reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss campaign strategy around the upcoming midterms. They note that typically midterms localize the election and federal officials are kept out of it, but they plan to invert that approach and put federal officials on the ballot because many low-propensity voters are Trump voters. Speaker 1 agrees, saying “They are.” Speaker 0 adds that a week ago Tuesday showed what happens when he’s not on the ballot and not active, and that he hasn’t fully broken the news to him but he’ll campaign like it’s 2024 again for the people he helps, who are a “turnout machine.” The midterms will be very important to them, and he’ll work to keep the majority. Speaker 1 emphasizes the danger of not having him installed, and expresses frustration with donors who contributed to organizations like theirs over the last four years with a threefold objective: win the presidency, the House, and the Senate. They were strategic about outreach to moms, but now donors seem complacent, as if “we’re good,” which they feel is a dangerous miscalculation since “a swipe of a pen and one election can change everything.” Speaker 0 notes that the majority is in both houses, and that this is a favorable Senate year for Republicans, with the House cycles repeating every two years. He mentions candidate recruitment and that the president began raising money for the midterms the day after the election, sitting on a huge war chest to support these candidates. He will utilize that funding, including his own resources and the money raised, and asserts that nobody can outwork him. He expresses confidence but stresses the need to actually get it done.

Thomas Massey is running an election tomorrow against an APAC-funded candidate. The discussion links Trump’s intervention—attacking Massey and promoting Massey’s rival—to the broader political situation, including connections to the Iran war. Speaker 1 says he knows the rival, Ed Galrin. He first met Ed in 1997 during a counterterrorism exercise whose scenario involved sending US Special Operations forces into Algeria to deal with terrorists who had smallpox. The exercise was carried out in Jacksonville, Florida, where Speaker 1 first met Ed. Speaker 1 adds that Ed was known as “fast Eddie” at the time and was not widely respected by his peers, being viewed as an irritant. Speaker 1 later encountered Ed again when the US withdrew forces from Panama. Ed had been detailed to Panama with the SEAL team, and Speaker 1 saw him standing in line with his family while they were all flying out the same day. Regarding the current election, Speaker 1 describes Ed as “a tool” being used by the Israeli lobby. Speaker 1 states that Trump’s turn on Massey is “shameful” and says Trump’s efforts label Massey a “rhino republican,” and claim that Massey supports transgenderism and “mutilating kids.” Speaker 1 characterizes these claims as “damnable lies.”

Bobby may be willing to play nice, but I won't. If senators oppose RFK Jr., I will fund challengers to primary them. RFK did a great job at the hearing, and the Maha MAGA unity movement is strong, supporting his confirmation. We're closely monitoring every senator's actions, and hundreds of thousands are mobilized for change. We're at a breaking point in America, and senators must choose between serving the people or big corporations. I support RFK because, like many Americans, I want healthy food and medicine for our children. The tragedy of parents burying their children must end. In 2020, I funded Democratic candidates, but now I’ll use my resources to challenge those who oppose RFK Jr. Thank you for having me.

We're winning the support of the American people, despite what the Washington establishment thinks. My Democratic colleagues prioritize bureaucracy and excessive spending over taxpayers. They favor illegal immigration over the rule of law, teachers' unions over students, criminals over victims, transgender athletes over women's sports, and Hamas over Israel. They may feel victorious within their own circles, but they're out of touch with the public. I believe the tide is turning, and the American people are on our side. We're fighting for what's right, and justice will prevail.

More than $32,000,000 has been spent on a primary in a congressional district, described as the most expensive house primary ever in the United States. Miriam Adelson is raised as someone to ask whether it was “worth it,” as the congresswoman says opponents tried to buy her vote for fourteen years and are now trying to buy a seat in Kentucky. The congresswoman says the groups underestimated the “reserve price” of her constituents and “waited into this,” and that they thought they could buy the seat with a couple million dollars, which she says did not work. She says she was surprised by how much money her campaign raised, emphasizing she does not have three billionaires and instead has grassroots support with tens of thousands of donations, an average donation of about $80. When asked who “they” are, she names the Israeli lobby, APAC, Republican Jewish Coalition, Miriam Adelson, Paul Singer, and John Paulson, saying these groups gave 95% of the money to her opponent because they are mad at her over foreign policy. She says her policy has always been that “no country is special” and “no country deserves” her constituents’ taxpayer dollars, and that she has never voted for foreign aid to Egypt, Syria, Israel, or Ukraine. She says that her position makes the Israel-related recipients “a little bit mad” because Israel is a major recipient of foreign aid. Asked about helping defend Israel from Iranian threats, she says “we’ve got debt,” compares NATO’s “promise of a reciprocal arrangement” to Israel’s “completely one way” arrangement, and says Israel has “drug us into wars.” She also says Iran being “just days away” from a nuclear weapon has been portrayed as perpetually imminent. She adds that she finds it wrong that the United States gives $3,800,000,000 a year to a country she says “funds public abortions.” The discussion then turns to accusations that she is antisemitic. She says it is a “mere fact” that the Republican Jewish Coalition spent millions, and that a dual citizen, Miriam Adelson, has spent millions in the race, adding that APAC has tried to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism and to claim that not supporting Benjamin Netanyahu’s war in Gaza equals antisemitism. She says this is false and that equating the two does Jewish Americans “a big disfavor.” She answers “Hell no” when asked if she is antisemitic.

The speaker claims they were offered $20,000,000 to withdraw from the senatorial race and run against Rashida Tlaib. They assert the pro Israel lobby will go to any length to remove anyone from U.S. Congress who opposes their agenda and their total unequivocal support for Israel, good, bad, or indifferent. The speaker emphasizes that money should not be the main catalyst for getting people elected, arguing that the pro Israel lobby uses money as its primary tool to threaten politicians. They state that the lobby will spend money against or for politicians to influence outcomes. The speaker urges Americans to elect people who truly represent their values and not those with special interests. They conclude by addressing APEC, saying, "APEC, keep your money in."

Speaker 1 was approached with an offer to pause their political activity, but Speaker 1 is offended, viewing it as an attempt to buy them out of running and a reflection of others' lack of concern for the country. Speaker 1 believes this is about preventing them from winning and defeating Trump, which they see as bad for the country. Speaker 0 suggests it may not be about Trump, but about Speaker 1. Speaker 1 refuses to be bought at any price, stating they are not going to let people who hate the country tell them not to run. Speaker 1 intends to be a "pain" to those trying to stop them and is willing to fight, even if it means risking their life. Speaker 1 urges Speaker 0 to tell them to get behind their campaign. Speaker 1 believes the "swamp" doesn't pre-approve of them because they would root out corruption.

APAC is ostensibly a group of Americans who lobby on behalf of Israel, and they're very effective. As a candidate, they wanted me to do homework for them on Israel. When I refused, they suggested I copy Rand Paul's paper. I may be the only Republican in Congress who hasn't done homework for them. They tried to get to me through churches, using organizations like Christians United for Israel to co-opt evangelicals. After I was elected, they ran ads against me, so I banned them from my office. This cycle, they spent $400,000 against me. I think they're afraid of one person speaking the truth. They've called me a bigot and an anti-Semite, which is disgusting. I'm not anti-Semitic, but I don't like APAC. They should be registered with FARA, like anyone lobbying for a foreign government. Many Republicans agree with me privately but fear the backlash. Everyone has an "APAC person" they talk to, which is crazy. No other country has this kind of influence.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

Speaker 1 stated that the Congress of the United States is like an Israeli occupied territory because of the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, which is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. They believe that the automatic votes for aid to Israel may not always be in the national interest of the United States. Speaker 1 also mentioned that members of Congress often vote in favor of powerful lobbies because they cannot withstand the pressure. When asked why they singled out the pro-Israel lobby, Speaker 1 explained that it was in response to a specific question about Israeli aid.

Speaker 0: To defeat a democratic incumbent who has and will have unlimited resources in a midterm election, another congressman from a heavy heavy Republican district with a congressional voting record isn't gonna work. I know and respect both congressman Carter and Collins. This is not an attack on them. It's just the way that I feel. Also often, as you all know, we'll have hundreds of millions of dollars to define anybody's voting record in the worst possible light.

He wants to appear tough, but it's easy to take advantage of vulnerable people, like an elderly woman. Many in the audience are donors and special interests, which affects their support. The RNC has confirmed that the audience is filled with donors, and the lack of enthusiasm for me stems from my refusal to accept their money. I prioritize doing what's right for the American public over financial contributions. I'm the only one here committed to saving the country without relying on donations.

Speaker 0: "Israel operates the most powerful lobby in congress" (APAC), and "through control of congress, Israel demands and gets nearly $5,000,000,000 annually." It claims "No elected official dares criticize Israel" for fear "the Jewish lobby will accuse him of antisemitism, the kiss of death for any politician," and that "the president also knows what Israel wants, Israel gets." It states "The mass media founded and controlled primarily by Jews manipulates the spigot of information out of which Heartland America drinks" and that "if you criticize Israel, you are antisemitic." "Keep your head down, or you are fair game for being knocked off by the Zionist shooting gallery." Speaker 1: "our president and elected officials are slaves to political correctness when it comes to Jews and Israel." They "cannot seriously criticize Israel," cannot end aid to Israel, and "cannot even protest Zionist control of congress."

Speaker 0: "I'm very pro Israel" and "defensive of their right to defend themselves," but "I have absolutely no skin whatsoever in defending any lobbyist group, including AIPAC" and asks, "what they do to get the loyalty of politicians." She refuses outreach to visit Israel, wanting to "cover this conflict from here" and insisting she is not "on Hamas" side. Speaker 1: "'APAC is not registered under FARA' and explains lobbying tactics: taking freshmen on 'a very special trip to Israel,' inviting 'influencers,' and that Israel receives '3.8 billion dollars in funding for Israel.' He notes 'Israel is the only democracy in The Middle East' and says Israel can 'use that money to buy from Israeli defense contractors' instead of American ones. He cites Judge McFadden on flag-burning and says, 'We don't have time to fund what you're doing.' Ad: 'text m k to the number 989898.'

Speaker 0 raises a question about accountability for Israel and mentions Jeffrey Epstein’s dealings with Mossad. Speaker 1 asks, without specifics, whether there are forces that tried to influence him to stop what he’s doing now. Speaker 0 responds that they wouldn’t vote for foreign aid and foreign war funding, and they were upset because he said no. He states: “I’m not voting to fund the Ukraine war ever,” and “Israel’s doing just fine. We don’t need to give them a penny, not a single penny, nor do we need to give it to any other country, but they get mad at me for that.”

The speaker acknowledges the strong influence of donors, special interests, and lobbyists over politicians. They claim to have turned down significant amounts of money from these sources, stating that they are not accepting any money from anyone except the people of the country. Speaker 1 brings up the speaker's past relationship with Hillary Clinton, suggesting that it worked for her. The speaker responds by saying that as a businessman, it was their job to get along with people, including politicians. They emphasize that they did a good job in doing so.

The discussion centers on political criticism and backlash tied to Israel. One participant says Americans can be criticized heavily about their own government—citing being “brutal” on presidents from Barack Obama to Joe Biden and also being critical of Donald Trump “where he deserves it too”—but claims a different standard applies when criticism involves Israel. They describe a “hard no” response from a faction of the conservative movement, where critics are labeled “grifter[s]” and attacked by “bots nonstop online,” alongside an “apparatus” that “immediately turns on you.” They ask who is effectively trying to “veto” or block efforts by figures such as Tom Massie, podcasters, and people raising issues on social media. The other participant argues that the groups involved “entirely support Israel,” and points to Israel-related funding and campaigns, saying they have to set aside “seven hundred and fifty million dollars in a propaganda campaign” and references hiring Brad Parscale. They say Brad Parscale runs Salem Media and “had to register as a foreign agent for a foreign government.” They also claim that during the Trump reelection effort, “millions of dollars had disappeared from the campaign,” and that Parscale was “in charge of it,” implying it is “kind of shocking” and “odd” that he would be responsible for missing money and later overseeing other efforts. They add that it was “so significant” that he “had no choice,” and note that Parscale is “upfront about being a paid—at least… about being” something related to the arrangement being discussed. The conversation then returns to criticizing Israel’s government and foreign policy. One participant says it is “fine to be critical of Israel,” arguing that having “an issue with Israel’s foreign policy” or claiming Israel “getting us into a war” should not automatically make someone an “anti-Semite” or “a bad person.” The transcript ends mid-sentence with “I question the.”

We're winning the support of the American people, despite opposition from some in Washington. My Democratic colleagues prioritize bureaucracy and excessive spending over the taxpayer, illegal immigration over the rule of law, teachers unions over students, criminals over victims, transgender athletes over women's sports, and Hamas over Israel. They may feel victorious within their own circles, but they're wrong. The tide is turning; the American people are behind us, and justice will prevail. We're fighting for the right things.

We will not back down; we will fight back. This is a critical moment. When someone can donate $250 million to a campaign and gain full access to the U.S. Treasury, it signifies a serious conflict. We are at war. Thank you.

Speaker 0 asserts that they have never taken money from the Israel lobby and asks if Speaker 1 has. Speaker 1 clarifies that APAC raises a lot of money for him, but emphasizes that the fundraisers are individuals, not the PAC itself, meaning it’s a misnomer to say the PAC raises money. He describes APAC as an American lobby and explains that APAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He admits APAC is not a “foreign lobby” and says its purpose is not effectively defined as a single objective. He states his own entry into Congress thirteen years ago with the goal of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and says he has worked every day to that end. He notes that APAC is sometimes more effective than he wishes and then characterizes APAC as “a fever swamp of terrified of APAC.” Speaker 0 challenges the idea that APAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government, insisting that APAC lobbies for a foreign government. Speaker 1 responds that APAC is not lobbying for a foreign government; it is lobbying for a strong US–Israel relationship and for America and Israel to be closely allied. Speaker 0 maintains that APAC is lobbying for the interests of another country and reiterates that it is not true that APAC has nothing to do with the government. Speaker 0 asks about how much contact APAC leaders have with the government of Israel, and Speaker 1 acknowledges some contact, suggesting that the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC, and asks whether they talk. He compares the situation to lobbying for more US–Mexico trade, noting that one would talk to both sides. Speaker 0 accepts that there are many countries that lobby Washington, including Israel, and expresses familiarity with how lobbying works, including knowing Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and even being related to some. The central question for Speaker 0 is not whether foreign governments lobby the United States, but why it isn’t admitted as a common practice. He states that it’s true that many countries lobby Washington, including Israel, and asks why they aren’t registered as foreign lobbies. Speaker 1 responds that they are not registered as such.

Speaker 3 said he has been told that criticizing AIPAC makes him anti-Semitic. Speaker 1 called that “ridiculous.” Speaker 3 said it feels good to have concern for one’s country and asked whether AIPAC represents a “cutting in line of prioritization” away from the American people—meaning that although Americans vote and are citizens, a separate group gets higher priority. Speaker 0 responded that the point of a PAC is to represent a group, but said there is a “huge problem” with allowing a group that does not represent American interests to influence people who are supposed to represent Americans. Speaker 0 said he has previously stated that he thinks only “like 20 representatives between Senate and the House” fully do the work of the American people without the interests of some group pulling their sway. Speaker 1 said that “over since 1948” the amount amounts to “$319 billion adjusted to inflation” and argued that there are multiple things the money could have been spent on at home instead of military strikes for Israel. Speaker 1 said the money could have been better allocated toward supporting an economy that would help the current generation afford homes. Speaker 3 asked what else would improve views if Israel’s government presented a “five-year plan to decouple from us aid,” including moving toward self-reliance, and noted that Israel is a rich country that has balanced its budget and money in a sovereign wealth fund. He asked whether people would think more highly of Israel if it stopped relying on U.S. aid and if the issue were talked about less. Speaker 2 agreed that people should be less focused on labeling, saying that the word “racism” is used when there is disagreement and that “we just have to call them a name.” Speaker 2 said he does not think people are anti-Semitic, arguing that people “just can’t agree with them” and can’t “prove them wrong,” so they “throw a word out” like “anti-Semitic” because they think the U.S. should stop sending money there. Speaker 3 said, “thank you” and noted that some people he tells “must get more aggressive.”

Tempers flared at the National Press Club in Washington DC after Alison Weir, president of the Council for the National Interest Foundation (CNIF), was involved in an incident where an advocate knocked a camera from her hands during a pro-Israeli conference that followed a CNIF press conference on what they call unjustifiable USA to Israel. The two events occurred in the same room, illustrating heightened tensions over America's relationship with Israel. CNIF asserts that Americans should know how much of their tax dollars go to Israel, claiming $3,000,000,000,000 in aid, including a massive amount of direct money and many hidden costs. The group alleges that Israel receives substantial aid and special treatment because the US Congress is controlled by APAC, America’s pro-Israel lobby. Executive director Philip Giraldi states that Israel spends a lot of money on US elections. Speaker 1 notes that there are many Israeli PACs, and they give a lot of money very selectively to congressmen they want to support. CNIF contends that many members of Congress fear retaliation in their reelection campaigns if they do not align with Israel. Speaker 1 adds that if a congressman crosses the Israel lobby by voting against aid for Israel or against legislation Israel favors, the next campaign cycle often features a well-funded opposing candidate. Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counterterrorism expert, questions why America provides aid to Israel, arguing that Israel conducts more espionage for profit against the US than any other US-friendly country. He claims that they steal military technology and information useful for telecommunications. Retired lieutenant colonel Karen Kotowski, who works at the Pentagon, contends that Israel receives preferential treatment and that “We do not question what the Israelis want.” Kotowski suggests that America is increasingly paying attention to US foreign policy in the Middle East, influenced in part by tough economic times. More Americans want to know where their hard-earned tax dollars are going and why. Rhonda Pence, reporting for Press TV in Washington, closes the segment, highlighting the juxtaposition of the CNIF event with the pro-Israel conference and the ensuing tensions over US aid and policy toward Israel.

This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about people who are actually richer than Donald Trump and have a lot of influence because they give money. Do people go up to you privately and like I said, you say like, I agree with you, like in this building, I keep doing what you're doing, but I can't talk about it. Does that ever happen to you? it happens every week. You have to protect their confidence. You have to protect their anonymity because they're confiding in you that they secretly support you, but they don't want to say so publicly, for example, right? Yeah, mean, if I were to say that, then they would never confide in me again. And those are my closest friends. Your enemies up here don't come and say, I think what you're doing is right, but I just can't be with you. I can't die on this hill. But your friends do. For some of them, the political reality is they would probably lose their reelection if Donald Trump came against them. Some of them are here because they were in a seven way primary and they got Donald Trump's endorsement and that was their major redeeming factor in an election where there was no incumbent. And now they're incumbents, but they haven't been here very long and so they haven't built trust with their constituents yet. And by the way, I might be losing my next election over this. You have to get in a headspace where you're okay with that. Price is My Life. Look, it's not even our life, right? The price is my reelection, I would say. And at the press conference yesterday with the survivors, the price is their life. And here we've got members of Congress who won't even take a risk in their next election to do the right thing.

The video argues that Israel is effectively ruling the American government, presenting a connected web of history, money, politics, religion, and power to explain the relationship. It starts with the numbers: since World War II, the United States has given over $260,000,000,000 in aid to Israel, more than to any other country in the world. This aid is a pipeline of US taxpayer money into Israel’s military machine, totaling $3,800,000,000 each year (about $10,000,000 every day), funding fighter jets, bombs, tanks, and missile defense systems like the Iron Dome. The 2016 initiative under President Obama was a $38,000,000,000 package over ten years, guaranteed regardless of who sits in the White House, ensuring Israel’s access to next-generation military hardware while Americans debate domestic needs. A significant portion of this aid is required by law to be spent on American defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon, meaning Israel gets the weapons while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. The F-35 stealth fighter jet, costing around $80,000,000 each, has been supplied to Israel, alongside the Iron Dome, which has received over $2,600,000,000 in US funding since 2000. Critics note this funding could have supported US infrastructure repair, which is described as costing trillions of dollars to fix. The video contrasts this with domestic needs, citing half a million Americans homeless and tens of millions without health insurance. The narrative expands to the political ecosystem: APAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is described as one of the most powerful foreign policy lobby groups in Washington, with annual conferences drawing thousands and presidents pledging loyalty on stage. In the 2022 midterms, pro-Israel groups allegedly poured over $30,000,000 into campaigns; APAC’s United Democracy Project is said to have spent millions to defeat candidates who criticized unconditional US support for Israel. It cites examples like Donna Edwards and Andy Levin as Democrats targeted for questioning U.S. policy toward Israel. The video asserts that the message is: step out of line, and you’re gone. Other organizations are named as part of the broader lobby, including Christians United for Israel led by John Hagee, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), with various PACs purportedly funneling millions into local elections. Together, these groups are characterized as shaping U.S. foreign policy more than think tanks, business lobbies, or grassroots movements, forming what scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have called the Israel lobby, which also influences media and academia through outlets and think tanks that frame Israel as America’s indispensable ally. A narrative layer is described: Israel is marketed as the only democracy in the Middle East, while Palestinians are often erased or portrayed as aggressors. The video notes presidential consistency from Reagan to Trump, and from Clinton to Biden, with the refrain that America stands with Israel. Religion compounds influence, with evangelical groups viewing Israel’s survival as biblical prophecy, and the 2018 move of the US embassy to Jerusalem is framed as a concession to evangelical voters. The implications are political: the contradiction of US defending democracy while backing a system described as apartheid and ongoing bombings. The video asks who is ruling whom, suggesting blind support fuels anti-American sentiment globally, and that the question extends beyond Palestine to America’s own future. It ends by questioning whose interests Washington is really serving—its people or someone else.