linda traitz may 29 2025

Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to secretly retrieve US made Stinger Missiles that the State Dept had supplied to Ansar al Sharia in Libya WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission.

Sec State Hillary Clinton had brokered the Libya deal through Ambassador Stevens and a Private Arms Dealer named Marc Turi, but some of the shoulder fired Stinger Missiles ended up in Afghanistan where they were used against our own military. On July 25th, 2012, a US Chinook helicopter was downed by one of them. Not destroyed only because the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile. The helicopter didn't explode, but it had to land and an ordnance team recovered the missile’s serial number which led back to a cache of Stinger Missiles kept in

Qatar by the CIA.

Obama and Hillary were in full panic mode, so Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi to retrieve the rest of the Stinger Missiles. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the Stand Down Orders given to multiple rescue teams during the siege of the US Embassy.

It was the State Dept, NOT the CIA, that supplied the Stinger Missiles to our sworn enemies because Gen. Petraeus at CIA would not approve supplying the deadly missiles due to their potential use against commercial aircraft. So then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus when he refused to testify in support of Obama’s phony claim of a “spontaneous uprising caused by a YouTube video that insulted Muslims.”

Obama and Hillary committed TREASON!

THIS is what the investigation is all about, WHY she had a Private Server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and WHY Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was the result of the YouTube video, even though everyone KNEW it was not.

Furthermore, the Taliban knew that the administration had aided and abetted the enemy WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission, so they began pressuring (blackmailing) the Obama Administration to release five Taliban generals being held at Guantanamo.

Bowe Bergdahl was just a useful pawn used to cover the release of the Taliban generals. Everyone knew Bergdahl was a traitor but Obama used Bergdahl’s exchange for the five Taliban generals to cover that Obama was being coerced by the Taliban about the unauthorized Stinger Missile deal.

So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised, as well and a Sec of State that is a serial liar, who perjured herself multiple times at the Congressional Hearings on Benghazi. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft were called upon for help in Benghazi: because the administration knew that our enemies had Stinger Missiles that, if used to down those planes, would likely be traced back to the CIA cache in Qatar and then to the State Dept’s illegitimate arms deal in Libya.

@RickyDoggin

 

Karoline Leavitt Hijacks Colbert’s Stage in Explosive On-Air Clash—Audience Gasped, Show Abruptly Cut, and TV History Made  News  5/25/2025 ??

The Ed Sullivan Theater crackled with electricity on the night that political commentator Karoline Leavitt faced off with late-night host Stephen Colbert. What was meant to be a familiar blend of sharp satire and casual political banter turned into something far more explosive—a culture clash so raw and unscripted that it rattled the very foundations of late-night television.

Colbert, known for his acerbic wit and left-leaning commentary, had likely expected a spirited debate. But what he got was a full-frontal challenge from a guest who came not to play along—but to push back. From the moment she walked on stage, Leavitt made it clear: she wasn’t there to be the punchline.

“If You Want Comedy, Steven…”

The tension erupted almost immediately. When Colbert opened with a light jab at Leavitt’s campaign strategies, the crowd chuckled. But Leavitt’s icy reply cut through the laughter: “If you want comedy, Steven, go ahead. But I came here to talk about real issues that matter to Americans.” The studio fell quiet, the audience unsure whether to laugh or brace themselves.

Colbert tried to recover with a trademark joke, but Leavitt pushed forward—criticizing the media’s bias, accusing The Late Show of silencing conservative perspectives, and calling out the liberal echo chamber she believes dominates television. It was a bold—and rare—moment of ideological defiance on a stage not known for nuance when it comes to conservative voices.

The Trump Tipping Point

Things escalated when Colbert brought up former President Donald Trump, adding his usual satirical spin. Leavitt leaned in, unwavering: “You can mock him all you want, but millions of Americans saw their lives improve under his leadership. You laughed, but they’re still struggling today.”

Silence. No punchline. Just shock.

Colbert, momentarily caught off guard, tried to steer the conversation back toward lighter ground—pop culture, current headlines—but Leavitt refused to pivot. She redirected the spotlight to inflation, crime, and border security. “People aren’t laughing at their grocery bills,” she said. “They’re not entertained by fentanyl in their schools.”

Every audience reaction—from scattered boos to stunned gasps—underscored that this wasn’t just an awkward interview. It was a battle for narrative control. And Leavitt wasn’t backing down.

A Battle of Wills on Live TV

When Colbert challenged her with, “Do you really believe everything you’re saying, or is this just political theater?” Leavitt didn’t flinch: “It’s not theater when you’re living paycheck to paycheck, Steven. But maybe you wouldn’t understand that from inside this Manhattan studio.”

Gasps turned into murmurs. Producers signaled from offstage. The conversation had veered too far off-script, too fast. Colbert’s attempts to regain control faltered. Leavitt had hijacked the segment—but not with chaos. With conviction.

The interview was cut short—abruptly. A producer entered the frame, whispered in Colbert’s ear, and the show went to commercial. Cameras were still rolling when Leavitt stood, turned to Colbert, and delivered one final mic-drop: “Maybe next time, invite someone you’re actually willing to listen to.”

A Firestorm Erupts Online

Within minutes, the hashtag #LeavittVsColbert began trending. Social media lit up with reactions: praise, outrage, analysis. Some hailed Leavitt as a fearless truth-teller; others accused her of turning a comedy platform into a campaign rally.

The Late Show issued a statement blaming the cut-off on “time constraints.” Leavitt’s team fired back, accusing the show of censoring a guest who wouldn’t play along with the script. Journalists, pundits, and media watchdogs jumped into the fray. The consensus? This wasn’t just a failed interview. It was a cultural flashpoint.
Fallout on Both Sides

The incident had ripple effects. Leavitt became a fixture on conservative outlets, portraying herself as the David who stormed Goliath’s stage. She argued that the mainstream media was too fragile to handle dissent—and the confrontation proved it.

Meanwhile, Colbert addressed the episode in a later monologue, trying to strike a lighter tone. “Sometimes,” he joked, “truth walks in wearing a smile and leaves flipping the script.” But the edge was there. The Late Show had been shaken—and not just by a tough guest. By a new media reality where control isn’t guaranteed and confrontation goes viral.

More Than a Viral Moment

What happened at the Ed Sullivan Theater wasn’t just television. It was a televised metaphor for the growing chasm between America’s political tribes.

To Leavitt’s supporters, it was a brave confrontation of elite liberalism. To Colbert’s fans, it was an invasion of a space meant for satire and civil discourse. For everyone else, it was a sign that the old media rules are breaking—and no one is sure what comes next.

Leavitt proved she could walk into the lion’s den and not just survive—but flip the narrative. Colbert was reminded that even in a studio built for laughs, the truth—however you define it—can walk in uninvited and leave the audience speechless.
Final Takeaway

In the end, it wasn’t just about who “won” the exchange. It was about what it represented: the risks of inviting a disruptor onto a platform built for applause lines, and the consequences of underestimating someone who came not to entertain, but to challenge.

For Karoline Leavitt, the moment catapulted her from rising conservative voice to national firebrand. For Stephen Colbert, it was a reminder that comedy meets its limits when ideology refuses to play nice.

One stage. Two worldviews. No script. And a country still arguing about what it all meant.

 

 TIM ALLEN - ON TRUMP

 Whatever your feelings for Trump, these are some interesting points that Tim Allen makes. Put your hatred aside and think about these observations. Tim Allen is credited with writing this ...
Tim Allen wrote... Here are some interesting points to think about prior to 2020, especially to my friends on the fence, like moderate Democrats, Libertarians and Independents and the never Trump Republicans and those thinking of "walking away" from the Democratic party:
- Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words -- they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.
- Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.
- No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait... there's more...
- Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege. And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.
- President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America!
- We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.
- They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.
- 60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.
- Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!
- Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.
- A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint ... Yet!
- How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?
- Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.
- Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.
- I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president of the United States of America. The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning, now tells me Trump’s approval ratings are low.
- “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher
- Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.
- President Trump said — "They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way."MP:

Now, go Back & Read this Again like your Future Depends upon it, Because it Does!

 

 

WATCH: SPEAKER JOHNSON DROPS BOMBSHELL: COURTS ON CHOPPING BLOCK! April 24,,  2025

In a bold and necessary move, House Speaker Mike Johnson has issued a stark warning to the far-left activist judges waging lawfare against President Donald J. Trump. Since his triumphant return to the White House on January 20, 2025, President Trump has faced an unprecedented wave of politically motivated legal attacks—137 cases in less than two months, with only two closed. This is not justice; this is a judicial insurrection, as Senior Counsel Josh Hammer of the Article III Project rightly called it on The War Room with Steve Bannon.

The radical left, unable to defeat Trump at the ballot box, has weaponized the courts to sabotage his presidency. During his first term, Trump faced 65 nationwide injunctions—already an outrageous number. But now, the lawfare has escalated to staggering levels, with activist judges—many appointed by Biden and Obama—issuing reckless rulings designed to obstruct the will of the American people.

Speaker Johnson, finally recognizing the existential threat posed by these rogue judges, declared that CONGRESS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DEFUND AND EVEN DISBAND THESE LAWLESS COURTS. In a statement that sent shockwaves through the liberal media, Johnson said: (THIS IS AWESOME)
“We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power over funding for the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act. So stay tuned for that.”

This is a long-overdue response to the left’s judicial tyranny. The Supreme Court, sadly, has failed to rein in these activist judges, leaving Congress as the last line of defense. The liberal media, of course, is in full panic mode, framing Johnson’s warning as an “attack on democracy.” But what about the real attack on democracy—unelected judges legislating from the bench to undermine a duly elected president?

nn

nn

A lot of us feel the same way....Where are all the arrests

 Why is it only a problem now?

Steve Crabtree  Yesterday at 11:35 AM 

 

Did you know? Under Obama, over 3 million people were deported—but 75–83% never saw a judge or had a chance to plead their case.

Most were removed through expedited processes at the border—no court hearing, no trial.

And this isn’t unique to Obama. Under Clinton and Bush, millions were also deported without judicial oversight.

Due process? Apparently, only if a republican or Donald Trump is in charge! 

So I ask you—where was all the outrage then? Where were the protests against Obama, Clinton, or Bush? This has been standard practice under many presidents before Trump 

No president in U.S. history has ever been required to get permission from the courts—or from anyone else—to defend the sovereignty of their own borders.

Why is it only a problem now?

vv

With all the federal judges cozying up together against President Trumps illegal immigrant deportation agenda, maybe they should ALL be made to read this !

R** S******z

Thomas Jefferson, no novice when it comes to government and the
Constitution, warned of judicial extremes.

This Founding Father stated:
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . .The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”(2)

In a letter to Judge Roane, September 6, 1819, Jefferson restated his concerns regarding the judiciary, contending that the Constitution did not give them control over the other two branches.
Had it done so, Jefferson contended that:
“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”(3)

In a letter to Diplomat William Jarvis (September 28, 1820), Jefferson again warned that making the Supreme Court the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional issues would lead to despotism:

“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”(4)
And at the risk of boring you with Jeffersonian wisdom, eloquence, and accurate predictions, here is one more statement referencing the judiciary as the “most dangerous” branch of our government:

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance...” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)(5)

Thomas Jefferson knew the weaknesses of human nature, and that “judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.”(6) Indeed, the last line of defense for the deep state and leftist legislators, in their attempts to maintain control of America seems now to be the courts.

 
As Daniel Horowitz stated:
“They have ordered the administration to fund private foreign aid organizations, reinstate specific personnel, and publish designated information on government websites. In one case, a judge even directed the Secretary of Defense to retract a statement on the Pentagon’s policy regarding transgender troops. And over the weekend, U.S. District Judge James Boasburg attempted to block the deportation of violent gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. [The same judge who serves on FISA, the court that issued warrants to spy on the Trump campaign nine years ago. He later sentenced an FBI agent who falsified information in order to obtain the warrant to only probation, while sentencing January 6 participants to years in prison.]

“What’s next? Will they order Trump to stop threatening Hamas or remove the bust of Andrew Jackson from the Oval Office?

“Judges have forgotten who they are: unelected shields against government overreach, not legislative swords that can impose policies. Perhaps Trump needs to examine that bust of “Old Hickory” Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office and recall his (likely apocryphal) response to Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia: ‘John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!’”(7)

In the past few years, we have watched rogue judges (and prosecutors) try to destroy President Trump and those associated with him. Now they are attempting to keep him from exposing and ending fraud in our government, and from deporting violent criminals – who came to America illegally in the first place. If we were not all watching this lunacy take place, it would be beyond belief. Hundreds of congressional leaders and numerous judges don’t want the fraud exposed or the criminals deported!

 
Dutch Sheets 4/24/2025

Lindita OdjoskaART, LITERATURE, POETRYAND MORE   April 7 at 3:25 PM ·

The Lie said to the Truth, "Let's take a bath together, the well water is very nice. The Truth, still suspicious, tested the water and found out it really was nice. So they got naked and bathed. But suddenly, the Lie leapt out of the water and fled, wearing the clothes of the Truth. The Truth, furious, climbed out of the well to get her clothes back. But the World, upon seeing the naked Truth, looked away, with anger and contempt. Poor Truth returned to the well and disappeared forever, hiding her shame. Since then, the Lie runs around the world, dressed as the Truth, and society is very happy... Because the world has no desire to know the naked Truth.

?

Chilling Connections Between Anti-Trump Judge, Supreme Court Revealed

By Jack Davis  April 1, 2025COURT

 

 



 

Appointed to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Chief Justice John Roberts and reportedly a former Yale roommate of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Boasberg has become a lightning rod for conservative criticism. Now serving as chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Boasberg has faced backlash for rulings that include blocking deportations of violent illegal immigrants and presiding over cases involving leaked internal government communications—moves Trump and his supporters say reflect judicial bias, Fox News reported.

“The Chief Justice handpicked DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg to serve on the FISA court,” said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. “The DC federal judges are in a cozy little club, and they protect their own.” His remarks echo a broader sentiment on the right that Boasberg’s judicial decisions – and his close ties within the legal establishment – reflect a partisan tilt against the president.

Boasberg, a native of Washington, D.C., earned a graduate degree in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986 before attending Yale Law School, where he reportedly shared housing with Kavanaugh, according to multiple reports. After graduating in 1990, Boasberg clerked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then joined the San Francisco law firm Keker & Van Nest as a litigation associate from 1991 to 1994. He later practiced at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans in Washington, D.C., from 1995 to 1996, Fox noted.

After working in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Boasberg was appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the local trial court for the city. In 2011, President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He was confirmed by the Senate and officially received his commission on March 17, 2011.

Boasberg was later appointed to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) by Roberts to serve a seven-year term. The FISA Court consists of 11 federal judges, each selected by the chief justice. Judges on the court undergo extensive background checks and are tasked with reviewing and authorizing surveillance and wiretap requests from federal prosecutors, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. Much of the court’s work is classified. Boasberg served as the presiding judge of the FISA Court from 2020 to 2021, after which he resumed his duties on the D.C. District Court.

Boasberg faced renewed criticism after being randomly assigned to oversee a lawsuit related to a leaked Signal chat involving the Trump administration. Following the assignment, Trump took to Truth Social to accuse Boasberg of “grabbing the ‘Trump Cases’ all to himself.”

Davis also took to social media, writing, “Judge Jeb Boasberg is lighting on fire his legitimacy over an unnecessary, lawless, and dangerous pissing match with the President Jeb will lose. Let’s hope the Chief Justice doesn’t light the entire federal judiciary’s legitimacy on fire by siding with his personal buddy Jeb.”

The Founding Fathers deeply distrusted judges. They thought the lawyer class was dangerous, and if given unbridled power they would undermine and destroy free society.    Newt Gingrich April 1 2025

R** S******z  Yesterday at 1:20 PM

The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history.

Christianity was the first non-political religion in the West. Being a Christian was not a question of what political community you belonged to, it was a matter of faith or belief. While that was incredibly liberating—because it meant salvation was open to every human being—it created unprecedented challenges for politics and citizenship.

In order to establish republican self-government, the American Founders had to solve these complicated problems. The solution they came up with is famously stated in the Declaration of Independence:

“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
This revolutionary truth, combining human reason and divine revelation, provided the basis for establishing religious liberty for the first time in human history.

By looking to the laws of nature (or laws of reason) and nature’s God as the ultimate justification for their revolution, the Founders were asserting that there was an objective moral order in the world because that world was created by a benevolent and reasonable God.

Since our minds are a gift from God, and He intended us to use them, we can perceive much of this moral order through our own rational faculties.

This natural moral order exists outside of our will—it exists whether we like it or not. We are born into both a physical and a moral world that we do not create. the laws of nature and nature’s God are fixed and unchanging. They serve as the ground for political authority and supply conventional or everyday law with sacred and transcendent authority. In establishing this foundation for American politics,the Founders -

First, they solved the split between piety and citizenship by supplying a common ground for morality. Because the morality of the Bible and the morality of reason are compatible, one can be both a pious believer and a good citizen, while avoiding the contentious sectarian disputes that tore Europe apart.

Second, the separation of church and state becomes possible for the first time. The Declaration’s teaching about the laws of nature and nature’s God establishes a kind of political theology, a non-sectarian ground of legitimacy that makes the laws “sacred” without getting the government involved in theological disputes about the Trinity, faith versus works, etc. According to many Protestant ministers of the Founding era, this also allowed true Christianity to flourish for the first time because Christianity could be practiced by choice rather than by coercion.

Third, the Founders solved the problem of religious persecution. Because the government and the churches can agree on a moral code that is compatible with both reason and revelation, each can operate in its proper realm without intruding on the other. It becomes possible to institutionalize religious liberty by prohibiting religious tests for office and keeping government out of the business of punishing heresy.

The American Founders’ invocation of the transcendent moral authority of nature is one of the most remarkable acts of statesmanship in human history. The question which we and all American patriots confront today is whether we still understand and appreciate this incredible gift of religious liberty bequeathed to us by the Founders.

Do we still have the knowledge and courage to keep alive the sacred fire of liberty?

Glenn Ellmers

WH Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett: More Than 50 Countries Started Trade Negotiations This Weekend
Posted By Tim Hains On Date April 6, 2025

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, the president promised all through the campaign that prices would come down right away. Said they’d come down right away. Now he's saying, hang tough. It won't be easy. How high are prices going to go? How long will they stay there?

KEVIN HASSETT: I actually saw in this story that you just gave, George, there's kind of like a logical disconnect between the stories – the competing stories that your team is using to attack President Trump.

On the one hand, you're saying that the countries are really angry, they're going to have to retaliate. On the other hand you're saying that consumers are going to bear the costs and it’s going to drive inflation up. But if U.S. consumers are bearing the cost, there's no reason for the countries to be angry. So, the fact is, the countries are angry and retaliating and, by the way, coming to the table.

I got a report from the USTR last night that more than 50 countries have reached out to the president to begin a negotiation. But they're doing that because they understand that they bear a lot of the tariff. And so, I don't think that you're going to see a big effect on the consumer in the U.S. because I do think that the reason why we have a persistent, long-run trade deficit these people have very inelastic supply. They've been dumping goods into the country in order to create jobs, say, in China.

And, George, also, I promise you, I'll answer your question directly and not filibuster. So, I'll stop with that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you base your – where do you base your conclusion that you're not going to see an increase in prices? Just about every economist who’s looked at this said you are going to see an increase in prices, including Goldman Sachs, including JP Morgan, including the chairman of the Federal Reserve?

HASSETT: Well, there might be some increase in prices. But the fact is that if we’re going to be a heavy burden on the U.S. consumer, then this trade deficit that for 30 years we've seen really since China entered the WTO would be something that would have gone down. It would have gone down over time. It would have responded to the prices.

The bottom line is that China entered the WTO in 2000. In the 15 years that followed, real incomes declined about $ 1,200 cumulatively over that time.

And so, if cheap goods were the answer -- if cheap goods were going to make Americans real wages, real welfare better off, then real incomes would have gone up over that time. Instead, they went down because wages went down more than prices went down.

So, we got the cheap goods at the grocery store, but then we had fewer jobs. And that's why President Obama and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and President Trump have come out saying, we've got to come up with a better policy, a policy that treats our workers fairly compared to everybody else.

And now, President Trump, true to his word, just like he promised during the campaign, just like he put into his campaign platform, he's delivering on his word.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Right, but you also -- he also said prices were going to come down and he just conceded the prices are going to go up,

Also on Truth Social, the president retweeted a post that said the market drop was part of a deliberate strategy to force the Fed to lower interest rates. Is that the president's strategy? If not, why did he post it?

HASSETT: Yeah -- that -- you know, the bottom line is the president has been talking about tariffs for 40 years and this is like been absolutely the policy that he's focused on in the campaign and throughout his political career. And you know, the cyclical cycle of the Fed, it comes and goes. That's a different matter.

But this is President Trump's desired policy. He's been arguing for it ever since. I think he was on “The View” 30, 40 years ago, and it's exactly -- the baseline tariff is exactly what he -- he put into the convention.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But is it his strategy --

HASSETT: So, this is not a surprise for anyone.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is it his strategy to force the Fed to lower interest rates, and that the market crash was part of that strategy?

HASSETT: We understand the Fed is an independent agency. We respect the independence of the Fed. But the president's allowed to have an opinion. The -- absolutely, the president's allowed to have an opinion but there's not going to be any political coercion over the Fed, for sure.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So -- so that is his strategy? Tank the market so the Fed will lower interest rates? Well, you just said the president's allowed to have an opinion. Is that his opinion or not?

HASSETT: He's not trying to tank the market. He's trying to deliver for American workers.

And -- I mean, what would you have him do? Again, real wages down 15 years in a row under the previous policy, and that's why Americans voted for him. They brought him in to turn the economy around for the American worker, and that's what he's focused on.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm -- I'm just trying to get some clarity. Is that the strategy --

HASSETT: I’m going to give clarity.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, is that the president's strategy or not? He posted it. He said the strategy is to lower to -- for the markets to crash so the Fed lowers interest rates. Is that the president’s strategy?

HASSETT: It's not a strategy for the markets to crash. It is not a strategy for the markets to crash. It's a strategy to create a golden age in America for the American worker. That's his strategy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: JPMorgan says the risk of a recession has climbed to 60 percent. Your response?

HASSETT: We just had one of the stronger jobs reports I've seen in a long time. It was about 50 percent better than markets expected. It's the second one in a row. We've created already something like 10,000 auto jobs since President Trump took office, and I just got word -- anecdotal word last night that auto plants are adding second shifts in the U.S. in order to respond to these tariffs these days.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, we've also seen auto companies like Stellantis say they're having layoffs.

HASSETT: There's -- we've got the data. We just got the data for last month or the month before, both times, manufacturing employment went up, and auto employment went up. And again, we're looking at about 10,000 auto jobs. George, that's more than we got all of last year with Joe Biden.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's looking back. But looking forward, Stellantis did say this week they were laying off workers. They did.

HASSETT: The reason that they were starting it in the last two months was they anticipated the tariffs that were announced this week and they're starting to ramp up in anticipation of that.

I would expect that the jobs numbers and I'll come back and talk to you about it when they come out or going to go up by even more now that the tariffs are in place.