🚨BREAKING: Full Elon Musk x Trump DOGE Executive Order Signing Event / Press Conference (30 minutes) https://t.co/k2XW9lItq6
Video Transcript AI Summary
Our administration's primary goal is restoring democracy by fixing the broken feedback loop between the people and the government. An out-of-control, unelected bureaucracy holds excessive power, undermining the will of the people. We must also address the massive national deficit; its interest payments alone surpass the defense budget. We're finding shocking waste, fraud, and abuse—billions of dollars in improper payments, often lacking basic oversight. Simple controls like payment categorization and verification would drastically reduce this. We're working with agency heads and the President to implement common-sense reforms, increasing transparency and ensuring taxpayer money is spent responsibly. We are committed to fiscal responsibility and economic growth, benefiting all Americans. While we strive for transparency, mistakes will be made, but we will correct them promptly.
Speaker 0: So the, at a at a high level, if you say what is the goal of those or or and and I think a significant part of this of our presidency is to restore, democracy. This may seem like, well, are we in a democracy? Well, if you don't have a feedback loop, okay, we'd have to if you if you sorry.
Speaker 1: So I tell
Speaker 0: you gravitas can be difficult sometimes. So, if if there's not a good feedback loop from the people to to to the government, and if if you have rule of the the bureaucrat if the bureaucracy is in charge, and then then what meaning does democracy actually have? If the people cannot vote and have their will be decided by their elected representatives in the in the form of the president and and the senate and the house, then we don't live in a democracy. We live in a bureaucracy. So it's incredibly important that we close that feedback loop.
We fix that feedback loop and that the public, the public's elected representatives, the president, the house, and the senate decide what happens as opposed to an a large unelected bureaucracy. This is not to say that there aren't some good there are good people who who are in the federal bureaucracy, but but you can't have an autonomous federal bureaucracy. You have to have one that's responsive to the people. That's the whole point of a democracy. And so
Speaker 2: and if you if you looked at this if you asked looked
Speaker 0: at founders today and said, what do you think of the way things have turned out? Or We have
Speaker 3: this
Speaker 0: unelected, fourth unconstitutional branch of of government, which which is the bureaucracy, which has, in a lot of ways, currently more power than any elected representative. And this is, this is not something that people want. And it's it's not it does not match the will of the people. So it's just something we've gotta we gotta fix. And then we also gotta address the the deficit.
So we've got a a $2,000,000,000,000 deficit. And if this if we don't do something about this deficit, country's going bankrupt. I mean, it's it's really astounding that the, the interest payments alone on national debt exceed the defense department budget, which is shocking because we've got a lot we spend a lot of money on defense. But and and if that just keeps going, we're essentially gonna back up the country. So what what I really wanna say is, like, it's not optional for us to sit to reduce the federal expenses.
It's essential. It's essential for America to remain solvent as a country, and it's essential for America to have the resources necessary to provide things to its citizens and not simply be servicing vast amounts of debt.
Speaker 1: And also, could you mention some of the things that your team has found? Some of the crazy numbers including the woman that walked away with about 30,000,000, etcetera?
Speaker 0: Well, we we we are we do find it sort of rather odd that, you know, there there are quite a few, people in in in bureaucracy who who have a ostensibly a salary of a few hundred thousand dollars but somehow manage to accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth, while they are in that position, which is, you know, what what happened to USAID. We're just curious as to where it came from. Maybe they're very good at investing. They, in which case, we should take their investment advice, perhaps. But, just there seems to be mysteriously they cut they get wealthy.
We don't know why. Where did it come from? And, I think the reality is that they're getting wealthy at taxpayer expense. That's that's the that's the honest truth of it. So, you know, we're looking at, say, we we we would just if you look at, say, say, treasury, for example, basic controls that should be in place, that are in place in in any company, such as making sure that any given payment has a payment categorization code, that there is a comment field that describes the payment, and that if it if a payment is on the do not pay list, that you don't actually pay it.
None of those things are true currently. So the reason that departments can't pass audits is because the payments don't have a categorization code. It's like just a massive number of blank checks just flying out the building. So you can't reconcile blank checks. You've got common fields that are also blank, so you don't know why the payment was made.
And then we've got this truly absurd, a do not pay list, which can take up to a year for an organization to get on a do not pay list. And and this we're talking about terrorist organizations. We're talking about, known fraudsters, known aspects of waste, known things that do not match any congressional appropriation. It can take up to a year to get on the list. And even what's on the list, the list is not used.
It's mind blowing.
Speaker 2: So so what what we're talking here, we're
Speaker 0: we're really just talking about adding common sense controls that should be present, that that haven't been present. So you say, like, well, how could such a thing arise? That's that seems that seems crazy. The when you understand that that, really, everything is geared towards complaint minimization, so that that then you understand the motivations. So if people receive money, they don't complain, obviously.
But if people don't receive money, they do complain. And and the fraudsters complain the loudest and and the fastest. So, then when you understand that, then then it makes sense. Oh, that's why everything just they approve all the payments at treasury. Because if you approve all the payments, you don't you don't get complaints.
But now now we're saying that, no. Actually, we we are gonna complain. If if money is spent badly, if the if your taxpayer dollars are not spent in a sensible approval manner, then that's not okay. Your your tax dollars need to be spent wisely on the things that matter to the people. I mean, these things like, it's just common sense.
It's not it's it's it's not draconian or radical, I think. It's it's really just saying, let's look at each each of the expenditures and say, is this actually in the best interest of people? And if it is, it's approved. If it's not, we should think about it. So, you know, there's crazy things like just cross examination of Social Security.
And we've got people in there that are 50 years old. Now do you know anyone a hundred and 50? I don't know. Okay. This they should be on the Guinness Book of World Records.
They're missing out. So, you know, that's the case where, like, I think they're probably dead. It's my guess. Or or they should be very famous. One of the two.
And then there's a whole bunch of Social Security payments where there's no identifying identifying information. Well, like, why is there no identifying information? Obviously, we wanna make we wanna make sure that people who deserve, to receive Social Security do receive it, and that they receive it quickly and accurately. Also, another another crazy thing. So, you know, one of the things is, like, we're we're trying to sort of right size the the federal bureaucracy just to make sure this obviously, needs to there needs to
Speaker 2: be a lot of people working for federal government, but not
Speaker 0: as many as as currently. So we're saying, well, okay. Well, let's if if people can retire, you know, with full benefit benefits, everything, that that would be good. They can retire, get their retirement payments, everything. And then we were told this is actually, I think, a great anecdote, because we were told the the most number of people that could retire possibly in a month is 10,000.
We're like, woah. Why why why is that? Well, because all the all the retirement paperwork is manual on paper. It's manually calculated, then written down on a piece of paper, then it goes down a mine. And, like, what do you mean a mine?
Like, yeah. There's a limestone mine where we store all the retirement paperwork that look and you look at pictures at a picture of this mine. We'll post some pictures afterwards. And this this mine looks like something out of the fifties because it was started in 1955. So it looks like it's like a time warp.
And then the the speed the the limiting factor is the speed at which the mine shaft elevator can move determines how many people can retire from the federal federal government. And the elevator breaks down and then sometimes, and then you can't nobody can retire. Doesn't that sound crazy? There's, like, a thousand people that work on this. So I think if if we take those people and say, like, you know what?
Instead of working in a in a mine shaft and, carrying Manila envelopes to, you know, boxes in a mine shaft, you could do practically anything else, and you you would add to the the goods and services of The United States, in in a more useful way. So anyway so I think, you know, that's an example. Like, at a high level, if you could say, like, how do we increase prosperity is we get people to do to to to shift from roles that are low to negative productivity to high productivity roles. And so you increase the total output of goods and services, which means that that there's a higher standard of living available for everyone. That's that's the actual goal.
Everyone's very quiet, brother. I said you don't have to nobody is quiet?
Speaker 2: You're detractors, mister Moskovic. I have
Speaker 4: to what?
Speaker 2: Including a lot of Democrats.
Speaker 0: I have detractors? You do, sir. I don't believe it.
Speaker 2: Say that you're orchestrating a hostile takeover of government and doing it in a non transparent way. What's your response to that, criticism?
Speaker 0: Well, first of all, you couldn't ask for a stronger mandate from from the public. The public voted, you know, we we have a majority of the public vote voting for president Trump, won the house, won the senate. The people voted for major government reform. There should be no doubt about that. That was on the campaign.
The president spoke about that at every rally. The people voted for for major government reform, and that's what people are gonna get. They're gonna get what they voted for. And and a lot of times that, you know, people that don't get what they voted for. But in this presidency, they are gonna get what they voted for.
And that's what democracy is all about.
Speaker 4: Mister Busk, the White House says that you will identify and excuse yourself from any conflicts of interest that you may have. Does that mean that you are in effect policing yourself? What are the checks and balances that are in place to ensure that there is accountability and transparency? Well,
Speaker 0: we we actually are trying to be as transparent as possible. In fact, our actions we post our actions to the the Doge handle, on x, and to the the Doge website. So all of our actions, which are are maximally transparent. In fact, I don't think there's been I I don't know of a case that where where an organization has been more transparent than the Doge organization. And and so, you know, and the kind of things we're doing are, I think, very, very simple and basic.
They're they're not we're you know, what I mentioned, for example, about treasury, just making sure that that payments that go out, taxpayer money that goes out is categorized correctly, that the that the the payment is explained, that organizations on the do not pay list, which are takes a lot to get there, that actually are not paid, which currently they are paid. These these are these are not individual judgment decisions. These are about simply having sensible checks and balances in the system itself to ensure that taxpayer money is spent well. So it's got nice to do with, like, say, a contract with some company of mine at all.
Speaker 4: But if there is a conflict in of interest when it comes to you yourself, for instance, you've received billions of dollars in federal contracts.
Speaker 3: When it comes
Speaker 4: to the Pentagon, for instance, which the president, I know, has directed you to look into
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Are you policing yourself in that? Is there any sort of accountability check and balance in place that would provide any transparency for the American people?
Speaker 0: Well, all of our actions are are fully public. So if you see anything, you say, like, wait a second. Hey. You know what? That doesn't that seems like maybe that's, you know, that there's a conflict there.
I I I felt like people are gonna be shy about saying that. They'll say it immediately.
Speaker 4: Including you and yourself.
Speaker 0: Yes. But it transparency is what builds trust. Not simply somebody asserting trust. So not somebody saying they're trustworthy, but transparency so you can see everything that's going on. And then you can see, am I doing something that benefits one of my companies or not?
It's totally obvious.
Speaker 1: And if we thought that we would not let him do that segment or look in that area. If we thought there was a, lack of transparency or a conflict of interest. And, we watch that also. He's he's a big businessman. He's a successful guy.
That's why we want him doing this. We don't want a an unsuccessful guy doing this. Now one thing also that, Elon hasn't really mentioned are the groups of people that are getting some of these payments. They're ridiculous. And we're talking about billions of dollars that we've already found.
We found fraud and abuse. I would say those two words as opposed to the third word that I usually use. But in this case, fraud and abuse. It's abusive because most of these things are virtually made up or certainly money shouldn't be sent to. And you know what I'm talking about.
It's crazy. So, but we're talking about, tens of billions of dollars that we've already found. And now a judge is an activist judge, wants to try and stop us from doing this. Why? And why would they wanna do that?
I campaigned on this. I campaigned on the fact that I said government is corrupt, and it is very corrupt. It's very, very, it's also foolish. As an example, a man has a contract for three months, and the contract ends, but they keep paying him for the next twenty years, you know, because nobody ends a contract. You get
Speaker 3: a lot of that. You have a
Speaker 1: contract that's a three a three month contract. Now normally, if you're in a small it's in in all fairness, it's the size of this thing is so big.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But if you have a contract and you're in a regular business, you end the contract in three months, you know it's a consult. Here's a contract for three months, but it goes on for twenty years. And the guy doesn't say that he got money for twenty years. You know? They don't say it.
They just keep getting checks month after month. And you have various things like that. And even much worse than that, actually, much worse. And I guess you call that incompetence maybe.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: It could be corruption. It could be a deal's made on both sides. You know, where I guess the money he kicks I think he has a lot of kickback here. I see a lot of kickback here.
Speaker 0: There's a lot of kickback.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Tremendous kickback because nobody could be so stupid to give out some of these contracts. So he has to get a kickback. So, that's what I got elected for. That and borders and military and a lot of things, but this is a big part of it.
And I hope that the court system is gonna allow us to do what we have to do. We got elected to to, among other things, crimes, all of this fraud, abuse, all of this this horrible stuff going on. And we've already found billions of dollars, not like a little bit, billions, many billions of dollars. And when you get down to it, it's gonna be probably close to a trillion dollars. It could be close to a trillion dollars that we're gonna find.
That will have a quite an impact on the budget. And and you'll go to a judge where they handpick a judge and he has certain leanings. I'm not knocking anybody for that, but he has certain leanings. And he wants us to stop looking. How do you stop looking?
I mean, we've already found it. We have a case in New York where a hotel has paid $59,000,000 50 9 million because of because it's housing migrants, illegal migrants. All illegal, I believe.
Speaker 0: And and they were being paid twice the normal room rate at a %
Speaker 1: occupancy. Unbelievable. So it's
Speaker 0: a racket.
Speaker 3: Ask a question. If you
Speaker 0: said If if I may sort of just, going for the president's comments, at a at a high level, okay, well, what how how do what what are the two ingredients that are really necessary in order to cut the budget deficit in half from 2,000,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000? And it's really two things, competence and caring. And if you add competence and caring, you'll cut the budget deficit in half. And and and I fully expect to be scrutinized and get a, you know, a daily proctology exam, basically. My soldiers camp out there.
So it's not like I think I can get away with something. I'll be scrutinized nonstop. And, but with support of the president, we can we can cut the budget deficit in half from 2,000,000,000,000 to one, and then with deregulation, because there's a lot of sort of regulations that don't ultimately serve the public good. We need to free free the builders of America to build. And if we do that, that means, I think, we can get the economic growth to be maybe 4%, maybe 5%.
And that means if you can get get a trillion dollars of economic growth and you cut the budget deficit by a trillion, between now and next year, there is no inflation. There's no inflation in '26. And if the government is not borrowing borrowing as much, it means that interest costs decline. So everyone's mortgage, their car payment, their credit card bills, any hit their their their student debt, the the monthly payments broke. That's a fantastic scenario for the average American.
I mean, imagine they they go down the grocery aisle and the prices from one year to the next are the same. And their and their their, you know, their mortgage, their all their debt payments dropped. How great is that for the average American?
Speaker 1: We had no idea we had no idea we're gonna find this much. And it's open. It's it's not, like, complicated.
Speaker 2: It's It's not simple, which I did.
Speaker 1: It's like a
Speaker 2: lot of work. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You can't believe it. A lot of work. A lot of smart people involved. Very, very smart people. But, it's you're talking about anyway, maybe $500,000,000,000.
It's crazy the kind of numbers you're talking about. You know, normally when you're looking at something, you'll find you're looking for one out of a hundred. Here, you're almost reversing it. You look for one that's good.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And you can look at the title and you say, why are we doing this? Why are we doing that? And the public gets it. You know, the public gets it. You've seen the polls.
The public is saying, why are we paying all this money? This is for years this has gone on.
Speaker 3: I'm assuming most president Trump, I don't
Speaker 1: Senator Yeah. Go ahead. Wait. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Senator Rand Paul today said that doge cuts will ultimately need a vote in Congress. Do you agree with that? Is that the plan? I I
Speaker 1: really don't know. I I know this. We're finding tremendous fraud and tremendous abuse. If I need a vote of Congress to find fraud and abuse, it'd be it's fine fine with me. I think we'll get the vote.
Although there'll be some people that wouldn't vote. And how could a judge wanna hold us back from finding all of this fraud and finding all of this, incompetence? Why would that happen? Why would even congress wanna do that now congress? If if we do need a vote, I think we get a very easy vote because we have a track record now.
We've already found billions of dollars of abuse, incompetence, and corruption. A lot of corruption.
Speaker 4: If a judge does block one of your policies, part of your agenda, will you abide by that ruling? Will you comply
Speaker 3: with this?
Speaker 1: Abide by the courts, and then I'll have to appeal it. But then what he's done is he slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books. You know, if a person's crooked and they get caught, other people see that and all of a sudden it becomes harder later on. So
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The answer is I always abide by the courts, always abide by them, and we'll appeal. But appeals take a long time, and I would hope that a judge if you go into a judge and you show them, here's a corrupt situation. We have a check to be sent, but we found it to be corrupt. Do you want us to send this corrupt check to a person, or do you want us not to give it and give it back to the taxpayer?
I would hope a judge would say, don't send it. Give it back to the taxpayer.
Speaker 0: Yeah. If I can add to that, what we're finding is that a bunch of the fraud is not even going to Americans.
Speaker 2: So I think we can all
Speaker 0: agree that if there's gonna be fraud, it should at least go to Americans. But a bunch of the fraud rings that that are operating in in The United States and taking advantage of the federal government, especially in the entitlements programs, are actually foreign fraud rings. They're operating in other countries and actually exporting money to other countries. We should stop that.
Speaker 3: Mister Musk
Speaker 0: And and this is big what big numbers? Talking about a 200,000,000,000 a year. Serious money.
Speaker 3: Missus Musk, you said on x Yeah. That an example of the fraud, that you have cited was $50,000,000 of condoms was sent to Gaza. But after fact check this, apparently, Gaza in Mozambique, and the program was to protect them against HIV. So can you correct the statements? It wasn't sent to Hamas, actually.
It was sent to Mozambique, which makes sense why condoms was sent there.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And how can we make sure that all the statements that you said were, correct so we can trust what you're saying?
Speaker 0: Well, first of all, some of the things that I say say will be incorrect and and should be corrected. So nobody's gonna bat a thousand. I mean, any you know, we we will make mistakes, but we'll act quickly to correct any mistakes. So, you know, if if the the I'm not sure we should be sending 50,000,000 bells worth of condoms to anywhere, frankly. I'm not sure that's something Americans would be really excited about.
And that that is really an enormous number of condoms, if you think about it. But, you know, if it if it went to Mozambique instead of Gaza, I'm like, okay. That's not as bad, but still, you know, why are we doing that?
Speaker 3: Not too much. Can you talk a little bit about how closely you're working with agency heads as you're directing these cuts? Do they have the how much input do agency heads have when you're making these decisions?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We work closely with the agency heads. And, yeah. So so there there is a there are sort of checks in place. So it's not as I was just going in and doing things willy nilly.
In it's in, partnership with the agency heads. And, and I check really with the president to make sure that, you know, this this this is what the president wants to have happen. So, you know, we we talk almost every day, and and I I, you know, I I double check things to make sure is this something, mister president, do you want us to do this? Well, well, then we'll do it.
Speaker 2: USA USAID has been one of your main targets. Are you concerned at all that some of the cuts or that shutting that agency altogether may lead to diseases or other bigger problems starting in other countries that then come to to The United States?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So that that's an interesting example. So that's something where we work closely with the state department, and, secretary Rubio. And we have, for example, turned on funding for Ebola prevention, and for HIV prevent prevention.
Speaker 2: You left that?
Speaker 0: Yes. Correct. And and and we are we are moving fast, so we all make mistakes, but we'll also fix the mistakes very quickly.
Speaker 4: So Do you think that's a worthy cause? USAID?
Speaker 0: I I think that there's some worthy things, but but overall, if you say what was the bang for the buck, I would say it's it was not very good. And there was far too much of what you said I had was doing was influencing influencing elections in ways that I think were dubious and do not stand the light of day.
Speaker 3: I think I just
Speaker 4: have a follow-up to the, the the Pentagon contracts. If you have received billions of dollars in contracts from the Pentagon, and the president's directing you to look into the Department of Defense, is that possible
Speaker 0: to are going to do at at the president's request.
Speaker 4: Does that present a conflict of interest for you?
Speaker 0: No. Because you'd have to look at the individual contract and say first of all, I'm I'm not the one, you know, filing the contract. It's people at SpaceX or someone who will be putting for the contract. And I'd like to say, if if you see any contract where the the where it was awarded to SpaceX and it wasn't by far the best value of money for the taxpayer, let me know because every one of them was.
Speaker 2: The president said the other day that you might look at treasuries. Could you explain that a little bit? What kind of fraud or and that question goes to both of you. What kind of fraud are you expecting to see or do you see right now in US treasuries?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I think you mean the the treasury department as opposed to treasury bills. Or,
Speaker 2: You also reference treasuries on Air Force One
Speaker 1: the other night. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: Well, the as I mentioned earlier, really the the first order of business is to make sure we're actually collecting sorry for this. Although my son might might enjoy this, but he's he's sticking his fingers in my ears and stuff. So it's a bit hot to hear sometimes. Hey. Stop that.
So, no. The stuff we're doing with with the Treasury Department is so basic, that you can't believe it doesn't exist already. So so so, for example, like I mentioned, just making sure that that when a payment goes out, it has to have the payment categorization codes. Like, what type of payment is this? You can't just leave the field blank.
Currently, many payments that the field's left blank. We and you have to describe what's the payment for, some basic rationalization that also is left blank. So this is why, you know, the Pentagon when's the last time the Pentagon passed an audit? I mean, decade ago maybe. I or whatever.
Really? And we wanna just in order to actually pass audits, you have to have financial information that allows you to trace the payments. So, you know, and and and once in a while, the the the the treasury has to test to pause payments, if it thinks the payment is going to a fraudulent organization. Like, if if a if a company or an organization is on a do not pay list, we should not pay it. I'm sure you would agree.
Like, if it's quite hard to get on that payment, let let me do no pay list. It means that this is someone that is just it's like dead people, terrorists, known fraudsters, that kind of thing. We should not pay them. But currently, we do, which is crazy. We should stop that.
Speaker 3: We're not gonna buy transactions.
Speaker 1: And by the way, hundreds, thousands of transactions like that. You know, we have a big team. And for the sake of the country, I hope that the person that's in charge and the other people that report to me that are in charge are allowed to do the right thing. Namely, make sure everything's honest, legitimate, and competent. But we're looking at just, when you look at USAID, that was that's one.
We're gonna look at the military. We're gonna look at education. They're much bigger areas. But the USAID is really corrupt. I'll tell you, it's corrupt.
It's incompetent and it's really corrupt. And I can't imagine a judge saying, well, it may be corrupt, but you don't have the right. You got elected to look over the country and to, as we say, make America great again, but you don't have the right to go and look and see whether or not things are right that they're paying or that things are honest that they're paying. And nobody can even believe there's other people, law professors, they've been saying, can't how can you take that person's right away? You're supposed to be running the country, but we're not allowed to look at who they're paying it to and what they're paying.
We have massive amounts of fraud that we caught. I think we probably caught way over a lot of billions of dollars already in what? Two weeks?
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And it's gonna go, to numbers that you're not gonna believe. And, much as I said, much is incompetence and much is dishonesty. We have to catch it. And the only way we're gonna catch it is to look for it. And if a judge is gonna say you're not allowed to look for it, that's pretty sad for our country.
It I don't understand how it could even work.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Ram, can you personally guarantee that
Speaker 1: Which one?
Speaker 4: The buyout program offered to federal workers? Can you personally guarantee that the workers who opt in to resign now will be paid
Speaker 3: through September?
Speaker 1: Money, but, they're getting a good deal. They're getting a big buyout. And what we're trying to do is reduce government. We have too many people. We have office space.
It's occupied by 4%. Nobody showing up to work because they were told not to. And then Biden gave him a five year pass, some of them, 48,000 of them, gave him a five year pass that for five years, you don't have to show up to work. And
Speaker 3: and let
Speaker 1: me tell you, this is largely much of this stuff is because of Biden. It's his fault. He allowed this country what he did on our border. What he did on our border is almost not as bad as what he did with, all of these contracts that have come out. It's it's a very sad day when we look at it.
I can't even believe it. But many contracts just extend and they just keep extending, and there was nobody there to correct it. And, that that cannot be I can't imagine that could be held up by the court. Any court that would say that the president or his representatives, like secretary of the treasury, secretary of state, whatever, doesn't have the right to go over their books and make sure everything's honest. I mean, how can you have a country?
You can't have anything that way. You can't have a business that way. You can't have a country that way. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
We'll be at the White House tonight at about 10:00. If you wanna come over, you can say hello to Omar.
Speaker 3: Did you
Speaker 4: guys do anything in return?
Speaker 1: Not much? No. They were very nice. We were treated nicely by Russia, actually. I hope that's the beginning of a re relationship where we can end that war and, millions of people can stop being killed.
They've lost millions of people. They lost in terms of, soldiers, probably 1,500,000 soldiers in a short period of time. We gotta stop that war. And I'm interested primarily from the standpoint of death. We're losing all those soldiers.
And then not American soldiers, the Ukrainian and Russian soldiers. But but you're probably talking about a million and a half. I think I think we gotta bring that one to an end. K? Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you, Robert. You, Robert.
Speaker 0: Let's go.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Moving. 10:00.
Speaker 3: Ten
Speaker 1: o'clock United Way
