Trump Press Secy hit with BRUTAL fact-check, FLIPS OUT

Donald Trump's White House press secretary, Caroline Leavitt, does not like being corrected. She does not like being fact checked. She does not like being told that the administration is doing anything that anybody might see as inappropriate, unethical or immoral. And a lot of that happened in her latest press briefing. You've got to see this. Caroline Leavitt was asked a very good question. This is what we call it's like we're checking the most basic boxes of journalism here. How did the White House believe it would be appropriate for

Jared Kushner to work on anything involving Qatar, the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia, given that those countries have dumped massive amounts of money into his investment firm. How does Caroline Leavitt response? She calls the question despicable. This is how authoritarians operate.

How did the White House decide that it is appropriate for Jared Kushner to be working on matters that involve Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, three countries that combined have given him more than two point five billion dollars for his investment firm.

I think it's frankly despicable that you're trying to suggest that it's inappropriate for Jared Kushner, who is widely respected around the world. He is not widely respected around the world, by the way, and has great trust in relationships with these critical partners in these countries to strike a 20 point comprehensive detailed peace plan that no other administration would ever be able to achieve. And so Jared is donating his energy and his time to our government, to the president of the United States to secure world peace.

And that is a very noble thing. And this is a peace plan that has not just been accepted by Israel, but it has been applauded by Muslim and Arab countries around the world. It has been applauded by European leaders around the world. Virtually everyone in the world is supportive of this plan that Jared Kushner offered his time to help put together alongside our Special Envoy Whitkoff, the Vice President, the President

of the United States, Secretary Rubio, and the president's entire national security team. We are very proud of that plan and we hope Hamas will accept it because it will lead to a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East.

If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you, this is kind of the same line that they ran with Trump, which was listen, Trump's donating his presidential salary. So by definition, he wouldn't be doing anything that benefits him because he's just not taking a salary as president. And of course, then we found out that Donald Trump made one point $6 billion from all of

the things going on around him. And the $400,000 a year presidential salary was really an irrelevant drop in the bucket. And similarly, whether or not Jerry, you know, there have been fact checks attempted. Is Jared Kushner really donating his time? Maybe. I mean, I'll believe that he's not getting directly paid for his involvement.

But the point is, is someone who is so in bed with a lot of the Middle East administrations and even calling them administrations, the Middle East, theocracies, the Middle Middle East regimes is someone who is so in the pocket in the sense of doing business with and receiving billions of dollars to his investment firm. That's really the core of the focus. And the hostility to journalism that Caroline Leavitt responds with is just terrifying.

These people hate the free press. These people hate journalists just being able to ask questions. Now, Caroline Leavitt was then asked about the A.I. deep fake that Donald Trump posted. This is the one where he appears to be promoting med beds, these cure all almost like hyper barrack type chambers. Caroline Leavitt was asked about it.

Her response is pathetic. You've got to hear this one.

First thing I want to ask about this video that the president posted the other day, it was an A.I. deep fake of himself talking about something called med beds. What was he trying to communicate to the public there and why did he delete it?

I think the president saw the video and posted it and then took it down. And he has the right to do that. It's his social media. He's incredibly transparent. As you all know, you hear from him directly on social media.

He noticed that there isn't an answer here.

Likes to share memes. He likes to share videos. He likes to repost things that he sees other people post on social media as well. And I think it's quite refreshing that we have a president who is so open and honest directly himself. Many a times on truth. You are hearing directly from the president.

How is it an answer to what was the president trying to achieve by posting that? And then, of course, he deleted it. And she goes, oh, it's refreshing to hear directly from the president. And by the way, he has every right to post it and he has every right to take it down. Nobody's questioning his rights. This is a classic from propagandists. You answer a question that wasn't asked. Hey, was it a good idea to start yelling racial slurs in public at black and Asian people?

Or was that a bad idea? Listen, we have free speech in this country and he had every right to yell those words. We're not asking about the rights. We know that there was a right. The question is, was it a good idea? And it's the same thing here. What was Trump trying to communicate with that?

He has every right to post it and he has every right to delete stuff. It's his social media after all. Yeah, we know. But that's not answering the question. But this is how Caroline Leavitt operates. Now, then she was asked. There are actually some good questions here.

Caroline Leavitt was asked about what I call MAGA communism. You might call it state capitalism. There's a bunch of different ways to say it, but it's about the Trump administration having the government take ownership stakes of private companies. Caroline Leavitt was asked about it and as usual, she does not provide a substantive answer.

Today, your administration took a 5% stake in lithium Americas and a stake in the mine that they're working on. And you've taken stakes in other companies and revenue streams from other companies. Can you articulate the broader principle here? When does the administration see it as appropriate to demand equity stakes or revenue streams from American companies?

And what other companies are you going to be demanding those from?

Well, look, this is a creative solution by the President of the United States to tackle our nation's crippling debt crisis. As I said earlier, we are $37 trillion, trillion with a T, in debt. And not only is the President effectively utilizing tariffs to bring in massive amounts of revenue, and there's billions of dollars coming in every month. I know you know that even because you cover it on CNBC quite well.

So the president is focused on how can the United States government make more money? How can we make our country wealthy and rich again? And cutting some of these unique creative deals with companies around the world and here at home is just one way the president is seeking to do that. And I know.

Did you see what she did there? She says, why wouldn't the president find ways for the government to make more money now? And I hit my microphone and I apologize. I'm getting wound up. I'm getting wound up because this is so stupid. Of course, there's the question of was that actually what she was asked? And the answer is no. But the concept of the government making more money, I thought, was antithetical to the worldview of Donald Trump. What do I mean by that? When they talk about let's cut taxes on the rich, when they talk about let's shrink government, what they say they want is a smaller government.

They don't want as much money flowing through the government. They used to claim fiscal conservatives, right wingers, Republicans. They used to say, we want the government taking in less money, putting out less money, fewer programs, less administration, reduce the size of bureaucracy. They used to argue it's better when the government is doing less. And now Caroline Levin Levitt is indignantly saying we're trying to make more money for

the government. The right used to be against that. They used to say we don't want the government taking in more money. If the point is for the government to take in more money, we have decades of studies as to what the tax rates should be to generate the largest possible revenue for the government. They're against that.

They've always been against that. But now when we say, does it really make sense to do this mega communism, state capitalism where the government is buying pieces of companies and and in some cases sort of strong, strong army arming them into those deals. She goes, Listen, Trump's doing great. He's making more money for the government. I thought the government making more money was bad.

But of course, things are only bad when someone else does it. If Trump does it, it's a very good thing. There was the issue of the shutdown and the Affordable Care Act tax credits brought up. Dasha Burns rightly brings up the reality that premiums are going to go up for people and a lot of people relying on health care in states that Trump one are going to lose their coverage.

How does Caroline Levitt deal with it? Not well. We've been talking about the Affordable Care Act, enhanced premium tax credits and sort of the politics of it all. Right. But this is a very real, tangible impact that American people will feel. The Kaiser Family Foundation says that with the ACA enhanced premium tax credits, without them, premiums will go up 114% on average. 19 million of the 24 million people who rely on the coverage are in states that President Trump won. Is he concerned what will happen to those families if this tax credit expires? And aside from the shutdown, is there a plan to keep those

premiums down? Look, as the Vice President just said, we are more than happy to have this conversation. The president and the vice president in this team are more than happy to have that conversation with Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. But it cannot happen right now. Right now, we need to reopen the United States federal government.

They do not want to substantively deal with any of the serious issues that they are causing. They just don't want to deal with it. And they will either lie, answer questions you didn't actually ask or just stop holding briefings the way Caroline Leavitt did for three weeks in September. The, um, latest statement from Pope Leo was brought up, which is if you are against abortion but have no problem with the way that migrants are being treated inhumanely, how is that really pro-life?

And Caroline Leavitt handles it by saying no one is being treated inhumanely. Has she seen the videos? I thought lying was a sin in the religion. Caroline Leavitt claims to subscribe to.

And a second question is a comment that's gotten a lot of global attention. Senator Dick Durbin, he was said to receive a lifetime achievement award from the Catholic Church and since declined accepting it because there has been some controversy. Pope Leo commented on this and he said, that someone who says I'm against abortion, but I'm in agreement with the inhumane treatment

of immigrants in the United States, I don't know if that's pro-life. You've been very open about your Catholic faith. How do you respond to that?

I would reject there is inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants in the United States under this administration. There was, however, significant inhumane treatment of illegal immigrants in the previous administration as they were being trafficked and raped and beaten,

in many cases, killed over our United States southern border. You also look at the inhumane treatment at the hands of some of these illegal immigrants that took place under the previous administration as well. Lake and Riley comes to mind a beautiful American citizen who was killed at the hands of an

illegal. So now she goes into the lurid anecdotes. But the question is a good one. How on earth can a supposed honest Jesus believe believing person lie with such conviction. No inhumane treatment of migrants. I mean, forget about the fact that I don't even know if we've found all of the alligator

Alcatraz detainees. There were reports that some are missing. We have no clue where they even are. What's humane about that? Forget about that for a second. While they were at alligator Alcatraz, there were reports of just people getting

swarmed by clouds of mosquitoes, no protection, no proper sanitation, food that was riddled with I don't even want to say what stuff, because I think people sometimes eat when they're listening to the show. That's just one location. How on earth can you argue that there is no inhumane treatment of migrants going on? You could only argue that if you don't give a damn about migrants. Finally, finally.

The plan that Trump has to fire people while there are furloughs due to the government being closed. Caroline Leavitt was asked about it. She says it wouldn't be happening if the Democrats hadn't shut down the government.

I'm just wondering how soon you could see cuts to the federal workplace and if there's

a specific agency that will experience those cuts or be focused. Unfortunately, because the Democrats shut down the government, the president has directed his cabinet and the Office of Management and Budget is working with agencies across the board to identify where cuts can be made. And we believe that layoffs are imminent. They are unfortunately a consequence of this government shutdown.

Yeah, they're kind of not. But the proper follow up here is why? Why? Why is it that because the government shut down, it follows that Trump now fires people and just starts gutting agencies like what? Even put aside for a second that legal experts say that the president has no additional authority to do that when the government is shut down. If anything, the president has less authority to do that when the government is shut down. If anything, the president has less authority to do that when the government is shut down.

Why does nobody say, but how does it to go together? Caroline, what sense does it make when there's a government shutdown to start firing people? That has nothing. These are two completely unrelated things. That question was not asked. That question was not asked.

And if you thought this was bad, you should see what happened when J.D. Vance got up there.