Karoline Leavitt suffers acute psychotic episode

Caroline Leavitt is the White House press secretary, and she suffered what I can only colloquially describe as an acute psychotic episode, losing her mind on live TV. She is trying to figure out how do I explain that we don't want to release inflation numbers and we don't want to release jobs numbers, we being the Trump administration for October, because they probably don't look so good. And so what Caroline Levitt came up with in consultation with what I assume is some kind

of brain trust there at the White House is that Democrats ruined the statistical system. And therefore, thanks to Democrats, the release of data is now impaired. Wow.

This is doing some reaching economists, investors and policymakers at the Federal Reserve to receive critical government data. The Democrats may have permanently damaged the federal statistical system with October CPI and jobs reports likely never being released. And all of that economic data released will be permanently impaired, leaving our policymakers at the Fed flying blind at a critical period.

Economists and can you imagine?

Can you imagine those darn Democrats? I mean, forget that Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Forget that any data that isn't exactly what they want, they say is fake anyway. Forget all of that. Democrats have damaged our statistical system. Now, then it got really interesting, which is that Caroline was asked, if you want to

be transparent, you know, you say this is the most transparent administration ever in the history of the universe. Just release the Epstein files. That's transparency. She goes, oh, we've done more on Epstein transparency than anybody.

So transparency, why not just go ahead and release the full files on Epstein? Get this all over with. We have this administration has done more with respect to transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein than any administration ever. In fact, this administration, the Department of Justice, has turned over tens of thousands of documents to the American people. We are cooperating and showing support for the House Oversight Committee.

That's part of the reason you are seeing these documents that were released today because

of the House Oversight Committee's and Republicans efforts to get these out to the public. What she doesn't mention is that a few Republicans got involved at the last minute because they saw they couldn't stop the runaway train and they haven't released the files. They could have released the files. That would really be the most transparent thing that they could do. Now, then the topic of this strong arm meeting with Lauren Boebert came up. Why, if there is nothing to hide, would you try to convince Lauren Boebert to vote against the release of files? Again, an answer that is not about transparency.

And given your Reagan transparency, Caroline, why are White House officials then meeting with Representative Boebert in an effort to try and get her to not sign this petition?

Right. You want to be transparent, but you're convincing someone to vote not to release the files. That's weird.

Calling for the release of the files. Doesn't it show transparency that members of the Trump administration are willing to brief members of Congress whenever they please? Doesn't that show our level of transparency?

It's just a briefing.

Doesn't that show the level of transparency when we are willing to sit down with members of Congress and address their concerns? That is the that's a defining factor of transparency. Having discussions, having discussions with members of Congress about various issues. And I'm not going to detail conversations that took place in the situation room in the

press briefing room. You know, although I find Caroline Leavitt morally deplorable and ethically despicable, there are issues on which I'm like, all right, she she's doing her job well. She's come up with a good deflection or distraction. This is not convincing anybody that this this is a total and complete disaster with regard to even theoretically justifying the behavior. We're being really transparent by meeting with members of Congress. We're just briefing them, even though all the reporting is the idea was to strong arm Bobert into voting to cover up the files. But I'm not going to share the contents

of these meetings. That would be completely and totally inappropriate. Oh, OK. The next topic to come up was this deranged 50 year mortgage. If you haven't heard of this, Trump's latest idea is let's create instead of a 30 year fixed rate mortgage, let's create a 50 year fixed rate mortgage, which, of course, would actually drive prices up because by creating no new housing supply, it would make more people be able to afford a more expensive house. I use the term afford loosely because a lot of people shop for their monthly payment.

It would actually have the opposite effect. We now have heard that Bill Pulte and others are like, this is a terrible idea. Caroline is asked about it and she goes, oh, I'm not going to weigh into that. Let's just we're looking into it. We're looking into it.

And there's been some reporting that the White House is frustrated with Bill Polty and the rollout of this proposal for a 50 year mortgage. Tell us if the White House is frustrated with that rollout and if the White House still supports the idea of a 50 year mortgage for Americans.

This is a proposal that the president himself has commented on. I would defer you to the president's statements. And it's something that the administration is discussing and seriously looking into translation.

This has turned into a political fiasco. They're probably not going to do it. And I'm going to say nothing more other than look at what Donald Trump has already said. And then finally, and I I love this one. Caroline is asked about snap benefits because one of the things she said is it's a good thing the government reopened so people can get their snap benefits. We need people to have their food stamps, except the Trump White House went to court

during the shutdown to try to prevent people from getting their snap benefits. How do you square that? She has an answer. It's pathetic, but she has an answer. You said at the top that one of the

costs of the government shutdown was that people missed their SNAP benefits. Can you explain then why the administration went to court to fight the funding of food stamps?

So recipients missed their SNAP benefits because the Democrats shut the government down. And they forced the administration to tap into a contingency fund that did not even fund the full entirety of this program. And so then you had an unhinged judge

who was trying to dictate from the bench what the executive branch has to pay for and where that money has to come from. That is judicial overreach at its finest. And so that's why the administration pushed back on that. We can't have the judicial branch telling the executive branch that we need to rob the

Children Nutrition Fund, which is what this judge was trying to do to pay for SNAP benefits.

That's pathetic, pathetic. She goes, they were trying to force us to use money on this. The money was there for exactly that. And she goes, it wouldn't even have covered all of the missing benefits. Well, but it would have covered roughly three quarters. These are pathetic answers coming in what I believe is the worst week this administration

has had. has had. And we haven't even gotten to the MRI questions.