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.

Ocasio-Cortez discusses the impact of the border crisis on her district. Tensions rise as she confronts an individual who is physically blocking her path. She expresses frustration over being touched and insists on her right to move freely. The interaction becomes heated as she questions whether the individual is engaging with the Biden administration about border issues. Despite the confrontation, she maintains her focus on the pressing concerns affecting her constituents.

Two groups clash over who may be in the building and who is authorized to act as the governing authority of the institute. - The conflict centers on who is recognized as the president of the institute. Speaker 0 says, “The president of the first day is the right to be in the building,” and insists they have seen paperwork that supports Mister Jackson as president. Speaker 1 counters that he is “the president of this institute” and asks for the other side’s credentials and documents, signaling a challenge to Speaker 0’s claim. - The outside counselors (not employed by USIP) state they are there to address issues and note they do not work for the agency or institute being discussed. They say, “Are you all work for USIP? We are the outside counselors. You do not work for USIP.” This creates tension about authority and whose procedures apply. - The group inside, including Speaker 1, questions the motives and legality of the intruders, framing the situation as unauthorized access. Speaker 1 emphasizes control of the scene, saying, “I’m the president of this institute. I’m asking the questions, not you.” They propose to proceed with a judge’s decision regarding who has rightful access, noting, “According to news, sir. And how do we decide? You wanna talk about the second law and how the board goes off? No. We’re go over. It hasn’t been decided. It’s gonna be decided by a judge.” - There is a clear conflict about process and authority: the outsiders say they are present to facilitate a meeting but are unsure how long their involvement lasts and emphasize the need to identify who is authorized to be in the building. The outsiders insist on conducting a meeting inside first and indicate that certain individuals will not be allowed to come back in, stating, “You’re not allowed. I don’t know what I’m gonna have to let anyone pass you. So please don’t walk this way. Four of you are not coming back in today.” - Access to personal property and documents becomes a point of negotiation. The outsiders request to retrieve personal items, while inside personnel want to conduct their meeting inside first and control access, saying, “We need to have our meeting inside first. Thank you.” They offer to allow retrieval of personal belongings after the meeting but prioritize internal access. - The exchange ends with continued insistence on controlling entry and a directive to move toward a meeting inside, with the outsiders escorted away from certain areas and told to wait while the internal decision-making progresses.

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.

People are moving through the statue hall near the area where senators enter for joint sessions. It's surprising to see this breach being televised. The Capitol is generally open to the public, but visitors must go through metal detectors and security checks. This breach means that security protocols have been ignored, likely causing discomfort and concern among the Capitol Police and others inside the building.

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.

We are at the Capitol building where people have stormed in, breaking the door. They are accusing others of standing with criminals and not protecting journalists or politicians.

A new whistleblower alleges that Secret Service leadership is preventing internal investigators from attending all Trump rallies. The whistleblower claims this is to conceal that Trump is not receiving a full presidential protective detail, but only a selective one. The speaker expresses frustration with Secret Service leadership, accusing them of concealment and stonewalling. They demand transparency from the Secret Service, insisting they level with the American people about the level of security Trump is receiving and ensure the safety of rally attendees.

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.

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.

People are breaking through the barriers of the Capitol Building and rushing to the Capitol Steps. Capitol police are responding to the break and to those who broke through the Capitol barriers.

I am a UCLA student with my ID, but being blocked by 3 individuals instead of security. I want to access my class, but they won't let me. I ask to pass, promising not to cause trouble. Eventually, I decide to walk past them peacefully with my hands up, emphasizing that I am not a threat.

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.

I am a UCLA student trying to enter the school, but I am being blocked by individuals instead of security. I show my ID and request to pass, emphasizing that I pay tuition and deserve access. After some back and forth, I am eventually allowed to enter without causing harm.

I have an obligation to be in that room, representing 200,000 people in Northwest Georgia who elected me to be here. You're hindering that. I'm not hindering anything. You have no respect for the constitution. I need you to step away. I don't want to go down this road with you. I understand constitutional law. This has gone too far, so we need to stop it. Are you preventing me from entering? The doorkeeper says I'm not allowed in. The doorkeeper has no authority. As a senator of a joint session, I have more authority than this doorkeeper. I'm not causing a disturbance; I need to be let in. You're not going in.

Two members of Congress visit a facility to observe its operations, as it receives federal funding. They request access but are denied by an employee. The members express their intention to hold public hearings to investigate the use of federal funds in similar operations. They inquire about the organization's name but receive no clear answer. The members decide to move on without confrontation and plan to contact the appropriate department for further information. They express disappointment at being denied access and mention that the facility has been in the news. The conversation ends with the members stating they will not return that day but may do so in the future through their committees of jurisdiction.

My name is Kian Bexy from the Countersignal, an accredited journalist at the Alberta Legislature. We're in Edmonton, and access is being blocked by someone who doesn't even claim to be part of the campaign. This individual is preventing multiple journalists from entering the building to cover a potential future prime minister's appointment. Is this the kind of country he aims to create? This behavior is unacceptable, especially when a diverse group of journalists, including students and accredited professionals, are waiting to enter.

It has gone too far. I represent 200,000 people in Northwest Georgia, and I have a right to be here. You're hindering my ability to fulfill my duties. This is unconstitutional. I need you to step away from me. There is a complete disrespect for the constitution. I understand your position, but this situation cannot continue. The doorkeeper has no authority over me; as a senator, I have more authority than the doorkeeper. This is creating a disturbance.

Protesters have breached security and entered statuary hall, a legendary place on Capitol Hill. This unprecedented event has shocked those of us who cover Capitol Hill. The protesters are casually walking through the hall, while Capitol police seem unable to stop them. The situation is both strange and awful.

Democrats created a scene at the Department of Education. Their behavior was disrespectful, especially towards the security guard who was simply doing his job. They acted entitled, ignoring proper channels for meetings with the executive branch. This incident highlights the Democrats' flawed priorities. Declining test scores, especially in Democrat-controlled areas, demonstrate a failure of the Department of Education since its inception. The involvement of the teacher's union chairman further underscores this failure. This low-budget attempt at insurrection is pathetic; if this is their best effort for the next four years, we're in good shape.

A crisis is unfolding in our democracy as federal workers are locked out of their offices while private operatives take control of government functions. Their actions include shutting down federal websites, deleting taxpayer-funded research, imposing speech codes, and accessing personal data of millions without authorization. This is happening as Trump appoints unqualified individuals to lead federal agencies, ensuring they won't intervene. Meanwhile, congressional Democrats issue letters and hold press conferences, while Republicans remain passive, allowing the government to deteriorate. If this were occurring in another country, it would be labeled a coup.

I have an obligation to represent 200,000 people in Northwest Georgia, and you're hindering that. This is unconstitutional. You show no respect for the constitution. I need you to step away from the door. I don't want to escalate this, but I have constitutional rights. You're preventing me from entering. The doorkeeper claims I can't answer, but as a senator, I have more authority than the doorkeeper. I'm not causing a disturbance; I need to be allowed in.

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.

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.