Search Posts

I'd like to start off by thanking the president for his tireless effort in running the country and what he's done across the country, meeting every commitment. And you know, I see it directly in the big beautiful bill, the opportunity that is brought to seniors, but his effort on every commitment delivering against it and delivering on world peace tirelessly. I'd like to also thank him for my opportunity. You know, he's teasing me, I'm teasing him about the economics of the job. But the reality is to serve 300 million Americans, which is what Social Security serves is a tremendous honor. And him putting that faith in me and building what I believe, what I believe and I think I have a right to say it, is the best leadership team ever assembled in the White House and in the Cabinet. So that's my great honor. So I come here and get the opportunity to serve the American public in a manner that I never imagined in my life. And what we found was the opportunity to fix a foundation. The reality is people talking about 72 beneficiaries, I talk about over 300 million Americans with a Social Security number that we must protect through the system. And when you look at what we talk about in eliminating Social Security numbers that were live in the system, they could carry fraud through the whole system. So the first thing was root out fraud, waste and abuse. But while doing it, the best way to be more efficient is provide more accurate payments and better service. And you're heard the numbers. I think the most staggering number is that we had a website that was down 29 hours. This will be a digital first agency. And we are building my SSA accounts. That's the digital account. And we have a bold goal of 200 million Americans to have a digital SSA account by the end of next year. It will happen. Just like we had a bold goal of single digit wait time on the calls when they were at 40 minutes. And we did that. This is my 100th day. We did that within 90 days, right? Get the web up and running, bring technology to our field offices, use digital presence to answer, and serve the American public. That's the job. When we do all that, then we'll really know the answer to if we have a hole, right? I was presented my second week on the job with $18 billion in errors by the Inspector General. It was public in less than a month. We solved $9 billion of it. So that's the type of swift action we can take, right? You see the things like the big beautiful bill for the seniors. You see better digital services. You see field office wait times down. If you make an appointment to have a field office, it now happens in six minutes. Unpresented. We are serving more people and delivering more than was ever delivered before in a manner with the highest possible quality, and we've just begun. You should expect this to be a great digital first agency. My commitment to make this happen is as deep as the President's commitment to make the world a great place, and you see the fabulous job happening here across America and what he's doing in the world. You should expect Social Security, just like the President. I thank him for making America great again. It's happening. Social Security will be great again. You have my commitment. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

And so I called the president because I had some very good news from some new data that we've been able to put together that no one has ever seen before. And I'll just very quickly go through these. So I was telling the president that he did the right thing and calling for a new head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because this shows that over the last two years of the Biden administration, the BLS over estimated job creation by 1.5 million jobs. That's a that's a gigantic error. And I don't know if she's I'm not minding been an error. That's bad part. There was an error. It would be one thing. I don't think it's an error. I think they did it purposely. Whether that you may well be right. But even if it wasn't purposefully, it's incompetence. Right. Okay. So 1.5 million jobs over estimated. We have access to the we have access to the some data that no one else does. What has happened? Month by month with median household income. This is based on unpublished Census Bureau data. It will be released sometime in the next six months, but we get an advanced look at it. And so I was telling the president in his first five months in office, starting in January through the end of June, the average median household income adjusted for inflation for the average family in America is already up $1,174. That's that's an incredible number. Just came out. Just just came out. So that's a giant game. And I would have said this. Nobody would have believed there's your there's your number. We're doing well. So the next one compares. We finally have the 2024 data on what happened with real family income in the United States. And so what I did was I compared the record and Donald Trump's first term with the Joe Biden first term. And you can see that by the way, this these dotted lines here, Mr President, that's Cove it. So if it had not been for Cove it, these numbers would have been substantially better. But even taking account President Trump's last year in 2020, we saw a $6400 real after inflation gain and income for the average family. Um, and that compares with with Joe Biden, which was a measly $551. So Mr President, you get you gain 10 times more income for the average family than Joe Biden is because of your policy. And that's taking into consideration Cove it, which a lot of times you don't have to do that. But we were, I'm very glad you do over. No, we were almost 8000 until that number. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, then we looked at, you know, which families did the best. We have data from the Census Bureau that shows by income percentage. So the 25th percentile is the lowest income. 75th percentile is the highest income. What I find fascinating about this, Mr President, is every income group did better. The red is President Trump. The blue is President Biden. Every single income group did better under President Trump. But what's really amazing is look what happened under Biden. The lowest income group lost income under Biden. They were poor four years after President Biden's presidency. No grand virtually whatsoever for the middle class. And the rich was the only group that did better under Biden, which is ironic because Biden keeps saying he was trying to get rid of income inequality. He made income inequality worse, not better. It was President Trump that reduced income inequality. These numbers just came out, by the way. And then finally, um, these are the number system. And I just showed you the percentage terms. Mr President, these are the numbers in dollar terms. So even the lowest income 25th percent gained about $4000 income. That's a lot for a lower income family. $6400 for the middle class and almost 10,000 for the richest. So you can see every income group did better under Trump than Biden by a wide partnership. That's the short.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Iran, throughout, since this conflict began, we've been talking to them about having some sort of peaceful settlement. And Iran's one caveat has always been that Israel had to stop its campaign. And once Israel fulfilled its objective, which they did, and once the United States fulfilled its objective, which it did, the total destruction of the enrichment capacity of the Iranian state, then the president was able to go to both parties and get a ceasefire done. And by the way, the proof is in the pudding. No one's shooting at each other. It's over.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

436,000 increase in the number of people who are employed. So this is an amazing report. The number of people, the labor force participation rate rose. So this is a really strong number. I wanted to mention one other quick thing. About two weeks ago, every headline, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, every-- was, oh, the stock market is crashing. And since then, the market has been up, what, like 2,800 points. Yeah. Well, you don't see that headline. By the way, I don't see headlines about that. Yeah. That was the point. That's the point that Scott Besant made. Yeah. Scott Besant made the same point yesterday that, you know, weren't working. Exactly. He made that point.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Um, so we went over this last hour, but we may have an entirely new audience this hour. So give us your thoughts on the prudence of what the judge did in this case. Well, it was the right decision because Judge Michonne might have ended up not just the judge who, uh, imprisoned Donald Trump. He could have been the judge that reelected Donald Trump. I mean, the, if he, if he actually did impose jail, uh, as Carl Rove noted, that could have been just the catalyst needed, uh, to put Trump over the top. Uh, that's an example of how, uh, curious this calendar is for any type of sentencing. It also means that because of the dates selected here, uh, that the election's going to have a huge impact on sentencing. Uh, if Donald Trump is reelected, uh, as president, uh, then it seems very unlikely that Michonne, uh, would sentence him to jail. It's also unlikely that he could succeed in keeping him in jail because of the conflict with his presidential duties. If he, if Trump loses the election, then indeed that might make it easier for Michonne to do precisely that. So the election has really grown in considerable importance in terms of this sentencing. But keep in mind, whatever Michonne does, uh, it doesn't change what he previously did in this case. I think that he has committed layers of reversible error. I think there was evidence at his trial that the Supreme Court would view as privileged and should not have been before the jury. So there is a long, uh, runway between here and there when it comes to any jail sentence. All right. So we are getting a brand new reaction through our own Brooke Singman here who just spoke to the former president following the judge's decision. He tells her the case was delayed. Because everyone realizes there was no case and I did nothing wrong. He says, he also adds that as a case, it is a case that should have never been brought Jonathan. Uh, the public understands that and so does every legal scholar that has looked at it and studied it. I greatly respect the words of necessary being used in the decision because there should be no, if necessary, the case should be dead. It says the former president and brand new remarks to Fox, Jonathan. I certainly agree that this case should never have been brought. I think the former president is correct. This is a political case. Uh, it's a case based on rather novel interpretations of the law. I'm not too sure those interpretations will withstand a review, but I think that the case is overtly political. It was the weakest of the cases, uh, in my view, uh, to go forward. So I believe the former president is right on that front. Uh, the question now, uh, is how these appeals will play out. The president has a rather target rich environment, uh, with this trial. Uh, there are a lot of things here that I think could be reversible. Uh, in some respects, I expect that people in the Trump camp, uh, almost quietly hoped that Michonne would continue his record in the case. Michonne, uh, was quite one sided, uh, in his rulings. I sat in that courtroom and I was astonished by how he consistently ruled against the Trump, uh, team. Even when in my view, they were clearly correct in the motions that they were making. But still you got unanimous decision from 12 jurors, maybe not on the underlying predicate crime, but in the overall crime, you got unanimous decisions so that, you know, they seem to agree with what the prosecution was selling. Um, so this is up, so I think it's, no, I think it's also important to remember what they rendered their ruling on. I've been critical of the jurors. I'm critical of the judge. He told those jurors that they didn't even have to agree what occurred in the case. He gave them various possible reasons why acts were committed and he didn't even force them to record how they voted on what really occurred. All of that is part of the novelty in my view of this case that should be reviewed. Yeah. That was the point I was making that they might not have had unanimity on the underlying predicate crime, but they did in the overall aspect of the case. But you understand politics as well as you understand the law. Now that this is off the table, there will be no sentencing between now and November the fifth. Uh, the voting was supposed to start in North Carolina, but because of a lawsuit that Bobby Kennedy has filed to get his name off the ballot, they've delayed sending out those ballots or letting people vote, um, until time to be determined in the future. We don't know when that's going to be, but what do you think now is the overall effect on the election? If there is any at all, well, first of all, these ballot fights are rather curious. The Michigan secretary of state previously tried to get a popular candidate off the ballot and she's now fighting to keep a non-existent candidate on the ballot because I, I, many people view this as a rather political agenda, uh, to pull away votes from the former president in North Carolina. They said they could switch ballots, but it might take a week. Well, they're going to spend more than that in litigation. So there's a lot of question as to why these democratic secretaries of state are clinging on to Kennedy, uh, to keep him on these ballots in very close states. Now this ruling is going to have an impact, uh, in the sense that many people, I think, correctly viewed New York as lawfare, correctly viewed this as a political case, uh, any sentencing that Michonne would have come down with, I think would have not, uh, been particularly welcomed by most of the public. It would have reminded them of this, this, this campaign again against the former president. So in some ways, I think the Harris campaign is probably celebrating, uh, that they won't have that attention on the Manhattan case. Uh, really something here, um, just looking for, for more out of the letter itself and the implications for the case going forward, Jonathan, I'm sure you've had a chance to see it by now, uh, but using the words and phrases like wanted to avoid the appearance of however unwarded that proceeding had been, uh, that this had been affected by the election. Um, that's interesting, right? And not like we have heard that from this judge before. No, I mean, look, I, I support, I, I, you know, it was not one of those that was piling on Michonne, but I have to say after sitting in his courtroom, I was very surprised. And what I thought was a one sided approach to that trial, it reminded me of an old judge who used to say his defense ready to present its case and then say, are the prosecutors ready to present our case? I mean, the, uh, there was, uh, in my view, a lack of balance there. We have not heard this type of language from Michonne, uh, and he, he refused to do things during the trial that could have accommodated the environment in which the trial was occurring, including a gag order that I think was excessive. Uh, and the irony of course was that the president, the former president's polls went up when he was gagged partially, I think, because people saw the unfairness partially because he sort of stayed on script. But that may have weighed in all of this, Michonne actually witnessed how his conduct at the trial, the trial itself worked in Trump's favor. That would have been nothing, uh, in comparison to what would have happened if he sends Trump to home confinement or to jail. I think Michonne was aware of that. You know, it's funny. So many things have happened since this verdict was added up that, uh, I mean, this thing has been so far in the rear view mirror that you almost have to remind yourself of what happened during the trial. But here's what the spokesperson for, uh, DA Alvin Bragg's office said. A jury of 12 New Yorkers swiftly and unanimously convicted Donald Trump with 34 felony counts. The Manhattan DA's office stands ready for sentencing on the new date set by the court. Of course, the new date is the new date for the moment, but that could change too. It can, because remember there are a lot of appeals, uh, that are, are going forward. Uh, the Supreme Court, his decision on immunity does hit this case. It's true that much of the conduct in this case did not involve the president while he was in office. But some did. In fact, the critical payments that occurred, uh, occurred while he was in office. The prosecutors came back to that over and over again about his multitasking, paying these things off while he was president of the United States, the testimony of Hope Hicks. All of that can contaminate the trial. Now all of our expectation is that Michonne is the least likely judge, uh, to say, you know what, I can't really unravel all of that, let's have a new trial. Uh, but he's going to have to make a very convincing case for the appellate court because you know, the Supreme Court made very clear that they wanted breathing room for presidents. They did, they did not want these to be close questions as to when your former aides could pop up in court and testify against you in cases like this. All right, Jonathan, thank you very much for joining us via phone and then on camera, we We really appreciate you joining us here. He's everywhere.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I mean, the Trump team is right. The Supreme Court's made clear if there's an open immunity issue, that needs to be litigated before anything else happens. And there's no good law enforcement reason why this sentencing has to take place prior to the election.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

It guarantees that, in my opinion, the Fed will not raise or sorry will not lower rates at all for the rest of this year and that's not what you want if you're the incumbent. Politically, it looks like this happened because inflation data, you can be 2020 in terms of looking backwards. We poured a lot of money in the economy during the pandemic. That turned out to be the right thing to do to avoid a depression. But then we kept going. We probably put around 2 trillion too much in. Inflation Reduction Act did not reduce inflation. In fact, it's inflationary, as you can see by these numbers. This is a nasty report.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Let's bring in Fox News contributor George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley. So Jonathan, it's not a surprise. He said he could post it and he did post it. Do we have a timing of when the appeal will take place, when the arguments will dig in? No, we don't have a clear idea, but this clears the way for the court to finally look at what many of us use an obscene judgment. I mean, this number was pulled out of nowhere. When you drill down on the order, there's really nothing there. I mean, the court basically makes a series of assumptions, my view, speculations about how much he might have saved. But there were no victims here. There wasn't a single penny that was lost by anyone. The banks involved testified that they wanted more business from Trump. So to come up with this astronomical figure really shocks the conscience. Now on appeal, he's going to have trouble with this New York law. It is unique. It doesn't require victims. It doesn't require losses, but they still have to justify the amount. And that could go all the way to the Supreme Court. Yeah. So you're saying the judge will have to justify why he was posting a bond or asking for a bond to $454 million? Right. I mean, there's no justification in my view in the order. So that's going to go up and these judges are going to have to look at it. And quite frankly, I think the integrity of the New York legal system is at stake here. You can't just have a special criminal or in this case, civil code for Trump. It has to be consistent. And when you're the leading business law jurisdiction in the world, this has really put a shell below the waterline. I mean, a lot of people are looking at this and saying, but for the grace of God go I, am I going to be the next person that gets tagged by someone like James? Right. Let's switch gears for just a second, Jonathan, and talk a little bit about what happened yesterday on the West coast. Hunter Biden back in the news again, Abby Lowell, apparently pled with the judge out there for three hours. It sounds like he talked where he was trying to convince the judge to throw out the tax charges against Hunter Biden, who by the way, was at the white house Easter egg roll yesterday. In the end, essentially, it sounds like, Nope, the judge is saying full steam ahead. There's going to be a trial. Well, this is really stinging. I mean, the court said, you didn't give me anything. I was looking for something called evidence. And instead you gave me a series of press clippings and said that I should toss this whole thing out. He said, I don't do that. I'm a court. You know, you've got to show me something that is legally credible. You did it. And so have a good time. You're on your way to trial. So Jonathan, do you get the sense and this is what the judge said in that motion. The motion is remarkable that it fails to include a single decoration, exhibit or request for judicial notice instead defend the site's portions of various internet news sources, social media posts, and legal blogs. These citations, however, are not evident. So I guess my question is, do you get the sense that there was no preparation because they thought that they were going to get the sweetheart deal. And when the federal judge said, is it really any precedent looks over to the prosecution as well as looks over the defense. And both of them said, no, then they have to actually come up with a legal strategy. Well, there is an element of improvisation that you see in these filings, which is quite disturbing. There was no way that this was getting thrown out. And the argument of selective prosecution has a lot of people sort of chuckling because all the way up to that indictment, this was special treatment. They allowed statute of limitations to run and they've never explained why. Even after this plea agreement fell apart, the U.S. attorney, the Department of Justice said we were trying to resurrect it. It was the Hunter Biden people that were not playing ball. So this has been a case of special treatment, not a selective prosecution in my view. Jonathan, lastly, just on the massive gag order put on the former president of the United States in the Alvin Bragg case, because they don't want him talking about prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, and they don't want him talking about the judge's daughter. But Matthew Colangelo was in the Justice Department with Joe Biden. That is outrageous to President Trump. Also, the fact is the judge's daughter, what is a activist who works for Kamala Harris? And there was some dispute on whether she did have a picture up on a website with Donald Trump behind bars. That to me is something that, if I'm Donald Trump, I'm a little concerned about that the judge has a daughter who feels this way. Yeah, I've actually been opposed to gag orders for years, particularly efforts to gag you, Brian. That's been widespread and well known. Yeah, it's coming from your colleagues, but no, but you're absolutely right. This is a really controversial order and I think it's wrong. You've got Michael Cohen, who is going on the air every night attacking Trump, basically campaigning against him. He's not allowed to respond. Now, I would prefer that Trump leave these attacks or issues raised with the judge's family to his counsel. I think that's always the better approach. But in this case, you would prosecutors pushing this trial right before an election, the judge is assisting in that, and then they want to gag the president from talking about the main issue in the election, whether they like it or not. This election is likely to turn on this question of the weaponization of the legal system. And so I think that these courts have to acknowledge that. You've got a DC judge that says, I'm not going to take any acknowledgement or accommodation for the fact you're running for president. Really? Because you're insisting on trying him all the way up to and possibly through the election. Yeah, I was watching another network this morning and they were the news anchor in the copy. She was reading from a teleprompter said these false claims that Donald Trump is making about the judge's daughter. All right. Thank you so much, Jonathan.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I'm guessing that a lot of you out there are fans of President Donald J. Trump, right? He spoke yesterday. He spoke yesterday. I know it went very well. Of course, he's a friend of mine, and of course, I've endorsed him for president in 2024. I want to leave you with this thought, that there are a lot of things that I could say about President Trump's presidency. I could talk about tax reform. I could talk about the fact that we just for the first time during his four years started to push back against communist China. I could talk about the fact that he's the only presidential candidate speaking about the economic issues that matter, not just to the people in this room, but those all-important swing voters that we've got to win over. Those things are all true. But the strongest argument I can make for Donald Trump is where I started this speech, that when everybody else is telling lies about Ukraine, there is one man on the national stage telling the truth, and that's Donald J. Trump. You know, there was a really important moment during the presidential campaign, something that I would encourage you all, go home, go to Rumble or YouTube or whatever you watch your videos on, and go and find this clip. It was Donald Trump at the CNN town hall. You remember this a couple months ago? And whatever mainstream reporter they had asked them the question and said, "Well, whose side are you really on? Are you on the Russia side or are you on the Ukrainian side?" And of course that's a stupid answer. I'm on America's side. That should be our answer, right? We should always say we're on America's side. We can like the Ukrainians. We can not like the Russian aggression. We're on America's side. That's the only answer we should expect from our future president. Now every politician that I know, at least on a national stage, maybe even myself, would have taken the bait, right? They would have taken the reporter's bait, but Trump didn't. What he said was, "I want the killing to stop," right? I want the killing to stop. That ladies and gentlemen, that is the statesmanship that we need in this moment. That America comes first. And what is in the best interest of this country and what is in the best interest of all of us as human beings for the killing to stop? We send that country Ukraine $200 billion. The idea that we don't have the leverage to stop this conflict with the snap of our fingers is a joke. And anybody who tells you we can't stop this war is lying to you. $200 billion buys you a lot. And what buys us is leverage, and we ought to use it. But I want to encourage all of you, especially those young people who have not yet committed to a presidential candidate, I want to encourage you to get out there and support President Trump. And look, the reason is simple. There is a species of establishment Republican that if you told me this two years ago, I might not have believed you that this person exists, but they do. Now you all know them. They're the establishment hack in Washington, D.C. They put the Ukrainian flag in their Twitter bio or their Facebook profile. They care far more about the people who live 6,000 miles away than they do about the citizens of their own country. We all know these people. Of course, I've been exposed to them a lot in the last six months because I've been in Washington, D.C. all about six months. But you know what I find so interesting about those people is how they never have that compassion for the citizens of their own country. For the mom who's mourning a son who died of a fentanyl overdose. For the young man whose dad has lost years off their life. For the troop who fought and bled and maybe died in a foreign land because America's leaders made a mistake. They never have that same compassion for the citizens of their own country. Well, what I'd ask you to do is to have that compassion, to have that love. When I say America's not just a nation of ideas, what I mean is this whole American project doesn't work unless you feel it deep in your bones, that love of your fellow citizens of your countrymen. When you read about our great historical moments, you need to feel not just that they did heroic things, but that they were your people building something heroic that you and your children and your grandchildren deserve to inherit. I love you, ma'am. Thank you. And I will say there is no issue that these people with Ukrainian flags in their bio are more obsessed with. They call it entitlement reform, but of course what they're saying is that they want to cut Social Security for the people who paid into it for a generation so that we can send more money to Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine. Do we want to do that? No. Absolutely not. And the one person who's standing against it on the national stage right now is Donald Trump. So here's my message to all of you, and here is our message to everybody who's listening, whether you're in this room or on television, if you want to immiserate our grandmothers and grandfathers to send another yacht to Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration, No make America great again. Let's go and show them over the next two years. God bless

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.