Trump Brushes Off Epstein Birthday Letter Calling it Nothing but a Dead Issue, 9/10/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Oh, thank you everyone. Oh, and look who's here. Everybody.
Albert is in the house. Albert, thank you, the kids say,
and so is Kim.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
How are you.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
I know, it's pretty exciting. We've got a really great
show for you. The Professor John Rothman is going to
be through. We'll talk about what's happening in the Middle East,
in Poland, and we'll get to word as to the
likely course of things when it comes to the tariffs
that are I would say they're in a legal should

(00:36):
we say, a questionable area at best, and they're going
to go to the Supreme Court where they do a
lot of legal questionable at best stuff, and they seem
to be ruling lately in favor of this president. You
gotta love it. If you're Trump, it's your world, you know,
and that's the way he abused it. So it's gonna
be has never been anything like this, it's going to

(00:57):
be quite quite extraordinary. So anything like that. I am
happy to tell you that I have a a right
wing youngster in the UH in the mix today. I
know he's the youngest syndicated journalist in the country. Will
talk to him an hour two of the show, What's

(01:18):
the problem with the audio. Is there an audio issue
of some kind?

Speaker 2 (01:22):
Now?

Speaker 1 (01:22):
I think you're sound good? All right? Is it it's
sounding okay?

Speaker 3 (01:25):
I depend on that an issue.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
You have an issue that we'll try him on. Now
are they better?

Speaker 4 (01:31):
Now?

Speaker 5 (01:31):
Ye?

Speaker 1 (01:32):
Okay, that's right. I saw you take them off, and
I figure that voice is Courtney. Everyone. Courtney is in
my other half and she has designed all. Well, this
right now that I'm wearing Born to Peacefully Resist this
shirt was designed by Courtney. I like it because it's
got this just it's a.

Speaker 3 (01:49):
Bright, right sunny sea.

Speaker 1 (01:52):
I really like it.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
So growing ever more important messaging.

Speaker 1 (01:57):
It's important to wear it. Message it, feel it, live it,
believe it and all this stuff. The specialty shirts which
you designed are on the website get dot com. Yeah,
some of them. You can see them even underneath the
YouTube videos. Those are on YouTube.

Speaker 3 (02:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
And there are also things for the fall. Did you
see that knitted cardigan spider? Don't we have? We have?

Speaker 3 (02:20):
We show you this knitted car design a little bit,
but we have it.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
We tweaked the design a bit. We have men on
staff the yes, I said, could we work with it
a bit? Could we work with the design so here's
the first of all. I love the lining. It's a
different colors, it's not And I love this sweater. Look
at that, it's.

Speaker 3 (02:42):
Permanently that handsome spotting down.

Speaker 1 (02:45):
Yeah you Coachella Valley Coffee. Yeah, you sit there on Sundays, Albert,
and you watch your forty nine ers barely squeak by.
What's going on with that? It's outrageous. Albert told me
the Niners they're secretly really good this year. That's what
you said in the commission. That's what you told me.

Speaker 6 (03:04):
I think I remember telling you the Rams might hit whatever.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
How dare you You literally said, don't bet on the ram.
I think I said quite the opposite. I like the
odds for the this is you're You're so Trumpian. I
can't believe it, Like you totally revised. You do this
to me all the time. I don't know what the hell?
Thank you? That's the that's the cardigan. What else do
you have over there? You've got I.

Speaker 3 (03:28):
Have the apron, which we love.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
We love this apron. This is the kitchen apron or
the barbecue apron.

Speaker 3 (03:35):
Yep, all of your for all of your barbecue kitchen knee.
You can tie it behind the Mark Thompson Show. It's embroidered.

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Yeah, this is all embroidered. This is an ironed doe
stamped on.

Speaker 3 (03:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (03:52):
Is he get in the kitchen and cook and get
and grilled vegetables and.

Speaker 3 (03:58):
Oh he goes into the kitchen let me finish, on
his way out the door to do some sort of
social thing or or play poker. I'm shocked, but you
know he knows where the kitchen is. It's really a
pass through.

Speaker 1 (04:18):
I've enabled this incredible life for you. And that I
can get is you.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
Know, the alcohols in the kitchen where is There's one
other thing too, And there's a slutter which is right here,
which is so nice. It's embroidered as well.

Speaker 1 (04:33):
Let me see.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
We're working on the design. But yeah, it's fantastic.

Speaker 1 (04:36):
Courtney is always tweaking the designs.

Speaker 3 (04:38):
But yeah, yeah, So those are the nice sweaters we have.
I just love the We have hats for fall. We
have travel stuff. We have pajama.

Speaker 1 (04:50):
Never never yet.

Speaker 3 (04:51):
We have pajamas, yoga mat, we have double bags, a.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
Lot of the stuff.

Speaker 3 (04:55):
You can see all the stuff.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
It's good. This is our big merch pitch you. We
are excited.

Speaker 3 (05:04):
I'm sorry Christmas is coming, Christmas is coming, and uh
and so there's nothing more exciting than getting something like this.

Speaker 6 (05:12):
Well, I thank holiday to spoil our Christmas?

Speaker 1 (05:14):
Now, how dare you? Dare you? Albert? This is a
do this to me all the time. I don't know
what the hell they doing. I'm sorry Courtney that you
had to, you know, get into this madness. But we
very much appreciate your presence and thank you for all
the work you did.

Speaker 3 (05:29):
On the website, for all the support. We have a
lot of people supporting us and sending kind notes. I
read back to everybody. It's me writting back, so thank
you for every.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
Time somebody orders something, Courtney runs back to them. So
get Markmarch dot com is where you get it. Thank you,
Thank you Courtney. You are wonderful and just keep on
being wonderful. Mark Thompson. So yeah, I really do do
enjoy Courtney and her She's you know, picked up the mantle,
She's picked up the challenge right so uh quickly a

(05:58):
shout out to Debbie with a four ninety nine super
Chat from Idaho. Signing in from Scotland, she says, we've
been in the UK and Ireland. Good to stay in
touch with Mark Thompson show. I need a cardigan for
the cool days here. Yeah, how about that. I studied
in Scotland for a short time. It was really exciting

(06:19):
a few months. Yeah, exactly. Well, one of the things
is that during the summer months, the sun doesn't go
down until, like, you know, eleven at night, and so
it's a wild thing to be when you're a college
dude and you're coming out of a bar. You're in
a bar and it's still light out, just to be
willing to bet my lunch that there's alcohol involved. I

(06:40):
didn't mean to go right to the bar, but that's
sort of when you're a you know, a college kid.
You get done with your studies, that's where you end up.

Speaker 5 (06:45):
So were you at the University of Edinburgh?

Speaker 1 (06:48):
I was in I visited Edinburgh. I was at Sterling University.
Oh st I r L I NG. In fact, if
you look it up, it's something I'm trying to Somebody
did something there recently that was in the last few years.
Somebody can't recall what it was, but I thought it
was quite interesting and coincidental that it showed up in

(07:11):
the news having having been there. But it's a beautiful place.
I mean it's you know, they get all that rain,
so everything's green and gorgeous and during during the summer
months particularly.

Speaker 6 (07:21):
So.

Speaker 1 (07:23):
Anyway, that's I don't have a great Scotland story, but
it's nice that she's in Scotland and that's cool. Yeah,
So there you have it. I do want to Mark
Thompson show. I do want to give a shout out
to a lot of you who have joined and supported
on PayPal. I'll do that an hour two. Also an
hour two, we have this seventeen year old right wing

(07:45):
pundit i'll call him. He's a journalist. He's a columnist,
might be a better opinion writer. He's been written, his
stuff hasn't appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and he's
he's an accomplished guy. He's we I's ordered it yesterday
afternoon and it was interesting. I mean, he is my

(08:06):
if I have my lament, which is that you know,
sometimes I get caught in the weeds on things and
I felt like, you know, we wrestled around on facts,
and we wrestled around on statistics, and maybe we did
a little too much of that. But you get a
little sense of how particularly when you get something like
climate change where we kind of we discussed that for
a moment, we discussed the you know, man made aspects

(08:30):
of cooking the planet, and you just kind of see
the right wing talking point come forward. That was my
sense of it, like, you know, we need to study
it more. I'd be into studying it more. It's like,
you know, you know you're going to study it more.
And I don't know how much more studying you need
on this issue.

Speaker 5 (08:47):
But hard because when you have someone that's seventeen years old,
This is a seventeen year old kid, and they're excited
to talk about politics. You want to encourage that and
inspire it. So it's hard to kind of, you know,
have a debate with someone like that.

Speaker 1 (09:06):
You know what. I didn't, And in fact, I'll tell
you just before we get we'll get we'll get to
it an hour or two. As I say, I kind
of felt like at one point I might have been
leaning into hard on him, you know, and I felt
you need to just kick back, and that's what And
then when I kicked back, he just kind of owned me.

(09:27):
It was very funny. It reminded me of.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
Seventeen What are you supposed to do? Go after him.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Then, well, it reminded me of that, you know the
story I've told, you know, particularly kg O listeners, because
the show came from a radio show in San Francisco
called KGO. They're big radio station, and they went away
and we brought the show to YouTube. Anyway, the story
I told was because it happened in San Francisco. Was
playing tennis with Tony Bennett, yeah, the singer. And I
won't tell you the whole story, but just to kind

(09:54):
of cut to the chase. Essentially, Tony Bennett and I
end up on the tennis court and there's a big
crowd there at the tennis club, and I start bombing
the serve in and I start crushing his serve and
I start really owning Tony Bennett, and I thought, this
looks horrible, dude. I mean, Tony Bennett's much older than
you are, and you're just you know, like laying waste

(10:16):
to him here in front of this crowd. And he's
a beloved figure. In fact, you mark love him. So
I backed off and then he crushed me. It was incredible.
I didn't have that kind of volume control on my
game where I got just turn it up and turn
it down. So I thought a little bit like that.
When I talked to the seventeen year old, I wanted to,

(10:36):
you know, give him a real healthy move from one
thing to the next. And then I found when I
kicked back, he sort of you know, came after me,
and which was great. I mean, so we'll play the
whole thing for you in an hour two. Let's get
to some let's get to some news related to I've
got to of course tariffs. We'll talk about what's happening
with ice roundups. But Epstein, I think will lead us all,

(11:00):
if only because there are revelations that the Trump administration,
in the form of Caroline Levitt for example, as White
House spokesperson and Trump himself, is skating away from Mark
Thompson Show. The deal with The latest with this Epstein
thing is that the much contested birthday note has finally

(11:25):
been seen. You'll remember that Donald Trump said this is
a total fake, this is a total hoax, and there's
nothing to it. Then he looked at it and said,
this isn't even my signature. I don't know who signed this.

Speaker 5 (11:43):
Once they realized it is real and there is an
original document, now they can't say that it doesn't exist anymore.
Remember jd Vance came out and said, oh, this is
not even something that's real, Okay, Yeah.

Speaker 1 (11:55):
And Trump sued the Wall Street Journal for this defamatory material.
So one reason I made this point on the show
before that you knew that Donald Trump wasn't going to
actually go through with a lawsuit against the Wall Street
Journal had nothing to do with the vet that Rupert
Murdock owns the Wall Street Journal whatever. It had to
do with the fact that when there is a court

(12:18):
case and you're actually determining in a civil lawsuit what
damages might be and whether or not this is real
and you know it's provenance where it came from, you
need access to material. You can subpoena material. And so
that would mean subpoena think a bunch of other material
that would be equally incriminating to Donald Trump. So he

(12:40):
doesn't really want the case to go through. But it's
a classic Trump move. I'm going to sue the Wall
Street Journal for billions. And the Wall Street Journal then
produced the actual material. But the real material that ends
up in the public's hands was produced by a subpoena
that Congress had and then the Democrats released it to

(13:04):
in essence, demonstrate the fact that this is a real
thing and the President was very much a part of
Epstein's world. Go ahead, Albert.

Speaker 7 (13:14):
Major developments in Trump's growing Epstein's scandal. Lawyers of the
Epstein estate submitted the convicted sex offenders so called Birthday
Book to members of the House Oversight Committee. Those documents
were released by the committee just minutes ago. This afternoon,
Democrats on the panel have posted what appears to be
Trump's lewd birthday letter to Epstein. Originally reported by The

(13:35):
Wall Street Journal this July, it has not been obtained
by NBC News. The letter features an imagined conversation between
Trump and Epstein in which Trump tells him, may every
day be another wonderful secret. Before the letter's publication, Trump
insisted it never existed, even sued the Wall Street Journal
for billions of dollars. And yet the White House is

(13:56):
doubling down, with Press Secretary Caroline Levitt insisting Trump neither
drew or signed the picture, adding that Trump would still
pursue his defamation suit against the Wall Street Journal. This letter,
it is just one part of a bigger picture. Donald
Trump's Epstein wis they are not going away now they're not.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
And so we get to the realities of the next moves.
One of the next moves is that there will be
I'm laughing because it just so clearly is his signature everything.
I mean, it's just this is so obviously real. But
the idea somehow that this could be a dead issue,

(14:36):
which is what Donald Trump called it yesterday, is laughable,
the administration saying it supports an expert review of the
signature to determine whether it was indeed Donald Trump who
signed it. The release of the letter and the entirety
of the birthday book only intensified this furor that Trump

(14:58):
and the White House is trying to play down. They
claim it's a fabrication or a forgery. Theloney and a
press briefing yesterday, Trump's Press Secretary Caroline Levitt denying Trump's
involvement in the letter, adding the White House would support
an expert review of the signature to determine whether it

(15:20):
had been done by Trump's hand. Three separate signature an
analyst who said this was not the President's authentic signature.
I've apparently gone on the record and we have maintained
that all along. She said, the President did not write
this letter, he did not sign this letter, and that's
why the president's external legal team is pursuing litigation against

(15:40):
the Wall Street Journal. The reality is that if you
look at the front page of the New York Times today,
you know Daddy still gets the old school paper. Do
I have it here? I think I have it in
the other room. They actually put his signa show. You
can find it all over the internet where it's this
is so clearly his signature. Maybe Albert you and hunted

(16:01):
down or Kim it's so clearly his signature. And side
by side it's clearly his signature. I mean, these are
ridiculous suggestions that it's not his signature. As they say,
it's all so very straightforward. These guys were best buddies
for a decade. And so this birthday card, which is
a compilation, it's a compendium of all of this stuff,

(16:23):
compendiums of dingword, the note from Bill Clinton, the note
from Alan Dershowitz, the letter from Trump, and there you go,
thank you. If you're looking on YouTube now you can
see Trump's signature is indeed the signature that appears on

(16:43):
that birthday card.

Speaker 5 (16:45):
So I guess some of the one on the birth
the birthday card has See how that has the tail
on the D.

Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (16:52):
Yeah, our mutual friend acquaintance, Carla Marinucci posted a something
on Facebook about that she got a year after this
was done, she got a note from Trump and she
posted the note. So look at the look at the
signature there and now look at let's see if I

(17:13):
can add it today.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
That's the signature on the birthday card. And now Kim
is going to show the signature on the note that
Trump sent to Carla Marinuccio used to be a regular
on our show. She wrote the column in Politico and
that is and that's the same even the same signature.
It's the exact same.

Speaker 5 (17:35):
Right about the same timeframe as well, even with the
tail on the D.

Speaker 1 (17:39):
So it's very clear.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
And now did you hear this mark?

Speaker 5 (17:41):
The White House is like, well, we'd be happy to
submit this sample this that, you know, a sample of
his handwriting to a handwriting expert. Well, yeah, we're going
to trust the White House's handwriting expert on this one.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
Really, yeah, it's a me and how The UK ambassador
to the United States says he regrets continuing his association
with Jeffrey Epstein quote far longer than I should have.
Peter Mandelssohn has said the embarrassing details of his friendship

(18:20):
with pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein will come out. He said
he'd never seen any wrongdoing. Everybody's there. I was with him,
but I never saw anything, and I do believe on
some level that's possible. You know, you could go to
a dinner at his house. You could, I think, even
go through and extended, you know, a day and a

(18:41):
half with Jeffrey Epstein and maybe not see anything untoward.
But there's no way you were his best friend for
a decade and didn't know everything that was going on.
The fiftieth Birthday book is the revealing evidence that brings
in all of these high profile figure So you're probably wondering,
you know, why is this guy from the United Kingdom.

(19:03):
Peter Mandelsson on the record saying hey, I'm sorry I
was hanging out with this guy too long. Well, because
he also is included in that birthday collection of cards
and notes to Jeffrey Epstein, and so he said, I
never sought nor did Epstein offer any introdiction to women

(19:25):
in the same way as he had done for others.
Perhaps it's because I'm a gay man, he says. By
the way, there was trafficking going on with both sexes,
So not to say that he was part of it,
just to say that that doesn't necessarily give you high
ground in all of this. So certainly the preponderance of

(19:47):
evidence would suggest that it was mostly young girls, I mean,
being trafficked right twelve to eighteen, not even you know,
at eighteen, there were aspiring models who were fifteen sixteen
that seemed to kind of be the sweet spot for
some of these men. But it was really, honestly, it

(20:09):
was Epstein and Trump that were pursuing a lot of this,
just you know, together, these castings that they would do.
But and it's now being revealed. I thought there was
a really great piece in the New York Times about
how JP Morgan enabled the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. It
was a lengthy investigation, very well reported. Three different New

(20:33):
York Times reporters on it America's leading bank spending years
supporting and profiting from the notorious sex offender, ignoring red
flags suspicious activity, and even executives who expressed concern. It's
amazing because JP Morgan. They were so connected to Jeffrey

(20:58):
Epstein that they looked the other way on any number
of red flags. I mean, for example, there's a red
flag associated with the fact that Jeffrey Epstein removed large
chunks of cash, thousands and thousands of thousands and thousands,
tens of thousands of dollars in cash. Now that raises
all kinds of red flags. At banks, there are all

(21:19):
kinds of government flags that are raised alongside banked. In
other words, when the bank sees these repeated large chunks
of cash being removed, it's oftentimes associated with the illegal activity,
and so the government is contacted, typically the American government,
and in this case, they look the other way because
Jeffrey Epstein was bringing so much money into JP Morgan,

(21:42):
they were making so much money off of the hundreds
of millions of dollars he would bring in, and he'd
also bring it in through other clients, clients of Epstein's,
that the bank had a tremendous incentive in just leaving
it alone. He had been a treasured customer of JP Morgan.
It's noticed there. It's noted that his accounts were brimming

(22:02):
with more than two hundred million dollars generated millions of
dollars in revenue for the bank, landing him atop an
internal list of major moneymakers. He helped JP Morgan orchestrate
an important acquisition. He introduced executives to men who would
become lucrative clients, like the Google co founder Sir j Brinn,
to global leaders like Prime Minister Benjamin net and Yahoo

(22:23):
of Israel. He helped executives troubleshoot crises and strategize about
global opportunities. But a growing group of employees worried that
JP Morgan's association with a man who had pleaded guilty
to a sex crime and was under federal investigation for
human trafficking could harm the bank's reputation. Just as troubling,

(22:45):
anti money laundering specialists within the bank noticed Epstein's pattern
of withdrawing tens of thousands of dollars in cash. That's
what I was mentioning to you before. Virtually every month
he was making these withdrawals. These were red flags for
illness at activity. That's why Epstein was at the bank's headquarters.

(23:07):
JP Morgan's top executives in charge of insuring compliance with
laws and regulations had already pushed to get rid of
him as a client. So Epstein was known to be
a problem. And then you add this, Without getting too
much into the weeds on this, I will mention that

(23:28):
there was an executive there named Jess Staley, and he
was the leading contender to succeed Jamie Diamond as chief
executive of JP Morgan's. He's very highly placed, and Staley
persuaded executives there to sit down and hear Epstein out.

(23:53):
Don't go by the red flags that you're seeing. This
is a really big meeting for Epstein, has noted here
in The New York Times. Close ties to JP Morgan
had been invaluable in his quest for money, influencing legitimacy.
The bank let him lent him money, and Staley dished

(24:13):
confidential information to him. At Epstein's behest, JP Morgan set
up accounts into which he routinely transferred huge sums for
young women who turned out to be victims of his
sex trafficking operations. It wired his funds overseas. JP Morgan

(24:35):
did it even paid him millions of dollars. Look, his
crimes have been documented. He went to prison, and he
was lined up for more prison but What they lay
bare here in this New York Times investigative piece is
the way that JP Morgan worked hand and glove with

(24:58):
Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. And a spokesman for JP
Morgan sat in a statement that the bank's relationship with
Epstein was a mistake and in hindsight, we regret it,
but we did not help him commit his heinous crimes.
We would never have continued to do business with him
if we believed he was engaged in an ongoing sex
trafficking operation. We they blamed Staley and Staley. This guy,

(25:23):
Jess Staley was a trusted confidant of Jamie Diamond. He
was the real he was running lead on this, and
they note, we now know that our trust in Staley
was misplaced. So this and by the way Staley went on,
he was thrown out of JP Morgan after all these
revelations came on. He's the guy on the right there

(25:44):
and then he ended up I want to say, at
Barclay's maybe, and then ultimately he's resigned there in shame.
But he got huge money. I mean, the discharge agreement
that's daily made was massive. He's insanely wealthy and he

(26:04):
by the way, married into wealth too, so he it's
wealth on wealth. But all of this is to say
that JP Morgan was a big part of this, and
money is a big part of the Epstein story because,
as we said, money was wired to many you know,
Eastern Bloc nations if you will, right, there were clear

(26:27):
indications that many of those who were being trafficked in
Jeffrey Epstein's world were being in receipt of a lot
of the moneies that were wired overseas and in receipt
of all this cash that he was taking out of
these accounts on a monthly basis.

Speaker 5 (26:48):
So his wealth, his extreme wealth, and his connections to
these banks are mixed up in the sex crimes.

Speaker 1 (26:55):
As well, exactly exactly. And it's interesting because to whatever
jess Daily and JP Morgan can be connected to Jeffrey Epstein,
and clearly there's a huge connection because that was really
where all his money was. They've been allowed to skate.
I mean I mentioned Staley because once these revelations come forward,

(27:16):
he's then cast aside and cast out, and he ends
up really being cast out of the banking world after
he lends in a place for a short time after
that but the rest of these people who shook off
all of this these red flags and ignored much of
what they knew instinctively to be the case, they bear

(27:39):
no responsibility from the standpoint of the law. You know,
it's so much the case with a lot of the
high flying bankers. I mean, you know, Deutsche Bank, Deutsche
Bank involved with a lot of the Trump money. Also
Deutsche Bank involved with a lot of Russian money, and
Deutsche Bank very concerned with being involved with Trump. And

(28:01):
as it turned out, the private investment side of Deutsche
Bank was unaware of a lot of the concerns on
the other side of the bank of Deutsche Bank. So
you have, if you will, a plausible deniability. It's like,
we didn't know that we were extending all of this
money credit to Donald Trump. There was a time when

(28:22):
Trump was a bad credit risk. I mean for most
of his life, he's been a bad credit grip.

Speaker 5 (28:27):
He filed bankruptcy multiple times.

Speaker 1 (28:29):
And so Deutsche Bank knew that that was a bad move.
And yet and we talked about this, we detailed it
on the show when many of these revelations first came out,
that the private investment side of Deutsche Bank got drunk
on the lifestyle. You know, Trump flew him everywhere. They had,
you know, big weekend parties at mar Lago and beyond,

(28:50):
and so they kind of got sucked into that world
and that was all part of romancing them to get credit,
and Deutsche Bank in the end did extend that credit
to Trump. So but that's another side of the banking story. Again,
the side that's so damning is the way JP Morgan
really gave Epstein legitimacy and enabled so much of that world.

(29:16):
So that I feel is an underreported part of this
entire story. And there was brilliant investigative reporting from the
New York Times on this. By the way, this there,
I guess Russell Brand is involved in something, right, Kim

(29:39):
he is. Yeah, he's an accused sexual assaulter.

Speaker 5 (29:44):
Right, he is an accused sexual assaulter and now one
of the the folks at Trump and Company, the one
actually we had the pardon attorney, the previous pardon attorney
on the Mark Thompson Show not too.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
Long ago, Lizzawyer. Yeah, and her.

Speaker 5 (30:00):
Replacement decided it was a good idea to pal around
and mug for the camera, taking a picture with Russell
Brand and I think it's just and now he's being
called out for it, but it's just another I don't
know moment where you look at these people and they
they're either clueless or they just really don't care that

(30:22):
they're basically celebrating someone who is again accused of serial
sexual assault. So why would you want your picture with
that guy?

Speaker 1 (30:32):
He was charged in the UK, there was an eighteen
month investigation, he was charged, Russell Brown was I don't
he pleaded not guilty. But he's become this interesting sort
of I suppose right wing pundit right. His politics are
kind of I think they're kind of right wing. I

(30:53):
haven't watched a lot of them, but I know he's
become a lightning rod of sorts. But anyway, Yeah, I
mean putting a picture of yourself and Russell brand up
there on your social media that strikes me as a
you know, once again something that should have been thought
out in a bigger way from the new pardon attorney
at the FED. But as we know, they don't spend

(31:15):
as much time on those pardons as the as Liz
Oyer and the rest of them did to really examine
the ramifications of a pardon, the worthiness and eligibility of
a pardon. That was stuff that Liz did. But this
new crew, it's kind of like whatever the president wants
is what the president gets. Mark Thompson Show. I am
going to talk to John Rothman in just minutes and

(31:38):
we'll get into the takeover of another American city by ice.
It's planned in Chicago, they're going to lean in again.
In Los Angeles and Washington, d C. Still has the
National Guard there. Albert, you have that National Guard video.

(31:59):
There's a National Guards stationed outside of Union Station. And
this is give you a sense. It's I always talk
about the theater and the way that the military, and
I think it's offensive. I mean, these people who serve
in the American military do so at great personal peril. Oftentimes,
you know, they volunteer to go to theaters of war.
But this is where they are. They're out in front

(32:20):
of Union Station. They're just standing there with these they
call them m wraps, these vehicles. And go ahead, Albert,
let's hear a little audio. This is the.

Speaker 8 (32:31):
Catstal just so that when people come out of Union
Station they'll see these soldiers and the m reps. This
is using our military as political theater. These aren't exhibits
for people to look at. This is political theater, and
so I tell you what we're.

Speaker 1 (32:47):
Going to do. Yes, anyway, that's all I need to see.
But what I note and repeatedly note, is, of course
that's true. They are political props. They've been political props
to Donald Trump since the first Trump administration when they
were sent to the southern border to take care of
the caravan. You'll remember, you know, the tattered crew of
people who were coming up around Christmas time. And now

(33:08):
there's still props, but they're dangerous props at that, and
that meaning they're put into situations that they're not particularly
trained to handle. I mean they now have them involved
in law enforcement and going into American cities. This is
not typically where you'll find the American military obviously if
cities are overrun. There have been situations in Los Angeles

(33:31):
in the nineties following the Rodney King trial where you
really needed and there was a call for from the
mayor and the governor National Guard troops to move in
to restore order, to maintain order. And that's not the
case now in America's cities. So we'll get into some
of that. When I talked to Rothman, and I guess

(33:54):
I should talk to Rothman right around now. Yeah, smash
the like button if you would. It helps us in
the YouTube universe when you smash it like a boss
and let us know what the thumbs up. Candace Worthman,
thank you for a ten dollars supersticker. Love those superstickers

(34:15):
and super chats. Love it. Candace Worthman is an OG
of our show. Really appreciate the support. Got a really
cool letter or email of support and I'll I'll get
to that after I talked to Rothman, and I want
to make him wait any longer. He's our former colleague
from KGO Radio. He's a lecturer, presidential historian. He's the

(34:36):
great John Rothman. Sir, thank you as always for being here. Sure,
I want to talk first about what is happening overseas
in Poland. They've shot down two Russian drones that flew

(35:00):
into the airspace over Poland. Can you give me a
state of the state on what's happening with that incident
and how it relates to Ukraine and Russia and Europe
at large.

Speaker 2 (35:14):
It's a huge escalation and NATO is now directly involved.
The NATO countries have said and they are putting their
money where their mouth is, so to speak, that these
kinds of violations by Russia will not be tolerated. Donald
Trump is now saying that this has to be resolved.
You remember he said he would be able to resolve
it instantly when he was elected president. All I can

(35:36):
tell you is this is one of the most dangerous
moments we have faced in the post Cold War period
because it's a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.

Speaker 1 (35:49):
And so what you're suggesting somehow is that this could
easily spark a wider war.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
I don't watch a war, yeah, because a war. First
of all, you can't have a war because Russia is
a nuclear power and nobody is going to threaten Russia.
If Russia had no nuclear weapons, there would have been
a war. The question now is whether, through diplomacy and
sanctions and isolation, whether or not Russia can be forced

(36:23):
to stop doing this. Now, let me explain to you
that Putin is determined to proceed. His goal is to
reconstruct the Russian Empire the Soviet Empire. And remember that
Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Empire.
So it's a It's a very tough situation because nobody

(36:44):
has an answer. Nobody in Europe wants a wider war,
nobody wants the use of nuclear weapons, even if it's
on a limited basis. And yes, you can fight a
limited nuclear war. It's a terrible thing to say, but
it's possible. But this is not that circumstances. The Ukrainians
are caught between a rock and a hard place. And
I listened this morning to Zelenski making a frantic plea

(37:08):
for support, and yet no matter what support we receive
verbally for the Ukrainians, there is little doubt that the
United States really can't do anything, and the impotence.

Speaker 1 (37:18):
That I can't do anything or won't do anything.

Speaker 2 (37:21):
We can't do anything. There's no sanction we can impose
on Russia which will make any difference. You understand that.
I understand that the meetings which are held in the
White House made absolutely no difference with all the European leaders.
And Putin doesn't seem to give a tinker's damn one
way or the other. And that's the problem. Is there
a way to get to Putin? I don't think so.

(37:42):
Remember Donald Trump believed in personal diplomacy, but I can
assure you personal diplomacy has a limited impact.

Speaker 1 (37:51):
The understanding I have is that NATO, because Poland is
a NATO country, as you've said, that NATO.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
Military is on a high alert, or it is they're
putting their planes up to shoot down the drones.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
So even as there might not be a wider conflagration,
the reality is there could be. There could be a
back and forth. It would seem to me, John just
and again this is I think you know more maybe
in this area than I do. But the Russians also,
I understand they want to put Humpty Dumpty back together again,
you know, since the fall of the Soviet Union. But
I also know that they've got their hands full of Ukraine.

(38:31):
I'm not sure that they want any kind of real
conflict to develop somewhere else.

Speaker 2 (38:36):
I think the question of NATO and their involvement in
Ukraine is part of the Ukrainian issue. The Russians can't
separate the two Flatimir Putin believed he'd be able to
roll in and solve the problem, and he just can't
do it by a military force. But he's not prepared
to give up, and he believes and you know, it's
a good question. Do the Allies have the staying power

(38:58):
to keep going? And who knows the mercurial views of
Donald Trump and his contradictory statements. Remember what he said
that Ukraine started the war? Do you remember that, Mark?
And so you've got a real conundrum here. But the
important element here is that it has to be contained.

(39:21):
And let me just give you one other example of appeasement,
because in order to get a deal with Putin, there
will have to be appeasement. And already they've suggested, some
including Donald Trump, that there'll be territorial compromise. If Zelenski
were to go that way, he would lose the support
of his own people. Sure, you can't. You can't appease

(39:44):
a dictator. And that's what Vladimir Putin is.

Speaker 1 (39:47):
And let's remind me seeing World War two in the
sudet Lens that were turned over to Yeah.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
It's it's listen, it's it's appalling, it's tragic. And this
is the conundr we face. There is no way to
stop Vladimir Putin. Internally, he's crushed his opposition. Remember, he's
a murderer. He kills anybody who opposes him, who has
any chance of having any impact. And as long as

(40:15):
that circumstance continues, we're in trouble. It's a long way
from the days when there was a Soviet pullappuro which
could overthrow Nikita Krushchov as they did in October of
sixty four, or even the attempt to overthrow Gorbachev. You know,
there is no there there anymore.

Speaker 1 (40:33):
And yeah, there's no mechanism to get rid of Putin
really right, And as you pointed out before, you know
what's waiting behind Putin is no day at the beach either,
We don't.

Speaker 2 (40:41):
We don't know.

Speaker 1 (40:41):
That's the well, okay for another time. There's some indications,
but for another time, and it isn't relevant at this moment.

Speaker 2 (40:50):
Another region of the world.

Speaker 1 (40:51):
Yeah, I want to go to a Qatar, and I
want to go to what the Israelis did give me
a state of the state there.

Speaker 2 (40:59):
The Israeli of an ounce that they will go anywhere
to destroy Hamas, that they are going to destroy the
Kamas leadership. Remember they hit in Tehran, in Iran and
the capitol to eliminate a leader. They are prepared to
go to Yemen. They're prepared to go anywhere that they
are and that is the Israeli determination. The question of
the hostages is a serious question.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
Well what did they do? Though?

Speaker 2 (41:20):
What did they do? So they've gone and they've gone
to where Qatar, yes, and they've tried to eliminate the Kamas.
What happened in Qatar? John Rothman, what happened is that
they got a statement from somebody somewhere that the leadership
of Hamas was gathered in a particular room, which, by
the way, was well known to everybody because that's where

(41:41):
the decision.

Speaker 1 (41:43):
There's been no right, there's been no secret about the
fact that the Qataris really are and Israeli.

Speaker 2 (41:49):
Said enough is enough. They've been There was an attack
in Jerusalem which Hamas sanctioned, and the Israeli say, it
just proves our point. Look, let me state it simply.
If Israel laid down its arms, it would be destroyed.
If Kamas lays down its arms, there's a chance for
some discussion, but not the destruction of Israel. That's not

(42:12):
on the table.

Speaker 1 (42:13):
So was this a in your judgment, response to what
happened in Jerusalem?

Speaker 2 (42:20):
No. I think it was well planned. I think they've
had it online for a while. I think they wait
to find their strategic moment, and there's no doubt there's
an attack this morning in Yemen, again on the hoodies.
The Israelis are relentless and determined, and as was pointed
out by an Israeli official this morning, it doesn't matter

(42:42):
how long it takes. Remember after the Munich massacre of
the Munich Olympics, it took the Israeli some years before
they hit every single person involved in the attack at
the Munich Olympics. So whether you agree or disagree with
Natanyahu this, I will tell you, I don't think it
would matter who the Prime is Sir of Israel was.

(43:02):
The Prime Minister of Israel is determined whoever that may be,
to protect the Israeli population. What is tragic in all
of this is that many people blame Israel for many things.
But just remember October seventh was what Hamas struck. And
did the world react, did the world demand the release

(43:23):
of the hostages? Did the world say to Israel, we
will help you in this hour of need? And the
answer is no. And so the Israelis have said, Okay,
we'll do it our way. You may like it, you
may not like it, but we are a sovereign country.
I always remember the words of Manacham Begen, who I
would remind you won the Nobel Peace Prize. He said

(43:45):
to Ronald Reagan. We are not a vassal state. We
are not a banana republic. And so I think the
Israelis are going to do whatever they have to do
to survive. By the way, whether you agree or disagree
with Israeli policy, whether you agree or disagree with Benjamin Attanyahu,
the determination of Israel to survive is clear, and they're

(44:06):
not going to roll over and play dead. There will
be no appeacement if you will when it comes to
the Israelis.

Speaker 1 (44:11):
When you say whether you agree or not, it should
be noted that there are many within Israel. There are
four hundred thousand people in the streets who disagreed with
the policy in Gaza, John, which is a humanitarian I've
lost pointed that out to you.

Speaker 2 (44:24):
Israel is a vital, vibrant democracy.

Speaker 1 (44:26):
But I will there's a lot of pushback against Netnyauhuo
from within Israel. I mean Israel. When we talk about Israel,
I think you have to keep in mind and it's
worth reminding people that this is not a monolithic kind
of situation. From the standpoint of public sentiment.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
This is just like the United States and Donald Trump, right,
It's exactly completely analogous. That's what democracy is, which I
hasten to point out you don't.

Speaker 1 (44:51):
Have in Russia. Now to the tariffs away from the
Middle East, and now to the tariffs the Supreme Court
will pick up they said they're going to pick up
in short order the legality of the tariffs imposed by
Donald Trump. In my judgment, they were imposed in this

(45:12):
well chaotic fashion that no one could explain, including his
own economics team. It seemed like a system of patronage
he was setting up, you know, assigning a tariff to
various countries, and then they come on bended knee, they
offer literally all kinds of treasure to him and to
the US in order to get concessions and to get

(45:34):
a deal.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
So what he's doing in Brazil it has to do
with his personal animosity to the President of Brazil, who
I'm not going to defend, but should a president have
that power. That's what the Supreme Court is going to decide.
They've decided to fast track it. They're going to hear
the case in October. But here's the thing. Will the
Supreme Court knock out the terroriffs? Will the Supreme Court

(45:55):
say to Donald Trump, you've exceeded your executive authority. I
believe constitutionally, if you follow the constitution, it is only
the Congress that can impose tariffs. But clearly the Supreme
Court is giving Donald Trump greater leeway in terms of
his power. And remember the intention of those who advocate

(46:17):
a unitary presidency, a position taken by the Heritage Foundation.
The position is test the limits. So explain what that explained?
That theory the unitary executive, that the president is the
supreme leader. If you will that you follow the lead
of the president, that his word is very dangerous notion.
And may I say it has destroyed the balance of

(46:39):
power in this country when you have a Supreme Court
that bends over and won't react, and when you have
Republicans in Congress. Now this is an interesting question. You
were talking about the Epstein case. The Republicans just the
Democrats just picked up a seat in the House of Representatives.
They're going to pick up more seats in the House
of Representatives, and they are going to force a vote

(47:01):
in the House of Representatives to bring the Epstein matter
to the forefront, and they will win that vote according
to the counts they have. But then it goes to
the Senate. What will the Senate do? And do you
understand when a president of the United States has control
of the House and the Senate, when you have no
constructive opposition, it essentially kills the idea of coequal branches

(47:27):
of government. And the battle which must be waged is
to preserve the idea that the Supreme Court must be independent.
Did you hear Amy Coney Barrett this week? Because she's
out promoting her book, She's going to be at Pynixon
Library shortly, Amy Cony Barrett saying, I'm not owned by anybody.
I am an independent justice. So there are two votes

(47:48):
on the Supreme Court which will determine whether or not
prompt succeeds in this power crap. I am a.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
Goddamn thing that Amy Cony Barrett says, and I don't
believe a goddamn thing to anybody on that court says.
They've they've given this president a wide birth and they've they've,
as you suggested, they've reinforced the notion of the unitary executive.
They've given him complete immunity. I mean, which is which
which he's using, and I'd suggest leaning into in a
pretty big way. But let me get you. Let me

(48:16):
get you back to tariffs. Let me get you back
to tariffs and away from Epstein and onto Amy Conie Barritt.
You're driving me crazy, John Rothman. Let me get you
back to tariff. Sir, ye believe do you believe? I understand?
In the constitution, constitutionally, the tariffs are in the clear
hands of Congress. Congress abdicated its role, as you suggested,

(48:41):
the GOP pulled back. They gave Donald Trump all of
this room to impose these tariffs. My question is, now
it goes to the court. Will the Supreme Court his concierge,
Supreme Court underscore the unitary executive theory that you have
articulated here very well, or will they follow the constitutionality

(49:02):
which clearly requires that terrifs be imposed by Congress.

Speaker 2 (49:06):
It depends on Amy Cony Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts.
Those are the swing votes on the court. In other words,
I can tell you that Donald Trump has four votes
in his pocket. The question is will those two swing over,
which would make it a five to four vote and
then let me point out that the White House is
indicated they don't really care what the Supreme Court says.

(49:27):
That the President is going to continue this policy. And
I can tell you it is completely the playbook of
the Heritage Foundation and the Project twenty five, which was
to push the limits of executive power.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
It's appalling to me. I have to tell you.

Speaker 2 (49:44):
I know you and I have argued over this in
the past, and I hate to say that if the
Court and the Congress rolls over, you will have been right.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
The system will no longer work. Remember the words of
Mark Thompson, John Rothman, think very little of people, and
you will seldom be surprised. Well that's the difference between us.
Go ahead, now, let me ask you about the attack
that Donald Trump has made on the FED. As you're aware,

(50:13):
he's trying to manipulate the FED. He wants to he
wants to replace the FED chair and he'll actually get
a chance to replace the FED chair in May, probably
with the political toady. But look at what he's doing
with Lisa Cook, who's on the FED board.

Speaker 2 (50:27):
He's just been stopped by from doing that. Lisa Cook
will be present this weekend. Next week in the process.

Speaker 1 (50:34):
He fired her and then it was overturned by the court, the.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
Lower court, and the question now is whether or not
off the Supreme Court will vacate the decision of the
lower Court. I have to tell you if if it
is a as I think it may well be a
six to three vote, it will be another indication of

(50:59):
the complete impotence of those who are adhering to the
constitutional But may I also comment that the comments by
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who is now
defending Donald Trump on every level, it is to me
even more appalling because the Speaker is not defending the House,

(51:23):
He's defending Donald Trump, and that is just beyond my comprehension.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
It's interesting to me just from a jetliner perspective, John,
and I really want to get your opinion on this.
With the rise, I suggest, the rise of autocracy and
fascism in America, this is a place that sort of
was a shining light of personal freedom's personal expression, where
even government could have a vigorous disagreement out in the open.

(51:50):
You don't have that now, and it's a hyperpartisan political
partisan society and with the rising authoritarian instincts now re
enforced by some of these very government mechanisms that you've described,
and Speaker of the House, the Supreme Court, et cetera.
I'm wondering how this affects the rest of the world.

(52:10):
Do you also see a rising fascism and authoritarianism in
many of these other countries? It tends to follow. These
trends tend to follow each other, don't they Absolutely?

Speaker 2 (52:22):
And I can tell you having been to Europe, there's
a real fear about that.

Speaker 1 (52:25):
Look.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
One of the most terrifying things for me is that
the House of Representatives, the Republicans are going to reconstitute
a January sixth committee in order to vacate what the
January sixth Committee that was legitimate concluded. And I recommend
Liz Cheney's book on that matter because it's a brilliantly
put together volume. But do you understand there's a denial,

(52:46):
a denial of truth, a denial of reality. And that
is the most concerning thing. And for those of us
who grew up as I did in the Republican Party,
to see the Republican Party forfeit its fundamental principles, to
realize where we are in that regard, and to hear
the President of the United States threaten Republicans that if

(53:10):
they do not defeat this resolution on the Epstein matter,
that there will be consequences. He called them disloyal, and
I can tell you that the idea that a president
of the United States of America would do that is
beyond my comprehension. But even worse is the rolling over

(53:32):
and the support.

Speaker 1 (53:33):
For Donald Trump that is received.

Speaker 2 (53:35):
I still believe, and I know you think I'm nuts
to say it, but I'm going to say it anyway.
I believe that Donald Trump will be brought down.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
By his own hubris, and that, to me is the key.

Speaker 2 (53:44):
He's going to keep pushing and pushing John pushing, and
eventually there will be a response.

Speaker 1 (53:50):
I know you think I'm wrong, but I think that
I think that, you know, you could just spell out
hubris and put the sign on the White House. There's
been so much hubris already that somehow he's well, but
I'm telling you he's really pushing it this time. He's
pushing it this time. But guys, you know, taking a
free jet from Qatar, he set up a mean coin
to essentially.

Speaker 2 (54:11):
Himself make billions of dollars.

Speaker 1 (54:13):
So that's just the corruption part of it. I mean
not to mention all of these things that you're patently
illegal deporting people the way he is. This is where
I want to end up. I have to.

Speaker 2 (54:24):
I'm glad you're going to mention that.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
I want to now talk about what's going to be
happening in in Chicago and in Los Angeles to start.

Speaker 2 (54:32):
Oh mab in Oakland and maybe in San Francisco.

Speaker 1 (54:35):
Let me play you a little bit of Tom Holman.
This is from Fox News Channel. Go ahead, Albert, here's
a little bit from Fox News Channel.

Speaker 9 (54:42):
So I want to go over a Houston operation because
Texas we don't allow sanctuary cities. But you guys were
still able to detain eight hundred and twenty two people.

Speaker 1 (54:52):
He's talking to Tom Homan. For those just listening, go ahead.

Speaker 9 (54:55):
Be reported and re entered in the country. You found
five trans an ass gang members and three hundred and
thirty with deportation orders. What do you anticipate when you
go to heat I'm sorry, Chicago this.

Speaker 4 (55:09):
Week, Chicago rust a few hundred illegal alien criminals, and
Prisker is wrong, he says. You know, you know, he's
got to understand these are illegal aliens that he thinks
are citizens in pan taxes. They cheated the system. There
are millions of people standing in line taking their tests,

(55:29):
doing their background investigations, paying their fees to be part
of the greatest nation on earth. Every one of these
people broke the law. It's a crime to inst country legally,
and we can't rewardy little behavior. So even though we're
focusing the priority, President Trump has prioritized public safety dreads
and national security threads in the sanctuary city like Chicago,

(55:50):
where they force us into the community to find the
criminals because they won't give us access to the jail,
the Cook County jail. We're going to find the criminal neighborhood.
We have to go to the neighborhood, find them, and
we're going to find others. Others aren't criminals for their
illegal aliens, so they're going to go to So Governor
Prisker wants less what he calls collabter arrest. Then let
us in the damn jail so we can arrest the
criminal in the safety and security of a jail rather

(56:13):
than the least a public safety threat back into the public,
which is just dumb.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
Do you remember you remember Abribakoff in nineteen sixty eight
at the Democratic Invention talking about fascism in the streets
of Chicago, and I remember that. But I also want
to say this racial profiling. The fact the only three dissenters,
the three liberals on the Court, said that this racial
profiling that is now being allowed by the United States

(56:42):
Supreme Court, I commend to you.

Speaker 1 (56:44):
I'm not going to tell you to pull up a clip.
I've learned my lesson.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
But so to my ear Justice so to Maier, gave
an interview in when she talked about this, and she says,
this is Unamerican, this is wrong. And I can tell
you that racial profiling which the Supreme Court is now
permitting against Hispanics and that's who they're labeling, is appalling.
And look even what happened with a Hyundai factory in

(57:08):
Georgia where three or four hundred South Koreans and now
the South Korean government's sending a plane to get them
and bring them home. Do you understand what.

Speaker 1 (57:21):
That was a massive screw up in the part of
this government in ice. But I want to stay in
Chicago for a moment, just because I think what Holman's
talking about is a despicable strategy that they have, which
is to grab all of these people with the widest
net you can possibly cast. Then they will parade around

(57:41):
the fact that they got four MS thirteen people. I
don't even know if that's true. I mean, these numbers
you heard three I saw later in the interview he
points to four that were picked up in an operation
that picked up hundreds and hundreds of people. So you're
telling me in hundreds and hundreds of people, and in fact,
he referenced thousands, you've picked up four. I'll give you ten,
you know, because maybe there are three from the other place.

(58:02):
So that's seven ten who are gang members. Okay. I
don't think the disruption and the aggressive strategies that are
being pursued by ICE justify that. And you're picking up
a lot of innocent people. I mean, you know, if
you talk to those who oppose the death penalty, they'll
tell you I oppose it because I don't want one

(58:25):
innocent person executed by accident. And what you're doing here
is you're picking up so many people that you have
We've already seen it. You've picked up a huge percentage
of people who actually have some business in this country.
Some of them are here legally completely and none of them.
This is the part where I thought he was completely

(58:45):
wrong on this. Are taking the place in line of
those who are waiting to get visas and citizenship here.
None of those people are in that line. Now, you
may have an issue with that, and maybe a legitimate
issue about the border. The border has been sealed off.
But the way in which these guys you saw it
there are taking down somebody and making an arrest in Chicago.

(59:06):
Did you see the way that five guys taking down
one person. It looked like a Sunday afternoon a game
of tackle NFL football. It's absolutely unacceptable. There's so much
a show of force here. John. To me, it strikes
me as they're just manifesting a theater. The problem is
there is a real cost being paid by so many

(59:28):
families that have contributed so much through the decades. And yes,
some way has to be worked out to broaden the
program by which so many of these immigrants work and
produce a real positive in the economy.

Speaker 2 (59:42):
Mark, all I can tell you is the fact that
the Supreme Court of the United States, by a vote
of six to three, is giving license.

Speaker 1 (59:50):
To this kind of policy to racial profiling exactly, and.

Speaker 2 (59:55):
Racial profiling is something we must resist with every fiber
of our And let me explain to you that they're
also going after sanctuary cities. That both Oakland and San
Francisco are sanctuary cities. And I'm using those two as
the example because there were people killed in Oakland this
last weekend, and there were people killed in San Francisco

(01:00:16):
this last weekend.

Speaker 1 (01:00:17):
And if.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
The administration's logic is clear, we could see National Guard
troops here in San Francisco and in Oakland. And I
want to just say that Daniel Lurie, the mayor of
San Francisco, has kept a very low profile. He has
been very careful in his criticism of Donald Trump, and
as I pointed out to you, I think in the
past with good reason. But eventually Daniel Lurie is really

(01:00:43):
going to have to do what Barbara Lee is doing
and standing up and just saying no, this is a
matter of grave importance. And you asked me what the
view of the world is. I just came back from Europe.
I can tell you they don't understand. The most important
question I was asked almost every day was how is

(01:01:03):
Trump getting away with it? And the answer is fear intimidation,
bullying a Republican party that would to stand up.

Speaker 1 (01:01:14):
It's work for him. It seems to be willing to
roll over, Louise says with a four ninety nine super
Chat Thanks Louise. So funny that we don't seem to
mind when these quote criminals are picking our crops, taking
care of our kids, repairing our roof, et cetera, under
poor conditions. Exactly exactly, They're a key part of the economy.
Luis's is so right, and Champagne wishes who kind of
represents the other side? Mark, if you went to live

(01:01:35):
in France for thirty years, would you become a French
citizen before thirty years. No, I'm not saying they have
to have citizenship, but I am saying they should be
recognized for living a life here that contributes to the economy.
They don't get the benefits of citizenship.

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
This is that was White Eisenhower, a Republican president, Dwight
Eisenhower Institute of the Brasserro program for that exact purpose.
And I would point out to you that Ronald Reagan,
when he was governor of California, took the same attitude.

Speaker 1 (01:02:02):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:02:03):
It is the intolerance, and I will say it only
the bigotry that is now being manifest and it is
to me. Uh I, if I had hair, Mark, I
would be pulling it out. But I have to believe,
and I know you think I'm wrong, but I have
to believe that ultimately the hubrius of what is happening

(01:02:24):
will result in a in a reaction by the American people.
They will see it, at least I hope they will.

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
I hope they will too. You find John Rothman around
the political world with John Rothman. It's his podcast. He's
joining us on Wednesdays until the end of time. Thank you, John.
It's the end of my time. This is the end
of your time. The end of my time.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
Ladies and gentlemen, despite is cutting me off. Contribute to
the Mark Thompson program.

Speaker 1 (01:02:53):
Thank you, Mark Thomas, Albert you are the captain. Tell
me what do we have a time to do? I
have this conversation on ice. I do want to recognize
ALBERTA Hold that thought. I know it's a good thought.

(01:03:15):
Hold it, Ron Sharon with a twenty dollars super chat?
Are you kidding me? Love the Mark Thompson Show, kgo
rest in peace. Big shout out, rock, shout out. We do,
we do miss our kgo, but sadly kJ is gone.
It's not coming back. Candace Worthman, we mentioned ten dollars supersticker.

(01:03:38):
Thank you Candace and everybody who supports us. Vague and
unsubstantial threats here this morning. Keep your head on a swivel, friends,
says Cindy g from New York City. New York City
is the staging ground for a lot of stuff that's scary,
and in fact, just because of Cindy, I want to

(01:03:59):
get to something I can gave you. Albert the Mandami
and Mandami's name and the Mandami situation is referenced in
the interview that's about to follow. Here Mondami was speaking,
you know, candidate for mayor, and he spoke quite well.
You get a sense in this clip of how Mandami

(01:04:20):
has gained popularity in New York City and why he's
considered a real threat. Trump considers him a real threat
trying to derail his candidacy. He'd prefer to see Cuomo
in there. Here is a little clip from Mandami this morning.

Speaker 3 (01:04:33):
That's how are you going to protect this city from
the National Guard coming in?

Speaker 10 (01:04:38):
The First thing is we have to prepare for the
inevitability of that deployment. We cannot try and convince ourselves
that because something is illegal, Donald Trump will not do it.
We have to be prepared, and we have to be
clear eyed, and we have to understand that it will
take every single tool at our disposal. We saw in

(01:05:01):
California the Mayor of la the Attorney general of the state,
and the governor work together to fight back against the
White House's deployment of the National Guard.

Speaker 1 (01:05:12):
They filed a lawsuit.

Speaker 10 (01:05:15):
A federal judge just recently found in their favor that
the deployment of the National Guard was illegal. I give
you this example because partnership is critically important in fighting
back against Donald Trump. Can you imagine Andrew Cuomo working
together with Tis James and Kathy Hoochel to fight back

(01:05:38):
against the deployment. Why would he fight back when it's
Donald Trump that's trying to get him elected right now?

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
Could I ask how you're going to be Yeah? So
that's that's Mondami. And again, the Supreme Court has now
opened the door to the use of troops there. And
when I say that the National Guard presence and the
use of troops in New York is still an open question.

(01:06:07):
But the ICE agents who are buoyed by all this
additional funding, so there are many more ICE agents that
can now move into New York on mass that's going
to be a real concern, even independent of the National Guard.
But you saw a bit there in that clip of
how Mandami speaks well to the situation and sort of

(01:06:29):
suggests that, hey, if you guys vote for Cuomo, Cuomo
is going to play ball with Trump because Trump is
actually trying to get him elected. So the I do
hug and kiss and the people casually be ready for
the hugging and kissing. So isn't it wild? Guy like
Cuomo gets caught up in that hugging and kissing thing,

(01:06:51):
and you know his career are never over. You can't
get rid of the Cuomos. What was this about Charlie
Kirk being shot in Utah? Kim, Yeah, just looking that up.

Speaker 5 (01:07:05):
Don't have a lot of details yet, but there are
reports that Charlie Kirk, who's thirty one, was there were
shots fired at some type of speaking event at the
Utah Valley University in Orum, Utah, at least one shot
being fired there. So the reports indicate that perhaps he

(01:07:31):
was shot. That blood could be seen rushing from a
bullet wound. The police are there, they've provided no updates
on Kirk's condition that according to the Guardian, they do
have a suspect in custody, but this is all breaking.
The bystanders there say he was shot in the neck,
so I don't know what his condition is at this time.

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
Wow. Yeah, oh that's We'll watch that story. But that's
developing even as we speak. I also wanted to mention
that the other big stories Mark Thompson Show politically is this,
you know, a book that's being promoted by Kamala Harris.
She in the book apparently suggests that this is one

(01:08:16):
of those things where there's I think some truth to
it and maybe not all truth to it. Let me
just explain a former Vice President Kamala Harris saying it
was a mistake not to question President Joe Biden's insistence
on running for reelection last year despite his advanced age.
In her new book, she writes that it was reckless
leading her and other Democrats to seed the choice to

(01:08:38):
an individual's ego. Those are her words, to an individual's egos.
By the way, I agree with the ego part of it.
I mean, I think all these guys who are president,
they're pretty pretty healthy. Ego and aggressive drive gets you
to the presidency. Miss Harris's assertion places her alongside scores
of other figures in the Democratic Party who, since President

(01:08:58):
Trump took office, have publicly admitted that mister Biden's reelection
effort at age eighty one was a mistake. Long before
mister Biden's disastrous debate performance against mister Trump in June
of twenty twenty four, Democrats had privately questioned whether he
should run again during and this is now from the book,
quote during all those months of growing panic, should I

(01:09:20):
have told Joe to consider not running, perhaps, she wrote
in an excerpt from the book. But the American people
had chosen him before in the same matchup. Maybe he
was right to believe they would do so again. The
former Vice President described herself as quote in the worst
position to make the case that he should drop out,

(01:09:42):
because she believed Biden would view such an entreaty as disloyal.
At the time, she and others extended quote grace in
allowing mister Biden and Jill Biden, the first lady to
make the decision on their own. But now, she writes,
she has come to believe it was a mistake not
to speak up. I think, in wretch respect, I think
it was recklessness, she wrote. She continued on the stakes

(01:10:05):
were simply too high. This wasn't a choice that should
have been left to an individual's ego, an individual's ambition.
It should have been more than a personal decision. She
dismissed any notion that Biden was not mentally or physically
fit to serve as president. But at eighty one, Joe
got tired, she said. That's when his age showed in

(01:10:28):
physical and verbal stumbles. So she is the highest profile
Democrat to publicly second guest the decision to run for
a second term. Buddha Jedges said maybe it was a mistake.
Chris Murphy from Connecticut said he had no doubt that
Biden suffered cognitive decline while in office. Rocanna said that

(01:10:48):
the party made a big mistake. So there's a gaggle
of people doing this. But now, in her latest book,
Kamala Harris writes that maybe she should have asked Biden
to give it up and push away. I have two thoughts,
one of which is Joe Biden wasn't going to pay

(01:11:10):
attention to Kamala Harris. Come on, man, who are we kidding?
Joe Biden was not taking Kamala Harris's advice on whether
or not he should run the existence of Kamala Harris
as vice president that in and of itself was something
completely individuated, separated, blocked off, walled off from Biden. I'm

(01:11:37):
suggesting they weren't the pals where she could, you know,
put her arm around him and go, hey, Joe, I
think it might be good just to step away at
this point. So I think the idea somehow that she
should have spoken to Joe Biden. No, she wasn't the one. Now,
maybe the Democrats should have rallied someone who Joe Biden
might have listened to, maybe a Barack Obama. Ultimately, he

(01:12:01):
did listen to Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi went in on that
weekend you'll remember, and caucused with Joe Biden and showed
him the numbers and how he was taking on water.
And maybe it should have been Pelosi and it should
have been Obama as well. But the reality is Kamala
Harris I think couldn't have any effect on Joe Biden's aspirations,

(01:12:23):
ambitions and plans just couldn't. The other thing I would
say is that that I think Biden was a tough
nut to crack. I think he felt, hey, I've done
a lot with my presidency, and he just didn't see
his own foibles. He didn't see his his own shortcomings.

(01:12:43):
D Elliott says, I'm disappointed in Kamala. This just seems
like a smear campaign and blames Biden. So disappointed, you know,
on some level, I think it's a big meh. Like
after the fact, Kamala Harris writes a book, maybe some
of it'll be interesting, the stuff that relates to Biden
and his political aspiration in a second term. It's probably

(01:13:04):
starting and stopping with everything I just read you. What's that? Kim?

Speaker 5 (01:13:07):
I just wonder why why did she feel the need
to say all this right now? What is the benefit
to her to come out and say all these things?
I don't think there is a benefit.

Speaker 1 (01:13:17):
Yeah, all right, I'm being told that we need to
run this interview now, and so we will smash the
like a button, like a boss.

Speaker 5 (01:13:27):
Shit with your iron rod.

Speaker 1 (01:13:29):
And I so glad everybody could be here. The youngest
syndicated columnist in America joins us next Mark Thompson Show,
Mark Thompson, The Mark Thompson. I'm excited, always excited to
have another young person in this show. My gosh, this

(01:13:53):
guy is legit young. Gregory Laikov is the youngest nationally
syndicated columnist in the United States. Wow, I want whatever
he's having. He serves as a columnist for Newsmax. He
has been published in The Wall Street Journal, The New

(01:14:13):
York Post, The Hill, Reason Magazine, dozens of other publications.
He's peaking. Maybe he's peaking too early? Did he ever
think of that? You gotta pace yourself, Gregory Laikov. Welcome,
Gregory Laikob to La Mar Thompson Show. Sir, thank you
so much.

Speaker 6 (01:14:29):
I'm a big fan of the show, so it means
a lot to me.

Speaker 1 (01:14:32):
You are seventeen years old, is that right? I am gosh,
that's really really cool. How did you get into all
of this? By the way, I know your origin story.
I've studied up on you. I've done my homework, but
i want the audience to get up to speed, and
then I'm gonna pepper you, Gregory. I'm gonna pepper you
I'm gonna speedbag you with questions about what's going on

(01:14:55):
in America right now, but right now your origin story, please, sir.

Speaker 6 (01:14:58):
Yeah, definitely.

Speaker 10 (01:14:59):
So.

Speaker 6 (01:15:00):
So for sixteen years of my life, I had undiagnosed ADHD,
and for me, that meant that I was a failing student.
I couldn't read, I couldn't write. And then only last
year did I finally get diagnosed, and that's when my
entire life changed. I went from someone who never read
a book to you know, picking out my first book
reading it. My entire life change with that book. It

(01:15:20):
was actually The Case for Israel by an author named
Alan Dershwitz. I'm sure you're familiar. Alan Dershowitz then changed
my life by by actually becoming my mentor eventually in life.
So I went from someone who couldn't even write, couldn't
even read, to someone who now publishes in these publications.
And a big part of it is because I want

(01:15:41):
to show that you know, you can't accomplish things if
you just sent your mind to it, even if you
are sixteen years late to it. So that's really my
urgent story. But you know it's just getting started when
you say that he.

Speaker 1 (01:15:54):
Was your mentor. I'm just curious what kind of mentoring
you needed or you benefit from the most.

Speaker 6 (01:16:00):
Yes, so he still is my mentor. So what he
does is actually I sent him my articles, he reads them,
and he provides feedback. He has hopped on calls with
me everything like a normal mentor does. We have even
spoke about the current situation in New York City with
Zorhan Mamdani running for a mayor, and obviously he's a

(01:16:24):
socialist not friendly towards Israel candidate, so definitely we discuss
things like that a lot. And he even provides quotes
for my articles, so it's really all around. He's a
wonderful person.

Speaker 10 (01:16:38):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:16:38):
He's a very learned man, of course, and he's a
brilliant scholar and professor and author. It's interesting just because
you mentioned Mandami and now just get into some of
the stuff. If Mandami was pro Israel but also a socialist,
would that change your view toward him?

Speaker 6 (01:16:55):
Definitely not. You see, the Israel aspect is a very
small reason of why I am so against a socialist
candidate running for mayor in the biggest city with the
biggest amount of Jews in the United States. It's mostly
because he's a socialist and he wants what we had
in Moscow in the nineteen seventies. So that is the

(01:17:16):
big concern there, and that's why I am so against him.

Speaker 1 (01:17:20):
I know, you're the son of I think Soviet refugees,
are you not? Yeah, and so you're a lot of
your perspective may be informed by that, and that's legitimate.
I'm not suggesting in any way it's not legitimate, but
is It seems one of the problems that I know,
maybe I don't want to get to New York centric.
We have a lot of New York viewers, but one
of the problems with New York City is the cost

(01:17:41):
of everything, right, I mean, the cost of living, the
cost of doing everything to live in New York City
is quite high. Doesn't Mom Dammi's approach or strategy begin
to address some of those issues.

Speaker 6 (01:17:54):
Yeah, So first off, he definitely does try to address
every issue that New Yorkers are facing, like groceries, high rent,
high you know, high childcare. These are basic issues every parent,
every person in New York City faces, and that's why
he is becoming so popular, especially among the generation of

(01:18:14):
people who are economically not doing so well in New
York City and need a way out. However, we saw
that socialism in the past and in the present doesn't work.
Look at Venezuela, look at Cuba. These countries are not
countries that anyone with half a brain cell that lives
in New York City would want to move to, mainly
because they're the economic situation is even worse. So while

(01:18:36):
he does try to address these issues, and I give
him credit for that, I give him credit for listening
to the people, his means of addressing them are just ridiculous.
I mean, it's saying that we have to go to
a policy that the USSR tried to implement and failed
so badly, and now it's magically going to work in.

Speaker 1 (01:18:54):
What part of the policy in New York is what
the USSR tried to adopt.

Speaker 6 (01:18:58):
Yes, So that's a very interesting question. We have to
remember that even though we think of the USSR as
communists or communism, the USSR was a socialist state, even
if in its name it's a socialist state. So it's
the same exact, same exact thing that Mamdani is trying
to bring to New York City. For example, seizing the

(01:19:19):
means of production which is something that the DSA Charter
Democratic Socialists of America Charter explains as one of its
aspirations that directly happened in the USSR. Obviously we still
had or not we I'm sorry, my parents still had
small businesses in the USSR, and there were still functioning
aspects of the society that weren't fully communists, because a

(01:19:41):
fully communist system never existed in the United I mean
in our world before. But it was pretty much exactly
what the DSA Charter is describing, and very few differences
from you know, the nineteen seventies nineteen eighties USSR too.

Speaker 1 (01:19:58):
Tell me what in Mundami world would overlap with the
seizing the means of production. I don't see that anywhere.
I didn't even see it as possible, I mean free transit.
I get you're saying to taking over the MTA. Is
that kind of about what you're talking?

Speaker 6 (01:20:13):
Well, No, Mamdani himself has been very silent on the
seizing the means of production. We have seen that a
lot of clips of himself talking about seizing the means
of production in the past. Every surface. I'm not a
big fan of saying that, Oh, because you believe something
in the past that means you believe it in the present. However,
the very charter that he endorses, the Democratic Socialists of

(01:20:36):
America charter does directly say that they plan to seize
the means of production. It doesn't mean that he has
to fully endorse every single little bit of the charter.
That would be very shallow to say that he has
to do. But it does mean that he should condemn it,
or he should acknowledge it. And so far we haven't
seen that. We haven't seen him make a real effort

(01:20:56):
to make it clear that, Okay, I'm not going to
see the means of production.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
I think that's but again, as a practical matter, what
what means of production could he see? I mean it
just it's it's you know, it's New York City. Show
me the means of production, then he's going to be
able to.

Speaker 6 (01:21:11):
That is another point. The threat that he poses is
not so much of what he is actually going to do,
because he himself, as a mayor, is not going to
change the entire United States to become a socialist country,
or even the entire New York City to become a
socialist country. That would be again ridiculous to say we can't.
The mayor doesn't have all the control, he can't do everything.

(01:21:31):
And realistically, if you read there was a report actually
in the Economist about this, Realistically, his ability to change
many of these things is very small. I mean, yes,
he could create free buses if he gets the New
York City's City Council to pass that and the Transportation
Board to sign off on that, But overall it's very
small the actual change that he will implement in New

(01:21:53):
York City.

Speaker 1 (01:21:54):
Wouldn't you be comforted by that?

Speaker 6 (01:21:56):
Yes? And no, because because if we elect a mayor
of the biggest city in the United States who is
a Democrat socialist, it is normalizing the idea that democratic
socialists or democratic socialism or socialism period is a normal
belief to have in our society, and we should elect
more politicians like that. So I don't believe it's so

(01:22:18):
much with Mum, Donnie. I don't think he's a three.

Speaker 1 (01:22:21):
Yeah, you just don't like his brand, is what you're saying.
It doesn't sound like you really have a lot of
issues with him personally that I've heard yet.

Speaker 6 (01:22:28):
Well, I do have a lot of issues with him
personally and his personal beliefs but I just don't believe
that they would actually be coming to fruition in your city.
It would be ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (01:22:39):
But you know, Bernie Sanders same thing. He's a socialist, right,
I mean, but you know he's operated in the US Senate.
America is not going socialist. Although you will concede, why
don't you that we have a socialist and pretty robust
socialist arm when it comes to bailing out major corporations
tax breaks for those who are already receiving the best
of I suggest, the best of the economy, I mean

(01:23:01):
the oil industry, even even the food. You know, when
you talk about the subsidizing of meat for example, I mean,
we're we're providing for the people of America subsidies that
are so substantial that they're not really seeing what the
free market actually would do. So my point is they're
aspects of socialism that you see manifesting in other ways.

Speaker 6 (01:23:21):
Right to an extent, if we look at lezi fair economics,
obviously we are not having a full lezz fair market
where there's no restrictions on anything. That would be what
we had before the Great Depression, and that did not work,
and it would not work.

Speaker 1 (01:23:36):
We're all days drive away from there, I wouldn't you agree?

Speaker 6 (01:23:41):
Of course, of course we are not one hundred percent
free marketing in the sense that we have no regulation.
We have, you know, nothing that controls business, which is good,
it promotes. But to the to the level that we
do have regulation is not to the extent of saying
that you can't say that our government is socialists because
it has regulations on business, because it gives tax breaks

(01:24:02):
or anything like that. But yes, to the to the
extent obviously programs like social welfare programs like social security
that technically is a somewhat socialist socialist sorry, some socialist program,
but that doesn't that that doesn't mean our government is socialists.

(01:24:23):
And the effort for those programs, the entire point of
social security, the entire point of I don't know, medicaid,
is to get people back up on their feet. It's
not for them to say on these programs. And that's
the big, big thing that differs our economy, our society
from a socialist society.

Speaker 1 (01:24:41):
Because so, yeah, that's interrupt I was just gonna mention.
So when you see that billions of dollars go into
banks and into those who have been hobbled by bad
decision making on Wall Street. That's also to get them
back up on their feet. I mean, you can see
how both are socialist. One deals with somebody who you know,

(01:25:02):
doesn't can't put you know, well, it doesn't have a
pot to piss in, to use the phrase. And the
other is, you know, these are fact cats on Wall
Street who created a bunch of they well investment vehicles
that were phony, that were bad. I mean, that's the
way crashes because of that, and we bailed them all out.

Speaker 6 (01:25:23):
But what these programs are turning into the big issue
of why these programs are, in my opinion, like social
Security to an extent, is a socialist program. The reason
I'm saying that is because we have a culture in
the United States where people are staying on Social Security
throughout their life. They're not getting off it, they're not
trying to get back on their feet. They're just saying
and relying on it. That's what a real program that's

(01:25:46):
socialist is. It's not where we are giving incentives for
people to get back on their feet. We're helping them,
whether it's like a homeless shelter. A homeless shelter is
not a socialist program because we're trying to get people
back on their feet. The goal isn't to people stay
in homeless shelters. And that's the whole essence of why
our government functions in the way that it does with

(01:26:07):
these kind of socialist kind of not programs, if that
makes sense, kind of freebies is what I like to
call it. And interestingly enough, we do have the government
even becoming more involved in the private sector. We have
just recently, Donald Trump announced that the government bought I
believe it was twelve percent of Intel stock in exchange

(01:26:30):
for some the Chips Act, which gave gave money to Intel.
I'm actually not a big supporter of that. I'm a
big supporter of a lot of things that Donald Trump
has been able to do for the economy. But investing
our money or having shares in private companies, I think
that's where it draws the line, because the whole entire

(01:26:52):
essence for a free government or a free market is
that the government stays out of business. And I think
that's really just a murky line that if it was
on the other foot, if Democrats were doing it, I
think Republicans would be criticizing it.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
Are corporate taxes too high.

Speaker 6 (01:27:09):
Well, that's a very interesting question, and I'm actually doing
a lot of research into that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:13):
But to give you the generation, let me before you answered,
let me just say the reason I'm asking on the
heels of what we were just talking about, which is
sort of this. As you mentioned the Intel deal, I'd
suggest to you that the amount of money that we subsidize.
You know, when we give somebody a tax break, we
give these companies a tax break. It's you and me

(01:27:33):
giving them a tax break. Okay, it is a subsidy.
It's just like your Social Security Okay. Instead of sending
somebody you know in Cleveland, Ohio, a Social Security a check,
now you are, you're underwriting what would be a heavier
tax burden from that corporation. They no longer are bearing
that you and I are bearing that, Okay.

Speaker 6 (01:27:55):
Taxes in general, Taxes in general, the whole entire point
of it is to like, taxes are for people to pay,
not for the government to pay.

Speaker 3 (01:28:03):
You.

Speaker 6 (01:28:04):
So, a tax cut to a specific individual or specific
demographic of people, yes, that would technically burden the rest
of Americans because someone would have to pay for that. However,
what we have seen is that Donald Trump is not
trying to or his administration with the big beautiful Bill recently,
is not trying to just give a tax break to
the corporations. He's giving a tax break all around. So

(01:28:27):
it's not like other people are paying for the corporate
tax break that we have seen. He is giving the
middle class the biggest tax break that it ever has
gotten in history. And he's giving you know, just everyone
all around. And that's the big thing that separates this
from let's say, a normal subsidy.

Speaker 1 (01:28:46):
Well, the great thing about the middle class tax break
is that there are fewer middle class people than ever before.
There's the middle class in Americas being as you know,
essentially rubbed out, and you're ending up with the chasm
between those who have a lot and those who are
very little. But the real i'd suggest tax just because
we're off on this, I really like to get on
a couple other things. But let's just try to round

(01:29:09):
this out by saying to me that the real tax
burden is not being born by these companies, these companies
that get so much out of American society and so
many breaks from the American economic system. I mean, as
I say, oil companies, tech companies, these are companies that
are not paying, by any yardstick, a fair share. Amazon

(01:29:31):
another example. So it would be nothing to increase their
tax burden ever so modestly. The billionaire class in the
same category. You hear Bernie Sanders of the world, you
hear Elizabeth Warrens of the world. You know, just tax
a billion and billionaires one percent. I mean, it would
completely change the arithmetic in America. And yet all we

(01:29:51):
do is allow the rich to get richer. I mean,
that is essentially what's happening. And it's happening under your guy. Now,
I know you're a Trump fan. We'll talk about talk
about some of the other stuff he's doing. But you
must see that those who have gained so much from
the society owe something back to that society, don't you
say that?

Speaker 6 (01:30:12):
Yes, I do think that billionaires should be paying taxes.
I am a big proponent of having anyone who is
wealthy in America to pay their fair share of tax.
But that's not saying that they're they aren't.

Speaker 1 (01:30:22):
Right now.

Speaker 6 (01:30:23):
Right now, the top one percent is paying about forty
six percent of all US tax, which is a lot
old US tax revenue coming from citizens is paid by
the top one, well, not old, I'm sorry, around forty
six percent. I believe it's forty six, maybe a little
bit lower, maybe forty three. But somewhere around there is
how much the top one percent is paying. And that

(01:30:44):
is a huge sum.

Speaker 1 (01:30:45):
And you're saying the top one percent of American earners
are paying forty six percent of the taxes in America.
Somewhere like that, somewhere cam Way, Kim will check that
right now. Jim is really good with the Google. Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:30:57):
So yeah, two, just to continue, and also.

Speaker 1 (01:31:02):
Okay, yeah, go ahead, Greg, Okay, your.

Speaker 6 (01:31:04):
Point on the middle on the middle class. Now, we
do see that the middle class is shrinking. That is
not a lie. You can't make that up. That is
just a fact that the middle class is shrinking. We
have less people in the middle class than ever before.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that as a society we're
doing worse, because the measure of middle class is a
little bit different. If you were in the lower class,

(01:31:26):
but your quality of life is still higher than it
was today, then you are still living a good life.
What we should be looking at is the quality of
life of how people are doing. So the lowest of
the low are getting better there instead of living in
a in a shack, they're living in an apartment. Let's say.
So that's what we should be looking at at the measurement,
and that's how what has been.

Speaker 1 (01:31:46):
By the way, the stats do bear out what you're saying.
To be fair to you that the when you say
the lowest of the low the lowest or earners are
getting are are better off than they were. What I'm
talking about is the middle class of America, which has
really been cored out, and they have born an incredible
tax burden.

Speaker 6 (01:32:05):
Yes, well, an incredible tax burden compared to who because
they also.

Speaker 1 (01:32:10):
Compared to the compared to the to the wealthy class,
compared to I mean well the wealthy.

Speaker 6 (01:32:15):
Again, the wealthy pay much more tax than the middle
class does. And the middle class still has gotten a
tax cut.

Speaker 1 (01:32:21):
So wait, wait a minute, wait a minute, on a
percentage basis, I don't think a wealthy American pays as
much as a middle class American. I'm talking about highly topic.

Speaker 6 (01:32:31):
It's it's not as easy as an answer as you say.
The reason I actually know that is because I just
looked into it, like a few a few hours ago.
There are studies that go both ways on average, Yes,
to an extent. Billionaires, for example, pay less percentage tax
for their entire networth. Then let's say a millionaire, and
do I think that's fair personally?

Speaker 5 (01:32:52):
I do not.

Speaker 6 (01:32:52):
However, I do think that billionaires are paying their fair
share of tax at the top.

Speaker 1 (01:32:58):
Okay, so we're going to We're gonna was close forty six?
Does Kim have the answer? And? Oh is that? Did
she put it in the chat? I see it. According
to smart Ash, of the top one percent of earners
typically pay much more in taxes than many other Americans. Nationwide,
this group contributes forty five percent of total personal income collected. However,

(01:33:19):
the top one percent doesn't pay the same amount everywhere. Therefore,
some states may be more dependent on this group than
others for tax revenue.

Speaker 6 (01:33:27):
Okay, yeah, and that goes into salt tax state state
deduction taxes is a whole other conversation that we could
have another time.

Speaker 1 (01:33:35):
All Right, So I want to get I want to
get off of taxes a bit, and I want to
get into other policy real quick. And that is related
to Trump policy. There's been a dramatic change in American
i'd suggest international posture. There's been a tremendous change in
domestic programs.

Speaker 2 (01:33:55):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:33:56):
Trump ran on a purging of immigrants to this country,
and he is pursuing that in an extremely aggressive way.
He has completely dismantled the e p A pretty much
from the standpoint of protecting a lot of the environmental
poisons from going into air, water, soil. I'm wondering if

(01:34:17):
what what if these things sparks with you? What do?

Speaker 4 (01:34:19):
What do?

Speaker 1 (01:34:19):
You?

Speaker 2 (01:34:19):
Go?

Speaker 1 (01:34:19):
Right on?

Speaker 10 (01:34:20):
Man?

Speaker 1 (01:34:20):
That's you know, that's what we want.

Speaker 6 (01:34:22):
Well, I'll talk about a little bit about illegal immigration,
because I believe you mentioned it. Well. First off, let
me just start off by saying I am very pro
legal immigration. I think this country should be having a
much bigger door for legal immigration than it currently does.
And Trump in his first term, one of his first

(01:34:44):
promises was to make a big open door. That's what
I want to see. I want to see a big
open door for legal immigration and to streamline that process
because it is way too hard for anyone who genuinely
wants to contribute to American society to live in the
United States with the current immigrant immigration process.

Speaker 1 (01:35:04):
That's so you're right, I mean that there's been no
there's been no immigration reform. From that standpoint, it's just
a heavy stick, it would say, exactly.

Speaker 6 (01:35:11):
And my second point is referencing the illegal immigration. Now,
we could have a debate on whether we should want
the illegal immigrants that are currently in this country to
stay or whether they should go. But the real basis
is that is that the American people voted through Congress,
and Congress passed the law and the President signed off
on it decades ago, starting back one hundred years ago,

(01:35:33):
when our immigration laws were formed, that illegal immigrants have
to be deported. That's what the law says, and that's
what we should abide by. If the American people want
to change that. If the American people feel as if
illegal immigrants now should get amnesty, they could protest Congress
and vote accordingly and get a new law pass. But

(01:35:54):
right now, we want the laws that the American people
voted for to be represented, and that's what we're forgetting.
It's not a question of whether illegal immigrants are good
or not. That's a separate article, I mean argument. The
real argument here is whether the law that says illegal
immigrants should be deported that's running on the books, should

(01:36:15):
be enforced or not. And I believe it should be.

Speaker 1 (01:36:17):
There's an elasticity though about enforcing that law. You know
that through the decades the government looks the other way
because the government, the people of America have benefited enormously
economically from those who are in this country without formal documentation.
And as you said, just as a quick footnote, the

(01:36:38):
idea that you could have worker programs that should be expanded,
I mean, I would think that would be something you'd
be screaming from the rooftops about because that is absolutely
something that Trump could do. And yet we're not seeing
any expansions in those programs.

Speaker 6 (01:36:52):
So let me let me mention. Let me let me
mention a few points that you brought up. So Number one, yes,
the government in the past has looked past this law
has not enforced it. I still believe, though, if that
there's a law on the table that the American people
voted for, we should be enforcing it. That's number one.
Number Two, the fact that the immigrants, sorry the immigrants,

(01:37:13):
contributed to American society. That is also questionable. It is
not very clear how much they contributed. And what I
mean by this is that while yes, a lot of
illegal immigrants still have jobs, they still pay taxes, and
they still you know, are hardworking immigrants who come to
this country to work. That's a big chunk of them,
most of them really. Still. It has been shown through

(01:37:37):
and I'm citing right now a study by the Center
of Immigration that was actually a part of a testimony
in the House. I believe it was in twenty twenty
four or twenty twenty two, I forget what year. But
that study has concluded that illegal immigrants are a net
fiscal lass or a net fiscal negative to American society,

(01:38:02):
not a net fi school gain. And the main reason
is is because the illegal immigrants that are coming into
the United States are not coming here with high bachelor's
degrees or any sort of high level of education. Instead,
they're coming here with a low level of education, and
they tend to rely on programs like SNAP, or previously

(01:38:24):
rely on programs like SNAP. Now Trump is trying to
zero win on that Section eight housing, which Trump is
also trying to zero win education for their children, which
let's say in New York State costs forty two thousand
dollars per child, which is a crazy number. So you know,
there's a lot of benefits that come with illegal immigrants

(01:38:45):
because they obviously pay taxes, they contribute, but they take
more than they give. And that's what the study has shown.

Speaker 1 (01:38:50):
This notion that you can get immigrants here who have
bachelor's degrees and are highly skilled, and they're not the
ones coming, I think it's flawed in a couple of ways,
and I'll just quickly mention one of them. You are
seeing through this aggressive deportation that Donald Trump is pursuing,
you're seeing the seizing of some of the top research
scientists in the world who have been detained. As you know.

(01:39:13):
I think there were two I can think of, one
from Harvard to the other from Yale, and they were
detained sent to a detention center in Louisiana. One of them,
this is one of the top biological research scientists in
the world. So this is not somebody doesn't have a
bachelor's degree. This is a highly trained scientist. And many
of these scientists, as you know, there's been a chilling

(01:39:34):
effect now and they're not even coming to this country.
This used to be really the repository of so much
great research. Now you're not finding it so much. There's
really something of a brain drain in America. But let
me get to your second point, which is sort of
that these immigrants who do come here. First of all,
I would say they do the work that Americans who
are documented and legal aren't doing and aren't doing efficiently.

(01:39:58):
I'm talking about the agricultural feel of California if you
go there, or the Plane States, if you go to
these various places. I just saw a short video on YouTube.
I think it was from a farmer who said, there's
a fifty three year old Mexican guy and he's talking live.
There's a fifty three year old Mexican guy out there.
He'll do the job of six people Americans. They can't

(01:40:20):
take it. They can't take the heat, they can't take
the drawnis they're no good to me. So he was
complaining about the fact that these guys are being taken
away from the idea somehow, that they don't contribute. And
the other point, I would say, because I know you
like statistics, and I didn't come armed with as many
statistics clearly as I need to for the next conversation
the DACA recipients, who as you know, that Trump just

(01:40:41):
wants to load them all on a plane and get
rid of them. Those kids have an amazing track record.
You know, they're over ninety percent in terms of college degrees.
They've virtually none of them have had any kind of
scrape with the law. It's a remarkable program, the DACA program,
and yet we see them in the same way that
we see ille immigrants who just snuck over the border

(01:41:02):
by night last night. So I think this is I
think there's a lot of conflation of this stuff on
the immigrant questions, and I think it's being handled with
a blood instrument when it's actually it should be handled
with kind of a sensitivity of surgery.

Speaker 6 (01:41:18):
Yeah, so number one, I do agree with you on
your last point that yes, this should be handled with
a lot of sensitivity, because there are case by case
basises where it's a little bit confusing of whether it
would benefit American society to deport someone or not to.
But overall, we have seventy percent of all iced deportations
so far being of those illegal illegal immigrants who actually

(01:41:43):
committed crimes. Seventy percent, so the vast majority.

Speaker 1 (01:41:46):
I take wild issue with that figure. That is a
total figure to.

Speaker 6 (01:41:51):
Ice itself and the White House and Tom Holmans.

Speaker 1 (01:41:53):
So unless oh oh, Tom Homan said it, it must
be true. Place I want to move on. I want
to move on to the environment. You're a young person.
I care about the future of the Earth, and I
would think you would as well. You see alternative energy
and sustainable energy programs being completely dismantled by this administration
that you must admit is indefensible.

Speaker 6 (01:42:16):
Well, yes and no, I have a this is my
perspective in general. First, let me go towards climate change
as a reference. Obviously, if you ask me, climate change
is real. I don't think there's any denying it. I mean,
the human humans have been proven to negatively affect our environment,
but not to the extent that obviously we have to

(01:42:39):
go on solar panels today or else our human kind
is going to get wiped out. And I don't think
anyone is saying that. However, what I do believe and
what I greatly believe in, is effective ways for sustainable energy.
And when we see that solar panels are not very
clear whether they're actually very effective because number one, they
cost a huge sum of money to develop, then they

(01:43:03):
also have a lot of resources that go into them,
and then they also don't perform perform as well with
you know energy, Uh, gaining energy and trapping it as
let's say, I don't know, burning coal or something, or
burning gas.

Speaker 1 (01:43:18):
I'm sorry, I have to stop you, because just none
of that is true. There's been tremendous there's been tremendous
refinement in solar energy.

Speaker 2 (01:43:25):
But not enough.

Speaker 6 (01:43:26):
It has not been proved.

Speaker 1 (01:43:27):
Of course, I don't know what enough is. Of course,
never enough. But but but Europe has personal solar cells
on so many residences and it's helping to power towns
and villages across Europe.

Speaker 6 (01:43:40):
But still electricity from a solar panel or from a
wind turbine is significantly more expensive than electricity for a
I don't know, a gasoline powered diesel engine or anything
burning of coal.

Speaker 1 (01:43:55):
And I'm not saying that I don't even know if
that's true, Gregory. But but I am going to concede
this for you. I think that you can't just throw
a switch and make this transition. I think you have
to make this transition, just as I was talking about
with immigration, just were a textured strategy that does still

(01:44:17):
incorporate fossil fuel burning, but begins to increase the amount
of solar and wind and other sustainable You know, there's Geothermo.
There are a bunch of other sustainable projects underway, and
yet this administration is you know, one of these wind projects,
it was three fourths of the way done, and he's
saying stop it and dismantle it. And and that's more

(01:44:40):
of an owning. That's more of an owning the libs,
isn't it, Gregory? I mean there, you've got to admit
you can't be good with the owning the lib stuff.

Speaker 6 (01:44:47):
Look, to an extent, you are right in the sense that, yes,
it was almost completed. We spent so much money on it,
so why not finish it? But also it is a
sign that it is a sign clearly.

Speaker 1 (01:44:59):
I don't.

Speaker 6 (01:44:59):
I don't. I don't believe it's not it is a sign.
I believe the one you're referencing is the one off
Long Island on New York, right. Yeah, so there there
actually has been tests conducted of whether the whether the
windmills are going to affect the marine environment, and a
big argument is that yes, they're going to significantly affect
the marine environment. And that is that is true. My

(01:45:22):
argument is not necessarily that we should be going one
hundred percent fossil fuel always burning. I don't believe that
I think we should be investing in research instead. I
think that the money we spend on windmills that are
not proven to be as effective as let's say, burning coal,
that money should be put into research and development for
a windmill or another source of energy that will actually

(01:45:44):
be uh, that will actually be beneficial towards America. Because
even countries like Germany, which right now is I believe,
almost sixty percent on a renewable energy basis, after obviously
I had to stop buying gas from Russia to do
the Ukraine War, even countries like Germany, they still aren't

(01:46:05):
fully reliant on fossil fuels and it costs them a
lot of money, a significant sum of money to like,
you know, use these renewable energy sources that aren't one
hundred percent effective.

Speaker 1 (01:46:19):
These are processes. I'm glad you mentioned this because those
are areas of the world that are already beginning that transition.
China is way ahead of us now. I mean, I
have must tell you your guy Trump, he's taking a
lot of steps backward into the nineteen fifties. And I
have to say, all, Gregory, a lot of the research
to which you have pointed that you'd like to see

(01:46:39):
done has been done. I'm not saying that these technologies
can't be refined further, but I'm saying that a lot
of this research as to exactly what ways in which
these alternative energy should be conceived, a lot of the
research about that has been completed. And as I say,
these programs have shown own great success. So could there

(01:47:01):
be more success? Sure? I just would say, uh, And
then I'm gonna jump on one last thing. I would
just say when it comes to the environment, I mean,
I think this administration's disposition is indefensible. Again. I think
that it's a drill, baby drill, which is you know,
doesn't actually even help you with the gas price. Is
because all that energy goes out of the world market.
Americans have no ownership, and if.

Speaker 6 (01:47:23):
It goes out to the world market, then it still
does help Americans indirectly because it lowers global oil.

Speaker 1 (01:47:28):
Sure supply, supply and demand. But I'll tell you, let's
go see see are the first part of this conversation.
I mean, if you really want to talk about taking
over an industry, if you want to talk about nationalizing
an industry, you want to talk about having a piece
of it. I think that Americans deserve a piece of
that fossil fuel money. I mean, these are national parks,
some of them where you're where you're permit. I know

(01:47:49):
you don't believe it. I'm industry, what's that.

Speaker 6 (01:47:51):
I don't believe we should be nationalizing any industry period.
I don't think it's the government's role. I guess that's why,
let's say toward the intel stock.

Speaker 1 (01:47:59):
I'm not sure sure I get it, but I'm making
a point, which is that we don't derive Americans derive
no advantage by allowing these again subsidized corporations. You're subsidizing
them with incredible tax breaks to drill this stuff. And then,
as I say, you're not even building towards sustainability. That's
why I have a problem with this. It's not even
building towards sustainable fructure.

Speaker 6 (01:48:19):
I will agree with you on one point that we
should be building towards a sustainable future. How I believe
we should be building towards a sustainable future goes into
research unless there is some in fact that or statistic
paper or research paper that has proven that solar panels

(01:48:39):
or windmills or I don't know, hydro electric power is
more effective or as effective as fossil fuels. It just
will not work because so far our economy, people cannot
afford it. We don't have energy. Energy prices are already
so high, we don't have money to spare.

Speaker 1 (01:48:57):
The solar power goes out on the grid. It goes
on the grid, and it's consumed by consumers the same
way electricity is consumed with dirty energy, but it.

Speaker 6 (01:49:05):
Is much more expensive and it is less efficient. That's
why a solar panel, for example, cannot replace a You
still need to connect electricity for your house if you
have a solar panel or if unless you want to
invest to of.

Speaker 1 (01:49:17):
Course, that's why you're of course, that's why you're that's
why the solar panel exists. I don't this is to
be continued. We will do this again. But the last thing,
and I really it strikes me as a little odd
also because you're you're seventeen. I'm thinking in ten years
you'll be twenty seven, and in ten years it'll be
twenty thirty five. And I would think by then your

(01:49:40):
research studies on sustainable energy and on solar energies will
just be getting done. And now you begin those projects,
it may be twenty forty five before those are completed,
and by then it's just too late, man. I mean,
you know, another half of all of all the species
on Earth will be extinct. It'll be you'll start to
see these insanely powerful weather systems that are wiping out

(01:50:02):
entire communities. There's a lot on the line here.

Speaker 6 (01:50:04):
I would say, Look, climate change does not contribute to
I don't know, the hurricane we saw a few a
few a few weeks ago.

Speaker 1 (01:50:12):
You don't think climate change can hurricane. I mean, let's
just let's just go with this. Ocean temperature. Ocean temperature
is a thing, and ocean temperature is higher.

Speaker 6 (01:50:24):
And yes, what ocean temperature has been higher for many
other periods on Earth in Earth's history. We have gone
through ice ages, we have gone through temperatures where, uh,
you know, the the Earth overall was hotter. That doesn't
necessarily mean climate change is the cause. I think it
does contribute somewhat to it. It is just not the
overall main factor.

Speaker 1 (01:50:46):
The Earth is hotter. Now, Okay, So all I would
say is when you talk because I'm not talking about
the man made part now, because I get that you're
I can argue it. But not gonna. But you said,
I don't think climate change anything to do with this,
with this, less hurricanes, not to the extent of the
greatest way in which the Earth moves energy heat energy

(01:51:09):
it's moved in the wave of heat from one hemisphere
to the other is through tropical weather systems. That's the
way it's done. So the warmer the water, the more
intense the weather systems, the greater the need for Earth
to balance it. That's just a fact. And so I
think climate change does have something to do with it.

Speaker 6 (01:51:28):
No, Well, that would be assuming that the water temperature's
warmth is only contributed to buy climate change, And that's
just false because even scientists concede to the fact that
Earth goes towards periods where we are warmer colder. We
have an ice age. That is just science.

Speaker 1 (01:51:45):
But if the ambient temperatures around the globe are warmer,
the Earth's oceans take that heat and digestive.

Speaker 6 (01:51:54):
But I understand this, but that doesn't is not only
caused because of climate change.

Speaker 1 (01:52:00):
Well, okay, all right, is natural for eirth to go
through those cycles.

Speaker 6 (01:52:04):
Climate change does contribute, but not to the extent again
that you're making it.

Speaker 1 (01:52:08):
So, So then the natural earth cycles all of a
sudden are this hockey stick after the Industrial Revolution where
the that's just.

Speaker 6 (01:52:16):
About the amount of CO two released into the air.

Speaker 1 (01:52:18):
Sure exactly, but the the cot CO two correlative is
is provable.

Speaker 6 (01:52:25):
But let's look at the the sheet of the earth
right now compared to other periods in history. It is
not so much off that it is completely irregular to
let's say in I don't know when the last time
Earth was Earth was hot. I I forgot the year.

Speaker 1 (01:52:42):
But there My point is that there hasn't been it
hasn't been this hot in the recorded age. Okay, So anyway, Uh,
let's let's finish stick to socialism on this one.

Speaker 6 (01:52:54):
All right, We'll have the discussion another time.

Speaker 1 (01:52:57):
Yeah, well, we'll have the discussion another time.

Speaker 10 (01:52:59):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:53:00):
I would think that. Uh, And let me just finish up,
because I know you're you write a lot and you
talk a lot about the Trump administration, and you have
you don't agree with everything, but you do agree with
a lot. Does this administration seem to you to be
more corrupt than a lot of others, more concerned with

(01:53:24):
gifts to the president personally, to his family and to
his billionaire boys Club.

Speaker 6 (01:53:29):
I would not say so, especially when comparing them to
other administrations. I don't believe that there was an administration
that ever was not concerned about gifts or anything like that.
I don't think that this one is particularly corrupt, but there.

Speaker 1 (01:53:43):
Is a there. You would you wouldn't. I mean, I'll
grant you that it's sort of a corrupt system, but
you would have to say their degrees of corruption, right.

Speaker 6 (01:53:53):
I do believe there's degrees to the corruption scale, but
I don't think Trump is or anything he has done
made it seem that way.

Speaker 1 (01:54:02):
Okay, So when you look at the Vietnam deal, the
tariff deal, where he says I want these resorts green lit,
the Trump resort green lit in Vietnam in order to
get out from under the forty six percent tariff, that
doesn't strike you as patronage straight up.

Speaker 6 (01:54:17):
Well, no, number one, that is not what he said.
He said, I do know what you're referencing, but there
were a lot of other components of the Vietnam deal
than just his his resorts, and that that deal was
still not even made to the extent that it.

Speaker 1 (01:54:33):
Well, there are a bunch of deals that haven't been made.
You're right, about that, of course, but let me pick that.
Let me let me go for in let me go
for India, India against a fifty percent terrifyer. Right now,
Mody wouldn't agree to Trump's narrative of being the peacemaker.

Speaker 6 (01:54:49):
As you know, in the I had nothing to do
with why India is having a tariff. It's all because
of where India is buying its oil and gas.

Speaker 1 (01:54:58):
It is, it is the It is the backbeat narrative
of why Trump was angry with Moti. Moti and Trump
used to be pals.

Speaker 6 (01:55:06):
You know that the reason why India is facing a
tariff right now is because it's choosing to buy oil
from an adversary of the Western world, Russia. So in
an effort to prevent India from buying that oil, Trump
is tariffing India. And that is the main reason. It
has nothing to do with the fact that India's president.

(01:55:27):
Is it president or Prime Minister?

Speaker 1 (01:55:28):
I forget yeah, I think I think it's Prime minister. Yeah,
but I don't know Prime minister.

Speaker 6 (01:55:33):
Fine does not want to condone the fact that Trump
is actually the peacemaker in the whatever in the Pakistan
India conflict, that happened in February.

Speaker 1 (01:55:45):
And lastly, Brazil, the fifty texts on imports from Brazil.
Can you speak to that and the motivation of Donald
Trump on that one? What do you mean?

Speaker 6 (01:55:57):
Can you?

Speaker 3 (01:55:57):
Can you?

Speaker 1 (01:55:57):
Well, I mean the heat is imposing that tariff because
he's not happy that Bolsonaro is on trial for the
coup attempt there in Brazil. Well, do you he's articulated
that he said, he said the justice system is uh
has been weaponized against my friend Balsonaro.

Speaker 6 (01:56:16):
So okay, So, so, first off, I don't believe that's corruption.
To tariff someone or tariff of country because of its
justice system or because of its justice system being politicized
or anything like that. That's not corruption. I don't know
what you can describe as.

Speaker 1 (01:56:33):
But right, it's not. It's it's a different kind. It's
it's not personalized corruptions, not self enrichment, it's not something
Number two.

Speaker 6 (01:56:40):
There's a lot of different reasons why Trump is choosing
to tariff countries like Brazil, for example, And again it's
it's kind of into the same motive as why he's
tariffing every country or almost every country that deals with
the US. In that he's trying to make better economic
uh deals with those trees. And when we have foreign

(01:57:01):
direct investment that is the highest, the highest we have
ever seen in the United States. I believe we just
I believe the total foreign direct investment for under from
twenty twenty four to twenty twenty eight is going to
be something like five trillion dollars. When we have such
a big number, such a great amount of foreign direct investment,

(01:57:22):
you can't you can't call the tariff's failure because they
have clearly worked. We have clearly had huge economic, huge
economic turns with a.

Speaker 1 (01:57:34):
Huge economic downturn, I think, Gregor, we got the.

Speaker 6 (01:57:39):
EU to finally militarize, We got NATO to start paying
their share, We got the UK to announce one of
the biggest breakthroughs and tariffs in history. We got Saudi
Arabia to pay over six hundred billion dollars in foreign
direct investment into the United States. We can't possibly say
that this Tepe that these tariffs were a failure. I

(01:57:59):
was not so sure about the tyre stet first, but
after seeing the results and after seeing the amount of
foreign direct investment and the trade deals made, there is
no way you can say that they were fail They
were a failure, because the truth is is that they
contributed a bunch of money into the US economy and
hopefully many more trade deals to come in the next

(01:58:20):
few months.

Speaker 1 (01:58:21):
Well, we'll meet in six months and we'll see how
it's all going. I will say, Brazil, even on the
arithmetic that you're doing, which is sort of a basic
trade arithmetic, which is the arithmetic or logic of the
current administration, we had a trade surplus, right, we were.

Speaker 6 (01:58:39):
Actually, just because we have a trade surplus does not
mean that we can't get a better deal out of that. Soka.

Speaker 1 (01:58:47):
Well, then I guess there's just no way to win there.

Speaker 6 (01:58:50):
There is a way to win. The way to win
is to get as best of the deal as we can.
And we have a trade surplus with almost with many
of the countries that we that we had tariffs on,
and we still got a better deal out of it.
So clearly it still worked.

Speaker 1 (01:59:07):
You can read Gregory Khov's stuff everywhere. You're the up
and comer, you're the popular kid. I get it. I'm
just glad you, you know, carved out a little time
for us.

Speaker 6 (01:59:19):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:59:19):
So I love going around with you on this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:59:22):
Some of it we.

Speaker 1 (01:59:25):
Felt like, some of it we agreed on. Some of it.
We're still a little bit distant, but I feel very
good about this relationship in the future. I think, Yeah,
I think you can John Jrshowitz and come around to
Mark Thompson, is what I'm thinking. Yeah, congratulations on everything.
Really excited that you that you were able to chat

(01:59:47):
with us today, and I look forward to the next time.

Speaker 6 (01:59:49):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 1 (01:59:50):
Thanks Pal. All Right, see you, Gregory.

Speaker 6 (01:59:52):
Very good.

Speaker 1 (01:59:57):
It's tough crowd. Tough, tough crowd. Yeah. You know, I
think that one of the things that was said in
the comments is true. Maybe many things that were said
in the comment section were true, and that is that
because I don't have kids of my own, it's sort
of exciting for me to talk to a younger person
for any length of time. Yeah, and that was a

(02:00:19):
considerable length of time. But yeah, it's true. I didn't it.
I didn't light him up on things, maybe the way
a lot of people would have liked to have seen
him lit up. You know. The right wing talking point,
for example, of social security being socialism. Yeah, I mean

(02:00:43):
that's a I mean, you know, you pay social security.
You could call social Security a Ponzi scheme if you
want it to, you could call social security you want
to in social security, there are lots of ways to
do it, but it's actually an insanely successful program and
it's not socialism. You pay into it. So uh, but
you know, I also I think there were there are

(02:01:06):
places along the way where I feel like I could
have leaned into harder and I didn't.

Speaker 5 (02:01:11):
Yeah, well, I'm kind of seventeen, and you don't you
have a lot of experience with a seventeen year old.

Speaker 1 (02:01:16):
Perhaps, see it is true, Kim is right, Like I
kind of didn't want to be I didn't want to
I didn't want to be a gladiator with him. I
kind of just wanted to talk to him, you know
what I mean. So I tried to make uh, general points,
and I tried to be polite, and I tried to
be the kind of don't you see that such as
and yet but maybe you know, it wasn't strong enough
for many of you, and a lot of you were
angry that I wasn't like, you know, dragging him out

(02:01:39):
back and roughing him up.

Speaker 5 (02:01:40):
And uh, I have a sixteen year old daughter, and
she wanted to talk politics last night, which delights me.
But she was wrong on a lot of points and
I had no problem ripping her anyone. It was fine,
like dismantled what she did. But this is how they
they learn, and I think this kid is still learning.
It's interesting that he called Alan Dershowitz's mentor.

Speaker 2 (02:02:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:02:02):
I mean I think Dershowitz has helped him a lot.

Speaker 5 (02:02:05):
Yeah, and it's kind of like you can see that
he doesn't have, as someone said, a lot of seasoning
in life, and I it'll be interesting to see if
he continues with this, how he changes over time.

Speaker 1 (02:02:16):
Yeah, I think that, you know, he is an evolving person,
and he himself isn't a gladiator, at least that's my
sense of him. You know, I don't know, maybe you've
seen him in other forms or read him in other
places and you think he is a gladiator. But Mike
just seems like Dershwitz is trying to groom an influencer
for the younger generation. Said, Yeah, I'm sure that these

(02:02:39):
right wingers are on some level. When you say grooming,
I mean to be fair. I mean, I'm sure they're
sharing their perspective, which is extreme. I disagree with it.
You know, but I thought he's a bright kid. Here
it is Grena says bright, guess, but he's selectively informed, oversimplifies,
and lacks a big picture of you. I think that's
a fair point. I also think Joan Hollywood said I

(02:03:02):
don't think a young person with a young brain who's
clearly been given one sided information should be elevated as
an expert. Someone's exploiting him. Again. He was on this
show because he is a syndicated run and he's written
in the Wall Street Journal. He's written on Newsmax again,
which is a right wing site. So it's fair to
say he's been elevated by the right wing media instruments.

(02:03:25):
But it's not fair to say that he's just some
seventeen year old off the street. I mean he is
someone who a can influence opinion and b may be
a future public figure from a political standpoint. So I mean,
later you're going to say, wow, I saw that guy
on Mark Thompson's show back in twenty twenty five. Now
he's running for Congress. So and people wonder why I

(02:03:46):
don't like kids.

Speaker 5 (02:03:49):
I love Heather.

Speaker 1 (02:03:51):
That is really funny. This is the one thing A
sensible streamer says, why shouldn't ninety percent of all taxes
be paid by the ninety percent of people who own
a quarter of the wealth. The one thing I wish
i'd said to him, and I guess I on the
tax thing, I kind of let it go, is the

(02:04:11):
billionaire class in America. I sort of made this point
the corporate class in America, given so many breaks. I
would love to see the tax burden go back to
what it was in the nineteen sixties, when you really
saw the wealthiest pay a huge, huge amount because they're
getting a huge, huge amount out of this society. And

(02:04:35):
so when you look at our tax structure now and again,
this horse is way out of the barn. I mean,
you've got more billionaires being berthed every month than ever
before in history. But that billionaire class should bear a
much greater tax burden, no question about it. They are
benefiting in ways unprecedented. All this stuff on solar, all

(02:04:59):
this stuff fun energy is completely wrong. Pint glass half full,
says Luis for the five dollars super chat. Though I
disagree with most of his takes, at least Gregory sounds
way more articulate than most of the Trump administration hashtag
hope for the future. You know, again, I didn't have
the I found him to be pleasant, and I also
found him to be wrong maybe open to conversation, you know,

(02:05:23):
I don't know. I guess that was a minority opinion. Yeah,
you can tell when someone quotes Tom Homan. Oh my god,
should we respect that? No, Ron Shearondan, Yeah, the immigration
thing was truly infuriating, you know, and I know a
lot of you were like, I'm out of here. I
can't even listen to this, Okay, Chaplin fres said with
a twenty dollars super chat thank you for that. I'm sorry, Mark,

(02:05:46):
But as soon as this kid is pushing Trump as
soon but as soon as this kid is pushing trump agenda,
remember who his mentor is. Bright kid, no doubt, but
very pro Trump. What has Trump done? Right? I ask? Yeah,
go to college kids, says love you. But Mark, this
kid made you look like a fool, says Bruce Cayman. Well,

(02:06:07):
I mean maybe I want to see him debate Parker.
Reverend p says, I want to see him debate Parker.
Who is that? Kim? Okay? If this kid is the
future of America, said the last I'm moving to Spain

(02:06:31):
love Payea. Well, I mean, you know, on some level
he is the future of America. I mean, this is
the opinion that is being blasted out on the major
right wing propaganda media vehicles that exist in our society,
Fox News Channel chief among them. So again, thank you
for those of you who you know. Again, I posted

(02:06:52):
some of the nastiest things to me that I could
find in the chat. I wanted to make sure to
be fair to that. I always don't mind it if
you put me down, and I even I in the
I felt like, yeah, maybe I let this guy go
on a little bit too long. Maybe I should have
cut him off more, But I did. I think, as
Kim noted, sort of have a sense of I'm talking

(02:07:13):
with a younger person. I'm not here to rough him up,
you know. But anyway, that was that, and there's other
a big news happening, and I appreciate all of you
that input along the way. I'm not going also, as
you know, gonna make this show an echo chamber. So
for me, I thought it was an interesting experiment to
talk to someone from a different silo than the one

(02:07:36):
that we always live in. And we've had right wingers
on before. We've had geopiers on before and we will again.
So I'm not afraid of having them in and giving
them a forum for ideas. I think the ideas that
are associated with this administration are bankrupt of any morality.
They're bankrupt of any ethics, and they're bankrupt of any
real strategies. Mark Thompson Show. Charlie Kirk was shot today

(02:08:00):
at a rally. Kim, you have the latest I do.

Speaker 5 (02:08:04):
This happened at a Turning Point rally at the Utah
Valley University, which is near Provo, Utah.

Speaker 1 (02:08:11):
Turning Point is the organization that Charlie Kirk founded, and
there's videos he was by the way last time, I'll interrupt,
but he was that kid everybody, yep, Charlie Kirk just
quite coincidentally, he was that kid that everybody's hating on.
He was that kid who was on TV syndicated stuff.
That was Charlie Kirk. And he's led a movement. He

(02:08:32):
is super relevant. And so again those of you who
are just ready to scn that kid, I'm telling you
pay attention to stuff like this. Anyway, go ahead.

Speaker 5 (02:08:42):
Charlie Kirk so shot at a Turning Point rally at
Utah Valley University UTU, which is near Provo. The video
of this was posted all over social media, said to
be really disturbing, so I don't think that we ought
to show it. But the reports are that Kirk was
shot in the neck and it happened during a Q

(02:09:03):
and A with students, and the turning point is saying
that Kirk is now in the hospital. The university is
saying the shot was fired from a nearby building. Other
footage shows a large crowd scattering at the time of gunfire.
This was an outdoor event. A suspect reportedly in custody.
President Trump already taken to truth social calling on people

(02:09:26):
to pray for Kirk, and even Governor Gavin Newsom is
speaking out today as well. He recently had Kirk on
his podcast. He said the shooting is disgusting and vile
and reprehensible. As far as the condition of mister Kirk,
they're all kinds of different reports coming in from critical
condition to not alive. So all we know for sure

(02:09:48):
that we can officially report is that he's hospitalized in
getting treatment.

Speaker 1 (02:09:53):
I'm going to say one thing here, and obviously this
is reprehensible, This gun violence in America, the United States
of guns, I call it is just unique in all
the world. It's disgusting. I think Charlie Kirk's views of
the world are reprehensible in many ways. But obviously this

(02:10:15):
is a crime of violence and it's awful and nothing
it's not. I mean, this is just all obvious stuff
when we don't condone it anyway, and so I applaud
those who've decried it. But this has nothing to do
with Charlie Kirk. This has to do with Donald Trump.
Donald Trump, you were quick to truth Social when one
of your guys, because you see everything as blue and red,

(02:10:38):
you see everything as us versus them. One of your guys,
Charlie Kirk is shot and it's horrible and it's awful,
and you're right, Donald Trump, to go to truth Social,
which is your social media post, and ask for prayer
and support Charlie Kirk. But where was that same support,

(02:11:02):
Where was the same decrying of how horrible an act
of violence was political violence? When just a couple of
months ago in Minnesota two lawmakers were gunned down dead,
you said nothing. It was disgusting. The silence from the

(02:11:25):
White House. Paul May and Ruth May Minnesota, Democrats gunned
down and it was in their house, shot dead by
an anti abortionist. And where was Donald Trump? Nowhere and
still is nowhere on it. So bravo for decrying the

(02:11:50):
violence associated with Charlie Kirk, but shame for the way
you see the world us versus them, and that you
never could rally and muster even a tepid post of
support to decry the violence that took those two innocent
lives in Minnesota. We'll update the Charlie Kirk situation tomorrow.

Speaker 5 (02:12:15):
Can I just mention briefly that this tour, this is
a comeback tour that he is on, and it's being
called a nationwide campus tour aimed at equipping students with
the tools to push back against left wing indoctrination in
academia and to reclaim their right to free speech. So
that's the whole point of this Charlie Kirk comeback tour.

Speaker 1 (02:12:40):
Yeah, I again, this indoctrination. I don't know, you know
what I have to say about an indoctrination on college
campuses is I mean, I think inspiring free thought is
a great thing. I think you be surprised at how

(02:13:01):
many college kids can't be indoctrinated. I do think you
can learn certain facts that aren't in evidence. I think
you can also learn certain perspectives that aren't fair to
a whole situation. But in this administration and in the
conservative doctrine, apparently now in Washington, they want to dry
clean everything from the Smithsonian to the universities of any

(02:13:21):
real history. You want to get rid of a slavery history.
You're telling me you're worried about indoctrination. You're worried about
an extreme perspective. I mean, it's unconscionable what's happening in Washington,
d C. With the nation's museums ignoring slavery and the
true history of this country, and how troubled it is.

(02:13:42):
I mean, that has to be viewed as its own
sort of indoctrination. So I am again when it comes
to gun violence and violence of a political nature of
any sort, and violence spending time it should be decribed.

Speaker 6 (02:13:58):
It's horrible.

Speaker 1 (02:14:00):
But this idea somehow that you know, Charlie Kirk has
to go university to university to somehow, you know, stem
the tide of indoctrination. It's pretty gross. Tomorrow on the show,
David Katz joins us and he will update what has
been the SCOTUS announcement that they will take the tariff

(02:14:20):
issue up right away, so we'll have a prediction on
that that end. I'm Michelle Stephens for The Mark Johnson Show.
Bye bye, anything else you want to say. You can
reach us all the time, well on the Gmail. It's
the Mark Thompson Show at gmail dot com. Until tomorrow,
Bye bye, Stett

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

.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;}Trump Brushes Off Epstein Birthday Letter Calling it Nothing but a Dead Issue, 9/10/25

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

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Trump Brushes Off Epstein Birthday Letter Calling it Nothing but a Dead Issue, 9/10/25

On Purpose with Jay Shetty