reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discusses a chart showing donations made by various individuals and organizations. They highlight the significant donations made by Maritza, totaling $8,000,000 to Biden-related PACs. They also mention criminal allegations against Sequoia's principal and a meeting between Kirk Campbell and Sequoia that led to the company breaking up. The speaker emphasizes the flow of money from war profiteers to non-profit organizations supporting Democratic Party causes. They mention the influence of Sequoia, as a 10% owner of TikTok, on potential election interference. The speaker questions why the house investigation was halted after donations from Leone, why the CCP congressional committee doesn't include Sequoia, and why McCarthy isn't pursuing the Biden administration for alleged cover-ups.

The speaker believes Kamala Harris is like a marionette controlled by over 100 "puppet masters," many of whom the speaker claims to know. The speaker would like to see a matchup of the top 100 puppet masters and the Epstein client list, believing there would be strong overlap. The speaker finds it mind-blowing that no one on the Epstein client list has been prosecuted, while many January 6th protesters have been imprisoned. The speaker thinks part of the reason Kamala Harris is getting so much support is that some billionaires are terrified that the Epstein client list will become public if Trump wins. The speaker believes people like Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates are nervous about this possibility. The speaker notes that Reid Hoffman was his vice president of business development at PayPal 24 years ago.

Bernie Sanders is seen as a puppet of the Democratic Party, possibly being blackmailed. There are claims that he was given mansions every time he dropped out of the race. The 2016 election was said to have been stolen from him, with evidence obtained by Julian Assange from someone within the DNC. This contradicts the claim that Russia was responsible. Bernie Sanders has been critical of billionaires, oligarchs, and banks.

Speaker 0 contends that NGOs (nongovernment organizations) are not truly nongovernmental because they are funded by borrowing money and by money from donors, including billionaires. He claims they receive a large amount of funding, and the process involves borrowing funds and then distributing them to NGOs. He uses Afghanistan as an example, noting that there was a bill to defund the Taliban and that in the Senate there was opposition to adding NGOs to that effort. He argues that billionaire adversaries of the United States will put money into groups with fancy names (citing “feed the children” as a possible example)—a million dollars to start, which is "pennies on their dollars" for these donors. He asserts that these NGOs apply for federal money, and then an unelected bureaucrat in Washington declares them legitimate, leading to billions of dollars flowing to these organizations. Speaker 0 states that in Afghanistan alone, there are over a thousand nongovernment organizations operating there, and when combined with United Nations operations, the number could be multiples of thousands. He questions whether the money is being spent on certain events, asking, “do you really believe we're spending $10,000,000 on a dadgum drag show?” and asserts that the money ends up back in politicians’ pockets, with a paper trail that someone will uncover, though he believes it probably goes into dark money campaigns that oppose good Republicans as well. He concludes that this situation “has got to stop.” He ends by thanking Donald Trump and JD Vance.

The speaker argues that there are fake NGOs functioning as fake charities and that arrests should be made in relation to them. The claim is that these organizations are predominantly operated by Democrats, with occasional involvement by Republicans who are supposedly kept quiet by those false charitable activities. The speaker describes this pattern as evidence of a broader “uniparty” dynamic, suggesting that both major parties are involved in a system designed to influence politics. According to the speaker, the majority of the money flows to Democrats through these NGOs. They assert that billions of dollars are given to NGOs run by Democrats, and these organizations then channel funds through a large network of additional non-governmental organizations. This network allegedly creates a “giant money laundering scheme,” to the point where the speaker states that the words NGO and money laundering are almost synonymous. Key claims highlighted include: - Existence of fake NGOs that operate as fake charities. - A call for arrests related to these fake NGOs. - Predominant involvement of Democrats in running these NGOs, with occasional Republican involvement used to quiet concerns. - A description of a uniparty dynamic, implying bipartisan collusion or alignment in this activity. - Large-scale funding (billions of dollars) flowing to NGOs run by Democrats. - A subsequent cascade through a network of additional NGOs, forming a vast money laundering scheme. - The assertion that NGO activity and money laundering are nearly interchangeable in this context. The speaker emphasizes that the overall operation constitutes a substantial financial mechanism linked to political influence, portraying the NGO network as a conduit for laundering money rather than purely charitable activity. The overall framing is that the integrity of NGOs involved in political funding is compromised by this alleged system, tying NGO activity directly to money laundering in a way that equates the two terms in the speaker’s characterization.

According to the speaker, the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, roughly 15 or 16 years old, equates money with freedom of expression, allowing billionaires to spend unlimited amounts to influence elections. The speaker believes this is the Supreme Court's worst decision. As a result of the decision, Elon Musk spent $270 million to elect Trump as president. The speaker believes it's absurd for one person to have that much influence. Someone spent $1.5 billion on the Harris campaign over a couple of months. The speaker clarifies that this issue is not limited to Republicans.

Sam Antar downloaded all the information from the New York City Board of Elections website, a 27,000 row spreadsheet taking up over 500 pages. "not a single donation came from, like, a regular person." He ran it through Excel's tools and three AIs and came to the same conclusion. "70 of them or so were not attributed to bundlers and the total from those lines was zero. Zero. Zero." The money goes right to New York City votes who keeps track. "Was it bundled money?" Based on the data, not a single dime ends up in his campaign coffers as a result of all of his appearances. "It's all bundled money." Four and a half million people on social media between YouTube, Instagram, Twitter X, X Twitter, and Facebook and whatever; they all tell you go to the mom Danny campaign website and you donate. "His bundler raised 94% of the $1,700,000 that he raised from his base" and another $1,900,000 from PACS. "This is not a grassroots candidate." "His bundle... raised 35% of overall bungler funds attributed to all candidates across the city, and he was 10 times more than the second place bundle."

The speaker believes Kamala Harris is a "marionette" controlled by over 100 "puppet masters." The speaker claims to know most of them and suggests a strong overlap between these individuals and the Epstein client list. The speaker is surprised that no one on the Epstein client list has been prosecuted, while many January 6th protesters have been imprisoned. The speaker believes a reason for Kamala Harris's support is that if Trump wins, the Epstein client list will become public, which terrifies some billionaires backing Harris. The speaker specifically names Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates as potentially nervous individuals, noting Hoffman was the speaker's VP of business development at PayPal 24 years ago.

There is a lot of money pouring into Kamala Harris' campaign, with a Swiss billionaire named Hans Georg Weiss contributing $20 million through 1.6 million individual donations from 400,000 donors. Allegations of fraud are now surfacing due to the scale of these donations.

Speaker 0 claims that “the papers” show President Obama was the leader of a “gang,” stating it was “stone cold” and that it was “president Obama, Barack Hussein Obama.” Speaker 0 adds that Obama has been “shielded by the press for his entire life” and asserts “he’s guilty” and “it’s not a question.” Speaker 0 says the situation involves “treason,” “every word you can think of,” and that “they tried to steal the election” and “tried to obfuscate the election.” Speaker 0 further claims that the actions were unprecedented, saying other countries are “pretty rough” but that “you’ve never seen anything like it” involving this man. Speaker 0 says “we have all of the documents,” and states that “from what Tulsi told me,” Tulsi “has thousands of additional documents coming.” Speaker 0 also says that “president Obama” originated the concept and that he “also got it from crooked Hillary Clinton.” Speaker 0 claims “Crooked is a $3 bill” and says Hillary Clinton and “her group, the Democrats” spent “$12,000,000 to Christopher Steele to write up a report that was a total fake report,” adding that it “took two years to figure that out.”

Many believe the American economic and political system isn't working for them, as the average worker earns less than 52 years ago despite a massive wealth transfer to the top 1%. This loss of faith is justified by a corrupt campaign finance system where billionaires like Elon Musk can spend millions to influence elections. This influence isn't limited to one party, with Democratic billionaires also heavily influencing the Democratic Party. The speaker believes the U.S. government shouldn't give money to the Netanyahu government and claims that APAC threatens to primary any Democrat who stands up to Netanyahu. The speaker suggests that the system is broken, including healthcare, childcare, housing, and campaign finance, with both parties dominated by big money interests, leading to public anger.

For every billionaire who backed Trump, Kamala Harris had two. Democrats represent nine of the 10 richest US counties, and 65% of Americans making over $500,000 annually are Democrats. 75% of hedge fund managers' political donations go to Democrats, as do 95% of donations from the top three management consulting firms. Trump, on the other hand, resonated with Americans earning under $100,000. The speaker claims Democrats are now the party of the wealthy, while Trump represents the working class by adopting pro-worker policies Democrats abandoned to serve their rich base. The speaker views this as performance art, asserting that politicians are failing to serve the American people despite being paid to do so.

He wants to appear tough, but it's easy to take advantage of vulnerable people, like an elderly woman. Many in the audience are donors and special interests, which affects their support. The RNC has confirmed that the audience is filled with donors, and the lack of enthusiasm for me stems from my refusal to accept their money. I prioritize doing what's right for the American public over financial contributions. I'm the only one here committed to saving the country without relying on donations.

The discussion centers on the idea that his shtick hinges on the perception that he is the character he plays—“every man” who isn’t right wing but a populist fighting for the people against the powers that be. This is illustrated with a personal anecdote: “This is the truck that I drove this morning. This is the truck I drive. It's a 1987 Chevrolet Silverado. There are no electronics in this. There's no air conditioning. There's no radio, and there's no way for the government to turn off my engine if I'm disobedient.” The speaker cautions that “the moment that it's revealed not to be true, it's over. It's like you're worth 50,000,000 not worth $50,000,000. 30 to 50. Get off the fucking Internet, son. Don't stop believing that stuff.” Speaker 1 pushes back, claiming, “No. No. I'm a but see, I'm not out of the closet to leave this. I don't run around pretending to be a man of the people. I'm absolutely not a man of the people at all.” The conversation touches on money and upbringing: “I had the privilege of not being interested in money because I and I grew up in a family where we're worried about money, so I just never really thought about money.” Speaker 2 contributes background on Tucker’s lineage, noting, “Tucker's great, great… great grandfather was known as the cattle king of California, the largest, landowner in The United States in the nineteenth century. Just to give you an idea of the enormous wealth.” The discussion continues with Tucker’s financial succession, “Tucker and his brother did end up with a part of the oil and gas, minerals that she owned in her estate. So even that went well for Tucker.” There is a mention of apparent wealth and inheritance: “Well, I'm, like, extraordinarily loaded just from, like, money I, you know, inherited from my number of trust funds. From a Swanson deal.” The dialogue clarifies family ties: “She wasn't your mother. How I felt. That's I had a mother. I mean That's right. My dad got remarried to someone I think of as my mother.” There is a note on the father’s marriage to Patricia Caroline Swanson in 1979, described as “the heir to the Swanson billion dollar fortune. They're frozen food family. Serve Swanson dinner soon.” The exchange reiterates inherited wealth and the question of authenticity: “You're a trust fund baby, are you not? No. Completely. I've never needed to work.” The closing reflection suggests a critique of the shtick: “I think there's kind of a deep phoniness at the center of his shtick.” The final line cites a concrete memory: “I worked in a kitchen in 1985. Everybody in the kitchen had a criminal record. Every single one. But, of course, every dishwasher has been to prison for something. Right?”

A socialist Marxist mayor of New York City is about to be elected as the new party leader. Half the Democrats want to meet him and take selfies with him, but they are unsure if they will endorse him. The speaker claims this reflects the Democratic party's shift in Washington and New York, but asserts it does not represent America as a whole. Republicans are delivering for hardworking families across the political spectrum, which is why the economy is starting to move in the right direction.

Bad day for Zorhan Mandami, the front runner to become mayor of America's largest city, exposed as a total fraud. The video claims the socialist figure is drowning in a massive dark money scandal linked to George Soros. It asserts that tax dollars may have funded a new document show, with Mandami’s grassroots campaign allegedly receiving over 40,000,000 funneled through six fake tax-exempt groups, all tracing back to Soros's Open Society network. Investigators are said to report that these groups pretended to be independent but shared the same offices, the same staff, and the same bank accounts, describing the operation as coordinated—“almost like a political Ponzi scheme hiding in plain sight.” Whistleblowers allegedly filed 11 new IRS complaints, alleging Mandami’s machine used government grants totaling 52,000,000 to fund this fake movement. The implication is that Americans are funding a socialist movement in New York. Meanwhile, Mandami is described as living lavishly: he is said to have screamed “defund the police,” yet now pays for private security, dines at luxury Manhattan restaurants, and throws multimillion-dollar weddings guarded by Ugandan military forces, while presenting himself as one of the people. The narrator characterizes him as a “champagne socialist” funded by dark money and protected by elites, allegedly lying to working-class voters. The backlash is presented as real, with a new Atlas Intel poll indicating Mandami’s once-safe lead collapsing, Cuomo surging, and Republican Curtis Silva closing in fast. The narrative expands beyond Mandami to a broader political point: more than 25% of New Yorkers supposedly say they’ll flee the city if Mandami wins, described as the biggest exodus in modern New York City history. The speaker generalizes this to a “democrat doom loop,” arguing Democrats double down on extreme woke radicals, causing voters to flee. It’s claimed that blue states are emptying while red-led states are booming, and that Democrats are collapsing under their alleged lies and corruption. The conclusion offered is that when people go to the polls, Democrats lose the election or they lose the country, suggesting a turning tide. The video ends with calls to like the video, follow for more, and share comments, promising to catch viewers on the next one.

Fox News reports allege wealth increases among prominent progressive lawmakers. The segment claims Ilhan Omar is worth up to $30,000,000, noting she rose from negative net worth when first elected to Congress to substantial wealth, with a husband who is a consultant. The piece centers on Ayanna Pressley, stating that when she was elected in 2018 she had a negative net worth, but today she is worth $1,300,000 with assets up to $8,000,000. It highlights property holdings in 2024: a Martha’s Vineyard rental worth up to $5,000,000 and multiple Boston rentals worth up to $1,000,000 each, contrasting with 2019 when she reportedly owned only one property in Boston. The report also notes that days before Pressley was sworn in, her husband left a $92,000-a-year Boston City Hall job to launch Conan Harris and Associates, a consulting firm. It states his income reportedly jumped while in Washington, with a client list including government organizations and one with deep ties to the Obama Foundation. The segment describes ethics concerns about using his city-issued email to pitch Walsh’s Chief of Staff on staying on as a consultant, while city officials say they did not solicit nor accept the offer and that ethics laws bar municipal employees from using official resources for personal gain. Pressed for comment, Pressley did not respond to Fox Business requests. Fox Business anchor David Asman appears to align with the report’s framing, acknowledging that wealth accumulation through government contacts is common but asserting questions arise about those who position themselves as anti-capitalist. David Asman contrasts the situation with what he describes as anti-capitalist squad members who denounce capitalism yet accumulate wealth, asserting that Pressley and her fellow squad members “condemn capitalism” while “she’s the one who’s been pillaging the government,” and noting her husband’s consulting income. The discussion broadens to Ilhan Omar, claimed to be worth up to $30,000,000, with a husband who is also a consultant and previously connected to progressive circles with alleged anti-capitalist leanings. The segment references Nancy Pelosi as part of a broader pattern, describing her as “the grand dam of all this,” and asserts she is worth about $275,000,000, with husband Paul Pelosi, suggesting insider information influenced certain trades tied to credit card companies. The speakers argue that such patterns illustrate long-standing issues, vowing continued investigation and pressure to stop perceived abuses. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 close with remarks that this situation requires ongoing scrutiny, and they thank David Asman for the discussion.

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.

Speaker 0 Summary: Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, and an early investor in Facebook, is described as now worth about $8,000,000,000. He has focused a large portion of his fortune on building JD Vance. Thiel and Vance met in 2011 at Yale Law School after Thiel gave a talk; Thiel became Vance’s mentor, employer, and financier, funding Vance’s venture firm and writing the blurb on Vance’s book. In 2022, Thiel donated $15,000,000 to Vance’s Senate campaign—the largest individual donation to a single Senate race in American history. He escorted Vance into Mar-a-Lago personally and introduced him to Donald Trump, despite Vance having previously called Trump “Hitler.” The transcript notes Thiel has stated publicly, and it is claimed here as a quote, that “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Epstein files and connections: Thiel’s name allegedly appears over 2,200 times across Epstein’s email schedules and documents. The transcript says Thiel and Epstein lunch together in November 2017, nine years after Epstein’s conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor. Epstein invested $40,000,000 into funds co-managed by Thiel, and Epstein reportedly brokered introductions between Thiel and Israeli officials, including arranging a 2014 dinner. Thiel denies wrongdoing, though the calendar entries cited do not express opinions. Palantir and government ties: Palantir, Thiel’s company, signed a strategic partnership with Israel’s Ministry of Defense in 2024. Palantir’s CEO publicly stated pride in supporting Israel “in every way we can,” and has acknowledged that their product is used, on occasion, to kill people. The transcript emphasizes Thiel as “the man who built your vice president,” asserting he is “the company in the bloodstream of your government.” It concludes with the line, “You didn’t vote for Peter Thiel, but Peter Thiel is governing you anyway. That’s not democracy. That’s a purchase.”

For every billionaire who backed Trump, Kamala Harris had two. Democrats represent nine of the 10 richest US counties, and 65% of Americans making over $500,000 a year are Democrats. 75% of hedge fund manager political donations go to Democrats, as do 95% of donations from the top three management consulting firms. Trump, however, dominated among Americans making under $100,000 a year. The speaker claims Democrats are the party of the wealthy, and Trump represents the working class by adopting pro-worker policies Democrats abandoned to cater to their rich base. The speaker believes this is performance art, and those involved are failing to serve the American people despite being paid to do so.

The transcript claims the organizers “followed the money” to what they call “Riot Inc.” and its “protest industrial complex,” stating it involves a network of NGOs funded by multiple sources, including the Soros/Open Society network, the Arabella funding network, the Tides funding network, the network of Neville Roy Singham, “Foreign Cash,” and “big left wing funders.” It also says some funders “aren’t citizens of this country,” citing Mr. Hansjorg Veiss of Switzerland. The speaker presents three “money facts” about Riot Inc. First, like any corporation, Riot Inc. is described as having many divisions beyond an “anti… boots on the ground division,” including PR, marketing, and a “very well-funded legal division” intended to get “boots on the ground” back on the streets quickly. The transcript states that Riot Inc. has “investors that I mentioned.” Second, the speaker claims “dozens of radical organizations” have received “more than one hundred million dollars” from Riot Inc. investors. These organizations are described as including “lawyer groups” and groups that advocate labeling “good, honest Americans” as “fascists.” Third, the transcript claims “more than one hundred million dollars in US taxpayer funding” flowed into these funding networks, including “at least four million dollars” to “these very groups themselves.” It cites an Atlanta event called “Stop Cop City,” saying “over sixty rioters were charged with domestic terrorism,” and claims these groups received money for that from both “the billionaire class as well as taxpayer money.” The transcript further claims the money helps fund “de-decentralized crowdfunding platforms,” naming groups and references such as “Antifa,” “the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork” (stated as having links to an attack on an ice facility), and “the Socialist Rifle Association.” It adds that some crowdfunding platforms are funded by the Riot Inc network, and asserts that lacking LLCs or EIN numbers “doesn’t mean they can’t get paid.” The speaker closes by stating they will “keep following the money” and thanking leadership.

A journalist asks if there’s someone who can be spoken to about hearing, and is directed to the other side of the park. The exchange turns into a broader set of allegations about a man named Naftali Aaron Kranz and the organization Get Free. The speaker claims Naftali Kranz is a paid protester through Get Free. They present LinkedIn posts recruiting for paid protesters for the company, described as Get Free’s “part time mobilization support contractor.” The speaker asserts Get Free bills itself as a grassroots organization while Naftali and others are allegedly paid to protest. They claim Get Free aims to “undo white supremacy” and that one of the best ways to do that, in Naftali’s view, is to celebrate vandalism, citing Crown Heights, where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s cyber truck and placed dog feces on it. The speaker contends Naftali attended an abolish the police rally but was not the leader, instead blending in among other recruits, and that he works with the DSA, explaining why the speaker met him at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. On LinkedIn, the speaker says Naftali frequently posts about paid protester roles, urging people to join to “help us expand our effort to win reparations across the country,” with recruitment across Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. They describe a nine-week contract, part-time, paying $3,400 in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation who will recruit people and train them to drive turnout at events. The speaker also says Naftali is part of Jews Against Trump and urges donations to bail funds to “bail immigrants out of concentration camps,” adding a claim that a Jewish person who calls an immigration detention center a concentration camp has a serious mental illness, and criticizing colleges like NYU, the Democrat party, and mainstream media as brainwashing. The speaker asserts Nicole Cardi is at the top of the Get Free Movement and claims she says the George Floyd protests were the reason Biden won the 2020 election. They argue that protest NGO groups are about getting Democrats elected, and that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which the speaker says is under investigation by the Department of Justice for foreign contributions. The speaker alleges ActBlue has funneled billions to activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which is said to be orchestrating resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis. Indivisible is claimed to have paid protesters and received over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros.

Kamala received a $1,000,000 payment for an interview in September, raising questions about her motives. She previously labeled Trump a dictator, which helped her secure $1,000,000,000 in donations, but much of that was allegedly mismanaged. In a podcast appearance, she insisted the host travel to DC and used campaign funds to create an elaborate fake set in a hotel room, costing over $100,000 for just two chairs and a table. The actual cost could have been around $6, leaving uncertainty about the remaining funds. Following the election loss, her campaign sent out urgent donation requests, prompting skepticism about how donor money is being utilized.

James O’Keefe and OMG report on FEC data indicating some senior citizens in the U.S. have donated large volumes of money, with examples of individuals attached to as much as $217,000 in contributions across 12,000 payments over three years, sometimes under variations of names and addresses. The team says the data, drawn from FEC and state records and organized by a group called election watch in Maryland, shows many contributions processed through ActBlue and groups related to political causes. In Annapolis, Maryland, O’Keefe notes the data and asks whether these donors are victims of or participants in a money-laundering scheme, or if they actually engaged in the activity—suggesting actions such as making phone calls or door-knocking to investigate. He describes the process as easy for citizen reporters: bring a microphone and camera (even an iPhone), knock on doors, and call donors to verify. He demonstrates by showing a chart of committees earmarked to receive donations via ActBlue and questions whether the donors are being duped or complicit. During on-camera interactions, he and his team cite a donor with 3,000 contributions totaling $32,000 at a given address, asking the person if she’s aware of such activity. The individual responds that they donated occasionally and not at the stated levels. They also reference the FEC record indicating donations to ActBlue and Biden for President, and question the accuracy of the donor’s claimed totals, while the donor denies making such large-scale contributions and expresses confusion over the situation. One profile highlighted is Cindy Ngo of Annapolis, Maryland, claimed to have contributed over 1,000 times in 2022 for $18,849.77 to ActBlue, which would require daily donations, a claim the interviewee disputes. The donor states they donate occasionally, around $5 at a time, and says they do not believe such frequent contributions were made from her address. The team remarks that the pattern is inconsistent with the donor’s response, noting that the frequency implied by the data does not match the donor’s account. Another profile discussed is Garland Riggs, described as an elderly donor with 31,073 individual contributions under his address, totaling about $230,000. When contacted, Riggs denies donating to ActBlue; he suggests his wife may have donated, but says the amounts are nowhere near the figures alleged. O’Keefe explains he will email the donor the information, including the FEC records, and asks whether Riggs believes someone else might be using his name. The report outlines a method for field inquiries: identify a target by name, confirm whether donations were made in their name and how many times, then ask follow-up questions such as whether they donated 3,000 times. The team emphasizes obtaining comment before publication and notes they have dozens of other homes in Maryland and hundreds nationwide matching the profile. They announce plans to continue calling and visiting more individuals. O’Keefe closes by noting the data came from election watch in Maryland, Gibson Group, and Maryland Twenty Twenty Watch, which have submitted a lawsuit to the U.S. District Court of Maryland regarding the grievance, and invites others to participate as citizen journalists. He directs viewers to okeefmediagroup.com for information on how to pursue similar stories.

USAID gave Chelsea Clinton $82,000,000 through the Clinton Global Initiative. $3,000,000 went to her fucking wedding. $11,000,000 went to pay for a mansion, and not a dime of income tax was paid on any of it. But if your last name is Clinton, well, you get a pass. They tell you there's no money for Social Security. They tell you that there's no money to secure our border, to build a border wall. But then they send billions to the Ukraine. No checks. No $82,000,000 handouts. Why the fuck is there unlimited money for corrupt elites but nothing for actual Americans who are buried in ash, who are flooded out of their homes, who are literally standing in the rubble of their lives? This isn't leadership. It's an organized crime syndicate is what it is. It's organized crime in broad daylight. drain the swamp once and for all.