TrumpHIT with IMPEACHMENT in SHOCKING MIDNIGHT CONGRESS VOTE: "OH MY GOD!"

Hinzugefügt: 2026-06-05

[00:00:00]It is a complete scam. Let's be be clear about that. Uh and he brought a really a sham lawsuit which it wasn't a a legitimate settlement. You can't negotiate with yourself. You sue your own government. You're basically uh negotiating with a guy you put into office who is your personal attorney beforehand. Uh and it's no surprise that they cut this deal, which is I think one of the most corrupt things a president can do. There's never been a president in the history of our country that would have ever even tried this. This is so outrageous. The fact that he's really the deal in here for him is the one that was the question you asked of the speaker. You know, basically no audits for his tax uh activities prior to the settlement. We know that he actually from those returns didn't pay taxes. We have Americans that pay their taxes every day. They don't get a blank check to do whatever they want and not have the IRS audit them. It's been estimated by some folks that when those audits are completed, the president may have to pay up to a hundred million dollar in back taxes. That's what this is about for the president. He's rating the tax payers through the slush fund. He's trying to get away from paying his taxes and having responsibility or accountability for the fact that he evaded taxes, which would possibly come out in the audit.

[00:01:17]Clearly, he's afraid of that. That's why he's doing what he's doing. But this is a sham, plain and simple. you know, Michael Steel, when I worked at the White House, um you could not go into your job into the White House, you would not be issued a security clearance, let alone a badge if you had unpaid taxes.

[00:01:31]And so, the fact that the president of the United States, we we we know from reports and his own things the president has said himself that he hasn't paid his taxes, yet he said the double stand is another reason why the American people are like, "This is a bunch of BS."

[00:01:43]>> So, to your point, Simone and Senator, uh that process has not changed. My first government job was back in 1978, y'all. Right. And again, you had to come correct. You just couldn't show up with unpaid taxes and you couldn't show up with with any court things kind of hanging out there, which Donald Trump got a lot of those hanging out there.

[00:02:05]>> So, this we know this is a hot mess.

[00:02:07]They know it's a hot mess. But here's the attitude of this administration.

[00:02:11]What you going to do about it? What you going to do about it? There's nothing.

[00:02:15]You can't stop me, right? You've got five lingering questions about Trump's anti-weaponization fund that was that was sort of put out there. Uh and one of the things they noted was before the demise of the fund, DOJ officials emphasized that they already enjoy authority to order payments of essentially unlimited amounts to settle lawsuits. That baseline authority hasn't gone away. So they that's we can we can do what we want to do. Who's going to stop us? you've appropriated the money, we can spend it however we want. Folks, that's not how this works. That's not how the government works. That's not how it's laid out. So, help help us understand where they're coming from here.

[00:02:58]>> Well, well, you're absolutely right. And and if there is a settlement fund, which there is, that's when you have a legitimate settlement actually where you have adverse parties that come together uh and you settle. This was there was no adverse party here. This was Donald Trump suing himself and having his basically his lackeyis saying, "Okay, we'll dip into the to the till of the taxpayers and create this slush fund."

[00:03:20]So, the courts need to review that, but Congress needs to take action. We we could take action now. We've got a reconciliation coming up which allows us to put legislation. We're going to be offering that as my Democratic colleagues. Some of my Republican colleagues, to their credit, have been saying this is outrageous. This is a bridge too far that they are not going to tolerate it. But now it's time to actually put votes on. I >> was going to say how they going to vote.

[00:03:40]>> We're This is This is the key. You know, it's nice to talk the talk, but but we're going to make people actually take the vote that's beyond record. And that's where you know our founders uh uh always thought uh that we have uh checks and balances and that the Congress is a independent branch of government uh and actually the premier branch according to our founders that they would stand up to a president that's trying to assert power and certainly a president that's engaged in such uh such corrupt activities that should never be tolerated uh in this country. And you know, the unfortunate thing is we don't necessarily have all the laws to constrain a president because it was always believed that you would always have a president who would not openly flaunt the law, violate the law, uh be able to engage in that. And for the most part, we've been very lucky over our history. We haven't had it until now.

[00:04:30]Now we have a president who norms laws, none of that matters to him. and as long as he has Republicans in Congress that refuse to stand up and exercise their constitutional responsibilities to provide a check on the executive, he can get away with it. So hopefully it won't happen this time. We're going to put everybody on the record.

[00:04:47]>> All right.

[00:04:48]>> So, Congressman, along those same lines, let's talk about the president's new pick for director of national intelligence, um, Bill Py, and what Senator Tom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, had to say about the merits of that pick.

[00:05:03]I don't believe he's ever had a uh a security clearance. He clearly has no experience in intelligence. He has no geopolitical experience, no international connections. The sorts of things you would look for. Whoever told the president to go ahead and commit to this publicly before vetting it should lose their jobs because they should know that the math just works against PY being confirmed.

[00:05:24]>> Someone could have told the president that.

[00:05:25]>> What's that?

[00:05:26]>> Someone could have told the president that and it still happened. That may be true, but then it then then it's not the president.

[00:05:34]>> Senator, forgive me because I did demote you to the lower chamber before I teed up that sound. Um, but in addition to hearing from he didn't even plant.

[00:05:42]>> He took it with grace.

[00:05:43]>> I'm a proud former house member as well, so I I take it all. Yeah.

[00:05:47]>> Past and present. Um, I thought that was interesting. I thought what we heard in a statement from Senator McConnell was notable. the senator saying very few Senate confirmable positions come with statutory eligibility requirements.

[00:06:01]Anyone performing this role of such immense public trust must have the extensive national security experience required by statute and no nominee who falls short of this requirement will earn my vote. The sense we've been getting, Senator, talking with your colleagues is that the expectation is that this president knows that he doesn't have the votes in the Senate and is just gonna from now on have acting heads of a variety of agencies. I wonder Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. It's good to see you.

[00:06:28]>> Good to see you, too.

[00:06:29]>> There is always so much to talk to you about given your background, but I just got to start with with Bill Py. I mean, I just tried to outline there's so much to say about the man, but I tried to give a summary there for people who were tuning into this news or trying to learn a little bit about him. You have kind of a special insight into him uh given the Trump Justice Department investigating you for alleged mortgage fraud and given your also extensive extensive intelligence oversight experience. I I just want to know what went through your head when you saw this u and how dangerous do you think it is? Well, what went through my head is this is such an in-your-face move by the president because of course the president knows this guy has no qualifications to lead the intelligence agencies but but one and that is that he is willing to weaponize any access to government data to be used against the president's enemies. That's his only qualification.

[00:07:23]But can you imagine notwithstanding the fact as you just demonstrated he is apparently an award winner of some sort if you call it that. Can you imagine this guy briefing the president of the United States on the Iran war on terrorist threats facing the United States? Do we want this this basic uh trust fund baby of a real estate magnate? Do we want him to be leading our intelligence agencies, someone who is a demonstrated record of abusing even housing data and making false representations about it to suit the president's interest? That is not what we need. And again, it's just another illustration of when it comes to the country's national security interests compared to Trump's petty personal interests. The petty personal interests are going to win out every time.

[00:08:14]>> We also know he clearly wants somebody in this job who he who will do his bidding as it relates to a lot. We saw what happened with Tulsi Gabbard in Felton County. He can serve in this job um as acting. He doesn't need Senate confirmation, which I think people watching know. We've seen Republican push back. I mentioned some of it of what people have said out loud. We've seen it around Matt Gates who was actually nominated. What does that look like and feel like and what could the impact of that actually be?

[00:08:40]>> I think what it looks like is two illustrations we could see with Gabbard.

[00:08:44]We're going to see just magnified with PY. One of them, this happened quite some time ago when the intelligence community put together a report, an analysis that said the Venezuelan government was not controlling Trend Ara, which was part of the basis for these deportations to uh this prison, maximum security prison in El Salvador.

[00:09:06]They they did it on the basis that the Venezuelan government was controlling this gang, but the intelligence community said, "No, they're not controlling the gang the gang." and that contradicted the president's preferred narrative. So Gabbard's chief of staff, I'm sure with Gabbard's support and approval, said, >> "You need to rewrite this report."

[00:09:25]Basically, you need to tell us what we want to hear, not the true intelligence.

[00:09:31]>> That is the worst kind of politicization of intelligence. And the danger is if you can't rely on the intelligence because it's politicized, you get into an Iraq war or you get into an Iran war.

[00:09:42]Uh so that's one result. The other result though is we saw Gabbard politicizing elections in Georgia. The DNI has no role in domestic elections.

[00:09:54]Uh it has a role in trying to prevent foreign interference, but nothing that we saw in Georgia indicates that was her purpose. We've also seen her pushing out false conspiracy theories about people within the intelligence community and getting people fired or taking aim at the president's political opponents.

[00:10:12]That is exactly what PY did at the housing agencies. So, we can expect a lot more of that.

[00:10:18]>> It's it's it's why there's efforts, right, to stop this. And Democrats, though they're not in in charge, are using this threat of um tanking an upcoming vote on FISA reauthorization if Trump doesn't withdraw Py's appointment.

[00:10:32]What do you think of that? What is the impact of that? And and what impact do you think it could have on on PY staying in this role? Well, FISA72 is a very important uh tool uh in terms of our national security, but it has also been abused and it needs important reforms and we've had this very difficult to debate uh about what kind of reforms do we need to make to this program. Now, you add to this somebody with a record of politicizing any data he can get his hands on and we're supposed to entrust this program to him.

[00:11:06]>> So, it makes it that much more difficult. So folks, these losses, you see Democratic senators talking about how Donald Trump has set his party up for defeat in Congress, but also by the electorate. And that's why the Republicans are losing so much right now, because it demonstrates how out of touch Trump is. Look, it's easy for Republicans to just do whatever Trump wants. It's easy. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do. I'm not saying it's the moral thing to do, but it is the easy thing to do because even though he's unpopular with the electorate, he's very very very popular with the base. And unlike like you know Obama in 2010 when his poll numbers were down, some Democrats did attack him like blue dog Democrats in in red red areas would start attacking Obama. The thing was like Obama did w was not a vindictive monster like Trump and so they didn't necessarily have to fear for their like I don't mean to be glib here but fear for your life like standing up to Donald Trump in the GOP can get you literally killed. I really do think like that can happen and so it's easy. And so the fact that they are standing up now showcases just how desperate they are. just how desperate to even have this tiny little bit of push back on Trump because they look at the polls and they say Wisconsin, Michigan, um, uh, North Carolina, Texas, Florida.

[00:12:45]In some cases, it's it's the it's the statewide race in these states, and in others it's, uh, you know, anywhere from a few to, you know, dozens or, you know, a half dozen, a dozen House seats that are at risk because of Trump.

[00:13:00]And they're saying, "Look, however loyal we want to be to Trump, we can't even really remain loyal to Trump, if our asses get boot from Congress. They get booted from Congress." And that's what's happening right now. And a lot of and a lot of them I bet you are angry when Trump said I don't care about the midterm results because what Trump's effectively saying is all these people who stuck their necks out for me in some cases have been doing it loyally since 2016 like members of the House and Senate now all of a sudden Trump doesn't care if I lose my job. So if he doesn't care about me why should I care about him? And not only are members of Congress saying that, the voters are saying the exact same