The Trish Regan Show - LETITIA BUSTED Helping Iran Launder Millions in NEW ACCUSATIONS!

Episode Date: July 25, 2025

BREAKING: New evidence allegedly links New York AG Letitia James to a global money laundering operation! Trish Regan investigates the shocking allegations and the political implications. Meanwhile, The View announces a mysterious hiatus—just as Joy Behar lets slip that the show may not return. Is the White House pressuring ABC behind the scenes? Plus, 20 former CIA and FBI agents break ranks in response to Tulsi Gabbard’s declassified intel dump. James Clapper admits he's lawyering up... and Fox News suddenly starts hedging on Tulsi’s credibility. Why? And finally, sad news: wrestling legend and vocal Trump supporter Hulk Hogan has passed away.Join Trish Regan LIVE for all this and more—don’t miss it!🔔 SUBSCRIBE to support independent journalism:▶️ https://Youtube.com/TrishReganChannel✅ JOIN the Team for exclusive content and perks:▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join📈 For financial insights, subscribe to The 76 Report:▶️ https://76research.com — Use CODE: DOLLAR for a special offer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And we made it. I think, I believe. Thank you so much for your patience, you guys. We're running into a few little technical difficulties as I'm on the road right now. Reporting to you live from Ireland where we get a big story that we're going to talk about, about the sharp rise in the shadow Russian oil tankers in the Irish waters. But before we get to that, we've got some big news on the Latisha front, big news on the view front. Oh my gosh, might this show finally be gone for good once and for all? Wouldn't that be nice, right? Wishful thinking, I'll tell you, the White House is weighing in on this one.

So it could happen. I've been talking about it for a while. It seems to be, in light of Colbert, perhaps next on the chopping block. And, you know, even the anchors are admitting it themselves. So lots to get to. The view could go away. They are going on hiatus. They did say that today. Tulsi's information. Wow. It's like doozy after a doozy. My gosh, Hillary Clinton. And we knew we thought, we suspected it was bad. But who, the things that they have discovered on her, We're going to get to all of that. Plus, Clapper is getting nervous. You know James Clapper, former, head of the DNI.

Everyone's getting nervous. It seems 20x CIA and FBI agents all came out saying Obama was behind it all. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Obama's doing. So we're going to get into that. And rest in peace, Hulk Hogan, a legend, 71 years old, passing away. We're going to talk about him and remember him today. Don't forget to subscribe, share it, like, all that good stuff. I'm glad you found me.

We had two links that went up, so I know I got a little bit confusing today. Make sure you hit the bell so you know exactly when I'm live. Right here on the Trish Riegan show, we were approaching a million, a million subs. It's kind of incredible. Really, truly incredible. Anyway, we start today. We begin on Letitia James' biggest scandal yet. I'm telling you, we've talked about a lot of things with this lady, but this is kind of massive.

And I happen to know a lot about this because I've done a fair amount of reporting in the past. on money laundering and money going to bad places and bad actors like Iran. And in fact, back in the day, this is going back a while, maybe 15 years ago, I was the recipient of an Emmy nomination for some of my reporting on money laundering and financing that was going to some bad actors. And guess what? It was going through New York. And it was Robert Morgan thought, remember they made law and order after him?

It was his office that was actually rather helpful in helping me find a lot of this documentation. I traveled down to Latin America to get some more of it. Well, you know what? They were on it. And the AG at the time in New York was on it. But in this particular case, it looks like Letitia James is anything but on it. I mean, she's on Donald Trump all the time, right? Filing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.

But God forbid she might actually do her job. and part of her job is policing any kind of fraudulent financial activity that might be going on, specifically when it comes to avoiding sanctions. In this case, that is just coming out and it's a biggie, it's a doozy, and there's no reason in the world this woman should have this job, in part because of everything she's done, but certainly because of this one, the allegations are that you've got $9.6 billion that went from China to Iran right through a London bank in New York. And the Attorney General was briefed on this, briefed on this multiple times, and yet the Attorney General, Lettisha James, refused to do anything, anything at all.

So think about how pathetic and disgusting that is. Here's the story. I'm bringing it to you. This is the biggest scandal yet. The biggest scandal yet. Iran and China are, and Gateway Pundit, by the way, they are all over this. They are absolutely all over this because they know, they know what a big, big, big deal this is. And they came out with this story.

And I credit my friend Jim Hoff over there for being one of the first to report on this. It is a big, freaking deal. So they're saying that basically Iran and China are trying to evade sanctions, and they're evading sanctions via notorious methods, methods of money laundering. 9.6 billion dollars of illegal payments being made. Can you believe that? Unbelievable stuff. Unbelievable stuff.

Okay, the Standard Charter Bank sanctions. The evasion case, now in court, in the U.S. Second Circuit, found at least 9.6 billion of illegal payments by the bank to Iranian and Hezbollah entities. Unbelievable. And guess what? The New York Attorney General's office was briefed on this stuff. Twice. Not once. Twice. And then the Federal Reserve on top of it. They were briefed on it as well. I mean, this is unbelievable to me. She is totally, utterly, incompetent, incompetent to think that she could be told about this twice, and this is the result?

Are you kidding me? Let's think about just exactly what may have gone down. Okay, you're dealing with a company called Standard Chartered Bank. It's a bank out of London. They had a history of basically sanction violations. Don't forget, these were Biden sanctions. He said, okay, Russia, Russia, you're a bad actor. you're not doing what we want with Ukraine, so we're going to sanction you.

And so what happens when you sanction them? You say, okay, well, you're not going to be able to sell your natural gas to, say, China or India or anywhere else. So China comes along and says, but wait a second, we want that natural gas. So they actually want to still buy it from Russia. But here's the problem. Because of the petro dollar, all of this stuff is priced in dollars, and it's only priced in dollars.

and given that, they had to find a way to get dollars to Iran. So China wants to buy Iran's oil or natural gas. I mean, it happens with Russia too. But Iran was sanctioned. So how do they get the money to Iran? Well, they have to get really clever. And they apparently went through, allegedly, this bank, this is what is actually in court right now.

In 2019, SBC fined $1.1 billion by U.S. and UK authorities for money laundering and sanction breaches involving transactions that involved Iran. And in 2012, SBC paid $340 million to settle claims of laundering $250 billion for Iranian clients. And then we learn that Letitia, this is the lawsuit that's coming apart at the seams right now, standard charge, a wrong transaction, subject of new whistleblower claims, and these are the court filings that we're looking at, and according to some of this, as well as gateway punditia, Letitia knew about it. So if Letitia James knew about it and her office was briefed on it, allegedly she got thousands of emails talking about it, then why wouldn't she have done anything? because she does not care, right?

The newly uncovered data has prompted the two whistleblowers, one of them former standard-chargered executive to claim the U.S. government committed a colossal fraud on the court when it asserted they failed to produce substantive evidence to help authorities, enforcement actions against the bank for violating U.S. and international sanctions. Unbelievable. I'm just so grossed out because it's a lot of money.

They were sanctions. You weren't supposed to be sending money to Iran, and yet Leticia, who's supposed to be governing all this, she's too busy, right? She's too busy. She doesn't have any interested in actually doing her job because Leticia James has bigger fish to fry. She's going to go after Donald Trump

and get him for $500 million, right? So she's not paying attention to the actual stuff that really does matter in the world. That's how sick and twisted all this is, you guys. When you have politicians that don't actually care about doing their job to protect our country and to enforce the law, in this case, sanctions, international sanctions, and she's allowing her New York banks to get used, a British bank operating in New York,

then you got a real serious problem on your hand. It's all the more reason why this woman really does need to go. And she's going to go soon, I think. I mean, just look at the polls. The polls suggested New York doesn't want her anymore. And as this all comes out, I think she's going to be in more and more trouble. I'm not suggesting she was taking anything off the top. I would certainly hope not.

I'm not suggesting anyone on her staff was doing anything like that. However, I am suggesting that they didn't have their eye on the prize because they were too focused on Trump. I mean, think about the damage that that does when you are so politically rabid that you have to go after him, you're not actually looking at the bigger picture and actually doing the things you need to do. In early 2024, according to Gateway Pundant, the New York attorney, General's office, that would be Leticia and some of her staff members, were briefed on this,

but they did absolutely nothing. And they reapproved the annual license for this bank that was laundering all this money. I mean, that's why, $9.6 billion. So Letitia does have a problem, and this could become a bigger problem for her. And I think it's the biggest one yet. I agree with Jim. Because if you knew about this and you didn't do squat about this, then And it shows what a bad attorney general, you really are. And why you need to go. You needed to go yesterday, Letitia. But unfortunately, sadly, scarily, she is still there.

And it's pretty twisted. And it's really, really messed up. So, you know, we actually need lawmakers, believe it or not. Sometimes they actually have to do things. And when they don't do their job, it kind of is a problem. and she's out there ignoring these sanctions all well you know you got all kinds of other problems going on in the world meanwhile meanwhile you know she's she's all about embracing whoever can come to new york city totally in violation of federal law it's like this woman doesn't understand the

law i mean she's in violation of international law she's in violation of federal law she's allowing people to skirt sanctions and she's allowing people to come into the country illegally, at which point, you know, Pam finally said, okay, we've had enough. We're filing charges against Letitia James, against Kathy Hockel, and also the DMV in New York. You remember this from a couple months ago. We're here today because we have filed charges against the state of New York. We have filed charges against Kathy Hockel. We have filed charges against Latisha James and Mark Schroeder, who is with DMV. This is a new DOJ, and we are taking steps to protect Americans, American citizens, and angel moms, like the mom's standing right behind.

Yeah, because it turns out you can't just flaunt whatever you want to do in front of the law. I mean, Leticia, I'm sorry. And yet, you know what? She's doubling down on this. It's getting weird. She went on to CNN yesterday, and she had the audacity to sit there and say, like, all these things about how, you know, we need the illegals coming here. and she's going to defend them no matter what. All while, you know, ice officers are actually seeing their lives in jeopardy,

but God forbid she actually cares anything about them. I want to show you this clip of Letitia James here on CNN. It's pretty bad. Voters make a distinction. A lot of them in the polls show it between undocumented immigrants without criminal records, people you're talking about, and those who have them, right, especially in these extreme cases, like we look at. at in this case in New York City. But to that point, in this case, why should those voters think

that this is something other than the system not working? I mean, if you're talking about waiting for comprehensive immigration reform, I've been to Washington for 20 years. They've been trying for a long time. It doesn't happen. Right. So why, in the case of cities taking a step, and states taking a step, is this an example where there could be that coordination, instead of waiting decades for Congress to act? At the outset, I indicated to you that, in fact, New York State and other Democratic states cooperate with ICE when it comes to criminal convictions, but when it comes to innocent individuals, individuals who serve as your nanny, who clean your home, individuals who are our neighbors,

individuals who unfortunately are just trying to make ends meet each and every day. Both of these individuals had multiple arrests after deportation orders. Why are those not opportunities? And that is why in the state of New York, when it comes to individuals, as you indicated, individuals with criminal convictions, then we cooperate with ICE. But it's important that we make a distinction between those individuals with criminal convictions and those individuals, again, who are just trying to make ends meet each and every day. And the vast majority of individuals who are being secreted and kidnapped at night

are individuals who, again, are facing civil, civil deportation and not criminal enforcement. It's important that we make a distinction. It's important that individuals understand that individuals are being caught up in these ice raids, innocent individuals, students, teachers, small businesses, we all want the same thing, and that is to protect individuals from harm. But unfortunately, what we are seeing is mass ICE agents without any insignia, without any identification, kidnapping innocent individuals. Okay. Oh my gosh, right?

Like, we've already been through this. That's actually very, very wrong. I played the soundbite for you from Tom Homan just the other day saying, no, in 70% of the cases there are people that actually have criminal records. In some cases, very violent criminal records. and in the other 30% of the cases, they're deemed to be national security risks. Don't forget, when you open the floodgates,

you say, hey, 20 million people can come in over the span of four years. You get all kinds of people coming in, some of whom they are deemed to be actual security risks. So they have paperwork on everyone, and yet, Letitia is trying to make this into something else. So again, not doing her job. Not doing her job as Attorney General of New York,

allowing for international entities to completely evade sanctions and send money allegedly $9.6 billion to Iran while simultaneously standing up and saying, oh, I'm going to defend my sanctuary city and state all day long, despite the fact that I am in total violation of federal law. We've talked about this. If there's one thing the federal government can do, and I'm a state's rights kind of gal, listen, the one thing that they have power over and jurisdiction over is who is in the country, period, full stop. So Leticia, you know, we're not saying she's the smartest lawyer around, but she's a heck of a politician. Well, maybe we can say she was a heck of a politician because I'm telling you, this woman is not going to get voted in again.

But there's a method to the madness. Don't forget that. Okay, I want to show you a representative from Brooklyn, what she had to say. She kind of let it slip. She's like, wait a second, but of course we need all these people here, because how else are we going to get our redistricting done? Uh-huh. Yeah. Now we know exactly what it's about. There's a method to their madness. Here's the tape. And from Brooklyn, New York, we have a diaspora that can absorb a significant number of these migrants. And when I hear colleagues talk about, you know, the doors of the end being closed, no room in the end. I'm saying, you know, I need more people in my district,

just for redistricting purposes. And those members could clearly fit here. Hmm. I see. I see what it's all about. I see. This is like gerrymandering on steroids. They want to make sure

that they have enough people in their district because they want to be able to make sure they have enough congressional seats. So it's all about power. It's all about control. They don't care what the actual end result is for the people that are living in their district.

No, no. They just want more people in the district. Whether they can vote or not, They just want to be able to have more representation there, for you get more people from the blue districts in Congress. I see. Well, I mean, eventually, you know where they're heading with this. They actually kind of already showed their hand. Did they not?

When the appellate court in New York had to strike down what they were trying to get through, which was 800,000 non-citizens voting in New York elections, yeah, that didn't happen. But they tried. They certainly tried. Unbelievable stuff, you guys. Unbelievable stuff. You know what else is pretty unbelievable.

And I know it's going to make some of you very, very happy. What have we been talking about? The view going, bye, bye, bye, bye, bye. Well, they let it slip today, that they're going to be on a bit of a hiatus. Joy Behar coming out and saying it. I think we get the tape right here. We're going to get to this story out of Ireland shortly. But let's get to the view on hiatus.

Taking a look at this one right now. The view going bye-bye. This is what we've been waiting for, right? Well, Joy Behar, let it slip. They're on the show today, and somehow she said, oh, we've got one more show until we're on a hiatus. The White House is weighing in saying, yeah, we think this show's going to go the way of Colbert.

Let's play you the clip, and then we're going to talk about it. Here we go. And before we go on hiatus, we only have one more show after this. I'm allowed to say that, right? Too late now. So it doesn't really matter. Before we go, I wanted to tell people that the tide is churning, the tide is churning, and things are changing. I mean, the ultimate irony would be that Rupert Murdoch will take him down.

Yeah. Fox News, who created the monster will take him down. Oh, that's interesting. So the hiatus thing, they often take a break in the summer. It's like the greatest gig in news, right? Because they go away for like the whole month of August, right? So they don't have any new shows. They go into old programming.

I don't really know how you do that because it is supposed to be a new show. But nonetheless, they're all going by-bye for a while. The question is, do they come back? Don Jr. weighed in on this on social media today, saying, oh, wouldn't it be great if they didn't come back? And then you had actually the White House weighing in on it. I want to touch on what they said vis-a-vis Robert Murdoch and Fox in just a moment, too. But look at what the White House said. Here we go.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, White House spoke. person, Taylor Rogers, called out the show's ratings and suggested it could be pulled off the air if Behar didn't stop attacking Trump. Joy Behar is an irrelevant loser. Gosh, sounds like he's channeling the big guy, huh? Irrelevant losers suffering from a severe case of Trump derangement syndrome. It is no surprise that the view's ratings hit an all-time low last year. She should self-reflect on her own jealousy of President Trump's historic popularity before her show is the next to be pulled off the air. So that's kind of an interesting comment. A heck of a dig, right, coming out of the White House. But look, the White House really can't stand the show

because the show has been wildly irresponsible. I mean, I can't stand the show either. I don't think you guys can stand it. We did a whole thing on this the other day about how it makes all the sense in the world to get rid of the show. And if Bob Agar's smart, he's the CEO of Disney, he's actually going to take this opportunity and say, okay, well, look what happened with Colbert. It doesn't even matter, like if the ratings are okay. You hear the press person citing last year's ratings. The ratings, as I understand it, have been somewhat stabilized this year, but it doesn't matter because Colbert apparently had the highest ratings, but he was still losing $30, $40 million a year. You can't operate. You can't stay in business as a show if you're losing

that much. And the kind of show that the view is where everybody's got such a huge salary, right? You got to pay Whooppy. You got to pay Joy. You got to pay Sonny, who I'm sure is trying to cost more every single day. Anna Navarra, I don't know so much about the others and what they would be making. But when it all adds up, it adds up to a fairly hefty amount. Plus, you get staffs for each one of them. And then you get the live studio audience and the people that manage the live studio audience. Before it's all said and done, you're talking about a heck of a lot of money. And And so are the economics really worth it? I think a lot of advertisers are saying, you know, I don't really want to be on that show right now because it has become so toxic. And given that

toxic atmosphere, it's really not appropriate for my products, et cetera. So I wouldn't be surprised. I actually wouldn't be surprised if this show went away. We've talked about that for a while, really and truly for good, because there's no reason for it to be on. But she said something else, which I think is important to listen to again. She seems to think that Rupert Murdoch is going to be the one to take down one Donald Trump. Rather interesting. Is this not what I talked about the other day

because you had some Rupert-backed talent out there knocking him and demanding the Epstein files, et cetera, et cetera? Listen to her again. And before we go on hiatus, we only have one more show after this. I'm allowed to say that, right? Too late now.

So it doesn't really matter. Before we go, I wanted to tell people that the tide is turning. The tide is turning, and things are changing. I mean, the ultimate irony would be that Rupert Murdoch will take him down. Yeah. Fox News, who created the monster,

will take him down. Do you hear that? Um... So, you know, the Walls' Journal came out with that letter the other day. You know, the letter that they didn't actually have possession of, that apparently they allegedly hadn't even seen, and yet they did this big report and talked about this letter, this birthday card wish that was really neither here nor there, but suggested that Trump and Epstein had some kind of friendship. And it was interesting. It was

interesting to me that it was the Wall Street Journal that was willing to go there, right, on kind of shoddy reporting. Because to me, like, you ought to have a copy of the letter. Like, for sure. I mean, that's just kind of basic. As a journalist, we started this show talking about financing and, you know, money going to Iran. In one case, some of the reporting I had done involved money going from South America, the tri-border region of South America where Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil meet to Hezbollah.

And Nasrullah had sent a thank-you note to one of the people involved and suspected of being a financier of this stuff. And I had a copy of the letter, okay? And I broadcast the copy of the letter because one should have a few. physical copy of the, I mean, if you don't have the original, at least for goodness sakes, see the original and get a copy, but the Wall Street Journal didn't have that.

So what's the Wall Street Journal doing? What is Rupert Murdoch up to? I mean, think about some of the people that came out demanding, demanding, demanding that we get these Epstein files. Who was it? Well, it was a couple of talents that actually, interestingly, now have their podcasts sold by Rupert Murdoch. past talents of Fox. I mean, kind of incestuous, don't you think? Because the company that's selling their podcasts was actually bought by Rupert Murdoch.

And now Rupert is selling the advertising for their shows after he fired one and got rid of the other. I mean, and now they're out there saying, hey, we want this, we want this. Well, they're going to get it. James Comer said August 11th is the date. We're going to hear from Maxill, see what she has to say. But I don't actually think,

this is going to take him down. I actually would recommend you go back and listen to yesterday's show where we played Dershowitz's interview in which he said there's no current politician that is involved in any of this, that a lot of the judges had sealed this stuff and they didn't want the information coming out. In fact, as recently as yesterday, a couple of judges said, no, we don't want this coming out. And Trump's like, to heck with it. You know what? I'm just going to blow the whole thing wide open. And I don't care who goes down because I'm sick of you guys trying to push this innuendo with me, just like you did with Russia, Russia, Russia. I mean, the similarities are kind of amazing.

And I think that that's perhaps what Joy is trying to get at there, Joy Behar, when she's saying, oh, it's the Wall Street Journal. It's Rupert Murdoch that's going to take him down. It wouldn't be Fox, interestingly, because, you know, Fox learned its lesson after, you know, 20-20. And before you knew it, you had Martha McCallum having to move to 2 p.m. because her 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock whenever she was on, her show was getting creamed by newsmax. And so they knew that the base was not with it. So they're going to have to be

very careful there. But they can do it in other ways. You see, they can use their podcasts. They can use the Wall Street Journal. They can use these other mechanisms to go after Donald Trump. Whether or not it succeeds, let me just say my money's on Trump. More than it is on Rupert Murdoch. I'm not suggesting Murdoch's not a smart and sly guy, but I do think that Trump has shown us over and over again. He emerges from all of these things unscathed. Just look at the latest poll numbers. It's really kind of striking and amazing. Remember, subscribe, share, like, all that good stuff. By the way, speaking of things that are coming out, page 17, this was incredible page 17. I mean, Vladimir Poon, if he wanted to take down Hillary Clinton,

he sure as heck could have done it. Did you see all the stuff written on her? Meanwhile, you get 20x FBI and CIA agents now coming out and saying it was Obama's fault. Obama was behind all of this Russia, Russia, Russia stuff. There were high-level DNC emails that detailed evidence of Hillary's quote, psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness, and that then Secretary Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of, heavy tranquilizers.

Fox News Alert, the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, releasing a bombshell report today that shows a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and his intel agencies to sabotage the president-elect, Donald Trump, brainwashed the electorate and undermine the legitimacy of an election. There is irrefutable evidence that detail how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that, you know, that we're not a that they knew was false. They knew it would promote this contrived narrative

that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn't. Gabber got our hands on a House Intel report that's been locked away in a CIA vault for almost a decade. Investigators spent over 2,000 hours looking into how the Russia hoax was born,

interviewing 20 CIA. and FBI officials. And it turns out that the Obama administration doctored the intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Barack Obama wasn't satisfied with his intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. This was a highly unusual move. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment.

and they were siloed. None of them knew what the other was doing. And only one analyst was in charge of drafting this report. There was nothing routine about this, and it was a rush job to publish before Trump was sworn in. Nothing was coordinated with the other intelligence agencies either. Basically, this was home cooking for Barack Obama. There were four key elements from the assessment that were repeated over and over again and formed the basis of the Russia hoax and the Robert Mueller witch hunt. One, that Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to win. Two, Putin took action to help Trump win. Three, the Russians had blackmail on Trump. That was the steel dossier. And four, that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. None of any of this was ever true.

There was no reliable intelligence to support any of these allegations. Senior CIA officials repeatedly refused to traffic in these allegations. But they were repeatedly overruled by CIA director Brennan and FBI director Comey, who insisted that they be pushed, even without verifiable evidence. The Obama administration sherry-picked the intelligence, lied about their sources, misquoted sources, didn't corroborate their claims, suppressed intelligence that ran counter to their narratives, and even used anonymous internet postings.

Unbelievable. Unbelievable. So if you read the 114 pages that was declassified, plus there's additional stuff that just came out, like I said, page 17, page 17 of the new stuff is quite fascinating. What you see is, exactly, Jesse laid it out pretty well. In other words, they had some information that suggested Russia had not been able to have any kind of a material effect on the elections.

They didn't hack into any machines. They weren't able to actually sway anybody's opinion. But they did actually just want to sort of mess with us a little bit. And so they were going to put a statement out saying Russia didn't do anything. And all of a sudden there gets, you know, everybody gets called into this big meeting in the Obama White House, into the Oval Office. There were all kinds of important people there. and, you know, whether it was McCabe, whether it was Clapper, whether it was Susan Rice, Lisa

Monica, they had the whole crowd there, roads, everybody was there, and Obama made it clear that he wanted to actually have the intel community pursue this line of, did Russia interfere in the election so that Donald Trump could win, right? That's where they were heading. And that was the narrative that they put in place. Obama says, no, no, we didn't do that. Here's his response. Listen. So breaking just moments ago, former President Obama's office responding

after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused his administration of using, quote, manufactured intelligence about President Trump and Russia. Gabbard sending a referral to the Justice Department and calling for, quote, accountability. President Obama's office saying, quote, nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion

that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election, but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in 2020 in the report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then chairman Marco Rubio. That report moments ago from President Obama's office, the story that we were discussing earlier in the hour.

So I think he's actually pretty frightened right now because we know where everything went, right? You know exactly where it went. Clinton kept saying, oh, you know, Russia stole the election, I would have won, had it not been for Russia, we had Jimmy Carter saying that, you had every Democrat on the planet saying that, you had Brennan, the whole kitten caboodle, okay? But what just came out is really rather fascinating. Page 17, page 17, guys, because on page 17, we learn in this newly declassified document on Clinton, and here's the original. It's just kind of hard to read.

so I decide to put a nice spiffy little graphic for you. Some big items. The one that really caught my eye is the first thing I listed here. Internal claims that Hillary was on heavy tranquilizers and suffering, quote, intensified psycho-emotional problems. So this was alleged intel that the Russians had on Hillary Clinton. And the reason why this is kind of important and significant right now to talk about is if Putin had this, why didn't he use it?

I mean, there were plenty of sort of moments in time where you're looking at Hillary going, is she okay? I mean, is she okay? Let's see if we have any. Oh, yeah. Here's a good one. She's just like laughing hysterically and seems kind of like off her rocker. This might be the quote unquote intensified psycho-emotional problems that she may have been suffering from.

Apparently lots of highs, big highs, big lows. I got it for you. watch. Did you talk about vice presidential possibilities of Senator Warren? You guys have got to try the cold child. I've had it. It is delicious, isn't it? Okay.

Right? We weren't supposed to think anything of that. But again, there was that moment. I was just showing you when you saw Tulsi speaking earlier of Hillary Clinton when she was getting into that vehicle and she looked like she fell and everybody surrounded her so you couldn't see the shot, so it looked like she was not very stable. There's alleged evidence that her health had become, quote, extraordinarily alarming. And these were people, apparently, in the Obama camp that thought of this and said this. There was evidence of secret meetings

with religious leaders in which she offered, quote, significant increases in funding from the State Department in return for their support. There were admissions from European allies that they didn't really like her that much, or they didn't think she was that qualified. That doesn't surprise me. There's plenty of European allies that don't like Trump that much too, right? So that's a little less significant. To me, the biggie is the heavy tranquilizers and suffering intensified psychoemotional problems. Whoa, okay? So this was a big thing for her to classify.

In other words, if you look at this stuff, if you look at what Tulsi was able to find, going all the way back to September 5th, 2016, they knew the drill. They knew that basically there was nothing there, and that was what they were prepared to report. But they chose a very, very different path. Why? So they could say something, so they had an excuse. And then Obama ordered the entire intel community to make it their mission for the next four years. And by the way, Donald Trump knew it.

He totally knew it. He said this back in 2020. And everybody was like, oh, you know, what's he talking about? He must be crazy. And yet listen to him in this debate from 2020. You may have to turn up the volume. I want you to hear it, though, because he was on to something. Two minutes.

So when I listened to Joe talking about a transition, there's been no transition from when I won. I won that election. And if you look at crooked Hillary Clinton, if you look at all of the different people, there was no transition because they came after me trying to do a coup. They came after me spying on my campaign. They started from the day I won and even before I won. From the day I came down the escalator with our first lady, they,

were a disaster, they were a disgrace to our country. And we've caught them. We've caught them all. We've got it all on tape. We've caught them all. And by the way, you gave the idea for the Logan Act against General Flynn. You better take a look at that because we caught you in a sense. And President Obama was sitting in the office, he knew about it too. So don't tell me about a free transition. Whoa, right? So he was like onto this a while back. And yet everybody was like, no, no, no, no, no, nothing. Well, now, now, He wants some revenge. And he may just get it. He made it clear exactly who he's going after, exactly who he thinks the DOJ should go after. Here he is in the Oval Office, saying as much. Watch. Gattern has submitted a criminal referral to the Department of Justice.

From your perspective, who should the DOJ target as part of their investigation? What specific figures in the Obama administration? Well, based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read, it would be President Obama. He started it. And Biden was there with him, and Comey was there, and Clapper. The whole group was there. Brennan, they were all there in a room. Right here, this was the room.

If you look at those papers, they have them stone cold, and it was President Obama. It wasn't lots of people all over the place. It was them, too. leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. Have you heard of him? And except for the fact that he gets shielded by the press for his entire life. That's the one they, look, he's guilty. It's not a question. You know, I like to say, let's give it time. It's there. He's guilty. This was treason. This was every word you can think of. They tried to steal the election. They to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined, even in other countries.

Yeah, I mean, it kind of felt like a banana republic. The more I read about this, it feels exactly like a banana republic. This is not stuff that should be happening in the United States of America. And you look at Susan Rice's memo to self after that big meeting that they had in the Oval Office, where the intel community was instructed to go after all of this. And she wrote this CYA email, basically saying the president was very careful to say, we should make sure that we follow proper protocol, don't do anything out of the ordinary. Well, I'm sorry, the entire premise of the whole darn thing

was completely out of the ordinary. And again, I go back to if Putin really wanted to take down Hillary Clinton, why didn't he run with all this other stuff? He had some good stuff. Okay, he didn't. Because you know what, he didn't really care. He just wanted to basically sow this distrust. he wanted to basically divide. And guess what? He accomplished that. Look at how divided we are.

But that wasn't Trump as much as it was, for goodness sakes, Obama and everything that came from that. So yeah, sure, now we're a divided nation. Thank you very much. Putin gets exactly what he wants because Obama played straight into his hands. James Clapper's getting kind of concerned. James Clapper going on to CNN. James Clapper going on to CNN, former head of the DNI, and expressing his frustration and reluctance and need to lawyer up, specifically lawyer up, his words. He's asked about it by Caitlin Collins, and I want to show you this clip. When the director says that she's referred these filings to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, tonight we're told they formed what is called a strike force. Do you have concerns that they will attempt to prosecute you? Well, certainly I do.

You know, after eight and a half years of this, and I don't know of an intelligence product that was more scrutinized, more investigated than that product was by numerous people. You know, it's very disconcerting. It really is. And I take seriously when the President of the United States accuses me as being a participant in a treasonous conspiracy, which is ridiculous. Yeah, what's your reaction to that? It's ridiculous. It just is untrue. So what will you do if they come after you? What is your plan?

Well, I'll lawyer up, I suppose. Already have. You've already hired attorneys in case of an anticipation that this Trump Justice tournament could try to prosecute you. We've had sort of perpetual attorneys since I left the government in 2017. So, yeah, he's a little bit nervous. You know, if you look back on those records, it's a little bit of, it's a little bit of, it's a little bit of sort of suggested that he wasn't kind of along for the ride in the same way as some of those other folks. And then when you hear about 20 FBI and former CIA officials coming forward and

now going on record saying this was all Obama's idea, Obama wanted to do this, it's like, wow, here's the thing, I don't know if you actually get convictions. I'm going to be completely, perfectly transparent and honest with you. Can you actually get convictions? I mean, what about immunity, right, for the president of the United States? That's a big issue. So if, President Barack Obama has a munite, what about everybody around him? Well, some people have suggested that some folks like Comey, oh, like Fauci, different story, but, you know, somebody else who got an auto pardon on the 11th hour right before Joe Biden left office. There were like 8,000 of them. If those auto pardons are all null and void, then guess what? A lot of these people that participated

in this could actually go down in flames and they may be paying the price in the future. So that explains, for example, why James Comey was so worried and kept saying, oh, this election is so important and so important. You can't allow for him to win because he's going to come back and he wants retribution, et cetera. Well, wouldn't you, I mean, if they said what they said about him, about you, wouldn't you expect some kind of remorse from them? if nothing else, for goodness sakes people, just give an apology.

I mean, that's what it took, plus $36 million from CBS, right? Or ABC News, similar situation plus an extra $16 million. Look, you just can't lie and expect to get away with it. But, you know, tell that to the Wall Street Journal. Because, again, I go back to what we're seeing there from the Wall Street Journal. And this is really interesting, that they printed this story without having the physical letter itself. Just this sort of letter with a lot of innuendoes

suggesting that, you know, Trump had a cozy relationship with Epstein. Maybe he did. It's really neither here nor there. They print this letter and then they kind of infer from that, all these other things to the point now where the view thinks, Rupert, is going to take him down. Well, that is unless Donald Trump takes down the Wall Street Journal. Don't forget.

He's suing them now for 10. billion dollars. So Joy, you know, your little thesis there, I'm not so sure it's going to play out. And before we go on hiatus, we only have one more show after this. I'm allowed to say that, right? Too late now. So it doesn't really matter. Yeah. Before we go, I wanted to tell people that the tide is turning. The tide is turning and things are changing. I mean, the ultimate irony would be that Rupert Murdoch will take him down. Yeah. Fox News, who created the monster, will take him down. Our thanks to news busters for that clip.

Here's an op-ed actually published by Fox News in which they're attacking Tulsi Gabbard's allegations and accusations and saying they are a dangerous effort to rewrite history. Because you see, if you're on the left, you want history exactly as you've decided to write it. Nobody else is allowed to have any involvement in. that. And this, of course, was written by a guy who's a former Biden official. So he wants his version of history to exist. And apparently Fox is so willing to oblige, maybe because they too want to take Donald Trump down before he takes the Wall Street Journal down. I don't know if he'll take the whole journal down. But it brings up the interesting case of libel, right? And if you're a

public figure, if you're the president of the United States, it can be kind of difficult. for you to sue for liable. But in this case, I kind of think if you're just making stuff up, if you don't even actually physically have the letter, and you just want to trade in this innuendo, then maybe he does have something. And even if you're the president, you should be protected somewhat

against just completely false information. People should not be able to print. And I'm all for free speech, right? but there's got to be some responsibility in free speech. I mean, Hulk Hogan was one of the people that certainly taught us that, right? Remember, he went after Gawker. He's dead. God bless him.

Rest his soul. Seventy-one years old. I was surprised by the news. He looked so healthy, right? Maybe it was the tan. Anyway, that's a picture of him at the RNC. Thanks so much for the generosity, Skip VP. that's him at the R&C and he kind of took off his shirt he was very very much like this artistic performer of sorts

you know everybody in that sort of wrestling world right is and he took off his shirt and underneath you saw Trump Vance and he gave a really compelling speech in favor of the president anyway he just passed away we got that news this afternoon but he was a good example of somebody who was a public figure and said you know what you can't just come after me and he actually put Gawker out of business as a result of that one. So pretty interesting, interesting stuff, given what the president is now saying, I want to go back to Letitia for just a moment because this is a big story that just crossed right now. I want to report for you, and we are going to actually change the lower third.

Trisha is going to talk and type at the same time. We just got news that the White House is suing. The White House is suing New York City because of the violations when it comes to its sanctuary status. So this is kind of a big deal. And Eric Adams, even though he was sort of a favorite, right, of the White House and he was getting attacked by everyone in the liberal media because he seemed a little cozier. He allowed for ICE to come into Rikers, for example. Well, still the fact that the fact that he was getting attacked by everyone in the liberal media, because he seemed a little cozyer, he loud for ice to come into Rikers, for example.

Well, still the fact that they are allowing that sanctuary status is a big deal for the Trump administration, because they're saying we're not going to allow any city to do this. So this story just breaking moments ago, here we go, in the New York Times, the Trump administration is suing New York City over its sanctuary city laws. The mayor, Eric Adams, who had been spared from a corruption investigation, they're saying because, you know, he was helping the administration. There were all those allegations. They were saying, oh, you know, you scratch my back, I scratch yours. actually among the defendants there. But the fact that New York City has decided to institute all of these sanctuary laws now puts them at odds with the federal government. And it makes sense because, you know, I'm going to go back to some of the things that we've talked about before vis-a-vis the

Constitution. And the fact that, you know, you've got the supremacy clause. You've got the commerce clause. You've got the migration clause. You've got the foreign affairs and national sovereignty clause and all of these clauses collectively mean the United States federal government is in charge of immigration. And so if Congress rules that you need to come here legally and have your passport stamped in the proper documentation and a visa if you need it, et cetera, that's Congress that makes that decision. It is not New York City. It is not Los Angeles. It is not Boston. It is not Dallas. It is not Chicago. Even though all of these people, for whatever reason, seem to think, they can operate as little islands onto themselves. No is the answer. And you know what? You heard

earlier from Letitia James. I want to play this again for you because she was getting challenged on this issue. She doesn't want anything to do with Donald Trump. For sure, she sees this somehow is a win, which it's not. But here she is joining the likes of Brandon Johnson in Chicago, who thinks he can make up the Constitution, that the Constitution is irrelevant for him. Letitia James saying, we're not going to cooperate at all

because we don't believe they're actually going after people that are criminals. When, in fact, if you listen to Tom Homan and you look at their records, they absolutely are. Here's Latisha. Voters make a distinction. A lot of them, and the polls show it between undocumented immigrants without criminal records, people you're talking about, and those who have them, right, especially in these extreme cases like we look at in this case in New York City. But to that point, in this case, why should those voters think that this is something other than the system not working?

I mean, if you're talking about waiting for comprehensive immigration reform, I've been to Washington for 20 years. And they've been trying for a long time. It doesn't happen. Right. So why in the case of cities taking a step is and states taking a step, is this an example where there could be that coordination instead of waiting decades for Congress to act? At the outset, I indicated to you that in fact, New York state and other Democratic states cooperate with ICE when it comes to criminal convictions. But when it comes to innocent individuals, individuals who serve as your nanny, who clean your home, individuals who are our neighbors, individuals who unfortunately are just trying to make ends meet each and every day. Both of these individuals had multiple arrests after deportation orders. Why are those not opportunities? And that is why in the state of New York, when it comes to individuals, as you indicated,

individuals with criminal convictions, then we cooperate with ICE. No, but she actually doesn't. And that's what the reporter is trying to say to her from CNN. In these particular cases, you have two individuals that did have these criminal convictions and you guys didn't cooperate. So why didn't you cooperate? And she just doubles down on her humanitarian thing. Well, you know, look, this woman, I mean, she's got to go.

She's ignoring her sanctioned violations because she's got to go after Trump and get Trump. She's ignoring federal law. And now New York City is sued by White House over. sanctuary status. And that is a big deal. Okay, that's a big deal. So New York City, now in the hut seat, Eric Adams is the first. And you know what? He's not going to be the last. You know how I know he's not going to be the last, the last? Because I saw what Brendan Johnson was saying just the other way, and I want to play this one for you. We talked about this recently. This guy, he doesn't care. He doesn't care what the Constitution says. He's like, we're not going to help in any way, shape, or form. Because we are

Chicago. Look, we are a welcoming city ordinance. Our local police department will not ever cooperate with ice. Whatever their constitutional authority is. Whatever their constitutional authority is?

What are you guys trying to do? What do you want? Like civil war? You want to sit there and say, We don't believe in the Constitution. We're going to do our own thing here in Chicago. We're going to do our own thing here in New York. And we don't care about the Constitution of the United States of America,

which, by the way, is coming up on its 250th anniversary. Thank you very much. We're a pretty good place, right? They want to tear it up, rip it up, just say open borders? Why? Who's going to pay for it? I'm here in Ireland, and you know what? Ireland's a pretty special place.

and they've had a very successful economy. But they're dealing with similar issues as well because guess what? The UK has been sending everybody in. And you've got a very porous border between Northern Ireland, which is still part of the UK and the Republic of Ireland, in Southern Ireland. And so now all of a sudden all these people are coming in

and folks are getting frustrated. Talk to a guy just this week who said, you know what? It's not right. It's not right because they're able to, collect all of these benefits. They have a very generous benefit system here, and they're not working, and this is kind of at odds with who we are as a culture. So they're not happy about it. You go around Europe, right? You look at what's happened in Germany, you look at what's happened in Sweden, you look at what just happened in France. We got breaking news within the hour that

Macron has just announced that he is going to be recognizing Palestine. He may be. be trying to detract from the lawsuit he's got against Candace Owens, he and his wife. Oh, that's a doozy. Good luck on that, Candace. Anyway, like I said, you know, libel is a pretty serious thing, even for politicians. And so as much as we all appreciate free speech, you know, you've got to take all of those things in consideration. I would say this, though, New York City cannot continue to flagrantly just violate the law and sit there with a smile on their face and think it's all good. I mean, to think that up until this election, up until Trump was elected in November, they were still handing out little credit

cards for $300 some odd dollars a week for ethnically appropriate food while you stayed at the Roosevelt Hotel, which used to be like a five-star hotel. It was a beautiful, beautiful place back in the day, even 20 years ago, it was quite beautiful. With your daily maid service, what is that about? What is it about in all seriousness? Sadly, I think we know. know because this representative from Brooklyn laid it all on the line. Here it is, again, this lady, she let it slip. It's about redistricting. It's about politics. Don't kid yourself. And from Brooklyn, New York, we have a diaspora that can absorb a significant number of these migrants. And, you know, when I hear colleagues talk about, you know, the,

the doors of the end being closed, no room in the end. I'm saying, you know, I need more people in my district, but just for redistricting purposes. And those members could clearly fit here. Okay, so that's it. Well, guess what? New York City is in a lot of trouble now. So they are getting sued.

And again, I just go back to what is the goal here? What is Brandon's goal? What is Lethish's goal? What is Michelle Wu in Boston? Boston's goal. I mean, other than, okay, they want some redistricting. What is the goal right now? Other than we're going to just resist, Donald Trump. We're just going to resist, resist, resist. You want this to go all the way to the Supreme Court? Because it will. And you know what's going to happen at the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is going to say, hey, hey, you guys, it turns out

there is this thing called the Constitution. Let's see if I can get this one up for you. Yeah. The Constitution. We've got all kinds of powers, shall we say, in the Constitution that allow for the federal government to have control over immigration. The Foreign Affairs and National Sovereignty implied powers clause. I mean, this was actually discussed as recently as 2012 in Arizona, and it affirmed that, guess what? The feds have the power over immigration. And then there's this one, the migration clause. So the Migration and Importation Clause, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, and it actually is a derivative of back, you know, during the slave trade in 1808, and they wanted to make sure that anybody who came here after emancipation was indeed an American citizen. So that's a big part of it.

And then you've got this one right here. Okay, the Supremacy Clause. Constitutional basis for federal power over immigration necessary and proper clause. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. Well, that kind of says it all, right? And that allows for Congress to pass immigration laws is needed to enforce its enumerated powers like naturalization, like commerce. And then you've got the Commerce Clause as well. Let's see this one. This is my favorite. You know what? Commerce Clause. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.5.

The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. And that's interpreted as being, okay, because we have the power to regulate power or, you know, commerce, I should say, with foreign nations. Therefore, it also relates to immigration. Again, Congress makes the loss. And then the president is in charge of actually enforcing them. I mean, didn't Barack Obama do this? Obama actually enforced them.

and, you know, for whatever reason, it was allowed then because back in the day, the Democrats actually didn't believe in open borders. Back in the day, you had the likes of Dianne Feinstein saying, we're not going to become the welfare state for Mexico. The feds have all the power here. So, you know what? Like, Letitia, you can say whatever you want. It's not going to fly.

And now that we're in a situation where, in fact, they are suing. the city of New York, it's game over. It'll go to the Supreme Court and you'll lose. And then what? What's your goal at that point? I mean, I realize this is all about getting elected, right? She actually wanted to do her job. She do things like actually not allow a foreign country to launder money and get petro dollars to send it to Iran. right in her jurisdiction in New York, but she's not interested in doing her job. She's just interested in going after Trump. It tells you everything that you need to know about Letitia James. And this is one of the major reasons I predict she's going down. The whole lot of them are going down.

It is good to have you guys all here. I'm just looking at some of your comments right now in the live show. You can see it's dark out. Gosh, the sun's been going down, but it's late here in Ireland. It's like 10 o'clock. Peace of my mind. Good to see. see you, the sun is going down in Ireland. You saw the same thing as well. Yeah, you know. Late, late, late here. I saw your stuff on it. Yeah, I see what you guys are writing about France. Yeah, I think that Candace is going to have some issues on that front, shall we say. That's going to be quite a lawsuit. We'll keep an eye on that one. Anyway, it's great to have you all here. Aunt Gandy, so many, Luke Walker, welcome back. Good to have you here. A lot of familiar faces,

of course, Scott as well. Rosie must be down. Did something happen with your internet? Oh, no. Oh, well, in the beginning, right? Yeah, in the beginning. Maybe Rosie was messing with it. You got to be careful. Rosie O'Donnell. I'm hoping I don't see her. I'm really hoping I don't see her. If I do, I'll let you know. I'll have to give her a peace of my mind. Actually, I probably just wouldn't even talk to her because I wouldn't really have much to say to her. Anyway, it's great to have you guys all here. There is a story that we're running out of time on, and I do want to get to it. It does relate somewhat to Letitia as well, and it's come up recently in the Irish Times here, this shadow Russian oil tankers that you're seeing off the coast in the Irish Sea, which actually is behind me. You can't see because it's so dark

right now. But this is a big deal. They've found like actually 19 of these vessels, so we can talk a little bit more about this tomorrow. It has to do actually with Panama as well. Panama is allowing some of these Russian oil tankers to change flags. And because they are trying to avoid all these sanctions and they're trying to get around, this is the work around, they're coming through the Irish Sea and they're showing Panamanian flags, which, you know, when Pete Hegeseth was making a big deal about Panama and how we have to have a bigger presence there, he wasn't kidding. And it's actually in part all related to this. So we'll get into that a little bit deeper tomorrow. I want you to have a great afternoon and a great evening. Make sure you subscribe, share, like. We're going to keep this

conversation going as you know tomorrow. Oh, you know what? Well, I'll do that one tomorrow too. I wanted to talk a little bit about Bitcoin, but we are seriously running out of time. So we'll get to that tomorrow. Thank you for being here, everyone, and we will talk soon.