Search Posts

Senate from Kentucky. What we've got here is a failure to understand what's going on. We've been at it for 18 hours. There is no weaponization fund in this bill. Let me repeat. There is no weaponization fund in this bill. Ironically, the author of this amendment is the one creating a weaponization fund and directing it to pay his chosen group of people. This amendment is nothing more than a poison pill that would prevent us from doing what is at hand and that is securing our border, enforcing our immigration laws. Democrats and some others refuse to vote for one dollar for the border. Republicans have stepped up to do the job Democrats refuse to do. We cannot let them hijack this bill at the last moment with an unrelated issue. Mr. President. Senator Louisiana. Mr. President, this is your main to the bill. It's in the judiciary section and by the way it does not detract from our ability and there is a fund out there that could be funded to use as an anti-weaponization fund. We should make the same ability, the same access to redress to the officers who protected us. I urge passage. Senator Kentucky. This amendment would kill the bill. The budgetary effects of the pending amendment are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the amendment. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 313(b)(1)(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

♪ Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh ♪ ♪ I'm the king of my own land ♪

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I would like to hear what your justification was for supporting the dossier that was known to be false Being used as source material in the second ICA. I don't know who put you up to this. Nobody put me up to this or I'm here on my own. I don't know what role you played or who you are, but there's a bunch of bullsh*t you just passed on. I, absolutely. The emails are clear, sir. Bullsh*t. The emails are clear. Bullsh*t. The emails are clear. The second question. I think we're going to go over here. We are getting reports from Reuters that there were FBI agents who were questioning people at Langley about Brennan's assertions to me in Congress that the CIA had nothing to do with the inclusion of the Steele dossier in the Intelligence Committee assessment. What do you think are the key components of John Brennan's tenure that these agents ought to be looking into? And that would contribute to broader reforms within the CIA? Oh, I think the most important thing is this notion of weaponization. Weaponization is real. Weaponization has been used against many Americans simply because John Brennan or Barack Obama and John Brennan didn't like a person's personal politics. You and I have had this conversation, I think we both agree, that the fact that John Brennan refuses to take responsibility for his actions legally would allow for the basis of a conspiracy charge in that if the conspiracy is ongoing, if the conspiracy to cover up his actions as the Director of Central Intelligence is ongoing, that ought to reset the statute of limitations literally every single day. And so I think that there's a real conspiracy case here. I'm very happy that a grand jury is looking into it in the southern district of Florida. And I hope something positive comes out of it, positive in the respect that the American people can see that it doesn't matter how senior you are in government, it doesn't matter how important you think you are in Washington, you have to face justice just like everybody else does. There was an email that went around from General Clapper, from General Clapper, to yourself and Hayden. I'm sorry, not Hayden. That's right. You're yourself and Comey, etc. That basically said we all got to get on board with this, otherwise it isn't going to work basically. And I think that that email puts everybody in the crosshairs. I would like to hear what your justification was for supporting the dossier that was known to be false, being used as source material in the second ICA. I don't know who put you up to this. Nobody put me up to this or I'm here on my own. I don't know what role you played or who you are. But there's a bunch of bullsh*t you just passed on. Absolutely. The emails are clear, sir. Bullsh*t. The emails are clear. The emails are clear. Next. The second question. Next. I think we're going to go. Next. Next. You can. Next. Next. Look, we can talk about it. Go away. Talk about it in the reception. No, we didn't say that. No, you faxed straight. You said it was likely Russian disinformation. No, we did not. No, you did. No. Read the letter. I'm sorry. Okay. Can I just slide? I know I'm going to get uninvited. Yeah. It'll be after hours. No. No. You're done. Come on. All right. We're going to go over here. Let's go over here for a question. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you very much. Why did you have all these on the 100 right hand side? Why did you say that? Because I can't think. And you misrepresented that. We never said it was disinformation. We said it was Russian influence operations, which is what they do. There's a big difference between influence. No, you don't know that. You don't know. No, we knew. All the hallmarks. All the hallmarks. We didn't say it was Russian disinformation. We said it had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. Knowing full well that the media would then fire hose that around and then change that to basically say, yeah, it's Russian disinformation. And when they did that at any point, did you stand up and say, well, actually I didn't say it was Russian disinformation. I said it was all the hallmarks. Nope. You were quiet. You were complicit in the lie being spread.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

>> Look, my favorite person, New York Attorney General Tisha James, may yet again be in some trouble, one can only hope. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte has referred James to the Justice Department, Pam Bondi, for criminal charges. Again, alleging potential insurance fraud now for properties linked to her. The referrals begin, they've been sent by US prosecutors in Florida and Illinois. Alex Sawyer is a Washington Times legal reporter and Newsmax contributor Amy Robbins. All right, Alex, I mean, second time around, maybe? >> Second go at it, I think. What I like about this go is that we have criminal referrals both in the Northern District of Illinois as well as the Southern District of Florida. And I know, I think we talk about venue shopping and forums being favorable to the right or to the left. I think we could have a really good jury out of Florida, a grand jury that might take a look at this and kind of give the administration another go.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A bar chart comparing natural gas production by country, in billion cubic feet per day. The USA bar is the tallest, colored solid dark red, with the letters "T R U M P" spelled vertically down the bar in white. Bars for the other countries are light pink outlined in red, each topped with a small national flag icon. Countries shown in descending order: USA (113), Russia (66, with Russian flag), Iran (24, with Iranian flag), China (22, with Chinese flag), Canada (18, with Canadian flag), Qatar (16, with Qatari flag), Australia (14, with Australian flag). A small American flag icon sits above the USA bar.

Text in image: USA Now Produces More Natural Gas than Russia, Iran and China Combined! (natural gas production, billion cubic feet per day) 113 TRUMP 66 24 22 18 16 14 USA RUSSIA IRAN CHINA CANADA QATAR AUSTRALIA

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A promotional graphic titled "MEMPHIS SAFE TASK FORCE" showing a photo of two law enforcement officers (one labeled "POLICE," the other in a vest labeled "U.S. MARSHALS") escorting a handcuffed man in a plaid jacket down a residential street, walking away from the camera, with parked cars, snow patches, houses, and utility poles visible. Below the photo is a blue box with red and white statistics, and the seals of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Marshals Service appear in the bottom corners.

Text in image: MEMPHIS SAFE TASK FORCE POLICE U.S. MARSHALS 6,801 TOTAL ARRESTS 1,109 FIREARMS SEIZED 703 GANG MEMBERS ARRESTED 806 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS REMOVED 148 MISSING CHILDREN RECOVERED AS OF MARCH 6, 2026 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNITED STATES MARSHAL UNITED STATES MARSHAL

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A political campaign graphic with a blue-to-red gradient background. At the top, white and bold text announces a primary election win. Below the text is a red banner noting a presidential endorsement. Two men's photos are shown side by side: on the left, a serious-looking older man with light-colored hair in a dark suit and blue tie, who resembles Donald Trump; on the right, a younger man with short dark hair and a beard, wearing a white cowboy hat, light-colored collared shirt, and dark blazer with a round pin on the lapel. At the bottom center is a "TRUMP VANCE / MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" campaign logo framed by two rows of white stars.

Text in image: REPUBLICAN NOMINEE FOR TX-28 TANO TIJERINA WINS! ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP! TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! ★★★★★ ★★★★★

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

- Let me ask you this, am I on this list? Did you target my records and subpoena my phone toll records? - My understanding is your records were subpoenaed by prosecutors before I became special counsel. - Well, the staff would put this up on the screen. Thankful for the great staff who discovered the email where I learned for the first time a few weeks ago that my phone records were indeed targeted. We called AT&T and we've learned that they were given to the Department of Justice as this email indicates because I had been in communication with Scott Perry, one of my colleagues here in Congress, who literally had his phone taken from him in front of his family. And of course, we've already talked about in this document, it talks about you could be in violation of the privilege by even obtaining and possessing this information if the member objected to the disclosure. This happened four years ago in May of 2022 and I couldn't object because I didn't know. I didn't know until about three weeks ago. My question here is, was there any limits to your investigation or the investigation that preceded you, Mr. Smith? Because as egregious as a violation of separation of powers this is, as an egregious and abusive power it is, it's far more concerning you are clearly targeting American citizens for merely being conservative or supporting the president. We've got memos that we've already been talking about in this hearing from April, 2022 that preceded you that established and opened the investigations, one of which has Attorney General Merrick Garland's signature on it. And the focus was the electors. Now that was six months before you were appointed. You testified earlier, you met and interviewed Merrick Garland and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco. And you briefed the AG and deputy multiple times. Did you brief them on the electors and the prosecution of their supposed crimes? - I'm sorry, sir. - Did you brief them on the electors and their supposed crimes? - I don't recall specific conversations, but I'm sure that in the course of briefing them, I-- - It wasn't that the purpose of the entire investigation as it was set out? 'Cause putting aside that in 1960, we've already talked about my friend, Mr. Tiffany, that Hawaii put forward an alternate slate of electors, the investigation pivoted to President Trump and frankly anybody who knew him. Do you know who Cleta Mitchell is? - Yes, I do. - She's an election lawyer that was involved in filing an election contest on behalf of President Trump in Georgia in December of 2020. A 64-page complaint with over 1100 pages of exhibits, witness affidavits and expert witness reports, documenting thousands of votes cast in violation of Georgia law, but which were nevertheless included in the vote totals. Now, notwithstanding the disposition of the cases that was filed, is that a criminal act? Filing an election contest on behalf of a candidate for office, a client? Is that a criminal act, yes or no? - No, in fact, we-- - So why did you deem it appropriate to monitor Cleta Mitchell's long distance phone records in 2023, two and a half years after the election context was filed and after the presidential electors were certified? What about Jen Ellis? What about Sidney Powell? What about Bill Sepien? What crime did you suspect had been committed by them that would warrant monitoring their phone records two and a half years after the 2020 election was certified? - With respect to Sidney Powell, she is one of the co-conspirators alleged in the indictment. I don't know what you mean by monitoring, sir, if you're talking about-- - Well, there were some 400-plus Republican conservative groups and leaders who were targeted by your investigation. Their financial records were obtained, records of the RNC, the Trump campaign, Cleta Mitchell, the Conservative Partnership Institute, the American First League Policy Institute, NRCC, NRSC, PACs, conservative groups, people all across the country, citizens, 'cause we hear a lot about members of Congress. And we should because of separation of powers and the egregious abuse of power. But what we're not talking about enough, in my opinion, are the American citizens that have been targeted. 'Cause frankly, are there any limits to the power of a special prosecutor or special counsel? So much so in your abuse of power that in the summer of 2024, the indictment involving classified documents was dismissed after determining your appointment violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, but you continue to sign your name on court filings until the time you resigned from office in January of 2025. A federal judge has recently stated a prosecutor who continues to sign his name in court filings after a disqualification order should face disciplinary action or disbarment. I yield back.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Screenshot of a tweet/X post from a verified account "Michael Savage" (@ASavageNation), showing a profile picture of a man in a cap and plaid shirt making a thumbs-up gesture in front of an American flag. The post is a numbered list of hypothetical negative consequences framed as things that "would have happened" had Kamala Harris won the election, inviting replies to add more items. Timestamp and view count are shown at the bottom.

Text in image: Michael Savage ✓ @ASavageNation If Kamala had won, here's what would have happened. (Add to list) 1. Millions more illegals over the border 2. Billions more in health and welfare fraud 3. Criminals released 4. Speech controls 5. Gun restrictions 6. More trans propaganda in our schools 7. Higher taxes on everything 8. More DEI hires 9. Military recruitment would have plunger even lower 10. Police defunded What else? 11:50 AM · Feb 9, 2026 · 371.8K Views

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

It's almost impossible to miss the new banner bearing President Trump's face that just went up here at the Justice Department. If you've been in Washington in recent months, you've seen similar ones at the Department of Labor or the Department of Agriculture, for example, but this one seems to strike a different chord given it's the Department of Justice. Historically, administrations have tried to stress a level of independence between the West Wing and the White House and their Justice Department, arguing that politics doesn't influence who is being prosecuted, but it's safe to say that line has been erased since President Trump has taken office in his second term. We've seen him directly pressure the Attorney General to prosecute people who he perceives as his political enemies or people who have led prosecutions against him. The Justice Department says this banner is in honor of America's upcoming 250th birthday celebration, but if you look at this banner closely, it also echoes what President Trump himself has said, talking about the slogan, "Make America Safe Again."

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Do you have a reason you have a closed mind? I don't know why. Perhaps you could tell me. No, Mr. Trump, I have a closed mind against evidence that is not substantiated. I have a closed mind against statements that are made about other people in general. You're going to be very embarrassed in two years, sir. I told you, why don't you go on a radio show and you say, "Now some drunken Indians want to come down here and open a residence." I didn't say that, sir. Quote it. I didn't say that. Who said that? Who said that? You can apology right now because I didn't say that. I must open a broadcast so, excuse me, Mr. I must said that. Okay. Could I please have an apology? You can have an apology. Thank you, sir.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I've got to ask you about the U.S. election. As you point out, you're not an American citizen. You're an Australian. You're clearly not rooting for Hillary, but are you rooting for Trump? No. If we have good information on Trump, we publish that. If we have good information on Hillary and Democrats, we publish that. It is a bit concerning the allegations that by the Clinton campaign that everyone is a Russian agent are really disturbing. Why is that? Well, because bizarrely Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, has become, as positioned herself now, to be the security candidate. She's powered up with the neo-cons responsible for the Iraq war, and she's grabbed on to this kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria about Russia and is using that to demonize the Trump campaign. The Trump campaign has all sorts of things wrong with it. But as far as we can see, being Russian agents is not one of them. You know, some people have asked us, "When will you release information on Donald Trump?" And of course, we are very interested in all countries to reveal the truth about the candidates that they can understand. But actually, it's really hard for us to release anything worse than what comes out of Donald Trump's mouth every second day. I mean, it's part of his charismatic appeal that he speaks off the cuff. People should not be afraid of their governments. Government should be afraid of their people. The American populace is facing an unconventional warfare scenario. This is information warfare.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Who wants to live forever? Who wants to live forever? Who wants to live forever? Who wants to live forever?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

News alert the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, releasing a bombshell report today that shows a conspiracy by a sitting president, Barack Obama, and his intel agencies to sabotage the president-elect, Donald Trump, brainwash the electorate and undermine the legitimacy of an election. There is irrefutable evidence that detail how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false. They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true. It wasn't. Gabbard got her hands on a House intel report that's been locked away in a CIA vault for almost a decade. Investigators spent over 2,000 hours looking into how the Russia hoax was born, interviewing 20 CIA and FBI officials. And it turns out that the Obama administration doctored the intelligence to make it look like Putin and Trump stole the election. A month after Trump beat Hillary, Barack Obama wasn't satisfied with his intelligence reporting and ordered his CIA director to create a new assessment of how Russia interfered with the election. This was a highly unusual move. John Brennan handpicked five CIA analysts to write the assessment, and they were siloed. None of them knew what the other was doing, and only one analyst was in charge of drafting this report. There was nothing routine about this, and it was a rush job to publish before Trump was sworn in. Nothing was coordinated with the other intelligence agencies either. Basically, this was home cooking for Barack Obama. There were four key elements from the assessment that were repeated over and over again and formed the basis of the Russia hoax and the Robert Mueller witch hunt. One, that Vladimir Putin wanted Donald Trump to win. Two, Putin took action to help Trump win. Three, the Russians had blackmail on Trump, that was the Steele dossier, and four, that the Russians tried colluding with the Trump campaign. None of any of this was ever true. There was no reliable intelligence to support any of these allegations. Senior CIA officials repeatedly refused to traffic in these allegations, but they were repeatedly overruled by CIA Director Brennan and FBI Director Comey, who insisted that they be pushed, even without verifiable evidence. The Obama administration cherry-picked the intelligence, lied about their sources, misquoted sources, didn't corroborate their claims, suppressed intelligence that ran counter to their narratives, and even used anonymous internet postings. Rank and File CIA admitted what they were doing violated their own tradecraft standards. There was a massive pressure campaign that came right from the top. CIA analysts say they received unusual directives from political appointees, the CIA director, and Obama himself. This is how the Russia hoax was born. Donald Trump knows that the Russians helped him win in 2016. Putin hated Secretary Clinton so much that the flip side of that coin was. He had a clear preference for the person running against the person he hated so much. It was Russia in a very systematic way in trying to interfere in the election and to try to advance the prospects of Donald Trump being elected. This was such a malicious disinformation campaign perpetrated on the American people that at one point 60% of Democrats believed the Russians hacked our voting machines to help Trump win the White House. What this report actually shows is that the Russians just wanted to create chaos and undermine Americans' faith in democracy. Solid intelligence suggested that Vladimir Putin didn't care who won. He had no preference. But like most people, expected Hillary to win and had a little docket of compromising dirt on her, dirt that he never released. Now, if Putin wanted Trump to win, why didn't Putin drop the dirt? There were high-level DNC emails that detailed evidence of Hillary's "psycho-emotional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness," and that then Secretary Clinton was allegedly on a daily regimen of heavy tranquilizers. Then CIA Director Brennan and the intelligence community mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious substandard sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed a "clear preference" for Trump. Now, if Clinton was on tranquilizers like the Russians believed, why didn't they leak it to help Trump win? How credible was the information about Hillary Clinton's power? All I have seen is what the intelligence committee have reported through their investigation. I think the underlying point there is that we understand from intelligence what Russia said that they had, and the important point here is that if they were trying to influence the election, as President Obama and James Clapper and John Brennan, everybody said they were doing in order to support Donald Trump's election, they would have released the most damning of that information. Obama and his spy chiefs knew that Putin didn't prefer Trump over Hillary, but they cooked the intelligence to make it look like he did. Obama and his intel spies knew that Putin didn't collude with Trump, and that he didn't even direct his people to help Trump win, but they put it out there anyway. In a sense, Barack Obama did exactly what Putin wanted, undermined American's faith in free and fair elections, and caused chaos in our country. Barack Obama, the CIA, and the FBI were the ones doing what our enemy wanted. Do you believe that any of this new information implicates former President Obama in criminal behavior? We have referred and will continue to refer all of these documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate the criminal implications of this. For even former President Obama? Correct. The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact. Even two years later, after the election, Barack Obama was still pushing a hoax he knew wasn't true. And he knew it wasn't true because he helped manufacture it. They're undermining our alliances, cozying up to Russia. What happened to the Republican Party? They're cozying up to the former head of the KGB. Actively blocking legislation that would defend our elections from Russian attack. What happened? Now, I don't know if it's possible to indict a former president for actions he took while in office. I'm not a lawyer, proudly. But Brennan, Comey and others may have severe liability. Trey Gowdy says we know for a fact that Brennan committed perjury when he lied to Congress. Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier? I don't. You know if the bureau ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any court filings, applications? I have no awareness. Did the CIA rely on it? No. Why not? Because we didn't. It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment that was done. It was not. No, that's a lie. Whatever happens to these guys is not revenge. It's accountability. And it's time for people to pay the price.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Trump is landing back in America tonight after a pretty busy 48 hours in Davos when he was in Switzerland, not sure if you heard he demoted the UN and Created the Board of Peace and packed it with his golfing buddies. I think let me see Yeah, every one of them is a friend of my couple a couple let's see a couple I like Couple I don't like no, I like actually at this group. I like every single one of them Can you believe it? Usually I have about two or three that I can't stand And in a shocking development Trump named himself the chairman of the board and called it an honor and Hired the UN as his secretary once this board is completely formed We can do pretty much whatever we want to do and we'll do it in conjunction with the United Nations, you know I've always said the United Nations has got tremendous potential Has not used it on the eight wars that I ended. I never spoke to the United Nations about any of them This is what happens when you sabotage Trump's escalator and Jimmy with his teleprompter The Trump Board of Peace already doing more than the UN. We're building golf clubs in Gaza The only thing they'll be fighting over now is tea times This is a great location It all begins. I'm a real estate person at heart And it's all about location and I said look at this location on the sea Look at this beautiful piece of property what it could be for so many people. It'll be so so great People that are living so poorly are gonna be living so well Look into the future. The Board of Peace is envisioning what looks like Dubai on the Mediterranean Kind of looks like a Muslim Miami Beach But just because it's the Board of Peace doesn't mean we're not going to get a piece of the action What about the formation of the the peace summit and I was like is that? That PI easy You know a little piece of Greenland a little piece of Elon Scott Gutfeld writing his jokes poor guy But he's right. It's not just a little piece of Greenland. Trump says we're getting full access I'm not gonna have to pay anything. We're gonna have total access to Greenland We're gonna have all military access that we want We're gonna be able to put what we need on Greenland because we want it We're talking about national security and international security so we're gonna not have to pay anything other than the fact that we are building the The Golden Dome and the Golden Dome is going to be something that's going to be very amazing the deal right now And it's still being hashed out. We'll give the United States pockets of sovereignty basically Huge chunks of territory run like American embassies all over the island right now. We just have one military base there We'll be adding dozens more. We're also getting major mineral rights We'll get rights of first refusal and we'll get veto power over Russian and Chinese mining operations the deal also includes missile rights for the Golden Dome and an enhanced NATO presence and Greenland not saying no We are willing to discuss and do more we need we have a responsibility So let's talk about it through the right channels in a respectful manner Then I I'm sure we can work something out that benefits all of us If Greenland keeps behaving we might let him have a hockey team and maybe we'll film some movies up there open up a Walmart See that Europe that's good parenting you behave you get a treat NATO isn't even getting in the way the chief says it's basically a done deal All of this is not about Greenland or the Arctic first of all This is about how can we protect ourselves against our adversaries our main adversary is Russia? For NATO and of course, we see China massively building up So let's not be naive about China, but Russia has our main adversary the Europeans through a tantrum and finally daddy came home But the Germans are jealous But let's be honest the Germans have daddy issues protect Denmark Greenland the north from the threat post by Russia well the last time Germany tried to protect Somebody Austria got invaded the Germans need to settle down Germany's like an abusive father They ignore you until they want something and then they hit you and tell you it's only because I love you President Trump says if anything happened to Greenland, we'd be there for NATO But when something happened to us on 9/11 was NATO there for us We've never needed them. We have never really asked anything of them You know, they'll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that and they did they stayed a little back little off the front lines We think NATO for helping us in the war on terror We thank them a lot The president's point was we can't rely on a small country like Denmark to protect a huge island in our own atmosphere Even Zelensky gets it. He's calling the Europeans weak wafflers with their hands out Europe needs to know how to defend itself Europe looks lost trying to convince the US president to change But he will not change President Trump loves Who he is and he says he loves Europe, but he will not listen to this kind of Europe Wow, look at Zelensky All grown up he put on a suit got a job stop asking for money And at first Zelensky cried and stomped his feet remember, but then he realized dad was right That's why he's calling Trump strong and Europe weak Sure Europe was throwing money at them. But does money solve everybody's problems? sometimes it spoils them a good parent teaches their kids respect and gives them deadlines a bad parent just gives them cash and never checks in like the auto pen Biden threw cash around all over the world tried to bribe his problems away and the world walked all over him Biden and Barack Obama got along so well with Europe because they both believed the West was in decline and they never did anything About it. They just managed their own decline Now this may be acceptable in Europe, but when Donald Trump was elected president of the United States everything changes We're in a moment of radical change these moments come maybe like once a century AI the Arctic Trade China, it's all happening and America is taking the lead Iranian nukes, Maduro, Gaza now the Cuban communist regime might be about to collapse NATO's back together the tic-tac deal just went through the Taiwan trade deal just got papered and the board apiece Look at its shops wondering how to price seaside condos on the Mediterranean Everything is falling into place

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

up this is unreal the movement in this number minus 29.4 billion we cut it basically in half we cut it in half just consider this in March it was a hundred and thirty six billion right now it's a whisker under 30 billion we haven't been that small in a long time I don't have enough records here to go back that far but you're going back aways and here's the news on why it moved lower

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

We have in this particular case is that I think the president was proceeding on the understanding of the statute that's faithfully represented here by the Solicitor General, which is he wasn't acting like a removing authority that was subject to any due process. Because if I think he were, if he were sort of subject to that, he wouldn't have said in his opening tweet, "You must resign." And he wouldn't have said two days later, "Resign or be fired." So that, does that mean it has to be a body of disinterested decision makers? No. People who are not part of the executive branch and can exercise independent judgment that way? No. Then what does it require? It requires just what I said, notice an opportunity to provide evidence and a decision maker hasn't prejudged the issue. That decision maker can be the president. I mean, I'm not sure I, you know, necessarily recommend it as my choice A, but how can it not be the president, the statute authorizes the president to make the removal decision? How could it be anybody else? Well, look, I mean, you know, if you believe in the unitary executive theory, then anybody that makes the removal decision is acting on the president's power. I think it would, it would work, you know, I think the way it worked for Taft is the tribunal made a recommendation and then Taft executed. Right. So was the president making the decision? The president has to make the decision, right? Were delegated to somebody who he wishes to make that decision was reportable to him. Yes. Yes. Okay. At will. At will. Yeah. Right. Absolutely. I mean, so, so, and the president can be the final decision maker, but if he's going to be the final decision maker and there's a due process, right? And I mean, I mean that statutory or constitutional, then, you know, he needs to be a little bit careful and say, these are the allegations. He can't start by prejudging the issue by saying resign.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

The fraud has marked the end of Tim Walts's political career. It should also be the end of Gavin Newsom's because the scale of what has occurred in California is unlike anywhere else. And the governor says, bring it on, well, every time we have had an investigation into fraud in California, the results have been absolutely incredible in terms of both the scale of the fraud and the negligence of Newsom in allowing it. I mentioned the $24 billion in homelessness spending where the auditor found that they lost track of the money and now there have been individuals indicted for committing fraud in connection with those homeless funds, homelessness funds. There was just another audit that came out two weeks ago that found that the number of high risk agencies that have serious risk of waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement has doubled during Newsom's tenure that we're losing billions still in unemployment fraud and fraud related to SNAP benefits and Medi-Cal determinations and a whole host of other areas. You know, the state auditor found the $32 billion in unemployment fraud back during COVID. So every time this has been looked into, we've just found out the problem is even worse than we thought before. So Newsom better be careful what he wishes for. He certainly has done nothing to control fraud. And everywhere you look here, I think you're going to find things that absolutely shock the conscience. Yeah. And to that point, you're going to need the governor will have to it at some point, whether through him or another official, someone he delegates this to, he's going to have to hand out over potentially hours, recipients names, addresses, social security numbers, dates of births involving subsidized childcare services to prove that there are actually American citizens that are receiving these subsidies. There will have to be some sort of cooperation. How would the governor go about circumventing that? I mean, if you want, if you wanted to not cooperate? Well, I'm sure he'll Stonewall in every way he can, just like he did that with in connection with the investigation into the unemployment fraud that we've already tried to do here. But you know, the reality is that when you look at the mistakes that he's made, not only are these investigations uncovering the scale of the fraud, but just the unbelievable negligence on the part of the Newsom administration. To give you one example, with the unemployment fraud, you had a lot of criminal syndicates, you had state prisoners that were stealing money, and it was no sweat. It was easy for them. The state actually mailed checks to penitentiaries to state prisons, where the fraudsters were easily able to game the system. But the ultimate proof of the fraud we have in California and the scale of it is the fact that Gavin Newsom in the course of five years increased our state budget by $124 billion. That's a 50% increase in five years, and yet everything in California has continued to get worse. We lead the nation in unemployment, in homelessness, in poverty, in illiteracy. The risk goes on, and that's because citizens are simply getting nothing in return for those tax dollars. Don't forget U-Haul use. And U-Haul use, of course. Appreciate that. Congressman Kevin Kiley joining us today of California. Have a great weekend. Thanks, Congressman.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

This is Minnesota judge Sarah West. Judge Sarah West was the judge that oversaw a $7 million Medicaid fraud case. And despite the fact that the jury convicted him unanimously, judge Sarah West said, no, we're not going to be doing that today. Now she claims that she threw out this unanimous guilty verdict due to the fact that all of the evidence presented was merely circumstantial. Now what was the circumstantial evidence? You may be asking, well, a Gfata Yusuf and his wife were running a home healthcare service out of their home. And despite the fact that their business is inside of their house, they were able to afford all of these fancy trips and luxury vehicles and these thousands of dollars of shopping sprees. So the math wasn't really quite mathing. So not only in Minnesota can you absolutely rob the state blind with fraud, but even if you get convicted by unanimous jury, a judge will still let you off the hook. Isn't that special?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.