Trump DOJ Pressures States, Demanding 2020 Voting Machines Despite Local Pushback 9/4/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Oh, thank you everyone. It is delight. I don't even
know what to say. I'm overwhelmed by your warm and
apparently unceasing recorded applause. Thank you very much. It is
a Thursday. We are a live show. Two glorious hours everyone,
I know every minute of it. Use glorious East Coast

(00:22):
two to four, West Coast eleven to one, and across
the world. Please join us from wherever you are. By
the way that's being mentioned, I saw someone joining today.
There it is hello, everyone tuning in from Stockholm Suiteen.
Come on, stop, welcome, start out to Sweden. That's pretty cool. Yeah,

(00:44):
northern coast of California, Southern California repped by zero Sum.
I still have this crud or whatever it is, or
like a long summer cold. So apologies for him during
my throat occasionally big show today, primarily because I would
say of the biggest news affecting America and the world
is associated with the law and with tariffs, and with

(01:08):
the occupation of American cities, and with major legal judgments
that have now been rendered against this administration. And so
when it comes to the law and a lot of
these things, particularly when it comes to tariffs, the preliminary
legal judgments, meaning preliminary to a Scotis decision. Those have

(01:31):
all been forecast as such by our guest in our two,
one of the great legal analysts in the English speaking world,
David Katz, the former federal prosecutor now defense attorney. He
is brilliant and as usual, he is correct in suggesting,
as he has for weeks now, that these tariffs would

(01:51):
be ruled illegal. And his prediction is that the Supreme Court,
and that's sort of the context in which I was
mentioned the Supreme Court just a moment ago, that the
Supreme Court will also rule that the tariffs were imposed
illegally by this president, that you just can't declare an
emergency and all of a sudden sees the tax importation

(02:17):
leverage that Congress has and begin to impose these import taxes.
These are taxes, and the president does not have the
right constitutionally to impose these taxes. Congress does. Now. Congress
has more or less relinquished that right. I shouldn't say
more or less they have right. They just rolled over

(02:39):
for Donald Trump. Clearly, the strength of the threats from
Donald Trump politically, maybe even beyond politically, I mean Mitt
Romney has written about the fact that there was a
sense of a physical threat that his followers have already
demonstrated what they'll do on January sixth. There's a sense

(03:00):
in Congress that if you get in the way of
this guy, you could really run into the literal physical
threat to your family and to yourself. So in any case,
in that context, Congress has removed itself. So Trump just
began this chaotic tariff policy. It's utterly absurd. It's informed

(03:25):
by a complete misunderstanding of He can't even explain the
tariff arithmetic, so it's a complete misunderstanding of tariffs, how
they work, of trade deficits, how they work. And of
course the bizarro cherry on top is that the personal

(03:47):
aspects of Trump's view of the world, For example, Bolsonaro's
trial in Brazil that factors into the tariff policy of
the United States of America. The United States of America
has a fifty percent tariff on Brazil because the president
personally is offended by the way Bolsonaro is being treated

(04:07):
by the Brazilian justice system, and Bolsonaro, of course is
being tried for a coup attempt. And it doesn't stop there.
The tariff policy imposed by Donald Trump with utter fiat,
personal fiat. It's not done with a team of economic advisors.

(04:28):
In fact, the economic advisors knew nothing of the actual specifics.
We know this because they said as much. This is
the president, it's he's the genius. Anyway, not to get
ahead of ourselves. But yeah, that day was it freedom
Day or liberty Day? Is that what he called it, Kim,
Liberation Day? Liberation Day?

Speaker 2 (04:49):
I think you should be dinged by for fiat. By
the way, that that's pretty creative.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
All right, Fiat is a ding word, Jim. How are
you very, very very well done? Kim? Is here, Albert Sprier.
We've got a lot to get too. I didn't mean
to get to.

Speaker 2 (05:01):
All this terriff Stuff's exciting, but did you hear that
nobody won the powerball jackpot?

Speaker 1 (05:05):
Nobody won the power ball. Let's get to what's really
important here. The dream is still alive. Yeah again, I'm
getting the impression because I've seen long lines of people
to buy these powerball tickets. I've seen the videos. There
seem to be a lot of people buying these things,

(05:26):
and yet nobody is winning. I'm getting the impression that
it's pretty hard to win.

Speaker 2 (05:34):
Are you saying the fix is in.

Speaker 1 (05:36):
No, I'm just saying that it must be that I
haven't run the numbers, but it must be really, really
hard to win the lottery.

Speaker 2 (05:44):
Is that one in two hundred and ninety two million
you've got a chance?

Speaker 1 (05:48):
Oh wow, yeah that yeah, that's very hard. Yeah, exactly,
but one in two hundred million. You know, when I
was a kid many many years ago, they used to
use the phrase one in a million, and that was like,
you know, considered extraordinary, like you wouldn't be part of
something that you only have a one in a million

(06:09):
chance of winning. Now one in a million seems like
a good bet. Yeah, this is one in two hundred million,
well almost three one two hundred ninety two million.

Speaker 3 (06:19):
Just do odds are getting struck by lightning? Is what
in fifteen thousand?

Speaker 1 (06:23):
So Albert, thank you? There you go. What does that
pay Albert when you get hit by lightning? Anything? Or
is it?

Speaker 4 (06:32):
If it's in Florida, it'll be on the Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 1 (06:35):
Very good.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
So stand outside holding your powerball ticket?

Speaker 1 (06:39):
Yeah, oh my god. All right, So David Kats in
our two and he will address a lot of what
I was just talking about. With the tariffs, the power
ball continues to be an elusive dream for many. We
have other news from Stephen Miller and his wild Trump

(06:59):
worshiping moment on Fox News that I will share with
you later this hour. The seizing of voting machines by
the Justice Department in a state that Donald Trump won.
I'll touch on that. The Navy at the clear direction,
I would say, of the Donald Trump administration reversing a
major decision. I will get to that. And RFK Junior

(07:22):
is on Capitol Hill and I will share some of
that testimony with you. He is getting rotisserid right now
and I will share a lot of that with you
as well. Georgio Armani died, Kim, you saw that, the
fashion designer Georgio Armani, Georgio Armani ninety one years old,

(07:45):
and I got to think, Wow, what a what an
impact this guy had. You know, he'd been sick for
a while apparently, and he was known as King Georgio.
His company was founded in nineteen seventy five. It became
a byword for sleek, understated style, they note here in

(08:13):
nineteen eighty. They suggest it was the breakout moment, his suits,
the Armani suits worn by Richard Gear in the movie
Anyone American Jigelow Yeah got it, And that of course

(08:34):
helped his profile and it expanded into a global empire
covered everything from you know, hate couture to high street fashion, eyeglasses, shoes, homeware.
I mean, Armani became a lifestyle brand. And his red
carpet design worn by Diane Keaton when she attended the
Academy or she wanted an Oscar for Best Actress in

(08:56):
Annie Hall that night, And it's part of and it's
interesting to see Armani himself sort of changed through the years,
you know. But the fashion, the ready to wear fashion
is something that Armani became part of as well. So

(09:19):
his pants and unlined jackets created this very distinct silhouette,
as it suggested in his oh bit write ups, and
his business expanded beyond clothing to include cosmetics, perfume, home furnishings, accessories.
Forbes estimated his net worth. What was Georgio Armani's net

(09:43):
worth at his death? What was Georgio Armani's net worth
at his death? And I will give you a clue.
You need to guess over a billion dollars. Oh wow,

(10:04):
I mean five billion, five billion, says Kim Albert. What
do you think Georgia Rmany's net worth was. I mean,
he had great success. It's not the most important thing,
but it does speak to how powerful a brand our
money has become.

Speaker 4 (10:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (10:18):
I felt like he was a staple at Macy's, Like
everything was branded that Macy's there and his name probably
like twenty billion, Wow.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
Twenty billion, So we got five, We've got twenty in
the chat, we have a three point five, says Tammy.
More money than the lottery usan or Hubbins. Uh, it
is more money than the Lory lottery. You're right about that.
Fifty billion, says to Let. The actual retail price twelve

(10:48):
point one billion dollars at Yeah, he was two hundred
and thirty fifth among the world's billionaires. But more than anything,
just a master of style, a tremendous impact on the culture.
Right and as I say, he'd been sick for some time,

(11:10):
ninety one years old. The other passing that's of note,
and of course they're all these many notable passings. We
only have, you know, time for a couple was the
Graham Green death. I thought you know, he was nominated
for an Oscar for Dances with Wolves. He was just
seventy three years old. It's always sad when somebody that
young passes away. He was a Canadian First Nations actor,

(11:37):
and he opened doors for a lot of Indigenous actors
in Hollywood, and he passed away in Canada to Toronto Hospital,
nominated for an Oscar, as I think I mentioned for
Dances with Wolves. They say he was a great man
of morals, ethics and character and will be eternally missed,

(11:57):
and we think about how difficult it is. He was
born in nineteen fifty two, and I mean, you know,
finding a living in Hollywood as an Indigenous First Nations actor,
as an Indigenous actor looking for roles beyond just the

(12:21):
sort of you know, you'll ride in on a horse
and then you'll you know, you'll scalp somebody in act
two and then you'll be taken down. But you know
what I mean. It's like, in other words, to fall
into a cliche would be very easy, but it was
just the opposite with him. So Costner cast him as
one of the main characters in Dances with Wolves. That

(12:43):
was in nineteen ninety twelve. Academy Award nominations. That film
got and it launched his career. And he was in
Maverick with mel Gibson and Jodie Foster, die Hard with
a Vengeance with Bruce Willis. He was in The Green
Mile with Tom Hanks. He was in The Twilight Saga

(13:03):
with Kristin Stewart and Robert Pattinson. Molly's Game, So I
mean Thunderheart opposite Valve Kilmery's really great in that Trend's America.
These are just a few. Taylor Sheridan's Wind River. That's
a terrific movie with the Jeremy Renner, and he has
a major role in that film. So in any case,

(13:24):
he I didn't realize he was nominated also for a Grammy,
a Gemini and Canadian screen Actor Award. I don't know
what a Gemini is, neither do I. I'm kind of
Canadian award. Maybe I don't look it up.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
I really liked him, though I don't ever remember seeing
him in any bad movie. Gemini Awards given by the
Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television.

Speaker 1 (13:55):
Now you're right, Kim, how about that? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (13:58):
Nice achievements of handed as English Language television industry. Yeah,
it was given between nineteen eighty six and twenty eleven,
so I don't think they do it anymore.

Speaker 3 (14:10):
Interesting, you really apologize to them if they lose, like
sorry a sorry.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
So sorry, sorry sorry.

Speaker 5 (14:23):
No.

Speaker 1 (14:23):
Somebody in the chat saying, wasn't he an author? There
was a Graham Green who was an author. You're absolutely right,
but this is a different Graham Green. Yeah, reading an
obituary novelist Gramgreen.

Speaker 2 (14:34):
In his final hours, Graham Green unsuccessfully tried to reach
out to Kevin Costner to express his gratitude for changing
his life with that role in Dances Out with Wolves.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
Wow, But Cosner wouldn't take the call. What happened? I
don't know.

Speaker 2 (14:49):
Maybe Cosner was busy.

Speaker 1 (14:50):
I'm on my deathbed calling you to say thanks, and
you yeah, and you rolled me over to your assistant.
I mean, what kind of crap? Yeah? All right, Well,
rest in peace, our dear friends. Mark Thompson Show. I
want to get to a lot of stuff today. And
as I mentioned, the legal setbacks of this administration are

(15:10):
now beginning to pile up, so those who oppose the
Trump agenda have to be happy. The problem with the
Trump agenda I'm sure we've pointed out here and I'm
sure you have it in mind, is that it plugs
along even in its illegality. And the only way these
setbacks ultimately turn back a lot of administration policy is

(15:35):
with these legal judgments. But judgments they often times come,
you know, months after the policies in place. I mean
immigration is a great example. So you can rule against
the administration for their immigration policy, for the illegal way
in which many are being piled onto aircraft and sent
off to El Salvador or Sudan or Uganda or wherever.

(15:58):
But once the illegality is established by the court, those
people who are there in El Salvador and Sudan and Uganda,
they're already there, and so you can do a lot
of damage to a lot of lives. Before the legal
judgments actually turned back. The policy.

Speaker 2 (16:17):
Plain full of children that they tried to leave in
the middle of the night.

Speaker 1 (16:22):
But one am, yeah, one am. They pile these kids
on and the judges ruling was complete, thorough specific, and
now those kids have been taken off that flight that
Kim is talking about. But the immigration policy I think

(16:43):
is filled with illegalities, and we'll talk more about it
with David Katz, But yeah, that's a that's a classic example.
And listen, you know, everything that's legitimate happens in the
middle of the night, right, I mean, that's the reason
you're do in the middle of the night, because it's
so legitimate. Yeah, did you see that she and Poot
we're discussing organ transplants and immortality. It was caught in

(17:06):
a hot mic moment.

Speaker 2 (17:07):
Apparently you always wonder what those dictators talk about when
the you know, when no one's paying attention.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
Yeah, life's going so well. Their first ever joint public appearance,
and twenty seven world leaders were attending this massive military
parade in Beijing. We showed you a bunch of it,
and it was being live streamed. You know, it's the
eightieth anniversary of the end of World War Two, and
so there was a lot of media coverage of it,

(17:38):
and they were on the rostrum there in the Tianemum Square.
By the way, rostrom is a great word. That is
a dang word to watch this parade. So Putin and she,
they're both seventy two, appeared to be discussing the world's
strides in life expectancy will It used to be rare
for people to reach age seventy quote. Now they say

(18:00):
that at seventy you are only a child, said she
And some have predicted that the biotech advances will be
able to quote transplant human organs continuously grow younger with
age and perhaps even achieve immortality. This is what Putin

(18:25):
said to she In through a translator in Mandarin, right,
and then she who at that point was off camera,
can be heard saying, quote, some have predicted that by
the end of this century, humans could potentially live up
to one hundred and fifty years. So it was unclear

(18:47):
apparently whether the conversation was being translated for Kim. You know,
Kim who's head of North Korea is said to be
around forty one years old, and he was smiling. Yeah,
he's the kid in it all. That's real. You guys
can sweat how long you guys will live and also
what transplants you'll need. And I'm just going to keep

(19:08):
on chugging and meanwhile, I will love I'll just assassinate
my foes.

Speaker 2 (19:12):
So interesting conversation.

Speaker 1 (19:15):
It's so weird.

Speaker 2 (19:16):
By the way, did you see in that video how
they have these guys, these guys in their seventies marching
straight up hill.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
Oh my god. Yeah, look at that.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
It is really quite an incline. You kind of people
in the background are like trudging up this hill.

Speaker 1 (19:30):
Well, Trump should feel lucky that he wasn't invited to this.
I mean, this is a tough little endurance test. Yeah.
By the way, organ transplants are they reference in that
conversation pretty sensitive in China because there are a lot
of human rights groups that say that organs are being
harvested from prisoners executed prisoners in China. China said that

(19:53):
they don't do that anymore. They plan not to do
it anymore. Yeah, that was the old China. Now we
don't do that. Yeah. Anyway, that's the That was the
latest on that. Just kind of a weird development in
all of that. It has been one of those odd
weeks so far, and among the oddities is a reversal

(20:18):
in the emotion of Representative Ronnie Jackson. Yeah, he was
a no, it's not wasn't he wasn't he was he
a congress person. I thought he was a congress person
as well as a military guy, but maybe not.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
I know, he was a medical personnel. He was the
doctor in the White House during the first Trump administration,
and then I think he was under Obama as well.
But he had all kinds of weird stuff. He's the
guy that said Trump's jeans has the best jeans or whatever.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
Yeah. Yeah, most handsome president we've ever had. I just
want to I'm pretty sure sure that he was a
congressman too, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know why
I have this. Yeah he was in Texas. Yeah, yeah,
thank you. I don't know. I was just wanting to
get clear on that. Yeah, not important to the story,

(21:12):
but I was just carried out anyway. So, as Kim noted,
he's a former White House physician, and apparently he was
demoted because of a bunch of stuff he did. I
think it was sort of sexism times yeah, with a multiplier,
you know, sexual harassment. He made a couple of denigrating

(21:34):
and sexual comments about a female subordinate, and he violated
the policy on drinking alcohol on a presidential trip. He
took prescription strength sleeping medication, and that prompted worries from
his colleagues about his ability to provide proper medical care.
He denied the allegation. He claimed that it was a
political hit job. But there was enough credible evidence of

(21:57):
what I've just described for him to be demoted. And
as Kim noted, he served in the White House Medical
unit during the Bush Obama and the first Trump administrations.
Oh Bush too, yeah, yeah, so he had some cred
And again, of course then he talked about Donald Trump's
incredibly good genes and he said Trump would lived to

(22:22):
two hundred years if he'd have a better diet. In
any case, he was demoted, but this just happened. He
has now been remoted. He went from demoted to remote
it yeah, restored his retired rank of rear admiral. It
was a twenty twenty two demotion again after that investigation,

(22:43):
and it was a scathing report on his comportment during
these trips and also what he'd said denigrating colleagues and
subordinates in sexual ways, et cetera. So he has he
gained his title. Isn't that right, Kim? That's the deal.

(23:04):
The babies confirmed.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
That is anybody surprised that Pete haig Seth, who runs
the Pentagon and has been accused of sexual crimes, would
take pity on a guy who made denigrating comments against
women and who was boozing it up and taking sleeping
pills when he's supposed to be, you know, clear headed
on trips where you might have to care for the

(23:26):
President of the United States. Yeah, like, you're fine, give
it back to him.

Speaker 1 (23:30):
He's good. Yeah, it's like he's another frat boy doing
well in this administration. Right, great party, buddy.

Speaker 2 (23:36):
He just said some things and took some pills.

Speaker 1 (23:38):
It's fine. You're not going to demote my drinking buddy,
No way, I'm I'm I'm reinstalling. Yeah, that's utter, utter lunacy,
but right on brand for this this crew. So Mark
Thompson Show, RFK Junior is on Capitol Hill and it
is not with the warmest welcome that RFK Junior is

(24:02):
finding his testimony being greeted. I would say, Albert, we
have multiple choices here. Let's go first with that last
little clip that I sent you. This is RFK Junior again.
I'll play Elizabeth Warren with RFK Junior. These clips run
a little bit in length. We can do that on

(24:23):
the show and kind of give you a little bit more.
But here is RFK Junior on the hill this morning.
This just happened a few moments ago.

Speaker 6 (24:33):
This is a secretary.

Speaker 7 (24:34):
I agree with a lot of my colleague statement. I
actually hoped I didn't support you.

Speaker 1 (24:39):
Those of you who stopped for a second are losing
and not watching. You were missing the fact that he
is incredibly tanned. I mean, RFK Junior looks to have
just come off the I don't know, the Amalfi Coast,
the Riviera, Kenny Bunkport where the Kennedys have a compound.
It's unbelievable. I mean, I can't you know, for a

(25:02):
guy who's working, it's incredible that he has as much sun.
I mean, believe me, I wouldn't be pointing it out
were not so insanely a prominent in the way he looks.

Speaker 2 (25:13):
As I have a posture where he's just kind of
slouching at his chair like he really doesn't give a
rat ass.

Speaker 1 (25:19):
Yeah, I get I'm going to give him that because
it's a long thing. But yeah, people are saying, spray
tann whatever it is. I don't know what, but he man,
But you're right, he doesn't certainly not sitting at attention.
He's kind of like, yeah, whatever, let me get back
to the tanning bed, all right, go ahead, Albert, Sorry.

Speaker 8 (25:36):
Secretary, Kennedy, thank you for being here.

Speaker 9 (25:39):
In May, you said, and I quote, I stand with
President Trump to say no more middleman, no more foreign freeloaders,
no more skyrocketing drug prices. We're putting American patients first
and taking on big pharma to make America healthy again.
Yet your record tells a different story. In July, Republicans
handed big pharma a massive win.

Speaker 8 (26:02):
Their Big Beautiful Bill that.

Speaker 9 (26:04):
They just passed shields billion dollar drugs like Katrudah, the
world's top selling cancer drug from Medicare negotiation. Katrudah has
been on the market since twenty fourteen. It pulled in
nearly eighteen billion dollars last year in the United States alone.
It costs patients up to one hundred and seventy five

(26:24):
thousand dollars a year, draining Medicare of billions and forcing
families into crushing debt or to forego life saving care.

Speaker 8 (26:34):
And yet you support the Big Beautiful Bill.

Speaker 9 (26:37):
So, despite the hype with executive orders and Washington, Republicans
only drug pricing law days relief for Medicare patients relying
on high cost cancer drugs. Meanwhile, Democrats finally have allowed
Medicare to negotiate drug prices. I will say that ka Trudah,
along with Abdiva and darzalas, the three top selling cancer drugs,

(27:02):
were widely expected to be selected for Part B negotiation
in twenty twenty six for twenty twenty eight implementation. They
are now, because of the actions of this administration, exempt
from negotiation for at least several additional years, if not permanently.

Speaker 8 (27:18):
So my question to you, mister.

Speaker 9 (27:19):
Secretaries, how do you justify claiming to take on big
pharma while supporting a bill that shields drugs like k
truda and other cancer drugs for Medicare and negotiation, costing
seniors and taxpayers billions, and risking the lives of cancer
patients who cannot afford their necessary medication.

Speaker 10 (27:37):
Yeah, Senator, I appreciate the question, and the Medicare negotiat
Drug negotiations in the IRA were very well intentioned, but
they were poorly structured. And what we found is that
there are actually the negotiations that have occurred actually have
ended up raising the costs for Medicare. We are right

(27:59):
now in the CBO has.

Speaker 8 (28:01):
Not agreed to that. The CBO doesn't say that the audio.

Speaker 9 (28:04):
So you're saying the CBO and independent agencies that validate
the costs are wrong.

Speaker 6 (28:10):
That's that is.

Speaker 9 (28:11):
What's that is the MS data focused on the cancer drugs.

Speaker 8 (28:15):
Why aren't we negotiating those? Bring those down for families?

Speaker 6 (28:17):
Why does that is?

Speaker 8 (28:18):
Why does the bill exempt those?

Speaker 10 (28:21):
It's one of the mf negotiations. I'm not sure that
provision in the bill of one beautiful bill.

Speaker 9 (28:26):
But you're not sure of the provision the negotiation provision
and have exempt exempt for your agency is responsible for
that negotiation and you don't know about it.

Speaker 6 (28:37):
I know that we're negotiating in the mf N. Let
me negotiate your secretary.

Speaker 8 (28:42):
Let me ask you another question.

Speaker 9 (28:44):
How much are Medicare Part D and role is expected
to pay for prescription prescription drug coverage next year?

Speaker 6 (28:57):
I think that that is in debate right now.

Speaker 8 (29:01):
Let me tell you, are you talking about the r
they are going.

Speaker 9 (29:04):
To pay fifteen dollars more than last year, up to
fifty dollars a month. Now, let me have a question
for you on Part V how much are Medicare Part
B premiums expected to increase next year?

Speaker 6 (29:18):
I don't know. I talked to that is about it.
Think if the increase.

Speaker 9 (29:22):
About eleven point six percent, or twenty one dollars and
fifty cents more each month.

Speaker 8 (29:28):
And again, last time.

Speaker 9 (29:30):
We were before me, you couldn't answer the questions of
the very agency and the authority that you have to
address these issues.

Speaker 11 (29:37):
You know, next year, seniors.

Speaker 9 (29:39):
And families are facing higher health care costs across the board.
Twenty three million people on Medicare with a standalone Part
D drug plan could see their premiums rise to fifty
dollars a month, up from thirty five. Because a Trump
administration is cutting the federal subsidy that has been keeping
costs down. Part B premiums will jump eleven point six
percent to two hundred and six a month in twenty

(30:01):
twenty six, one of the largest single year increases in decades.
And so for an administration that claims it is lowering costs,
my question to you is what are you going to
do to keep costs down for seniors?

Speaker 10 (30:14):
I mean, I'm already doing what I'm already keeping costs down.

Speaker 9 (30:19):
What are you doing to keep costs down for seniors
knowing that these costs are going to be increasing?

Speaker 10 (30:24):
I mean the Program Integrity Bill, that is the first
action that I did when I got in.

Speaker 6 (30:30):
It's one of the earliest actions.

Speaker 10 (30:31):
In history of a complex regulation by an HHS secretary
a Congressional Budget office is that that's brought premiums down
by five percent, as the Congressional Budget Office, which does
not like to acknowledge anything.

Speaker 6 (30:48):
That we do.

Speaker 8 (30:49):
And does that impact seniors?

Speaker 6 (30:50):
Excuse me?

Speaker 8 (30:51):
Does that impact seniors?

Speaker 9 (30:52):
And I know my time is running out. Does that
impact seniors? But you just talked about your lowering costs.
I'm asking you specific lowering costs seniors. Does it impact seniors?

Speaker 6 (31:01):
Does an impact?

Speaker 8 (31:04):
Let me just stop you.

Speaker 9 (31:06):
So I appreciate the chairman's indulgence here. My concern is
you can't answer the questions. The very agency has oversight
over these issues and controls the levers to lower costs
for seniors, and you can't answer that simple question.

Speaker 6 (31:19):
I don't know your question.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
Okay, yeah, okay, you get the idea. He's he's swimming
away from it, and that's just something that's Catherine Cortes Moster,
she's from Nevada. But I want you to know that
just a sliver the guy gets Rotisse Reid and I'm
going to play you another cut just because I want
you to realize, and then I'm going to give you
the news of the day, which is and again this

(31:41):
is so far that was about money, okay, And it's
important because in American healthcare it's all about money. We're
unique in the world with this crap where we if
you run enough money, just let people go and they
end up in the grave. If you have cancer and
you can't pay for the medicine, you're just screwed. And

(32:01):
this is America. And so she's right to talk about
these areas in which seniors and others who need good
coverage can possibly get a break. And she's right, Catherine
Cortez Masto is to mention that which was and as

(32:23):
you know, I thought it was almost tepid. Just ten
drugs were identified, at least initially in the Biden Plan,
that huge piece of legislation that went through that finally
got medicare, the ability to negotiate drug pricing down on
diabetes medication, on cancer medication, on this sort of thing.
So she's right to talk about this and the loss

(32:46):
of this stuff as a negotiable, navigable area where you
might at least be able to give some break to
those who desperately need these medicines to focus on that.
This is leaving a side. Is the point the immunization controversies,

(33:07):
which are to call them controversies is to be polite.
It's a mess. You fired the CDC staff associated with
vaccine approval, You fired the advisory board, everybody on it.
You got rid of, just decapitated everyone. These are esteemed

(33:27):
public servants who have tremendous credibility in the area of medicine,
and these recommendations that are required for vaccines, you've just
got rid of them, and you've repopulated these agencies with
your anti vaxxers. I mean, at minimum, wouldn't you concede
RFK Junior that you're doing the very thing that you

(33:48):
accused the prior administrations of doing. You're saying prior to
your ascendants to running this HHS that he was all
one sided, it was all pro vaccine people. Well what
is it now, it's all anti vaxed people. So you've
gone the other way. I mean, so, at minimum, you're

(34:09):
as guilty as they are, and worse, you may be
tanking the health and welfare of the American people because
of these crazy policies and voodoo medicine that you're making
part of the American governmental posture toward vaccines. Albert, play
me the first cut that I sent you. I think

(34:31):
that relates to some of this vaccine stuff that he
gets into. Again, this is just a couple of hours
ago on Capitol Hill. RFK Junior, the Tanned Secretary of
Health and Human Services.

Speaker 7 (34:44):
I agree with a lot of my colleague statement. I
actually hoped I didn't support you. I thought taken on
chronic illnesses is going to be important. I got two kids,
so we discussed when you met that have chronic illnesses.

Speaker 6 (34:58):
I'm not sure.

Speaker 7 (35:01):
That the focus on red dye and seed oils are
going to fully solve that problem.

Speaker 6 (35:06):
Of course they won't.

Speaker 7 (35:08):
I would say this, that seems where your emphasis is.
I want to go back to just again some basic fact.
Do you do you accept the fact that a million
Americans died from COVID?

Speaker 6 (35:19):
I don't know how many. You're the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.

Speaker 7 (35:24):
You don't have any idea how many Americans died from COVID.

Speaker 10 (35:28):
I don't think anybody knows because there was so much
data chaos coming out of the CDC, and they would
all take the incentives and these are models.

Speaker 7 (35:39):
You know, I know the answer of how many Americas
from COVID.

Speaker 1 (35:43):
This is the.

Speaker 7 (35:43):
Secretary of Health and Human Services. Do you think the
vaccine did anything to prevent additional deaths?

Speaker 10 (35:50):
Again, I would like to see and talk about the data.

Speaker 7 (35:55):
You've had this job for eight months and you don't
know the data about whether the vaccine and the problem
is that they didn't have the data.

Speaker 10 (36:04):
The data by the Biden administration absolutely dismal.

Speaker 7 (36:09):
Who is politicizing? You're saying the Biden administration politicize all
the day. Go back to can't well just fire to
a plump surgeon general.

Speaker 10 (36:19):
They fired doctor Grout, They fired all the people who
questioned the orthodoxy. They caught fired doctor group Er, doctor Kelos.

Speaker 7 (36:26):
Chairman, your Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't no
matter how many Americans died from COVID, No let them
know if the vaccine helped prevent any tests and you
were sitting as Secretary of Health and.

Speaker 6 (36:37):
Human Services, how can you be that ignorant?

Speaker 7 (36:41):
Like you know, I remember when we went through the
hearing with you, I asked you about community health centers.
You didn't know what role they play. I've been visiting commune.
I'm glad you've got to one think in April. I
tell you what I hear in community health centers. They
are terrified, with all due respect to my good friend
the chairman of the big awful bill, because they are

(37:01):
going to lose healthcare across the board. They already live
in food deserts. They can't get to a nutritionist because
Medicaid doesn't do enough reimbursement. If you're going to want
Americans to get healthier, should they have access to nutrition ishs?
Should they have access to good science about healthy food?

(37:23):
Absolutely well, then how is that going to happen with
the Medicaid cuts that are taking place?

Speaker 6 (37:28):
There are no cuts to medicaid.

Speaker 7 (37:29):
Assert that is an absurd There is not a single
so my Republican college, but there was not a single
study that does not. I can tell you I was
in Franklin, Virginia a couple of days ago. The rural
hospital is going to close. The hospital system was so
afraid they wouldn't even let me have the meeting there.

Speaker 6 (37:49):
But that royal Hospital's going to close, and they are
looking for where those folks are going to go.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
I mean, very good, very good, Thank you, Albert. We've
talked about this at length, the fact that these rural
hospitals remain dependent essentially on federal moneys coming in. It's
not just the individual who is insured by Medicaid, it's
the fact that the Medicaid moneies that stream supports the

(38:15):
hospital in many other different ways. So you end up
essentially subsidizing a lot of what the hospital can do
because of Medicaid money coming in. So when you have
cuts to Medicaid, that's the reason these rural hospitals are closing.
I now want to just turn to the vaccine situation
there are let me just see what my time sit. Way, Yeah,

(38:36):
play me a little Elizabeth Warren, and then I'll talk
to you about and mentioned what is going to happen
more and more in America, which is that states are realizing, oh,
the government is being dismantled. It's being run by a
bunch of crazies who are on this ridiculous jihad. They

(38:58):
got in. I think this registration got in. I know
a lot of single issue voters who are anti vaxers.
That's all they care about. So now you've got the
anti vaxxers having taken over the CDC HHS. You have
americans healthcare being determined by utter quackery. It's not a measured,

(39:22):
balanced review of information, as I say, it's zelotry. So
that's where we are, and you can expect that states
are going to begin to take on the role of
the federal government in ways that will allow them to
create their own vaccine policy. More on that in a second,

(39:45):
but here's Elizabeth Warren.

Speaker 11 (39:48):
Thank you, mister chairman.

Speaker 12 (39:49):
So last November, while you are under consideration to become
Secretary of Health and Human Services, mister Kennedy, you said, quote,
if vaccines are working for somebody, I'm not going to
take them away now exceptions, no if sands or butts.
You would not take away vaccines from anyone who wanted them. Then,

(40:11):
last week you announced that the COVID nineteen vaccine is
no longer approved for healthy people under the age of
sixty five. In announcing the change, you said the vaccine
will be available for anyone who wants it.

Speaker 5 (40:23):
Now.

Speaker 11 (40:23):
Obviously both things cannot.

Speaker 12 (40:25):
Be true at the same moment, So let's clear this
up right now, Secretary Kennedy, will you tell America that
all adults and all children over six months of age
are eligible to get a COVID booster at their local pharmacy.

Speaker 6 (40:42):
Today, anybody can get the booster. I'm sorry, anybody can
get it. Anybody.

Speaker 12 (40:48):
So you're saying that is now the official rule of HHS.
Anybody is eligible to get a booster by just walking
into the pharmacy.

Speaker 6 (40:57):
It's not recommended for healthy people.

Speaker 7 (41:00):
No.

Speaker 12 (41:00):
No, If you don't recommend, then the consequence of that
in many states is that you can't walk into a
pharmacy and get one. It means insurance companies don't have
to cover the two hundred dollars you're so cost. As
Senator doctor Cassidy said, you are effectively denying people vaccines, not.

Speaker 10 (41:20):
Going to recommend a product for which there's no clinical
data for that indication, which is that what I should
be doing, what you should.

Speaker 12 (41:27):
Be doing is honoring your promise that you made when
you were looking to get confirmed in this job.

Speaker 11 (41:34):
Like that is, you promised.

Speaker 12 (41:36):
That you would not take away vaccines from anyone who
wanted them. You just changed the classification of the COVID vaccine.

Speaker 6 (41:46):
I'm not taking them away from people's Senator, it.

Speaker 12 (41:48):
Takes it away if you can't get it from your pharmacy.

Speaker 10 (41:52):
Well, most Americans are going to be able to get
it from their pharmacy for free dollars. Most Americans will
be able to get it from their pharmacy.

Speaker 11 (42:00):
For question is everyone who wants it? That was your promise.

Speaker 10 (42:04):
I know I never promised that I was going to
recommend products with which there is no indication. Wait, you said,
and I know you've taken eight hundred and fifty five
thousand dollars from pharmaceutical company.

Speaker 12 (42:17):
Senator, did you hold up a big sign saying that
you were lying when you've said that, because you are
the one who.

Speaker 11 (42:23):
Said you would not take them away.

Speaker 6 (42:26):
Now, Senator, I'm not taking them away from that.

Speaker 11 (42:28):
Secretary.

Speaker 10 (42:30):
You want me to indicate a product for which there
is no clinical data?

Speaker 1 (42:35):
Is al youman?

Speaker 12 (42:36):
Secretary Kennedy, you said you wouldn't, and now you did.

Speaker 6 (42:40):
I'm not taking them away. Everybody can get access to them.

Speaker 12 (42:43):
No, they can't walk into a pharmacy the way they
could last month and get access.

Speaker 6 (42:49):
It depends on the state. It depends on the states.

Speaker 11 (42:53):
A year ago, they can still get it.

Speaker 6 (42:55):
Everybody can get it. Go, everybody can get it, Senator.

Speaker 12 (42:59):
So look, let's move on. You clearly are taking away vaccines.
I've seen the list for what's coming up next, and
that is the agenda for the next CDC vaccine panel,
And first up is ratifying your covid actions.

Speaker 11 (43:16):
Second is hepatitis B is on the agenda.

Speaker 12 (43:20):
So should Americans expect you to take away hepatitis vaccine
access as well, even though you promised not to.

Speaker 10 (43:28):
As I'm not taking vaccines away from anybody?

Speaker 12 (43:31):
The same answer, right, You're just going to deny that
when people can't get access, that you're not taking it away.
Then let me ask you, is that the same game
you're going to play with me?

Speaker 10 (43:43):
So you want me to recommend every product in the world.

Speaker 6 (43:48):
Without any clinical trial.

Speaker 11 (43:50):
Data through on your promises.

Speaker 12 (43:52):
Yeah, my promise was to get months ago we could
get covid vaccines by just walking.

Speaker 6 (43:58):
You can still get covid vaccine.

Speaker 11 (44:00):
Senator taking that away, Oh you.

Speaker 10 (44:02):
Are still You can still get the Coccineatic care will still.

Speaker 6 (44:06):
Pay for them, and medicids will help me.

Speaker 12 (44:08):
The head of the CDC that if she refused to
sign off on your changes.

Speaker 11 (44:13):
To the childhood vaccine schedule that she had to resign.

Speaker 7 (44:17):
Oh.

Speaker 10 (44:18):
I told her that she had to resign because I
asked her, are you a trustworthy person?

Speaker 6 (44:23):
And she said no.

Speaker 10 (44:26):
Oh if you had an employee who told you they
weren't trustworthy, would you ask them to resign?

Speaker 6 (44:33):
Senator?

Speaker 11 (44:34):
So I'm sorry, but this is not what she has
said publicly.

Speaker 6 (44:39):
I'm not surprised about that.

Speaker 11 (44:42):
So you're saying she's lying.

Speaker 6 (44:44):
Yes, every conversation I had with.

Speaker 11 (44:47):
Her that were that's just straight.

Speaker 12 (44:48):
This is the same person that less than a month
earlier you stood next to her and described her as
unimpeachable and you had full confidence in her, and that
you had full confidence in her scientific credentials.

Speaker 11 (45:05):
And in a month she became a liar.

Speaker 6 (45:08):
Yeah, we should ask her what changed. And by the way,
a month ago you were voting against.

Speaker 10 (45:14):
Because you thought she was either incompetent, ineligible, or unsuited
to the task.

Speaker 12 (45:20):
I was afraid she was going to bend the needy
you and Donald Trump, And it looks like she didn't
bend the niece.

Speaker 11 (45:27):
So you fired her book.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
Nice job that I wanted to give you a good,
healthy chunk of that. So that's the back and forth
that I think has typified a lot of the conversation
around what we've seen and I'm just noticing something is
there is is this? Is this a reverse image today? Albert?
Are you seeing a reverse image from me? No? No,

(45:53):
Why am I seeing a reverse image on my screen?
Is she what I'm talking about? Albert? No? No, Okay.

Speaker 3 (46:01):
I have noticed that when you're playing music in the background,
your mic kind of gets distorted.

Speaker 4 (46:05):
But that was that was only when you had some dueling.

Speaker 1 (46:09):
I don't know when I can. I don't know when
I can adjust this. When you drop this video, you'll
cut this part out and I'll get back on to
Elizabeth Warren in a second. But it's just an odd
I'm seeing something strange right now.

Speaker 2 (46:22):
That's weird.

Speaker 1 (46:23):
Well, we see normal things you do, Okay, all right,
So yeah, Mark, please don't get distracted, is what you're saying. Okay,
Smith says not true.

Speaker 2 (46:31):
I tried to schedule my COVID booster and I had
to qualify.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
Yeah you have to. Yeah, thank you Kimmy for that.
What you're seeing is, first of all, I loved kind
of the I thought Elizabeth Warren stuck the landing there
when she talked about the firings at the CDC, because
clearly these are you know, even for those who were

(46:56):
brought on board by R. FK. Junior. You know, his
demands have become so outrageous that they just can't countenance them,
and they're they're not continuing at the CDC. That was
the region for the most recent firing. But what's happened
is is the vaccine availability has melted away and has

(47:21):
no longer the federal government backing states are beginning to
ban together to try to make some plan for a
health alliance. And this is happening in Washington, Oregon, and
California so far. There may be others that will join.
So COVID nineteen cases, as you know, are rising. There's

(47:43):
a huge surge in COVID right now. And the CDC restructured,
you could say downsized. It has been you know, I'd
suggest dismantled in many ways. I mean, this really was
the shining star of medical research and of the greatest
scientists and doctors in the world came through the CDC.

(48:08):
Resided at the CDC. In fact, it was viewed as
from the rest of the world, I'm talking about a
place where research crescendoed into policy. And now you're seeing Washington, Oregon,
in California saying that we'll have an alliance and safeguard

(48:29):
health policies here that we think will protect the public.

Speaker 2 (48:32):
It's like a vaccine alliance exactly. You see that people,
unless there was, they have to meet a certain set
of qualifications, be sixty five or older to get the
COVID booster. Well, what if I want the COVID booster,
I'm not sixty five. I can't go out and get
it now. I can't go out and get it for
my kids either.

Speaker 1 (48:54):
Washington State Health Secretary Dennis Warsham said public health is
about prevention, preventing illness, preventing the spread of disease, and
preventing early avoidable deaths and of courses in the side.
We've mentioned it before. There's no question that modern vaccine
technology has tremendously, I mean, in a watershed way, changed

(49:15):
life expectancy and longevity. I mean, disease was the great
threat to humanity. The human species was culled by these
diseases through generation after generation, and if it didn't lead
to death, it could lead to horrifying consequences. So these

(49:38):
vaccine technologies are critical in taking us to this other level.
And here's the quote from the Oregon Health director. Vaccines
are among the most powerful tools in modern medicine. There
you go. They have indisputably saved millions of lives. But
when guidance about their use becomes inconsistent or politicized, it

(49:58):
undermines public trust at precisely the moment we need it
the most. So there is medical advice being sought, and
there are many in Oregon, in California, in Washington. I'm
talking about leading public health officials who are getting together to,

(50:20):
as Kim has suggested, sort of form a vaccine and
healthcare task force. So and how ridiculous that we should
have to do that. It's what's happening increasingly across so
many different policy areas. Right, and of course the administration
is offended by this, And so HHS says, quote Democrat

(50:45):
run states that pushed unscientific school lockdowns, Toddler mask mandates,
and draconian vaccine passports during COVID's era completely eroded the
American people's trust in public health agencies. We remain the
scientific body guiding immunization recommendations, and HHS will ensure policy

(51:09):
is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not
the failed politics of the pandemic, by the way, one
of the first of all, there was a lot of
disagreement about policy during the pandemic. It was kind of
being I think, put together on the fly. The mask mandates,
the mask strategies, the mask research. It was being reinvented

(51:35):
along the way. I think that the same is true
of the vaccine. The vaccine insanely effective initially, and then
as the landscape of the virus changed, the mutations of
the virus were way ahead of the vaccine changes, and
so you ended up with the vaccine that would keep
you out of in general serious health problems that would

(51:58):
hospitalize you from COVID, but you didn't end up with
a vaccine. I was sort of represented early on, and
we spoke frankly about this a vaccine that was like,
you know, gonna be making me bulletproof. I don't want
to get COVID at all. That's why I got the vaccine,
just like polio, just like smallpox, et cetera. Yeah, the
problem was that the landscape of this virus was changing,

(52:21):
as I say, to the point that there was no way,
apparently with existing medical technology, to really make us bulletproof.
So we ended up with this mRNA technology was just
incredibly powerful and interesting. I read a book on it,
and I forget what it was called, but it was
really this is a it's got that crisper technology. I
think that's a that's an anagram for something or not

(52:44):
a what do you call that when you put letters
together to it's a anyway abbreviation. No, there's another word,
but anyway. That technology allowed them to it comes from
cancer research. It allowed to modify the vaccine, you know,
month to month, year to year. So there was a

(53:05):
lot being learned on the fly in a way that
sort of we're building the plane while we're flying it.
That metaphor I think applied a bit to COVID nineteen.
But because of those failings, we end up with all
of these different cross currents about medical technologies, medical recommendations.
The gold standard. It wasn't double blind. I mean they
were trying to stop the bleeding, to be fair, and

(53:29):
I think in an effort to stop the bleeding, they
aggressively went after this COVID nineteen virus with this technology,
which did prove effective in keeping a lot of people
out of problems with the hospital, particularly those were comorbidities
and even those without comorbidities. So I don't know acronym.

(53:52):
That was it, Thank you, Adam Cohen, and it is
a ding word. I don't know where we all end
up on this, but I know that the complete clearing
of the table of all of these vaccines that have
proven so effective through the years is utter lunacy. And
I think RFK Junior is an utter loon. I mean,
I've come to the realization, as maybe many of you

(54:16):
have as well, that he is so much a political
operative that it's grotesque to watch him, like everybody else,
just vomit up a bunch of compliments to Donald Trump
and then all the disparaging comments about Biden. It's again,
American politics has taken on an ugliness. And I'll play

(54:39):
you another clip here from Miller in a second, and
you'll just see the way we've changed as a society,
the political discourse. I'm not suggesting everything has to be
you know, bow ties and cocktail parties, but I do
think the degree to which we've seen everything degraded from
information to political discourse is pretty gross. So that's what

(55:01):
you're seeing played out. I mean, that's sort of the
coin of the realm in Washington. The grosser, the more
you smear, the more heat you throw, the better you are,
the more valued you are politically. And RFK Junior fits
right into all of that. But that's what's happening with
the latest there. I mean, you know, we have people

(55:22):
have friends who actually got polio. They were right Bill Mann,
who's a viewer of this show, He's been on the
show talking about it. He got the vaccine, the polio
vaccine a little too late, so he's been free of
polio for most of his life, but now, as an
advanced senior, he is beginning to demonstrate and be affected

(55:46):
by many of the symptoms of polio. So I think
we've gotten I talk about this all the time. We've
just gotten complacent. You know, we're not a serious crew
anymore in America in many ways, and so we succumb
to the bullshit of Joe Rogan and of the anti

(56:09):
vax jihad. And it's dangerous and it's now in charge
of public policy.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
It would be embarrassing to watch him RFK Junior sit
there and not be able to answer the questions and
reveal himself to be completely incompetent. If, as you say it,
weren't so dangerous to public health.

Speaker 1 (56:29):
Indeed, indeed, yeah, Blue Spark is right. The polio vaccine
was considered an absolute miracle when it was developed. Yeah,
thanks for that. David Katz, the brilliant legal analyst I
think is one of the great legal analysts in the
English speaking world. He joins us. In just a few minutes,
I want to take a moment. I'm going to play
that Stephen Miller cutt in a second to recognize a

(56:51):
couple of you who have joined the conversation through super
chat and super stickers. We are live with chat and
superstickers through the entire show. And I give you Luis.
What makes idiot RFK Junior qualified for his job. I'd
sleep better at night if Albert was on the job.

Speaker 2 (57:12):
Yeah, so would I.

Speaker 1 (57:15):
Albert, Thank you Albert. At least his lower standards would
be a vast improvement. Wow, Albert, I think you've been
That's a backhanded compliment.

Speaker 2 (57:25):
And he'd go, you know what, everything looks to be
running fine. I don't really need to do much here.
I'm just gonna sit back and let it roll.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
Albert would be in Hawaii half the time. At least
you'd know where he got his tan. Joan Hollywood says,
every time you ding, the dogs run out the door
to see who's here. I'm sorry about that, but a
big shout out to you. Yeah. I hate to say it,
but I work in Florida, says West Theory, and write
software for a nurse staffing company. I have a feeling

(57:54):
business is going to tick up soon. Yeah. We're getting
sicker and we're going to need more nurses. Thank you,
Wes for the five dollars super chain. Yeah, I mean
I can't disagree. I mean, you know, if you had to,
you know, just take the temperature of the patient right now.
It's pretty sadly, you know, running a fever. Wes says,

(58:14):
RFK did get a good one liner that made me laugh.
Why do you care I fired her? You voted against
confirming her. Yeah about the the CDC director who he fired. Yeah,
my god, Trump can pick winner's Misogynyvan Wilde says Harry
Magnum with a five dollars super chat yep, And Luis

(58:37):
says Florida once again distinguishing itself as the mecca of ignorance,
equating effective vaccine mandates for children to slavery welcome back polio. Yeah,
thank you for that. I mean it is scary. The
logical extension of what we're seeing is serious.

Speaker 2 (58:56):
And on that note, just talking about, you know, the
differences in vaccines. I saw this article where a health
expert is saying, you know what, you're probably in the
next coming years, don't want to take your kids to
theme parks in Florida, Like this is a place that

(59:16):
you would want to avoid because they are changing the
vaccine rules in Florida, and so perhaps it's going to
be this hot bed of disease that you'd want to avoid.
And I wonder if that will affect business at places
like Disney World, Epcot Center, Universal Studios, Florida, all of

(59:37):
these places where you know, you bring kids, and God
help you if you run into an outbreak when you
go there.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
Well, there was a measles outbreak, as you know, in
southern California at the Disneyland there. And Kim is right
that the renowned infectious disease expert Michael Osterholme just yesterday
warned of the potential fallout from Florida moved to end
all vaccine mandates in the state, especially for school children.
He said it may be a hot bed of transmission.

(01:00:08):
Those were his words, and he said, I wouldn't want
my kids going to Florida in the years ahead to
go to Walt Disney World or any place like that,
a congregate setting. He's the one who wrote that book,
The Big One, Why future pandemics will be worse and
how we must prepare. This book is out next month
and it summarizes the public health policies of President Trump's

(01:00:33):
second term. So yeah, so much of what you say
and what he warns about is is now being talked
about openly. I want to get to before I get
to David Katz, I want to get to just a
bizarre Mark Thumpson show, Stephen Miller, who is the attack dog,

(01:00:54):
maybe the lead attack dog. It's tough. There's a lot
of competition for being the lead attack dog for this administration.
He went on Sean Hannity, Sean Hannity is the kind
of the quofft well put together attack dog for Trump.
And as we learned in the first administration, was essentially
he functioned as a de facto advisor to the president.

(01:01:15):
Remember he was talking to Trump every day anyway. Stephen
Miller went on with the Sean Hannity. Was this about
the rumor that Trump's health is in in in trouble.
Isn't this what he was responding to Kim? I think
that's what it was.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
That tells you, Yeah, the questions about Trump's health and
being made fun of on the late night shows and
all of that stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
Yeah, So here's Stephen Miller responding to it.

Speaker 13 (01:01:43):
What is your reaction to the likes of Kimmel, Colbert,
Jen Saki, Tim Walls, et cetera.

Speaker 14 (01:01:54):
We're doing begin with his morals.

Speaker 13 (01:01:59):
That's a good question. You would you like me to
answer that? You want to be the hostful reverse roles here?

Speaker 14 (01:02:05):
The President Trump has done more press conferences, more interviews,
more transparency, more public accessibility, more hours and hours with
the press. He live streams his cabinet meetings for nearly
four hours. There's no human being in the history of

(01:02:26):
politics who has made themselves more available to the press
and the public than President Trump, or who has demonstrated
more stamina in public life. I can tell you that
every single person who works for him in the White.

Speaker 1 (01:02:42):
House is outworked by him.

Speaker 14 (01:02:44):
He is the first one to call us in the morning,
in the early hours of the morning. He is the
last one to call us far past midnight on every
single work project, whether it's trade, whether it's national security,
whether it's the border, whether it's crime, whether it's public safety,
whether it is making our cities beautiful again, whether it

(01:03:05):
is making our government responsive, whether it's improving the workforce,
whether it is dealing with the need for cheaper housing.
You pick the issue, He's on top of it. Twenty
four to seven.

Speaker 1 (01:03:19):
Yeah, yeah, Well, I mean essentially that's just as I say,
the propaganda machine being enabled by the other propaganda machine,
Fox News channel being the other propaganda machine, and then
the Trump propaganda machine comes in. But I mean he's
you know, many say that in this configuration with Trump

(01:03:42):
sort of aging out of being interested in the job.
Sure he shows up for as Miller was saying, these
you know, three and a half our cabinet meeting, because
it's televised and it's not a cabinet meeting on policy.
It's a bunch of people sitting around lavishing praise upon him.
I mean, if you can't sit through that, I mean,
then you really don't belong anywhere near the White House.
And so Trump's view is and of course Trump doesn't

(01:04:04):
belong anywhere near the White House. But I can put
on a tie and a jacket and let's fire up
the cameras and now, you know, call on different people
to tell tell me that I deserve them Nobel Peace Prize.
I mean, the cabinet meeting was laughable. I mean it
was like an SNL sketch. It really was. I have
never seen anything like that except for the like that. Yeah,

(01:04:27):
except for the fact that in the first administration they
did that same around the horn thing where everybody paid
homage to the leaders exactly. Anyway, the deal is that,
you know, Miller's out there as the attack dog. But
that was a that was a great moment.

Speaker 2 (01:04:44):
Does anybody really believe that Trump is working from morning
till night? I mean half the time he's on the
golf course anyway, And we know from expose is on
his last administration that he sits around watching TV for
most of the day.

Speaker 1 (01:04:58):
Well that's where, Kim, that's where in a way he's
getting you.

Speaker 2 (01:05:02):
You know, getting your exercise in by throwing hot dogs
at the wall. That's a big deal.

Speaker 1 (01:05:07):
The I've got stuff here that I'm going to hold
off until Cats arrives Washington d c is suing the
Trump administration for the deployment of the National Guard, the
National Guard in Washington and the changing way in which
police are dealing with stoppages. For example, when they pull

(01:05:30):
somebody over and they take off, They're dealing with that
in a different way. There's a new mandate and a
new directive as to how to handle it, and it's
led to total chaos. So there have been ten car chases,
six crashes. The park Police have new directives under this
Donald Trump policy and takeover Washington DC. I'll get to

(01:05:51):
some of that a little bit later. I don't want
to get too deep into it. But again the legal
part where Washington is suing, we will talk to David
Katz about that as we're standing by for the counselor
to come through any minute now. H It is the
NFL that begins tonight, Albert, has to be an exciting
moment for you as Commissioner of Sports on this show
and Mark Thompson's show. I don't know who is it

(01:06:14):
up tonight to Eagles and and Cowboys.

Speaker 3 (01:06:18):
Yeah, Eagles are celebrating their Super Bowl championship, and the
Cowboys do have a documentary that just came out and
people are following episode by episode and uh so where
there's some hype giving going into the game.

Speaker 4 (01:06:33):
But yeah, today's the first day.

Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
Is the Eagles team commissioner about the same team that
they fielded for the Super Bowl? Or they they've lost?
You know, usually super Bowl teams lose coaches to other teams,
they lose major stars to other teams, et cetera. What's
the situation with the Eagles?

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
Mostly the same, all the all the important people are back.
So I think they are heavily favored, if not regularly.

Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
Do you have a number on how heavily favored they
are for tonight?

Speaker 3 (01:06:59):
I don't not off the go ahead, but a lot
of predictions saying that the you.

Speaker 1 (01:07:03):
Don't want to sully the Commissioner's office with gambling. Is
that the reason you don't know the line?

Speaker 4 (01:07:10):
Oh we'll talk about that, off yir Well, we'll talk.

Speaker 1 (01:07:12):
About you're a purist if nothing else, Albert, So, I
appreciate that smash to like button. If you would, it
helps us in the world of YouTube. Costs you nothing.
I appreciate you being here. You can subscribe to the show.
Hit the notification bell. You'll know when we drop a video.
We drop special videos on the weekend. It's just a couple,
but I certainly want you to be aware of when
they when they drop. How much do we have to

(01:07:32):
contribute for you not to play any more racist? Lex
Luthor that is Stephen Miller clips Lol, says Luis. Five
dollars super Chat. Well, we don't play a lot of him,
but we play play a little of it, so mercilessly
mock authoritarianism. That's the new mma, says Tom Graves with
a two dollars super Chat. Yeah. Thank you all Superchats

(01:07:57):
and superstickers live and we shit you being here. This
compstaw is next the Great David ca your Soul.

Speaker 6 (01:08:06):
The Mark Thompson Shows.

Speaker 1 (01:08:09):
Look, you can help keep us alive. The Mark Thompson
Show is a website, The Mark Thompsonshow dot com. There
are live links to Patreon and PayPal, and a big
thank you to everyone who is part of our Patreon
and PayPal community. We're an NPR PBS model, so a
sort of like you know, we give you the show

(01:08:29):
for free on YouTube. We do it live every day
and it then goes up as an audio podcast to Spotify,
to iHeartRadio, to Google podcasts on all the major podcast
platforms as an audio podcast, and you are given the
show for free. And the only reason we can do
that is because there are so many of you who

(01:08:50):
do make monthly contributions as Patreon and PayPal supporters, and
you can do that under all our videos they're hot
links to Patreon and PayPal and you can be part
of the community that supports this show. It's really a
great thing to see that we've been able to take
this show from the radio commercial radio, where we had

(01:09:10):
to run six and seven minutes of commercials every what
fifteen minutes to this where once in a while I
have to mention this that I'm doing it right now
Patreon and PayPal. But apart from that, this comes to
you again because of the generosity of so many who
are the Patreon and PayPal backbone of this show, and

(01:09:31):
all those names are run at the end of every show,
everybody who is part of Patreon and PayPal.

Speaker 3 (01:09:37):
All right, not having to break you to commercial, Yeah,
we could just get to whatever we want to get to.

Speaker 1 (01:09:43):
Thank you. The conversations. We don't have to break them up.
So anyway, Mark Thompson Show, all right, let's get to him.
He's I think he's one of the great legal analysts
in the English speaking world. You'll hear him on British
radio and see him on British television, and then here
in this country on News Nation, a Fox News channel,

(01:10:05):
and across the various television networks and even into New
Zealand and Australia. I've seen him. How about it for
the great former federal prosecutor now defense attorney, David kats
Ere You are Hi.

Speaker 5 (01:10:17):
Great to be with you.

Speaker 1 (01:10:19):
It's really always a pleasure to have you in. And
now I turned to what you predicted, which was that
the courts would turn back the tariffs. You suggested that
the tariffs which were imposed illegally, I mean as Congress

(01:10:40):
pulled back and sort of let the President lean in
to his tariff policy, that even as it was being implemented,
it ultimately we be judged as illegal. Bring us up
to speed. Apparently a major judicial judgment agrees with you.

Speaker 5 (01:10:58):
Well, I was on News Nation yesterday and I confidently predicted.
They don't have a Katsidamus photo of me like you do, Mark,
but I confidently predicted, and I know I'm sticking my
neck out a little bit that even this US Supreme
Court will find that the tariffs imposed by Trump unilaterally

(01:11:18):
and really arbitrarily are illegal. And the reason that I
say that it's gone up now to two courts, they're
both obscure courts unless you practice in that field. When
was that Court of International Trade that ruled against Trump
several months ago, But he didn't say that Trump had
to stop collecting the tariffs. So we're going to have

(01:11:38):
that effect on the economy. It's percolating, but it's going
to start really adding to more inflation, even if the
Supreme Court does strike it down, because he's had it
for several months. This is what we always joke about, Mark,
that you have a right to not have the Constitution
violated with Trump to the extent you have it, but
he violates it for months and months anyway before the

(01:12:00):
US Supreme Court gets to it if they do the
right thing. And of course there are stays so that
the ruling below doesn't go into effect right away. But
after that court ruled against Trump, and yet he was
allowed to keep collecting the teriffs because this stay didn't
go into effect. Then it went up to a court
called the Federal Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the

(01:12:23):
Federal Circuit. They're about thirteen or twelve or thirteen courts
around the country, but there's two that are in Washington,
d C. One of them is the DC Circuit to
handle cases in DC, and so it doesn't have a first, second, third.
But then there's this Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Well,
it got this case and it took it on bank
and it voted seven to four that these tariffs are illegal.

(01:12:47):
One of the reasons that they're illegal is because the
emergency that supposedly exists patently doesn't exist. And to the
extent this case had a trial in the lower court,
Trump could never prove that any real emergencies existed the
two supposed emergencies that allow him to use this emergency
power to collect taxes without Congress weighing in on it.

(01:13:10):
Or that drugs are coming into the country, Oh my god,
there's gambling going on. There's drugs coming into the country.
This has of course been happening forever. And while fentanel
is very bad, we've had drugs like fentanyl, We've had cocaine, methampheta, mean,
you name. It's been imported into the country, and that's
not an emergency that suddenly just was emergent and that
demanded action. And the other one is that here's another

(01:13:33):
one that you're going to be shocked by. We have
a trade imbalance. We've had a trade imbalance for years
and years. We've also been, you know, negatively. We've been
financing the government with bar and money also for decades.
So none of this is an emergency. This was just performative.
And then of course Trump uses it to twist arms
around the world until like Vietnam, We're going to hit

(01:13:53):
you with a really high teriff unless you approve a
Trump hotel in Vietnam. It's so shocking, it's unbelievable. If
those were happening in any other country, the State Department,
which has also been emasculated under Trump, would be screaming,
oh my god, this is a banana republic. This is
pay to play. We're going to impost sanctions on this country.
That's doing exactly what Trump is doing. And of course

(01:14:13):
Trump is being empowered by the US Supreme Court ruling
a couple of years ago on presidential immunity, so he
can actually take that sort of what I view as
a clear bribe quid pro quote from Vietnam. But because
it's an official act, you could prove it. He could
have said to the Vietnamese premiere. He could have said,
approve my Trump hotel, or you will pay double the tariffs.

(01:14:37):
You hear me, loud and clear. You could have it
on a recording, and under the US Supreme Court ruling,
that kind of quid pro quo would be allowed.

Speaker 1 (01:14:46):
Yeah, well you just described actually did happen. I mean,
not as you should say, maybe not explicitly as you've
just mentioned, but there was the implicit notion that if
we grant this guy approval of his resort in Vietnam,
drop the tariffs. They granted it, they moved a bunch
of people the area that the resort takes up, people

(01:15:06):
live there.

Speaker 5 (01:15:06):
They had to say, Trump Property approved, Vietnam, tariffs went down.
You could put that on a bumper sticker.

Speaker 1 (01:15:14):
That's right, and it actually did happen. But now to
the legal part, though, please just follow through. So Trump
is saying, I'm taking us to the Supreme Court. Supreme
Court will rule with me.

Speaker 5 (01:15:27):
My Supreme Court right now, and immediately asked for a
stay of that seven to four ruling. And he asked
that they actually, the Court of Appeals granted the state,
even though they ruled against Trump's seven to four. They
granted the state so that Trump could keep collecting the tariffs. Now,
he says deceptively, Hey, we've collected twice as much for

(01:15:47):
the federal revenues by collecting twice the amount of tariffs
that we did. Of course, of course you could always
collect more money in tariffs. It's the effect that it
has on the economy and prices in America. So once
you add the billions and billions of dollars added to
what consumers are going to have to pay all over
the country, it's a nothing burger to collect double the

(01:16:09):
amount of tariffs at the customs window. So that's what
he says. But there are a couple of interesting things
about the US Supreme Court taking cert And I suppose
it would have been remarkable if they'd have just denied
cert and said, Okay, that's it. The Pellet ruling goes
into effect. It's just such a big deal. It's a
big deal because of the harm. It's going to have

(01:16:29):
so many ways around. So I expect them to rule
pretty soon whether the customs, whether the government can keep
collecting those tariff payments. If the Supreme Court says stop
collecting the tariff payments, that will tell you which way
they're going to rule, because that is something that if
they're going to rule the way I think they're going
to rule, and they conference these cases pretty early, especially

(01:16:53):
if they have five or six votes, that looks like
they're going to rule the way I think they are
going to rule. Because I think they're going to do
the right thing on this economic issue. They've got to
stop the teriffs from being collected because there's going to
be a huge recoupment when they finally rule, as I
think they will, in favor of these businesses. And that
is truly an administrative nightmare. Now, Trump argues, look at

(01:17:15):
what an administrative nightmare it would be US Supreme Court
if you follow the law and ruled against us. Of course,
you can't create an administrative snap thoo a nightmare and
then tell the court, oh my god, look at a
mess it's going to be if this court does the
right thing. Look at the best that I've made. I'm
going to take so much effort to clean up the
best that I made. Judge rule the other way. But

(01:17:35):
that's exactly what the Trump administration is saying. The good
news is that the Treasury Secretary apparently has a plan
B how this is all going to get undone, and
how they are going to allow the recoupments. And I
guess you can give people credits that'll kind of work. Mark,
I mean, just in terms of business. I have a
client who actually deals with the port. This is like
a real thing for him and all these other small

(01:17:57):
and medium sized businesses, and you can go bankrupt waiting
for this thing to be.

Speaker 1 (01:18:01):
I was just about to say a small businesses, I
mean interrupt, but I was just about to make a point.
Small business has been dramatically affective. Many have gone under
I made this point repeatedly over the last few weeks,
because these are withering taxes on small businesses that are
already operating, oftentimes on small margins. So you know, they
have real damages, David. They could they could sue the
US government for having imposed these illegal taxes and having

(01:18:22):
cost them their business.

Speaker 5 (01:18:24):
I think most of those countries are going to make
a deal. Nobody wants a trade war with the United States.
The trade war hurts everybody. You know, Trump is performative
you know, he acts like, you know, he's the big
dominant monkey, and he know he's the big dominant monkey
because the US market's so huge, and of course our
consumer market is what every right manufacturing company wants to

(01:18:46):
sell to. But mostly, let's say that you're India right now.
India has this ridiculous fifty percent rate. It has the
highest rate in the world. Things fell apart dramatically with Mody,
who's not exactly non authoritarian leader himself. He's kind of
like a little bit the Trump of India, this Modi guy,
and it looked like they were having the sort of

(01:19:07):
a love letter affair that he was having with that
North Korean dictator the first time around. Now, Mody, in
fairness to him, does manage to get himself elected. I
don't agree with his policies, but he does manage to
get himself elected. Apparently, Trump said he should win the
Nobel Peace Prize for solving the India Pakistan question, which,
if you know anything about the history of India and Pakistan,

(01:19:30):
is so outlandish on so many levels. It's the kind
of ignorance which is almost unfathomable. You know, millions of
people died after the partition. They're still fighting each other.
They have Cashier divided. But he wants the Nobel Peace
Prize because he solved the It's like Modi's saying to him,
you know, we ought to get the know, I'm Modi,
the head of India. I owt to get the Nobel

(01:19:53):
Peace Prize because I've solved all the problems between the
United States and Pickham, you know, Venezuela, the United States
and Cuba. The United States said, Russia, you just so
this apparently made things deteriorate, and then they just they
went off the hinges and now tariffs are at fifty percent.
So if this gets flown out, you know, they're they're
going to modify the tariffs. Of course, the tariffs will

(01:20:14):
come down and the good news will be that what
the Supreme Court, I think will say in this case.
I think they have about six votes to say this.
I think Roberts and you know, Amy Coney, Barrett, maybe
even Gorsich and Kavanaugh get the fact that this really
is that you cannot find anywhere in the Constitution or
in that emergency law that the president has the power

(01:20:35):
to do this without Congress. Now, what the Republicans did,
Mark is they just stepped aside. They figured their voters
wouldn't really get this. Yeah, prices would go up, but
they wouldn't really blame their senator. So the Republican senators
figured they could get away with this and not rein
him in them. And of course Trump's position is that
he can do this because Congress has acquiesced in it

(01:20:58):
and Congress hasn't rained. So people like me who say, well,
Congress has to be involved, his argument is that they
were involved. They have the power to rein me in.
These are emergency provisions, and I took these emergency provisions,
and I made myself the dominant monkey of tariffs all
over the world, and I squeezed all these countries around
the world, and I got my golf courses approved around

(01:21:18):
the world. But the Senate didn't stop me. They could
have and they didn't, And they almost stopped him with Canada.
Our relations with Canada have totally deteriorated, and tourism from
Canada's way down mark. But they almost they were within
a vote, I think of stopping him from making this
tariff trouble with Canada that he was making. But they
couldn't even get the votes to do that, and they

(01:21:39):
certainly never got the votes to make him do something
rational over tariffs and to stay within his lane as
the president. So hopefully the Supreme Court and I think
they will on this one, they will say that Congress
has to be involved. Congress will get involved, and they'll
straighten out the tariffs with all these countries, which you know,
the Constitution does say that Congress right Article one, that

(01:22:01):
the Article one, Congress that's the center of our government,
has specific authority over taxes and duties. It specifically says
taxes and duties are to be set by Congress.

Speaker 1 (01:22:12):
Yeah, they've vacated that responsibility. I mean, you know, Trump's
not wrong and thinking, hey, you guys, if you had
a problem with it, you should have said something type
of thing. I mean, no one wants to say anything.
And this is interesting because it speaks to what Rand
is just saying this in the chat. Trump should just
go to Congress on all the terrorist stuff. Congress will
pass anything Trump wants them to. I don't know about
that on tariffs, now, would you agree with me, David Casson,

(01:22:34):
I don't know if he can squeak that through this crew.

Speaker 5 (01:22:37):
You take North Dakota North Dakota has two Republican senators.
They're very reliant on trade with Canada. Those North Dakota
senators Republicans don't want to stand up and say, yeah,
we put a huge duty on Canada, and yeah there
wood is not coming in, and yeah, our construction industry
is collapsed in North Dakota because I voted for this.
But they think there are two or three steps be

(01:22:58):
moved from their voters really getting it and punishing them
at the polls, even though those North Dakota centers are
absolutely responsible for not standing up to it. So no,
this would not win. You know, these guys all want
to they don't want to. They want to preserve their jobs,
and they're scared of Trump coming in with his magabase
and primarying them. Well, but they're scared of other things too.

(01:23:19):
They're scared of doing something which is so obvious. I mean,
a Democrat could beat them if they if they voted
for some of these things. And they're very trade conscious
a lot of these you know a lot of these states,
but they hide behind it because they haven't voted on it.
And when the Supreme Court hopefully rules as it does so,
just say, ah, Trump, he went off the rails and
now we're now we're settling the whole. Well, you've kind.

Speaker 1 (01:23:39):
Of addressed this, but uh, question for mister Katz from
chaplain Fred, thanks for the ten dollars super chat. If
Trump is collecting tariffs as we speak, what is going
to happen with the money collected thus far? Is Trump
keeping it?

Speaker 5 (01:23:53):
Well, Trump, I'm just figured out how to keep the
crypto buddy. He's apparently kept four billion dollars just in
the months, says he's been present. Yeah, right in his pocket.
And I'm sure he's thinking of some way to stick
this buddy in his pocket. But so far, at least
as far as we know, this buddy will not go
into his pocket. So what will happen to it? They'll

(01:24:13):
make requests for recouitment, they'll say, and they keep very
good records. I mean, everybody in importing now is keeping
a record of how much they're owed had the tariffs
not been imposed on them, And then they'll make a case.
If they don't the government doesn't settle with them, they'll
go to the Court of Claims and they'll say, hey,
you will need eighty nine thousand dollars and three cents
because I overpaid my tariffs. And then the huge big

(01:24:35):
boys will probably you know, they'll they'll do the accounting
thing where it gets credited back to them. Like I said,
the big boys, probably most of them haven't gone broke
over this, so so that that's what will happen. Now,
let's just talk about this very briefly. If the Supreme
Court does affirm this, this is it. This is just
a disaster because you know, they always act like you know,

(01:24:56):
one thing that kept both parties in line, mark was
they realized what goes around comes around. But these these
this maga crowd that's in power right now, they act
like there's never going to be another election. I know,
people are really scared there's not going to be another
fair election where they really count the votes and do
everything proper election. But you know, politicians, including like presidents,

(01:25:17):
have always believed what goes around comes around, and if
you want to do stuff like this, I mean, imagine
this wielded by a Democratic president. He doesn't have either house.
He doesn't have either house. Now, it's true that enough
senators could stop him from doing this because they would
stand up to him, but if it were close, let's
say it was the last time where there were fifty
one or fifty two Democratic senators. But you couldn't count

(01:25:38):
on the cold guy Democrat, and you couldn't count on
the flakey lady from Arizona who loved the carried interest
finance seers who backed there.

Speaker 1 (01:25:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:25:48):
Yeah, you never kind of knew what was going to
happen with those folks. It would seem like, you know,
Biden could have Biden could have done this too. And
you know Democrats that haven't historically had a taste for this,
but you could have a guy who had a woman
who had all taste for this and that to do.
I mean, we're so used to what Trump does, and
he does it every day and we get you know,
we try to be alert to everything. But you know,

(01:26:09):
you could imagine a really powerful, forceful Democrat doing this.
You can basically run the foreign policy of this country,
not the Senate, not the law, not the House. US
president could run you just tell somebody, okay, you got
to pay seventy percent tariffs, and all of a sudden,
you have you know, you've really controlled. You don't need treaties,
you don't need the House, you don't need the Senate

(01:26:31):
this power. If the US Supreme Court boats the other way,
everyone's going to have an emergency. Next president is going
to have an emergency, can do whatever they want. If
having a negative trade balance in the United States, that
having drugs come into the country, if those are emergencies,
everything is an emergency and the president just does whatever
they want to with every country in the world punishing some,

(01:26:52):
rewarding others, sticking money in their pocket.

Speaker 1 (01:26:54):
Yeah, I mean, it's it's just opening door to open
a door to mense corruption and also irresponsible chaotic policy.
I mean, this is kind of where we are now.
I want to ask you about you mentioned the voting
I want to ask you about what's happened with the
seizing of voting machines. So the Justice Department now has

(01:27:16):
begun an effort to look at voting machines in Missouri.
You know, they want this voting equipment. It's odd that
they've chosen Missouri because Missouri was a state that Trump won.
But in a way, it's not odd that they've chosen
seizing voting machines because Trump doesn't want voting equipment. He

(01:27:38):
doesn't want mail in voting, and this is just sort
of a way that he's maligning the integrity of voting systems, right,
And so the Justice Department again wants this voting equipment
used by two Republican clerks in Missouri during the twenty
twenty election. And so the apparently the request was rejected.

(01:28:04):
But I'm wondering about the you know, so much has
been set about the voting machines, that there's a whole
lawsuit with Dominion voting systems and them being disparaged by
right wing media. Ultimately, as it turns out, the integrity
of those voting systems was pretty well up not only upheld,
but the court judgments landed pretty heavily on Fox and

(01:28:26):
on an I think they had to write huge checks.
Tell me to what degree the Justice Department has the
right to go in and demand these voting machines and
what could possibly happen there?

Speaker 5 (01:28:40):
Well, even for Rupert Murdoch, seven hundred and eighty seven
million dollars was more than walking around buddy, Right, So
they paid huge for defaming Dominion. And just to remember,
this was the disgraceful presenters on you know, the Fox,
not not the ones that I go on with. But
you know, you know that crowd that So I think
that was the Tucker Carlson. I think that was a

(01:29:02):
part of his demise. That Bartellino, I think, yeah, yeah,
And so that was that was a huge debacle, and
some of them still have lawsuits. I think news Max,
the even further right wing station than Fox. I think
they just settled check me on that, but I think

(01:29:22):
they just settled for very large sum over this same thing.
And there's another one called Smart Mattock, which I think
was also defamed. It also has lawsuits going against some
of those folks. So, you know, and the things that
they said were just totally outrageous. You know, somehow Hugo
Chavez down in uh, he and his cronies down there
in Venezuela had rigged those machines, and those machines are

(01:29:43):
still rigged. And I don't know how they got them
to go from voting for Hugostathers to uh Joe Biden.
But you know, suppose that's what they were doing, and
they weren't counting the boats properly, and then every time
they checked one of them, they were voting. They weren't
counting the boats properly, and there was no there there
and they kept putting that story on Fox night after night,
and then of course Newsmax was putting it on their

(01:30:05):
station too, because Fox was the first one, ironically that
had called I think it was Arizona for Biden. And
so the Fox viewers, the real Maga ones, were furious.
They didn't want to watch Fox anymore because they were
telling him something they didn't want to hear. They went
over to Newsmax in large numbers Mark and then they
came back to Fox generally speaking, And now Newsmax is

(01:30:26):
actually suing a Fox as of a couple of days ago,
saying that they are engaging in anti competitive practices, that
Fox is doing all those things. So in terms of
getting these machines, I guess the reason they're doing it
in Missouri is it's a red state. If they tried
to do it in California, every official would say, are
you crazy. You have no right to do we have
a right to look at all these federal things that

(01:30:47):
we're kind of curious about. No, this is state property.
This thing was properly conducted. There's no evidence, and no,
you can't just rummage around because you want to rummage around.
This guy in Missouri, I think he went to the
White House or something. So they got a guy from
Missouri who's a maga. Uh, he went to the White
House where he's a maga. He probably knows people. He
thought somehow he could inveigel them to give the voting

(01:31:07):
machines or access to the voting machines. And you say
that even that hasn't worked, and it's they're gonna, you know,
they're they're gonna make some kind of mischief. Who's going
to watch over that, Oh excuse me, Cash Patel, Bongino,
Oh no, the Deputy Attorney General, he's going to come
and make sure that it's all totally clean. Who is
Nobody believes the Department of Justice anymore is geared toward

(01:31:29):
justice with Epstein. And how about with this thing, you know,
you'd have to videotape it and whatever they found. If
they said, oh, my goodness, this machine was rigged in
a certain way, nobody would believe it, and you worry
that they would rig it, and then they would be
all ready for the performance and they'd show it to
the world and say, oh my god, it's rigged. It's rigged.
That maybe Cash Patel or Bondi would hold a press conference,

(01:31:51):
and who would be impressed by any of it. The
people who want to believe, I guess they would believe.
But you know that the people in the middle, they've
so lost credibility markets. As a former assistant US attorney,
it's just so said how the Department of Justice has
lost credibility.

Speaker 1 (01:32:06):
Yeah, I mean, everything's been degraded. And you understand that
this investigation into the twenty twenty election is all part
of Trump Jihad, which is associated with pursuing that big lie,
which is that the election was stolen. So your tax
money and my tax money is going to the continued
investigation of the Justice Department to that election lie. They're

(01:32:29):
essentially reverse engineering. They're starting with the notion that this
election was stolen in twenty twenty, Trump actually had won it.
Now let's find evidence to support that conclusion. And so
this is all in service of that. And so again,
when it comes to the actual work of the Justice Department,
the kind of work that you did when you're a
federal prosecutor, it's all being diverted, much of it in

(01:32:53):
ways like this to support the Mad King's assertion. And
so it's a to me, it's just it's an a front.
I mean, it's insulting. But the other thing that's going
on in Washington, where you used to work is the
District of Columbia is being occupied by National Guard forces
and there are a lot of those troops that are
picking up trash and they're you know, taking graffiti off

(01:33:14):
of walls. That's all great, I love the beautification of Washington,
d C. I'm sure it could be done at a
fraction of the price and also without the inconvenience of
National Guard troops, all of whom have real jobs as
real estate agents, as accountants, and they, you know, they're
now called upon by the President to be props in
this ridiculousness in Washington, d C. So these district is

(01:33:37):
suing and they're asking a federal court to intervene on this,
this troop involvement in civilizing Washington, reducing crime, whatever the
you know whatever. The end goal that as stated is
DC wants those troops out, and they're going to court
to try to make it happen.

Speaker 5 (01:33:58):
Well, the President has power in d C more than
he does in any other city, So this is not
Whatever ends up happening in DC doesn't mean that any
of it would work in Chicago or in New York City.
In terms of what happened in Los Angeles, you know,
the judge up in San Francisco did finally rule. You know,
there's a trial of final judgment. People are very confused

(01:34:21):
at what happened there because he said that what Trump
had done here, you know, invading you know, La on
a pretext, saying that there was uncontrollable violence when there
was not at all. They you know, he had issued
an injunction and then that was overturned two to one
by the appellate court saying that his injunction couldn't go
into effect. But that returned the case to the trial

(01:34:44):
judge up in San Francisco. It's confusing who was trying
the case of what happened here in LA. After a
three day trial, he finally ruled that this was a
violation of what they call the Posse coma Tatis Act,
which is a nineteenth century law which sensibly says that,
you know, we don't want to be a military dictatorship.
We don't want troops, army troops, you know, military troops

(01:35:08):
who were supposed to fight the enemy going against Americans
and making Americans the enemy, and so therefore they cannot
perform law enforcement functions. And so Trump's argument in that case,
which was just repudiated by the trial judge up there,
and this would be a great precedent. It wouldn't actually
control because it's a trial court, you know, so it
doesn't control if he went into Chicago. That wouldn't be

(01:35:31):
a precedent that would bind the courts in Chicago. But
it's extremely persuasive. He's a very good, very careful judge.
He's actually the younger brother of Supreme Court Justice Bryer,
who just resigned, you know, you know, he gave up
a seat and his former clerk, actually I got that seat.
She's one of the three on the US Supreme Court.

(01:35:51):
But anyway, this this judge, if they're highly respected, did
a really good job on the case. Said what was
really obvious to everyone except I guess the two trumpy
judges on the Ninth Circuit that had stopped the injunction
from going into effect down here, that yes, federal troops
can protect federal buildings if they're about to burn down
a building. Yes, the federal troops can come in less

(01:36:13):
they burn down a building. But the idea that you're
sending federal people around. It could be IRS agents. Think
about that, right wingers when the shoes on the other foot,
they could be IRS agents, they could be ICE agents,
they could be EPA inspectors. The fact that there are
federal workers doesn't mean that you could send arby troops

(01:36:33):
anywhere the federal workers go on the pretext that they're
protecting federal workers. That was Trump's pretext that ICE was
going places that the ICE officers needed more protection. You
have these federal people who are risk and therefore you
could call out the army to protect the people and
go everywhere that the people went anyway, That's what the
court said you can't do. That's going to stand Mark.

(01:36:54):
We are not a military dictatorship. There are not five
votes on the US Supreme Court, in my opinion, who
are going to say we're that kind of And I
think Trump knows that. So I think when he talks
about going into Chicago, that would be the same law
that would apply to LA. He's going to find a
judge there, He's going to find the Seventh Circuit there
who's not going to approve of that. All that the
federal troops can get called out to do is a

(01:37:15):
true insurrection. And another court also just found that even
if you think that the Venezuelans coming here en mass
was sort of an invasion, as like the third use
of the word invasion, that's not what the constitution or
the laws mean by an invasion or insurrection. So unless
there's a real invasion, there's a real insurrection and the

(01:37:36):
local authorities can't put it down or you're protecting federal buildings,
what happened to us in LA was illegal. I think
the Ninth Circuit when it comes back to them, is
going to say it's illegal, and the Supreme Court is
either going to not take it or they're going to
say it's illegal.

Speaker 1 (01:37:50):
Now, first, John, the Nlafidian says Ice is armed, but
they need more protection. Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 5 (01:37:55):
They're astonishing and they just got these billions and billions
of dollars, the idea that they can't protect themselves on
these raids, And like I said, what goes about comes around.
You know, there are so many tax evators in all
these red states. Okay, I'm sure there are some people
who send this to their friends in Red states or
who are sympathized that way. Okay, so you know, here
here comes, here comes Newsome. He wants to do something

(01:38:17):
as present about all these tax cheats. A lot of
them are in red states. And my god, if you
think ICE agents couldn't really protect themselves, how about these
poor IRS agents who are running around doing audit after
audit after audit of all these red state tax cheats.
They need the Army to be brought out to go
around with the IRS to all these red states, because
that's what this case is going to hold that they

(01:38:38):
can do. And I think the US Supreme Court and
the Ninth Circuit's going to take a deep breath and say, no, no, no,
that's not what we can do.

Speaker 1 (01:38:44):
And that's not again, but again to draw the distinction,
you're saying that the president does have the power to
deploy the National Guard in Washington, and that's you know,
I get it. But DC again, they are They have
an elected Attorney General there as well, and he is
suing this guy, Brian Schwab is suing. He's saying that

(01:39:04):
this is an illegal deployment. Now you're saying, yeah, that's
that case probably won't fly, but obviously mean.

Speaker 5 (01:39:12):
I'm just saying, whatever they decide there is not precedent
for Chicago. It's going to involve the DC Home Rule.
Congress did give home rule to d C. This is
going to depend on what the parameters are of the
Home Rule. I think probably what Trump is doing in
Washington is also illegal. I think without Congress changing the
law the Home Rule Act, So I think he needs

(01:39:34):
an active Congress. Congress is not. What people need to
realize is that these are all things that would be
subject to the filibuster. So there are not sixty votes
in the Senate to do any of these things. Everyone
who says that Trump has to go to Congress and
the Congress will do whatever Trump wants, No, the Congress will.
They did the big Ugly Bill, and that's probably about
all they're really gonna do. And that one didn't need

(01:39:56):
sixty votes. Remember that was this reconciliation thing. He doesn't
have sixty votes for almost anything he wants to do
in the Senate.

Speaker 1 (01:40:03):
Yeah, and I'll just make the point that two points. Actually,
One is that he wants to extend and will extend
the National Guard presence in DC. Don't know that it'll
actually involve troops there through December, but that's what they
have said. They want to extend and they've talked to
the Pentagon about this, the extension of this presence in Washington,

(01:40:25):
d C. And the cops in DC have new rules.
They are pursuing vehicles when DC cops would not normally
pursue vehicles, and the Interior Secrety has thanked Trump for
allowing them to chase quote, bad guys. The US Park
Police have initiated ten car chases in the past three
weeks as part of this surge in federal law enforcement

(01:40:48):
there in DC, and there have been six major accidents
crashes as a result of these pursuits. So Washington has
its own degree of chaos. And the last thing I'll
just remind everybody something we talked about before. When you
look at the open table reservations and the other polling
of restaurants around Washington, d C. There's been such a
substantial decline in restaurant reservations and in patrons into restaurants,

(01:41:13):
it's extraordinary. It's over fifty percent month to month. So
with this idea, and it's just propaganda that the DC
is flourishing somehow with a National Guard presence, it's just
utter absurdity.

Speaker 5 (01:41:23):
Yeah, if you're planning a trip to Washington, d C.
In the fall. Come out here to California this fall.
We'll treat you right. We need the business.

Speaker 7 (01:41:32):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:41:32):
Our port is wayed down because of the teriffs. Our
restaurants and a lot of industries here are completely screwed
up because people are scared to go to work, and
so we need the business. So the other thing that's ridiculous,
you know, these are one of the huge problems with crime.
Of Course, random crime, you know, people who are mentally
ill that kind of crime. Of course, that's a huge problem.

(01:41:55):
If you just randomly get mugged or something, that huge fall.
But then another one is organized crime. People who are
commit organized crimes are very good at keeping away. I
think I said this on your show once before. From narcs,
from snitches, from cops. The idea of these army guys
right all dressed in their fatigues are really going to
number one deter organized crime is kind of ridiculous and

(01:42:18):
it would be a disaster. We don't want them. They're
not trained to do this. They're going to go into
anacostia and do what they're going to march down the
street in the highest crime era Chicago too. They're going
to walk through one of these areas that's basically controlled
by some huge street gang. You know, a lah, what
was that New Jack City. They're going to go through
the New Jack City of Chicago and do what there

(01:42:40):
they are and do what they're going to go undercover.
They're going to be immediately spotted. This would be nothing
but a disaster that they would try to fight crime. Meanwhile,
the people who know how to fight organized crime, like
the FBI, are taking off their wire taps and taking
off the things that the FBI knows how to do
to really go after organized crime and to not get
made what are they doing? Thousand over I'm not making

(01:43:02):
this up. Mark over a thousand went through the Epstein tapes,
no doubt, they found so many references to Trump and
to Trump's donors that they said, you know what it's
going to be. It's going to be nothing but blackouts
and reactions. So to hell with this project. But before
they did that, a thousand FBI agents got taken off
fighting organized crime, fighting real crime to go do that nonsense.

(01:43:23):
And on top of that, they went around with their
FBI jackets along with these ice guys and bring down
the reputation of the FBI for years and years to come.
That's all a lot of people are going to remember. Oh, yeah,
the FBI and the ICE. Yeah, they went into that
car wash and they took all of those nice, hardworking
people there. I remember that they were standing there with
a lady who was being separated from her daughter, crying

(01:43:46):
her eyes out because she's been here fifteen years. That's
what they're going to remember. They remember the FBI jacket
and they remember that crying lady separated from her daughter,
and the FBI special agents hate it. But Cash, Battel
and Bongino send them there and they either quit, right,
They either quit or they.

Speaker 1 (01:44:01):
It's a smear. And on top of a smear, I
want to change completely and pivot to a case that
is in Texas. Texas is moving to allow anyone to
sue abortion pill prescribers and distributors. The measure aims to
stop the flow of pills into Texas from blue states.
It can open package delivery services up to fines, along

(01:44:23):
with doctors and drug distribution firms. The bill is backed
by anti abortion activists. Passed in the state Senate yesterday,
it allows private citizens to sue companies and individuals who
manufacture or distribute abortion pills to patients in Texas. Winning
plaintiffs will get a minimum of one hundred thousand dollars

(01:44:43):
in damages. Abbott, who is the governor there, is expected
to sign the legislation in the law and included in
the bill. They've actually included this bill on the agenda,
I should say for the state's two special sessions this summer,
which have largely been dedicated to redistricting, as you know,
we've talked about it, and also the July flow uds.
Can you speak to this the latest attempt to curb

(01:45:05):
the increasing popularity availability of medication abortion.

Speaker 5 (01:45:10):
Well, first of all, you have to start checking where
your connecting flight may go through. You don't want to
go through Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio, for real, because
they could have a warrant for someone's arrest from another state.
And a lot of these shield laws don't let them
extradite you from one state to another. So they don't
allow some poor pharmacists who's just prescribing medication and ends

(01:45:34):
up on a list and ends up maybe being sued,
And so I don't think that they're going to allow
these shield laws I think are going to protect you
from civil lawsuits if they come into let's say Massachusetts,
or they come into New York or Illinois and they
try to sue you, or they try to get let's say,
they get indictment against you. But no kidding, you got

(01:45:56):
to be careful to go into one of those states.
It's the old thing, you know, jurisdiction. If they have
their hands on you, they have jurisdiction and they check you, you know,
in an airport, you get in the flight and stuff
like that, and if you're in the computer that there's
a lawsuit, you could be served in Texas. You could
be arrested in Texas. So you know, Texas is about
the sort of box themselves out of the country with
all this crazy.

Speaker 1 (01:46:16):
Wait, let me just let me just follow up on that.
Are you saying that if I'm involved in uh IN
as a doctor and having provided a prescription for this medication,
or if I'm involved as a You're you're not speaking
to Who would be the people who you're talking about
whould have warrants out for their arrest in Texas? What
group of people I.

Speaker 5 (01:46:37):
Guess they you know, they could say that the nurse
was in a conspiracy. Yes see, okay, can there prescribed it,
They could say that the person who shipped it was
in the conspiracy. So they get seven people from the
prescribing that, from maybe the clinician, maybe the person at
the pharmacy, everybody in the chain. And they did that.
There was somebody who was having an ugly divorce down there,

(01:46:59):
and I guess he got hold of her prescription and
her trail on her Internet and he found the six
or seven people who were responsible for her getting her
you know, medical abortion pills. And so that becomes either
a lawsuit or becomes a prosecution. This Paxton down there,
so he goes into this is a real thing. Like
I said, as long as you're in Massachusetts, you're in Illinois.

(01:47:20):
I think the fact that they want to sue you,
that they would treat it as rubbish. If they tried to,
you know, have the one state cooperate with the other state,
Illinois or New York would say, are you kidding, We're
not even going to you tried to serve like, you
know process there, they wouldn't. The sheriff wouldn't come to
your house. Nobody would serve process. But Meanwhile, the indictment
sitting out there in Texas, so as, I say, you
want to be very very careful, you don't go through

(01:47:42):
You know, people take Southwest, they go through San Antonio.
They don't think a thing about it at all. They
won your name in the computer. There's a warrant for
your arrest. Okay, stay out of Texas.

Speaker 1 (01:47:52):
Well, what about the women who want this pill in Texas?
Aren't they the real victims here as well?

Speaker 5 (01:48:00):
I don't think that they're crazy enough in Texas yet
to prosecute the women. But you know, if you need
the medical abortion, obviously, I think they do everything they can.
You know, it comes in a brown wrapper. You know,
you still need to get a warrant. You know, this
lady had the bad luck that her husband I guess,
had access to the property they were in a divorce.
He turned it over. It was probably a consent search

(01:48:22):
because he had a right to consent to the property
that they were jointly living in. They still need a
search warrant, so there are still some protections procedurally. How
they're going to find out that you Mary Smith was
ordering this medical abortion pill from a pharmacy in Massachusetts.
But you know, this was what the US Supreme Court.

(01:48:42):
This is what they're going to be one hundred years
from now. Mark, That's what that US Supreme Court is
going to be known for. They're going to be known
for dobbs. They're going to known for the monstrosity that
they perpetrated among the American people and especially women, and
every one of their names. Chief Justice Robertson, you know,
he thinks he'll be known for other things. He'll probably
be known for that and the presidential immunity, and they
may be his two dread Scott cases.

Speaker 1 (01:49:04):
Yeah, I mean, it's an extraordinary thing. But you're absolutely right.
The judge ruling that Google can keep Chrome, it has
to share some of its search engine data with rivals.
That was pretty huge. Google was looking at really being
broken up. So this is a pretty big deal on
the part of the US government to try The US
government was trying to break up Google.

Speaker 5 (01:49:23):
Essentially Google basically one the stock market reflected that Google
went up. The other remedies would have been worse. This
remedy that had to share the code and stuff like that. Boy,
is that going to be hard to enforce. There'll be
loads and loads of lawsuits they'll say, you know, they'll
always say that they shared the code, and the competitors

(01:49:44):
will always say, no, they didn't. They sabotaged it in
all kinds of ways. It wasn't really useful to us,
and the judge, it seems like a very good judge
was persuaded that all the other remedies were worse and
that they sort of need the funding. It sounds very
very technical, but basically the way that you always go

(01:50:04):
to Google is not an accent. The way you always
go to Google first is something that Google pays billions
of dollars to Apple and others that you go to
Google first. And so they actually went to court and
they told the judge there, without those billions of dollars,
we'd really be in trouble. If we didn't get those
billions of dollars to send everybody who buys an Apple

(01:50:26):
product to Google. We Apple, we the others would really
be in trouble. We really need that revenue. And they
showed the judge, I guess that they really need that revenue.
I mean, I don't know the case inside and out,
but I would have broken them up. Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:50:39):
Clearly, Google is you know, in a men's company. A
lot of these companies have I've Metai fit in the
same category with control over Instagram and WhatsApp and Facebook.
These are methods of communication and information and you have
really a lock on it. It's a you know again,
in a freeedom.

Speaker 5 (01:50:57):
How about a little private pleading, Mark, send them all
to the Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 1 (01:51:00):
Especially, thank you very much. I want to last thing.
I just want to review because you always talk about
the fact that essentially the Trump administration it might take
a while, but they are losing in court. I thought
the Harvard judgment was an example of that. The Trump
administration found to have illegally frozen billions in Harvard funding.

(01:51:23):
This is research funding and a federal judge in Boston
handing Harvard University a legal victory. This just happened yesterday.
It's the latest in this high profile legal fight over
whether the administration the Trump regime acted illegally when it
froze more than two point two billion in Harvard research
funding in response to allegations of campus anti semitism. So

(01:51:43):
this is a serious win for Harvard and setback for
Trump and friends.

Speaker 5 (01:51:49):
Well, yes, the judge had one phrase where she said
that Harvard was plagued by anti semitism. So that's all
that the right wingers are featuring about that case that
you know, even a Democratic appointed judge said that they've
been plagued by anti semitism. And however bad the anti Semitic,

(01:52:12):
you know, actions might have been, that was a very
poor choice of words. I think, plagued by anti semitism.

Speaker 1 (01:52:17):
Because well, she also said, it's difficult to conclude anything
other than this is a quote that the Trump administration
used anti semitism as a smoke screen for a targeted,
ideologically motivated assault on this country's premier universities and did
so in a way that runs a foul of federal law.
So she made that point as well.

Speaker 5 (01:52:35):
That's the headline. That's the headline. I'm just saying she
lost the headline. She lost a little bit of the
impact of the case, which was tremendously anti Trump and
anti Trump's actions, because she said that there was no
correlation between you know, they're taking money away from these labs,
and she said something interest he said, for all we
know there's a lot of Jewish people working in those labs.

(01:52:58):
This is not even helping the problem that you say
you're addressing. You say you're going to do something about
anti Semitism, and you defund a bunch of labs that,
for all we know, have a very high amount of
Jewish people, you know, working in them. So how are
you even supposedly helping Jewish people? And of course this
whole you know, canard of anti Semitism. I'm Jewish myself.

(01:53:19):
I don't buy that it was anywhere near the level
that the propagandas have said that there was. There were demonstrations,
and a lot of them were pro Palestinian. You can
certainly understand that with what's going on in Gaza, what's
going on with these runaway settlements all over territory which
is not Israel's, you can certainly understand why there was
all this anti Israel protests. That doesn't mean it's anti Semitic.

(01:53:42):
And to equate those two is a complete false equivalency
and that's been a large part of what's I think
inspired Trump. But she said that the two billion dollars
had no correlation. And I think that Harvard is going
to play this all the way to victory, and God
bless them because I think that they have really shown
now they have a huge endowment, over fifty sixty billion dollars,

(01:54:04):
so they could afford to fight. And I think they
could afford to keep those labs open. You know, Columbia
was worried that they'd done twenty years of research to
combat cancer and it was all going to go down
the drain because they couldn't keep the research studies going.
That's the real reason to quote capitulate. That's a real
reason to settle. I don't blame Columbia for that. Harvard
had the money and the grit to fight. And you know,

(01:54:28):
Harvard's done two things really right. All of those d
students in the Trump administration weren't admitted to Harvard. That
was right. And number two, they fought those ding Dongs
when they went after them, and partly it was because
they were Harvard. That's why they were, you know, red
meat for the ding Dongs. And I just can't believe
that the anti Semitism reached anything near the level that

(01:54:51):
Trump and the others liked to posture that it did.

Speaker 1 (01:54:54):
We're out of time, David Catch. You're so cool to
spend this kind of time with us. Uh, We'll look
for you on News Nation. I think you're on the
weekends a lot as there as a political analyst and
the score legal analyst. You're across the board and I
think you're being you know, wherever they can track you down,
they use you, you know, as I say, across the

(01:55:15):
English speaking world. But we love you on the Thursdays
here and uh, David Cash and I had a great
personal face to face, which is we need to do
I think we should do a monthly on that. I'd
love to visit with. You've never been anything like this.

Speaker 5 (01:55:29):
Next month, I have a I don't want to show off,
but I enjoyed it immensely. And it's still going on.
The US Open tennis from New York and I was there.

Speaker 1 (01:55:37):
Were you there?

Speaker 5 (01:55:39):
Yeah? I was there with my wife. We were there.
I know we're there Saturday night and we were there
the Labor Day night and there's a great match. The
men's a great match tonight. And I bought Mark a
hat which says that and give him give him the hat.
You can also order them. They're overpriced, but they do
say US Open and they have the year. They're kind

(01:56:00):
of a cool thing in any kind of color. I
have no unlike Trump, I have no personal interest in
what I'm talking about. You know, if this was Trump,
he'd got to be getting a forty percent cut of
that hat.

Speaker 1 (01:56:14):
Yeah, I'll trade you with the Mark Thompson show hat
for the US. But that's right. It came in on
a nowhere and I thold o, my Connor. You at
the US Opening, I was watching tennis. I love tennis,
of course, and to me, it'd be a dream to
go really enjoy the US Open like that. Oh you
already have a pillow.

Speaker 5 (01:56:27):
I forgot you have a very you have a very
comfortable pillow. So yeah, I love the Mark tubs at Birch.
But you got a US Open twenty twenty five, and
I'm excited nis men's it's supposed to be just just terrific.

Speaker 1 (01:56:43):
Joe, we'll do the we'll do the trade over. Yeah,
tonight's tonight's match will be unreal. Uh, we'll do the
trade over over over lunch. Look forward to it, can't everybody?

Speaker 5 (01:56:52):
Thanks?

Speaker 1 (01:56:54):
All right? See Marks? All right? Gosh, I man, it's
you know what? Can I tell you? The time has
has clicked by. We've got some great stuff on tomorrow's show.
Got a great that's rich which involves the NBA. Also
private planes and a major break in at a star's house.

(01:57:18):
All of that in that's rich.

Speaker 4 (01:57:21):
I think I found a story about.

Speaker 3 (01:57:24):
Eleven million dollars worth of stolen of goods from a
museum in France.

Speaker 4 (01:57:29):
I mean, I know you love the.

Speaker 1 (01:57:31):
What I love that A heist? You know I love heists. Wow,
it was great.

Speaker 4 (01:57:36):
I loved that they're calling them national treasures.

Speaker 1 (01:57:39):
So that should be a that's terriffic. That's that's tomorrow. Wow.
I'm looking forward to that, looking forward to it in
a big way. I have a couple of little pieces
of business to do. Remember that Ivanka has copyright protection
on Trump voting machine in China. She has copyright. Thank

(01:58:07):
you Tom for that. The fund out Ivanka has. I
don't know about the voting machine. It might be we
can find out about that. Maybe you look into it.
I know she has twenty different yeah, copyright protections that
she were negotiating. She was negotiating all of that stuff
while there was an economic conference going on in China.

(01:58:27):
It was during Trump season one. You may remember, I
don't know if voting machines are part of it. I'm
if you said it.

Speaker 2 (01:58:35):
Was just shoes and designer shirts.

Speaker 1 (01:58:37):
Yeah, I don't know, but maybe you can check on
it to see if Evanka has look into Trump's Ivanka
Chinese trademarks after the show. Of course, they were fast
tracked around twenty nineteen. Yeah, no, that's exactly what I
remember that. But I remember voting machines being involved. Thank you, Tom.
We will look into it. I'll put my best people

(01:58:57):
on it. Sadly, my best people are on the show
right now. Kim and Albert are yes, I am, I'm sorry,
but I'm just uh, you just speaking the you know.

Speaker 5 (01:59:09):
Also, I also want to know what happened to the
pictures I was supposed to see this.

Speaker 1 (01:59:13):
Why you're checking that out? Tell me about where those
pictures are. Kimmy Smith with a five dollars super chet
from Nola and Trump threatened to come here instead of Chicago.
That's exactly right. Trump has sort of re asserted where
the troops are going to go, and he's now thinking,
now New Orleans needs me and my storm troopers more

(01:59:35):
than Chicago does. I called Maga mic and government government
Governor Landry to tell them to leave us alone. That's
from Kimmy Smith. Maybe Kimmy, your call did it because
they're not talking Chicago anymore. I think they are talking
about showing up elsewhere, aren't they, Kim, Yes they are. Yeah,

(01:59:58):
I didn't mean to wake you. So the deal is,
I am we are voting machines. What was the story
of Avonka's voting machines?

Speaker 5 (02:00:06):
Do you have several stories?

Speaker 2 (02:00:07):
But none I will quote at this time.

Speaker 1 (02:00:12):
They do this to me all the time. I don't
know what the hell they do it for. I am
telling you this is a you haven't been a member
of the Chinese communist story. All right, let's uh, let's
settle down. We've got a big show tomorrow.

Speaker 5 (02:00:24):
I know it's going for recess.

Speaker 1 (02:00:26):
The show tomorrow is featuring a Friday Fabulous Florida segment
from Albert. It's also featuring the Culture Blaster Michael Snyder
on streaming and on movies, and of course the Weekend
Politics will review everything going on on Capitol Hill and
beyond these latest court rulings as well how they factor

(02:00:47):
in politically for Donald Trump. That's Jim Obola and Michael
Shore tomorrow. So looking forward to all of that, and
now the great Shadow Stevens to take us out.

Speaker 6 (02:00:57):
I'm scheffer of Stevens. For The Mark Johnson Show.

Speaker 1 (02:01:01):
Big shout out to all, shout out, A huge show
for us by at a time, can't do anything more
After Funny Live, I'll bron that channel till tomorrow. Bye bye,

(02:02:00):
but attesting

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 DOJ Pressures States, Demanding 2020 Voting Machines Despite Local Pushback 9/4/25

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 DOJ Pressures States, Demanding 2020 Voting Machines Despite Local Pushback 9/4/25

On Purpose with Jay Shetty