Feb. 10, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:55
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Because we're going medieval on these people. | |
| I got a free shot at all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mega Media. | |
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | |
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | ||
| Monday, 10 February, year of early 2025. A lot to get through. | ||
| By the way, the engine room's got a great... | ||
| Great one about the deconstruction administrative state, the pushback. | ||
| Hey, everybody do your job, right? | ||
| Congress, you do your job. | ||
| Military, you kill people. | ||
| You do your job. | ||
| And the decisions will be made, what stays and what goes. | ||
| It'll be constitutional. | ||
| Now it's going to be in the courts. | ||
| Mike Davis is going to be here to help us. | ||
| We've got confirmations. | ||
| We've got to get to the court. | ||
| But we've also got some big news. | ||
| People saying that President Trump's become a lapdog. | ||
| Get that in a moment. | ||
| So Ben, here's what I'm really concerned about. | ||
| You can tell how the apparatus has already come around President Trump and they're talking about, well, we'll just do it here. | ||
| You know, you do this peace conference, you do this, you do that, ba-bing, ba-bang, ba-bung. | ||
| Go study Vietnam. | ||
| This is exactly what dragged that out for years and for years and for years. | ||
| After it was clear that With the politics of the time, you weren't going to have a military solution. | ||
| And there was no real diplomatic solution. | ||
| And how many young men had their lives thrown away in doing that? | ||
| It's not right. | ||
| It's not fair. | ||
| And it's the MAGA sons and daughters that fight these wars. | ||
| It's not right. | ||
| And we can't let it happen again. | ||
| This thing in Ukraine is the European elites problem. | ||
| It's been that from day one. | ||
| We've sent over $250 billion. | ||
| I hope the Doge guys are on top of this. | ||
| $250 billion. | ||
| They're saying only $179 billion was forwarded. | ||
| So that's a problem right there. | ||
| First, the whole thing's a problem. | ||
| Zelensky, that crook, is saying he only got $77 billion. | ||
| Now, General Kellogg has stated on Fox that there are already audit teams, inspector generals, everybody over there. | ||
| They're starting to look at this now. | ||
| And I hope MTG and her subcommittee, she was on top of this too. | ||
| And she's the first one to bring up and had to do an audit. | ||
| So I know that she's on top of this, like a dog on a bone, because she's been furious about what's happened here. | ||
| My question to you, Ben Harnwell, because we bailed them out in World War I, we bailed them out again in World War II, we bailed them out in the Cold War. | ||
| And now we're down, we got two carrier battle groups in the Red Sea to keep the Suez Canal open so that Europe can get goods. | ||
| The Suez Canal has virtually nothing to do with the United States of America. | ||
| So a lot of this, what's happening in the Mideast is another American, a huge military commitment for Europe. | ||
| Not just for Israel, for Europe. | ||
| In fact, I would respectfully submit That the bulk of the actual money being spent right now, because I think naval operations and air operations around naval operations, security, is more of its going for European security. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, that would be a fact. | |
| So, Ben Harnwell, is Europe taking any initiative? | ||
| I keep looking through the papers and the blog sites. | ||
| Is Europe taking any real initiative to take leadership to step up here for either security guarantee? | ||
| They're depending once again, and this is how, this is why they're a protectorate. | ||
| This is why they're a vassal state. | ||
| They're a vassal state that we're still upside down in the economics of trade. | ||
| This has to stop. | ||
| It has to stop, and it has to stop now. | ||
| They're not a vassal state. | ||
| They're not a protectorate. | ||
| We don't want to be an empire. | ||
| We're not an empire. | ||
| Our revolutionary generation was very clear about that in the foundation of the country. | ||
| We're not. | ||
| We've got to get out. | ||
| And they've got to step up. | ||
| Not us. | ||
| Them. | ||
| Is there any initiative? | ||
| Do you see any enthusiasm? | ||
| Is there anybody besides, you know, Starmer signing a 100-year treaty and the Brits talking big talk? | ||
| talk, a nation that's bankrupt, to be brutally frank about it, bankrupt, and outside the city of London in the greater London area is essentially economically a third world country. | ||
| You see big talk at the elites and big talk in commons. | ||
| Is there anything really going on? | ||
| Are they all depending once again on American troops and American money, sir? | ||
| Well, Steve, you can add Italy onto that list of big talk because Giorgio Meloni, the the prime minister, said, About a month or so ago that they're going to support Ukraine no matter what, at least for the end of this year. | ||
| The problem with that and the reason why it's big talk is because if America does retreat or withdraw or disengage, whatever verb you want to use, and the Europeans, who are all largely bankrupt and have no money to fill the gap left by America. | ||
| Either they're going to have to fundamentally transform their political and economic structures, which they're not prepared to do, or they're going to have to watch Putin just come in and take Ukraine within a matter of days, as he could have done and would have done right back in the beginning. | ||
| So they're standing around promising, you know, whatever it takes for as long as it takes. | ||
| It's all performative because no political will to deliver on it. | ||
| And they know that the moment Ukraine... | ||
| False. | ||
| They're then off the hook for following through on that. | ||
| So, and I'll add to that point, by the way, something that we did cover on the show, I think this was before Christmas now, in an article in Foreign... | ||
| Foreign Affairs, one of the two foreign policy magazines. | ||
| They said that there's an astonishing revelation. | ||
| I have no idea how it was buried towards the bottom and not in a headline. | ||
| But they said that Europe is being offered. | ||
| It was by the Biden regime, so it was towards the last couple of weeks of last year. | ||
| They said that European leaders had been offered, guaranteed, assured by the Biden administration that whatever, if they are expected to follow through with their own European provided security guarantees, America would refund them. | ||
| It's the only single reference I've seen in any of the international press. | ||
| It's an astonishing thing to say that is it. | ||
| So when Biden was going around saying, look, Europe is going to pull its fair weight and all this behind closed doors, it was always ever only going to be the American taxpayer. | ||
| As I said just before the break, I hope, I pray, as do you. | ||
| And we've been. | ||
| I've been consistent and coherent on this for three years. | ||
| I do hope and pray that Donald Trump makes it absolutely clear, sooner rather than later, because people are still dying there, that America is out. | ||
| And then President Zelensky knows what the boundaries are and he can go straight into negotiating on those terms. | ||
| The problem is the ambiguity. | ||
| Of the current situation is only dragging on further. | ||
| I close with this point, Steve, because you mentioned it in your question about General Kellogg's audit. | ||
| He did make that statement on US press just before the weekend. | ||
| I have seen very, very little about that, however, in the print press. | ||
| And I wonder why such a momentous and important thing has effectively got some kind of gag order on it. | ||
| Astonishing, because that will, I think, make a lot of people's minds up in one direction or the other. | ||
| The outcome of that audit. | ||
| No, you're right. | ||
| And the last thing the deep state wants is an audit of the money that went over there. | ||
| And then, actually, what Victoria Nuland and those people have been doing beforehand, before we start shipping the big dollars over. | ||
| Totally cropping. | ||
| It ties back to USAID. It ties back to the first Trump impeachment. | ||
| All of it. | ||
| Ben, what's your social media? | ||
| Great job. | ||
| See you tomorrow. | ||
| What's your social media? | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| Getter, my social media platform of choice. | ||
| Tap in my surname, at Harnwell there. | ||
| And I've got a post up on this morning anticipating very much the hit that I've done here on the show today. | ||
| So folks, if you want to get my analysis, getter at Harnwell. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| God bless. | ||
| Catch you tomorrow. | ||
| Thank you, sir. | ||
| Mike Davis is going to join us here momentarily. | ||
| I want to bring in Rachel Bovard. | ||
| Amazing piece over at Fox. | ||
| The website, an opinion piece about... | ||
| Well, Rachel, I'll let you explain. | ||
| You're one of the CPI folks. | ||
| You guys do amazing work over there. | ||
| A lot of people are saying, oh, well, President Trump had these guys, had the oligarchs, these oligarchs at the inauguration. | ||
| They're in charge. | ||
| They control. | ||
| But with the nominations and everything you're seeing, and you make an amazing, amazing point about this killer, Gail Slater. | ||
| Talk to me about it. | ||
| And talk to me about the overall President Trump's, at least the people he's putting in. | ||
| And David's going to join in a second, because Article 3 really started around this, taking on big tech. | ||
| Is President Trump signaling he's going to take on big tech, ma'am? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I think he is, and I think people had a fundamental misread of what it meant to have Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos and Sundar Pichai at his inauguration because everyone said, oh, they're in his fold now. | |
| He's going to go easy on them. | ||
| They've come around to his side. | ||
| No, the way I looked at that was Trump was doing what the Roman emperors used to do. | ||
| When they used to conquer these lands, they would bring the vanquished rulers back and parade them in front of the Roman citizens saying, look who's bent the knee. | ||
| That was my read on what Donald Trump was doing by having those execs at his inauguration and his nominations. | ||
| Signify that he intends to, I think, continue this no more excuses, crackdown on the people tyrannizing not only our free speech but our economy. | ||
| You have Pam Bondi, obviously, who I don't think is going to go easy on these tech companies, but Gail Slater, as you point out, the subject of my piece, has been nominated to be the AAG, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust. | ||
| And you couldn't find someone better, I think, philosophically, ideologically. | ||
| And she's just an absolute killer on these issues. | ||
| And I think that this signifies most of all that Donald Trump Gail isn't taking his foot off the gas. | ||
| He's laying it down even harder. | ||
| And Gail is going to be perfect at this job, not only because she has the skill set to do it, but she has the right mentality. | ||
| She's not what these sort of paid mouthpieces on the right are being paid to say, which is, oh, she's neo-Brandeisian. | ||
| She's just a continuation of the left's approach to antitrust. | ||
| No. | ||
| Gail is actually where Republicans should be when it comes to antitrust, which is that a vibrant and free functioning economy is not dominated solely by big players. | ||
| Big is not always bad, but when big is bottlenecking and throttling free speech and doing so at a scale we've never seen before, that does require a second look. | ||
| A free and competitive economy doesn't just happen. | ||
| It requires antitrust enforcement and I've argued in other places that antitrust enforcement is really the way to get at these speech concerns because speech is downstream of concentration. | ||
| So if you have responsible people enforcing the law in the marketplace, you're going to see speech flourish and I think that's exactly the approach. | ||
| Gail Slater will take not just to big tech, but to all the other areas of concentration in our economy where these companies have come in with their DEI agendas and dominated the marketplace and crushed conservatives and really people who disagree with them at all, conservative or not. | ||
| She's going to take an honest look at that, and it's refreshing, and I think Donald Trump is doing the right thing here. | ||
| The Senate should confirm her quickly. | ||
| Rachel, this is one of the reasons I wanted to have you on here. | ||
| You say it in such a clear way. | ||
| Dave is going to join us in a minute. | ||
| Mike's fantastic. | ||
| He's been fighting this fight for years. | ||
| I want to go to the... | ||
| Because I want the war room... | ||
| One of the things we do here for people is nomenclature and ideas. | ||
| And I'm going to hold you to the break. | ||
| Neil Brandeisian versus the Chicago School. | ||
| You and Gail and others, you're both anti-monopolists. | ||
| But there's two ways to go about this. | ||
| I'm a Neil Brandeisian. | ||
| I am. | ||
| I love Lena Khan. | ||
| I don't think she's getting enough support. | ||
| And I realize I'm outside the norm of the concerned movement. | ||
| Just give me a... | ||
| I tell you what. | ||
| This is so important. | ||
| I want to hold this. | ||
| Because I think this is going to be so important going forward. | ||
| These concentrations of power. | ||
| And what is the way to do it? | ||
| There are two different ways to kind of look at this thing broadly. | ||
| The bottom line is... | ||
| President Trump is putting all his chips in back of one that could be very powerful. | ||
| He is not going easy on the oligarchs at all. | ||
| And Rachel is absolutely 1,000% correct. | ||
| It was like the Roman emperor, the Roman general, tribune, coming back with chained in back of him, in back of his chariot, the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths. | ||
| And all the guys from the German border or from Gaul, that they were bringing back. | ||
| That's what Inauguration Day. | ||
| And he's proven that by Gail, Slater, and others. | ||
| This is deconstructing administrative states through the courts, through Gorsuch, through the administrative apparatus that should remain and must remain. | ||
| We're not going to anarchy and no government. | ||
| We're taking down the administrative state. | ||
| In the deep state. | ||
| Through the courts. | ||
| Through legislation. | ||
| Through all of it. | ||
| A multi-front attack. | ||
| And one through the regulatory apparatus. | ||
| A regulatory apparatus that one does need. | ||
| Short break. | ||
| Rachel Bovard on the other side with Mike Davis. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Band. | |
| Audience, I can't even tell you how big this is to have a group of people that I admire so much having a discussion. | ||
| This is how Trump's changed politics. | ||
| That we're talking about Chicago school, our neo-Brandecian, about the concentrations of power. | ||
| This is the new politics of America. | ||
| All the old, just throw out the old playbook. | ||
| That's over. | ||
| You see what Doge is doing. | ||
| You see what Russ Vot's doing. | ||
| You see what we're doing in Ukraine, in the Middle East, against the CCP. Look at this. | ||
| President Trump today. | ||
| U.S. Financial Times set for trade war as Beijing launched retaliatory tariffs. | ||
| At the same time, President Trump announced the 25%. | ||
| I think they'll sign that today. | ||
| Peter Navarro's been working on that. | ||
| CNBC says a major win for U.S. citizens of the United States, the tariffs on steel and aluminum. | ||
| Davis, before you were Mike Davis, before, and the worm had a small part of this, before you became the viceroy in a literally media, I wouldn't say whore, a media superstar. | ||
| You started laboring in the vineyards, because you were one of the early people with Rachel, that years ago, when the Republicans weren't there, you were sending up the flares. | ||
| We have a massive problem here, and we've got to get our hands around it, or we're going to stay a free republic. | ||
| Can you tell me about that, sir? | ||
| Yeah, the sister organization to the Article 3 project, which focuses on judges and the rule of law, is the Internet Accountability Project, which Rachel Bovard and I started five years ago. | ||
| And we were the first group on the right to take on... | ||
| The trillion-dollar big tech monopolist Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple on their antitrust amnesty that they got for decades from the George W. Bush Republicans to the Barack Obama Democrats. | ||
| And we took on big tech from the right on antitrust. | ||
| And we really changed the narrative. | ||
| We changed the party. | ||
| And we were laughed at for years. | ||
| And the big tech shills, the Google shills, ridiculed Rachel Bovard and me. | ||
| I don't care. | ||
| I'm used to getting ridiculed, so it doesn't bother me. | ||
| But, yeah, we got ridiculed for years. | ||
| years. | ||
| And they're not laughing anymore because you have bipartisan antitrust lawsuits by the Biden Justice Department teaming up with state Republican attorneys general to break up Google's online advertising monopoly, their lifeblood for all the woke censorship and canceling that their lifeblood for all the woke censorship and canceling that they do along with their search monopoly. | ||
| We have Gail Slater nominated to lead the antitrust division. | ||
| And Rachel Bovard and I are very close friends with Gail Slater. | ||
| I probably shouldn't say that. | ||
| I don't want to tank her confirmation. | ||
| But we also have Andrew Ferguson, my close friend at the FTC who became the chair. | ||
| Andrew Ferguson just announced A new chief technology officer, Jake Denton, who used to be at Heritage, who's now going to help Andrew Ferguson, the chair of the FTC, go after big tech, along with Lucas Croslow as the general counsel, who's one of my friends and former colleagues. | ||
| There's a whole list of people. | ||
| The Bureau of Competition, Daniel Guenara, is another friend who's over at the FTC. We are kind of like the dogs that caught the car, Rachel Bovard and I are. | ||
| So, again, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple are not laughing anymore. | ||
| And that million dollar, thanks for paying for the inauguration for a million bucks. | ||
| It was a fun party. | ||
| And now you're going to be on the receiving end of antitrust. | ||
| But this is amazing, the team. | ||
| And Rachel, you know, this is what I call when people ask. | ||
| This is applied populism. | ||
| What you're trying to do is get more introverted. | ||
| I mean... | ||
| When I gave that talk about the oligarchs and for the New York Times, there's no search engine competition for Google. | ||
| There's none for Facebook. | ||
| There's none for Amazon. | ||
| There's none really for Twitter. | ||
| You just go down. | ||
| They've been protected. | ||
| So, Rachel, how did you get started in this? | ||
| You seem like a very pleasant person. | ||
| How did you get hooked up with guys like Davis? | ||
| And what is this construct of either being neobrandecian or Chicago school, ma'am, or somewhere in between? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, I think what really launched the Internet Accountability Project, and I will say it was fascinating when we started this group, we were ridiculed throughout Washington, D.C., right? | |
| The town turned on us, especially on the right, but everywhere else around the country. | ||
| People started nodding their heads. | ||
| They said, oh yeah, these companies have way too much power. | ||
| Why has it taken somebody so long to recognize this and to say it? | ||
| So it made sense to everyone else. | ||
| DC is like the lagging indicator for everything in the country. | ||
| They're always 10 years behind. | ||
| And it was so true when it comes to this. | ||
| And I think that the right, after being captured by this sort of libertarian economic idea, was really ready to say, Maybe that theory worked 30 years ago in some respects, but the economy has changed. | ||
| The concentration within our economy has become untenable. | ||
| And it's not only squashing competition, it now has downstream effects all over the place. | ||
| Ideological weaponization only works when you have concentrated power at the top. | ||
| These companies are so large, they can effectively, they can debank you, they can cut you off from free society. | ||
| People were looking for answers as to why this happened. | ||
| And our answer was because of what Mike Davis calls the antitrust amnesty. | ||
| And essentially, it goes back to what you're talking about, this idea between a neo-Berrandeisian view of antitrust and a Chicago school of antitrust. | ||
| And to make it very simple, the Berrandeisians say, A company's grown very big. | ||
| It's probably because something has gone wrong and it's deserving of scrutiny. | ||
| The Chicago school says, oh, just because it's big, it isn't bad. | ||
| And we're going to present, you know, 10 economic models to suggest that this bigness is probably good for consumers, and so we'll just let it slide. | ||
| Both have value, but when the pendulum swings too far in one direction or the other, it's not a good thing. | ||
| Then it doesn't become sort of philosophical principles. | ||
| It becomes dogma. | ||
| And that's exactly what's happened in the Chicago School side of things. | ||
| You have literal examples of Facebook buying Instagram. | ||
| And in that acquisition, there's evidence of anti-competitive intent, which is against the law, right? | ||
| Because antitrust is a criminal statute. | ||
| It is against the law. | ||
| And you have proponents of the Chicago School on the other side of that saying, well... | ||
| We don't think it's going to be bad because this economist over here says that maybe in 10 years X, Y, and Z might happen. | ||
| It's literal speculation. | ||
| It's forecasting. | ||
| It's, you know, tarot card reading in some respects. | ||
| And the right has put all of their faith in these economists, and these economists have been wrong. | ||
| Flat out wrong. | ||
| And the result has been these massive companies who now use their market power to tyrannize anyone who disagrees with them on speech, on... | ||
| And so what we've been saying for the last five years is the right needs to reapply antitrust the way it was intended, which is law enforcement for the market, a clear-eyed view of behavior that's actually happening. | ||
| We can talk about economics of antitrust, but we don't rely solely on it. | ||
| And this is the philosophy that Gail Slater has that I think is going to be incredibly beneficial to the Trump agenda, but also just restoring freedom to the I'm really looking forward to Gail being able to get in there and continue the lawsuits against Google and others that have been so effectively litigated. | ||
| We're in the remedies phase of the Google trial. | ||
| And also just take a look at the rest of the economy and say, you know, this isn't working the way it's supposed to be. | ||
| We're going to use our enforcement powers properly. | ||
| Tell us about Gail, the person and the professional, because now she's coming out, being thrust out onto the national stage. | ||
| Tell us about her. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, Gail, as Mike said, is a personal friend to both of us. | |
| She's not only been a personal friend to me, she's been a professional mentor. | ||
| But I will say this about her. | ||
| She is one of the shrewdest operators I've seen in Washington. | ||
| She is very skilled, not only at her... | ||
| Trade, right, which is the antitrust agenda, but also just in operating the politics of the issue on both sides. | ||
| And I think she is going to have bipartisan support in the Senate because of that. | ||
| And I think she's going to very effectively work the Department of Justice toward the Trump agenda. | ||
| I can't say enough good things about her. | ||
| She's not only ideologically consistent, she's one of the sharpest antitrust practitioners in the town, and she knows how to make it work for her benefit. | ||
| So I'm excited to see the Senate confirm her, and I am committing now that she's going to have bipartisan support. | ||
| RACHEL RASMUSSEN: Rachel, how do people track you, website and social media? | ||
| Where do people go? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You can find me on X at Rachel Bovard, and I also write in The Federalist and a number of other places. | |
| Fantastic. | ||
| And a great piece on Fox. | ||
| We'll make sure Grace Chung and Mo push it out to everybody. | ||
| So thank you so much for being on here. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thanks, Steve. | |
| So Mike Davis, why is this so important? | ||
| And why did you get your start? | ||
| On this internet, you've been taking on these with Rachel for a long time, and you're right. | ||
| I tell people this is what it is, like they used to laugh at us when we first started talking about populism. | ||
| The more they laugh at you in D.C., the more you should understand you're onto something, right? | ||
| And don't worry about the long odds at the beginning. | ||
| The odds will change if you do your job. | ||
| Tell us about it. | ||
| Why is this so important? | ||
| Why is this central to the Trump agenda? | ||
| Why is this central to populism? | ||
| And why is this central to restoring, really, a constitutional republic, sir? | ||
| Well, you know, when you grow up as a ginger with red hair, you're used to getting punched in the face. | ||
| And so you don't really give a damn if people punch you in the face. | ||
| I actually kind of like it, right? | ||
| So when I'm getting punched in the face, I know I'm over the target. | ||
| And that's what Rachel Bovard and I did when we started the Internet Accountability Project, the sister organization to Article 3 Project five years ago. | ||
| And man, Rachel Bovard used to go out there and do media hits. | ||
| And she would get trashed by these Google shills constantly. | ||
| And so would I. I didn't care. | ||
| It really toughened Rachel up. | ||
| She's always been tough, but she's extremely tough now. | ||
| And she's extremely smart and extremely effective. | ||
| And we got to know Gail Slater during this timeframe when she was kind of, well, all outer. | ||
| She was very much providing the intellectual framework. | ||
| For the Internet Accountability Project, and she's been a very close friend and advisor on all of these issues to both Rachel Bovard and me and to our team. | ||
| Gail Slater worked for the Internet Association many years ago, and the Internet Association forced her to go testify before Congress and defend the indefensible, defend Google and Facebook and all these big tech platforms making money off of Child pornography online. | ||
| It was just sick stuff. | ||
| And I think that she just, you know, after she went through that experience, I think that she had an awakening. | ||
| And I think Gail thought that these big tech platforms are too powerful. | ||
| They're too big. | ||
| They're too powerful. | ||
| And they're using that power for bad things, right? | ||
| And so she joined the Trump 47 White House, the economic policy team, and now she's working for J.D. Vance in the Senate. | ||
| Okay, hang on for one second. | ||
| Hang on one second. | ||
| Short break. | ||
| The war against the administrative state in the federal courts and also confirmation. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. | |
| CPAC.org slash war room or Bannon. | ||
| I think it's war room. | ||
| The ticket's 76 bucks. | ||
| We're going to have a couple of parties. | ||
| You're going to get subject to space. | ||
| You're going to get invited to those. | ||
| A brunch. | ||
| You're going to get invited to that space. | ||
| May throw in another party. | ||
| So we're going to have a party Thursday night. | ||
| Brunch Sunday. | ||
| Working on a Saturday night party if we can do it. | ||
| But we're going to have Force Multiplier Academy on the Wednesday. | ||
| All day. | ||
| You've got to have a ticket. | ||
| If you've got a ticket, you're there. | ||
| So make sure that... | ||
| Make sure you get a ticket. | ||
| Come. | ||
| You're not going to miss this. | ||
| It's going to be incredible. | ||
| CPAC. Go check it out today. | ||
| Grace and Moe, if you can drive folks there and make sure they get all the information. | ||
| So two things. | ||
| I'm President Trump and the Doge and Scott Besson and Stephen Miller and Russ Vogt. | ||
| All of it. | ||
| This is boom. | ||
| It's like a gang tackle. | ||
| And the Doge guys are kind of everywhere now going through this thing. | ||
| We've got to get the cuts in. | ||
| As we've talked about before, we've got to get the cuts in. | ||
| So that'll come. | ||
| Mike, but I want to take two things. | ||
| Number one, we have two things. | ||
| This is going to be confirmation-centric this week. | ||
| We've got Tulsi and we've got Bobby Kennedy up for their overall votes. | ||
| And then Cash. | ||
| And all they're doing is leaking information on Cash every day to try to chop block him. | ||
| They have the committee, I guess, thing on Thursday. | ||
| And then they're trying to push Cash's hearing because he's not a cabinet official to the end of the month, but we'll talk about that. | ||
| But let's go back to the federal courts. | ||
| Clearly the political process, the Democrats have, and they don't even have spokesmen that can come on and articulate a counter to this because people want it. | ||
| The media is at least shattered. | ||
| They do still have a controlled place like New York City by the throat, but they're kind of shattered nationally. | ||
| So they've gone to the courts. | ||
| And they're filing suits every second. | ||
| People got to understand. | ||
| Individuals, unions, all of it are filing. | ||
| I mean, the courts are being inundated with suits. | ||
| And what they're trying to do is buy time. | ||
| Mike Davis, give me your assessment right now of President Trump's war against the administrative state in the deep state, regardless of whether that approach is Elon Musk and the Doge guys or it's Russ. | ||
| Russ essentially disbanded. | ||
| He said no more capital coming to CFPB. No more people need to show up to work. | ||
| And they announced, I think he's shutting it down. | ||
| They're shutting it down USAID. And the Republicans on the Hill are going along with it, agreeing to it, so it needs to be done. | ||
| I think it shows you everything that this was not looked at. | ||
| We didn't do due diligence when the Republicans were in charge, which is a question maybe we put in for another day. | ||
| But where do you think we stand? | ||
| And now they're doing – it's lawfare 2.0, sir. | ||
| So where do we stand? | ||
| President Trump campaigned on the fact that he was going to set up Doge with Elon Musk and he was going to make dramatic reforms to the executive branch to cut. | ||
| Waste, fraud, and abuse. | ||
| And the American people like what they heard, and they gave the president a very broad electoral mandate on November 5th. | ||
| 312 electoral votes, all seven swing states, and President Trump is implementing what the American voters elected him to do. | ||
| He's actually doing what he campaigned on, which is unheard of in Washington, D.C. These uniparty federal judges, these activist judges who are unlawfully, unconstitutionally, dangerously trying to curtail the president's Article II powers. | ||
| For example, we have a judge telling the president and his treasury secretary that they can't look at- That is certainly not constitutional for a judge to rule that. | ||
| The president has the executive power. | ||
| He is the chief executive officer of the executive branch. | ||
| He has a constitutional duty to take care that our laws are faithfully executed. | ||
| And this judge... | ||
| Thinks he can tell the president and his secretary of treasury, you can't look at what the federal government is spending money on? | ||
| Is this judge completely out of his mind? | ||
| Yes, he is. | ||
| You have judges telling the president that, for example, he can't recall foreign service officers serving overseas at USAID. He can't recall them within 30 days like the president. | ||
| This judge says, oh, wait, we have to wait like six months or nine months to do this because it's going to cause too much disruption for these overseas USAID employees. | ||
| And this was a Republican-appointed judge. | ||
| This was a Trump judge. | ||
| And D.C., it just shows you that these uniparty judges have lost their mind. | ||
| This judge, Carl Nichols, actually thinks. | ||
| That the President of the United States, the Commander-in-Chief, cannot bring government employees home within 30 months? | ||
| Has he lost his mind? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| By the way, Carl Nichols, that rings a bell. | ||
| I think that's the judge. | ||
| If memory serves me correctly, that's a judge that sent me to federal prison for four months on a misdemeanor. | ||
| The first time in the history of the president of the federal prison system. | ||
| He got one thing right. | ||
| That was good. | ||
| At least he got that right. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| Like, where the hell do we get these judges? | ||
| You put these Republican judges, these Trump judges on the D.C. District Court, and they're part of the Uniparty. | ||
| I mean, Carl Nichols is not as bad as the rest. | ||
| Trevor McFadden's actually pretty good. | ||
| But this is an indefensible ruling by Carl Nichols. | ||
| And, you know, I have some intel that maybe, I'm not going to say right now on this show, but I have some intel that maybe explains his totally irrational rule. | ||
| Okay, maybe we'll get to that later. | ||
| Overall, in your assessment right now as one of the field commanders here, the vice-roy, the Democrats always run to the federal courts. | ||
| How serious is this going to be in slowing down President Trump? | ||
| Just the reality of it. | ||
| For Pam to get up to speed. | ||
| And do you think some sort of special counsel needs to be... | ||
| Pam's got such a big job. | ||
| Right now at DOJ, does President Trump need to assign somebody else to counter this? | ||
| Because it's overwhelming. | ||
| I'm sure the White House counsel, etc., the White House staff is trying to, you know, they're trying to move this entire agenda forward with all these different forces. | ||
| Do we need somebody to step in? | ||
| Not like a Mike Davis. | ||
| I know you can't do it. | ||
| But should he appoint somebody? | ||
| Because they're filing nonstop in federal courts even as we speak, sir. | ||
| No, I mean, Pam Bondi is ready to go. | ||
| She is ready to go on day one. | ||
| She was the attorney general of Florida for eight years. | ||
| She is very bold. | ||
| She's very fearless. | ||
| She has a great team. | ||
| She has Emil Bove right now, one of President Trump's former defense lawyers, as the acting deputy attorney general. | ||
| And that guy is a savage, and he is on top of this stuff immediately. | ||
| The president has a good... | ||
| Acting Solicitor General, he has a good acting head of the Civil Division. | ||
| The Senate needs to move forward and get President Trump's nominees approved as quickly as possible, but President Trump has a very good team with Pam Bondi and the rest of them. | ||
| This is why I want to segue to the confirmations because that's all dependent upon getting the second and third tier done, but we've got to get the first tier. | ||
| This is kind of your bailiwick now. | ||
| The confirmations, we've got... | ||
| Tulsi this week of the controversial ones. | ||
| Bobby Kennedy, then he got the committee vote on cash. | ||
| What's your guidance to the Warren Posse? | ||
| We know that we can bring the political muscle. | ||
| What are our marching orders this week, sir? | ||
| Well, we go to article3project.org, article3project.org, and take action. | ||
| And on these action items that we have there, we have Tulsi, we have RFK Jr., And we have Kash Patel. | ||
| And those are going to be the three biggest fights that the Democrats put up. | ||
| Remember, the Democrats tried to do everything they could to stop. | ||
| Pete Hegsath, they tried to do everything that they could to stop Russ Vogt. | ||
| We got them confirmed. | ||
| And it was because the War Room posse went to the Article III Project website, took action, called both of their home state senators, sent them emails, and lit them up on social media. | ||
| And I'll tell you, as a former Senate staffer who ran these confirmations, this is the most effective thing you can do to get these Trump. | ||
| We have 53 Senate Republicans. | ||
| Our job with the Article III project and the War Room Posse is to help these 53 Republicans find and keep their backbones. | ||
| We don't need any Democrats to get President Trump's nominees confirmed. | ||
| We just need Republicans to stay focused and remember that the president gets to pick his team. | ||
| The president doesn't pick Senate staffers and the Senate shouldn't pick the president's cabinet team so long as they are qualified, right? | ||
| And all of these picks are certainly qualified. | ||
| If someone says they're disqualified because of personal misconduct, it is the burden of the person claiming that to come forward with very clear and convincing evidence, including public testimony. | ||
| It's put up or shut up. | ||
| We're not doing the Me Too presumption of guilt. | ||
| We're not doing the Christine Blasey Ford nut job, anonymous allegations, and the political drive-by shootings that we've seen in the past. | ||
| We have President Trump and his team. | ||
| They know that they made mistakes on personnel in the first term. | ||
| They're not making those mistakes this time. | ||
| President Trump knows what he's doing on day one, and he's not playing games. | ||
| He is going to fight for the American people every day, and he's going to implement the campaign agenda he campaigned on. | ||
| The second and third tier to protect Doge, Elon Musk, Scott Besant, Stephen Miller, Russ Vogt. | ||
| We have to have the second tier and third tier of these amazing picks by President Trump in justice. | ||
| What do you forecast for that? | ||
| Is the judiciary all over this, sir? | ||
| Yeah, we have the nomination hearing for Todd Blanche, who's President Trump's nominee to serve as the number two in the Justice Department, the Deputy Attorney General, along with Gail Slater, who Rachel Bovard and I have been talking about for the Antitrust Division. | ||
| Todd and Gail's hearing is this Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it generally takes four weeks after the hearing for these nominees to get voted to the floor from the committee and then confirmed by the Senate. | ||
| It might take a few days after that. | ||
| They're going to prioritize Todd's nomination because he's the deputy attorney general, the number two. | ||
| But we are going to be fighting this every step of the way through the Article 3 project. | ||
| We'll come on here and give constant updates to the War Room Posse and get them engaged. | ||
| It's the critical piece on all this is the War Room Posse engaging with phone calls and emails and social media. | ||
| That is what is making these confirmations happen. | ||
| There is no chance in hell Pete Hegseth would have been confirmed but for the Article 3 projects and the War Room Posse. | ||
| Mike, what's also your social media? | ||
| Where do they go to get all your stuff on Twitter? | ||
| Go to article3project.org, article3project.org. | ||
| You can find us there, social media. | ||
| You can donate on there. | ||
| The most important thing you can do, again, is take action. | ||
| Tulsi, RFK, cash. | ||
| That's our focus. | ||
| Yep, this week. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Mike Davis, thank you. | ||
| And thank you for all the work on the Internet Accountability Project. | ||
| See, I keep telling you, you work on these things, it takes a while, but years later, look, it's come to fruition with these major hammers now going into the Trump 47 administration. | ||
| Mike Davis, thank you. | ||
| It's the Mike Davises and the Rachel Bovards that make a difference. | ||
| That's why you have, you know, you have, we have Grace and Mo and Natalie and... | ||
| And Jane Zirkle and many others, right? | ||
| It contributes, but behind the scenes, we've already, a couple of our folks have already gone over to the administration, others are going, but these people, you work for years and then all of a sudden it comes. | ||
| I told you that it was like, when he had the big tech guys there, it was like the Battleship Missouri in Tokyo Harbor in 1945. He was MacArthur and they were there to surrender. | ||
| The Congressional Budget Office put out their projections, 10-year projections on, I think it was Friday, went through it over the weekend. | ||
| 52 trillion in debt, the United States government, $2 trillion per year for the next 10 years in perpetuity, essentially, unless we stop federal spending. | ||
| Out of control. | ||
| Debt spinning out of control next in the world. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Van. | |
| In the land of the blind, The one-eyed man is king. | ||
| Okay, we've been given the one-eye, stink-eye, on this process of spending in the budget. | ||
| And the Hill newspaper, on their Sunday morning, which is always big because they're getting ready for the talk shows in the morning, they drop major articles. | ||
| The article, and everybody should read it, in the Hill, absolutely what we've been saying. | ||
| Forget the reconciliation, all these people running around. | ||
| Even the Doge situation, which is very important, but there is a statutory process about spending. | ||
| And taxing in the United States. | ||
| The appropriations process. | ||
| The budget process. | ||
| This is why Johnson, once again, has no top-line number in the budget. | ||
| This. | ||
| The CR was kicked down to March 14th. | ||
| The clock's ticking at midnight, baby. | ||
| Over. | ||
| Government's out of money. | ||
| President Trump's government's out of money. | ||
| Think about that for a second. | ||
| Right now, they're talking about in Gale and Collins of Maine. | ||
| Senator Collins is running up the flagpole. | ||
| The one-year CR. A CR they're taking from March 14th all the way, all the way. | ||
| To September 30th, the end of the fiscal year. | ||
| It would be Joe Biden's budget, really Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden's numbers, a $2 trillion deficit. | ||
| CBO tells me that already. | ||
| In fact, they're at $1.9 million. | ||
| Warren's at $2 or farther north. | ||
| And with no doge cuts in it. | ||
| That's not acceptable. | ||
| The doge guys can round up right now. | ||
| I think, I don't know, they can give us $500 billion in cuts halfway to Elon's trillion dollars per year. | ||
| I want the trillion, but I understand in this measure, in this timing, they may not be able to do it. | ||
| Just round up. | ||
| USAID, the consumer, what they found in the Pentagon, you got to get some of the Pentagon, have to do it, but just give us a round number and let's get on with it. | ||
| President Trump essentially, I think, is being hoodwinked. | ||
| And somebody's got to sit there and say, look, here it is. | ||
| Because that's reality. | ||
| Reconciliation are side pockets. | ||
| Unless they somehow can flip that into it, I'm all good. | ||
| Lower spending. | ||
| That's going to be the first. | ||
| The debt spending out of control. | ||
| Congressional Budget Office, I don't always agree with their numbers, but mathematically here, it's directionally correct. | ||
| It's two trillion per year in perpetuity, in perpetuity, in perpetuity. | ||
| The growth is under 2%. | ||
| It's like 1.8% growth in perpetuity. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Because of the federal spending. | ||
| It's 52 trillion in 10 years. | ||
| You are done. | ||
| This republic is done. | ||
| Your kids are done. | ||
| Your grandkids are done. | ||
| We have a crisis and nobody wants to face it. | ||
| Judy and Barbary, the same. | ||
| Plotinus, the Greek. | ||
| I think Plotinus was Greek. | ||
| As above, so below. | ||
| As above, so below. | ||
| We have the same problem personally with debt. | ||
| It's spinning out of control. | ||
| Done with debt, you've been an amazing spokesman. | ||
| How can people, since we're here fighting with the people as populists to stop the madness as above, you guys are there as below. | ||
| Tell me exactly what you guys can do to help our audience make sure they're not swamped by debt, ma'am. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you so much, Steve. | |
| Put those numbers in context. | ||
| It's so frightening, right, when you think about our kids, our grandkids. | ||
| Debt is not just a big government thing. | ||
| It's a personal thing. | ||
| It's obviously financial, but it's emotional when it's at your dinner table, when you're talking about your kids or your kids are telling you about their day. | ||
| And you're thinking about the bills. | ||
| You're not present. | ||
| That's happened to me. | ||
| And that's why I love sharing my story. | ||
| I always say I have no shame in my game because I am a human being. | ||
| I'm American. | ||
| I've had confrontations with death, with breast cancer, double mastectomy, chemo, the whole thing, being a single mother, divorce, job loss. | ||
| And I happened to have had it all at once. | ||
| And so the end game of all of that was just an absolute mind twist. | ||
| I went into depths of despair. | ||
| I was completely out of my mind. | ||
| And had I known about Done With Debt earlier, I think I would have had less anxiety. | ||
| My anxiety was through the roof for a very, very long time. | ||
| My mental health took a massive crash because of it. | ||
| So what Done With Debt did for me, they sort of... | ||
| It's like doge. | ||
| They have a dedicated team that goes in for you and essentially put your life back together financially. | ||
| So they will stand in front of those nasty calls. | ||
| And if you've ever been in that position, you know what I'm talking about. | ||
| It always seems to happen at dinner. | ||
| Ring-a-ding and the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. | ||
| You start freaking out. | ||
| The letters that come, they always look very official and you start to freak out. | ||
| What done with that will do for you is they put this team together, essentially your own team. | ||
| They can help cut interest rates, penalties. | ||
| They can renegotiate fees, balances, things that you don't even know about as an average consumer in the United States. | ||
| They can actually put an end to your debt, get you on the path to... | ||
| I like to say recovery, financial freedom. | ||
| And at the end of the day, sometimes put money in your pocket. | ||
| Some clients walk away with money in their pocket, which is incredible. | ||
| And what you can do is start by picking up the phone or getting on the website done with debt because time is not on your side. | ||
| You always say it, Steve. | ||
| What site, where do they go right now? | ||
| What's the phone number and where do they go on the website? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Donewithdebt.com. | ||
| That's the easiest place to go. | ||
| You'll get a free consultation call, and you'll see how simple it can be. | ||
| Don't live in that stressed environment I lived in for so long before I knew about them. | ||
| They put you back on track. | ||
| Yeah, they're amazing. | ||
| Donewithdebt.com. | ||
| Thank you, ma'am. | ||
| Look forward to having you back on. | ||
| Thank you, ma'am. | ||
| Julian Barberi. | ||
| Mike Lindare, you're coming to CPAC. And I got to hear about the special deals. | ||
| You got 90 seconds, sir. | ||
| Hit me with both. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| All right, everybody. | ||
| CPAC is awesome. | ||
| I'm going to be there on the main stage again. | ||
| You guys, it's so important because they were there when our voice went down to nothing. | ||
| They gave us a platform for our voices. | ||
| That's why CPAC is so important. | ||
| It's expansion of our voice. | ||
| That's what it's all been about so we can spread. | ||
| The truth, and so we can spread things that are going bad or good, so we can make decisions. | ||
| And that's what it's been all about, Steve. | ||
| That's what they tried the last four years, to suppress us. | ||
| And your show has been absolutely great leading the way. | ||
| I'm going to be talking about Lindell TV over there. | ||
| We have a booth, and I'm going to be there speaking the whole time. | ||
| We have, for the Warwick Posse, 998. We still have some left. | ||
| We're almost out of the one we're holding the flag. | ||
| 998. Okay. | ||
| Brother, we'll have you back on today. | ||
| MyPillow.com, promo code War Room. | ||
| Sales everywhere. | ||
| Go there. | ||
| Charlie Kirk is next. | ||
| Poso the Great is at 2 o'clock. | ||
| The engine room is only the engine room of the war room can tell you. | ||
| One of the engine room, Plotinus is Italian. | ||
| And Neoplatonus, one of our posse members, actually studied it. |
Export Selection