The Trish Regan Show - FULL EPISODE: Trump TORCHES AOC in Bitter Feud--She LOSES IT As Dems TURN on Her!

Episode Date: June 25, 2025

FULL LIVE TRISH REGAN EPISODE! President Trump unleashes an epic “MAKE MY DAY” slam on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after her push to impeach him. AOC responds by calling herself a “silly girl” — but the stunt is backfiring fast, as top Democrats and donors turn on her socialist agenda.NYC is turning socialist itself! Trish has the scoop on the new Dem pick for NYC mayor as party elites stop donating to Dems. Donald Trump is blasting the media at NATO — and accusing the deep state of leaking. An investigation is being initiated. All this as Trump secures higher levels of funding in what is being deemed a win for the U.S. These stories and more in today’s LIVE edition of the Trish Regan Show! ▶️ Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access 🟢For independent views on the market - sign up for my financial newsletter ▶️ The 76report with CODE: DOLLAR today. Today’s show is sponsored by: 🟢 American Hartford Gold TEXT TRISH to 65532 to receive up to $15,000 in free silver with American Hartford Gold with qualifying offers . You can also use Trish's name when calling 1-844-495-1115. 🟢 Go to ▶️ https://balanceofnature.com and use CODE: TRISH for 35% off and FREE SHIPPING OR CALL 1-800-246-8751 WITH Code Trish Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And here we are, live as Donald Trump makes the rounds overseas at NATO right now. A lot of news coming out of that, you guys. So a really important day once again here on the Trish Regan show. It's all coming as AOC gets totally humiliated. And frankly, her entire party is now questioning the direction of the Democrats. In light of what just happened in New York City. I mean, you don't want to be. long New York City real estate right about now. Do you? Oh, and more good news. Hey, hey, we're climbing

again back on top 100. I know I keep saying this, but it's really, really kind of a big deal. I'm super excited about it. I think we're number 62 this week. So, hey, don't mess with the Trish Riegen show. So much of that is part of you guys. And all you do to get the word out and spread the word and make comments, et cetera. So this has been a process that we've engaged in together. Good to have you all here. As I said, a lot of news coming out today. We've got some headlines to get to. Big, big, big, big news with Trump totally humiliating AOC. I mean, it was kind of spectacular. The communist mayor being picked in New York City. He may try and call himself socialist. But when you want to actually have the government takeover grocery stores, I got news for you,

buddy. There's a word for that. And it begins with a C. Communism, that is. We're going to discuss the New York mayoral pick by the Democrats. Heck, the Republican may have a shot of winning, right? All this as well, some funny things are happening over at NATO. Some good things, too. Trump is securing a larger portion of GDP from these countries in terms of them paying their fair share to borrow the socialist terms. But he's also doing, well, a little bit of a little bit of a dance, right?

It's kind of fun, actually. It's sort of hysterical. I'd say the guy is on a roll right about now as he refers to the head of NATO who apparently called him Daddy. I'm going to play the whole exchange here a little bit later on, but this is just great. This is a little sample before we get to AOC. Call me Daddy. Mark Ritter, the NATO chief, who is your friend. He called you Daddy earlier.

Do you regard your NATO allies as kind of children? No, he likes me. I think he likes me. If he doesn't, I'll let you know. I'll come back and I'll hit him hard, okay? He did. He did it very affectionate. Daddy, you're my daddy.

Like I said, he's on a roll. Okay. Well, maybe it's because he triggered AOC. That'd do it. That'd make anybody's day. In fact, he said, make my day. Make my day, honey, bunny. Because AOC just got totally humiliated and triggered by one Donald Trump, if you would.

This is just fantastic. You see, it all started. because he did what, well, presidents have had an opportunity to do in the past, but didn't take the opportunity to do. And that would be to, at least from what we can tell right now, reportedly, as long as you don't believe the one Intel report that CNN is pushing forward, we'll get to that in just a moment. We took out the nuclear strike capability of Iran. And so that's kind of a big deal. But he did so without contacting the, what, 500-some-odd members of Congress, you know, that would kind of spoil the surprise, just a little bit. I mean, you can do that or, you know,

you can put it on signal and send it to the Atlantic. I don't know, pick your poison here. He did not let all of the members of Congress know. And so she's livid as a response to that. You know, and now she's calling herself a silly girl. We're going to get to all of it. Just keep in mind, what started it all, ladies and gentlemen, it was AOC saying, you know what, the president. President's disastrous decision to bomb around without authority. Authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and congressional war powers. He is impulsively risk launching a war that may ensnarr us for generations absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment, she writes. Well, you know, he wasn't going to let that one go undone. So this is like the most epic roast. You know,

he's had some pretty epic gross, but I got to tell you, this was certainly one of the best. I'm going to get really close to the camera. Forgive me. I'm still. up and live free or die New Hampshire, visiting my family all week. And so as a result of that, we have a little bit less than perfect setup on the audio and video front. I appreciate your patience as I get closer and closer to the camera. He writes stupid AOC, Alexander Ocasio-Cortez, one of the, quote, dumbest people in Congress is now calling for my impeachment, despite the fact that the crooked and corrupt Democrats have already done that twice before. I mean, Fair point, right? I mean, they keep trying and trying to try, and it's not getting them

anywhere. You'd think at some point, you know, it loses its luster, so to speak. He goes on to say the reason for her rantings is all of the victories that the U.S. has had under the Trump administration, for sure. I mean, we are winning, winning, winning, and it's all great. I mean, just look at oil prices coming down, inflation, getting in check, the economy is still growing. We've got jobs being added. There's a lot to celebrate. I digress. He goes on. The Democrats aren't used to winning, and they can't stand the concept of our country being successful again. When we examine this is the best part, her test scores, we will find out that she is not qualified for office.

But nonetheless, far more qualified than Crockett, who is a seriously low IQ individual or Ilhan Omar. So he goes on to go on about them. But, you know, she is not what we would say of the caliber that you would expect from a member of Congress. So AOC got totally triggered by this. You know, somehow she just couldn't take it. She'll dish it out, but she can't take it, right? I mean, she dish it out to him and he fired back and he insulted her intelligence, which is understandable

in light of some of the things that she has done and she has said. And so she fired back with this tweet, shall I say, okay, here's her response, totally triggered and referring to herself as a silly girl. He actually never referred to her as a silly girl. But, you know, hey, if the, uh, that shoe fits. Mr. President, don't take your anger out on me. I'm just a silly girl. Take it out on whoever convinced you to betray the American people and our Constitution by illegally bombing Iran and dragging us into war. It only took five months for you to break almost every promise you made. Woo! Okay. So AOC, for you to say that it was illegal for him to do that, that would be kind of a stretch, shall we just say? And I'll get into all the legal reasons. You know what? I tend to be right on this stuff. I don't

actually have a law degree, but I have read the Constitution. And I am civically minded enough to understand what's what. And if you go and look at the Constitution and you look at the reality that he is the commander in chief with the ability in certain situations to exercise these opportunities, I think you will find that legally speaking, without a doubt, the law is on his side, because here's the reality. You're not going to go forward and tell 500 some odd members of Congress, some of whom are, frankly. I mean, you said it, honey, bunny, silly girls. You're not going to tell them what's going on because you would actually risk the entire mission going south, right? I mean, we'll kind of kill the whole idea of surprise, would it not? But she is who she is. I mean, just recently,

you know, when Tom Holman was saying what he was saying about making sure that we arrested people and deported people or at least had the ability to arrest, like to go after them in the first place, right? If they had committed a crime, you can't stand in the way of ICE. And if you did, that would be a problem. What did she say? If anyone's breaking the law in this situation, it's not members of Congress. It's the Department of Homeland Security. It's people like Tom Homan and Secretary Kristy Kno. You lay a finger on them. We are going to have a problem. Okay. Well, she's triggered. You know, there's, there is a word for that. I mean, she's been triggered all along, right? You know, if you say something

that she doesn't agree with, she's triggered and she thinks you're misinformation. Now, that'd be the day that someone like this is in charge. She's literally said it, guys. I mean, this is actually no joke. She's come out just within the last 10 days and said, we need to control misinformation, disinformation. And, well, I'll let her say it because she's kind of off her rocker, but she fully doesn't comprehend the meaning of the first amendment that is indeed, do you, true. You know, I do think that several members of Congress and some of my discussions have brought up media literacy because that is a part of what happened here.

And we're going to have to figure out how we reign in our media environment so that you can't just spew disinformation and misinformation. It's one thing to have differing opinions, but it's another thing entirely to just say things that are false. And so that's something that we're looking into. I mean, you know, if I were like her, I might actually say it was false of her to say that the president couldn't do what he did. But you know what? I'm not like her. I'm actually a big believer in the more speech you have, the better off you are. Joyce, thank you. You're laughing about CNN. No, I know, I know. That's the legacy media. That is in the past. We are moving forward here.

The reality is we're here on this show, right? Because there's this massive change in the media landscape. And who would have thought this was possible? I certainly wouldn't have, when I started this a couple of years ago. And, you know, we just kind of had a handful of people tuning in. And some of you, many of you, I think all of you are still here. And I appreciate all you've done to make the success it has. But unbelievable, she is clearly triggered. This is a sort of overwhelming response, right? She's got to take to Twitter. She's got to take him out. She's got to call him this. She's doing the silly girl thing. And like I said, if the shoes fits, maybe that'll be her new, well, you know, remember, they call him the squad. Maybe we can call them the silly girls,

because she's not alone in this, right? She's not alone. And there is this. that they love to put in place over there in the Democrat circle. They love to kind of divide and conquer, and there's been a big effort, if you would, to divide men and women. And so maybe she's thinking, this is the new next greatest thing. We can have the silly girls over here with the men over there. That might be a very deliberate move on behalf of one AOC. But again, she's the one who's frankly being quite silly in terms of calling for impeachment, given that he did something that may actually bring peace to the world. And let's hope it brings peace to the world. As I look at the market, it looks like we're getting some peace to the world. We can talk about that a little later in the

program because just wonderful, I think, example again of what MAGA policy can actually do when done right. Michael Halpern, thank you as well for your generosity. Much, much appreciated here on the show. And, you know, I guess I just got a super chat. Sometimes I get a quote from you guys and I like to be able to read it on the air. But anyway, again, AOC taken to the airwaves and voicing her frustration and fury at Donald Trump. But it's clear she's been humiliated because I'll tell you, the party doesn't like the direction where this is going. You have only to look at what just went down in New York City to know that. You have only to look at all the donors pulling their money because they do not like this progressive wing of the party that's being ruled by the likes

of AOC. In fact, the latest polling shows that most Americans consider her to be the head of the DNC. You got AOC as the head of your party. I don't know what to tell you. Good luck. But this is what's changing because her own party is starting to shift. When you see Mike Bloomberg taking money away, Barry Diller taking money away, Mark Lazarie, the billionaire, hedge fund guy, taken money away. These are prominent New Yorkers that would normally be contributing to the fund and to the cause. But when they see the likes of the socialist that was just elected is the Democrat primary winner in the mayoral election, when they see AOC out there where the earth craziness or the likes of Jasmine Crockett, well, you know what, it gives them pause?

And can you blame them? I mean, Jasmine Crockett joining the silly chorus. I mean, she's always been part of the silly chorus. And now she's filling it in with some obscenities along the way. Here she is speaking to people. Most recently, shortly after the news of the strikes, she wants to know why she wasn't included. I think we know why. I'm the one that's supposed to make a fucking decision or at least get a vote. Hmm. You're supposed to make the what decision?

Or at least get a vote? No, I don't think we're going to give you a vote because I think if we did, that might actually kill the element of surprise again. So Donald Trump taking it out on Crockett as well, saying about Jasmine Crockett. I mean, like honestly, guys, you can't. make this up. If that is the best you're going to put forward, you're putting forward Jasmine Crockett and AOC on your ticket, and I'm sorry, like it's game over. As Ken Langone, founder of Home

Depot, prominent GOP, Republican said, and super, super capitalist, red-blooded American, capitalist just like yours, truly, he's like, they keep doing this. We won't have to worry at all. They'll never be able to raise a dime, for goodness sakes. So Crockett said that. And then Donald Trump said in response that, you know, AOC is bad. She's bad and she's not really qualified for the office and doesn't really have the test scores to be able to be in the office. But then again, she's, quote, far more qualified than Crockett, who is a seriously low IQ individual. Oriel Han Omar, who does nothing but complain about our country. Yet the failed country that she comes from does and have a government is drenched in crime and poverty and is rated one of the

worst in the world. It is, if it's even rated at all. Yeah. So how dare the mouse? How dare the mouse? We assume he's talking about AOC. Is AOC the new mouse? Is that her nickname? You think that one's going to stick? The mouse in the house? How dare the mouse? She is kind of mousy. Tell us how to run the United States of America. We are just now coming back from that radical left experiment with Sleepy Joe Kamala and the Autopin in charge. What a disaster it was, AOC should be forced to take the cognitive test that I just completed at Walter Reed Medical Center. He goes on about how well he did and says that, you know, she'd do miserably badly at it. And Jasmine Crockett would do even worse, because you're talking about low IQ individuals. It's a sad thing. Look, you know,

somebody elected her, strangely enough, but someone elected her and Jasmine Crockett is now sensing that she's got her two minutes of fame. She's going to double down on what AOC has done. You know, it's really interesting. They're not really working together. Oh my gosh, Cat Crazy. Great to hear from you today. Cat Crazy is one of our originals here. Here almost every day, and I appreciate it. Oh, thank you so much, again, for your generosity. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy from Ronald Reagan. If I'm looking for a great quote, you know I'm always looking for a great quote. And I can't get enough in terms of the Reagan quotes. Look at that. We're able to put it right up on the screen today.

Pretty nice. Cat Crazy, thank you. for that because it's so true. And we're going to get to all of it because the party's just gotten wacko. And you know what? AOC is part of the problem. And I think they're starting to realize that. So she's been humiliated by Donald Trump once again. There's not a lot of pickup on this whole impeachment thing. And you wouldn't expect that there would be. But, you know, she's going to try it anyway. Her party is going to distance themselves from this. You're already seeing examples of this. I mean, when the MSNBC host on Morning Joe is sitting there going, oh, you know, like, you can't really like go out and telegraph everything ahead of time.

Now, can you? When they're starting to actually make sense, that's when we need to really scratch our heads, right? They're starting to, well, there's like one out of many over there. But I think in this case, Joe Scarborough, as much as he does lie, and I say that in terms of the lies because we had to listen to all his rhetoric about best Joe Biden ever. And I'm sorry, any much way you slice that one, that was a lie. Right? That was a lie. Best Joe Biden ever. I've known him for 50 years and this is the best Joe Biden ever. Wow. Then you definitely didn't

see him in his prime. I guess. Well, Joe Biden, we know, was really challenged from a health standpoint. And I think anybody who's had anybody suffer with that. And a lot of us have, we recognized it. And while we may not be doctors, we certainly knew the signs. And Joe Scarborough wanted to sit there and lie to your face. So you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt. But nonetheless, when Joe Scarborough is actually saying to, hey, in a Hakeem Jeffries, this doesn't really kind of work what you're saying. I think they're on to something.

Well, this has been the debate. We talked about it yesterday with another member of Congress. This has been debate going back 30, 40, 50 years. Obviously, Republicans were saying this after Barack Obama attacked Libya. Republicans were saying this with Bill Clinton in the 1990s on Kosovo. But if you're going to have a surprise attack with B2 bombers that are going to be going over to Iran striking their nuclear facilities, do you think it's a good idea to inform 535 members of Congress before that operation takes off? Well, the key here is what was the imminent nature of?

of the threat that justified immediate military action and surprise military action. Right. If there was no imminent threat. So the United Nations, I'm curious if you're concerned, like the United Nations a nuclear agency, the IAEA had said that Iran had already enriched uranium up to 60 percent, and as you know, the jump from 60 to 100 percent is negligible and had enough enriched uranium for several weapons. Would you consider that to be a considerable enough,

a considerable enough threat to strike Iran under those circumstances? Well, certainly it's a challenging situation, but one of the reasons why we need a briefing, Joe, is to have an understanding, was that enriched uranium even damaged, or was it removed by the Iranians prior to the strike? We don't know the answers to that question.

It certainly is something that should be talked about, and the American people should be informed about the reality of whether it was a successful strike or not. In terms of the Iranian nuclear threat, I think we've all been clear that Iran can never be permitted to become nuclear capable. But the Constitution is not a mere inconvenience. It's the reality. And if members of the executive branch, if hawkish individuals across the country want to change things, this Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, they can put forward a constitutional amendment. the framers of this country saw fit to vest this authority within the House and the Senate, not the executive branch. Right. And at what point should that be triggered?

Should it be triggered by every strike, like for instance, Barack Obama in 2011 in Libya, or countless strikes by the Bush administration and the Obama administration after September the 11th? Is it every strike or is it when you were going in sending troops in? When do you think that action is triggered? Seems to me, and it's a great question, Joe, that it has to relate to whether the step that was taken, one, is in response to an imminent threat to American interests, and two, whether it's an act of war. And part of the reason why, after the fact, it's important for members of Congress to be able to be able to, able to have a briefing with the administration that is comprehensive and that gives members the opportunity to ask questions so we can provide these answers to the American people who clearly

do not want another failed, costly, deadly war in the Middle East. That was really just kind of an unbelievable exchange to watch because when you think about historically and Joe actually got at this, all that has happened, certainly probably since 1973, you know, in in 1973, I think you started to see more opportunity for presidents to make these decisions. But you think about Obama with Afghanistan, Obama with Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan. We can go back to George W, right, with Afghanistan, with Iraq, or HW, with Iraq and Panama, or you can go back to Reagan with Libya and Grenada. I mean, the reality is if a president feels that there's an opportunity to do this. Typically, the president in the interest in national security will take those

opportunities. And you don't necessarily want to be going to your 500 plus members of Congress and saying, hey, can I do this pretty please? Because then it kills the entire element of surprise. One has to wonder if Clinton had the opportunity to do this with North Korea way back when, would he have taken that opportunity? You would think that maybe the world would be a different, maybe safer place, right, if North Korea did not, you don't want. And this is not controversial. this is very like I can I can fully say this and even Hakeem Jeffries who by the way was informed but allegedly didn't pick up his phone like they tried to inform him but he just didn't pick up his phone well that's a good excuse right sorry I missed the call too busy hanging out avoiding President

Trump because I have such TDS anyway he didn't pick up the call otherwise he would have had some more information but I think that you kind of have to understand the reality that sometimes in the interest of doing the best thing for the country, you're not going to be able to consult Jasmine Crockett and AOC, something that another host on MSNBC, this one is actually Susan Page from USA Today, has very much a liberal bent, even though she's supposed to be journalism with a capital J,

but she's talking to Chris Coons, and she's actually admitting it too. And Senator Coons, you know, what's he going to say? Here we go. Lots of ifs, but if the ceasefire holds, if there's significant damage to the Iranian nuclear program, if they return to the table. Does that mean that President Trump was right? Look, I will of course agree that ending Iran's nuclear program would be a real positive

for the region and for the United States. Exactly how we went about it, the lack of consultation with Congress, the lack of advance notice, I think was a mistake. And we don't know for sure what the real objective of the administration is. We had on the same day, Vice President Van on a Sunday show saying we are really only focused on ending the enrichment program and then the president tweeting about maybe regime change isn't such a bad thing. I think it's important to move to diplomacy, to find a way to make the ceasefire hold and to get Israel and Iran, the United States, and our European partners at the table to secure a permanent end. Okay. So there is a difference. I just want to.

to stress this, and peace of my mind actually stressing it as well, strategic strikes don't require consultation, prolonged military operations do. There's a difference between saying, okay, we're going into war versus we have an opportunity to do a strategic strike. And when I referenced all those president's strategic strikes, those are all examples over the last, what, you know, 40 some odd years where presidents have used their executive presidential authority to be able to have these strategic strikes without risking impeachment from the likes of an AOC, but in a divided world, right? This is the only place they're going to, and they don't quite get it. I remember being really shocked on Monday morning or maybe even Sunday morning it was when I looked at the

New York Times and I saw the New York Times had reported that this was war with Iran, that we had entered war with Iran. And that is not at all what the administration has been saying. And In fact, they've been very, very clear. We're not committing to any kind of war with Iran. This was a strategic strike to take out their nuclear capabilities, period. End of story. But don't tell the Dems, right? I mean, Jamie Raskin, you know, his tone.

He's kind of caught here. And the MSNBC anchor is like, oh, but don't you agree with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? And somehow he boxed himself in on this one because now he's calling for impeachment, too. look, the party needs to get rid of these people. The party is not going to survive. I say this with no interest in seeing the Democrats succeed, but I'm a realist. I'm the same one who told you you can't run Joe Biden. I told you that back in 2020, okay? For 2021, there was no way that Joe Biden was going to work as your candidate at the top of the ticket. And I told you Kamala wouldn't work either. So again, I like to see a fair fight. Thank you very much. And I think when you have a

fair fight. You actually have the best interest of the country at heart, but the more you have people like this AOC and Jasmine Crockett and Jamie Raskin out there, and let's add Adam shift to the mix, too. Where has he been lately? The more you're going to have a problem. Here's Jamie. Of course, against a runaway president. Congressman, you had Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez calling the president's decision to bomb Iran without authorization. A grave violation of the Constitution saying it is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment. Just real quickly. Do you agree? I couldn't read the whole thing, but it sounds like I agree with that, that it's an absolute

violation of the Constitution. It's the grounds for impeachment piece that I want you to weigh in on. Is that right there at the end? Well, without saying what anybody should do in any particular situation, undoubtedly a violation of the war powers of Congress, the use for patient of the war powers of Congress, would be an impeachable offense, would be a high crime and misdemeanor. I mean, you know, Israel said we've just, in what Israel did on its own, we set them back two or three years. So that's not an emergency. Remember, the president can only assert the power to use military in a context in which there's an imminent threat to us. And that clearly wasn't there.

So we can add this to a very long list of things where the president has violated the spending power. I mean, the states brought an action because. The president unilaterally imposed a spending freeze on laws passed by Congress, signed by the president, for a trillion dollars in spending. They wanted to hold up all of these federal public health programs, housing programs, local policing programs, just out of the blue. Where does he get the doctrine that he can just do that? He just pulls it out of a hat. Well, the court struck it down, and gratefully, the states are there. But obviously, talk of impeachment today when we're in the minority, and we can't.

can't even get Republicans to vote with us on a single bill to try to restore sanity is somewhat hypothetical. But I'm with my friend AOC and saying we've got to keep a very strict catalog of all of the violations of the Constitution that are taking place. Congressman Jamie Rosson, in Jersey 18. So that's really interesting, guys. What that suggests there, as he said, it's very hypothetical, is that he knows that AOC is out over skis too. In other words, AOC is just really carrying on and throwing this sort of hissy fit that's not practical in this moment in time. And again, like you can go through history in the last 40 years and all the times that these strikes have been undertaken and they've

been undertaken for national security reasons and not shared at the time for national security reasons. Now, if we're going to go into war, that's a whole other thing. But that's not where we're at. And Mike Johnson articulated this well as well on Fox. I want to hear him. It is ridiculous for anyone to assert that the commander-in-chief, using his Article 2 power under the Constitution, should have to consult all the members of Congress or even all the leadership in Congress every time he has to make a decisive, quick action. I mean, that would not be feasible. So the idea that they're saying that what he's done is somehow inappropriate or unconstitutional is nonsense. none of them ever complained when Barack Obama and Joe Biden used the same authority to drop bombs all over the Middle East, all over the world.

You know, it's entirely inconsistent with their previous actions. And I think we call them on that hypocrisy. Right, because it's all just so freaking political, right? That's all this is. And again, let's go back to what they've been saying, which is that this is not actually war. Marco Rubio getting out and saying that. And, you know, Joyce, I hear you, she's making the point that, and thank you for your generosity, can liberals spell covert ops or a strategy or even the element of surprise?

I think not. I mean, you just couldn't have worked that way, right? They would have most definitely moved all the uranium really quickly. And here's Rubio saying, it's not war. This is not a war against Iran. This is very simple. You know, 67 days ago, the president of the United States sent the Iranians a letter. and it said, you're not going to have nuclear weapons.

You're not going to have a militarized nuclear program. Let's negotiate. I want to do this diplomatically. I want to do this peacefully. They tried to play them along the way they've played every American president for the last 35 years. And, you know, the president told them, if we don't get a deal, which is what he wanted, then I'll have to handle it differently. And that's what he did last night.

He handled it differently. But that was an Iranian choice. We didn't make that choice. They did. By playing games with Donald Trump, they made a huge mistake. And President Trump acted last night. And I think the world today is safer and more stable than it was 24 hours ago. And a bunch of these countries putting out statements condemning us privately, they all agree with us that this needed to be done.

They got to do what they got to do for their own public relations purposes. But the only people in the world that are unhappy about what happened in Iran last night is the regime in Iran. So again, that was from Sunday, from Maria Barner Romo's Sunday show, my former colleague there at Fox. and he was refuting the headline that you saw in the New York Times, suggesting that we're at war. In other words, we're not. And so I think that also provides more wiggle room in terms of the Constitution, which is why, you know, look, she is just way out over her skis. Now, what else will they try to do?

They could try and say, well, it was faulty intelligence. That's one of the things that you heard from Jamie Raskin. It's one of the things that you heard from Hakeem Jeffries. And interestingly, it's one of the things we keep hearing from the mainstream media, including CBS News, which is. dealing with its own struggles. Do not forget CBS News, which may have to pay up to $50 million to the president to settle its lawsuit, which, by the way, they're damned if they do. They're damned if they don't on that one. We've talked about that one at length,

but Paramount as a company wants to get a deal done with Larry Ellison's son, Skydance Media, and the FCC could hold it up. So if they pay the fine, it looks like they're doing it just because they want the deal to go through. But if they don't pay the fine, well, the company's not going gets old to skydance and CBS is going to die a slow death, shall we say. This reporter on CBS News faced the nation really took one Marco Rubio to task trying to articulate this idea that, you know what, we don't have any intelligence that they have a weapon. And the problem with that, and I'll let Marco explain it. Wow, he really like lap the floor with her and just, woo, boom, you know, shot her right down. Do you want to do my job? Are you suddenly the Secretary of State?

What intelligence do you have? His point was we have a lot of intelligence that shows us that the uranium is there and they're working on it. Therefore, if we have an opportunity to take them out, and we did, right? Because think about Israel, having cleared effectively the airways for us so they had no way to shoot us down. We have this open opportunity. Why would we not take this? Yeah, I don't care. If they're a day away or they're three years away, the point is they have this there, we have the chance to take it out. Why wouldn't we take that? Again, let's listen in. Are you saying there that the United States did not see intelligence that the Supreme leader had ordered weaponization? That's irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media,

that's an irrelevant question. That is the key point in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that. No, it's not. Yes, it was. No, it's not. No, I know that better than you know that. And I know that that's not the case. But I'm asking whether the order. was given. And the people who say that, it doesn't matter the order was given. They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury, why would you bury things in a mountain, 300 feet under the ground? Why would you bury six? Why do they have 60% in rich uranium? You don't need 60% in the only countries in the world that have uranium at 60% are countries that have nuclear weapons because it can quickly make it 90. They have all the elements. They have, why do they have a space

program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No, they're trying to build an ICBM. No, but that's a That's a question of intent. And you know in the intelligence assessment that it was that Iran wanted to be a threshold state and use this leverage. I'm talking about the public March assessment. And that's why I was asking you if you know something more from March. But that's also an inaccurate representation of it. That's an accurate representation of it. That's not how intelligence is read.

That's now how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence. What the IAEA knows. They are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need. for a civil nuclear program. So why would you enrich uranium at 60% if you don't intend to one day use it to take it to 90 and build a weapon? Why are you developing ICBMs?

Why do you have 8,000 short-range missiles and 2,000 to 3,000 long, mid-range missiles that you continue to develop? Why do you do all these things? They have everything they need for a nuclear weapon. They have the delivery mechanisms. They have the enrichment capability. They have the highly enriched uranium that is stored. That's all we need to see. Right.

Especially in the hands of the regime that's already involved in terrorism and proxies and all kinds of things around. They are the source of all this. Yes. And no one's disputing that. I'm not doing that here. And they were censured at the IAEA for that enrichment and for violating their non-proliferation agreements. I was simply asking if we had intelligence that there was an order to weaponize because you said weaponization ambitions. We have intelligence that they had everything they need to build a nuclear weapon.

And that's more than enough. Okay. Wow. Okay, so he kind of put her in her place to a certain extent. Now, I'm not disputing. She has every right to ask these questions. Go for it, right? But it's clear that there's a bias there. And the Democrats are searching for some line of attack. So the first being, oh, well, maybe there weren't any weapons there. The second being, well, he should be impeached because he went ahead with this strike without consulting us first, right? We want to be included. We're all the party of including.

inclusivity, and that didn't work. And so now the third talking point is, oh, well, they didn't get anything, right? That's what we're hearing, and that was the report out late last night, and this is what CNN is putting forward, and boy, oh boy, the president sure doesn't like that, nor does Marco Rubio, nor does Pete Hagseth, nor does Caroline Levitt, who has suggested that they're really trying to dump all over the bombers that got all this stuff. So, I'm going to get to that story in a second. I want to just quickly point out that before we do, I mean, you think about, okay, Intel community allegedly leaking this report, leaking a report to CNN in the media suggesting that nothing got accomplished there,

that really, you know, that maybe only set back by a few weeks. If that were the case, I just want to tell you, the markets would be in a way different position. We're looking at about a four-tenths of a percent decline in the Dow. You're looking at the S&P totally flat, and you're looking at the NASDAQ higher. Okay, so that's a big deal, guys. You'd also see oil positively soaring. Don't forget it was down 8 percent, then it was down 5 percent. It's only up about 1.4 percent right now. So I think that's important to keep in mind, because as we try to digest all of this and you have one Intel loan, you know, sort of dissenter over here, actually it may have and seven people in the community that spoke to CNN.

They have one version of things. The Israelis have another version of things, which they have communicated to Donald Trump, and the administration has a definite viewpoint on things, which is one that this was the right call because we actually are saving ourselves in the world at this particular time. So what do you think? How do you know what to think?

One of the best ways to look at all of this is to go right back to the market, and the market clearly thinks that we have dissipated this threat for the near term. Investors are looking six months to a year out, right? So they are thinking good things ahead, good things ahead. And that is an important thing to keep in mind. 76 research is my research company, lots of great investing ideas. I encourage you to go there because, you know what, this market is on fire. I believe it can continue to be on fire as we see an economy that really resets under the Trump

administration. I want you to be part of it. I want you to invest. Use code word dollar at 76 research. Lots of specific companies, including our father's day pick. It's up like 23% since we picked it. And it's been continuing to skyrocket. So I want you to have this opportunity to get in on that.

A dollar a month for the first two months. And then it resets to $9.95. You can swing it, okay? And if you don't like it, full money back guarantee, promise. You know, we'll refund your dollar. Okay. Anyway, American Heart for Gold is one of our sponsors here on the Trish Regan show. We appreciate them for that.

I encourage you to go look at gold. If that's something you're interested in investing in, I told you, I was buying it as it went down the last couple of days, which was a good call because it's back up today. What do you know? So American Heart for Gold, go take a look at that today, ladies and gentlemen, American Heart for Gold. Text Trish to $65533, up to $15,000 in free silver, four friends of the Trish Regan show. and you can call them at 1844-495-1-1-5. I'll tell you, though, Democrats are scrambling. They need some kind of new anti-Trump talking point, right?

Because what has failed? The impeachment idea has failed. The idea that, okay, you know, he shouldn't have done the strike because he didn't include Jasmine Crockett and AOC. That has failed. What else has failed? This idea that, oh, maybe there was, you know, there was no reason to do this

because there was no chance that they were actually that close, to a nuclear weapon. That's clearly failed. So now they're pivoting once again, and they're going to this report that came out of CNN. So this is an early assessment report from some members of the Intel community that leaked this. So they're saying that the U.S. military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months. You know what's interesting about this? And I always always always think about this as a journalist. I always think like, who is this coming from? Okay. Because what if this is coming from the uber super duper deep state that actually wants us to really go in

and insist on regime change and wants this thing to move forward in a bigger way? It could come from them. Or it could come from people that just despise Donald Trump and want to give the Democrats a new talking point. Or it could come from a combination of both, right? You kill two birds with one stone. maybe you try to make Trump look bad, and then you have a reason to try and push this conflict further even more than he would want it to be. He has no use for this story. Caroline Levitt pointing out that one of the reporters in this story was one of the first people to be saying that the Hunter Biden laptop was nothing but misinformation, disinformation, totally fake, which we know was not the case. So the sources that these reporters may have within Deep State and the Intel community may be questionable in and of themselves.

It's important to remember that as we think through what's real, what's not in this environment. And again, I encourage you to look at the markets because investors tend to have kind of a good handle on what's real and what's not. Donald Trump calling on CNN at NATO. And, well, it's funny. He's like, oh, yeah, fake news CNN because of the story they just put out. listen. Yes, please, go ahead. Go ahead. No, fake news, CNN? Oh, yeah, yeah, here we go. Where did you hear this question? You should really say how great our soldiers and our warriors are. I think everyone appreciates our soldiers and our warriors. I do.

Anyway, this is their story, right? So they're billing this as the exclusive and the next thing you know. The New York Times is all over. everybody's jumping on this story and they're doubting the success of these strikes. Again, I think it's just really important to remember. You've got to understand where this is coming from. You've got to know that the Democrats are scrambling as fast as they can because they can't let him have a win. Of course not, right? I mean, so Jeffries, he's joining the bandwagon as one of the MSNBC anchors is

starting to say, well, you know, maybe this is good. And he's like, no, no, no, because we have no idea if this was successful or not. Watch. Leader Jeffries, to that point, you mean, you have you and many people have had your position in the decades before this have expressed frustration when presidents don't seek congressional authority for military action like this. Do you feel like that a greater good was achieved here if Iran's program was, if not destroyed, but at least significantly delayed? What should be the next steps for this administration in this process? Well, to be clear, Iran can never be allowed to become a new. nuclear capable power. Iran is a sworn enemy of the United States, of Israel, of Jordan, of our allies in the Middle East, a sworn enemy of the free world.

But the question, of course, is, was this strike successful in meaningfully pushing back Iran's nuclear aspirations? Or is it going to complicate things in the Middle East in ways they put are men and women in uniform, American troops, and America in harm? That's simply the reason that having an all-member briefing on Capitol Hill sooner rather than later is important. So these answers can be obtained for the American people, the representatives of the American people in the United States Congress. That is the reason, fundamentally, why it's been Congress that was given the power to declare war to authorize military force. And when administrations act differently, they have an obligation and a responsibility, to provide the facts, the evidence, and the truth, justifying their actions to the American people.

I'm just answering some of your chats in the live chat right now. Scott Cullen encouraging me to post some of my operatic areas. I get to do that this summer. I want to make a new recording, but I digress. Back to Jeffries and MSNBC. You see where he's going on that? He's trying to say that, okay, like they weren't able to take this out. They weren't actually able to be successful enough.

And this is what they're going to continue to do. Marco Rubio weighing in on these Intel assessments that got leaked, also saying exactly what I said, that you have to understand where these things are coming from. I can't talk to you about intelligence. I can also tell you that intelligence leaks are one of the most frustrating things anywhere, not just because you got somebody who has access to putting stuff out there, but because it's so often mischaracterized.

Intelligence report for anyone who's ever seen, and sometimes it's an assessment, some analysts will make an assessment or analysts who make an assessment. And in these leaks, what you typically have is someone who read it and then leaks it to the media, giving it the spin and the angle they wanted to have because they've got some purpose. Embarrass the administration. They were against the action, whatever it may be. Yeah, that's exactly what it is.

I mean, that's, and you just have to understand that. It's been sort of my MO as a reporter and why it's so critical to me to understand and hear all sides. And they make my own determination, right? because they all have their own bias. And you don't always know where the bias is coming from. The bias could be that, hey, somebody wants us to actually get into a big, humongous conflict, right, and have this whole thing drawn out. Another bias could be, well, we don't like Donald Trump. This came up again in their sort of impromptu meeting. You may have to turn the volume up a little bit. I'm doing what I can on my end to fix the audio. But here is Marco Rubio.

They're speaking at NATO with the whole group. He's got Donald Trump there. He's got the head of NATO there. He's got Pete Hegseth there. And he again, it cites the sort of, I think that you have to understand the color, if you would, the color of this intel that's getting leaked. By the way, they're going to go after the leaker. They're going to find the leaker. They're opening an investigation into the leaker. Because you can't do that. It's actually against the law. Stuff about the intelligence. This is what a leaker is telling you the intelligence says. That's the game these people play. They read it and then they go out and characterize it the way

they want to characterize it and they're leakers. This is the game they play. So that's number one. Number two, here's a fact. The conversion facility, which you can't do a nuclear weapon without a conversion facility. We can't even find where it is where it used to be on the map.

You can't even find where it used to be because the whole thing is just blackened out. It's gone. It's wiped out. Then we dropped 12 of the strongest bombs on the planet right down the hole in two places. Everything underneath that mountain is in bad shape.

And I refer you to the statement of the IAEA, Mr. Grossi. You know what he said? He said there was Iran the way it looked the day before the afternoon. attack and what their nuclear program looks like now two very different things they are way behind where they were just seven days ago now anything in the world can be rebuilt but now we know where it is and if they try to rebuild it we'll have

options there as well but all this leakers stuff these leakers are professional stabbers that's what they are they go out and they read this stuff and then they tell you what it says against the law but they characterize it for you in a way that's absolutely false there's no way Iran comes to the table somehow nothing can happen. This was complete and total obliteration. They're in bad shape. They are way behind today compared to where they were to seven days ago because of what the president did. Wow. So I think he hit the nail on the head. Okay. You've got to understand the motivation of the person that's leaking this. And you've got to understand that they're not actually providing the

intelligence. They're like giving bullet points on the intelligence and the reporters are too lazy. You think they're going to read anything? I'm sorry. Like, that's just the reality of the business. I was very disappointed early on because I realized everybody's willing to just take spoon-fed bullet points instead of actually doing real reporting, talking to people, doing the reading. You actually have to read it yourself, guys, okay, before you put out something as aggressive as this. And again, it's pretty aggressive to suggest that, like, basically, this was a nothing burger. I mean, listen, I'll take, if they were, like hours away from creating something, and we, bought ourselves three months, I would consider that a win. But I think we bought ourselves a whole lot

more than three months. I think that this is a very deliberate characterization, as Marco Rubio is saying, and you have to take that with a grain of salt. Not to say that you shouldn't see it. You know what? It's interesting to see. Okay. It's interesting. I'd actually like to read the real intel report. Thank you very much. I'd like to get my hands on the real stuff so I can make the determination instead of relying on a bunch of CNN reporters who I don't believe are actually always telling us the truth. And back to Caroline's point, one of those reporters is one of the first ones. to put forward the whole idea that it was a bunch of misinformation, disinformation, spoon fed to you, the Hunter Biden laptop, courtesy of Rudy Giuliani and the Russians.

Come on. How am I supposed to trust this reporter? I don't, okay? I just don't. And it's why you kind of have to make your own determination in some of these things. It's one of the reasons why I go back to the market, right? And the market's strong right now. I know that, Don, I just read that you're short and invidia again.

I'm not in and out of stocks like that. I tend to. And Rob, as well, my co-founder at 76 Research, we pick. things that we like for the long haul. And sometimes we make changes to our portfolios, but for the most part, we're buy and hold. Dawn's a former options trader, so I get it. You know, you're in and out and you're having a good time. I don't like the tax consequences, frankly, if something goes up a lot and then I get to sell it and you get the drill. Anyway, 76research.com for what you should be investing in right now, one of the things that

we were talking about this morning was, did you see New York real estate? These are reits, okay? These are real estate investment trust. They are plunging. They are plunging. because real estate in New York is going down. Why is real estate going down? Oh, well, because they somehow think they're going to turn communist all of a sudden. They get a guy who wants free groceries and free housing and baby baskets for every baby born. I mean, it's just kind of funny. It's not funny, actually. It's actually really, really serious. It's really serious. And it's shocking that this happened. And maybe Eric Adams will be able to, you know, pull a rabbit out of a hat. and, you know, I don't know, but I am very discouraged in New York.

I'm very thankful. I do not own real estate in New York City anymore. We're going to get to that story coming up. Trump country is booming. We're building, hiring, and winning in America because energy tax credits put America first, bringing manufacturing jobs home and creating a stronger middle class. Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country. More production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for

consumers. And America's comeback depends on American energy. President Trump keep what works. Don't repeal energy tax credits. Paid for by Built for America. Okay. New York mayoral race. My goodness. Okay. Like, I told you this was going to happen. I was watching Polly Market, which is a great indicator because, again, you're talking real money on the line, right? So it does better than the polls. And we were seeing that this Mam Dami guy who maybe you had never heard of up until today was pulling ahead. This is the guy that wants to basically put New York grocery stores out of business because he's going to have the state run them all, which I'm going to just tell you in the here and now

is just going to be funny. We can talk about it, but it's messed up. Here's this guy. Grocery prices are out of control. The cost of eggs and milk has skyrocketed. Some stores are even using dynamic pricing, jacking up the cost over the course of a day depending on what they can get away with. It doesn't need to be this way.

I'm Zahran Mandani, and as mayor, I will create a network of city-owned grocery stores. It's like a public option for produce. We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores whose mission is lower prices, not price gouging.

These stores will operate without a profit motive or having to pay property taxes or rent and will pass on those savings to you. Okay. Yeah, savings. Again, my colleague at 76 research and I were just talking about this this morning. And he actually used to cover grocery stores for quite a while, an interesting sector to invest in.

And what has been tremendous that you've seen in the grocery industry is just all these massive technological changes and shifts and advances. And it's actually pretty sophisticated technology that I'm sorry, the government is not going to be able to do. Okay? I'm sorry. Mem, Mdani, you're just not going to be able to pull that one off. We are looking forward, though, to seeing you try. He also wants to put a 2% income tax hike on anybody making more than a million dollars, which, believe it in New York City, believe it or not, is a lot of people, right?

Because the cost of living is so darn high because you can't send your kids to public school. I mean, it's a mess to live in New York City. I am so thankful I am out of New York City. I literally, like every day, the honeymoon has not worn off. I lived there for a lot of years, and I saw it through a lot of changes. I'll tell you, Giuliani was the best thing that ever. happened to that city. And I'm going to be nonpartisan here and tell you that Mike Bloomberg continued that tradition, okay? And then you got socialist de Blasio in the door, who was a disaster,

followed by Eric Adams, who's trying to do things, but he's kind of, you know, limited. And then, now you get out of this guy? Are you kidding me? You're going to have a socialist that is going to drive every corporation out of New York City. That's why those real estate investment trusts are plunging. You know what I'd be doing? I'd be investing in Florida real estate in real estate, in real estate around New York City because there is going to be a mass exodus. It's already beginning. He wants corporate taxes going from 7.25 to what they see in New Jersey in 11.5% tax. Companies will just leave. How are you going to pay for all those things I'd like to know? This came up this morning on Fox and Friends and Eric Adams, the mayor of New York, who's growing on me. I got to tell you, he's like, this guy

is a snake oil salesman. That was his comment. I want you to see it. Just the mayor, it's not just defund the police, this candidate Democratic socialist. He wants to freeze the rent. He wants city rent grocery stores, social workers, to replace the police because that's going to help. He wants $60 billion of debt fund for affordable housing.

He wants three buses, no cost for child care, baby baskets for newborn and a $30 minimum wage. How can someone vote for this? He's this snake oil sales. He was saved and do anything to you. elected. Think about this one moment. He wants to raise

one percent, he wants to raise tax on one percent of the yield as high income earns. As a man, you don't have the authority to do that. You know who has the authority to do that? An assemblyman, which he is. He wants to do free buses. He could have done it at assemblymen. He doesn't understand the power of government and how you must make sure you improve your economy, raise the standing up living. This is what we've done in the city. I'm looking forward to being on the campaign trail and showing New York is we can't go backwards. And New York is never surrender or quit. I'm never going to quit for the city that I love. That is so interesting. You're in the position.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. Okay. So this is backfiring big time on the Democrats. Because people are like, oh, okay, now you're just taking it a little bit too far. You know what's interesting. This guy very, very, very woke educated. He went to Bank Street School, which is a super expensive school, probably 65K a year, to go to Bank Street School on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, very liberal place. He is clearly a liberal guy young, 33 years old. I believe he just became a U.S. citizen seven years ago. He's kind of sort of questioned for who he is, like fundamentally who he is, because he doesn't even seem to speak with the same depending on where he is in all seriousness. Like he's got different accents at different times. This

came up in actually a local news report on NBC because the reporter's like, what is I'm going to but like, who are you? Which accent is actually really yours? Because when he was promoting some music video that he made with his mom and Disney, he spoke with a totally different accent than when he's speaking on the campaign trail. So what's this about? I want you to hear this one because I'm like, this guy is kind of frightening. Really? I mean, like, the accents alone will throw you because you're like, who is he? And then on top of that, he's a total communist who wants to have free housing for everyone, tax everyone.

This is how he's going to pay for it, right? Reform the grocery stores. I mean, he's really out there. They've tried this, by the way. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, it didn't work out so well. It's been tried in Cuba. It didn't work out so well. How about communist Cambodia or Vietnam or, you know, you go around the world.

You take your pick. We'll go back to the USSR. It does not work. Okay? Here he is. Because I think the New Yorkers, more than they hate a politician they disagree with, they hate a politician they can't trust. On the subject of trust, you've adopted different speaking accents in different scenarios.

But they go to their local bodega. Is there one that's real and one that's affected? What I would say is, as any immigrant knows, having been born in Kampala, Uganda and then raised in South Africa and moving here when I'm seven years old, is there different parts of my life? Worldwide tour is a worldwide tour. Worldwide tour is a worldwide tour. Momdani was talking about a worldwide press tour back when he was a rapper. Nepotism and hard work goes a long way.

Here in New York City, this is how I speak. Okay, so Democrats have themselves a little bit of a problem. It's one thing to be liberal. It's another thing to be a complete socialist who wants to drive all the revenue out of New York City. What are you going to do? Okay, you're going to defund the police. Well, that's good because you're not going to have any money because all the corporate are going to leave and any individual that can is going to get out. So what are you going to be

left with? Kind of a, I don't know, like a mini Venezuela? Like that's not good. Okay, that is not what you want. But he had all kinds of crazy support. It was very interesting. It was actually a lot of white educated people as well as Asian people, youth, educated youth, the woke people, right, the hipsters in Brooklyn that actually went for this guy. It was not sort of middle class working New Yorkers. You didn't have a large contingency of the African-American population or the Hispanic population voting for him. You had sort of this younger, I don't know, sex in the city watching crowds. Cynthia Nixon was one of his biggest supporters. She is an actress, best known for her days on sex in the city, quite liberal. You know, I hope she's willing to

turn over all her money to Memdami for those grocery stores because, you know, she's going to have to pay up. Here we go. In this election day, I'm on my way to vote. I don't know that I have ever been more excited to vote for anyone than I am to vote for Zoran Mamdani. I've got my button, I've got my don't rank Cuomo T-shirt that I have been given because I'm going to a polling site. Zoran 1, Brad 2, Adrian 3, Stringer 4, Michael Blake, 5, and whatever you do, don't rank Quota. Vote for Jumani, vote for Justin Brannon. We have a chance to make sure that our corrupt Trump donor supported, disgraced former governor is not elected mayor of New York, and we have a chance

over within the polling site now. We have a chance to elect Zoran to have fast-free buses, to have rent-stabilized apartments with the rent frozen. We have subsidized grocery stores, and we have free child care from ages six months to five years. We have a guy who will stand up to Trump, and we will have a guy who creates a city for all of us. Make sure you vote today and don't rank Walmart. Okay, so she was celebrating at the party last night.

Wow. The way this election works, you see, you have to get more than 50%. sign of the vote. And what happens is you pick like your first choice, second choice, third choice, et cetera. So when she was saying don't vote Cuomo, her point was don't put him anywhere in your choices whatsoever. So because Brad Lander had that big moment, remember when he got cuffed the other day, he's the city controller. He was running for mayor. This actually kind of gave him the boost. He was recommending basically, you know, if you're, don't, it's don't vote for Cuomo as well. So vote for Mamdami. If, if I'm not, you know, if I'm not, you know, if I'm not. You know, if I

I don't get it. So a lot of times he was the second pick on the list. And so Mamdami was able to pick up all of his votes. This is the guy. Remember, he made the big stink. And you almost wonder if it was somewhat deliberate. I mean, it was quite a stunt to have pulled, let's be honest, just days before the election because nobody had ever heard of him. And so you wonder if some people that maybe were thinking Cuomo went for him and, you know, if this kind of contributed to his shakeup in the race, but what had happened was once they were going to be done with their first choice pick, they would have moved on to Mamdami. And so this guy, if he was your first choice, chances are, Mamdami was the second. And so Cuomo came out and announced that he was bowing out of the race

last night. This is like really and truly pretty shocking, guys. It's bad news for the Democrat Party. news for the Democrat establishment. But you know what? I'm sitting back and saying, heck, you know what, they deserve it. They really do deserve it because, you know, they got here for a reason. Someone's commenting, I see, on his accent and saying, no, you know, like you can have a different accent. If you speak a lot of languages, you can have a different accent. Well, I'm going to tell you, I speak a lot of languages. I speak Italian. I speak Spanish. I was actually decent at German at one point in my life earlier in my career. Again, I have a background as a singer, so you need know all these languages. I can sound pretty fluent in French, though I'm not. And here's the reality.

No, do you hear me speaking with an accent? No, okay? Like, you know, you're able to Spanish. I can speak Spanish with a Spanish accent, okay, from Barcelona, Spainia, because I speak all these languages, but I have my own accent in each of these languages that is very particular to me, because I know who the heck I am. Thank you very much. And clearly, this guy, does not. He really, really, really does not. And now the Democrats are sitting there saying, what are we going to do? Right. We've got an AOC disaster. We've got a Jasmine Crockett disaster. We've got a communist disaster in New York City. And this is bad, bad news for our party. And a lot of people know it's bad news. Diller knows it's bad news. Barry Diller's pulling his money.

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg. He's pretty darn mad. They're all distancing themselves. They get a remake this thing. The Democrat Party is like, they're struggling. They go, look at this. $15 million is all they got in the bank. You know, it's not a lot for a party that needs to try and run some kind of opposition against Donald Trump.

And then you look at the Republican Party with $72 million and more on the way. And so this is going to be bad. But again, you know, we saw Brad Lander getting cuffed there, which is going to bring me to another story.

I want to have to be right here in the hallway. I asked to see that you're going to be a good for it. I'm asking that you're right. You don't have to be a part of it. Yeah, I want to actually get to another story that is literally breaking in real time because, you know, I told you, I speak Italian, which is why I love saying this woman's name. La Monica. La Monica, McGiver. She is pleading not guilty.

Don't forget. Remember, she was indicted. She was indicted. just the other day by Alina Haba, by the grand jury, however. She is now coming forward and saying she was not guilty in that situation we saw out in New Jersey. Yes, the situation in New Jersey, you know what I'm talking about. La Monica, La Monica with the big red shirt. One of you guys was like, oh, yeah, the red coats are common.

That cracked me up. It really, really did. Let me see if I can find this for you because La Monica really, really. did not want anyone in her way. Now, did she? Nope. Yeah. It's worth seeing, right? So La Monica Monica McIver just out moments ago pleading not guilty, not guilty to Alina Hava's charges that suggested she was and she was interfering with law enforcement. Here is her tweet that she put out. She just left the courthouse, ladies and gentlemen. I just left court and pleaded not guilty because I am not guilty. We will fight this. Trump's administration won't intimidate me or stop me from doing my job

to all those who stand up to this administration. Do not back down. The facts are on our side. I look forward to our next time in court. Wow, LaMonica. So, you know, she actually faces up to 17 years in prison for the impediment of law enforcement and not just the impediment of law enforcement, but the actual obstruction and assault of law enforcement. So she's being accused, guys, of assaulting a law enforcement officer of those ICE agents that she was insulting. And so that's, that's kind of, you know, bad. And again, it comes with 17 years. Now, she's blaming ICE. Don't forget, she was on a network recently, CNN, saying that this is ICE's fault, not hers. You know, no blame here for her, even though you saw the videotape, and according to

Department of Homeland Security, they have more where that came from and more that suggests she actually did get rather physical there with those ICE officers. But here she is saying not her fault. I think the charges are absurd. You know, it's ridiculous. I was there to do my job along with my other colleagues. We have done this before. This is our obligation to do. It's in our job description to have oversight over a facility. And the entire situation was escalated by ice. They caused the confrontation. Homeland came and caused this chaos that we see.

It was a very tense situation. But it could have been, you know, easily not happen. Yeah, it could have easily not happened if you had actually just decided to call up and make an appointment. Right. I mean, that's what normally would be done. But for whatever reason, there was some grandstanding efforts going on there in New Jersey to prove that you guys, you're not going to fall for Trump no matter what. So now consequently, she is being charged with violating Title 18 U.S. Code Section 111.

Alina is charging her 111-11A1 for assaulting, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement. this is a big deal. As I said, it carries 17 years in prison. And, you know, anytime you look at this video, I'm not really sure how she's going to explain this away, other than she's just frustrated, right? Because she figures that somehow she should have been able to bust in on the place. And Alina Haba and the people that were running the detention center there were saying, no, no, no, you actually have to follow some kind of decorum. Here she is saying earlier that she was going, intending to plead not guilty as she just did today with Jen Saki on her MSNBC show. Well, Haba said you had declined every opportunity to come to a resolution.

You said they wanted you to admit to something you didn't do. What did they want you to admit to? I mean, there was a lot. We've had a week of back and forth with them, and I will say that I did not waver. You know, I showed up there to do my job, and she wanted me to admit to doing things, all of these different lists of things that she said that I did. Like what? I mean, from things of impeding.

you know, there was some other things in there that she put in there, but I can't remember exactly what it was, but she wanted me to admit to these things, sign an agreement to them. And I'm not doing that, you know, because it's not true. I mean, there was a lot of back and forth and just tendness, you know, all week from her and from her office. And so at the end of the day, once again, showed up to do my job. And I don't need to apologize for doing that. That is what the people of New Jersey expected for me to do, the 744,000, almost close to 8,000. thousand people I represent. And why should we apologize about doing our job when ice and

homeland security created that environment and that atmosphere that we saw out there that day? Hmm. I just say this is unbelievable. Again, I want to make sure we have the right lower thirds for you on the screen. Breaking right now, ladies and gentlemen, the representative from New Jersey, Representative La Monica McIver has pleaded. is pleading, not guilty, not guilty to charges that she was interfering with law enforcement that day, maybe about six weeks ago. They're in New Jersey at the Delancey Center. They're in New Jersey, where in Newark, New Jersey, where remember, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey, was arrested at that time, because he was in the eyes of law enforcement interfering and impeding with law enforcement trying to do their job blocking the entrance there.

And Monica took it a step further. He actually went and sat down with Alina Haba. She said he actually expressed some remorse for what was going on. And as a result, he was not charged. This one, on the other hand, La Monica decided that she was going to fight this. Again, she's a new congresswoman. So a freshman congresswoman, she's junior. She is looking for her 20 minutes of fame.

And perhaps she's thinking this is what's going to get it. But I would say she's making a gamble here because I'm not saying she's going to get 17 years, but she might get something. She might get six months. She might get something. I mean, this DOJ is not messing around. AOC has already come out with her threats saying, don't you go near my people. She actually did this, though, when the Newark, New Jersey,

mayor was arrested. She has not, interestingly, come to La Monica's defense. Now, I wonder why. I wonder why. We'll see if she does anything more. But, you know, I think she got some bad advice from AOC. Maybe AOC has got some sharp elbows saying, La Monica, get out of my, I mean, that's hard to do because La Monica, you know, she's got more than sharp elbows going around, right? you know, she can just stampede her way through there. I mean, so AOC was already saying, don't go near my people. Don't you dare.

What's she going to do now? Because, hey, this is coming to a head. The indictment has come forward. La Manica's saying she's not guilty. I think we all saw the tape and there's more where that came from. Here's AOC. If anyone's breaking the law in this situation, it's not members of Congress.

It's the Department of Homeland Security. It's people like Tom Holman and Secretary Christie No. You lay a finger on them, we are going to have a problem. Well, we may have a problem then. What can I say? We may have a problem because, again, the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration. And they get this via the Constitution. They have a supremacy clause in the Constitution that basically makes it quite evident that they control that.

They also have a naturalization clause in the Constitution. There's also the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. And we've talked about this before. Here I am in Live Free or Die, New Hampshire. We have a very small state here. And in Live for Your Die, New Hampshire, where I was born and raised, I'm actually at the house that I came home to as a baby. Can you imagine my parents have had this that long? And they didn't even expect me.

I came a little early, surprisingly. So the house wasn't even done. It's been renovated a lot since then. It's the piano. the piano behind me is actually a new one. I grew up playing something else. You guys have asked me before, but I digress. The point being, even in little New Hampshire, live for your die, New Hampshire, you know what? We balance the budget every single year. You know what else they do? They have no sales tax. They have no income tax. Imagine that. And somehow, we have really good schools and everything functions

really well. And so even in a state like this, you have a lot of Democrats that do not want higher taxes, right? So that's kind of the live for your die thing, like is kind of like bred into you, I would say. Certainly was to me as a kid. And so I believe in small government and want government to be kept on a short lease. But when it comes to immigration, you're talking about the borders. I mean, that is why the federal government has the power it has. So if there's one power the federal government has, I will reiterate it is the power to control who is in this country. And so these lawmakers,

that don't believe that that exists for the federal government. Well, they're going to have a rude awakening, okay? And La Monica may be one of the first casualties in all of this because she's standing up in the face of the federal government. She thinks that she can go and push her way. Well, Hava said you had, I think the charges are absurd. You know, it's ridiculous. I was there to do my job.

I thought we had the actual video of her pushing her weight around. But that was incorrect. But you know what I mean. She's literally like pushing her weight around and she thinks that she can call the shots. And that's not how it works, not in a federalist system like we have. Okay, we are the United States of America. Yes, every state has a certain amount of autonomy. But when it comes to who's here and in the country, that's where you don't have any more say anymore, LaMonica.

That's where the Constitution kicks in. And that's why you see over and over the Supreme Court making the decision to go. with the Trump administration. For example, right, the big news that just came maybe about 36 hours ago from the Supreme Court being that all those people that they wanted to deport, if their country won't take them, if they've been convicted of a crime, guess what? They can deport them to Timbuktu, literally Timbuktu, anywhere they want. South Sudan, okay. The Supreme Court actually voted that the lower courts were trying to interfere with the president's jurisdiction, right? because he has that jurisdiction over foreign affairs and over the border, for goodness sakes.

It's not that hard. So I'm not sure where they're trying to take this unless she wants New Jersey to be a little island all on its own. I mean, maybe the socialist guy can, I'll tell you, I'll take Manhattan, right? I'll take Manhattan. Isn't that a song? You can take Manhattan. I think all of Manhattan is going to say, you can have it. We're out of here.

And that's why you see those reits, real estate investments going down in Manhattan today. You see already people all over saying, what are we going to do? Because we now have a communist in charge. Listen, La Manica, you're part of the federal government. You need to be part of enforcing federal law. Sure, you can look out for the people in the detention center, since that's so important to you. ICE agents had arrested people that have been convicted of crimes, put them in the detention center, and she wants to, you know, fight for them.

Okay, fine. You know what? You go and do that, but you make an appointment. and you can't actually try and muscle your way, quite literally, through the crowd, and put ICE officers' lives in danger in the process. This is really setting up what I would call a classic state versus Fed argument. And don't take my word for it. Go read a constitutional law book. Like, you're going to lose that one all day long in court, La Manica.

And I just hope that you don't wind up in federal prison for 17 years for your own sake. that would be quite a sword to fall on. Again, I haven't seen AOC coming to your rescue, so maybe you got some bad advice. Bad advice indeed. Back to the NATO summit where Donald Trump is securing bigger percentages. He's like, hey, Spain, I won 5% of your GDP, okay? He's securing bigger percentages, trying to lock in more funding there for NATO. Okay, you guys want NATO? Great. Well, you're going to have to contribute. You're going to have to pay up. You're going to have to pay your fair share in a real way. Well, there was this funny moment where, have you heard the Call Me Daddy podcast? He was kind of like a little reference to that. So Trump like went with it. He totally went with it. He probably, he was like, what? Okay. I'm going to play you the original sound, but I'm going to tell you, one of the reporters was like, wait a second, was the NATO head trying to call you daddy? What did that mean exactly? And instead of saying it meant nothing, like he was just sort of, you know, talking about a situation that I'll show you in a moment. Trump totally went with it. He must know.

that Call Me Daddy is a popular podcast because it's now the new Call Me Daddy. Call Me Daddy. One Donald Trump. Watch. Mark Ritter, the NATO chief, who is your friend. He called you Daddy earlier. Do you regard your NATO allies as kind of children? No, he likes me. I think he likes me. If he doesn't, I'll let you know. I'll come back and I'll hit him hard, okay? He did. He did it very affectionate. Daddy, you're my daddy. you're my daddy. He didn't exactly say that. But, you know, I think Trump's on to something. Call me daddy. Here's the actual soundbite of Mark Vitter-NATO-Head speaking with Donald Trump. And they're actually talking about trying to basically get everyone on the same page and how hard that is in international affairs and in diplomacy. And, you know, sometimes you kind of got to act like, you know, the bit of the dad in this situation. I'll let you listen to the sound.

I mean, we may do papers on it, Marco, maybe we're going to do papers. I don't even know if you need them. They're not going to be fighting each other. They've had it. They've had a big fight, like two kids in the school here. You know, they fight like hell. You can't stop them. Let them fight for about two or three minutes.

Then it's easier to stop them. And then daddy has to sometimes do strong language. Yeah, he has strong language. Everyone's knowing you have to use a certain word. I think we have to join you all of a sudden. Okay. So that was that was the daddy reference. So clearly the reporter.

making something more of it. But Trump's like, hey, you know, why not? Hey, call me daddy. He likes me. He likes me. Right? The other thing I would point out, though, is that he is making something really clear that sometimes there needs to be an adult in the room, especially when it comes to these negotiations. And that's historically the role that the United States has played. He's frustrated with a lot of parties right about now. He is talking as well. He mentioned to Zelensky. Don't forget that whole scene. We went through that. You and me, right? In real time. As he Shided Zelensky for not coming to some kind of deal, but his sense said, you know, he's working with Putin as well to try to get something underway. Here he is, just speaking about Israel and Iran,

in the moments before the ceasefire had initially begun. You know, there was that like 12-hour window, and so some things happened. He was not happy. Not happy at all. Yeah, they violated, but Israel violated it too. Are you questioning, is Israel as soon as we made the deal, they came out and they dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I've never seen before. The biggest load that we've seen, I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when I say, okay, now you have 12 hours, you don't go out in the first hour, just drop everything you have on them.

So I'm not happy with them. I'm not happy with Iran either. But I'm really unhappy if Israel's going out this morning because of one rocket that didn't land that was shot, perhaps by mistake that didn't land. I'm not happy about that. You know what? We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard

that they don't know what the fucking doing. Do you understand that? I actually wanted to play that all the way through the end as I did as he walked off. You could hear the frustration in his voice. So he wants to secure peace here. He's not willing to deal with a bunch of, you know, people saying one thing and doing another.

and he's making that clear. And he's playing fair, which is also really important. He's not saying, okay, I got one kid that I prefer in all this. I'm going to hold you both to a very strict standard. So I would just say the whole thing has been brilliantly played. It's tragic for some people that have died in this. And, you know, look, we hate that. We don't want war. We don't want conflict. But if you have an opportunity to, take out a nuclear Iran, as he believed he did, I would just say that that is something that he did not want to ignore and could not ignore. And so hopefully the world is a safer place as a result of that, right? And you have only to look at the market for the last three days. I was looking at the futures market on Sunday night. We were positive. We were higher. Why were we higher? We were higher.

Because the markets believed that this was, in fact, a very good thing for the economy, for the world, and for the safety of the world. And so as a result, you saw oil declining. Now, I look at the market today. We are pretty much flat, the NASDAQ up about two-tenths of a percent, and oil is slightly higher, but again, just slightly higher, up about a percent. So I would just remind you, again, that there's a belief out there. And this is not me saying this or trying to analyze the particular biases of various intel groups. This is the stock market saying that. And I think that's really, really important guys. A reminder, you can go check 76 research. So you can tell, I'm at my parents' house. The phone's ringing in the background. How do you like that? This is what you call live, baby,

really, really, really live. And by the way, I'm going to have to go soon because my parents are going to want back in. But before I do, a quick shout to again to one of our show's sponsors. Let me get the camera back on. Here we are with American Heartford Gold. You can go to Trish lovesgold.com up to $15,000 in free silver with qualifying offers. Text Trish to 655-3-2-1-8-48-44-49-5-1-1-5. You know, peace of my mind, I'm going to tell you, I'm sorry I did not get to your story. We're going to have to save that for later in the week. Peace of my mind, I credit peace of my mind with this,

peace of my mind sending me a story on Rachel Zegler, possibly taking over for, I'm doing some kind of biopic movie on Julie Anders, you know, of music, Mary Poppins, really for the more modern crowd, Princess Diaries with Anne Hathaway. Julie Andrews, my fair lady, is phenomenal. I mean, I'm more of an operatic singer than Julie Andrews, but she had that really sweet spot for musical theater. And apparently, according to peace of my mind, and I check this out, you're right, we'll talk about this a little bit tomorrow.

They're talking about Rachel Zegler for that gig. And I'm like, no, no, I said to my producer, Please tell me it's not true. Oh, do you really, I mean, whatever. So we'll get into that a little bit. We were talking about poor Rachel Zegler, the snow white disaster for Disney that just can't seem to figure out anything. She's got a gig right now over in London playing the role of Evita, which is rather fitting, right? Evita, another socialist, a socialist that came to Buenos Aires and ruined it until Malay came in. Thank goodness. Thank goodness. Anyway, we will get to some of those stories. and more tomorrow. Guys, I read all of your comments. Balance of Nature. Oh, my gosh, did I forget

peace of my mind? I think we're going to get you on the production staff here. Peace of my mind is reminding me that I forgot to talk about balance in nature today, which is important to do because why we love our sponsors on this show. We really do. And the sponsors are everything. Because again, we're number what, 62 or something in the climbing. I think we were number 80 something last week. So here on the podcast, imagine that. Balance of Nature.com. Go there. You can get 35% off with Code Word Trish.

Call them at 1-800-246-8-751. 1-800-24-6-8-751. Code Word Trish, 35% off. I take the fruits and veggies. They get all kinds of good stuff on there. You don't have to take the fruits and veggies. That's just my, that's what they send me. So anyway, 35% off.

Use Code Word Dollar, okay, guys. Forgive me. What am I saying? Code Word Trish. Code Word is 76. We've got a lot of ads today, right? what's going on? This must be a good thing, right? We're climbing in the ranks and we get more ads. So balance in nature, just a wonderful company and drink your water. Eat well. Get your exercise

and take your vitamins. Balance in nature. Those are what I like. Thank you. Rachel Zegler has half of Julie's vocal range. Don Baca making a comment on the, you know, like I like to talk music now and then. This is the piano behind me. We were talking about that the other day. Folks were like, oh my gosh, you play piano. Yes, I play piano. In fact, I learned to play the piano before I could learn to read. So I learned to read music before I could actually read read. I only knew A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Or Dore mi fa solacee, and back to Delle. Okay, that was it. You know, those were the notes I could read on the piano, and those were the letters I knew before anything. So that's a new piano. My parents actually just got that, but we had one that was kind of similar.

not a Steinway. Now, you guys asked, it was a Steinert, a Steinert. It's kind of like a cheap Steinway. But anyway, I digress. Half of Julie's vocal rates, Rachel Zegler, I don't know, you know, I think she's decent, Don. I want to go back and listen to the Live Evita thing to see if she was really in tune or not, but she's decent enough, I mean, for an ingenue from New Jersey, right? But she's no Julie Andrews for sure. Julie Andrews, was extremely talented. I love that you guys are here. Thank you for all you do to make this program such a success. We're going to be back here, hopefully with a little bit better audio. I just ordered a part. It's going to be sent via Amazon, right, because we're not shopping

a Walmart. I'm teasing. I'm teasing. Anyway, we'll see that here tomorrow. So thank you for all you guys do, and we will chat soon.