December 6, 2024 • 28 mins
What happens when political turbulence meets economic strategy? Join us on the Jack Hopkins Show Podcast as we sit with Anthony Scaramucci, offering a riveting analysis of the political and economic aftermath of Trump's election victory. Uncover how Trump's controversial decisions—ranging from his approach to the COVID-19 pandemic to his sidelining of scientific and military guidance—have fueled strong opinions against him. Anthony unpacks Trump's alarming disregard for constitutional norms and the unsettling choices made in his administration based on loyalty rather than competence. We tackle the Democratic Party's stumbling blocks that contributed to their loss, focusing on their struggles with effective communication and cultural resonance, while highlighting the Republicans' strategic ground game and influential figures like Elon Musk impacting pivotal states.
From political maneuvering to financial wisdom, we cover the importance of consistent investing, using Apple's stock as a beacon of long-term success, and ponder the strained relations between Trump and tech tycoons such as Elon Musk. Our conversation also ventures into the potential ramifications of drastic Social Security cuts on the U.S. economy, fostering a dialogue on resilience amid political upheaval. As we examine the complex legacy of a 78-year-old political figure, we weigh the contrasting views of his governance ambitions and the stock market's optimistic forecasts of a centrist Republican trajectory. The episode encourages listeners to remain engaged and proactive, no matter the political climate.
The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter https://wwwJackHopkinsNow.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show Podcast, where
stories about the power of focusand resilience are revealed by
the people who live thosestories and now the host of the
Jack Hopkins Show Podcast, jackHopkins.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show Podcast.
I'm your host, jack Hopkins.
Today's guest really doesn'tneed much of an introduction
Anthony Scaramucci.
Now I had Anthony on I don'tknow some months ago and we
talked about Trump, we talkedabout the economy, we talked
about the upcoming election, butI've really been itching to get
(00:45):
Anthony back on post-election,after Trump won, and talk about
what might be different in termsof how he's thinking about
things now as compared to thelast time that we talked where
he thinks the country might begoing under Trump, and just get
(01:05):
a fresh outlook on everythingthat's transpired in the last
few weeks.
So, without further ado, let'sget right into this episode and
this conversation that I hadwith Anthony Scaramucci.
What are your thoughts on whathappened in the election?
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Scaramucci, what are your thoughts on what happened
in the election?
Well, before I answer that, ifyou don't mind, you were an
anti-Trumper.
I've watched your Twitter feed,I've been on your show.
Why, why were you ananti-Trumper?
I'm going to tell you why I amone, but tell me why you were an
anti-Trumper and then we'lltalk about what happened in the
election.
Talk about what I fear is goingto happen as him, as president,
(01:45):
you bet.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
The pivotal moment for me.
I was a hospital corpsman inthe Navy and later went on to do
some nursing.
So when it comes to medicine,when it comes to human health,
I'm a science-based guy, guy andCOVID-19, the handling of the
(02:13):
pandemic and how he denigratedthe scientists, the people who
know, and just the othernonsense that he pulled to
minimize and conceal, which welater later found out with Bob
Woodward that was a pivotalmoment for me, as well as his
disrespect for our military.
I'm a veteran, like I said, itwas maybe Hospital Corman.
(02:33):
There are other things, butthose are the main two factors.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Okay, well, I saw it up close and personal.
He's lawless.
He has a disregard for theConstitution.
Currently, as you and I arespeaking on this show, he hasn't
signed the ethics agreement.
Pursuant to that ethicsagreement, he gets a release of
capital that goes into histransition team to help him fund
(03:01):
his transition and make thesepersonnel decisions.
Help him fund his transitionand make these personnel
decisions.
He's going to outside playersto fund that.
We don't even know where thosepeople are.
I'm not suggesting that they'reforeign entities, but how do we
know that they're not foreignentities?
You've got people that joinedthe administration last time.
They were supposed to shedassets.
They did not shed assets.
So what ends up happening isyou got people.
(03:23):
The reason why you're supposedto shed assets you don't want
decisions made on your watchthat are related to you
personally and yet you've gotthat situation going on.
He's picking people that don'thave substance.
He's picking them for loyaltyreasons as opposed to
substantial reasons.
I mean, I have nothing againstPete Hegseth.
(03:43):
I met him several times.
I was on Fox and Friends withhim.
But if you read about PeteHegseth or you learn about Pete
Hegseth, he's just not qualifiedto be the Secretary of Defense.
He doesn't have the gravitas orthe skill set or the
administrative background or theexperience to be that job, but
(04:04):
he's perceived to be loyal toDonald Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard the same thing.
If anything, you'll lose ourinternational relationships with
other espionage organizations,and so that's a bummer as well.
So I sit here before you andsay I don't want him to be
president because I think hewould be dangerous for America,
(04:27):
bad for our relationships, ourallies, and he wants to overly
disrupt a system that has workedfor a great many of us,
including you and me.
So those are the reasons.
Now he's won the election.
For me on the winning of theelection front is the Bitcoin
stuff.
I own a lot of Bitcoin, soBitcoin went up.
(04:48):
I think the Democrats did aterrible job, frankly, as it
related to the regulation ofcrypto assets and Bitcoin.
That's one of the reasons whyshe lost.
$250 million went into theelection to support Republicans
and Donald Trump that were proBitcoin.
Second reason why she lost isthat women actually went to the
(05:10):
polling booth and voted fortheir sons, and when they left
the polling booth, they saidwell, why did you vote against
the woman that was running forpresident?
They said we don't like theculture, we don't like our sons
getting canceled, we don't likethe pressure on our brothers and
our husbands in the society,and we think that what's going
on now culturally is wrong.
(05:31):
And then the third reason whyshe lost is that they actually
had a good economic narrative.
Jack, I could have told youthat narrative.
They reshored manufacturing,they built microprocessor
foundries in the United States,they had wage growth in lower
and middle income people as aresult of the Inflation
(05:54):
Reduction Act, which led to lotsof infrastructure rebuild all
over the country.
And so I could build you aneconomic narrative that could
prove to people yes, theinflation was up.
That was a global phenomenon.
It wasn't her fault or JoeBiden's fault.
In fact, if anything, we werelower on the inflation numbers
than the other people.
And the other thing I wouldhave said is that, even after
(06:18):
you adjust for inflation, yourwages went up more than
inflation in those categories.
Why they were not able to getthat economic narrative out is
beyond me.
I don't understand it.
And they had a very good groundgame.
They've spent billions ofdollars billion and a half
billion seven.
They had a very good groundgame, but I don't think it was
(06:41):
as effective as Trump's groundgame and what Elon Musk was
doing for them in Pennsylvania.
So she lost.
If you really want to be fairto her, you would say wow, that
was an unfair situation.
She had 107 days to run forpresident.
She's running against not afamous person, but the most
famous person in the world Right, a person that has 100% name
(07:05):
saturation in the US and isglobally known.
She was not globally known andthe day before the election, the
most searchable phrase relatedto the election on Google was
did Joe Biden drop out?
Did he drop out?
So I just want you to thinkabout that.
A lot of low information voters.
They make the decision lastminute and they chose Trump, but
(07:28):
they chose Trump by this much,sir Right, it wasn't this much.
It was this much, so that'swhere we are.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Yeah, and you say something there that I think
gets skipped over a lot.
When I was a kid, the oneperson who everybody knew, no
matter where you went, was Elvis.
Right, it didn't matter whatcountry, where you went,
everybody knew Elvis, and I saidthat to my wife about a month
ago.
I said you know, I said that,not comparing him in any other
(07:58):
way other than name recognitionDonald Trump is the Elvis of the
world right now.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
No, there's no question.
I mean and listen, he got thepeople to the rallies.
100% name recognition, jack.
I've worked on six presidentialcampaigns, 24 years of working
on this.
The number one thing that youneed to be president is name
recognition.
It's ahead of money.
Remember, trump spent lessmoney than her Right working on
(08:26):
this.
The number one thing that youneed to be president is name
recognition.
It's ahead of money.
Remember, trump spent lessmoney than her and Trump spent
less money than Hillary Clintonto win those two campaigns.
So you have the namerecognition you can best people
and he did it.
But is it a mandate?
He's got one more member of theHouse of Representatives than
the Democrats.
He's got a few senators morethan the Democrats and he won
(08:52):
the vote minusculely.
I think he won it by 2.3 to 2.5million.
I know it's still beingtabulated, but you get my point.
Sure, this is not a mandate.
Anybody that tells you thatthis is not this is not a
mandate.
Anybody that tells you thatthis is a mandate doesn't
understand the thing and so he'sgoing to try to force things.
I don't think he's going to bethat successful.
(09:12):
You know matt gates.
They already got rid of him.
Uh, I think hexeth is going.
I know they're going to lastgasp with him, but I think he's
going.
Uh, what will happen to tulsigabbard?
I don't know, uh, cash patel Ithink he's going.
What will happen to TulsiGabbard?
I don't know.
Kash Patel, I think it's a bigproblem.
They say Kash Patel is going toget confirmed.
He's going to run the FBI.
(09:33):
He has an enemies list.
He just brought a lawsuitagainst Olivia Troy.
I saw that, and he's going tosue her for defamation.
So what is he going to do?
He's taking that out.
She has a First Amendment right.
He is a public figure, he's nota non-public figure, and so she
has a First Amendment right toexpress her voice against his.
(09:56):
What are you going to do Now?
She's going to lawyer upagainst him.
She'll probably win the case.
But what if he's the FBIdirector?
What the hell happens then?
I think it's a very dangeroussituation, frankly, and I'm very
worried about it for thecountry.
By the way, as a trainedeconomist, you start going after
(10:18):
quote unquote Trump'sadversaries or you start going
after his enemies' lifts.
You'll stultify people in thiscountry.
They'll be fearful to speak out.
They'll be thinking about theirbusinesses more cautiously.
Don't take for granted thesefreedoms that we have.
They spill over into economicinnovation.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Yeah, it's interesting you say this because
there are a couple of potentialpodcast guests that were geared
up and ready to go but, knowingthat we were going to be
talking about Trump, one of themhas backed out and said you
know, I'm just not comfortable,and I think that says a lot
(11:01):
about this moment where we arein the United States of America,
that somebody has to think thatabout their own president.
How much.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Anthony.
I appreciate you.
Very sad for me.
You're basically saying thatone of the two candidates has
threatened people.
That candidate won and nowpeople do feel threatened.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Yeah, yeah, I do.
How friendly or not will DonaldTrump be to a company like
NVIDIA, with the relationshipthat NVIDIA has with China and
Trump threatening the tariffs,how user friendly will he be for
the biggest company in theUnited States right now?
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Well, I mean, you know how this man Post, a couple
of days before the election,him and Trump had an agreement
(12:16):
he wouldn't endorse anybody andTrump would meet with people
from blue origin.
He's now at the deal bookconference yesterday and he's
saying Trump's going to do agreat job.
And I'm very optimistic aboutTrump.
Why is he doing that?
He doesn't want a problem withTrump.
You don't get to be abillionaire jack.
Okay, if you can't flip on adime and go in a direction that,
uh, is more economicallybeneficial to you and your
(12:37):
family, I could stand down.
You know joe scorborough, he'sthe morning joe host.
He ran down to mar-a-lago saidyeah, I said a lot of stuff
about you.
I was just kidding.
I got to go back to my networkand say less stuff about you.
Yeah, I don't know, is that theway to live in America?
I don't know.
I don't think it is.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
No, no, I don't either.
If I came to you now as afinancial guy, what would be the
?
Would there be a difference?
Let me ask it like that Wouldthere be a difference in how you
suggested that I invest mymoney now compared to before the
election?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
So I am bullish and I'm bullish.
If you told me Harris won, Iwould say I'm bullish, and if
you tell me Trump won, I'mbullish.
The marketplace perceives Trumpas more stock market friendly
than Harris.
They see less regulation andthey see more tax cuts, more
(13:36):
corporate tax cuts, and sothey're sort of very bullish.
But I was bullish either way.
There's a lot of great thingsare happening.
The overhang of COVID is over,interest rates are going to be
coming down, lots ofdisinflationary technology going
to enter the marketplace.
Obviously I'm bullish on thecrypto markets.
I just wrote a new book aboutBitcoin and these digital assets
(13:59):
.
So I was bullish one way or theother.
It didn't matter to me whichjockey got on top of the US
economic horse.
I really thought we were goingto be fine.
I still think so, and I willtell people that you have to
invest.
You could have gotten into theworld of investing when I did in
1990.
I said, oh man, everything's soexpensive.
(14:21):
What the hell am I doing here?
I've missed the boat.
If you bought Apple computer in1990, only $15,000 on Apple
Computer would make you amultimillionaire today.
So I tell people you have toinvest.
You have to hold your noseDollar cost average in every
month.
You'll be buying at high priceswhen they're high.
When markets come down, you'llbe buying more at the same price
(14:47):
, I mean at the same dollaramount.
So to me, you got to invest.
If you don't invest, you'regoing to miss out.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Sure, knowing Donald Trump as you do, will the
relationship between Elon Muskand Donald eventually sour to
the point to where they justhave to sever ties, or that
Donald decides they have tosever ties?
Speaker 3 (15:13):
I think the relationship is already strained
, and so I think that you knowhe did something that people are
starting to catch on to.
He put Elon and Vivek inSiberia.
He gave them a job at adepartment that doesn't exist,
and he's telling people thathe's going to have this
department of governmentalefficiency, but it's not really
(15:34):
part of the government.
It would have to be mandatedand voted into existence by the
Congress, and so these are twoguys he didn't want in the
cabinet, these are two guys hedidn't want in real jobs inside
the White House, and so he gavethem a job off in Siberia.
Now I'm old enough to rememberSimpson-Bowles and I'm old
enough to remember the GraceCommission.
(15:55):
These were two studies thatwere done by private citizens on
behalf of the Americangovernment on what the
government could do to save orto cut the budget.
Both of those commissions orstudies ended up in the paper
shredder and what you're goingto find.
It's very hard to cut thebudget.
Lots of things are legallyprotected inside the budget, and
(16:17):
can they cut a few things hereand there?
Sure.
Is that necessarily going tohelp the overall deficit?
Doubtful, and so I think Trumpknew what he was doing when he
put the two of them in Siberia.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Yeah, so is there a chance then?
And I know you can't say forcertain but with Social Security
, with veterans benefits, arethese in some degree typical
Trump bluster?
In some degree typical trumpbluster?
(16:53):
And, like you said, when itreally gets down to it, there
are more obstacles in the waythan either he realizes or that
will just trip him up along theway, even if he already knows
they exist and that it won't beas horrific as a lot of people
are concerned that it could be.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
Yeah.
Well, I mean, here's what Iwould say.
I would say that it's strained.
Already Trump has gotten boredof Elon.
Trump's tried to put him out inSiberia.
Elon's one of the richestpeople in the world, and so
Trump is going to bite histongue more with Elon than he
(17:32):
would with the average personthat he's bored by.
So could this end in a year?
Yeah, I think both these guysare smart, though, and so I
think when it ends and it willend I don't think it's going to
end in a firebomb or some typeof cataclysm I think Elon's
going to say okay, I am notreally on the inside, I'm not
(17:56):
really being listened to.
Instead of complaining aboutthat, they're helping me shoot
rockets into outer space, and soI'm going to keep my mouth shut
.
And I think Trump is going tosay you know, I'm going to go
down there and cheer on some ofthese rockets that get shot into
outer space.
So I don't think the generalpublic is going to see it as a
great falling out, but I dothink that they're going to draw
distance between each other.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yeah, what happens to the US economy?
Let's just take Social Security, for example.
Let's say there are massivecuts to Social Security.
What kind of impact does thathave on the economy overall?
Speaker 3 (18:33):
uh well, I mean, you know, I, I think it would be
devastating.
I, I don't, I don't.
First of all, trump is talkingout of both sides of his mouth.
Right, he doesn't want to taxsocial security.
That's what he said during thecampaign.
That's a 450 billion dollar, uh, adjustment to the budget, so
(18:53):
that's more deficit spending.
If he doesn't tax it, nowthey're talking about cutting it
.
Uh, I don't know.
Yeah, I, I, I would say to youthat that would be absolutely
devastating to lower and middleincome elderly people and I
think it would cause a crisis ofeconomic confidence, you know.
(19:14):
So.
I don't know, I don't know.
Right, is he dumb enough to dothat?
I don't know.
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
What are your thoughts on these threats to?
And?
I saw you on the BBC here awhile back and I heard you
mention you know.
You said hey, I'm one of thepeople who signed.
You know, I was one of thepeople who went against Trump.
I was on that list.
How worried are you?
Speaker 3 (19:42):
I guess I should be more worried.
But I'm not worried.
I mean more people.
Let me put it this way there'speople that are way more worried
than me.
Jack, I'm not worried.
I'm an American, I'm a NewYorker.
You're going to come after meand put me in jail or have some
type of show trial for mebecause I exercise my First
Amendment rights.
Okay, let's do it.
(20:02):
Let's see where it goes.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Right.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
I don't know, are you going to execute me for that?
I don't know.
Yeah, you're going to totallychange the dynamic of the
country and you're going to turnthe country into something that
it's never been.
And if you want to do that,because one man won an election
very narrowly, by a couplehundred thousand votes, okay, go
do it.
(20:24):
But I think it's a mistake, andI think it would be a bigger
mistake for people like you andme not to continue to exercise
our first amendment rights.
I think we owe that to people,that we continue to talk, and so
I'm happy to come on yourpodcast.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Yeah, well, I appreciate that and that's
pretty much in line with mythinking, in that I get up each
day and I monitor myself rightnow to make sure that I'm not
adjusting, that I'm not startingto pull back and that I'm still
delivering in the style thatI've always delivered, because,
(21:02):
as you said and I think that wasjust tagged it perfectly that's
what people deserve.
That was just tagged itperfectly.
That's what people deserve.
They deserve to see people whoare pushing forward and not
backing down, because you knowas well as anybody how social
psychology works.
You know people look to seewhat other people are doing, to
(21:26):
see what they should do, andwhen they see people that they
admire or they follow startingto cave, I think it could be
devastating.
So I think we have a duty tonot change I completely, I
completely agree and I think it.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
I think it's also um.
So I don't know.
I think it's so un-American.
What they're talking about isso un-American that if you start
to conform your behavior to agroup of bullies, I think it's a
disaster, you know, yeah.
So let's see, let's see whathappens.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
What would you?
I think I already know theanswer, but what would you say
if Trump called you?
Today and said 0.0% chance thatthat could ever happen.
He's still calling me out onTruth Social.
About two weeks ago he calledme a major loser, so that's a
sign of love.
You know that, Jack.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
You bet.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Your ex is that you're still on the mind of your
ex.
They're still writing about you.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Okay, so that's a sign of love, but I would never
go back because I had to repairmy family, I had to repair my
business and I'm not really that.
The great irony of my life isI'm not really that into
politics.
I've always been a Wall Streetentrepreneur.
I'm not really a politico.
I'm 60 years old.
If I wanted to be into politics, I would have done something in
(23:07):
my early 20s or 30s.
I never did that.
I got into it by accident.
I was a longtime politicalfundraiser.
I used to do a lot oftelevision for Trump, and so he
asked me to go work for him andI got enticed.
It was an ego-based decision.
Jack, I tell people don't makedecisions based on your ego.
I did and look where it got me,look at what it cost me, and so
(23:32):
, no, I wouldn't go work for himbecause it's just too dangerous
a situation and too damaging tomy family.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Seth.
That I think is important tohighlight because, as a former
Republican, as somebody who'sbeen fighting in the Democratic
Party, now for gosh six years.
The one thing that I see thathappens so often in this party
is people get caught up in thethings that, yeah, I get it,
that they matter and they mattera lot to you, yes, but, but
(24:12):
you're missing something maybeeven more important, like with
pete you mentioned he's notqualified, he doesn't have the
experience, he, he doesn't havethe knowledge.
Now, I know that the the realpopular thing to attack him on
right now is, you know, thesexual conquest or the
(24:35):
misconduct or the rapes,whatever the allegations are,
that they forget to look and go.
Oh, and even if that wasn'ttrue, the guy still just is not
qualified.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
It's got nothing to do with the rapes and the
drunkenness.
I mean, he's a Fox News weekendhost, right?
That's just not the guy to runthe pentagon, okay, sorry, right
.
Well, he's going to be loyal tome and if I tell him to bring
the american military intolafayette square and shoot at
american citizens while they'reexercising their legal right to
(25:14):
protest, he'll do that.
Yeah, I couldn't get mark esperto do that, I couldn't get mark
milley to do that, but you know, I want somebody that's going
to be super loyal to me thatwill do something like that.
Yeah, I see the whole thing isridiculous, Mitt.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Didn't they just pick Monica Crowley for ambassador?
I think?
Speaker 3 (25:32):
Yeah, where's she?
Speaker 2 (25:33):
going.
No, I can't remember whatcountry she.
Yeah she's a loyalist of his.
Yeah, yeah.
So Fox and Rupert, I guess thelawsuit the defamation lawsuit
didn't really put a chink inRupert's armor in terms of how
(25:56):
closely he's married to thetruth.
Is that just the nature of thebusiness you?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
know I hate to be so cynical, right, but you know
that that's the nature of thebusiness.
You know I hate to be socynical, right, but you know
that that's the nature of thebusiness.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
It's the facts.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Right, right.
What do you think we'll see inthe first month of Trump?
Speaker 3 (26:19):
So that's a really good question.
So I'm going to say one thingoptimistic and one thing
realistic.
And so the optimistic is he's78 years old.
So I'm going to say one thingoptimistic and one thing
realistic.
And so the optimistic is he's78 years old.
He's told people that he wantsto go play golf and he's told
people that he won, and he'snever really had the love affair
with governing.
It was more about winning.
(26:39):
Okay, and so there's that.
And then the other thing is themore realistic is he starts
doing things that you and Idon't like.
There's executive action afterexecutive action, there's
deportations, there'sretribution against his enemies,
there's a whole host of thingsthat he does that are ridiculous
(27:01):
.
So there's those two things.
By the way, stock market hassaid those things are not going
to happen.
Okay, stock market has saidthat he is going in a benign
direction.
He's going to run things like amoderate centrist Republican.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
That's what the stock market has said, is the stock
market normally a pretty goodindicator.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Pretty much, yeah, pretty good, pretty good.
You know, the markets weretelling you that he was winning
in October, november.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Interesting yeah, interesting, anthony.
Look, I know you've got a crazyday going on, as always.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
No, it's great to be on with you.
Thank you, I hope we can dothis again.
Keep up the good work, though,Jack.
You got to stay in there, manno matter what.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
I will.
Welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show Podcast, where
stories about the power of focusand resilience are revealed by
the people who live thosestories and now the host of the
Jack Hopkins Show Podcast, jackHopkins.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show Podcast.
I'm your host, jack Hopkins.
Today's guest really doesn'tneed much of an introduction
Anthony Scaramucci.
Now I had Anthony on I don'tknow some months ago and we
talked about Trump, we talkedabout the economy, we talked
about the upcoming election, butI've really been itching to get
(00:45):
Anthony back on post-election,after Trump won, and talk about
what might be different in termsof how he's thinking about
things now as compared to thelast time that we talked where
he thinks the country might begoing under Trump, and just get
(01:05):
a fresh outlook on everythingthat's transpired in the last
few weeks.
So, without further ado, let'sget right into this episode and
this conversation that I hadwith Anthony Scaramucci.
What are your thoughts on whathappened in the election?
Speaker 3 (01:25):
Scaramucci, what are your thoughts on what happened
in the election?
Well, before I answer that, ifyou don't mind, you were an
anti-Trumper.
I've watched your Twitter feed,I've been on your show.
Why, why were you ananti-Trumper?
I'm going to tell you why I amone, but tell me why you were an
anti-Trumper and then we'lltalk about what happened in the
election.
Talk about what I fear is goingto happen as him, as president,
(01:45):
you bet.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
The pivotal moment for me.
I was a hospital corpsman inthe Navy and later went on to do
some nursing.
So when it comes to medicine,when it comes to human health,
I'm a science-based guy, guy andCOVID-19, the handling of the
(02:13):
pandemic and how he denigratedthe scientists, the people who
know, and just the othernonsense that he pulled to
minimize and conceal, which welater later found out with Bob
Woodward that was a pivotalmoment for me, as well as his
disrespect for our military.
I'm a veteran, like I said, itwas maybe Hospital Corman.
(02:33):
There are other things, butthose are the main two factors.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
Okay, well, I saw it up close and personal.
He's lawless.
He has a disregard for theConstitution.
Currently, as you and I arespeaking on this show, he hasn't
signed the ethics agreement.
Pursuant to that ethicsagreement, he gets a release of
capital that goes into histransition team to help him fund
(03:01):
his transition and make thesepersonnel decisions.
Help him fund his transitionand make these personnel
decisions.
He's going to outside playersto fund that.
We don't even know where thosepeople are.
I'm not suggesting that they'reforeign entities, but how do we
know that they're not foreignentities?
You've got people that joinedthe administration last time.
They were supposed to shedassets.
They did not shed assets.
So what ends up happening isyou got people.
(03:23):
The reason why you're supposedto shed assets you don't want
decisions made on your watchthat are related to you
personally and yet you've gotthat situation going on.
He's picking people that don'thave substance.
He's picking them for loyaltyreasons as opposed to
substantial reasons.
I mean, I have nothing againstPete Hegseth.
(03:43):
I met him several times.
I was on Fox and Friends withhim.
But if you read about PeteHegseth or you learn about Pete
Hegseth, he's just not qualifiedto be the Secretary of Defense.
He doesn't have the gravitas orthe skill set or the
administrative background or theexperience to be that job, but
(04:04):
he's perceived to be loyal toDonald Trump.
Tulsi Gabbard the same thing.
If anything, you'll lose ourinternational relationships with
other espionage organizations,and so that's a bummer as well.
So I sit here before you andsay I don't want him to be
president because I think hewould be dangerous for America,
(04:27):
bad for our relationships, ourallies, and he wants to overly
disrupt a system that has workedfor a great many of us,
including you and me.
So those are the reasons.
Now he's won the election.
For me on the winning of theelection front is the Bitcoin
stuff.
I own a lot of Bitcoin, soBitcoin went up.
(04:48):
I think the Democrats did aterrible job, frankly, as it
related to the regulation ofcrypto assets and Bitcoin.
That's one of the reasons whyshe lost.
$250 million went into theelection to support Republicans
and Donald Trump that were proBitcoin.
Second reason why she lost isthat women actually went to the
(05:10):
polling booth and voted fortheir sons, and when they left
the polling booth, they saidwell, why did you vote against
the woman that was running forpresident?
They said we don't like theculture, we don't like our sons
getting canceled, we don't likethe pressure on our brothers and
our husbands in the society,and we think that what's going
on now culturally is wrong.
(05:31):
And then the third reason whyshe lost is that they actually
had a good economic narrative.
Jack, I could have told youthat narrative.
They reshored manufacturing,they built microprocessor
foundries in the United States,they had wage growth in lower
and middle income people as aresult of the Inflation
(05:54):
Reduction Act, which led to lotsof infrastructure rebuild all
over the country.
And so I could build you aneconomic narrative that could
prove to people yes, theinflation was up.
That was a global phenomenon.
It wasn't her fault or JoeBiden's fault.
In fact, if anything, we werelower on the inflation numbers
than the other people.
And the other thing I wouldhave said is that, even after
(06:18):
you adjust for inflation, yourwages went up more than
inflation in those categories.
Why they were not able to getthat economic narrative out is
beyond me.
I don't understand it.
And they had a very good groundgame.
They've spent billions ofdollars billion and a half
billion seven.
They had a very good groundgame, but I don't think it was
(06:41):
as effective as Trump's groundgame and what Elon Musk was
doing for them in Pennsylvania.
So she lost.
If you really want to be fairto her, you would say wow, that
was an unfair situation.
She had 107 days to run forpresident.
She's running against not afamous person, but the most
famous person in the world Right, a person that has 100% name
(07:05):
saturation in the US and isglobally known.
She was not globally known andthe day before the election, the
most searchable phrase relatedto the election on Google was
did Joe Biden drop out?
Did he drop out?
So I just want you to thinkabout that.
A lot of low information voters.
They make the decision lastminute and they chose Trump, but
(07:28):
they chose Trump by this much,sir Right, it wasn't this much.
It was this much, so that'swhere we are.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Yeah, and you say something there that I think
gets skipped over a lot.
When I was a kid, the oneperson who everybody knew, no
matter where you went, was Elvis.
Right, it didn't matter whatcountry, where you went,
everybody knew Elvis, and I saidthat to my wife about a month
ago.
I said you know, I said that,not comparing him in any other
(07:58):
way other than name recognitionDonald Trump is the Elvis of the
world right now.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
No, there's no question.
I mean and listen, he got thepeople to the rallies.
100% name recognition, jack.
I've worked on six presidentialcampaigns, 24 years of working
on this.
The number one thing that youneed to be president is name
recognition.
It's ahead of money.
Remember, trump spent lessmoney than her Right working on
(08:26):
this.
The number one thing that youneed to be president is name
recognition.
It's ahead of money.
Remember, trump spent lessmoney than her and Trump spent
less money than Hillary Clintonto win those two campaigns.
So you have the namerecognition you can best people
and he did it.
But is it a mandate?
He's got one more member of theHouse of Representatives than
the Democrats.
He's got a few senators morethan the Democrats and he won
(08:52):
the vote minusculely.
I think he won it by 2.3 to 2.5million.
I know it's still beingtabulated, but you get my point.
Sure, this is not a mandate.
Anybody that tells you thatthis is not this is not a
mandate.
Anybody that tells you thatthis is a mandate doesn't
understand the thing and so he'sgoing to try to force things.
I don't think he's going to bethat successful.
(09:12):
You know matt gates.
They already got rid of him.
Uh, I think hexeth is going.
I know they're going to lastgasp with him, but I think he's
going.
Uh, what will happen to tulsigabbard?
I don't know, uh, cash patel Ithink he's going.
What will happen to TulsiGabbard?
I don't know.
Kash Patel, I think it's a bigproblem.
They say Kash Patel is going toget confirmed.
He's going to run the FBI.
(09:33):
He has an enemies list.
He just brought a lawsuitagainst Olivia Troy.
I saw that, and he's going tosue her for defamation.
So what is he going to do?
He's taking that out.
She has a First Amendment right.
He is a public figure, he's nota non-public figure, and so she
has a First Amendment right toexpress her voice against his.
(09:56):
What are you going to do Now?
She's going to lawyer upagainst him.
She'll probably win the case.
But what if he's the FBIdirector?
What the hell happens then?
I think it's a very dangeroussituation, frankly, and I'm very
worried about it for thecountry.
By the way, as a trainedeconomist, you start going after
(10:18):
quote unquote Trump'sadversaries or you start going
after his enemies' lifts.
You'll stultify people in thiscountry.
They'll be fearful to speak out.
They'll be thinking about theirbusinesses more cautiously.
Don't take for granted thesefreedoms that we have.
They spill over into economicinnovation.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Yeah, it's interesting you say this because
there are a couple of potentialpodcast guests that were geared
up and ready to go but, knowingthat we were going to be
talking about Trump, one of themhas backed out and said you
know, I'm just not comfortable,and I think that says a lot
(11:01):
about this moment where we arein the United States of America,
that somebody has to think thatabout their own president.
How much.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Anthony.
I appreciate you.
Very sad for me.
You're basically saying thatone of the two candidates has
threatened people.
That candidate won and nowpeople do feel threatened.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Yeah, yeah, I do.
How friendly or not will DonaldTrump be to a company like
NVIDIA, with the relationshipthat NVIDIA has with China and
Trump threatening the tariffs,how user friendly will he be for
the biggest company in theUnited States right now?
Speaker 3 (11:45):
Well, I mean, you know how this man Post, a couple
of days before the election,him and Trump had an agreement
(12:16):
he wouldn't endorse anybody andTrump would meet with people
from blue origin.
He's now at the deal bookconference yesterday and he's
saying Trump's going to do agreat job.
And I'm very optimistic aboutTrump.
Why is he doing that?
He doesn't want a problem withTrump.
You don't get to be abillionaire jack.
Okay, if you can't flip on adime and go in a direction that,
uh, is more economicallybeneficial to you and your
(12:37):
family, I could stand down.
You know joe scorborough, he'sthe morning joe host.
He ran down to mar-a-lago saidyeah, I said a lot of stuff
about you.
I was just kidding.
I got to go back to my networkand say less stuff about you.
Yeah, I don't know, is that theway to live in America?
I don't know.
I don't think it is.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
No, no, I don't either.
If I came to you now as afinancial guy, what would be the
?
Would there be a difference?
Let me ask it like that Wouldthere be a difference in how you
suggested that I invest mymoney now compared to before the
election?
Speaker 3 (13:15):
So I am bullish and I'm bullish.
If you told me Harris won, Iwould say I'm bullish, and if
you tell me Trump won, I'mbullish.
The marketplace perceives Trumpas more stock market friendly
than Harris.
They see less regulation andthey see more tax cuts, more
(13:36):
corporate tax cuts, and sothey're sort of very bullish.
But I was bullish either way.
There's a lot of great thingsare happening.
The overhang of COVID is over,interest rates are going to be
coming down, lots ofdisinflationary technology going
to enter the marketplace.
Obviously I'm bullish on thecrypto markets.
I just wrote a new book aboutBitcoin and these digital assets
(13:59):
.
So I was bullish one way or theother.
It didn't matter to me whichjockey got on top of the US
economic horse.
I really thought we were goingto be fine.
I still think so, and I willtell people that you have to
invest.
You could have gotten into theworld of investing when I did in
1990.
I said, oh man, everything's soexpensive.
(14:21):
What the hell am I doing here?
I've missed the boat.
If you bought Apple computer in1990, only $15,000 on Apple
Computer would make you amultimillionaire today.
So I tell people you have toinvest.
You have to hold your noseDollar cost average in every
month.
You'll be buying at high priceswhen they're high.
When markets come down, you'llbe buying more at the same price
(14:47):
, I mean at the same dollaramount.
So to me, you got to invest.
If you don't invest, you'regoing to miss out.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Sure, knowing Donald Trump as you do, will the
relationship between Elon Muskand Donald eventually sour to
the point to where they justhave to sever ties, or that
Donald decides they have tosever ties?
Speaker 3 (15:13):
I think the relationship is already strained
, and so I think that you knowhe did something that people are
starting to catch on to.
He put Elon and Vivek inSiberia.
He gave them a job at adepartment that doesn't exist,
and he's telling people thathe's going to have this
department of governmentalefficiency, but it's not really
(15:34):
part of the government.
It would have to be mandatedand voted into existence by the
Congress, and so these are twoguys he didn't want in the
cabinet, these are two guys hedidn't want in real jobs inside
the White House, and so he gavethem a job off in Siberia.
Now I'm old enough to rememberSimpson-Bowles and I'm old
enough to remember the GraceCommission.
(15:55):
These were two studies thatwere done by private citizens on
behalf of the Americangovernment on what the
government could do to save orto cut the budget.
Both of those commissions orstudies ended up in the paper
shredder and what you're goingto find.
It's very hard to cut thebudget.
Lots of things are legallyprotected inside the budget, and
(16:17):
can they cut a few things hereand there?
Sure.
Is that necessarily going tohelp the overall deficit?
Doubtful, and so I think Trumpknew what he was doing when he
put the two of them in Siberia.
Speaker 2 (16:30):
Yeah, so is there a chance then?
And I know you can't say forcertain but with Social Security
, with veterans benefits, arethese in some degree typical
Trump bluster?
In some degree typical trumpbluster?
(16:53):
And, like you said, when itreally gets down to it, there
are more obstacles in the waythan either he realizes or that
will just trip him up along theway, even if he already knows
they exist and that it won't beas horrific as a lot of people
are concerned that it could be.
Speaker 3 (17:10):
Yeah.
Well, I mean, here's what Iwould say.
I would say that it's strained.
Already Trump has gotten boredof Elon.
Trump's tried to put him out inSiberia.
Elon's one of the richestpeople in the world, and so
Trump is going to bite histongue more with Elon than he
(17:32):
would with the average personthat he's bored by.
So could this end in a year?
Yeah, I think both these guysare smart, though, and so I
think when it ends and it willend I don't think it's going to
end in a firebomb or some typeof cataclysm I think Elon's
going to say okay, I am notreally on the inside, I'm not
(17:56):
really being listened to.
Instead of complaining aboutthat, they're helping me shoot
rockets into outer space, and soI'm going to keep my mouth shut
.
And I think Trump is going tosay you know, I'm going to go
down there and cheer on some ofthese rockets that get shot into
outer space.
So I don't think the generalpublic is going to see it as a
great falling out, but I dothink that they're going to draw
distance between each other.
Speaker 2 (18:16):
Yeah, what happens to the US economy?
Let's just take Social Security, for example.
Let's say there are massivecuts to Social Security.
What kind of impact does thathave on the economy overall?
Speaker 3 (18:33):
uh well, I mean, you know, I, I think it would be
devastating.
I, I don't, I don't.
First of all, trump is talkingout of both sides of his mouth.
Right, he doesn't want to taxsocial security.
That's what he said during thecampaign.
That's a 450 billion dollar, uh, adjustment to the budget, so
(18:53):
that's more deficit spending.
If he doesn't tax it, nowthey're talking about cutting it
.
Uh, I don't know.
Yeah, I, I, I would say to youthat that would be absolutely
devastating to lower and middleincome elderly people and I
think it would cause a crisis ofeconomic confidence, you know.
(19:14):
So.
I don't know, I don't know.
Right, is he dumb enough to dothat?
I don't know.
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
What are your thoughts on these threats to?
And?
I saw you on the BBC here awhile back and I heard you
mention you know.
You said hey, I'm one of thepeople who signed.
You know, I was one of thepeople who went against Trump.
I was on that list.
How worried are you?
Speaker 3 (19:42):
I guess I should be more worried.
But I'm not worried.
I mean more people.
Let me put it this way there'speople that are way more worried
than me.
Jack, I'm not worried.
I'm an American, I'm a NewYorker.
You're going to come after meand put me in jail or have some
type of show trial for mebecause I exercise my First
Amendment rights.
Okay, let's do it.
(20:02):
Let's see where it goes.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
Right.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
I don't know, are you going to execute me for that?
I don't know.
Yeah, you're going to totallychange the dynamic of the
country and you're going to turnthe country into something that
it's never been.
And if you want to do that,because one man won an election
very narrowly, by a couplehundred thousand votes, okay, go
do it.
(20:24):
But I think it's a mistake, andI think it would be a bigger
mistake for people like you andme not to continue to exercise
our first amendment rights.
I think we owe that to people,that we continue to talk, and so
I'm happy to come on yourpodcast.
Speaker 2 (20:40):
Yeah, well, I appreciate that and that's
pretty much in line with mythinking, in that I get up each
day and I monitor myself rightnow to make sure that I'm not
adjusting, that I'm not startingto pull back and that I'm still
delivering in the style thatI've always delivered, because,
(21:02):
as you said and I think that wasjust tagged it perfectly that's
what people deserve.
That was just tagged itperfectly.
That's what people deserve.
They deserve to see people whoare pushing forward and not
backing down, because you knowas well as anybody how social
psychology works.
You know people look to seewhat other people are doing, to
(21:26):
see what they should do, andwhen they see people that they
admire or they follow startingto cave, I think it could be
devastating.
So I think we have a duty tonot change I completely, I
completely agree and I think it.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
I think it's also um.
So I don't know.
I think it's so un-American.
What they're talking about isso un-American that if you start
to conform your behavior to agroup of bullies, I think it's a
disaster, you know, yeah.
So let's see, let's see whathappens.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (22:24):
What would you?
I think I already know theanswer, but what would you say
if Trump called you?
Today and said 0.0% chance thatthat could ever happen.
He's still calling me out onTruth Social.
About two weeks ago he calledme a major loser, so that's a
sign of love.
You know that, Jack.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
You bet.
Speaker 3 (22:39):
Your ex is that you're still on the mind of your
ex.
They're still writing about you.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Okay, so that's a sign of love, but I would never
go back because I had to repairmy family, I had to repair my
business and I'm not really that.
The great irony of my life isI'm not really that into
politics.
I've always been a Wall Streetentrepreneur.
I'm not really a politico.
I'm 60 years old.
If I wanted to be into politics, I would have done something in
(23:07):
my early 20s or 30s.
I never did that.
I got into it by accident.
I was a longtime politicalfundraiser.
I used to do a lot oftelevision for Trump, and so he
asked me to go work for him andI got enticed.
It was an ego-based decision.
Jack, I tell people don't makedecisions based on your ego.
I did and look where it got me,look at what it cost me, and so
(23:32):
, no, I wouldn't go work for himbecause it's just too dangerous
a situation and too damaging tomy family.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Seth.
That I think is important tohighlight because, as a former
Republican, as somebody who'sbeen fighting in the Democratic
Party, now for gosh six years.
The one thing that I see thathappens so often in this party
is people get caught up in thethings that, yeah, I get it,
that they matter and they mattera lot to you, yes, but, but
(24:12):
you're missing something maybeeven more important, like with
pete you mentioned he's notqualified, he doesn't have the
experience, he, he doesn't havethe knowledge.
Now, I know that the the realpopular thing to attack him on
right now is, you know, thesexual conquest or the
(24:35):
misconduct or the rapes,whatever the allegations are,
that they forget to look and go.
Oh, and even if that wasn'ttrue, the guy still just is not
qualified.
Speaker 3 (24:54):
It's got nothing to do with the rapes and the
drunkenness.
I mean, he's a Fox News weekendhost, right?
That's just not the guy to runthe pentagon, okay, sorry, right
.
Well, he's going to be loyal tome and if I tell him to bring
the american military intolafayette square and shoot at
american citizens while they'reexercising their legal right to
(25:14):
protest, he'll do that.
Yeah, I couldn't get mark esperto do that, I couldn't get mark
milley to do that, but you know, I want somebody that's going
to be super loyal to me thatwill do something like that.
Yeah, I see the whole thing isridiculous, Mitt.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Didn't they just pick Monica Crowley for ambassador?
I think?
Speaker 3 (25:32):
Yeah, where's she?
Speaker 2 (25:33):
going.
No, I can't remember whatcountry she.
Yeah she's a loyalist of his.
Yeah, yeah.
So Fox and Rupert, I guess thelawsuit the defamation lawsuit
didn't really put a chink inRupert's armor in terms of how
(25:56):
closely he's married to thetruth.
Is that just the nature of thebusiness you?
Speaker 3 (26:04):
know I hate to be so cynical, right, but you know
that that's the nature of thebusiness.
You know I hate to be socynical, right, but you know
that that's the nature of thebusiness.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:11):
It's the facts.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Right, right.
What do you think we'll see inthe first month of Trump?
Speaker 3 (26:19):
So that's a really good question.
So I'm going to say one thingoptimistic and one thing
realistic.
And so the optimistic is he's78 years old.
So I'm going to say one thingoptimistic and one thing
realistic.
And so the optimistic is he's78 years old.
He's told people that he wantsto go play golf and he's told
people that he won, and he'snever really had the love affair
with governing.
It was more about winning.
(26:39):
Okay, and so there's that.
And then the other thing is themore realistic is he starts
doing things that you and Idon't like.
There's executive action afterexecutive action, there's
deportations, there'sretribution against his enemies,
there's a whole host of thingsthat he does that are ridiculous
(27:01):
.
So there's those two things.
By the way, stock market hassaid those things are not going
to happen.
Okay, stock market has saidthat he is going in a benign
direction.
He's going to run things like amoderate centrist Republican.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
That's what the stock market has said, is the stock
market normally a pretty goodindicator.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Pretty much, yeah, pretty good, pretty good.
You know, the markets weretelling you that he was winning
in October, november.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Interesting yeah, interesting, anthony.
Look, I know you've got a crazyday going on, as always.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
No, it's great to be on with you.
Thank you, I hope we can dothis again.
Keep up the good work, though,Jack.
You got to stay in there, manno matter what.
Speaker 2 (27:47):
I will.
Popular Podcasts
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!
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.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.