reSee.it - Related Video Feed

US senators. Last year, 93 out of 100 US senators were people whose campaigns had been funded by Israel, APAC, and the Israel lobby. 93 out of 100 US senators were taking money from a group that represents a foreign government and foreign interests in order to operate our government on behalf of someone else, and they all work here in this building. This is representative Ro Khanna from California, and he does not take APEC money according to their website TrackAPEC. Here's what he had to say. "It's too much. I mean, it's too much. If you have people who have a particular point of view, in Apex case, they're basically whatever Netanyahu does is right. That's their point of view. And they're saying, okay, you don't take that view, we may come after you. We may have millions of dollars spent against you." Now ask any American content creator what the scariest subject to cover is, and the answer is Israel. Even YouTubers I know will say their channels were shadowbanned for months after covering them. And folks, the plot around free speech thickens. News just broke that Larry Ellison, cofounder of Oracle, will be buying TikTok, a platform where young people can freely exchange unfiltered ideas. No Israel connection here. Right? Wrong. Ellison is one of the IDF's largest private donors, giving the army tens of millions of dollars through Friends of the IDF, a nonprofit that brands itself as a nonpolitical, nonmilitary organization, but somehow also is the official US partner of Israel soldiers.

In politics, money raised is crucial. A group found suspicious donations to Democrats totaling over $200 million through ActBlue, mostly from older, liberal, lower-income individuals. Many donors seem unaware of these contributions made in their name, suggesting identity theft. Examples include a woman making 1400 donations in 7 years and another making 52,501 donations in 700 days. These irregularities raise concerns about potential election law violations and national security risks. Despite 52 complaints filed, Democrats are reluctant to investigate. The magnitude of these questionable donations far exceeds previous concerns over foreign influence, warranting a thorough investigation.

Speaker 0: This is not just a story about violence and chaos; this is a money story. At the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweitzer and I followed the money to the top of what we call the protest industrial complex, Riot Inc. We found a network of NGOs—not just the Soros/Open Society network, but also the Arabella Funding Network, the Tides Funding Network, Neville Roy Singham and his network, Foreign Cash, and other big left-wing funders, including Hans Georg Wiese of Switzerland. They’re pouring money into this ecosystem. Here are three money facts about Riot Inc. Number one: Riot Inc. has many divisions like any corporation. It doesn’t just have the Antifa boots on the ground division; it has PR divisions, marketing divisions, and a well-funded legal division to get these boots back on the ground as quickly as possible. It has investors I mentioned. Number two: We have identified dozens of radical organizations—not just decentralized Antifa groups, but dozens of radical organizations—that have received more than $100,000,000 from Riot Inc. investors. These include lawyer groups and groups that advocate for calling good honest Americans fascists, etc. Number three: More than $100,000,000 in U.S. taxpayer funding has flowed into these funding networks, including at least $4,000,000 to these very groups themselves. There was an event in Atlanta called Stop Cop City; over 60 rioters were charged with domestic terrorism. These groups received money for that from both the billionaire class and taxpayer money. Additionally, this money helps fund decentralized crowdfunding platforms that support Antifa, the John Brown Gun Club of Elm Fork (which had links to the ICE facility attack), the Socialist Rifle Association, and others. Even though some groups don’t have LLCs or EIN numbers, they can still get paid. Some funding platforms are funded by this network that we call Riot Inc. Speaker 1: Do you know the name of any of the funders? Do you know the names? Because if you do, I’d like you to give them to Cash or Pam—or Christie? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Or Christie? Speaker 0: Yes, we’ll do that. Speaker 1: As soon as you can. That’s all of you. Because you probably know the names after a certain period of time, you tend to find out. But these are people that do not have good intention for the country and that’s treasonous probably. So if you could, it would be very important if you could do that, it would be great. Speaker 0: it

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

An undercover reporter attended a fundraiser for Anthony Brown, who ran for Congress in 2016, organized by pro-Israel advocate David Oaks. Attendees discussed how money pressures congressmen and senators, and that bundling contributions is the best way to buy influence. The current contribution limit is $2,700 per person, but bundling contributions from 50-100 people can total a quarter million dollars. Oaks described a similar event in New York with Wall Street donors focused on Iran. Donors may hand the congressman an envelope with credit cards to swipe. The group avoids disclosure requirements by collecting credit card information and turning it over directly to the candidate, instead of depositing the money into an account. This way, campaign finance reports only show individual contributions without revealing the bundling. A minimum commitment of $10,000 over two cycles is expected. Giving money to another person at the meeting so they can donate more than the $2,700 limit would be illegal campaign contribution laundering.

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 claims they were offered $20,000,000 to withdraw from the senatorial race and run against Rashida Tlaib. They assert the pro Israel lobby will go to any length to remove anyone from U.S. Congress who opposes their agenda and their total unequivocal support for Israel, good, bad, or indifferent. The speaker emphasizes that money should not be the main catalyst for getting people elected, arguing that the pro Israel lobby uses money as its primary tool to threaten politicians. They state that the lobby will spend money against or for politicians to influence outcomes. The speaker urges Americans to elect people who truly represent their values and not those with special interests. They conclude by addressing APEC, saying, "APEC, keep your money in."

Senior citizens in the US are donating thousands of times a year, raising questions about potential money laundering schemes. A group of citizen journalists investigated these donations, finding individuals who allegedly made numerous contributions. They visited some donors, like Cindy Ngo, who denied making such large donations. Another donor, Garland Riggs, also denied making thousands of contributions. The investigation aims to uncover whether these donors are victims or participants in a possible scheme. The journalist encourages others to investigate by knocking on doors and asking questions. The data was provided by citizen journalists from Election Watch in Maryland.

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.

Investigative reporters uncover discrepancies in campaign donations through political action committees (PACs) WinRed and ActBlue. They visit the top political donor in New Jersey, Alexandra Gina, who denies making thousands of small donations totaling $154,000. The reporters find that both PACs may be funneling dark money into campaigns, with Democrats benefiting more. They also mention Swiss billionaire Hans Urs Weis contributing millions to progressive causes. The reporters call for accountability and urge viewers to review their own contributions for irregularities. They plan to continue investigating and invite viewers to join their training webinar to become citizen journalists. The concise transcript highlights campaign donation discrepancies, potential dark money involvement, and the call for viewer participation in uncovering the truth.

I believe in asking patriotic Americans to contribute to this fight, rather than relying on lobbyists and special interests who have hollowed out this town and burdened future generations. I prefer funding my political operation through hardworking Americans, with donations of $10, $20, or $30 at a time. Those who attend lobbyists' fundraisers should see how that works out for them.

"Israel is the only country I know of that has some sort of incredible influence and control over nearly every single one of my colleagues." "Because APAC are Americans, therefore, they can legally donate to members of congress and senators." "Freshman, member of congress, or first year in congress, they take them on a very special trip to Israel in August." "That's Dems the and Republicans or just Republicans? They take both of them. Yes." "So they take them on this trip to Israel." "They wear the, kippah." "They and even though they're Christians. They're they're not Jewish, but yet they're adorning, Jewish attire, and they're at these Jewish, religious sites." "The Israeli government is secular." "This is not the biblical Israel." "It is the secular government of Israel."

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.

An undercover reporter attended a fundraiser for Anthony Brown, who ran for Congress in 2016, organized by pro-Israel advocate David Oaks. Attendees discussed how bundling individual contributions of $2,700 could yield up to $250,000 for a lawmaker, effectively "buying" them. Oaks described a similar event in New York with Wall Street donors focused on Iran. Donors can give credit cards to representatives who can swipe each card for a thousand dollars. The group avoids disclosure laws by collecting credit card information and turning it over directly to the candidate, bypassing earmarking regulations. This way, campaign finance reports only show individual contributions without revealing the coordinated bundling effort. A minimum commitment of $10,000 over two cycles is expected. Giving money to another person at the meeting so they can donate more would be illegal campaign contribution laundering, as each individual is subject to the $2,700 limit.

A Free Press report reveals that the "Trump resistance" is bankrolled by wealthy individuals. The organization "Families Over Billionaires," which opposes Republican tax cuts, doesn't accept public donations and is a trade name for Arabella Advisors, a dark money network. Arabella Advisors is funded by billionaires like Bill Gates, Reid Hoffman, Pierre Omidar, and George Soros. These organizations are structured within the Arabella network, obscuring the donors' identities. Such setups raise transparency concerns. "Families Over Billionaires" is staffed by former Biden and Harris officials, including director Michael Linden, previously with Biden's Office of Management and Budget. Currently, the organization is releasing YouTube advertisements featuring paid actors expressing concerns about tax cuts. While this doesn't discredit the organization's message, it's important to know that groups calling themselves grassroots may not be.

FEC data reveals that some senior citizens across the US are listed as donating thousands of times per year, with some allegedly linked to over $200,000 in contributions. I'm James O'Keefe with OMG in Annapolis, Maryland, investigating these claims. I went to people's houses to ask them about these donations. I spoke with one man who told me to ask Donald Trump. I spoke to Cindy Noe, whose records indicate she donated over a thousand times to ActBlue in one year, totaling almost $19,000. She said she only donates $5 occasionally. Another individual was listed as making 18,000 contributions totaling $170,000, which they denied. I called Garland Riggs, who was listed as making over 31,000 contributions. He denied this. I encourage you to knock on doors and ask your neighbors if they've donated to ActBlue or Biden for President and if they know how many donations were made in their name.

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.

Both the DNC and RNC target corporations and elites while a "money reality" exists in politics. Suites costing $500+ are occupied by those they claim to regulate, looking down on the "soldiers" who volunteer time for their parties. These attendees pay significant sums for access, while parties receive gifted hotel suites. Presidential campaign spending has risen from $300 million in 2000 to a projected $10 billion. Harris has raised hundreds of millions recently, some from small donors. Legal money, post-Citizens United, is now the most dangerous in politics. Promises to fight against this system are questionable, as evidenced by Trump's million-dollar-a-plate fundraisers.

There is a game of money in politics, not unique to Democrats. Suites at political events, costing from $500 to $1.5 million, are filled with people the politicians claim they will regulate. These people are looking down on the faithful while being told politicians will make them pay their share. The same is true on the Republican side. Politicians are looking down from on high at the people who make a difference in their communities. That is the reality of politics.

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.

Peter reveals findings related to U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin's campaign, indicating potential criminal money laundering. Data from the FEC shows numerous identical contributions made by individuals across the country at the exact same time, suggesting the use of computer bots to funnel money into her campaign. This method, referred to as "smurfing," appears to be a new technique alongside existing methods that involve both federal and state-level contributions. Peter explains that while some contributions are visible in the FEC database, others are hidden at the state level, requiring extensive data collection for comparison. He emphasizes that these tactics have not changed and are still being used to support Baldwin's campaign, similar to methods seen in other political campaigns.

The video reveals suspicious donation patterns on fec.gov, with unemployed individuals making numerous small donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars to ActBlue and various Democrat campaigns. Investigator Tony Saruga found over 400,000 new ActBlue accounts created in 30 days, with the Harris campaign sending emails asking for $1 donations using fear tactics. Fake donors were inserted into ActBlue lists, showing the campaign's desperation for small donations to potentially facilitate a larger scam.

FEC data indicates that numerous senior citizens in the US are donating thousands of times annually, with some names and addresses linked to over $200,000 in contributions. We visited some of these individuals to verify the data, suspecting a potential money laundering operation. For example, Cindy Noe of Annapolis, Maryland, purportedly donated to ActBlue over 1,000 times in 02/2022, totaling $18,849.77, which equates to approximately three donations daily. When approached, Cindy acknowledged donating to ActBlue occasionally, but denied donating $18,850 or the possibility of her address being used for such purposes.

I believe in asking patriotic Americans to contribute to this fight, rather than relying on lobbyists and special interests who have hollowed out this town and burdened future generations. I prefer funding my political operation through the support of hardworking Americans, even if it means receiving smaller donations of 10, 20, or 30 dollars. Those who attend lobbyist fundraisers can see how that works out for them.

The video argues that Israel is effectively ruling the American government, presenting a connected web of history, money, politics, religion, and power to explain the relationship. It starts with the numbers: since World War II, the United States has given over $260,000,000,000 in aid to Israel, more than to any other country in the world. This aid is a pipeline of US taxpayer money into Israel’s military machine, totaling $3,800,000,000 each year (about $10,000,000 every day), funding fighter jets, bombs, tanks, and missile defense systems like the Iron Dome. The 2016 initiative under President Obama was a $38,000,000,000 package over ten years, guaranteed regardless of who sits in the White House, ensuring Israel’s access to next-generation military hardware while Americans debate domestic needs. A significant portion of this aid is required by law to be spent on American defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon, meaning Israel gets the weapons while U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. The F-35 stealth fighter jet, costing around $80,000,000 each, has been supplied to Israel, alongside the Iron Dome, which has received over $2,600,000,000 in US funding since 2000. Critics note this funding could have supported US infrastructure repair, which is described as costing trillions of dollars to fix. The video contrasts this with domestic needs, citing half a million Americans homeless and tens of millions without health insurance. The narrative expands to the political ecosystem: APAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is described as one of the most powerful foreign policy lobby groups in Washington, with annual conferences drawing thousands and presidents pledging loyalty on stage. In the 2022 midterms, pro-Israel groups allegedly poured over $30,000,000 into campaigns; APAC’s United Democracy Project is said to have spent millions to defeat candidates who criticized unconditional US support for Israel. It cites examples like Donna Edwards and Andy Levin as Democrats targeted for questioning U.S. policy toward Israel. The video asserts that the message is: step out of line, and you’re gone. Other organizations are named as part of the broader lobby, including Christians United for Israel led by John Hagee, and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), with various PACs purportedly funneling millions into local elections. Together, these groups are characterized as shaping U.S. foreign policy more than think tanks, business lobbies, or grassroots movements, forming what scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have called the Israel lobby, which also influences media and academia through outlets and think tanks that frame Israel as America’s indispensable ally. A narrative layer is described: Israel is marketed as the only democracy in the Middle East, while Palestinians are often erased or portrayed as aggressors. The video notes presidential consistency from Reagan to Trump, and from Clinton to Biden, with the refrain that America stands with Israel. Religion compounds influence, with evangelical groups viewing Israel’s survival as biblical prophecy, and the 2018 move of the US embassy to Jerusalem is framed as a concession to evangelical voters. The implications are political: the contradiction of US defending democracy while backing a system described as apartheid and ongoing bombings. The video asks who is ruling whom, suggesting blind support fuels anti-American sentiment globally, and that the question extends beyond Palestine to America’s own future. It ends by questioning whose interests Washington is really serving—its people or someone else.