Letitia James faces imminent defeat as the Court of Appeals dismisses her lawsuit against Donald Trump, citing Deutsche Bank's approval of inflated asset valuations despite 14 scrutiny factors. The host critiques James as a political weapon for the Biden administration and George Soros, while questioning CNN's reporting on a Syrian detainee after Elon Musk flagged inconsistencies regarding cell conditions and prisoner energy levels. Further discussing the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder, the segment contrasts AOC and Elizabeth Warren's claims of systemic violence with the host's rejection of such narratives, concluding with Mark Zuckerberg's $1 million donation to Trump's inaugural fund following an assassination attempt. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Leticia James Bankrupts Him00:15:18
Hello, everyone.
Welcome to the big show.
Leticia James is in for it.
Leticia James is about to have her, you know what, handed to her.
Okay?
Because this is going down and she can't do anything about it.
And boy, is she mad.
I mean, she's going to probably try and send another campaign thing or two all about it.
But I'm telling you, it's over.
I will not fear Donald Trump.
I have steel in my backbone.
And the reality is, I will not allow this person, Donald Trump, who unfortunately is a broken man, to get in the way of progress and to separate us.
Hmm.
Well, you know what?
He's going to do exactly what he's doing, which is run the country, Letitia.
You're going to get bogged down and all that.
And guess what?
The Court of Appeals is going to humiliate you again, Letitia James.
About to be humiliated.
Wait for it.
At the end of the day, the documentary evidence demonstrated that, in fact, he falsely inflated his assets to basically enrich himself and his family.
He continued to persistently engage in fraud.
The numbers don't lie.
Yeah, well, I'd like to know how she got $15 million.
We reported $15 million that she's actually worth.
Those numbers may not lie either.
Listen, she's lying.
She's ill-informed.
She's way out of her ski.
She doesn't actually understand how lending works.
And this is going to get her in a lot of trouble.
I'm going to get to what the court is saying in just a moment.
But first, look who made an appearance there at the New York Stock Exchange because he's on the cover of Time, Man of the Year, $1.
At the New York Stock Exchange, as we get this opening bell run by the president elect Donald Trump.
Big, big deal.
Again, the man of the year there, Time Magazine.
Also, another story I want to get to a little bit later in the show.
Did CNN get caught in some kind of fake news story?
Because Elon Musk's ex community notes is calling out a key reporter who just reported this.
Three months in a windowless cell, you can finally see the sky.
I'll tell you why Community Notes is not buying it.
Plus, plus we get to talk about Jay-Z.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
The latest to get wrapped up in this whole thing with Diddy.
You knew this one was eventually coming, right?
Okay, we'll talk about that too, believe it or not.
Leticia James, however, is where we begin the day.
It looks increasingly like Leticia is about to get into a whole lot of trouble.
She may be disbarred.
She may be disbarred.
She's likely to be out of a job, she says none of this is bothersome to her.
No, because you see, she was born to take on Trump for some reason.
I will not fear Donald Trump.
I have steel in my backbone.
And the reality is I will not allow this person, Donald Trump, who unfortunately is a broken man, to get in the way of progress and to separate us.
Well, oh boy, Letitia.
You know what?
You just keep saying that.
You keep saying that.
You have no case.
You know it.
The Court of Appeals knows it.
And yet you have this opportunity.
Donald Trump actually did something kind of gracious.
He offered you the opportunity.
He requested that you actually rescind your lawsuit in the spirit of unity.
You refused to do that.
So guess what?
Now you're going to get handed something and more.
Just to back up for a moment, everyone, just so you understand, because it's hard to keep track.
I know there's like a lot of cases.
There's a lot of them.
Couple federal.
Those both got dropped by Jack Smith.
Of course, you had the Alvin Bragg.
That one went nowhere, absolutely nowhere.
Of course, Alvin Bragg, we're going to get to him in a moment because he's also in hot water, in part because of the Daniel Penny case, but also this one.
And then Letitia.
Well, you also had Fannie Willis.
She's about to go to jail, incidentally.
We'll get to that.
But let's start here with Leticia.
Leticia somehow thought that because Donald Trump may have not been entirely accurate in terms of the square footage count of one apartment he had there at Trump Tower, nor the square footage or worth of Mar-a-Lago as far as she saw it, because, you know, she's thinking that the place is worth 18 mil while he's like, wait a second, it made 56 last year and there's no debt on the property.
Why would it be worth only 18 million?
Anyway, she's trying to come in between.
His lender, which in this case was Deutsche Bank, Deutsche Bank made out like a bandit.
They made like some $100 million.
So they're not complaining.
They said it was one of the best deals they ever did.
But she's complaining because she's like, wait a second.
You inflated the square footage and you said that Mar-a-Lago was worth X when I really think it was only worth 18, 19 million.
And she's somehow insisting here that the numbers don't lie.
I mean, she may lie, right?
But she's saying numbers don't lie.
I'm sorry, honey, baby, you're wrong.
At the end of the day, the documentary evidence demonstrated that, in fact, he falsely inflated his assets to basically enrich himself and his family.
He continued to persistently engage in fraud.
The numbers don't lie.
Yeah, numbers don't lie.
Just you, just you.
You're the only one that lies around here, and you're lying because you're trying to help your case.
So, again, just to back up, this is the situation where.
She's out saying, you know, it's worth this.
And Donald Trump's like, no, no, it's worth that.
But again, there's no victim in the case.
Like, so none of it matters.
So when she went to court initially, and the Court of Appeals is about to just send this thing flying, okay, and her reputation with it, already there are calls for her to be disbarred.
And that's going to be entertained as a result of this.
And when you hear what some of the judges are saying, you can see that they're already saying, wait a second, what do we do when we get some super, super litigious, crazy person like Attorney General?
Letitia James, what do you do to curb her influence and this rabidness, right?
When she's just trying to target someone so specifically.
I say the short answer is you disbar her.
And that's how you basically dissuade future DAs, AGs from being so highly politically motivated.
Mike Nyfong, remember in the Duke lacrosse rape story?
I spent like six weeks on the ground covering that case.
I never, ever, ever believed that woman, not for one second.
I don't know.
I just had this like sixth sense that it was all wrong.
Well, he got disbarred.
He got disbarred because he got too aggressive in terms of how he was trying to go after those kids.
And this is Letitia James, similar situation where she's too aggressive in how she's trying to go after one Donald Trump.
It's going to come back to haunt her.
But let's go back to the case for a second.
This is why the appeals court is throwing it out.
David Freeman, one of the judges there on the Court of Appeals, the second Court of Appeals, is saying, wait a second.
You know what?
You're going through all these issues like square footage, and you're saying, well, he inflated the square footage.
By the way, it's on Deutsche Bank's.
You know, it's the onus is on Deutsche Bank to actually figure out whether the property and the collateral is worth what he says it's worth.
I mean, think about when you refinance your house, right?
And the bank comes in and they try and figure out how much your house is worth.
That's what the bank does.
Deutsche Bank is pretty sophisticated at doing that.
But David Freeman, this one attorney, this one judge, is like, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
The square footage on the place, the bankers testified that was literally the least important factor.
Of everything that they were looking at in terms of how they were going to value this.
Why are you hanging your whole case on it, lady?
If you look at what the Deutsche Bank witnesses testified to, Haig said that the financial strength of the guarantor affects the pricing in terms of the loan and it affects whether the private wealth management group would be allowed to do this deal at all.
Doesn't Mr. Haig testify that there were 14 factors and this was the least important factor?
Well, there are certainly multiple factors that go into the risk assessment, but both for materiality and for disgorgement.
The issue is not whether there's only one factor.
There's often a lot of factors that are being considered.
For materiality, it's whether it's important to the overall total mix of information.
And this was absolutely critical to the overall mix of information, not only because they were looking specifically at what the net worth was in order to decide the terms of the loan.
No, it wasn't critical.
That's why Deutsche Bank said of the 14 different factors, this was the least important.
The least important.
Judith Vail arguing on behalf of Letitia, because, you know, once it gets To the appeals court.
Apparently, Letitia's not bright enough to argue in front of the five judges at the appellate court.
So then David Freeman also says, Hang on, hang on, hang on.
You know, like these are sophisticated parties.
It's not like anybody is like some naive kid off the street getting duped.
This is Deutsche Bank, for goodness sakes.
This is what they do.
They are in the business of lending and they are in the business of evaluating high net worth clients like Donald Trump.
Here we go.
Sophisticated individuals and entities in business.
Well, if the court wants to use the standard of an objectively reasonable counterparty, sophisticated counterparty, fine.
They had a capacity or tendency to deceive that sophisticated party as well because these misstatements and omissions were about objective facts that were extremely important and that any reasonable counterparty would want to know.
Any sophisticated reasonable counterparty would want to know that the defendants were valuing an apartment based on 20,000 square feet more than it really was.
Based on pretending that rent regulations on certain apartments didn't exist, based on pretending that the Mar a Lago restrictions didn't exist.
Your Honor asked about that.
The trial court was very clear that it was not coming up with a magical valuation for itself.
The problem with the Mar a Lago valuation is similar to what happened with the rent regulated apartments.
The restrictions in the deed are there, they are an objective fact, they are very restrictive.
And even the defendant's own expert at summary judgment, this is at 16502 of the record, agreed that the restrictions would decrease the value of Mar a Lago.
But defendants valued it as if those restrictions didn't exist at all.
Okay, but again, Deutsche Bank was okay with that.
Just saying.
Okay, so the issue here is that it was a historic property, and because it was a historic property, it didn't have the same sort of potential for, you know, you can't just demo the thing and start all over again.
And so somehow that affects the valuation.
Beauty's in the eye of the beholder.
You could argue that the historic significance of the property actually gives it more value, right?
I mean, again, until the deal's done, until it's actually sold, who is Letitia James to decide that it's only worth $19 million when that's like basically, I don't know, half of Joy Behar's house?
Joy Behar's, in all seriousness, putting her Sag Harbor.
4,000 square foot little Victorian on a little postage stamp lot in the Hamptons on sale for $10.5 million.
I'm telling you, if somebody wants to be crazy enough to buy Joy's little postage stamp little Victorian for $10.5 million, that's their own business.
But is Letitia James going to come in and regulate that too?
In other words, he's saying, I think the value of my home is X. Letitia's like, no, it's Y.
But Deutsche Bank comes flying in and says, no, it's X.
And we're going to lend him money based on Our belief that it's worth X.
And yet, Letitia's in the way, which is what these judges are saying.
Like, this makes literally no sense.
No sense because it's a private situation, a private case which has no bearing on the public at all.
There's no victim.
Here we go.
It was using.
Sorry, but what's being described sounds an awful lot like a potential commercial dispute between private actors.
Well, to go back to the first question about whether there's other examples of this, there are other examples of this.
In the first American case, the Attorney General brought a 6312 case where the transaction at issue was between a very big bank, Wells Fargo, and a professional appraisal firm.
But wasn't the concern there that the public would ultimately be negatively impacted and affected by what those corporate actors were doing?
And that concern is here as well, because when you have hidden risks getting injected into the market, that hurts the market and honest participants in the market.
And the legislature also decided, contrary to what defendants think, that making sure that business in New York stays honest is the way to attract and keep business people in New York.
And to that point, the executive law 6312, I just want to read a section of it, well, not exactly, but was enacted to promote and protect.
By the way,.
Enacted into the market.
I don't know how you.
Same question.
Sorry.
This woman, she's the only one of the five judges, I should point out, that has any sympathy for the Leticia James side of this case.
I'm just adding that.
312.
I just want to read a section of it.
Well, not exactly, but was enacted to promote and protect honesty and integrity.
It's the same question I asked the other side in commercial marketplaces in New York by stopping fraudulent and illegal businesses.
To accomplish this purpose, the statute authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil enforcement proceedings on behalf of the people whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts.
Or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting, or transacting of business.
I don't read harm or threat of harm in that, but the other side is saying that that is to be read into the statute.
Are there any cases where the language harm or threat to harm limits the scope of the Attorney General?
No, Your Honor, not as to liability and not in cases like this where what the Attorney General is seeking is injunctive relief and disgorgement.
So I would add that this is so insane that we're even here talking about this.
Letitia James and this judge, Erdogan, they want $485 million.
That's the least and greatest figure for the people of New York from Donald Trump.
They're not backing down.
So now the Court of Appeals has to throw the case out, which is what they are now prepared to do.
And now they're just trying to address this other issue of why is it that somebody like Letitia James, Letitia James, Has so much power.
Think about this before I go to that part from the court.
Think about what she was saying.
Four days after a judge ordered Donald Trump to pay $355 million for a decade of fraud, New York Attorney General Letitia James says she's prepared to do everything she can to make sure the former president pays his fine, including, she told us, seizing the buildings that bear his name.
New York Court Throws Case Out00:11:28
If he does not have funds to pay off the judgment, then we will seek, you know, judgment enforcement mechanisms in court, and we will ask the judge.
To seize his assets.
Yeah, because she wants to bankrupt him.
It's like her mission in life.
You've seen the clips.
He's this, he's that, he's this, he's that.
He's too white, too male, too pale.
I mean, this is Leticia James.
It's actually really, really scary.
Like, really scary.
And the idea that they can just go after someone because they hate them so specifically or him so specifically is quite concerning.
One of the other points that Trump's lawyers have made on this one.
Is that Leticia has no case because of the ruling that came down from the Supreme Court and that the Constitution, in terms of the federal law itself, prevents state prosecutors from proceeding against the sitting president in any way.
And that's actually true.
So, what she doesn't get is that she has no leg to stand on here and that she's in violation of federal law because the Constitution says you can't go after the president, lady.
But she's rabid.
I mean, she's absolutely positively rabid.
Let's go back to the courtroom where David Friedman, one of the judges, is saying, Why?
Why does a woman have this kind of power?
You're pointing to Ernst Young, you're pointing to First American.
Ernst Young, you're dealing with the collapse of Lehman Brothers.
First American, you're dealing with an action brought against an appraiser who overvalued properties at the behest of a lender perpetrating a scheme to induce unsophisticated consumers.
Into taking out home loans that they could not afford.
It hardly seems that that justifies bringing an action to protect the Ranger Bank against President Trump, which is what you have here.
I mean, you've got two really sophisticated parties in which no one lost any money.
And that was the point of my initial question.
Every case that you cite involved where there was damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace, you've got a scheme to get unsophisticated consumers to take out home loans.
We got a collapse of Lehman Brothers.
We don't have anything like that here.
Well, first of all, Your Honor, the statute doesn't require that whatsoever for liability.
And the statute is written broadly because the legislature wants the Attorney General to go in and stop fraud and illegality.
Also, I think you hear underneath all these questions the question of mission creep.
Has 6312 morphed into something that it was not meant to do?
And that's something you must address because there has to be some limitation on what the Attorney General can do in interfering in these private.
Transactions, as Justice Friedman said, that where people don't claim harm.
So, what is the limiting principle?
There is no limiting principle.
No limiting principle.
It's just Letitia James has this whim that she's going to go after a political enemy, and she's getting directions from on top there at the Biden White House and the Soros team.
And, you know, the whole club is in on this one, right?
You've got to go get Trump.
So, the whole mission is get Trump.
And so she's full speed ahead.
And is continuing with that full speed ahead despite being in violation of the US Constitution.
So these lawyers, these judges, they're saying we need to protect against this, right?
Like going forward, we can't have people like Letitia James doing this kind of insane stuff.
We need some guardrails, we need some parameters, for goodness sakes.
Back to Justice Moulton's point about line drawing, because I do think that that is very important in this case.
You know the history of this statute.
It's passed under then AG Javits and then was really amplified by AG Lefkowitz over the years.
And when I went back and read the bill jackets, the common thread was always we need greater power, AG needs greater powers as the people's lawyer to protect consumers, civil rights, and the environment.
And so, again, with that sort of historical backdrop to this law, how do we draw a line or at least put up some guardrails to know?
When the AG is operating well within her broad, admittedly broad sphere of 6312, and when she is going into an area that wasn't intended for her jurisdiction?
I got to tell you.
In other words, this is not intended for her jurisdiction.
This is a private matter.
And this is why the Court of Appeals wants to throw it out.
And yet she's unwilling.
What is she going to be some kind of martyr here?
She enjoys being made a fool of.
She wants to continue following this forward.
She's arguing that in the case of, I guess, Bill Clinton, When Paula Jones was suing him, that case was allowed to go forward, and therefore that was an example of a president versus a state issue.
The Trump team is kind of just saying it's pathetic.
Her statement is sad and weak.
I would just get back to the actual case itself.
I mean, aside from, yeah, the Constitution saying that you cannot go after a sitting president this way, I would still get back to she has no case.
What are we doing talking about this to begin with?
This is all because someone had a vendetta.
Against one Donald Trump.
And that's all she's about.
I mean, it's really pretty gross.
I mean, this is the soundbite, right?
This is gross.
We will fight back to your attempt to bring Trumpism to New York City.
He's called me disgraceful.
Okay, on and on and on.
He's illegitimate.
I'm going to go get him.
If you just elect me, I will go get him.
for you.
And just the other day, she's out saying, I'm so proud of the 100 legal actions that my team brought against him when he was president.
I mean, she just really wants to take on the system.
And what is this?
Anarchy?
I guess they're really into anarchy over there on the left.
You see, between 2019 and 2021, the Office of the Attorney General took nearly 100 legal actions against the previous Trump administration, including when he attempted to cap the state and local tax, and when he sought to eliminate funds and grants for law enforcement officers here in the state of New York.
We fought to preserve DACA.
And protect the Affordable Care Act.
We fought to protect.
You keep fighting on that because you know what?
Your own governor's not with you, honey.
Kathy Holchel coming out saying she's all on board with ICE and that she's going to make sure everyone gets turned over to ICE.
I mean, you look at the 700,000 migrants in New York City alone, just in New York City, 60,000 of whom, nearly 60,000, are known to be criminals.
And Kathy Holchel, the governor, is like, ah, okay, here you go.
Because it really isn't.
Politically expedient for her to kind of stand in the way of that, especially given the crime that we now have in New York City.
Anyway, Donald Trump having put this out on Truth Social before he became president, this, or president elect, I should say, this witch hunt by Letitia James is so bad for New York City and state.
Companies are refusing to come in and invest so long as it is outstanding and others are leaving because of it and nothing can stop them.
The negative impact on New York State and jobs is like no other case that has been prosecuted in many years.
A total disaster.
Letitia James knows this, but she doesn't care.
To her, it's just a political campaign.
So sad for our country.
And he says that well.
That's really what it's about.
It's a political campaign.
It's so that she can raise money, so that she can try and elevate her profile and get elected again.
And she's got big aspirations.
Okay, she wants to take over the mayorship in New York City.
I don't think that's going to be happening.
I think actually Eric Adams is increasingly looking more and more secure in his slot.
So, what is she going to do?
Oh, is she going to run for president?
Maybe that's in the playbook.
So she's using this as an opportunity to amplify herself on a national scale for her own political well-being.
What kind of legal system, think about it, do you have?
If that's what a country comes down to, people just trying to push their way ahead and knock others out of the game, and in the process, because they can identify an enemy, somehow they rise up, they gain more power.
That can't be.
And again, you go back to the Constitution, which does not allow for this.
The Supreme Court just ruled on it, for goodness sakes, which is why I love Mike Davis here, one of the attorneys for Donald Trump.
And he was on.
I've shown you guys this before, but it seems like a good punctuation mark to everything I'm saying here.
Mike Davis on with Benny Johnson saying, you know what, honey?
You keep doing that.
We're going to put your fat ass in prison.
Excuse me.
Let me just say this to Big Tish James, the New York Attorney General.
I dare you.
I dare you to try to continue your lawfare against President Trump in his second term.
Because listen here, sweetheart, we're not messing around this time, and we will put your fat ass in prison for conspiracy against rights.
And I promise you that.
So think long and hard before you want to violate President Trump's constitutional rights or any other American's constitutional rights.
It's not going to happen again.
No, but she's not afraid.
I will not fear Donald Trump.
I have steel in my backbone.
And the reality is, I will not allow this person, Donald Trump, who unfortunately is a broken man, to get in the way of progress and to separate us.
Woo!
Listen, she's done.
It's over.
The question now becomes, is she disbarred over this?
I firmly believe she should be.
I think this is a gross exaggeration of her power.
She's amplified her power.
She's Manipulated the system to amplify her power.
And by all means, we need to end her career over this.
Letitia James cannot continue as an attorney to represent anyone.
Already, Elise Stefanik has called for that.
The representative of New York, as an attorney herself, is demanding that the Bar Association revoke Letitia James's law license.
And when the Court of Appeals issues this edict to toss this whole thing, that's exactly what's going to happen.
So, mark my words, mark my words.
This is the next step.
This is the next layer in this case.
Yes, she will be humiliated.
She will try and spin this as somehow, oh, I'm taking them on.
I'm taking on the system.
And she will try to use this to her political advantage, of course.
But she's actually going to be in a lot of trouble from a professional standpoint.
Imagine this.
Retribution Against Political Opponents00:14:45
They want to charge them a half a billion dollars.
I mean, these people are absolutely nuts for a private transaction where there is no victim.
And Deutsche Bank is like, yeah, we'd do the deal again all day till Sunday and then again.
So what case do you have other than you hate the guy?
That's not enough.
Not in the United States of America, thank you very much.
It's just not.
More on that, more on somebody who just wants to hate someone because of the color of their skin and therefore bring an entire case and try and put him away for the rest of his life.
I'm talking about Daniel Penny.
That's another prosecutor that needs to go.
But first, a quick shout out for my investment research company that I started with my dear friend Rob.
It's called 76 Research.
You can go to 76research.com.
And take a look at some of our portfolios.
We have 10 to 15 stocks in each one of them.
You can also just sign up for our free guide to investing in this Trump boom economy because, listen, good times ahead.
We told you about crypto, did we not?
I mean, I know a lot of people out there don't really like it.
And I keep saying, just use it as like, you know, if you had Vegas money for the weekend instead of going to Vegas, maybe take a little bit and put it into Bitcoin and just watch, wait, and see.
There's great ETFs now that you can get in and out of very, very low cost.
Anyway, that's part of what we talk about in investinmaga.com.
Go to investinmaga.com.
It's the free guide.
You can check it out.
lots of information in there for you.
But let's get to Alvin Bragg because Alvin Bragg is another one that's increasingly looking like he's in deep trouble.
You saw the Daniel Penny case, very, very good news.
Daniel Penny on a celebratory tour right now with just such relief, right?
Because they wanted to put him away and put him away for good.
Well, Alan Dershowitz, known, famed legal, constitutional law scholar, criminal defense attorney out of Harvard University.
I like Alan a lot.
I've interviewed him a lot, including on this show over the years.
And he's just, he's fair.
Okay, he's fair.
It gets him in trouble sometimes with various crowds, but he's very, very fair.
And I want you to hear what he's saying about Alvin Bragg because of one, the case that he brought against Donald Trump with the whole Stormy Daniels thing.
And then two, this case against Penny.
He thinks the guy needs to be disbarred.
And you know what?
He's right.
Sir, did you want to start off with just the immediate reaction to the not guilty verdict in the Daniel Penny case?
I have to admit, I was a little surprised.
Having hung on the higher count, I was not expecting that they would so quickly acquit on the lower count.
It probably shows that there were only one or two people in the original high count that hung based on their desire to see a conviction.
So I think it's a good thing.
Now, I think the next step has to be the removal of Alvin Bragg.
From the role of district attorney.
He is a disgrace to the office.
The two cases he brought should never have been brought.
The case against Donald Trump, which was made up out of old cloth, which to my mind involves unethical, unprofessional conduct by Bragg, and also this case, which should never have been brought either.
He brought it only because of the racial component to the case and because of pressures from Black Lives Matter and other groups on the outside, both white and black radicals who wanted these cases to be brought, wanted this case to be brought.
And who are going to continue to complain, even though there were obviously black members of the jury who voted to acquit as well.
Professor, what do you make of how quickly they came back with this verdict?
And also, too, there's the civil case that he's also facing, too, Daniel Penny.
Does that, given that he's not guilty on the criminal case, what happens to the civil case as well?
It'll be thrown out.
There's no case there.
Civilly, the only thing that will happen is that Penny will get an enormous amount of discovery.
And we'll get much more information that we don't now have about the alleged victim in the case.
So, my prediction is it will be withdrawn.
I don't think they'll go any further.
I don't think they'll get any kind of a verdict.
Now, you know, maybe the city will settle if they sue the city as well.
If I were the lawyers for the alleged victim, I'd probably think I'd have a better shot of getting some money from the city, which was sympathetic, obviously, to the victim.
Than from a poor former Marine who probably doesn't have a lot of money.
So I don't think the civil case is going anywhere.
This is not O.J. Simpson, where the civil case won after the criminal case lost.
There was no case here to bring it all, either civil or criminal.
You know, I'm just going to say, and our thanks to Newsmax for that clip, I'm just going to say, Daniel Penny should be able to sue.
And Donald Trump should be able to sue.
I mean, how is it fair that they can go out and seek to destroy your life and you have no recourse here?
I'd be suing Letitia James.
I'd be suing Alvin Bragg.
I'd be suing Fannie Willis.
If she doesn't wind up in jail first, Fannie Willis cruising right straight to jail.
I'm telling you, that Fannie's going to wind up in the slammer faster than you can imagine.
This one I'm talking about.
Are you aware that Fulton County requires you to disclose any relationship with someone that you're doing business with?
I'm not aware.
I know often that time things are confused with state constitutional officers in county, but I'm not aware.
Not aware.
So she was having this little thing, shall we say, with a married man named Nathan Wade.
And Nathan Wade wound up getting divorced from his wife, and then the whole thing got blown open.
And we found out that Fannie Willis was using taxpayer money to pay some $600,000 to Nathan Wade, which kind of complicated things and actually put her entire office and the entire investigation in jeopardy.
So that's where that stands.
But one of the questions that keeps coming up is just what kind of connection did Fannie or Alvin Bragg, for that matter, or Letitia James have with the Biden administration and the Biden White House?
Was Merrick Garland running the whole thing?
A lot of people would like to know, including one Matt Gaetz, who pushed Garland on this repetitively and kept getting stonewalled.
The reason I say Fannie's Fannie's going to be in the slammer is because we've learned that Nathan Wade actually was going to the White House and he was having meetings allegedly about this case.
So if that's the situation, then she should be willing to testify about that, right?
But she's shutting down.
She's, I'm not going to, you can subpoena me.
I'm not going to testify.
Well, the last time that happened, the person went to jail for it.
I can think of one, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro as well.
They tried to get them to testify.
Remember about J6 and they're like, I'm not going to be, you can subpoena me.
I'm not going to go in and testify.
Well, guess what?
They went straight to jail.
So Fanny, your Fanny's going to be in the slammer faster than you can imagine.
You can sit there.
I mean, it's gross.
She's a lawyer, for God's sakes, and she's like, I'm not going to testify.
Come on.
We need to know the answers specifically to this.
Listen to what Mac Gates is asking.
Okay, I don't have it, but that's all right.
I'll summarize for you.
He's pushing Garland in the soundbite I wanted to show you from about six months, nine months ago, and he's pushing him hard and he's saying, listen, I would like to know, was there any interaction between you guys in these various states?
And Garland's like kind of just evading, evading, evading.
And the idea is they're like, Mac Gates, you're somehow accusing us of some kind of, you know, this is conspiratorial.
How dare you suggest that we do all this?
He's like, fine.
You can accuse us of being conspiratorial, but I need to know where are the records?
Why aren't you guys giving us the records?
Why are you stonewalling all of this?
And so this is what I come back to, guys.
Everybody talks about retribution.
Is this retribution?
No, This is not.
And actually, Donald Trump isn't really even wired that way.
But I think that people around him need to pay attention to what went down.
And we need to get answers and we need to figure it out.
Why?
Because it should never have happened.
And it should never, ever happen again to anyone on either side.
It is not right to use and manipulate the federal or state government against your political opponents.
It's so fundamentally wrong and stands at odds with everything that we believe in as a society.
So this isn't retribution.
Jim Jordan was asked this question actually by my former co-host.
We used to host a show together for a while on CNBC.
He's now over at Fox Business, and he used to be in the White House on the economic team one, Larry Kudlow.
Let's listen.
Let me ask you something else.
It's very amusing to me, but I don't understand it.
Democrats are now asking Joe Biden for a preemptive pardon, okay, of Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and Tony Fauci.
What is this all about, preemptive pardons, for heaven's sake?
Well, plus, didn't they just criticize?
They went after some of my colleagues who they said asked for pardons.
I don't know that they ever did, but some of my colleagues who supposedly went after them and now they're doing the same thing.
This is ridiculous.
Donald Trump has never been about retribution.
Donald Trump has been stopping these agencies from being weaponized against we the people and, frankly, from being weaponized against him and all the lawfare that we saw unfold, where Fonnie Willis, Alvin Bragg, and Jack Smith went after President Trump on ridiculous things that we all know were just that ridiculous.
So that's always been President Trump's position.
But this is just the left continuing their crazy antics and crazy concerns.
Yeah, it's the weirdest thing.
Trump, right.
Success is the best revenge.
Success will unify the country.
Success will end the divisions in the country.
He said it a million times.
He never went after Hillary Clinton years ago.
He keeps saying that.
And people are, you know what?
They're projecting all these left wing motives.
Exactly.
That's all they're doing.
One other point, Mr. Jim Jordan.
That's fair.
And, you know, Larry wants to move forward.
Everybody wants to move forward.
I get it.
Donald Trump wants to move forward, too.
And they are projecting to a certain extent.
And it's sort of funny because let me show you something.
This is a great little clip.
This is Adam Schiff back in 2018, 2019, and then him in 2024 vis a vis the pardon thing.
I mean, the pardon stuff is kind of crazy what they're doing, but take a peek.
On the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him.
Very strongly in favor of indicting the president when he is out of office.
I don't think the incoming president should be threatening his political opponents with jail time.
That's not the kind of talk we should hear from a president in a democracy.
Okay.
Right.
So they're going around, they're trying to sort of pin this on Trump and say, well, you know, we get a pardon to everyone because if we don't, Donald Trump's going to put them in jail.
But he has, as Jim Jordan and Larry Kudlow just alluded to, he said over and over again, like, that's not really where he wants to go or what he's about.
He told another one of my former co hosts, Howie, this just before he was getting elected.
He's like, look, I'm not about retribution.
I actually just want to.
make the country a better place.
I think they're unethical, but who knows?
I want to drill down on this question of retribution because against your political opponents, because you've had opportunities to walk that back.
And my question is this.
Are you prepared to say now that you will not use law enforcement to punish or prosecute your political opponents?
Excuse me.
That's what they're using on me.
Okay, so you're saying that they start.
Well, wait a minute.
Let me start you before you start this.
Yeah, I got it.
Howie, that's what they're using on me.
I've got DAs.
I've got everybody, they look at me.
There's never been anything like this.
The biggest case was the one down in Florida, and I beat it 100%.
I won the case because we had a number one, a brilliant judge, and a judge that moved rather rapidly, and I won the case.
By the way, Biden had almost the same case, but he didn't have the presidential records in it because he wasn't the president, just to finish.
And he got off on the basis that he's incompetent essentially, that he's incompetent.
And it was a strange ruling because they said, number one, he's incompetent, so he's not going to be good.
But he was.
The prosecutor actually said he's guilty, but he's incompetent.
But they didn't say he couldn't be president anymore.
That was his bigger problem for not being president.
How can you not represent yourself in court because you're incompetent, but you're allowed to represent the United States of America?
The whole thing is crazy.
But no, they have weaponized government against me.
But are you willing to use the same tactics?
No, I don't want to do that because that's a bad thing for the country.
I don't want to do that.
I don't know who said.
I haven't said that I would.
But they have done it.
I've got attorney generals, DHs, they're all.
You take a look in Atlanta.
You're heavily investigated.
They went and met with it.
It's all coming out of the Justice Department.
They have done something never done in this country before.
Now, it's been done in a lot of other countries, third world countries, banana republics, but never done.
So when you ask that question, you really have to start by saying, well, they've done it to you.
No, I'm not looking to do it to them at all.
Okay, so he means that.
And I would just.
Sort of emphasize or punctuate that by telling you that he has specifically told me as it related to Hillary Clinton, I'm not going to do that.
I'm not going to do that because, you know, we're still the United States of America, and I get it sounds good on the campaign trail, but ultimately she was the wife of a president and she was my opponent in a heated election.
I don't believe that that's where the country's going or should go.
This came up again with one Kristen Welker in the Meet the Press.
Let me ask you this about January 6th.
I wish you could be a, if you, you know, you have such potential.
If you could be just non biased, you hurt yourself so badly.
I'm telling you, they deleted and destroyed all the evidence.
Everyone knows it.
And you slough it off like it doesn't mean anything.
No, I'm just saying they deny it.
That's all I'm saying.
Kristen, if I did it, you would be standing up in that chair shouting at me.
And you know what I'd do?
I'd say, You got me.
They have done something so illegal.
They have a committee sworn to.
And because it was so bad, the only reason they did it is because the testimony turned out to be in favor of me.
Yeah.
So it was a little dig there to Kristen.
Destroyed Evidence and Illegal Acts00:02:59
But again, he's asked about whether or not he wants to move forward with retribution.
Resubsidizing Canada to the tune of over $100 billion a year.
Actually, that was on tariffs.
I'll just paraphrase.
So he was asked about whether or not he wanted to really seek revenge.
And he said, no.
You know what I want to do?
I want to get the country.
Back on stable footing, economically speaking.
I do not want us to be suffering from this mass inflation.
I want to make sure that our borders are secure.
These are the most important things to me.
So, again, he's a nice guy.
So, maybe I'm not so nice because I still look at this.
I actually am really nice.
And this comes from a good place when I say this.
I mean this.
I look at this and say, if it could happen to him, it could happen to anyone.
And part of the reason nobody wants to be in politics or run for political office is because of this sort of vengeance.
You know, you're going to go after your enemy with everything you got.
That's not okay.
And we have to deter people, including rabbit AGs like Letitia James, from doing that.
As the court well knows, this is exactly why they're saying wait a second, how is it that it could get this far out?
How is it that we could be in this situation?
We need some guardrails, we need some lines drawn in the sand.
Listen to them, they're admitting it.
Back to Justice Moulton's point about line drawing, because I do think that that is very important in this case.
You know the history of this statute.
It's passed under then AG Javits and then was really amplified by AG Lefkowitz over the years.
And when I went back and read the bill jackets, the common thread was always we need greater power, the AG needs greater powers as the people's lawyer to protect consumers, civil rights, and the environment.
And so, again, with that sort of historical backdrop to this law, how do we draw a line or at least put up some guardrails to know?
When the AG is operating well within her broad, admittedly broad sphere of 6312, and when she is going into an area that wasn't intended for her jurisdiction.
Right?
We need guardrails.
So that has to happen some way.
I think that you can teach by example, by disbarring Letitia James, by forcing the resignation of Alvin Bragg and Fannie Willis, Fannie, however you want to say it.
Well, as I said, Fani is going to probably find her Fanny in jail before she even gets to the point where she might be able to resign or be disbarred because she's refusing to comply with the subpoena.
Great.
So we've got to actually streamline this so that we're protecting the nation, the country, from turning into a banana republic.
And let me tell you, we are well on the way.
We are well on our way thanks to all of these clowns.
It's really, really pretty despicable.
Syria Prisoner and Fake News00:06:45
Quick word, quick shout out for a company called Bunker.
Have you ever heard of Bunker?
I'll tell you, do you ever have the feeling that you're being surveilled or maybe you're hesitating to share things of interest via text message or an email with your friends and loved ones?
Heck, look what just happened to Pete, you know?
His email from his mom like resurfaces in the New York Times.
Anyway, recently, outspoken parents at PTA meetings, Catholic Americans have been labeled as domestic terrorists by the FBI and these types of labels can be allowed to use the government to surveil its citizens and others who live abroad without legal due process.
Fortunately, the founders of Bunker created an app to uphold people's rights.
Bunker is not beholden to any third-party corporation.
Investor or government.
Bunker deeply believes that privacy is a human right and that everyone on earth deserves bank level security.
Bunker provides you protection from state and corporate surveillance, as well as cyber criminals.
It completes it includes a completely secure and private messenger, a robust password manager, secure cloud storage for your files and for your documents.
Bunker is built to uphold the rights of the people and protect them from cyber crimes, and you can get this today on the App store or Play store today.
Just use my name.
It'll get you 25 off.
25 off at Bunker today.
Code word Trish, right?
All right, let's look at what's going on over at CNN.
Ooh, CNN now seemingly being called out by Elon Musk and Community Notes on X for this little report done by one Clarissa Ward.
They're saying that somehow this is fake news.
Let's take a look.
After three months in a windowless cell, you can finally see the sky.
Oh God, there is life.
Oh God, there is life.
Okay, so it goes on for another two and a half minutes.
Oh God, there is light, there is life.
And he's all excited because he's finally been freed from a prison.
I believe in Damascus.
So, what's at issue now is that a former detainee in Syria, that by the way has no use for al Assad, is saying that this doesn't look entirely right to him.
So, CNN is really proud of this reporting.
They're saying this is an extraordinary moment.
They got to witness this Syrian prisoner being freed from the secret prison.
Isn't it wonderful?
You know, he was there without food, water, or light.
And he was actually unaware that Bashar al-Assad's regime had fallen.
And so isn't it terrific that she was on the ground and was able to capture all this?
But rather than just, you know, taking it at face value, the community notes community decided to take a closer, hard look at it.
And that's why if you look at this tweet, there's actually a community notes addendum that's been added saying Syrian former detainee notes inconsistencies.
Communal cells were not used for individual prisoners.
The cell appears unusually clean.
The prisoner's energy level seems inconsistent with claims of a five-day water deprivation.
So, kind of interesting.
I mean, this is the last thing CNN needs right about now.
Look, reporters have been duped before.
I do believe she used to work for CBS, and CBS ran into these things, right?
Remember?
Dan Rather actually had to leave because of it.
Larry Logan also wound up getting duped in one story there.
And so, you know, they've had some situations.
And Clarissa, could she have been duped here?
It's something to think about.
And you know what?
We wouldn't have really thought about it before if we didn't have something like X out there.
This guy is saying his name is Hassan Akkad.
I was detained twice in Syria.
I think this is staged.
CNN should investigate.
I'm happy to be proven wrong.
She had said in nearly 20 years as a journalist, this is one of the most extraordinary moments I have witnessed.
But he's saying, no, no, no, I think it was staged.
Now, why should we trust him, you say?
I don't know.
I mean, we don't know a lot about him other than he had been in prison in Syria himself.
And he seems to have gone on to work in journalism and in film, et cetera.
And he's got some sort of lofty Twitter followers, including J.K. Rowling, including Barry Weiss.
Anyway, he's writing that individuals were never locked in communal cells.
That never happens, he writes.
In detention centers, none of the clips surfaced of people being released showed a single person in a communal cell.
I watched every single clip.
The cell looks too clean.
There were no discarded clothes, bags, bread, bottles of water, other blankets, nothing.
First thing he said is, I want to drink water, which means he had no water for the last five days because, again, I don't see any bottles in the cell.
He has too much energy, he writes, for someone who had had no water for five days.
Again, he says, look, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but the clips we watch of all the detainees being released are horrifying.
If this turns out to be staged, it should be extremely unethical and insulting.
And Clarissa should apologize.
So again, was she duped?
This guy grew up there in Syria.
He's originally from Damascus and worked as an English teacher and a photographer.
He, in 2011, as the protests in Syria against Bashar al-Assad grew, he joined and filmed the demonstrations and in response to that, the authorities arrested him, beat him.
So he had been part of them in one of those prisons and had been incarcerated by Bashar al-Assad.
Assad.
So he has talked about his systemic torture there, the Assad regime's horrific stuff, and he's not buying it.
So I think it's just very interesting.
It's like this new day and age, right, where we can suddenly have an open dialogue where we can dispute what we're seeing, and that's healthy.
It's really healthy because we shouldn't just automatically take CNN's word for it.
We should have a broader sort of ability to vet facts, and that's what we're seeing.
So again, I guess another win, but you know, we'll see.
Again, I'm with him.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I think it's interesting to have this come up for debate.
Let's hope that CNN did not get duped.
I don't think I'd go so far as to say that she staged this.
I know you guys have no use for CNN or CBS or any of it, but I don't think she'd actually do that.
I think perhaps somebody else duped her in this process, and that's what's concerning.
I want to get to just the idiocy of the overall media right now, especially as it relates to this sad tragedy.
Health Insurance Company Backlash00:09:12
With United Healthcare, we got Jay Z to talk about, but first, quick shout out because you know Christmas is coming for the shop for the Trish Regan shop.
You can go to trishregan.shop, you can get all of my merch or paraphernalia, whatever you want to call it hats, t shirts, mugs, live for your diets that I drink my coffee out of every single morning.
So go check that out.
You can help support the show there at trishregan.shop.
Regan.shop.
Okay, AOC, she's weighing in on this whole United Healthcare thing.
And of course, you know, they all want full-on subsidized socialist-style healthcare.
It's something that's a passion of Warren's as well.
And so we're seeing them come out and react sort of in funny ways because, on the one hand, you got to be sympathetic to the fact that the guy that was murdered in cold blood is a father, is a human being, and yet they're all out there kind of acting like, well, you know, he kind of had it coming because the health insurance.
Industry is so lousy.
I'm sorry, that's not how we do things.
Nope, nope, nope.
That's how Antifa does things, okay?
That's how the radicals do things.
We actually vote people out like we just did, and we're about to vote you out, AOC, and we're about to vote you out, Elizabeth Warren.
But here's AOC saying, okay, okay, you know, I'm not condoning violence, but.
Watch.
You know, taken from a diagnosis.
And I think that this collective American experience, which is so.
Twisted to have in the wealthiest nation in the world, all of that pain that people have experienced is being concentrated on this event.
And it's really important that we take a step back.
This is not to comment and this is not to say that an act of violence is justified.
But I think for anyone who is confused or shocked or appalled, they need to understand that people interpret and feel and experience.
Denied claims as an act of violence against them.
People go homeless over the financial devastation of a diagnosis that doesn't get addressed, or, you know, the amount that they're going to have to cover with a surprise bill and things like that.
And when we kind of talk about how systems are violent in this country in this passive way, our privatized healthcare system is like that for a huge amount of Americans.
I mean, I did not have health insurance.
Until I got elected to Congress.
I was running when I first ran for Congress.
I had to sit in a free clinic while waiting.
Okay.
I think we've heard that story before from her.
So she didn't have health insurance.
I guess the bartending job didn't give you health insurance.
And what happened to Obamacare, AOC?
I thought Obamacare was going to solve everything.
Apparently it didn't.
Apparently it made the situation, believe it or not, worse.
So I think the problem here is while we can have a realistic and worthwhile and healthy debate about how do we solve For these insurance companies, you have a few too many people out there sort of suggesting that somehow he had it coming to him because he worked at a health insurance company.
We've been talking a lot about this Luigi Mangioni case.
Let's go forward.
Here's, you know, by the way, Joy Reid was doing the exact same thing.
Let's listen to Elizabeth Pence.
And what happens when you turn this into the billionaires run it all is they get the opportunity to squeeze every last penny.
And look, we'll say it over and over violence is never the answer.
This guy gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth.
But you can only push people so far.
And then they start to take matters into their own hands.
Yeah.
Huh.
Okay, so is this a threat?
It almost sounds like a threat.
Like Elizabeth Warren's like, okay, you know, well, this is what you got coming to you.
And of course, you got the view piling on as well.
There are things we can fool with and things we can't.
Healthcare is one of those things that you shouldn't be able to fool with.
Who you pay, I pay into my insurance, you pay into your insurance.
I don't understand.
If I don't go to the hospital for a whole year, where's my money?
Why don't you give me the money back?
Then you don't have to worry about it.
Because I feel like, you know, I said this, okay, okay.
We got Bill coming.
I know we got Bill coming.
Apparently, she doesn't understand how the insurance industry works.
Okay, so the insurance industry works by hoping that they have more healthy people they're covering.
Than sick people.
Now, I'm not saying it's perfect, but to link these two, that's where we're getting into some sketchy, sketchy, sketchy territory.
This stupid, stupid former Washington, I mean, she's stupid too, right?
The ABC lady, the Whoopi Goldberg, I mean, the things that come out of her mouth, it's clear there's not a lot of connectivity up there, but this one is really giving new meaning to the word dits.
She goes on with Piers Morgan.
Some of you, if you watch this show, you've seen this because I played this before.
For you, but I just, I'm blown away by it because she talks about how joyful she was when this guy got killed.
And you just have to remember, this is the sentiment of these lefty, anarchy driven reporters, members of the media.
This is not good.
Facts.
Let's move to the other story because Taylor's been waiting patiently here.
So, this issue of Brian Thompson, one of the top healthcare executives in the country, I'm just curious why your first reaction.
Would be to his cold blooded execution.
And people wonder why we want these executives dead.
And then you later commented with people giving you a lot of blowback.
I'm not alone, you said.
Healthcare executive down with party balloons was on an expose that you commented on.
Why would you be in such a celebratory mood about the execution of another human being?
Aren't you supposed to be on the caring, sharing left where you believe in the sanctity of life?
I do believe in the sanctity of life.
And I think that's why I felt, along with so many other Americans, Joy, unfortunately, you know, because it feels like seriously.
I mean, joy in a man's execution, maybe not joy, but certainly not no, certainly not empathy.
Because again, we're watching the footage.
How can this make you joyful?
This guy's a husband, he's a father, and he's being dumbed down in the middle of Manhattan.
Why does that make you joyful?
Americans that he murdered, so are tens, so are the tens of thousands of Americans, innocent Americans who died because greedy health insurance executives like this one.
Push policies of denying care to the most vulnerable people.
And I, the many millions of Americans that have watched people that I care about suffer and in some cases die because of lack of health care.
So, should they all be killed then?
Should they all be killed, these health care executives?
Would that make you even more joyful?
No.
Way to go, Piers Morgan.
I mean, what?
I mean, I say she's ditzy, right?
Because what a choice of words.
And then when she's asked about it, yeah, okay, maybe not joyful, but certainly lack of empathy.
You gotta have some empathy.
He's a husband, he's a father.
Can you not have anything to feel for somebody?
Is it fair that he was just gunned down because we don't like it?
Okay, how many things do we not like?
Do we just run around and just knock people off because we don't like the way things are?
No, okay, that is not how it works, ladies and gentlemen.
And what's frightening to me and scary to me is this reminds me of the Trump attacks, right?
We don't like Trump, therefore we're just going to bash him and bash him and bash him and warn everybody he's the next Hitler.
And then maybe somebody will do something crazy.
which by the way was attempted twice, twice.
And they can justify it in their heads.
And that's what's, I think, really putting us in a treacherous, dangerous, dangerous spot.
You know who gets that?
One Mark Zuckerberg.
Mark Zuckerberg forking over the cash, what do you know, for the inaugural fund.
A million bucks he's donating.
This is the head of Meta, the founder of Facebook.
He's given all this money.
I guess he's seen the handwriting on the wall, right?
Donald Trump talked about him shortly before getting elected with my former colleague, Maria Bartiromo.
Here she is in an interview with him.
I want you to hear what he said about Zuckerberg calling him after that attempt on his life.
Zuckerberg Donates Million Bucks00:01:46
The picture wasn't altered.
At first, they said it was altered, and then they said, no, it was above.
It was a mistake.
So, my point is these companies would not allow any information out about what happened.
So, Mark Zuckerberg called me.
First of all, he called me a few times.
He called me after the event and he said that was really amazing.
It was very brave.
And he actually announced he's not going to support a Democrat because he can't, because he respected me for what I did that day.
I think what I did maybe was a normal response.
To me, it was a normal response.
But I was called by Mark Zuckerberg yesterday, the day before, on this same subject.
And he actually apologized.
He said they made a mistake, et cetera, et cetera, and they're correcting the mistake.
Google, nobody called from Google.
One of the things like doing a show like yours, your show, you know, you see it on Fox.
But where you really see it is all over the place.
They take clips of your show that you're doing right now with me.
And if I do a good job, they're going to vote for me.
They're going to vote for me because it's not just on Fox.
It's on Fox, a smaller part of it.
You're on all over those little beautiful cell phones.
You're all over the place.
You have a product.
You have a great product.
You have a great brand.
He's talking about all these changes that are here and that people are responding to him.
Because of who he is and because he wants to accomplish.
But getting back to Mark for a moment and the million bucks that he's donating, I'm telling you, I think that Mark kind of had this come to Jesus moment, if you would, because when he sat down with Emily Chang at Bloomberg, he was like, you know, that was pretty amazing.
I mean, on a personal note, it's, you know, I mean, seeing Donald Trump get up after getting shot in the face and pump his fist in the with the American flag is