Nobody Puts Tulsi in the Corner - Trump Ignored Her, Now She Has Allegations & His Attention 7/28/25 - The Mark Thompson Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, Hey, welcome to the Mark Thompson Shows. Michael Shore
back with you again. Glad to be here in this
comfortable chair with you find people today. Mark asked me
to cover for him for a couple of days, Kim
and to with me. Hi, Hi, Hi.

Speaker 2 (00:15):
It's good to be.

Speaker 1 (00:15):
I've been you know, I've missed a couple of my
you know, political Fridays, so it's good to be. It's
good to be back.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
I noticed. What have you been doing. You've been having
fun partying on the weekend, long.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Weekend, partying like crazy. Actually, I was in and I
recommend that everybody go to this place because it's fantastic
of the ability to get there. Mexico City. I was
there for three nights with friends from all over the country.
We all met in Mexico City, hung out, watched it,
went to a baseball game, a Mexican League baseball game. Uh.
And man, I do I do like that city. The

(00:48):
food is good, the prices are good, the people are
really really nice. And I would say go go to
Mexico City if you can. And you might already be
there listening and watching the Mark Thompson Show. Hope all
of you have been well we have a good show.
We have Gary Dietrich coming up. We have an interview, Kim,
you're going to tell me right now again, it's an
interview Mark did.

Speaker 2 (01:10):
You Mark did with Elizabeth Mulampy and she's amazing. She
wrote this book about animal festivals. And you know, you
think animal festivals happy fun. You know, you go to
the whatever it is, the you know, jumping Calaveras frog
contest and it's no big deal, or you go to
the you know, clam chowder festival or whatever. But she

(01:32):
talks about the toll that it takes on animals and
digs a little bit deeper. So interesting, very interesting interview,
and we have that at coming up at the bottom
of the show.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
Yeah, that's that should be interesting. It's probably going to
ruin stuff for people too. I mean not that I ever.
I don't go to animal festivals, but when you said
the clam chowder festival, that all of that sounded for
like those four seconds, man, I'd love to go to
the clam chowder and then you start talking about it,
maybe I won't go.

Speaker 2 (01:58):
To that now. Definitely makes you think about things in
a different way, and you know that's fine, right.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Yeah, that is fine. We all need perspective and our horizons. Yes,
we are better for it. Well, let's let's open with something.
You know, you know me, Kim Tony, I can't go
you know, more than ten minutes without talking about Beyonce.
So yeah, that's just kind of how I'm a huge Beyoncean.

(02:25):
You'll you'll recall that Donald Trump went on his little
truth social and talked about, you know, that he wanted
Beyonce prosecuted, you know, for actually breaking the law by
getting paid eleven million dollars for endorsing Kamala Harris during

(02:46):
an event I think it was an event in Houston, Texas.
It turns out, and you'll be shocked to learn this,
the President wasn't right about this. There is no basis
for this claim. It will get thrown out of courts,
as so much does. And we'll get into that a
little bit later too. But the payment that was made

(03:09):
by the Harris campaign was one hundred and sixty five
thousand dollars, which is prescribed by law that they have
to do that. And in order to you know, they
have to pay that. You cannot take in kind donations
in a campaign, so they had to pay her production
company that money, and it turns out that in fact,

(03:32):
that's that's exactly how much money they got, was one
hundred and sixty five thousand dollars. And even though he
was saying that he wants to prosecute, that's all that
was there. And so the whether or not you agree
with the one one hundred and sixty fur five is
of no moment it was supposed to he is saying
that it was eleven million dollars. There was a big

(03:53):
divide there, and of course there is absolutely no evidence
for this. So if you go to if you go
to police Effect or fact check dot org, they looked
into the ten million dollar claim that he made during
the campaign, they found nothing that would support that. And
of course the White House has not yet responded to
a request for more information and a response to you know,

(04:17):
news organizations, I believe CNN, NBC asking for proof of this,
and they have not given a response, so you know,
we'll keep monitoring that. But Tina Knowles, who was Beyonce's mother,
called the claim of ten million well back a long
time ago, a lie and that that you know, all

(04:38):
that information about the social media post was taken down
by Instagram as false information.

Speaker 2 (04:46):
It's interesting that when asked to provide proof of that,
which shouldn't be hard to do, if that, if there's
a money trail, that they can't do that, they can't
give the proof, But they sure don't have a problem
calling for the prosecution of beyond say, were the prosecution
of Kamala Harris making these wild allegations that people were
paid for their you know, their support for endorsing her,

(05:09):
when there's no evidence to suggest.

Speaker 3 (05:12):
That at all.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
Yeah, No, it's it's typical behavior. It's say something accused,
have people believe that it's the truth, and then sort
of let it die without responding to it or giving information.
It is, uh, got to give them credit. It works.
It works for this White House to do stuff like that.
If you ask most of the people who follow or

(05:33):
consider themselves maga who support the president, whatever you whatever
qualification you want to give them, If you ask most
of them, whether or not Beyonce Knowles took eleven million
dollars from the Harris Harris campaign for an appearance, unquestionably,
they will all say, yes, of course she did. You know,
Donald Trump said they did of course.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Even though there's zero evidence and no one asks for it,
like where, why wouldn't you, as a as a citizen
go okay.

Speaker 1 (05:59):
Well, right, show me, yeah. I think also people don't
really care, but why but about things that are far
more important than whether the Harris campaign. By the way,
Harris lost, she's out of politics, the election is over.
You could say the same for Barack Obama. President Obama

(06:19):
no longer in power, but he was the president, right,
I mean, so you could go back and look at
things that you may think he did that we're not
legal again. We'll get to that a little later too.
And those claims seem pretty specious as well, or certainly
the way they're being spun. But the Beyonce Nole's getting
money from the Harris campaign, you know, she's not coming

(06:41):
back to run against Donald Trump again, and so it
just it seems like going after this stuff is part
of the distraction machine from the next story we are
going to talk about. And that's that's what they're doing
with Tulsea Gabbert, That's what they're doing with so many
of these stories with Barack Obama to get people's attention
away from the Epstein story. We have Gary Dietrich coming

(07:03):
on later in the show, we're going to talk about
how Tulsi Gabbard is being, you know, is trying to
get back into Trump's good graces probably, and the best
way to do that is to support any kind of
vendetta against one of his concocted enemies, of which President

(07:24):
Obama is one of those.

Speaker 2 (07:26):
So because she was kind of cast aside for a
moment when when she was talking about her ideas about
what was happening with Iran's nuclear weapons, he disregarded what
she had to say and went on in a different
avenue and just kind of left her in the dust.
So I guess did she have to do something to,
you know, put the spotlight back on herself so that

(07:47):
he would, you know, become a Gabbard lover again. I
don't know.

Speaker 1 (07:51):
In a way it's it's it's not even putting the
spotlight on herself so much as where the spotlight is going.
And that is the avenue to being adored by Donald Trump.
If you're going after, you know, any enemy of my
enemy is my friend with Donald Trump, and that's exactly
what she is doing and going after or making allegations

(08:12):
about the former president, insinuating treasonous behavior. So we'll break
that down with Gary Dietrich later in the show in
about I don't know own about twenty minutes from now,
and it'll be it'll be interesting because it is really
the kind of thing that presidents and administrations do all
the time. They just don't, you know, distraction is a

(08:34):
big part of scandal, but they don't create, you know,
and out of whole cloth, some accusations of treason, which
is by the way, punishable by death in America. So
you could in a way say that that's what's being
called for. But let's move on to the story that
we that we don't want to be distracted from, mister President,

(08:56):
and that is the Jeffrey Epstein story and how it
does not die and as a matter of fact, it
gets worse and it gets a little different too. Donald Trump,
the President, was appearing with the with the Prime Minister
of the United Kingdom and that's Cure Starmer, and he
was asked about what happened between he and Jeffrey Epstein.

(09:19):
And we know that leading up to this moment, Donald
Trump is saying that he would never associate with someone
who is as disgusting and perverted and creepy as Jeffrey Epstein. Uh,
that's what caused their break. He would not want to
be someone who could ever be associated with that kind
of scum. But when asked and not prepared to be

(09:43):
asked about this, this is what President Trump had to say.
And maybe now he's finally telling the truth about Epstein,
caused preach.

Speaker 4 (09:55):
That's such old history, very easy to expel. But I
don't want to waste your time by explaining it. But
for years I wouldn't talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn't
talk because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help,
and I said, don't ever do that again. He stole
people that work for me. I said, don't ever do

(10:16):
that again. He did it again, and I threw him
out of the place, persona on grata. I threw him
out and that was it. I'm glad I did.

Speaker 1 (10:26):
If you want another truth, yeah, that's different. Well yeah,
and Kim Tony, I mean, can you imagine somebody being
so vile and disgusting and degrading and creepy as to
steal someone's help? I mean, would you ever want to
associate with someone like that?

Speaker 2 (10:45):
Mike, Well, it's hard to find good help. You know,
you just you've got to really hold on to them
when you find them.

Speaker 1 (10:51):
Right, it is, but he was saying, he was.

Speaker 2 (10:53):
Saying before this start to interrupt you. He was saying
before this that, oh, he kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of
mar A Lago for being a creep. Right, that he
was exhibiting creepy behavior. So he kicked him out of
mar A Lago for being a creep. But now he
says he kicked him out because he stole the help.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
Right. I mean, that's and I'm taking this. I'm taking
him at his word here because it was when Trump
is this candid, you know it's there's something here, right.
There was probably somebody who worked on Trump's staff, probably
his house staff at mar A Lago. Let's say it
was a butler or a bartender, or a waiter, waitress,

(11:33):
what have you, whatever, it is, right, and Jeffrey Epstein
hired that person away from Donald Trump. Right, he is
saying that that was the straw that broke the Campbell's back.
Prior to that, when he was coming over and bringing
girls and doing all this stuff and all everything that

(11:53):
was whispered about Jeffrey Epstein, all that was fine, but
when he hired someone away from the Marrow a Lago staff,
all of a sudden, that was the bridge too far.
That's not what America and the world thinks about Jeffrey Epstein.
My god, if if the only thing he ever did
was stole somebody's staff away from them, I think he'd

(12:14):
be alive and would not have been able to uh, well,
let's say off himself in a cell. Yeah, somebody came
in here. Epstein did steal to help Maxwell. Yeah, from
one creek to another led Ziegelman Jackson.

Speaker 5 (12:29):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (12:30):
And then there was another way Epstein did steal the help, Maxwelle.
Maxwell was grooming them to work for Epstein. Yeah, I'm
taking it even at its most innocent, which maybe I'm
I'm a fool for doing. I'm thinking the way rich
people behave that was the thing that offended Trump. Nothing else.
And the help that was taken with somebody who was
probably part of the household staff who was excellent at

(12:53):
their job, or maybe the office staff or what have you.
But I don't think that there was anything nefarious about
what those people were doing. Then far business was totally different.
My guess is that he got upset because he stole
his butler.

Speaker 2 (13:06):
Yeah. And what's interesting is now the story changes. He
goes off script. You know you're not supposed to do that,
but there he is in the UK singing a different tune.
It just goes to this whole thing is hinky. You know,
we're not getting the real story.

Speaker 1 (13:25):
So we haven't gotten the real story. And now now,
as we mentioned before, the President is trying to deflect
attention from the Epstein story by going after Obama. His
deputies are going after Obama. Right, well, Tulsea Gabbard again,
we'll talk about that with Gary Dietrich, but it is,
it is constantly being brought up. You have House members

(13:46):
bringing it up. So it's not just gabbered the director
of National Intelligence. But what's incredible is that now, even
within the Epstein story, he is trying to deflect. Trump
talked to reporters. I don't know if we have sound
of this or not, but he was saying, don't look

(14:06):
at me with Jeffrey Epstein. You're not gonna believe those folks.
He said, look at Bill Clinton. So going after another predecessor,
look at somebody who went to the island. I never
went to the island, and that island, of course, is
the island that Jeffrey Epstein would take women to and
take friends and associates to, and where so much of

(14:28):
what discussed us allegedly happened.

Speaker 2 (14:30):
But just women, but like girls, right.

Speaker 1 (14:33):
And girls yeah? Yeah, I mean yeah, I meant eemails
and yeah.

Speaker 2 (14:39):
He says that Clinton went to the He said, I
never went to the island. Trump said, but Clinton went
twenty eight times. And I'm thinking to myself, how do
you know Clinton went twenty eight times unless you were
there to see him twenty eight times, or unless there's
a file that says he went twenty eight times, So
which is it?

Speaker 3 (14:57):
Right?

Speaker 1 (14:58):
It's like I was there thirty seve seven times, and
I promise you Bill Clinton was there twenty eight of
those times. Yeah, I don't know. And those are the
but these are the kinds of things that that Trump
if he, let's assume for the moment that Clinton went there, right,
which I'm not saying, but if he went there once, Trump,
in the way his mind works, would say, oh, he

(15:19):
went there twenty eight times. And again it's like we
were talking with Beyonce with the eleven million earlier. You know,
people are going to believe it. That's all he wants.
He just wants his masses to think like he does.
And that's the sort of cult leader part of the
Trump movement is that is that they will believe anything
he says. He knows it, so he does it, and

(15:42):
the repercussions are so small because it lasts a news
cycle before he changes the news cycle. Again, this isn't
what we were talking about the other day. What we
do news later, Kim. One of the remarkable things is
with the shootings.

Speaker 6 (15:55):
There was a.

Speaker 1 (15:55):
Stabbing, stabbings at a walmart, there were shootings, There's a
lot of news. There's still weather going on in this country.
And even with all that, those sorts of stories were
the types of stories that would lead a news cycle
all the time. And now we're still talking about Donald
Trump changing the subject and moving someplace else, not to

(16:17):
mention Gaza, which we'll get to as well.

Speaker 2 (16:19):
So I feel like no one would be surprised if
his allegations about Bill Clinton were true. We know Bill
Clinton was a little skeezy with the ladies. What about
the whole Lewinsky scandal. I mean, I know she was
legal and of age, but we know that he had
some sexual proclivities. Right. So, but my point about this
is who cares. As you mentioned earlier, he's not in power.

(16:43):
Bill Clinton is not running for office. Again, what I
care about is that there's certainly there's currently someone sitting
in the Oval Office representing the American people, and that
seems like it should be the focus. Not Clinton, not Obama,
not you know, previous presidents, but the current president. So
he can try to kick the can over it at

(17:03):
whatever whomever. But I don't think it really takes the
focus off of himself. He's the current president.

Speaker 1 (17:09):
Yeah, there's no question. Look, and it's not a defense
of anybody else. But and it's really about the tactic, right,
It's about going after Clinton and Obama. It's about keeping
the divide, keeping the wall up between two sides of
the country. And you know the fact that nothing can
be bi partisan. Everything has to be made partisan. Even

(17:33):
when there is not something that is partisan within a story,
they make it partisan. Right. And again I keep teasing
things that we're going to talk about later in the show,
But the National Governor's Association is losing a couple of
members because they are also looking for partisanship rather than bipartisanship.
So it's almost a reflexive thing that we're doing that.

(17:54):
But on a story like this, it just seems a
curious thing. And I don't even you know, whatever you
may think of Bill Clinton. Yeah, that stuff is on
the record, and he did that and later admitted and
apologized to it for it. But whatever that is, he's
not around right, He's an older man who is just
being a former president right now, running his foundation, doing

(18:16):
whatever he is doing, being a grandfather. So it just
seems like this distraction must be being employed because there's
something we don't know when we talk about or we
think we do know with Trump and Epstein, and he
knows that, and so he wants to push it aside,
which I think is incredible. And again the other day,

(18:39):
to continue talking about this Julaane Maxwell, he was asked.
The President was asked, I think while leaving the White
House for this trip to the United Kingdom to Scotland.
Initially he was asked about whether or not he would
pardon Julainne Maxwell, if that was a possibility. Let's take
a look.

Speaker 2 (19:04):
Mmm yeah, Well, well, as Tony gets the video ready,
I will say that this video is from a senior
legal analyst, who is talking about the one right answer
to that question and how Trump completely flubbed it, Like,
there's one right answer. No, I will never ever pardon
a sex child sex trafficker. No, Like, how could you

(19:26):
how could you go, Well, you know, I have the
legal right to pardon her, but I'm not sure if
I'll pardon her. No, there's one right answer. How could
you possibly say anything other than child sex trafficking. No
pardon for you? Right right?

Speaker 1 (19:40):
Well, he wantsline Mats, He wants Julane Maxwell to hear
that he might partner to maybe not be as cooperative
as she might otherwise have been because she knows she's
getting a pardon. It's it's completely tactical.

Speaker 2 (19:55):
Yep, we have the video, Tony, I think we do here.

Speaker 7 (20:02):
It comes when asked about whether you're going to cut
some slack to a child predator, the immediate response from
any elected official, including the president, would be a hell no,
and not a I haven't really thought about it. Of
course I have the power to do so. So what
do you read into the clip that we played in
terms of how the President responded yesterday?

Speaker 8 (20:24):
Yeah, it's the easiest question in human history that our
colleague Kevin Liftak asked a great question, it's are you
kidding me? A pardon for the single worst or number
two after Jeffrey Epstein worst child sex trafficker in modern history?
Absolutely not an O. Instead we get the haven't thought
about it. I have the right, He's right, he has
the right. And look, Michael, there's a history here. I mean,

(20:45):
Donald Trump is a habitual pardon dangler. You can go
back and look at the clips of him saying almost
word for word, the exact same thing about Paul Manifort,
Michael Flynn, Roger Stone Right.

Speaker 3 (20:56):
I don't know, I haven't thought about it.

Speaker 8 (20:57):
And what did he do? He pardoned them all. Now,
it's still hard for me to believe that Donald Trump
will actually pardon or commute Gallaine Maxwell for similar reasons
that we talk about. But other people who I know,
who are closer to Donald Trump and who have worked
with them in the past, say it could well happen.
So I'm not going to bet either way on that.
But boy, that's hard to imagine, isn't it.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
Yeah, well, hard to imagine until you see it in action.
As Elie Honig just said, I mean, you know all
we have to do is think about January sixth, which
some people may think wasn't as bad as what Juleanne
Maxwell did, and that can be argued, I guess, but
it was disgusting. But he he dangles pardons for everybody

(21:38):
like That's what Honig was saying. He lets the people
know that this is a possibility, and it does affect
their behavior through the legal system if they know, why
do I need to cooperate, Why do I need to
do anything if it's not going to help me legally?
As much as the possibility of a pardon from the president,
you know, I think it would be It would be

(22:01):
a horrendous thing to do, and I don't know what
the political advantages would be because if you did it,
you were essentially sort of saying to the part of
your base that is already upset with you over Epstein
that you don't care about that and therefore you don't
care about them.

Speaker 2 (22:20):
Well, at the end of his presidency, unless you believe
the Trump twenty twenty eight flags flying all over the place,
at the end of his presidency, he's not running again.
So I don't know why he would care about placating
a base that he no longer needs, so he could
then just take care of all the people who haven't
spoken out against him, Kawayne Maxwell if she keeps her

(22:42):
mouth shut, right, and whomever else he wants to pardon,
and he would never have to be accountable for that again.

Speaker 3 (22:50):
Right.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
But Kim, that presupposes that he's not going to run
again in his mind, just as he thinks all the
things that he's saying. In his mind, he wants to
run for president again. He wants to be the permanent president.
And I don't think it's really playing ridiculous three D
chess to think that or looking at it as political

(23:10):
three D chess. I don't think it is ridiculous to
think that. Okay, he's sicking the dogs on Obama now
and calling him treeson this because if Trump were to
run again, it would mean that he somehow believe the
constitution allows him to who then would become his immediate
biggest opponent, but former President Obama. So anything to discredit

(23:31):
his possible in his mind. And you got to go
with me on this because I don't believe any of it,
but you got to. I'm talking as if I it
was his mind he thinks Okay, if I run again,
Obama would run against me because he would we would
find that the amendment doesn't apply to either of us.
And so let's call him trees in this and so simple.

Speaker 2 (23:51):
Living in naiveland? Am I like? So just believing in
the constitution that this is the way America does things
that you can't have more more than two terms that
I'm just the silliest girl in the world because I
just don't buy that Trump is able constitutionally, Like, how
are we even going down this road?

Speaker 1 (24:11):
None of this is going to happen. Just understand, it's
not going to happen. I'm just saying I'm talking about
it from the perspective a little bit of the perspective
of a madman, someone who would be concocting these ideas
in their head. Well, I've got to go after Obama,
not just because I like it as a sport, but
because there's some political tactic to it. And I may
not pardon Maxwell, you know, I mean, yeah, I want

(24:36):
to just reiterate, none of this is going to happen.
But I am speaking from the standpoint of someone who
would like it to happen, and that's the President Trump.

Speaker 2 (24:46):
Legit believes he's going to run again.

Speaker 1 (24:49):
I legit believe that he thinks that he can run again.
I don't know that he would, but I think that
he will find a way to run again, especially unless
you know, I mean, there are all these theories that
that he will be part like he will resign on
the last day and be pardoned by Vance and then

(25:10):
sail off into the sunset. But but but I do
think you have to think in the way that he
that he thinks, and sometimes in order to understand this stuff,
God forbid, everybody thinks the way he thinks. But I'm
just saying in terms of in terms of the way
you ought to perhaps imagine things. Is I guess what you're.

Speaker 2 (25:32):
Good at jumping into that weird brain of his.

Speaker 1 (25:34):
I don't know, you know, been around it for a minute. Uh,
and then you know this is a story. Well, I
don't think. I think I want to talk a little
bit with Gary Dietrich about when he joins us about
Epstein as well, because you know there are some politician
Now you have the House who is the houses in recess,

(25:56):
but you have Mike Johnson, the speaker, saying that you
know that with the pardon for Juliane Maxwell that we
just talked about. He says it would give him great pause.
But I want to talk about that with Gary because
it speaks a little bit to what we just heard
from Elie Honig. Ordinarily a speaker would say absolutely not

(26:17):
that discuss me. That's horrible. But the fear and the
devotion at the same time that they have, you know,
for Trump is a big part of this conversation, and
the way that the speaker, and I would say, when
you look at the other Republican speakers that we've had recently,
has done it to much better effect. He has a

(26:41):
Republican Senate, which helps. They've got his back. But I
think Mike Johnson, in terms of just as a Speaker
of the House, a Republican Speaker of the House, has
done a good job in that job. Not that I
like what he's done at all or how he's done it,
but he's managed his way through this, I guess, is
the best way to say it. And so that's why

(27:03):
I found it so interesting what his reaction was to
to that.

Speaker 2 (27:08):
To the toss and give he said it would give
him pause.

Speaker 1 (27:11):
Yeah, it would give him pause, but really it would
give you pause, Well, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (27:17):
Yeah, until it happens, and then all of a sudden
it'll be fine, right, Because that's the way Mike Johnson operates.
You know. He never really commits fully to anything, never
really takes a stand until all of a sudden, you know,
then he has to because he has to get behind Trump.
And then all of a sudden, you know, the whiffle
waffle a, the wishy washy thing is over and then

(27:37):
he's on board.

Speaker 3 (27:39):
Right.

Speaker 9 (27:39):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (27:40):
I think that that's also and I sound like a
bit of a you know, a Johnson backer here. Let's
let's be let's be clear. But I think that's part
of the job of the speaker is you do have
to appeal to lots of you know, not just within
your own party. For Republicans, that's changed. It used to
be a lot easier for Republicans to appeal to everybody

(28:01):
than it is now in the House. But Johnson has
has a little bit of juggling and shuffling to do
because of the Freedom Caucus, and he's brought them along.
And now he has Thomas Massey who is really still
upset about the about Epstein and has some backers with him,
and so I think that that we I think that Johnson,

(28:23):
with this stuff, has a more difficult job. But what
isn't difficult is to say no, we should not pardon
a child sex trafficker. And I think that kind of
stuff it could come back to have ramifications for Johnson,
maybe not for the President, but for the people to
support it.

Speaker 2 (28:40):
I'm looking at a guy like Mike Johnson who says
he is religious, who's, you know, by all accounts, the
biggest holy roller there ever was, and how he could
just be so bland about oh, you know, it gives
me pause to think about partning a child sex traffic
It doesn't match, It doesn't match who he says he is,

(29:03):
who he purports to be.

Speaker 1 (29:05):
Right, and she has evolved too into something that is
less important than actual the actual Trump Epstein connection. So
that Julian Maxwell, the courts have already dealt with her.
What the president does doesn't matter. We just don't want to.
We just don't want it out there that the president
had anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein more than what

(29:27):
he says, and that is you know, that's absurd. Also,
you know, Mike Johnson, if you go back to you
know who he is. He's a you know, a Bible
thumping evangelical Christian who you know has gotten to where
he is by invoking the Lord as much as he

(29:49):
can and constantly and right, and this is a convicted
pedophile or sex trafficker. And you know, you've got where
does hypocracy begin?

Speaker 9 (30:01):
Then?

Speaker 1 (30:01):
At that point? And so I would suggest it has
already begun. And for that, I think that we that
we know the answers we need to know. And I
think somebody like Mike Johnson or President Trump there are
better answers to the Julane Maxwell question. And we now

(30:21):
have our old Yeah, there's the less Ingloman Jackson saying
there's no Christian in MAGA, right, that there there is
allegedly Christian in MAGA, and smart Christians supported MAGA in
twenty sixteen because they got three Supreme Court judges. So,
you know, and according to someone Randy says, according to
some on the right, Maxwell is now a victim. Yeah,

(30:43):
I believe that. I think news Max even ran with
that as a story that she's being victimized here. You know,
Mike Johnson can't call himself a Christian if he can
stand by Trump is what Connie Johnson says. Yeah, I
think that's where we're going here, that the hypocrisy is
real when it comes to Mike Johnson. Speakers of the
House are often hypocritical in times, but not in ways

(31:07):
that are as blatant as this. Right. They're hypocritical on legislation,
they're hypocritical on priorities. They have to appease different factions
within their their they're in their caucus. But that's a
This is a different kind of hypocritical, I will tell
you that. But without making any more delay, because we've

(31:27):
covered a little bit of ground here and there's stuff
about happening in politics that I think we would profit
from a conversation with Gary diettrich over and that's why
he is joining the Mark Thompson Show as he does
I believe every Monday, Kim. Gary Dietrich of CBS News,
iHeart television radio political analyst. Thanks for being on with
the substitute teacher today.

Speaker 5 (31:48):
Hey, good to be with a stub And I promise
I'm not going to leave any bugs on your desk
or do anything else.

Speaker 10 (31:54):
Substitute.

Speaker 1 (31:56):
All right, thank you so much. I appreciate the respect
that substitutes would like to have. You know, we'll start
a we'll start a union soon, but it just hasn't
happened yet. Gary, There there's a lot. There's a lot
on the table. As you may have heard when you
were waiting to come into the show, we've been talking
about the Jeffrey Epstein stuff. How the President saying that

(32:19):
he would consider a pardon for or he wouldn't rule
it out, or reiterating that he has the power. But
what he didn't do is he didn't say no when
asked if he would consider a pardon for Juliane Maxwell.
So we don't even need to put words in his mouth.
He didn't say no, and he said he had the
power to do it if he wanted to. Mike Johnson,
the Speaker of the House, for his part, said it

(32:41):
would give him great pause. One of those real it's
you know from the Susan Collins, I have real concern
about this bill or this nominee answer. It would give
the speaker great pause. Tell me why that's a bad
place for the speaker to be if you if you
believe so?

Speaker 5 (32:58):
Okay, well, first off, ye date I have Trump today
is Trump in Scotland where he is right now many
people may know, saying, when he was asked again the
Galen Maxwell pardon question, said well, that would be basically
inappropriate to talk about now, all right, and then so
that just sort of continues the narrative, Michael, But I
think you're laying out.

Speaker 10 (33:18):
So let me just quickly say this.

Speaker 5 (33:20):
About that, to quote a long time ago vice president
who you probably know, but most people probably won't anyway,
So let's go. Let's go on, Freddy threading the needle
on this Epstein thing, as you well know, is exceptionally
difficult for people like Trump, Mike Johnson, etc. It's just

(33:41):
the political problem for them, and it's not gonna go
anytime soon.

Speaker 4 (33:45):
You know.

Speaker 10 (33:45):
It's the Magabase.

Speaker 5 (33:46):
Say wait a minute for some of us, and I'll
have some numbers on that just a month.

Speaker 10 (33:50):
But like some of us, this is really important.

Speaker 5 (33:52):
During the campaign, you kind of are almost you know,
guaranteed this to us.

Speaker 10 (33:57):
And now you say it ain't gonna happen.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
What the hell?

Speaker 10 (34:00):
Yeah, all right, now, I'm interesting.

Speaker 5 (34:01):
The numbers on that that have just come on terms
of the polling are really interesting, Michael. Only about ten
percent of the Magabase, the Trump supporters have said this
is a really important issue to them, you know, the
other ninety percent, like, okay, listen, I'm really happy about
the tax cuts and going down on the list of
the other stuff right, border and all that. So we'll
see where this plays out. But right now, for a

(34:21):
guy like Mike Johnson, this is really difficult because not
only is he dealing with the magabase, more importantly for
him is the math in his own chamber, right, and
he cannot afford to alienate half a dozen people. Now,
people go, yeah, but Mike's self, professor I heard in
the leading Christian guy. You know, many people have a

(34:42):
great deal of respect on Mike Johnson, even people on
the other side of the aisle, who say this, this
is a real kind of you know, stand up, humble
kind of a guy. But he's dealing with the political
realities and House representatives now where he is skating on
the most microscopic thin of ice.

Speaker 10 (34:57):
So there's that. As far as Trump.

Speaker 5 (34:59):
Goes, who knows he came out today instead apparently well, yeah,
I got invited to the island, but I said no,
I never went. That's the new update from him on
the so called Epstein Island story. So I don't know
where this is going to end up, Michael, except to
say it really does put especially Mike Johnson in a
tough bind.

Speaker 10 (35:19):
Does it directly affect Trump? Not nearly as directly.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
Yeah, that's true. You know, I remember, I mean I
since I remember when, because that sounds silly. Most of
the time. The role of the Speaker of the House
is to if they have especially if they have the majority.
But if they don't, it's to get the majority. It's
to hold their majority. Right is to make before anything,
we don't care what happens in the White House. I

(35:44):
want to be the speaker. I want to be the
president of this body. Essentially. If the President of the
United States is from a different party, so be it.
But we want our power here in the House of Representatives,
where we punched the clock every day. Has that changed,
Gary in your estimation, is an adherent to this president?
Does that carry more currency even than holding on to

(36:05):
your majority in twenty twenty six.

Speaker 5 (36:07):
Well, interestingly, Michael, I think more and more those two
things have converged. What do I mean that is allegiance
to Trump, or at least staying real, real close right
to Donald Trump has become the ticket to keeping the
majority in the House for the most part, right, I mean,
that is simply the truth. It's really interesting when you

(36:29):
drill down on the numbers on this. There are only
three districts in the Republican caucus that were won by
Kamala Harris. All the rest were won by Donald Trump.
So we talked about purple districts, and in terms of
partisan makeup in some of these districts, that is very true.
There are some purple districts, more than people usually talk about.

(36:51):
But in terms of actual winners of the districts, if
you're not aligned with Trump, You're probably not gonna win.

Speaker 10 (36:59):
That's what the.

Speaker 5 (36:59):
Numbers tell us, right, And now we know that Nasty
and Kentucky's you know, been taken on by Trump.

Speaker 10 (37:04):
I mean, so that is the reality.

Speaker 5 (37:07):
And I think it's really really interesting that to your point, Michael,
you know, I mean, guys, I tip O'Neil he was
a force unto himself. I mean when he was speak
when he was Speaker of the House, he was a
I mean, some people thought him as powerful as the.

Speaker 10 (37:22):
Occupant of the White House. But now prt.

Speaker 5 (37:25):
Political milieu and you know, Nancy Pelosi, she kind of
towed her own line. She didn't really feel like she
had to do the bidding of a Biden white House
or even an Obama white.

Speaker 10 (37:34):
House to retain her power. But that is different right now.

Speaker 1 (37:38):
Yeah, and that is interesting. I mean, I think in
terms of political changes, things that we accepted as the norm,
and whether it's anomalist to this guy, which I think
a lot of people are hoping that there that this
is a this presidency, this president, this person's political figure
is an anomaly rather than a change, and what will

(38:00):
become normal. I don't know that's true, and we won't
know for quite a while. But has this part of
politics changed, because it's a fascinating for people who followed
the House and the Senate and those elections. Their own
power is something that they like very much. And when
you see that change and become almost co opted or

(38:22):
partnered with the White House in a way that it
never has been. But the numbers you say are true
those three districts, though I think several of those went
from twenty twenty to twenty four became red from purple
or even from blue. And also we shouldn't underestimate the
power of losing three seats to Mike Johnson either. I mean,
if those districts did go, that's how tenuous his hold

(38:45):
is right now on this So that has to be
put in right, Yeah, And.

Speaker 10 (38:50):
I would say the closest analogy we.

Speaker 5 (38:52):
Have in modern political history to where we I think
we are now, which has alignment with the White House,
is the way to keep your majority if you're a
Republican in the House, was the Ronald Reagan days, right.
I mean, Ronald Reagan's had that kind of sway, and
people are now beginning to say, you know, they're vastly
different in so many different ways their impact on keeping

(39:15):
the Congress. You know, Trump is as close to Reagan
as anybody we've seen.

Speaker 10 (39:21):
You know, you could not be a Republican.

Speaker 5 (39:23):
You know this, Michael, You couldn't be a Republican even
running for dog catcher and not say Ronald Reagan is
the man, right.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
Well, yeah, that's absolutely true. But the different dynamic there
was that many Democrats would say that, and you wouldn't
find very many Democrats saying that about Donald Trump. So
Reagan not only had the sway over all of the Republicans,
but there were Democrats who were afraid to go against
Reagan as well as how popular.

Speaker 5 (39:46):
There is one other interesting thing that I'm just watching carefully, Michael.
And you remember, because the term Reagan Democrat emerged after
nineteen eighty all right, that was never that was never a.

Speaker 10 (39:57):
Thing in the seventies or the sixties.

Speaker 5 (40:00):
All of a sudden, Ron Reagan sweeps into massive power,
has a historic you know, electoral college win, as you
know in nineteen eighty four, and then all of a sudden,
this whole well, you know, the blue dog Democrat and
the Reagan Democrat, and you know, we got to change
the way we approach our working class base.

Speaker 10 (40:19):
All of a sudden, we're hearing that again, right.

Speaker 5 (40:22):
That refrain that we've lost our blue dog Democrats, our
Reagan Democrats. You're hearing that from a lot of especially
moderate parts of the Democratic Party. So they are vastly different.
I don't want to equate Trump and Reagan morse broadly,
but just in terms of raw politics, that kind of
of allegiance and alliance is what we're seeing now, more

(40:43):
so than we have since then.

Speaker 1 (40:45):
Yeah, there's no question, and I think there are many
people that think that Joe Biden won in twenty twenty
because he sort of portrayed himself as a Reagan Democrat
out there that he's he was the person who could
appeal to the you know, the classic white working class
voter who went to Donald Trump in twenty sixteen. It worked,
he was right whatever, you know, the circumstances where every

(41:05):
election has its own circumstances. Maybe not as bizarre as
a pandemic, but nonetheless, every election does have its circumsis well,
it has its well if it weren't for the circumstance, right,
But I still think that's basically how Biden won was
to be that kind of Reagan Democrat. And yeah, you
don't really, we're never going to see that again. While

(41:28):
we're talking, I want to get in some other things too.
I want to talk about Governor Newsom. I want to
talk a little bit about a few other things. But
while we're on the Congress, you know, I think it's
worth noting that former governor of North Carolina, Roy Cooper,
or if you're from there, Roy Kupper would is running
now for the US Senate for the seat of the

(41:49):
retiring Tom Tillis. And that matters, doesn't it care?

Speaker 5 (41:53):
Oh, it matters a lot because it's fifty three forty
seven right now in the US Senate, right there's.

Speaker 10 (41:59):
A three vote vote margin.

Speaker 5 (42:01):
People forget that Center or Thune ahead of the Republicans
in the Senate. He's got a smaller majority than Mike
Johnson does. Now he doesn't have four hundred and thirty
five cats.

Speaker 10 (42:10):
In his chamber. He's trying to heard like Mike Johnson does.
He's only got one hundred total.

Speaker 5 (42:15):
Okay, but he's only got so let's you know, you
do the math, all right, you do, Susan Collins, you
do Murkowski's of Alaska. Two never can be guaranteed votes
when it comes to conservative matters. That's just their politics,
all right, part of it Susan Collins' constituency in Maine.
But you lose one of the you know, you lose
one of the three. Now you're down only to two.

(42:37):
Now that makes it difficult. And you just look at
history here in the first six months and Trump two
point oh, Michael Vance has had to go over down
Pennsylvania Avenue and cast tie breaking votes on more than
one occasions.

Speaker 10 (42:48):
That's how close that is. So you were exactly right.

Speaker 5 (42:52):
Roy Cooper was very popular as the governor two terms
in North Carolina. Now some people say his time has passed.
You know that in the Trump two point zero era,
it may not be. He may not have quite the
lust he did, but he was the dream candidate for
the Democrats, and Chuck Schumer could not be more excited today.
I'm sure there Champagne courts being popped all over the

(43:12):
mimosas in his office, and they are thrilled.

Speaker 10 (43:15):
They're thrilled this is going to happen.

Speaker 5 (43:17):
They think they have now a really, really good shot
to peel off at least one Republican in the Senate, which,
by the way, given the mask we probably have time
to go into today, would be a big deal because
the Democrats have a tough slog in the Senate twenty six.

Speaker 1 (43:31):
Yeah, they definitely do, and they would be held. It's
ironic too, I think when the Democrats are talking about
getting younger and younger, they're leaving candidate and Maine against
Susan Collins is Janet Mills right, who's in her I
think mid to late seventies and Roy Cooper is almost seventy,
And so that the whole youth movement thing, when it
comes down to practical politics, in those in those states,

(43:54):
they're showing that that seems to be the most practical
way to go in terms of getting back to these majorities.

Speaker 10 (43:59):
Yeah, you can rest to Michael.

Speaker 5 (44:00):
If those two candidates you just mentioned for the Democrats
do not prevail in Maine, in North Carolina, it is
gonna throw gasoline on that fire.

Speaker 10 (44:08):
For Democrats. We got to go young. This is not working.

Speaker 1 (44:12):
Yeah, that is that is really true, And I think
I think fascinating too, because that's something that people are
watching very closely within the Democratic Party more than from outside.
I think it's something that Democrats are paying attention to
more than anybody because the other parties don't seem to
concern themselves with the kind of demographic politics or the

(44:34):
politics of age and whatnot. It's just about what would
be the most effective way to win. And you know,
I guess we'll also see by what happens in the
mayor's race in New York. To a lesser extent, I'm
not you know, I don't know that everything isn't a
bell Weather, even though it gives us something to talk about.
But I do think that would tell us a little
bit about the behavior of the party. Don't you.

Speaker 5 (44:55):
Yeah, absolutely, And I think you've hit on a really
important point, Michael, and that is this whole focus on youth,
you know, kind of.

Speaker 10 (45:02):
Led by AOC and a number of others.

Speaker 5 (45:05):
Why is it important Because they pinned their hope in
twenty four on the youth vote, and of course that
really came to the fore during the Obama years is like, wow,
these people look frankly, you know this, Michael. They were
ignored for the most part of an electrical poets because.

Speaker 10 (45:19):
They weren't seen like as a reliable vote.

Speaker 5 (45:21):
Now they talk, they have demonstrations, but they don't go
to the polls. Well, when they started seeing numbers that
show up that actually helped them, then that turned it around.
So in the aftermath of twenty four, of course they said,
when Kamwa Harris's numbers right there, especially among young males,
started really dropping, they said, we got to do something
about this, and we've got to do it fast. And
that's why all the talk about the youth movement and

(45:41):
inside the Democratic Party.

Speaker 1 (45:43):
Yeah, it's really interesting and it's something that will follow,
but I think it's it's worth following because it's so
it's such an unpredictable dynamic. It always has been the
youth vote, and for Democrats to only pin their hopes
on that, you know, it'll be interesting to see how
that works. I you know, we talked Gary about politics

(46:04):
earlier in the show when we were talking about Epstein,
talking about Tulsi Gabbard talking about deflecting. It's one of
the oldest you know, what do you do. You go
in and you bomb, you you start a Warren Grenado
when you're not happy about how things are going with
the Iran Contra hearings. Perhaps, and I may have that
chronology wrong, but those sorts of things are very very
typical of the whole wag the dog scenario thing. So

(46:29):
I see Tulci Gabbard going after Barack Obama as a
deflection of attention from the Jeff Jeffrey Epstein case. And
now they're you know, Trump himself talking about Bill Clinton.
Let's not talk about me, even within the Jeff Epstein case,
because this is about my enemy. This is about the

(46:49):
person who you know, who has worked against me. Now,
Gavin Newsom, who is a rising star in the Democratic Party.
I mean, he's obviously a fixture here in californ Orne,
but in terms of national politics. He certainly wants to
be that rising star. He is taking on the Epstein
story and he is going to Trump. And I think

(47:09):
we have sound of this, if I'm not mistaken, But
he's talking about Trump being I think he used the
word unmoored and this isn't the Trump We've come to know.
Whether or not that that if that presumes that he
was previously moored, I don't know. But but let's let's
do we have Yeah, we have sound on this. Let's
let's hear the.

Speaker 10 (47:28):
Reaction to the fact that he is still perpetuating this libry.

Speaker 11 (47:30):
Well, he's line to cover up his prior lies and
then line again. Now he doesn't even know true from fiction,
and so look, he's caught it redhanded. He's in the files.
We know it, period, full stop. That's not that's not
that's not even I can we know he's in the file.
We know what this is all about. He told Bondi
Bondie not to move forward. It's idea that he has

(47:53):
to fire her. He's to step down himself if he
fires her because he directed her not to release these files.
Always assume that now we know that she briefed him.
So he's lying, he's part of this cover up, and
he has confused even the most ardent observers here. I mean,
you can't get the guy's a pretzel on this issue.

(48:15):
Every hour he contradicts a statement against the Olympics coming
in California.

Speaker 1 (48:22):
So, you know, you have a prominent Democrat who's trying
to be a nationally prominent Democrat talking about this and
you know, breaking down the fact that he seizes on
one thing here, Gary, And I think anyone who's going
to run for the presidency on the Democratic side is
going to be doing this next time, which is to
go after places where Trump is vulnerable, within his own constituency,

(48:47):
within his own support good tactic.

Speaker 5 (48:51):
Well, I mean he sort of laid the ground for Dads,
Gavin newsohim for this right when all of a sudden
he became the darling of the conservative podcast this yere
much chagrin as you know, of people in.

Speaker 10 (49:02):
His own party.

Speaker 5 (49:03):
They're like, what in the world are you inviting Charlie
Kirk on your podcast? For why are you going on
XYZ podcasts? I mean, he has confused a lot of people,
especially inside his own party, especially when he said things
like I think it's you know, deeply unfair for men
to be competing in or boys beaking competing in girls sports.

(49:23):
And they're like, wait a minute, was that Gavin Newsom
are guy saying that?

Speaker 10 (49:28):
So he's been confusing a lot of people.

Speaker 5 (49:29):
But his strategy, I think Michael has been exceptionally interesting
and exceptionally different. Remember over the last couple of years,
he spent a lot of time in red states. He
was down Texas, he was in Florida, he was debating
Rohndasantis on Sean Hannity Show, of all places. He was
putting up billboards in Texas and Florida. He started a
pack with ten million dollars playing ads in these red states.

(49:53):
So it's a really really interesting strategy. Most people when
they're running for the presidency are concerned about one thing,
locking down their own base, you know, which means you
sort of paddled to what Richard Nixon on the left
side of the canoe, right, not the.

Speaker 10 (50:08):
Right side of the canoe.

Speaker 5 (50:10):
But his strategy has been really interesting, which is, look,
I'm the guy, I'm the fighter.

Speaker 10 (50:15):
I'm not afraid to go into the lion's den.

Speaker 5 (50:17):
That has been I think what has set him apart
more than anything else, and what some Democrats and his.

Speaker 10 (50:23):
Party really love. Others are still saying, Hey, what gives
with this guy?

Speaker 5 (50:28):
Is he really true blue? Or is he more purple
than he wants to let up?

Speaker 1 (50:33):
Well? Yeah, and I think that he is relying on
his probably well earned bona fides as a leader on
social issues, which is easier to do from the mayor's
office in San Francisco and the governor's office in Sacramento
than it is in many parts of the country. But
there's no question what you're saying is absolutely true. And
it's a tactic that Look, if he succeeds, people will
point to and if he fails, people will point to

(50:53):
also as the reason he's doing in a macro way
and in a microwave going. He says he's going to
go into red counties in California and off to those
voters as well. He said that after the twenty four election.
I don't know if that has happened, if he's going
to do that, or if it is the best use
of his time now that he's you know, turned out
of this and going to move on to something else.

(51:13):
I'm not sure. If I were advising him. I would
say to continue doing that, but to do it in
a macro way and red counties around the country that
you know, that probably makes some sense in terms of
who the Democratic Party has to woo in this next election,
whether it's for him or for a different candidate. And
then I think that, you know, one of the other

(51:34):
parts of what we're seeing in terms of the Trump stuff,
the Maxwell stuff, the Epstein stuff is is how Trump
is deflecting here and Tulsi Gabbert has been a big
part of that. Jason Crowe, congressman from Colorado, said that
that there's nothing to what she is doing, what Tulsa

(51:56):
Gabbert's doing, other than what we have said, which is
as a distraction here, that there's nothing to what he is,
what she is saying about those about what was in
those files and what we know, and to accuse a
former president of treason which I mentioned earlier, treason punishable
by death in this country, and so you could in

(52:18):
a way infer that from these But what do you
think is that is behind all of this Gabbard stuff.

Speaker 5 (52:25):
Well, there's all kinds of theories floating around about this.
I'll take them down super fast. Michael one is this
was another sort of background promise made by the Trump
folks are in the campaign, right listen, and Trump, of
course he hasn't let.

Speaker 10 (52:39):
Go with this in years, right, the Russia collusion hoax.

Speaker 5 (52:43):
This is now getting close to ten years old, I
mean when this first started, right, And it's like, you know,
and the base has always believed the president that you know,
this was completely made up, et cetera, et cetera. So
one could see it sort of like the Epstein deal,
as sort of a tertiary issue floating around out there
in nago world. And you know, and Gabbert's you know,

(53:03):
laid hold of it on behalf of the president, maybe
her own political leanings in career, and now is running
with it. Other People say, hey, remember she kind of
gotten the doghouse earlier this year with Trump, and he said, well,
I really don't care what she has to say about
various issues, and this is sort of a redemptive tour
of Look, and I'm gonna take on an issue near
and dear to the president though it has almost no

(53:24):
real bearing in modern i mean, in this current political environment.
But it's it's become nearly ancient history for most people
in Washington in terms of its real impact.

Speaker 10 (53:33):
So we'll see where this goes. You know, is it
is it totally a smoke screen on Epstein? You know,
I had a feeling I start of wondering.

Speaker 5 (53:40):
When both of these were going to surface, Right, when's
Russia going to really bubble to the surface, When Epstein
really going to bubble to the surface. And interestingly, for
the first six months they really didn't. They were kind
of in the you know, in the background, Michael, and
now all of a sudden it's happening. I will say this,
I think there's a lot of concern both inside the
con and some even tide the White House quietly to

(54:03):
get off of these two issues because they are not
there's a real beliefs they're not going to do anything
for those men and women that have to run in
the mid term next year, that they're net negatives, that
they distract from what people believe. And this, you know,
every every presidency deals with this. You feel like you
have successes being on whatever, okay, tariffs, on the border, whatever,
the big things that and you don't want these things

(54:25):
to be distractions. That's famously what people said about things
like you know, Clinton's dealing with what was his name,
Remember the murdered lawyer in Arkansas.

Speaker 1 (54:37):
Yeah, Vince Foster, Yeah.

Speaker 10 (54:39):
Vince Foster, and then a churs forher Reagan it was
Theran contract.

Speaker 5 (54:42):
I mean, these are the kind of things that can
really trip up a presidency. And I don't mean to
minimize Vice Foster or all. I'm just saying that was
sitting out there in the Chris Monica Lewinsky eclipsed that
those are the things that people who have to run
in eighteen months or now fourteen fifteen months don't want
to have set or state.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (55:01):
Yeah. And the good fortune that people have with Jeffrey
Epstein here is that everybody knows who he is, where
Vince Foster was more of an anonymous figure. Both were suicides,
Both were suicides that were questioned, but by the same token,
I think Epstein is more part of the political parlance
than the other. Let's before we let you go, though,

(55:21):
talk about something that Donald Trump that some people are saying,
maybe a victory for Donald Trump, which is what was
announced in Scotland or in Europe. I guess I think
it happened in Scotland actually, where that the fifteen percent
tariffs were agreed upon, And how is this something that
Republicans and the president should and could bally who I'm saying?

(55:43):
These tariffs went from thirty to twenty to fifteen. So
is that really a big victory for Trump?

Speaker 5 (55:50):
Well, the reason the big victory in their mind is
a couple of reasons. One is because of the things
that went along with it. Trump is again, like you
did with the Japanese deal, how did the hundreds of
billions of dollars of investment that are going to come
to the US.

Speaker 10 (56:04):
Along with the tariff deal?

Speaker 5 (56:06):
Now that's not guaranteed by the governments in the EU.
People should know that that would be private sector stuff.
And there's people wondering, Okay, how much of this.

Speaker 10 (56:13):
Is really going to materialize?

Speaker 5 (56:15):
Those other pieces of it, like opening up the European
market to certain American products that hasn't happened in the past,
and that, by the way, it was a big part
of the Japanese deal too, a lot of closure of
their markets to American products for a whole variety reasons.

Speaker 10 (56:29):
Sometimes it's specification.

Speaker 5 (56:31):
Sometimes it's real nitty gritty stuff about well, your rice
has to be this type of rice, believe it.

Speaker 10 (56:36):
Or not that's true for Japan. So here's the deal.

Speaker 5 (56:40):
I think right now, Republicans are seeing these tariffs boxes
being checked as real net positives because remember, the big
deadline is supposed it supposed it hard and fast deadline
for Trump on tariffs comes this Saturday, on the second
of August. And you know, apparently the EU was getting
darn concerned that Trump, like it or not, would be

(57:01):
at least semi serious and go ahead and impose thirty
percent tariffs on their products, which would truly have been
devastating for a lot of things. Think about a car
in Mercedes something else going up by a third overnight.
So that was a concern. Now the long term of this, Michael,
is going to be the real question mark. We have not,
as you know, seen a big uptap take of inflation
because of the tariffs. That was the big early concern.

(57:23):
The stock market is doing well, that seems to have
settled down.

Speaker 10 (57:27):
Wall Streets.

Speaker 5 (57:27):
Not concerned this is going to get out of control
at this point anyway.

Speaker 10 (57:31):
But we're gonna see. I mean, the tariff.

Speaker 5 (57:33):
What I'm hearing is this twenty billion dollars in additional
monthly revenue so far to the federal government from the
new tariffs twenty billion dollars. That's almost a quarter of
a trillion dollars a year in new revenue. But the
big question is what happens as of next year. They say,
when the tariffs really take effect, will that inflation then

(57:55):
grab hold In a very non convenient, important midterm election year.

Speaker 1 (58:00):
I'm gonna channel John McLoughlin and say you're all wrong
except for Gary, who got it right. And the only
thing that matters right now is what happens to the
economy next year. The economy, if it's stable, is good
for the Republicans, and that's all that matters. So yeah, so.

Speaker 10 (58:14):
Hey, Michael, that's out. Stanning McLoughlin by way, Martin.

Speaker 1 (58:17):
Right, thank you very much. I don't think there's a
big market for it, but I appreciate it. Gary, thanks
for spending time with us today. I think we're all
smarter because of it, and and there's so much to
talk about politically, but I think that we are. We're
talking about the biggest parts of what's going on, and
that is the you know, holding majorities in the in
the Senate and the House, seeing what these tariffs do

(58:37):
to the economy, and so far all the predictions of
doom haven't panned out, which in and of itself is
really the victory. And all of this for Trump has
low as a lot of people who listen to the
show want to are to hear that, but you know,
sometimes facts are facts, and we won't know until later on.
So Gary, thanks for being with the show as you

(58:57):
always are on Mondays. And hopefully I sub in on
a Monday again and we can do this again.

Speaker 10 (59:03):
Thanks Michael, you always do a great job, have a
great show.

Speaker 1 (59:06):
Thanks a lot, Thank you and Gary Dietrich. Segment as
we know it is bonfered by Bill Campbell and Bill
Campbell's at Remax Gold. If you're relocating into or from
northern California, you need a highly respected real estate professional
like Bill Campbell of Remax Gold. Call Bill or text
Bill at five three zero four four eight seven four

(59:29):
seven four. You can call or text him again five
three zero four four eight seven four seven four. And
that's that's why we have Gary Dietrich, and that's why
we all benefit from Bill Campbell and Remax Gold. When
we HRK Thompson show, I would saying when we're back,
but guess what We're never not here our weekend. It's always.

(59:52):
It's always happening.

Speaker 2 (59:54):
That's it. We're here, we're doing it.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
We're here. But you know what I want to do now,
I want other news and I want to hear it
from you.

Speaker 2 (01:00:03):
We can do that.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
I can make it happen, all right.

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
On the Mark Thompson Show, I'm Kim McAllister. This report
sponsored by Coachella Valleycoffee dot Com. President Trump says he
wants to focus on other issues besides the Jeffrey Epstein files.
While the looks like the Trump announcing the US has
reached an agreement with the EU over tariffs later this week,
we know investors will be watching whether the FED decides

(01:00:33):
to cut interest rates or not, and Trump has been
putting the pressure on FED chair Jerome Powell to cut rates.
Most investors are expecting Powell will hold them steady, but
Trump again calling the Epstein issue a hoax. He said
people in charge before him would have released the files
if they had anything on him. He also claimed he
once turned down an invitation to Epstein's famous island. Rupert

(01:00:56):
Murdoch is being pressured to quickly give a deposition in
President Trump's defamation lawsuit against the media Titan Trump's ten
billion dollar lawsuit is over the Wall Street Journal's reporting
of an alleged birthday letter sent to the late convicted
sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in two thousand and three. According
to the filing, Murdoch opposes the request, while the president's

(01:01:18):
lawyer cited Murdoch's age as the chief argument to push
for early testimony. Testify before you croak, I guess is
the way that's going to work out. The S and
P five hundred and the NASDAC are hitting record highs
today and again. It comes after the President announced that
the US has reached an agreement with the EU over tariffs.

(01:01:40):
Life threatening heat is blanketing the Midwest and the South today.
About one hundred and eighty five million people are under
a massive heat dome. It's causing temperatures to skyrocket. In Florida,
the so called Alligator Alcatraz the subject of a court hearing.
A federal judge will hear arguments over the legality of
the immigrant detention facility in the Everglades. Attorneys for several

(01:02:04):
detainees claim they are being held without due process and
denied access to immigration courts as well. The question of
whether the FEDS or the State of Florida is running
the site is the main issue before the judge today.
Multiple people are hurt after a shooting at a casino
in Reno, Nevada. Police say it happened outside the Grand

(01:02:25):
Sierra Resort and Casino this morning at the Valet area,
Reno's mayor telling the Reno Gazette Journal two people are
believed killed and the others are in critical condition. The
suspect has been captured after a gun battle with police
and is in the hospital as well. The number of
victims though not currently known, and as you mentioned earlier, Michael,

(01:02:45):
the police are crediting a good Samaritan or more than
one of them, who acted during a stabbing spree at
a Michigan Walmart store on Saturday. Some people in the
parking lot help detain the suspect after a rampage, with
a cell phone video showing one man pointing a gun
at the alleged stabber. Ten of the eleven victims remain

(01:03:07):
in the hospital, but they're all expected to recover. The
suspect facing a charge of terrorism and eleven counts of
attempted murder as well because of that stabbing at a
Michigan Walmart. Really horrible story. Scary too. The tech company
at the center of a recent controversy involving two of
its executives caught on a kiss cam at a cold

(01:03:29):
Play concert is turning to Gwyneth Paltrow for an assist.
The former wife of Coldplay frontman Chris Martin was hired
to put a positive spin on the company, who's now
former CEO and HR chief were seen cuddling with each
other rather than their respective spouses. Paltrow has so far
used what will be her limited time with the company

(01:03:50):
called Astronomer, to put out of video fielding questions. They're
basically all about the cheating scandal that she manages to
refocus the conversation onto things like data automation and delivering
game changing results, so you know the company line there.
There is a man who had an apparent mental break,

(01:04:13):
a mental health episode, found naked in Minnesota's state capitol
building on Friday night. A memo sent to Minnesota law.

Speaker 1 (01:04:20):
All of a sudden, All of a sudden, that's a
mental health break.

Speaker 2 (01:04:22):
Right when I did it? Y, Yeah, it was a problem.
When this guy does it? Yeah, the man was found
naked in the Senate chamber in Minnesota, making statements that
he believed he was the governor. Security took the man
to the hospital for an evaluation. He's coming, apparently back
to the Capitol grounds two more times on Saturday before
finally he was arrested. Authorities say he's being held in

(01:04:45):
connection with a warrant in Wisconsin, so this doesn't seem
like it's his first time with a run in with
the police.

Speaker 1 (01:04:52):
Also a state, by the way, that had a governor
who made a living prior to that. In a singlet,
it doesn't seem like it's so Jesse Ventura right.

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
Fantastic four First Steps is this weekend's winner at the
box office. The latest from Marvel Studios earned one hundred
and eighteen million at the domestic box office in its
debuted then another a one hundred million overseas to bring
its global launch to more than two hundred eighteen million dollars.
That's pretty good, right. It's about even with the global

(01:05:24):
opening of Deesk and Warner Brothers Superman from earlier this month.
Superman came in second in its third weekend, while Jurassic
World Rebirth took third in its fourth weekend, So that's
what people are watching. Also, I know Tony was here,
but it's a wrap for San Diego Comic Con and
George Lucas appeared for the first time ever. How was it, Tony?

Speaker 3 (01:05:47):
Oh, well, Sunday.

Speaker 12 (01:05:48):
He just was doing a thing for his museum that's
opening up, is what he was doing it for.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
So, but you were at Comicon. Did you have fun? Yeah?

Speaker 12 (01:05:55):
Always, it's hanging out friends, drinking.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
You know, can can go.

Speaker 12 (01:06:01):
Wrong once in a while, because really Comic CON's just
a flea market of stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:06:06):
That is what it really is. Yes, you were right
about George Lucas. He helped close out the convention with
a panel on the Famous Hall h where he gave
fans a preview of the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art
that is expected to open next year in Los Angeles.
He told those in attendance, the museum is going to
be a temple to the people. So there, temple to

(01:06:27):
the people. This report is sponsored by Coachella Valleycoffee dot Com.
If you haven't tried, If you like coffee and you
haven't tried the Clarity Blend the Lions main it is
very popular at our house, so good, and I know
it's popular at Mark's house as well. Michael. If you
had a Mark Thompson Show mug to drink it in,

(01:06:48):
you know, we would be sending you some as well.
But alas you have no mom.

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
Yeah, I'm going to hold it like this and that's right.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
Yeah, like a facewash movie.

Speaker 1 (01:06:58):
But I'm sure it's delicious, and I'm glad that everyone
in your house is enjoying.

Speaker 2 (01:07:02):
Oh good, and I'm enjoying the tea. We have some
summer teas, the high Biscus Orange Sun tea so good.
They've got a Lion's Main Blend tea as well. You
can see it the tumoric Chai that Tony is showing
on the screen. Please check out Coachellavalleycoffee dot com. If
you see anything you like, make sure you use our

(01:07:22):
exclusive Mark Thompson Show discount. When you get to the
type in the code box, it's Mark T no spaces.
Mark T gets you ten percent off of your total
Coachella Valleycoffee dot Com. I'm Kim McAllister and this is
the Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 3 (01:07:39):
That's right, the Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 7 (01:07:49):
It's Mark Thompson.

Speaker 1 (01:07:55):
Hey, which one you use Mark Thompson? Well, not me,
you ask which one of us is Mark Thompson? And uh,
there's there's just silence on the end of the phone here.
But Mark will be back this week. I'm joining us

(01:08:16):
again tomorrow. I like when I say I'm joining us. Uh,
it's it's uh. You know Mark is allowed to take
a breather, isn't he?

Speaker 2 (01:08:24):
Kim sometimes we let him free?

Speaker 1 (01:08:27):
Yeah, yeah, I like that. I like it because I
get to join all of you and do this, even
if it's just for two days. But this has been fun.
What I want to do though, Kim is spent a
little time in the sky.

Speaker 2 (01:08:42):
This is it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
Let's do it because this is this is fun, the
the there are so many good stories coming. What is
this even a segment?

Speaker 2 (01:08:52):
Is this what you?

Speaker 3 (01:08:54):
Roger?

Speaker 1 (01:08:54):
Roger, let's our victory victor.

Speaker 4 (01:08:58):
With these mucky pins on this money to play?

Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
Yeah, Michael Schure take me to Ffo.

Speaker 1 (01:09:08):
Yeah yeah, I would love to. And by the way,
that now that we showed a little bit of an airplane,
I'm taking a little digression here. I learned more recently
than I should have learned, that there is a new
Naked Gun coming out this week on Friday, and Liam
Neeson is playing the lead in this, and I could
not be more excited. I could not think it's a

(01:09:29):
better choice. I mean, Leslie Nilson was a serious actor
who had apparently a very good sense of humor. But
when he went to play Frank Drebin in the original
Ones and an Airplane, he was a serious actor, which
was part of for people of that generation, part of
what made it so funny. Well, here we have Liam Neeson,
who played Oscar Shindler, coming into play I guess a

(01:09:51):
new Frank Drebin. I don't know what he's called. I
cannot wait. Son.

Speaker 3 (01:09:55):
He's supposed to be Frank's son.

Speaker 1 (01:09:57):
Oh, he's Frank's son, so he's also a drabn I mean, Tony.
The worst thing would be if you told me you've
heard bad things about it, or that it's not good.
I want this movie to be I wanted to good,
so do I.

Speaker 12 (01:10:08):
The marketing for it is fantastic, like some of the
stuff they've been doing for it, but the actual trailers
for the movie I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:10:17):
By the way, So this is where I'm gonna be
a little like Donald Trump. If I'm not going to
tell the truth. I'm not gonna tell I'm gonna say
it was great after it. There's no way that I
can ever admit that this is gonna be a bad movie.
I cannot wait to see this, and uh god, it
better be funny. It really better be funny. But that's

(01:10:37):
a little disappointing about the about the trailer because I
haven't seen the trailer and I have a bunch of
movies that I want to see this coming week, you know,
Superman and and Jurassic Park, and I guess this Marvel
one when I don't really see Marvel Marvel movies, but
they but I guess I should see it because everybody's
seeing them and I don't want to blow the convert sation.

(01:11:00):
So yeah, I'm not going to hold my breath. The
trailer zone inspire me, says John Watson. As well, Guys,
let's just all agree to lie and say it was
great because I want it to be so good. Are
the people behind the.

Speaker 12 (01:11:12):
The marketing for it is to save a comedy. Just
go see the movie exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:11:18):
Well, that's that's exactly what I'm saying. So Tony John's
asking a question. Here are they the same people that
behind the original behind the new one, is I mean
one of them passed away, But I don't are any
of the same Abrams and Sooker and.

Speaker 3 (01:11:35):
I don't think so.

Speaker 12 (01:11:38):
I all can look it up, but I'm pretty sure
it's in name only, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:11:42):
Yeah, yeah, Well, if it's in name only, hopefully some
there's some kind of creative involvement and and that would
be great. So anyway, that was our our little digression.
But man, I hope it's good. So let's go back
to the sky. And I say this before, you know,
before we say anything else about it. Flying is still

(01:12:04):
very very safe. It is like we have one in
thirteen point seven million flyers is the chance of anything
happening to you, which is incredibly safe. And in the
United States it's even better than that. But these stories
don't all make it seem safe. Some of them don't
even make it seem fun. But one is the San

(01:12:25):
Francisco story federal agents. I think this was on Saturday,
but I may be wrong. It may have been yesterday.
Stormed the cockpit removed a Delta co pilot from a
flight at SFO. And what happened was, I mean, they
came in after the plane landed safely. It was a
Delta flight from Minneapolis to San Francisco, stormed the cockpit, arrested,

(01:12:48):
the co pilot walked them off the plane, and nobody
knew why not even the pilots sitting next to him
said it was an uneventful flight. I haven't seen pictures
of it, but the allegations now came from what I understand,
are that there was some sort of sexual molestation or
that there were material that he was associated with materials

(01:13:11):
on that So I don't know that to be true either, obviously,
So I'm not reporting this with FATS. I'm reporting this
with with with what I've been reading. What do you
think of this?

Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
I think that's crazy. The people on the plane were
saying that it was disturbing because they didn't know if
the guy was being disappeared or what was happening, what
they were seeing there, because there was no information, you know,
they just stormed in, took the guy, stormed out. No
one ever said, you know, he's being arrested for an
ongoing k There was no there was never communication between

(01:13:46):
the airline and the passengers or the police and the passengers,
and it was all very upsetting to people that were aboard.
But yeah, you don't see that every day where you
let the plane lands and all of a sudden, the
one of the pilots is being yanked out and taken.

Speaker 1 (01:13:59):
Away right right. It's it's it's usually something else somebody
and the chat said flying is safe, your fellow passengers
are not. And that's usually what it is. It's not
usually the pilot you're worried about. But uh, I guess
the most important part of the story is the plane
landed safely at SFO, and it's a story that we
will soon and carefully follow. Also unrelated, but kind of

(01:14:25):
related because it's an airplane story. Jerry Zucker, who.

Speaker 2 (01:14:30):
Oh, no, you froze for half a second. You're still frozen.

Speaker 1 (01:14:35):
I'm frozen.

Speaker 2 (01:14:36):
Yeah, now you're not Jerry Zucker.

Speaker 1 (01:14:37):
What Jerry Zucker, who was a creator of Airplane and
the other Naked Gun series, uh, is a writer on
this movie, according to Colleen Shannon, who is in the
chat with us today. So that's that's good news because
that means it's gonna be funny. People. All right, let's uh,
let's go on, let's stay in the sky here as

(01:15:00):
passengers flee a smoking jet on an emergency slide after
apparent landing gear problem at Denver Airport. So a plane
landed at Denver International Airport, which is far from Denver,
and then they all had to slide down the emergency
slide because there was a problem with the landing gear.

(01:15:22):
And so that was after it was during departure from Denver.
I guess the plane came back. It is. If you'd
like to know a seven thirty seven Max airplane, we
know their history. There were people sliding down that inflatable
shoot that we all hear about in the opening remarks
from the flight attendants, and while they were clutching, according

(01:15:43):
to the associate press, clutching luggage and small children pats. Yeah,
some passengers, well the small children might have thought the
slide was fun. Maybe I don't know, no, maybe not,
maybe not, But in any case, that had happened at
Denver Airport and everybody, everyone was safe.

Speaker 2 (01:16:05):
Somewhere. There's video of these people at Denver, at Denver
coming down the slide, and I just kind of, you know,
it's hard not to see it without picturing how your
I would personally would react to that or other people
on the plane, and I'm sure there it's you know,
it's really a hassle for people that are old or
disabled or whatever. Like, you know, I would think I

(01:16:28):
would slide down, hop up at the end and keep
on going. But I'm sure for a lot of people
that's not the case. That this is like a big
traumatic thing that happens when you have to take the
rubber slide off the side of the airplane. I think
to shut the video up, quede up now here. They
are coming down. Yeah, okay, you come down that shoot
pretty fast.

Speaker 1 (01:16:49):
Yeah yeah. And it's also shorter than advertised. It looks
it looks like it goes like it's a better ride.
And let's not make light of the fact that it
was terrible fine, one of the passengers said. Shay Armstead,
a seventeen year old passenger, said that the plane was
listing to the left, shaking terribly. It was, and and

(01:17:09):
then it came to a sort of screeching halt with
the brakes and they all went forward and then the
plane came to a stop. So certainly there were seconds
of absolute terror for a lot of those people, older
and younger. The bottom line, again, everybody seemed safe. There
were a few people that were suffering from One passenger
was taken to a hospital where a minor injury, and

(01:17:31):
five people were evaluated for injuries on the scene.

Speaker 2 (01:17:35):
But yeah, a lot of smoke kicking out from that
the landing gear, right.

Speaker 1 (01:17:40):
Yeah, it was the landing gear fire. That's true. U.
And then there is the lighter side of some of
these issues. And again, whoever it was, I think it
was you Matter in the chat who said that it's
it's the plane itself is safe. It's the passengers next
to you. But I gotta tell you this is a
weird story.

Speaker 2 (01:18:00):
Spirit.

Speaker 1 (01:18:01):
A Spirit Airlines passenger said that she was denied boarding
over shorts that were deemed too short.

Speaker 3 (01:18:09):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
And you can see a photo I think of her,
and we can also Tony run a little bit of
video of this woman who was she says, claims that
she was denied boarding because of the shorts that she
was wearing.

Speaker 2 (01:18:27):
Shorty shorts too short.

Speaker 1 (01:18:30):
That's what they're saying.

Speaker 2 (01:18:32):
I mean, it's, you know, for a long ways from
the day is when you used to have to dress
up to go to the airport. But I don't think
you can still wear, you know, stuff with your parts
hanging out.

Speaker 1 (01:18:42):
Yeah you can't. But right, and nothing obsessed me more
than people who are not, Like, there's there's a difference.
I've been putting a tie on and a dress and
a hat to fly in white gloves and and just
looking you know, a little bit more decent. I just
sort of look at it in a global way like everybody.

(01:19:02):
It's just everybody's getting sloppy and casual.

Speaker 2 (01:19:05):
But Mindy says, if you're a beautiful young woman with
gorgeous legs, then why not. But the thing is, Mindy,
you might not be a gorgeous young woman with beautiful legs.
What if you weigh nine hundred pounds and your legs
are not so good looking, you still have the same
right to wear shorty shorts as the lady who has
the gorgeous legs. I mean, right.

Speaker 1 (01:19:26):
She said that she was treated like a criminal and
that that's why she was booted off the flight. Her
sister was arrested for disorderly conduct at Miami Airport because
that she was, you know, protesting what was going on.
And they did not think that this guest was in

(01:19:46):
compliance with their contract of carriage, and so the guests
and their companion were eventually denied boarding after displaying disruptive behavior.
So Spirit saying it was disruptive behavior, but the woman
herself is saying. Tanisha Grayer is saying that there wouldn't
have been disruptive behavior if she was allowed on the flight.

(01:20:08):
Do we have this video on my.

Speaker 2 (01:20:10):
We're looking at it.

Speaker 1 (01:20:13):
She's got her bathrobe on, and that's what she wore.
That's what she wore. This end the bathrobe, okay.

Speaker 2 (01:20:20):
Which looks like almost like a pajama set with a
bathrobe over it. I mean, I think that's a little bit.
You know, you don't even get dressed out come.

Speaker 1 (01:20:27):
Of the plane. It is a versace bathrobe. Though, let's
not lose. I don't see, people, I don't see a
ton wrong with what she's wearing. That said, I wouldn't
want someone dressed like that sitting next to me. I
don't know why, and that's that's just me.

Speaker 2 (01:20:45):
Donald doesn't see anything wrong with her clothing either, right right,
keep yourself people.

Speaker 1 (01:20:51):
She looks fine, that's fine.

Speaker 2 (01:20:53):
But obi Wan says, hey, those shorts look like so.

Speaker 1 (01:20:56):
Maybe just because I don't want to sit next to
her does not mean that I don't want her on
the flight. It just means that, you know, the person
wearing a bathrobe and onto the plane is not the
person I want next to me. Whoever, it is.

Speaker 2 (01:21:15):
Next to the lady in her underwear. That's not that.

Speaker 1 (01:21:17):
Yeah, it's it's you know, it's just not for me.
But that said, I don't think that she should be
kicked off the flight until Siegelman Jackson says that's why,
well we we don't know. I mean, it is a
Versace bathrobe. She may have been in the very front row,
so let's let's see. And uh yeah, but people like,

(01:21:39):
you know, I don't even wear shorts on a plane.
A lot of people do that. People wear you know,
shoes like glip flops and stuff. I don't do that.
So I'm this, this would really be a bridge too far.
But in any case, she should. Exactly, they resemble boys
short underwear, right, it does look a little like underwear.
But again, I I think she should have been able

(01:22:00):
to fly.

Speaker 2 (01:22:01):
You have to have a lot of confidence to show
up at the airport. And those shorts though, you know,
in the bath robe, it's like this is a this
is truly not caring, right.

Speaker 1 (01:22:11):
Right, right, It's just sloppy and I think that, you know,
I understand why people, you know, we should look a
little better and all. I mean, she she's a you know,
nice looking young woman. She didn't have to wear the bathrobe,
all right, but well let's move on.

Speaker 2 (01:22:26):
She just was thinking, I want to go to the
airport and take a nap.

Speaker 1 (01:22:29):
Yeah right, that's it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:31):
It's a bad roll over to the airport, get on
the plane, and that's it.

Speaker 1 (01:22:35):
Lights out, yes, so now quickly I Delta flight made
an emergency landing at LAX after catches fired. Happened around
two ten. Delta Airlines Flight four forty six was climbing
during takeoff. According to the Federal Aviation Administration. Aircraft was
en route to Hartsfield Jackson, Atlanta.

Speaker 2 (01:22:53):
Airport.

Speaker 1 (01:22:54):
Crew declared an emergency and request an immediate return to
LAX when they saw flames coming out of one of
the engines. Flight radar shows the d L four forty
six initially climbed out over the Pacific before circling back
inland over the Downy and Paramount areas of LA, allowing
time for the crew to complete checklists and prepare for
a safe landing, which happened. No injuries reported and they

(01:23:17):
will investigate the if I wherever Kim the Secretary of Transportation,
not a position to which I aspire. But if I
were ever that I would change. I would change emergency landing.
Every time a plane lands and it's you know, outside
their route, it has to be called an emergency landing.
I think it should be called non scheduled landing. You

(01:23:39):
know everything I mean this may in fact have been
an emergency, but I do think that some of the
things are not you know, a bathroom isn't working, or
the hydrogen things are going wrong in some of the piping. Okay,
land the plane. That's non emergency landing. I just think
that that makes people too.

Speaker 2 (01:23:59):
Scared winning the engine catch us fire. I think we
have a legit emergency.

Speaker 1 (01:24:05):
I do think so. I agree. I just whenever I
see emergency landing, I think they're too overreactive. But again,
I never be that. But this one hits closer to
me because I was just there two planes almost crashed
into each other in Mexico City at the airport of
Benito Warres Airport, where I just landed and took off from.

(01:24:28):
Though this was from last Monday and it was safe
by the time I left on Thursday, two planes almost
crashing into each other Monday almost crashed and an incident
that comes after multiple aviation accidents in recent months of
rattle travelers. Delta Airlines told The Hill's sister network News Nation,
where I used to report, that on one of its
flights headed to Atlanta from Mexico City on Monday morning,

(01:24:49):
flight crews on board observed another aircraft landing in front
of the aircraft in the same in the same runway
as the flight started to take off. In a Tuesday statement,
Mexico this was are of Mexico, and Delta said regarding
the event that occurred on July twenty one on flight
AM sixteen thirty one, operating the Aguas Calientes to Mexico

(01:25:10):
City route with an embry Or one ninety aircraft, we
informed that we were working closely to conduct a detailed investigation.
So again they almost made contact at Mexico City. But
for all concerned, I landed safely, I enjoyed the airport.
Everything was fine.

Speaker 2 (01:25:30):
Yeah, so that is before we end stories from the sky.
I was thinking about the lady with the short shorts,
and then I was thinking about the coming down the
rubber raft the slide. Imagine if you wore the short
shorts on the day you had to go down the slide.

Speaker 1 (01:25:46):
I mean, oh yeah, exactly right right with your with
your Versati bathrobe flying in the wind, short exactly rest
for the slide. Or she had the best idea because
if you were wearing nice fancy clothes and going down
the slide, you drew them and you'll be thinking, why

(01:26:06):
didn't I wear my singlet and you know whatever, my
boy shorts Bard shorts. So in any case, we leave
the skies and we come back to Earth, and we
come back, I think, to the Animal Kingdom? Do we
not came now?

Speaker 2 (01:26:22):
Absolutely? That is Stories from the Sky.

Speaker 6 (01:26:25):
This has been Stories from the Sky.

Speaker 9 (01:26:29):
Captain has turned off the seatbelt sign and you are
now free to move about the cabin.

Speaker 1 (01:26:35):
Ah.

Speaker 2 (01:26:35):
Yes, time to go to the Animal Kingdom. Michael Shore,
it is yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:26:38):
I did not realize we had intro and outro music
Stories from the Sky, so apologies, but that was the
first time I've done it, and I enjoyed it because
especially since I was in the sky. But now everybody
wants a little taste of Mark Thompson, even though he's
out and has been for a few days he'll be back.
I believe his Wednesday the correct day to report him. Ye,
Mark comes back Wednesday. But we are not without Mark Thompson,

(01:27:02):
I believe. Is that right?

Speaker 2 (01:27:03):
This is A and Elizabeth Mulampey talking about these animal
festivals and it's a really interesting perspective. So I hope
you'll enjoy this conversation.

Speaker 3 (01:27:17):
The Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 10 (01:27:20):
It is great.

Speaker 5 (01:27:21):
I love it.

Speaker 9 (01:27:23):
How would you have this?

Speaker 2 (01:27:24):
We could try ignoring this, sir mining You cannot say
you love your country.

Speaker 3 (01:27:31):
Where are my weed smokers at?

Speaker 2 (01:27:33):
Stay at home and get baked?

Speaker 3 (01:27:35):
All right? Settle down, everybody, Settle down.

Speaker 13 (01:27:37):
I've got a very brilliant person joining us, and her
work is super relevant and happens to hit my sweet spot.
In fact, this is the book. It's called Forget the Camel.
The mad cap world of Animal festivals and what they
say about being human. This is a journey through animal

(01:28:02):
festivals worldwide, and this brilliant lawyer who's been involved in
animal rights issues and issues of policy regarding animals, tours
the world at all of these different festivals, some of
which you'll know, like the Iditarod, and some of which
you will not know or may only vaguely be aware of.

(01:28:22):
They're like little local festivals, but they all share a
lot in common. How about it for Elizabeth Malampei, everyone, Yeah,
you got it. So glad you did this book. It
seems to me that our relationship with animals is something
that is reflected in a lot of these festivals that

(01:28:43):
you point to in the book, And that really is
part of your thesis that we can learn a lot
about ourselves and our relationship with animals based on these festivals.
That the way we see these festivals and the fact
that they exist at all.

Speaker 9 (01:28:57):
Right, Absolutely, yeah, I think that these festivals are really
sort of like fertile ground to start to unpack our
relationship with animals, in part because, like you said, many
of these events are kind of small events you might
not have heard of. You don't bring a lot of
kind of preconceived ideas or notions to the topic. Whereas
if you if you're talking about, you know, animals raised
for food or animals used in sort of research, a

(01:29:19):
lot of people have kind of pre existing ideas and
junk and bias in their brains about those topics, and
it can be a good thing. I think those in
some ways are bigger topics, but it also can get
confusing and hard for people, and there's a lot of
defensiveness and sort of kind of gut reactions that can
muddy those waters. And so festivals to me felt like
a really exciting way to explore animal relationships because they

(01:29:43):
don't kind of carry that same weight in our sort
of social thinking.

Speaker 13 (01:29:47):
Yeah, so, Elizabeth, it had to be somewhat daunting as
a prospect to cover all of these festivals. And you
really did sort of set out to cover the world
with these festivals. And as you know, some of them
are and maybe easy to get to, some of them
more exotic, and you know, you're writing a book about animals,
and maybe people are feeling a little they might recoil

(01:30:09):
from wanting to speak to you based on that. What
would take me through that? And then I really want
to get to the essence of what you're talking about.

Speaker 9 (01:30:16):
Sure, Yeah, So the book definitely took a lot of
time and energy to research. And at the time I
was working full time as a lawyer, and so you know,
I would hop on a plane on Friday after work
and take a you know, take a late night flight
somewhere and often end up taking a red eye back
for work on Monday morning. So it was definitely a
whirlwind in a commitment for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:30:34):
And not Tina Rup.

Speaker 13 (01:30:35):
But one of the reasons you had this commitment I
was reading was because your grandmother was a truly transformative
figure in this world. You'll you'll explain why. And she
passed away I think before that work could actually be completed.
So to tell everybody that story, because I think it's
quite compelling.

Speaker 9 (01:30:56):
Thank you. Yeah. So the book Idea kind of was
my grandmother's. My grandmother was a veterinarian and she later
became an anthropologist who studied human animal relationships, largely in
the American West. She wrote books on like the rodeo
and sort of like kind of Western conceptions of human
animal relationships. And when right before she died, she had
started thinking about a book about animal festivals around the world,

(01:31:18):
so thinking about some of the events that I covered
and many more, including sort of events across Europe and
different places in the world. And she passed away before
she could finish that book, and before she really even
got too far, and not much was written. She just
had a lot of sort of like file folders and
clippings and notes and that sort of thing, and I
kind of, in the back of my mind knew this
growing up. I knew this was the book she was

(01:31:39):
working on when she died, and it had always sort
of been kind of floating out there as an unfinished project.
And during COVID, I was reminded of one of these festivals,
and so I like it pinged in my brain and
I was like, oh, yeah, Like my grandmother went there,
and I went to her boxes of files to see
what was left, and I sort of realized that there's
really something quite interesting happening here. And I think that

(01:32:00):
kind of thirty year gap provided a really interesting set
of materials for the book, which I draw on, you know,
I cite her notes, I sort of explain where my
experience at these events differed from hers, and like what
had changed in those thirty years or what had stayed
the same. And I think that is really, you know,
lens of depth and sort of a historical aspect to
the book that otherwise wouldn't be there. And so, yes

(01:32:22):
to your point about the travel, and it was definitely
kind of a personal commitment too to go see these
places my grandmother saw and kind of kind of try
to get inside of her brain and feel these events
in the way that she felt. So it was mostly,
you know, it was just a combination of sort of
a personal component to this and also a very kind
of like academic commitment to the ideas.

Speaker 13 (01:32:44):
Sure, but that personal component, I think really is probably
the thing that kept you in the game, because I'm
just looking at this project and seeing it as a
real challenge and you do such.

Speaker 3 (01:32:53):
A nice job with it.

Speaker 13 (01:32:54):
It's called to Forget the Camel because of this festival.
Explain to everyone why title exists and how it really
does kick the door open to what you're talking about.

Speaker 9 (01:33:06):
Yeah, so the title Forget the Camel comes from an
event in the book which it's called the International Camel
and Ostrich Races. And at these at this event, at
these races, humans like mount and then ride camels and ostriches, respectively,
around kind of a track. And it's not a very
serious race. So it's not like you know, the Kentucky

(01:33:27):
Derby or it's not a race that's designed for speed
or for Yeah, it's kind of like like a bull ride,
like it's you know, people trying to hold on. It's
like people trying to avoid falling off, and the falling
off is inevitable. People always fall off. That's that's part
of the fun as an audience member was to sort of,
you know, everyone around us was cracking up and sort

(01:33:47):
of laughing. Had a very like slapstick affect to it
as people kind of flew off the backs of camels
and hit the ground and all of that. So during
one particular race, a camel race, someone flew off the
back of a camel and hit the ground and when
they did, the MC of the race shouted out or
right before the camel sort of was running off in

(01:34:10):
a different direction, and so all the handlers kind of
rushed to control the camel. They wanted to get the
camel back under control, walk it back to the start line,
and the handler yelled out, you know, forget the camel,
check on Charlie, like the guy who had fallen off
the camel. And I just thought that was such a
good sort of summation of the book as a whole,
because it really at these events, it does demand like

(01:34:30):
they're all these events are all based around a single animal.
They're all based around the idea of using an animal
in some sort of like ritualistic or entertainment based or
spectacle based way. But at the same time, these events
demand that you step back and actually can't you can't
really think about the animals because you did, you couldn't
be doing whatever it is you were doing. So it
both sort of foregrounds the animals and asks that they

(01:34:53):
are pushed into the background. And so I think that
duality is really kind of the heart of animal festivals
and honestly partially the heart of our relationships to animals.
More broadly, I think that we often, you know, we
all love animals, there's lots of animal lovers out there,
but we do sort of ignore a lot of the
worst parts of what we do to animals in order
to stay saying and fall asleep at night. And I
think those those two pieces are really compelling to me.

Speaker 13 (01:35:15):
Oh, such a great title and such a great incident
to illustrate that. It would seem to me, there's the
ostrichrate raised. For those of you just listening on the podcast,
there's a guy sitting on an ostrich that's running. You know,
so because, as you suggest, animals are at the center
of these festivals, but they're really just being to cite

(01:35:38):
your word, used as something that coheres everybody who shows
up and the things attendant to a festival. You know,
they show up for the frog jumping, but there's a
whole bunch of other stuff there. They're selling, you know,
bake goods, and there's you know, it's a festival. But

(01:36:00):
what you're saying is that the essence of it, the
idea is the creature is just a thing and is
being treated sort of as a thing by those that
are attending the festival. So take us through some of
the other stuff here, and you break the book up
into three parts, and it's done very smartly.

Speaker 3 (01:36:21):
Each part is sort of stacked on the other.

Speaker 9 (01:36:24):
Yeah, So the parts, the three parts are dominance, humor,
and reverence. And I chose those three parts because to me,
they are sort of like broad kind of categories of
how we relate to animals, just kind of more generally,
and so these festivals all really kind of fall into
one or more of those categories. And so it became
a really good way, I think, to structure how we

(01:36:45):
think about these events and how we think about animals
more broadly. And so dominance is sort of, you know,
I think a relatively obvious paradigm. I think there's a
lot of context in which we use animals kind of
with cruelty, or we kill them for food or so
there's a whole swath of human animal relationships that are
dominated by dominance. And then humor is a sort of

(01:37:05):
like strange middle category. So that's where the camel and
oscar trace was because it's these like it was a
very slapstick everyone was laughing, very funny, family friendly event,
but at the same time, it's there's something like a
little harsh in it too. I mean, the camels were
certainly not thrilled with their afternoon. And then the last
section is reverence. And so in those in those context,
I think there's a lot of animals that we look

(01:37:26):
to as sort of like, you know, symbols of hope
or as species that we love so like our dogs
and cats, I think fall into this reference category. And
so each of those categories, they're not perfect by any means,
but I think they're helpful starting places to help sort
of guide our bigger picture thinking about about animals and

(01:37:47):
these festivals. As I started researching, slot right into those
categories almost almost to a tea. I mean, some of
them are more complicated, but a lot of them fit
right in. And so I think, you know, dominance, I'll
start with an example from there, I guess is in
some ways the most like I said, the most sort
of clear cut. I think it's the easiest to imagine
examples of dominance. And the chapter that starts the book

(01:38:08):
is about the Rattlesnake Ground Up and Sweetwater, Texas. So
this is a event where hunters gather snakes from the
wild around West Texas and they bring them in alive
to sort of like a central facility, a big kind
of arena, and then throughout the round up weekend, these
snakes are killed in front of the audience. They're beheaded,

(01:38:28):
and then people skin the snakes, sort of like as
an attraction. Tourists can sign up to skin a snake.
It's very bloody, it's very gory. They like they pull
out the muscle and then they deep fry and you
can buy like fried snake meat if you want. It's
very sort of like a visceral event. But at this event,
you know, I think there's, like you mentioned, there's a
lot else going on. There's like a carnival, there's you know,

(01:38:51):
like you know, all sorts of like chrafkes and nick
knacks for sale. Like you know, it's just like there's
a lot going on, and so I think all of
these events, the animal is central for sure, but it
is not sort of like it's not the only thing
that's going on, and I think that's interesting. I think
it's interesting to think about why this event is called
the Rattlesnake ground Up and it brings people in from
all across the country. This killing pit is sort of

(01:39:12):
that's the touristic draw, that's why people are coming. But
there's a lot more to it than just that.

Speaker 13 (01:39:18):
I also think about the religiosity that overlays some of
this stuff. I think of elephants in Asia and how
they're supposedly celebrated. They are encumbered with these hundreds and
hundreds of pounds of stuff that they put on them,
and of course they're in the middle of these festivals
that are loud and immensely disruptive. Emotionally. They give them

(01:39:41):
tranquilizers to kind of chill them out a little bit,
but these are still incredibly big animals that are having
to stand there with all of this stuff on them
for hours and hours, sometimes days at a time they
just stand in one place. It's a horribly debilitating thing.
And yet this is again a festival. I love that

(01:40:02):
these things are called festivals because, as you've said, sort
of at the center of it is this creature, a
sentient feeling. Creature feels fear, feels happiness, feels a sadness,
feels lost, all of these things, and it's being forced to,
in the case of the elephant example, stand there day
after day after day, supposedly being worshiped, but in truth

(01:40:25):
being abused exactly.

Speaker 9 (01:40:27):
And I think that's sort of you know, spoiler alert
about the book. I think that you know, the dominant
human humor and reverence sections, you know, they sound really
different in theory, right, Like it sounds different to have
an event that is based in reverence, that is based
in worshiping an animal. But I think there's a lot
of forms of reverence that actually look a lot like dominance.
It's just sort of framed differently. But you're not allowing
the animals to thrive. You're not considering what the animal wants.

(01:40:49):
You're not sort of, you know, putting your needs and
your interests secondary to that of the animal that you're
supposedly worshiping and wishing to sort of respect were put
up on a pedestal, and the same thing in human
I think humor seem so harmless, like who cares if
we're making fun of a few animals or we're sort
of having a good laugh at an animal's expense, especially
in the case of both the camels. And the other

(01:41:09):
event that I put in the Animal and the Humor
section was the Jumping Frog Jubilee where they sort of
jump frogs. It's basically a competition to see which frog
can jump the farthest. And in both of those events,
you know, they don't kill the animals. It's not violent,
it's not sort of it's not like the rattlesnake ground
up right. There's something a little more jovial going on.
But at the same time, it's not great for the animals.
They're taken out of their homes, they're forced to do

(01:41:31):
these things that are scary to them, and I think
that that does come at a real cost to those
animals lives, and so it absolutely is I think at
the core of my book that while these three categories
kind of all exist and they all look really different
at face value, but once you start digging in there
might not be that much kind of differentiating that at all.
And I think that, you know, the goal of the
project is to get towards a form of reverence that

(01:41:54):
is meaningful, that really does something, you know, thoughtful for
the animals and takes them in their world and their
space seriously, because at the end of the day, I'm
not sure there's a world where we can get away
from animal festivals. I think we live on a multi
species planet, and I think we're always going to look
around and use animals to try to figure out who
we are as humans and as sort of a species ourselves,

(01:42:16):
and so I think the goal for me when I
think about these festivals is just a way to find
like finding a way to do that more thoughtfully, more holistically,
more sort of considerably of the animals.

Speaker 13 (01:42:27):
You're so lovely to put it that way. You know,
a multi species planet I see us. Of course, that's indisputable.
But the way in which we view ourselves sort of
as the top of the species pyramid and that everything
else is kind of for our use, I think informs
a lot of this is in my opinion, but I
just feel that's played out in our relationship with animals.

(01:42:49):
And I love that you even took a talk about,
you know, Puck Satani Phil And you know, I think
a Pusatani Phil every year and I just think that
poor creature. And I understand it's become such big business.
Mind God, they did a movie best you know what
am I trying to say, a box office hit movie
Groundhog Day? And this Puck'satwani feel thing. Again, it's something that.

Speaker 3 (01:43:10):
People go there from all over the world.

Speaker 13 (01:43:12):
It becomes a festival, and this poor creature is is
at the center of it. And again you can say, well,
just one creature or whatever it might be, but you know,
it's reflective of what you suggested in your book, which
is that our relationship with that creature is as a
prop instead of as a holistic being.

Speaker 9 (01:43:31):
Yes, and I think it means more. It's sort of
like I say in the My Punk's Tiny Phil chapter,
I have this line where I sort of say, like,
am I just a big bummer for pointing this out?
Like this is a fun event, Like everyone's having a
great time, and I'm sitting here thinking like, but what
about the groundhog? Like and you know, when you think
about the scope of harm in the world, Like you
think about all the atrocities and all the pain and

(01:43:51):
all the suffering, Like, does the fact that one groundhog
had to sit in a plexiglass tube for one day
actually really matter like in the grand scheme of things?
And so I wrestled with that in the book because
on the one hand, it's pretty obviously no, right, Like,
obviously we have bigger picture issues going on in the world.
But on the other hand, you know, I think events
like this do some bigger work on structuring our relationships
to animals actively. So I think at every single event

(01:44:14):
I went to in the book, you know, there were
children and families and people learning and teaching how we
use animals, what's normal, what's okay? And I think reinscribing
those paradigms where animals are props, and so then it becomes,
you know, a lot harder to change how we how
we're interacting with animals kind of on a broader scale,
because we have these normalized assumptions about animals that it's
okay to commit violence against them, it's okay to use

(01:44:36):
them for our jokes, it's okay to stick them in
a plexiglass tube just because we want to, and I
think that kind of walking back those assumptions is hard work,
but is an important part of the book. And I
think you know, to your point about groundhog Day too.
One of the other sort of like big picture things
that I wrestled with a lot in the book is
this idea that these events are fun and they're very meaningful.

(01:44:59):
They're all them are so meaningful to local people, local communities.
You know, no one spends time and energy and money
putting on something that they don't care about. And so
when you dig deeper into these stories, into the histories
of the events, into the people who are putting them on,
you know, these are local communities and local people who
really care deeply. And I think that the events also
bring a lot of good to those communities. So they

(01:45:20):
raise a lot of money. A lot of these communities
are small, and this money is really valuable. It's really
important to their sort of year round operations. A lot
of these events raise sort of like awareness for certain
like local civic causes or what have you. And then
it also just does sort of more intangible good, sort
of like making people feel like proud to be where
they're from or sort of happy to participate in this
big thing they volunteer. They sort of like it's a

(01:45:40):
big community sort of community building event, identity building event,
that sort of thing. And so the book really wrestles
with how do how do we balance all of that
good with the real harm that is happening. So, like,
I don't try to ignore that good. This is not
sort of a you know, diatribe about animal rights in
a way that is completely ignorant of the human interests involved.

(01:46:02):
It very much tries to balance those things and say, Okay, yes,
these there's lots of good that comes from this, how
can we keep that good and also respect and take
care of the animals who were forcing to play this
part to tell our own stories that they have no
interest in playing. And I think those two aspects, the
human good and the animal harm kind of have to
start being in conversation with each other.

Speaker 13 (01:46:20):
Yeah, you feel that tug o war in the book.
The book again is called Forget the Camel. For those
listening and not to watching, we have it up on
screen for YouTube of viewers, and we'll have a link
under this video so you can get the book for yourself.
I think about the contrast just in our last couple
of minutes, because Groundhog Day, as you say, sort of

(01:46:41):
feels like and I'll use this phrase although it doesn't
really apply, like a victimless crime in a way. Although
because as you say, the animal survives and even though traumatized, etc.
You know, there's enough maybe flourish around it, that is
to say, the community flourishes, etc. That maybe it's offset. However,
but I think about other festivals, and there are festivals

(01:47:04):
that occur around the world that are not so great.
There's no humor in the Taiji Cove, where they herd
dolphins and they slaughter them with cold in cold blood,
with kids present. As you suggest, I mean, they drive
them in with boats and they slaughter them in cold blood.
It's a horrible thing to see. In the movie The
Cove shows you a bit of it. It also happens

(01:47:25):
in the Pharoe Islands with kids there. Imagine bringing your kids,
your six, seven, eight year old kids in while daddy
slaughters this dolphin right in front with a knife. It's
unbelievably cruel and horrible. And these are sentient, smart, wonderful,
beautiful creatures. So I think of that stuff and I
get angry at the stubbornness honestly of society on these things.

(01:47:51):
I mean, you know, haven't we evolved to the point
where we realize this is barbarism?

Speaker 3 (01:47:55):
But apparently not.

Speaker 13 (01:47:56):
So when you say the festivals will never stop, probably
and I take it rodeo seems like it won't, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (01:48:04):
But you know there are problems there.

Speaker 13 (01:48:06):
Do you think that the manifest cruelty associated with something
like Taiji and the Faroe Islands and those kinds of festivals.
Do you feel as though we might eventually evolve past that?

Speaker 10 (01:48:17):
I hope.

Speaker 9 (01:48:18):
So I think that I saw glimmers of that in
my research. So my grandmother when she was looking at
this stuff thirty years ago, she was planning sort of
a chapper and had a bunch of research on a
pigeon shoot that took place in Pennsylvania. So sort of
like an event where you know, they'd release pigeons and
then you know, attendees or participants would shoot them, and

(01:48:40):
often those pigeons would not die, and it sort of
had this sort of horrible culture of people then running
onto the killing field and like kind of finishing the job,
you know, stomping on them, ripping off their heads, that
sort of thing, like really violent, really gory, and that
event is no longer happening in Pennsylvania. In the thirty
years since my grandmother was working on it, that event,
animal advocates worked hard in the state and they brought

(01:49:01):
some really good litigation that eventually sort of you know,
was the death knelt for that event. Pigeon shoot still happened,
but that big kind of public one that was sort
of this core festival that no longer happens, and so
there's glimmers of hope out there. I would call that
a glimmer. It's not perfect. We still have the rattlesnake
round up like that was the other big dominance festival,
and I went to that and it was really hard.
It was hard to watch people, like you said, sort

(01:49:22):
of like cold bloodedly kill these animals who didn't do
anything wrong. They were just like sleeping in their dens
one day and then they got brought in here and
now suddenly they're being beheaded in public and people are
making handprints with their blood, Like that isn't it just
because there's snakes, Like I don't really like snakes, and
I think a lot of people don't. But it doesn't
mean that they are deserving of that fay either, and
so it's definitely not perfect. I mean, the world is

(01:49:44):
still adjusting, but I do think in the United States
at least there's some movement away from those killing festivals,
at least so brazenly, you know. So the other chapter
that I reference, that I write in the dominant section
after the rattlesnake round up, is about the main lobster festival.
The main lobster festival is a really different vibe than
the rattlesnake ground up or than the dolphin hunts you

(01:50:04):
just reference. There's it's not sort of gleeful or sort
of you know, violent in that same way. But I
went on a thought exercise in this chapter and putting
it in this dominant section, because at the end of
the day, they're hunting a bunch of animals, bringing them
in alive, killing them in public, and then eating the flesh.
And it really isn't all that different. I think we
as Americans think of lobster as food animals, and therefore,

(01:50:24):
you know, their death is sort of preordain in some
sense that we don't challenge all that seriously. But when
you put it next to the rattlesnake ground up or
those dolphin hunts, or any of these events we're killing
a central and you start really saying, like, what is
different about that? The list of differences is sort of
shorter than you might think, and a that that's sort
of one of the one of the many sort of
thought exercees that I try to push in my book,

(01:50:46):
because I think the question of like how we treat
animals is so ingrained in our brains, It's like so deep,
which we have such different ideas for different species. You know,
we think a lobster is meant to be eaten, the
snake isn't. A cow is meant to be eaten, so
who cares if we farm them? You know, we all
sorts of like you said, junk up here about animals.
And I think when you start kind of paring it
down and saying, okay, like what's logically rational about these

(01:51:08):
few things, it can help unravel some of those things.

Speaker 3 (01:51:12):
I congratulate you on the book.

Speaker 13 (01:51:14):
Forget the Camel is the name of the book, The
Madcap World of Animal Festivals and what they say about
being human Elizabeth Mulampey.

Speaker 3 (01:51:24):
It's such a.

Speaker 13 (01:51:25):
Project you can tell it's such a project because you'd
covered so much, and I just applaud you, and I
applaud your work as an attorney. I know you're not
doing that you had mentioned right this instant meaning at
this point in your life, but you have done it.
You've done a lot of heavy lifting, and it's just
it's exciting to see this work.

Speaker 3 (01:51:46):
Forget the camel is the book.

Speaker 13 (01:51:47):
We'll have a link to it under this video and
under this conversation. And again, thank you for spending some
time with us today.

Speaker 9 (01:51:55):
Thank you so much for having me.

Speaker 2 (01:52:02):
And here we are. This is the Mark Thompson Show,
and I'm in the wrong. There you go.

Speaker 1 (01:52:06):
That's right, good job, Mark, that was an interesting conversation.
I you know, I like some of the people. I
was looking in the comments. Some of the people can't
go all the way with it, but I get where
they're coming from. And the book certainly seems like a
good read. And if Mark says someone is good and smart,
I'll listen to Mark all the time on that. It's

(01:52:27):
just that, you know, I do see like she said
at the end that I think the list of reasons
why that you know that the Lobster Festival and the
Rattlesnake Round Up are different. There is a list of
reasons why, but it's a short list, but it's still
a compelling list celebrating it is. But anyway, that's what
makes new.

Speaker 2 (01:52:48):
Interesting because it's like, you know, maybe you go to
these things or you see the posters for them and
you don't really think about it, but it makes it
kind of gives you pause to maybe consider another way.

Speaker 1 (01:52:59):
Yeah, there's no question. I think we all to quote
everyone who everyone who eats Meat is. Yeah, it sounds
like Mike Johnson's everyone who Eats Meat is slightly hypocritical,
right because John Watson asking if I've ever attended a
bullfight in Mexico, So you know, I was asking about

(01:53:21):
bull fights there. It's not legal in Mexico anymore. I've
never been to one there. When I was sixteen years old,
I went to a bullfight in Malaga, Spain, and it
was so horrible and offensive, and you know, it was
interesting culturally. I will say that even as a sixteen
year old I was. I found it compelling. But I

(01:53:44):
didn't last long there that day, and I didn't feel
like I missed much. But yeah, they've gotten rid of
them too. I mean there's progress. And that's the other
part of this. How do you tell Maine not to
have a lobster festival when that is part of their commerce?
And punk Satani Pennsylvania is going to be bringing out
a a apparently, because I've read stories about it before.

(01:54:06):
A groundhog that lives longer than any other groundhog whatever,
live in the wild, and it is treated like a
king and then has a you know, a difficult day
every year. Perhaps difficult, but you know, I don't know
enough about that. But so anyway, there's progress being made.
And yeah, I remember when when you when I was
a kid, you could watch the bullfight on television on

(01:54:29):
the Spanish channels, like it was that much of and
the matador was so heralded. And but it's it's changed
a lot, which I think is a good thing.

Speaker 2 (01:54:39):
There.

Speaker 1 (01:54:40):
They are they bullfights are horrible and they would always
say that they're brought to you know, all the meat
is brought to the orphanages in the town, and you know,
and the bull has a chance because the bull can
hurt the matat or bull doesn't really have a chance
there with the picadors riding around horses next to it
and stabbing it. That's yeah, it's it's pretty ill. Yeah,

(01:55:04):
it's pretty gross and pretty bad. Before we go, I
want to I want to honor the memory of Tom
lherrr uh. And that's uh.

Speaker 2 (01:55:15):
He was.

Speaker 1 (01:55:16):
He was a musical satirist. I guess he died at
ninety seven. He was also a mathematician. I'd heard him
on NPR before there was a musical called Tom Foolery
about all his satire. He was like a dressed up
weird Al Yankovic before Weird Al came on the scene.
And he was very well known, you know. And here's

(01:55:37):
one of the things like when you listen to to
Tom Lerr because he was a mathematician. He was he
was all about staying on the faculty at UC Santa
Cruz and he died in ninety seven. He was there
into to his late seventies, and he left his own
copyright granting the public permission to use his lyric in

(01:55:58):
any format without return, which is kind of cool. So
let's say he had one one famous one he did
with the elements, which is where he sang the periodic table.

Speaker 5 (01:56:11):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:56:11):
And we can listen to a little bit of that,
but every element to the tune of you know I
am a very model of a modern modern major general
From Pirates of Pay.

Speaker 14 (01:56:27):
There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium and hydrogen and oxygen and
nitrogen and enium and nicolodmium, neptunium, germanium, iron im mauricia
and nuthenium, uranium, europeum, is aconium, ut vanadium and anthonum, anasmia,
manasttene and radium and golm in.

Speaker 6 (01:56:39):
Indian and gallium and id and thorium and thulium and thallium, yes,
a treamtum, vidium and borne, gatlinium, niobium, ordium, instronium and
silicon and silver, mariam and varium. I left out one.

Speaker 14 (01:56:55):
Actually a new one was discovered since the song was written.
It's called laurentium, so those of you who are taking
notes can.

Speaker 2 (01:57:02):
Write it down in your programs.

Speaker 14 (01:57:06):
There's homium and helium and halfnium and irbium and fosph's
and francis and florine and turby and manganese and recer
lived in naesian, discosium and scandium in citium and caesium
and let praceodimium and platinultonian palladium, promethium, potassia, polonium, tatle
titaniumium and kavimium, and calcium and chromium and curium. There's
golden californium and fermium, brkilium, and also met levium, mystanium,
nobilium and agudanian renating. That's a conrodium chlory, a couple

(01:57:28):
of confertenses in in sodium. These are the only ones
of which the news has come to Harvard, and they
made many others, but they haven't been discovered.

Speaker 1 (01:57:41):
So Tom Lair gone at ninety seven, but leaves us
with a lot of funny music. And not only that,
he does it while he's playing the piano, and he
remembers it all very cool.

Speaker 2 (01:57:54):
You told me that he was on PBS a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:57:57):
Well, I heard him on MPR okay, yeah, I heard
him as a guest on NPR very frequently.

Speaker 2 (01:58:04):
Yeah, And that's a bummer that where you have these
cuts now to you know, to NPR, to public television
and public radio, and we might not have cool stuff
like that in the future.

Speaker 1 (01:58:15):
Yeah, exactly, or it's going to be fewer and far between,
and maybe we're an administration away from correcting. But let's
see that was It was just nice to hear that,
and that's pretty impressive. So but yeah, keep those PDS
dollars rolling in. I'm sure Tom Laer would like to
leave us with that. For certain, I will be back

(01:58:37):
here tomorrow. I'll look at that. Oh yeah, you know what,
I love a sure thing. Can I get more than
forty seven seconds of sports every day? Well we can,
We'll do forty seven. We didn't do a branded forty seven,
but we did talk about baseball in Mexico and Eyes
of Bullfighting, so in effect, we talked a little bit
about sports. But yeah, can we get one? I don't

(01:59:01):
know if he's asking for a sports show, I don't
want to do that, but I would love to do
a show that had a good mix of both politics
and sports because I like politics. I got to like
spot politics so much because I like sports beforehand. I
see politics as as a sort of a blood sport.
I guess, yeah, Tony, real fast. Yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:59:22):
News Abrams and Zucker are just credited as creators of
it of Naked and he's actually said and he's not
happy what they're doing to his baby is.

Speaker 1 (01:59:33):
Literally, oh no, it's not what I would have you know,
I don't want to just lash out of what they're doing,
but i'd like to. It's not what I would have done.
It's not our style. It's strange seeing it. Yeah, I
cannot imagine that doing it without them is going to
get their endorsement anyway, right, I mean, but they didn't

(01:59:54):
do it. And you know somebody who said that like
something about comedy. I hope it's good too. Man. Let's
just have a good comedy. And the versatility from Liam
Neeson is a cool thing too, so I'm sure that'll
be fun. So let's let's see it comes out Friday
and uh and we will see you tomorrow. Everybody, have

(02:00:18):
a good snave Monday and come on back. Thank you
to Tony, thank you to to, thank you to all
of you. Thank you to carry tooth Rick for the
stopping back.

Speaker 2 (02:00:27):
Tomorrow. We have David K. Johnston on the show and
that's going to be a great conversation between you two. Also,
Jefferson Graham will be here, so it's shaping up to
be a great Tuesday show. Michael Shore, all right you then, Hi, everybody,

All Episodes

Nobody Puts Tulsi in the Corner - Trump Ignored Her, Now She Has Allegations & His Attention 7/28/25

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;}Nobody Puts Tulsi in the Corner - Trump Ignored Her, Now She Has Allegations & His Attention 7/28/25