Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo 1/25/26 FULL

youtube ^ | 1/25/2026 | maria bartromo

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Hello Everybody. Thanks For Watching! Please Like, Share And Subscribe My Channel. Love All.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

MSM says "ICE murder" etc. My opinion is Noem can't allow heavily armed rioters to challenge ICE operations. Legitimate protests are covered by the First Amendment. Disarming the rioters in dangerous though. One rioter bit off a HS agent's finger and was arrested.

[equaviator]

Over the last ten years or so, I’ve learned more by watching Fox Biz every day than I could’ve by reading Money Magazine or Morningstar.

[Deaf Smith]

>>>One rioter bit off a HS agent’s finger and was arrested.

“He’s dead, Jim.”

[Carry_Okie]

Patel said one has no right to bring a firearm to a protest (5:00 into the video). How would we respond had Biden’s FBI said as much?

If one has aa CC Permit, I cannot see that as true. Keep and bear means what it says. Unholster, brandish, and aim is another matter.

This is fundamental on the part of the FBI. They are not in charge in this respect; they are to follow the law.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

you aren’t allowed to carry a firearm if you are doing so while committing a felony

[TexasGator]

“Patel said one has no right to bring a firearm to a protest (5:00 into the video). “

Thanks for the wrong timemark and misrepresenting what Patel said.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

you aren’t allowed to carry a firearm if you are doing so while committing a felony

Sounds right to me.

[Political Junkie Too]

Patel said one has no right to bring a firearm to a protest (5:00 into the video). How would we respond had Biden’s FBI said as much? If one has aa CC Permit, I cannot see that as true. Keep and bear means what it says. Unholster, brandish, and aim is another matter.

I think that Patel frame is wrong. Pretti didn't bring a firearm to a protest, he brought it to a law enforcement operation.

Consider the timeline:

1. Border Patrol was conducting an operation down the street.
2. Pretti was standing on a street corner with others, holding up their phones to record the Border Patrol operation at the other end of the block.
3. Pretti stepped off of the sidewalk and onto the street, and then began walking down the street towards the Border Patrol operation with his phone in his outstretched hand.

At this point, I'm trying to get into Pretti's mind.

• Did Pretti have a past history of concealed carry wherever he went?

• Why did he bring a gun to the protest if he knew it would involve heavy police presence? What was he afraid of that he felt he needed protection? Was he daring police? Did he bring it because he could, not because he should?

• Did Pretti think that Border Patrol officers were going to fire on him? Did Pretti think the crowd would get unruly and possibly turn on him requiring self defense?

• Did Pretti think he was going to fire on Border Patrol officers? Why bring two high-capacity magazines?

Continuing the timeline...

4. Once Pretti stepped off of the sidewalk, he inserted himself into the ongoing law enforcement operation. There are laws regarding recording police and lawful operations, and they involve remaining at a safe distance and not interfering with the ongoing operation.
5. Once Pretti started walking towards the operation, he diverted Border Patrol resources to investigate Pretti's presence. That began the obstruction of the operation.
6. When Pretti was asked to return to the sidewalk (assumption on my part) by Border Patrol agents, Pretti became aggressive and resisted instead of complying and returning to the sidewalk. Additional agents were called over to subdue Pretti, who by now had been sprayed with pepper spray, fell to his knees on the ground, and continue to wave his arms to push away the agents and resist.
7. I'm assuming that during the scrum that now involved four people, and agent felt the gun on Pretti's body and yelled "Gun!"
8. I'm assuming that Pretti's flailing arms moved near to where the gun was holstered, suggesting that he was reaching for it and he was shot.

That's my rational assumption of what took place. If Pretti had been confronted on the sidewalk and the police noticed the gun at that point, I expect the converstation would have taken a completely different turn. But that's not what happened.

Pretti approached with a concealed weapon, resisted calls to return to the sidewalk, required four agents to restrain him, exposing his gun, and his hand movements toward the vicinity of the gun was the trigger for the agent to shoot.

I don't know why Pretti didn't keep his distance, knowing that he was packing.

-PJ

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Here’s the transcript with one timestamp of Patel speaking:

As Christie said, you cannot bring a
11:03
firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple.

[TexasGator]

“Here’s the transcript with one timestamp of Patel speaking:”

GEEZ!

Thanks for misleading by not posting the rest of Patel’s statement.

[TexasGator]

The very next sentence which you chose to leave out since it kills your argument:

“You don’t have the right to break the law and incite violence.”

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Pretti approached with a concealed weapon, resisted calls to return to the sidewalk, required four agents to restrain him, exposing his gun, and his hand movements toward the vicinity of the gun was the trigger for the agent to shoot.

My guess is, there will be plenty of videos of the Pretti shooting. The problem is that new violence is likely to occur faster than evidence can be analyzed. That's what Frey, Walz, etc. want.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

I grant you Patel made a valid point in total. The final phrase should need no defense — except it’s denied by the Dems apparently.

Why would you not refuse to let actions by the Dems be used to restrict our gun rights further — a long time goal of theirs?

You claimed C-O misquoted Patel, and he apparently did not — just not not in full so he could highlight the problem posed.

C-O’s issue was with the opening phrase, and that is a point of valid controversy.

[TexasGator]

“You claimed C-O misquoted Patel,”

LOL! You just lied about my post!

[Vaduz]

The rioters remind me of the people who make a pipe bomb once.

[Steven Tyler]

Pretti made a choice.
Pretti could have turned around and went home

[Optimist]

link now blocked by copyright. is there a permanent link via rumble, patriot news, or fox?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Fox news is getting more active about such things. Individuals could subscribe to fox news of course but that would not make the link work on this thread.

[jonrick46]

I have to go through a metal detector and be given a wrist band to visit my friend in the hospital. Why not have medal detectors and wrist bands for those out on the streets?

[Carry_Okie]

TexasGator: Thanks for the wrong timemark and misrepresenting what Patel said.

Lib-Lickers 2: you aren’t allowed to carry a firearm if you are doing so while committing a felony

Neither of you understood what I'm saying: No conservative in a position of authority should ever give a leftist a powerful weapon to be used against us. Ever. They WILL abuse it.

Consider what Patel or Noem said in light of how a socialist would use it if conservatives are marching in public in support of open carry.

Patel: As Christie said, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple.

Lib-Lickers 2 would say, 'but a peaceful protest in support of open carry is not a felony.'

Let's say a leftist police captain called it an unlawful assembly and ordered it to disperse. How soon does it become failure to comply with an order? When do the marchers "commit a felony"? Earth to Lib-Lickers 2, it's not a felony until found as such by a jury. Until then, the protestors enjoy the presumption of innocence, as did the idiot who got his ass killed. In resisting arrest, he blew it. But my post wasn't about this case. It was not about what Patel meant.

IT WAS ABOUT HOW WHAT PATEL SAID ABOUT IT MIGHT BE USED BY A LEFTIST THUG GOVERNMENT.

Now, go back to that scenario I just offered, and which should have been so obvious to you that I shouldn't have to waste my time with this reply: Consider a conservative protest in support of open carry.

Just how do think this calm and orderly demonstration might fly in Sacramento, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, Noo Yawk, Bahstun...

Do you think there just might be a counter-protest? Do you really think the LEOs of those cities would be just hopping to jump in and protect those conservatives' First and Second Amendment rights? Do you think there just might be a scuffle? If said scuffle broke out, whom do you think the police of those cities would blame for it? At that point, what would be the precedent value to a leftist police captain in what Patel or Noem said? What would she more likely do?

That's why I think Patel was stupid for what he said. Leftist cops are not objective or just. Decent people would stand a good chance of getting killed.

BTW TG, the time stamp error has nothing to do with the content other than you used it to add to your silly point.