Popular Posts

♫ ♫ MUSIC PLAYING ♫ ♫ [MUSIC PLAYING]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

$2.3 billion sent to L.A. County over four years is completely unaccounted for. That's $2.3 billion that could have been used to clean up this. Or find housing for people who live like this. Or to fix this part of Venice Beach, where people own million-dollar homes but are too afraid to walk their dogs because of this. There have already been two indictments linked to his probe, but U.S. Attorney Bill Isaley says there are a lot more to come. I spoke with him earlier. Bill, how long has this kind of fraud been going on? I mean, the homeless issue in Southern California is a massive issue. Taxpayers have forked over tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to fix it. And people are stealing it? It's unbelievable. And, you know, it's probably been going on for a very long time. But unfortunately, no one's really looked at it until recently. Before this position, I was in the state legislature, and we would ask a lot of questions about the billions of dollars being spent every year to solve homelessness. And we can all see with our eyes and ears that it wasn't being solved. And the money wasn't going to the people who needed it most. So one of the first things I did after being appointed as the U.S. attorney here in L.A. was to create the Homeless Fraud and Corruption Task Force. And frankly, we were starting from the bottom up, and we began brand-new investigations with the IRS and the FBI. And it's already culminated in two separate indictments. And I can assure you that more will come. In the two indictments you've announced thus far, in one case, somebody was taking this money that was meant to build homes for the homeless and spending it on things like tickets to Coachella concert, jewelry and a Beverly Hills mansion. It's frankly outrageous, and this goes to show, when you hand out billions of dollars with little to no oversight, there are people out there that will take advantage, and that's always been our suspicion, is that there's been very little oversight or accountability to the individuals who receive this money. Most of the money goes out to nonprofits or developers who claim they're going to use the money to build housing. And what we saw in just these two investigations, that's not where the money went, and it was used to pay one individual's American Express bill. So how much—I mean, we're talking a massive amount of money that's been set aside to help the homeless. What percent do you think might be stolen? We don't have that number yet. What I can tell you is just in these two cases represent over a $50 million loss. And that's, again, scratching the service surface. We have many more investigations open that I cannot get into, but we are going to follow the money. We're going to follow every dollar. And we want to make sure the money went to its intended objective, which is to assist the homeless. And if any of it was diverted for personal use or other use that wasn't authorized, we intend to criminally prosecute those individuals. And like I said, we have multiple, multiple ongoing investigations. We have the IRS conducting the financial review. We have the FBI going out and conducting interviews. We're issuing subpoenas. We're doing search warrants. There is a lot happening that the public cannot see right now. How did this go unnoticed for so long? Well, to be frank, this is a problem we saw in the Legislature. When you have a state like California that frankly enjoys a supermajority controlled by one political party, there's very little checks and balances in the system to hold that accountability. And when they're passing the budgets and they're dispensing billions of dollars, you know, it does sound good and it feels good to spend $24 billion in the case of California to solve homelessness. And it was almost like that was the end of the story for the legislators and the governor. And a lot of the money was dispensed to nonprofits that have very strong political ties. And there's really, again, never been any oversight. But now you have the federal government, you know, the election was won by the opposite party and you have an election that has consequences and now you have prosecutors in the federal government that are independent and are going to take an objective look. And I frankly do not care who is involved, what position they serve or how high up they are. We will aggressively pursue and prosecute anyone that violates federal law regarding the misuse of homelessness funds. Thank you for watching. Subscribe below and download our News Nation app right now on your phone and you will get fact based unbiased news for all Americans.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

[MUSIC]

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you for Secretary of State. I yield back. May I respond? You may, sir. Well, first of all, your regret for voting for me confirms I'm doing a good job, based on what I know. Well, that's just a flippant statement, Mr. Secretary. Can I respond, Mr. Chairman? You may. I didn't ask. Senator, please let the Secretary have the floor. I'd be happy to, but then I can respond to his response. Your time is up, Senator, and woefully used, I might add. Your remarks do not represent the view of this committee. Well, I can't respond to everything he said, because much of these are untrue, but I'll go through a few. First of all, I'm actually very proud of the work we've done with USAID. For example, I don't regret cutting $10 million for male circumcisions in Mozambique. I don't know how that makes a stronger and more prosperous as a nation. I don't regret psychosocial support services. I raise Sudan, Mr. Secretary. Senator, I'd ask you to suspend. You had seven straight minutes. I chose to use my time that way, Mr. Chairman. And that's my right to use my time that way. Please suspend this way. Secretary Rubio. Well, I can go on. I mean, there's other things here. We spent $227,000 for Big Cat's YouTube channel from USAID. We spent $14 million for social cohesion in Mali, whatever the hell that means. So I can go on and on. I got the list here, and there's more that I didn't even bring the whole list. In the case of El Salvador, absolutely, absolutely, we deported gang members, gang members, including the one that you had a margarita with. And that guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gangbanger, and the evidence is going to be clear. In the days to come, you're going to see who you went to... Mr. Chairman, please. Mr. Secretary Rubio has the floor. Mr. Chairman, he can't make unsubstantiated comments like that. Secretary Rubio has the floor. Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal floor of the United States because he hasn't done it under oath. Here's another point, okay? There is a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch. No judge and the judicial branch cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy. No judge can tell me how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them. And if I do reach to that foreign partner and talk to them, I have under no obligation to share that with a judiciary branch. Just like a judge cannot order me to negotiate with a foreign minister of Russia, they cannot order me to negotiate with a foreign minister or the president of El Salvador. And if I did negotiate with them, which we have responded to them, and we've told them, we've had communications with the president of El Salvador, I am under no obligation under our division of powers in this country to share with the judicial branch how I conducted diplomacy of the United States. It would actually be counterproductive. If I started sharing with courts, or frankly, with the media, my conversations with foreign leaders and all of their details, no foreign leader would talk to me again, and we would break trust with them. So I have complied with every court order. What I won't comply with is in order to disclose what I'm saying and what we're talking about with a foreign leader because then they won't talk to me. Diplomacy doesn't work that way. About the student visas, let me say this. I don't deport anybody, and I don't snatch anybody. The State Department does not have officers in the streets snatching everybody. What I do is revoke visas, and it's very simple. A visa is not a right, it is a privilege. People apply for student visas to come into the United States and study. And if you tell me that you're coming to the United States to lead campus crusades, to take over libraries and burn down, try to burn down buildings and acts of violence, we're not going to give you a visa. Is that what Ms. Ostor did? We're not going to give you a visa. Is that what she did? Come on, Mr. Secretary. And every single one of these visas, the factors are different. The bottom line is if you're coming here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa. And if you have a visa and we find you, we will revoke you, and we're going to do more. There are more coming. We're going to continue to revoke the visas of people who are here as guests and are disrupting our higher education facilities. People are paying money. Kids pay money to go to school, and they have to walk a bunch of lunatics who are here on the computer. They're disrupting the foreign policy of the United States. I want to do more. I hope we can buy more of these people. That's pathetic, Mr. Secretary. In fact, the other day, the other day, some guy's led a riot. I forgot what university it was. And I asked, please, can you find the arrest records of all the people that were arrested at that riot at that campus? Because if any of them have a visa, we're going to revoke you. I feel so much safer than locking up people like Ms. Ostor and Ms. Secretary.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I was a Google engineer for eight and a half years and a whistleblower against Google in 2019, risking my career and livelihood to warn the public about Google's plans to meddle in the 2020 election using a program called Machine Learning Fairness. Grant, we had a unanimous vote. Every Republican and every Democrat authorized me as the chair to issue these subpoenas. If you've used Google Earth or YouTube for game consoles, you're familiar with my work. Let's talk about Google's censorship AI system called Machine Learning Fairness. I discovered this program while searching for information about Project Dragonfly, probably a fake project meant to misdirect the public. Make no mistake, Machine Learning Fairness is and has always been the real censorship program and it is massive. The goal was to "program the public to align with Google's corporate values." Those are their words. But it's wrong for anyone to have this kind of power to manipulate American elections. And he's right. And in Texas, we're not going to stand for it. We're going to shine a light on what they're doing so that everybody can see. Step one, training data are collected and classified. Step two, algorithms are programmed. Step three, media are filtered, ranked, aggregated or generated. And step four, people like us are programmed. That's a direct quote from their slides. It wasn't just in one slide, it was littered throughout the company. This process was repeated in a cycle with step four feeding back into step one. This sounds like something out of a conspiracy theory, but it's real. Google rewrote their news algorithms specifically trained on mainstream media stories targeting Trump, such as his fight with Comey. Systems like Realtime Events, Realtime Boost, and Hive Mind assigned higher amplification scores to stories related to targeting Trump. Google's internal documents revealed their stance on, quote, algorithmic unfairness. They stated that even factually accurate representations could be considered algorithmically unfair and removed. And let me just quote them. For example, imagine a Google image query for CEOs shows predominantly men, even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness. In some cases, it may be appropriate to take no action if the system accurately reflects current reality. While in other cases, it may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more fair and equitable state via either product intervention or broader corporate social responsibility efforts, end quote. Let's talk about news ranking. News sites that supported Democrats were ranked with the highest quality and trustworthiness. Here's a partial list. Wall Street Journal 8.53, CBS News 6.57, CNN 6.0, Fox News 5.2, Russia Today 4.5, Fox News 5.57, The Young Turks 2.53, Alex Jones Network -1.56. At the bottom of the list is Next News Network at -3.35. Let me reiterate. The foreign propaganda outlet Russia Today was scored seven points higher than the Next News Network, one of the top YouTube news networks in America. Since my disclosure, Next News Network has been permanently demonetized and will soon be bankrupted. These sound more like the actions we'd expect from a Russian propaganda complex. But shockingly, it's the actions of Google. At YouTube, I observed 40 different AIs classifying videos under various labels. Influencers like Dave Rubin were labeled as right-wing news outlets with fake news labels. The justification was always "user safety," but in 2020, this system of censorship went so far as to ban mentions of vitamin C, turmeric, and vitamin D during the pandemic. Anything that is medically unsubstantiated to people saying, "Take vitamin C. Take turmeric. Those will cure you." Those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy. Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy. And so "remove" is another really important part of our policy. So you're not just putting the truth next to the lie. You're taking the lie down. That's a pretty aggressive approach. Despite public statements to Congress, Google has many blacklists. Some literally named "blacklist.txt." For example, the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, shockingly, was blacklisted from YouTube. Public needs to know what's going on. What recommendations would you have for this legislature to take action to address the issues you address? My recommendation is subpoenas would be filed against Google for any documents that have the name "blacklist.txt" related to Google, YouTube, and their news search corpuses. I would also ask the use of PINA, their documents related to rankings of media outlets. Machine learning fairness is so huge, I don't even know how you would even swallow that. That is going to be such a huge bombshell that it just needs to get into the public disclosure. It's those three things, machine learning fairness, blacklists, and their media rankings. Thank you. Specifically for you, what was the impact of your disclosure? One of the major stories of 2019, the biggest disclosure by Project Veritas, the biggest story they've ever had. We had two disclosures, one in June when I was anonymous. In August, I came out publicly after being raided by the FBI, including the bomb squad, First Department, and SFPD with a standoff that ended at gunpoint. It was all due to a wellness check, and I just didn't want to come out, and so it just kept on escalating, and they shut down the streets from 20th and Valencia to 20 seconds. I realized that if I don't come out, they're going to come in, so I came out, the gunpoint surrendered myself. Literally, Pizzagate. If you look at Google Trends, you'll see that fake news trended one day after the Pizzagate released the files. With the Las Vegas Massacre, that allowed them to inject their YouTube blacklist, which didn't exist prior to this event. From there, it was basically covering up rumors that this was a false flag event, and then it went all the way down to, as I noted, the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland. The last term that I saw when I disclosed this list was AMLO. Now what does AMLO mean? That is the nickname of the Mexican president at the time, so they started off possibly with noble goals, but at the end, they were censoring constitutional amendments for our allies and presidential candidates in other countries. Well, how important is it that these subpoenas have been approved to go out, and do you know yet what specifically you'll be asking for? Mexican Senate committees have subpoena power. We rarely use it. It's a big deal. We used it a couple of years ago against BlackRock, State Street, those firms through ESG that are taking Texas money and using it against us. We used it then, and we're using it now. It takes a two-thirds vote in the committee to do this because it's a big deal. Grant, we had a unanimous vote. Every Republican and every Democrat authorized me as the chair to issue these subpoenas to get this information because this affects everyone. You had Professor Epstein, it was a great clip you played. He also told us in the hearing, I'm not a Republican, I lean left, but it's wrong for anyone to have this kind of power to manipulate American elections, and he's right, and in Texas, we're not gonna stand for it. We're gonna shine a light on what they're doing so that everybody can see.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.