IT'S OVER! 💀 Sen. Kennedy Just EXPOSED The Ultimate Betrayal LIVE!

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]like we were drunken sailors.

[00:00:03]Actually, we're we're worse than drunken sailors because drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money and Congress doesn't. Um, and we can help by changing our ways in that respect.

[00:00:16]>> It is the moment the elites in Washington feared most. While the average American struggles to put food on the table, billions of your hard-earned dollars are vanishing into a black hole of foreign aid and government waste. But today, the game is officially over. Senator John Kennedy just walked into the room with the receipts. He didn't just ask questions. He delivered a masterclass in savage accountability.

[00:00:42]From the drunk sailor spending in DC to the ultimate betrayal of the middle class, Kennedy is dismantling the system piece by piece. The room went silent.

[00:00:52]The officials panicked. And for the first time in 25 years, the truth was finally caught red-handed on camera. You are about to witness the most brutal takedown in Senate history. But before we reveal the final blow, hit that subscribe button if you think Kennedy is the only one speaking for the people.

[00:01:11]Buckle up because it's finally over.

[00:01:14]Let's get into it.

[00:01:15]>> Mr. Grime, am I saying your name right?

[00:01:18]>> You are, Senator.

[00:01:19]>> Uh, you argued the Cala case.

[00:01:22]>> I did. Okay. I I'm I'm going to tell you my understanding of the case and then Mr. Cox, you can you you're I'm going to ask you to to tell me if Mr. Grime got it right. Mr. Chamberlain, you can you can chime in if you would like.

[00:01:40]Are you familiar, Mr. Grime, with the students for fair admissions case?

[00:01:46]>> I am.

[00:01:46]>> Okay. That's the uh case recently where the Supreme Court said you can't use race and college admissions.

[00:01:54]Now, here's what I heard the Supreme Court say in that case. I heard the Supreme Court say, "Look, colleges, we're we're not going to get into the admissions business. That's your business. We're just telling you you can't use race as a factor to admit anybody."

[00:02:14]Is that your understanding of the case?

[00:02:16]basically. Yes. And they did a whole 14th amendment amendment.

[00:02:20]>> Don't don't don't don't try to muddy the water to make it look deep. Guys, I know you're all smart. I'm just trying to get to the bottom line. Am I wrong or right?

[00:02:29]>> You're right.

[00:02:30]>> Okay. Now the the way I read Cala is that the Supreme Court is saying um look the these first of all these are political questions and we we're we're not going to tell the states how to draw congressional districts. We we don't want to be in that business. That's a political question. We're just saying you can't use race as a factor. Is that what they did in Cala or am I misunderstanding?

[00:03:01]>> That that's basically it. You can use it to remedy, you know, past discrimination that that you've proven. Um but that wasn't the case in the Cala case. They the other side didn't prove it.

[00:03:14]>> Well, but the the this once again, you you're muddy in that water, man. Um, did the court or did it not say that you can't use race to draw a congressional district?

[00:03:30]>> In most cases, you can't unless the unless the U state, the person defending the map shows that they had to use it because there was a showing of immediately past intentional discrimination that they had to use race to unwind.

[00:03:45]>> Okay. Tell tell me whether he got it right, Mr. Cox. Senator, quite frankly, the defense of the Cala case is such a tortured exercise. It's >> I don't want to hear.

[00:03:56]>> So, I'm going to tell you what SFA how SFA applies to Cal.

[00:04:00]>> Did he get it right or >> he did not get it right?

[00:04:03]>> So, in uh under under uh application of of of to discuss Cala, you have to really discuss what what happened in the case that created the district that was challenged in Cali. That was Robinson.

[00:04:14]The court required the the state of Louisiana to redraw its plans pursuant to its findings of a section 2 violation.

[00:04:22]>> Look, I don't have a fight justify the creation of >> I don't want to have a fight. Can you just tell me and I You're smart and I I I don't want to make this more complicated than it is. Tell me what he got right or wrong.

[00:04:34]>> I'm I'm telling you what he got wrong was ignored.

[00:04:36]>> No, you're speaking like a lawyer. Okay.

[00:04:39]And I'm tired of I've listened to you gentlemen. Okay, let's just get down to it.

[00:04:44]Uh, Mr. Chamberlain, tell me what Mr. Grime got right or wrong.

[00:04:48]>> He got it all right. You think I'm really going to tell the guy who argued in one Cala that he didn't understand what he was arguing?

[00:04:54]>> Okay.

[00:04:55]>> Sorry, not totally respectful, obviously. I think he's got a good handle on that.

[00:04:59]>> I I don't I understand that, Mr. Cox. I don't mean to be rude, the importance of precedent and all that, but didn't the Supreme Court say except in very narrow circumstances, you just can't use race to help a person and you can't use race to harm a person.

[00:05:17]And that includes in drawing congressional districts.

[00:05:21]In answering that question, I'm going to tell you that the Robinson court which gave rise to the district that was challenged in Calala said that there was a violation of the Voting Rights Act that it was required to draw a a district or draw a redistricting plan that satisfied the Voting Rights Act that allowed African-Americans to elect candidates of choice.

[00:05:41]>> You don't hear you, Mr. Cox.

[00:05:44]>> I'm answering your question. Maybe an answer that you don't like and my colleagues don't. No, you're not. But I'm answering your question. you're giving us another lecture and this is not a common law class. Tell me in simple terms, is that not what the court said?

[00:05:58]>> The court said a lot of things that were inaccurate. So I that is that the court said you can you can't use race at all in drawing plans. We disagree with that.

[00:06:07]But what the court really did was say that you can prove race was was you can prove it was intentional discrimination which is in violation of this Congress's intent. It also sprinkled partisanship as a defense for any challenge to section any challenge under section two.

[00:06:23]>> All right. Well, I'm about out of time.

[00:06:24]I I I can see no disrespect, Mr. Cox, but you're not answering any of my questions. And and I know you're disappointed in the decision, but let me put it another way. Do you think race should be used to help a person?

[00:06:40]>> I don't understand that question. Race should be used to help. Do you think race should be used to help a person?

[00:06:46]>> I believe that if there is a racial viol a violation that of of the law that uh race discrimination, I believe a a remedy that's race conscious can be required. Yes.

[00:06:58]>> Do you think race should be used to harm a person?

[00:07:02]>> I don't really understand what that question.

[00:07:04]>> No, I didn't think you would. Uh Mr. Chamberlain, do you think race it's fair in America to use race to help a person at the expense of other races?

[00:07:14]>> No.

[00:07:15]>> Do you think it's it's fair in America to use race to hurt another person?

[00:07:22]>> No.

[00:07:23]>> How about you, Mr. Grime?

[00:07:25]>> Absolutely not. Race should should not be used to help or hurt an individual.

[00:07:30]>> And and no disrespect to Mr. Cox. He's very bright. I can see that. And I've been where you've been. You know, when you get in front of a court of appeal and you're you're losing, you know, you you want to kind of obiscate. I get it.

[00:07:45]But that to me is what the court's saying here in all these cases. We're not going to try to run your business.

[00:07:52]Not in the college admissions, not in drawn districts, but you can't use race.

[00:07:58]Period. End of discussion.

[00:08:00]And I think that's what the Constitution says and what most Americans support. I know you're disappointed, Mr. Cox.

[00:08:08]>> I'm not disappointed. I'm outraged, >> but but that's what the Constitution says.

[00:08:11]>> Well, can I add one more thing that's not quite exactly um addressing what you what you asked. I do think there's a role for a co-equal branch of government, Congress, to make its own determination regarding how it wants its laws enforced. And I would urge this Congress to reconsider Calala in that light.

[00:08:30]>> Yeah. But you and I are both aware that the United States State Supreme Court has full authority to pass on the constitutionality of a statute. Come on.

[00:08:39]You know that.

[00:08:41]I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

[00:08:44]If both Mobile versus Balden is any example of what can and can't happen, this Congress can take a look at Cala and say, "Actually, you got it wrong and you actually didn't interpret what we intended in 1982 correctly."

[00:08:57]>> The the problem with your argument is I don't think race should be used to help a person because of his race. And I don't think race should be used to harm a person because of his or her race. And I think that's what most Americans believe. Now, if you don't believe the opposite, and you clearly do, this is American. You can believe what you want, but the Supreme Court is deciding these cases. They're saying race is off the table.

[00:09:24]>> I hear you. And I believe as a civil rights lawyer that if you find a violation based on race, you need to craft a remedy that addresses that. Um my my my biggest surprise from the summit between presidents Trump and sheep was how open and notorious President Xi was with respect to his insecurity about Taiwan.

[00:09:52]I mean before, during, after the summit, um he he basically said, "America, President Trump need to leave Taiwan alone. Taiwan is ours."

[00:10:07]And President Xi has this reputation built up by many members of our media as being this master negotiator.

[00:10:15]I found that surprising.

[00:10:17]It's understandable.

[00:10:20]America has learned how to fight again.

[00:10:24]And I'm sure President Xi is looking at what President Trump did in in Venezuela and Cuba and Iran and the Sahel and Yemen.

[00:10:35]Um, be that as it may, Mr. Xi has demonstrated and telegraphed his insecurities. That gives us leverage.

[00:10:47]Doesn't that argue for us to go forward with an arm sale to Taiwan and others after it?

[00:10:56]General, let me ask you first or secretary, whoever wants to answer.

[00:11:02]>> Um, Senator, the the the portion of it that I would uh strongly and very vehemently disagree with is um that in any instance where President Trump is, he would concede anything unnecessarily.

[00:11:15]And so I >> I didn't I didn't ask that. I I if you can't answer, tell me because I I I don't want anybody to get fired. It just seems to me I was surprised that President Xi was so so obvious in his insecurities. He's worried about Taiwan.

[00:11:31]He's worried about America supporting Taiwan. If we want to if we want stability, we're not going to get it by being nice to Shei. We're going to get it by be making him respect our strength.

[00:11:45]Don't you think that argues for us to go forward with arm sales to Taiwan?

[00:11:49]>> Uh, Senator, I can say that under this budget, um, this 1.5 trillion dollar budget, we we will be in an even stronger position to defend our question, Mr. Secretary.

[00:12:00]>> I I it's a policy question that is above my title 10 authority, Senator.

[00:12:04]>> All right. Well, let me ask you, let me shift direction. I look I I I don't I don't think you have to be Einstein's cousin to figure out what we ought to do next in terms of establishing deterrence, but maybe that's just me. Um, is Russia our friend?

[00:12:26]>> No.

[00:12:29]>> Between Ukraine and Russia and the war they're fighting, who do we want to win?

[00:12:36]Ukraine.

[00:12:38]>> Okay.

[00:12:40]Um, isn't it a fact? Well, strike that.

[00:12:43]What's the most powerful army in Europe?

[00:12:52]>> Sir, I'd say anywhere that a United States soldier is.

[00:12:55]>> I understand. Other than the United States in the world, >> what's the most powerful European army?

[00:13:01]It's it's probably uh between uh Russia and uh you know some of our allies have some incredible army service incredible capabilities.

[00:13:10]>> It's Ukraine, isn't it?

[00:13:12]>> Sir, Ukraine has a has been has has done an incredible job against aggressor.

[00:13:18]>> Don't you find it breathtaking, General?

[00:13:21]They started with nothing. I do find it breathtaking >> and and I just they're producing two now 200 drones a day in addition to cruise missiles to reach into Russia. They've taken out 40% of Russia's ability to export its oil. I just find and they started with nothing. I remember when all the experts who are almost always wrong, oh Russia's going to move in on Ukraine. They're going to roll in like thunder on a summer night.

[00:13:54]It'll be over in two days. And now Ukraine has turned the tide.

[00:14:00]Why don't we support taking those $200 billion dollar of Russian assets in Europe that we have seized and getting that money to Ukraine and let's win this thing or at least get Putin into a position where he'll negotiate a settlement.

[00:14:19]Would you support that?

[00:14:23]>> Again, Senator, my title 10 authorities that that's a policy question outside of our lane.

[00:14:28]>> I mean, it just seems so I'm not talking about federal money.

[00:14:33]There's $200 billion sitting there.

[00:14:36]Heck, there's there's UK there's $ 31 billion in the UK alone. France Mcronone, President Mcronone, SW guy, he's always giving us advice and and fussing at us. France is sitting on $22 billion dollars. Why don't they give that to Ukraine?

[00:14:54]They'll use the money to buy some of our our our our weapons. It's just sitting there. If we want to win, why don't we support taking the 200 plus billion dollars and saying, "Here, Ukraine, here's the money. Go whip their ass."

[00:15:12]You're not going You don't want to answer that, do you guys? I understand.

[00:15:15]I get it. I'm I went over I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

[00:15:21]>> Thank you, Senator Padilla. Uh, Senator Kennedy.

[00:15:28]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Sheriff, I'm a little confused by some of the answers, but let me ask Senator Bad's question a different way.

[00:15:39]Um, in in choosing a law clerk, do you believe that a law clerk applicants race should be used to harm that person?

[00:15:53]>> Uh, neither to harm nor benefit.

[00:15:56]Senator, I I believe that applicants should be considered based on their their background and experience.

[00:16:03]>> So, you don't think a person's race should be used to harm them?

[00:16:07]>> Correct. Senator, >> do you think a person's race should be used to help them?

[00:16:13]>> Uh, not not in that context, Senator.

[00:16:15]No.

[00:16:16]>> Okay.

[00:16:17]Um, raise your hand, please, for me if if you're a member, a duespaying member of the American Bar Association.

[00:16:31]So, two out of six are members.

[00:16:37]What? Why? Why? Uh, Judge, why aren't you a member, >> Senator? I was a member for many years of the American Bar Association.

[00:16:44]>> Why did you get out?

[00:16:46]>> I honestly, Senator, when I was a member, my uh law firm paid the dues.

[00:16:50]>> Yeah.

[00:16:51]>> And so, I don't pay the dues for the American Bar Association, but I was very involved.

[00:16:55]>> I relevant and not worth the money.

[00:16:58]>> Uh, no, sir. Um, as you know from my record, I actually co-chared the section of litigation uh for a number of years and I thought it was very beneficial uh as a lawyer.

[00:17:08]>> But but it wasn't important enough to you to pay yourself. It it wasn't uh so much uh that uh Senator, it's just that many of the benefits of the American Bar Association, at least for judges, um I I'm already participating in what the administrative offices provide with training, which is really what I was doing as a lawyer.

[00:17:29]>> Beneficial to you if somebody else paid for it?

[00:17:31]>> No, sir. It's just that as a lawyer, I used it uh primarily for legal education. Okay. And as a judge, >> I don't want to spend too much time on this. Just for the record, two out of a six of of our nominees today uh are dues have chosen to be dues paying members of the American Bar Association. Mr. Sheriff, um how long have you been a member of the ACLU?

[00:17:58]>> Senator, I believe I first contributed in 2019.

[00:18:02]>> And how much money have you given them?

[00:18:05]>> I believe it's approximately $100. $120 >> and >> a year. I'm I'm sorry.

[00:18:10]>> A year?

[00:18:11]>> Yes.

[00:18:11]>> Okay. And um um why why did you first decide to contribute to them?

[00:18:19]>> Uh Senator, I uh contribute to >> just briefly >> charitable organizations. Um they uh work on first amendment issues.

[00:18:32]>> Yeah. Now, you're a member of the ACLU of Southern California.

[00:18:38]>> That's correct.

[00:18:39]>> All right.

[00:18:40]Um, a couple years ago, the ACLU of Southern California put out a statement.

[00:18:46]They said that US policing has quote historical roots in slave patrols close quote.

[00:18:55]And the ACLU chapter of Southern California went on to say that police presence has quote devastating and discriminatory impacts on tens of thousands of California students close quote. You agree with that, >> Senator? I'm not familiar with that letter. I have never seen that letter.

[00:19:16]>> Uh but I just read read it to you. You agree with what what that letter said? I I don't I I don't have information relevant to to to that. Um >> you don't agree with it or you do agree with it?

[00:19:32]>> I I can talk to my experience in law enforcement.

[00:19:36]>> I'm sure I'm asking any of you agree disagree with the statement of an organization that you chose to join.

[00:19:42]>> Right. Senator, >> an assistant United States attorney.

[00:19:44]>> I I understand, Senator. I I would have to know a lot more about the where that ev comes from another >> Well, you you're not doubting that I'm reading it to you accurately. Are you?

[00:19:58]>> No, I'm not. But I don't know what what the basis for that information is.

[00:20:02]>> ACLU of Southern California also put out another statement. They said, quote, "ICE is not welcome here." Close quote. Do you agree with that statement, >> Senator? Over well over well nearly 20 years uh in my practice in the Eastern District of California. Uh the office has worked closely with ICE.

[00:20:28]>> Do you agree with that statement? Uh certainly in terms of federal law enforcement, ICE is welcome and we work closely with >> I I maybe I'm not being clear. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that ICE should be welcome in in California?

[00:20:44]>> I I believe that ICE carries out a legitimate launch legitimate function under federal law.

[00:20:50]>> I understand. Give me one more minute, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask Mr. U Labowitz.

[00:20:57]I want to ask your it's a constitutional question.

[00:21:04]I think we now understand that there's some people in America and I dare say many of our college students and college professors who believe my words not theirs but this is what I see who believe in diversity equity inclusion and the right to kill Jews.

[00:21:41]To what extent is that point of view protected by the Constitution and what if any limits are there on that point of view?

[00:21:52]>> Senator, I very much appreciate the question um especially the times uh that we're living in. Um, first, as your former colleague and now the president of one of the great universities in this country, the University of Florida said, the first amendment gives people the absolute right to be abject moral idiots. And Senator Ben Sass, now President Sass, >> so does the Senate.

[00:22:16]>> Um, so I I I I take part of your question that um uh since October the 7th, I think part of what you were saying is that people are taking full advantage of their First Amendment rights. Um and and the the the basic dividing line in answering your question as I understand the court's precedence and the and the first amendment is that there's a very big difference between speech and conduct. There's a very big difference between things like title six, title 7. Um and >> let me stop you because I I don't want to go too far over. Yes. I I think you've made the correct distinction between speech and conduct. If I could have just 30 more seconds. Could the US Department of Education, if if a college professor crosses that line between speech and conduct, could President Biden's Department of Education withhold their federal funding?

[00:23:08]>> Senator, I'm going to only be able to quickly answer part of your question.

[00:23:12]First of all, I do believe that part of the way you phrased it, uh, I'm precluded from answering it because of the cannons of judicial ethics because there are live cases now and live statements now. As I understand it, there are live cases being brought under federal law tracking exactly what you're saying. And I and and I'm not sure if uh if the president's department of education wants to weigh into that or not, but if they did and that case came before me, I wouldn't want those my comments today to be viewed as prejudging them.

[00:23:40]>> Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Senator.

[00:23:44]>> Senator White House, >> let me start by uh >> I believe you have a policy, Madam Secretary, that that you have to approve all contracts at your department over $und00 million.

[00:23:59]>> Uh no sir, I have a policy in place that I review contracts. My deputy chiefs have the ability to review anything under 5 million. Above that, I I evaluate and look at.

[00:24:09]>> Okay. And you do that, I understand, to try to to curb uh waste and abuse of taxpayer money. Is that right?

[00:24:20]>> Yes, sir. In fact, it's been extremely effective. We've uh saved the taxpayers over 13.2 billion dollars just by evaluating contracts, negotiating lower ones, and canceling ones that aren't necessary to do our duties.

[00:24:34]How how do you square that concern for waste, which I share >> uh with the fact that you have u spent $220 million running television advertisements that feature you prominently?

[00:24:57]Um, sir, the president tasked me with getting the message out to the country and to other countries where we were seeing the invasion come from with with putting commercials out that told them that if they were in this country illegally that they needed to leave or we would detain them and remove them and they'd not get the chance to come back to America the right way. Um, that has been extremely effective.

[00:25:19]>> Ask you to run these advertisements. Is that right?

[00:25:24]>> We had that conversation. Yes. before um I was uh put in this position and sworn in and confirmed and since then as well.

[00:25:31]>> Okay. Did you um did you bid out those those service contracts?

[00:25:37]>> Yes, they did. They went out to a competitive bid and career officials at the department chose who would uh do th those advertising commercials. And the people that you ended up picking um were people who had formerly done your political work back in South Dakota. Is that right?

[00:25:58]>> No, that's not correct, sir. I think it is.

[00:26:00]>> No, it's not, sir. Uh we the individuals who uh I believe the careers who they chose uh were two different media firms.

[00:26:09]Um there's been conversation about their subcontractors, but we have no legal authority to look into subcontractors on work like that.

[00:26:17]>> Okay. And you're saying that you're testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time. Is that my understanding?

[00:26:26]>> Uh we had conversations about making sure that we were telling people >> No, ma'am. I'm asking you. Uh, sorry to interrupt, but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently.

[00:26:45]>> Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly do this?

[00:26:50]>> Yes, >> he did.

[00:26:51]>> Mhm. Yes.

[00:26:52]>> Okay. Um, >> and one thing, Senator, I think would be helpful to know is how effective that communications has been. That overwhelming effective in your name recognition. Um, >> I mean, I I personally just I mean, to me, it puts the president in a terribly awkward spot >> and it it it and I just I'm not saying you're not telling the truth. It's just hard for me to believe. You know, and the president as I do that, you said, "Mr. President, here's some ads I've cut and I'm going to spend $220 million running them." That he would have agreed to that. I don't think Russ vote at OM would have agreed to that. I It's something we have to defend. I'm on the appropriations committee. Um I I mean um my my research shows that you did not bid them out that you you p in fact one of the people you picked the strategy group I'm sorry Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them and that the strategy group got most of the money and the head of that is married to your former spokesperson. I'm I'm I'm Look, we all have friends who are qualified. I'm not quibbling with that. I I'm just It troubles me. Quarter a fifth to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money when when we're scratching for every penny and we're fighting over recision packages.

[00:28:36]Um I I just can't agree with Madam Secretary. Are you still running those ads?

[00:28:42]>> Sen Senator, I did not have anything to do with picking those contractors. I no politicals at the Department of Homeland Security did >> understand. Are you officials followed the competitive bid process for those ads?

[00:28:55]>> I think the ads are due to end here in March. I think within a week or so. I'm not sure of the update.

[00:29:01]>> Uh the one that is running is focusing on angel families. Have you seen that?

[00:29:04]It is the one that's talking about this is our why. This is why we work every day is for the angel families and their victims that need to >> and according to your website, you're also, I'm going to quote here, a longtime Democratic Party activist who served as a member of the 2016 Democratic National Conventions Platform Standing Committee. Close quote. Is that correct?

[00:29:37]>> That's correct.

[00:29:38]>> Okay.

[00:29:43]>> You support Hamas, do you not?

[00:29:46]>> I Senator, oddly enough, I'm going to say thank you for that question because it demonstrates the purpose of our hearing today in a very >> Let's start first with a yes or no.

[00:29:55]>> Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization that I do not support. But you asking the executive director of the Arab-American Institute that question very much puts the focus on the issue of hate in our country.

[00:30:06]>> Well, I got I got your answer and I appreciate it.

[00:30:10]>> What is the uh you you support Hezbollah, too, don't you?

[00:30:17]>> Again, I I find this line of questioning extraordinarily disappointing, Senator, that >> you have you have ArabAmerican constituents that you represent in your state. Yes, ma'am. I understand that.

[00:30:28]But is my time's limited and I apologize, but is that a yes or a no?

[00:30:33]>> A yes or no question to do I support Hezbollah. The answer is I don't support violence whether it's his Hamas or any other entity that invokes it. You can't yourself to say no, can you?

[00:30:42]>> No, I can say no. I can say yes. What I can say is do you support or oppose Iran >> and their hatred of Jews?

[00:30:52]>> Again, I'm going to emphasize Iranizah Hamas. None of them is going to this discussion >> yourself to say no >> sir I don't support real simple excuse me I'm going to if I may as a Muslim woman as a Muslim woman sir I'm going to tell you I do not support Iran but what I will tell you is that this conversation >> I'm running out of time I'm sorry >> um >> you uh >> you called our decision >> to cut funding >> you called our decision to cut fund well first what's the United Nations relief and works agency.

[00:31:27]>> It's um ENRA, which is the institution that exists to provide uh services and aid to the nearly 6 million Palestinian refugees.

[00:31:36]>> And you called our our decision to cut funding for them quote an incredible moral failure. Close quote.

[00:31:43]>> That is absolutely correct. But again, I would suggest that conversation is about foreign policy. did that because nine UNRA staff members were fired for for actually helping Hamas on October 7th.

[00:31:57]Isn't that case?

[00:31:58]>> I I don't believe that that's correct in terms of >> Let me ask you one more time. You support Hamas, don't you?

[00:32:05]>> You support Omra and Hamas, don't you?

[00:32:08]>> Sir, please.

[00:32:10]I >> I think it's exceptionally disappointing that you're looking at an ArabAmerican witness before you and saying you support Hamas.

[00:32:18]>> You know what's disappointing to me?

[00:32:20]>> I do not support Hamas. I do not support Hamas. You don't support UNRA. You don't support Hamas. You don't >> I was very clear in my support and you don't support. You should hide your head in a bag.

[00:32:37]>> I want to talk about a serious subject, Mr. President, I want to talk about uh welfare fraud, taxpayer money.

[00:32:49]Now, I want to make it clear that I uh I love Minnesota.

[00:32:57]I love Minnesota, but I do not like people, whether they live in Minnesota or elsewhere, who steal money from the poor.

[00:33:13]There ought to be a special place, this $1 trillion dollar plus a year that we spend helping our neighbors. When people steal that money, it offends me. When they steal from the poor and they steal from the American taxpayer, it offends me equally. And the folks in Minnesota and el and elsewhere who stole this money, who took a giant whiz, giant great dane whiz down the leg of every taxpayer and poor person in America.

[00:33:52]Every one of them ought to go to jail.

[00:33:57]There were four, it looks like so far there are four programs.

[00:34:01]these fictive legislations >> would go to to to restaurants in the community, many of them in the Somali community, and say, "Here's the deal. I want you to to fill out a report saying you you you fed all these poor people."

[00:34:18]Of course, you're not feeding anybody.

[00:34:20]Just lie and give me the report and I'll give you a percentage of the money that I'm stealing from the American taxpayer and the people of Minnesota.

[00:34:31]And that's what they did.

[00:34:34]But they didn't just limit it to food.

[00:34:38]They the the it was industrial scale fraud. Next they moved to health care.

[00:34:46]They formed some some formed fictitious corporations, companies saying we're going to deliver child uh I said healthcare. I meant child care to to poor people, homeless people, to Governor Waltz, and said, "Give us a bunch of welfare money, Medicaid money, uh to to uh uh to to uh uh give give folks who are poor child care."

[00:35:14]And then the thieves running the fictitious company went to families, many of them in the Somali community, and said, "Do you have a child who's autistic?

[00:35:27]If so, we want to sign him up." But if the if some of the families said, "No, we don't have a child who's autistic."

[00:35:34]The thieves said, "Don't worry about it.

[00:35:37]Lie. Tell us you have a child who's autistic." And whether your child is autistic or not, we're not going to provide any services for your children, but we will kick you back some of the money.

[00:35:53]It's disgusting.

[00:35:56]So, it was in child care, housing, autism, Governor Waltz food, and some of his agencies said, "Whoa, you know, we're going maybe we ought to put a stop to this."

[00:36:10]And they they backed off. They said, 'N no more money for a while. Well, fresh hell broke loose.

[00:36:17]You know what happened? the largest, most powerful, fictitious company run mostly by people of Somali ancestry sent an email to the Minnesota state government and they said that the state agency that was failing to pro promptly approve new applications and give us new money from quote minorityowned businesses.

[00:36:49]Close quote.

[00:36:51]Was going to it was going to result in a lawsuit featuring accusations of racism that would be sprawled across the news.

[00:36:58]If you don't give us our money, we're going to call you racist. Let me say it again. We're spending a trillion dollars a year of American taxpayer money to help poor people provide well welfare. and and uh GAO uh estimates that about at least 250 billion is being stolen every year.

[00:37:23]We took some baby steps in the one big beautiful bill. As you know, Mr. President, we tightened up eligibility requirements.

[00:37:31]We're requiring states to check twice a year to make sure people don't lie when they sign up for Medicaid or for food stamps or for housing assistance.

[00:37:43]Um, we've implemented a work requirement, but we need to do more.

[00:37:49]We need to do more and that's why we need to do another reconciliation bill.

[00:37:55]Now, I hope I'm wrong when I say this. I hope I'm wrong. I invite my Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

[00:38:02]I I I I love them all to come forward and help us, but I I just know politics and you do too, Mr. President. A lot of them are going to be rotted.

[00:38:12]So, but we don't need their assistance.

[00:38:16]We can pass a a welfare security bill with with all Democratic votes. If I could do it on my own, I would introduce the bill tomorrow. I would go and look at every single state and every single do another reconciliation bill. We can to fix the welfare system and stop the stealing.

[00:38:42]Stop the stealing. And we can do it with all Republican votes. So please, Senator Thoon, pretty please. As I've said before, I'm shameless. I'll beg.

[00:38:54]I I'll get down on my knees. John, please bring another reconciliation bill. We can do so much, but we can start with fixing welfare fraud. Please, John, please let us do the bill.

[00:39:12]I don't want to end on a negative note.

[00:39:15]I might have hurt my back going down, Mr. President. Um, I don't want to end on a negative note.

[00:39:24]I love this country. I'm I'm I just think America's the greatest country in all of human history. I do. And the whole world knows.

[00:39:32]Everybody wants to come here. When's the last time you heard of somebody trying to sleep? You got people stealing from poor people and laughing about it and and politicians participating in it.

[00:39:47]And the water's not and and Washington's got to do its ro its part to fix this.

[00:39:54]But the water's not going to clear up for America.

[00:40:00]The water's not going to clear up for America until we get the pigs out of the creek.

[00:40:06]Let's go get the pigs out of the creek.

[00:40:08]Please, Senator Thun, please let us do another reconciliation bill. Please lead with welfare reform. We can do it. You can do it. I know you can.

[00:40:20]>> As the lights dim in the Senate chamber, one truth remains unshakable. The era of managed jargon and unanswered questions has officially hit a brick wall. Senator Kennedy's performance today wasn't just another political debate. It was a long overdue reality check for the elites. It was a reminder that while Washington plays games with billions, the American taxpayer is the one left holding the bill. But for the first time in years, the people are finally fighting back.

[00:40:49]When Kennedy says it's finally over, he isn't just talking about a single hearing. He's talking about the end of the line for those who thought they were untouchable. We saw the stuttering. We saw the panicked glances. And most importantly, we saw the receipts. This takedown will go down as the moment the system was caught red-handed. But the real question is, will this be the final blow? Or is there an even bigger exposure waiting just around the corner?

[00:41:16]We want to hear from you. Was Kennedy's drunk sailor metaphor his most savage moment yet? Or was the I don't believe you line the final nail in the coffin.

[00:41:26]DC wants you to stay silent, but your voice is the only thing they truly fear.

[00:41:31]Drop a comment below with the word savage if you stand with Kennedy today.

[00:41:35]We read every single comment and we want to know, are you tired of the betrayal?

[00:41:39]If you found this breakdown valuable, smash that like button and subscribe to our channel right now. We are tracking every move Kennedy makes, and our next investigation is going to expose something even more shocking, something the administration is desperate to keep hidden. You do not want to miss what we've uncovered for the next episode.

[00:41:59]The game is over for them, but for us, the fight for truth is just beginning.

[00:42:04]Click the video on your screen right now to see the viral takedown that DC tried to ban. Thanks for watching and we'll see you in the next one.

[00:42:12]>> Stop stopping spending like we were drunken sailors.

[00:42:18]Actually, we're we're worse than drunken sailors because drunken sailors stop spending when they run out of money and Congress doesn't. Um and we can help by changing our ways in that respect. It is the moment the elites in Washington feared most. While the average American struggles to put food on the table, billions of your hard-earned dollars are vanishing into a black hole of foreign aid and government waste. But today, the game is officially over. Senator John Kennedy just walked into the room with the receipts. He didn't just ask questions. He delivered a masterclass in savage accountability. From the drunk sailor spending in DC to the ultimate betrayal of the middle class, Kennedy is dismantling the system piece by piece.

[00:43:06]The room went silent. The officials panicked. And for the first time in 25 years, the truth was finally caught red-handed on camera. You are about to witness the most brutal takedown in Senate history. But before we reveal the final blow, hit that subscribe button if you think Kennedy is the only one speaking for the people. Buckle up because it's finally over. Let's get into it.

[00:43:30]>> Mr. Grime, am I saying your name right?

[00:43:33]>> You are, Senator.

[00:43:35]>> Uh, you argued the Cali case.

[00:43:38]>> I did.

[00:43:38]>> Okay. I I'm I'm going to tell you my understanding of the case.

[00:43:44]And then, Mr. Cox, you can you you're I'm going ask you to to tell me if Mr. Grime got it right. Mr. Chamberlain, you can you can chime in if you would like.

[00:43:55]Are are you familiar, Mr. Grime, with the students for fair admissions case?

[00:44:01]>> I am.

[00:44:02]>> Okay. That's the uh case recently where the Supreme Court said you can't use race and college admissions.

[00:44:09]Now, here's what I heard the Supreme Court say in that case. I heard the Supreme Court say, "Look, colleges, we're we're not going to get into the admissions business. That's your business. We're just telling you you can't use race as a factor to admit anybody.

[00:44:29]Is that your understanding of the case?

[00:44:32]>> Basically, yes. And they did a whole 14th amendment amendment.

[00:44:35]>> Don't don't don't try to muddy the water to make it look deep, guys. I know you're all smart. I'm just trying to get to the bottom line. Am I wrong or right?

[00:44:44]>> You're right.

[00:44:45]>> Okay. Now the the way I read Cala is that the Supreme Court is saying um look the these first of all these are political questions and we we're we're not going to tell the states how to draw congressional districts. We we don't want to be in that business. That's a political question. We're just saying you can't use race as a factor. Is that what they did in Cala or am I misunderstanding?

[00:45:17]>> That that's basically it. You can use it to remedy, you know, past discrimination that that you've proven. Um but that wasn't the case in the Cala case. They the other side didn't prove it.

[00:45:29]>> Well, but the the this once again, you you're muddy in that water, man. Um, did the court or did it not say that you can't use race to draw a congressional district?

[00:45:45]>> In most cases, you can't unless the unless the uh state, the person defending the map shows that they had to use it because there was a showing of immediately past intentional discrimination that they had to use race to unwind.

[00:46:00]>> Okay. Tell tell me whether he got it right, Mr. Cox. Senator, quite frankly, the defense of the Cala case is such a tortured exercise. It's difficult. I don't want to hear.

[00:46:11]>> So, I'm going to tell you what SFA how SFA applies to Cal.

[00:46:15]>> Did he get it right or >> he did not get it right?

[00:46:18]>> So, in uh under under uh application of of of to discuss Cala, you have to really discuss what what happened in the case that created a district that was challenged in Cali. That was Robinson.

[00:46:30]The court required the the state of Louisiana to redraw its plans pursuant to its findings of a section 2 violation.

[00:46:37]>> I don't want to justify the creation of >> I don't want to have a fight. Can you just tell me and I you're smart and I I I don't want to make this more complicated than it is. Tell me what he got right or wrong.

[00:46:49]>> I'm te I'm telling you what he got wrong was ignorant.

[00:46:51]>> No, you're speaking like a lawyer. Okay.

[00:46:54]And I'm tired of I've listened to you gentlemen. Okay. Let's just get down to it.

[00:47:00]Uh, Mr. Chamberlain, tell me what Mr. Grime got right or wrong.

[00:47:03]>> He got it all right. You think I'm really going to tell the guy who argued in one cala that he didn't understand what he was arguing?

[00:47:09]>> Okay.

[00:47:11]>> Sorry. Now, I'm totally respectful, obviously, but I think he's got a good handle on it.

[00:47:14]>> I I don't I understand that, Mr. Cox. I don't mean to be rude, the importance of precedent and all that, but didn't the Supreme Court say except in very narrow circumstances, you just can't use race to help a person and you can't use race to harm a person and that includes in drawing congressional districts.

[00:47:36]In answering that question, I'm going to tell you that the Robinson court which gave rise to the district that was challenged in Cala said that there was a violation of the Voting Rights Act that it was required to draw a a district or draw a redistricting plan that satisfied the Voting Rights Act that that allowed African-Americans to elect candidates of choice.

[00:47:56]>> You don't hear you, Mr. >> I'm answering your question. It may be an answer that you don't like and my colleagues don't. No, you're not. But I'm answering your question. you're giving us another lecture and this is not a common law class. Tell me in simple terms, is that not what the court said? The court said a lot of things that were inaccurate. So I that is that the court said you can you can't use race at all in drawing plans. We disagree with that.

[00:48:22]But what the court really did was say that you can prove race was was you can prove there was intentional discrimination which is in violation of this Congress's intent. It also sprinkled partisanship as a defense for any challenge to section any challenge under section two.

[00:48:38]>> All right. Well, I'm about out of time.

[00:48:39]I I I can see no disrespect, Mr. Cox, but you're not answering any of my questions. And and I know you're disappointed in the decision, but let me put it another way. Do you think race should be used to help a person?

[00:48:55]>> I don't understand that question. Race should be used to help. Do you think race should be used to help a person?

[00:49:01]>> I believe that if there is a racial viol a violation that of of the law that uh race discrimination, I believe a a remedy that's race conscious can be required. Yes.

[00:49:13]>> Do you think race should be used to harm a person?

[00:49:18]>> I don't really understand what that question >> No, I didn't think you would. Uh Mr. Chamberlain, do you think race it's fair in America to use race to help a person at the expense of other races?

[00:49:29]>> No.

[00:49:30]>> Do you think it's it's fair in America to use race to hurt another person?

[00:49:37]>> No.

[00:49:38]>> How about you, Mr. Grime?

[00:49:40]>> Absolutely not. Race should should not be used to help or hurt an individual.

[00:49:46]>> And and no disrespect to Mr. Cox. He's very bright. I can see that. And I've been where you've been. You know, when you get in front of a court of appeal and you're you're losing, you know, you you want to kind of obiscate. I get it.

[00:50:00]But that to me is what the court's saying here in all these cases. We're not going to try to run your business.

[00:50:07]Not in the college admissions, not in drawn districts, but you can't use race.

[00:50:13]Period. End of discussion.

[00:50:16]And I think that's what the Constitution says and what most Americans support. I know you're disappointed, Mr. Cox.

[00:50:23]>> I'm not disappointed. I'm outraged, >> but but that's what the Constitution says.

[00:50:27]>> Well, can I add one more thing that's not quite exactly um addressing what you what you asked. I do think there's a role for a co-equal branch of government, Congress, to make its own determination regarding how it wants its laws enforced. And I would urge this Congress to reconsider Calala in that light.

[00:50:46]>> Yeah. But you and I are both aware that the United States State Supreme Court has full authority to pass on the constitutionality of a statute. Come on.

[00:50:54]You know that.

[00:50:56]I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

[00:50:59]If both Mobile versus Balden is any example of what can and can't happen, this Congress can take a look at Cala and say, "Actually, you got it wrong and you actually didn't interpret what we intended in 1982 correctly."

[00:51:13]>> The the problem with your argument is I don't think race should be used to help a person because of his race. And I don't think race should be used to harm a person because of his or her race. And I think that's what most Americans believe. Now, if you don't believe the opposite, and you clearly do, this is American. You can believe what you want, but the Supreme Court is deciding these cases, and saying race is off the table.

[00:51:39]>> I hear you. And I believe as a civil rights lawyer that if you find a violation based on race, you need to craft a remedy that addresses that. Um my my my biggest surprise from the summit between presidents Trump and sheep was how open and notorious President Xi was with respect to his insecurity about Taiwan.

[00:52:07]I mean before, during, after the summit, um he he basically said, "America, President Trump need to leave Taiwan alone. Taiwan is ours."

[00:52:22]And President Xi has this reputation built up by many members of our media as being this master negotiator.

[00:52:30]I found that surprising.

[00:52:33]It's understandable.

[00:52:35]America has learned how to fight again.

[00:52:39]And I'm sure President Xi is looking at what President Trump did in in Venezuela and Cuba and Iran and the Sahel and Yemen.

[00:52:51]Um, be that as it may, Mr. Chi has demonstrated and telegraphed his insecurities. That gives us leverage.

[00:53:03]Doesn't that argue for us to go forward with an arm sale to Taiwan and others after it?

[00:53:11]General, let me ask you first or secretary, whoever wants to answer.

[00:53:17]>> Um, Senator, the the the portion of it that I would uh strongly and very vehemently disagree with is um that in any instance where President Trump is, he would concede anything unnecessarily.

[00:53:31]And so I >> I didn't I didn't ask that. I I if you can't answer, tell me because I I I don't want anybody to get fired. It just seems to me I was surprised that President Xi was so so obvious in his insecurities. He's worried about Taiwan.

[00:53:46]He's worried about America supporting Taiwan. If we want to if we want stability, we're not going to get it by being nice to Shei. We're going to get it by be making him respect our strength.

[00:54:00]Don't you think that argues for us to go forward with arm sales to Taiwan?

[00:54:04]>> Uh, Senator, I can say that under this budget, um, this 1.5 trillion dollar budget, we we will be in an even stronger position to defend our question, Mr. Secretary.

[00:54:15]>> I I it's a policy question that is above my title 10 authority, Senator.

[00:54:19]>> All right. Well, let me ask you, let me shift direction. I look, I I I don't I don't think you have to be Einstein's cousin to figure out what we ought to do next in terms of establishing deterrence, but maybe that's just me. Um, is Russia our friend?

[00:54:41]>> No.

[00:54:44]>> Between Ukraine and Russia and the war they're fighting, who do we want to win?

[00:54:51]Ukraine.

[00:54:53]>> Okay.

[00:54:55]Um, isn't it a fact? Well, strike that.

[00:54:59]What's the most powerful army in Europe?

[00:55:07]>> Sir, I'd say anywhere that a United States soldier is.

[00:55:10]>> I understand. Other than the United States in the world, >> what's the most powerful European army?

[00:55:16]It's it's probably uh between uh Russia and uh you know some of our allies have some incredible army service incredible capabilities.

[00:55:26]>> It's Ukraine, isn't it, >> Jerry? Ukraine has a has has done an incredible job against a uh aggressor.

[00:55:33]Don't you find it breathtaking, General?

[00:55:36]They started with nothing. I do find it breathtaking >> and and I just they're producing two now 200 drones a day in addition to cruise missiles to reach into Russia. They've taken out 40% of Russia's ability to export its oil. I just find and they started with nothing. I remember when all the experts who are almost always wrong, oh Russia's going to move in on Ukraine. They're going to roll in like thunder on a summer night.

[00:56:09]It'll be over in two days. And now Ukraine has turned the tide.

[00:56:15]Why don't we support taking those $200 billion dollar of Russian assets in Europe that we have seized and getting that money to Ukraine and let's win this thing or at least get Putin into a position where he'll negotiate a settlement.

[00:56:35]Would you support that?

[00:56:38]>> Again, Senator, my title 10 authorities that that's a policy question outside of our lane.

[00:56:43]>> I mean, it just seems so I'm not talking about federal money.

[00:56:48]There's $200 billion sitting there.

[00:56:51]Heck, there's there's UK there's $ 31 billion in the UK alone. France Mcronone, President Mcronone, SW guy, he's always giving us advice and and fussing at us. France is sitting on $22 billion dollars. Why don't they give that to Ukraine?

[00:57:10]They'll use the money to buy some of our our our our weapons. It's just sitting there. If we want to win, why don't we support taking the 200 plus billion dollars and saying, "Here, Ukraine, here's the money. Go whip their ass."

[00:57:28]You're not going You don't want to answer that, do you guys? I understand.

[00:57:31]I get it. I'm I went over I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.

[00:57:36]>> Thank you, Senator Padilla. Uh, Senator Kennedy.

[00:57:43]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Sheriff, I'm a little confused by some of the answers, but let me ask Senator Bad's question a different way.

[00:57:55]Um, in in choosing a law clerk, do you believe that a law clerk applicants race should be used to harm that person?

[00:58:08]>> Uh, neither to harm nor benefit.

[00:58:11]Senator, I I believe that applicants should be considered based on their their background and experience.

[00:58:18]>> So, you don't think a person's race should be used to harm them?

[00:58:22]>> Correct. Senator, >> do you think a person's race should be used to help them?

[00:58:28]>> Uh, not not in that context, Senator.

[00:58:30]No.

[00:58:31]>> Okay.

[00:58:33]Um, raise your hand, please, for me if if you're a member, a duespaying member of the American Bar Association.

[00:58:47]So, two out of six are members.

[00:58:52]What? Why? Why? Uh, Judge, why aren't you a member, >> Senator? I was a member for many years of the American Bar Association.

[00:59:00]>> Why did you get out?

[00:59:01]>> I honestly, Senator, when I was a member, my uh law firm paid the dues.

[00:59:06]>> Yeah.

[00:59:06]>> And so, I don't pay the dues for the American Bar Association, but I was very involved.

[00:59:11]>> I relevant and not worth the money.

[00:59:13]>> Uh, no, sir. Um, as you know from my record, I actually co-chared the section of litigation uh for a number of years and I thought it was very beneficial uh as a lawyer.

[00:59:23]>> But but it wasn't important enough to you to pay yourself. It it wasn't uh so much uh that uh Senator, it's just that many of the benefits of the American Bar Association, at least for judges, um I I'm already participating in what the administrative offices provide with training, which is really what I was doing as a lawyer.

[00:59:44]>> Beneficial to you if somebody else paid for it?

[00:59:46]>> No, sir. It's just that as a lawyer, I used it uh primarily for legal education. Okay. And as a judge, >> I don't want to spend too much time on this. Just for the record, two out of a six of of our nominees today uh are dues have chosen to be dues paying members of the American Bar Association. Mr. Sheriff, um how long have you been a member of the ACLU?

[01:00:14]>> Senator, I believe I first contributed in 2019.

[01:00:18]>> And how much money have you given them?

[01:00:20]>> I believe it's approximately $100. $120 >> and >> a year. I'm I'm sorry.

[01:00:26]>> A year?

[01:00:26]>> Yes.

[01:00:27]>> Okay. And um um why why did you first decide to contribute to them?

[01:00:34]>> Uh Senator, I uh contribute to >> just briefly >> charitable organizations. Um they u work on first amendment issues.

[01:00:47]>> Yeah. Now, you're a member of the ACLU of Southern California.

[01:00:53]>> That's correct.

[01:00:54]>> All right.

[01:00:56]Um, a couple years ago, the ACLU of Southern California put out a statement.

[01:01:02]They said that US policing has quote historical roots in slave patrols close quote.

[01:01:10]And the ACLU chapter of Southern California went on to say that police presence has quote devastating and discriminatory impacts on tens of thousands of California students close quote. You agree with that, >> Senator? I'm not familiar with that letter. I have never seen that letter.

[01:01:32]>> Uh but I just read read it to you. You agree with what what that letter said? I I don't I I don't have information relevant to to to that. Um >> you don't agree with it or you do agree with it?

[01:01:47]>> I I can talk to my experience in law enforcement.

[01:01:52]>> I'm sure I'm asking any of you agree disagree with the statement of an organization that you chose to join.

[01:01:57]>> Right. Senator, >> as an assistant United States attorney, >> I I understand, Senator. I I would have to know a lot more about the where that ev comes from another >> Well, you you're not doubting that I'm reading it to you accurately, are you?

[01:02:13]>> No, I'm not. But I don't know what what the basis for that information is.

[01:02:17]>> ACLU of Southern California also put out another statement. They said, quote, "Ice is not welcome here." Close quote. Do you agree with that statement?

[01:02:31]Senator, over well over well nearly 20 years uh in my practice in the Eastern District of California uh the office has worked closely with ICE.

[01:02:43]>> I do agree with that statement.

[01:02:45]>> Uh certainly in terms of federal law enforcement, ICE is welcome and we work closely with >> I I maybe I'm not being clear. Do you agree or disagree with the statement that I should be welcome in in California? I I believe that ICE carries out a legitimate launch legitimate function under federal law.

[01:03:05]>> I understand. Give me one more minute.

[01:03:07]Mr. Chairman, let me ask Mr. U.

[01:03:10]Laboritz. I want to ask you, it's a constitutional question.

[01:03:19]I think we now understand that there's some people in America and I dare say many of our college students and college professors who believe my words not theirs but this is what I see who believe in diversity equity inclusion and the right to kill Jews.

[01:03:56]To what extent is that point of view protected by the Constitution and what if any limits are there on that point of view?

[01:04:07]>> Senator, I very much appreciate the question um especially the times uh that we're living in. Um, first, as your former colleague and now the president of one of the great universities in this country, the University of Florida said, the first amendment gives people the absolute right to be abject moral idiots. And Senator Ben Sass, now President Sass, >> so does the Senate.

[01:04:32]>> Um, so I I I I take part of your question that um uh since October the 7th, I think part of what you were saying is that people are taking full advantage of their First Amendment rights. Um, and and the the the basic dividing line in answering your question, as I understand the court's precedence and the and the First Amendment is that there's a very big difference between speech and conduct.

[01:04:53]There's a very big difference between things like Title Six, Title 7. Um, and >> let me stop you because I I don't want to go too far over. Yes. I I think you've made the correct distinction between speech and conduct. If I could have just 30 more seconds. Could the US Department of Education, if if a college professor crosses that line between speech and conduct, could President Biden's Department of Education withhold their federal funding?

[01:05:23]>> Senator, I'm going to only be able to quickly answer part of your question.

[01:05:27]First of all, I do believe that part of the way you phrased it, uh, I I'm precluded from answering it because of the cannons of judicial ethics because there are live cases now and live statements now. As I understand it, there are live cases being brought under federal law tracking exactly what you're saying. And I and and I'm not sure if uh if the president's department of education wants to weigh into that or not, but if they did and that case came before me, I wouldn't want those my comments today to be viewed as prejudging them.

[01:05:56]>> Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Senator.

[01:05:59]>> Senator White House, >> let me start by uh >> I believe you have a policy, Madam Secretary, that that you have to approve all contracts at your department over hund00 million.

[01:06:14]>> Uh, no sir. I have a policy in place that I review contracts. My deputy chiefs have the ability to review anything under 5 million. Above that, I I evaluate and look at.

[01:06:25]>> Okay. And you do that, I understand, to try to to curb uh waste and abuse of taxpayer money. Is that right?

[01:06:35]>> Yes, sir. In fact, it's been extremely effective. We've uh saved the taxpayers over 13.2 billion dollars just by evaluating contracts, negotiating lower ones, and cancelling ones that aren't necessary to do our duties.

[01:06:50]How how do you square that concern for waste, which I share >> uh with the fact that you have u spent $220 million running television advertisements that feature you prominently?

[01:07:13]um sir, the president tasked me with getting the message out to the country and to other countries where we were seeing the invasion come from with with putting commercials out that told them that if they were in this country illegally that they needed to leave or we would detain them and remove them and they'd not get the chance to come back to America the right way. Um that has been extremely effective.

[01:07:34]>> Ask you to run these advertisements. Is that right?

[01:07:39]>> We had that conversation. Yes. before um I was uh put in this position and sworn in and confirmed and since then as well.

[01:07:47]>> Okay. Did you um did you bid out those those service contracts?

[01:07:52]>> Yes, they did. They went out to a competitive bid and career officials at the department chose who would uh do th those advertising commercials. And the people that you ended up picking um were people who had formerly done your political work back in South Dakota. Is that right?

[01:08:13]>> No, that's not correct, sir. I think it is.

[01:08:15]>> No, it's not, sir. Uh we the individuals who uh I believe the careers who they chose uh were two different media firms.

[01:08:24]Um there's been conversation about their subcontractors, but we have no legal authority to look into subcontractors on work like that.

[01:08:32]>> Okay. And you're saying that you're testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time. Is that my understanding?

[01:08:42]>> Uh we had conversations about making sure that we were telling people >> No, ma'am. I'm asking you uh sorry to interrupt, but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you fe are featured prominently.

[01:09:00]>> Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly do this?

[01:09:05]>> Yes, >> he did.

[01:09:06]>> Mhm. Yes.

[01:09:07]>> Okay. Um >> and one thing, Senator, I think would be helpful to know is how effective that communications has been that Well, they were effective in your name recognition.

[01:09:18]Um >> I mean I I personally just >> I mean to me it puts the president in a terribly awkward spot >> and it it it and I just I'm not saying you're not telling the truth. It's just hard for me to believe the president as I do that you said Mr. president, here's some ads I've cut and I'm going to spend $220 million running them that he would have agreed to that. I don't think Russ vote at OMB would have agreed to that. I It's something we have to defend. I'm on the appropriations committee. Um I I mean um my my research shows that you did not bid them out that you you p in fact one of the people you picked the strategy group I'm sorry Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them and that the strategy group got most of the money and the head of that is married to your former spokesperson. I'm I'm I'm Look, we all have friends who are qualified. I'm not quibbling with that. I I'm just It troubles me. Quarter a fifth to a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money when when we're scratching for every penny and we're fighting over recision packages.

[01:10:51]Um I I just can't agree with Madam Secretary. Are you still running those ads?

[01:10:57]>> No, Sen. Senator, I did not have anything to do with picking those contractors. I no politicals at the Department of Homeland Security did.

[01:11:05]>> I understand. Are you sure?

[01:11:06]>> Officials followed the competitive bid process for everything.

[01:11:10]>> I think the ads are due to end here in March. I think within a week or so. I'm not sure of the update.

[01:11:16]>> Uh the one that is running is focusing on angel families. Have you seen that?

[01:11:20]It is the one that's talking about this is our why. This is why we work every day is for the angel families and their victims that need to >> and according to your website, you're also, I'm going to quote here, a longtime Democratic Party activist who served as a member of the 2016 Democratic National Conventions Platform Standing Committee. Close quote. Is that correct?

[01:11:52]>> That's correct.

[01:11:53]>> Okay.

[01:11:58]>> You support Hamas, do you not?

[01:12:01]>> I Senator, oddly enough, I'm going to say thank you for that question because it demonstrates the purpose of our hearing today in a very >> Let's start first with a yes or no.

[01:12:11]>> Hamas is a foreign terrorist organization that I do not support. But you asking the executive director of the Arab-American Institute that question very much puts the focus on the issue of hate in our country.

[01:12:21]>> Well, I got I got your answer and I appreciate it.

[01:12:25]>> What is the uh you you support Hezbollah, too, don't you?

[01:12:33]>> Again, I I find this line of questioning extraordinarily disappointing, Senator, that >> you have you have ArabAmerican constituents that you represent in your state. Yes, ma'am. I understand that.

[01:12:44]But is my time's limited and I apologize, but is that a yes or a no?

[01:12:48]>> A yes or no question to do I support Hezbollah. The answer is I don't support violence whether it's his Hamas or any other entity that invokes it.

[01:12:55]>> You can't yourself to say no, can you?

[01:12:57]>> No, I can say no. I can say yes. What I can say is do you support or oppose Iran >> and their hatred of Jews?

[01:13:08]>> Again, I'm going to emphasize Iranizah Hamas. None of them is going to this discussion >> yourself to say no >> sir I don't support real simple excuse me I'm going to if I may as a Muslim woman as a Muslim woman sir I'm going to tell you I do not support Iran but what I will tell you is that this conversation >> I'm running out of time I'm sorry >> um >> you uh >> you called our decision >> to cut funding >> goodbye >> you called our decision to cut fund well first what's the United Nations relief and works agency.

[01:13:42]>> It's um ENRA, which is the institution that exists to provide uh services and aid to the nearly 6 million Palestinian refugees.

[01:13:51]>> And you called our our decision to cut funding for them quote an incredible moral failure. Close quote.

[01:13:59]>> That is absolutely correct. But again, I would suggest that conversation is about foreign policy. did that because nine UNRA staff members were fired for for actually helping Hamas on October 7th.

[01:14:12]Isn't that case?

[01:14:14]>> I I don't believe that that's correct in terms of >> Let me ask you one more time. You support Hamas, don't you?

[01:14:21]>> You support Omra and Hamas, don't you?

[01:14:23]>> Sir, please.

[01:14:25]I >> I think it's exceptionally disappointing that you're looking at an Arab-American witness before you and saying you support Hamas.

[01:14:34]>> You know what's disappointing to me?

[01:14:35]>> I do not support Hamas. I do not support Hamas. You don't support UNRA. You don't support Hamas. You don't >> I was very clear in my support of you don't support. You should hide your head in a bag.

[01:14:52]>> I want to talk about a serious subject, Mr. President, I want to talk about uh welfare fraud, taxpayer money.

[01:15:04]Now, I want to make it clear that I uh I love Minnesota.

[01:15:12]I love Minnesota, but I do not like people, whether they live in Minnesota or elsewhere, who steal money from the poor.

[01:15:29]There ought to be a special place, this $1 trillion dollar plus a year that we spend helping our neighbors. When people steal that money, it offends me. When they steal from the poor and they steal from the American taxpayer, it offends me equally. and the folks in Minnesota and el and elsewhere who stole this money, who took a giant whiz, giant great dane whiz down the leg of every taxpayer and poor person in America.

[01:16:07]Every one of them ought to go to jail.

[01:16:12]There were four, it looks like so far there are four programs.

[01:16:16]>> Mediculations would go to to to restaurants in the community, many of them in the Somali community, and say, "Here's the deal. I want you to to fill out a report saying you you you fed all these poor people."

[01:16:33]Of course, you're not feeding anybody.

[01:16:35]Just lie and give me the report and I'll give you a percentage of the money that I'm stealing from the American taxpayer and the people of Minnesota.

[01:16:47]And that's what they did.

[01:16:49]But they didn't just limit it to food.

[01:16:53]They the the the it was industrial scale fraud. Next they moved to health care.

[01:17:01]They formed some some formed fictitious corporations, companies saying we're going to deliver child uh I said healthcare. I meant child care to to poor people, homeless people to Governor Waltz and said, "Give us a bunch of welfare money, Medicaid money uh to to uh uh to to uh uh give give folks who are poor child care."

[01:17:29]And then the thieves running the fictitious company went to families, many of them in the Somali community, and said, "Do you have a child who's autistic?

[01:17:42]If so, we want to sign him up." But if the if some of the families said, "No, we don't have a child who's autistic."

[01:17:50]The thieves said, "Don't worry about it.

[01:17:53]Lie. Tell us you have a child who's autistic." And whether your child is autistic or not, we're not going to provide any services for your children, but we will kick you back some of the money.

[01:18:08]It's disgusting.

[01:18:11]So, it was in child care, housing, autism, Governor Waltz food, and some of his agencies said, "Whoa, you know, we're going to maybe we ought to put a stop to this."

[01:18:25]And they they backed off. They said, "No more money for a while." Well, fresh hell broke loose.

[01:18:32]You know what happened? the largest, most powerful, fictitious company run mostly by people of Somali ancestry sent an email to the Minnesota state government and they said that the state agency that was failing to pro promptly approve new applications and give us new money from quote minorityowned businesses close quote was going to it was going to result in a lawsuit featuring accusations of racism that would be sprawled across the news.

[01:19:14]If you don't give us our money, we're going to call you racist. Let me say it again. We're spending a trillion dollars a year of American taxpayer money to help poor people provide well welfare. and and uh GAO uh estimates that about at least 250 billion is being stolen every year.

[01:19:38]We took some baby steps in the one big beautiful bill. As you know, Mr. President, we tightened up eligibility requirements.

[01:19:46]We're requiring states to check twice a year to make sure people don't lie when they sign up for Medicaid or for food stamps or for housing assistance.

[01:19:58]Um, we've implemented a work requirement, but we need to do more.

[01:20:04]We need to do more and that's why we need to do another reconciliation bill.

[01:20:10]Now, I hope I'm wrong when I say this. I hope I'm wrong. I invite my Democratic colleagues in the Senate, I I I I love them all, to come forward and help us, but I just I just know politics and you do too, Mr. President.

[01:20:25]A lot of them are going to be rotted.

[01:20:27]So, but we don't need their assistance.

[01:20:31]We can pass a a welfare security bill with with all Democratic votes.

[01:20:40]If I could do it on my own, I would introduce the bill tomorrow. I would go and look at every single state and every single do another reconciliation bill.

[01:20:52]We can to fix the welfare system and stop the stealing.

[01:20:58]Stop the stealing. And we can do it with all Republican votes. So please, Senator Thun, pretty please. As I've said before, I'm shameless. I'll beg.

[01:21:10]I I'll get down on my knees. John, please bring another reconciliation bill. We can do so much, but we can start with fixing welfare fraud. Please, John, please let us do the bill.

[01:21:27]I don't want to end on a negative note.

[01:21:30]I might have hurt my back going down, Mr. President. Um, I don't want to end on a negative note.

[01:21:39]I love this country. I'm I'm I just think America's the greatest country in all of human history. I do. And the whole world knows.

[01:21:48]Everybody wants to come here. When's the last time you heard of somebody trying to sleep? You got people stealing from poor people and laughing about it and and politicians participating in it.

[01:22:03]And the water's not and and Washington's got to do its ro its part to fix this.

[01:22:10]But the water's not going to clear up for America.

[01:22:15]The water's not going to clear up for America until we get the pigs out of the creek.

[01:22:21]Let's go get the pigs out of the creek.

[01:22:24]Please, Senator Thun, please let us do another reconciliation bill. Please lead with welfare reform. We can do it. You can do it. I know you can.

[01:22:35]>> As the lights dim in the Senate chamber, one truth remains unshakable. The era of managed jargon and unanswered questions.