Trump Witness QUICKLY COLLAPSES under CROSS-EXAM at SENATE!!

One of the most despicable individuals. in the Trump regime was just torched. under cross-examination under oath. before the United States Senate. Interestingly, it was actually a. Republican senator who led some of that. torching of this Trump regime official. The regime official I speak of is Russ. Vought. He's the director of the Office. of Management and Budget and one of the. authors of Project 2025. I want to show. you what went down moments ago as. Republican Senator Tillis cross-examined. Russ Vought. Watch for yourself. Let's. play this clip.

>> anywhere else, but just give me the best. example of what you thought was an. exquisite um realization of value that. came through cuts that worked their way. through the DOD office. >> Well, I do believe that the reductions. in force as a uh tool. >> Which specific one? >> In general. >> Yeah, but but I want I want to get. specifics. You and I You and I have. different backgrounds. Mine was in. enterprise implementation. I did this. for a living. Um and so I don't want a. word salad answer. >> Well, I'm It's not word salad, Senator.

Uh CFPB, I'm trying to do a reduction. force. >> asking you across the board. Give me one. best because here's what I'm asking for. Uh the DOD office has been quiesced, okay? Um. But there were a lot of claims of. billions and billions of dollars in. savings. I simply want to know where you. booked them and where I can see it. >> I didn't run DOD, Senator. >> I Mr. You are OMB, right? >> I am, but I am not DOD. >> You do track, but you do track the To. me, and when I worked in business.

and we had to implement efficiency, we. got engaged to come in, do. activity-based accounting, whatever was. necessary to identify the efficiencies. Then we go to the CEOs and say, "Part of. this is going to be a reduction in. force. We're going to do this in a. methodical manner. The number one thing. we want to do is absolutely have a. reduction in force that looks at our. best and brightest at 18 to 25%. of the organization and make damn sure. that they don't get out your fired. notice. And then we would send out a.

reduction in force and an efficiencies. program that does people, technology, and infrastructure. Give me an example. of where that was done over the year. that that DOSH was in place. >> Well, I think the extent to which we. >> Because then let me back up. The reason. I'm I'm targeting you is because I look. at you as the guy who books the savings. After we work, let's say we work with. whatever department it is, then we got. the savings, we come to you and we say, "Mr. Vought, this is no longer going to. be a part of our expense run rate. You. can actually tell the administration. that we can decrement that cost because.

we've cut the savings." Give me the best. example of where DOSH has done that. >> Well, I I have been saying in terms of. >> No, because give me the best example of. where a DOSH initiative, once they. completed the work, came to you and. said, "Mr. Vought, you should be aware. that our baseline run rate for expenses. have gone down.". Give me one example. >> an appropriations process, Senator. >> I'm sorry. >> There is an appropriations process. We. have put forward a budget that's $160. billion in DOSH savings.

>> talk about the DOSH savings. I've heard. a lot of people including you talk about. the DOSH savings. I've worked in the business world. My My. understanding is the last time you. worked in the business world was at B. Dalton Books when you were putting. yourself through law school. Good on. you. But you don't have this experience and a. lot of people that were involved in this. do not have this experience. I love the. idea of DOSH. But what I don't love is the idea of. DOSH that we're picking up because. people did it wrong. I spell it with a dollar sign, by the. way, Mr. Chair. >> Next I want to show you the.

cross-examination of Russ Vought, this. despicable creature, by Democratic. Senator Tina Smith. Here, let's play. this clip. >> example, I want to ask you about, I. mean, I'd like your response to this. So, top researchers in Minnesota. recently made a breakthrough in. detecting and treating cancer in kids. with a National Cancer Institute grant. And what the study did is it looked at. what makes African-American children. more likely to die from blood and bone. cancer. So, it seems to me, according to. your proposed rule, this kind of.

research wouldn't be allowed. You. wouldn't fund it because you believe. that studying why American children with. African ancestry get cancer and would. would and die from it would conflict. with your anti-DEI rules. So, is is it. true that that's how you see this rule. being. imposed here? >> How our DEI policies, of which we are we. are against DEI policies. We've we've. intended to get rid of DEI policies. wherever we possibly can. >> So, what impact would it. >> How that would impact with that.

particular grant would be a decision for. a political official, policy official at. the. NIH. That is why the NIH director would. be making that determination. to to be able to marry up the the intent. of a program. There's a whole institute. for disparity. >> appointee would be in the position, according to your proposed rule, of. deciding whether this health grant, studying why um black kids in this. country are more likely to get sick and. die from blood and brain cancer, they. would be the one who decides whether.

this grant should be uh allowed and not. the scientists and the doctors and the. people who know about. >> Senator, we believe that it's important. to have the executive agencies'. leadership, the cabinet secretaries, their undersecretaries, the people that. are in charge that from who have come in. with this administration to make the. final decisions. And that doesn't mean. they don't benefit from the use of from. from career recommendations, from peer. review studies. All of that will be. taken to an account. But we the days of.

us funding CRT because our agency heads. didn't know it was going on, we're not. doing that anymore. >> Would you say that this particular grant. that I just described to you. >> a decision for the director of NIH. >> with the DEI rules that the age that. your administration has? >> it would be a granular discussion that. the that the director of NIH would have. to make a decision on. >> I think this is just an example of the. you know, the absurdity and the bias of. this proposed rule and the danger of. what happens when you bring political. ideology into grant-making processes.

particularly around healthcare. I mean, researchers across the country. including in Minnesota are making. breakthroughs in medical advances and it. is not a place for political appointees. to be putting their finger on the scale. and saying nope, this seems too woke for. me and therefore these kids aren't going. to get the help that they want. Thank. you, Mr. Chair. I have no more questions. >> How atrocious and despicable is that. that you're going to cut cancer research. regarding black kids because of this.

racist disgusting regimes policies. It's. awful. Next, I want to show you as a. Democratic Senator right here. Raphael Warnock cross-examined him. Let's play this clip. >> How many Americans were. projected to have their medical debt. wiped from their credit scores by the. CFPB's medical debt rule. which you overturned? >> I don't know, but the rule was unlawful. >> The answer is 15 million. >> [snorts]. >> Medical debt can ruin credit scores.

which can make it impossible for for. folks to ever buy a home. Do you know how many more mortgages. consumers would have been able to afford. each year. if you hadn't overturned the rule? >> I don't have that off the top of my. head, Senator. >> So, the the answer is 22,000. So, 22,000 mortgages. that consumers would have been able to. afford. 15 million Americans who were set to.

have their medical debt. wiped from their credit scores. >> Next, I'll show you Democratic Senator. Cortez Masto's cross-examination. Let's. play this clip. >> Um Director Vote, let me ask you this. Uh do you believe that veterans who have. served this country and put their lives. on the line deserve um support from the. CFPB when they have been um defrauded or. there's some consumer protection issue? >> Absolutely. >> Um and in fact, uh you believe it so. much so I think you have it in your.

humility pledge that that's part of your. statutory duty. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> So I I'm going to submit for the record. um uh. a letter that I have here. Actually, it's a story from Las Vegas where I have. a military veteran who has a dispute. with a mortgage lender. Um unfortunately, he is not getting. Thank you. Is not getting any response. uh and support from the CFPB. >> Happy to take a look at it, Senator. >> I want more than that. I want to know. what you're actually doing for veterans. I want a I want a reporting from the. CFPB,

your staff, what you're doing to help. veterans. If you think you it's limited. to a statutory duty, I want to know. that. I want a I want a briefing from. you and your office specifically what. you're doing. And that it's not being challenged in. the courts right now. Would you Would. you agree to do that for me? >> Uh I'm leaving the post on October. >> who's leaving. You're there right now. Send somebody to my office. Are you. willing to do that? >> We're happy to to take a look at the. request and consider. >> give me a report. >> Not in this moment, no.

>> No, not at this moment. At some point in. time, come to my office. >> give you what the whatever information. with regards to the our work on veterans. that you're asking for. >> Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. You know, it is not lost on me um in. your opening that you talk about how um. the CFPB has been weaponized and um that. it is not following the law and it is uh. out of control. because that is exactly what you're. doing with the OMB.

Since you've been there. as the director over the OMB, you have. defunded programs and whole agencies. Congress authorized and appropriated. funds, even though you in your statement. you recognize we are the appropriators. Thank you very much for recognizing. that. You have delayed and denied funding for. programs Congress supported with law and. money. You have supported the firing of. commissioners and staff at multiple. federal agencies. You think this should. be a bipartisan commission, but you. support eliminating all the Democrats. that are on commissions on all these. federal agencies. >> I don't.

>> Experienced and qualified people who had. responsibility to solve problems for the. American people and enhance our standing. the world. Not only are prices higher. because of the work that you have done. in this administration with the. president, the world is more dangerous. Let me ask you this. You've been asked. about the housing trust fund. We have. just passed a bipartisan, bicameral. housing trust fund, housing fund to. address the housing needs in this. country. Your boss didn't support it. Are you committed to sending the funds. there when we appropriate those funds. based on the bipartisan, bicameral law.

that we have passed when it comes to. housing, the road 21st century housing. bill. >> Senator, we have every intention of. apportioning all funds that have been. appropriated. >> Without any without any politics, without any type of DEI or wokeism. invoked into that? >> We're going to make sure that it's spent. based on the. priorities of this administration, uh but we're going to do everything we. can to get the money out the door. >> Well, let me ask you let me just say. this to you because based on your. priorities and and I say this truly,

you're putting us in more danger. Let me. just put it Let me put a point on this. HIDTA, which is a high intensity drug. trafficking areas that I have worked. with as a former attorney general. The. programs across the country, they're. bipartisan support for them. Uh they. they disrupt drug trafficking. organizations that combat the ongoing. fentanyl crisis that your boss talks. about all the time. They protect our. communities from drug addiction, overdoses, and crime. Your office, your. office decided it was time to delay.

funding to HIDTA. You know what happened. because of your delay? The delay was so. severe that Hidab programs had to. furlough staff and scale back. enforcement activities. That's what you're causing here. And you have no authority to do so. And you always talk about court cases. The only reason we're in court. is because the court is challenging the. decisions you have made and overruling. them. And all my ask is stop playing the. games. Stop playing the games. Stop picking.

winners and losers. If we send something. to you in a bipartisan way, we hope you. respect it. We hope you respect it. I am frustrated. because I have seen time and time again. your political You sit right here and. you talk about wokeism and the last. administration. And you can always evoke. the last administration. And the only. reason you are is because you know why. who the administration was prior to. that? Was the Trump administration. I didn't go through this whole scale um.

this. illegally violating the appropriations. process. But now all of a sudden that's happening. under your watch. Got a question. What is going on here? So. I appreciate it. My time is up. Thank. you, Mr. Chairman. >> Now I will show you the. cross-examination by Senator Warren of. Russ Vought. Here we play this clip. >> Acting Director Vought, how many of the. enforcement actions and investigations. that you dropped were against companies. that have donated to President Trump?

>> We've made every determination with. regard to supervision and enforcement. enforcement without regard to anything. other than the statute. >> Mr. Vought. >> that we've been given at the agency. >> How many. have donated to President Trump? You've. dropped 40 plus actions for companies. And how many of those companies have. donated to President Trump? >> I have no idea because I have no idea. Actually, some of them were telling you.

Toyota, for example, said, "Oh, we've. reached out to the White House." And. it's a matter of public record where. they donated a million dollars. You. know, so. I've got a list here of companies that. cut checks to President Trump that we. know of. Apple, Bank of America, Capital. One, JP Morgan. You want me to keep. going on this? Um Toyota, Walmart, Meta. And that's just at the CFPB.

In 2025, across federal agencies, the Trump. administration dropped cases against. more than 50 companies that we can. document have financial ties to the. president or to his inner circle. >> Here's what Ruben Gallego, senator from. Arizona, had to say during his. cross-examination. Let's play it. >> Now, let's look at how you actually. choose to enforce the law. So, Navy. Federal Credit Union was caught charging. its members millions in illegal surprise. overdraft fees. These members are.

active-duty veterans, DoD employees, and. their families. Uh I was once a a young. Marine. Every dollar really does matter. when you're a young Marine. And the last. CFPB ordered Navy Federal to pay a $15. million penalty and refund more than $80. million. back to those service members' pockets. I think that's a very just outcome. Uh. but you tore up that consent order. Am I. correct? >> It was based on a decision of which the. previous administration had put out. guidance that was not lawful.

>> Okay. >> So, when the the company was then. penalized for it, there was no grounds. for that consent order. >> Did any of that $80 million go back to. any of those veterans when you tore that. up? >> They paid their $15 million in the. penalty. >> their $15 million, but the people that. actually had were ripped off by Navy. Federal Credit Union did not get. anything. >> They weren't They weren't actually The. previous order would have The previous. order would have given those $80 million. back to the people that were ripped off. >> And that would have been paid by service. members in the Navy Federal Credit.

Union. >> But right now for a. fact, we know that they're not getting. the $80 million back. >> The issue underlying issue was put in. >> your decision basically means that these. men and women who were ripped off are. not getting $80 million back cuz the. previous order actually would have done. that. >> It was illegal. >> It's not illegal. It was just and you. just basically tore it up and you didn't. replace it by anything. So like these. men and women are now left $80 million. >> says there's no authority to deal with. overdraft fees, which by the way make. sure that we have overdraft fee.

protection. >> There was an order specifically designed. to bring restitution to these veterans. that were incredibly ripped off and you. could have found another way to do it, but instead you just let them continue. to be ripped off and that that is your. decision. >> And we heard from Virginia Senator. Warner. Here's what he had to say. >> But the real question I want to get to. You said in your writings. that you wanted to traumatize. federal workforce. So, Director Vote, as a former CEO. myself. >> It's not what I said, Senator, but I'm. happy to clarify previous statement.

>> Listen. Your writings were very clear. You wanted to make sure federal workers. felt like they shouldn't go to work. You. felt like you wanted to add trauma. So, I'm asking you as business guy. to government employee. give yourself a grade on how much trauma. you've brought to federal workforce. >> We've done aggressive actions to live. and have fiscally responsible. >> give me a. and please don't don't give me a. response. >> premise of the question, Senator. >> Well, no, you I You know, the thing is. you want to ask the questions, get. elected and sit up here.

You got a United States Senator asking a. question. Give yourself a grade. A, B, C, D, F. on how well you've done at traumatizing. our workforce. >> I think we've done an incredible job in. running the CFPB and I'm excited to be. here and answer questions about that. >> was a business guy. So, don't, you know, use bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Did you get an A, a B, a C, or did you. fail? I actually think you did a pretty. you did with your goal of traumatizing. and undermining the federal workforce, think you did a pretty damn good job.

What would give yourself a What grade. would you give yourself? >> We've done an excellent job of running. the CFPB. >> Sir, I would say excellent job running. excellent job on terrorizing our and. traumatizing our federal workforce. And. again, I go back and thank the chairman. So, many. >> And then finally, we heard from. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer from. Maryland. Here's what she had to say. Let's play it. >> Um Director Vote, I have been waiting uh. to have the opportunity to come back. face-to-face with you. um to ask for an explanation for what I.

regard as absolutely depraved depraved, I use that word again, and draconian. actions to decimate our public. institutions, politicize federal grant. programs, to stall funding for NIH and. for CDC public health programs, harming. our research institutions, dismantling. the CFPB, and I have to tell you, I. couldn't wait to get here on behalf of. the 160,000. federal employees in my state, the the.

actions taken toward our federal. employees has been evil, absolutely. evil, and it is the most galling aspect. of what I regard as shameful tenure. at the OMB as director uh it has been. your outright animosity and blatant. hostility toward our federal workers, and I haven't made this up. In fact, I'm. going to read your own words that you. famously said without remorse. You said, "We want the bureaucrats. to be traumatically affected. When they. wake up in the morning, we want them to.

not want to go to work because they are. increasingly regarded as the villain.". This is so evil, and the 150,000. federal workers who are in my state, who. come together. These are the patriots of. our country, who've worked, many of. them, for decades. They didn't care. whether the president was a Democrat or. Republican. They are here to serve the. American people, and they will not. forget how they were treated and what. was said, and neither will I. And in. fact, one Marylander who lost his. federal job said the following, "I can't.

tell you how terrifying it is to be a. parent of two children faced with the. thought that you cannot provide for your. family." So, I ask you, is that of. trauma. that you were talking about? Did you. intend to sow terror for parents who. need to provide for their families? Is. that the kind of trauma that you were. anticipating? >> Senator, I've explained those comments. on numerous occasions. I was referring. to bureaucracies and not the career. civil servants that do the job. Many of.

those bureaucracies are weaponized. against the American people. We've taken. steps to deal with that, but as it. pertains to the civil servants, I have a. very high regard for them uh and the. work that they do. >> Well, I think the words speak for. themselves. I really do. I don't think. anybody can say that combination of. words and have it be explicable. It is. inexplicable, and. >> There you have it, folks. Let me know. what you think. Want to remind you all. as well, WTF. Right? After watching that, don't. you just go WTF? That's the book that I.

wrote with my brothers, WTF America, the. way out of this hell and back to. democracy. It's out October. Pre-order. it right now, though. Um I've been. pouring my heart into this, and it's. been inspired by you, the Midas Mighty. It's called WTF America. Pre-order it. right now. You can scan the QR code to. get that pre-order right now. Thanks for. watching, everybody. >> Breaking news right now. My brothers and. I wrote a book. It's called WTF America, and well, doesn't that just say it all? It comes out officially this October,

but you can pre-order your copy today. Just scan the QR code or click the link. in the description below. >> [music].