The Trish Regan Show - BREAKING: Trump Demands ARREST of Dem 'Traitors' as EVEN MSNBC Turns of 'Seditious Six'; Pam Bondi Rumored to be OUT at DOJ

Episode Date: November 26, 2025

BREAKING: President Trump is escalating his attacks on what he calls the Democrat “traitors” in Congress — and in a surprising twist, even MSNBC is casting doubt on the so-called “Seditious Six” narrative. When the mainstream media starts backing away, you know something isn’t adding up. I break down what’s really going on behind the scenes and why this story is blowing up across political lines.PLUS — major fallout inside the Justice Department. After the collapse of the Comey and Letitia James prosecutions, insiders (including me) are now questioning Pam Bondi’s future. AND — the $2,000 “tariff rebate checks.” Trump says they’re still a go, but how real are they? What are the legal and economic hurdles? And when — if ever — could Americans actually expect to see a check? I walk you through the facts and the spin.All that and more — join me! Get my financial newsletter with code: DOLLAR for $1 a month for introduction offer at https://76research.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Convierte your passion in a business with Shopify and bathe records of with the form of pay with a better conversion of the world. You've heard of the best.

The Mereverion of the world. The incredible system of Pago of Shopify facilita the website on your website, in the social and in

in any place. That is music for your o'ids. No, you do you guys, you know, your business

will be a super-exititon for a euro-mess in shopify.s. This is getting wild. I mean, this is like one giant psych up. I don't know how to describe it other than that. Guys, this is not good. The Democrats have like crossed over into the point of no return,

shall we say? And Donald Trump, he's kind of had it at this point. He's calling for the arrest of all six of them, all six of them that participated in that now infamous, infamous little social media stunt. I mean, that's really and truly what it is, none other than a stunt. And they may pay a political

price and more than that at this point because he's had it and the Department of War is now initiated an investigation. Meanwhile, Latisha James, oh boy, oh boy, we can't get away without talking about her. She's about to be hit with indictment number two. Yeah, second go-around. And we're also talk about Pam Bondi because she really botched up the timing with this one. I've got to tell you, I've done a lot of research. I'm looking at all the legality issues here. And, you know, I'm a straight shooter and I'm never going to tell you otherwise. But this may actually cost her job, because there are rumors out online right now that they are looking at a new. number one over at the DOJ and he comes from the FBI.

We're going to talk some more about it with Pam Bondi and what she messed up with and what it means for Comey and why this is really important, right? As we come up on these Epstein files coming out, we are expected to hear in less than 30 days more on that information. We begin today on the Trish Rican show with the Department of War investigation and Donald Trump calling for the arrest of these quote-unquote seditious six. Donald Trump demanding this because of the fury over war. what they put out on social media.

Don't forget just yesterday with the Department of War saying they were launching an investigation into Mark Kelly. Mark Kelly, former captain, retired in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice 10, USC, 688 and other applicable regulations, because this is kind of like they're calling for some kind of, I don't know, mutiny, right? Like they want total chaos? They want total anarchy. Guys, I'm sorry, but like the politics have got to stop because now you're just

really sounding scary. And I guess you want this civil war. I guess you want this kind of craziness. I'll tell you nobody else wants it. And this is not going to get you anywhere when it comes to midterms. They are actually digging themselves in further and further in this giant psychop. I've got more to tell you. But first, in case you're not familiar with it, let's get you up to speed with these nut jobs saying what they said, releasing this tape just late last week, then going all around the weekend shows all weekend long talking about how the military shouldn't follow Donald Trump's orders, all while being asked, well, has he done anything illegal? And they had no answer for that one. Anyway, here we go. Senator Mark Kelly. Representative Chris Delusio.

Congressman 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. We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military.

But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniform military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath. To protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. The threats are with you that.

You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant. But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back. Because now, more than ever.

The American people need you. But but, but, but, but, but, but, but not only do they have your back, they want you to know that if you do actually follow orders and somehow it's illegal or later determined to be illegal, then guess what? Like, guess what? And then they start invoking like, well, of course, where they always go back to, Germany, Hitler, World War II. I mean, my gosh, this is just unbelievable to me. Unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable. Again, we'll get to it, but they went on the weekend shows. They can't actually cite anything that Donald Trump is doing. illegally, but they just want you to know just in case, just in case. Oh, forgive me.

What's that woman who almost became, oh yeah, yeah, Amy Klobuchar, yeah, she's almost as bad as, I was going to say Hillary, but I really meant Kamala. It's like a, it's like a three-way tie. Hey, anyway, Amy Klobuchar is trying to say, oh, well, the National Guard going into Chicago or California or any of these things is illegal, which is actually not true because, heck, the Ninth District Court, right? The Ninth Circuit Court, forgive me, out in California, actually allowed for that to happen. And I'd also point out that there's president in history. Just in 1963, George Wallace, Alabama. What do you think went down there, Amy? So no, it's not illegal for the president of the United States to actually send in the military like that. But I realize, you know, don't get in the way of good story. I'll tell you, I'll tell you who's not happy with this.

Former military pros, okay? Here's a former officer. Thank you for your service. His first name is Buzz. let's listen to him and see what he has to say. He actually worked under Clinton in a pretty valuable, important spot. 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... a dog in this hunt. I am very appalled at what the Sedition 6 is 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 Hegseth hold them accountable. Do you heard that? And he goes on because he's got more to say. He wants them held accountable. You know why? Because he's a former member of the military, and anybody's in the military knows

you kind of got to follow orders. That's like, you know, the first thing you learn, right, in the military. Because if you're not following orders, and you totally have chaos. And so when you sign up for the military, you're kind of signing up for a whole lot. And guess who is the commander-in-chief of the military? Yeah, that would be the president of the United States. So you can't just say, oh, I'm going to ignore it all. By the way, again, he's not asking you to do things that would be against American citizens. Like, this is where, like, they're so wild. trying to prep you for something. Unbelievable psychop job here going down.

But anyway, let's go back to Buzz. Patterson. 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. So that's an act of courage. Again, this is the guy who carried the nuclear football under Bill Clinton, a former military aid, to Bill Clinton, Buzz Patterson, coming out and saying this is just absolutely outrageous. I mean, it's like they want chaos. Guys, they want chaos.

Think about this. As this Congresswoman so rightly put Wolf Blitzer on CNN in his place yesterday, because he's like, duh, you know, why is this so bad? And she's like, hello? I just want to be precise, Congresswoman. Should members of the U.S. military or the intelligence community, for that matter, obey what are clearly illegal orders if in their mind, what they're being told to do is something illegal?

Should they? If in their mind, right? Because if you don't like Donald Trump, everything that he says, everything he does is totally illegal in your view, despite the fact that no court is actually ruling on this. Oh my gosh. Still go ahead and follow those rules? You're asking an enlisted person for their opinion on what they think is legal or illegal.

That's a pretty slippery slope. Wouldn't you agree with that? So that's an interpretation. And what the president has done is not illegal, right? So I would say, follow the chain of command. follow your commander-in-chief. That's the oath that you took. Because if you leave everything up to interpretation, you can interpret things one way.

I could interpret things another way. And that is a very dangerous situation to put this nation in. And that's not how the military works, okay? I realize they want to take you back to Germany and World War II, as they always do. But, I mean, once again, you're going there, right? Like, guys, why are you going there? Because the president is saying, I want the National Guard in Washington, D.C. to help clean up the city. I actually want the National Guard in Chicago so that we can arrest people that are here illegally,

they have committed crimes. After all, you guys won't do it. You guys won't do it. Well, that's your problem, all right? There's this little thing called the Supremacy Clause. Let's start with that, right? It was 1963, Alabama, again, where they had to send in the National Guard because George Wallace and the state officers there said, no, we're not going to integrate our schools. And the federal government said, well, you have to because this is the law of the land. And they said, nope. And they said, okay, well, too bad. We're taking over your National Guard and you're going to do what we need you to do. In other words, there is precedent for this stuff. And if Chicago is going to say, we're not going to allow for ICE to be here, we're going to, you know, section off portions of Chicago and not allow ICE to do anything,

not allow ICE to enforce the law. Come on. I mean, wow, wow, wow, wow, wow. And this is, idiot. Like she's some former CIA analyst. She belongs back in the CIA. Well, no, we don't want any of these people in the CIA either. But she, she belongs in some kind of job where she's just sitting there, like, mining through documents instead of actually having any kind of presence or position of power. Elisa Slokkin is her name. The Slotkin goes on to ABC and she doesn't even have her faxed straight. They're like, did you do anything illegal? She's like, I don't know. Why did you come out with the video you. 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. I'm sorry, I'm not aware of anything that's illegal, but I put out that video, just in case, just in case, just in case. What is this just in case thing? Oh, again, I guess we're back to your psychop so you can prep everybody when you really decide to get a little crazy. You know what this is about. This is about midterms. That's what this is about.

Oh, we hate Trump. We hate Trump. We've detected from this angle. We've attracted it from this angle. Okay, so now we're just going to scare the living daylights out of everybody because you're going to somehow think that Donald Trump is trying to kill Americans in the streets. And we're going to prevent that because we're going to come in and we're going to save everyone. And by the way, the military never needs to follow his horse. I mean, this is bonkers. Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela. Okay. So Venezuela. Trust me, he does not want to get in a war with Venezuela. And if he ever were to, he would win that. So, Lisa, slokkin. Slokky, slucky, slucking.

I told her she's getting my arsh up. It's not good. It's supposed to be a vacation week. We got Thanksgiving coming up. I want to just like be happy and give thanks. But, you know, we have idiots like this out there in very powerful positions saying really stupid things like Amy Clobertcher, as I said, she doesn't seem to understand history. Does nobody understand history? No, because they don't apparently study history anymore. No, no, no, they're just doing, you know, whatever's popular, day of, in the moment. Let's go after Trump all weekend. Amy Clobuchar, ladies and gentlemen, having no clue that it is actually not illegal to bring

the National Guard in, projecting her own personal viewpoint on things despite courts ruling otherwise. Here she is. 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 others. Okay, but that hasn't happened because I do remember the 9th District Court actually telling Gavin Newsom, go F yourself effectively, okay? Because they said, yeah, he can go in there. So you guys don't have anything to basis on other than you're just trying to prep people,

prep them for something, prime them for something. Meanwhile, here's ABC, suggesting that Donald Trump has asked people to go out and kill Americans. ABC, like, shame on you guys. I'm telling you, like, Brandon, Brennan, FCC had, you got to get going on this show. Forget Jimmy Kimmel for a moment, because this show is where it's at. You want disinformation, misinformation, you want distortion of the facts. Just look no further than ABC's The View, which is about to get worse because apparently they want Marjorie Taylor Green to join. And know who you're talking to me. It's not only a national hero, but he's the husband of someone who was shot in the head at an event.

He is the epitome of the beginning of some of the most damning examples of political violence we've seen. So know who you're talking to. But I also like, we always talk about how the Trump came in on America First, America First. A week ago, we saw him defending a Saudi prince over a reporter. And now he's turning to a deep public servant that he disagrees with. and jump straight to traitor hang him. You've got to have some perspective on what you're stoking here.

Because I would argue that what Mark Kelly did was, Alyssa, reading what's already obvious, these are the oaths they take. They're repeating it in case people that they can relate to in our military services are put into a situation, which for the first time in our history, they may. Remember when Mark Esper

had to tell Donald Trump you couldn't shoot protesters in the legs. So, like, there's the Constitution and laws, lawful and legal things, and then there shoot the protesters in the legs. They might come up against the situation like that. What's going on? Is he just like losing it a little bit? I don't know, but he's... No, you guys are losing it, like a lot.

So he hasn't told anybody to shoot anybody, okay? I'm sorry, but like, this is getting whack-a-doo. Like, even for the view, even for the Dems, like, this is a stretch, okay? this is a very, very, very big stretch. But once again, it shows you how desperate they are. And again, the ABC lady just doesn't know her history either because I go back to 1963, Alabama and JFK sending in the National Guard, taking over the National Guard, because George Wallace wouldn't integrate the schools.

There is precedent for this. And if the president decides that it is so necessary because they're just ignoring all of law and order, and that's what they're doing, folks, that's what they're doing. If they keep ignoring it and you got the court saying, no, you can send them in just like they did the Ninth Circuit out in California, then guess what? No, you can't sit there as a member of the military and say, gee, I don't agree with this. And I think it's illegal. I think morally it's illegal, so I'm not going to do it.

Come on. This is Senator Gallegos. Gosh, you know, I realize we all want to throw up watching this. It's like, I haven't even had my turkey yet, for goodness sakes, but this jerk saying this. They are also swearing to the Constitution of the United States. They know 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 of 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.

Sounds like a threat. So, you know, I think there's going to be a lot of officers that are reputable. part of this, you know, potential tribunal 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 that 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. Okay. So that guy just basically said, if you don't agree with something, right, you think it's illegal.

He's trying to cast doubt in every member of the military. Well, if you don't do something, then we're going to come after you because we're going to take power, come midterms and we're going to come after you and we're going to hurt you and we're going to do this and that and then there's going to be retaliation and you know again we're going to evoke 1940s germany for goodness sakes these people are just so um rabidly political and because nothing has worked they're just doubling down on all of this so they're like oh you know Donald Trump he's taken over the government and he's got all this retribution and stuff but hey guess what when we take it over Boy, you ain't seen nothing yet, folks.

Courtesy Eric Swalwell, who thinks he can be the next governor of California? I mean, Fang, Fang, should be happy somewhere where she is in China right now because she picked a good one, the potential next governor of California. No, I don't think so. But anyways, Swalwell, going on and on about how they're coming for you. Where is the rule of law in the United States today? It's a lawless United States. The Department of Homeland Security should just change its name because that's not what they are doing right now as they chase our immigrant community.

But we have to, as Democrats, make it clear to Republicans as we seek and intend to go into the majority, that they are going to have to answer for this and it's all coming out. Because I promise you, right now they think they're invincible. they let these ice agents be invisible, and they don't think we have the balls to hold them accountable. Because they look at the way we've acted in the past, where we didn't flex when we had power. And it's not about retribution.

It's about accountability. Yeah, it's not about retribution. But hey, when we come into power, we're really going to flex. We're really going to show you guys, hey, if you did anything that we perceived to be illegal, I don't care that you're some little, you know, low-ranking member of the military, some enlisted person, We're coming after you.

This is bonkers, like full on bunkers. I want to show you what Republican strategy. Sorry, Fleischer had to say about exactly this. It was a very good point. Getting word now that Chuck Schumer says he stands with Senator Kelly on this issue. This was a fiery exchange that happened during this program on Thursday. Caroline Levin and a CBS news reporter had this exchange on the Democrat. Oopsie.

Let's go back again. All right. All right. So what should we make of all this? Why not have an answer if you're going to call for such strong, strong orders? When I saw that video the other week last week, my instant reaction was all the things I've seen in all my time in Washington, we've hit a new low. I don't care how much you oppose Donald Trump. You do not interfere in the military chain of command. And people who are in the military, someone who was in the CIA, they of all people should know that. So whatever you oppose, you have a higher duty to the Constitution and to the military chain of command. And that should be obeyed.

It must be obeyed when you're in uniform and it should be obeyed when you're out of uniform and retired. This was one of the lowest, most dangerous, worst things I've ever seen because they're trying to interfere with the chain of command. Yeah, they are. It's pretty damn sick. I've got to tell you. And, you know, it's so sick that even MSNBC realizes how pathetic and stupid this is. And you know what, if you guys are actually going to go out on all the weekend shows and you're going to sit there and say, well, Trump is doing things that are illegal and we just want to make sure that the military knows they can't do anything that's illegal. You better know what illegal things he's doing, right? You don't just throw this stuff into the wind. They were ill prepared because you know what? It's all fake. It's all a head game. It is all designed to scare the living daylights out of everyone so that they go and vote for those Democrats in midterms. Here's a Joe Scarborough. Yeah, they really fumbled the ball on this one, you think?

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 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 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, just does. And the Senate can take that up, but he has wide 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 send the Air Force, I can send the Coast Guard into any city I want to control crime. And the courts can't do anything about it.

That's illegal. It's just illegal. And so Democrats kind of need to, if the president has already said, I'm going to commit this illegal act, then I'm kind of surprised they don't have the answer when they go on a Sunday show for that. Okay, because they're just kind of dumb and somebody put this up to them. Again, as I told you, a psychop and it's all political and these aren't the smartest people in the world after all, who the heck would go into politics? Just saying. Anyway, in terms of what Joe's saying about you can't go into these particular communities and these. cities to control crime, I actually wonder about that, right? On the one hand, right, and I'm a small

government kind of gal. We don't want big federal government because that's always a problem. But the reality here is if you have a community that is falling victim to people who are here illegally, who are committing crimes, and you're trying to root that out. And the community is not able to confront that themselves because they may have a leader like Brandon Johnson or a governor say like Gavin Newsom, who's saying, well, you know, F you know, F you to the federal government because it's Donald Trump. And so we used to care about maybe making sure that we didn't have people here illegally, but now we no longer care about it. And you're preventing the federal government from then doing its job. Look, you know, Donald Trump didn't write that law.

That law is on the books about people not being here illegally thanks to our Congress. So if our Congress makes that decision, unless they decide to change it, that's the law of the land. And then the federal government has the right to enforce that law. And if you prevent them from, enforcing the law, then again, we're going back to 1963, Alabama. They just can't get it, though. They just can't get it. Here's another one. If they are going there where they did, do you think they should have been more explicit about the contours of what they think is actually illegal? I think the burden of proof on respecting the integrity of the military does not lie

on these patriots and veterans who are serving in Congress. It lies on the President of the United States who has entertained the idea of using the military to aid and abet the insurrection that he launched in 2020, who has called American cities training grounds for the United States military, who has ordered strikes in the Caribbean that have so rattled our own allies that they have decided to not share intelligence to advance those strikes because they don't believe that they are justified or legal. This president is the one who has to answer to the American public on his violations of posse comitatis, which means that he can't use the military for law enforcement purposes, as he's tried to do in Los Angeles and Chicago and elsewhere. And he has to answer to the American public for why he wants to wage a ground war in Venezuela

when the American public has been crystal clear that they are done with military adventurism overseas. Okay. Well, by the way, we just heard even Joe Scarborough talk about how what do you think the power of the presidency is, just as Barack Obama. And in some cases, with some of these strikes, yes, that lies within the executive branch. I'm telling you guys, this is weird what they're doing. very, very weird. And I think it is a total political move. You know, what do you think the 51x spooks and spies was all about when they came on and told us the Hunter Biden's laptop was nothing

but misinformation fed to you by the Russians and Rudy Giuliani? What do you think that was? It was an attempt to control the narrative. And they were using their intelligence assets, including the deputy director of the CIA and the former head of the DNI and the whole kit in a boodle of them, right? I mean, Anthony Blinken apparently came up with the idea because he had a lot running on the line. He was going to be the next secretary of state under Joe Biden. Yeah, a lot of good that did us. So they came out with this stupid letter that they put in Politico, which by the way, was getting millions of dollars from USAID for those subscriptions that they have. Yeah, like anybody needed a political subscription to the tunes of like tens of thousands of dollars. That was bonkers.

There was some kind of payback. You want a good subscription. Go over to my 76 research, dollar a month for the first two months. 76research.com, code word dollar, shameless plug. But I'm just saying, for goodness sakes, that was something else. With no information in it. And yet they're getting this government money and they chose this vehicle that's getting this USAID money to place this letter from the 51x spooks. And now they look back and laugh on it.

Here's this quote unquote journalist who's a tech business journalist. Yeah, I put that in quotations deliberately. Kara Swisher, who's speaking with Scott Jennings on her podcast, and she's trying to sluff it off. Oh, there was just politics. There was just politics. What do you think this thing is right now? It is just politics, but this is scary stuff. You guys are playing with fire.

And I was going to say you don't even know it, but maybe you do. And that's pretty sick and twisted. The story was true. There wasn't really any dispute of that other than from these 50 people who come from government, who are in and out of government when Democrats are in power. That's politics to me, Scott. That's, I mean, you're not naive. They were making their case, just like you would say Trump just did with whatever issue he has.

Well, I don't agree that it's just a simple matter of making your case when you use your government title and you use your intelligence bona fides and you use all your credentials to flat out lie to the American people. They don't, they didn't know that. That was a political. argument, but they were saying, this is Russian disinformation. What you're reading is directly out of the Kremlin. I mean, exactly, right? So that carried with a certain kind of weight, a certain kind of gravitas, and that made it even scary. I mean, even yours truly, like, took a pause. And I was like, whoa, wait a second. Like, let's make sure that we have this all right, because this is kind of scary. And like, you don't really know because you ought to be able to trust the former head of the CIA,

the former head of the DNI. I mean, they're not supposed to be political. Oh, but they are. You know, peace of my mind was just asking, who's orchestrating this? Like, where is this coming from? Because it feels like a foreign op, but no, I think it's just coming from the Dems. I think it's coming from, oh, lots of Democrat operatives behind the scenes. I mean, even you think about one of the women in there from New Hampshire, nonetheless, my wonderful steak going right down the tubes. Jake Sullivan's wife, Maggie Goodlander, it's Jake Sullivan, you know, former NSC, the guy that actually thought that he had the Middle East totally under control, like just days before the horror in Israel back in October. I mean, wow. Okay, so she's part of this. You get the

CIA lady part of it. This is not a good, good situation. And you know, my friend Jesse Waters, former colleague over on Fox, I had a good take on this. He's kind of in my camp because he's, he's of the view that this is very deliberate, that this is a very deliberate attempt to scare the American public into something. Like, they want you to believe something really, really, really crazy. Here we go. I talked to two. CIA officers who said that this is a part of a larger hoax. And what they're doing here is they're trying to condition the country to prepare for something bad that's about to happen at the hands of Donald Trump. It's straight out of the CIA playbook. It's a destabilization operation where you get

people to mistrust each other. And you do this because she's an analyst. And as an analyst, she would make sure what propaganda operations were successful, which ones weren't. So she knows what works. So the first part of the video, you establish authority. I'm CIA, I'm military. You need to trust us. Second part of the video, they introduced the threat and the threat's not foreign, the threat's domestic, the threats Donald Trump. And then at the end, they introduce the solution. What's the solution? You resist. You say no. But they don't give an option. They say this is an obligation for you to do. Now, she is being run because she didn't come up with this herself. She's a Brennan acolyte. And you usually... Okay, that's actually really clear. And part of why we know that she didn't

come up with it herself is because when they pushed her and said on ABC, well, what is it? Do you think that Donald Trump is actually doing anything illegal? And she had absolutely no answer for it. It tells you, like, there's no there there. There's not a lot of substance behind what she's doing. So back to piece of mind's point, like, who's running the show here? Who's running this psychop, if you would? It's not her. Here we go. I don't have congressmen and senators doing anything together.

They kind of hate each other. So in order to organize this, this had to have had some sort of handler telling her what to do. And it was risky because nothing like this has ever been done in the history of the country. And you can even tell because the media was skeptical. And they couldn't answer the question. So they hadn't even been read in on the operation. You see them fumbling and stumbling. And I'm glad that the U.S. military is now investigating this guy, Kelly, because this is what

we expect from Donald Trump 2.0. You can't have the deep state interfering with a duly elected presidency and get away with it. You got to draw the line in the sand and you have to make examples out of people. Okay, so I think he's right. I think this is kind of a deep state op. I think that that's a good way to characterize it. And unfortunately, the deep state is totally embedded with the Democrat Party. And one of you guys, just I actually put the comment up on the screen because you made a very

good point and something I was going to get to a little bit later in the show, because we're going to talk about Pam Bondi and we're going to talk about what's coming out in the next 30 days. And that would be the Epstein files, right? Remember Donald Trump didn't, you know, he was trying to be like sort of gracious. I talked about this the other day too. Like, we were like, why didn't he want this all to come out? And I think the reason he didn't want it all to come out is because you have a lot of

people that are going to get trapped up in this, just because there's like hearsay within some of the documents and within some of the exchanges. And gosh, you know, if you happen to have been at Epstein's house, which is basically all of New York, I guess, except for me. I was a member of the media in New York City, but somehow I never got that invite. Like all of New York, right, is going to somehow get wrapped up in this and you can find your name there. And even though you had nothing to do with. And so I think he was actually trying to protect some people. But in the process now, now that this is all coming out, you're going to see a lot of things and a lot of names. And I, I suspect, because I do think that Epstein was connected highly. So to the intelligence community,

there is an effort to at this point really take Trump down. And like, this is all their own doing, these idiots, right? They're the ones that decided, oh, we're going to go all in on Epstein. We're going to taunt him and make sure that he releases this. Well, he was like, fine, so be it. Out it comes. And now they're like, oh. And so now look what they're pulling. This is amazing to me. absolutely, totally disgusting and yet, you know, exactly who they are. Quickly, I want to help pay the bills here because we have a wonderful sponsor on this show. And this is more than paying the bills because I'll tell you, these guys have been with me like almost since the beginning, Balance of Nature. I'm going to tell you on Black Friday, on Black Friday weekend only,

go to Balance of Nature.com. I want you to get the free variety snack pack plus a free preferred customer membership with your first set of Balance of Nature supplement. You can go to balance TheLastinature.com. Use my code word, Trish. Helps show helps you to claim that limited time offer before it ends on Cyber Monday. The other big offer, of course, is the 35% off with code word Trish for new customers on any of their products, actually. You also get free shipping and you get money back guarantee, win, win, right? And I like balance of nature because I like knowing what I'm eating. And especially, you know, you turn around the supplement bottle and it's like, what? You'll recognize all the ingredients here, 31 ingredients that you will know.

no. Fruits and veggies, I promise you. So go check it out. It's good to know what you're having. And heck, you know, we don't all have the time to chop up all those vegetables. No, definitely not. So this is a good way to make sure that you're getting some of that nutrition. That's how I feel anyway. So go to balance of nature.com and look at that, look at that special Black Friday gift. Speaking of of which, special things, 76 research, if you haven't gone to 76 research, you've got to go to 76 research because we have so many ideas there on how you can benefit from this amazing, amazing AI push that's going on in real time. And what do you know? I don't know. I did. I see the market how it ended today as I went to look late in the session. We were higher right

across the board. Let's see how we wound up the day. I think that there's an expectation that we will maybe actually at some point get that Fed rate cut. And anyway, you slice it. You know what? Tech is here for the future. So please check out my newsletter at 76 research.com. Really important that you do. So yes, of course, we did end up the day up very nicely, 1.4% on the Dow, up almost 1% on the S&P, and up 6 tenths of a percent on the NASDAQ. So please make sure you don't get left out of this. Okay, I told you, we had a big story. First of all, Letitia James is going to be facing indictment number two. Indyement number two. Who's ready for that? Latisha, you're getting hit again. Okay, that's what's coming. Don't forget that the DOJ,

Harmeets Dylan, came out yesterday and said that, or I should say highlighted that the judge said that they were dismissing the indictments, but without prejudice. And why is that significant? Because when you say without prejudice, it means you can come back again for more. I think it's going to be hard for Comey. You know, I always tell you the truth here. And we've got a statute of limitations that we're up against with Comey unless somebody can get him in to testify again and catch him in a lie again. what I believe to be a lie, we can play it for you. But anyway, the one to watch right now, mortgage documents, Letitia James, this isn't going away because there is no statute of limitations on her. So, Leticia James, she's the one who said she was going to have her principal residence

be that house in Virginia and then was like, oh, no, no, no, that was just an error. I, you know, I didn't really mean that. That was a power of attorney error. Well, then there was a second mortgage, okay? So this second mortgage writer that you're looking at, and that things comes out. And now she's saying that really she's going to occupy that home most of the time, that it's not going to be a rental. It's not going to be used as an income property. And then when we look at additional documents that were released, thanks to Lindsay Halligan, who got all this information out into the public, take a look at this. She said she's only going to occupy it on these various months, February, July, September, April, and November. The rest of the time,

it's going to sit empty. Oh, and then there's this one, this insurance little thing that came out, Mike Davis, he called our attention to this, saying that, you know, it was going to be occupied by a single adult, not by an adult with three children. So, Letitia, I think you're going to have some problems still. And you know what? The statute of limitations has not run out. So they're going to come back to get you. And what goes around comes around, so to speak, shall we say? Four days after a judge ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million for a decade of fraud. New York Attorney General Letitia 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, you know, judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge to seize his assets. Oh, boy. Okay. So they may have to start seizing yours, because I imagine those legal bills are getting kind of expensive, right, Tishy? I mean, this is a personal case, and I know that you're trying to use.

use taxpayer dollars, but that's become kind of an issue. And the Republicans aren't too happy about that in the state of New York, even though Kathy Hockel did set aside, was it $10 million for you so that you'd have one big slush fund for your legal expenses? Well, you're not able to use that. So you're turning to different kinds of slush funds, right? Your lawyer went out and is soliciting funds from other lawyers to try and put towards your cause. But let's just say, it's not going away. They are preparing a second indictment against Letitia. They are allegedly appealing the Comey Letitia case. I don't think this is going to get anywhere, and I want to tell you why. I think Pam Bondi really blew it up on this one. Yeah, Pam, Pam kind of screwed up royally,

and I suspect that she's going to face the music, so to speak, sooner rather than later. I don't think that she did this deliberately. I want to say that. I think that she has the best of intentions, and she has a lot of loyalty to the president. But this is a tough job, and you really kind of have to understand the timing on these things. And clearly, she didn't. And so at this moment, as we speak, she is rumored to be out at the DOJ, Pam Bondi possibly, and these are just floating around on Twitter, on actually some pretty reputable accounts. It's believed that she's about to be replaced by somebody who's the co-de deputy FBI director, Andrew Bailey. Now, this, again, I reiterate would be very interesting ahead of the Epstein files that are coming out.

within the coming month. So you might want to make sure that you have somebody who really knows how this is supposed to be run, or at least is willing to turn to the experts, right? You want really good attorneys there that you can rely on so that you're not missing deadlines, you're not running into statute of limitation issues, and that you're not screwing things up by, you know, say, deciding to nominate someone yourself instead of saying, okay, we need the justices to weigh in on this. I would say it goes back to, however, Eric's. seeper because she is the one who okayed Eric in the slot and she never vetted him properly. I mean, this was a guy who Tim Cain loved in Virginia. Yeah, the guy that ran with Hillary,

remember the other Tim? Anyway, Caroline on Fox yesterday trying to insist that they're taking this all the way up the food chain and I just, I don't, I think that that's what Pam would like to do, but I think it's kind of an empty path. Here we go. Everybody knows that James Comey lied to Congress. It's as clear as day. And this. judge took an unprecedented action to throw these cases out to shield James Comey and Letitia James from accountability based on a technical ruling and the administration disagrees with that technical ruling. We believe the attorney in this case, Lindsay Halligan, is not only extremely qualified for this position, but she was in fact legally appointed. And I know the Department of Justice will be

appealing this in very short order. So maybe James Comey should pump the brakes on his victory lap. Okay, so here's the problem. There's like all these technicalities, and I know it's painful, but the technicalities are coming back, you know, to haunt them in a big way. I just want to play one more from Carolina. Lindsay Callaghan was legally appointed, and that's the administration's position. I know there was a judge who is clearly trying to shield Leticia James and James Comey from receiving accountability, and that's why they took this unprecedented action

to throw away the indictments against. these two individuals, but the Department of Justice will be appealing very soon, and it is our position that Lindsay Halligan is extremely qualified for this position, but more importantly, was legally appointed to it. The problem is the dates, like the way this all works out in terms of the dates. Okay, so let's not forget, Pam okayed Eric Siebert. Donald Trump didn't really know who Eric Siebert was. You know, he couldn't care less.

He's trusting his team to put in somebody who's going to be an ally. So if we're going to start from the position that Pam Bondi, wanted this, okay, that Pam Bondi, head of the DOJ, wanted to make sure that Comey was indicted and Leticia too, but it was less significant with Letitia because they had time on their side. If Pam said, okay, I want Comey's head on a platter, I want the indictment, then wouldn't you put in somebody who maybe is a little bit more maga, who maybe doesn't have the backing of Tim Kane? I'm just saying, from a political standpoint, let's, you know, we're going to throw ethics out the window for a second and we're just going to say, if I'm a purely political

animal, as we know the Democrats are. And I want to make sure that we dot our eyes and we cross our T's and we get Comey because, you know, by the way, they have him on record saying something that's a little different than what he may have ultimately done. And that would be about, you know, leaking. He was leaking like a sieve allegedly. So if you know this about Comey and you really want to make sure that you bring this case forward, then wouldn't you try to put someone in that you have vetted and that you believe maybe shares your viewpoint? on that world. Instead, they get the guy that, you know, the Democrats love. So what's critical is she let the clock run. Okay, this is where she screwed up. She put in, and yeah, she may be

out of a gig right now. That's what we're hearing. Anyway, she puts in Eric Seepard. Okay, and he's the guy that refused to a charge, Letitia James, totally refuse. I mean, I've seen all the insurance documents, the mortgage documents. I mean, to me, that looks like mortgage fraud. And as Lindsay also pointed out, there's plenty of mortgage fraud cases out there and they've been brought before. And so that is a criminal case that you could bring forward. But Pam like okayed this Eric Siever going in. Eric, who was like buddy buddies, I guess, with a Comey's son-in-law, Comey's son-in-law, who's also working in the office. It's starting to get a little suspicious. Again, like, is nobody vetting anybody? Apparently not. So he gets the gig and that was something that the DOJ signed off on. So the DOJ had one opportunity to put

somebody in for 120 days. During that 120 days, they're considered a temporary appointment. And then they need the Senate to vote on them. So while they were waiting for the Senate to vote on him, at some point, somebody came to the conclusion that Sieper wasn't going to move forward. I think that was Donald Trump. He's like, wait a second, we got like a week left. I mean, like, what's going on, right? So look at the date on this article. September 20th, 2025, U.S. Attorney, he resigns, Donald Trump said he got rid of him, but whatever. The 20th of September. Guess when the clock struck 12 on Comey? September 30th, 2025. So now this guy leaves and you've got exactly 10 days, 10 days before the statute of limitations runs out. Why did you let him sit there all that time?

why did you put him in if you thought that he wasn't going to do the job? So, they're down to the final count, right? They get 10 days and what do they do? They don't have the time. I mean, if Pam Bondi had been watching the clock and thinking about the expiration date on Comey, she would have been all over this guy riding his tail, right, from day one. What to get? Give me, give me, give me.

And instead, she lets time go by and more time go by and more time go by. So then they go in and they say, we're going to put in Lindsay Halligan. Okay, so that's like error number two. So they put in Lindsay Halligan, but the way the law actually works is you get one chance, like one bite at the apple. And if your person is not secured, then it's actually kicked back to the state justices and they get to vote on who's going to be the temporary, the next temporary U.S. attorney. And so they just ignored that.

And Pam's like, okay, we're going to put in somebody. And Donald Trump, what does he know? He's not a legal scholar for goodness sakes. He's a businessman. The lawyer's getting the way. He's just like, make it happen, make it happen, make it happen. And I'm telling you, this could have been prevented. If Pam had been following the case from the beginning and keeping an eye on what Eric was doing,

this is what I've said. Like, you need somebody who's a great manager. I mean, great. She's good on TV. She looks terrific, right? Perfect. Okay. She looks the part.

Let her be your PR person. But be careful who you put in there because they've got to run this army of lawyers and they've got to be good managers. They've got to be able to have very high executive functioning skills. They've got to be able to divert to the experts. Go and hire. I think Sullivan and Cromwell works with them. Great law firm, right? Out of New York, you go to your white shoe law firm and you say, okay, what do I do?

Because we can't screw this up. But she did. I mean, I think it's pretty much botched at this point. Donald Trump's saying at the time, right, when on the 20th of September when this guy leaves, he said, today I withdrew the nomination of Eric Seabert as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia when I was informed that he received the unusually strong support of two absolutely terrible sleesback Democrat senators from the great state of Virginia next time, let him go in as a Democrat, not as a Republican. So he's saying, and this was kind of a con job. Like, we didn't really know who this guy was. I don't know about that.

I mean, it is interesting that you have Democrat support, but let's leave that alone for a second and just say, if you're Pam Bondi, if you're running the DOJ and you know that you want an indictment for Comey, aren't you looking at the calendar? Aren't you saying, okay, we have this much time. We got our temporary guy in there for 120 days. What's taken so long? I know that the statute of limitations is going to ran out on Comey on September 30 at 2025. So, come on, what are you doing? Like, what's taking? Like, wouldn't he have been gone like in the first month? Which, by the way, like, I'm saying, like this might be something for Donald Trump to think about with Pam Bondi. And I think he's already thinking about it because she screwed up. Now, we could say like she's been taking her time

and things aren't happening as fast as we'd like. I get it. I know that. We're all very, very anxious. I don't know the legal deadlines on everything. But if you're, you're confronting a statute of limitations issue and your final date of September 30th, 20th, 2005, why would it take you until September 20th to get rid of the guy who was supposed to be doing the gig for you? Okay. Like an indictment is not hard to get, ladies and gentlemen, you can indict a ham sandwich as they say. So for whatever reason, he was resisting. They put in Halligan who goes in and says, okay, I'm going to fire James Comey's son-in-law. for starters, I'm going to, I don't know, maybe he resigned ultimately when she announced the

indictment against Comey, but they didn't have any time. They put her in on the 22nd of September. And again, seven, what, at that point it's eight days later, the statute of limitations is going to run out on Comey, on top of which, it's like putting in the substitute teacher, but nobody actually, I know you want to say, like, the president, I get it, and, you know, supremacy clause and all that, but there is actually like a protocol here. And they just ignored the entire protocol and they didn't have to do that. My point is they did not have to ignore any of the protocol if Pam had been doing her job managing her team checking in on Eric saying, where are we? Okay, this guy's not going to do it. He can't stay in this gig. She could have forced him out

eons earlier and they still would have had plenty of time to get one of their people in there. Or how about this? How about this? You guys. vet who you're putting in. I mean, I'm starting to sound like Laura Lumer now. But Laura was all over this, right? I don't know in regards to Eric, but in terms of everybody that was in the administration, she's like, for goodness sakes, people, will you vet them? Will you vet them? Will you vet them? Because are they actually going to do what you want. Again, I want to be cautious and careful on this because I'm not suggesting that anybody bring a case that should not be brought. But when I look at the facts of this one, I have only to go back what Comey himself said

and Rand Paul's like this guy lied, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la. And then I think about all the text messages that Lindsay Halligan brought forward in her discovery. All these different exhibits where he was certainly seeming to suggest that somebody go out there and speak to the media. And he said he didn't do that. Watch. There's this little thing called tape. Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? Never. Have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?

No, I needed to get that out into the public square. And so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. Didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And there we have it. Yeah. No, I mean, it's unbelievable, right? He was manipulating the media, including somebody who was on the payroll. This is his Columbia Professor University buddy.

Oh, lovely. Who was offering to write glowing pieces for him in the New York Times. I mean, this whole thing, it's all come out. Okay, it's all come out. And yet here we are sitting there having to watch him tell us, oh, it was just Donald Trump's bad this and that and the other. The news breaking. Here, I want to go to a legal analyst on Fox just yesterday.

Getting dismissed. The judge ruling the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan violated the Constitution. The judge also criticized the DOJ for allowing an FBI agent who viewed Comey's privileged materials to testify to the grand jury. Now, the judge also tossed the case against Letitia James. Donna, we are just getting this on the wire. Talk to us about your top line thoughts in this moment. Well, frankly, I'm not really surprised about the appointment of the Attorney General on that situation. I did think that that was going to be an issue, and I did think from the very beginning that Comey was going to have a valid legal argument.

And what's interesting about the decision is it doesn't go to whether or not crimes are actually committed. It just goes to the way in which the prosecutor was appointed. So I'm not surprised legally when it comes to that issue. Right. Do we foresee it all than an appeal or a different than prosecution, a second bite of the apple than with procedural things intact? I would just I mean, yes, it's a 29-page opinion. I was just reading through it. So sorry, if I look distracted during our segment. It doesn't get to the claim of malicious prosecution that Jim Comey was making.

So this is solely the appointments clause, and that's why you have both cases dismissed against both individuals. Exactly. Okay. The malicious stuff, and this is what just ticks me off, because once again, we got a deep state spin operation going on, ladies and gentlemen, the whole psych up all over again. We've got to listen to this guy, get on his high and mighty horse, knowing what he did. Here he is. Victor. The case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence.

And a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking. But I was also inspired by the example of the career people who refused to be part of this travesty. It costs some of them their jobs, which is painful. But it preserved their integrity, which is beyond price. Okay. And I know their integrity because it's malicious prosecution, this, that, and the other. And this is just what kind of annoys me because when you have incompetence, and again, nothing against

you're just a very nice person. Don't get me wrong. A lovely, lovely person. And I just, I'm sorry because this was like, you know, forgetting to dot the eyes and cross the teas and these technicalities will get you in the legal business every single time. And that's what really makes me mad. Andy McCarthy, speaking about this, actually, before this all happened, we talked about this here on the show. I want to play you what he said and how he said they might go back for round two. But guys, I got to tell you, after looking into this and I spent a lot of time on this last night and all day today and speaking with legal experts, I don't have a good feeling about Comey now because I think that she, she bombed, okay? Bondi, bombed.

And this really isn't any fault of Lindsay Halligan's. The statute that she was appointed as interim U.S. attorney under allows the president or through the attorney general to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days. And by the time Halligan got the job, her predecessor, Eric Siebert, had already served the 120 days. So they have a good argument that she's probably not qualified under that statute. So what's the pushback then? Take her side. Well, I think the pushback is what the Attorney General and the Justice Department want to argue is that authority to prosecute in the United States comes not from the District U.S. Attorney, but from the Justice Department and the Attorney General. So in order to try to firm this up, what Attorney General

Bondi did was appoint Halligan as a special attorney and say that that was effective as of three days before Comey was indicted. The problem is she didn't do it until O'Connor. October 31st and she's trying to backdate it. And I don't know if that's going to work with the court. All right. So what would the move would be? Okay. We'll get another attorney. Is that correct? Is that one way to fix it? What could happen, this could be much ado about nothing because they could, you know, they could disqualify her. But there's another statute that says the government would have been six months to bring a new indictment. Okay. So she gets disqualified effectively. The judge has said, okay, this doesn't stick because Halligan wasn't appropriately put in this position.

And I just keep going back to, why do we even have to have Halligan in the first place? Nothing against her. But if you had done your job and you had vetted everybody, Pam Bondi, then you would not have had the guy who was besties with Comey's son-in-law as the U.S. attorney and who had been recommended by Kane, Tim Kane, who was the vice presidential candidate and Hunter Hillary Clinton. I mean, I'm like blown away by that. And then on top of that, if you were there, like, why wouldn't you have been like following up saying, hey, is there any there now? Again, like, I'm not suggesting you bring a case without the there there, but I've seen what you've seen,

and I've seen a lot of evidence that suggests there was a whole lot of there there, right? I mean, like all the emails back and forth is Columbia friend. New York Times op-ed page, asked me to write something on your behalf, on your letter. I'm not inclined to do so, but if you think would help things to explain that you blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like, he's like, no, no, no need. At this point, it would just be shouting into the wind. Someday we'll figure it all out. And as Jack and Ben point out, my decision will be one that President-elect Clinton

will be very grateful for, although she doesn't know why I did it. Okay, what's that about? Or how about this? These handwritten notes where he was apparently talking about undermining HRC, the confidence in the system, HRC's plans to hit back at Trump, he was talking about how Kerry could go after Donald Trump and his financial arrangements and his financial arrangements with Russia, which he didn't have or debts to Moscow. I mean, whoa, okay?

So there's stuff there. And like I said, it's not that hard to get an indictment. But when you just don't, you know, turn in the homework on time, ladies and gentlemen, then, yeah, what are you supposed to do with this? I mean, Lindsay's coming forward with all her receipts. She had barely any time to pull this all together. It's just kind of a travesty, if you ask me, okay? Kind of a travesty.

And then you think about, for goodness sakes, what we're all facing, right? In terms of all this other stuff. I mean, you've got the FBI with Arctic Frost discovery. I mean, whoa, 400 conservatives that were allegedly targeted. You got Cash Patel firing people left and right. This one guy, Aaron Tapp apparently was involved with some of the gathering on this. I think that we got a lot of questions to ask there. You've got the president spouting off on social media about all of this.

You've got a lot of questions about why they were spying on Republican senators is all part of their J6 stuff. I've recently been informed by Verizon that at least 11 members with Verizon accounts were affected. That includes a hard line for Senator Cruz's office and a staffer's cell phone for former Senator Leffler. AT&T informed me they challenged the legal basis for Jack Smith's efforts and Smith backed down. I'm glad to hear that, right? I'm glad to hear that somebody stood up to Jack Smith. Good for AT&T on that one. My gosh.

I mean, I think Kennedy would give that one a thumbs up. But the phone company and the General Counsel for the phone company are companies, if there were more than one involved, could say, you know, this is serious as an aneurysm. This is serious as four auto tax and a stroke. This is a sitting United States senator. So General Counsel would likely advise the CEO, you need to file a motion to quash.

Senator, typically phone companies follow a subpoena from a United States attorney. No, they do, but they don't have to. They could challenge it, Senator. Yeah. Or maybe they should have gone to Amazon and buy some testicles online. Instead of just saying, sure,

I'll just show you the phone records of a sitting United States senator on the basis of an administrative subpoena Right? Like, you can't do. I mean, I guess you could if you have a subpoena, but as he's pointing out, like, why wouldn't a phone company challenge that? And I guess in the case of AT&T, according to Grassley, they did. I mean, this is, this is wacky stuff. So we have a lot of questions on, on Jack Smith. We have a lot of questions on the FBI and what they were doing. We have a lot of questions on a whole lot of stuff. And I don't feel like we're getting answers. And you know, I've been pretty darn

nice, right? Wouldn't you say? I've been very kind to Pam. And again, I like her personally. I don't think that there's anything malicious here. I don't think that she's trying deliberately to hurt the president, but I would say that we got like, this is the big leagues, okay? Like, we're in the big leagues. And you need a big league attorney out there, not just one that looks pretty on camera, but like can actually run her team and really knows what's going on. And is, in the trenches and is pounding people. Eric, do we have what we need for the Comey indictment? I was just going to be another day, ma'am, just another day. Okay, well, it's been like a lot of days and we don't have a lot of days because the statute of limitations is running out on September 30th,

2025, so we got to get to work and I'm going to put that at the top of the agenda. And I'm going to ride her, you know what, until we get it done. And she didn't do that. I mean, on top of which, she signed off on putting them in the gig in the first place. Well, why sign off on a guy who's like clearly, you know, playing footsies with the Dems. I'm just saying, if you want your case, like, if you really want it. And I, I don't know. I mean, I, I now look at what's going to be coming out, right, in the next 30 days. And let's just say, like, there's not a lot of trust buildup because I remember hearing from her how she was getting all this information from the FBI in New York about the Epstein files. It was going to be fantastic. She brought all these influencers,

some of whom I know down to D.C. and sat them around a table and gave them all these files. And they're like, okay, woohoo, we got the files. And there was no there. What was that? Like she was trying to fake everyone out, like total head fake? I don't think that that's going to fly, Pam. I mean, people are smarter than you think.

Or maybe just smarter than you. I mean, people are like, okay, well, what's new here? Nothing. And then, oh, she said she was duped and that the New York, FBI was not giving her what she needed. Okay, then? And then she finally gets the truckload and then they're supposed to be coming. I'm telling you, like, I think people are willing to extend a lot of patience here.

But I would say that the president needs to be surrounded by people who are looking out for him and protecting him, okay? And if you've got people that just can't do the basic blocking and tackling because they can't turn their homework in on time, I'm sorry, but that's what this is. She couldn't turn her homework in on time. was forgetting that the statute of limitations on Comey ran out on September 30th, 20th, 2025. You're telling me you're just going to get rid of Eric on September 20th, 20th, 2025? Like, how did that happen? And how did it happen that he got put in the gig in the

first place? Somebody is incompetent. And I'm sorry, but this is not the president's responsibility. He can't be micromanaging this. That's why he has you there. And Pam, you're supposed to put these these cases that you theoretically care about way up on the top burner. Heck, I mean, Biden put the J6 thing way up on the top burner to the point where he was actually investigating the entire MAGA like movement. God forbid if you talk to any one of those people they were targeting. I mean, for goodness sakes, eight people that were in elected offices, seven sitting U.S. Senators and one congressperson, they were going after their phone records, tolling, as we have to say, because, you know, they're going to get upset if we say,

wiretapping. It was tolling. They were gathering the metadata to figure out, okay, well, who did he talk to and who did she talk to? And then who did that person talk to? And let's gather their information and their information and their information figure out where they all are and how long they were talking. That's called spying. Okay. That's like a deep state spy op. And we know, we know that that was actually issued and ordered by somebody named Teapult over at the FBI, who had kind of a background in this and he did some funky things on his way to the forum, like, oh, he just kept approving things. Like he opened a case and then he kept approving his own case, which is actually in violation

of the FBI's own rules. This is Timothy Teeboldt. He eventually resigned. He eventually resigned because it looked like, you know, he might have been allegedly suppressing the FBI's Hunter-Bind investigation before the election. Imagine that. I mean, who could ever imagine they might do that? Again, no self-approval rule. Section 35-2-3 of the FBI's domestic investigations and operations guide, D-I-O-G is the no-self-approval rule, which states that an official who approves an investigation cannot be the one that is ongoing approval. In other words,

cannot approve your own work. Instead, you need an independent review and they didn't bother to do any of that. So my point is, like, these guys are playing hardball like you've never seen before, Pam Bondy, and you either, like, I'm not saying you do anything illegal. Don't get me wrong. Okay? Let's be very clear. Just because, you know, they do illegal stuff doesn't mean we need to do illegal stuff, but at least turn the homework in on time, for goodness sakes, okay? Remember your dates. Know what the timing schedule is and know what, for goodness sake, the law is. I mean, don't, don't rely on the president to have to remind you to turn in your homework. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable stuff.

And you know what? It's going to potentially get worse. They get the sedition stuff going on. They got midterms coming up. And if she doesn't get her act together, you get the Epstein stuff coming out. We're going to have some real issues, guys. On a bright note, the tariff checks, they are very much real. He very much wants them. I know that we've been talking about this. He's doubling down on these things. He wants to get this money out to the people. He sees this perhaps as a way to go around the Federal Reserve. He sees his way to get some buy-in on tariffs in general because people have been kind of reluctant to be like, A-OK. You know, we love this. Not his base. His base loves him, right? Like we've seen that in some of the

polling data recently that came out. That's not changing. But I think in terms of really, helping America understand what's at stake. He's using these rebates, these funds that would be collected theoretically off of all these tariffs and wants to give them back to the people to help, I think, people understand what the opportunity is. He brought this up a few months ago while speaking on O-A-N. Let's listen. 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. 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 the kind of growth we have now, the debt is very little, relatively 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...

Yeah, he wants to pay back debt, but he wants to give some money out to the people. And you know what? I love it because he's talking about the leverage, basically, right? How highly levered or not highly levered we are. And if you're growing your GDP, then all of a sudden, as a percentage of GDP, you have less debt. And so I never could have talked about this stuff. He just never ever could have talked about that. I mean, again, you couldn't talk about anything, honestly, but let alone business, a little about loan economics, let alone markets or tax policies or anything else. And so Donald Trump is sitting there saying, we're doing a good thing. We're having this money coming in. So we're We're growing, one, our economy, too, we're bringing in a revenue stream. So why not give that back to the people? And it's sort of innovative. I mean, nobody's ever talked about things quite like this before. Let's listen in to Bessent. Look, the tariffs are an American policy.

The president wants the American people to understand how great tariffs are for them. And so one of the ways to prove to the American people how great tariffs are is to have them share in a part of one years income from these tariffs. And that's $2,000 ahead. As he said, for people who need the money, you know, where he's going to constrain it to people who need the money. And that's exciting. So the president's got that on his desk. I know that's something he wants to achieve. And his legislative team will figure out the best way to do it. But what he's trying to do is make sure people in America understand that tariffs are their policy. It's to make America stronger. And they can also benefit their pocketbook. And that is coming next year from the

President. Wow. Okay, so again, that wasn't Bessent. That was actually Howard Lutnik and Howard Lutnik is the Commerce Secretary. Speaking of Bessent, though, we want to get to him. He's the Treasury Secretary, and so he's the one that has to make all these numbers work at the end of the day. And he was asked about this, including whether or not this would be inflationary in a recent appearance on Fox. Here's his answer. Would a $2,000 tariff dividend check going to people be inflationary? Well, there are a lot of things that are going to happen next year. Is that one of them? And that could be one of them.

And again, maybe we could persuade Americans to save that. Yeah, everyone needs the money one of you guys is saying. Everyone. But I think the plan is basically middle class, middle class and poorer Americans. But Americans, by the way, would be the ones receiving this. You know, it's interesting. A friend of mine was saying constitutionally you could actually challenge that because, in fact, it is a rebate, right? If this is a tariff rebate, then actually everybody, everybody in America that is an American citizen should be able to enjoy the fruits of that,

just like any sovereign wealth fund would afford. Bessent was questioned also on the legality of it, and he suggested that maybe a new law is needed. So I'm kind of wondering, like, just, you know, I'm a realist, okay? This is politics. We all get. it. I'm wondering if this is going to become a big issue in the midterms. And if they're going to push the Democrats and say, are you for or against the tariff rebates? And if they're against, that's going to be kind of hard because aren't they the like universal basic income people? Right. Like he's kind of, you know, doing the loop-de-loop again and like putting it right back in their face because they're the ones that are always all about like give more money

the people, more money of the people. And now they're going to say that they're against the tariff rebates? That's going to be hard to sell politically if in fact you need an act of Congress. As Besson says, you will in order to get this one through. Here we go. Secretary, is he going to be sending these direct payments to Americans of $2,000 or more? We will see we need legislation for that. And again, President Trump is all about solutions, Maria. And everything is on the table. But I will tell you that, again, thanks to Him keeping his campaign promises to working Americans with the working tax and tips. So security overtime, we are going to see a big bump in the first quarter with the refunds and the real incomes.

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

So President Trump is committed to getting the money back to families. I like that idea. Again, real quick... It's great, right? It's actually great. He's thinking really, really, really innovatively about how we help the middle class. And so the tariffs are very much on the table. Yes, they're going to become a political football.

But, you know, again, shame in the Democrats at their own agenda is his specialty. I do think, though, guys, we're going to watch this thing with Pam. As I said, you're starting to see rumors on Twitter that she's out. This has been discussed before, right? It was before, as the whole Epstein rollout was kind of a debacle. And now, like, the stakes are really high. So I think you're going to have to think long and hard President Trump about whether or not she should be the right one to stay in the gig, because you need people that are going to get

the job done. And if, for some reason, there was no there there, right? Like, let's go with that for a second. Like, say that there was absolutely no case that you could build against Comey, which I think is bogus, completely bogus. I've seen the tape. I've seen the text exchanges. I've seen the emails, completely bogus, but let's just go with that for a second.

Then that should have been properly communicated. I mean, again, an indictment's a very easy thing to get. And if you wanted an indictment, Pam, like, you probably should have been watching what Eric was doing. You probably shouldn't have given him the gig to begin with. This turned into a complete train wreck, and it didn't need to be. That's what's so frustrating. Again, it's like, you know, when the homework assignment doesn't get turned in, it could

have been a flawless A plus. It doesn't freaking matter. All right. Like, you got to do your job. And it's an important job right now. We're talking about money. We're talking about politics. We're talking about all those things on 76 research as well. Please check out the channel at 76 research here on YouTube. Go to 76 research.com. Use my code word dollar. It's important to invest right now. If you want to do the free stuff, the totally free stuff, go to, I'm going to put this in. Invest in MAGA. How do you like that, right? We have a whole guide to how you can invest based on these policies, which are so important, invest in maga.com. That's the totally free one. The newsletter is a dollar a month for the first two months.

And then we have portfolios that you can model portfolios. We're not managing your money. I want to be very clear on that. We're giving you our ideas and our research. So this is my company. I started with a dear friend. Go check out 76research.com. Code word dollar, guys. I want the very, very best for you. You know that. And I want the best for this president. and I don't think Pam Bondi at this point is the best. All right, I think we can do better. I think we need somebody with better attention to detail that maybe is better manager of all her U.S. attorneys that is keeping a very close eye on things. You think about, okay, we're going to have another

indictment coming for Letitia James. That's a no-brainer that has to happen. There's no statute of limitations, at least that's fast approaching that I'm aware of on Latisha James. So boom, you go in with another indictment on Letitia on mortgage fraud. You've got Eric Swalwell, apparently on mortgage fraud. Where's that going? What about Adam Schiff? Shifty shift. I'd like to know where that one is in the state of Maryland. So there's a few things that are just dangling out there. Not to mention the Epstein files, which we theoretically are going to learn a whole lot more on over the course of the next now, what, 25 days or so, 20 days when that stuff is all released. So there's a lot of stuff that needs to happen. You need somebody who's really competent, like crazy competent.

in that slot. And not only do they need to be competent at managing their team, they need to be able to seek help when they need it, right? Go get the white shoe fancy schmancy law firm or heck, check chat GPT. I don't know, but don't miss your deadlines, okay? Figure out what the law is, how to do this to the letter of the law so that you don't leave room for this. This is unforgivable. This is unacceptable. If Comey doesn't actually have to pay any kind of price because she freaking missed a deadline? Do you understand how bad that is? I think you do. I'm looking at your time. Your comments and everything in real time. You know, you guys have a lot of ideas. Yeah, she dropped the ball, guys. She did. I'm just a

straight shooter and I want to like her and I do actually like her on a personal level, but this is not personal here. Okay? This is not personal. This is just business. This is just business and you've got to actually do what's needed to make sure you clean up the joint for the next person. I'll tell you who would tell you it's just business. My friend, Dan, here we go. Let me ask you about, are you going to be looking into when Cash and Pam, any potential collusion between the DOJ, Letitia James, the novel legal theory of Alvin Bragg or Nathan Wade or Fannie Willis and the DOJ. Is that something? Has anything come up? Is there any way to determine whether or not evidence was destroyed in any of these cases?

Well, there's always a way to determine that. I don't want to comment on that specific case right now for a reason. I don't want to get ahead of the Department of Justice on that. But I want to say this. You know, the FBI obviously has the public corruption portfolio. And, yes, if you are a corrupt politician out there, if you are engaged in behavior, you know what you're doing, we're going to find you. I promise.

No one is going to get off the days of selecting and putting your, you know, partisan bias on and taking care of your friends. Those days are over. You know what, Sean? I don't have any friends. Well, maybe outside of you and a couple of them. I don't care. I didn't come here for the money. I didn't come here to make, I know.

You don't go there for the money. I can tell people that for sure. I don't give a damn about friends. I don't have any friends. I don't want any friends. I got my wife. I got you and I got a small crew of people. So I don't need any friends.

If you're a politician, screw it around. We're coming for. That'll help. Yeah, go. You want a friend of D.C.? Right. Go get a Labradoo like I am. Because there are no friends in D.C.

You've been doing this about, what, 30 years? There are no friends here. All right. So no friends. If we assume there are no friends, then how is it to come we got off? How is it that Eric did not bring that case, Eric Siebert? How did Eric Sievert get the gig in the first place? Why was that sanctioned by Pambandi?

Trump didn't even know until September 20th that the guy was like favored by Democrats. And you had Comey's son-in-law working there as his bestie in the office. I mean, like, you want to talk about an inside job. Like, you had a mole in the whole operation for goodness sakes. Thank God Dan's in there, right? Like Dan actually has a background in some of this stuff. I mean, he's no slogan, right?

the CIA, but Dan is at least secret service. And by the way, knows how the world works. You don't have a freaking mole in the U.S. Attorney's Office that happens to be the son-in-law of one James Comey. I mean, that's like friends taking care of friends. And Eric wouldn't bring the case. And now we are paying the price. Like, the country's going to pay the price. And if he gets off and he probably will, like, I'm sorry, you know, Caroline, you can tell us until you're blue in the face that they're going to bring the appeal and I guess they will. They'll file the appeal. Fine. Fine. But they're not going to have a lot to stand on because she screwed up. Okay. She screwed up. And I think it's just kind of disgusting that people can mess up this badly and they

should not be in positions where they have that kind of responsibility if they're not competent enough to do the blocking and tackling. Okay. So what we're learning again, if you're just tuning is that Pam Bonding may be out of the DOJ and I would say, you know what? I love her book, Goodwritons, because this is, to dance point, you know what, there are no friends here, whatever, I'm just going to say, this is just business. And we need people that can get business done. And there are too many things that are slipping through. When you're missing deadlines and you're making up the laws you go, I'm sorry. This guy, Eric, if you knew that he was like a favorite of all the dams, why would you put him in the position to begin with? With only,

like days to go, right? I mean, when did he actually go in? I'm curious. Maybe you guys know, I should know that. But when did Eric Siebert become named, I should say, as the interim U.S. attorney? That's actually important to know. When did he get named as U.S. attorney in eastern Virginia? because that actually tells us exactly how much time she wasted. So here's the answer to that. Okay, January, January 21st, 2025. So, like, basically, right away. I'm going back to Laura Lumer for a second.

Laura was right. What did Laura say? Like, these people are not vetted. She was, like, frantic about that. I think I actually have the sound. I've played it for you guys before. Laura was like, this is crazy because we have people that are getting really, really, really big jobs and they should not have these jobs.

They should not have these jobs because they are not in the position to be, well, you know, real advocates for the president. And she was right because they gave this guy on day one the job, even though, even though he was apparently a favorite of the Dem. So I'm just saying, like, did you think he was really going to do your work for you? Do you really think he was going to do your bidding? If you had a particular sort of thing that you wanted accomplished, why would you put him in? That's a big question.

And then why would you let him stay in? So that's where Pam comes in. So he gets the gig on January 1st, 2025. Pam lets him stay there until September 22nd, rather September 30th. So September 20th, forgive me. Okay, so we're talking January, February, March, April, May, wait, January, February, March, April, May, June, July, September. I mean, I'm just astonished, okay, because that's a lot of days, astonished that she would

let eight months go by, stunned, until they finally decided to do something about the guy. And that was only when Trump was like, what the heck, where are we? Did somebody go to Donald Trump and say, hey, Mr. President, like, there's a statute of limitations on Comey. You may not get any of this through because nobody was minding the ship. She let eight whole months go by, and then they had 10 days to put somebody else in, which they couldn't actually do because, again, the law says that once you're out of your interim person, you have to go back to the justices and have them appoint somebody. So then it was going to be

Wild West, who knows who they were going to appoint? Like, why were you guys appointing this guy? Unless, you know, again, the Tim Cain connection is of some concern. So you, you had nowhere to go at that point. Because if Pam had done her job by March of 2025, or let's say April, if you're going to be generous, she would have said, hey, Eric, where are we on this? You got no case? Absolutely no case. Okay, if you really had no case, then fine. Explain to us. Explain to the public why there was literally no case. But I don't buy that. I think there was a case, at least for an indictment. And so you just didn't ask him the proper questions that you should have asked. Because you didn't turn in your freaking homework on time. That's what this is.

about, okay? So we need better people. The president deserves better people. And I think, I think she's going to find herself out on her, you know what, and you know, I'm sorry, but this is the real world, okay? And there are huge consequences. And Comey must be laughing his head off. And he gets to sit there pompously saying this is all about malicious prosecution when really it's just about a woman who didn't know when her homework was due. All right. I'm mad. I'm mad. I know the FBI has brought the six in for questioning and everybody's freaking out about that. It's like the FBI is really, really, really working hard. Okay, Chicago, DV, Don Baca wants to actually throw Bondi a bone here and is emphasizing that she was not confirmed until February. So somebody else had the

bright idea to put Eric in. Okay, fine. Let's go with that. I hear you. Fine. So she's not responsible. Fine. You know what she's responsible for? Once she was in there in February of 2025, she needed to do her job and she needed to babysit her prosecutors and figure out where they were if she wanted the indictment. Right? Like you need a boss. You need the chain of command. I realize the Democrats don't like the chain of command. But that is the reality, folks. And she didn't follow that chain of, he, she didn't enforce any kind of chain of command. She wasn't checking up on the guy. Otherwise, she would have known, at least by March or April, that this was like a fast, you know, track to nowhere. And that Comey's son-in-law was the mole in the office, for goodness

sakes. I mean, these people are operating on a whole other level on the Intel front. Wow. I mean, You've got a, you get Jake Sullivan's wife, Maggie, as part of that seditious sex. I mean, they're, they're playing for keeps, all right? They're playing for keeps. And this is really concerning. We can't be making stupid errors. Absolutely not. We need to be, I think we are smarter than them, but we need to have that attention

to detail that is so annoying yet very much part of reality is, especially in the legal business. It's just the way that the world is. And I don't like that he may get off. And you know what? I'm going to tell you guys, he may. It may actually happen that he's totally off. I don't think the appeal is going to see for space. They're going to appeal. Yeah. Okay. So we can talk about it and let's be hopeful, whatever. But this is not good. And it could have been avoided. So thanks, Pam, I guess, for nothing. Reminders to subscribe. If you have have not already. Please subscribe, share, like, make a comment, all that stuff. Go check out my research, my own company at 76research.com. And you know what? We're going to keep going on this.

We're going to get more intel. We're going to discover more things. But I think that a lot of people have lost faith in her at this point. I don't know about the president, but I'm telling you, for his own good. He needs to actually look at this with very, very clear eyes. Thank you for tuning in. Thank you for all of your comments. God bless America. Indeed. I'll see you tomorrow.