August 13, 2025 • 46 mins
Adam Schiff could be in big trouble and it's not just over mortgage fraud. Jesse Kelly gets the scoop from The Federalist's Sean Davis, but not before he goes through some big statements regarding Trump's upcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin. You'll also hear from Carol Roth regarding huge inflation and federal reserve news for the United States. Plus, Julio Rosas reports on the federalization of Washington DC.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV | 8-12-25
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Beam: Visit https://shopbeam.com/JESSEKELLY and use code JESSEKELLY to get our exclusive discount of up to 40% off.
Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShow
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Are we gonna finally get some peace between Russia and Ukraine.
We'll talk about that. I'll make a prediction. Did Adam
Schiff commit espionage? Sean Davis joins us, Carol Roth joins
us of all kinds of economic numbers, all that and
more coming up, And I'm right, Okay, let's talk a
(00:27):
little bit of foreign policy, which we don't do a
lot of on the show. As you know, I'm the
ugliest of ugly American. We will talk when things matter overseas.
But I care about my country. That's what I care about.
I don't focus anywhere else but gear. But we are involved.
We're involved with this Russia Ukraine mess. That wasn't your choice.
(00:49):
It certainly wasn't my choice. Don't know why we chose
to do it, but we are involved. Whove been heaping
weapons onto the Ukrainians. When Joe Biden was president, he
would publish we brag about the fact that we're sending
them all kinds of stuff. Mention McConnell wants. We're involved.
Whether you want us to be or whether I want
us to be, we are involved. And Trump has a
(01:10):
meeting upcoming with Vladimir Putin before before we get to that,
Trump's comments and everything else, Let's talk about life a
little bit. We give you a little bit of advice,
and those who have made this mistake are going to
nod their head, and those who haven't probably think I'm crazy,
But I'm going to give you a critical, critical piece
(01:32):
of advice for your life. At some point in time,
you are going to have somebody close to you getting
a divorce, marriage is breaking up. Maybe it's your sister,
maybe your brother, Maybe it's your parents, Maybe it's your neighbor,
maybe your cousin. I don't know. At some point in
your life, just the percentage of say it, someone in
(01:55):
your life you are close to is going to want
a divorce, try to get it worse. And in that moment,
because you're a good person, you are going to want
to do the thing so many people want to do.
Step in, step in and fix it. Hey, let's have
dinner together. Now, let's go out. No she's not that
(02:17):
bad of the take her back. No he's not that bad. Listen,
there's just a misunderstanding it. You are going to want
to get involved. I have seen this so many times
in my life, and one hundred percent of the time
not ninety nine, not ninety eight, not fifty one hundred
(02:38):
percent of the time. It goes so so poorly for
the person who tries to get involved, because what happens
is in a marriage when it breaks up, sadly, there's
all this personal animosity, all this history, all this bad
blood bitterness inside, and you step in try to fix it.
(03:01):
You don't fix it, you get burned, You get sucked
into it, and you get burned. That's how it works
every single time. Stay out of it, pray for them,
and let it go. This is this was what I
just said was the United States of America's foreign policy
(03:25):
since our founding, not our problem, stay out of it,
not our problem. Up, but France and Britain are fighting again,
not our problem. There's a war in Africa, what a shock?
Not our problem. They're fighting, not our problem. Why because
the founders knew George Washington. Go read George Washington's farewell address.
(03:46):
He addressed this specifically. He knew when you try to
stick your nose and other people's fights, other people's problems,
you don't solve them, and you get burned. Of this region, Russia,
Ukraine is long. I could sit here and do an
(04:06):
hour long history rant on the Crimean war, but I
wouldn't want to bore you to death. That was roughly
the time of our Civil War, where there were all
the brands, the Russians ever fighting over this exact piece
of ground for this exact reason, the warm water port,
the resources to everything else. We could talk about Joseph
Stalin's starving millions of Ukrainians to death. That this marriage,
(04:29):
the whole Russia Ukrainian marriage, is full of more fights
and bitterness and knockdown dragouts, and someone had to call
the cops than you can possibly imagine. Now, fast forward
to the year of our Lord twenty twenty five, and
of course they're fighting again. They're killing each other again.
It's all ugly, it's all terrible, and the United States
(04:50):
of America wants to stop it. Donald Trump, to his credit,
to his credit, I should point out, just like you,
the reason you stepped in when your sister was getting
a divorce. You're a good person. You want the to stop,
you want gilding there, you want to stop it. It's
a mistake. It was Trump talking about the coming meeting
with Putin.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
This is really a feel out meeting, A little bit
and President Putin invited me to get involved. He wants
to get involved. I think I believe he wants to
get it over with. Now I've said that a few
times then I've been disappointed. The money that's been spent
and the death is incredible. It's the worst thing that's happened,
by far, the worst that's happened since World War Two.
(05:33):
So I'm going in to speak to Vladimir Putin and
I'm going to be telling him you gotta end this war,
you got to end it. Well, We're going to have
a meeting with Vladimir Putin, and at the end of
that meeting, probably in the first two minutes, I'll know
exactly whether or not a deal can be waiting, because
that's what I do. I make deals.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
It's a good man LEAs. I understand the man has
his flaws like all of us, but they really don't
want peace. He wants the fighting to stop. He wants
to dying to stop. You don't want your sister to
get a divorce, let's have let's have a meeting. But
when you sit down with your sister and you tell her, well,
look think about the kids. Look, you don't want to
(06:14):
split up the family, the incombat. Who's going to get
the house. It's going to go with her the same way.
Well Trump knows it's going to go with Zelenski.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelenski
was saying, well, I have to get constitutional approve. I mean,
he's got approval to go into war and kill everybody,
but he needs approval to do a land swap because
there'll be some land swapping going on. I know that
through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good
(06:44):
for the good of Ukraine, good stuff, not bad stuff,
also some bad stuff for both says good and it
is bad. Russia's occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They've
occupied some very prime territory. We're going to try and
get some of that territory back for Ukraine now and
say good luck, and that'll be the end. I may say,
(07:04):
this is not going to be settled.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I know what he wants, I know why he wants it.
It's not gonna work. Look, I hope it does. Actually,
there's nobody better at brokering peace deals than Donald Trump.
But I think this is one of those situations where
we need to stay out. We should have stayed out
from the very beginning. Sad as it may be, Ukraine
is not a NATO country. We had no obligation to
(07:33):
go in. Russia could have taken what they'd taken without
close to this amount of loss of life, and this
thing would have been over a long time ago. But
instead these nutball communists had to step in. Joe Biden
and all the dirty CIA communists all around him wanted
a whole bunch of people to die, didn't care the
military industrial complex cheering it on. And that's another aspect
(07:56):
of stepping into this divorce. We're stepping in to get
our sister. We're stepping in to make sure she doesn't
get a divorced all while people are stating on the
sidelines cheering divorce, divorce, divorce, divorce, divorced, people like John Bolton.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
What do you make of the fact that Putin has
now been invited to Alaska.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Well, it's very gracious of Putin to come to former
Russian America for the summit. This is not quite as
bad as Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David to
talk about the peace negotiations in Afghanistan, but it certainly
reminds one of that The only better place for Putin
(08:37):
than Alaska would be if the summit were being held
in Moscow. So the initial setup, I think is a
great victory for Putin. He's a rogue leader of a
pariah state and he's going to be welcomed into the
United States. Second, I have a feeling this is sliding
very quickly in Russia's direction. I have to say, from
(08:58):
the strategic perspective, from the US interest perspective, this was
not a good day.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
These people are monsters and they want this thing to
continue forever. John Bolten and his stupid mustache would sit
there and watch every single Ukrainian die and go to
sleep every single night thinking he's the good guy. And
by the way, Vladimir Putin, yeah, he's the total piece
of crab, complete murderer. I get all that he's not
(09:28):
a rogue leader. Why do they say that he's the
leader of Russia, one of the most powerful countries on Earth.
He's the leader. He's, by the way, a fairly popular
leader in the country that holds the most nuclear weapons
on the planet. He's not some tinpot dictator in the
Middle East somewhere. He is the leader of Russia. You
can hate that all you want, but he is. This
(09:50):
is our crappy situation. We continue to stick our nose
in this situation and it continues to go poorly for us.
Let's hope next week I'm sitting here and saying, Wow,
that was wrong. We did it. Peace at last. I
(10:12):
pray to God that's coming, but hasn't happened yet. All
that may have made you uncomfortable, but I am right.
Adam shift speaking of making you uncomfortable, it's probably squirming
in his chair right now. You can just see that
Bible ahead of his going back and forth because I
think maybe, just maybe he might end up in prison. Oh,
(10:36):
he's in deep trouble. We'll talk to Sean Davis about
that next. Before we talk to Sean Davis about that,
let me talk to you about your mood. Have you
noticed as you've gotten older that you get down more
almost without explanation. I'm not talking about watching Rudy or
old Yeller. I'm talking about just kind of melancholy without explanation.
(11:00):
That's because your levels are off. And today here's what
we do. We go looking for answers, and we find
a clinic. Every there's a clinic on every corner. Now, hey,
come on, come on in. Inject you with this. You'll
feel better. You think that's what you need injections or
do you think natural herbal supplements might be the better route.
(11:23):
Try Chalk. Just try Chalk for ninety days anything. Try
their choc lippowder in the morning. Try their male vitality stack.
Have your t levels jack through the roof. Try your
female vitality stack. If you're a lady, just try some
natural herbal supplements from Chalk. Give it ninety days. It
(11:44):
doesn't work, go down to that clinic. Try it. Chalk
dot com slash Jesse TV gets you a big old
fat discount. We'll be back. Did Adam Shift leak classified
(12:08):
intel about Donald Trump? I mean, let's be honest, we
don't have to ask stupid questions. Of course he did.
But I think maybe we have somebody who's going to
testify to the fact. At least John Solomon, just the
News says that's the case. Joining me now, someone who
knows all kinds of details. He knows where all the
bodies have buried have been buried. He's been talking about
it forever. My buddy Sean Davis with the Federalist Sorry,
(12:30):
CEO and co founder of the Federalist Sean. That's a crime, right, It.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Used to be, well, it's a crime if you're a
Republican to do things if you leak classified information in
your Democrat. Apparently it's not.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
Yeah, apparently it's not. So okay. First, let's dig into
exactly that, sean before we get into the specific Adam
Schiff stuff. Why is it that way? Why is it
Republicans burn in the government and Democrats don't burn in
the government. What has created that horrible environment?
Speaker 5 (13:04):
It's a great question. I think there's probably two factors there.
The first is that generally the left has taken over
every major institution of power, whether it's corporate America or academia,
or law enforcement and intelligence at the federal level. So
that was very much the case until recently when Trump
was reelected and started doing Black Fridays and Black Mondays
(13:26):
every other week to get rid of dead weight. And
then I think the other issue is that until recently,
the right generally thought that it was bad to use
its political power. The left never had a problem with it.
So when the left got in power, it used all
its little people in the institutions to destroy its enemies,
and so they played for keeps and they played to win.
And I think Republicans are now finally waking up to
(13:48):
the reality is that you cannot win a political battle
if you don't choose to use political power whenever you
have it.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Okay, So that brings us to Adams shift. I remember
or Adam Shiff got a pardon from Joe Biden, big
old air fingers quote there, because I think we all
know that drooling dementia pation didn't pardon anybody, but he
did get a pardon of some kind. Someone signed the
freaking pardon. Is he freeing clear on all this stuff?
Speaker 5 (14:15):
No, he's not. So I think there's two reasons probably
he's not. The main one is that that pardon, even
assuming it's valid, assuming that Biden signed it, was only
related to his work I believe on the J six
Committee and his JAY six nonsense. I don't believe it
extended at all to what he was doing with his
Russia collusion hoax, conspiracy and then number two. In order
(14:37):
for a pardon to be valid, you actually have to
accept it. My recollection was that Adam Shiff said he
didn't need it, or he rejected it. But either way,
I don't think that pardon covers him at all for
crimes he may have committed while he was running and
may still be running the Russia collusion oaks.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Okay, Ed Martin, I love the guy. What's he doing
right now?
Speaker 5 (15:00):
What there are He's running the weaponization task Force within
DJ and I believe he was also just tapped by
the Attorney General to be a special counsel looking at
mortgage fraud allegedly by Letitia James, the age who went
after Trump on non existent paperwork crimes and after Adam Shiff,
(15:20):
because it appears, at least if you listen to the
HUD Secretary Bill Poulti, it certainly looks like Adam Shiff
may have committed mortgage fraud by claiming as a primary
resident to a place that was not his primary residence.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Okay, So look, when people hear mortgage fraud, sean that
they don't hear high crimes and misdemeanors, right, they don't
think prison time. But how series of a crime is this?
Speaker 5 (15:48):
Well, paperwork crime, which is what James accused and got
Trump convicted of in New York. She was saying he
was putting down fraudulent appraisals for mar A Lago, that
he wasn't using the tax appraisal that the county had,
which everyone knows is only for tax purposes, not for
total value purposes, and that he overstated his Marologo value
(16:09):
so he could get loans using it as collateral. So
on the terms that she has created under her rules,
this is a very very serious, serious crime that she
and Schiff may have committed. And I think the way
the right needs to look at things now is that
you have to go after the left as good as
hard as they went after you. I wanted a different
(16:29):
set of rules. I wanted the actual rule of law
and push for that for a long time. Our side lost.
The other side decided they were going to put their
opponents in prison. Those are the rules we have now,
So those are the rules they're going to get to
play by.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
Okay. Jd. Evans came out recently and he said he
thinks we're going to see indictments, real indictments. In fact,
he said, I believe it was a lot of indictments. Now,
I'm a cynical, is anybody, But when the vice president
is saying that that sure is dumping quite a hot
potato in the lap of the Attorney general unless he
knows some of these things are coming, John, Are we
(17:07):
gonna see government people go to prison?
Speaker 5 (17:11):
I hope so, although I'll tell you I'm getting tired
of being, you know, Charlie with the football, trying to
kick it and then Lucy pulls it away, which is
what the last like eight years have felt like. So
I don't want to get too ahead of myself, but
I will say this time feels different. The facts we're
getting are different, the transparency we're getting is different. And
we have a very different Trump and a very different
(17:32):
Trump administration in office now than we did the first time.
And I don't think they're messing around. You know, the
FBI was sent to rifle through his house, to rifle
through his wife's underwear drawer. They denied him security that
led him to getting shot in the head. They tried
to make him die in prison and bankrupt him. I
don't think he's playing around anymore, and I don't think
the people working for him are playing around. And so
(17:52):
to me, it feels different. It feels like something is
coming and people are going to get indicted and hopefully
convicted for their crimes.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Let's hope so Sean, Thank you, buddy, I appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (18:04):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
We're gonna talk to Julio Rosas about DC and what's
happening there. Before we talk to Julio. Look, I know
sometimes work can be stressful, all right, Things don't go
well at work and you just want to punch something
because it's so frustrating. Have you ever been there? Me too,
(18:31):
So that's why you need some dream powder from being
you see, dream powder will put you to sleep at night,
but not with drugs. One hundred percent drug free. You see,
dream powder is a cup of hot chocolate with just
natural things in it like raysiet and melotonin and magnes
of all these things in it. I sip on a
cup of hot chocolate like tonight. Tonight, I'm gonna sit down,
(18:55):
blood pressure is gonna be up. I'm gonna have a
cup of hot chocolate, Gonna put me right to sleep,
and I'll wake up feeling good. That's the difference with
Beam shopbeam dot com Slash Jesse Kelly, We'll be back.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
And it just as we go to break I should
note that the most violent moment in recent history in
DC was January sixth, and it was an attack on
the United States Capital by a lot of people who
were doing it in the name of Donald Trump, and
it included the people who were hurt, included members of
law enforcement.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
I love that network. Joining me now my buddy Julio
rosas national correspondent with another network. I love the Blaze,
the United States Marine Julio. I know these muggings and
shootings and whatnot are dangerous, but they're nothing compared to
January sixth.
Speaker 6 (19:57):
Yeah, and well, so once she's wrong, And I noted
that when I posted that clip.
Speaker 7 (20:01):
I mean I literally wrote the book on it. You
see it over my shoulder.
Speaker 6 (20:03):
But I mean setting aside the fact that the DLM
riots in DC in particular lasted for a lot longer
than January sixth, and the damage inflicted was on everybody,
not just not just Congress, and the effects of those
riots and protests are still being effect today, which is
why we're talking about this current National Guard activation. But
what I find very interesting is that the Democrats who
(20:24):
are now criticizing this National Guard deployment by President Trump
had zero issue with keeping the guardsmen for January sixth.
For months long after there was any sort of threat
to the Capitol building. I mean the threat basically ended
after on January seventh, Right, and so now all of
a sudden when they're you know, the President wants to
(20:47):
use the National Guard to help protect citizens, you know,
the citizens and the residents and the tourists who are
now coming to the Capitol.
Speaker 7 (20:56):
Oh, all of a sudden, Oh that's too much. Oh,
all of a sudden.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
That's that's you know, that authoritarianism, This is fascism. And
so it's just you know, highlighting how when it comes
to protecting the elites of this country, no expense is spared.
But when it comes to protecting the taxpayer attacking private citizens,
well no, no, we can't. We can't do that because
that's racist or that's fascist in nature.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Well, leoh, you've spent a lot more time on the
streets of DC than I have. By the grace of God,
I hate that dump. But you're dracked there a lot.
Speaker 6 (21:28):
How bad is it, Well, it hasn't returned to pre
twenty twenty levels in terms of the crime rate. I
moved to the DC area back in twenty seventeen. I
lived in DC, Maryland, and Virginia during that six year period,
and there was a noticeable shift in terms of public
safety after twenty twenty because of the effects of the pandemic.
(21:49):
And then, of course, like I was saying, the DLMS
upon the police movement, and so it's certainly not as
safe as one as it could be, but also one
as it should be. Right, I mean, the fact that
Mexico City is safer than Washington, d C. The fact
that Bogota, Colombia is safer than DC, I mean, that's
a stain on us, right that that shows that one,
(22:11):
it's a policy choice because even if a cartel ravage
country like Mexico Colombia can get at least their capital.
Speaker 7 (22:18):
Safe for its citizens, why can't we do that? Why
why do we have to.
Speaker 6 (22:24):
Be concerned about all these other places around the world.
But you know, the place that represents one of the
places that represents the country, our capital that needs to
be let in disarray for a variety of reasons. I
mean that that that doesn't compute with me, and it
doesn't compete with a lot of American citizens, especially now
when we see that. Yeah, I mean, Cashpertell was saying,
this is the briefing that overall the murder rate in
(22:46):
nationwide is starting to go down. It's still, like I said,
very high compared to what it was pre twenty twenty.
But this is all by this is all by choice,
this is all by policy. And so if the leaders,
the local leaders in d C are insistent on this,
you know, ineffectual policy proposal or policy when it comes
to criminal justice and law enforcement, then yet it is
(23:08):
within President Trump's power and purview, since it is a
federal district, to actually do something else to see if
that's going to work to address this significant problem.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Maybe part of the problem is this moron is one
of the police chiefs in DC.
Speaker 7 (23:23):
Is what the chain of command is? Now, what does
that mean? Well, is it Pam Bondi speaking to the
American or how does this work?
Speaker 8 (23:30):
So at the executive order is clear, the President has
requested MPD services, and our Home Rule Charter outlines the process.
The President designated Attorney General Bondi as his proxy to
request services through me.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
We have a chief that doesn't know what the chain
of command is. She's not a one off, Julio. We've
seen police chiefs across the country in various cities, Cincinnati
most recently that are obviously communists, activists. How many of
these people are in charge of the major metropolitan police departments.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
Well, it seems to be all of them, or nearly
all of them. I mean it's not even, for example,
the police departments. But like in Los Angeles when the
fires were raging out of control earier this year, there
was problems with the police chief as well. It was
you know, system wide over there. Don't get me wrong,
it wasn't just her fault, but I mean it just
shows that this idea again from twenty twenty. I mean,
(24:33):
all this really started in twenty I know, I keep
coming back to it, but there's a reason for it, because,
especially now that the media wants to talk about January sixth,
it's like, well, there are all these policies that were implemented,
maybe not federally but locally and in statewide that has
led to disaster results. People have died, people have had
their quality of life ruined for various for various reasons,
(24:56):
and from various departments of a city or state. So
it's unfortunate that we're still dealing with these effects because,
as I was saying earlier, this is all by choice,
and you know, thankfully with d C being a federal district. Okay,
President Trump can have a much easier time kind of
taking control of the situation to.
Speaker 7 (25:15):
Try to fix it.
Speaker 6 (25:16):
But you see what's happening in New York City with
when Mondamie seemingly about to become the New York mayor
and all of his crazy radical ideas. You know, I
don't know, it just seems like if you want to
be a liberal, you got to have this this sense
of self harm or you know, they can't just they
can't govern themselves. I mean, all of these things that
(25:39):
they're they're proposing and they want to put into effect,
it's had disastrous results, but people keep voting for them.
You have Brandon Johnson, he's the.
Speaker 7 (25:46):
Mayor of Chicago.
Speaker 6 (25:47):
He has a historic unapproval rate, and yet people still
voted for him. And you know, so I don't know,
you know, for those other places, I don't know what
the answer is. I mean, yeah, there was a right
word shift some of those cities with this recent election,
but it's not like Chicago.
Speaker 7 (26:03):
Or Los Angeles.
Speaker 6 (26:04):
Ban you are gonna flip red anytime soon because it's
a managed decline and people just get used to it
and people is that all it is just part of
living in a city when it doesn't have to be.
I don't understand why people don't really understand that it
doesn't have to be this way, But I think it's
just because the solutions to their problems is seen as racist.
Speaker 7 (26:22):
It's seen as xenophobic, are seen as you.
Speaker 6 (26:25):
Know, fascists in nature, and so I don't know what
the solution is, to be honest, I don't know if
there's anything turn around anytime soon, but hopefully DC can
be a case study with this upcoming deployment to show you, like, yes,
you need law and order in these places to actually
get things back on track.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Julio, what are we expecting specifically about this deployment? Right,
we saw the press conference. We heard, you know, a
thousand National Guard troops and they're taking over the DC
Metro Police Department things like that, But okay, what does
that look like on the ground.
Speaker 6 (27:03):
So so my understanding is that the National guardsmen, in
addition to providing infrastructure security, which is kind of what
they're used for in civil disturbances, uh, they're basically going
to be force protection for the federal assets that have
also been surged to the region, to the city, and
so that I mean that frees up manpower, right, I
(27:24):
mean instead of having federal agents protecting an asset or infrastructure,
they can actually go out and be proactive because then
those National guardsmen take their place to stand guard and Jesse,
you and I all know about firewatch and and and
and gear guarding and all that. It's not the most
glorious thing, not the most glorious thing, but there's a
reason for that. There's a reason for that job, and
(27:46):
it's a force multiplier, right. So again it remains to
be seen exactly how it will play out, but I
think it sends a message at the end of the
day to the criminal element in the city which is
run rampant for for some time. That play times over
and you know they we've seen it be effective at
the border, We've seen it be effective in Los Angeles.
After the initial wave of anti ice riots, those have
(28:09):
dived down in Los Angeles pretty significantly.
Speaker 7 (28:12):
So I personally don't see a problem with using the.
Speaker 6 (28:16):
Resources that the President has within his purview to go
out and activate this this particular asset in personnel.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Did you ever fall asleep on firewatch be.
Speaker 6 (28:26):
Honest, No, But I fell asleep during a classroom during
boot camp, and I got caught by the first sergeant.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Oh what they do to you? Tell me what they did?
Speaker 7 (28:37):
Oh, they ran me out of the classroom. I had
to go to the sandpit.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
All right. Donald Trump said he's going to send the
military after the car tells what's that mean.
Speaker 7 (28:51):
That? That's kind of the question.
Speaker 6 (28:52):
So in the ideal scenario is that we are working
with countries in Latin America to have their permission to
work and conject function with their militaries to go after
these targets. But Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum, she has said repeatedly,
she just said it last week again saying no, US
military is not allowed. We're not going to allow it
(29:14):
because of national sovereignty. Of course, when it comes to
national sovereignty within their own borders with the cartels, that's
a different story. And she even boasted about how the
federal agencies like da FBI that work within Mexico, they
are under the strictest regulations in all of Latin America,
so you know, it basically makes it harder for them
(29:35):
to work with their partners. And so then the question
is okay, So then do we do you know, star
spangled banner across the Rio Grande into Mexico. Yeah, I
you know, I don't know if that's particularly smart, But
again I will say that, you know, we've spent vast
amounts of money, billions of dollars. We've lost thousands of
(29:55):
troops recently in recent wars across you know, across the
you know, in the Middle East. We've spent a lot
of money in Ukraine to defend its borders. And so
of course, naturally people ask, well, why can't we use
that same power and might within our own hemisphere, but
in particular with our southern neighbor that has a lot
of issues. You know, I love Mexico, but let's be real,
there's a lot of significant issues that impact us directly.
(30:19):
So the order has been given by President Trump as
far as we know, and so that's why the Pentagon
is currently trying to figure out exactly what that means.
Because there's also the legal issues.
Speaker 7 (30:30):
That come with it, with you know, rules of war
and warfare.
Speaker 6 (30:33):
So I don't I don't expect you know, the first
marine division to go across into into Tijuana, not on
a weekend for liberty, but for you know, in terms
of a combat.
Speaker 7 (30:44):
But yeah, you know about that, Jesse.
Speaker 6 (30:47):
But yeah, I mean this is this is new territory, right.
But again there's a reason for that because the status
quote simply approaching the cartels through a law enforcement perspective,
strictly through law enforcement apparatus, that hasn't worked. There's been
some successes, don't get me wrong, but the end result
is we're still dealing with fetanohl. There's all these new
drugs that are even more powerful than fetanyl coming across
(31:08):
the border and killing Americans needlessly. So understandably, that's why
Trump was elected, right. One of the reasons is because
not just with the war on drugs, but just in general,
is that the status quote can't remain.
Speaker 7 (31:22):
There has to be new.
Speaker 6 (31:23):
Ideas, radical ideas, you know, seemingly radical ideas in order
to finally get these problems resolved once and for all,
because we're decades into this and there's no end in sight.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
I just want to note that there's no evidence that
I ever went to Tijuana. That was strictly against the
rules too. Thank you, Realie, I appreciate it. We'll be back. Well,
(31:57):
we got inflation numbers that I guess I'm supposed to
be happy about two point seven percent. No one's ever
going to convince me why it has to be at
two percent. I don't understand why I'm supposed to accept that.
So I guess two point seven percent is something I'm
supposed to celebrate. Now my money has only gone down
two point seven percent. But I don't know. Maybe Carol
Roth can make sense of this, since she's now at
(32:19):
two times New York Times best selling author recovering former
investment banker. All right, Carol, woohoo, I'm two point seven
percent poor. I guess.
Speaker 9 (32:30):
Not only that, Jesse, but everybody's very excited about data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BLS, which last
week everybody hated, but now this week their statistics are
right on the money and fantastic. And yes, you should
be thrilled that, you know, we have the value of
your purchasing power continuing to decline. So it's it's a
(32:53):
very interesting scenario, I guess, in the scheme of if
we believe.
Speaker 10 (32:59):
The number, which you know, I don't.
Speaker 9 (33:01):
I think all of the numbers are trash, But that's
what we're supposed to do. I guess the good news
is that inflation has not, you know, picked back up
meaningfully again. I guess the good news is that should
the data stay where it is, that we will likely
get a FED rate cut, maybe a quarter of a
percent in September. Not that I'm sure that that's going
(33:22):
to do much for anybody's life, but everyone seems to
be very excited about it. And I do feel a
little bit like I'm living in bizarre world because some
days people like certain things and then the next day
they don't, and it just depends on you know, who's
in charge and whose mouth is coming out of. But
you know, the reality is that we had epic inflation
(33:45):
under the Biden administration. It has come down, but it's
still a rate of change, and that means you are
still paying more every single day, every single month than
you did.
Speaker 10 (33:58):
The day and the month before.
Speaker 9 (33:59):
And that's not a good thing for cost of living,
which is what Americans care about right now.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
That's a fact, you know, we'll come back to that.
We'll circle back to that. To use an old Jensaki term, Caro,
I have the completely nerdy detail that I'm curious about.
It just popped into my head how did they get
these numbers? I mean, I talk about this every day
and I honestly don't know how do they get these
jobs numbers? How do they get the inflation numbers? We
(34:28):
just accept that these are numbers that then, of course
they always have to revise because the numbers are a
bunch of crap, which of course begs the question how
they got them in the first place.
Speaker 9 (34:37):
Yeah, Well, if you go with something like the job's numbers,
they're going out and they're doing surveys.
Speaker 10 (34:42):
So there's two different surveys.
Speaker 9 (34:44):
There's an establishment survey where they go out to companies
and they survey them, and then there's a household survey
where they go out to households. Part of the reason
why the numbers have become trash is because the companies
and households don't want to fill out this information. They
don't want to give competitive added to the government, and
they have other things to do, so it's harder for
them to collect that. The BLS actually relies on a
(35:08):
lot of the other parts of the government, you know,
such as the Census Bureau under Commerce to gather this information,
which again is kind of a head scratcher. You know,
when you think about something like jobs, I don't know.
I mean, the government takes money out of everybody's paycheck
every pay period. You would think that the IRS would
(35:29):
have a real clear picture on who's.
Speaker 10 (35:31):
Employed and who's not employed every single pay period.
Speaker 9 (35:34):
So it seems to me this is a technology issue.
The administration certainly is plugged in with some of the
tech titans, and you would think that there would be
a better way to gather information from stuff that we
know is true and know is happening, versus sending out
random surveys.
Speaker 10 (35:50):
For jobs, for example.
Speaker 9 (35:52):
And I think that that's one of the things that
the new head of BLS E. J Antoni, who's absolutely fantastic,
should be looking into. He should be looking into do
we need to change the methodology, methodologies and way that
we have collected data in order to get more accurate data? And,
(36:13):
by the way, the answer to that is yes.
Speaker 10 (36:15):
Yes they do.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Okay, now let's circle back again, Carol, Shall we about
these rate cuts? This? Michelle Bowman, this FED chairman not chairman, sorry,
FED official says we got three of them probably coming,
do we? That certainly sounds good.
Speaker 9 (36:36):
I mean maybe that things change on a month to
month basis as data comes out. She is one of
the two FED governors that dissented and felt like we'd
already should have had a rate cut, So it's not
surprising that she should feel that. But there is a
board of governors that has twelve different members on it,
so she can feel that and the FED may not
(36:59):
go along with it. So that's part of the challenge here.
You know, I contend that we had fifteen years of
zero interest rate policy or near zero interest rate policy,
businesses and consumers loaded up on debt. I do not
think that if they cut rates by twenty five basis
points I have a percent, even three quarters of percent,
(37:20):
you get a full percent, that that is going to
unleash some kind of crazy demand for debt that is
going to shift the economy because consumers are already pretty
tapped out from a debt standpoint, as our companies. Yes,
you know, it will help in certain areas, also have
some issues for potentially for savers, but it's really I
(37:41):
don't think I don't think it matters. There's something called
the neutral rate, which is this theoretical rate where the
Fed's monetary policy actually impacts whether we get inflation or
we don't, and I just don't think that we're there yet.
So I do think we could get it, But the
the FED is always wrong. You've got a whole group
(38:02):
of people with their own agenda. So in terms of
trying to figure out what it is that they're going
to do versus what they probably should do, you know, that's.
Speaker 4 (38:09):
A whole other thing.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
Okay, So why are we going to get right cutscro
Is it because the economy is stabilized? Is it because
the tariff thing has worked out? Okay? Has it worked out? Okay?
Is it because of Donald Trump's ongoing public threats for
FED Chairman Jerome Powell? Look, I mean he does that
stuff for a reason. Why are we actually getting the cut?
Speaker 10 (38:34):
Well, that's again.
Speaker 9 (38:35):
It goes back to, you know, why are they doing
things versus why should they do things?
Speaker 10 (38:40):
And it's kind of hard to say.
Speaker 9 (38:41):
Their dual mandate is to stabilize employment as well as inflation.
Obviously we know that they haven't stabilized inflation, but we're
getting back towards their target, which you and I both
believe is above the target that it should be, which
is zero. But that's basically their mandate. We're looking at
jobs numbers now that are pretty weak, and so there's
(39:04):
a concern that if you don't get ahead of that
by starting to cut rates, then you could end up
seeing it an impact with with you know, negative jobs,
and have that reverberate through the economy.
Speaker 10 (39:16):
So that's what the Fed is trying to do.
Speaker 9 (39:18):
They're trying to thread a needle of managing the job
situation while at the same time not restoking inflation. And
as I said, I think at this point in time
they have room to do that.
Speaker 10 (39:30):
I think they should have done it a long time ago.
But I also think they've been wrong in every turn.
Speaker 9 (39:35):
Right that they you know, came in and did too
much support during COVID. You know, they waited too long
to cut rates. You know, they told us there wasn't
going to be inflation, it was going to be transitory.
And they've been wrong at every turn. And by the way,
it's not just Powell, it's yelling before Powell, it's burnenki
before yelling. You know, it's it's the institution itself is
(39:57):
rotten to the core, and that is basically the problem.
So it's ridiculous that we have to sit around and
hang on their every word when I started on Wall
Street about thirty years ago, this wasn't in play. This
wasn't something that we spent really any time thinking about.
It was kind of something that went on in the background.
And now the fact that that you know this is,
(40:18):
you know, we've got people talking about this on social
media and the president's talking about it. It just goes
to show how central planning's taken over every aspect of
our life, and it just really isn't a healthy thing
for us, for the economy and for the future, you know,
financial security of the country.
Speaker 1 (40:37):
Okay, Carol, So why is the jobs market not gotten better?
It seems like every day we have a press conference
about that they're investing one hundred billion, they're hiring fifteen
thousand workers. We hear, we see great headlines. I see
great headlines, we talk about them on this show. But
the job's numbers are not there. Why.
Speaker 9 (40:59):
Well, I think it depends and then you know, the
perspective and the way that you're looking at it. I
think if you think about what's happened, it actually isn't
bad news. It just looks like bad news from the headline.
Because what we've had to do is we have this
crazy amount of government spending, and what we're trying to
do is reduce government spending and shift you know, dollars
(41:19):
that are our spends and the labor force into the
private market.
Speaker 10 (41:25):
You also have a lot of illegals.
Speaker 9 (41:28):
Who are in the country and have now been deported
and we're keeping.
Speaker 10 (41:33):
The border secure.
Speaker 9 (41:34):
So from my perspective, with those shifts, the illegals coming
out of the job market, the government workers coming out
of the job market, it's going to take some time
for the private sector to readjust to reabsorb the government
workers to settle in. You know now that there are
no illegals in the job market, so you would have
expected that we would see a trajectory like this. Unfortunately,
(41:59):
there are too few peopleeople who are good at messaging,
and we're not getting this messaging across. But I don't
see anything wrong with it. These things don't happen overnight.
It takes time, and I think it's trending in the
right direction. But you would expect if you're making strides
in those areas that you're going to see jobs, you know,
coming down on a net headline basis. One of the
(42:20):
really positive things we've seen is the percentage or the
shift in the number of jobs between you know, native
born Americans versus immigrants, including illegal immigrants. And I think
that that shift, you know, has been very positive, and
so as the economy and the jobs market normalizes, we'll
(42:41):
see really positive outcomes from the things that are happening.
But again, this doesn't happen overnight. We're turning around a
really big ship. It's not going to happen from one
month to the next.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
Okay, Carol, let's shift gears here and talk about tariffs.
We keep getting these delays, a tariff war with China.
We just got another word as another ninety day delay.
We're going to delay this, We're going to delay that.
It almost seems like we don't want to have this
little tariff war with China. What's going on?
Speaker 9 (43:14):
Well, you know, I've argued from the beginning that it's
very challenging for US to go go cold turkey from China,
particularly because they have access to very important things like
rare earth elements that are critical for us, you know,
to do everything from build ships to have weapons manufactured,
(43:36):
and so the idea that we could all of a
sudden get crazy tough on them and not suffer enormous
reproduction or repercussions. It just wasn't didn't make sense going in.
So I think that this is a very difficult negotiation.
There are a lot of things that I think people
would like to see from it, stronger intellectual property protection
(43:58):
and the like, And I just think that China is
playing the long game.
Speaker 10 (44:02):
They know the hand that.
Speaker 9 (44:04):
They have, which is very strong right now, and they
think in much longer cycles than we do, and they
have the ability to wait things out. So I do
think that this is going to take some time. And unfortunately, Jesse,
I think that people who are all in on the
fact that you know, manufacturing is going to wholesale move
back to the United States, or that we're going to
(44:24):
get you know, some of these things on the wish list,
I you know, I hope I'm proven wrong, but I think,
you know, they may come out with some headlines around
these things, but when it comes to the reality of,
you know, does this change the situation for intellectual property holders,
for manufacturing and so so on and so forth, I
think it's going to be a lot more sizzled than steak.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Tear off. Thank you, ma'am, appreciate it. Lighten the mood next.
All right, it's time to lighten the mood. And I
have really really enjoyed the meltdown from the communists about
(45:13):
Trump stepping into cleanup DC. Look, we don't have to
cover it again. We talked about it yesterday. But Democrats,
once you raped and murdered, they're not soft on crime.
They don't have a different view of criminal justice. They
believe in letting murders and rapists loose to hurt you
and your daughter, and your mother and your wife. That's
what they believe. They want your son murdered in the streets.
They want that because it destabilizes the society. And so
(45:35):
they freaked out because they might actually be stopping violent crime.
And so this weird haired freak went on MSNBC and
tried to say climate change is more dangerous.
Speaker 5 (45:46):
When I go to DC.
Speaker 11 (45:48):
I'm not afraid of losing my wallet so much as
I'm afraid of losing my vote. I'm not afraid of
losing my wallet so much as I'm afraid that my
children's freedom to breathe will be stolen in a world
where climate change policy is non existent.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
Honestly, I think we should just play that in the
campaign ads for twenty twenty eight. Also Donald Trump dunking
on the press during these briefings will never stop being funny.
Speaker 7 (46:18):
You're building the big beautiful ballroom.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
Could we build a big, beautiful briefing room?
Speaker 1 (46:24):
Technology more. I don't want to do.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
I don't want you to be comfortable. Show show now.
I don't want to make I don't want to make
life comfortable
Speaker 1 (46:39):
Me either, mister President, see them all.
Are we gonna finally get some peace between Russia and Ukraine.
We'll talk about that. I'll make a prediction. Did Adam
Schiff commit espionage? Sean Davis joins us, Carol Roth joins
us of all kinds of economic numbers, all that and
more coming up, And I'm right, Okay, let's talk a
(00:27):
little bit of foreign policy, which we don't do a
lot of on the show. As you know, I'm the
ugliest of ugly American. We will talk when things matter overseas.
But I care about my country. That's what I care about.
I don't focus anywhere else but gear. But we are involved.
We're involved with this Russia Ukraine mess. That wasn't your choice.
(00:49):
It certainly wasn't my choice. Don't know why we chose
to do it, but we are involved. Whove been heaping
weapons onto the Ukrainians. When Joe Biden was president, he
would publish we brag about the fact that we're sending
them all kinds of stuff. Mention McConnell wants. We're involved.
Whether you want us to be or whether I want
us to be, we are involved. And Trump has a
(01:10):
meeting upcoming with Vladimir Putin before before we get to that,
Trump's comments and everything else, Let's talk about life a
little bit. We give you a little bit of advice,
and those who have made this mistake are going to
nod their head, and those who haven't probably think I'm crazy,
But I'm going to give you a critical, critical piece
(01:32):
of advice for your life. At some point in time,
you are going to have somebody close to you getting
a divorce, marriage is breaking up. Maybe it's your sister,
maybe your brother, Maybe it's your parents, Maybe it's your neighbor,
maybe your cousin. I don't know. At some point in
your life, just the percentage of say it, someone in
(01:55):
your life you are close to is going to want
a divorce, try to get it worse. And in that moment,
because you're a good person, you are going to want
to do the thing so many people want to do.
Step in, step in and fix it. Hey, let's have
dinner together. Now, let's go out. No she's not that
(02:17):
bad of the take her back. No he's not that bad. Listen,
there's just a misunderstanding it. You are going to want
to get involved. I have seen this so many times
in my life, and one hundred percent of the time
not ninety nine, not ninety eight, not fifty one hundred
(02:38):
percent of the time. It goes so so poorly for
the person who tries to get involved, because what happens
is in a marriage when it breaks up, sadly, there's
all this personal animosity, all this history, all this bad
blood bitterness inside, and you step in try to fix it.
(03:01):
You don't fix it, you get burned, You get sucked
into it, and you get burned. That's how it works
every single time. Stay out of it, pray for them,
and let it go. This is this was what I
just said was the United States of America's foreign policy
(03:25):
since our founding, not our problem, stay out of it,
not our problem. Up, but France and Britain are fighting again,
not our problem. There's a war in Africa, what a shock?
Not our problem. They're fighting, not our problem. Why because
the founders knew George Washington. Go read George Washington's farewell address.
(03:46):
He addressed this specifically. He knew when you try to
stick your nose and other people's fights, other people's problems,
you don't solve them, and you get burned. Of this region, Russia,
Ukraine is long. I could sit here and do an
(04:06):
hour long history rant on the Crimean war, but I
wouldn't want to bore you to death. That was roughly
the time of our Civil War, where there were all
the brands, the Russians ever fighting over this exact piece
of ground for this exact reason, the warm water port,
the resources to everything else. We could talk about Joseph
Stalin's starving millions of Ukrainians to death. That this marriage,
(04:29):
the whole Russia Ukrainian marriage, is full of more fights
and bitterness and knockdown dragouts, and someone had to call
the cops than you can possibly imagine. Now, fast forward
to the year of our Lord twenty twenty five, and
of course they're fighting again. They're killing each other again.
It's all ugly, it's all terrible, and the United States
(04:50):
of America wants to stop it. Donald Trump, to his credit,
to his credit, I should point out, just like you,
the reason you stepped in when your sister was getting
a divorce. You're a good person. You want the to stop,
you want gilding there, you want to stop it. It's
a mistake. It was Trump talking about the coming meeting
with Putin.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
This is really a feel out meeting, A little bit
and President Putin invited me to get involved. He wants
to get involved. I think I believe he wants to
get it over with. Now I've said that a few
times then I've been disappointed. The money that's been spent
and the death is incredible. It's the worst thing that's happened,
by far, the worst that's happened since World War Two.
(05:33):
So I'm going in to speak to Vladimir Putin and
I'm going to be telling him you gotta end this war,
you got to end it. Well, We're going to have
a meeting with Vladimir Putin, and at the end of
that meeting, probably in the first two minutes, I'll know
exactly whether or not a deal can be waiting, because
that's what I do. I make deals.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
It's a good man LEAs. I understand the man has
his flaws like all of us, but they really don't
want peace. He wants the fighting to stop. He wants
to dying to stop. You don't want your sister to
get a divorce, let's have let's have a meeting. But
when you sit down with your sister and you tell her, well,
look think about the kids. Look, you don't want to
(06:14):
split up the family, the incombat. Who's going to get
the house. It's going to go with her the same way.
Well Trump knows it's going to go with Zelenski.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelenski
was saying, well, I have to get constitutional approve. I mean,
he's got approval to go into war and kill everybody,
but he needs approval to do a land swap because
there'll be some land swapping going on. I know that
through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good
(06:44):
for the good of Ukraine, good stuff, not bad stuff,
also some bad stuff for both says good and it
is bad. Russia's occupied a big portion of Ukraine. They've
occupied some very prime territory. We're going to try and
get some of that territory back for Ukraine now and
say good luck, and that'll be the end. I may say,
(07:04):
this is not going to be settled.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
I know what he wants, I know why he wants it.
It's not gonna work. Look, I hope it does. Actually,
there's nobody better at brokering peace deals than Donald Trump.
But I think this is one of those situations where
we need to stay out. We should have stayed out
from the very beginning. Sad as it may be, Ukraine
is not a NATO country. We had no obligation to
(07:33):
go in. Russia could have taken what they'd taken without
close to this amount of loss of life, and this
thing would have been over a long time ago. But
instead these nutball communists had to step in. Joe Biden
and all the dirty CIA communists all around him wanted
a whole bunch of people to die, didn't care the
military industrial complex cheering it on. And that's another aspect
(07:56):
of stepping into this divorce. We're stepping in to get
our sister. We're stepping in to make sure she doesn't
get a divorced all while people are stating on the
sidelines cheering divorce, divorce, divorce, divorce, divorced, people like John Bolton.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
What do you make of the fact that Putin has
now been invited to Alaska.
Speaker 4 (08:16):
Well, it's very gracious of Putin to come to former
Russian America for the summit. This is not quite as
bad as Trump inviting the Taliban to Camp David to
talk about the peace negotiations in Afghanistan, but it certainly
reminds one of that The only better place for Putin
(08:37):
than Alaska would be if the summit were being held
in Moscow. So the initial setup, I think is a
great victory for Putin. He's a rogue leader of a
pariah state and he's going to be welcomed into the
United States. Second, I have a feeling this is sliding
very quickly in Russia's direction. I have to say, from
(08:58):
the strategic perspective, from the US interest perspective, this was
not a good day.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
These people are monsters and they want this thing to
continue forever. John Bolten and his stupid mustache would sit
there and watch every single Ukrainian die and go to
sleep every single night thinking he's the good guy. And
by the way, Vladimir Putin, yeah, he's the total piece
of crab, complete murderer. I get all that he's not
(09:28):
a rogue leader. Why do they say that he's the
leader of Russia, one of the most powerful countries on Earth.
He's the leader. He's, by the way, a fairly popular
leader in the country that holds the most nuclear weapons
on the planet. He's not some tinpot dictator in the
Middle East somewhere. He is the leader of Russia. You
can hate that all you want, but he is. This
(09:50):
is our crappy situation. We continue to stick our nose
in this situation and it continues to go poorly for us.
Let's hope next week I'm sitting here and saying, Wow,
that was wrong. We did it. Peace at last. I
(10:12):
pray to God that's coming, but hasn't happened yet. All
that may have made you uncomfortable, but I am right.
Adam shift speaking of making you uncomfortable, it's probably squirming
in his chair right now. You can just see that
Bible ahead of his going back and forth because I
think maybe, just maybe he might end up in prison. Oh,
(10:36):
he's in deep trouble. We'll talk to Sean Davis about
that next. Before we talk to Sean Davis about that,
let me talk to you about your mood. Have you
noticed as you've gotten older that you get down more
almost without explanation. I'm not talking about watching Rudy or
old Yeller. I'm talking about just kind of melancholy without explanation.
(11:00):
That's because your levels are off. And today here's what
we do. We go looking for answers, and we find
a clinic. Every there's a clinic on every corner. Now, hey,
come on, come on in. Inject you with this. You'll
feel better. You think that's what you need injections or
do you think natural herbal supplements might be the better route.
(11:23):
Try Chalk. Just try Chalk for ninety days anything. Try
their choc lippowder in the morning. Try their male vitality stack.
Have your t levels jack through the roof. Try your
female vitality stack. If you're a lady, just try some
natural herbal supplements from Chalk. Give it ninety days. It
(11:44):
doesn't work, go down to that clinic. Try it. Chalk
dot com slash Jesse TV gets you a big old
fat discount. We'll be back. Did Adam Shift leak classified
(12:08):
intel about Donald Trump? I mean, let's be honest, we
don't have to ask stupid questions. Of course he did.
But I think maybe we have somebody who's going to
testify to the fact. At least John Solomon, just the
News says that's the case. Joining me now, someone who
knows all kinds of details. He knows where all the
bodies have buried have been buried. He's been talking about
it forever. My buddy Sean Davis with the Federalist Sorry,
(12:30):
CEO and co founder of the Federalist Sean. That's a crime, right, It.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
Used to be, well, it's a crime if you're a
Republican to do things if you leak classified information in
your Democrat. Apparently it's not.
Speaker 1 (12:46):
Yeah, apparently it's not. So okay. First, let's dig into
exactly that, sean before we get into the specific Adam
Schiff stuff. Why is it that way? Why is it
Republicans burn in the government and Democrats don't burn in
the government. What has created that horrible environment?
Speaker 5 (13:04):
It's a great question. I think there's probably two factors there.
The first is that generally the left has taken over
every major institution of power, whether it's corporate America or academia,
or law enforcement and intelligence at the federal level. So
that was very much the case until recently when Trump
was reelected and started doing Black Fridays and Black Mondays
(13:26):
every other week to get rid of dead weight. And
then I think the other issue is that until recently,
the right generally thought that it was bad to use
its political power. The left never had a problem with it.
So when the left got in power, it used all
its little people in the institutions to destroy its enemies,
and so they played for keeps and they played to win.
And I think Republicans are now finally waking up to
(13:48):
the reality is that you cannot win a political battle
if you don't choose to use political power whenever you
have it.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Okay, So that brings us to Adams shift. I remember
or Adam Shiff got a pardon from Joe Biden, big
old air fingers quote there, because I think we all
know that drooling dementia pation didn't pardon anybody, but he
did get a pardon of some kind. Someone signed the
freaking pardon. Is he freeing clear on all this stuff?
Speaker 5 (14:15):
No, he's not. So I think there's two reasons probably
he's not. The main one is that that pardon, even
assuming it's valid, assuming that Biden signed it, was only
related to his work I believe on the J six
Committee and his JAY six nonsense. I don't believe it
extended at all to what he was doing with his
Russia collusion hoax, conspiracy and then number two. In order
(14:37):
for a pardon to be valid, you actually have to
accept it. My recollection was that Adam Shiff said he
didn't need it, or he rejected it. But either way,
I don't think that pardon covers him at all for
crimes he may have committed while he was running and
may still be running the Russia collusion oaks.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Okay, Ed Martin, I love the guy. What's he doing
right now?
Speaker 5 (15:00):
What there are He's running the weaponization task Force within
DJ and I believe he was also just tapped by
the Attorney General to be a special counsel looking at
mortgage fraud allegedly by Letitia James, the age who went
after Trump on non existent paperwork crimes and after Adam Shiff,
(15:20):
because it appears, at least if you listen to the
HUD Secretary Bill Poulti, it certainly looks like Adam Shiff
may have committed mortgage fraud by claiming as a primary
resident to a place that was not his primary residence.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Okay, So look, when people hear mortgage fraud, sean that
they don't hear high crimes and misdemeanors, right, they don't
think prison time. But how series of a crime is this?
Speaker 5 (15:48):
Well, paperwork crime, which is what James accused and got
Trump convicted of in New York. She was saying he
was putting down fraudulent appraisals for mar A Lago, that
he wasn't using the tax appraisal that the county had,
which everyone knows is only for tax purposes, not for
total value purposes, and that he overstated his Marologo value
(16:09):
so he could get loans using it as collateral. So
on the terms that she has created under her rules,
this is a very very serious, serious crime that she
and Schiff may have committed. And I think the way
the right needs to look at things now is that
you have to go after the left as good as
hard as they went after you. I wanted a different
(16:29):
set of rules. I wanted the actual rule of law
and push for that for a long time. Our side lost.
The other side decided they were going to put their
opponents in prison. Those are the rules we have now,
So those are the rules they're going to get to
play by.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
Okay. Jd. Evans came out recently and he said he
thinks we're going to see indictments, real indictments. In fact,
he said, I believe it was a lot of indictments. Now,
I'm a cynical, is anybody, But when the vice president
is saying that that sure is dumping quite a hot
potato in the lap of the Attorney general unless he
knows some of these things are coming, John, Are we
(17:07):
gonna see government people go to prison?
Speaker 5 (17:11):
I hope so, although I'll tell you I'm getting tired
of being, you know, Charlie with the football, trying to
kick it and then Lucy pulls it away, which is
what the last like eight years have felt like. So
I don't want to get too ahead of myself, but
I will say this time feels different. The facts we're
getting are different, the transparency we're getting is different. And
we have a very different Trump and a very different
(17:32):
Trump administration in office now than we did the first time.
And I don't think they're messing around. You know, the
FBI was sent to rifle through his house, to rifle
through his wife's underwear drawer. They denied him security that
led him to getting shot in the head. They tried
to make him die in prison and bankrupt him. I
don't think he's playing around anymore, and I don't think
the people working for him are playing around. And so
(17:52):
to me, it feels different. It feels like something is
coming and people are going to get indicted and hopefully
convicted for their crimes.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Let's hope so Sean, Thank you, buddy, I appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (18:04):
Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
We're gonna talk to Julio Rosas about DC and what's
happening there. Before we talk to Julio. Look, I know
sometimes work can be stressful, all right, Things don't go
well at work and you just want to punch something
because it's so frustrating. Have you ever been there? Me too,
(18:31):
So that's why you need some dream powder from being
you see, dream powder will put you to sleep at night,
but not with drugs. One hundred percent drug free. You see,
dream powder is a cup of hot chocolate with just
natural things in it like raysiet and melotonin and magnes
of all these things in it. I sip on a
cup of hot chocolate like tonight. Tonight, I'm gonna sit down,
(18:55):
blood pressure is gonna be up. I'm gonna have a
cup of hot chocolate, Gonna put me right to sleep,
and I'll wake up feeling good. That's the difference with
Beam shopbeam dot com Slash Jesse Kelly, We'll be back.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
And it just as we go to break I should
note that the most violent moment in recent history in
DC was January sixth, and it was an attack on
the United States Capital by a lot of people who
were doing it in the name of Donald Trump, and
it included the people who were hurt, included members of
law enforcement.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
I love that network. Joining me now my buddy Julio
rosas national correspondent with another network. I love the Blaze,
the United States Marine Julio. I know these muggings and
shootings and whatnot are dangerous, but they're nothing compared to
January sixth.
Speaker 6 (19:57):
Yeah, and well, so once she's wrong, And I noted
that when I posted that clip.
Speaker 7 (20:01):
I mean I literally wrote the book on it. You
see it over my shoulder.
Speaker 6 (20:03):
But I mean setting aside the fact that the DLM
riots in DC in particular lasted for a lot longer
than January sixth, and the damage inflicted was on everybody,
not just not just Congress, and the effects of those
riots and protests are still being effect today, which is
why we're talking about this current National Guard activation. But
what I find very interesting is that the Democrats who
(20:24):
are now criticizing this National Guard deployment by President Trump
had zero issue with keeping the guardsmen for January sixth.
For months long after there was any sort of threat
to the Capitol building. I mean the threat basically ended
after on January seventh, Right, and so now all of
a sudden when they're you know, the President wants to
(20:47):
use the National Guard to help protect citizens, you know,
the citizens and the residents and the tourists who are
now coming to the Capitol.
Speaker 7 (20:56):
Oh, all of a sudden, Oh that's too much. Oh,
all of a sudden.
Speaker 6 (20:58):
That's that's you know, that authoritarianism, This is fascism. And
so it's just you know, highlighting how when it comes
to protecting the elites of this country, no expense is spared.
But when it comes to protecting the taxpayer attacking private citizens,
well no, no, we can't. We can't do that because
that's racist or that's fascist in nature.
Speaker 1 (21:20):
Well, leoh, you've spent a lot more time on the
streets of DC than I have. By the grace of God,
I hate that dump. But you're dracked there a lot.
Speaker 6 (21:28):
How bad is it, Well, it hasn't returned to pre
twenty twenty levels in terms of the crime rate. I
moved to the DC area back in twenty seventeen. I
lived in DC, Maryland, and Virginia during that six year period,
and there was a noticeable shift in terms of public
safety after twenty twenty because of the effects of the pandemic.
(21:49):
And then, of course, like I was saying, the DLMS
upon the police movement, and so it's certainly not as
safe as one as it could be, but also one
as it should be. Right, I mean, the fact that
Mexico City is safer than Washington, d C. The fact
that Bogota, Colombia is safer than DC, I mean, that's
a stain on us, right that that shows that one,
(22:11):
it's a policy choice because even if a cartel ravage
country like Mexico Colombia can get at least their capital.
Speaker 7 (22:18):
Safe for its citizens, why can't we do that? Why
why do we have to.
Speaker 6 (22:24):
Be concerned about all these other places around the world.
But you know, the place that represents one of the
places that represents the country, our capital that needs to
be let in disarray for a variety of reasons. I
mean that that that doesn't compute with me, and it
doesn't compete with a lot of American citizens, especially now
when we see that. Yeah, I mean, Cashpertell was saying,
this is the briefing that overall the murder rate in
(22:46):
nationwide is starting to go down. It's still, like I said,
very high compared to what it was pre twenty twenty.
But this is all by this is all by choice,
this is all by policy. And so if the leaders,
the local leaders in d C are insistent on this,
you know, ineffectual policy proposal or policy when it comes
to criminal justice and law enforcement, then yet it is
(23:08):
within President Trump's power and purview, since it is a
federal district, to actually do something else to see if
that's going to work to address this significant problem.
Speaker 1 (23:19):
Maybe part of the problem is this moron is one
of the police chiefs in DC.
Speaker 7 (23:23):
Is what the chain of command is? Now, what does
that mean? Well, is it Pam Bondi speaking to the
American or how does this work?
Speaker 8 (23:30):
So at the executive order is clear, the President has
requested MPD services, and our Home Rule Charter outlines the process.
The President designated Attorney General Bondi as his proxy to
request services through me.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
We have a chief that doesn't know what the chain
of command is. She's not a one off, Julio. We've
seen police chiefs across the country in various cities, Cincinnati
most recently that are obviously communists, activists. How many of
these people are in charge of the major metropolitan police departments.
Speaker 6 (24:09):
Well, it seems to be all of them, or nearly
all of them. I mean it's not even, for example,
the police departments. But like in Los Angeles when the
fires were raging out of control earier this year, there
was problems with the police chief as well. It was
you know, system wide over there. Don't get me wrong,
it wasn't just her fault, but I mean it just
shows that this idea again from twenty twenty. I mean,
(24:33):
all this really started in twenty I know, I keep
coming back to it, but there's a reason for it, because,
especially now that the media wants to talk about January sixth,
it's like, well, there are all these policies that were implemented,
maybe not federally but locally and in statewide that has
led to disaster results. People have died, people have had
their quality of life ruined for various for various reasons,
(24:56):
and from various departments of a city or state. So
it's unfortunate that we're still dealing with these effects because,
as I was saying earlier, this is all by choice,
and you know, thankfully with d C being a federal district. Okay,
President Trump can have a much easier time kind of
taking control of the situation to.
Speaker 7 (25:15):
Try to fix it.
Speaker 6 (25:16):
But you see what's happening in New York City with
when Mondamie seemingly about to become the New York mayor
and all of his crazy radical ideas. You know, I
don't know, it just seems like if you want to
be a liberal, you got to have this this sense
of self harm or you know, they can't just they
can't govern themselves. I mean, all of these things that
(25:39):
they're they're proposing and they want to put into effect,
it's had disastrous results, but people keep voting for them.
You have Brandon Johnson, he's the.
Speaker 7 (25:46):
Mayor of Chicago.
Speaker 6 (25:47):
He has a historic unapproval rate, and yet people still
voted for him. And you know, so I don't know,
you know, for those other places, I don't know what
the answer is. I mean, yeah, there was a right
word shift some of those cities with this recent election,
but it's not like Chicago.
Speaker 7 (26:03):
Or Los Angeles.
Speaker 6 (26:04):
Ban you are gonna flip red anytime soon because it's
a managed decline and people just get used to it
and people is that all it is just part of
living in a city when it doesn't have to be.
I don't understand why people don't really understand that it
doesn't have to be this way, But I think it's
just because the solutions to their problems is seen as racist.
Speaker 7 (26:22):
It's seen as xenophobic, are seen as you.
Speaker 6 (26:25):
Know, fascists in nature, and so I don't know what
the solution is, to be honest, I don't know if
there's anything turn around anytime soon, but hopefully DC can
be a case study with this upcoming deployment to show you, like, yes,
you need law and order in these places to actually
get things back on track.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Julio, what are we expecting specifically about this deployment? Right,
we saw the press conference. We heard, you know, a
thousand National Guard troops and they're taking over the DC
Metro Police Department things like that, But okay, what does
that look like on the ground.
Speaker 6 (27:03):
So so my understanding is that the National guardsmen, in
addition to providing infrastructure security, which is kind of what
they're used for in civil disturbances, uh, they're basically going
to be force protection for the federal assets that have
also been surged to the region, to the city, and
so that I mean that frees up manpower, right, I
(27:24):
mean instead of having federal agents protecting an asset or infrastructure,
they can actually go out and be proactive because then
those National guardsmen take their place to stand guard and Jesse,
you and I all know about firewatch and and and
and gear guarding and all that. It's not the most
glorious thing, not the most glorious thing, but there's a
reason for that. There's a reason for that job, and
(27:46):
it's a force multiplier, right. So again it remains to
be seen exactly how it will play out, but I
think it sends a message at the end of the
day to the criminal element in the city which is
run rampant for for some time. That play times over
and you know they we've seen it be effective at
the border, We've seen it be effective in Los Angeles.
After the initial wave of anti ice riots, those have
(28:09):
dived down in Los Angeles pretty significantly.
Speaker 7 (28:12):
So I personally don't see a problem with using the.
Speaker 6 (28:16):
Resources that the President has within his purview to go
out and activate this this particular asset in personnel.
Speaker 1 (28:24):
Did you ever fall asleep on firewatch be.
Speaker 6 (28:26):
Honest, No, But I fell asleep during a classroom during
boot camp, and I got caught by the first sergeant.
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Oh what they do to you? Tell me what they did?
Speaker 7 (28:37):
Oh, they ran me out of the classroom. I had
to go to the sandpit.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
All right. Donald Trump said he's going to send the
military after the car tells what's that mean.
Speaker 7 (28:51):
That? That's kind of the question.
Speaker 6 (28:52):
So in the ideal scenario is that we are working
with countries in Latin America to have their permission to
work and conject function with their militaries to go after
these targets. But Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum, she has said repeatedly,
she just said it last week again saying no, US
military is not allowed. We're not going to allow it
(29:14):
because of national sovereignty. Of course, when it comes to
national sovereignty within their own borders with the cartels, that's
a different story. And she even boasted about how the
federal agencies like da FBI that work within Mexico, they
are under the strictest regulations in all of Latin America,
so you know, it basically makes it harder for them
(29:35):
to work with their partners. And so then the question
is okay, So then do we do you know, star
spangled banner across the Rio Grande into Mexico. Yeah, I
you know, I don't know if that's particularly smart, But
again I will say that, you know, we've spent vast
amounts of money, billions of dollars. We've lost thousands of
(29:55):
troops recently in recent wars across you know, across the
you know, in the Middle East. We've spent a lot
of money in Ukraine to defend its borders. And so
of course, naturally people ask, well, why can't we use
that same power and might within our own hemisphere, but
in particular with our southern neighbor that has a lot
of issues. You know, I love Mexico, but let's be real,
there's a lot of significant issues that impact us directly.
(30:19):
So the order has been given by President Trump as
far as we know, and so that's why the Pentagon
is currently trying to figure out exactly what that means.
Because there's also the legal issues.
Speaker 7 (30:30):
That come with it, with you know, rules of war
and warfare.
Speaker 6 (30:33):
So I don't I don't expect you know, the first
marine division to go across into into Tijuana, not on
a weekend for liberty, but for you know, in terms
of a combat.
Speaker 7 (30:44):
But yeah, you know about that, Jesse.
Speaker 6 (30:47):
But yeah, I mean this is this is new territory, right.
But again there's a reason for that because the status
quote simply approaching the cartels through a law enforcement perspective,
strictly through law enforcement apparatus, that hasn't worked. There's been
some successes, don't get me wrong, but the end result
is we're still dealing with fetanohl. There's all these new
drugs that are even more powerful than fetanyl coming across
(31:08):
the border and killing Americans needlessly. So understandably, that's why
Trump was elected, right. One of the reasons is because
not just with the war on drugs, but just in general,
is that the status quote can't remain.
Speaker 7 (31:22):
There has to be new.
Speaker 6 (31:23):
Ideas, radical ideas, you know, seemingly radical ideas in order
to finally get these problems resolved once and for all,
because we're decades into this and there's no end in sight.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
I just want to note that there's no evidence that
I ever went to Tijuana. That was strictly against the
rules too. Thank you, Realie, I appreciate it. We'll be back. Well,
(31:57):
we got inflation numbers that I guess I'm supposed to
be happy about two point seven percent. No one's ever
going to convince me why it has to be at
two percent. I don't understand why I'm supposed to accept that.
So I guess two point seven percent is something I'm
supposed to celebrate. Now my money has only gone down
two point seven percent. But I don't know. Maybe Carol
Roth can make sense of this, since she's now at
(32:19):
two times New York Times best selling author recovering former
investment banker. All right, Carol, woohoo, I'm two point seven
percent poor. I guess.
Speaker 9 (32:30):
Not only that, Jesse, but everybody's very excited about data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BLS, which last
week everybody hated, but now this week their statistics are
right on the money and fantastic. And yes, you should
be thrilled that, you know, we have the value of
your purchasing power continuing to decline. So it's it's a
(32:53):
very interesting scenario, I guess, in the scheme of if
we believe.
Speaker 10 (32:59):
The number, which you know, I don't.
Speaker 9 (33:01):
I think all of the numbers are trash, But that's
what we're supposed to do. I guess the good news
is that inflation has not, you know, picked back up
meaningfully again. I guess the good news is that should
the data stay where it is, that we will likely
get a FED rate cut, maybe a quarter of a
percent in September. Not that I'm sure that that's going
(33:22):
to do much for anybody's life, but everyone seems to
be very excited about it. And I do feel a
little bit like I'm living in bizarre world because some
days people like certain things and then the next day
they don't, and it just depends on you know, who's
in charge and whose mouth is coming out of. But
you know, the reality is that we had epic inflation
(33:45):
under the Biden administration. It has come down, but it's
still a rate of change, and that means you are
still paying more every single day, every single month than
you did.
Speaker 10 (33:58):
The day and the month before.
Speaker 9 (33:59):
And that's not a good thing for cost of living,
which is what Americans care about right now.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
That's a fact, you know, we'll come back to that.
We'll circle back to that. To use an old Jensaki term, Caro,
I have the completely nerdy detail that I'm curious about.
It just popped into my head how did they get
these numbers? I mean, I talk about this every day
and I honestly don't know how do they get these
jobs numbers? How do they get the inflation numbers? We
(34:28):
just accept that these are numbers that then, of course
they always have to revise because the numbers are a
bunch of crap, which of course begs the question how
they got them in the first place.
Speaker 9 (34:37):
Yeah, Well, if you go with something like the job's numbers,
they're going out and they're doing surveys.
Speaker 10 (34:42):
So there's two different surveys.
Speaker 9 (34:44):
There's an establishment survey where they go out to companies
and they survey them, and then there's a household survey
where they go out to households. Part of the reason
why the numbers have become trash is because the companies
and households don't want to fill out this information. They
don't want to give competitive added to the government, and
they have other things to do, so it's harder for
them to collect that. The BLS actually relies on a
(35:08):
lot of the other parts of the government, you know,
such as the Census Bureau under Commerce to gather this information,
which again is kind of a head scratcher. You know,
when you think about something like jobs, I don't know.
I mean, the government takes money out of everybody's paycheck
every pay period. You would think that the IRS would
(35:29):
have a real clear picture on who's.
Speaker 10 (35:31):
Employed and who's not employed every single pay period.
Speaker 9 (35:34):
So it seems to me this is a technology issue.
The administration certainly is plugged in with some of the
tech titans, and you would think that there would be
a better way to gather information from stuff that we
know is true and know is happening, versus sending out
random surveys.
Speaker 10 (35:50):
For jobs, for example.
Speaker 9 (35:52):
And I think that that's one of the things that
the new head of BLS E. J Antoni, who's absolutely fantastic,
should be looking into. He should be looking into do
we need to change the methodology, methodologies and way that
we have collected data in order to get more accurate data? And,
(36:13):
by the way, the answer to that is yes.
Speaker 10 (36:15):
Yes they do.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Okay, now let's circle back again, Carol, Shall we about
these rate cuts? This? Michelle Bowman, this FED chairman not chairman, sorry,
FED official says we got three of them probably coming,
do we? That certainly sounds good.
Speaker 9 (36:36):
I mean maybe that things change on a month to
month basis as data comes out. She is one of
the two FED governors that dissented and felt like we'd
already should have had a rate cut, So it's not
surprising that she should feel that. But there is a
board of governors that has twelve different members on it,
so she can feel that and the FED may not
(36:59):
go along with it. So that's part of the challenge here.
You know, I contend that we had fifteen years of
zero interest rate policy or near zero interest rate policy,
businesses and consumers loaded up on debt. I do not
think that if they cut rates by twenty five basis
points I have a percent, even three quarters of percent,
(37:20):
you get a full percent, that that is going to
unleash some kind of crazy demand for debt that is
going to shift the economy because consumers are already pretty
tapped out from a debt standpoint, as our companies. Yes,
you know, it will help in certain areas, also have
some issues for potentially for savers, but it's really I
(37:41):
don't think I don't think it matters. There's something called
the neutral rate, which is this theoretical rate where the
Fed's monetary policy actually impacts whether we get inflation or
we don't, and I just don't think that we're there yet.
So I do think we could get it, But the
the FED is always wrong. You've got a whole group
(38:02):
of people with their own agenda. So in terms of
trying to figure out what it is that they're going
to do versus what they probably should do, you know, that's.
Speaker 4 (38:09):
A whole other thing.
Speaker 1 (38:12):
Okay, So why are we going to get right cutscro
Is it because the economy is stabilized? Is it because
the tariff thing has worked out? Okay? Has it worked out? Okay?
Is it because of Donald Trump's ongoing public threats for
FED Chairman Jerome Powell? Look, I mean he does that
stuff for a reason. Why are we actually getting the cut?
Speaker 10 (38:34):
Well, that's again.
Speaker 9 (38:35):
It goes back to, you know, why are they doing
things versus why should they do things?
Speaker 10 (38:40):
And it's kind of hard to say.
Speaker 9 (38:41):
Their dual mandate is to stabilize employment as well as inflation.
Obviously we know that they haven't stabilized inflation, but we're
getting back towards their target, which you and I both
believe is above the target that it should be, which
is zero. But that's basically their mandate. We're looking at
jobs numbers now that are pretty weak, and so there's
(39:04):
a concern that if you don't get ahead of that
by starting to cut rates, then you could end up
seeing it an impact with with you know, negative jobs,
and have that reverberate through the economy.
Speaker 10 (39:16):
So that's what the Fed is trying to do.
Speaker 9 (39:18):
They're trying to thread a needle of managing the job
situation while at the same time not restoking inflation. And
as I said, I think at this point in time
they have room to do that.
Speaker 10 (39:30):
I think they should have done it a long time ago.
But I also think they've been wrong in every turn.
Speaker 9 (39:35):
Right that they you know, came in and did too
much support during COVID. You know, they waited too long
to cut rates. You know, they told us there wasn't
going to be inflation, it was going to be transitory.
And they've been wrong at every turn. And by the way,
it's not just Powell, it's yelling before Powell, it's burnenki
before yelling. You know, it's it's the institution itself is
(39:57):
rotten to the core, and that is basically the problem.
So it's ridiculous that we have to sit around and
hang on their every word when I started on Wall
Street about thirty years ago, this wasn't in play. This
wasn't something that we spent really any time thinking about.
It was kind of something that went on in the background.
And now the fact that that you know this is,
(40:18):
you know, we've got people talking about this on social
media and the president's talking about it. It just goes
to show how central planning's taken over every aspect of
our life, and it just really isn't a healthy thing
for us, for the economy and for the future, you know,
financial security of the country.
Speaker 1 (40:37):
Okay, Carol, So why is the jobs market not gotten better?
It seems like every day we have a press conference
about that they're investing one hundred billion, they're hiring fifteen
thousand workers. We hear, we see great headlines. I see
great headlines, we talk about them on this show. But
the job's numbers are not there. Why.
Speaker 9 (40:59):
Well, I think it depends and then you know, the
perspective and the way that you're looking at it. I
think if you think about what's happened, it actually isn't
bad news. It just looks like bad news from the headline.
Because what we've had to do is we have this
crazy amount of government spending, and what we're trying to
do is reduce government spending and shift you know, dollars
(41:19):
that are our spends and the labor force into the
private market.
Speaker 10 (41:25):
You also have a lot of illegals.
Speaker 9 (41:28):
Who are in the country and have now been deported
and we're keeping.
Speaker 10 (41:33):
The border secure.
Speaker 9 (41:34):
So from my perspective, with those shifts, the illegals coming
out of the job market, the government workers coming out
of the job market, it's going to take some time
for the private sector to readjust to reabsorb the government
workers to settle in. You know now that there are
no illegals in the job market, so you would have
expected that we would see a trajectory like this. Unfortunately,
(41:59):
there are too few peopleeople who are good at messaging,
and we're not getting this messaging across. But I don't
see anything wrong with it. These things don't happen overnight.
It takes time, and I think it's trending in the
right direction. But you would expect if you're making strides
in those areas that you're going to see jobs, you know,
coming down on a net headline basis. One of the
(42:20):
really positive things we've seen is the percentage or the
shift in the number of jobs between you know, native
born Americans versus immigrants, including illegal immigrants. And I think
that that shift, you know, has been very positive, and
so as the economy and the jobs market normalizes, we'll
(42:41):
see really positive outcomes from the things that are happening.
But again, this doesn't happen overnight. We're turning around a
really big ship. It's not going to happen from one
month to the next.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
Okay, Carol, let's shift gears here and talk about tariffs.
We keep getting these delays, a tariff war with China.
We just got another word as another ninety day delay.
We're going to delay this, We're going to delay that.
It almost seems like we don't want to have this
little tariff war with China. What's going on?
Speaker 9 (43:14):
Well, you know, I've argued from the beginning that it's
very challenging for US to go go cold turkey from China,
particularly because they have access to very important things like
rare earth elements that are critical for us, you know,
to do everything from build ships to have weapons manufactured,
(43:36):
and so the idea that we could all of a
sudden get crazy tough on them and not suffer enormous
reproduction or repercussions. It just wasn't didn't make sense going in.
So I think that this is a very difficult negotiation.
There are a lot of things that I think people
would like to see from it, stronger intellectual property protection
(43:58):
and the like, And I just think that China is
playing the long game.
Speaker 10 (44:02):
They know the hand that.
Speaker 9 (44:04):
They have, which is very strong right now, and they
think in much longer cycles than we do, and they
have the ability to wait things out. So I do
think that this is going to take some time. And unfortunately, Jesse,
I think that people who are all in on the
fact that you know, manufacturing is going to wholesale move
back to the United States, or that we're going to
(44:24):
get you know, some of these things on the wish list,
I you know, I hope I'm proven wrong, but I think,
you know, they may come out with some headlines around
these things, but when it comes to the reality of,
you know, does this change the situation for intellectual property holders,
for manufacturing and so so on and so forth, I
think it's going to be a lot more sizzled than steak.
Speaker 1 (44:49):
Tear off. Thank you, ma'am, appreciate it. Lighten the mood next.
All right, it's time to lighten the mood. And I
have really really enjoyed the meltdown from the communists about
(45:13):
Trump stepping into cleanup DC. Look, we don't have to
cover it again. We talked about it yesterday. But Democrats,
once you raped and murdered, they're not soft on crime.
They don't have a different view of criminal justice. They
believe in letting murders and rapists loose to hurt you
and your daughter, and your mother and your wife. That's
what they believe. They want your son murdered in the streets.
They want that because it destabilizes the society. And so
(45:35):
they freaked out because they might actually be stopping violent crime.
And so this weird haired freak went on MSNBC and
tried to say climate change is more dangerous.
Speaker 5 (45:46):
When I go to DC.
Speaker 11 (45:48):
I'm not afraid of losing my wallet so much as
I'm afraid of losing my vote. I'm not afraid of
losing my wallet so much as I'm afraid that my
children's freedom to breathe will be stolen in a world
where climate change policy is non existent.
Speaker 1 (46:07):
Honestly, I think we should just play that in the
campaign ads for twenty twenty eight. Also Donald Trump dunking
on the press during these briefings will never stop being funny.
Speaker 7 (46:18):
You're building the big beautiful ballroom.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
Could we build a big, beautiful briefing room?
Speaker 1 (46:24):
Technology more. I don't want to do.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
I don't want you to be comfortable. Show show now.
I don't want to make I don't want to make
life comfortable
Speaker 1 (46:39):
Me either, mister President, see them all.
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
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!