Bombshell! Trump, Briefed by Bondi, Knows His Name is in Epstein Files: Focus Now on Files 7/24/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Thank you. Oh I'm humbled and might I say gratified
by your recorded applause. It means so much to me. Wow,
what a day it will be. I have a Hall
of Fame broadcaster joining me. I have a brilliant legal
analyst joining me. It is a pretty cool day ahead.

(00:20):
Albert is here, my Albert.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (00:22):
Albert. Can you keep track of everything. We've got a
lot of stuff going on today. Don't want you to
get to the yips and like, you know, hit the
ball into the woods on us. We need we need focus. Okay,
my friend, Okay, what happened with the giants yesterday? Albert?

Speaker 3 (00:40):
Oh, great stuff, great stuff. We actually hit the.

Speaker 2 (00:43):
Ball a lot.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
It's been a pretty it's been a pretty depressing road trip.
So it's nice to see, uh, you know, I get
the scores hitting my MLB app and it's all I've
been pretty downcast with the the San Francisco This is
the show that started in San Francisco, so we retain
our roots there to our KGO family and to our

(01:08):
San Francisco Bay area crew, but we've expanded and we're
excited to welcome you all in from around the country
and around the world. For that matter. I get emails
from all over and really do appreciate you interacting with
the show, supporting the show, just in the way you interact,

(01:28):
and to subscribing the show, sharing the show, all of
that stuff. We'll talk about that later. I do want
to get into things because this is a significant inflection
moment in everything that's going on with the President, Donald
Trump in battle as he is. This Epstein problem won't
go away for him. It's only deepening, and in an

(01:49):
effort to throw the press and magnation off of the
scent of the Epstein files and the fact that his
name does it here multiple times in those files, he's
throwing accusations at Hillary Clinton, at Barack Obama. There's a
criminal referral. We'll get into some of those specifics, and

(02:13):
I want to play for you some of what was
said by the Director of National Intelligence, who is Tulsi Gabbard.
If ever there was someone who is ready to sing
from the Trump hymnal, you will find Tulsi Gabbard head
of the parade. And so we'll get into all of
that in the minutes ahead. I also will again we'll

(02:36):
kind of toggle back and forth between the revelations associated
with Epstein, and then the new accusations that Trump World
is offering to sort of again distract from the Epstein files.
I mean, we heard about you know, rethinking the name

(02:58):
of the Washington football team so that they shouldn't be
called the Commanders anymore, telling the Cleveland baseball team that
they should dump Guardians go back to Indians. I mean,
the whole slew of things is just designed, I think,
just to throw stuff into the news cycle and in
some way distract. But there are serious allegations here, and

(03:20):
of course the Epstein files themselves contain loathsome grotesque allegations
and conclusions. Really, these are more than just allegations witness
testimony depositions. I mean, these investigations have yielded what was
a worldwide human trafficking ring. And so the fact that

(03:40):
Donald Trump's name shows up a number of times here,
while not suggesting he was an integral part of human
trafficking in any way, it is at best a bad
look and maybe even more damning than that. So I
want to get into all of that in the minutes ahead.
I do want to mention kim is not here, as
you know, kim My darling Kim, who does the news

(04:03):
and handles so much of the content of the show.
Her mother had a mild stroke. We think it's a
mild stroke, and she is with her mom in the hospital,
and so that is why Kim is not here today.
So Albert and myself thinking of Kim, of course, but
we will soldier on. But we hope, and again I'm

(04:28):
reflecting communications that I had with Kim. We hope that
Kim will be back here tomorrow. But it was definitely
an alarming piece of news, and I've obviously postponed my
trip that I had planned to be here today. Yes,
sending Kim our thoughts. So I will tell you that
there is one thing that's happened that is a benefit

(04:51):
for you and for me and the planning of today's show,
which really was done by Kim, and that benefit is
our next guest, I'll get to Mark Thompson show. I
consider Gil Gross a Hall of fame broadcaster, political analyst.
He's a remarkable mind with the remarkable resume. And any

(05:12):
time I can talk to Gil Gross is a time
of celebration. I cannot overstate it. You can tell just
by my enthusiasm. Again, Gil Gross is one of those
names to me, especially as a broadcaster, that I just
have such excitement when I hear so please without any
further delay. How about the great Gill Gross Everyone, look

(05:37):
at you, your healthy devil. You look good.

Speaker 4 (05:39):
Live up to that. I'm leaving now, you.

Speaker 1 (05:43):
Look rested and ready. I love it. You know, I
can't imagine a time in modern American history more both
fraught with danger and also informed by insane criminality. This
is a a period Gill that makes like the Knicks

(06:04):
administration look like mister Rogers neighborhood. I mean, really, I
mean it's a truly a scary thing when you have,
in my judgment, the government of the United States walking
in lockstep with the president without any guardrails at all,
and then you have, as we've seen, the Director of
National Intelligence in the form of Telsey Gabbard, essentially crafting

(06:27):
a message to try to suggest that the prior administration,
the Obama administration, prior to the first Trump presidency, was
involved in some kind of election engineering. It was a
in a way, I guess he's playing the old hits,
But in another way, it really whipped my head around

(06:50):
to remind me of how dangerous things can really get.

Speaker 4 (06:53):
Yeah, it's funny you mentioned Mister Rodgers Neighborhood because Ellen Aberlin,
who played Lady Aberlin on Mister Rodgers neighbor Hood, said
just this morning that the news right now is like
living in the National Inquirer put in a container of
pulled pork, sitting in the green room with the Jerry
Springer Show. And I think Ellen pretty much nailed it.

(07:14):
Getting into Tulsea Gabbard, who as National Intelligence Director is
a little like making Dostyevsky the head of humor. She Uh,
this stuff is going on all over. It's not just this, Oh,
Hillary Clinton was on drugs thing, or the claims about

(07:34):
Obama committing trees and stuff, which even Ted Cruz has said, yeah,
it's nonsense, that's not going anywhere. But the Pentagon, in
reacting to news that from their inspector reports about the
Inspector General of the Pentagon looking into Pete Hegseth's giving

(07:58):
out national intelligence and in a non classified way instead
of just saying, well, it's not true, even though indications
are it's true, but said this stuff is as old
and as dadding as Joe Biden was. So they're doing

(08:18):
all this stuff, trying to throw these sticky spiders against
various Democrats. So MEGA people don't look at where Trump
is and where this administration is. And it's important to
remember because people speak of MEGA as this one thing
that is supporting Donald Trump, and it does. But MAGA

(08:38):
has a couple of contingencies. One of them is I
support Donald Trump no matter what. There's also a large,
not a majority, but a very large percentage of MEGA
which came to this out of Q, which everybody is
trying to forget the fever dreams of this guy who
is sitting in the Philippines making up off about children

(09:01):
being raped in the non existent basement of a completely
innocent pizza parlor by Democrats. It's those former Q people
that within MEGA that are causing huge problems for Trump
because they're completely sold on this thing of Democrats and
their allies have been raping little children, and they've been

(09:23):
constantly sold on this by Donald Trump and his allies,
that Q faction, which is still pretty strong. Giving an example,
there was just a poll found eighty seven percent of
Republicans overall support Donald Trump, but only thirty five percent
believe him on Epstein because they've been living the Epstein

(09:46):
fever dream. And a lot of that comes from Q
selling all of this. I know they're mostly forgotten now,
but they're selling this for years. Is an important part
of why you know, attacking around doesn't bother Maggie. Even
though Trump said no more wars. Why all of these
other things you think would upset Maga don't. This issue

(10:08):
does because it's got a three four year old pre sale.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
That's so well, so well described, Because you're right that
part of Maga that is committed to that conspiracy feels, hey,
there are really kids who are threatened by And then,
of course, as you say, the conspiracy goes even it's
more than pedophilia. It's like eating kids and all this

(10:33):
Sudther's time, mean, it got really crazy. But the idea
that the Epstein files contain a lot of information on
Democrats who are behind this plot, that has been something
that they've had a death grip on. And so now
when you have their guy in who said we're gonna
tell all and blow the whistle on all these democrats,

(10:54):
all of a sudden you have him saying, hey, there's
nothing to see here. They know that they're being betrayed,
and you even see it at the highest levels of
the GOP. A House subcommittee now voting to subpoena Justice
Department for Epstein files is the latest headline. Three Republicans
on the panel voting with Democrats for that subpoena. That

(11:16):
subpoena then for those files, defies Trump and GOP leadership.
You know, Mega Mike actually adjourned Congress prior to even
the chance to vote on seeing those Epstein files. Of course,
that vote was demanded by the Democrats, so to subvert
that vote, he adjourns Congress for the session for the summer.

(11:40):
So I love that you point to Magnation because they
seem as though they would be angered by this, and
they likely are angered by this. I wonder to what
extent they will pick up and be reminded Gil that
the real enemy is the Democrats. And let's pay attention
to the stuff that Telsea Gabbard is serving up for

(12:02):
us now. In other words, can they be distracted by
the new shiny object. Uh No.

Speaker 4 (12:09):
And let's be clear about something. The Mega people who
are upset about this are not going to be voting
Democratic in the midterms. So what we're talking about, at
most for the Democrats. Is that some mega people get
so disgusted by this they don't vote, that it suppresses
the Republican vote. That's the best Democrats are going to

(12:29):
get out of this. And nobody who you know was
full maga or especially you know, we're Q supporters are
going to go yeah, okay, maybe hkem Jeffries as a point,
that's not a happening thing. Still, it's a danger for
Trump if a Republican vote is suppressed in the midterms.

(12:52):
Are any of these things Hillary Clinton was on drugs, Well,
who cares. She's never running for anything again. It's not
going to carry anything. It doesn't mean anything. All of
these things that they're trying, or against Obama same case,
he's never running again, doesn't make any difference, or against
his old enemies the Pentagon going on about Joe Biden yesterday.

(13:12):
I mean, you know, give me a break. Part of
this is they don't know who in the Democratic Party
to really focus on right now. The Democratic Party is
so askew. It's kind of like, well, who's the twenty
twenty eight Democrat we need to focus on And they
can't figure it out, and neither can the Democratic Party.
You know, that all said, some of this is just

(13:33):
they're repeating these memes from Trump's old enemies list exactly,
and he doesn't know enough about any new people to
yell and scream a gut except maybe Mamdani, the possible
new mayor of New York City, because a he's from
New York City and he has friends there who talk
to him things.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
And he's a Muslim, so you know, yeah, right, there's
a lot wrapped up into that one reference exactly. But
you wonder if even Is is aware of Mandamian any
kind of high profile way. As you say, they're tuned
into different frequencies. You mentioned this a couple of times,
and I want to play it because it is a
Russian talking point. This is a piece of Russian intelligence

(14:14):
that was regurgitated by Tulci Gabbard yesterday. It was an
extraordinary thing. This is the thing about Hillary being on
you know, mood stabilizers or whatever that is. I could
not believe it, Tulsi Gabbard saying, this, go ahead, Albert,
play the play a little bit of this for gil.

Speaker 5 (14:29):
Fertional problems, uncontrolled fits of anger, aggression, and cheerfulness, and
that then Secretary Clinton was allegedly on a daily regiment
of heavy tranquilizers. Then CIA Director Brennan and the intelligence
community mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, substandard sources to
create a contrived, false narrative that Putin developed a quote

(14:51):
unquote clear preference for Trump.

Speaker 1 (14:56):
I really just wanted you to give her that first part,
because that is russ intelligence that Tulsey Gabbard was, as
I say, offering that. I mean, it's lifted right out
of the Putin intelligence and it was just articulated by
the Director of National Intelligence for the United States of America.
It's an extraordinary thing. It is an extraordinary thing. And

(15:19):
Donald Trump is enamored of other dictators, whether it be
the leader of Hungary or the leader of Russia and Putin,
or remember the romance he had during his first term
with the leader of North Korea. He loves these guys.
He wants to pattern himself out after these guys. He
also wants to think that he can eventually overpower them

(15:43):
and become the king of these people. That hasn't worked
out very well for him. He's, you know, right now,
he's really upset.

Speaker 4 (15:51):
With Putin because Putin proves to be a guy who
just goes, yeah, you know, I'm just using you. I
don't really I'm not really going to pay any attention
to anything you say in Ukraine or do anything because
you said anything.

Speaker 1 (16:04):
Play the rest or a little bit more, if you would.
Albert of Trump sort of celebrating Tulsy gabbtt This is
Trump speaking, and Trump was making the point that this
should be the new narrative. He's celebrating Tulca Gabbard in
the room clearly for you know, baking this new cake

(16:24):
that we can serve to the media. And then he
actually describes the way in which we will serve it
to the media.

Speaker 6 (16:31):
Go ahead, Albert, and Republicans are doing well. And I
have the best numbers I've ever had. You know, it's amazing.
I watch people on television. Well, what about Donald Trump's
pulling numbers? She had the best numbers I've ever had.
But remember this Obama cheated on the election, and we
have it cold hard blue, and it's getting even more

(16:54):
so because the stuff that's coming in is not even believable.
So and you should mention that every time they give
you a question that's not appropriate, just say, oh, by
the way, Obama cheated on the election. You'll watch the
camera turn off instantly. But I want to thank all
of you again once again. This is an incredible job.
It's incredible people, really incredible people.

Speaker 1 (17:17):
One thing just got her second hour doesn't continue, you don't, Gil.
It's funny to me that he talks about Obama fixing
the election. That's the election he won. It's the most
extraordinary fix that I've ever seen, given the fact that
it didn't work.

Speaker 4 (17:31):
Here's the wonderful Freudian moment in that where Trump says
the stuff that it's coming in it's not even believable.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
Yeah, exactly right, exactly, go ahead of her, play the
red something leaked out, Play the respira in place.

Speaker 6 (17:49):
Director of National Intelligence always Telsey. She's like hotter than everybody.
She's the hottest one in the room right now because
she found out with certainly I think we knew it
before at all fair and is Telsea, but now you
have certainty. She has all the documents, she has everything
that you need, and she found out that Barack Hussein

(18:11):
Obama led a group of people and they cheated in
the elections, and they cheated without question. It's not even
a quote. Would you say there's even a little question there, Telsey,
She says no, and you found things that nobody thought
would ever find and very happy and very honored to
have you with us. She's right now by far, speaker.

(18:31):
She's hotter than you right now, speaker. She's the hottest
person in the room right now, speaker. So Telsea, okay,
LB and I know, yeah, yeah again, Telsea, great job
for serving up. As I say, what is the president wants,
which is for everyone to pay attention to this and
not the Epstein files, which we'll get to in a second.
But Gil, I wanted you now play a little bit

(18:53):
Albert if you would, Clapper who he's gone after as
you know, Gil, and he wants to go after over Obama.
Clapper call me and you know again, I'll go ahead.
Just play a little bit for Gail, if you would.

Speaker 7 (19:06):
And it's great to have you here, Director Clapper. I mean,
it was a remarkable appearance by someone who now holds
the job that you previously held, and she's basically accusing
the president that you served under and the people you
served with, and you a fabricating an intelligence assessment to
damage President Trump. What's your response to that, Well.

Speaker 8 (19:28):
It's patently false and unfounded. I was present at the
meeting that everybody talks about, and I heard directly what
President Obama asked us to do, which was to compile
all the reporting and summarize it that we had accumulated
in the runoff to the election of twenty sixteen, put

(19:49):
it in one document in various classified, various levels of classification,
and including a public release, and he wanted that done
before the end of visit new It was not to
concoct intelligence or make it up or anything of the sort,
which is absurd.

Speaker 7 (20:07):
So he told you to investigate. But you're saying he
did not tell you what conclusion to reach. He did not,
because that's what they're essentially a lodging here. She's saying
the assessment used unclear unknown sources and that it was
subject to unusual directives from President Obama, and also the
allegation that it was that it was a rushed assessment.

Speaker 8 (20:28):
Essentially, Well, yeah, yes, we had a short deadline to
get it done because the President stipulated he wanted it
completed before the end of his administration in order to
be able to hand off a compilation of what the
Russians had attempted to do to influence the outcome of
the election in twenty sixteen. He wanted to be able

(20:49):
to hand it to the then president LEC. Trump and
to the Congress.

Speaker 7 (20:54):
There seemed to be some conflating over whether Russia could
actually change voting machines, whether they did do that, and
in terms of who Russia wanted to win the election.
One thing that was a huge point of focus for
Director Gabbert was that they're pushing back on the notion
that Russia wanted Trump to win, that they did this
to help Trump. Was that intelligence you believe sound when

(21:18):
that finding that Russia was doing this in the favor of.

Speaker 8 (21:23):
First throw on the voting machines, It's quite correct. The
Russians did not electronically penetrate any voting machine or anything
connected with tallying votes, So they did not succeed even
if they attempted, which we don't think they did, to
manipulate voting. What the Russians did do, in contrast to that,

(21:45):
was mount a very sophisticated, extensive and aggressive information operations
campaign to influence public opinion in this country, and they
used phony social media posts, phony social media accounts. Rt UH,
the Russian government controlled media outlet which has a bigger

(22:11):
following in this country than this network does. They used
fake news implants, was very sophisticated and very focused on
what and they wanted to first so doubt discord and
distrust among the American public, and I believe they succeeded
and unfortunately were a ripe target for exploiting our divisionness

(22:34):
and polarization. And they did favor president the candidate Trump
over candidate Clinton. Longstanding animus for the Clintons by Putin
and that carried over to the election.

Speaker 1 (22:51):
He helped it. That's what I really That was a good,
lengthy chunk, but I wanted to really explore it with
the former d N I what he knows and what
he's saying is, yeah, Russia didn't flip any votes, but
they essentially put on a full court press with disinformation.

Speaker 4 (23:09):
They did, and in fact, it it led to a
dispute between me and somebody I did consider a friend.
And then I can't really say a dispute since I
don't know Tom Hartman, but Tom Hartman and Larry King
and Larry and I, you know, we're friends. We're both

(23:31):
on rt and the idea was to why Rtie wanted
them was to draw otherwise liberal progressive people into watching
rt and all it's twenty two hours of other other
chosen propaganda. And I was really upset with both of
them for doing that, just so they could go, you know,

(23:51):
I'm on television, your radio, I'm on TV.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
And it legitimized You're saying on some level art because
of those personalities on.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
It legitimized it. But more than that, the shows served
as a way to get people to watch Russian propaganda
in all the other hours that the otherwise would not
have watched because they're filled with promos for the other shows,
and if it has to be on here, it comes
to the next show. So that was especially unfortunate, and
that went on for years. But that's what our tea

(24:19):
was about, as well as Sputnik, that they had a
whole organization that was doing radio shows. There were several
radio stations in this country that basically released by Russian
services and just put on Russian propaganda all day.

Speaker 1 (24:35):
Gil I have a confession.

Speaker 4 (24:38):
I'm from Washington obviously there I'm from.

Speaker 1 (24:40):
Washington, DC. And when I used to go back and
see my parents regularly. I would listen to Urt on
the radio. It's called Radio Spotnik. Yeah. I got to
tell you, man, a lot of the shows are really good,
a lot of the information is really good. And to
your point, it became difficult to Parsh to separate the
propag and from the reality and from some of the

(25:03):
minds and analysts who I kind of respect. So I
think you make a really good point about r TEA. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (25:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (25:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (25:09):
It's like seeing you know, your favorite actor do a
commercial for cigarettes and you're going, oh, come on, I
still love you as a person, but come on.

Speaker 1 (25:21):
So look the we're going to talk about the legal
part of this. I mean, this is all just smoke.
There is really nothing here but smoke on the part
of this administration. But you can see how he's peacocking
about it and he's owning the news cycle with this
Gabbard announcement. But the reality is that what he's distracting
from is the Epstein files and these new meetings that

(25:45):
are going on right now actually with Kallain Maxwell and
his former attorney, Trump's former attorney Todd Blanche's number two
at the Justice Department. Give me a moment about how
you game out this Epstein thing.

Speaker 4 (25:58):
It's complicated on many many levels. For one, I think
the Todd Blanche Blanche of course now with the Justice
Department number two person a Justice Department formally a Trump
defense attorney, so he's certainly not there to try and
get Donald Trump. Also, I don't think that this is
going to be the meeting that anything will come out
of that's going to be public. I think this is

(26:18):
the negotiation. This is the Gislaine Maxwell saying, who's you
know serving twenty years? If I say this, what do
I get? Do I get a full pardon, do I
get a commutation? What do I get out of this?
And what do you want me to say in order

(26:40):
to get that? So I think that's what the Blanche
media is going to be about. Then that will lead
to if an agreement is made to her appearance before hearings,
and out of that, I think we'll find out, you
know whatever. I want to be clear on this, not

(27:01):
because I'm a fan of Trump hanging around with Epstein
any more than I'm a fan of Bill Clinton having
hung around with Epstein or Prince Andrew or any of
the other celebrities who hung around with him. We don't
know that any of them had sex with miners. In fact,
there is the one story told by somebody who was

(27:24):
there when Trump expressed interest, you know, at least ogling
a young woman, Epstein says she's not for you. And
there is some evidence that Epstein, even though he provided
women for many people, which would still go to you know,
the prostitution charges, that he wanted all the miners for

(27:46):
himself and that, yeah, you can have the eighteen year olds,
the fifteen year olds are for me. So you know,
we don't know that on the other side of this,
we're going to get a smoking gun of Trump the child.
We do know from Trump's own mouth years ago when
he talked about Epstein likes, he said, like myself, likes

(28:08):
to surround himself with beautiful women, and then added, some
of them quite young, that Trump probably knew what the
hell was going on with Epstein, as maybe did some
of these other well known people of all political parties
and backgrounds, have known and have chosen because of Epstein's

(28:30):
ability to generate large amounts of wealth for your campaigns
to look the other way. So we don't know what
we're getting out of this other than Trump hung around
Epstein a lot, as did Bill Gates and many other people,
and from that statement that Trump more than likely knew

(28:52):
what Epstein was up to and decided to look the
other way. Other than that, you know, we don't know,
except Trump is so because he could just say that.
It's pretty much with Alan Dershowitz, who was actually accused
by one woman of having sex with her as a minor.
Dershwitz has denied it, and so far, other than her statement,

(29:14):
there's been no proof of anything.

Speaker 1 (29:16):
But still.

Speaker 4 (29:20):
There's this question of did they know and turn the
other cheek. I think that's very possibly the reason why
Trump instead of just going as Dershowitz said, yeah it
was on the planes. I didn't do anything myself. I
think that maybe why he's going so nuts about this,

(29:41):
because it's Plaine, he's in the files.

Speaker 1 (29:43):
We've always known it.

Speaker 4 (29:44):
There's time he says I barely knew the guy. There's
former statements by him about how they're best friends, they
knew each other, they were buddies for fifteen years. You know,
there's no doubt the pilot, Epstein's pilot said oh yeah,
Trump was on the plane. Lots of times Trump has
had I've never been on the plane. It doesn't wash.

Speaker 1 (30:06):
So But to that point, Gil, he's taken a kind
of he's taken kind of a hard line on that.
And I think the fact that he's swimming away so
vigorously that's the thing that makes this even more radioactive.
It's sort of what you said. I mean, he should
have been counseled along the lines of what you were
just saying, which is, hey, dude, you can say, yeah,
you was a friend of mine. I didn't know he

(30:27):
was into all this stuff. I flew on his plane
a bunch of times, but you know, he had a
big bang in life, and we were a couple of
international playboys. But I never was part of anything untoward
like that. You know, I was dating Centerfolds. I don't
know who he was dating. He should have said that.
I mean, that was probably the highest ground.

Speaker 4 (30:43):
Says Yeah, he was on the plane all the time.
We always saw him. It's this thing of Trump just
can't take any little nick in the armor. Look, his
supporters are anxious for this to go away and have
an explanation. If he said, and that's if this is true,
but if he said, as you just said, yeah I

(31:03):
was on the plane hung out. We were a friend. Look,
I've had friends that I've hung around and didn't know
what they were up to and felt especially foolish. Bruce
Ritter was a friend of mine, the priest who started
Covenant House helped tens of thousands of young people. When
it was first reported by Charlie Sennett in The New

(31:24):
York Post that Bruce was having sex with some of
the kids, I couldn't believe it. I mean I absolutely
couldn't believe it. And Jerry Nackman, who was published with
the New York Post that broke the story, called me
because we were old friends, and said, actually, Jerry was
just pissed at me.

Speaker 1 (31:41):
Said, how can you do this?

Speaker 4 (31:42):
Do you think I would let a story go on
in the paper that wasn't true, and just went absolutely
nuts on me. But then he had Charlie called me,
and Charlie went, yeah, Gil, I had the same feeling
when I started working on this story. I didn't want
it to be true. I didn't know anything. It was
supporter of Bruce Ritter, as everybody was, for all of

(32:02):
the good side of him. But yeah, Gil, it's true,
and so.

Speaker 1 (32:08):
I think, you know, but what you describe Gil Gross
is something different. You didn't know. But what Trump I think,
and this is probably the reality. To give him the
benefit of any doubt, he averted his gaze. He knew
what was going on, but he averted his gaze.

Speaker 4 (32:29):
Yeah, and that may be true because we don't know
what names are in this. That may be true of
all of these people. Another problem Trump has, because he
came down with such a hard denial of it, was
the birthday book. The comment in the Birthday book about
you know, us keeping secrets. Jeffrey Trump has completely denied that.

(32:51):
But the lawyer Edwards, who's the was the lawyer for
a couple of hundred young women who filed a suit
against the Epstein the state. He says, oh, yeah, that
book absolutely exists. It's right now in the hands of
the Epstein estate in Florida. You know, it could be subpoenaed.
But that book absolutely exists, and Trump's greeting is absolutely

(33:15):
in there, despite his denials.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
And I have to say that verbiage keeping a secret
that flies in the face of all of these kinds
of explanations. For well, he was there, but he didn't
know about anything. He looked the other way. Yeah, sounds
like it was more than he looked the other way. Again,
based on what we know, and we're having to put
together the little pieces of the puzzle. I will say

(33:39):
this because you know, Jeffrey Epstein ran an international human
trafficking organization, and a few days ago Ron Widen, who's
the Senator from Oregon, right, Yeah, said that his investigators.
Now he's on the committee, the Finance Committee, and he's
the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, so when he

(34:01):
says he's discovered something, it comes from that place on high.
He said that his investigators had discovered that four big
banks had flagged to the Treasury Department one point five
billion dollars in potentially suspicious money transfers involving Jeffrey Epstein.
Much of that appeared to be related to his massive

(34:24):
sex trafficking network. This is a revelation, and I'll just
say that a lot of these banks and the trail
of money extend back to Russia, extend back to some
of these countries from which we know these women were trafficked.
And this is he's saying evidence that the DOJ is

(34:45):
ignoring evidence found in the US Treasury Department's Epstein file.
There is more, He says, this binder contains extensive details
on the mountains of cash Epstein received from prominent businessmen
that Epstein used to finance his criminal network. So the
Treasury Department has this information because that's where these bank

(35:06):
files exist. They have a suspicious activity report? Is it
sar's suspicious activity reports? And he's saying, and there's a
huge demonstrable trail that leads back to Jeffrey Epstein and
a lot of these banks. So if you really wanted
to pursue this, you could. It's all there in that

(35:29):
Justice Department file. But he's saying that DOJ is looking
the other way on it.

Speaker 4 (35:34):
Yeah, and probably look, it's not the first time that
law enforcements looked the other way. Remember, Epstein originally gets
prosecuted and makes a deal with Florida where all the
child sex trafficking charges are dropped against him despite the
massive evidence, and he gets what was it eighteen months.

Speaker 1 (35:54):
Ago, alex Acosta deal exactly, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (35:57):
And you know, basically gets a slap in the raid. Now, now, Jeffrey,
you be careful when you have sex with those children,
and nothing. Then the DJ takes it much more seriously
it brings much more serious charges, puts together this file
that we're all talking about. But then next thing we
know he's dead and you know, more than likely suicide.

(36:21):
There's questions about it, but so far no evidence it
was anything.

Speaker 1 (36:25):
But well, there's no evidence, guil because the all the
video is gone and all the witnesses are gone. And
I don't know you and I could you know, go
around about that another time, but definitely you're right. I mean,
the trail it goes cold because.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
Held at that point, and that file gets gets put
in and a drawer, that file gets put in the
same place where most of the stuff at the end
of the first Indiana Jones movie is put right right
there is Jeffrey Epstein over the shoulder of that beautiful
woman that Trump is with this Epstein thing. It's not

(36:59):
going away, is it, Gill Gross. I mean, they can
keep trying to serve up a news story and play
the old hits Clinton Obama. They can regurgitate whatever information
they have from the Russians. But the reality is this
Epstein story seems to have a half life that's pretty sticky.

(37:21):
They sold it to Mega, especially to Que for years
and years and years and years. You cannot sell something
for years and years and years and years and suddenly
trying to make it go away. It's like pretending Donna
Reid was the actress who played the wife on Dallas,
or that Patrick Duffy, you know, like Dive and then

(37:44):
was found in the shower a year later, and pretend that, yeah,
that did happen. We know it happened. And you can't
unsell something that you sold for years and then just suddenly,
you know, have Patrick Dovey show up in the shower.
It doesn't work and nobody believes it. But this is
a real thing. There are real lives involved, Real young

(38:07):
women were assaulted, and this is a real story, and
they sold it to their crowd, and their crowd is
not letting go of this story. Now, does the MAGA
crowd expect, you know, Trump to be found guilty in here?
Are they still hoping that? You know, Oh, well, there
we go. There's Bill Clinton and then there's all these

(38:28):
other Democrats and that's what we're going to find. Yeah, probably,
but we know Trump is in those files. We have
the report from the Wall Street Journal. One of the
reasons why Trump is now sewing them for ten billion dollars.

Speaker 1 (38:43):
Well, and but just on that though guilt, he did maintain. Look,
I don't know what's going on with that report, and
that's Pambondi's thing. Meantime, he had already been briefed in
May on the report, the fact that his name shows up.

Speaker 4 (38:56):
Yeah, and anybody who believes that Pambondi is doing anything
without with the President Trump first raise your hand. Yeah,
I don't see any answer.

Speaker 1 (39:05):
Right, Yeah, I mean she is a functionary. Looks he
surrounded himself with the Pam Bondis of the world. I mean,
he's got a government that is expressing complete fealty and
where the shoe pinches for him. And then I'll let
you go. Is that a lot of these people were
involved in the jihad to transparently reveal all the Democrats
who are going to be in that Epstein file. Now

(39:28):
I'm talking about Cash, Pattel and I'm talking about Bongino,
and so you know, we know about this, and so
these guys have an awkward walk back.

Speaker 4 (39:36):
They have a very awkward walk back. And plus they
can't walk back anything without Trump's permission. And say so,
and look, whatever you think of Donald Trump, you know, politically,
whatever you think of his political smarts or anything else.
One of the problems is that Trump throws out words
salle it's Trump. I have a friend who used to

(39:59):
work for a program director in Los Angeles who used
to just throw out a million things at meetings and
they would try and do them. And finally the assistant
program director, who was an old friend of his, said,
don't ever do anything when he says something once. If
he says it like six times over two weeks, then
he really means it, and you do that. But a

(40:20):
lot of this is word salad. A lot of this
is just his feelings at the moment. For God's sakes,
don't do anything because he says, you know, do this.
And part of the problem is Cashpitellen, Bengino and Pambondi
and all of these people are going to hear Trump
say something and when he doesn't even know what he's saying,
and try and act on it and then very possibly

(40:41):
look incredibly foolish the next day, and that's going to
be a really real problem for them trying to get
out of this mess.

Speaker 1 (40:49):
Trump in the first administration seemed to have people who
understood what your assistant program director in your story understood,
which is that, you know, don't take Trump seriously on
a lot of stuff. He doesn't really even focus on
a lot of stuff. But now you have people who
are surrounding Trump and populating this administration who do jump
at his first utterance.

Speaker 4 (41:11):
You know, he learned his lesson from the first administration
when he had actual grown ups like hl McMasters around
of him. None of them lasted four years, but he
had actual grown ups with actual knowledge. She would go, yeah,
I think it's a good idea, and do things. And
his lesson from that is I want people who when
I say jump, ask how high? And that's all he wants,

(41:31):
and that is what he's got.

Speaker 1 (41:34):
Now.

Speaker 4 (41:34):
It's interesting I've covered Trump since the seventies because I
was originally, you know, a New York Street supporter and anchor,
and we covered Trump and we looked at him amusedly,
and sometimes he would do good things. He saved the
woman's skating rink, you know, hooray after name it after him.

Speaker 1 (41:50):
He was dining out on the woman's skating rink. Savior
for a long time, wasn't he got Yeah?

Speaker 4 (41:55):
But he was also throwing little old ladies out of
buildings that he bought in Central Park. He was making
deals with the mob in Atlantic City, which, by the way,
everybody who had a casino Atlantic City made deals with
the mob. He had to do that. So you know
when people talked about him at president, remember he was
a liberal Democrat. Then people who say all reporters have

(42:16):
always hated Trump because he's conservative, he wasn't. The Clintons
went to his wedding with Milania.

Speaker 1 (42:21):
Well, this whole anti gay thing and anti I mean,
that's not Trump. Trump is a New York City guy.
He's cool with gays. He was a friend of Elton John's,
went to his party and all you know, he was
a he was a celebrity. I mean basically he was
a kid barm with the silver spoon in his mouth, right,
and he just showed up at among the glitterati of
New York, always wanting to be legit and never really

(42:43):
viewed as legit. And you know this better than I
do it. That was my understanding of it.

Speaker 4 (42:47):
Yes, I'll give you, well, let let's talk about Doc
salehist very briefly and then and then you can let
me go off into the night.

Speaker 1 (42:55):
But I love it, plea. I need a name drop
of some kind, because you knew everybody.

Speaker 4 (43:00):
Gil Gross our good friend. We both knew Gen Burns
was the terrific friends. We were talking about Savage and
the act he was doing on the radio, and you know,
the committed right wing things he was doing, and Jean said,
I'll tell you something about him. He said, he asked
me when he started out. He said, where do you

(43:21):
think there's more money being a liberal or being a
conservative on the radio? And Jean said, who's a libertarian himself?
Jean said, you know, no, you have to be real.
You just have to be whatever you want. And apparently
got to look like that that's not an answer I'm
looking for. And in that same way, Trump found that

(43:44):
there was no way through for him on the liberal
democratic side, which he had given tons of money to
and support it for years, and went right. I think
he believes most of it now, but mostly what he
believes is what's good for me.

Speaker 1 (43:59):
Sure, And yeah, you don't think he doesn't. I don't
mean to focus on the gay thing, but the gay
thing to me, the whole anti gay LGBTQ plus jihad
that the Republicans have now become associated with. I feel
like that wasn't originally Trump, That's really not And I
don't think he cares because it's not about him and

(44:22):
power and money and getting girls, which is really those
are the three things he cares about. But I just
think that that's not in his DNA.

Speaker 4 (44:29):
I mean, and day Geleberty. So whether it was Elton
John or Michael Jackson, he was always bragging about with
good friends they were and all of that.

Speaker 1 (44:37):
No, it wasn't.

Speaker 4 (44:38):
He never took any of this stuff that kind of serious,
with that kind of seriousness. And in terms of having
a grown up around, Trump had a woman, and I'll
give him credit to this, He had a woman who
was his head of engineering, very very bright, and he
hired her and gave her power at a time the
Northern New York City builder had But she told me
that all the time I would fire somebody because they

(45:02):
were completely incompetent, and then they'd go crying to Donald,
and Donald go, oh no, that's terrible. Though, you shouldn't
be fired and rehire them. She said, I'd have to
go back and fire them again, because you know, a
building could fall down. It's just good to have these
people there. So he used to have grown ups around
him who would protect him, and he didn't have that anymore.

Speaker 1 (45:25):
The one thing I would say about your narrative with
Trump is it leaves out one huge thing, and that
is the way his image was reconstituted by The Apprentice.
The Mark Burnett Show really shaped a different kind of
Trump as a successful businessman. And you know this from
having covered him in the seventies and through the decades.

(45:46):
You know that he wasn't really a successful businessman, and
he wasn't viewed as a successful businessman. He wasn't even
viewed as a legit billionaire. But the slow motion walk
from the helicopter and from the Trump plane, and the
music swell, and just the way that choreographed that show
was so beautifully done that it created an image, and

(46:06):
he wasn't able to take that image and right it
all the way to the President's His one.

Speaker 4 (46:09):
Big success in New York was converting the old Commodore Hotel,
which was old and rundown at the time, into the Hyatt.
And that was a big thing to him because his
dad had done all of his work in Brooklyn and Queens.
His dad never got to build anything in Manhattan. To Donald,
that was a big thing of showing Dad, you see

(46:30):
me too. I play too. But it's more than The Apprentice.
And by the way, since Mark Burnett's been mentioned, we
should put out Mark Burnett as steadfast Democrat, has given
tons of money to the Democratic Party, and at the
time The Apprentice began, Trump was a liberal Democrat. It

(46:50):
goes back a little further than that. I'll make this
really brief. Trump is in New York. If Trump is
a builder, a playboy builder in Kansas City, nobody cares.
He's the same guy. Nobody cares he's in New York.
He's a character. He invites his girlfriend to the same
skiing vacation as his wife. He's good copy. It starts

(47:15):
with the New York Post, which makes headlines like Marlon
Maple saying best sex I ever had. He makes headlines
in the New York Post as a tabloid, gets picked
up then by Howard Sterton because again not a political thing.
Howard just likes people, especially have stories about women, and

(47:36):
he's a good guest. Trump is always a good guest.
He was a good guest. So after the New York
Post headlines, Howard has him on that starts to give
him a national exposure. So by time you get to
The Apprentice and Burnett picks him, it wasn't because of politics.
It was and that was all scripted. And Burnett would
be the first person to tell you that it was

(47:58):
even your fired line. It was this character that existed
because he's in a major media center being a character. Again,
if he's a character in Kansas City, we've never heard
of him.

Speaker 1 (48:12):
Sure, you know, it's funny. My friend at the time,
a good friend came up together. He's a programming executive producer,
and he ended up running NBC and he bought The
Apprentice And he told me years later, some years they
not maybe seven or eight years later, during the success

(48:33):
of runn he said, I didn't buy The Apprentice for
Donald Trump, that I thought Donald Trump was a mess.
I bought it from Mark Burnett and knew that Mark
Burnett would make that show work with him, and sure enough,
it was a sleek offering. And I'm so glad you
kind of filled in the bricks in the wall that
led to that, because there was a lot leading up,
and you're right, I forget about what a celebrity he

(48:54):
was and the stern stuff and the way that the
tabs loved him. He was just great celebrity fodder.

Speaker 4 (49:02):
You know, yeah, exactly by the time again, NBC picks
up The Apprentice because of Mark Burnett, but also.

Speaker 1 (49:09):
It was cheap.

Speaker 4 (49:11):
It was all done on the streets of New York
where NBC had studios, had cruise. It cost nothing. It
wasn't even expensive to the extent of Survivor, which is
a very successful Mark Burnett show where they have to
go to Fiji and for years they were going to
different places around the globe. And then there was like
tons of editing because they had all of these separate

(49:32):
people with camera crews and producers following them. And for
a reality show, not a cheap show, such a good vial.
Apprentice was an incredibly cheap, cheap show. One set the
office and then some remote stuff in a city where
you had camera cruise to spare. And that was another
selling point.

Speaker 1 (49:50):
Such a good point. Well, I like that we visited
all these things, and I really loved that we revisited
the way we ended up here with the Trump being
who we is. Gil, Please don't make it so long
between visits. You know how I feel about you, and
Kim feels similarly so I hope he'll be back soon.

Speaker 4 (50:07):
I feel about you, guys, I thank you and yeah,
prayers and good feelings to Kim and her mom, indeed,
Gill Gross, everybody, Solon Gil, thank you, Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 1 (50:21):
We always appreciate a good conversation, good stuff, Albert, thank
you for rallying some video for us to remark on.
There's some good real time stuff. I think there was.
There was one piece of video I wanted to get to.
It didn't get to Oh the Folly with a supersticker
for twenty bucks. Come on, I love it. I feel

(50:42):
big shout out proud that Oh the Folly is part
of the cruise. Ev thank you supersticker. Super chats are live.
Our super chats are just part of the overall chat.
There's a live chat going on on YouTube. You can
be part of it. All you have to do is
log onto YouTube and it is free. This whole show

(51:02):
is free. It's made possible by primarily the Patreon and
PayPal subscribers, those who support us every month. If you
want to be one of them, you can jump on
Patreon or PayPal and be one of them. There are
Patreon and PayPal links under all of our videos and
you can even go to our website, the Mark Thompsonshow

(51:22):
dot com and you can click there, and so that
way we can afford to pay Albert his bloated salary
and the other expenses we have on this show to
try to stay above water. But seriously, it is an
NPR PBS model where the show is free, but we
ask for your support to help it going. So again,

(51:42):
thanks to everybody who is who is a part of
that crew. You guys are the very best. In fact,
I got an email. I guess Daniel Martin is a
Patreon or I don't know whether he's Patreon or PayPal,
but we had He's saying, please add my name. I
was on it, then I was off it. That has

(52:03):
to be painful. You're on it.

Speaker 9 (52:05):
Probably the most thrilled about around March for March Madness,
for Mark's Madness.

Speaker 1 (52:10):
Yeah, he says, your show has become a voice of reason.
I think ron Owens wrote a book. Ron Owens is
a talk show hosting in San Francisco, wrote a book
with that as the title. You are the Best, No butts,
but I have a request. When Tony reshuffles the credits
at the end of the show. Could you please add me.

(52:31):
I've been off the list for a couple of months now.
It's only my only claim to fame, so please add me.
Other than that, no complaints. We do love our Daniel
Martin and we'll take care of that promptly. And now
I've got some other emails. I will get to them

(52:51):
in due time. What was the other video I wanted
to run, Albert? Just from a housekeeping standpoint, we have.

Speaker 9 (52:58):
An Epstein video and have one more Toulsi Gabbard with
Kaitlin Collins video.

Speaker 1 (53:03):
Right, let's give me the Epstein video because this really
updates what's going on today and I think it speaks
to what we know. But at the same time, I
think it important that we underscore it. So go ahead please.

Speaker 10 (53:17):
Today for sure. Joining us right now is Nick Ackerman.
He's a former assistant. He was attorney for the Southern
District of New York and former assistant special Watergate Prosecutor.
So Nick, how unusual is this set up? This meeting
between the Deputy Attorney General and Delan Maxwell.

Speaker 11 (53:31):
This is extremely unusual. You never have the number two
person in the Department of Justice go and interview anybody.
I mean that is something that is done by line attorneys.
What really is going on here once you dig into
this and you realize Todd Blanche was Donald Trump's former
criminal defense lawyer. What they're doing and what's going on here,

(53:55):
is that they're hoping that Maxwell wants a pardon from
Donald True, she knows that the only way she'll ever
see the light of day and get out of that
twenty year sentence is to get a pardon, and what
they're hoping is that in order to do that, you
will be motivated to say that Donald Trump didn't know
what Jeffrey Epstein was up to with underage girls and

(54:17):
they never participated in that. The problem, of course, is
there's no way you could ever believe Maxwell by virtue
of the fact that she's got every motive to say
whatever she wants in order to get that pardon. So
the real question is if she says that, are they
still going to take that and then at some point

(54:38):
later give her the pardon. I don't think there's going
to be quite the same quid pro quote that you
had with the Eric Adams case. Don't forget Lance's second
in command, Beauvet, did basically the same thing with Eric
Adams by dismissing his federal criminal case in the Southern
District of New York Earn for him playing ball with

(55:02):
the administration's immigration policies. So you see the same thing
going on here. But if you kind of sit step
back and say, well, what are they trying to do.
They're hoping that if Maxwell thinks that she can get
a pardon, that she'll say things that are favorable to
Donald Trump. They'll use that, and who knows, maybe down
the road they'll actually pardon her. But all of this

(55:25):
really stinks.

Speaker 1 (55:27):
Yeah, there you go, Thank you. That's the Watergates prosecutor.
I think you don't need to hear from them. These
brilliant legal analysts will have I think David Katz is
really without peer. David Katz is coming up our own
brilliant legal analyst in a moment former federal prosecutor as well.
You don't need them because this one is a layup, right,

(55:50):
you know what's going on. You don't send the number
two guy from the Justice Department. And there was even
talk for a while that Bondi would accompany him to
meet with Gallaine Maxwell. Unless you trying to choreograph a
story you're absolutely trying to choreograph a story with her,
and she's desperate to get out of there, and she'll
say whatever you want, you write it, I'll say it.

(56:12):
She is desperate to get out of prison. And so
the idea somehow that Blanche is going down there, and
again the former personal attorney for Donald Trump is going
down there for any other reason than to establish what
she's going to say and how that might conform with

(56:35):
what they want her to say. I think you know
you don't need, as I say, any particular legal analysis
on that one, so we'll keep you posted on that.
I will say that there's been a really sweet skewering
of Trump by south Park. South Park again part of

(56:59):
the Paramount family. So it's a weird thing, you know.
It's like Stephen Colbert making fun of the deals that
Paramount has made and CBS made with Donald Trump. Now
you have south Park doing it as well. And south
Park they've had twenty seven seasons of south Park and
they have begun season twenty seven covering Trump's lawsuit against

(57:24):
Paramount and the cancelation of Stephen Colbert's show, and they
depict Trump in bed with Satan sermon on The Mount
sees the US President in bed with series regular Satan
and covers topics including Trump's lawsuit against Paramount, the cancelation
of the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Wokeness, Trump's attacks

(57:48):
on Canada, and more. Unlike other characters, Trump is depicted
as an actual photo of the US President on an
animated body. If you can, oh, thank you, Albert is
showing it to you now, and there as Satan, who
is again yes series regular. There's also an extended scene
featuring a hyper realistic deep fake video of Trump completely

(58:11):
naked walking in the desert. There are a repeated suggestion
that jokes about Trump's genitalia, and the episode centers on
the presence of Jesus in South Park schools. That's the
story covered by a parody of sixty Minutes. That's a
satire of Paramount's recent embroilment with Trump over the flagship

(58:36):
show for CBS, which is sixty Minutes. The two hosts
refer nervously to quote the President, who is a great
man and who quote is probably watching.

Speaker 3 (58:50):
It's really funny.

Speaker 9 (58:50):
It's like there's basically saying, hey, we're reporting on this,
but you know what we do respect and love the
President and all this, but we're here to report here
in south Park.

Speaker 3 (59:00):
It's it's really.

Speaker 1 (59:01):
Funny when south Park's parents protest to Trump that they
don't want Jesus in the schools, and Trump threatens to
sue them for five billion dollars, Jesus begs them to
settle with the president. Quote. I didn't want to come
back and be in the school, but I had to
because it was part of a lawsuit and the agreement
with Paramount. You guys saw what happened to CBS, Well,

(59:24):
guess who owns CBS Paramount? You really want to end
up like Colbert, You guys got to stop being stupid.
He also has the power to sue and take bribes,
and he can do anything to anyone. It's the effing president, dude.
South Park is over. This was again all on the
episode of South Park. So as it goes, they continue.

Speaker 9 (59:47):
To I think they just signed a one point five
billion deal with Paramount also, so I think they might
be stuck with south Park, and south Park might just
lean into this knowing that they have some protection for
a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:00:00):
Yeah, it's pretty wild, and I think the south Park
check this Albert, But I think the south Park Library.
Maybe it was. I think the south Park Library was
sold also, like the IP was sold or something or
some big transfer. I thought of South Park Library related

(01:00:21):
material that they made a bunch of money on. I
don't know, but south Park is a really valuable franchise
to them, and as you say, it's played out in
the deal they just made. Well, it's a it's the
gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. They are

(01:00:42):
trying to make political hay of it, as you know,
the Epstein files I'm talking about, but they can only
do so much. Now you have a bipartisan effort to
release these Epstein files and we'll see if anything really
comes of it. But it's definitely not going away. And
you can trot Telsey Gabbert out every day and it's

(01:01:05):
not going away. So Albert, I am sorry for your loss.
Hulk Hogan has passed away at seventy one. I know,
I know, sorry, brother, the Holster's got to go. Never
never nice when someone passes away. He was an icon

(01:01:29):
in the wrestling world. I don't think Albert was among
the Hulk of maniacs though. I don't think you were
into and you're a wrestling guy. But I don't think
Hulk was necessarily part of your shrine.

Speaker 9 (01:01:39):
Well, I grew up in the Attitude era, which is
like the late nineties, so he was already like Hollywood.
He was, he went, he went, he went, heel at
the time, and he was a part of this.

Speaker 1 (01:01:52):
Oh that's right. He became a bad guy, is what
you're saying.

Speaker 3 (01:01:54):
Yeah, he was a bad guy around that time.

Speaker 1 (01:01:56):
Oh that's wild. Yeah.

Speaker 9 (01:01:58):
I was telling me vitamins at that time, so he
was what said against Sorry, he was not telling me
to take my vitamins and say my oh ye yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:02:05):
Yeah. He started as a good guy, then he went
bad guy. Then I guess I don't know what happened.
He became like just illuminary. Then he got involved in
sex scandals, right, wasn't there a big thing?

Speaker 9 (01:02:16):
And there was just a lot of alleged racism, well
not even alleged, just blatant racism as well, and bad
comments coming from his uh and very controversial stuff on Twitter,
and he's just it was just a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
I mean when he tore his T shirt as you
see here on YouTube if you're just listening, Albert has
the iconic shot of him tearing the shirt to reveal
the muscle chest of Hulk Hogan. When you saw him
do that at the Republican National Convention, didn't he?

Speaker 4 (01:02:49):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
He did it at Madison Square Garden too, didn't he. Yeah,
he became this did I.

Speaker 9 (01:02:53):
Think he was the same show with Tony Hinchcliff and
all the celebrities came out on that show.

Speaker 1 (01:02:58):
Right, he was a maga nutsheton. I don't know. Yeah,
I mean, look, he's just looking for an audience, I
think most of the time. But anyway, he helped catapult
the World Wrestling Entertainment Franchise then called the World Wrestling
Federation into mainstream success. He broke the mold in nineteen
ninety six. They say, here Albert with a stunning heel

(01:03:19):
turn that you described from hero to villain. That's right.
He created the new world Order officially became Hollywood Hall Cogan.
As Albert was noted, he was a big part of
the world of professional wrestling. He won the World Wrestling
Entertainment Championship. Do you know how many times Albert A.

Speaker 9 (01:03:40):
Whole lot of times, a lot of six times.

Speaker 1 (01:03:45):
One of his most memorable fights was against Andre the
Giant in nineteen eighty seven, Hogan fought against the five
hundred and twenty pounds a heavyweight Andre the Giant, to
a then record crowd of more than ninety thousand people.
What Yeah. He was inducted in the WWE Hall of

(01:04:05):
Fame in five remove, though in twenty fifteen, after he
was exposed making racist comments while being secretly recorded in
a sex tape leaked by a friend to the gossip
website Gawker, Hogan later sued Gawker, with the help of
tech investor Peter Teel, forced the publication's bankruptcy, and he

(01:04:28):
won the one hundred and fifteen million dollar lawsuit. That's
what forced them under, and then he was reinstated into
the WWE Hall of Fame in twenty eighteen. There is
the Hulkster campaigning for Trump and Vance.

Speaker 9 (01:04:45):
He was, I believe the first person to ever body
slam Andre the Giant.

Speaker 3 (01:04:50):
Who's over?

Speaker 1 (01:04:53):
Did you see the documentary on Andre the Giant?

Speaker 3 (01:04:57):
I saw bits and pieces, but yeah, very very so.

Speaker 1 (01:05:00):
I only remember bits and pieces. Maybe it was a yeah,
I don't, but I remember it was it was moving,
you know.

Speaker 9 (01:05:06):
He he had a genuine struggle with just how large
he was. And he couldn't do anything normally and it
was his whole life was a struggle.

Speaker 1 (01:05:14):
So very Yeah, in a way, maybe this is the
wrong word to use, but it was more than a
physical oddity. It was almost a physical deformity that he
was so because he had so many issues with joints
and with bone and musculature. Right, it was really kind
of sad.

Speaker 4 (01:05:31):
But oh, here's a comment.

Speaker 9 (01:05:33):
I think Trump was the only president to go to
wrestling matches. He was very heavily involved in wrestling at
the time, and he even did a couple of spots
in the ring.

Speaker 1 (01:05:43):
Yeah, he he would go anywhere where they're you know. Trump, remember,
was really into being a celebrity, so he would go
anywhere there were many people, and there was likely a
role for him to you know, achieve a platform that
he would be okay with. So anyway, rest in peace,

(01:06:03):
I guess to haul Cogan again passes away at seventy
one Mark Thompson's show Meantime on the other side of town,
Trump has signed an executive order targeting woke, as he's
calling it, AI models and any regulation for AI. It's

(01:06:25):
going to remove environmental protections. You know, AI takes up
tremendous amounts of water. There are all kinds of issues
environmentally with AI, and trying to get AI to play
with AI companies, to play with environmental concerns and to
pursue AI responsibly is really a full time job, and
it's a job that is not enviable given the current administration.

(01:06:48):
And now you just see it. The environmental protections meager
as they are are being removed. I saw an article.
You can find this out, but I didn't put in
the show today. But a meta has like wiped out
a water supply with their AI in some small town.
You can take a look, you can find it and
maybe add it. But just yesterday, Donald Trump signed a

(01:07:10):
trio of executive orders that he said would turn the
United States into an AI export powerhouse, including one targeting
what the White House described as quote woke artificial intelligence models.
He said that quote woke Marxist lunacy in the adel
AI models are going to be removed, quote once and

(01:07:33):
for all. We are getting rid of woke. Is that okay?
He got a loud applause from the audience of AI
industry leaders. He then said that Joe Biden had quote
established toxic diversity, equity and inclusion ideology as a guiding
principle of American AI development. So you immediately knew he

(01:07:55):
went on that that was the end of your development
and that guy laugh. The new order requires any artificial
intelligence company getting federal funding to maintain politically neutral AI
models free of quote, ideological dogmas like DEI. That puts
pressure on an industry increasingly seeking to partner with government agencies. Right,

(01:08:18):
So now it's part of the Trump administration's policy to
review these AI models and make sure that they conform
to what they consider the elimination of wokeness. The directive
emphasizes that the federal government quote should be hesitant to
regulate the functionality of AI models in the private marketplace,

(01:08:38):
but it says that public procurement carries quote, the obligation
not to procure models that sacrifice truthfulness and accuracy to
ideological agendas. So again, you can tweak the metrics any
way you want to make the AI model politically biased
in any direction you want. And if you're getting your

(01:08:59):
money the federal government run by Trump, you know you
want to tweak your AI to conform with a political
agenda that he is okay, with That was the executive
order of yesterday. Smash the like button like a boss.

Speaker 4 (01:09:15):
Smash it with your iron rod.

Speaker 1 (01:09:17):
Do with your iron rod. The way it works is
if you get more thumbs up, you get served to
people who don't even know that the show exists, so
you can have a better chance of showing up in
people's feeds if you get more thumbs up. That's kind
of the significance of it. It's free and I really
appreciate you guys. Smash it hard with your iron Smash
with your iron rod. Richard Delamator with a five dollars

(01:09:37):
super chat, says Mark. Has Gil Gross, who was our
guest in the first hour, receive the rot of Equity
and Mercy. If not, then I would like to shamelessly
buy him one right now. Well, I've got David Katz waiting,
so I can't do it right now, Richard, But I
like what you are thinking. And if there is enough
of a enough of a call for Gil to get

(01:10:00):
at Rod of Equity and Mercy, I will bestow it
upon him. I'd have to do it without him present.
That is something we've never done before, So you are
actually breaking new ground on the show.

Speaker 3 (01:10:11):
But like a remote, like a like a distant.

Speaker 1 (01:10:16):
Yeah, the iron rod thing is weird, says Jessinbian. It
is weird. I agree. It comes from Michelle Bachman. I
think she said it. She was doing a bunch of
Bible thumping. Remember, isn't that where we got at, Albert,
and she was she's, you know, uh, with your iron

(01:10:37):
smash it, Lord, smash it with your iron rod. It's weird.

Speaker 3 (01:10:40):
But all aren't all drops weird.

Speaker 9 (01:10:42):
There's the reason why we've we've cultivated all all of
our drops.

Speaker 1 (01:10:46):
So yeah, exactly, they're all weird. They all have to
talk to me that way. Yeah, it just has the
way there.

Speaker 4 (01:10:50):
You've ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party.

Speaker 1 (01:10:52):
Saucelito Steve with a twenty dollars super chat. He just says,
thank you, Mark. We need more of Saucelito Steve. I
need thanks on this show, Albert. That's what I need.
I don't need pity, I don't need anything else.

Speaker 4 (01:11:08):
Any reason I'm here is because you were a friend.

Speaker 1 (01:11:11):
All right, Well, Elon, I'll take a little bit. Thank you.
Thank you, Sacelito Steve. Very very cool. All right, let's
get on it. It is time to visit someone who
we visit with weekly. He is one of the great
legal analysts in the English speaking world. I hear him

(01:11:33):
on London radio, see him on British television. Also across
America on News Nation on Fox five in New York,
Fox eleven in Los Angeles, and San Francisco, off to
New Zealand and Australia. Does the guy ever sleep? How
about it for the brilliant former federal prosecutor now he's
defense attorney in southern California, David.

Speaker 4 (01:11:53):
Katz, everyone wat to be with you.

Speaker 2 (01:11:57):
Boy.

Speaker 1 (01:11:57):
Has your Justice department where you used to work changed?

Speaker 2 (01:12:02):
You can say that again.

Speaker 1 (01:12:05):
To see the Todd Blanche, the former Trump attorney, his
former personal attorney number two at the DOJ, is going
to Florida there now actually with Gallaine Maxwell meeting behind
closed doors. It seems to me, David Katz, that one
need only use some reasonable rational thought to know that

(01:12:26):
they're trying to broke her some deal to figure out
what she might say to kind of get past this
Epstein mess.

Speaker 2 (01:12:33):
Well, it's utterly reprehensible.

Speaker 4 (01:12:36):
Mark.

Speaker 2 (01:12:36):
It looks like she wants to pardon. That seems to
be her only hope to get out of a prison
earlier than eighty five percent of her twenty year federal
prison sentence, which will go on at least for another
decade absent a pardon from Trump. You figure, whoever is
a Trump's democratic successor is not likely to partner Wyron

(01:12:58):
Earth would a democratic president pardoned her. I mean, the
crimes are just reprehensible, Mark. You know, it's child rape,
it's conspiracy to engage in child rape. It's all of
this money laundering that was done on top of that.
And you know, according to the evidence presented to the
jury Mark and accepted by the jury, she was in

(01:13:19):
some ways more instrumental in the child rape allegations than
even Jeffrey Epstein, because it was having a woman approached
these young women. It was the way that she could
talk to them as a fellow woman. It was the
way that she you know, explained that what they were
going to do and groomed them. That was a huge part.

(01:13:40):
And you know, some of the shows have read the transcripts,
and I remember the prosecutor on this case was this
Maureen Comy, who just got fired. She's also the daughter
of James Comy, the famous former FBI director that Trump
is also after but she got fired by the DOJ
out of Washington herself. So they've read some transcripts and
it's pretty appalling the testimony and the proof against Maxwell.

Speaker 1 (01:14:04):
So yeah, to to your point, Maxwell was, and having
read some of this myself, Maxwell was very much involved
in gaining the trust of these women. And that's what
you're talking about with the grooming, and it's absolutely it's
so immoral. It makes her head explode. That she is
very much a key figure in bringing these women into

(01:14:28):
that world, and then the way they are forcibly trafficked
in all the ways that they were subsequently.

Speaker 2 (01:14:33):
And then when Trump was asked about it a few
years ago, you would imagine all the comments that a
decent person, really interested in the victims in this case
would make about her. And he says, well, I wish
her well, I wish her the best. Another one of
Trump's statements that's so peculiar in the context that you
think it must be a communication with her. If you

(01:14:57):
look out for me, miss Maxwell, I'll look out for you.
Just looking at it from the point of view of
her criminal defense attorney, Mark, and don't get mad, I'm
not taking her side in any way, shape or form,
but looking at it from her criminal defense attorney, I
think that she thinks that she can divide the case,
or her attorney thinks that he can divide the case
into kind of two parts. She does have this legal

(01:15:19):
argument and just very quickly so people will recall. Her
legal argument goes like this, Jeffrey Epstein has given a
sweetheart deal down in the federal investigation of him. Federal
criminal investigation of him about a decade ago down in Florida,
believe it or not. Someone who went on to be
in Trump's first cabinet, This Acosta was the US attorney

(01:15:40):
handling that investigation. He decided to just let the state
take charge of it, and Epstein got an amazingly lenient
sentence where he just serves some he could do whatever
he wanted during the day and he just had to
sleep in this barrack sort of place at night. And
that was only for about a year. That was Epstein.
That was the first criminal conviction of Epstein. As part

(01:16:04):
of making that deal, he signs an agreement with the
federal government in the Southern District of Florida which says
that not only I, but four of my co conspirators
will be given immunity. She is not named. Miss Maxwell
is not named as one of those four conspirators, So

(01:16:24):
that's a very good reason to think that she is
not one of the co conspirators who might be included
in that extraordinarily weird deal. But even if so, it
covered only the southern district of Florida. It didn't cover
the southern district of New York, where the government found
they not only had a case that they could bring,
but a case with venue there. Now, this drives me

(01:16:46):
crazy as a criminal defense attorney. I have all these
white collar people normally who haven't paid taxes. According to
the government, they are not child traffickers, they are not
involved in child rape. But it is true that the
standard agreement only gives you protection in that district, and
you kind of have to take it or leave it
because you just can't negotiate any more than that. You

(01:17:07):
can't get the government to say we will give you
nationwide protection, we will give you immunity from prosecution if
you accept this agreement in every district in the country.
You just figure, come on, my guy is not going
to get charged in some other district. Well, her argument
is that that immunity covered her. That's the issue that
is headlining in the US Supreme Court. Most people think

(01:17:28):
that the Supreme Court is going to either not take
that case or they're going to deny her relief. They're
going to say Epstein had to deal with the Southern
District of Florida, and even assuming for a moment that
it covered you, it didn't cover you anywhere but in
the Southern District of Florida, and you, miss Maxwell, were
not charged in the Southern District of Florida. So people think, well,
why didn't she talk during the case itself, And of

(01:17:49):
course it may have been that she had nothing really
very much to say and people wouldn't believe her. One
of the allegations against her was perjury. You know, where
are you lying now or we are you're lying?

Speaker 5 (01:17:58):
Then?

Speaker 2 (01:17:59):
You know where you were lying when you got convicted
of perjury. We know that because you got convicted of
perjury and investigated for perjury. But you're telling the truth now.
So anybody that she would actually testify against against at
this point would have a tremendous ability to impeach her
based upon the fact that she was either investigated or

(01:18:19):
maybe even successfully prosecuted for perjury. So from her lawyer's
point of view, why not cut this into two pieces.
Why not see how far you get with the legal argument.
If you can somehow get this community, get some court
to rule in favor. If the US Supreme Court denies
Sir Sharari or says no, that claim doesn't wash, that

(01:18:40):
dog won't hunt, then you say, wait, now I have
all of this information. And when someone says, well, the
information is really late, it must be concocted. Why'd you
bring it up? Then the answer is going to be
because I had this really good legal argument. I wanted
to run that one up the flag pole. It's not working.
Now I want to talk. Of course, what everybody suspects
is that she has really want to talk against anybody.

(01:19:02):
They wanted to talk for Trump, and that the whole
deal is that she will give a version of events
which exonerates Trump's and Trump's cronies and big buddies, and
they'll say, oh, my goodness, now we have the uh right.
Now we have the oracle at Delphi, Now we have
the EBIs, we have the real story. Miss Maxwell has
cleared this whole thing up. All the Republicans under suspicion

(01:19:25):
and Trump are completely exonerted. And that's what Dershowitz is
kind of this. Alan Dershowitz is kind of implying all
the time when he says, well, nobody currently in the
government is in there, but she knows everything that's in there,
that she knows everything that's in there, it's a long
stretch mark from that. It's a long walk from her

(01:19:45):
knowing what people really did to her telling it honestly,
when the only thing that she can gain from all
of this is a pardon from Trump. Why would anyone
in their right mind, Why would her attorney in his
right mind have her present any evidence? What would this
deputy Attorney General who used to be Trump's criminal defense attorney,
what would he be down there really to do? If

(01:20:06):
you believe that he's down there in great pursuit of
the truth, let the chips fall where they may. Are
you kidding me? You think that that's what he wants
to go down there and let the chips fall where
they may. And the last thing is that Trump could
you know most of these statutes don't have some I
think have no statute of limitations, but there are very
long statutes of limitations for these kinds of offenses, child

(01:20:29):
rape and things related to them, and so Trump could
very well end up being a suspect in that. And
I imagine that his attorney would be the same deputy
Attorney general. So the idea the deputy Attorney general is
somehow objectively or for the public looking into this down
at the Florida prison is to me ludicrous. And I

(01:20:49):
think that there's an ethical violation. I mean, nothing quite
like this has come up before, but boy, you know,
just as a matter of ethics, he shouldn't be in
the middle of this. There must be some other attorney
in the mayor who could represent Trump and go down
there and talk to this lady, but not the deputy
Attorney general. So I think that he's in potential ethical
hot water, which is really saying something because I don't

(01:21:12):
think that people have really said that that attorney. They've
said an awful lot of things about the other attorney,
the one who's up for the third Circuit, but this
particular attorney, I don't think that they've made very many
ethical allegations against him, and so I think that this
is a lapse And all I can think of is
he's getting so much pressure from Trump. It's like, basically,
do this or quit. Trump is telling him in a

(01:21:32):
very nice way, you're a great lawyer, but do this
or quit. And he's going down there to go talk
to But I think this whole thing is fraud. I
think this thing is near scandalous him going down there.
And the last thing I want to say is, normally
this is done by the fbis and the FBI agents
and the line prosecutors on the case that's where this
ought to start. Who you'd expect to go down there
would be three FBI agents, right, and one of the

(01:21:55):
US attorneys who was on the case from the Southern
District of New York, who knows the case inside out.
Of course, they just fired the most apt person for
that marine Komy, But there must be somebody else on
the staff, And so you got to think that they
don't really want to know the truth. If they really
wanted to know the truth, they would send somebody from
that case who knew it inside and out, and not

(01:22:16):
the Deputy Attorney General, big buddy criminal defense attorney of Trump.

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
Of course, as typical with this administration and this crew,
it's all done in the ham fisted lack of sleight
of hand. Way, there is not anything that could happen
with this guy Blanche who is number two at the
DOJ meeting with her, that isn't on track anyway to
make some deal for what she might say. And what

(01:22:41):
I'd ask you, David Katz, because you are so good
about gaming out what like she might say. In other words,
you've just in the last couple of minutes said, you
know she could say this, she might be impugned in
this way because of the perjury, etc. But really all
Trump cares about, right David, is I don't want to
care about all that, just to make sure she says

(01:23:02):
I know all this. Donald Trump might have been on
a plane or two or seven, but he was anywhere
near anything. Trump was never part of it. I knew everything,
and Trump was never part of anything. He basically just
wants her to say some version of that.

Speaker 2 (01:23:16):
Right, That's exactly what I fear. And you know, so how.

Speaker 1 (01:23:22):
Do you get to that point? Well, what does that
look like? I mean, legally, do you have to you
parade her out in court? And in other words, it's
tough for me to figure out how you legally get
that sort of deal made well.

Speaker 2 (01:23:34):
He commutes her sentence, and there's a huge drum beat
that this is an outrage. It's been misunderstood this whole time.
She wasn't nearly involved in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes as the
Democrats made it out to look. They wanted to make
her look terrible because they were worried she was going
to turn on the Democrats. And now this conspiracy by

(01:23:55):
the Democrats to make her look worse than she is
has been exposed. It's a great day, liberation day when
she gets her commutation and she gives this testimony in Congress,
which is very favorable to Trump his big donors.

Speaker 1 (01:24:08):
By the way, I get that. I get that first part.
I get everything you just said, although I like that
you put some specifics on it. And that's the second
part right there at the end. So you're saying, this
is all playing up. That's what she's going to get.
We get the commutation etca time served. But he's going
to get. Is Trump's going to get is the congressional
testimony that will then clear him. Is that the forum

(01:24:31):
in which she'll clear his name.

Speaker 2 (01:24:35):
It may be that she will give some statement, you know,
with a blanche and with her lawyer, and that stavement
will be deemed so overpowering. There'll be a couple of
lines from that that are trumpeted over and over again.
No real need to waste Congress's time with all this.
Congress has very important business, the economy, the this, the
that way too important. The problem of bringing her into

(01:24:58):
Congress to testify is that there are some very good questioners,
especially on the Democratic side, and some of the Republicans
are really going to get heat. That would be an
absolute circus with the right wingers demanding ask her this,
ask her that what about the other thing? The Democrats
would be demanding whether they would get it or not,
but the Democrats would be demanding that the victims take

(01:25:19):
the stand. There was a fellow who was on MSNBC,
an attorney. I'm really sorry I forgot his name, but
he represents a lot of these victims. These you know,
they were tom girls. He represents them well. He wants
to get his two cents in Mark and say, this
is an outrage where this thing is going. Let's think
about the victims. But yeah, Trump will try to orchestrate

(01:25:42):
this so that they don't have to release the records.
We now know that in I guess a couple of
months ago Pam Bondi and you have to think the
FBI had Cash Pttel knew about it too. It's just
extraordinary to think that the head of the Attorney General
would meet with Trump and tell Trump, hey, you're all
over these Jeffrey Epstein records, and that the FBI director

(01:26:05):
wouldn't be in the meetings. Is Cash Battel, who was
so controversial to be confirmed in the first place. He
got on the show I think it was Rogan's show,
and you know, he says to him something like does
Trump know he's in the records? And Cash Battel says
something like, well, I don't know how he would well
the way that he would know, Cash Battel. At the
time that Cash Betel said, how would I know? Was

(01:26:27):
that Pam Bondy his boss. And we're going to find
out pretty much from logs people will talk whether he
was in there, So how would he know? At the
time he answered that question, how would I know? Because
he was in the meeting or was briefed on the
meeting where Trump was told. And then of course you
start drawing, you know, logical conclusions that the reason that
the Jeffrey Epstein files weren't turned over. Was that. I mean,

(01:26:50):
of course Trump knew that he was in there in
the sense that he was hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein
all the time. But I think it was much more
specific than that. And I think that Trump concluded this
was going to really hurt him, and there was no
dancing around it, and then he came up with this
total dodge of well, we'll do whatever the courts say,
and of course he picked the path mark that was

(01:27:10):
least likely to reveal anything that the public's interested in,
instead of taking the path that was most likely. The
path most likely was to simply use his executive authority,
him and pet Bondi to release all the stuff, redacting
out victims' names and some things. The way that was
least likely to get any information before the public was
to try to get the grand jury records, where his
attorneys were smart enough to say, you'll have to go

(01:27:32):
through a federal judge, and a federal judge will probably
deny it. And then I think Trump was hoping that
he would say, well, the federal judge denied, and I
don't know what I'm supposed to do. Let's move on.
And one of the reasons it was so likely marked
that the federal judge would deny it is that one
of the first of all, grand jury secrecy is a
real thing. I mean, people go to jail for revealing
grand jury transcripts. It's one of those things that's really

(01:27:54):
sacrificing what happens in front of the grand jury and
the justification for that. Defense attorneys go crazy. We want
to know if there's any misconduct in there, if there's
anything that would help our clients, and we're always told no, no, no,
you can't have it. And one of the reasons is
that innocent people would be hurt that the grand jury
is not only to indict those who look like they're

(01:28:17):
responsible for crimes, but to not indict those who look
like they're not responsible for crimes. And for those people
it would be you know, public opprobrium, all of that
to allow that to be disseminated. So it was pretty
obvious that it was not going to be allowed by
the federal judge. And on top of that, that's always
just a very condensed version. It's all that they want

(01:28:38):
to present to the grand jury to get the grand
jury to return an indictment against two specific people, Jeffrey
Epstein and Gislaine Maxwell. Okay, it's not to go into
who were all the other people involved? That's extraneous. So
it was designed, if it worked at all, to not
provide any information that the people want to know. And what,
of course, the people, including the right wing mega base

(01:28:59):
want to know, is who the hell else is in there?
Who else is culpable for what Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell
we're up to?

Speaker 1 (01:29:05):
Yeah, yeah, the grand jury testimony, even if revealed, as
you say, just one one, it's one one thousandth of
what people want to know. The House Oversight Committee, though
voting yesterday David Castis subpoena the Department of Justice to
release those Jeffrey Epstein files, passed by an eight to
two vote, and notably, three GOP lawmakers Nancy May, Scott Perry,

(01:29:27):
and Brian Jack joined with the Democrats on that sub
committee to approve that subpoena. They defied the Republican leadership
in doing that. Legally, they are compelled to under what
set of circumstances might be the way to ask it?
Might the Justice Department be compelled by Congress to release
those files.

Speaker 2 (01:29:48):
Except for one or two of those Republicans in the House.
They're huge phonies, playing a big game of bait and
switch on the public, including their own Republican constituents and
the magabase. If they really wanted to get somewhere. Here's
what it takes five Republican House members, not the eleven
that supposedly are adamant about this, five of them to

(01:30:10):
say to the Speaker, we will not go in, we
will not leave for the summer right now. We will
enforce this subpoena. The five of us are demanding, mister Speaker,
that you enforce this subpoena to get these records, and
you do all of these other things to move this
investigation along right now. And the five of us are
going to not agree to adjourn. We are going to

(01:30:31):
remove you as Speaker if you adjourn us. Those five
Republican House members could have made this happen. So this
is all, you know, a game playing where they act
like they're so outraged. And these three who voted for it,
they're also big game players because they could have made
the House Republicans in Congress just stick around, because all
the Democrats would have voted to stick around. They would

(01:30:52):
have been happy to remove the speaker to enforce the subpoenas.
So I think the reality is that no one's going
to really be around to enforce the subpoenas. They're all
going to go home. There won't be anybody to do
anything until September, by which time the Republicans and Trump
hope that the public has forgotten about this. I don't think.

Speaker 1 (01:31:08):
But just to be clear, there's no expiration date on
the subpoena. They come back, they read they reconvene in September,
and they would have to at least respond to the subpoena.

Speaker 2 (01:31:19):
They would have to respond to the subpoena. I mean
right now. If the subpoena was issued to the Department
of Justice and it said you have a date certain,
let's say it's August fifteenth. They'll produce something by August fifteenth,
but it'll be the Department of Justices, Trump's Department of
Justice ideas of what helps them to produce. And then
when people say, wait a second, you didn't comply with

(01:31:40):
the sabina, What about this? What about that? They'll be
long gone in September, they'll come back. Wait a second,
what you produced on August fifteenth was totally non compliant.
The can will get kicked down the road, and they
hope that, you know, there'll be other things that grab
the public's attention and that people will have, you know,
as Trump says, is everyone so it just did. Jeffrey Epstein, Well,

(01:32:01):
let's say you were during the campaid, all of your
cronies were. And of course this is the classic you know,
the chickens coming home to roost that look out, what
you what's it? Watch what you ask for? You might
get it? Yea. And of course now that they get it,
now that they have the power to release all that stuff,
they don't want to. The other remarkable thing is suing
the Wall Street Journal, which seems to have great story

(01:32:24):
after great story, and people think, why on earth are
they doing that? These two titans of the right, Trump
and Murdoch. But Murdoch, I think, is smart enough to
realize that they'll be you know, they'll be a Wall
Street Journal, there'll be a New York Post, there'll be
a lot of his empire three and a half years
from now, and Trump will be an ex present. So
he thinks. I think Murdoch is looking at the long

(01:32:46):
game and the reputation of the Wall Street Journal, which
let's face it right now, is stellar. I mean, what
a what a coup for the Wall Street Journal. This
series of stories they're.

Speaker 1 (01:32:54):
Run, well, it only improves the reputation that they, as
you say, take on this series of stories right that
they're not carrying the water for the president or for
a political party.

Speaker 2 (01:33:04):
I wonder if you can get mark one last thing.
I see Trump's suit as going absolutely nowhere. One thing
is that you know, ABC and CBS both wanted something,
needed something, and Trump made it clear that that was
the quid pro quote. But I don't think Fox really
needs anything or that Murdoch empire. They're in pretty good shape.
They've got Sky News over in Europe. I don't think

(01:33:24):
that they really need his regulatory approval of anything. And
so why not run up the value of the credibility
of the Wall Street Journal? And people said, why do
he follow the laws when he was sure to lose it? Trump?
But Trump had to you know, in the theater of it.
You know, I'm going to sue you, and I sued you.
He needed the theater of that.

Speaker 1 (01:33:41):
That's a great point though about them not needing anything.
I want to ask you, because Katsa Damas was so
correct the appeals court finding that Donald Trump's effort to
end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and does uphold the block
on his effort to end birthright citizenship. So congratulations, Catsadamas,

(01:34:05):
you said it would happen. What is the future of that?
Is he really going to keep bumping this up to
the Supremes? I guess you will.

Speaker 2 (01:34:12):
Yeah. This is the Ninth Circuit that ruled two to
one that the injunction could stay in effect. And the
injunction basically bars Trump trying to enforce a ban on
birthright citizenship. In others, it bars him from doing things
like you get born in the United States and it's

(01:34:33):
not registered, or you're not registered with some federal agency.
All of those things that he was going to do
to create havoc and make people's lives miserable. He can't
do those things because at the end of the day,
there is a right to birthright citizenship. The interesting thing
in the Ninth Circuit, and there was a ruling like
that in New Hampshire too. Remember there's a judge in
New Hampshire who certified a class action brought by all

(01:34:56):
the people born in the United States as of like
two weeks ago, they're in that class. They all have
this interest in saying the same thing, which is that
we were born in the United States, we have a
right to be citizens. He certified that class. So there's
a parallel case that basically establishes the same principle in
San Francisco or in somewhere in the West Coast. Anyway,

(01:35:19):
this is the Court of Appeals that covers the West Coast.
It was only two to one. Now you might say, well,
wait a second. One judge Trumpy, of course pointed by
Trump the one judge what he disagrees with katsa damis
he actually what? He has a different copy of the
Constitution which doesn't say bored of the United States. No.
His point was that this was too close to a
nationwide injunction. This was too much to the universal injunctions.

(01:35:43):
So he didn't agree that there should be an injunction
kept in place. The two said, yes, there is an
injunction in place, and on the merits there is birthright citizenship.
So I think that, especially with the one Trumpy vote,
I think that this is going to go up to
the US Supreme Court, and I think that Trump is
going to I don't think he can back down on

(01:36:04):
this one and accept this defeat in the largest circuit
in America. I think he feels like he has to
take it to the US Supreme Court, and they'll meet it.
When they can't dodge it anymore. The US Supreme Court
will meet it, and even the six of them, seven
of them, maybe all nine of them, will say that
the Constitution's very clear. It means what it says, and
it says that if you're born in the United States,

(01:36:26):
you're a citizen, notwithstanding the status of your parents.

Speaker 1 (01:36:30):
Part of Donald Trump's signature tax legislation takes money from
Planned Parenthood, and they went to court over this, David Katz,
and the victory is partial, I guess in this legal
fight with Trump. A provision in that bill, reading from
this report ends medicaid benefits for one year to abortion

(01:36:54):
providers that receive more than eight hundred thousand dollars from
Medicaid in twenty twenty three, even to those like Planned
Parenthood that also offer things that have nothing to do
with abortion, like contraception, pregnancy tests, and STD testing. The
US District Court judge in Boston granted a preliminary injunction

(01:37:14):
that for now blocks the government from cutting Medicaid payments
to Planned Parenthood or member organizations that either don't provide
abortion care or didn't meet a threshold at least eight
hundred thousand dollars in Medicaid reimbursements in a given year.
It's not clear right away how many Planned Parenthood organizations
and clinics would actually continue to get Medicaid reimbursements under

(01:37:34):
this decision, but it seems as though it's a partial
victory for Planned Parenthood.

Speaker 2 (01:37:41):
It looks like it's a victory for the Planned Parenthood
branches that are very small because they'll have less than
eight hundred thousand dollars at issue. And apparently that threshold
is in the legislation or something like that. I guess
it's in the Big Ugly Bill. And so the way
that they wrote it, I guess the judge said, well,
that texts you you can still get your funding if

(01:38:03):
you're if it's less than eight hundred thousand dollars. So
that may be for some very small offices. And then
if you don't provide any abortion services at all, let's
say the office in Baltimore doesn't provide any abortion services.
Even if it's millions and millions of dollars, it still
gets the Medicaid money because it doesn't provide any abortions.
So it's not it's sure not total victory. And you know,

(01:38:24):
the Republicans in the big ugly Bill, this was not
the moderate Republicans. This was the real anti choice Republicans
getting their way and defunding Planned Parenthood because it provides
a choice, It provides abortions to people who are determined
to need them and want them well.

Speaker 1 (01:38:44):
And again, so much of what Planned Parenthood does has
nothing to do with abortion. And so they've been smeared
in a sense, and they're gihad on the part of
the GOP has included, you know, defunding them when the
reality is most of what they do is nothing to
do with abortion. I wanted to ask you about something
that is associated with revelations coming out of these confinement centers,

(01:39:06):
detention centers. There's a one in New York City that
is just brutal. There is footage showing people sleeping on
the floor next to toilets in this facility. It's clearly
over a packed It is incredibly cold in these rooms
in Manhattan, and it shows this footage about two dozen
men in these bare rooms, some lying on the floor,

(01:39:30):
They're in these aluminum emergency blankets some of them. Others
just sit on benches. And there are two toilets that
are just feet away from where people sleep, separated by
this low wall. There's no privacy whatsoever. There was a
guy who was detained and he snuck a cell phone
in and was able to record these images. So I'm

(01:39:53):
asking and mentioning these things in the context of the law,
which is your area of expertise, because I'm wondering if
there is anything legally that can be done to speak
up for these people who would seem to have no
agency in the American justice system. Those detainees.

Speaker 2 (01:40:13):
Well, the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution bars cruel
and unusual punishment, so I'm sure that some advocacy groups
are arguing that these terms of confinement constitute cruel and
unusual punishment. You know, we'll see judge by judge how
far they get. They may be able to ameliorate some

(01:40:35):
of the conditions, just because the administration has so many
things to fight over, maybe they'll try to improve these
facilities and avoid some of these fights. Bearing in mind
that just like with the bad cops, the bad prison
guards hate any exposure. They hate anything in the sunshine,
which shows what bad cops. You know. They're like the cams,

(01:40:56):
the people filming what's going on when the cops arrive
and do brutal things. And the prisons, you know how
bad they actually are. I can say from having visited
a few prisons, especially some state prisons, some of them
were just awful. I just couldn't get my head around
anybody having to be confined there. And I had a
client or two who was confined in such a place.

(01:41:19):
The Montgomery City Jail in Alabama comes to mind. I
had a client who was there for a while. But
generally these cases of cool and unusual punishment mark they
don't tend to succeed. And if it goes to the
US Supreme Court, it's just very hard to imagine that
the six of them are going to say that these
are cool and unusual punishment. I don't want to always
be the one giving the other side of it, but

(01:41:40):
I suppose the Trump administration would say, now that we
have all of this money, we can provide some blankets
to these poor people. We can upgrade the conditions. I
don't think that's what they're going to use the money for,
but presumably though use some of the money to make
some of these conditions better. It's just awful. Part of
it is to get these people to sign papers. You know,

(01:42:02):
they deny them lawyers, they deny them any legal assistants,
and they hope that these conditions are so awful that
you know, within hours they'll agree to voluntary deportation. They'll
sty'll say, yes, put me on a plane, get me
out of this hell hole. And there's thousands of them
who are being put on planes, supposedly consenting to leave.

(01:42:22):
And they're consenting because of these awful conditions, and because
they don't have a lawyer to give them advice that
you know, you may be able to challenge this.

Speaker 1 (01:42:31):
Yeah, it's part of the entire structure of the immigration
aggression on the part of Ice that the brutality is
a feature, not a bug. It's supposed to send the
message get out of here, because it can get a
lot worse than even it is now.

Speaker 2 (01:42:50):
That's why they're sending people the South Sudan. It can't
possibly be efficient in any kind of money saving way
or anything. But you get the message, Okay, I'm being
sent to a country where everyone's starving, where there's a
civil war. I'm going to either self deport or I'm
not going to come to America in the first place.
It's really of a piece with separating children in the
first Trump administration, mothers and children. That was awful and

(01:43:14):
everyone said, oh my god, this is awful. America shouldn't
be doing this. But Trump's thing would would be, well,
it works, it deters people. And that's exactly what Trump
would say about this. It deters people that we're sending
them to such horrible things. You know, we're doing such awful,
awful things to them, and we're not concerned about the
reputation of America in the world and including going forward.

(01:43:34):
It's just you know, transactional. It's that moment. And he
has managed to have people stop crossing the border at
the rate that they were under the Biden administration. Believe me,
he's going to try to run on that. The Republicans
are going to try to try to run on that that.
You know, it was ugly but it worked. It was ugly,
but it worked, and you didn't want all those people
in America that Biden was letting in. That's one of

(01:43:55):
the things he's going to run on. We're going to
run on the economy and the tariffs and all the
terrible things that he's done, and he's going to run
on some of this. The cruelty worked.

Speaker 1 (01:44:03):
Well, you can run just as an aside on the economy,
but the economy may be seriously affected by the brutality,
like one is connected to the other. You keep pulling
all these construction workers off of job sites, you keep
pulling all these high school graduates who are stellar stars
out of their high school graduation. And after a while,

(01:44:25):
these things do have an effect on the American economy.
You go to home depot, you go to Low's, you
go to kitchens, restaurants and all the other places childcare services,
and before you know it, your economy is dramatically affected
by the loss of all of these people who have
done nothing wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:44:41):
A federal Joe's going to win, Mark, That's why the
Democrats are going to win the midterms.

Speaker 1 (01:44:47):
You know from your other reasons, Yes quickly, David, I
know I'm going to but just on this kilmar Abrego,
Garcia released from this Tennessee prison on a judge's order.
He'd been held there since he got back from El Salvador,
which is a wrongful deportation, as you know. And then
it was stipulated by this US district judge that immigration

(01:45:10):
and Customs enforcement officials are not permitted to arrest him
as soon as he is released. And that's kind of
the other dance they do with these people who are
wrongly confined. They're released, and then they're immediately arrested again.
They say, the judge does if the Trump administration wants
to deport him to another country aside from El Salvador,
which they've expressed interest in doing, they have to give
his attorneys three business days notice in order to prepare

(01:45:33):
a defense.

Speaker 2 (01:45:34):
Some thoughts, well, I certainly think that that's an equitable
ruling by the district judge in Tennessee who has that case.
I'm not sure if the Trump administration is going to
accept it, just as Katsadamas, they may say that that's
beyond the authority of the district judge, that the district
judge can release him on bail, which apparently the district

(01:45:57):
judge is about to do because he's got this criminal
Act usation which seems very weak against him, that he's
a trafficker and he was driving some people through Tennessee
and he got a ticket, and they've made a big
deal out of that. They tried to make a federal
case out of that right now against them, federal criminal case.
So I think the judge can release him on bail,
But I think the Trump administration may go to a

(01:46:20):
circuit down there, which I think is a pretty conservative one,
and say that this district judge did not have the
authority to say what the immigration authorities can or cannot
do with him. After that there is an order. Remember
that he couldn't be removed at all, and that was
the illegality of sending him down there to El Salvador
when a judge had previously ruled he could not be

(01:46:40):
sent to El Salvador because his life was at risk
if he were sent to El Salvador. So maybe they
could go back to that judge with me Abrego Garcia's
lawyers and get relief from him. But what the Tennessee
judge is trying to do may be ultra virus and
maybe beyond the power that he really has had power
over that case us versus Abrego Garcia in his criminal courtroom.

(01:47:05):
But he may not have power over everything that happens
to Abrego Garcia, so I will have to wait and
see what actually happens. What I would like to see
is a Brego Garcia get out on bail and be
able to have a press conference and tell the world
the torture and inhumane treatment that he suffered at the
hands of the Trump administration. They were pulling the strings
on the world's coolest dictator down there in Al salbad

(01:47:28):
Or self described that dictator calls himselves the world's.

Speaker 1 (01:47:31):
Coolest things about absolutely right.

Speaker 2 (01:47:34):
She made like absolutely hell for his opponents. All of
his opponents who have the means have tried to get
out of the country because he means to have an
absolutely authoritarian People throw around the word fascist, fascist regime.
I think he'd probably fess up to fascist too, and
the way he plans to destroy at kill, you know,
his opposition down there. So I wish that Abrego Garcia

(01:47:56):
could talk about, like in a press conference, talk to
the nation, how he forced to sit for nine hours
straight and if he fell over day after day from
the exertion of sitting nine hours straight on his knees.
Then they would beat him if he fell on the floor,
and they did all of these other awful things. Remember
they did that to everybody there. He's just the only

(01:48:17):
one who has lived to tell and I would love
to have him tell his story to the American people,
which it seems like that's one thing that he could do.
That's another reason why I think the Trump administration is
going to try to find some way to either deport
him right away or do something with him right away.
They don't want to talk to the nation before he
tells the nation and goes on these talk shows. But
I sure hope he does that.

Speaker 1 (01:48:37):
I have one last thing, and that relates to Columbia.
Columbia University made a deal. They're going to pay more
than two hundred and twenty million dollars in an agreement
that's supposed to resolve the threat of these funding cuts
to Columbia University. Well, you'll remember the reason they're settling
is they were being attacked and sued. The part well,

(01:49:00):
they pulled their funding, the federal funding because they the
administration said, didn't protect Jewish students during all of the
protests at Columbia University and created an environment of anti
Semitism at Columbia. So Columbia is paying. I mean, this
is no small amount of money. Two hundred million dollars
in this settlement. Now, I think you're going to tell

(01:49:22):
me they did it because they have even more money
in federal grants in the offing. So pay the two
hundred million. You'll get even more money from the Feds
by tapping out this way.

Speaker 2 (01:49:34):
Well, Mark, I was invited onto a show in New York.
This is a bigger story in New York than anywhere
because Columbia University, of course is in Manhattan on the
Upper west side, Morningside Heights, right near the Hudson River,
to sort of situate it for people. And it was
at the same time as your show, Mark, So I
decided to do your show. But I was already loveing

(01:49:55):
come on in case they could juggle the two of them.
I was already to go on this Columbia and I
think I was going to be the middle of the
road guest who was there was one group that was
going to say Columbia. One guest was going to say
Columbia was just awful and they got what they deserved
and another was going to say, like a lot of
the professors have said that this is an outrage and
that once you give into a blackmailer and an extortionist,

(01:50:18):
they just keep blackmailing you and extort you. And that's
what Columbia can be looking forward to for the next
three and a half years. Never give an inch. And
I was going to be the one to say that
if I was on the board of trustees at Columbia,
I think I would have voted for this. And the
reason I think I would have voted for this is
because Harvard has this unbelievable endowment. And no slight on Columbia,

(01:50:40):
but Harvard is almost in a world of its own
in terms of how huge its endowment is and how
prominent it is in the public's mind. And I thought,
Harvard is one of the few universities that could really
endure fighting the Trump administration and fight him for the
whole four years. And that may be what Harvard's going
to do all the way to the Supreme Court. Fight them,
let them stop their cancer research, let them stop their

(01:51:03):
infectious disease research, unless the courts forced the federal government
to fork over the money to Harvard. I thought Columbia
was making kind of a wise decision. First, the two
hundred and twenty million. Why is given the situation at
their in mark, the two hundred and twenty million, they're
going to pay over three years, So the Trump administration
has some incentive I guess not to keep piling on them, right,

(01:51:27):
because they only get seventy million a year, and then
after three years, Trump's over. So that was one reason
to pay. And then it's like one point four billion
dollars that they were going to lose, or even more
than one point four billion, and unless some court miraculously
the courts made them pay the money, Columbia was really
going to have to stop doing this major research. And

(01:51:49):
they had major research studies that were going to come
to an end mark, so that all that they'd spent
many years doing these studies and the study would have
to stop. The study that they spent over a billion
dollars on was going to become worthless because the study
was going to have to stop, you know midway now.

Speaker 1 (01:52:06):
So SARS estimate that Columbia was likely facing another one
point two billion dollars in frozen fundings from the NIH
after the Trump administration cut the original four hundred million
from the top research university, and that is what you're
talking about. It would they would have to drop all
of these research projects in mid research.

Speaker 2 (01:52:23):
And it may be that these huge universities that have
so many different facets, maybe they can't really be the
top cancer researchers anymore. Maybe that has to be done,
you know, at some place that's not so much. And
because another administration could come along, you may think we'll
never be another one like Trump. But if you're looking
at from Columbia's point of view, you're looking at the

(01:52:44):
next fifty seventy years of what kind of institution they're
going to be. Maybe this will be the norm. Every
time they don't like the politics or the decisions of
some university, they take away this research funding, and the
research can't live without this funding market. It seems that
the you are a little bit incompatible. In the Harvard
case up in Boston, the district judge said, what on

(01:53:05):
earth does two billion dollars to Harvard? This is not Columbia.
Now two billion to Harvard cutting off the two billion
dollars for cancer and infectious disease research. What does that
have to do with anti semitism? And but that disproportionality
that that clash will happen university after university, and it
may be that they have to decide they're going to

(01:53:25):
be basically a university like we think of Columbia being,
or we're going to be this huge research mill that
has billions of dollars coming in from NIH and HHS
for the research function. But let me go into just
one thing, Mark, if I have okay, so then there's
the monitor piece. So they were also very worried because
there are three or four different actions against Columbia, and

(01:53:48):
by making this deal, they settled all of those actions.
So this was the remedy. They've certainly found a better
remedy that Columbia could live with than the remedy, the
drastic almost death penalty remedy that the Trump administration had
in mind. But the other classes are over this anti semitism.
I'm Jewish myself. I think that there were some excesses.

(01:54:09):
I don't think things got to the point, but the
Trump administration said they got to the point. There's civil
rights violations, and that's what the two hundred and twenty
million dollar fine over three years is supposed to be.
They're going to pay this huge fine that they didn't
do more about anti Semitism. One thing that these universities did,
they did it at UCLA, they did it at a
lot of different universities, was they allow these encampments. Mark,

(01:54:30):
and people have gotten very used to the encampments. They
go all the way back to divesting South Africa. You know,
as an earlier generation that remembers all of these encampments
against funding or doing business with South Africa. Now they've
of course moved into not doing business with Israel. These encampments,
the encampments are very disruptive.

Speaker 1 (01:54:50):
Mark.

Speaker 2 (01:54:50):
If I were an administrator, I would have, I think,
been more cautious about these encampments. I mean having you know,
one hundred students who just or non students just kind
of live there and demonstrate for what they're demonstrating. They
don't go home, and every day you have to end
up going around them.

Speaker 1 (01:55:06):
Yeah, they're shutting up in the quad there or whatever
they call it they're shutting up in. But yeah, it
impedes people from getting to class. It's incredibly disruptive. I
never thought they should have allowed those things to set up.

Speaker 2 (01:55:18):
And you know, almost all the universities did that under
Biden and with the protests, and I think part of
it they felt justified because what Israel was doing. The
settlements were bad enough, but what Israel was doing to
Gaza was so extraordinary. It was so repugnant. It was like,
we have to express this in some way. But the
expression became these huge encampments. And then it's just obvious
that from the excitement of it all, as they saw

(01:55:39):
a Jewish student with a yamak on or something like that,
something that was especially distinctively Jewish, it got to be
a very hostile environment for the Jewish student. And from
the Trump administration's point of view, they didn't do enough
about it. So what is Columbia going to do about
it now? Is part of this. First, they're going to
hire sixteen or seventeen basically cops who are going to
deal with it. You know, they actually Ivy League schools,

(01:56:00):
and you can't blame them for this. A lot of
the schools didn't want to look like a police state.
They didn't want to have cops all the time disrupting demonstrations.
They sort of erred on the side of thinking that
demonstrations were peaceful when maybe they weren't so peaceful, especially
if you were a Jewish student, you know, running into
this hostility. So anyway, so they have sixteen or seventeen
people now who are going to sort of break up

(01:56:22):
anything that starts to be bad. They're going to ask
anybody with a mask on for ID. That's part of
the agreement, So no masked people. The ICE is not
covered by this deal. Ice can still come on your
damn campus mask, but not someone who's a pro Palaestidian protester.
They're going to be asked for their ID. Take off

(01:56:43):
their mask, I guess, maybe take a photo of them.
They're going to be these folks here and they're going
to have a monitor. He's a former assistant US attorney
from who better to hire Mark than a former assistant
US attorney. He's going to be the monitor and every
six months he's going to make a report. He's going
to take complaints about any instance of anti Semitism. One

(01:57:03):
thing that mattered a lot to Columbia was that Columbia
would not allow the federal government to pick faculty or
to actually make the admission. So they got that. Columbia
got that.

Speaker 1 (01:57:16):
That was the original negotiating statue of the government was,
you know, we're going to have control over your curriculum,
over your professor hiring and firing. It was really scary.

Speaker 2 (01:57:26):
So Columbia got that. But Columbia had to give and
did give something I don't had to again, Columbia gave
some things in that. One of the things they gave.
There's also been this affirmative action ruling by the US
Supreme Court. That's a whole other basket of stuff against
Columbia that got subsumed in all of this too. On
the affirmative action piece, they have to tell these they

(01:57:50):
have to not engage in any affirmative action. They have
to disclose I guess the high school record, the ethnicity
and sex of the applic what their SAT score was.
They have to have SAT scores. Remember a lot of
the universities were dispensing with standardized examinations. Columbia has to
have standardized examinations submitted as part of the admission package.

(01:58:14):
They have to know the race, sex, ethnicity of the person.
And that allows the monitor and the public to look
at are they using quote dei or affirmative action. Especially
now at the US Supreme Court has said that you
cannot use affirmative action in the way it used to
be used. And the very last thing mark is that
there are also there's a monitor that has to not

(01:58:38):
a monitor, but there's someone in charge of like Middle
Eastern studies. They put in some provost who has to
do with Middle Eastern studies, and I guess he's going
to make sure if you don't mind me using the
expression that everything is kosher when it comes to Middle easterns.

Speaker 1 (01:58:51):
Well, there is this, and we're out of time, but
I just want you to respond to this. And I'm
seeing this more and more in the chat right now
Inlay says he'll just ask Columbia for more. This administration
will just ask Columbia for more. They just don't get it.
You bend to Trump and he takes and takes, and
the encampments on the administration not for Trump to punish.
What about the fact that there's this notion that if

(01:59:12):
you give in, you don't take the administration on, you
are just going to be asked for more and more
concessions on down the way. I think you've kind of
gained it out, and I think in a defensible way
the deal that they've made. But what about this. They're
seeing it a lot in the chat, which is, none
of these institutions should be giving giving in to the

(01:59:33):
federal government.

Speaker 2 (01:59:34):
Well, there's a civil Rights division, and you know, right
now it looks a little bit like animal farm right
that it depends who's in charge. But according to the
Trump administration, there are these civil rights violations that are
going on and they're not against minorities and people of color.
They are against Jewish students and right wingers who suppose

(01:59:55):
they are not allowed to express their right wing views
on these liberal campuses. And so they're doing something about it.
And you know, they're in power right now. I mean,
this is the real politic of it, Mark, They're in
power right now. And Columbia just felt that the two
hundred and twenty million dollars over three years was about
the worst that was going to happen to them or
under Trump. And you know, like they're now allowed to

(02:00:16):
bid on other grants, they're allowed to do all these things.
I get it, Mark, I get it, but they.

Speaker 1 (02:00:20):
Just I completely agree. I mean, I think this sort
of is something that you are very familiar with because
oftentimes in lawsuits of one short or another, and we've
certainly seen it in the case with Trump, right, he
sues ABC, it's a winnable case. It's a ridiculous case.
He sues CBS, it's a winnable case. It's a ridiculous case.
He sues various law firms and prohibits them from entering

(02:00:42):
federal buildings. That that's completely winnable case too, if they
were to take that on. But it's just easier to
tap out, write the check and keep a relationship with
the federal government that can redown to your benefit. And
in this case, I think you gain it out so well,
David cas when you said, hey, look there's all this
other stuff that is so critical in terms of money,

(02:01:02):
it dwarfs the two hundred and twenty million. Just pay
the two hundred and twenty million to continue with these
research projects to which you've referred, and and life will
be better at Columbia than it would be taking on
the federal government and.

Speaker 2 (02:01:14):
People who are depressed about all of this. Yes, it's
true that Trump may come for more concessions, and he
may come for more money down the road, but I
think Columbia feels like they have that pretty much hemmed
in and controllable and of course when the Democrats come
back into power, they can make it all up to Columbia.
And when the Democrats come back into power, it's gonna
be a lot of making it up. I mean it'll

(02:01:35):
be like undo the I think that'll be one of
the great slogans, undo it all, Undo it all, And.

Speaker 1 (02:01:41):
I will feel like the refrain when the gut when
the Democrats come back into power is sounding a little
bit like when Jesus comes back, because I don't know
which one's gonna happen first.

Speaker 2 (02:01:56):
Devid cats right, a lot of political I've got a
lot of political faith.

Speaker 1 (02:02:00):
I know. That's why I enjoyed talking to you, in
addition to all the great legal knowledge. David, thank you
for making us a priority and spending time with us today.
So appreciate you. Don't know if you heard. Kim's mom
suffered a stroke. We think it's a mild stroke, but
it's been serious enough that she's been hospitalized. So that's
why Kim's not here. Todavid. I know you love Kim dearly,

(02:02:21):
so I will pass you dearly.

Speaker 2 (02:02:23):
And this is the first I knew about that, and
I wish her family and her mom all the best.
A lot of people recover. That's the good news that
modern science, modern science, some of it being developed at Columbia,
a lot of it being developed at UCLA is doing
fantastic things about strokes and other things like that.

Speaker 1 (02:02:40):
Indeed, thank you. I'll let you go, David Kats everyone,
thanks David, appreciate you. Appreciate you. I appreciate you, all
of you who have joined today, who have joined us.
Jesus never did come back, says Mindy. Oh that's right, Well,
that's why it's going to be really even better. He's oh,

(02:03:00):
wait a minute, you mean he didn't come back the
first time? Like I don't know, alb, you know the
Jesus story better than I do. He did come back once,
and now this would be a second return, So I think, yes, yeah,
And all I can say is that David Katz is
pretty awesome. Thanks mister Katz's ip X studio. Yeah, I

(02:03:23):
really am a chuck MANNGIONI passed away today is that
he did.

Speaker 9 (02:03:30):
I thought I was going to get quizzed on this,
but I saw that. I saw that early, like one
of the first things this morning, because I looked at Twitter,
I saw Hulk Hogan died and then I looked at
like the top stories, and it was Chuck Manoni at
the top.

Speaker 1 (02:03:42):
Al Chuck Mangioni, the jazz great Chuck Mangioni, Wow, he
was great, and he, like Herb Alpert cracked the top
ten in Billboard with what was just a jazz instrumental.
You know, we can't play for you because he'll be demonetized.
We would normally in the old radio show play all

(02:04:03):
this man Gione stuff. Music was so much a part
of what we did. We can't do any of it now.
But Chuck Mangioni, how old was he?

Speaker 3 (02:04:11):
Albert eighty four?

Speaker 1 (02:04:14):
Wow? He was eighty four. Man.

Speaker 9 (02:04:17):
He played a very not a common instrument. He played
the flugelhorn mark, which is not quite a trumpet, not
quite like a mellophone or like a It's like a
little bit bigger of a instrument. I'm trying to get
a picture right now.

Speaker 1 (02:04:32):
Yeah, very good, Chuck Mangione fugal horn knowledge. I'm quite impressed.
He died two days ago, apparently, by the way, the
word is just getting out. His official death was on Tuesday.
There he is playing, So is that is that a
fugal horn?

Speaker 3 (02:04:48):
Flugelhorn? Yes, that's it's flugel.

Speaker 1 (02:04:52):
Wow. Really really a big loss. His song, the big
one that broke the top ten, It was huge. Does
anybody know what it was called? What was Chuck Mangiones?
Don't tell them, Albert, I know you're googling. Don't google it.

(02:05:18):
Come on, come on, please, do we have Can we
have a little pride in our guests? What was the
name of Chuck Mangione's hit song feels So good? Is right?
Well done? Underdog? That song was everywhere, Albert, You kids
don't understand the ubiquity of a hit song back in

(02:05:40):
the seventies and eighties.

Speaker 9 (02:05:41):
I mean, and it's an instrumental like usually the general
public needs lyrics or wants to hear singing.

Speaker 1 (02:05:47):
So yeah. The guy who comes to mind, who also,
of course, was remarkable in what he did, was Herb Albert.
Herb Albert had I just heard the statistic last night.
Actually Herb Alpert again, trumpet player. Herb Alpert was, I

(02:06:09):
believe and still is Herbalpert's ninety anyway, I think he
had more top ten songs apart from the Beatles, more
top ten songs than anybody else in the sixties, and
that just like Chuck Manjoni, that was a phenomenon of

(02:06:32):
instrumental music. There's only one song he had where he
sang so yeah, Taste of Honey Tijuana Brass double album.

Speaker 9 (02:06:42):
I think Billboard has it two number one hits, five
top ten hits, and thirty nine total songs in the
top ten for herb Alpert.

Speaker 1 (02:06:50):
Yeah, so impressive. You're going to see herb Alpert and Sacramento.
Tell me how that show is, Phineas. You can write
to me at the Mark Thompson Show at gmail dot com.
I'm curious because I want to see him when I
think in November he plays a show at his place
called Vibrato in southern California. Yeah, the Mark Thompson Show

(02:07:11):
at gmail dot com is our address of anybody wants
us for any reason. But again, not to get too
into that digression, Chuck Mangione, rest in peace. My friend
gave so much, so much pleasure to so many people
listening to his music. This is a return to Jeffrey Epstein.

(02:07:36):
This is the wild. There's always somebody who goes, oh,
shouldn't you be using this term, sadi Avati says, wouldn't
it be rather closer to the truth to use the
expression child trafficking instead of human trafficking when talking about Epstein,
isn't that what was really going on? I honestly think
both were going on. I think human trafficking and child trafficking.
If you read the reports of what was going on

(02:07:59):
with Epstein, there of adults that were young women eighteen
nineteen twenty year olds, much from many from Eastern Block
what would consider Eastern Bloc countries being trafficked. So there
was that, and then there were, as you say, the children.
So yeah, I think they were both going on. I
don't know what's the more appropriate way to put it. Kim.
Of course, with no after party today because of a

(02:08:20):
family matters and for us.

Speaker 4 (02:08:22):
I'm Sheefe of Stevens for the Mark Johnson Show.

Speaker 1 (02:08:25):
Babe Bah, we are out of time, Albert, thank you
and time fine, yeah, all the time. Think of very
much until tomorrow, Bye bye the cott

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Bombshell! Trump, Briefed by Bondi, Knows His Name is in Epstein Files: Focus Now on Files 7/24/25

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Bombshell! Trump, Briefed by Bondi, Knows His Name is in Epstein Files: Focus Now on Files 7/24/25

Stuff You Should Know