TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Any other questions? What concerns are there about animosity from the incoming Trump administration? I'm not worried. I invited the incoming president to Los Angeles and had a positive call with the administration. I believe I will maintain good relations with my former colleagues who are up for confirmation. Is the incoming president expected to come here? Yes, I received a positive response during our conversation yesterday. I represent Altadena, a diverse community with various socioeconomic backgrounds, and they are suffering. I am confident the president will visit. We also discussed possible timing for the visit.

Congress members have "APAC people," essentially APAC babysitters, who are deeply embedded in APAC and have direct contact with the members. Some congressmen admit they will consult their "APAC guy" to influence ad campaigns. The speaker questions why this relationship is not public knowledge, suggesting it's not beneficial for congressmen to be seen as having a buddy system with a foreign country representative. The speaker also shares Thomas Massey's anti-war stance, highlighting his concerns about escalating tensions with Iran and the influence of the military-industrial complex. Massey points out that as soon as the US stopped spending $50 billion a year in Afghanistan, they started spending $50 billion in Ukraine. He suggests that Massey's anti-war position transcends specific conflicts or groups, aligning with a desire to stop people from dying, a sentiment the speaker associates with Donald Trump's campaign promises.

There's support for clearing government waste on both sides, but also concern about the access Musk and Doge staffers have to sensitive data, especially given Musk's investments with China. As a congressman, I can say that the IRS has been a nightmare. When I write letters of concern for my constituents, it takes up to six months to get a response. The IRS has hundreds of groups with access to sensitive information, yet there were no complaints. Now that Elon Musk is involved and potentially making changes, suddenly everyone is upset. If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to be asking questions. Congressmen will be in trouble when this paper trail leads back to them.

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.

The president's strategy drove recent events. He and the speaker discussed it at length on Sunday. The president may have goaded China into a bad position, leading them to be perceived as bad actors. The U.S. is willing to cooperate with allies and trading partners who did not retaliate. The message was simple: don't retaliate, and things will turn out well.

Speaker 0: Decision on whether to supply Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine or sell them to NATO and let them sell them to Ukraine. Speaker 1: Yeah. I've sort of made a decision pretty much if if if you consider. Yeah. I I think I wanna find out what they're doing with them. Yes. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: Donald Trump's recent statement to the press about mulling over sending Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine has elicited a response from the Kremlin today. Putin announced that the peace process with the Trump administration to end the Ukraine war is officially, quote, unquote, exhausted. Trump and Putin have had a very, you know, strange relationship, a little touch and go since Trump returned to the presidency. At first, to end the Ukraine war on his very first day in office, Trump has meandered a bit on the issue and is now apparently settling on the Biden administration's policy of arming Ukraine and NATO to the hilt. But can Tomahawk cruise missiles even make much of a difference given that the Russian military has achieved supremacy on the battlefield and maintained that dominance for at least the last year and a half, maybe even longer, if you will. We're now joined by, and we're so pleased he's with us, retired US Army colonel Douglas MacGregor. He's the author of I'm sorry. We also have Brandon Weichert with us, the author of Ukraine. Go cross wires there, a disaster of their own making, how the West lost to Ukraine. Thank you both for being with us. Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 4: Thank you for having me. Speaker 2: Colonel McGregor, welcome to the show. We're so glad to especially have your perspective on this. And what we're gonna kinda do is a tour, if you will, around the globe because there's several, ongoing and pending conflicts. Right? So let's start with this breaking news out of Russia where Putin says that these talks, these negotiations are exhausted. Are they, as a matter of fact, exhausted, colonel? Speaker 3: Well, I think he was referring specifically to what happened in Alaska. And I think president Trump showed up, you know, in grandiose fashion with the goal of overwhelming, president Putin and his team with his charm and grace and power, and it all failed miserably. President Trump never really listened carefully to anything the Russians said to him. He didn't read any of the material that was pertinent to the discussion. He came completely unprepared, and that was the the message that came out after the meeting. So the Russians were very disappointed. If you don't read their proposals, you don't read what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish, then you're not gonna get very far. So now, president Trump has completed his transformation into Joe Biden. He's become another version of Joe Biden. Speaker 2: What it is so unexpected. And, you know, it's hard for a lot of a lot of Trump voters to hear because specifically part of voting for him and the mandate that he had going into this term was in these conflicts. Right? Specifically, the one in Ukraine. He didn't start any new conflicts while in office in the first term. Why this version of Trump this term? I know you, like I, look into the hiring, the administration, the pressures from the outside on the president. What is influencing where he is now on Ukraine, colonel MacGregor? Speaker 3: Well, that's a that's a difficult question. I mean, first of all, he grossly underestimated the complexity of the of the war. If you don't understand the foundations for the conflict, how this conflict came about, I mean, I I was standing around listening to someone like Brzezinski in the nineteen nineties trying to tell president Clinton that it was critical to address Ukraine's borders because Eastern Ukraine was, quote, unquote, Russified and effectively not Ukrainian. Nobody would listen to Brzezinski, and so we walked away from that very problem. And in the run up to this thing back in 2014, I was on several different programs, and I pointed to the electoral map, And it showed you who voted for what where. It was very obvious that the East and the Northeast voted to stay with the Russian pro Russian candidate, and everybody else voted against the pro Russian candidate. So none of this should come as a surprise, but I don't think president Trump is aware of any of that. I don't think he studied any of that. And so he's got a lot of people around him pushing him in the direction of the status quo. He went through this during his first term, disappointed all of us because he could never quite escape from the Washington status quo. So he simply returned to it, and I don't see anything positive occurring in the near future. Speaker 2: That's sort of the same as well, with other agencies like the the DOJ, which I wanna get into a little bit later. Brandon, you've been writing about this as a national interest. So what what do you make of it? Speaker 4: Well, I think that right now, this is a lot of vamping from Trump. I think the colonel is a 100% correct when he says Trump really didn't come prepared to the Alaska meeting. I think ultimately Trump's default is to still try to get a deal with Putin on things like rare earth mineral development and trade. I think it's very important to note, I believe it was Friday or Thursday of last week, Putin was on a stage at an event and he reiterated his desire to reopen trade relations with The United States and he wants to do a deal with Trump on multiple other fronts. So that's a positive thing. But ultimately, I think that people need to realize that Trump says a lot of stuff in the moment. The follow through is the question. I am very skeptical that he's actually going to follow through on the Tomahawk transfer if only because logistically, it's not practical. Ukraine lacks the launchers. They lack the training. The the targeting data has to come exclusively and be approved exclusively by the Pentagon, which means that Trump will be on the hook even more for Joe Biden's war, which runs against what he says he wants to get done, which is peace. Regardless of whether it's been exhausted or not that process, Trump I think default wants peace. So I think this is a lot of bluster and I think ultimately it will not lead to the Tomahawk transfer. Last of all because we don't have enough of these Tomahawks. Right? I mean, that that is a a finite amount. I think we have about 3,500 left in our arsenal. We have 400 we're sending to the Japanese Navy, and we're gonna need these systems for any other potential contingency in South America or God forbid another Middle East contingency or certainly in the Indo Pacific. So I think that at some point, the reality will hit, you know, hit the cameras and Trump will not actually follow through on this. Speaker 2: So speaking of South America, let's head that way. Colonel McGregor, I I don't know if you know. I've been covering this pretty extensively what's been going on with the Trump administration's actions on Venezuela. So a bit of breaking news. Today, the US State Department claims that Venezuela is planning to attack their embassy, which has a small maintenance and security board other than, you know, diplomatic staff. Meanwhile, Maduro's regime argues they're just foiled a right wing terrorist plot that's that was planning to stage a false flag against the US embassy to give the US Navy fleet. There's a lot off in Venezuela's coast the impetus to attack Maduro. I've been getting some pushback, you know, on this reporting related to Venezuela, because, you know, Trump's base largely doesn't want any new conflicts. They're afraid this is sort of foreign influence wanting wanting him to go there. Are we justified in what Trump is doing as far as the buildup and what we are hearing is an impending invasion? Is it is the Trump administration justified in this action, colonel MacGregor, in Venezuela? Speaker 3: No. I I don't think there's any, pressing pressing need for us to invade or attack Venezuela at all. But we have to go back and look at his actions to this point. He's just suspended diplomatic relations with Venezuela, which is usually a signal of some sort of impending military action. I don't know what he's being told. I don't know what sort of briefing he's received, what sort of planning has been discussed, but we need to keep a few things in mind. First of all, the Venezuelan people, whether they love or do not love Maduro, are very proud of their country, and they have a long history of rebelling against foreign influence, particularly against Spain. And they're not likely to take, an invasion or an intervention of any kind from The United States lately. Secondly, they've got about 400,000 people in the militias, but they can expect, at least a 100,000 or more paramilitaries to come in from Brazil and Colombia and other Latin American states. It's why the whole thing could result in a Latin American crusade against The United States. And finally, we ought to keep in mind that the coastline is 1,700 miles long. That's almost as long as the border between The United States and Mexico. The border with Brazil and with Colombia is each of them are about 1,380 kilometers long. You start running the math and you're dealing with an area the size of Germany and and France combined. This is not something that one should sink one's teeth in without carefully considering the consequences. So I don't know what the underlying assumptions are, but my own experience is that they're usually a series of what we call rosy scenarios and assume things that just aren't true. So I I'm very concerned we'll get into it. We'll waste a lot of time and money. We'll poison the well down there. If we really want access to the oil and and gas, I think we can get it without invading the place. And they also have emerald mines and gold mines. So I think they'd be happy to do business with us. But this obsession with regime change is very dangerous, and I think it's unnecessary. Speaker 2: That is definitely what it seems they're going for. When I talk to my sources, ChromaGregor, and then I'll get your take on it, Brandon, they say it's a four pronged issue. Right? That it's the drug that, of course, the drugs that come through Venezuela into The United States, Trend Aragua, which we know the ODNI and Tulsi Gabbard, DNI, Tulsi Gabbard was briefed on specifically, that the right of trend in Aragua and how they were flooded into the country, counterintelligence issues, a Venezuelan influence in, you know, in some of our intelligence operations, and, just the narco terrorist state that it is. But you feel that given even if all of that is true and the Venezuela oh, excuse me, in the election fraud. Right? The election interference via the Smartmatic software. Given all that, you still feel it's not best to invade, colonel. You how do we handle it? How do we counter these threats coming from Venezuela? Speaker 3: Well, first of all, you secure your borders. You secure your coastal waters. You get control of the people who are inside The United States. We have an estimated 50,000,000 illegals. Somewhere between twenty five and thirty million of them poured into the country, thanks to president Biden's betrayal of the American people and his decision to open the borders with the help of mister Mayorkas that facilitated this massive invasion. I would start at home. The drug problem is not down in Venezuela. The drug problem is here in The United States. If you're serious, anybody who deals in drugs or is involved in human trafficking, particularly child trafficking, should face, the death penalty. Unless you do those kinds of things, you're not gonna fundamentally change the problem here. Now as the narco state title, I think, is a lot of nonsense. The drugs overwhelmingly come out of Colombia. They don't come out of Venezuela. A very small amount goes through Venezuela. I'm sure there are generals in the Venezuelan army that are skimming off the top and putting extra cash in their banks, but it's not a big it's not a big source from our standpoint. We have a much more serious problem in Mexico right now. Mexico is effectively an organized crime state, and I don't think, what Maduro is doing is is really, in that same category. On the other hand, I think Maduro is courting the Chinese and the Russians. And I think he's doing that because he feels threatened by us, and he's looking for whatever assistance or support he can get. And right now, given our behavior towards the Russians in Ukraine, it makes infinite sense for the Russians to cultivate a proxy against us in Central And South America. This is the way things are done, unfortunately. We there are consequences for our actions. I don't think we've thought any of them through. Speaker 2: Well, in in in talking about turning this into a broader conflict or a bigger problem, I I I I know, Brandon, you had heard that that Russia basically told Maduro, don't look to us. Don't come to us. But now this was a couple weeks ago. Yep. Yep. Like you just said, colonel MacGregor, things have changed a little bit. Right? Especially looking at what Putin said today. So will Russia now come to Venezuela's aid, to Maduro's aid? Speaker 3: I think it's distinctly possible, but it's not going to be overt. It'll be clandestine. It'll be behind the scenes. The Chinese are also gonna do business with Maduro. They have an interest in the largest known vindicated oil reserves in the world. The bottom line is and this you go back to this tomahawk thing, which I think Brandon talked about. It's very, very important. The tomahawk is a devastating weapon. Can they be shot down? Absolutely. The Serbs shot them down back in 1999 during this Kosovo air campaign. However, it carries a pretty substantial warhead, roughly a thousand pounds. It has a range of roughly a thousand miles. And I think president Trump has finally been briefed on that, and he has said, yeah. I I wanna know where they're going to fire them, whom they're going to target. Well, the Ukrainians have targeted almost exclusively whatever they could in terms of Russian civilian infrastructure and Russian civilians. They've killed them as often and as much as they could. So the notion if you're gonna give these things to these people or you're gonna shoot for them, you can expect the worst, and that would precipitate a terrible response from the Russians. I don't think we understand how seriously attacks on Russian cities is gonna be taken by the Russians. So I would say, they will provide the Venezuelans with enough to do damage to us if if it's required, but I don't think they expect the Venezuelans to overwhelm us or march into America. That's Mexico's job right now with organized crime. That's where I think we have a much more serious problem. Speaker 4: I I agree with the colonel on that. I think also there's an issue. Now I happen to think we we because of the election fraud that you talk a lot about, Emerald, I think there is a threat in Maduro, and I I do think that that there is a more serious threat than we realize coming out of that sort of left wing miasma in Latin America. And I I think the colonel's correct though in saying that we're we're making it worse with some of our actions. I will point out on the technical side. I broke this story last week. The Venezuelan government, the military Padrino, the the defense minister there, claimed that his radar systems actually detected a tranche of US Marine Corps f 35 b's using these Russian made radars that they have. This is not the first time, by the way, a Russian made radar system using these really and I'm not going get into the technical details here, but using really innovative ways of detecting American stealth planes. It's not the first time a Russian system has been able to do this. And so we are now deploying large relatively large number of f 35 b's into the region. Obviously, it's a build up for some kind of strike package. And there are other countermeasures that the f 35 b has in the event it's detected. But I will point out that this plane is supposed to be basically invisible, and we think the Venezuelans are so technologically inferior, we do need to be preparing our forces for the fact that the Venezuelans will be using innovative tactics, in order to stymie our advances over their territory. It's not to say we can't defeat them, but we are not prepared, I don't think, for for having these systems, seen on radar by the Venezuelans, and that is something the Russians have helped the Venezuelans do. Speaker 2: Very complex. Before we run out of time, do wanna get your thoughts, colonel MacGregor, on, the expectation that Israel will strike Iran again. Will we again come to their aid? And do you think we should? Speaker 3: Well, first of all, stealth can delay detection but cannot resist it. Yeah. I think the stealth is grossly exaggerated in terms of its value. It causes an enormous price tag Yeah. When you buy the damn plane. And the f 35, from a readiness standpoint, is a disaster anyway. So, you know, I I think we have to understand that, yes, mister Netanyahu has to fight Iran. Iran has to be balkanized and reduced to rubble the way the Israelis with help from us and the British have reduced Syria to chaos, broken up into different parts. This is an Israeli strategy for the region. It's always been there. If you can balkanize your neighbors, your neighbors don't threaten you. Now I don't subscribe to the Israeli view that Iran is this permanent existential threat that has to be destroyed, but it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what they think. They think Iran is a permanent existential threat and therefore must be destroyed. Your question is, will they find a way to attack Iran? The answer is yes. Sooner rather than later. The longer they wait, the more robust and capable Iran becomes. And, I think that's in the near term that we'll see we'll see some trigger. Somehow, there'll be a trigger and Iran will strike. And will we support them? Absolutely. We're already moving assets into the region along with large quantities of missiles and ammunition, but our inventories, as I'm sure you're aware, are limited. We fired a lot of missiles. We don't have a surge capacity in the industrial base. We need one. Our factories are not operating twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. The Russian factories are. Their manufacturing base can keep up. And by the way, the Chinese are right there with them. They have the largest manufacturing base in the world. So if it comes down to who could produce and fire the most missiles, well, we're gonna lose that game, and Israel is gonna lose with us. But right now, I don't see any evidence that anyone's worried about that. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 2: You know what? Colonel McGregor, I I I don't know if I feel any safer after you joined us today. It is very concerning. It's it's a concerning situation we find ourselves in, and I feel like so many people because they feel the election turned out the way they wanted to wanted it to, are not concerned anymore. Right? But we are in Speaker 1: a finite amount of time and there's still great pressures upon the president. There are many voices whispering in his ear. And so we constantly have to be calling out what we Speaker 2: see and explaining to people why it matters. Speaker 3: Remember, this president has said this. Everybody dealing with the administration has said this. It's a very transactional administration. Yep. Follow the money. Who has poured billions into his campaign and bought the White House and Congress for him? When you understand those facts in, you can explain the policy positions. Speaker 1: And I think that's also why we're, the leading conversation we're seeing on acts and social media. Right now, Colonel McGregor, thank you so much for joining us today. We hope you'll come back soon. Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you. Speaker 2: And, Brandon, as always, good to see you, my friend. Thank you. Speaker 4: See you again. Nice to meet you, colonel. Speaker 3: Very nice to see you. Bye bye.

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.

The speaker states that the promise was to put America first, and believes there are still voices in the administration, such as J.D. Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, and RFK Junior, who could prevail. However, they were not persuasive in this case, but somebody was. The speaker claims that APAC, the Israeli lobby in congress, is very persuasive. The speaker observes that their colleagues' social media feeds all look the same, tweeting the same message about supporting Israel.

There's support for clearing government waste on both sides of the aisle, but also concern about the access Musk and Doge staffers have to sensitive data, especially given Musk's investments with China and billions from the government. When PayPal was owned by Elon Musk, there were no security breaches. The IRS is a nightmare, with folks not back to work years after COVID. As a Congressman, it takes me up to six months to get a response regarding constituent concerns. The IRS has hundreds of groups with access to sensitive data. People are only complaining now that Elon Musk is involved. The only reason to ask questions is if you're doing something crooked. Congressmen will have red faces when this paper trail leads back to them. People are pitching a fit because Musk is making needed changes.

Speaker 0 discusses a Daily Caller report claiming a US nuclear bomber fleet shares a fence with a trailer park linked to Chinese intelligence. A Chinese couple allegedly bought the trailer park and used multiple shell companies to conceal their identities. The park is in Missouri, near Whiteman Air Force Base, where America’s largest B-2 bomber fleet operates and where the B-2s would take off over land now owned by Chinese interests. The shell companies reportedly trace back to a convicted fraudster with alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Speaker 1 confirms Whiteman Air Force Base is in their district and notes it is the home of the B-2 stealth bomber and soon the B-21 Raider, which will increase the base’s size. This, they say, makes the Chinese investment more valuable. They describe the transaction as occurring in 2017. In January 2024, Missouri Governor Mike Parson issued an executive order prohibiting citizens or companies from foreign adversarial nations from owning property within 10 miles of a Department of Defense base, and Speaker 1 says they sought to expand that with the American Land and Property Protection Act. The Act would state that if you are a member of a foreign adversarial nation—China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia—neither a citizen nor a company of those nations can own property in the United States, including an outhouse. They argue that this should extend beyond specific states and bases. Speaker 0 questions why the law wouldn’t prevent ownership by Chinese individuals who already own property in the US, such as condos, and mentions that there is a Department of Treasury committee known as CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) that should review such acquisitions. They claim that under the Biden administration, CFIUS was not performing adequately, and that prior administrations also failed to do their job. They reference that CFIUS regulations were being developed but did not include certain bases on prior lists, prompting questions about why US military bases—one part of the nuclear triad—were not on the list for scrutiny. They list bases potentially affected by Chinese land purchases: Fort Bragg, Naval Air Station Norfolk, Wright-Patterson, and Whiteman Air Force Base. Speaker 0 asks how to stop B-2 bombers from flying over Chinese-owned land immediately. Speaker 1 suggests leveraging CFIUS under the Treasury Department and notes their position on the Financial Services General Government Appropriations subcommittee to push action and oversight of CFIUS.

We went to DC to meet with the congressional delegation and the White House to address this.

I can't believe I'm the only one without an APAC person! It's like having a babysitter who's constantly on you about APAC. Apparently every member has someone like this. On the Republican side, these APAC people have your cell number, and you're expected to have lunch with them when they're in DC. It's insane! Why haven't I heard about this before? Why would politicians want their constituents to know they've got a buddy system with someone representing a foreign country? Does any other country do this? They even pay for congressmen and their spouses to go to Israel. I wonder what happens on these trips? You know, you go see the wall.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

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.

The speaker has been to Mar-a-Lago a fair amount since the election, spending maybe half their time there or in the surrounding area. They clarify they are not in the room for decision-making but are trying to help in as many ways as possible. The speaker acknowledges that Trump elicits strong feelings in people. They deliberately avoid weighing in on many political topics, such as foreign policy, abortion policy, or guns. Their focus is on tech policy, business, economics, the health of the country, and its success.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

When the speaker came into office, he told Elon Musk "we gotta get them out" referring to astronauts stranded for nine months. The speaker claims Biden abandoned them and was embarrassed by what happened, implying the situation could have been resolved sooner. He credits Elon Musk's genius for bringing them back. The speaker believes people who hate Elon also hate the country, but says there are more people who love the country now more than ever. He calls MAGA and America First the greatest movement in the history of politics. The astronauts will not immediately visit the White House because they need to recover from the effects of being in space without gravity. After they get better, they will come to the Oval Office.

I'd love for Elon Musk to come to the briefing room; that's why we had him in the Oval Office yesterday. Trump and Musk have been incredibly transparent about what Doge is doing. They tweet daily and post receipts of reviewed contracts and stopped payments on their website. Before Musk, it was an unnamed bureaucrat. Now, as a scrutinized figure, Musk is providing access and transparency. We're happy to provide receipts, and I've brought some today: a $36,000 DEI contract for US citizenship and immigration services, a $3.4 million DEI contract for inclusive innovation, and $57,000 for climate change in Sri Lanka. These are the line items Doge is identifying daily. We're happy to show you the paperwork. Here’s a tweet about the Federal Employee Retirement System being processed in a Pennsylvania mine. We are providing transparency and accessibility daily.

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.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

He got everything in Panama in record time, but the press won't report it because it's a victory for Trump. Chinese companies are out. The US got what it wanted out of Panama. The US has troops there providing security for the canal now. The speaker thought negotiations were ongoing.

So, what's an APAC person? Think of them as your APAC babysitter, always in contact, deeply rooted in APAC. Most Republican members have someone like this. When they visit DC, you have lunch, exchange numbers, and stay in touch. I've personally heard members of Congress say, "I'll talk to my APAC guy" to potentially influence ad strategies. Why haven't you heard about this before? Well, it's not beneficial for a congressman to advertise a buddy system with someone representing a foreign country. They're not likely to publicize it.

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.

We discussed specific areas with Elon Musk, and I'm encouraged by his disclosures. There's potential here that hasn't been fully realized. There's definitely pushback from those who would be implicated if the truth comes out. This town is crooked, and it looks like Elon Musk might be the one to straighten things out. I think using the decision package process is a good avenue to pursue. America will demand action. As for getting in touch with Musk, just send up the bat signal. I encouraged him to move as fast as possible. We also discussed the VA, specifically those 50 and older drawing checks. I believe waste, abuse, and fraud can offset the cuts, especially as people return to work. I'd like to see codification happen as soon as possible.

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.