four ninety five, a child can be taken from school from their caregiver. Yes.” “Non relative extended family members … sign the affidavit? Yes.” “Can anyone … non relative family member? Yes.” “Is there anything … prevent a stranger from kidnapping a child? Grock says no.” “This is life in California. If you live there, the time to stand up or leave is now.”

California assembly member Bill Isale tried to end sanctuary state protections for convicted illegal immigrant pedophiles, but his microphone was cut off. The move was seen as an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. Isale believes that by silencing him, the issue was actually brought to the forefront.

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.

Senator Alex Padilla is questioning the secretary about the protection of criminals. He also wants to know how many ICE agents have been doxxed and targeted for performing their duties.

I was outraged when the mic was cut off during the discussion of a bill to end sanctuary state protection for pedophiles and illegal aliens. Democrats prioritize illegal aliens over protecting our children. My son was killed by a criminal illegal alien, and nothing has changed in 22 years. As a legal immigrant, I am appalled. Remember the democrats who voted against AB 2641 and vote them out.

California Democrats are accused of wanting to ban self-defense with a new bill proposed by lawmaker Rick Zieber. The bill would allegedly ban fighting back during violent home invasions. This is presented as a continuation of efforts against law-abiding citizens, following restrictions on the right to bear arms, police budget cuts, and appointments of soft-on-crime judges. The speaker asserts that these actions collectively aim to remove the right to defend oneself and family in one's own home.

Proposition 1 on the New York ballot is presented as an abortion bill, but the speaker claims it doesn't mention abortion. Instead, the speaker asserts it grants voting rights to illegal citizens in local elections. The speaker alleges the bill removes parental rights by requiring parents to assist children in transitioning genders or face neglect charges. The speaker also claims the bill allows men to participate in women's sports and use women's bathrooms. The speaker urges listeners to read the three-page bill and says abortions have never been under attack in New York. The speaker accuses proponents of lying to manipulate voters.

Senator Alex Padilla states that a half dozen violent criminals are being rotated. Someone states there is no recording allowed out here per the FBI. Another person says that you can record.

Michigan voter data is described as a state secret that Jocelyn Benson is safeguarding from the federal government, with the speaker claiming she told authorities they can’t have it and contrasting this with the idea of not wanting the federal government to have your social security number. The speaker then alleges that Benson “gives our voter data away” to a nonprofit, and that she has done so since taking office in 2019. The nonprofit identified is the electronic registration information center, ERIC. The claim is not that Benson gives data away to ERIC per se, but that she spends taxpayer money to provide data to ERIC. The speaker contends that on television Benson presents herself as the guardian of voters’ data, while, in reality, she uses public funds to share it. After ERIC receives the voter data, the speaker says it is sent to another nonprofit, the Center for Election Innovation and Research, or CEIR. The common thread alleged between ERIC and CEIR is a liberal operative named David Becker, who is said to have founded both organizations. The speaker asserts that in 2020, Becker’s CEIR gave Benson’s nonprofit $12,000,000 on the eve of the election. The claim continues that Benson used part of this funding to purchase Jocelyn Benson campaign ads. The speaker notes that this year, Lansing Republicans attempted to pull Michigan out of ERIC, as eight other states had already left, but the Republicans could not secure the votes to do so. The transcript suggests that Republicans facing Benson in the governor’s race should make this a campaign issue. It is presented as an easy story on the campaign trail: Jocelyn Benson’s friends obtain Michigan voter data and are paid to manage it, while Michigan taxpayers fund both sides of the lawsuit between Benson and the U.S. Department of Justice. The speaker connects the financial support from CEIR to Benson’s nonprofit with the broader political dynamic involving Benson and the DOJ.

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.

A speaker questioned why a congressperson believes President Trump is above the law and why they haven't spoken out against the dismantling of the federal government by President Trump and Elon Musk. The speaker urged the congressperson to stand up for what's right and do their job. The congressperson responded that journalists constantly ask questions, but their answers are not published. To address this, the congressperson publishes statements and speeches on their website, "the scoop," because they cannot rely on news outlets to report what they say.

Congresswoman Crockett is asked about a "Tesla takedown call" where she allegedly called for violence on the 29th. The interviewer asks her to clarify her comments. The interviewer then asks if Congresswoman Crockett will condemn violence.

Senator Alex Padilla stated he has questions for the secretary regarding violent criminals. Another speaker is concerned about ICE agents being targeted and doxxed for doing their job. They specifically asked how many ICE agents have been doxxed.

In the discussion, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie were shown viewing the unredacted Epstein files on Capitol Hill, including material that had been previously redacted by the DOJ. The hosts question why large portions of the files were redacted and accuse Pam Bondi’s team of noncompliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. They suggest the move to foreground Bondi is a signal of political maneuvering to manage the release of the documents. Speaker 1 presents a Super Bowl ad urging the DOJ to release what the law requires, followed by a note that Epstein’s associate and alleged child sex trafficking figure Ghislain (Ghislaine) Maxwell appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the men who allegedly abused underage girls. Ro Khanna’s reaction is shared: Maxwell should not be in a cushy setting and should be sent back to maximum security. Speaker 2 emphasizes that, of the files released, the names of clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring have not been disclosed, while victims’ names have been released. This is framed as either over-redaction or omission, with a claim that government names should not be redacted under the Transparency Act. Speaker 0 introduces Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explains her perspective. She notes the urgency of transparency and states that victims deserve the truth, accusing the DOJ of failing to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act and calling out a persistent “battle” over the release of files even after the 2025 law. Speaker 3 (Greene) describes the impact of the disclosures, noting that the files reveal “violence, possibly murder,” and that survivors’ testimonies are harrowing. She recounts facing personal and political backlash for pushing disclosure, arguing that the administration and many Republicans have shifted their positions since the revelations. She asserts that the released files show that “the DOJ breaking the law” through redactions of names of former presidents, secretaries of state, and government officials, while leaving victim information exposed. Speaker 4 asks Greene about the possibility that the information might point to a broader, deeper network. Greene responds by stating that the files include FBI forms about Epstein, implying a level of official involvement, and asserts that the Trump administration has not released the information; she claims President Trump referred to the Epstein issue as a “Democrat hoax” and that Pam Bondi, who works for Trump, controls the release. Greene suggests the “independent counsel” would be the American people themselves, explaining distrust toward political figures and the two-party system. She shares that she would not vote to support foreign aid or a central bank digital currency, and notes the chilling effect of the retaliation she and Massey have faced from party structures, including loss of campaign staff and suggestions of political blacklisting. Speaker 0 asks about potential accountability or a special counsel and whether there might be more significant revelations. Greene predicts limited accountability, arguing that the president has influence over DOJ and other agencies, and that the people are the true independent counsel. She laments the “uni-party” dynamic and predicts continued resistance to releasing the full Epstein files. Towards the end, Greene reiterates that she does not plan to run for higher office and reflects on the broader political environment, emphasizing that the public’s demand for transparency could drive change. The dialogue closes with Greene expressing willingness to return and discuss further.