🚨 Trump's Media Ban IS LEGAL... Left-Wing Outlets Brace For MORE HUMILIATION?!!

Access denied. Imagine that. The key card doesn't work and suddenly CNN, Politico, and once the other MSNBC, Ms. Now they are all out of luck. They're not getting into the White House right about now. So they're so mad. They're suing, but we've got news for them. I'm not so sure. That lawsuit is going to work, guys, not so sure at all. Also, guess who's coming to dinner? Well, Donald Trump with Memdami at Gracie Mansion today, we will take you there. There's a method to the madness. Trust me. There is. And we'll talk about that. Welcome to the show. Everyone great to have you here. I'm Trish Regan. Please make sure you subscribe. We begin here on this crazy press, this press that just can't stop hating on this pressing. You know, I just got to say, imagine living in America, right? Where there was no First Amendment. Imagine back in the day. And I mean way back in the day, you got to go back to really, you know, the 1700s. If you criticize the government back then, you could land in jail back in 1734, New York newspaper publisher named John Peter Zanger, printed articles accusing the colony's royal governor of corruption and abuse of power. This is the paper. The New York weekly journal as it was known. And the governor's response was pretty simple. Arrest the publisher. And I'm Mr Zanger, a wand of spending months in jail awaiting trial. And here was the extraordinary part. Under the law at the time, it didn't necessarily matter, whether what he published was true or not, just criticizing the government in and of itself was actually treated as a crime. And so when Zanger's lawyer appealed directly to the jury, he was arguing that people must be allowed to expose government round doing. And the jury acquitted him. And that verdict came more than, you know, 50 years, right, before the bill of rights, but it helped to establish a distinctly American principle. The press must be free to challenge those in power. The first amendment later protected that principle, but it did not give every journalist a guaranteed seat in every room. Or the constitutional right to be personally selected for the White House press pool. And that distinction is at the center of the fight we see today, with none other than CNN, MS now and political all announcing a suit today against the Trump Administration, alleging that their constitutional right to the first amendment has been violated. After they were forced to surrender, their badges gushed, aren't it? And now can't get into the White House and can't get into the press briefing room. So they say they can't participate in the pool coverage while they can't of the president. The White House press pool, by the way, is just a small rotating group of journalists that covers the president on behalf of the entire press corps, so that not everybody has to be shooting the same video at the same time. Well, they're no longer shooting it because they can't get in the room. So at issue here is does CNN have a constitutional right to place in the White House press pool, or is this perhaps at the discretion of the president? CNN's media reporter, who's one of the people that is suing the administration, seems to think that she deserves that right. Listen, I put my stuff through essentially what looks like airport security conveyor belt. And then I tap my badge onto a card reader, I type in a four digit pin. I did all of that today. The only difference is that there was a group of cameras waiting outside that gate to watch me walk in. And also, there was a military band practicing ahead of a China state visit expected later this week playing battle him of the Republic rehearsing from the White House north grounds. So I walk in, I tap my badge, and it beeps a couple of different times. It turns red, blue, and green, and it didn't accept my pin number. The Secret Service agent in the guard house, with whom I have been friendly in the past, asked to see my badge. And I handed it over to him. He told me that it had been deactivated. I asked him if he could provide an explanation as to why it was the press people. So she was deactivated because all of CNN was deactivated. Brian Seltor, who happens to be the media commentator over there on CNN, said over the weekend that his network was forced to surrender its press passes and report from the sidewalk. And I think she was outside the sidewalk there. Oh, gosh, darn it. From the sidewalk, I mean, can you imagine such humiliations, such shame, but he's saying such a violation of our constitutional right. Here he is. This is a direct threat to press freedom in the United States. This has happened to involve CNN, but I'm trying to zoom out here and recognize. This is a free speech test in America. Trump came out in his second term and said he was going to be the most transparent president with the most transparent administration defending free speech rights. But many of his actions since have contradicted an undermine to that promise. I mean, I think he's pretty accessible. I'm just going to say I think he's very successful. I think he's more accessible than any president we have had in our history. Okay? Like you want to know an answer to a question? You get to ask it. Oh, well, they're not going to be able to be in the room, I guess. So maybe they'll have issue or take issue with that. He's pretty accessible on the phone too. I mean, they could call him off. I will tell you, I don't know as this is going to fly because I don't think you get access to that room guaranteed. I don't think the law is on your side. CNN, MSNBC, political on this one, but just to show you what they're thinking is this is the lawsuit. All 27 pages or so of it. You see one of the women on their Betsy Klein. We just saw her outside on the sidewalk. Not too happy about it. Anyway, they're filing this lawsuit. CNN Betsy, MSNOW, Politico, and they're filing it against the administration because they're alleging that basically their rights have been trampled on. They said the president was expressly clear about his viewpoint, discriminatory, motive for targeting CNN MSNOW in Politico. He called it the result of their constant reporting fake news. So they're trying to alleged here that because he doesn't like what they're reporting on and how they characterize things that he's cutting them out. Now, does that have any merit? Again, I don't really think so because they're still free to report it, right? They're still free to say whatever they want. It's not like he's saying, okay, I'm going to shut down your website. He's like, I'm just not going to give you a seat at the table. Interestingly, they write that in an oval office press conference later that day, the president doubled down. He was clever or he was clear, rather than no particular story that triggered this decision saying it's really just cumulative stories over the last two years. They go on to say the ban could be more of a direct assault on the first amendment, rather than a blatant violation of our, oh, it could not be more of a direct assault, rather than a blatant violation and a blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional right. So it goes on and on and on and on. And I would just say once again, I don't believe the law, and I'm not a lawyer, but I've done a lot of research and I've talked to a couple lawyers today because this is obviously really important to me, first amendment stuff. But do you get the right to be there? I mean, I think about all the other news organizations that, gosh darn it, do you think Barack Obama would have ever looked twice at or buy it in? And there's plenty of them. I mean, Breitbart is a great example, which actually interesting. I'm going to show you some sound from JD Vance today. He also brought up by Breitbart because it's a very large website. They have a lot of resources. They do a lot of cool stuff and a lot of cool reporting. And it kind of reminds me of the conservative version of political Breitbart never got the time of day, right, from Biden or from Barack Obama. So let's go to JD Vance who makes a very, very interesting case that argues for these people being up a creek without a paddle. Sir, you talked a lot about free speech over the years. House is not an attack on free speech. Well, they can still report on the Trump White House. They can still get the public reports. They can still, of course, talk to people in the administration and outside the administration. What the president has said is we're not going to give you special access inside the White House. The way that I think about it is if you go back to the Biden administration or the Obama administration, compare, let's say, Politico to Breitbart. If you actually look at the objective analysis, Politico and Breitbart, our Politico is as anti-Trump as Breitbart was anti-Obama or anti-Bite. Now, why on God's green earth would Donald Trump be expected to give Politico special access when nobody in the media expected the Biden administration or the Obama administration to give Breitbart special access? It's about basic fairness. They can still report. They still have the access to free speech. They're just not going to get an office in the White House anymore. I think it's totally appropriate. Unless, of course, they start to behave like real North news organizations. Here's the thing. Why do you need an office in the White House? If you read through the entire lawsuit, which I did today, they make the point that Betsy and all her cohorts, they have to go there because that's their place of work. I'm just going to tell you, I used to work in the New York Stock Exchange. Guess what the New York Stock Exchange was? Basically a set. Yeah, I sure you might see a few traders increasingly fewer and fewer, right? Especially these days. It is a set. It's a set for CNBC, for Bloomberg, for Fox. I mean, that is all the New York Stock Exchange seems to be for the most part. I mean, way, way, way, way back when Maria Bartoromo, when she was first broadcasting from the floor of the exchange, that's when you had a lot of people and maybe you're getting a lot of information. I'm sorry. These days, nope, nope, nope. And as far as the White House goes, yeah, you get a little desk in there. But are you actually running up and talking to the president every two seconds? No. So you're just basically using that as a live shot location, which means you got a fancy set. And maybe your set just got taken away and maybe you're going to have a broadcast from the darn sidewalk, but if you're a real reporter, you're going to broadcast from wherever you need to go, okay? It does not matter that you're part of the pool or not part of the pool or have an office or don't have an office or have a fancy life shot with the White House and the background or you're out on the sidewalk because you can still do the same kind of reporting and analysis. Trust me, the set does not matter. So the next question becomes, can a president exclude a news organization specifically because he doesn't like its reporting? Well, we know the president is not a fan of what he calls fake news, right? But does that actually matter from a legal standpoint? I mean, if you listen to JD, his analysis suggests absolutely not because legally, the president may indeed be within his rights. And I want you to consider a recent decision made on AP, associated press, and in terms of its lawsuit. Remember when they refused to call the Gulf of America, the Gulf of America, and they just kept going with Gulf of Mexico, and finally Donald Trump was like, yeah, you know what? We don't need you in all these press events. You know, you won't even call it the Gulf of America for goodness sakes. Come on, let's move on. And so he didn't allow for them to be in as many of those events. And that became a big thing. And then they sued. Don't forget that pool that I keep referring to. It's basically that press corp because you can't have necessarily everybody at every single presidential event. So sometimes you sign off and you give somebody else the pool duty. And then that smaller group attends and that smaller group gets the pictures and the video back to everybody. So you don't really duplicate all the same resources over and over again. Well, that arrangement is something that's beneficial, obviously, to the news organization. So not everybody has to go to everything. And it's also beneficial to the public because you know, how many shots do you need of the lawn, the White House lawn with the president were supposed to see this on Thursday, right? And she's in pain, right? There'll be one pool camera and the pool camera will get it. And that's that. Now, you know, whether one organization is more able to be part of that than another organization. I think that's where this legal argument is going to begin. Because a president, think about it, a president like Donald Trump, he gets to choose who he wants to sit down with for an interview, or he can sit down with any Tom Dick or Harry or Jane Susan or Sally and it's up to him. So granting one interview does not require him to go out and give every interview to every news organization. Imagine setting your makeup, then forgetting it's even theirs. Meet new groupy setting mist from Mabelie, New York. Salad mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours, with flexible all day comfy grip. No tightness, no stickiness, no residue, just plump, dewy, hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. Try new groupy setting mist from Mabelie, New York. Maybe it's Mabelie. So follow me here for a second. That begs the question, do ordinary White House press credentials have any kind of special or different protection? I mean, if you can choose what reporter you're going to talk to, then shouldn't you be able to choose which cameras are in the room? That's an interesting question and I would tell you, the reason why CNN may not have the legal ground it thinks it has right now is just consider what the associate press went through. I mentioned the Gulf of America and the Gulf of Mexico dispute. It all began because they kept calling it Gulf of Mexico. He's like, guys, you know, come on, enough already. We've been through this and so he restricted their access and the associated press turned around and sued. And back in April, so spring of last year, there was a federal district judge that ruled the AP was likely to succeed on its argument that the government had unlawfully punished the organization, but that was short lived. As is like almost every court decision, right? Like you got to, you got to appeal everything, you got to send it up to the adults. So they sent it up to the adults and what did the adults say? Two out of three judges said, you know what? And this is back in June of 2020, 25. They said that the president possesses broad discretion over special access to restricted places such as the Oval Office, such as Air Force One, including some ability to consider a journalist viewpoint. And therefore can continue to use that discretion when inviting to other pool events. Wow. So while the left is going to get out there and say Trump is fringing on our first amendment because he's cutting off access to us, he's not cutting off access to everyone. And he's merely saying you can't be in the room at this particular time. He's not actually preventing you from doing your reporting. He's not preventing you from getting out and saying whatever it is that you need to say that you keep saying over and over again. So I think that that's kind of interesting and I think that he probably didn't do this totally in a vacuum. I think he probably consulted his lawyers on this first and they're testing things out here, right? Because the Constitution does provide freedom of speech. It does protect the freedom of the press. It protects the right of journalists to criticize the president to investigate the government and to publish stories that the administration might really not like. But it doesn't necessarily give all of these entities, whether it be CNN or the AP or Fox News or any individual organization, a permanent seat in the White House camera pool. And that distinction is getting totally lost, right? In all of this coverage. Not on and on about how the first amendments protecting the free press. It does not let me repeat. It does not promise every outlet is going to get preferred access to the president. So I'm sorry, but no, no, no, no, no, no, I'm sorry. CNN, MSNBC political. You do not possess an unconditional constitutional right to have a seat in the White House camera pool. Period. You know, I remember an encounter that I had years ago with Barack Obama in his first presidential campaign. I was a network reporter back in those days at CBS News. And this was his first campaign. He came off the stage and I ran up to ask a question. I threw a microphone in his face and one of his handlers came over really angry, really angry at me. And as I remember it, he said to me, I said no questions, absolutely no questions. And he's yelling at me. And this came the really interesting part. He said, I will remember this. And you will not get an interview when he wins. He won. And no, I didn't get an interview. I didn't. In other words, I'm just saying that Obama, back in his day, he had his list of favorites. I clearly was not on that list. I mean, even when I was at CBS and Bloomberg, not CMBC, I was not on that list. I certainly wasn't on that list. And hey, I wasn't even a Fox yet or let alone on my own. You know, the Obama team, I would say they had a lot of problems with the press. Obama wanted to control all of his messaging, full stop. I remember his national security advisor for, oh, I remember, he had a big title. He was the national security advisor for strategic communications and speech writing. That's a lot of words. So basically, he was in charge of security messaging and foreign policy speeches. This was a guy named Rhodes, Ben Rhodes. And in May 2016, Ben was all proud because he was getting a New York Times magazine profile. And he boasted to the New York Times of his effort to sell the nuclear deal. Remember that? That nuclear deal that were still regretting and living down. He boasted of his effort to sell the Iran nuclear deal saying, and I quote, we created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say, end quote. So Obama's team had an echo chamber. And let's just say if you weren't repeating those echoes, you weren't getting any kind of access. No, no, no, no, no, sorry. You were not getting any case in point in 2009, a White House official tried to leave Fox news out of an interview session. They were doing like a Ron Robin with Ken Feinberg and everybody was getting this. They except for Fox. And so I guess the networks like came together and they said, gee, that's not fair. You've literally given him to every single other network except for Fox. And so they objected and ultimately Fox got to participate, but it got so much worse. It got so much worse. And I'm going to tell you about that in a second. But first, I need you to hear Obama over the weekend because boy, this guy's got like Amnesia or something. Listen to him going on and laughing about what just happened with Donald Trump. And these three media entities. Let's roll the tape. I'm trying to think what would have happened if I had said, you know what Fox news out of here? It's unimaginable. Oh, unimaginable. So unimaginable. He never do. anything like that, right? That's what I call some serious revisionist history in the making because Mr. Obama, Barack Obama, was all about control, was all about limiting the access of reporters he didn't like. He was absolutely positively trying to find a way to ban Fox permanently. He was trying to do what Donald Trump just did. All right, let's go back to this one. I want to play this little segment for you from 2009 on CNN because they noticed it too. Access to the president is crucial when you're a White House reporter and even more so when you're a photographer. The press always wants more access, of course. The administration usually wants to give less access and this tug of war has been going on for decades. But the press says it's gotten worse lately and the only photographer allowed in some allowed inside some key White House meetings now actually works for the White House. I'm going to just jump in to correct myself because this is 2013 guys, 2013, not 2009. We got stuff from 2009 too. We're going to take a little walk back because these people want to rewrite history in real time and I'm not going to let it happen. We got tape. Yeah, we got records and we're going to show you. Okay, let's continue. Porters and photographers frustrated that independent media are shut out of even routine presidential events at the White House. No reporters, no photographers, so no uncomfortable questions of the president and no images. The White House can't control recent examples. The president's lunch with Hillary Clinton, his Oval Office visit with Mulala use of sigh, a Pakistani human rights activist who told the president to stop using drones in her country and a meeting with Palestinian and Israeli negotiators. Doug Mills is a New New York Times photographer. The White House photos as many people have this press releases. They are basically putting the president the best light. Last month, 37 news organizations, including CNN, sent the White House a letter comparing decisions that shut out the press to quote, placing a hand over a journalist camera lens. The restrictions seem in odds with the pledge President Obama made to Americans at the beginning of his presidency. Let me say it as simply as I can, transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency. So isn't it sort of the problem is that he has set up a standard himself that he's not meet. What I can tell you, Brianna is every White House, every president has had meetings that the press didn't cover. I want to work with and we want to work with the photographers and others to see how we can be more responsive. Secretary Jay Carney says there will never be agreement between the White House and the press on the appropriate level of access. Okay, so just for the record and let the record state, Obama was trying this all the time. Okay, he wanted to control everything. He wanted his image the way he wanted it. I remember it because I can, I still, I never got the interview, right? And I would, I was a dosh, you know, if, if I'm not on that show, what was it between two ferns? He had like all these like random little, this is like before podcasting was a thing and all these weird like comedians and actors had shows and those, those are the only shows he wanted to do. That was all because, you know, he knew he could control it. And so he wasn't even so receptive to the mainstream media, let alone any conservative media. But it wasn't just that. I mean, he really, it was some mainstream media. I guess he was okay with maybe ABC or NBC. Some of them he was okay with because if I take you back to 2009, let's go, we were just in 2013. Yeah. And that was the point where he was doing the fern show and that whole thing. But if I go back to 2009, I want you to see because he was trying at the time to get Fox out of the picture. He wanted to do exactly what Donald Trump just did. Let's, let's take a look at this interview. He did with NBC news. I think that what our advisors have simply said is, is that we are going to take media as it comes. And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another. Okay. So he had a definite view of what he thought Fox news was. And let's just say he was putting it in the talk radio format. Kind of genre as we heard from David Axelrod. All right. David Axelrod, who's working with the president. He sits down with George Stephanopoulos, real journalist there, right? I'm sorry, but George Stephanopoulos. I mean, he, he was the flak for goodness sakes. That's like hiring Jen Socky at NBC news. Oops. They did. They did do that. Now, didn't they? Okay. So ABC got Stephanopoulos, who had worked for Clinton all those years. So I'm sorry. He's not a real journalist. His job was to get out there and lie and spin. However, the Clintons wanted him to spin. Okay. That was his job. He was not a journalist. And he's still spinning for the left. If you would, here's David Axelrod, trying to dig a dig at Fox and warn that Fox might lose its press pass. A Euro colleague and needed done told the New York Times this week that Fox news was undertaking a war against the White House and said the White House would treat Fox the way we would an opponent. The only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station. If you watch even, it's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It's really not news. It's pushing a point of view. And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way. And we're not going to treat them that. Oh, because they're not a real news organization. So there he is dropping the hint. We're not going to treat them that way. We're not going to treat them like a real news organization. Okay. That was Barack. That was Barack fast forward to today. And stelter still whining about his first amendment and constitutional right and CNN has to be in the room. You don't, buddy. You don't have to be there. This has happened to involve CNN, but I'm trying to zoom out here and recognize this is a free speech test in America. But many of his actions sense have contradicted an undermine to that promise. So his first amendment rights and CNN's first amendment rights are being violated by Trump. I guess we're the first amendment rights of Brian's competitors like Fox being violated back in 2021 because he really seemed to be making the case that Fox ought to lose its credentials because of Tucker Carlson's reporting on J6. Oh yeah, we got the tape for this one too. He's got this guest who's a Baltimore Sun media critic advocating for excluding Fox from Air Force one. What do you know? There are, you know, these questions about Fox's as Fox radicalizes and as it becomes even more more of a political tool. Zurich, you wrote a column recently for the Sun about this same Fox should be viewed as a political tool. And that raises a question. Should it be a part of the White House press pool? You know, should it be afforded the privileges to come with news gathering, even though they do have some news reporters at the White House, you're saying they're primarily a political tool. So, so should that be reassessed, Zurich? Listen, I really do. I think it's a discussion we need to have. Look, you're not supporting democracy. You're not supporting the larger values of this culture. They don't even stand up as a opposition party. But there's nothing journalistic in what Lockwood Murdoch said. And you know what? I say, Hey, you know what? Let's take them at their word. Let's not let them on the plane. You want to let the proud boys on your plane on your on Air Force one? No, I don't think so. These guys are doing the same thing. Hmm. Hmm. Okay. I mean, I just, I think we ought to be fair here because on the one hand, he thinks it's a total violation of First Amendment rights. But, you know, back in the day, not too long ago, 2021. He was advocating or having guests on his show, saying we need to strip Fox of its quote unquote First Amendment rights. Apparently it wasn't the First Amendment when it was Fox. It's just the First Amendment right when it happens to be MSNBC and CNN and political. Well, how about I just say what it really is? It's no one's First Amendment right. You have no absolute right to be in the room. Just like you have no absolute right to demand an interview with the president just because every other correspondent is getting one. You have no right. You have a right to get up there and complain about it if you don't get the interview. Sure, that's your right. And you know what? CNN is your right to sue and is your right to get on the air and make this a story for days and days and days. But it is not your right to be in the room. That is the distinction. I want to go to the president who has been speaking on the media while meeting with Zahran Memdami at Gracie Mansion. There is a method to the madness. We'll talk about it in a second. But first, as we continue examining this nutty media story as they sue the president of the United States for their first Amendment violation. Let's listen to the president speaking on the media. I'm hearing this for the first time alongside you guys. I'm only doing it because I think the press also is an obligation. And you know, I want an election. I've done great things. And a lot of great things are said on eight wars. We have the best economic numbers for the country and the history our country. We have $21 trillion or, again, the biggest number ever any country was three. Nobody's ever done what we've done. I never get anything positive. It's always negative. Even having to do with the war. We've done so well. We have told -- look, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. Let me just put it that way. And they're not doing well. They're not doing it in fact. I have meeting Jordan today. They're doing great work. You would think that an outlook would play at least reasonably well, but never. If you look at CNN's fake news, if you look at MS now, I don't even know what MS now is. I guess it's the MSNBC. What it used to be, MSDFC is something we call it. That's Democrat National Committee. But it's just by its use. And I think that these outlets have an obligation to be fair. And if they're fake news, I really think I have an obligation not to allow them into another very special house. This is a special house, where is he mentioned? Well, the White House is the most special of all houses, I have to say. And I don't even think the mayor would argue with that. And I think I have an obligation not to let fake news. They're very bad for the country. Very bad for nation security. So I have that obligation. So we'll see how it works. Listen, it is sort of amazing when you think about how they've covered this president. And how everybody just kind of tunes it out. I mean, most of us do. Not everybody does. I get it. A lot of people still sit down and they watch the evening news every night and they take what they're being fed as gospel. But for those that are out here looking for other sources of information, I thank you for finding me. A reminder, please subscribe to the show. If you are already subscribed, just double check and make sure you're still subscribed because that has a funny way of happening. People keep telling me, oh my gosh, Trish, I was unsubscribed. I don't know how that is. I tune into my own producer who watches the show in real time, right? Every day. He's like, how did I get unsubscribed? So listen, just double check. You're out there seeking other viewpoints and more information. But not everybody does that. A lot of people take whatever is spoon fed to them by the mainstream media. And he's winning in spite of that. That's what's so amazing here. The networks, meanwhile, they're going on strike. I got more on that in a second. They are going on strike because they think if they just stop covering the news that maybe the president will rethink this. The problem for them is he's got other folks where they came from, right? So he's got other cameras that actually do want to cover him. And because we live in this new media environment where there are plenty of ways to get your information and plenty of networks and online streaming, et cetera, he does not have to rely on the big three plus Fox anymore. So the networks are on strike today. I mean, hey, they don't really want to have to go cover the UN General Assembly meeting. I get it. I get it. Believe me. You know, if I could sit one out, that would be the one to sit out too. They're refusing to cover this general assembly meeting. Here is the article that headline in the Wall Street Journal of Television Network suspends some coverage of Trump after BAM. So they're choosing what they're going to cover, what they're not going to cover. They think that if they just pull their resources together and say, hey, the pool is shut down. We're going on strike. No more that somehow that will matter, that somehow that will make a difference. What do we have here? The Democrat Party is running Canada. This is a good example of it today. Fox is doing its part. Fox has actually joined in on this and they're saying, hey, you know, we're going to engage in this strike too. And I saw a little evidence of it today because JD Vance was out speaking and they were taking it and then watch what happens. Okay, watch this. The Democrat Party is running candidates for Congress who call for quote. All right. You have been listening to Vice President Vance talking of voters ahead of the midterms in Battleground, North Carolina. He's in Greensboro this afternoon, where we'll bring you right back to this rally if he starts to make news right now. Oh, okay. We're getting out of this thing. If he makes any news, maybe we'll come back, but we're getting out of this thing. So again, the networks are on strike and they're all kind of like glomming together here. This is a little monopoly action, but they don't have a lot of power. Let's face it, they don't have a lot of power anymore because everybody can go anywhere to get their news. And you know, I saw a lot. Did you not see a lot of cameras there at the MAM dummy Donald Trump press conference, which we're going to get to? I mean, they still showed up for something. So I would just say that this might be a little bit of an empty promise other than, you know, maybe getting out of JD's rally in the middle of it. They seem to want to take their ball and go home. But you know, it is the UN General Assembly, so I can almost understand any reason not to have to go and cover that. I get it. I get it. I get it. Ben there, at least I'm not in the traffic this time. Oh, that was always horrible. During the fall, New York City during the fall. It was always the UN. And then the Christmas tree Rockefeller Center and the winter. It is nice not to have to commute in and out of the city anymore. I can tell you that. Anyway, Donald Trump making an appearance with MAM dummy today. I want to get to that Donald Trump here joining MAM dummy and why? Why would he do this? You know, this is the second time. He invited MAM dummy to the White House. Don't forget when MAM dummy won and MAM dummy came right on down and they smiled together and they put on a good show and they did it again today. Watch. With that, we will take questions just before. If the president, if you want to add any remarks. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I've been at Gracie Manchu. We were discussing quite a few times over the years a lot. And it sort of feels like a home and it's a special place, a very special a beautiful place. When you go inside and I've seen it with numerous different mayors and I said some great ones and some not so great ones. So hopefully you're going to be a great one. I'll be able to say you're going to be a great one and you're off to a start. So I just want to thank the mayor for the invitation. I'm in New York to do the United Nations tomorrow. I have a lot of meetings right now today. We have very important meetings with heads of different countries. But this is like a little bit of old home week for me because so many things we've done so many things from the beautiful home or house or building standing right behind me. And if you have any questions, we'd love to take them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. So that's interesting. Mamdommie invited him and he went. Why? I mean, if I could get out of any invite, it would be that one. So why would Donald Trump go to meet with Mamdommie? I ask. And why would Mamdommie invite him there? I mean, there is a method to the menace. I want to just say like they don't do these things just for the heck of it. Politicians are very calculating. Donald Trump is certainly very calculating. Mamdommie is certainly very calculating. And I'm curious, right? So Mamdommie came out today and he said, look, I invited him because I'm willing to work with anyone. Anybody that can, you know, work on behalf of New Yorkers and and help move things ahead, I'm willing to work with what I don't think. I don't think the president's so willing to work with you in terms of what you're offering up only because you are suing him right now. And I do believe you want no borders. And you do actually want to remove all prospects of the DHS rules surrounding migration, right? You're suing him because you say migrants should get all the welfare they need. And he's like, yeah, no, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no. Anyway, let's go to Mamdommie saying it doesn't matter who they are. I'll work with anyone. Here he is. I have said time and again that I will work with anyone no matter what party they belong to, no matter how much you may disagree on other topics, whoever has the power and the will to lift that weight off New Yorkers backs. At a time where hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers are asking the questions of how they can afford this city. I appreciate the conversation the president I have had on the subject of how we can make it easier to afford life in this great city that we call our home. So you get the socialist and the capitalist suddenly teaming up. Now, it could be that, you know, maybe Donald Trump wants to elevate him because if you elevate him, it helps to elevate some of the concerns about Mamdommie, right? Some of his friendships, Hassan Piker being one of them who believes that America deserved 9/11. Yeah, he said that. And that could be part of it. It could also be that Donald Trump wants to show that he gets that affordability is a problem that he understands it heck, you know, he was the one offering the $5,000 right? If he gets reelected, if you keep the house and you keep the Senate, it's $5,000 for every American adult. So maybe, I mean, that's just kind of almost dare I say a little socialist in approach, although he says it's coming from the tariffs that are incumbent, you know, I digress the point being that I think Donald Trump wants to convey something that's important. And I think he believes it. And this is genuine. This is not, you know, a made-up sort of presentation where he's trying to seem like he cares about everyday folks, but he does. And there's a lot of good stuff to be excited about right now. I mean, hey, I know oil prices are tough to take. I know it's tough at the gas pumps. I know that we're still dealing with inflation, but inflation is not as bad as it was. We. We do have the most in terms of income gains for lower and middle-class Americans. I mean, we haven't seen this kind of stuff in a while. And so there's some encouraging things there, green shoots, right, as you'd like to call them. You look at the market today. I know, you know, not everybody's invested in the stock market. So sometimes it doesn't really resonate the way maybe it should. And I hope you do get invested in the stock market, by the way, quick plug from my company, 76 research, it's my financial research company. And I've been telling you, and I've been telling you, and I'm going to tell you again. I feel like your mom, make sure you, I don't care if it's $5 a week, put something. Go get an S&P 500 fund, okay. Just SPX is the ticker symbol. And make sure that you are contributing something because historically, the market tends to outpace inflation considerably. And so if you're not invested, that's a problem. But, you know, the markets doing great, we're looking at new highs on the market. And there's a lot of reasons to be cheering this economy right now. And yet, people don't feel it, right? They're really frustrated. I do think the good things are coming. I do think they're going to see declining oil prices. We've already been seeing it. We're seeing that oil is getting through the straight of Hormuz, 18 million barrels a day. That's what I'm talking about, right? That's right back at levels that we had before this whole crisis began. So we just need more of that. And then I think things will be better. Can we get there by the time midterms hit? That is the big question. So I think Donald Trump was trying to indicate today like he gets it. He knows how hard it is. The problem is, look, Mamdami is the guy who's out there trying to sue this administration because he doesn't like that this administration is saying, yeah, yeah, we're going to enforce a law that's already on the books and has been there for 100 plus years saying that you cannot become a public order of the state. And if we think you're going to become a public order of the state, guess what? We're not giving you citizenship. You're not coming here. We don't want refugees. Well, I guess refugees a little bit different status. We don't want migrants coming in that are going to have to live off of the public sector and therefore be a drain to the system. Mamdami is suing because he wants all the welfare he can get going to every Tom Dick and Harry or Jesus and like whoever's coming in a Muhammad, right? Like I mean, anybody that's coming here legally, illegally, none of it matters. He wants stuff for everyone and this is the sticking point right now between Trump and Mamdami as our friend Brandon Gill, wonderful guy. He's the junior congressman out of Texas going on to some very big things. He explained it on a Fox show earlier watch. Well, I mean, it's what you expect from the party that as a matter of policy brought millions of illegal aliens into our country who just last fall shut down our federal government in order to give health care benefits to those illegal aliens and who are right now suing the federal government, the Trump administration, to give more welfare to illegal aliens. I mean, what you see anytime there is law enforcement versus the illegal aliens, Democrats will impulsively side with illegal aliens. No matter what the facts are, whether they know the facts or not and that's what you see right here. It is a party that is fundamentally against law and order, fundamentally against American sovereignty and against the American people. I'm looking at your comments. I love this guy too. On Gandhi, David Lorenzo, I absolutely love him. I also happen to know his in laws very well and they are lovely people. Dinesh D'Souza, if you've ever seen his show and his wife Debbie, who is originally from Venezuela and she's been on my program a few times as his Dinesh. Anyway, they're just great, great people and Dinesh's daughter is married Danielle to Brandon. And so they're a wonderful family and I think he's going very, very, very far. But he's saying these things that, you know, even a few years ago you really couldn't say, you just couldn't say. But I think Donald Trump sort of offered this opportunity for us to call out all the nonsense. And so we shot down the border. We did a lot of things. We're saying, okay, you're not going to come here and become a citizen or even, you know, we're not going to give you a visa. You're not going to live here if we think that you are going to be a drain on the system because it's just not fair to the people that are already here that are working hard and would like to keep their money. And we've got 40 trillion in debt and still counting, right? Like this is not sustainable at this point. So Brandon is out there speaking the truth. You've got the president out there speaking the truth. But why did he meet with Mamdami? Why did he do that? I think, I really think it is about affordable and he wants people to know that he can work with all sides and that he's got a sympathetic ear to some of these issues. Important, important issues. You're just talking about migration, which brings me to Ilhan Omar. Ilhan Omar might get booted from Congress. If this Congressman has his way, Tim Burton coming out being very infantic that she needs to go. She needs to go. I'll tell you, she might be feeling the heat right about now. Ilhan's getting kind of nervous because Mike Lindell's reporter, Alison, you should follow her on Twitter, Alison in the nose. She's great. She's got up with Ilhan Omar and asked a very important, a very basic question. And Ilhan just got lost it, like really lost it. Check it out. Hi Congressman Tom Homan said that you're under criminal investigation for immigration marriage fraud. Any comment on that? No, I don't have a comment for that. No. You always say no one's about the law, so do you think you should be about the law? I am not above the law. Well, if there's some marriage fraud, can you just tell us straight up, did you marry your brother? Absolutely not. What are we decolisting to us? Well, then why are we married, your brother? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That's disgusting. So nobody should be doing that. Why are you being criminally investigated? I am not. Yes, you are. I am not. Well then Tom Homan's a liar or what? He is. He is. He's been saying some dumb shit. Like you? Oh, thank you. Hmm. It's amazing how Alison always gets her to swear. It's funny, because a lot of reporters go up to Ilhan Omar and she won't even talk to them. But for some reason, Alison gets something out of her and it usually ends in some kind of obscenity, which tells you she's triggered. She is triggered. Now why is she triggered? Probably because they're on to her. And I think they're on to her not just about the brother, but about something bigger that actually could lead to deportation. Nonetheless, the brother thing is front and center on everyone's mind. And Tim Burgeon went on our friend Benny's show today and he said, you know what? This guy's got to go or rather this gal's got to go. I'm going to be careful. Don't want to insinuate other things about Ilhan Omar. This gal's got to go. Why is she still in Congress? Let's take it away. Congressman. She's not. I think she needs to be gone. I think you should. What do you think should? What do you think should happen? Mr. Bartman ought to bring her up on federal charges on immigration. She lied on immigration. And that's a felony. I think if that's the case, then boom, she ought to be out of office immediately. How did she lie on immigration? Well, I mean, on her brother, is she actually, you know, is she actually married her brother? Bring it up in a court of law. Bring the charges. I'm sick of it. Bring them up or just shut up about it. It's like, I remember when Obama was in office, people were like, oh, man, you know, he wasn't born here. We're going to get him for that. They're still hollering about that. And they didn't ever do anything. Bring the proof. Bring the proof. Bring it to a court of law. File charges. Get our justice department off their butt and do something about it if it's true. And that's what needs to happen. I think he's a lot of people concerned about it. But if she did that, then then she needs to be gone. You know, I don't disagree with him because it's like, guys, what are you waiting for for goodness' sakes? I mean, how long is this going to get drawn out? You told us she married her brother, actually, the DHS secretary said that the other night to Benny, actually, he said, yeah, we've got proof. She married her brother, brother's now living in London. We have the president saying she married her brother. We have JD Van saying, yes, we have proof that she married her brother. Okay, so why aren't you doing anything about it? So I looked into this and they could actually do a DNA test. I didn't know that they could, but they can, in fact, do a DNA test. So if they were just hauler into the courtroom, they could do it, but there's a catch. And this is really important. And this relates back to what the DHS chief Mark Wynne Mullin also said just about 10 days ago or so when he said they're looking at a more expansive suit. And they're looking at whether or not more members of the family are involved, because I think they're out of options as far as the brother goes. Here we go. Five years, statute of limitations, it could be too late to prosecute Ilhan Omar on the brother. They can get her on something else. And this is what I think they're trying to do. But apparently, in another case, United States versus Rojas, the 11th Circuit held that the clock starts at marriage. She was married to this guy, Elmi. Meet new groupie setting mist from Mabelie, New York. Gel to mist technology locks in your look for up to 24 hours, with flexible all day comfy grip. No tightness, no stickiness, no residue. Just plump, dewy, hydrated skin that still feels like your skin. I knew groupie setting mist from Mabelie, New York. In 2009, which means that the statute of limitations has actually run out. And I'm like amazed by this because I'm like wait a second, but you committed immigration fraud. Shouldn't we be able to go back and get the way the law works? You got five years. And if nobody figures it out until year six, then so be it. So all these people that get married illegally that are just doing it is some kind of way to collect a payment and somebody's getting access to New York to US citizenship. You got five years. And then that's that. So that's kind of probably, if you ask me, the reason why they're not going after her this hard on that front. But there's something else they can get around. Because take a look at what has been alleged in terms of her father, okay? In terms of her entire family, don't forget Ilhan Omar came here as a refugee and she was naturalized as a citizen apparently at age 17. If there was anything in her documentation that she lied upon, that she lied about, that she, you know, maybe was not really 17, maybe she was 19, maybe she was 18, maybe her dad wasn't who he said he was. And that's where they're going to be able to get better. And that does not have a statute of limitations. That doesn't expire. You can go back in time. As far back as you need to and you can deport, which is why if you listen carefully to what the DHS Secretary is saying here, he says, yeah, we know she married the brother. And then he lets that trail off and he goes on about the broader network that they're examining. Watch. Is this an ongoing investigation? We know that she married her brother to try to bring him in the United States. We know he lives now in London. We feel that this may, you know, there's even more being, there may be more to this, the whole family, migration, and possibly some illegal activity for them to come to the United States to begin with. But all of us in the best, it we're investigating. Here's what I want to make sure we do. If we actually move a case forward, it's not a political case. It's actual case because they did things wrong. If you decided to break the law or lie on your, on the information you get in the United States, the bill to come into the United States through either a asylum or because you're just wanting to seek a better life, but you didn't tell us who you actually were. You lied about certain things about your application. Of those things, there's no expiration to that. If we can prove it that then you shouldn't be here in the first place, will the fortune. And so we're looking at it. It's more than just her case. We're looking at a lot of cases that are very similar to this that we feel like there may have been fraud from the get-go. But when we move forward, it's not political. It's because you chose to break the nation's laws. And I've said this multiple times and I continue to say, I don't make laws anymore. I'm in charge of enforcing laws and I will not pick and choose which laws I'm going to enforce and which laws I'm not. I'm going to enforce all of them regardless of who you are. Regardless of your Omar or your some other individual in that community, we're going to enforce it equally. Okay, so that was really important what he said because he's expanding this out. It's no longer just about she married her brother. He's talking about looking at the entire family network and that's pretty critical because if you listen to and cultures reporting on this, she's alleging that the family really wasn't deserving of refugee status, that the family, the father in particular had a connection to the regime that was creating so much trauma and war in Somalia in the first place. So that is something that's out there and I've heard it and I've read it and I've seen it before but let me go to Anne because she does a good job at breaking this down and let's react here because this is what they may ultimately have Ilhan Omar on and this may be ultimately why it is taking so darn long. Ilhan Omar, how does she get in? Well, her parents or father was a refugee. They were being persecuted back in Somalia. Why were they being persecuted? Anne, they were being persecuted because her father worked for a brutal Marxist Muslim dictator Sayad Bar who committed what's called a Somali Holocaust slaughter 600,000, it's estimated 600,000 Somalis destroyed level two of Somalia's biggest towns. So once bar was deposed, people didn't like that. So anyone who had worked for them such as the family of Ilhan Omar, someone came and shot in their house one day. I think it was when Ilhan was eight years old she describes militants coming and shooting through their house and the family all dove for the ground and the bullets hit the walls and that's why they had to heel, high tail it out of there and they went to Kenya. Don't know why they couldn't have stayed in Kenya. There's one problem with our immigration system. Why does you know even if you're really fleeing persecution? Why do you have to come here? So this is yet another example of our problem with our refugee system. The idea of refugees was you have Einstein who's being persecuted in Nazi Germany. So point one, none of these guys are Einstein's point two. There is no Nazi Germany. There is no Hitler out there. As the Ilhan Omar case illustrates, sometimes people are being persecuted for a reason. They persecuted others. Now they fall out of power and after they slaughter half their countrymen, we're supposed to oh no, please come here, welcome. And so there we have it. So you have members of Congress that are fed up at Nancy Mace. You can add her to that list along with Borchett. You have people making allegations that Ilhan Omar doesn't have as clean a quote unquote refugee background as she has perhaps led us to believe or perhaps her documentation led us to believe. And thus you have DHS now the head of DHS saying we are looking into the broader family network. So I'm going to add to this. You know what I want to see? I want to see some action out of treasury because I think that the quote unquote venture capital firm that apparently had experience was 60 some odd billion dollars of assets under management. My you know what come on people. I mean, you don't even have an office that was operating in 80 some odd countries give me a break. That to me has all the markings in my estimation. And this is my allegation of being fraudulent and considering her hubby Timmy Minette had well, let's just say not exactly the cleanest track record. I mean, multiple accusations of fraud through the years with his cannabis companies and his winery that didn't exist. There were no white. There were no vineyards. I'd be looking hard there. And I'd have my terrorist financing division of treasury looking very hard because there was a lot of cash going straight back into cases back to Somalia from Minneapolis more than any other any other airport in the entire country. I mean, and this is what they were declaring. It was something like seven hundred million dollars. That's what they declared. Imagine how much they didn't declare. So I want answers about the finances. I want answers about the husband's business. I want answers about feeding our future. And yes, in the meantime, maybe she should never have been here in the first place. You're going to have to get some answers on that as well. So there's a lot ahead. Shall we say as far as Ilhan Omar goes. I want to get back to the networks on strike here because there's another new development that's really kind of not networks on strike. But rather, I want to get back to what's going on vis-a-vis this lawsuit. They're suing. Okay, they're suing. These networks are suing the Trump administration saying you violated our First Amendment rights. And now they have themselves a little enemy. Oh, they have a there's a blame game going on and they know who to blame right now. The networks are blaming one person in particular. When in doubt they go back to the attractive young woman who happens to be on this president's staff, Natalie Harp. She's always working like 24/7. Travels with him is his right arm effectively and they're blaming her and they're saying that she read him some negative pieces from MSNBC, from Politico and CNN. And that is why they are all now out of their press badges. No more press badges. Those have been seized and they are blamed. It's Natalie's fault. Are you kidding me guys? Really? Because you're supposed to keep him in a bubble. Is he is he not allowed? Does he have no freedom to actually read what is news and what isn't? You want to prevent him from seeing your headlines? God forbid. One of his assistants might have told him what's actually in the news cycle that day. Come on. Okay, here we go. CNN going off on poor Natalie. Friday, which is why now, what had prompted this. And what we are told, my colleague, Kevin Lipteck and I, is that Natalie Harp, who is one of the president's closest aides, as you know, she's often in the Oval Office or on Air Force One, traveling with the president and has worked with him for years now, was showing him graphics last week of negative political coverage. And the president was infuriated by that graphic that he was shown about politico's coverage. He also was upset about several TV clips that he had seen of his coverage, of his administration and his presidency. And that is why he looped these three outlets together and announced that he was banning them from covering the White House on Friday, from accessing the White House grounds, having access to the Oval Office. And that is really what we are told is the only thing that our sources had heard is what prompted the president to take this action. You see, is this just jealousy? I mean, I cannot believe how the mainstream media has piled on this poor young woman who just happens to be a very hard working person, working for the president of the United States. And now she's like enemy number one, and they're trying to turn her into that. I mean, that's kind of unbelievable and really unnecessary. You see how they're actually trying to put a person on this, trying to specifically blame and malign her. And by the way, she's just doing her job because he probably said, what is so and so and so and so and so and so saying. And so she's reading the headlines. I'll tell you. I'll read the headlines any day. I'm amazed. I go on the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters, you know, because I checked those guys first, given my business background. I'm always looking at things through that financial lens. And I'm astonished. I mean, the negativity is just it's brimming with it. I mean, heck, you know what, I would never invest in the stock market if I believed everything that I saw in the Wall Street Journal in Bloomberg. I mean, they can't wait to tell you how bad everything is and oh my gosh, it's all about to blow up an AI and oil and boom, I'm just going to look at some of their, I mean, we just had new highs, great highs in the market today. Do you see anything about that? No. Let me go to the Wall Street Journal right now. Okay. Oh, they did actually in fairness. They did say the magnificent seven is roaring back. You better believe it is and they've got coverage of the, you know, New York Times, forgive me, the CNN, Politico and MSNBC, the network suspending some of their coverage. Oh, and now they get Trump has repeatedly weighed moving entire press car out of the White House. Well, that would be interesting. They've got the Paramount story. Today's perhaps not as bad as normal for whatever reason. Maybe they're taking this seriously. Maybe they're like, wait, we could be in trouble next. Maybe we could be, maybe that's what's going on. When I look at the financial times, I don't know as they have a seat. They're in the press pool. You see on the cover of the financial times, British paper, they're talking about AI. Yeah, everybody's worried about AI, very, very worried about AI, very, very worried about oil, very worried, of course, about Germany and what you saw in Germany over the weekend, which was the rise again at the AFD, pretty unstoppable. But I would just say this, you know, what she's doing her job. She's a young woman who's passionate about working hard and believes in this country and she's a wonderful patriot and she's just doing her job. And you guys have to make this really ugly because there's that one guy out there who had to make it really, really ugly and it's unfortunate for her. But I think it actually reflects very badly on all of you in the media. Another kind of different story. Did you see this? Well, okay, first let me start with this. Katie Perry. What was that? What was this from? This ridiculous dress. It gets worse. I've got another dress I got to show you. And it's just, she did some event over the weekend. This is an older piece of footage. She did some event over the weekend. And when you see this, you're not going to believe it. I really kind of am beginning to think that this woman has perhaps some worse taste in her clothing attires than she does, which is saying a lot, right, because she's dating Justin Trudeau. Here she is. Actually, it looks like Bob Eiger is there with her. And she's at some kind of art event over the weekend. I'll tell you, these lips. Look at that. I mean, what is that supposed to be a work of art because it's not actually the word online? This is terrible. People were like, we think it looks like a toilet seat cover. I mean, it kind of does. How do you walk around with something like that? There he is. Justin Trudeau. Justin Trudeau. I'll tell you, that poor country, Canada, if we have anybody watching from Canada, you know I love Canada. I love Canada so much. I wish Canada would join us, right? In the big, happy, wonderful capitalist U.S. of A, if we can't get Canada, we could get perhaps Alberta, right, because you guys have a lot of what we need and want. And then we could get rid of all these tariffs. I mean, hey, if Canada can become an associate country in the EU, why can't Alberta become an associate state in the U.S. of A? I keep saying this. Here's Katie again, again, with that Justin Trudeau, who apparently has now started a film studio. Huh. Gosh, I'm sorry, Canada. I'm just really sorry because, you know, he started you down a pretty bad path. And now you're good, Karni, joining with the EU. And that can't be good because I know what that's going to mean in terms of, oh, what? In terms of taxes, in terms of regulation, none of it's going to be fun, right? No, sir. Read. Anyway, good to have you guys all here. Thank you for all you do. Make sure you subscribe. Alberta, I know, on candy's like, come on down. Come on down. We do. We'd love to have you. You know what? You get a lot of oil and you got a lot of productivity. And I know you believe in capitalism just like us. And yeah, you guys, you agree, it kind of looks like a toilet seat, right? Honestly, like what goes through some people's heads? I don't know. Great to have you here. I'll see you again live on the show tomorrow.