Transcript

Trump CABINET Official COLLAPSES under CROSS-EXAM at Hearing

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 27 min · 4,883 words · 97 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Trump CABINET Official COLLAPSES under CROSS-EXAM at Hearing", an episode of MeidasTouch published February 5, 2026 (27 min, about 4,883 words). It mentions 7 people, works and ideas, including Scott Besson, Donald Trump, Venezuela, New York Times, Shan Casten.

What this episode is about

During a congressional hearing, former Treasury Secretary Scott Besson faced intense cross-examination from Democratic lawmakers, exhibiting visible signs of nervousness and apparent stuttering as he struggled to defend his statements on tariffs and inflation. His performance raised serious questions about his credibility, culminating in accusations of perjury when he contradicted previous statements about whether tariffs are inflationary.

Key takeaways

  • Scott Bessant's stutter under pressure proves that even Treasury Secretaries face tough interrogations—and potential perjury.
  • Congressional hearings: where questions are sharper than suits and the truth takes a backseat to survival.
  • Democrats pinning Bessant down revealed a classic tactic: turning political hot potatoes into instant karma.
  • Bessant learned the hard way: in politics, a 'yes or no' can be more revealing than any lengthy explanation.
  • When asked about baby products tariffs, Bessant's evasions show how even essential needs get tangled in political webs.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Donald Trump, Jim Hemes, Scott Besson, New York Times
  2. – 10:00: Venezuela, Scott Besson, Donald Trump, Shan Casten
  3. – 15:00: Donald Trump
  4. – 20:00: Wharton
  5. – 25:00: New York Times, Donald Trump
  6. – 26:50: Venezuela

Notable quotes from "Trump CABINET Official COLLAPSES under CROSS-EXAM at Hearing"

  • Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary, Scott Besson, got cross-examined during a congressional hearing, and he folded under the pressure from the Democrats who were cross-examining him. Let me.
    about Scott Besson · at
  • Chair now recognizes the gentleman from then you had Democratic Congress member Jim Hemes cross-examining. Let's play it. APR when you were asked a similar series of questions you gave a similarly.
    about Jim Hemes · at
  • Been selling Venezuelan oil. Secretary Wright has said that's going to continue indefinitely. The president's January 9th executive order said that those funds are the…
    about Venezuela · at
  • Construction is up, contradicting US data. The article then goes on to note, quote, President Trump claimed that the US factory construction is up by 41%. A number that doesn't appear to be supported by the government's own data.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • A Wharton. Do you do you know what they based it on? What data? What information they looked at? yes, the survey by survey, community by community. You could go if you'd like. I.
    about Wharton · at
  • Okay. Thank you. Okay. we have a New York Times article that, agrees New York Times.
    about New York Times · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Scott Besson — Person · Primary referenced witness (Treasury Secretary) in hearing clips · 2 mentions · first at
    Central figure of the episode; repeatedly shown being cross-examined about tariffs, CDFI funds, Venezuela-related asset control, and alleged perjury/contradictions.
  • Donald Trump — Person · Referenced political principal (President) tied to policies under scrutiny · 5 mentions · first at
    Referenced as the administration leader whose tariffs and executive actions are being challenged; Besson is framed as “Trump’s Treasury Secretary.”
  • Shan Casten — Person · Referenced questioner (Democratic member of Congress) in hearing clip · 2 mentions · first at
    Cross-examines Besson on a prior investor letter stating “tariffs are inflationary,” pressing on whether he lied/misled Congress.
    Shan Casten and Bessant was perfect. As our editor-in-chief Ron Philipowsky writes, If you finally want to watch Scott Besson get pinned down on specifics about the illegal…
  • Jim Hemes — Person · Referenced questioner (Democratic member of Congress) in hearing clip · 2 mentions · first at
    Presses Besson to identify “bad actors” (credit card companies) and criticizes refusal to name them for oversight.

Concepts & topics

  • Wharton — Concept · Referenced report · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in relation to a report on immigration's impact on housing costs.

Places & events

  • Venezuela — Place · Setting · 6 mentions · first at
    Discussed in the context of the Trump administration's handling of Venezuelan oil and assets.

Media & podcasts

  • New York Times — Media · Referenced media · 3 mentions · first at
    Cited as a source of information during the congressional hearing, with a mention of disparagement by a participant.

Full transcript with timestamps

Donald Trump's Treasury Secretary, Scott Besson, got cross-examined during a congressional hearing, and he folded under the pressure from the Democrats who were cross-examining him. Let me show you what went down. As Besson got pinned down, he was stuttering. He didn't know what to say. He looked nervous. He committed perjury, in my opinion. Then he was called out for committing perjury. I want you to watch Secretary Besson squeal. And he deserved this. This was instant karma. First, I want to show you Democratic Congress member uh Casten crossexamining Scott Bessant. Let's play this clip right here. Yes, sir. I want to read you a quote. Uh Trump will pursue a weak dollar policy rather than implementing tariffs. Tariffs are inflationary and would strengthen the dollar. Do you recognize that quote?

Uh I I believe you're referring to a a letter that I wrote and tariffs could be inflationary.

No, no, it says tariffs are inflationary. Yep. You know what? You you had said to the chairwoman, I'd like to introduce in the record a January 31, 2024 letter from quote Scott Bent and the Keysquare team to your partners where that quote comes from.

Without objection, do you want to correct what you said to the ranking member when you specifically said that you did not say tariffs are inflationary?

Well, I think she referenced a letter in the summer of something not No, no, I think you disparaged the New York Times.

Sorry. You said tariffs are inflationary. Sorry. You said tariffs are inflationary. Do you want to correct what you said to the ranking member or did you lie?

I the if I was mistaken I want to correct it. And I was also mistaken when I said the tariffs could be inflationary because time has expired.

See inflation drop to 2.1. Gentleman's time is expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from

then you had Democratic Congress member Jim Hemes cross-examining. Let's play it. APR

when you were asked a similar series of questions um you gave a similarly careful answer but you said that there were bad actors in the uh I think you said you were referring to credit card companies who who are those bad actors.

I I'm not going to to name to name them. So you'll tell us that they exist but you won't tell the Congress who they are so that we might undertake some oversight.

I I think you have very large investigative committees. Okay. Um, one of my favorite parts of this hearing was seeing Democratic Congresswoman Bey cross-examining Bessant. Let's play this clip.

Now, my question to you, are there plans to place in place to release monies to CDFI so they can continue to finance affordable housing budget? That's a yes or a no. If yes, when? If no, why not? Treasury have been working to implement the CDFI funds programs as required by law. Upon aortionment of appropriated funds, Treasury will be this going to be a yesing program award.

Mr. Secretary is no I I I'm going to abide by the chairman's rules, but I have some rules. You can say yes or no. And then if you say yes, you may continue to give that support. If it's a no, then you tell me why not. And now we need to be clear. Yes. Let's start with the yes or no. I'm trying to be respectful, but you're not going you're not going to do what you want to do on my time. Yes or no. Or you can say I'm not going to answer. Now, move on.

Uh, number three. Okay. So, let the record show that he refuses to answer a question. No, no, no, no, no. We're not going to do that with me. We are not going to do that with me.

Ask It's a gentle woman's time from Ohio. What? Now you opted for number three. So you get to hear my wrath that you refuse to answer a question under your authority and what this administration and yet you've talked about the value of housing and you're not releasing the funds and I want the record to be clear on that. So let me move on.

Then you had Democratic Congresswoman Presley asking some great questions. Let's play this clip. why baby products that are required by law are not exempt from Trump's tariffs.

Again, Congressman or Congresswoman, uh the it it is a matrix and many of these products unfortunately are made in China and the every

Secretary it's an unacceptable answer. You've had nine months. You told me it was under consideration. you've had nine months to think about it and while you've been thinking about it, working families have been struggling when it is required by law that they have uh many of these uh essential baby costs. Your report from the Department of Treasury refers to them uh car seats as essential safety tools. So, if you can acknowledge that this is

I I will acknowledge the gas to run the car. Well, listen. Is that a 5-year? You've included asbestos in your exemptions. So you're telling me you can do asbestos and not baby products. Excuse me. It's my time.

I think you would want childrenary. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Secretary, parents with newborns don't want to hear your excuses. They need to keep their babies safe. They want to comply with the law and they need action to lower costs. Period. So will you exempt baby products from tariffs? Yes or no?

Again, we will respectfully congresswoman. I do not I am the Treasury Secretary. I am not the US. I'm not the president of the United States.

Reclaiming my time. No, it you're asking the wrong question. I'll take I'll take Mr. Secretary Generaling my time. Mr. Secretary,

this is financial stability oversight. Council, Mr. Secretary, then I I I ask for your advocacy then because a no or a non-answer is unacceptable to the working families that you claim to care so much about. Moving on, moving on. Moving on. the general lady's point. I'm agreeing with you, Mr. Secretary. General, you will have my advocacy.

Okay. Thank you. I thought this entire exchange right here between Democratic Congress member Shan Casten and Bessant was perfect. As our editor-in-chief Ron Philipowsky writes, "If you finally want to watch Scott Besson get pinned down on specifics about the illegal money laundering operation being conducted by the Trump regime from someone who knows WTF, what the f he's talking about, this clip is your chance. Bessant gets destroyed. Watch this entire clip. Let's play it."

Uh, thank you for being here today, Mr. Bent. Appreciate your patience with us. Um, since the US captured President Maduro, the Trump administration has been selling Venezuelan oil. Secretary Wright has said that's going to continue indefinitely. The president's January 9th executive order said that those funds are the sovereign property of Venezuela, but has directed you, the Treasury Secretary, to hold those assets in custody to facilitate dispersements transfers as directed by the Secretary of State. As I've gone through the 91 specific trusts that you have the statutory authority to oversee, none of those have any relationship to Venezuelan oil. So, can you help us understand under what statutory authority or what statutory authority is Treasury relying on to exercise the discretionary control over natural resources and sovereign assets of another country?

Uh, Tre Treasury has no control over the I'm just asking about what statutory authority you rely on. Again, we we are operating under an agreement between state and energy that we we are not involved.

The executive order said that the Treasury Secretary is holding those assets in custody. That's a specific language there and is facilitating dispersements. Under what authority are you acting?

Uh I will get back to you with the exact authority, but it is under agreement with with state. Let me let me just clarify because my my concern is that the executive order cites cites AIPA. AIPA specifically says that you have to be engaged in hostilities with a country for AIPA to trigger that that claim. Secretary Rubio said that we are not at war with Venezuela. I would agree. I'm glad we're not at war. So unless you disagree with Secretary Rubio, I'm unclear under what legal authority the United States has to control or disperse those assets. Well, I I would believe that the AIPA authority would act for a period of time for a transition.

Not unless not unless we're we're not that's not for a transition. Well, look, that's not true, but please provide in writing what you're doing there because I and I want to get to why I think that's material. Last week, Secretary Rubio also said that the 200 million in proceeds was sitting in a Qatari bank that was owned by Venezuela. He went on to say the Treasury has a written agreement with Venezuela's interim government to review the monthly budget request for payments from that account. I come back to where the authority comes. What statutory authority are you using to exercise custody indirectly through a third country and direct the release of funds from those offshore accounts?

Yeah, IPA. That's not in IPA. You're you're managing. Okay. So, if you're managing a third country, not IPA, and please do provide us with the legal guidance because this this matters. What controls are you putting to audit those flows? Because as you know, the Venezuelan government still has a lot of shady people. How are you how are you controlling the dispersion of those flows so that they don't go back to some of the shady characters that the president is concerned about in Venezuela? What is the audit process?

Uh again, the we we will be bringing in outside auditors for this and the Venezuelan government will be

Do you have an agreement in place right now for those auditors? Sorry. Do you have an agreement for that audit in place right now?

Not at present. Um, okay. Because Secretary Rubio, um, when he was asked that question before the Senate, he said that the Treasury had handled the agreement that he would be providing to the Senate committee. Are you saying that that Secretary Rubio was incorrect or that you're not aware of the agreement the Treasury directed according to

I'm saying I'm not aware of the agreement. Okay. So, Secretary Rubio said he would provide that to the Senate committee. Can you please coordinate with Secretary Rubio and give us your word to provide us what Secretary Rubio is providing because he is alleging that that was done under your With with pleasure, Congressman and ju just so you know the the goal here it's it's been 30 days.

I want to just let me just move reclaim my time. Just proclaim my time because I the concern I have is that in this would be considered a fraudulent conveyance. I have a specific concern that we've entered into contracts with companies like VTOL who have plead guilty to bribery and all sorts of nefarious actors. If I was a company buying stolen goods and we didn't have statutory authority, I'm going to have a lot of creditors coming after me.

Then you have Democratic Congress member Moscowitz. Let's play this clip. So, I don't understand what the problem is. I don't get it. For years, you fired people. It was strength. Now, you think that's weakness. I mean, if we can't get apprentice Trump, can we at least get like Home Alone to Trump? Can he at least like show her the lobby and out the door? She's coming here in a month. Okay. It's not going to be a good hearing for her. It's going to be a disaster. You all are going to have to defend her, which you're not willing to do on TV. This will be very televised.

I mean, why did the president not let her speak in the cabinet meeting? Why didn't he Why didn't she get to talk, right? Why is Tom H. Homeman now running the department? Why is Roger Stone taking shots at her? It's time for her to be fired. She is the weakest link of his team, and it's enough. And again, I got plenty of material, as you see, Mr. President, to remind you how to do it. Just go back, go on your reruns, go find some old episodes for some inspiration. I yield back.

Next, you have Congress member Torres, I think, doing some good cross exam right here.

So, one of the stated policy objectives and we'll keep score. Okay. One of the stated policy objectives of the Trump tariffs is to bring back domestic production. Does the Trump administration regret imposing tariffs on goods that cannot be produced domestically at scale in the United States? Do you realize in hindsight that that was foolish?

Uh do do you realize that we use the leverage to bring down tariffs from other countries to take down non-tariff

tariffs on bananas gave you leverage? So So uh yes, with with Colombia, with Brazil, I I think Congressman, you're being very naive with negotiating.

I mean, we were promised re-industrialization. And the tariff on bananas did not lead to domestic banana production. It simply made bananas more expensive for American businesses and consumers. The said the same has led to countries negotiating in a more wholesome manner.

Are you willing to commit to no longer imposing tariffs on any product that has neither a domestic substitute nor a national security rationale?

The that would be the definition of foolish in a negotiation. So you're not willing you're willing to impote you're willing to impose tariffs that make more expensive goods that we cannot domestically produce here in the United States

and that have no national what is the national security nexus of bananas and coffee

again why why would you do that there there are numerous things when you negotiate with Indonesia there are things that are only made in Indonesia but the Indonesians brought down their tariff barriers or non-tariff barriers

I get it we have to make bananas great again I get it thank you Mr. secretary. Yep.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Gar More from Congress member Torres, let's play it.

Let me reclaim my time. The the Wall Street Journal, which is hardly a leftist publication, published an article with the following headline. Quote, "Trump claims factory construction is up, contradicting US data." The article then goes on to note, quote, "President Trump claimed that the US factory construction is up by 41%. A number that doesn't appear to be supported by the government's own data. One of the stated policy objectives of the Trump tariffs is to bring back manufacturing jobs. Yet, since the so-called liberation day tariffs of April 2025, we've seen the net loss of manufacturing jobs. Do you know how many net manufacturing jobs have been lost since April 2025 under your watch?

Uh well, a couple of things. Manufacturing operates with very long lead. What's the number?

I believe is there a number? I believe it's about 67,000. 70,000. Yes. 70,000 jobs lost.

So, but again, despite the state objective, let me let me proceed. Let me I'm going to reclaim my time. Flip a switch.

I'm going to reclaim my time. Let me let me reclaim my time. Then you have Democratic Congress member Foster cross-examining Treasury Secretary Besson.

Fact that interesting fact that every time you put a Republican in charge of, you know, in the presidency that two things have happened that the dollar has gotten weaker and that manufacturing employment has dropped, you know, and this has happened just, you know, during every every Republican president in our lifetime and the reverse has happened every Democratic uh president. the dollar has strengthened, actually achieved your objective instead of just talking about it. Um, and since the time of that, actually, I think this this plot here was the the one we had then when the dollar was only 8%. I think it's down about 10 and a half% now. So, you're continuing down the traditional

I'm sorry, which index are you using? DX. I think it's DXY year on year. Yeah. And

and I think it's the last time I looked at it was roughly 10 down 10 and a half%. and and you have the president on there, but under President Clinton, it would be it would be it would be my my belief that it was Speaker Gingrich and the what he was just talking about the president who

the Clinton administration is Dr. Fosters. Yeah. So, um so but you agree it is a historic fact that during those presidencies manufacturing employment dropped and the dollar got weaker during Republicans without exception. they I haven't seen the data so I can't

I I presented it to you on a graph. It's my understanding actually that later on on that hearing after I'd left to attend a different hearing that you uh said some rather negative things about the data and that as a finance professor that um that you would have I think given it an F was I believe your word and and so that all right I'm not a finance professor I'm a manufacturer. Okay. And but I understand that the first thing the first rule as of a manufacturer is you don't piss off your customers which seems to be something that your administration just revels in doing uh internationally especially and so I think that this is it's easy for me to understand why manufacturing employment has continued to drop that ever since liberation day we have seen a continuous decline in manufacturing employment which was one of your number one one promises

congressman as a manufacturer you would know that I I can't snap my fingers and create factories. So there is a building process that is well underway. I could send you the chart on factory ground.

I understand and and the fact that we have been historically a low tariff nation is I believe responsible for the really extraordinary economic growth over the last decade of the United States compared to say the EU which was a high tariff regime and now we are joining I I believe that we bring jobs to China. So

you you you you were touching on a lot of CCP talking points. I think next you have Democratic Congresswoman Garcia. Let's play this one.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um Mr. Secretary, earlier in response to someone else's question, you talked a little bit there toward the end, but but I'm not sure that uh there was a a time for a followup about I think you said 10 to 20 million immigrants that have that are responsible for the driving up the housing costs. Is that what you said?

Uh I I'm referring to a Wharton report. Yes. A Wharton. Do you do do you know what they based it on? What data? What information they looked at? Uh yes, the survey by survey, community by community. You could go if you'd like. I will have my people posted on the Treasury X account as we speak.

Well, thanks for the cooperation cuz I'm just completely baffled. the average new home sale is about $500,000 and you're saying that it's driving up uh uh um the housing crisis uh when DHS is over there trying to to to pick up uh and deport people because quote unquote they're drained on society. Uh they're dependent on public benefits. So if you're on public benefits, how do you afford a $500,000 house?

Well, let let me clarify your confusion because I'm not confused, sir. Don't don't be demeaning to me. All right? Cuz I'm going to object and ask the chairman to make you answer question.

Anyway, I I'm trying to explain to you that it is rental income and rental properties. The value have you been to the rental income rental places of immigrants? I have people in my district that are in rental houses that I wouldn't rent to anybody. They're not expensive. They're probably $500 or $600 a month. You think people that that can barely afford housing like that that that that's the housing that we're talking about when we talk about the housing crisis? Uh

D properties push up the price of C properties. Inflation in C properties pushes up the price of A properties. Inflation in price of A property. B properties pushes up A properties. So it moves up the stack. And if you think that somehow the laws of supply and demand do not apply to housing, I would say you're incorrect.

No. Well, I'm I'm not incorrect because as you know, the only thing that we might say about immigrants is that there we don't have new housing because they can't there there's a shortage of labor supply because they build the houses and you all are more focused on deporting them than having them stay here and build. Uh Mr.

Back to Torres for a second. Play this clip. Uh Mr. Secretary, does the president have the constitutional authority to remove the chair of the Federal Reserve or a member of the board of governors solely because of a policy disagreement? I I'm not a lawyer and I don't have an opinion.

You have no opinion on whether the president can remove a board member at will.

Uh well, I believe that the board member has committed No, just in general. I'm not asking about a particular case. I'm asking

oral malfeasants. I'm asking about the president's general authority. Let me ask it differently. Do you believe that the unitary executive theory applies to the Federal Reserve? Uh again, um I think we'll have to wait and see what the Supreme Court says.

What is your opinion? I I'm not a lawyer. What is the administration's opinion?

They're varying opinions in the administration. What's the prevailing opinion? The official opinion?

Again, we we'll have to see. Do you consider the Federal Reserve an executive agency or a legislative agency?

Uh I consider an independent agency. So neither executive nor legislative. So we'll see.

Therefore, independent of presidential control. So it sounds like you do have again. We'll we will see. We will see, Congressman.

Okay. Thank you for establishing the but I I I do believe that the Federal Reserve that has to maintain credibility and be like Caesar's wife beyond reproach

and and undermining the independence of the Federal Reserve is a threat to that credibility. So, I know you're no fan of the New York Times, but let me let me let me let me reclaim my time.

The the Wall Street Journal and you have Democratic Congresswoman Garcia again. Let's play it. Uh, do you have any idea how much we're spending on ICE every single day?

The representative, this is the Financial Stability Oversight Commission. But you're the treasur. You're the treasurer. You're supposed to follow the money in response to questions on this side. You're always talking about, well, we follow the money. Well, have you followed the money? How much are they spending every single day in Minnesota and other states where they occupy cities, terrorize communities, and try to break up our country? Again, President Trump has secured the border. He was elected on the border on a mandate.

Well, I I disagree with you and I think you disagree that he was elected. I think you're confused, but let me ask you about something else. Maybe you'll answer this one.

Now, here was a moment where, as I said, it looked like Treasury sec looked like it did. Treasury Secretary Bezen committed perjury right here where he claimed that he never said that tariffs are inflationary. You heard uh in the beginning him getting called out for this as well. I mean we have back in 2024 Bessant saying tariffs are inflationary, tariffs are inflationary. And here he says, "I never said that. I never said that." Well, you said that and now you deserve to be criminally prosecuted for perjury. Watch as he gets cross-examination, cross-examined by Congresswoman Waters. Here, play this clip. details about this, but did you write a letter to investors raising concerns about the impact of tariffs, writing that quote, "Tariffs are inflationary." Did Did you say that at that time? Yes or no?

Uh, no. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we have a New York Times article that, you know, agrees New York Times.

Then last summer when you testified before a Senate committee, you said, and I quote, "There is no inflation. tariffs are not being passed on to consumers. You are quite you were quite definitive and even claimed that critics had quote tariff derangement syndrome. Well, uh those comments are at odds with the statement you made to investors that tariffs are inflationary. Again, I want to be clear. So, just let me ask you, are tariffs inflationary? Yes or no? According to the San Francisco Federal Reserve with 150 years of data, tariffs or no tariffs do not cause inflation.

San Francisco Federal Reserve. Last November, as the Trump administration finally began to realize that affordability issues in

Next, I'll show you Besson getting cross-examined by Democratic Congress member Green. Let's play this clip.

I ask you kindly and as one professional to another, Mr. Treasury Secretary, do you think that this should be investigated? The president's stock being linked to his truth social message and that stock having gone up by some $415 million in a single day. In a single day. And this is a stock that was doing very poorly uh prior to that. Hadn't done a hadn't had a lot of success. Do you think that this should be investigated?

No sir. Kindly explain to me why we would not investigate the president making such an announcement as it relates to his stock and then reaping some $415 billion million dollars as a potential capital.

Well, all all Americans benefited from the rebound in the markets that day. And in fact, the rebound in the market after that was the fastest in market history.

Then as Rupert says, instead of answering questions from Democratic House members, Bessant starts reading notes to attack the members of Congress. You see how utterly weak and pathetic he looks right here. Let's play it

to know whether you will commit today to pause and heighten it and the scrutiny of any bank charter or licensing application at the OC connected to the world liberty financial until all of these conflicts of interest and floren influence reviews are completed and shared with the United States Congress. All I need to know is will you halt it

and do a complete investigation and scrutiny of this licensing uh uh application?

Uh all you have to ask is yes or no. Uh no congressman the all you have to ask the OC is an independent entity and I would know Congressman I take that as a no. You traveled to Venezuela I take that as a on behalf of your daughter. want to answer that question. I take that as a note for 7 billion. I'm asking you to do your responsibility as secretary of the treasury.

You do not expired witness and then you see Bessant just trying to belittle the people asking him questions right here, you know, and he's saying, "Can you speak up? I can't hear you. I can't hear you." But Bessant is just, you know, he's in in my own opinion, Bessant is a thug. Bessant is a liar. Bessant is a fraud. He's pathetic. You see what a weasel he is. I played those clips. You tell me what you think. Everybody hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million subscribers. Thanks everybody for watching. The truth is more important than ever. Check out our new Truth Over Lies collection at store.midestouch.com.

All 100% USA Union made.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Trump CABINET Official COLLAPSES under CROSS-EXAM at Hearing"?

Scott Bessant (Guest), Shan Casten (Guest), Jim Hemes (Guest), Bey (Guest), Presley (Guest), Moscowitz (Guest), Torres (Guest), Garcia (Guest).

What is "Trump CABINET Official COLLAPSES under CROSS-EXAM at Hearing" about?

During a congressional hearing, former Treasury Secretary Scott Besson faced intense cross-examination from Democratic lawmakers, exhibiting visible signs of nervousness and apparent stuttering as he struggled to defend his statements on tariffs and inflation. His performance raised serious questions about his credibility, culminating in accusations of perjury when he contradicted previous…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

7 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Scott Besson, Donald Trump, Venezuela, New York Times, Shan Casten, Jim Hemes. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Trump CABINET Official COLLAPSES under CROSS-EXAM at Hearing"?

The episode runs 27 min; the transcript is about 4,883 words in 97 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 5, 2026.