reSee.it - Related Video Feed

If you oppose Elon Musk and Doge's federal audit, you're involved in money laundering. We deserve to know how our tax dollars are spent. The government's wasteful spending is outrageous; they spend money on ridiculous things, like studying Thanos' snap and animal surgeries. They also wasted billions in USAID. It's time for a federal audit—a 10% audit is needed because the government is constantly interfering in our lives. Finally, someone is holding them accountable. Tomorrow's Super Bowl will feature Elon Musk's $40 million ad campaign exposing government waste. This is fantastic news!

Speaker 0 introduces a campaign to cut government waste, specifying that deficit reduction requires cutting billions from valued programs, but eliminating pointless waste should be easy. Speaker 1 claims there has been a tremendous amount of waste and fraud in the government during the Biden administration, estimating federal government fraud at half a trillion dollars. The goal is to reduce this figure, saving taxpayer money by stopping spending on things that very few taxpayers would agree makes sense, such as transgender animal surgeries. Speaker 1 also questions why twenty million people who are definitely dead are mocked as alive in the Social Security database.

The exchange centers on accusations of hyperbolic statements and the accuracy of quoted posts. Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1's credibility, citing a series of posts and asking whether the statements were read correctly. - On 02/11/2026, Speaker 0 cites a Blueski post: “my words or your words, not mine. The democrats video telling service members to ignore illegal orders didn't go far enough. They should have also urged them to refuse unethical orders, whether illegal or not. There are many things deemed legal that are still obviously unethical, and everyone should hold themselves to this higher law,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 confirms reading it and asks if Speaker 0 disagrees with it, questioning whether people should do unethical things in their capacity of [unknown context]. - On 12/31/2025, Speaker 0 references a post reading, “in front of god and country. … They referring to Republicans think they control their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing,” and asks, “Did I read that correctly?” Speaker 1 responds that it related to a DHS security post advocating a 100,000,000 deportations, stating that “A 100,000,000 deportations would be ethnic cleansing,” adding, “You would be True. One third of the country. So, yes, there are people within the Department of Homeland security.” Speaker 0 asks whether this is hyperbolic and requests more time. - On 02/05 (implied), Speaker 1 notes, “advocating a 100,000,000” but the sentence is cut off in the transcript. Speaker 0 comments, “reputations is … cleansing,” while continuing to engage in the discussion with the chair and audience; Speaker 0 asks for thirty more seconds. - On 03/02, Speaker 0 quotes Speaker 1: “if you rule against Trump's population purge agenda, no hyper permanently there, the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the ICE agents who hide behind masks while violating the constitution. They are much braver.” Speaker 1 clarifies, “They put their names on their rulings, and they stand behind their constitutional rulings. When I talk about population purge, I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US born citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a mass deportation agenda. It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of The United States, including US born people.” - Speaker 0 responds, “Thank you.” Speaker 1 adds, “These are not hyperbolic statements. I appreciate you reading my account. Here's the good news.” The conversation escalates in tone as Speaker 0 interjects with disbelief, asking, “What planet … parachute him from?” Speaker 1 replies, “No. No.” Speaker 0 comments, “Hey, guys. You're you you You trigger my gag reflex,” and Speaker 1 closes with, “Mr. Bieber.”

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 asserts that there are two F’s that come to mind: fraud by design and financial Armageddon. - Fraud by design: This, according to Speaker 0, was not an accident or a happenstance event. It is described as a system that is designed by the left for people in their social circles. The claim traces the system back to the top of the federal government, beginning with the Obama administration and being promulgated even more by the Biden administration. It is said to run down to the states, including governors across the country, specifically naming governors Waltz and Mills. The speaker also mentions the local level, noting bad actors and headlines in Maine and Minnesota. The overarching assertion is that this situation is “the tip of the iceberg.” - Financial Armageddon: The second F is financial Armageddon. Speaker 0 argues that if the Trump administration does not take the issue seriously, listeners are “probably on another planet.” The speaker contends that the problem will have implications for the state of Maine amounting to “billions with a b of dollars,” and that this will spell financial Armageddon for the state. The speaker emphasizes the urgent need to get a handle on the problem. In sum, Speaker 0 portrays a systemic, politically driven pattern of fraud across federal, state, and local levels, described as the tip of the iceberg, and projects drastic financial consequences for Maine unless the issue is addressed, asserting that the Trump administration is serious about taking action.

Speaker 0: No. No. Shame. Shame. Oh my fucking god. What the fuck? What the fuck? You just fucking what the fuck did you do? You are fucking criminals. You're fucking criminals. What the fuck? What the fuck are you guys doing? What the What the actual fuck? What are you doing? You are fucking insane. What did you do? What did you do? Speaker 1: You. Shame. Shame. Speaker 0: Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame. Did that Shame. Shame. Speaker 1: Dude, you shot her. I'm trying to help. No. No. You fucking shot someone in the Speaker 0: fucking face. You fucking someone in the fucking face. Do Speaker 1: you have a conscience? Speaker 0: Do you have a conscience? Don't let the murderer leave. Don't let the murderer leave. You Speaker 1: guys are the fucking criminals. You don't get to tell us what to do. Fucking criminals. Don't let him leave. Speaker 0: Don't let him leave. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's a fucking crime. Speaker 0: We fucking knew it. We're here. Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, what the absolute fuck, man? What the absolute fuck? Do you have Speaker 0: a Speaker 1: conscience? Do you have a conscience? Do you have a conscience? This is the time, man. This is the time to have a conscience. This is not okay. This is not okay. Speaker 0: Get Speaker 1: a fucking conscience. You okay, mommy?

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

Speaker 0: Just recent report, it's not proven, but the surveillance enough suggests 300,000 people have already died from just this cut off, this hard cut of USAID. So there's food rotting in boats, in warehouses. There is this this this will fuck you off. This will not you will not be happy. No American will. But there is, I think it's 50,000 tons of food that are stored in Djibouti, South Africa, Dubai, and wait for it, Houston, Texas. And that is rotting rather than going to Gaza, rather than going to Sudan because the people who know the codes are for the warehouse, the the the are fired. They're gone. And so this I don't know. I just it's and what do you think? What what what is what is that? That's that's now America, is it? Speaker 1: Well, they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: Right? This is the problem. The problem is, for sure, there have been a lot of organizations that do tremendous good all throughout the world. Also, for sure, it was a money laundering operation. For sure, there was no oversight. For sure, billions of dollars are missing. In fact, trillions that are unaccounted for, that were sent off into various they they they don't even know where because there's no receipts. The way Elon Musk described it, he said if any of this was done by a public company, the company would be delisted and the executives would be imprisoned. But in The United States, this is standard. When Biden left office, when it was clear that Trump won in the seventy three days, they spent $93,000,000,000 from the Department of Energy on just radical loans, just throwing money into places. Right. And there's no no oversight, no receipts. Like, the the whole thing is it's there's a lot of fraud, a lot of money laundering.

The speaker asserts that fraudsters complain the loudest and with fake righteous indignation, calling it a tell. They cite a striking example: $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government to Stacey Abrams’ NGO, which the speaker says basically didn’t exist. They question, “Why?” and note that there are many such cases like that.

The speaker argues that the loudest complainers and the most fake righteous indignation come from fraudsters. They claim there are NGOs, including a Stacey Abrams NGO, that “basically didn't exist” yet were suddenly awarded $2,000,000,000 from the federal government. Stacey Abrams reportedly asks, “why?” The speaker notes there are many such cases.

First speaker: says "Calcula is cut. I'm unable to work or go to school. I understand. Fraud is bad." Second speaker: says "I'm sure what happened there at the end trade. I admit that she thought that was not supposed to be in there, but fraud is bad, and it's it's a bad issue publicly with the gun types in Minnesota."

During a presentation, the speaker discussed how Congress held hearings in 1998 on narcotics trafficking by the US intelligence dark alliance scandal. They mentioned that the US economy was laundering a significant amount of illegal money, making it the global leader in dirty money. The speaker asked the audience what would happen if the US stopped being the leader in money laundering. The audience responded with concerns about their 401ks, government deficits, taxes, and government checks. The speaker then proposed a hypothetical scenario where pushing a button could stop all hard narcotics trafficking, but only one person out of a hundred was willing to push it.

I would love to see all the politicians held accountable for their actions, but that's just my personal opinion. I believe it is a violation of human rights to force someone to take something against their will. It's concerning that we have little control over our own bodies. When do you think we will see the first person go to jail for what has happened? Hopefully in 2024. We're going to face some challenges, but I predict it will happen by 2025.

Speaker 0 claims that in 1996 Bill Clinton “put an act into congress” to “protect cell phone tower companies from lawsuits,” describing it as being done by “pedophiles of congress.” Speaker 0 says that at that time there were “so many cell phone tower company lawsuits happening” because people “realized that these cell phone towers were microwaves,” and that Congress then “went ahead” and created legislation that shielded the industry from legal action. Speaker 0 compares this to another event in 1986 involving “vaccine protection,” saying “Reagan did that one.” Speaker 0 states that “these people are putting things in place to protect these industries which are poisoning the American people,” and identifies “Bill Clinton” as an example in this pattern. Speaker 0 then explains the alleged effect of the 1996 act: if “they install a cell phone tower right in front of your house” and “you come down with any type of illness,” then “you can’t sue for damages.” Speaker 0 adds another example involving animals: if “the birds stop dropping,” then “you can’t sue for damages either for that too.” Speaker 0 says this is because “there are no environmental effects that are allowed to be sued for based on that 1996 act,” and that “they believe” technology “should be able to put this technology everywhere regardless of if it hurts people or animals.” Speaker 0 frames the situation as something the audience should “kind of chew on,” and then says, “But the government would never do that. Right?” Speaker 0 then includes a response attributed to “somebody” who asked, “why does the government dread hurt us?” Speaker 0 reports that this somebody said “the government is lobbied and controlled by the Federal Reserve and the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers,” and that “this is why.” Speaker 0 further states that “they don’t really work for the people anymore,” and that “you can see that on all sides.”

The discussion focuses on the idea that new “COVIDs” could emerge in the form of ticks, specifically ticks that cause a rare dangerous red meat allergy. The speakers reference that this concept has been heard before, including at Davos. The question raised is what precautions people can take against ticks that trigger red meat allergy. Speaker 1 argues that the phenomenon could involve human engineering, suggesting that people can become intolerant or allergic to certain foods or proteins, and that there may be analogs in nature. Speaker 1 cites existing examples of intolerances, including milk intolerance and intolerance to crayfish. Speaker 1 then points to a specific example: the lone star tick. Speaker 1 says that if the lone star tick bites you, “you will become allergic to meat,” and indicates that the mechanism can be described. Speaker 1 frames this as something that could be done through “human engineering,” claiming that it might be possible to make it the case that people become intolerant to certain kinds of meat or certain kinds of bovine proteins, and also states that addressing “really big world problems” might be possible through human engineering. Speaker 0 then shifts to a discussion of messaging and media influence, saying that Tucker Carlson—described as “controlled opposition”—came out and told some of the truth, that this “is part of what controlled opposition does,” and that it involves telling people some of the truth “in your face,” but “most people won’t even listen.” Speaker 2 provides additional claims about tick-borne disease and alleged historical activity. Speaker 2 says that the “same organism” causes Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever and calls it “the most deadly tick borne disease in The United States.” Speaker 2 also states that it was a germ being weaponized by the US military “at the time,” and that they tried to “stuff it in ticks.” Speaker 2 then asks what tick weaponization is, and recounts comments attributed to Willie. According to Speaker 2, Willie said he spent “over a decade” in the biological weapons program, as a contractor to Fort Detrick, working on weaponizing fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes. Speaker 2 says that Willie’s work involved mass-producing them, “trying to make new diseases,” and “mixing bacteria and virus in ticks,” with the intent described as “the perfect stealth weapon,” likened to “poor poor man’s nuke.” Speaker 0 responds by saying the material is hard to digest and “so evil,” and that it is hard to believe it could happen in the United States. Speaker 0 then agrees with the earlier point that it did “and maybe,” but the statement ends there.

The speaker says the fraudsters complain the loudest and with fake righteous indignation, and that is a tell. They describe these people as crazy. They point to examples like the $2,000,000,000 to Stacey Abrams’ NGO that basically didn’t exist and suddenly gets $2,000,000,000 awarded from the federal government. She asks, why? and notes that there are many such cases like that.

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

There's tremendous fraud and abuse happening, and I'm holding a news conference tomorrow to reveal some of the entities that have received hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars. It's hard to believe this kind of fraud can occur. When you see billions being wasted illegally, there's likely kickbacks or corruption involved. Millions are given for minimal effort, and that money comes back in some form. They're spending massive amounts of money on ridiculous items. Out of 200 expenditures I reviewed, only three seemed reasonable. I commend Elon for his work in uncovering this fraud. He doesn't need to do this, especially with the abuse he faces. He and his team, which started with 12 people and has now grown to almost a hundred, have found more than anyone else could. People are joining to help because there's massive fraud.

The left is not worried about democracy, they are worried about being exposed. All the shady things they've been doing in the dark with American tax dollars is about to come to light. If they had nothing to hide, they wouldn't be going so crazy about it. A defensive reaction to an accusation can indicate guilt. We're seeing a bunch of guilty politicians complaining after Elon Musk has been going into the books and finding hundreds of millions of our tax dollars going to nonsense. Just yesterday, we saw Elon talking about investigating federal employees who have a high net worth despite low pay. For many years, many people were afraid of the government. Now the tables are turning and the government is afraid of the people. It's all coming out now.

An individual states that someone is working to help the blind see and asks if the work comes down to aligning with President Donald Trump to identify over $100 billion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. The speaker responds that people get upset when fraudulently obtained money is taken away, and that they want to harm him for stopping their fraud and want to hurt Tesla for stopping government waste and corruption. The speaker concludes that bad people will do bad things. The first individual states that those who will end up hurt are the people who work in dealerships and those who build Teslas, which is despicable on the part of those who may have a political difference.

I think it's one thing to criticize Elon Musk or Doge, but to only do that and criticize the way Elon talks about or uncovers fraud and waste, and not the waste and fraud itself, reminds me of a situation. Imagine you confront someone about cheating with evidence, and they respond with, "You went through my phone? How can we be together if you don't trust me?". Can we not talk about what was found now? It's the same thing here. If you find issues with the way things are being done, but there's no mention of what was found, which should bother you, then we have a problem.

Cassidy Baraka was seven years old, got her vaccine, reacted in five minutes. Vomited for eight to ten hours, then she got a second vaccine, terrible abdominal pain, and she died at seven years old from her second COVID shot. And the only thing on her death record in part one says she died from COVID. Ian Schumacher was 11 years old. Amaya McDonough Rocha was 12 years old. Cerebellar tonsillar and bilateral uncal herniation stroke in a 12 year old girl. She got four vaccines on 08/03/2022. Meningococcal, Tdap, her third COVID shot and HPV. She reacted and died from a stroke in that month. So these are all facts in the record in Massachusetts. So you have a legal duty to act to investigate the department. Every one of you has that legal duty. You took this job. And if you don't investigate it to find out that what I'm saying is true and they committed felony fraud as a matter of custom and practice in Massachusetts over inflating COVID deaths and hiding vaccine deaths. Okay. Thank you. All this science stuff goes over your heads. I get it. But the reality is these people died from the vaccine. They were certified on the records as having died from the vaccine and it was hidden by removing the Y59.0 code, which means death from viral vaccines. So it's being hidden from the public. So with the fraud that I'm accusing, what good are all your statistics? You got to straighten out your house first. Thank you.

Do you remember Sam Bankman-Fried? He was seen as a genius, so powerful and wealthy that he attended meetings with prominent figures like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair while looking disheveled. Where is he now? I believe he is in prison, as noted in a Netflix series. That's right, he’s a crook. And who was responsible for his downfall? The Department of Justice.

There are no Doge cuts, and this is not USAID. The speaker is talking about waste and fraud, specifically in Medicaid, and claims no one has been turned over to the DOJ for fraud. Elon Musk gave false hope to a political class that doesn't want to cut anything. The big bill has problems, but it passed because Musk promised a trillion dollars. The rescission next week is $9 billion, with $2 billion from PBS and NPR. There's supposedly $7 billion in fraud on a $7 trillion budget. Musk committed $1 trillion to the President, leading to questions about whether it's all "BS."

Speaker 0 presents what he calls an explosive piece of tape: a man buys a registration form for an absentee ballot from a voter, pocketing $200 and expecting to collect the ballot when the voter receives it. Speaker 1 reacts, noting the illegality of the act and questioning why it isn’t illegal to do certain things, followed by a line that “We don’t get illegal” and a claim about lions, then attributes responsibility to someone who “came up with all this.” Speaker 0 continues, stating that she started the whole “pay to vote” scheme. He alleges that “the people that work for Ilhan” are actually counting the ballots, counting the vote. Speaker 1 adds that they “become a manager in the prison too,” claiming that those people “walk with you to the booth, and then they vote, oh, vote this guy. Vote this guy. Vote even if you speak English.” Speaker 0 introduces James O’Keefe, identifying himself as a truth exposer who holds the corrupt elite accountable, and pivots to messaging about protecting readers’ freedom and finances. The segment shifts to a financial pitch. O’Keefe warns of one of the biggest financial shifts of their lifetime, describing de-dollarization with nations like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia moving away from US dollars. He claims this threatens savings and retirement security and cites Ray Dalio’s warning about skyrocketing debt, relentless money printing, and a weakening dollar as part of a dangerous cycle that could impact Americans. He asserts that more Americans are turning to real assets like physical gold and silver, noting that gold “surged past $3,700 per ounce,” and that momentum is building. He says he has partnered with veteran-owned American Independence Gold to help viewers take action, offering to open a qualifying account with up to $10,000 in bonus gold and a free gold protection guide. He adds that a portion of every sale supports Tunnel to Towers and wounded warriors, and closes with the line, “Freedom isn’t given, it’s secured,” followed by the disclaimer, “This is James O’Keefe. As always, this is not financial advice. Always check with your licensed financial advisor before you invest.”