Alina Habba defies liberal judges to remain New Jersey's acting U.S. Attorney, leveraging a Federal Vacancies Reform Act loophole after her Senate nomination was withdrawn amid pressure from Hakeem Jeffries regarding the indictment of Rep. LaMonica MacGyver. Trish Regan contrasts this with federal clashes over sanctuary cities, President Trump's confrontation with Jerome Powell over interest rates, and The View's potential hiatus due to FCC pressure and Joy Behar's controversial remarks. The episode further critiques CBS as an obsolete media dinosaur while speculating that Rupert Murdoch may be using the Wall Street Journal to undermine Trump, alongside Candace Owens' reckless libel claims about Brigitte Macron. Ultimately, these segments highlight a fractured political landscape where legal maneuvers, media manipulation, and internal MAGA tensions converge to challenge established institutions. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Alina Haba Stands Ground00:15:07
And we're live.
Wow, this is just an unbelievable story.
Alina Haba, this girl's got guts.
Okay, there's another way to say it, but I'll just leave it at that.
She's got some guts and then some.
Alina Haba not backing down, saying, you know what, I'm staying put in my gig right now because Donald Trump's the president, Pam Bondi is the attorney general, and I'm not going anywhere.
We've got a lot more coming on that story.
Plus, it looks like the view really is going into the hiatus, if you would, and the White House is now weighing in on all of that.
We've got to tell you about this one.
The White House is suing New York City, sanctuary status type stuff.
Yeah, because you can't run things all on your own.
Chicago's about to find this out.
LA's about to find this out because there is this little thing called the Constitution, shall we say.
Meanwhile, other big things going on today that I got to bring you up to speed on Jerome Powell getting totally humiliated.
I got to tell you, I don't think I've ever seen in my entire life, in my entire career, a federal reserve chairman in a hard hat.
Being asked about renovations.
So, this is just some unbelievable video that I really, really want to show you.
And a few other things, because I'll tell you, Candace Owens is in the hot seat right now.
You may have heard what's going on in terms of the Macrones going after one Candace Owens.
We're going to talk about all of that as well coming up in today's show.
You know, I don't know.
This could actually really and truly take her down, guys.
It's a very, very serious lawsuit.
And I know we get a lot of Candace fans here, but this one is what I would just call really.
Pretty bad, pretty darn bad.
Anyway, I want to get back to the biggie of the day, which is Alina Haba.
Alina Haba coming out swinging, and I'm telling you, she's not going anywhere.
Welcome to the program.
I am Trish Regan.
This is the Trish Regan Show.
We are live, and I can see all of your comments, and I'll get to a lot of them.
So, welcome to everybody for being here.
Alina Haba's not going anywhere.
Nope, nope, nope.
She's not leaving.
She's firing back at these liberal judges that just tried to oust her the other day.
This is all happening like within the last 36 hours.
Overnight, she came out and said, You know what?
Not happening.
Donald J. Trump is the 47th president.
Pam Bondi is the attorney general.
And I am now the acting United States attorney for the District of New Jersey.
I don't cower to pressure.
I don't answer to politics.
This, she writes, is a fight for justice.
And I'm all in.
You better believe she's all in.
You know Alina's all in.
She was always all in right from the beginning.
And I'll tell you, she's got some good lawyers around her.
And I mean really good lawyers because I look at this team and they're doing all kinds of Dare I say, creative things.
In other words, it seems like the whole system was rigged against Donald Trump and against conservatives for so long.
And now, all of a sudden, because of the intellect of some of the people that were involved and were on the sidelines for the last four years, what do you know?
They're finding all kinds of workarounds.
And in the case of Juan Alina Hava, take a look at this.
There's something called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which forbids somebody to serve in an acting role if their nomination remains pending.
And so, what the administration did here was they just withdrew.
Alina Haba's Senate nomination, which then cleared the way for her to be there via the Vacancies Act.
And one of the reasons they were able to do this was because she effectively became second in charge.
She resigned from her interim post and then she was appointed first assistant U.S. Attorney.
Well, if you're first assistant U.S. Attorney and there's nobody in the main gig, well, guess what?
You slide in there.
So they're basically leveraging this loophole here.
And now she has that position.
Uncontested, she can serve up to 210 days.
So, this is very, very bad news, by the way, for La Monica MacGyver.
That's why they wanted to get rid of her.
Don't kid yourselves.
I mean, that is exactly why they wanted to get rid of Alina Haba, because what did she do?
She actually said, I'm going to hold people to a certain standard.
I'm not going to allow you to possibly assault an ICE officer.
I mean, that's what's being alleged here.
And we get the tape.
Yeah, we'll have to watch that again.
Lady in red, La Monica MacGyver pushing her weight around more ways than one.
Well, anyway, these liberal judges, they were like, okay.
We want her gone.
And so they signed this order.
Interestingly, the person that signed the order was the chief U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bum.
Sometimes I have like the humor of a 10 year old boy.
I know, I know, I know, I know.
But it was Renee Marie Bum, B U M B, that announced bye bye, Alina, and that this woman, Ms. Grace, was going to come in and take over the gig.
Well, Pam Bondi wasn't too happy about that.
She was like, oh, not so fast, not so fast.
And so they started getting creative, as I said.
And look, they're able to use laws that do exist that are on the books to their advantage.
So, Alina versus Ms. Grace, Ms. Grace was going to be the second in charge.
She was already there.
And so they thought that they could just appoint her.
Well, they got rid of her.
Pam fired her and made Alina the second in charge.
And now, because there's no one fully in charge, guess what?
Alina slides in.
And basically, they were able to pull a fast one on a bunch of judges that thought they could pull a fast one.
I mean, think about that.
They were out there saying, well, we don't want her, we don't want her.
And you know why they didn't want her.
Because of La Monica.
So they put this woman, Desiree Lee Grace, in.
Pam then fired her, put Alina Haba in Desiree Lee Grace's position.
And now Alina Haba sneaks in as this sort of interim person for the next 210 days.
So she declared herself acting New Jersey U.S. Attorney.
And that's kind of the way it's going to be, it seems, for now.
I mean, it's totally setting up yet again, right?
This whole federal versus state issue.
This is what we keep going through over and over and over again, like every day.
And I'm like, guys.
You know, the federal government does have certain powers.
And Pam has alluded to Article II and this being kind of something that would thwart the president's desires.
DOJ insists it is within their legal authority.
And that's Pam Bondi making that point.
And it does simultaneously represent something kind of unprecedented.
I mean, we've never really seen anything like this before.
Like I said, I think it was always their way and nobody ever challenged it.
But what you're once again witnessing is this federal power versus state.
Power and this is being done at the judicial level, similar frankly to what was being done at the state level there at the Delancey Detention Center, where they were housing some migrants that had allegedly committed crimes.
You had La Monica, you had the guy that was the Newark, New Jersey mayor, you had a few others out there that were singing some days and then they were protesting other days.
You know, they could have just gone up and made an appointment, but apparently that wasn't the idea.
And then at some point, they just decided to bust in.
Remember, we've got the video.
You watch it.
You tell me if this is appropriate.
I don't think it is.
And you know, the lady in red, I guess I wasn't so smart to wear red that particular day, La Monica, she's pushing and shoving her way through the crowd.
And Alina didn't like this.
And Alina had her indicted for it.
And this is why the judges want Alina out.
Think about that.
Messed up.
But here's La Monica.
Wow.
Okay, so you see La Monica.
She's in the crowd there.
She's really pushing.
Whoa, did you guys see that?
Can I go back?
I got to see that again.
Did you see that?
It looks like she actually punched someone.
I mean, look, this is what DHS is alleging.
They're saying that they have videotape of her actually punching someone or physically assaulting someone.
And this is why she's getting up to 17 years if convicted of this stuff by Juan Alina Haba.
Take another look here.
Whoa, whoa, Okay, so, you know, that's not okay.
That's never okay.
And yet she was all over the airwaves saying, How dare they?
I mean, I'm a member of Congress that they can do this to me.
Just think of what they can do to you.
It's like, Alina, forgive me, La Monica, La Monica, La Monica.
You really ought to think about your position.
I get it.
You just got there, you're junior, whatever.
You don't really know how it goes.
But, you know, it's kind of an important position.
You're a representative.
Of the US Congress.
It means you're not supposed to be outside throwing your weight around or possibly your fists or whatever else.
And, you know, I'll tell you, La Monica is going to be facing the music, so to speak.
Well, this is why they wanted her gone.
I mean, McCarthy, Andrew McCarthy, very sort of gifted legal scholar, was speaking on Fox as this all went down.
I just want to share a short excerpt from him because McCarthy is making the point that she had absolutely no right to do this, no right to be there, and it was totally, utterly illegal.
Watch.
authority to go in without the approval of the executive branch.
The enforcement of the federal immigration laws is a federal responsibility.
Congress has oversight of it, but members of Congress who are not acting as Congress, they're acting as individuals, they don't have any more right to obstruct the operations and certainly to create situations that endanger and in some cases reportedly have resulted in assaults on federal officials.
They don't have any power to do that.
No, of course they don't.
Right?
But she somehow has convinced herself she does, and she's so important, and you know, this, that, and the other.
And then you've got the Democrat machine behind her.
Not all of them, interestingly, AOC is oddly silent on all of this.
She was willing to back the Newark mayor, but somehow she just doesn't want to get herself tainted or involved with La Monica MacGyver.
Maybe she's jealous.
I don't know.
Another first time Congresswoman that's getting a lot of attention is trying to raise money off of all this.
I was joking, the MSNBC ought to be getting a cut.
Of all the money that's been raised because she keeps going on there and crying poor.
Anyway, you've got Jeffries here, Hakeem Jeffries, who said, you know, some things.
And it's believed that as a result of the things that Hakeem Jeffries said, he was pressuring the state's judicial panel to oppose HABA, claiming that she had maliciously indicted New Jersey Democrat Representative LaMonica MacGyver for her actions during a protest at a Newark immigration detention center last May.
Well, he got a little bit mad about that.
You see, it's such a big deal now that they're looking at a possible.
Violation for this guy because they're saying he was the one who was pressuring these judges.
And what kind of world are we living in when the judges have become so uber political?
That's not right.
So he didn't want to have it in there.
Why?
Because she's going to go forward with this indictment against one La Monica MacGyver and he's standing with La Monica.
Of course.
Watch.
This far right extremist group that I've never heard of filed this ethics complaint right here.
Alleging that I somehow abused my power by speaking the truth about Donald Trump's so called U.S. attorney in New Jersey.
Let me be clear about my opinions relative to Alina Haber.
That's the U.S. attorney right now in New Jersey.
She is woefully unqualified and is a political hack.
Alina Haber, you are a complete and total disgrace.
I don't give a damn about this so called ethics complaint.
It means nothing to me, it is frivolous.
It was filed by pettifoggers.
Who perhaps themselves should be disbarred.
We will not be intimidated.
Get lost.
Aren't you proud of yourself?
Well, you know, she's not going to be intimidated either.
I think she'd tell you to get lost.
By the way, what's the deal with the little shorts production?
Did you get yourself a shorts team to, like, you know, produce those little things and make them all spiffy?
Is that we have vocabulary words down below?
You're trying to sound smart and, like, I'm sorry, Hakeem Jeffries, give it up.
She was doing something she shouldn't have been doing.
And the fact that you guys are going to dig in and try and actually prevent the president's choice there from being the acting U.S. Attorney General from New Jersey, that says so much, right?
Like that speaks mountains.
And we've got a real problem with these judges that are trying to basically control everything.
It's like they don't care about Congress.
They don't care about Senate.
They don't care about the White House.
They don't care about anybody but their own particular viewpoints.
Crazy, crazy judgment against Donald Trump for some $500 million, half a billion, courtesy of Letitia James.
Wow, right in New York.
There's something else going on entirely, and it's not right.
It's not proper.
And we don't need people like that in the system.
So he had come out, he had said a whole bunch of things.
The belief is that he was pressuring these judges.
And as a result of all of that political pressure, they decided to move and they decided to get rid of Alina Haba.
Only, here's the good news.
Alina and her legal team and the folks in the White House are smarter.
Okay, so they've got better workarounds.
And as a result of those workarounds, guess what?
She's now back in there.
And she can be back in there because of the Vacancies Act for 210 days.
So take that, guys.
She's going to be moving pretty fast.
And I have a feeling something's going to happen with one LaMonica MacGyver.
Mm hmm.
17 years she's facing for what you have seen the lady in red moving through the crowd.
Unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable stuff.
Anyway, good for Alina Haba standing up to these schmucks.
I credit her.
And you know what?
She's going to be there, as I said, for 210 days.
The indictment stands.
Guess what?
She's already put in her not guilty plea.
We've seen the tape.
And I think there's going to be a definite move to try to put La Monica actually in federal prison.
I mean, maybe not for 17 years, but I don't think you let that go unpunished.
Do you?
I mean, do you honestly, is that okay for members of Congress to do that when you could have called up and made an appointment and actually done things in a more civilized fashion?
Federal Prison Threatens La Monica00:07:48
No, the president's like, this kind of crap, his words, not mine, has to end.
Yeah, you better believe it has to end.
And they got more stuff they want to end.
I mean, this is why the White House is suing New York City.
You guys saw this one, right?
They've got some cooperation from the mayor, Eric Adams, but not enough.
And part of that's because of Letitia James and Kathy Holkle, but you still have an infrastructure around you, if you would, in New York City that is resisting, resisting the DHS, resisting ICE, not wanting to cooperate under any circumstances.
And in fact, you actually have allegations that Letitia James, lovely woman that she is, was trying to get intel on anybody out there that was cooperating with ICE because she has sent out a mandate saying, absolutely, positively not, you're not allowed to.
And she's doing it under the guise of, oh, they're going after innocent people.
Even the CNN anchor had to challenge her on that watch.
Voters also make a distinction, a lot of them, and the polls show it, between undocumented immigrants without criminal records, people you're talking about, and those who have them, right?
Especially in these extreme cases like we look at in this case in New York City.
But to that point, in this case, why should.
Those voters think that this is something other than the system not working.
I mean, if you're talking about waiting for comprehensive immigration reform, I've been in Washington for 20 years and they've been trying for a long time.
It doesn't happen, right?
So, why, in the case of cities taking a step and states taking a step, is this an example where there could be that coordination instead of waiting decades for Congress to act?
At the outset, I indicated to you that, in fact, New York State and other Democratic states cooperate with ICE when it comes to criminal convictions.
But when it comes to innocent individuals, individuals who serve as your nanny, who clean your home, individuals who are our neighbors, Individuals who unfortunately are just trying to make ends meet the conditions.
Both of these individuals had multiple arrests after deportation orders.
Why are those not opportunities?
She ignores it.
And that is why, in the state of New York, when it comes to individuals, as you indicated, individuals with criminal convictions, then we cooperate with.
But no, you don't.
You don't cooperate because that's why these two individuals already had criminal convictions and they were already supposed to be deported.
And yet you clearly did not cooperate, lady.
So, why are you talking out of both sides of your mouth?
But it's important that we make a distinction between those individuals with criminal convictions and those individuals, again, who are just trying to make ends meet each and every day.
And the vast majority of individuals who are being secretive.
Right, because she actually believes in open borders and she just wants to take everyone in.
And, you know, hey, we played you the Congresswoman from Brooklyn yesterday who admitted, you know, the unthinkable, the thing that you're not supposed to be saying anytime, anyplace, right?
She admitted, well, I need more people.
If nothing else, then for redistricting.
Redistricting, right?
Because it's all politics.
That's what it's about.
Don't ever forget for two seconds.
Like you sit there and you say, why would they have done this?
Why would you bring 20 million people into the country that you can't actually support, that you don't have the system and the infrastructure for?
Why would you do it?
Oh, I see.
This is your way of getting more representation in various districts.
That's the goal, right?
Meanwhile, you got the Chicago mayor who's pulling a similar thing to Letitia, and then some.
Because listen to this guy.
Played you guys this sound before, but if you're just joining us, by the way, make sure that you subscribe, that you hit the bell.
We are on our way to a million.
It's a really big deal.
But this is a Chicago mayor, and he's like, I don't care.
I don't care.
I don't even care about the Constitution.
Yeah, who needs a Constitution?
Who needs any kind of law and order?
Certainly don't need that in Chicago.
No way.
Chicago, that's one dangerous, dangerous place, and it's on this guy.
Division.
Look, we are welcoming city ordinance.
Our local police department.
Will not ever cooperate with ICE, whatever their constitutional authority is.
Like, whatever their constitutional authority is.
I mean, I hate to break it to you guys, but here's the deal Congress has control over this, right?
I mean, we've been all through it.
I don't need to do another civics lesson here for you, although I got all the I got all the information right here, whether it's the Foreign Affairs and National Sovereignty Clause, the Migration Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause.
Let me just tell you, I'm going to sum it up by saying if there's one power the federal government has, it's the power over who is in the country, period.
Full stop, end of story, whether you like it or not.
And you know what?
If you don't like it, then do what Christy Nome is telling you to do.
Go and change the laws because the laws are the laws and they have to enforce them.
Why else do you have a DHS, Department of Homeland Security?
Thank you very much.
Here she is.
My only question to you, I'd say a question back to you, is which laws in the United States should be enforced and which ones shouldn't?
I mean, my job, here's the deal, guys.
My job is not to pick and choose which laws we enforce and which ones we don't.
We have laws in this country, and they matter.
If you want the law changed, go to Congress.
When's the last time you went to Capitol Hill and told your senator or representative to change it?
That's what they need to do.
This is the perfect time for Congress to make a decision on how they want people in this country to be able to have an opportunity to come here legally and to fix this.
We, as law enforcement officers and as a national security department and agency, my job is to uphold the law.
And that's what I will continue to do.
Well said.
Well said, Christy Nome.
I mean, this isn't that hard.
Why are they doing this?
They really do want some kind of civil war, I think.
I mean, they're like, okay, well, we're not in charge and we're not going to take that we're not in charge.
And so, you know, what happened when the Republicans weren't in charge for four years?
They buckled down, they didn't cry hysterics.
What did they do?
They got ready.
They got ready for this particular moment in time.
They lawyered up.
They figured out exactly where the opportunities were, constitutionally speaking, legally speaking, where they would be able to come in with more force.
And they used that time accordingly.
The Democrats, on the other hand, they're a bunch of spoiled children, just wail on and on and on.
We don't like this.
We don't like that.
Too bad.
Too bad.
It's the law.
It's part of the Constitution.
And if you don't like the law, you can go out and change it, which is exactly what Christy Noam is saying.
Guys, remember when Barack Obama was deporting 1,000 people a day?
This administration is looking to deport 3,000 people a day, but everybody's freaking out over that.
I mean, hey, Obama did it, no problem.
I'm just kind of curious.
Why was it okay for Obama?
But it is not okay for Donald Trump.
Sure, it's TDS.
You get Trump derangement syndrome on steroids.
I get that, but it's something else more.
It's more in that it is political, right?
They're trying to bring all these people here if for no other reason than what the Brooklyn Congresswoman said the other day, which is, Redistricting.
So, if that's the goal, you understand there's a method to the madness.
Reckless Fed Interest Rates00:07:36
It's not necessarily good for your district.
It's not necessarily good for your people, but they're going to continue pursuing this because they think that politically it's going to give them more bodies and therefore more votes.
And they're all about increasing their own power, no matter what.
It's pretty gross.
So, here's a story that you don't see every day Jerome Powell, he's the head of the Federal Reserve.
He was actually appointed by one Donald Trump.
And Jerome is in charge of interest rates along with the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve, and he has been aggressively keeping interest rates higher than what the president would like.
So the president wants him out of town.
He wants to see lower interest rates because he feels that it would be better for everyday folks, right?
You'd have more access to capital, it would be easier to get a mortgage for your home, be easier to invest, et cetera.
A little unknown fact about interest rates is that when they're high, it doesn't actually affect.
The rich as much because the rich are paying off their car loans and they're paying off their home loans.
And so it tends to kind of squeeze the middle class a lot.
And Donald Trump gets this.
And so he's very angry with Jerome Powell because he wants to make sure that everything's freed up for that middle class to see success for the middle class of America.
So he's been talking about firing the guy.
But you know, you can't really do that legally speaking.
And he knows that.
He actually said as much the other day.
You know, he's been drafting letters and this, that, and the other.
I think he kind of just wants to make Jerome's.
Life, a living H E double L, which we saw proof of in this little scene that was shot yesterday.
You see, Jerome Powell has spent a ton of money revamping the Federal Reserve, all kinds of renovations.
And Donald Trump's like, why are you spending so much money?
And don't forget, this is his expertise, right?
Do you remember that?
This is his expertise building buildings, getting them done on time, cheaply, and done well.
And so he doesn't understand why Jerome committed billions of dollars to this effort and things are running behind schedule and they're not done and blah, blah, blah.
So he's very angry about this.
They decided to take a trip to the construction site.
So here the two of them are in the hard hats.
I was dying.
I have never seen a Federal Reserve chairman in a hard hat.
Maybe a president, maybe Bush, but never, never.
A chairman of the Federal Reserve and wait till you see the dialogue.
It's literally like a scene out of The Apprentice.
Take a peek.
So we're taking a look, and it looks like it's about 3.1 billion.
It went up a little bit or a lot.
So the 2.7 is now 3.1.
I'm not aware of that.
Yeah, it just came out.
Yeah, I haven't heard that from anybody in the Fed.
It just came out.
Our notes had about 3.1 as well.
3.1, 3.2.
This came from us?
Yes.
I don't know who does that.
You're including the Martin renovation.
That's our entire capital.
You just added in a third building, is what that is.
That's a third building.
It's a building that's being built.
It was built five years ago.
We finished Martin.
Five years as part of the overall work.
So, uh, so we're gonna take a look.
Have you ever seen that?
Anything like that?
No, no, and no.
You know, normally I talk about the Federal Reserve, and I'm kind of into it, right?
Because I like interest rates and markets and all that kind of stuff, and everybody's like, you know, getting a little bit bored.
But wow, Trump just found a really interesting way to make it kind of fun.
Looking at Jerome Powell in the hard hat, getting scolded by the president because he's been spending too much money on renovations.
Meanwhile, You have Ana Polina Luna, the congresswoman out of Florida, who's actually demanding the resignation of one Jerome Powell because she said he spent too much money and she believes he lied under oath about how much money he was spending, this, that, and the other.
And they're all just kind of like, really?
Did you need to have offices that were that nice?
And so he's in a lot of trouble.
But what this really is about is that the president would like to see lower interest rates.
I'm just going to tell you, I don't get Jerome Powell from the perspective that during the Biden years, Okay.
And in the aftermath of 2020, he just spent printed so much money.
Well, we were spending in Congress, right?
Because you had Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer doing their part to approve trillions of dollars.
You had Biden with the third stimulus check.
Meanwhile, you had Jerome with his QE on steroids plus his low, low interest rates.
He just couldn't keep pumping money into the system fast enough.
And I was banging my hand on the table.
If you guys were watching the show or listening back then, I was like, this is not going to end well.
It's not going to end well because you're going to have massive inflation.
And sure enough, what did we have?
Massive inflation.
And I remember thinking at the time, like, isn't Jerome smarter than this?
Like, shouldn't he know better?
And now I'm looking at the situation.
And I think the president is noticing a little bit of the pullback that we have seen just in, I think, some of the confidence levels, even though the market's on steroids and you've seen gas prices come down, egg prices come down, all of that.
And he wants to get ahead of that.
He doesn't want to be late.
The Fed is always late and they always do too much after the fact.
It's like they slam the gas or they just slam the brake, and you need something a little bit more in between.
So he's done.
He's over Powell.
He wants the guy out.
And this is his way of kind of trying to help things along.
He's got another eight months there.
It's like a pressure campaign.
And you know, Scott Jennings was speaking on CNN with some of these people who, believe me, trust me, don't know a darn thing about the Federal Reserve or interest rates or how the economy even works.
And He was asked about this.
See his response.
I mean, I think he's with me.
It's a little bit of a humiliation campaign.
Jerome, Jerome, when are you going to leave?
Watch.
On the tariffs, and that would be that's that.
But instead, Trump is trying to use this renovation as a reason to put pressure on him.
I'm not sure that that's going to work.
Yeah, I don't know if he's going to fire him.
It doesn't sound like he's going to.
He doesn't have that many months left on his term.
Trump will be able to put in his own Fed chair.
It looks to me like he's planning to just humiliate this person for the next eight months and make him into a miserable person.
And you know what?
He deserves it because he should have lowered interest rates.
A. B. I'm not sure the Fed's done all that great of a job over time since Powell has been in, even though Trump did first appoint him.
I mean, even though.
And so maybe he deserves a little of the political fear.
Tell us about that, Scott, because first of all, this is Donald Trump's Fed chair.
He appointed Powell.
But the second thing is realistically, when you look at the last four years, let's call it.
Is she going to try and tell us he did a great job?
I don't think so.
I think all the inflation that you have seen in food and energy prices is a direct result.
Of all of that QE that he just couldn't get his.
He couldn't stop.
It was like he was addicted to it.
I kept saying, when are they going to stop?
Please, come on.
So I think he made a lot of mistakes.
Bitcoin vs. Worthless Points00:03:21
And granted, I know it's easy to be the Monday morning quarterback, but it's one of the reasons you see gold prices going up as much as they have.
It's another reason why you see crypto prices.
I mean, there's a lot of reason for crypto prices to be going higher.
And this is part of it.
This is part of it.
In my estimation, kind of reckless on interest rates and on QE.
And so I think that's coming back to Haantem.
Donald Trump knows that we need to get this in a better situation, right?
So that you have enough liquidity for the middle class and that you free things up for them while simultaneously not overdoing it on QE, which is what actually does lead, ladies and gentlemen, to inflation.
In fact, some recent studies have come out about this.
We just wrote about it at 76 Research, my financial firm, the other day, about how quantitative easing is really.
The main driver of inflation.
But again, as we look at what it's meant for markets, look, there's a lot of trade optimism out there right now.
I think that people are hoping for the best right now.
We looked at what 120K on Bitcoin just the other day.
It's a little off those levels, but it's a good chance for me to bring up one of our new show advertisers, and we're so proud to have them on board, Gemini.
I want you to go to gemini.com forward slash Trish, my name, and check them out because you can get up to $200 in free Bitcoin with qualifying offers.
I mean, you have to have.
Spent a certain amount of money over 90 days, etc.
You make sure you read the fine print.
But what I like about this particular credit card, and remember always pay your credit card off always, always, always, always.
It doesn't cost anything to have the card, and you can get rewards points in cryptos.
I mean, my choice would be Bitcoin.
I happen to like Bitcoin.
I like a few of them.
I do.
I like Bit and Zor, also known as Tau.
I like Ethereum enough.
And I like, well, you know, Bitcoin, obviously, you know about that.
And Swi, Swi, which was started by a bunch of the guys from Meta who had left when they were not allowed to have their Libra coin.
So, there's, and that's sort of a play on Web 3.0.
So, there's a lot of reasons, I think, from a tech perspective to be looking at this stuff.
But I get it, it's kind of scary.
And now, when you see Bitcoin trading where it is, you're like, really, can I still get in here?
And the answer is, why not consider something maybe a little different?
Like, if you have a credit card anyway, and you're good about paying it off, and you're going to get rewards points, what if you can get two, three, 4% on various different categories of purchases back in a crypto of your choice?
I mean, mine would be Bitcoin, but they have other cryptos that you can choose from.
It's kind of neat, right?
Because typically your credit card rewards points, they go way down in value.
You can thank Jerome in part for that, but inflation means that they're worthless.
So if you're trying to book a hotel room, you're like, wait a second, it used to be 30,000 points.
Well, now it's 100,000 points.
Well, what if your points actually had a shot at increasing in value?
I mean, you have to assume that crypto prices are going to go up, of course, and they could go down.
But if they go up, then you actually have value in.
The reward points themselves.
So I encourage you to go check it out, gemini.com, Gemini.com forward slash Trish, my name, so you can get the 200 bucks in the crypto of your choice.
Media Ratings and FCC Power00:10:27
It's really, really cool.
I keep telling everybody, like friends and family, you got to do this, you got to do this.
Anyway, moving on to the view, which may be put on hiatus.
Guys, this is something else.
So yesterday we talked a little bit about this.
The view, I've said for a while, is just not economical for.
For Disney's ABC to be producing.
I mean, they've got very expensive talent Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, maybe Sonny Costa, a pretty penny.
I don't know about the others, but they're paying a lot in salaries.
They're paying a lot in staffs.
They've already had layoffs on this show.
And I'm still looking at it going, how do you guys make this thing work, especially in a competitive environment like we have now with streaming?
Well, they kind of let a little something slip on the show just yesterday.
Somehow Joy Behar came out and said, That they might be ending, that they might be going on a hiatus, that they're going on a hiatus.
And then she's like, oh, wait, was I not supposed to say that?
And they were like, oh, well, you know, too bad.
I guess you already did say it.
And she's like, oops, you know, cat's out of the bag.
Well, then the White House actually responded to this.
And the White House is like, yeah, you know, this hiatus might be a little bit bigger than you thought.
And they sort of referenced or had a sly reference to, What happened with Stephen Colbert?
Don't forget that Skydance Paramount merger just went through.
It was approved by the FCC last night.
$36 billion, I think, that CBS had to award Donald Trump.
And see, and everybody's talking about, oh, were the two things correlated?
Well, they shouldn't be, but I'm just saying he got somewhere around $36 million out of it because he alleged that CBS artificially edited that Kamala Harris interview to try and make her seem smarter, therefore reflecting.
Their bias.
But let me show you first the view and what they had to say.
And before we go on hiatus, we only have one more show after this.
I'm allowed to say that, right?
Too late now.
So it doesn't really matter.
Yeah.
Before we go, I wanted to tell people that the tide is turning.
The tide is turning, and things are changing.
I mean, the ultimate irony would be that Rupert Murdoch will take him down.
Yeah.
Fox News, who created the monster, will take him down.
Hmm.
Well, we can talk about that because also the Wall Street Journal is getting sued over that letter, you know, that letter, that birthday letter.
And so he's suing them for some $10 billion.
But before we get to that, I mean, I actually think there's a real shot that this particular show goes away.
I know we've talked about that a lot for a long time.
And, you know, the ratings last year weren't very good.
They've improved them a little bit.
What advertiser actually wants to be on this show?
Think about it.
Why would you want to advertise on this show right now, given the sort of level of toxicity?
I mean, it's a very, very toxic program.
You've seen all the clips.
I'm not going to play them for you.
Don't worry again today.
You know what they are.
And there's a lack of responsibility, if you would, among so many of these players.
We can get to Rupert Murdoch in a moment, but here, take a look at this.
So the White House released a statement from one of their press people saying Joy Behar isn't.
Irrelevant loser suffering from a severe case of Trump derangement syndrome.
It is no surprise that the view's ratings hit an all time low last year.
She should self reflect on her own jealousy of President Trump's historic popularity before her show is the next to be pulled off air.
So I think, and this is my own sort of assessment from an economic viewpoint, actually.
This is, I mean, there's a political component to it too, in that.
Bob Iger is under a lot of pressure and Disney's under a lot of pressure, and the FCC's conducting an investigation.
Brandon Carr has already sent multiple letters.
You know all that.
And as a result of that pressure, and even the $16 million that they had to pay, courtesy of Georgie Poo, who still manages to have that weekend news show, right?
Even though he's the former PR person for one Bill Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, I'm talking about, and the $16 million Disney had to pay, ABC had to pay as a result of his recklessness.
Look, I mean, there's a real shot that The View becomes next in line because there's a lot of recklessness on that show.
And there's sort of a refusal to kind of really speak truth.
I know that they've got like one conservative on there and she tries to do a decent job mitigating some of that.
But there's a lot of reason, yes, from a political perspective, given what's going on with the FCC, to get rid of the show.
But the real reason, I'm going to tell you the real reason, is just because of the changing.
Media landscape in which we're all living.
And streaming having taken over everything.
They just started streaming a version of the show, The View, on the weekend.
Like, think about that.
They just started that.
Like, it's taken them a while, right?
So they're playing catch up.
They don't really understand this new medium out there in the real world.
YouTube's totally taken over, guys.
I'm telling you, I read an article the other day talking about how YouTube is like killing it.
I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head, but they're beating all of these other platforms and entities.
And what is the future for a show like The View, where you have to have a live studio audience and you have to employ massive amounts of staff and you got 40 people behind the cameras and in the control room and you know where I'm going with this?
It doesn't make sense from a cost perspective.
And so, if you're Disney and you're already up against it, you know, you're looking for opportunities to be able to have some savings, and this may be one of them.
Meanwhile, as I said, you know, you got the headache of, for goodness sakes, Brian and Carr breathing down your back over this whole DEI scandal, and you may be facing more fines as a result of Brandon, for sure.
You've also got the pressure of your ABC affiliates, maybe not even seeing their affiliations renewed.
He's brought that one up too, because he's saying people don't trust their local news anymore.
And why should all these affiliates all over the country, which the FCC controls the airwaves on, why should they?
Why should they be forced to pay for ABC's coverage?
That's how it works.
Basically, they pay a fee to ABC.
ABC, in turn, provides them with shows like The View and ABC World News Tonight and some of the network programming.
And Brendan's like, look, they don't want to pay for this.
So maybe we should just make all those things go away.
So that's the real threat, truly, for Whoopi Goldberg and for Joy Behar, that at some point Bob Eiger's like, I just don't want to deal with this anymore.
Like, this is too much of a headache.
The talent themselves, they are too much of a headache.
There was a report just a couple of weeks ago that Bob Iger actually spoke to them, all of the talent on The View, and tried to encourage them to do other stories like, hey, entertainment, like maybe some lifestyle stories.
And they're like, no, We're doubling down.
All except for Whoopi, actually.
Whoopi has been walking an interesting line.
Perhaps she knows she's the one that's most in target at this moment in time.
You also consider.
Not just the political heat, but any possible difficulty that ABC may have with future mergers.
This is what people are pointing to, right?
With Paramount and Skydance.
They got the deal through.
What do you know?
The FCC approved it just last night after Colbert is gone.
Again, I actually think the Colbert leaving thing is not really neither here nor there, because that was just a very bad show that was losing money, like losing a lot of money.
And for some reason, I realize there are people that do believe that you should continue losing money on shows.
I'm not a believer in that.
My feeling is, you know, as a red blooded American capitalist, if the show is losing money, the show should not be on the air.
And this one was losing something like 30, 40 million dollars a year.
And yet now they want to sue.
They're actually looking for Letitia, the Writers Guild, is looking for Letitia James to help them out because they're saying, why were we canceled?
Our ratings were so good.
Well, it doesn't matter.
Your ratings could have been great.
But even if you've got great ratings, you understand if you're losing money, that's not the idea, that's not the objective.
Like CBS doesn't need to lose any more money.
So I find it kind of funny.
Let me see if I have the soundbite for you because there's a guy that went on to CNN and he was somehow saying like they needed to keep this thing going and going and going and going because, you know, why not?
Who cares?
It's the best rated show.
And if it's a brand, well, the brand is the be all end all.
And I'm like, hello, are you people a bunch of commies?
For goodness sakes, it's got to make money.
It's business.
Work is saying this was financial.
This was financial.
CBS has a hell of a lot of problems.
Okay, we know that.
Most media has a hell of a lot of problems.
They're saying they didn't say this, but reportedly the show lost up to $40 million last year.
Okay, so that's a lot of money.
But as I said, it is the top rated show.
I mean, when you hear this is financial, this is financial, there's nothing else to see here.
Do you think that's right?
No, I don't.
And I don't for a couple of reasons.
I mean, first, This show has not taken any of the steps that other late night shows have taken to cut costs to stay on the air.
And also, you know, profit and loss reports don't account for a lot of ways in which a show like The Late Show of Stephen Colbert brings value to CBS and to Paramount.
The Late Show is referenced in almost every quarterly Paramount investor call that we could find.
Right.
Oh, wow.
And I think that the right, and that's because of the tremendous brand value that this has for the company.
When you think about CBS, one of the first people you think about is Stephen Colbert.
And so I think that the right, the wrong question is, Was there financial problems?
I think the question is why was this canceled?
Was it because of a.
Well, and as you point out, if you have the top rated show with something that is part of pop culture and ubiquitous in American culture, then would you try to do everything you could to keep it?
Unverified Hearsay Strikes Late Show00:05:17
Right, as opposed to jettisoning it so quickly.
Now, this brings.
No, you're not really going to try and keep it unless, I mean, the people at CBS and Paramount are just really, really bad business people.
And one would have to think that they tried.
But when it's losing 30 or 40 million dollars a year, you don't really care that it's a top brand anymore.
And by the way, I mean, maybe it's the top brand at CBS, but out in the real world, no one cares, in part because they are dinosaurs over there.
They're such dinosaurs that they will not allow you to use any of their clips.
Like, I'd love to show you some David Letterman clips.
Forgive me, what's his name?
Colbert clips.
Huh, see how irrelevant he really is?
But you can't see any of the Colbert clips, and you want to know why?
Oh, there's going to be a copyright strike because they haven't actually adapted to the modern era.
Where people clip things like this show and it goes viral, and that's actually a good thing, right?
Because then it gets talked about the next day.
But the kids aren't talking about anything that Stephen Colbert says because he's not relevant, he's not part of the conversation, he hasn't figured out the streaming aspect of the business, and now he's going to be bye Anyway, the view said something else kind of interesting, and I think this is worth talking about.
Will Donald Trump take down the Wall Street Journal, or will it be?
Vice versa.
So he's suing them for $10 billion over this alleged book where he allegedly wrote some kind of cartoonish, you know, birthday happy birthday wish.
It was kind of innocuous.
It was neither here nor there.
But what's interesting is something that Joy Behar said, and I don't think she's off.
I talked about this the other day, and it's been my concern, sort of in the back of my head.
Is there a movement internally within so called MAGA to actually take Donald Trump down, and are they using, say, the Wall Street Journal and some podcasters that the Wall Street Journal backs to try and do this?
Just listen to what she's saying here.
Watch.
And before we go on hiatus, we only have one more show after this.
I'm allowed to say that, right?
Too late now.
So it doesn't really matter.
Yeah.
Before we go, I wanted to tell people that the tide is turning.
The tide is turning, and things are changing.
I mean, the ultimate irony would be that Rupert Murdoch will take him down.
Yeah.
Fox News, who created the monster, will take him down.
Okay, you heard that, right?
Rupert Murdoch will take him down, she's suggesting.
And this is a reference to that article that came out in the Wall Street Journal.
That article that, you know, guys, like, I'm sorry, this is the Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal should be a little bit better than page six, but, you know, I get it's Murdoch and everything.
They printed something that they didn't actually have a whole lot of authority on.
And I find it kind of sort of shocking.
Like, why would you actually print hearsay, especially, especially as the Wall Street Journal?
You know, the media loves this, and they're like, say, oh, but this is great.
You know, the Wall Street Journal is doing this, et cetera, et cetera.
I think it's actually really problematic and speaks volumes about sort of the tragedy of where the Wall Street Journal is heading.
I like the FT for the record.
Yeah, Financial Times.
But here's Scott Jennings speaking with CNN folks saying, you know, this is actually not a good thing.
And like, you shouldn't have to respond to this.
It's just hearsay.
It's rumors.
Like, why are you printing stuff like that?
Just own up to it.
Why doesn't he just do that?
Own up to what?
What the Wall Street Journal calls.
Unverified hearsay, which is a redundant term that an editor should strike.
Unverified hearsay.
That is how.
That's such a not redundant term.
What is hearsay?
Well, hearsay is a legal term.
What is hearsay?
Hearsay is legal.
And it's unverified, so use it if you want.
Yeah.
Here's the deal.
Why should he go out there and have to own up to anything?
He's not ever been credibly accused.
The Washington Post ran a fact check on this the other day and said, we're confident there's nothing about the president.
If there were, we would know about it.
Unverified hearsay is what he's dealing with, and you want him to go out and fight this ghost?
It's ridiculous.
No, no, I mean, I. Work is saying this was fine.
I mean, exactly right.
Like, why are you going to go and fight something that is not even confirmed?
As we understand it, the Wall Street Journal did not have a copy of the letter, and they were told by the White House that's a fake story, he never wrote that.
I mean, you even for goodness sakes had Michael Cohen going on CNN saying, and remember, Michael Cohen, he was the lawyer for the president, he actually did jail time, and he has no use for him now.
He went on CNN and said, Gosh, that doesn't even sound like him.
The word enigma.
That was used in the message.
That's never something that Donald Trump would say.
And he certainly never doodled, ever, ever, ever, ever.
So you have a bunch of people saying this is not true.
And yet the Wall Street Journal, again, this is not page six.
This is the Wall Street Journal that's publishing that.
And so it strikes me, yes, as an effort, if you would, to try and take him down.
I mean, let's not kid ourselves.
The Murdochs have never, never, never really liked Donald Trump all that much.
Brigitte Macron Bizarre Territory00:06:40
I should know, right?
I used to work there.
They're like, I think shocked that somebody came on to the scene with such force and was really able to control, if you would, the GOP in a way that they kind of always thought they could, right?
You go in, you kiss the ring, Rupert blesses you, and suddenly you're on the fast path to success.
Donald Trump did not need the blessing.
It was like Rupert needed the blessing.
It was like all inverted, right?
Fox needed Trump more than Trump needed Fox.
And I think that that may be in part one of the reasons why the Murdochs are just over him.
And I believe this to be true.
I think they don't like him.
They want him out of there and they want control back.
So they printed this scandalous thing.
Now, here in the United States, we've got lots of free speech laws, right?
And it makes it really hard, especially given that he is a public figure.
I'm of the opinion that you should not print bogus stuff.
If you can't get a copy of the letter, what do you do in printing it?
To me, it's just sort of morally wrong.
As a journalist, I want to make sure that I dot my I's and I cross my T's and I don't want to actually be out there libeling anyone.
Unnecessarily, right?
Like, that's just not a really good route to go, which is why I find this next story really interesting.
And I'm curious to get your view on all of this.
Candace Owens is in a whole lot of trouble, guys.
You know, Candace Owens, she has a podcast.
I think she's still on YouTube.
She's been like in and out of the doghouse on YouTube.
And she's kind of a provocateur.
And she started doing a story about a year ago that alleged.
That the wife of President Macron was not actually a woman.
And it got really, really bizarre.
Like, really bizarre.
Like, I said to a friend, what is Candace doing?
Like, this is getting kind of into Crazy Town territory.
Again, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on all this, but Crazy Town territory, because not only was Brigitte apparently, in Candace's view, not a woman, but she was actually originally born a man and may have actually been.
Hear me out.
I mean, this is really weird.
The father, the father of Emmanuel Macron.
Okay, so now, like, I'm like, I don't even know what to say to that.
Like, it is so entirely bizarre.
Well, Macrones, they know what to say to that.
They went after her over and over and over again.
They were like, Candace, you gotta stop, you gotta stop.
And there's lots of records of Brigitte having grown up, was always a little girl, and then had three children, and this, that, and the other.
And I know, like, it's kind of fun, and people joke around about Michelle Obama, et cetera.
But this one started getting really wild to the point now where they're accusing her of deliberate recklessness.
So, again, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.
But basically, you know, there was this rumor, it actually came around in 2021, and people were saying, oh, Brigitte is actually a man because she's got some masculine features.
And then there was this identity mix up apparently involving her brother.
Well, it turns out there was, in Owens's mind, a lack of early.
Public records, which she said were suspicious gaps, but but but but Bridget Macron actually came forward and she provided all these necessary records.
I mean, it's kind of crazy that she had to do this, right?
Birth certificate, school history, photos, the absence of a record, therefore not being any kind of evidence of fraud, et cetera.
And it kind of just took on a whole life of its own.
And now the Macrones are like, uh uh, like you just can't libel us like this.
Now, it will be very interesting to me to see what happens.
Again, from the First Amendment standpoint, Brigitte Macron, I think, is a public figure.
I mean, she's married certainly to a public figure.
But maybe she's arguing she's more private because she's the wife of.
I don't know.
I think she counts as a public figure.
And there's a totally different standard, if you would.
So now this thing's going to move forward in court.
The way it's going to shake out, Brigitte will not actually have to prove that she's quote unquote female.
Like she's not going to have to take some kind of test and show she has a couple X chromosomes.
She will.
I think the burn's going to become on Candace.
Candace is going to need to show the world.
That she a thousand percent believes this, that there was no malice intended, that there was no recklessness, that she did all of her due diligence, and she wasn't working off of rumor or off of innuendo, et cetera.
And the reason I think this is important for us to watch is because let's be careful, right?
That we don't have a double standard.
On the one hand, I'm saying it's really not a good idea for the Wall Street Journal to be publishing things that they don't even have, right?
I would not do that.
I've done a lot of work on, you know, sort of illegal money trails.
And when I've done that work, I've made sure that I had copies of all the records.
And I wouldn't, you know, print something that I hadn't seen myself or had a copy of myself.
And so, you know, you can speculate, you can have fun with things, but at some point, like, push is going to come to shove.
So I'm just going to, I actually want to go out to your comments because I'm curious.
I know we do have a lot of Candace fans in here, but I'm just making the point that, like, we can't have our cake and eat it too.
I can't sit here and legitimately tell you I think it's totally wrong to go after a public figure and make a whole bunch of stuff up.
Like, Perhaps the Wall Street Journal may have done if they didn't even have the letter.
They're working off of hearsay.
I don't believe in working off of hearsay.
As a journalist, I find it fundamentally wrong.
But I also respect our freedom of speech and I get that people are public figures and there's a totally different standard.
So I'm just, yeah, it's okay.
So you guys are like, it's never been debunked.
I do think, I do think that she has come forward with a lot of pictures of her as a little girl, et cetera.
And I guess I'm just going to be honest.
You kind of lose me when you come up with it's actually.
Brigitte is actually the dead father of Macron.
I'm like, I'm sorry.
Like, I don't even know what to say to that.
We're now in total crazy land territory.
But, you know, I get it.
Debunking Fake Stories00:00:57
People click.
Anyway, listen, I hope you subscribe to the show.
I love having all of you here.
We have more reporting to do specifically on Letitia James and some allegations of her looking the other way on funding that was going from China through New York, her jurisdiction, right on to Iran.
And it relates to where I am right now because, though you can't see it behind me, that is the Irish Sea.
And there's all kinds of oil laundering going on behind me here in the Irish Sea.
I've been talking to some sources and I want to bring you that story.
Imagine that, these two things really being related.
Anyway, we'll talk about that again tomorrow.
It is so good to have you here.
Please do your part.
Share, like, hit the bell so you know when I am here, and we will resume our conversation on the front lines of history this evening.