A new segment was added to the show . Tentatively, for now, we calling it Mo's 'Final Thought.' And we'll be compiling the Thoughts over the course of the week and posting them for you to review and ponder each Thursday night.
We welcome your feedback at laterwithmokelly@gmail.com
We welcome your feedback at laterwithmokelly@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Lady for my final thought before we get out of here.
The morning started in an uncomfortable way, of course, with
(00:23):
the reported passing of ROBERTA. Flack, and the easy way
to describe her musical contributions is that she wrote some
of the most memorable and impactful love songs of all time.
No hyperbole. My all time favorite of Flack was feel
Like Making Love. I would play all the music, but
it's not gonna last in the podcast. We can't put
(00:45):
it in so charge that to us. But you know
her music. My favorite was feel Like Making Love, but
the world also knows her name for songs like Tonight
I Celebrate my love, her duets with Donny Hathaway Closer,
I Get to you.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Where is the Love? Where is the love? Where is
the love? That's Where's love? Closer? I get to you,
the closer I get to you.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face another one
of her hits, and of course killing Me Softly, in fact,
the last two The first time I Ever Saw your
Face and Killing Me Softly. I bet you don't know this.
They won back to back Record of the year. Gravity's
unprecedented at the time, and I can't personally personally remember
(01:35):
a time in which her music wasn't played in my house.
And there's a kind of a personal connection here. My
parents were in the Howard University choir with ROBERTA. Flack
while they were in college, so they had a rapport.
So her music was always on in the house, and
I was listening to her music, I guess long before
(01:56):
other people, because her music was much older than me,
into songs like the closer I Get to You, Where
is the Love Tonight? I celebrate My love had nothing
for me as a child, but I had a greater
appreciation of her music and Donnie Hathaway's by extension, by
the time I got older.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
And here's the best part of ROBERTA. Flack.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Unfortunately, even though she had to pass, but this is
the best part of moments just like these, because ROBERTA. Flack,
of course was being rediscovered right now, but also rediscovered
many years ago. Remember when the Fujis did their cover
of Killing Me Softly, And the funny thing is, you
talk to someone under thirty, they have no reference point
(02:39):
with ROBERTA.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Flack in that song and Killing Me Softly.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
They think the Fujis were the ones who originally did it,
and no they didn't. They think of Lauren Hills saying
yet It's like, no, it's a nice rendition and nice cover,
but it's ROBERTA.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Flack's song.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
But nobody has duplicated her impact on music or created
the melodies which would endure for generations. You can sample it,
you can do a cover it, but you can't really
create that magic. And that, for me, is the truest
test of the strength of someone's legacy. Will they know
your name and your positive contributions after you're gone, beyond
(03:17):
just the memory of your living relatives.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
I'm confident that ROBERTA.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Flack's music still will be played one hundred years from now,
long after you Me, Tawala Mark Stefan. Everyone listening right
now are also gone. Don't want to be morbid, But
one hundred years from now, they still will be listening
to ROBERTA. Flack, and people will still continue to enjoy
(03:43):
the majesty of her music. Her music will continue to
help people fall in love, find the love, celebrate their love,
and rededicate their love. And you know what, that's not
a bad legacy to leave. We should all be so lucky.
Rest in power, ROBERTA. Flack, Your eighty eight years will
be easily outlasted by all the time. In the future,
(04:04):
the world will celebrate your music. For k I am
six forty, I'm mo Kelly. I do have a final
thought for tonight, and it kind of ties into something
(04:27):
we were talking about a little bit earlier. If you're
old enough to remember the Reagan administration, one of the
most quoted phrases of the administration and the president for
that matter, Ronald Reagan, he'd say trust, but verify, and
that was in regard to nuclear disarmament talks. What some
people seem to forget or maybe don't even know, is
(04:50):
that phrase originally was a Russian proverb.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Yes, a Russian proverb.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
In fact, the phrase became nationally known in English after
Suzanne Massey, a scholar of Russian history, taught it to
then President Ronald Reagan. And there's a lot of wisdom
in that phrase, regardless of its origins. I know the
irony is thick given the politics of today, but there's
a lot of wisdom in it. In a world with
(05:19):
towing scams and short term rental scams, Nigerian prints, email scams,
and just garden variety fraud it's understandable to not believe
in a lot of things. Believe me, I get it.
We put our trust into a lot of stuff that
we just can't control. Every intersection we drive through, we
trust the stoplights for performing is designed and not in
(05:42):
opposition of one another. We trust when we get on
airplanes that they have had their necessary maintenance, the pilots
are sober with adequate sleep, and the air traffic controllers
are competent, and you know, hopefully not overworked on that
day or understaffed. And most of those things we can
and not verify. But there are some things we actually
(06:03):
can verify. We can verify if there's actual fraud and
waste in our federal government. You know, forensic audits happen
every damn day in this country, in every industry. It's
not new, it ain't special. You don't need computer programmers
to find fraud. You just need maybe some good accountants,
(06:24):
trained accountants. That's sufficient, because every forensic audit actually produces
a report at the end. That's the verification component. And
then subsequent to that, you make cuts, you make changes,
you fire people, all that kind of stuff. You don't
make the cuts and not produce a report and not
produce the proof of the fraud. We shouldn't trust with
(06:47):
no verification, right, right, We don't have to take someone's
word for it, right regardless whomever is president, especially not
an unelected private citizen and unconfirmed by the Senate, and
that same person has no oversight. If Joe Biden brought
in George Soros to do what Elon Musk is doing,
(07:08):
you would likely raise Holy hell, and rightfully so, rightfully so,
I happen to believe that if you're going to fire
thousands of people, no exaggeration, thousands of people, there should
be an actual preceding report and proof of fraud prior
to giving out pink slips before you got entire agencies
(07:29):
and departments.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
We as the American people, or.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
At the minimum, at the minimum, the elected Congress or
confirmed cabinet should be able to verify any claim of fraud.
I shouldn't just have to take your word for it.
I shouldn't otherwise you end up firing nuclear workers. You
shouldn't have oop so sorry, please come back to work,
or you send out ill advised emails asking people to
(07:51):
tell you what they did this past week and justify
their jobs, which actually is an admission you had absolutely
zero idea what the employees and agencies did in the
first place, or like today you have twenty one of
your own employees quit because there's a lack of cohesion
and competence in this endeavor.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Here's the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
There is no legitimate reason to trust what DOGE is doing,
not as long as we're intentionally being shielded from verifying
any of it. For k I am six forty, I'm O'Kelly.
(08:46):
Here is my final thought for the evening. Time and
time again, we are told that the government should be
run more like a business, and I personally bristle every
time I hear that businesses are profit driven. The government
that is about, or should be about, providing services that
private industry is either ill equipped or ill suited to provide.
(09:11):
That is why there are such things as police and
fire departments which are not predicated on turning a profit.
That is why there are things like public education where
we aren't forced to pay for all levels of our schooling.
That's why taxes are collected to pay for street maintenance,
(09:32):
sidewalk repair, or other public works. For example, if you
were to have government work like a business, then you
would have anarchy. I mean, as much as we complain
about the cost of eggs and gas right now, and
I hear from you you are some complaining mother fathers.
Imagine having to worry about the escalating price of government
services yearly because the government would then put profits first,
(09:57):
you know, like a business. Imagine in the struggles those
small businesses without federal tax incentives.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Tax incentives aren't a money maker for the government.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Imagine the free market without the benefit of grants or subsidies.
How do you grow a small business without them? But
you know, those things don't generate profit either for the
federal government, but they have great value to our economy.
Imagine police and fire departments being run like businesses and
(10:31):
not services provided by state and local governments. Imagine FEMA
providing loans with interests to assist disaster victims instead of
actual aid. Imagine having to pay back aid because businesses
aren't in the business of giving away free money to
help people with no chance of a return on that investment.
(10:52):
Businesses charge to maximize profits because that's what businesses do.
Or the government could place sales tax on every federal
good or service. Now, because you would have to purchase it.
Why because you want government run like a business. That's
what happens when you spend money on businesses, you pay
sales tax. If you want the federal government to be
(11:13):
more like a business, well that's what it would include.
Imagine the federal government being subject to the whims of
market forces and competition. No way in hell you want that.
Remember you want government to be more like business. I'm
here to remind you businesses fail. These are some of
(11:36):
the arguments why you don't want to privatize social security,
for example. And I know what some of you are thinking.
I'm not, like you know, a mind reader or a soothsayer,
but but I hear the arguments, the same argument that
that actual businesses are better at what they do than
what government does.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Yes, they just do different things.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
But don't forget actual businesses can go bankrupt and start over,
possibly if they make a mistake. Not the actual government
a business going bankrupt. Let me remind you receives what
federal protection under the Bankruptcy Code. The federal government can't
file Chapter eleven and also get federal protection.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
See the problem with that. The government can't file Chapter.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Seven bankruptcy and liquidate its assets to pay off its
creditors like a business. Oh yes, let's sell the Lincoln
Memorial in the Washington Monument to help pay off the
national debt.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
See it doesn't work like that.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Businesses both incur risk and have safety debts, safety debts
provided by whom say it with meet the federal government.
America learned through the Great Depression that the government and
business had to have some degree of daylight separation, or
the collapse of markets could collapse the whole country. The
federal government is at best is at best a big
(12:55):
old nonprofit. We pay into it through taxes, but we
don't pay for it in terms of per use of services,
purchasing goods, or subscriptions. I have a Disney Plus subscription,
so does Tuala, but we don't have a fire department
or nine to one one subscription. I don't have the
premium plan where if I pay more, I can also
(13:18):
get the ambulance service and sidewalk repair bundle. Government was
never designed to work like that or be managed with
a similar ethos. Imagine a federal government raising against prices
each year like landlords raise rent because that's what businesses do.
Profit motive, profit driven, or raise the interest rates because
(13:39):
it can it's the federal government, and also then charge
high interest rates for all the services it provides, because
you know that's what credit cards.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
And banks do. They try to make money.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Yes, run the federal government like Wells Fargo. Say that
stuff out loud.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
It's just a horrible.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Idea running government like a business. You don't want that.
You want the government to better manage spending. That's something
I think we all can agree upon. The problem is
that too many people. Maybe you're one of them. You've
confused extreme wealth of individuals is somehow indicative of a
well run company.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
It's not.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Ask the Amazon employees, the Washington Post employees about Jeff Bezos,
Ask the Tesla employees about Elon Musk and what they
have to fight for daily. You, as the citizen, would
be akin to the Amazon delivery driver working a twelve
hour shift and urinating in a water bottle while on
the job. You're not Jeff Bezos, and don't you forget it.
That's what running America as a business looks like. There
(14:37):
is no trickle down, and its employees always get the
short end of the stick. For k, if I am
six forty, I'm o Kelly.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
And to close out the show tonight.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
For my final thought, I know you've seen the news
about the Jeffrey Epstein files, which are released. On some level,
I don't know how many documents have been released, but
I think of it a number of ways. And on
one hand, I'm thinking, maybe a long last we'll find
out who you know actually killed JFK. As far as
(15:27):
the other files which are going to be released, who
is on this Jeffrey Epstein client list and who really
murdered Ron and Nicole, Well.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Maybe not the last one. We don't need any help
with that.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
But the Trump administration has taken the first steps in
releasing the evidence surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and released it as
an exclusive to Maga Media. I'm serious, MAGA Media, which
of course is a personal media company at President Trump. Now,
notwithstanding the obvious conflict of interests of showing favoritism to
(15:59):
the president cident's personal media company, in releasing such information,
it raises the obvious question as to the veracity of
the content. And I'm only talking to reasonable people, So
if you're unreasonable, this is not for you. But when
you have a president who is inextricably linked to the
information in question, and we know he's linked because the
(16:21):
president is listed at least twice on the flight logs.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
That's not even subject to debate.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
But when you have a president who is connected to
the material and directing the media agency which gets the
material and directs the redactions, what should we make of
what we're finally allowed to read. We do know that
we won't be reading any opposing opinion in the Washington
Post for starters, which goes back to what I said
(16:47):
last segment about controlling information. But let me put this
another way, and this is not a question for you
to answer out loud, but answer it for yourself. How
would you feel about Bill Clinton, who was obviously connected
to this information? But how would you feel about Bill
Clinton releasing the same report and giving the exclusive to
(17:09):
a Clinton owned media outlet? And in this hypothetical, Bill
gave it to the Clinton owned media outlet only after
his appointees made all of the redactions, And the redactions
were made and only made by his personal appointees after
(17:30):
firing virtually everyone in the DOJ because they weren't in
strict alignment with the Clinton administration goals. Remember, President Trump
fired all non loyalists in the DOJ, you'd be more
than justified at being somewhat skeptical, just somewhat skeptical. And
(17:50):
what I'm saying is, when something is done in an
overtly political way, with overtly political overtures as far as
where I'm sitting, it's fair to then question what we're
looking at. If you think President Trump was going to
allow the release of any embarrassing information, any damaging information
to him personally or professionally or politically, to him or
(18:15):
those close to him, you respectfully don't know how any
of this works. To this day, he has withheld public
revelation of his medical records, the fullness of his taxes,
his college transcripts, and even fought against the Jack Smith
Congressional report being made public.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
That's not my opinion.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
All that is factual and all that is verifiable, but
the Epstein files, the Epstein files that his own administration redacted,
and his own administration released to his own media company
as an exclusive to I would assume to monetize. I
can't say it's holly on the up and up, and
I definitely don't have any dog in this fight. I
(18:56):
can promise you I'm not in the Epstein files. I
can't speak for Tawala. I can't speak for Mark Damn sure,
can't speak for Stefan. They're probably very nice guys, but
I don't know if they're going to be found in
the Epstein files. But I can say confidently that I'm
not in the Epstein files. I have no dog in
this fight, but I do know that a reasonable person,
(19:20):
and again I'm only talking to the reasonable folks out there,
a reasonable person should be able to look at this
and say, hmm, are we seeing what we think we
are seeing? And this is not being conspiratorial. It's about
control of information. This is about political motivations. This is
about whether we are getting the full story and we're
(19:42):
being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. I personally don't believe we will ever get
all of the truth regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files. In fact,
if we were, we probably would have gotten it by now.
We'll probably never know what happened to Jeffrey Epstein, the
person in that cell. It's one of those things which
(20:04):
will go down in history. Is another one of those
Kennedy like mysteries, will never quite know everything, but this
is what I do know. Whatever we will read tomorrow,
which will be released by a g PAM BEYONDI, has
been thoroughly curated to insulate and protect people, as so
(20:28):
determined by the people who are releasing the information for
k IF. I am six forty. I'm O Kelly
Lady for my final thought before we get out of here.
The morning started in an uncomfortable way, of course, with
(00:23):
the reported passing of ROBERTA. Flack, and the easy way
to describe her musical contributions is that she wrote some
of the most memorable and impactful love songs of all time.
No hyperbole. My all time favorite of Flack was feel
Like Making Love. I would play all the music, but
it's not gonna last in the podcast. We can't put
(00:45):
it in so charge that to us. But you know
her music. My favorite was feel Like Making Love, but
the world also knows her name for songs like Tonight
I Celebrate my love, her duets with Donny Hathaway Closer,
I Get to you.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
Where is the Love? Where is the love? Where is
the love? That's Where's love? Closer? I get to you,
the closer I get to you.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
The First Time I Ever Saw Your Face another one
of her hits, and of course killing Me Softly, in fact,
the last two The first time I Ever Saw your
Face and Killing Me Softly. I bet you don't know this.
They won back to back Record of the year. Gravity's
unprecedented at the time, and I can't personally personally remember
(01:35):
a time in which her music wasn't played in my house.
And there's a kind of a personal connection here. My
parents were in the Howard University choir with ROBERTA. Flack
while they were in college, so they had a rapport.
So her music was always on in the house, and
I was listening to her music, I guess long before
(01:56):
other people, because her music was much older than me,
into songs like the closer I Get to You, Where
is the Love Tonight? I celebrate My love had nothing
for me as a child, but I had a greater
appreciation of her music and Donnie Hathaway's by extension, by
the time I got older.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
And here's the best part of ROBERTA. Flack.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Unfortunately, even though she had to pass, but this is
the best part of moments just like these, because ROBERTA. Flack,
of course was being rediscovered right now, but also rediscovered
many years ago. Remember when the Fujis did their cover
of Killing Me Softly, And the funny thing is, you
talk to someone under thirty, they have no reference point
(02:39):
with ROBERTA.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Flack in that song and Killing Me Softly.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
They think the Fujis were the ones who originally did it,
and no they didn't. They think of Lauren Hills saying
yet It's like, no, it's a nice rendition and nice cover,
but it's ROBERTA.
Speaker 2 (02:52):
Flack's song.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
But nobody has duplicated her impact on music or created
the melodies which would endure for generations. You can sample it,
you can do a cover it, but you can't really
create that magic. And that, for me, is the truest
test of the strength of someone's legacy. Will they know
your name and your positive contributions after you're gone, beyond
(03:17):
just the memory of your living relatives.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
I'm confident that ROBERTA.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Flack's music still will be played one hundred years from now,
long after you Me, Tawala Mark Stefan. Everyone listening right
now are also gone. Don't want to be morbid, But
one hundred years from now, they still will be listening
to ROBERTA. Flack, and people will still continue to enjoy
(03:43):
the majesty of her music. Her music will continue to
help people fall in love, find the love, celebrate their love,
and rededicate their love. And you know what, that's not
a bad legacy to leave. We should all be so lucky.
Rest in power, ROBERTA. Flack, Your eighty eight years will
be easily outlasted by all the time. In the future,
(04:04):
the world will celebrate your music. For k I am
six forty, I'm mo Kelly. I do have a final
thought for tonight, and it kind of ties into something
(04:27):
we were talking about a little bit earlier. If you're
old enough to remember the Reagan administration, one of the
most quoted phrases of the administration and the president for
that matter, Ronald Reagan, he'd say trust, but verify, and
that was in regard to nuclear disarmament talks. What some
people seem to forget or maybe don't even know, is
(04:50):
that phrase originally was a Russian proverb.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Yes, a Russian proverb.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
In fact, the phrase became nationally known in English after
Suzanne Massey, a scholar of Russian history, taught it to
then President Ronald Reagan. And there's a lot of wisdom
in that phrase, regardless of its origins. I know the
irony is thick given the politics of today, but there's
a lot of wisdom in it. In a world with
(05:19):
towing scams and short term rental scams, Nigerian prints, email scams,
and just garden variety fraud it's understandable to not believe
in a lot of things. Believe me, I get it.
We put our trust into a lot of stuff that
we just can't control. Every intersection we drive through, we
trust the stoplights for performing is designed and not in
(05:42):
opposition of one another. We trust when we get on
airplanes that they have had their necessary maintenance, the pilots
are sober with adequate sleep, and the air traffic controllers
are competent, and you know, hopefully not overworked on that
day or understaffed. And most of those things we can
and not verify. But there are some things we actually
(06:03):
can verify. We can verify if there's actual fraud and
waste in our federal government. You know, forensic audits happen
every damn day in this country, in every industry. It's
not new, it ain't special. You don't need computer programmers
to find fraud. You just need maybe some good accountants,
(06:24):
trained accountants. That's sufficient, because every forensic audit actually produces
a report at the end. That's the verification component. And
then subsequent to that, you make cuts, you make changes,
you fire people, all that kind of stuff. You don't
make the cuts and not produce a report and not
produce the proof of the fraud. We shouldn't trust with
(06:47):
no verification, right, right, We don't have to take someone's
word for it, right regardless whomever is president, especially not
an unelected private citizen and unconfirmed by the Senate, and
that same person has no oversight. If Joe Biden brought
in George Soros to do what Elon Musk is doing,
(07:08):
you would likely raise Holy hell, and rightfully so, rightfully so,
I happen to believe that if you're going to fire
thousands of people, no exaggeration, thousands of people, there should
be an actual preceding report and proof of fraud prior
to giving out pink slips before you got entire agencies
(07:29):
and departments.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
We as the American people, or.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
At the minimum, at the minimum, the elected Congress or
confirmed cabinet should be able to verify any claim of fraud.
I shouldn't just have to take your word for it.
I shouldn't otherwise you end up firing nuclear workers. You
shouldn't have oop so sorry, please come back to work,
or you send out ill advised emails asking people to
(07:51):
tell you what they did this past week and justify
their jobs, which actually is an admission you had absolutely
zero idea what the employees and agencies did in the
first place, or like today you have twenty one of
your own employees quit because there's a lack of cohesion
and competence in this endeavor.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Here's the bottom line.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
There is no legitimate reason to trust what DOGE is doing,
not as long as we're intentionally being shielded from verifying
any of it. For k I am six forty, I'm O'Kelly.
(08:46):
Here is my final thought for the evening. Time and
time again, we are told that the government should be
run more like a business, and I personally bristle every
time I hear that businesses are profit driven. The government
that is about, or should be about, providing services that
private industry is either ill equipped or ill suited to provide.
(09:11):
That is why there are such things as police and
fire departments which are not predicated on turning a profit.
That is why there are things like public education where
we aren't forced to pay for all levels of our schooling.
That's why taxes are collected to pay for street maintenance,
(09:32):
sidewalk repair, or other public works. For example, if you
were to have government work like a business, then you
would have anarchy. I mean, as much as we complain
about the cost of eggs and gas right now, and
I hear from you you are some complaining mother fathers.
Imagine having to worry about the escalating price of government
services yearly because the government would then put profits first,
(09:57):
you know, like a business. Imagine in the struggles those
small businesses without federal tax incentives.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
Tax incentives aren't a money maker for the government.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
Imagine the free market without the benefit of grants or subsidies.
How do you grow a small business without them? But
you know, those things don't generate profit either for the
federal government, but they have great value to our economy.
Imagine police and fire departments being run like businesses and
(10:31):
not services provided by state and local governments. Imagine FEMA
providing loans with interests to assist disaster victims instead of
actual aid. Imagine having to pay back aid because businesses
aren't in the business of giving away free money to
help people with no chance of a return on that investment.
(10:52):
Businesses charge to maximize profits because that's what businesses do.
Or the government could place sales tax on every federal
good or service. Now, because you would have to purchase it.
Why because you want government run like a business. That's
what happens when you spend money on businesses, you pay
sales tax. If you want the federal government to be
(11:13):
more like a business, well that's what it would include.
Imagine the federal government being subject to the whims of
market forces and competition. No way in hell you want that.
Remember you want government to be more like business. I'm
here to remind you businesses fail. These are some of
(11:36):
the arguments why you don't want to privatize social security,
for example. And I know what some of you are thinking.
I'm not, like you know, a mind reader or a soothsayer,
but but I hear the arguments, the same argument that
that actual businesses are better at what they do than
what government does.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Yes, they just do different things.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
But don't forget actual businesses can go bankrupt and start over,
possibly if they make a mistake. Not the actual government
a business going bankrupt. Let me remind you receives what
federal protection under the Bankruptcy Code. The federal government can't
file Chapter eleven and also get federal protection.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
See the problem with that. The government can't file Chapter.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
Seven bankruptcy and liquidate its assets to pay off its
creditors like a business. Oh yes, let's sell the Lincoln
Memorial in the Washington Monument to help pay off the
national debt.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
See it doesn't work like that.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
Businesses both incur risk and have safety debts, safety debts
provided by whom say it with meet the federal government.
America learned through the Great Depression that the government and
business had to have some degree of daylight separation, or
the collapse of markets could collapse the whole country. The
federal government is at best is at best a big
(12:55):
old nonprofit. We pay into it through taxes, but we
don't pay for it in terms of per use of services,
purchasing goods, or subscriptions. I have a Disney Plus subscription,
so does Tuala, but we don't have a fire department
or nine to one one subscription. I don't have the
premium plan where if I pay more, I can also
(13:18):
get the ambulance service and sidewalk repair bundle. Government was
never designed to work like that or be managed with
a similar ethos. Imagine a federal government raising against prices
each year like landlords raise rent because that's what businesses do.
Profit motive, profit driven, or raise the interest rates because
(13:39):
it can it's the federal government, and also then charge
high interest rates for all the services it provides, because
you know that's what credit cards.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
And banks do. They try to make money.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Yes, run the federal government like Wells Fargo. Say that
stuff out loud.
Speaker 2 (13:55):
It's just a horrible.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Idea running government like a business. You don't want that.
You want the government to better manage spending. That's something
I think we all can agree upon. The problem is
that too many people. Maybe you're one of them. You've
confused extreme wealth of individuals is somehow indicative of a
well run company.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
It's not.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
Ask the Amazon employees, the Washington Post employees about Jeff Bezos,
Ask the Tesla employees about Elon Musk and what they
have to fight for daily. You, as the citizen, would
be akin to the Amazon delivery driver working a twelve
hour shift and urinating in a water bottle while on
the job. You're not Jeff Bezos, and don't you forget it.
That's what running America as a business looks like. There
(14:37):
is no trickle down, and its employees always get the
short end of the stick. For k, if I am
six forty, I'm o Kelly.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
And to close out the show tonight.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
For my final thought, I know you've seen the news
about the Jeffrey Epstein files, which are released. On some level,
I don't know how many documents have been released, but
I think of it a number of ways. And on
one hand, I'm thinking, maybe a long last we'll find
out who you know actually killed JFK. As far as
(15:27):
the other files which are going to be released, who
is on this Jeffrey Epstein client list and who really
murdered Ron and Nicole, Well.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Maybe not the last one. We don't need any help
with that.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
But the Trump administration has taken the first steps in
releasing the evidence surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and released it as
an exclusive to Maga Media. I'm serious, MAGA Media, which
of course is a personal media company at President Trump. Now,
notwithstanding the obvious conflict of interests of showing favoritism to
(15:59):
the president cident's personal media company, in releasing such information,
it raises the obvious question as to the veracity of
the content. And I'm only talking to reasonable people, So
if you're unreasonable, this is not for you. But when
you have a president who is inextricably linked to the
information in question, and we know he's linked because the
(16:21):
president is listed at least twice on the flight logs.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
That's not even subject to debate.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
But when you have a president who is connected to
the material and directing the media agency which gets the
material and directs the redactions, what should we make of
what we're finally allowed to read. We do know that
we won't be reading any opposing opinion in the Washington
Post for starters, which goes back to what I said
(16:47):
last segment about controlling information. But let me put this
another way, and this is not a question for you
to answer out loud, but answer it for yourself. How
would you feel about Bill Clinton, who was obviously connected
to this information? But how would you feel about Bill
Clinton releasing the same report and giving the exclusive to
(17:09):
a Clinton owned media outlet? And in this hypothetical, Bill
gave it to the Clinton owned media outlet only after
his appointees made all of the redactions, And the redactions
were made and only made by his personal appointees after
(17:30):
firing virtually everyone in the DOJ because they weren't in
strict alignment with the Clinton administration goals. Remember, President Trump
fired all non loyalists in the DOJ, you'd be more
than justified at being somewhat skeptical, just somewhat skeptical. And
(17:50):
what I'm saying is, when something is done in an
overtly political way, with overtly political overtures as far as
where I'm sitting, it's fair to then question what we're
looking at. If you think President Trump was going to
allow the release of any embarrassing information, any damaging information
to him personally or professionally or politically, to him or
(18:15):
those close to him, you respectfully don't know how any
of this works. To this day, he has withheld public
revelation of his medical records, the fullness of his taxes,
his college transcripts, and even fought against the Jack Smith
Congressional report being made public.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
That's not my opinion.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
All that is factual and all that is verifiable, but
the Epstein files, the Epstein files that his own administration redacted,
and his own administration released to his own media company
as an exclusive to I would assume to monetize. I
can't say it's holly on the up and up, and
I definitely don't have any dog in this fight. I
(18:56):
can promise you I'm not in the Epstein files. I
can't speak for Tawala. I can't speak for Mark Damn sure,
can't speak for Stefan. They're probably very nice guys, but
I don't know if they're going to be found in
the Epstein files. But I can say confidently that I'm
not in the Epstein files. I have no dog in
this fight, but I do know that a reasonable person,
(19:20):
and again I'm only talking to the reasonable folks out there,
a reasonable person should be able to look at this
and say, hmm, are we seeing what we think we
are seeing? And this is not being conspiratorial. It's about
control of information. This is about political motivations. This is
about whether we are getting the full story and we're
(19:42):
being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth. I personally don't believe we will ever get
all of the truth regarding the Jeffrey Epstein files. In fact,
if we were, we probably would have gotten it by now.
We'll probably never know what happened to Jeffrey Epstein, the
person in that cell. It's one of those things which
(20:04):
will go down in history. Is another one of those
Kennedy like mysteries, will never quite know everything, but this
is what I do know. Whatever we will read tomorrow,
which will be released by a g PAM BEYONDI, has
been thoroughly curated to insulate and protect people, as so
(20:28):
determined by the people who are releasing the information for
k IF. I am six forty. I'm O Kelly
Later, with Mo'Kelly News
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.