reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I believe Doge isn't about money, but shrinking government to limit its power, even against figures like Trump. But, if Trump is the head of the government, why would the government try to stop him? Because the bureaucracy should uphold the Constitution and prevent authoritarianism, holding everyone accountable and ensuring the government works for the people. Trump is shredding the Constitution, but we never said the bureaucracy should resist political leadership. We are saying that the President will put someone in charge who will contravene the constitution. This is what dictatorships do. The President is in charge of the military, as per the Constitution, which vests executive authority in the President. The idea of an independent military or a bureaucracy resisting political leadership is dangerous.

The American people will not accept an unelected group controlling the executive branch. While innovation is important, public institutions like Social Security, Medicare, and national defense are at stake, and citizens deserve a voice in these matters. Elections reflect the will of the people, and just because one viewpoint wins doesn't mean we abandon democracy. We cannot replace centuries of democratic practice with a small group that believes they know better than the collective wisdom of the American populace.

Donald Trump could weaponize the Department of Justice against political opponents and turn the FBI into his personal police force. This is characterized as how dictatorships, not America, operate.

The allegations against Donald Trump regarding interference in the 2016 election are absurd, even dismissed by Republican-controlled committees and Attorney General Barr. This situation highlights a larger issue: the politicization of critical institutions like the criminal justice system, intelligence agencies, and the military. These foundations of democracy must remain separate from politics, especially during times of crisis like high unemployment and a pandemic.

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

The term "unelected" used by Democrats is misleading. Donald Trump was elected in a landslide, and his staff, including the national security adviser and chief of staff, serve at his pleasure. They are implementing the agenda chosen by the American people. The real unelected power lies within the bureaucracy, such as USAID, the FBI, and the CIA, which have acted against Trump. President Trump is working to restore democracy by asserting control over the federal bureaucracy. He is the only individual elected by the entire nation to carry out the agenda that reflects the voters' wishes, while other officials are elected at local or state levels. Ultimately, the president is in charge of the federal executive branch.

We need more people like you in Washington, not the current politicians. Many Republicans missed the chance in 2022. I'm willing to go to prison to defend the constitutional separation of powers. This case could set a precedent on whether Congress can use subpoena power against a president. Executive privilege is crucial for presidents to receive confidential advice. The J Six committee is undermining this privilege. If I lose my appeal, executive privilege will be weakened. A president needs the ability to act on both sides.

Many in the media failed to cover Joe Biden's mental state and misunderstand Elon Musk's role. A president, elected by all Americans, is unique. The Constitution vests executive power in this single president. They appoint staff to implement the democratic will. The real threat to democracy is the unelected bureaucracy of tenured civil servants who defy the will of the American people. For example, when Americans vote for FBI reform, or to end racist DEI policies, these bureaucrats resist change. President Trump is removing those defying democracy by not implementing lawful orders, which represent the will of the American people.

Speakers discuss the severity and novelty of threats to the United States’ political system, focusing on Russian interference and the digital domain. - All acknowledge that the country faced a cataclysmic disruption to its political system that is unlike prior experiences. Speaker 2 notes, as a Vietnam veteran, that fundamental institutions were jeopardized then but proved resilient, and expresses hope for a similar outcome now. - Speaker 1 emphasizes two points: (1) Vladimir Putin’s determination to shape political landscapes inside Russia and abroad, and (2) the consequential role of the digital domain, which allowed Russian intelligence to exploit and manipulate more effectively, culminating in the twenty sixteen election. - They note that Russian interference historically involved exploiting elections, but never with such aggression, directness, or multidimensional methods. The Internet and modern technology serve as a huge enabler for influencing opinion and undermining fundamental systems. - There is a discussion of whether this manipulation was unforeseen. Speaker 2 indicates it goes back to the Soviet era with attempts to influence elections, but the magnitude in twenty sixteen was unprecedented. The digital environment provides malefactors with more opportunities to attack and influence. - The panel explains active measures as fabricating or propagating stories (even patently false ones) to advance a narrative, color perceptions, and lend legitimacy to political actors. They note that the Russians focused on specific voter blocks in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, with estimates that 70,000–80,000 votes could have swung the election. - They discuss methods beyond information operations, including collecting information (e.g., DNC and DCCC email breaches) and money-related tactics: money laundering, disguising funding sources for political actions, and potential extortion or blackmail. They stress that collusion is a tool in the Russians’ kit and that they recruit or exploit individuals where openings exist. - Following the money is highlighted as essential across national security domains; FBI financial investigators and intelligence analysts play key roles, and there is confidence that Mueller and others will trace financial pathways to uncover motivations. - The distinction between cyber warfare and conventional warfare is acknowledged: there are no tanks or planes, but the cyber realm constitutes a war for democracy. A robust response is needed to strengthen the cyber environment, including proposals for a congressional independent commission to assess and strategize future protections, involving engineers, technologists, scientists, and private sector input. - They reflect on why the nation did not respond with the immediacy seen after physical attacks (e.g., 9/11). The lack of a physical rubble-like trigger makes cyber threats harder to mobilize a national response. Leadership issues are cited: when the White House diminishes the CIA, FBI, NSA, or intelligence and law enforcement, it undermines efforts to address the threat. - They recount briefings to the president-elect in January, noting high confidence levels in assessments that did not rely on the dossier; the bigger concern is a perceived indifference to the Russian threat and the denigration of security institutions. - They stress the importance of institutional integrity: the press, law enforcement, and intelligence are pillars of democracy, and denigration of these institutions undermines U.S. credibility abroad. They advocate for stronger checks and balances and reiterate their commitment to truthful reporting and protecting the country. - The speakers, experienced and apolitical, emphasize loyalty to the Constitution and the need for decisive leadership and sustained commitment to democratic institutions, despite political challenges. They conclude with a solemn commitment to safeguard the country and its democratic framework.

Senator Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris DeLuzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlihan, and Congressman Jason Crow spoke directly to members of the military and the intelligence community. They emphasized that those who take risks daily to keep Americans safe are under enormous stress and pressure, and that Americans’ trust in the military is at risk. They asserted that the current administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. They reminded listeners that those who swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution must recognize that threats to the Constitution are not only abroad but also at home. They underscored that laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders, and no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or the constitution. They acknowledged the difficulty of public service but emphasized that vigilance is critical whether one is serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, or another branch. The speakers stated that the nation’s guardians—whether in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force—have the duty to stand up for the laws and for the Constitution and for who Americans are. They affirmed that they will back the service members and intelligence professionals, reinforcing that now more than ever the American people need them to stand up for our laws and for the Constitution. They urged not to give up, to stay true to their oaths, and to remember: don’t give up, don’t give up the ship.

If Trump is reelected, the Justice Department and the FBI will be in serious trouble. Trump is going to target these institutions. Last time, he didn't do enough to corrupt them, but he understands their power now. He'll put people in positions who will do his will. He didn't have all-stars last time, but this time, he'll find people who are willing to do what he wants, and that should worry every American. This election is so important; you have to participate. Regardless of how you feel about Joe Biden, you must vote for him because the consequences of the other side are too severe.

It's preposterous in my view that these judges, the judicial branch, obviously plays an important role in our three, you know, coequal branches of government, but they should understand what their role is. And these activist judges who now somehow believe that they're in the position of making policy by undermining the president's legal authorities and orders, bestowed upon him by the American people. If these judges wanna run for office and be president, go ahead and do that. Go make your policies. But they are politicizing the bench and and, you know, showing how through their activism, they are undermining really, frankly, their own credibility in doing this. And, again, another thing that undermines the American people's faith and trust that these institutions, that the the the judicial branch in some of these cases is actually, doing their job.

The conversation centers on a so-called “rear guard” and how it operates inside the U.S. government, as described by the speakers. - Speaker 0 asks about the identity and role of the “rear god/rear guard.” - Speaker 1 defines the rear guard as a group ideologically driven to a particular point of view not shared by the current administration, and asserts that it is organized. - The mechanism of influence is explained: in a large, geographically dispersed organization, if one doesn’t have a loyal team, the team can undermine leadership. The claim is that even with good intentions, without a loyal crew, the organization won’t respond to the boss, leading to actions that bypass or undermine higher authority. - The discussion claims a current case where the president signs a presidential policy directive stating that corruption will not be tolerated, and the attorney general issues a memorandum declaring alignment with the boss to fix corruption inside the department. The attorney general allegedly helps set up a weaponization working group, and an assistant U.S. attorney asserts representation of The United States of America while saying they do not want an investigation into corruption involving the DOJ. The speakers label this as illegal and a violation of jurisprudence and canons for a government attorney. - The question is asked: who directed the assistant attorney general to act this way? Speaker 1 suggests that, as an investigator, one would subpoena the assistant to determine who directed them and who told them to do what, implying chain-of-command exposure—but cannot provide the name in this moment. - They insist that the actions are not random but come from the rear guard. The whistleblower disclosure is mentioned: before Pam Bondi’s appointment, a disclosure claimed that all assistant U.S. attorneys who had worked for Jack Smith should be investigated, but nothing was done to hold anyone accountable, and those involved were let go. The disclosure’s author is not named in the moment, but Speaker 1 says they will provide it. - The rear guard is further described as an organized group; the organization named is the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (SIGI). The discussion covers SIGI’s creation in 2008, in conjunction with legislation and Senator Grassley, as a bipartisan effort to establish an independent entity inside the executive branch to oversee, train, educate, and provide counsel for all inspectors general. - The speakers explain that SIGI operates within the executive branch but is independent; the implied tension is whether an entity can be independent while being “inside” the executive branch, challenging the unitary executive view that the president controls the entire executive branch. - They discuss the concept of the administrative state: unelected officials who operate with their own power, suggesting a two-tiered system in America between “them and us.” They note that this view affects multiple agencies, including the Department of Justice and the EPA. - The president’s belief in leading the country by the majority is noted, along with the tension between the executive branch and the administrative state, which allegedly believes it serves its own interests rather than those of elected leaders. The dialogue hints at a broader narrative where the president is not always perceived as fully in charge, and a cultural portrayal—via media—that suggests the president is not the sole driver of policy.

The American people will not accept an unelected group controlling the executive branch. Innovation is important, but public institutions like Social Security, Medicare, and national defense serve the well-being of the citizens. The public deserves a voice in these matters. Elections reflect the will of the people, and just because one viewpoint wins does not mean we abandon democracy. We cannot replace centuries of democratic practice with a small group that believes it knows better than the collective wisdom of the American populace.

If Trump is reelected, the Justice Department and the FBI will be in serious danger. Trump recognizes their power and regrets not corrupting them enough during his first term. He will target these institutions by appointing loyalists, even if they are not qualified, to carry out his agenda. This should concern every American. Regardless of your feelings about Joe Biden, it is crucial to vote for him. The alternative is too dangerous, so do not sit on the sidelines during this election.

The Supreme Court is overstepping its authority, granting the president unchecked power and restricting Congress's ability to oversee agencies. This undermines our democracy. However, the courts remain a crucial bulwark of our constitutional framework. They retain the power to hold anyone in contempt for disobeying lawful court orders. Therefore, the courts are our current best hope for maintaining our constitutional structure.

The executive power is vested in the President of the United States, as stated in Article Two of the Constitution. No court can assume that role or define the duties of those in the executive office. This amendment violates the separation of powers and Article Two, implying a federal court could limit the duties of individuals within the President's office, which isn't their role. Without action, presidents face numerous claims across multiple states, potentially using non-official funds to respond. Since 2017, courts have been used nefariously. Lawfare has been weaponized against President Trump, even after his presidency. The President defines the duties of personnel within the office, as clearly stated in Article Two.

We are addressing members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks daily to keep Americans safe. Senator Alyssa Slotkin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris DeLuzio, Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander, Representative Chrissy Houlihan, Congressman Jason Crow, and others speak directly to you, acknowledging the immense stress and pressure you face. They state that Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk, as this administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. They remind you that you swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. The threats to our constitution aren’t just abroad but also at home. Our laws are clear: you can refuse illegal orders, you must refuse illegal orders, and no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution. They recognize it is hard and a difficult time to be a public servant, but emphasize that whether you’re serving in the CIA, the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. They assure you that they have your back. Now, more than ever, the American people need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up. Don’t give up the ship.

I believe Doge represents shrinking the government to limit its power, potentially in the context of Trump's plans. The government should uphold the Constitution and serve the American people, holding everyone accountable, regardless of who is in office. There's a concern that Trump might be undermining the Constitution, potentially leading to an authoritarian situation by controlling the military, silencing media, and appointing individuals who might contravene the Constitution. The president is the commander in chief, but the fear is that someone appointed by the president will act unconstitutionally. It's dangerous to think the bureaucracy should resist political leadership.

The president of the United States is the leader and takes an oath of office to protect the Constitution. While there are three coequal branches of government, the president holds a unique responsibility for national security. This is why the president has the authority to act and make difficult decisions, like previous presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Donald Trump currently faces such a moment in history, standing alone in his position.

The US government has no legal checks in place to overrule the president if he orders a nuclear attack. This system was designed during the Cold War to ensure a quick response to a surprise attack from the Soviet Union. While some may hope that senior political figures, military commanders, or lawyers would intervene, it would be illegal for them to do so. The president has complete control over the US Armed Forces as the commander in chief. This lack of checks is concerning, especially considering the president's recent actions of spreading false election claims and inciting violence. The current reality is that the president can order a military attack without delay, and there is no immediate solution to this issue.

The discussion centers on how politicization of intelligence has manifested in different eras, comparing past and present administrations. Speaker 0 asks whether the politicized weapons claims about Iraq and the CIA’s statements in the 1990s can be compared to today’s politicization of intelligence under John Ratcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard as head of DNI, arguing it is much worse now because of the mediocrity of those in control of key agencies. Speaker 1 counters by recalling the 1980s, noting that there was significant politicization of the Soviet threat to justify Reagan’s defense buildup, and adds that this is why he testified against Robert Gates in 1991. He asserts that politicization is bad, and insists that the current situation is worse than in the past. Speaker 1 explains: “It’s Because I look at the people who are ahead of these groups. Come on. Let’s be serious.” He targets the leadership of the director of national intelligence, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, saying, “Have you ever seen a cabinet in The United States of such mediocrity, of such venality?” He emphasizes his background, stating, “I haven’t,” and that nothing compares to what is going on now, warning that “a lot of damage is being done to The United States and to the constitution of The United States and to the importance of separation of powers and the importance of rule of law and the importance of checks and balances. This is very serious stuff.” Speaker 0 attempts to steer toward historical figures like Robert Maxwell, but Speaker 1 dismisses that concern as off point, insisting he is making a point about Israel. The exchange then shifts to U.S. support for Israel, with Speaker 1 asserting that “Israel gets what it wants from The United States. It gets it from democratic presidents and from republican presidents.” He also criticizes Barack Obama for signing what he calls “that ten year $40,000,000,000 arms aid agreement,” arguing that Obama “never should have signed” it “because they treated Obama so shabbily in the first place.”

Speaker 0: Question about the danger of a Trump presidency if reelected. Speaker 1: I think he poses a a near existential threat to the rule of law. He will do everything he can in a new term to try to tear down the institutions that he sees as threats and dismantle them and the people who occupy them, the apolitical people who occupy them. So there is a lot on the ballot in 2024 if he's a candidate, but the rule of law, in my view, is at the very top of the list. I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole fucking diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be biblical.

There’s a lack of empathy for regular people, but we can rely on the dedicated professionals in our intelligence agencies to protect our democracy and nation. These unsung heroes work quietly and will act to safeguard our institutions. The attorney general overseeing the FBI, CIA, and law enforcement won't allow anyone to dismantle these vital agencies. Such actions would only make us vulnerable to threats. If there were any risks, they would arise immediately if he were to take office, but he won't. Donald Trump will not be our next president.

Over the past four years, and at other times in our history, the values and constitutional principles that form the foundation of our country have been tested. Our institutions have been challenged in ways many thought impossible. In the 1800s, war tested us, and we survived, though with some missteps. I view the last four years as a new kind of test. It's like inflating a balloon – you keep adding air until it bursts. With the challenges to the rule of law, it felt like we were on the verge of that balloon popping.