Treasury Sec. Says Quiet Part: Trump’s Baby Accounts May Lead to Privatizing Social Security 7/31/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, thank you everyone. I'm I'm delighted, I'm humbled and
might I say buoyed by your recorded applause. It is
such a pleasure to be with you on a Thursday.
This is a live show. I know, it's very exciting.
We do the show live two to four in the

(00:20):
East and eleven to one in the West. We start
a few minutes after the top of the hour, but
then we continue a few minutes after the end of
the show, so you get a full two hours. We deliver,
is my point. So I'm very excited to have Kim here.
Kim is the rock of this show. How are you?

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (00:42):
And Tony is here? Who is He's the rock of
this show. That's Monday. Yeah. And of course there's me
and I am the rock of this show.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
You.

Speaker 4 (00:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
It is my fault for all that is the mess
that is this show. We have quite the show today
and finally a chance to check in with America's favorite
former federal prosecutor now defense attorney and the best legal
analyst in the English speaking world. I'm talking about David Katz. Yes,

(01:16):
it's exciting. Hello everyone, It is Vicky's birthday. Happy birthday,
Vicky says, Jim Slaton. Well, Vicky shares a birthday with
someone on our show what By She's sort of on
our show by association. It is Julia's birthday, Kim's daughter.

(01:39):
She is sixteen years old.

Speaker 5 (01:42):
Yeah, and happy birthday, Vicky. Happy birthday everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
Yeah, Happy birthday VICKI truly happy birthday, Vicky. If you
can only say happy birthday to one person and it
had to be Vicky or your daughter, who would it be.

Speaker 5 (01:54):
Oh that's a hard one. I might just go Harry Potter.
Today is also Harry Potter's birthday.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
Oh that is terrific. I love knowing that this is
the day that Harry Potter. I'm not you're seeing the actor.
You're saying Daniel.

Speaker 5 (02:09):
Radcliffe, the character, the character story.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
He has a he has a birthday.

Speaker 5 (02:14):
Yeah, it is today.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
A toast to all of you who are having a
birthday today with Mike Coachella Bealley Coffee. You'll hear more
about it later in the show. But it is delicioso.
I love it and it's quite And if you have
some at home tea or coffee, have you do the

(02:37):
cold brew or you did the iced tea, whatever you
got going on? Cheers to you man. You can take
it on in with me, baby, I'll tell you what
it is. Julia's birthday today, My darling Courtney is here.
She good morning and afternoon, Mark Thompson Show crew from
Jim Eaton. Thank you, Jim, you're an og and we

(03:00):
love having you touch base with us. Courtney is here
and she wanted to wish a happy birthday to Julia.

Speaker 4 (03:06):
Oh, thanks for of course, Happy birthday, Julia.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
Yeah, very very cool.

Speaker 5 (03:12):
He has her driver's permit now, so she's cruising around
sixteen years old.

Speaker 1 (03:17):
Yeah, that's very exciting. I think that is an exciting age. Yea,
that is.

Speaker 5 (03:21):
It's an extreme loss of control for me in the
passenger seat. Let me tell you that next two of us.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
Yeah, you want to talk about extreme control in our house?
It is not happy the uh I'll get to I
wanted to mention that maybe we could send Julia something
from the merch store. The merch store is on fire
right now, doing.

Speaker 4 (03:44):
Really well on fire.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
What is it? What is it? What is the thing
that you know? It's funny, you know, Courtney sends notes
back to everybody who orders merch from our side. Because
Courtney created these t shirts that you can see. These
are the sort of themed T shirts. What do they say? Uh,
Courtney one says.

Speaker 4 (04:06):
Make Love Not Fascism Project nineteen eighty four point five. Yeah,
what is it? Season of protests?

Speaker 1 (04:13):
Yeah, make Love Not Fascism is popular?

Speaker 4 (04:16):
Oh yeah yeah, yeah, design and.

Speaker 1 (04:18):
I like that. I like the one, yeah, season of
Peaceful Protest.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (04:23):
What's the one in the center, Tony, the one with
the orange there it does. Yeah, with the kind of
a sunflower. Yeah, I love that. Born to Peacefully Resist
and the font, the font that you chose for it.
I mean the design, it's very reminds me of like
nineteen seventy two or something, you know, very cool.

Speaker 4 (04:38):
Yeah, yeah, it is it supposed to be in that spirit. Yeah.
And then we made the we need the Sun because
it's bright and brings joy. And then someone recommended the Planet,
and the Planet's selling really well. But it's just nice
to see people showing their love of the show. Oh yeah,

(05:01):
supporting the show and also supporting everything that we we
stand for. It's really nice. There is you get to
rep the Mark Thompson Show because it's on the back
of the T shirts. Hot, It's just not on the front.
Design for some of these. But the socks are very cool.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
I can't stress so absolutely.

Speaker 4 (05:24):
I wasn't sure about the socks like.

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Hottish, coolest and hot at the same time. They're cool
and hot at the same time.

Speaker 5 (05:33):
Then he wants to know how they're selling really well.

Speaker 4 (05:36):
We sold some this morning. While I was asleep. I
woke up to a sale.

Speaker 5 (05:41):
I do.

Speaker 4 (05:41):
I try to write a thank you note. I don't
necessarily say it's from me, but it is mostly because
the transaction is happening on our partner site. That's the fulfillment,
which is fourth wall, but we in fact are running
all of that on the back end, and so I
want people to know that we are here and we
are very appreciative of the support and any feedback, any

(06:02):
other items that people want to see. I'm a little
ugs because they require a certain design that we need
to work on a little bit, because there's two sides
to the mug. There's a certain spacing and other relationship issues.

Speaker 1 (06:17):
Look at the other stuff you've got, You've got these.

Speaker 4 (06:19):
The wine cooler is super cool. We have a wine cooler.
The hell that's a lot of fun. You can drink
your uh your wine in there.

Speaker 3 (06:30):
Yep.

Speaker 4 (06:30):
And then we have bucket hats. We've been selling the
bucket hats.

Speaker 1 (06:33):
The bucket hats are Richard Delamater sent me a picture
of him wearing the bucket hat. It was very very cool.

Speaker 4 (06:46):
Cool, that's very cool. Yeah, I've asked for pictures. Please
send pictures. And thank you so much for the support.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
You are wonderful. I wish we had time to talk
to you longer. Well that in another getting played off
you are being I'm sorry you have to do it,
but thank you Courtney and everybody, and very nice. There

(07:16):
you go. Yeah, see you later, Courtney, very very well done. Well.

Speaker 5 (07:19):
We suggested yesterday in the chat that you should sell
single Mark Thompson Show socks so you could buy more
than one. If you lose the mate, you could easily
replace your missing mt MTS sock.

Speaker 1 (07:30):
I mean, I don't know that they do that anywhere else.
Do they sell single socks. That's very clever.

Speaker 5 (07:35):
It would make us stand out.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
Yeah, it would. Indeed. I don't know that it's a
viable kind of suggestion, but I love that we're talking
and that we're suggesting things. I'm gonna give you all
of the intense dark world that we're part of, but
we like to kind of ease into it today maybe
a little bit. Shannon from the Gary and Shannon Show

(07:57):
on KFI. This is a comment from Richard Delamator, who
sends in a super chat at five dollars, we're super
chat and super stickers are alive throughout the show, Shannon
for the Gary and Shannon Jean ky if I revealed
that when you played poker you were barefoot, can you
or can you not dispel this rumor? I can easily

(08:19):
dispel this rumor. I'm seldom barefoot. I don't like being barefoot, surely, Yeah,
I don't. So it's it's not that I hate being barefoot.
It's just that I don't like it.

Speaker 5 (08:28):
Let those big dogs out.

Speaker 1 (08:30):
Yeah, so I'm I mean, I might have born socks,
but I think I'm usually in shoes while I'm playing poker.
There's a big poker story. There was a big arrest
made in southern California. Maybe that was the nature of
the conversation they were having over on the Gary and
Shannon Show.

Speaker 5 (08:45):
I had to click on the story to make sure
your name wasn't in it. I'm like, I know the house.

Speaker 1 (08:51):
Yeah, Gilbert Rainus now Gilbert is a former NBA player,
played for the Warriors, played for the Wizards. He you know,
it was a while ago he was charged along with
half a dozen other people allegedly running high end illegal

(09:13):
poker games in a Los Angeles mansion. Exactly. I love
the idea of an illegal poker game at a Los
Angeles mansion. He it said, rented this house, and he's
known in the What was wild about the complaint was

(09:35):
that all of these people, like Gilbert, had nicknames or
other aliases that they went by. So I don't have
the complaint in front of me, but I did read
it because I was curious if it was anybody I knew,
Because I do knew, I know a lot of people
in that world. And I have played cards with gil
and it was uneventful. It wasn't in his house, I

(10:01):
don't remember. I don't think we got into any big
hands together, but he was He's a good card player
and like he's really like loves playing cards the way
I do. But he has a lot more money than
I do. So he was playing these high end games
that I wasn't really part of. So I've played a
couple of times with him, but not, but there it is.
Look at the picture. Tony's got a picture of the table,

(10:25):
the gold rimmed table. It looks like a Donald Trump
type table. It's that kind of gilded table that says
Arenas poker. Of course, his last name is Arenas. So
he was arrested along with six other people, and his
nickname was Agent zero in all of this, and everybody

(10:47):
else had kind of names like Eugene. When it was
a like a long, kind of Kazistani name type thing,
it seemed like there was If Genny, Gershman, If Getty, Trevisky,
Alan Austrie. Of these are names of dominity, but they
all had nicknames.

Speaker 5 (11:06):
Yeah so yeah, So here's what According to this article
on NBC, they say hosting a cash poker game is
not illegal by definition, but it crossed into a criminal
act because he collected allegedly a rake, something called a rake,
a fee that the house charges from each pot, either

(11:26):
as a percentage or a fixed amount per hand. And
that's why the operation Arena's Poker Club, with the image
of him in his basketball uniform was busted. The race
it's all about the rake.

Speaker 1 (11:40):
Well, I don't think it's all about the rake. But
I understand that they talk about that poker is legal
in California. I thought, says man from the West four twenty. Yeah,
that's what Kim is saying. It's legal, but if these
other things are going on, then it moves into an
area of illegality. I'll explain this just briefly, super briefly,
the rake of a little bit out of every pot

(12:01):
that the house takes for running the game. Okay, but
here's what was really going on. They're concerned about prostitution
and drug use, so they're suggesting and in the criminal
complaint they rent, they talk about this. They talk about
the fact that there are women there who are paid
their massage girls there and they're also paid, you know,

(12:23):
just to hang out and we don't know what's going on.
And then there's also potential drug abuse there. I think
when you move into the area of drug abuse illegal
drugs okay, I don't want to say drug abuse, they
don't care what the illegal drug use and prostitution, then
the government gets angry. But I'd say that they hang

(12:44):
that anger on the hook of the rake, you know
what I mean, like they raking the game for a
little bit. I mean, if you and I had a
card game, and we had a bunch of people there,
and we raked a little bit from the pot to
cover our expenses for the food for the night and
for the want for then whatever. I mean. I mean,
they're not going to bust us for that, you know
what I'm saying. It's the but if you all of

(13:06):
a sudden say, and you know, Mark, I want to
bring some of my prostitute friends over, and I want
to bring some drugs and we go whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
This is not a card game anymore.

Speaker 5 (13:15):
This is how you got to Now you got a
party in that process, right.

Speaker 1 (13:19):
So that's what's happening with gilder Reinus. I think that
they can beat this. I mean I don't mean to
you know, I think he can. I mean, he's got
a lot of money and they'll throw a lot of
money at it. But I'll say one last thing, and
this is probably going to be a bit controversial. I've
kind of given you the reasons that I think this
rose to the level of I'm sorry, this is open

(13:41):
level of.

Speaker 5 (13:42):
It's like it's almost as if you just got back
from the poker game.

Speaker 1 (13:45):
Mark. Yeah, it has that. Look, I don't know that
there's you'll have to explain to me the victim here.
I don't see. Uh. I understand. You could say, oh,
they're all degenerate, damn up. Okay, but there's no law
against being a degenerate gambler. I mean, some of my

(14:06):
best friends are degenerate gamblers. And you don't want to
do it. I'd discourage you from becoming a just you know,
a gambler, all night gambler where you know, I don't
think it's a good, healthy or sustainable lifestyle. But that's victimless.
It's somebody's choice. I'd also say that the people who
are there, the women, are not being forced into this.

(14:29):
This is a kind of you know area that they
they want to make money in whatever way. I also
don't think that they're all necessarily involved in prostitution. There
are a lot of these women who are like cocktail waitresses there.
They dress it. They're like bartenders at a bar, who
you know, sexy bartenders or those you know the bottle
service women at a nightclub if you've ever been to them.

(14:52):
That's in fact, a lot of those women come out
of that world, the bottle service world. Anyway. And then
on the drugs again, I to I don't know. I
get it, there are illegal drugs there, but these are choices.
I don't see why the government comes in, except I
do see. And let me tell you the one word

(15:13):
that really defines why the government cares about this. They
don't care about the drug abuse, they don't care about
the prostitution, and they don't care about the poker They
care about what money. They care about the fact that
there is a business going on there. What I've just
described to you is a mini economy. Everybody's making money.
In fact, they talk about the fact that the women
who are compensated and they get tips and everything, those

(15:37):
women are taxed by the organizers of the game. And
those organizers are running a small business. And it's not
so small. It's making a lot of money every year.
And guess who's not getting that money. The US government
and the state of California. Now these are the Feds
you moved in on this. The Feds always want their money,

(15:59):
and that that's what this poker game bust boils down to.
So when you look at a situation that is victimless,
there are no people here who are complaining as victims.
The government's complaining as the victim because they don't have
a piece of that money. That's what's going on there.
It's that simple. Is it illegal to play poker for

(16:21):
particularly high stakes? No, No, it's not, of course not. No.

Speaker 5 (16:24):
Richard's angling for an invitation, wants you to invite him
to play poker. Sometimes, says he's a great player.

Speaker 1 (16:32):
I love to I'd love to have a Mark Thompson
Show invitational tournament. That'd be great fun. I'd love it. Anyway,
we're easing into the the heavy stuff on the show,
but that was one of the big stories, and the
Feds did move in there. I mean, it's something of
a of a real story. There's never been a poker
game like this, Yeah, I mean it's uh, I've never

(16:52):
seen anything like it. It's truly a how does the
internet work? Yeah, they get the word out and everybody
shows up and they have a high end poker game
and the government doesn't get any of that money.

Speaker 5 (17:05):
So d Elliott says, how do you know the women
aren't forced? You sound like you approve.

Speaker 1 (17:10):
Yeah, well, I will tell you. I do know this area,
and I know that these are women not being held.
You know against their will at all. In fact, this
is a pretty desirable kind of job because even if
you're not, and again I don't know, there's no I'll

(17:30):
just put it this way. I've never been in a
game where I've seen any evidence of like sex going
on or something like that. But what I would say
is that these women are like super beautiful and they
do play up the sexy and that's what they do
as bottle service women as well. And you tip them
every time they bring you a drink, you give them
a tip, every time they bring you food, you give

(17:51):
them a tip, and for that mini economy, then they're
taxed and whatever they make at the end of the night.
But they want those jobs, especially around these guys. They've
got a lot of money. They're tipping one hundred dollars
every time the woman comes by. They can make thousands
of dollars in one night and they don't have to
do anything. They don't have to have sex with anyone

(18:12):
or anything. So I would just say that just based
on experience, I just know that there's no there's no
forcible kind of situation associated with the women. So I
say it with some authority on that. But anyway, that's
you know, that's a window into it. And I can

(18:34):
provide a little bit of a window into it because
I've been in those environments or adjacent to them. But nonetheless,
the you have video of him walking out. Oh here,
here's Gilarinus walking out after he was arrested. I think
Tony has it.

Speaker 5 (18:57):
It looks like he's running down down. The rocket. Can't
hold you, may they can't hold me.

Speaker 1 (19:03):
Hell, I'm sorry. I think this is nothing more than
what the government does. They want their taxes. I always
tell you pay your taxes, don't mess with the government.
So you'd have to register this as a small business somehow,
and I'm sure it's in the legal business from that standpoint,

(19:24):
but that's why the government's interested here. So anyway, that's
thank you for that, Tony. That's the story on Gillarina
Mark Thompson Show. And the other thing I'll just mention
to you before we get too heavy, is that there
was a loss, a passing, a passing of a man
named James Loprino. James Loprino, who is James Loprino at

(19:50):
eighty seven. James Loprino is someone who transformed his family's
small Italian grocery restore in Denver, Colorado into a mozzarella empire.
What Yes, This business that James Loprino built produced eighty

(20:15):
five percent of the cheese for pizzas in the United
States of America.

Speaker 5 (20:21):
He's the reason we have frozen pizzas.

Speaker 1 (20:24):
That is it. He is someone who started the Loprino
Foods Company in Colorado. He is called the Willy Wonka
of cheese by Forbes Magazine. He owned a company that
industrialized the production and sale of mozzarella, making him a

(20:46):
seminal figure in the piping hot rise of pizza on
the American Food Pyramid camp.

Speaker 5 (20:54):
The Italian grandmothers don't like his kind of cheese. They
has too much stuff in it. If they don't use that.

Speaker 1 (21:01):
Kind, oh well, there is trouble in Pizzaville anyway. At
age eighty seven, the Willy Wonka of cheese has passed away.
The Mark Thompson Show. We're here to keep you up
to date on the important stuff, the less important stuff,
the stuff that's shocking, the stuff that will make you smile.

(21:23):
And now to Washington, The Mark Thompson Show. I will
start first with before I get into the Texas redistricting,
which is severe in a state that is already incredibly
severely jerrymandered. In fact, when you look at states across

(21:47):
the US, Texas is one of the most intensely jerrymandered states,
and the GOP is going to even more severely jerrymander there,
and it has unlocked a course of events that could
change American politics for the midterms and beyond. I will

(22:08):
get to all of that. In fact, i'll get to
it with legal challenges to it when we talked to
David Katz an hour two. But just because we're visiting
in this moment, can you cue me up a chunk
of Trump, Tony, because I feel like these Trump things
may fall into that category. Just to kind of call
forward in the moment, I do have a couple of

(22:34):
delicious morsels of the madness of the supplicants, of the
insane rollover that American legislators and public servants are doing
to our Lord and Savior, Donald Trump. And you have
to see it to believe it. This is your chunk

(22:56):
of Trump, open wide. Ready, here, come jump of Trump.

Speaker 3 (23:01):
It's my favorite food.

Speaker 1 (23:03):
With your first bite, here's Mark Thompson. I have a
feeling it's going to be beautiful. The first bit I
would say is from RFK Junior. RFK Junior, who was
a an environmental lawyer, completely buried those priorities associated with

(23:30):
that environmental activism with clean water, clean soil, free of pollutants,
clean air. He's buried at all. I mean you have
working alongside him, one of the greatest environmental terrorists in
the history of this country. Running the EPA. The rollback

(23:55):
of basic environmental restrictions, of basic restrictions on chemical pollutants.
You're seeing it on an unprecedented level. And now you've
seen the essential element in the EPA of finding, as
it's called in the EPA, around which a whole bunch

(24:16):
of other things become legal, a whole bunch of other
regulations become legal, because this finding is a platform on
which you can lay all of these regulations. And that
finding is that these chemical pollutants in the air actually
contribute to greenhouse greenhouse gas issues, greenhouse greenhouse gas emissions,

(24:40):
and also there are deleterious influences on the American people's health.
So that's stipulated in this finding. And now the EPA
is rolling back that finding. So it's against the backdrop
of ignoring all of that that RFK Junior continues to
serve in this administration. Again, this guy who made a

(25:01):
big deal out of being an environmental lawyer, and he's
all anti vax and he's all about MAHA, make America
healthy again. And yet you're allowing these environmental pollutants, these
toxic pollutants into the air, water, and soil, and you're
saying nothing about it. But that's not enough. The ass
kissing goes beyond that to the superficial. Here's our FK

(25:23):
Junior kissing Donald Trump's ass about something that he knows
will tickle Donald Trump on a level no one else
in the room will be able to tickle him. He's
complimenting the new look at the White House, the golden
crusted White House. Here you go.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
Thank you very much, mister President. And I just want
to begin by making a comment that is irrelevant to
what we're gathered here today to talk about. But I've
been coming to this building for sixty five years, and
I have to say that it is never look better

(26:06):
I was, and I've spent some time in the but
I've spent some time in the Oval Office, which.

Speaker 1 (26:13):
Really has. It's been transformed.

Speaker 2 (26:15):
And I was looking at a picture of the Oval
Office the other day when I was there when I
was a kid with my uncle, and you know, it
was an extraordinary It's always an extraordinary to go into
that sacred space. But I have to say that it
looked kind of drab in the pictures, and they were
black and white picture, but look drab, and it looks

(26:36):
the opposite of drab today. And I think I know
all these portraits, I hope you get a chance to
look at them when you go out there. That they
were handpicked with the president, and many of them hijacked
from other agencies that were trying to keep them. But
I mean, you know, my uncle, my aunt Jackie, who

(27:00):
are deeply committed to design, to beauty, and who understood
that it's important to have our public buildings be beautiful
because it inspires us, it elevates the human spirit. Is
one of the it is a template, and it is
a it's an example and exemplar for democracy, the releasing

(27:23):
through freedoms of the creativity of the human spirit. And
this building of all buildings should look beautiful, and under
your stewardship, it looks extraordinary today, So thank you, mis surpresident.

Speaker 1 (27:36):
Yeah, that is to me ask kissing on a level
that I know are kissing my ass, So you are
not kidding. That was a level of humiliation if the
man had any shame, that is unrivaled so far.

Speaker 5 (27:54):
But that's what they have to do. They have to,
you know, kind of suck up to him to stay
in his good graces, which is why yesterday we were
talking about Tulsi Gabbart and her I found information against
Barack Obama that she had to you know, manufacture something
to get back into Trump's good graces. They are all
kissing up to him, which is really scary and gross.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
Well, it's scary and gross because they are real ramifications
of it, particularly in the Tulsa Gabbard instance. You know,
you're talking about allegations that could then become legal charges
that you would then try to levy against Hillary Clinton,
for example, or others around Barack Obama. You couldn't prosecute

(28:39):
Barack Obama because of the Supreme Court. I mean well,
first of all, because he'd nothing illegal, but I mean
secondly because the Supreme Court has given him presidential immunity.
But it is I think worth noting what Sergio Sanchez says.
Sergio says, I wonder how he feels that is RFK
Junior about Trump removing his uncle's name from the Kennedy

(29:03):
Center exactly. I mean, here you are a six minute
cab ride from your uncle's legacy. At least when it
comes to the arts. You just referenced your uncle's taste
for the arts and the way they had a sense

(29:23):
of a grandeur but also a sense of taste when
it came to the arts generally and culture. They were
great patrons of the arts. In other words, when you
talk about Theodore Opera Symphony, this is more the Kennedy
family the Trumps. They're not about that yet. Malania's name

(29:44):
is going on the opera house. And now this ridiculous
you talk about the I mean again, this is just
the ass kissing convention that's going on kissing exactly. The
Bob Ander, the congressman from Missouri who wants to designate
the ja AF Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts the
John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as the

(30:06):
Donald J. Trump Center for the Performing Arts. Now that
likely won't happen, but that is again, it's like get
out of my way. I want to show you how
I can kiss the president's ass, and then somebody else
says no, no, no, get out of my way. I
want to put the president's face on the one hundred
dollars bill. I mean, Ben Franklin, he wasn't a president,

(30:28):
and Donald J. Trump is the president. He should be
on the one hundred dollar bill. I'm going to introduce that,
you know what, I'm going to introduce another bill, and
that is the day that we put his face. One
hundred dollars bill should be a national holiday going forward,
every day every year. That should be a national holiday,
and it should be dedicated to Donald J. Trump, the
greatest president in the history of this. I mean, this
is the level of ass kissery that is going on

(30:52):
in Washington. And again there's this superficial which is kind
of the stuff that we're talking about. And then there's
the wildly significant, which is the stuff that Kim alluded to,
which is the Telsea Gabbard. Let's pull together charges against
people like Hillary Clinton and those who served in the
Obama administration. So that's the first bit of Trump. And

(31:16):
then Trump at a meeting during which he is struggling
to stay awake with America's favorite doctor, doctor Oz, the
President efforting keeping his eyelids widely open, but having problems.

(31:38):
Go ahead, and by the way, you'll see askis are
here too. Listen to what Oz is saying.

Speaker 6 (31:42):
Room using this kind of technology, because we'll know who
you are and who your doctor is, we can block this.
We're going to have remarkable advances and how consumers can
use their own records. We'll have beneficiaries be able to
get MAHA advice and prevention tips, and even be able.

Speaker 5 (31:56):
To nudge them and reward them perhaps for that.

Speaker 6 (31:58):
And all this comes back to one fundamental ill issue,
mister President, which is leadership. I think sixty people, the biggest,
the best, the willing, came forward because of your leadership
because you weren't going to take no for an answer,
and they know it. We are building a robust and
safe I emphasized that safe system. It's going to protect
the data better than we could have imagined. We're going

(32:19):
to be able to accomplish goals that all of us
wished from day one that we're being placed. These pledges
are now confirmed, they're signed in public, and you have
therefore empowered Americans to own their property, which is their
medical records.

Speaker 1 (32:34):
I have to say that even as Oz felt he
was losing Trump, you know, Trump's slipping into slumber, he
then he pivoted immediately to and you know, this all
comes down to leadership, mister president, and under your leadership,
your vision, your incredible sense of what's right, and wrote
whatever the crap is that he says, he still couldn't

(32:56):
quite swing Trump back into consciousness. So as Washington continues
to I think make decisions, Trump looks like he hit
the bong and needs a nap. Yeah, there is that.

Speaker 5 (33:11):
It would look like he was trying to force himself awake,
like you see him looking up.

Speaker 1 (33:14):
You know, I'm sure it's tough, get really heavy seventy nine.

Speaker 3 (33:19):
He wants to take it.

Speaker 1 (33:20):
Like you know. Tom Disonberry says that Trump has made
the White House look like a gaudy Eastern European bordello.
Very very well put. I again, see everything that's going
on in Washington, and you have to laugh with some
mockery at how obvious and ridiculously over the top the

(33:40):
ass kissing is. But people selling their souls to the devil,
says Michelle Walden. It makes me sick. It's true. There
is a real pact they've made with the devil, and
that pack has real ramifications, and it includes the way
that ice is on the streets and in farms and
in slaughterhouses of America. And it also includes a chaotic

(34:06):
policy when it comes to tariffs that's illegal actually. But
all of this sort of is permitted by the fact
that Trump is strong. Trump will dog you on social media,
go after you in public, threaten you in every way
imaginable if you don't play by the Trumpian rules, and

(34:28):
for that matter, if you're not walking in line with
the entire party. And that's why the GOP has become
the party of Mecca. When Trump goes down, when he
falls from grace, they'll run from him like rats running
from a sinking ship, says John Slade. I mean, of
course that's true. But I will tell you I've been
hearing about that since twenty sixteen. I've been hearing oh

(34:50):
oh wait, once he starts to lose his political mojo,
people will turn on him. Maybe it's been a while.
I'd suggest that he is the new face of politics
in America. He is the one who encouraged the severe
redistricting in Texas. He says, I want to pick up
five more seats in Congress, and the party is falling

(35:13):
in line. I at the same time show you the
way that they've dismantled government. I mean there are real
effects of the ridiculous supplicants. That is the way in
which Trump is being dealt with in Washington. You know,
always showing fealty, always showing loyalty. It's one thing in

(35:34):
a meeting, just to say some nice thing, exchange some pleasantries,
stroke his ego. But there's real policy being shaped. And
the fact is this policy has changed this country. I mean,
these policies, this group of policies has changed the way
the America is viewed. So there are real effects of this.

(35:56):
His poll numbers are dropping, and he knows he's in
trouble for twenty twenty six. He can try to Jerrymander Texas,
but it won't work. Dems will take the House. As
John Slade, maybe I'll talk more about that. Not so sure.
That's your chunk of Trump. That's it for this edition.

Speaker 5 (36:12):
Well, I really enjoyed it, but make sure to join
us again next time.

Speaker 3 (36:15):
I think you might want to listen. There's nothing will
with listening.

Speaker 1 (36:18):
For another chunk of trump. I'm glad everybody is here.
This is a live show. We do it for you
Monday through Friday, so glad you could be part of
our community. If you want to smash the like button,
I mean, it's what all the cool kids are doing,
and I think you want to be cool that way,

(36:38):
and like costume nothing iron rods smash that thumbs up.
What it does is, here's the thumbs up work. I
finally realized been doing the show, what does it have
been a couple of years, Tony, We've been doing it
two and a half something like that. Tony is the
keeper of the calendar. I want to say about that. Yeah,
so really never understood. I knew that we have to
ask people for thumbs up, but I never really understood

(36:58):
how it works. But the way it works is, I mean,
at least in one way, is that if you get
enough thumbs up, then YouTube realizes, oh my god, people
like the show will start showing it to some people
who've never even seen it before or don't even know
it exists. So the way to help spread the show's
footprint is with that thumbs up. It costs you nothing
and that does help us that way, So smash.

Speaker 5 (37:21):
Them like a blash it with your iron rod.

Speaker 7 (37:24):
And then of course comes like a suggestion. And like
when you open up YouTube, how you just see a
bunch of videos populate. It becomes people who haven't seen
the show yet. It'll show up there for other people.

Speaker 1 (37:32):
Exactly what Tony say. Yeah, and if you could subscribe
to the show and share the show again, those things
cost you nothing. And by subscribing to the show, you
help our subscribe to make sure if you have subscribed
to the show, that you're still subscribed. I don't want
to get too deep into this, but anyway, these are ways,
none of those ways that cost anything, and it's a
great way you can help spread the word. And finally,

(37:54):
if you want to become a part of our community
that really supports this show. We have an NPR PBS model.
The show is free to you. It will always be free.
I won't put it behind a paywall. I mean if actually,
if they close the show down because of what's happening
with the media and the public spaces, we'll have to
figure another way and another platform. But for now we

(38:14):
come to you, like PBS and NPR for free, and
we're supported by Patreon and PayPal primarily. Yes, we get
some ad revenue from YouTube, but it's not enough to
sustain us. So if you want to join those Patreon
and PayPal folk, really we run their names at the
end of every show because every show is enabled by them.
You can go to the Mark Thompsonshow dot com and

(38:36):
click through to Patreon and PayPal and join the community
and contribute. By the way, there are Patreon and PayPal
links under all our videos, so you don't even have
to go to the Mark Thompson Show dot com. You
can just go to any video right under it. There
are clickthroughs to both. So the Mark Thompson Show. Let
me remind you that the brilliant David Katz joins us

(39:00):
an hour two. He's the former federal prosecutor. Now he's
a defense attorney, and he is one of the greatest
legal analysts in the English speaking world. You hear him
on London radio and television, also across America on the
Fox television stations, on News Nation, etc. And so he
joins us just after the top of the hour. I

(39:21):
didn't want to neglect where we are in the world
of couring out government in Washington. And one of the things,
as you know, I've talked about this for years, that
is on the GOP agenda is the privatization of everything. Okay,

(39:42):
it's not. There's almost nothing that the GOP doesn't want
to privatize. So if you look at the rise of
Eric Prince in the Blackwater informed world of military, right,
those are are paid, it's a paid military force, right,

(40:04):
And they were a big part of the world of Iraq.
So that's how far back I just want to get
beyond you that the fingerprints of privatizing things extend way back.
I mean way back to past wars. So these militias

(40:26):
that I think will ultimately be turned on the streets
of America, they are privatized. I believe that eventually. I mean,
I know they just had a tremendous surge of money
that went to ICE, but I think ICE will enlist
and even could use some of that money to spend
with organizations run by people like Eric Prince, private military organization,

(40:50):
private militias. They're contractors, their government contractors. And by the way,
just because I'm on that, they're not bound by the
same laws that American military are bound by. So when
you send them into a place like Iraq, they can
shoot into a civilian population and witness the fact that
eventually they are called upon to answer for their actions.

(41:14):
There was actually a legal case against one guy who
was a Blackwater militia member. He was found guilty. In fact,
everybody in his unit was disgusted by the way in
which he tortured a prisoner, shot into a group of bystanders, etc.
And then he was pardoned by Donald Trump. So even

(41:39):
after the guilty verdict came in, all I'm trying to
say is that these people won't be bound by the
same kind of loyalty oaths, loyalty to procedures, loyalty to
the law, loyalty to the Constitution that many American military
personnel are already pledged to uphold. So now let's cut two.

(42:04):
Where we are now we're seeing slowly the infiltration of
private industry in different government programs. You've seen what's happened
at the Post office. You've seen what's happened even with Medicaid.
You've seen how they begin to undercut government agencies such

(42:26):
that privatization is going to look more attractive. Look government
can't do this efficiently. We've set up private industry to
do it for you. And the golden apple is social Security.
And Scott Bessant really stepped in it when he said

(42:49):
that quiet part out aloud to use the you know
now off use phrase. He talked about this new tax policy,
that huge bill as a back door. Was immediately.

Speaker 5 (43:11):
What happened, Oh, you're kind of freezing a little bit.
I think problem, you're freezing here and there is it.

Speaker 1 (43:18):
Just to me? I don't know what that is to
me too, but I wasn't sure it was my internet
or yours.

Speaker 5 (43:24):
So yeah, you're freezing a little bit. I'm sorry. But
now you sound Yeah, they don't like what you're saying, Mark,
I guess they.

Speaker 1 (43:33):
Are you still with us or not? Yeah?

Speaker 5 (43:35):
Yeah, he's here. You're okay? You sound good?

Speaker 1 (43:37):
Now?

Speaker 3 (43:37):
I was.

Speaker 1 (43:38):
I was on a roll Tony Ny Where does everybody? Yeah?
I don't know Tony had Apparently Tony's doing Tony's running
the Angels game right now? You can't want to be no, no,
are we okay to proceed? Or yeah? Okay?

Speaker 5 (43:58):
YouTuber? Why is why are saying that the tax policy
is a backdoor or a loophole for the privatization of
Social Security.

Speaker 1 (44:10):
Okay, it's it was. I think it was a misstep
on his part. So Scott Bessent or Bessent whatever he
however he says it, he talked about the privatization of
Social Security. I'd suggest, not accidentally in the sense that
he didn't want to say it, but in a way

(44:31):
that he didn't realize would be so radioactive. So quickly
everybody realized, oh my god, social security is part of
the plan, the privatization of social security. This is Scott
Bessant and his remarks. You give a listen.

Speaker 8 (44:50):
I'm not sure when the distribution level dates should be,
whether should it be thirty and you can buy a house,
should it be sixty? In a way, it is a
back door for privatizing social Security.

Speaker 1 (45:05):
So the reason that that is significant is that it's
part of a bigger program. The idea that Americans, instead
of having Social Security taken out of their checks and
just put in some fund somewhere that they then become
eligible for later in life, that they would have control
over that money. They would have this private investment option.

(45:29):
And the idea is that this social Security insurance, which
is what it is, right, it's money that's then put
aside and you'll have it later to support you. And
social Security is more than just that. I mean, social
Security Administration does a lot of things. And the privatization
begins with giving you control, giving us control over that

(45:51):
money as Americans, and then it extends to every part
of the Social Security Administration eventually. So this privatization, again
is something that was talked about decades ago. And Trump
always insisted that he would never touch social Security, and

(46:13):
he insisted he would never touch Medicaid. Well, Medicaid has
already been touched, as you know. And now the Doze
crew comes in and one of the first things they
did was to go after Social Security, claim it's an
inefficient program. A lot of people getting Social Security who shouldn't.
That wasn't true. Social Security is one of the more

(46:34):
efficient agencies in all of Washington. And so I think
you've seen two things. You've seen the total fraud that
is Donald Trump when he talks about I won't touch
Medicaid and I won't touch Social Security when he's trying
to essentially appeal to his generally older base that may

(46:55):
need support from those two programs. So you see the
fraud of that because he has gone after both. And
I think you also see the hidden agenda that's been
there for years, which is the GOP wants to privatize
social security. Let's privatize it, Let's privatize the post office,
let's privatize social security. Let's privatize all this stuff. Let's

(47:17):
give private industry control over these things. And before you
tell me that private industry will be better than the government,
look at private industry and tell me it is. Look
at what's happening with private industry. I mean, spin the
wheel of private industry and tell me where it is
better than government. I mean, I get it. Government can

(47:37):
be oftentimes a laborious process of getting through all of
the bureaucracy to what you need. But have you ever
tried to reach the cable company? Have you ever tried
to reach FedEx? We just had an issue with FedEx yesterday.
Guy came to the house with FedEx. Okay, because this
is important. They want to privatize the postal service. You'll

(47:59):
be dealing with industries that are going to be turned
over to private industry like FedEx. Convision. FedEx is great,
you know you send it well, a FedEx is really expensive.
And everything will become extremely expensive and if you don't
like it, you can suck it because it's the only
game in town. That's the way private industry works. One

(48:19):
of the reasons that you get to use the post
office and things aren't as expensive is because we subsidize that. Right,
we all subsidize these things with government. These are government
services subsidized by US taxpayers. Well, the FedEx people, they're
subsidized by us when we send a FedEx letter. So
yesterday the FedEx guy came and he didn't even ring

(48:42):
the doorbell. He just put a thing on the door
saying that he was here. And we have video evidence
of it because we have a security camera out front,
and so we see that he didn't ever ring the doorbell,
didn't leave any He just left that little thing saying
tried you couldn't get you.

Speaker 5 (49:02):
Where's the package?

Speaker 1 (49:04):
The package is now they're going to try to redeliver
it today. Supposedly Courtney is like, you know, hovering yes,
because it's apparently it's something very important to her. That's
why it was FedEx. And the idea somehow that FedEx
takes more care may just be wrong. But the broader
point I'm trying to make is And then they said, well,

(49:25):
if you don't like it, you can come pick it up,
because she called it. She said, I saw your guy.
I didn't even ring the doorbell. And they said, well
you can come pick it up at this place. It's
like twenty miles from here. So it's in twenty miles
in southern California. That could take you like a day
and a half. So all I'm trying to say is,
these are businesses that are waiting for this privatization, and

(49:47):
Social Security would be the juiciest privatization in American history.
So can we outsource all of our federal agencies to India?
Call centers and AI? Exactly why do we need Americans
involved in our government at all? Sell it off? Right? Maga?
Thank you? Be aware? That's exactly right. Mark needs to
reset his connection. Freeze City says, be aware. Maybe I'll

(50:11):
do that. Tony, you want to play a Yeah, Tony
is monitoring it, and I'm hoping to thank you.

Speaker 7 (50:23):
I mean, I think I know what happened, but yeah,
oh do you I see it was that we both
clicked on that website that you clicked it for that
that article and it nuked my connection too, so that
the connection is that that site is famous for killing
the browser.

Speaker 1 (50:40):
Oh no, kidding, yeah, uh oh wow. I'm going to
close a lot of stuff now the well, I'm excited
that we're back. And uh that is just a word
about the privatization of Social Security. I think it. I mean,
it continues to be a politically different space for the

(51:03):
GOP to navigate. But I have to say something. They
have navigated very difficult spaces thus far, and I'm not
at all convinced that they wouldn't go after Social Security
if they really see an opportunity, and clearly they do
see an opportunity, given the fact that God Best is

(51:24):
talking about it already. Now tomorrow we have Alex Lawson
on You remember Alex Lawson if you're a viewer of
the show. He's one of the great authorities on the
Social Security Administration in America, and he will be here
tomorrow to talk about what these actions might mean for you,

(51:47):
and what these actions might mean and indicate for the
future going forward for social security in America. He'll be
here an hour one tomorrow. And just because I'm talking
about tomorrow, let me mention it as well that the
award winning screenwriter and director and political activist Billy Ray
joins us. He did Captain Phillips. He wrote that, and

(52:10):
he's he wrote Google him. He's amazing and he's a
friend of the show. And as you're aware, not only
a brilliant screenwriter and director, but he's written and directed
that showtime two part mini series about Donald Trump, and
he's a magnificent mind. He'll be here tomorrow as well,

(52:32):
in addition to all of our normal Friday people Jim Avola,
Michael Shore, et cetera. So I encourage you to join
us tomorrow. Friday is a big show always, but tomorrow
particularly Mark Thompson Show. Vivian l Show an og of
the show with a big shout out to you. Out
for a supersticker for ten bucks. Come on now, very impressive,

(52:56):
Kathleen Bryant with a supersticker for twenty bucks. Shout out,
big shout out, Kathleen, Thank you so much, so much.
Oh my god. I noticed that Mark Thompson Show has
gotten two thousand more subscribers in the last thirty days.
As cc ryder was one hundred and twenty five thousand,
is now one hundred and twenty seven thousand. Good job.

Speaker 3 (53:15):
I love it.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
I don't know where they came from it. That really
is nice. We do need all of the support, and
I think a lot of it comes from you, guys.
Michelle Walton with a ten dollars supersticker. Look at you, Michelle.
Thank you so so much.

Speaker 5 (53:29):
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you
so so much much. Yes, thank you so so much.

Speaker 1 (53:36):
I rather like the British thank you so so much.
Thank you guys, really do appreciate it. All right. Well,
that's a little bit of what's happening in Washington. The
other thing I just wanted to mention, and this speaks to,
I think the utter bankruptcy of the way things are
being done, and how they've handed the keys to who

(54:01):
the kingdom over to Trump unchallenged. And look, I get it.
I've got Trump derangement sindrome. Blof Look, he is the
president rapidly reshaping America's role in the world, reshaping the
economy with a chaotic tariff structure that's utterly insane, completely unhinged.
No economist in the world believes this is good for

(54:24):
the economy, and has an immigration policy that's equally chaotic
and also illegal. So sorry for focusing on him, but
it seems like he's doing a lot of stuff that
deserve focus. So now to the tariffs. Just hours ago

(54:46):
signs an order does Trump increasing the tariff on Brazil
and Brazilian imports to fifty percent. And this is why
this is particularly important. He is doing this under this

(55:07):
national emergency that he used to justify the imposition of
all of these tariffs, right, and it was a ten
percent tariffs on Brazil, now it's fifty percent. The reason
for the fifty percent tariff, as you are probably aware,
but just to emphasize, and he specifically cites this, is

(55:30):
the prosecution of their former president Bolsonaro. The allegation is
that he Bolsonaro, engineered a plot to stay in power
after he lost the election. Now Brazil has been singled
out by Trump because he's a Bolsonaro pal as getting

(55:55):
fifty percent tariffs because Trump feels as though, and he's
articulated this, the Brazilian justice system is out of control
and they have a mutual admiration society, both Bolsonnaro and Trump.
But the reason that I think this is particularly amplifying

(56:17):
the situation in America is because this tariff that he's
put in a witheringly high tara fifty percent, doesn't reflect
any kind of economic strategy. It doesn't reflect any kind
of benefit for the American people. It is purely a

(56:39):
feud he has on behalf of Bolsonaro with the Brazilian
justice system. It is purely personal anger that Trump has
and revenge that he's visiting upon the Brazilian justice system
for prosecuting Bolsonaro. There is no justification for it from

(57:05):
the standpoint of helping Americans. That should be a real
problem for those who are in Washington. Legislators, regulators, cabinet members,
public officials, public servants, all there to help the American people.
That's why the government is there. Yet Donald Trump is

(57:30):
imposing this fifty percent tariff on Brazil because the personal
anger he has and a personal defense of the president,
former president Bolsonaro. It should bother all of us. Again,
it's not everything, but it's of a kind. It is

(57:51):
the kind of thing that he's doing domestically, angry at
Obama turns Tulsea Gabbard loose to concoct something about the
twenty sixteen election. Hillary Clinton whatever put it together, and
that's what she's doing.

Speaker 3 (58:07):
So.

Speaker 1 (58:08):
His personal jihads are now being played out in public policy,
the most recent of which was just hours ago when
he signed that fifty percent tariff on Brazil. It has
nothing to do with the American economy, nothing to do
with Americans. He's just angry at Brazil for prosecuting his

(58:29):
pal and so this is the sort of thing that's
happening now. And I'll mention that he is also imposing
on India twenty five percent tariffs, and those are related
to the fact that India is bringing in oil from Russia.

(58:55):
Isn't that what it is, Kim? I believe that's what
it is. They originally were threatened and negotiations they say,
are continuing, but they've hit a wall. And they also,
I guess, want to open up the Indian agriculture markets.
So that's been a shielded sector in the Indian economy,

(59:17):
I guess for some time, and now Trump is trying
to get those opened.

Speaker 5 (59:23):
They that Trump said on Wednesday that in addition to
the twenty five percent tear iff on imports from India,
that India will also face an unspecified penalty for its
dealings with Russia and its membership in the bricks grouping
of nations. So again it's another penalty, right, And.

Speaker 1 (59:44):
Of course Trump wants to push back against bricks. I mean,
it's it's wild to me that Trump wants to push
back against bricks while he really ignores all the sort
of coherent meetings of power or is associated with the
G seven. I mean, he with the NATO alliance. You know,

(01:00:07):
he's been a problem for the developed world in trying
to manage economic policy, trade agreements and the like, and
yet he's pushing back on bricks. I mean, this might
fall into the category of, like, you know, you got
to pick your battles, but this is an extraordinary thing
to see him going after India this way. And I

(01:00:29):
would just say this, I mean, when you talk about
a twenty five percent tariff, that's a that's a heavy load.
That's a really heavy load, and that's going to come
out in the American economy. And of course the fifty
percent tariff on Brazil that's you know, twice that heavy load.
So I think these are real issues that deserve attention,
and by the way, most Americans unaware of them. I
told you about that conversation I had the other night

(01:00:50):
with a very smart guy over dinner, and he told me,
you know why I like Trump. You like Trump because
he he says he's going to do something and then
he does it. He gets stuff done. Well, he really
violates the law to get a lot of stuff.

Speaker 6 (01:01:04):
You know what.

Speaker 1 (01:01:04):
I don't know. I just know that, you know, he
says he's going to do it, and he does it. Okay. Wow.
That was the appetite for a strong man that I
found in that moment was played out in the conversation
with my friend. I don't necessarily know that that's shared
by everybody, but I think there is an aspect of
Trump and trump Ism that people do spark to. Even

(01:01:27):
as I say that, I know his poll numbers are sinking, right, Kim.
I mean he's got poll number problems when it comes
to his approval rating, does he not?

Speaker 5 (01:01:37):
They have been going down, down and down. And the
latest I think it's a you gov poll. To get
to the story, the latest you gov poll shows that
I think the approval rating is down to forty percent.
Trying to find the story still here it is. Yeah,
the approval rating is still sinking.

Speaker 3 (01:01:57):
It was.

Speaker 5 (01:02:00):
The lowest, it is the lowest of his second term.
The approval rating is now forty percent approving. For the
last two weeks, fifty five percent of Americans have disapproved,
forty one percent have approved of his performance. And for
the two weeks before that, it was fifty three disapproved,
forty two percent approve. And now we're down to forty

(01:02:23):
percent approving. So you can see a slow couple percentages here,
couple percentages here. But the biggest change, according to this
poll comes from Republicans, which is kind of surprising. They
are shifting away from the president by twelve points over
the last two weeks as he navigates this whole Epstein scandal.
That's why they think that the Republicans are kind of

(01:02:44):
turning their backs.

Speaker 1 (01:02:46):
It's wild to see all of these things that we've
talked about, we haven't even mentioned to Epstein today, and
yet that's the thing that cuts through. It's salacious, It
involves high profile people, and it involves a pledge, right,
the pledge that Trump made along with magnation that if
we get control of all of this, of the FBI,
of the Justice Department, of all of these institutions of

(01:03:08):
government that have these documents and files, will release them
with total transparency. And of course the fraud of that
is that Trump will do anything to not release the
Epstein files. He wants no part of those Epstein files
are released in any kind of whole way. And the
reason is he's all over those files like a bad smell.

(01:03:30):
I mean, you cannot get Trump out of those files.
He was. We know he was on the Epstein play plane,
and I thought in the documentary, I have to go
back and watch it. I haven't watched the documentary in
a while, but I recommend it. And now I think
there's a second documentary also on Netflix about the Epstein situation.
It is understood that Trump went to that Epstein island,

(01:03:52):
but again I'm not sure of that. I have to
go back and look at it. As he says he didn't.
He also says I was barely on his plane seven times.
He was at minimums said.

Speaker 5 (01:04:02):
He never got the privilege. Mark, Yeah, that's what he said, legit,
that's what he said. It's shocking to me, though, that
America seems to now care about children and the plight
of children. Sandy Hook would indicate that we really don't
care that much. But you mentioned the privatization of coming
up of Social Security and that even Trump administration officials

(01:04:25):
say his tax policy opens the door for this to happen.
And this is why people voted for Trump, right their
bottom line. They wanted better prices at the grocery store
and better prices at the gas pump. So you would
think that social security and the privatization of this benefit
for American retirees would be front and center. But why

(01:04:47):
do they turn away from him because they supposedly care
about children and his character? Really, if you cared about
his character, then why did you vote for him in
the first place.

Speaker 1 (01:04:58):
Yeah, it's so u uh, there's a cognitive dissonance there.
It just makes and cognitive or dissonance have to be
ding words, one of them. Anyway, I am maybe both.

Speaker 8 (01:05:09):
I am.

Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
I am astounded as well. I mean, you can't reasonably
look at policy and the way things are being done
and to support this president. But you know, I'm sure
they would say that Obama and uh, you know democratic
president's past would would suffer maybe that same criticism by
by Republicans. So they are kissing my ass, they are,

(01:05:32):
they are, He's getting He's getting a good ass kissing
in Washington. He's getting a lot of stuff done. That's
pretty scary Mark Thompson Show. This guy is one of
the leading legal analysts in the English speaking world. You
can hear him on London radio and watch him on
London television. You can listen to him and see him
on News Nation on Fox News Channel and across all

(01:05:55):
the television stations in America and on to New Zealand
and Australia. I don't know how he does what he does,
but he breaks down these legal issues so beautifully. The
former federal prosecutor now defense attorney in Southern California, David
Cats So we want hi.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
Great to be with you.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
David. I wanted to ask you about a story that
I saw about the immigration policy. I'm really troubled, as
you know, by the immigration policy. And this is a
lawsuit that is being launched by Congressional Democrats because they
are not being allowed into ice facilities to inspect the facilities. Now,

(01:06:39):
I'm just curious whether for you to gain this out,
whether there is legal high ground there and also might
the government capitulate. Might the government open up these facilities
and be more user friendly? From this standpoint, can the
president deny members of Congress their legal right to investigate
these ice facilities.

Speaker 3 (01:06:58):
I think the House members will win. I think it's
good that they hired counsel and that they're pursuing this.
I think what we see from Trump and DHS Christy
Nome is that they will get away with anything, and
I mean anything that there's not pushback on, and that
ultimately these things have to go to the courts. The
idea that they could be worked out in a reasonable way,

(01:07:21):
Trump and DHS and the Attorney General BONDI to a
large extent, they don't want to work anything out. Is performative.
It's not trying to get to some mutually shared goal
or accommodation. In this particular situation, it is expressly stated
in Statute Mark that a member of Congress can visit
to see how these detention facilities are being maintained and

(01:07:44):
that the rights the rights of detainees are being respected.
They can do it on twenty four hours notice. Well,
DHS then said no, no, no, it really takes seven days.
The statute says one day, but DHS, you arrogates to
itself timeline of seven days. So then they write a
letter ahead seven days in advance, and then they're met

(01:08:05):
by somebody who says no, no, no, we can't have
you up to the tenth floor because the tenth floor
isn't a detention holding facility. The Congress members say, well,
we understand that you have detainees that are being held
up on the tenth floor. They say, well, yes, that's true,
but it's not a detention facility. Well that's even worse.
It's a makeshift place with no bathrooms and no accommodations,

(01:08:27):
and being used as a detention facility is the exact
thing that you would want to scrutinize as a member
of Congress. So I think that's when they finally had
it and said that they were going to go to court. Now,
the you know, the Republican pushback, the Trump administration DHS
pushback will probably be that only Congress as a whole

(01:08:48):
can ask for that, and Congress as a whole is
Republican and won't do anything. But that doesn't make any sense.
This seems like Congress would have thought this through, that
there'd be one group in control of Congress and there'd
be any Congress members who were thinking, you know what,
the group in power is not the one that is
maintaining the detention facilities properly. We want to see, you know,

(01:09:10):
whether people are being tortured, whether their rights are being denied.
These are hell holes in America, Mark, They're all over
the place. They're not in some black site in Iraq
like they were under w They're right here in our communities.
These two congress members were trying to visit one in Manhattan,
and this is a terrible, terrible thing. It was terrible
enough when it was abroad, but when it's right here

(01:09:31):
in plain sight, and the statute says that they're allowed
to plainly view it, and then they're denied their right
to go view it. The other thing that you always
see in these cases is that supposedly there's not a
private right of action that only some authority who's not
these congress members can bring it, or that they don't
have standing, or somehow the president can trump the you know,

(01:09:54):
their congressional power. But people need to always bear in
mind their Article one. The Constitution's built around Congress. Congress
is Article one powers. The idea was we were going
to have a congress, they were going to decide things,
and then they were going to have an executive carry
out their orders. That's two, and then they were going
to have a judiciary independently, fairly decide all of them,

(01:10:15):
without favor or fear, and they were going to be
Article three. That's our constitutional setup, not some unitary executive
that tells everybody what to do, like in a dictatorship.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
Well, that was the old setup, David, the Welcome to
America at two point zero. They have American Oversight, which
is one of the law firms representing the members of Congress.
And there are I believe twelve members of Congress who
have filed this lawsuit against administration, with the Democrats in
large numbers. Put this together and they are saying the following.

(01:10:51):
At a time when ICE is detaining more individuals than
ever before, over fifty six thousand people, and reports of mistreatment, overcrowding,
unsanitory conditions, and the detention of US citizens are growing.
The need for real time on the ground oversight has
never been more urgent. Blocking Members of Congress from Oversight visits,
oversight visits to ICE facilities that house or otherwise detain

(01:11:14):
immigrants clearly violates federal law, and the Trump administration knows it,
and the DHS assistant there for Communications says so members
of Congress could just schedule a tour. Instead, they're running
to court to drive clicks and fundraising. So you kind
of stated it bluntly and well, but you would think

(01:11:39):
and you're let me just read the tea leaves, or
you're saying they will capitulate, will they not. You're not
going to actually have to run this all the way
through the courts in the District of Columbia, are you?

Speaker 3 (01:11:49):
No, they may have to run this through the courts.
I think that people have to brace themselves to the
fact that, you know, this is to be the dominant monkey.
This is not only to dominate the situation, but to
appear to dominate the situation, and so they have to
really need a court order. And then of course the
Trump administration will blast the judges. They don't care if
they were appointed by Trump in his last term. They

(01:12:10):
don't care if they're Republicans. That's also the game plan
is to simply blast the courts and to act like
we don't have Article three, to act like we don't
have an independent judiciary that can review and disqualify executive actions.
We've had this since marvvery v Madison. I mean, this
is what the fundament of our whole country is that

(01:12:30):
there's a court. You know, all of these countries, all
these ban out of republics, have beautiful constitutions. The problem
is they don't have real enforcement, and they don't have
independent judicial enforcement with life tenured judges who just try
to call it right or wrong under the law on
the facts and not be politically influenced, which is if
we're going to get into this new crowd that's in
power right now in some of these US attorney's offices.

Speaker 1 (01:12:53):
I love that what you just said, because it's something
that we should all hear and remember these countries, these
banana republics, they have constitutions too, They have elections also,
but people ignore them. The government ignores them and pushes
through what they want and runs things as they want. Now,

(01:13:16):
speaking of lifetime appointments, speaking of lifetime appointments and judicial
appointments that fall into the controversial category, I take you
to Emil Beauvais during his confirmation hearing. I thought of you,
because they did rush the process through. There were numerous

(01:13:37):
whist blower reports, and then even beyond the whistle blower reports,
there were all of these reports of Beauvet's clearly unconstitutional
utterances telling those who were involved in it was the
deportation matter early on, remember when they deported all those
people to Central America without and in violation without a

(01:14:01):
court order and violation of the court order. Bouvet was
the one who said, h F the court order. The
f the court non important, Just do what you have
to do. This is the guy who was just confirmed
to this third district, third third district? Was it the yeah?

(01:14:21):
And tell me first of all what that what that means,
because I'm told it's a breath away everything I read,
it's like a breath away from a Supreme Court appointment.
It's a very high appointment on the court.

Speaker 3 (01:14:31):
There there are thirteen federal appellate courts around the nation,
and they started in New England, so that gets to
be the first circuit. By the time they got out
to California and the West and the West coast where
the ninth circuit, this third circuit is covering New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
and Delaware. As one of the wits said, you know,

(01:14:55):
if Tony Soprano, we're a real person and we're really
take it to federal court. Any that would be the
third Circuit Pennsylvania, Jersey Right, and Delaware. And it's an
illustrious court, as many of these circuit courts are, except
it has three now notorious in my opinion members. One
was Alito, who went to the US Supreme Court. One

(01:15:17):
was Trump's sister who resigned from the court as this
investigation by the niece into the finances and how she
alleged that she'd been cheated out of her money by
Trump and his sister. The third Circuit judge, and now
it has Emil Beauvet, who seems to be one of
the least confirmable people in American history, and yet he

(01:15:38):
got confirmed. And the reason he's one of the most
least confirmable people to a lifetime judicial appointment on the
Appeals Court as he is, it is because they really
had the goods on him. They had a fellow named
Luvanni who's now gone public and said, you know, I'm
scared to death, but I'm going public. This is my duty.

(01:15:58):
I'm saying what happened. What he says happened was that,
as you just recounted, at a meeting, Beauvet said to him,
f the courts, if the courts don't do what we want.
We're going to do if the courts don't approve what
we want or allow what we want, We're going to
do it anyway f the courts. And he says that
under oath. He says that as a whistleblower, he was

(01:16:20):
willing to say that to the Senate committee, and grastly,
the ninety something year old head of that committee refused
to call him. The Republicans refused to call him. They
had other witnesses. Apparently there was a conference call that
was very damning to Beauvet, and someone had a recording
of it, and the argument was that that recording was

(01:16:42):
inconsistent with Beauvet's testimony. That's a very polite way of
saying that it's smacked a possible perjury by the candidate.
The candidate testified under oath, beauvat and he was a
tape that surfaced that was inconsistent with that testimony. They
also did not allow that Republicans to be played. And
then finally they pushed him through fifty to forty nine.

(01:17:04):
The two female Republicans, the usual suspects, thank goodness, voted
against him. Murkowski and it's Collins right for me. And
then Tom Tillis, Oh, my goodness, he doesn't understand why
he voted for haig Seth. He scratches his head every
day that he affirmed Haigeseth and incompetent. But here's this
Tom Tillis, who just affirmed, just voted to confirm this person. McConnell, Oh,

(01:17:29):
he cared about the rule of law and the courts.
You can never get around to Merrick Garland. McConnell just
voted to confirm this person, and fifty to forty nine
he slid through. And long after I'm gone, he'll be
sitting either on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals or
people are really worried that they're going to try to
boost him to the US Supreme Court. He is a

(01:17:51):
true loyalist. Cannon down there in Fort Pierce, Florida is
crying bitter tears. It's not going to be Judge Cannon.
It's not going to be you. It's going to be
Emil Beauvey. If they can get what's his name, Thomas
or Alito to resign, so to depend how they think

(01:18:13):
the Senate's going. If they really think they're going to
lose the Senate, then the Republicans will tell Alito or Thomas,
this is your moment. What we have fifty three Republican votes.
You're going to step aside. We're going to put Bovey
up there, and presumably the same fifty who voted for
him for the Court of Appeals will vote for him
in the US Supreme Court. That'll be justice. Beauvais to

(01:18:34):
American lawyers and to our system of justice, and that's
what people are so scared about. He's the guy he's
notorious for. If you didn't like the raid on the Capitol,
if you didn't like them odding, if you didn't like
the five people who died on January sixth, he's the
guy who orchestrated for Trump the pardons of all of
those people, all the people who attack police officers, who

(01:18:55):
committed all these crimes against law and order and against
the police, against individual police officers, who many of them
are still you know, incapacitated, hurt. As I say, a
couple of them are now not with us anymore. They're
not alive anymore. Beauvet orchestrated that pardon for over fifteen
hundred of the people convicted in that case or about
to stand trial in that case, and of course he's

(01:19:17):
a notorious one on top of everything else. For the
Mayor Adams fiasco. He decided to give Mayor Adams a
deal up there in New York. And it wasn't just
that he was going to dismiss the case with prejuice.
His idea was dismiss it without prejudice, hold his sort
of damocles over Mayor Adams's head that a federal judge
would not stand for. So they had to dismiss it

(01:19:39):
with prejuice. But you know, it seems to me like
it was a righteous case. And there's a case out
here in lah right now which just got dismissed too,
against a big Trump donor. And you know, the lawyers
always come out for that. But I've recruital defense lawyer.
The lawyers come out and said, my client is so innocent,
there was no case against him. But you know, they
don't seem to want to win the case by motions

(01:19:59):
to the court. They don't seem to want to win
the case by winning or at least hanging the jury.
They're so sure they're clients innocent, but they never want
to test that in a system where we have proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, and where the government would need
all twelve votes beyond a reasonable doubt to vote they're guilty.
They seem to want to give a campaign contribution in
the case of this one out here, and they want

(01:20:20):
to do what mayor Adams did, which was to basically say, oh, yes,
I'll let I said, anywhere New York City hates ice,
well let you tell you I'm going to get it
looked like a quid pro quo, and the four or
five attorneys who were on it, Mark wouldn't sign on.
And then this Beauvet said to this is according to
I mean testimony under oath right Mark that he said, look,

(01:20:43):
in an hour, one of you guys is going to
sign this and you're going to be the head of
the unit. But if you don't sign it, you know now,
he says, because that they can prove that now, he says,
I didn't mean that as a reward. All I meant
was if you you're going to be rewarded and you're
going to be the one promoted, if you're one who
signs it, that that shows that you believe in the
chain of command. And if you don't believe in the

(01:21:04):
chain of command. You shouldn't be working for the government
because people in the government believe in a chain of
command at a hierarchy. So he's gotten caught over and
over again on statements. There are reputable lawyers who are
willing to say under oath or have tapes that show
that he shouldn't have been confirmed. The Republicans just confirmed
him with all Republican votes fifty to forty nine.

Speaker 1 (01:21:24):
Also, the pedigree of Beauveat is different than some of
these other even hard right wing justices that are in
the pipeline for this in the case, I'm thinking of
the Supreme Court, like Kavanaugh and Amy Colony Barrett, their
Federalist Society approved and on that list. Even other federal

(01:21:46):
judicial appointments are coming from that Federalist society pipeline. But
this is not who Bouvet is. He's not a Federalist
society a guy. He wouldn't be on that list. He
is a henchman, straight up Trump defense attorney. Based on
everything I've read, this guy doesn't even have the pedigree
of a Kavanaugh or an Amy Coney Barrett. You know,

(01:22:08):
with all the problems that they have, they come through
that Federalist society, which is a hard right, a crysto
fascist I think movement that is now finding its way
into American life through the judicial system. But Bovey isn't
even from that. He is, as I say, he's a thug.
He's a judicial thug for the President of the United States.

Speaker 3 (01:22:29):
Well, one thing about Bovey is Bovey must have made
good grades in law school, because he did end up
at the Southern District of New York. I mean, he
got hired Farren Square as an assistant US attorney in
the Southern District of New York which is a hard
place like my old district was. I mean, generally speaking,
and we can get to this in a minute too,
but generally speaking, you have to be very academically oriented.

(01:22:51):
You have to have done very well in law school
to get yourself in a position to be a clerk
to a federal judge. And that's the normal pipeline to
become an assistant US attorney if he was a clerk
to a federal judge. But I do know that Bouvet
at least had the pedigree in that sense. But I
certainly agree with you Mark that he seems much more
like a street fighter, including what people said about him

(01:23:11):
during his tenure at the US Attorney's Office that while
he was acting as a federal prosecutor, people have terrible
reviews of his deportment, which you know, with this new
interim now acting US Attorney out here in Los Angeles,
the Central District of California, there have been all of
these revelations of him screaming and yelling at people, acting

(01:23:32):
totally inappropriately. That is not that is not a normal thing.
I mean, it's sort of hard to imagine, but I
think people should imagine if they've never been in that environment.
People are very polite. They have intellectual disagreements. Your boss
disagrees you on something, you don't hear him yelling down
the hole. Apparently this guy was a screamer. Bouvet and

(01:23:53):
the new interim now acting US Attorney in LA that
it looks like we're going to have for anther nine
months through this what he himself calls a trick up
their sleeve. Due to this trick that Trump, Bondi and
Sali had up their sleeve, we're going to have Asalia
here in LA for another nine months. And from all

(01:24:16):
of these accounts, he's a screamer. Someone said, you know
that he's actually in the office because you hear his
voice booming down the hall, yelling at somebody, and that
is really unusual. And I clerked for a judge. Obviously
we had intellectual disagreements. Noah's voice ever boomed down the hall,
And over a year as a federal law I can't
remember in over six years at the US Attorney's office

(01:24:36):
anybody's voice booming down the hall. I mean, you know,
yelling is yelling is for people without power.

Speaker 1 (01:24:42):
We had a federal that's a great line judge.

Speaker 3 (01:24:46):
Down here who used to who used to scream and
yell at people in his courtroom, and it's like, you
have all the power, dude. You know, he lived at
me about ninety five as judge, and he was a
yeller and screamer and had that sort of bad deportment
though all the way to the end.

Speaker 1 (01:25:00):
Well, Bouvet is an ethical train wreck based on everything
that I've read, and I wanted to ask you about this,
Michael de says, please ask David if Trump is stacking
the court in New Jersey to protect him from the
legal prosecution there.

Speaker 3 (01:25:13):
Well, he does have that golf course in New Jersey
and New Jersey is all one big district. So a
case filed in federal court in New Jersey would go
to this third circuit and it would be handled by
the US Attorney's office because it's just one US Attorney's
office for New Jersey. But I don't think that's the
reason now this, Uh, say what you want about the

(01:25:36):
person they just put in the post. It's it's so controversial.
Don't take my word. The federal judges in Los Angeles
would not approve this person that Trump wants to be
and is right now as we speak, Uh, the acting
US Attorney in LA. But uh, you know, it's just it.

(01:25:56):
I don't know, Mark, It's just it's gotten to a point.
We will survive this. But the reality is people didn't
used to look at this as well. Three and a
half years is like, you know, we're gonna take power
and we're gonna do everything we want. In three and
a half years. People thought, you know, if you run
things like this, if you run buff shot over everybody,
including try to run buff shot over the federal judges
who have life tenure, this is not this is not

(01:26:18):
a key for success. I mean, this assistant, this US
attorney out here in LA. He gave a he went
on Glenn Beck's show and said some things that are
just astonishing, and then they were repeated in Bloomberg News
and in the front page of the La Times. The
La Times has been running the story for people who
aren't in LA on the very top above the fold

(01:26:40):
on the front page of the La Times.

Speaker 1 (01:26:45):
Yeah, this bill is Shaley. Is that away says? His
last name is that the guy in Los Angeles.

Speaker 3 (01:26:48):
It's hilarious because when you go to the grand jury. Mark,
when you go to the grand jury, you present of
them old times, you present a bill, and then they
always vote a true bill because they'll indet a Hamson.
Apparently they won't indict a rottenham Sandwich because they have
actually managed to find grand juries to have grand juries
who have rejected these cases are so poor and the

(01:27:10):
standard is probable cause. And there are people like you
know off the street who don't know anything about law
and who are inclined to do whatever the government, which
is thereby itself and no defense attorney, whatever the government wants.
Even those cases are so bad, they're so rotten that
the grand juris have returned a no true bill a
no bill. So now everyone at the US Attorney's office,

(01:27:31):
according to the reporting, calls Asai, no bill, no bill, Asali.

Speaker 1 (01:27:38):
I want to ask you about I want to ask
you about the Epstein situation and the Gallain Maxwell meeting
with a tough Justice Department officials. I mean, we've talked
about the unorthodoxy of this and even the I mean
how it's way out of bounds, like in no universe
would this happen? And Ghalaiine Maxwell is saying, I don't

(01:27:59):
really want to talk to anybody unless I get protection immunity,
And I'm wondering if you can just kind of give
us a moment on that both negotiation and that situation
with Epstein from a legal standpoint and where Maxwell sits legally,
these are the Congress's demand to hear from her and
also her situation with the judicial system.

Speaker 3 (01:28:23):
Well, I've been covering Glayne Maxwell for a long time
because her case went to trial in New York and
it was a huge story all over the country, all
over the world really, but especially in New York. So
we were covering it all the time. One of the
stations had rented a place in Chinatown, and you could
see out the window. It overlooked the Federal Courthouse where

(01:28:43):
she was, and it was a great shot, and it
was a lot of coverage. And I remember the case
so well in so many details, and she really didn't
put on much of a defense. She thinks she has
this legal defense which is up in the US Supreme
Court right now, which we can talk about if you'd
like to. But the reality is the US Supreme Court
is not going to take her case. They're not going
to decide the case in her favor. And everyone who

(01:29:05):
says that that's some big deal. The Supreme Court is
meeting about her case. They meet on all the cases
in late September to decide which ones they're going to
schedule argument for it next term. So in late September,
I believe they're going to get together on her case
and about one hundred or two hundred other people who
would love to have their case heard by the US

(01:29:26):
Supreme Court, and they're going to deny a hearing on
her case and on the other cases. The only thing
I think that might prove me wrong is it will
be so high profile by then that the U. S.
Supreme Court will want to take it just because it's
so high profile, but they're going to reject her legal claim.
And just if I can take thirty seconds on that,
because I don't hear it much reported in the news.

(01:29:47):
Jeffrey Epstein is given a sweetheart deal down in federal
court that's by a US attorney down there named Acosta.
Acosta goes on to be a cabinet member for Trump.
In Trump one point, oh Acosta has to resign because
he's given such a sweetheart deal to Epstein, and knowing
what we knew later about Epstein, although people said, knowing

(01:30:09):
what he knew right then about Epstein, he shouldn't have
given that sweetheart deal. The sweetheart deal was that he
would not be prosecuted at all in federal court for
this child sex trafficking, but he would only be prosecuted
in state court, given a one year sentence, and during
that one year sentence in state court, he would be
allowed to basically do whatever he wanted to during the

(01:30:30):
day and sleep in a barracks type place at night. Sweetheart,
very sweet deal. As part of that sweetheart deal, he
got even more four unnamed co conspirators were not going
to be prosecuted in the Southern District of Florida. Gallaine
Maxwell was not named as one of those four. It
would be a stronger claim by her if she'd been
one of the four people actually named. She wants to

(01:30:52):
say I was one of the four people, and the
answer is, really, how come your name's not in there?
But what's worse than that for her is that the
deal is only covering the Southern District of Florida, and
later on she's prosecuted in the Southern District of New
York because they have a case against her in the
Southern District of New York. They have venue in the
Southern District of New York. She made that motion timely

(01:31:13):
that it should be dismissed because she should have gotten
this derivative immunity from Epstein's agreement. The court said no.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeal said no, and I
believe the US Supreme Court's going to say no. So
people who say she has no reason at all for
not putting on her defense before, she would say I
thought it was going to beat it on this legal argument,
but now I didn't. I don't want to serve twenty

(01:31:34):
years and now I'm willing to talk. That's what she's
going to say. What I think is that I don't
believe a word that she has to say. She was
investigated for, among other things, perjury, and you look at
the charges, and you look at her motivation, which is
the only person who can get her out of this trouble,
because the US Supreme Court and her motion are not
going to do it. The only one who can get
her out of her twenty years sentence is Trump. And

(01:31:55):
so she's incredibly incentivized to say something like, yeah, it's
a bunch of Democrats and Trump never had anything at
all to do with any of the misconduct in this case.
And then Trump says, oh my god, there's been a
miscarriage of justice. The Democrats were in the process of
railroading this lady. Thank goodness, this is another liberation day.
And he'll cut her loose on a commutation. And people

(01:32:17):
who say it won't happen, tell me what's gonna stop
it from happening. Anyone who says that's not going to happen,
What is going to stop Trump and Maxwell and Maxwell's
lawyer from doing that, along with Trump's personal lawyer. This
Blanche guy, Now, this Blanche thing is out of this world,
Blanche has no business whatsoever, not just because he's the
number two Department of Justice official, but because he's Trump's

(01:32:39):
personal lawyer. And he even told Congress when he was
being confirmed, would you consider yourself still Trump's lawyer? Even admitted, yes,
I'd consider myself still Trump's lawyer. He went down there
not to pursue Justice Mark, but to make sure that
whatever she was going to say, he could hear it,
he could interact with her. And let's just put it
this way. He went down there because he didn't want

(01:33:01):
anything she had to say to hurt Trump, and she
got the message loud and clear. I believe that she
better not say anything that really hurt Trump because he'd
be on his merry way Blanche and her commutation or
pardon would also be on its merry way away from her.
So it was completely the One thing that's good is
that there was an FBI agent. People have speculated they
don't know who was in the meeting. He should he

(01:33:24):
would be not just criminal, but criminally insane. Blanche if
he went down there and there's no record of what happened.
He wants to have a record to protect his But
four years from now, Trump won't be in power anymore,
and somebody will think to look back at what Blanche did.
And Blanche at least wants to have a clear tape,
a clear record with a couple of FBA agents, and
a tape that he didn't do anything wrong. He's a

(01:33:46):
very very smart lawyer, so I'm sure he made sure
he didn't do anything wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:33:51):
So he went down there at the behest of Trump.
You're saying, but he played it as close to kosher
as you could play it, given the extraordinary nature of
that meeting.

Speaker 3 (01:34:02):
Yes, but you ask any lawyer, any former assistant US attorney,
they say, what should have happened is that the prosecutor
on the case, who knew the case best, should have
gone down there, along with the FBI agents who knew
the case best. It doesn't seem like it was just
happenstance right now that Maureene Comi was fired just a
few days before that meeting went down, Mark, because she

(01:34:23):
would have been a logical person to go. Now she's
not with the government anymore, she can't go. And so
instead of having a person like Gallaine Maxwell interviewed by
the person who knew the case best, because you know
what they do in these things. They don't. They go
into it, the prosecutors and the FBI agents with a
cooperator would be cooperator like her, They go into thinking
this is all going to be a pack of lies.

(01:34:43):
They're just going to blow smoke up my you know what.
And so they ask questions that they know the answers to.
So many of the questions are ones that the investigators
know the answer to to see if they're going to
catch the would be cooperator on lies minimizations. Blanche was
not the right person to do that. I think Komi
was the perfect person to do that. So my opinion

(01:35:03):
is that they made sure she was no longer with
the government so that it would be impossible that she'd
be the one. And so it supposedly made some sense
that Blanche was the one who went down there.

Speaker 1 (01:35:13):
Well you've talked about you in this conversation that that's
kind of them. They did that in Los Angeles with
that uh, with the federal attorney there, the federal ad
judge there is that they they got rid of helped
me on that big deal with the fat burger guy
in Los Angeles. My god, Yes, this is incredible the story.

Speaker 3 (01:35:34):
But then as he was everyone's talking. Everyone's talking about
the fact that they're never going to have a Johnny
Rockets or a fat Burger again.

Speaker 1 (01:35:43):
I mean, god, but they got rid of But they
they did. They they fired a career federal prosecutor to
get just what you were talking about. That's what made
me think of it.

Speaker 3 (01:35:51):
There's a little wrinkle to that one. He's a very
this fellow, Adam Slipher from saying his name right, So
he is from a wealthy family, and as well as
being a great lawyer, he's interested in politics. Nothing wrong
with that. I mean, you know, Adam Schiff went from
that office to be, you know, a senator. He wanted
to be a congress member from Westchester, which is I

(01:36:11):
guess where his family is. So with his talent and
with his daddy's money, he ran for Congress as a Democrat.
Guess what. He didn't have very nice things to say
about Trump. He was running as a Democrat, so they're
all upset at the things that he said as a candidate.
He ended up finishing second. That's not good enough in politics.
And so he got his job back at the US

(01:36:33):
Attorney's office, and he kept on with this big white
collar case, which is alleges that this fella, I think
his name is Andy widen Horn. He is the head
of Fatburger, Andy Widenhorn. I think I'm saying that right,
that he had a previous felony conviction. Then he's raided
down here running Fat Burger. Allegedly he has a gun,

(01:36:53):
which a fellon is not allowed to have a gun.
And now they're going to he chooses Trump's first US attorney.
His name is Nick Hannah. So this Fat Burger guy
picks Trump one's US attorney who's now back in private practice,
This Nick Hannah. He hires Nick Hannah, and that's who

(01:37:14):
represents this weeden horned fat Burger guy in front of
the US Attorney's office. And this fellow who ran for Congress,
who seems like a very efficient white collar prosecutor, who
has the guy prosecuted? The I R S and a
press release called this fellow a serial tax cheat. That's
you know, their editorialization. But that's not usual that the

(01:37:36):
I R S puts out a press release to call
a suspect in a case a serial tax cheat. And
now this new US attorney that he also made substantial
campaign contributions this Widenhorn did to Trump, and now Trump
one's US attorney has convinced Trump two's US attorney this

(01:37:57):
no bill a salie to dismiss the case without prejudice.
They don't have an interest in this case. Mark to
hold a sort of damocles over the head of this guy.
And you might say, well, when come the restoration in
three and a half years. If the restoration of the
rule of law is coming back in three and a
half years, they could still go after this fellow and

(01:38:21):
just you know, take him to trial on the case
that they have indicted and then it's ready to go.
But that's so unlikely. So basically, the fat burger guy
is going to walk allegedly charges that he underpaid the
IRS over forty five million dollars being a convicted felon
in an earlier case they also dismiss. They're also going
to dismiss the felon in possession of the firearm, which I.

Speaker 1 (01:38:42):
Don't think was that he Again the DOJ fired the
career prosecutor, the career federal prosecutor to get that done.

Speaker 3 (01:38:51):
The only thing I'm saying about that is that some
of these are completely out of left field these firings,
This one you could have predicted because he was a
Democratic candidate for Congress. You know, again, if you had
a crystal ball that went backwards, which you don't have
in life, if you had you know, perfect recall, perfect recall,
probably when Trump won, that case should have been handed

(01:39:12):
off to a different assistant US attorney so that they
couldn't make this argument. But but yeah, Mark, I mean yes,
and you look at one after another. Each one may
have a slight anomaly, but the pattern is overwhelmingly.

Speaker 1 (01:39:23):
Clear, exactly. And then so it brings me to what
is one of the greatest fears. Were they rising autocrat
and the Trumpian flex that is all about recrimination and revenge.
What are they doing with Boseberg? Now? Boseberg, this a

(01:39:44):
judge is the US District Court judge who has been
in the back and forth with the Trump administration over
the deportations to Venezuela and you know those who ended
up the Venezuelan men in El Salvador. So the DOJ
is now going after him. They issue a complaint quote

(01:40:07):
making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration.
In this complaint they cite Boseberg attendance at a judicial
conference of the United States, in which the judge warned
that the Trump administration could quote disregard rulings of federal
courts and trigger a quote constitutional crisis. They also again

(01:40:29):
talk about his handling involving the alleged members of the
Venezuelan gang, the trend Ragua, and the ones who were
flown to that Salvador in prison. So they're going after Bosberg,
and I wanted to get your thoughts on this, because
this again seems of a kind going up against those
judges who dare to stray and dare to in any

(01:40:53):
way go up against this administration with even a critical word.

Speaker 3 (01:40:58):
Well Mark, this is how they try to our judges
in third world countries, in authoritarian countries. The good news
is it won't work in America. This is absolutely stupid garbage.
It's performative. This investigation of this judge is going to
go nowhere. As people may remember, he's Kavanaugh's big buddy

(01:41:18):
from Yale. He's totally middle of the road. He's not
some flaming leftists as they tried to portray him. And
he's actually the chief judge of the District Court in Washington,
d C, which my judge had the honor of being
the chief judge down there too, So it's a very
important post that he has. It's one that has life tenure.

(01:41:39):
The review of him because he is the chief Judge,
would be by the Chief Judge of the d C
Circuit Court of Appeals, who, for people who like this
sort of thing, is an Obama appointee, brilliant fellow. And
what normally happens with these and what's going to happen
with Boseburg's is it's going to go nowhere because there's
no there there. If you don't like a judge's ruling,

(01:42:01):
first of all, you have appeals. We allow appeals in
this country, and as we can see on your show
week after week, appeals court to reverse lower courts. That's
what you do. You don't go crying off to the
you know, Judicial Performance Committee. If you don't like a
judge's ruling, you make your record and then you appeal
and if you're in the right, you ought to win.

(01:42:22):
That doesn't always happen. You know, no system is perfect,
but we have a system to deal with judges who
make errors. This judge number one didn't make any error.
He's that turn the planes around. Judge, he's the one
where the plane hasn't even left yet it looks like
it left. This is with him ordering it that it
not go. This is the one where the government said that,
oh well, it was only an oral order. We didn't

(01:42:44):
think an oral order had any effect. Like when a
federal judge tells you from the bench, do not do
such and such. Do you understand my order that you
can disregard it because you can wait for three hours
later for the written version of it, because you know,
in that situation it could be two weeks later that
you get the written order. If that were really the law,
that would be absurd. So all of this case, and

(01:43:06):
then they didn't bring him back. This is the Brego Garcia.
That case too. They didn't bring the people back from Elsavade,
and they finally brought him back. That's a whole other
fraud story. What he said, by the way, doesn't even
appear to have been a public comment. It was said
at a judicial conference and among judges, which was not
meant to be public. Somebody must have had a wire.

(01:43:26):
Maybe some right wing staffer who was there listened to
the conversation, heard what he was saying to the judicial
conference because one of the judges, clerks or interns or
somebody was there and maybe was having a tape recourse.
So supposedly there's a tape of him saying something, So
it's not even public. And on top of that, it's
not misconduct. He says, Trump could be in violation, could

(01:43:50):
be planning to violate judicial orders, which not only is
not an impermissible comment, it seemed to be right on
and true, okay, and if he were to violate orders
of judges that would be a constitutional crisis. Also true,
he could violate judicial orders and if he did, that
would be a constitutional crisis. So it wasn't public, it

(01:44:11):
wasn't misconduct. It's going nowhere. But it shows, right a
kind of performative get back at you. And it also
shows that this crowd that's in there right now, Mark,
they have no sense of the long term. None of them,
I guess, planned to be there. In four years, Bosburg
will still be a judge. Those judges that they suit
in Maryland, as the entire bench in Maryland, those judges

(01:44:32):
will all still be judges. It is so self destructive.
It's just I don't know, I mean, does BONDI not
intend to be a lawyer afterwards. I mean, you look
at the comments that Asaali made about the bench, about
the federal judges in our district. He said they're left wingers.
The US Attorney's Office is full of left leaning judges.

(01:44:53):
I wish they'd lean left on some of my cases.
I'm a working lawyer. I'm a working lawyer. A little
bit more compassion for my club, it would be very
well taken. It is the left leading, and that he
said bad things about the FBI, which is just astonishing.
They need to change their culture. What's wrong with the
FBI's culture, Mark, I don't get it at all.

Speaker 1 (01:45:14):
Well, I mean the rhetoric. I mean the two things.
First of all, the rhetoric, it's just one of flame throwing.
I mean, it's these blow torch rhetorical moments that all
of these people are part of, and it's become the
hymnal from which they all sing. But the other thing

(01:45:35):
is that they're only playing for the moment. I mean,
I don't think they have that time horizon that you do.
You know, they don't have a sense of I mean,
they are reshaping America. David Cats, I know, I have
a very grim view of things, and you have a
very bright view of the future because you operate in
a system, the judicial system, which we're all really counting
on in ways that are even more amplified at suggest

(01:45:56):
or amplified more might be the way to put it,
by the fact that these are the institutions that we
were counting on are going away. I mean, Congress evaporates
any kind of regulatory structure on finance, on the economy,
on all of the things that would maybe check corruption. Frankly,
that's all evaporating. So we count on the judicial system,

(01:46:17):
and that's why we turn to you, and you operate
within a judicial system that seems to still have retained
some semblance of order. But I'd suggest that a lot
of the things that they're doing again, they're not on
the same time horizon. They don't see it as Oh,
eventually I might have to deal with the judicial system
after I'm out of office, and I might have to
answer for what I do. And I also think that

(01:46:38):
on some level of feel as though we're shaping the
judicial system now in a way it hasn't been shaped before,
and I will be protected before I leave office.

Speaker 3 (01:46:48):
Well, I think one reason that it's concerning. You know,
I don't want to make this about me, but I've
been able without joining like a large firm, having a
very small practice, you know, I've been able to attract
clients who think, you know, this guy has a lot
of talent in federal court, and his talent will will
out no matter what political party the judge is from,

(01:47:08):
and no matter what political party is controlling the US
Attorney's office. But you look at these things that are happening,
you know, you look at you know, one of my
one of my really big clients, said, you know, I
really want to hire you, but maybe I should just
try to pay the senator in my state. And I said,
this is America, this is America. Can pay it. You
can flush your money down the toilet. You could pay

(01:47:30):
the senator in your state. But you need to have
the best lawyer you can have in federal court, who
knows you know the law and the procedures in federal court. Well,
I mean, what are these cases telling, what are these
cases teaching? You know, one other story, I had a
fellow from abroad. This has to be fifteen years ago.
I think at that time you paid me twenty five
thousand dollars, and about a week later he says, have

(01:47:52):
you spoken to the judge? And I said no, the
hearing is in. The hearing is another two weeks. A
week later he says to me, have you spoken to
the judge? I said no, I'm in the library, you know.
And he says, oh, you're very smart. You talk to
the judge in the library. So you know, there's people
from broad who just cannot story to laugh.

Speaker 1 (01:48:12):
But you're right. They just assume that it's a system
of corruption.

Speaker 3 (01:48:16):
What does America look like? Now, look at the cases
that we're just talking about. What does America look like?
What is our system of justice? And you know, people say,
we're exaggerating it too much. No, no, no, people come
to this country because of the rule of law. They
invest trillions of dollars in this country because of the
rule of law and the idea that you know, your
opponent can just you know, can exert such political influence,

(01:48:39):
including on the justice system. That's one reason people don't
want to invest in a lot of countries where it
looks like you can make money, because you know that
you're going to go into a real swamp, not the
one that Trump has talked about all these years and
then he's swampier than anyone. But you know, you don't
want to be in that kind of a swamp. So
on a very personal level, I hope it goes back
to where everybody just wants to hire the very best

(01:49:01):
attorney they can find, who knows the facts and the law,
and that that's the way to get the best result
in federal court. But you know, what is the Adams case? Teach?
What is this latest case in LA Teach? What lessons
are people deriving from them?

Speaker 1 (01:49:14):
Yeah? I mean the system is being corrupted. All right,
I'll let you go, but not before you answer the
question from Robert, who writes in we have an email address,
the Mark Thompson Show at gmail dot com.

Speaker 8 (01:49:26):
I've received a lot of positive letters.

Speaker 1 (01:49:28):
Here's a question. Here's a question from for David Katz.
This is an interesting non political question. Robert says, there
is a rumor that astronomer CEO Andy Byron, who was
caught at that Coldplay concert you'll remember, might sue Coldplay
for this JumboTron incident. If he did sue David Katz,

(01:49:51):
would he have a case on face? I would think
I'm not done David Katz, I mean finished Robert's letter.
I would think he goes on, it's not long, but
I've received a lot of positives. Okay, let me finish please.
I would think, given that he should have no expectation
of privacy, Robert is suggesting that he could not sue

(01:50:12):
based on a violation of his privacy. But maybe there
was another valid angle that he could pursue that would
go up against the kisscam and maybe get rid of
the kisscam going forward. He said, again, this is just
a rumor. Please ask David Cass this legal question, now, sir,
what do you say?

Speaker 3 (01:50:32):
Well, so this wouldn't be an instantaneous stump the cats.
You were nice enough to send me Roberts question. I
thought about it. It is a public place, so having
your picture taken in a stadium, I just don't see it.
Put on the jumpbotron, I just don't see it. I
think if he really hires a lawyer and the lawyer
wants to research this case, I think they would go

(01:50:53):
back and look at what Coldplay has done before and
see you know, I know Coldplay has a song called Yellow,
and during Yellow, Mantic says I love you, and that's
when they do the kiss camp, and if they've done
the kiss cam at prior ones and things like that
have happened. If this is his line whenever someone shirks
away from the camera, If this is the front man
for Coldplay, I don't know his name, are sure that

(01:51:15):
if this is the thing, and he's done this before
and he's had any kind of untoward incident, but it
just didn't get this widely publicized, that might be something
that you know, Coldplay guy knew that he was potentially
inflicting emotional distress because you know, even though they shouldn't
be doing that, if you're going around inflicting emotional distress

(01:51:35):
on people, you know, they might they might settle this case.
But unless there's some pattern of ridiculing people by the
cold Play the Coldplay guy says when they when they
when they shy away from the kissing on the camera, Uh,
he says something like, are those folks having an affair
or are they just shy? If he said that at
three or four other concerts before that during the kiss

(01:51:58):
cam and something toward happened after that, or somebody got
really upset after that, But I just see this one
as going nowhere.

Speaker 1 (01:52:06):
Several people have said that on the back of the ticket,
in the stub of the ticket. Of course it's all
digital now, but anyway, somewhere in the terms and conditions
there's just the understanding that you may be photographed, et cetera.
That might be as well, how David Katz.

Speaker 3 (01:52:19):
That may be an adhesion contract, like those things that
used to be on the tiny on the back of
the parking tickets when you parked at certain places. I
don't think that if he otherwise had a good claim
that he waived it or forfeited by not grousing about
his ticket or by buying a ticket, you know. Anyway,
the baseball ticket used to say that you assume the
risk of getting hit by a ball. But the people

(01:52:41):
who got hit by the ball and really hurt, you know,
the baseball teams would defend on the fact that, you know,
assumption of the risk, and I think they ended up
as the courts, you know, got more I think sophisticated,
and seeing some poor person who was terribly disabled by
being hit by a ball, they started putting up nets
right the area where the batted balls were really likely

(01:53:02):
to hurt somebody, and not relying on it but just
to be.

Speaker 1 (01:53:04):
Clear in the Baseball parallel that you suggest, Baseball did
not settle. They pointed to the back of the ticket.

Speaker 3 (01:53:12):
They pointed to the back of the ticket, and I
think they still point to the back of the ticket.
But the better part of valor was to put up
those nets.

Speaker 1 (01:53:20):
I understand that it changed the way they did things,
but they didn't have to pay any kind of settlement.
The point is that they they as a result of
the legal action or perhaps the complaints, they put up
those safety nets, et cetera, but they didn't actually pay out.
I'm getting to the reason I asked the question is
I'm getting to the cold play thing by saying you
can get rid of the kiss cam or whatever, because
you just don't want this kind of hassl anymore. But

(01:53:41):
the reality is they're not going to settle with these
people because of the understanding, the implicit understanding or explicit
understanding if it's in the terms and conditions.

Speaker 3 (01:53:51):
Also, you know, it's really different to have a plaintiff
who's been terribly injured by a batted ball, right, this
is never going to have the sympathy of a jury.
You know, coldplay in the stadium are never gonna share.
You know, they're not going to shirk from this case.
So it's but it's I love when people send in
their questions. Just give me a little heads up.

Speaker 1 (01:54:11):
Yeah, it's the Mark Thompson Mark the Mark Thompson Show
at gmail dot com. You can write in if you've
got questions for David Cash. They can be politically related. Uh,
you know, I always can use the help, so, uh,
I really do appreciate it. Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:54:24):
You know, Mark, I'm your legal commentator, but i'm News
Nation now has me on like most weekends now and
they call me a Democratic strategist, which I think that
developed because their other guests is a Republican strategist, and
they figured, well, if we're having we want to be
fair and bad they really do want to be fair
and balanced News Nation, and so they figure if they

(01:54:44):
have a Republican strategist, they should have a democratic strategist.

Speaker 1 (01:54:48):
So, but we were talking, congratulations on your new title.

Speaker 3 (01:54:51):
Then yeah, Trump Trump slumping in the polls, and uh
we're usually about four or in the afternoon Pacific time,
about four or five o'clock SAT.

Speaker 1 (01:55:00):
The week on the weekends. Well, you know, all I
have to do well then if I can just mention
this because you're now this big, you know, big dude.
Who's the Democratic strategist or whatever they call you there,
I guess the Democratic strategists. I would say this to
you Democratic strategists and to everybody who wants the hopium
of Trump of sagging in the polls. I'd look at

(01:55:23):
your own polls, look at the Democrats polls. It's brutal.
It makes Trump look like Jesus Christ. The Democrats do
not have the corresponding booie that you might expect with
this mess that Trump has created. They still don't poll
very well. Now. I'd love to talk to you about

(01:55:44):
this more, but I just I guess what I'm saying
is just because Trump is sagging doesn't mean when the
moment comes that voters are going to vote out the
GOP and vote in the Dems. I think it's going
to be a very hard thought midterm. And I didn't
even get to the redistricting. I'm really did I don't
think that. I don't even think I asked you about that.

(01:56:04):
I really feel bad that I've let it go. That's long,
go ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:56:07):
Two things, mark sagging in the polls is a lot
better than soaring in the polls at number two. A
lot of its motivation for midterms. The problem with the
midterms is that people are not as motivated as they
are in the presidential race, and Democrats are extremely motivated.
All the polls show that the excitement to go vote
and to go vote, you know, the Democrats in in

(01:56:29):
the midterms is much greater than the Republicans don't have
that enthusiasm, and so I think the midterms are going
to be okay. On the redistricting, we cannot have unilateral disarmament.
If Texas is going to play this game. We have
to play this game to just sit there and say, oh,
I don't know what happened. We took the high road,
and now the Republicans still control the House like they

(01:56:52):
do the rest of government. We still get to all
the House in a year and a half by two
or three votes. Because when they redistricted Texas, we didn't
redistrict California or New York didn't redistrict California. That would
be that would be unilateral disarmament. That would be the
end of the Democratic Party showing that it's not willing
to fight exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:57:13):
So glad you touch on it. And by the way,
just on the legal side, they are suing over the
redistricting as well, and they're suing in and they'll sue
in a bunch of different states. I mean, this is
a real legal effort, and as you say, it has
to be matched by a redistricting commitment that is in
democratic states the same way it is in Republicans. And
that's the only way to play ball.

Speaker 3 (01:57:32):
Now, Mark, California can put it right back if Texas
puts it right back. This is a total reciprocal thing.
So if Texas backs down, now, California will back down.
If Texas does this, will do it. And then in
two years if we see it's really unwieldy and Texas,
if Texas sees it's unwieldy, that the game's not working
and they back down, will back down. There's also, by

(01:57:53):
the way, a well, let's let's leave it there anyway,
with you.

Speaker 1 (01:57:58):
Mark, great to be with you. Everybody else who is
questions for cats, put them in an email, send them
to us at the show, and then we'll make sure
he gets them. Okay. I I think that's a better
way to go with a greater coherence than just kind
of throwing stuff at him now The Mark Thompson Show
at gmail dot com. David, so grateful for your time.
Thank you so much. We'll watch for you on News
Nation this weekend, and then we'll see you here next Thursday.

(01:58:19):
Thanks okay, David kats everybody, love it, love it, love it,
love it. Thank you everybody. I hope our signal has
been stabilized. Has a signal been stabilized? Tony, You're you're
my signal stabilis. I think you know that the problem

(01:58:39):
is just as well certain web pages. I think certain
web pages.

Speaker 5 (01:58:44):
There's a lot of.

Speaker 7 (01:58:45):
News sites because they have so many pop ups and
they're running video at the same time and all that.

Speaker 1 (01:58:49):
That's just hate them, just hate them. Just don't like it.

Speaker 7 (01:58:53):
Three sites in particular do that excessively.

Speaker 1 (01:58:58):
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what
to do.

Speaker 4 (01:59:04):
One.

Speaker 1 (01:59:05):
Can you tell us about the scene. It's crazy, Larry
in the video for the Bob up the pupa videos
are costing is Larry? One? Can you tell us about
the scene? What is it? Kim? We didn't get your
news in.

Speaker 5 (01:59:16):
I know, I know, I just have one story on
the way out, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:59:21):
I guess I could play the theme music.

Speaker 5 (01:59:23):
No, no, it's okay. I'll just tell you. I'll just
tell you this little tidbit all the.

Speaker 1 (01:59:28):
Way, every every element needs a production show Mark Thompson show.
Kim has one thing she wants to get in one
news story before we say goodbye.

Speaker 5 (01:59:39):
Yeah, Trump is planning to tear up part of the
White House to build a new two hundred million dollar ballroom.

Speaker 3 (01:59:45):
I've never seen anything like it.

Speaker 5 (01:59:47):
Wow, it's going to be a six hundred and fifty
person ballroom installed where part of the reconstructed East Wing
currently sits. The two hundred mill will be furnish by
Trump and other unnamed individuals. One wonders, at what got cost?
Is not kind of cost is that coming in? But

(02:00:09):
we have to give up, right, He's already chosen architects
to lead this project, and they are they're going to
put up renderings on the White House website very soon.
And the yeah, they say the East Wing is going
to be modernized, that the necessary construction will take place,

(02:00:32):
and we're getting a big old ballroom. So there you go.
Fancy fancy nancy.

Speaker 1 (02:00:37):
Gosh, it is unreal, man, this guy is really he
has a plan and he wants he wants his gilded
Oh there she is. This is Caroline Levitt holding out
the ballroom plans. Ballroom plans I love.

Speaker 5 (02:00:52):
Yeah, Well you hold this this extra money now with
all the tech folks throwing cash it Trump, he's got to,
you know, spend it somehow.

Speaker 1 (02:01:03):
Yeah. I don't know.

Speaker 5 (02:01:04):
I don't know if that's the money being used, but
two hundred million coming from Trump and other unnamed individuals.

Speaker 1 (02:01:11):
He's working on a lot of stuff, Kim.

Speaker 6 (02:01:13):
You know, just yes or no?

Speaker 5 (02:01:14):
You still do not have a plan.

Speaker 3 (02:01:15):
I have concepts of a plan.

Speaker 5 (02:01:17):
Yeah, he's working on we have a massive room for
state dinners and such.

Speaker 1 (02:01:22):
Oh yeah, no, there's a of course.

Speaker 5 (02:01:24):
Why is this necessary?

Speaker 1 (02:01:26):
Well, I mean because the president wants it to Kim.
He wants to turn it into a I mean, I
don't know where your patriotism is.

Speaker 5 (02:01:33):
But have you ever been a member of the Chinese
Communist Party?

Speaker 1 (02:01:36):
Yeah? Exactly. Maybe we should check your papers, investigate me. Yeah,
dare you even suggest that? But it's pretty we could
try ignoring it, sir. That's the Trump. Will they call
it the Donald J. Trump? I'm sure.

Speaker 5 (02:01:56):
Donald Golden Ballroom.

Speaker 1 (02:01:59):
Yes, there's stuff to make you laugh, for there's stuff
to make you cry. I know, ballroom, he lives in
nineteen thirty eight. It's true, Thank you, Ron, It's true ballroom, right,
all those Gilded Age people to be able to dance najays. Well,
all the damage Trumpet his administration are doing to this country,
it's amazing that Dems can't find something to coalesce, rout

(02:02:20):
and fight back with. Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
They They do have to find the thing. Oftentimes the
thing is the economy. So we'll see. I mean, these
tariffs will and do have an effect on the economy,
and I think things will change here in the next
six months. But we'll see a lot of what he's

(02:02:40):
done as far as undercutting Medicaid and such as we've
talked about before. That doesn't kick in until after the midterms,
until after they've broken ground on the new ballroom. Here
is chaplain, Fred Hi, Mark Kim, and Tony Tony. I
always love when Tony gets a quick shot. I still

(02:03:01):
am so amazed at how we get distracted so easily
from what Trump does. Why not focus on what we
need to brace for impacting economically? Trump takes everything personally. Yeah,
of course he does. You're right. I don't know what
you need to brace for impact economically, but this guy
is running roughshot over an economy that was doing well.

(02:03:23):
I know you're going to say, look at the stock market,
it is up exactly. This is I think the smoke
and mirrors of what's happening right now. Again see my
remarks before. I really am waiting for the shoe to drop,
and it will, it will drop. Debbie. Trump is such
an extortionist the two dollars super chat. Thank you for that,

(02:03:43):
and thank you Chaplin Fred as well. Yeah, I think
he is. He's a strong man. He's a strong man
without question, and a Luis always with something sarcastic to say.
Let's see what Louis says, Mark, have some faith in
the stable genius. Look at how well Trump University, Trump airlines,
Trump Vodka, Trump Steaks, et cetera. Are doing. And didn't

(02:04:04):
Rothman say we'd be fine? Lol? Thank you, thank you, Louise. Yeah,
b Aware says pathetic. The Daily Beast deleted an article
on Thursday in which author Michael Wolfe claimed convicted child
predator Jeffrey Epstein was involved in President Donald Trump's introduction
to Millennia. Yeah, I'd heard that Epstein. They met at

(02:04:27):
sort of Epstein's place or some party that Epstein had
put together, I.

Speaker 5 (02:04:30):
Don't know, and then he introduced them, right, yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:04:34):
Yeah, that's right. Exacting. Hurry up, says Wes for the
five dollars super chat. I want the after party.

Speaker 5 (02:04:41):
Oh yeah, well it is Trivia Thursday, so you know.

Speaker 1 (02:04:46):
Who am I to hold that up? Exactly here, I
am trying to give you some extra content and I'm
told to you know, to move along. It's tough when
your own audience turns on you that way. I'm just
listen to me.

Speaker 7 (02:05:01):
I don't want to.

Speaker 1 (02:05:05):
Well, I've enjoyed our time together anyway. We've had some
great conversations. The conversation with Kats was great. Tony will
drop all of these conversations or those that we feel
are most relevant in videos that will drop later today
and so you can you can check for that about
of Trump talk today. But we also got into some
other stuff and i'd I've felt good about things myself.

Speaker 3 (02:05:31):
But all right, so I'd like to ask for a recess.

Speaker 1 (02:05:34):
We are going to finish up after the Great Shadow
takes us out. I'm show of Stevens for the Mark
Johnson Show. Bye bye, thank you, Kim, thank you Tony,
thank you everybody, Ye all the time. Bye bye, thank
you everyone, Bye bye and bye bye.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

.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;}Treasury Sec. Says Quiet Part: Trump’s Baby Accounts May Lead to Privatizing Social Security 7/31/25

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

All Episodes

Treasury Sec. Says Quiet Part: Trump’s Baby Accounts May Lead to Privatizing Social Security 7/31/25

On Purpose with Jay Shetty