The Trish Regan Show - Trump HUMILIATES AOC & Crockett After Their Cringey Impeachment Stunt!

Episode Date: June 25, 2025

Trump fires back at AOC and Jasmine Crockett with a scathing social post after their desperate calls for his impeachment. This is a CLIP from the LIVE Trish Regan Show episode 162 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AOC is getting roasted by the President of the United States for her little meltdown there. Oh, she's not the only one. Jamie Raskin's having a little meltdown. You got Jasmine Crockett. They're on the swear words out there in her little meltdown. And you've got Chuck Schumer, apparently lying? Ah, he just didn't pick up his phone? Hakeem Jeffries was called.

Nobody picks up their phone when the president calls. What the heck is that about? Okay, we're going to talk about that. But first, you know, AOC, never one to pass up an opportunity to criticize the President of the United States, no matter how much the market thinks this is all good. She wrote, the President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a great violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment. So she wants to go back there again.

Well, Donald Trump had something to say to her as well as Chuck Schumer. Let's get to Donald Trump's comment to AOC. This is pretty remarkable. I think some of you guys have seen this already. It just came out within the last hour or so. He writes, stupid AOC. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in case you don't know. One of the dumbest people in Congress is now calling for my impeachment,

despite the fact, despite the fact that crooked and corrupt Dems have already done that twice before. Okay, that's fair, right? They love calling for impeachment. They've already impeached them twice. It's getting kind of old, right? He goes on to say, the reason for her rantings is all of the victories that the USA has had under the Trump administration. Oh my gosh, wasn't that what I was just saying? It's like win, win, win, win, win, win.

Right, the Democrats aren't used to winning. and she can't stand the concept of our country being successful again. When we examine her test scores, let's pull out the SAT. Did you take that to get into BU, AOC? When we examine her test scores, if there is such a thing, we will find out that she is not qualified for office, but nonetheless, far more qualified than Crooked.

As a seriously low- IQ individual, Ilhan Omar, who does nothing but complain about our country. Yet the failed country that she comes from doesn't have a government is drenched in crime and poverty and is rated one of the worst in the world if it's even rated at all. Oh, wow. How dare the mouse tell us how to run the United States of America? He's calling AOC the Mouse. Is that her nickname? Interesting. She kind of looks a little mousey. Yeah, I've never gotten the whole AOC as hot thing. I'm sorry. You know, maybe my standards are just too darn high. Gary, thank you for the generosity. let there be peace, I agree, in flourishing life. I am all for that. Anyway, he's calling her the mouse.

Let her run the United States of America. We need, we're just now coming back from the radical left experiment with Sleepy Joe, Kamala, and the Autopen in charge. What a disaster it was. AOC should be forced to take the cognitive test that I just completed at Walter Reed Medical Center as part of my physical. As the doctor in charge said, President Trump, it, meaning I got every answer right. Instead of her constant complaining, Alexandria should go back home to Queens, where I was also brought up and straighten out

her filthy, disgusting crime, written streets in the district she represents, and which she never goes to anymore. She better start worrying about her own primary before she thinks about beating our great Palestinian senator crying. Chuck Schumer. Okay, that's a joke because he doesn't,

seem to care about Israel anymore, whose career is definitely on very thin ice. She and her Democrat friends have just hit the lowest poll numbers in congressional history, so go ahead and try and beaching me. Make my day. That's like one of his best ever, okay? You got to admit, that was pretty funny. A lot of personality in that writing, make my day. AOC, he says, make my day, Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer's all bent out of shape because apparently he wasn't included. This was not a very inclusive, inclusive operation. And so they're all worked up about that. Although, if you listen to Caroline Leavitt, apparently he was included, he just didn't pick up his darn phone. You know,

sometimes you get to pick up the phone, Chuckie. Madam President, earlier today, we received reports that Iran has targeted U.S. military bases and U.S. service members in the Middle East, putting their lives, putting the lives of thousands of Americans at immediate risk. I join Americans. I pray for their safety. This afternoon, I asked the Trump administration to immediately provide a classified briefing, laying out the full threat picture, the intelligence behind Iran's retaliation, and the detailed scope and timeline of any U.S. response. More importantly, I've demanded they lay out exactly what measures they're taking right now

to keep our service members safe. As I said Saturday night, Congress and the American people, are owed answers. No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into war with erratic threats, no strategy, no explanation. That's why I've called on Leader Thune to hold a vote immediately to enforce the war powers resolution. The law requires the Trump administration to consult with Congress. The Constitution demands it, and the American people, especially the families of those in harm's way deserve nothing less. Confronting the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions

and stopping their campaign of terror demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. Yeah, Trump's not so impressed with him, right? I do believe he said, Brian Chuck Schumer, whose career is definitely on thin ice. He's not wrong about that, by the way. If you see the New York polls and we've looked at them guys, wow, I mean, Chuck Schumer is in a lot of trouble, a whole lot of trouble. Like, trouble like Latisha James is in trouble, too. I mean, these people are definitely on thin eyes politically speaking

because they just seem to be on the wrong side of everything. But what's amazing here, what's amazing here is that apparently they were called. And so now you're like, what is I think, Chuckie, you're lying? You're lying to us? Is that the deal? By the way, just to give you a little bit of sort of background in terms of the Constitution and what's allowed, the U.S. Constitution does actually grant Congress, right, the power to declare war, but be very careful here because war was not declared. Like, that was not, and he made a very

specific point of saying this is not war. This was a strategic strike, but this is definitely not war. Anyway, so they're going on, okay, he's declaring war, and, you know, so they're going to Article 1, Section 8, and that would actually require, right, an act of Congress. However, However, there's something called the War Powers Resolution in 1973, and that does allow for the president to initiate military action in cases of what's considered, quote, a national emergency created maybe by an attack on the U.S., its territories or positions or its armed forces. He may argue in this case this was a national emergency because of the threat that was represented vis-a-vis a potential nuclear Iran. And so that's kind of what's going to come up. And they're going to try and trap them in the semantics here. But I'm telling you, he's swinging for the fences, right?

Like really, really, really swinging for the fences. And so I don't think he cares. I think he said, you know, I get a shot to make the world a safer place. And I'm going to take it. And they can sit there and do this all day long. But if you think about modern history, whether it's Obama in Afghanistan or Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan. You can think about whether it's George W. Bush in Afghanistan.

in Iraq. You have Bill Clinton making moves in Iraq, Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan. You had George H.W. Iraq, Afghanistan. You had Reagan and Libya and Granada. I mean, you can go on and on and on, right? Throughout modern history, we have seen presidents take these moves. And the reason they do them so strategically and precisely is because if you actually decide to get an act of Congress going, well, guess what? Then you alert the enemy. And so then your whole surprise is gone. You miss your opportunity. And so it doesn't always work that way in practicality. But they're going to fight this, despite the fact that they've had Democrat presidents make similar moves. They're going to fight it all day long. Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer. I'm like, wait a second. Are you lying? You say you weren't consulted? Nobody told you? Madam President, earlier today, we received reports that Iran has targeted U.S. military bases and U.S. service members in the Middle East, putting their lives. putting the lives of thousands of Americans at immediate risk.

I join Americans. I pray for their safety. This afternoon, I asked the Trump administration to immediately provide a classified briefing, laying out the full threat picture, the intelligence behind Iran's retaliation, and the details, scope, and timeline of many of the world. So they're saying, you know,

we don't know as you had any intelligence suggesting that there was actually, a real nuclear threat there. But as Marco Rubio keeps pointing out, like, why the heck were they, you know, enriching uranium? Like, that must not be naive. Meanwhile, Caroline Levitt is suggesting

that these guys are all just flat out liars. Watch this from this morning outside the White House, her speaking on Fox. We did make bipartisan calls. Thomas Massey and the Democrats, he should be a Democrat because he's more aligned with them than with the Republican.

and party, we're given notice. The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls. In fact, Hakeem Drafries couldn't be reached. We tried him before the strike, and he didn't pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as Chuck Schumer was briefed prior to the strike. So this notion that CNN ran with at the White House did not give a heads up to Democrats is just completely false. In fact, both Senator Schumer's office and CNN had to retract that story last night because it was a blatant lie. And we showed them the timestamps from those phone calls, but I want to add something to Thomas Massey's false points. The White House was not obligated to call anyone because the president was acting within

his legal authority under Article 2 of the Constitution as commander-in-chief of the President of the United States. We gave these calls as a courtesy, and the Democrats are lying about this because they can't talk about the truth of the success of that operation and the success of our United States military and the success of this president and this administration in doing something that past administrations, Democrats too, have only dreamed about. Right? I mean, it is winning, winning, winning, winning.

And I'm just, I'm going to be cautious because I know there's a lot of sensitivity around this, and I think the most fair way of valuing this right now is to just look at the market, okay? Just look at the market. Whenever everybody says, like, oh, how do you think the market interpreted this as a win, okay? A big freaking win.

I can say freaking. I'm in Live for your die New Hampshire. We say that here. Watch out. My New England accent may come out pretty soon. I'll be talking about putting something in the jaw and wearing my paca. Now and then, it happens. It happens.

Anyway, I digress because this is unbelievable, all right? Apparently they were alerted. They didn't pick up their phones, whatever. But the point is they didn't necessarily need to be alerted because, again, they're going to cite this power's war power. resolution in 1973 and the fact that the president is indeed the commander-in-chief article two section two and has the authority to direct military actions okay so i get it right like it's gotten a little murky i gave you the big laundry list of all the things bill clinton iraq serbia

sydhan afghanistan is you going to congress for all of those no okay it's just sort of obama afghanistan uh iraq syria yemen samalia pakistan was he going to congress for every single one no So I think you just kind of need to understand that, yes, the world has shifted a little bit. You're going to try and impeach him over this? I mean, for goodness sakes, guys. Again, he has the power. Mike Johnson said it well. Let's listen.

It is ridiculous for anyone to assert that the commander-in-chief, using his Article 2 power under the Constitution, should have to consult all the members of Congress or even all the leadership in Congress every time he has to make a decisive, quick action. I mean, that would not be feasible. So the idea that they're saying that what he's done is somehow inappropriate or unconstitutional is nonsense. None of them ever complained when Barack Obama and Joe Biden used the same authority to drop bombs all over the Middle East, all over the world. You know, it's entirely inconsistent with their previous actions. And I think we call them on that hypocrisy.

There you go. Okay. But they're mad. They've been excluded. It's like, you know, the spoiled kids, they want to be included in everything. Thank, Jamie Raskin, siding with AOC, calling for impeachment. Now, he may not have wanted to go down this path, but watch the MSNBC anchor. She leads him right there.

Against a runaway president. Congressman, you had Representative Alexander Ocasio-Cortez calling the president's decision to bomb Iran without authorization. A grave violation of the Constitution saying it is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment. Just real quickly, do you agree? I couldn't read the whole thing, but it sounds like I agree with that, that it's an absolute violation of the Constitution. It's the grounds for impeachment piece that I want you to weigh in on. Is that right there at the end? Well, without saying what anybody should do in any particular situation,

undoubtedly a violation of the war powers of Congress, the usurpation of the war powers of Congress, would be an impeachable offense, would be a high crime misdemeanor. I mean, you know, Israel said, We've just, in what Israel did on its own, we set them back two or three years. So that's not an emergency. Remember, the president can only assert the power to use military in a context in which there's an imminent threat to us. And that clearly wasn't there. So we can add this to a very long list of things where the president has violated the spending power.

I mean, the states brought an action because the president unilaterally imposed a spending freeze on laws passed by Congress, signed by the president, for a trillion dollars in spending, they wanted to hold up all of these federal public health programs, housing programs, local policing programs, just out of the blue. Where does he get the doctrine that he can just do that? He just pulls it out of a hat. Well, the court struck it down, and gratefully, the states are there. But obviously, talk of impeachment today when we're in the minority,

and we can't even get Republicans to vote with us on a single. bill to try to restore sanity is somewhat hypothetical. But I'm with my friend AOC and saying, we've got to keep a very strict catalog of all of the violations of the Constitution that are taking place. Congressman Jamie Ross in New Jersey, AG, Matthew Pluck. I'm sorry. Like, you know, you guys are trying to keep that little agenda going. What happens? The Supreme Court keeps telling you're wrong. Anyway, the White House said, and this is a statement made by President Trump, the United States took this necessary and proportionate action consistent with international law in the U.S. stands ready to take further action as necessary and appropriate to address further threats.

So look, I think they're sticking to their story here that they have the power. Again, if you go back to Article 2, Section 2, the President as Commander-in-Chief, does have the authority to direct military actions. And, again, if you look at the historical precedent, whether it was Obama, George W., Bill Clinton, on Iraq, Serbia, Sudan, Afghanistan, whether it was HW, Bush on Iraq and Panama, Reagan, Libya, and Grenada, I mean, it happens, okay? So they're making something out of nothing here because, again, I think the president's right. It's how I say, you know, they don't want to win. Like, we're winning, winning, winning.