Transcript of Democrats Turn the Tables in GOP Hearings

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

That right there was Democratic Congressmember Maggie Zehner. He was not holding back. And yesterday we saw Democrats at the various hearings before the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate really punching back hard. Now that Congress has finally returned back into session, let me show you what went down. I want to share this with you as Democratic Senator Jack Reed was crossing examining Supreme Court justices who testified before the United States Senate yesterday. And here Senator Reid reads the Supreme Court justices who were testifying in order to try to get more money for the Supreme Court for their own personal safety. Senator Reid read Donald Trump's words and was saying, you do realize like this is one of the main reasons why your court and why so many judges across the country are facing severe threats here. Play this clip.

I just want to pick up on a point that Senator Collins made about some outrageous statements that are being made by public figures, and I can't think of a more prominent one than the President of the United States. So on February 20th, following your decision on tariffs, he said, "Disgrace to our nation, fools, lapdogs for the RINOs and radical left Democrats, and very unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution." And he was describing the Supreme Court. On March 15th, he posted, "Our country was unnecessarily ransacked by the United States Supreme Court, which has become little more than a weaponized and unjust political organization." Now, I don't agree with anything he said, but if there's anyone in the country that commands more attention, it's the president, and I think that behavior is very dangerous to the court and to our whole system, and I just want that to be part of the record. Justice Kagan, you asked for—

If I could, Senator, Please. Wherever these come from, and, you know, whatever political figure says them, whatever party that political figure is a member of, it— these statements are really unhelpful. They're dangerous in terms of individual justices' security, and they're not appropriate in the way to treat a coordinated branch of government. I think that Chief Justice had a year-end statement last year where he talked about this issue, and he talked about, like, criticism is fair game. I mean, go for it. Yeah, it's life in the big city is that you're subject to all kinds of criticism, um, but intimidation is a different thing entirely. And when political figures of any stripe are trying to intimidate judges and justices to do things that they like rather than the things that they don't. That, that's where we really have crossed the line.

I think you're exactly right, Your Honor, and you said it well. You wanted a moment to talk about the process where the $28 million request was made through appropriation channels, and then $30 million appeared suddenly through private channels. Please.

Yeah, I think Justice Barrett referenced this a bit, and, and first off, we apologize if we did any anything so procedurally improper. But the, the reason for the additional ask, if you will, um, was that— is that we were suddenly confronted with the loss of U.S. Marshal protection. And we, we thought that we were going to have U.S. Marshal protection at our residences for another 6 months, and all of a sudden learned from the Justice Department that that was going to be impossible. And so we had to do some sort of quick footwork to try to get additional monies in order to cover that 6-month gap. And as I say, if we, um, did that in a way that was procedurally less than optimal, um, my apologies.

Well, uh, your security is more important than procedural niceties, so there's no issue here.

Uh, next I want to share with you in the House of Representatives, Democratic Congressmember Pocan cross-examining the Small Business Administration Administrator, Kelly Loeffler. Now Kelly Loeffler is a billionaire. She actually hates small business. And that's usually the criteria for Donald Trump picking somebody at a specific position. He picks an attorney general who hates the law. He picks a health secretary who hates health. He picks an energy secretary who, uh, is corrupt as hell and just represents the interest of oil companies. He picks a health secretary who hates health. He picks an Environmental Protection Agency head who hates the environment. I can continue to go on.

He hates—

he picks a Defense Department secretary, you know, who couldn't even run a nonprofit for the troops. So let me share with you as Congressmember Pocan grills Kelly Loeffler here. Play this clip.

Who pays tariffs?

Uh, Congressman, according to Harvard and the Richmond Fed, 80% of the tariffs are paid by the foreign countries where they originate. That's why the United States was on its heels for 50 years.

That would be like me saying— if you said, what color is my hair? I'd say I have long flowing red hair, right? Because it's complete BS, right? That, that's not true. Who pays tariffs? Are these small businesses who've been impacted? 42,600 on average last September. And then they pass the costs on to consumers. So before I sold my business, when Donald Trump started his tariffs last year, I started getting increases on aluminum sheets. I did engraving as one of the parts that I did at Specialty Printing. And but I also got increases, by the way, on American-made walnut plaques. Because they decided they could also make money while they're doing the increased costs and tariffs. They could pass on some other costs. So this— that's part of the fun of being a small business, not a really, really, really rich big business. But when you're small business, that's the kind of stuff you have to juggle. So I did see the impact in invoices every single day. I would see those coming in, and we paid those extra costs. Yard sign wires for politicians. We made political signs for folks. We saw the steel costs increase because of the tariffs.

So I'm just saying, for the average small business, there's been a big impact. And the fact that you're talking to businesses and not hearing this, I'll tell you, I just bluntly— not even a member of Congress, as a guy who's a small business who ran a business-to-business venture, I heard it all the time, and I still hear it all the time. And I sit down and meet with my small businesses in my community. So what can I say to them when I say the SBA administrator says foreign countries are paying tariffs, you just are imagining it or you're lying? Because they're not imagining it and they're not lying.

Well, Congressman, with all due respect, I'm going to set aside the reductive comments you made about small business success because every small business is—

So you're saying— you'll take my time back— you're saying a small bit, the real small venture doesn't matter if the bankruptcies are 50%? You only care about big business? Is that the new policy of the SBA?

A collision—

unless Donald Trump and his sons can invest in, it's not something you care about? Is that what you're saying?

Collision repair company. You voted against the Working Family Tax Cut where that repairman, where that auto mechanic is not—

oh, please, if you want to go there, I need 5 more minutes. You have no clue. Give me 5 more minutes and I'll ask you questions about that.

Yeah, well, I yield back. This administration is fighting for the American worker.

Think about small businesses.

Now, I do want to show you that full speech by Congressmember Magaziner because it was very impressive. Here, let's play this clip.

Mr. Speaker, in the last week, ICE agents shot and killed two more innocent people in broad daylight. In both cases, the people they shot and killed weren't even the people they were looking for. In both cases, they shot and killed people who were on their way to work in front of their families. In Houston last week, Lorenzo Salgado Arejo, a construction worker who has lived in the United States for 35 years, a husband with 3 children, no criminal record. He was driving to work with the lunch that his wife had packed for him and his brother riding in the passenger seat when ICE agents rammed his vehicle and shot him because they thought he was someone else. And then yesterday in Maine, Joan Sebastian Guerrero, 26 years old, legally authorized to work in the United States, legally authorized, shot and killed by ICE agents who thought he was somebody else in front of his wife and his 3-year-old daughter who screamed wearing her bluey pajamas while she watched her father bleed to death. How many more innocent people have to be killed in broad daylight? How many more children have to watch their parents shot to death by masked men too cowardly to show their faces?

When will this madness stop? When he took his position, Secretary Mullin said that his goal was to get the department off the front page of the news. Well, you're back on the goddamn front page now with two innocent people gunned down in broad daylight. Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed. It is total chaos. And you know what? In both of these shootings in Texas and in Maine, none of the agents were wearing their body cameras. Congress, gave them tens of millions of dollars for body cameras, and none of them were wearing them. Where's the accountability? And you want to know why we won't vote, why I won't vote to give funding to this lawless, reckless, dangerous agency? Mark my words, we are not going to be silent about what is happening. We are not gonna forget until there is justice.

And next, I wanna show you what went down when you had the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh, testifying, and Democratic Congress member Gregory Miller Meeks, Gregory Miller Meeks, was cross-examining Kevin Warsh, and he got Kevin Warsh to say on the record that I am gonna put the law over Donald Trump, that I won't listen to Donald Trump's threats. Let me show you this good cross-examination by Congressman Meeks here. Play this clip.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations, Mr. Chairman. Um, you're— let's jump into this because in your testimony you talked about the Federal Reserve's, and I quote, rightful independence in the conduct of monetary policy, which is good. Now, as Chairman, uh, Hill has indicated, I also do some foreign affairs work, and I'm very concerned about what's taking place, um, in the Strait of Hormuz and rising cost of gas, because we know that when those prices up— go up at the pump, it's these higher transportation and energy costs and they work their way through the economy, generally making groceries higher and household goods, etc. So depends upon handling it. So, Mike, if the administration's handling of the conflict with Iran contributes to another inflationary shock, will you make the decision you believe is in the best interest of the American people and the American economy in that rightful independent stance.

Uh, Congressman, that is always our commitment to make the best decision we can consistent with the remit and our understanding of the world. And as I said to the chairman at the outset, we'll deliver price stability.

So, and that's, you know, still based upon what we've seen from the president thus far. Now, I just want to be clear, make sure that— because I got to be clear on this— that if the president publicly pressures you to pursue a different course than the one you believe is in the economic— that you believe the economic data supports, will you follow the president's wishes or follow the data?

My commitment to you is to follow the law and follow the data, follow our very best judgment.

And that's even if he publicly criticizes you? For doing it. If you decide this is the way to go, this is what the data shows, and he publicly criticizes you and tells you how disappointed he's in you and all of that, will you still do what the data tells you to do?

I will, Congressman.

You ready for that?

I'm ready to follow the law, and I'm ready for the Fed to deliver on the expansive a remit that you gave us. I'll make only one other note. We have a wide lens. We're interested in what's happening in the war. We're interested in what's happening in military conflicts around. We have to take that all in, but then we have to shut the door and, and make our very best decision. That's what we're going to do in a couple of weeks, and that's what we'll do in the remainder of my tenure.

Here's something most people aren't told about their credit score. It's not just whether you pay your credit cards, it's when you pay them. I didn't know this. Most people don't realize that either, but SmartCredit's data experts understand how credit bureaus operate. So they created something called the Best Paydown Date, built around how credit reporting actually works. So instead of guessing, you get personalized strategy that shows you what to do and when to do it to help you maximize your score. I wish I knew about this sooner.

I really do.

That matters because better credit can mean lower payments and more money in your pocket. And this is where it gets interesting. You can see your full credit picture picture in one place. Your score, what's affecting it, and if something needs attention, you can take care of it right there. That's huge. So before you apply for anything— a car, apartment, refinance— it makes sense to start with SmartCredit. Go to smartcredit.com/mitus and try it for just $1. You may be surprised to see how many points SmartCredit estimates that you can gain. That's smartcredit.com/mitus. Results vary. Cancel anytime.

Going back to the Loeffler cross-exam now for a moment, let me share with you as Congressmember Steny Hoyer cross-examined Kelly Loeffler right here. Let's play this clip.

Have you received any directions from OMB at any time, uh, during the course of your administration at the SBA to not disburse funding that has been appropriated?

Well, we're working closely, uh, both internally and externally. So we work with OMB, we work with our internal political and career colleagues to ensure that the funds are going out as directed, as intended by Congress, and that they, that they meet the law and that they meet the executive orders. And so we have continued to look at meeting all those objectives and making sure that the programs— I think small businesses would be interested to know that some of the programs that were lined up for funding were things like the Binational Institute for Human Development, which supports illegal aliens in Guatemala.

Excuse me, Madam Administrator, I have limited time. My question was pretty simple, which I don't think you've answered, and that is Have you been directed at any point in time since you have been the administrator of the SBA by OMB and Mr. Vogt, not necessarily him personally, but OMB, uh, to not expend money that had been appropriated by Congress?

I have been directed to follow the law, and in doing so, I'm following, uh, the White House executive orders. I'm working internally And we're making sure that everything that is— that you have directed to get out gets out. But we are not going to blindly write blank checks like the last administration did to the Chinese Mutual Aid Society.

I know, but let me reclaim my time because my time is short. You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you whether you have done things that are prudent to do. I asked you, have you been directed by either Mr. Vo directly Omb not to expend funds that were appropriated by the Congress of the United States? Now you're avoiding— that's an either yes or no question.

I think I've been very clear that we are following all requirements to get—

no, that's not very clear.

And I, I do not work directly on grant disbursements, and I'll be happy to have my team follow up with you to clarify. But the— all of the funding that we've committed to getting out, we are getting out. Let me be clear, the Biden administration did not get their money out. 300—

more cross-examination here about Loeffler closing, uh, SBA offices in blue cities, in blue states, and not in red states and red cities. Totally politicizing it. Let's play this clip.

Now, with all due respect, you're closing up cities around the country, is that— is in terms of your reorganization to which the chairman referred, is that accurate?

Uh, that's inaccurate.

Okay, what is accurate?

When I came in, we had 132 offices. I think people would be shocked to know that we had 132 offices, 29 of which had 0 or 1 employee.

And okay, are you closing offices?

Yes, we absolutely are.

Can you name me an office that you are closing that is in a blue city or blue district?

One.

We don't classify them by blue cities.

Can you name one?

We are making several.

The president said he did consider the politics.

No, we're changing areas.

Can you name one, Madam Administrator?

I can name several. Yeah, I can. And I can tell you we have had to move out.

What are they?

Los Angeles, Portland, New York, Chicago, Atlanta.

No, that were closed.

The emergency is—

can you name me one that is scheduled to be closed that is not in a blue district?

Yeah, I'm sure I can. I'll be happy to get that district or city. We don't target them by blue or red.

We don't understand. But it would be—

is there anyone working in that office? Let me give you an— we had an office for 4 years that had no employees working in it. We didn't even have access.

We closed it with the key. Matter of fact, it was closed if you had no people working in it.

We were paying— the taxpayers were paying for it. The taxpayers are now saving $32 million. I'm—

Administrator, with all due respect, I've asked you to advocate for small business, saving them money. You have not answered either one of them. That's regrettable. I will send you some questions in writing. I would hope you would answer them. Thank you very much.

Then we heard from Congresswoman DeLauro. Let me share with you her cross-examination right here. Let's play it.

I just see the process does seem to favor— and these are not my words, I can quote you, Judge Eaton. I mean, that's what I wish to say. This year, if you could get to us a rundown of the refunds, who was getting those refunds, the amount of the refunds, and their category as a large business, small business, or whatever it is. Who are the companies getting the trade refunds so that you can dispel what is public knowledge about these efforts, which you don't seem to know about? So the process seems to favor large companies with in-house customs experts. Outside trade counsel, while smaller businesses often lack the resources. I want to ask you, does SBA share that concern? I'm afraid I'm going to get the same answer about the thriving small businesses. Have SBA conducted any assessment of whether small businesses are disproportionately struggling to access tariff refunds compared to larger firms? Are you doing an assessment of that? It's yes or no.

No, ma'am.

You're not doing an assessment of what's happening?

What I see every day is— will you commit—

will you commit to working with CBP to provide this committee with a report identifying how many small businesses have successfully received refunds and what are the barriers that remain.

I will commit to continuing to advancing the interests of small business.

No, no, I, I, this is CBP to provide this committee with a report. Can you get us a report?

We're frequently asked to deliver reports. These reports are not what— my staff will be happy to meet with your staff.

I wonder, this committee needs a report of what's happening.

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

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

I yield back.

I stand by your—

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

I would like to start with a straightforward, simple question. Do you work for Donald Trump? Yes or no?

If I'm permitted to say, we're an independent central bank. We're honored to be independent. Our independence came from you.

Okay, that's enough. Thank you. What steps would you take if the president or others in the administration target you or your fellow governors because he doesn't like how many of them are voting on interest rate policy?

So I—

it's not my— it's not my intuition to engage in hypotheticals. But I'll tell you this. The Supreme Court said—

That's an easy way out.

The Supreme Court said that the Federal Reserve and the conduct of monetary policy is independent. Extent there were questions about it, the courts answered those questions.

So what would you do?

I would continue to do my job.

Okay, good. Chair Walsh, do you agree that current monetary policy exists in an extremely polarized and politicized environment?

Outside the four walls of the Federal Reserve, there's no doubt a lot of politics. But my goal inside the central bank is for there to be no politics. To the extent there's politics there, we're going to get rid of them.

Well, I, along with many on my side, will say that the attempted firings of a sitting Fed governor and Fed chair in the central bank's 111-year history is quite the politicization and polarization of the Fed. Chair Walsh, at your nomination hearing a few months ago, you said, and I state, "I am committed to ensuring that the conduct of monetary policy remains strictly independent." You just said that. Are you still committed to conducting independent monetary policy today?

Absolutely.

Given the current mistrust, of government and the political environment surrounding your appointment, the decision to limit communications and offload Fed objectives to clandestine task forces with no clear transparency calls your motivations into question. Can you commit today to institute an explanatory framework that details the reasoning of the Fed's actions following policy changes.

I'm here today, Congressman, to do just that. And I think I've demonstrated in my first 6 or 7 weeks in office a commitment to independence and a commitment to reform. Those two are of common importance, and I'm going to deliver on both of them.

I'm glad to hear that.

And then let me share with you Senator Van Hollen's cross-examination. Of the Supreme Court justices, Justice Kagan and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Here, let's play this clip.

On a related sort of question of public confidence, I want to ask you about prediction markets, because prediction markets have faced very little federal oversight. They're largely self-regulating. We've already seen insider trading by government officials in other branches and in the military. Supreme Court justices and their staff have access to similar information. They're not immune from this trend. Here are some of the event contracts that are currently being offered on, on CASHI. Who will be the next Supreme Court justice? Will Trump be held liable for January 6th in any court? Will the independence of the judiciary be weakened during Trump's term? Now, clearly, members of the Senate and Senate staff staff could have information that could be helpful to them in playing the prediction markets. The Senate actually has now adopted, as a matter of Senate rules, a prohibition on doing that. So my question to you is, will the court do the same, both for justices and for the staff of the Supreme Court?

That's already covered. My understanding is it's already— it's already covered because there's a prohibition on using information that you know within the court to make financial gain. And so, and not just for justices, but for all employees of the court.

Okay. So it's your view that the current language of the rules already prohibits every member of the court staff and obviously the members of the court itself from engaging in prediction markets?

I mean, I think this is an incredibly important area. So if your charge to us is go back and look for any loopholes, we'll willingly take on.

Yeah, I would, I would suggest that you don't want loopholes.

Senator Ben Hawley, this is super important.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Well, there's legislation that's been, I think, just introduced in the House, so I think there may be a feeling that the current language may not be airtight. So if you could go back and look at that, I'd appreciate it.

Well, powerful stuff indeed. Let me know what you think. So it went down yesterday. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 7 million subscribers. And thanks for watching, everybody.

Thanks for watching. Be sure to add the Midas Touch Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts for new updates every single day.