November 24, 2025 • 36 mins
Some lawmakers might regret pushing for the Epstein files to be released, Trump derangement syndrome hits new lows with elected officials pushing for an insurrection, and some democrats can't seem to get on the same page. It is absolute chaos out there as you will hear in our "did they really just say that" cuts from this week.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Some lawmakers might regret pushing for the Epstein files to
be released. President trump derangement syndrome hits new lows and
elected officials pushing for an insurrection. Some Democrats can't seem
to get on the same page. It is absolute chaos
out there, as you'll hear and are did they really
just say that? Cuts from this week? I'm Nancy Shack,
(00:21):
I'm Jeff Brown. This is news bite.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Another email shows Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to an event
or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries. So Hakeem Jeffries
campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Our laws are clear.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
You can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 5 (00:52):
You can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 6 (00:54):
You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry
out orders that violate the law or are content institution.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
Kamala Harris wrote in her book you were her number
one choice. She wanted you to be the vice presidential nominee.
She said that you both agreed that the country wasn't
ready for a gay vice president.
Speaker 7 (01:12):
I was surprised when I read her view of what
she thinks.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
We agreed on.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
That was former Secretary of Transportation Pete Budajeg and he
was at a at the Texas Tribune Festival and being
asked about Kamala Harris's book, Vice President. Former Vice President
Harris's book, which makes a claim that she talked to
Pete about running but they didn't think America was ready
for a gay VP. Given the fact that he ran
(01:43):
for president and seemed to feel that America was ready
for a gay president, he was pretty surprised to read
that he had agreed to that.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
A lot of people in New Hampshire think he's ready
to occupy the Oval office as well as the right.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Yeah, exactly. So this is the full cut from him
at the Texas Tribune Festival.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
Kamala Harris wrote in her book that you were her
number one choice. She wanted you to be the vice
presidential nominee. By the way, congratulations on not being asked
that worked out well. But she said that you both
agreed that the country wasn't ready for a gay vice president.
So the question for you is is the country ready
(02:29):
for a gay president? And, by the way, if this
were the country, I can think we have our answer.
Speaker 8 (02:38):
But look, I wouldn't have run for president in twenty
twenty if I didn't think so.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
But go to what she said. Is that a fair
analysis of your position? No, okay, why did she say that?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
You don't know why she said that.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
No, okay, I was surprised when I read her view
of what she thinks we agreed on.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
I'm pretty sure that the former Secretary Transportation just called
the former vice president a liar, but not sure, you
know completely. But she did go on MSNBC with Rachel
Mattaw who asked her about that exact thing, and she
kind of waffled, but not really to say that he
couldn't be on the ticket effectively because he was gay.
Speaker 8 (03:22):
It's hard to hear, no, No, that's not what I
said that. That's that he couldn't be on the ticket
because he is gay. My point, as I write in
the book, is that I was clear that, you know,
one hundred and seven days in one of the most
hotly contested elections for president United States against someone like
(03:46):
Donald Trump, who knows no floor to be a black
woman running for president United States and as a vice
presidential running mate a gay man, with the stakes being
so high, it made me very sad, but I also
(04:06):
realized it would be a real.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Risk, so did she just say I didn't say that,
but I didn't say that I had that.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Yeah, I mean she did.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
She's either delusional or she just FIBs.
Speaker 8 (04:17):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Here's the here's the thing. I mean, I don't I
don't like I don't spend a lot of time talking
to the younger generation, because there are a lot of
people in my family who are in this younger generation,
me too, who when we delve into politics a little bit,
the overwhelming response to potential leaders of this country, whether
(04:39):
it's president, whether it's cabinet members, or we don't care.
They say, we don't care that that it's a woman,
that the person has a sexual preference that doesn't align
with our views, it doesn't matter. That's me.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
I could I could care less.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
You know. I just think that that's so old school
thinking these days that.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
People care, right, Yeah, I don't think they care either,
And it's just it.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Seems to me that it's just a it's just misguided.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
I think it's completely misguided. And I think actually what
that was was her. I think a lot of things
happened to Pete boudageg. I think, first of all, he
was a very he was actually a very charismatic presidential candidate,
and I think the Bidy administration tried to sideline him
because they did not want him to be up against
Kamala Harris when she came along. They put him in
a position he was not qualified for, and he flared
(05:30):
out and a really dramatic fashion. Was an appalling It's
not that he's stupid, it's not that he's not well meaning.
He was in the wrong job and that's what happened.
And I think they deliberately sidelined him. So I think
what you see here when you have Kamala coming and
saying I said that but I didn't say that, is
that she's trying to explain she didn't want him on
the ticket because I think Pete Boudageg was a threat.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Absolutely. I mean, you know, so if you can't, I
mean for us where we watch this stuff because we're
paid to and because we're interested in it on a
daily basis, But if you can, you know, for a moment,
just remove yourself from this whole political process and and
look at the look at the potential candidates, and that
you know, the old saying is you never get a
(06:15):
second chance to make a first impression. Is when these
people announce their candidacy. There are some that have it
and there are others that don't. And Pete budhage Edge
has and had it. He does, and so there are
people that when they burst onto the scene, you automatically
are drawn to them to say, maybe this person has
something to say.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
And that's that, and that's him.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
That's what you have to do. You have to appeal.
And Donald Trump has mastered this by appealing to the
lowest common denominating yes.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
And I think that's I think that's so well put
because I think Pete Boudagig had it, and I don't
think Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Did no because she was the she happened to be
in at the.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
Top of the she exactly, She's a happenstace, a happenstance candidate,
and she could not have somebody who is more charismatic
because I think, to be honest with you, if Budhajiek
had been on the ticket, I think she could have
won well, to be honest with you, but she picked
a really sorry, old white guy who had all sorts
(07:11):
of credibility issues following him around and is still a
walking disaster. God bless why his stake keeps electing him
the governor. But he was probably and she had other options.
There's there was a governor of Pennsylvania, but he was Jewish,
but he's also charismatic to your point, So I think
that she picked the least charismatic person she could find,
(07:32):
and it doomed her ticket.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Yeah, and that's the that's the problem. But I think
she would have been doomed anyway, because the overall strategy
by the Republican Party worked and the one by the
Democrats did not. And even though she was all over
with Beyonce on the on the social media and Oprah,
she wasn't hitting with the right frequency or the right
channels where she was talking ragtime voters are going to
(07:57):
cast Ballance.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I think one of the big problems that she had
beside I's the one we just identified, is the fact
that while I I don't think she's a stupid woman,
I don't, but I do believe she's an arrogant woman.
And I believe she really underestimated the American people. I
think she treated them as if they were stupid. She's dead.
(08:18):
She did the entire time she was in the White
House and people get tired of being treated as if
they can't comprehend something. Well, I mean, and that's what
she did, and I think that's why she turned off voters.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Yeah, I think. I think also that her demeanor beyond that,
with just the silly giggling yeah, didn't help either. And
I think that the decision by the Democrats to put
all their eggs in the Biden basket at first and
then take them out and put them in the Harris
basket destroyed that party. As we can see years, they're
starting to come back, not really by default.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I don't think they are. I think they're I think
that well.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
I'm saying, based on the most recent elections.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
I don't think that's what that was. I don't think
think I don't.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Would you call it.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
What I would call it is a dissatisfaction with both
the Republicans and the Democrats. They weren't electing democrats, they
elected socialists.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Okay, so that's that's a good point there, But I
think the overriding issue is and.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Those socialists are going to implode.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
I think there's a day of reckoning coming. I really do.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
I think there is, too, and I think it's for
the Democratic Party. I don't think it can exist.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
The way it is, but it doesn't. And that's my
point too, is we're kind of saying the same thing
but speak in a different language. We are because I
think that the Democratic Party will ultimately come out stronger.
But what kind of Democrat is that the I don't.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Think it will. I think we disagree on that. I
think the Democratic Party is going to go the way
the Whigs. I think it is well as.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
You currently know them yet because I.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Think because in regard to and you're saying it's going
to come out probably on the progressive left hand side,
it's going to morph into something more progress.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
So so if you're arguing that there will be a
new name for that party, I don't necessarily disagree with you,
but that doesn't change the fact that you have progressives.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
And that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing they're
going to change their name. I'm arguing that the bent
to the left is going to further destroy what's already happening.
You already see it in New York. Correct, Mom, Donnie
won this big luck, but he was up against corrupt
old school Democrats who had no shot of winning anyway,
and already there is buyer's remorse already, you see people.
(10:25):
I mean, he's big, let's have free buses the government
New York quan No, you had CNN going, wait a minute,
this mom, Donnie is not the mom literally saying this,
Mom Donnie is not the guy who ran that was
a nice, sweet guy who said I want to help you.
The guy who's now doing his transition team is a bleephole.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think. I don't think the
future in both parties, and what we may be suggesting
here is that it cannot survive if they further to
the right and further to the left. You have to
come back into the center, you do, and which leaves
in this whole thing of you know, this is not
the mom Donnie I voted for. You either need to
do two things. You either need to focus more on
(11:07):
where you want your beliefs to go, or you have
to figure out how you can whittle through all the
crap that's out there on social media and understand what
people are saying and what they stand for better intel
before you cast your ballot.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
Absolutely, and I think part of the things that could
save the Democratic Party if they would get is they
need a leader. There's no freaking.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
That's absolutely correct. There's nobody you and and you know
the air apparent to the Republicans is there in really
in name and position only. I mean, there's no nothing
set in stone that JD vance is the torture.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
No, but you've also got Marco Rubio highly visibly.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Right. But my point is you do have a JD.
Get a bench and so right now what you have
in the Democratic Party is not well, no, you have
Gavin Newsom, but that but that speaks volumes.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Right, Yeah, Gavin Newsom. I think it's a disaster.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
He's not known nationally by and large by the electorate.
He's not known as anything more than what he has been,
which is an extreme progressive.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
I think that's true. And I think the part of
the problem is that the Democrats who are visible now
are winders. They are whiners. Gavin Newsom is a whiner.
Michelle Obama, somebody who has a great deal of credibility
and who is you know, has the total package, has
decided Hey came out and actually I have the cut
(12:26):
of this who came out basically and said you don't
deserve me. I mean that's the most whining freaking thing
I've ever heard in mine tout. This is Michelle Obama
and sit down conversations saying we don't deserve her as president.
Do you think that that impacts the room that we've
made for a woman to be president?
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Well, as we saw in this past election, sadly, we
ain't ready. That's why I'm like, don't even look at
me about running, because you all are lying you're not
ready for a woman. You are not, So don't waste
my time. You know, we had a lot of growing
up to do, and they're still I'm sadly a lot
(13:05):
of men who do not feel like they can be
led by a woman.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
And we saw it. What was the question I just said,
So we did not see I don't think Kamala Harris
didn't win because she was a woman. Kamala Harris didn't
win because she was a bad freaking candidate. And the
Democrat Party did something unforgivable. Basically, they they run on
(13:32):
a platform Donald Trump will destroy democracy. You can't re
elect him. At the same time, they decided to ignore
the democratic process, that is why, and just push her
in and ignore all the primaries and just push her
in as the candidate with you a few weeks ago.
That is why she lost.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I don't well, I mean, I see it does it
matter anymore, Nancy? I mean I don't know that.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
I think it does for their future.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Well, I don't know that it matters as far as candidate,
As far as candidacies are concerned anymore, whether whether or
not you go about it the right way. I just
think that, you know, people these days are going to
glom on to the hot hand. She you know, whether
or not it was a false positive, she was the
(14:18):
hot hand at the time, and she was their only
option as it turned out.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Well, but the point is that she wasn't the option.
Joe Biden was the that if they had made the
decision earlier and run her for the last year or so, Okay.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Right, I mean, if he had delivered on his promise
to be a one term president, I think they could
have lined up their ducks better.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Yeah, and without a doubt.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Now, she may have been a better candidate. She may
have been the same candidate. There may have been others
out there who would have burst onto the scene.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
There may have been to Jim leaving earlier would have
given them the option of doing that. The Democratic Party
basically destroyed itself in that elects of selection.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
So the whole problem boils down to what we still
have in the Oval office right now is an eighty
year old man.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Who who you're comparing Trump to Biden.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Well only in their ages, because you shouldn't you know
there there there has to be a time, you know,
there are signs. There are signs that there are some
mental issues on the sign of the current president really
such as well, such as the fact that he's not
being able to walk a straight line. He is. There
are who says they can't walk a straight line. I've
(15:23):
seen the videos. You haven't seen the videos.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
I've seen many videos. I've seen him walking a straight line.
I've also seen him distracted by something and go over
to shake their hand. I've seen a lot of things.
But he doesn't seem to have a problem walking a
straight line when he.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Chooses to do well. Okay, but it seems to me I.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Don't compare that to Biden wandering off into a fight.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
My point is that at eighty years old, you probably
shouldn't be running the most powerful country.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
I don't disagree that there should be an age limit
I think there should be an age limit. I don't
disagree with that, but I don't think you compare You
can compare Donald Trump at eighty to Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
No, My point is is that they're both eighty years
old and they are probably too old to be running
this country.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
I don't think Donald Trump is too old to run
the country. I do think that Joe Biden because they don't.
You know, Donald Trump has had had cognitive tasting.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
But that is the problem, and that is why we
will never get to an age limit on any national office,
because people will always make excuses to say he's a
better eighty year old than but that does exist.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
That is true. There are people who aged better than others.
Should I think we all The problem that we have
with Joe Biden is not that he was eighty. The
problem that we had with Joe Biden is that they
hid his the fact that he was declining. That is
the problem. So I mean, you can have an eighty
year old who can function well, and Donald Trump has
done that, he has functioned well.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
We can go down that rabbit hole. This is not
the venue for it, but you can go down that
rabbit hole. Well, you want to to get into it.
I mean, we don't know what the MRI was for.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
No, we don't.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
We don't. We don't know that, which is which leads
to and the thing that I hate most about the
way that is these freaking conspiracy there. Oh, I hate those.
Everything that comes out there's a.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Black helicopter conspiracies. You know which one I heard, you know?
And the Epstein file really leads to that because that
is conspiracy base. Let's face it, it just is. And
so the big question is why did Donald Trump turn
a one to eighty on the Epstein files and say,
I mean, the most obvious answer is that he was
protecting donors and finally decided it was not cost effective
(17:28):
protect them. Anyone said, sure, let him out. I don't
care anymore. I think that's the most obvious answer. But
do we know that We won't know for sure until
we actually see the rest of the Epstein file, which
is supposed to come out today.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Supposed to, but I'm not sure that we will because
of the Justice Department, you know, falling back on the
it's part of an investment to react. We can't ye
We're going to react eventually.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
I would say the president needs to step up and
do something, and that'll tell a lot whether he actually does,
because I I you know that's that is a conspiracy,
but you know they could. But what happens in a
vacuum is that all sorts of I had a caller
the other day he said, well, you know, because Epstein
introduced Milania to Donald Trump. I'm like, I'm sorry, did
you just dream?
Speaker 9 (18:08):
Not?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Because Epstein did not did not introduce Milan They met
during New York Fashion Week from a particular designer that
she worked for introduced Donald Trump to Milania Trump back
in nineteen ninety whatever. So I mean it had nothing
to do with that, But I mean that's the kind
of Oh and there was another one that came out
today from somebody to go, well, you know that he
had back in twenty seventeen that Trump had Epstein to
(18:30):
Thanksgiving at Mar A Lago. No he didn't. Newsweek actually
printed that one because it was from a congressman and
then had to retract it the daylaters are this is
completely false. We apologize. So, I mean, this is what
happens in these vacuums. If you don't, I'm all for
a complete transparency. Let's see what the unvarnished truth is
and let the chips fall where they may. But my
problem lately is what because I'm not registered anything. I'm
(18:54):
not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an independent, which
is the fascist fastest growing group of any political group
in the country. And I know why because both sides
are freaking crazy and so it's But in my maybe
not so unbiased view, the Democrat Party does not live
(19:15):
in reality, and they will tell you the old p
on you and tell you it's raining every day of
the week. Now, I'm not saying that a lot of
Republicans don't do the same thing, but I see it
more often on the Democratic side.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
I would I would tend to agree with that. I mean,
I think my big beef with a lot of the
Democratic policies that they launch is that they have these
great ideas that they're and then have no way to
pay for you.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
No, And they also make these bizarre and Trump derangement syndrome.
I believe it's an absolutely real mental illness and it
has to do with and when you see it emerge.
It emerged in a horrible fashion this week with a
video done by six congressmen and senators telling military personnel
(19:58):
not to respond to unlawful orders, but they don't explain
what unlawful orders are or give an example of them.
And I want to play You've heard part of it
in the intro. I want to play it because it
is appalling to me because the only way the military
works is to have people obey orders, whether they agree
(20:20):
with him or not. And we're not talking about Nazi
Germany exterminating people. We're talking about the US in twenty
twenty five. And if they tell you to arrest people,
you arrest people that are not citizens. Thesey are not
citizens that are being arrested. So these people come out
and want the military to take orders into their own hands.
(20:41):
That to me is irresponsible. And this is the and
this is actually the video done by six Democrat, Republicans
and senators. I'm Senator Alissa Stockin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris.
Speaker 9 (21:00):
Congressman Mattie Goodland.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
You're Representative Chrissy Hulahan, Congressman Jason Crowe.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
I was a captain in the United States.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy, former paratrooper and Army ranger.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Former intelligence officer, former Air Force we want to speak
directly to members of the military and.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
The intelligence community to take risks each day to keep
Americans safe.
Speaker 6 (21:19):
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
This administration is pitting our uniform military.
Speaker 6 (21:29):
And intelligence community professionals.
Speaker 5 (21:31):
Against American citizens.
Speaker 8 (21:32):
Like us.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
You all swore an oath.
Speaker 6 (21:34):
To protect and defend this constitution.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming
from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws
are clear.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
You can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
You can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
You must refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 6 (21:50):
No one has to carry out orders that violate the
law or our constitution.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult
time to be a public servant.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
But whether you're serving in the CIA, Army or Navy,
the Air Force.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Your vigilance is critical.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
And know that we have your back because now more than.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
Ever, the American people need you.
Speaker 9 (22:09):
We need you to stand up for our laws.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up.
Don't give up, don't give up.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
Don't give up the ship.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
OMG, who are they talking to?
Speaker 1 (22:21):
Yeah, they're talking to military personnel. They're telling military personnel
not to follow orders. First of all, when have you
seen military personnel up against American citizens? I have yet
to see that. They're not giving an example of the
orders they're talking about. They're not giving a croncute example
of the situation. That is one of the most irresponsible
things I have ever seen.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
I mean, history, United States history reminds us that the
United States military has been used against citizens of the
United States, but not at the moment. Not at the moment,
that's what they're talking about. But this strikes me as
being a plea to create too many Indians and not
enough yes so, or too many chiefs and not enough Indians,
(23:03):
I should say, but so, you know, I mean there
are so what you're saying is if you're appealing or
what they're saying is if they're appealing to US military.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Personnel saying don't follow your orders, to.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Don't follow the orders that are coming from the commander.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
In chief or the duly elected commanders, or from.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
The appointed members in the field, then you're basically creating anarchy.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
It's called fomenting insurrection.
Speaker 3 (23:28):
Yes, yes, exactly to a degree, right, But I think
it and there.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
These are US Senators and congressmen. This is my example
of the worst level of Trump derangement syndrome I have
ever seen in my life, because can you imagine that,
I mean, anybody doing that against any other president is
only one reason they hate Donald Trump. It is so
it's palpable to them. So this is what they do.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
The other thing is and this is the whole playbook
of the forty fifth and forty seventh Senate of the
United States. If you haven't noticed by now, is that
you know lawyers are there to find loopholes and to
delay at every possible instance. So all of these case,
(24:14):
all of these, all of these orders that are coming
from the White House, if somebody has object to them,
somebody will file a lawsuit before it gets to the
rank and file of them.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Absolutely, the President's job, as he sees it, is to
defend his decisions. And so when somebody brings up a
case against them, they're going to appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal,
even if it gets to the US supremedt Ye.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
And not only that because of that type of animal
that is it's not like one of these appeals it
takes a year and next year, the Supreme Court will
hear it. That happens one two, three, four, that happens
within days.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
And that's the that's the way it's designed to work.
Not as an appeal to say I mean, basically, the
message should have been, if you have any question about
the the orders that you've been given, there are proper
channels to go through. Yes, to approach this. Yes, so
talk to your boss, talk to human whatever it is.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
I agree with you.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
In a regular company, actually.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
I agree with that. That's exactly what you're supposed to do.
I'm uncomfortable with this. Can we do this? But you
don't tell people don't obey the order? And here is
this is Scott Jennings on CNN. He shares my outrage
at this.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
How is the president pitting the military against American citizens?
I don't know what they mean by that? A. B.
What are the illegal orders? What are they talking about?
It's like they live in an alternate reality. They live
in a movie, they live in a TV show where
something that's they claim is happening is not actually happening
in reality. I don't know what illegal activity they're talking about,
but I do know what illegal activity they're recommending. And
(25:46):
they're trying to get people in the chain of command
and disobey the commander in chief, which would be a
terrible line.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
But they're saying yeah, and I agree with that. And
then Lindsey Graham, who I don't particularly agree with on
a lot of things. I find him a little conservative
for my taste, but he was shocked, and I'm right
there with him. He's on Fox.
Speaker 7 (26:06):
To the people who made these accusations, I'm going to
write you a letter tomorrow and I want you to
tell the country what orders you think are unlawful? What
did President Trump do wrong? As commander in chief? You
owe that to the men and women of the military.
To be specific about what you're talking about. If you're
in the military, you need to follow the lawful orders
(26:29):
of your commanders and Article ninety two check it out.
So what these senators and House members did was unnerving,
and it was unconscionable to suggest that the president of
the United States is issuing unlawful orders without giving an example.
The hatred of Trump cannot spill over to putting our
(26:50):
men and women in the military in jeopardy. You're going
too far.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
They did go too far. It was that's and that's
it's I don't know what's wrong with them, it's it's
literally common sense is out the window. They think it
doesn't matter what they do if they're fighting Trump. It's
okay to kill somebody if you're fighting Trump. That's what
these people are advocated.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
There are military veterans in that.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
They're all military vector that act.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Yeah, yeah, that are that are suggesting that they're.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
People get court martialed for Article ninety two, which.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Is what that is. That's exactly correct.
Speaker 1 (27:28):
Yeah, they're going to get caught. Do you know what?
Do you know what the results of of if an
Article ninety two is brought against you, one the least
it will happen to you. The least it will happen
to you is that you will be discharged dishonorably, and
which means you'll probably never get a job again. So,
I mean, that's and that's if you maybe didn't turn
somebody in for doing that, that's minor. But you know
(27:48):
what can happen to you prison Lovenworth? You know what
else can happen to you? Because it happens to also
be treason, you can be executed.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
It's that's where my mind originally went to was history. Well,
you know what, Nancy, we agree completely on this, we do.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
But it's just, you know, it's been one of these
weeks where you see this bizarre behavior that was from
from our elected officials. That to me was the worst
example was that video going on. But then there was
all this posturing over Epstein, which I just didn't understand
because you know, the Democrats keep going out there and saying, well,
you know, obviously the Republicans are hiding something. I'm like,
(28:23):
you had the Epstein files for four years and did
nothing with them. You weren't concerned with them. When President
Biden was in the White House. Now the President Trump's
in the White House. Now they're being you know, this
is another example of them peeing on you and telling
you that it's raining, and so it's just like, oh
my god, and you saw it over and over again.
Speaker 9 (28:41):
Now.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I think a bunch of them are going to be
really sorry that they made a big deal of it,
especially after President Trump did the one eighty and said
everybody vote for let's get this out of here. I
want to be done with it because you have some
stuff coming out now about Democrats that has been a little.
I think probably a little surprising to a bunch of people.
(29:04):
For instance, you had I think it was James, who's
a comer, yeah, who basically came out and said, excuse me.
But I believe that. I think of all the congressmen,
the minority leader, who is Hakeem Jeffries, basically, haven't you
(29:28):
been taken money from Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Another email shows Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to an event
or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries as part of
their twenty thirteen effort to win a majority. So Hakeem
Jeffries campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein. That's what we
found in the last document match. The files underscore why
(29:52):
former President Trump must appear for his deposition. We've subpoened
him todate. The Democrats have done nothing to help us
secure here's a peerage. I support full transparency. The Overshot
Committee will continue to work to get the truth to
the American people and to get justice for the victims.
That's our goal of this investigation.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
With that, I yeel back.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
It's nice when the minority leader just got hoisted by
his own guitar, and then I don't know how many
people are familiar with the congresswoman Stacey Plaskett. She is
a non voting member of Congress from the Virgin Islands. Well,
apparently during the House Oversight Committee hearings, when they were
doing when they were getting testament from Michael Cohen, Stacy
(30:35):
Plaskett was getting texts from guess who Epstein?
Speaker 3 (30:40):
Yes, God, she.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
Was getting TechEd and so that has come out in
the files, in the emails. Here we are she's getting
texts from Epstein telling her what to ask Michael Cohen.
So House members said, I think we should maybe censure her,
which really carries nothing other than a black mark on
your record. But she was outraged that people thought that
(31:03):
she should be held accountable for taking tax from this pedophile.
And he had been convicted, by the way, at the
time of one set there there was another investigation going on,
but he'd already been convicted at this point of one
group of trafficking charges. And you know what, her what
her Her big excuse was for taking tax from from
(31:23):
Jeffrey Epstein. He's a constituent. So it was okay, here
you go, this is this is Stacy getting a little
teed off. That we questioned her motives.
Speaker 9 (31:33):
Beginning of that hearing, the ranking member Jim Jordan had
the disrespect to Elijah Cummings, may he rest in peace
and his name be a memory after not allowing mister
Jordan to shut the committee hearing down, and I turned
to mister Jordan and told him to have respect for
(31:54):
the chair and to basically shut up. And that moment
went viral, and I began to get innumerable text from friends,
from foes, from constituents about what was happening in that hearing.
And I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who at
(32:16):
the time was my constituent, who was not public knowledge
at that time that he was under federal investigation and
who was sharing information with me.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Okay, first of all, he was convicted at that time.
And how many congressmen do you know send out their
personal cell phone number to the constituents so they can
text her well during the day.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
That is why we prove it again that money.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Talks, it does. And then so but she wasn't. She
got caught in another little issue when she was trying
to defend herself on the House floor yesterday.
Speaker 9 (32:56):
And if you look at the transcript, you will see
that I questioned Michael Cohen for five minutes. The Washington
Post only shows you thirty seconds and takes from it
one individual's name that I got from Jeffrey Epstein and
didn't know who the individual was, and put that individual
(33:18):
with a host of other individuals that I felt the
committee should subpoena. They've never been subpoena. They've never been questioned,
because at the end of the day, I know that
in the Trump administration and with my colleagues over there,
it's not about sexual assault, it's not about support of victims.
(33:41):
It's about money.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Okay, So she just admitted that she got a name
from Epstein's text, that she followed that up in the hearing.
I don't care if it's five minutes or three seconds.
But in the next breath, in the very next breath,
this is what she says.
Speaker 9 (33:58):
They've taken a Texas change which shows no participation, no assistance,
no involvement in any illegal activity, and weaponized it for
political theater.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
I'm sorry. Didn't she just say above that she did
get assistance from Jeffrey Epstein, and the next breath, I
didn't get assistant. Shades of Kamala and the Budigit conversation.
This is the problem. This is why the Democratic Party
has an issue.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
That was a bullfaced line. She just she she said
it herself that it's all about access to money, and
it is, which is why this is a non partisan issue.
The Jeffrey Epstein filesue. Yeah, and so you know it's
it's it's gonna be it. It's gonna end ugly. I
just don't know how it's gonna endp Oh my.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
God, isn't that the truth? Yeah? So we end every
week with what we call it truth Ortrol, and we
play a cut from somebody and asked, do you think
they're trolling or do you think they're being honest about
whatever is they're saying. I would say ninety percent of
these are President Trump, because let's face it, he's got
the driest delivery of anybody in the face of God's earth,
and he is a world class roller. But he was
(35:07):
out at Joint Bass Andrews the other night and he
was asked about his dinner with Nick Fuentes many years ago,
and this is what he said.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
You're tough.
Speaker 5 (35:16):
I did it with Nickquente's at mar alago a few
years ago.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
What roll.
Speaker 5 (35:19):
Could he play in the conservative movement?
Speaker 1 (35:20):
Well, I didn't know he was coming.
Speaker 3 (35:22):
And he was with as you know.
Speaker 10 (35:23):
Somebody Kanye and Kanye has to be could have dinner
and he brought Nick.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
I didn't know Nick.
Speaker 10 (35:29):
At the time, and he did.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
He came along with a few other people.
Speaker 10 (35:35):
He brought a few people with him. Meeting people, talking
to people like for somebody like Tucker, that's.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
What they do.
Speaker 10 (35:43):
You know, people are controversial, some are, some aren't. I'm
not controversial, so I like it that way.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Okay, Seriously, do you think this man honestly believes he's
not a lightning rod, not a controversial guy? Is he
being tongue in cheek or is he being honestly? If
he believes he's not, then he's delusional. Let's just put
it that way now.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
But do you think he'll be a question? That's the easiest,
That's the easiest tee up that you've ever had.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
I think I think that's probably true. I think that's
probably true.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
So if what do you think about President Trump? If
you think he actually doesn't believe that he's a lightning rod,
then you can let us know. You can contact us
on X at newsby three or on Facebook at news Bite.
We upload a new episode every week on Monday, so
please check back next week and see what new offerings
we have. Meanwhile, have a great week. I'm Nancy Shack,
I'm Jeff Brown. This is news Bite.
Some lawmakers might regret pushing for the Epstein files to
be released. President trump derangement syndrome hits new lows and
elected officials pushing for an insurrection. Some Democrats can't seem
to get on the same page. It is absolute chaos
out there, as you'll hear and are did they really
just say that? Cuts from this week? I'm Nancy Shack,
(00:21):
I'm Jeff Brown. This is news bite.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Another email shows Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to an event
or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries. So Hakeem Jeffries
campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
Our laws are clear.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
You can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 5 (00:52):
You can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 6 (00:54):
You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry
out orders that violate the law or are content institution.
Speaker 5 (01:00):
Kamala Harris wrote in her book you were her number
one choice. She wanted you to be the vice presidential nominee.
She said that you both agreed that the country wasn't
ready for a gay vice president.
Speaker 7 (01:12):
I was surprised when I read her view of what
she thinks.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
We agreed on.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
That was former Secretary of Transportation Pete Budajeg and he
was at a at the Texas Tribune Festival and being
asked about Kamala Harris's book, Vice President. Former Vice President
Harris's book, which makes a claim that she talked to
Pete about running but they didn't think America was ready
for a gay VP. Given the fact that he ran
(01:43):
for president and seemed to feel that America was ready
for a gay president, he was pretty surprised to read
that he had agreed to that.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
A lot of people in New Hampshire think he's ready
to occupy the Oval office as well as the right.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
Yeah, exactly. So this is the full cut from him
at the Texas Tribune Festival.
Speaker 5 (02:06):
Kamala Harris wrote in her book that you were her
number one choice. She wanted you to be the vice
presidential nominee. By the way, congratulations on not being asked
that worked out well. But she said that you both
agreed that the country wasn't ready for a gay vice president.
So the question for you is is the country ready
(02:29):
for a gay president? And, by the way, if this
were the country, I can think we have our answer.
Speaker 8 (02:38):
But look, I wouldn't have run for president in twenty
twenty if I didn't think so.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
But go to what she said. Is that a fair
analysis of your position? No, okay, why did she say that?
Speaker 3 (02:50):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (02:51):
You don't know why she said that.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
No, okay, I was surprised when I read her view
of what she thinks we agreed on.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
I'm pretty sure that the former Secretary Transportation just called
the former vice president a liar, but not sure, you
know completely. But she did go on MSNBC with Rachel
Mattaw who asked her about that exact thing, and she
kind of waffled, but not really to say that he
couldn't be on the ticket effectively because he was gay.
Speaker 8 (03:22):
It's hard to hear, no, No, that's not what I
said that. That's that he couldn't be on the ticket
because he is gay. My point, as I write in
the book, is that I was clear that, you know,
one hundred and seven days in one of the most
hotly contested elections for president United States against someone like
(03:46):
Donald Trump, who knows no floor to be a black
woman running for president United States and as a vice
presidential running mate a gay man, with the stakes being
so high, it made me very sad, but I also
(04:06):
realized it would be a real.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Risk, so did she just say I didn't say that,
but I didn't say that I had that.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
Yeah, I mean she did.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
She's either delusional or she just FIBs.
Speaker 8 (04:17):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:17):
Here's the here's the thing. I mean, I don't I
don't like I don't spend a lot of time talking
to the younger generation, because there are a lot of
people in my family who are in this younger generation,
me too, who when we delve into politics a little bit,
the overwhelming response to potential leaders of this country, whether
(04:39):
it's president, whether it's cabinet members, or we don't care.
They say, we don't care that that it's a woman,
that the person has a sexual preference that doesn't align
with our views, it doesn't matter. That's me.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
I could I could care less.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
You know. I just think that that's so old school
thinking these days that.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
People care, right, Yeah, I don't think they care either,
And it's just it.
Speaker 3 (05:03):
Seems to me that it's just a it's just misguided.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
I think it's completely misguided. And I think actually what
that was was her. I think a lot of things
happened to Pete boudageg. I think, first of all, he
was a very he was actually a very charismatic presidential candidate,
and I think the Bidy administration tried to sideline him
because they did not want him to be up against
Kamala Harris when she came along. They put him in
a position he was not qualified for, and he flared
(05:30):
out and a really dramatic fashion. Was an appalling It's
not that he's stupid, it's not that he's not well meaning.
He was in the wrong job and that's what happened.
And I think they deliberately sidelined him. So I think
what you see here when you have Kamala coming and
saying I said that but I didn't say that, is
that she's trying to explain she didn't want him on
the ticket because I think Pete Boudageg was a threat.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Absolutely. I mean, you know, so if you can't, I
mean for us where we watch this stuff because we're
paid to and because we're interested in it on a
daily basis, But if you can, you know, for a moment,
just remove yourself from this whole political process and and
look at the look at the potential candidates, and that
you know, the old saying is you never get a
(06:15):
second chance to make a first impression. Is when these
people announce their candidacy. There are some that have it
and there are others that don't. And Pete budhage Edge
has and had it. He does, and so there are
people that when they burst onto the scene, you automatically
are drawn to them to say, maybe this person has
something to say.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
And that's that, and that's him.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
That's what you have to do. You have to appeal.
And Donald Trump has mastered this by appealing to the
lowest common denominating yes.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
And I think that's I think that's so well put
because I think Pete Boudagig had it, and I don't
think Kamala Harris.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Did no because she was the she happened to be
in at the.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
Top of the she exactly, She's a happenstace, a happenstance candidate,
and she could not have somebody who is more charismatic
because I think, to be honest with you, if Budhajiek
had been on the ticket, I think she could have
won well, to be honest with you, but she picked
a really sorry, old white guy who had all sorts
(07:11):
of credibility issues following him around and is still a
walking disaster. God bless why his stake keeps electing him
the governor. But he was probably and she had other options.
There's there was a governor of Pennsylvania, but he was Jewish,
but he's also charismatic to your point, So I think
that she picked the least charismatic person she could find,
(07:32):
and it doomed her ticket.
Speaker 3 (07:33):
Yeah, and that's the that's the problem. But I think
she would have been doomed anyway, because the overall strategy
by the Republican Party worked and the one by the
Democrats did not. And even though she was all over
with Beyonce on the on the social media and Oprah,
she wasn't hitting with the right frequency or the right
channels where she was talking ragtime voters are going to
(07:57):
cast Ballance.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
I think one of the big problems that she had
beside I's the one we just identified, is the fact
that while I I don't think she's a stupid woman,
I don't, but I do believe she's an arrogant woman.
And I believe she really underestimated the American people. I
think she treated them as if they were stupid. She's dead.
(08:18):
She did the entire time she was in the White
House and people get tired of being treated as if
they can't comprehend something. Well, I mean, and that's what
she did, and I think that's why she turned off voters.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Yeah, I think. I think also that her demeanor beyond that,
with just the silly giggling yeah, didn't help either. And
I think that the decision by the Democrats to put
all their eggs in the Biden basket at first and
then take them out and put them in the Harris
basket destroyed that party. As we can see years, they're
starting to come back, not really by default.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I don't think they are. I think they're I think
that well.
Speaker 3 (08:53):
I'm saying, based on the most recent elections.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
I don't think that's what that was. I don't think
think I don't.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Would you call it.
Speaker 1 (09:02):
What I would call it is a dissatisfaction with both
the Republicans and the Democrats. They weren't electing democrats, they
elected socialists.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
Okay, so that's that's a good point there, But I
think the overriding issue is and.
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Those socialists are going to implode.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
I think there's a day of reckoning coming. I really do.
Speaker 1 (09:20):
I think there is, too, and I think it's for
the Democratic Party. I don't think it can exist.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
The way it is, but it doesn't. And that's my
point too, is we're kind of saying the same thing
but speak in a different language. We are because I
think that the Democratic Party will ultimately come out stronger.
But what kind of Democrat is that the I don't.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
Think it will. I think we disagree on that. I
think the Democratic Party is going to go the way
the Whigs. I think it is well as.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
You currently know them yet because I.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Think because in regard to and you're saying it's going
to come out probably on the progressive left hand side,
it's going to morph into something more progress.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
So so if you're arguing that there will be a
new name for that party, I don't necessarily disagree with you,
but that doesn't change the fact that you have progressives.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
And that's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing they're
going to change their name. I'm arguing that the bent
to the left is going to further destroy what's already happening.
You already see it in New York. Correct, Mom, Donnie
won this big luck, but he was up against corrupt
old school Democrats who had no shot of winning anyway,
and already there is buyer's remorse already, you see people.
(10:25):
I mean, he's big, let's have free buses the government
New York quan No, you had CNN going, wait a minute,
this mom, Donnie is not the mom literally saying this,
Mom Donnie is not the guy who ran that was
a nice, sweet guy who said I want to help you.
The guy who's now doing his transition team is a bleephole.
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Yeah, I mean, I don't think. I don't think the
future in both parties, and what we may be suggesting
here is that it cannot survive if they further to
the right and further to the left. You have to
come back into the center, you do, and which leaves
in this whole thing of you know, this is not
the mom Donnie I voted for. You either need to
do two things. You either need to focus more on
(11:07):
where you want your beliefs to go, or you have
to figure out how you can whittle through all the
crap that's out there on social media and understand what
people are saying and what they stand for better intel
before you cast your ballot.
Speaker 1 (11:20):
Absolutely, and I think part of the things that could
save the Democratic Party if they would get is they
need a leader. There's no freaking.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
That's absolutely correct. There's nobody you and and you know
the air apparent to the Republicans is there in really
in name and position only. I mean, there's no nothing
set in stone that JD vance is the torture.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
No, but you've also got Marco Rubio highly visibly.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Right. But my point is you do have a JD.
Get a bench and so right now what you have
in the Democratic Party is not well, no, you have
Gavin Newsom, but that but that speaks volumes.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Right, Yeah, Gavin Newsom. I think it's a disaster.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
He's not known nationally by and large by the electorate.
He's not known as anything more than what he has been,
which is an extreme progressive.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
I think that's true. And I think the part of
the problem is that the Democrats who are visible now
are winders. They are whiners. Gavin Newsom is a whiner.
Michelle Obama, somebody who has a great deal of credibility
and who is you know, has the total package, has
decided Hey came out and actually I have the cut
(12:26):
of this who came out basically and said you don't
deserve me. I mean that's the most whining freaking thing
I've ever heard in mine tout. This is Michelle Obama
and sit down conversations saying we don't deserve her as president.
Do you think that that impacts the room that we've
made for a woman to be president?
Speaker 6 (12:44):
Well, as we saw in this past election, sadly, we
ain't ready. That's why I'm like, don't even look at
me about running, because you all are lying you're not
ready for a woman. You are not, So don't waste
my time. You know, we had a lot of growing
up to do, and they're still I'm sadly a lot
(13:05):
of men who do not feel like they can be
led by a woman.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
And we saw it. What was the question I just said,
So we did not see I don't think Kamala Harris
didn't win because she was a woman. Kamala Harris didn't
win because she was a bad freaking candidate. And the
Democrat Party did something unforgivable. Basically, they they run on
(13:32):
a platform Donald Trump will destroy democracy. You can't re
elect him. At the same time, they decided to ignore
the democratic process, that is why, and just push her
in and ignore all the primaries and just push her
in as the candidate with you a few weeks ago.
That is why she lost.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I don't well, I mean, I see it does it
matter anymore, Nancy? I mean I don't know that.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
I think it does for their future.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Well, I don't know that it matters as far as candidate,
As far as candidacies are concerned anymore, whether whether or
not you go about it the right way. I just
think that, you know, people these days are going to
glom on to the hot hand. She you know, whether
or not it was a false positive, she was the
(14:18):
hot hand at the time, and she was their only
option as it turned out.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Well, but the point is that she wasn't the option.
Joe Biden was the that if they had made the
decision earlier and run her for the last year or so, Okay.
Speaker 3 (14:30):
Right, I mean, if he had delivered on his promise
to be a one term president, I think they could
have lined up their ducks better.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Yeah, and without a doubt.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
Now, she may have been a better candidate. She may
have been the same candidate. There may have been others
out there who would have burst onto the scene.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
There may have been to Jim leaving earlier would have
given them the option of doing that. The Democratic Party
basically destroyed itself in that elects of selection.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
So the whole problem boils down to what we still
have in the Oval office right now is an eighty
year old man.
Speaker 1 (14:59):
Who who you're comparing Trump to Biden.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
Well only in their ages, because you shouldn't you know
there there there has to be a time, you know,
there are signs. There are signs that there are some
mental issues on the sign of the current president really
such as well, such as the fact that he's not
being able to walk a straight line. He is. There
are who says they can't walk a straight line. I've
(15:23):
seen the videos. You haven't seen the videos.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
I've seen many videos. I've seen him walking a straight line.
I've also seen him distracted by something and go over
to shake their hand. I've seen a lot of things.
But he doesn't seem to have a problem walking a
straight line when he.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Chooses to do well. Okay, but it seems to me I.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Don't compare that to Biden wandering off into a fight.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
My point is that at eighty years old, you probably
shouldn't be running the most powerful country.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
I don't disagree that there should be an age limit
I think there should be an age limit. I don't
disagree with that, but I don't think you compare You
can compare Donald Trump at eighty to Joe Biden.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
No, My point is is that they're both eighty years
old and they are probably too old to be running
this country.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
I don't think Donald Trump is too old to run
the country. I do think that Joe Biden because they don't.
You know, Donald Trump has had had cognitive tasting.
Speaker 3 (16:08):
But that is the problem, and that is why we
will never get to an age limit on any national office,
because people will always make excuses to say he's a
better eighty year old than but that does exist.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
That is true. There are people who aged better than others.
Should I think we all The problem that we have
with Joe Biden is not that he was eighty. The
problem that we had with Joe Biden is that they
hid his the fact that he was declining. That is
the problem. So I mean, you can have an eighty
year old who can function well, and Donald Trump has
done that, he has functioned well.
Speaker 3 (16:42):
We can go down that rabbit hole. This is not
the venue for it, but you can go down that
rabbit hole. Well, you want to to get into it.
I mean, we don't know what the MRI was for.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
No, we don't.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
We don't. We don't know that, which is which leads
to and the thing that I hate most about the
way that is these freaking conspiracy there. Oh, I hate those.
Everything that comes out there's a.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Black helicopter conspiracies. You know which one I heard, you know?
And the Epstein file really leads to that because that
is conspiracy base. Let's face it, it just is. And
so the big question is why did Donald Trump turn
a one to eighty on the Epstein files and say,
I mean, the most obvious answer is that he was
protecting donors and finally decided it was not cost effective
(17:28):
protect them. Anyone said, sure, let him out. I don't
care anymore. I think that's the most obvious answer. But
do we know that We won't know for sure until
we actually see the rest of the Epstein file, which
is supposed to come out today.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
Supposed to, but I'm not sure that we will because
of the Justice Department, you know, falling back on the
it's part of an investment to react. We can't ye
We're going to react eventually.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
I would say the president needs to step up and
do something, and that'll tell a lot whether he actually does,
because I I you know that's that is a conspiracy,
but you know they could. But what happens in a
vacuum is that all sorts of I had a caller
the other day he said, well, you know, because Epstein
introduced Milania to Donald Trump. I'm like, I'm sorry, did
you just dream?
Speaker 9 (18:08):
Not?
Speaker 1 (18:08):
Because Epstein did not did not introduce Milan They met
during New York Fashion Week from a particular designer that
she worked for introduced Donald Trump to Milania Trump back
in nineteen ninety whatever. So I mean it had nothing
to do with that, But I mean that's the kind
of Oh and there was another one that came out
today from somebody to go, well, you know that he
had back in twenty seventeen that Trump had Epstein to
(18:30):
Thanksgiving at Mar A Lago. No he didn't. Newsweek actually
printed that one because it was from a congressman and
then had to retract it the daylaters are this is
completely false. We apologize. So, I mean, this is what
happens in these vacuums. If you don't, I'm all for
a complete transparency. Let's see what the unvarnished truth is
and let the chips fall where they may. But my
problem lately is what because I'm not registered anything. I'm
(18:54):
not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm an independent, which
is the fascist fastest growing group of any political group
in the country. And I know why because both sides
are freaking crazy and so it's But in my maybe
not so unbiased view, the Democrat Party does not live
(19:15):
in reality, and they will tell you the old p
on you and tell you it's raining every day of
the week. Now, I'm not saying that a lot of
Republicans don't do the same thing, but I see it
more often on the Democratic side.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
I would I would tend to agree with that. I mean,
I think my big beef with a lot of the
Democratic policies that they launch is that they have these
great ideas that they're and then have no way to
pay for you.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
No, And they also make these bizarre and Trump derangement syndrome.
I believe it's an absolutely real mental illness and it
has to do with and when you see it emerge.
It emerged in a horrible fashion this week with a
video done by six congressmen and senators telling military personnel
(19:58):
not to respond to unlawful orders, but they don't explain
what unlawful orders are or give an example of them.
And I want to play You've heard part of it
in the intro. I want to play it because it
is appalling to me because the only way the military
works is to have people obey orders, whether they agree
(20:20):
with him or not. And we're not talking about Nazi
Germany exterminating people. We're talking about the US in twenty
twenty five. And if they tell you to arrest people,
you arrest people that are not citizens. Thesey are not
citizens that are being arrested. So these people come out
and want the military to take orders into their own hands.
(20:41):
That to me is irresponsible. And this is the and
this is actually the video done by six Democrat, Republicans
and senators. I'm Senator Alissa Stockin, Senator Mark Kelly, Representative Chris.
Speaker 9 (21:00):
Congressman Mattie Goodland.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
You're Representative Chrissy Hulahan, Congressman Jason Crowe.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
I was a captain in the United States.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
Navy, former CIA officer, former Navy, former paratrooper and Army ranger.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
Former intelligence officer, former Air Force we want to speak
directly to members of the military and.
Speaker 1 (21:15):
The intelligence community to take risks each day to keep
Americans safe.
Speaker 6 (21:19):
We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
This administration is pitting our uniform military.
Speaker 6 (21:29):
And intelligence community professionals.
Speaker 5 (21:31):
Against American citizens.
Speaker 8 (21:32):
Like us.
Speaker 3 (21:33):
You all swore an oath.
Speaker 6 (21:34):
To protect and defend this constitution.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming
from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws
are clear.
Speaker 4 (21:43):
You can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 5 (21:45):
You can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
You must refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 6 (21:50):
No one has to carry out orders that violate the
law or our constitution.
Speaker 4 (21:54):
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult
time to be a public servant.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
But whether you're serving in the CIA, Army or Navy,
the Air Force.
Speaker 3 (22:02):
Your vigilance is critical.
Speaker 1 (22:04):
And know that we have your back because now more than.
Speaker 5 (22:07):
Ever, the American people need you.
Speaker 9 (22:09):
We need you to stand up for our laws.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Our constitution, and who we are as Americans. Don't give up.
Don't give up, don't give up.
Speaker 6 (22:17):
Don't give up the ship.
Speaker 3 (22:20):
OMG, who are they talking to?
Speaker 1 (22:21):
Yeah, they're talking to military personnel. They're telling military personnel
not to follow orders. First of all, when have you
seen military personnel up against American citizens? I have yet
to see that. They're not giving an example of the
orders they're talking about. They're not giving a croncute example
of the situation. That is one of the most irresponsible
things I have ever seen.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
I mean, history, United States history reminds us that the
United States military has been used against citizens of the
United States, but not at the moment. Not at the moment,
that's what they're talking about. But this strikes me as
being a plea to create too many Indians and not
enough yes so, or too many chiefs and not enough Indians,
(23:03):
I should say, but so, you know, I mean there
are so what you're saying is if you're appealing or
what they're saying is if they're appealing to US military.
Speaker 1 (23:11):
Personnel saying don't follow your orders, to.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Don't follow the orders that are coming from the commander.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
In chief or the duly elected commanders, or from.
Speaker 3 (23:19):
The appointed members in the field, then you're basically creating anarchy.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
It's called fomenting insurrection.
Speaker 3 (23:28):
Yes, yes, exactly to a degree, right, But I think
it and there.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
These are US Senators and congressmen. This is my example
of the worst level of Trump derangement syndrome I have
ever seen in my life, because can you imagine that,
I mean, anybody doing that against any other president is
only one reason they hate Donald Trump. It is so
it's palpable to them. So this is what they do.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
The other thing is and this is the whole playbook
of the forty fifth and forty seventh Senate of the
United States. If you haven't noticed by now, is that
you know lawyers are there to find loopholes and to
delay at every possible instance. So all of these case,
(24:14):
all of these, all of these orders that are coming
from the White House, if somebody has object to them,
somebody will file a lawsuit before it gets to the
rank and file of them.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (24:25):
Absolutely, the President's job, as he sees it, is to
defend his decisions. And so when somebody brings up a
case against them, they're going to appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal,
even if it gets to the US supremedt Ye.
Speaker 1 (24:39):
And not only that because of that type of animal
that is it's not like one of these appeals it
takes a year and next year, the Supreme Court will
hear it. That happens one two, three, four, that happens
within days.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
And that's the that's the way it's designed to work.
Not as an appeal to say I mean, basically, the
message should have been, if you have any question about
the the orders that you've been given, there are proper
channels to go through. Yes, to approach this. Yes, so
talk to your boss, talk to human whatever it is.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
I agree with you.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
In a regular company, actually.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
I agree with that. That's exactly what you're supposed to do.
I'm uncomfortable with this. Can we do this? But you
don't tell people don't obey the order? And here is
this is Scott Jennings on CNN. He shares my outrage
at this.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
How is the president pitting the military against American citizens?
I don't know what they mean by that? A. B.
What are the illegal orders? What are they talking about?
It's like they live in an alternate reality. They live
in a movie, they live in a TV show where
something that's they claim is happening is not actually happening
in reality. I don't know what illegal activity they're talking about,
but I do know what illegal activity they're recommending. And
(25:46):
they're trying to get people in the chain of command
and disobey the commander in chief, which would be a
terrible line.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
But they're saying yeah, and I agree with that. And
then Lindsey Graham, who I don't particularly agree with on
a lot of things. I find him a little conservative
for my taste, but he was shocked, and I'm right
there with him. He's on Fox.
Speaker 7 (26:06):
To the people who made these accusations, I'm going to
write you a letter tomorrow and I want you to
tell the country what orders you think are unlawful? What
did President Trump do wrong? As commander in chief? You
owe that to the men and women of the military.
To be specific about what you're talking about. If you're
in the military, you need to follow the lawful orders
(26:29):
of your commanders and Article ninety two check it out.
So what these senators and House members did was unnerving,
and it was unconscionable to suggest that the president of
the United States is issuing unlawful orders without giving an example.
The hatred of Trump cannot spill over to putting our
(26:50):
men and women in the military in jeopardy. You're going
too far.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
They did go too far. It was that's and that's
it's I don't know what's wrong with them, it's it's
literally common sense is out the window. They think it
doesn't matter what they do if they're fighting Trump. It's
okay to kill somebody if you're fighting Trump. That's what
these people are advocated.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
There are military veterans in that.
Speaker 1 (27:18):
They're all military vector that act.
Speaker 3 (27:20):
Yeah, yeah, that are that are suggesting that they're.
Speaker 1 (27:24):
People get court martialed for Article ninety two, which.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Is what that is. That's exactly correct.
Speaker 1 (27:28):
Yeah, they're going to get caught. Do you know what?
Do you know what the results of of if an
Article ninety two is brought against you, one the least
it will happen to you. The least it will happen
to you is that you will be discharged dishonorably, and
which means you'll probably never get a job again. So,
I mean, that's and that's if you maybe didn't turn
somebody in for doing that, that's minor. But you know
(27:48):
what can happen to you prison Lovenworth? You know what
else can happen to you? Because it happens to also
be treason, you can be executed.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
It's that's where my mind originally went to was history. Well,
you know what, Nancy, we agree completely on this, we do.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
But it's just, you know, it's been one of these
weeks where you see this bizarre behavior that was from
from our elected officials. That to me was the worst
example was that video going on. But then there was
all this posturing over Epstein, which I just didn't understand
because you know, the Democrats keep going out there and saying, well,
you know, obviously the Republicans are hiding something. I'm like,
(28:23):
you had the Epstein files for four years and did
nothing with them. You weren't concerned with them. When President
Biden was in the White House. Now the President Trump's
in the White House. Now they're being you know, this
is another example of them peeing on you and telling
you that it's raining, and so it's just like, oh
my god, and you saw it over and over again.
Speaker 9 (28:41):
Now.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
I think a bunch of them are going to be
really sorry that they made a big deal of it,
especially after President Trump did the one eighty and said
everybody vote for let's get this out of here. I
want to be done with it because you have some
stuff coming out now about Democrats that has been a little.
I think probably a little surprising to a bunch of people.
(29:04):
For instance, you had I think it was James, who's
a comer, yeah, who basically came out and said, excuse me.
But I believe that. I think of all the congressmen,
the minority leader, who is Hakeem Jeffries, basically, haven't you
(29:28):
been taken money from Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Another email shows Democrat fundraisers invited Epstein to an event
or to meet privately with Hakeem Jeffries as part of
their twenty thirteen effort to win a majority. So Hakeem
Jeffries campaign solicited money from Jeffrey Epstein. That's what we
found in the last document match. The files underscore why
(29:52):
former President Trump must appear for his deposition. We've subpoened
him todate. The Democrats have done nothing to help us
secure here's a peerage. I support full transparency. The Overshot
Committee will continue to work to get the truth to
the American people and to get justice for the victims.
That's our goal of this investigation.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
With that, I yeel back.
Speaker 1 (30:14):
It's nice when the minority leader just got hoisted by
his own guitar, and then I don't know how many
people are familiar with the congresswoman Stacey Plaskett. She is
a non voting member of Congress from the Virgin Islands. Well,
apparently during the House Oversight Committee hearings, when they were
doing when they were getting testament from Michael Cohen, Stacy
(30:35):
Plaskett was getting texts from guess who Epstein?
Speaker 3 (30:40):
Yes, God, she.
Speaker 1 (30:41):
Was getting TechEd and so that has come out in
the files, in the emails. Here we are she's getting
texts from Epstein telling her what to ask Michael Cohen.
So House members said, I think we should maybe censure her,
which really carries nothing other than a black mark on
your record. But she was outraged that people thought that
(31:03):
she should be held accountable for taking tax from this pedophile.
And he had been convicted, by the way, at the
time of one set there there was another investigation going on,
but he'd already been convicted at this point of one
group of trafficking charges. And you know what, her what
her Her big excuse was for taking tax from from
(31:23):
Jeffrey Epstein. He's a constituent. So it was okay, here
you go, this is this is Stacy getting a little
teed off. That we questioned her motives.
Speaker 9 (31:33):
Beginning of that hearing, the ranking member Jim Jordan had
the disrespect to Elijah Cummings, may he rest in peace
and his name be a memory after not allowing mister
Jordan to shut the committee hearing down, and I turned
to mister Jordan and told him to have respect for
(31:54):
the chair and to basically shut up. And that moment
went viral, and I began to get innumerable text from friends,
from foes, from constituents about what was happening in that hearing.
And I got a text from Jeffrey Epstein, who at
(32:16):
the time was my constituent, who was not public knowledge
at that time that he was under federal investigation and
who was sharing information with me.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Okay, first of all, he was convicted at that time.
And how many congressmen do you know send out their
personal cell phone number to the constituents so they can
text her well during the day.
Speaker 3 (32:40):
That is why we prove it again that money.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Talks, it does. And then so but she wasn't. She
got caught in another little issue when she was trying
to defend herself on the House floor yesterday.
Speaker 9 (32:56):
And if you look at the transcript, you will see
that I questioned Michael Cohen for five minutes. The Washington
Post only shows you thirty seconds and takes from it
one individual's name that I got from Jeffrey Epstein and
didn't know who the individual was, and put that individual
(33:18):
with a host of other individuals that I felt the
committee should subpoena. They've never been subpoena. They've never been questioned,
because at the end of the day, I know that
in the Trump administration and with my colleagues over there,
it's not about sexual assault, it's not about support of victims.
(33:41):
It's about money.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
Okay, So she just admitted that she got a name
from Epstein's text, that she followed that up in the hearing.
I don't care if it's five minutes or three seconds.
But in the next breath, in the very next breath,
this is what she says.
Speaker 9 (33:58):
They've taken a Texas change which shows no participation, no assistance,
no involvement in any illegal activity, and weaponized it for
political theater.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
I'm sorry. Didn't she just say above that she did
get assistance from Jeffrey Epstein, and the next breath, I
didn't get assistant. Shades of Kamala and the Budigit conversation.
This is the problem. This is why the Democratic Party
has an issue.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
That was a bullfaced line. She just she she said
it herself that it's all about access to money, and
it is, which is why this is a non partisan issue.
The Jeffrey Epstein filesue. Yeah, and so you know it's
it's it's gonna be it. It's gonna end ugly. I
just don't know how it's gonna endp Oh my.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
God, isn't that the truth? Yeah? So we end every
week with what we call it truth Ortrol, and we
play a cut from somebody and asked, do you think
they're trolling or do you think they're being honest about
whatever is they're saying. I would say ninety percent of
these are President Trump, because let's face it, he's got
the driest delivery of anybody in the face of God's earth,
and he is a world class roller. But he was
(35:07):
out at Joint Bass Andrews the other night and he
was asked about his dinner with Nick Fuentes many years ago,
and this is what he said.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
You're tough.
Speaker 5 (35:16):
I did it with Nickquente's at mar alago a few
years ago.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
What roll.
Speaker 5 (35:19):
Could he play in the conservative movement?
Speaker 1 (35:20):
Well, I didn't know he was coming.
Speaker 3 (35:22):
And he was with as you know.
Speaker 10 (35:23):
Somebody Kanye and Kanye has to be could have dinner
and he brought Nick.
Speaker 1 (35:28):
I didn't know Nick.
Speaker 10 (35:29):
At the time, and he did.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
He came along with a few other people.
Speaker 10 (35:35):
He brought a few people with him. Meeting people, talking
to people like for somebody like Tucker, that's.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
What they do.
Speaker 10 (35:43):
You know, people are controversial, some are, some aren't. I'm
not controversial, so I like it that way.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
Okay, Seriously, do you think this man honestly believes he's
not a lightning rod, not a controversial guy? Is he
being tongue in cheek or is he being honestly? If
he believes he's not, then he's delusional. Let's just put
it that way now.
Speaker 3 (36:05):
But do you think he'll be a question? That's the easiest,
That's the easiest tee up that you've ever had.
Speaker 1 (36:09):
I think I think that's probably true. I think that's
probably true.
Speaker 3 (36:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
So if what do you think about President Trump? If
you think he actually doesn't believe that he's a lightning rod,
then you can let us know. You can contact us
on X at newsby three or on Facebook at news Bite.
We upload a new episode every week on Monday, so
please check back next week and see what new offerings
we have. Meanwhile, have a great week. I'm Nancy Shack,
I'm Jeff Brown. This is news Bite.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.