Search Posts

It's important for EPA to be operating as efficiently as possible, and we're not going to operate under this mentality that challenging the status quo is unacceptable. It's some sacred cow. We inherited all these Bioneer regulations. We aren't going to treat those as if they're etched in stone. And as we see tens of billions of dollars going out through self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients and reduced agency oversight, we're going to take action. We will have a zero-tolerance policy for any waste and abuse. So these are the principles that we bring in. And the Trump mandate at the Trump EPA is making sure that we're operating as efficiently as possible and we're powering the great American comeback.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-America is rich. We buy a lot of stuff. President Trump is saying that if you American -- are you a foreign businesses want to sell in America, then move your business here and hire American workers. That's an audible goal, and I support it. It'll work long-term.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Earlier this week, the EPA called this the most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history. What do you mean by that? It's the most amount of deregulation ever in the history of America. And during the Biden and Obama administrations, there were all sorts of rules and regulations that were coming out. And there was this demand on the left that these should be treated as new commandments etched in stone. They were targeting a lot of the energy supply, targeting a lot of jobs. As a result, the cost of living goes up when it becomes harder to purchase a car or heat a home. And President Trump campaigned on protecting, unleashing American energy. He wants American energy dominance. And we're going to do our part at EPA to deliver it. We call it powering the great American comeback. We care about clean air, land and water for all Americans. And we don't believe it's a binary choice between protecting the environment and growing our economy.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

I'm Paul Perez, President of the National Border Patrol Council, the Border Patrol Union. In a career spanning 27 plus years, I'm used to being villainized and insulted. But when you, Kamala Harris, the borders are, make the comparison that we are Nazis simply because of our support for Donald J. Trump, you forfeit your right to lead the men and women who protect this border every day. This is yet another reason why Americans should not trust you and should support Donald J. Trump for President. You owe us an apology for your vile and disgusting comparison.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Trump against the machine if you vote for Kamala Harris You're not voting for her to run the country You're voting for the powerful machine that already runs the country the machine of political persecution Media lies Censorship Election interference And open borders Instead if you vote for Donald Trump You're voting for the power of a real president to represent the people Our enemies want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom to make their voices heard They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you to make America great again Powerful again, wealthy again, healthy again, strong again, proud again, safe again And we will make America great again Vote against the machine. Vote for Donald Trump

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

She's only, Charlie, being pragmatic to win the election, Bernie Sanders said that. Yeah, exactly. Listen to one of her own supporters on that key point. Look, this is why she lost the debate last night. She lost it because the onus was completely on her. She's the one that one-third of the American population says they don't know where she stands on things, they don't know enough about her to support her or to make a decision about her. The onus is entirely on her to make the case why people should trust her, and she failed to do it last night. She failed to explain to people why she's changed her position on things like fracking and the, and Israel and all these other topics. She also failed to explain why she has embraced all of these wildly radical positions that she now conveniently says she has changed her position on. You and I both know that the only reason she's changed her position is because she'll say absolutely anything to get elected. And as Tommy just pointed out, all the Trump campaign has to do is run the footage of what she said last night compared to all the footage that she said before, just as you just did. All you have to do is run that and let her sink herself with her own words in their ads. And that's why she lost. People don't trust her. They don't know her. The onus is on her and she failed last night.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Fox News alert. President Biden to address the nation on the Supreme Court immunity ruling at any moment. We'll bring it to you as soon as the president comes out to make his comments. But joining me now in the meantime is a vice presidential contender. Senator Tim Scott, Senator Scott, thanks very much for joining us. I served with you in Congress. I like calling you Tim, but we'll call you Senator Scott here. Tim's great, Jason. Good to see you, buddy. Democrats, they're in a really bad situation, right? They have a person who is declining. It's obvious it's been going on for years. This is not something that just happened on Thursday night. So bringing out the president to address this immunity ruling, what do you think the White House is trying to do here? You know, they're looking for, they're grasping at straws. Listen, we saw the greatest failure in the middle of a debate in the history of the country. Jason, it could not have been worse. Listen, the Democrats are trying to figure out who they want their nominee to be. President Biden is scrambling. He's looking for something, anything to hold on to as he's in the middle of Democrat quicksand. I can't think of a better week for President Trump than right now. The Supreme Court has ruled in his favor and opposition to the weaponizing of the justice system. We've got President Biden on the ropes with the Democrats looking for another nominee, and he is simply grasping at straws. It's a good day and probably the best week so far for President Trump. But it gets better. President Trump's record is so strong, so powerful, so convincing that the Democrats, their break, their tribal union is breaking down. The African Americans and the Hispanics is coalition of color. It's starting to disintegrate because the great opportunity party led by Donald Trump offers more for the future than Joe Biden could ever dream of offering. And the proof is in the pudding. Donald Trump had the most remarkable four years and they're running scared.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

And not only did he deliver, it was the greatest performance in debate history. Which by the way, Howie, that's not just me saying it. New CBS episodes pulling out this morning in a clip of 56 to 16 are saying that President Trump beat Joe Biden in that debate. What I didn't quite expect was that Joe Biden would do poorly. But look, we've seen him as far as how he interacts, how he stumbles around. That part didn't necessarily surprise me. What surprised me is that after a week of being locked away in a log cabin in the middle of the woods, Joe Biden couldn't lay out any sort of vision for where he wanted to go. Which by the way, he took a week on vacation while we have 55 ISIS terrorists running around the country. >> Well, you're always president. >> That's unforgivable. You can't take a week of vacation when you have terrorists running around the country. But President Trump dominated Joe Biden on the vision issue. That same poll I referenced, President Trump's leading Joe Biden 44-18 on who actually delivered a vision. >> So now we have this environment where media liberals and a lot of Democrats and people who had support of the president are urging him to step aside. I've heard Donald Trump will not lately say ultimately didn't think Biden would be the nominee. Do you think when the dust settles that Joe Biden will be on the ticket? >> Joe Biden is definitely gonna be the Democrat nominee for a couple reasons. But going back to the, since you call out the media and you call balls and strikes, the fact that so many in the media, especially the media establishment, have sat by for three and a half years and said nothing about Joe Biden. I mean, just a week and a half ago, we were debating whether or not these cheap fake videos or basically accurate descriptions of Joe Biden were real or fake. And now the same people who are decrying that are saying Joe has to go. Here's why Joe is gonna be the nominee. Number one, you can't force him off. Some 3,700 out of the 3,800 regular dem delegates are bound on the first ballot, so they can't force him. Couple of reasons why Joe Biden is not gonna leave on his own. Number one, that'd be the end of the Biden family business. There would be nothing else, I mean, you're not gonna teach a Biden how to code or have them go switch into their occupation. They've been selling access for 50 years. Biden doesn't want his reputation, his legacy to be tarnished as a quitter. As the same way that we're now saying presidents don't wanna be the next Herbert Hoover 100 years from now, they'll be saying they don't wanna be the next Joe Biden. But more importantly, Joe Biden has launched a dangerous precedent for what happens to American presidents when they leave office. And when you look at the, by his letting the genie out of the box, it is now the norm that we are essentially a third world banana republic where you have congressional investigations, civil lawsuits, criminal lawsuits. It's a very uncertain future for any president now when they leave. I think Joe Biden knows that. >> You tweeted that the media and the Democratic establishment has been covering for crooked Joe Biden, in your words. That presumes members of the media knew all along about Biden's deteriorating condition and held it back when almost all of us knew what just what we saw on TV. Obviously, he had lost a number of steps. >> Well, right, and the media established, I mean, you can see it with your own two eyes. They're making it sound as though those who cover the White House on a daily basis can't just see that Joe Biden is unable to function normally. But here's the thing, just now because of a debate performance, they're saying something, they weren't gonna say something. After Joe Biden allowed 20 million illegals into the country, they're not gonna say something after he allowed crippling inflation or after the dead servicemember. >> Well, you're criticizing him on policy and not his ability to do the job. But I wanna turn to this because the media fact checkers, as you know, are now saying this is sort of their counter to the president's bad performance, that Donald Trump said a lot of things in the debate that weren't true. So let me let you respond on his justices overturning Roe v. Wade. Every legal scholar throughout the world, the most respected, wanted it brought back to the states, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives. Well, that's just not true, scholars on the pro choice side very much wanted to keep Roe. >> Well, I haven't seen anyone put forward any particular scholars that disagreed. And so I would say if you wanna talk about who's actually the one who was misleading people, Joe Biden stood on that debate stage, looked the American public in the eye and said no servicemembers have died under his administration. So to disrespect the families of the military members who were killed in Afghanistan is quite frankly disgusting. And you know what, four years ago, when he said Hunter did nothing wrong, when he said that his family had no business dealings with China. When he said the laptop from hell was fake, when those 51 intelligence officers got up there and had that letter, that was fake from the beginning and Joe Biden's one who lied to the American public. >> All right, well, you did make the point that he was mistaken about no American casualties. All right, Trump said in the debate that Biden gets paid by China. There is no evidence as opposed to Hunter Biden's sleazy buck wrecking around the world that Joe Biden got a dime. >> Well, we know that Hunter Biden has taken millions of dollars from China. >> Okay. >> We also know from Hunter Biden's communications that he said that they have to set aside 10% for the big guy. Other times he said as much as half had to do with his father. >> But you have a congressional committee, Republican committee looking into this that was unable to prove this allegation. >> You know what, I'm gonna trust Biden's own family who says that money goes to him. So Hunter is getting millions from China, some of it's making its way to Joe. >> Former president said of Biden, he indicted me because I was his opponent. Now, first of all, what evidence do you have that Biden was involved in any indictment decision? And would a reelected Donald Trump seek criminal charges against Biden? >> Well, President Trump has already said that his only retribution will be success. And we have four years to look at of how President Trump operated in the White House, never went after a political opponent, never threatened to go after political opponents. What we've seen this administration do with Merrick Garland, I mean, literally they have the number three person at the DOJ leave and go to New York to head up legal efforts there. We saw it's Biden's own DOJ that launched the special counsel going after President Trump. So all roads here lead to Joe Biden. None of this would be happening if this wasn't about politics and Joe Biden being worried he's gonna lose. >> Well, I'll just point out that Biden's DOJ also initiated the criminal proceedings against Hunter Biden. >> Which by the way, I mean, you talk about who is responsible for covering up on Joe Biden. Why would they release the hurt tapes? Now we know the interview tapes with Joe Biden. Because if it was this bad on the debate stage, imagine how bad those tapes are. That's why Joe Biden's Attorney General, very political, is covering this up. >> That was a nice pivot. When your campaign made known that the VP announcement might come this week, wasn't that a head fake in case the debate didn't go well, you could change the subject? >> No, not at all. Howie, you covered President Trump for a long time. This is my third time working for President Trump on the campaign trail. There's one person who's gonna pick the VP, and that's gonna be a President Trump. It could be tomorrow on Truth Social, it could be during the convention, it could be anywhere between now and then. There's only one person who knows who he's gonna pick and when. >> Well, he says he's made up his mind, but we don't know who. So lots of media outlets are reporting, cuz I didn't wanna get into this speculation game early. But they're reporting that the three finalists are Marco Rubio, JD Vance, and Doug Burgum. Is that accurate, or is that speculation? >> The President has spoken highly of all three of those people. The President has also spoken very highly of a number of others. And so until he actually says it from his own mouth, then speculation's just speculation. >> So even though you're an integral part of the campaign, you don't know when and how this will play out. >> Correct. >> And he could change his mind. >> And you know what? Nobody does, except for President Trump. And quite frankly, that's his right. And right now, he's been taking the fight to Joe Biden. That's where the focus is gonna be, but whoever he picks, and this is really important, Howie. He said whoever he picks is gonna be someone that he is confident could step in and lead if they ever need to. And that is the most important thing with selecting a VP. >> Just very briefly, if somehow Biden were to step aside and they were a new nominee who obviously would be younger, would that be a problem for your campaign? >> It doesn't matter. They're all part of the same establishment. They're all part of the same cabal that covered up Joe Biden's physical and mental failings. They're gonna follow the same liberal policies. They're not gonna secure the border. They're not gonna stop the spending. They're gonna leave it. The $2 trillion deficit will probably get even bigger under someone else. But they're in a real problem here. Their insurance policy is Kamala Harris. She's pulling worse than Joe. >> I can't argue with that. I'm very happy to have a chance to talk to you, Jason Miller. Thanks so much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

by the special counsel Robert Herr, you say they were highly classified and relevant to current national security threats tell us more. Maria I was shocked at how highly classified these documents are the the media wants you to believe oh this was just some old Cold War stuff that old senile Biden maybe had in his garage from decades ago no it was recent it was relevant and I mean they had so many code words across it I've had a clearance for 30 years I had to ask what they meant eyes only for the president and vice president sensitive stripes down the side there's secret compartmented and then there's levels even above that and what you have to understand is the information may be from his time as vice president but the sources may still be active so I'm demanding to know and the intelligence commute committee and the house wants to know who did hunter Biden have traipsing through the garage from Kazakhstan Russia China and what have you and then the Chinese funded Biden Center where they were just sitting in a closet who knows who was accessing it there so were these sources and methods compromised is what we need to know and here's the thing this is only a portion of the documents the other portion that were derived in the White House and then his notes where he was taking notes and classified meetings he also had lying around in his garage and office and and what have you we're still trying to get those to see the extent of the damage

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

They hope that keeping Donald Trump off the campaign trail and any sort of details that emerge, that will all turn the tide for Biden in November. You cannot risk after all the people actually choosing their own president. Can't do that. Especially when new polling shows that Trump is leading Biden in five of six swing states. Now according to echelon insights on behalf of the heritage foundation, he's up 10 in Georgia, seven in Nevada, six in Michigan and in Arizona, and he leads Biden by four in Pennsylvania. Biden nips Trump by one point in Wisconsin. And it must have killed Axios to report on a New York Times/Ciena college poll that was just out. The poll found a big increase, nine points, in registered voters who believe that Trump left the country better off.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Well, I think it's just disgusting that anybody would have to pay $175 million and there's no victim because there was no crime. What is unbelievable is that we talk about election interference all the time, especially on the left. This is as close to election interference as I can imagine. I can't think of a worse decision on the state of New York and the legal system than to target the political opponent of the person they support. It is so disgusting, Martha, to see this two-tiered justice system play out. We know Joe Biden kept classified documents, but he doesn't have a memory that allows him to go before a jury. We know that the family has all kinds of tentacles around the world making money. Nothing happened. The reason why Americans are so frustrated and disgusted with this justice system, whether it's New York or the DOJ, is because Lady Justice needs to wear a blindfold, and she doesn't here. That's just frustrating. It is frustrating. As we say, whether people are supporters of the former president or not, parts of what's going on here I think a lot of people find abhorrent. Are you surprised that this continues to fuel his election run? I'm not, because if you are a red-blooded American and you believe in fairness, you believe in justice, you believe that America must be the fairest nation on the planet. When you see this level of injustice, you are disgusted by it, and you will rally to the cause of the underdog. This media, national media on the left, this justice system in New York and the DOJ continues to make President Trump into a victim, and whether you're a Republican or independent and a few Democrats, you want a nation that the law and order applies to all Americans fairly, and we are watching with our own eyes. I think that's true, and I think a lot of people find it horrifying, no matter what side of the political fence they're on.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett joins us now. Greg, great to have you this morning. So from best eye and we can tell, Judge McAfee attempted to sort of split the baby here to do something that maybe wasn't politically controversial in Fulton County, but also punish Willis and Wade for the appearance of impropriety. What he said, and I wanted to ask you about is, he said although it's clear their behavior was at best, frowned upon at worse, much more, he said it didn't impact the defendant, in this case, Donald Trump and others do process rights. - Yeah, well, he's wrong, Will. I mean, this decision, if you read it, 23 pages, it's illogical, it's self-contradictory. The judge found both Willis and Wade engaged in the same wrongful improper conduct that under law and ethics demands removal. And yet he orders that only one of them has to leave the case. I mean, that makes no sense, obviously, because the appearance of impropriety remains and it infects the case and the defendant and his due process rights, which means, I think this was a craven political ruling written by a Democrat judge who wasn't about to jeopardize his reelection in a few months. So he gratuitously tosses Willis this lifeline to keep the case against Trump going because if she's disqualified by the court, so is her entire office. That's Georgia law. And that would effectively kill the charges against Trump because any sensible prosecutor, I think elsewhere, would take one look at this case, recognize that it's weaker non-existent on racketeering. And in fact, I wrote a column two months ago that this case is such a legal, ethical train wreck. The state attorney general should take it over for review. And I think that may be where it's headed. - Yeah, that's so interesting. You know, I'm looking at her in all her dramatic moments. Not gonna say, I'm not gonna lie, it's very entertaining. And I can see why he doesn't wanna upset black female voters, many of whom like the way she is performing on the stand. But I guess the question I have is just, where does this go in terms of the general public opinion about this being election interference, the entire process for Donald Trump, that they're trying to tie him up in these court cases. And I think it's kind of helping him make that case. - Yeah, it's classic lawfare, weaponizing the law for political purposes. And, you know, Willis seems to be popping champagne corks. Well, I think that's premature. This ruling further delays the prosecution. It may put it in jeopardy. And she may not survive professionally because a Georgia Senate investigation and a prosecutor's commission now armed with the judge's findings, a scathing rebuke of Willis's behavior. I mean, he called her unprofessional, said she may have been untruthful and dishonest. My goodness, that is a breach of duty. It's grounds for removal from office, not just a case. She undermined the public's trust. But Willis is also facing additional probes, misuse of public funds, other improprieties, reportedly employees are lining up to testify against her. Yeah, so I'll make this prediction. I think she'll try to diffuse all of this by announcing sometime soon that, oh, well, another prosecutor in the office will try the case. Well, that doesn't remove either her or the taint of a partisan DA who, as I say, weaponized the law to bring a politically driven case to influence a presidential election. Her moment in the spotlight, and it seems to all be caving in in the case with it potentially, and all the cases. Greg, it feels like across the board, the courtroom's getting farther away, even though they keep trying to bring in that Trump. Greg, thanks for your time. Appreciate it. Thanks, Greg.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Joining me now to unpack all of this — I'm sorry, Fonny, Fonny, Fonny, I keep saying the wrong thing, sorry about that — is David Schoen, former lead counsel in Trump's impeachment case, and Jim Trusty, another former Trump attorney. Both are intimately familiar with the cases against the former president. We're going to get to Georgia in a second, gentlemen, but I wanted to get Jim's take first on what took place in Miami today in the classified docs case. Judge Eileen Cannon has denied Trump's motion to dismiss, Jim. She said, essentially, that the various phrases that were being contested as too vague, phrases like "entitled to receive" or "related to the national defense," "authorized persons," that there were too many outstanding legal questions for her to grant the motion to dismiss. Do you agree with her ultimate finding there? Well, I do somewhat, and that might be surprising, but the reason why, she's taking a very incremental approach towards everything, towards scheduling, towards resolution of discovery issues. And that's what we're used to in federal courts. That's what we actually want from our judges, is to decide the issues that are ripe at the time they need to be decided. So what she did is she dismissed this without prejudice, saying we can circle back when we're dealing with jury instructions and decide if there's really a constitutional problem with the charges for vagueness. That's a very difficult standard to meet in general. But the key thing, I think, today wasn't that. It was that she keeps talking and asking questions about selective prosecution. You know, you mentioned weaponization. That's the real—I mean, that's an uphill battle normally, but here, the way DOJ has treated President Trump when it comes to Mar-a-Lago, that's a ripe issue that's going to land in her wheelhouse at some point, and it could be a big one. So I don't think it was a bad day for President Trump just to temporarily lose one kind of nuanced, difficult constitutional issue for the time being. Yeah. And it's pretty funny to watch, David, the reaction from some of the Trump critics. They act like they won the case today. I mean, a first-year law student knows how difficult it is to have a motion to dismiss granted when there's a dispute as to some of the underlying facts, and she essentially wrote that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still fluctuating definitions of statutory terms and phrases as charged, et cetera. I just think this was a very conservative ruling on her part. I mean, a lot of people want this to go away. I mean, I think it should go away, but I think this is actually quite smart of this judge in this case. I don't think this is a loss at all for President Trump, and I think Jim is right that she handled it in the proper way. He has, in this case, unlike many other cases, some really serious arguments for dismissal. They're going to have to confront the mens rea element here, the mindset willfully in the context of the Presidential Records Act. You know, a lot of the commentators want to say, "Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with this case," and so on. They're just wrong. If you look at the 2012 decision from Amy Berman Jackson in D.C., a real Trump hater on which she said, "The statute is silent as to who has the right to designate, except insofar as it names the executive as the only person with the right to designate personal versus Presidential Records while that person's in office." That goes, if nothing else, to the mens rea as to whether President Trump willfully violated the law, and willfully means doing something of reasonable belief was criminal. He had people telling him, people who should know, telling him that he had the right to designate these as personal records. So that issue, I think the Evan Corcoran issue, his records, the Judge Howell in D.C. ordered turned over in virtually wholesale fashion despite the attorney-client privilege. I think that ought to lead to a dismissal. I think the grand jury was tainted by that evidence. So there are many issues in this case. This wasn't a loss for President Trump. Now, it's just hilarious to watch, especially non-lawyers, and obviously we're all lawyers, but it's not that complicated, really. When you boil it down to the facts, I just want to play one sound bite for you, Jim, because this made me scream laughing. This was the media in mourning when they realized that some of the charges against Trump were dropped in that Georgia case, and then it ultimately kind of is foreboding for the future of Fonny Willis watch. I just wonder if he would go there, if he would dismiss charges if he's planning to throw out the case or remove it from Fonny Willis to try to look on the bright side. In many ways, this potentially could streamline the case. We're having this conversation against the backdrop of her potential disqualification. This could be sort of death by a thousand cuts. I mean, Jim, they are just trying to find any little thread to kind of try to give some credibility, which is obviously a disaster of a case that was brought by Ms. Willis and her paramour. Yeah, I mean, they may be watching the last few bubbles escape the Titanic on the way down when it comes to Georgia. I mean, I think that this judge did a very, very cerebral job of addressing a challenging motion and he had an elected district attorney perjuring herself in court, disrespectfully doing so. He kept this calm. He waded through the facts. He's wading through the legal issues. And the beauty of this one from President Trump's perspective is if it's dismissed without prejudice, which is usually almost a Pyrrhic victory for the defense because they go back to the grand jury and they recharge it. But if he dismisses it without prejudice and the disqualification kicks in of the entire office, which is what Georgia law says happens under the circumstances, nobody is going to pick this thing up if they have any sense at all. No other DA is going to say, Oh, let me jump into that, you know, morass and handle the same case. David, you agree it's a dead cat bounce at that point? I think so. I really don't know. It depends on who they select and who does the selecting at the end of the day. But I'm going to tell you, this judge is onto something with the charges that he dismissed. His problem with them was one can't really know how to defend against them because they're not specific enough. That's a real issue in the New York case. The New York case is a cockamamie felony by charging a misdemeanor to commit a target act. The grand jury never specified what that target act is. Is it to affect the election? Was it for tax purposes? That can't be cured by a bill of particulars. I think that's fatally defective to the New York case. I hope the lawyers will latch on to that. Oh, that's fascinating. The bootstrapping isn't going to work for them. David and Jim, thanks so much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Why are African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, Republicans, men, women, all looking at Donald Trump with new eyes? It is simple. We were better off under Trump, economically the lowest unemployment rates for all racial demographics and a 70-year low for women, crime. We had law and order. African Americans in Minneapolis voted to refund the police and overturn their own city council who wanted to defund the police. Here's what we know about Americans, Americans want a fair level playing field and there's only one candidate and one party that represents that and that's Donald Trump.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.