reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 discusses the House of Representatives’ vote on defunding the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). He asserts that this measure is not neutral or benevolent but a leftist enterprise, and that while leftists can contribute to it, hardworking Americans shouldn’t be forced to fund causes they find repugnant. He notes that 81 Republican members joined all Democrats to keep funding the enterprise from federal dollars. He emphasizes that while legitimate disagreements exist within the Republican Party, this should not be one of them. He argues that Republicans campaign on the precepts that the US government is too big and expensive and that money should not be taken from Americans to support left-leaning initiatives that undermine the party’s stated goals. He urges listeners to find out how their representative voted and to raise the issue with them. The speaker predicts that some Republicans will blame the outcome on the Senate filibuster, though he contends the Senate filibuster rule should not dictate House outcomes. He warns against what he calls an exaggerated view that nothing could pass the Senate without including that funding, and critiques the idea of relying on the filibuster. He advocates ending the “zombie filibuster,” arguing that filibusters should require debate instead of being conducted silently or while asleep. He calls for enforcing the existing rules of the Senate to require a speaking filibuster and then turning to issues he says Republicans were elected to address. These include reducing federal wasteful spending, ending funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, and passing the SAFE Act, which he claims would ensure that “80% of all Americans” agree with taking steps to stop noncitizens from voting in US elections. In closing, he urges Republicans who were elected under the Republican banner to stay true to their party and avoid switching to another, humorously concluding with “Don’t get on a donkey.” The overall message urges a principled commitment to Republican aims, opposition to funding perceived as left-leaning, and procedural changes to the filibuster to enable legislative action on his preferred agenda.

"This is political theater. I'm gonna call out both sides right here. It's all posturing. It's fake fighting." "We all know where it ends up. This is Groundhog Day." "We always get a c r in September, and then we get an omnibus." "We might get the omnibus before Christmas, but if we're not good, it comes after Christmas." "We should have done 12 separate bills." "But, again, whether Democrats are in control or Republicans are in control, we never do the 12 separate bills." "It's because Democrats wanna grow the welfare state, and republicans wanna grow the military industrial complex." "I guarantee it."

We're getting close to a number on appropriations, but Democrats are trying to add something new that's never been part of this before. They want to limit the executive branch's ability to do its job, which would tie the President's hands on expenditures. This is a gross separation of powers violation and a terrible precedent. It's a nonstarter for us, and the Democrats know that. So it looks like they're making individual appropriations bills almost impossible. There's more discussion to be had as we near the March 14 deadline. I'm hopeful they'll back off those outrageous demands because they're unprecedented and unconstitutional. The Democrats are likely trying to address the unitary theory of the executive, limiting the executive branch's ability to impound or rescind funds. This is a constitutional fight, and you likely won't get any Democrat votes on this CR. Get ready for a potential government shutdown.

Speaker 0: If these assessments are correct, they are very covert weapons, aren’t they? Speaker 1: That’s correct. There’s no entry or exit wound. How they’re designed is to make the target feel like they’re crazy, like they’re imagining things. Speaker 0: And you also said these attacks are happening right here in this city. Is that correct? Speaker 2: I mean, have been some that have gone public with respect to Washington DC. Speaker 0: I think it was Mister Grozov said you spoke to a Russian agent who said that they believe that Americans are using the same weapons on them. Is that correct? Speaker 3: That is correct. Speaker 0: Might that have something to do with part of the CIA’s motive to cover up the existence of the this tech and these weapons? Speaker 3: That is a very logical possibility. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mister chairman, I yield back. Speaker 2: Gentleman yields. Chair now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mister Goldman, for his random questioning. Speaker 3 (Mister Goldman): Thank you, Mister chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. Mister Grosev, I want a follow-up on the interactions you’ve had with Russian intelligence about these AHIs. Mister Zaid, I want to ask—this is hypothetical—but I’m trying to understand why the U.S. government would try to block information sharing or conceal information that they have. One thing that comes to mind is whether there’s an operational risk to revealing any of the details of their investigation. Is that something you have come across in any of your work? Speaker 2 (Mister Zaid): There are a lot of reasons why the information might not be publicly released. I do think that’s something we could address more in a classified environment to explain that, but there are understandable reasons why the U.S. government has not revealed much of what it knows. Speaker 1: There’s some long-term things that needs to be done in terms of new acts. But in the short term, we need to do things like implement the original Havana Act.

We're sending most of the product to the Senate, including some additions like hearing and family medical aid. Bernie loves hearing, but some are against it. We're also focused on privileged scrub, as it can be detrimental to the bill. We want to avoid messaging bills and ensure what we send is not birdable or birdbath. We're receiving positive feedback and there's no bad answer. This legislation is a monumental historic piece that we're proud to be a part of.

Speaker 0 discusses the likelihood of achieving 60 votes and questions whether the situation is merely a show. He acknowledges uncertainty, noting, “We don't know that we don't have 60 votes yet,” and counters the assumption that there aren’t even 51 votes by saying, “Multiple members of your conference say that there aren't even 51 votes.” He cautions against assuming Democrats won’t be won over, stating, “you're making an assumption that at the end of this debate that none of the Democrats will be won over,” but he also concedes the possibility that none will be won over. Despite the uncertainty, he argues that the debate on the floor of the Senate is important and that the issue is at the core of elections in the United States. He asserts that the American people care about this issue and that constituents have raised it frequently, making it a significant topic to discuss publicly. He believes it is important to have the fight and the debate, regardless of how it ends. A central point he emphasizes is the defense of the position requiring citizenship to participate in voting processes. He states, “at the end of the day, I just don't know how you defend a position that you need to be a citizen in this country, not only to register a vote, but also to be able to show an ID when you vote.” He wonders how long Democrats will defend that position and reiterates the possibility that none of them will be won over. Nevertheless, he reiterates the value of the Senate floor debate, indicating that the process itself is important.

Speaker 0 says that while a final decision on how to conclude the debate hasn’t been made and options like filing for closure exist, the immediate aim is to ensure a fulsome debate on an issue that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people and put everyone on the record. Today, there will be a vote on whether biological males ought to be able to vote or compete in women’s sports. After that, they will move to the piece of legislation Senator Huston addressed, which he tried to bring up and pass on the floor but was objected to by the Democrats the other night. They will bring that to the floor and put every Democrat on the record. The photo ID amendment will be the next amendment. They describe the Save America Act and its components as common sense, noting that they believe it is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, and that 36 states have adopted photo ID.

Democrats lack the power to shut down the government; the party controlling the House, Senate, and White House governs. Democrats can stop bad bills that strip programs from Americans, including veterans, air safety, and food safety. They also aim to prevent a slush fund for Elon Musk and Donald Trump, which could lead to cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security by decimating programs and services. The House, under Hakim Jeffries, voted almost unanimously against the legislation. The Senate Democrats have leverage to reject handing over tools and a slush fund to Elon Musk and Donald Trump.

Speaker 0 outlines his first bill, the no shutdown paychecks to politicians act, which would say members of Congress can’t be paid and won’t receive back pay after a shutdown ends. He asks unanimous consent for immediate consideration, reading, and passage of the bill, with the motion to reconsider laid on the table. Speaker 1 asks if there is objection. Speaker 2 argues for an approach that would begin paying those who are working during a shutdown—soldiers, air traffic controllers, and all workers—stating this should become a permanent feature of government. He says paying workers is better than isolating or punishing groups and asks that the Senate modify the request to consider, read, and pass Senator Paul’s alternative. He references Senator Johnson’s shutdown no shutdown act as an alternative and asks to replace the current bill with that. Speaker 0 responds, explaining he will not substitute Senator Paul’s bill for his own. He says he understands Senator Paul’s point as wanting to pay everyone, but explains his bill has a chance to pass the House and be signed by the president, whereas Senator Paul’s bill would not pass the House or be signed by President Trump. He states this is why he cannot substitute Paul’s bill. He then asks for a parliamentary clarification: did Senator Paul object to his bill, and would Paul’s modification substitute his bill? The chair confirms that Paul’s modification would substitute his bill for the original. Speaker 1 asks if there is an objection to the original request. Speaker 2 (from Kentucky) reserves the right to object and argues it is not clear that the president wouldn’t sign a bill to continue paying federal workers. He says it’s confusing that Democrats object to paying traffic controllers and suggests letting Democrats explain why they don’t want to pay workers. He asserts there is a debate over spending levels, but that workers who have contracts should be paid. He mentions his own fiscal conservatism, stating he would not hire new people and would allow government shrink through attrition, but asserts that those who work for the government should be paid. He contends that Democrats' subsidies to higher earners are inconsistent with helping the working class or the poor and argues that the president would sign a bill to pay workers. Speaker 0 disputes, arguing the bill to keep Congress from being paid during a shutdown is different from Paul’s. Speaker 1 clarifies that Senator Paul objected to the bill and that the objection to the unanimous consent request stands. Speaker 0 introduces a second bill, the withhold member pay during shutdowns act, which would withhold lawmakers’ pay during a shutdown but escrow it to be paid after the shutdown ends. He notes there is precedent from Obama in 2013. He seeks unanimous consent for Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to be discharged from further consideration of S. 3057, and asks that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration, with reading, passage, and a tabled motion to reconsider. Speaker 2 objects with the objection noted. Speaker 1 acknowledges the objection from the Kentucky senator. Speaker 0 attempts clarification on the bill to withhold member pay, and Speaker 1 confirms the objection to the unanimous consent request. The scene ends with the discussion in progress on the second bill.

We need to finish the proceedings. Senator Schumer is secured, but the Senate is on lockdown. Everyone is preparing for a potential breach, putting on tear gas masks. There’s chaos outside, with reports of windows being broken and shots fired, allegedly instigated by the president. The Virginia National Guard has been called in, and there are concerns for personal safety. Discussions are ongoing about how to expedite the session, but the Capitol may take days to be secure again due to damage. The vice president indicated that the House and Senate could reconvene in about an hour, which is encouraging news.

To pass my amendment, the Senate must remove Democrat leaders blocking it. I propose a vote on whether American taxpayer money should be used to fly illegal immigrants from Venezuela and Haiti into the US. President Biden has secretly flown 320,000 illegal aliens into Blue City airports in 2023. Vote against me to stop this practice. Time has expired.

A handful of Republicans joined with all Democrats to take down a rule, which is rarely done. Ninety-six percent of House Republicans voted against proxy voting because they believe it's unconstitutional and that it would open a Pandora's box. The rule being struck down means there can be no further action on the floor this week. The House will not be voting on the SAVE Act for election integrity, rogue judges who are attacking President Trump's agenda, or taking down Biden policies with CRA votes. All of that was wiped off the table. They will regroup and come back to address it again.

The speaker opposes attaching the SAVE Act to the continuing resolution (CR), calling it a repetitive tactic that results in a clean CR after Senate removal. Passing the SAVE Act would lead to excessive spending: $6.3 billion a day, $3 billion in interest, and $77,000 per second, increasing the $36 trillion debt. Interest payments could exceed the annual national defense spending. The CR also restricts new military programs. The speaker notes that 73% of appropriations have passed, with 27% remaining. The speaker questions the point of passing the SAVE Act if the Senate won't consider it or HR 2 to secure the borders. The speaker claims adding debt will cause inflation, harming the middle and lower classes. The speaker is willing to shut down the government or the border to protect elections.

Speaker 0 criticizes Speaker McCarthy for taking credit for the single subject appropriations bills, stating that it was not his original plan. They argue against lumping together departments like Education and Labor with the military and border patrol, calling it chaotic. Speaker 0 claims that they forced the change and warns that if Speaker McCarthy continues, the appropriations process will become a sideshow controlled by lobbyists and special interests. They express frustration with how the American people have been mistreated for decades and vow to fight against it.

Speaker 0: The government’s proposal, as outlined in the document, sets out the steps to move the legislation. It says the committee will meet within one hour of adopting the order to complete clause-by-clause consideration. If they have not finished within 30 minutes of the meeting’s start, all remaining amendments submitted by 4:30 will be “dean moved,” and subsequent steps will follow to move the bill quickly through the House of Commons. Speaker 1: This is dangerous territory because the subject matter involves giving police and other authorities increased powers. An order that requires all bill details to be passed within 30 minutes is frustrating to those who want police to have the right tools and also want Canadians’ privacy protected. The issue is that such a process is likely to be imperfect and then challenged and applied unevenly (“too strong here,” “too weak here”). Speaker 1 contrasts the idea of pushing back: if an important priority is truly important, time should be set aside, while dragging heels and causing chaos can justify pushing; however, Speaker 1 is not sure that justification applies to this bill. Speaker 1 also describes a broader pattern across multiple bills, saying the government will later claim people have been examining them for months even though they were introduced at the last minute with the clock running. Speaker 1 concludes that the bills matter, are very important to Canadians, and are likely to be gotten wrong without sufficient scrutiny or pushback on the government’s original ideas.

Some Republican senators are obstructing the efforts of their majority party to work constructively with Democrats. They are stopping the Department of Justice, which is absurd. Senator Roger Marshall supports Senator Tommy Tuberville's stance on the sanctity of life and abortion policy in the Pentagon. Tuberville is holding up Pentagon nominations, causing delays in the process. While there are ways to bypass these holds, Democratic leaders are hesitant to use them due to time constraints and senators being frequently absent or on recess.

The speaker discusses a recent vote in the US House of Representatives to defund the National Endowment for Democracy, arguing that this measure is not neutral or benevolent, but a leftist enterprise. The speaker states that leftists are free to contribute to it, but insists that hardworking Americans should not be forced by the government to contribute to causes they find repugnant, including the NED. Despite this stance, the speaker notes that 81 Republican members of the House voted with all the Democrats to keep the funding stream going, funding the enterprise with federal money. The speaker contends that there should be legitimate disagreement within the Republican Party, but asserts that this issue should not be one of them. When campaigning as a Republican, the speaker says, voters expect basic precepts, including that the US government is too big and expensive because it does too many things it was never intended to do. The speaker argues that Republicans should agree that funds should not be taken from hardworking Americans and given to left-leaning enterprises that undercut everything the party stands for or purports to stand for. If viewers share the speaker’s frustration, they are urged to find out how their representative voted and raise the issue with them. The speaker anticipates that some Republicans will blame the outcome on the Senate filibuster, though they claim the Senate filibuster rule should not affect the House. The speaker argues that such blaming is severely exaggerated and emphasizes the importance of ending the zombie filibuster, calling for a speaking filibuster instead of silent or asleep filibustering. With the procedural concerns addressed, the speaker says the party should move on to implementing policies for which Republicans were elected, including reducing federal wasteful spending, ending funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, and passing the SAFE Act. The speaker describes the SAFE Act as something that “like, 80% of all Americans agree with,” which is to take steps to stop noncitizens from voting in elections. The speaker reiterates the admonition to stay true to the Republican Party and not align with another party, ending with a caution: “Don’t get on the other one. And, good heavens, don’t get on a donkey.”

The speaker presents a conditional scenario directed at the president: if the president said today that he would be happy to meet with the Democrats if they stop holding the government hostage, then Democrats could walk in tonight, pass the continuing resolution (CR), and provide seven weeks. The speaker believes the president could then bring everyone together, and that the Democrats would likely negotiate on a number of issues and reach an agreement. The speaker emphasizes that the president does not want to negotiate under duress. This point is tied to a claim about Democratic sentiment: anonymously, a Democrat senator told the speaker that none of them want to vote to open the government because, in their words, “we’d face the guillotine.” The speaker notes that these words came “from our base,” suggesting this is the view of the president’s political allies or supporters. In summarizing the exchange, the speaker asserts that this line of reasoning reflects a critical dynamic in the current standoff: the possibility that a straightforward, pressure-free offer from the president to engage with Democrats could break the deadlock and lead to a constructive dialogue on policy issues. The implication is that the threat or perception of political duress is a barrier to reaching a resolution, and that a different approach—one that signals openness to negotiation without coercion—might unlock bipartisan progress. The transcript includes the assertion that if the president were to publicly welcome negotiations under a non-duress framework, there would be movement toward a compromise on multiple issues, facilitated by a temporary timeline (seven weeks) and a renewed, inclusive negotiation process. The speaker underscores the idea that such an approach could shift dynamics away from fear of political punishment within the base toward substantive agreement. Towards the end, the speaker remarks, “Look. Think you just made a very important,” indicating that the argument is intended to highlight a potentially pivotal point about how the administration’s stance could influence willingness to engage and resolve the government funding impasse. The transcript ends with this incomplete thought, leaving the broader implications implied but not fully explicit.

The senator asked how many votes are needed to pass the bill with the emergency clause, which is 32. Senators then voted on the bill. The speaker emphasized the importance of treating everyone with respect and dignity in the Senate, stating that they will do the same.

The people who wanted the proceedings that day shut down were not Republicans. They were Democrats. They did not want the airing of all of the evidence of fraud, which would be two hours per state. You had senators working with with Republican house members to contest those results, ask for the ten day audit, and have two hours of debate over it. Democrats did not want that. It was the Democrats who wanted the proceedings that day shut down, not Republicans. And, of course, they got they got what they wanted.

The Republicans are currently voting on amendments for funding bills, and it's crucial that they come to an agreement to avoid a government shutdown. This disagreement is essentially between the hard right and the even harder right within the GOP. Unfortunately, under Kevin McCarthy's leadership, it seems difficult to govern. However, it's important that they find a way to keep the government running because ordinary Americans will suffer if they don't. There's a bipartisan continuing resolution supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, and I hope the House will have the opportunity to vote on it and work together in a bipartisan manner.

We passed a continuing resolution that extends into January and February, which is significant because it disrupted the annual rush to pass a massive omnibus bill right before Christmas. Traditionally, the Senate would push a lengthy bill on the House without proper review or debate. This change is a step towards better legislative practices.

parliamentarian ruled that sections of it were outside of the process that they're using to get this through. Do you think that senators should respect the decisions of the parliamentarian? And what have you personally done in the last forty eight hours to try and get Republican senators who are against the bill to a yes? 'If it's not approved, your taxes will go up by 68%. Think of that. 68, a record, the highest in the history.' 'The Democrats won't approve it only because, politically, it's so good for the Republicans.' 'They're not approving border security.' 'We've done a great job at the border, but we have to add some wall.' 'We have no money for that.' 'But if the Democrats it'll be interesting to see if we get any Democrat votes. We should.' 'If I were a Democrat, I would vote for this bill all day long because it's tax cuts and so many other things that are common sense.'

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.