ks like a criminal organization. Like actually literally. It's made to move large amounts of money through various organizations that they control. And that appears to be the main purpose because the only thing they're always in favor of is moving a large amount of money through any Democratic controlled organization. It doesn't even matter if it's BLM or climate change or anything else. Large amounts of money move it through a big activity because then they all get a taste. That's where the bribery happens. That's where the money laundering happens.

So to me I think the overwhelming driving force of the Democrat Party has been money laundering and bribery at the working level. And then the voters have just been confused because I think the voters that I'm looking at, two political parties, and I like what one of them says but why is it that when I keep agreeing and voting for the one that keeps saying what I like to hear, my life is not improving? And that's what everybody noticed. Their life didn't improve. They were buying into what the Democrats were saying but their life didn't get better. And now everybody noticed. That's the benefit of having Trump having been in office once. You just had a direct comparison. You could just look at it and say I like that better.

So I think a more correct frame is that the Democrat Party in my opinion, and again without the benefit of court endorsed findings, it looks like it's primarily a criminal activity at least at the leadership levels. They're trading stocks and making deals and getting their gold bars and pointing people to jobs that they're not qualified for and it just all looks like criminal to me.

Now when you look at the Republican side, let us try to find some unity here. And let me say this. Do I believe that there are no Republicans trying to get away with stealing money? No I don't believe that. I'm sure there's some Republicans looking to steal some money. What I don't see is that it seems like that's their only job. The Democrats act like it's their only job. It's like everything is pushing in that direction. And the Republicans are trying to actually do a variety of things that seem like they're good for the country.

All right, here's some more corrections. So maybe this Diddy thing will, and the fact that there will be a Republican AG, may take a big bite out of the whole pedophile situation which I've never known how big it really was. But Hollywood took a beating on the election and everything else. The old Diddy situation is shutting people up.

And here's another one. According to Fortune Magazine, Trump's election is going to create a DEI reckoning that forces companies to either double down or to step away from it. That seems like really good news. So there are now I think maybe 20 companies, biggish companies, that have cancelled or cut down on their DEI. And there should be more to come. But I also expect that when the government says it's illegal so you have to get rid of it in the government, I think the big companies have to fold. I think they have to follow. So you may see the end of DEI.

I can tell you that I've heard almost no wokeness for a week. It used to be all the news, all the zeitgeist was here's some more wokeness and then we would complain about it. Here's some more and then we complain about it. And it just never stopped. I feel like the wokeness just stopped. The people who would even bring up these topics, they just stopped. Because now they realize what the public thinks.

The entire trans situation, which I always like to remind I'm pro adults doing whatever they need to want to, just living their life the way they want to. But of course kids in bathrooms and sports are special cases and they have to be adjudicated. But I feel like the trans topic will just sort of disappear. Or not disappear. I think it will shrink to the size it should have been naturally. Its natural size should have been small and maybe it'll just go back to that. But again I wish the best for the trans community.

CNN and MSNBC both look like they're dead. It looks like they're just on fumes. Is the Washington Post still alive? Did the Washington Post close? And The Daily Beast is having problems and Gawker closed. And of course the old version of Twitter is dead. And now ABC is apparently trying to figure out how to bring in a pro-Trump voice to The View and maybe some of their other shows because ABC got hammered so badly for handling the debates poorly. So imagine how in the world are they going to put a pro-Trump voice on The View.

All right I'll do it. I'll do it. Now I'm going to obviously need to identify as a woman but if there was one place in the world I could identify as a woman and everybody would shut the fuck up about it it would be The View. So if you want me on The View I am willing to identify as a woman. I'll still dress the same because I'll be like a poorly dressed woman. I'll look exactly the same. Just very poorly dressed. And I think I'd be great. But I'd have to do it from home because I don't want to commute.

Joy Reid deleted her X account. Now there is no Joy on X. So that's moving in the right direction. I will not have to see her mental illness being presented as content.

But who else? Oh Don Lemon is quitting. So Don Lemon, the unluckiest person in media, decided that he would quit X on the same week that Trump set the entire news business on fire by nominating the most provocative people you could possibly ever nominate. And then poor Don Lemon's trying to get some attention and I'm quitting what I call Twitter because that's an insult to it. Have you heard that Pete Hegseth is going to be the Secretary of Defense? I know but you have. Anybody heard I'm quitting Twitter? The Attorney General is going to be Matt Gaetz. Maybe I know but also I won't be posting on Twitter. Sorry Don, your message has been cancelled by bigger news. No one cares.

Meanwhile the star for Disney's Snow White, Rachel Zegler, she has ill feelings about Trump and all of his voters. So that means that Disney's Snow White movie will lose about a billion dollars. So do you think that you could be an actress and get another job if you just cost your employer a billion dollars? Because this probably cost them a billion dollars. Because I don't know how many conservatives would have watched this piece of garbage content anyway. But once the main actress says you to half of the country, half of the country is going to leave that on the shelf. So let's say half the country's children will not be indoctrinated by whatever the hell is on Snow White. So that's good news.

Ohio lawmakers passed a bill banning biological males from girls' bathrooms. Most of you would call that a move in the right direction, wouldn't you?

And let's see. Did you know that FEMA, you know that story about the woman who was in charge of one area and she told people to stay away from homes that had Trump signs? In other words don't help Trump voters in emergency. Now the first time I heard that I told you I thought well that's not true. I mean that's like an obvious hoax. Obviously there could not possibly be anything in writing at FEMA, in writing, that says don't help Trump supporters during an emergency. That couldn't possibly be true. It's true. It's completely true. It's worse than that. It wasn't just one person. The female worker who got fired says it's not isolated and the female workers were instructed to do it in the Carolinas too according to the Gateway Pundit. It's not only true it was a general FEMA or it was wider than one area. It wasn't completely probably.

Now that's the bad news right? Here's the good news. Trump's in charge of FEMA now I guess that shit's just got fixed. So here's another thing that got fixed just because Trump is coming. He's not even there yet and I guarantee you they're getting rid of that rule right? Do you think FEMA is waiting until they get a new boss or are they saying let's maybe we should kind of quickly revise the way we've been doing this before he gets in charge. Maybe we should hurry up and clean up our own house and delete all these records. So watching how guilty people know they are and watching them change their behavior just in anticipation of Trump is pretty awesome. It's pretty awesome.

Anyway so those are all the things that are going our way. Have you ever seen so many things go your way at the same time? It really is a remarkable time. You know when Trump called it the Golden Age you always wonder is that hyperbole? I don't think it is. I think everything is lining up in a way I've never seen. I've never seen or felt anything like this. It's the Golden Age. It's really here. Now of course we have to make it. It's not going to be easy. There'll be plenty of challenges.

But Rasmussen did a poll on mass deportations. 64% of likely voters approve of Trump's promise to, quote, on day one launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out. Two-thirds of the country is on board with a massive deportation. Do you think things are changing? Everything is moving in the right direction at the moment.

Meanwhile Jack Smith, one of the guys going after Trump in the lawfare cases, he reportedly is going to step down before Trump gets into office. Okay once again we see things are being set right simply by Trump is on the way. Trump hasn't even gotten there to fire anybody yet and they're quitting in anticipation correctly that they will be fired.

Meanwhile Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson have ordered the FBI to preserve, or requested to preserve, all records on the Jack Smith investigation. Yes they're going to investigate the investigator. How great is that? They're going to investigate the investigator because he damn well needs to be investigated. From a public perspective he definitely needs to be investigated. I mean there's some stuff we need to know about that situation.

Meanwhile Mark Ruffalo, you know him from The Avengers and other movies, he's said now about the election because he was one of the notable backers of Harris. He said, quote, and this is according to a Breitbart headline, he said quote we got our asses kicked. Now Breitbart, I don't normally like to give advice to publications. Breitbart you really missed an opportunity here. This is the story: Mark Ruffalo said we got our asses kicked. Here's the headline you should have used: Hulk sulk. You're welcome. It's my best joke of the day. Hulk sulk. If you watch The Avengers that's pretty funny.

All right. Seattle has started throwing shoplifters and petty criminals in jail for the first time in four years. I guess the first two years they said it was the pandemic you know they didn't want people in close quarters so they reduced their people in jail. And then they said they didn't have resources because they probably defunded the police. But now they have resources and they have room in jail so they're throwing their petty criminals back in jail. So again things are going your way in this big self-correcting country that we have that is so wonderful.

This week Joe Rogan says that the Harris-Walz campaign wanted to make sure that he didn't talk about marijuana legalization if he did an interview with Harris. Now he said quote I think they had requirements on things that she didn't want to talk about. She didn't want to talk about marijuana legalization which I thought was hilarious said Joe Rogan.

Now here's my question. I was struck in two different ways. Number one of course the fact that anybody would go to an interview and say there's something that's off topic that's just so weak. And especially if the topic is one of national concern and you're running for office. Yeah no there should not be anything off topic. So the Harris campaign looks weak and pathetic and you can see why they lost. However I'm not entirely sure that a private conversation with the campaign should be divulged. On the other hand it's a public interest so I'm going to say yes in this special case yes. But generally speaking I'm not a fan of anybody revealing a private conversation. But it was somebody running for president and it was a matter of national concern and you know the event over. There's no security issue to it. Now but if she had become president I think that maybe then he should have, maybe. Well I don't know. Maybe it's still appropriate. Yeah I'm just sort of thinking that one through as I go. I just don't like private conversations being revealed unless you have a really good reason. I've revealed a few private things that Trump said to me that one time in 2018 when I met him for a few minutes but it was only because they make him look smart. So I feel completely confident that if I say Trump knew something was going to happen years before it happened that if he heard that he'd say oh that's fine you know. So I don't feel like that's a risk.

Did you watch the video of Biden and Trump meeting for their peaceful turnover of power? Apparently they had a good chat for two hours. Biden was all smiles. I've never seen him so happy to turn over power to Hitler. Do you think that watching him roll over so happily is enough to convince Democrats that they've been lied to about Hitler coming into office? Do you think they figured it out yet? Because I figure that's enough for at least some of them to say wait a minute you said Hitler was coming but every one of you is acting like Hitler isn't coming. So how did you immediately go from Hitler's coming to oh everything's normal? How'd you do that? Were you lying to us the entire time? And of course they were lying to the public the entire time. But do Democrats see it? Because as obvious as it is to Republicans the way cognitive dissonance works is that it can blind even a smart person to the obvious. So I suspect that even smart Democrats somehow are creating in their minds a blind spot to turn off the fact that everybody said he was Hitler for sure and as soon as he got elected they acted like he's definitely not Hitler. The one thing we know for sure like not even a there's not even a chance of it. Like it didn't even go from definitely Hitler to well you better watch out he might be Hitler. Like that would seem like the normal way to step down but it went from he's definitely Hitler to there's not really any problem here at all that we see. Let's just act totally normally and I think everything will be fine. How do you not notice that?

Anyway that should be the end of the Democrat Party for a decade. Do you think that Trump made any deals with Biden? It's possible although it would be a kind of a risky way to do it you know because things could get out. But if I were Trump you could imagine a scenario in which he would say privately to Biden look I think you and I should make an agreement. We're going to keep our families out of it and I plan to pardon Hunter if you'd like me to pardon you or any member of your family. I will take care of that but I'm going to ask for the same. But basically I want you to cooperate basically. I don't know would that be illegal to make a deal like that? I think the president has that flexibility. I don't know if it's all legal but I wouldn't mind. As much as I think Hunter did some imprisonable stuff I would rather the country climb back from attacking families. We should at least get back to Mafia standards where the families left out of it. You can go as hard as you want at the candidate but just leave the family out of it. So you could sort of imagine Trump saying you went too far with my family. I'm not going to return that to you. And just say can we make a peace? Can we bury that hatchet now? I don't think it happened. It's just sort of a recreationally fun speculation anyway.

A reporter asked Biden as he was in the I guess one of those little ceremonial rooms, asked him if he thinks he can get a hostage deal done by the end of the term. And when Biden was asked if he could get a hostage deal done by the end of the term for Israel, Biden said quote do you think that you can get hit in the head by the camera behind you? Okay so that's what we have.

And what we're moving to is Trump. Did Trump get anything done yesterday? Yes. Well Trump didn't do this but the Senate picked their Majority Leader. Now I don't know much about this particular senator but there will be a lot of news breaking about him and I believe I'll learn about him soon. Sorry I had to do that. I have some concerns about whether he will really work with Trump as well as he says he will. I think on most things he will. But he's been critical of Trump in the past so he does not count as a loyalist per se. Definitely a loyal Republican but not a Trump loyalist. So we'll see. I would say the verdict is out. So that can either be a superstar or less than that and I believe that is completely in his hands. He's a little bit of a blank slate. I mean people who really know the inner workings of things may have an opinion but the rest of us don't really have any idea. He's just like a brand new character on the stage for most of us. So I'm going to say open mind. He might be great but keep an eye on it.

So as you've already heard Matt Gaetz has been nominated by Trump to be the Attorney General. The Wall Street Journal which is not wild about this says quote in the editorial this is a bad choice for the attorney general that would undermine confidence in the law. Undermine confidence in the law? Are you kidding? Who has confidence in the law? How could you possibly undermine confidence in the law? It's 2024. We've been lawed way beyond any sense that the law has been operating on our behalf. No I don't have any confidence in the law. Are you kidding me? Or science or just about anything else at the moment.

So and then they noted that Gaetz has a law degree from William and Mary but that he's going to cause all kinds of provocations and it's going to be a bunch of problems blah blah blah blah blah. Now their argument seems to be that he's a performer and provocateur and that that's the wrong fit for the Attorney General.

Can I give some education to the Wall Street Journal editorial board? Would you mind if I taught the people who are supposedly experts in business some basic facts about business? Do you mind if I educate them? All right I'm Wall Street Journal editorial board. I'm taking you aside. Let me explain something to you. It goes like this. If I were to encounter a kitten here's how I would act. A cute little kitten. Ah here's a little scratch. If I were to encounter somebody trying to kill me I would react more like and try to fight it off. If I went to a job interview I would act polite and professional. If I were elected to Congress and I knew that getting attention was just like money I would be provocative. In other words because I have a functional brain I will modify my behavior for the circumstances so that I get the best pull from the certain circumstance.

Now if the Wall Street Journal thinks that Gaetz is going to go to the Attorney General job and act the same way that he acted in Congress where provocation was rewarded and then he would go where provocation is definitely not rewarded and he would not figure that out and you don't think he's smart enough to know that the way you act as an attorney general is different than you act if you're a member of Congress especially young member of Congress and different than you would act if you were on the Supreme Court and different than you would act if you were a babysitter and different than you would act in every place in the world. How about everybody acts different when the context changes? Trump does. Have you ever seen Trump interact with say teenagers or the barber shop or the employees at McDonald's? Does Trump act exactly the same way when he's talking to the employees at McDonald's as he does when he's talking to the fake news? No he modifies his performance to the situation.

If you don't think Gaetz is smart enough to modify his performance for the situation you shouldn't be writing editorials for the Wall Street Journal. I mean that's kid stuff. This is basic. So that's disappointing from The Wall Street Journal.

And then of course there's a lot of worry that this is a sign that Trump is going to get busy with lawfare. Maybe so. Let me say this clearly. Having a loyalist who's as, let's say whose risk reward profile is what Gaetz's is, it does open the possibility that we could be, I would be surprised by it but that there could be a little bit of lawfare that you didn't see coming. Some little revenge. Now as I've told you too many times I would not be in favor of that at all and I will immediately at least be one of the voices pushing back if I think he goes too far. However that is a risk I'm really willing to take. Right the world is not risk free. But what we have is a situation where the Department of Justice in my opinion is completely broken and has become a lawfare organization. The only person I would trust to dismantle an existing lawfare situation is somebody like Matt Gaetz. Or if I may say exactly Matt Gaetz and not even just somebody like Matt Gaetz. Matt Gaetz like he would be my number one choice in the whole world because he's young enough, he's aggressive enough, he has the ear of the president and he's watched the lawfare and presumably some of it was against him. So we need more than we need anything in this country we need somebody to go in and just brutally get rid of the lawfare leaning people.

Now does that give you the risk that the pendulum goes too far and then Republicans become a little lawfare-y themselves? Yes that is a risk and that is your job not just Matt Gaetz's job not the president's job alone. This is your job as supporters of the president if you were or even if you weren't you know if you're just acting as a citizen. As a citizen you need to be the gatekeepers to make sure that doesn't go too far. All right I plan to be very serious about that because it's a legitimate concern. If I were a Democrat I would definitely be worried about that no doubt about it. I'd be worried about that. And I think it's our responsibility to make sure that that stays within, you know if you broke a real law then that has to be addressed.

Now who would be worried about that? Well we've got Adam Schiff who's a little worried about it and yeah so Adam Schiff is not too happy about the Matt Gaetz situation. Now Matt Gaetz might not be confirmed so he might not have enough support and there might not, certainly if he needs Democrats. But apparently they can do something clever with the rules where if Trump, let's see if the two members of Congress if the Senate and the House do not agree on an adjournment, let's say one wants to adjourn and one doesn't, then if they don't agree or they don't agree on the timing of it then the president can adjourn them. So once they're adjourned then you can do these recess appointments. Now I think they're not permanent. I think they're two years or something like that but you can get a lot done in two years. So we don't know for sure if the Democrats have a way to thwart that but it'll be fun to watch.

Now the point and Matt Gaetz has already resigned his job by the way which as some have pointed out is a total baller move because he's basically said you know I'm in. You know I'm going to do whatever it takes. I'm in. On the other hand it might be a practical decision because it also opens up space and it gives Trump another hit on the Overton window. So the Overton window is you create so much news that even if there's some of it that normally would be negative to you you overwhelm it with new news. So this would create the situation where Trump, obviously talking to DeSantis it would be DeSantis's decision could I think just select a temporary new representative. Is that how it works? Do I have the process right? It's DeSantis right? DeSantis gets to fill the space until the next election. Is that correct?

Now who do you think he'd fill the space with? Well it turns out that Laura Trump has expressed interest in an interview. Now she didn't say it directly she just said if asked you know she would of course serve. Now that's a yes. How much fun would that be? Because she's coming off of what looks like a terrific job for the RNC and she fits every, she checks off every box. She's definitely smart enough. She's great on TV. She's got central casting look. She's as loyal as you could possibly be. It's hard to imagine that there's any box she doesn't check. So I'd be for it. But it would also be great provocative news to add to the whole cycle.

Then there's also people who say that there's some ethics report that might be in the works against Gaetz and if he's no longer in the House then any ethics report would presumably just go away because there's no point in it. So there could be several reasons for him to announce he's leaving early. But sure made things interesting.

Let's see. Eric Swalwell doesn't like it. Adam Schiff doesn't like Gaetz being there. And what do those two guys have in common? Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell what do they have in common? I think I've told you that in the Democrat world they have regular liars that would be just you know any senator representative they're going to say things or exaggerations about Trump or maybe they'll spread one of the hoaxes or something but sort of general ordinary political lying. But when they need somebody to lie the big lies like the really big whoppers the ones that even the regular Democrats won't touch they trot out Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell every time. It's always those two right? So once you realize that they're the designated liars and that you know the ones that come out with them are like you know Woodward and Brennan sometimes Clapper. Like there's this group of people who always accompany the biggest lie. So the two of the biggest lie guys Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell are like oh no they're all over TV and well not on TV in Schiff's case but they're both the vocal ones.

Now I think they both have something to worry about. Again they should be completely protected against lawfare 100% but it seems to me there are observable behaviors that need to be looked into that a normal reasonable person would say yeah we kind of need to look into that. So I don't want it to cross any barriers into lawfare but I could see why they'd be worried.

All right the choice of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. I'm watching a number of people have a reaction very similar to my own which is what that can't be true. Pete Hegseth? Wait you're talking about Pete Hegseth? Are you pronouncing that right? The you talk about the Fox weekend host? You couldn't even get like a weekday host? You had to get like a weekend host? And then you dig down and you find out that number one he's brilliant and he's got Harvard and Yale on his resume and he spent a lot of time in some pretty serious military positions and he was once considered for head of the VA the first administration because he's done so much work for veterans. And then I said to myself wait a minute he knows the military from the bottom up. He's definitely loyal to Trump. And then I watched some clips where he is super anti-woke and wants to get rid of all the generals who would be DEI and woke people. And I said to myself I've never seen anyone more perfect for the job. And he also has the central casting thing. Has the look.

So I went from this is stupid to is this genius? Is this as smart as it looks? Because it might be. Like not Yale. I saw a Yale I think I thought there was some Yale. He had two degrees so I'll take a fact check on that. There might be a fact check on his degrees but in any case he is both brilliant and he has enough connections with and experience with and all the right ways the military that he doesn't have to do the jobs of the people who would work for him. That's their jobs. But for the big decision-making things, the bold changes, the getting rid of a general, the big changes that we might need to make in funding and spending and all those things yeah. You know what I say open mind and I'm sure he was looked at very carefully for that job and let's see what happens. I do think that I want somebody that Trump can trust more than I want somebody with experience and I'll say that with no hesitation for that job. The experience doesn't count as much because you know it knows how to run itself no matter who the boss is. But for the special things that the boss has to do such as fire a general or change the general direction to be more compatible with what Trump wants or even just to make sure that when Trump says he wants something it actually gets executed and not slow walked. So you need somebody who can recognize the slow walk. Like when something's ordered they go oh yeah we'll do that but it takes five years. So and then you need somebody say no it doesn't it takes two months to do it anyway. So he might be a great choice.

Tulsi Gabbard Director of National Intelligence. Oh well let me say one more thing about Pete Hegseth. I saw a video by Don Lemon before he left Twitter as he calls it. I call it X. And he was laughing and mocking that Pete Hegseth would be chosen for Secretary of Defense. So let me summarize the situation for you. There was a guy named Don Lemon who worked for a network TV outfit. There was a guy named Pete Hegseth who worked for a competing TV news outlet. Probably pretty si