8/25/25: Trump Floats Chicago Occupation, Bill Maher Warns of Trump Coup, Saagar Debunks Ghislaine Testimony

Krystal and Saagar discuss Trump says Chicago occupation next, Bill Maher warns of Trump coup, Saagar debunks Ghislaine testimony.

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. Have an amazing
show for everybody today.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
What do we have, Crystal, Indeed, we do many things
to discuss this morning. We have Trump announcing plans to
do to Chicago, what has already done in DC? And
La Saga and we'll have a chat about that one.
Gallaine Maxwell's interview was released. A lot to say about
that one. You know, you should definitely take the word
of a sex criminal for.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Sure, I'll break it down.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Should definitely take that one a pasebok Okay, the US
is taking a ten percent equity stake in Intel.

Speaker 3 (01:03):
Actually very interesting move.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
A lot to discuss there, and some broader economic indicators
we want to take a look at as well. Zorn
is facing a new scandal over how much he can bench, whether.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
He can bench it all, whether he can bention it all.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
And he also had this big scavenger hunt in New
York City thousands of people turned out, so kind of
an interesting development with regard to his campaign too. Meanwhile,
Eric Adams yet another corruption scandal encircling his campaign. The
details are preposterous, just utterly ridiculous, which is kind of
part of the course for Eric Adams. So we'll dig
into all of that. I'm taking a look today at

(01:37):
modern day holocaust denial with this starvation denial in Gaza,
and we have a special gas. This will be I
think some pretty significant news. Who was fired from the
State Department apparently for his views on Israel, So he
is going to join us and his first interview that
he's given right on. Yeah, I believe any podcast, cable

(01:57):
news or anything like.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
That you're able to arrange it after he was fired,
and so yeah, trying to break some news here over
at breaking points, which is a good reminder. By the way,
thank you to everybody who's been signing up at Breakingpoints
dot com and help supporting the show. It's because of
you that we become the first place to be able
to interview do some newsmaking stuff here. Have people in
power actually pay attention. I don't think it is an
accident that he reached out to us very first thing

(02:20):
after talking to the Washington Post for first on camera interview.
And so that's what you guys. Enable Breakingpoints dot com
if you're able otherwise, by the way, no worries if
you can't afford it, just please hit subscribe on the
YouTube for the YouTube button. I believe that's what it is.
Hit subscribe for our YouTube channel. And if you're listening
to this as a podcast, just go ahead and send
this episode, any episode, whatever your favorite interview it is,

(02:42):
to a friend or family member. It really helps us
grow by word of mouth. So with that, let's get
to the show, all right.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
So President Trump announcing that he is planning to expand
his National Guard deployments, of course started in LA both
with National Guard federalizing the National Guard there and calling
up active duty, calling in active Judy marines here in DC.
Of course, we've been dealing with that over the past
couple of weeks. And next, he says, is Chicago. Let's
take a listen, and.

Speaker 4 (03:07):
We haven't had to bring in the regular military, which
we're willing to do.

Speaker 5 (03:13):
We have to, and.

Speaker 4 (03:15):
After we do this, we'll go to another location and
we'll make it safe. Also, we're going to make our
country very safe. We're going to make our cities very
very safe. Chicago's a mess. You have an incompetent mayor
grossly incompetent. And we'll straighten that one out, probably next.
But they're wearing red hats. African American ladies, beautiful ladies,

(03:35):
are saying, please, President Trump, come to Chicago. Please. I
did great with the black vote, as you know, and
they want something to happen. So I think Chicago will
be our next, and then we'll help with New York.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
So apparently this plan has been weeks in the making.
We can put the reporting up from the Washington Post.
On the screen, they write, Pentagon plans military to play
in Chicago as Trump is cracked down here some of
the details. They say the Pentagon has for weeks been
planning a military deployment to Chicago as President Trump says
he wants to crack down on crime, homelessness, and undocumented

(04:12):
immigration in a model that could later be used in
other major cities. Officials familiar with the matter said the planning,
which has not been previously disclosed, involves several options, including
mobilizing at least a few thousand members of the National
Guard as soon as September to what is the third
most populous city in the United States. They go on
to say an additional piece of reporting with regard to

(04:32):
the deployment here in DC that troops here are soon
going to be allowed to carry firearms, which is a
change to their initial orders. Let me give you one
more piece of reporting here, This from Jackie heinrich Over
at Fox News and a relatively lengthy Twitter post. We
can put this up on the screen and I'll give
you the TLDR here. So she reports that seventeen hundred

(04:54):
National guardsmen are set to mobilize in nineteen different states
in the coming weeks to assist DHS sweeping federal interagency
crime and immigration crackdown. Documents obtained by Fox News show
planning for activations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, So South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,

(05:16):
and Wyoming. So these are states with Republican governors. So
this would be presumably in cooperation with the federal government,
and soyberturning back to Chicago, this would be in terms
of the legal framework, this would be more akin to
the deployment in LA, because in DC, you know, the

(05:38):
federal government is more directly involved, they have more legal authority. Now,
even here it's supposed to be a quote unquote emergency. Unfortunately,
the courts have sort of broadly defined what constitutes an emergency.

Speaker 3 (05:48):
There may be a court challenge there as well.

Speaker 2 (05:50):
But the LA National Guard federalization and deployment was much
more legally contested and still you know, there was at
least one federal judge that actually said you can can't
go forward with this. So this would be you know,
this is the LA model now coming to.

Speaker 1 (06:03):
Show that's right, and it hasn't wrapped actually that court
case as I understand it, what I think, this is
very complicated, So just stick with us. But on DC,
people need to remember that because it's technically under federal rule.
What it allows is the federalization of the MPD and
a quote unquote emergency, but that emergency has to be
renewed by Congress every thirty to forty five days. There's

(06:25):
obviously still an open question as to whether that is
even going to passous. Most Republicans are probably going to
go for it. But that is why the d C,
the DC government and police department can come under genuine
federal control, and they have much more leeway for the
mobilization of the National Guard on top of that, So
I mean we can I've said here I think the

(06:46):
mobilization is stupid broadly, especially because you know, in my
trapsing around the city, the only place I can find
these guys is down by the National Mall, protecting the
food trucks and the tourists. So you know, I guess
thank you for keeping us safe.

Speaker 6 (06:59):
Actually, yet that take a ride down to the mall,
you'll see plenty of them.

Speaker 1 (07:03):
They're rolling around. They're all eating from the halal truck.
So I mean, I guess that's great. Yes, apparently they'll
be carrying weapons now, I mean, the White House is like, oh,
well we have what is it. We've arrested all these
people and there hasn't been a murder in DC in
nine days, which I mean apparently DC was averaging like
two murders a day or two murder every two days.
So you can give them that a guess. No one

(07:24):
exactly share on the actual causal effect. But Chicago is
a whole other different story, and I think that's actually
if you read the Jackie Heinrix reporting, what you're seeing
is about that assistance with ICE and with DHS. But honestly,
even that is very dicey legally, because there is a
prohibition under Posse Comma tatis that the federal government can't
even mobilize National Guard for civilian law enforcement purposes. They're

(07:47):
currently being mobilized under something called let me have it
in front of me. It's called Title thirty two, Section
five h two f authority to which Posse Cooma tatis
does not apply. Now, that section actually sets out quote
required drills and training for the National Guard, and it
says a member of the National Guard maybe order to
perform training or other duty in addition to their regular

(08:09):
drills and annual training as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
They're saying that they could be used under for federal benefits.
Remember this for things like quote, Homeland security operation, counter drug,
airport security, border support, COVID nineteen, and natural disaster relief.
So that would be the deployment. But even if it
were to come about, it would not be even remotely

(08:31):
like Washington, because you can't quite literally cannot federalize the
Chicago Police Department for a like for example, they can't
here in DC. They're rolling back like cashless bail. That's
something that they're allowed to do because they have federal authority.
And same with the police commissioner who can report up
over there. It is entirely a matter of the locality

(08:52):
that reports up from Chicago Police to the mayor Brandon Johnson.
And also people should keep in mind like the governor
and the MA both have both openly spoken about against this,
and it would be very different, much more akin to
Los Angeles where National guardsmen can like guard federal property.
I don't even actually know what federal properties in Chicago,
but anyway, so they can do.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
That courts and things like that.

Speaker 1 (09:16):
Anyway, they can do that if they want to they
can help quote assist with ice operations, although apparently even
that is like a little dicey in terms of the
way that it all goes about. So it would be
a deployment, and almost certainly at this point, as we know,
for show purposes, which is mostly what we see from
the administration.

Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 2 (09:31):
I remember when we were digging into the details with
regard to the legality of the LA, the California deployment.
It's supposed to be done in conjunction with the governor,
like it's really supposed to be the governor who asked
the president. And that's a key piece of what was
being debated in court. And as I said, one federal
court judge said, no, no.

Speaker 3 (09:53):
This is not lawful.

Speaker 2 (09:55):
That you had at the appeals level, they issued an
injunction against you know, saying okay, well, we're going to
allow it to continue while this all plays out in court.
But this is continuing to play out in court. I'll
say some of my commentary because we're going to talk
about Bill Maher and his commentary on this, and then
we can talk a little bit more broadly about the implications.
Obviously I find this, you know, incredibly ominous. It's both
a combination of buffoonish and pointless and a waste of money,

(10:19):
and also, you know, quite in my opinion, ominous to
see these normalization of the military in American streets for
domestic law enforcement, all of these masked up agents. There
was actually a horrible incident just recently where two guys
who disguise themselves as law enforcement were, you know, pounding
on the door of a homeowner. Homeowner you know, smartly

(10:41):
doesn't let them in and ends up actually shooting and
killing them. There have been other instances of mass people
coming in claiming to be ice, claiming to be law enforcement.
And you know, it's not to say that has never
happened before in the past. But when you have the
normalization of these massed, unidentified agents who refuse to even
tell you what agency they're with, let alone what they're therefore,

(11:02):
let alone show you a warrant, you nobody should be
surprised that those are some of the consequences that unfold.
I can go ahead and put up on the screen
A four, which is Governor Kritzker of Illinois's response. He says,
the state of Illinois at this time has received no
requests or outreach from the federal government asking if we
need assistance, and we have made no requests for federal intervention.

(11:24):
The safety of the people of Illinois is always my
top priority. There's no emergency that warrants the President of
the US federalizing the Illinois National Guard, deploying the National
Guard from other states, or sending active duty military within
our own borders. Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis,
politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his
power to distract from the pain he's causing. Families will

(11:45):
continue to follow the law, stand up for the sovereignty
of our state, and protect Illinoisans.

Speaker 3 (11:50):
Illinois Illinoisans is.

Speaker 1 (11:53):
A Chicagoan, all right, people are there can let us.

Speaker 2 (11:55):
Know in any case, obviously you know, not lost on
anyone that it's blue states that are facing these you know,
military deployments, even though look, it's not about crime. I
think we can all be honest about this has nothing
to do with crime. This is about domination. This is
about a show of force. This is I think, you know,
in some ways, yes, a distraction from you didn't like

(12:16):
the storyline about Epstein and other things going on.

Speaker 3 (12:19):
I think that's true too.

Speaker 2 (12:20):
But you know, at bottom, it really is not about crime,
because if it was, this would be and it would
be an entirely different approach.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
Violent crime is not the only metric. Quality of life
crime has to of course be one. If there's no question,
quality of life crime, especially in the biggest cities, which
are all democratic rot or blue or liberal in some form,
are much worse to be in now. I think there's
a lot of questions as to why, and Chicago is
a very good example. I mean this part of my honestly,
Chicago's probably the best pick out of all of them

(12:52):
because it's the one with the most clownish mayor Brandon Johnson.
What does he have? An eighty percent disapproval rating, twenty
percent approved. He basically was elected as some sort of
like DSA slash, you know, BLM style candidate, and he's
been a disaster mostly for the city. Don't listen to me,
listen to the people who actually are his own constituents
who can't stand him. The violent crime rate there has

(13:13):
technically fallen, but if you look at the overall spike
in homicides, I mean they were sixty percent higher in
twenty twenty one than in twenty nineteen. That feeling and
general you know, like safety into the city of Chicago
is one that was like the number one cause for
people who were leaving the city, which is destroying their
tax base. That is empirically the same problem across the

(13:33):
entire like major cities in America. This isn't just about
Memphis or these other places. And it's also a bit
of a cop out in my opinion, because like Memphis
never claimed to be like the third large Memphis is
not the third largest city in the United States. It's
not a center pography of commerce.

Speaker 3 (13:48):
Like it's lost on no one. These are all blue states.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
I'm not right, I'm not I mean, can.

Speaker 2 (13:53):
We like just be honest about what's going on? And
can we also be honest about imagine if you had
a Kamala Harris administration or Joe Biden administration that was
deploying the National Guard into Red States to enforced COVID rules.
Everybody would be freaking out. And yet you know this
pretext of oh, it's about crime, that's just.

Speaker 3 (14:11):
Complete and total bullshit.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
DC is not even like in the top list of
cities for violent crime in the country.

Speaker 1 (14:18):
I am not saying that this is all about crime.
What I am saying is that I think it's bad
and a bad idea for Democrats, particularly to not acknowledge
the fact that most of their cities suck to live in.
And I think that that is one of those which
needs to be like centered at the heart of blue governance.
This is one of the things I appreciate. True, it
is true population lass.

Speaker 3 (14:37):
And here's the thing. If you want to get violent
crime down, but it's like Europe just about violence.

Speaker 2 (14:43):
If you want to get crime down to like European
capital levels, then okay, let's have European style gun loss.
Let's have European style social safety.

Speaker 1 (14:52):
It's because we've always talked about We've always lived in
a gun ownership country. I haven't always had this level
of violent crime. Now. The point is is like, if
you go back to the let's say two thousand, the
year two thousand, if you check both violent crime and
just generally, were you walking down the streets seeing homeless
vagrants constantly harassed people on the street. It was not happening.

(15:12):
We had plenty of guns. Yes, there are four hundred
million guns in this country. Our violent crime rate and
our homicide rate is always going to be orders of magnitude.
That's why it's not necessarily the metric white. You need
to look at it. You need to look at the
fact that a lot of these places have sky high taxes,
they have sky high cost of living, and they're very
unpleasant to be in.

Speaker 2 (15:29):
And so which is what the National Guard and federally
I mean, that's the thing is like I just I
hear you on the crime we have the debate, like
we can considue you talk about this.

Speaker 3 (15:37):
This is not about crime, I agree. This is about domination.

Speaker 2 (15:40):
This is about dominating democratic cities and states.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
It's about a show of force.

Speaker 2 (15:45):
It's about what he can get away with, and it's about, yes,
distracting from whatever else.

Speaker 3 (15:50):
So I just don't even want to like.

Speaker 1 (15:52):
But that's the prit even. That's that's what I want.

Speaker 3 (15:54):
You to know.

Speaker 2 (15:55):
It's not because the minute that you go down this
rabbit hole of oh well, let's talk about what's really
causing crime in DC or Chicago versus Memphis, blah blah blah,
you were playing into his narrative that this has anything
to do about crime, and it does not. If you cared,
if he cared about homelessness, if he cared about juvenile delinquency,
any of these things, the Republicans wouldn't have stripped a

(16:18):
billion dollars from the DC budget, you know, they wouldn't
have cut so many of these programs that were just
slashed during Doge across the board. That he wouldn't have
pardoned the January six violent rioters. So that's why I
just have no use for this conversation that even like
you know, gives credence to the idea this has anything
to do with crime, because it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (16:39):
The countercase for that is that Trump still has the
approval rating of where Obama was in his second term.
And the fact is is that and was elected with
a popular vote of some one percent, the first president
since two thousand and four for a Republican to actually
win it. Why did all of that happen? Now, Kamala
is a part of it. I think the city governance
is a big part, especially if you look at the
Blue States swings towards Donald Trump. People are brought fed up.

(17:00):
And if you look at the fact that with these
polling around this, people say it is a bad use
of taxpayer dollars. People say that it's buffoonish, but they
acknowledge the crime, and if it was being done properly,
they would be very okay with it. Now, I'm against
just generally the federalization, and I agree that it's being buffoonished,
and the way that it is being doing is for
political purposes. The reason why I think again, the crime,

(17:24):
the vagrancy, the homelessness, the drug addiction, all of that
has to be put on the table is no one
can objectively look at Chicago and say, yeah, this place
is doing well.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
So put it on the table.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
But it has nothing to do with it. Even you would,
it's total separatad. I see what you said is exactly
the problem. You said, Oh, a billion dollar if money
could fix DC. DC spends more capita per student than
any other public school district in the entire nation.

Speaker 6 (17:47):
It has nothing to do with it. It's about it's
literally about criminal.

Speaker 2 (17:51):
Force definitely does have to deal with money. And by
the way, once again, crime is way down in d C.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
DC is it's not skyhigh.

Speaker 2 (18:00):
So it's lowest on track with the lowest level of
violent crime in thirty years in this city. Baltimore, same thing.
Baltimore is having their lowest level of homicides in like
fifty years.

Speaker 1 (18:08):
And actually Baltimore magnificant is the one who's down.

Speaker 2 (18:12):
There's significant. Okay, so you don't need to send in
the freakin nationals. This is the thing, is like, that's
this is not about crime. So yes, do I think
that there was, you know, a narrative about democratic cities
in decline and chaos, blah blah blah, A lot of
which is bullshit and overblown by the way, But do

(18:32):
I think there's a narrative about that that has some
political sailings. Yes, let's be honest that this has nothing
to do with solving that problem.

Speaker 3 (18:39):
I don't think nothing to do with it.

Speaker 1 (18:40):
I agree. I don't think that we're.

Speaker 3 (18:43):
That's it, that's all I want at art, But.

Speaker 1 (18:45):
I do think I mean again, it does drive me
and a lot of other Republicans crazy when they look
at I mean, were like, oh Washington, It's like, no,
it sucks. It sucked for a long time. Chicago sucks
like San Francisco. So there are parts of Chicago which
are beautiful. When were there, I was actually, wow, this
is actually quite nice. A lot of the media narrative
is wrong, but the overall per capita crime rate in
many of these neighborhoods is a disaster. And that is

(19:07):
the part where politically, again, you cannot just like, oh,
it's not about crime if you don't have an answer
to crime, because then Trump is going to win every.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
Single time crime is down.

Speaker 2 (19:16):
So clearly there are some answers to crime which are
being deployed, I mean, And that's the other thing is,
like what frustrates me is when there's all this handwringing
about ringing about crime, which justifiably like people deserve to
be safe, they deserve to live in neighborhoods where they
feel comfortable. Yes, on board with all of that, but
then there's no willingness to talk about, you know, changing

(19:37):
gun laws, right, that's completely off the table.

Speaker 1 (19:39):
If you look at us, Illinois got one of the
strictest cons you look.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
At us as a nation versus other countries around the world,
the big outlier is in terms of gun ownership. So
you know, if we're going to talk about why this
country is overall so violent, and by the way, some
of the red states have the highest crime rates in
the country, if we want to talk about that versus
the rest of the world. You have to talk about guns,

(20:02):
you have to talk about social safety net, you have
to talk about the fact that we have this vast
inequality and we have very little in terms of social
safety net. We have very little in order to support people,
including young people, who feel utterly hopeless. But instead we're
just going to like roll in the National Guard and
pretend like that's any kind of a real solution. It's
just so frustrating for possible.

Speaker 1 (20:21):
I think it's completely fair and it is true that
the National Guard is not the solution. And I do
think the gun thing has to be acknowledged. Obviously, we
have four hundred million guns, yeah, in the country. I'm
not for gun control. Also, by the way, it's just
not going to happen, and Illinois has some of the
strictest gun laws in the entire nation. So within the
framework of like quote the possible where we're going to acknowledge, yes,
we're going to have violent crime, We're never going to
be a European capital. We don't live in Geneva, we

(20:42):
don't live in Zurich, we don't live in Vienna. That's
in Tokyo, any of these places that is not politically feasible.
What is feasible is the year two thousand, in my opinion,
and now we have to all ask how exactly did
we get to this point? Here is the National Guard.
I just I continue to emphasize it for a sole reason.
I continue you to see this BLM style. Oh, it's

(21:03):
all because of social state. It's like, no, it's not.
It's addiction of huge part of it. And it's soft
on crime policy. And the fact is is that if
you embrace like a narrative of actually crime is down,
when in reality it's still very high compared to two thousands.

Speaker 2 (21:17):
But actually, how does our incarceration rate compared to other countries.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
Yes, we have one of the higher.

Speaker 3 (21:22):
So okay, because we're soft on crime, that's nonsense.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
Well yeah, but there's been a great shift since the
year twenty twenty, of which the consequences have been disastrous.
And it isn't just about incarceration. Are still in placements?

Speaker 6 (21:35):
Why is because they'reced.

Speaker 2 (21:38):
And I mean I look those policies. I'm not going
to say that they don't have many impacts. Okay, I
think that would be dishonest. But I think if we
talk about, okay, what is really changed between Like let's
say the year two thousand was the benchmarking set out
and now we are suffering through a national societal breakdown.

Speaker 3 (21:56):
Right.

Speaker 2 (21:57):
Inequality is skyrocketing, social misery and stress and political polarization, like,
all of these things are pulling us apart. It is
no surprise that at a time when you had the
COVID lockdowns and an additional level of stress and isolation
and loneliness that, yes, out of that, you see a
spike in crime. Not to mention, you know, kids being

(22:19):
out of school and all these sorts of things. So
you know, I'm not going to say the policies no matter,
but I think the bigger picture is those broader societal trends,
which is why this is not a blue state or
red state, or red city or blue city thing. It
is a national epidemic that we struggle with which has
a lot of contributing factors, and none of which will

(22:41):
be solved by the National Guards standing outside of Georgetown, cupcame.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
One of the things that you didn't mention is illegal immigration,
which actually some of this probably will be targeted towards
and so that is an important part of the story
as well. Where you have a massive illegal immigrant population
which is ballooned since the year two thousand. So look,
this is why even if you look at violent crime
compared to my benchmark, violent crime is actually if you
look at two thousands, it wasn't a great year for
bold crime. Like that's why it's not the right benchmark.

(23:05):
The benchmark is quality of life. The quality of life
has many different constituent parts to it. Inequalities certainly, but again,
like culturally, juveniles here today are not getting prosecuted. Juvenile
delinquency is a genuine BLM creation. Like from twenty twenty
post on here in Washington atv gangs, lawlessness, cashless bail.

(23:28):
These are BLM policies directly implemented as a result of
the protests which have skyrocketed crime in New York City,
in Washington, DC, Chicago Brandon Johnson, twenty twenty three, they
went ahead and implemented cashless bill. I get it. If
you think about cash bail, it sounds inequitable, but the
consequence has been a disaster. And so I mean, we
cover that story of the guy who what did you do?

(23:48):
He like ran into a It was in the state
of Illinois. I believe he ran into some parade and
killed a bunch of people released on bail. I mean
these are cashles.

Speaker 3 (23:56):
Bill.

Speaker 1 (23:56):
This is always the issue is that we don't evaluate
all of this like new age policy. Oh, we need
to talk about addiction and not criminalize it. It's like, well,
look at skid Row, look at San Francisco, look at
the most non criminalized areas for people in addiction. It
has destroyed the quality of life with the residents of those.

Speaker 2 (24:16):
So we should definitely not criminalize addiction. We should have
much more forceful rehabits. You and I discussed again. I
come back to the point. None of us has to
do with the National Guard.

Speaker 3 (24:27):
None of it. Yeah, none of it. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (24:29):
And so that's why I find it frustrating to even
like indulge the conversation when it's very clear what is
being done here. It's the whole attempt is to get
this conversation put on the table, even though Trump has
no interest in solving it. Has been more pro criminal
than maybe any other president, given the way that he's
pardoned not only you know, not only the J six

(24:50):
or all these like you know, white collar criminal fraudsters
who just like pay the right person and are able
to get their pardons. So that's my core frustration with
the way this conversation is unfolding. Let me get to
the wes Moore part because this, you know, this relates
to what we're discussing, and we can talk about Bill
Maher and get into, you know, some of the sort
of darker possibilities of what Trump is doing right now.

(25:13):
So let's go and put a five up on the screen. Trump,
going directly after wes Moore's governor Maryland, talked about as
a presidential candidate, he's, you know, not really my style.
He's a little too moderate, corporate, et cetera, et cetera.
But in any case, Trump says, Governor Wesmore of Maryland
has asked in a rather nasty and provocative tone, that
I walk the streets of Maryland with him. I assume

(25:35):
he is talking about out of control crime rid in Baltimore.
As president, I would much prefer that he clean up
this crime disaster before I go there for a walk.
Wes Moore's record on crime is a very bad one,
unless he fudges his figures on crime like many of
the other Blue states are doing. But if wes Moore
needs help, like Gavin Nouskam did in LA. I will
send in the troops, which is being done in nearby DC,
and quickly clean up the crime. After only one week,

(25:57):
there is no crime and no murder in DC. When
it is like that in Baltimore, I would probably walk
the streets with the failing because of crime Governor of
Maryland ps Baltimore's ranked the fourth worst city in the
nation in crime and murder. Stopped talking and get to work, Wes.
I'll then see you in the streets. And then it
goes on to say I gave Wes Moore a lot
of money to fix his demolished bridge. Not even true,
that came from Joe Biden. But and he says, I'll
now have to rethink that decision.

Speaker 1 (26:19):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
Wes Moore responded to this on the Sunday Shows. Let's
go ahead and take a listen to what he had
to say.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
Are you so opposed to this deployment?

Speaker 5 (26:28):
Well, there there's plenty of reasons. You know. One, it
is not sustainable.

Speaker 7 (26:33):
You cannot continue this type of pace of operations, particularly
when you're when it's costing over a million dollars a
day in order to do this.

Speaker 5 (26:39):
The second, it's not scalable.

Speaker 7 (26:41):
You're not going to be able to do this in
every single major American city, particularly when many of the
cities that have the highest crime rates are the places
that have actually deployed their National Guards to Washington, d C.
So wh who's going to go do the work in
their cities. The third it's unconstitutional, It's a direct violation
of the Tenth Amendment. The fourth reason is because it's
deeply disrespectful to.

Speaker 5 (27:00):
The members of the National Guard.

Speaker 7 (27:01):
You know, as someone who actually deployed overseas and served
my country in combat, to ask these men and women
to do a job that they're not trained for is
just deeply disrespectful. And so when we're thinking about all
of these lasting factors, when we think about the fact
that it serves as a distraction from the fact that
the president's disastrous economic policies are making everything more expensive

(27:21):
for everyday Americans, is making life harder for everyday Americans,
there is a multitude of reasons that I am against
this and I will not authorize the Maryland National Guard
of utilized for this.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
So his reasons where he said it's unsustainable, it's not scalable,
it's unconstitutional, and it's a distraction.

Speaker 3 (27:36):
So that was his take on all. I mean, look,
none of which you know. I mean, he didn't downplay.

Speaker 2 (27:41):
But obviously Baltimore has long had a crime issue, although
they have done a better job this year in particular
violent crimes.

Speaker 1 (27:48):
But they have done it. They have done it. Yes,
the social worker part of it is not the whole story.
Prosecution is a big part of it. Having dug a
little bit into it, but yeah, let's give it credit
where it's due. I will say, More also is diving
into what is it in the jerrymandering fight, and he's
gonna there's only one republicancy in mistake, No, there is currently, sorry,
only want it. They're just going to take it. They're

(28:09):
going to get rid of that to take it away.
So race to the bottom, I guess. I mean Maryland,
it's been a blue state, I guess now for quite
some time. Might as well just make it official. I
think More is uh. I think he's quite talented. Actually,
I mean I don't know. It's like you said, I'm
a bit suspicious of the more corporateized element of it.
And he does seem very cut of the mold of

(28:31):
like exactly what the centrist Democrat would want and almost
wears it on his sleeve a little bit about like
practicing with the football squad and all that, making it
go quite viral. But I mean, there's no question he's
quite popular. Actually in the state, it is generally smaller
and in terms of national profile, like I don't see
it as much for him as with Newsom. But if
Trump picks a fight with him, obviously then he's gonna get.

Speaker 3 (28:52):
That'd be very elevating for him.

Speaker 2 (28:53):
Yeah, And I think a lot of Democrats, ambitious Democrats,
are looking at the Newsom model and they see that
like this is working for him, you know. And I
don't know why it took them this long to realize that,
you know, trying to troll Trump, like get in his face,
make a lot of noise, be controversial. Obviously, that's what

(29:14):
you have to do in this era. And so I
think Wes Moore is trying to do a kind of
his own version of that. And the pick the fight
that Trump has picked with him is obviously very elevating
for him.

Speaker 1 (29:25):
Right anyway, I think broadly, look, Yeah, to wrap up
our discussion, I agree. I think the National Guard and
most Americans are smart I've always believed that, yeah, you
can see through a lot of what this is, even
people like me who are like, yeah, I think crime
is a huge problem. I think illegal immigration and all
of it is a huge problem. If they view it
as a showmanship and is not serious, then they're going

(29:46):
to get upset. I do wonder politically how it shakes out,
because it sounds quote unpopular and all of that. Today,
what I continue to wonder about is the actual merits
of how the democratic opposition fights this. And that's why,
you know, that's part of what I thought our discussion
is important for is if the alternative is seen as

(30:06):
still like soft on crime, then it will be a
genuine question at the ballot box, especially for the future
of the discourse as to like what this will look
like in terms of preference, because we have to be honest.
Like you know, even if you look back at the
height of BLM, sending in troops to the cities was
broadly popular, and especially in retrospect if you go back

(30:28):
and now look at some one or two years later
on the question of that polling, people were very upset
by the to break down on the social order chaos,
and they're not going to pick in general, in my opinion,
people will pick social order over everything that is not
actually a good societal natural instinct. But it is broadly true.
The question politically is how this will sustain it. I
think Gavin one of the ways that he was smart

(30:49):
was talking about rule of law, and they weren't doing
the BLM style like actually it's mostly peaceful. Most Democrats
were criticizing the Mexican flag burning, you know, like the
burning of the car rioting and any of that. That
seems to be a politically palatable position that I think
a lot of centrist more Americans could go with. But
it is still like a very live question today. I

(31:10):
can see where the centrist are going, but I also
see where the activist space is, and so I'm still
curious to see how that actually shakes it.

Speaker 2 (31:16):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's a very different moment
from the moment of COVID and BLM, because there is
a sense that, like you know, things have called down
in these cities, and it's not this heightened moment that
it was at that point in time. I was just
looking there is a little bit of pulling. I mean,
who knows how this shakes out? What people really think

(31:36):
of the long run and all of that. But Data
for Progress found a majority of voters fifty one percent
opposed the Trump administration taking over DC police force and
employing the National Guard in the city. So forty four
percent support, fifty one percent oppose. That's basically right in
line with Trump's approval rating. Yeah, so I think it
really is just like a vector for its negative or

(32:00):
do you trust Trump or do you not trust Trump?
And you've got a lot of people too who you
don't think that it is indicative of authoritarian Trump is
being authoritarian fifty seven percent. Trump is just doing this
to distract from other issues fifty one percent. More than
half of voters If fifty one percent also agree Trump
is doing what's necessary to crack down on crime, though

(32:20):
voters are closely divided, with forty six percent disagreeing with
that statement.

Speaker 3 (32:26):
Let's go ahead and move on to Bill Maher and
then we can talk more about this.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
But in any case, he had a take on his
show over the weekend, which in my opinion is interesting
for a variety of reasons.

Speaker 3 (32:35):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.

Speaker 8 (32:37):
I don't know if I was the first one to
use the phrase slow moving coup. I know I was
using it before he was thank you. I know I
was using it before he was president the first time.
So maybe somebody got to do it first, I don't know.
And people were laughing at it. I mean whenever I
said he was number going to concede power, they would say, oh,
you smoke too much pot. Well turned out I smoke

(32:59):
just the right amount of pot. He does this magic trick.
You know, he's passing out pizza in it's all about
big balls, and we're all laughing at what's going on
in DC. Yeah, he's passing out pizza to the troops.
If there was a slow moving coupe, let me just
describe some of the steps, and you tell me if
I'm being paranoid. First, create a masked police force. Get

(33:19):
people look used to looking at that. Normalize snatching people
off the street, get them used to that, normalize seeing
the car, the National Guard and the military on the street.
Then start talking about crime in the capitol, which is
basically you know, it has always been a proly crime
er in the city. This is our nation's capital where

(33:39):
elections are decided and then have because the crime is
so bad, have other states start sending their troops, not
just the National Guard there in DC, but now at
least six other states are sending their troops, which then
Trump can then federalize, So you're having many states troops
on the ground there, and now they're under federal control.

(34:02):
So you have in the capital a sort of permanent
police presence. So when an election dispute might come up,
just hypothetically, I mean, I don't want to be a
big pessimist, and I'm going to pretend for the rest
of the duration that the Democrats do have a chance

(34:23):
of winning, and they might win the next election. I
just don't think they're ever going to take power because
this is what's going to happen, because I think this
coup is going to go off a lot smoother than
the last one.

Speaker 6 (34:34):
So what do you make of that, Zacara, Well, it
just makes a lot of sense that if you believe
that to go to the White House and to have.

Speaker 1 (34:39):
Dinner with that person. That's why I'm like, Bill, come
on here, man, I mean, look, you can't have it
both ways. You're either literally a fascist who's trying to
take over the country, which I don't think is going
to happen or we're all having dinner together, and why
wouldn't I go and have dinner? I mean, you know,
it's like, look, Bill, if you believe that, you know,

(35:01):
would you really quote have dinner with anybody. I don't
believe that for a second. That's why, you know, a
lot of it just really seems to be centered around him,
like personally and like his own ego. So he's happy
to talk about soft coups or whatever on his show.
But if Trump were to invite him to the White
House tomorrow, he would probably go, and then he would,
you know, say that there's a reason why. It's because

(35:23):
we all need to have conversations. And it's like, which,
what are we doing here?

Speaker 8 (35:27):
Man?

Speaker 1 (35:28):
And it's funny because for me to be saying this,
but I'm just I know, for me, I hate inconsistency.
I hate people who are obviously just so wrapped up
in their own ego and blowing with the wind.

Speaker 5 (35:38):
I mean, Bill.

Speaker 1 (35:39):
Maher is probably you know, the most like the best
example of blowing you know, whichever way the tide turns.
He's trying to return to some more of his original
like more liberal roots and appear heterodox, but he was
basically like a right winger for a year, right leading
the right to the election. Yeah, which is humiliating for
them because like one one guy says something, Oh my god,

(36:02):
he's making so much sense. Bill Mark. Anyway, that's my
own personal pet peet. But yes, that's my Bill Market.

Speaker 3 (36:08):
I mean.

Speaker 2 (36:08):
And it wasn't just any dinner he went, you know,
he did, and he did.

Speaker 3 (36:14):
Dana White was there.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
But then afterwards he did a whole monologue about how
charming trunk was, that funny it was, and how why
can't this guy be like the public guy, you know
what I mean. It was very fawning and so and
the other thing is to your point about the self importance.
I mean, these people act like they're like diplomats on
some sort of a sensitive government mission. It's the same

(36:36):
thing with Joe Amika, the way they phreeze when they
did their little trip. He acts like this, you know,
comedian with a once a week's show, going and meeting
with trumpet mar A Lago is like the Camp David Accords.
I mean, it's just it's so silly, it's so preposterous.
But then yeah, if you do that, and then you
turn around and say, which, by the way, I agree

(36:58):
with what he's saying here, you know, his language of
it's a soft coup, a slow moving coup. I think
that everything he said is reasonable considering what we experienced
don and saw on January sixth. And you know the
fact that there's a concerted plan now to roll out
National Guard troops in blue cities and blue states across
the country. But you don't have a lot of credibility

(37:19):
on that when you're doing the like, you know, the
nicey nice with him as well. So I just want
to say this again, comes to the difficulty that I
have in trying to accurately assess the threat posed by
the Trump administration, because on the one hand, like we're
here in DC, the National Guard deployment is buffoonish, like

(37:41):
it's silly. It's ridiculous. They're you know, they're at and
wraps at Union Station and apparently on the National Mall
and like roaming around.

Speaker 3 (37:49):
George Shawn Cupcake.

Speaker 2 (37:50):
I'm seeing videos of them just like going up and
down escalators.

Speaker 3 (37:53):
It's ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (37:55):
On the other hand, they are going to be armed
apparently starting this week. You know, it's not hard to
imagine some sort of disaster, disastrous conflagration, which creates way
more chaos, way more you know, violence, or way more
backlash or whatever it is. And part of you has
to wonder if that's not part of the point, right,

(38:17):
if that's not part of the desire, is trying to
stoke this sort of animosity and chaos in the streets,
and then you do all He makes the point specifically
about elections, and I think it's that one is a
fair one too, Like, are we going to have this
armed force in blue cities when it comes to election
day to try to intimidate Democratic voters from going to

(38:38):
the polls? I don't think that's preposterous to suggest, especially
as right now we see the president manifest and concern
about the midterms, saying he wants them to try to
get one hundred new Republican seats, already casting doubt on
mail in ballots, which, by the way, he did excellent
with mail in ballots.

Speaker 3 (38:53):
He would have lost the elections a boomers.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
He would have lost the election without mail in ballots
last time around. But in any case, this is all
about stoking concern and being able to say after the
fact that it was rigged. We see him going to
red states and saying you need to create new maps
so we can get more republicancy. So all of that
is to say he's clearly concerned about the midterms. You
now have this, you know, armed militarized force being deployed
in cities across the country. It isn't crazy to say,

(39:18):
what is this all aiming towards? And you know, you
have the buffoonery and the like idiocy on the one hand,
and on the other hand, you have a record of
genuinely like nefarious plots executed, you know, by this administration
and Trump being much more sort of unleashed this time

(39:39):
around than the first time around. So I do I
do give credence to what Bill is saying there, even
as I acknowledge he's not the best messenger.

Speaker 1 (39:46):
At this point, I would say it is incorrect to
rule a lot of that stuff out, considering a lot
of the way we've been administration has acted in its
first nine months. I think the greatest danger is actually
some sort of spontaneous incident. And that's the one which
look it's fair. I mean, you talked about the mask thing.
If you come to my door, I mean, especially after

(40:07):
more recently that attack whoever that weirdo was the pro
life guy who addressed as a police officer with a mask,
right and who went to those politicians door. I mean, look,
even if you're you know, have that on and I'm
looking at the camera and be like look name, badge number,
like who are you? You know, like, there needs to
be some serious vetting before you open your door for anybody.
And I would advise that for everybody out there, especially

(40:30):
after that type of incident, and the same with some
sort of mass incident, right, So exactly in that scenario,
it's dangerous and there were protocols all over there for
a reason. That is setting up the you know, the
ground for something that could go very very wrong. That's
part of the reason why people look at Ken State,
you know, for example, as you know, kind of a

(40:51):
horror in modern American history. And it's like nobody was
going there to kill them. It's just that it erupted
in a bad chaos and people ended up dead. That's
the issue. And you know, like it's not like there
wasn't like genuine violence or whatever. But the point is
is that people looked at that and said, hey, we
should not try to normalize this and that's exactly what
I think the danger is is that the longer that

(41:13):
you have let's say, a deployment or armed deployment or
something like this in a ninety percent blue city, it
does seem like it's only a matter of time until somebody,
you know, somebody crazy shit. It's a probably, and then
you know, same if from there, and then from there,
who knows what's going to happen. Right, that's not excusing
somebody's going to attack them or whatever. I'm just you know,
it's obvious it could happen, right, And so that I
think that's probably the thing I would be the most afraid.

(41:35):
I am most afraid of, especially for the deployment here,
because you just don't know, like you know, things, crazy
stuff can happen, and it has happened many times, and
you have people out there you just have no idea.
I mean, you had the whole weather I was. I've
been thinking a lot about how America really reminds me
today of the nineteen seventies, and the more that we
like cling to that framework, it's really important. I mean,
the weather underground like tried to blow up the Capitol

(41:56):
like crazy, A group of just twenty people can cause
can do some crazy shit and can actually cause like
some widespread social panic and chaos. Yeah, that's very possible.
And then from there it's not just a civil liberties question.
It's really more about how and what how are we
going to deal with this going forward? And with the administration,
you can see like they're not afraid of picking a

(42:18):
fight where they think they can come out politically on top.
From my conversation with them, they think this is the
best thing that they've done so far.

Speaker 2 (42:24):
They used big balls getting beaten up as like a
rich Stug fire to deploy the National Guard.

Speaker 3 (42:31):
They did.

Speaker 2 (42:32):
And that's not to say that it was like a setup.
I'm just saying they use that provocation like we're sending
in the National Guard. Now, Let's say imagine that that
homeowner who shot the two you know, people who were
pretending to be law enforcement. Let's say they actually were
law Let's say it was ICE agents who refused to
iem who came knocking at the door, and the homeowner thought.

Speaker 1 (42:54):
Or an illegal kill, this was we're off for the races.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
I mean, and the homeowner thought genuinely these were homans
and you know, killed them. Imagine what this administration would
do given any sort of a pretext for some sort
of massive crackdown, Like we know that they'll do it.
They're already doing it based on like, you know, a
few protests with some with a couple of cars set

(43:17):
on fire and some Mexican flags and big balls getting
beat up.

Speaker 3 (43:21):
So they'll use anything, you know.

Speaker 2 (43:24):
I mean, we just had a situation where one of
these wasn't one of the m raps that like t
boned a car here in the city. Thankfully, those the
people in the car were injured. They were taking to
the hospital, but I think they survived, aren't going to
be okay, which is like a miracle given what unfolded.
But again, you can imagine like an angry crowd forming,
It's not hard to envision the way this could all
go off the rails and the way this administration could

(43:46):
use that sort of provocation for an even larger scale crackdown.
So I think we all have to be concerned about
those possibilities because and concerned that that is actively the plan,
like that's what they're actually hoping for, because Trump loves
to create the pretext of a national emergency to grab
more and more and more power.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
Yeah, I don't think. Look, I don't think it's that
far fetched. Do you think it is dangerous just broad
like actually societally for that type of stuff to happen.
And if it is seen by the people as something
as that, then you're politically even just politically like, you're
going to suffer a lot because that is really the
question that anyway, that's just like the question I'm grappling
with the most, because it's like you said, too, I mean,

(44:26):
here's here is the truth that is uncomfortable. A lot
of people will choose safety over security, and we've seen
that over and over and over and over again. Then
safety over freedom. The question is about safety itself, and
like what that even means. I do think there is
a deep strain, especially for a lot of American especially

(44:48):
a lot of American Republicans who are still furious about ble,
which I understand is to punish the people who were
responsible for that. But you know, one of the things
that they also need to grapple with is three and
a half years. Ain't that long long the time? Okay?
Because whatever is what's been unleashed, it's coming for you too. Yeah,
I mean, I'm from Texas. I don't know if you
remember when Obama, like there was this whole jade helm exercise. Yeah,

(45:12):
Texas National Guard was mobile and people there freaked out,
Like my neighbors and other people were like, they're going
to come and invade us, and like that's equally I
can see you know that strain having lived through that
of what that could look like, you know, the some
reason why a liberal city can't do the same thing.

Speaker 6 (45:30):
That's kind of a scary place to be. That's just
what I would say.

Speaker 2 (45:33):
Yeah, I agree, another pandemic. You ready for Governor Gavin
Newsom to send the National Guard into your cities and
force everybody, you know, close the churches in lockdown. I
don't think Republicans are going to.

Speaker 3 (45:44):
Be excited about it.

Speaker 1 (45:44):
That is That is the point though that the right
wingers always point out, is like, hey, you guys are
happy to use a National Guard to close down the
beach or you know, to enforce all they did that. No,
in California, there was law, maybe not National gar but
there definitely was. I think there was a National Guard
deployment for COVID nineteen. I forget exactly what it was for.
I think it was operation warp speed. But anyway, law
enforcement closing down the beach, a lot of the stupid policies, restaurants,

(46:07):
et cetera. So it's like, it's not exactly as if
they're like, you know, against like a lot of authoritarian
tactics when they want it to be. That was, by
the way, another reason why I think it's important to say,
like there was no mass revolution in America or anywhere
in the entire West against draconian COVID policies. People actually
should sit with that, especially in retrospect of how ridiculous

(46:29):
they were, and wonder if we would all do it again.
I personally would not go along with it again. I
don't know how many people would not would go along
with it again. And I do think that is that
is an important societal like social question. So that's what
it means.

Speaker 3 (46:42):
This is interesting. Just decide.

Speaker 2 (46:43):
I don't know that this is the only deployment, but
one of the deployments of the National Guard during COVID
was Red State Ohio hospitals, like to assist hospitals.

Speaker 3 (46:52):
When you had but he was the live like to
winch and.

Speaker 2 (46:56):
Then obviously at the same time you had National Guard
deployed to deal with the George Floyd the riots in
the context of the Black Lives Matter.

Speaker 1 (47:05):
So in any case, you'll all remember that we told
you the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sat for two
days of interviews with Gallaine Maxwell in a proffer session.
The Deputy Attorney General and the DOJ has now released
the full transcripts, or at least what they say are
the full transcripts of their conversation. And you will be
absolutely shocked to know that Gallaine Maxwell doesn't implicate Donald Trump,

(47:31):
doesn't implicate anybody powerful at all. Prince Andrew did nothing wrong,
Bill Gates did nothing wrong. Jeffrey Epstein was a simple
money manager, by the way, to the extent that anyone
did anything wrong, it was Jeffrey Epstein, and it was
of course after Ghlaine Maxwell was ever in the picture.
Maxwell herself did nothing wrong. Nobody did anything wrong, and
by the way, she would like her pardon immediately. She
did say a few interesting things to the extent that

(47:54):
we give credence at all. Let's keep in mind every
claim that she makes needs to be deeply scrutinized, and
I will get into them. Let's go to the first part.
Shall we let's put it up here on the screen.
This is the first most important section where Maxwell claims
that she does not believe that Epstein quote died by suicide.
She says, quote, I do not believe he died by suicide.
And Todd Blanche goes, do you believe that? Do you

(48:15):
have any speculation or you I who killed him? She says, no,
I don't. He continues, I ask that because if you
don't believe that, and there's any truth for the allegation
of blackmail, et cetera, did he have any reason for
people to hate him? Why would somebody kill him in prison?
And she says, and this is something I keep emphasizing.
People are like, how could they get somebody to kill him?
Listen to her answer. In prison where I am, they
will kill you, or they will pay somebody can pay

(48:36):
a prisoner to kill you for twenty five dollars worth
of commissary. That's about the going rate for a hit
with a lock today. That is an important thing to
underscore because he was in MCC. People keep asking, They're like,
who killed him? It's like, it's obviously another prisoner. These
guys kill each other over literally twenty five cent gambling
debts to maintain respect. So the idea that it would

(48:58):
be difficult for somebody to kill him, especially to strangle
him to death, is like, so that is the most
plausible scenario. It's far more plausible than that he killed himself. Right,
So anyway, the one piece of sense that Glaine was saying.

Speaker 3 (49:11):
But even in that, I guess if she doesn't.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 3 (49:14):
Of course, the Trump administration, not even anybody, well.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
Anyone powerful, right, and obviously it was the first Trump
administration when Jeffrey Epstein died or that unfolded, And so
she's very careful to you know, I don't think he
killed himself, but it was just some you know, prison beef.
That's probably what happened. Nobody powerful was involved.

Speaker 3 (49:31):
Don't worry. You can trust me.

Speaker 1 (49:33):
This whole thing is like a joke. Let's go to
the next part here. This is her angling for her
pardon shall we quote? I never saw the president in
any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the president
in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was
never inappropriate with anybody In all the times I was
with him. He was a gentleman in all respects, and

(49:53):
she even says that, by the way, I just want
to say that I find it so impressive that he
was able to get him elf elected president of the
United States. Of course, I'm sure those are just very
normal feelings, right, Okay, Now, let me just again lay
out how much of her testimony or whatever in her

(50:13):
profit session is just a provable lie. And this is
the easiest one for me to point out. Let's put
it up here on the screen. She told Todd Blanche
directly that she built all of Epstein's houses and the
idea that there are cameras in them is preposterous. So
here is the exact transcript from what you know. You
do not believe a camera exists, or a video camera exists,

(50:34):
or a camera that takes pictures inside any of his residences.
Gallinne Maxwell correct. Here is a picture from Jeffrey Epstein's
bedroom with a mounted surveillance camera above his bed. There
are many other photos of surveillance cameras all over the
seventy seventh Street mansion. There are FBI acknowledgments that during

(50:56):
the raids of his houses that they found camera apparently everywhere.
Like this is the part where Todd Blanche doesn't even
push back in any way. He's like, oh, so you're
telling me there's no cameras, okay, and she's she goes
on this whole long spiel. She's like, I.

Speaker 6 (51:11):
Built those houses from ground to you know, from Florida ceiling.
I know every inch of them and the wiring.

Speaker 1 (51:17):
There's no cameras anywhere. And he's not sitting there being like,
well what about this photo of a camera? Like it's like,
what you know, I'm just an idiot. I'm literally an
idiot on YouTube. It has read as much as I
can about the Epstein case, And immediately I'm like, what
are you talking about here? Here's ten photos of cameras
in there. So did those cameras show up after you
built the houses?

Speaker 3 (51:35):
Right?

Speaker 1 (51:35):
If they did, who put them in there? What was
the name of the house manager? Who are the employees
who would have known how to do something like that?
Was the subcontracting firm? Because you claim to run all
of his finances and know every inch of the desk.
So many of the things that she said were total
wise even worse, the way she tries to minimize and
everything that happened, it's sickening, Like I read all four
hundred pages of this lady's testimony. At every end.

Speaker 6 (51:57):
She's like, oh, that was Jeffrey, it was after I departed,
or I never saw anything wrong, like every oh, Prince Andrew,
I met him through Diana's friend and I don't wish
to speak ill, but Andrew, he's so British, he would
never do.

Speaker 1 (52:10):
Anything like that. And it's like for Andrew, for Bill Gates,
for Leon Black, for Les Wexner, it's like the most
bullshit explanation that does not even pass a remote smell test.
Blanche lets her get away with it. And the worst
part is this will probably use is already being used
by the Epstein defenders. Look, see she drove a knife

(52:32):
in the heart of all of the Epstein conspiracy. Why
would we listen to this lady? This lady was charged
with perjury in twenty twenty for lying in a deposition. Now,
to be fair, the prosecution ended up dropping the perjury
for her sentencing because she'd already been convicted of the
broader charge. Are going to send her for prison for
twenty years?

Speaker 6 (52:50):
Like open and shut, decent enough proof that she has
lied under oath for a deposition.

Speaker 2 (52:56):
Not only that, like let's just be really clear about
the context here.

Speaker 3 (53:00):
This is a woman who wants a party.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
She's trying to get out, and she's trying to project
not just to Trump but to anyone powerful that You're
not going to have a problem with me. I'm going
to keep my mouth shut. Your secrets are safe with me.
I'm going to be no issue. I'm not going to
implicate anyone. I'm going to downplay this thing. We can
all just move on. I mean, that's the point of this.
And so even if she wasn't like a proven liar,
which obviously she is, you have to think about what

(53:23):
are her motivations. Obviously she's not going to come forward me,
Oh yeah, I saw Trump do an X and Y
and Z. Oh yeah, he's totally Epstein was totally you know,
an Intel agent. Oh yeah, there were you know, cameras everywhere.
Because the minute you acknowledge our cameras everywhere too, that
again confirms there's a lot of information out there that
we have never been given access to. So that's why
the camera piece is important, and it is one of

(53:45):
the most easily disprovable pieces.

Speaker 3 (53:47):
I mean, didn't we.

Speaker 2 (53:48):
Give that information not only from a lot of witnesses
who saw such things. But there was also when Epstein's
mansion on the Upper East Side was you know, rated
by law enforcement, they also didn't weren't they part of
you know, talking about the cameras that were there like
this to say it direct, this is there is you know,
this has proven fact, This is not speculation, This is

(54:09):
not conspiracy theory, et cetera. So it speaks to her
credibility and the motivations that she has in this whole exchange.

Speaker 1 (54:16):
Absolutely, let's go to the next part please, because you know,
just to continue to give you guys a flavor of
what we're all dealing with. This is Maxwell. I never
saw a single mascuse ever look unhappy or not come
back or whatever. Yeah, that's what we were dealing with.

Speaker 6 (54:34):
So she's like, so based on my observation, I don't
this is classic.

Speaker 1 (54:37):
I don't think that if you are being raped, as
he's now like this prolific, I just I can't even
imagine why you would return, all right. So it's like,
you know, when battered women, this is the justification that
people make about battered women. They're like, well, if they
wanted to leave so bad, they would just leave I'm like, oh, yeah,
it's that simple. Okay. Talk to any cop who's ever
had to go to a domestic violence call and some

(54:58):
lady has her face broken in and she's like, oh,
we didn't do anything wrong.

Speaker 6 (55:02):
Maybe there's a bigger context and some power dynamic and
money exchange and blackmail or whatever which is keeping people there.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
Just my opinion.

Speaker 2 (55:10):
My opinion, well, and the testimony is that, I mean
dozens of girls down in Florida, in particular in Palm Beach,
that she would intentionally go to rough areas of town
where you had, you know, girls from troubled homes who
were in very difficult situations.

Speaker 3 (55:25):
They were desperate, you.

Speaker 2 (55:26):
Know, and she preyed on people who had already been abused,
who were desperate, for Virginia Guffray being a perfect example
of that, you know, as a teenager, as a young
teen at mar A Lago, and she recognized this vulnerability
and those would be the girls that she.

Speaker 1 (55:41):
Would go after and do so and you know, of course,
to her, she never did anything. She needs she didn't
even look at an underage person while she was at
ever worked for John Sirius. That's the way that she
talks in all of her testament.

Speaker 2 (55:52):
Mark Trump even acknowledged that Virginia Guffray was like stoles
from him by Gallaine and.

Speaker 3 (55:58):
Jeffrey Epstein, all right when she was what sixteen?

Speaker 1 (56:01):
Yeah, I believe. So let's go to the next one.
This is another one. He asks, you know, do you
have any reason to think that Epstein was part of
Mosad or the CIA or any intelligence agers. She says, quote,
I think it's bullshit because if it were true, then
Epstein would have bragged about it to her or tried
to play it off and tried to be cool about it.

(56:23):
And so because he was never cool about it and
he didn't brag about it to her, that she thinks
that it's all wrong. Now, let's keep that in context
this part, specifically for the next which remains the central
question of the entire Epstein mythology, which is how did
this guy make all of his money? Here is Maxwell's
explanation on the type of services that he provided for
Les Wexner and Leon Black. Quote, Let's say you had

(56:46):
a billion dollars to invest, so you would, you know,
in people's normal investment portfolios, you would have you know,
some T bonds and this and that but Epstein's strategies
would be much more sophisticated. So again we are to
believe that the college dropout, non accredited investor Jeffrey Epstein
had quote sophisticated strategies that were only accessible to him

(57:10):
and not to the richest and most powerful people in
the world. There are richest, most powerful people in the
world who use investment advisors of all kinds, Goldman, Saxony.

Speaker 6 (57:17):
They don't need to deal with Epstein. Why do they
use to deal with the Jay Epstein company?

Speaker 1 (57:21):
All right, Goldman and all those other people can get
you into venture capital as an LP or any of that,
and they can return on your portfolio between fifteen and
twenty percent per year, or you could just invest it
in the S and P five hundred and still get
a decent enough deal. This does not pass the smell
test at all. Leon Black, one of the most legendary
investment advisors of all time, had just had to use
Epstein and not didn't have to use his own money.

(57:42):
That's why I paid him one hundred and seventy million dollars. Again,
Todd Blanche, no explanation. He doesn't challenge her. He's like, well,
exactly what were the sophistic strategies. She goes, he was
just a whiz at math. What no, you know, No,
this stuff is ridiculous.

Speaker 6 (57:58):
What if that were true, all of the people at
the Harvard Math Department who he was constantly cultivating, or
MIT or any of them.

Speaker 1 (58:06):
They would all be billionaires and be filthy rich. If
that's not the case, is it?

Speaker 3 (58:09):
So?

Speaker 1 (58:10):
It's just that is the part where the explanation on
everything is anodyne. Everything is just, Oh, he made his
money by being smart. He nobody was abused except by him.
I've learned about that after his death. Of course I
didn't know about it, any of it at the time.
Everything we ever did was above board. Every connection that
he ever had to quote intelligence or whatever is quote

(58:32):
bullshit because he would have bragged to me about it.
And I just can't, you know, with the entire thing.
It really Todd Blanche just did a horrible job. Like
he really just did.

Speaker 3 (58:42):
No, he did, he did a great job.

Speaker 1 (58:44):
His purposes were sure, but I'm for transparent purposes. What
he effectively did is engineer. It would be like a
softball interview is the example of It's like when Republicans
are in trouble or Democrats are you know, Republicans are
trouble and go on Fox and Democrats are to go
on MSNBC. What can they be assured of that when
they're in their interview that they will be asked in

(59:06):
the most anodyne way without any follow up about what's happening,
so that they can quote, get on the record and
get ahead of it. But they can't actually they don't
actually have to answer any of the specific questions. And
that's effectively what has happened here. So it's just the
whole thing is preposterous and I just want people to
remember that.

Speaker 2 (59:22):
Yeah, a couple other things interesting nuggets from there. She
was asked about her dad's ties to Intel and she
basically was like, well, once you're, you know, an intelligence agent,
I don't think you're ever really not an intelligence agent.
Was basically her her response there, which I thought was
kind of interesting.

Speaker 3 (59:39):
And then she.

Speaker 2 (59:40):
Got asked about Epstein's relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister
Ahu Brock. He's the one who met with Epstein dozens
of times. There's that infamous picture of him like covering
with his face covered going into Epstein's upper East side mansion,
and so Lanch asked about that relationship and if she
knew what the nature of that relationship was, and she's

(01:00:00):
just like, no, I didn't know anything, have you know,
very little memory of meeting him. Don't know if he's
with Epstein or I don't remember. I just know that
I did see him, and I'm trying struggling to remember
the context around it. But I if I'm sure it happened,
but it must have been very brief because I don't
have any serious memory of it, any like deep memory
of that.

Speaker 3 (01:00:17):
So there you go.

Speaker 1 (01:00:19):
Yeah, that's what we're all dealing with. Let's just put
B seven please up on the screen, just to give
people an idea. All the Epstein files given to Congress
are apparently already public Okay, got it? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
Rocanna sounding off in this piece, by the way, I mean, he's.

Speaker 3 (01:00:34):
Really been leading the charge.

Speaker 2 (01:00:37):
Apparently only three percent, according to him, of the documents
given to the Oversight Committee are new. He says, the
rest are already in the public domain. Less than one
percent of the files have been released. DOJ's stonewalling. The
survivors deserve just as the public deserves, transparency.

Speaker 1 (01:00:51):
Got it? And finally, just in terms of the protection
B seven. Please we can show everybody you're what do
we have? The inmate at Gallaide Max New Prison was
apparently transferred to a grim lock up after slamming Gallaine
in and interview. So. Her name was Julie pat Howells.
She was serving just one year for theft. She was

(01:01:12):
actually removed after blasting Maxwell quote as disgusting with a
British paper earlier this month. According to her lawyer, the
prison warden called her into her office and said that
she was being moved immediately because quote, because that she
had given an unauthorized interview. And she literally quote only
decided to speak up because one of her family members

(01:01:35):
was actually a victim of sex trafficking. She didn't want
to be in the same prison as somebody who has
had that charge. We will all keep in mind that
you're not even supposed to be in the prison camp
with Glenne Maxwell's charge. By the way, I will be
there next month, back in my hometown, So maybe I
need to go on by to go.

Speaker 3 (01:01:51):
Buy it interesting.

Speaker 6 (01:01:52):
Yeah, I mean I wonder how close you can get
because these daily male guys all have photos of Elizabeth Holmes,
like working out and apparently.

Speaker 3 (01:01:59):
They had those super long lens can.

Speaker 1 (01:02:00):
But there's no offenses apparently, like with the camps, like
it's very lax. Apparently they just have to be back
for count Like there's not a lot of enforcement. It's
basically if you leave, like heay, just so you know
we're coming after you, and you have such a cushy gig,
like why would you actually want to just in terms
of the way that these federal federal prison camps work.
So maybe I can get if you're a guard by
the way federal prison camp, Brian, reach out, I would

(01:02:20):
love to talk to you. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:02:22):
Interesting, but yeah, apparently they're going all sorts of links
to protect this lady.