The Trish Regan Show - BREAKING: Jack Smith Hauled IN! Subpoena Hits Over Dem J6 Spying Scandal!

Episode Date: December 4, 2025

Jack Smith being SUBPOENAED in the Arctic Frost probe — and hauled in for questioning. The walls are closing in… and Washington is panicking.Meanwhile: NBC, CNN, even CBS are on edge as a MAJOR media shake-up looms. Cable news knows the end is here — so what happens to all that so-called “talent” when the money dries up?PLUS:Scott Bessent absolutely obliterates a NYT/CNBC reporter to his face — and yes, we’ve got the tape.And the Deep State is now moving to unseat Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon. One Democrat senator is even floating something dangerously close to… a coup. You won’t believe what Mark Warner just told the media.I’ll also take you back to 1989 — when Democrats said something VERY different about the border.Ilhan Omar responds to Trump’s brutal takedown…AND — from $2,000 stimulus checks to “$1,000 Trump Babies” — get ready! Join me LIVE on The Trish Regan Show! Subscribe for daily live shows 💼 Support independent journalism — become a Team Member:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/joinGET TRISH’S NEWSLETTER https://76research.com with code DOLLAR. #news #politics #trish #breakingnews #trishreganshow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And we are live. It's good to have you here, everyone. Don't forget to subscribe, share, like, all the good stuff. We've got a lot going on. The studio has heat again, right? So I can't complain. That's pretty good. There's a lot of, a lot of heat. A lot of heat. A lot of heat in Washington, not just here, okay? And in the media business, shall we say. So we have a lot to talk about today. We've got the Comcast deal looking like it might possibly happen. So Comcast is upping its bid for Warner Brothers Discovery. This is the only. of CNN. What is that going to mean for talent? Probably a lot of them are going to be out should this deal go through. I'll tell you, there's other players there, Netflix is there, and you also have

Ellison's CBS, Paramount, in the mix as well. So whatever the outcome is, all I can say is this. Some heads are going to roll. Meanwhile, talking about heads rolling Jack Smith. Jack Smith just got subpoenaed. He's getting subpoenaed. He's going to have to go testify. What do you know, unless he decides to take the fifth or something clever like that? This is all about the alleged spying that went down on the MAGA movement on members of Congress, sitting senators. It's pretty wild. He got subpoena.

We're going to talk all about that. Meanwhile, the deep state still trying to take out Pete Hexeth. It's like they're like circling like sharks in the water. I mean, I got to tell you, this is getting strange. Okay? This is getting strange to the point where now one of them, a Democrat senator from Virginia is calling for a freaking go. I mean, I don't know how else to interpret. what the heck he just said on CNN.

We're going to discuss that. I'm going to play the sound, all as Latisha gets called out by her own state because apparently she's like harboring 7,000 criminals. I've got some reporting to tell you about. She apparently might have been pulling a Tim Waltz move because there was some money laundering going on and it was right under her nose.

Apparently her team, according to Gateway Panah, had been even informed about it and they did nothing. All of that news here today on the Trish Rican show. Welcome. Oh my goodness. Comcast. Comcast, NBC, they may be looking to do a really big deal here.

And if this happens, I'm kind of wondering what it means for some of the key talent. I mean, the key talent that, by the way, is already kind of facing, well, the end of the mile, right? Because look what's happening with the likes of Rachel Maddow and Scarborough and all them over at MSNBC. They're getting sent out to pasture effectively in that spin-off. that's happening, Versaunt, because you see, nobody wants them. Like, kid you not? Nobody wants them. They don't want them in part because of the toxicity associated with some of what they talk about, but also because of the reality that that business just doesn't exist anymore, okay? Who wants to be in the cable business? And it was certainly not me. Believe me. And when I tell you,

I've had a lot of opportunities to go back and do other shows or you name your time, whatever you want to do. And I'm like, you know, I love you guys, but sorry. I'm having way too much fun over here. Way too much fun. And this is the future. And I only wish I had realized it ages ago. What do you know? By the way, we're up to what, 1.14 million subs. So make sure you subscribe, share, like, all that good stuff. So you get some talent that may be forced to depart as these deals come to fruition. I mean, first of all, Bloomberg's reporting here that Comcast is making this bid for the NBC universal unit of Comcast to buy Warner Brothers. But here's where it gets kind of interesting.

They actually really don't want the talent over at NBC or MSNBC. So they would continue on here, per this Bloomberg article. They would continue on, if you would, with basically having their spinoff with Versaunt. I love that. You know, it's actually Versant, but I like that. to give it a little panache, you know, in the French spirit. Anyway, Bloomberg was reportedly saying this, Bloomberg actually reported, I should say,

that Comcast was looking to put in a bid, did put in a bid apparently for this company. And they're hoping because they want to try and somehow manage to get something that could rival Netflix. And so the idea is if we buy discovery, we buy Warner Brothers, we get all those assets, and then you could, you know, hopefully not have to get CNN because nobody wants CNN. They're still trying to spin off CNN, just like MSNBC is getting spun off with, spun off with Versant, Versant. So Comcast apparently has offered Warner Brothers, Chief Executive David Zazlob, a management role with the new entity. Now, that's important because David, you know, wants to still work, even though he's, you know,

clearly worth hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. He still wants to work and be in it, if you would. And so, and I get it. Like, I get it. You know what? Good for him. He wants to stay involved. And so that may have an effect on things too. Like, does he, you know, get along with people there at Comcast and NBC better? So like Comcast, I should point out, Netflix is interested only in Warner Brothers Studios and streaming business. What do you know? What do you know? They all. They only want the Warner Brothers Studio and streaming businesses. Just like what Netflix wants. So what does that mean for all this talent?

All this, dare I even call them talent, right? Dare I even call them talent? That's the funny thing, guys, I'll tell you. I don't know what it means. I think that they're all kind of managing their own sort of exits into some kind of future. Regimento has a podcast now, right? Joy Reed has a podcast. You know, Joy Reed is probably,

thank her lucky stars that she's no longer at MSNBC. Funny how that all works out in the end, right? I don't know how our podcast is doing. We've been pretty consistent managing to be in the top one, 150 podcasts in the entire universe here on YouTube. So I appreciate all that you guys do to make that happen. And by the way, I'm watching your comments in live time. So keeping an eye on things. I'll get to some of them in just a moment.

I would say that this is very interesting, though, because you would have David Zazlov with a management role at Comcast, at NBC, with probably peeps that he likes as opposed to Netflix, which maybe, you know, he may not like everybody that much over there. And maybe he doesn't like everybody over at Ellison's Paramount with CBS. You know, that might be the only deal, though, where you actually get a network scooping up the cable entity, CNN. And I guarantee you, they would love to get rid of CNN.

I mean, if they don't get rid of it in one of these murder deals, They're going to get rid of CNN in this sort of spin-off that they're attempting. So that's one of the plans. Look, it's so fascinating, right, that they're trying to spin off all these cable entities. Why? Because the cable entities no longer are where it's at. Big change from years ago where you wanted to have the cable content along with the cable pipeline. But now the cable pipeline isn't relevant anymore.

Content still is, right? Content is king. Content is going to continue to be relevant, which is why, amazingly, Here I can be in my little studio where the heat is back on today. You better believe it. Lots of heat. Anyway, we're here in this little studio and able to do a show and come direct to you back in the old days.

You would have spent, what, $10,000 for a live truck for me to be up on CBS Evening News or NBC nightly news or one of those shows for a lousy 10-second live tag. Better not make a 12. You know, they're very tightly wound. They're very tightly scripted over there. They have to get to their commercial breaks. They have 22 minutes and a whole different thing. Whereas here, oh, watch out. I can talk. You know I can talk, right? Anyway, Netflix is also emerging as a possible contender here. They are interested in buying Warner Brothers as well.

So apparently, according to a new report out today by my former colleague, by the way, we worked together at, I was going to say Bloomberg, but not at Bloomberg, just at CNBC and at Fox Business. Charlie Gasparino is a very, very good M&A reporter. He's actually reporting via his column in the New York Post that you've got Warner Brothers Discovery Board looking at that offer from Netflix as well as competing bids from Paramount, right? That's CBS as well as competing bids from NBC Comcast. So I suspect the Netflix offer is interesting, is probably good, but maybe Zazlov's not warming to it because he wouldn't have the management role that he would have, say, at something like NBC and they kind of want Zazov to stay there.

So these things get very complicated, very, very, very complicated. But I'll tell you, the upshot for the talent is that any way you slice it, they're not on a very good spot. Because if, if Paramount comes in and they decide, CBS decides to buy CNN, you're going to have a lot of duplication there. So that means, sorry, you know, Jake Tapper, or maybe Jake's fine. Maybe it doesn't cost that much. Maybe it's, I don't know, whoever's over there at 60 minutes,

that Barry Weiss is trying to get rid of. Right? Like maybe they get some expensive heads over there that they can actually replace with the likes of Jake Tapper. You're going to have some musical chairs here. I think Anderson might be in for a pay cut. And then, well, you know,

the most expensive woman in all a show business because she makes $25 million for one show every Monday night for one hour that doesn't even perform. Rachel Maddo. I mean, I don't know how that one goes on much longer. Do you? I mean, I'm curious, guys.

Do you, do you, do you? Anyway, there are some changes coming. It is going to affect talent. And you know what? The whole medium is changing. I mean, look at print, for example. Print is like seriously got out of fashion, not just because everybody's migrated online, but because they're no longer telling you the straight up truth. I mean, if they ever were. I think at one point in time they were, like go back to the 1920s, go back to the 1930s, and sure, everybody had a certain spin in probably the deep state, even back then, existed and had its own spin. But you did feel like things were so aggressively sabotaged the way that they are now. Well, the New York Times hasn't coming to them. There was a brilliant moment earlier today, and I'm talking brilliant.

This is good TV, okay? You know, if you're going to sit through this darn deal book conference with CNBC and NY Times, you might as well get a little color along the way. And that color was provided by none other than our Treasury Secretary, Scott Besson, who took out a reporter straight to his face, the guy who, like, created the deal book conference, Andrew Sorkin over at CNBC. He also double times over at New York Times. So like, you know, this is a busy, busy guy. I mean, hey, you could have take some lessons from Rachel, Andrew, because, you know,

Rachel, she does one show a week for $25 million. I don't know what they're paying you, but you poor guy. You're doing that morning show from 6 to 9 a.m. And then you're moonlighting for the New York Times. Anyway, Bessent took you down in rare form today. Let's watch. The question is, how should, is this like a new normal? Andrew, there's no new normal.

And I can tell you that I actually don't read the New York Times anymore. But sometimes I do watch CNBC. But, you know, occasionally people send me articles. And like, there's just this fever swamp. And, you know, you're now a pop historian with 1929. And, you know, in 20, 30, 40, 50 years, the New York Times is no longer the paper of record. I'm either. You can't go, you know, I read this article, like, President Trump is slowing down.

President Trump's mental capacity. It is 100% fake that, like, he only called me twice at two in the morning last week instead of three times. You're saying he called you. I believe that he called you at two or three in the morning. Andrew thinks that he can use that as fodder as material. the guy's insane because he's calling you at two or three in the morning. Watch. That whole narrative, you had what was the greatest, one of the greatest scandals of all time. This is good.

That the coverage of the Biden administration, Joe Biden's diminished capacity and the cover-up. And that's why it's probably fair to raise these questions. Where was in New York time? We just had a three-hour cabinet meeting yesterday, Andrew. For 10 months, the Biden administration did not have a cabinet meeting. How are you going to invoke the 25th Amendment if the cabinet secretaries never see the president, which they didn't? I hear from people in the Treasury building that I see President Trump more in a day than my predecessor saw Joe Biden in half a year. Smackdown, right?

I mean, this is like WWF style, for goodness sakes. Way to go, Besson. You know, I hear he has a really good right hook. Apparently, legend has it. Elon learned that. hard way. Anyway, Besson, wow, one tough guy and he just let him have it. It reminds me the other day when he was on MSNBC and the MSNBC anchor was like, oh, you know, something about the Argentine debt credit swap that we did, the deal that, you know, basically made us money, but don't tell

MSNBC that, right? They're like, why are you giving money to Argentina? He's like, have you heard of a credit swap? And the guy's like, oh, because you know he has never heard of a credit swap in his life. I say this is someone who started actually at Goldman Sachs on the emerging debt markets desk where we did cover Argentina. So I know all about things like credit swaps, okay? I'm watching this and I'm like, oh, this is going to be good. And Besson's like, do you know what it is? And the guy's like, ah, ah, uh, uh.

Anyway, suffice it to say, yeah, we made money on the deal with Argentina. And by the way, we're keeping the guy that we want, our friend, in control down there. So, hey, win, win, win, right? Anyway, this is just hysterical to watch him at it. I love it. It's like a good right hook, except with words. But you get all this going on in the midst of these deals happening, right? These deals for possibly a pretty big media company. And so you've got to ask yourself, what is this really about? Well, on the one hand, right, you've got a changing industry. And I'm living proof of that right here, streaming to you live, watching your comments live. I mean,

this is a whole new game. And it's going to get better and better folks. I mean, this is just the beginning, and I'm amazed every day with all the sort of technological advances that we're making. So all these changes are happening while the mainstream, lame stream media is stuck over in left field, not knowing, well, I can watch myself and my language. Let's just say not knowing what day it is, okay? Because they're clueless, they're clueless. And they have just like literally no ability to manage all of this. I mean, I think they're ginning up some kind of cool. And we're going to get to that in just a moment. But think about what's going on as you see these changes in the media industry coming and everybody's looking at MSNBC like a hot potato.

Everybody's looking at CNN like a hot potato. Nobody wants them. Nobody at all. And the president may actually force this even faster than you'd think, right? Because he wants to take away their licenses, as he so eloquently told us just last week. I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it's so wrong. And we have a great commissioner, the chairman, who should look at that because I think when you come in and when you're 97% negative to Trump and then Trump wins the election in a landslide, that means obviously your news is not credible.

and you're not credible as a reporter. So I've answered your question. You should go and look at the Democrats who received money from Epstein. No. Yes, I am reading these all in real time. And you may have seen the lower third on there. Jimmy Kimmel has been called out as well by the president. So you get ABC being called out.

I mean, they're all being called out, for goodness sakes. You got CBS being called on NBC, all of them collectively together. So, yeah, these things are hot potatoes. Wow, wow, wow, wow. wow, wow. And yes, you guys, I am reading your comments in real time. And yes, my knowledge of finance is killer. So thank you for being here. And thank you for all your comments. Turning to another big story right now, Jack Smith. Ooh, bad day for Jack Smith. He's getting hauled in for his alleged J6 spying. Yeah. Uh, uh, uh, huh. Here he is. Jack Smith. Remember him?

He's getting subpoenaed. They promised that this would be coming. Remember Comer was telling us, Jim Jordan was telling us, they've been telling us, telling us, telling us, okay, well, I'm glad it's finally happening because I certainly have a lot of questions. I have a lot of questions that go back to that day, January 6th, right? Did they use that day as a way to try and literally take out the other side? I mean, did they use that maliciously to then go and spy on members of the Senate and try to weave together, map on an entire mag of movement and take out everybody involved? It kind of feels that way. I mean, you know, Nancy was asking. that question, she didn't appreciate it. Now, did she recently? Congresswoman Pelosi, are you at all concerned that the new January 6th Committee will find you liable for that day?

Are you at all concerned about the new January 6th Committee finding you liable for that day? Why did you refuse the National Guard on January 6th? Shut up. I did not refuse the National Guard. The President didn't send it. Why are you coming here with Republican talking points as if you're a serious journalist. The American people want to know we still have questions. Thank you. I love her look at the end. She's like, I love also that, how dare you come here, as if you're a serious journalist, because if you're a serious journalist, clearly you'd have the Democrat talking points, not the Republican ones, for goodness sakes. I mean, whatever happened, just having some questions. Plain and simple, just some questions. I mean, you should be able

to handle them from either side, Nancy, shouldn't you, without becoming totally unhinged? But you see, she knows there's this tape out there. I don't know how this managed to get leaked. She was controlling everything so well with her daughter Alexander running all the footage on J6. That was who she invited in. Remember, her own darn daughter was the one who was invited in to take all the footage and that's the footage that we wound up seeing all over CNN and all over ABC? I mean, heck, I think she sold it to them? I wonder. I wonder. They presented it almost as though it was their own. They'd occasionally say, you know, as shot by Alexander Pelosi, document documentary filmmaker that she is. Well, this one somehow got shot. Take a look.

We have responsibility, Terry. We did not have any accountability for what was going on there, and we should have. This is ridiculous. You're going to ask me in the middle of the thing, when they've already breached the inaugural stuff, should we call the Capitol Police? I mean, the National Guard. Why weren't the National Guard? National Guard there to begin with. They thought that they had sufficient resources. No, there's not a question of how they had made. They don't know.

They clearly didn't know, and I take responsibility for not having them just prepared for more. Oh, you do. That's interesting. You take responsibility because, you know, after the fact, you absolutely refuse to take any kind of responsibility.

So a lot of people believe that they made something more out of this than there actually was, all in an effort to basically make sure that they could take out the other side for good, forever. And this is why Jack Smith is now being subpoenaed. It's why he's getting hauled in over these alleged J6 spying allegations. It was basically a giant metadata collection.

Gosh, you know who he looks like? Just look at that picture for one second. Can you guys think of this? You know the guy who started outkick sports? He's great. Clay Travis. Clay Travis is his name and he runs a show, a radio show with my friend Buck Sexton, who's wonderful. And he's on Fox a lot. Let's see, I think we have a picture. Do we have a picture? Yeah, we have a picture. Okay. I mean, they're like, sorry, Clay. And I like Clay. This is not,

this is probably not a comparison he would ever appreciate. But gosh darn it, they kind of look alike, right? It's like, you know, Clay's just a better-looking version of maybe there's just a really good picture of Jack Smith. I think it's just a really good picture of Jack Smith. That's what it is. You know, the media loves Jack Smith, right? They make sure they put really good pictures of him out there. Anyway, a lot has to come out in this whole thing because I think there are a lot of questions

as to why Jack Smith basically was given all of these phone logs. These, you know, we can't call wiretapping. It's not called wiretapping. They were imprecise when we say that, but basically they were looking at the meta data. So they were logging calls saying, oh, well, Marshall Blackburn, gosh, did you talk to Trish Regan? If you did, sorry for me, right? Because then now all of a sudden they're looking at my phone too. So if Marshall Blackburn talked to Trish Regan or Tom Dick and Harry out in the middle of nowhere,

they were suddenly now looping all of this stuff together and they were trying to see how long they were talking to people for and for what locations they were in. And that really kind of seems to be excessive to me. It seems to be against the law to me. Meanwhile, you know, the actual stuff that they should have been looking into, like why it is and Nancy Pelosi didn't actually call out the National Guard, they didn't care. They didn't care about that stuff.

And that's all come out. They just didn't care. And by the way, Nancy has sat there and she was, you know, she's still, she'll lie. She's blue in the face, saying that now, you know, how dare Donald Trump over the summer who was activating the National Guard in D.C. to distract, she said, from his incompetent Ms. Hanley of Terrorist, Health Care, Education, and immigration, just to name a few blunders. And then look at that. Chief Stephen Sunt comes back and says, oh, and this is the guy who was running the Capitol Hill police at this time.

Mamet is long past time, to be honest with the American people on January 3rd, I requested National Guard assistance, but your sergeant at arms denied it under federal law to USC. 1970, I was prohibited from calling them in without specific approval. That same day, Carol Corbyn at the Pentagon, offered National Guard support, but I was forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority. On January 6, while the Capitol was under attack, and despite my repeated phone calls, your sergeant at arms again denied my urgent request for up to 70 agonizing minutes, running it up the chain for your approval, your approval.

When I needed assistance, it was denied, and yet when it suited you, you ordered fencing, topped with all kinds of wire, surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops. In other words, when it works for them, they can bring in the National Guard. Heck, they can do the whole war on drugs. We're going to get to that. When it works for them, they can go after Ukraine. But, oh, gosh, darn it, you know, if Donald Trump thinks that you need to take out the Venezuelan dictator that's making everybody's life really miserable, causing his people to go from the highest standard of living in all of Latin America to the lowest, causing extraordinary poverty, you know, wealth confiscation that we've witnessed there in Venezuela.

If he happens to try and maybe move things along to try and get somebody decent there in power, one for the people and two for us, because, hey, that's like two and a half hours south of Miami, right? We don't need the Chinese, the Iranians, and the Russians running around Venezuela. It makes sense that we would have somebody that we trust, much like we have now in Argentina. in a critical country like Venezuela. We're going to get it in Chile. Looks like we're going to get in Honduras. I mean, you're just seeing a wave, a wave of good old-fashioned capitalism taken over South and Latin America, which I predicted forever. It was actually a college thesis of mine. But I digress in all seriousness, because I'm like,

hey, it's our, it's our hemisphere. Let's go back to Monroe Doctrine, right? I bet you Pete Heggseth knows about the Monroe Doctrine. Anyway, J6 Committee here, Liz Cheney, January 6thumny, suppressing, exonerating evidence of Trump's push for National Guard. That was the other piece of this that was reported by the Federalist. Molly Hemingway had that story. So there was this evidence showing that Donald Trump had been pushing for the National Guard, but they buried that. Like they buried so much, right?

Because they were trying to fit a narrative. And I mentioned this as a precursor to what we're going to get into with Venezuela and Heggseth, and what they're trying to attempt with this effective coup, which is just bonkers and wild and we haven't seen anything like this. I want to be very clear, not even in the Civil War days. I mean, this is new uncharted territory for the United States of America. As we approach our 250th birthday, they're trying to undo the whole darn thing. But this, take a look at this.

I mean, you got the metadata showing the Timothy T. Bolt. He's the guy who apparently authorized the initial investigation into Arctic Frost, which violated the Bureau's own no self-approval rule. Three, five, two, three, remember that because you're going to hear it a lot. lot in the coming days. Why were they authorizing this investigation and then continuing to authorize the investigation themselves, or in this case, himself, he's no longer there? And then why would Cheney and company, oh, Adam Kinsinger, remember him, he's no longer there? Why would they be taking this information and bringing it to Jack Smith for his investigation? I think we know

why. I think they were doing some funny stuff. And you know what? Ted Cruz was right. When he said this is bigger than Watergate. I'm telling you, Jackie Boy, you're going to have some answers that need to be given. You better be working overtime with your lawyers right about now. Arctic Frost is Joe Biden's Watergate. Merrick Garland was a fundamentally corrupt attorney general. Jack Smith was a fundamentally corrupt prosecutor. This was a political enemies list from the beginning. One hundred and ninety-seven subpoenas. for 430 Republican entities and individuals. That is an absolute and egregious abuse of power.

Yes, you think so? I think so. I think so. I think so. And there you have it, okay? egregious abuse of power. So Jackie Boy, I'm sorry. You know what?

We're going to start getting the truth. And it has to happen. It has to happen soon. In the meantime, you get total chaos going on. I mean, I want you guys to hear this because I'm curious what you think. This sounded like some kind of call for a coup to me. And I hate to say that, but what the heck was going down, right? At CNN, first of all, just know the background of all this.

They're going after Pete like you've never seen. I mean, sharks circling in the water because they've wanted to take him out from day one. They never wanted him to have the gig to begin with. He got it. And then they've just been like all over him. All over him. And I think they smell. vulnerability. I mean, first the signal chat, right? So today, this just broke within the last

20 minutes or so. They are now, according to the investigation that just came out of the Pentagon, they were faulting Pete Hegseth for using Signal to discuss military strikes. Yeah, I mean, it's probably not great. I mean, look, the other day this happened to me. I thought I was texting my friend Anna, and it turns out I was texting my other friend, Anna, who happens to be a producer over at Newsmax. And then at some point, I really, I'm like talking about the kids and everything. And then I'm like, oops, wrong Anna. And she was very gracious and she's very sweet.

Actually, it happened, I think, three times in a row. I said, Anna, I'm now putting you in as Anna Newsmax as one whole entire thing together. Because, yeah, that could get dangerous, right? It could happen to anyone. But good thing I'm not head of the Pentagon, shall we say. And good things she's just getting, you know, what the kids are having for dinner or what they were learning in school today. But for Pete, somehow, some way, and it may not have even been him, right?

It may have been his staff that put together this chain. And signals thought to be very secure. And by the way, the CIA, like, told everybody, hey, go ahead and use signal. It's really secure. A good sort of promo for signal there. But I also kind of wonder, and this is just the ultra-suspicious side of me, what can I say? It just kind of exists, right? I sort of wonder when they were setting this up if somebody intentionally did something or if they told him, you know, we're setting this up and

whoever was on his team and, you know, he's running a little scared right now. I think looking, you know, behind his shoulder every which way to Sunday because of this initial incident. Like, how do you trust your team if they're putting together chats on signal and you think that a certain cell phone is a certain cell phone number. And, you know, this is, this is, by the way, a reminder for all of us to know the actual phone numbers. How many phone numbers do you even know nowadays? You know, you know, maybe your childhood phone number, your spouse's phone number, but, you know, in my case, my parents' phone number, although I don't know my dad's actually, because my dad just recently got a cell phone, you know, he's resisting technology, he's resisting, and now it's just I put him in his

dad. And so we're in an error now where you rely so heavily on the phone. If the contact says that, so this could happen, I'm just saying to anyone, just like it happened to me recently with Anna from Newsmax. So Pete is, you know, getting just attacked on all sides, including because he's trying to address this war on drugs. And he's trying to prevent all these boats filled with really, really bad stuff that will infect our kids from coming here to the United States. And he wants to make that clear, and they're sending a message. But

given what the quote-unquote sedacious six, as the president has labeled them, have been saying, it's now turned into a you know what storm. Yeah, it begins with an S. Ends with a T. Here is Senator Mark Warner, with his own little

begins with an S, ends with the T. Storm. Speaking, I believe it was CNN? It could have been Ms. Now, that other network. But let's listen to Senator Mark Warner because if I'm hearing this correctly, and I hope I'm not, it sounds like this guy wants some kind of military coup. What do you think? Unprecedented disrespect when they were all brought to get a pep rally in front of Hegsef and Trump. This is an administration that's fired, you know, uniform generals from the head of the NSA, the head of defense intelligence agency.

And I think in many ways, the uniformed military may help save us from this president and his lame people like Hegsaft because I think their commitment is to the Constitution and obviously not to Trump. And I expect Bradley to adhere to that. So, Senator, let's go a little further on this. So this is, that was on Ms. Now Network. Glorious Nine and would be happy. Anyway, Senator Mark Warren's saying some kind of aggressive stuff, kind of saying, look, we need to rely on our military

because our military is not going to go along with Heg-Seth, it's not going to go along with Trump. By the way, if they take out Heg-Seth, that's like taking out Trump. It's one thing if Trump makes the decision to get rid of Heg-Seth, but when you get the mainstream media and the liberal media pushing this hard, it gets a little alarming. It's funny that they don't want to take out Pambandi.

Kind of interesting, right? they want to take out cash and they want to take out Pete. Well, Pete is actually trying to do something in Venezuela. He's actually aggressively trying to pursue a change. By the way, we've tried this before. Like we've tried it in, you know, going back a ways to the Chavez days. We tried it again with Juan Guaido that, by the way, like Nancy Pelosi loved, right? They brought him to Washington. It was like a big kumbaya. Everybody was on the same side. We want to get rid of Maduro. Until now, a second time around with Trump there and he wants to get rid of Maduro and suddenly everybody's like, oh, no, you can't.

Like, we're not going to engage in this way. And we're certainly not going to go after any boats that are coming here with illicit material, which is amazing considering what they used to say. I mean, let's go back down memory lane for just minutes. 1989. I was in high school. And Joe Biden was a senator. And he was really passionate.

about one thing, the war on drugs. He kept criticizing Republicans because they just weren't passionate enough. You got to take them out, he was telling us. You got to actually go after these. I mean, for goodness sakes, why couldn't this Joe Biden have been president? Watch. Every president for the past two decades, Democrat and Republican alike, has declared war on drugs.

And each of them has lost that war and lost it miserably. You don't say it. They lost because they attempted to deal with only part of the drug problem. Ah. They lost because their initiatives were pulled apart by bureaucratic squabbling among their advisors. They lost because they always did too little and they did it too late. We don't oppose the President's plan. All we want to do is strengthen it.

We don't doubt is resolve. All we want to do is stiffen it. We just want more. The trouble is that the President's proposals are not big enough to deal with the problem. Oh. We think we should do more to stem the form. to stem the flow of drugs across our borders. And we think we should go one step further.

Tell me. Let's go after the drug lords where they live. I'm with you. With an international strike force. There must be no safe haven for these narco-terrorists, and they must know it. We have to lock up the dealers for a long, long time, and we have to attack the source from which the drugs come.

And we have to do that, not a piece of the time, but all at once. once and we have to do it now. And there's not any reason why we can't do that. We have the power, we have the money, and we have the knowledge. Okay. So, you know, we're a little late to the party. We're trying it now. I mean, we tried it your way or whoever's way. I mean, whoever was running the auto pen, right, Joe? Because if we've gotten that, Joe, we might not have the problem we have now. Although, let's be honest, what do you think that was about? Letting millions of people in here completely unchecked. They had an ulterior motive. They absolutely had an ulterior motive. And I'm sick of pretending like we can't say this. Because you just look at what New York State

was trying to do. To put 800,000 people who were not legally here did not have, forgive me, maybe they were legally here. Maybe they were people who were on green cards. I don't know. But they had 800,000 people who were not citizens that they were trying to put onto the voter rolls. And it wasn't until finally, one of the appellate judges was like, no, no, no, this is not going to fly. You're not going to do this. But I'm just telling you guys, there's a method to the madness. And think about the population surges in areas that they are trying to make more blue, right?

So if they can try and get enough people in there, they can get more congressional representation because they're trying to count them, right, regardless of whether you're trying to you're an American citizen or not, they're just going on population. And so you've got to ask yourself, like, why this, why now? Why did Joe Biden allow all those people in? I don't think you'd be naive about it anymore. There was a method to the madness. And it was a very political method to the madness.

And now, as we look at the chaos that they're trying to put forward, JAG attorney group coming out today saying that killing survivors is a war crime and therefore Donald Trump and his team and this Bradley, guy Admiral Bradley, need to be prosecuted for a war. crime. They're hoping that Bradley somehow turns on Hegseth, and they want to catch Hegset in a lie. Heg Seth is saying that he didn't actually give that second strike order, that he had stepped out of the room at the time. And so it's all sort of like, wow, I mean, just wow. And there are questions about the legality of the second strike, right? Do you say, okay, this person's not a threat anymore.

They're in the middle of the ocean, or do you say, okay, we consider this a threat, period, end of story. And so we're just going to get rid of them. You know, this has been something that a lot of former military members have been debating recently, but I would say this. It is suspicious to me that they came out with this, you know, sedacious six tape. I think they kind of like that name, actually. I'm Senator Alyssa Sussacken. Senator Mark Kelly. Representative Chris Delusio. Congresswoman Maddie Goodlander. Representative Chrissy Hulahan. Congressman Jason Crow. I was a captain in the United States Navy. Former CIA officer. Former Navy.

Former paratrooper and army ranger. Former intelligence officer. Former Air Force. Okay. So these are all intel types. So you take that kind of seriously, right? You would think if you're a military member and you get all these people saying, hey, you don't have to obey orders, which by the way, you don't, you know, if it's an

order that you don't agree with, everybody knows that they teach you that when you go into the military. But why are they highlighting this right now? We want to speak directly to the members of the military. And then they took it one step further, right? What did they do? They went all over television and they said, hey, if you do something that you believe is illegal, if you do something and it turns out it is illegal,

well, guess what? We're going to go out to you when we get back in power. That's the message that they were communicating, and it's really kind of wild. Listen to Mark Kelly, who's like king of it. So first of all, they confirmed the double-tap strike today, the White House, even though two days ago, Sean Parnell at the Pentagon was saying the entire

story was fabricated, made up out of whole cloth, he said. It seems as though they're saying that Hegstaff gave the order to kill everyone on board, a lethal strike, and that Mitch Bradley,

I'm sorry, Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley was in charge. He's a head of special forces. And that he, He is the one that gave the order for the second strike, the double tap, on the whatever survivors there were. Who is ultimately responsible if there is something wrong with the double tap strike, with the second strike? Well, Jake, I think it's going to be really important for my committee, the Armed Services Committee, that I sit on, the same thing in the house, to get these people in the room and get testimony from them under oath,

maybe part of it in a skiff and in a secure facility and part of it publicly, to get what the exact, real story is. I think this is what happens when you put an incompetent individual in perhaps the second most important job in our country, the Secretary of Defense. Pete Hegseth had no business being nominated. Republicans in the Senate should not have confirmed him. And he's been there for less than a year now, maybe, you know, seven or eight months. And this is the result of incompetence at the highest level. Here's a guy runs around on a stage talking about lethality, warrior ethos,

killing people. The president even echoes that. We're going to kill people. We're good at this in the military. We have the most professional and capable military this planet has ever seen. But when you have leadership that speaks in those terms that aren't talking about the things that really matter, like training, what kind of combat power do we have? How do we make our military more

efficient and effective? By the way, you know, part of this was because, because you guys were out there pitching alternative hormones to anybody who wanted to come to the military. Come on, come on. You could be trans. And like, what do you think is going to happen? Yeah, you kind of need to have this sort of swing back to the center, which is that the military is strong and the military is capable. And believe me, and I know this for a fact, Donald Trump doesn't want anybody dying.

He really, really, like he's pretty darn passionate about that. Even taking out a boat, I'm sure it was not easy for him. Really? Because he does not want death on anyone, but he also wants to make sure he's protecting this country. I mean, by the way, go read. No, don't read John Bolton's book because it's absolutely atrocious. It's absolutely atrocious.

All the things that the New York Times loves to say about him and build him up because he's, you know, against Trump. They couldn't even give him a decent book review because it was that bad. But he points out in there that there were attempts to do various strikes. And the president actually backed off because the carnage was going to be too much. And he just didn't want that. And he said this to me once directly. You know, you try and look at yourself in the mirror every morning.

And you think about putting our young men and women at risk. And you try, look in their parents in the eye after something happens. He does not want one American soldier dying. And he doesn't really want anybody dying anywhere around the world. But you wouldn't know that. Listen into these guys. And talking about, like, what are the laws? The law does matter.

Well, you tell me, because you fired upon boats in the Gulf War, right? I mean, as a Navy commander. I sunk two ships. You sunk two ships. Are you allowed once people, once the ship starts sinking and there are survivors, I mean, the Washington Post says they were clinging to the wreckage, but whatever, there are survivors? We know there were survivors. Are you allowed to then attack the survivors?

Absolutely not. I sunk an OSA-2 missile patrol boat. It was in the middle of night, like 3 a.m. with two cluster munitions in Kuwait Harbor. And then we left. We were out a Polnachti troop carrier in the Persian Gulf during the day getting shot at by. There were two ships. One of them was shooting at us.

No, you don't do that. Everybody knows that. You know, that is against the Geneva Conventions. That's against the laws of war, which we should always be abiding by. We're the United States of America. We're not Russia. We're not Russia. We're not Iran.

Like he's trying to compare the Trump military to Russia or Iran. I just don't know quite what's wrong with these people, but I want you to hear a different view. And like I said, like this is not my area of expertise. I know more about Argentine credit debts. I do about this stuff. But Dan Crenshaw was the Navy SEAL, and he had a different take on this.

Listen. I can't recall any time in my history doing counterterrorism operation where we strike a group, whether that's a building or a boat or a vehicle. And then we were like, oh, well, there's survivors. We have to go, we can't kill them. Of course we kill them. Wow. So conflicting reports, but I can tell you right now,

Mark Kelly is under investigation. Department of War has issued this statement. They have these very serious allegations of misconduct against Kelly, in accordance with Uniform Code of Justice 10, USC 68, and other applicable regulations, A thorough review of the allegations has been initiated to determine further actions. So they're looking into it, okay? They get federal laws like 18 U.S.C. 2387, which prohibit actions intended to interfere

at the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of our armed forces. And violations will be addressed through appropriate legal channels. So now there's an investigation going on into Mark Kelly for being part of this initiative with the quote unquote sedacious six. it. Let's go to somebody who was in the military. Buzz Patterson, who came out and spoke out in a very really authentic way. Some of you guys may have seen this. I showed it last week, but it's worth remembering and watching again right now as all of this stuff unfolds. He's like, what the AT-E-D-L are you people doing? Like, why, why, why are you trying to sow so much discourse amongst

our rank and file? It's just not right. Hey, everybody. This is Buzz Patterson. I'm a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, retired Air Force pilot combat veteran, and at one time, I was the military aid to President Bill Clinton and carried the nuclear football and actually lived in the White House. So I've been around. I was actually during my military service deployed to 70 countries and fought in three wars. So I feel like I've got a dog in this hunt. I am very appalled at what the Sedition 6 has done with their video. I think it's a violation of their oaths of office, especially in the case of Senator Mark Kelly, I believe it's a violation of the UCMJ, and I hope that President Trump and

Secretary of War Pete Hegsef hold them accountable. Yeah. So that's somebody who carried the nuclear football in Bill Clinton's administration. I think he's worth hearing from, so let's listen a little longer because he has more to say. They are violating and they are politically using their positions to undercut the command of President Donald J. Trump and they're circumventing the chain of command. Congress and members of Senate are not in the chain of command. President Trump is, however, is our commander in chief. So I fully support going forward with whatever prosecutions are warranted.

and legitimate, and I think they are on these individuals. They use their positions, military, and in the intelligence community to expose, I think, and put at risk those of us who serve in uniform. I think that what's going to happen is because they violated the military chain of command. People are going to die. They undercut the underpinnings of the military, which is good order and faith and trust in their leadership. and in my estimation what they did was treasonous and seditionists, and I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent.

Again, my name is Buzz Patterson. I served in combat. I've served for 20 years, and I am outraged by what has happened by the Democrats, and I fear for what's going to happen to our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, if they choose to violate what is a legal order, which will ruin their lives and ruin their careers. Thank God, guys. God bless. Yeah. Well, that's kind of important to hear because we're hearing a different message from all these blowhards all over cable news.

I mean, they're trying to effectively threaten things, right? Like Jen Saki with her horribly rated show. I mean, you want to talk about the reason why cable's over, for goodness sakes. Anyway, she's out there peddling this nonsense trying to suggest along with her guess that anybody who is somehow in the military right now and does what Donald Trump wants is at risk of, you know, we're talking 1930s, 1940s Germany stuff, right? The Nuremberg trials. I mean, it's kind of gross, but this is what they're saying. And I have to show you because you have to understand it because it's serious. Okay,

this is serious. As I said, I'm actually an American historian by my academic background. I've never seen anything like this. There's never been a point in history. And we've had a lot of tough times, whether it be the Civil War, whether it be the Iraq War, whether it be the 1960s and Vietnam into the 70s, we've never seen anything like this where they're being preemptive about what they think might be going on and then issuing a warning to the military ahead of time and now out there saying, if you are involved in this, well, we're going to come after you.

This is really gross, guys. What do you think as a lawyer? What do you think the consequences should be for people who are abiding by following these steps from the commander-in-chief when they seem to be complete overreaches of power? They're following unlawful commands from Donald Trump. And if you're committing offenses and your defense is going to be, I was just following orders. You know, that didn't work out so well at Nuremberg. It certainly didn't work out so well for Lieutenant Callie when he, you know, engaged in mass murder, the Milai Massacre. And, you know, Pete Hegseth, just doing whatever Donald Trump tells him to do,

like initiating a criminal investigation that could result in a court martial of Senator Kelly for simply stating accurately what the military law provides or Cash Patel's FBI, opening criminal probes of members of Congress for speaking the truth, you know, that is something that will someday, when the rule of law comes back into the light of day, we'll have to be tackled. They'll have to be held accountable for those abuses. It's going to be accounting for all of this and remembering all of it. Glenn Kirchner, thank you so much for being here. We'll circle back on that one to you, right? We're going to account for all of it.

We're going to make sure we're taking down names and faces and we're coming after you. That's also what the Senator Gallegos was communicating on CNN recently. I'm telling you, this is not a good look for the country. This is unprecedented. This is horrible. This is horrible for our military. It's horrible for the country and for our morale and it's vicious. It's really, I mean, there's no excuse for this.

That there will be fallout and consequences if they are used in a, you know, a hard, you know, way to basically railroad someone like Senator Kelly, because Donald Trump's going to be gone a couple years. And if you're part of the military that it's going after sitting senators, sitting members of Congress, and part of, you know, the weaponization of government, there will be consequences without a doubt. So, you know, I think there's going to be a lot of officers that will be part of this, you know, potential tribunal they want to call that. They're going to be looking over their shoulders because they know that Donald Trump will be gone and they will not have the protection.

They're going to have to do the safest thing possible, which is follow the Constitution of the United States, and you'll be fine. So remember, when this came out, the president had no illegal orders. And by the way, if you're going to decide what's legal, what's illegal, is that not somewhat subjective? I mean, you're welcome to go to your JAG attorney

and say, hey, you know, I don't want to engage in this. It's absolutely you're right. Nobody's saying that's not you're right. But why are we deliberately trying to gin up this kind of discord within the rank of file of the military. I mean, it's bizarre. It's like they want total lawlessness. They do because they seem to want. I'm going to just say it. They seem to want a civil war. What do you think this is all about? Okay, that's what they want. Listen to this, Amy Klobuchar. Oh my goodness. I can't decide which would have been worse. Poor Amy or poor Kamala,

if we had to suffer through either one of these morons as our president, but she got on to another, I'm getting confused because, you know, Ms. now has new branding. They're all blue, red, white, blue because they want to look American. Sorry, Fox has that covered. Newsmax too. Anyway, Amy Klobuchar saying that somehow being there as a member of the National Guard in D.C. Or in New Orleans, where they are now initiating today or anywhere else, Charlotte, that that in and of itself is illegal.

Holy moly. Watch. I wonder, do you know what the specific illegal acts are that your Democratic colleagues were referring to there? Well, it's very clear in this code for the military that you cannot follow unlawful orders. And, you know, that would be, I'll just use an example. Some of the judges have now found in certain cities that it is not legal to send in the National Guard. And those National Guard members have come home. Some of them are still there.

but if they're a commander were to tell him, hey, go out on the streets and do this and that, that's not following the order that is in law. So I just use that example. I'm sure my colleagues would have other. You have no idea. You have no examples. You guys all went on TV and just started spouting a whole bunch of nonsense. Hope, and if you threw something at the wall, you just see what sticks?

And then what do you know? They had the second strike information, and they were able to kind of ride this one, and they're going to continue riding it to try and take down Hegset, and of course, thus Trump and the entire, once again, MAGA movement all over. Again, here we go. You know, history repeating itself. But I will say, I will say that they're running out of room here because, you know, the whole sedacious six nonsense, I'll tell you, like, they didn't have anything.

They didn't have anything. And actually, Mark Kelly admitted this on one of these shows. He went on, I'm losing track. You know, the Miz Now thing, throwing me off the new graphics. Anyway, he went on one of the networks and they point blank said, hey, did you have any information that led you to make this video? And he said no, but when you saw that it was coming. Again, I go back to this, has never happened before.

And so now you're trying to solve for the answer after the fact. So in kind of a made up way, you're now looking for the conflict, a conflict that, by the way, if this had been Biden's conflict, you would erode this all day long. We were getting upset about Afghanistan and the people hanging off the planes and everything and, you know, American soldiers dying over there. And you guys had no problem with that because that was your decision, right? But now when Donald Trump tries to do something that is his decision, well, now we're dealing with a whole other thing. So, you know, you get these JAG attorneys saying that, you know, killing survivors is a war crime.

And as we discussed, that's actually kind of a question because we're hearing from a former Navy SEAL that he was given orders all the time to make sure there were no survivors. And then we're hearing something else from Mark Kelly, who has his own biases. And then you're hearing from everybody, gosh darn it, God help you if you're in the military because we're coming for you when we get our chance. Who does this? The FBI is now seeking interviews with the Democratic lawmakers who said to the military, if there is an illegal order, don't follow it.

Aren't folks in the military not supposed to follow illegal? orders? Well, yeah, duh, okay, duh, but then why are we all of a sudden, like, I'm sorry, but, you know, for a couple of hours in California, it was illegal for the National Guard to be there. And then guess what? The Ninth Circuit Court decided, no, totally legal. You can go in. You know, you guys go have a party because California needs it. And so then they were allowed entry. So are you supposed to say for like the six hours that, you know, you don't, you don't have the full-on approval from the appellate court while it waits to go to the appellate court? Oh, well, we're not going to do it. I mean, you understand.

You understand, right? You understand the chaos that this could breed. And that's what they want. They want the chaos. So this is an issue where, obviously, you're going to have two groups of people that see this completely differently. I mean, when I saw that video, I was outraged for the president because it's obvious what the Democrats were trying to do. They were trying to create a narrative that the president had, in fact, given illegal orders. Nobody's yet named any illegal order. All the people in the video went on TV and got asked, what are the illegal orders? None of them can name any illegal order, unless a slokka, who's supposed to be the moderate, the smart person in that group said, well, you know, we have this movie, a few good men. I mean, it was so unsurious. But the point was clear. They're trying to program their political

party, half the country into believing that the president has given an illegal order, which has not happened. And so he's outraged. Every Republican that I know is outraged. The legalities of this, the investigatory part of this, I'm less sure about. But I'll tell you this, it's not good to treat the military like pawns. These Democrats shut down the government 43 days and didn't pay them. And now they're out here using the military. them in this illegal order video, which is obviously political. I think some people, you know, in our coalition are thinking they keep treating the military like pawns. It's very disrespectful to treat the military this way. It is. You know, I'm just reading your comments. I'm sorry,

I'm trying to put some of them up on screen. Alphonse, it's good to see you in the house and Gilmy's girl saying prove that they're illegal. And I hear you. It's like you actually have to prove that, right, in a court of law because, you know, courts of law are deciding different things. The Supreme court's going to have to really be working overtime, I imagine, given what the Democrats have done and what they're going to continue to do. But I just keep going back to that this is really, really bad. It's bad for the country. And you're going to tell me that the president doesn't have the right to initiate strikes? I mean, not even mourning Joe's. Joe Scarborough is buying that one. Let's watch. And if I have a criticism of what the Democrats have been saying, well, they fumbled

the ball this weekend. But from the very beginning, when they say, You don't, you know, it's such a democratic thing to do. You know, you don't have to follow illegal orders. You know what a Republican? You can't follow illegal orders. It's against your oath. And it is against their oath. So here's what Senator Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan,

who was part of the effort, said yesterday when asked by ABC News to be specific about what illegal orders are being issued by the White House. So he has no specifics. So let's talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders? To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these. So why the ECH-O-L are you issuing this thing? Oh, I know why? Because you're a former CIA analyst who kind of wants to gin up a little, you know what? I mean, I guess you don't have USAID doing your bidding anymore. Given all that money, all those media companies. So they could work an internal op against our own U.S. citizens, for goodness sakes.

Oh, yeah. Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela. Okay, wrong answer. I'm sorry, with all due respect, wrong answer. President of the United States, the commander in chief does have Jonathan Lemire wide latitude. Look at his face. Just does. And the Senate can take that up, but he has white latitude on strikes.

Ask Barack Obama and drone strikes. Ask George W. Bush and drone strikes. But where we know the president has said, I am going to give illegal orders to people in the military. Is when he was on Air Force One, coming back, I forget where he was coming back from, but he said, I can send the Marines, I can send the Army. I can do that.

I can send the Air Force. By the way, that's what he goes on about, because I guarantee his producers in his ear saying, careful, careful, where are you going with this? Where are you going? Because they're like, whoop? There go the ratings. All our lefty viewers are not going to sit there and listen to Joe say that Donald Trump has the right to call for these strikes, even though plenty of other people have done

so before. So what do you call this? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good old-fashioned psychop, okay? Courtesy of the CIA. Courtesy of the deep state. They are working overtime because they got a few things going on, okay? A few things going on that they don't like. They don't like that he's, you know, down there in Venezuela.

I'm not entirely sure why, because in the old days, it used to be that, hey, we actually all were on the same page. We didn't like socialist dictators that were taking all the oil that we could help them. By the way, get out of the ground. You know what? They got all that sludge down there in the Orinoco region. And, hey, you know what? We could do something with that.

We used to do something with that. Chavez used to, you know, need us until he decided. decided we were just the gringos, right? The European colonizers, we can't allow them. So they kicked out all the U.S. oil companies. They kicked out Total from France, even though everyone else outside had the technology to actually get the stuff out of the ground. And then what, they're bringing in the Cubans.

Well, the Cubans are clueless. They don't have to get this oil out of the ground. And then they're bringing in the Russians and the Chinese. Well, what do you know? We got this little thing called the Monroe Doctrine. It's right here in our hemisphere. We're not going to be okay with the Russians and the Chinese hanging out in Krak. all day long. So yeah, Maduro, you're under a little pressure now. With Chavez gone, you're trying to

hold the thing together. Well, you got Maria Carino Machado waiting in the wings, ready to take your slot. And by the way, she's U.S. educated from Yale. By the way, they, you know, there's a good deep state connection, right? But anyway, she's a capitalist, so I like her. I like her. I like her. She's brave. And so she may wind up getting in there. Heck, they gave her the Nobel Prize. And yet the left is like freaking out about Venezuela? I mean, come on. We've done it or tried to do it twice before, for goodness sakes, and now it's getting bad. Now you're upset. All right. So, that's one reason. And then they don't like the fact that we have all these strikes going on. But I'm kind of curious. I'm just a little bit curious because it kind of feels, dare I say, like these people are trying to

justify it. I mean, here's this guy who goes on again, one of the liberal networks. I'm getting them confused. I think it's CNN to say, hey, you know, those narco-traffickers, they're just, they're just trying to earn a living. I mean, this is the most wild excuse I've ever heard. You know, we don't, we don't care. It's like defund the police because, you know, the criminals, they should be able to commit crimes. You have insurance companies for that. You know, you can go smash, open a store, steal all you want. The insurance company will cover it. These people are just trying to make an honest living. That's all. Nothing to see here. Watch. Watch. Watch this.

You know, one of the factors that drives youth in the United States and is demand. And most NACO traffickers are not in those boats. They pay people to do that. And usually people are not significantly involved with NACO trading. It's the way they make money. So we shouldn't be going after those innocent people that are. taking all these drugs to the United States of America that will kill so many of our kids. Gosh, you know, it's like history repeating itself. Let's go back away. The opium trade, right,

of China. If you go back to like the Mao dynasty and stuff, they were dealing with this for a long time, a long time in China. And it just kept going and going and going and going. And the white Europeans, and also some Americans, if you go back to even the Civil War days when this was still going on, they were bringing opium into China, or they were, you know, basically sourcing it in parts of Asia and then bringing it up into China. Interestingly, also, through the southern border. And the Chinese in charge at the time were saying, no, no, no, no, no, no, like this is illegal. And the Europeans said, well, this is capitalism. It's capitalism, baby. Hey, we're just making a living, I'm kind of like that, that congressman, Democrat, tried to say on CNN, we're just, we're just

making a living and your people want it. And he's like, our kids sadly want this? Like, you have to destroy the demand rather than destroy the actual product. And eventually, that led to the opium wars, that led to a bunch of concessions out of China that they still, to this day, in China are very sensitive about. Okay, that's a very raw, very raw. issue for China. And it's sort of weird because history is repeating itself in kind of a strange way because the dangerous chemicals, right, they're getting manufactured over there in China. And they're sending them down to Mexico. And then these drug cartels are running them up through our southern border. And nobody can seem to do anything about it just like all those years

China couldn't do anything about it. So this is kind of a weird. repetition of history, if you would. But I'll tell you, we need to fix it. We need to fix it now, and we're going to fix it right now. Hey, quick shout out for my research newsletter. Go over to 76 research. Use code word dollar. D-O-L-L-A-R. It's just a dollar a month for the first two months. You know, we see quite a turnaround happening right in some of these cryptos, something that we predicted and we wrote about. We have a pretty robust research effort there, myself and my colleagues, so that's my company, and I encourage you to go check that out, especially if you're interested in investing at all. But as we look at everything that's going on, as they sit there and

they say, hey, you know, if you dare, if you dare to go along with Trump's orders, if you remember the National Guard, and we don't think you should be in D.C. Even though, by the way, the mayor of D.C. is like, hey, you know, she's not running again, but she's like, come on, come on, we actually want to have a safe city. And she's welcoming them. They're out there saying, don't you dare do any of this. And if you do, we're going to come after you. And it kind of is alarming, right? Because think about just what went down over the last four years and what they're trying to promise for the next four. I mean, this is getting kind of untenable and a little bit unworkable. I mean, I'm getting tired of it, right guys? Because we have already been there,

done that, seen that, and we lived through it for four years. I mean, you think about all the bank accounts that they were saying couldn't exist because they had regulators, breathing down our banks back saying, well, who's there? How much money are they putting through? Well, we're going to just debank them. And there was a whole debanking effort that went on that was pretty darn serious. And, you know, I look at that and I think about that. And that is pretty darn scary to me. Because if they get back in there, it's military members, it's anybody associated with MAGA. Heck, they were mapping the whole movement out. Just ask Jack Smith and what we're about to find out via his subpoena. Well, I'll tell you, it's not okay. It's just not okay. And,

I'll tell you, I'm happy to have teamed up with Americans for Free Markets on this one because we do not want. And I'm going to give you the URL here. We do not want for free markets.org this happening again. So we got to like put a little pressure, if you would. I believe. And so to our friends over to Americans for free markets. I believe we've got to put a little pressure and say, hey, hey, hey, hey, you know what? We need to get the regulators out of this business.

We need to make sure that banks can work directly with their customers. We don't want any more debanking. And I know the president, and I commend him for his executive order. That's wonderful. We appreciate that, as do all the folks at Americans for free markets. But we're needing to do more. We need Congress, actually, to get out there and actually put in real legislation so that we can build on this momentum and enact some lasting change so that you're not going to get shut off

from your bank account. I mean, look, you know, I realize crypto for some people is pretty great, but you still need a bank account. So Congress needs to work with the administration to fix these outdated laws. It is high time. We need to increase transparency. We need to increase accountability in the financial regulation. So future administrations can never weaponize our financial system again. This is important to you. It's important to me. It's important to our kids. It's got to change. So to protect the financial freedom of the American people. Americans for free markets is calling on Congress to advance these

critical reforms and strengthen President Trump's leadership on fair access to financial services. Fair access. They should not be able to discriminate because of your politics, right? Thank you very much, but, you know, kind of threatening they will. Gosh darn it. Forfremarkets.org is where you should go. Portions of the show are brought to you by our friends and Americans for free markets. So go check them out for freemarkets.org today. I'll tell you, this is getting wild. And, you know, it's like I said, you know, you look at what they were doing with the border, for goodness sakes. big transition from where we were in 1989, where Joe Biden himself was calling for us to be far more judicious about who's coming into the country and whether or not they're doing anything

illegal and we've got to increase the war on drugs, et cetera. We've got to actually take these criminals out, criminals out. I mean, nowadays, criminals get to walk free, especially in the state of New York where now there is. In her hometown paper, a big story, look at this one, guys, the cover, hand them over. Feds to Tish James. They say that she's, protecting 7,000 plus migrants that are loose in New York. So Tish James, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow, should there be a penalty for that? I mean, you guys want to go after Donald Trump for all kinds of penalties. One has to wonder, Tish James, what are you doing? Why are you protecting them? Oh, I get it, you know, because they're somehow the innocence in all this.

You know, you commit these horrible crimes and I'm not even going to go through, but there are, you know, some really horrible crimes. And if you read the article in the New York Post, I don't even like to say it because some of them are just so horrible and so upsetting. And I'm like, why is Leticia James not doing anything? So she's not allowing for the feds to actually take out people who are here illegally in the country that have committed violent crimes. So what does this world come to when now you're protecting illegals that are here in this country? And by the way, I would just say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

And I want to know a little, little more about Leticia James and some of the things that she's been accused of doing. including dropping the ball on some alleged money laundering, which kind of reminds me of maybe what was going on in Minnesota, those allegations are something else. Tim Walts just kind of turning a blind eye to a billion dollars worth of fraud. And now there are allegations that somehow that fraud was connected to terror groups. And it kind of reminds me to someone else I know, Latisha James in New York City, who was apparently told twice, according to Gateway Punnant, her team was told, Hey, hey, hey, we got some problems here with some illegal, illicit money laundering that's going on.

They're filtering things through a bank in New York. And basically Iran is making out like a bandit. So this is like $10 billion, nearly $10 billion worth of money laundering that was all happening under her watch. And apparently, she and her team were told. And they completely ignored it. So they were directed twice in early 2024 by whistleblowers and sanction financing, They allegedly acknowledged that the payments were previously unknown yet, and they renewed this one bank, standard chartered bank's license anyway. So standard charter bank had a history of money laundering problems.

Actually, back in 2019, it was fine. $1.1 billion by U.S. and UK authorities for money laundering and sanctions breaches, including transactions involving none other than Iran. 2012, SBC paid $350, $40 million. Forgive me to settle claims of laundering $250 billion. dollars, $250, that's a quarter of a trillion dollars, okay, for Iranian clients. What the heck, Tishy? So Gateway Pundit learned that Letitia James was briefed twice in February and March of 2024. They said, quote, in early 2024, New York Attorney General was briefed, but did nothing other than reapprove this bank's annual license, even though the whistleblowers were saying, hey, hey, we get like $10 billion that's going through here illicitly,

and it's going to, you know, Iran, and it's believed to have gone to terror groups, including Hezbollah. So here's the article in the Financial Times talking about in 2024 standard charters, Iran transactions that were the subject of new whistleblower claims, court filings, seeking to revive a U.S. lawsuit with alleged evidence of payments helping Hezbollah and the Taliban. Okay, and the money is going through, NYC? She's actually responsible. Leticia James, in this case. was the office that was responsible for regulating the banks and the money laundering. I've done money laundering stories throughout my career. In fact, did a big one in Latin America because there was a ton of money down in

Sierra deleste in Paraguay, borders Argentina and Brazil. And all this money was basically going through New York and then off to, you know, bad actors, shall we say. And Hezbollah was involved, you know, Hamas was involved. what, New York regulators were watching this like Hawks because they wanted to take them out. Well, where was Letitia? Oh, Letitia was too busy going after Trump. Right? She just had to go after Trump and go after Trump and go after Trump. As she told the public she would do every single day trying to make some kind of political career for herself instead of actually going after

the bad guys, whether the people that are being featured on the New York post cover, that get to walk away, Scott Free, or whether they are the really, really bad guys, the financiers that may be doing some very illicit stuff and off and sending money to very bad places. Here we go. More than half a million dollars in transactions. They included transactions with sanctioned entities related to Iran, totaling $9.6 billion in four-ex transactions, foreign exchange,

transactions tied to the Islamic Republic with a notional value of $100 billion according to the filings. I mean, wow. Wow, wow. You know who did call this out? And I give her credit for it. This would be Carrie Lake, who issued a statement on this as this story. You know, we brought the story to you first over the summer, but I'm just kind of sitting here going, in light of Tim Walts, why is nobody looking into this?

She did right back then. It's a serious issue. President Trump trying to undo the damage caused by Biden and Obama with their destructive policies towards Israel and America as well as the hordes of people of Iran has put forth a maximum pressure, zero-tolerance policy blocking any funding to Iran and his terror network. And now, a British bank who operates in the United States is accused of processing billions of dollars in illicit payments to Iran and the New York Attorney General. General's office led by Tishy knew about it and didn't do a damn thing.

I'm editorializing with the dam and the Tishy. Anyway, the Fed should have spotted these events. They should have stopped them and they did not. So why didn't they? Why didn't Tishy James do a darn thing? Well, Tish had other bigger issues to worry about. She didn't care about these criminals that are here in the country illegally doing really bad things.

She lets them off and she doesn't care about the financier alleged criminals. They have some $10 billion in transactions that may be going to some really nefarious players because, well, you know, she's got to get chump. Four days after a judge ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million for a decade of fraud. New York Attorney General Leticia James says she's prepared to do everything she can to make sure the former president pays his fine, including she told us, seizing the buildings that bear his name. If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek judgment enforcement mechanisms in court.

And we will ask the judge to seize his assets. Yeah, well, that was her distraction. Okay, so if you wonder why nothing was going down in terms of going after the real bad guys, well, that's part of it. Yeah, it's a big part of it. Aside from, you know, the fact that they apparently just don't care about people that are here illegally, and have committed crimes. I mean, they should listen to Whoopi Goldberg. Even she came out and said, yeah, it's not like we want people here that are illegal

that are committing violent crimes. Like that, you know, any logical person might actually say, you know, that's kind of a problem. But for some reason, if you have a really bad case at TDS, and I suspect, whoope is singing a new tune right now because the TDS is just metastatizing into something really bad over there at ABC, you know, this should be obvious. So Bondi needs to go after this stuff. I know that they're promising an appeal, if you would, of Letitia James and James Comey. We did hear this week, in fact, just within the last 24 hours, that an indictment is coming,

an indictment, a second indictment for both Letitia and Comey seems to be on the way. Listen. The FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General, Letitia James, to a grand jury. According to people familiar with the situation inside the Justice Department, expected to happen quickly, perhaps, within a week. The court tossed out both the Comey and James cases. The judge found interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan did not have the legal authority of a prosecutor when the two were indicted. Joining us now is Tom DeB. Okay. Well, here's the deal. They can bring it back. They can bring the case back because the judge had decided in this that

it was without prejudice. So fine. I think they're going to have some challenges in terms of the appeal, if you would, but maybe a second indictment is the way to go. Cash Patel doing an interview at the Epic Times over the weekend, making it clear that they had not exhausted their legal sort of methods and what they would try and do. Again, you've heard me, I'm very hesitant on your ability to actually do an appeal. A criminal case against Director Comey was recently dismissed. What is your reaction to that? Well, because it's pending in terms of appellate status and what we are going to do for the next

steps. The judicial process can make whatever determination wants, but we the FBI and our partners at the DOJ have numerous options to proceed, and we're executing on all those options. So we're not done. Any detail available? I would say stay tuned for right after Thanksgiving, and you'll see multiple responses in my opinion. Okay, so it's after Thanksgiving, and now we are getting word that they are coming back with a second round of indictments. So indictments, pending right now for Letitia and for Comey. Comey's going to continue to argue that Lindsay Halligan was not properly installed. And by the way, I hate this.

It's just technicality. But guys, you know what? The law is based on technicalities. And that's why you need good lawyers. That's why, you know, funny that the deep state is totally fine, leaving Pam Bondi in this law. In fact, I was looking back through some old sound. And you had CNN commentators actually commending the pick of Pam Bondi.

I'm like, oh, you know, it's just kind of interesting, considering that she sat on that thing. she allowed Eric Seeper to sit there forever, right? Eric was the guy who was supposed to be bringing forth charges against Letitia James and James Comey, and yet he did nothing, nothing, nothing. And, you know, we've seen some of the exhibits from Lindsay Halligan. It does suggest that there's enough, at least to get an indictment, right? As they say, you can indict a ham sandwich. There's enough, there's some there there, and yet he chose not to do it. And then we find out, oh, wow, Comey's son-in-law was hanging out there. He was like the mole in the office. He actually worked in that

exact same U.S. Attorney's Office. You're like, how does this happen? Well, because, you know, you're not doting your eyes and crossing your T's, and maybe that is because you need somebody who's really tough and really good as head of the DOJ, who's turning in her homework on time and making sure that we don't lose out because, whoopsie Daisy, a statute of limitations was missed. Come on, come on. I mean, hey, Letitia, they can still go after and they get tons of stuff. Here's an insurance document that's going to be a problem for Letitia. And maybe, maybe the in fact, get her, but I still look back and say, this Seepard guy, for goodness sakes, this was what you call an F up, okay? She screwed up. Seepard was in there. They should have gotten

him out with enough time to get somebody else in who was going to move forward. If they knew that they wanted to charge Comey and they knew they had some there there, why did you allow this guy to hang out as long as he did, thereby exhausting your ability to go after Comey? It makes me sort of like, Like, why? Like why? We need better, smarter people. I'm sorry. You know what? She's a wonderful person, but and very good on camera and very attractive and all of those things. And I know the president loves her and she's very, very loyal to him. But for goodness sakes, we need competency. Competency really matters. I'll tell you, the president, he shocked everyone yesterday. This was quite, quite a thing to see.

I mean, he had this like epic, epic, epic rant against Ilhan Omar, you know, the lady from Minnesota. Minnesota, where we now are finding out about a $1 billion fraud that was run by the Somali ring. And I'll tell you, Trump is not having it. He just shut off 19 countries, 19 countries that cannot come here. He's shutting down any ability of these particular countries. of which Somalia is one to be able to come here. Well, now Ilhan Omar is scrambling. Like, she's on defense because Donald Trump came out

and had some pretty nasty things to say about her. I mean, this is like epic, even for him, for goodness sakes. I was watching it in real time with you guys yesterday as this just came in. I was like, oh, my goodness. And we might have to be careful because you may actually use a bad word in this. But here is Donald Trump talking about Somalia.

and Ilhan, and wait till you see her response. She's got nothing. And they contribute nothing. The welfare is like 88%. They contribute nothing. I don't want them in our country, I'll be honest with you. Somebody who said, oh, that's not politically correct. I don't care.

I don't want them in our country. Their country's no good for a reason. Their country stinks, and we don't want them in our country. I could say that about other countries, too. I can say it about other countries too. We don't want them to help. We have to rebuild our country. You know, our country's at a tipping point.

We could go bad. We're at a tipping point. I don't know if people mind me saying that, but I'm saying it. We could go one way or the other, and we're going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country. Listen. Elon Omar is garbage. She's garbage.

Her friends are garbage. Wow. These aren't people that work. These aren't people that say, Let's go, come on, let's make this place great. These are people that do nothing but complain. They complain. And they, they, it rhymes with it.

They got nothing. You know, they came from paradise, and they said, this isn't paradise. But when they come from hell, and they complain and do nothing but bitch, who don't want to be an outcome. Let them go back to where they came from and fix it. Round of applause, my goodness. I mean, like I said, this was a lot for even him, but he's kind of had it. Between the $1 billion in fraud, between the Ilhan Omar being as miserable as she is,

and the desire for so many of these people that came here looking for a better life to kind of bring us back to craziness and socialism and communism and, you know, her husband's worth a fortune. Kind of makes you wonder what's going on there. $30 million, allegedly. Net worth as high as $30 million, because you see he has a VC firm. That's not really a VC firm. I think it's more of a lobbying firm.

And why do we allow that? Why is it that you can be a member of Congress and have a hubby who's a lobbyist? Does anybody see something wrong with that? I think that's pretty damn wrong. And this exists a lot, a lot. So there's a lot of women that have hubbies that are lobbyists. Ilhan Omar is one of them. So Ilhan Omar and Somali scammers are the immigrants we don't want, writes Rich Lowry.

So Rich is, I don't think he's, I don't know if he's really a never-Trump or can I say that about Rich? I don't know where he stands these days, but, you know, he's called out Trump a lot. And on this one, he's like, Trump is totally right. So this is his article in the New York Post. He's over, I think he's still over at National. Review. He writes, in the course of her successful life here, yeah, very successful, very far from the place that she grew up in a country characterized by its prosperity, its peace, its prosperity and opportunity, one would have thought that she would have steadily accumulated a debt of gratitude.

Most heritage Americans, after all, never become members of Congress or enjoy a net worth as high as 30 million bucks, you know, because the hubby allegedly has a venture capital firm, which really, because I looked at it, seems like a lobbying firm. sketch. But no, quite the opposite. In Omar's version, a Washington post profile noted a few years ago, America wasn't the big-hearted country that saved her from a brutal war and bleak refugee camp. It wasn't a mediocrisy that helped her attend college or vaulted her into Congress. Instead, it was the country. It had failed to live up to its founding ideals, a place that had disappointed her in so many immigrants, refugees, and minorities like her. It's not just that she came from

nothing, he writes, and now as a person with prestige in certain circles, not this one, and resources, she may well have gotten away with a scheme years ago to marry her brother for fraudulent purposes, he writes. You know, I know Pam has a lot on her plate, but can somebody please look into that? Like, please? Because that would actually be sort of fraudulent. If you came here and you married your brother in order to help get some kind of citizenship, that might actually bring a lot of things into question.

Just saying, like, I know we get a lot of priorities right now, but this is why you need a really kick-ass killer team running your DOJ. So Ilhan Omar is now responding to all of this, and she had some kind of lame, lame tweet saying, oh, you know, well, he always just goes back to this. And then she went on, again, one of those networks. They're all kind of the same, honestly. Anyway, she went on one of those nice places where they'll treat her well and they won't ever challenge her and just went off about Trump.

And it's like, okay, come on, honey, you're just back at, you know, we've heard this one before. I mean, it's the same old, same old, same old, same old, all over again. Poor Ilhan scrambling to respond to the president's really direct comments about her and her friends, watch. He's always been a racist, bigot, xenophobic and Islamophobic. We know that he called African nations a shithole in his first administration. We know that when he came down that escalator, he said he was going to stop Muslim immigration into this country. And so it is not surprising that he is going after black immigrants in this country.

and it's certainly not surprising that he's choosing a black immigrant community that is also Muslim. But what I would like to say is that most of us are citizens on our passport. It says we are nationals of this country. We love that Minnesota has welcomed us. Many of us have not been settled in Minnesota. We chose it as a home because the Minnesota people and the state is beautiful and very welcoming. And we are going to be here regardless of what the president has to say. I agree. I love the Twitter.

Oh, I agree. Well, very welcoming. I mean, very welcoming. So welcoming that you guys were able to, you know, rig some kind of system where allegedly you took a billion dollars right out of taxpayers' hands. I mean, it's so welcoming because, you know, they just are nice people there in Minnesota. And look what happened. So, you know, maybe the president's right. Maybe you can't be that nice.

Maybe we don't even have to put it on Donald Trump. Maybe we go back to the soundbite I played for you earlier. 1989, Joe Biden saying, we've got to be tougher. We got to take the criminals out. We actually have to be a whole lot tougher. He was complaining the Republicans weren't doing enough. Oh, yeah. Things have changed, right?

Things have changed. Now you get Timmy Waltz, for example, now being allegedly connected to possibly just looking the other way. It's kind of like what I was saying with Letitia. Was she actually deliberately looking the other way? I mean, how would you allow for this stuff? Or was it just negligence and incompetence? Because she was so caught up with going after Trump.

And maybe in Timmy's case, you know, he was so worried about making sure that you had tampons in the boys' bathrooms that he missed the fact that a billion dollars worth of stuff was being confiscated right under his nose. I'll tell you, the White House is looking into it. The White House is serious. The White House is worried that some of these groups might have connections to some of the groups that I've,

just mentioned that we're being money laundered right for Iran and jeopardize the safety of law-abiding American citizens. In fact, according to a new bombshell report from the New York Times, Somalian migrants in Minnesota have defrauded nearly $1 billion in taxpayer-funded benefits under Democrat Governor Walz's leadership. President Trump is putting an end to this dangerous America last approach. His position is rooted in common sense. In the wake of last week's atrocity. Yeah, common sense. I mean, it's not cool that a billion dollars was apparently stolen from taxpayers

out there in Minnesota. Like, that's not cool, okay? Like, you actually have to do something about that. And now people want to know why Timmy didn't seem to care. You know, I mean, we get higher costs every day, all kinds of higher costs, for goodness sakes. It's getting kind of outrageous, right? But Donald Trump has something he wants to do about it. Something. And he's doing it. Have you seen the Trump baby accounts? How about this, you guys? I mean, how about it, right? They're talking about, oh, a thousand bucks for each new child

born during Donald Trump's term. And guess what? He got the guy, Michael Dell, his friend, who runs Dell computer to pay for it. Yeah, they gave like six and a half billion dollars. Here's Michael Dell and his wife with these generous gifts. And I know like people are saying things, well, you know, let's just, let's watch them and appreciate them for what they're giving back to society right now. The Trump baby boom. Absolutely. It's a very special moment.

We're making a $6.25 billion dollar investment in America's kids through our charitable funds. Next year, every American child will be able to get an investment account powered by Invest America. We've seen what happens when a child gets even a small financial head start. Their world expands. The real power of these accounts is that anyone can contribute. Parents, relatives, friends, everyone can help shape a child's future. To philanthropists.

So it's good, right? I mean, what a great thing. You know, you put $1,000 away for a kid, and, you know, by the time they're 65 and Social Security might be gone, hey, you know, maybe they got something there. Anyway, it's a wonderful start, and it pairs with, for example, what we're seeing in terms of the tariffs, right? He wants the $2,000 rebates. They're getting very serious. It's an actually responsible thing to do.

Well, there are a lot of options here that the president's talking about a $2,000 rebate. And that would be for families making less than, say, $100,000. Have you decided on that yet? We haven't. We haven't. It's in discussion. But the other thing to think about Brian is that what we did with the tax bill is actually financing the president's no tax and tips over time. So security and the big refunds you're going to see are a result of that.

So that's another payment to the American people. And then the other thing you're going to see in the middle of the year are these Trump accounts. Every child born retroactively. to January 1, but for the next three years is going to get a $1,000 account that's going to be invested in the U.S. stock market. So that's another $1,000 for working families. It's so good. It really is. And you know what, that money is going to accumulate and grow. And, you know, if you look at the S&P over the last, what, 10, 20 years, you're looking at an average return of somewhere around 10%. Make sure you go to 76research.com. Use my code word dollar.

You can get my financial research newsletter there, first two months, a dollar a month. Anyway, 76 research.com. Here's the president, again, talking about the need for this, that he wants to pay down debt, but simultaneously, simultaneously, he wants to make sure that, you know, we're doing something for the people. And he talks about affordability, but it's kind of a, kind of a misnomer, because I would say that inflation has come down significantly. And I'm going to show you some charts that he put on this out in just a moment because he was tweeting up a storm. Or what do we say? Truthen up a storm on truth social.

And I want to show you some of these. But first, let's go back to him in this interview with Dugie Hauser. He's like 12. And I can say that because I'm definitely not 12. Over at O-A-N, here's the original soundbite when he disclosed to this reporter that he was actually really serious about $2,000 per family for working middle class. We also might make a 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? Well, ultimately, you know, 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 where, number one, we're paying down debt because people have allowed the debt to go crazy. But, you know, with growth, with the kind of growth we have now, the debt is very little, rather than speaking, you grow yourself out of that debt. It's not a question of paying it. you grow yourself out. And the numbers are so much bigger than they ever were. The numbers we have now are bigger than they ever were. So when you have $36 trillion in debt a year ago or two years ago, and you have a lot less revenue coming in, then you have 37 or 38, it's not 38 yet, but it will be.

And the numbers are so much bigger, all of a sudden, 38, you're under levered, whereas for 36, you were highly levered. We're not highly levered anymore. Now, with that being said, we'll pay back debt. but we all, you know, I know we want to pay back the debt, but he's really interested in doing something to kind of gin things up and he's sitting there waiting for the Fed and the Fed's not coming along. By the way, CC-Rwin, thank you for your generosity. Thank you to everyone just for being here, just commenting and liking. Believe me, it helps a lot because the algorithm's tricky and sometimes they try and shadow us and this, that and the other. Maybe they don't. Maybe it's just you guys aren't that interested on a particular day. So when you like it like that or you make a comment,

really helps. Thank you for that. But the president is very serious about trying to do something to really help the people in this country. And I want to show you what he was putting out. I actually made a little recording of this. So he had a bunch of stuff that he wanted to make clear. You see this. Okay, so he, I love this. So, by the way, Joe Biden wouldn't even understand these charts. But look at this consumer spending. Okay, this first one. This is, uh, from the Census Bureau and from Hoover, real description, real consumer discretionary spending. This is important because what you see is we're outpacing inflation. And that's a big, big deal. It's going up and that's really, really, really good news. So consumer spending, which is like two-thirds of the

overall economy, this is important to see you want that moving higher. And then he wasn't done. He had a few of these things. So you had consumer spending. And then you have manufacturing, Renaissance, underway. Okay? The American manufacturing boom. Bring an America back. Oh my gosh. Look at those charts. Right. I mean, you see we were down negative 1.4. We were down 0.7 percent. I mean, wow, you go back to 23, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q1, Q2, Q4, and you don't have a lot of optimism there. The only time you saw anything of growth was Q224 and that was 1.4% growth, but it was either anemic or it was in negative territory. And Boom, Presto 2025 Q1. You can feel it, right? You can feel it in the air. Things are better. There's

more optimism. People are excited and what do you know? 3.5% growth in manufacturing and 2.4% in the second quarter. This is what I'm talking about. You need the right policies. Capital spending is skyrocketing, of course, because you actually have a capitalist there who's going to reward capital spending, right? Like that's important. So capital spending is skyrocketing. 0.4% to look at that 8.4%. That's 2025 annualized. Those are good numbers, guys. Okay, those are good numbers. And so it shows you that if you have somebody with the right economic policies in the White House, you're going to have opportunity. You're going to have growth. You're going to have good stuff ahead, which is why, if you want to go to my free account, invest in maga.com.

That's the free version of the newsletter. So you don't have to pay a dollar a month. Let me see if I can go back here because there's something else I want to show you. Real wages of recovering after a massive hit from Biden's inflation. I mean, Biden was taking us all the way up to plus 9% on inflation, for goodness sakes. And those things are tough because you can't actually have a deflationary environment. You don't want inflation like down negative 9%, because then who the heck is going to buy anything? You'd just wait forever because it's going on sale next month. They have this problem all the time in Latin America, right, with really, really rocky economies and they suffer from deflation and they suffer from inflation as well. We don't want that. We want

kind of a steady progress. And that's where the Fed shoots for between two and three percent inflation. That's what we have right now. It is tame. So that does open room for us to, what do you know, cut interest rates. Boy, would Trump love that. But real wages recovering after a massive hit from Biden's inflation. I love seeing that. Real wages adjusted for inflation. This is a big deal. You know that Donald Trump actually grew real wages the most since any president going all the way back to the 1950s when he was in office until, of course, they shut everything down with March 2020. I still have like PTSD from that time. I call it March 2020. You know what I'm referring to? Yeah, you weren't even like allowed to say COVID on the air. But this is interesting.

So he also put this out last night. And you know, he and Rand Paul have been having some fighting and he's calling Rand Paul the next Thomas Massey and this, that, and the other. He actually forwarded to his entire social media universe and thus everyone. What Rand Paul was saying about health care, He said, I know we recently have been at odds. Your first term, you signed an executive order to legalize association health plans that allowed individuals to buy collectively health insurance via Costco, Amazon, or Sam's Club. This collaboration brought us together and still holds the promise of lowering insurance premiums.

And boy, do we need lower insurance premiums. So I think he liked the idea. I think that's why he tweeted it. And, you know, he's been doing what he can to lower insurance. cost to lower drug costs to help make health care more affordable, which is not an easy thing to do, right? He doesn't believe that we are really dealing with inaffordability. In fact, he's calling the affordability crisis sort of a made-up thing, because if you look

at the charts that I just showed you, we're actually doing well in terms of real wages, in terms of capital investment, et cetera, in the economy in terms of manufacturing growth. But the one thing that has been a challenge for people is the increase. in health care spending. And by my estimation, that's because you had too much Obamacare in there and too much in terms of regulators and big government and big pharma, right? Big pharma was a big part of this. They get an army of lobbyists out there. They're advertising. They're spending so much money. They're single-handedly keeping those evening network news shows afloat, right, with all their billions of dollars and what I would say are rather misleading ads for things that you probably don't

need and you can't watch the evening news with your kids anymore because of these ads. Worse yet, you know, big farmers pushing government mandates, government mandates, right, designed to stack the deck in their favor. So they make all the money. And the goal in Washington is pretty simple. You escape accountability. You block free market competition because, gosh, we don't like free markets, right? Not if we're Ilhan Omar.

And we jack up all the prices on things too outrageous prices because, hey, government's going to pay for it, right? Or not. It means individuals pay for it. And it means that individuals often can't afford it. And businesses can't afford it. Small businesses, families. And this is why conservatives for lower health care,

conservatives for lower health care costs are warning about the big pharma industry. And I'm joining them in this warning. Collectively together, we're trying to say, hey, hey, hey, be careful here because the industry wants to stick it to Americans. And they want to stick it to employers with billions of dollars of high premiums and drug costs. So President Trump, I know he's not. back and down, and his administration is cracking down on these drug companies that gouge Americans and mislead patients with all their advertising. Meanwhile, conservatives in Congress are introducing

reforms to stop big pharma's games that block generics and keep these prices high. So, you know, join us here. Go check out farmerwindfall.com if you really want to find out how much money they're making and help join this effort to lower drug prices with me and our friends at Americans for lower conservatives, I should say, conservatives for a lower health care costs. We're a special breed. Anyway, and we thank them for the support of the show because they help make all of this possible.

So they're a good crew over there. I think you'll learn some more. Listen, if you haven't subscribed to the channel, make sure that you do. Gosh, guys, we're really climbing. Wow, you kind of like this later time, huh? I don't love it. I'm going to try and be on earlier tomorrow,

but, you know, we've been doing some construction in the studio and this, that, and the other. And so, you know, life happens. Anyway, thank you for being here. Make sure that you subscribe, share, like, again, everything we can do to help this little algorithm and to keep things moving. It's great to have you here. There's so much happening, and I'm promising you, it's still good.

I know it's frustrating sometimes, but we still have many, many good things ahead. So keep the faith. God bless you all. I'll see you tomorrow.