06-06-25 FULL SHOW - Jimmy Sengenberger Fills In, Reacts To Musk-Trump Drama With Professor Ilya Somin and Roshini Rajkumar

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
In for Mandy today on KOA and just a little
bit of fun trivia because I was going back as
I was creating my promo. I do social media promos
whenever I fill in. You could follow me on x
formerly Twitter at saying Center that's saying with an E,

(00:22):
not an a center on there, and then also a
Facebook as well. I have a professional page. And needless
to say, I was getting things situated for this show
in that regard and noticed something or it was actually yesterday,
I noticed this that it was a year ago. Today

(00:43):
was the first time that I filled in for Mandy
and filled in here on KOA after having started doing
shows as I still do over on k HOW our
sister station.

Speaker 2 (00:53):
So really just kind of fun thing. Wow, it's been
a year.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Time has flown right on by, and I appreciate you
being long for the ride. If you want to join
into the festivities.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
Five six six.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Nine is zero is the KOA Common Spirit Health text line,
and appreciate your participation there.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
There's a lot to talk about.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
Again, this has been a crazy week, not the least
of which is because of course, of the feud that
brewed and really while we were live on the air,
broke out into full view between President Donald Trump, the
most powerful man in the world, and Elon Musk, the

(01:37):
richest man in the world. We'll talk more about this later,
getting some perspective from Virginie raz Kumar, who's a communications
expert host of The Crisis Files podcast. You'll have some
interesting things to say. But I wonder something that I
think is important to think about, and that is how

(02:00):
does this thing end and what does it mean for
the country in terms of if Trump is going to
be bogged down in more of a feud with Elon Musk,
or are they going to figuratively speaking of course, kiss
and makeup, have a dig hunt say you know what,
we actually need each other. I was actually talking to

(02:21):
my grandfather on the way in, who lives in Aubany,
New York, and.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
He said, yeah, I think they're going to make up.
They need each other. And in a lot of.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
Ways, there's truth to that, because when you look at
the relationship between the two. Trump is in this new
mode of his second term and all about I want
to do things more, push the envelope more, and a
guy like Elon Musk has been able to provide a

(02:49):
lot of support in that regard and for Elon he's
had the opportunity to sort of jump into the political
fray in a stronger way, a more influential way than
we had seen before he joined the Trump administration at DOGE,
to the point where his favorabilities among Republicans and the

(03:10):
trust of Republicans in Elon Musk have grown dramatically and
are now fairly substantial. CNN's data analyst Harry Enton said
this yesterday.

Speaker 3 (03:30):
Kenny actually play in Republican circles? Do Republican voters trust him?
And the answer to that, Cape Bolwins is one hundred percent.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
Republicans who view.

Speaker 3 (03:38):
Elon Mus favorably eighty three percent, eighty two percent. I
looked through a ton of different politicians, people outside of politics,
eighty three percent of Republicans who view Elon Mus favorly.
The only two folks out there who have a favorable
rating that high with Republicans is Donald Trump and JD.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
Vance. So, if Elon mus wants to play again.

Speaker 3 (03:57):
In Republican circles, He's got a lot of republic Wilicans
We're willing to listen to him. He has a way
to reach them on social media, and he has a
way to reach them on television or to ad spending,
because he's shown a willingness to do so in the past,
and he was number one on both of those in
terms of network and in terms of social media followers
as well.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
So the top three Republicans with the greatest trust Trump
vance Musk.

Speaker 2 (04:20):
How far apart can they remain?

Speaker 1 (04:23):
I mean, I don't think that they like each other
very much. I do think that their relationship has been
a relationship of convenience.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
I mentioned this yesterday.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
You go back to two thousand and oh the twenty ten,
still late twenty tens, during the first Trump administration, and
there were multiple spats online between Trump and Musk at
that time. Now, Musk has grown his influence more because
of his purchase of X, which gives him more power

(04:53):
on social media platforms. He's much more able to leverage
his views than ever before. So there's that added influence
which Trump can certainly benefit from. But it also means
that Musk doesn't benefit too much from being separated. Yet
they don't like each other, So how long can this last?

(05:16):
Could we add on again off again like that on again,
off again relationship that couple, you know, that's just they're
always together, then they're apart, then they're together, then they're apart,
together apart. So many comedies related to that common theme.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
Could we have that, you know, a movie a TV
show of.

Speaker 1 (05:38):
Elon Musk and Donald Trump and their wayward relationship and
how they've gone back and far and they're together and
they're not. I mean, it's kind of hard to say
for sure if they will make up in the long term,
but I do think that there's a good chance at
leadst for having a detentt well Trump. It doesn't necessarily

(05:59):
benefit right now now they benefit. The Trump administration kind
of benefits from this because it puts Republicans on the
spot in Congress. Are you aligned with Trump? Are you
aligned with Musk? And in the minds of the Trump folks,
it's sort of like a test, what is this influence.
Let's see how strong it is. Let's see who the

(06:22):
people we can rely on really are. Now that is
very much up in the air as to you know,
the long term and if when we get to the
midterms next year, well we can Right now, Trump is
still in the driver's seat. You haven't seen defections from

(06:43):
Republicans since the feud yesterday. Now it's only been twenty
four hours or so, but that's still a lot can
happen in twenty four hours. But here's Peter Doocy on
Fox News sort of handicapping GOP support between the two.

Speaker 4 (07:00):
Unclear how much thought went into this ahead of time,
But we are not hearing any Republicans come out to
say we are with Elon Musk, even the Republicans who
were with him at a couple of days ago when
he started saying we need the Big Beautiful Bill to
be smaller. And if anything, some of the top folks
around here that you talk to, it seems like this

(07:21):
actually helps the Big Beautiful Bill because if lawmakers elected
Republicans have to pick a side between Elon Musk, who
wants to bill smaller and killed in its current form,
or Donald Trump, who wants it through, most of the
people in elected Washington are going to go with Donald Trump.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
That is I think exactly right now. It's also despite
some of the opposition that we have seen to the
bill here, but I'm talking about in the broader public
on social media. Yeah, there's much more alliance with Mosque,

(08:03):
at least what Musk puts up his polls as followers,
including yours.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
Truly, I must admit I follow.

Speaker 1 (08:09):
Him on X and I vote yes or no on
these sorts of issues when it comes to the spending issue,
and I'm in alignment with Elon Musk. But it's interesting
when you consider the dynamics between Trump and his political
influence over Republicans of DC, who matter.

Speaker 2 (08:27):
When it comes to the votes.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
But then when it comes to down the road and online, Now,
what are the implications. A couple more things from CNN
that I found rather interesting with Harry Enton's perspective on
this is Elon Musk's political donations and the impact that
they have had and could have.

Speaker 3 (08:49):
Look, if Elon Musk wants to be involved in politics,
he can be a huge player, arguably the biggest player
who is not.

Speaker 2 (08:55):
Actually an elected official. We'll start with the.

Speaker 3 (08:57):
Money, right, I mean, you mentioned to Kate Baldwin, where
is Elon Musk rank? He ranks number one in spending
last week two hundred and ninety one million dollars.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
My god, that's nearly one.

Speaker 3 (09:07):
Hundred million dollars ahead of number two Tim Mellon. And
of course Elon Musk is the richest dude in the world.
His net worth is a four hundred and seventeen billion
with a B four hundred and seventeen billion dollars, nearly
two hundred million dollars ahead of number two Mark Zuckerberg.
So the bottom line is this, Elon Musk, if he
decides he wants to get into the arena, he can
absolutely do so.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
And if he doesn't, yes, he absolutely can, and he
can leverage that in ways that he wants to in
the longer term. But in the short term, nobody on
social media, nobody has a bigger following, greater power in
that respect and influence than Elon Musk.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
He's got two.

Speaker 3 (09:44):
Hundred and twenty million social media followers just from x
oh my god.

Speaker 2 (09:50):
That's actually more than.

Speaker 3 (09:50):
Donald Trump has to cross all different platforms at one
hundred and eighty six million.

Speaker 2 (09:55):
So Elon Musk his power.

Speaker 3 (09:57):
On social media actually is bigger, bigger than Donald Trumps,
the president of the United States. So if Elon Musk
wants to reach people, he doesn't just have to do
it on television by spending money. He can do it
on social media as well, because he has two hundred
and twenty million people, and if you look at how
many people.

Speaker 2 (10:13):
Will reach wheat essentially him or reex him. He gets a.

Speaker 3 (10:17):
Lot of influence in Republican circle.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
That is true on social media, But when it comes
to politics, do you look at Elon Musk, who's sort
of the shiny new object in the scene, Or if
you are a longtime Trump supporter, do you look at
Trump and say, he's the guy that I've been supporting
from early on, and therefore I am going to get
behind him in this feud. Does it matter though as well,

(10:47):
because that's a big question those of us in the media.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
Are talking about this.

Speaker 1 (10:50):
It's very interesting fodder for discussion, but what are the implications.
Does it actually have a real world impact? Well, I
think he kind of does, because when we look at Washington, DC.

Speaker 2 (11:02):
And whether or not the big beautiful bill will be.

Speaker 1 (11:05):
Passed, and then what memories people will have of that,
what their viewpoint will be going into the midterms, out
into the future, or if there's another issue that comes
up where Musk and Trump are at loggerheads, then somebody's like, well, you.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
Know what Trump was really wrong on that Musk was right.
I'm gonna trust Musk on this.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
Really, I think it can have some impact and We'll see.
Time will tell if they bridge the divides temporarily, even
they can come together, I'm not sure how quick that
will happen, though.

Speaker 2 (11:41):
I don't think they like each other.

Speaker 1 (11:42):
I said that before, and I think it's a relationship
of convenience in a sense. They do need each other.
In another sense, well, not as much, because I mean
we're talking the richest man in the world, and we're
talking the most powerful man in the world. They have
their corners, and they dominate in those corners, and it's

(12:04):
only in certain areas that they need each other. But
the question is are those big enough to make the difference?
As for the Big and Beautiful bill, what are the
implications of not passing the legislation. I think Elon is
right on the merits, but what about the raw politics
of this. Laura Ingram on Fox News broke that down,

(12:26):
the implications of if they kill this bill.

Speaker 5 (12:28):
If they kill this bill, as imperfect as it is,
and Musk wants that, my question tonight is, then what
does Elon Musk really think that the result will be
more spending cuts.

Speaker 2 (12:40):
I'll tell you what's going.

Speaker 5 (12:41):
To happen, because unfortunately, I've been around Washington for far
too long.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
What's going to happen then is the.

Speaker 5 (12:47):
Opposite, because to avoid a default on our debt, which
is going to be avoided, John soon would have to
cut a deal with Schumer. And then what's going to happen, Well,
we're all going to have to swallow a bigger, beautiful
bill which will make Democrats really happy and destroy Republicans.

Speaker 1 (13:06):
There's a good a good chance that she's right on that,
there's a good chance that Laura Ingram's assessing the politics
correctly and accurately that if this bill fails, then it
will be even worse. But the question to be considered

(13:31):
is is there ever a line in the sand to
draw or at least to try and put pressure to
make some improvements to it? Remember twelve years ago, I
think it was twenty thirteen, if I recall correctly Ted Cruz,
the Senator from Texas. It is really long filibuster of

(13:51):
some spending bill or other, and there was a little
bit of an impact, but at the very least it
garnered public attention, and I do think it helped in
that moment to sort of crystallize and capture the Tea
Party fervor of the first term of the Obama administration
rather than the first and a half of the second

(14:15):
term of the Obama administration. You had this fervor and
it was captured and Cruise drew attention to it. I
think that's what Musca's doing here.

Speaker 2 (14:30):
But the problem for Muscu is he's bogging himself.

Speaker 1 (14:32):
Down in the personal nonsense between him and Trump, and Trump's.

Speaker 2 (14:36):
Firing right back. So how much can you educate on
the issue and the importance of the issue if you
are talking about always on the Jeffrey Epstein last or
I'm gonna end the Dragon spacecraft.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
We're gonna decommission that. Oh wait, no, I'm changing my mind.
I'm not decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft, which is the way
that NASA can get to the International Space Station without
relying on Russia and their Soyuz program. But there's this
back and forth, and that's I think the biggest problem
with this feud is actually that it is in some

(15:13):
sense galvanizing people in DC behind Trump a little bit
more because they're like, Okay, we got to get in line.

Speaker 2 (15:18):
Here, we can't buckle.

Speaker 1 (15:21):
And it also is distracting from Musk's arguments about the
merits of.

Speaker 2 (15:28):
Opposing the bill.

Speaker 1 (15:30):
I have to be honest too, that I'm in sort
of a fighting mood on fiscal issues. It is disgusting
to me that we are as over thirty trillion dollars
where we're at with the national debt and how it
just keeps piling and piling and piling on. And we
have a Republican Congress with a thin margin, yes, but

(15:51):
still a Republican Congress. And my biggest beef with the
Congress right now, with Mike Johnston, the Speaker of the House,
is how they're trying to market this thing. Oh, it's
a big, beautiful bill. Elon Musk flat wrong on it.

Speaker 2 (16:09):
Elon and I left on a great note.

Speaker 6 (16:10):
We were texting one another, you know, happy texts, you know, Monday,
and then yesterday, you know, twenty four hours later, he
doesn't want eighty and it comes out and opposed to bill,
and it surprised me, frankly. And I don't take it personal.
We don't take it personal. You know, he's a policy
differences are not personal. I think he's flat wrong. I

(16:31):
think he's he's way off on this, and I've told
him as much, and I've said it publicly and privately,
I'm very consistent in that.

Speaker 1 (16:37):
Okay, there is no way shape or for him a
Musk is wrong about at least one thing, and that
is that there's no such thing as a big beautiful bill.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
It never has been in the history of the world.

Speaker 1 (16:50):
Like, there is no such thing as a big beautiful bill.
And how they have been selling this. Yes, it's Trump's rhetoric.
He likes saying things are big all that. But that's
the biggest problem here is this is a massive spending bill.

Speaker 2 (17:05):
It's gonna increase the national debt dramatically, and we're.

Speaker 1 (17:11):
Supposed to act like it's a wonderful thing.

Speaker 2 (17:13):
Okay, past the damn thing.

Speaker 1 (17:15):
Fine, we ain't gonna get me saying it's anything anything beautiful,
slim and beautiful. Musk is right about that when it
comes to the bills these legislation, make them slim, make
them beautiful in that way, do less pack in less
money to spend.

Speaker 2 (17:35):
That'll make things.

Speaker 1 (17:38):
At least worth saying positive things about. But big beautiful
bill just doesn't fly. I'm Jimmy sangen Berger just getting
started on this Friday, June sixth, right here on KOA,
filling in for Mandy Connell keep it here Friday of June.

(18:07):
Some are officially kicking off before we know it. Good
to be with you as I cover for Mandy Connell today.
I'll also be back in the saddle next Wednesday and
Friday plus the sixteenth through the eighteenth as she travels
and gallivants around the world. Gotta love it, and I

(18:29):
appreciate you being along for the ride today as we
have just so many things going on and to talk about.
Let's get to a few texts real quick on the
KOA Common Spirit health text line and five six six
nine zero. I think Mosco is trying to get in
good favor with all those he alienated, to include his

(18:50):
tesla Bryon. Yeah, I think there's a fear point for that,
but I don't think that's really what's going on.

Speaker 2 (18:57):
But it could be.

Speaker 1 (18:58):
I mean, if he was, he might not be taking
the same approach that he is. Who cares on the
left about spending too much money, they don't really care
about that so much. There are other issues that they
might be a little bit more focused on. Jimmy, do
you think Elon will run for government office?

Speaker 2 (19:16):
No, I just I really don't.

Speaker 1 (19:20):
I think that mister Trump and Elon are playing this
very well. Diversion in distraction. These smart men know what
they are doing. You just might be right about that.

Speaker 2 (19:32):
But at the same time, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
It depends on how it plays out, but it could
hurt them.

Speaker 2 (19:38):
It could hurt them.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
Democrat plan take back Congress at the midterms. They assume
this as a given, then impeach and remove President Trump. Well,
that just might be the case in terms of impeachment,
but I don't see them getting the supermajority in the
sett that they would need in order to actually remove trouble.

(20:06):
Do they want to impeach him without being able to
remove him impeach him for a third time?

Speaker 2 (20:10):
Well?

Speaker 1 (20:11):
Probably, I think at some point they might be down
to do just that. What is going on or whether
what is going to happen when the government runs out
of money to take care of the elite, rich and powerful,
Maybe we'll have a free market again in that sense, if.

Speaker 2 (20:30):
They actually were to run out of money. The problem
is that they're going.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
To keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing until
there's a crisis, and then it's not about the rich
and powerful, it's about the rest of us. Who get
put in a position and squeezed big time without a doubt.
Yeah but hey fair enough five to sixty six nine
zero The KOA Commic Spirit, Health at text Line. Kathy

(20:53):
Walker's voice in the news on KOA for thirty five years,
news director here at.

Speaker 2 (21:05):
KOA, and.

Speaker 1 (21:08):
Today's her last day in that position of retiring.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
After thirty five years.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
She'll still be here on occasion doing part time newswork
and you'll hear her voice. That's not going away, this
staple voice here on KOA for thirty five years. But
what an incredible career. When you think about that longevity
of somebody who's.

Speaker 2 (21:33):
Voice.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
This is the thing I love about radio is that
intimacy of the voice. You're in your car, or you
got your headphones on, you're on a walk, you're at
your computer doing work, whatever it is, and you are
listening to those of us on the radio, from hosts
like yours.

Speaker 2 (21:47):
Truly, to.

Speaker 1 (21:50):
The tremendous news team that we have on KOA that
has been led by Kathy Walkers, and you think of
about what it means and what it says that somebody
is around and building those relationships and being trusted to
bring the news and to bring information and help weave

(22:12):
it all together and keep the staff, the other the reporters,
the great team we got on top of things and
get it all together.

Speaker 2 (22:22):
I will say, there's a point, gosh.

Speaker 7 (22:25):
It was an.

Speaker 2 (22:25):
Inauguration day.

Speaker 1 (22:28):
Where I filled in for Roskaminski here and then I
went over to our sister station on KAW and filled
in for Ryan showing two hours later. And I wanted
to get some clips and get some content that I
could use from the speech and whatnot. And Kathy was
extraordinarily helpful and putting that together and getting me the

(22:51):
pieces I needed and the program that I needed to
be able to play them and all of that. It
just worked out so well and was so seamless and
gave me just a great experience, just even in that
one day, for the kind of quality work that she
has brought into this business for thirty five years. Again,

(23:12):
you'll hear her voice here on KOA from time to time,
not going away, but retiring from the news director post
in a thirty five year career here at KOA. Congratulations, Kathy.
You got to think about as well radio and what

(23:32):
has changed in the news stories and everything that's happened
in that span of time and put it in the
context too, that this is a station that is one
hundred years old, celebrating one hundred years on Koa and
everything that has gone on since then.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
Since it was founded, all the economic.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
Crises, world wars, one World War in particular, other wars, celebrations,
great achievements, fantastical scientific advancements, getting people to the moon,

(24:19):
on and on. It goes with things positive and negative,
wonderful and tragic, terrorist attacks, breakthroughs in medicine.

Speaker 2 (24:33):
That have happened.

Speaker 1 (24:34):
Is it's Kowa has been here the last one hundred
years covering it all, and for thirty five of that
Kathy Walker's so many other people that have brought it
out altogether, and just when I take a moment to
think about it, it truly is incredible. It just got
a text which is absolutely apropos in the Koa Common

(24:55):
Spirit Health text line five sixty six nine zero. You
don't see this kind of longevity in the radio business anymore.
That is very true. Many congratulations to Kathy on a
stellar career and looking forward to seeing what comes next
for her.

Speaker 2 (25:08):
Amen to that.

Speaker 1 (25:10):
I'm Jimmy singing Berger filling in for Mandy Connell today
on KOA.

Speaker 2 (25:14):
We got lots more coming up. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (25:25):
For Mandy Connell on KOA And speaking of voices that
you listen to and you go, man, I love it,
I want more of it. But in the case of
Greg Almond of the Almond Brothers band, you can't get
more of it except you've heard before, or maybe you
go into songs that are from concerts they've done that

(25:47):
you never heard before, and you have different takeaways. But
Greg Almond, of course no longer with us. But someone
who is with us who will still be around on
KOA is Kathy Walker's retiring after thirty five years from
KOA on KOA and retiring now as news director. And

(26:10):
there's one other texts that came in during the break.
I want to share five six six nine zero KOA
common Spirit health text line. KOA and other Denver Radio
will never be the same For me. I've listened to
Kathy all of my adult life, including ten years where
I didn't live in Colorado. This is definitely the changing

(26:31):
of an era. Yes, indeed, it is one of the
things about a changing era when it comes to politics
is how do you go with the times and how
do you keep your traditional constituencies. For example, in the
case of Democrats, how do you keep young voters involved

(26:54):
and engaged.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
A couple of days ago.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
Over on the show on Us Goodness, the PBS News
Hour or whatever the show is, Amy Walter is a
commentator there, and she had some interesting perspective on what
she calls the cringe trap and the difficulty of Democrats
to continue to attract younger voters right now and failing

(27:19):
to keep them.

Speaker 8 (27:20):
I was really looking at this challenge that Democrats are
having right now, and they're spending a lot of money
to try to figure out how they get back voters
that they used to think of as their core constituents,
younger voters. How did the party associated with youth become
so unable to communicate with younger people? And I think
at the end of the day, really what we've seen
are two things. The first is younger voters have been

(27:42):
telling Democrats Democratic voter younger Democratic voters in primaries who
they would like to be their nominee, and that person
was Bernie Sanders, both in twenty sixteen and twenty twenty,
and both times the party said sorry, well voters and
the party said, sorry, we're picking this person and you
have to vote for them.

Speaker 1 (28:00):
So there's that build up frustration.

Speaker 8 (28:01):
The second part is Democrats for so long have assumed
that because younger voters are theirs, they just have to
turn them out, they don't have to persuade them. And
the cringe comes in the ways in which they're trying
to figure out how to persuade them. They seem to
have lost any ability to understand how those younger voters
in this era communicate both online and with each other.

Speaker 1 (28:24):
Yes, yes, yes, yes, that's exactly right. If you look
right now, what's happening. Conservatives Republicans, they're making far more
inroads with young people.

Speaker 2 (28:36):
In a way.

Speaker 1 (28:36):
I'm a millennial, and I see these young early twenties,
late teens being much more expressive of conservative views, and
I'm like, this is not the way that it was,
especially during the Obama era, which is when I was
in college. It was a freshman when Obama was elected,
and then when he took office, and frankly, Amy Walt

(29:00):
talking about the Bernie Sanders sort of effect, Bernie, Bernie's
got nothing on Obama in terms of young people appeal
and the connection that he's been able to have with
them that had with them at the time. But nevertheless,

(29:22):
she's got a good point in terms of some of
those younger voters.

Speaker 2 (29:24):
But certainly those who are.

Speaker 1 (29:27):
Republican conservative leaning are probably less inclined to be Bernie
Sanders people, and they're aligning more with Republicans, and you
see a lot more discussion about how it's cool to
be on the right now. I don't know how cool
it is, but compared certainly to you know, fifteen years ago,

(29:47):
it sure is a lot better. And the problem for Democrats,
and I think we're seeing this over and over, is
twofold one. They've got a really large, really old demographic
in Congress, relatively speaking, because Republicans have a much younger demographic. Democrats,
especially among leadership, are much older. Republicans younger, not extraordinarily younger,

(30:14):
but heck, we got the first millennial vice president in
office now and that person happens.

Speaker 2 (30:20):
To be a Republican JD.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
Vance and so that has a bit of a disconnect
for younger voters. But then it's also just and Amy
Walter touched on this, taking these demographics for granted, whether
it is young voters, black voters, Hispanic voters, you name
the group, just.

Speaker 2 (30:39):
About any of them are assumed to.

Speaker 1 (30:42):
Be Democrat constituencies but have been slipping as Democrat constituencies
and that means they have to actually work for it,
and they're not used to it. They think picking David
Hogg as vice share is going to do.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
Bring the change they need as a party, and.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
Now they want to get rid of him because he
wants the primary. They're Democrats across the country and try
and kick him out of office because they're not far
left enough for him. That's a fail choosing him as
vice chair of the National Democrats. They're just what they're
doing isn't working for folks on the right. You certainly

(31:23):
hope they don't figure it out, but who knows if
they will or not. I'm Jimmy Sangenberger in for Mandy Connell.
Two more hours up ahead. On the other side, we'll
talk with one of the professors, law professor who was
involved in the tariff case that the Trump administration lost
in the Court of International Trade just a couple of

(31:44):
weeks ago.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
Keep it here as we continue on KOA.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
Jimmy Sangenberger here with you for Mandy Khan. All on
ko A. And look, there are so many different things
with regards to the trade war and the tariff's discussion
that concern a guy like me. I'm a big free trader.

(32:20):
I've always been a fan of free trade because I
understand the economics of it, for one, and number two,
I believe that human beings should be able to freely
make mutual exchanges for most things, and.

Speaker 2 (32:38):
A tariff interferes with that.

Speaker 1 (32:41):
Sometimes maybe there's calls you can say that a trade
barrier is justified.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
Do you want to have an embargo with Cuba, for example?

Speaker 1 (32:53):
Okay, sure I can get on board with that with
a country like Cuba near our coast in particular.

Speaker 2 (33:02):
But otherwise I look.

Speaker 1 (33:04):
At in I say we should have unfettered free trade,
and in fact we should actually take the lead in
that regard. And this is something that the late great
economist Milton Friedman was a big advocate of. Let's go
back in time a few decades.

Speaker 9 (33:26):
So, in my opinion, the right course of action for
the United States would be unilaterally to get rid of
its restrictions and say.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
To the world, come and sell your goods here.

Speaker 9 (33:36):
We're delighted to sell to you. We're delighted to buy
from you. We're delighted to sell to you. Now. Of course,
if you buy, if you sell to us, you're going
to get dollars. And what are you going to do
with those dollars? Are you gonna eat them? If you
would like to stack them up in a nice pile
and set fire to them, we'd be delighted.

Speaker 2 (33:52):
We can print all the.

Speaker 9 (33:52):
Pieces of paper you want, but nobody's going to do that.
If they sell things to us for dollars, they are
going to spend the dollars back here.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
There's no doubt about that.

Speaker 9 (34:02):
And what will produce that result is that the price
of the dollar in terms of their currencies, the number
of yen it takes to buy a dollar, the number
of marks it takes to buy a dollar, and so
on will adjust up and down so that the total
foes of dollars in both directions will be the same.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
Which, by the way, basically means a trade deficit.

Speaker 2 (34:23):
Is not a problem.

Speaker 1 (34:25):
It's actually not, because it's made up for in capital flows.
A trade deficit, of course, means you are importing more
from a country than you are exporting to that country.
But what that means is it is sort of balanced
out in terms of capital investment that comes into our
country from that country.

Speaker 2 (34:47):
That's the nature of how it works. And so it's.

Speaker 1 (34:54):
Really interesting to see some of the exchanges in Washington,
d C. Particularly with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnik, who
comes from a business background, whether he's engaging with Republicans
or Democrats. Here's one exchange from yesterday back and forth

(35:15):
with Representative Madeline Dean, who is a Democrat, where they
talked about bananas, tariff's trade deals.

Speaker 10 (35:24):
The tariff on bananas would be representative of the countries
that produce.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
Them, and what what's that tariff?

Speaker 3 (35:31):
General?

Speaker 11 (35:32):
Correct?

Speaker 2 (35:32):
Ten percent?

Speaker 12 (35:33):
Walmart has already increased the cost of bananas by eight percent.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
Contries deals with us that will go to zero as
countries do deals with us.

Speaker 12 (35:44):
On the American consumer now and on the businesses with
the confusion Now, mister Secretary, I believe you know better.
I believe you recognize that a trade deficit is not
something to fear. I believe you know that predictability, stability
is essential for businesses. I wish you would show that

(36:05):
truth to this administration.

Speaker 1 (36:06):
And I yelled back, it's interesting that he said there
and that will go to zero. I'm not so sure
about that. Let's go to the day before a couple
days ago with Senator John Kennedy, who I always love
hearing Senator Kennedy.

Speaker 2 (36:28):
He's a hoot.

Speaker 1 (36:29):
But this time was a little less jovial and joking
and a little more serious with Lutnik, And.

Speaker 2 (36:37):
It was pretty striking to hear this aspect of the
exchange where it actually raised questions about is the goal
to get to zero tariffs of bananas or otherwise?

Speaker 11 (36:48):
If Vietnam, for example, came to you tomorrow and said, okay, Secretary,
you win. We're going to remove all tariffs and all
trade bear, would the United States please do the same?

Speaker 2 (37:06):
Would you accept that deal? Absolutely not? Absolutely not. That
would be the silliest thing we could do.

Speaker 10 (37:12):
Why is that Vietnam has a one hundred and twenty
five billion dollar exports to US and imports from US
twelve and a half million dollars. And you're thinking Vietnam
exports one hundred and twenty five billion.

Speaker 2 (37:29):
I'm aware of the figures, but tell me where do
they get it from?

Speaker 10 (37:32):
They buy ninety billion from China, then they market up
and send it to US.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
So it was just a I portant way of China
to us. You wouldn't accept that deal. Well, it's a
terrible deal. Wh're the one with money, where the one
with their store? What's the person?

Speaker 1 (37:45):
So first of all, I have found no evidence of
this ninety billion dollar claim from Lutnek. I was trying
to find out how they know ninety billion dollars of
the one hundred and twenty five billion dollars that Vietnam
ships to the United States is basically just a pass
through from China. I don't believe that is true. And

(38:07):
even it is true, it doesn't make a difference to me.
But Vietnam does a heck of a lot of manufacturing.
A lot of manufacturing has been moved from China into
a place like Vietnam. At twelve million versus one hundred
and twenty five billion, okay, well what do we have that.

Speaker 2 (38:24):
Vietnam will buy and can afford to buy. You can't
look at that and say, oh my gosh, look at
this trade deficit. It's so massive weed to balance that out.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
No, reciprocity isn't about the amount of goods that they're
buying from American companies compared to the amount of goods
that we're buying from their companies, reciprocity is about zero
percent terraces.

Speaker 11 (38:50):
The purpose of reciprocity, then, is reciprocity not one of
your goals? Are you telling the President that we shouldn't
seek reciprocity? If that's what you're telling them, why are
you trying to do these trade deals?

Speaker 2 (39:04):
What do we want?

Speaker 10 (39:05):
We want We want to encourage Vietnam to produce products.

Speaker 2 (39:08):
They're great at producers.

Speaker 11 (39:09):
So when we get back to reciprocity, you just you
just said you don't believe, you don't accept reciprocity as
a goal. What are you negotiating in these trades?

Speaker 10 (39:17):
Why would we open our bank account at their bank account?

Speaker 2 (39:20):
Why are you decatiating trade deals?

Speaker 11 (39:22):
You're trying to get other countries to lower their trade,
their parish and trade barriers in return for us lowering ours.

Speaker 2 (39:32):
That's true. For the things that they'll take from that's.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
That's called reciprocity. Of course, the things that they'll take
from us, mister secretary, trade is about a mutually beneficial exchange.

Speaker 2 (39:43):
If we don't have goods that they want to buy
from American companies or that they can afford to buy
from American companies because they are much poorer nation than us. Well,
I'm sorry, it's not gonna work it out. It's just
not Reciprocity needs to be about. Can we get rid of.

Speaker 1 (40:07):
All their trade barriers and we'll get rid of ours.

Speaker 2 (40:11):
In exchange for theirs.

Speaker 1 (40:13):
It'll do much more good that way, because then we
are on a level playing field. That's literally and this
is what Senator Kennedy's getting at there. It's literally reciprocal
when you have zero and zero, no trade barriers, no
trade barriers.

Speaker 2 (40:32):
And that really should be the goal.

Speaker 1 (40:37):
And this was an extraordinary little exchange between Representative Diana
and Secretary Lutnek.

Speaker 2 (40:41):
There's no uncertainty.

Speaker 10 (40:42):
If you build in America and you produce your product
in America, it will be no terriff.

Speaker 2 (40:47):
We can't in America and pay no terwerf.

Speaker 1 (40:51):
You cannot, very very clear, you cannot in America. Yeah, bananas,
bananas that exchanged did and of itself is kind of bananas.
But let's talk about the legal side of all of this,

(41:13):
because there was a ruling that happened just a couple
of weeks ago in federal court, the US Court of
International Trade, in my view, really did their job in saying, look,
the terriffs that President Trump has unilaterally put into place

(41:36):
on worldwide and retaliatory tariffs, the so called Liberation Day tariffs,
which are a minimum of ten percent on virtually every country,
and the terrifts focused on the issue of FENNO placed
on Canada, China, and Mexico. Those were dubbed by the
court as trafficking tariffs, that those were an are unconstitutional.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
Leg under the law. Why is that?

Speaker 1 (42:05):
How did that case get determined the way that it did.
Let's talk about it with a law professor who was
involved in one of the two cases that were combined
into this particular case. Is a professor of law at
George Mason University and the B. Kenneth Simon Chair of
Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, the author of several books,

(42:30):
including Free to Move, Foot, Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom.
Professor Elias Sohman joins us here on KOA, Sir, welcome
to the show.

Speaker 13 (42:39):
It's good to have you, Thank you for having me, Thanks.

Speaker 2 (42:42):
For coming on. So let's break this down.

Speaker 1 (42:45):
I kind of gave just a brief synopsis of what
was done, sort of tell Us why the constitutional argument
and the legal argument that these terriffs don't fly was
something that the.

Speaker 2 (43:00):
Court agreed with tell Us about this case.

Speaker 13 (43:02):
Yes, the Court of International Trade unanimously ruled in our
favor last week with a panel with judges appointed by
both Democratic and Republican presidents, including one appointed by Trump
in his first term. And the reason why is that
the president was claiming a virtually unlimited power to impose
any tariffs he wants in any amount against any country,

(43:25):
for any reason, at any time, for as long as
he wants. And the court ruled that the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act of nineteen seventy seven, which the President
said gave him this power, did not actually give it
to him. And they also said that if somehow the
law did give him that power, it would be unconstitutional
because Article went of the Constitution specifically gives the power

(43:49):
to impose tariffs to Congress, not to the president, and
an unlimited, unconstrained delegation of that power would violate constitutional
constraint on how much of its authority Congress can delegate
the executive. So the law doesn't give them that power,
and it would be unconstitutional if it did and to

(44:10):
sort of.

Speaker 2 (44:12):
Put a pin on this point.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
And this is a quote that was included in the
Court decision from Federalists number forty eight, which was written
by James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution.

Speaker 2 (44:23):
Quote, the powers properly.

Speaker 1 (44:25):
Belonging to one of the departments ought not to be
directly and completely administered by either of the other departments.
To me Professor Elias Soman, this basically says that, look,
if the power is given to Congress to the legislative branch,
they can't just go and say, hey, executive branch, do

(44:45):
whatever you want on this issue. We got your back.

Speaker 13 (44:49):
Yeah, that's right. So admittedly, the Supreme Court over the
last several decades has been kind of blacks.

Speaker 7 (44:55):
On non delegation, but they have said there have to
be at least.

Speaker 13 (45:00):
Womens both liberal and conservative justice have said that. And
if there are any limits at all, then this virtually
total delegation of the power to tariff that Trump is
claiming here DAK cannot fly because this is sort of
the equivalent of Congress passing a lodgeist saying that the
president can impose tarriffs and every feels like it, and
if anything, violates the non delegation rule, then this have

(45:23):
to it.

Speaker 2 (45:24):
Almost sounds like the beginning of a joke, doesn't it.

Speaker 1 (45:26):
A Trump judge or Reagan judge and an Obama judge
walk into a US courtroom and leave unanimously striking down
President Trump's sweeping tariffs. But to me, that's actually very significant.
You have the strong war conservative president of Ronald Reagan
appointed one of these three judges on the panel. You
have a Trump judge himself one of his appointees on

(45:49):
the panel, and an Obama judge, so a majority appointed
by Republicans.

Speaker 2 (45:53):
Now, you never know.

Speaker 1 (45:54):
The Supreme Court shows us this that whether a judge
or a justice is going to be going in the
direction that you might expect, they would sort of ideologically
or breaking down. But to me that should give some
confidence to average Americans that, Okay, this was a reasonable
decision considering the facts and the law.

Speaker 7 (46:15):
I think.

Speaker 13 (46:16):
So it's clear to sort of both conservative and liberal
judges were on the same page in the panel, and
the judge appointed by Trump. People familiar with the Court
of International Trade actually initially suggested to us this was
a bad draw for us because he had been previously
an associate of Robert Leitheider, who was a major advisor

(46:37):
to Trump in his first term, supporting very protectionist policies.
So this judge, before being on the bench had a
history of being associated with protectionist ideas himself, and yet
he still recognized, as did the other two judges, that
this kind of claim of virtually unlimited power had no
legitimate legal basis.

Speaker 1 (46:59):
Again, we're talking with professor Ilia Solman, who is at
the antonin Scalia School that you have a law school
that is at that institution in Washington outside in Virginia.
I excuse me, professor, I want to ask you to
bring us up to speed on where this is at,

(47:20):
because I know that it has been appealed by the
administration and that this has sort of been put on
hold in terms of what the court ruled.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
So tell us specifically what the court.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
Decided as far as a stay or decided as far
as the implications of the ruling, and then where we're
at as far as the stay from additional appeals court.

Speaker 13 (47:43):
Yeah, So the case has been appealed to the US
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is the
a public court that has jurisdiction over the Court of
International Trade with respect to the stay, I have to
get into some annoying legal gobbledeybooks, but in this case
it is actually legal gobbledybook that had some important practical significance.

(48:04):
So far, what the Federal Circuit has done is issued
what larwriors call in administrative state, which is a very
short sape to give the court time to consider whether
there should be a longer staate pending appeal. If the
state pending appeal is issued as the government wants it
to be, then the Court of International Trade decision will

(48:26):
be put on hold, possibly for as long as a
pellet litigation continues, which could be many months. On the
other hand, if we defeat that motion for a stape,
then the Court of International Trade ruling will go into effect,
and then collection of the tariff will stop very soon,
and so will the enormous damage that they are inflixing

(48:47):
on the economy. Thousands of businesses, Whatar clients who depend
on imports, millions of consumers who face higher prices, and
also who are hurt by to slow down in economic
growth that is going to happen if these tariffs are
allowed to continue. So while the issue of a stay
and what justifies a stayer doesn't justify it is a

(49:08):
highly technical legal issue, and you and I can talk
about solative factors that go into it if you want to.
In this case, this lego technicality does have a big
significance for many millions of people because it will determine
whether they will get quick relief from the tariff or
whether relief will have to wait possibly for some months
or even as much as a year or more if

(49:30):
the case ultimate we get to the Supreme Court.

Speaker 1 (49:33):
One thing I want to hit on with you, Professor Elias.
So we've just got a few minutes left. But the
Court in its ruling, and this is the court that
deals with these trade issues. Going back, for example, to
the Richard Nixon administration, he had a variation of a
tariff that was sort of its own brand of an
imbalance of trade that it was trying to address. It

(49:55):
was more of a monetary policy sort of matter. But
nevertheless the point is that the objective was to address
a trade imbalance, which is supposedly, at least for the
worldwide and retaliatory terroriff's professor supposedly, the emergency basis justifying
those Liberation Day terrifts. Well, the Nixon tariffs, as I understand,

(50:19):
it motivated Congress to pass more limits on the president's
unilateral authority regarding trade, and those very limits, because they
concern imbalance of trade, apply here as well.

Speaker 13 (50:33):
Yeah, so that decision on Nixon tariffs was under the
predecessor's statue to statute an issue here. It was decided
back in nineteen seventy five in the Yoshida case, which
was the subject of much debate between us and our
opponents in the litigation of this case, and and also

(50:54):
was carefully considered in the court of entrant trade opinion.
The bottom line is it was not under i EPA,
but under the predecessors statute, which, as you say, was broader.

Speaker 14 (51:05):
In addition, even.

Speaker 7 (51:06):
That decision, if you read THEO Sheeta decision, it does
not say.

Speaker 13 (51:10):
The president could just impose any terraffy wants. It rather
said that the tariff power was carefully limited. It had
to be constrained by the schedule of tariff set up
by Congress and by some other factors.

Speaker 14 (51:22):
And it's specifically said in that decisions as in this
more regent decision in our case than an unlimited delegation
of terror powers the president would be unconstitutional.

Speaker 13 (51:33):
So whatever you think of that case, it does not
provide a precedent somehow justifying you know what Trump is
trying to do.

Speaker 1 (51:41):
Now, unfortunately we're out of time, but one final question.
You sort of touched on this before, but where do
we go from here?

Speaker 13 (51:48):
So within the next few days we are likely to
have a decision on the motion for a stake, which
which whatever is resolved on that, there will also be
a decision on the merits, probably within a few weeks,
but maybe taking a bit longer from the Federal Circuit.
At that point, whoever loses could potentially appeal to the
Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, of course could decide

(52:11):
to take it or not take the case, as they
still choose, and it's always dangerous to predict. Most cases
that are petitioned to them. The court just refused. There
is perhaps a hired an average case chance that they
might take this case because of its significance.

Speaker 1 (52:28):
I think that there is in this regard and it
will be fascinating to watch. Professor Iliushman, Kudos to you
and the Liberty Justice Center on good work here, and
also Attorney's General that brought in the federal side of
the case, and while I believe fedanel is a massive concern,
I'm not sure that unilateral terror authority to the president

(52:50):
is justified here even in that case, and I think
the court ruled it right there. But nevertheless, kudos do
you offer this case. I do think it was the
right one to bring in in this decision. And I
should note that that one case regarding these retaliatory tariffs
that you were involved in involved five different businesses that
were affected adversely.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
By those terriffs.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
But Professor Solman of George Mason University, always great to
talk with you, sir, thanks so much for joining us today.

Speaker 7 (53:17):
Thank you for having me on once.

Speaker 1 (53:19):
Again, Professor Ilius Sohman and joining us. Check out his
recent book. This is especially relevant when it comes to
the immigration issue right now, Free to move, foot, voting, migration,
and political freedom.

Speaker 2 (53:31):
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger in for Mandy Connell. Keep it here
on KOA.

Speaker 1 (53:43):
I love Joe Bonamasa. His music is phenomenal. His guitar
playing is second to none around today. He's back in
Colorado at Red Rocks in August. He plays at Red
Rocks every year, and that's one of my favorite songs
of his. It's great live too. I've seen him performing
at Red Rocks. Just because you can don't mean you should.

Speaker 2 (54:02):
And yeah, exactly right, and that is especially what government
should be guided by. Just because you.

Speaker 1 (54:08):
Can don't mean you should, whether that is putting in
place massive unilateral terriffs per our last segment, or what
Steve benn In, the former Trump advisor and right wing podcaster,
has called for. Apparently I didn't see this. So yesterday,

(54:29):
amidst the feud the internacinge warfare between President Donald Trump
and Elon Musk, Musk initially said I am going to
stop the to decommission the Dragon spacecraft, which is what
NASA is using now to be able to get to

(54:52):
and from the International Space Station rather than relying upon
the Russians and their soy use program. And now Musk
has since fortracted that at least saw that it had
to do with somebody made a comment on acts like this.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
Is a little too far.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
You need to take breath, and so then he changed
his mind and said, well, we're.

Speaker 2 (55:16):
Not doing this well.

Speaker 1 (55:17):
Steve Bannon apparently yesterday said quote President Trump tonight should
sign an executive order calling up the Defense Production Act
and sees SpaceX tonight before midnight. By the way, this

(55:38):
writer put an emphasis as they quoted him on tonight
in all caps both times, which means he really to
night tonight.

Speaker 2 (55:46):
They made it really clear.

Speaker 1 (55:49):
Oh my goodness, guy named David Burge putting out onto
X in reaction to this one one hundred percent Terris.
Step two centralized planning. Step three sees.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
The means of production, which guess what is exactly the
Marxist idea that Steve Bannon is embracing here When you
want to just seize the.

Speaker 1 (56:16):
Means of production, that is a Marxist idea. Step four
question mark, question mark, question mark, Step five prophet.

Speaker 7 (56:30):
I just.

Speaker 1 (56:32):
It's sometimes you get these ideas from what's supposed to
be the right and you go, what the heck, man,
why are you even suggesting this possible idea?

Speaker 2 (56:47):
It is insane, it.

Speaker 1 (56:49):
Is wacky, it is leftist, and it is Steve Bannon,
former Trump advisor.

Speaker 2 (56:57):
Thank god he's not a Trump advisor, right. These are just.

Speaker 1 (57:04):
Those things that you can't make up, You really can't
make it up. And unfortunately, it's like, why can't we
have ideas that are sensible that you're talking about things
that are productive and actually help move the ball forward.

(57:24):
I think that's apparently not something you could do now.
A listener text in on the KOA commics, but out
text line.

Speaker 2 (57:30):
Five six six nine zero.

Speaker 1 (57:33):
Regarding tariffs, I presume revenue is the goal, offset continue
tax rates. I get that, But this ain't the eighteen
hundreds anymore. The amount of money that the federal government spends,
heck that they are going to spend in President Trump's
big beautiful bill alone could not remotely be covered by tariffs.

Speaker 2 (57:58):
This not the.

Speaker 1 (57:59):
World that we live in. It's just not practical to
look at it as an actual revenue raising measure. Number one.
Number two, you have to think about the effects. The
great philosopher economist Friederic Bastiat from the nineteenth century.

Speaker 2 (58:23):
He always brilliant, by the way, read his book The Law.
I know Ross.

Speaker 1 (58:28):
Kaminski's talked about the laws so much over the years too,
but he would talk about that which is seen and
that which is unseen. The good economist takes into account both.
The bad economist just looks at the things that are
seen and forgets the unseen. So, for example, a broken window,
you get the window fixed.

Speaker 2 (58:49):
Okay, great.

Speaker 1 (58:50):
The bad economists would say, this is awesome, break all
the windows, because then money goes to the company that's
going to replace the window, money goes to the company
that makes the class, so on and so forth. But
what about the other money that the business was going
to spend on a computer or another piece of equipment,

(59:13):
or hiring a new employee, and they got to wait
longer on that because they got to fix the window.
Of course, this scenario presumes you don't have insurance for it.
But even in a case of insurance, if you drew
the conclusion that oh, this is great for the economy,
then why don't we go say, hey, bring on the floods,
bring on the hurricanes, bring on the tornadoes. That's going
to make our economy better. Because that's stupid, that's why not.

(59:39):
And so in this very same case, let's say you
have one.

Speaker 2 (59:45):
Hundred percent tariffs on every country.

Speaker 1 (59:47):
So you theoretically bring in revenue. Guess what's going to
happen those countries. The companies there are going to start
exporting fewer products to the United States, just plain and simple,
or the other effects where they might say, well, we
were trading and bring in these products, these other products

(01:00:09):
from the United States, but it's.

Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
Just not worth it anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:00:11):
We're going to get them from another country, which is
exactly what is happening with Canada and China. China's starting
to buy more steel and aluminum from Canada because Canada
has an oversupplied because the United States is such a
big purchaser and they've been shipping less to the United States.
China now eyeing that, Oh okay, bring your surplus here.

(01:00:36):
You got to consider the various factors and not look
at just one thing, especially when that means that one
thing means more revenue to the government.

Speaker 2 (01:00:45):
And gosh, you really.

Speaker 1 (01:00:47):
Think taxes, income taxes are going to go down, you
put in massive tariffs. Democrats will say, oh great, keep
the terriffs and let's keep adding on more income taxes
or keep the income tax is at the same right
as well.

Speaker 2 (01:01:03):
That's just how how it all needs to work.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
Just be careful with some of these economic ideas, especially
when it comes to the notion of taxation. We're going
to go to the break. Jimmy Sangenberger in from Andy
Connor with a little fun here, a little message regarding
the drama between Elon Musk and President Trump from the
very very very real President Trump. As we continue on Koa, I've.

Speaker 7 (01:01:33):
Known Elon.

Speaker 2 (01:01:36):
For a long time, hard time.

Speaker 15 (01:01:38):
I have a great anthropologist friend, he's the best in
the world, and he says, he tells me that the
word Elon in South Africa, its real meaning is Judas.
Does anybody remember Judas? This guy, this Judas guy from
the Bible Story. I actually feel kind of sorry for

(01:02:00):
little Elandon with his thirty pieces of bitgoingnee betray Elon Judas.
They're calling him now, Elon Judas, Elanidis. How's it going, Elanitice,
How's it had? Nice day? Elanidice?

Speaker 2 (01:02:15):
Do you feel good for betrayal?

Speaker 1 (01:02:26):
Actually, Mandy and I not long ago talked about this
together on the show.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
I've been a blues fan since I was a little kid.

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
So I remember being in the car driving back to
an apartment that we lived in for the first six
months after we moved to Colorado in January of two
thousand and one. Was in the car with my dad
and he played Buddy Guy for the first time, at least.

Speaker 2 (01:02:48):
That I recall being the first time from the album
Damn Right. I Got the.

Speaker 1 (01:02:53):
Blues which included this song. And I was still in
fifth grade and I brought this song as one of
two sample tunes to my fifth grade music class when
we had to bring a couple of songs. The other
one was Texas Flood by Stevie Ray Vaughan and it
was on video from live at Austin City Limits. Can

(01:03:13):
you just imagine a class full of ten year old
fifth graders watching, you know, like seven minutes of Stevie
doing slow blues all power.

Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
Gotta love it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:27):
And then later that year I'd go to Buddy Guy
and bb King and see them live in concert at
Fiddlers Green for the first time with my dad and
met Buddy Guy, got his autograph and that was a
lot of fun.

Speaker 2 (01:03:41):
You gotta love it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:42):
Speaking of music, the Jimmy Junior Blues Band has some
gigs coming up. Saturday, July fifth, that weekend of Independence
Day weekend, from seven to eleven pm, will be out
on the patio at in the Zone in Golden Then
on July twenty seventh we will be performing at the

(01:04:07):
Genese Bar and Grill Out in Genesee. And then in
September we have and I'm not entirely sure the date offhand,
we're getting all these dates up on the Jimmy Junior page,

(01:04:28):
Jimmy Junior Blues Band page on Facebook and the website
Jimmy Junior Music dot com. But we'll also be doing
a bluesfest that they're having at the Genesee Bar and Grill.
And then on October third, we're booked at Dakota Tavern
in Parker. That's a little bit of a ways out
October third, but nevertheless we will be playing there and

(01:04:49):
we're looking forward to it. So some dates starting to
get booked on the calendar for the Jimmy Junior Blues Band.
And I do know, by the way, fracos in Littleton
this Sunday, and I don't I don't know that I
can go, if I can.

Speaker 2 (01:05:02):
Go or not and perform on harmonica.

Speaker 1 (01:05:05):
But from two to five there will be the Summer
Jam session for the Colorado Country Music Hall of Fame.
Always just to blast. If I can make it out there,
I will. There are just such great people, phenomenal musicians
and a great great time. Maybe the next hour we

(01:05:25):
need a little bit of harmonica. Two I haven't played
any and it's a Friday, gotta cut loose a little bit.
Zach's already grooven, ready anticipating eagerly a little bit of
some blues heart from yours truly. Jimmy Sangenberger filling in
for Mandy Connell. Another hour up ahead five six, six
nine zero the KOA Common Spirit Health text line keep

(01:05:46):
it here on KOA.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
I got some requests for a.

Speaker 1 (01:06:01):
Little bit of harmonica, so there you go, and just
in time for I wish I could go, but I can't.
The Greeley Blues Jam is happening today and tomorrow Jimmy
Sangenberger in for Andy Connell.

Speaker 2 (01:06:15):
If you couldn't tell by the live harmonica playing.

Speaker 1 (01:06:22):
And the talk of blues, the Greenley Blues Jam today
and tomorrow Greeley Blues Jam dot org. Thank you for
the reminders from listeners texting in. I heard Charlie Musselwhite,
one of the all time legendary blues hard players, especially
alive today still is playing there which I saw him

(01:06:47):
last year at Blues from the Top in winter Park,
which is happening the last weekend of this month. So
much going on, so much fun to be had, and
I'm glad to be with you and have you along
for the ride five sixty six nine zero. Of course,
the koa common spirit health text line if you want

(01:07:08):
to join in to the festivities. And I would be
remiss if I didn't talk a little bit about the
job's numbers.

Speaker 2 (01:07:18):
Hiring slowed, but the expectations.

Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
Were beat US job growth with one hundred and thirty
nine thousand more jobs created in the month of May.
It was a slowing of growth in jobs but above expectations.
So kind of a mixed bag in that sense, signaling
that employers are being more cautious amid and certainty about

(01:07:44):
the tariffs, but not too much that they've really pulled back.
We're not in negative territory of losing jobs per se,
unemployment remaining steady at four point two percent, despite.

Speaker 2 (01:07:59):
Efforts from the.

Speaker 1 (01:07:59):
White House to do what really needs to happen, cutting
federal jobs and cutting federal spending to the extent that
really is even possible. But profits are being hit by terrats.
We talked more about trading the last hour. Business's ability

(01:08:22):
to plan is more difficult.

Speaker 2 (01:08:23):
And here's the thing.

Speaker 1 (01:08:24):
When it comes to hiring, you're making projections, especially when
you're a bigger company, mid size to large company. You're
making projections out multiple years. If you're not sure what
the environment is going to be over the next couple
of years, there's going to be more hesitancy to hire,
and so that certainly is putting a bit of a

(01:08:45):
damper on job growth. Revisions, according to the Wall Street Journal,
showed a jobs market that was much weaker earlier this
year than originally thought, employers adding a combined ninety five
thousand fewer jobs in March and April than previously estimated.

Speaker 2 (01:09:02):
Let's be clear and fair to.

Speaker 1 (01:09:05):
President Trump that a lot of this is because of
the economy that Biden brought that was slowing down, that
was inflationary, and so the groundwork for Trump to build
from is not fertile.

Speaker 2 (01:09:21):
It's not fertile.

Speaker 1 (01:09:22):
Ground, I should say, And unfortunately he's putting some.

Speaker 2 (01:09:31):
I don't know, anti fertilizer.

Speaker 1 (01:09:33):
What would it be where you discourage plants from growing,
Like a little bit of that's being thrown down by
President Trump and his tariffs.

Speaker 2 (01:09:45):
But we have to.

Speaker 1 (01:09:46):
Recognize that Biden gave a base where things were not grand,
and so that's sort of what they're working with in
the administration as a base starting point. The revised April
job's number was one hundred and forty seven thousand, down
from one hundred and seventy seven thousand reported a month ago.

(01:10:10):
Now knowing that there was some job growth, the things
have not been dramatically pulled back. Has been beneficial for markets.
The stock market has the Dow rising more than four
hundred points so far in trading on a fairly solid

(01:10:32):
jobs report, the S and P five hundred touching six thousand,
So that's a good thing. It's good to see the
stock market on the rise. But the EBB and flow,
we know is an ongoing challenge, especially in this particular
economic environment. Bought Having said that, over the course of

(01:10:57):
the last couple of months, we have seen stocks broadly rise,
not quite to the level of mid February, but climbing
higher up because you've had a little bit of some
pauses and the implementation of tariffs and some other things.
So stock market benefiting a bit from that and from

(01:11:21):
some level of jobs growth.

Speaker 2 (01:11:27):
And of course.

Speaker 1 (01:11:30):
This is going to lead though to President Trump saying, hey,
Federal Reserve Chairman J. Powell, fed, please go ahead, go
for a full point rocket fuel in terms of cutting
by one full percentage point. I'm sorry. The Federal Reserve
is not supposed to be a stop gap for problematic
tariff policies. And I don't see Powell or the FED

(01:11:54):
board broadly saying, hey, yes, let's go ahead and do
a substantial rate cut at this point. That's not the role,
that's not what they should be doing. And quite frankly,
the impact of the Federal Reserve, I believe to the
extent it has a real impact, it's negative. The Fed
has very little positive impact in the economy. Things they

(01:12:17):
do wrong will hurt the economy. Otherwise, it's sort of like, Okay,
not much impact there. If you actually look at it,
there's much overstatement.

Speaker 2 (01:12:26):
Oh, let the Fed swoop in and they will save
the day. Sorry, not gonna happen.

Speaker 1 (01:12:33):
You cut one point and the federal funds rate is
not gonna do the trick. I would probably make things worse. Overall,
the Fed does not do positive things for the economy,
only negative. To the extent it even has an influence,
and sometimes it's outsized, sometimes it's tiny.

Speaker 2 (01:12:55):
Kind of depends.

Speaker 1 (01:12:57):
I'm Jimmy Sangenberger once again for Mandy Connell on this Friday,
June sixth, We'll continue on the other side on KOA.
Although I don't know from my advantage point, why don't

(01:13:17):
you just get right and stay right.

Speaker 2 (01:13:20):
Don't switch over to the left. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:13:23):
Do what you want to do. That's the beauty. And
one thing I love about KOA is you have such
a wide range of folks from different backgrounds, beliefs and everything.

Speaker 2 (01:13:34):
It is wonderful.

Speaker 1 (01:13:35):
Jimmy Sangenberger covering four Mandy Connell traveling around the world.

Speaker 2 (01:13:42):
Well she is. We're here continuing the program.

Speaker 1 (01:13:48):
I'll be back next Wednesday and Friday, plus the sixteenth, seventeenth,
and eighteenth.

Speaker 2 (01:13:54):
Lots more coming.

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
Up as we move ahead here ONOA I. I was
glad to see the charges brought against Mohammed Sabri Solomon,
the man accused of throwing molotov cocktails at a group

(01:14:18):
participating in a peaceful demonstration on Pearl Street Mall in
Boulder Saturday Sunday. The state has filed one hundred and
eighteen charges against him, with sixty two for crimes committed
against the victims, multiple counts of attempted murder with extreme

(01:14:41):
indifference and after deliberation, animal cruelty, assault on people, seventy
years or older. Use of incendiary devices and violent crime
with a weapon are additional charges that Solomon now faces.
His next court date July fifteenth, one pm.

Speaker 2 (01:15:02):
Good to see.

Speaker 1 (01:15:03):
That happen quickly, and you got to call the spade
of spade. This is an act of terrorism. This is
flagrantly anti Semitic. There's no other way to slice.

Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
We talked with.

Speaker 1 (01:15:17):
Attorney and Superior Resident Elliott Flating yesterday about some of this.
But I encourage you to watch for my Sunday column
instead of today. It'll be out on Sunday, one week
after the attack. It'll be entitled Blaming Victims, Justifying violence
with Politics, published in of course, the Denver Gazette Denver
Gazette dot com go to the columns page, or if

(01:15:39):
you subscribe, you can check it out in the E
edition as well. And I think it's very important message
to send, like we are seeing some folks, including Taysha Adams,
a member of the City Council in Boulder, blaming the
victims and justifying the violence with politics while simultaneously saying WHOA.

Speaker 2 (01:16:02):
Of course, I don't condone this. I think it's wrong,
it's I condemn it, but then at.

Speaker 1 (01:16:07):
The same time and making excuses for it and saying, well,
we need to include the political aspect of Zionism, which
is a load of bs. I'll break it all down
on Sunday, coming up to thirty news. I understand Kathy
Walkers will be doing the newscast, and of course we're

(01:16:29):
celebrating thirty five years of her career here on KOA
as and she's now as news director, retiring after thirty
five years. Truly incredible, one of those voices that you
will never forget and always have enjoyed over the many
years here on KOA and I've appreciated listener texts about

(01:16:51):
Kathy Walker's time here and what she has brought and
the residence. My favorite one was the text that came
in and said, my eleven year old knows her voice.
I'm raising her right. Not an exact quote, but that's
basically what the texter said. Five six sixty nine zero
is the KOA Common Spirit health text line.

Speaker 2 (01:17:12):
She will still be around, She'll still be doing newscasts
here and.

Speaker 1 (01:17:16):
There, but the day to day news director and constant
presence here, well, she's earned arrestment from it. Some relaxation
in retirement. Excited for her again. Kathy Walker's doing the
newscast coming up. And then on the other side, we
will talk with communications and crisis coach and expert Rashini

(01:17:38):
Raj Kamar, host of the Crisis Files podcast, to get
her unique taking analysis on the feud between Elon Musk
and President Trump. You do not want to miss this
as we continue, Jimmy and for Mandy on Koa and yes,

(01:17:59):
don't do you feel don't you feel like we, the
American people right now are being caught in the rhetorical
crossfire between Elon Musk, the world's richest man, and President
Donald Trump, the world's most powerful man, Because I sure do.

(01:18:20):
It is always just it's one of those things where
you see two titans go at it, and you go
at it in a very personal way, and you wonder
what the heck is going on.

Speaker 2 (01:18:33):
In a moment, we will get.

Speaker 1 (01:18:35):
Some exceptional analysis from a crisis in communication coach. But
I do have some breaking news that came out just
in the last little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:18:44):
We've not been able to get to it yet.

Speaker 1 (01:18:47):
Well, remember so called Maryland Dad kilmar Abrego Garcia. He
was deported to El Salvador. You had multiple Democrats who
went to do some publicity, but he stunts to show, hey,
I really care about this guy, when quite frankly, he's
not the poster child for the kind of a legal

(01:19:07):
immigrant you would want to be standing up for if
you're looking at that angle and well. Now, according to
Attorney General Pam Bondi, he's being returned to the United States, Yes,
but to face criminal charges related to what the Trump
administration said was a massive human smuggling operation that brought

(01:19:28):
immigrants into the country illegally.

Speaker 2 (01:19:30):
This from the Associated Press.

Speaker 1 (01:19:32):
He's expected to be prosecuted in the US and if convicted,
will be returned to his home country in El Salvador
at the conclusion of the case, officials said Friday, this
is what American justice looks like, Pam Bondy said in
The charges stem from a twenty twenty two vehicle stop
in which the Tennessee Highway Patrols suspected him of human trafficking,

(01:19:56):
and a report release by the Department of Home and
Security in April states one of the people in the
vehicle at luggage while they listed the same address as
Abragio Garcia. He was never charged with the crime, but
officers allowed him to drive on with only a warning
about an expirer's driver's license. Well, the federal government is
now escalating it with charges.

Speaker 2 (01:20:16):
To talk a little bit about this and really.

Speaker 1 (01:20:19):
Dive into the feud between Elon Mosk and Donald Trump,
I'm very pleased to be rejoined here on KOA by
Rashinie raj Kumar. She is a communication and crisis coach
has worked with Fortune five hundred companies, many of them.
She's someone folks go to for expert insights on situations

(01:20:40):
like this feud and.

Speaker 2 (01:20:41):
What to do and what not to do.

Speaker 1 (01:20:43):
And she is host of the Crisis Files podcast, which
is a must listen to podcast, and longtime guest of
yours truly joining me now, Good afternoon, Roshini, and welcome
back to KOA.

Speaker 7 (01:20:57):
Oh, it's great to be back, Jimmy and all. Its
fun to talk with you, especially about these very crisis
laid in topic.

Speaker 1 (01:21:05):
Yes, especially when you make your own crisis. It's like
does make our own crisis? It just has some fun
with it. Elon, how about that? But before we get
to that, you are a licensed attorney as well, and
I should mention you got a book called Communicate that
your toolbox for a powerful presence.

Speaker 2 (01:21:21):
But Abrego Garcia, this story is pretty big.

Speaker 1 (01:21:25):
Certainly if he gets convicted, and what happens is this
could be a roundabout way to get him back to
El Salvador.

Speaker 2 (01:21:32):
But what do you make of it?

Speaker 7 (01:21:34):
Well, what I would like to think is when the
Attorney General announces charges and announces some of the findings
from the grand jury, I'd like to think all of
that is as accurate as could possibly be. I mean,
because we don't want it to get to that level
unless there is absolute truth behind it, evidence behind it.

(01:21:55):
But when you hear something like what was it one
hundred possible trips traveling back and forth trafficking people that's
what's alleged, that is pretty stunning. I mean, I don't
think you can make that up. I hope you can't,
but it is stunning, and it seemed in the words
of Pambondi she didn't say it at least that I heard,

(01:22:18):
but almost insinuating that there were some kind of abuse
charges also that could be involved, or suspicion.

Speaker 2 (01:22:26):
Of some of the abuse.

Speaker 7 (01:22:27):
When she's mentioning the women that were involved and under
his authority, there's so much more to come here, and
as long as the legal authorities, the Justice Department sticks
to the letters of the statutes and follow procedure. If
these chargers are absolutely true and credible, there should be

(01:22:50):
some kind of conviction that comes down. And no matter
how you look at it, though, Jimmy, unfortunately there will
be politics played here.

Speaker 1 (01:22:58):
Well, before we shift gears, I do want to think
for a moment about Chris van Holland, just as an example,
he's the senator from Maryland, the state that Abrego Garcia
was living in the United States, and he had went
to El Salvador, made a big deal out of it.
We already knew that the federal government had been claiming

(01:23:20):
that he is Albrego Garcia as a member of MS thirteen,
and so I was already making the assertion in saying, look,
this is not the guy that you should be using
as your prime example of injustice being done to illegal
immigrants who shouldn't be mistreated and what have you. Well,
let's say that this trial happens and he does get

(01:23:42):
convicted and then sent to El Salvador legally as a result,
like with the proper authority, as a result of being
convicted of this how might that reflect on Democrats who
went to that extent of let's travel to El Salvador.

Speaker 2 (01:23:58):
Let's make this guy our prime example.

Speaker 7 (01:24:02):
Yeah, I mean, he's not really a poster child for
anything good. And even if all of this was inaccurate,
that's not the poster child you want anyway. So with
those trips to El Salvador, definitely things were being made
so political and right now, I would just like all
sides to read up on their statutes, read up on

(01:24:24):
the Constitution, and the trials and any potential trial should
be conducted absolutely according to all the rules of the system.
That's really where I want to land on this, and
that's what every member of Congress should be thinking about,
as well as the Justice Department as it does its duty.

Speaker 1 (01:24:43):
Yeah, I think that should be a pretty clear to
be sure. Then let's shift over to the Breaking Romance
with you, Rashini raj Kumar, our guest host of the
Crisis Files podcasts, and No to me, this is pretty crazy,
the whole story. It started really with Elon Musk dissenting

(01:25:07):
and protesting, opposing the Big Beautiful Bill, and yesterday President
Trump said the following I'm going to play this clip
where he was at least trying to be pleasant to Musk.
Remember he was here for a long time. You saw a.

Speaker 15 (01:25:26):
Man who was very happy when he stood behind the
oval desk, and even with the black guy.

Speaker 2 (01:25:32):
I said, do you want to let the make up.
We'll get you to the Mecca.

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
But he said no, I don't think so, which is interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:25:39):
And very nice. He wants to be who he is,
so you could make that statement.

Speaker 7 (01:25:42):
Two.

Speaker 2 (01:25:42):
I guess.

Speaker 6 (01:25:43):
Look, Elon and I had a great relationship.

Speaker 2 (01:25:48):
I don't know will anymore. I was surprised because you
were here.

Speaker 15 (01:25:51):
Everybody in this room practically was here, as we had
a wonderful said he said wonderful things about him.

Speaker 2 (01:25:56):
You couldn't have nicer. Said the best thing the hat.

Speaker 15 (01:26:01):
Trump was right about everything, and I am right about
the great big beautiful bills.

Speaker 2 (01:26:06):
We called it a great, big beautiful bill because that's what
it is.

Speaker 1 (01:26:10):
But then, of course Musk said, kill bill, as in
kill that bill.

Speaker 2 (01:26:14):
He said that Trump was a liar.

Speaker 1 (01:26:17):
When Trump said that Elon had gone ahead and.

Speaker 2 (01:26:20):
Supported this privately and then.

Speaker 1 (01:26:22):
Suddenly left the office or left the position at DOJE
in the White House and started attacking him. Elon, calling
him a liar. Ultimately, you had yesterday the biggest claim,
which was he's on the Epstein files and that's why
they weren't released. That's from Elon Mousse. Meanwhile, President Trump saying, hey,
this guy is a Trump derangement syndrome.

Speaker 2 (01:26:45):
All of that. So that's a long lead in for
your Rashmi ras Kumar your take.

Speaker 7 (01:26:52):
Well, the war of words not surprising to me by
these two men, but it gets to where you kind
of have to really step back and as I say
to my clients, assess your audience before you even speak
up in the first place. And in this case, at
this point, both sides should assess their audience, and Elon

(01:27:12):
Musk really needs to assess what he's up against her.
It's Trump, He's the President of the United States. He
has a lot of Republican backing, and even if Elon
Musk is trying to drive that wedge in a Republican
party or make many Republicans go against Trumps, it's a
very big uphill battle. So assess the audience, Alon, and

(01:27:35):
then my advice to both sides is take the weekend off,
stay out of the news cycle for a bit, because
everyone's going to be talking about it all weekend. You're
not going to be out of the news, but just
stop saying stuff for forty eight or seventy.

Speaker 2 (01:27:49):
Two lat Wait wait, RASHENI, you're talking a guy logical advice.
But these are two people who create the attention.

Speaker 7 (01:27:58):
Yes, they do crazy attention. I do think, as you
pointed out with the clip you played, Trump was trying
to be softer in the beginning. But if you're gonna
wave the Jeffrey Epstein thing in front of Trump, he's
probably got to come back with maybe not it wasn't me,
but something else about a lion, And we landed with

(01:28:18):
this Trump derangement syndrome. I mean, it just gets preposterous
and crazy. I don't think any American is really losing
sleep over it. But what this does affect our actual markets,
actual companies, and people's livelihoods. So Ellen Musk has a
fiduciary duty to his company, to his board, and his stockholders.

(01:28:41):
So that's something to be thinking about as a separate
thing before he goes and flouts his mouth or takes
his megaphone somewhere. The other piece of this, Jimmy that
I just don't want people to forget is anything connected
to the big beautiful bill, two bills, three bills, whatever
it ends up being. That is the role, that is

(01:29:03):
the job of the United States Congress, both the House
and the Senate, to hash out things in legislation, in
bills before they are passed into law.

Speaker 2 (01:29:12):
So it really.

Speaker 7 (01:29:13):
Does start first with those members of the House and
members of the Senate. Yeah, that's where the influence has
to be. And then of course they want to put
something together that the President will find into law. But
it is ultimately the Congress that is working through and hashing.

Speaker 1 (01:29:29):
Through these bills. I want to get your reaction to
two different things that I think each helped to underscore
the absurdity of.

Speaker 2 (01:29:38):
The host situation.

Speaker 1 (01:29:39):
Reshienie Rashkomar one one one is a tweet that was
put out by someone I'm betting you know is someone
on the left too, from one or two of the
words used.

Speaker 2 (01:29:51):
But tweeted out this.

Speaker 1 (01:29:54):
So Elon goes kill the bill, and Trump goes Elon
has TDS, so Elon goes I'm the reason Trump won.
So Trump goes we waste billions on Elon. So Elon
goes Epstein, and a flunky goes deport and Elon goes
impeach and that's why women are too emotional to be president.

Speaker 7 (01:30:15):
Oh my gosh, your reacts, Oh my gosh.

Speaker 2 (01:30:20):
And this is why that were on.

Speaker 7 (01:30:22):
The X platform. This is why a lot of people
are sleeing X, and X is really known for these
kinds of bought battles or other deranged people's battles. I mean,
it's just this is why both Elon Musk and President
Donald Trump need to step back be quiet for a while,

(01:30:43):
because when they speak, people do listen, and even when
they are spewing things that are preposterous. So this is
where when we go we go back to the root
of the things I do. Jimmy, the executive coaching for
leaders is strategy for messaging.

Speaker 2 (01:30:59):
You always have to be above.

Speaker 7 (01:31:01):
You have to have some executive mindset when you know
you are in a position of leadership and have the
absolute potential to influence thousands, if not millions of people.
So both of these men are behaving badly. They should
stop and they should definitely shut their mouths.

Speaker 1 (01:31:18):
Now, we have a very exclusive recording from a very
very real President Trump talking about the relationship from bromance
between him and Elon Musk. Take a listen to this
exclusive clip.

Speaker 15 (01:31:33):
I was talking with a very great directive friend of mine,
Hollywood director, a pretty good guy. Actually, I won't say
his name because he's shocked. And a few months ago
he was going he said, mister President, you should really
make a romance movie about you and Ela.

Speaker 2 (01:31:49):
I thought, that's a great idea.

Speaker 15 (01:31:50):
Let's call it when Elon McDonald and it would have
happened to It would have been a very nice romance,
kind of like a Casa blanc casablanca, which means white
house in Moroccan. But now they might as well call
it when.

Speaker 2 (01:32:08):
Harry stabbed Sally in the backouch. I of course my.

Speaker 15 (01:32:13):
Role will go to Brad Pitt because of the obvious
For example, Elon will be played unfortunately by a slabbering
fifteen year old Labrador retriever with.

Speaker 2 (01:32:25):
Unfortunately only one good eye. Sad but accurate.

Speaker 1 (01:32:29):
Second, I don't know, I think that, uh for my
friend Mark Corgan, that I think encapsulates the height of
absurdity of this whole thing.

Speaker 7 (01:32:42):
Yeah, I mean, I have the question whether that is
a legitimate recording, but it's certainly hilarious and I think
it really is an exclamation point on this whole ridiculous
romance breakup.

Speaker 1 (01:32:54):
It really is, which is why the best satire is
the one that you hear and you're like, wait a second,
is this the real guy for one second?

Speaker 7 (01:33:03):
And with Jimmy, as we used to say when I
was a TV reporter, real life you stranger.

Speaker 2 (01:33:10):
Yes, it is.

Speaker 1 (01:33:11):
Finally Rashini rascummar before we let you go, just kind
of encapsulate for us. Is this something that they could,
Like I was talking earlier.

Speaker 2 (01:33:20):
My grandfather made this point. They both He's like, they
both need each other.

Speaker 1 (01:33:24):
I think they're gonna, you know, figure totively speaking, he said,
kiss and make up and they'll be friends again, or
at least working relationship. Obviously they've been at odds in
the past.

Speaker 2 (01:33:34):
How do you think this goes forward?

Speaker 7 (01:33:37):
Well? Is it possible for them to kiss and makeup?

Speaker 15 (01:33:40):
Yes, I mean.

Speaker 7 (01:33:41):
George w and Clinton can become best buddies and go
on the road together on their speaking tours. Anything is possible.
I just think I don't know that both of these
men have shown such volatility. I just don't know where trust.

Speaker 13 (01:33:56):
Could be had.

Speaker 7 (01:33:57):
That's where we are. And when you don't have trust,
you really have nothing.

Speaker 1 (01:34:01):
And I would actually ask did they have trust when
he was brought into the administration originally because I actually
don't know for sure that that was a.

Speaker 7 (01:34:09):
Good question, very good question.

Speaker 1 (01:34:12):
Check out the Crisis Files podcast on the iHeartRadio app
and at the crisisfiles dot com. Rashinie Rajkumar, it's host
and our guests, thanks so much for joining us, my friend.

Speaker 2 (01:34:23):
Appreciate and have a great weekend.

Speaker 7 (01:34:25):
Thanks Jimmy, you too.

Speaker 1 (01:34:27):
Once again, Rashini Raj Kumar joining us on the program.
And I have to tell you of absurdity. I just
I don't know. How do you feel about this? We're
wrapping up and winding down the show for the weekend.
I am going to be back next Wednesday and Friday

(01:34:48):
with more of my brand of engaging, intelligent talk saying style.
My website, by the way, be sure to check that out.
You can reach out to me and follow my columns.
What have You twenty four seven three sixty five Sangenburger
dot com. Remember there's no AI or you in Sangenberger.
It's all ease, all the time. Once you know that
sang in Berger is easy and real quick. Before we end,

(01:35:13):
Zach was filling me in on something. So I am
not a horror movie guy. But there is a movie
that has been in theater, is a film called Sinners,
which actually has the legendary bluesman Buddy Guy in it.

Speaker 2 (01:35:25):
It stars Michael B. Jordan, Right, is that right? Starry
Michael B.

Speaker 1 (01:35:29):
Jordan's and I know a lot of blue stuff blues tropes,
old Delta blues. You were making your pitch off air
for why I should see this make it on air.

Speaker 16 (01:35:40):
Yeah, it's a fantastic movie. You know, Ryan Coogler knows
what he's doing. Fantastic director. And I think, you know,
even for the people who aren't the biggest horror movie fans,
you would enjoy this. I don't think I'm a horror fanatic.
I definitely wouldn't say. My girlfriend is, and we went
to the theater.

Speaker 2 (01:35:55):
We had a great time.

Speaker 16 (01:35:56):
I think there's maybe like a jumps scare in the
first few minutes of the film, and you'll know it
when it happens, and then I'll tell you right, you're
good the rest of the way pretty much on the
on the jump scare front, it's a more psychological, you know,
maybe Stephen Kingish type thing.

Speaker 2 (01:36:16):
I think it was.

Speaker 16 (01:36:17):
I thought it was absolutely excellent, maybe the best vampire
movie I've ever seen, the best like film execution of that,
the blue stuff in it, the music integration like almost
the musical in some ways with how integrated it is
into the plot and the story, because a lot of that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:34):
Stuff the you know, I mean, heck, Robert Johnson, most
famous blues man ever, arguably he sold us soul to
the Devil at the Crossroads so that he could be
this great guitarist. So those kinds of tropes are ones
in the blues forever.

Speaker 16 (01:36:49):
And they reference that, they reference some elements of yeah,
blues culture, I think West African culture. They tie all
the music history together. There's one shot that is one
of the coolest shot scenes Ben's nodding his head back
here in the studio with me, that I've seen in
film in years, if not my entire life. There's there's
some really high highs in this film.

Speaker 2 (01:37:08):
Overall.

Speaker 16 (01:37:09):
I think it's you know, at eight point five nine
out of ten movie, and I think I'm a pretty
arts grader, and that's fantastic.

Speaker 1 (01:37:16):
You said it's coming out on streaming soon, so I
will I will check.

Speaker 2 (01:37:19):
Out this week.

Speaker 16 (01:37:19):
Even it should be out for people.

Speaker 1 (01:37:21):
Well, I will definitely check it out. I know I
saw Bobby Rush with Kenny Wayne Sheppard. Actually Ryan Schuley
and I went last month, amazing concert. Bobby Rush is
ninety one, still alive and well, and he's got a
couple of tunes in the movies, so I have to
check it out. Thanks that great work today. Always love
working with you behind the glass. That is once again
it for me today and I'll be back on Wednesday.

Speaker 2 (01:37:44):
I'll see you then. Have a great weekend.

Speaker 1 (01:37:47):
Congratulations again to Kathy Walker's thirty five years retiring today.
Look forward to still hearing your voice and seeing you
around the studio. Have a great weekend once again, and
make God bless America.