July 16, 2025 • 44 mins
The system is attempting to control the narrative around Joe Biden's use of the autopen, and it's not working. Jesse Kelly weighs in on this. This comes as the Supreme Court just made another crushing decision for liberals. Jesse discusses both these topics with Josh Hammer. You'll also hear from Susan Crabtree about shocking Secret Service revelations. Plus, an update on the race to replace Jerome Powell as Fed Chair from Carol Roth.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV | 7-15-25
The Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club: Go to https://FarmFresh246.com & get your first $39 bottle free with no obligation or commitment.
Pure Talk: Go to https://www.puretalk.com/JESSETV to make the switch
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
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):
We have to talk about the auto pen scandal some more.
There's new things out and we have to discuss it.
The Supreme Court did something good again, we have all
that Jerome Palell getting the heave ho from the Fed,
and so much more coming up on them.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
I don't think we have to do something. And before
we dig into this Joe Biden auto pen stuff, I
need to explain why. Because when we talk about Joe Biden,
anything about the Joe Biden era, whether it's autopen or
the the illegals, whatever it is, there is a tendency,
an understandable tendency to say, Okay, yeah, it sucked. We
(00:45):
all know it sucked. Can't we just move on? It's
over now, right, let's just move on. That is the tendency.
But listen that way of thinking. If that's where you're
at now, we got too many problems now, I don't
want to deal with it. If that is your way
of thinking, then you should understand that's why no elites
(01:07):
ever go down ever that exact way of thinking. These
people in government, wealthy people all the time. We'll focus
on government people for now. They commit crimes, They do
horrific things with their positions of power in the government,
and then well, there's always a new scandal, isn't there.
There's always a new house, there's new Senate races, a
(01:29):
new presidential race. People have new scandals, new problems, new
good things, new bad things, and people just kind of
want to move on. I'm just not interested in it.
That mentality has crushed us. The lack of justice in
this country, meaning wealthy people, elite people being held to account.
(01:50):
The lack of justice in this country is crushing this country.
And the mentality of it's over, We're done with it,
Let's move on. That is killing us. We have got
to change that mentality, and we have got to start
pressing our representatives to change how they act. The COVID.
(02:10):
How many times have I brought up a COVID reckoning
you do? Haven't let that go? Oh, Jesse, let it go.
It was a bad time. Yeah. A bunch of people
turn into evil tyrants and I want them all thrown
in prison. That's justice. So back to Joe Biden's auto pen.
We have more details, but we have to explain something.
(02:31):
The New York Times ran in an article on Joe
Biden's auto pen stuff, The New York Times. Keep in mind,
this is a this is a publication, if we want
to call I was about to call it a tabloid
that has been called the Treason Times on multiple occasions.
Believe that was a cultru who actually called him that?
The New York Times is a communist front. It has
(02:55):
been for a very very long time. They will destroy
Republicans every chance that get. They will protect and able
push forward Democrats every single chance they get. So they
run this piece. Jeff Zintz Sience, Joe Biden's chief of staff.
What did he do? He used the autopen apparently gave
(03:20):
permission to use the autopen all those pardons. Remember the
day the pardons came down, Not just the big ones,
you know, the faucis and those. We'll get to that
in a minute, but the volume of pardons this is
thousands and thousands, and everyone kind of looked around. Every
president does it, and it's always gross. I'll just point
that out. It's always gross. Every president does it. But
Joe Biden did it. I mean, he was just letting
(03:41):
scumbags out as many as he could. How did that happen? Well,
they just autopend it. Basically, they said, well, here's a list. Oh,
Joe sign this. You know, we have some additions to
the list. You know what, Joe doesn't need to sign it.
Let's just put the list out there. That that's a
really big deal. Now, the bigger deal is why did
the New York Times do this? Why? See Mark Halpern
(04:06):
on his show, he had an interesting little discovery about
this article.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
He who was I thought Joe Biden was pretty good
in the interview, right, But if this were this is
Shoe were on the other foot, I can't believe The
New York Times wouldn't have gone and gotten Adam Shift's reaction.
There's no Republican reaction in that story. There's no legal
expert quoted in the story. Biden is now taking the
position that he could delegate Pardons, right, that's the position
(04:34):
they took in the story. Everything else is fine. That's
the one thing. So what a law professor's think about that?
What if Republicans think about that? It's an absent from
the story. I don't understand that as a matter of journalism.
And I guarantee you if it were Republican, they'd have
both those things, that they'd have some hysterical law professors
saying this is an impeachable offense, and they have a
Republican saying this needs to be investigated. It's absent from
(04:56):
the story.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
It's mad. Why why not get a statement from a Republican?
Why not go get a legal expert? What's going on here? Because? Boy,
on the surface, Wow, New York Times running an article
like that. Are they on the up and up?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Now?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Man holding a Democrat to account? Wow? Let me pause
on that for a moment. I have two sons, as
you know, James and Luke, and you know that I
eat poorly, and you know my wife's super healthy. You
know that if you've watched the show for any length
of time. One time, when they were kids, there was
(05:38):
a bag of chips in the cupboard. Now she had
told the boys she wanted them to eat fruit with
their sandwiches for lunch. Boys said, okay, they ate the fruit,
and then they went to the pantry and ate the
entire bag of chips. She was very upset, and I one,
(06:03):
I thought it was funny too. I thought it was
completely understandable. But I didn't want to. I didn't want
to bad mouth my wife or defy my wife in
front of the kids, but I also didn't want her
to crack down on them, you know, ground them, no
nothing but vegetables. So I took the boy's aside in
the room and I gave him a very stern talking
(06:23):
to with her in the earshot. Came out of the
room and said, don't worry, I got it taken care of.
They won't do that again. I wasn't punishing the kids.
I wasn't really interested in punishing the kids. I was
interested in shielding them in that moment from their mother's wrath.
The New York Times is well aware that Republicans are
(06:44):
looking into the autopen scandal. They are well aware of
what Donald Trump has said about it time and time again.
He's not letting it go. This is not something Donald
Trump's letting go at all. Here's Donald Trump talking about
it when.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
You're talking about the auto pen.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Look, the auto pen, I think is maybe one of.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
The biggest scandals that we've had in fifty to one
hundred years. This is a tremendous scandal. The people on
the other side of the resolute desk, I know them, Lisa,
the whole group, and then no good, he's sick people.
And I guarantee he knew nothing about what he was saying.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
I guarantee it.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
That's not a one off on social media. Publicly in
the media, Donald Trump has said that exact same mind
over and over again. The biggest scandal in fifty to
one hundred years, the biggest scandal in fifty to one
hundred years. The President of the United States of America
is not letting this go. And when the president doesn't
let something go, there's going to be movement. They are
investigating it. It is a very, very, very big deal.
(07:52):
And let's pause for just a second and just remember
these people, these people punish the American people, almost like
it was on purpose for four years, things that even
if you're a Democrat, don't really make sense unless you
just hate the country. Why would you, why wo't you
why would you just stop natural gas exports? Hold on,
(08:15):
you not only opened up the border. Let's say you're
some soft, soft on illegal immigration person. Okay, that's a
fairly standard Democrat position. They flew as many people into
the country as they possibly could, purposely invading the United
States of America. They took your tax dollars and created
an app so illegals could schedule their invasion of the country.
(08:36):
How could you be that evil? How could Joe Biden
be that evil? Well, that's the whole point. Joe Biden
wasn't running anything. People who hate you and hate this
country and have worked their entire lives to burn it
down were finally presented with the most damaging, damaging weapon
(08:57):
they could have been presented with. They were presented with
the powers the presidency. This human being Anita done. This
human being was essentially the president of the United States
of America.
Speaker 6 (09:09):
And then the third lesson and tip actually come from
two of my favorite political philosophers, Mal Saytung and Mother Teresa,
not often coupled with each other, but the two people
that I turned to most In nineteen forty seven, when
(09:30):
Mal say Tung was being challenged within his own party
on his plan to basically take China over Tchang Kaishek
and the nationalists. Chinese held the cities, They had the army,
they had the air force, they had everything on their side,
and people said, how can you win, How can you
do this? How can you do this against all the
(09:53):
odds against you? And Mal say Tongue said, you know,
you fight your war and I'll fight mine.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
That was the president of the United States of America.
Her husband too, Jill Biden, that horrific witch. They ran
the country for four years, and I'm very, very worried
we're going to succumb to the same thing. That's human nature. Hey,
let's let it go. Let's let by gones. It's too
old now. And so we're worried about the distanslation. Now, No,
(10:30):
these people savaged my country for four years. Somebody better
be held to account. We will not let it go.
It's a big deal. All that may have made you uncomfortable,
but I am right. Josh Hammer is going to join
a cinemament. We're going to ask all these pardons fauci Millie,
if it wasn't Joe Biden clicking the approved button, could
(10:54):
we hold these people to account? Finally, I have questions,
joshuall have answers. Before we get to job. Let me
tell you about pure talk, the wondrous, wondrous pure talk,
Pure talk. I mean, I have all these emails from you.
You know what these emails are from July fourth Independence Day.
(11:15):
Remember when I told you Pure Talk was handing out
American flags, the Veterans for Independence day. Email after email
came in of how blessed your dad was, your brother was,
the veteran in your life was to get one and
I just it makes me so proud to stand with
Pure Talk, a company that's led by a Vietnam veteran,
so patriotic, they hire Americans. You don't need Verizon, you
(11:38):
don't need AT and T or T Mobile. Pure talks
on the same five G network. You'll pay less. There's
no reason not to switch. These are people you can
be proud to spend your money with, and you'll spend less.
Puretalk dot com slash JESSETV. We'll be back. The Supreme
(12:06):
Court gave us another win. I think I don't know.
Half the time. I think they gave us a win,
but that's because I'm stupid. And then I'll dig into
it and I'll find out that we didn't get a win.
Let's ask Josh Hammer about it. Joining me now, Josh Hammer,
host of The Josh Hammer Show. Josh, what did the
Supreme Court do with education? Linda McMahon, Are we done
with the Department of Education permanently?
Speaker 7 (12:29):
Well, Jesse not to be a lawyer, but you did
introme as a lawyer It kind of depends what we
mean by permanently. So look, this is, you know, not
the typical Merit's docket where we have the full lawyers
do the full briefing argumentation there. This kind of comes
up on the emergency appeals docket. And long story short, yes,
the Supreme Court has cleared the way from the Trump
administration to dismiss at least thirteen hundred Apartment of Education staffers,
(12:52):
which is a lot. That is a lot of bureaucrats
there at the Partner of Education, a bureaucracy frankly that
that simply do not exist and that Conservatives have been
railing against ever since Jimmy Carter established it during the
late nineteen seventies. It is a common sense goal, ruling Jesse,
I mean, ultimately, the article to executive power. If the
executive power an article to the Constitution means literally anything
(13:15):
whatsoever It necessarily entails and requires the ability to make
full personnel decisions, to fire and hire whoever you want
for whatever reason, at any time period full stomp end
of story. And any statutes that Congress has passed, any
executive orders that have been signed over the past two
hundred and nearly fifty years now that purports to limit
(13:35):
the authority of the executive to do exactly that are,
in my judgment, facially unconstitutional. This is very much in
line with the Roberts Court, especially in recent years. They
are very good when it comes to structural bread and
butter constitutional issues. They're not perfect, to be clear, you know,
John Roberts definitely messes up, you know, every now and then,
perhaps you know I for being honest, perhaps every more
(13:56):
than now and then. But on really kind of core
here's what article one, Article two, Article three type decisions,
they're typically pretty good. This is very much in line
with a Nation one injunctions case, which is a very
kind of similar bread and butter structural constitutional as an issue.
The takeaway I think for the Median American is that, yeah,
you're about to lose a bunch of deep state swamp
monsters at the Department Education. That's really really good. Now
(14:18):
technically speaking, Jesse. Technically, because the Department Education was created
via congressional statute back during the Jimmy Carter presidency, it
technically officially would take an Act of Congress to literally
abolish the building. But it seems to me if I'm
reading this opinion correctly, that the Court has basically given
Trump leeway to fire effectively as many bureaucrats as you want,
so you can basically gut the thing effectively, if not
(14:41):
technically officially. If you catch my drift, Okay.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
No, I cut your drifts. So we can't get rid
of the Department of Education, but we can can just
about everyone in the building and basically end it for
a while. Does this only apply to the Department of Education.
You'll have to forgive me for asking the question, Josh,
because I dream of the days where IRS agents and
FBI agents get fired in mass.
Speaker 7 (15:07):
It definitely should not just apply it to the Prime Education.
There was absolutely nothing whatsoever about the legal logic of
this order that would cabinet to the education departments. Now, look,
if the administration wants to go out and start firing
fifteen hundred, you know, two thousand people at some other
alphabet soup agency, I'm sure some left wing NGOs will
immediately follow suits on behalf of the deep state employees
(15:30):
who would be acts, and then we'll kind of find
ourselves back to where we just are. But if the
court is going to be consistent, I mean if and
perhaps when that similar subsequent fall on lawsuit is filed.
If the course is just going to apply the exact
same constitutional principles time and time again, and then then
they're going to arrive at the exact same conclusion. But
you know, one thing that's really important about the part
education is that it is the lowest of the low
(15:52):
hanging fruits. This has been kind of a test case
for conservative legal folks for four to five decades now.
If you cannot gut the part of education, then you
are stuck with the federal leviathan and all that entails.
Because the part of education is basically the lowest of
the love. This is something that never should have existed.
And it is very good news, frankly, that they've cleared
the way for Trump to effectively again if not quite officially,
(16:13):
got it.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
Okay, let's switch gears a little bit here and talk
about the auto pen stuff as it pertains to Katanji
Brown Jackson. Now, what I do not want to do,
as you know, is to give people false hope or
cook up some wild theory that's never going to come home.
I don't want to do the Obama birth certificate thing,
(16:39):
whatever people believe about that it was never going to
do anything to remove Barack Obama from the White House,
so it was a pointless waste of time. Katanji Brown Jackson,
was she an auto penner? And can we get rid
of her? Jesse?
Speaker 7 (16:53):
Like you, I am hesitant to try to induce people
into thinking that something could happen that well, and so
the short answer is now, I'm sorry to be the
bearer of bad news.
Speaker 8 (17:01):
Now.
Speaker 7 (17:01):
Katanji Brown Jackson definitely is a few things. She's a
great a moron. I mean that that is primarily what
she is. She is a frankly just a gigantic insult
to the United States Supreme Courts. We saw those fiery
words from Amy Cony Barrett in the Nation Wie junctions case.
More recently, actually, we saw some fiery words from Sonya
Soto Mayor in an eight to one opinion where Jackson
(17:23):
was the lone dissenter. Was actually Sonya so My I
can't believe this is real life. It was literally Sonya
so Mayor who was essentially calling Katanji Brown Jackson crazy
in the Reason eight to one opinion. So she's totally, totally, totally,
completely insane, utterly and qualified, totally out to lunch. But
I hate, I hate, hate to be the bearer of
bad news Jacksey. But I don't see it happening. When
it comes to trying to get her off the course.
(17:43):
She could be impeached. That could potentially happens. Probably not
going to happen, but that would be the proper remedy there.
This autopen thing is probably not going to get rid
of them.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Okay, Now on the auto pen thing, again, I'm just
trying to no, I appreciate the honesty. I'm trying to
have everybody realistic expectations here. The pardons, there were lots
of them handed out by Joe Biden, we now know
in the fluffiest possible way. The New York Times reported
that that's I mean, it's a fact. It's a fact
people were willing to admit now that Joe Biden didn't
(18:15):
sign off on all these pardons, which of course makes
people think about Fauci, Mark, Billy Hunter Biden. Even people
who did get pardons. Can those go away?
Speaker 7 (18:28):
So the short answer is probably not. But I'll walk
you through my thinking on this. So there is a
White House Council legal opinion. So nowadays we have something
that the White House Council office called or it's actually
technically at the DOJ called the OLC, the Office of
Legal Counsel. They are the ones who come up with
constitutional theories that then try to bind succeeding presidencies years
(18:52):
from now. Okay, So the White House Council, I think
prior to the establishment of the formal OLC, back in
the nineteen sixties. Nineteen sixties, there were White House count
opinion basically says that using an auto pen is legally
equivalent of the English king back in medieval England, of
delegating authority to use the royal seal, like the literal
royal seal to like the you know, the prince or
(19:14):
the courtier or someone in the royal court there. So
the upshot is that according to this nineteen sixties White
House opinion, this seems to be okay. Now, the longer
answer is that this has really never been tested. This
has never been litigated really whatsoever to my knowledge, and
I'm inclined to think that it's not necessarily so utterly
frivless so as to be not worth a case. Now
I'm choosing my words very carefully again, so it's to
(19:36):
not induced false hope. I am skeptical that this would
go anywhere, because, among other things, I would question what
the remedy is. So let's talk about some of these
people who got pardons. You know, let's just say, hypothetically,
right that a cord then concludes that this pardon was
issued illegitimately because the auto pen is not legitimate. In
order to get standing in the federal court, you have
to have a judicially viable remedy, which is a very
(19:57):
fancy way of saying the court has to be in
a position where and actually give legitimate relief. So in
this case, what exactly is the relief? I mean, let's
say that someone was what was in jail for for
X y Z offense and now he's out, you know,
living out in Kansas or Idaho, whatever, he's you know,
he's enjoying his his fishing on the river. I mean,
is the remedy that you would literally then go take
(20:19):
that guy and then put him back in jail. It
just doesn't it doesn't necessarily feel like something that a
feral court would be would be eager to do. Is
basically what I'm trying to say here. But it's not
so crazy that it is not worth a lawsuit. I
think it probably actually ultimately is worth a lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Okay, well that sucks, Josh. That's two doses a reality
that sucked. Let me ask you a final one. There's
reporting out there, John Solomon, others reporting that a bunch
of people are about to go down for the Russia
hoax conspiracy. Now go down for normal people like you
and me means we get handcuffed and sent off to prison.
(21:00):
Government people. It never means that at all. But is
there a chance that the criminals who operated and still
operate inside of our government actually get arrested and tried
and sent to prison?
Speaker 7 (21:12):
Over all this, I think it's possible. I'm not necessarily
going to say it's probable. I mean, you know, Jesse,
at this point, we're basically ten years. I mean, the
year is twenty twenty five. We are ten years. At
least nine years, but nine to ten years give or
take from the twenty sixteen election. Spying on George Popinopolis
and Michael Flynn and Carter Page and all the various
(21:32):
Trump base. I mean, this has been happening for a
long time now, So whenever we kind of have these
instances where we kind of learned five ten years Oh,
maybe we'll get justice for something that happened a very
long time ago. I'm kind of always immediately somewhat skeptical.
I do think that there's a potential political angle here, Jesse,
which is that it's possible that the Trump doj could really, really,
really try in earnest to actually genuinely try to have
(21:55):
something to show the people in the broader context of
a lot of the popular discontent over the Epstein stuff.
That to me is kind of my ultimate kind of
not necessarily my cause for optimism, but my cause for
at least quasi optimism is that that could be a
motivating factor to genuinely actually produce something here. I'm not
saying it's likely, it's not fifty percent or greater necessarily,
but I think it's I think it's I think it's
(22:15):
a possibility at least, I guess I'll say that.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
All right, Well, thanks for giving us at least a
little crumb of something, Josh, Josh, appreciate you as always, brother.
All Right, the Trump assassination attempts. Can't let that go.
I either, that's kind of a big deal. Why don't
we know more? Let's talk about that in a moment.
Before we talk about that, let me talk to you
about feeling good all the time, energy, having good energy,
(22:47):
having your mind be clear. These things are not They
don't just happen. We have to do something for them,
especially today with all the garbage we eat myself most
definitely included, we have to do something doing sure that
our levels are where they need to be, our t
levels are where they need to be. Our minds need
something they need chock yours does mind? Does natural herbal
(23:10):
supplements from chalk? This? I know this is about sound
over the top. It will change your entire life for
the better, at work, at home, at play. You give
chalk two three months. Maybe it's a male vitality stack,
that's what I take. Maybe it's a female vitality stack.
Maybe it's chalk lippowder. You take chalk two three months,
(23:32):
you will never stop. You will finally realize, oh my gosh,
I was living in a fog and didn't know it.
Do you want a seventeen point seven six percent discount?
Chalk dot com, slash Jesse TV. We'll be back. Well.
(23:56):
I think the attempted assassination of Donald Trump is still
kind of a big as we discussed. It's not one
of those things we should just let go. Let's move on. No, no, no, no.
We just had the one year anniversary of somebody who
tried to blow Donald Trump's head off, and that somebody
achieved a rooftop one hundred and forty eight meters from
the President with the high powered rifle and frankly made
(24:16):
the shot. President turned his head at the exact moment
or else. We are having a whole different discussion right now.
So what happened? Senate just released a pair of reports.
Let's talk to Susan Crabtree about this, National political correspondent
for real clear politics. Love them so much, Susan Senate reports.
What do they say?
Speaker 8 (24:37):
Oh? The Senate reports were it was a solemn weekend
for most people, and I thought it was extremely well
done in terms of how people commemorated this. But the
Senate reports were a gold mine. And it was like
Christmas in July for me when I was reading through
these things, because for the last year I have been
(24:58):
reporting on so many details of out this and it
were all in these Senate reports. As you know, the
last the big headlines and the last week that I
reported on or that the suspensions were only for the
junior officers, the own junior agents, their supervisors skated, and
(25:19):
not only that, they got big promotions. And that was
just one of the many headlines that were that I
reported on, and we're in those Senate reports, grief.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
So the supervisors got promoted, four agents got ten. Do
I believe it was forty two days suspensions and we're
all just going to wash our hands of it. That's
that's where we're at at with this whole thing. That's
that is that it.
Speaker 8 (25:50):
Well, yes, it seems like because everyone was at fault,
no one was at fault, and that is not okay,
that is not sufficient for Helen Comploratory, the widow of
Corey Frompooratory, the retired fireman that was killed, shot and killed.
And thankfully Donald Trump, they did put a counter sniper
(26:12):
into the rally that day.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
It came very.
Speaker 8 (26:15):
Late in the rally to the rally planning, two days
before the rally was set to begin. They had the
counter sniper. Forced them to do their work very very quickly.
Usually that takes five or six days. And so that
here where we are, here's this is where we.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
Are right now.
Speaker 8 (26:34):
We're learning more details about it, but we still don't
know anything about the motive for Thomas first, anything about
what was on his encrypted apps. And to me, that's
just beyond the pale. At this point, we should know
far more. And Senator Ran Paul and he concluded his
(26:57):
report by saying that the FBI was not cooperating with him.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Yeah, Susan, thank you so much. I appreciate you. So
the FBI is not cooperating. The supervisors got promotions. Listen,
I'm gonna tie. I'm gonna tie a couple different stories
(27:27):
together here. Joe Biden's auto pen we just brought that up.
And nobody being held to account. The Epstein stuff everybody's
mad about. We don't want to drop the Epstein stuff.
If rich, powerful men were abusing young women, we want
them held to account. Now we have secret service FBI
who knows failures beyond belief that almost cost Donald Trump
(27:51):
his life. Supervisors get promoted, junior agents get a couple
slaps on the wrist. What are all these stories having
government people, powerful people getting away with things normal people
would be fired or sent to prison for. And everyone
(28:11):
in this country, especially everybody in our government. Donald Trump
included had better get it through their heads that this
is what the American people are disgusted with. We are
tired of living in a country where people in government
can do the most horrific things in the world. And
it's not only that they don't get fired. Most of
(28:33):
them get promoted, never held to account. Things you would
go to prison for, things I would go to prison for.
We have to change how this works in the country.
Secret service promoting the bad guys. And look, maybe you're
sitting there saying, well, maybe it was negligence, maybe it
was I'm not sitting here telling you I know what
happened that day, and I don't know what happened that
(28:56):
day because the government won't tell me. And even if
the government did tell me, by this point in time,
I wouldn't believe them, because they promoted everybody who almost
got Donald Trump killed. This is where we are as
a country, and it is a dangerous, dangerous place to be,
where we have no trust in our institutions, and the
institutions we don't trust don't seem even that interested in
(29:17):
earning that trust back. Scary place to be. All right,
let's move on. I want to talk to you about
something really quickly olive oil. We don't think about olive
oil much, obviously, everyone but everyone has a bottle in
their house and everyone cooks with it. But I'm going
(29:38):
to tell you something uncomfortable about that bottle of olive oil.
It's old. Do you know that? Even stuff you find
in the grocery store, all that stuff months years old.
We care about freshness with everything else, don't we. You
don't you want fresh fruit? You want fresh fruit or
old fruit, fresh buns or old buns, fresh meat or
(29:59):
old meat. Every one cares about freshness for everything else.
But then when it comes to olive oil, we walk
down the grocery store aisle and we find the bottle
we like to look so up, and we grab it
and we throw it in the cart. Don't do that.
How about a free bottle of olive oil, a thirty
nine dollars bottle of olive oil. All you'll have to
do is pay a buck to help cover the shipping,
and you'll get to taste the difference in fresh olive
(30:22):
oil versus garbage old olive oil. How do you get
something like that? I'm not asking you to sign up
for something, sign your life away. You go to farm
fresh two four six dot com and get yourself a
fresh bottle of olive oil. It's what a difference. We'll
be back. Here's a little tidbit for you, kind of
(30:53):
a one of those ones that makes you WinCE a
little bit. Twenty twenty. You remember that year, right, It
wasn't all that long ago. Not asking you to go
back in time too far. One hundred thousand dollars back then,
the buying power of one hundred thousand dollars. Yeah, you
need one hundred and twenty four thousand today to match
the buying power you had five years ago. Now, I'm
(31:15):
no expert. That sure sounds like things haven't gone well.
I wonder what happened? Joining me now the great Carol Roth,
two time New York Times best selling author Recovering Investment Banker. Hey, Carol,
I lost twenty four percent of my income in five years.
How that happened?
Speaker 4 (31:34):
Actually you lost more than that, Jesse.
Speaker 5 (31:35):
That's just what they're reporting because that's the official numbers,
and the official numbers don't actually take into account what's
really happening.
Speaker 4 (31:43):
So you lost even more of your buying power.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
You know.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
There are two great.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
Books that came out over the last couple of years.
One was called the War on Small Business. The other
one was called you Will Own Nothing. Pretty exceptional author
I think her name was Carol Roth or something like
that that predicted this was going to happen, and I
think that we talked about this from the beginning of
twenty twenty onward. And this is an entirely predictable outcome
(32:07):
of bad federal reserve and fiscal policy that basically traded
off people getting, you know, some sort of a small
stimulus check, small four figure stimulus check for constant inflation
that eats up there purchasing power over time. And unfortunately,
people don't seem to understand that when you take actions
(32:30):
there are always consequences with them. They want to pretend
that you can just do things and that there isn't
something that happens on the other side, And particularly when
it comes to things like economics and math, it's pretty
clear what the options are on the other side. You
can put your head in the stand, but that doesn't
mean that your paycheck that was once you know, one
hundred and twenty four thousand dollars is now worth a
(32:51):
fraction of that.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Okay, Carol, I just it frustrates me so much to
hear the honest answer, because there were people like you
screaming this back then. And yet, I mean, I remember
Republicans running on stimulus checks handing out stimula. No, we
got to hand out the STEMI checks, got to hand
out the stimulus checks. And it was just the most
basic thing in the world that a child could understand.
(33:20):
You can't just print and spend a bunch of money
you don't have and hand it out to people without consequences.
And yet known in DC knows this or they do,
and they're just a bunch of evil, lying scumbags.
Speaker 5 (33:32):
I'm going to take door number two and I bet
I'm gonna win the big, big prize behind it. Fortunately,
we have tribalism, and when tribalism happens, people tend to
ignore reality, and we're seeing that over and over again.
You can be supportive of your favorite politician in general,
(33:53):
and when they come up with a bad policy, you
should still criticize them because it's a bad policy.
Speaker 4 (33:59):
And just because we had bad policies before.
Speaker 5 (34:01):
Doesn't mean that we should continue to double down on
them when they don't work. And that is the frustration,
is that it's very easy to hold some politician some
party accountable when you're on the other side and you're
not in charge. But as soon as you have the
opportunity to do something. We don't have enough people who
are willing to go to the match, and they just
(34:23):
seem to forget everything that they argued for the last
time around. Now they're making excuses for it.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
So until we get.
Speaker 5 (34:31):
Some consistency, none of this is going to change. And
the other thing that's very frustrating to me is that
people are willing to organize and go crazy about pretty
minor things, but when it comes to something like hey,
you've worked for days, months and years, and now we're
going to just completely erase that via inflation, we don't
(34:52):
get the same kind of activism. Perhaps some of it
is economic and financial literacy, but there just doesn't seem
to be that gumption when they're stealing from you to
do the things that this country was founded on. Remember
when there was a tea party over her excise taxes
on tea. Somehow that's been lost over time as men
have gotten soft.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Yeah, the slow frog boil seems to get Okay, you
know what, let's change subjects before my blood pressure just
causes a blood vessel to burst right now. Jerome Pou
was on TV a couple of weeks ago. Here's what
he said.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
But Terry, would the fen have cut more by now
if it weren't for the tariffs?
Speaker 1 (35:34):
So I do think that I think that's right.
Speaker 9 (35:36):
Where in effect, we went on hold when we saw
the size of the tariffs and where and essentially all
inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as
a consequence of the tariffs. So we didn't overreact. In fact,
we didn't react at all. We're simply taking some time.
As long as the US economy is in solid shape,
(35:56):
we think the prudent thing to do is to wait
and learn, learn more and see what those effects might be.
And again they haven't really shown up, and you know,
so we're for now, we're waiting.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
Okay, Carol, there's all kinds of history here. Can you
explain why Donald Trump very clearly hates Jerome Palell. They've
already prepped his successor, or their begun preparations for his successor.
Trump trashes him publicly every day. I'm know Jerome Powell fan,
but what is the history here? Why does he hate him.
Why won't they cut rates? What's going on?
Speaker 5 (36:32):
Well, you know, part of the trashing of Jerome Powell
really is a trashing of the FED, which is just
an absolute terrible institution. When Trump talks about how awful
Jerome Powell is, he's right. But you know, the last
potentially good FED chair that we had was Paul Volker
in the late seventies and early eighties. So it's not
like we've had this amazing run of FED chairs. The
(36:54):
institution itself is poisoned. Jerome Peal's been wrong about pretty
much everything thing. He cut rates and held them down.
Speaker 4 (37:03):
For far too long.
Speaker 5 (37:04):
He said in inflation was going to be transitory and
it wasn't going to be a problem.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
You know.
Speaker 5 (37:09):
Then he then he hiked too fast, and then he
held it up too long. So you know, he has
been behind the curve, no pun intended, you know, at
every point in time. And why President Trump is frustrated
is because the Biden administration handed the Trump administration a
very difficult fiscal position. We have one hundred and twenty
(37:29):
plus percent debt to GDP, we have deficits that are
wartime level deficits, but we're not engaged in a war
and we're not in a recession. And at this point,
our interest expends exceeds our defense spending, which is never
a good metric for a for a country.
Speaker 4 (37:47):
You know, and it's and its strength.
Speaker 5 (37:49):
So what he's frustrated by is the fact that we
have so much debt that needs to be financed and refinanced,
and now rates are high, which means that we are
going to get even higher amounts of interest expense, and
that is going to expand our deficit, which is then
going to push up interest rates even more, and we're
going to end up in something that looks like a
(38:10):
debt spiral.
Speaker 4 (38:11):
So he's frustrating.
Speaker 5 (38:13):
The challenge is is that the FED doesn't control what's
called the long end of the yield curve, the long
dated security, something like they yield on the ten year.
Only the short end is what they directly affect. And
so really at this point what is driving that is
fiscal policy. So it's true that there is some level
(38:36):
of frustration and Powell is bad and it's going to
make sense to replace him, But the things that we
could have done we haven't done in order to affect
that change. Because the fiscal policy is now dominating monetary policy,
and there are things that the Treasury probably can do
and will be doing, but there is a price to pay,
(38:59):
which takes our discussion full circle.
Speaker 4 (39:01):
The things that they can do to change.
Speaker 5 (39:03):
Things around probably lead to more inflation.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
So we're still spending and printing too much money. Is
that what you're saying?
Speaker 5 (39:15):
If you want to just tie it up in a
nice little bow, Jesse, I think that's a very easy
way to say it.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
All right, I do want to address this before I
let you go. Trump interest rates says he wants them
at one percent.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
Here he was, each point costs US three hundred and
sixty billion dollars billion, one point three hundred and sixty billion,
two points. You got six hundred seven hundred billion dollars,
and we're way high. We're for fifty or four to
(39:51):
twenty five, four fifty. And how do you go borrow
money at one percent when the Fed has you hat
four fifty and you know it's it's not that easy.
I get angry at them. Why are we paying so much?
You know, because he's got you up at this number,
and we should be at one point. We should be
at one percent.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
Carol, Should we be at one percent, thought that sounds
great to me. But should we be at one percent?
Speaker 4 (40:17):
Well, it's funny the market doesn't seem to think.
Speaker 5 (40:18):
So the market thinks that we should be at four
and a half percent, which is where the market is today.
Speaker 4 (40:23):
And that's the challenge is that.
Speaker 5 (40:24):
The longer term securities, as I was saying, that the
yield on those longer term securities are determined by supply
and demand. We no longer have central banks from around
the world demanding to buy treasuries. They used to give
us a path a pass, which is why we used
to have such low interest rates, and they would load
up on our treasury securities. But now you know, the
(40:47):
last ten years, they've been net sellers and they've been
replacing that with gold, which means that the people in
the market who are buying our securities are those who
are more price sensitive. They're demanding a to hold our
debt for longer, and we saw we've gotten some debt
downgrades over the last couple of years, including a couple
(41:07):
months ago, so they're demanding extra premium for that. And
we have a lot of supply that's going into the
market that's going to impact that supply and demand ratio.
Speaker 4 (41:18):
Now, there are things coming down the pike.
Speaker 5 (41:20):
That you can see the Treasury and the administration setting
up something like the Genius Act, which talks about stable
coins being backed by treasuries and a link by which
central bank reserves could be used to back those That
could then increase demand from stable coins to buy treasuries.
(41:40):
There are other things that they can do to increase
the demand and to try to drive that interest rate down,
which probably doesn't get to one but maybe they can
do it. But the challenge is, as I've said before,
there is a trade off and when they do that,
that is going to be a commodative policy. That's going
to be stimulative policy, see, which means that you are
(42:01):
going to get inflation somewhere. It could come in asset
prices like we saw, you know, early after the Great Recession.
Financial prices, we're housing prices and stocks and those kinds
of things continue to go up more than let's say,
the direct cost of living. But some of the tricks
that they may do in order to get that interest
right down could also end up impacting the cost of living.
(42:25):
Either way, it's going to drive continued non merit based
inequality it's going to create more haves and have nots,
and that is not a good thing for this country.
Speaker 4 (42:34):
And that's not what we're trying to solve for right now.
Speaker 5 (42:37):
So I do think there will be a time when
interest rates will go down. It will be based on
some probably funky policy, and there will be, as there
always is a price to pay.
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Thanks a lot, Carol, Thank you, Carol, come back soon.
All right, light the mood next. All right, it is
time to lighten the mood. And wildlife encounters can be
(43:19):
scary things. This gentleman. You know it's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 10 (43:24):
I heard, I heard the row. I felt, I felt
that rour. I know to you keep it pushing, I
know that.
Speaker 11 (43:29):
Curtis Jones says he was walking near Robber Street late
Wednesday when he saw people running from what appeared to
be a large wild cat.
Speaker 10 (43:37):
I thought, I see the people around, I'll just see
something big just walking just right over here, right everybody, boy,
they went right over here. I swear I promised him
right over there. He just it's a I just I
just cut walking. I've seen it, seen me see it.
So in my head, I'm like, no, I gotta go, man,
I'm all about like this bit it was it was
it was, it was just walking, slithering like it was.
Speaker 1 (44:00):
I don't know, man.
Speaker 11 (44:01):
A shelter in place was ordered and then lifted when
RPD was unable to verify the presence of a wild animal.
Police say no reports have been substantiated. Jones tells me
he remains on edge.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
Gotta keep this.
Speaker 3 (44:15):
Bad right here.
Speaker 10 (44:15):
I'm gonna keep this bad right here, man. That's okay.
I'm gonna protect this. I ain't gonna let nothing happen
to us nothing. Okay, they ain't find it last night.
It's still out here. It could be all heard one
of these bushes or something, you know, the mountain lion aby, Wow,
they crawling. Serious. I don't play with lions. I don't
play with tigers, bears, nothing with the wild. I don't
play with those. I promise you. I don't even do
(44:38):
roller coasters. I'm good, I'll see it.
We have to talk about the auto pen scandal some more.
There's new things out and we have to discuss it.
The Supreme Court did something good again, we have all
that Jerome Palell getting the heave ho from the Fed,
and so much more coming up on them.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
I don't think we have to do something. And before
we dig into this Joe Biden auto pen stuff, I
need to explain why. Because when we talk about Joe Biden,
anything about the Joe Biden era, whether it's autopen or
the the illegals, whatever it is, there is a tendency,
an understandable tendency to say, Okay, yeah, it sucked. We
(00:45):
all know it sucked. Can't we just move on? It's
over now, right, let's just move on. That is the tendency.
But listen that way of thinking. If that's where you're
at now, we got too many problems now, I don't
want to deal with it. If that is your way
of thinking, then you should understand that's why no elites
(01:07):
ever go down ever that exact way of thinking. These
people in government, wealthy people all the time. We'll focus
on government people for now. They commit crimes, They do
horrific things with their positions of power in the government,
and then well, there's always a new scandal, isn't there.
There's always a new house, there's new Senate races, a
(01:29):
new presidential race. People have new scandals, new problems, new
good things, new bad things, and people just kind of
want to move on. I'm just not interested in it.
That mentality has crushed us. The lack of justice in
this country, meaning wealthy people, elite people being held to account.
(01:50):
The lack of justice in this country is crushing this country.
And the mentality of it's over, We're done with it,
Let's move on. That is killing us. We have got
to change that mentality, and we have got to start
pressing our representatives to change how they act. The COVID.
(02:10):
How many times have I brought up a COVID reckoning
you do? Haven't let that go? Oh, Jesse, let it go.
It was a bad time. Yeah. A bunch of people
turn into evil tyrants and I want them all thrown
in prison. That's justice. So back to Joe Biden's auto pen.
We have more details, but we have to explain something.
(02:31):
The New York Times ran in an article on Joe
Biden's auto pen stuff, The New York Times. Keep in mind,
this is a this is a publication, if we want
to call I was about to call it a tabloid
that has been called the Treason Times on multiple occasions.
Believe that was a cultru who actually called him that?
The New York Times is a communist front. It has
(02:55):
been for a very very long time. They will destroy
Republicans every chance that get. They will protect and able
push forward Democrats every single chance they get. So they
run this piece. Jeff Zintz Sience, Joe Biden's chief of staff.
What did he do? He used the autopen apparently gave
(03:20):
permission to use the autopen all those pardons. Remember the
day the pardons came down, Not just the big ones,
you know, the faucis and those. We'll get to that
in a minute, but the volume of pardons this is
thousands and thousands, and everyone kind of looked around. Every
president does it, and it's always gross. I'll just point
that out. It's always gross. Every president does it. But
Joe Biden did it. I mean, he was just letting
(03:41):
scumbags out as many as he could. How did that happen? Well,
they just autopend it. Basically, they said, well, here's a list. Oh,
Joe sign this. You know, we have some additions to
the list. You know what, Joe doesn't need to sign it.
Let's just put the list out there. That that's a
really big deal. Now, the bigger deal is why did
the New York Times do this? Why? See Mark Halpern
(04:06):
on his show, he had an interesting little discovery about
this article.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
He who was I thought Joe Biden was pretty good
in the interview, right, But if this were this is
Shoe were on the other foot, I can't believe The
New York Times wouldn't have gone and gotten Adam Shift's reaction.
There's no Republican reaction in that story. There's no legal
expert quoted in the story. Biden is now taking the
position that he could delegate Pardons, right, that's the position
(04:34):
they took in the story. Everything else is fine. That's
the one thing. So what a law professor's think about that?
What if Republicans think about that? It's an absent from
the story. I don't understand that as a matter of journalism.
And I guarantee you if it were Republican, they'd have
both those things, that they'd have some hysterical law professors
saying this is an impeachable offense, and they have a
Republican saying this needs to be investigated. It's absent from
(04:56):
the story.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
It's mad. Why why not get a statement from a Republican?
Why not go get a legal expert? What's going on here? Because? Boy,
on the surface, Wow, New York Times running an article
like that. Are they on the up and up?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Now?
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Man holding a Democrat to account? Wow? Let me pause
on that for a moment. I have two sons, as
you know, James and Luke, and you know that I
eat poorly, and you know my wife's super healthy. You
know that if you've watched the show for any length
of time. One time, when they were kids, there was
(05:38):
a bag of chips in the cupboard. Now she had
told the boys she wanted them to eat fruit with
their sandwiches for lunch. Boys said, okay, they ate the fruit,
and then they went to the pantry and ate the
entire bag of chips. She was very upset, and I one,
(06:03):
I thought it was funny too. I thought it was
completely understandable. But I didn't want to. I didn't want
to bad mouth my wife or defy my wife in
front of the kids, but I also didn't want her
to crack down on them, you know, ground them, no
nothing but vegetables. So I took the boy's aside in
the room and I gave him a very stern talking
(06:23):
to with her in the earshot. Came out of the
room and said, don't worry, I got it taken care of.
They won't do that again. I wasn't punishing the kids.
I wasn't really interested in punishing the kids. I was
interested in shielding them in that moment from their mother's wrath.
The New York Times is well aware that Republicans are
(06:44):
looking into the autopen scandal. They are well aware of
what Donald Trump has said about it time and time again.
He's not letting it go. This is not something Donald
Trump's letting go at all. Here's Donald Trump talking about
it when.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
You're talking about the auto pen.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Look, the auto pen, I think is maybe one of.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
The biggest scandals that we've had in fifty to one
hundred years. This is a tremendous scandal. The people on
the other side of the resolute desk, I know them, Lisa,
the whole group, and then no good, he's sick people.
And I guarantee he knew nothing about what he was saying.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
I guarantee it.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
That's not a one off on social media. Publicly in
the media, Donald Trump has said that exact same mind
over and over again. The biggest scandal in fifty to
one hundred years, the biggest scandal in fifty to one
hundred years. The President of the United States of America
is not letting this go. And when the president doesn't
let something go, there's going to be movement. They are
investigating it. It is a very, very, very big deal.
(07:52):
And let's pause for just a second and just remember
these people, these people punish the American people, almost like
it was on purpose for four years, things that even
if you're a Democrat, don't really make sense unless you
just hate the country. Why would you, why wo't you
why would you just stop natural gas exports? Hold on,
(08:15):
you not only opened up the border. Let's say you're
some soft, soft on illegal immigration person. Okay, that's a
fairly standard Democrat position. They flew as many people into
the country as they possibly could, purposely invading the United
States of America. They took your tax dollars and created
an app so illegals could schedule their invasion of the country.
(08:36):
How could you be that evil? How could Joe Biden
be that evil? Well, that's the whole point. Joe Biden
wasn't running anything. People who hate you and hate this
country and have worked their entire lives to burn it
down were finally presented with the most damaging, damaging weapon
(08:57):
they could have been presented with. They were presented with
the powers the presidency. This human being Anita done. This
human being was essentially the president of the United States
of America.
Speaker 6 (09:09):
And then the third lesson and tip actually come from
two of my favorite political philosophers, Mal Saytung and Mother Teresa,
not often coupled with each other, but the two people
that I turned to most In nineteen forty seven, when
(09:30):
Mal say Tung was being challenged within his own party
on his plan to basically take China over Tchang Kaishek
and the nationalists. Chinese held the cities, They had the army,
they had the air force, they had everything on their side,
and people said, how can you win, How can you
do this? How can you do this against all the
(09:53):
odds against you? And Mal say Tongue said, you know,
you fight your war and I'll fight mine.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
That was the president of the United States of America.
Her husband too, Jill Biden, that horrific witch. They ran
the country for four years, and I'm very, very worried
we're going to succumb to the same thing. That's human nature. Hey,
let's let it go. Let's let by gones. It's too
old now. And so we're worried about the distanslation. Now, No,
(10:30):
these people savaged my country for four years. Somebody better
be held to account. We will not let it go.
It's a big deal. All that may have made you uncomfortable,
but I am right. Josh Hammer is going to join
a cinemament. We're going to ask all these pardons fauci Millie,
if it wasn't Joe Biden clicking the approved button, could
(10:54):
we hold these people to account? Finally, I have questions,
joshuall have answers. Before we get to job. Let me
tell you about pure talk, the wondrous, wondrous pure talk,
Pure talk. I mean, I have all these emails from you.
You know what these emails are from July fourth Independence Day.
(11:15):
Remember when I told you Pure Talk was handing out
American flags, the Veterans for Independence day. Email after email
came in of how blessed your dad was, your brother was,
the veteran in your life was to get one and
I just it makes me so proud to stand with
Pure Talk, a company that's led by a Vietnam veteran,
so patriotic, they hire Americans. You don't need Verizon, you
(11:38):
don't need AT and T or T Mobile. Pure talks
on the same five G network. You'll pay less. There's
no reason not to switch. These are people you can
be proud to spend your money with, and you'll spend less.
Puretalk dot com slash JESSETV. We'll be back. The Supreme
(12:06):
Court gave us another win. I think I don't know.
Half the time. I think they gave us a win,
but that's because I'm stupid. And then I'll dig into
it and I'll find out that we didn't get a win.
Let's ask Josh Hammer about it. Joining me now, Josh Hammer,
host of The Josh Hammer Show. Josh, what did the
Supreme Court do with education? Linda McMahon, Are we done
with the Department of Education permanently?
Speaker 7 (12:29):
Well, Jesse not to be a lawyer, but you did
introme as a lawyer It kind of depends what we
mean by permanently. So look, this is, you know, not
the typical Merit's docket where we have the full lawyers
do the full briefing argumentation there. This kind of comes
up on the emergency appeals docket. And long story short, yes,
the Supreme Court has cleared the way from the Trump
administration to dismiss at least thirteen hundred Apartment of Education staffers,
(12:52):
which is a lot. That is a lot of bureaucrats
there at the Partner of Education, a bureaucracy frankly that
that simply do not exist and that Conservatives have been
railing against ever since Jimmy Carter established it during the
late nineteen seventies. It is a common sense goal, ruling Jesse,
I mean, ultimately, the article to executive power. If the
executive power an article to the Constitution means literally anything
(13:15):
whatsoever It necessarily entails and requires the ability to make
full personnel decisions, to fire and hire whoever you want
for whatever reason, at any time period full stomp end
of story. And any statutes that Congress has passed, any
executive orders that have been signed over the past two
hundred and nearly fifty years now that purports to limit
(13:35):
the authority of the executive to do exactly that are,
in my judgment, facially unconstitutional. This is very much in
line with the Roberts Court, especially in recent years. They
are very good when it comes to structural bread and
butter constitutional issues. They're not perfect, to be clear, you know,
John Roberts definitely messes up, you know, every now and then,
perhaps you know I for being honest, perhaps every more
(13:56):
than now and then. But on really kind of core
here's what article one, Article two, Article three type decisions,
they're typically pretty good. This is very much in line
with a Nation one injunctions case, which is a very
kind of similar bread and butter structural constitutional as an issue.
The takeaway I think for the Median American is that, yeah,
you're about to lose a bunch of deep state swamp
monsters at the Department Education. That's really really good. Now
(14:18):
technically speaking, Jesse. Technically, because the Department Education was created
via congressional statute back during the Jimmy Carter presidency, it
technically officially would take an Act of Congress to literally
abolish the building. But it seems to me if I'm
reading this opinion correctly, that the Court has basically given
Trump leeway to fire effectively as many bureaucrats as you want,
so you can basically gut the thing effectively, if not
(14:41):
technically officially. If you catch my drift, Okay.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
No, I cut your drifts. So we can't get rid
of the Department of Education, but we can can just
about everyone in the building and basically end it for
a while. Does this only apply to the Department of Education.
You'll have to forgive me for asking the question, Josh,
because I dream of the days where IRS agents and
FBI agents get fired in mass.
Speaker 7 (15:07):
It definitely should not just apply it to the Prime Education.
There was absolutely nothing whatsoever about the legal logic of
this order that would cabinet to the education departments. Now, look,
if the administration wants to go out and start firing
fifteen hundred, you know, two thousand people at some other
alphabet soup agency, I'm sure some left wing NGOs will
immediately follow suits on behalf of the deep state employees
(15:30):
who would be acts, and then we'll kind of find
ourselves back to where we just are. But if the
court is going to be consistent, I mean if and
perhaps when that similar subsequent fall on lawsuit is filed.
If the course is just going to apply the exact
same constitutional principles time and time again, and then then
they're going to arrive at the exact same conclusion. But
you know, one thing that's really important about the part
education is that it is the lowest of the low
(15:52):
hanging fruits. This has been kind of a test case
for conservative legal folks for four to five decades now.
If you cannot gut the part of education, then you
are stuck with the federal leviathan and all that entails.
Because the part of education is basically the lowest of
the love. This is something that never should have existed.
And it is very good news, frankly, that they've cleared
the way for Trump to effectively again if not quite officially,
(16:13):
got it.
Speaker 1 (16:18):
Okay, let's switch gears a little bit here and talk
about the auto pen stuff as it pertains to Katanji
Brown Jackson. Now, what I do not want to do,
as you know, is to give people false hope or
cook up some wild theory that's never going to come home.
I don't want to do the Obama birth certificate thing,
(16:39):
whatever people believe about that it was never going to
do anything to remove Barack Obama from the White House,
so it was a pointless waste of time. Katanji Brown Jackson,
was she an auto penner? And can we get rid
of her? Jesse?
Speaker 7 (16:53):
Like you, I am hesitant to try to induce people
into thinking that something could happen that well, and so
the short answer is now, I'm sorry to be the
bearer of bad news.
Speaker 8 (17:01):
Now.
Speaker 7 (17:01):
Katanji Brown Jackson definitely is a few things. She's a
great a moron. I mean that that is primarily what
she is. She is a frankly just a gigantic insult
to the United States Supreme Courts. We saw those fiery
words from Amy Cony Barrett in the Nation Wie junctions case.
More recently, actually, we saw some fiery words from Sonya
Soto Mayor in an eight to one opinion where Jackson
(17:23):
was the lone dissenter. Was actually Sonya so My I
can't believe this is real life. It was literally Sonya
so Mayor who was essentially calling Katanji Brown Jackson crazy
in the Reason eight to one opinion. So she's totally, totally, totally,
completely insane, utterly and qualified, totally out to lunch. But
I hate, I hate, hate to be the bearer of
bad news Jacksey. But I don't see it happening. When
it comes to trying to get her off the course.
(17:43):
She could be impeached. That could potentially happens. Probably not
going to happen, but that would be the proper remedy there.
This autopen thing is probably not going to get rid
of them.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Okay, Now on the auto pen thing, again, I'm just
trying to no, I appreciate the honesty. I'm trying to
have everybody realistic expectations here. The pardons, there were lots
of them handed out by Joe Biden, we now know
in the fluffiest possible way. The New York Times reported
that that's I mean, it's a fact. It's a fact
people were willing to admit now that Joe Biden didn't
(18:15):
sign off on all these pardons, which of course makes
people think about Fauci, Mark, Billy Hunter Biden. Even people
who did get pardons. Can those go away?
Speaker 7 (18:28):
So the short answer is probably not. But I'll walk
you through my thinking on this. So there is a
White House Council legal opinion. So nowadays we have something
that the White House Council office called or it's actually
technically at the DOJ called the OLC, the Office of
Legal Counsel. They are the ones who come up with
constitutional theories that then try to bind succeeding presidencies years
(18:52):
from now. Okay, So the White House Council, I think
prior to the establishment of the formal OLC, back in
the nineteen sixties. Nineteen sixties, there were White House count
opinion basically says that using an auto pen is legally
equivalent of the English king back in medieval England, of
delegating authority to use the royal seal, like the literal
royal seal to like the you know, the prince or
(19:14):
the courtier or someone in the royal court there. So
the upshot is that according to this nineteen sixties White
House opinion, this seems to be okay. Now, the longer
answer is that this has really never been tested. This
has never been litigated really whatsoever to my knowledge, and
I'm inclined to think that it's not necessarily so utterly
frivless so as to be not worth a case. Now
I'm choosing my words very carefully again, so it's to
(19:36):
not induced false hope. I am skeptical that this would
go anywhere, because, among other things, I would question what
the remedy is. So let's talk about some of these
people who got pardons. You know, let's just say, hypothetically,
right that a cord then concludes that this pardon was
issued illegitimately because the auto pen is not legitimate. In
order to get standing in the federal court, you have
to have a judicially viable remedy, which is a very
(19:57):
fancy way of saying the court has to be in
a position where and actually give legitimate relief. So in
this case, what exactly is the relief? I mean, let's
say that someone was what was in jail for for
X y Z offense and now he's out, you know,
living out in Kansas or Idaho, whatever, he's you know,
he's enjoying his his fishing on the river. I mean,
is the remedy that you would literally then go take
(20:19):
that guy and then put him back in jail. It
just doesn't it doesn't necessarily feel like something that a
feral court would be would be eager to do. Is
basically what I'm trying to say here. But it's not
so crazy that it is not worth a lawsuit. I
think it probably actually ultimately is worth a lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
Okay, well that sucks, Josh. That's two doses a reality
that sucked. Let me ask you a final one. There's
reporting out there, John Solomon, others reporting that a bunch
of people are about to go down for the Russia
hoax conspiracy. Now go down for normal people like you
and me means we get handcuffed and sent off to prison.
(21:00):
Government people. It never means that at all. But is
there a chance that the criminals who operated and still
operate inside of our government actually get arrested and tried
and sent to prison?
Speaker 7 (21:12):
Over all this, I think it's possible. I'm not necessarily
going to say it's probable. I mean, you know, Jesse,
at this point, we're basically ten years. I mean, the
year is twenty twenty five. We are ten years. At
least nine years, but nine to ten years give or
take from the twenty sixteen election. Spying on George Popinopolis
and Michael Flynn and Carter Page and all the various
(21:32):
Trump base. I mean, this has been happening for a
long time now, So whenever we kind of have these
instances where we kind of learned five ten years Oh,
maybe we'll get justice for something that happened a very
long time ago. I'm kind of always immediately somewhat skeptical.
I do think that there's a potential political angle here, Jesse,
which is that it's possible that the Trump doj could really, really,
really try in earnest to actually genuinely try to have
(21:55):
something to show the people in the broader context of
a lot of the popular discontent over the Epstein stuff.
That to me is kind of my ultimate kind of
not necessarily my cause for optimism, but my cause for
at least quasi optimism is that that could be a
motivating factor to genuinely actually produce something here. I'm not
saying it's likely, it's not fifty percent or greater necessarily,
but I think it's I think it's I think it's
(22:15):
a possibility at least, I guess I'll say that.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
All right, Well, thanks for giving us at least a
little crumb of something, Josh, Josh, appreciate you as always, brother.
All Right, the Trump assassination attempts. Can't let that go.
I either, that's kind of a big deal. Why don't
we know more? Let's talk about that in a moment.
Before we talk about that, let me talk to you
about feeling good all the time, energy, having good energy,
(22:47):
having your mind be clear. These things are not They
don't just happen. We have to do something for them,
especially today with all the garbage we eat myself most
definitely included, we have to do something doing sure that
our levels are where they need to be, our t
levels are where they need to be. Our minds need
something they need chock yours does mind? Does natural herbal
(23:10):
supplements from chalk? This? I know this is about sound
over the top. It will change your entire life for
the better, at work, at home, at play. You give
chalk two three months. Maybe it's a male vitality stack,
that's what I take. Maybe it's a female vitality stack.
Maybe it's chalk lippowder. You take chalk two three months,
(23:32):
you will never stop. You will finally realize, oh my gosh,
I was living in a fog and didn't know it.
Do you want a seventeen point seven six percent discount?
Chalk dot com, slash Jesse TV. We'll be back. Well.
(23:56):
I think the attempted assassination of Donald Trump is still
kind of a big as we discussed. It's not one
of those things we should just let go. Let's move on. No, no, no, no.
We just had the one year anniversary of somebody who
tried to blow Donald Trump's head off, and that somebody
achieved a rooftop one hundred and forty eight meters from
the President with the high powered rifle and frankly made
(24:16):
the shot. President turned his head at the exact moment
or else. We are having a whole different discussion right now.
So what happened? Senate just released a pair of reports.
Let's talk to Susan Crabtree about this, National political correspondent
for real clear politics. Love them so much, Susan Senate reports.
What do they say?
Speaker 8 (24:37):
Oh? The Senate reports were it was a solemn weekend
for most people, and I thought it was extremely well
done in terms of how people commemorated this. But the
Senate reports were a gold mine. And it was like
Christmas in July for me when I was reading through
these things, because for the last year I have been
(24:58):
reporting on so many details of out this and it
were all in these Senate reports. As you know, the
last the big headlines and the last week that I
reported on or that the suspensions were only for the
junior officers, the own junior agents, their supervisors skated, and
(25:19):
not only that, they got big promotions. And that was
just one of the many headlines that were that I
reported on, and we're in those Senate reports, grief.
Speaker 1 (25:34):
So the supervisors got promoted, four agents got ten. Do
I believe it was forty two days suspensions and we're
all just going to wash our hands of it. That's
that's where we're at at with this whole thing. That's
that is that it.
Speaker 8 (25:50):
Well, yes, it seems like because everyone was at fault,
no one was at fault, and that is not okay,
that is not sufficient for Helen Comploratory, the widow of
Corey Frompooratory, the retired fireman that was killed, shot and killed.
And thankfully Donald Trump, they did put a counter sniper
(26:12):
into the rally that day.
Speaker 4 (26:14):
It came very.
Speaker 8 (26:15):
Late in the rally to the rally planning, two days
before the rally was set to begin. They had the
counter sniper. Forced them to do their work very very quickly.
Usually that takes five or six days. And so that
here where we are, here's this is where we.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
Are right now.
Speaker 8 (26:34):
We're learning more details about it, but we still don't
know anything about the motive for Thomas first, anything about
what was on his encrypted apps. And to me, that's
just beyond the pale. At this point, we should know
far more. And Senator Ran Paul and he concluded his
(26:57):
report by saying that the FBI was not cooperating with him.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Yeah, Susan, thank you so much. I appreciate you. So
the FBI is not cooperating. The supervisors got promotions. Listen,
I'm gonna tie. I'm gonna tie a couple different stories
(27:27):
together here. Joe Biden's auto pen we just brought that up.
And nobody being held to account. The Epstein stuff everybody's
mad about. We don't want to drop the Epstein stuff.
If rich, powerful men were abusing young women, we want
them held to account. Now we have secret service FBI
who knows failures beyond belief that almost cost Donald Trump
(27:51):
his life. Supervisors get promoted, junior agents get a couple
slaps on the wrist. What are all these stories having
government people, powerful people getting away with things normal people
would be fired or sent to prison for. And everyone
(28:11):
in this country, especially everybody in our government. Donald Trump
included had better get it through their heads that this
is what the American people are disgusted with. We are
tired of living in a country where people in government
can do the most horrific things in the world. And
it's not only that they don't get fired. Most of
(28:33):
them get promoted, never held to account. Things you would
go to prison for, things I would go to prison for.
We have to change how this works in the country.
Secret service promoting the bad guys. And look, maybe you're
sitting there saying, well, maybe it was negligence, maybe it
was I'm not sitting here telling you I know what
happened that day, and I don't know what happened that
(28:56):
day because the government won't tell me. And even if
the government did tell me, by this point in time,
I wouldn't believe them, because they promoted everybody who almost
got Donald Trump killed. This is where we are as
a country, and it is a dangerous, dangerous place to be,
where we have no trust in our institutions, and the
institutions we don't trust don't seem even that interested in
(29:17):
earning that trust back. Scary place to be. All right,
let's move on. I want to talk to you about
something really quickly olive oil. We don't think about olive
oil much, obviously, everyone but everyone has a bottle in
their house and everyone cooks with it. But I'm going
(29:38):
to tell you something uncomfortable about that bottle of olive oil.
It's old. Do you know that? Even stuff you find
in the grocery store, all that stuff months years old.
We care about freshness with everything else, don't we. You
don't you want fresh fruit? You want fresh fruit or
old fruit, fresh buns or old buns, fresh meat or
(29:59):
old meat. Every one cares about freshness for everything else.
But then when it comes to olive oil, we walk
down the grocery store aisle and we find the bottle
we like to look so up, and we grab it
and we throw it in the cart. Don't do that.
How about a free bottle of olive oil, a thirty
nine dollars bottle of olive oil. All you'll have to
do is pay a buck to help cover the shipping,
and you'll get to taste the difference in fresh olive
(30:22):
oil versus garbage old olive oil. How do you get
something like that? I'm not asking you to sign up
for something, sign your life away. You go to farm
fresh two four six dot com and get yourself a
fresh bottle of olive oil. It's what a difference. We'll
be back. Here's a little tidbit for you, kind of
(30:53):
a one of those ones that makes you WinCE a
little bit. Twenty twenty. You remember that year, right, It
wasn't all that long ago. Not asking you to go
back in time too far. One hundred thousand dollars back then,
the buying power of one hundred thousand dollars. Yeah, you
need one hundred and twenty four thousand today to match
the buying power you had five years ago. Now, I'm
(31:15):
no expert. That sure sounds like things haven't gone well.
I wonder what happened? Joining me now the great Carol Roth,
two time New York Times best selling author Recovering Investment Banker. Hey, Carol,
I lost twenty four percent of my income in five years.
How that happened?
Speaker 4 (31:34):
Actually you lost more than that, Jesse.
Speaker 5 (31:35):
That's just what they're reporting because that's the official numbers,
and the official numbers don't actually take into account what's
really happening.
Speaker 4 (31:43):
So you lost even more of your buying power.
Speaker 1 (31:45):
You know.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
There are two great.
Speaker 5 (31:46):
Books that came out over the last couple of years.
One was called the War on Small Business. The other
one was called you Will Own Nothing. Pretty exceptional author
I think her name was Carol Roth or something like
that that predicted this was going to happen, and I
think that we talked about this from the beginning of
twenty twenty onward. And this is an entirely predictable outcome
(32:07):
of bad federal reserve and fiscal policy that basically traded
off people getting, you know, some sort of a small
stimulus check, small four figure stimulus check for constant inflation
that eats up there purchasing power over time. And unfortunately,
people don't seem to understand that when you take actions
(32:30):
there are always consequences with them. They want to pretend
that you can just do things and that there isn't
something that happens on the other side, And particularly when
it comes to things like economics and math, it's pretty
clear what the options are on the other side. You
can put your head in the stand, but that doesn't
mean that your paycheck that was once you know, one
hundred and twenty four thousand dollars is now worth a
(32:51):
fraction of that.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Okay, Carol, I just it frustrates me so much to
hear the honest answer, because there were people like you
screaming this back then. And yet, I mean, I remember
Republicans running on stimulus checks handing out stimula. No, we
got to hand out the STEMI checks, got to hand
out the stimulus checks. And it was just the most
basic thing in the world that a child could understand.
(33:20):
You can't just print and spend a bunch of money
you don't have and hand it out to people without consequences.
And yet known in DC knows this or they do,
and they're just a bunch of evil, lying scumbags.
Speaker 5 (33:32):
I'm going to take door number two and I bet
I'm gonna win the big, big prize behind it. Fortunately,
we have tribalism, and when tribalism happens, people tend to
ignore reality, and we're seeing that over and over again.
You can be supportive of your favorite politician in general,
(33:53):
and when they come up with a bad policy, you
should still criticize them because it's a bad policy.
Speaker 4 (33:59):
And just because we had bad policies before.
Speaker 5 (34:01):
Doesn't mean that we should continue to double down on
them when they don't work. And that is the frustration,
is that it's very easy to hold some politician some
party accountable when you're on the other side and you're
not in charge. But as soon as you have the
opportunity to do something. We don't have enough people who
are willing to go to the match, and they just
(34:23):
seem to forget everything that they argued for the last
time around. Now they're making excuses for it.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
So until we get.
Speaker 5 (34:31):
Some consistency, none of this is going to change. And
the other thing that's very frustrating to me is that
people are willing to organize and go crazy about pretty
minor things, but when it comes to something like hey,
you've worked for days, months and years, and now we're
going to just completely erase that via inflation, we don't
(34:52):
get the same kind of activism. Perhaps some of it
is economic and financial literacy, but there just doesn't seem
to be that gumption when they're stealing from you to
do the things that this country was founded on. Remember
when there was a tea party over her excise taxes
on tea. Somehow that's been lost over time as men
have gotten soft.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
Yeah, the slow frog boil seems to get Okay, you
know what, let's change subjects before my blood pressure just
causes a blood vessel to burst right now. Jerome Pou
was on TV a couple of weeks ago. Here's what
he said.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
But Terry, would the fen have cut more by now
if it weren't for the tariffs?
Speaker 1 (35:34):
So I do think that I think that's right.
Speaker 9 (35:36):
Where in effect, we went on hold when we saw
the size of the tariffs and where and essentially all
inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as
a consequence of the tariffs. So we didn't overreact. In fact,
we didn't react at all. We're simply taking some time.
As long as the US economy is in solid shape,
(35:56):
we think the prudent thing to do is to wait
and learn, learn more and see what those effects might be.
And again they haven't really shown up, and you know,
so we're for now, we're waiting.
Speaker 1 (36:11):
Okay, Carol, there's all kinds of history here. Can you
explain why Donald Trump very clearly hates Jerome Palell. They've
already prepped his successor, or their begun preparations for his successor.
Trump trashes him publicly every day. I'm know Jerome Powell fan,
but what is the history here? Why does he hate him.
Why won't they cut rates? What's going on?
Speaker 5 (36:32):
Well, you know, part of the trashing of Jerome Powell
really is a trashing of the FED, which is just
an absolute terrible institution. When Trump talks about how awful
Jerome Powell is, he's right. But you know, the last
potentially good FED chair that we had was Paul Volker
in the late seventies and early eighties. So it's not
like we've had this amazing run of FED chairs. The
(36:54):
institution itself is poisoned. Jerome Peal's been wrong about pretty
much everything thing. He cut rates and held them down.
Speaker 4 (37:03):
For far too long.
Speaker 5 (37:04):
He said in inflation was going to be transitory and
it wasn't going to be a problem.
Speaker 1 (37:08):
You know.
Speaker 5 (37:09):
Then he then he hiked too fast, and then he
held it up too long. So you know, he has
been behind the curve, no pun intended, you know, at
every point in time. And why President Trump is frustrated
is because the Biden administration handed the Trump administration a
very difficult fiscal position. We have one hundred and twenty
(37:29):
plus percent debt to GDP, we have deficits that are
wartime level deficits, but we're not engaged in a war
and we're not in a recession. And at this point,
our interest expends exceeds our defense spending, which is never
a good metric for a for a country.
Speaker 4 (37:47):
You know, and it's and its strength.
Speaker 5 (37:49):
So what he's frustrated by is the fact that we
have so much debt that needs to be financed and refinanced,
and now rates are high, which means that we are
going to get even higher amounts of interest expense, and
that is going to expand our deficit, which is then
going to push up interest rates even more, and we're
going to end up in something that looks like a
(38:10):
debt spiral.
Speaker 4 (38:11):
So he's frustrating.
Speaker 5 (38:13):
The challenge is is that the FED doesn't control what's
called the long end of the yield curve, the long
dated security, something like they yield on the ten year.
Only the short end is what they directly affect. And
so really at this point what is driving that is
fiscal policy. So it's true that there is some level
(38:36):
of frustration and Powell is bad and it's going to
make sense to replace him, But the things that we
could have done we haven't done in order to affect
that change. Because the fiscal policy is now dominating monetary policy,
and there are things that the Treasury probably can do
and will be doing, but there is a price to pay,
(38:59):
which takes our discussion full circle.
Speaker 4 (39:01):
The things that they can do to change.
Speaker 5 (39:03):
Things around probably lead to more inflation.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
So we're still spending and printing too much money. Is
that what you're saying?
Speaker 5 (39:15):
If you want to just tie it up in a
nice little bow, Jesse, I think that's a very easy
way to say it.
Speaker 1 (39:23):
All right, I do want to address this before I
let you go. Trump interest rates says he wants them
at one percent.
Speaker 3 (39:29):
Here he was, each point costs US three hundred and
sixty billion dollars billion, one point three hundred and sixty billion,
two points. You got six hundred seven hundred billion dollars,
and we're way high. We're for fifty or four to
(39:51):
twenty five, four fifty. And how do you go borrow
money at one percent when the Fed has you hat
four fifty and you know it's it's not that easy.
I get angry at them. Why are we paying so much?
You know, because he's got you up at this number,
and we should be at one point. We should be
at one percent.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
Carol, Should we be at one percent, thought that sounds
great to me. But should we be at one percent?
Speaker 4 (40:17):
Well, it's funny the market doesn't seem to think.
Speaker 5 (40:18):
So the market thinks that we should be at four
and a half percent, which is where the market is today.
Speaker 4 (40:23):
And that's the challenge is that.
Speaker 5 (40:24):
The longer term securities, as I was saying, that the
yield on those longer term securities are determined by supply
and demand. We no longer have central banks from around
the world demanding to buy treasuries. They used to give
us a path a pass, which is why we used
to have such low interest rates, and they would load
up on our treasury securities. But now you know, the
(40:47):
last ten years, they've been net sellers and they've been
replacing that with gold, which means that the people in
the market who are buying our securities are those who
are more price sensitive. They're demanding a to hold our
debt for longer, and we saw we've gotten some debt
downgrades over the last couple of years, including a couple
(41:07):
months ago, so they're demanding extra premium for that. And
we have a lot of supply that's going into the
market that's going to impact that supply and demand ratio.
Speaker 4 (41:18):
Now, there are things coming down the pike.
Speaker 5 (41:20):
That you can see the Treasury and the administration setting
up something like the Genius Act, which talks about stable
coins being backed by treasuries and a link by which
central bank reserves could be used to back those That
could then increase demand from stable coins to buy treasuries.
(41:40):
There are other things that they can do to increase
the demand and to try to drive that interest rate down,
which probably doesn't get to one but maybe they can
do it. But the challenge is, as I've said before,
there is a trade off and when they do that,
that is going to be a commodative policy. That's going
to be stimulative policy, see, which means that you are
(42:01):
going to get inflation somewhere. It could come in asset
prices like we saw, you know, early after the Great Recession.
Financial prices, we're housing prices and stocks and those kinds
of things continue to go up more than let's say,
the direct cost of living. But some of the tricks
that they may do in order to get that interest
right down could also end up impacting the cost of living.
(42:25):
Either way, it's going to drive continued non merit based
inequality it's going to create more haves and have nots,
and that is not a good thing for this country.
Speaker 4 (42:34):
And that's not what we're trying to solve for right now.
Speaker 5 (42:37):
So I do think there will be a time when
interest rates will go down. It will be based on
some probably funky policy, and there will be, as there
always is a price to pay.
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Thanks a lot, Carol, Thank you, Carol, come back soon.
All right, light the mood next. All right, it is
time to lighten the mood. And wildlife encounters can be
(43:19):
scary things. This gentleman. You know it's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 10 (43:24):
I heard, I heard the row. I felt, I felt
that rour. I know to you keep it pushing, I
know that.
Speaker 11 (43:29):
Curtis Jones says he was walking near Robber Street late
Wednesday when he saw people running from what appeared to
be a large wild cat.
Speaker 10 (43:37):
I thought, I see the people around, I'll just see
something big just walking just right over here, right everybody, boy,
they went right over here. I swear I promised him
right over there. He just it's a I just I
just cut walking. I've seen it, seen me see it.
So in my head, I'm like, no, I gotta go, man,
I'm all about like this bit it was it was
it was, it was just walking, slithering like it was.
Speaker 1 (44:00):
I don't know, man.
Speaker 11 (44:01):
A shelter in place was ordered and then lifted when
RPD was unable to verify the presence of a wild animal.
Police say no reports have been substantiated. Jones tells me
he remains on edge.
Speaker 1 (44:14):
Gotta keep this.
Speaker 3 (44:15):
Bad right here.
Speaker 10 (44:15):
I'm gonna keep this bad right here, man. That's okay.
I'm gonna protect this. I ain't gonna let nothing happen
to us nothing. Okay, they ain't find it last night.
It's still out here. It could be all heard one
of these bushes or something, you know, the mountain lion aby, Wow,
they crawling. Serious. I don't play with lions. I don't
play with tigers, bears, nothing with the wild. I don't
play with those. I promise you. I don't even do
(44:38):
roller coasters. I'm good, I'll see it.
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.