Search Posts

>> Joining us now by phone, the 45th President of the United States, former President Donald Trump. Mr. President, thank you for joining us. You were truth-socialing along this speech. What is your first reaction to it, real time, tonight? >> Well, the biggest reaction is why didn't she do the things that she's complaining about? All of these things that she talked about, we're gonna do this, we're gonna do that, we're gonna do everything, but she didn't do any of it. She could have done it three and a half years ago. She could do it tonight by leaving the auditorium and going to Washington DC and closing the border. She doesn't need a bill, I didn't have a bill, I closed the border and created the safest border we've ever had in the history of our country. She could have done all of these things and she could still do them. She's got four and a half, five months left. She can go there right now. She can do all of the things, many of the things that she's talking about and complaining about. A lot of complaining. She didn't talk about China. She didn't talk about fracking. She didn't talk about crime. She didn't talk about 70% of our people are living in poverty. She didn't talk about housing, really. The trade deficit, she didn't talk about child trafficking that she's allowed to happen because she was the borders are and she presided over the weakest border in the history of our country. It's an invasion, I was there today, as you know, Brett, it's an invasion of our country taking place at our border, our southern border. It's a total invasion. And now it's starting at our northern border also through Canada. And she didn't talk about any of that because she talked, but she doesn't do it. It's no action. But you know, look, other than that, it was a nice looking room, Mr. President Martha McCallum here. She said that she hi there, she is promising middle class tax cuts. And she says that if you are elected, it will cost Americans $3,900 more a year in increased taxes. She's tying all of that to this Project 2025. That's where that number is coming from. What do you say to that? Well, she knows I have nothing to do with Project 25. They throw it out. A group of people got together. They did a thing. I haven't even seen it. I don't want to see it. I told them specifically, I don't want to see it. People know where I stand. I lower taxes. She's raising taxes. She's going to give a tax increase of four to five times what people and companies are paying right now. The country will go into a depression if they do it. She didn't talk about interest rates. I mean, the interest rates are now getting close to record rates. People can't do business. Nobody can borrow money. People can't go to the American Dream and buy a house because they can't afford the interest rate. And even if they could, the money isn't available. She didn't talk about any of that. Now, if she if she got in, look, she's a Marxist. She always was. She always will be. She's going to leave the border open. I was there today and the border patrol, as you know, gave me total endorsements and all of that. I've gotten endorsed by almost every major police group in the United States. But she is a Marxist with open borders. She's not going to have any fracking in Pennsylvania. She's going to close down the oil and gas industry. And our country is going to go bust. She didn't talk about the thirty five trillion dollars, which I was going to start paying off with liquid liquid gold that we have right under our feet. We were to start paying off debt, lowering, lowering taxes still further. And you know, she wants to raise the taxes on corporations. What they're going to do is pick up and move to another country like the pharmaceutical industry, move to Ireland and they move to other places. Many of these industries were just very their international companies. If she raises taxes like she wants to do on companies, there go those jobs. I'm more interested in the jobs than the companies. But there go those jobs and what's going to happen, Martha, they're going to pick up, they're going to move to another country, they're going to pick up and move to another country where they're going to be promised taxes at half the numbers that she's talking about. And more than that. Mr. President, on the issue of immigration, Vice President Harris, like many Democrats in this hall throughout this week, have used the bipartisan Senate bill and your efforts to lobby Republicans not to move forward with that, to use the issue in this election as part of this speech. She said she will sign that bipartisan bill. To your point, doesn't talk about executive orders that could have been launched in the beginning of the Biden administration. But how do you respond to that? And are you ready to debate Kamala Harris on September 10th, giving what you heard tonight? Well number one debate on September 4th at Fox and she turned it down because as you know, Brett, I was willing to debate with you and Martha. I was going to debate on September 4th. She turns it down and I'm willing to debate on I don't like ABC. I think ABC is probably the worst of the group, but I'm willing to do ABC. I was willing to do CNN with Joe Biden and you saw what happened there. I mean, CNN does not treat me or Republicans very good, but I was willing to do it because it was the only way I could get to debate him and ask him how that turned out. But look, I am willing to debate and I think we should do much more than one debate, but you know better than anybody. I'm ready, willing and able because I told you yes and she turned you down. And on the immigration issue? On the immigration, the it's very simple. The bill was horrible. It would have allowed millions of people to pour into our country would have been horrible. There was a horrible bill. It was a joke. She doesn't need a bill. I didn't have a bill. I closed the border. I have the safest border in the history of our country. I closed it up as president. Now she'll have to get Joe to do it, but she could probably have a lot to do with that. Right now. Joe's missing. He's on a beach in California. You know what, all she has to do or all he has to do is say, I want to close the border. The border is closed. As of now. They don't need bills. They don't want to close the border. I stood at the border today in 100 degree weather. And I will tell you, it's a dangerous place. And I was being told by Secret Service and a lot of other law enforcement, sir. It's really dangerous here. I think it's time to leave. You wouldn't believe the things that I saw at that border. She's the borders are. She wants to deny that. But she's the border. In any event, she was in charge of the border. She's the worst borders are in the history of the world. There's never been a border so unsafe as this one. 20 people, 20 million people have poured into our country, many of them from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylum and record number of parents and other countries are releasing their prisoners from their jails. They're emptying out their jails into the United States of America because of her incompetence and her bad border policies. She is a horrible, horrible person to run this country. We won't have a country if she gets elected. Let me ask you this, sir. There has been a huge appeal and momentum for women voters. She's trying to pull that the youth vote, the Hispanic vote, the black vote back in her direction polls show that she's having some success in that at this point. So what are you going to do? What's your strategy to rebuild the momentum that you had with those voters? Now, she's not having success. I'm having success. I'm doing great with the Hispanic voters. I'm doing great with black men. I'm doing great with women because women want safety. They want safety and they don't have safety when they have somebody allowing 20 million people into our country, many of them very dangerous people. No, it's only in your eyes that they have that, Martha. We're doing very well in the polls. We're leading in most of the polls and in in the swing state. We're leading in almost every one of them. Mr. President, the auto workers are voting for me because you're not going to have an auto industry if she gets elected to go into all electric cars. All electric cars are going to be made in China and you're not going to have you literally will not have an auto industry. The United auto workers ought to be ashamed of themselves. They sold the workers down the tube. Two quick things as we wrap up here, Mr. President. Tomorrow, do you expect to be endorsed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and are you making a specific effort in Georgia to make up, if you will, with the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp? Well, I just saw Brian on a very good man. Did you ever hear of a man named Sean Hannity? And he was interviewed by Sean Hannity and he was very nice and he said he wants Trump to win and he's going to work with me 100 percent. And I think we're going to have a very good relationship with Brian Kemp. And that was on just before you people went on with that speech that we just listened to. And R.F.K. Jr.? It just it just happened. And as far as R.F.K., I've had a great relationship with him over the years. I respect him. He respects me. I have no idea if he's going to endorse me. I know he's got a news conference. We happen to be in the same state. Arizona will be in the same state, but in quite different parts of the state. But it's possible we will be meeting tomorrow and we'll be discussing it. He said, look, he was treated very unfairly by the Democrats. He would have beaten Joe Biden in a Democrat primary. I have no doubt about it. And they made it absolutely impossible for him. They made it that you have to get 60, 70 percent of the vote just to get in. And you know what? In the end, the Democrats did the same thing to Joe Biden. They threw Joe Biden out of the party. And that's why we saw a different night tonight. Mr. President, thank you so much for the time. We appreciate that large feedback.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-I'm Laura Ingraham, and this is the Ingraham Angle tonight. As always, thank you for joining us. Fanny lines blurred. That's the focus of tonight's angle. Today, over several hours in an Atlanta courtroom, we saw why allowing a county DA to bring charges against a former U.S. president is absurd and destructive. Now, Fanny Willis is a leftist who thought that this case would catapult her to political fame, maybe even the Senate or Governor's mansion, because it would be Fanny, the Trump slayer. She was so full of herself, she thought no one would notice when she hired her married boyfriend as her lead Trump investigator. Now, just to refresh everyone on the timeline here, on New Year's Day 2021, Ms. Willis started as Fulton County DA, and then the next month, about 40 days later or so, February 10th, she opens the criminal investigation into the Trump election interference claim. And then, months later, by November 1st, she hires her friend, Nathan Wade, as a very special prosecutor. And then the next day, he files for divorce from his wife. Now, of course, Willis and Wade didn't expect that his divorce proceeding would become an issue in the Trump case. But at today's hearing, Judge Scott McAfee was considering whether the affair between the two created a conflict of interest that should knock them both off the case. Today, Nathan Wade took the stand on the question of who paid for their pleasure trips. -Did you take a trip with Ms. Willis in 2023 to Belize? -I did. -Did you take a trip to California with Ms. Willis in 2023? -I did. -Did you pay for those trips on that credit card? -I used the credit card to book the travel, but understand -- -She paid your back cash. -Well, let me say this. Let's take the Belize trip, for example, since you started there. That was a birthday gift to me, so I paid nothing for that trip -- zero. -Okay. So the charges that are on your card, she gave you cash for? -She did. -Okay. -Cash. Now, we're supposed to believe that Fannie Willis was carrying around those large amounts of cash. Of course, cash is not traceable. Now, when the DA unexpectedly appeared on the stand today, she did address this, or tried to. -I know he initially paid for it. Did you pay him back? -For the cruise and for Aruba. Yeah, I gave him his money before we ever went on that trip. -You gave him cash before you ever went on the trip? -Mm-hmm. -Later in the afternoon, Trump attorney Steve Sadow revisited the cash question. -I'm asking you whether or not those payments would be reflected on credit card bills of yours. -So, there was about $500 that I think is reflected on a debit card. My recollection is I took about $400 in cash with me today. -$400 or $4,000? -$4,000. -$400 or $4,000? And she answered $4,000. Now, who carries around that kind of cash? Well, Fannie does. Again, very convenient because you need a paper trail, right, to show that Willis did repay Mr. Wade and that she wasn't getting a financial benefit from the lawyer that she hired to investigate Trump. -Did you keep track of this cash that you paid him at all? -What do you talk -- I don't understand. -Did you keep track? Did you keep a ledger? Did you keep track of it? -So, I've only given him cash, as I mentioned, three or four times. There's no ledger. This is friends handing money off to each other. Of course, just friends handing money off to each other. This is ridiculous, just like the idea that Ms. Willis didn't know her ethical obligations as the county DA. -Did you disclose your relationship to anybody at Fulton County? -No, I don't think so. -Are you aware that Fulton County requires you to disclose any relationship with someone that you're doing business with? -I'm not aware. To me, that was stunning. Again, she's going after Trump for election interference. She doesn't even know her own ethical obligations. Now, but that was on top of many other stunning moments today where both witnesses appeared evasive and, at times, very argumentative, even belligerent, with glaring memory lapses about events that most people wouldn't easily forget. -How many times Mr. Wade visited you at the condo between the time you moved in and prior to November 1 of 2020? -I don't think often, but I don't want to speculate. -Can we say more than 5, more than 10? -Let's say more than 10, but I'm not sure that that's even accurate. -What about any other prosecutor that's involved in the prosecution of this case? -I don't think any of them have. -Yeah, because a personal residence is not a typical venue for official meetings between government lawyers. -I'm asking you whether or not prior to November 1 of 2021, there was a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade. That's very simple. It's either a yes or no. -I don't consider my relationship with him to be romantic before that. I'm not a handholder. -You didn't see the need, if I understand, to tell any of the people on the prosecution team when you had established a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade, that the lead prosecutor, that is the man that was basically giving orders to others, was dating or having a romantic relationship with you. -From at least 2020, me and Mr. Wade were friends. We were friends. We hung out. In November of 2021, I hired him. I do not consider our relationship to have become romantic until early of 2022. -The romantic relationship ended before the indictment was returned, yes or no? -To a man, yes. -To a man, yes. To you, no? -To a man, yes. What? Now, women across America are laughing because every woman I've ever met remembers vividly when a relationship starts. She said, "Well, it started between February and sometime in April." Bizarre. Now, of course, this all flies in the face of earlier testimony of a friend of Ms. Willis who was questioned about when this Willis-Wade relationship began. -Okay. So, you know that their relationship, their personal relationship, began shortly after this municipal court conference? -Yes. -And do you understand it, that their relationship began in 2019 and continued until the last time you spoke with her? -Yes. -What motive would her friend have to lie about Ms. Willis's relationship with the prosecutor? The prosecutor, of course, that she hired to go after Trump. It's unclear what motive she would have. But what is clear is that when Fanny gets in trouble, Fanny plays the victim. She stayed away, for the most part, from the race card today, except for a few moments like this. -Did you have contacts with Mr. Wade in 2020? -Very limited contact because Mr. Wade had a form of cancer that makes your allegations somewhat ridiculous. I'm not going to emasculate a black man. Did you understand that? -What? -Again, her first instinct is to deflect and then try to engender some type of, in this case, racial sympathy. There were lots of "poor me" moments. -So, let's be clear because you've lied in this. Let me tell you which one you lied in right here. I think you lied right here. No, no, no, no, no. This is the truth, Judge. It is a lie. It is a lie. Turned 50 in 2021. That's probably one of the worst birthdays I've ever had. -I ask you who knew? Answer and then explain this to us. -I am very private. It's like a woman doesn't have the right to keep her private life private. I don't need anybody to foot my bills. The only man who's ever foot my bills completely is my daddy. -Look, as wild as today's testimony was, and I was riveted by it long before we knew even who Nathan Wade was, it was obvious that the election interference case brought by this Fulton County DA was tainted. By charging Trump and 17 associates under a state racketeering statute, Willis showed us who she really was, a rogue prosecutor on a political mission to disqualify the GOP's leading candidate from the 2024 campaign. Now, even never-Trump legal experts have thrown water on Willis's case, questioning Trump's judgment. Okay, that's one thing, but portraying him with this state RICO statute as some type of mafia crime boss whose enterprise was subverting democracy, that is quite another. The Willis investigation was a political vendetta, and it was a travesty from the get-go. There are plenty of low-life radicals across the country who want Trump off the political scene, but they shouldn't have the power to prosecute and be paid by state taxpayers or have any power to interfere with the 2024 presidential election because that's election interference, and that's the angle.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.