The Trish Regan Show - BREAKING: CBS’s Civil War! 60 Min Facing Possible CANCELLATION after Blasting Parent Co. LIVE ON AIR

Episode Date: April 28, 2025

CBS News’ stalwart “60 Min” is on the verge of being potentially cancelled amid an internal fight between the news magazine’s boss (parent company Paramount) and the News Division itself. At issue: President Trump’s allegations that 60 Min attempted to manipulate the election through reportedly deceptive editing of a Kamala Harris interiew. Things are heating up — after one of the show’s reporters slammed parent company Paramount on a live broadcast Sunday evening. Paramount, the reported alleged, is overly focused on securing FCC apporval for its merger with Skydance. At this stage, industry insiders speculate that 60 Mins may have reached its grand finale — yet, the reasons for its demise are not as clear as you’d expect. Meanwhile, ABC News is facing simliar challenges. The company has announced a serious restructuring. And, new questions from Epstein alleged victim Virginia Giuffe’s attorney deepen the mystery surrounding this horrible case. Can Pam Bondi deliver? Join Trish Regan LIVE for more on all those stories and much more. SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL: https://Youtube.com/TrishReganChannel Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks: ▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join 🟢For independent views on the market - sign up for my financial newsletter The 76report at: ▶️ https://76research.com with CODE: DOLLAR today.  Today’s show is sponsored by:  🟢https://TrishLovesGold.com — American Hartford Gold — go to:  ▶️  Https://TrishLovesGold.com or TEXT TRISH to 65532 to receive up to $15,000 in free silver with American Hartford Gold or go to https://TrishLovesGold.com. You can also use Trish's name when calling 1-844-495-1115.  🟢 Go to  ▶️ https://balanceofnature.com and use CODE: TRISH for 35% off and FREE SHIPPING🟢 Go to  ▶️ https://CozyEarth.com/trish with CODE: TRISH for a special discount  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the big show. Happy Monday. This is the Trish Rican show. We appreciate, of course, if you subscribe, share, like, all that good stuff. I am live so I can see every single thing you write. Careful. Careful. We got a lot going on, as usual, never a dull moment in the new Trump bear. Think about that. I mean, tremendous transparency, right? But with transparency comes a lot of work for us, folks on the other side. We've got CBS News really under fire. Talk now among many in the community that this show, may not be for too long. That is the question. Is it going to be able to last? Not really that clear because there's a big board meeting coming up. I'm going to tell you about that and what it's going to mean for 60 minutes and for CBS news. We get some other things to cover some news on the

Jeffrey Epstein front. I want to get to, among other things, Shannon Sharp over at ESPN, lovely. Meanwhile, I want to give a plug from my company, 76 research. You know, the market's been all over the place, lots of volatility. But I get to tell you, the markets overall have been way up on this optimism for Trump that he is getting deals done. So let's hope that keeps rolling along, ladies and gentlemen, 76 research.com. Use code word dollar. All right, welcome to the big show. We have a situation on our hands over there at 60 minutes because suddenly I think they're taking a page out of Rachel Maddow's block, you know where the inmates are running the asylum and suddenly now the talent wants to go on air and like bite the

hands of all their bosses. So CBS is owned by a company called Paramount, which is run by one Sherry Redstone. And I'm sure she didn't appreciate the little escapade that came on television last night with one Scott Pelly, who used to be the talent that Bill Owens produced there at 60 Minutes. They were quite close. Bill Owens is the 60 Minutes producer who resigned because he didn't like how Sherry was getting herself involved in all of their coverage. And he decided to go on TV and say a few little pointed things about how their parent company was getting a little too involved in the process. I mean, it was one thing, right, for Bill Owens, the executive producer to leave. and send out that big note, which they got everywhere, including AP and New York Times,

etc. But now they're going on to network television and kind of thumb in their nose at the boss complaining about things because they don't like the fact that Paramount, which has a lot of money on the line, right? This is the real world guys, big boys, wake up. Welcome to where we are in the world today. And that is called realism. And Sherry Redstone needs to get her deal done with Skydance. And if that doesn't happen, that whatever, two and a half billion dollar deal goes up in smoke and it's because of, oh, some reasons that maybe you could have massaged along the edges. I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you throw your journalism out, but I don't know if you ever had it. I mean, when you re-edit clips and re-edit

clips and re-edit clips to make Kamala Harris sound like, she's got something going on upstairs. I think there's some questions that can be asked. Let's go to one Scott Pelly, who got on TV last night and delivered this little number. We'll watch it together. You may have to turn the volume up. I realize some of the clip volume goes up and down, but it's still worth seeing. Parent company Paramount is trying to complete a merger. Mission must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways. So now what happens? In all seriousness. I mean, we're going to talk about that. Do you actually need a program like 60 minutes on CBS News? I mean, do you? If it's worse, it's wait, why not

take it over to the streaming? platform and run it there. You see, I don't know as it would actually do well other than on Sunday nights at a baked-in time ahead of all those NFL games. I mean, if you really, really want to be honest, is it really good? I mean, I'm sorry, I just can't listen to people speaking so slowly and so deliberately and reading their little scripts. I mean, there was a time in place, okay, when this was a great show. Was it Don Hewitt who ran it back in the day? And then it was taken over by one of Bill Owens' buddies who left. I don't know. Was that amid some of the Me Too stuff with not that he was involved in that, but some of the other things that were going on underneath

his nose? I don't know. I don't really care what. I would just say is, I don't think that that program could survive on its own. If you put it out there on the World Wide Web, would anybody even watch it? Probably not, okay? Because it's a very specific demo. You're going to be like 88 to be able to watch, nothing against you 88 year olds. By the way, that may be watching right now, but I'm guessing you're a little bit more with it because you think quickly enough that you can actually digest what I'm saying, and I don't have to slow it to a snail space. That's like one of the things they train you to do. Read really slow at 16 minutes. You know, there was a time and place for that kind of genre

of programming. I don't think that that really exists anymore. So from a business standpoint, point, you know me, business reporter, I'm looking at it going, why would you have that? Why would you be eating up your airtime with that? I mean, are there other programs that you could be putting on that would be less costly and perhaps less of a headache for one parent company, Paramount, Sherry Redstone? I mean, right now they're dealing with this article is in the wrap today. FCC seeks DEI concessions from Paramount to complete Skydance merger. Don't forget, Disney has also announced that they're getting rid of both of their DEI programs because well, DEI, if it's somehow rewarding one group over another group, would actually be against the law,

like discriminatory, against the Constitution, shall we say? So that's become a big issue with the FCC as they look at, say, the investigation that's going on to NBC and into ABC as well. So this is the producer. He's like, okay, we can't be independent anymore. So, you know what? Okay, so fine. He's leaving. And good for him.

You know, maybe he can start a 60 minutes online. Not. I'm just going to say this. Look, good quality journalism has a place in the world. But journalism that is seen is to be enormously biased, but yet pretends to be something else. I don't think there's a big place for that. I just don't. I think that streaming has rocked all of these people and all of these networks and is turning traditional media on its end. And that's great, because hopefully, you know, you've come over here, you've found me. I love you for doing that. and we have a very different kind of conversation here. But can this continue to exist?

Doubtful. Really, really doubtful. So at this point, most industry insiders, including oneself here, Trish Regan, are questioning whether this program gets to live another day. You're paying a lot of money in salaries. I mean, not as much as you're paying, apparently, to Rachel Maddo over there at NBC. Oh, you wonder why Comcast wants to be done with that one, right? Rachel Matto is getting an alleged $25 million.

bucks. Reportedly, I don't know if this is correct, but the media is saying that Scott Pelly is getting $5 million, I would argue. That's maybe $4 million too much for him. But in the scheme of things, hey, he's looking like a bargain compared to one Rachel Maddo. So, you know, maybe you have a news magazine program where you don't have to pay people that that much and the 60 Minutes brand is in and of itself. You know, when we were putting the thumbnail together, we didn't even know who to put on it, right? because there's no face that you associate. There's no actual compelling personality. They get nothing. They just get a clock. All right? So the clock, the brand, that's it. You don't have anybody behind it driving it. I don't know as there's a huge role for that in today's society

because people identify with content creators. They want to know who's packaging up this news, so to speak. And we talk packaging. That's exactly what's going on right over at 60 minutes. This is what they're in trouble for. So the FCC is launching. an investigation into all of these networks. We know that in terms of the Skydance Paramount deal, it's really, really important to Paramount, Scott just told you so, right, that they get this deal done here,

and they need the FCC's approval to do it. We'll get more into that deal in a second, but remember what the sticking point is here? I just want to remind you, because there was that Kamala Harris interview. Donald Trump is now suing, oh gosh, I can't even keep track. It was $10 billion at first.

Maybe it's $20 billion now. You know, Paramount wants to say, subtle, right? They're like, okay, you know, we, we don't want to have a hot potato on our hands. We want to make nice with the president. We don't really want to be that acrimonious to him. And so here's Kamala Harris being interviewed by the 60 Minutes correspondent. And somehow they really souped things up. The first part I'm going to show you is what aired on CBS's face, the nation in the morning. So it had not been souped up and tricked out. And then they did a little editing.

You know, I wish they'd actually create some whizbang and some actual, like, interesting elements to editing rather than just rewriting effectively what the presidential candidate was saying. Here she is. But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region. by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy

for what needs to happen in the region. But it seems that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not listening. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end. Wow, you know, that kind of sums it up right there. She sounded a whole lot better, right? In the second edited interview as opposed to the first one, the aired, that didn't really make any sense. You know, this is not the only example.

You can go back to Leslie Stahl fighting with the president saying, you are wrong. There is no evidence that that laptop by Hunter Biden was ever, ever, ever anything other than massive Russian manipulation, misinformation, right? And he's like, no, no, Leslie, trust me. It's real. It's real. and he couldn't get through to her. It was epic. And she wasn't willing to actually believe that there could be any other side of the story.

And so I think over the last several years, given that so many people have had this TDS on steroids, the American public started to back away and say, okay, we need to look at all this stuff and shows that maybe at one point in time years ago, how long has that show been around, like 50-some-odd years? Maybe at one time it played a place in society. And by the way, it was a great magazine sort of puff show, right? They could interview actors like George Clooney and those sorts of things. And it was kind of fun. And back in the day, when there were only three networks, back in the day when you had no choice,

you didn't even have a remote control. You had to like get up and work the bunny ears. I remember doing that as a kid. My parents had about 60 minutes every Sunday night. Well, guess what? Times have changed. Media industry has moved on. You guys have not kept up the pace.

Okay? And now we find out that you do all kinds of deceptive editing techniques. And you know what? the president's like, hello, which is why he's suing you. And you have the FCC saying, hello, not only we're concerned about your deceptive editing techniques, but we're also concerned about this DEI stuff, which is really big. So here he is Brandon Carr speaking with Bloomberg television recently, or Bloomberg last month, saying, quote, any businesses that are looking for FCC approval, I would encourage them to get busy ending any sort of invidious forms of DEI

discrimination. So, parents. Paramount, again, the parent company is CBS that Scott Pelley, the reporter making $5 million a year, decided to go on and blast last night on live television, along with other media companies, have walked back and recast their work in diversity, equity, and inclusion. The merger process, apparently, according to deadline, has really rattled CBS News as Redstone, Paramount Global's controlling shareholder, is said to be anxious to close the transaction. In other words, she's a businesswoman. She wants to get a deal done.

And she's got a bunch of 60 minutes people running around saying, oh, but we don't like Trump. We don't like Trump. We have Trump derangement syndrome. And consequently, they want to just keep bashing him. And she's like, oh, my gosh, can you guys just let up for five minutes so I can get my deal done? Right. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, right? But you know what?

We're all big boys. We live in the real world. And if the tables were turned, they'd have no problem. You see, I think 60 minutes has been kind of lucky because they had Biden in the White House. Did they ever tell us he was failing? No, no, he was fantastic. You know, he could eat all the ice cream he wanted to. Nobody had 60 minutes was going to say boo.

So Biden was fantastic. And then you had, oh, Trump in the White House before that, so they bashed him for four years. Prior to that, they had Obama. Oh, gosh. Was Pelly the guy who used to interview Obama all the time? Maybe that was another one. I don't know.

Like I said, you get them all confused. You don't know who's actually on the show other than the clock because the show has no pizzazz, no personality, Zip Zero Nata. and everybody talks really, really slow. So, again, is there a place for that in today's society? I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Do you guys still watch it anymore?

I realize that it's kind of, you know, a fixture in American television. But I'm telling you, if they didn't have Sunday night at 7 o'clock, if they didn't have Sunday night ahead of the Super Bowl or the NFL or whatever it is that CBS is buying the rights to, nobody would actually watch it. You know, it doesn't get a lot of traction online. I think it gets more play over here on this show than it ever got online. We've run that Kamala soundbite so much. So it's become a headache for the parent company.

And now they're trying to get this multi-billion dollar deal done. And they get this little gnat, this little fly that they're like, you know, they're just kind of painful. Well, maybe journalism actually doesn't belong in that giant corporation. Did you ever think that? Like maybe you all would be better off packing your bags and doing your own thing. in a different place. And you know what? Let it fail or succeed on its own. Why does it have to have Paramount backing it up? If you guys are that good, okay, you don't need the whizbang editing. You don't

need people to talk any quicker than what we just saw. You can do this slow, slow talking. You can do these interviews that you want to re-edit to make certain people sound good. And let's actually see if it succeeds on its own. I mean, I'll give at least the EP that credit. You know what? He didn't like was going on, so he left. Good. That's what we do in the real world. You know what? If you are so empowered, if you've been able to save your money and you can go out on your own, that is the way to do it, because this is the future and you'll have a much happier time. Trust me, life is better on the other side. But I guess Scott Pelley doesn't have that option. He's still collecting his millions of bucks, yet going on and trashing his boss. It's like Rachel Maddo, going on MSNBC,

totally trashing her bosses after Joy Reid gets fired. Didn't say a word about our own staff that got sent pack in the same day, but wanted to send a message to the bosses. Is it really that or you're just trying to send a message to the audience? Again, I can't really tell you who watches CBS is 60 minutes. The only time it really resonates is when they do things like the Leslie Stahl interview or they do things like this little thing that happened that we come and we talk about it the next day. I remember doing an interview on a Monday after 60 minutes had done their interview with President

Trump on a Sunday. So Leslie Stahl sat down with Donald Trump, did some interview. Me, I'm out there the next day. And you know what? First of all, I don't edit it. Because I've got the President of the United States. Thank you very much. I'm going to actually play that thing in its entirety. And I remember the White House being like, wow, that's like so refreshing. I'm like, yeah, you gave me 40 minutes with the president. You think I'm going to cut anything out? Nope, all 40 minutes is going to air. And so we aired the thing the next night. and I got a call from the president the next day. And he's like, Tresh, you made so much more news, so much more news than the 60 Minutes program.

He's like, it's kind of fascinating. I'm like, well, yeah, number one, I played the whole thing. They didn't. They edited you. Number two, I don't know, you know, a seven-minute segment. What good is that really in today's new world? It's worth playing it all out. And then you take the sound bites from there and let people take the sound bites much like

we take the sound bites here on this program. But he got a kick out of it. He's like, you made way more headlines. Of course, he did criticize the Federal Reserve. I asked about the Fed because, yeah, I do care about those things. And he took the opportunity to go after Powell. Yeah, like he still likes to do. Although he said he's not going to fire him, right?

So that's the good news, guys. But you think back to that Kamala Harris interview and you know that Donald Trump is saying, hey, I want my whatever, after all ABC News, settled for $16 million. and, you know, he's actually up to the ante. He wants $20 billion. He's suing CBS News for $20 billion. And Sherry Redstone, you see her picture there. She's like, we've got to give him something.

Look, ABC, I think it was a $10 billion suit, and they settled for $16 million. 15 went to the library and another million to his lawyers. They'll settle for something here because she doesn't want to be on the bad side of this administration ever. Now, as a news organization, okay, you know, you can't cater to whoever's in charge. Believe me, you can't. But simultaneously, you've got to recognize, okay, like, the White House is saying no more DEI. Maybe as a news organization, we need to make sure that we're not employing methods of DEI. Maybe as a news organization, we ought to be doing a better

job to try and get in front of all news, right? Not just constantly, constantly have it so one-sided, because I think that's actually going to result in Paramount saying, you know what, we don't need this program anymore. We don't need this headache. How much is it costing us? Well, I'll tell you what, if the brochure doesn't go through, it's really going to have cost you. And I don't think that these are totally, you know, going hand in hand. It's not like they have to do puff pieces on Donald Trump to get the merger to go through. That's not a panacea either. Don't get me wrong before somebody misinterprets this and says,

oh, you know, just thinks you should be touting to the administration, positively not. And I'm the last person to have done that. In fact, if you look at my Twitter feed the other night, what was it, about two weeks ago, I was getting kind of nervous. Peter Navarro was running the show on tariffs. At least we have Scott Besson in there now. It's very clear. Like I, all I want is what's best for America.

period and I am very fair and I am willing to dish it out when needed. However, I'm also a realist. And you know what? If my boss is CBS News and we're in the middle of a major two and a half billion dollar deal with Skydance and it's all kind of on the line and it's going to come down to possibly the whims of whether or not Donald Trump likes you or not, I don't know. Like I'm just saying guys like, you know, wake up, smell the coffee. Like maybe just be a little bit nicer. Apparently executive producer did not want to have to apologize. And that was one of the things that was being talked about, about apologizing. Like, you can't apologize for that edit. Like, that seems to me to be a simple, I'm sorry. You know, maybe we did try and make her a little bit better, but we couldn't

make head or tail of what she was saying. No, we probably wouldn't have extended the same, same good fortune for you, one, Donald Trump. But, you know, we are 60 minutes, blah, blah, blah. I don't know. They could have come up with a far more elegant way to say it than that. But now, I actually think the program itself is in jeopardy of going, bye, bye, bye, bye, bye, okay? Because no one needs it. And if it were that crucial, people would find it. Let them do a podcast, okay?

They're probably going to make more money doing that anyway, if they can come up with a creative enough program that people actually want to see. Taking a look more at CBS News, this was kind of interesting. You know, recently Kash Patel got named as FBI director, and you could hear sort of the venom, even in the anchor's voice then, as she's interviewing one Lindsey Graham on Face the Nation. And Face the Nation, again, very signature program for CBS News, gets hit back with Lindsey Graham saying, he's like trolling her to his face.

He's like, you know what you people in the media need to do? You know what you need to do at CBS News? You actually need to report truth. Maybe then, you know, you'd come out and have a few more viewers. I think it's like last place. Yeah, Gail King, she got a big bounce with that little, you know, rocket thing with Jeff Amazon's fiancé. And now they've really come back to Earth in more ways than one. Pun intended.

Ratings are disaster. Okay. Ask him about going after journalists, which he's also said. I'm interested in the answer to that question. Yeah, I'm sure. I'm sure Democratic friends will ask him. And you shouldn't worry about Cash Patel. Okay.

You should worry about reporting the news fairly, which you don't do when it comes. comes to everything Trump. Lindsay Graham, your guest on this program, because we wanted to hear you out. And we welcome you back. Okay. Well, that was a gracious way to handle it, I guess. Really? So this show, mark my words,

probably doesn't have a lot of rope left. On Wednesday, Sherry Redstone is going to be meeting with her board. They're trying to come up with a solution to all of this. It is like do or die for this network right now for Paramount as a whole. They want to be able to bring Skydance in. It's not clear that that's going to happen. It's not clear that they're going to get the approvals. And if she even thinks for two seconds, it's because of what's going on at 60 minutes.

Bye-bye. See you later, guys. Sorry. It's been nice. Go do a podcast. Again, better over here on the other side. And if you're good, people will actually watch. And if you're not, well then.

Okay, we are good. And you do actually watch, which is wonderful. And we also are thrilled to have independence. And with that independence, we do have sponsors. And one of our wonderful sponsors, and by the way, you've made a ton of money if you listen to me for two seconds is in gold. I've been telling people, by the way, to buy it for like 20 years. So I'd be doing gold, whether I had a sponsor or not. But it happens to be a nice thing that I also have a sponsor because they help to bring this show to you for free. Trish loves gold. That's where you need to go. Trish lovesgold.com today or text Trish to 65532 because you can get up to $15,000 in free silver with qualifying purchases. The number on the screen, 1844495, 1115. Our friends in American

Gold will, American Hartford Gold will help hook you up. There's a lot of really sort of interesting dynamics at play. Do you want to have it at your house? Do you want to keep it in a vault somewhere? Do you want to keep it in an account? There's lots of different ways you should think about this, Trish Lovesgold.com, American Heart for Gold, wonderful, wonderful company, and hopefully you've been making some good money. Gold's up again today. It's really sort of amazing. I buy it whenever it goes down, but it is trading up higher again today. Okay, another network in trouble, ESPN. We've talked about ESPN because in the past, we've heard from none other than Bob Eiger, who's in the CEO spot at Disney. He has articulated his desire to actually move on

from these legacy media networks. He told David Faber at Sun Valley, CMBC reporter about two years ago that he actually wanted to sell these off. And I have very good sourcing. Next Star was looking to buy the company. The problem is, guess what Next Star was willing to pay? 10 million bucks.

Billion, billion. And that's really not a lot because the company was sold like in the early 90s. ABC News, ABC, ABC, for 19 billion. So that's a big come down, right? It's like, it's like, you know, they're talking about 60 minutes back in the day. It was like the thing. Well, it's no longer. Okay. So ABC is also no longer because it's a dying business. And so while it still sort of prints money and as long as you're able to shrink the cost and maybe one day get rid of rid of whoopee, enjoy Behar and

some of your other high, costly talent, you might be able to still print a little bit more money. but it's like, you know, the buggy whip going out of business when cars came along. Sure, you had some people in the horse sale business and the buggy whip business still making it for a while, but eventually, like it didn't matter. You know, you could have some tricked out carriage. Nobody really wanted it because you wanted the tricked out car. Same sort of thing, right, with the refrigerator versus the ice man. And, you know, those ice companies, they kind of went out of business too.

Okay, this is what's happening in the media sector. Meanwhile, ESPN has a whole other set of issues going on. because some of their talent, well, are landing themselves in a bit of trouble. And this is kind of like self-inflicted. Let me just say for one, Shannon Sharp, because I don't know what you're doing with an only fans model, but I'll leave that for you all to discuss. Here he is saying, I'm not guilty of what she's accusing me of, which is some pretty bad stuff, and I'm not guilty, I'm not guilty.

You can tell, watch his eyes as he's reading this. So there's no prompter here on this show, which is why you may see me looking off into the clouds at times or looking. over there. The reason being I'm thinking, right? He's just staring straight into the camera right off. You can kind of see his eyes reading a statement. Why they didn't get him a prompter for this one, I don't know, but here we go. ESPN's new headache, Shannon Sharp, trying to defend himself, says he's innocent. Ugh. To my family, friends, supporters, and colleagues, I want to speak to you directly and from the heart. This is a shakedown. I'm going to be open, transparent,

and defend myself because this isn't right. This is all being orchestrated. by Tony Busby, who was targeted Jay-Z. Tony Busby targets Black men, and I believe he's going to release a 30-second clip of a sex tape that tries to make me look guilty and played into every stereotype you could possibly imagine. That video should actually be 10 minutes or so. Hey Tony, instead of releasing your edit, put the whole video out.

I don't have it, or I would myself. You know what happened, and you're trying to manipulate the media. The encountering question took place during the day at her invitation, And now that appears to be a deliberate setup. Coordinated by Gabby, also known as Carly on Onlyfans. Gabby and Tony Busby want 50 million. All right, I just have to stop it for a second. What?

Coordinated by Gabby, also known as Carly, Katie Lee on Onlyfans, like, Shannon Sharp, what are you doing with the Onlyfans, girls? I mean, honestly. Gabby and Tony Busby want $50 million. What they're getting. is sued for defamation in trying to take me down. My career is all about real talk and honesty. I know my family and fans know exactly what this is about.

And I'm going to be out there telling you whatever I need to say, just like I always do. I love all you guys. Oh, wow. Now, what do you think? Do you believe him? It's your wife? Oh, he's never married. Okay.

That's good. Because he's talking about his family. I'm like, wait, the only fan's thing, your family knows the job. truth, but yet you did have something with the only... He's like, it released the whole thing. That the lawyer did release it. It was played on TMZ. It is bad.

And therefore, I am not going to play it here. We like to keep it clean for the kids. God forbid, one of them is watching right now, right? So we're not going to play that. But it's pretty bad. Apparently, though, if you listen to Shannon Sharp, that was just a small excerpt from it. Like the whole windup kind of led them down that path. And so really, it was all some kind of consensual sense.

and there was some kind of, oh, I don't know, role playing of sorts. I can't even believe we're talking about this. But it's an ESPN anchor and it gets us back to why does ABC Disney, Disney need these challenges? I mean, I don't think they do, frankly. And I think that Bob Eager would love, love, love, love, love to be done, right? To be just done with this whole thing. like why have to be in this business? I suspect it's because he really doesn't like the $10 billion price tag that they're willing to give him for the company. When it comes down to it,

you want to be able to still sell the asset for something. I don't think it's going to be worth that much more in the future. I realize they're trying to move things around. You've got the ABC news, new president saying, okay, we're having this restructuring and we're going to move things here, there and everywhere and we'll do more streaming, but I'm going to be honest. I just don't think that that's in the cards for this company. So much like CBS, they're suffering a similar fate because, woohoo, we're over here, right? And all the action is happening over here. But he is leaving ESPN amid this lawsuit. That is the latest apparently just happening right now. ESPN and and Shannon Sharp, I guess, parting ways, shall we say. And that's, that's the way it is. That's the way

it is. I want to get to some real news because we get the political courts, you know, just all acting a little bit crazy before I do. I'm in pretty good health. And I credit my friends at Balance of Nature for helping me be there. I drink my water. I exercise every day, go to the gym every day or I go for a walk every day and I take my vitamins every day. Balance of Nature. You can take them to 35% off. Go to Balance of Nature.com. Code word Trish. I take the fruits and veggies, but they have a ton of stuff there. So you're welcome to check everything out. There may be something that's really good and specific to you. There's lots of testimonials. Wonderful testimonials. Leslie, who's always in the chat. She loves it. My kid's music teacher came up to me.

I told you guys that story. He's like, Trish, Trish. I can't believe you take Balance of Nature too. And I'm like, wait, you listen to the show? He's like, yes, every day. So Bill, shout out to you if you're listening to the show. A wonderful, wonderful music program for the kids. Anyway, he takes it as well. His wife takes it as well. It is great, great stuff. BalanceNature.com.

Use code word trish. Get 35% off. Get free shipping and get a money back guarantee. This is in so many ways. We thank them, of course, because they help me bring you this show for free, but we really thank them because I think taking those vitamins has been a game changer, or at least for me and my vitamin D levels. Political courts blocking like everything, everything, everything, everywhere you turn.

You get the judge trying to bar Trump from denying federal funds to sanctuary cities that limit in immigration cooperation, even though the Supreme Court had already said, yeah, that's okay, he can do that. So what's really going on? Are you trying to tell me that nobody can actually be deported? I'm going to tell you that's wrong. Because guess what? The federal government, if they have any power in the world, it is to control the borders and to know who is in the country. and you cannot have states or quote unquote sanctuary cities getting in the way of that.

I mean, you just can't. Like that is not the way the law was written. But don't take my word for it. Let's go to somebody who has actually been a little bit polarizing in the Trump world. And I think it actually gives them a little bit more credibility when it comes to this issue. Let's go to former attorney general, Bill Barr, because Bill Barr is making the point that they just do not have a leg to stand on here. The Constitution is written as such. And that means all of these sanctuary cities are at fault.

Let's listen in. And don't forget what Pam Bondi's saying here because, well, it goes back to that judge in Wisconsin. Remember the judge in Wisconsin we told you about on Friday? She decided that she'd take matters into her own hands because you had law enforcement there, ICE ready to escort an illegal migrant who had been accused of domestic violence. They were ready to escort him out and she wouldn't allow it. She brought the guy and his lawyer into her back chamber. and she said, here you go and let him flee out the back door.

Pretty soon she was fleeing out the back door as the media came in and was trying to get her on record as she was leaving. She's now been arrested. And look, that's just the way it is. You know what? You're a judge. You ought to be able to uphold the law for goodness sakes. Here's Pam. And then let's go to Bill.

She put the lives of our law enforcement officers at risk. She put the lives of citizens at risk, a street chase, which is absurd that that had to happen. But yes, she put a lot of people at day. danger in danger. That judge did it. So did the other judge. Judge Cano is charged with, they were allegedly giving him assault rifles, AK-47s, AR-15s, with a suppressor, a known TDA member, letting him go to a shooting range to refine and perfect his shooting skills. What's happened to our judiciary is beyond me? That's a good question. An extraordinary account from Attorney General Pam Bondi about the arrest

over the last two days of two judges, a Wisconsin judge and a New Mexico judge and his wife, both judges have been charged with obstruction of justice for harboring and helping illegal migrant suspects escape from federal ICE agents. Yeah, because like in any normal world, that shouldn't be allowed, right? Like you can't actually do that. But let's go to Bill because he's like, no, look, this is not going to be upheld. And no, it doesn't even need to go to the Supreme Court. court because there's no judge at the upper level that's going to go for this. I don't know.

You know, the crazier things have happened lately. Well, actually, David, this has been going on a long time. One of the ways we identify these illegal aliens is when they're picked up by local police for violating the law there. It could be domestic violence, petty theft, whatever. They're brought into state court. Now, in the old days, before the sanctuary city's movement got going, they'd be turned over to federal officials. But since the sanctuary cities took effect, we've had local judges, let these people go and sneak them out the back door so that ICE agents can't pick them up. And in fact, back in September 2019, in the first term, we charged a judge in Massachusetts for a very similar

action to what this Milwaukee judge. But it's the response to this. The actual arrest of these, And in the case of that judge who spirited her, the person, the perp that was on the stand out the back door, I mean, she actually had to be chased down and was perp walked. And the judge and his wife went through a similar escapade with federal agents. I mean, it does seem like it's reached a critical point here. And I just wonder what's going to happen next. I mean, are we going to see this bounced up somehow eventually to the Supreme Court?

Yeah, I doubt it will get to the Supreme Court because I think the law is so clear. The states argue, the sanctuary states argue, they don't have to affirmatively assist us, the feds, in getting hold of these illegal aliens. But this isn't the question of assisting. This is actually interfering with, of harboring, of getting in the way. And so I don't think there's any question about this, and I think it's time for zero tolerance and getting back the basics, which are that judges and state officials are state. Still citizens, they're subject to the federal law, and they cannot interfere in or impede the federal function. So I'm 100% in agreement with what's done.

Well, of course, you know how the media is going to play it, and of course the Democrats already have begun. The protests have begun suggesting that this is Trump, again, being the imperial president, who's dictator now in ignoring the courts. Do you think any courts will pick up on that? Any courts to which these cases might be appealed? Yeah, I mean, some state courts, there are some very liberal state courts. They may try to go down that path, but at the end of the day, they'll be slapped down. Because these judges do not have the right to interfere with the federal government performing its function.

Yeah. Yeah, they don't. Okay, so Bill Barr, regardless of what you think of Bill, like, he's right on that. They do not have the right to interfere because guess what? If the federal government decides somebody should be deported and they go and they grab them, They can't have a situation where the judges, like the one in Wisconsin, are running them out the back door. It's like, what kind of crazy world are we living in? This is really and truly getting nuts.

It's just getting nuts. Here's this lady, okay, right? Her name is Judge Dugan. She actually dragged the guy out, a jury door. I mean, this is honestly insane. They were going to take him, and she's interfering. Like, what is going on? And here you have Schumer.

Guys, Schumer's saying, you know what, this is a constitutional crisis, because for some reason he thinks that these judges should be able to do this? I mean, are they off their rockers? Yes. Turning to Trump's immigration purge. This week, Trump's FBI arrested Milwaukee Circuit Court judge Hannah Dugan, who now faces federal charges for allegedly obstructing the arrest of an undocumented immigrant. by ICE agents, and a hearing has been set for May 16th in the case of a two-year-old U.S. citizen

deported to Honduras with her mother. The federal judge handling the case says it appears the child may have been removed without meaningful due process. Immigration advocates have been warning we are on the verge of a constitutional crisis. Has that crisis arrived, Senator? Yes, it has. unfortunately, because what they're, Trump won't. I have to jump in. No, it hasn't. You know why? Just listen to what Bill Barr said. There is no court that's actually going to say that this is okay because again,

basic stuff, people. My gosh, sort of just amazing that you have to explain this all out. This guy's supposed to be a lawyer by background. The fact is the federal government has the authority to control who is in the country, to control its borders. If someone is, here illegally, then guess what? That is jurisdiction for the federal government. It is not jurisdiction for a state that decides it wants to become sanctuary. Thank you very much. This is bad. It wants to be king. A king doesn't have a constitution. A king just does whatever he wants and Biondi just goes along with them. They're trying to intimidate judges. This is not the first time or the second. They've said they want to impeach judges. They said they're going to go after

judges who don't agree with them. That is so against the Constitution. The Constitution believes and has been written with the wisdom of the founding fathers that we should have separation of powers. There should be an independent judiciary. When you go before a judge, you think that you hope and believe that that judge is impartial. What Trump, beyond D, and the whole Justice Department are trying to do is push that judge, threaten that judge, so the judge is no longer impartial. It is outrageous in both cases. In both cases, you can't believe, what they said. You know, in the case with the two-year-old girl summit, they're saying, oh, the mother wanted to take her. Well, she's entitled to due process. The father says that's not true. And I don't

believe ICE or anything they say, because they've made up things so many times in the past. This is a constitutional crisis. You cannot have a democracy without an independent judiciary. And they're trying to clip the wings of that independence. No, there is no independence. All right. There is no independence. Let's have Trish set the record state straight. I'm going to put this on the screen. The federal government is in charge of borders. Okay?

Hello. And you know how we know that? Guess what? Article 1. Section 8. Clause 4. The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, meaning Congress controls the rules for who can become a U.S. citizen.

And that means by extension, then guess what? That they have the rule over immigration policy. And the federal government is in charge of enforcing that, okay? And right now you have all Republicans in Congress. The president, he has the responsibility of enforcing immigration laws. Thank you very much. Article 2, Section 2, Executive Power Entreaties. The president as part of the executive power,

is responsible for enforcing immigration laws, for conducting foreign affairs, including border control policies tied to national security. I honestly think we're living in some kind of twisted upside-down world at this point where you have people trying to say that, no, this is not the case. I mean, I love it. Miller the other day was on Fox News and nothing against the Fox News host. And forgive me, for those of you that have already seen this, it is so good, right? It is so good.

He lays it out. Where do you think we're going to deport the guy to? He's from El Salvador. He's here illegally. It's believed that he's a member of a game. Where are we going to deport him to Canada? Canada would probably take him, right? Here we go.

Number one, DOJ said a federal court cannot compel the executive branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation. So your argument is that you don't have to bring him back home, but will you? So I want to correct, I hate to do it, Bill, but I got to correct you on every single thing that you said, because it was all wrong. First, we won the Supreme Court case. Clearly, 9-0, a district court judge said unconscionably that the president and his administration have to go into El Salvadoran and extradite one of their citizens, and El Salvadorian citizens. That would be kidnapping. that we have to kidnap an El Salvadorian citizen against the will of his government and fly him back to America,

which would be an unimaginable act in an invasion of El Salvador's sovereignty. So we appealed to the Supreme Court, and it said clearly no district court can compel the president to exercise his Article 2 foreign powers in any way whatsoever. DOJ called me after that Supreme Court ruling, and they said, this is amazing. We won this case, 9-0. We are in excellent standing here. So this has been portrayed wrong for 72 hours in the media. They said the most a court could ever compel you to do would be to facilitate return,

which would basically mean if El Salvador voluntarily sends him back, we wouldn't block him at the airport. We would put him back into iced detention, and then he would be deported either back to El Salvador or somewhere else. The Supreme Court said that is the most the government can be expected to do. So we won the case handily. The misreporting on this has been atrocious. Secondly, he was not, no, Bill is important.

He was not mistaken. not mistakenly sent to El Salvador. So do you still believe he is a member of MS. Hold on, this is important. In 2019, he was ordered deported. He is a final removal order from the United States. These are things that no one disputes. Where is he from?

El Salvador. Where is he a resident and citizen of? El Salvador. Is he here illegally? Yes. Does he have a deportation order? Yes. A DOJ lawyer,

who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat, put into a filing incorrectly, that this was a mistaken removal. It was not. This was the right person sent to the right place. Now, some have said, well, but he had a thing called a withholding order. So a withholding order means you've been ordered deported, but an immigration judge is saying you cannot go back to a particular country. Here's the thing. If you are a member of a foreign terrorist organization, you cannot have a withholding order.

Since he's in MS-13, there is no withholding... You just answer my question. The gang that he is accused of being persecuted by doesn't exist anymore in El Salvador. The 18th Street gang is gone. So you have an illegal alien from El Salvador? Bill, where are we supposed to send the illegal alien from El Salvador? To what country? You haven't even allowed me to ask you a question.

Are you convinced he is still a member of MS-13? That was your original charge. Yes. But here's the thing, Bill. Yes, but not only am I convinced of it, not only is El Salvador convinced of it. Bill, he's an illegal alien from El Salvador with the deportation order. So his only options in life, Bill, his only options in life are to be deported to El Salvador or to be deported to some other country.

That's it. He has a deportation order. So, Bill, you tell me, what country should we deport him to? Tell me, please. Now, it's great, and Bill doesn't have an answer for that. They move on to the next thing. But I want to play for you some sound that just came out of the White House moments ago. Here's Tom Holman talking about just how bad.

it got the border situation under Biden for some reason there was just flagrant disregard for knowing who was in the country we've already been through all the reasons why the federal government has just look I started the border bill in 1984 I've been at this for over 40 years I've worked for six presidents starting with Ronald Reagan every president ever worked for it took border security seriously because you can't have national security if you don't have strong border security we got to know who's coming in what's coming in, where's coming in, and why it's coming in, right? Even President Obama and President Clinton

took some steps to secure the border because they understood national security was important. Joe Biden was the first president in the history of this nation who came in the office and unsecured a border on purpose. Yeah, I mean, that's what's wild about it. On purpose. Think about that guys. So he wanted to create an environment in which no one could actually be deported. Why was that? Oh, well, dare I say, dare I say that maybe just had a little something to do with a little germandering and they wanted to try and change the jurisdiction and get more and more people in certain states so that they can argue for more members of Congress. And then on top of that, the New York Times reported on this, they wanted 800,000 people in the state of New York that were non-citizens to be able to vote until a judge shot that one down. I mean, wild stuff, right? Like, that's actually, I suspect a big part of what was going on. because in the old days, and I'm going back to Obama who was there for eight years, who deported more than any other president. So what really is this about?

I guess it's about you guys thought, you guys thought that, you know, you could get votes. And by the way, they think that this is a winning issue right now. I'm just going to give them a word of the wise. It's not, okay? Because Americans are sick and tired of it. They don't want people here illegally. We have another big story. I want to get to you guys.

And this one would be on none other than. Well, Jeffrey Epstein, right, and latest developments there. I will give a quick shout-up for the markets, which traded higher today. So there's been a lot of volatility, and you've got the Democrats now trying to say that Trump is tanking the economy, tanking the economy. They would just tell you, you know, if the markets thought he was really tanking the economy, they would be really nervous. Instead, you had a market closing mixed with the S&P up a touch.

The NASDAQ down one-tenth of a percent, so nothing there. Dow Jones Industrial average ending the day up about a quarter percent. And what we're hearing out of the White House, and my sources are telling me is that we're getting closer and closer and closer on trade deals. If you want more information on all this, go to 76 Research.com today. My gift to you, just use code word dollar, get the 76 report, because there's going to be a lot of opportunity coming up. All right. This story is quite something, right? So Virginia Jeff, tragically passing away over the weekend, and there are new questions, shall we say, about what actually went down?

because her lawyer just moments ago, this is new breaking news, came out and said that he does not believe, he does not believe that this was in fact a suicide mission, that in fact there may have been foul play here. This coming into us right now from the New York Post, and it's happening as other previous victims of one Jeffrey Epstein are now coming out and saying that they want everybody to know,

everybody to know that they are not suicidal, if anything at all happens to them, that one should immediately, immediately be suspicious because they have some concerns, again, over what happened with Virginia Jeff. So, you know, they're demanding answers right now. The attorney, and let me see if I can bring you this story that represented Virginia Jeff is saying, you know, this really does not add up. So this attorney speaking out there for the first time, you can see the story first being reported there in the New York Post. She was 41 years old. She passed away over the weekend, allegedly by suicide, and there really hasn't been

much to contest that, except that now the question is coming up. Was this really what really went down? So again, this is the Jeffrey Epstein victim lawyer. actually, forgive me, this is not the attorney. The screen that you see is actually the sister-in-law. So Virginia Jeff's sister-in-law is also coming out, and this in this case, saying that she had died from self-inflicted wounds, and now you've got the attorney in this particular one who's saying that may not actually be the case, that in fact this may be a situation, here we go, this is what I wanted to show you, where they have some doubts. We've got. We've got.

some big question marks over this case. Again, the Jeffrey Epstein victim attorney who represented Virginia Jeff is casting some doubt on all of this. Apparently there was a tweet that actually Don Jr. found over the weekend in which she had tweeted out a few years ago, if anything ever happens to me, please know that I am in no way suicidal, et cetera. So, you know, it's something that, you know, I guess is at least going to be addressed. And meanwhile, you've got other victims coming forward. Let me show you this video. This young woman, or, well, I guess she's not so young anymore, but she's basically making the point that she has some concerns about her own safety as well as the safety of other victims, because this is apparently not the only woman to have died.

Again, this is sort of just hearsay at this point, and people just sort of speculating and a lot of sort of rumors taking over, but you wonder how it is that so many people that were close to him have in fact passed. And so let me share this with you. This is somebody posting on Twitter and her concerns. Here we go. Walla. My name is Julia Bryant and I live in Cape Towns South Africa. I was kidnapped by Jeffrey Epstein 20 years ago. I am not suicidal and I never ever will be. I also do not do any drugs. I met Epstein when he was in Africa with Bill Clinton. We all know about the Clinton body count. Another concerning fact is that one of the main women, a very brave angel, Carolyn, who testified against Gillen Maxwell was found dead six months ago. It wasn't in the media

until a few days ago. The only reason it was put in the media was because of a very, very brave Epstein victim. She doesn't want to be named. But there are other Epstein victims who've also died suspiciously. Carolyn was a beautiful, amazing brave woman who planned a life on a chicken farm with her family. Instead, she was found dead in a hotel room. I want to speak out for safety and for other victims because it's very frightening when the victim won't, I mean, the media won't cover any of the victim's stories. A lot of my story hasn't been told in the media and it's the same with a lot of other victims. And we actually all feel quite frightened with everything that's been going. going on. And as we know, this is not the first suspicious death related to the evil Maxwell

Empire. They also used to run the media. So maybe that's why victim's stories are not being told to the media and the victims of Epstein feel very frightened. Please all pray for Carolyn's family. Thank you for listening. was, you know, some news basically on the, another alleged victim. So new questions surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein case are sort of flooding the marketplace and flooding the Internet right now. Many new questions. Let's make sure that you have the right story there in the banner.

So new questions about Epstein surfacing. Look, here's what I would say. We don't know exactly. I've spoken with one very good source who actually treated him for medical issues and was talking to him to literally like a day before his passing there in the prison. And this particular source told me, you know, it just didn't add up. It didn't make sense what went down because, you know, he was in good spirits. He was pretty jovial. He kind of thought he'd get out of there.

And don't forget, he started kind of advancing this idea that maybe he could exchange some information. Of course, you can't really do that, right, if you are an Intel op. So if you're working for the if, if, I'll throw that out there, if you're working for the Mossad or if you're working for the CIA or if you're working for any intelligence op anywhere in the world, right? Part of what is critical is your discreteness. And so if you're willing to talk, that's probably going to get you in trouble. In fact, there's been a lot of reporting on Maxwell, the father, right, of Just Lane. And the father is a lot of, alleged to have worked with the Mossad, and the father was alleged to have been murdered because he

started doing some talking. So if you're just laying, right, and you're going off to prison, she, by the way, I think wants to either get out for good behavior or have something in her case reexamined, if you're her, you've now seen your father go down and your former boyfriend go down because they started talking too much, so she's probably not at risk of talking. But there is a belief out there, okay, I'll just share it with you. And we've done some reporting on this in the past, that she was actually the real sort of operator. She was the one who went out and found Jeffrey, who had been a math teacher at a fancy schmensee private high school in New York City. He'd been a math teacher. He'd somehow then translated that into work as a floor trader. It went to stock exchanges,

and then he lost his job, and she got put in touch with him. Perhaps she knew something. Perhaps she knew that he was one big personality, super, super charming. My source told me that. Like, you had never met anybody who's charming in this guy. I never met him. But apparently just tremendously charming. So had a knack, shall we say, with people. And also kind of may have, well, did, we know this, have some very disturbing, disturbing

personality traits. So maybe she knew this. I mean, you think about the private high school in New York, New York's a small town, maybe some word had gotten out. So did she know about his vulnerabilities? And did she then put him into play? Because she apparently had some very sophisticated software that could do some very sophisticated spying with all these cameras that they had everywhere. And the whole place, right, was allegedly just stacked with this stuff. So one has to kind of wonder was just laying the one running the entire op. My intuition, and again, I have no real, you know, sourcing

on this other than the guy who was treating him and actually treated her who thought, yeah, for sure. They were probably working for some serious intel arms. And, you know, he knew everyone, absolutely knew everyone. This came up actually on Pierce Morgan's program the other night. And the former head of Mossad was on. And Pierce asked him, he's like, hey, you know, did he? And the guy was like, no, no, no. And then basically, well, let's just say if Jeffrey Epstein had been working, with Mossad, I would not even admit it. Right? Of course he wouldn't. And then Alan Dershowitz gets in on the action.

We're going to watch this together. And Alan's like, oh yeah, no, he would have told me. He would have told me because I could have used that as a defense. No, come on, guys. You couldn't have used this as a defense. Because you know what if you tried to use as a defense? That would have been the end of the day. All right, here we go.

Let's watch Pierce. Danny, let me ask you something. As a former head of Mossad, if Jeffrey Epstein had been working with Mossad, would you even tell us? Would you admit it? Exactly. As far as I understand,

as far as you have to believe, how do you know that there is God? He just said you wouldn't tell me. If you believe, God exists. Yeah, it is a question of belief. Either you believe me or not. You just told me you wouldn't tell me if he had. I didn't.

You know, speaking of it. Okay, bear with me, they start to believe. talking over each other. I know this is what we all hate about cable, but it gets good. It gets good. So stay with me. I did not meet. I did. Let me ask Alan. I did. Let me ask Alan. I did it to say every ever. I know him. Yeah. I know him. I don't know him. Sorry. I don't know him. All right. again. Hang on, Alan, Alan, let me ask you a question. Alan, let me ask you a question. Have you ever worked with Mossad? Yes, I represented Mossad to help get two people out of Cyprus. I did it pro bono,

and I got this letter from the head of the Mossad thanking me for doing it. Let me tell you another thing. I was Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer. I know everything about him. If he had worked for the Mossad, he would have told me that. And I would have told me that. And I would. have used it as a way of trying to reduce his sentence. He didn't tell me that. He told me nothing like that. So there's no way in which he worked for the Mossad and didn't tell me that he worked for the Mossad because I could have used that to get him an even shorter sentence than the one he got. No, I don't think so. I really don't think so. And the reason I don't think so is because he couldn't tell you that, Alan. And by the way, I have a lot of respect for Alan. I like

a lot. He's a pretty straight shooter and, you know, he has been a tremendous supporter, actually, of Donald Trump through all of this craziness, right? We're talking Latisha James, Fannie Willis, Alvin Bragg, all the insanity. So I have a lot of respect for him. I think he's very, very, very, very smart. But he's saying, look, like, he never told me that, but he couldn't. Like, why would he tell you that? Because as soon as that gets out, like, it really is game over. And I think that's what he was threatening in the final days. According to my source that he spoke to, he was very, very optimistic. He was hoping to get out in the last few days, and he was in good spirits, and he thought, you know, he had the goods that basically, you know, he could do some kind of deal and he'd be out. Well,

look what happened, right? Like, the ward got out to someone somewhere, if you believe that, in fact, he was knocked off because it's a little suspicious, right? How did the two security guards just go missing at that particular time? How is it that he was moved to a single cell? And, no witnesses and like no camera around during that time. I mean, it's all a little bit too convenient, right? So I think that these new questions are important ones. And you know what else? Pam Bondi is going to have to address these. Pam Bondi has a lot of work to do. But this is something that I think everybody wants more intel on, just exactly what exactly was going down. So maybe we'll find out, maybe we won't. I don't know, but I'll tell you, it's worth a shot, right? It's worth a

shot. A reminder, guys, make sure you subscribe. If you have not subscribed to this podcast, it's really important that you do so. Look, we're up over 700,000. Isn't that kind of amazing? It's just amazing how we've had all this growth, and it shows you there is a whole new world out there, right? So 60 Minutes, MSNBC, good luck, guys. I think you would be better off to join the party on the other side, if you're good enough, right? If you're good enough. Reminder, 76research.com. Let us help you, Rob and I, in terms of your investing and all that you're doing there. I want to thank you again for tuning in. Tell me what you think. Is Pam going to get the goods on Epstein? I hope so. I will see you here tomorrow with a whole lot more. Until then.