Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Jimmy, always good to have you filling in. I was
curious what's happening with Mike at his car breakdown in
the undisclosed location or something.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
The Without going into too much detail, Michael's dealing with
some family stuff.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
We wish him well.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
With all of that, and I'm grateful to be here
in his stead today on this Monday, July fourteenth, Jimmy
Sangenberger in for Michael Brown, the guy behind the glass.
You just heard the infamous dragon Redbeard. You know who's
also infamous, Jeffrey Epstein. President Trump exasperated last week that
(00:47):
people are still talking about Epstein.
Speaker 5 (00:49):
And the tariff policy and the other policies of the Trumps.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
That is not you gotta double click this. Here we go.
Speaker 6 (00:55):
Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein has been talked
about free years.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
You're asking me.
Speaker 6 (01:02):
We have Texas, we have this, we have all of
the things, and are people still talking about this guy,
this creep That is unbelievable.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Well, let's think for a moment on who some of
the people were who were very much talking about Epstein
during the presidential campaign and early on in this administration,
giving people the impression that something was up.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Something was real.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
There is an Epstein client list, and we expect President
Trump and his administration to unveil that list. Pam Bondi
even saying in February when she was taking over as
Attorney General that the client list, the response to Fox
News was.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Sitting on my desk right now to review.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
Now.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Of course, she later claimed that she was referring to
the Epstein case file, not a specific client list, and
quite honestly, in context, I think that's true. I think
that's what she meant, because she immediately goes into talking
about j Well, Olgat, we've got the audio dragon, go
ahead and play what she said in February on Fox News.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Well, that really happen.
Speaker 7 (02:22):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's
been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm
reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process
of being reviewed.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
Because then she goes on and talks about other files.
So I think that's just how she was answering it,
and she meant files, not just some kind of list,
but the problem is On an issue like this, it's
sort of like twenty twenty election stolen election stuff. On
an issue like this, you got to be very careful
(02:55):
with your words. If you're an election official and you
say one word wrong, you will have conspiracy theorists latching
on and saying, oh my gosh, what they've admitted.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
Yeah, you can't speak in broad strokes when you're talking
about something this.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Narrow, right, and so Bondie stepped in it, even though
it was an innocent mistake in her language.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
That's what I believe to be the case. But let's
go back.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
You think in the presidential race, this was talked about
by President Trump.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Bye Eck, a top Nikki Hayley.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Supporter, was emphasized as being part of Epstein Island and
all of this and something that was pushed by President Trump.
So yeah, they kind of did what, you know, like
them or not. Chris Christy said yesterday on ABC what
(03:54):
Donald Trump is learning.
Speaker 8 (03:56):
Is when you start the fire, sometimes you can't put
it out. Now, he started this Epstein fire during the
campaign and prior to that by alleging that this was
all some you know, democratic plot that he was perhaps
murdered by former Democratic office holders, that there were a
lot of Democrats who had been down to Jeffrey Epstein's
(04:19):
islands and all the rest he used at the fire
pisone base, and he was going to get to the
bottom of it, and he was going to release it
because he's in absolutely in favor of transparency. Well, now
you get into the job and you realize, you know,
maybe I don't want to.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Do that, yeah, or maybe you learn some more information.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
The FBI, headed by Cash Patel and the Attorney General's
Office headed by Pam Bondi, saying that their review quote
revealed no incriminating client list. So do you believe Patel
and Bondy. No, Well, if you don't, you probably don't
(05:01):
believe Donald Trump. Because something else that Chris Christy said
that I think rings true is that, look, Bondi did
not make this decision regarding release of Epstein information, Pamp Bondie.
Speaker 5 (05:13):
There's no chance, in my opinion, that Pam Bondi made
this decision on her own.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
No chance.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
She was instructed by the White House that we're not
releasing this stuff. And that's why he's defending her. And
now he's at cross purposes though, because when you bring
in people like Cash Btel and Dan Bongino, who are
true believers in what Trump was saying prior to getting elected,
to say, wait a second, we came here to do
the transparency thing.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
Yes, except at the same time, the FBI is headed
by Cash Battel and was part of this conclusion that
there was no incriminating client list. Now, Christy's right, President
Trump is the do in this administration for something explosive
(06:03):
like this. Do you think, number one, that Trump would
really just say, oh, Pam, you just make the decision
and then say you make the decision and I got
your back. Number two, because he's strongly, forcefully defending her.
Is he gonna do that if he didn't agree with her?
Let alone say yes, this is the right call. If
(06:27):
you were critical of Bonding and say she needs to go,
guess what, you probably should think that President Trump needs
to go too.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
And I bet you don't think.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
That now his advisors are essentially suggesting And I love
the framing here from the editorial board of the Wall
Street Journal.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
That this was a snipe hunt.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
The magabase is furious in disbelief since the same people
pledged to catch some snipe When I hear a snipe punt.
I think I'm doing a rewatch of Cheers. And I
always loved watching rerun since I was a kid of Cheers,
one of the great comedies of all time. And there
(07:13):
is the episode in I think it's season three where
the guys Sam Cliff Norm they take Kramer or Cramer
a different show.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
I was thinking Kelsey Grammer, I was mixing. That's it's
not side Field.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
We're not mixing sideful, although Michael Richard, of course appears
in an episode of Cheers in the same season in fact,
so that's my confusion. When it's good old Fraser Crane
that they take on a snipe punt. Now Fraser pretends
he's playing along and doesn't know that there is no
(07:51):
such thing as snipe because that's when, of course, it's
a practical joke. Somebody is tricked into searching for something
that just doesn't exist. And so there's this whole thing
where the guys think that Fraser fell for this, but
Fraser didn't actually fall for it and is fooling them.
(08:14):
But nevertheless, that's what the Wall Street Journal editorial board
is comparing, that this is sort of a snipe punt.
There isn't really a client list, but we got people
to think that there was, the problem is when you
do that, you step in it because people have an
expectation that this is going to happen. And President Trump
(08:38):
over the weekend put out a very long.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Statement on truth social blasting. This is ridiculous, basically.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Now, I I do get a kick out of the
last line of the Journal's editorial. By the way, mister
Trump now says the Epstein fure can't distract miss Bondi
from the real conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Quote.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
The twenty twenty election was rigged and stolen, and they
tried to do the same thing in twenty twenty four.
That's what she is looking into his ag and much more.
I do find that irony to be absolutely hilarious, because
the fact is President Trump lost that election and he
just can't admit that one.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
But on the Epstein stuff, here is my view. Here
is my hot take.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Are there people that are in the files whose names
are there?
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Who are people who are.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
Suspected of having engaged in terrible things with Epstein?
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Probably?
Speaker 4 (09:46):
Yeah, Are they on a client list? I don't think so.
It's possible that the FBI the DOJ are lying or
that there's a list that exists that they are unaware
of but thought existed, but again don't have I don't
think they're lying about that, But that's different from there
(10:10):
are people named in files and maybe they don't want
to reveal it for one reason or another.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Those are you saying that there's no little black book
with this name after name after Just listen, here's Joe Schmoe, Joe,
Joe Simmons, Joe Thompson.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
There's nothing like that.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
But with all the images and everything, there might be
people of note in said images in the file.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
I think that there's a possibility of that, but that
they would if they were to release everything. There are
a lot of details maybe on active investigations, different things,
so if there's not.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
A full formal client list to release.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
And then the other thing is if there are active
investigations going on and you have documents that name people,
can you really do that, like put the spotlight from
the government on claims that are being investigated or maybe
have been discredited.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
You know, I don't think you can.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
But here's Alan Dershowitz, who was claimed by the now
late accuser Virginia Gouffrey that he was one of the
people there on Epstein Island doing inappropriate things. Alan Dershowitz
happened to write a book discrediting those allegations. In fact,
I interviewed him years back when he came out with
his book, and I think he did discredit the allegations.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
And he's been pretty well clear of this. But here's
what he said. Let me tell you.
Speaker 9 (11:35):
I know for fact documents are being suppressed and they
being suppressed to protect individuals.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
I know the names of the individuals. I know why
they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them.
Speaker 9 (11:45):
But I'm bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases
and I can't disclose what I know. But I hand
to God, I know I know the names of people
whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them,
and that's wrong.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
Files being suppressed is different from a client list being suppressed.
Let's be very clear about that. And Alan Dershowitz maybe
onto something. He would love the transparency to be done,
because he is innocent. I believe that of allegations against him,
and he'd like all of this and he's like, hey,
anybody else can do the same.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Thing I did.
Speaker 4 (12:24):
Well, not everybody can publish a book like Dershowitz, or
get on all kinds of media platforms like Dershowitz.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
But then those who.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
Can, well, are they false or they legit allegations?
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Can it go out into the public.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
It is actually more complicated when you're talking about a
federal government that investigates crimes and as a Department of Justice. Now,
it is entirely possible that there have been cover ups
going on of individuals that is flat wrong, that are
guilty is sin and they know it and they're covering
it up. That's entirely plausible. But again, don't think that
(13:01):
that is the same as the client list.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
But here's the other thing.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
I think, for the most part, when you talk about
Bill Gates or a lot of other associations of Jeffrey Epstein,
I think Epstein was engaged in not just terrible things
with children, to put it mildly, and other corrupt activities,
but I believe that he was using people like Bill
Gates and others as cover.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
For as like legit legitimize himself.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
In elite circles, and maybe to an extent, is some
protection for the bad things he was doing. I don't
think that just because you know, Bill Gates or some
others associated with him means that they are guilty or
they're in the same box. Now, Prince Andrew could well
be an exception. He seems like quite a scummy person,
(13:59):
and maybe we don't know for sure, but there are
a lot of things about him. Of course, so there
are people involved who are well known who certainly, certainly
there are people who are well known and who were
involved in the bad things that Epstein was doing. But
(14:20):
I think for the most part it was to keep
up appearances and to make him seem like somebody that
everybody wanted it out. Because the more powerful people that
you associate with, the more you give the sense of
protection when the law comes knocking on the door. That's
why all kinds of professors and scientists and businessmen and
(14:42):
so forth are associated with him. Doesn't mean that they
are all guilty of the same kinds of things or
doing the illicit stuff. So I do think it is
more complicated in that way. But yeah, President Trump certainly doesn't.
As Chris Christy said, get a pas in terms of
some of this lot of what bothers me in.
Speaker 5 (15:02):
This context is that Donald Trump can surpassed on it
wasn't him, It was somebody else. He took these people
who were doing exactly what you just said and put
them in charge of the people on the front line
of protecting the American people from crime and terrorism and
counterintelligence operations.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
He encouraged this.
Speaker 5 (15:20):
And by putting them in those positions, he supported the
work they were doing.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Here's the question, did Trump BONDI others?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Did they lie before or are they lying now because
that's kind of what it comes down to, or were
they just playing into something before and now they're telling
the truth because they're on the inside again, and they
now remember who was president when Jeffrey Epstein took his
own life, by the way Donald Trump was before Biden
took office, that Epstein, well, at least they concluded took
(15:52):
his own life.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
There are those who will be.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
Skeptical of that determination and say no way, or he
had help.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
What ever it is.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
The official conclusion is he took his life. But that
happened during the Trump administration the first go round. So
were they lying back then and now they're telling the truth?
Were they telling the truth back then and now they're lying?
Did they not know back then and now they're lying?
Did they not know back then, and now they're telling
(16:24):
the truth after using Epstein for political advantage. Do you
think Pam Bondi needs to go because I don't. I
think she's doing great work on the whole, and President
Trump knows that, and he was involved in the decision
not to release Epstein documents. The problem with Bondi, though,
(16:49):
is that she made a big show out of it.
Remember when all those right wing influencers went to the
White House and they got those binders full of nonsense
bs basically.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Paint that picture.
Speaker 4 (17:01):
So if you do get rid of her, it should
be for misleading people into believing something was gonna come
and it didn't come. But I just I don't think
that works for an attorney general to go. I think
there's got to be more cause, and we're not there.
And I think MAGA is indeed tearing itself apart over
(17:22):
Jeffrey Epstein, at least to some extent, and I don't
think they should be I think there's a lot more
to this. What do you think? Three three one zero
three The text line put Mike or Michael first up,
keep the talkbacks coming to avoid the cackle, and three
zero three seven to one three eight, two five five
the phone number if you want to join in.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
I'm Jimmy. And for Michael Kow.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Why didn't Biden release all the files on Epstein? I mean,
if Trump was in the files, you don't think he
would have released it.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Well, Two that Jimmy Sangenberger and for Michael Brown or
two possibilities. One, there is no listing of Trump in there,
and it's there is good cause that actually not release it,
which is.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Why both Biden and Trump have not done it.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Number Two, Biden's trying to protect some of his buddies.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Now that's the obvious.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
Sort of conclusion that a lot of folks who are
a little more conspiratorial minded. And it doesn't mean that's
not necessarily true or that it's necessarily false. Rather, I
mean Bill Clinton, what about that painting on Epstein Island?
Like one of the weirdest thing, I mean, one of
(18:45):
the weirdest things is that Bill Clinton painting you've ever seen?
But does that mean that Clinton was all in? I
don't know, who knows. Maybe he was protecting Clinton. That
would be the conspiratorial mindset is this is all about
protecting powerful people from being revealed. But again, if we
(19:07):
go back to it, can the Department of Justice, and
should the Department of Justice go out and say, well,
we are identifying these people that we're investigating, whether they've
cleared them or not, whether they've completed the investigation or not.
Here are all the people that we are looking into,
or here are all the people that showed up that.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Could be looked into. I don't think you can do that.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
The Department of Justice publicly saying that people may or
may not have committed crimes.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
And if they're cleared, oh.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
We investigated this person, especially in this day and age
when everybody makes all kinds of conspiratorial ideas you throw.
I mean, look, I covered the trial of Mike Lindale
brought by Eric Komer, the former vice president of Dominion
(20:07):
who it was a defamation case Mike Lindell and Frank
speech Is Company not my pillow.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
That was they were not held liable.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
There were three defendants in this case, and I was
there for five days of this trial in federal court
in downtown Denver. It was really fascinating. But Lindell had
been found liable for a few claims of defamation or
defamatory claims against Eric Komer that tied in with the
(20:44):
twenty twenty elections. Like, that's sort of the premise. Now
Lindell had his.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Arguments and so forth.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
I'm not going to get into that, although I encourage
you to read my column from a few weeks back
on this and the Denver Gazette, where I of course
write twice weekly. And here's the thing. There were claims
made about Kumer that were bs, like actually bs, but
he got death threats and all kinds of consequences as
(21:11):
a result. The same thing comes from election officials that
where claims had been made about individual election officials or
things that happened in particular counties or what have you
that were just not true and that were debunked, but
yet they got death threats.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
As a result.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
So let's say that somebody is named as having been
investigated and then cleared, but there are people online who decide,
you know what, maybe there's something here in the DOJ
got it wrong, and we really think this person is
engaged in shady business, and then they smear them and
then there are death threats and other consequences that come.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
The Justice Department can't do that. Let's be honest. Let's
be real here. The Justice Department can't do that.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
If you think otherwise, make the case three three one
zero three is the X line I want to hear
from the goopers. Three three one zero three. Put Mike
or Michael in the beginning. Make sure that I see it.
Look I mean, then Dershowitz knows this too. We played
the clip earlier of Alan Dershowitz talking about documents being suppressed.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
He said he knows who, and he knows why. He
went even further.
Speaker 4 (22:28):
And talked a bit about you know who's on the list,
kind of hinting at some things. But Dershowitz is an
attorney who knows that the DOJ can't just do that,
just say, oh, well, here's all the files that we
have on people who may may not, people who were
victims or say they were victims, so on and so for.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
You can't do that.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
But the problem is that you've got a lot of
conspiracy theorizing going on here, and understandably so, because there's
so much curiosity, how much we don't know, and so
much perversion surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. And then it isn't help
when Gislaine Maxwell, the one person behind bars serving twenty
(23:13):
years on child sex trafficking charges. She is now saying
that she's willing to speak in front of Congress about
the Epstein file and has basically attested that, yeah, I'll
(23:34):
reveal the truth about the clientless.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Republicans, though, are blocking her from testimony. At least that's
what it seems.
Speaker 4 (23:41):
This all according to The Daily Mail, who knows what's
really going on. A source said, despite the rumors, Gislaine
was never offering any kind of plea deal. She would
be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell
her story. So that doesn't help with all the theorizing
(24:04):
and all the craziness and everything going on.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
It certainly exacerbates all of it. Now. We also, of course,
have Bongino in the rift.
Speaker 4 (24:21):
A lot of discussion over the weekend that Dan Bongino,
Deputy director of the FBI, was going, Hey, you know what,
I might leave the Trump administration. I might resign. Well,
in remarks to reporters, meant to pull this audio, but
I didn't, so I'll just share it. President Trump said
(24:42):
Bungino when he talked to him on the phone, sounded
terrific and in good shape. I spoke to him today
Dan Bongino. Very good guy. I've known him for a
long time. I've done a show many many times, and
he sounded terrific. Actually, no, I think he's in good shape. This,
of course, coming after his comments on Saturday, the presidents saying,
(25:06):
what's going on with my boys and in some cases gals.
They're all going after Attorney General Pam Body, who is
doing a fantastic job. We're on one team, MAGA and
I don't like what's happening. We have a perfect administration.
The talk of the world, and selfish people puts that
(25:26):
in quotes. Interesting link. Selfish people are trying to hurt
it all over a guy who never dies.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Clarification from Goober number ninety seven ninety eight, Jimmy, I
believe the picture of Bill Clinton in the blue dress
was in Epstein's New York home now on the island. Yes,
that's correct, I believe. Thank you for the correction. Another
from the same goober. I also would not put it
past the Biden administration to have destroyed Epstein records from
(25:59):
eleven twenty four to one, nineteen twenty five during the
last couple of months of the administration. Given all the
other things that happened during that time, Arto Penn, Pardons,
sending out billions of payments, record speed, et cetera. Yeah,
I mean they did a lot in record pace there.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
I don't think so.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
I think it's next level to say that the Biden
administration intentionally destroyed documents.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Next level from there.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
Now, is it possible? Sure, anything's possible. But I think
we're dealing with too much. Oh, well, they did this,
so they must have done this, or they might. If
you're not saying must have, they could have. Wouldn't put
it past them, Okay, but still, I think that goes
into the land of.
Speaker 3 (26:46):
Speculation that isn't helpful in a case like this.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
I don't know, what do you think? Three three one
zero three is the text? Like, keep the talkbacks going.
We've got a lot more topics to dive into in
the remainder of the show, though. As we continue, I'm
Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Michael Brown right here on
six point thirty kof.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
Good Morning Dragon, and Jimmy, Yeah, Jimmy, some of US
Republicans are exactly in favor of taxing the consumption of
Americans as opposed to the income of Americans. So this
is a step toward poles that many of us have
had for twice some time. So while it may be
a little scary not knowing what's going to happen with tariffs,
(27:26):
it's pretty much along the lines of where we'd like
to see things go.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
So not too bad, Jimmy Sangenberger, And for Michael Brown,
I appreciate the talkback. It avoids the cackle, and I
appreciate the view and the chicken in the background even
better in the morning, especially now I can wake up.
(27:49):
I heard the kacka doodle do. But no, you're wrong.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Not sorry, And again I appreciate
it all.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
But here's the thing. They're not replacing the income tax.
They're not getting rid of the income tax. It ain't
gonna happen.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
You can't raise enough money for this bloated federal government
that does way too many things. About ninety percent of
what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but they do
it anyway. But one thing that isn't unconstitutional is the
income tax.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
That is in the sixteenth Amendment.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
And unless we're able to somehow get rid of the
income tax. It ain't going anywhere, and I mean through
a constitutional amendment.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
I would love for Trump to.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Have in the big beautiful bill said you know what,
We're gonna go to a flat tax, or said this
is what we want to do is reduce the income tax.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
It's fifteen percent.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Across the board, and we have a generous standard deduction
where we're going to exempt seventy percent or the first
seventy thousand dollars or or whatever it is. And on
the other hand, we're gonna go ahead and raise tariffs. Okay,
well I wouldn't agree with that part, but I would
love the first part. But even if he did that
or anything that he would do and say we're gonna
substantially cut income taxes, it's not gonna happen. He did
(29:13):
what he could in order to reduce the to substantially
eliminate taxes on tips, which I'm of a mixed mind
on taxes on tips and not taxing them and not
taxing overtime even if there's a limit on it. But
(29:35):
that was a big thing that required a lot of
work to actually make it happen. In terms of the
requirements of the reconciliation packet, bottom line, income tax ain't
going anywhere. All you were doing is adding this idea
of a higher consumption tax.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
On top of the income tax, and that's it.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
But it's more than a consumption tax year when it
comes to tariffs in trade, because it's not on me
going to the store and actually paying an added tax
a sales tax like we do when we go to
the store and we pay our state sales tax. That's
not what a tariff is. It's much more widespread and
(30:18):
it has different kinds of impacts. A VAT tax like
they have in Europe, value added tax is a little
more like a consumption tax because it eventually makes its
way to the consumer. And by the way, the Trump
administration is wrong to include the VAT tax and its
determinations as to whether a country like a European country
is over taxing us on trade or as to tie
(30:41):
of a tariffs, because it's different. AVAT tax is not
a tariff. It's bad. We should never have it in
the United States. But avat tax is not a teriff.
Bottom line, though, income tax ain't going anywhere. All you're doing, brother, respectfully,
all you're doing is you're just saying, let's add another
tax on top of the income tax, and I'm not
(31:03):
in favor of that. Maybe you are on the road
to the idea of consumption tax replacing the income tax.
But even in that case, most people who advocate consumption
taxes advocate a fair tax, and the fair tax FAI
are all caps, an abbreviation of course or an acronym,
(31:25):
is different from a tariff.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
That's my take. What's yours?
Speaker 4 (31:31):
Three three, one zero three is the text line? Keep
them coming, goobers to the talkbacks too. We don't want
the cackles. I appreciate you making sure we avoid the cackles.
Great job, goobers, kim me saying in burger in for
Michael Brown. As we continue on Denver's talk station six
(31:52):
point thirty, k out
Jimmy, always good to have you filling in. I was
curious what's happening with Mike at his car breakdown in
the undisclosed location or something.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
The Without going into too much detail, Michael's dealing with
some family stuff.
Speaker 3 (00:19):
We wish him well.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
With all of that, and I'm grateful to be here
in his stead today on this Monday, July fourteenth, Jimmy
Sangenberger in for Michael Brown, the guy behind the glass.
You just heard the infamous dragon Redbeard. You know who's
also infamous, Jeffrey Epstein. President Trump exasperated last week that
(00:47):
people are still talking about Epstein.
Speaker 5 (00:49):
And the tariff policy and the other policies of the Trumps.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
That is not you gotta double click this. Here we go.
Speaker 6 (00:55):
Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein has been talked
about free years.
Speaker 3 (01:00):
You're asking me.
Speaker 6 (01:02):
We have Texas, we have this, we have all of
the things, and are people still talking about this guy,
this creep That is unbelievable.
Speaker 4 (01:13):
Well, let's think for a moment on who some of
the people were who were very much talking about Epstein
during the presidential campaign and early on in this administration,
giving people the impression that something was up.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Something was real.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
There is an Epstein client list, and we expect President
Trump and his administration to unveil that list. Pam Bondi
even saying in February when she was taking over as
Attorney General that the client list, the response to Fox
News was.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Sitting on my desk right now to review.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
Now.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Of course, she later claimed that she was referring to
the Epstein case file, not a specific client list, and
quite honestly, in context, I think that's true. I think
that's what she meant, because she immediately goes into talking
about j Well, Olgat, we've got the audio dragon, go
ahead and play what she said in February on Fox News.
Speaker 1 (02:16):
The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
Well, that really happen.
Speaker 7 (02:22):
It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's
been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm
reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process
of being reviewed.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
Because then she goes on and talks about other files.
So I think that's just how she was answering it,
and she meant files, not just some kind of list,
but the problem is On an issue like this, it's
sort of like twenty twenty election stolen election stuff. On
an issue like this, you got to be very careful
(02:55):
with your words. If you're an election official and you
say one word wrong, you will have conspiracy theorists latching
on and saying, oh my gosh, what they've admitted.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
Yeah, you can't speak in broad strokes when you're talking
about something this.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Narrow, right, and so Bondie stepped in it, even though
it was an innocent mistake in her language.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
That's what I believe to be the case. But let's
go back.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
You think in the presidential race, this was talked about
by President Trump.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
Bye Eck, a top Nikki Hayley.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Supporter, was emphasized as being part of Epstein Island and
all of this and something that was pushed by President Trump.
So yeah, they kind of did what, you know, like
them or not. Chris Christy said yesterday on ABC what
(03:54):
Donald Trump is learning.
Speaker 8 (03:56):
Is when you start the fire, sometimes you can't put
it out. Now, he started this Epstein fire during the
campaign and prior to that by alleging that this was
all some you know, democratic plot that he was perhaps
murdered by former Democratic office holders, that there were a
lot of Democrats who had been down to Jeffrey Epstein's
(04:19):
islands and all the rest he used at the fire
pisone base, and he was going to get to the
bottom of it, and he was going to release it
because he's in absolutely in favor of transparency. Well, now
you get into the job and you realize, you know,
maybe I don't want to.
Speaker 3 (04:33):
Do that, yeah, or maybe you learn some more information.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
The FBI, headed by Cash Patel and the Attorney General's
Office headed by Pam Bondi, saying that their review quote
revealed no incriminating client list. So do you believe Patel
and Bondy. No, Well, if you don't, you probably don't
(05:01):
believe Donald Trump. Because something else that Chris Christy said
that I think rings true is that, look, Bondi did
not make this decision regarding release of Epstein information, Pamp Bondie.
Speaker 5 (05:13):
There's no chance, in my opinion, that Pam Bondi made
this decision on her own.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
No chance.
Speaker 5 (05:19):
She was instructed by the White House that we're not
releasing this stuff. And that's why he's defending her. And
now he's at cross purposes though, because when you bring
in people like Cash Btel and Dan Bongino, who are
true believers in what Trump was saying prior to getting elected,
to say, wait a second, we came here to do
the transparency thing.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
Yes, except at the same time, the FBI is headed
by Cash Battel and was part of this conclusion that
there was no incriminating client list. Now, Christy's right, President
Trump is the do in this administration for something explosive
(06:03):
like this. Do you think, number one, that Trump would
really just say, oh, Pam, you just make the decision
and then say you make the decision and I got
your back. Number two, because he's strongly, forcefully defending her.
Is he gonna do that if he didn't agree with her?
Let alone say yes, this is the right call. If
(06:27):
you were critical of Bonding and say she needs to go,
guess what, you probably should think that President Trump needs
to go too.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
And I bet you don't think.
Speaker 4 (06:35):
That now his advisors are essentially suggesting And I love
the framing here from the editorial board of the Wall
Street Journal.
Speaker 3 (06:48):
That this was a snipe hunt.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
The magabase is furious in disbelief since the same people
pledged to catch some snipe When I hear a snipe punt.
I think I'm doing a rewatch of Cheers. And I
always loved watching rerun since I was a kid of Cheers,
one of the great comedies of all time. And there
(07:13):
is the episode in I think it's season three where
the guys Sam Cliff Norm they take Kramer or Cramer
a different show.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
I was thinking Kelsey Grammer, I was mixing. That's it's
not side Field.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
We're not mixing sideful, although Michael Richard, of course appears
in an episode of Cheers in the same season in fact,
so that's my confusion. When it's good old Fraser Crane
that they take on a snipe punt. Now Fraser pretends
he's playing along and doesn't know that there is no
(07:51):
such thing as snipe because that's when, of course, it's
a practical joke. Somebody is tricked into searching for something
that just doesn't exist. And so there's this whole thing
where the guys think that Fraser fell for this, but
Fraser didn't actually fall for it and is fooling them.
(08:14):
But nevertheless, that's what the Wall Street Journal editorial board
is comparing, that this is sort of a snipe punt.
There isn't really a client list, but we got people
to think that there was, the problem is when you
do that, you step in it because people have an
expectation that this is going to happen. And President Trump
(08:38):
over the weekend put out a very long.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Statement on truth social blasting. This is ridiculous, basically.
Speaker 4 (08:52):
Now, I I do get a kick out of the
last line of the Journal's editorial. By the way, mister
Trump now says the Epstein fure can't distract miss Bondi
from the real conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
Quote.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
The twenty twenty election was rigged and stolen, and they
tried to do the same thing in twenty twenty four.
That's what she is looking into his ag and much more.
I do find that irony to be absolutely hilarious, because
the fact is President Trump lost that election and he
just can't admit that one.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
But on the Epstein stuff, here is my view. Here
is my hot take.
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Are there people that are in the files whose names
are there?
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Who are people who are.
Speaker 4 (09:41):
Suspected of having engaged in terrible things with Epstein?
Speaker 3 (09:46):
Probably?
Speaker 4 (09:46):
Yeah, Are they on a client list? I don't think so.
It's possible that the FBI the DOJ are lying or
that there's a list that exists that they are unaware
of but thought existed, but again don't have I don't
think they're lying about that, But that's different from there
(10:10):
are people named in files and maybe they don't want
to reveal it for one reason or another.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
Those are you saying that there's no little black book
with this name after name after Just listen, here's Joe Schmoe, Joe,
Joe Simmons, Joe Thompson.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
There's nothing like that.
Speaker 2 (10:28):
But with all the images and everything, there might be
people of note in said images in the file.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
I think that there's a possibility of that, but that
they would if they were to release everything. There are
a lot of details maybe on active investigations, different things,
so if there's not.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
A full formal client list to release.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
And then the other thing is if there are active
investigations going on and you have documents that name people,
can you really do that, like put the spotlight from
the government on claims that are being investigated or maybe
have been discredited.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
You know, I don't think you can.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
But here's Alan Dershowitz, who was claimed by the now
late accuser Virginia Gouffrey that he was one of the
people there on Epstein Island doing inappropriate things. Alan Dershowitz
happened to write a book discrediting those allegations. In fact,
I interviewed him years back when he came out with
his book, and I think he did discredit the allegations.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
And he's been pretty well clear of this. But here's
what he said. Let me tell you.
Speaker 9 (11:35):
I know for fact documents are being suppressed and they
being suppressed to protect individuals.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
I know the names of the individuals. I know why
they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them.
Speaker 9 (11:45):
But I'm bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases
and I can't disclose what I know. But I hand
to God, I know I know the names of people
whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them,
and that's wrong.
Speaker 4 (12:02):
Files being suppressed is different from a client list being suppressed.
Let's be very clear about that. And Alan Dershowitz maybe
onto something. He would love the transparency to be done,
because he is innocent. I believe that of allegations against him,
and he'd like all of this and he's like, hey,
anybody else can do the same.
Speaker 3 (12:23):
Thing I did.
Speaker 4 (12:24):
Well, not everybody can publish a book like Dershowitz, or
get on all kinds of media platforms like Dershowitz.
Speaker 3 (12:30):
But then those who.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
Can, well, are they false or they legit allegations?
Speaker 3 (12:34):
Can it go out into the public.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
It is actually more complicated when you're talking about a
federal government that investigates crimes and as a Department of Justice. Now,
it is entirely possible that there have been cover ups
going on of individuals that is flat wrong, that are
guilty is sin and they know it and they're covering
it up. That's entirely plausible. But again, don't think that
(13:01):
that is the same as the client list.
Speaker 3 (13:04):
But here's the other thing.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
I think, for the most part, when you talk about
Bill Gates or a lot of other associations of Jeffrey Epstein,
I think Epstein was engaged in not just terrible things
with children, to put it mildly, and other corrupt activities,
but I believe that he was using people like Bill
Gates and others as cover.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
For as like legit legitimize himself.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
In elite circles, and maybe to an extent, is some
protection for the bad things he was doing. I don't
think that just because you know, Bill Gates or some
others associated with him means that they are guilty or
they're in the same box. Now, Prince Andrew could well
be an exception. He seems like quite a scummy person,
(13:59):
and maybe we don't know for sure, but there are
a lot of things about him. Of course, so there
are people involved who are well known who certainly, certainly
there are people who are well known and who were
involved in the bad things that Epstein was doing. But
(14:20):
I think for the most part it was to keep
up appearances and to make him seem like somebody that
everybody wanted it out. Because the more powerful people that
you associate with, the more you give the sense of
protection when the law comes knocking on the door. That's
why all kinds of professors and scientists and businessmen and
(14:42):
so forth are associated with him. Doesn't mean that they
are all guilty of the same kinds of things or
doing the illicit stuff. So I do think it is
more complicated in that way. But yeah, President Trump certainly doesn't.
As Chris Christy said, get a pas in terms of
some of this lot of what bothers me in.
Speaker 5 (15:02):
This context is that Donald Trump can surpassed on it
wasn't him, It was somebody else. He took these people
who were doing exactly what you just said and put
them in charge of the people on the front line
of protecting the American people from crime and terrorism and
counterintelligence operations.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
He encouraged this.
Speaker 5 (15:20):
And by putting them in those positions, he supported the
work they were doing.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
Here's the question, did Trump BONDI others?
Speaker 4 (15:29):
Did they lie before or are they lying now because
that's kind of what it comes down to, or were
they just playing into something before and now they're telling
the truth because they're on the inside again, and they
now remember who was president when Jeffrey Epstein took his
own life, by the way Donald Trump was before Biden
took office, that Epstein, well, at least they concluded took
(15:52):
his own life.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
There are those who will be.
Speaker 4 (15:54):
Skeptical of that determination and say no way, or he
had help.
Speaker 3 (15:59):
What ever it is.
Speaker 4 (16:03):
The official conclusion is he took his life. But that
happened during the Trump administration the first go round. So
were they lying back then and now they're telling the truth?
Were they telling the truth back then and now they're lying?
Did they not know back then and now they're lying?
Did they not know back then, and now they're telling
(16:24):
the truth after using Epstein for political advantage. Do you
think Pam Bondi needs to go because I don't. I
think she's doing great work on the whole, and President
Trump knows that, and he was involved in the decision
not to release Epstein documents. The problem with Bondi, though,
(16:49):
is that she made a big show out of it.
Remember when all those right wing influencers went to the
White House and they got those binders full of nonsense
bs basically.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Paint that picture.
Speaker 4 (17:01):
So if you do get rid of her, it should
be for misleading people into believing something was gonna come
and it didn't come. But I just I don't think
that works for an attorney general to go. I think
there's got to be more cause, and we're not there.
And I think MAGA is indeed tearing itself apart over
(17:22):
Jeffrey Epstein, at least to some extent, and I don't
think they should be I think there's a lot more
to this. What do you think? Three three one zero
three The text line put Mike or Michael first up,
keep the talkbacks coming to avoid the cackle, and three
zero three seven to one three eight, two five five
the phone number if you want to join in.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
I'm Jimmy. And for Michael Kow.
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Why didn't Biden release all the files on Epstein? I mean,
if Trump was in the files, you don't think he
would have released it.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Well, Two that Jimmy Sangenberger and for Michael Brown or
two possibilities. One, there is no listing of Trump in there,
and it's there is good cause that actually not release it,
which is.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Why both Biden and Trump have not done it.
Speaker 4 (18:17):
Number Two, Biden's trying to protect some of his buddies.
Speaker 3 (18:21):
Now that's the obvious.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
Sort of conclusion that a lot of folks who are
a little more conspiratorial minded. And it doesn't mean that's
not necessarily true or that it's necessarily false. Rather, I
mean Bill Clinton, what about that painting on Epstein Island?
Like one of the weirdest thing, I mean, one of
(18:45):
the weirdest things is that Bill Clinton painting you've ever seen?
But does that mean that Clinton was all in? I
don't know, who knows. Maybe he was protecting Clinton. That
would be the conspiratorial mindset is this is all about
protecting powerful people from being revealed. But again, if we
(19:07):
go back to it, can the Department of Justice, and
should the Department of Justice go out and say, well,
we are identifying these people that we're investigating, whether they've
cleared them or not, whether they've completed the investigation or not.
Here are all the people that we are looking into,
or here are all the people that showed up that.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Could be looked into. I don't think you can do that.
Speaker 4 (19:36):
The Department of Justice publicly saying that people may or
may not have committed crimes.
Speaker 3 (19:44):
And if they're cleared, oh.
Speaker 4 (19:47):
We investigated this person, especially in this day and age
when everybody makes all kinds of conspiratorial ideas you throw.
I mean, look, I covered the trial of Mike Lindale
brought by Eric Komer, the former vice president of Dominion
(20:07):
who it was a defamation case Mike Lindell and Frank
speech Is Company not my pillow.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
That was they were not held liable.
Speaker 4 (20:18):
There were three defendants in this case, and I was
there for five days of this trial in federal court
in downtown Denver. It was really fascinating. But Lindell had
been found liable for a few claims of defamation or
defamatory claims against Eric Komer that tied in with the
(20:44):
twenty twenty elections. Like, that's sort of the premise. Now
Lindell had his.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
Arguments and so forth.
Speaker 4 (20:50):
I'm not going to get into that, although I encourage
you to read my column from a few weeks back
on this and the Denver Gazette, where I of course
write twice weekly. And here's the thing. There were claims
made about Kumer that were bs, like actually bs, but
he got death threats and all kinds of consequences as
(21:11):
a result. The same thing comes from election officials that
where claims had been made about individual election officials or
things that happened in particular counties or what have you
that were just not true and that were debunked, but
yet they got death threats.
Speaker 3 (21:25):
As a result.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
So let's say that somebody is named as having been
investigated and then cleared, but there are people online who decide,
you know what, maybe there's something here in the DOJ
got it wrong, and we really think this person is
engaged in shady business, and then they smear them and
then there are death threats and other consequences that come.
Speaker 3 (21:47):
The Justice Department can't do that. Let's be honest. Let's
be real here. The Justice Department can't do that.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
If you think otherwise, make the case three three one
zero three is the X line I want to hear
from the goopers. Three three one zero three. Put Mike
or Michael in the beginning. Make sure that I see it.
Look I mean, then Dershowitz knows this too. We played
the clip earlier of Alan Dershowitz talking about documents being suppressed.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
He said he knows who, and he knows why. He
went even further.
Speaker 4 (22:28):
And talked a bit about you know who's on the list,
kind of hinting at some things. But Dershowitz is an
attorney who knows that the DOJ can't just do that,
just say, oh, well, here's all the files that we
have on people who may may not, people who were
victims or say they were victims, so on and so for.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
You can't do that.
Speaker 4 (22:51):
But the problem is that you've got a lot of
conspiracy theorizing going on here, and understandably so, because there's
so much curiosity, how much we don't know, and so
much perversion surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. And then it isn't help
when Gislaine Maxwell, the one person behind bars serving twenty
(23:13):
years on child sex trafficking charges. She is now saying
that she's willing to speak in front of Congress about
the Epstein file and has basically attested that, yeah, I'll
(23:34):
reveal the truth about the clientless.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Republicans, though, are blocking her from testimony. At least that's
what it seems.
Speaker 4 (23:41):
This all according to The Daily Mail, who knows what's
really going on. A source said, despite the rumors, Gislaine
was never offering any kind of plea deal. She would
be more than happy to sit before Congress and tell
her story. So that doesn't help with all the theorizing
(24:04):
and all the craziness and everything going on.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
It certainly exacerbates all of it. Now. We also, of course,
have Bongino in the rift.
Speaker 4 (24:21):
A lot of discussion over the weekend that Dan Bongino,
Deputy director of the FBI, was going, Hey, you know what,
I might leave the Trump administration. I might resign. Well,
in remarks to reporters, meant to pull this audio, but
I didn't, so I'll just share it. President Trump said
(24:42):
Bungino when he talked to him on the phone, sounded
terrific and in good shape. I spoke to him today
Dan Bongino. Very good guy. I've known him for a
long time. I've done a show many many times, and
he sounded terrific. Actually, no, I think he's in good shape. This,
of course, coming after his comments on Saturday, the presidents saying,
(25:06):
what's going on with my boys and in some cases gals.
They're all going after Attorney General Pam Body, who is
doing a fantastic job. We're on one team, MAGA and
I don't like what's happening. We have a perfect administration.
The talk of the world, and selfish people puts that
(25:26):
in quotes. Interesting link. Selfish people are trying to hurt
it all over a guy who never dies.
Speaker 3 (25:32):
Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Clarification from Goober number ninety seven ninety eight, Jimmy, I
believe the picture of Bill Clinton in the blue dress
was in Epstein's New York home now on the island. Yes,
that's correct, I believe. Thank you for the correction. Another
from the same goober. I also would not put it
past the Biden administration to have destroyed Epstein records from
(25:59):
eleven twenty four to one, nineteen twenty five during the
last couple of months of the administration. Given all the
other things that happened during that time, Arto Penn, Pardons,
sending out billions of payments, record speed, et cetera. Yeah,
I mean they did a lot in record pace there.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
I don't think so.
Speaker 4 (26:19):
I think it's next level to say that the Biden
administration intentionally destroyed documents.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
Next level from there.
Speaker 4 (26:28):
Now, is it possible? Sure, anything's possible. But I think
we're dealing with too much. Oh, well, they did this,
so they must have done this, or they might. If
you're not saying must have, they could have. Wouldn't put
it past them, Okay, but still, I think that goes
into the land of.
Speaker 3 (26:46):
Speculation that isn't helpful in a case like this.
Speaker 4 (26:50):
I don't know, what do you think? Three three one
zero three is the text? Like, keep the talkbacks going.
We've got a lot more topics to dive into in
the remainder of the show, though. As we continue, I'm
Jimmy Sangenberger filling in for Michael Brown right here on
six point thirty kof.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
Good Morning Dragon, and Jimmy, Yeah, Jimmy, some of US
Republicans are exactly in favor of taxing the consumption of
Americans as opposed to the income of Americans. So this
is a step toward poles that many of us have
had for twice some time. So while it may be
a little scary not knowing what's going to happen with tariffs,
(27:26):
it's pretty much along the lines of where we'd like
to see things go.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
So not too bad, Jimmy Sangenberger, And for Michael Brown,
I appreciate the talkback. It avoids the cackle, and I
appreciate the view and the chicken in the background even
better in the morning, especially now I can wake up.
(27:49):
I heard the kacka doodle do. But no, you're wrong.
I'm sorry, you're wrong. Not sorry, And again I appreciate
it all.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
But here's the thing. They're not replacing the income tax.
They're not getting rid of the income tax. It ain't
gonna happen.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
You can't raise enough money for this bloated federal government
that does way too many things. About ninety percent of
what the federal government does is unconstitutional, but they do
it anyway. But one thing that isn't unconstitutional is the
income tax.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
That is in the sixteenth Amendment.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
And unless we're able to somehow get rid of the
income tax. It ain't going anywhere, and I mean through
a constitutional amendment.
Speaker 3 (28:39):
I would love for Trump to.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Have in the big beautiful bill said you know what,
We're gonna go to a flat tax, or said this
is what we want to do is reduce the income tax.
Speaker 3 (28:48):
It's fifteen percent.
Speaker 4 (28:49):
Across the board, and we have a generous standard deduction
where we're going to exempt seventy percent or the first
seventy thousand dollars or or whatever it is. And on
the other hand, we're gonna go ahead and raise tariffs. Okay,
well I wouldn't agree with that part, but I would
love the first part. But even if he did that
or anything that he would do and say we're gonna
substantially cut income taxes, it's not gonna happen. He did
(29:13):
what he could in order to reduce the to substantially
eliminate taxes on tips, which I'm of a mixed mind
on taxes on tips and not taxing them and not
taxing overtime even if there's a limit on it. But
(29:35):
that was a big thing that required a lot of
work to actually make it happen. In terms of the
requirements of the reconciliation packet, bottom line, income tax ain't
going anywhere. All you were doing is adding this idea
of a higher consumption tax.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
On top of the income tax, and that's it.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
But it's more than a consumption tax year when it
comes to tariffs in trade, because it's not on me
going to the store and actually paying an added tax
a sales tax like we do when we go to
the store and we pay our state sales tax. That's
not what a tariff is. It's much more widespread and
(30:18):
it has different kinds of impacts. A VAT tax like
they have in Europe, value added tax is a little
more like a consumption tax because it eventually makes its
way to the consumer. And by the way, the Trump
administration is wrong to include the VAT tax and its
determinations as to whether a country like a European country
is over taxing us on trade or as to tie
(30:41):
of a tariffs, because it's different. AVAT tax is not
a tariff. It's bad. We should never have it in
the United States. But avat tax is not a teriff.
Bottom line, though, income tax ain't going anywhere. All you're doing, brother, respectfully,
all you're doing is you're just saying, let's add another
tax on top of the income tax, and I'm not
(31:03):
in favor of that. Maybe you are on the road
to the idea of consumption tax replacing the income tax.
But even in that case, most people who advocate consumption
taxes advocate a fair tax, and the fair tax FAI
are all caps, an abbreviation of course or an acronym,
(31:25):
is different from a tariff.
Speaker 3 (31:30):
That's my take. What's yours?
Speaker 4 (31:31):
Three three, one zero three is the text line? Keep
them coming, goobers to the talkbacks too. We don't want
the cackles. I appreciate you making sure we avoid the cackles.
Great job, goobers, kim me saying in burger in for
Michael Brown. As we continue on Denver's talk station six
(31:52):
point thirty, k out
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.