Search Posts

This is a great interview, by the way. I'm really enjoying watching this. I love that the president makes time to do these great chemistry. I'm just enjoying it. I love hearing from the president. I love that he makes the time to talk endlessly with the press and talk directly to the American people about this. And if you notice, the socialist candidates always come for law and order first, and that's by design. They have to get rid of police. They have to get rid of ICE. They have to get rid of the guardrails that keep society safe so that they can push through their agenda. And what we've seen is a lot of these socialist candidates, they're pretty slick talkers, right? We've seen the mom donnies. We've seen some of these socialist candidates. They're real slick, but you notice the stance that they all distance from when they're pressed on it is law and order. Anytime they have passed comments about defund the police, they try to score them away for those because they don't want to have to own that because they know how unpopular that is with the American people. The president also mentioned Michigan, you know? He won Michigan in 2024. Yeah, he said that. And he did that partly, I just wanted, because it's so important, historic win for him. He won it partly by winning Arab American Democrats. He flipped the endorsement of the Democrat mayor in Hamlet track, Michigan, America leave. We think Al Sayed is going to be, you know, our guy. President Trump has given Republicans the playbook on how to keep Michigan. It's interesting. We talk about this whole thing where there's crime and the Democrats are, I mean, the Democrats have become because they'd love to, you know, as part of the agenda to show how much they hate things, right? Oh, we low, though, it's Israel. We hate this. And they've a lot of hatred for a lot of things. But when you start breaking the law, they start to fall back in love again, and it's just kind of a weird dynamic. Well, it's not a winning message to defund the police. And yet they keep resurfacing this message. What did the DSA platform say? We want to defund the police, defund ICE, but they have to keep coming back. People want safe cities. President Trump has brought crime down to historic lows since like 1900. We're at 126 year low trace and people want this. So the socialist agenda is going to further detach them from the Democrat establishment. And the Democrat establishments are going to have to start saying, yes, we want ICE. Yes, we want police. Yeah. I'm wondering, Elizabeth Pipko, what you think about the trend here, the Democratic Socialist of America and the candidates being backed by the DSA like Al Sayed, I'm wondering what your take on this. You know, a lot of people say, oh, you was the Tea Party and they kind of they were a big thing and then they kind of fell apart and there's still parts of it still moving. What is your thought on the growing, I guess the growing popularity of the DSA? Well, look, I think they're going to continue to grow. I think we're going to see that tonight. We're going to see that next week with the primary in Wisconsin. And we're going to see it with the demise ultimately of the Democrat Party, which I think is exactly what they deserve. Considering Donald Trump warned about the socialist takeover back in 2015, long before he was ever elected to the Oval Office, he was laughed at. He was told he was wrong by several senior leaders in the Democrat Party. And like with many other things, Trace, he was proven to be 100 percent correct. But again, in our country, socialism, which is the easy way out, will always lose. There is a reason that to our capitalist society, thousands of people try to come every single year because they know that in our country, hard work and big ideas will always win a toy. Donald Trump was admired long before he was ever president and that's why socialism will always lose out to those who want to make the world a better place.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

This country sits back and allows a country such as Iran to hold our hostages. My way of thinking is a horror. Obviously you're advocating that we should have gone in there with troops, etc., and brought our boys out. I absolutely feel that, yes. I don't think there's any question, and there's no question in my mind. I think right now would be an oil-rich nation, and I believe that we should have done it, and I'm very disappointed that we didn't do it. Why couldn't we go in and take over some of their oil, which is along the sea? You're going to have a war by being weak. The next time Iran attacks this country, go in and grab one of their big oil installations, and I mean grab it and keep it, and get back your losses, because this country has lost plenty because of Iran. Nearly 40 years ago, Trump saying, "I'd be harsh on Iran." They've been beating us psychologically, making us look like a bunch of fools. One bullet shot at one of our men or ships, and I'd do a number on Karg Island. I'd go in and take it. Iran can't even beat Iraq. If they push the United States around, it'd be good for the world to take them on. And now, 40 years later, you're seeing Trump's vision play out in real time. Just as Ronald Reagan spent years before his presidency thinking about how to bring down the Soviet empire, Trump did the same with Iran's terror empire. So the moment of reckoning has arrived for Iran's regime.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Donald Trump will not win the general election. You can have him win any primary you want. He will not win a general election. We will have a female president of the United States. It will either be me, or it will be Kamala Harris. First of all, I'm not going to worry about it, Phil, because he's not going to win. She's definitely going to win the popular vote, as Democrats almost always do now. There are voters he'll never get. There are places he'll never be competitive. In no imaginable world in which Donald Trump could ever win a popular majority in America. The women of America are making their voices heard. She's won this. And I said to him, she's going to take every one of the swing states plus Iowa. And he said, oh, but the numbers are so close. I said, I'm a political analyst. I'm telling you right now. This guy is a loser. He's fat. He's pathetic. He doesn't know where he is. He's confused. He's dazed. And I think people will go see through that. I'm not shy about putting 349 electoral votes in the lap of Harris. She's going to get those. She might get more. Before Trump's landslide victory over Kamala Harris, many liberals online, like this cackling Karen, really thought Trump had no way of winning the election. And they were so cocky. And we're going to go through all these clips that see them getting humiliated as they boldly claim. Trump can't win. Trump can't even get votes. He can't win the popular vote. There's no way he can win the electorate. He's unelectable. It's Sean Daniel here. If you guys enjoy the video, and if you hate traitor, tricky Nikki Haley, consider subscribing. And if you're already subscribed, thank you so much. Now let's get into the video. You ready, Nikki? Hey, Kamala. What are we going to say to Donald Trump in November? Bye, bye, bye. First of all, I'm not going to worry about it, Phil, because he's not going to win. So you think he's just worn it out? You think people are just going to get to team? Enough. I feel-- Just category fatigue. I mean, it's just going to be-- we're talking about a few hundred thousand people, perhaps. But I think it's going to be a little closer than that. First of all, she's definitely going to win the popular vote, as Democrats almost always do now. But I think she will win-- I think he will, of course, go batch it insane as he always does. He won't accept it. His followers, I think will-- I don't think their heart will really be in it, as it was in 2020. It's just fatigue. Yes, I think it's time. The only thing we're fatigued of is your BS, Bill Maher. Why is that? Because Trump won the popular vote by almost three million votes. Take Harris over 270 electoral votes. Let these fools in these crypto markets do something. Let them drive the betting line into a favorable place and then take advantage of it. That's what I would do. I think she's going to win. And why do you think she's going to win? She's got more money. Got more energy. Got to have some more.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

When I see a total rip-off of this country by Japan, where they literally have no defense budget, where we have to borrow money from them in order to get them oil and defend the Persian Gulf, where most of the oil goes to Japan and other countries, not us, we get 4% of our oil. When I see Kuwait, a total rip-off, we're bringing the Bridgeston, you remember the Bridgeston? Their oil minister sat back and he laughed at how much money he's going to make. Why aren't we getting some of that money? Why are we getting it? They're taking in billions and billions of dollars and we can't even land a helicopter on Kuwaiti soil. You tell me that's right. Saudi Arabia, they wouldn't even be there except for us. And in Saudi Arabia, we couldn't even use their minesweepers, Phil, you know it. We said, could we use your minesweepers? Ours are old, outdated, not worth a damn. They said, no, you can't use our minesweepers to protect the Persian Gulf. I mean, it's a disgrace. What's going on? There are many other countries and taking tremendous advantage of this, including NATO. If you look at the payments that we're making to NATO, they're totally disproportionate with everybody else's and it's ridiculous. As far as other causes that are near and dear, this is the cause because if we can solve this, then we're able to take care of something that I consider to be ultimately of ultimate importance. And that is the homeless situation. That is the farmers. That is the sick. We don't have any money. We're going, this country is busted and it's busted because we're doing things that we shouldn't be doing. If we had business ability in this country, we'd be making lots of profit, so-called surplus profit. And that profit, that money could be going to defend our, and I literally mean defend our homeless and our poor and our sick and our farmers. And that's where we ought to be spending the money, not giving it to countries that don't give a damn for us to start offering. We don't give anything to our farmers. Our farmers are dying. There's no question about it. Farms that were for generations and families, they're being taken away. The homeless are all over the streets of the major cities, the sick and the problems, and yet we'll give billions of dollars in defending countries that have five times more money than we can ever hope to have. It's ridiculous.

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.

committee chairman James Colmer. First, your response to John Solomon's report? Well, Solomon's the best investigative reporter out there, and this is just more evidence of how the deep state tried to interfere in our elections. The deep state needs to be held accountable. The evidence is coming forward. Thank God for Cash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard and John Radcliffe. They're doing what we've hoped would be done for a long time, and that's exposing the truth. And with great investigative reporters like John Solomon, great platforms like yours, Sean, we're finally going to see justice. I think at the end of the day, more than anything, we have a new intelligence community, one that we can trust now, one that is going to be rebuilt, and hopefully we'll be safer now because we have a credible intelligence community. But Biden people are coming before your committee and they're either pleading the fifth or they are just in flat out denial of any decline that Joe Biden was experiencing. This memo that says, well, he can't do this event because there's too many steps, and there wasn't a whole lot of them, that he would have to walk on a ship, tells me that they all knew. Are you coming to the conclusion that everybody knew and they're either lying or covering it up? Well, this is more evidence that there was a coverup to try to conceal to the American public Joe Biden's mental decline and physical decline. Look, we couldn't even trust Joe Biden to walk around a ship that was used to protect the American people, and they tried to get him through for another four-year term, much less tried to cover up to the American people the current status of the president of the United States. We look at this investigation of the auto pin, Sean, and we see that all the activity that took place with that auto pin, especially over the last 90 days, during the lame duck period, once Donald Trump won the election, but before he was sworn in as president. And what's at stake in this investigation is to determine whether or not those executive orders and those pardons that were signed by the auto pin are valid. And I think that with the evidence that continues to emerge, including those emails today, that show there was a coordinated effort to conceal how bad a shape Joe Biden was in. I think that's going to not play out well for the future of those executive orders and those pardons in a court of law. All right, James Colmer, House Oversight Committee. Thank you, sir.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

-Give me all of them. -Sure. -Look. -Yeah. -See that? Trump was right about everything. He just came in. Somebody sent. I said, "This was sent in by a fan." I said, "I think we should make some of them, right?" But we were, pretty much. You want one? -I'll pass. -Are you allowed to take one? -No, I'm not. -Because he'll consider it. I know him well. He's sort of a stiff. -I said you were like -- -Brian, you're not a stiff. You're sort of a stiff guy. He'll take other things, but not a free hand. -Always say yes to the president. Always say yes to the president. -Would anybody like one?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.