Ghislaine Maxwell threatens to name names as her appeal fails, fueling speculation that the Epstein files were intelligence operations involving Mossad or the CIA while Attorney General Pam Bondi denies their existence despite internal GOP pressure. The episode further examines President Trump's potential dismantling of the Department of Education under Linda McMahon, Rand Paul's referral of Dr. Anthony Fauci over pandemic lies, and CNN's impending layoffs as traditional media obsolescence accelerates amidst accusations that Jake Tapper mocked Biden's cognitive decline without credentials. Ultimately, the discussion highlights a fractured political landscape where transparency clashes with alleged deep state cover-ups, signaling a shift toward instantaneous, unfiltered digital discourse that renders legacy cable networks obsolete. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
GOP Refuses Document Release00:14:56
And we're live.
What do you know?
It's working.
What a miracle.
Technology, huh?
Funny things happening along the way.
Anyway, it's so good to have all of you here today because we do have a lot, a lot going on, a lot breaking in, a lot of conflicting stuff.
But let me at least let you know, one Maxwell is still sitting in prison.
She's not very happy about it.
Some video captured there by Daily Mail shows her out on her daily workout.
She stopped a couple of times just to relax and maybe deal with the, uh, actual reality that she's not going to get the appeal she wanted after all.
We're going to get into all of that.
Meanwhile, the GOP saying, no, no, go.
We're not going to release these Epstein files.
What is that really about?
I do think that there is sort of this coalescing, if you would, around Donald Trump at this moment in time, because there's some kind of realization that, you know what, MAGA is bigger than this, and we can't fight just for that, you know, as much as people want to.
Don't get me wrong.
There is an effort underway to try to make this, uh, Oh, go away a little bit.
We're going to talk about all the reasons why that may be going on.
Meanwhile, I got to show you this sound because this is just unbelievable.
I think we played it in the Shorts feed this morning.
This is the woman from the National Education Association.
She's the president of the whole thing.
And she just got some really, really, really bad news because the Supreme Court's like, uh-uh, we don't need, apparently, the education department anymore.
Donald Trump wants to get rid of it.
And the Supreme Court says, go for it.
Here we go.
Okay, we're going to get back to all of that.
But first, we're going to begin with the headlines coming to us fast and furious right now.
New promises from the Trump administration to basically deliver on this whole Epstein thing.
There's some talk that Donald Trump will now allow for the release of some of these files.
This is despite the GOP kind of shutting it down, voting to not move forward with an Epstein bill that was there on Capitol Hill.
So that just happening moments ago.
I also want to point out that Maxwell's appeal was denied.
That was kind of a bombshell thing from the administration.
They had been sort of punting.
And they had delayed and delayed and delayed.
And yesterday was the final deadline where they had to decide, okay, what are we doing in terms of this appeal?
And they are rejecting that appeal.
She's now threatening to testify and name names.
I don't know.
Like if you buy the whole spy thing, I'm going to think to myself, I don't know how that's going to go.
I think that didn't really work out so well for one Jeffrey Epstein, your ex-boyfriend, right?
Hmm?
Let's see if she stays safe.
Okay.
Meanwhile, Supreme Court ruling that Trump can shut down the Department of Education, as you saw.
Becky there was quite worked up about it.
And Shifty Shift might have been pulling a Letitia James.
That's new coming out today.
Some allegations of mortgage fraud.
What is it with everybody in Washington, D.C. trying to get away with all kinds of stuff?
We begin today, though, on Epstein's ex, Maxwell, getting some rather bad news in terms of her case.
I told you yesterday that there was this deadline that had been fast approaching for her.
The government had basically said all along, all right, well, we're going to look at it later, later, later, later.
And they had kind of run out the clock.
So yesterday was the deadline and they finally came through and they made the decision that no, they are not going to allow for her to appeal.
Now it was kind of an interesting case.
I'm just saying it was a very, very interesting case because she wanted the appeal only because she said that the law was different in different places.
In other words, they had that plea deal that they did or some kind of sweetheart deal with Alex Acosta, who went on to become the labor secretary for Donald Trump way back when.
Remember, actually, it was 2008.
And he was the AG of Florida at the time.
And he basically let Jeffrey Epstein get off really, really easy.
And there were allegations that surfaced and reports saying, well, Alex Acosta did this because somebody in the intel department called him up and said, hey, hey, be careful with him.
Go easy on him.
And he did.
But part of that agreement meant that they were not going to be able to go after any co-conspirators in the future.
And so Maxwell's saying, and her team is saying, well, wait a second, why is it that you went after him or her in the future?
And, you know, shouldn't the law be consistent throughout the land?
So this was her argument.
And I'll quote from the argument, this inconsistency in the law by which the same promise of the U.S. means different things in different places should be addressed by this.
Court.
So this is why she wanted to appeal, and the Trump administration had to weigh in on this.
And they had, as I said, avoided weighing in.
They said they were just very busy and the docket was very full, and they really hadn't had a lot of time to pay any attention to it.
But eventually, coming to the conclusion that no, she's not going to get anywhere with this.
I mean, surprise, surprise, right?
But they're not giving her the time of day.
Can she still go through the process perhaps?
And try to get the Supreme Court to look at this.
But I don't think it's going to happen.
I just don't think it's going to happen.
John Sauer, he's the Solicitor General pick.
He's the one who basically said, we need an extension.
He was the one who was kind of waiting and waiting and waiting.
And now she's in the situation where she's not going to get the appeal she wants.
So you've got to ask, is this why she's suddenly telegraphing that she's willing to sit down and testify and name names?
I mean, is she trying to sort of get in bed with the Democrats, if you would?
Because the Democrats are seizing this story.
And that's, as I've said all along, like, and I've I'm going to continue to caution this.
You have to be very careful that this doesn't do something to effectively destroy the MAGA movement, which is so powerful.
Wouldn't they just love that?
But she's now saying, okay, well, I'll come out and I'll say something.
I'll testify before Congress.
And that puts us as a party, I would say the GOP, in a kind of risky situation.
Well, not really because of the testimony.
I mean, I guess you could kind of say anything, but because the Democrats are going to try and really welcome that.
Now, that's not going to happen, of course, unless they were to win midterms.
And so they're looking at this and they're going ka-ching.
You know, this is our opportunity.
Oh, we see a divide in MAGA.
Oh, you get Tucker Carlson, you get Steve Bannon, everybody out there complaining.
Part of the reason, perhaps Charlie Kirk started to sort of come around on this story and a few others.
If you notice, yours truly, from the beginning, has been warning about this.
You got to be very, very careful what you wish for.
I understand.
I understand everybody wants this information, but I have a feeling a lot of this information may be gone.
Or, if you listen to Alan Dershowitz, a lot of this information is still being controlled by judges.
We're going to get to his comments in a second, But it's either gone, it's either destroyed.
If you believe that, you know, he was a spy for Mossad or for the CIA or any of that, you're not going to get this.
Like, let's be honest, right?
And if they did their job and they did it well, then he's polished off and maybe polished off to the point where even Dan Bongino legitimately thinks it all happened.
I mean, there's just, you don't know what you don't know in this case.
But I would say, so Maxwell, they're in prison.
And you got to say, like, why is she in prison if, you know, there really was no list?
Well, she was in prison because of some of the things that happened.
But why can't we find out who was actually doing this?
And that's where it starts to get really interesting, okay?
Interesting and then some.
And as I said, I want to get to what dershowitz has said on this because Dershowitz is pointing to the judges and saying they're the ones who are in the way.
In the meantime, of course, the media is going where only the media can go.
And they're starting to ask the question well, wait a second, is this because of Trump?
Is Trump on the list?
And that's why it's not getting released?
They asked him that question just moments ago.
I want to share with you his answer.
The attorney general briefed you on the DOJ and FBI review, the findings of that review.
The attorney general briefed you on what?
On the DOJ and FBI review.
On what subject?
Yet.
Epstein, not Epstein, of the review of the file.
Attorney General Pambani.
A very, very quick briefing.
Did she tell you, what did she tell you about the review?
And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file?
No, no.
She's given us just a very quick briefing.
And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen, and I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by the Biden, you know, and we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax with all of the different things that we had to go through.
We've gone through years of it, but she's handled it very well, and it's going to be up to her.
Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.
On Texas, on Texas.
How many more?
So that's kind of interesting, don't you think?
I mean, he's sort of suggesting that there might have been some false stuff in there.
He didn't say whether or not he was in there, but this is going to cause even more questions.
I think a lot of people are now going to be saying, wait, was this some kind of giant psychop?
I would say this.
If he was in there, wouldn't you think that the Democrats would have released that going into this election?
I mean, why would they wait until now, for goodness sakes?
I would think that that would have come out somehow, some way, right?
They would have taken that opportunity.
They took every other opportunity they could.
There's no reason to believe that they wouldn't have taken that opportunity, unless, of course, it's just, as I've pointed out, so, so, so, so damaging.
And so they just want to somehow pin this on him.
I would say what's interesting is that we just got moments ago news that the GOP is not going to do squat on this in terms of itself moving forward to ask for the release of these documents.
This just coming to us right now, we saw that they have voted against the release of the documents.
I want to show you this right now.
I move the committee make an order amendment number 50 to H.R. 3633 offered by Representative Khanna, which would require the Attorney General to preserve and release any records related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Madam Chair, on February 21, 2025, President Trump's own Attorney General, Pam Bondi, said on Fox News the Epstein client list was sitting on her desk, quote, right now to review, end quote.
Kash Patel, Trump's FBI director, said during His confirmation hearing that he would do everything, everything, if confirmed to make sure the American people knew, quote, the full weight of what happened, end quote.
Patel, who now leads the FBI, said on the Benny Johnson show that the FBI was hiding the Epstein client list.
Donald Trump Jr., the president's own son, tweeted out, and I quote, show us all the Epstein client list right now.
Why would anyone protect those scumbags?
Ask yourselves this question, and then the answer becomes very apparent, end quote.
And now, Forgive me, but suddenly these same people are telling us there's nothing to see here.
Trump is posting that we should all just move on.
Well, I want to know what the hell is in these files.
And I think we all want to know why Trump is suddenly changing his tune and is so desperate to sweep this under the rug.
But you know what?
This also gets at his credibility.
This is about trust.
Republicans said, trust us, vote for us, and we will release these files.
And here we are, they are backtracking.
They said they aren't going to cut Medicaid, and they did.
They said they wouldn't add to the deficit and debt.
They exploded both.
They said that they would.
Okay, so now you see where this is going.
You see how they're going to use this as a huge political opportunity.
And then, you know, I'm looking at a piece of my mind saying, remember what happened with the Russian dossier and Russia, Russia, Russia, and how we spent all that time on that.
Is that where we're perhaps heading with this?
I mean, I just have to say, like, again, if they had anything, that would have come out.
Like, why would you be waiting until now?
But the way he answered this question was a little bit mysterious.
I'm going to play it again.
The Attorney General briefed you on the DOJ and FBI review, the findings of that review.
The Attorney General briefed you on what?
On the DOJ and FBI review.
No, no.
And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen, And I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey.
On what subject?
Epstein.
On Epstein, of the review of the files.
Attorney General Pambani.
A very quick briefing.
Did she tell you, what did she tell you about the review?
And specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file?
She's given us just a very quick briefing.
They were made up by Obama.
And we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, with all of the different things that we had to go through.
They were made up by the Biden, you know.
on Epstein, of the review of the files, Attorney General Crampon.
A very, very quick briefing.
Can she tell you, what did she tell you about the review?
And specifically, can she tell you at all that your name appeared in the file?
No, no, she's given us just a very quick briefing.
And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen.
And I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey.
They were made up by Obama.
They were made up by the Biden, you know.
And we went through.
years of it.
But she's handled it very well.
And it's going to be up to her.
Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.
On Texas, on Texas, how many more seats?
Okay.
So he's actually since then come out and said, we may release some of this.
So, in other words, they need to check the credibility of it.
It's something he actually brought up a while back.
I want to show you a clip from a Fox and Friends interview with Donald Trump talking about these Epstein files and expressing some concern that there might have been just a whole bunch of you know what in there.
Would you declassify the Epstein files?
Yeah, yeah, I would.
All right.
I guess I would.
I think that less so because, you know, you don't know.
You don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there because there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.
But I think I would.
So interesting comment, right?
A lot of phony stuff with that whole world.
Well, of course we know there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.
If, in fact, he agrees that Jeffrey Epstein was part of that world, meaning the intelligence world, okay?
The intelligence world that was gathering something.
Now, don't forget, we've been asking this question all along.
For example, who is Maxwell?
Who is she really?
She was refused her appeal here by the administration, so they're not going to go easy on her.
So she's got that 20-year sentence.
We'll see.
She's still going to probably um, make some noise, and as I said, she wants to come in and testify.
I don't think anybody's going to invite her to testify, but you know, if the democrats were in charge, would any of that change?
I don't know.
I think that they themselves are probably at risk of various things.
Nonetheless, um, you had the former head of Israel coming out yesterday and making very clear Jeffrey Epstein was never any kind of spy for the Mossad, and um, therefore, I guess what are we to believe that Maxwell was not then?
Clearing His Name00:17:27
I mean, or Or maybe she was actually, I'm just saying, maybe she was the one that was running the whole thing, right?
I've kind of, if we were going to go down this rabbit hole, and it's a big if, right?
Because we don't actually have anything other than a lot of hearsay and innuendo, et cetera, that would confirm this.
But don't forget, her father was believed to have been a spy for Israel, for the U.S., and possibly for the KGB, and had some very special software that he negotiated a deal with with Israel so as to enable Israel and the U.S. to kind of have backdoor entry into all of this software that was being sold all around the world.
And all these other countries bought it and it basically gave us access to it so we could see what was going on.
And if you think this through and you consider all those deals that were going on and that she of course had this software, maybe possibly she had these contacts and she needed a front person for the whole shebang right, and maybe that front person happened to be a math teacher from Dalton who was down on his luck, kind of wearing out his welcome on Wall Street as a trader.
But Wexler, the guy from Limited Brands, knew maybe of this guy's deviances and also that he was a huge, big personality that could charm the socks off of anyone, and literally, more apparently off of anyone, okay?
Sadly.
So she knew all that, and she were the mastermind in the whole operation.
Then she recruits Jeffrey.
He suddenly goes on to have fancy homes and fancy this and that.
and gives him access to her contacts, access to her father's software, and now all of a sudden they're running an operation that was, shall we say, a little more than what daddy was doing.
Possibly.
I mean, it's a real question.
And so when she goes out there and says, oh, I'm going to talk, I'm going to talk, I'm going to talk, it's like, oh, careful.
Because that didn't work out so well now, did it?
For dad or for the ex boyfriend.
If we're to believe that they're in that family business, right?
So it's a little bit of a risky position for her to take at this moment in time, but perhaps she's taking it for various reasons.
Meanwhile, you've got a lot of people within the so called deep state that want to cover all this up.
And Dershowitz talked about this recently.
So you know Dershowitz, he was actually one of the people on the list.
He was one of the people that they kept talking about.
He's pretty angry about it.
He's like, Look, I didn't do anything.
I'm really angry.
I want to clear my name.
And in order to clear his name, he actually wants to bring up more of this information.
He knows that there's a so called list out there.
He explained it on News Nation just last night.
I want to show you a clip of this.
Is the government hiding a client list or anything that the Trump administration could release tonight?
No, there is no client list.
There never has been a client list.
A client list suggests that Jeffrey Epstein.
Made a list of people to whom he trafficked women.
What there is, is a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers, there are several of them, from accusers that accuse Jeffrey, that accuse various people of having improper sex.
And that has been redacted.
The names of the people accused have been blacked out.
Now, of course, because I was the lawyer and I did all the investigations, I know who all these people are.
I could figure out.
Based on everything that I saw, who Mr. X is, Mr. Y is, and Mr. Z, I can tell you right now, none of them are public figures who are currently in office.
Some of them were previously in office, some of them are dead.
But there is no client list.
And the redactions could be undone if you go to court.
So many of the things that are being suppressed are being suppressed by two judges in Manhattan.
And they're doing it largely to protect.
The alleged accusers who are, in the view of the judges, victims, even though we don't know what their actual status is.
But the judges have issued orders, which is why I can't disclose things I'd love to disclose, saying that you can't disclose this information.
But Pam Bondi and the Justice Department and Donald Trump are not responsible for that.
I don't know of any information that they could disclose that they haven't disclosed.
Now, maybe there is some, but I'm simply not aware of it.
And so I think it's important to place the blame where the blame deserves to be placed.
The vast majority of people who are in the files, and I know them all, I've seen all the names, the vast, vast majority of them have already been disclosed.
They're in articles all over the world, they're in books that have been written.
So if we got everything, everything, you would be shocked how few names are there that haven't already been disclosed.
The media hasn't, by the way, Done a good enough job in finding the people who have been disclosed in the public record.
So that's that list.
Hmm.
I mean, I think there are quite a few, right, that we sort of already know about.
One was a former president who actually I think Dershowitz represented, okay?
Just saying.
Did you hear him say something really, really interesting, though?
He said no one is a current holder of political office.
Wow.
Okay.
So, you know, he could have just come out and said it.
Donald Trump's not on the list.
That's what he was trying to tell you.
Alan Dershowitz, making it very clear.
Donald Trump is not on the list.
But Donald Trump is also saying, look, we don't know the authenticity of this because maybe it's a little crazy.
Like just because you're on the quote unquote list, like maybe you went to Jeffrey Epstein's house.
Does that mean bad stuff happened to there?
How do we then prove that one out?
Maybe there are some documents or files or videotape somewhere.
I mean, Pam did say she was getting like tens of thousands of hours of videotape, right?
So there would be some homework to do.
They should probably do the homework.
And yet we're hearing, you know, over and over again, they're really not interested, I guess, at this point in time for whatever reason.
And this is what is so peculiar.
And this is why I get back to, gosh, was this really and truly us?
Like with cooperation of Israelis?
I mean, if it was a Mossad operation, I'm just saying, like, we're not like allowing that to go on without knowing it's going on.
You think we're going to allow them to be gathering intel on our soil, about our people?
No, of course not.
So, we'd have to have known that.
And maybe that's what nobody wants to admit, because if that comes out, I mean, we really look pretty darn bad, do we not?
Anyway, Pam Bondi, let me see if I can get this for you, just moments ago today, saying this about all of it.
Madam Freddie Darmel, on this matter of fentanyl, which is a priority clearly for the DEA, the Department of Justice, are you confident you're going to still be here to execute this because there's so many people calling for change?
I know it's hard to hear, so.
I'm going to be here for as long as the president wants me here, and I believe he's made that crystal clear.
It's four years.
Well, three and a half now, right?
We've got six months in.
And it feels like six years.
But I was with Director Patel this morning, and we are working on fighting violent crime.
We are working on all these issues that we deeply care about to make America safe again and get these drugs off our streets.
We've been working on this since my really last two years.
Fentanyl was coming on the market when I was state attorney general.
And now, with these cartels, It's coming back.
It's coming in more than ever.
So she's making it very clear.
She's not going anywhere.
Okay.
She's there to stay.
and Donald Trump making it clear that he's supportive of her, that he wants her to stay.
He came out over the weekend.
He's like, what's going on?
Why all the chaos?
Why are you guys all fighting?
What's the infighting?
Come on, people.
Like, we've got a mission to do.
And so you've seen a little bit of backing off, but I think that, I think Dan Bongino really felt burnt.
I mean, I know him.
I've known him a long time.
He's a really, really good guy.
And I think that he doesn't really know what's going on.
I mean, none of us really know what's going on, right?
I mean, we have a lot of suspicions and we think we know what's going on.
But the truth is, I don't think Pam fully knows what's going on.
Does Trump even fully know what's going on?
Somebody knows, I guess, maybe somebody knows that, and I get back to this, this is worst case scenario, okay?
Just hear me out.
Worst case scenario is, yeah, this was an intel gathering operation.
And it effectively means that the U.S. government and whoever else was involved was willing to sacrifice people in a pretty extraordinary way.
I mean, it's one thing to have snipers, and it's a whole other thing to be doing this, okay?
That is just taking it to a level where, you know, like that's not who we are, right?
Like, that's not who that's not the America we want to be.
So, it could be an effort to try and cover up some of that.
But, Dan's having a hard time because Dan's a true blue kind of guy.
And Dan has spent, you know, much of his career criticizing the FBI and criticizing the administration, certainly within the Biden camp.
And now he's in a position where he's part of the system.
Not easy, right?
This is why I would never, you know, people who were like, would you like to go work for the Fed?
How about Treasury?
I'm way better over here because like to actually be in on it, then you can actually call balls and strikes the way you want.
Dan wants to be able to do that.
And so there he is now working for Pam.
Pam, who's never met a television camera that she doesn't want to get on, right?
Like that's a whole other thing.
We don't need people on TV this much.
Trust me.
Do your job.
Like let the TV people be the TV people.
We don't need people on TV as much as they are.
And now Bongino is getting put in this horrible spot because he's got to go out and give everybody the bad news.
And it sometimes doesn't really look like he believes it.
I'm like.
You know, I can't imagine he would ever lie to us just because knowing him as I do, but then again, it's a well-run Intel op.
Maybe he believes it because you shouldn't have that many.
Well, this one does have a lot of holes, shall we say.
Anyway, Bongino is now expected to stay put for a little while.
He was back at work this week, came in a little bit late, but he went back to work.
And Trump is a heck of a negotiator.
I mean, heck, you know, if he can negotiate with China and with canada and Mexico and Europe and all these countries around the world.
You better believe you can negotiate with Dan, right?
Here he is.
Oh, I think so.
I did.
I spoke to him today.
Dan Bongino, very good guy.
I've known him a long time.
I've done his show many, many times.
And he sounded terrific, actually.
No, I think he's in good shape.
I was going to ask you, on this one-year anniversary of Buck.
So that was yesterday.
Dan was back in again today.
So far, so good.
You heard from Pam.
She's not going anywhere, right?
She's in it to win it.
And what happens in the meantime?
With all of this.
I mean Donald Trump's now saying okay well, maybe we release part of it if we're really, really confident that it's not just a bunch of hearsay.
Dershowitz, he's frustrated because he was implicated in all of this.
His name came out.
He wants to be able to speak up and say more, but he's restricted for legal reasons and so it is in the meantime.
You know Bongino and Cash.
They went on, and I want you to look at Bongino's body language.
Okay, because this is a guy who can't lie.
He just can't, and just look at him as he's.
Given this story, Are we going to be surprised at what you learned?
You know what, Maria?
Cash is not kidding.
We've been personally briefed extensively on every single detail, nugget, tendril of this case.
One is actively in court right now, so out of respect for the case, it's probably more appropriate that I stay quiet on that.
However, I'm not going to tell people what they want to hear.
I'm going to tell you the truth, and whether you like it or not is up to you.
If there was a big explosive there, right, given my history, As a Secret Service agent, and my personal friendship as a director does with the president.
Give me one logical, sensible reason we would not have.
If you can think of one, there isn't.
There isn't.
In some of these cases, the there you're looking for is not there.
And I know people, I get it.
I understand.
It's not there.
If it was there, we would have told you.
Hmm.
Two things just breaking right now.
It has just come out that Pam Bondi said she's not going to release anything more.
Donald Trump, meanwhile, is encouraging her to release something.
So what's going on?
Okay.
The president of the United States.
Yeah, we might release some more.
Well, it turns out Attorney General Pam Bondi says there is absolutely no change in her position.
This is after Donald Trump suggested that some of these files could be released.
So she's sticking to her guns on this.
And one would have to think, well, I mean, she can't be really overridden by the president on this because this is DOJ.
They're supposed to be separate, but it's a little strange.
So, again, you know, he has praised Pambondi for this and for her handling of all of this.
He has suggested that there could be some funny business there.
You saw him the other day.
This is what he sent out on True Social saying, I don't understand why everybody's fighting over this.
He was really annoyed.
What is going on, guys?
You know, we're one team, we got to stick together, and then in the meantime, you've got the ex Maxwell who just learned her fate, which is that no, she's not going to get an appeal of her case at least, not as easily as she thought.
And so now she's talking about coming in and releasing names, all while Pam Bondi is making the decision to absolutely positively not release anything else, anything else at all.
So it's just getting weirder and weirder.
And weirder.
And don't forget, Bondi was totally willing.
Like just a couple weeks ago, like what changed?
What happened?
No, no, the FBI, yeah, the FBI, they're reviewing, there are tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child.
And there are hundreds of victims, and no one victim will ever get released.
It's just the volume, and that's what they're going through right now.
The FBI is diligently going through that.
I haven't seen that statement, but I'll call him later and find out.
And Martin seems to be basically very tough.
We all did.
And the FBI handed over a couple hundred pages of documents.
But, you know, Sean, I gave them a deadline of Friday at 8 a.m. to get us everything.
And a source had told me where the documents were being kept Southern District of New York, shock.
So we got them all by hopefully all of them Friday at 8 a.m. thousands of pages of documents.
I have the FBI going through them.
Okay, okay.
They're all going through them.
And then, of course, I guess, you know, she had the FBI going through them.
Did the FBI tell her something that she wasn't comfortable with?
Because, you know, I do recall this one.
They're on my desk.
The list is on my desk.
DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients?
Will that really happen?
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
That's been a directive by President Trump.
I'm reviewing that.
I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files.
That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies.
So have you seen anything that you said, oh my gosh?
Not yet.
Go ahead.
Sure, sure.
First, to back up on that, in February, I did an interview on Fox, and it's been getting a lot of attention because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file along with the JFK, MLK files as well.
That's what I meant by that.
To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that.
We can get back to you on that.
Missing Minute in Video00:14:53
And the minute missing from the video, we released the video showing definitively, the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide.
And what was on that, there was a minute that was off the counter.
And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that video.
It was old from like 1999.
So every night the video is reset.
And every night should have the same minute missing.
So, we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing.
Okay.
It just doesn't make sense.
So, for her, she needs to do less TV.
Okay.
Because every time you go on TV, like we get a record of it.
You know, there's this little thing called the internet.
And we can go back and we can look at what you said.
And when it doesn't add up, everybody starts getting really, really, really perplexed.
So, now there's a new development at this moment coming out that I want to share with you, actually, from my good friend Benny, because Benny just sat down with Mike Johnson, and I think this is actually kind of important here.
You know, we talked yesterday about how Epstein's ex is ready to release this list, and maybe she was doing this to kind of jockey for position.
Who knows?
I mean, it could actually be if indeed she's one of the Intel ops that we've talked about, if that line of thinking is true.
Like, this is make sure she stays alive, okay?
Like if she suddenly goes missing, I think then we really, really need to ask some questions.
But Mike Johnson, Speaker Johnson, just sat down with Benny and actually had some interesting things to say in kind of a very different approach, shall we say, than what we were just hearing from Pam Bondi.
Pam Bondi saying today to reporters, absolutely not.
She's not going to be releasing anything else.
The memo she put out speaks for itself.
There is no list, et cetera.
It's like, let's make this go away.
Well, the more you tell us to make it go away, I'm sorry, the more we're going to ask questions.
Here's Mike Johnson and Benny.
Let's watch.
Speaker Johnson, this is sort of on the heels of something else that a lot of people are asking questions about.
And because we've been lied to by our federal government for so long, I feel like there's some type of like a pain point, right?
And a pressure cooker that gets heated up on issues like the Epstein issue, right?
And obviously, that's something that's taken over a lot of the online dialogue.
I have a question here about it.
That concerns either testifying or testimony for Jelaine Maxwell potentially before Congress, or if you would support members like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Anna Paulina Luna on the release of subpoena, subpoenaing the Epstein documents from the DOJ, whether you would support either of those.
Yeah, I haven't talked to Marjorie or Anna about that specific subject, but I'm for transparency.
We're intellectually consistent in this.
Look, Reagan used to tell us we should trust the American people.
I believe in that principle.
As well.
And I trust him.
I mean, he put together a team of his choosing, and they're doing a great job.
It's a very delicate subject, but we should put everything out there and let the people decide it.
I mean, the White House and the White House team are privy to facts that I don't know.
I mean, this isn't my lane, I haven't been involved in that.
But I agree with the sentiment that we need to put it out there.
And, you know, Pam Bondi, I don't know when she originally made the statement.
I think she was talking about documents, as I understood it, they were on her desk.
I don't know that she was specific about a list or whatever, but.
She needs to come forward and explain that to everybody.
I like Pam.
I mean, I think she's done a good job.
We need the DOJ focusing on the major priorities.
So let's get this thing resolved so that they can deal with violent crime and public safety and election integrity and going after Act Blue and the things that the president is most concerned about as we are.
So I'm anxious to get this behind us.
And he says he's ready for her to come in and testify if that's what, in fact, it takes.
So let's think this through for a second, guys.
All right.
You got Maxwell, who's upset because she's not going to be able to appeal her case, saying, I'm ready to testify.
I'm going to give you more information.
You've got Donald Trump admitting that there's some sketchy stuff in there, perhaps, as sometimes these things are.
I mean, to me, that sort of speaks volumes about.
This being an Intel op just the fact that he's like okay, there's some sketchy stuff So he's like okay, maybe we can release some of it and then Pam Bondi's like no You get Bongino who's like I'm out of here.
Right.
And you know you're negotiating with Bongino to keep him in the seat in the meantime You've got a MAGA movement that's kind of fragile right now and this was my concern.
This is my immediate concern I got kind of frustrated when I was watching all this stuff over the weekend remember guys and you're like oh Trish you don't get it some of you said that not all of you, but I'm like no here's what I get Like this whole thing is going to go really south, really fast.
And that's going to be really, really bad for all the good stuff that we want to get done and that is getting done.
And that's what you also have to keep in mind.
As much as we want justice, don't get me wrong.
And we do.
And, you know, Maxwell deserves it.
And anybody who engaged in this behavior, this disgusting behavior, they deserve it.
But there's just so darn many questions.
I mean, remember when Dan said there was going to be this great tape?
Again, stop going on TV, everyone.
Those two cases obviously are of significant public interest.
I'm just telling you what we see in the file.
I just want to be crystal clear on this.
I am not asking anyone to believe me.
I'm telling you what's there and what isn't.
Right.
There is nothing in the file at this point on the Epstein case, and there's going to be a disclosure on this coming shortly.
We are working through some.
There is video.
That is something the public does not know.
There's video of him killing himself.
No, no, not.
Not the actual act, but the entire MCC Bay, it was only one camera.
There were other, there's video that when you look at the video, and we will release, that's what's taken a while on this.
We are working on cleaning it up to make sure you have an enhanced, and we're going to give the original so you don't think there were any shenanigans.
You're going to see there's no one there but him.
There's just nobody there.
So I say to people.
Except when they released the video, there was the missing minute, for goodness sakes.
I mean, it's like, who's on?
First right, like they just can't get out of their own way.
For some reason, and and I don't blame Dan with this um, somebody released this and they really should have been a little bit more cautious about what was being released, because there's an entire missing minute and you know the the, the tech people are all over this saying well, you know it was, it was edited like they believe it may have been, maybe it wasn't, but there's certainly ambiguities.
So what did they do with this tape?
Again, more questions, more questions, more questions, and this is not going well.
So now you've got the schism Right in MAGA, and that's what's really frightening in terms of where the movement goes.
I would tell everybody, I actually agree with my former colleague Megan Kelly.
I don't like that it became such a big thing over the weekend, and I think that again, it's scary for the movement.
But she was not wrong, right?
When she was like, Pam, for goodness sakes, get off the boob tube, okay?
I blame Pam Bondi.
I'll tell you why, okay?
I have nothing, yes, incompetence, yes.
She is the reason that things are unraveling around this story right now that virtually all of the Republican Party cares deeply about.
Who have you seen?
Pam Bondi.
She has never missed an opportunity to go on television and dangle sweet nothings that might be coming your way, try to lead you to believe that she's got it, it's on her desk, it's coming.
Tomorrow, you're gonna see something on Epstein.
And it was a tease.
So you either believe that Pam Bondi was telling the truth then, or that she's telling the truth now.
But both cannot be true.
She was either lying when she went on Fox News all those times saying, I've got it, I've got it, we're looking at it, wait until you see it, it's horrible.
Or she's lying in her two-page memo that they released on a Sunday night at the tail end of a holiday weekend to Axios, as if Axios is where we all go for our news.
Hell no.
She went to someone she knew would not kick the tires on the story, and Without signing the memo, dropped it in the dead of night and said, That's it.
Take it.
Take the crumbs and be happy.
Refused to come out and give a presser, come out and give a press conference.
Stand there for six hours to the point where people are dying of boredom.
They've asked all their questions.
That's how you put a scandal to rest.
But she wouldn't even sign her name to it.
And I'm telling you, I have dollars to donuts.
It's going to come out that there was internal consternation.
So I agree.
Less TV is more.
However, However, here's where Megan is not getting the whole story.
And granted, I didn't listen to the entire interview.
Maybe she went there with Charlie, but it's one thing to blame Pam.
And I get it.
You know, like maybe it's sexy, Megan versus Pam, a couple blondes, you know, with a good fight.
But where this winds up is on Trump's lap.
And so therefore, it's compromising him and it's compromising the administration.
And MSNBC, is jumping all over it and the mainstream media is jumping all over it.
And that's what starts to get me concerned, because it's one thing and and you know look, we've talked about this maybe Pam's not the best at the job, maybe maybe Pam does spend too much time on TV and you know, as a woman it requires a couple hours of hair and makeup a day as well like, maybe we need somebody who does not want to be on TV, who just wants to do the job as kind of a kick-ass attorney and can get everybody motivated.
And you know, take a hundred Stephen Millers and send them out there and get them doing their jobs and doing them well.
So You know, in terms of her leadership, I don't know.
I've been on TV a couple of times with her in the past.
I don't know her in terms of how well she's able to motivate people, lead people.
I don't know how good of an attorney she is.
I would say we've had some wins thus far.
I mean, look what the Supreme Court keeps saying, and that's a feather in her cap.
Nonetheless, it's not entirely her fault, right?
Because at some point, the buck is going to stop with Trump.
And the mainstream media knows this.
I mean, this is what you're hearing over and over and over again.
In fact, it came up on CNN over the weekend.
This isn't something that's going to clean up quickly.
Yeah.
For.
I haven't really been following what his base thinks and wants.
Sometimes, even to the point that he.
I wouldn't say he's afraid of them, but he wouldn't do something that, for instance, would make him a historic president with an immigration agreement or something because the base would be mad at him for it.
But he keeps going against his base here.
Why?
I remember that press conference well, and I remember being in upper press in the West Wing and being a bit stunned by that statement because, to your point, the MAGA base has felt so strongly about Jeffrey Epstein since his crimes came to light.
And this has been sort of a rallying cry on the right.
There's been some of it, by the way, well documented his crimes, others that kind of turn over into the conspiracy space, thinking that prominent left wingers are going to get wrapped up in this sort of network that he was associated with.
But this is the first time I can really remember that Trump is sidestepping his base and not doing what they're very vocally asking him to do.
And so, as there's these calls now by some on the right for Pam Bondi to step aside or to resign and be fired, the thing I would say is if Donald Trump wants all of the information the government has on Jeffrey Epstein to be released, he can make that available.
He can direct the attorney general to release it.
He can move to whether it may be law enforcement sensitive to declassify that and make it public.
And there you have it, right?
So as much as we want to blame Pam, it's not just Pam.
Like someone's making a decision not to release this.
I keep getting back to, it's entirely possible that our intelligence agencies were involved and did some really heinous stuff.
And like, I don't know, like you can't put the genie back in the bottle kind of thing.
Like if we find that one out, and I know a lot of people hate the deep state and they're going to say, ah, we knew it all along.
But, but that's going to be a lot to find out.
And.
It's entirely possible that they're trying to make sure that that doesn't come out.
But I've told you before, I'll tell you again, it's what Benny was saying.
Listen, you keep trying to cover stuff up.
You're going to find yourself in a whole much worse of a situation because then trust is already something that you need.
And we were starting to regain it, right?
You're seeing this transparency with the Trump administration.
And then this hits.
And you're like, whoa, wait, are we right back where we started?
But, you know, Scott Adams, for some of you, you may have seen this yesterday.
I played the sound by.
I liked it because he was saying actually what I was saying over the weekend was my first instinct.
Like my heart just sank because I saw everybody ganging up on Pam, and I knew exactly what would happen that it's not just Pam, it's eventually the president who they're effectively ganging up on with this.
And from Tucker to Megan and Steve, you know, look, I love Steve and I get that he wants justice, but at what point does it cost the president?
Here's what Scott said.
Would you agree that if the normal court system and the way we deal with crime is that we want full disclosure and we want the public to, you know, except for very special cases, we want the public to know everybody who's accused, we want to know who the accusers are, who the victims are, we want to know the names of the lawyers, the judge, we want to know it all,
and that that's a reasonable standard for justice?
Would you agree?
That if Epstein is a criminal situation and the way we handle criminal situations is we want maximum disclosure, it's worked before.
There's no reason this would be different.
Would you agree?
Theoretically, yes.
That's a perfectly reasonable take.
And that's what most of you have settled on.
And now I'm going to flip you to my point of view.
That's the wrong frame.
It is a criminal situation.
And everything you think about it fits that criminal situation frame.
Commander In Chief Decision00:05:09
But here's the frame I put on it.
It's a commander-in-chief decision.
Commander-in-chief.
Okay.
So if the commander-in-chief is making the decision not to do this, then what does that tell you?
And so him saying today, well, maybe we'll release some files and then Pam turning around and saying, no, no way in HELL are we doing this?
It's getting kind of weird.
I will say this.
That was a wake-up call, certainly for Donald Trump over the weekend.
You had Tucker.
You know, in there, you had Megyn Kelly going after Pam Bondi, you had Steve Bannon going after everyone.
And I think he got sort of jolted by that because he realized how serious this was.
And now you're starting to see people kind of calm down and come to their senses, which I think is important.
It's what I've been stressing all along.
Matt Gaetz, people were talking about Matt Gaetz.
Oh, he's going to take over Pam Bondi.
Well, that was nothing.
It was just a rumor.
And in fact, we turned, we, we, we, we.
Talked about those rumors over the weekend, I said that's not going to happen and he had said no.
You know he had to leave Charlie Kirk's thing early, but it had nothing to do with going to the White House to take over for Pam Bondy as was being floated.
Matt Gates came out on his new tv show.
Everybody wants to be on tv.
What's the deal, say.
This is someone who's worked in tv forever, it's not that great.
Anyway, Matt Gates came out on his tv show and he gave a very big endorsement for Pam, which is important to see watch.
President Trump never stopped building a business empire, a media empire, a political empire.
We believe he has exactly the team to maximize success.
Let's start with Pam Bondi.
The Attorney General always takes a lot of flack in any administration, but look at what she has accomplished.
The Bondi team successfully litigated away the judicial coup of nationwide injunctions.
They did that.
They won that for us.
They have created the legal infrastructure for highly effective deportations.
She's got the cartels self deporting.
She has targeted the criminals and the gang networks.
Attorney General Pam Bondi is a star and has our full admiration and support.
To those who don't share my enthusiasm, look at how far we've come.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions is the re.
I'm just going to say something funny.
Why does he always say our, our, our, our support?
Is it like you and your network?
I mean, your support, right?
Just to clarify.
Just so.
We get what he's saying.
Hillary Clinton got away with everything.
The statute of limitations is passed to hold her accountable.
Thanks, Jeff.
He got the unceremonious beating he deserved on the way out the door from Senator Tommy Tubberville.
After sessions, we got Bill Barr.
AG Barr is the reason legitimate questions about the 2020 election went uninvestigated by the Department of Justice.
I personally know of cases Bill Barr shut down that related to voter fraud that could have told us a lot more about the networks and the people who are trying to destabilize.
Okay, so he goes on about all the people he doesn't like, and then back to Pam, why she's the bar.
General, Donald Trump has had by a factor of 10,000.
And anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to come on this show and choose their fighter.
Which Trump AG would you replace Pam Bondi with?
Barr?
Sessions?
Rosen, she's the best and we appreciate her service.
Aww.
So Mac is coming back to earth.
Okay.
So Mac Gates coming out with a big, big endorsement.
And this is not going unnoticed by MSNBC and the New York Times and others.
They're all kind of finding it funny.
I mean, I'm glad.
Again, it's important for the movement that we kind of keep our eye on a target.
Well, simultaneously, maybe like slightly pressuring, right?
The administration to give more.
But here's MSNBC reacting to all of it.
contributor, your colleague, Jeremy, and I have to note you were laughing at some of those sound pieces from conservatives.
Your colleague, Sean LaCreche, called this a Mobius strip of paranoia and distrust within the base.
What do you make of what you're hearing?
And just because folks like Charlie Kirk are now saying, hey, let this go, are true believers going to do it?
So this is a moment of sincere political urgency for Trump.
Back in 2021, his lead pollster, Tony Fabricio, did a survey of the Republican electorate and found that there were a full 10% of the Republican voters who said that they believed in QAnon conspiracy theories.
So the political fallout potential here is very real.
That's why the White House has, and President Trump himself, have been leaning on conservative influencers like Charlie Kirk.
The fact that Denise D'Souza, you know, who has fanned, So many outrageous lies about the stolen election, about Obama's birth certificate.
He's saying back off this.
That really shows you that the influencers are falling in line.
Political Fallout Potential00:05:57
That doesn't mean, however.
How does that happen?
Well, it happens because a very angry president of the United States gets on the phone and yells at you, or people from the White House really turn up the heat, which we know is exactly what's happening in this case.
But that doesn't mean that the average voter, the MAGA moms and dads, are just going to forget.
And move on because for years they were told, elect Trump, elect MAGA Republicans, and we won't lie to you.
We will get to the bottom of all of these cover ups that have disenfranchised you, that have put these powerful people in positions to abuse their authority and to do the most egregious, unimaginable things possible, like sexually abuse children.
Okay.
So you get the idea, right?
They're going to use this movement.
And this moment to try to destabilize the GOP period.
That's just exactly where they're going.
And, you know, is Pam helping them?
Probably not.
Meanwhile, here's my question.
What about Acosta?
Okay.
I'm not talking Jim.
I'm talking Alex Acosta.
What about the guy who was the attorney general back in, what was it, 2008 when?
Jeffrey Epstein got off so easily.
According to some reports, including in the Daily Mail, Acosta allegedly let him off easy because he got a call from intelligence saying, be careful, he's one of us, he's an asset, etc.
And that is the reason why he didn't punish him the way he should have been punished.
Wow.
So why is no one talking to Alex Acosta, right?
That's what I would like to know.
And I'm not the only one who wants to know that.
Somebody else brought this up recently.
I think it was on War Room, actually.
Yeah, let's go over to a gentleman who used to work over at State and who's been very involved in trying to be anti-deep state.
Listen to him explaining the guy who may hold the key here to everything is who we need to be talking to, the former labor secretary under the first Trump administration.
The very last piece we have on this was a formal investigation done by the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility, which was supposed to put this to bed.
It's a 348 page report.
The only disclosure that they have asking Alex Acosta about the intelligence question was a random footnote, one footnote.
It's footnote 244 on page 169.
And they asked him if he had knowledge that Acosta was, quote, an intelligence asset.
And this is all summary description, by the way, they don't give the transcript.
And they said Acosta told us the answer to that question is no, but we don't know what exactly they asked about this.
And Epstein wouldn't have a 201 file on it.
You can belong to intelligence without being a formal asset.
I did a study recently of 10 financial fixers that the CIA had used to fix financing for various deals.
Eight out of the 10 folks never had a 201 file, never were formally classified as assets, but there will still be traffic.
In the intelligence records.
And we need to know if the Justice Department even asked because they tried to put this story to bed by saying, oh, we did this OPR report and Alex Acosta walked back what he said to the Trump transition team or what he contradicted Vicki Ward's reporting.
Well, we don't know that because we never got the transcript.
We got a one line summary description buried in the 244th footnote.
Now, that OPR investigation is totally sweeping.
All of the audio files, all of the transcripts, all of the interviews can be made public.
Now, OPR reported directly to Bill Barr.
Bill Barr was the CIA's mop up man for Iran Contra.
He started his career in the CIA.
The Washington Post called him the CIA's fall guy because he blocked disclosures of CIA files.
It's very possible that the intelligence angle could have been buried by Bill Barr himself.
So, in that OPR investigation, get all of Bill Barr's email traffic.
Because they deleted Alex Acosta's emails on this.
What that report showed was an 11 month data gap, mysterious technological glitch that deleted Dog 8 all of the Justice Department DOJ.gov emails of Alex Acosta starting May 2007, the very month that the FBI wanted to arrest Jeffrey Epstein, and then Alex Acosta stepped in to stop it.
We need the full details of that November 2020 report.
Pam Bondi, you can walk down the hallway tonight and get those files and make them public.
Yeah, but she doesn't want to, right?
There's a reason why nobody wants to.
Again, you know, Alex Acosta, he was the one that gave the easy peasy sentencing where, you know, Jeffrey Epstein didn't even have to go to like, you know, he's like playing cards with his friends as prison.
And not only that, there was a special provision in there that would not allow for him to be prosecuted again.
And not only that, not only not allow for him to be prosecuted again, not allow anybody around him to be prosecuted again, which is exactly what Maxwell was trying to use in her appeal.
Because, in her estimation, in her lawyer's estimation, it's not fair that they said, okay, well, you're never going to get prosecuted again.
And it was an inconsistency in the law.
Economic Job vs Prosecution00:15:03
So you have like some jurisdictions, right, where the court is one way, you have jurisdictions.
Where it's another way.
And that to her was not.
And by the way, I should point out that this is exactly what he thought he was going to get off on.
And I told you, I spoke with a source, actually his doctor who talked to him the day before he was gone.
And he said he certainly didn't sound like a guy who was about to do what he did, not at all, and had some pretty minor concerns about constipation, not to be indelicate.
But he was like, you're not worried about that if you get these bigger issues, right?
And he thought he was going to get out.
He thought he was going to get out because, again, they thought that the inconsistency in the law was what they could actually work on here.
And so for some reason, someone let him off.
Alex Acosta let him off easy back in Florida.
And we need to understand why.
Okay.
Like that's a big why.
I mean, if we can get there, right?
Like I'm really, I'm very concerned.
Like this, I think that they just don't want us to know.
I just don't think they want us to know what was really.
In fact, the genesis of all of this.
And I think you can put two and two together and kind of figure it out.
My gosh.
Right?
Right, guys?
There is some other news going on.
There is some other news.
It turns out the Supreme Court of the United States of America has decided that Donald Trump can indeed get rid of the Department of Education should he want to.
And that's Linda McMahon's mission.
She's going to get rid of the whole thing, WWF style.
Okay?
She's taking a demolition to the Department of Education.
And why is this a big deal?
Well, you see, when you federalize anything, you're giving a lot of power to the federal government as somebody who believes in state rights.
Yeah.
Except when, you know, the immigration thing, that's a whole other thing.
It's right there in the Constitution.
I mean, if there's one thing the federal government has rights to, it's who's in this country, right?
Naturalization, et cetera.
And you have a bunch of different clauses, whether you want to go to naturalization clause, supremacy clause, commerce clause, a lot of reasons for that.
But on education, that's one where historically it had always been up to the states until Jimmy Carter came along and he decided to create the Department of Education.
Well, what's happened ever since we did started the Department of Education.
We have tanked.
And so now Trump's saying, okay, enough is enough.
Well, the woman who is the president of the National Education Association, I don't think she's going to take this news so well because this is her before she got yesterday's headline.
I want you to see Miss Becky.
We cannot fear the future, diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Say the words.
Say them!
You are powerful!
Say the words!
You are the idiot!
Kind of reminds me of Letitia James recently when she got up there and started channeling her Rev Sharpton stuff.
Wow.
Okay, so that woman is the president of the National Education Association, which is about to lose her job, right?
Because there's really no need to have all these national associations anymore.
We're going to send it back to the states.
And you know what?
This is a good thing because so many of these states have very particular views, like the state of Maine, for example.
They want Boys and girls to compete against each other in sports.
Well, if that's the case, Donald Trump says you're going to lose your federal funding.
Well, if you get rid of the Department of Education, they're just going to lose all the federal funding altogether, right?
So maybe that's good for me.
And if I'm Maine, I can say, okay, well, fine.
You know what?
Fine.
Because then we get to do whatever we want.
Good.
More power to you, Maine.
You do you.
And New Hampshire does New Hampshire.
And Texas does Texas.
And California does California.
And Florida does Florida.
And you see where people really want to live.
Okay?
But why are you looking for handouts from the federal government when you don't even want to abide by federal rules?
In the schools, I mean, this is why Bondi's DOJ has to sue California and sue Maine because they're not playing by the rules.
Well, they're just going to get rid of the whole thing altogether.
Donald Trump weighing in on this just moments ago.
We had a big win with the Supreme Court on the Department of Education.
And we want to, as you know, we want to bring education back to the states, take the federal government out of it.
A little tiny bit of supervision, but very little, almost nothing, like to make sure they speak English.
That's about all we need.
Well, we have school choice, and we're getting school choice approved all over the country.
We just got it done in Texas, and school choice is the answer.
Yes.
So there's going to be some changes, major change.
I mean, this is why I say, you know what?
Like there's stuff happening, guys.
And you don't want things to get derailed because I get it.
I get it.
The Epstein stuff is kind of a distraction.
Speaking of distractions, this is actually a distraction that I think we need to follow.
Shifty shift.
Oh, my goodness.
What was he up to?
Well, you see, he may have been up to something rather similar to one Letitia James.
Remember how we've been talking about Leticia James and the alleged mortgage fraud?
She said, oh, nothing to see here.
You know, it was just a clerical error, but apparently she had put down via power of attorney that her main residence was in Virginia, even though obviously it couldn't be because she lived in New York where she was the attorney general.
Well, in the case of Adam Schiff, you know, you're a senator from California.
You're from California.
Or if you're the representative from California, you're from California.
And even though you travel to D.C. to do your job, your residency would be in California now, don't you think?
I mean, even if you decided, well, I'm going to live in Virginia or Maryland or someplace close by because, you know, I got to be at work four days a week or however often they work, right?
Taking Friday off to fly home.
Well, this is peculiar.
Check out what they found out.
Donald Trump writing, I have always suspected shifty Adam Shift was a scam artist.
And now I learned that Fannie Mae's financial crimes division has concluded that Adam Shift has engaged in a sustained pattern of possible mortgage fraud.
Adam Schiff, he writes, said that his primary residence was in Maryland in order to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America when he must live in California because he was a congressman at the time from California.
I always knew, he wrote, that Adam Schiff was a crook.
The fraud began with the refinancing of his Maryland property on February 6, 2009, and continued through multiple transactions until the Maryland property was correctly designated as a second home on October 13th.
2020.
Wow.
I wonder why he finally decided to get smart and designated as a second home.
Mortgage fraud is a very serious and crooked thing to do.
Adam Schiff, now a senator, needs to be brought to justice.
I wonder how many people do this.
I mean, to me, it's like, why would you, right?
Like, why would you ever take that kind of risk?
It's so stupid.
Like, you're obviously from California.
Why would you say on your mortgage documents that this was your primary home?
I mean, your primary home is supposed to be in the state in which you are the senator or representative from.
It's kind of like what we were seeing with Letitia.
Remember, Bill Poulty articulated this quite well.
He was on with Maria Bartiromo recently explaining what Letitia James did wrong.
And it sounds an awful lot like perhaps what Shifty Shift did wrong.
Recommended that the DOJ investigate New York Attorney General Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud.
The AG, Letitia James, has responded.
We don't have the video, but here's the quote.
This investigation into me is nothing more than retribution.
It's baseless.
It has to do with the fact that on a power of attorney, I mistakenly indicated that I was a state of Virginia resident.
And prior to that, I indicated to the mortgage broker that in fact, in bold cap letters, that I am not a resident of Virginia and never will be.
They just took the power of attorney and they're using that as a basis for enforcement of their investigation.
Bill, do you know why she said she was a resident of Virginia on the power of attorney, if in fact she wasn't?
Well, I know that we are mortgage experts and we only refer things that we think are mortgage fraud and we stand 100% behind the letter.
I'll let the letter speak for itself.
I do know and I have seen some reports from that subject's criminal defense lawyer saying certain things.
I'll leave it to the DOJ to correct various things.
But again, when we see mortgage fraud, we are going to report it.
When we see mortgage fraud, we are going to prosecute it within the confines of our.
And we are not going to be intimidated by a subject's criminal defense lawyer.
We are not going to be intimidated by a politician or just because you have an Esquire behind your name.
We are not going to be intimidated by people.
If we see mortgage fraud, we're going to do something about it.
And I think that you're going to see us be taking this on in a big way.
Mortgage fraud is a big problem.
These companies are safe and sound, but where we see it, we are going to do something about it.
And that subject's case is no different.
Well, what are the ramifications of this now that you've referred this for criminality to the DOJ?
Well, I would refer that to the DOJ.
Again, as I say, we spend our days, we are mortgage experts.
We are not politicians.
I view this as an economic job.
Obviously, the president can fire me at any time.
So I guess in that way.
But look, I look at this as an independent agency.
We found the mortgage fraud, whether it be that particular subject or other subjects.
And we work actively with the DOJ and different law enforcement.
Hmm.
So you see what he was saying about Letitia.
Similar kind of thing here.
Potentially with Adam Schiff.
And you know, if they now have this financial crimes division, they're going to go through everybody and they might actually find more of them.
I'm just wondering, right?
I'm just wondering.
Shifty shift, come on.
I mean, these are like stupid errors, right?
Like really, really, really stupid errors that no one should be making that is in a political position.
I'm trying to see if Schiff has said anything on this.
And thus far, I don't see his response.
But gosh, I mean, it's kind of specific.
You're labeling this as your main residence in Maryland when you're from California, the representative from California?
That doesn't seem right.
So far, nothing from Adam Schiff in terms of a response that I can see.
But this really, you know, he's been sketching all along.
We know that he's lied through his teeth.
We know that we've seen that.
I mean, the evidence came out after Russia, Russia, Russia.
Why did he do that?
Oh, it was political, political reasons only.
It became the Schiff show, don't forget, the you know what show.
And he was the star of it.
And Donald Trump was there for him to crucify over and over and over again.
And now it turns out we're finding this guy kind of has some ethical lacking, shall we say.
Well, we knew that.
We knew that.
All right.
But now this, and I think they're going to have to get to the bottom of that.
I think that actually this is going to be pretty serious.
We've talked about the penalties.
I mean, this is like, this is jail stuff.
Okay.
Mortgage fraud is a big deal, especially if you're getting a loan with taxpayer dollars, as much as Letitia, for example, you used to want to go after Donald Trump and she did.
And she got some kind of $500 million verdict, which is insane and still needs to be reversed on appeal, by the way.
But the fact that she did that, it's almost like she had a guilty conscience.
She was out there looking for some mortgage thing.
Well, that was totally different because it was a private transaction between a bank, Deutsche Bank, investment bank, out of New York, but originally out of Germany, hence its name, Deutsche Bank.
Anyway, between Deutsche Bank and Donald Trump.
And guess what?
Everybody made money on that transaction.
So there was no victim.
It was a victimless crime.
that she then tried to go after him for because she thinks she knows the valuation on Mar-a-Lago better than Donald Trump.
And then the sweet irony of it all, of course, is that it's been discovered she may have pulled something similar to Adam Schiff, where she was saying, well, this is my primary residence.
She said, again, in her defense, this is her, oh, you know, it was just my power of attorney.
It was just clerical error.
I'm sorry, lady, you're an attorney.
All the more reason for you to be super careful on this.
Same thing with Schiff.
You know, he's an attorney by background.
All the more reason for him to be careful.
I mean, why people are doing this?
What, to save a quarter of a percent on your interest rate?
For goodness sakes.
Give me a break.
Come up with some better ways to earn a living, would you?
Quick shout out to one of our great sponsors.
We're fully independent here on the Trish Regan Show, Balance in Nature.
You know, we've been talking a lot about what's in focus right now.
RFK Jr. is like doing these victory laps because he's got all these food companies saying, we're going to get rid of red dye.
We're going to get rid of this chemical, that chemical.
And it's great.
It's great because what you don't know is in some people, this is kind of toxic stuff.
And certainly for our kids, right?
I mean, when I was a little kid, my mom would be like, don't you ever drink Kool-Aid?
No, You can't have any Kool-Aid.
Having Kool-Aid to me was like, wow.
Like that was like super special treat.
You'd go to a birthday party and somebody would have that red Kool-Aid.
And my mom was like, don't you dare.
And I'd try and sneak it.
Well, you know why she didn't want me to have it?
Because I was off the walls, like immediately following the red Kool-Aid, right?
Like every little kid, because it had that red dye plus all the sugar.
And so RFK is really making this his cause.
I bring this up within the context of Balance of Nature because I'm really focused on ingredients right now.
I hope you are too.
And if you look at their ingredients, they got only good stuff, only the best, only the best.
So go check them out on their website today, balancinnature.com.
Look at doing this.
I actually have the fruits and veggies delivered to me every single month.
You can get it as well, 35% off, plus free shipping, plus free money back guarantee.
You're helping me.
You're helping the show.
We bring you this show every day for free, in part thanks to the great guys over at Balance of Nature.
Use code word Trish, T-R-I-S-H.
You know how to spell it.
Go check them out today.
Auto Pen Pardon Theory00:05:35
Anthony Fauci getting some really, really, really bad news because you know what?
Rand Paul is like a dog with a bum.
Rand Paul was so livid over those shutdowns, as was I, that, you know, he kept hammering him on it.
And now that we've learned some of these AutoPen signatures that Biden engaged in may not be valid.
He's out for blood.
Take a look at the headline just crossing.
Not this one.
Let's see.
Here we go.
This one.
All right.
Rand Paul has formally issued a criminal referral of Dr. Anthony Fauci to Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice following revelations that Fauci's pardon was signed using an auto pen.
We told you this was coming.
In other words, anything that was auto penned might be up for grabs right now.
And Rand Paul wants to make sure that Fauci pays.
This was one of the signatures all done by Autopan.
In fact, the only signature that was not done by Autopan was for his son.
Remember this?
Looks different.
It looks authentic.
In fact, if you look at the last name, it almost looks like the president was having a hard time spelling his last name there.
Is this White House of the opinion that the only pardon that would count is one that the president signed himself?
It's very interesting.
Very interesting prop.
If you want to bring them to my office later so I can take a closer look, I would like to do that.
The president is making a good point when he discusses the usage of the auto pen.
Who was running the country for the past four years?
Perhaps those documents were signed with the auto pen, something that I believe the Department of Justice is looking into.
As you saw, Ed Martin made an announcement at the Department of Justice this morning to launch an investigation because the American people deserve answers.
Is there any concern that this president, who won the election on a promise to fix the economy and close the border?
That focusing and scrutinizing these Biden pardons is looking into the past instead of looking forward.
I think, in comparison to the amount of time this president has spent on securing the border, on fixing our economy, I just read out for you an entire list of economic accomplishments.
Look at the border numbers.
Look at the time and effort he's divulged into solving the global conflicts abroad.
It pales in comparison, but it still, nevertheless, is a very important issue.
And it was a huge issue that sent the president back to this White House.
The Americans saw with their own eyes a mentally incompetent. President and they want answers for that, and the president believes they should have.
And something that just crossed, Caroline, how mad do you think President Trump is going to be when he finds out that Elon Musk said, I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore.
This massive, outrageous, pork filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
Shame on those who voted for it.
You know you did wrong.
You know it.
Look, the president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill.
Well, here's the deal.
If Fauci's pardon was done by Auto Pen, this thing might be up for grabs.
You know, you had Biden trying to give excuses saying, oh, yeah, he totally knew what was going on.
But we know he didn't really know what was going on.
I mean, think back to Robert Hearst's testimony, right?
And Hearst was like, okay, we can't move forward with the FBI's, you know, being upset because they took all those documents, the classified documents out of the White House.
He had them sitting next to his, what was it, his Corvette?
Yeah, his Corvette in his garage.
They couldn't prosecute him because he was so frail.
He was so incapacitated.
He was so old.
He was so old, he couldn't do anything in the office, for goodness sakes.
And so now Rand Paul is coming out and he's like, listen, I mean, I told you he was a dog with a bone and he is not over this.
In fact, he just tweeted this excerpt out just a short time ago, about three hours ago.
I want to share it with you.
The New York Times is reporting that Joe Biden's former chief of staff.
Jeff Zayence was the one who approved the auto pen's use for the 11th hour pardons.
That's the night before Joe Biden left office.
They started pardoning all these people.
The pardons included a preemptive pardon for General Mark Milley, a preemptive pardon for Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Now, you are reissuing your criminal referral of Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice.
Your reaction to now Jeff Zayence being the one who pardoned Fauci, okay?
It wasn't Joe Biden, he was pardoned by Jeff Zayence.
Yeah, my first question is Who knew?
Who knew that there was a President Jeff Zions and he was in charge of pardons?
I mean, it is really shocking and, on all likelihood, criminal.
Now, will they try to backpedal and say Biden was somehow involved?
I think that's what they'll try.
But an auto pen pardon, preemptive pardon, there's a lot to go on here.
The only way we could actually get this into court is hopefully the DOJ would do their job, indict Anthony Fauci for the felony of lying to Congress, and then take it to court, and then they can plead.
That he has been pardoned, but then the court could judge whether the pardon is valid.
So the only way we get this into court is someone who's been pardoned will have to be indicted.
And I would promote that Anthony Fauci is a prime specimen for this.
Lab Adapted Virus Claims00:03:52
So I believe he said that he didn't do gain of function research.
What specifically did Fauci lie about in front of Congress?
About gain of function research.
And in fact, we have him contradicted by several other members of the NIH who testified and said, of course, it was gain of function research.
We also have the own words of the people receiving the money.
The people receiving the money, the people who were the conduit with Wuhan, China, was a group called Eco Health Alliance.
We have notes from them going back to the NIH saying, thank you for restarting.
Our gain of function money.
They actually acknowledged that it was gain of function.
So, no, I don't think he has a leg to stand on here.
And there were many observers of this who believed that he did lie and that he continued to change and modify the definition.
In fact, one time when he testified, the NIH had changed the definition right before his testimony.
In the hours before he came to testify, they had changed it on the website to a new definition.
So he was playing games with words, but he wasn't being honest.
They were taking viruses.
They were combining live viruses and they were making them more dangerous.
They're growing them in human cells, which allows them to adapt and be modified to be spread more quickly among humans.
And that's in all likelihood what happened with COVID.
It was an animal virus grown in human cells and adapted over time to become contagious.
And that's why when it took off, it wasn't like the bird flu.
Right now, the bird flu can infect humans, but it doesn't go human to human.
That's the way most animal viruses are to begin with, not very contagious from human to human.
But this virus, COVID 19, when it first affected humans, it went through the human population, went around the world.
And that indicates that this was not just your typical animal virus, but in all likelihood, an animal virus that had been pre adapted in the laboratory.
I mean, the rules that Fauci came up with for all of us to follow impacted families across the country.
You know, it's unbelievable to me that he gets pardoned and is off the hook.
Do you believe that that pardon was legitimate?
No.
And I think he's probably not criminally liable for saying stuff that made no scientific sense.
Like the whole wearing cloth masks over you.
In all likelihood, people in America died because they took his advice, wore cloth masks, they were 80 years old, and they took care of their spouse, and they got COVID anyway because cloth masks don't work.
So it was bad advice.
It was terrible advice.
We never should have hired him to be a public health expert.
He also severely damaged a lot of our workers the meatpacking workers, a lot of people who worked really hard in a messy industry.
Once they had COVID, he should have told them, you know, in all likelihood, you're safe.
Instead, he told them, no, no, now you still have to triple mask up.
You have to be afraid.
Your family has to be afraid.
He really didn't do any of the things that a public health official should have done.
Tough times, right?
Fauci was so in over his head and for whatever reason never wanted anybody to know that we had anything to do with the gain of function research, which allegedly we were giving money to a nonprofit or some kind of entity, which then was funneling it back to Wuhan, China.
I'm just going to say, like, if you want to do the research, why are you going to do it in China?
Why are you going to do it in a place where it had been openly reported that they didn't take safety precautions.
In fact, the Chinese media, they did this big puff piece on the Bat Lady and they were so proud of the fact that, oh, you know, her team is so courageous and so brave.
They don't even always wear their masks and gloves and this.
And I'm like, wait, so we decided to actually give them some money to do this research?
Media Layoffs and Cables00:07:31
Right?
Wow.
Just wow.
So to Rand Paul's point, though, I mean, he didn't know what he was talking about half the time.
I mean, don't forget.
said to Lapuque over on 60 Minutes that you didn't need a mask.
And then, you know, the next thing you know, three months later, we need three masks.
So it was like he really didn't know.
And he was making it up as he went, the six feet away stuff.
It was all being made up to try and come up with some ideas on how to manage all of this.
But the fact that he lied, and this is according to Rand Paul, because there's such conflicting testimony under oath, that's something that he may have to pay the price for.
So it's taken us back a ways, but you know, it wasn't that long ago.
It feels like it was a long time ago.
It wasn't that long ago.
And the media was in on it.
Everybody was in on it.
And so when we think about the Epstein stuff, and then you think about the COVID, you know, like all these things are kind of somehow related.
And the media is always out there, out front, carrying everybody's water.
Well, maybe not for long.
CNN apparently is suffering, suffering big time.
You know, the ratings are way down.
And the corporate parent is getting in there saying, okay, we need to do some changes here.
because this is not the future.
Cable's not the future.
So we're going to have to make some sacrifices.
We may have to lay some people off.
We may have to cut some salaries, some salaries on some of our big, highly priced anchors, including one, Anderson Cooper.
You got me on that one.
Like the guy has Zippo personality, Zip Zero Nada, okay?
He just reads a teleprompter.
That's it.
He's better than some at reading a teleprompter.
You know what gets me?
Some of those anchors they have on there, not only are they reading the teleprompter, they're reading their questions for their guests right off the teleprompter.
Uh-huh.
That happens.
Trust me.
And so they read the question.
The guest answers not only their question, but then maybe says something else.
But the problem is the producer wrote the next question in the prompter.
So that moronic anchor just goes and reads the next question.
forgetting that the person has actually already said that.
It's the most infuriating thing.
I'm like at the point, I cannot watch this anymore.
I watch it to get you guys clips, but I'm just like, oh, I can't take it.
It's very frustrating.
It's very, very frustrating.
That's called bad listening skills.
What is the number one skill you need as a journalist if you're going to do an interview?
Listening skills, okay?
You got to be in the moment, absolutely present.
Not sure that many of them over at CNN know how to do that.
But anyway, they may not be doing it for long.
Apparently, there's major layoffs coming.
This is a Washington Free Beacon article.
We've talked about this story a little bit, but it's getting heated up.
And I'm hearing through sources that the talent really is freaking out because they're bracing for these deep cuts, okay?
They're having this big corporate shakeup.
And so morale is in the you know what.
And people are really worried because the parent company, as I said, Warner Brothers Discovery, which owns CNN, they've already said that they have to make all these changes.
In fact, they're creating what they're calling global networks.
It's a new company.
It's going to call global networks.
And then they're going to take. the more promising assets, more promising assets, such as Warner Brothers, Film Studio, and the HBO Max streaming service.
And they're going to form a whole nother company that investors might actually find more attractive.
So what does that mean?
If you're the redheaded stepchild and nobody really wants you anymore, budgets are going to get cut.
And that breakup is coming sometime mid next year.
Okay, so mid 2026.
And in the meantime, they basically are trying to button down the hatches and they brought in this new guy.
They got a new CEO.
Let me get his name right.
Gunner.
Oh, I always want to pronounce it in German.
So I will.
Weidenfels.
It's like I told you.
Remember Wiener?
Anthony Wiener?
I was an anchor on CNBC at the time.
And they had in the prompter Wiener.
They like spelled it out Wiener.
And I called my producer in the commercial.
I'm like, no, It's Weiner.
Trust me.
I speak German.
It's Weiner.
And he's like, no, it's Wiener.
And this was at the point when nobody knew him.
It was right before all that stuff happened.
And I'm like, who would go by Wiener?
Well, sure enough, he did, which tells you everything you need to know, right?
Anyway, this one, Gunnar Weidenfels, but it might be Weidenfels.
I don't know.
He's actually apparently well known.
I don't know him, but some people know him in media circles.
And he likes to cut costs.
Uh-huh.
He is, according to Variety, an iron-fisted money manager.
Imagine that in the media business.
Somebody who actually cares about money.
Frequently terrorized, pampered employees in his previous role as CFO of Warner Brothers Discovery, where he was the, quote, instigator of Belt.
tightening and other massive changes, including a series of layoffs.
Okay.
So now they're really, really nervous.
They get a guy named, and for dramatic effect, I'm just going to go with the German.
What the heck?
Gunnar Weidenfels.
Okay.
So Gunnar's coming in and he's gunning for them and he's going to say, okay, you guys are making way too much money because guess what?
Your business is over.
It's done.
Finito.
Right.
Like, you know, look at what we're doing right here.
Granted, we have our technical difficulties from time to time.
Do you like the new setup?
I got a new camera.
Because we were having all those like issues, remember with the camera last week?
And you guys were like, the shot looks so blown out.
So you speak, I listen.
And sure enough, we have a new camera.
But anyway, Dylan Byers, who's a media reporter over at Puck, he says it's going to get worse.
And it's going to get really bad because basically you're dealing with an industry that's in a massive decline.
This industry over here, streaming, it's thriving.
It's thriving.
My son sometimes, he's like, mom, I'd love to do what you do.
And, you know, maybe I can do this when I grow up.
And I'm like, I hope it's still here.
Like, who knows, right?
Because in my lifetime, I started out in a traditional media environment.
And all of a sudden, cable came along.
And I was at network television.
I thought I was like the big cheese because I had a job as a correspondent at CBS Evening News.
And I'm like thinking, like, this is the be-all end-all, right?
You get 10 seconds at the end of your clip.
They give you a minute 30 to explain something really complicated.
And then if you're lucky, you got nine or 10 seconds at the end to go live and explain a little bit more.
Anyway, that's the old-style media.
And then I went to cable and I was like, wow, this is really neat.
Like, this is really neat.
I can actually do an interview for five minutes.
And now I'm over here and I'm like, hallelujah.
You know what?
This is the bomb.
But it's changing so quickly.
So what's next?
I mean, I think that there's going to come a point in time.
I mean, I'm looking at your live comments here where you could actually come on the show with me sort of instantaneously.
And we're going to be able to do all kinds of stuff.
I look at Apple Vision Pro and all the things that you're going to be in here in the studio with me.
It's amazing.
But all of this is getting.
sort of, you know, in terms of the cable companies, like they're low man on the totem pole because all of this is getting like hotter and hotter and hotter in terms of the new media environment.
So what do you do if you're CNN and you got all this high priced talent hanging around that just reads a teleprompter?
Mocking Biden's Stutter00:04:55
Doesn't even have to think.
Just reads a teleprompter.
Well, what are you going to do?
You're going to probably start to cut salaries because you don't need them.
It's not like everybody's like, oh my gosh, I have to watch Jake Chapman tonight.
Oh my gosh, I have to watch Anderson Cooper tonight.
I gotta tune in for Wolf Blitzer.
I never miss Wolf, right?
Nobody's saying that.
So, as a result, it's expected that according to Dylan Byers, you're gonna have an industry that is dealing with significant budget cuts.
Offices will be even worse than they were.
His word begins with an SH, ear, and familiar perks are gonna disappear.
I mean, these perks, who knew?
According to Oliver Darcy, who's another media reporter who's got like a newsletter or something, he's like, they're going to have to start submitting receipts.
That one floored me.
I'm like, what business doesn't have their employees submit receipts?
Like, who does that?
I run a little business.
I save my receipts.
Like, that's just what you do, right?
Like, who would not actually have any receipts?
Apparently, at CNN, you don't need a receipt.
No, nobody's asking.
Oh, wow.
So they're going to struggle.
Who's going to get hit?
Here's the question.
Do you guys have any ideas?
I think I know.
I think there's a guy who wrote a big book and went on a whole bunch of conservative leaning podcasts in an attempt to save his you know what because he sees the handwriting on the wall and he's not making anything close to Anderson Cooper, but he knows where this is all heading.
He wants to have some options.
He wants to go to Fox.
I think he's campaigning for a job at Fox.
He's going to pretend like he's the middle guy, right?
Well, we know better.
We remember when one Jake Tapper said this.
Get the words out, Joe.
You kind of feel bad for him.
How do you think it makes little kids with stutters feel when they see you make a comment like that?
First and foremost, I had no idea that Joe Biden ever suffered from a stutter.
I think what we see on stage with Joe Biden, Jake, is very clearly a cognitive decline.
That's what I'm referring to.
It makes me uncomfortable.
You are the most uncomfortable person.
It's so amazing.
It's so amazing to me that.
And try and figure out an answer.
A cognitive decline.
You're trying to tell me that what I was suggesting was a stutter.
I think that you were mocking his stutter.
Yeah, I think you were mocking his stutter.
And I think you have absolutely no standing to diagnose somebody's cognitive decline.
I would think that somebody in the Trump family would be more sensitive to people who do not have medical licenses diagnosing politicians from afar.
Plenty of people have diagnosed your father from afar, and I'm sure it offends you, your father in law from afar.
I'm sure it offends you.
You don't have any standing to say.
I'm not diagnosing him.
What I'm saying, Jim, is that Joe Biden is a man of the world.
I have one last question for you, Laura.
You can't be.
I've been at times on stage, and it's very concerning to a lot of people that this could be the leader of the free world.
Okay.
That is all I'm saying.
I genuinely am sorry for Joe Biden.
I appreciate it.
I'm sure.
Hmm.
He was really kind of a jerk to her, wasn't he?
Yeah.
So do you feel bad for him that he may have to get his seven-figure salary slashed?
I don't.
I don't.
I mean, you know, the guy has a family and this, that, and the other.
But, you know, he's such a phony.
And that's what I can't stand about the media business.
They're a whole bunch of phonies.
It's like whatever works for them in any particular time or instance or what the bosses want them to do.
In that case, he was trying to make sure that nobody said anything against one president, Joe Biden.
You could never insult the mental capacity of Joe Biden, even though it was pretty damn obvious to anybody who had two eyes in their head exactly what was going on.
You saw the videotape.
I saw the videotape over and over and over again.
We're all watching the same feeds.
Why is it that Jake Tapper has such a different impression of Biden's mental capacity than say the rest of the world or even Robert Herb, right, who didn't want to bring charges for all those documents and hung out near the Corvette in Biden's garage.
Everybody knew it, okay?
Everybody knew it, but there was a deep state cover-up that these members of the media deliberately participated in, and he was one of them, and he was there until it was too late, until they finally realized in that debate that Jake did, by the way, that he was moderating.
He realized Wow, the guy's in bad shape.
He knew it beforehand, though.
I guarantee you he knew it.
He just thought he could cover it up along with everybody else, like Joe Scarborough, who said, best Biden ever.
Rogan Speechwriter Backlash00:03:56
He's the best Biden I've ever seen.
Wow.
All of them like ducks in a row.
Well, guess what?
I think he's looking for a job at Fox.
I think he wrote that book so he could come out against the Democrat Party, maybe make a nice little windfall along the way, and then go on and do a whole bunch of conservative podcasts.
He didn't come on this one.
Thank you very much.
I went on a left leaning podcast.
Oh, apparently he went on left leaning ones too.
This is him trashing the left leaning podcast.
And watch how he talks about it.
He talks about how the left leaning podcast, nobody had kids.
And so he kind of drops that one out there.
And then he talks about how mean they are.
Surprise, surprise.
Again, perhaps in an effort to try and court favor with conservatives so that maybe he can get a job.
On the five?
Jessica Tarlev Watteau.
I asked that she'll remain nameless.
And we were talking about my kids, because I think they were both people without kids.
And they asked me about my son.
And I said he was, you know, he's a football player and he wants to be a policeman.
And their joke was about my 15 year old son oh, how does he feel about minorities?
Like the idea to be a policeman, therefore he's racist.
And like, you know, that was the big laugh.
And then I got dragged in the comments and all that stuff.
Okay.
So then they go on and he's like, how dare you?
You know, like he's just a kid.
You have a young son who has no political views.
He's 15.
He thinks about World War II and gaming and playing linebacker.
That's his world.
You're deciding he's a racist because he wants to be a cop.
And why does he want to be a cop?
He wants to be a cop because he wants to help people, you know, and he thinks that's the best way he can help people.
And that's how the Democratic Party talks to men.
not just white men, but men.
And I mean, I get the idea that they thought Tim Walz could, what's the term he used?
Code switch or something?
He thought that he could translate the Democratic Party values because he hunts and fishes and owns a gun and was in the army and drinks a beer.
I mean, at least there was an attempt.
But I find it just insane.
You know, I find it insane that you're just figuring out that the Democrats are really mean.
Like, they're mean, okay?
There's an article yesterday, or maybe it was in today's New York Times, about some guy who used to be a speechwriter for Barack Obama.
And he openly admits that he made a wrong choice because he decided, because his brother-in-law listened to Joe Rogan, that he would be mean to him, like sort of shun him and be, you know, condescending and rude as much as he possibly could because his thinking was, well, we have to to somehow make sure that people know that they are social outcasts if they listen to Joe Rogan.
I mean, he didn't even say he supported Trump, right?
It was like, if you listen to Joe Rogan, like, I am going to shun you because I am so much better because I was an Obama speechwriter.
That's what they do.
Okay.
Have you not caught on to their total like conservatives don't do that.
We don't do that.
Why?
Because we're actually nice people.
Yeah.
We are nice people.
Don't let them ever try and tell you otherwise.
I mean, they think things like church are stupid.
And, you know, some kind of crutch.
I'm like, no, like church is community and belief in something bigger than you.
Conservatives are good people.
And so he's coming to this realization like shocked, shocked.
Investing in Future Growth00:06:18
I think it's about not real shock.
I think it's about ka-ching, ka-ching and tapper nose.
He's about to lose a windfall.
And Anderson, I don't know.
I don't think Anderson needs the gig.
I don't think, I mean, it wasn't even Vanderbilt or something.
And by the way, if you're making 15 million for that many years, you ought to be investing it, right?
Although a lot of these journalists, they don't know how to invest.
It's amazing.
It's actually amazing.
And I'm going to tell you something that you need to pay attention to because I don't want you to ever say you were watching this show and you didn't take advantage of certain things when I am here telling you every day what you need to do.
And that is to go to my website, 76research.com.
76research.com.
Type in code word dollar.
You will get the 76 report.
It is my research along with my colleague who started it with me, Rob Horton.
We just put out a note this afternoon about that really good looking.
Inflation report.
Another one right, another one.
It's just like one thing after another.
I like seeing this stuff.
We saw Uh Santelli on earlier this morning.
Let me show, if I can.
Let me see if I have this clip for you, because Rick Santelli, great guy, great guy.
He's the one that remember when the Tea Party first started out.
It was like the call heard around the world.
He got on the floor the the, the bond market there, the Chicago actually was the Chicago MERC, I think, and he was complaining about, you know, all the crazy spending.
It was just fantastic.
Anyway, Rick Santelli does a lot of reporting on economic indicators, et cetera, because he is, well, that's his beat.
And let me just see if I have this today because he explained it really well.
In other words, it was a touch higher.
Inflation came in three-tenths of a percent, which was a touch higher than it had been.
But it's still really good news, especially when you looked at, for example, core inflation, core inflation.
And I'm just telling you, this is good, you guys.
Like we're seeing a lot of really, really good economic stuff.
That makes me excited, really, really excited about our future, which is all the more reason why I think you just need to be investing right now.
Do I have?
I may not have it.
So maybe we can talk about it.
I'll paraphrase because obviously I'm pretty familiar with this.
The core rate went down a little bit.
That's great because food and energy costs are coming down.
I don't put as much stock in that as some people, only because to me, inflation is inflation, whether it's excluding food and energy or it's including food and energy.
But I like, what i'm seeing.
I'm telling you i'm liking what i'm seeing.
Okay, so 76research.com, I am going to put it up here and I keep saying you better do this, because see if I can spell and talk at the same time, 76research.com and use code word dollar.
I want you to do this because I want you to benefit from our knowledge and you look at some of the charts that I was just showing you.
Clearly, you'd be benefiting.
We told everybody, by the way, buy bitcoin at like 55.
Have you seen it?
Let's see where is it?
Don you watching bitcoin?
It's been up around 120.
i told you guys my son was like mom should i take a little money off the table mom i think we should take some money off the table my account's doing really really well and i was like honey you're 12.
all right You got a big time horizon.
I mean, you know, if you're 64 and you're about to retire in a year, it's a different kind of thing.
It's actually why we created different portfolios for different people.
It's why we have the American Resilience, which is growth-oriented.
We have Inflation Protection, which is more similar to, say, Income Builder as well.
Income Builder being for people who are getting close to the retirement.
Anyway, go check it out.
76research.com, code word dollar.
Thank you for being here.
Give me your thoughts on this whole Maxwell thing and where we're going.
Like I said, I I don't like it.
I've got a little bit of a heavy heart about all of it because I think it's bad, bad news for this movement.
But I think if anybody can sort of figure his way around this one and through this one, it will be one Donald Trump.
Absolutely.
I just want to go out to some of your comments really quick.
What do you think of the new camera?
Can you tell?
Can you tell?
I'm glad you guys like it.
I'm seeing that.
You know, yeah, I'm just, I'm reading these comments in real time.
So it's it's good to have so much appreciation from all of you.
And I thank you for being here.
Do not forget to hit the bell.
So make sure you subscribe and hit the bell so that you know where I am.
Oh, okay.
Peace of my mind writing 116K on Bitcoin today.
You know, where is it going?
That's the question, right?
We had Michael Saylor on the show once and, you know, he's really lofty.
He's up there around 13 million by whatever year.
Where does it go?
We don't know.
But what I would say is that this administration is embracing technologies in ways that we have not seen.
Previous image, I forget Joe.
Like Joe didn't even know how to work his cell phone, right?
Truth is, is like Trump was always tweeting and now he's truthing, but that was always him.
Like I was with him once, like in the Oval Office as he was tweeting something out.
Like that was him.
And he got technology and he got and understood the future of technology pretty massively.
And here's the deal, guys.
We want to own technology, right?
We want to be number one when it comes to technology without a doubt.
He's talking about.
Possible tariffs on Russia again today.
He's going to give them 50 days.
If they don't do it, they're going to see a big increase in their tariffs.
He understands the sort of financial weaponry that we have still at our disposal right now, which I think is great because, again, nobody else understood this.
So from a technological standpoint, from a sophistication in terms of understanding that the financial might and success that we have and how we use that to influence policy, it's a home run.
So let's not let this other stuff hopefully get in the way.
Hopefully we get some answers, but I don't want it to derail anything, right?
Right.
Okay.
Let me know what you think, especially the camera.
It's new.
I'll see you tomorrow right here live on the Trish Regan Show.