reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 asks when Congress might vote on having the whistleblower appear, claiming Speaker 1 is the only member who knows the whistleblower's identity and whose staff has spoken with them, requesting the same opportunity. Speaker 1 denies knowing the whistleblower's identity and affirms their determination to protect it. Speaker 1 states that after the witnesses testify, there will be an opportunity to make a motion to subpoena any witness and compel a vote.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about their recent interview with the FBI and if it was a deposition. Speaker 1 claims to not know what they are referring to and suggests discussing it offline. Speaker 0 questions if Speaker 1 has had any interviews with the FBI since becoming secretary of state, to which Speaker 1 avoids giving a direct answer. Speaker 0 then brings up the State Department turning over documents related to Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Blue State Strategies Corporation, but Speaker 1 does not provide any information. Speaker 0 tries to refocus the discussion on Afghanistan, but Speaker 1 continues to avoid answering questions.

The speaker mentions that the document was redacted to protect the source. They also mention that there are 17 voice recordings, two of which involve the current president. The speaker questions why this information was redacted and not given to the House Oversight.

The speaker claims that the police commissioner was rude to someone who declined an offer. They accuse the January 6th committee of destroying evidence, although the committee denies this. The speaker questions why Nancy Pelosi was not allowed to testify and mentions offering money for her testimony. The transcript ends abruptly.

Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of being a corrupt politician. Speaker 1 responds by mentioning that 50 former national intelligence officials and the heads of the CIA have dismissed the accusations as false. Speaker 0 dismisses this as another Russia hoax. Speaker 1 tries to steer the conversation back to the issue of race.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

Speaker 0 suggests there was potentially the biggest setup and one of the greatest crimes against the American people in the history of the country. Speaker 1 agrees it's important to get the truth and states they are working to uncover the cover-ups that happened after January 6th. Speaker 0 asks about Republicans involved in those cover-ups, acknowledging it's hard to address one's own party. Speaker 1 responds that they're going to go where the evidence leads, no matter what. Speaker 0 states they will hold Speaker 1 to that.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about investigating allegations, but Speaker 1 avoids commenting. Speaker 0 expresses concern on behalf of millions of Americans and criticizes Senate Democrats and the media for not addressing the evidence. Speaker 0 asks if the informant who accused Joe Biden of taking a bribe was previously relied upon by the FBI, but Speaker 1 evades a direct answer. Speaker 0 accuses Speaker 1 of refusing to answer and calls it disgraceful.

Speaker 1 mentions waiting for Bonnie Willis to respond. They discuss a whistleblower in her office who raised concerns about misuse of funds. Willis fired the whistleblower, prompting a subpoena for related documents. Willis made US Marshals serve the subpoena. They joke about Willis' behavior and mention CPAC. They express appreciation for CPAC's support of conservative principles. Translation: The speakers discuss Bonnie Willis not responding, a whistleblower's concerns, a subpoena for documents, and Willis' behavior. They joke about CPAC and express gratitude for its support of conservative principles.

The speaker thanks the chairman and addresses someone named Hunter, suggesting they are afraid of the speaker's words. The speaker reclaims their time. The speaker says that the House committees should provide relevant information to any legitimate inquiry. The speaker claims their first five offers were ignored. Then in November, a subpoena was issued for a behind-closed-doors deposition. The speaker asserts that Republicans have repeatedly misused this tactic in their political crusade to selectively leak and mischaracterize witness statements.

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.

The transcript records a contentious exchange in a congressional hearing focused on fraud allegations in Minnesota tied to Somali immigrant communities, with aggressive rhetoric and several pointed questions from Speaker 0 and Speaker 1. Key points and sequence: - Speaker 0 decries what they call “insane” behavior regarding Rep. Nancy Mace’s simple question and references a “cover up.” - Speaker 1 asserts a “tr breathtaking” amount of fraud allegedly perpetrated against Americans by Somalis in Minnesota, accusing Democrats of avoiding discussion and calling for accountability, suggesting the fraud could exceed Somalia’s GDP. - Speaker 1 asks the witness (Mr. Balu) whether Somali-Americans should be required to speak English if they are American citizens, pressing for a yes/no answer. The question is deemed “inappropriate” by Speaker 2, who says the question is not appropriate, while Speaker 1 insists on a simple yes/no. A point of inquiry is raised about whether English is the official language of the United States. - Repeated interruptions occur as Speaker 1 seeks to reclaim time, with a back-and-forth over the validity of the questions. - Speaker 1 asks whether Somalians who committed fraud should be denaturalized and deported; Speaker 2 replies that most Somali Minnesotans are citizens, and he attempts to answer under US law. The exchange continues with insistence on yes/no answers, including a question about denaturalization for those who commit immigration fraud or marry a relative (brother) in relation to immigration fraud—viewed as inappropriate by Speaker 2. - Speaker 1 asks for a significant contribution to Minnesota from a Somali immigrant who cannot speak English; Speaker 2 begins to respond but the question remains unresolved. - The discussion shifts to Robbins, who is asked about Al Shabaab and whether money defrauded from the US went to Al Shabaab. Robbins explains that while there is no specific amount in general remittance fraud, a portion is taken as “tax” or corruption by Al Shabaab when funds enter the country. - Speaker 1 asks for clarification about who Al Shabaab is; Robbins identifies it as a terrorist organization in Somalia, affiliated with Al Qaeda in the speaker’s view. - The DNI is cited by Speaker 1 as stating that since 2014 Al Shabaab has killed more US citizens than any other Al Qaeda affiliate and, as of 2025, is Al Qaeda’s wealthiest component. The transfer of this claim is linked to debates about US tax dollars and Minnesota governance, including criticism of Governor Tim Walz (referred to as Tim Walls) and a mention of his resignation, with credit given to a YouTuber for highlighting Minnesota fraud. The discussion also involves Keith Ellison and questions about their roles and awareness of fraud within Minnesota. - Robbins details how the administration allegedly hindered internal controls and investigations by the OIG and DHS. - Speaker 0 concludes with a reiteration that residents seeking citizenship or asylum should learn English, asserting that many Somali immigrants in Minnesota did not speak English and questioning how they perpetrated such large fraud, and asks what questions should be asked moving forward. Overall, the transcript captures a highly charged exchange blending accusations of widespread fraud, language policy questions, denaturalization debates, and allegations concerning the funding of extremist organizations, with references to specific political figures and agencies.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if they expect Democrats to support them. Speaker 1 responds that they personally do not. Speaker 0 then asks if Speaker 1 needs the Democrats' help to stay in a leadership position. Speaker 1 answers no, stating that if five Republicans side with the Democrats, they will be out. Speaker 1 acknowledges that this situation is complex.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

Speaker 0 questions if this could be the biggest setup or crime in the country's history. Speaker 1 emphasizes the importance of uncovering the truth and the cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves Republicans. Speaker 1 commits to following the evidence, regardless of where it leads. Speaker 0 holds Speaker 1 accountable for this commitment. Translation: Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the significance of revealing the truth and uncovering cover-ups post-January 6th, even if it involves members of Speaker 1's own party. Speaker 1 pledges to follow the evidence, no matter the consequences. Speaker 0 reminds Speaker 1 of this commitment.

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.

Speaker 1 admits to leaving a required oversight hearing in order to go on a personal vacation. Speaker 0 finds this unacceptable and questions if Speaker 1 paid for the flight. Speaker 1 confirms they paid for it and agrees to provide receipts to the committee. Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 is still capable of doing their job, to which Speaker 1 responds affirmatively. However, Speaker 0 disagrees and believes Speaker 1 should have been removed long ago.

Speaker is asked if they agree with congressional Republicans' call for resignation, but does not respond when pressed by the speaker of the house.

Speaker 0 accuses the prime minister of bullying senators and lying about the independence of the senate. Speaker 1 interrupts, asking Speaker 0 to retract a word. Speaker 0 refuses and Speaker 1 asks them to apologize. Speaker 0 again refuses. Speaker 1 asks Speaker 0 to leave, and they eventually comply.

The speaker accuses Speaker Pelosi of blocking investigations into the January 6th incident and claims that the committee is being used to push the Democratic agenda. They argue that Pelosi is afraid of a real investigation and doesn't want the truth to come out. The speaker raises questions about the Capitol Police's preparedness, Pelosi's involvement, and the FBI's actions. They express frustration that there haven't been hearings on rising gas prices and criticize the focus on theatrics instead of important issues. The speaker believes these actions will backfire on the Democrats.

Speaker 1 expresses disgust and appall at Speaker 2, the president of a company, for investigating legislators. Speaker 1 states the investigation was to gain leverage for billion-dollar contracts and questions the legality of the actions, suggesting the attorney general investigate. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 2 of gathering information with the intent to use it against legislators doing their jobs. Speaker 2 claims the investigations were to gain general knowledge about individuals they might meet with and their interests. Speaker 1 challenges this explanation, suggesting Speaker 2 is avoiding the question due to a lawsuit, and defends the legislators as colleagues and family, deeming the actions despicable.

Speaker 0 asks if the FD 1023 and the 17 recordings will be provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee to assess the evidence of Joe Biden taking a $5,000,000 bribe. Speaker 1 responds that they will work with the committee and provide the information within the process. Speaker 0 insists on a direct answer, but Speaker 1 repeats that they will take it back and work with them. Speaker 0 concludes that Speaker 1 is not answering the question.

I want to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman. The house committees issued a subpoena for a closed-door deposition after our first five offers were ignored. Republicans misuse this tactic to leak and mischaracterize witness statements.

Mister Parnas questions the committee about text messages from Mister Bob. Mister Chairman interrupts, saying there's no time for Democratic games. Parnas insists on discussing important investigative matters. The chairman grants Parnas 7 minutes, equal to Bobolinski's time.

The speaker discusses how a story about Donald Trump grabbing a Secret Service agent's neck was fabricated. The driver and others present that day denied it happened. The committee ignored evidence contradicting the narrative they wanted to push. Destroyed material likely went against their agenda. Liz Cheney is the prominent figure in this committee. Translation: The speaker talks about a false story involving Donald Trump and a Secret Service agent. Evidence disproving the story was ignored. Destroyed material likely contradicted their agenda. Liz Cheney is a key figure in this committee.