The Trish Regan Show - SHOCK AT ABC ! ‘The View’ Yanked Off Air?! Trump’s FCC Chief Tells Whoopi & Joy WHO’S IN CHARGE!

Episode Date: December 19, 2025

ABC is reeling from the FCC hearings! Brandon Carr made it very clear: the FCC is not independent…and it DOES have the power to investigate networks and even take The View, or Jimmy Kimmel OFF the AIR! Plus - CNN is suffering from its own disbelief; a brand new poll show shows Dems at their worst level — EVER…as in the history of these polls! As one CNN commentator put it, Dems in Congress are “lower than the Dead Sea.” Ouch. As we reported, Dan Bongino is leaving the FBI. Hear his side of the story and the President’s reaction. Another day - another fraud? Two men from Haiti are charged in $7 million SNAP fraud in Massachusetts. US Attorney Leah Foley sais the suspects allegedly redeemed over $7 million in SNAP benefits from two small storefronts. And - as Dems fight for government run health care, Trish is joined by the President’s pollster, John McLaughlin of McLaughlinOnline, for a look at the importance of drug prices and health care costs in upcoming mid-term elections. Join us for all this and much more here on The Trish Regan Show! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the big show, everyone. We are live and I gotta tell you, you know, we've said here on the Trish Rigan show before that we thought that the days of the view would be very limited. And I got to tell you, after hearing what I heard on Capitol Hill, I can pretty much confirm that. They are very, very limited. I'm gonna show you what Brennan Carr, he's the head of the FCC had to say and how clueless the Dems are about the entire basic structure of how the FCC works. Yeah, stuff like that does actually matter. Again, welcome to the program. my interest again, good to have you guys here. If you haven't subscribed, do me that favor. Do subscribe to the show. It's important, important that you do and hit the bell. So you know when I am live. We begin, as I said, on news that the FCC may be looking to oust a show like the view. Whoopi, Joy, listen up. As I understand it, they're just really, really stressed out at ABC News right now because they cannot believe that we have an FCC chairman that would say what he said. They can't believe that we have a president of the United States who says what he says on, you know, any given day. So that's, that's part of the course there for these guys. But let me just show

you what went down there on Capitol Hill with Brennan Carr and a senator, a sitting US senator who clearly doesn't know how any of this works. As, as you've heard me explain here, right here on the show before, what if we said, there is a distinction between cable and network. and that distinction is that the FCC is in charge of network. And they have no say over cable. And when I say in charge of, I mean, if you go back to the 1934 Communications Act,

basically they have to hold them accountable for truth. They have to hold them accountable, the FCC, that is, for fairness. They have to hold them accountable for making sure that they are providing a service to a given community. And so it is a fair question to ask, Does the view really provide any service? Are they really being truthful?

I think the short answer, you and I both know, is no. But remember when Brendan Carr got so upset about what Jimmy Kimmel had said about Charlie Kirk and everybody was worked up about that? And he said, hey, listen, I'm just here to remind you. I have jurisdiction over you, peeps. I can do a lot of stuff. The president can do a lot of stuff. Well, this came up here in this showdown with a Democrat senator who's clearly

clue is not about a whole lot of things. What? Will you commit to opening an investigation and to Fox News for its deceptive editing of this clip? Again, yes or no, please, because I have questions for the other witnesses. No. No.

So, you're an elected bureaucrat. You're deciding that some investigation should go on and others shouldn't. And are you basing this solely on the target? Or are you basing this? What are you basing this on?

you answer that question? This was clearly edited. Why is one edit fine and one at it not in the middle of a presidential campaign? Senator, it's based on the law. The Fox News interview was on cable. There's no public interest and there. There's no broadcast hoax rule. There's no news distortion. There's no role for the FCC there. Well, I think there is a rule for fairness and the American public understand what's fair and just. You think there's a broad fairness rule that we should apply at the I'm going to go on to merger threats and Chairman Carr. Is there unbelievable. Unbelievable.

Unbelievable. She doesn't know the rules at all. Okay. Again, 1934. I think there's a 34 and a 33 Communications Act, which basically spell out that they have the jurisdiction over ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox Network. Okay, those are networks. They also have jurisdiction.

If that's the right word to use, I would say some kind of power over. say the radio stations that are over federal airwaves. In other words, it's all on how the transmission works. When networks were set up, they were set up with the help of the government. And the government was like, hey, you're here to perform a service. And we're going to expect that you perform that service. And granted, a lot of presidents haven't really chosen to say, hey, we want to make sure that they are providing a service and that they're not just flat out lying.

But, hey, a lot of presidents weren't quite dealing with the media temperature that we're dealing with nowadays. Not to say that every Republican hasn't fought this in some way, shape, or form. I mean, think about how they went after Reagan. Think about how they went after Bush. I mean, this is just what they do, right? At least during my lifetime, I've seen it over and over and over again. And I've worked in a lot of these newsrooms at none other than CBS and NBC. And I was a commentator, an economic commentator on ABC, World News Tonight, and Good Morning America.

So I've seen it from every single side, and I can tell you, when you're in those newsrooms, they are liberal junkyards, okay? Like, that is like complete liberal insanity, total insanity. And yes, granted, it's a little better. And I say a little better over at Fox, but just a little, a little, because they're so tightly wound, right? They have to make sure that they're falling in line because, hey, I'm going to clue you in on something. I guarantee you if Fox didn't appreciate that, that they were calling out a Fox report. apparently it was something to do with an interview that they had done with Kamala Harris,

and they had edited it, but for some reason, for some reason, oh, I don't know what reason this might be. The CBS News was targeted as opposed to Fox. Well, I do believe that legally there was more to go on with CBS than there was with Fox, again, because cable can do what cable wants. But when I say that even Fox doesn't have the latitude perhaps that it wants, I say that knowing, having worked there, that they were always worried about their Fox affiliate stations and their Fox O&Os and the FCC, the big FCC that was, you know, the threat that existed out there.

Well, Brennan Carr, all he's doing is taking this threat sort of under his wing and mobilizing it a little bit because things have gotten kind of out of hand. And so one of these, okay, so Senator Jackie, what's her name? She's trying to say, oh, you know, like, I got him. I got them. I got them. Because Fox News edited Kamala's interview, you know, and they did that. And so, well, how was that any different than CBS doing that?

And he's like, let me remind you, Senator, as I told you, if you had half a brain and listened to you numbskull. Senator, you left the portion of our exchange where I explained to you that you had confused a cable program for a broadcast. program. As I said, I am not investigating a cable program based on your claim that it violated FCC rules that apply only to a broadcast program. No, no, no, no. He's investigating network programs that violate FCC rules. Do you understand that, Jackie? We just want to make sure. You know, I realize it's kind of hard to comprehend. If you're a viewer or a listener of the Trish Rican show, you've heard me say this at nauseam when the whole Jimmy Kimmel thing was going on, what did I tell you over and over and over again? Cable is different. The network.

gosh, when I got to cable, it was like, I have arrived. Hallelujah. I got to CNBC and all of a sudden we didn't have to just, you know, work in 10 or 12 second increments. I was thinking about it today because I was getting some soundbites for the show together. And I was looking at them and I have one that's like two minutes long. I want to play for you. In fact, that might have been two minutes long.

And in my old world, when I was a network news correspondent, I could never play a soundbite that was two minutes long. In fact, you know, I could barely play 18 seconds. And the reason for that was I wouldn't even get two minutes for a whole darn report. I mean, I might get a minute 10. I might get a minute 20 to do the entire thing to tell you all about interest rates or GDP. Imagine that in a minute 30. And that might include 10 seconds on sets.

When I got to cable, I was like, whoa, this is great. I can actually talk. I can actually breathe. And then I came here. And boy, do I get to talk and breathe. And I get to talk to you guys in real time because I see all your comments simultaneously. I mean, this is a whole new animal all together, all together, because I don't have to worry. I mean, we have commercials, right? And you hear me read for different products, et cetera,

balance in nature, one of our favorites, right? You hear that in the show, but it's not like, okay, at nine minutes after the hour, we got to go straight to commercial. There may be commercials in this, of course, there should be commercials and please watch them. But the reality is, I don't have to work around a commercial schedule like you would have to say at network or cable. So, network is very restricting, both from a personality standpoint and, of course, from the regulatory standpoint, because the FCC is in charge of the networks. Okay? That's just built into the communications act. So sorry, Jackie, sorry, dams. I know you want to try and take Fox News down, but you can't because Fox is cable. Now, if, and this is why Fox sometimes gets nervous,

Fox does have to think about it's Fox O&Os, and they don't necessarily want to get on the bad side of anyone. Like, you know, when Trish said what she said in March 2020 regarding, you know, what are we doing, shutting down the entire country. Yeah, that didn't go over so well. But that's okay, because now I'm here. There was that. Or, oh, when Tucker sort of said, hey, you know, maybe January 6 wasn't quite what the Democrats

are making it out to be. And that didn't go over well either. And the fear in that case is always what is the, what is the, what is the end of the end of the FCC going to do? It's partly why you saw MSNBC get spun off. Now the Mizz network, right? It got spun off from NBC because NBC in Congress were like, whoa, we don't want anything to do with this. We just don't want anything to do with it. And it's partly why, you know, I kind of think, what is David Ellison thinking with Paramount and CBS trying to go in and buy CNN? I mean, well, they're already stuck with CBS. I guess that's, maybe they get rid of CBS and they just go to

cable, that might actually make more sense. Here's another clip I want to show you. PBS is also freaking out. So you get ABC, and we're going to get back to the view in a second, but you get ABC sort of spinning, like a spinning top. Like they're just freaking out. Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. How dare he say this. And you get PBS, of course, which has lost all of its public funding also freaking out. because they're like, Brendan Carr just said that the FCC's not independent. Oh my gosh, he just said that the FCC's not independent. Oh, well, Brennan Carr went even further. Ladies and gentlemen, Brendan Carr actually stripped the word independent in real time

during those congressional hearings after a senator asked about it. Watch. Senators threw sharp questions at FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr during his first congressional appearance since the agency pressured broadcasters to remove ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel from the airwaves. earlier this year. Today, Democrats pressed car on whether he was politicizing an independent agency. Just so you know, Brendan, on your website, it just simply says, man, the FCC is independent. This isn't a trick question. Okay, the FCC is not, is it not. Okay. Is not an independent

line? Possibly. The FCC is not an independent agency. During that hearing, the FCC's website changed, removing the word independent from its mission statement. Oh, it's pretty good. He's good. Good staff, you know, they're watching the hearings. He's like, we are not independent. Like, let me make that really clear. I work for the president. And we're not independent. You know, so there you go. We're not the DOJ. Even though we learned, of course, just yesterday and all those emails I led. Go back and watch. yesterday show, if you haven't seen it, about Mar-a-Lago, because it turns out the DOJ, at least under Joe Biden, was not so independent, shall we say, nor was the FBI so independent because the FBI

was saying, hey, we probably shouldn't go and do this raid on Mar-a-Lago. And the DOJ is like, we don't care. I do believe the line was, I don't give a damn. The guy thinks he was, you know, Red Butler and gone with the wind. I don't give a damn. You're going to go in and you're going to do that raid. I don't care the fact that you think it's improper or that you could work with the lawyers. We want the raid, right? We want the raid. So, Think about what's going on. Brandon is dealing in reality. The left is not, not to mention the irony of it.

It's sort of funny because he's like, wait, you want more regulation? You want me to regulate cable too? Okay, bring it on, bring it on. You know, he's got a lot that he could look at that he probably should look at. If you remember, he actually created quite a little stir back when he went on Scott Jennings show, radio show. Scott's the guy who's on CNN, and had this to say about Jimmy Kimmel, after the president was like, he needs to come off the air. Watch. Jimmy Fallon and Seth Myers at NBC.

Just wondering, do you have comments on those shows? And are they doing what Kimmel did Monday night? And is it even worse on those programs, in your opinion? Well, if you can be unfunny, that's fine. And a lot of people are sort of saying that, well, people are punishing Kimmel because they don't like a joke that he told. But, you know, we don't need to rehash it here. But obviously what he said was not a joke. It wasn't presented at all that way.

But when you look at these other TV shows, what's interesting is the FCC does have a rule called the equal opportunity rule, which means, for instance, if you're in the run up to an election, you have one, you know, partisan elected official on, you have to give. equal time, equal opportunity to the opposing partisan politician. So far so good. But there's an exception to that rule called the Bonafide News exception, which means if you are a Bonafide News program, you don't have to abide by to equal opportunity rule. And over the years, the SEC has developed a body of case law on that, and it has suggested that most of these late-night shows,

other than SNL, are bona fide news programs. And potentially, I would assume, you could make the argument that the view is a bonafide, news show. But I'm not so sure about that. And I think it's worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether the view and some of the programs that you have still qualify as bona fide news programs and therefore exempt from the equal opportunity regime that Congress has put in place. Got about 30 seconds. Let's go to the view, shall we? Joy Behar yesterday said this.

First of all, who tried to overthrow the government on January 6th. Right, let me think. Who was that again? That was not Obama. The thing about him is that he's so jealous. Okay, so you see where this is going. I mean, he's basically saying that the FCC does, because it's controlling the broadcast licenses for ABC,

it has that ability to basically, you know, regulate or, you know, say, hey, you guys are out of line because you're not delivering actual news. And so that's where, you know, you're not, you're not providing a service, if you would, to the community, which is what you're designed to do. And this is what he reiterated in hearings, going so far as to say, no, the FCC is not independent. In other words, we're here with an agenda. This is a big, big deal.

And I'm saying this, by the way, from my little perch here on YouTube and on Spotify, and, you know, you can also see me on a bunch of other social media platforms, but these these are my main ones. If you're, if you're watching on YouTube, thank you. We're growing. Wow. I mean, look at this. This is amazing. Right, over a million. And please join me on Spotify as well. I make sure to give you the link. I say this in a place where I can actually say whatever I want. I mean, I, you know, I, within reason, I guess, you know, assuming, assuming, assuming, assuming I'm still welcome on these platforms. But you don't, you're not inhibited in any way by any FCC regulations versus these guys on the view where I'm going to

to show you a clip and I'm going to tell you personally I had to edit it. I had to edit because Whoopie is so bad and she said so many heinous things that I actually don't want those words on the air and I don't think YouTube wants them on the air either nor does maybe I don't know Spotify you probably don't want them either right so I'm actually working in real time to make sure it's not disgusting and so misrepresentative while the yishmos get to go on the view and yuck it up with a bunch of nonsense and the FCC fortunately You know, I'm a responsible individual. These people aren't so responsible.

And consequently, they're allowed to go down this really dangerous path where they're saying crazy stuff as though it is news. It is part of the ABC News Division and no penalty. And he's saying, forget about it. That's wrong. And maybe there will be a penalty. So, hey, Bob Iger over at ABC, Disney owned ABC. Watch out.

Let's listen to the rest. Of Obama. Because Obama is. everything that he is not. Trim. Yeah. Smart. Handsome.

Happily married. And can sing Al Green's song, let's stay together better than Al Green. And Trump cannot stand it. It's driving him crazy. Jealousy is not a pretty... Green is not a good color. That from yesterday.

Who knows what happens today? The White House chose to respond to that. And this is what they said. Joy Behar is an irrelevant loser. suffering from a severe case of Trump derangement syndrome. It's 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 air, end quote.

Is the view now in the crosshairs of this administration? Look, it's entirely possible that there's issues over there. I mean, again, stepping back this broader dynamic, Once President Trump has exposed these media gatekeepers and smashed this facade, there's a lot of consequences. I think the consequences of that aren't quite finished. And look, the views got a lot of challenges there. It wasn't that long ago, I think one episode, one show alone, they had to stop, interrupt the show, and read four separate legal notices to try to avoid legal liability.

So I'm not surprised to hear people saying that their ratings are struggling. Well, sir, where does this end then? Look, I think we need a course correction. You know, it's time for America's legacy broadcasters to return to promoting the public interest. And just recently, you know, Skydance, which is looking to acquire CBS, wrote letters to the FCC, committing to serious change, to trying to root out bias, to putting in place an ombudsman that would address these issues, to returning to unbiased, trustworthy journalism. That's where we have to go. And I think we're getting some wins along the way. It's trust but verify at the end of the day.

You know, we're not where we need to go. But I think this legacy media really need to reorient or they're going to continue to run into issues like Colbert, where it just doesn't make economic sense to run a partisan circus. No. Yeah, don't forget, Colbert, lose millions of dollars a year. It's almost like Donald Trump and Brennan Carr are actually going to force some market discipline on these guys. They're like, hey, you're not funny. Nobody's watching you. So maybe, you know, shape up or ship out. Reminder, this was created, the FCC was created back in 1934. I stand corrected. I think I say. said 33 or 34 earlier. I want to just, I got the exact date. How do you like this? June 19th, 1934. It was FDR that created it. No, FDR never met a regulation. He didn't love, right?

So what were they doing? They were regulating radio and wire communications out of serving, quote, the public interest, convenience, and necessities. So public interest is a big one. It only applied to the broadcast spectrum. It continues to only apply to the broadcast spectrum. It didn't apply to newspapers, obviously cable, which wasn't around at the time, doesn't apply to the internet, doesn't apply to social media or podcast, woo-hoo, right? But where that senator didn't get and what he tried to explain to her was, hey, hey, you know what, there's a different set of rules. And so there's a standard, right, when you come to the public interest, you have to have some standards. And I'm just going to say, I don't think that this show, and I don't

think Brennan Carr and I don't think the president of the United States, I don't think anybody. And by the way, listen, that's important what he said about not being independent, right? Because he's basically saying I'm representing the president in this function. And so you guys have to like do a better job at like walking the line and being 50-50 because you're just bashing the president all the time and bashing the country to the point where Whoopi Goldberg, like I said, I cleaned it up for you. You know, you can thank me later. But she's talking about living in Iran as a black woman

versus living in the United States as a black woman. And for some reason, this crazy woman thinks she'd rather live in Iran, I say, hey, go for it. Whoopee. We won't miss you. That it is the same. So that's why I said you weren't saying what I heard was not what you meant. I think it's very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is to live in Iran.

Not if you're black. Not for everybody. Not if you're black. Guys, don't go to Tehran. Do not anyone at the table. Listen, let me tell you about being in this country. This is the greatest country in the world. But, yeah, I know that.

I know that. And we all know that. But every day, we are worried. Do we have to be worried about our kids? They are not big deals. And I don't mean to say they're not big deals to you because that's not what I meant. And they are not doing well there either. They are not doing well in Iran.

They are not educated. Not talking about the United States. I'm talking about here. Nobody wants to diminish the very real problems we have in this country. That is no one's intent. But I think it's important we remember there are places much darker than this country. But not everybody feels that way. Not everybody feels that way.

Listen, I'm sorry, you know, when you think about the fact that we got the vote in 1965. Okay, they don't have free and fair elections in Iran. But it's not even the same universe. They can't go out of their house. You know what? There's no way I can make you understand. Let me try them. It's like try to reverse roles with a black person in this country, let's say,

because I think that's what you're talking about. Just try to understand from their point of view, from that point of view, this country does not do them well, does not go to them. I completely have knowledge of that. And we shouldn't compare atrocities. If you're talking about Iran, Iran, of course, is doing worse things. But relatively speaking, it feels bad. Okay, but I think you know that Iran is significantly aware.

I guess we're going to come back and talk about this. Okay. Did you catch the part where she's like, well, you know, women, we didn't, was she talking about? What was she talking about? 1965? Somebody didn't have the vote. It's a 1965. I mean, oh boy.

She'd rather live in Iran. She could be more free in Iran. And again, I took out some kind of graphic. things that she said because it was like, frankly, kind of violent language. I'm like, what is this doing on morning TV? And how is it that you don't have anybody, anybody, anybody on that show? I mean, I guess they have their one rhino there who occasionally tries to stick up for MAGA, but they don't have anybody. Oh, maybe they're going to get Marjorie, Marjorie Taylor Green. Does that like check a box? We've got a Republican now. We got a blonde Republican. What do you

know, except that she's not really a Republican anymore. Let's be honest, okay? You're not going to have anybody, anybody at all that supports anything this administration is doing. Are you kidding me? And, you know, listen, I'm just going to tell you there's a lot of good stuff. Inflation, oh my gosh, CNN couldn't believe the inflation numbers today. Steve Leesman, who I used to work with at CNBC, he nearly fell out of a seat when he saw this. I could have told you it's coming down, guys. You know how I know it's coming down? Because I look at gas prices. And I know that energy markets are opening up because this administration has some policies that are actually working from an economic standpoint. So I could have told you, inflation is coming down. But anybody,

everybody was just so surprised, so surprised. And, you know, they just can't, they can't admit that anything is good. We're going to get to that in a second because I can show you the New York Times headline. But before we do, think about this, brand new poll out today. And CNN couldn't believe it. They had to report this. And they're like, are you kidding? Oh my gosh, this guy, Anten, Harry Anton, he's pretty good. He's got a lot of, a lot of personality, as we say, in the business, right? And you need some of that, right? You need that energy and you need that personality, especially on CNN. You risk becoming PBS. So Harry Enton gets up there, and he starts going through these numbers and he's like, woo! I mean, they're lower than the Dead Sea.

Think about that as we go to this Quinnipiac poll that just came out. CNN, have a new admit it, lower than the Dead Sea. Dems, you are in trouble coming midterms. In the minds of the American public are lower than the Dead Sea. What are we talking about here? Well, let's take a look. The net approval rating for Democrats in Congress. You said at Cape Baldwin, the lowest ever. Look at this. Overall, they are 55 points underwater. Their approval rating is south of 20 percent. It's even worse when you look at independence. Look at this. Negative 61 points. That means that their approval rating is 61 points lower than their disapproval rating. Quinipeak has been polling this question for the better

part of the 21st century. They have never found Democrats, at least those in Congress, and we're shaped than they are right now. Oh, out, out, out, out. They're lower than the Dead Sea. Okay, so that's a cable news channel actually reporting something truthful. Wow, maybe it's because Paramount's about to be their owner. Could be. I think that deal is actually going to happen. Mark my words. And by the way, I'm not usually wrong. I mean, it may take a little time.

I think we were ahead of the curve on Dan Bonino by about a week. But I told you. You heard it here first. Okay, Democrats, they are in such a bad spot right now, not just because of the poll that you just heard on CNN, but also because they have no bench. They have no one to run. I don't know what they're thinking.

I mean, Gavin Newsom forget about it. And it's so bad that they're not even willing to publish their own audit, their own autopsy of everything that went wrong in 2024, because that's how bad it was. I mean, I think some people were going down, right? If they were to publish that thing, I think a lot of people would be in trouble because there were people that were holding on to nothing. And by nothing, I mean, Joe Biden,

they were holding on to this idea that Joe Biden could win when Joe Biden was mentally declining We saw it every day. We talked about it here on the show every day. And, you know, we were treated like we were the fake news. Cheap fakes when we ran the full raw tape showing you how poor guy could barely walk. He was moving in slow motion. Remember the one? I keep citing this one. We're not going to play it, but remember that one with George Maloney? I never liked her better. She's really like just a nice person. It was the right thing to do. They were all getting ready for their G7 photo overseas. I think it was in France. And he wanders off because there's a parachute over there and he's like a little kid who's kind of interested. Just wanders off outside the

group as they're assembling for this photo. And she caught it and she went and got him and brought him back. And, you know, all the other, McCrone and everybody, they're like, well, you know, they're all just focused on the camera. And then he tried to put on his sunglasses. And you could see in real time, that was not slowed down camera motion. He couldn't do it. So, it makes you wonder, what's in this autopsy report? Seriously, this autopsy report must be pretty bad because they're just not willing to publish it at all. Nope. Nata, that is the headline in the New York Times guys. The Democrat National Committee has decided not to publish its autopsy of what went wrong in the 2024 election. Yeah. I don't blame me. I don't think I'd want to publish it either.

you know, especially if you want to give Kamala Harris any chance at all of running again. I'm sure she might just sue you if you were to publish that. I mean, Joe Biden might want to sue you too. And then I don't know what you guys are going to do. I mean, you have no party. James Carmel has been warning you. I mean, don't alienate a bunch of your base, like white middle-aged men. men, like you kind of need them to vote.

You can't go all in on the division that you've tried because, you know, it means you're not going to have anybody left to vote for you. And what did you see? I mean, the unions, they can't stand her. Union votes she lost. I mean, think about that, a Republican getting the union vote for goodness sakes. You know, these people are all off in left field with their DEI nonsense and the sense of entitlement and they give me, give me, give me, give me.

And listen to this woman. Here on News Nation, she's being asked about the $1,776 checks that the president is going to be issuing to a million military members. I mean, what a wonderful thing to do on our 250th anniversary. What a wonderful, I mean, I think this is fantastic, right? Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. This lady, apparently, she says, it's nothing. It wouldn't even cover her rent in D.C.

And he can promote 1776 costs all he want and giving out a check that worked for him the first time. 1776, that's less than a rent check in D.C. I don't even know what the impact of that is going to be long. Oh, she doesn't know. No impact. You know what? This is part of the problem with the Dems. They're seen as let them eat cake.

They don't have any sense of actual prices. I mean, heck, they told us we were the crazy ones when we're like, hey, inflation is above 9%. right now. Joe Biden, you might want to be a little nervous about this. It's upwards of 9%. And if you look at producer price as heck, it's upwards of 10%. I mean, we were dealing with what, $8 eggs? All of this has come down. As the president, by the way, articulated so beautifully last night, all of this is coming down. It's continuing to come down. And that's the good stuff. By the way, there's another poll out dealing with health care and people are impressed with the president's ability to try and go in there and negotiate drug prices. I'm going to get to that. In fact,

the president's pollster, the one and only John McLaughlin is going to join me coming up. But first, think about this, CNN. They're having this other sort of moment of truth that they got to grapple with, and that's that the president is doing a good job. Imagine that. He's actually doing it. And the media doesn't know how to respond. Consider what we saw in the New York Times. Quote, inflation slowed to 2.7% in November. I'm just going to tell you guys, that's really, really good. Okay, like, it's really good. The Fed shoots for between 2 and 3%. So you're at 2.7% now. Nobody thought it could happen this fast, apparently, except yours truly. Nonetheless, here you go. Inflation, so to 2.7% in November when data was distorted by the shutdown. And then in the second line,

they say inflation has remained elevated this year, in part because of President Trump's tariffs. I mean, this is supposed to be a straight news article in New York Times. a break. The latest consumer price index creates an uncertain picture for the Federal Reserve. Are you kidding me? Guys, you know what it's creating for the Federal Reserve? The opportunity, the opportunity to actually cut interest rates. Oh, and the market loves that, which is why you have investors going right into the market on this news today. Yes, inflation eased to 2.7%. That is the good news. And yet it kills. just kills the New York Times to have to report this.

I mean, it was great. I don't think it kills him to report this. He's certainly, the guy I'm about to show you, Steve Leesman, who I worked with for years at CNBC, he is no Rick Santelli. He'd get really mad if I said that, but it's true. I mean, Rick and Steve, they would have all kinds of fireworks on set because Rick is really a conservative. He's one of those guys who was one of the original tea partiers.

And this other one is, you know, I would have, I wouldn't say that he's, I don't know, I don't actually know his personal politics, but I know that if Rick is really conservative, Steve is not. But nonetheless, he just about fell off his chair when he saw this this morning. 2.7% inflation. I mean, Trump's actually doing it, right? Watch. The number of the morning, the CPI, oh, maybe coming in a little bit better than expected.

2.7%, a little light here. I'm not calling, I'm just reading the headlines here. Year 27, X food and energy core, 2.7. So four-tenths off, that is a very good number here. And it really, I have not looked at the internals. I'll look at them now, but it suggests that the internals are good as well. Let's see, you over a year over the last 12 months. There is no month-to-month, but some guys will be able to calculate it.

It's easily just the index for all items, less food and energy rows, 0.2% over the two months. So it's correct my math here, Michael Santoli, but 0.2 divided by 2 is 0.1. Yeah. So therefore, that's a very, very low monthly rate here. The index for shelter increase, so you did get a really nice decline in shelter, which was zero two. So that was point one.

So housing prices are coming down. Housing prices are coming down. Food prices are coming down. This is what you want. I mean, it just kills the New York Times. They won't even say it, right? They're trying to blame it on the shutdown and it's distorted the data. etc. If anything, it's almost like it would be the opposite, right? Like I would think the shutdown

would actually create more inflation. But this is good news for the markets. It's good news for the Fed. It's good news for America. And gosh darn it, CNN has to admit it. They brought on Ken Rogoff. Ken is, I know him. He's been on my show many times over the years. He's a Harvard economist. Very bright guy. Again, a bias that's very left of center, even for an economist. Yeah, economists have bias too. I imagine it. Just look at Paul Krugman, for goodness sakes. University. Anyway, Ken Rogoff on CNN, he too is like, wow, like, damn, credit where credits do, right, man? I mean, I was surprised. It was a better number than anyone was expecting. Look, inflation's been very high. It stayed high. It has not been coming down. But, you know, people were expecting

it to be above 3%. It was well below 3%. I mean, I think the president will take this as good news. The investors will think that interest rates will get cut more. So, you know, it was a positive news. There's no other way to spend it. Absolutely. Exactly. Exactly. Very positive news. No other way to spin it. This is really good stuff. Okay. So take that New York Times. Take that CNN. Take that ABC in the view. Like, let's actually report what's what. I'll be curious to see how the evening news programs handle that one tonight. Anyway, look at this. CNN had another little run-in. CNN doesn't really like, you see, this wall of president's plaques that the president has put up at the White House.

You know, it's his prerogative, just decorate it however he wants. I'm sure if Kamala Harris were to ever make it to the Oval Office, then maybe, Maybe she could take them down, but for now, it's his real estate, and he's putting up certain plaques. The funny thing about this is, these plaques actually, to me anyway, don't read that wrong. But then again, I'm not a CNN reporter. Watch. So these new plaques have just been added to the so-called presidential walk of fame. They almost read some of them like Truth Social Post, including the ones under President

Obamas that says he was one of the most divisive political figures in American history. Under President Biden's, it describes him as Sleepy Joe Biden and also says that he was the worst U.S. President in history. There are some that are nicer, including under Ronald Reagan's, for example, where President Trump says at the end that he was a fan of Trump's long before he ran for president. The White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, says the president actually handwrote some of these plaques himself. I'm sure he did.

But here's the deal, okay? she thinks that the Barack Obama one reads like a social media post? I'm not so sure about that because I want to share with you a Gallup poll that proves Barack Obama was the most divisive president. We've had certainly in modern history, certainly since we've been tracking stuff like this, certainly since we've had polls like this, certainly since Gallup's been around. Okay, Gallup polling shows that the difference in approval between Democrats and Republicans during Obama's presidency grew to its largest of any president ever.

How do you like that? You had a 70 percentage point partisan gap. So CNN thinks that this is like a social media post. And I'd say, no, you know, I think we can say with some kind of certainty that Barack Obama was very divisive, very divisive indeed. In fact, more divisive than Donald Trump, believe it or not. So there you have it. And CNN is being, you know, what CNN is. And it's sort of remarkable because I believe that reporter used to work for Tucker Carlson over at Daily Wire. She was like some kind of. entertainment reporter. I guess she didn't tell them what her politics was. Unless maybe this isn't her politics. Maybe this is CNN's politics. Maybe this just happens to be the editors that are running the shops politics. So get you back to Brennan Carr, but you see, Brennan Carr doesn't have authority over the cable networks.

He has authority over the broadcast networks, which is why the CBS, CNN thing, you know, I think Ellis And apparently he knows what to do with it. He wants CNN. Nobody wants CNN, to be very honest. Nobody. And the president's saying, well, somebody's going to take it. Again, he's kind of actually looking out, weirdly, for the interest of CNN,

given that they have so many assets. And you'd hate to have that whole thing just shut down. But they're struggling with how to monetize that properly in a new world. I mean, consider what also is happening at ABC News, guys. You know, ABC, they just love. lost the Oscars. They lost the Oscars to YouTube. Because nobody actually watches ABC and probably nobody watches the Oscars. So there you go. They're just going to stream it and call it a day. Maybe they'll get a bigger audience. I don't know. I mean, I don't really like to watch the Oscars

at all. I actually really detest the Oscars and all of those award shows with a rare kind of passion. Quick shout-out from my firm, 76 research, as we talk about the markets today. I was corresponding actually with my colleague over there, Rob Horton this morning, who is the one who pointed out the just insane. He said, did you see the New York Times? I mean, it's unbelievable. The New York Times saying, this is like bad. And it's like, no, guys, this is good. This is a really, really, really good inflation report. So why are you talking about distortions in an uncertain picture? I mean, hey, the Fed's like, okay, few, you know, we can lower rates. And that's what will help the middle class in this economy right now.

It's not perfect. Believe me, it's not perfect. I am not a fan of the Fed. But they always move too late. And hopefully, you know, with the pressure that's been coming from the White House, they might start to move a little bit quicker. Donald Trump's made it really clear. Jerome Powell is not going to be in that job for long.

But anyway, in terms of 76 research, I can't tell you enough. You've got to invest. you've got to invest, you've got to invest, you've got to invest in your future. And when you look at the disparity between wages and what the S&P 500 has been able to do, it will be very clear to you that you have to invest. And I know it's overwhelming for some people. Hopefully we, with our research, can help guide you through that process. Go check us out at 76research.com. Use word dollar, D-O-L-L-A-R. Then you get it for a dollar a month for the first two months. We've got a lot of ideas in there for you. We kind of walk you through what's going on in these markets. And for

those of you that want to really dig in, we have some model portfolios as well with all the research for the stocks that we like. Also, want to remind you, it is really important right now that, well, you know this as well as I do. We've got to win. We've got to win these midterms, baby, because otherwise, and maybe we will. I like what I'm seeing in terms of the polling, both from Quinnipiac and also John McLaughlin's poll that he's going to share with us in just a short moment. But I would say this, you know, we are at risk of running, back to a scenario that none of us want to see again. And that scenario is one in which they controlled everything. They controlled everything. I mean, you know, all we're saying is,

hey, can you be a little bit fair on your mainstream evening news platforms once in a while? You know, because by the way, Brendan Carr actually does have a lot of authority over making sure you guys are fair, right? We're not asking for much. They were out there trying to deep bank people. They were out there cutting off your bank account. And And Americans for Free Markets is speaking up about this, collectively together with me. I'll point out they're one of our sponsors on the show. We appreciate all their patronage here on the Trish Regan show. And when they came to me with this, I wanted to join forces with them because, one, I want

to thank the president, as do they, for stepping in and saying, hey, we're going to do something on this debanking. It is not right. You cannot have regulators breathing down the backs of these banks saying, okay, we like this person, we don't like that person. So we want to debank that person? How insane is that? So what do we need? We need updated reform. We need actual legislation that prevents them from ever

doing that again. And we got to do it fast before, you know, there's a change. Not that there will be. I mean, I hope, I mean, they're talking about four more years. Oh, I got to show you that. Did you see Mary Madelson the other day? She was at the White House with the president. And she's like, I was talking to Dershowitz. And Dershowitz tells me we might be able to get four more years. And Trump was very, very, very funny about it. It's a great clip. I do need to show you. But while we look for that, I just want to remind you that this is an important time, right? So you want to make sure that you don't have all these regulators doing what these regulators love to do best. And how can you accomplish that? You can accomplish that by actually making sure that you have the right kind of

legislation in place, the critical reforms that are really and truly so needed. That's what's got to happen and the sooner the better. So go check it out. Go look at 4FreeMarkets.org. Wonderful group there. Again, we thank them for their patronage here on the show. And I think I do have this for you. So Marian Edelson, she's the wife of Sheldon,

and she was pretty explicit about her need to see the president in there for four more years. Here we go. You're saying? I met Alan Deosovic and he said the legal thing about, four more years and I said, Alan, I agree with you. So we can do it. Think about it. Alan's here someplace. Where's Alan? Alan is here or he had a flight? This is Marion Adelson, the wife of Sheldon Adelson. She gave him $250 million last time around and think about it, she says. She said think about it. I'll give you another $250.

It was a great way of dealing with it, actually. He totally diffused the drama of the situation because you can just see the left going, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh. He was talking about four more years. And he kind of just deflected any of that negative energy and laughed about it. He had told a story ahead of that about how she gave him $250 million for the campaign. She was the biggest owner. And that's why he's teasing.

She's going to give me $250 more if I do it again. Anyway, Bongino is out. We told you about it here first. We're sometimes a little ahead of the curve. What can I say? I see things. Yeah. I really do. I mean, I think it's actually part of being a good investor, right? You kind of know the news before it's coming. And I often share it with you, which is why I'm telling you what I'm telling you about the view today and why I told you what I told you about Dan Bongino. I actually had very solid sourcing on that. And I knew that he was going to be out. And we talked about it here on the show. He came out with his first statement. His first statement sent the Twitter. I mean, he was out on X saying, I'll be leaving my position. With the FBI in January, I want to thank President Trump, A.G. Bondi and Director Patel for the opportunity to serve with purpose. Most importantly, I want to thank you, my fellow Americans, for the privilege to serve you.

God bless America and all those who defend her. He went back to his old employer, Fox News, and was on Fox and Friends explaining why he was making this decision. I have a little more color on this and perspective I'd like to share with you. but let's listen to Dan first. I mean, I gave up everything for this. I mean, you know, my wife is struggling. I'm not a victim. I'm not Jim Comey.

It's fine. I did this and I'm proud that I did it. But if you think we're there for tea and crumpets, I mean, cash is there all day. We share our offices are linked. He turns on the faucet. I hear it. He's there at, he gets in like 6 o'clock in the morning.

He doesn't leave till 7 at night. You know, I'm in there at 7.30 in the morning. You know, he uses the gym. out in my apartment. But I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., you know, by myself, divorce from my wife, not divorced, but I mean, separated divorced. And it's hard. I mean, you know, we love each other and it's hard to be apart. But you're doing some great work. You're straight now to the FBI. You're moving buildings. There's a lot of change. I just, I got one more thing. So his wife, Paula, who he includes on social media a lot,

and I know she does a lot to run his business in that podcast, was in Florida, as I understand, understand it and where he used to be. And then, yeah, he's in D.C. Who the heck needs that for what you're getting? By the way, all where you're dealing with the likes of Pam Bondi, ooh, don't get me started, right? On Pam Bondi, he was gracious, as he always is. He's a very gracious person, a really good, you know, there's, I'm going to tell you something, okay? I'm going to let you into the TV world for a second. It's not a lot of nice people I've learned, seriously, in television. And it's, it's bizarre to me sometimes. Um, when we have more time one day. I'll start telling some stories.

They're just very transactional. And you probably get a lot of that in D.C. as well. So like TV people plus D.C. people, politics plus TV. It's just a bad combo, okay? And so there's very few that are sort of salt to the earth, just good individuals that, you know, you can say, hey, really have your back. Dan's somebody that has America's back. I mean, I know he had my back. He was one of the few people that reached out to me.

when my world was turned upside down. And I respected him so much for that. And, you know, we'd had a couple conversations along the way about how I got this all started or how I was planning to get all this started. And I'll tell you, you don't forget that. I know he says, you know, you know how many friends in D.C.? Maybe that's true. Well, he is a friend in me.

And I think he is a friend in all of you guys. I think there's a lot of fans of Dan Bonino out there. And I'm happy that he's going to get the chance to go back to his family. just going to tell you, all right? My gloves are coming off because he's classier than I am, shall we say, on this front. I don't think it's a very good position to be in when you're damn Bongino and you've kind of been very forceful in your narrative vis-a-vis the Epstein stuff or anything else, right? And you appreciate sort of the ability to be a critic. And it's constructive of criticism. I mean, if Trump were doing something stupid on the economy, believe me, you're going

to hear it here first, okay? So you love them, but you want to make sure that the right things are happening for the country. And Dan is very much of that school. And so the beauty about being independent and being on your own, and actually not working for a big network, remember, he left Fox. The beauty of that is you can say what you want and think what you think and share it with viewers and poke holes in things, the narrative that you're getting out of the administration. Well, if you're actually in the administration, you kind of have to sing the party line. It's why I would be a terrible PR person. Seriously, a terrible PR person because I just actually can't lie at all. Like, I really can't. Like, what you see

is what you get and that's it. And he's very much that way too. So I don't, I don't know, I mean, I believe him when he says what he's saying about some of the things that he's talked about in the past, but I'd also say in terms of Bondi, I think that that was a hard position to be. And don't forget, that's his boss, right? She's running the DOJ. He's over at FBI. And their job is to gather the evidence. They give it to her. But if she's not doing anything with the evidence, then what are you doing? I mean, think about the Epstein debacle. Even Susie Wiles admitted that one she really whiffed on, I'd say. And you know what else she whipped on? She wifted on Latisha and she whiffed on Comey, big time on Comey. I mean, for goodness sakes, and we don't want to go down this path

because you know you're going to get my Irish up, but it's like not turning in the homework and on time. She didn't realize the statute of limitations was September 30th, 2025. Donald Trump did. Like, you know, 10 days before the statute of limitations was up. He's out there tweeting or putting on true social in the middle of the night, hey, Pam Bondi, I know you're going to take care of this, right? So that is the reason that whole thing failed. And I think it was a lack of executive functioning, as they like to call it in the schools these days. You know, you've got to be good. Dot in the eyes and crossing the T's. And if you got a boss that can't do stuff like that and then is trying to throw you under the bus, who needs it? I mean, he gave up a lot,

a lot of money, right, doing his show. And a lot of, I think, in terms of his own patriotism, his ability to help from the outside. I've always said that to people, you know. I've thought about it before. And I always think, you know, I am better doing what I'm doing right here, right now with you than ever being on the inside because then you don't have the same flexibility to kind of be one of the fair ones that that's calling stuff out. Like we need to call it out. When you're in the inside, you lose that objectivity. I mean, you have to, right?

Because you're playing for one team and one team only. And so it's very different being a commentator and a journalist than being part of the administration. I think that's one of the reasons why it's going to be good to get him back in the house. As the president said, I think he wants to go back to his show. Watch. Oh, Dan, Dan, did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we'll be watching, Dan, and we'll get you over here.

I know you guys want to see him. I told him. I'm like, listen, you're going to have to come and do a pit stop on the Trish Riegan show. I don't always have a lot of guests. I got to really like you if you're on, okay? Anyway, breaking news to bring you right now, authorities are searching for a new person of interest in the shooting at Brown. They're also investigating the possibility that the case is somehow connected to the killing of the MIT professor in Massachusetts. Do you remember the other day?

I think it was just a couple of days ago. These days are kind of running into one another as far as the Brown story goes. but I do believe that we're on day six, and we have, of course, no actual, clear, suspect, motive, anything. And that's pretty darn disturbing. But I can tell you, the New York Times and AP are reporting right now as we speak, I'm just getting this onto the screen, that police are investigating this shooting connection, this alleged connection.

It was something that I brought up the other day, as we were talking about this on air. And what I said to you guys was, we don't know at this point, right? We don't know if there's any kind of connection between these things, but I'd certainly be looking into it. It took them a few days, but finally they're looking into whether or not there could be a connection. This guy that they gunned down in his home, so tragically, at MIT, was a professor of nuclear fusion.

So he was a nuclear scientist, one of the most top, most acclaim. named nuclear scientists in the United States. For what it's worth, he was also very pro-Israel. And I realize this is a moving target right now. We're just getting all this information in, and we obviously want to be careful about speculation and not indicting anybody unnecessarily. But if they're now looking at a link

between the killing of the MIT professor, who is very pro-Israel and very, very advanced in terms of nuclear fusion, et cetera, you kind of have to say, okay, is this something that was a very deliberate targeted attack and does it have anything to do with Islamic terrorism? I'm just going to say it. I mean, that's what everybody's wondering about right now, right? I mean, it all happens is they apparently have yet another person that they're looking into because we've got three different photos now and they look to me to be three different

people. I'll show them to you. But this is the newest one that they have sent out. This is the person of interest. It's very, very hard to see. Look, it's super grainy. So I'm just going to keep making it big on the screen for you. And that is the person and people are saying, is this a man or is it a woman? We can't really tell. We do sort of see the belly that we saw in the walking shot. Again, let me make it. We're going to fill up the entire screen. Okay. So this is the person that they're saying, and we don't know, we don't know if this person is the

person as before. We don't know if this person is a different person, but as I said, they are looking for another suspect and that's what we are seeing from the New York Times as well as the AP story. And they're connecting the two potential links there between MIT and Brown University. And this is when I really wish Dan was back on the scene because I'm not sure what's taken so long and I get a lot of questions and those questions here. I'll just say, it includes, my questions include, why isn't Brown being more forthcoming? Or are they just so incompetent? Like, wow. Like, you're freaking me out how incompetent you are to think that, you know, kids, when it's all said and done after room and border,

spending 100 grand a year to be at Brown University and they don't even have cameras in the back of the building? What the heck is that? And it gets worse, guys, because I'm also going, to report something from Fox. Fox is saying that the Palestinian student group went to them over the summer and wanted to make sure that they were not adding any additional cameras and they took some cameras down because they didn't want their faces captured on video during their protests. Whoa. All right, so I'll let you think about that for just a second as we go to a Fox reporter reporting on this blind spot right outside that building. where Ella Cook and another were gunned down.

Gunman, primary person of interest, the suspect, came out of that build, out of that entrance or exit, and started walking this way and passing this dumpster. You just look around this parking lot, you show everybody, there are no cameras that we can see out here, right outside of the Barris and Holly building. You can see there, there are no cameras that we see visible to the eye. So that is something that has been a big sticking point in this invasion. investigation. Yeah, I mean, when you get no cameras, right? But maybe the perpetrator knew that there were no cameras. Maybe this was somebody who had inner working knowledge of the university.

Again, we talked about this yesterday. I mean, it's so bizarre, right? Why did you go specifically to that classroom? People close to Ella Cook believe that she was deliberately targeted because she was the vice president of the college Republicans club on campus there at Brown. There aren't a lot of college Republicans, need I say, at Brown. It's a very, very liberal campus. And one of the issues had come up about the transgenderism. Another issue was about, you know, being pro or anti-Israel, and she was in the pro camp and the Palestinian protesters. They didn't like that, et cetera. So that's why this is coming into focus. focus. And look, if it's not that, we'll report that. But this is where we are right now. And this is

the other picture that they're sending out from the Providence Police, which the police force, I've got to tell you, is a complete disaster, which is, you know, partly why I think we're dealing with such incompetence on every level right now. This is another picture. The question is, I don't actually think that this looks like the same person. And, you know, here, is you Here's a better close-up. When you compare and contrast, this picture with this picture, they actually seem to be different to me anyway. And it's not clear, again, if that's a man or a woman, or maybe somebody who identifies

as who knows what, right? Because that's a big thing nowadays. Let's go to Jesse Waters, who's reporting what I just told you about Fox learning that over the summer, some of these radical left groups had gone to the, the campus chiefs, the head of the university, and said, we want these cameras taken down. And Brown has not confirmed anywhere that I have seen whether or not they did this. Watch. The president, who was a no-show at today's presser, has been heckled for years by Muslim

underclassmen. She always bends the knee, but they heckle her anyway. Over the summer, radical left human rights groups demanded Brown disabled their security cameras. So Palestinian activists could raise hell under the radar. Did they cave? We asked. No response. Okay, that's troubling. So that makes me think that they're trying to hide something because they're nervous. And I spoke with a source who is very connected in the university community, a source who knows all of these players and presidents at universities very, very well and has spent years sort of working within the system. And this source told me,

the danger here now is that Brown risks looking like they didn't do anything to protect their students and in fact might have actually in some way have helped contributed to an environment by allowing these student radical groups on campus in the first place. And then allowing for possibly, and again, this has not been confirmed by Brown University, some of those cameras to have been taken down. So my source, again, who's familiar with Brown and familiar with all the players and the presidents, et cetera, is telling me, look, that school is running scared right now. And maybe a lot of schools should be running scared right about now because they've allowed this kind of hate,

if you would, to fester on campus. And maybe this is going to be at some point a wake-up call for them, if that's, in fact, what it is. And I want to qualify that, right? Because we don't know at this point, but we are fair to be asking these questions. You have Middle Eastern students from Palestine who were transgendered or believed in transgender rights, taking their pictures off. The university is apparently deleted all references to these people. And when you ask the Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island about it, he gets very defensive and I know what name you're talking about and how dare you and how dare you and how dare you. But you see, reporters have to ask these questions, okay? We have to ask these questions. And I'm not showing you this particular person

and I'm not saying his name because, you know, it could all be nothing. And I don't want to implicate someone. I agree. I get it what the AG is saying. But simultaneously, here's the reality of it. You guys need to be ready to ask these questions and you can't be asking the public for help and then get mad at the public or a journalist when they say, hey, what about this person? You know, and you know what else is really, really, really troubling, really, really troubling. What's troubling to me is that you've got a university president who's out there saying this, as soon as she can. You know, it's about gun violence. This was within hours of the whole thing coming out.

She sends a note to the Brown alumni and friends, hey, you know what, we lost people, and it's with deep sorrow that I expressed this. We lost them to gun violence. I don't know if you lost them to gun violence. I think you might have lost them to some crazy people. people that have an agenda. I don't know. I don't know. But I don't blame, I mean, heck, look at what happened over the weekend, right, in Australia. You lost people to terrorism in Australia. That wasn't just gun violence. Heck, they got rid of all their guns, right? In Australia with their buyback program. So it tells you this is about something much, much, much more. And here today,

we are down a beautiful 19-year-old piano player from Alabama. I can't help but think that somehow these might be connected. And then when they tell us, as we've just learned moments ago, that they're investigating a connection between this killing and then the MIT professor, who was very pro-Israel, I think this is getting kind of weird. And then there's this very obvious question that we can't get answered. John, why don't we know what this shooter yelled of all things by this point?

Yeah, Jesse, I asked that question. And what I'm hearing from police, you know, on the down low is because there's conflicting statements from some of the witnesses of what he yelled. I was questioning the chief. We know he yelled something. And they don't want to tell us. They don't want to tell us what he yelled. Because if it's something like we think he might have yelled. then that would paint this as some kind of Islamic terrorist action.

And I guess that doesn't fit the narrative that the president has put out from Brown University about how it's just gun violence. Because it might be something more. Again, I'm not saying it is. But now that they're investigating a possible connection between the MIT guy and what happened there at Brown, it is very alarming. It is very scary. And America's on high alert.

And we shouldn't have to be. Not in our own country. If there's one thing government should do, one thing a school should be able to do, it's insure the safety of these kids, right? For goodness sakes. Ooh, another biggie to tell you about, snap. What do you know? Snap, stealing.

Another day, another fraud. Another ring busted. This one in Massachusetts, $7 million worth of snap benefits. How do you like that? Let's go to the U.S. attorney, Leah Foley, in Massachusetts, who's telling us all about this. And here's a headline the left won't like. The people that ran this ring are from Haiti.

We are announcing federal charges against two men, Antonio Bonner and Saul Elis May, for large-scale SNAP benefit trafficking, a scheme that turned a program designed to feed families into a multi-million dollar criminal enterprise. Stap benefits are also known as food stamps. The defendants are charged with one count of food stamp fraud. As alleged in the charging documents, these men abused one of the government's most critical safety net programs for their own financial gain.

This is a tax, this is taxpayer money meant to keep people from going hungry. These defendants decided to take it for themselves. These defendants exchanged snap benefits for cash, which they pocketed. Bonner, a nationalized U.S. citizen. from Haiti, own the Jesuela Variety Store. Elis May, a lawful permanent resident also from Haiti,

own the Saul-Mashe-Mixey store. Ooh, okay. So they're going to say, oh, this is targeted. You know, I mean, first you go after the Somalis, now you're going after the Haitians, and it's like, sorry, you know, like, get some snap fraud going on, and

it just so happens that this narrative is not what the left would like to hear or see. But Brooke Rollins warned us of this. She said there was a ton of this going on just a short time ago. I want to share with you a clip of Brooke Rollins, who's the agriculture chief there in the cabinet.

Watch. And 20 plus others did not, and we're suing. We're in a litigation right now. But of the 29 that complied, what we have found is staggering. Half a million people getting benefits two times under the same name. 5,000 dead people. 80% of the able-bodied Americans, meaning they can work. They don't have

small children at home. They're not taking care of an elderly parent. They can work and they choose not to work, of course, because they're getting significant benefits from the taxpayer. So this light, Laura, that has now been shined on what is perhaps one of the most corrupt dysfunctional programs in American history that we are working now. Very big announcements coming next week on this. We are cracking down. We now have to be. a plan to fix it and we're really, really excited about doing that for the American people. So this has been going on for many years. I mean, I think I covered this on the radio.

Yeah, a lot of years, okay? Laura's not wrong. We've been talking about this forever. And now there is, it's why we don't like giving government a lot of money, right? We don't like giving government a lot of money because chances are there's something bad that's going to happen because they're not very good at minding the store, so to speak. Again, just to bring you up to speed, we have now learned in Massachusetts that two men from Haiti have been charged in connection with trafficking over $7 million.

With the SNAP benefits. And again, SNAP, as you heard Leah fully explain, the U.S. attorney there, those are food stamps. So that's a lot of food stamps. Okay, seven million bucks. They had two small storefronts they were doing this in in Boston, and they allegedly also sold donated food products intended for children in need overseas. So lovely. Ooh, the president may have something to say about this one. It's just, it's disgusting. It's terrible. Again, it's not who we are. And so when the Democrats go out there and they try and defend

all these people and say, well, they need health care, you know, we need to bring, come one, come all, and open the spigot and open the border. And how can we possibly? You heard AOC. I played you the clip yesterday. She's going nuts because Stephen Miller is like, listen, this is not going to work for us. It's just not working. And she's like, how dare you? How dare you? And starts, I mean, it was like a speech straight out of chat, GPT, frankly, because it was like, just not quite right. You know, you could tell, like, just not quite right. But she started going on about Lady Liberty, et cetera, and how we've always welcomed immigrants. Nobody's saying we're not going to welcome immigrants, but we're not going to welcome people not having papers, not having some kind of legal

to them, for goodness sakes, and then allow for the kind of fraud that we saw in Minnesota or the fraud that we're seeing a Massachusetts. No, thank you. No way, no how. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a big part of why the American public is disgusted with the Democrat Party right now, again, as CNN was forced to admit. Watch. In the minds of the American public are lower than the Dead Sea. What are we talking about here? Well, let's take a look. The net approval rating for Democrats in Congress. You said at Cape Baldwin, the lowest ever. Look at this. Overall, they are 55. Underwater, their approval rating is south of 20%. It's even worse when you look at independence. Look at this. Negative 61 points. That means that their approval rating is 61 points lower

than their disapproval rating. Quinipiac has been polling this question for the better part of the 21st century. They have never found Democrats, at least those in Congress, and worse shape than they are right now. Just look at that graphic. I mean, you're down sick. 61 points with independence, for goodness sakes.

You're down 55 points with your entire party. And it's happening as we learn of fraud and you sit there and tell us, no, no, no, we should be welcoming more people in. Just listen to Walsy the other day. For goodness sakes, he's like, I don't care what happened with the Somalian migrants. In Ilhan Omar's district, I want more Somalia migrants coming to our community. And I think the rest of America's like, yeah, but what about us? Like, what about the people that are here?

I mean, hey, and with the AI coming on, you're not going to need as many jobs. Let's be honest anymore. And so this is why people are upset. I played for you guys the other day a C-SPAN caller who called in really, really, really upset because he couldn't get access to the kinds of health care needs that he needed. And his complaint to a Democrat congresswoman who was there on the C-SPAN program was like, why are you guys caring about everybody except for us? Why don't you care about us?

And I think this is what Donald Trump actually has done pretty brilliantly, is he's made the point over and over and over again, I do care about you. I care about people that live in this country. And this is why, according to a brand new poll, just out 73% of all Americans across both party lines, all right? This is important. they approve of Donald Trump's work to bring down drug prices, to negotiate lower drug prices. This is a big deal.

I sat down moments ago with the president's pollster, John McLaughlin, really bright guy, really, really, really bright guy who did this poll for some extra insight into what is going on. Let's watch. I want to welcome into the program, my friend John McLaughlin, who is, by the way, let me just say, John, you are like the pollster. You are the best pollster. You are the guy who has gotten it right over and over and over again. So when you come out with a poll, we really pay attention.

Well, it's flattering. But since I've done three campaigns now with President Trump, he's proved the polls right. And so we could be three and oh, but I think we'll take the two that we got. Well, he knows who to pick too. I'll tell you. I want to look at this new poll that you just came out, because you just came out with because I think it's actually some really, really good news for the president. And I'm looking through it. It's health care, right? That's really going to matter for everybody.

Healthcare, health care costs are soaring. They're out of control. I mean, sure, inflation's coming down. And we've got a good read today. It killed the New York Times to say it, by the way. It just killed them. We're down with inflation below 3%, thankfully. But people are still feeling like, gosh, you know, things are expensive. Part of that's because of health care. Your poll says 73% of American voters approve of President Trump's efforts to lower drug prices by bringing pharmaceutical companies to the table to help negotiate. I mean, shocker, it's not 99% because you think most people would get it and say, yeah, we ought to have some leverage with these big pharma companies.

But still, 73%. That's across party lines, right? Yes, it's over 50% with the Democrats. and with the independence as well. So Republicans, of course, it's near unanimous. But it's very good news for President Trump because as the Democrats try to raise affordability issues, they're vulnerable on a whole series of issues that,

for example, in the big picture, every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against the Trump tax cuts. They wanted them to lapse. We would have had a $4.5 trillion tax increase raising taxes on every person by two or $3,000 a piece. Instead, everybody's going to get a tax cut, but people that work working class, people that, January 1st, there's no tax on tips, there's no tax on overtime,

there's tax credits for senior citizens. I mean, people will get, you know, a tax deduction, unlike Ronald Reagan, where you can see it right away in your paycheck and your stub. Today we have an electronic economy where all of a sudden people will start noticing more money in their bank account, and they'll see a tax deduction when they do their taxes. And what's really more important is we've got challenges ahead where people are saying, yeah, the cost of food is still too high.

Cost of health care is still too high. And President Trump, you know, rightly so, brought the pharmaceutical companies in there, and he negotiated with them. And he basically said, you're going to give us these drugs that are developed in the United States, right? And if you're selling them overseas at a lower price, you're going to have to solve at that price in the United States.

I love it. It doesn't seem fair. It doesn't seem fair that you can buy something so much more cheaply in France than you can here. Yet simultaneously, free market capitalist than I am, we also want to make sure that we preserve the instinct of these companies, right, to go out and do the research to be able to develop the best drugs. Right. And he does that.

But at the same time, you know what, the American taxpayer is paying a premium because a lot this is paid for by Medicaid and Medicare, right? And so taxpayers end up paying, you know, the increased cost. So there'll be a savings that way in Medicare and Medicaid. But, but, but you, and in the same time, people that are, you know, still have co-pays or have to pay for the pharmaceuticals on their own, you don't want to pay a higher price in the United States to develop a drug that all of a sudden they're selling to Canadians or Europeans at a lower price. And it's, And so it's like, okay, this is what we're going to do. So President Trump brought them in and did that.

And it's overwhelmingly popular. And, you know, now he's got bigger challenges ahead with the whole health care system. Okay. So are people really embracing this? We can even look at what happened right yesterday in the House and you had Republicans voting to extend those Obamacare subsidies. I think the majority of Americans would agree, like, this is not good. The Obamacare thing was some pipe dream to nowhere. didn't work out the way some had intended.

And consequently, you're still dealing with these escalating health care costs that people just can't afford it. And yet we have Republicans kicking it along. Yeah, well, reporting on some ancient history, in 2017, President Trump tried to fix the health care system first. And I told him he should have done tax cuts at the same time. But he said that's leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan at the time said, they need the quote unquote savings from healthcare to get the tax cuts passed.

I'm like healthcare is like Stalingrad. You're going into something that's really complex, really bad. Nobody has one solution. And it's going to be hard to do. And that's what happened. They lost the vote by one vote in the Senate. But he then passed the tax cuts in December, 2017. And it was too late to help us in the midterm elections.

This time around, President Trump passed his tax cuts first. It was the very first bill. He basically willed it. People don't even know what all the provisions are in there. And the Democrats in the legacy media kept framing it as a spending bill when it was a tax cut bill. There's still a lot of information. We've got to get out about how these tax cuts are working. You're talking about how the economy is percolating.

The GDP is now higher than the rate of inflation. That will help people, my smart friends like Steve. Forbes and Larry Goodlo said the only way you get out of inflation is to grow the economy. And that's exactly what he's doing right now. So when you go back to the healthcare thing, the opening vote by the house is really the first step in educating the public to what's going on. People don't know. When we've polled earlier this year for when I was on the show previously, we did a poll of Americans for balanced budget. 70 to 20 in a lot of these congressional swing districts, people support the health care tax credits. Because,

they know they're for working over 20 million Americans who work for a living, who don't have employer health care, they need help getting health insurance. So that's popular, but what is unpopular is the fact the premiums from the health insurance companies still go up every year faster, even, and there's no consumer check on them. And President Trump wants to give, like he'll give the money directly to the consumer via whether it's health savings accounts or other reforms where he wants people to have the money to buy their own health care themselves. And that would introduce a level of control in there where people would buy their own health care for the least cost to them and they'd be able to get the coverage that they want.

Don't you have that in other insurance markets? Like there's a lot more flexibility, say, with car insurance. I mean, it puts more power, I would think, in the hands of the consumer. On top of which, if there are some out-of-pocket expenses where you can actually control the cost, I mean, you think about the dermatology industry, right? That's a heck of a racket. That's great. And yet, you know what?

The prices aren't going up as much in that industry for cosmetic stuff, right, as they are compared to the rest of healthcare. and then they don't have to, those doctors don't have to deal with all the billing nonsense that a normal doctor would because you don't have any insurance in the way. Not that I'm suggesting people pay for everything out of pocket. I mean, it's not possible. But, you know, if you had a health savings account, it might introduce a little bit more consumer control. Right.

And that's what you're looking at now with the system where conservatives for lower health care costs when they were in their surveys, they were seeing that people, people want these free market kind of reforms where when it comes to the price of drugs, you know, you'll have, you'll have the pharmaceutical companies want to dictate a price, but you'll have other mechanisms, whether it's employers through their, you know, they have these, they have a pharmaceutical benefit managers, will work out a deal with, like, get it for a lower cost, pass it back to the employees and the company, et cetera. But, you know, right now, if we have prices dictated by the government, you don't get that reform.

And the Democrats on their side, I think a lot of them would be happy if the whole system collapsed. If the Obama care collapse. Because then you'd have government-run health care. That's what the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens. That's what they want. They want government-run health care where they can tell you when you can get an MRI, when you have to go for a cancer treatment. I mean, we'll be like Canada,

where people are waiting on lines. It's awful. No, we can't, we can't allow that. Heck, I mean, it's bad enough with insurance. I, without getting too personal, I had something going on on my elbow, right? So I wanted an MRI. And the doctor's like, well,

we have to approve that through insurance first. And I'm like, excuse me, I don't care what insurance says. I want the MRI. And it was like kind of an issue. And I was like, they didn't want to give me. And I'm like, I'll write you a check. I need the MRI.

So that's insurance, right? And insurance is fine. They approved it, whatever. But here I am like a willing, able customer. And it's still hard. It's just so messed up. And I should be able to decide. You know what?

Not my insurance company, whether or not I deserve the MRI. These little things get at me. And they get it every American. They really do, because we want to have more control over our health. in our future. You also found in this poll that 50% of voters are more likely to support candidates who protect employer choice in health care compared to 17% for those who want government mandates. Wow, it sounds like the socialism thing that's flying high in New York City with Mamdami isn't really playing in Peoria, as they say. It's like a three to one advantage.

No, because it's like whenever I refer to socialism, we call it big government socialism, because that's what it is. Most young voters in the United States don't really understand. understand socialism. If you're older like myself, we remember the Soviet Union. We remember communist Castro, Cuba, and we know what China really did as a communist country. So if you're a younger voter, you're thinking socialism, it's like Sweden or something like that. You don't really remember the Berlin Wall and stuff. But big government socialists, people don't like the idea of you, by the way, the insurance company is probably reacting to whatever mandate they get from the government and if you don't want the government telling you when you're going to get an

MRI because like i said in in canada you'll wait i mean they don't the government doesn't buy enough the government owns the MRIs and they don't buy enough because they don't budget enough and then the doctors are union employees in fact they work for the government they only work their set hours they don't you know it doesn't pay to come in when a when a patients really need you it's you know, you'll do your hours, you'll do your shift, and that's it. So we don't want that kind of a system. And when it comes to pharmaceuticals, you don't want the government dictating the prices because then who knows what type of corruption is going to figure out.

And they've been doing that. I mean, look, the pharmaceutical industry, they spent a lot of money on lobbying, they spent a lot of money advertising. Incidentally, you know, this poll was sponsored by conservatives for lower health care costs, and they have a website, which I encourage people to go to pharmawindfall.com, because you can get more information about everything that's in John's poll. Just really, really fantastic stuff. And hopefully join this movement to try and bring these healthcare costs lower

because it's really important right now, John. But overall, when you look at the pharma industry, people really, I think, resent it. They're very unpopular. We know that. And for obvious reasons, but the government's playing a role in that. If you're going to change that, I mean, what's the first thing you do? Is it the health savings accounts that the president has talked about? Well, I think you give, first of all, when it comes to specifically pharmaceuticals, you have more free market competition where, I mean, whether it's companies that band together and hire these pharmaceutical benefit managers to do deals to lower the cost of drugs, that happens for their employees, that no savings get passed on to the employees or to whomever is paying the premiums for the insurance company.

But on the overall system, absolutely. You've got to give people more control over the health care dollars that are spent on their behalf. So, you know, this is more ancient history. 1995-96, I work for Steve Forbes for president. He had this unheard of idea called Health Savings Accounts. And he had it in his own company of Forbes where you would get a fixed amount, like say the first $5,000 and it goes into a health savings accounts. health savings account, you hold the money. Any health care, you doctor visits, anything you got,

you pay it out of that account. If you don't spend it all, you get to keep the money and save it. Anything above that 5,000 was covered by catastrophic insurance. So if you got really sick, you were covered. If you weren't really sick, that first set of money that you got for your employer, you controlled, you decided when you went to a doctor, you decided. You decided. of what you want to pay, what drugs you want to pay for, et cetera. And it gave the consumer control. And you don't have that in the system now. You have a system where, you know, if people, people, if they don't work, they're on Medicaid, if you've got illegal immigrants getting Medicaid in the United States until President Trump, you know, people will come here and

get free health care and they get free drugs. And, you know, that's just not right to the taxpayers in America. And now you've got the same system where, you know, you know, you've got the same system where, again, you want to have, with these exchanges, you want to have a system where, okay, working people can pick their health care and they will get some sort of health care tax credit because there's different opinions on that in terms of inside the Republican caucus, certainly among the Democrats. They'd like to be, and I think the president wants them to negotiate some reform where they had that, but also some means testing. If you make a certain amount, you shouldn't be getting, you know, a certain amount of health care tax credit.

So it should be according to your income. And then at the same time, you can pick your health care. You can pick your whatever insurance coming. Whatever plans best for your family. I mean, if you have, if certain people have certain chronic conditions with diabetes or other things, they might need a more sophisticated plan to answer their family's needs. And, you know, right now you don't want to be. what the government telling you what they're doing that? It really comes down to sort of a fundamental

difference in how I think we all view the world. And, you know, the sort of Trump, John McLaughlin, Trish Regan, and Steve Forbes view would be that we put the onus on the people and we trust the people to make the right decisions for themselves. The AOC, Mamdami, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders view is people are stupid, we can't allow them to make decisions for themselves, we're going to make the decisions for them. And ultimately, what we found, and by the way, it's been done all over the world throughout history. Ultimately, what you always find is that never works. That system never works. The reason we are, the economy we are, the reason we enjoy the prosperity we have is because we embrace free market capitalism in ways that you just don't see anywhere else in the world. And so

it makes sense to bring that into health care as well. Yep. And, you know, I mean, the most egregious example was you have millions of illegal immigrants were coming into this country and some of them were coming specifically for health care concerns you can fly into an airport in New York show up in an emergency room and they'd have to treat you and the taxpayers would have to cover that cost and so you know you'd have cancer patients you'd have people that had serious illnesses were coming here illegally but they wanted the health care and you really have to have a system where Americans get to choose Americans get to decide what their best health care interests are, et cetera, and have some control over that rather than the government saying, oh, no, you can't get your elbow looked at.

You can't have an armory. But, you know, somebody else can, you know, come here illegally and do, who knows what. Does this decide, do you think, in a big way, midterms? I mean, a lot of things I think will go into it. And to your point earlier in the interview, your point on, hey, you know, people know tax on tips. There's going to be things that they see that are going to be really meaningful at the start of 26, but in terms of, you know, as we prepare right for those midterms, I've got to think that health care is a biggie. Yes. And you know what the thing that's important is,

as President Trump solves other problems, like immigration was a top issue, certainly in the Republican primaries in 2023 and 24, and a top issue among all voters. In fact, the Hispanic voters, it was the second top issue was securing the border, polling we did for universe. after the election. As he solves that problem, other problems come up. So the economic problems, cost of living, et cetera. We're still feeling the effects of Biden inflation, and it's a more challenging problem.

It's going to take time where the economy will have to grow out of that. But as it grows, that'll be less of a problem. So as those become lesser problems, guess what arises up? Health care, education, other domestic concerns. And so we have to address those concerns because that's what the midterms are going to be about over these next 11 months. We're going to be battling it out over who has the better solution for health care, for education. What I find is in some places, you know, the reading scores and math scores went down in education while Biden was president in a lot of states. Now they're going up.

And they're attacking President Trump for his reforms at the Department of Education that he and Linda McMahon are doing. but you're seeing, oh, you know, Mississippi, the reading scores went up. And so because they weren't spending money on actual students and actual classrooms. So you're seeing those kinds of things. But health care will definitely be a major. Lots at stake, lots at stake. Listen, John, it's so good to see you.

Thank you so much. I want to encourage everybody. Go check out pharmawindfall.com. You can learn more about John's poll, more about these issues. And we appreciate your time today. Trish, thank you very much. Merry Christmas. Merry Christmas, Tim.

Isn't he great? Isn't he great? Also, you can get more information about that poll. Just go to either, as I said, farmerwindfall.com or go to John's site, McLaughlin Online, McLaughlin Online. I'll tell you, though, you know, President Trump has been doing

what no other president has dared to do. You heard John say, you know, like, this is like the big cahuna. Like, seriously? You want to tell you. tackle health care? Well, he's never met a challenge. He doesn't want to take on, right? So he's got Big Pharma now that he's got to take on, and that's kind of hard because Big Pharma is, as you well know, very, very powerful and they employ a lot of lobbyists and they spend a lot of money,

and they advertise nonstop on all those shows that we don't like, and we were just talking about, right? That's how you put the shows out of business, right? You just say, hey, we're not going to do any more advertising. We're not going to allow this advertising for these crazy prescription drugs. Anyway, that all contributes to the price, and you heard what he's saying. And overseas, you get him cheaper than you get them here. Maybe because they don't allow all the advertising. Think about that. Anyway, they've hiked the prices on hundreds, hundreds of drugs already. I mean, right before Trump came into office, they were hiking prices. They've continued to try and hike prices. And so conservatives for lower health care is out there trying to warn against us. Go check out

pharma windfall.com. You get more information about John's poll there as well. Conservatives for lower health care was warning about the big pharma agenda, warning how we need, um, it's employers and individuals to have more say, right, over their own feature and their own health care. And I'm joining them in this effort. So we appreciate all they do for the show. And I appreciate all they're doing for America right now because Conservatives for Lower Health Care is committed to making sure you see lower drug prices, something I care passionately about as well. Go check out pharma windfall.com. Oh, if you haven't subscribed, you got to subscribe. Make sure you subscribe, share, like, all that good stuff. Make a comment. Let me know.

what you think. Mark Kelly, he's the other big one in the news. We've talked about this a little bit. This seems to be escalating. I'll use that word, okay? Escalating. How do you like that? That's the word of the day that was being used, at least in the Washington Post. And you had Pete Hegseth, another one of my former colleagues. My gosh, I'm feeling like I know the whole world here, it seems. Finally an accurate headline, he writes there, Pete Hegseth, who runs the Department for war, head of the Pentagon. He said that, or the Washington Post, I should say, said that the excess office is escalating this probe of Senator Mark Kelly. And he may find himself in a situation where, because of these accusations of sedition, these accusations

that he's trying to tear apart the military, unnecessarily so, right, just for political purposes and political reasons, something we really haven't seen so blatantly. I mean, I gave you an example back in 1967 during the Vietnam War, and you had a professor of dermatology who was basically telling all of the people that were part of the special forces, oh, you shouldn't do this, you shouldn't do this, because he was trying to say, this is not right, and they're going to, I don't want to train you, and you shouldn't be trained, and he was acting sediciously to try and turn members of the military against the government and what was being done. So that's really not that acceptable, right?

And this is something that cross party lines is really just not so acceptable. Now, granted, if you're a member of armed services, you're not supposed to do anything that's illegal. Of course you're not. Nobody said you should. By the way, we have JAG for a reason. But do we want to be ginning up all this controversy at a time like this? Remember what Buzz Patterson said? He's the guy who, you know, held the football for...

Bill Clinton, a Democrat, he lived in the White House. And I think he's kind of an individual now, kind of an individual citizen. He came out and he made this little video and he's like, this guy, this Mark Kelly, he's bad news. He's bad, bad news. They are violating and they're politically using their positions to undercut the command of President Donald J. Trump. and they're circumventing the chain of command. Congress and members of Senate are not in the chain of command. President Trump is, however, is our commander-in-chief.

So I fully support going forward with whatever prosecutions are warranted and legitimate, and I think they are on these individuals. They use their positions, military and the intelligence community, to expose, I think, and put at risk. those of us who serve in uniform. I think that what's going to happen is because they violated the military chain of command. People are going to die. They undercut the underpinnings of the military, which is good order and faith and trust in their leadership.

And in my estimation, what they did was treasonous and seditionists, and I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent. Again, my name is Buzz Patterson. I served in combat. I've served for 20 years. and I am outraged by what has happened by the Democrats, and I fear for what's going to happen to our young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, if they choose to violate what is a legal order, which will ruin their lives and ruin their careers.

Thank God, guys. God bless. You know, a bunch of them decided to do this, a bunch of former intel ops that are now working in the political space. You've had, for example, Maggie out of New Hampshire who's married to Jake Sullivan, Jake Sullivan being the former head of the NSC under Joe Biden. Jake Sullivan clearly didn't have the best intel going on because wasn't it Jake Sullivan that said at some conference, was it for the Atlantic Magazine, how great it was that he had solved the Middle East?

And then we saw what happened on October 7th. Let me share with you, though, what's going on right now in terms of marketing? Kelly. So he is the only one of the group. I'm not going to play the tape because we've seen it enough, but they're basically trying to sow all this discord, right, in the rank and file members in the military. And Kelly's the only one, I guess, that the Pentagon could go after because he's the only one that had formerly been in the military. And so that is why you're now seeing this investigation. And the investigation is, we understand it, at this moment in time, is being escalated.

And they are looking into whether or not they can go after him. And there's different ways and different things they could do. It could be as simple as revoking his retirement, right? Because he's effectively doing something that would be considered illegal as far as the military is concerned. And so he might possibly be court-martialed. That's what we're looking at. There's U.S. or U.C.M.J. Articles 133 and 134 that Mark Kelly, Sander, Mark Kelly, the husband of Gabby Giffords, is possibly in violation of. Conduct, unbecoming of an officer

is 133, any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct on becoming an officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. There's also Article 133, which is a military specific offense. It applies only to commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen not to enlisted personnel, and it holds officers to a higher standard of personnel and professional behavior. This is why Buzz Patterson is so annoyed, right? Because he's like, hey, hey, you know, you have a certain expectation that someone like Senator Kelly is going to conduct themselves in a certain way, having been a member of the military. And so they are expected to conduct themselves in a certainly a professional manner

and not try and sew this kind of discord, if you would. between other members of the military. And then there's an Article 134, a general article, which I'll just read you the official text, 10 U.S.C. 934, though not specifically mentioned in this subchapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces

and crimes and offenses, not capital, of which person subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken, et cetera, et cetera. You've got 134. There's a whole series of these things, and I guess they're going through all of them to see specifically if he meets the legal requirement for having sort of overstepped his bounds. So that's one of the big things to focus on right now. The other thing to keep an eye on, the President's United States last night announcing a $1,776 bonus to all members of the military. So some very good news, all in honor, right, of our 250th birthday. And you think about this, $2,7,76,000.

50th birthday. It's a big one. Okay, it's a big one. And we're now getting news that this situation with Venezuela may continue to escalate. Is Venezuela at risk of war? I want to be cautious with what you're seeing on the screen. If you're watching this, thank you for watching on Spotify or YouTube. Again, I'm looking at your comments in real time here on YouTube, but I would say the concern or the danger would be that things escalate to a level of, the kind of, dare I see spirals out of control with Venezuela. Now, Venezuela can't defend itself. Venezuela is, you know, Venezuela, okay, a socialist country in Latin America. The danger is then you start bringing other people in, like Russia, like China, or Iran.

And that's one of the concerns and why perhaps it's a little bit more of a Tinderbox than we'd like to think it is. I want to go, though, to somebody who kind of gave one of these CNN anchors a bit of a dressing down, shall we say, on narco-traffickers, because you may have seen just this week that the president has designated fentanyl as a way. weapon of mass destruction, and he has the authority. He does. I spent a lot of time researching this, believe me.

He has the authority to do that, and this is something that once again, that the press just keeps resisting. I want to share with you this exchange with an anchor and a congressperson recently on CNN, talking about the narco traffickers. I'm confident that the admiral thought he was carrying out his mission. Why is it questionable to order a strike to kill individuals who are survivors? These are terrorists, okay? These are absolute terrorists.

But they're wounded. I didn't see this kind of scrutiny when the Obama administration was launching drone strikes against terrorist organizations in the Middle East. I mean, that happened all the time, okay? And so, you know, I didn't see this kind of scrutiny about the survivors, et cetera. These are terrorists. They're bringing poison into the United States. They have killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and we need to understand that. killed far more Americans than al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden ever did.

And so I have no problem with the kinetic strikes that are happening in the Caribbean, killing and destroying the drugs that are killing American citizens and have been killing American citizens for years. So this is all coming. We talk about Venezuela at risk at war, and I'm seeing your comments here in real time, as I explained. And I agree, like Venezuela can't do much, right? It's Venezuela. I think that's really not going anywhere. But I guess the threat would be, you know, do you have other players getting involved? I don't think the Chinese would bother. I don't think any of these people would really bother because it's not

that important to them. It is in our hemisphere. Don't forget, Monroe Doctrine. And so, you know, we'll see really where this heads. But bottom line, I do think that as we consider what some of these people are saying and they're trying to use this example, right? Of, oh, well, they're going after the narco traffickers coming out of Venezuela. They're going after them. And that's wrong because they went back and they had a second strike, even though we've now learned from the testimony and the hearing that, in fact, that second strike was authorized with JAG attorneys in the room by the guy who was running that op.

The Admiral made that decision because they felt that that boat was still a threat. and there were people on board there were still a threat. And there was a fishing boat nearby that would have then helped them continue to transport the material to the U.S. And that is why they made the decision they did. But you understand what kind of environment is creating, not a good one, right, where everybody's questioning everything. And they're now, for the first time, frankly, in U.S. history.

Like, we didn't even do this in the Civil War, suggests that somehow the president was going to require the military to do something illegal. And this is where they're heading. I mean, I just think it's a bad political, a bad political play. Okay? And you know how I know it's a bad political play? Because think of everything that's been happening right now. And, you know, there's some good economic signs.

I realize it's not enough for everybody. And we wish we could go back to the days of really cheap everything, right? Before COVID, before Joe Biden, before Nancy and Chuck decided to just print trillions of dollars and the Fed went along for the ride. But I know, I know that people are. are not, you know, while they want more from Donald Trump, they're not buying this on the immigration stuff. They're not buying this on the, okay, it's fine to bring all this illicit stuff into the country. They're not buying any of that, and you don't have to take my word for it. Again,

we've got the poll. Holy Toledo. I think that's one of Harry's words. But, you know, look, the Democrats are as low as the Dead Sea. Definitely his words, watch. in the minds of the American public are lower than the Dead Sea. What are we talking about here? Well, let's take a look. The net approval rating for Democrats in Congress. You said at Cape Baldwin, the lowest ever. Look at this.

Overall, they are 55 points underwater. Their approval rating is south of 20%. It's even worse when you look at independence. Look at this. Negative 61 points. That means that their approval rating is 61 points lower than their disapproval rating. Quinnipiac has been polling this question. for the better part of the 21st century,

they have never found Democrats, at least those in Congress, and we're shaped than they are right now. Boom! You know, that's a great way to finish off, finish off the show. We covered a lot of ground, right? And we're going to keep covering a lot of ground

because there's a lot of ground to be covered. I got a lot of questions on this brown thing, and I'm going to continue working phones and continue trying to bring you whatever new relevant things transpire in this. I think we are completely fair to be asking, why the heck is it taking so long? And it's getting a little ridiculous. But the good news is, the good news is, I'm here, you're here, and we're on it collectively

together. And there's much, much more to be covering. Thank you so much. I saw the news on the one drug that may not be so illicit anymore. I actually wrote a book on this. See, I'm ahead of my time. What can I say? I did a documentary on this for CNBC called Marijuana Inc.

And then I predicted, basically, that they were going to do exactly what we saw President Trump just do, which is to take it off of that Class A, federal class A, serious, serious drug category and move it over. You know, it's happening. So I was definitely early on that one. Not just a few days, but maybe a few years. It's wonderful to have all you guys here. Thank you so much for all you do to make this channel a success. Please spread the word.

Please make a comment and I will see you back your live tomorrow.