reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Members of Congress are confronting private security blocking their access to the Department of Education. They question whether the security personnel were instructed to prevent them from entering. The Congress members emphasize their roles as elected representatives advocating for children, particularly those with disabilities, and express frustration over the lack of transparency and access. They highlight the contradiction of allowing billionaires into the building while denying entry to lawmakers. The situation escalates as they assert their right to advocate for the public and demand accountability from those in charge. The Congress members stress that they are not a threat and are simply trying to fulfill their responsibilities.

We're members of Congress, here at the Department of Education, and we're being denied entry. The doors are locked, and a private security contractor is blocking our access. We showed our IDs; this is our job, and we have oversight responsibilities. We're not a threat; we're trying to request a meeting. This lack of transparency is unacceptable. The administration claims to be open, yet they won't even let us into their own building. This isn't right; we represent the people, and we demand access. They've even called Homeland Security. This building is a public institution; we pay for this building and its employees. This contractor, who isn't even a federal employee, is blocking us without a good reason. This is outrageous.

The speaker confronts law enforcement, demanding their name and badge number. They mention FirstNet and whistleblowers inside the facility. They express their intention to obtain and publish body cam footage. They point out a bus filled with illegal immigrants and question the officer's knowledge. The officer responds that they are unsure. The speaker accuses the officer of lying and insists they know about the bus. The officer ends the conversation, stating they will leave it at that. The speaker expresses disbelief at the situation.

We approached a FEMA compound and were met with resistance as staff turned their badges around and refused to allow filming. Despite requests for a tour and updates on recovery efforts in North Carolina, they repeatedly denied access and suggested we send an email for information. The conversation became increasingly frustrating, with staff insisting they could not disclose the locations of responders or allow filming. We emphasized the public's right to know, but they maintained a firm stance against our inquiries. Ultimately, we were left without the information we sought and were told the conversation was over.

We approached a FEMA compound but were met with resistance. Upon arrival, staff turned their badges around and refused to provide information or allow filming. Despite asking for a tour and updates on recovery efforts in North Carolina, they repeatedly declined. They insisted that the facility was not a camp but "responder lodging." Attempts to clarify details about the security company on site were met with evasiveness. The conversation became increasingly frustrating as they refused to disclose where their teams were working. Ultimately, they suggested sending an email for updates, but we sought direct access to report on the ground activities. The call ended without resolution, leaving us without the information we needed.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education by a private security contractor. They express frustration over being blocked from accessing a public building, emphasizing their role in advocating for constituents, especially children with disabilities. They question the authority of the security personnel, pointing out that they are elected representatives with oversight responsibilities. The situation escalates as they highlight a lack of transparency and accountability, criticizing the administration for locking them out while allowing billionaires access. They demand to be let in to discuss important issues affecting education and student loans, asserting that their inability to enter is a significant problem for American families.

The speaker questions someone about their involvement in questionable donations made through ActBlue. They mention talking to people in Maryland who denied making the donations listed on ActBlue's website. The speaker is asked to leave and threatened with arrest for trespassing at a location in Massachusetts.

We are members of Congress here to meet with the acting secretary. We notified her in advance. You're denying us entry. What authority do you have to prevent members of Congress from fulfilling their oversight role? You claim we need an appointment or to be on a guest list. That's not how it's always been. Ninety-four members of Congress signed a letter requesting a meeting to ask a simple question. Your claim that she's unaware of the meeting is unacceptable. We should be allowed access to the Department of Education. We'll proceed to the visitors' entrance.

The Chairman wants to visit Danbury Prison to see Mr. Bannon. The Congressman asks for approval, but the response is vague, citing a review process. The Congressman presses for a clear commitment to approve the visit, but the response remains noncommittal. Frustrated with the lack of clarity, the Congressman emphasizes the need for robust oversight to avoid denial of the request.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education by a private security contractor, leading to a tense confrontation. They assert their right to access the building, emphasizing their roles as elected representatives advocating for the public, particularly children with disabilities. The security personnel, unable to provide a valid reason for the blockade, are accused of lacking transparency and accountability. The Congress members express frustration over being barred from discussing important issues, including student loans and educational support for low-income families. They highlight the irony of being locked out while billionaires and their associates gain access. The situation raises concerns about the administration's commitment to transparency and public service.

The speaker raises concerns about alleged living doppelgangers of Challenger astronauts, urging a new investigation. Despite objections from commissioners, the speaker insists on addressing the issue, citing suspicious similarities and requesting transparency from NASA. The speaker is eventually removed from the meeting.

DHS is allegedly using public intimidation and considering arresting members of Congress who are fulfilling their legal and constitutional duty to conduct oversight. According to the speaker, members of Congress are legally required to be granted access to ICE and CBP facilities to conduct investigations and oversight. They cannot be legally inhibited from accessing these facilities. The speaker claims that DHS, Tom Homan, and Secretary Kristi Noem are the ones breaking the law, not members of Congress like Representative Robert Menendez. The speaker warns that if anyone lays a finger on representatives like Bonnie Watson Coleman, there will be consequences.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education building. The doors are locked, and a tense conversation is taking place with a security guard. We're trying to observe what's happening. They're demanding access to the building, citing their roles as members of Congress and their right to access federal bill 19. The security guard, apparently a private contractor, is preventing their entry. The situation is escalating, with Congress members questioning the guard's authority and the reasons for being denied access.

Members of Congress are questioning private security contractors blocking their access to the Department of Education. They assert their right to enter as elected representatives advocating for children, particularly those with disabilities. The security personnel are unable to provide a valid reason for the obstruction. The Congress members emphasize that they are not a threat and highlight the lack of transparency in the administration, which claims to be open to the public. They express frustration that while billionaires can access the building, they, as representatives of the people, are denied entry. The situation raises concerns about advocacy for children and the role of public officials in ensuring access to education resources.

Speaker 0 questions the silence of fellow Democrats over an issue. Speaker 1 describes increased security by the FBI at a site and being asked to leave by them. The FBI is accused of trying to control information. Speaker 0 expresses a desire to hear from the Secret Service director.

Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, chair of the Oversight Committee task force on the declassification of federal secrets, discusses what she describes as evidence of interdimensional beings operating through existing time spaces. She references photo and video material from classified briefings that are now being made public, including a video “dead dropped” to Representative Eric Burleson from within the Department of War showing a UAP/ unidentified aerial phenomena deflecting a Hellfire missile, captured from ISR footage off the coast of Yemen. Luna says there is evidence of an advanced technology not created by mankind, and while some cases previously labeled as UAPs were later identified as drones, there remains a portion of evidence that cannot be explained. She notes that multiple governments have examined these phenomena, and emphasizes a national security perspective: as AI and drone technology evolve, it is important to determine whether these are potential adversarial weapons. She argues that the federal government’s denial of access to some members of Congress is alarming and incompatible with a free, transparent society, and she expects the American people to draw their own conclusions after reviewing the evidence. Luna adds that Representative Gates joined the initial codal discussion with her and Representative Tim Burchett, and stated that if viewers have seen the material they have seen, they too would become believers. She then questions whether the Air Force has covered up UAP sightings, asking whether the technology could be something the U.S. possesses that others should not know about, or if it indicates capabilities possessed by a foreign actor that operate in ways that are hard to understand. Based on interviews and testimony she has reviewed, she says there is reason to believe the tech is not created by mankind, though she concedes it is also possible that certain advanced U.S. weapons could be involved. The conversation centers on the accessibility of evidence, the secrecy surrounding it, and the potential implications for national security and public transparency.

We approached a FEMA compound and were met with resistance. When we asked for information and a tour, officials refused, citing security concerns. They turned their badges around and insisted they couldn't answer our questions. Despite our insistence that taxpayer dollars fund their operations, they maintained a dismissive stance. We attempted to gather details about their work in North Carolina, but they offered only to send updates via email. Frustrated, we pressed for transparency, but they repeatedly shut down the conversation. Ultimately, we were left without the information we sought and were told the call would be disconnected.

A congressperson arrived at a nursery in Carpinteria after receiving calls about an ICE raid. They described the scene as "overkill," with over 50 ICE agents dressed in military garb and using military-grade weapons, creating fear and anxiety. The congressperson stated that ICE deployed flash and smoke devices, and shrapnel from one of these devices hurt a young child. They criticized the agents' actions as unacceptable on American soil. The congressperson said they were denied access to the site despite their oversight responsibilities, while others were allowed through. They learned from the nursery owner that ICE apprehended 10 out of 12 individuals. According to the congressperson, ICE agents on site would not speak with them, and instead provided a card with contact information for Los Angeles. They deemed this lack of cooperation unacceptable.

Members of Congress were locked out of a detention facility, despite a "welcome" sign and legal provisions for congressional access. The facility detains individuals, including Maryland residents with no criminal history, often exceeding the 12-hour standard for holding facilities, sometimes holding them for over 60 days before shipping them elsewhere. The facility is accused of violating due process rights, exemplified by the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador and later ordered to be returned by the Supreme Court. Concerns are raised about inhumane treatment and the detention of non-violent individuals. One representative stated that people are having their due process rights trampled on and that everyone is subject to the same rules and regulations. The denial of access is seen as an attempt to conceal the misuse of taxpayer dollars and the truth about the facility's operations, which is part of a pattern of lies.

We are at an undisclosed facility in Tucson, Arizona, investigating the activities of the organization Elitas. They have been accused of using racial slurs and hiding their badges. We encounter resistance from the staff, who refuse to answer our questions. We witness buses transporting migrants to airports and encounter an Uber driver who confirms their involvement. We also speak with a person named Jorge, who denies any connection to Elitas. This investigation sheds light on a facility that operates under the radar, receiving millions in federal funding. Support our independent journalism by visiting okeefeshop.com. (123 words)

A CBS12 reporter, Tory, attempts to question a congresswoman at a ribbon-cutting event about an investigation into her family. Tory also asks the congresswoman about a congressional ethics investigation into potential campaign finance violations. The reporter repeats the question about the ethics investigation and asks what the congresswoman has to say to her constituents, implying she is obligated to answer as this is her district. The congresswoman does not respond.

Members of Congress are being denied entry to the Department of Education building. The doors are locked, and a tense conversation is taking place with a security guard. We're trying to get access to federal bill 19. We are members of Congress and should be allowed entry. A private security contractor is preventing us from entering, and it's unclear why. We're simply doing our job. Show them your ID. Were you told to block us, or did you decide to do so? We have the right to access the building.

The speaker confronts a law enforcement officer, demanding their name and badge number. They discuss the presence of illegal immigrants and whistleblowers in a facility, with the speaker threatening to obtain body cam footage. The officer warns that trespassing will result in arrest. The speaker questions if the officer is blindly following orders and accuses them of lying about a bus filled with illegal immigrants. The officer denies knowledge of the bus and the conversation ends.

Speaker 0 shows notes the attorney general brought to the hearing, captured by a photographer in the room. The notes include a list of Democratic congresswomen and their search history. The photo indicates that searches performed by members of Congress at a DOJ facility—where they sit at a computer to search unredacted files—are being tracked and read by the Department of Justice and the attorney general. Speaker 1 responds that this represents a surveillance of Congress by the Trump administration and calls it totally improper, though not surprising given their misconduct in various areas. He notes that when he visited the facility, they log in under each person’s name, implying an attempt to make something of the situation. He states that members who visited shared the information they found, and emphasizes that it is not a pretty picture. He adds that lawmakers were required under the law to remove redactions unless necessary to protect the privacy of victim survivors. In his view, the redactions were used to protect offenders and coconspirators, with their names blacked out. He contends that information about the survivors was actually revealed, which he says was very wrong and contrary to the law. He also suggests that many survivors feel the exposure was deliberate, intended to intimidate them and silence them, though he says he does not know if that is true. The statement ends with “The other thing that's inter” before the transcript cuts off.