Europe Forces Trump Retreat From Greenland Land Grab!
Trump has apparently backed off from his threats to seize Greenland and impose tariffs on Europe after NATO leaders paused an EU-U.S. trade deal and pushed for negotiations. Jimmy argues the retreat is likely temporary, suggesting Trump still seeks long-term access to Arctic security arrangements, military bases, and Greenland's mineral resources. He and Americans' Comedian Kurt Metzger frame the episode as evidence that NATO and donor interests—especially the military-industrial complex—shape U.S. policy more than public promises. The discussion also criticizes NATO's role in global conflicts and suggests that a true break with NATO would be politically unlikely despite Trump's rhetoric. Plus segments on Candace Owens' number one unanswered question for Erika Kirk, Thomas Massie insisting the Epstein files will see the light of day, the catastrophe awaiting the U.S. economy over the national debt and Pam Bondi bragging about prosecuting Americans for speaking out against Israel. Also featuring Stef Zamorano!
Hey, come see me live on tour, February 20th at Lansing, Michigan, February 21st in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Go to jimmydore.com for a link for tickets.
So they're having the big Davos meeting.
Trump is there to speak also.
And so Mr. Cool Guy, who's married to a dude, nope, nothing wrong with that.
Nice glasses.
His lady's got a that's all.
Well, I'll tell you: verification.
She said French feminists are stupid bitches in a recording.
And when somebody played the recording, she said, Hey, I said what I said.
So that's the whole thing we call big dick energy around these parts.
So he was saying stuff.
He said European leaders have lined up to condemn Donald Trump's new colonialism and more.
So when he's because he's going to take over Greenland.
So they are pushing back.
All the NATO countries in Europe, they're pushing back against Trump taking over Greenland, right?
And they're saying this is what.
And Trump threatened to.
So that's what that is.
And they watched and assisted the U.S. in setting precedents that shredded international law to pieces.
And now they want to piece it back together for their own use.
So what's actually happened is the UK Parliament, I'm sorry, UK, the European Union Parliament, the EU has suspended approval of the U.S. EU trade deal because Trump threatened 10 to 25% tariffs on Europe and revived his push to take Greenland.
EU lawmakers said Trump's Davos remarks violated the PAC's terms.
So here's Israel okay or not.
It is essential, friends.
History teaches us a simple truth.
Appeasement does not bring peace.
It invites more aggression.
So they're saying, don't appease Donald Trump.
What he's doing in Greenland.
By the way, they're all okay with what he's doing in the West Bank, what he's doing in Gaza, what he's doing in Iran, what he did in Venezuela, what he's doing in Ukraine.
They're all okay with all of that.
Appeasement works great on Israel.
It's why everything's so peaceful.
That's right.
But now they want to push back against Donald Trump.
They don't want to appease him.
And this would only embolden Trump and invite further, increasingly reckless demands.
So, like my colleagues, I am demanding a robust response from you, Commissioner Kallas, and also the leadership within our union.
We should not be afraid to hit Donald Trump who is hurt.
He exploits hesitation and despises weakness.
We need to hit him with her.
Thank you.
So that was that.
They suspended approval of their trade deal after Trump's threatening to ramp up their tariffs.
And now, guess what?
Trump just backed down.
Trump backs down on Greenland.
We're not getting Greenland.
Trump smacks down on Greenland and then cancels the tariff threat after NATO agrees to future Arctic deal.
So it sounds like Trump actually got something.
It sounds like his bluster and threats got him on a future Arctic deal.
So let's see.
Let's see.
President Trump on Wednesday scrapped the tariffs that he threatened to impose on eight European nations to press for U.S. control over Greenland, pulling a dramatic reversal shortly after insisting he wanted to get the island, including right title and ownership.
In a post on his social media site, Trump said he had agreed with the head of NATO on a framework of a future deal on Arctic security, potentially diffusing tension that had far-reaching geopolitical implications.
He said additional discussions on Greenland were being held concerning the Golden Dome Missile Defense Program, a multi-layer, $175 billion system.
Believe me, it's going to be 10 times that.
Oh, that's a bargain, $175 billion.
$175 billion.
I'd say, let's go.
It is not going to be.
It's not the first time the U.S. put weapons in space.
And he says it's going to be the first time the U.S. puts weapons in space, except for those energy weapons.
Anyway, Trump offered few details, saying they were still being worked out.
But one idea NATO members have discussed as part of a comp bromise with, I like to call it a comp bromise.
A comp bromise with Trump was that Denmark and the alliance would work with the U.S. to build more U.S. military bases on Greenland.
Trump wants their natural minerals.
That's what you know who wants it?
Trump's donors.
His Zionist donors want it.
That's why Trump's got this great push for Greenland.
We must have it.
That's according to a European official familiar with the matter, but not authorized to comment publicly.
The official who spoke on condition of anonymity said it was not immediately clear if that idea was included in the framework Trump announced.
So it seems like temporarily Trump has backed down on this Greenland land grab, Greenland land grab, Greenland land grab.
Sounds funny to say it like that.
But it sounds like he's going to get something he wants anyway.
So it sounds like it's so the European trade dealer's back on, the tariffs are back off, and everybody's happy and friends again.
So apparently the Greenland land grab is over.
I don't think it is.
I don't think it is.
Yeah, I feel like this isn't done.
I don't get disappointed.
I want him to destroy NATO.
That's what I feel.
Because that's what this was going to do.
Trump would have been his greatest achievement had he destroyed NATO because this would have destroyed NATO.
So if he went and took over Greenland and Canada and all the NATO, there's a thing called Article 5 in the NATO clause that says if anybody attacks a NATO country, it's as if they attack you, if you're part of the NATO.
So that would be like Trump attacking the NATO because Denmark owns Greenland.
They're a part of the NATO.
And Canada already said they would honor Article 5, meaning they would see it as an attack on them.
So this would have wrecked NATO.
And it's a bummer that, and for that reason alone, it's a bummer Trump's not doing it.
I really don't care.
How many people live in Greenland?
Five people?
It's already a colony of Denmark, and that's it with the colours.
Yeah, they're a colony of Denmark.
What's the population of Greenland?
56,000 people live in Greenland.
More people live on my block.
There's only 56,000 people.
56,000 people live in Greenland.
Are you kidding?
That's just like a town.
That's not even a congressional district in the United States.
750,000 people, I think, are in every congressional district.
So mostly minerals live there, not even.
And so if taking over Greenland and taking away their sovereignty over their own country, which they don't have, it actually is Denmark.
If that split up NATO, I'd say I'd be willing to pay that price.
Yeah.
I'd be willing to pay that price.
Yeah.
Because that could be the way out of Russia, you know?
That's right.
Out of Ukraine.
Don't worry about Russia.
They're going to fight a war on two fronts against Putin and the United States.
But NATO, but here's why Trump will stay in NATO because if you're part of NATO, you have to spend a certain amount of your GDP on weapons.
And who makes the weapons?
The Trump's donors, the military-industrial complex in the United States.
So that's why there was such a push to expand NATO and get all these countries in it, because the donor class was pushing them to push for expansion of NATO because the donor class is the military-industrial complex, and they get to make all the weapons because when you join, so that's why Trump won't actually pull us out because he's a cuck to the donors, just like all politicians.
He's a cuck to except for Thomas Massey, I guess.
So that's what so that, so I don't know.
I actually take this as a negative.
I was hoping Trump would go ahead.
But because I'd like to see NATO destroyed.
It's such a ridiculous thing that, like, I mean, just the wreckage of it alone on the list.
And it'd be the kind of wreckage that hurts the top for a change.
Yes.
You know what I mean?
Yes.
Anxiety On The Tarmac00:09:52
Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member.
We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week, and it's a great way to help support the show.
You can do it by going to jimmydork.com, clicking on join premium.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business, and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member.
And if you haven't, you're missing out.
We give you lots of bonus content.
Thanks for your support.
What is Candace Owens' number one question if she could have it answered about the mysteries surrounding Charlie Kirk's assassination?
There's so many things.
And as I've told you before, and I'll tell you again, that no matter what part of the Charlie Kirk story or assassination you put your train your fix your gaze on, gaze with a Z, you put your gaze Z on.
It's a million inconsistencies, a million things that don't make sense, out and out lies, and red flags everywhere, everywhere, even worse than JFK's assassination.
So Candace Owens was asked, what is the number one thing if she could have this question answered about it, what would it be?
listen to this, hold on to your, because I didn't even know.
Well, first of all, this is the first time she's sharing this.
So here it is.
Number one thing that I think about, this is actually number one.
Andrew Colvett, he painted a vivid picture for me in that immediate 48 hours.
So if you don't know who Andrew Colvett is, Andrew Colvett is the guy who's now hosting Charlie's show.
What was his official job at TPUSA?
Was he the PR guy?
Was he the head of some of the shell companies?
Find out what was his, but whenever we look at the people trying to debunk Candace Owens, Andrew Colvert's one of the guys, and he's always behind a microphone at Charlie's show now.
Found out that Charlie's not there to host it.
So that's what she's talking about.
Andrew Colvet, this guy, one of the top guys at TPUSA is Andrew Colvett.
And listen to this story that he told Candace immediately after the assassination.
He's the executive producer of the Charlie Kirk show.
Yeah.
That's one of his jobs.
Okay.
So watch this.
Number one thing that I think about.
This is actually number one.
Andrew Colvet, he painted a vivid picture for me in that immediate 48 hours.
We were on the phone.
And he told me about how when he flew, while he was on the plane flying, he had so much anxiety and it was pent up because like, you know, everyone was messaging him while he's on the plane.
And, you know, he doesn't know whether or not, you know, Charlie was okay or whatever.
And then he said that anxiety, he said, as soon as the plane landed, I deep got off of the plane and ran into Erica's arms on the tarmac and boohoo cried.
He said, like, basically, like, you know, like fell into her arms and cried because he was had so much anxiety.
Their planes landed an hour apart.
No, what?
So I just thought it was interesting that she waited to go to the hospital because I, I, I mean, I would, I'm, who could say I actually think we can say what we would do.
We'd probably go back to the hospital.
And, you know, she did tell me that she found out Charlie was dead before they took off in Arizona.
And I think about that a lot.
Like, why wait an hour on the tarmac?
And so just so you know, Andrew Colvet, I looked it up according to Grock.
He frequently appears in media interviews as TPUSA spokesperson, commenting on the organization's positions, events, and controversies.
Official two TPUSA press releases and statements list him as the contact or issuer and the title of TPUSA spokesman.
So his bio and public profiles note him as TPUSA spokesman alongside his production role for the Charlie Kirk show.
So he has, we wear several hats over at TPUSA.
So that's what that.
And so he tells one story and it doesn't make and Erica Kirk tells this other story, but they don't make sense because who would wait?
So I, so by the way, I guess they're all flying private planes, right?
Because she's waiting at the tarmac.
You don't get to wait on the tarmac for an hour on the tarmac if you're flying commercial.
So that must have been their private plane.
So Andrew Colt.
So that's how much money they got over at that turning point USA.
They're all flying around in private planes and stuff.
Isn't that nice?
Boy, that's pretty sweet.
I've never flown on a private jet.
I would like to.
I was offered, I was offered once.
I turned it down, bought my own ticket, coach.
But now I wish I would have taken it.
But anyway, this story is kind of nuts, right?
Here we go.
And then despite waiting for him to land, they then went into different entries into the hospital.
Erica went through the back and Andrew went through the front.
So she waits for his plane to land for over an hour so she could say hi to Andrew Colvert before she goes to the hospital where her husband who was shot is at.
What?
And then when they get to the airport, they go in different entrances.
I mean, when they get to the hospital, they go in different entrances.
She goes in the back.
He goes in the front.
What the effing, F?
So there's a lot there that doesn't make sense to me.
But the hour waiting on the tarmac bothers me because you are with other people.
You should get to the hospital as fast as possible.
And why are we waiting for Andrew Colvet?
I really got to sit with that.
That's such a sitting with it for three months, and this does feel like therapy that I finally got this off.
I mean, that sounds four months.
I need to go back and pull those plane records.
He landed.
So, why?
So, he says he collapsed into Erica's arms and because of all the anxiety and everything.
But he wasn't alone.
His wife was with him on the plane.
Which is all good.
These are all just interesting facts that don't make as much sense as they should.
They're peculiar.
So, let me number one thing that I think about.
This is actually number one.
Andrew Colvett, he painted a vivid picture for me in that immediate 48 hours.
We were on the phone.
And he told me about how when he flew, well, he was on the plane flying.
He had so much anxiety and it was pent up because everyone was messaging him while he's on the plane.
And, you know, he doesn't know whether or not Charlie was okay or whatever.
And then he said, that anxiety, he said, as soon as the plane landed, I got off of the plane and ran into Erica's arms on the tarmac and boohoo cried.
He said, like, basically, like, you know, like fell into her arms and cried because he was had so much anxiety.
Their planes landed an hour apart.
So I just thought it was interesting that she waited to go to the hospital because I, I, I mean, I would, I'm, who could say, I actually can't, I think we can say what we would do.
We'd probably go right to the hospital.
And, you know, she did tell me that she found out Charlie was dead before they took off in Arizona.
And I think about that a lot.
Like, why wait an hour on the tarmac?
And then despite waiting for him to land, they then went into different entries into the hospital.
Erica went through the back and Andrew went through the front.
So there's a lot there that doesn't make sense to me.
But the hour waiting on the tarmac bothers me because you are with other people.
You should get to the hospital as fast as possible.
And why are we waiting for Andrew Colvet?
Well, come on.
First of all, come on.
It's perfectly normal to wait an hour before running to see your supposed loved one's last breath, isn't it?
Come on.
She had to make sure her trunk of sparkly outfits doesn't wind up somewhere in Vegas being mistaken for a showgirl wardrobe.
That's what she was doing.
She saw the video of the assassination and she figured, well, he's not coming back from that.
So I'm just going to grab an Uber wait and save and also make out with my new boyfriend.
I think Stephen Stills put it best when he says, if you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with.
Love the one you're with.
Anyway, so there you go.
I mean, I can't help but make jokes at Erica Kirk's expense at this point.
The sparkly outfits coming out to the techno, sparkly, pyrotechnics, and all the crazy garbage.
Sorry.
All the fake forgiving and the condemning of the people who are trying to find out what actually happened on that day.
The condemning of those people, still suspect.
Little suspect.
Committee Controversies00:14:41
Can you imagine Jackie O coming out and saying, just shut up, everybody.
Stop it.
He got killed by a lone nut.
And that's that.
There was no FBI, CIA, or mafia involvement or Mossad.
There was nothing.
It was just that one guy.
It was Lee Harvey Oslo, and everybody knows.
Now, shut up.
Just shut up.
Can you imagine Jackie Onassis telling people to stop looking into who murdered her husband?
I can't.
So ripe for comedy.
Ripe for comedy.
And that's her number one question.
Why the F did she wait an hour, over an hour, for Andrew Colvin?
And why did they go in different entrances when they got to the hospital?
Yeah.
And why did he collapse in Erica's arms and not his wife's?
These are all good questions.
These seem like more than one question.
It seems like three questions.
We have a special guest, Thomas Massey, Republican congressman who has represented Kentucky's fourth congressional district since 2012.
Prior to entering Congress, he earned a BS and an MS in engineering at MIT, where he was an award-winning inventor, founder of a tech company that developed haptic interface devices.
Known for his libertarian-leaning views, Massey's recognized for his advocacy of limited government and fiscal responsibility, as well as for co-leading the bipartisan push for Epstein File Transparency Act, demanding the full release of documents and calling for a special master to oversee the process due to the DOJ's delays and excessive redactions.
Please welcome to the show, Thomas Massey.
Hey, Jimmy, I've been waiting for this for years.
I can't believe I'm on your show.
This is fantastic.
I just want to do an update on the Epstein file release.
A judge has ruled.
Judge Paul A. Engelmeyer was told in a letter signed by U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton that he must reject a request this week by the congressional co-sponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act to appoint a neutral expert.
U.S. Rep RoConna, California Democrat, and Representative Thomas Massey, a Kentucky Republican, say they have, quote, urgent and grave concerns about the slow release of only a small number of millions of documents that began last month.
In the filing to the judge, they said they believed criminal violations have taken place in the release process.
Clayton, though, said Conna and Massey do not have standing with the court that would allow them to seek the extraordinary relief of the appointment of a special master and an independent.
But here's the thing that I find crazy: the judge, Engelmeyer, lacks the authority to grant such a request, he said, particularly because the congressional representative who made the request are not parties to the criminal case that led to Maxwell's December 21.
So, but they did admit that the Department of Justice is committing a crime by not releasing this.
So, go ahead, take it where you would like.
Yeah, so the judge asked the DOJ and Rocana and myself to respond to him, and we have until tomorrow to respond.
So, we're glad to see the DOJ's response.
We have our own response prepared.
You know, we never did claim in our letter that we had standing.
This is an Amiki, which is a friend of the court, where we give our opinion.
You know, congressmen often do this.
They write in on certain cases, and it would be up to the judge, obviously, whether he wants to appoint the special master or not.
We think it would best serve the victims in the case that he heard, which was the Maxwell case.
And so, the victims have standing, and they could get more closure.
They would be better served by a special master to oversee the release of these files.
And so, that's going to be, I think, the thrust of what we respond to Judge Engelmeyer with.
And this ain't over yet.
We have so many arrows in our quiver to compel the DOJ to follow the damn law.
I mean, this is the problem you have.
They say we don't have standing.
And the problem is with the DOJ, they're the ones who are supposed to enforce the law.
And if they're not enforcing the law, then you are kind of in a quandary.
And that's why we're asking this judge to get involved.
So you even said that Pam Bondi should be called to testify in the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee, where she must answer for her failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
It's unusual that she's never appeared in front of the House.
Why hasn't she?
Well, you know, out of tradition or just the congressional job, our job is oversight.
The AG always shows up at least once a year, typically once a year in front of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Now, Pam Bondi appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but conveniently, when she was supposed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, of which I'm a member, there was a shutdown.
And we could have kept having hearings, but Mike Johnson, some people think in order to keep the 218th signer to the discharge petition that Rocana and I were leading to keep her from being sworn in, Mike Johnson said, well, there's a shutdown.
You know what?
Let's just close Congress down too.
So we didn't have hearings during that period of time.
So her hearing was punted, her scheduled to appear.
But I don't want to flip any conspiracy bits here tonight, but they scheduled her now for February 11th, I'm told, by the chairman of the committee, Jim Jordan.
And I appreciate that, but there's a shutdown deadline looming on January 31st, or I believe it is.
And if January has 31 days, I should know, I guess.
It doesn't.
Okay, and then it's January 30th.
The only day I care about in January is the 13th.
That's my birthday.
But anyways, let's put it this way.
On February 1st at 1201 midnight, there could be a shutdown.
And if that shutdown is prolonged through the 11th, she won't have to testify again.
Hopefully she will testify because I'm on that committee.
I get to ask her questions for five minutes.
That would be fantastic.
Just for the ridiculousness.
I mean, I'm sure I get a lot of comedy clips out of that in five minutes.
That'd be fantastic.
But you also go on to talk about the Clintons.
You say the Clintons think they're above the law, but they're not.
They must comply with congressional subpoenas and appear before the House of Representatives or face arrest, conviction, and incarceration.
I suspect they've observed Bondi's lack of resolve and have decided to test it.
So you're trying to get them to, and so they're ignoring the subpoenas?
Is that what's happening?
They're ignoring the subpoena.
Now, that's the oversight committee.
I served on that committee, I think, for six or eight years.
I'm no longer on it.
That's Jamie Comer's, the chairman, and he has compelled them in a bipartisan subpoena to come and testify.
And I think what's going on here, Jimmy, is a negotiation.
I think when push comes to shove, if Pam Bondi has the resolve to do what they did to Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, which is to arrest them for not showing up and testifying, I think they'll say, oh, oh, okay.
Oh, you really meant it?
Well, yeah, we'll show up, but we want a cushy chair.
We don't want to have to be there for more than 30 minutes.
And, you know, here's our favorite drink.
We'd like that to be served.
Like they may try to extract, and this sometimes happens, some kind of special treatment to show up.
I don't know.
But I do think they will eventually show up and they can do what everybody does that shows up that doesn't want to be there.
They can plead the fifth.
I mean, and, but here's the thing, Jimmy.
Why not just release the damn files?
If the Clintons are guilty, it'll be in the files, right?
That's where the evidence is.
If they were thinking about indicting Clintons, that'll be in the draft prosecutions and in the draft indictments and the prosecutorial notes.
If one of the victims says that they got, you know, sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, that'll be in the 302 files.
The forms that the FBI fills out after they interview the victims, all of those things I've just mentioned are things that Pam Bondi has on her desk that she hasn't even redacted and released yet.
Those need to be released.
And then that's where the facts are.
You think Bill Clinton's going to show up and incriminate himself?
I don't think so.
It's not going to happen.
So if people really, and by the way, I think when the Republicans are going after the Clintons and the Democrats are going after Trump, those are distractions.
I think the folks in these files that were clients of Jeffrey Epstein are billionaires.
I think they are, for the most part, apolitical people.
Once you get to the Epstein class, you go to all the parties.
They're not partisan parties.
And you give to all the candidates in case one of them wins.
So I think the real criminals here are not Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
I think we're going to find out it's some of these billionaires who really are out of the public eye.
There may be scholarships named after them.
They may have their names on buildings, and those may change once these files come out.
So how do we get some of those people in front of the committee?
How come we haven't had like the Lex Westman called in front of a committee?
The people we know who are involved, right?
Is that going to happen and why hasn't it happened?
Well, it should happen.
And Jess Staley is one of the names that the victims gave to me that I read in front of Kash Patel to see if I could get any kind of reading there because he said there was no evidence in the possession of the government that anybody but Jeffrey Epstein and Ghlaine Maxwell mistreated people.
And so that's when I said, well, that's interesting because these survivors tell me they've given you all at least 20 names and you wrote them down when they gave you the names.
Have you looked at the 302 forms?
And that's when Kash Patel admitted he himself has not looked at the 302 forms.
And I'm like, well, then how can you sit here and say there's no evidence if you haven't even looked at the most obvious place to look for the evidence?
That was in the hearing where he did show up.
And I described the professions of these people, of 19 of the 20 people that the survivors tell me exist.
Now, while we're here and we're talking about it, I get this question on the internet by trolls and paid accounts and whatever.
They're like, you said you were going to release the 20 names that you have.
You said you have 20 names.
How come you haven't released them?
Okay.
The survivor said that they were compiling names.
And Marjorie Taylor Greene and I offered that if they wanted to give us those names and they wanted us to read them on the floor of the house, we would do it.
But here's the reason why we shouldn't do that.
Number one, we got the law passed.
It's now Pam Bondi's job to do it, right?
It's not my job to go to the floor of the house and do this.
That's a backup plan.
But if you name the 20 people, then they can go through all these millions of pages of files they're going to release and they can unredact those 20, but there may be 20 more that they never have to admit there are because they know the ones you know, right?
So this is our check.
That list of people is our check on whether they have actually released the files properly and all of the files.
That's another reason you wouldn't want to go there.
And then also, if you read the names on the floor, the other way that DOJ could play it is to say, oh, well, I don't know what you're talking about.
And those people never get prosecuted.
So it's Pam Bondi's.
We won this fight.
This was the largest uphill battle that when you pass a bill that the Speaker of the House doesn't want passed, that the majority leader in the Senate doesn't want passed, that the president doesn't want passed, when you figure out a way to get that bill to the floor, and then you get a vote of 427 to 100 in the House and 100 to zero in the Senate, and then you get Donald Trump to sign a bill that he said would have been a hostile act to even sign the discharge petition to bring the bill for a vote.
I guess he committed a hostile act with his Sharpie to himself when he signed it.
But when you get all that done, you've won.
Like it's literally they have a law in front of them that they have to follow now.
So they're not following it.
And what do you, I don't want to be a wet blanket, but I don't think we're ever going to see those files because the people who actually pull the strings and run things don't want them.
And the people who are the puppet masters of Congress and Donald Trump, right?
So Donald Trump brags about being bought by Miriam Adelson and Sheldon Adelson and that he's he does their bidding.
He brags about it on camera.
This isn't me.
This isn't conjecture.
This is him admitting it.
And so he's completely owned by the Zionists.
And so I don't, so this, so to me, it's like that's what they're doing.
They're trying to cover this up because it would expose the Mossad working with Jeffrey Epstein at the behest of Israel.
And then they'd lose all that compromise that they have on everybody.
They have all the blackmail on everyone and it would all be worthless.
And so that's so I don't, so just what is what is your, I mean, I, you did get this bill passed.
It is law, but as we've seen, they can, no, if there's nobody to enforce the law, then nothing happens.
Contempt and Cover-Up00:05:12
So what do you think is eventually going to happen?
When you're talking about the U.S. government, I don't think the blanket can be wet enough.
So I don't blame you for being a wet blanket.
Look, it's like the old Nintendo games where you beat the final boss, you beat Bowser at the castle, and they say, oh, the princess is in another castle.
You got to do it all over again.
And we've done that with subpoenas over the years and congressional testimonies.
And they say, I'm not prepared to answer that question today.
And so finally, we did something that is unprecedented in the history of our country.
We passed a law to compel them to release the files.
Now, I would say this.
The people who did Watergate and the people who did Iran-Contra, they thought they were never going to get caught either.
And I think this ranks up there in history.
When we look back on this to Iran-Contra, I think you have properly identified the motivations of the rich and powerful people who do not want these files released.
I think it implicates our own government, our own DOJ, our own CIA, just in many of the same ways that Iran-Contra did or like Watergate implicated the president and the people surrounding him.
I think it's on that order of magnitude.
I do think we'll eventually get to the truth.
And here's why.
If Bill and Hillary Clinton, if they could outweigh Jamie Comer, if they could get to January 3rd of next year, which is only about 11 months away, without ever coming in front of Congress, guess what?
They can never be convicted for not appearing because that subpoena expires at the end of Congress.
And if the Democrats take the majority, they're not going to reissue the subpoena.
So the problem goes away.
Just like it did with Eric Holder and with numerous other people, the problem goes away at the end of every Congress.
It does not go away with the Epstein files, Transparency Act, because it's a law.
Like we didn't put an expiration date.
Like this bill expires on 2028.
No, this bill is forever.
And Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and the other people who are working on this for Pam Bondi are running afoul of the law right now.
And I would like to remind them: this is not a subpoena.
It doesn't expire at the end of Congress.
You can't wait this out.
And what could happen is the next Attorney General could prosecute this Attorney General or the people who work for her.
And then also, impeachment is on the table.
It would be hard to achieve in the House right now, although Pam Bondi is probably the least popular person in the president's cabinet right now, even among Republicans.
It would be hard to impeach her, but that could happen later.
The other arrows that we have in the quiver, one of them is contempt.
The problem with contempt is if you vote and you get the majority of Congress to declare contempt or some chairman declares contempt and it gets referred to the DOJ and then the DOJ is not going to find themselves in contempt.
They're not going to prosecute that.
But there's another level called inherent contempt.
This is a power that the judicial branch has.
And the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has this power too, although Congress hasn't used it in about 85 years.
And that is you could send the sergeant-at-arms to arrest Pam Bondi, and this could all be resolved in the House of Representatives.
The Senate wouldn't have to vote on this if you find her in inherent contempt.
You could also fine her an amount every day, her personally, for not releasing these files.
And then finally, if the judge finds that we don't have standing or that our Amiki isn't, I would say, helpful to the victims who do have immediate standing right now in that criminal case,
we could bring a civil case into court with one of the victims alongside of us as a plaintiff and establish standing that way and then get the judge to rule for Pam Bondi to release the files.
And then if she doesn't, then that judge could find her in contempt.
There are lots of ways to skin this cat.
I think you're right to be a wet blanket.
I mean, I've got 13 years of being a wet blanket.
Like my expectations are so low, they can't get any lower.
But I do have to admit, once we got this bill passed, my expectations went like an inch above the ground.
You know, I see you, you're wearing your national debt on your.
And so that was another promise I thought was part of MAGA that they were going to cut the deficit.
And that's why they were doing Doge because this is unsustainable and that it's at some point our economy will crash.
Fiscal Cliff Looms00:11:26
And you have tweeted out recently because Peter Schiff said that Trump has it backwards.
The U.S. doesn't subsidize the world.
World subsidizes the U.S., the dollar's reserve currency status allows us to live beyond our means.
Soaring debt, tariffs, and military threats jeopardize that status.
When it's lost, economic collapse will follow.
And you said, as the dollar's reserve currency status diminishes, so does our ability to tax the world by creating more money.
When the reserve status is lost, maintaining current spending levels and servicing the debt will be even more painful for Americans who will bear the full inflation tax.
So, what people don't realize is that it's a unipart.
So, Trump is still sanctioning Russia just like Joe Biden was.
So, when you do that, when you sanction other countries, you're actually taking money out of our treasury because they have to, that's like a surcharge that they pay to use our currency.
And now, China, I mean, Russia went from like doing all their trading in 80% U.S. dollars, now it's down to like 10%.
So, we lose all that money.
And so, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.
And so, that's why there's things like BRICS happening, where these other countries are like, Hey, we can't do this anymore.
We don't want to use the U.S. reserve currency.
And as soon as that's over, so is our economy over.
And it seems like it's coming close.
People don't realize that this is the most, which is why gold has gone from $1,800 announced.
Now, now it's like up to $5,000 in just a couple of years.
And it's because people like China, Japan, they're pulling their money out of the United States Treasury bonds and putting it in gold because they see the writing on the wall.
And I mean, the whole thing about Doge was that I thought they were going to do that, and then they did it.
He does the big, beautiful bill, which explodes the deficit.
But you also voted for that bill, did you not?
I didn't vote for the big, beautiful.
Oh, you did not?
Oh, that's no.
I'm one of one, I'm one of one, maybe one of two Republicans who didn't vote for it because I said this increases spending by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
Like, there's no two ways around it.
And then they do the same trick.
I don't care whether it's a Republican speaker or Democrat speaker.
They use a 10-year budget and they say, Oh, this baby balances in 10 years.
Well, what they do is they front load all of the tax cuts and the spending increases.
And they say, In year five, we'll sober up and these tax cuts will expire like it does.
The no tax on tips expires after three years.
The tax break for seniors expires after three years.
They've got $400 billion in the first three years for DHS and DOJ and DOD.
And they're saying, Oh, but in years four and five, we cut all that out.
The taxes go back up, the spending goes down.
But see, here's the problem, Jimmy.
When I came into Congress, I came into somebody else's year four or five, right?
They said there was a fiscal cliff, like literally the first month I'm in Congress.
They're like, oh my gosh, it's a fiscal cliff.
I'm like, what's a fiscal cliff?
Oh, it's where you do what you promised you were going to do like three or four years ago.
Now the day has come and it's going to screw everybody up if the taxes go back up and the spending goes down.
So we're going to call it a fiscal cliff.
So what they did in that big beautiful bill, they created somebody else's fiscal cliff five years from now.
And they're going to run around like chickens with their heads cut off in Washington, D.C. and say this will tank the economy if we don't extend these tax cuts.
And if we, and our military will be, you know, just hollowed out.
It'll be a hollow shell of what it once was if we don't keep spending the levels we spent in the first three or four years.
Now, back to your Doge thing.
I had a surreal moment.
I don't remember if it was, I think it was March was when the, they don't call it the State of the Union.
The first one, you know, is not really the State of the Union because the president just got into office.
I forget what they call it.
But I was there and Doge was well underway.
They had spent several months.
They had some of the sharpest minds in the country looking at computers that are 50 years old and finding all this crap, you know, fraud, waste, and abuse.
And I saw the president, you know, right there in front of me listing some of the ridiculous things the money had been spent on.
And my colleagues stood up like straight as an arrow and clapped like seals when they pointed to Elon Musk and thanked him for finding all of this.
And I thought, guys, you've been writing these checks.
You're the one.
You should be like shameful.
You should hang your head and walk out of this room.
If you acknowledged who made all that spending, you wouldn't even be able to stay in this room, much less clap that it had been found.
And I thought, there is no way they're actually going to take this out of the budget.
And they did.
They did a CR.
They did a continuing resolution.
And we're still on mostly on a CR, ironically, from Biden's last budget.
We're still spending the same levels.
We did rescind like $8 trillion, or sorry, $8 billion and then another $10 billion or something.
Not a whole lot of money.
I mean, these are billion-dollar solutions to trillion-dollar problems, but we put it all back in.
It's all getting stuff right back in, Jimmy, this month.
Yeah, it was a real disappointment.
I can't tell you how much of a disappointment.
And people don't realize that this.
So, I mean, you realize this is unsustainable.
People like Peter Schiff realize it.
I realize it.
The gold market realizes it.
So what do you think is, again, I'd hate to be a wet blanket, but I think it is going to happen.
We're going to lose our reserve currency and we're going to become Brazil.
Let me explain what Peter Schiff's talking about.
And then I tried to restate.
And you understand it very well.
But other currencies in the world, they fluctuate with respect to the dollar.
So let's say you're in a country and you want a budget to buy a bridge, a really important bridge in your country, and you're going to have to buy the steel for it six months from now.
Well, you like to hold U.S. dollars because you know what the price of steel is going to be in U.S. dollars six months from now because the dollar doesn't fluctuate much.
So you have to hold U.S. dollars.
And they hold it oftentimes in the form of our debt.
Because if you want to buy something with dollars, you've got to have those dollars in your wallet.
You can't say, oh, I want to buy it with French francs, but I don't have any dollars right now.
So you have to hold those dollars.
Well, what happens is when we monetize our own debt, let's say we increase the money supply by 3% every year or 5% every year.
Those guys, we're taking it from every country.
We're taking money through inflation from every country that's holding dollars because they want to buy stuff with dollars because everybody accepts dollars.
It's like American Express or a MasterCard, right?
They take 3%.
We're taking 3% from the entire world.
But I watched Putin's interview with Tucker.
The first hour was like, puts you to sleep.
It was like a history of Russia, which may or may not be true.
But if you could wake up the next day and watch the second half, Putin, obviously there's tons of propaganda in that.
But one thing that he said was true.
He said, look, you guys got the best deal going.
Before you sanctioned Russia, 75% of our transactions were in U.S. dollars.
And now it's like 17%.
Well, that was a couple of years ago.
You're probably right, it's probably closer to 10% now.
And we don't get to charge 3% to Russia anymore on all those transactions.
And there are other countries when we sanction them.
This is one of the reasons I'm not for sanctions.
If you go back and look, I've never voted to sanction a sovereign country.
A terrorist group, yeah, we can sanction them.
But when you sanction sovereign countries that hold U.S. dollars, boom, you're getting rid of the deal.
So, and you're right.
You can see this when people say, oh, the price of gold is going up.
No, the value of the dollar is going down with respect to gold.
And even sometimes when you see the stock market go up, I say, oh, they're just repricing Ford for the new dollar, which is worth 90% of what it used to be.
So of course, Ford's going to be 110% of what it was in U.S. dollars.
And that's happening right now.
When it does happen, here's what happens when we're the only one using dollars is when we print more dollars and we try to print another trillion dollars or even $100 billion more dollars.
We're going to feel it immediately in our own pocketbooks.
U.S. citizens who are trying to buy cars and clothes and housing and electricity, that inflation is going to kick in like almost immediately.
And then the government's going to have a problem because they got to buy stuff that's inflated very quickly.
So the whole inflation cycle speeds up when we're the only one using dollars.
It's like it really is a fiat currency, like company script at that point.
And that's when you look like one of these other countries who tinker with their own currency to try to fix their economic woes.
And that's what I'm talking about in that tweet.
When that happens, it's going to be extremely painful.
Right now, we're getting a free ride.
When I first came to Congress, I was worried it would collapse immediately.
And then I realized this whole reserve currency thing is what keeps it going.
We get to tax the world for our own overspending.
And that's going to end.
And I mean, looking at what's happening with the gold and silver right now, we may be at the beginning of that right now.
And the other thing is the president wants the Fed to lower the interest rates.
We're not really in control of interest rates like we used to be.
Because if you cut interest rates, okay, that's great.
But the people who buy our debt are going to say, you know what?
We don't think you're a good deal because we know you tend to inflate your dollars and you're going to pay, you're promising to pay us back in dollars.
So if you want me to borrow money and you're only going to give me 3%, I don't think that's a good deal.
I think I'll buy gold or silver instead.
And so we're starting to see that.
And that is, that's why interest rates, even if they cut them, even if the Fed cuts interest rates, you can't take water out of the shallow end of the pool and put it in the deep end or vice versa, take it out of the deep end and put it in the shallow end.
It's all going to equilibrate somewhere and you're chasing your tail.
And we're getting there quickly.
First Amendment Fights00:07:48
Remember when Donald Trump said this about who controls him?
And it was the Jewish Zionist owner, Sheldon Adelson?
Just as I promised I recognized Israel's eternal capital and opened the American embassy in Jerusalem.
Jerusalem became the capital.
I also recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
You know, Miriam and Sheldon would come into the White House probably almost more than anybody outside of people that work there.
And they were always after, and as soon as I give them something, always for Israel.
As soon as I give them something, they'd want something else.
I say, give me a couple of weeks, will you please?
But I gave them the Golan Heights and they never even asked for it.
You know, for 72 years.
Okay, so remember, so that's here he is saying.
Miriam Adelson.
Do you want to come up here?
Come up here, Miriam.
Miriam gave my campaign indirectly and directly $250 million.
She was number one.
When somebody can give you $250 million, I think that we should give her the opportunity to say hello.
And Miriam, make it quick.
So there he is just telling you, he's bought by the Adelsons.
They gave him $250 million.
That's it.
And so here's now Pam Bondi being introduced, his attorney general, being introduced by his biggest donor.
And let's watch, shall we?
Anti-Semitism has been allowed to grow unchecked in this country.
Too many institutions have abdicated their moral responsibility to speak up.
Too many so-called leaders have stayed quiet.
Actions have consequences, and inaction has consequences too.
We've sued violent protesters under the FACE Act for intimidating Jewish Americans worshiping at synagogues.
So she's using the face.
She's admitting, okay, here we are.
I'm doing the bidding of my donors, the Zionist donors, and we're suing American citizens at the behest of Zionists.
They felt intimidated at synagogues?
Did someone protest the Gaza genocide on a street or something?
So they're protesting.
So from what I understand, they were having sales of land in Palestinian and Palestine, and people were protesting that.
And they felt intimidated.
Yeah.
Oh.
And so she's going to prosecute them for that.
Oh, thank God.
This is the first time since its passage, the FACE Act in 1994, that it has been used to protect a house of worship.
Working with Secretary Linda McMahon, who has been a champion for you as well, and Harmie, we have secured a $200 million settlement with Columbia University for violating the civil rights of Jewish students and Jewish employees.
We've secured a $75 million settlement with Northwestern University for anti-Semitic conduct.
We've secured a $60 million settlement with Cornell that includes provisions to halt anti-Semitic conduct.
And we've launched a full investigation into the University of California's system for systematic anti-Semitism.
What?
Systematic anti-Semitism.
How will we possibly have that if AIPAC owns all like everyone with Batman Bob Massey?
So this is the FACE Act was written in 1994 and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
And it was supposed to be protecting people who were trying to get going to abortion clinics.
Because remember how they had people out and they actually killed a doctor?
And so that's what that was about.
People, or it was to protect people exercising their First Amendment right to religious freedom at a place of worship.
It also prohibits intentionally damaging or destroying property of such facilities or places of worship.
So the law was created in response to a wave of violence, blockades, bombings, and murders targeting abortion clinics and providers in the early 90s.
There was the murder of Dr. David Gunn.
It provides both criminal penalties and civil remedies, and it's enforced by the Department of Justice.
It protects not just abortion clinics, but also fertility clinics and other reproductive health.
So they're using that.
So the current controversy, supporters view it as an essential protection against violence.
Critics, especially some pro argue it's been weaponized to prosecute peaceful protesters or sidewalk counselors infringing on First Amendment rights.
There have been recent efforts in Congress to repeal it entirely, though it's, as of now, remains in effect.
So it stands for Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
That's what the FACE Act is.
The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the main federal law protecting access to reproductive health care facilities from forced threat.
And they're using it to protect Israel and Zionists.
Oh, finally, a good use for it.
She's literally suing American citizens at the behest of Israel and wait, but does she leave all that on her desk because maybe it won't be happening?
Yeah, right.
Just like the Epstein files.
Her black hole singularity desk.
Max Blumenthal says, scam Bondi demonstrating how the pay-for-play Department of Justice works for Trump's largest donor.
Lekutnik warlord Miriam Edelson demands Bondi criminalize protests against Israel's ongoing genocide, and she shamelessly delivers a full frontal assault on the First Amendment.
That's what she's doing.
But just to let this is it's it's you're you know, this idea that you can't say the government is occupied by Zionists.
So Jews for Peace says, according to the official records from Florida's Department of State Division of Elections, Jay Collins, so he's now the Jay Collins is now the lieutenant governor of Florida.
He's announced he's going to run for governor.
He's the newly announced candidate for Florida governor.
He accepted $100,000 from Children of Israel, LLC, a fraudulent sale company on October 7, 2025.
And you want to hear what he has to say about the First Amendment and free speech and Israel?
Watch this.
You don't have the right to harm other people with your words, and you don't have the right to say things that have really negative, really horrible meanings.
When you want people to destroy Israel, that matters.
Hey, guess what?
I get to say F you.
I get to say F Israel.
I get to say F Zionism.
And I don't care whose feelings it hurts.
I hope it hurts your feelings.
That's the point of it.
Is it as bad as being starved to death?
Not really, is it?
Hey, is it as bad as having your kids bombed in front of you by fucking or IDF putting on your wife's underwear and starving your kids?
Is it that bad?
So here's American gubernatorial hopeful Jay Collins, the club bouncer of local politics with the British-sounding name, bringing his UK-style game to Florida.
That's what this really is.
As we know, Britain is now both under full Zionist control.
And yet somehow Jews don't feel safe there anymore and want asylum here in America.
Isn't that weird?
Well, that's because Zionists keep killing them in false flags so that they'll feel that way.
So him saying, listen to this again.
You don't have the right to harm other people with your words.
Yes, we do.
Yeah, I do, you shortbald fuck.
How about that?
Go step on a Lego, you well.
I'm going to get you.
Yes, yes.
You don't have a right to go that far.
So, and if you do harm people with your words, you're going to come home and there's going to be ICE agents in your living room wearing your wife's lingerie.
That's how you know their IDF.
Right to Harm?00:01:02
Yeah.
This guy looks like the first face you see when they pull off your interrogation hood.
I can see he's short from because of his head-to-arm ratio there.
So there he is.
So that's what's happening in America.
That's the guy who's the current lieutenant governor of Florida, looking to be Florida, saying you don't have a right to say things that hurt people's feelings, especially Israel's, especially Israel.
Boy, am I a woke right?
Because I thought I can hurt feelings.
Yeah, that's the whole point, I thought.
I thought wokeies are the ones that say that.
That's what I thought.
Hey, become a premium member.
Go to jimmydoorcomedy.com.
Sign up.
the most affordable premium program in the business all the voices performed today are by the one and only the inimitable mike mccray He can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
That's it for this week.
You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.