The Trish Regan Show - BREAKING: Dem Rep Plaskett BUSTED Texting Epstein in 2019 Impeachment—They COLLUDED to DESTROY TRUMP!

Episode Date: November 17, 2025

Major new revelations are shaking Washington — and some Democrats are NOT going to like where this is headed; a Dem from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Rep. Stacey Plaskett, was caught in a compromising position -- exchanging texts with Epstein during a live 2019 congressional hearing with the intent to "get Trump." As Trump demands all emails and Epstein files be released, these newly uncovered controversial court documents may end up implicating a whole lot of Dems — while leaving Trump untouched. Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene is suddenly S.O.L. after Trump exiles her from MAGA. Trish has the details. And, Trump just increased his defamation lawsuit against the BBC from $1B to $5B — and the BBC’s defense does not look promising.Plus — the $2,000 rebate checks are heating up. Here’s what the Treasury Secretary is now saying about tariff rebates as the White House pushes affordability.Join me LIVE for those stories and more! Get my financial newsletter at https://76research.com #news #politics #TrishRegan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's like raining news today. We got a lot to get to. Unbelievable day for you here on the Trist Riegan show. We have new emails coming in right now that have been exposed, which are suggesting that the real trouble here is not for one, Donald Trump, but actually for a lot of the Democrats, especially as Donald Trump says, go for it, release them all, release them all. He's demanding they all come out. And in that process thus far, we've already just learned moments ago that one Democrat representative from none other than the Virgin Islands was actually caught texting Epstein during Michael Cohen's hearings back in 2019, where Epstein and she were collectively working together to try and take Donald Trump down, which kind of makes you wonder just exactly whose side he was on. It doesn't sound like it was Trump's. We're going to get into all of that as Marjorie Taylor Green is basically, exiled from MAGA, Donald Trump saying, you know, we want nothing to do with her. And she's sort of out. Marjorie Tradergrin. Frankly, I don't think anybody cares about her.

Oh, okay. We're going to get into all of it. Welcome to the program, everyone. If you haven't subscribed, please make sure you do make a comment. We are watching them all live in real time. All right, guys, all emails are coming out. As many as can legally come out will be coming out. Donald Trump making it very clear.

You know, he doesn't care. and it actually may hurt the Democrats a whole lot more than it hurts one Donald Trump. And that's in part because it's just some of the recent things we have learned over the last couple of days as well as what we just learned in the last couple of hours, vis-a-vis Democrat Plaskett. Here, watch him on the tarmac last night. Fake news like you, you're a terrible reporter. Fake news like you, they just keep bringing that up to deflect from the tremendous success of the Trump administration. So a guy like Massey, his poll numbers are showing is at 6% approval rating right now.

And we call him Rand Paul Jr. Because he never votes for the Republican Party. So they're using Jeffrey Epstein as a deflection from the tremendous success that we're having as a party. Okay, okay. So it's like a shiny little toy. You get to watch this thing over here instead of focusing on, oh, I don't know, gas prices, national average coming down below. $3 a barrel as opposed to say focusing on the CPI numbers, which are encouraging, et cetera.

No, no, we're not going to pay any attention to that because we get this shiny little toy that, you know, by the way, we could have come out with anytime during the Biden administration, but for whatever reason they didn't. So now he's like, okay, you know what, I got nothing to hide. Go for it. You guys are so desperate to get these things. We're going to bring them all out once and for all. Here he is last night on true social saying, you know what, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files because we have nothing to hide. And it's time to move on from this Democrat hoax perpetuated by radical left lunatics in order to deflect from the great success of the Republican Party. He says, goes on to say the Democrat ops, they ought to be

worried because they were the ones connected to Epstein. You had Bill Clinton, you had Reed Hoffman, you had Larry Summers, et cetera, and their relations to Epstein. Those are the things that ought to be looked at. He said the House Oversight Committee can have one. whatever they want, at least whatever they're legally entitled to. In all caps, he puts out, I don't care. All I care about is getting Republicans back on point, which is the economy. It's affordability where we are winning big. These are the things that he's focused on.

He said, you don't fall in for this Epstein trap, which is essentially a curse on the Democrats, not on us, he said, make America great again. Well, there's new evidence of that, by the way. And I'm going to get back to what Pam Bondi's doing because indeed she's taking his advice to heart. She has said that she will go forward with an investigation into the entire Democrat Party. I do want to point out for what it's worth that none of those emails that came out had indicated any kind of direct correspondence from or to Donald Trump himself and said they had basically Epstein's private mentions of Trump, which were like totally unverified, totally gossipy.

And they were shared with, you know, Maxwell and some of the others. There's just his observations on Trump. You also have no victims, accusing him. Donald Trump of any misconduct in these specific files. And the reference accuser, Virginia Jeff, died, by the way, in April 25, reportedly stated that under oath Trump was professional and friendly and never participated in the abuse. Donald Trump has, you know, maintained that he severed ties with Epstein around 2004 after he banned him from Mar-a-Lago because of his behavior towards a staffer there. And he said, look, he knows nothing about Epstein's crimes.

So there's that. There is that. Well, I want to get to the breaking news. It just came out moments ago because Donald Trump seems to be kind of taken the high road in all this. We've got this representative Plaskett, Representative Plaskett, who's a representative from the U.S. Virgin Islands. Don't forget, that's where, you know, the Lita Express used to fly to. So this representative, apparently, was close enough with Jeffrey Epstein that even though he had already been out of jail once in February of 2019, she's texting him in the middle of the Michael Cohen hearings, right?

where they're trying to impeach Trump and they want to take him down, et cetera. And he's actually giving her advice. I mean, this is pretty wild. I should point out that if you're a representative from the U.S. Virgin Islands, you don't get to vote on things, but you get put on committees and you're allowed to engage in these kinds of exchanges, which you're about to see. And it just really makes you question, you know, Epstein and his relationship with the Dems. Here he is trying to take Donald Trump out in the hearings.

He's apparently watching it from his New York abode. Take a peek. Here it is the Washington Post saying that they have reviewed all of these documents and they have matched the text that were sent in Pacific time with the video. This is actually a good bit of reporting. This is president of the United States. Okay. I'm going to move my logo out of the way.

A struggling neighborhood in Chicago. Are you chewing? Are you chewing? And she writes, not any more. This is Stacey Plaskett out of the Virgin Islands. That only black people could live that one. attorney client privilege, yes, I will turn it over. Now he says 1124-25, Cohen brought up Rona, Keeper of the Secrets.

Rona, I mean, Rona was his assistant. Do you know the first time I ever interviewed Donald Trump was probably back in 2004, and I had to go through Rona to do it. Rona, like, was his executive assistant. Everyone knew Rona. Like, this was not a big deal. Like, I think if you had ever watched The Apprentice, you probably would have known Rona.

But here's this naive, frankly. idiotic. I'm sorry. When you're taking advice from the already convicted Jeffrey Epstein about what you should ask to Michael Cohen, I think that's a little off, just a little teeny bit off. I mean, she should have known this that Rona was the executive assistant to Donald Trump, but apparently she didn't. And boy, did she love Jeffrey helping her out. Watch 1124-25. Cohen brought up Rona, Keeper of the Secrets. Here she is looking at her text message. Watch. My friend, Mr. Meadows pointed out misled this committee even today in a written submission that contradicted your testimony. You have suggested you are going to review that.

Did you review? Are you going to review it in our next break to correct the record? Yes or no. Okay. She's like, Rona? Quick, quick, 1125-41. Quick, I'm up next. Is that an an acronym?

Acronym she has no clue. Who Rona is, what Rona is, R-O-N-A. I think it might have been spelled R-H-O-N-A. I don't know, but anyway, here he writes back. Question, you helped out the president's campaign, or were involved in the campaign as a representative, as a spokesman, even in your words today. It was your idea for the campaign dating back to 2011.

Is that accurate? Yes or no. Yes. That's his assistant. Mr. Weisenberg and other individuals, Ms. Rona, who are those individuals? Are they with the Trump organization? They are. There are other people that we should be meeting with.

So Alan Weisselberg is the chief financial officer. Uh-huh. You got to quickly give us as many names as you can so we can get to them. Yes, ma'am. As Ms. Rona, what is Ms. Rona's business? Rona Graf is the Mr. Trump's executive assistant. And would she be able to corroborate many of the statements that you've made here? Yes, she was, her office is directly next to his.

And she's involved in a lot. Good work. Text from Jeffrey Epstein, reported out by the Washington Post. You know, they can occasionally do some good stuff. I had 1134, 133, good work. Unbelievable. So you've got a Democrat, all right, who's investigating all this and asking Michael

Cohen question. She's clearly clueless because she doesn't even know who the executive assistant in the Trump office is. She's clueless. And she's turning to Jeffrey Epstein for information. I can also tell you that it has been reported out. by the New York Post that she received roughly $8,100 in campaign funds from one Jeffrey Epstein. Again, getting us back to where the allegiance is here?

I mean, Donald Trump cuts him off. He's like, okay, this guy's no good. And yet you get the likes of, you know, the JP Morgan Chase guy who's like still friends with him. You got Larry Summers, poor Larry. I mean, I realize that Larry probably needs a lot of relationship advice. And actually, Jeffrey's advice wasn't all that bad. I'm going to share that with you later.

But Larry Summers, who was the Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton and the former head of the Economic Council, he's going there saying, what do I do? What do I do? You know, I really like this girl. And he's turning to Jeffrey Epstein. So it keeps coming back to all of these people that are Democrats, not Republicans. I mean, boy, oh, boy, oh, boy. So I would just say that it seems to be that Epstein was more in the Democrat web, so to speak, and was trying to. to help them take Donald Trump down. So I'm not so sure why they're trying to pin all of this,

again, back on Donald Trump, but he's like, I'm not having it. We'll release all of these things. What do I care? I think he might have along the way, first of all, maybe been somewhat sensitive to the fact that he had had a relationship with Epstein, even though he hadn't gone there, et cetera, but maybe he was just somewhat sensitive to that. I also suspect that he's somewhat sensitive to are Intel ops possibly being exposed? I mean, that's one of the theories that's been floated out there, that somehow everybody knew about this, everybody knew how bad this guy was. I mean, clearly, the Virgin Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands lady Plaskett, she knew he'd already gone to jail. And yet she's like, can you help me with my questions for the hearing? I mean,

so everybody knew he was a bad dude, and yet they're still coming back for more. So that's what you're going to find out. I suspect that Donald Trump, you know, again, being the patriot he is, doesn't really love that we're going to learn some really ugly stuff about a lot of people. That may have something to do with it. I don't know. But I don't think it has anything to do with him. The more I see all this. And again, he's saying, bring it all forward. Come one, come all, right? Here he is, as we explained last night on true social saying, I don't care because, you know, who's this is going to entrap? It's going to entrap the Democrats, not the Republican. And here he is over the weekend calling on Pam Bondi at DOJ saying, you know what, you're going to go out there, you're going to investigate Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reed Hoffman, the J.P. Morgan Chase relationship. That was with the banker that I guess wound up at Barclays and then wound up out, I guess, altogether. And many other people and institutions to determine what was going on with them. And Epstein, this, in his opinion, is another Russia, Russia, Russia,

Russia scam with all the arrows pointing to the Democrats. Record show that these men and many others spent large portions of their life with Epstein and on his island. Stay tuned. She said, okay, Mr. President, I'm on it. I'm going to do it. We're putting Jay Clayton on this. He's one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country, and I've asked him

to take the lead. As with all matters, the department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people. Well, so far, what have we learned? And the emails that were released that, you know, they were salivating over at MSNBC and just salivating over at the New York Times. And it's like, okay, all we see is Jeffrey gossiping about Donald Trump. But we also saw some stuff that honestly, guys, is really not a very good look for some of the key Dems. Poor Larry Summers.

I mean, you're just trying to have a secret relationship with a woman whom he called a mentee. you know, in the Me Too movement, it's kind of a little bit awkward, right, for that to be happening. But this is the guy who used to run Harvard. This is the guy who used to be the Treasury Secretary under Obama. This is a former head of the NSC. I might be getting my Clinton in Obama's terms. He's basically, anytime there's a Democrat president, Larry Summers is in the wings as an econ advisor. Actually, you know what I like Larry?

And Larry's been on my show a zillion times over the years at Bloomberg. I don't think he came on Fox so often, but certainly on Bloomberg. And I appreciated during the crisis of summer 2020 that Larry was actually right out there and he was spot on saying, you know what, guys, you're going to have a ton of inflation because you're printing so much money and he was right. But anyway, the poor guy, not very good with women, apparently, and went to Jeffrey Epstein for advice. So one of the moments that's come out was apparently Summers writing to Epstein saying,

I said when talking about a woman, what are you up to? And she said, I'm busy. I said awfully coy you are. And Epstein replied, you reacted well. Annoyed shows caring. No whining shows strength. And then here's another. Okay.

In one exchange, Summers lamented that the woman had grown distant. He said, I said, what are you up to? She said, I'm busy. Again, that's the coy remark. And then Epstein tells him, she's smart, making you pay for past errors. Ignore the daddy I'm going out with the motorcycle guy. Anoyed shows caring, no whining, showed strength. I mean, not bad advice, right?

For poor Larry Somers, other emails shows Summers forwarding Epstein notes from the woman and asking how he should respond. I mean, this guy's like in seventh grade, okay? I mean, you're the Treasury Secretary, and you're in friggin' seventh grade when it comes to like relationships. He said, think no response. Well, I probably would probably be appropriate.

He writes to Epstein. Epstein encouraged the silence, reply, and quote, she's already beginning to sound needy. Nice. I mean, really, 20,000 pages and this are 20,000 emails, and this is what we get, all while Donald Trump was walking away unscathed. Now it's all going to come out.

And the crazy thing is, these Democrats like Chuck Schumer, I mean, they're just falling all over themselves and humiliating themselves in the process because they seem to think that this is a big deal. And I'm like, whoa, whoa, guys, you know what? You had four years. You had four whole freaking years. And we know you were trying to do everything you possibly could to take him down. I mean, every which way to Sunday, from Fannie Wilson, Georgia, to Letitia James in New York,

along with Alvin Bragg and Jack Smith. I mean, you were at it from every single angle you could get. And then you still came up empty-handed and he still won. Wow. I mean, if you had something, I'm just saying, in the Epstein files, you don't think that would have come out? I mean, you had four years to release them, but you never wanted to? I wonder why.

I wonder why. Chuck Schumer ignoring the obvious. Maybe he doesn't hear it. Maybe he's going the way of Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi, I ask. Okay. On that note, just I guess a question that's out there, why wouldn't they have been released the last four years when President Biden was in office? Well, that's the question every American is asking. Not every American, but so many Americans are asking. What the hell is he hiding? Why doesn't he want them released? When you don't want something like that is released, when even a whole lot of Republicans are calling for the release, his own party members, people ask the question, what's he hiding?

It's got to be answered by releasing the files. Well, he's going to release the files, okay? So I think that's pretty humiliating, Chuckie, because you know what? You were the guys that were in charge for four years, and you were the ones who chose not to release the files. I mean, I'm like, if there was something there, believe me, you guys would have been all over it.

Like, you know what, on you know what? Here's Steven Smith agreeing with me. Ladies and gentlemen, keep in mind that the Epstein files were in existence and free to have been open during the Biden administration. You were there for four years. Yes. You were. You were.

How could you didn't open it as a Democratic Party then? I don't know. What am I missing? I think there's nothing there. It's a legitimate question. Maybe I don't remember the answer. Maybe my extraordinary producers should be able to help me doing the commercial break. Here's the answer, Stephen.

I'll tell you what the answer is. They don't have anything there. They're just going with the Russia, Russia, Russia thing. Like, however they can. This is the Russia 2.0. So they don't have anything, but they can just throw some innuendo out there. They can say how Jeffrey really thought that Donald Trump was a scumbach. I'm sorry, Jeffrey Epstein thinks Donald Trump is a scumbach?

Do you understand the irony in that? Okay. Yeah, he's buddy buddies with all of Clinton's friends. He's buddy buddies with the representative from the Virgin Islands who needs to go to him to ask who Trump's assistant is before she clearly doesn't have very good staff because she's clearly not very prepped to do her cross-examination of one Michael Cohen, I mean, this is unbelievable. These people, really, I mean, they just take the cake, I got to say. So this whole story is now effectively backfiring, majorly backfiring on the entire Democratic Party.

This Democrat gets caught texting Epstein during all of this. I got to say, pretty, pretty amazing stuff, just amazing. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, again, annexing, totally annexing Marjorie Taylor Green from the party. Here he is speaking on the tarmac. He's being asked about Marjorie Taylor Green, who claims somehow that she's the victim in all of this. And now she is really worried for her own personal safety. And of course, nobody should be in that position. But he's like, wait, what? She's worried about what? Oh, and he's got a new nickname for her. Brand new nickname. Let's see how this one sticks. I'm going to play it for you. Watch. Marjorie, Trader Green. I don't think her life is in danger. I don't think, frankly,

I don't think anybody cares about her. In other words, she's not that big a deal. Nobody really, really cares about Marjorie Taylor Green. I mean, I know you guys were kind of annoyed the other day because you did see that she went on to the view and she somehow was siding with Whoopi and Sunny and Joy. And they're like, oh, you should come and become a Democrat. Maybe she will.

I mean, isn't it an attention thing? I don't know. This is like not just the Epstein emails and files. That's not the only thing that she's been out. spoken on. She's actually been outspoken on a lot of other stuff. So she thought, for some reason, the Republicans should just fold when they held all the cards and the Democrats were the one one's holding up the government from reopening. It's like she's really just trying to make a name for herself that's anti-Trump. I think ultimately it probably backfires politically. But nonetheless,

Donald Trump was like, I don't get her. And I'm going over to China. She doesn't even want me to go to China. You know what's going to happen if we don't have real negotiations with China problems? Here he is. Marjorie Taylor Green is not any way. I mean, she is a very different thinking than I have. Something happened to her over the last period of a month or two where she changed, I think, politically. I think that her constituents aren't going to be happy. Already I have people calling me. They want to challenge her to a race in her district in Georgia. And, you know, that's too bad. She's lost a wonderful conservative reputation. But when she says, don't go overseas, if I didn't go overseas, we might be in a war right now with China. Gosh, I mean, that's scary stuff.

You know, one would hope not. But in other words, he's trying to have some kind of diplomatic relations. Again, if you're just joining us right now, we've been talking about these emails that Donald Trump is demanding be released. We have also just learned from the Washington Post, you guys, that Epstein was texting the woman from the Virgin Islands in real time as she was questioning Michael Cohen, which once again points to the allegiance of Epstein entirely a thousand percent in the camp of the Democrats. So, wow, you know, Tony making the point that she still loves MTG. Well, you know, we'll see. I think a lot of people are frustrated with her right now because it feels as though she's trying to divide and conquer in some way, and that won't

really be a recipe for ultimate success. So, you know, look, you got to realize at some point, right, you're playing on a team. And the entire goal of the other team is to try and break you apart, right, because you're not as strong together. And so she's kind of gone off the reservation, so to speak, and that's coming back. I think politically it will haunt her. And, and I think that Donald Trump will be fine, but it's important that conservatives also stay together on something like this. I would say that she's trying in her own way to say or make amends, perhaps. I want to share with you a clip of Marjorie Taylor Green going on to CNN last night. Again, she's going on the viewer. She's going on CNN. Pretty soon she's going to get a gig at MSNBC.

Oh, I hear they're looking for conservatives now that they get a big spinoff. There you go. You can be like the resident. conservative, you know, just like they have one on the view where you're sort of like the never-tumper, conservative, it might be a good gig for you, MTG. Anyway, here she is on CNN last night, calling out Trump. I would like to say humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics. It's very bad for our country. And it's been something I've thought about a lot, especially since Charlie Kirk was assassinated,

is that we, I'm only responsible. for myself and my own words and actions. And I am committed. And I've been working on this a lot lately to put down the knives and politics. I really just want to see people be kind to one another. And we need to figure out a new path forward that is focused on the American people because as Americans, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we have far more in common than we have differences. and we need to be able to respect each other with our disagreements. And I stand by my words today. I think America needs to come together and end all the toxic, dangerous rhetoric and divide.

And I'm leading the way with my own example, and I hope that President Trump can do the same. Okay. So she's trying to take the high road, so to speak. Do you buy that in all seriousness? I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. Given her past history and given the... sort of political nature of this particular person. I think that Donald Trump is probably, you know, rightly so, saying she's no longer part of MAGA and she really doesn't represent MAGA

because she's so out there. Democrats, meanwhile, forced to admit they were totally wrong on some of the Epstein stuff. I mean, it's all coming out, guys, between what the Washington Post is exposed and those text messages between the Virgin Islands rep and Jeffrey Epstein. during the hearings, the impeachment hearings, is they were trying to get Trump. I mean, Epstein's right there with the Democrats trying to get him. And then we get this one. Oh, new documents. They wrote, show Donald Trump spent Thanksgiving with Jeffrey Epstein in 2017,

which is like ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous. You know how we know that's ridiculous? Guess what? Oh, well, you can look at Donald Trump's public schedule. He was the president in 2017, and it was all very documented. in fact, he had a big dinner at Mar-a-Lago with Melania, Baron Ivanka, staff, guests like military families. There are all these Washington pool reports, White House pool reports, news coverage at a CNN and AP confirmed he was there all day long, arriving via Maria 1 from D.C. So Epstein, meanwhile, was in New York, possibly Palm Beach, but certainly not at Mar-Lago.

He hadn't been allowed to go to Mar-a-Lago at all, right? at all. So this doesn't really make any sense. This doesn't really ring true, putting them right back in the position of seeming as though they are onto the Russia hoax 2.0. I mean, who doesn't love a good hoax? They actually had to take this down, guys. They had to take it down because it was so totally preposterous. Alphonse, I want to get to your message here because you, Alfonza is great. Alfonza is on, he follows me on Twitter as well. Let me see if I can find it. Where is it? Where is it? Where is it? Anyway, Alphonse.

Ah, MTG is going the way of Thomas Massey, possibly. I mean, he definitely doesn't seem to have much use for either one of them right now. But again, the Democrats, they get caught last week because they put this tweet out saying that Donald Trump spent Thanksgiving with Jeffrey Epstein. But you see how absurd it is, knowing that Donald Trump was the president then, and there was no way that he was spending Thanksgiving. It was just this sort of smack talk where Epstein was joking around. They're like, hey, what are you doing for Thanksgiving? He's like, jump, yeah. And the Democrats fall for it, or they're hoping that you will fall for it.

Well, they were forced to retract that pretty darn quickly because I think the American public has pretty much lost faith in all of them, I mean, in all of them. And it's getting worse every single day. Now, as we discussed, Donald Trump wasn't implicated in any of this, but you wouldn't think that when you read the New York Times or when you turn into MSNN, NBC. But I think in light of some of the recent lawsuits, and don't forget, there have been a few, whether you're talking about, it's estimated that it was somewhere around 20, 30, could even be higher that CBS had to pay, including in advertising, to make amends with one Donald Trump

over that 60 Minutes at it of Kamala Harris. And then there's, oh, the Georgia Poo's, you know, settlement at ABC this week, because he basically defamed the president over and over. again despite being told by multiple people, including his producers, not to do it. So ABC had to make a settlement and NBC meanwhile is being investigated. There's all this stuff going on. CNN realizes, ooh, we better be careful. We better be careful because you see again, he, Donald Trump, hasn't been implicated in any of this. And if we go back to the days of 2016 with what we had to hear from Brennan and the rest of them

and some of the quote unquote anchors, like the official anchors, not commentators, but anchors, on the likes of MSNBC or CNN, we heard a whole bunch of garbage. A lot of garbage, tons of garbage. And so maybe this time around, as they realize the BBC is going to get sued for $5 billion. I get that story coming up too. They're playing it careful. Dean that mentioned the president. And we do want to be clear, the president, Trump, did not receive or send any of the messages,

which largely predated his time as president. He's not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with Epstein or Max. The White House... Do you hear that? She's like falling all over herself to make sure we want to make it very, very clear. He has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Okay, but we're doing the story anyway. Okay, we love doing this story because we're going to just ride this as far and hard as we can.

MSNBC, too, caught in the same situation trying to cover its tracks in real time. And supporting what Donald Trump is doing. You're talking about the other predators out there. in addition to Trump. I mean, we not, I'm not saying he is. We don't know all the details about that. I just mean it. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

The other predators there, in addition to Trump. I heard what you heard, right? Let's play it again, Sam. I mean, we not come to that on, and I'm not saying he is, we don't, in addition to Trump. Absolutely. Predators in addition to Trump. I mean, we not come to not, and I'm not saying he is. We don't know all the details about that.

I just mean, in addition to what we've learned about Epstein and others, there's other predators out there. There are. And we have to remember that Alice Acosta, when he read. Okay, so she was scared. She was really scared. She was like, my gosh, my gosh. You know, I got to be careful because it turns out that he actually can sue for defamation. And he has, and he will.

And he's made it very clear even to the BBC that he'll go after them as hard as he can. You know, we've been through this already. He's not associated with this in any way. So why would you keep pushing this, guys? Why would you do that? Especially knowing that, hey, the FCC, they could get clever. They could actually look at some sanctions on you guys. In fact, I think the FCC is looking at this right now as they conduct their investigation

so much so that you have some liberal group terrified, terrified saying we need to revise this law because you see there's this little thing called, and I think it's courtesy of a 1949 act called the FCC News Distortion Policy, which enables the FCC to sanction broadcast networks even possibly get rid of them altogether if they distort the news. And there's a lot of distortion. Let's face it going on right now. You can do that in cable. Okay, you can do that. So actually, Jen Saki, well, she has to worry about possibly defaming somebody and one should always be worried about that, right? She's worried about that, but she doesn't actually have to worry about the FCC shutting her network down altogether or sanctioning the network. But NBC does. ABC does. ABC does.

does, STBS does, and that's because these are broadcast networks that I'm talking about. And so, you know, while it's not something that's clearly really done very often, the FCC reserves the right to go after some of these networks for, quote, news distortion in over-the-air broadcast situations, both in local TV and in radio stations. They've had that ability for over 50 years, again since 1949 cable networks, newspapers, newsletters, whether online or print, they are excused from this. Social media platforms, excused from this online-only streaming outlets. We're excused from it over here on the Trish Regan show. But, you know, again, one should always strive to be accurate. You actually have to

on the broadcast networks, which is why when Whoopi Goldberg decided a week and a half ago that she was going to say, the only reason Donald Trump pardoned this guy was because he was using the auto pardon himself, her boss is jumped on her. You know the moment. And the other insane thing is that when people are going to go to their meetings with the judge, the meetings that are supposed to go to, when they're listening to it, what the hell, what? I love when Sonny passes notes. We don't know if Penn used. if Trump used an auto pen to part.

It was a joke. We don't know if Trump used an auto pen. Oh, come on. But we do know that he didn't know who that crypto guy was. Well, I'm sorry. You know, the hardest thing about this job now is no one understands nuance. You know when you hear a joke when somebody's fooling around, when they're not saying something specific,

especially on this show. I'm very specific when I'm pointing stuff out. When I'm making jokes, you know when I'm making jokes. This is ridiculous. Okay. Well, I think you've made a few too many jokes. This is the problem. And most of those, quote unquote, jokes aren't really jokes, right? When you somehow sit there and you're getting an argument with some of your colleagues suggesting that, not suggesting, flat out saying that it would be better to be a black, gay woman in Iran today, to be a black gay woman in America today. I mean, whoa, whoopee, you've kind of lost us, okay? That wasn't a joke. You were serious about that. And we can go through all the times. We won't because I don't want to be here all day, but we've played a lot of them on the show where she's just

flat out wrong. And so it's catching up with her. And you've got now a situation where they're recognizing that the FCC may come in, may sanction them. Don't forget, that show is on ABC, the broadcast division, on top of which it is run by the FCC. the news division. Okay, Barbara Walters started it back in the day. She was part of the ABC News Division. So it is run by the news department. And when you have that many things that are so opinionated that you don't always treat as opinion, but often as fact, you run into problems. And you may very well run into the FCC's news distortion issue, 1949, which is why again, you see everybody's scrambling in real time to cover their tracks like the CNN anchor.

that mentioned the president. And we do want to be clear, the president, Trump, did not receive or send any of the messages, which largely predated his time as president. He's not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing in connection with him. He wasn't sending the messages, but you know who's sending the messages? Oh, oh yeah, the text, that lady who's a Democrat,

Representative Plaskett. Let's see if we have a picture of her, guys. You already saw what she was saying there in the video. But New York Post covering this as the Washington Post actually was the first to release it. And by the way, I should point out, you know what? The White House jumped on it right away. Okay, so here she is. Here she is.

We're talking about one Ms. Plaskett, as pictured here in the New York Post. They're talking about the texts here, the texts that have been revealed showing that she was in contact with Epstein. and she was seeking his guidance. So I don't quite know what to say other than I think that the Epstein saga points to Dems amid new text reveal. Why don't we put that on the screen, right? The idea that she's somehow going to Epstein for guidance on what to ask Michael Cohen, I think tells you a lot.

So that's again being reported out both by the Washington Post and the New York Times. This was on February 27, 2019, the House Oversight Committee, that hearing where they were asking Michael Cohen about Trump's alleged payments to, you know, the Daniels woman, to silence stories allegedly before the 2016 election. And so he's denied all those allegations. She was asking these questions. And so she wanted to figure out who Ronograph was, who again, like anybody who had covered news would have known.

Rona was the top scheduler. The documents, I should point out, originally, with those 20,000 documents that were made public, they originally redacted representative Plaskett's name, but the newspaper analyzed the messages, and they compared them to the hearing footage to report that Plaskett was indeed the one texting Epstein. So as we went through earlier when you saw that, she was out there texting him and they went back and they looked at who was asking those questions as they were coming in. And it was none other than this woman from the Virgin Islands. You know, again, I just want to point out that we all knew at the time he was bad news. Very, very bad news because he had been convicted on various things out of Florida. And, you know, it should have been obvious that you really wouldn't be making. maintaining a relationship with this guy or looking to him for anything, unless perhaps, you know, he's, he's part of the deep state up, right, that's trying to take Donald Trump down.

During the hearing, Congresswoman Plaskett received text from staff constituents. This is her statement, okay, and the public at large offering advice, support, and in some cases, partisan vitriol, including from Epstein. Originally, she didn't want to say squat. She was asked about it, like on Friday by the paper, when they were first going to release this information, she didn't want to say anything. Well, today she had to say something. Quote, as a former prosecutor, she welcomes information that helps get her at the truth and took on the GOP that was trying to bury the truth.

The Congresswoman has previously made clear her long record combating sexual assault and human trafficking, her disgust over Epstein's defiant behavior and deviant behavior and her support for his victims, the Virgin Islands delegate. yet she was the politician in his neck of the woods in 2019 vowed to part ways with $8,100 in campaign donations from him after saying that originally she planned to keep the cash. Okay, so this is his buddy for some reason. And his buddy, Plaskett, is the one who asked the questions that he's giving her. And by the way, they weren't even great questions, okay?

Because like I said, most people knew. that Rone Graf was his assistant. I'm sure she probably had a cameo in The Apprentice. I mean, any reporter who had ever covered New York knew this, for goodness sakes. So that's that. Meanwhile, you know, you've got a very biased media out there. We've talked about this. We talk about this regularly.

And I'm not just talking about ABC. You've got a biased media worldwide. I mean, consider what happened at the BBC. Well, Donald Trump is taking this very seriously. And now he's just up the ante. He said, hey, guess what, BBC? You thought you had it easy, right? At a billion dollars.

I'm up on it to five billion. So he is now suing the BBC for $5 billion. And they just can't get their act together. For seven days, they wouldn't say anything. And then ultimately, they had the two top honchos. They're resigning, apparently voluntarily, but I sort of doubt that in disgrace. Interestingly, the woman who was the CEO of the BBC was actually the former head of NBC Universal. Small world, right? What can we say? But this is the tape in question. You see, there's a show on the BBC,

I think called Panorama, and they went right before this election, right before this most recent election, and they decided to edit some tape from J6, and they put like an hour in between the two parts that they wanted to show people. So like at one point he's like, okay, we're going to go March to the Capitol. We're going to commend our wonderful senators. etc. But they edited it so that it would say something entirely different. Watch. We're going to walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell. We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.

Okay, so that's like super different, right? Like the reality is when you say we're going to walk down and we're going to fight, that's incredibly different than we're going to walk down and we're going to cheer on. And apparently nobody even noticed it. Nobody noticed it until someone blew the lid on it, a whistleblower and told a rival publication, the telegraph, what had happened. So now he's saying, okay, you know what? I'm up in the ante. It's going to be $5 billion. So now they're finally coming out and responding. And they're like, no, we're going to fight it. We are determined to fight this defamation lawsuit. They write, there is a lot being written.

There's a lot being speculated upon about the possibility of legal action, including potential costs or settlements. In all of this, we are, of course, acutely aware of the privilege of our funding and the need to protect our license fee payers. This is the BBC chair writing in a staff note, which was obtained by the Hill moments earlier. They go on to say, I want to be very clear with you, our position is not changed.

no basis for a defamation case, and we are determined to fight this. I'm sorry, like, how is there no basis for a defamation case? The president has attacked the BBC over the documentary saying the outlet changed the words coming out of my mouth, end quote. Well, yeah. And by the way, if there's literally no basis for a defamation case, if this was just all fine and dandy by you guys, then why, oh, why would Deborah Turneris suddenly resign? Right?

She was out of there. Fast. I think you guys pushed her. Here she is as she was confronted with the news just last week. I would like to say it has been the privilege of my career to serve as the CEO of BBC News and to work with our brilliant team of journalists. I step down over the weekend because the buck stops with me. But I'd like to make one thing very clear.

BBC News is not institutionally biased. That's why is the world's most trusted news provider. Why did you fail to deal with the mistakes that were made? And see my teams. Thank you so much. Do you think that the journalists are corrupting? Thank you. President Trump says.

Of course our journalists aren't corrupt. Our journalists are hardworking people who strive for impartiality. And I will stand by their journalism. Is there institutional bias? There is no institutional bias. Mistakes are made, but there's no institutional bias. But why weren't the mistakes dealt with on Trump, on anti-Semitism, on women's rights? I'm sure that story will emerge, but for now I'm going to go in a CRT.

Do you think the board actually against you? This way, never. Thank you. Okay, okay, okay. Well, again, if there was absolutely nothing wrong, done, I would just say, why did everybody resign? So quickly, right? They were out in a second. now he's up in the ante. Five billion dollars. You guys are on notice. You are on notice. Meanwhile,

as we discussed MTG in exile as far as Donald Trump is concerned. So now you're going to ask the question, I'm warning, what does it mean for Tucker Carlson? Because did you notice how closely they were like Tucker and MTV really, really close? And then they become like super kind of anti-Israel and this, that, and the other. And it almost seems like they're trying to kind of wall off another section of the party, maybe because they both have bigger political aspirations. I have no idea. I'm just saying. It's interesting to watch. Now, on the one hand, you absolutely have to be true to yourself, right? Don't get me wrong. And if this is what he believes or she believes, then, hey, go for it. But I just suspect there's a little something more. So, you may be aware that

Donald, forgive me, that Tucker Carlson didn't interview with somebody who's just not even worth my breath. Like, I don't even need to say his name, but I didn't really know who he was until rather recently. And he's just a bad dude. And Tucker had him on the show. And he's got a lot of really terrible views on the world and on history. And he denies all kinds of stuff. And so people got upset. They're like, why are you giving a platform to this guy? And I haven't even covered this at all because I don't feel like either one of them are really worthy of it. But because Donald Trump is now weighing in on this and he's kind of given, given Tucker a pass here, I thought this was interesting. And I thought we should talk about it. Okay. So again, you know,

Tucker can have anyone on he wants, right? It's a free country. And he doesn't work for a broadcast network. And if he chooses to elevate the views of a crazy person, you know, it's his business. I was all for him, by the way, interviewing Putin because I wanted to get more information. And, you know, If you continue that, I'm not going to justify this in any way because I actually, I personally would never have a guy like this on my show ever. And I think, you know, maybe Tucker should think about sometimes he's got a pretty big platform and you want to be somewhat cautious. I'll tell you what Bob Schiefer once told me many years ago. And he was like the only decent journalist in my estimation at CBS at one time because, well, he was more conservative than the rest of him and from Texas.

And he said, always be careful because you can become your stories, right? You take on these. identities. And so it's something that has always stayed with me and the reason why I don't cover some of these more steedy things because it's just not worth it. But I thought what Donald Trump said about Tucker, the fact that he's not willing to throw him out like he did Marjorie Taylor Green is kind of interesting. So let's watch and discuss. Here we go. Marjorie Trader Green. Frankly, I don't think anybody cares about her. That's his view on Marjorie, okay? So now he's asked about Tucker and this interview he did and Watch what he says.

Mr. President, Tucker Carlson recently had a friendly interview with anti-Semite Nick Fuentes. Tucker Carlson. He doesn't. He doesn't know who. He doesn't play in the Republican Party, the conservative. Well, I found him to be good. He said good things about me over there. By the way, this is being misinterpreted because some people on Twitter and in the mainstream

media are trying to say that the guest, he found to be good. And that's not what he's saying. He's saying, I found Tucker Carlson to be good, that we've had good. that we've had good interviews in the past. So he's really giving Tucker a pass on this one. Well, I found him to be good. He said good things about me over the years. I think he's good.

We've had some good interviews. I did an interview with him. We were at 300 million hits. You know that. Look, I can't tell him. Well, you let me finish my family. You are the worst. You're with Bloomberg, right?

You are the worst. I don't know why they even have you. We've had some great interviews with Tucker Carlson, but you can't tell him who to interview. I mean, if he wants to interview Nick Fuentes, I don't know much about him, but if he wants to do it, get the word out. Let them, you know, people have to decide.

Ultimately, people have to decide. So it's interesting, right? He's sort of saying, look, you do you, I do me. It's a very sort of libertarian approach to it. He's not going to judge Tucker on Tucker's bona fide. as a journalist, et cetera. He's like, who cares? Right? Like, who cares? Maybe it exposes some nut job for being a nut job and so be it. But honestly, who cares? Which is why I never reported it on the first place because who cares? Why give these people any more oxygen? But now that the

president's weighing in on it, the concern being, okay, is he going to shove Tucker off into the corner like he did MTG? I don't think so, at least not yet. I guess Tucker's going to have to come out really strong, really strongly against him. You know, weren't there all those Dominion tweets and stuff from way back when? No, no, no, not tweets. They were like exchanged messages. I don't think Tucker was his biggest fan. So I'm wondering if that Tucker is going to resurface.

And if that Tucker resurfaces, then you may see the president start to punch a little bit harder. Don't forget, MTG came out swinging against him. and when you swing, he swings back. So right now, Tucker gets to live another day. You know what's great news? You know what's great news. They are focused on the economy. Donald Trump talking about $2,000 rebate checks.

This is a wonderful graphic, actually, from my former employer. I thought this was pretty good. So we'll give them credit for it. Fox, they put his two social posts out with a nice little background. If you're listening to this on Spotify, thank you for that. left over from the $2,000 payments made to low and middle income people in the U.S. USA citizens from the massive tariff income pouring into our country from foreign countries will be substantial, will be used to substantially pay down national debt.

Thank you for your attention to this manner. So what he's saying is they're going to move forward with the $2,000 tariff rebates and anything left over would then go down to pay down our national debt. Well, the only question is, can he do that? I mean, like, it's a fair, you know, fair question. Can you actually hand out these $2,000 checks? The Treasury Secretary had something to say about that while appearing on my friend Maria Bardo Romo show.

We'll get to that in a second. But first, let's listen to Donald Trump's idea. He's put it out there on social media. He spoke with OAN about it a few months ago. Listen. We also might make. distribution to the people, almost like a dividend to the people of America. How much are you thinking for that, sir?

Well, we're thinking maybe $1,000 to $2,000. Be great. Inflation is completely stable. It's around target rate, and the country is ultimately taking in unprecedented amounts of tariff revenue, more than $200 billion at this point in time, sir. What do you believe this extra source of revenue can be put towards, and how big of a game changer is it for your administration? Ultimately, because we're talking about just kicking in, they're just starting to kick in,

but ultimately your tariffs are going to be over a trillion dollars a year, in my opinion. We're going to do something. We're looking at something. So this is why, you know, if you get a trillion dollars coming in, it gives you more flexibility. You don't have as much flexibility with the $200 million, but he's really pushing this hard. Now, is that in part because he runs the risk that the Supreme Court is going to say, hey, no way, Jose, no pun intended, you can't do this? I suspect they're going to try and thread this needle very carefully because if they do say no way, Jose,

then that actually means the U.S. is going to be on the hook for having to possibly return all of this money. And you run the risk of lawsuits from all these other countries saying, hey, we never should have to pay this in the beginning to begin with. And we want this back with interest, plus, you know, all the hardship we had to go through for giving you this money. So that would not be a great scenario. The other thing he said is that he really wants to do this. He really wants to give the money back to the people. So if the Supreme Court says no go on these tariffs, then it actually, you've got an entire public that's invested,

the political capital that they just put in saying, hey, but I want my refund check. I want my rebate check. I want my tariff check. Meanwhile, there is the question of legality, right? As Besson articulated with Maria, just, I guess this would have been this morning. Let's take a listen.

Secretary, is he going to be sending these direct payments to Americans of $2,000 or more? We will see we need legislation for that. And again, President Trump is all about solutions, Maria. And everything is on the table. But I will tell you that, again, thanks to him keeping his campaign promises to working Americans with the working tax and tips. So security overtime, we are going to see a big bump in the first quarter with the

refunds and the real incomes. President Trump has also talked about sending $2,000 refunds to, and that would be for working families will have an income limit. Those could go out. And then, Maria, the other thing that is going to happen in July, families are going to be able to apply for any child born from January 1st, 2026 for the next three years is going to get a Trump account. that's $1,000 for each newborn that's going to go in the stock market, and that's going to be invested for the next 18 years. So President Trump is committed to getting the money back to families. By the way, that's actually a really good idea, I just have to say.

She's saying it's a really good idea, too. She likes it. So every baby born would get a thousand bucks put into the stock market, and I guess it would be available to them after 18 years. I mean, that's kind of amazing, amazing. like he's really thinking outside the box. You know what they say, invest for the long haul, right? And when you're a little kid, you know, if you can have something invested for you, that's amazing because time is on your side. I mean, what if you said, hey, we're going to invest $1,000 for every new baby

and you don't even get it until you're 65. Maybe you wouldn't need, you know, so much focus and pressure on social security because you'd be able to do this in a probably a way more productive way, because, you know, on average, what are you yielding? I think if you look back over the last 20 years or so, the S&P's giving you about 10% when it's all, you know, set and done. So that could be a lot of money in a relatively short amount of time. If you're interested in investing, I do encourage you to go over and look at my investing newsletter at 76research.com. You can use code where dollar deal, LLAR, to get it for just a dollar a month for the first two months and then it jumps to $9.95 thereafter. But we've got a lot of good research on there that I encourage you to look at.

And I do think that this is very interesting. They are looking out. outside the box for new solutions to serious economic problems, including, for example, the SNAP situation. Apparently, there's all kinds of fraud going on. I mean, during this whole shutdown, you had a lot of people taken to Twitter saying, how can you ever allow it to get to this? Hell yeah, listen to this guy.

I'm just going to say, and I don't care who get mad. Shouldn't know grown, able-bodied people be freaking out by no food stamps. If you got two legs, two arms, you can get up and talk on the phone, you can get up and take your behind. I'm talking to able-bodied people. You heard them. Yeah, I mean, so able-bodied people, you know, but then, you know, you get this able-bodied lady

caught stealing and justifying it. There's something wrong with the world. Hi, you guys, I'm out of the store. They wanted $7 for this. Mind you, I don't have food stamps anymore. They cut me off. So I only had $22 left in food stamps. So this is what I stole.

Okay? They wanted nine. $9 for this. I said, oh, I don't got $9. Then they wanted, then they wanted, $2 for this. They wanted, sorry, it's all fucked up was been in my purse, $7 for this. I'm making some stuff salmon today. These are needed. I'm not paying $7 for that. Okay? Let me show you the most important thing to me. Short ribs. Take off the label so that you don't beep. Get your fucking meat. How many do you think that I got? some handy advice. Well, uh, let's just say that Brooke Rollins has been making it very clear. They have no intention of allowing people to get SNAP benefits if they don't legitimately need them. And so there's going to be work requirements, et cetera. They have just announced, guess what? You got to re-enroll. You got to re-enroll in SNAP. So what do you, 46 million people now have to apply again. I want to go to the story. They had it on Fox and Friends.

this morning. Take a peek. You have to reapply. Now, this happened, of course, when the government shut down and there was, you know, the SNAP benefits weren't in, not getting out to the people. For 42 million Americans? For 42 million. Well, we thought America. People is probably the better. Yep. People. And so Brooke Rollins, we had her on and we had a great conversation with her where she said, hey, listen, this whole SNAP benefits conversation around the shutdown has sort of pulled the curtain back. And people,

are seeing how many people are on snap that aren't actually citizens, and they're going to have to reapply. What do you make of this? I think it's very popular, especially if you go online and look at what people think. I think it's a popular initiative to say these benefits are for Americans. Is she going to be able to accomplish this? Is she going to have some legal challenges to it? What are your thoughts? I'm sure. You know, everything that comes from the Trump administration, I just track it and see how long it takes for it to land at the Supreme Court. So there are going to be legal challenges. But the thing is most of these programs with SNAP are administered by the states. And a lot of the states do have verification programs where people have to update every

three to six months or, you know, really established that they got some kind of need. But maybe she's proposing something at the federal level that would then have a federal component for, you know, applying and proving that you actually need this. Because I think all of us are compassionate Americans. Like we want our fellow Americans to get help when they need it. And we've all known people, if not our own families that have walked through these. periods of needing this kind of help. But Secretary Rollins also said that she found there were 186,000 checks or snap benefits going out to people who were dead. So if that's accurate, that's just kind of the tip of the iceberg. And there are other problems with the program, too. So I think a lot of Americans

would say, gosh, I didn't realize going back to what Rollins has said in an interview with Laura Ingram, she was making the point that they have discovered all kinds of fraud. And really, that's just not acceptable. Now is it? Whether it's, you know, 100. of thousands of people getting benefits that are no longer with us or what she's uncovered allegedly here. Let's listen. And 20 plus others did not and we're suing. We're in a litigation right now. But of the 29 that complied, what we have found is staggering. Half a million people getting benefits two times under the same name. 5,000 dead people. 80% of the able-bodied Americans, meaning they can work. They don't have small children at home. They're

not taking care of an elderly parent, they can work and they choose not to work, of course, because they're getting significant benefits from the taxpayer. So this light, Laura, that has now been shined on what is perhaps one of the most corrupt, dysfunctional programs in American history that we are working now. Very big announcements coming next week on this. We are cracking down. We now have a plan to fix it. And we're really, really excited about doing that for the American people. So this has been going on for many years. I mean, I think I covered this on the radio. Yeah, it's been going on for a lot of years. I mean, you can go back to sort of the Gingrich stage, right? And Clinton, when they were first addressing this and they were trying to get rid of all these, you know, welfare moms that were, you know, welfare queens effectively.

And they wanted to, and Clinton actually did this really well. They really clamp down on all of that that was going on. So this may be the next wave of it, guys, and it's likely to come from one Donald Trump. So this is a big deal. And as you heard the reporter say, likely will face challenges by way of the courts. I can see Letitia James is getting ready, chomping at the bit, all set and ready to attack this and say you can't take away these benefits. But simultaneously, you really shouldn't be getting the benefits now illegally.

Should you? I don't think so. No, quick shout out for our friends over at Balance in Nature, Balance of Nature, great supplement as we talk about food and all this stuff. This stuff is good because if you turn over the back of the bottle, you're going to see that you recognize everything in there. Imagine that, a supplement where you actually know all the ingredients. And they've got, let's see, 31. Yeah, 31 fruits and veggies in the fruits and veggies supplement. They've got all kinds of supplements. I encourage you to go over to their website, balance in nature.com, go check them out. my code, Trish, you can get 35% off, 35% off with code word T-R-I-S-H. You also get a free fiber and spice.

This is for brand-new customers. So if you've never had balance of nature before, go over and use this for new customers of balance in nature, sign up with code word Trish, 35% off. You get the free fiber and spice. You get a money-back guarantee and you get free shipping. So it's important, right, to prioritize yourself, to prioritize your health and to get all those nutrients that you get in things like fruits and veggies of which you'd get 31 a day if you take this supplement. So I do encourage you guys to check it out there. Balance of Nature.com. All right, all right. We're looking at a real genuine effort to increase affordability in the United States of America. So Donald Trump has been aggressively working to bring down inflation,

but that's not enough. It's not enough because, heck, Biden drove it all the way up over 9%. I mean, we were looking at almost double digits in consumer price inflation when Biden came to office. So now, you know, even when you're back and you're like, okay, well, this is good. We're like at two and a half percent or something. The problem is you're all the way up there. So he's like, how do we encourage affordability? One of the ways, of course, is the $2,000 checks that you've heard him talk about, that you've seen him tweet about. And that you have heard, as we heard earlier from Besson, the Treasury Secretary,

speak about. But this is just part of a very big plan. They want to do a lot. They want to bring down interest rates. They want to make it easier for people to buy homes, for people to invest, and for people to have a little extra money to invest. Watch. The White House wants to pivot its messaging to the economy and what it can do to reassure Americans, things aren't as bleak as many people believe. As Politico points out today, the president and his team want to put a difficult start to November behind them with a blizzard a policy and PR announcements designed to help Americans with the cost of living. So what are those announcements going to be?

More deals with the pharmaceutical companies to bring down drug prices, efforts to address those higher mortgage rates, try to change the housing market, reducing tariffs, as you guys mentioned, a number of products, as well as a possible $2,000 rebate check for some taxpayers. Sure, is he going to be sending these direct payments to Americans of $2,000 or more? We will see we need legislation for the, that. And again, President Trump is all about solutions, Maria, and everything is on the table. Americans also struggling to afford health care. Congress knows it. Democrats demanding the

government extends subsidies, which lowers Obamacare premiums. The White House thinks it has a better idea. It wants to use money to help boost Americans who rely on health savings accounts, and some lawmakers think there is a real chance for compromise. This should be a bill that is not partisan, but it should be a bill to extend those premium tax credits because, as everybody has talked about, there is real urgency to get this done. One of the big questions, Bill, has been, what about the state of the economy? Is it strong? Is it weak? We should get a better idea later this week. We're going to get the jobs numbers. But for the month of September, they were due out in early October, but because of the shutdown, that never happened. So you have to stay tuned to Thursday to find out how September's job. Yeah, so we'll see how those jobs numbers look. I mean, you know, look, we're kind of glass-half-full over at 76 research, which I encourage you to visit. I would just say that if the jobs numbers don't look good and some of the early private reports suggested they may not be

as promising as you want, then that would actually give the Fed more room to cut rates, which is what Donald Trump has been pushing and pushing and pushing. Unfortunately, the Fed's always late. That's their biggest problem. They're always so freaking late. or they're, you know, they're so late and then they don't do enough. And then they do too much, right? So you think about 2020, great example. I mean, they kind of were twiddling their thumbs and twiddling their thumbs and then they finally moved and then they couldn't stop moving.

And then we were like all the way into a total recovery and the Fed's still printing. I mean, this is the, you get academics who don't know their, you know what from their elbow. That's a New Hampshire expression, I think. And I'm telling you that you run into these crises, these economic problems. that are almost self-inflicted. Here's JD Vance saying, we got to focus on housing people. This is what young people need.

I know that there are a lot of people out there, Sean, who are saying things are expensive. And we have to remember they're expensive because we inherited this terrible inflation crisis from the Biden administration. You've already seen signs that things are getting better. The price of eggs has gone way down. The price of energy has gone way down.

The price of gasoline has gone way down. And as we know, when the price of energy goes down, that starts to filter out into the entire economy, but that also takes a little bit of time. There's another component of this, Sean, which to me is maybe the most important because I care so much about our young people being able to afford a good life. A lot of young people are saying housing is way too expensive. Why is that? Because we flooded the country with 30 million illegal immigrants who were taking houses that ought by right go to American citizens. and at the same time, we weren't building enough new houses to begin with even for the population that we had. So what we're doing is trying to make it easier to build houses, trying to make it easier to build factories and things like that so that people have good jobs.

We're also getting all of those illegal aliens out of our country, and you're already seeing it start to pay some dividends. Okay. So affordability, affordability, affordability. When it comes to housing, when it comes to cars, when it comes to food, when it comes to gas price, is this is the focus right now. And I should add when it comes to health care. And this is important because, you know, you don't want those health care costs going up. In fact, I want to just read a quick message from stop healthcare hikes.com portions of the show, the Trish Rican show, are brought to you by our friends over to Americans for a balanced budget. And their big fear

right now is if Donald Trump gets voted, or I should say the GOP gets voted out to come midterms, then guess what, you know, you're going to be up a Greek without a battle because the Democrats are just going to stop. I mean, clearly they're going to want to impeach him again, right? Because that's what they do. And before you know it, he'll be impeached for who knows what, who knows what? They have like an impeachment idas over there. But anyway, they are working every day that they can to block Donald Trump's agenda. And so you can only anticipate that they're going to embrace Mamdami, which means they want to raise taxes, they want to got the border security efforts, they want to push their every left-wing policy imaginable. If you still have Chuck, Chuckie boy, and Hakeem Jeffries there,

you know they're not going to rest until they've reversed everything. That is going to be their mandate. So to stop them, I'll tell you, Republicans really need to coalesce together, right? We need to be on one page. It's part of what I was saying earlier with, you know, MTV and Donald Trump's concerns, shall we say, about her, but she's been annexed temporarily. And it's why I should say that Americans for a balanced budget is really calling on Congress right now to collectively come together. You saw Jean Chaheen saying we need to work aggressively to keep some of these tax cuts in there. Well, there's a massive health care tax height that's set to hammer millions of hardworking Americans with higher costs. And so what's

needed is Congress is going to have to extend critical health care tax credits that keep premiums basically affordable, right? For working families who buy their own coverage with open enrollment underway, you run this risk that if they get a hold of it, right? Many people are going to see their premiums double, right? And that's going to be a big, big, big, big problem. So there's still time to act. You should go over and check this out at stop health care cost, hikes.com. Stop health care.

No, it's just stop health costs. Stop health costs. I'm adding an extra word. Hikes.com. It's important because right now, you know, I don't care what side of the aisle you're on. Gene Chaheen from New Hampshire saying we don't need health care costs going up, right? we don't need them going up. So do whatever you can to join this movement with me here. Americans for a balanced budget wants to make sure that your health care costs are in line.

Let's not let them go crazy. And yes, let's make sure that we have some affordability, maybe lower mortgage rates. Federal Reserve, are you listening? Are you paying attention? Would help with that. But again, I think the big story and one that we're going to continue focusing on all week is that as all of these emails come forward, what we're going to most likely find, and again, you know, I'm willing to be surprised, but we're most likely going to find that the Democrats were in way tighter with Epstein than they were, than he was, I should say, with Donald Trump. I mean, to the point where, as we began the show, and I told you about Representative Plaskett and Representative Plaskett getting texts from Epstein, as she's questioning

Michael Cohen, I think that sort of tips the hands in terms of what the bias was and what we saw. So that's a story that's going to continue developing here throughout the week as we get more and more information. And I encourage you to subscribe to the channel to hit the bell with all the alerts. So you know exactly when I'm live. I'm going to be back with you with much more on all of this. Thank you to all of you for helping make this channel such a success here on the Trish Regan show.

I will see you tomorrow.