Trish Regan analyzes rumors of Marjorie Taylor Greene joining 'The View,' suggesting Bob Iger aims to fracture the GOP despite Trump's 87% Republican approval. She condemns a Department of War investigation into Mark Kelly as an incitement to civil war and disputes intelligence claims about the Hunter Biden laptop, citing former officials Maggie Gulinder and Lindsey Halligan. Regan also highlights SNAP fraud reforms under Brooke Rollins, a proposed $2,000 tariff dividend by Howard Lutnick, and the dismissal of Letitia James and James Comey cases without prejudice, arguing these legal shifts expose deeper political conspiracies rather than simple procedural errors. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Alyssa Farah's View Move00:14:05
And we're live.
Welcome to the big show, everyone.
It's so good to have you here.
A lot going on.
For starters, you know, I knew MTG was looking for some kind of new gig.
I knew that there was something up when she was going over to the view, the view of all places to kind of sing her tune.
Well, apparently she may be going to the view like for good.
And some of the hosts there are not too happy about that, shall we say, including one, Jimmy Kimmel, who the president would like to see gone anyway.
In fact, Jimmy Kimmel is one of the reasons why they're doing a whole FCC investigation.
narrowing in, not only on his show, but on the news division, et cetera.
So Jimmy Kimmel apparently is not too happy.
Brand new piece out in the AP about all of that.
Tariff checks.
Yeah, we got new details today.
Both Besant, Treasury Secretary, as well as Howard Lutnick, who's over in Brussels right now, talking about the importance of this.
And then I just got to say, what's the deal?
The Democrats, they're pushing some kind of civil war.
I mean, what, is going on in the world when you see what we saw, right, with Slocken and the rest of them?
Well, I'll tell you, it's a big, big deal because Mark Kelly is now to be investigated by the Department of War.
Much, much to talk about, including the reasons why Letitia James and James Comey are not out of the woods yet.
So do not count your chickens before they hatch, dearest, because Harmite Dillon over at the DOJ said they're coming back.
We got more on that story.
Welcome to the show, everyone.
I am Trish Regan.
Please make sure you subscribe, share, like.
Look at this.
MTG.
maybe getting a new gig.
She may actually have some kind of future as a circus performer because, you know, hey, that's what they hire over on The View.
Yeah.
You know, Whoopi versus MTG.
Now, that might be just good TV, right?
You might actually tune in for that.
Not, but I'm saying in the scheme of things, if I'm Bob Iger, why not?
Why not do this?
I mean, it makes all the sense in the world, right?
And it could help explain why she decided to depart allegedly right after the pension cleared, right?
So she decides to depart.
She, per sources, And actually, I think Scott Jennings said this recently as well, was told by the president of the United States that she probably wasn't going to win her race, nor was she going to win governor, nor senator, nor anything else in the state of Georgia.
And so after looking at that polling, she needed to scramble.
And boy, did she scramble and she moved fast, apparently now being sought after for a job on America's worst possible show.
Remember when she was on the other day trying to like bond with the ladies and they were bonding with her?
Well, some of them aren't so happy, but you know.
What a difference a day makes.
Here we go.
You say you don't believe in the QAnon conspiracies anymore?
Oh, I went over that a long time ago.
I mean, we can.
So you've changed.
Well, no, I haven't changed.
I was a victim, just like you were, of media lies and stuff you read on social media.
You all have attacked me many times on this show.
We have.
Because of things that you read about me that weren't true.
Or clips we've seen.
Or clips you've seen that just basically out of context.
Wait, hold on.
Let's take a second.
Yeah, it's been rough.
I'm getting that.
None of it was true.
She was about to just totally pan them, right?
You guys are fake news over there on ABC.
And that's when Whoopi had to do her little thing because somebody was going, no, we don't need any more of that.
Please, no more of that, especially when Marjorie's trying to get a job here.
Anyway, Whoopi to the rescue.
They did manage to get out of her that she might consider becoming a Democrat.
However, boy, she must really need that gig.
I don't know.
I am so America first.
I just feel like I live it and breathe it.
And that's my district, and that's what people want.
They are so tired of their hard earned tax dollars being sent overseas to foreign wars and foreign aid and foreign causes, while life in America just becomes more and more unaffordable.
We want this money invested at home for our infrastructure, for programs, for our people, and most importantly, For my children's generation and their children and their children and generations to come.
And I have to say, that's what I've campaigned on the entire time.
Everybody's like, Marjorie Taylor Greene has changed.
And I'm like, oh no, nothing has changed about me.
I am staying absolutely 100% true to the people that voted for me and true to my district.
And I am so angry when I drive around my district to all these beautiful people.
Blah, b get a gig on the VIEW right again.
It makes all the sense in the world if you think about it.
So if you're Bob Iger and you got the FCC breathing down your back, Bob Iger is the ceo of Disney, Disney owns ABC NEWS and ABC NEWS is the producer of that little show.
That is uh, how shall we say?
You know, like Pt Barnum, okay.
So it's like, how many crazy things can we stage on here?
Well, it doesn't really work if all your crazies are only on one side.
So maybe get another crazy on the other side, and then, you know, you get some fireworks, because you know the, The conservatives that you guys have been hiring are just like a little too subdued, shall we say.
I have a feeling that Marjorie can really, really mix it up when she needs to.
Of course, of course, apparently in order to get a job in mainstream television as a conservative, you have to be a never trumper.
I mean, is she like an American first never trumpa, never trumper?
Is that what it is?
I wonder because, you know, she's going to be going up against this lady.
who's not too happy.
No, no, no.
I mean, Alyssa Farah, she's like the queen of the conservatives right there.
She's like the only conservative, I believe, that they have on that show.
And she historically has not been very big a fan of one Donald Trump.
So she's got to be looking at this and saying, holy moly, what is going on?
All of a sudden, she's about to lose her gig because MTG is going to come in and suck all the oxygen out of the room and maybe give Whoopi a run for her money.
Take a look at this.
The views Alyssa Farah Griffin blast Marjorie Taylor Greene for bowing out of the fight too early.
Well, I think that is just hysterical.
So Alyssa is like the only one saying, Hey, you know, you should have stuck around in Congress because I didn't need you coming for my job.
Thank you very much.
So this is the article in Mediaite.
She's saying that.
She's got mixed feelings, mixed feelings about MTG's decision because she said as a voting member of Congress, as feckless as Congress may be and as unpopular as it is, you do have some power in it.
It feels like she's bowing out too quickly.
And she goes on to say, well, now she's resigning in early January from her seat, but we all expect the DOJ is going to stonewall.
So you're getting out of the fight before the fight is over.
So taking her down, way to go, Alyssa.
Because, you know, it's going to get kind of muddy over there.
If it wasn't already.
But, you know, hopefully you won't have to deal with it because congratulations, Alyssa Farah Griffin.
I didn't even realize this.
She is actually pregnant and her baby is due in February.
So again, if you're the network and you're trying to piece all this together, right?
I think, I just think you got to find yourself a new conservative and no conservative worth their salt would ever go on that show.
But Marjorie Taylor Greene might, right?
So Bob Iger.
I see how you're thinking.
You see, you kill a few birds with this stone.
You get MTG into a more prominent position, right, than sitting down in Georgia hanging out.
And you are able to help divide and conquer because she will possibly.
I mean, I'm not really buying this because I got to show you the new poll numbers that are just out of CNN.
It really suggests that Donald Trump's base is shored up like you wouldn't believe.
But nonetheless, You might take a chance at trying to divide the Republican Party.
I think that that is what so many people in the mainstream media would like to do, including the folks over at CNN, over at ABC, over at NBC, all of them, right?
They kind of all have the same goal in mind.
And it's rather remarkable because so far, it hasn't worked.
It just hasn't worked at all.
And I don't think that it's going to work in the future.
And I'm going to show you some of these poll numbers, which would effectively say that yes, I'm right on this.
He has like 87% approval and it hasn't moved.
Like it hasn't budged.
So it's not like he's slipping with his base.
Anyway, MTG, she's got to find a gig.
Alyssa, well, you know, ABC is going to have to find a Republican to sit in for her.
And I think this is a way where they can say, okay, we can help to divide the Republican camp because that's what we're trying to do.
Again, I want to reiterate, it has not been working.
It has not been working.
And I suspect that.
it probably ultimately won't work at all.
But Alyssa's in a bit of trouble.
And I would also say that, you know, Marjorie might have some very, very big grand illusions.
Don't forget who was the AOC.
No, no, no, no.
It was Jasmine, Jazzy, you know, down in Texas, who thought she could take on Ted Cruz.
Good luck with that one.
And now Marjorie seems to think she could take on the president when she can't even win in Georgia, as Scott Jennings articulated.
Just a couple days ago, this is the real truth, guys.
Marjorie knew the handwriting was on the wall.
Watch.
Technically true, based on what I've heard and what I know, that he didn't tell her not to run, but what she didn't say was that he sent her a poll privately, discreetly, and it had information in it.
And it showed her down 20 points to John Ossoff.
And so in politics, when you want to send a message to someone that you like or that has been an ally, you don't embarrass them publicly, you privately send them information.
Show them what the reality is.
And so I think it's true that he didn't tell her not to run, but it's also true that he did her a big favor, which is to show her information that a candidacy statewide in Georgia for her would have been a disaster.
Congresswoman, thank you for being here.
Disaster.
Okay, you heard that.
Disaster.
So, in other words, she had no shot of actually winning the thing.
So, what was there for her to do?
What was left?
Enter.
Circus time, right?
Because there is no worse circus on the air right now other than The View.
And I think if you're at ABC and you're one of the bosses there and you get the FCC saying, well, you guys don't have any conservatives on.
You never have any conservatives on.
I mean, the closest you came was Schwarzenegger.
And he's not really much of a conservative, although he did put Joy Behar in her place as well as Whoopi Goldberg pretty spectacularly.
So what are you going to do?
Well, you got this Marjorie gal who's like, you know, kind of willing to go places that most of your hosts aren't willing to go.
And like, maybe this could make for some exciting television.
And maybe, just maybe, if you're Bob Iger and you're the other executives there, you're thinking we can help divide the Republican Party at the exact same time.
And wouldn't that just be great?
But I don't think it's going to work.
I really don't.
And I know it's not going to work because you know what?
Well, new poll.
Let's go to it right now.
So, is the president losing Republicans?
No.
Look, this is still Donald Trump's Republican Party, and we can see it here.
It's like a rock, to quote Bob Seeger.
I mean, take a look here Republicans who approve of Trump.
Six months ago, it was 87%.
Now, well, hello, it's the same number.
It's 87%.
He has not lost any support among Republicans compared to six months ago.
As I said at the beginning, he's like a rock.
He's like a rock.
The Republican base is sticking by Donald Trump at this point in time.
It really is interesting to watch his overall approval rating go down, down, down, down, but see this be completely constant here.
It is among independents.
It is not among Republicans.
Okay, so how does this compare to past presidents in a second term?
Yeah, okay.
I think this gives the game away, right?
Which is Donald Trump, if you look at 21st century presidents, Own party approval at this point in term two.
Who leads the PAC?
It's Donald John Trump.
87% of Republicans approve Donald John Trump.
You go back to 2013, 78% of Democrats supported Barack Obama, and it was 78% of Republicans who supported George W. Bush back in 2005 at this point.
So Donald Trump has the biggest own party, highest own party approval of any president who served their entire second term in the 21st century.
You could look at this one of two ways.
You could say, obviously, he's doing way better than past presidents, or you could say, There is still room to settle if there is a reversion to the mean here.
If that does fall further, that could chip into his overall approval rating.
Okay.
Marjorie Taylor Greene resigning from Congress in January.
One of the concerns is, is that Donald Trump backed someone in a primary against her.
How has Donald Trump done in his congressional endorsements?
You know, when you go up against Donald Trump, you're going up against a buzzsaw because Donald Trump's endorsement record is, it's hard to find anyone else who beats it.
Times Trump endorsees won GOP primaries in 2020.
It was 98%.
2022 was 95.
MBS and the Lying Reporter00:16:52
This is interesting because the left would have you typically think otherwise.
Watch.
In 2024, it was 96%.
And I will note the majority of times that Donald Trump backed a challenger to an incumbent like Marjorie Taylor Greene, that challenger won a majority of the time.
The bottom line is this.
There was a real reason why Marjorie Taylor Greene decided, you know what?
It's not worth the fight because more times than not, when you go up against Donald Trump in a Republican primary, you lose.
Not just more times than not.
Almost all times.
Almost all, almost all of the times.
Based on these.
All right.
Marjorie Taylor Greene.
She's saying she's not going to run for president, but there are other questions, which is, hey, is she going to stay a Republican even?
What do the markets think about that?
All right, so we go to the prediction markets here and the chance to leave the Republican Party by January 1st of 2027.
You can see it 31%.
I think this is a pretty good baseline, which is more likely than not Marjorie Taylor Gould will stay within the Republican ranks, but there's actually a pretty decent chance that she doesn't.
And then that becomes really interesting to see what she has to say about Republicans and Donald Trump in particular if she decides to wave adios amigos.
This is the Republicans, the prediction markets saying, There is a chance.
There is a chance.
There is a chance.
Harriet, thank you very much.
There's a chance.
There's a chance.
Well, there's a chance at anything.
But, you know, partly the reason there's a chance is because the last time she was on The View, which was like, what, 10 days ago, she was asked, hey, are you planning on becoming a Democrat?
And she started sort of moving in that direction, albeit she's still America first.
I mean, it's getting very confusing.
It's hard to keep up with MTG and all her little spinning that she's doing.
But I think the bottom line here is, Good luck.
Good luck trying to divide the Trump base.
That chart, that poll, it says it all.
The fact that she has to leave after everything she pulled, I think she saw that she wasn't getting anywhere.
And I think she figured, okay, I got to scramble.
I got to get a job in corporate America or I got to get a job on the circus of all circus shows the view.
And hey, they'd be smart to get her given that they have no conservatives.
I'd love to see them actually get someone that supports Trump.
But I think anybody that actually supports Trump would be out of their mind to go on the show, right?
Just absolutely out of their mind.
Who needs that?
What a toxic, awful, terrible environment.
And yes, the president is right when he says ABC is a lousy network.
Remember the other day when they were in the Oval Office with MBS and there was that ABC news reporter and she was like really aggressive and she starts asking like MBS basically, you know, why are you here?
Because you murdered Khashoggi.
He's a little caught off guard.
And so then the president, I think in an effort to kind of save the situation, it's like a little kid with good sort of social instincts jumps in and then like just swings at her and says, I think ABC needs to deserve to lose its license.
And you're just a terrible reporter for asking such an aggressive question in this environment.
Again, I'm going to tell you right now, it's not that it was a bad question, right?
Because our CIA does have intelligence suggesting that MBS said, okay, okay.
So fine.
But is it the right venue at that particular moment to ask it?
On top of which.
she was pushing him pretty darn hard on the Epstein stuff, which we all know is coming back to bite the you know who's in the you know what.
Anyway, here is Donald Trump speaking with that ABC reporter.
And I'm telling you, it actually might be one of the reasons why Iger and company over at Disney and ABC are so serious about getting someone like MTG on that horrible, god awful show.
Oh, it's not coming up.
But you know what I'm talking about, right?
You know the one where they're talking with MBS and he's like, you are not only a terrible reporter, you're a terrible person.
And you work for a terrible network.
And I want, we have a great FCC chairman, Brandon Carr.
I want him to be investigating you because you know what, or the network that is, you should, ABC News should lose its license.
So there's a lot of anger right now, but understandably so.
I mean, think about what we've all been through, right?
Over the last however many years.
It was a lot.
And unfortunately, the way Washington works, the way the media works, everybody's on the left, like everybody.
I've told you the stories, right?
When I worked in San Francisco and they started cheering when Enron went down.
And I was like, guys, you do understand that like those are people that are going to lose their jobs.
You know, you likely have some money in your 401k and Enron.
Like this is not something to cheer, but they hate capitalism.
So journalists hate capitalism and yet they're oddly capitalists themselves because so many of them are making millions and millions and millions of dollars.
Funny how that works, right?
Anyway, they, they.
Are very left in all of these newsrooms, and they're very much aligned with some of the people in the deep state that are also very, very left.
And then that takes on a political overture.
I want to show you, um, case in point, our friend Scott Jennings was on Kara Swisher's show.
She's like a tech reporter turned evangelist for the left.
Anyway, she goes and like starts grilling him, and it's brilliant because he's like, What the heck are you talking about, lady?
She's effectively sanctioning.
any of the funny business that the deep state would actually do just saying well you know whatever like we're all big boys it's politics excuse me Excusez moi, please.
The story was true.
There wasn't really any dispute of that, other than from these 50 people who come from government, who are in and out of government when Democrats are in power.
That's politics to me, Scott.
That's, I mean, you're not naive.
They were making their case, just like you would say Trump just did with whatever issue he has.
Well, I don't agree that it is just a simple matter of making your case when you use your government title and you use your intelligence bona fides and you use all your credentials.
To flat out lie to the American people.
They didn't know that.
That was a political argument, but they were saying, this is Russian disinformation.
What you're reading is directly out of the Kremlin.
It was one of the biggest lies that was told to try to get Joe Biden over the finish line.
Do you think it's just politics as usual?
Yes, I do, actually.
I think it's, I do.
You like it?
Absolutely.
I don't, moron.
Like, I'm sorry.
That was like one of those SNL moments.
Like, you remember with, um, Gabe, well, I digress, but that was, I think that was a pretty funny exchange because she's so blinded by her own view of things that she doesn't understand that when you have the former head of the CIA and the former head of the Department of National Intelligence and you have all of these people coming forward and they're saying that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't real.
It was just misinformation fed to you courtesy of Rudy Giuliani and the Russians.
Do you understand how damaging that is?
You remember what happened to the organization, the New York Post, America's like, longest living newspaper founded by Alexander Hamilton, they lost their Twitter account.
It's actually one of the reasons why Elon went forward and bought what is now X. There were plenty of people that got knocked off of social media altogether.
I mean, there were like just things that you weren't allowed to say.
And this was one of them, right?
So because it was politics and yet she's treating this like, oh, it's just politics.
No, no.
These were people within the intelligence community spewing lies and they knew they were lies and they did it anyway.
That's not cool.
And when we think about what's going on today, and you got them all back up again, like lying, lying, lying, lying, saying, okay, to the military, well, you don't have to follow your orders because we think that Donald Trump is some kind of fascist dictator.
I mean, they're once again out there with their political agenda.
We're going to get back to that in a moment.
But first, more on MTG because, boy, the media would love her to run for president.
Did you notice that?
I mean, you heard some of them talking about it there.
It's been coming up over and over and over again.
Time magazine is now talking about it.
They were on MSNBC where they love to talk about this.
I mean, they just love the idea of driving some kind of brick truck right through the center of MAGA.
But I'm telling you, it's not going to happen.
You saw the poll numbers, so you guys are all just wishing.
But this is what they're saying.
Okay, let's go to MSNBC, which kind of has a new look.
I didn't recognize it at first.
It's like the Ms. Now Network, right?
It's not a good look.
Anyway, we'll go to it.
And what about her own political future?
Eric, you have reporting highlighting how she may actually have bigger aspirations, namely a run for the White House in 2028.
She denies it, but what are you learning and what kind of impact could she have on the race?
Well, she's been discussing with various allies the possibility of running for.
For president in 2028.
I've spoken to a number of people who heard from her directly, as well as others who had heard from her secondhand that she's considered it, that she's talking about it, and that it's certainly on the table.
She denies it.
She posted on social media, as you say.
I sort of felt like the lady doth protest too much.
We stand by the reporting.
And I think Marjorie Tiller Green sees a path toward accumulating power and political capital through a run for president.
I'm not sure that she really believes that she could win a primary.
But she does believe she could play a similar kind of role that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. played in 2024, where he had enough of a following and enough of the potential to siphon off votes from the eventual GOP nominee, in this case, Trump, that he was able to use that following and exploit that capital in order to accrue capital and a position in a future administration.
So I think Marjorie Tuller Green sees this as a way for her to remain relevant and to have some kind of role, influential and powerful role in a future Republican administration.
Okay, so it's all about relevancy.
Once again, I go back to my views thesis, right?
You know, she wants to be relevant.
Not that that show is relevant, just to be super, super clear.
In fact, I was talking to somebody this morning and they were like, do you know anyone that watches that show?
And I'm like, no, I actually don't.
I don't know anyone.
But I do see clips of it.
And the reality is, actually, they do have probably at least a million viewers, although often on a good day we get those over here.
But if they have a million viewers that are tuning into this garbage every day, it's affecting someone somewhere.
perhaps shame on me for even talking about it, right?
Maybe we just need to nix it from our repertoire.
But oh gosh, it's so good.
Like I said, total circus show, total circus show.
Another show that nobody ever watches and you just have to look at the ratings to know it is Jimmy Kimmel's show.
And now there are rumors swirling that he may step down as Donald Trump demands his firing.
I mean, maybe, maybe Marjorie is like the middle ground, right?
Maybe Bob Iger's like, whoa, we got, we got a conservative on staff now.
We're going to, we're going to bring in Marjorie.
Now, again, these are just reports.
It's just speculation.
It does make all the sense in the world, though.
You've got to admit, if I'm Bob Iger, I'd totally take her because I'm like, okay, I get to divide MAGA.
I get to put somebody on TV that's kind of reckless and might actually be able to go up against Whoopi.
I mean, this would be good, right?
Good TV.
Anyway, Jimmy Kimmel is now the subject of a big, big AP story.
So here we go.
This just came out and I want to show this to you because it's a little surprising.
It just came out yesterday, like over the weekend.
And it's like, okay, AP, you're just catching up to this.
So Donald Trump is, of course, pressuring ABC to cancel Jimmy Kimmel as the Epstein monologue.
Jokes go for the quote jugular.
Not very different than what we saw in the view, but nonetheless, let me play them for you, and then we'll get back to why Donald Trump has had it with these guys.
We are following the carefully following the path of Hurricane Epstein right now.
It is a category five.
It's expected to make landfall sometime very soon.
We are now one step closer to answering the question what did the president know and how old were these women when he knew it?
Yesterday, both the House and Senate voted to release the long withheld.
Files related to a man who considered himself to be Trump's closest friend for more than a decade, the late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.
The vote in Congress went 427 to 1.
It was such a landslide, Trump might actually be able to rebury the Epstein files under it.
Okay, so that's Jimmy.
And I just want you to hear that because it's important to understand the talking points that they keep spewing over there at ABC.
It's like they have some morning meeting and they're like, okay.
Here's our Democrat talking point list.
Why don't we all use it?
So he's saying, okay, Trump definitely has a connection to those files.
And by the way, it's echoed by none other than Joy Behar.
Maybe that exact same day?
Oh, that must be quite a morning meeting you guys have there at ABC.
I think we're going to hear something.
But isn't it obvious that Trump was involved with Epstein?
I mean, there are more pictures of him with Epstein than pictures of Kim Kardashian of herself.
Yes, right.
How many more?
Things do we have to see before people believe that he was involved with ABC?
You see what I'm saying?
Again, they get their marching orders, it seems.
And so now the president is pressuring ABC possibly to get rid of Jimmy Kimmel because it's going too far.
And per this article that was written, let me see who they, I think it was, yeah, it was David Bowder.
So he's a big media reporter at AP.
He said ABC said it would not comment about Trump's statement on Kimmel.
whose ratings saw a bump upon his return to the air in September.
Bauer writes, while Trump associated him with ABC News, Kimmel works for the network's entertainment division.
That's actually quite true.
It's actually very, very true.
So this is an interesting sort of nuance.
ABC News is actually, in my estimation, in a lot more trouble.
They produce that show called The View, whereas this one is part of entertainment.
Although, as I've said before, FCC rules mean that under broadcast, there's a whole different set of criteria.
It's not the same as the Wild Wild West cable.
let alone what we do over here on YouTube.
So Kimmel isn't the only late night comic to draw Trump's ire lately.
Over the weekend, he called for the firing of NBC's Seth Myers.
I totally, totally back that.
You know what?
I totally back that.
Seth Myers is not a very talented comedian.
And, you know, that's a lot coming from me, given that, you know, I'm very, very true to my New Hampshire live-for-your-die roots.
And this guy grew up in my cousin's hometown.
Used to hang out in my cousin's basement.
My aunt caught them.
Apparently there was some alcohol involved.
It's what high school kids do.
Not my high school kids, but apparently I digress.
I digress and I don't want to give away my cousin's secrets.
But anyway, it's a little sad that we get such a lousy comedian coming from like my home state, right?
Like I don't like that.
I don't like that.
But you know, that guy's got to go.
He's absolutely awful at his job.
How do these people even get these jobs?
You know, that's one of the great things about YouTube.
One of the great things about Rumble and all of these platforms is that you're going to see so much more competition on the comedy front because, you know, we don't have to have like 40 writers over here.
I'm not a comedian, obviously, although some of you guys say I'm kind of funny sometimes.
So, hey, I take that as a big compliment.
I don't intend to be, but, you know, it's all on the fly here.
And these guys, they script it all out.
They got 40 writers.
For goodness sakes, Kimmel's got his wife as his head writer and as his head producer.
So if you wonder why there's no objectivity in anything.
If you wonder why nobody dares to speak up and say, hey, maybe you shouldn't say that about Charlie Kirk, you know, just hours after he was killed, like maybe that's not appropriate.
You know, maybe you should be aware that the Harvard professor, the constitutional law professor, went up in smoke for saying something similar and had to apologize over the weekend, and yet you choose to do that on a Monday night?
Lovely.
Anyway, ABC is saying that they're not going to comment on this, but it's one of the topics that Epstein, anyway, was one of the topics that ABC's Mary Bruce brought up.
in these very sort of aggressive questions that she was asking to him, kind of on an international stage, right?
Because MBS was there and he's tired of it and he's sick of it.
And so now you're looking at Jimmy Kimmel possibly, possibly, I don't know.
Like it may be that they bring Marjorie in and they say, hey, we get a conservative.
But I don't know as that does squat to basically take the edge off of what the president sees as a problem.
And that's Jimmy Kimmel.
And I get back to this, guys.
I've talked about it before.
ABC Spirit of Misinformation00:02:10
Forgive me if you've heard this at Najam, but the FCC rules. for the 1934 Communications Act require that broadcast television adhere to a community value spirit, right?
So you have to be of value to the community.
They also have something that was written into the law in 1949 called the Broadcast Distortion Act.
And so if you're deliberately distorting news, then you also would come under fire with the FCC.
So there's a couple things that Brendan Carr can go back at him with, back at Iger, back at Disney, back at ABC with, and certainly back at Kimmel with, and say, listen, you know, the spirit of what was intended here is not really being followed, and at this point you've just become misinformation yourself, all in the sort of theory of being funny.
Well, guess what you can go?
Do that over on Msnbc.
I would encourage you to do that, because Msnbc is desperately in need of talent.
Rachel's not doing it for him anymore, and so maybe they could use a comedy show.
That's uh, extremely left leaning.
That's his future, i'm telling you, mark my words, Jimmy Kimmel going over to Msnbc.
It's gonna happen So long as Donald Trump stays in office.
But you know, I will say he's got reason to get kind of fed up with them.
He really does.
I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it's so wrong.
And we have a great commissioner, the chairman, who should look at that because I think when you come in and when you're 97% negative to Trump and then Trump wins the election in a landslide, that means obviously your news is not credible and you're not credible as a reporter.
I've answered your question.
You should go and look at the Democrats who received money from Epstein.
Haha.
Okay.
So he did say, I think the license for ABC News should be taken.
So it's coming full circle back to MTG.
They're looking at you, right?
They need a conservative.
They figure, hey, you know, maybe we can help destroy the MAGA movement.
Good luck with that.
Like I showed you, those polls show you that Trump's base is not going anywhere.
Illegal Orders in Congress00:10:48
And this has been tried.
I mean, for goodness sakes, didn't Glenn Beck try this and didn't like, Ted Cruz at one point, even Marco Rubio, like they've all tried, right?
They all come back, you know, crawling saying, oopsie daisy, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.
And that will likely possibly be what Marjorie does in the future.
This is a big story.
Department of War is opening an investigation into Mark Kelly.
You may have seen this cross just within the last couple of hours.
They have issued an official statement.
This follows the heels of Donald Trump really scorching Mark Kelly and others because of some of the recent videos that they put out.
along with some of the recent interviews that they have done.
The Department of War has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice 10 U.S.C. 688 and other applicable regulations.
A thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martialing proceedings or administrative measures.
This matter will be handled in compliance with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality.
Further official comments will be limited to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.
The Department of War reminds all individuals that military retirees remain subject to the UCMJ for applicable offenses and federal laws such as 18 USC 2387 prohibit actions intended to interfere with the loyalty, with the morale or good order and discipline of our armed forces.
Any violations with addressed will be addressed through appropriate legal actions.
And the reason for this, guys, is I don't know what to tell you on the Dems.
Like they've so far lost it that they're now out there.
trying to tell military members you don't have to obey anything.
It's like you don't have a military that functions, right?
Like if you don't have a chain of command, if you don't have a chain of command where, you know, your boss, right, the officer tells the enlisted to do something, like, and the enlisted person says, well, I'm not going to do it.
Then you get total anarchy, total mutiny.
And I just don't understand, like, what American would actually be trying to encourage that.
But that's exactly what we saw as they released this little social media stunt.
I'm Senator Alyssa Sotkin.
Senator Mark Kelly.
Representative Chris DeLuzio.
Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander.
Representative Chrissy Houlihan.
Congressman Jason Crow.
I was a captain in the United States Navy.
Former CIA officer.
Former Navy.
Former paratrooper and Army Ranger.
Former intelligence officer.
Former Air Force.
We want to speak directly to members of the military and the intelligence community who take risks each day to keep Americans safe.
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
Americans trust their military.
But that trust is at risk.
This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens.
Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution.
Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.
Our laws are clear.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You can refuse illegal orders.
You must refuse illegal orders.
No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
But whether you're serving in the CIA, the Army, or Navy, the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.
And know that we have your back.
Because now, more than ever.
Okay.
So they're going on about how you don't have to follow illegal orders.
So who's to determine if it's illegal?
I mean, I think that's a fair question, right?
And by the way, is there anything illegal that's already happened?
Slocan, Senator Slocan, was asked this question.
On ABC News over the weekend, ABC is back in action.
And the answer was, well, no, nothing illegal has happened, to which I would just say then, why the heck did you release the stinking video, okay?
What are you trying to do, lady?
Let's talk right now.
Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?
To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal, but sir.
Okay, so what was the whole video that we just sat through?
To my knowledge, I am not aware of anything that is illegal.
Although then she goes on to say, I'm not so sure about Venezuela.
I'm not so sure about, you know, all those boats off the Caribbean, et cetera.
But if you're not so sure, if you, you, the lady that's telling all of the enlisted people not to actually follow orders, if you don't know if it's legal or not, then why the heck did you put the stupid video out?
Certainly, there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela.
I mean, the idiocy is actually rather remarkable, truly remarkable.
At least Amy Klobuchar, who's another not very bright individual.
Gosh, you know, when you think of how close we came to some of these people being president, she was actually running for president of the United States.
So she was on NBC over the weekend.
And, you know, at least she's sticking to her story, right?
When they pushed her and they said, well, what exactly is illegal?
She kind of had a reason, although it doesn't work because the courts have actually ruled that this is legal.
But here's Amy Klobuchar trying to stir the The pot.
I wonder, do you know what the specific illegal acts are that your Democratic colleagues were referring to there?
Well, it's very clear in this code for the military that you cannot follow unlawful orders.
And, you know, that would be, I'll just use an example.
Some of the judges have now found in certain cities that it is not legal to send in the National Guard.
And those National Guard members have come home, some of them are still there.
But if their commander were to tell them, hey, go out on the streets and do this and that, that's not following the order that is in law.
So I just use that example.
I'm sure my colleagues would have others.
Just to be clear, the courts have already ruled that he could actually bring the National Guard into a lot of these places, including out in California, you know, where Gavin's flipping out.
Honestly, I'm like, what is the point here?
You guys want chaos?
I see some of you guys saying, oh, well, that lady, you know, Cloak, and she's.
former CIA, you know, this is some kind of psychop.
I'll tell you what it is.
It's a political op.
Okay.
This is a political op.
It's a terrible thing to do.
It's wrong.
250 years we've made it.
And now they're pulling this kind of crapola.
That's what this is.
Total crapola.
It's like they want the chaos.
I want to go to this woman who just destroyed Wolf Blitzer on live television because he's like, well, what's wrong with that?
Right.
And she explains it better than I'm explaining it.
But the point is you got a military and the military actually has to follow orders.
If nobody's following orders.
You think about how slippery a slope that is.
Here, she explains.
I just want to be precise, Congresswoman.
Should members of the U.S. military or the intelligence community, for that matter, obey what are clearly illegal orders if, in their mind, what they're being told to do is something illegal?
Should they still go ahead and follow those rules?
You're asking an enlisted person for their opinion on what they think is legal or illegal.
That's a pretty slippery slope.
Wouldn't you agree with that?
So that's an interpretation.
And what the president has done is not illegal, right?
So I would say follow the chain of command, follow your commander in chief.
That's the oath that you took.
Because if you leave everything up to interpretation, you could interpret things one way, I could interpret things another way.
And that is a very dangerous situation to put this nation in.
Yeah.
Like, Just saying, woofy, you know?
I mean, I guess he has to ask the question, but it should be kind of obvious.
It really should be.
Again, I want to go over to Ari Fleischer, who had a good couple of things to say on this as well.
It's just amazing to me that they're pulling this.
When I saw that video the other week, last week, my instant reaction was all the things I've seen in all my time in Washington, we've hit a new low.
I don't care how much you oppose Donald Trump.
You do not interfere in the military chain of command.
And people who are in the military, someone who was in the CIA, they, of all people, should know that.
So whatever you oppose, you have a higher duty to the Constitution and to the military chain of command.
And that should be obeyed.
It must be obeyed when you're in uniform, and it should be obeyed when you're out of uniform and retired.
This was one of the lowest, most dangerous, worst things I've ever seen because they're trying to interfere with the chain of command.
So, if those answers weren't enough to draw your reaction, this is Alyssa Slotkin using Nuremberg and a few good men, Ari, as examples of illegal orders.
This is ABC This Week.
Listen.
If you're going back to Nuremberg, right, that, well, they told me to do it.
That's why I murdered people.
Is not an excuse.
If you look at popular culture, there's like you watch, you know, a few good men.
Like we have plenty of examples since World War II in Vietnam where people were told to follow illegal orders and they did it and they were prosecuted for it.
Your reaction, Ari?
This is horrible.
Members of Congress do not have a say in this.
The military has a say.
This would be the equivalent if Republicans had said about Joe Biden ordering the withdrawal from Afghanistan, telling the military, don't obey it, stay in Afghanistan.
That's an illegal command.
It would have been just as terrible.
And you shouldn't do that as a member of Congress.
It is sacred because when you put people in harm's way, that chain of command is what protects them.
You cannot have a lawless situation where anybody with a strong opinion can enter the chain of command and then it becomes a debate.
It's an order.
And so if it's an illegal order that is already on the books, people in the military are trained, they know about it.
But for members of Congress to pipe in from afar, that's what made this so terrible and such an infringement.
It's unbelievable.
I mean, I just keep looking at it.
It's safe.
I'm looking at it in, you know, just stunned and horrified and disgusted.
And one of the women in there, Maggie Gulinder, she's from New Hampshire, Congresswoman, Democrat.
Mounting Insurrection from Within00:07:07
She's actually married to Jake Sullivan.
Remember, Jake, he was the one who thought he had solved all the problems in the Middle East and then Afghanistan, you know, that all went down really badly.
And then, of course, the horror that we saw in Israel.
He had said, like, something to the Atlantic, like, two days before, oh, you know, we solved it all.
It's her husband that was Biden's national security advisor.
So if you don't think that there's a political undertone and current to all of this, hello, I got news for you.
And we'll go back to what Kara was trying to tell Scott.
Oh, don't worry about it.
It's all just politics.
This is Kara Swisher.
She is a tech reporter.
And she wants to excuse everything like the 51X spooks and spies that demanded everybody just recognize, oh, Hunter Biden's laptop was nothing but misinformation.
You see what they're doing here?
Again, another psychop situation.
Donald Trump hasn't murdered anyone.
I mean, the National Guard going into D.C. to help clean up the streets so that people don't get mugged at night.
I mean, that's kind of what I would consider a win, right?
Even the D.C. mayor, who's a Democrat, welcomed that because they actually cleaned up the streets.
But here, they just think it's politics.
Okay, we can play this game like it's nothing.
Wrong.
The story was true.
There wasn't really any dispute of that other than from these 50 people who come from government, who are in and out of government when Democrats are in power.
That's politics to me, Scott.
That's, I mean, you're not naive.
They were making their case just like you would say Trump just did with whatever issue he has.
Well, I don't agree that it is just a simple matter of making your case when you use your government title and you use your intelligence bona fides and you use all your credentials.
To flat out lie to the American people.
They didn't know that.
That was a political argument, but they were saying this is Russian disinformation.
What you're reading is directly out of the Kremlin.
It was an aggressive thing to say, like a seriously aggressive thing to say, just like it was really aggressive to come up with the dossier and the Russia hoax, the original one that was opposition research bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton.
I mean, enough is enough, people.
For goodness sakes.
Rick Grinnell speaking with my friend Maria Bartiroma this morning on this very issue.
Listen in.
Rick, I want to get your take about what has taken place since you were DNI.
You're the former DNI.
Also, you are presidential envoy for special missions of the United Nations.
This last 10 years and this investigation ongoing on whether or not it is a conspiracy, beginning with Russia collusion, where one political campaign, Hillary Clinton, came up with a lie about her political enemy and it goes viral across the world, to the Hunter Biden laptop, to impeachments and then 90 plus indictments against President Trump, the Mar a Lago raid.
What do you want to say about what?
We have just experienced for 10 years of attacks against this president.
Well, it's clear to me that the bureaucracy led by the Democrats in the press are going to attack President Trump every time he tries to reform Washington.
They don't want to reform, they like the system the way it is.
And so when you look at the very beginning, when President Trump arrived in 2017, really beginning in 2016 with the election, the intelligence community and others, Had so many bad apples that they went after President Trump and created the Russian collusion hoax and all of these other things.
This video that these Democrat elected officials are doing now is a call to arms to try to get the last remaining few people within the intelligence community, within the bureaucracy to stand up and fight.
I think it is an outrageous video.
We should call it out constantly.
What they're trying to do is mount an insurrection from within.
And President Trump is right to be extremely angry.
And I hope that John Radcliffe and Tulsi Gabbard understand that they've got to dig deep now to figure out how do we stop any of these leaks that are clearly going to become unbelievable.
Just unbelievable.
It's like they want some kind of civil war.
I'm stunned.
I'm disgusted.
And, you know, at a time like this when we have so much to celebrate 250 years of being the world's greatest nation, really and truly on the planet, they are just going.
So low, so low.
This is how they're defending themselves, just so you're aware.
If they are going there where they did, do you think they should have been more explicit about the contours of what they think is actually illegal?
I think the burden of proof on respecting the integrity of the military does not lie on these patriots and veterans who are serving in Congress.
It lies on the President of the United States, who has entertained the idea of using the military to aid and abet the insurrection that he launched in 2020, who has called American cities training grounds for the United States military, who has ordered strikes in the Caribbean.
That have so rattled our own allies that they have decided to not share intelligence to advance those strikes because they don't believe that they are justified or legal.
This president is the one who has to answer to the American public on his violations of posse comitatus, which means that he can't use the military for law enforcement purposes as he's tried to do in Los Angeles and Chicago and elsewhere.
And he has to answer to the American public for why he wants to wage a ground war in Venezuela when the American public has been crystal clear that they are done with military adventurism overseas.
Okay.
I'm just looking at some of your comments as we were playing that sound bite.
And one of you guys pointed out something, which is a good point, that there were two astronauts that were stranded in space.
Remember that, Mark Kelly, Don Haven says, Mark Kelly did nothing, right?
You had two astronauts that were held effectively as political prisoners in space because of Biden.
I mean, what a disgrace that was.
I agree.
Boy, this is a really just a low, low, low moment.
And I don't think it's going to get a lot of oxygen.
I certainly hope it doesn't because what they're trying to do, and don't forget, the former head of the NSC's wife, Maggie, is one of them in there.
Plus, Mark Kelly, you get some prominent people, right?
They don't even know whether anything's illegal or not.
As we heard from Slocum, she admitted as much.
So they don't know what they're doing.
And yet they're seeding the environment with this for a very deliberate reason, right?
And that is to make sure that no one on the inside, the intel community, is on Donald Trump's side.
And they also want to make sure that, if needed, the military is on their side.
And I just got to say like it's getting scary guys, it's really getting scary.
I want to turn to another big story.
Donald Trump trying to reform snap snap fraud has been extraordinary, and one of the benefits of the shutdown is, guess what he, he can.
He's taking a liberty, an opportunity.
Seeding Anti-Trump Environment00:03:35
You got Brook Rawlins, who's out there saying, we want everybody to reapply and granted, i'm sure that they're going to fight that one in the courts too, but for now you got to reapply and she's discovering all kinds of fraud, like 500 million people that All are getting benefits twice.
Oh, and that's not it.
And 20 plus others did not, and we're suing.
Watch.
We're in a litigation right now.
But of the 29 that complied, what we have found is staggering.
Half a million people getting benefits two times under the same name, 5,000 dead people, 80% of the able bodied Americans, meaning they can work, they don't have small children at home, they're not taking care of an elderly parent.
They can work and they choose not to work, of course, because they're getting significant benefits from the taxpayer.
So, this light, Laura, that has now been shined on what is perhaps one of the most corrupt, dysfunctional programs in American history, that we are working now.
Very big announcements coming next week on this.
We are cracking down.
We now have a plan to fix it.
And we're really, really excited about doing that for the American people.
So, this has been going on for many years.
I mean, I think I covered this on the radio.
So Laura's right.
I mean, it has been going on for years and years and years.
You can go all the way back to the Clinton years.
And actually, you know, they tried to shore up welfare back then, but it's crept back in.
And we've had a lot of it, especially since 2020, shall we say.
So they're trying to fix this.
And people are logical.
I mean, heck, if you're going to make more money staying home, why the heck bother going to work?
So you're going to have to fix this if you really want to have a society that is engaged in its economy, that doesn't just want to be taken care of.
And granted, don't get me wrong.
I mean, hey, you need some.
You need something there, right?
For people who really, really, really are struggling.
But you run the risk that you're damaging the entire system if people are taking advantage.
As she said, like people signing up for the benefits twice.
Unbelievable stuff.
Here she is again this morning, Brooke Rollins speaking about the need for better affordability on CNBC.
Another one of my former employers.
Boy, it's good to be over here, I'll tell you that.
Make sure you subscribe.
This administration has been incredibly focused on.
Getting the American dream back into every American's home and goals, et cetera.
And affordability is a huge piece of that.
Of course, I'm the agriculture secretary.
So food, food production, supporting our farmers and ranchers is a big piece.
And when you look at under Joe Biden the last four years, we had an increase in inputs, interest rates 73%, fertilizer 36%, labor increased 47%.
Not surprising that the driver, and of course, no new trade deals during those four years, no way to move the food out.
So when you look at all of that in total, it's no surprise that what we inherited was an absolute economic mess.
But those numbers are coming down.
There are a few outliers.
And you mentioned Secretary Besant talked about a couple of those yesterday.
We're working on those extremely diligently.
But as we're restructuring the entire economy, as we're bringing down inflation, bringing down fuel, bringing down labor, Americans, we believe, will see real relief very, very soon.
Those numbers are already down, but much more to come.
So he's got a lot of work to do.
I mean, they really did some damage.
They really did some damage.
Thank you, Joe Biden.
Thank you, Nancy Pelosi.
Thank you, Chuck Schumer.
The whole lot of you really did it.
Kamala Harris, you're not going to get off easy on that one either.
Declining Oil Prices Explained00:02:18
You guys drove up inflation.
You drove up prices on everything.
You did nothing for this economy, nothing for this country.
And now Donald Trump and team are here trying to get it all back together.
Humpty Dumpty back together again.
How do you put it back together again?
You can't actually have deflation.
We've gone through this before because that would be a whole other can of worms.
You don't want deflation, but you need a little bit of inflation.
And that's where we're right now.
And that's why the Fed has a little bit of room to move.
We're going to talk a little bit more about the 2K cuts, not cuts, checks coming up because that is something that the president really wants and his entire economic team is very much on board for.
But before we do that, we're going to pay some bills, right?
Because I like my balance of nature.
I hope you like it too.
You know, incorporating a wide variety of food ingredients into my diet and routine is actually really important for me.
Balance in nature, fruits and veggies, those are supplements that are making it very, very simple.
Why?
Because they get 31 ingredients that I might not otherwise get.
Let's be honest, right?
So you got 31.
There's like 16 fruits or vegetables and 15 of the other.
And they freeze dry them.
So you get all the nutrients all packed into the supplements.
And they're convenient, right?
They're convenient, but they're not only just convenient.
Original in their color, in their taste and in their smell.
And so when you take fruits and veggies supplements with water, when you chew them or you open them up and you mix the powder into the food or the drinks, you're getting something that has no binders, no fillers, no flow agents, only ingredients of 16 whole fruits and 15.
There we go go.
I use 16 fruits, 15 vegetables in a capsule freeze dried, lab tested, ready to go where you go.
So this is good stuff.
And right now you can get a special discount.
Hey, maybe a Christmas present for yourself or for A loved one, 35% off with code word Trish.
You're helping yourself.
You're helping the show, of course.
Use my code word.
You get the 35% off for new customers, new customers only, and free shipping.
And, oh, I can't leave out the fiber and spice, right?
So all of that for you guys if you use code word Trish.
It's pretty, pretty good stuff.
The other thing I wanted to tell you about here is we look at oil prices declining, declining, declining.
Why is that?
Oh, well, guess what?
Tariffs and Financial Advice00:04:44
On Friday, the president said, hey, we're going to drill, baby, drill.
We're opening up areas that, you know.
were previously shut off.
And so that's actually bringing energy prices down.
And in bringing energy prices down, what are you doing?
You're helping the economy because energy is so important.
There's like a multiplier effect that's pretty significant.
I was looking at this recently.
It's about 10% of GDP.
And then when you think about the multiplier, right, because everything has to get shipped somewhere, oil becomes in natural gas like 20 to 30 times that size.
So it's a pretty, pretty big deal.
And I'll tell you, you know, there's a lot that needs to be done.
Some of our friends are at AFP, another one of the great sponsors, the Trish Regan Show.
They are working very hard on this.
They worked very hard on getting Trump's tax bill passed.
They were amazing on that.
And while that bill may be, law of the land right now, you know, AFP is still working hard.
AFP is now pulling out all the stops to get Congress to pass a permitting reform bill with bipartisan support that would speed up all sorts of energy and mining projects.
So a little bit of what I'm talking about, right?
Because you want those energy costs to come down, unlocking natural resources so that we can build America's future, creating good paying jobs and making energy more affordable.
I'm telling you, when it comes to fighting for economic freedom, Americans for Prosperity is absolutely relentless.
I know this personally.
And these days, relentless, hey, is what you got to be, right?
So go check them out.
Go look at this.
prosperityispossible.com.
Prosperityispossible.com.
That is the URL.
And, oh, I promised I'd tell you about the tariff checks.
I mean, we've got to get the good news before the somewhat bad, right?
Well, we'll talk about Letitia.
We'll talk about Comey.
Don't worry.
But the tariff checks, Donald Trump is very committed to those.
He had been talking about those months ago, months ago, back when the tariffs were initially going in, because he's got this idea that we're kind of like a sovereign wealth fund and we can actually make money for the US of A.
And part of that is through tariffs.
And he wants to return that money to the people, to the middle class anyway, and to poorer Americans.
He said the wealthy would be excluded from this.
But you got the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, over in Belgium right now, and he's talking them up again on Morning TV.
Let's listen in.
Look, the tariffs are an American policy.
The president wants the American people to understand how great tariffs are for them.
And so one of the ways to prove to the American people how great tariffs are is to have them share in a part of one year's income from these tariffs.
And that's $2,000 a head.
As he said, for people who need the money, you know, he's going to constrain it to people who need the money.
And that's exciting.
So the president's got that on his desk.
I know that's something he wants to achieve, and his legislative team will figure out the best way to do it.
But what he's trying to do is make sure people in America understand that tariffs are their policy.
It's to make America stronger, and they could also benefit their pocketbook.
And that is coming next year from the president.
Wow.
Okay.
So he says it's happening.
He says it's happening.
I'll tell you, Besant has been a little bit more coy on this one.
Brett Baer over at Fox asked him an interesting question.
Basically, you know, you're going to see more inflation if this happens.
Theoretically, right?
You could argue, oh, well, it's like more printing.
The only difference is back when Joe was doing all the printing, right?
He got Jerome to do the dirty work for him.
And then he had Chuck and Nancy doing a little bit more vis-a-vis the trillions of dollars of money that they were spending.
And then on top of which he issued a third stimulus check.
And I kept saying, I was pounding the table, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, oh my gosh, we're going to get terrible inflation.
And I was right.
Anyway, right now, hate to say it, I'm right again.
And my thesis is you need a little bit more to goose this economy right now.
The interest rates are still too high.
And because the Fed's not doing anything, maybe those 2K checks would help to stimulate things again, although Besant wants you to save it.
By the way, he's got a little financial advice along the way.
Here we go.
Scott Besant speaking earlier on Fox.
Would a $2,000 tariff dividend check going to people be inflationary?
Well, there are a lot of things that are going to happen next year.
Is that one of them?
And that could be one of them.
And again, maybe we could persuade Americans to save that because.
Save it.
Yeah.
That'll work.
You know what?
I'm going to jump on that bandwagon fast because he's right.
You should save it.
And you know what you should do?
Really?
You should invest it.
You know, I realize that people are up against it.
And, you know, you got to prioritize things, right?
If you're getting charged 22% on your credit.
Card, you got to make sure you pay that thing off.
But when you have a little bit extra, it's really important to be putting this aside for your future.
Hopefully we give you the research to help empower you to do that.
Over at 76 Research.
Statute of Limitations Expired00:14:14
Go check it out.
You can get my newsletter there.
A dollar a month with code word dollar.
Go to 76 Research.
Calm, it's really important, guys.
What did we tell you?
What did we tell you?
Over the weekend we came out with a note and we're like, actually this may have been friday, as i'm getting all my days mixed up, it's been.
It's been a whirlwind right, and you had the market selling off all last week and we were saying, and I was saying like hey everybody, calm down, because unless you're willing to bet against the Usfa and I guess that would be only like Mark Kelly and Maggie and a few of those others that were featured in that lovely social media tape um, unless you're really believing that that the Us doesn't have a future, I don't know why you wouldn't be investing at a time when the market goes down.
That's your opportunity, right?
And we saw the market, of course, turn around both friday and today, as we predicted.
I encourage you to go and get my newsletter 76research.com really important stuff.
Okay, so now the big story that everybody's talking about, Letitia James and James Comey.
Here's the deal.
It ain't over until it's over, or as we like to say, until the fat lady sings.
All right.
Tish.
Remember what Mike Davis said?
Oh, I won't play that soundbite again, but he did have some choice comments for her.
Anyway, it's not over until it's over.
And the reason I say that is because, look, the DOJ, Armeet Dillon, just actually put this one out.
without prejudice.
What she's referring to is what the judge said when this decision was made.
They said, okay, Lindsey Halligan didn't have the right to be there.
However, we are dismissing these without prejudice, which means, guess what?
They can come right back.
The judge also criticized the DOJ for allowing an FBI agent who viewed Comey's privileged materials to testify to the grand jury.
Now, the judge also tossed the case against Leticia James.
Donna, we are just getting this on the wire.
Talk to us about your top line thoughts in this moment.
Well, frankly, I'm not really surprised about the appointment of the attorney general on that situation.
I did think that that was going to be an issue, and I did think from the very beginning that Comey was going to have a valid legal argument.
And what's interesting about the decision is it doesn't go to whether or not crimes are actually committed, it just goes to the way in which the prosecutor was appointed.
So I'm not surprised legally when it comes to that issue.
Right.
Do we foresee at all then an appeal or a different than prosecution, a second bite of the apple then with procedural things intact?
I would just, I mean, yes.
It's a 29 page opinion.
I was just reading through it.
So sorry if I look distracted during our segment.
It doesn't get to the claim of malicious prosecution that Jim Comey was making.
So this is solely the appointments clause, and that's why you have both cases dismissed against both individuals.
Right.
And it is kind of interesting, though, because obviously that's kind of a fluke side ruling, not on the merits of the case, but it is kind of interesting how all of these fluke side rulings.
Always tend to seem to go in the same direction.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
I want to give you an opportunity also if you want to go back because it was so important.
Oh, well, I just wanted to say, yeah, going back to this poor mom who's.
Okay.
So, again, I just want to point out that the DOJ is saying without prejudice, they're emphasizing that, which means this thing is going back to the starting gate because, look, I mean, we can get into this.
You saw the 32 pages on Friday.
I can bring that back up for you.
You have all the information on Comey.
We've been through this at Najam, and basically it's like the police caught a couple of bad guys, right?
And the bad guys.
Were doing something bad and they were about to put them on trial and then, all of a sudden, you know, the judge is like, wait wait, wait.
The police officer, the police officer who started this case, in this case, that would be Lindsay Halligan.
That police officer didn't get the job the right way, wasn't picked the right way, so i'm going to throw the whole case out for now.
But that's critical.
The the out for now is the important part.
That's the without prejudice part, because the judge didn't actually say no no, these guys are innocent forever.
She said okay, we're going to start over and we're going to have like, the right boss in charge of this, which wouldn't be Lindsay in this case.
So that's big time.
You know, it's a big time thing.
And I want to emphasize that because I think this is going to come back.
Now, Comey is trying to say, oh, you know, he's so sanctimonious.
Like, you know, Comey, right?
With his little seashells and the whole thing.
Anyway, Comey's like, oh, it's because, you know, they were completely outraged.
I mean, he'd get along really well with all the people that just put out that video on the military.
So here he is acting so above.
Above the law and sanctimonious and whatnot.
But the reality is, his interpretation of this is not actually what the judge is saying, because the judge is saying, you can come back, you just need a different boss in charge of this.
So Lindsay's out, somebody else is in.
The case against me, which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence, and a reflection of what the Department of Justice has become under Donald Trump, which is heartbreaking.
But I was also inspired by the example of the career people who refused to be part of this travesty.
It cost some of them their jobs, which is painful, but it preserved their integrity, which is beyond price.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
You know, your integrity is pretty darn shot at this point.
All right.
Really, really darn shot.
So, again, I just want to emphasize, though, that there was a statute of limitations going on, right?
So they had to get this thing in quickly, and they did.
They did.
Lindsay Halligan, to her credit, did do that.
But now, because the higher court is saying, okay, or rather the judge is saying, nope.
you know, she didn't have the right to be in that position.
We're throwing this out, but without prejudice is the critical thing there, because I think at this point now they can come back, they can have somebody new in the slot, and they will do this.
And I expect things will move very, very quickly, like within the next couple of days on this, because they're not going to let this one die.
And again, when we get back to the crimes that are alleged, think about Letitia James.
I mean, they came forward.
This was fascinating.
Don't forget, just on Friday, with more insurance forms.
So you saw some of the original mortgage documents.
but also we saw insurance forms.
This was exhibit six, where basically, you know, here she is checking off the boxes, and I'm going to move in kind of quick, kind of closely to the shots.
I'm getting close.
Because the months occupied were like February, September, July, April, November.
So she's saying that it was owner occupied and that she was there for all those months.
Now, we know that's not the case, right?
Because she had her niece, nieces, grandnieces.
who had some issues of their own, shall we say, they were all there.
So she lied on the insurance document, it appears.
Mike Davis actually pointing this out.
In another application, James claimed that the Norfolk house was occupied by a single adult with no children.
And she knew that the house was actually occupied by four people, her niece and three children.
So there's a whole series of things that they can go back and get her on.
And Colby, you know, we've done that one at Najam.
You know the drill there too.
So I would suspect that at this point in time, they're working.
aggressively.
I think part of the reason Lindsay got in there and you didn't see a lot of her, right?
You didn't see her out front and center so much.
I think that was by design.
They needed her to do a job.
You had basically an apparatus that was stalling out.
You had James Comey's son-in-law, who knew that, that was working there, that was friends with the guy who used to be the U.S. attorney there.
And so what did Dan Bongino tell us way back when?
It doesn't matter who you're friends with, right?
Because we're coming for you.
And this is a whole different kind of scenario.
No one's basically safe.
Dan wasn't kidding.
I want to play this again because this is an important thing to remember at a time like this.
Let me ask you about are you going to be looking into, Cash and Pam, any potential collusion between the DOJ, Letitia James, the novel legal theory of Alvin Bragg or Nathan Wade or Fonnie Willis and the DOJ?
Is that something?
Has anything come up?
Is there any way to determine whether or not evidence was destroyed in any of these cases?
Well, there's always a way to determine that.
I don't want to comment on that specific case right now for a reason.
I don't want to get ahead of the Department of Justice on that.
But I want to say this.
You know, the FBI obviously has the public corruption portfolio.
And yes, if you are a corrupt politician out there, if you are engaged in behavior, you know what you're doing.
We're going to find you.
I promise.
No one is going to get off the days of selecting and putting your partisan bias on and taking care of your friends.
Those days are over.
You know what, Sean?
I don't have any friends.
I don't want any friends.
Well, maybe outside of you.
I don't care.
I didn't come here for the money.
I didn't come here to make friends.
I know.
You didn't go there for the money.
I can tell you.
I didn't come here to make friends.
I don't give a damn about friends.
I don't have any friends.
I don't want any friends.
I got my wife.
I got you.
And I got a small crew of people.
So I don't need any friends.
If you're a partisan, get a dog.
We're coming for you.
That'll help.
Yeah, go.
You want a friend in D.C., right.
Go get a labradoodle like I have because there are no friends in D.C. You've been doing this for what, 30 years?
There are no friends here.
So, you know, I hope he considers me a friend.
I certainly consider him a friend.
But the reality is none of that matters, right?
Like if you've broken the law, you've broken the law.
And in the case of what is being alleged about Letitia James and one James Comey, they are alleged to have broken the law.
And so this is a team that's not going to give up even when faced. with certain circumstances like what we're seeing right now.
I would emphasize again that I think Lindsey Halligan was put in there sort of last minute because they needed to make sure that that statute of limitations did not run out.
And so the good news is it did not run out in part because of the filings that she made.
So the indictments may be over, but now it's just up to the Trump administration to go back and to put somebody else in there.
And that's exactly what they're going to do.
It's worth also pointing out just exactly what Caroline Levitt was saying moments ago, echoing effectively what I'm saying.
And believe me, she has more knowledge than me, but I do have some common sense and a few good sources here and there.
Here's Caroline Levitt saying, yes, absolutely, the DOJ's on this.
Lindsey Callaghan was legally appointed, and that's the administration's position.
I know there was a judge who was clearly trying to shield Letitia James and James Comey from receiving accountability, and that's why they took this unprecedented action to throw away the indictments against these two individuals.
But the Department of Justice will be appealing very soon, and it is our position that Lindsey Callaghan is extremely qualified for this position, but more importantly, was legally appointed to it.
Okay, so that's interesting.
They're taking the view that.
They're going to stick with Lindsay and that she was able to have that gig from the very beginning.
I've heard different conflicting theories, and I'm going to go back and do a little bit more research myself to basically understand all of this.
I think the good news is, regardless whether it's Lindsay or whether you're putting in another prosecutor, the point is that the statute of limitations is no longer an issue because it was filed at the appropriate time.
And I think that they'll be able to continue moving forward as they need to.
Don't forget, with you know the deep state being what it is there were people that were dragging their feet.
They didn't want this to go through, and so they deliberately ran the clock on the statute of limitations.
And, as you heard Dan say and it was almost like a very pointed comment to your words towards none other than Comey's son-in-law, who had a gig there, you know what the jig is up.
Okay, you can't just be friends with someone and expect that nothing's going to happen, and so we're going to watch this really, really carefully.
You know, bottom line um, I would say it is now a court fight and um, you know that they're.
We're going to see this move forward, they're going to appeal this.
The DOJ already knew that they were going to appeal this, and the reality is no one can get off.
I think the statute of limitations might even, dare I say, be a little bit different for both of these particular individuals.
One because well, in the case of Comey, for goodness sakes, he was asking for it himself with his little seashells.
86 86 Trump, remember that one.
The lovely little arrangement that he decided to instagram was a really weird thing to say, especially given that the president had his life, you know, nearly taken twice.
I mean, for goodness sakes, what a disgusting thing for Comey to have put out.
But again, in terms of the statute of limitations, you saw him all over the airwaves saying all kinds of things about Donald Trump, doubling down on all the Russia collusion stuff.
So it leaves you basically in a position where I would think the lawyers for the Trump side could say, hey, you know what?
Statute of limitations doesn't even matter in this case because this guy just kept coming back for more and Leticia, Leticia's a special case, right?
It's great to have you guys here.
Look at this.
We are killing it today.
I think you like all of these stories.
Let me know what you think about this particular case, what you think about Leticia James and Comey and whether or not they're going to be able to bring this back and it sees the light of day.
I do think you get some smart people in there and some very, very smart attorneys, of which Hermite is one.
And again, she pointed out that this was, you know, basically kicked out, but without prejudice.
And those are some very, very, very important rules and important Words at this moment in time.
So there's that and MTG at the view.
I'll tell you one thing.
She's never going to be president.
Comey's Day Is Coming00:00:48
Hey, it's great to see you all.
I love sweet Caroline Aaron saying Comey's day is coming.
I hear you.
Don, you don't have a lot of use for the smug guy, one James Comey, either.
And I think I think that this will get to live another day.
We will have more coming to you tomorrow right here live on the Trish Regan show all about this case, all about the next steps from a legal perspective that need to be followed in order to see this through.
Please make sure that you subscribe.
Please make sure you hit the bell so that you know exactly when I am here.
Make sure you subscribe to all alerts and we'll continue this conversation again tomorrow.
Thank you so much for all you do.
Don't forget to subscribe and I will see you right back here on the Trish Regan channel tomorrow.