Female Athletes MELT DOWN Over Sydney Sweeney’s RACY Ad | Brennan Subpoenaed | Clancy Juror’s Brother Speaks Out

I know we could have watched that ad all day. If you were with me for the last rendition of the show, we were trying to get the Sydney Swini ad up and we got it in spades, but the microphone wasn't working. So, hey, who needs to hear me, right? When you can look at her all day, I'll tell you, she's done it again, she's gonna keep on doing it because the left, the left, they just don't, I mean, it's like every chance they have to maybe do something, right? They do wrong and she's capitalizing on all of it. She's definitely done it again. And this time, she's literally it's getting in the game. Like she owns part of this company that she's advertising. We're gonna talk all about the Sydney Swini campaign. We're gonna see it. Oh, and we're gonna talk about the fireworks on Capitol Hill because there are plenty of them today. Oh my goodness. Cash Patel, just wipe on the floor with Cory Booker and Adam Schiff, who were like sitting right next to each other. This was some pretty good theater, but it's more than theater. I'll tell you, because James, Comey, and Brennan are kind of, you know, they're skating on thin ice. We found out from Brennan's lawyers today so that he has been subpoenaed. So that's kind of a big deal. We'll talk about that and whether or not there were in fact civil rights violations of the president of the United States. Oh, and more fireworks with the Treasury Secretary. And what do they call her? Mad Max, really living up to the nickname. Woo, I'll tell you. Also, I gotta, you know, we haven't discussed the whole Clancy situation. And you know, there's reports now that the family of the loan juror, they're really getting harassed and we should talk about that as well. But we begin today on Sydney, sweetie, oh my goodness, she has done it again. I love it. - Thank you, no sports. - Prove it. (laughing) - Oh, we're gonna see more, don't worry. Don't worry. I mean, she appeared here in this totally unapologetic, very provocative ad, all right? Very provocative and almost immediately, well, you know, cue the outrage. I mean, tons of outrage from everybody just flipping out. Lots of women, interestingly, flipping out, right? They just, they were so offended. And it's the female athletes right now that are really, you know, throwing it at her. She apparently, single-handedly, has just thrown women's sports back decades and decades and decades. (laughing) Which I find kind of funny, right? I mean, I know the advertisement is, how shall we say, risque, right? She's like wearing literally nothing, and she's strategically covered by some footballs and some hockey equipment and some tennis rackets and some other sporting props. I mean, she looks great, right? But before we get into all the outrage here, think about where this is coming from. This is coming from women. Sydney, sweetie, is not advertising women's athletics for the record. She's advertising Novik, which is a sports prediction platform in which she reportedly owns an equity stake. So this is her company, too. She is an owner in the company, and that distinction has some haven't lost in this going campaign against her. CNN is calling this hyper-sexualized, here we go. Hyper-sexualized. The New York Times highlighting the female athletes. They are fighting back. It's like women's lib, right, to fight back. I mean, you've even got for goodness sakes the view piling on. Of course, they're not going to miss a controversy, right? Approximately two dozen women have all come forward here in this online movement, accusing Sydney sweetie of presenting a damaging image of women in sports. No, it's not like she's saying she's an athlete for goodness sakes, guys. Get over yourself this gymnast. I guess she's like a former American. She's like a ribbon gymnast. Going on those really special gymnasts. I'm sorry. She's some kind of gymnast. Gracie Kramer. I was not aware of her until this particular incident. Anyway, she helped to ignite this firestorm. She put this up on Instagram, and I'm just going to slow down so I can read it here. I don't know what Sydney's sweetie was doing, but this is what a woman in sports looks like. And then she's got this cute little tune, and she's jumping all over. I mean, it's impressive, sure. OK? By the way, Sydney's like laughing all the way to the bank here because it's doing nothing, but helping to promote Novig. The fact that we're talking about it is helping to promote Sydney's company. You'd think like a real woman would get that, right? Like a real woman would actually say, gee, this woman is an owner in this company, and she's a capitalist, and let me embrace this. I went and sweetie ever claimed that she's what a woman in sports looks like. She didn't say she was a gymnast. She didn't say she was a professional hockey player, that she was a golfer, and she didn't claim to be a tennis champion just because she picked up a racquet here, right? She's an actress who's using the sporting equipment in a very deliberately provocative advertisement for sports prediction business. I mean, that's what she's doing, but whoa, whoa, whoa. I mean, you've got this backlash after backlash. This one woman, she's like an Australian. I think she's Australian. I think she's a surfer. Her name is Felicity Palmer, again, never heard of her, but they're all casheted on their moment of fame, too, right? She went on to CNN because, of course, the media loves this. The media is like, tell us how bad Sydney Sweeney is. Tell us how awful she is. So she goes on and she's like, she's set us back. She's set us back. Here's Felicity Palmer talking to CNN. Just absolute utter disbelief, incredibly disappointing, like how far you can put women's sports backwards in the space of a 42nd commercial. The ad that we saw Sydney Sweeney do is very damaging, especially for young females. We want to be valued for what we can do, not what we look like. Woo, okay. And there's more where that came from, because take a look at this list. I mean, all these people that are jumping on, there's like 20 of them on there. And, you know, by the time I get off the air, there'll be like 40 or 60 or hundreds. I mean, this is becoming a movement. The anti-Sweeney movement. Here's one woman who is an athlete saying, I've spent my entire life competing in a sport where females often have been over sexualized reduced to our bodies and forced to fight to be taken seriously for what we actually do. Then you have Sydney Sweeney. This is what women in sport look like. Muscles, hard work, sweat, blood and tears. And then another is, how do we live in a world where monetizing a woman's body and sexualizing women's sports is still a thing? How do we answer this? Turns out there is such thing as male and female. Gender is a real thing. And men tend to like very attractive, scantily clothed females, okay? This is just the way the world works. Ladies, come on, wake up, a marketing 101. Someone should have taught that little smart ass from Bud Light, a thing or two about the way the world works. Interesting, she was a woman too. Anyway, here's the clip. The very notorious, but in a good way, right? Clip. Okay, Sydney Sweeney take it away. Here she is walking in. Thank you, no sports. Prove that. I should have a banner, right? Just sports. So they wanted a show. So is she talking about sports, sports, sports? How about this? And again, remember this is an ad. Sports, sports, sports. For sports bedding company. So this is kind of exactly what you want, right? Like her whole point is that she wants to have, you know, an ad that is just for sports, but no politics. No big ads. There's, there's a just sports out there. Like calcium, right? Or polymarket, we've talked about them. I actually use their graphics a lot, right? Because they are betting on politics. Sports, sports, sports, sports. Okay, now who's going to forget that? Again, this is like really good, really smart marketing. Now you may want to argue about whether or not sports bedding should exist, you know, and whether sin should exist in such a way that I'm going to tell you we're all adults here. This is the way the world works. Okay, so now everybody is going to remember when they want sports bedding exactly where to go. They're going to remember Sydney, sweetie. All right? And it has nothing to do with what female athletes for like, this is not putting down female athletes. How do they think that? I mean, there's not taking anything away from you guys. She's not claiming that she was an athlete. I mean, don't be ridiculous, but they can't help themselves. All right? They cannot help themselves. Thinking of sports? They're jealous. Prove it. I'm sorry. No big ads. Just sports. You know, I get it. Like, so they wanted to show you and be a little jealous, right? Like, she's obviously a beautiful woman. How about that? But she's not claiming to be in competition with any of your female athletes for goodness. She's not selling tickets to women's gymnastics. She's not choosing a representative for the U.S. Olympic team. She's just attempting to attract customers to make predictions on professional sports and guess what? The majority of those customers are going to be male. And they're going to look at that on football. Perfect. Not women's basketball. And then on men's basketball, OK? Baseball and hockey, so get over yourselves. But, you know, of course, the view had to go there. Totally go there. Sports. We shouldn't give Sydney Sweeney, who I think has-- she's kind of figured out the formula of creating outrage and mock. monetizing that through the ads, which again, you know, more power to her. But we shouldn't give her the power to determine and define the athleticism and ability of female athlete. I'm sorry. It's giving me pause because of its stupidity. Okay. So somehow this one on the view thinks that now Sydney is defining what a woman's athlete's body should be. Excuse me, like, how do we make that giant leap of nonsense? I mean, come on, come on, come on, come on, come on, the equipment, right? That's part of the visual. She's not saying she is a hockey player. Okay. And I get it. Like, ladies, you can just like it. You can call it crude. You can say it's using sex to promote gambling. I mean, at least that would be a coherent argument. Like, I get that one and we can have that debate. But the whole claim that the views making that Sweeney is attempting to define what a female athlete's body should look like. I mean, I don't even know what to say to that because it makes absolutely positively no sense at all. Sweeney is not defining the female athletic body. No, no, no, no, she's displaying her own body, right? And she's an actress. She's not an athlete. And I'm sure she'd be the first to tell you. I thought women were now allowed to celebrate their own bodies, right? Wasn't that like something that they were all about? Haven't we spent years hearing all about body positivity and embrace your body and celebrate your femininity and refuse to conform to somebody else's standards? But apparently that freedom has its limits. Because if you happen to be beautiful, if you happen to be, oh, how shall we say, naturally built, like a Sydney Sweeney, then celebrating your body suddenly becomes an act of aggression against every other woman out there. They're jealous of Sydney Sweeney. And Sydney Sweeney's body somehow is a threat. I mean, why should her body be any less acceptable than whoopie Goldberg's and Anna Navarro's put together for goodness sakes? I mean, if we want to talk about acceptable. I think that I will refrain from being cruel, okay? There's no need to go there, but they are cruel. They are cruel because they are suddenly on the attack of a woman who happens to own a company that is a sports betting company, and she's no dummy. She knows exactly how to give people to remember that she is an owner in the sports betting company. But taking it all off, apparently it was her idea, like I said, new meaning to skin in the game. All right? Her skin. She's clearly in the game. Sports. And she's got actual skin in the game. Like, you know, money at stake. So why does female empowerment suddenly require certain women to cover themselves up? I mean, the next thing you know, they're going to be telling us we should all wear burkas, right? Because somehow that's empowering for goodness sakes. They really don't like pretty women. They really just don't like them, do they? I mean, so Sydney decided to have some fun with this. Sydney decided, you know what? We too can play this game. You guys are going to come after me. I'm going to go after you. I'm going to just respond by posting all these famous athletes. Who also post nude to get attention to their sport? Of course, none of them you really want to say. Just say it. We're talking Serena Williams. I think Megan Rappanui was on that list. Ronda Rusay. I mean, all these people, there were male athletes too that she posted. And, you know, I don't think anybody really wants to see the guys, but nonetheless, she posted this. And so you would think, all right. She's posting these pictures that they might understand her point. But no, no, no, no. Now they're doubling down again. It's like making them even more crazy. If such a thing can be, they're getting crazier and crazier by the minute. Let's go back to the view for the total crazy spectacle. Sydney Sweeney responded to the backlash by posting images of Serena Williams, Ronda Rousey and other athletes who post nude from magazine covers. Now, when an athlete does it, it's a whole different thing because you're looking at this athlete and their athletic body and all the different muscles and stuff. Ronda Rousey, you sort of see what her arms look like. You know, that's an athlete. Yeah. You're an actor who's took a gig to make some dough. I'm not mad at you. It's just an equity statement. I'm not mad at you. I'm not mad at you. But I don't think you can put yourself on equal-- That's the same thing. On equal footing with when the female athletes do that. I agree with you. But I also think we shouldn't give Sydney Sweeney, who I think has-- she's kind of figured out the formula of creating outrage and monetizing that through the ads, which again, you know, more power to her. But we shouldn't give her the power to determine and define the athleticism and ability of female athletes. She posted the pictures of female athletes who'd post nude. How about posting the pictures of male athletes? She posted right. Yeah. But every other thing is, I think Sydney Sweeney is allowed to use her sexuality, however she wants. And female athletes are allowed to be outraged that they're once again being defined by their bodies and not their talents. They're not. Okay? People get over yourselves. They're not. They can go do all the athleticism they want to do. Nobody cares about them on the sports betting app. Right? And she's not an athlete. So I just-- I mean, it's just unbelievable. They just twist themselves in knots, right? She never claimed to possess Serena Williams' tennis record or Ronda Russet's fighting ability. Her point is that she's hot. Okay? And she's using her hotness to help get people on a sports betting platform. She partly owns the company. Okay? I'll tell you this is just like a wild double standard. Because you know, this is not about women's sports. It's ever since American Eagle came out. Think about this. And the great Jean's controversy. You have active visitor attempt to deter Sydney's Sweeney into a political symbol. You got a Jean's ad that suddenly became a national argument about race and eugenics and conservative politics. And Sweeney said she's not a political person. And she rejected the motives and the labels assigned to her. Good for her. Like she's pushing back. But I'll tell you, once the culture decides you're gone, right? Once they cancel you, you're no longer in the approved club. And then the rules change. And so now everything she does has to be interpreted in the worst possible way. She's beautiful. She's feminine. She understands the commercial value of her appearance. And perhaps most infuriating to her critics, she refuses to apologize for it. I mean, she's totally refused. Instead of refusing, she's just posting pictures of female athletes. Again, none of us really want to see that have posed totally in the nude. So this campaign against Sweeney is supposed to be about respecting women yet increasingly to me. Anyway, it looks like an effort to tell one particular woman. She is not permitted to do that with her body. I mean, the others can. But not her. Come on, I'm just going to, I don't think that's progress. Like I really don't think we have progress. But you know what, there is some progress out. There is some progress on one front. A little progress here. Thanks to Sydney Sweeney, because I'll tell you the error of corporations lecturing their own customers. Oh, he could finally be coming to an end. And the evidence may be Sydney Sweeney wearing absolutely positively nothing. There are a lot of people who can get there in this new campaign, new campaign that just is driving all of these woke dare I say? Feminists? Totally wild, right? They just cannot accept that Sydney Sweeney would do an ad like this. And what I'm just going to tell you is, hey, you know what sports? Times have changed. It's no big ad. It's just sports betting prediction market. And they want to jump into this market. It's a brand new, brand new company, right? Like it's been dominated by traditional sports books, and major predictions platforms as well. Sports, sports. And now all of a sudden, this new kid comes along. And they've got the ad that's provocative and unapologetic and understands the first rule of marketing, which is no. Thank you, no sport? Customer. Prove it. Okay. No big ads. No big ads, obvious. Just sports. Just sports. Some of America's largest corporations spent years trying to forget it. The best example being Bud Light. Bud Light spent decades building an incredibly valuable relationship, right? With mainstream America and working class beer drinkers. It understood the importance of having some good-looking girls in the commercial. It understood the importance of football to the audience, of friends and humor and, yes, beautiful women in some Clydesdale horses, you know, it's not that complicated and it totally worked. And then lunging, Dylan Moveini. And that promotion blew up decades and decades and decades of brand building. Whatever Bud Light executives thought they were accomplishing, you know, because they wanted to get rid of the frat boys, they wanted a whole new audience. It's telling them that particular part of the population is only still like 0.001 percent of the population. I mean, I know they're trying to grow, but, you know, that wasn't going to be much of a market for you guys. Okay? Just not much of a market. But what they thought they were accomplishing was that they were bringing in all these new people and that they were going to have a totally different customer base and that it was all going to be new and woke and great, except they completely alienated the people that brought them to the dance. Their actual customers were furious, right? And immediately stopped buying it. It lost its position as America's Dopsel and beer and one promotional decision became the enduring symbol of a company who decided to prioritize fashionable culture messaging over the preference of their actual customers. Okay? Now that, compare that with this company, Novik. Novik needed to get the attention of sports fans. Its potential customers presumably would include, you know, many of those guys that are out there betting on football. Maybe you included, right? Basketball, baseball hockey, all those things. So the company partnered with the most recognizable and I'm just going to say it, like, I'm a woman and I'm not intimidated by that the way that ladies on the view seem to be was one of the most physically striking women in the world who has no qualms about flaunting her sexual appeal. So it didn't get out there in lecture to its perspective customers about the importance of locism. No, no, no. It didn't tell them. We got to get you to reconsider your values, we're going to challenge your values. It didn't tell them that they were outdated and that their preferences were somehow quaint. It gave them Sidney Swini for goodness sakes. That's what I'm talking about, not that hard, okay? Bud Light trying to reshape its customer and this company comes along as the new kid on the block and it says, what do we need to get? We're going to give them Sidney Swini. In order to get Sidney Swini on board, we're going to give her part of our company because they probably couldn't afford her. They studied their customer. That is the difference. They respected their customer. But here comes the first twist, Sidney Swini is not merely a hired actress, okay? Collecting a check for her endorsement. She and Novig have a reported partnership. She helped develop the concept and most importantly, she became an equity stakeholder. Kaching in the business. In other words, if Novig is going to profit from her image, Sidney Swini intends to participate in the financial app style, it shows me that she understands and commands the attention and the situation and by the way, Novig, they couldn't be happier. I mean, the CEO was out today. I mean, he's pleased as punch, right? Like, why wouldn't you be? We're all talking about it. There are a lot of people who have feelings about Sidney as a person that sort of predate this campaign. So, working with her, we know obviously expected the people who already hate her would be sort of loud and vocal, but ultimately, I think she did a great job at sort of conveying the essence of our company and, you know, we've been very happy with how positive the feedback has been overall. I was just laying in the comments. So that's the CEO. We've been very happy with how positive the feedback has been. She understood what she needed to do. And by the way, like everybody's talking about it. So isn't that part of the value in and of itself, Cat Crazy Sam writing, maybe the point is also that Sidney brings out the masculinity and men, huh? They worked very hard at trying to make that toxic and they felt, you know, it's a great point, Cat Crazy Sam. It's a great point because they did try to make you feel like if you were somehow masculine, you know, if you stood up for certain values that you were toxic, toxic masculinity, that's all we heard about. And now here comes Sidney and she's like, you know, a toxic masculinity, who cares, right? Like I just find this kind of amusing. Instead of pretending like she's someone she's not, instead of the company pretending it's someone they're not, they're all embracing it. And while that may make some people on the left really uncomfortable and some of the quote unquote feminists that, by the way, they're never sticking up for women, are they? They're never sticking up for women. I mean, when it comes to women's sports, give me a break. The idea that this Megan Rapa Newy lady just thinks it would be, I mean, she would get beaten by a high school boys soccer team. I think she was. There was like some amateur group that played her. I mean, for them to sit there and say, like, yeah, it's totally fine for guys to play women's sports. I mean, they're completely off the rocker and they're not intellectually honest. Or are they being physically honest because let's just face it, you're never going to be as good. I'm sorry. Like, I hate to break the news to you, right? Man and women are built differently. Go look at the biology of it and you're not going to have the same kind of strength. You're just not. So why do you think that women have to beat the guy? Look, why can't you just beat the other women? I mean, none of it makes sense. And then here comes along a woman who's actually capitalizing on, okay, you guys, you get a kick out of guys, right? Well, apparently she does, too. And she's like, caching, right? All the way to the bank. This is her company now and she's actually really taking a stand. And now you remember it. I'll tell you, female athletes coming out and condemning this, they're, they're just taking this way too personally, way too personally. It's not about you. She's not even talking about betting on women's sports because no one watches. Unfortunately, the WMBA has been learning this the hard way, right? Enough women's sports for it to really matter on a big scale. I mean, this scale, that would be like one thin, thin, thin, thin, thin market. There would be like no liquidity. I don't think you can have much of a betting market. I mean, maybe it's starting to happen a little bit, embassable for the WMBA, but for most part, again, this is not about women and she's not pretending to be an athlete. So I would just say, Sydney Sweeney job well done. You commanded our attention. The imagery provoked a reaction. You knew your critics would be apoplectic. You knew they would just be spinning out of control and the ladies on the view would have all this hate, which just helps you even more, okay? So the controversy, if you ask me, was not an unfortunate side effect. It was actually an important part of the distribution study. I mean, I think about the economics of this relatively new company, spending an enormous fortune purchasing conventional advertisements that most consumers would completely totally ignore instead. No big creates one big commercial provocative enough to make CNN the New York Times the view. Olympic athletes, social media users completely flip out and distribute the ad voluntarily. It's critics are doing all the advertising for it. You see, this is what you call a free media buy. Donald Trump always understood this. Sydney Sweeney understands it too because every television segment that gets out there bashing Sydney Sweeney, every athlete out there reposting her little rebuttal, it just means more people are going and saying, where can I find this commercial, okay? I want to see the commercial, the commercial that like in the first two days got something like 22 million views, unbelievable, right? You can't buy marketing like that. Before this controversy, who knew what NoVig was? I didn't, I'd never heard of the company. Never, never. I mean, she isn't undermining the marketing strategy. She's actually completing it. The critics are out. They think that they're actually punishing her, but they are actually increasing the value of her ownership stake, all right? I mean, if you want to talk about sports betting and whether or not we should be betting on sports and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and it's an addiction and, you know, look, I tend to be a little bit libertarian on these things and you can bet on the stock market too. You can bet on sports. I mean, I just don't have as big a problem with this, but I understand and I get it. And there is a lot of concern, especially with young boys, right, that they're out there and they're betting on these things and maybe using sex appeal is actually going to encourage more people to get out there and be part of those betting markets. And I understand that if you want to take a hard look at sports wagering, right, and whether or not that can become addictive, we can have that conversation. And that's a serious argument and that is a fair argument for sure, but that's not what they're talking about on all these programs, right? That's not what they're talking about. What they're talking about is how bad Sydney Swini is and how she has somehow demeaned female athletes by holding a tennis racket or wearing a hockey mask and looking quite beautiful, right, and having a little bit of, you know what going on. So I'm just saying, like, guys have so lost the plot. I mean, it's just, it's exactly what happened with Kamala versus Trump. I mean, come on, Harris. I mean, it's different. right? And nobody's looking at Kamala like who? But you understand, like, when you just keep giving us these wild reasons, insane reasons, or you got to vote for Kamala because of this, and you know, you can't look at Cindy Sweeney. I mean, people are just going to do the opposite, and they're going to do what's most natural for them. And when Bud Light presents a transgender personality as their spokesperson, people don't want to drink Bud Light, okay? The audience that Bud Light had was a valuable audience, and they made a massive mistake. Like, this will be studied for decades to come at universities that are smart enough to get it because a lot of universities, whole other conversation, are not smart enough to get it. But I'll tell you, that one controversy drove customers away. What's happening right here? This one controversy is bringing more and more customers in because this woman gets it, her team, and I guess she's got Scooter Braun advising her. He's her boyfriend now. And yeah, we get nobody can Scooter Braun any just as well. But I mean, if this is his thing, he's smart. He's smarter than the lady that got the MBA from Harvard, right, that was there at Bud Light. Trying to get rid of all the frat boys. I guess she accomplished that. I'm trying to find a new market. She didn't find the new market. But he's smart in that, you know, he's pairing up with Cindy, and together they're looking at what is the opportunity. And you don't apologize, and you don't back down. No big S. And she's not doing sports. She's all in for the win. So my hat goes off to her. I love it. Okay. I absolutely love it. Make sure you subscribe, share like. And if you like what I have to say on all the political and culture and all that good stuff, you know, I have a lot to say on the economy as well on a lot to say on stocks and markets. And oh, our own little betting market, right? This is not a betting market though. This is just research. Hate to disappoint you. This is just research over at 76 research. I've got three portfolios. They've all done extraordinarily well. I'm super, super, super, super proud of it. This is my company that I started with a very good friend who is a stock picker on Wall Street for decades, and he's brilliant at it. So go check out 76research.com. We are all about capitalism here on the Trish Weekend show. It's very, very important to us. You know, what else is important to us? The direction of this country. And I'll tell you, it's it's under fire. Fireworks erupting on Capitol Hill today. You had the FBI Director Caspatel going head to head with Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. And I got to tell you I got a little bit personal Cory Booker, Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey. He got a little bit cray, cray. And Chuck Grassley threw a total fit. I mean, I don't think I've ever heard him so angry. This is good stuff, guys. By the way, violent crime arrests by the FBI New Jersey are up 75%. I'm top of the historic results. We've already delivered for the American people. Yeah, thanks to the state police, respect to the laws that he continues to tell. There's nothing I said here is a lot. You said your time's up. Are you done or not? No, are you done or not? You want to answer my question? If you want to my questions, go to the next person. This is ridiculous. What a mockery you are. You are the biggest mockery in the United States Senate and you're sitting next to ships. Yeah, well, 8 million people in New Jersey don't think so. At least I didn't get my job the way you got your job. Sir, you go in or fear with Senator Graham. I ask you her questions. I certainly will. Two as well. Are you done now? Are you ready to shut up? I am done, sir. Oh, I told you, Grassley got a little bit upset. Are you done now? Oh, we actually have another angle on this. You can see it even better. It's worth it's worth taking a peek. This actually backs up a little bit earlier. So you see Chuck Grassley getting angry or angry or angry. The Cory Booker and Cash just being like whatever and he just wipes the florism here. Take a look at this other angle. So you understand, Mr. Director, why during the Kavanaugh hearings, I let people talk and talk because it takes longer to shove them up than it does to let them talk. Now you go ahead and say what you want to say. I don't have much to say. This guy called me a thug. It's kind of ironic. He's running for president of the United States. He just got his 22nd ad campaign next. Sandra Graham. I think Sandra Graham's eggs. Don't worry, you're done. I'm done. Somebody behind me is yelling. Yeah, brother, I will repeat what you said. You're getting thrown out, but they can't throw me out. I'm going to hold this man accountable for as long as it isn't his job until he gets fired, which he probably will because he's incompetent at his job and continues to do things that merit his removal. Yes, shame on you, sir. Director Patel, were you done? By the way, violent crime arrests by the FBI New Jersey are up 75% on top of the historic results. Yeah, thanks to the state police. They're all the police that he continues to tell. Turn nothing I have said here is a lie. You said your time is up. Are you done or not? This is ridiculous. You are the biggest mockery in the United States Senate and you're sitting next to shit. Are you going in or fair with Senator Graham? I'm asking her questions. I certainly will not. Two as well. Are you done now? I am done, sir. Oh my gosh. That was really kind of feisty. Kind of feisty. I mean, a lot of what cash was pushing back on today was, you know, some of this deep state stuff. And there's no one better to push back on with that stuff than would be Adam Schiff. So if you thought it was getting feisty with Booker, wait until you see Shifty Shift. Shifty Shift really taking it away here. Let's go to this little sound bite here. He's losing it on cash and cash fires back spectacularly. I want to read you a statement that you made about the press. This was in 2024. When you said that the mainstream media was quote the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen. You stand by that? Your colleagues put that on full display here today. Do you stand by that? I'm answering the question. Your colleagues put that on full display by hacking around the same lies. No, no, no, this is this is your comment. That's what makes the majority of the mainstream media. I don't want to go over my time as other colleagues have. I've answered the question. If you could answer question, do you stand by this statement? That's a great picture. You should post it. Do you stand by your statement? I always do. So is it your view then that the media is a greater enemy than Iran? That's not what I said. I said the media that participates in lying like you do and the baseless attacks on me and my personnel and my loved ones is the most harmful institution to the United States of America. This mainstream media that you're accusing of lying, you're talking about the New York Times. Are you talking about the New York Times? Aren't you and then the ones that will approach your collusion? Is it in that envelope that you held up? We need an extra minute. We're continuing as long as the legal strides are warned. You can all stipulate for the record all the insults you want to make later but I don't I don't want to have to go over my time but I will have to. I'm allowed to answer questions. Mr. Patel, let me ask you specifically about some of your attacks on the media. Mr. Booker tried to get an answer from you, a very simple answer about the reporter who wrote an article about potential misuse of an FBI SWAT team by himself. They didn't happen. Total lie. And what he asked you so let me repeat it because you didn't answer his question. What he asked you lies? Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to extend time the more he does this. We don't have to ask my question, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask both of you? He asked his question then like I said. Mr. Chairman, I've made my decor. I'm through this entire hearing. His colleagues have called me a thug, a liar, basically attacked my loved ones, continuing to jeopardize the safety of me and mine. All the while to advance their political narrative, he's doing the same. I would appreciate it if you concluded this hearing because this guy is no interest in oversight. Mr. Chairman, that's been about two minutes of Phil Buster, so reclaiming my time. Here's what I want to do. You asked your question and then when he's done, you will have time to respond. Okay, it's time's up. So my question, Mr. Chairman, is following this New York needs this question right now. I'm just teasing. But the reason why that I think that this is becoming so stressful for some of these Democrat senators is, in this particular case, he's arguing that somehow cash potel thinks that the media is "an enemy." And here's what I would tell you. And I've said this over and over and over again on this show and throughout the years. The problem with the media in all seriousness is that it's doing the bidding of the left. And the left has gotten so crazy, right? Just so, so, so crazy right now. And there's this division because Trump is sort of like Sidney Sweeney, right? Like he's just poking their vans and like, boom, they like they They go nuts and it's just like, you know, she comes out with a sports betting commercial where she's not wearing a whole lot and all the females are going nuts on her, right? And then what do you know? She's riding it all the way to the bank because now we know about a company that none of us had heard about before. Well, with Donald Trump, he'd get out there and say things and people were like, "Hey, yeah," right? And they were like things that the left would never like dare to say, really, although in many cases, when I look at his positions, they're actually not that different from what the left wants argued, especially on the border years ago. So it's just that he's saying and so they flinch, right? Anytime he says anything, but he just keeps getting out there and he keeps saying it and he says it and he's got a lot of conviction and he's true to himself and he's not the phony and trying to be anybody else. And the next thing you know, people are following him, right? And he gets elected and they're flipping out. And so they call all their friends in the media and they got a lot of friends in the media, trust me. And all their media friends say, "Okay, well, you know, what is the story that you want us to publish today?" And there it is. And so you think about what the media's done in some ways, I look at it and think, "Hey, you know, who the heck needs China or who needs Putin or anybody else trying to mess with us because we're clearly doing a really good job at messing with ourselves. Are we not like, we're messing with ourselves non-stop because we've got the media that's just on the attack, the attack, the attack, the attack. So they're losing it on cash over and over and over again today. That's what we heard from the hearing. He's pushing back rightly so, arguing that, you know, yeah, the media kind of is a problem. That's why he was teasing and saying, "Hey, you know, I like your poster there because the media really is a problem." Yeah, I agree with that. I stand by that statement. Now, I would say that he's also through his investigations and in cooperation with the DOJ. They are trying to get to the bottom of what really happened for the last 10 years, right? Going all the way back to 2016 and going all the way back to 2020, and underneath all of this, right? Underneath the fireworks, we've actually got a much bigger story because while Democrats are out there accusing cash would tell of politicizing the FBI, the Justice Department is actively investigating, actively investigating whether the FBI in the intelligence community were politicizing themselves against all in Trump in the first place, which brings us to some very big news. Former CIA director, John Brennan has been subpoenaed, ladies and gentlemen. The former CIA director has been subpoenaed according to Brennan's own attorney. He has been ordered to appear October 15th before a federal grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida. And here's a bit of a twist. This is not simply one investigation. Now, this is actually a very big, well, there's like two investigations going on. Very big investigation. This is big, important stuff. And I think it actually could lead to some big problems for Brennan. So you get two separate tracks. The first is a little bit more narrow. Did John Brennan lie to Congress about the Steele dossier in the 2017 Intel Community Assessment? Brennan has testified that the CIA opened a rather opposed, including the dossier. The CIA opposed, including the dossier. He said that the CIA was not involved with it. But here's the big butt. You've got some declassified records that have been cited by the House Judiciary Committee that tell actually a very different story. And they indicate that Brennan may have made the ultimate decision along with James Comey. Why would this not surprise me, right? To include information from the dossier, despite warnings from a senior CIA officer about its flaws, right? And obviously, there were serious flaws because it was just a bunch of garbage. And it was something that was commissioned by an opposition research firm that went out and hired, right? Fusion GPS. It was actually commissioned by Hillary Clinton and her campaign, who went through a law firm in DC, who then hired Fusion GPS, who then basically went out and hired Christopher Steele. And Christopher Steele was fed a bunch of garbage by some Russian spies. So there you have it, right? Like, you know, if you get a real CIA, they ought not to be treating this as gospel. But you see, that would have ruined the politics of it all. That wouldn't have. So if prosecutors can prove that Brennan knowingly, willingly went out there and gave Congress false answers about that origin over the document, he could actually face federal false statement charges. And his own attorney says prosecutors still consider him a target in that investigation. Target is a very specific word. It means the prosecutors believe that they have substantial evidence connecting that person, in this case, Brennan to a potential crime. But here's the problem for Brennan. It gets even bigger than that, even bigger, because Russia was not the last time that John Brennan used the, shall we say, prestige of his former intel position to advance a political narrative that benefited one party at the expense of another. I'm talking Joe Biden and Donald Trump, right? Remember the 51x books, all those intel hacks that signed on to that rather infamous letter claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop had all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation. Oh, oopsie daisy. Yeah, John Brennan signed it. The laptop was real. That was not a hoax. And the FBI already had it. And if you were John Brennan, you should have known that, right? Joe Biden then used that letter during a presidential debate to dismiss the entire story as nothing but Russian disinformation. Oh, you crazy Trump people. You crazy Trump people. You're just being fed aligned by the Russians. Oh, when it turns out, we're being fed aligned by the former acting CIA director Mike Morelle, who was the lead architect of that entire letter and who worked with John Brennan, who championed that letter and signed that letter and put his name as former title, the credibility of our CIA behind a claim that was just designed for political reasons. That was just designed to help shut down a very damaging story about Hunter Biden days before a presidential election. So signing that letter by itself, I get it not necessarily a crime. I mean, hey, I think it should be. I think it should be totally a crime. You're deliberately lying if you know something. And you're lying to the American people and using your former CIA credentials at that for your own political benefit. I would just say this, yeah, that should be a crime. But in this case, it's going to be part of the broader investigation, right? Because the second part of this investigation involving Brennan is the so-called Grand Conspiracy investigation in Florida. Now, we haven't talked a lot about that, but it's a biggie. Prosecutors are reportedly examining whether former government officials worked together over the period of years to, well, deprived Donald Trump of his civil rights through official investigations. And that theory could connect the original Russia investigation, the Intel assessment, the steel dossier, and even the later Mar-a-Lago investigation could all, these things could all be connected, okay? All be connected. And if they are connected, I'll tell you, it's going to raise a really explosive question. Were they isolated events? Or were they different chapters of the same playbook? I mean, think about how it seems, at least, from my perch, that they may have been working together. I mean, the Intel community seem to have a vendetta against him. Comey seem to have a vendetta, Brennan seem to have a vendetta. Latisha, James, and Alvin Bragg up in New York, they really seem to have a vendetta, and you gotta wonder how coordinated this was, were they deliberately doing this to try and discredit Donald Trump? I mean, that goes back even before, right? I mean, this is very serious stuff, and if it turns out that they were all involved in this effort, it would be an undermining of a U.S. citizen's civil rights. And so I'm just saying he could be in a whole lot of trouble. He really could be, and we'll see where this goes, but he just came out today and said, "Yes, they are subpoenaing him." All right, and don't forget, we haven't talked about crossfire hurricane in a while, because James Comey, he comes in there. He was involved in the handling of the steel dossier, and he was directly, directly involved in the intelligence community's presentation of all those Russia claims. Alfonso, it's good to see you back in the chat. Welcome back. Yeah, Brennan, all these Glouffin-Mural, deep state, I gotcha. I gotcha, you know, this sort of deep state apparatus seems to me to have been a well-oiled machine that was working aggressively to try and take down the president of the United States, who still is an American citizen, and therefore still has certain civil rights. I mean, I'm just gonna say, you know, they're gonna, at some point be looking at that dossier, and they're gonna be looking at the fact that they knew that that wasn't verified, and they wanna know who overruled the rulings to say that's not verified, and what a Brennan and Comey tell each other at the time, their stories. I'll tell you, they could be plausible, I guess, on their own, but I have a hard time, leaving that because I think these people talk to each other and I think what you got to do is you got to match the documents and see what matches up here and like I said it could be a very big case and a very broad case. Now, a subpoena is not a conviction, right? And we're waiting. We're waiting. And Brennan denies all this. He says he wasn't lying and his lawyers insist that this is nothing but political retribution. They're already asking a federal judge to preserve justice department records so that they can argue selective or vindictive prosecution down the road if he is charged. But that defense does not make the grand jury disappear and it does not erase Brennan's own testimony. So here's the bottom line, okay? John Brennan is no longer merely in my estimation commenting on these investigations from the safety of a television studio. He's under subpoena. His own lawyer says he remains a target in a separate false statements investigation. And he is now caught inside a second far reaching probe that could put James Comey in the entire origin story of the Trump Russian investigation back under the microscope. So when you see Booker and Schiff out there shouting at Kashpetal about the politicization of the FBI as they tried to do today, I would just say that the formal consequential question here hanging over the entire hearing is not really did Kashpetal politicize the FBI. But whether he is finally investigating the people that did politicize the FBI when they did. Right? Oh, there were more fireworks to on Capitol Hill today. There were more believe me there were a whole lot more and I want to get to those. But first I want to tell you about one of our great sponsors on the show. Just a wonderful wonderful group of Americans for prosperity. When was the last time you read the words that created the United States of America? Really? You know, my son is in eighth grade and he's he's reading him right now. I'm going to give you the name of this a 250 tool kit dot com Ford slash Trish. If you can go over there and check it out, it's all free. And you can sign the Declaration of Independence yourself and get they've got a wonderful sort of display of American history there. Anyway, my son's reading it in eighth grade, which I'm relieved about, you know, you know, sometimes you wonder what they're teaching these days, but I'm glad to get some good old fashion American history in there. It's an extraordinary document. I mean, I was a US history major colonialist. Yeah, I loved colonial America. Why? Because I loved our founding fathers long before I was ever in this business. Okay? Like I've always been fascinated by the foundation of our country. I grew up and lived free or die New Hampshire, right? So everywhere you went, not only did you see liver, live free or die plastered over, you know, I was like a little kid like three years old, right? And I'd look up and I'd see these cars in the parking lot and those were like the first words I could read, live free or die. But I also just was always reminded about our great history as a nation because we were one of the 13 colonies there in New Hampshire. And there's just so much revolutionary war history everywhere you go. Ports with New Hampshire, for example, right nearby where I grew up, but our founding fathers, they declared a voluntary and revolutionary truth, which is that all men are created equal. Our rights come from God. Not government. And freedom is the birthright of every single American citizen. Well, think about how those words really changed the world. I mean, here we are on the 250th birthday of this country, which is just so wonderful. And you can take one small step on your own to help keep those principles alive. Join my friends over to Americans for Prosperity on the Declaration Project. That's what it's called. And like I said, it's like this multimedia center where you get all this information and great little stories. And if your history buff like me, trust me, you will love this. You can take the pledge to read the Declaration of Independence with your friends at a barbecue. I'm thinking this weekend, right? Your neighbors at the pool or your children before parade. Oh, that's a good one, right? Talk about one principle that still matters to you today because freedom is in self sustaining. I want to remind you that each generation has to understand that we have to cherish it and we have to pass it on. So take the pledge today and be part of a national reading of a document that made America possible. You can go to a250toolkit.com again, a250toolkit.com. And we thank them for all their support. This show comes to you in part through to the support of Americans for Prosperity. So go check out their toolkit and show them a little love. Let them know you watch the Trish weekend show. Again, it's all free. All right, want to get back to Capitol Hill because wow, wow, wow, wow, it just doesn't stop, right? This was quite a day. And you know, we had not just the fireworks going on with Booker and Caspital and Shifty Shift and the whole crew. But we also had Thomas Massey rearing his head because he wants to impeach Pete Hegseth, yeah, I said that. I want you to see this. Congressman Thomas Massey today introduced articles of impeachment against Secretary Hegseth. Who did Thomas Massey? Oh, okay, for allegedly violating the war power's resolution. He's like, who did? Oh, okay, okay. Yeah, that's kind of my reaction to Thomas Massey dream on. Okay, you keep on dreaming, Mr. I don't know what you're going to do when your expiration date hits, which is come pretty soon. Anyway, that was Todd Blanche, head of the DOJ. He filled in for Caroline Levitt today. Oh, by the way, we haven't even talked about Mitch. Mitch McConnell made a guest appearance, which means maybe, maybe Scott is out of the woods, right? Like, you know, he can come clean because people were like, is he really telling the truth when he says Mitch McConnell is live and well and apparently Mitch McConnell is live and well. So maybe Scott's going to get his appointment announced. I'm just speculating, I'm guessing, I digress. But Massey is trying to take out Pete Hegseth. He's accusing the Secretary of War of helping President Trump wage a quote illegal war against Iran, but there's only one big problem with Massey's plan here. Let's go and know where. Massey introduced eight articles of impeachment, say, not one, eight, accusing Hegseth of violating the constitution, defying Congress and continuing military operations without proper authorization. Oh, yeah, it was, it was quite a list, quite a list there. And because Massey introduced this as a privileged resolution, he can somehow force the House to do something with it, possibly as early as Thursday. But what does that actually mean? I mean, you really think that the House is going to impeach Pete Hegseth. It means Republicans will probably move to table it, refer it to a committee or just what they should do just to feed it outright. But, you know, he got his 20 seconds of fame today and he turned that into three minutes. Don't worry, we're not going to play the whole thing. Just the easy busy start of it. Impeaching Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, resolved that Peter Brian Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, also referred to as Secretary of War by the administration, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited. Okay, so eight exhibits, right? Massey's central argument here is that President Trump's operation against Iran began without an official declaration of war. Now, we've talked about this before. How the heck are you going to declare war when you know you get Ayanna Pressley and we're seated to leave in Ilhan Omar and AOC in the rest of them out there running and calling their their buddies on the other side, right? Like that, that actually wouldn't really fly. Like the whole element of surprise is actually kind of critical. Oh, there he goes again. Okay, let's let's let's turn this this little guy down. So anyway, Massey goes on and on and on and you know he's like I said his three minutes of fame and he's saying you can't do this without a declaration war and then he cited basically that this would not be allowed because it would you know effectively you need to have a president notify Congress after introducing American forces into hostilities and without congressional authorization. The president is supposed to he says and those hostilities within 60 days with an additional 30 days permitted for withdrawal. So this is some 1973 thing that he's citing and saying that the clock has expired. Now the Trump administration says no, no, no, no, no, it did not. Oh, look, he's still talking. Okay, the Trump administration is saying it did not actually. It did not and the administration's legal position is that the the original round of active hostilities ended when the ceasefire took effect. So once those hostilities ended that the war powers clock actually stopped. So when fighting later resumed, the administration argues this is a whole new time, a whole new episode of hostilities, not the uninterrupted continuation of an official operation. So in simple terms, basically, Massey says it has been one long war and the Justice Department's position is no, this is not been one long war. There was a real break in the fighting and therefore the old 60-day clock cannot simply be kept running throughout a period when active hostilities had ended. And you know, I didn't think about it at the time, but I wonder if that was a big part of the thinking and the methodology. That's why they they called this one off, right? When they perhaps, I mean, I always thought it was because they were trying to give Iran something and I was like, oh, you know, don't give them anything, don't give them an inch, but maybe it was because they wanted to deal with this onslaught of what Massey and others would have thrown at them. The DOJ is He's also relying on the president's constitutional authority, right? He's Commander-in-Chief, and president's from both parties. Let's face it, I have a long claim in the power to order limited military operations without first obtaining a formal declaration of war, I mean, especially to protect our American forces. You can't do it. You've got to defend the country, right? You've got to respond to attacks. You can't sit there and take a vote every single time, like that's not going to work, right? So you get a safeguard, vital, national interest, and that's what that presidential power enables you to do. It doesn't mean the president can go and launch a forever war without consequences, but Congress retains enormous power, and it can refuse the money. It can pass binding legislation. Yes, it can impeach officials, but in this case, there was a stopping of the war before it started again, and so, you know, messy, forget about it, you get all kinds of problems here. All kinds of, like, holes in his legal argument, the legal question is not really settled in his favor here, because for decades, presidents, Democrats, and Republicans, they have all disputed Congress's attempts to use the war powers to micromanage whatever military operations they have. Because again, if you get attacked, like you got to be able to fight back, you don't need to, like, go and take a big poll and see what we're sheeded to leave, and Ilhan Omar think today. No, you got to be able to act, and so it should be within your constitutional powers. And then you got one more problem, you know, why impede Hegseth, I would just ask Tommy Massey, for carrying out military orders that were issued by President Trump. I mean, why not go and just impeach the president if it's that important to you? Because Hegseth, it's not like he was acting alone, he wasn't doing this in a vacuum. He did not unilaterally himself declare war, he's the cabinet official that's responsible for carrying out what the president wants, right, for executing the president's military policies. So another reason why this whole thing is just a charade, and it's just so frickin' fake and stupid to remove him, Massey would need first a simple majority of the House to approve at least one article of impeachment. I don't think he's going to get it. Republicans control the House. The Republican leadership supports Hegseth big time in the Pentagon. The Pentagon's behind him. So everyone's behind him here, and the DOJ's behind him for goodness' sake. I mean, that's why let's go back to the tape. You see Todd Blanche's rolling his eyes. Who did this? Oh, Massey, of course. And then he goes on to say what a great Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is. Listen. Who did? Thomas Massey. Oh, okay. For allegedly violating the war power's resolution. Secretary Hegseth is doing a phenomenal job, and the Secretary of War doesn't just go off and do things. So he follows the law. And so the DOJ plays a role in that, and we play an active role in making sure the laws comply with. You call that a war. I disagree with that characterization, as does most of Congress. And so there's been votes on whether it's a war and what to do, and why votes through Congress, which has determined that he's not doing anything wrong, and the president's not doing anything wrong should result in articles of impeachment. I guess you'll have to talk to Massey about that. This is stupid, right? It is more circus and more theater and more of a distraction and frankly wasted energy. But this is actually, I think, a good warning sign of what's to come in that we have to be very concerned. If the Democrats actually take it in midterms, and I don't know is that's going to happen, I don't like to think about that, but we're all realists here, and if that happens, guess what you're going to see a whole bunch more of that, because they want to basically prevent him from moving forward and getting things done by marrying him down in all this nonsense. And so you're going to see a lot of theater and a lot more circus, and that's my concern about the future, because we're on a roll here, right? Good things are happening. The border is shut. You might be actually taking out Iran, you know, for the first time in 47 years, I mean, having to deal with that headache. We've got a European sort of move to the conservative right. What do you know? And they're actually talking about paying their NATO bills. I mean, it's unbelievable, right? There's a lot of good stuff happening, and you think about us dominating on the AI front. I know it scares people, but you sure as heck don't want China dominating it, we have to own that space. And so these are some of the things that Treasury Secretary Besant was faced with today, when he went up before Congress, because they're all like, gosh, you know, energy prices and the economy and this and that. And he's making the point that, you know, our economy's actually doing pretty good. You know, we have low unemployment. We still have relatively low inflation in the scheme of things. I mean, I would have thought it would have been a lot higher right now, too, in light of everything going on, but that's in part because of the productivity gains. And so all in, like, we're not in a terrible spot, but don't tell Mad Max, oh gosh, Mad Max really living up to her nickname here today on Capitol Hill. I know, Mrs. Secretary, yes, I know, Mrs. Secretary, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time. Oh, boy, oh, boy, oh, boy, you know, I always get a kick out of it whenever she, asks questions about the economy. She tends to dig herself in, I think, because she just doesn't understand the first thing about the economy, but I should point out, and he pointed that out, that employment remains pretty strong. I mean, what do we have? 4.1%, we have 162,000 jobs added in August, not bad, right? That is not evidence of a recession. That is not evidence of a collapsing labor market. You get underlying inflation, which by the way, under Biden was up to 9.0% percent in 22, and today, I mean, we don't love it, it's 3.4% inflation, right? But core inflation has fallen to 2.4%, it shows you that that inflation is really coming from energy prices, and I know that's tough, and no one likes it. But still, this is not 9.1% like we had with Biden, I mean, we were nearly in double digits. In terms of American's income, this is actually important, because personal income actually rose in the month of July, disposable income increased as well, meaning households had more after tax income available. I know it doesn't feel like it, and we can talk about some of the reasons for that. It's in part because the inflation thing, it's just been off to the races for too long, right? You had retail sales improving in July, not bad, after having fallen a little bit in June, so it suggests a rebound in the consumer, and consumers are still out there spending, although they're being selective, that's fair. And then, you know, look, we're still expanding, we're not in a recessionary environment. We get real GDP climbing, 1.5% annual rate, I get it. It's not 5% like the president would like, but it's not bad, okay? It's not bad. It's not contracting. But to hear these devs, holy moly, I mean, let's go to the full exchange between Mad Max. It's an endearing nickname, and our Treasury Secretary Scott Besson. >> The US bond market has been the best performance in the major bond market in the world. >> Yes, I know Mr. Secretary. >> Record. >> We climb in my time. We climb in my time. >> Record. >> Reclay in my time, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time. You keep talking, I'll keep reclaiming my time. And I'm asking you, Mr. Secretary, turn it to your trade policy. If tariffs are not inflationary as you claimed in your previous testimony, then why has inflation increased by more than 3% over the past year? Do you deny that inflation is too high at 3%? Yes or no? >> The representative wants to. >> Yes or no, Mr. Secretary. >> If you believe the chair is reclaiming my time. >> Reclay in my time. >> It's the general ladies. >> Oh my gosh. >> You know what you're saying? >> I said it's the general ladies. >> That's the general ladies. >> Indeed. >> Indeed it does. And so, that's not good enough, Sarah. You and President Trump, the so-called conservatives, you have overseen an increase in the debt to a record, $40 trillion, $40 trillion. You have promised reduced deficit, but deliver only higher numbers and pay for American households. And this is so outrageous when you and others have claimed to be about getting rid of the deficit. Well, but maybe none of that matters if President Trump continues to blindly push for AI and data centers with absolutely no safeguards. He is doing this even as constant threat to our rocket for America. Did you hear what Bill Gates had to say? Did you hear what Elon Musk had to say? Did you hear about Anthropic? Did you hear about Amo Day? >> You may have heard about Anthropic and some of that. And by the way, again, I keep going back to you. You certainly don't want China building it. And Donald Trump's not about to let China get the edge on all that AI. Think about Anthropic and how tight they are with the Dems, okay? I'd also say this. Anthropic, give me a break. You're going on and on about how you're about to destroy humanity. Anthropic, you're about to go public. I'm really curious to see that disclosure on the road show. Like, what are you going to say? We could destroy humanity. Then I don't know as you can go public. Just saying. But here's the reason why people are so upset. I found this really compelling. So this goes all the way back to 2012 and making it bigger on my screen so I can see it with you guys. This is actually from the New York Times and they put together the CPI, the consumer price index, data set. And they looked at things like beef and veal and bread and alcoholic beverages and used vehicles and new vehicles, pets and products. All the prices on furniture, apparel, appliances. fascinating. Okay, so like beef and veal. Whoa, we're up like 97%. Okay, 90. No, forgive me, 98% since 2012 and if you look at it since pre-COVID, you see how they broke out 2019. We're still up 37% and then you look at bread. It's up 47% since 2012 up 11% sense pre-COVID. Alcohol 31% increased since pre-COVID. It's up 20%. You see this is the reason why it doesn't feel good and that massive increase up 37% up 11% up 20% that's sense COVID. So you go back to 2019 those feel like the good old days and like it's just been like a rocket right inflation has been soring. I would stress though that cornflation is actually pretty normalized right now. Employment is decent. Now you know 3. What is it 3.1% or 3.4% that we're looking at for inflation overall. That's higher than we wanted to be and that's reflecting higher energy costs and don't get me wrong. I'll be the first to tell you what do people need and what do people consume food and energy so it's hard to like just separate that but you know that that is related to what's going on with Iran. So I just thought this was a really interesting graphic to kind of show you I do think though that the overall management of the economy right now is pretty darn good. It's why I'm still invested 76 research.com if you haven't checked it out. Meanwhile it's obviously not with the Democrats think they've got a little mini me in Ayanna Presley. She's like vying for the title of being the next Mad Max. Look at her today. Yes or no are you aware. Stop filibustering. Yeah stop. How dare you. How dare you how dare you try and answer my questions you're not allowed to answer my question she's going to go on I think to hit them on bond yields right because we're we're looking at above 5%. And before you get too scared to just say hey you know yields are surging in Germany they're surging in Britain they're surging in Japan everything is surging and so we're still pretty darn good you know pretty as girl at the dance for whatever it's worth oil above a hundred bucks not great right but that's all because of fears about what's happening with Iran. So the 5% treasury yield you know it cannot honestly be described solely as a market rejecting Trump it's not it has to do with the global pressures of what's going on and you're still looking at the best bond market out there but I don't think one on Yanna Presley or whatever it is as the first clue about the bond market. Here she is in all her glory. Lawrence have you heard about this issue yes or no I am aware that Obama okay no yes or no are you aware. You can ask me to stop filibustering and stop acting like you don't know what the facts are moving on. Secretary Besson the joint economic committee found that tariffs cost families on average $1,700 have you heard about this issue I have not you heard about this issue your boss Donald Trump said that he was going to give people or he would reimburse them he would send them a check for the cost of these tariffs and he hasn't done that because he lies on everything moving on. You know about these issues and I'm questioning your integrity you know about these recognize Miss Presley is right thank you Mr. Secretary you know about these issues the American people are suffering you know better. You go on television you say the Trump's economic agenda is a great comeback and that makes me question not only your integrity but if you're operating in the same reality as the people whom you are accountable to and you are enabling him and it's shameful. Secretary Besson the families in my district and across this country are struggling to afford a home buy food raise their kids pay these high utility bills and they deserve a government that's going to make their life easier not harder but that's exactly what is happening on your watch as a secretary. Okay so she just berated him for the whole time and it's a lot of grandstanding and they don't really care about getting any answers but but. The reason why they have some room to run is that people are still frustrated right energy costs are still higher and you're never going back to you never going back to 2019 you're just not because you don't you don't want deflation in economy my kids ask me all the time well why not. Yeah it would be great right but why not you don't want deflation and I explain it to him this way you know when mommy thinks like something's going to be on sale she waits. So she can get it on clearance and if the entire economy just stops buying because they know they can buy it cheaper next month or the month after. Then they're just not really going to go out and buy it there's no like impetus there's no incentive to actually get out there into the buying now or to do the investing now and so you need a little bit of healthy inflation and it's usually around two. 2.5% that they consider healthy inflation to kind of help boost this economy and so when you're looking at inflation core inflation being you know tame and in that 2.4% range that's good. You still have what 3.4% I think was the latest read on inflation that's not so good but that's all the energy effects of the president says hey you know once this whole thing is done and over. We're going to see energy prices plummet and he's right but it doesn't change the situation right now the other thing you got to remember and I talk about this a lot is inflation is cumulative. So even if it's only 3.4% now the reality is Biden had it all the way up to 9% and then he had it at 6% and it's not like inflation is going down it just keeps stacking on top of each other one month after another. So that's why it feels so darn lousy because we're still feeling the sticker shocks trust me I feel it every time I go out to dinner I'm like oh my gosh they changed their menu again at my local diner because they have to keep keep it up with prices. Oh you know once we haven't really talked about guys and some part because I don't like the story I really did I you know there's a reason I became a financial journalist. And it's because I just I hate stories like this this makes me so sad the whole clancy case it just really really really really bothered me but you know I still thought it was worth addressing here because you've got one juror that held out and the one juror that held out is now getting just an onslaught of media attention by his home his family. Getting just harassed and he's speaking out through his brother in a new development today but you know remember he's a he's kind of an anomaly here the memes they just keep on coming we got a few oh my gosh I mean oh my gosh. Now how many black people got both places in a house and they never strangled they get on today's episode of 60 minutes we interviewed the black juror from the Lindsey Clancy case. My name is like that bitch up Jackson all one word no hyphens and I ain't going for the bull. For six weeks like that bitch up Jackson listen to every detail in the Lindsey Clancy case while biting his tongue during the deliberation process Mr. Jackson was surprised to find out that he was the only juror who believed Clancy to be guilty. You can miss me with all that she crazy. Well mental illness can present itself in multiple ways real quick we interview you or we interview with me. That's what I thought for seven days like that bitch up fellow jurors attempted to convince him that Clancy's actions were the result of a severe mental illness. Listen I never said she wasn't insane all white people are crazy. You just got to do a little better than that. Fuck out my face. Mr. Jackson she was taking multiple psychiatric medication. My mama took medicine every day for hypertension she ain't ever choking me out. Okay it's funny. It is it's totally fine. I mean I got a kick out of that one and there's been a lot of memes. I mean this guy really is and I see it in your commentary he is a hero right he he understood right from wrong and for whatever reason a lot of people are surprised by that. They're surprised he understood right from wrong and they're surprised that he's black and I I don't quite get it. Full disclosure because I don't know like you know I'm just a small town girl from New Hampshire and I don't really think that way like I. Gail King for some reason on CBS she said she had to sit with every member she was so shocked so so shocked that he was black and I don't I don't really get it except that clearly she has some stereotypes I guess but let me jog your memory. I'm curious about the jurors themselves because we know it was nine women three men what was the age range what was the racial makeup I haven't heard any of that what was it 70 in 70 is to 22 and one person of color and then everybody else was white. A lot of the jurors had children uh-huh one person of color was a person of color a woman or a man a man a man is a hold out your a person a black man is a hold out your yes. Well I have to sit with that for just a second why like why so I mean I get that it's kind of funny only because she's so shocked by it. Here's one of the memes that came up we ran this on the shorts channel I'm sorry but Oprah's bestie Gail King she's never gonna live this down. What exactly are you trying to process 11 jurors agreed the only hold out was a black man I said I had to sit with that. Wait me being black is the part you got to sit with? That's not what I meant. then what did you mean? Yeah, let's go. - Let's sit with that, I was just trying to understand why he saw it differently. - Different from who? - The other 11. - You understood them. You needed time to understand me. That's what you need to sit with. - Yeah, you just saw it for what it was. But you keep sitting with that gal, you keep sitting. I mean, really, I guess he's just a normal guy who's looking at it like a normal person. Like why are you getting off on insanity when all that happened? Like I said, I hate this story. I just, it's so sad. It's just so sad and there's no easy answer. But again, I just, not totally, I guess there's a certain irony, right? There's a certain irony because they assume, if you're black, you're gonna be woke like us. And they shouldn't assume. So I always say about it. And they thought that they had the Hispanic vote just in the can going into this election and they didn't actually Hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump. What do you know? Like you cannot assume people just because, okay, just because the guy's black that he's gonna think nutty, sorry, like all of you. Here's a woman who's just, she gets the news. She's in her car and she does this little thing for TikTok and she's just dying, laughing at the entire thing. I love it, I love it. This woman gets the irony of it all. - Finding out that the whole doubt juror was the one black man. Oh, sh*t! (laughing) Finding out that the one person on that jury doesn't, she sure as a getaway with this sh*t was a black man is by far the best plot twist of this whole circus. Oh, and it's all, now the pictures are coming clearer. He was sitting in there like, you guys are a bunch of nuts. She's guilty. You guys are a bunch of fans and we're finding out these jurors are true crime junkies. He probably was sitting in there to one black man like, he's f*cking idiots. No, she's not getting away with it. And that's why they couldn't swam and that's why they couldn't bully him. Oh, the picture is so clear. - Good for him. You know, you gotta stand for something in life. I realize everybody's so woke and everybody wants to make excuses for things and you know, that guy just held his ground. Yeah, he did. But why is it such a big deal? Because he's the black guy that's holding his ground. Again, I think it goes back to they make certain assumptions and the assumptions are just so inherently flawed over and over and over again, we see evidence of that. I mean, this is the same crowd, right? That pretends to stand for women, but yet wants women to play against biologically born men in sports. I don't get it. This is the same crowd that says, yes, a man can get pregnant. It's like they want to take everything away from themselves. Oh, I don't get it. This is, this is the crowd that somehow thinks, you know, of course can be a female president because you don't have emotional, you know, ups and downs, you know, we're above all that. And yet at the same time, they say that Clancy should be not guilty by reason of insanity because she has all these hormones. I mean, you guys can't have it both ways, okay? You just, you guys don't make any sense, any sense at all. Like, at all, I'm trying. I'm trying to string the logic here together. I'm trying to get one plus one is two, but you're over there in like, you know, 20,000 in 32. Like, it doesn't add up, none of it adds up, but I will tell you what's adding up right now. And that's this guy is not too happy because his family is getting the brunt of this. He did an interview with the New York Post, Fox had a report on it. I want to go to this and show you what they're saying because apparently everybody wants an interview with him and everybody's mad at him or loves him. And it's just a bit too much. - As you mentioned, the breaking report here is from the New York Post describing this juror as a Haitian Catholic and the brother of that juror telling the New York Post that his brother's Catholic faith did not cloud his judgment at all in his deliberations in this trial. The brother said the family's life has been turned upside down, saying that they're getting hounded by reporters and true crime fanatics. The brother says, quote, we just had some of them from the New York Post article if you want to pull them back up, Harris. My family cannot leave the house. They are leaving notes at my mother's house. They won't leave us alone and we don't know anything. People have been calling me like crazy, it's crazy. The brother also says that the family didn't even know that he was serving on the jury. So it was all a surprise to them. Judge William Sullivan has sealed the juror's names, citing safety concerns. He's impounding all of those names until further notice. As for where we go from here, Clancy has due back in court two weeks from today on September 29th for status hearing. And again, we are still waiting on the plans from them. You know, I'll just say, man wouldn't get away with that. I don't think. And I'm sure to have done some of the crazy things that some of the most heinous criminals in history have done, you'd have to be crazy. You'd have to be certifiably insane. So I kind of have a whole problem with the insanity plea to begin with, like I just can't get there. You wouldn't want me on that jury, I guess, if you were representing her. And I guess maybe they didn't think through. Maybe they just assumed because he's black, he's going to go with all the woke ladies out there and he's like, yeah, no way. Anyway, this article, again, appearing in the post and the brother saying, I actually don't think religion had anything to do with it, which is interesting. It's not that he's religious, right? It's not that he's sitting here. And obviously, if you're religious, you value life. But he's just looking at it pretty simply through a very simple lens, which is, did she do it or did she not? You get some crazies out there. I mean, there are crazies everywhere, right? But they're coming out of the woodwork, trying to suggest that the husband-- I mean, that is just awful, right? With everything he's been through and now they're throwing that one in his face. I mean, she admits to having done it, but never underestimate the craziness of the woke left. Do not underestimate it, guys. I mean, we started this show talking about how nuts they were and how they're trying to attack Sidney Swini and trying to insinuate for some reason that she's trying to replace female athletes. Trust me, she's not. She's already got her lot in life. I think pretty well carved out. She's not trying to be the body for a female athlete. She really isn't even trying to get you to bet on women's sports because no one does yet. So that's not what it's about. But whether it's trying to take down Sidney or whether it's trying to prop up a woman who killed her kids, I mean, it's really disturbing where they're taking this. And I think it's important that some of us-- like this juror, right? Keep our head screwed on straight for goodness' sakes. And just look at life for what it is and not what-- imaginary world you could be in where you go over to Berlin and they're dressed up like dogs. Literally. [CHEERING] They think they're dogs. I mean, I'm sure the woke left is fine with this, right? It's part of their leather and lace or something fetish. And you got a bunch of German guys that parade around like dogs. This is actually from 2023. And then they had some other crazy pride parade where everybody was dressed like a baby in Cologne, Germany. I mean, it's just nuts. So you think you're a dog or you're a furry or whatever. Like, no, I'm sorry. You're a human being, OK? And you're a man or a woman. And that's about it. Simple. We need simplicity back in our lives. Hey, it's great to have you all here. I know this was a long one today. And thank you for being with me and dealing with the sort of technical snuff food that we had in the beginning. This is how you know The Trish Regan Show is live, all right? Because occasionally things like that happen. I love having you here. Thank you for all you do to make this what it is. If you haven't subscribed to the show, now is your opportunity. I read all the comments. So make sure you make a comment. What do you think? Is he a national hero? I think he is. I am sure those reporters are lined up for days outside his house. I used to work for one of those early shows, the CBS Early Show. And they pay bookers to just camp out outside the house to try and get that first interview. So there's a lot of people competing for this. And I think it's got to be hard for him. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a bit scared, right? Because you don't anticipate becoming such a lightning rod, but clearly he is right now quite a lightning rod. And for some of us, really a hero for sticking to his beliefs and for others, anything about that. Thank you for being here. Make sure you subscribe. I'll see you back here live on the show tomorrow.