Scott Bessent vs Congress: The Hearing Moments Everyone Is Talking About

I hope that you're proud of your performance today, Mr. Secretary, because I hope you get some solace. I think it's pretty safe to say that this is probably the most corrupt Treasury Department in our nation's history. And while I am going to answer around questions with that, protect Americans are suffering and Trump's spiraling. Congressman, who was the president during World War I? Can you... Are you... Using... To answer my question? No, I'm asking, who was the president during World War I? I don't know. No, Siri actually said it was going to kick his ass. Hang on, not bad. I went to watch Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's midterm hearing. You know there's this saying, don't be fooled by his gold-rimmed glasses, his slow, deliberate way of speaking, and his refined, polished look. He's actually the toughest fighter in Trump's cabinet. And sure enough, I found it even more exciting than Rubio's. It was totally like, I know you don't like me, but you can't handle my intelligence. So I've gathered all the most intense and explosive highlights from Mnuchin's epic battles with Congress for you. As for Rubio's legendary story, we'll save that for tomorrow, Sunday. In this episode, I'm bringing you tons of original footage, so you can guess the political stories behind the scenes. Let's go! You know, this is a great opportunity to get an up-close look at American politics. But honestly, it's really not easy for me to prepare this kind of show, so whether you're a new friend or an old one, I'd really appreciate your support. Let's check out this next segment. Do you believe that all Americans should follow our tax law? Yes, Congress. Yes, good. So do I. And do you believe that for those Americans who break our tax laws, they should be audited or held accountable? Well, I think there are two things here, and an audit is not necessarily the result of breaking the law. Yes or no? Simple question. No, it's not a simple question. Let me break it down. If you're asking me... If you're asking... Don't interrupt me. Audience, please answer that. I came here for answers. If you came here to waste time, I'm going to try to make sure you don't do that. Do you believe that people who lie on their tax returns should be audited? Yes, okay. Do you think that people who break our laws, our tax laws, should be held accountable? Yes. Okay, thank you. Very simple. Not a hard question. I'm glad we agree. So why is it that you are allowing President Trump to have complete immunity from being audited? This is a California Democratic Party legislator. What exactly does he mean when he questions why Trump is being allowed complete immunity from being audited? First, we need to clarify a basic premise. In the United States, everyone, from the president down to ordinary citizens, is subject to mandatory tax audits by the IRS. In fact, according to the IRS's own internal regulations, the sitting president and vice president are required to undergo mandatory audits of their tax returns every year. So... So how did Trump end up with a special privilege that completely exempts him from audits? Well, this actually involves a major legal settlement between the U.S. government and Trump. In this settlement agreement, the U.S. government agreed to give up and permanently cease all possible audits of Trump, his family, and his business group for any past matters. So does that mean the president can actually be above the law? At first glance, that seems a little problematic. But is that really the case? How exactly did this exemption come about? This issue goes back to Trump's first term. When he had just taken office in 2017, the Washington establishment launched a massive political witch hunt against him. As we all know, in such an extremely charged political atmosphere, something happened inside the IRS. An outsourced tech insider named Charles Littlejohn illegally downloaded all of Trump's tax information from the past 15 years. He then hid it on a modified iPod and provided it to the New York Times. By September 2020, at the critical moment of the election sprint, the New York Times broke this story, dropping a political bombshell and publishing a series of reports that made headlines around the world. This was the origin of the widely circulated claim at the time that Trump, supposedly worth billions, had paid only $750 in income tax in a single year. Later, during the Biden administration, this insider was caught and sentenced to five years in prison, but the political damage was already irreversible. And this crossed a red line in the American constitutional system, the law protecting taxpayer privacy. In the United States, citizens' tax information is considered absolutely confidential. Anyone, even the IRS commissioner or the secretary of the Treasury, who leaks or publicly discusses any individual citizen's specific tax information without strict legal authorization, is committing a serious federal crime. And the IRS and the Treasury Department have an inescapable legal responsibility to oversee and manage this. But now, aside from having insiders, the IRS has politicized the president's personal tax information. Whose responsibility is it? Friends, let's do a quick poll. A. It's purely the insider's personal responsibility. He goes to jail and that's the end of it. Or B. It's a serious dereliction of duty by the regulatory agencies and the country must pay an equivalent price. Which one would you choose, my friend? And what about Trump? He's definitely not someone to mess with. Of course, he chose the second option. He, along with his two sons and the Trump Organization, officially took the IRS and the Treasury Department to federal court, suing them for a billion dollars. So what happened with this case? By May of this year, it finally reached the crossroads of the final appeal. But by this time, Trump had already returned to the White House as president. Now think about it. How could the U.S. government possibly pay out $10 billion to the sitting president? Politically, this was an absolute deadlock. So what did the Trump Administration's Department of Justice do? They represented the IRS and the Treasury Department and reached an out-of-court settlement with President Trump's legal team. Trump agreed to drop the $10 billion lawsuit and not pursue it any further. However, in exchange, he demanded that the Department of Justice sign an addendum that would permanently bar the IRS from ever investigating or pursuing his family and related businesses again for all historical tax returns submitted before May 18th of that year. So what do you think of this outcome? Do you think he just used the lawsuit as a bargaining chip to get an extrajudicial immunity? Or do you think it was simply smart and reasonable? Leave a comment and let me know. If we look at it from the highest legal and business principle of reciprocity, Trump's logic actually makes sense. In a properly functioning country, I pay taxes, you audit. That's just business as usual. But now it's the IRS. It was the first to break the rules, mishandled its supervisory duties, and leaked my personal rights. And in the end, it became a tool for political persecution against me. Since you're no longer fair, you have to pay an equivalent price. In other words, you've completely lost your right to audit me. Friends, do you agree with this? On another level, Trump is also taking precautions against future troubles. Four years from now, he doesn't want anyone to repeat this and use these already leaked, cherry-picked old tax records to politically harm him again. Right? But in the eyes of the Democrats, that's an intolerable, extra-legal privilege. Trump, how can you do that? So what happened next? Sanchez went all out. He's a seasoned lawyer. And Basin took bureaucratic maneuvering to the extreme. At first, Basin tried to play it cool, refusing to answer by claiming the case was still in litigation. Then, when Sanchez was... When it was his turn, Pett started playing hot potato and tossed the ball to the Department of Justice. He said that the settlement agreement was negotiated by the DOJ, not the Treasury, and that the IRS was only responsible for carrying it out. You have the DOJ's phone number, don't you? Why don't you just give them a call and ask? Sanchez was already pretty flustered on stage, but things were far from reaching their peak. After being handed the hot potato, Sanchez's tone just kept getting louder and more urgent, pressing harder and harder. Just as the tension in the room was about to reach its breaking point, Pett suddenly struck back with a killer move. Let's watch this part. Does he have any specific knowledge? To put it plainly, do you have any relevant internal evidence in your hands? If you do, show it. If not, keep quiet. This move is a real killer. Why? Because it's a double-edged trap. First, according to U.S. tax law, there's strict protection of privacy rights. In the IRS and Justice Department, internal files haven't been made public yet. If Sanchez, just to save face, says, yeah, I have it, then he's done for. Benson can immediately turn the tables. As a member of Congress, how would you know about unpublished tax secrets? Are you illegally accessing the personal privacy of American citizens? If that accusation sticks, he could be investigated on the spot. So Sanchez absolutely wouldn't dare admit it. But if he doesn't admit it, he just has to swallow this bitter pill. He doesn't actually have any concrete evidence. That basically means he's admitting in front of the entire American audience that all those righteous-sounding questions he just asked were nothing but baseless political mudslinging. Let's keep going. Look, you have the Justice Department's phone number. I suggest you call them. I'm not the one who runs the Department of the Treasury or oversees what's happening with this immunity. That is, I'm not the one either. We followed the instructions of our lawyers, and we obeyed the lawyers. I hope that you're proud of your performance today, Mr. Secretary, because I think, yeah, I hope you get some social— I think it's pretty safe to say that this is probably the most corrupt Treasury department in our nation's history, and why I am going to answer around questions. Trump. Americans are suffering in Trump's failing economy, and inflation is now rising faster than average hourly wages. Gas prices are at an all-time high with the war in Iran. The cost of groceries has risen 3.2 percent over the past years, and prices on most goods have gone up because of Trump's tariffs. So I don't see how you could call that anything other than the most corrupt Treasury departments in history. Your time has expired, Ms. Chest. Thank you. Expired. Secretary, I would love for you to respond to the accusations at your department, because I think you deserve the opportunity for that. The Congresswoman is being slanderous. She has nothing but— These are unsubstantiated opinions, and I will not stand for that. There is nothing corrupt. We operate at the highest levels, and just because she can't get the answer she wants, if she'd like to give me facts, she seems long on facts. She's short on facts, long on hot air, and I will not stand for that. So, to sum up, Pat really nailed the core of this conversation. The Congresswoman basically doesn't have any inside information at all. She's making accusations based solely on a result that's already public, and she's attacking unilaterally. It's like someone in court pointing at the defendant and shouting, you're a murderer, everyone saw the person die. But she can't produce any concrete evidence. Congresswoman Zhang actually has no idea how this immunity was granted within the IRS. Normally, when the IRS decides to drop a historical tax investigation against a big corporation or a wealthy individual, there's usually a complicated internal assessment report. For example, if they find that continuing the lawsuit has a low chance of success and wouldn't recover much money, then instead of spending more on legal fees, it's better to settle. These kinds of internal decisions and financial considerations are impossible for outsiders to know without a formal investigation. Simply seizing on a single settlement outcome and in front of a nationwide live broadcast labeling the other side as the most corrupt Treasury Department in American history is, at its core, pure political trial by public opinion, not a rigorous objective judgment. So although Beksente's words weren't loud, they were incredibly powerful. If you've followed along to this point, you'll understand what's really going on here. If you feel like you've learned something new, drop me a comment and let me know. But back to the topic. How could Washington's political theater just end like that? After Zhao Song was pushed back, another moderate Chinese-American congresswoman from the Democratic Party, Judy Chu, stepped in and started a new round. This is an even more socially damaging battleground, one that can stir up the emotions of ordinary voters across America, the issue of Iran and U.S. oil prices. Judy Chu talked at length about the hardships people are facing, but her real aim was to pin down one thing, that the Trump administration's war with Iran drove up oil and commodity prices nationwide, making ordinary Americans foot the bill. In the end, she pointedly said that when the president talked about the war with Iran, he openly admitted, I'm not going to think about Americans' financial situations. So what I want to ask you, Secretary Pete, as the person in charge of the nation's finances, Secretary, are you just like President Trump? Do you also not care about the financial situation of ordinary Americans? Such a harsh moral judgment and populist accusation, all based on a single sentence, of course not. I ask you, Secretary Besson, do you agree with President Trump that you also do not care about Americans' financial situations? Congresswoman, who was the president during World War I? Can you argue? Yeah. Using this to answer my question. No, I'm asking, who was the president during World War I? I don't know, but clearly you're not answering my question. World War I. Let me just say, I'm getting the impression that you don't want to answer whether you agree with President Trump, that you don't care about Americans' financial situation. President Trump does care about Americans' financial situation. He actually said that he doesn't. That's a truncated statement, like everything else. He's future-proofing, because I can tell you Americans' financial situations would be devastated if Iran got a nuclear weapon and there was a permanent, permanent shutdown of the flow of energy out of the Middle East. Well, then let me ask you, addiction, and I promise you that, President, I'm taking my town back. I will. I promise you that, President. Woodrow Wilson, Wilson who was president during World War I, the Germans didn't attack us, but he got us into that. You're not answering the question. Let me ask this. Was your prediction that Americans would only have 50 days of temporarily elevated prices wrong? You said that Americans would face only 50 days of temporarily elevated prices. Was that wrong, since, actually, of course, we're at 100 days now. How much of gasoline prices come down from the peak? Seven percent. Crude prices are down more than 20, and gasoline prices follow crude prices. And, reclaiming my time. Those are inconvenient facts. Reclaiming my time. Gas prices are up by 50 percent since the Trump war started, and up nearly 30 percent from last year. Diesel and jet fuel prices have risen even faster because refining markets are strained. Utility costs have soared due to higher natural gas and fuel input costs, and that means commuting, home heating and electricity, airline tickets and delivery fees are all more expensive. And what about grocery prices? They jumped more in April than they have in nearly four years since Biden became president. Beef is up by 15 percent. Tomatoes are up by 40 percent. Bread and milk are up 8 percent and 5 percent compared to three months ago. And it's those lower-income households that are hardest hit by Trumplation. They're forced to cut back on spending. No, it's not just an inconvenience. Excuse me, it's my time. But I know it must be hard for a billionaire like you to imagine how these lower-income households are affected by inflation. In fact, Trump said he couldn't care less about higher car prices for Americans. Do you agree with that statement? I believe that food prices are up 2.5 percent for food at home since President Trump took office. I know that's an inconvenient fact for you. You're from California. Maybe you care about avocado prices. Maybe you want them higher. But they're actually down 19 percent. All you have to do is go to the grocery store. I see that beef is up by store. Potatoes are up by 40 percent. Bread and milk are up by 8 percent. Don't get to pick and choose. It's a basket, and the basket is up 2.5 percent during the Biden era. 5 percent. You paint a rosy picture. But I think Americans are not experiencing this rosy picture that you paint. They're asking, are my wages keeping up with costs? Can I afford the things my family needs? And I'm afraid the answer is no. I'm afraid you're incorrect because we had real wage increases every month since President Trump took office except for the month of April. So I know the facts don't align with your narrative, but please, you're entitled. You're entitled. Your narrative is not lining up. Americans are experiencing, right? No, you're entitled to your opinion, not your own facts. It's unexpected. He calmly asked him a question that seemed completely unrelated. Who was the president of the United States during World War I? Why did he ask that? What's the connection? Well, actually, there's a big connection. Why ask who the president was during World War I? That was the Democratic Party's own political forefather, President Wilson. In 1914, when World War I broke out in Europe, Democratic President Wilson, in order to appeal to voters, strongly advocated for neutrality and isolationist policies at the time. He kept reassuring the American public, saying, That's actually the original source of the line you just heard Benzinger repeating over and over. The Germans won't attack us. But at that time, political slogans couldn't stop the objective forces of the macroeconomy. All of Europe had been turned into ruins by the war, and people were frantically bringing gold to the U.S. to buy goods, completely draining America's domestic supplies. At the same time, Germany deployed U-boats and started unrestricted submarine warfare, no matter if you were a neutral country or not. As long as you were transporting goods, they'd sink your ships. This disrupted the global supply chain. Shipping costs skyrocketed more than tenfold. Meanwhile, President Wilson kept talking about protecting Americans, saying the Germans wouldn't attack us. But soon, the prices of bread, milk, and coal in the U.S. soared catastrophically. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, inflation in America was only 1% in 1915, but by 1917, it had shot up to a staggering 17.4%. Just imagine, the cost of living multiplied several times over. Once you understand this part of history, you'll see why Fessenden kept using this question to challenge Yang Mei-sing. It's basically a middle school history question. But this senior congresswoman, who has been in Washington for 17 years, actually got so flustered her face turned red. And in the end, she could only admit, I don't know. As a top Wall Street investor, Fessenden set a trap here. He was using the rearview mirror of history to expose the other side's superficial and naive understanding of economics. First, he used history to show that President Wilson, subjectively, tried his best to avoid war and wanted to protect the livelihood of Americans. But in the end, a disastrous 17.4% inflation still hit. This proves that when it comes to global geopolitical crises, whether it was World War I back then, or today's shocks to commodities and supply chains caused by Iran, these are irresistible economic laws. Even if you don't join the war, it doesn't mean you won't be affected. So when the Democrats blame America's current inflation on Trump's supposed lack of concern for American families, they're not just distorting economics, they're also showing a lack of historical awareness. Second, Benson took the opportunity to mock the Democrats for their naivete and national security policy. He was basically ridiculing how, for over 100 years, Democrats have clung to this naive fantasy that if we appease international enemies and pretend they won't attack us, we can somehow achieve price stability at home. As it turns out, this kind of weakness and lack of strategic foresight not only fails to bring peace or stability, but actually leaves America completely unprepared when facing global supply chain disruptions. That's why Benson kept repeating that line about how the Germans won't attack, turning Judy Chu's righteously indignant questioning into a public shaming brought on by a lack of historical understanding of economics. This is what you call a cultured person insulting someone without using a single curse word. So, what do you think? Friends, doesn't this kind of commentary make watching these conversations even more satisfying? If you feel like you've learned something new, please don't hesitate to like and follow. Let's get those comments rolling in the comments section. Next up, there's another heated exchange. This time, it's a secret from the early days of the White House, a story about the core of Trump's power. It's the story of two old boys going head-to-head, bare-knuckled. So, how did it all start? A few days ago, President Trump suddenly announced a personnel appointment naming Bill Pulte, the current director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as the acting director of national intelligence. As soon as this news broke, Capitol Hill was in an uproar. Opposition from both parties was overwhelming, so during Benson's hearing, North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis seized the opportunity. I do have one awkward question to ask you real quick, and then I want to get to some of the trends and how you're going to address them. Did you tell Paul that you were going to punch him in the face? No, sir. I actually said I was going to kick his ass. Good. Okay, good. I share the emotion. Thank you. And as I said, that was last summer. Summer of 25. And many teams have fights in the locker room and then go out and win for the team on the field. I was just curious, because everybody's going to be showing that, or I made it clear, I'm not going to support Pulte for DNI, but I'm sure they're going to dredge that up. What he was talking about happened last September at a private, top-tier club in Georgetown called Executive Branch. This club was co-founded by Donald Trump Jr., and the membership fee is $500,000 per person. No phones are allowed inside, no journalists are permitted, and it's exclusively for all kinds of big donors and power players. That day, it was a birthday party for a tech investor, and dozens of Trump administration cabinet members and advisors were present. During the event, Bessant heard that Bolte had been bad-mouthing him to Trump, and he just lost it right then and there. Since Bolte was also at the party, Bessant walked over and confronted him, saying, asterisk, asterisk, asterisk, why are you going to the president and talking trash about me? F, I ought to punch you right in the face. Then Bessant told the club owner, either he leaves or I leave. You tell me who should get kicked out, or we can both go. Bolte said, go out for what, to talk? Bessant replied, no, I want to beat the crap out of you. No wonder he's known as the toughest guy on Trump's team. This whole exchange was later fully revealed by Politico. It's said that in the end, the club owner had to pull the two apart and seat them at opposite ends of a long table, far away from each other. Now that Bolte's about to take office, TELUS seized the opportunity to ask Bessant, did you really threaten to get physical back then? Bessant's answer not only cracked everyone up, but also made it clear just how tough he really is. Later on a CNBC show, the host brought up the incident again, and Bessant replied with the line, since the days of Alexander Hamilton, U.S. Treasury Secretaries have always had a tradition of dueling. America's very first Treasury Secretary, Hamilton himself, was actually killed in a duel. With that one line, Bessant elevated his spat with his colleague into a proud tradition of Treasury Secretary spanning over two centuries. He not only smoothed over the awkwardness, but also sent a clear message, nobody better mess with me. Bessant is truly a remarkable figure. At his core, he's a top-tier predator who has battled on Wall Street's bloody battleground for over 30 years, managing hundreds of billions of dollars. To him, the witness stand in Congress is no different from the trading desk. Others might go out of their way to take the moral high ground and prove their innocence, but for him, it's all about who has the stronger hand and the steadiest nerves. But if you think Bessant was born a beast like this, you'd be dead wrong. He was born into an ordinary family in South Carolina. When he was nine, his father went bankrupt, and he was forced to take his first summer job. While studying at Yale, he was determined to become a journalist, but after losing the race for editor-in-chief of the school newspaper, he stormed off in frustration and dove headfirst into the world of finance. Who would have thought that this failed school newspaper editor, at the age of 29, would become the core trader on Soros' team short in the British pound? That year, he threw nearly $10 billion at the Bank of England and brought it to its knees, earning $1 billion for the company in a single move. Twenty years later, he made another $1.2 billion by shorting the Japanese yen. What's even more surprising is that this man, now the toughest and most hard-nosed manager in Trump's cabinet, was actually a major donor to the Democratic Party in his earlier years. He once hosted fundraisers for Obama and Hillary at his own mansion and generously opened his wallet. He was once Soros' right-hand man. So what exactly did this former Democratic Party money man go through to become the Trump strategist who now strikes fear into the hearts of Democrats? The dramatic transformation he underwent is even more thrilling than all the famous moments we see today put together. Subscribe to ZhenGuanDian. We're going to start a new series, and I'll tell you all about it. But tomorrow, we have to fill another gap first, the story of Rubio, Washington's ultimate comeback kid. Subscribe to ZhenGuanDian so you can keep seeing my latest videos on your YouTube homepage in the future. If you enjoyed my show, don't forget to give me a like before you leave. And for performances like Besson's, what do you think? Share your thoughts with me in the comments section. All right, thanks for watching, everyone. Have a great weekend. We'll be back tomorrow, Sunday, at the same time on ZhenGuanDian. Don't miss it. See you then. Bye.