reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 suggests Speaker 1 is aligned with President Trump and has identified over $100 billion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 responds that people whose fraudulent money is taken away get upset and want to harm him and Tesla because he is stopping government corruption. He attributes this to "bad people" doing "bad things." Speaker 0 expresses concern that those hurt by these actions will be dealership employees and Tesla factory workers, which he finds despicable due to perceived political differences.

To restore trust in government, we need to provide the American people with the truth, which many fear Donald Trump might reveal. The public desires transparency, especially regarding issues like Russiagate and other significant events. As an American citizen, I want to see the truth about corruption in Washington, which has persisted for decades. The recent election offered a chance to move past dynastic families that have contributed to this corruption. With Trump in office, there's hope he will act as a conduit for truth across all departments. Congress will play a crucial role in oversight, allowing for revelations of corruption and better budgeting practices.

There needs to be Democrats who walk the walk and talk the talk because hypocrisy gets exploited to fuel cynicism. Insider trading in Congress is a prime example. Members of Congress sit on a committee, get information about a drug or a contract, and immediately make a call to their stockbroker, changing things so their portfolio swells. This is done on public trust, taxpayer finance, and public facilities while regulating the market they're trading on. The speaker questions why people act like money only corrupts Republicans.

I want to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People like President Musk and Trump are using their public offices to enrich themselves by billions of dollars. Why is there silence about looking into the actions of the president and the richest man on Earth? I will say President Musk and Trump often use their public offices to enrich themselves. I will withdraw calling Trump "grifter-in-chief." It's despicable that this committee is silencing me for bringing up that Trump is making millions of dollars.

Speaker 0 suggests Trump's history of targeting businesses and leaders who he perceives as political enemies should make him "radioactive" to the business world. Speaker 1 notes that, with the exception of Elon Musk, few CEOs of large companies publicly support Trump, fearing retribution. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on a statement that some business leaders support Trump because they believe they can manipulate him. Speaker 1 explains that these leaders see the relationship as transactional, believing they can influence policy with the right amount of money, citing crypto as an example.

Speaker 0 argues that there is insider information at play, noting that people inside the administration are making huge stock bets ahead of President Trump’s announcements on oil, with tens of millions of dollars in Brent crude futures short bets placed twenty minutes before the news breaks, and questions why there is no investigation. They assert that somebody has insider information and imply it should be illegal. Speaker 1 discusses potential legal and regulatory issues surrounding prediction markets, distinguishing them from traditional gambling. They explain that in Texas they cannot gamble on sports via apps, but in Missouri those apps work, and prediction markets are not considered gambling. They reference a Trump administration stance that effectively signaled insiders within the administration should stop gambling in prediction markets, suggesting awareness that people inside the administration were making plays on these markets. Speaker 1 notes uncertainty about whether the big players are inside or outside the administration, but emphasizes that the insider trading angle during the administration hasn’t received much attention. They recount following the topic sinceTrump’s election, noting early claims that Trump would crash the stock market, which Speaker 1 says did not happen and, in fact, the market rose for those who invested then. They describe the market as fluctuating with corrections, and remark that Pam Bondi stated the market was hovering around 49,000–50,000, implying continued manipulation. Speaker 1 asserts that Trump often makes declarations on Fridays right before the stock market closes, attributing this pattern to market manipulation. They claim to have bet against the narrative that the stock market would collapse under Trump, and that those bets performed well. The speaker says they feel a bit guilty about profiting, noting that friends who run stock brokerages look at them as if from the future, and claims that the White House is effectively running an insider trading operation. They state that knowing someone is coming to the White House or that a person from a big tech company is arriving allows one to get ahead of the news and secure about a 5% stock bump, or a 5% gain by investing before the news becomes public. Speaker 0 adds that with a Trump tweet, markets swing drastically—either ending civilization or extending a ceasefire—implying that market movement is driven by Trump’s statements.

On February 13th, Senator Richard Burr sold off $1,650,000 in stocks and then called his brother-in-law, who, after a brief conversation, sold $265,000 of his own portfolio. This timing raised suspicions, but I know the brother-in-law and find it hard to believe he would do that, but I also understand how everyone in Washington knows everyone. Around that time, headlines might have prompted anyone to sell. The real issue is the initial call from Burr. Afterward, Burr allegedly had private conversations with donors who then also sold off their assets before the market crashed in early March, saving themselves millions. Unusual Whales exposed this, leading to SEC and DOJ investigations, but despite finding information, no charges were filed. Burr retired, fitting the familiar pattern of politicians benefiting from their positions without facing consequences.

**Speaker 0:** Regarding tariff revenue, President Trump considered replacing income tax with it, especially to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. Is that a possibility? Also, considering Elon Musk, isn't one of Doge's objectives to get rid of the federal bureaucracy? Who was really running the White House when Joe Biden was in office? **Speaker 1:** China tariff revenue could bring in between $500 billion and $1 trillion over ten years. We expect this tariff revenue will make it much easier for Republicans to pass a bill. **Speaker 2:** Many people failed to cover the fact that Joe Biden was mentally incompetent and was not running the country. A president is elected by the whole American people. The existential threat to democracy is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime tenured civil servants who believe they answer to no one. President Trump is removing federal bureaucrats who are defying democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders.

The press conference with Trump and Musk seemed like a PR stunt to combat Musk's declining popularity. My Republican colleagues are shocked by how unpopular he's become among their constituents. It felt like Trump was trying to assert his authority. I'm calling for transparency from Musk, demanding he release his financial disclosures. His claim of full transparency doesn't align with efforts to keep records private. Musk has access to a lot of data through government contracts, which creates potential conflicts of interest with his companies like Tesla and SpaceX. I think he's giving a new meaning to the word corruption. While Musk is the richest man, this isn't just about money; it's about control. He can use information to enrich himself and his billionaire friends.

We champion transparency and accountability. Donald Trump attempted to manipulate our democracy for personal gain, but Senate Democrats are fighting back. We've launched a whistleblower portal to address concerns about potential wrongdoing, specifically related to the "Doge" issue. We urge Americans to report any observed misconduct. We believe in government transparency and accountability, values this administration has neglected. This whistleblower portal is a step towards restoring those vital principles.

The speaker accuses someone of insider trading, suggesting that it is evident from their disclosures. They mention that the person receives classified briefings as a member of a committee, and it would be easy for a competent FBI officer to investigate their trading and communication. The speaker questions how the person became a committee member and made trades just before a stock hike. They emphasize that it was not luck but a well-informed trade.

The speaker asserts that financial systems face unprecedented risks due to economic chaos from President Trump and Elon Musk. Another speaker states that Trump ran on curbing wasteful spending, citing the $36 trillion national debt as fiscally and morally irresponsible. They claim Trump is the final decision-maker, contrasting this with the previous administration where key decisions were allegedly made by others, possibly during the president's "afternoon nap time." The speaker suggests labeling figures like Jake Sullivan, Ron Klain, and Jill Biden as "co-presidents" during that time and calls for honesty regarding past and present events.

Speaker 1 is concerned about potential insider trading within the White House related to market fluctuations caused by the president's tariff flip-flops. Speaker 1 is writing to the White House to demand transparency about who knew in advance about the tariff changes and whether anyone profited from this information. While acknowledging the likelihood of the administration stonewalling, Speaker 1 believes that evidence of insider trading will eventually surface through scrutiny of individuals' financial transactions. Speaker 1 cites the administration's involvement with meme coins and alleged self-interested dealings with Elon, as well as dodging oversight agencies, as reasons to suspect the worst and to investigate further. Speaker 1 suggests Congress should investigate, but they will demand answers from the administration.

The speaker criticizes a colleague for not asking serious questions and reveals a difference between the Trump and Biden families' foreign business dealings. They suggest that if the damning information on money laundering involved the Trump family, they would be in jail. The speaker addresses Miss Murphy, mentioning whistleblowers who have had enough and asks for her opinion. Miss Murphy expresses support for whistleblowers and the FBI. The speaker questions if she feels torn, but she denies it. The speaker expresses disappointment in her lack of torn feelings and suggests it reveals her allegiances. They mention their own service in the SEAL teams and praise those who prioritize their oath to the country over their organization. They criticize the FBI for not protecting the American people.

Speaker 0 lays out a sequence of observations and interpretations regarding financial markets and political moves. They begin by noting a pattern: gold and silver prices had been moving up by record amounts, the dollar had fallen to a four-year low in the dollar index, and the dollar had even fallen to an all-time record low against the Swiss franc, while the bond market was starting to roll over. From this, the speaker infers that something unusual and potentially destabilizing was occurring in the financial landscape, and they suggest that this situation prompted a response from the administration. The speaker then posits that Scott Bessent, along with other people who are close to the president, communicated a message to the president indicating that there was a problem that needed attention. In the speaker’s view, the Trump administration recognized the need to act in order to stop the perceived slide or derail the momentum of the developing situation and to buy some time. The implication is that the administration deliberately sought to intervene in the markets in a way that would slow or modify the trajectory of events. Following this assessment, the speaker asserts that the administration coordinated with short sellers and with big banks to target silver, suggesting a conspiratorial collaboration aimed at affecting market dynamics. This is presented as part of a broader strategy to exert influence and to create the impression that actions were being taken to counter the market’s movement. A key element of the narrative is the announcement of Kevin Walsh as the new chair of the Federal Reserve. The speaker describes there being a coordinated public relations campaign around Walsh’s appointment, implying that the public portrayal of the move was designed to show that Trump had done something unexpected. The narrative further claims that the campaign depicted Walsh as an inflation hawk and suggested that he might advocate for rate hikes and perhaps even return to quantitative tightening. Crucially, the speaker asserts that Walsh was selected because he has marching orders to do exactly what Donald Trump wants him to do. The claim is that, if this were not the case, Walsh would not have been chosen for the job. The speaker contrasts this with any public portrayal of Walsh as independent or hawkish in a neutral sense, arguing that those portrayals are not genuine according to the speaker’s interpretation. In sum, the transcript presents a view that a set of market signals prompted a deliberate, coordinated intervention by the Trump administration, including collaboration with short sellers, the strategic targeting of silver, and the appointment of Kevin Walsh to the Fed as a means to implement a policy direction aligned with the president’s objectives.

Speaker 1 is concerned about potential insider trading within the White House related to the President's tariff decisions. They are writing to the White House to demand transparency about who had advance knowledge of the President's policy changes and whether anyone profited from it. While acknowledging the likelihood of stonewalling, Speaker 1 believes that evidence of insider trading will eventually surface through scrutiny of financial transactions. They highlight a broader context of alleged corruption within the administration, including involvement with meme coins and perceived leniency towards Elon Musk's businesses. Given this environment, Speaker 1 believes it is necessary to assume the worst and investigate potential wrongdoing. They suggest Congress should also investigate.

An individual states that someone is working to help the blind see and asks if the work comes down to aligning with President Donald Trump to identify over $100 billion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. The speaker responds that people get upset when fraudulently obtained money is taken away, and that they want to harm him for stopping their fraud and want to hurt Tesla for stopping government waste and corruption. The speaker concludes that bad people will do bad things. The first individual states that those who will end up hurt are the people who work in dealerships and those who build Teslas, which is despicable on the part of those who may have a political difference.

The speaker addresses staffers pleading the fifth before Congress, suggesting they should defend the former president's fitness for office. Their silence indicates a significant problem, possibly wishing for preemptive pardons due to potential accountability from figures like James Comer and Byron Donaldson. The speaker claims this situation reveals the largest cover-up and corruption in the nation's history, surpassing Watergate and Benghazi. They accuse these individuals of hypocrisy, alleging they engaged in the very corruption they falsely attributed to President Trump, while 80 million Americans recognized the truth. The speaker concludes that this is why President Trump won with a resounding mandate and is back behind that resolution.

The speaker discusses Trump's past claim of having "caught them all" and questions the lack of arrests of DC bureaucrats. They suggest Elon Musk and the "Doge team" may have uncovered government fraud. The speaker references Elon Musk's statement about being careful not to push too hard on corruption, fearing for his life. They highlight Trump's statement about discovering "horrible" fraud and abuse, and his press secretary, Caroline Leavitt, confirming a significant discovery that is not yet ready for release. The speaker mentions Tim Birchitt quoting Elon Musk accusing Chuck Schumer of diverting money and Birchitt's claim that Elon has a paper trail going back to Washington DC, suggesting someone should be arrested. Birchitt also inquired about spouses of members of Congress leasing property to the federal government, which can be verified through public records. The speaker concludes by referencing Elon Musk's recent posts about investigating members of Congress who have amassed wealth quickly, suggesting that "the storm has arrived."

The issue at hand is the disparity in asset ownership among members of Congress. Many Americans question how certain politicians achieve impressive investment returns, especially those involved in stock trades during the COVID pandemic. This isn't just a perception; it's a real problem. Congress members are trading based on information not available to the public. While insider trading is prohibited, members often receive information that, while not classified as insider information by securities laws, still provides them with a significant advantage. This situation raises concerns about fairness and transparency in financial dealings among lawmakers.

All the other side wants to talk about is Elon Musk, but where were they when Fauci was forcing vaccine and mask mandates? Or when Mayorkas was letting illegal aliens invade our country? Or when Cardona was targeting those who disagreed with his transgender ideology? Or when Gensler was blocking financial market growth? They didn't care because it benefited them. Musk is an employee of the President, and we have a mandate to do what he's doing. His job is to carry out the will of the people. The Democrats have grown and weaponized the administrative state, and people are fed up. We're talking about $2.7 trillion in improper payments since 2003, possibly the biggest money laundering scandal ever, and the other side doesn't care. Is it because this money funds their side? It funds media outlets that cover for them, left-wing NGOs, and transgender activism. This money, taken from Americans, is being used against them.

I had two questions regarding tariff revenue and the IRS. President Trump discussed replacing income tax with tariff revenue to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. The China tariff revenue, estimated between $500 billion and a trillion dollars over ten years, should facilitate the passage of a Republican bill. I also asked about comments regarding cutting $50 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse by unelected bureaucrats. The narrative from the president's critics is that Elon Musk is an unelected bureaucrat. Is one of Doge's objectives to get rid of the federal bureaucracy? The executive power is vested in the president. The existential threat to democracy is the unelected bureaucracy. President Trump is removing federal bureaucrats who defy democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders, which are the will of the whole American people.