Republicans Crumble at Live Hearing as Scam Is Exposed

Summary

The MeidasTouch Podcast Episode Summary

Episode Title: Republicans Crumble at Live Hearing as Scam Is Exposed
Release Date: May 22, 2025
Hosts: Ben, Brett, and Jordy Meiselas

---

Introduction

In this compelling episode of The MeidasTouch Podcast, the Meiselas brothers delve into a recent live congressional hearing that spotlighted significant shortcomings among Republican lawmakers, particularly those aligned with the MAGA movement. The episode underscores how these Republicans struggled to defend dubious provisions in a budget bill, revealing potential backroom deals and a lack of preparedness that could have broader implications for American democracy.

---

Exposing the Silencer Provision

A central focus of the discussion revolves around a controversial provision within the budget bill that eliminates the requirement to register silencers with the ATF. Democratic Congressmember Negus took center stage, challenging Republican members on the origins and intentions behind this amendment.

Notable Quote:

"The provision very clearly states that you no longer have to register silencers with the ATF."
— Host at [01:38]

The brothers highlight how Republican representatives, particularly those with MAGA affiliations, were unable to provide clear explanations or defend the provision's inclusion. This lack of transparency suggests that the provision may have been inserted to secure necessary votes, rather than based on genuine policy considerations.

---

Democratic Pushback and Republican Faltering

As the hearing progressed, Democratic members intensified their scrutiny, pointing out the Republicans' ignorance about the bill's contents. This only further exposed the internal discord and possible ulterior motives behind the bill's passage.

Notable Quotes:

"I have not seen a case where they have said no, it's okay for someone not to have due process."
— Democratic Congressmember Fernandez at [12:29]

"This provision very clearly states that you no longer have to register silencers with the ATF."
— Host at [01:38]

These interactions demonstrate the Democrats' determination to hold Republicans accountable, emphasizing their commitment to transparency and constitutional principles.

---

Budget Priorities: Silencers vs. Social Welfare

The authors critically examine the budget's allocation, which seemingly prioritizes tax exemptions for silencers over crucial social programs like Medicaid and Medicare. This juxtaposition raises questions about the administration's priorities and the potential impact on millions of Americans relying on these services.

Notable Quote:

"Why in this budget bill are we prioritizing tax breaks for silencers while kicking 14 million Americans off of Medicaid."
— Host at [04:58]

The brothers argue that such decisions reflect a misplaced focus that benefits a narrow interest group at the expense of vulnerable populations.

---

Due Process and Immigration Reform

Another significant segment addresses the ongoing debates surrounding due process rights for individuals in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. The discussion highlights how recent legislative moves may undermine fundamental constitutional protections.

Notable Quote:

"Per the Constitution, yes, if you are on our soil, you are guaranteed due process."
— Congressmember at [12:29]

This segment underscores the potential dangers of eroding due process, emphasizing that such measures could lead to unjust outcomes and further destabilize the legal framework protecting all individuals within the country.

---

FEMA's Role and Disaster Response Concerns

The episode also touches on concerns regarding FEMA's reduced capabilities following budget cuts and administrative changes under the Trump regime. The brothers highlight recent failures in disaster response, questioning the effectiveness of FEMA reforms and pondering the implications for future emergencies.

Notable Quote:

"FEMA was not reacting to the devastating storms... 28 Americans died and Donald Trump hasn't mentioned it."
— Host at [20:36]

This critique points to a broader issue of inadequate disaster preparedness and response, which could have dire consequences as the climate crisis intensifies.

---

Democratic Resilience and Call to Action

Concluding the episode, the Meiselas brothers commend the Democrats for their robust defense against Republican shortcomings during the hearing. They emphasize the importance of continued vigilance and active participation in democratic processes to safeguard against policies that may undermine key societal protections.

Notable Quote:

"That's what we're looking for. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 5 million subscribers."
— Host at [20:36]

This rallying call serves as a reminder of the power of informed and engaged citizens in shaping the nation's legislative landscape.

---

Conclusion

In "Republicans Crumble at Live Hearing as Scam Is Exposed," The MeidasTouch Podcast effectively highlights significant legislative debates that reveal deeper political rifts and potential policy pitfalls. Through incisive analysis and engaging brotherly banter, the hosts provide listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand, underscoring the critical need for accountability and informed advocacy in maintaining a robust democracy.

---

Stay Connected:
Subscribe to The MeidasTouch Podcast for more in-depth discussions, breaking news updates, and insightful political analysis every Tuesday and Friday morning.

Transcript

[Host]

This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. Not everyone is careful with your personal information, which might explain why there's a victim of Identity theft every five seconds in the U.S. fortunately, there's LifeLock. Lifelock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity. If your identity is stolen, a US based restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year by visiting lifelock.com podcast terms apply.

[Co-Host]

Want to sharpen your aim, save money.

[Host]

On ammo and train like the pros off in the comfort of your home. Meet Mantis X, the cutting edge dry fire training system used by the Marine.

[Co-Host]

Corps, army and Special Forces to build precision and confidence. 94% of shooters report improved accuracy in.

[Host]

Just 20 minutes and you could be next.

[Co-Host]

With Mantis X, you train with your.

[Host]

Own firearm anytime, anywhere without wasting a.

[Co-Host]

Single round in less than two weeks.

[Host]

The system pays for itself and ammo savings alone. As a proud gun owner, I believe in the second Amendment.

[Co-Host]

But rights come with responsibility.

[Host]

That means refining your accuracy, mastering your.

[Co-Host]

Skills and staying prepared every time you train. Whether you're a new shooter or an.

[Host]

Experienced marksman, Mantis X helps you train smarter, shoot better, and defend what matters most.

[Co-Host]

Get yours [e-mail] that's mantisx.com Mr. Scott, I asked. Don't tell this. I gave you an answer. You don't like it? It's over with. This provision very clearly states, you see.

[Host]

MAGA Republicans don't know how to debate. So when Democratic Congressmember Negus was asking very basic questions like who the heck put in a provision into this bill that all of a sudden states that you no longer have to register silencers with the ATF as part of the budget bill? Who put it in there? You saw the MAGA Republicans, like, stop yelling at me. Stop yelling at me. Look, the Democrats were fighting all day and this is what I wanted to see, Democrats going gloves off. So I want to show you this interaction between Democratic Congressmember Negus where he speaks to the MAGA Republican Congressmember and says, who the hell added a provision into a budget bill that not only provides tax exemptions for silencers, but adds a provision that clearly states that people no longer have to even register their silencers anymore? Something that has been around since the days of Al Capone, that you have to register your silencers? Here, play this clip.

[Co-Host]

The question I have is this was not in the bill that we were marking up. So whose vote was bought with this provision that Silencers will no longer need to be registered with the ATF or subject to background checks. Purchasers, that is to say, like who, who was, what member was on the fence about this bill and then went to Republican leadership and said, I, I know you're eliminating the tax on silencers, but if you can just eliminate all regulation of silencers, I will vote for this bill. Who, who's. It did not eliminate all regulations of silencers. Sure. It's still subject. No, it doesn't. No, no, no, no. You don't know anything about this one, brother. I haven't yielded to you yet, Mr. Scott. I have 10 of them. I haven't yet. Applause I'm Nege. Thank you, Madam Chair. This provision very clearly states that you no longer have to register silencers with the atf. Is that wrong? Is that incorrect? That does not mean that you will go through, will not go through a background check. It will be sold the same way a rifle is the question I asked, Mr. Scott. I asked. Don't yell at this. I gave you an answer you don't like. It's over with. This provision very clearly states as. Let Mr. Negus ask a question and answer it, please, Mr. Scott. The national, the National Firearm act, for 100 years, since the days of Al Capone, is the impetus behind the National Firearm act, in the first instance has required registration for those purchasing silencers. That was the case up until 45 minutes ago, when Republicans negotiated the elimination of that registration requirement fairly straightforward. I don't really know who in the Republican caucus was adamant that this provision was the key to unlocking their support. And I don't believe anyone here. Excuse me for interrupting, but I don't think anybody here knows that either. Mr. Got it.

[Host]

Then. The Democrats continue to press these MAGA Republicans and point out that the MAGA Republicans don't even know what, what the hell is in this budget bill and why in this budget bill are we prioritizing, or I should say the magazine and the trumps prioritizing tax breaks for silencers while kicking 14 million Americans off of Medicaid. And we learned that this disastrous budget is also kicking people off of Medicare too. Play this clip.

[Co-Host]

This longstanding federal policy should be overturned in the middle of the night. And I'd urge a yes vote on my amendment. Yes, I'll yield to Mr. Scott. It's actually not a silencer, it's a suppressor. It doesn't, I'm sorry, it's, it is still my time. If we look at your manager's amendment, it Says that the section is amended by striking any silencer. The whole national.

[Host]

Then I apologize.

[Co-Host]

I don't want to argue with you. And you can look up the National Firearms Act. I'm sorry. My time and I'm yielding to Mr. McCarthy Govern. I would just say I. I support. Never mind then. I thought you would engage in a debate. But I'm opposed to it. I had yielded to. Of course you are.

[Host]

And Democratic Congresswoman Fernandez was bringing the fight. Here's what she had to say. Play this clip.

[Co-Host]

There is a better explanation, and that is because we are not. Because we are continuing the tax cuts that were in the tcja. It is being done as a cautionary measure to make sure that there is nothing seen in here that Madam Chair implicate a tax increase. Yeah, but Madam Chair, if you are describing those tax cuts, you would not need a authorization for a tax rate increase. This is about increasing your taxes. So you are authorizing the increase of taxes without the required vote and the rules. I think we've been very clear.

[Host]

And another hat tip to Democratic Congressmember Negus right here, grilling Jim Jordan so hard in the morning that Jordan had to consult with lawyers. Hat tip to Aaron Rupert for picking up this clip right here. Here. Play this clip right here.

[Co-Host]

We'll walk through it together here. A constituent in Ohio who believes that their information was improperly released by the irs. I remember you've served on the Judiciary Committee for many years. Hold on. We're talking about in the context of immigration cases. This is all cases. This is not immigration cases. The plain language of this statute that you have written applies to every conceivable case brought in a federal court. Period. Period. IRS cases, patent cases, immigration cases. If you have a constituent that sues the atf, this provision applies to them. This is the point. And I don't. You can visit with your lawyers and maybe they can provide you with this, the clarity. But it's. It is unquestionably the case that this provision applies to every plaintiff. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's correct. I think we're on the same page now. The. The judge can. The judge can set the security at whatever level he wants. What is. What's typically happened in these cases. He's just waving it. No one's putting it up. And they're getting this injunct that applies nationwide. Correct. Which is the concern. I hear you. Are you okay with the nationwide injunction issued by one single federal judge? We'll get to that part, Mr. Jordan. Let's. Let's complete the analysis on this piece because to your point, as you said, this particular provision doesn't require a specific amount of security. It's essentially saying to the federal court it has to require some security. And my point is that this is a deep deviation from existing federal law. This has never been the case. We've never said to constituents. Hold on, Mr. Jordan, I'll give you a chance to respond. We've never said to American citizens and constituents that in order to vindicate their rights in federal court, they're going to be required to provide a security when their constitutional rights have been violated by their government. And I find it astounding. I'm not sure that many of your colleagues understand the full import of this. They will, by the time this gets to the floor, I imagine there will be a lot of limited government advocates who will find deep reasons to be concerned about this type of provision because as you could imagine, it will preclude folks from being able to vindicate their constitutional rights. Now, I would also say the way that you have written it, as you've noted, it's retroactive. Right. So this applies to any the. Well, I just want, I just want to say the situation we're trying to address is what's been happening around the country. You didn't write it that way. As you know, the. They're a single federal judge, gets cases brought to the judge, they waive the security and then issue a decision that applies nationwide to all immigrants who are in that. Why don't you put nationwide in this language? Well, we can look at the language. I mean, it's a.m. you're voting on this thing in like 10 hours.

[Host]

What are we talking about? And by the way, not just hat tip to Aaron Rupert, but to our very own Acin Acy and the superstar Clipper himself who uses the software called Snapstream for all of his clipping shout out to Snapstream, which he uses and we use to get these clips how he watches all of these screens at the same time. Here Asin is showing another committee hearing. This was not about the budget. This was just about basic due process. And Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett had to school MAGA Republican Congressmember highly about the basics of due process. It's gloves off, but it's also education time for these MAGA Republicans to read the freaking Constitution here, play this clip right here. Who accused me and my colleagues over here of ignoring the Constitution. And if, if that were true, that'd.

[Co-Host]

Be a very serious matter.

[Host]

So I did want to just inquire as to what exactly the accusation is. So I'll happily yield to the gentlewoman from Texas if she'd like to respond. Do you believe that someone who has snuck into our country, entered the United States illegally, that the due process requirements for that individual are the same as.

[Co-Host]

They are for a US Citizen?

[Congressmember]

I thought the question was for me, but it seems like the lawyers on this side, or just my entire team knows the answer. Mr. Chairman, per the Constitution, yes, if you are on our soil, you are guaranteed due process. And the fact that there's even a question is why we are struggling right now. In addition to an additional issue that I have is the executive order that was signed by the president that seemed to get rid of birthright citizenship, which also is laid out in the Constitution, which is why even the most conservative judges have ruled against. There is no one that has ruled that that was. Okay.

[Co-Host]

Okay.

[Host]

Thank you.

[Congressmember]

You're welcome. Thank you.

[Host]

That's simply untrue. The Supreme Court has made it very clear that due process is a context dependent inquiry. And someone who is here illegally in this country facing deportation, the requirements of due process are specific to that.

[Congressmember]

So I just want to clarify, and I know that there's lawyers on that side. It's just like we have different standards in general. Like, you have a higher standard when it comes to a criminal case versus a civil case. Right. So it's preponderance is going to be the burden on a civil case, and then it's going to be higher as it relates to a criminal case. Right. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. That is going to be the burden of proof. When the Supreme Court was making distinctions, the distinctions weren't necessarily between, is this person a citizen or is this person? Not that it wasn't a matter of certain people are not allowed to have due process, but it's kind of like there's different ways to evaluate things. The amount of protections that you are going to have in any criminal case. If you think about those that are charged with murder, whether they are a citizen or not, guess what? The burden of proof is still going to be the same. The burden of proof is still going to be beyond a reasonable doubt. There was never a distinction that said, somehow dependent upon your status, you somehow lose your access to due process. And frankly, that is honestly the only thing that the Supreme Court has been consistent on, is that there are due process rights that are going to be afforded to everyone that is found within our jurisdiction in the United States. I have not seen a case where they have said no, it's okay for someone not to have due process. That is why the plane that was about to leave Texas, they said stop the plane literally at one in the morning because there had not been due process for those that were currently being held in the administration's custody. And thank you so much.

[Sponsor]

The weather is heating up and your nighttime bedroom temperature has a huge impact on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend that you check out Miracle Maid's bedsheets. Miraclemade sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver infused fabrics that are temperature regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Now using those silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, miraclemade sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long no matter the weather so you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that Prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresh three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle made sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice, if not nicer than sheets used by some five star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Upgrade your sleep as the weather heats up. Go to trymiracle.com midas to try Miracle made sheets today and whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo code Midas at checkout, you'll get free three piece towel set and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product it's backed with a 30 day money back guaranteed. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made. Go to try Miracle.com Midas and use the code Midas to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's try Miracle.com Midas to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Maid for sponsoring this episode.

[Host]

Want to give a hat tip to Democratic Congresswoman Brown right here? Who's asking? This is simple and straightforward. Who is? Striking work requirement provisions that are now saying eight year olds are no longer dependents. Eight year olds are no longer dependents as a way for you to kick children off of their healthcare.

[Congressmember]

Play this clip My amendment would strike an especially harsh provision in this bill that is rooted in cruelty, not policy. This simple, straightforward amendment would strike the work requirement provision in this big bad ugly bill that lowers the age of what we call a dependent child from 18 to 7, from 18 years old to 7 years old. So I'm abundantly clear, we're saying that 8, 9 and 10 year olds are no longer considered dependent children. Where did this come from? Why is this necessary? Since when is a first grader not a dependent child? Preventing families with children as young as seven from losing food assistance. That is what we're debating here.

[Host]

And I like this tactic here by Democratic Congress member Casar from Texas. I'm sure you've seen him a lot on the Midas Touch Network. And here he goes. Look who wants to debate me. I will hand my mic over and yield to anybody who wants to explain to me how we are okay with now kicking people off healthcare or making healthcare so unaffordable, affordable, unaffordable so you can give your tax cuts to the billionaires. I'm waiting. I'll yield. Who wants to debate. Of course there were no takers. Play this clip.

[Congressmember]

I will hand the mic over, yield my time to any of my Republican colleagues that want to address the amount of money that their tax paying citizens are going to have to pay in increased premiums for their health care. Anybody wants to mention we have the numbers. Everybody here has the numbers. How much your constituents are going to have to pay more every year in health care because of this bill. I don't know the numbers for my district. It's going to be a 50% increase over $400 in my district and that's actually not even close to how much in many of the Republican districts there's going to be an increase. I would yield the mic.

[Co-Host]

I think we're 78%.

[Congressmember]

78% in Mr. McGovern's. Maybe none of the Republican members want to mention it, but the gentleman, Republican gentleman from New York, there would be a 44% increase, $2,000 a year hit to his constituents and their health care costs. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, his constituents would face an increase in $770 a year and their health care premiums. The distinguished Republican chairwoman of this committee, a 60% increase in health care premiums. And that's on average. The distinguished Republican congresswoman here from Minnesota was recently told here by the Committee on the budget that a 60 year old couple with a joint income of $85,000 a year in her district would see an $11,000 a year increase in their costs while we're giving tax cuts to billionaires. And what bothers me the most is that we want to hide it. Nobody wants here to talk about the fact that they're jacking up insurance costs on their own constituents while giving a billionaire a tax break. Nobody on the Republican side pushing this bill wants to have an in person town hall and look their constituents in the face and explain to them why they want to hand elon Musk another 25 billion dollar contract while jacking up your health insurance costs not just by hundreds, but by thousands of dollars.

[Host]

I yield back and I think this issue is so underrated and needs more attention right now. Fema, fema, fema, fema. We're what, one week away from hurricane season right now and the Trump regime has completely gutted fema. We see FEMA not responding in disasters in red states and blue states, purple states, but even like to Arkansas and Mississippi, we're seeing in Missouri that FEMA was not reacting to the devastating storms. We 28Americans died and Donald Trump hasn't mentioned it. Instead, Donald Trump is out there posting white supremacist brain rot from South Africa, lying that there are these mass graves from a genocide that's not happening. Making a complete fool of the United States in the Oval Office. That's what Donald, While you have the President Ramaphosa of South Africa saying, what is going on? I'm sorry I can't buy you a jet, but what the hell is going on? Fema, fema, fema. And here you have Democratic Congressmember Moskowitz, who ran emergency management in Florida before being a member of Congress, saying it loud. Danger, danger. You're cutting fema and we are heading into hurricane season. What the hell's gonna happen? There's gonna be a mass casualty event. Here, play this clip right here.

[Co-Host]

Nothing at FEMA has been made more efficient. In fact, I would tell you that the Secretary of Homeland Security has turned FEMA into the Newark airport. Okay? It is going to fail this summer. And so look, there's no doubt that FEMA needed reform. But what they've done at Homeland is they've taken something that needed help and they broke it further. Do you know what happens if there's no FEMA to the state that the speaker represents or Steve Scalise represents? Louisiana goes bankrupt without fema. When there's a hurricane that comes in from the Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of America comes right into Louisiana, they're bankrupt. Alabama's bankrupt, Mississippi's bankrupt. You get a, you know, an F5, F4 tornado in, you know, tornado alley. Those states go bankrupt without fema. And yet, you know, I don't see my Republican colleagues calling out the administration on how we're going to save female um, and. And reform it.

[Host]

Well, there you have it, folks. Democrats fighting back, fighting back. And that's just what I want to see right now. You know, we, we've said it before. We've heard you say it where it's like, I don't want to hear Democrats saying, oh, we don't have the power. We're not in the majority, so there's nothing we could do. No. Take the gloves off. Fight. Fight in Congress peacefully. Protest on the streets. Do everything and anything. You in your power, fight for us. That's what we're looking for. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 5 million subscribers.

[Sponsor]

Can't get enough Midas? Check out the Midas plus substack for ad. Free articles, reports, podcasts, daily recaps from Ron Filipkowski and more. Sign up for free [e-mail].