The Trish Regan Show - Stacey Abrams Caught in Alleged $4 MILLION Donation Scheme

Episode Date: March 24, 2025

A new investigation into Stacey Abrams -- this time for alleged tax fraud?! According to the Georgia Ethics Committee, in direct violation of the law, Abrams fraudulently spent money donated to her non-profit on her own Georgia campaign. As a result, Ms. Abrams now finds herself not only being investigated by the DOJ and FBI for her alleged role in “Power Forward Communities” which the Trump Administration alleges pulled in $2 billion in taxpayer funded grants to help influence voters, but also now for allegations of campaign fraud totally $4.2 million. The head of the Ways and Means committee send a letter to the IRS today. In this full live edition of The Trish Regan Show, Trish is on that story plus, much more including:- Live updates from the Appeals Court where the Trump administration insists it has full legal authority to deport illegal criminals and, the Obama judge vehemently disagrees. - New commentary from Jasmine Crockett (a junior Congressional representative from Texas) about Elon Musk and Tesla, as well as Senator Ted Cruz, which has the DOJ sending Crockett a serious warning. Meanwhile, as Trish Regan predicted, Snow White bombed at the box office. The numbers may spell the end of Rachel Zegler’s career - not to mention, Disney itself. Join Trish LIVE!SUBSCRIBE TO MY CHANNEL: https://Youtube.com/TrishReganChannel Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks:▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join🟢For independent views on the market - sign up for my financial newsletter The 76report at:▶️ https://76research.com with CODE: DOLLAR today. Today’s show is sponsored by: 🟢https://TrishLovesGold.com — American Hartford Gold — go to: ▶️ Https://TrishLovesGold.com or TEXT TRISH to 65532 to receive up to $15,000 in free silver with American Hartford Gold or go to https://TrishLovesGold.com. You can also use Trish's name when calling 1-844-495-1115. 🟢 Go to ▶️ https://balanceofnature.com and use CODE: TRISH for 35% off and FREE SHIPPING Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello, welcome back, everyone. I'm back in the studio, as you can see, and never a slow news day. Wow, it was great to be away. A little tricky at times, a little tricky to bring this live show to you, but you know that I'm never going to miss it because when we've got lots going on, if I can be there, I will be there. Traveling on Friday, but back in the seat now on Monday. And sure enough, we've got all kinds of things happening.

Jasmine Crockett landing in a new bit of trouble. Pam Bondi is after her. And it's like the woman just like doesn't get it, right? because no sooner did Pam Bondi say, hey, you know what? This is a warning. She came out and then started suggesting there be some kind of assault on Ted Cruz. We're going to get to that. We've got Stacey Abrams to talk about because she's got a new set of troubles now.

The IRS is going to be on her tail with a new investigation. So we're talking DOJ, we're talking FBI, and we're talking IRS. Wow, fun to be Stacy. We've got deportations rising despite what's going on with the judge. The appellate court just heard the case. And this appeals judge, she is a nut job. I am going to show you some of what just went down there in court today. We just got the sound in.

Meanwhile, snow white bombing at the box office. I told you it would. I told you it would, right? Welcome to the program. I'm Drew Shrigan. Wow, new allegations against Georgia's very own, Stacey Abrams. You remember the woman who ran for governor? And when she didn't win, she couldn't accept it?

No, no, no, she couldn't actually accept it because she still thinks she won, even though you're not supposed to say that kind of thing. I can think of somebody else who got in a lot of trouble for that. And yet the New York Times did a giant magazine puff piece on her talking about how wonderful Stacey Abrams is and how brave she is. Well, she's also kind of like, you know, in the money because she was getting some $2 billion for her power forward community, whatever, thanks to all those EPA grants.

Well, that's all been exposed, big time. and so she's under investigation by both the FBI and the DOJ for that, but then there's this little number. Okay, so she had a nonprofit that she was running, of course, you know, a nonprofit, and in this nonprofit called the New Georgia Project, she was allowing people to donate, and then she was going out and using that money for her campaign, which is like just a no-no.

It's not something you can do. So the representative from Missouri, he's a Republican, he's a congressman on the, Ways and Means Committee, he's actually chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he just sent the IRS just a few hours ago today a letter saying, okay, we need to investigate this woman. And not only do we need to investigate this woman, we need to make sure that this woman loses her tax-exempt status, which is this coveted thing, right, if you're a nonprofit,

but it shouldn't even be that coveted. It's basically just normal business transactions. In other words, we have established rules for charities and nonprofits in this country, and you can use those donations that people are then able to tax deduct from their overall income, and you can use those to go out and do good things in the community. But if you're using that for your political campaign, it's just not legal. It's just not done. And so they found out that she had $4.2 million worth of campaign donations that she was then using

through this, or however you want to call it, washing it through this New Georgia project. But again, you can't, just to make this really, really clear. And you know what? We're going to go to TurboTax and take a look at this because TurboTax has a rule on it. It says, are political donations tax deductible, unlike charitable contributions, political contributions, where the candidates, parties, there are super facts. They are not tax deductible. Well, let me clear it for TurboTax. They're not tax deductible.

Charles Schwab will tell you that. Take a look here at their website or political contributions tax deductible. The answer is no. Okay, so Stacey, I don't really know what to tell you. You can go over to the IRS's website and what do they say? Under Section 501c3 organizations, the IRS tax code says that you cannot actually, directly or indirectly, have any of that money go to a political campaign. And what did Stacey do?

According to the Georgia Ethics Committee filing there, she took $4.3 million worth of money that was going to, you know, making everything so much better. in the world via her nonprofit and she took it and she put it into her campaign, which is a big, big no-no and actually could put her in a whole lot of trouble. Like I'm talking, I mean, look, the other thing is big too, right, the $2 billion of the EPA's given her for new stoves in certain communities there in Georgia so she can show people how to cut their electricity bill.

A lot of suspicion around that one, whether that was really just a disguise of buying vote, right? That's the concern, as you know, on that one. But this one's a little bit more straightforward and a little bit more simple. We have an IRS tax code. Stacey Abrams took money from her nonprofit and put it over, per the Georgia ethics complaint, $4.3 million worth of contributions, put it over into her campaign. That is not allowed.

So now you have the Missouri lawmaker, again, coming out, head of the Ways and Means Committee saying, he wants an investigation, and he wants the IRS right now to take away that tax status. In other words, could she do it again if she did it before? Again, I just want to point out this is new, this is fresh, this comes on the heels of the other problems she's got going on, both with DOJ and FBI, because they are launching investigations into this power forwards community that was getting $2 billion from the EPA. You know this story.

Lee Zeldon has been talking about this, the new head of the EPA, because he's cutting off all these grants, and he's changing the rules here. apparently President Biden conveniently in 2024 put in all these initiatives or money into initiatives, I should say, including $2 billion in your taxpayer dollars that was handed over to powered forward communities, which was that organization linked to Ms. Abrams, even though that organization, I guess only got $100 a year before. And they didn't even know how to do basic things like fill out tax forms, et cetera. So what were they doing getting all this money all of a sudden?

Well, Stacey went on to MSNBC about a week ago and tried to explain it. All she did was dig herself in even deeper. I guess now we know they were just buying new appliances for people, showing them how they could cut their energy bill in half. Here we go, Stacey Abrams. One of the ironies of the attack on you, and I'm going to play what he did, was that my understanding is the program at the source of this whole thing is a program to lower cost for people.

Do I have that top line correct? You have it absolutely right. Okay, so I'm going to play what he had to say, and then I'm going to ask you to explain what the program is that was such an obvious, ludicrous laugh line for the Republicans there. Take a list. $1.9 billion to recently created decarbonization of Holmes Committee, headed up, and we know she's involved, just at the last.

last moment the money was passed over by a woman named Stacey Abrams. Have you ever heard of him? Okay, so what is this organization? What is your relation to it and what does it do? In 2023 and 2024, I led a program called vitalizing de Soto. We worked in a tiny town in South Georgia to demonstrate that by replacing energy inefficient appliances with efficient. appliances, you can lower your cost. And in fact, we accomplished that. For 75% of the community, they got appliances that are lowering their bills right now. We had one woman who saw her electric bill cut in half from $180 to $98.00. That's what we delivered. And based on that program, a coalition of organizations, famous organizations, came together and said to the EPA,

if we can do this here, we can do this for millions more Americans. Let us invest the money of America in lowering the cost for Americans. And the EPA said, okay, great, go for it. Of course they did, right? It's an election year. We got to secure Georgia, ladies and gentlemen. Well, gosh, darn it. Now it's all coming back to Honor.

So she's got the nonprofit that she's using, according to the Ethics Committee, there in Georgia, $4.3 million worth of donations, which people were able to write off right on their taxes. I mean, I wonder if those people are in trouble, too. Did they know what was going on? Somebody ought to find out. And then you get this whole thing. So she's got IRS, DOJ, and FBI in two separate cases on her tail.

Stacey Abrams, if you had any, any inclination of ever running for president, as I believe you do, because you're an egomaniac who really doesn't deserve the job she has. And the Democrat Party is so absolutely desperate. They might even look at you. I mean, hey, it's you versus Jasmine Crockett versus AOC. It's not exactly like we get plum pickings there to choose from. I would just say you got a lot of trouble going on. Here's this form.

I mean, it was like some 40-page tax form that they had to fill out, these NGOs that just kept popping up out of nowhere. Heck, and your money was going to them, right? Because taxpayer dollars could suddenly. go to all these NGOs so that they could promote a certain viewpoint all over the world. We talked about this on the show on Friday, actually on Thursday and on Wednesday, because of the 1948 Smith-Munt Act, not to walk out on you guys too, totally, but basically this thing was put in 1948 and there was this Chinese wall

where you could have all this propaganda, U.S. taxpayer dollars, going for propaganda, overseas all over the world because we had certain viewpoints we wanted to push. And then what happened in 2012? Obama wanted to make sure we could modernize this thing so that we could use some of that taxpayer dollar to influence public opinion back here at home. That had never been allowed before. And sure enough, in 2013, it took off. And so this may have been part of that.

They were using money, $2 billion that they were giving to the likes of Stacey Abrams' organization, power for our communities, so that they could promote, quote-unquote, democracy, just like they've promoted all over the world, right back here at home, in order to promote their own candidates. You see how twisted this is all getting? Pretty scary stuff. Reminder to subscribe, share, like, all that good stuff. Oh, this is a biggie.

Pam Bondi now says, basically get lost to the judge in the deportation case, and the judge comes back with, well, you're treating... We're going to have to play it. I'm going to play it for you because I can't do it justice. You are treating the... the criminal migrants so poorly that Nazis have been treated better. Yeah, I mean, I'm just in sort of disbelief as I hear all of this,

but that's the case right now. This is the Obama judge hearing this appellate case. So you have the lawyer Ensign there, Drew Ensign, arguing the case before this woman, And you see what has happened is the judge, the U.S. District Court judge, Bozberg, he tried to get some information on when the plane took off, et cetera, when they were taking those 261 criminal migrants to El Salvador. And when he did that, it kind of just launched this whole thing, including this particular lawsuit where you have five migrants coming forward that have been flown to El Salvador, and they're suing the Trump administration. and they've got the American Civil Liberties Union basically there with them. And American Civil's Liberty Union, ACLU, is defending Bosberg temporary restraining order. So the administration has then sought some clarity on this.

And they're like, wait a second, you know what? This is the president of the United States. We feel that we have the right to enact, this alien's enemy act, of 1798 because we have enemies within the country that want to do us physical harm. Venezuela is not a friend, it is a foe, therefore shouldn't we be able to do this? And you're not going to believe quite what went down here with the judge today. It's unbelievable to me. The judge has no use for any of this.

Let me see if I can pull this sound for you because I think it's very much worth hearing. here we go. Am I wrong about anything I just said, factually? Your Honor, I think it's incorrect that they couldn't have gone into court as the five individual plaintiffs. No, but the point here was that

there were plain loads of people. I mean, it was also, it's a class action. There were plain loads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act and has happened here,

where the proclamation require the promulgation of regulations. And they had hearing boards before people were removed. And yet here, there's nothing in there about hearing boards. There's no regulations. And nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this. People weren't given notice. They weren't told where they were going.

And they were given those people on those plans on that Saturday had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA. And you've agreed that two of those airplanes, people were removed under the AEA. Is that what's factually wrong about what I said? Well, Your Honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi analogy, but more importantly, the fact is that individual pointiffs were able to file habeas in time in order to secure relief. Wait, what individual plaintiffs were? The five individual plaintiffs that got. That's not my question. My question is there were a lot more people.

They wanted to make a class action. They had to have some named plaintiffs. So five people file in habeas doesn't help everybody else on two airplane loads. Correct? And my question to you is, and you said those five didn't get put on the airplanes. So as to the two airplanes that I think you just agreed involved removals solely on AEA grounds. On Saturday, the very short time of the proclamation's publication had no opportunity to have filed for habeas or even notice as to the grounds on which they were being removed.

Am I wrong about that? I think so, Your Honor. The fact that five individual appointiffs did file habeas and did get relief in the case that they could... I don't think you're answering my question. You know, what was amazing about all of this, I got to say, is that this woman didn't let him talk. So this went on for about two, two and a half hours. And she actually would not let him talk.

It was very clear where she stood on all of this, which I find really, really troubling. Like, you know, these judges are kind of out there in left field. They've got their agenda. She's appointed by Obama. She's got a very different point of view. And she made that clear over and over and over again. I want to play a little bit more, just another short excerpt. This is from this judge Patricia Millett.

Can I say that right, guys? You know, trying to suggest that Nazis are getting better treatment. Yes, Judge Petrich. Patricia Millett, she's been on the bench since 2013, put there by Obama and clearly has a point of view. Let's listen to just a bit more here. Your Honor, the government does not believe that the oral pronouncements as opposed to the written one as binding. But as the district court appears to have a different view, he ordered, he ordered two, his oral order provided for two ways of compliance. either turning around the planes or finding a way to return the people to the United States.

The first option is no longer available, but the district court has not said that the second option is not still in force. And much of this, I think, has to do with the compliance issues that are, I think, separate and go forward regardless of what happens with TROs. And so, as of right now, your concern is that if the TROs, and for your sake, say the written TRO, so the written version of the second TRO is in place. What language in that requires the retrieval of people from U.S. custody? Your Honor, I think that are, sorry, let me clarify that they are no longer in U.S. custody. Your Honor, it's not that it would not be the written order. I believe it's on page 43 of the Saturday transcript.

It was an oral directive, but more broadly, too, this is a nationwide TRO that enjoins the president from using any of his AEA authority to remove people during this period. That is something. That's not ordering ships around in the water. And that's not ordering planes to go anywhere. All that the nationwide TRO says is folks that are detained and folks can still be detained under the AEA. they just cannot be removed from the country until this point, until I guess you get a preliminary injunction decision from the court, which looks to be forthcoming soon.

I agree that the district court looks like it may be acting on a preliminary injunction soon, but I think the intrusion upon the war powers and foreign policy powers of the president is utterly unprecedented. And in a way... Well, this is an unprecedented action as well. of course there's no precedent for it because no president has ever used this statute this way, which isn't to say one way or the other what it can be done, but simply to say we are in unprecedented territory.

But I'm just trying to really clarify here if you agree that, and I believe you agreed in district court, I think you agreed here, tell me if I'm this hearing, that these folks have a right under the AEA, under precedent, to challenge their status as individuals subject to. They fall within the terms of the proclamation here. That is, I think, most relevantly, whether they are members of Trent,

or Raguay, although maybe they deny Venezuela as a citizen status too. I don't know. But the big one that seems to be in the papers is that we're not even members of this. In fact, some of us are fleeing from Trent, Tren, De Ragua. Is it your position that temporary restraining order that simply prevents removal until there's procedure and notice opportunity in place to address whether they even fall under the proclamation? Are you arguing that that is an unwarranted intrusion on the president's powers?

Yes, Your Honor. I think whenever a district court and joins the president from exercising his war, Yeah, so basically the argument here is the president has the power to do this via the 1798 Aliens Enemy Act, which is what they're going back to, okay? It's what they're going back to, and why they're saying, like, there's actually no reason for a judge to be asking anything in the first place here. So that's why they appealed, but then it got thrown into this woman's hands, and you know where she's coming from, the Obama appointed judge.

But keep in mind, again, their point of view. you from the White House is that, you know, you can all go pound sand because we have the power. The power is vested via this particular act that really hasn't been used since the days of World War 2, the Aliens Reminis Act of 1798, which is why you get Pam Bondi telling the judge, in the first case, Judge Bostberg, to go pound sand that he was out over his skis. You remember what she had to say about that, quote-unquote, deadline, which they sort of, They didn't really answer all the questions he had because their point of view is we don't have to. Because it's none of your business, we have the authority to do this.

Here she was speaking out on Thursday about the issue. Let's start, if we might, from the decision by Judge Bostberg. Tomorrow is your deadline to answer questions. Those questions include the following. What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil? Where did it leave from? What time did it leave U.S. airspace? And what time did it land in a foreign country?

You have, I don't know, four, five, six questions the judge wants answers to regarding the details of those flights over the weekend. How will you respond at the Department of Justice? Well, our lawyers are working on this. We will answer appropriately, but what I will tell you is this judge has no right to ask those questions. You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they, They have no business presiding over, and there are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now. That's because those people are out of this country. The judge had no business, no power to do what he did.

And Will, he came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with very, very short notice, if any, to our attorney to run in the courtroom. You know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges. You just spoke about that. It's been a pattern with what they've been doing. This judge had no right to do that. They're meddling in foreign affairs. They're meddling in our government.

And the question should be, why is a judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country over American citizens? You know, TDA is a terrorist organization. Okay. So that's what this is really going to come down to. I mean, if the president doesn't have the power to say, hey, I'm going to expel terrorists out of the country, then what are we really dealing with here? The DOJ sort of saying to this judge, you know, you have no business doing any of this. He warned of certain consequences. While the consequences are coming, I guess now, we're in the appellate courts.

It's probably going to have to go all the way to the Supreme Court guys because the Supreme Court's going to be the one to make the decision on whether or not you can use the Alien Enemies Act, which actually has only been used three other times in U.S. history, including for the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II. So it's something that hasn't been used a lot, but is something that is sort of. sort of innovative in the legal scholarly theory thinking, right? How do you get rid of people that are known problems that have committed crimes that you know about, that you're detaining already? I'll tell you one thing, like ISIS is just moving forward. They're continuing to do it.

They actually had another plane full. Go back to Venezuela today. Donald Trump's saying, we absolutely have the time to this. This is a kind of war, right? This is a time of war. He sees this 1798 Aliens Enemy Act as fair game. Here he is. speaking last weekend on Air Force One. Drug dealers at the highest level, drug lords, people from mental institutions, that's an invasion. They invaded our country. So this isn't, in that sense, this is war.

There you go. Okay, so in that sense, it is war. So why do you have these very, very partisan, and forgive me, but this woman is an Obama appointed judge. We'll learn more about her in the coming days. We've learned some things about Bopart. I mean, look, his daughter works for one of the NGOs that's losing money. I don't know whether that's here nor there, but may reflect some bias, you know, the flip side of it.

Edgar, good to see you back in the house as well as spirit-filled. I have some of it. You know what? I'm just going to tell you something. I do appreciate all the support. You have no idea. You know, we are totally independent here. We are totally independent and isn't that great?

I mean, we do have our sponsors. I got you guys, right? And then we've got American Heart for Gold. So if you're going to buy gold, go take a look at these guys. Really good team. and they help bring us, this, help bring you this show for free every day. You can go to Trish lovesgold.com. Sign up there.

Trish lovesgold.com. Up to $15,000 in free silver for friends of the show. Text Trish to 6553-3-2, 6553-2. Just get out your little phone and text right now. I get so much news to, this is what happens when you know you go away because Jasmine Crockett is like calling for violence not just on Tesla, but also no, Ted Cruz, that's the latest and greatest, after hearing Pam Bondi's warning. But, you know, with all this chaos, I guess it makes sense. You want a little gold in your pocket.

Gold went down today. I actually bought a little bit, as I always do when it goes down a little bit, because I'm a long-term believer in this one. A few other things I'm a long-term believer in as well. You can find out more about that at 76 Research. But go check out Trish lovesgold.com today. As for all the other things that I do believe in, big time, go to 76 Research. Use code word dollar. My investment research newsletter. I have all my opinions. It's together with my dear friend Rob Horton, who managed billions of dollars on Wall Street for 20 some odd years. So between the two of us, we kind of get it going on and we know, we know what's working. And I want to be able to impart that knowledge however I can with you. So gold is one of those things that's working. Go to Trishlovesgold.com.

And then if you want more information on these markets, go check out 76research.com. I'll tell you one thing. Guys, they're continuing to move forward with. these deportations, Tom Holman, he's already said he doesn't care. They sent another plan worth some 200 and some odd criminals back to Venezuela today. Another flight. Another flight every day. The teams are going to be out there every day. Every day the men and women of ICE are going to be in the neighborhoods of this nation

arresting criminal, illegal, alien, public state, the threats, and national security threats. Lawrence are not going to stop us. We made a promise to the American people. The President Trump has made a promise to American people. We're going to make this country safe again. And they were sent to mandate. So, by the way, I should point out, border crossing is down 95% since Donald Trump came into office. And this mandate is really, really clear.

In fact, the Democrats are even reporting on it because this is a company that's used by a lot of Dems, great data company, Blue Rose, I believe it's called Blue Rose Research. And they found that basically Trump would have won by nearly five points more if all the Democrats had actually shown. up because they wanted this stuff to get done. There was a mandate. I mean, hey, nobody wants a ton of illegals draining the system and possibly creating crime, et cetera, you name it. And so with border crossings way down, you know, I don't know what the Democrats know what to do. Chuck Schumer was asked about this the other day. He didn't know how to respond. I showed some of you guys this on Thursday. If you're just joining us right now, thank you. Make sure you subscribe, leave a comment, all that good stuff. Join our team here. But here is Chuck

not really liking. The good news. Have evidence that Trump's border policies are working? Is he handling the border well, you think, sir? Crickets, okay? He doesn't want to answer that one. But here's the data, okay? The numbers are really spectacular. So you're looking at over 275,000 or so whatever the number was. It was massive, massive, right before Trump came into office and look at that graph. Look it, it just sinks with Donald Trump there now. Amazing, right?

Just amazing. Meanwhile, Pam Bondi has been trying to deal a little bit with one Jasmine Crockett, because Jasmine Crockett has been very vocal, shall we say, about a few people. I'm going to get to the recent stuff she said on Ted Cruz in just a moment, but keep in mind what she's been saying about Elon Musk. It comes at a very difficult time because Tesla dealerships have been quite literally under fire. This is getting actually very serious. is people now increasingly afraid to drive a Tesla because you might get your car key.

You might get something worse happening. There's a story today really just awful about some threats that were made to a dealership there in Texas. And yet you get the representative from Texas, a Democrat junior person there in Congress out saying stuff like, oh, she wants Elon taken down. Excuse me? Here we go. Thank you so much, Annie. And I won't hold y'all because I know how much people love to listen to power. So I'll make sure that I keep it short, but I am truly here for very selfish reasons.

Starting with on March 29th, it's my birthday. And all I want to see happen on my birthday is for Elon to be taken down. Yes. Whoa. Okay. So what does she mean by that? I mean, you've got lots of problems happening now with Tesla and Tesla drivers. And she's gone out about, you know, these people, they only understand money, et cetera.

Well, Pam Bondi had a message speaking on Fox over the weekend for her. Jasmine has since today responded moments ago, but first understand what Pam was saying. Basically, you know what, honey, we can lock you up for this. So tread carefully. Now you have this Congresswoman Crockett who is calling for attacks on Elon Musk on her birthday. Let's take him out on my birthday, she says. Yet she turns and says, oh, I'm not calling for violence. Well, she is an elected public official.

And so she needs to tread very carefully because nothing will happen to Elon Musk. And we're going to fight to protect all of all of the Tesla owners throughout this country. And it's this basic safety. Once again, domestic terrorism is going to come to a stop in our country. Yeah, it needs to. Clearly, you can't have a representative there in Congress calling. I mean, this is crazy, right? Like, that she actually said this.

And now she's like, oh, I can say this because of J6. There they go. They're going right back to the well. Here's her response moments ago on MSNBC. Watch. Just in case the slow people listening decide to click this up later, I just want to say that I have never promoted violence whatsoever. Yet I've also never made excuse for those violent actors such as the ones on January 6th.

So Pam Bondi, if you have an issue with terrorism, maybe you should talk to your boss about locking back up those guys that he let out that participated in January 6th. Okay, so she's starting to turn it all around and bring it all back to J6 because somehow J6 now enables her to go on and on and on about anything she wants, right? And call for violence wherever she sees fit. I'll tell you, this woman is for sure a problem, for sure, a danger. and they're going to do something. I mean, they're going to have to do something because here she is saying, oh, I never call for violence.

But as much as Jasmine Crockett wants you to think she never calls for violence, no sooner did she say that that we found this little number. Here she is speaking on on some kind of podcast about how important it would be to just punch Ted Cruz. Just punch them.

You just get to, quote, take them out, right? I mean, this is unbelievable. Unbelievable. What? I think that you punch. I think you punch. I think you're okay with you're okay with punching. You know, I think, and I love Colin, and I think towards the end he started to punch a little harder.

But like, it's Ted Cruz. I mean, like, this dude has to be knocked over the head, like hard, right? Like, there is no niceties with him, like at all. Like, you go clean off on him, right? I almost don't have words. this is what we have degenerated into. And this is who the Democrats are holding up as their new star. This is the woman that they think can take over the Democrat Party

if they don't have Stacey Abrams or AOC, who by the way, Bernie Sanders apparently has no use for. I mean, are you kidding me? She goes after Ted Cruz. She's a member of Congress. I just think that somehow there's got to be some kind of penalty. Maybe they censor her for it. Maybe Pam Bondi arrests her because she's actually threatening a U.S. senator.

Maybe she's arrested because she's actually threatening a former domestic terrorism, if you would, vis-a-vis calling on people to get rid of Elon Musk by her birthday, which is just in a couple of days. I mean, this is bizarre behavior for a member of Congress, not to mention, if you look on my YouTube channel, we did a whole thing about how she's a fraud because she's really not who she says she is. So even though she's talking like she's from the hood, blah, blah, blah. Turns out she went to a fancy schmancy private school and grew up in a really nice area and this, that, and the other.

She's not quite who she says she is, but she's trying to use certain rhetoric to try and appeal to a group of people that she thinks she can somehow rile up. And this is not healthy. It reminds me back when, you know, sort of Black Lives Matter took over in the summer of 2020. And some of the DEI initiatives that came out of that were a direct result of, okay, well, we have to, peas people because they were lighting the streets on fire. So, I mean, not just so to speak. I mean, this was actually happening. And yet everybody's like, oh, these are nonviolent protests.

It's perfectly, perfectly fine. How is it that Crockett can say things like this? But if anybody else says anything like this, you know, you're going to be in a massive amount of trouble. Can you imagine if Ted Cruz said something like that? Or if Elon Musk said something like that about her, really unbelievable, unbelievable. Quick shout out for balance of nature. You know, I love my balance of nature.

I get my fruits and veggies every single day. I know you can still hear a little teeny, teeny, teeny remnants of a cold, but you know, it's my only cold this year, which I consider massively good because I usually wind up with about five of them. And, you know, I have big family, three kids, and everybody's always sick. So this is because of them, because I actually finally have gotten my vitamin D. I've actually finally seen my vitamin D levels go higher, and it's a direct result of this. It's not, well, yes, I was away. I did get a little bit of sun, but not enough to.

to justify what I, you know, I saw this like a couple months ago, when suddenly after taking Balance of Nature for nearly a year, my vitamin D levels improved dramatically in the blood work that tells me such. So I was very, very happy to see that, and I credit these guys. You can get Balance of Nature yourself. You can get this for 35% off. Go to 1-800, go the website, use code word Trish, or call them at 1-800-246-8751, 1-800-246-8751.

So Snow White, Snow White reviews are in. Snow White, how shall we say? Data points are in because we now know that it was a flop. Like it was a really, really, really bad flop. Now I went, things I do for you guys. I went to Snow White over the weekend. I took my kids. I'll tell you, I'm not sure who was more bored.

Myself or the kids or the other kids in the theater. I mean, they started throwing popcorn in various places. They're talking to each other. No one liked this movie. This movie was boring. This movie was bad from the very beginning with the musical numbers that were no good. They seemed like they were written by AI. It was like, can we manufacture a little Disney song?

And sure enough, this thing was a disaster. It only made $43 million at the box office, which is really bad for a movie like this. I don't have the numbers at the top of my head, but I want to tell you, Cinderella, which was number of years ago, and don't forget how much inflation has happened. So it was somewhere around $65 million over the weekend. And in today's dollars, that would probably be somewhere around 80, some odd million dollars. I mean, really? So inflation's been that bad. So as a result, you know, I'm thinking they're really kind of down. That's what all the headlines that are coming in right now are saying. You know, the Disney executives are so disappointed. But I'm like,

who did you, what did you guys think? I mean, who did you look at casting? You cast Rachel Zet. who immediately like just pooh-poohed the movie, you know, on the red carpet saying she couldn't stand snow white and the storyline, etc. You remember, right? I mean, you know, the original cartoon came out in 1937 and very evidently so. There is a big focus on her love story with a guy who literally stalks her. Yeah. Weird. Weird.

So we didn't do that this time. So no, prince or a different kind of prince? We have a different approach to what I'm sure a lot of people will assume is a love story just because like we cast a guy in the movie. Andrew Burnup, great dude. It's one of those things that I think everyone's going to have their assumptions about what it's actually going to be, but it's really not about the love story at all, which is really, really wonderful.

And whether or not she finds love along the way is anybody's guess until 2024. Okay. It was terrible. All right. So they lost like 270 million. And then, by the way, I should add the extra $100 million in the PR. They spent all this money. They had to cancel the premiere.

So I guess they had premieres that were happening. And then they had to cancel them. They went out and had her singing in a castle in Spain. Okay, that was the big signature song from the whole thing. That was probably the best song in the whole thing. Galgado was fine. I kind of expected a little bit more. I couldn't believe she couldn't sing. She really can't sing, so she kind of talks her way through a song. Rachel is, you know, whatever. She's fine. She's little Rachel from New Jersey who belongs back in the high school musical, but somehow

is now a very big presence on the international stage with a lot of political opinions. And because of those political opinions, I'm telling you, this was a disaster. It was a disaster because it was poorly written, it was poorly composed. It was just bad, and it lost every, There was no complexity. It was miscast, as everybody said from the beginning, but it also suffered as a result of one Ms. Zegler. I mean, they didn't know what to do with her all along because they're like, how can you, how can you be ruining this? Spirit-filled, thank you so much, one of our favorites here on the channel. I, I prefer Alice in Wonderland. You know what? There's a lot of good classics that they could remake, I guess. And, you know, as bad as it is to do the second, like to do

the remake and to try and wokeify it and everything. If you do that, you got to do it well. Like, you can't just throw something out there. It's really just another example of Disney dumping on the public. This is what they do. They dump on you over and over and over again. They give you a crappy product. This was total crap and they think that you're going to go spend all the money. I had to do it for work, right? I wanted to be able to at least accurately report on it. But I don't think people are going to go. I really don't, and I don't blame them. I don't blame them at all. I mean, why waste your money on that? You're better off buying gold, shall we say, right? American Heart for Gold.Trich lovesgold.com. I encourage you to go there and check it out. Or you can

text Trish to 65532 up to $15,000 in free silver. And if you really want to know what I'm looking at as well, in addition to gold, because I do like gold a lot, go to my website, 76research.com, use code word dollar, get the investment newsletter. We have so much more to get to, but I got to run over and see my friends over at Newsmax. So I thank you for being here today. We're going to continue the show again live tomorrow, hopefully at an earlier time. Make sure you subscribe so that you know, hit the bell so you know exactly when I'm here and I'll see you then.