Democrats Turn the Tables in GOP Hearings

"I really want to spend my entire story."

“"Stayar, how do you feel about the story?"”

"Yes, I have a lot of time to get over 1000 euros." "Do you have connections or do you have access to the aircraft?" "No, just like the story." "Wow, and that's just a thing." "Yeah, the world is automatically all automatic."

"I feel so completely so." "And Span, hold your money." "Upgab of Christ 31st, you're Yuli." "What?" "Shafst, you're Span, how do you feel?"

"Oh, here." "My name's Alexander." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me."

"And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me."

"And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me."

"And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me."

"And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me."

"And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me."

"And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me." "And I have a friend called me."

“"Well, you're back on the goddamn front page now."”

"With two innocent people gunned down in broad daylight." That right there was Democratic Congress member magazine or he was not holding back in yesterday. We saw Democrats at the various hearings before the United States House of Representatives.

And the United States Senate really punching back hard.

Now that Congress has finally returned back into session.

Let me show you what went down. I want to share this with you as Democratic Senator Jack Reed. It was cross-examining Supreme Court justices who testified before the United States Senate yesterday. And here Senator Reed reads the Supreme Court justices who were testifying in order to try to get more money for the Supreme Court for their own personal safety.

Senator Reed read Donald Trump's words and was saying, "You do realize like this is one of the main reasons why your court and why so many judges across the country are facing severe threats. You're playing this clip." I want to pick up a point that Senator Collins made about some outrageous statements that are being

made by public figures. And I can't think of a more prominent one in the president of the United States. So in February 20th, following the decision on tariffs, he said, "Disgrace to our nation, fools, laptops, the rhinos, and radical left Democrats, and very unpatriarched and disboiled to the Constitution, and he was described in the Supreme Court."

On March 15th, he posted, "Our country was unnecessarily ransacked by the United States Supreme Court, which is going a little more than a weaponized and unjust political organization." Now I don't agree with anything he said, but if there's anyone in the country that commands

“more attention to, it's the president, and I think that behavior is very dangerous to the court”

and to our whole system, and I just want that to be part of the record." Justice Cagan, you asked him off. Thank you, if I could, Senator Reed, wherever these come from, and you know, whatever political figure says them, whatever party that political figure is a member of, these statements are a really unhelpful, they're dangerous in terms of individual justice's security, and they're

not appropriate in the way to treat a coordinated branch of government. I think that Chief Justice had a year and statement last year where he talked about this issue, and he talked about criticism as fair game, I mean go for it, life in the big city is that you're subject to all kinds of criticism, but intimidation is a different thing entirely, and when political figures of any stripe are trying to intimidate judges and justices to

do things that they like rather than the things that they don't, that's where we really have crossed the line. I think you're exactly right, Your Honor, and you said it well.

You wanted a moment to talk about the process where the $28 million request is made through

appropriation channels, and then $30 million appeared subtly through private channels, please. Yeah, I think Justice Barrett referenced this a bit, and first of, we apologize if we did anything so procedurally improper, but the reason for the additional ask, if you will,

and we thought that we were going to have US Marshall protection at our residences for another

six months, and all of a sudden learned from the Justice Department that that was going to be impossible, and so we had to do some sort of quick footwork to try to get additional monies in order to cover that six-month gap. And as I say, if we did that in a way that was procedurally less than optimal, my apologies. Well, Your security is more important than procedurally nice it is, so there's no issue here. Next, I want to share with you in the House of Representatives,

Democratic Congress member Polkhan, cross-examining the small business administration and administrator, Kelly Lefler. Now, Kelly Lefler is a billionaire. She actually hates small business,

and that's usually the criteria for Donald Trump picking somebody at a specific position. He picks

an attorney general who hates the law. He picks a health secretary who hates health. He picks a energy secretary who is corrupt as hell and just represents the interest of oil companies. He picks a health secretary who hates health. He picks an environmental protection agency ahead who hates the environment. I can continue to go on. He hates he picks a defense department's secretary, you know, who couldn't even run a nonprofit for the troops. So let me share with you

as Congress member Polkhan Grills, Kelly Lefler, here, play this clip. Who pays tariffs? Congressman, according to Harvard and the Richmond Fed 80% of the Paris tariffs are paid by

“the foreign countries, where they originate. That's why the United States was on its heels for 50 years.”

That would be like me saying, if you said what colors my hair, I would say have long flowing

red hair, right? Because it's complete BS, right? That's not true. Who pays tariffs are these small businesses who have been impacted, 42,600 on average, last September, and then they passed the car costs on to consumers. So before I sold my business, when Donald Trump started his tariffs last year, I started getting increases on aluminum sheets. I did engravings one of parts of the idea that it's specialty printing. But I also got increases by the way, on American made walnut

plaques. Because they decided they could also make money while they're doing the increased costs and tariffs that could pass on some other costs. So that's part of the fun of being a small business, not a really, really, really rich big business. But when you're small business, that's the kind of

“stuff you have to juggle. So I did see the impact in invoices. Every single day, I would see those”

coming in and we paid those extra costs yard signwires for politicians. We made political signs for folks. We saw the steel costs increase because of the tariffs. So I'm just saying for the average small business, there's been a big impact. And the fact that you're talking to businesses and not hearing this, I'll tell you, I just bluntly not even remember a Congress as a guy who's a small business who ran a business to business in venture. I heard it all the time and I still hear it all

the time. And I sit down and meet with my small businesses in my community. So what can I say to them when I say the SBA Administrator says foreign countries are paying tariffs, you just are imagining it or you're lying because they're not imagining it, they're not lying. Well, congressmen with all do respect. I'm going to set aside the reductive comments you made about small business success because every small business is, you're saying, you're saying, you're saying a small bit,

the real small venture doesn't matter if their bankruptcies are 50%. You only care about big businesses. That's the new policy of the SBA. A collision unless Donald Trump and his sons can invest in. It's not something you care about. Is that what you're saying? Repair a company. You voted against

“the working family tax cut where that repairman, where that auto mechanic is not easy. If you want to”

go there, I need five more minutes. That's you. You have no clue. Give me five more minutes and I'll ask you questions about that. Yeah. Well, a yield back. This administration is fighting for the American worker. Think about small businesses. Now, I do want to show you that full speech by congress member magazineer because it was very impressive here. Let's play this clip. Mr. Speaker, in the last week ice agents shot and killed two more innocent people in broad daylight.

In both cases, the people they shot and killed weren't even the people they were looking for. In both cases, they shot and killed people who were on their way to work in front of their families. In Houston last week Lorenzo Salgado Arrejo, a construction worker who has lived in the United States for 35 years, a husband with three children, no criminal record. He was driving to work with the lunch that his wife had packed for him and his brother riding in the passenger seat.

yesterday in Maine, Jones Sebastian Guerrero, 26 years old, legally authorized to work in the

United States, legally authorized, shot and killed by ice agents who thought he was somebody else. In front of his wife and his three-year-old daughter who screamed, wearing her blue-y pajamas while she watched her father bleed to death. How many more innocent people have to be killed in broad daylight? How many more children have to watch their parents shot to death by masked men too cowardly to show their faces? When will this madness stop? When he took his position,

Secretary Mullen said that his goal was to get the department off the front page of the news.

Well, you're back on the goddamn front page now with two innocent people gunned down in broad daylight.

“Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. It is total chaos. And you know what?”

In both of these shootings in Texas and in Maine, none of the agents were wearing their body cameras. Congress gave them tens of millions of dollars for body cameras and none of them were wearing them. Where's the accountability? And you want to know why we won't vote, why I won't vote to give funding to this lawless, reckless, dangerous agency? Mark my words, we are not going to be silent about what is happening. We are not going to forget until there is justice.

And next, I want to show you what went down when you had the chairman of the federal reserve, Kevin Worsh testifying, and Democratic Congress member, Gregory Millery Meeks, Gregory Miller Meeks was cross-examining Kevin Worsh. And he got Kevin Worsh to say on the record

“that I am going to put the law over Donald Trump that I won't listen to Donald Trump's threats.”

Let me show you this good cross-examination by Congressmen Meeks here play this clip. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And congratulations Mr. Chairman. You're just jumping to this because in your testimony you talked about the federal reserves and I quote "rightful independence" and the conduct of monetary policy, which is good. Now, as the chairman, hell has indicated, I also do some foreign affairs work.

And I'm very concerned about what's taking place in the state of Hamus and rising cost of gas because we know that when those prices up, go up at the pump, it's getting higher transportation and energy cost and they work their way through the economy, generally making groceries, high-end households, goods, etc. So it depends upon Hamus. So if the administration is handling of the conflict with Iran contributes to another inflationary shock, will you make the decision you

believe is in the best interest of the American people and the American economy in that rightful

independence stance? Congressman, that is always our commitment to make the best decision we can

consistent with the remit and our understanding of the world. And as I said to the chairman of the Alsaq, will deliver price stability. So, and that's, you know, still based upon what we've seen from the president that's far, I just want to be clear, make sure that like I'd be clear on this, that if the president publicly crashes you to pursue a different cost in the one you believe is in the economic, the Jubilee, the economic data supports, will you follow the president's wishes

or follow the data? My commitment to you is to follow the law and follow the data, follow our very best judgment. And that's even if he publicly criticizes you for doing it. If you decide this is the way to go, this is what the data shapes and he publicly criticizes you and tells you how disappointed he's in you and all of that will you still do what the data tells you to do? I will, Congressman. You ready for that? I'm ready to follow the law and I'm ready for the Fed to deliver

on the expansive remit that you gave us. I'll make only one other note. We have a wide lens. We're interested in what's happening in the war. We're interested in what's happening in military conflicts around. We have to take that all in, but then we have to shut the door and make our very

“best decision. That's what we're going to do in a couple of weeks and that's what we'll do in the”

remainder of my tenure. Here's something most people are and told about their credit score. It's not just whether you pay your credit cards, it's when you pay them. I didn't know this. Most people don't

created something called the best pay-down date, built around how credit reporting actually works.

“So instead of guessing, you get personalized strategy that shows you what to do and when to do it”

to help you maximize your score. The wish I knew about this sooner, I really do. That matters because better credit can mean lower payments and more money in your pocket. And this is where it gets interesting. You can see your full credit picture in one place, your score, what's affecting it,

and if something needs attention, you can take care of it right there. That's huge. So before you apply

for anything, a car, apartment, refinance, it makes sense to start with smart credit. Go to smart credit.com/mitis and try it for just one dollar. You may be a surprise to see how many points smart credit estimates that you can gain. That's smart credit.com/mitis results vary cancel anytime. Going back to the left-ler cross-exam now for a moment. Let me share with you as Congress member

Stany Hoyer, cross-exam, and Kelly left-ler right here. Let's play this clip.

Have you received any directions from OMB at any time during the course of your administration with the SBA to not disperse funding that has been appropriate? Well, we're working closely, both internally and externally. So we work with OMB. We work with our internal, political, and career colleagues to ensure that the funds are going out as directed, as intended, by Congress, and that they meet the law and that they meet the executive orders. And so we have continued to look at

“meeting all those objectives and making sure that the programs, I think small businesses would be”

interested to know that some of the programs that were lined up for funding were things like the Binational Institute for Human Development, which supports illegal aliens in Guatemala and excuse me, I don't remember. I have limited time. I'm going to question myself pretty simple, which I don't think you've answered. And that is, have you been directed at any point in time since you have been the administrator of the SBA by OMB and Mr. Vote, not necessarily him personally, but OMB to not expand money that had been appropriated by Congress? I have been directed to follow the law and in doing so, I'm following

the White House executive orders, I'm working internally, and we're making sure that everything that is that you have directed to get out gets out. But we are not going to blindly write blank checks like the last administration did to the Chinese Mutual Aid Society. I know that for the meantime, because my time is short, you didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you whether you have done things that are prudent to do. I asked you have you been directed by either Mr. Vote directly or OMB not to expand funds that were appropriated by the Congress of the United States. Now you're avoiding, that's an either. Yes or no question. I think I've been very clear that we are following all requirements to get

no, that's not very clear. And I do not work directly on grant disbursements and I'll be happy to have my team follow up with you to clarify, but all of the funding that we've committed to getting out, we are getting out. Let me be clear, the Biden administration did not get their money out. 300 more cross-examination here about leftler closing SBA offices in blue cities and blue states and not in red states and red cities, totally politicizing it. Let's play this clip.

“Now with all due respect, you're closing up cities around the countries, that is in terms of your reorganization to which the chairman referred. Is that accurate?”

That's inaccurate. Okay, what is accurate? When I came in, we had 132 offices. I think people would be shocked to know that we had 132 offices, 29 of which had zero or one employee. Okay. Are you closing offices? Yes, we absolutely are. Can you name me an office that you are closing that is in a blue city or blue district? One. We don't classify them by blue city. Can you name one? We are making suffrage. It's said he could consider the politics. No, we're changing areas. Can you name one? Madam Minister.

I can name suffrage. I can tell you we have had to move out. What are they? Los Angeles, Portland, New York, Chicago, Atlanta. No, that we're closed. Can you name me one that is scheduled to be closed that is not in a blue district?

We had an office for four years that had no employees working in it. We didn't even have access. We don't close it with the key.

What if you had no people working at it? We were paying for it. The taxpayers are now saving 32 million dollars.

We have not answered either one of them. That's regrettable. I will send you some questions in writing. I would hope you would answer them. Thank you very much. Then we heard from Congresswoman Dallaro. Let me share with you her cross examination right here. Let's play it. I just see the process does seem to favor and these are not my words. I can quote you judge judge eaten.

“I mean, that's what I wish to say this to you. If you could get to us a rundown of with the refunds, who was getting those refunds, the amount of the refunds and their category is a large business wall business, whatever it is.”

If you were the companies getting the trade refunds so that you can dispel what is public knowledge about these efforts, which you don't seem to know about. The process seems to favor large companies with in-house customs experts outside trade council, while smaller business often lack the resources. I want to ask you, does that SBA share that concern? I'm afraid I'm going to get the same answer about the thriving small businesses have SBA conducted any assessment of whether small businesses are just proportionally struggling to access tower refunds compared to larger firms.

Are you doing an assessment of that? It's yes or no.

No, man, you're not doing an assessment of what's happening on this day. Is will you commit to working with CBP to provide this committee with a report identifying how many small businesses have successfully received refunds and what are the barriers that remain? I will commit to continuing to advancing the interests of small businesses. No, no, this is CBP to provide this committee with a report. Can you get us a report? We're frequently asked to deliver reports. These reports are not what my staff will be happy to meet with your staff.

“I want to, which this committee needs a report of what's happening?”

I can tell you what's happening on the ground with small businesses.

Oh God, no, you can't. Small businesses do not have access to the same legal resources as Fortune 500 companies. Let me be clear. This isn't a question of whether not someone supports or opposes tariffs is about ensuring that the small businesses that you represent and the manufacturers in Connecticut are treated fairly federal government owes the money. They shouldn't have to jump through hooks to get it back. It is that simple. Mr. Chairman, I'm requested a report. I hope the committee believes that we should get a report and understand what is happening with the tariff refunds for large businesses and small businesses.

I feel back. Next, I want to share with you Congresswoman Velasquez, cross-examining Chairman of the Federal Reserve Kevin Wars. You can hear this for yourself. Let's play this clip.

“I'd like to start with it. Straight forward, simple question. Do you work for Donald Trump?”

Yes or no? If I'm permitted to say we're an independent central bank or honored to be independent or independence came from you. Okay, that's enough. Thank you. What steps would you take if the president or others in the administration target you or your fellow governors? Because he doesn't like how many of them are voting on interest rate policy.

It's not my intuition to engage in hypotheticals, but I'll tell you this. The Supreme Court said the Supreme Court said that the Federal Reserve and the Conduct of Monetary Policy is independent. The extent there were questions about it, the courts answered those questions. So what would you do? I would continue to do my job.

Good. Chair Wars, do you agree that Monetary Policy exists in an extremely polarized and politicized environment? Outside the four walls of the Federal Reserve, there's no doubt a lot of politics. My goal inside the central bank is for there to be no politics. The extent there's politics there, we're going to get rid of them. Well, I along with many of my side will say that the attempted fireings of a seeding Fed governor and Fed share in the central banks 111 year history is quite the politicization and polarization of the Fed.

Chair Wars, at your nomination hearing a few months ago, you said, and I state, I am committed to ensuring that the conduct of monetary policy remains strictly independent.

Are you still committed to conducting independent monetary policy today?

Absolutely. The crime mistrust of government and the political environments surrounding your appointment, the decision to limit communications and offload Fed objectives. To plan this time, task forces with no clear transparency calls your motivations into question. Can you commit today to institute an explanatory framework that details the reasoning of the Fed's actions following policy changes?

I'm here today, Congressman, to do just that.

“And I think I've demonstrated in my first six or seven weeks in office, a commitment to independence and a commitment to reform.”

Those two are of common, common importance and I'm going to deliver on both of them. I'm glad to hear that. And let me share with you Senator Van Holland's cross-examination of the Supreme Court justices, Justice Kagan and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Here, let's play this clip. On a related sort of question of public confidence, I want to ask you about prediction markets, because prediction markets have faced very little federal oversight.

They're largely self-regulating. We've already seen insider trading by government officials in other branches and in the military. Supreme Court justices and their staff have access to similar information. They're not immune from this trend. Here are some of the event contracts that are currently being offered on Kashi.

Who will be the next Supreme Court, Justice?

“Will Trump be held liable for January 6 in any court?”

Will the independence of the judiciary be weakened during Trump's term? Now, clearly members of the Senate and Senate staff could have information that could be helpful to them in playing the prediction markets. The Senate actually is now adopted as a matter of Senate rules of prohibition on doing that. So my question to you is will the court do the same both for justices and for the staff of the Supreme Court? That's already covered.

I understand that this is already covered because there is a prohibition on using information that you know within the court to make financial gain. And not just for justices, but for all the employees of the court. Okay, so it's your view that the current language of the rules already prohibits every member of the court staff. And obviously the members of the court itself from engaging in prediction markets.

“I think this isn't incredibly important area, so if you're charged to us, just go back and look for any loopholes, we'll willingly take on it.”

Yeah, I would suggest that we don't want loopholes in your business. This is super important. I appreciate that. Well, there's legislation that's been, I think, just introduced in the house. So I think there may be a feeling that the current language may not be airtight.

So if you could go back and look at that, I'd appreciate it.

Well, powerful stuff, indeed. Let me know what you think. It's a went down yesterday.

Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers and thanks for watching everybody.