5-9-25 - 8am - Endowment Grift and Biden on The View

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Michael sawcial reports about new Pope Leo being a
critic of President Trump. But I just saw him with
a cap a red cap on that had the words
make Catholics great Again.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So go figure, all right, I'm going to just as
as a tease for tomorrow.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
I uh I made I made a decision that I'm
going to flesh out uh immigration. I guess globalism might
be the other way I would put it, Uh immigration, globalism,
and maybe sovereignty or or or or the survival of

(00:53):
the republic. Yeah, and I don't necessarily mean our country,
but I will focus on the United States. But I
think tomorrow on a Saturday program if you want to
tune in from ten to one. I'm not sure when
I'll do this, but I want to kind of expound

(01:14):
on immigration. I'll do it this way, immigration, globalism, and
sovereignty and how it is that the positions that And

(01:34):
when I say Catholics, I hate using that term because
it sounds like I'm talking about you if you're a Catholic.
I'm not. I'm talking about the doctrine that emanates from
the Vatican, from the pope, and the influence that this
pope would have based on things that I'm reading. Even
during the break, I'm still reading about it that it

(01:56):
will have on those three things. So if you want
to hear about that, I'll probably do that tomorrow.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
But this hour.

Speaker 3 (02:03):
I talked about Harvard's five one C three status. Yesterday, well,
digging deeper into it yesterday after the program, I discovered
that they're actually making fairly rare and risky moves. They're
starting to sell significant portions of their endowments Harvard and Yale,

(02:24):
both both of their endowments together exceed ninety billion dollars.
Ninety billion dollars between just between Harvard and Yale. They
have announced plans to offload private equity stakes because of
these political pressures, and of course they also are faced

(02:45):
with some liquidity problems and the whole financial landscape. I'm
sure they're looking at the market. I'm sure that they're
looking at their ROI, they're looking at their portfolios. But
for whatever whatever, if any or all of those reasons,
they've made a decision start offloading some of their private
equity stakes. Well, those sales, which are the largest in decades,

(03:08):
actually shows some vulnerabilities even in the most well funded
academic institutions, and that could signal I think probably a
pretty serious reckoning for these endowment dependent schools. Harvard's one
billion private equity secondary sale was facilitated by a firm

(03:31):
in New York, kind of indicase they must be desperate
for cash. So Harvard's facing a dual crisis. They got
the threat of funding freezes and an endowment structure that
is overly reliant on illiquid assets. Eighty three percent of
its fifty three billion dollar endowment is allocated to private

(03:54):
equity and hedge funds, compared to just fourteen percent in
public equities. So Harvard itself risks being trapped in a
liquidity crunch. How are they going to offload this? Then
you pile on and I don't mean pile on, but
I don't mean that pejoratively. But on top of that,

(04:16):
with the Trump administration's decision to freeze some two billion
dollars in research grants and then talked about Harvard being
a political entity. Well, now, if you're the trustees, if
you're the board of trustees, if you're the president of
the Harvard Corporation, you're starting to look at uh oh,
if you have any sort of around the corner glance.

(04:40):
You're going to try to bridge that gap. You've got
two point two billion dollars. That is now iffy you
look at your liquid nature of the endowment as a whole.
They issued one point two billion dollars in municipal bonds.

(05:01):
But the bigger move is it shifts from long term
holdings to secondary sales. I did not realize yesterday when
I was talking about this. They've issued one point two
billion dollars in municipal bonds. So that's Harvard. That's kind
of a glance at Harvard. Yale plans to sell six

(05:22):
billion dollars of its endowment. That's nearly fifteen percent of
its SWAT forty. I think it's like forty some billion
dollar endowment. That's a pretty gutsy, risky move too. Unlike Harvard,
Yale's sale is contingent on market pricing, so they're taking
a little more cautious approach than Harvard. It's just like, oh,

(05:45):
let's just sell now. They have what's called the Yale model.
They prioritized private equity for decades and now obviously skepticism
because distributions are slowing down. Why now political pressures, market
pressures there's the political volatility, there's the market liquidity drought.

(06:09):
There's self inflicted risks. Harvard Neil's heavy private equity allocations
are probably backfiring on them. Harvard has one hundred and
twenty four billion dollars in unpaid capital commitments alone, so
they've got an awkward balance between growth and solvency. There's

(06:33):
also you know, I would say, this just crossed my mind.
These endowments and these two universities in some ways kind
of parallel the country. Somebody left. I think it was
either I was paying attention, but I don't remember what

(06:53):
was a text message or talkback about how isn't isn't
the financial crisis that we're facing a lot worse because
nobody's really doing anything. Well, that's exactly what's going on.
So you've got to shift an endowment strategy. And there's

(07:13):
obviously a trade off, but at what cost does that
trade off come? Obviously, I think they're trying to be
They're trying to be pragmatic because they're trying to face
up to some immediate risk that they're facing, but the
long term consequences of taking the action now, and I
know I'm not trying to second guess whether they should
have taken the action earlier or not. But I understand

(07:35):
why they're taking it now because they're facing in liquidity,
they're facing a loss of federal funding. And obviously a
lot of the enrollment is you know, the what do
you call it? That not heritage enrollment, but you know,
you know, my father and my grandfather went legacy enrollment,
so they got this a lot of legacy enrollment not

(07:57):
necessarily paying the bills. So here, here's the data that
I just found doing a really quick Google search. Eighty
three percent of Harvard's endowment is in illiquid assets with
unfunded commitments exceeding one hundred billion dollars one hundred and
sixty two billion dollars in secondary sales last year, which

(08:20):
is up forty five percent, almost half year over year.
That signals that they're doing a market wide liquidity chase.
Their liquidity armor via bonds and sales might stave off
the crisis for a little bit, but it could cost
the institution billion dollars, billions of dollars in unrealized income.

(08:42):
So where are we byer Harvard and the Aale on
financial difficulties due to federal funding cuts. When they have
over ninety billion dollars in endowments. Schools have built these
endowments by investing money into two assets, real estate and
private equity. And those assets can prive, as I said,
eighty three percent of Harvard's endowment, but they're liquid. Private

(09:05):
equity in particular is hard to value and of course
has lots of restrictions on it when and how much
you can sell. But when those assets take off, which
is why people oftentimes invest in private equity, they create
huge value. So these assets enrich the university, but they
can't be used to pay for things like students or

(09:27):
research or teaching on a year to year basis. You
got to wait for the big payoff. Well, what pays
for the stuff that universities are supposed to do. They've
been using federal money to do that. Your money, that's
their liquid asset. So they've kind of built a scam
when you think about it, take federal money to pay
for their business operations. Then take the money that they

(09:51):
get from tuition to all their other revenue streams and
invest that in illiquid assets to enrich themselves. And the
real estate is particularly prititious because schools could gobble up
land now that gobbling up of land can help make
them rich of the expense of middle class people that
are bordering those institutions. Austin, which is a part of Boston,

(10:15):
has watched that very thing happen because Harvard's gone in
and bought massy swaths of land. Of course, that's how
real estate values skyrocket at Austin. They've gentrified it. They
themselves have driven up those values and the cost of
living there. So the reason why Harvard, Jale, and Frankly

(10:37):
have probably Princeton and the others are freaking out about
the funding cuts is because you think about it, They've
built an entire grift on the belief that your money
would always be there. So I would conclude that they're
not really a public good anymore. They are, in essence,

(10:58):
big businesses fund by you without your consent. So what
we ought to do. One thing we ought to do
is pretty simple, reprivatize student loans. And I would even
argue even allow the loans to be discharged in bankruptcy.

(11:21):
Put the risk where it belongs. Why should the taxpayers
bear that risk? And quite honestly, I, you know, I
don't have any student debt children don't have any student debt,
so I guess I don't care to some degree, but
it's always bothered me that student loans cannot be discharged
in bankruptcy. Why why do we carve that at? Oh?

(11:42):
Because those that's all taxpayer money, Well privatize them, take
them back. Let the private sector. Do you want to
loan money to a student to get an education in
basket weaving or gender studies that have at it? If
a bank or some of the financial institution wants to
do that, then go do that.

Speaker 4 (11:58):
And you know who fought for student loans not being
able to be eligible for bankruptcy? Do you know?

Speaker 3 (12:04):
Do you know for former former.

Speaker 4 (12:07):
President Joseph Barden Biden Biden he fought to.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
Oh that you mean the dominical fourth we have made
fun of yet we haven't gotten in the view yet.
We haven't gotten the view yet.

Speaker 4 (12:17):
Yes, friendly reminder out there that.

Speaker 3 (12:21):
He was part of the griff too. So I I
don't know that Harvard Incorporates or Harvard Incorporated, whether the
financial documents including their investments, like the details like you

(12:41):
know which which funds have you bought into? What private
equity are you involved in? I don't know that I
can find that or not, but I don't think the
details of the investments are available, uh, probably protected you know,
proprietary information, and they are private in the oun't think
there's any requirements to do it. But go back to
the idea of just you know, privatize the student loans,

(13:05):
make them dischargeable in bankruptcy, because I think one of
the intended consequences of doing that would be that, oh,
suddenly tuition might start dropping. The actual cost of providing
an education might be reflected absent all the tax money

(13:26):
that's flowing in that when you really dig into it,
is probably the tax dollars are actually funding the operations.
So what the hell's the endowment for? Oh, to enrich
the corporation itself. And if you can enrich the corporation,
if and when you decide to divest yourself with some
of those assets, selling them off, then you've got the income.

(13:49):
So you can use that income after you pay your
gains on it.

Speaker 4 (13:52):
You can use it.

Speaker 3 (13:53):
Wait a minute, and that's a good tax question, whether
they'd actually have to pay gains on it or not.
Respect irrespect you of that you start selling some of
that private equity off. If and when you can. Now
you've got cash floats, you can do what, oh don't
do it to you know, take care of your operational costs.

(14:13):
Put it into your administrative salary overhead. Yeah, pay yourself
a big honkin raise to go run the grift that
you're running on the taxpayers. It's I gave you the
example and I and I don't want to disclose although
I think I probably already have. You probably go back

(14:35):
and find it on the podcast. But I've been told that,
for example, some of the grants that are received and
I don't know this is let me make it more broad.
I don't want to misspeak here. I do know that
some universities in this country get a grant, say for

(14:57):
one million dollars, fifty of that grant might go to
the research for which the grant was awarded. You're studying
the general dysphoria of white mice in labs at an
altitude of two hundred eighty feet, all right, So of
a million dollar grant, five hundred thousand dollars goes to

(15:20):
help pay the costs of the mice in the labs
and the overhead of doing the research. And you're actually
doing the research. The other five hundred thousand dollars is
skimmed off the top to then go pay for running
the university large that got the grant, that's the grift.

(15:42):
The entire system was built to enrich universities rather than
to fund research. Federal funds are being used as a
liquid asset while the schools pump up their endowments. That's
the issue. Now, does it benefit does the research fit taxpayers?
I'm not sure that studying gender dysphoria in white mice

(16:04):
and labs at an altitude of eighty feet somehow benefits taxpayers,
but I'm sure there is research somewhere out there that
does benefit you know, modern medicine or modern physics or
whatever it might be. There's probably some benefit, but generally speaking,
it's probably benefiting the university more than it is the

(16:24):
general public. And it's not just private institutions, because the
examples I'm talking about where some upwards of sometimes more
than fifty percent of the grant is used to cover
operational costs or overhead of the universities are state universities,

(16:45):
land grant universities. They get billions of dollars in these
in these research projects, and at the same time that
we're doing those research projects. We've got national labs all
over the country. We've got you know, we've got Laurence Livermore,
We've got Los Alamos, We've got Fort Dietrich, which is

(17:07):
Fort Dietrich is an interesting story of me get to today.
We've got all those places too. They're also doing all
this research. So with a there's there's just a grift
going on. And while this grift is going on, what's
Congress doing well. The only person that seems to be

(17:29):
acting is Trump. Trump's threatening to cut off some of
the research funds, and then Congress gets all pissed off.
But Congress won't do any of the recision of the
waste fraud and abuse that's been discovered by Dove, which
is not nearly as much as we were told it's
going to be. But at least they found some and

(17:50):
if they keep going, maybe they can find some more. Hugh,
this stuff drives me bad. It just drives me. Netty. Yeah,
we're we're just so royally screwed right now. But it
could have been worse. I'll explain why next. Good morning, Michael,
Good morning Dragon.

Speaker 5 (18:09):
Michael actually liked what you just said quite a bit,
I'll use a comparison. Just because my neighbor's house is
really fancy and super well kept and my house is
a piece of crap doesn't mean I can go live
in his house. You know, I have something to aspire to,
all right, see boys.

Speaker 3 (18:31):
Which is funny because on the text line, somebody didn't
didn't like what I was saying about. I'm shocked somebody
liked him. Somebody didn't. That's never happened before. Dragon. I
don't know what to do about that. This tour that
Joe Biden is on, first the BBC and then the View,

(18:55):
which are pretty much equal. I mean, when I think
of world news, the one of the one of the
two places I go is either the View or BBC.
I mean, I'm Jimney Christmas. I don't think it's working
out very well.

Speaker 4 (19:09):
Hey, can anybody tell us if that actually aired live?
Because it was supposed to be at ten.

Speaker 3 (19:14):
O'clock right, yes, well.

Speaker 4 (19:16):
When right when the Pope was that the White House came.

Speaker 3 (19:19):
Out somebody If you would ever read text messages, you
would see that somebody was watching it live and it
got interrupted by the Pope.

Speaker 4 (19:27):
Oh darn.

Speaker 3 (19:28):
Yeah. So I only have bits and pieces of it.
It may it may be fully on the ABC News website.
I don't know. I haven't looked. I just I've got
clips to use. But it's it's obviously a rehabilitation tour,
and I don't think it's working out very well. I
think I don't think it's working out at all. Uh,

(19:49):
the money moment in all of this interview arrived real quick.

Speaker 4 (19:53):
Good news. I was able to find it on YouTube.
The view has their own YouTube channel, so I will
post that to them. I here the perfect If they're
interested at all.

Speaker 3 (20:01):
Well you should because somebody again, I wish there was
a way to save tech. I mean, they're all saved,
but I wish there was a way to categorize them
or you know, save them in a separate folder or something.
Because somebody wrote a really good text message yesterday. In fact,
you may be the person that said, hey, I was
watching it and then you know, but the gist of

(20:21):
the text message was I had never seen the view before,
and so I tuned in since you had been laughing
about Biden being on there. And that person who was
writing the text message was as flabbergasted as I was
that Oh my god, the people in the audience. That's
what should scare us. Where do they go, what do

(20:44):
they do when they leave that studio? Because they are
truly idiots, trained seals, train seals that may you know,
in fact, the word seals. You might do a word
search that might have been in the text. I'm not sure,
but anyway, the whole money Quote co host Elissa Farah
Griffin asked the president about the spate of books deeply

(21:07):
sourced from democratic sources. They claim in your final year
there was a dramatic descline in your cognitive abilities. Well
at that point, Biden stared downward, had an angry smirk,
and she did interrupt because he was just staring. What
is your response to these allegations? Are these sources wrong?

(21:29):
They're wrong, you gurgled, even though they were obviously not wrong.
We'll get to that in a minute. Instead, let's start
with this. So yesterday, Guy Benson was asked about this
appearance on the View and had this to say.

Speaker 6 (21:45):
And there was another big TV appearance, this one from
former President Joe Biden, making his first major television appearance
since leaving office on the View.

Speaker 3 (21:55):
Have a look at some of what was said.

Speaker 4 (21:57):
Knowing what you know.

Speaker 7 (21:58):
Now, do you think you would have him?

Speaker 8 (22:00):
Yeah, he's still a seven minute I fear Vats number two.
They're very close in those those toss up states. It
was it wasn't slam dunk.

Speaker 6 (22:18):
All right, let's bring in Byron York a guy Benson
for more.

Speaker 3 (22:21):
And this is the guy. Let's start with you.

Speaker 6 (22:23):
Gibiden was talking about why Kamala Harris lost, and he
put it down to sexism. What about the fact that
she was a weak candidate thrown in it at the
last minute, and that the Democratic Party appeared to be
out of touch with more than half of America, including
its former blue collar base.

Speaker 9 (22:42):
Well, John, this is a media tour that no one wants,
no one asked for, perhaps most especially the Democrats. They
would love for him to shuffle back to the beach
where he stayed for much of his presidency actually and
just hang out there. But he's back in the limelight,
right there with the former first Lady.

Speaker 1 (22:58):
And you're right.

Speaker 9 (22:59):
This explanation that Kamala Harris lost because she's a woman
and a woman of color, I think is insulting to
so many voters.

Speaker 3 (23:06):
It also is.

Speaker 9 (23:07):
Belied by the reality that Joe Biden a white guy
would have lost worse than she did. That's why everyone
was so desperate on that side of the aisle to
get him out of the race after there lies about
him and his condition blew up on the debate stage.
They wanted him gone because they could see the numbers,
they could see their internals. He was going to get
crushed and there would be a lot of down ballot

(23:29):
implications as well. So they moved the white guy out
because he would have lost even worse than she did,
which completely undermines the racism sexism claims that he's making
papering over his own failures as president.

Speaker 3 (23:43):
But that's what he always goes to. I don't recall,
and I may be wrong. I'm sure maybe somebody can
find some examples that would prove me wrong. But I
just don't recall sex, male versus female ever really being
an issue in the campaign. What's the wyver? It was
more about competence versus incompetence. It was more about we

(24:05):
don't even really know what she stands for. We really
don't know what you know, she's very weak. You know,
she's nothing about male or female. And by the way,
if you're going to run for president, and someone's gonna
call you weak and attack you. Uh, that's part of
the game, that's part of the process. And to somehow

(24:26):
throw it off on sexism and misogyny shows you just
how weak Biden was to begin with. But let's go
to a part about the books. I love this.

Speaker 7 (24:39):
Yeah, mister president, Since you left office, there have been
a number of books that have come out, deeply sourced
from democratic sources, that claim in your final year there
was a dramatic decline in your cognitive abilities.

Speaker 3 (24:54):
I apologize for interrupting, but as I'm rewatching this, I'm
re minded because yesterday I listened to probably ten minutes
of the Meghan Kelly podcast. I'm not sure what it was,
yesterday's episode or the day before. Well, it had to been,
I guess yesterday's because she had someone on there who

(25:17):
has also been on the View. I don't know who
it was, didn't care. But apparently the questions the producers
write all of the questions for the hosts, and all
of the questions are given to every guest that appears
on the view. So this question, which she is reading
from one of the those blue cards, is known to her,

(25:40):
not written by her, known to her and known by
the president. He knows the question is coming.

Speaker 7 (25:46):
Since you left office, there have been a number of
books that have come out, deeply sourced from democratic sources
that claim in your final year there was a dramatic
decline in your cognitive abilities in the final year of
your presidency. What is your response to these allegations? Are
these sources wrong?

Speaker 8 (26:03):
They are wrong. There's nothing to sustain that. Number one.
Number two, you know what what we're left for. We
left for the circumstance where we we had an insurrection.

Speaker 3 (26:17):
I started, I have to I have to pause because
them producers whispringing my ear. Just say it on the air.

Speaker 4 (26:25):
What does any of this have to do with what
you were left with going into office? Have to do
with the question that she just asked about your last
year in office and your mental capabilities.

Speaker 3 (26:36):
I think it says everything about the middle capability.

Speaker 4 (26:40):
Arguably, his first answer was they're wrong. And then number two,
I was left with a bunch of trash.

Speaker 7 (26:48):
Huh sources that claim in your final year there was
a dramatic decline in your cognitive abilities in the in
the final year of your presidency. What is your respect
to these allegations? Or are these sources wrong.

Speaker 8 (27:03):
They are wrong. There's nothing to sustain that.

Speaker 3 (27:07):
There are there's your drug, there's your answer. Dragon. He
could have stopped right there. Yeah, number one. Number two.

Speaker 8 (27:14):
You know, think of what what we were left with.
We left for the circumstance where we uh we had
an insurrection and I started for that nonsensus civil war
we had.

Speaker 3 (27:27):
When was that insurrection again?

Speaker 4 (27:30):
January sixth?

Speaker 3 (27:32):
What was the year he says we were left with that?
Did that?

Speaker 10 (27:40):
Was?

Speaker 4 (27:40):
That?

Speaker 3 (27:40):
Was that like in the October of twenty twenty four?
It was that? Like it like during the Democrat National
Convention of twenty twenty four? Wait, was that like the
previous election.

Speaker 8 (27:54):
At a circumstance where we were in a position that
we uh well from a pandemic because of the incompetent When.

Speaker 3 (28:03):
Was the pandemic.

Speaker 4 (28:05):
Eighteen nineteen?

Speaker 8 (28:06):
Okay, and so the last outfit end up over a
million people dying, million people dying. We're also in a
situation where we found ourselves unable to deal with a
lot of just basic issues and was I won't going
to him into interested time? And so we went to
work and we got it done. And you know, one

(28:30):
of the things that that, well, I'm.

Speaker 11 (28:32):
Trying well, and Alsa, you know, one of the things
I think is that.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
People, what are you shaking your head about?

Speaker 4 (28:40):
He has no idea what he's.

Speaker 3 (28:42):
Talking about, none whatsoever. And she and she's watching doctor Jail.
Biden is watching trying to figure out when do I
step in.

Speaker 4 (28:51):
He's trying to answer a question that wasn't asked, just
so that he can continue to talk and seem mentally competent,
in which he rooms that.

Speaker 8 (29:01):
He has loved you deal with a lot of just
basic issues and was I won't going to in two
interests of time. And so we went to work and
we got it done. And you know, one of the
things that that well.

Speaker 11 (29:16):
I'm trying well, and Alyssa, you know, one of the
things I think is that the people who wrote those
books were not in the White House with us, and
they didn't see how hard Joe worked every single day.
I mean he'd get up, he put in a full day,
and then at night he would I'd be in bed,

(29:37):
you know, reading my book, and he was still on
the phone, reading his briefings, working with staff. I mean,
it was NonStop. It's the White House. Being president is
not like a job. It's a lifestyle. It's a life
that you live. You live at twenty four hours a day.
That phone can ring at eleven o'clock at night or

(29:58):
two in the morning.

Speaker 3 (30:00):
It's constant.

Speaker 11 (30:01):
You never leave it. And Joe worked really hard. I
think he was a great president. And if you look
at things today, if you look at things today, give
me Joe Biden anytime.

Speaker 3 (30:21):
I'm shocked, if for no other reason. I mean, obviously
we want you get to the website, but I'd like
for you to go watch that particular portion.

Speaker 4 (30:32):
Twenty two minute mark, is it the twenty three minute mark,
twenty twenty three minute mark, twenty two.

Speaker 3 (30:36):
To twenty three minute mark, Go watch that, because do
you know what I'm talking about? Dragon?

Speaker 4 (30:40):
I was just watching along with you over here on
my screen.

Speaker 3 (30:43):
And what what what? What do you notice about at
that point?

Speaker 4 (30:46):
At that point, Joe just staring down like a little
scolded child.

Speaker 3 (30:50):
Just he doesn't even make eye contact with his wife,
just staring down at the table. He has no clue
what's going on.

Speaker 10 (31:01):
Horning boys, Hey, Mike, does Jill actually want us to
believe that he was working all day long, nine days
a week. Does she forget that they put out his
schedule every day and it never started before ten am,
and it was always over by six pm, and that
he wasn't doing anything publicly before or after those times. Yeah,

(31:24):
their liars just like they've always been.

Speaker 3 (31:26):
Have a great weekend.

Speaker 4 (31:28):
But in her argument, she was stating that he was
reading briefings on his phone. I would retort with, I
don't think he knows how to use a phone.

Speaker 3 (31:38):
And I would retort, and I would retort with, I
don't think Bush ever read a briefing book on an
iPad or a computer. It was always a hard copy.
Now that may just be in Bush's style, I don't know,
but I've seriously doubt that. Like the Presidential Daily brief,

(32:00):
I really death that's on an iPad.

Speaker 4 (32:02):
I see somebody who's eighty two years old probably wanting
hard copy rather than you know, an iPad in front
of them.

Speaker 3 (32:08):
Well, and I think in the case of Bush, and
it was sort of the case with me. Even though
I can take my iPad pro and my iPad pro
pencil and I can mark things up, I wanted to
be able to mark things up on the document and
hand it back to the briefer so they could go

(32:29):
you know answer those questions that I'd marked up, which
I guess they could do it on the iPad, but
that means they physically give me the iPad, I mark
it up and physically give it back. And I don't know.
Just yeah. But here's here's an even better question than yours,
which is a legitimate question. What about the people in
the audience. Did the people in the audience believe them?

(32:50):
How about that?

Speaker 12 (32:54):
Well, mister president. Some have even argued that leaving the
race and endorsing your vice president, Vice President Harris one
hundred over one hundred days before the election, hampered her campaign.
We know, what do you say to those critics?

Speaker 8 (33:08):
I say, number one, that there was still six full
months she was.

Speaker 4 (33:14):
In Wait wait, wait, wait wait six no mathema, scientists
or anything, but one hundred days is not six full months.

Speaker 3 (33:21):
Yeah, six months.

Speaker 8 (33:22):
Every aspect, every decision I made, every decision we made.
And I don't think, I hope I don't sound the
wrong way. I don't think anybody thought would be successful
as you were. I don't think anybody thought we passed
Recovery Act. I don't think anybody thought we'd have we
we'd deal with a kIPS and science. I don't think

(33:45):
anybody think we'd have all we got done in a
close way. To think about it, well, we got more
major legislation passed to fundamentally change the direction of the country.

Speaker 3 (33:54):
Then fundamentally change the direction of the country, the fundamental
transformation of Marik. But you got that right, didn't you.
Tax play release shops coming up next.