reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Only 20 members of Congress were willing to stand up because frontline members, even those in districts that Joe Biden won, felt loyalty to Kevin McCarthy. They argued that if someone takes money from lobbyists for years and then turns against them, no one will support them again. They rely on this system to resource their campaigns. Some members fear disrupting the system and prefer calm waters. They oppose anything that creates turbulence. This mindset is prevalent in both the Republican and Democrat conferences, leading to groupthink in the unit party.

In Washington DC, there is a perception of corruption and control by the deep state and intelligence agencies. The process starts with freshman orientation, where lobbyists for special interest groups wine and dine new politicians, influencing their decisions. By aligning with the leadership and lobbyists, politicians are protected and nurtured, but at the cost of compromising their own beliefs. Those who resist this system may face extortion and attempts to compromise or cancel them. If these tactics fail, there are significant financial resources dedicated to destroying those who challenge the narrative.

Many members of Congress have an APAC representative, akin to a babysitter, who communicates on behalf of APAC. This person is often a constituent but is closely tied to APAC. On the Republican side, it's common for members to have lunch with their APAC contacts, who have their personal cell numbers for direct communication. Some Congress members have mentioned consulting their "APAC guy" to influence ad campaigns. This relationship is not publicly acknowledged, as it doesn't benefit Congress members to reveal they have a connection with a foreign entity.

There are 1,800 big pharma lobbyists in Washington, influencing policies significantly. This raises concerns about their impact on public health and safety. To combat this, one solution is to prohibit government officials from becoming lobbyists after their term. Currently, there are regulations that limit this, but they often allow for loopholes, enabling former officials to work for companies they once regulated. This creates conflicts of interest, as seen with the Sackler family and the FDA. While addressing these issues is crucial, it often gets sidelined by other pressing matters.

Former federal officials are cashing in as foreign lobbyists, influencing policies that send jobs and industries overseas. Young individuals with no skills are making hundreds of thousands by leveraging their connections in Washington. Even worse, foreign lobbyists are working on presidential campaigns, akin to having spies during the Cold War. The list includes high-ranking officials and even a trade commission member who switched sides mid-negotiation. This must be stopped on day 1.

Speaker 2 notes that some members of Congress may be personally compromised and don’t want the truth to get out. Speaker 3 says: “You got powerful people, and they write the big checks” who “love their money” and protect it. He describes a honeypot tactic, noting Russians used it; overseas trips can lead to scandal, with a well-dressed man whispering, “There’s tapes out on you” before a key vote. He recalls a trip with Andy Biggs and being pressured after sleeping with someone abroad. He cites a Chinese prostitution ring busted in Washington, DC with a client list of “High ranking officials, in government, elected officials, and lobbyists,” whose story disappeared. He says these people are “employed by forces that want to control Congress” via spouses or employment agencies, “they employ them.” He concludes, “America's not buying that… 12% of the population votes, this is what you get.”

Washington DC is seen as a place where anyone can become wealthy, especially if they have the right connections or last name. The Bidens are not the only ones who have profited from their political power. Congresswoman Debbie Dingell defends nepotism, saying that hard work is necessary. However, questions arise about Dingell's knowledge of healthcare stocks. She purchased $50,000 worth of Medtronic stock, and shortly after, the company received FDA approval for a new device, causing the stock to rise. Dingell's committee also granted Medtronic $27 million. It seems like Dingell may have had inside information. Attempts to contact Dingell for clarification have been unsuccessful.

Tim Burgett claims that Mitch McConnell is blocking the SAVE Act, and suggests it’s partly out of meanness because McConnell doesn’t like Trump, who helped him in the last race. He asserts Trump’s support for McConnell’s victory was extensive and says loyalty is valued in this game, yet McConnell apparently lacks it. Burgett questions whether the obstruction is coming from McConnell himself or a staff member, arguing that McConnell is increasingly like Joe Biden in his last years, with diminished cognizant level. He recounts an incident from a conference meeting where he asked a committee chair how much money was in the bill, and the chair responded, “I don’t know.” When Burgett pressed, he insisted, “No. No. How much money is in this dadgum bill?” Burgett notes that the chair’s staffers reacted to the question, and ultimately reveals that for over six weeks the chair never showed up and nobody knew where she was, while her staff kept running the office. He describes the chair as being in a retirement village for people in cognizant decline, using that harsh characterization to illustrate what he sees as dysfunction in Washington. Burgett argues that staffers are too close to lobbyists and too influential, effectively running the government, and that this needs to stop. He says he’s called it out to leadership, but they do nothing about it, and asserts that this is why the SAVE Act has stalled: Mitch McConnell, and he claims, a staffer running his show rather than McConnell himself. He concludes that the state is pitiful, urging listeners to contact their leadership and tell them this cannot continue. He closes by thanking everyone for sending him there.

Many members of Congress have an "APAC person," akin to a babysitter, who communicates on behalf of APAC. This person is often a constituent but is closely tied to APAC. On the Republican side, it's common for members to have lunch with their APAC contacts, who have direct access to them. Some members have mentioned consulting their "APAC guy" to influence advertising decisions. It's surprising that this arrangement isn't widely known, as it could be perceived negatively by constituents. Congress members likely keep this relationship private because it doesn't serve their interests to disclose that they have a close connection with a representative of a foreign entity.

Legislators and lobbyists meet at a private ALEC event in a Georgia hotel to discuss laws. ALEC, funded by corporations, influences legislation with equal votes from corporations and lawmakers. Lobbyists subsidize legislators' attendance. Lawmakers are not required to disclose payments for travel to these events. Lawmakers exempt themselves from transparency laws. A senator who sponsored an ALEC-influenced bill later criticizes the group. Corporations like Coca Cola have left ALEC. Lawmakers deny open records requests for event reimbursements. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the legislative process.

Members of Congress on the Republican side have an "APAC person," described as an "APAC babysitter," who regularly communicates with them regarding APAC matters. These individuals are often constituents but are deeply involved with APAC. Members meet with them when they visit D.C., exchange cell numbers, and have ongoing conversations. Some members have said they would "talk to my APAC guy" to potentially influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this arrangement is not more widely known, suggesting that members of Congress may not want to publicize their relationships with individuals representing a foreign country, as it doesn't benefit them politically.

Congressional leadership meets with lobbyists and corporate power in secret to negotiate deals for the federal spending bill. They then present a 5,000-page omnibus bill to members of Congress, pressuring them to sign it or risk blocking funding for troops and veterans' benefits. This is seen as blackmail and extortion. Congressman Matt Gaetz proposed a simple solution: present individual funding proposals for debate and voting. However, they know that funding for war and military corporations would face opposition. Instead, they manipulate the situation by threatening to cut off benefits for vulnerable groups, like veterans and the elderly. Gaetz's efforts to keep the government open and ensure troops are paid are commendable. This highlights the influence of lobbyists and multinational corporations.

The speaker acknowledges the strong influence of donors, special interests, and lobbyists over politicians. They claim to have turned down significant amounts of money from these sources, stating that they are not accepting any money from anyone except the people of the country. Speaker 1 brings up the speaker's past relationship with Hillary Clinton, suggesting that it worked for her. The speaker responds by saying that as a businessman, it was their job to get along with people, including politicians. They emphasize that they did a good job in doing so.

Congress is seen as a rich person's club, with members making profitable stock trades. This issue needs fixing as it's a current problem, not just a future concern. Members have access to valuable information before the public, leading to unfair advantages in trading.

Speaker 0 asserts that they have never taken money from the Israel lobby and asks if Speaker 1 has. Speaker 1 clarifies that APAC raises a lot of money for him, but emphasizes that the fundraisers are individuals, not the PAC itself, meaning it’s a misnomer to say the PAC raises money. He describes APAC as an American lobby and explains that APAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He admits APAC is not a “foreign lobby” and says its purpose is not effectively defined as a single objective. He states his own entry into Congress thirteen years ago with the goal of being the leading defender of Israel in the United States Senate and says he has worked every day to that end. He notes that APAC is sometimes more effective than he wishes and then characterizes APAC as “a fever swamp of terrified of APAC.” Speaker 0 challenges the idea that APAC lobbies on behalf of the Israeli government, insisting that APAC lobbies for a foreign government. Speaker 1 responds that APAC is not lobbying for a foreign government; it is lobbying for a strong US–Israel relationship and for America and Israel to be closely allied. Speaker 0 maintains that APAC is lobbying for the interests of another country and reiterates that it is not true that APAC has nothing to do with the government. Speaker 0 asks about how much contact APAC leaders have with the government of Israel, and Speaker 1 acknowledges some contact, suggesting that the government of Israel is often frustrated with APAC, and asks whether they talk. He compares the situation to lobbying for more US–Mexico trade, noting that one would talk to both sides. Speaker 0 accepts that there are many countries that lobby Washington, including Israel, and expresses familiarity with how lobbying works, including knowing Americans who lobby on behalf of foreign governments and even being related to some. The central question for Speaker 0 is not whether foreign governments lobby the United States, but why it isn’t admitted as a common practice. He states that it’s true that many countries lobby Washington, including Israel, and asks why they aren’t registered as foreign lobbies. Speaker 1 responds that they are not registered as such.

Congressman Gates took us on a tour of the Appropriations Committee, which oversees government funding. We discussed Mr. Rutherford, a member of both the Ethics and Appropriations Committees, who made significant stock trades, including buying Raytheon stock on the day Russia invaded Ukraine. This raises ethical concerns about profiting from war. We noted that energy sector trading is prevalent among congressional members, particularly those on the Energy Subcommittee, like Michael Guest, who has traded extensively in energy and online gaming stocks. Despite being on the Ethics Committee, these members are among the most active traders, showing no signs of slowing down or addressing potential ethical issues.

A report reveals that at least 40 members of Congress violated conflict of interest laws in the past year, highlighting a troubling trend where violations outnumber new legislation. Lawmakers prioritize stock trading over legislative duties, with some making significant profits from insider knowledge. For instance, Rick Allen from Georgia reported $8.5 million in stock transactions after 6.5 years, using excuses like clerical errors. Both Democrats and Republicans are implicated, with minimal penalties for violations, often just $200. This systemic issue allows politicians to amass wealth while ordinary citizens would face severe consequences for similar actions. The discussion also touches on campaign contributions from Wall Street, exemplified by Nikki Haley's financial rise linked to corporate relationships. The segment emphasizes the lack of accountability in Congress and the influence of corporate money in politics.

Members of Congress on the Republican side have an "APAC person," described as an "APAC babysitter" who constantly communicates with them on behalf of APAC. These individuals are often constituents but are deeply connected to APAC. Members meet with them in DC, exchange cell numbers, and have ongoing conversations. Four members of Congress have told the speaker they would consult their "APAC guy" to potentially influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this arrangement is not more widely known. The speaker believes congressmen conceal this relationship because it could be detrimental to reveal they have a close connection with someone representing a foreign country.

There are members of Congress who have become strangely wealthy, accumulating, for example, $20 million while earning $200,000 a year. It is unclear how this is possible. The goal is to figure out how this happens and stop it.

Lobbyists start their day by attending breakfast meetings with members of Congress, where they often donate significant amounts to campaign funds while making specific requests for support on legislation. They interact with a diverse range of interest groups, from defense contractors like Lockheed Martin to cannabis associations. Throughout the day, lobbyists work the halls, engaging with congressional staff to secure commitments for their causes. Additionally, many lobbying firms hire family members of Congress, which raises concerns about conflicts of interest. For instance, a former senator's wife and son became lobbyists, prompting questions about whether their influence stems from their connections rather than their skills.

Politicians have close ties with APAC, like a babysitter. They have lunch and conversations with APAC members who influence their decisions. Some congress members even ask their "APAC guy" to tone down ads. This buddy system is surprising and not widely known.

People that members of Congress are sleeping with, either legally or not, are employed by forces that want to control members of Congress. That's what they used to do. knew of instances where that happened when I was in the legislature, and now they do it through the employment agencies. Through employment agencies. I have noticed, just having spent my life in DC, that people's personal lives are getting weirder in the Congress. It's not just sleeping with your scheduler, it's weirder than that now. I never heard of anybody participating in an orgy in Washington DC in my entire life, and I've heard a lot about it recently.

Our undercover reporter explored how funding for congressmen is secured. David Oaks, a prominent pro-Israel advocate, invited Tony to a fundraising event, then called him to discuss details. The group is described as a leading and wealthy donor network in DC; Oaks emails a list of the people the group supports and notes that “this is the biggest ad on the global group and the that’s the wealthiest in DC.” The fundraiser took place in a wealthy Washington suburb. “The feedback group, it makes a difference. It really, really does. It’s the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal. Congressmen and senators don't do anything unless you pressure them,” a participant says. Speaker 2 explains the current contribution limit: “From any person to a candidate is $2,700.” They outline how to increase influence by coordinating many donors: “if you really want to add punch to that type of buying of favors, you get 50 or 100 people together at an event like this, all chipping in $2,700 and then you bundle it all together and hand over the total amount to the lawmaker.” This can total “anywhere up to a quarter million dollars,” enabling a group with aligned demands to effectively buy access. The fundraiser was for Anthony Brown, who ran for Congress in November 2016. One speaker claims, “This is direct spending. Brown's gonna use that.” Another adds, “He's actually saying, we're buying this, these office holders. And that's the point. We're chipping in all this money so we can hand over 100,000 or 200,000 to the office holders so we can buy them.” Oaks recalls a similar New York event with Wall Street donors. A participant comments, “In New York, we're just Taliban. We don't ask a goddamn thing about the Palestinians. You know why? Because it's a tiny issue. That's why.” The process involves backroom meetings with congressmen, where donors’ goals are stated, and donors like Jeff and Calvin—worth about $250,000,000—are highlighted. One attendee describes handing the lawmaker an envelope with 20 credit cards, each usable for a thousand dollars. There is a disclosure law intended to reveal potential money laundering in events like this: funds earmarked must disclose who showed up and how much each contributed to the lawmaker. The group putting on the event has no name and is described as an ad hoc political group; it pools money for legal reasons. The group avoids earmarking law by not taking money into its own account and then handing it to the candidate; instead, it collects credit card information and turns it over directly to the candidate. Campaign finance reports would only show individual donors, with no record that they acted together as a bundling group or that they attended the event. What would be visible is that person A gave $2,700, person B gave $2,700, and so on. In New York, the arrangement is described as a $10 over two cycles minimum commitment; some donors give more. If one donor gives $5,000 and another contributes $100, totaling $5,100, they acknowledge that would be illegal due to laundering of campaign contributions; the limit applies to the individual, and laundering through others is not permitted.

Congressman Gates offered a tour, highlighting the Appropriations Committee's access to government funding information. He pointed out Mr. Rutherford's involvement in both the ethics and appropriations committees, noting his stock trades, including purchasing Raytheon stock on the day Russia invaded Ukraine. This raises ethical concerns about profiting from war. The discussion continued about other members, like Michael Guest, who trades heavily in energy stocks while serving on the Energy Sub Committee of Appropriations. Despite being on the ethics committee, he is a prolific trader, capitalizing on insider information. There seems to be no intention from these members to slow down their trading activities, and instead, their trading pace appears to be increasing.