reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Marjorie Taylor Greene said she found the situation in a building that was “basically empty” and questioned whether members of Congress own real estate and rent to the federal government in Washington, DC. She claimed the answer was “Yeah,” and argued this should have been the beginning of addressing corruption. She emphasized she would be different and would be on the front end, aiming to eliminate corruption that has infiltrated committee systems. She acknowledged politics’ current back-and-forth dynamics but said the goal is to reduce that tension and focus on reform. Speaker 1 asked Greene, as Doge chairman, to continue the work on what appears to be a massive scandal: big federal buildings owned by members of Congress and leased back to the federal government—private buildings owned by members of Congress leased to the government—describing it as “the snake eating its tail” and “the tip of the iceberg.” Greene described the broader problem as a frustration with the system and warned against a “shotgun approach,” saying they must not be neutralized and must focus on a few targets. She identified the first focus as the IRS, noting that the big complaint with the IRS, besides “stealing your money,” is that you can’t ever reach them and that their technology is not intermingled. Speaker 1 referenced Greene’s statements about government duplication. Greene said she found through government duplication a chart that “my staff has uncovered basically over a trillion dollars of just simple duplication within these departments that nobody is willing to tackle.” She reiterated the plan to tackle this issue, even if it’s not “sexy,” and to “tackle it,” showing it to the American public, with the hope they will back efforts when changing the structure of government. Greene reiterated that the aim is to focus on a few issues, start with IRS problems, and address the broader duplication and inefficiencies uncovered by her staff. She expressed a determination to reveal these findings to the public and pursue structural changes in government.

Speaker 0 talks about the movement of types A and how it affects their cheese and lunches. Speaker 1 adds a comment. Speaker 0 mentions a phrase in the family and the public fiscal issue. Speaker 1 talks about political parties and prosthetics. Speaker 0 mentions a case and a bonification. Speaker 1 talks about a grave matter and a presence. Speaker 0 mentions a school and a procedure. Speaker 1 talks about an accusation and a finish. Speaker 0 mentions a profile and a channel. Speaker 1 talks about a challenge and a discount.

- Speaker 0 apologized in 2016 for a promise about 1000 euros, stating that was a mistake and clarifying that it is not about Ukraine joining the European Union; they are against that as well. - On policy positions, Speaker 0 says: there should not be changes to mortgage interest deduction; they are not in favor of increasing the deductible; they are investing half a billion in the development of alternative energy, with a caveat about wind turbines, noting that those wind turbines operate on subsidies and “do not operate on wind.” - Speaker 1 recalls a statement from nine years ago about a street worker who works 40 years and can retire at 65, noting that nothing of that has been seen in recent years. Speaker 0 counters with “five years said, right?” to confirm the timeline. - Speaker 0 references a past claim about someone being under oath, saying that if it involved political motives, the law would be set aside. They remark not to recall a speech about “group immunity,” and state they have not heard such a speech. - The discussion moves to a person not being in service of the VVD; they state she does not work for the VVD, has no VVD parliamentary pass, and that Speaker 0 had lied about the matter being about Omtzigt. - Speaker 0 asserts that they did so to the best of their knowledge, admitting there was no memo that had been requested by the informant or informally requested; they did not have that memory and could not reconstruct what was discussed in 2015. They acknowledge uncertainty about what exactly was on the table in 2015 and admit they cannot precisely reconstruct those details. - They mention a second example and reference someone named Caroline, then question whether it is odd that officials would be aware of something and the other person would not be informed. They ask if this was four years ago, saying they would not know. They conclude by saying they have misremembered this in hindsight and express sincere regret.

Minister Freeland and the speaker discussed shared priorities between the federal and provincial governments. The speaker emphasized the importance of working together to address issues such as healthcare, affordability, and homelessness. They highlighted healthcare and affordability as top priorities. The speaker also mentioned that a clean and healthy environment is crucial for economic growth.

There is a discussion about a new government and a new prosecutor general. Speaker 0 expresses willingness to publicly commit to a $1 billion loan. Speaker 1 mentions that there are no corruption charges or evidence against the prosecutor general. Speaker 0 congratulates the installation of the new prosecutor general and emphasizes the need for quick action to repair damage. They confirm their commitment to signing the $1 billion loan guarantee now that the new prosecutor general is in place.

Speaker 0: He's one of the greatest I've ever seen. Speaker 1: Don't mess with Whitey, I'm crazy. Speaker 2: Trudeau announced a 3-year exemption on carbon tax reform. Speaker 3: Will there be penalties or jail for not paying carbon tax? The government expects everyone to work. Speaker 1: We need to find ways to extract and use oil and gas with minimal emissions and carbon capture. Speaker 2: I demand the same carbon tax exemption for Saskatchewan families as others. It's only fair. Hopefully, it will be provided.

Speaker 1 discusses the need for support in their campaign and suggests finding polished individuals who can run as secret sleepers on their side. They emphasize the importance of working towards the same goal and taking back seats in local elections. Speaker 1 expresses a desire for black individuals who can navigate different circles but still feel safe with their own people. They stress the need for these sleepers to withstand criticism and even opposition from their own families. Additionally, Speaker 1 mentions the struggle to raise campaign funds and calls for support from black individuals with financial resources.

Speaker 0 says they are transparent about what they’re doing and are pushing Speaker Johnson to do more. They started looking at Speaker Johnson’s PACs and how many of his PACs turn money back around to daycare and health care clinics and the like. They note the incredible amounts of money involved and that this concerns one person, but he is the Speaker of the House. They emphasize that this is not a partisan issue for them.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if he is a PVV Member of Parliament, and Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 says he recognizes them all, to which Speaker 1 agrees. The interviewer then asks about Speaker 1’s ambitions for the next four years, but Speaker 1 says he will answer later. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is high on the list and again says he will be told later. The interviewer mentions that Speaker 1 was described as “the new talent shaved,” and Speaker 1 responds that that will go well. Speaker 0 remarks that he hasn’t noticed it yet.

**Speaker 0:** 212 Democrats voted against no tax on tips, Social Security, and overtime. If the government makes money and spends it responsibly, taxes aren't necessary. The new administration is holding the government accountable, and people are mad about it. **Speaker 1:** There's no tax on tips, overtime, or Social Security in the budget resolution. Taxes are normal. This utopia where nobody pays taxes isn't going to work. Read the budget before lecturing people about it.

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.

Speaker 1 discusses the importance of the Speaker of the House using the next two years to deliver the agenda for the American people and to codify President Trump's executive orders. There is growing frustration with the efficacy of getting things done on the House floor, and this is described as part of a fragile majority, with a one- to two-seat margin depending on who steps down or cannot attend votes. Speaker Johnson is encouraged to respond more to members' concerns, and there is a call to work overtime to deliver on making America affordable, making America safe, and codify President Trump's agenda. Speaker 1 notes there have been historic accomplishments, including "the one big beautiful bill, which is the largest tax cut in history specifically for New Yorkers as well as many other provisions." The frustration is described as common in coverage, and the fragility of the majority is cited as a challenge to bring bills to the floor, though they have worked through issues and will continue to do so.

According to Speaker 0, Mr. Polyev stated he would not reflexively oppose the government, but support it when in the country's best interest, because he wants the country to succeed. However, he then spent fifteen minutes attacking ministers like Sean Fraser and Stephen Guildeaux for ruining the country. Speaker 1 noted Mr. Polyev's approach suggests he won the election, not lost it. He will only be able to stand in defense of Canadians because of the Prime Minister's goodwill in calling an early by-election for him in Alberta, costing close to $2,000,000. Speaker 1 found it interesting that Mr. Polyev is going after Stephen Gabbeau, blaming Sean Frazier for the housing crisis, and wanting to fight the same political battles from the last campaign.

Speaker 0 is asked if they wish they had a third term. They respond by saying they would be fine with having a stand-in who would wear an earpiece and deliver their lines while they stay in their basement. Speaker 2 interrupts and tells everyone to ignore the person in the earpiece. Speaker 3 mentions something about getting Republicans elected. Speaker 4 says the person speaking is not recognized. Speaker 5 reminds everyone not to engage in personal attacks. Speaker 1 repeats their earlier statement about having a stand-in and being fine with it.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration with the constant influx of bills and the struggle to provide for their constituents. They believe that the power given to one person goes against the constitution. Speaker 2 agrees, feeling trapped by rules that limit their ability to represent their people. They argue that although they live in a democracy, it doesn't feel that way in their current situation. They urge others to understand the power and control held by the speaker and the need to convey this message to their own districts. They emphasize that everyone, regardless of party, is affected by these limitations.

Appropriations is where the money moves in Congress. Democrats are making lives smoother through government funding. Republicans' Project 2025 is suspect, aiming to eliminate the Department of Education. This would negatively impact the environment, education, and rights. Democrats are keeping people informed.

Speaker 0 notes the enormous difficulty of doing that, saying, “In fact, the big majority of have been able to.” Speaker 1 reminds listeners that floor time in the Senate is finite, and outlines a lengthy slate of items that could be teed up for action on the Senate floor: a housing bill awaiting action, a market structure bill, possibly permitting reform, a farm bill, and a highway bill, with Russia sanctions and a whole host of other items also on the potential agenda. He says the conference will have a conversation about that, and he has committed to discussing the idea and determining whether the conference’s views on it indicate how they want to proceed. He adds that they will vote on the SAVE Act, but notes that triggering a talking filibuster has ramifications and implications everyone needs to be aware of. Speaker 1 explains that those discussions are necessary because the decision to pursue a talking filibuster would tie the floor up for an indefinite amount of time, with not only unlimited debate but also unlimited amendments. He emphasizes that the floor time is precious and that the decision will affect how much can be done on a wide range of important legislation. Speaker 0 interjects that the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House were speaking at the same time, which is why the dialogue is jumping back and forth. He concludes with a brief update that the bill has passed, funding DHA.

The prime minister, ministers, and MPs are present for an important discussion. The speaker emphasizes the importance of dialogue over yelling. They express gratitude for the opportunity to speak and work together during this challenging time.

We have been working on reaching a consensus for several months, and it has taken us a long time to get to this point. However, we still have a lot of work ahead of us, and it will require a significant investment of money. Our goal is to lower our energy costs and improve our healthcare plans. This is not an easy task, but it is necessary.

Speaker 0 mentions that an investigation has been started regarding a recent issue, which Speaker 1 questions. Speaker 2 suggests asking the Party Board members for more information. Speaker 0 asks if there will be an investigation into what happened and the victims' experiences. Speaker 2 explains that the investigation is complicated since the person involved is no longer a member of the parliament. Speaker 0 expresses concern about the victims and their stories. Speaker 2 says everything can be read about it and didn't expect to discuss it. Speaker 0 understands it's a sensitive topic. Speaker 1 mentions going to Afghanistan and having lunch. Speaker 0 points out that an investigation should have been conducted. Speaker 1 explains that the person can only return when there is a vacancy. The conversation ends with Speaker 1 suggesting asking the same question later.

The speaker discusses the consensus test and predicts that it will take a long time to complete. They mention that it will also take a great deal of effort to exit the situation. The speaker then talks about investing money to reduce energy costs and healthcare plans.

Speaker 0 notes that there have been many sessions about how important it is to get involved, to build a relationship with politicians, and to have access. Access and relationship can buy you influence, though it doesn’t necessarily guarantee it. The goal is for everyone to learn how to start and build a relationship with a politician, and to understand that while money is part of the system, the relationship is not solely about money, because access and relationship are needed to create influence. Speaker 0 emphasizes a large audience (4,000 people) and wants them to hear from the speakers about how to do this. Speaker 1 shifts to Miri and Sheldon Yeezy Robarouk, noting they have been more generous than he has, and suggests turning to Miri for guidance. Speaker 0 agrees, pointing out that both have built a lot of connections and influence. Speaker 1 responds by saying, “What I gave is this. This is what they gave is this.” He then adds that the principle is the same, though he is cautious about describing the system. He explains that it is a system they did not create; it is a system that is in place, a legal system, and they simply play within the system. He states that if you support a politician, under normal circumstances, you should have access to be able to share opinions and try to help them see your point of view, and that access grants you this ability. He further explains that contribution and financial support grants you access, so those who give more have more access and those who give less have less access. He calls it a simple math and reinforces the point with, “Trust me.” In summary, the speakers discuss the relationship between political engagement, access, and influence, acknowledging money’s role but emphasizing that access stems from supporting politicians and sharing viewpoints. They describe a legal, pre-existing system where greater financial contributions correlate with greater access, framing it as straightforward math within the established framework.

Speaker 0 expressed disappointment with a large spending bill, claiming it increases the budget deficit. Speaker 0 connected this to the work being done by the Doge team. Speaker 1 stated that everything done on Doge gets wiped out in the first year due to the bill. Speaker 0 stated that a bill can be big or beautiful, but not both, in their opinion.

Speaker 0 expresses a desire for a third term and suggests the idea of having a stand-in who would wear an earpiece and deliver speeches while they remain in their basement. Speaker 1 dismisses this idea, while Speaker 2 mentions the goal of getting Republicans elected. Speaker 3 reminds members not to engage in personal attacks. The conversation repeats, with Speaker 0 reiterating their willingness to have someone else do the talking and Speaker 1 dismissing the idea again. The transcript ends with Speaker 0 expressing their acceptance of this arrangement.

The speaker asserts that the more people see the subject, the more they will like her, citing her effectiveness in the senate, particularly her focus on families and ability to collaborate. The speaker highlights her role in pushing for $35 insulin for senior citizens, with the goal of extending it to everyone. When asked about Trump taking credit for this, the speaker claims Trump takes credit for things he doesn't do and gets blamed for things he does, suggesting he is losing his bearings.