Trump to ADDRESS election integrity, SAVE ACT, Iran War in PRIMETIME on Thursday: REPORT — RISING

[0:05] President Trump announcing in a Truth Social post yesterday afternoon that he will be making [0:09] a speech on Thursday night. His post gave no additional information about it. But despite [0:14] that, potential topics of the speech did leak with one advisor telling Axios, quote, [0:19] it will be a potpourri. Okay. According to Axios, the president wants to address the resumed fighting [0:25] with Iran and election integrity. Multiple outlets have suggested that he may present [0:31] findings from his intelligence officials about the administration's review of the 2020 election. [0:37] However, that advisor denied an online report that Trump would declare the elections of Georgia [0:42] Senators John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock fraudulent. Why is he so obsessed with fraudulent elections in [0:49] our country? There is literally no evidence, even from conservative organizations, of widespread voter [0:55] fraud, whether they're citizens of the country or whether they got mailed a wrong ballot like you [0:59] and actually turning it in with an ID. And there's no evidence of that. And there's also no widespread [1:03] evidence of people who aren't citizens here voting in our elections. So every time he brings us up and [1:08] brings it back to the forefront, we connect it to 2020, where he still won't admit that he lost that [1:12] election. And we have a problem of somebody who's trying to undermine the integrity of a system that [1:17] is working well. Look, I have zero interest in looking back at the 2020 election now. And we should [1:25] move on from this, obviously. But first of all, we have no idea what he's going to say about this [1:31] specifically. Is it going to be that, you know, okay, there's foreign influence in our elections was [1:37] actually a Democratic talking point for a very long time, when Hillary Clinton lost and said the same [1:43] things Donald Trump said about it being an illegitimate election due to foreign influence. Remember the whole [1:49] news cycle we endured for two years about Facebook bots and Russia, Russia, Russia, and every that [1:55] everything. What if it's that? What if that's what he's talking about? Is it foreign social media posts [2:00] or something? Does that a primetime address about something that Elon Musk discussed a few months [2:04] ago, how many bots are available on his app and pointed out countries that people are from that are [2:08] specifically telling nothing too urgent if it was scheduled three days in advance. But primetime signifies [2:14] something specific. Like I would think you're going to address the war in Iran. Very significant topic. [2:18] We're back to fighting. We're in the middle of a memorandum of understanding, but we're back to [2:22] fighting. I think that will be the number one thing to address, especially for someone who said, [2:26] quote, I don't care about the midterms. He's not thinking about Americans' finances. Well, [2:30] a lot of Americans are thinking about that. He could address finances in this baby state of the union. [2:35] But instead, he's going to get on primetime and talk about election fraud. [2:38] And the reason why I'm so frustrated is because this ties directly to the push for the SAVE Act and like [2:43] the housing bill that he refused to sign that still went into law that was going to help a bunch of [2:47] people or it will help a bunch of people save money as they buy their first houses or multiple [2:52] houses. This will help people get rid of some of that red tape. He wouldn't even sign that law [2:56] because he wants to pass the SAVE Act. So again, if he takes the time tonight to talk about any type [3:02] of election fraud, this is once again making sure the priority and the message of his administration [3:07] at this moment, a key time where we can talk about finances or war, is voting integrity. [3:13] And it's not a pressing issue compared to those two things that I just named. So I couldn't imagine [3:18] why he would call a primetime address to talk about fraud. [3:20] You know what else would be easier for people to buy first-time homebuyers to purchase houses [3:23] would be if taxes didn't kick in for them when they did that, like it would under Abdul El-Sayed's [3:29] policy of keeping the tax rate low for elderly property owners, but then jacking it up. [3:35] You know what else would make it cheaper? If people lived in New York, like under Momdani, [3:39] and they kept a civilized rent cost, and then they used the money that they saved since [3:44] their rent didn't triple every year to go purchase a home because now they don't have [3:48] to have ridiculous, out-of-control moves to every... [3:52] Forbid people who own their property from selling and doing what they want with it. [3:56] Right. That is very much out of the socialist playbook, but we don't need to go back to that. [4:01] Let's... I don't know. He's going to talk about a bunch of things. It's Trump. [4:04] He's going to rant about whatever it is that's going on. I don't know. We shouldn't talk. I mean, [4:10] it's not like... We're speculating right now. But that's all we have to work with. Somebody [4:14] on his team called Axios and told them that, you know, there may be... It's not like we're [4:18] making it up. They love to talk to Axios. [4:20] What's wrong with Axios? No, nothing. That's just their favorite outlet. [4:22] Oh, yeah. So I think we're not going off of nothing. We know that he definitely has an address [4:26] and he can't skip over Iran. I think that it's really important. We've seen the president [4:31] over the last... Since Sunday, go on a lot of shows specifically to talk about Lindsey [4:37] Graham's death and only want to talk about that. We saw him sitting down with Jake Tapper [4:40] who wanted to ask him some really pressing questions and I think important questions [4:44] about the war. Okay, but you're a president of a country. We talked about people in private [4:49] businesses having autonomy to say, hey, I'd like to take some time to myself. When we pay [4:53] your bills, that's not the option available to a public servant. And so the president is required [4:58] to give information, especially when it affects the whole country. And I think as we make decisions [5:03] and find out about it on Truth Social that we will be retaliating or whatever we want to do, [5:09] call it, in Iran, we're still at war with a country they're supposed to be trying to create peace with. [5:14] Well, maybe he'll announce the end of the war. Wouldn't that be nice? [5:18] No, that would be a disaster with no plan in place. [5:20] I don't like this. He declared we've restarted the counter so it's 60 more days. I'm sorry, [5:28] people. This is not consistent with our constitution at all that he can just... Congress is supposed [5:34] to approve the war and they have this idea that, well, if it's 60 days, we have a 60-day window [5:39] to act before Congress needs to approve it. But this resets every time hostilities resume. [5:45] So we could just say, okay, we're not at war. Now we're at war again. [5:47] Is that the administration's interpretation of it? [5:50] That's the administration's position, which, again, Congress has no interest in fighting [5:55] for some reason. But come on, that's BS. It's total BS. [5:59] Yeah, because I think now we're in a situation where the war has already started. So limiting [6:02] his capabilities puts us in a position, like you said, if we ever call ourselves responding [6:06] and retaliating and limiting what the president can do now that we're already in this war is [6:11] kind of absurd. [6:12] Right. I mean, Rand Paul, for instance, who's, you know, big into [6:17] congressional approval for the war, skeptical of foreign policy intervention, he said he [6:24] took a... I think he voted present or didn't participate in the latest congressional effort [6:28] to rein in what Trump's doing there because he said, well, they're negotiating. I talked [6:32] to the president. He said this would be a bad vote to take right now while the negotiation [6:36] is going on. So I said, okay. But now, look what... Now he's resumed the war. We're not [6:43] negotiating. So now that seems like you should vote against it. So I hope they do it again. [6:48] Again, and they can just make the case to Congress. Just say... Trump can just say this [6:53] is important to do and they'll vote for it. But they don't want to vote for it. [6:57] Yeah, but not with some congressional leaders missing and all these changes happening in [7:00] the middle of... That's true. I mean, we're down two senators. [7:02] Right. And also we're coming into... The war directly affects, I think, with the way that [7:07] Congress will swing. We always talk about the current... Whether it's Democrat or Republican, [7:11] whoever's in control at the time of the midterms usually loses the midterm or loses some seats. [7:16] And so the fact that there is no specific and organized next step that the Republicans right [7:21] now can point to about how they're in lockstep about the way forward. I mean, there's criticism [7:25] from every side of the aisle about what the next steps in Iran were. The memorandum looked [7:29] crazy to most people and no one knew the way forward. So the only thing that I could imagine [7:34] the president addressing would be the next steps because this directly affects so many things. [7:38] Whether you're voting in the midterms on the economy only, well, guess what? This affects [7:42] that. Whether you're voting on foreign and how much we interfere in foreign nations, you're [7:47] voting on that. They attacked our ships. [7:48] I understand. So you can call it retaliatory attacks, whatever you like to call it. We ran [7:53] into the country on behalf of an ally, even though we said we ran into them to get nuclear [7:57] weapons out. So we also attacked them first. I mean, if you want to... If we're starting [8:00] from the war beginning. If we're not starting from years of... [8:02] The party war would deny, again, that we started it. They would say that Iran has been attacking [8:07] terrorist groups. But I've asked supporters over and over [8:09] again, which specific event are you pointing to that we were responding to? [8:12] October 7th. No, because October 7th was responded to by attacks on Hamas, multiple. [8:17] Hamas is funded by Iran. Yeah, but multiple attacks were... And we've come up with a peace [8:21] plan for that war. So there was a response. Well, I wish the terrorists agreed. [8:25] A country that was allowed to respond to that. And then there was President Trump who touted [8:28] that he's ended that war and come up with a peace plan and a whole peace board. So [8:31] you cannot then, almost six months after the president has said he come up with a peace [8:36] plan and a way forward, be the same country that decides to start a new war based on October [8:40] 7th. That's not rationale. They just shot at our boats again. [8:42] No, they shot at our boats mid-war, mid-memorandum of understanding. [8:46] You see, the point is it's a little hard to say who started what after years and decades [8:53] and centuries of conflict in the Middle East between Muslim radicals and others. It's [9:03] hard to say who's started this. There's no who started this at this point. [9:07] All I know is that when Biden was president, we weren't at war with Iran. [9:09] We're trying to stop it. [9:10] I know when Obama was president, we weren't at war with Iran. That's all I know. And so [9:14] I'm starting from then because we weren't at war. [9:16] We weren't at war. But a conservative would say, yes, under Obama, we weren't at war with [9:21] them because we agreed to a deal that gave them all this stuff in exchange for nothing. [9:25] And now we've agreed to a new deal or we've agreed to a new memorandum that's going to [9:29] give them even more than Obama gave them and pay for them to rebuild the entire country. [9:32] Oh, but we're not paying for investors that get incentives from the U.S. [9:36] Well, for taking nuclear off the table from them for a while. I don't actually care if [9:41] they get their money back as long as he gets something. [9:42] Building no nuclear bombs was in Obama's JCPOA. It was like in the first few lines. [9:47] Like a short time period. [9:48] No, you might say they weren't complying by it, but that was written. And so what makes [9:52] you think Iran will comply in any different way with no different oversight? The same [9:56] international agencies will be overviewing how Iran complies. So nothing changes. [10:01] Well, what changed is now we blew them up and their nuclear materials are at the bottom [10:05] of their underground, buried under, blown up things. [10:09] A dozen states are banded together trying to stop the merge between Paramount and Warner [10:14] Brothers. I'm going to get into that next in my lens. Don't go anywhere.