reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker states they are in litigation with 18 states across 19 different lawsuits over these states’ alleged refusal to comply. They say objections raised include privacy, noting they are requesting information such as the last four digits of individuals’ Social Security numbers and whether someone is in the country legally or a citizen, which they describe as a matter of federal records. The speaker asserts that the concept of this being a privacy issue is “total nonsense,” and argues that those states have no right to be on the voter rolls. They express an expectation to win these cases, even if it takes going to the Supreme Court. The speaker indicates they started this effort earlier in the year to give states a chance and mentions targeting jurisdictions like Fulton County, Georgia, which still has custody of some ballots from the 2020 election that they would like to examine, along with a couple of other jurisdictions. They say they reached a settlement with North Carolina, which is cleaning up its voter rolls with 100,000 records that were incorrect and needed updating. They mention they waited on behalf of Wyoming’s voter ID law and helped them win a case in court against liberal efforts to push it back. The speaker outlines an overall expectation for 2026: cleaner voter rolls, with many election officials, as noted by John, doing their job after receiving these letters. They anticipate hundreds of thousands of people in some states being removed from the voter rolls correctly. The speaker notes a past hesitation to act, suggesting it was because the DOJ and some left-wing organizations would sue when states attempted to do their job, framing it as “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” They conclude that for the remainder of this administration, they will be supporting states in cleaning their voter rolls as required by federal law and emphasize that they are just getting started.

- "Texas wants to gerrymander their maps again, do a mid decade reapportionment." - "Donald Trump is terrified he's gonna lose the majority in the House of Representatives." - "all of that is so deeply unpopular." - "They're convinced they can't hold the house unless they redo the lines in Texas and try to grab more Republican seats even though the lines in Texas are already gerrymandered to elect Republicans." - "Now if they go forward with this, as it looks like they will, California needs to respond." - "I hope at the end of this that we have a national redistricting reform that ends the gerrymander all across the country that would simply require an act of congress." - "But if Texas goes down that terrible road, California will have to respond because we have to look out for our interests and can't let them rig the game."

The speaker discusses redistricting and gerrymandering in Texas and California, noting the left's advantage in drawing 'jigsaw puzzle like districts.' Studies indicate Republicans are short about six to ten seats in the House relative to their share of the national vote. Democrats know this but are angry about Texas reapportionment and gerrymandering, and their attitude is, 'we've already gerrymandered our states to the maximum. Don't dare try to emulate us.' James Carville said that they have to get tougher. 'That's the new mantra.' Cory Booker screams and yells in the Senate, Hakim Jeffries picks up his baseball bat. There's usually a video with the squad or representatives using the word SHIT or the F word, kind of pornographic. Jasmine Crockett periodically calls Donald Trump names that are can't be repeated on air. The anger persists, and the new idea is that they haven't been tough enough. They have been too tough.

The speaker claims that Donald Trump, Greg Abbott, and Ken Paxton have forced their hand regarding redistricting and retaliation. They assert that the current system involves regularly drawn maps voted on by legislatures and approved by governors, but Trump, Abbott, and Paxton are rewriting maps to take away the votes and voices of Texans, impacting Congress and potentially spreading elsewhere. The speaker states that unlike Abbott, Trump, and Paxton, they want every voice and vote to count, regardless of who people vote for. They express concern about potential cuts to Medicaid, housing, veterans' services, and programs for children. Regarding Massachusetts, the speaker says they recently completed a customary and orderly redistricting process and will continue to follow the rules.

The justice department is fighting back against attacks on the right to vote by doubling the voting section of the civil rights division. They are challenging discriminatory voting restrictions like mail-in voting, drop boxes, and voter ID requirements. Efforts are also being made to block unfair redistricting plans that diminish the voting power of black and other minority voters.

Nicole Shanahan and Harmeet Dhillon discuss a broad critique of how culture, law, and politics are shaping America today, focusing on cancel culture, political power, and the fight over election integrity, free speech, and American ideals. - On cancel culture and authenticity: The conversation opens with a claim that pursuing political or cultural conformity reduces genuine individuality, with examples of how people are judged or pressured to parroting “woke” messaging. They argue that this dynamic reduces people to boxes—race, gender, or immigrant status—rather than evaluating merit or character, and they describe a climate in which disagreement is met with denunciation rather than dialogue. They stress the importance of being able to be oneself and to engage across differences without being canceled. - Personal backgrounds and the RNC moment: Nicole Shanahan describes an impression of Harmeet Dhillon speaking at the RNC, highlighting the sense of inclusion across faiths, races, and women in the party. Dhillon emphasizes that this is not about a monolith “white Christian nationalist” stereotype, recounting her own experiences from Dartmouth, where she encountered hostility to stereotypes and where merit-based evaluation (writing, argumentation) defined advancement rather than identity. - Experiences with California and liberal intolerance: Dhillon notes a pervasive intolerance in California toward dissent on topics like religious liberty and climate justice, describing a glass ceiling in big law for pro-liberty work and a culture of signaling rather than substantive engagement. Shanahan adds that moving away from the Democratic Party to independence has induced personal and professional consequences, such as colleagues asking to be removed from her website due to investor concerns, reflecting broader fears about association in liberal enclaves. - Diversity, identity, and national identity: They contrast the freedom to define oneself with the coercive “bucket” approach to identity. They argue that outside liberal coastal enclaves, people feel freer to articulate individual identities and values, while California’s increasingly prescriptive DEI training is criticized as artificial and limiting. - The state of discourse and the danger of intellectual conformity: The speakers warn of a culture where questioning past work or adopting new ideas triggers denouncement and self-censorship. They cite anecdotal experiences—loss of board members, fundraising constraints, and professional risk for those who diverge from prevailing views—claiming this suppresses valuable work in fields such as climate science, criminal justice reform, and energy policy. - Reform efforts and the political landscape: They discuss the clash between incremental, evidence-based policy and a disruptive, progressivist impulse. Shanahan describes attempts to fix infrastructure of the criminal justice system through technology and data (e.g., Recidiviz) that were undermined by political dynamics. They emphasize the importance of practical, measured reform and cross-partisan cooperation, the need to focus on American integrity and governance, and the risks of pursuing “disruption” as an end in itself. - Election integrity and lawfare: A central theme is concern about how elections are conducted and contested. Dhillon outlines a view of targeted irregularities in swing counties and cites concerns about ballot counting, observation, and legal rulings. She argues that left-wing funders have built a sophisticated, twenty-year, lawfare apparatus, using nonprofits and strategic lawsuits to influence outcomes, notably pointing to the Georgia ballot-transfer activities funded by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. She asserts that there is a broader pattern of using C3s and C4s to push political objectives while leveraging the law to contest elections. - The role of money and influence: They discuss the influence of wealthy donors, political consultants, and media in shaping party dynamics, suggesting Republicans should invest more in district attorney races, state-level prosecutions, and Supreme Court races to counterbalance the left’s long-running investment in the electoral apparatus and litigation strategy. They acknowledge that big donors and activist networks can coordinate to advance policy goals, sometimes at the expense of on-the-ground, local accountability. - Tech, media, and corporate power: The dialogue covers the Silicon Valley environment, James Damore’s case at Google, and the broader issue of woke corporate culture. Dhillon highlights the disproportionate power of HR in big tech and how employee activism around identity politics can influence careers and policy. Shanahan notes that Google’s founders are no longer central decision-makers, and argues for antitrust and shareholder-rights actions to challenge what they see as woke monopolies that do not serve shareholders or society. - The path forward: Both speakers advocate for courage to cross party lines, work for principled governance, and engage in issue-focused collaboration. They emphasize the need to reform infrastructure—electoral, health, educational, and economic—through competency, transparency, and bipartisan cooperation, rather than through dogmatic, identity-driven politics. They close with a mutual commitment to continuing the conversation, finding common ground where possible, and preserving the core American ideal that individuals should be free to define themselves and contribute to the country’s future.

The justice department is fighting to protect the right to vote by expanding the voting section of the civil rights division. They are challenging discriminatory voting restrictions like mail-in voting, drop boxes, and voter ID requirements. Additionally, they are working to stop unfair redistricting plans that weaken the votes of black and other voters of color.

Texas found that 95,000 noncitizens were registered to vote, with 58,000 having already voted. Other states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado also discovered noncitizens registered to vote. Despite this evidence, Time Magazine, Vox, and Harvard researchers claim that noncitizen voting is a myth. The mainstream media's trust in these experts is questioned. The Democrats' support for open borders and opposition to voter ID is seen as a strategy to bring in a new voting demographic that will support their agenda through promises of free stuff and playing the race card.

The transcript argues that private companies running prisons have a financial incentive to maximize inmate numbers, to the point of suing the state or locality if occupancy drops. The claim is that the profit motive creates pressure on law enforcement to arrest more people and to demand strict enforcement, because a safe city would reduce profits and jeopardize contracts. Private equity owners, and publicly traded prison operators, are described as viewing facilities as occupancy units rather than housing real criminals, with a “bed quota clause” in contracts ensuring jails stay 90–100% full. If crime declines, the companies sue for lost profits, exploring the idea that tax dollars are weaponized against public safety to meet quarterly earnings. The discourse suggests the jails and borderless ownership are a “foreign embassy of corporate greed,” with symbols like county jails and state seals described as misleading. The firms named include GEO Group and CoreCivic, along with security and facility managers such as Serco and G4S, depicted as having no local skin in communities and aiming to harvest beds rather than ensure sovereignty or public safety. The police are portrayed as turned into “delivery drivers for a global supply chain of incarceration,” and the constitution as a lease agreement, with towns becoming occupied territories where occupancy matters most. A second major claim is about “prison gerrymandering.” Under the Census Bureau’s usual residence rule, the bureau is said to refuse to fix the rule in 2026, resulting in inmates being counted as residents of rural districts where private prisons sit, not of their home communities. The effect is described as phantom constituents—prisoner populations that boost rural political power and funding while the prisoners themselves cannot vote. The result is a redistribution of political influence from urban areas to rural districts, incentivizing politicians to block reforms and maintain bed quotas, since population counts affect legislative power and funding. The text asserts that more people locked up correlates with greater political leverage for certain politicians, not because of representing the people behind bars but because of representing the capacity of the system. Even as some states purportedly push back, a majority are accused of continuing the practice, especially in Texas, Florida, and Mississippi, where urban communities’ political influence is allegedly diluted by the presence of incarcerated populations. Finally, the “exit” is described as the private prison economy’s pay-to-stay model: upon release, individuals are billed for confinement, sometimes daily costs, leading to debt that prevents reentry into society. If there is missed payment, warrants may be issued, sending people back to jail for being unable to pay. The “Texas two-step” is cited as a tactic to divide profits from medical liabilities by creating two entities—one for profits and contracts and another for medical lawsuits—allowing the profitable shell to continue while victims’ claims are often constrained. The summary portrays a closed loop in which the private justice industry profits from every stage of incarceration, with medical neglect lawsuits navigated to bankruptcy, and the bill ultimately paid by taxpayers. The overall narrative closes by labeling the system a harvest that sustains itself as long as there is profit in the pulse of a prisoner, signaling phase three is complete and asking, “Who’s next?”

Speaker 0 warns this could turn into a maximum nonviolent warfare moment if gerrymandering remains legal, saying, “if this is the law of the land that you can go around gerrymandering like this, we're going to try to get us ourselves the most advantageous position.” Speaker 1 responds, “Well, at least that I mean, I will take that over you guys shooting Republicans. So go ahead.” Speaker 0 adds that he was thrilled they were not on the same day earlier this week, and addresses the violent rhetoric issue, stating, “Do not kill people. Also, we know where the violence comes from. Gerrymandering's bad. Democrats don't want it. Republicans do. Vote for our ban.” Kaylee is asked for a reply. Speaker 1 asserts he will take the constitutional side, stating Jessica made a political argument about gerrymandering; he then jokingly references the Fox News printer, saying, “I print more primary documents from that printer than anyone that's the 97 page. No. I don't do double sided. I'm sorry. Double sided to losers. Sorry to the trees. Sorry to Fox. Sorry to blow up the budget.” Speaker 0 then shifts to the climate change agenda, but the conversation continues without a direct continuation of that point. Speaker 1 quotes Justice Roberts on race issues, declaring, “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. That should be the guiding philosophy on any single matter.” He argues that in this country, “We don't discriminate against anyone in this country because of their skin color.” He asserts that the best take was not the majority take, but the concurrence by Justice Thomas. Speaker 1 emphasizes that Justice Thomas is exactly right: “The court led legislatures and courts to systematically divide the country into electoral districts based racial lines.” He continues, quoting Thomas: blacks drawn into black districts with black representatives, Hispanics drawn into Hispanic districts with Hispanic representatives, and states that this is “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color blind constitution,” urging opposition to “the balkanization of society, putting black people here and white people here and Hispanic people here.” He adds that the “absolutely nonsensical hyperbolic Democrats” advocating that position are naively supporting the very thing they oppose, citing Justice Thomas as a source, the second ever black justice on the Supreme Court.

I was sued by Ken Paxton not once, but twice this week. But we didn't react. We didn't respond. We didn't defend. We took this fight back, suing him in El Paso, Texas. He tried to stop us from holding this rally in Fort Worth and from raising money to support these Democrats. He lost, and one of the worst things that we could do to Ken Paxton is to right now choose to donate to have the backs of these fighters by texting fight to 20377. Text fight to 20377. He is trying to stop us from raising the resources they need to ultimately prevail and come through, and we are not going to let him stop us. "There are no refs in this game. Fuck the rules." We punch first, and we punch harder. We want California, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, and every other state with Democratic control to redraw their congressional districts now, not wait for Texas to move first to maximize Democratic party advantage.

The speaker claims the Biden-Harris administration and some states are undermining election integrity, not them. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting, but states have issues. The speaker says the House passed the SAVE Act, requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, but Chuck Schumer and the Democrats blocked it in the Senate. The speaker alleges the open border policy is a Democratic strategy to enable non-citizen voting. They estimate 16 million illegal aliens are in the country since the border was opened, raising concerns about their potential illegal participation in elections, where some races are decided by very few votes. The speaker also cites California's ballot harvesting and unmanned ballot boxes in Wisconsin as potential sources of fraud.

Speaker 0: This all started because of redistricting in Texas, and this was Trump pushing Republican controlled states to throw out their current congressional maps so as to cook the books so that there is less likely for Democrats to retake control of the house during the next year midterms. Is it fair to argue that Republican Party is starting this? Speaker 1: No, Jake. There has been gerrymandering going on for two hundred years. There is such extreme gerrymandering going on that in a state like Massachusetts, it has 40% of the people voting for Trump. They only had they have zero representatives. The Republican party has zero representatives sent to the house. Think about that. In New Mexico, if 45% of people voted for Trump and vote Republican and zero is sent to the house, zero representative from the Republican party. So there's gerrymandering, crazy gerrymandering going on all over the country and we wanted to try to stop it in California and we did stop it in California and we went around the country. So I think this whole thing about finger pointing and said they did it, so therefore we should doing it. That's not really the way to go. The one party should outperform the other party. It should be performance. And when it comes to midterm elections as you know, always the party that is not in the White House usually wins by twenty, twenty five, 30 seats. So what does five seats matter in the first place in Texas? It is crazy. We should outperform them. That is where the action is.

“Everybody, even Democrats actually admit this, that the census in 2020 had a major statistical error. And what that meant is that you actually undercounted a few states that are Republican like Florida and Ohio. You overcounted some blue states.” If the census were redone now, there would be “10 additional Republican seats and nine fewer Democrat seats.” He calls this the consequence of “forty years of institutional control in the Democratic Party,” whose side has “fought very dirty for a very long time” and “rig the game for Democrats and against Republicans.” He credits that “under president Trump's leadership” the GOP has “some spine” to fight back against “these very aggressive Democratic dirty tricks.” The plan is to “redo the census,” “redistrict some of these red states,” and “make the congressional apportionment fair,” noting you cannot do it “unless Republicans actually take some very decisive action in the months to come.” “We’re obviously supporting them every step of the way.”

The Civil Rights Division is enforcing federal discrimination and civil rights laws for all Americans with a color-blind approach. Title IX aims to give women equal access to educational and sports opportunities. The Department of Justice (DOJ) got involved after California refused to mediate with the Department of Education regarding Title IX. Orange County had credible information about non-citizens on voter rolls. The DOJ sent letters to Harvard University asking them to confirm compliance with Students for Fair Admissions. If Harvard does not promptly improve conditions for students, they will face economic and legal trouble. The speaker believes the United States is the greatest country.

Democrats have acted in an un-Texan manner by abandoning their fellow Texans. They fled during a redistricting fight and are neglecting the ongoing flooding issues in the Kerrville area. Families urgently require action from the state legislature during this 30-day special session, but Democrats are allegedly in places like Chicago and New York instead of addressing these issues.

Recently, a discussion arose regarding how federal authorities allow illegal aliens to fly without ID, while American citizens face restrictions. This raises a critical voting rights issue: as new voters are imported, the political power of existing citizens is diluted. The focus should not be on race but on the impact of demographic changes on democracy. Democrats support mass immigration to gain electoral advantage, not out of compassion. Historical examples, like California's shift from Republican to Democratic dominance post-1986 immigration reforms, illustrate this trend. The influx of immigrants with differing political views has transformed states, undermining the political power of long-term residents. Ultimately, this strategy threatens the democratic principle of one person, one vote.

- The Democrat open borders plan to entrench single party rule explained in under two minutes. - 1. Flood the country with untold millions of illegals by land, sea, and air from all over the world, enough to eclipse the populations of 36 individual US states so far. - 2. Prioritize the needs of these millions of non citizens over the needs of the American citizen with free flights, buses, hotels, meals, and phones, ensuring their loyalty to the political party that imported them. - 3. Keep them in the country at all costs. Even when they commit violent crime like murder and rape, attack the language used to describe the criminals as opposed to the criminals themselves. - 4. Slander critics as racist. - 4 (continued). Ensure their privileges are made irrevocable with city and state sanctuary laws that act as population magnets. Codify permanent status and ensure non cooperation with ICE. - 5. Count the non citizens in the census that will determine congressional apportionment in the House of Representatives. As of now, that would equal 13 extra congressional districts, a tremendous amount of electoral power. - 6. Wage a massive, heavily funded lawfare campaign to change state voting laws that legalize mass mail in generational fealty to the Democratic Party. - 8. Eight, win elections. - 9. Entrenched single party rule has been achieved. - The best part, your tax dollars are paying for it.

The speaker discusses the findings of a recent article on Forbes.com about the 2020 census. They express concern over the undercounting of over 985,000 people in Texas and the overcounting of over 1,000,000 people in New York. This has implications for the distribution of congressional seats, with Texas and Florida being shorted seats while Colorado randomly gained one. The speaker urges viewers to share the video if they are upset about these discrepancies.

One of the big things is it helps decide congressional maps. In fact, we know the 2020 census, the errors were almost always to the detriment of red states. Blue states like Rhode Island know that? We do know that. The Census Bureau's own audit of its work has proven that. Blue states like Rhode Island were overcounted. Rhode Island then doesn't didn't lose a seat. Red states like Alabama were undercounted. Listen. That's this is just a fact. It wasn't all red blue, but it was disproportionately red blue.

The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ provided an update on its election integrity litigation. The department announced that it sued four additional jurisdictions for not complying with federal election laws and facilitating the sharing of voter data: Georgia, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In addition, three more jurisdictions provided voluntary compliance, bringing the total to ten states that are voluntarily sharing their voter data so that the DOJ can help ensure that only American citizens vote, and that each person votes only once in federal elections per election cycle. The DOJ stated that, despite the holiday season, it will continue its work to obtain compliance from every jurisdiction or pursue lawsuits where necessary. The announcement framed the effort as part of making federal elections great again and ensuring that every citizen has confidence in them.