Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Michael twice, I've heard you worry about Alexi's feelings.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Alexa is a computer.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
It's not a living person.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
It doesn't have feelings.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
All this time, we thought Alexa out there was actually
talking to us, and I thought Alexa was the one
that was bringing us the paper towels and the wifes
and stuff. Yeah, and now I realized, no, it's just
that little thing sitting next to my bed that listens
to me all night long.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
And that we all could get twenty bucks back from
the case, that we could get twenty bucks per device.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Right, yep. Yeah, I knew this was going to happen
in the discussion of trust. So let me let me
back up on trust for a moment, because I got
a text message and I should have known this would happen.
But I'm trying to be as general as I can
to get a broad point across across, not across across
(01:01):
zero five to five three rights, Mike. Trust are a
cool thing, but they are nuanced and can get complex.
In general, a grant or a trusting a beneficiary aren't
separate and distinct. Yes, in general that's true, but not always.
That's the point of a trust when that has breached.
There are big questions about the validity of a trust.
Revocable trusts are largely disregarded. Yeah, but revocable trust can
(01:23):
be very, very useful in many situations. Trust expenses are
for administrative items. That is correct. Shading cream is never
going to be a trust expense, Haha, that's going to
be a distribution to the beneficiary. You are technically correct.
But what I'm trying to explain to a lay audience
is that there will be a distribution to the beneficiary
(01:47):
of the trust. Who is Donald J. Trump? Donald J. Trump.
I started to say senior because he doesn't go by
senior Donald J. Trump, who has to be the President
of the United States of America. So his Donald J.
Trump revocable trust is going to get a distribution from
the other trusts, the other ll ses, all of which
(02:09):
he is a part of. He will get a distribution.
He'll get a check. Now, the check's going to vary
because what they're going to say is and I'm just
saying this based on how I would do it, I
assume they're probably doing it similarly. You can set it
(02:31):
up either way. You get a regular distributions as a
percentage or whatever of the income, or you get an
amount that each month because the trust is accumulating, you know, revenue.
You look up what your expenses are going to be
for your shaving cream and your cuprazy salads and whatever else.
(02:55):
You know, the bottles of wine that you want that
are not paid for by the taxpayers. That comes to
just pick a number out of my butt. One thousand
dollars a month or in the case of Trump, one
thousand dollars a day, And so they give thirty thousand
dollars a month or one thousand dollars a month, whatever
the figure is to Trump to put into his checking
(03:18):
account so he can pay those living expenses. That is
not a violation of either the trust agreement. It's not
a violation of the Constitution. Every president's had to pay
for those household expenses on their own. So to claim
(03:38):
that just because Trump happens to be a billionaire, I mean,
take my old boss. How do you think that he
and Laura paid for what was the damned Barney? How
do you think they paid for Barney's dog food? Do
you think taxpayers paid for Barney's dog food? I mean,
(03:59):
I sometimes anything to think that that might be what
people think they don't they paid for Barney's dog food now,
because because The New York Times never made a big
deal out of the income that George W. Bush may
(04:19):
have gotten from Oh, let's say that when he sold
the Texas Rangers, or sold his ownership in the Texas Rangers,
or they had oil and gas properties around the country,
and when they would get money from that, Nobody ever
questioned that. But for some of you, we question everything
that Trump gets. Now, some things, I think, if you
(04:41):
just hang on with me, there are a few things
that Trump's engaged in that I think are questionable and
he probably should not be doing it. There's one in
particular that we'll get to in just a minute. But
this other stuff is pretty standard operating procedure. And the
New New York Times. I finally asked one of my
(05:05):
AI apps. I read the New York Times story, and
then I asked, just to see if I was missing something,
what are the sources for these claims by the New
York Times that Donald Trump is somehow violating the Constitution
and is personally benefiting from the presidency. Source the New
(05:31):
York Times article cited x posts. That's the reply that
I got The New York Times article cites.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
X posts and who can post to X?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
I think something like close to six billion people?
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Is there anybody?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Okay, I think Martians.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
I think they've I think they There may be a
civil rights lawsuit about whether Martians can or not, but
I think the Martians might win that. I think they
may be able to post.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Extra sony anybody. Yeah, And anybody in the Times is
quoting any I just want to make sure we got
that straight.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
So we have the luxury hotel in Dubai, which is
probably you know, a situation where there are licensing fees,
management contracts, blah blah, blah blah. You have a high
end residential tower in Jetta in Saudi Arabia, same thing.
There is a second high end residential tower projection Jetta,
(06:34):
likely building on existing Trump organization ties that already in
pre existed in Saudi Arabia. I don't know whether that's
pre existing from the Trump one point zero or in
the Trump time in the wilderness during the Biden administration.
(06:56):
But so what the Donald J. Trump Pavicable Trust would
once again benefit through branding fees or licensing fees. There
might be some profit sharing agreements, whatever it is, But
there are no specific transactional details such as the deal's
value or Trump's cut. There's none of that available. But again,
(07:17):
he is, as he often says, a real estate developer. Well,
that has continued over here through the Trump organization which
he is a part of, through his revocable trust. And
that revocable trust is currently being managed by either Eric
Mardonell Jior and a lawyer. I don't remember the lawyer's name.
(07:39):
It's not important. Now. Can can he say to them, hey,
I need some more money this month? Yes? Or could
they possibly on the QT say hey, would you look
at this steal? Tell us what you think about this steal.
(08:00):
There's no question in my mind that may be going
on anymore than somebody may have gone to Jim Baker,
who was a Bush family advisor served a Secretary of
State for a while. I know for a fact because
(08:20):
I've been there when I've heard the conversation. I've been
in the car with George w and Jeb when they've
talked about family business and how you know. I don't
disclose too much here, but I've heard them converse about
(08:41):
how the family needed to do some things financially to
help one of the sisters. Nothing illegal about that. And
the boss who was sitting directly across from me, while
he was sitting next to his brother talking about that,
talked about how well, yeah, I'll have so and so
(09:06):
direct that you know some money bee, you know transferred,
blah blah blah. I witness all of that. There's nothing
wrong with it. Now here's the one thing that Trump's
engaged in that bothers me, but for a very specific reason.
There are two cryptocurrency ventures based in this country, in
(09:27):
the United States that are linked to Eric and Donald Junior.
But there's also mention of I can't confirm this, but
there's mention of that Trump reportedly earned about nine hundred
thousand dollars from the family's cryptocurrency initiativething had you know
Malaney had a mean coin. He had a mean coin.
(09:50):
H he's been selling those stupid watches or whatever it is. Okay,
I find it a little unsavory. I find a little distasteful.
And the cryptocurrency because it's just because it's a cryptocurrency
which could be a part of a initiative to the
(10:11):
federal Reserve for our central banks for all central banks
to go to digital currencies, which I'm totally opposed to.
I'm not opposed to cryptocurrencies, I'm opposed to digital currencies
of the government. I don't want them knowing what I
spend money on all the time. That's why you should
always have some cash available. Well, there's talk about having
(10:35):
or having had a White House crypto dinner hosted by
the President to promote a new cryptocurrency. If that's tied
to the cryptocurrency that Eric and Donald Junior involved in,
then I've got a problem with that. I think that
(10:55):
is using the White House to promote the private activities
of his sons involved in cryptocurrency and would indirectly benefit
the president himself if he's got a cryptocurrency out there,
and I just don't think they should be doing that.
I think that is getting right up to the line
(11:18):
and perhaps crossing it about using Remember how we kind
of bitched about Biden using the presidency for Hunter to,
you know, gain influence with people. Well, this is walking
right up and crossing right into the same territory as Biden,
and I've got a problem with that. We got golf
(11:40):
courses and villas and cutter We've got the private club
in Washington, d C. But all that really needs some context,
and quickly I would give you this context. The primary
sources for the New York Times article. You can read it.
It's May fifth of this month. The primary sources are exposts,
(12:06):
but they don't provide primary documents, contracts, financial statements. In fact,
the New York Times article itself is not a direct
is not directly accessible because you need to be able
to access it behind the paywall. Unless I last checked
it was last by it was still behind the paywall,
so you need to be a subscriber to it. The
(12:28):
other problem with the article is there's no specificity in it.
The sources they cite don't provide any details such as
the transaction dates, no exact exact amounts, nothing about the
structure of the financial benefits. So it's really just a
it's throwing a bunch of crap up against the wall. Now,
(12:50):
the ex post that the New York Times sites tries
to frame all of these deals I just described to
you as raising ethical concerns because they suggest that Trump
is leveraging his presidential authority for personal gain. The only
place I think that might be legitimate would be the
(13:12):
crypto currency dinner, because it's described as using state power
and foreign influence to enrich Trump. Now those claims are
inconclusive without any sort of primary evidence, but I don't
think it passes the smell test. But the bottom line
would be this, there's no comprehensive twenty twenty five financial
(13:36):
disclosure report for Donald Trump that's referencing any of the
data or in any of the part of the New
York Times story. Now, you can find earlier reports from
a twenty twenty three disclosure which you know has all
of the transactions that were involved at the time. Everybody's
(13:57):
access to that. But what I see in these stories
is simply a rehash of everything they went through previously.
When you when your primary sources are exposts, then you
(14:19):
you have to have some question about whether or not
there is any sort of validity to it, or is
this a hip piece, or is this again just trying
to drive a narrative. I think it's trying to drive
a narrative. Yeah, when you look at the Trump Revocable Trust,
(14:50):
Trump's twenty twenty three Office of Government Ethics is a
Form two seventy eight E filed as a former president
reference to all sorts of analysis that you can find online.
He owns nearly one hundred percent of the Trump organization
through the trust, where he is the sole beneficiary, and
(15:12):
the trust holds most of his business assets, the real estate,
the golf courses, the licensing ventures, all of that. But
there's no twenty twenty five yet OG Office of Government
Ethics disclosure available, and I don't think it's due yet.
But the structure of the trust established during his first
(15:35):
term seems to be the primary vehicle for his ownership.
He's both the set law and the beneficiary. Means he
created the trust and he's a beneficiary of the trust.
That's quite normal. And he has the ability to revoke
or modify the trust at any time, which gives him
direct financial benefit from the organization's profits. But he has
(15:59):
sense put in one or both of the sons and
the lawyer to manage the trust. It's it's I'll have
to look, I just I can't remember. Then it's one
of the trustees that he had during the first term,
this lawyer. Now, ultimately you're as the owner of the trust,
(16:24):
you are as both the settler and the beneficiary. You
can always determine what you want done with the trust,
but the management giving yourself arms length from that trust
is a perfectly legal way to do it, and to
claim otherwise is really just wrong. The next point, I'm
(16:51):
trying to figure out how to do this in the
I can't do it in the time. That's alauded. But
let's let's let's look quickly at the Constitution article on
section nine, Clause eight, that's the emolument's emolument's clause. It
prohibits federal office holders, including the President, from accepting quote
(17:12):
any present emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever
from any king, prints or foreign state without congressional consent.
So the trust holds trust interest in the Trump organization.
And yes, they engage an international business deal, but if
(17:33):
those deals involve payments from foreign governments, they could be
construed as an emoluments, and they have tried in the
past to have them declared as emoluments, but all the
way up to the Supreme Court has been rejected.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Rockies fans or who to blame for the way that
this team is and has been for the last twenty
five years. Absolutely no reason for the fans to continue
to fill up the stadium to allow management to produce
such a subpar team over and over and over and over.
(18:12):
If the fans quit going, the management of the team
will change the way the team is run.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
And at what level do you quit going? So I was,
I was an original and longtime season ticket holder, and
then they start their demise and I quit going to games.
And I would say in the last two years, I've
probably been to two games. Both times were not because
(18:45):
I woke up one day and said, Gee, I want
to go watch the Rockies play. No, both times were
because I had a friend in town who said, I'm
going to go to a baseball game, and I was like, yeah,
you know, that'd be fun. Uh. You and I can sit,
We can make fun of the team, but we can
enjoy the ambiance of course field, and and so we go.
(19:10):
Now does that does my absence have to be absolute?
Or can I go even though I'm mocking the team
and mocking the ownership? Oh, I think I think back.
There's a third time I've been in the past couple
of years, and and that was I took my son
(19:31):
to the broadcast booth. Uh, simply so decent he could
he could throw the cracker Jacks out with Jack and Jerry,
and you know I had a good time doing that,
so I I agree with you, But you you look
(19:53):
at the numbers. Like every every once in a while,
I'll see somebody that I happened to be air quotes
here friends with on Facebook that has taken a picture
that you know, they're celebrating a birthday or the anniversary
or whatever they decided they wanted to go, like somebody.
I couldn't tell you who it was, but somebody posted
a picture. Yesterday, they gone to a game. By the way,
(20:16):
did the Nuggets finally win last night or not?
Speaker 1 (20:18):
No?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
They lost nat night, seriously tied two to two.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Okay, they rad when I was watching, but I didn't
finish the game. Anyway, this this family gone to a
game for Mother's Day. I don't know what day they went,
but someone took a picture of them sitting in the
stands and as far as I can see, the rempty
seats all around them. So I don't don't. I don't
(20:41):
know what the average attendance has been, but I'm telling you,
Momford's just soaking up the concessions. Ticket sales can't be
helping it all maintain the stadium.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
So do you even have those little ticket checkers at
the end of the rows anymore? They just let people
sit wherever they want at this point. If you want
to sit behind the behind home plate, they just allow
you to do so.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
My guess is they probably do have them in those
prime areas, right, but I can't imagine the upper levels
they do.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
It.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Ain't nobody checking your rock pile ticket?
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Yeah, and there was nobody, and there's nobody. But now
I think that back obviously to go up to the
club level and where the booth is, there were there
were ticket checkers there.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
The special area, the special areas.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Let's talk for a little bit about the plane. Air
Force one obviously were as Dragon said at the beginning
of the program, we know you don't have to send
us a text message or talk back or anything else.
(21:54):
We know that the plane that the president is on
is Air Force.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
One, no matter the plane.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
No matter the plane. So when those beautiful seven forty
sevens are parked at Andrews, or maybe they're out at
Seattle being serviced or you know whatever, they are not
Air Force one, but we euphemistically and casually refer to
(22:24):
them as Air Force one. So that's what we're doing here,
I trust me. I doubt you've been on Air Force one.
I have, so I get the distinction. Now, let's talk
about what's going on. When the news broke yesterday, the
news was essentially that this is a done deal. Have
(22:49):
they accepted an airplane? Well, the story about the Cutter
government donating a seven forty seven to the Department of
Defense is partially true, but I think requires some clarification
based on the available information as of last night when
I put this together, there are multiple reputable sources that
(23:15):
report that they are in discussions to accept and I
want to emphasize here a Boeing seven forty seven eight.
Insofar as I know, Boeing is the only company in
the world that manufactures seven forty sevens. I don't think
anybody else does. But this is, in particular a Boeing
(23:36):
seven forty seven eight. It belongs currently to the Cutter
Royal family. The intent is for it to be used
as an interim Air Force one because of Boeing's delays
in the delivery of the new presidential airplanes. This current
plane is valued at about four hundred million dollars. The
(24:00):
The concept is fairly simple. It would be transferred to
the Department of Defense, specifically the Air Force to be
retrofitted to meet presidential specifications. Now let's stop right there.
This is described as in fact, let me just pull
up this is the Drudge Report, which always pull up
(24:22):
just to see what the other side's say. You know,
didn't used to be that way with Judge, but it
is now Cutter gifts jet to Trump. Well not yet.
Palace in the sky is it a crime? I am
sure the way if it belongs to the cut A
royal family, I imagine it is pretty damn nis inside,
(24:45):
pretty palatial, as they describe it. Well, it would have
to be retrofitted to meet the standards for the current
seven forty sevens that are used by the President that
are designated as Air Force one when he is on them.
I saw a post on x yesterday that said, oh
(25:09):
my god, they will never be able to debug that
plane and make certain that there is no ability of
the Cutter government or any other foreign government to spy
or listen in on the President when he's on that plane.
And I thought, well, you really are some special kind
of idiot because you don't fully understand one what retrofit
(25:32):
means and two you don't. And I'm talking about technology
that I know a little bit about. I knew a
lot about twenty years ago, but I know a little
bit about it now simply from friends who still work
in the business that, oh, I can guarandamn to you
that the plane cannot be bugged. And to retrofit it
(25:56):
is not only to make it somewhat stealth, but to
actually make it an armed plane. It's like a fighter jet.
It can it can distribute flak. It's got anti aircraft
missiles it can do. It can fly in a quasi
(26:18):
stealth mode. It can do any number of things. It
can stay. It has to be fitted so that it
can be refueled in air. It can stay in air.
I forget for how many days that it can stay.
It can stay airborne and be refueled, you know in air.
Not any forty seven seven, for not any commercial seven
forty sevens that I know of, can be done that
(26:41):
way or are fitted out that way. So the plane
would be expected, if it's done, to then be transferred
at the end of Trump's term to the Presidential Library Foundation.
But no later than January one, twenty twenty nine. There
are reports of legal analysis from the White House Council
(27:05):
and the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General herself,
concluding that the arrangement is permissible under US law. It
doesn't violate the bribery laws. It doesn't violate the Constitution
of Molument's clause because the plane is not being given
to an individual, but is being given first to the
Air Force with an agreement that it would later be
(27:26):
transferred to a foundation. Now, Cutter has publicly denied that
the plane is a gift, because Cutter says that no
final decision has been made and the discussions are ongoing
for a possible temporary use transfer. Ali all, I'm sorry.
The Cutter's media at a shade to the US called
(27:49):
reports of a gift inaccurate and negotiation between Cutter's Ministry
of Defense and the Department of Defense. The US Department
of Defense are still under legal review. Now again, I'm
using X a lot today, but a lot of postal
and nexts have claimed that the story is fake news,
asserting that plane is not a gift but a previously
(28:10):
own Cuttery own aircraft that is being refurbished by the
United States as a temporary replacement for Air Force one
and ownership's going directly to the Department of Defense. But again,
those posts on X don't have any authoritaty sourcing and
maybe simply or you know, oversimplifying or actually misinterpreting the situation.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Remind me again, who can post two X uh?
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Martians only? Okay, yeah, martians only and reporters from the
New York Times. That's it. I mean you may think
that you can, but if you go try right now,
you realize that no, you cannot.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Dang it.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Yeah. Yeah, So the Troy the story would be true.
In the discussions are on going for Cutter to transfer
a Boeing seven forty seven eight to the Department of Defense,
specifically the Air Force, with plans later to donate it
to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation. But Cutter denies that
(29:15):
it's a gift because no final agreements been reached and
the deal remains under review. So the narrative is obviously controversial,
and there's even disagreement between Dragon and myself about whether
or not even if this particular arrangement is agreed to,
whether it's appropriate or not.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
Yeah, I don't care. I don't want the president to
be on a plane. That's as it's on its second owner.
I want the plane to be the president's only plane,
or that plane to have only ever carried the president.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
There we go.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
That's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Do you how any planes have have had multiple owners?
Speaker 3 (29:57):
Almost all of them? I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Yeah. And planes go through what's called an annual. I'm
talking about commercial aircraft now. They go through an annual,
in which I mean they're basically just stripped apart and rebuilt.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Air Force one it goes through a super duper if
I can call it that, but super duper an I.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Don't want you know.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
In fact, it's being constantly worked on. It never takes
any particular one of the two or three, never take
off without having been completely serviced. They don't care, I know,
whereas I don't care because it's still a Boeing made aircraft.
It's still a US made aircraft. But how's it being presented?
(30:40):
I think that's what I find funny.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
Question about the Rockies firing their management and whatnot. Why
is it that the Rockies or sports teams, if they're
not doing well, they fire the managers. But a company,
when they're not doing well, the CEO stays and they
fire their players. Doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
That's actually a pretty good point in the Dragon because
the manager or the coach isn't really the CEO. The
CEO would be the owner.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Yeah, why don't we find you know, why don't we
aren't the Packers or somebody a publicly traded company now, yeah,
so why don't we make the Rockies a publicly traded company?
And then we can have a shareholder you like, to
lead a shareholder revolt, and we could ouse the CEO.
We could, asked Dick Monfort.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
But firing the coach of the manager is more like firing,
you know, a middle management guy. Yeah, not not the owner,
not the CEO.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
So and and why do we pay this picture? I
forget what. And he's out with a back injury or something.
And the sad part is there was a time when
I could tell you everything, everything about the Rockies. I
love going to the games man. What a lousy record.
And I just find it funny that on the day
(31:56):
that I'm making the decision to do that Michael Brown
minute about how bad the Rockies suck along with Denver
and Colorado writ large. Then about two hours three hours later,
after we get back from dinner, I start seeing on
Facebook that they fired Budd and some others, and I'm like, yeah, well,
you know what you really ought to do is yeah,
(32:16):
sell the team.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
So at what point do we start routing for them
to lose and cheering for them to lose, because I know,
because what you did with the but was it the
Lions when they went oh and sixteen for that first
time and for however long they're like.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Yeah, come on, let's do it.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
We can make it and sixteen. So at what point
do we want the Rockies to beat the Spiders?
Speaker 2 (32:37):
Oh? I'm at that point now.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Okay, so now I'm already that But we want them
to be the worst team.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
I want them to be the worst team in history and.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
What was one hundred and thirty years?
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Yes, I now want them to be the worst. And
that's not really asking a lot. It's not like I'm
really pushing them to really strive for this and think
about I mean, they themselves know, I mean, obviously this
is not a sports zuit, but they know that if
(33:07):
if this program's talking about them, if you and I
are now spending any spending anything more than fifteen milliseconds
on sports. You know that it's really a bad story.
It's really bad and to me, I go back to Mike,
to the Michael Brown minute. It's truly as a corollary
for the entire state is, oh, we're a craphole state
(33:31):
because of singular Democrat policies and the Rocky Suck becomes
a singular incompetent owner.
Michael twice, I've heard you worry about Alexi's feelings.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Alexa is a computer.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
It's not a living person.
Speaker 3 (00:10):
It doesn't have feelings.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
All this time, we thought Alexa out there was actually
talking to us, and I thought Alexa was the one
that was bringing us the paper towels and the wifes
and stuff. Yeah, and now I realized, no, it's just
that little thing sitting next to my bed that listens
to me all night long.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
And that we all could get twenty bucks back from
the case, that we could get twenty bucks per device.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Right, yep. Yeah, I knew this was going to happen
in the discussion of trust. So let me let me
back up on trust for a moment, because I got
a text message and I should have known this would happen.
But I'm trying to be as general as I can
to get a broad point across across, not across across
(01:01):
zero five to five three rights, Mike. Trust are a
cool thing, but they are nuanced and can get complex.
In general, a grant or a trusting a beneficiary aren't
separate and distinct. Yes, in general that's true, but not always.
That's the point of a trust when that has breached.
There are big questions about the validity of a trust.
Revocable trusts are largely disregarded. Yeah, but revocable trust can
(01:23):
be very, very useful in many situations. Trust expenses are
for administrative items. That is correct. Shading cream is never
going to be a trust expense, Haha, that's going to
be a distribution to the beneficiary. You are technically correct.
But what I'm trying to explain to a lay audience
is that there will be a distribution to the beneficiary
(01:47):
of the trust. Who is Donald J. Trump? Donald J. Trump.
I started to say senior because he doesn't go by
senior Donald J. Trump, who has to be the President
of the United States of America. So his Donald J.
Trump revocable trust is going to get a distribution from
the other trusts, the other ll ses, all of which
(02:09):
he is a part of. He will get a distribution.
He'll get a check. Now, the check's going to vary
because what they're going to say is and I'm just
saying this based on how I would do it, I
assume they're probably doing it similarly. You can set it
(02:31):
up either way. You get a regular distributions as a
percentage or whatever of the income, or you get an
amount that each month because the trust is accumulating, you know, revenue.
You look up what your expenses are going to be
for your shaving cream and your cuprazy salads and whatever else.
(02:55):
You know, the bottles of wine that you want that
are not paid for by the taxpayers. That comes to
just pick a number out of my butt. One thousand
dollars a month or in the case of Trump, one
thousand dollars a day, And so they give thirty thousand
dollars a month or one thousand dollars a month, whatever
the figure is to Trump to put into his checking
(03:18):
account so he can pay those living expenses. That is
not a violation of either the trust agreement. It's not
a violation of the Constitution. Every president's had to pay
for those household expenses on their own. So to claim
(03:38):
that just because Trump happens to be a billionaire, I mean,
take my old boss. How do you think that he
and Laura paid for what was the damned Barney? How
do you think they paid for Barney's dog food? Do
you think taxpayers paid for Barney's dog food? I mean,
(03:59):
I sometimes anything to think that that might be what
people think they don't they paid for Barney's dog food now,
because because The New York Times never made a big
deal out of the income that George W. Bush may
(04:19):
have gotten from Oh, let's say that when he sold
the Texas Rangers, or sold his ownership in the Texas Rangers,
or they had oil and gas properties around the country,
and when they would get money from that, Nobody ever
questioned that. But for some of you, we question everything
that Trump gets. Now, some things, I think, if you
(04:41):
just hang on with me, there are a few things
that Trump's engaged in that I think are questionable and
he probably should not be doing it. There's one in
particular that we'll get to in just a minute. But
this other stuff is pretty standard operating procedure. And the
New New York Times. I finally asked one of my
(05:05):
AI apps. I read the New York Times story, and
then I asked, just to see if I was missing something,
what are the sources for these claims by the New
York Times that Donald Trump is somehow violating the Constitution
and is personally benefiting from the presidency. Source the New
(05:31):
York Times article cited x posts. That's the reply that
I got The New York Times article cites.
Speaker 3 (05:40):
X posts and who can post to X?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
I think something like close to six billion people?
Speaker 3 (05:51):
Is there anybody?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (05:53):
Okay, I think Martians.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
I think they've I think they There may be a
civil rights lawsuit about whether Martians can or not, but
I think the Martians might win that. I think they
may be able to post.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Extra sony anybody. Yeah, And anybody in the Times is
quoting any I just want to make sure we got
that straight.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
So we have the luxury hotel in Dubai, which is
probably you know, a situation where there are licensing fees,
management contracts, blah blah, blah blah. You have a high
end residential tower in Jetta in Saudi Arabia, same thing.
There is a second high end residential tower projection Jetta,
(06:34):
likely building on existing Trump organization ties that already in
pre existed in Saudi Arabia. I don't know whether that's
pre existing from the Trump one point zero or in
the Trump time in the wilderness during the Biden administration.
(06:56):
But so what the Donald J. Trump Pavicable Trust would
once again benefit through branding fees or licensing fees. There
might be some profit sharing agreements, whatever it is, But
there are no specific transactional details such as the deal's
value or Trump's cut. There's none of that available. But again,
(07:17):
he is, as he often says, a real estate developer. Well,
that has continued over here through the Trump organization which
he is a part of, through his revocable trust. And
that revocable trust is currently being managed by either Eric
Mardonell Jior and a lawyer. I don't remember the lawyer's name.
(07:39):
It's not important. Now. Can can he say to them, hey,
I need some more money this month? Yes? Or could
they possibly on the QT say hey, would you look
at this steal? Tell us what you think about this steal.
(08:00):
There's no question in my mind that may be going
on anymore than somebody may have gone to Jim Baker,
who was a Bush family advisor served a Secretary of
State for a while. I know for a fact because
(08:20):
I've been there when I've heard the conversation. I've been
in the car with George w and Jeb when they've
talked about family business and how you know. I don't
disclose too much here, but I've heard them converse about
(08:41):
how the family needed to do some things financially to
help one of the sisters. Nothing illegal about that. And
the boss who was sitting directly across from me, while
he was sitting next to his brother talking about that,
talked about how well, yeah, I'll have so and so
(09:06):
direct that you know some money bee, you know transferred,
blah blah blah. I witness all of that. There's nothing
wrong with it. Now here's the one thing that Trump's
engaged in that bothers me, but for a very specific reason.
There are two cryptocurrency ventures based in this country, in
(09:27):
the United States that are linked to Eric and Donald Junior.
But there's also mention of I can't confirm this, but
there's mention of that Trump reportedly earned about nine hundred
thousand dollars from the family's cryptocurrency initiativething had you know
Malaney had a mean coin. He had a mean coin.
(09:50):
H he's been selling those stupid watches or whatever it is. Okay,
I find it a little unsavory. I find a little distasteful.
And the cryptocurrency because it's just because it's a cryptocurrency
which could be a part of a initiative to the
(10:11):
federal Reserve for our central banks for all central banks
to go to digital currencies, which I'm totally opposed to.
I'm not opposed to cryptocurrencies, I'm opposed to digital currencies
of the government. I don't want them knowing what I
spend money on all the time. That's why you should
always have some cash available. Well, there's talk about having
(10:35):
or having had a White House crypto dinner hosted by
the President to promote a new cryptocurrency. If that's tied
to the cryptocurrency that Eric and Donald Junior involved in,
then I've got a problem with that. I think that
(10:55):
is using the White House to promote the private activities
of his sons involved in cryptocurrency and would indirectly benefit
the president himself if he's got a cryptocurrency out there,
and I just don't think they should be doing that.
I think that is getting right up to the line
(11:18):
and perhaps crossing it about using Remember how we kind
of bitched about Biden using the presidency for Hunter to,
you know, gain influence with people. Well, this is walking
right up and crossing right into the same territory as Biden,
and I've got a problem with that. We got golf
(11:40):
courses and villas and cutter We've got the private club
in Washington, d C. But all that really needs some context,
and quickly I would give you this context. The primary
sources for the New York Times article. You can read it.
It's May fifth of this month. The primary sources are exposts,
(12:06):
but they don't provide primary documents, contracts, financial statements. In fact,
the New York Times article itself is not a direct
is not directly accessible because you need to be able
to access it behind the paywall. Unless I last checked
it was last by it was still behind the paywall,
so you need to be a subscriber to it. The
(12:28):
other problem with the article is there's no specificity in it.
The sources they cite don't provide any details such as
the transaction dates, no exact exact amounts, nothing about the
structure of the financial benefits. So it's really just a
it's throwing a bunch of crap up against the wall. Now,
(12:50):
the ex post that the New York Times sites tries
to frame all of these deals I just described to
you as raising ethical concerns because they suggest that Trump
is leveraging his presidential authority for personal gain. The only
place I think that might be legitimate would be the
(13:12):
crypto currency dinner, because it's described as using state power
and foreign influence to enrich Trump. Now those claims are
inconclusive without any sort of primary evidence, but I don't
think it passes the smell test. But the bottom line
would be this, there's no comprehensive twenty twenty five financial
(13:36):
disclosure report for Donald Trump that's referencing any of the
data or in any of the part of the New
York Times story. Now, you can find earlier reports from
a twenty twenty three disclosure which you know has all
of the transactions that were involved at the time. Everybody's
(13:57):
access to that. But what I see in these stories
is simply a rehash of everything they went through previously.
When you when your primary sources are exposts, then you
(14:19):
you have to have some question about whether or not
there is any sort of validity to it, or is
this a hip piece, or is this again just trying
to drive a narrative. I think it's trying to drive
a narrative. Yeah, when you look at the Trump Revocable Trust,
(14:50):
Trump's twenty twenty three Office of Government Ethics is a
Form two seventy eight E filed as a former president
reference to all sorts of analysis that you can find online.
He owns nearly one hundred percent of the Trump organization
through the trust, where he is the sole beneficiary, and
(15:12):
the trust holds most of his business assets, the real estate,
the golf courses, the licensing ventures, all of that. But
there's no twenty twenty five yet OG Office of Government
Ethics disclosure available, and I don't think it's due yet.
But the structure of the trust established during his first
(15:35):
term seems to be the primary vehicle for his ownership.
He's both the set law and the beneficiary. Means he
created the trust and he's a beneficiary of the trust.
That's quite normal. And he has the ability to revoke
or modify the trust at any time, which gives him
direct financial benefit from the organization's profits. But he has
(15:59):
sense put in one or both of the sons and
the lawyer to manage the trust. It's it's I'll have
to look, I just I can't remember. Then it's one
of the trustees that he had during the first term,
this lawyer. Now, ultimately you're as the owner of the trust,
(16:24):
you are as both the settler and the beneficiary. You
can always determine what you want done with the trust,
but the management giving yourself arms length from that trust
is a perfectly legal way to do it, and to
claim otherwise is really just wrong. The next point, I'm
(16:51):
trying to figure out how to do this in the
I can't do it in the time. That's alauded. But
let's let's let's look quickly at the Constitution article on
section nine, Clause eight, that's the emolument's emolument's clause. It
prohibits federal office holders, including the President, from accepting quote
(17:12):
any present emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever
from any king, prints or foreign state without congressional consent.
So the trust holds trust interest in the Trump organization.
And yes, they engage an international business deal, but if
(17:33):
those deals involve payments from foreign governments, they could be
construed as an emoluments, and they have tried in the
past to have them declared as emoluments, but all the
way up to the Supreme Court has been rejected.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Rockies fans or who to blame for the way that
this team is and has been for the last twenty
five years. Absolutely no reason for the fans to continue
to fill up the stadium to allow management to produce
such a subpar team over and over and over and over.
(18:12):
If the fans quit going, the management of the team
will change the way the team is run.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
And at what level do you quit going? So I was,
I was an original and longtime season ticket holder, and
then they start their demise and I quit going to games.
And I would say in the last two years, I've
probably been to two games. Both times were not because
(18:45):
I woke up one day and said, Gee, I want
to go watch the Rockies play. No, both times were
because I had a friend in town who said, I'm
going to go to a baseball game, and I was like, yeah,
you know, that'd be fun. Uh. You and I can sit,
We can make fun of the team, but we can
enjoy the ambiance of course field, and and so we go.
(19:10):
Now does that does my absence have to be absolute?
Or can I go even though I'm mocking the team
and mocking the ownership? Oh, I think I think back.
There's a third time I've been in the past couple
of years, and and that was I took my son
(19:31):
to the broadcast booth. Uh, simply so decent he could
he could throw the cracker Jacks out with Jack and Jerry,
and you know I had a good time doing that,
so I I agree with you, But you you look
(19:53):
at the numbers. Like every every once in a while,
I'll see somebody that I happened to be air quotes
here friends with on Facebook that has taken a picture
that you know, they're celebrating a birthday or the anniversary
or whatever they decided they wanted to go, like somebody.
I couldn't tell you who it was, but somebody posted
a picture. Yesterday, they gone to a game. By the way,
(20:16):
did the Nuggets finally win last night or not?
Speaker 1 (20:18):
No?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
They lost nat night, seriously tied two to two.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Okay, they rad when I was watching, but I didn't
finish the game. Anyway, this this family gone to a
game for Mother's Day. I don't know what day they went,
but someone took a picture of them sitting in the
stands and as far as I can see, the rempty
seats all around them. So I don't don't. I don't
(20:41):
know what the average attendance has been, but I'm telling you,
Momford's just soaking up the concessions. Ticket sales can't be
helping it all maintain the stadium.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
So do you even have those little ticket checkers at
the end of the rows anymore? They just let people
sit wherever they want at this point. If you want
to sit behind the behind home plate, they just allow
you to do so.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
My guess is they probably do have them in those
prime areas, right, but I can't imagine the upper levels
they do.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
It.
Speaker 3 (21:11):
Ain't nobody checking your rock pile ticket?
Speaker 2 (21:13):
Yeah, and there was nobody, and there's nobody. But now
I think that back obviously to go up to the
club level and where the booth is, there were there
were ticket checkers there.
Speaker 3 (21:26):
The special area, the special areas.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Let's talk for a little bit about the plane. Air
Force one obviously were as Dragon said at the beginning
of the program, we know you don't have to send
us a text message or talk back or anything else.
(21:54):
We know that the plane that the president is on
is Air Force.
Speaker 3 (22:01):
One, no matter the plane.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
No matter the plane. So when those beautiful seven forty
sevens are parked at Andrews, or maybe they're out at
Seattle being serviced or you know whatever, they are not
Air Force one, but we euphemistically and casually refer to
(22:24):
them as Air Force one. So that's what we're doing here,
I trust me. I doubt you've been on Air Force one.
I have, so I get the distinction. Now, let's talk
about what's going on. When the news broke yesterday, the
news was essentially that this is a done deal. Have
(22:49):
they accepted an airplane? Well, the story about the Cutter
government donating a seven forty seven to the Department of
Defense is partially true, but I think requires some clarification
based on the available information as of last night when
I put this together, there are multiple reputable sources that
(23:15):
report that they are in discussions to accept and I
want to emphasize here a Boeing seven forty seven eight.
Insofar as I know, Boeing is the only company in
the world that manufactures seven forty sevens. I don't think
anybody else does. But this is, in particular a Boeing
(23:36):
seven forty seven eight. It belongs currently to the Cutter
Royal family. The intent is for it to be used
as an interim Air Force one because of Boeing's delays
in the delivery of the new presidential airplanes. This current
plane is valued at about four hundred million dollars. The
(24:00):
The concept is fairly simple. It would be transferred to
the Department of Defense, specifically the Air Force to be
retrofitted to meet presidential specifications. Now let's stop right there.
This is described as in fact, let me just pull
up this is the Drudge Report, which always pull up
(24:22):
just to see what the other side's say. You know,
didn't used to be that way with Judge, but it
is now Cutter gifts jet to Trump. Well not yet.
Palace in the sky is it a crime? I am
sure the way if it belongs to the cut A
royal family, I imagine it is pretty damn nis inside,
(24:45):
pretty palatial, as they describe it. Well, it would have
to be retrofitted to meet the standards for the current
seven forty sevens that are used by the President that
are designated as Air Force one when he is on them.
I saw a post on x yesterday that said, oh
(25:09):
my god, they will never be able to debug that
plane and make certain that there is no ability of
the Cutter government or any other foreign government to spy
or listen in on the President when he's on that plane.
And I thought, well, you really are some special kind
of idiot because you don't fully understand one what retrofit
(25:32):
means and two you don't. And I'm talking about technology
that I know a little bit about. I knew a
lot about twenty years ago, but I know a little
bit about it now simply from friends who still work
in the business that, oh, I can guarandamn to you
that the plane cannot be bugged. And to retrofit it
(25:56):
is not only to make it somewhat stealth, but to
actually make it an armed plane. It's like a fighter jet.
It can it can distribute flak. It's got anti aircraft
missiles it can do. It can fly in a quasi
(26:18):
stealth mode. It can do any number of things. It
can stay. It has to be fitted so that it
can be refueled in air. It can stay in air.
I forget for how many days that it can stay.
It can stay airborne and be refueled, you know in air.
Not any forty seven seven, for not any commercial seven
forty sevens that I know of, can be done that
(26:41):
way or are fitted out that way. So the plane
would be expected, if it's done, to then be transferred
at the end of Trump's term to the Presidential Library Foundation.
But no later than January one, twenty twenty nine. There
are reports of legal analysis from the White House Council
(27:05):
and the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General herself,
concluding that the arrangement is permissible under US law. It
doesn't violate the bribery laws. It doesn't violate the Constitution
of Molument's clause because the plane is not being given
to an individual, but is being given first to the
Air Force with an agreement that it would later be
(27:26):
transferred to a foundation. Now, Cutter has publicly denied that
the plane is a gift, because Cutter says that no
final decision has been made and the discussions are ongoing
for a possible temporary use transfer. Ali all, I'm sorry.
The Cutter's media at a shade to the US called
(27:49):
reports of a gift inaccurate and negotiation between Cutter's Ministry
of Defense and the Department of Defense. The US Department
of Defense are still under legal review. Now again, I'm
using X a lot today, but a lot of postal
and nexts have claimed that the story is fake news,
asserting that plane is not a gift but a previously
(28:10):
own Cuttery own aircraft that is being refurbished by the
United States as a temporary replacement for Air Force one
and ownership's going directly to the Department of Defense. But again,
those posts on X don't have any authoritaty sourcing and
maybe simply or you know, oversimplifying or actually misinterpreting the situation.
Speaker 3 (28:33):
Remind me again, who can post two X uh?
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Martians only? Okay, yeah, martians only and reporters from the
New York Times. That's it. I mean you may think
that you can, but if you go try right now,
you realize that no, you cannot.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
Dang it.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
Yeah. Yeah, So the Troy the story would be true.
In the discussions are on going for Cutter to transfer
a Boeing seven forty seven eight to the Department of Defense,
specifically the Air Force, with plans later to donate it
to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation. But Cutter denies that
(29:15):
it's a gift because no final agreements been reached and
the deal remains under review. So the narrative is obviously controversial,
and there's even disagreement between Dragon and myself about whether
or not even if this particular arrangement is agreed to,
whether it's appropriate or not.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
Yeah, I don't care. I don't want the president to
be on a plane. That's as it's on its second owner.
I want the plane to be the president's only plane,
or that plane to have only ever carried the president.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
There we go.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
That's what I'm trying to say.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Do you how any planes have have had multiple owners?
Speaker 3 (29:57):
Almost all of them? I'm sure.
Speaker 2 (29:58):
Yeah. And planes go through what's called an annual. I'm
talking about commercial aircraft now. They go through an annual,
in which I mean they're basically just stripped apart and rebuilt.
Speaker 3 (30:10):
I don't care.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
Air Force one it goes through a super duper if
I can call it that, but super duper an I.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Don't want you know.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
In fact, it's being constantly worked on. It never takes
any particular one of the two or three, never take
off without having been completely serviced. They don't care, I know,
whereas I don't care because it's still a Boeing made aircraft.
It's still a US made aircraft. But how's it being presented?
(30:40):
I think that's what I find funny.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
Question about the Rockies firing their management and whatnot. Why
is it that the Rockies or sports teams, if they're
not doing well, they fire the managers. But a company,
when they're not doing well, the CEO stays and they
fire their players. Doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
That's actually a pretty good point in the Dragon because
the manager or the coach isn't really the CEO. The
CEO would be the owner.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Yeah, why don't we find you know, why don't we
aren't the Packers or somebody a publicly traded company now, yeah,
so why don't we make the Rockies a publicly traded company?
And then we can have a shareholder you like, to
lead a shareholder revolt, and we could ouse the CEO.
We could, asked Dick Monfort.
Speaker 3 (31:25):
But firing the coach of the manager is more like firing,
you know, a middle management guy. Yeah, not not the owner,
not the CEO.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
So and and why do we pay this picture? I
forget what. And he's out with a back injury or something.
And the sad part is there was a time when
I could tell you everything, everything about the Rockies. I
love going to the games man. What a lousy record.
And I just find it funny that on the day
(31:56):
that I'm making the decision to do that Michael Brown
minute about how bad the Rockies suck along with Denver
and Colorado writ large. Then about two hours three hours later,
after we get back from dinner, I start seeing on
Facebook that they fired Budd and some others, and I'm like, yeah, well,
you know what you really ought to do is yeah,
(32:16):
sell the team.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
So at what point do we start routing for them
to lose and cheering for them to lose, because I know,
because what you did with the but was it the
Lions when they went oh and sixteen for that first
time and for however long they're like.
Speaker 2 (32:30):
Yeah, come on, let's do it.
Speaker 3 (32:31):
We can make it and sixteen. So at what point
do we want the Rockies to beat the Spiders?
Speaker 2 (32:37):
Oh? I'm at that point now.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Okay, so now I'm already that But we want them
to be the worst team.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
I want them to be the worst team in history and.
Speaker 3 (32:45):
What was one hundred and thirty years?
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Yes, I now want them to be the worst. And
that's not really asking a lot. It's not like I'm
really pushing them to really strive for this and think
about I mean, they themselves know, I mean, obviously this
is not a sports zuit, but they know that if
(33:07):
if this program's talking about them, if you and I
are now spending any spending anything more than fifteen milliseconds
on sports. You know that it's really a bad story.
It's really bad and to me, I go back to Mike,
to the Michael Brown minute. It's truly as a corollary
for the entire state is, oh, we're a craphole state
(33:31):
because of singular Democrat policies and the Rocky Suck becomes
a singular incompetent owner.
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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!