Trump Takes Aim at His Next Tariff Target and it’s Not China 4/10/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Thank you all, please please please please remain standing. Yes,
thank you, thank you, thank you. Maybe you notice got
my hair darkened for the trade war. Thank you. I
always like to change my hair color, make it a
little darker for a trade war. Then, you know, we
kind of backed off on the trade war, but it's
still a pretty substantial trade war going on with China.

(00:24):
So I feel like I've got the hair dialed in
about where it should be. So glad you could be
with us today. We have an incredible show ahead of you.
I've got it just just the way things lined up
to leading economists and legal minds as well as authors, professors,
scholars who will weigh in on everything from the Trump administration,

(00:46):
the dismantling of government, to the trade wars, to the
economy and the economic impacts of this push me, pull
you kind of economic strategy that Trump seems to have
been a wedded to of late. So they will join
us in this first hour, bottom of the hour, and
of course, in the second hour, the great legal analyst

(01:09):
David Katz joins us from southern California. We're a live show.
Two to four in the East, eleven to one in
the West. Let's go I also would like to update
if I can, Albert, we got out of the Elite eight.
We are into the final four of March Madness.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Madness.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
March Madness pits college hoops teams against each other, Mars
Madness pitches our drops against each other, and these sound drops.
It's anybody's game. But I do already begin to see
I've picked a winner in all of this, Albert, can
you give us an update on what happened yesterday?

Speaker 3 (01:52):
Please?

Speaker 4 (01:53):
There it is, Yes, it's the wild idea and I
Blame You came on top.

Speaker 5 (01:56):
So they are both in the final four.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
Oh there you go, wild eyed, the dominant with the
seventy four percent of the vote over you just don't
get it. And in the bottom half of the Elite eight,
you see, I Blame you. Crushing Sionara Sucker had to

(02:20):
be again for Kim so difficult because she is both
the I Blame You queen, I Blame you, and she's
also the Cionara Sucker queen. So I mean, yeah.

Speaker 6 (02:34):
It was still lopsided there, but yeah, I am too.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
I am too. That lopsided victory of I Blame You
is making me feel as though I Blame you may
carry the whole game.

Speaker 6 (02:45):
I don't know. Girl baby Girl has a it's a
strong wow.

Speaker 1 (02:48):
It's very very true. Kim is not wrong about that.
Girl Baby Girl will play today. So we are down
to the final four. The final four will go down today,
will announce the final tomorrow. That is to say, we'll

(03:08):
announce the winners. You can also see them on our
YouTube channel. You just go to posts where you vote
and you can see the percentages and who is gonna
move on to the championship. So the championship round, the finals,
they will happen Monday, all right, So if you're adjusting
your Marx Madness calendar, today, the final four, Tomorrow we

(03:31):
announce who will play for it all, and then Monday
we do play for it all. Now Marks Madness and today, yeah,
you'll vote right now this hour for.

Speaker 7 (03:46):
Either oh, Girl Baby Girl, don't even.

Speaker 2 (03:51):
Play, or we could try ignoring us. Oh either girl
Baby Girl don't even play, or.

Speaker 3 (04:01):
We could try ignoring it.

Speaker 1 (04:03):
It's Girl Baby Girl versus ignoring it. The vote till
midnight tonight Pacific time. I am very very excited about
what might happen in that contest. Here it goes, Richard says,
Hi guys, how about next year? Concluding Mars Madness at
the same time March Madness concludes, Well, we did that

(04:25):
last year. Actually, this year we were thrown off a
bit by vacation schedules. I think in some time, right,
some days off here and there isn't that like off.
I think Albert was off and I was off. Yeah,
so I blame you. Yeah, well I blame you. Yeah,
maybe it was my fault.

Speaker 8 (04:45):
Okay, you don't remember being so invested in Mark's Marx
Madness before this year.

Speaker 6 (04:51):
I really I'm into it.

Speaker 1 (04:52):
Well, you're into it because you have drops that are
you know you're dropping a win at all.

Speaker 6 (04:57):
Yeah, that's the first year I filled out a bracket.

Speaker 1 (05:00):
Do you really feel kind of excited now that you've
really joined the show instead of just kind of sleepwalking
through it for the last couple of years. Yeah, it's
really cool. There's actually you'll find a lot of good
stuff happening on this show now that you're kind of
clicking in. Yeah, it's Mark, It's funny. I'm just getting
into everything on this show.

Speaker 6 (05:22):
This is actually a pretty good show. Yeah. Before I
was like yeah, yeah, blah blah whatever.

Speaker 1 (05:30):
But there's like this Oh my gosh, O, my god, you.

Speaker 6 (05:35):
Might actually be proud to be a part of this thing.

Speaker 1 (05:37):
Yeah, well it's so good. Yeah, nobody has ever put
something like this together that I've ever seen. All right, well,
we're excited about it. All right, let's get uh, let's
get into some news. There's lots of it and uh
Mark Thompson show the terriff retreat that made news yesterday
and sent the markets skyrocketing. Again. We mentioned the markets
because it's in the context of the markets that that

(05:59):
terror for Tree was really prompted. In other words, had
the markets not created, had the market's not been such
a problem, had the bond market particularly not given off
the warning signs that it had, I think, you know,
there's no telling what the mad King might have done.
But my Lord and Savior Donald Trump did come out

(06:23):
and decide and announce the ninety day pause. You know,
we had that for you right as the show was
beginning yesterday. Actually, and with that pause, we had a
commensurate rise in the market. This insane one day run
up in the market that is being championed by everyone
who is on the right. They're in the Fox News channel,
for example, media Verse and they're talking about what a genius,

(06:49):
my Lord and Savior Donald Trump is, and he is,
of course a genius given those great powers, as he
is divine. But the reality is that when you've pummeled
the markets tremendously over the course of a week, remember
the market's lost about nine percent, all right, then the

(07:11):
one day run up, which is unprecedented, doesn't even get
you back to even so, as you're talking about all
of this incredible genius that's reflected in this one day
run up, and oh my god, it was a negotiating position,
and isn't Donald Trump brilliant and courageous? Okay, it just

(07:33):
is so obviously spin. But let's see some of that
spin and then really discuss what's happening. That is a
live feed of the S and P right now, and
the S and P is down about three percent? Is
that right, Albert? Is that what I'm seeing? I can't
quite see it, but somewhere in that neighborhood, yeah, looks

(07:54):
like a three and a half percent. All right, Let's
kick things off, and again there'll be some spin in
here and the announcement, but we'll start with I believe
the announcement isn't that where we're what we're starting with.
This is Donald Trump yesterday.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
Jumping a little bit out of line. They were getting yippy,
you know, they're getting a little bit yippy, a little
bit afraid, unlike these champions, because we have a big
job to do it. No other president would have done
what I did. No other president I know the presidents,
they wouldn't have done it. And it had to be
done the bond markets that persuaded you to reverse watching

(08:31):
the bond market that the bond market is very tricky.
I was watching it. But if you look at it now,
it's beautiful. The bond market right now is beautiful. But yeah,
I saw last night where people were getting a little queasy.

Speaker 1 (08:46):
So here's why this is important. The bond market reflects
the ten year treasury reflects the confidence that the rest
of the world has in America's economy and America in generally.
It's like the safest buy you can make in the world.

(09:08):
And yesterday what Trump was noticing, and all of his
economic advisors and anybody who knows anything about markets was noticing,
is uh, oh, there's a sell off in the bond market,
the treasury bond, meaning people are there could be any
number of reasons for this, but one certainly believable scenario

(09:29):
is breaking news America isn't what it used to be
and the mad King could do anything, and this isn't
the great safe buy it used to be. And then
that ten year treasury, the interest rate on it went
up because they're trying to get more if you will,

(09:51):
entities buying those treasuries, and sadly that means the United
States of America has to pay out a bigger interest rate,
so that increases the debt of America. All right, it's
and so the bond market was key in all of this.
Run the next, if you would, Albert, this is Bessent,

(10:13):
who again knows better, This guy Bessent' he's the Treasury secretary.
He knows better. But he's out there spinning like a top.
What's going on with this? And you know, Donald Trump
is so brilliant, he's so courageous. It would take an
incredible president, unlike anyone we've ever seen to do something
like this.

Speaker 9 (10:30):
Go ahead, Albert, I'm saying that China has escalated and
President Trump responded very courageously to that, and we are
going to work on a solution with the art trading partners.

Speaker 7 (10:45):
Would excuse me, excuse me if excuse me, orcall if
I could just add to what the secretary said. Many
of you in the media clearly missed the art of
the deal. You clearly failed to see what President Trump
is doing here. You try to say that the of
the world would be moved closer to China, and in
fact we've seen the opposite effect. The entire world is
calling the United States of America, not China, because they

(11:08):
need our markets, they need our consumers, and they need
this president in the Oval Office to talk to them.
That's exactly why more than seventy five countries have called.
Because the United States of America is the best place
in the world to do business. And as the President
has shown great courage, as the secretary have said, and
choosing to retaliate against China even higher.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
Lena America, great courage Trump, Right, Okay, that's good, Thank you, Alard.
Give me a tea, give me an r give me
a U. I mean, she's an incredible cheerleader for Trump.
And yeah, I don't think I think that can go
without comment except for the fact that again you have
a Treasury secretary that's out there spinning for Trump. He
knows much better. This is profoundly. To call it flawed

(11:51):
economic policy is to be kind. We all know, even
those of us who are not economists know that this
is there's an insanity to all of this, and this
in the tariff, the death grip that he has on
tariffs is something that is inexplicable. Go ahead Ofbert run Oh,
this is Stephen Moore. I think, go ahead, run a little.
Stephen More, co founder, and this.

Speaker 10 (12:12):
Is truly crazy economic miracle.

Speaker 6 (12:14):
Steve Moore joined.

Speaker 1 (12:16):
He wrote a book called the Trump in a Miracle.

Speaker 6 (12:18):
Today, Steve, but a miracle by design.

Speaker 10 (12:21):
And I know that you were one of one of
the ones in the camp that said we should have
seen the tax cuts verse and the tariffs later didn't
exactly work that way. I personally think now that this
has played out, that the tariff, you know, chaos that
it caused, was meant to sort of drive those tax cuts,
and it looks like it's working.

Speaker 6 (12:38):
How do you feel about things as they're unfolding?

Speaker 11 (12:42):
It was a great day. I mean, this is the
biggest point increase in the Dow jones in American history.
So how can I stop from smile.

Speaker 1 (12:49):
Like following the biggest over. I mean, these are the
first fire.

Speaker 11 (12:52):
Wishes and this this, these terroriffs. Uh, debates will go
on for perhaps many, many more months. But look, Trump
is just a shrewd negotiator.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
And you're right.

Speaker 11 (13:03):
I'm not the biggest fan of these tariffs, and the
President knows that and I but I do believe in
his ability to get a good deal for the United States.
And I think that's exactly how this is going to
turn out. The other kind of interesting dynamic that's going
on here. I think what Trump is trying to do,
and if he is, I think he's exactly right. He's
and you just alluded to this. He's trying to isolate

(13:26):
the worst actor in the world, which is China.

Speaker 10 (13:29):
They are our enemy.

Speaker 11 (13:30):
They are like Japan circa nineteen thirty seven.

Speaker 12 (13:33):
So the first and we need to have our allies
in Europe and Japan and Mexico and Canada all teaming
up against China.

Speaker 1 (13:44):
And there's nowhere to have those allies. And you're doing
that more than weather talking.

Speaker 11 (13:49):
Real allies are in the in the course of the
next few weeks and months.

Speaker 1 (13:53):
Yeah, okay, thank you again, And then he points to
the bond. In fact, ahead play this for a second,
because this is really what happened to.

Speaker 13 (14:03):
What was going on in the treasury market, because that's
what really lay into this decision of it's always about
the why now. It was the selloff in the last
three days, the lock up overnight, and by the particularly
in the thirty year, but the ten year of the
yield or the interest that we pay and that Americans

(14:24):
pay on say a mortgage, was soaring unexpectedly, and the
tenure yields still wound up on the day, so the
treasuries fell. It was up in one day that that
had to play into the decision of why to palls
now because that couldn't continue selling in treasuries and skyrocketing yields.

Speaker 11 (14:49):
Well, dig and you're one hundred and I saw this morning,
and I saw how high those rates had gone up,
and then ten treasury I was getting very nervous and
and it did. It actually fell a little bit today
as the stock market was going up. And that's a
good side, and that means people were getting into into
buying stock and not selling these these treasuries.

Speaker 1 (15:11):
I think, okay, okay, let's let's let let that's good
I again, just to be clear, the treasuries are like
loaning money to somebody who needs it, and they've always
been solid, and so we loan them money, right, and
so we we we we get a they offer us

(15:32):
a small interest rate just for the favor of loaning
them money. Then they come back to us and they
want more money. The person in this case is America,
and they say no problem, because they're the most We
say no problem because they're the most solid person to
loan money. They always you know, they're really solid. They've
got a good job and all of that kind of thing.
And then we noticed that they are not showing up

(15:56):
to work, that they are drunk all the time. It's
they've been spotted hanging around with some questionable figures. They
might be into some illegal stuff. And now they come
back to us for alone again. And now we say, hey,
I don't have the confidence in you, America that I
used to have, so you're going to have to give

(16:18):
me a higher rate. And that's what happened yesterday on
those tea bills, the ten year treasuries. They had to
offer a higher rate because people were dumping them. When
I say people again, it could be entities. In fact,
there is even a theory that China was dumping them.
You know, China holds a lot of our debt. This
is the other thing. There's a whole world. We can
talk to the economists bottom of the hour about this.

(16:39):
But when Trump saw that, or when his people saw that,
I don't know to what extent Trump understands any of this,
his his people, or he realized, wow, we're in real trouble.
I mean. And then Jamie Diamond showing up on Fox
News Channel yesterday with Maria Bartiromo and and he predicted

(17:01):
a recession and possibly even a depression as a result
of this. I think that panic Trump as well. And
I say, I think that's based on Wall Street journal
reporting and other reporting around what went into this.

Speaker 8 (17:14):
So Trump was asked how he came to change his mind,
and he said, I'd been kicking it around with Descent
and Lutnik over the last couple of days. And then
he said on social media, I think it probably came together.
And he said early this morning, early yesterday morning, fairly
early this morning. Just wrote it up. He said, we
didn't have access to lawyers. We just wrote it up

(17:35):
from our hearts, right it was written from the heart,
and I think it was well written too, but it
was written from the heart. It was written as something
that I think was very positive for the world and
for us. We don't want to hurt countries that don't
need to be hurt. But what that shows me is
that they have no plan.

Speaker 1 (17:51):
Oh that's it.

Speaker 6 (17:52):
They don't They didn't clear anything with lawyers, they didn't
do anything ahead of time.

Speaker 8 (17:56):
The morning of he writes it up from the heart,
and that that's the way it is.

Speaker 6 (18:01):
There's no you know, real well.

Speaker 8 (18:03):
Thought out anything that goes into this, and you can
see that's why it causes chaos exactly.

Speaker 1 (18:10):
I think that that's exactly right. And I think when
he says we didn't have any lawyers involved or whatever,
I you know, there might be some truth to that.
When he says it's a great time to buy and
then he announces a pause, and then, as you've just reported,
he was kicking a pause around with his people, it

(18:32):
makes you wonder if there wasn't a serious amount of
market manipulation going on. I mean, it really opened the
door to the kind of corruption that I think we've
seen this administration, and already in Washington there. You know,
there are many examples of insider trading of a sort.
And the Marjorie Teller Green thing made big news, as

(18:54):
you know, right before the tariffs were imposed, she dumped
a lot of stock. Then you know the uh she
made I think three quarters of a million dollars in
a transaction just in the last week or so. So
in any case, I I think you're right when Kim
is talking about the fact that you know, Trump just

(19:15):
going from his gut and talking to people he's allowing
for and opening the door to the kind of corruption
that is just I think takes the normal every day
Washington corruption to another level. So again, and Schiff.

Speaker 8 (19:32):
Is calling now for an insider trading investigation into the
Trump administration. He said that that whole thing you just mentioned,
it's a great day to buy DJT. That that post
that he made, it's DJT also the ticker symbol for
his company. And so Schiff says he and other Democrats

(19:52):
have sent a letter to the White House asking if
anyone in or around the administration made any financial transactions
knowing that the president was going to pause those.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
Tariffs, well even before he was sworn in with that
meme coin that really opened the door to self dealing
of all sorts. It's a way to money the president,
for Trump to enrich himself, and it's the easiest way
to pay him off is through the meme coin. And

(20:23):
so there is something of a trail of breadcrumbs to
some again, to be polite, some ethical problems with the
way things have been done. But there is no more
cop on the beat. I mean, they've gotten rid of
a lot of the Inspectors General, as you know, but
they've also gotten rid of other systems within government that

(20:47):
would lead to an investigation. Specifically, Pam Bondi is the
Attorney General and she is not going to initiate or
allow the initiation of any serious investigation from the Just
Department on insider trading.

Speaker 6 (21:02):
Did they take a pick axe to the SEC yet?

Speaker 1 (21:06):
They They have taken some moves against the SEC and
the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission in this but you're
right it would be SEC probably in this case. This
is really great that we can talk to these lawyers
and economists at the bottom of the hour and they
can speak to a little bit of this. But the

(21:28):
Securities and Exchange Commission did not immediately respond to a
request for comment and the ethics investigator is it Painter?
Is that I forget his first name, Richard? Maybe it
is it. He's talked about the fact that there's a
scenario here that could expose the president to accusation that

(21:48):
he engaged in market manipulation. Yeah, Richard Painter. He's the
ethics lawyer for former President George W. Bush. He teaches
government ethics and security regulation at University of Minnesota as
a law school. So he's someone that you see on
television occasional, and he's weighed in on this. To me,
they're just all sorts of opportunities for self dealing here,
all kinds of opportunities. And leaving aside the completely rudderless

(22:14):
ship that is sailing toward the horizon with tariffs being
thrown overboard and then onboarded in a completely haphazard manner,
Kim's boyfriend Chris Cuomo was on and here is Chris
Little Chris Cuomo.

Speaker 14 (22:33):
For Kim, the tariff gambit was always going to be okay.

Speaker 1 (22:39):
How they did this was a closely.

Speaker 14 (22:41):
Held move and now we know why, because he knows
he was going to meet resistance. He didn't even know
that graft till he read it at that press conference.
What likely happened here is Trump was pushing tariffs because
he believes in the optics. No matter the economics, they
make him look strong, he is fighting back. He is
doing to them as they do to us, and that's
why he did this. And as with everything else he does,

(23:04):
if he's going to do it, he wants it to
be the biggest, the most, the best. And that's why
it's this crazy list and exaggerated notions of the tariffs.
He didn't really consult the better business minds around him,
which is why Musk may not be the only close
advisor to leave because of this. Be aware he also
didn't warn the other countries. He also didn't warn us,

(23:27):
so the markets cratered. Now his guys are trying after
the fact to architect a plan, and they're leaning into
helping the base, even if it sounds like they're boguarding
the idea from Bernie.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
But justin right, thank you, Albert Lead. The thing to
note here is you can't have it both ways. If
they really were huddling and this was all part of
the plan and a negotiating tactic, and it was all
leverage that the Trump administration had thought out ahead of time,

(24:01):
and this is part of his genius. Then it really
opens the door to insider trading. So you're telling me,
you're going to make the announcement that you're going to
make these across the board reciprocal tariffs that reflect an
insane mathematics that no one can really explain, including you,
the President of the United States, And you're going to

(24:22):
sit with that and let the markets do what they do.
And then you're going to as a negotiating tactic, wait
till everybody seventy five different countries call the one eight hundred,
let's make a deal number at the White House. And
then you're going to announce a pause. And when you
announce the pause, you know that the markets will rebound.

(24:44):
The world markets rebounded. That again sets the table for
all sorts of self dealing and insider trading. This is
leaving a side the payoffs associated with the deal itself
that you want to make with individual countries. So I'm sorry,
I think it's a pay to play administration, and I

(25:05):
think there are numerous opportunities that they set up for
self enrichment way more than they had set up during
the first Trump term, and now what you're seeing on
television from his functionaries, from his surrogates is what a
genius he is and how this is all part of
the plan. Now today, just as we follow the markets,

(25:25):
the markets are all down. We saw three and a
half percent off the S and P. I don't know
what's happening on the Dow, but I mean it's over
I think twelve or thirteen hundred points, So I mean
people are still in this place. When I see people,
I'm talking about business leaders as well as regular American
citizens and then the rest of the world. They're in
a place where we don't really know what's going to happen.

(25:47):
We don't know what the mad King will do. And
because of that, and because there's no coherent strategy articulated
or even reflected in any of his dispositions toward tariffs
and any other economic policy, we pull back. And so
business leaders don't invest, they don't invest in factory build out,

(26:08):
they don't invest in hiring. They're actually shedding many of
their employees. You I was reading a piece yesterday five
different CEOs talking about them. But they've actually had to
cut back employees because they're not sure what's going to happen.
And so for a team, the Trump team that you know,
champions sort of the expansionist view of this Trump strategy

(26:30):
on shoring all of this business. We know it's ridiculous,
but the short term damage is going to be substantial,
and not only to the overall economy, but to you know,
these businesses that he cares so much about. And the
last thing I'll say is about the farmers. Trump talks
about the farmers all the time. Love my farmers, farmers

(26:50):
are great. Well, talk to the farmers, see how they feel.
They just lost one of their great trading partners, China.
A lot of our pro goes to China. A lot
of our agricultural goods goes to China. It's not going
there now. And these farmers, who already are on a

(27:10):
pretty slim margin, are looking at some pretty dark days.

Speaker 15 (27:15):
Now.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
What Trump will do, I'm sure, is what he did
during his first term, which is bail those farmers out.
He'll bail them out with that tariff money. So if
you look at the first Trump term, those again farmers
damaged by tariff policy, damaged by flawed Trump economic policy.

(27:35):
They were reimbursed for their losses by the government out
of the tariff revenue. They'll have to do the same
thing here. But farmers don't want to farm, grow things
and just have it die on the vine, or have
bushels go nowhere and just get checks from the government.

(27:56):
They have pride in what they do. And so the
idea somehow that the farming community is okay with just
getting a subsidy check from the government because of the tariffs.
That's not what farming is about. That's not what American
farmers want. So I think he's going to have to
have a conversation with the agricultural communities a lot of

(28:20):
them are here in California, to really figure out how
to handle that. But they're going to take a big hit,
and they're already taking it, and they're pushing back through
their legislators, who of course have surrendered completely their power
to the chief executive. But that's where we are on this.

Speaker 8 (28:37):
I can I point out that there's more tariffs coming,
that this isn't the end of it, That there's a
whole nother thing that Trump is taking aim at, something
that President Biden tried to make less expensive for people,
and that Trump seems to be hell bent on making
more expensive.

Speaker 1 (28:56):
Yeah, pharmaceuticals is what Kim is talking about, tariffs on pharmaceuticals,
and he is talking about imposing these tariffs on pharmaceuticals.
Quote very shortly he was announcing this yesterday. It's a
little awkward in the middle of the rest of this

(29:18):
tariff mess before the National Republican Congressional Committee. Remember that
was where he was talking about everybody in the world
is kissing my ass, they all want to make a
deal with In the middle of all of that of
his peacocking and kind of drinking in the moment, he
talked about the fact that pharmaceuticals exempt from his first

(29:38):
round of tariffs will be subject to the next round.

Speaker 6 (29:43):
And that's life and death for people.

Speaker 1 (29:46):
Sure, sure, most drugs are produced at least in part
outside the United States and China, India, Europe major players
in that supply chain of pharmaceut So we haven't got
any other details on this. But as Kim mentioned, as
part of the excuse me, the infrastructure plan that Biden

(30:10):
had to put through that huge infrastructure bill, you had
the federal government now able to negotiate prices down on it.
I think it's ten different drugs that has been rolled
back already by executive order from Donald Trump, and now
he's saying he wants to tariff these pharmaceuticals that come
in from overseas. Now you can say, well, Mark, I mean,

(30:34):
we should have these things done domestically, because what if
there is a problem like the COVID crisis and we
need pharmaceuticals here in this country domestically. I get it,
But the supply chain is such and so well established
that the time it would take to on shore all

(30:54):
of these pharmaceutical of factories and the production elements necessary
to get domestic production and pharmaceuticals during that time, as
Kim says, it'll be a life and death thing for
so many Americans.

Speaker 6 (31:06):
What do people do?

Speaker 8 (31:07):
People already are saying that they have fewer or less
access to medical care and that they're having to make
decisions between daily necessities or rent or mortgage or what
have you, and letting their medication go. And so how
does this help that.

Speaker 1 (31:23):
Yeah, in a country where already, as Kim is sort
of noting, you can be driven to bankruptcy because of
the healthcare needs of you or your family. This is
one more reflection of the fact that this president and
this administration doesn't really care about the everyman, even as

(31:44):
they pitch themselves as populists, you know, but he has
articulated this is it. Pharmaceuticals are next. So stay tuned.
I have two big brained people waiting, great guests coming
on by. Hit the like button helps us in the
world of YouTube. Mark Thompson chaw.

Speaker 3 (32:07):
The Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 2 (32:10):
It was great.

Speaker 1 (32:11):
I loved it.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
How would you have this?

Speaker 3 (32:14):
We could try ignore us.

Speaker 2 (32:16):
Sir, mining You cannot say you love your country.

Speaker 4 (32:21):
Where amre weed smokers at stay at home and get
baked right on?

Speaker 1 (32:27):
It just happened this way. We scheduled these two amazing
guests long ago, and it just so happened that these
experts in economics and the law, they are scholars, they
are professors, they show up on this day. It just again,
it's how the calendar worked in our favor. June Carbone

(32:47):
and Bill Black. They are a married couple. All that
great gray matter in one marriage. It's amazing. Yeah. She
June Carbone is the Robina Chair of Law, Science and Technology, Universe,
Minnesota Law School professor, well known for her book Red
Families Versus blue families, political polarization, and the invention of culture.

(33:09):
She also writes about the family, reproductive rights, the family
in politics, and Bill Black is an Associate professor of
Economics in the Law at the University of Missouri and
Kansas City. He is the author of The Best Way
to Rob a Bank Is To Own One. He is
a Distinguished Scholar in Resident for Residents I should say
for financial Regulation University of Minnesota School of Law, and

(33:32):
he teaches a course on crypto. So there's a lot
to talk about. I don't know that we're going to
get it all into this first visit, but hopefully if
this goes well after this first date, we can talk
to them again. I should just mention also that Bill
was involved in a major whistleblower case with the Keeting

(33:52):
five and the whole SNL crisis, So I want to,
if there's time again a touch on that. But how
about it for June Carbone and Bill Black, everybody, Yeah,
and that was just like twenty percent of your credit.
I mean, you two are remarkable and it's such a
pleasure to have you here. So as I say, your

(34:15):
expertise extends across so many different areas. I wonder if
you can just give me a Jetliner view June. And
we're gonna have a link to your book, your latest
book under this video, and we'll touch on that in
a second. But I wonder if you can give me
a jetliner review of where we are in America right now.

Speaker 16 (34:35):
Well, I see where we are at this moment is
the culdination, just not in politics, but in corporate America.
So if you start, you know, if you go back
to the fifties and sixties, the CEO was stewart overseeing
big corporations who served a variety of stakeholder interests, including

(34:59):
the interests of the society and not just the corporation.
Their reviewed is intertwined. Today we're in the era of
CEO as dictator. So Ellen green Span, the former head
of the FED, said in an oral history he celebrated
the CEO as dictator who could break through the bureaucracy,

(35:19):
the bureaucracy of the corporation and affect radical transformation and
by the way, get handsomely paid for doing so, with
the stock market applauding as the ultimate arbiter of value.
And when you watch Elon Musk, I mean our most
recent book Elon Musk was in the introduction, somebody's doing

(35:41):
him for sex discrimination. But all the tactics you see
at DOGE are with Jack Welch, the legendary CEO at
GE did in the eighties, fire a whole bunch of people,
bring in outsiders. The outsiders outflank the old bood, who
are the established interest and gatekeepers of tradition, of understanding,

(36:06):
of expertise, of depth of judgment, to accomplish immediate results
that benefit person. For most the CEO, that's what he's doing.
It's what he did at Twitter, It's what he did
at SpaceX. It is the mindset of the modern successful CEO,
break the rules and get away with it.

Speaker 1 (36:28):
It's just interesting, though, that in an expansive government like
the US government, you have so many experts, as you've
sort of just alluded to, who are critical to the
functioning of this government, who are in this wanton destruction
and dismantling of government sort of lost in the process.
It seems a bit self defeating from a CEO. Help

(36:50):
me square that with his if you look at him
from the sort of CEO profile that you've established, how
does that square with that? I mean it seems at
awe with any kind of success.

Speaker 16 (37:02):
Yes, and again, Silicon Valley epitomizes the new model. You know.
Mark Zuckerberg is famous for saying the business model is
movefast and break things. If you were Tesla, the goal
is to outflank the established ontomovial companies by moving in
and at least attempting to jumpstart the EV market electrical vehicles.

(37:26):
And that means what you're doing is you're bypassing your
bypassing law, you're bypassing securities regulation, You're bypassing a variety
of factors that say go slow, make sure the model works,
make sure it doesn't cause car crashes. The model for
where Tesla was beat production estimates. The point when Tesla's

(37:50):
market valuation made Elon Musk the richest man in the
world was the point where he beat production estimates. And
in that same two week period there was a recall
several hundred thousand, I think Tesla's for product quality issues,
and Musk basically admitted it. He said, yeah, don't play

(38:11):
a Tesla in the first production run, the flaws in
the next production run. And the case we started off
with is a young woman who pointed who discovered the
product quality defects had to fix. They said to her,
you don't want to hear about she was a whistleblower.
She was fired and sexually arrest.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
Yeah. Well, I mean Musk's actual company, Tesla, was a
train wreck in terms of what was going on during
COVID with sexual harassment, with racism. It said, it's in Fremont, California.
We have a lot of our viewers are in the
Bay Area. They're well familiar with it. And so I
guess these things coexist. This guy who is deified and

(38:55):
welcomed into the new administration as this genius of business,
and also the reality of Tesla, which is that he's
living as sort of a on corporate socialism right on
the handouts from the government. Yeah. Yes, Bill, I wanted
just because our time is limited, I wanted to turn

(39:16):
toward also what's happening within this Trump administration. You mentioned
Musk in some of your writings and some of your
teachings because Musk and this, and I have to say
I kind of fell into this category. I think a
lot of us looked at this doze thing before the
Trump administration began, which was just a short time ago.
It seems like it's been a long time, but as

(39:38):
as a kind of way to park Elon Musk in
kind of an advisory role but without any real functional power.
And since DOGE wasn't a real agency, it wasn't really
set up by Congress, it wasn't approved by anybody. And
I fell into that category too. I thought that this
is a way to kind of mollify Musk, you know,
during this period, but they're not going to actually act

(39:58):
on any he can advise. But just the opposite. Of course,
he came through, you know, with his wrecking crew, and
I wonder if you can speak to what has happened
and his role in the administration and how you see
this administration proceeding, particularly when it comes to economic policy
that we've sort of just experienced in this bizarre way

(40:19):
over the last week.

Speaker 15 (40:20):
Yeah, so the administration is a criminal enterprise, and that's
how you have to think about it. So what do
you need? What's your great fear, even if you're president,
if you're running a criminal enterprise, Well, there are laws,
and in America, we can't prosecute you criminally while you're president,

(40:41):
but we can potentially afterwards. And he came very close
to ending up in prison. So what would we like
to get rid of? What threatens us? When we're super powerful,
the most powerful person in the world. Whistleblowers threaten us.
So what did they go after? For the inspector generals

(41:02):
who are the institutionalized whistleblowers, but they also are in
charge of protecting federal workers who blow the whistle, and
Trump had a huge problem with that. So you send
in as you're you know, Schwerpunk, you know the point
of the blitzkrieg, Sure Musk, you haven't cut across all lines.

(41:29):
You give him the ability not just to get rid
of but to disparage.

Speaker 6 (41:36):
Right, So.

Speaker 15 (41:38):
Nobody is honest, nobody's competent. Everybody's incompetent and corrupt that
you're getting rid of. And that's just a label. And
again everybody said it, it's confession. Whatever they charge other
people with is what they're doing. That's one big threat.
What's another big threat? The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act International bribery.

(42:04):
Well that's what they went after as well, and they
stopped enforcing that because Trump is doing all kinds of
foreign deals and so he doesn't want to go to
prison on that. Where are the big financers here is
they're not just musk, but musk is in this category.
They're the crypto bros. Right. We lived in Silicon Valley

(42:25):
for twenty years and you know they're great. Guru David
Friedman was June's colleague at Santa Clara University. So this
is the world we know very well. You know, we
grew up with those kids that are now doing the
sea steading thing of creating your own country on a

(42:45):
ship and failing and such. Well, all of those folks
want to have no regulation. So they've gotten rid of
regulation and they've turned the government into a sponsor of crypto, right,
and they just got rid two days ago when we're

(43:07):
speaking of the FBI Department of Justice section that we're
supposed to deal with crypto frauds, and we're dealing with
it all too effectively because we're seeing that fraud is
absolutely endemic in the form of rug polls, and you know,
and at higher levels with the historic Silicon Valley kid.

Speaker 1 (43:30):
You know, this is not to interrupt, but this is
such a great point that you're making. I just want
to underscore it because you guys do know this area.
I mean, you teach a class on crypto, and you
do come out of this this world. I mean, you
were adjacent to this world, I guess and know it
quite intimately. But what you're talking about, and what I
was amazed by, was the way that this government has

(43:53):
pivoted toward crypto in ways that I never would have expected.
A crypto reserve. I mean, my god, it's it's extraordinary.
And I'll ask you then, Bill, I mean, is crypto
a legitimate investment for the federal government to be involved in.

Speaker 6 (44:09):
No, But it's.

Speaker 15 (44:10):
Also a stupid investment for everybody unless you know, there's
no there there Right, that insult of Oakland that didn't
really apply to Oakland, but it does apply to crypto.
So what do you need? You need purchases, and you
need holding or hoddle as they actually call it in

(44:30):
this world. How you do that? You create a federal
reserve of crypto that will never sall in fact itsself.
In fact, it's issuing statements about criticizing premature sales in
the past of crypto, we seize, the FBI seized in

(44:50):
criminal investigations. In other words, we're going to hold entirely
so we keep up the value of crypto and here's
a prediction of what's going to come next. We're going
to to actually then start buying crypto through Congress. That
will cause the price to surge. And then as Trump
is running record DESKMA sits he's going to reprice our

(45:14):
crypto reserves to market price and the budget deficit will disappear.

Speaker 1 (45:20):
That is just absolutely wild. I mean, I'll need a
whiteboard on that, because that is that's extraordinary, June, what
we've just lived through with the tariff on tariff off,
the across the board tariff, the perverse arithmetic, I'll just
call it, because you really can't find any coherent sort

(45:43):
of computation that leads us to these tariffs that were
imposed for a short time. Give me a thought on this.
Within some of this that we've talked about, as Bill
is characterized, it's sort of a criminal enterprise.

Speaker 2 (46:00):
Sure.

Speaker 16 (46:00):
I mean, what we describe in our book is the shift,
the shift in mindset from institutionalized power to personalized power,
and personalized power is about what can you accomplish to deck.
Sam Walton's mantra was beat yesterday. All that really matters
is can you score points today? And I described this

(46:21):
as life as a video game. You know, one of
the things that mystified me. I used to debate the
Federalist Society. And in the beginning this is you know,
conservative legal theorists, and you know they believed in the ideas,
and the debate was interesting. Now it's about scoring points
at hominem attacks, taking down your opponent. When you look

(46:42):
at how Trump operates now Trump in instinctively, but the
people around him more comprehensively, it's how do I score
points that enhance my personal power today? How do I
embarrass my opponents? How do I uh break the system?
So I walk away from the table intrinsically zero some

(47:06):
transactions with the majority of the benefits. That's the mindset,
and that's a mindset of corruption. It's a mindset that
says the only thing that matters is winning, and winning
in zero sum transactions where embarrassing your opponents is as
good as benefiting yourself.

Speaker 1 (47:24):
And so when you look at the self dealing associated
with this, I mean, you see that the door is
really open then for a self dealing of all sorts. Again,
maybe crypto would be adjacent to this, right the mean
cooin I was talking about it earlier in the first
half hour. That seems like a really clean, a clean
way to siphon money in sort of an untraceable way

(47:45):
to this presidency.

Speaker 16 (47:48):
Yes, but let me emphasize how pervasive this is. So
when in the run up to the election, we had
a conference on my new book, and we had frenzy
new corporate law out on the West Coast, and what
they were describing was how Silicon Valley. I used to
think of startup culture as pernicious but fairly open and competitive.

(48:11):
You know, get out the door, get from zero to
sixty as fast as you can, then move to exit.
Exit is either go public, have your stock publicly traded,
or be taken over a very bigger company. Now you've
got a new book coming out, The Untamed Unicorns. This
is how basically, the ones who are successful, what they

(48:31):
do is they pay off the first round of funders.
Then they get marks to provide the second round of
funding with less control and less guarantee. They don't go
public because the boys, and this group is primarily men,
want to control their own entities pay themselves handsomely. When
the downturn hit, seventy eight percent of startups failed in

(48:54):
twenty twenty three, but women run companies failed less. Why
in part because they pay themselves less. This is a
system that associates personal and grandizement and riches with winning
the game by any means necessary. It's fundamentally lawless. And
crypto is simply the steroids.

Speaker 1 (49:16):
That's fascinating too. And you know, it's just I talk
about the patriarchy a lot on this show or occasionally.
I mean, it's just the patriarchy has existed since the
beginning of time. It existed in religion, it existed in politics,
it's existed in business. It's it's loathsome and what women
have achieved having to overcome this patriarchy in every you know,

(49:37):
cell of every part of American life and worldwide life
is incredible. I mean, what a challenge to have to,
you know, run up that hill. And so to see
it played out kind of with a flex in the
way with these billionaire boys club dudes do it in
the world of Silicon Valley, it is remarkable. By the way,

(49:59):
here's a question for you, Chaplain Fred says the five
dollars super Chat, Thank you guys. Question for mister Bill Black.
Isn't that what Melee was trying to do in Argentina
with the cryptocurrency. Can you speak to that.

Speaker 15 (50:11):
Yes, it's exactly what he was doing. And we have
an Argentine near child who lived with us for five years,
so we follow the Argentine stuff actually quite closely. So
this was a classic. It's called a rug poll in
which you get some famous figurehead to in this case,

(50:35):
you know, it doesn't get better than the president of
the country and in his case a PhD economist to
be the face guy, and then you issue the stuff.
The insiders have ninety five percent of all the crypto.

(50:55):
They sell within the first sometimes nano seconds, but you know,
always within the first hour, and they take all the
money and everybody who comes in trying to make a
killing loses everything.

Speaker 1 (51:12):
Yeah, I mean that was noted in the chat. Is
thought of in stocks as a pump and dump, right
is it sort of the same thing.

Speaker 15 (51:22):
It is the same scheme brought to the crypto world,
except where a pump and dump often occurred over months,
this one occurs frequently in portions of.

Speaker 1 (51:35):
A second within this environment. This is a follow up
from Chaplain and Fred from earlier talking about Marjorie Taylor
Green and the fact that you know a lot of
Washington legislators have gotten rich with insider trading. There's a
lack of regulation in this area. You know, if you
want it to be a reporter for CNBC, let's say,
you know, a financial news channel, they make you put

(51:57):
everything in a trust or they make it, you know,
in a blind true US, they don't let you trade stocks.
We don't have those same restrictions on senators and representatives
and and so do this question. What I'm still baffled
is what Marga Tylergreen does with so much money? Greed
has no end and what can we do? And what

(52:18):
can we do? It looks like we're going the wrong direction, guys,
and you've both of you spoken to the way that
we still do have some power to, you know, stem
the tide of this corruption. But it does appear as
though it's achieved a kind of momentum that it's a
bit scary. Yeah.

Speaker 15 (52:35):
As a federal regulator, I couldn't have anything to do.
I couldn't even get a mortgage and obviously competitive normal
terms from any entity that we regulated. We allow members
of Congress to get confidential information briefings all the time,

(52:55):
and then they and their spouses trade on it. And
this is not just Republicans, right. This was the very
top of the House on the Democratic side, with the
Democrat saying no, no, no, my husband should be allowed
to trade on insider information because he should be able

(53:18):
to enjoy the fruits of capitalism. I'm teraphrasing, but it's
pretty close to a quote.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
No, it's not a party specific thing. At least it
hasn't been to this point at all.

Speaker 15 (53:28):
So the Democrats need to get to you know, come
to Jesus on this, right, this is bullshit. You cannot
allow this. It is pure corruption. Everybody sees that it's
pure corruption. Just stop doing it and make a point
that no one will be allowed in the Democratic caucus

(53:49):
who can do this, and that they will every year
sponsor legislation saying you cannot trade on insider information. And
like with CEOs, there's only a limited time period where
you're allowed to trade your stocks and you have to
have a plan so that it's you know, done in advance,

(54:12):
so that's not based on insider information for how you're
going to make sales.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
That's interesting that the notion that the Democrats could do
it unilaterally, that the Unity as a party, it's like, Hey, Okay,
you can't get legislation passed, but you guys can all
adhere to an ethical rule of law that you all
follow and in that way distinguish yourself from the rest
of these thieves.

Speaker 15 (54:36):
God forbid moral leadership.

Speaker 1 (54:39):
Put June's book up there, if you would please, Albert
Fairshake Women and the Fight to Build a Just Economy.
You wrote this with Naomi Khan and Nancy Levitt, And
as I was mentioning before, this billionaire boys club that
has taken over Washington aims to be reflective of maybe

(55:02):
what's happening not only in Silicon Valley, but what I
think women have had to deal with for so long,
and you know, within the economy, and I guess it's
documented in the book. I've yet to get the book,
and I will I make you this pledge right now,
And as I say, there'll be a link to the
book underneath this video. But I guess you know, we

(55:22):
know that women just have a much tougher climb within
the business community and also just when it comes to compensation,
Historically women have been wildly under compensated compared to men.

Speaker 16 (55:35):
So what we show in the book, and indeed we
were just surprised to discover is when we started, we
were aware from our last week on the Family that
men have been the big winners and the big losers
in this economy, but women college graduates, the big winners.
Among women have lost ground compared to male college graduates
since the nineties. And we thought we'd find a bunch

(55:58):
of different stories, you know, usual unconscious bias, et cetera. No,
what we found is women are the canaries in the
coal mint. The more the system is based on breaking
the rules and getting away with it, the farther women
fall behind. We started with Walmart class biggest class action
in US history, went to the US Supreme Court. What

(56:21):
we discovered is all the factors that Sam Walton admitted
disadvantaged women, optimized wage theft. What the game was was
cheating workers out of the money to which they are
entitled because of overtime, because of minimum labor standards, et cetera.
And the way to act illegally and get away with

(56:43):
it is not to have your fingerprints on it. So
you incentivize the story managers to break the law without
corporate management being responsible. And when you do that, you
want men. You want men who are callous, who are amoral,
who are willing to move on short notice, who put
the job ahead of everything else. And women almost inevitably

(57:06):
lose in that kind of environment, not because there are
women who will do it, there are, but because the
men don't trust women to break the rules and get
away with it.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
That's just fascinating too, that it's when you're looking for
somebody to sort of enforce on your behalf, you need
to find guys who are you know, not all guys.
I mean, you know your husband, me and you know
we're the goodies. But there are there, and they're ultimately frankly,

(57:36):
you're economically incentivized in the environment that you just described
to help out, to help out with whatever you're being
asked to do, isn't that right?

Speaker 16 (57:42):
You You want the guys who are working for dose
thank you, yeah, and putting in very large expense accounts
and salary demands, and they're immoral.

Speaker 1 (57:54):
I want to quickly shift again because of our time
being so limited to apparently word out of the Treasury
Secretary Scott Bessen. And you know it's funny. I always
say this to everyone because I think it's so true.
Bessont knows better than this. Bessant knows this is crazy,
he knows he's working for a mad king, but he
has to go out and rep the genius of the

(58:17):
mad king. In any case, this is his latest. He
says he won't rule out the possibility of delisting Chinese
stocks on US exchanges. In an interview with Fox Business,
Besson's saying everything is on the table when it comes
to ongoing trade tensions between China and the US, as
Washington Beijing exchange retaliatory and exorbitant tariffs. As you know,

(58:38):
he said, ultimately, though, it'll be President Trump's decision. Can
you speak to me about the economics of that bill.
What would happen if in that chess move where you
delist Chinese stocks from the US exchanges?

Speaker 15 (58:52):
Yeah, So this is actually very interesting, and we may
not have enough times. All speak very quickly. No Chinese
comepany could honestly meet US SEC standards. So the very
fact that they're listed on the US exchange is an abuse.
So it depends where you pick your starting position on

(59:14):
all of this. So more generally, you're asking what happens
in a trade war, and the answer in a trade
war between two of the biggest to the two biggest
economies in the world. Is a catastrophe for the world.
It's that's the short answer.

Speaker 1 (59:35):
It's true too that they hold a ton of our debt,
and can you speak to the effect of that on
all of this.

Speaker 15 (59:44):
Yeah, that's actually far less important than you're gonna think
if you listen to the conventional business types. Actually they
don't understand modern monetary theory at all, and so their
predictions are almost always wrong about that. That the dollar

(01:00:06):
will not collapse because of this, although Trump can do
other things.

Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
Trump can weaken the dollar.

Speaker 15 (01:00:14):
We're in the first month and a half. Yea Trump
to destroy our economy.

Speaker 1 (01:00:20):
Trump in service of trying to balance whatever real balance
or just his perceived balance of trade I'm talking about,
he could deliberately weaken the dollar to try to do that. Couldn't.

Speaker 15 (01:00:32):
Yeah, here's the forty five second version. These tariffs on
China are vastly higher than smoot Holly, which was one
of the major factors producing the Great Depression. The era
that Trump claims was the bestest the Gilded Age, from
the eighteen seventies to the beginning of World War One.

(01:00:55):
In fact, the United States in that fifty year period
was in recession more than half the time, and there
was no safety net at all for people, and so
tons of people simply died as a result of this.
But there were record profits and record monopolization, and that

(01:01:20):
is the era he views as the greatest ever and
wants to bring back. It would be a nightmare, not
just for the United States, but because we are the
world's largest economy, it will be a nightmare for the world.
Whatever you dislike about Biden, and I think there were
a number of ways dislike. We didn't simply have the

(01:01:43):
best economy of any major country in the world. We
had the economy that was the only serious engine working
effectively to bring much of Europe and much of the
Third World out of the Great Recession. That's how important

(01:02:04):
and how successful it was. Now, there are all kinds
of other problems that you often explore, and you know,
we're big allies of David K. By the way, a
national treasure.

Speaker 2 (01:02:18):
Treasure David K.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
Johnston.

Speaker 15 (01:02:19):
Sure so your listeners and viewers are getting a really
good introduction plant plus advanced study of these problems.

Speaker 1 (01:02:34):
June, let me just ask you then, as we wrap
up here, I'm going to ask you a real, uh
to extend this kind of bizarre, almost Stephen King type
notion about what could happen because of the debt, and
Bill just said, hey, you can that debt thing could
be amplified too much and you can make too much
of a deal of that. But in this tit for

(01:02:57):
tat and the kind of bruised ego and weird oversteering
that the mad King is doing, I'm wondering if he
couldn't declare the debt on some level, like you know,
he makes up these declarations so we could come up
and concoct with whatever decoration you want. Is there a
way that we could just not honor that debt or

(01:03:19):
decide to discount it in some way or would that
be so destabilizing to our ability to sell treasuries worldwide
that it would be unthinkable.

Speaker 16 (01:03:29):
I'm going to leave debt to Bill and get more
at the psychology what he's doing, which is for Trump
to think of Trump is like a feudal lord or
word lord in some ungovernable part of the world. What
matters is power, What matters is best in your opponent

(01:03:49):
today tomorrow will all be dead. What you just described
the fabric of the rule of law as the foundation
of the global economy. Global economy built in the image
and likeness of the United States is in many ways intangible.
It is based on trust, it is based on a
degree of honor. Those qualities have no role in Trump world,

(01:04:15):
so he's quite willing to sacrifice them, and so law
rules simply become tools that you use to undermine your opponent.
But if sacrificing them today benefits you, you do it.
And the fact that your casinos are going to go
bankrupt tomorrow, well so be it. Then you get the

(01:04:35):
Russians to bail you out through money laundering. I mean,
you know, there are all kinds of schemes you can
adopt to survive individually, but the global order institutions the economy.
The fate of the people are hurt in this economy,
whose social security and other benefits will be cut off
by Doge do not matter and Bill.

Speaker 1 (01:04:57):
Just to circle back around to where we kind of
started without cops on the beat, when you hear Adam
Schiff and others come out and say we want to
investigate the possibility of stock manipulation and insider trading as
a result of the on again, off again tariffs and
then the run up in the market. It's really sadly

(01:05:18):
just politics because there are no more cops on the beat.
I mean the Pam Bondi runs the Justice Department. There'll
be no follow up that will really matter. You've had
so much, I ask you, because you've had real experience
with whistleblowers and the law and how it can change history.
But I don't know that we would see that same
kind of narrative here.

Speaker 15 (01:05:40):
Well, you will produce two things from criminology that be
useful for your viewers. One is a Gresham's dynamic. A
Gresham's dynamic is when you gain a competitive advantage by cheating,
and in that case, bad ethics drives good ethics out
of the market took place, and the result is catastrophic.

(01:06:04):
The second one is from an obscure except to economists,
very very conservative French economist Bastiat, who warned the following,
when plunder becomes a way of life for men in society,
they create a law that allows it and a moral

(01:06:25):
code that glorifies it. That's where we're headed.

Speaker 1 (01:06:30):
Wow, that's so disturbing in the extreme, you know, and
I think you're so right, both of you to point
to the fact that you know, these laws and these
markets are sort of understandings between people. They are there's
a framework that we all kind of agree to. You know.
I remember reading that book Sapiens, and one of the

(01:06:52):
things that is pointed out in that book is what
distinguishes us from other creatures is not intellect. We always
think of ourselves as as smart, aren't, But these other
creatures have all the intellect they need for the world
in which they are occupying. But that we agree on
a certain system, that we agree on a certain even

(01:07:12):
the notion of branding, you like, how we value some
airme's bag or whatever. We all sort of have stipulated
the fact that that's of value. So anyway to bring
it to this, you both have noted that we all
are parties to a system that depends on us essentially
being honest dealers to all of this. And the minute

(01:07:33):
we enter into this world that is full of dishonest dealers,
you end up with the kind of situation that we
have now, and it's chaos. And in the next few years,
I mean, how does America emerge from all of this?
Do we even game it out? I mean, June, do
you have a thought on where we end up.

Speaker 16 (01:07:53):
Yes, so I argue, this is not so different from
the Gilded Age. Yeah, the rise of industrialization. It broke
through the constraints of a well ordered society. And what
tamed it was too world wars and the Great Depression.
And at that point the capitalists had been discredited at Franklin.

(01:08:15):
Roosevelt stepped into the gap and recreated a system based
on the ideas of the progressive era that you needed
the state to counter the power or of industry which
was out of control. We are at a similar point
in history. The difference is in the industrial era the
capitalists needed their workers. Today Elon Musk, you know, if

(01:08:38):
he walks in, he routinely fires, even at Tesla, a
large number of employees whenever they become too expensive. So
the harder the crash, the easier it is to discredit
the fascists. But then you need something new. And the
something new the key to Roosevelt is the assertion of power.

(01:09:01):
Ninety percent marginal tax rates and unionization, which reached its
peak in the United States in nineteen forty five, started
declining almost immediately with the end of the war. Were
the keys to the creation of the power of the
New Deal to reorder in the industrial economy. That's what

(01:09:22):
we need, and discrediting the new round of fascists is
the first step.

Speaker 1 (01:09:28):
So you're saying from the ashes, maybe discrediting the new
round of fascists happens, but you have to there's a
lot of carnage. It sounds like in the interim.

Speaker 16 (01:09:39):
It is about the reassertion of power, that power, the
command's authority, because it is just Obama's biggest mistake was
not prosecuting the people responsible for the great financial crisis.
I think we will see a comparable crisis.

Speaker 1 (01:09:58):
And wasn't that the game? I mean, didn't you didn't
that just reveal the game? Yeah?

Speaker 16 (01:10:05):
Yeah, you've got to discredit the king.

Speaker 1 (01:10:08):
Yeah. Yeah. You guys have written so eloquently and prolifically
on these things, some of which we've talked about and
some of which we will, I hope talk about in
another visit. I really have enjoyed this. Professors Judne Carbone
and Bill Black, such great scholars on the economy and
the law, and as it turns out, a dash of

(01:10:29):
crypto thrown in as a pleasant surprise. Thank you for that. Bill.
Please put up June's book again. If you will, we'll
have a link to it. It is called Fair Shake,
Women and the Fight to Build a Just Economy Again.
She wrote it with Naomi Khan and Nancy Levitt and
it's available now. And as I say, we'll have that link.

(01:10:49):
We I feel like this first date went very well.
I hope that we'll be seeing each other again.

Speaker 16 (01:10:57):
We would like that too.

Speaker 1 (01:10:58):
Okay, good deal, just double checking Bill June. Thank you.
I look forward to the next time. I really appreciate it,
all right, see you guys. Thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:11:11):

Speaker 1 (01:11:17):
Good stuff. Wow, some provocative stuff. Man. Thank you for
the esteemed guests, says Maud Day. Yeah, how about those
esteem guests. Thank you for a twenty five dollars a
super chat. I appreciate you, Maud Yeah, really really great.
I could talk to them all day. God. It reminds

(01:11:37):
me of being in school when you had a really
smart professor who could communicate effectively. It was like the
greatest thing. You just looked forward to it. Wow. Yeah,
thank you both for for being here again. Uh Mago,
won't get won't be happy until their mothers get sick,
says Rob. He pushed his own dj T business before

(01:12:02):
the crash yesterday exactly when he thank you Kieran O'Connor
for that, when he uh, you know, exclaimed on social
media platforms, you know by dj T. I mean that
was again, it's hard to find the trail of breadcrumbs,

(01:12:22):
and that would be normally something that Justice Department would
be involved in. But the Justice Department is owned and
operated by Donald Trump. So but speaking of Justice, I'll
get to David Katz in a moment. I'm going to
ask you, Albert, do I need to do anything before
I get to David Katz?

Speaker 5 (01:12:40):
Do we have we had the second round of our.

Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
Second round of Mark? Can you update Mars madness now? Please? Albert?
Will you update where Marks Madness? Where are we? Albert?
On the first round of.

Speaker 4 (01:12:55):
I think what's what we anticipated is is playing out.

Speaker 1 (01:12:58):
Oh, I blame you is going to crush.

Speaker 5 (01:13:01):
Well early in the voting.

Speaker 4 (01:13:03):
But I think AOC, which is the other favorite, AOC
baby Girl is the one that's okay.

Speaker 1 (01:13:07):
Yeah again it's AOC A girl, Baby Girl. Don't even play.
I believe that's the uh oh.

Speaker 4 (01:13:14):
Girl, baby girl, Yeah, don't even play.

Speaker 1 (01:13:17):
It's up against we could try ignore it. Sir, and
so try ignoring it has made it all the way
to the Elite eight, but doesn't look like you.

Speaker 4 (01:13:26):
Can't ignore the eighty percent that is going for AOC
baby girl at this time.

Speaker 1 (01:13:32):
Yeah yeah, Now the other one was the one I mentioned,
which is h which is playing off today also marks madnight.
You'll vote until midnight tonight Pacific three a m. Eastern
for one of these two drops. Either I blame you
or it's a wild idea but just might well. Again,

(01:13:55):
either vote for I blame you, I blame.

Speaker 3 (01:13:58):
You or wild idea but just well or.

Speaker 1 (01:14:02):
A wild idea I blame you or wild idea. This
is gonna send us to the finals. Good luck. I
don't know, Albert. I'm I'm seeing an AOC versus I
blame you. That's the way I handicap this.

Speaker 4 (01:14:20):
At this point, I think I think we can all
see it. So we'll just look forward to how the
final will go.

Speaker 5 (01:14:26):
I think we can already.

Speaker 4 (01:14:27):
I know it's too early to call, but yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:14:33):
All right, let's let's do some business of the of
the legal kind.

Speaker 3 (01:14:40):
Mark Thompson show.

Speaker 1 (01:14:41):
This man is one of the great legal analysts in
the English speaking world. You hear him on morning radio
in London. You hear him on New Zealand and Australian television,
and then of course on News Nation and on the
Fox News Channel and on television stations across America. We're
so glad and great full that he makes time for

(01:15:01):
us on Thursdays. He's the great defense attorney formerly a
federal prosecutor. David Katz Everyone, Yeah, David, it's been a
busy time for Scotus for the law. I thought the
Associated Press ruling was kind of an interesting one that

(01:15:23):
Scotish basically said, hey, you can't bar the Associated Press
from the White House on basic first Amendment.

Speaker 2 (01:15:35):
Well, I'm not sure that one went all the way.

Speaker 1 (01:15:37):
It wasn't Scotus. Yeah, I'm sorry. I went to the
sorry excuse me, correction.

Speaker 2 (01:15:40):
It was a district court judge. And of course we
love to we love to look at this. He was
appointed by Trump the first Trump go round. He's in Washington,
d C. And he basically said that even for these
non public places like the Air Force one and like
at the White House, yes they're non public, but if
you're going to give access to the press, you have

(01:16:02):
to not have viewpoint discrimination. So some reporting service or
wire service that takes a different viewpoint from yours. That
would violate the First Amendment if you excluded them as
president from either Air Force One or the White House.
And so that put the Associated Press back on an
even par with anyone else. It didn't assure them that

(01:16:25):
they would get a favored position, but it assured them
that they would not get a disfavored treatment on account
of the fact that their viewpoint was different. And their
viewpoint difference. You have to say, because this is also
comical with Trump. They insist on calling it, as have
geographers and map makers for hundreds of years, the Gulf
of Mexico. Trump insists on calling it the Gulf of America,

(01:16:49):
and for that calling it the Gulf of Mexico. Now,
people may ask, well, don't the New York Times don't
reporting services also called the Gulf of Mexico. They sure do.
But the AP has a style book, which is extremely
important and persuasive, and Trump was trying to bully them
into changing the style book, and they kept at the

(01:17:09):
Gulf of Mexico. So they're back on equal footing. Thank goodness.
Their lawyers spent the money to do that, and they're
just a great news organization, and it was just really
reprehensible that they were treated so poorly, shabbily and discriminated against.
Now they won't be.

Speaker 1 (01:17:27):
The other thing that arose this week was this question
of the jurisdiction of judges. And this is something that
we had touched on in your last visit, because when
a judge rules against you, you really question the system
of judge ships. And so in the case of this administration,

(01:17:48):
when judges were ruling to block temporary injunctions against for example, deportations, etc.
These are not being These are done by federal judges
across the spectrum geographically. That is, you know, as you
pointed out, the Texas judges tend to you know, you
can judge shop for the judges that will rule for you,

(01:18:10):
and you can judge a shop on the opposition can
for the judges that will go against the administration. So
in this case, it was surprising to me that the
House Republicans actually have approved this bill limiting the reach
of federal judges. Can you just speak to.

Speaker 2 (01:18:26):
This well, Mark, it's quite hypocritical, but it's worth for
just a couple of minutes of background. You know, when
Trump a first time around imposed the Muslim ban when
he came into office a Muslim from you know, a
person from a majority Muslim country. I think that was
more of it. Whether you were from any of these
six or seven Muslim countries, countries that had I guess

(01:18:50):
Islam as their official religion, or that were identified as
quote Muslim countries, if you were from one of them,
you couldn't come into any airport in America. You couldn't
come into America. And so if you were going to
challenge that, you see, you could really go anywhere in America.
So from the right wingers point of view, well, of course,
the people against the Muslim ban went right to the
San Francisco Bay Area and got a liberal judge from

(01:19:12):
the San Francisco Bay Area to say that it was illegal.
And if it was illegal for Trump to bar entry
into the United States anywhere, that was illegal, Well, why
shouldn't she make I think it was a she. Why
shouldn't that judge make a nationwide injunction? Why should you
have to go airport to airport? Now? Likewise, when the
shoe was on the other foot with the Republicans, you know,

(01:19:35):
there's a medical abortion pill, which is the way that
most women in America have abortions these days by taking
this very safe and effective pill. So when the right
wingers wanted to ban it, where did they go? Amarillo, Texas.
They found a district was worse than the Bay Area.
They knew exactly what judge they were going to get,
because there's only one judge in that little division of

(01:19:57):
that district, and he was from some by Bible banger
organization gotten on the court, you know, fifty one forty
nine by all Republican votes. They knew exactly where to
take it. And he issued a nationwide injunction against that pill.
People freaked out, and that was actually taken up through
the so called emergency docket, and the US Supreme Court

(01:20:19):
took out of effect his nationwide injunction. So even though
he ruled that way, and that was the ruling in
that district or division in Texas, it was not the
ruling throughout the country because it wasn't made nationwide. And
then McConnell said something very interesting. Senator McConnell, he said,
you know, you Republicans don't get it. You're trying to

(01:20:40):
do something about this problem. When they tried to do
something a year ago. We like these tiny little districts
where we know who the judge is going to be
and we can judge shop our right wing causes to
mark these judges. We know who we're going to get,
we know how they're going to rule. And of course,
if you're one of the people who is for the
medical abortion pill being disseminated and who knows that it's

(01:21:01):
safe and that there's no reason under the law to bart,
this is an outrage, this judge shopping. Well, guess what
now that Biden is not an office anymore, and Biden
is not the one issuing executive orders, but Trump is. Now.
The Republicans have suddenly decided that one of America's great
problems is this judge shopping and finding these judges who
issue these nationwiine injunctions. And they don't want any more

(01:21:24):
nationwine injunctions. Before there's going to be a nationwide injunction,
they say there has to be a three judge court,
and that's a normal solution. I wrote a law review
article about that when I was on a California law
review about in foreign affairs cases there should be a
three judge court. Generally, it's cumbersome. You know, to get
three judges together and all this kind of stuff. It's

(01:21:45):
probably easy to do it this way. Have one district
judge and then if you don't like it, you run
right up to the Court of Appeals and then you
do get three judges three appella judges to review it.
So this three judge court seems to be we do
it in some way call multi district cases. But it's rare.
It's not going to be enacted by the country because
the Senate is going to have a filibuster of sixty

(01:22:06):
votes and they're never going to have sixty votes. But
you know, all of these you know Tea party types,
these right wing types in the House, now they have
a new cause celebra nationwide injunctions against Trump policies.

Speaker 1 (01:22:19):
Yeah, as you say, the Senate will, it'll die. But
it's interesting to me that they would even you know,
that it would pass the House is extraordinary, I think
maybe not within this environment.

Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
As you say, four votes, Mark, it's one of those
two eighteen to.

Speaker 1 (01:22:31):
Fourteen yeah so' and as you say, it's a cast
celebt for them. There is something that went up to
Scotis and it was regarding the firing of federal employees.
Can you speak to this. They rule that they essentially
the reinstatement of federal employees, which had been I guess

(01:22:51):
ruled upon by a less a lower court scotis overruled that.

Speaker 2 (01:22:59):
So in this summer of nineteen eighty mark during the
Carter administration, I was there in Washington, d C. Played
on a softball team at the Department of Justice with
a brilliant and hard hitting lawyer, William Alsop, who went
on to be a US district judge in the San
Francisco Bay area. And William Alsop got this case at random.

(01:23:20):
It was by these probationary employees, and he said, there's
just no rationality to this. A probationary employee, first of all,
isn't somebody who's been there a week or two. There's
people who've been there a year, a year and a half,
some of them have outstanding performance reviews. It is simply
irrational and against the law to suddenly terminate sixteen thousand

(01:23:41):
of these employees because they're quote probationary employees from six
different agencies, one of them is the Department of Defense.
So he ruled that they had to be reinstated because
it was the San Francisco Bay area and went up
to our West Coast Appellate court, the Ninth Circuit. The
Ninth Circuit affirmed him and said, yes, that order goes
into effect. You have to reinstate those sixteen thousand people.

(01:24:02):
That's what went up to Scotis, and Scotis reversed that
and did not reinstate the people. It doesn't mean that
they won't be reinstated one.

Speaker 3 (01:24:11):
Of these days.

Speaker 2 (01:24:11):
It doesn't mean that under some different legal theory mark
they won't be reinstated. But under this order they will
not be reinstated because the US Supreme Court said that
they didn't show that on the merits they were going
to win. And there's another question of whether they have
to go not to a US district judge, but they
have to go to like the US Court of Claims,

(01:24:32):
or to go to some other court which handles these
you know what am I trying to say? Or these
personnel matters.

Speaker 1 (01:24:40):
And so that's jurisdictional, Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 2 (01:24:43):
Yes, the US Supreme Court said that it was jurisdictional
and it shouldn't be there. And on top of that,
also that the particular plaintiffs didn't have standing. Now this
has really mystified people why they don't have standing, because
I understand that they're the labor unions that represent these
sixteen thousand and people. Some of them may not have
labor unions that represent them. When I was at the

(01:25:05):
Department of Justice, we never had a labor union. The
DA's have a labor union. That's one reason they could
stand up to Gascone the way they did and not
get scared about being fired because they really have workplace
protections in a way that they don't in the you know,
in the FBI does not have a union, or all
these security agencies like maybe the Department of Defense are

(01:25:27):
not allowed to have a union. But there ought to
be somebody who stands up for those workers if it's
got to be some kind of union. So people are saying, well,
wait a second, that's going to bar them from ever
challenging it in the courts if they're labor union representatives
or people who speak for them even though they don't
have a union. If they can't speak up for these
workers who are fired, these probationary federal employees, you know,

(01:25:50):
they're they're left without a remedy because they're left without
a key to the courthouse door. So people are really
mystified by that. And the other thing is it's not
inside baseball, because this case matters too. Five of these
six agencies are also bringing suit in Maryland in the
US District Court in Maryland. That judge ruled the same
way that they had to be reinstated. Okay, So the

(01:26:12):
Bay Area one also reinstates the Department of Defense people.
The Maryland one reinstates the folks had five other agencies
also covered in the San Francisco Bay Area case. That
case went to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
just overturned that judge two to one. So you figured
that case ought to go to the US Supreme Court,

(01:26:33):
and the US Supreme Court the other shoe may be
about to drop on that whole issue of reinstating these
probationary employees to the tune of over ten thousand human beings.
But we're really in limbo trying to figure out is
the Fourth Circuit case now going to go to the
Supreme Court? Are they going to have standing those folks there?
And then we can pretty much ignore the case here

(01:26:54):
because even if that case is worthless, the one from
the San Francisco Bay five of the six agents and
see folks will be reinstated if that case goes to
the US Supreme Court from the Fourth Circuit in Maryland
and if they have standing. So we're waiting and.

Speaker 1 (01:27:08):
Seek so just to run that out. Then these people
are still out of work, yes, but and they kind
of just have to linger there they're waiting. I mean,
so you know, I think during this time they're languishing
in this we don't know kind of world, what our
future is going to be, whether we get back to
government or not. Many of them are probably turned off
by the whole thing to begin with. I mean, they

(01:27:30):
know that the government tried to fire them.

Speaker 2 (01:27:32):
If they go to that personnel court, of course, the irony,
like so many of the stupid, heedless things that Trump
does and musk, they would get back pay, so they
would do no work. Okay, fifteen thousand of them, we
would get no work out of them, right, and meanwhile
they would get back pay for all of that time
that they.

Speaker 1 (01:27:49):
Weren't work right on brand for Trump, right exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:27:52):
You know what what Trump hopes to do with all
of this, okay, is not cut the federal budget anyone
who believes that they've really missed the show. The show
is patronage. The show is the old spoils system. The
show is to hire patriots a la Trump for all
of those jobs and to do just what they used
to do in the big cities, and just what they
did before the reforms by Eisenhower of the federal system,

(01:28:16):
which was to the victor, go the spoils, and you
hire all the Trumpsters, all the maga maniacs, to all
these jobs that used to be held by the deep state.
Except the maga maniacs on the best day don't have
the experience, don't have the expertise that the people who
they're getting rid of have. And that's too even a probationary.
People some of whom, as I say Mark, have been

(01:28:37):
around for many months, have high performance reviews. So the
idea that there's some apprentice who just came in has
no idea what they're doing. No, these are all experienced people,
almost all of them high performance reviews, are doing a
great job. They're going to be bounced out, and Trumpsters
are going to be bounced in.

Speaker 1 (01:28:52):
So well said, I mean the fact that it's a
misnomer probationary because they're not under contract or government, and
so that's the reason they can be discharged so so quickly.

Speaker 2 (01:29:00):
But as you said, it's a new thing, Mark, I
was never a probationary employee at any of the jobs
that I had in government. It's kind of a new thing.

Speaker 1 (01:29:08):
Yeah, I guess it's when you're hired during this first
two years they consider you under this sort of probationary umbrella.
But yeah, I wasn't familiar with it either until Mark.

Speaker 2 (01:29:18):
Our commitment was for three years, so we went from
we went almost from the end of probation if it's
over two years, to the end of our commitment. A
lot of people like myself, Adam Shiff, you know, we
stayed for a lot more than three years. You got
much more interesting work as you stayed long.

Speaker 1 (01:29:32):
Adam Shift wasn't on your softball team when you were playing.

Speaker 2 (01:29:36):
Adam is a very good tennis player, and he had
other folks that he played tennis without on the West Side,
and I wasn't one of his favorite tennis partners. But
as I said, I did, for a moment in time,
I did supervise him on a case. That's what will
be on my tombstone. Supers.

Speaker 1 (01:29:52):
All right, let me get back to the Supreme Court.
Let me let me get to the Supreme Court. And
this notorious Salvador and Megaprison, these people, you know, plucked
out of American life and dropped into this mega prison
under this eighteenth century law. Can you speak to the

(01:30:17):
Supreme Court on this issue of and you know, the
reason I'm halting a bit is that I do think
I'm sure some of these guys were maybe many of
these guys were A gang members, but we know at
least three and maybe as many as seventy two of
those who were deported were not necessarily gang members, and
so they were kind of just plucked and included in

(01:30:39):
this deportation. Not to mention the fact that the judges
ordered to stop the deportation and to reverse the planes.
It came in time before they had actually arrived in
El Salvador. And now we're hearing nothing we can do
in any case. The Supreme Court has now weighed in
on this. Can you speak to that?

Speaker 2 (01:30:56):
Well, there is the contempt piece, and a contempt piece
is that there are three planes that are taking off
from Texas within the United States, and the matter is
supposed to happen all before any judge could possibly react.
The order is issued kind of secretly Friday night. They're
going to be on a plane Saturday. But the pro

(01:31:17):
bono attorneys for these plaintiffs, for these would be deportees,
are really on the ball. They learn what's going on,
They file an emergency motion, they get a hearing on
Saturday before this chief Judge Bosburg, who's an old friend
of Kavanaughs. This idea that he's some big lefty not
at all. He's a friend of Kavanaughs from Yale who

(01:31:37):
got picked for the Superior Court first by a Republican
I think it was Bush by W by w and
then he got picked for the District Court in Washington,
d C. Which is also part of the federal system.
In Washington, d C. He got picked up by a Democrat.
But you know, here's someone who, like the judge that
I clerked for back there, who was first approved of

(01:31:59):
the Superior Court by a Republican president and then improved
because he was such a good judge, moderate intelligent, he
got picked for the US District Court. So anyway, this
Bosberg wanted to get to the bottom of it, so
he said look, while we're taking a look at this,
everybody stopped turn the planes around. So it looks like
what happened was that the government did not turn two

(01:32:21):
of the planes around. They defied his order, and a
third plane took off from Texas even though he said
that this has to stop until we take a hard
look at it. This is what they've stonewalled the judge about.
They didn't answer questions straight on. Apparently they've now if
I had this right, they've I think fired the Department

(01:32:41):
of Justice has fired or demoted or dismissed the two
attorneys that are responsible for this litigation. And I think
that's because not because they did a bad job, but
from what I understand, because they didn't tow the Trump
line enough. When the judge is I don't know what's
going on, I don't understand it. How come you can't
do something about gets us back from El Salvador. Instead

(01:33:02):
of towing the line, they were like, well, we don't
understand it either. We've asked our superiors what on earth
is going on. They were sympathetic to the judge's question,
as they think any intelligent advocate for the government would
have been in that situation. Anyway, they weren't trumpy enough,
is what I understand. We have to all follow that
story and see what happens. But that would be quite
a story because the fellow that they've apparently dismissed has

(01:33:25):
already distinguished himself for taking really trumpy positions the first
Trump administration. He was the big advocate for the government
for the Muslim band. So boy, his chickens would have
come home to roost, all of those super loyalists for
trumble yet ready, mad, the leash is very short. You're
spanking people today and you're getting spanked by Trump tomorrow.

(01:33:46):
It looks like that may be the story with those
two anyway. So that's the contempt piece of it. And
now the government has said that these are state secrets.
Whether planes are taking off from Texas are barely state secrets.
So though they've taken off weeks before, we've already lampooned
the fact that they're talking about war plans that are
evident on a group chat, but this is apparently something

(01:34:08):
that has to be kept as a state secret. Anyway,
the case has gone up to this Supreme Court and
they've said, sensibly, Mark, this is what I understand that
they've done, although they haven't granted any relief yet that
really matters. But they have made the obvious point that
there has to be due process before people are deported
in this fashion. Every first year law student knows there

(01:34:29):
has to be due process. It's nice to know that
a majority of this Supreme Court says there has to
be due process. These particular people weren't given due process.

Speaker 1 (01:34:38):
Well, I mean this one guy, Abrego hu Garcia, who's
deported on March fifteenth. He was going to be returned
and now we heard from the administration that they couldn't
get him returned. He was there and it's too late,
and now he's in El Salvador's custody.

Speaker 2 (01:34:55):
But the Supreme Court mark, if this Supreme Court buys this,
I'm taking a long time to get to this point,
which is another There like three or four critical points
about this case. One of them is that this is absurd.
This really is kafka esque because he doesn't have to
be someone with a court order, which he is that
a federal judge specifically said he could not be deported.

(01:35:15):
So they've they've made an administrative error and deported to
El Salvador someone who a federal judge said, cannot be deported.
That's bad enough. That's another part of this sort of
contempt piece of all this. But if this is true
for him, it's true for you and me. Mark. If
if it's true that there's no jurisdiction and there's no
way to prevent this when you're once you're physically in

(01:35:37):
a prison in El Salvador, why do we have a remedy?
They say the same thing. Oh my goodness, we can't
actually do this. And of course the reason that this
is so you know, so unbelievable, so unfair, is because
imagine if it were the judge's family member. Judge, I'm
really sorry we deported a family member of yours to
another country, and there's really nothing we can do about it.

(01:36:00):
You know, we haven't really called them on the phone
or really hectored them or made a big deal about it.
We've done everything that we can. Would anybody believe this
if it were family member for some somebody in the
Trump administration, this was all they could do to get
them back from El Salvador is throw their hands up
in the air and say, well, now that the person's
in El Salvador. No, we really can't get Ivanka back

(01:36:20):
from I have a big mistake. She was standing there
and we put a vunk on the plane. We meant
to put the guy on. All a huge confusion. Now
she's we can't get her back. You're on it. We
just can't get her back. We've done everything that we can,
but we can't get a Vanka back. We can't get
this one back. Nobody would believe that for a minute.
So this idea that it's so futile. They haven't even

(01:36:41):
really tried. They can't push El Salvador around. Of course,
there's all the reason to believe. Mark, That's exactly what
we've been doing, is pushing El Salvador around. We twisted
their arm, we brought them.

Speaker 1 (01:36:50):
How do you think, right, how do you think that
we ended up being able to send these people Elsa again?
With we run the show. I mean the idea somehow
that the tail wags the dog. No, I don't think
so we're the dog. But the court, this John Roberts court.
I'm always hearing about how John Roberts cares so much
about his legacy and blah blah blah. And I mean,
you know, you guys know more about this stuff. Than

(01:37:11):
I do. But I think he's kind of gone halfway
a lot of things. When he talks about the impeachment
of judges, that seemed as though, you know, the absurd
of the impeachment of judges, how that's wrong, you know,
when that was being spoken of. But he didn't say,
you have to honor a judge's order. An order from
the bench is something that has to be adhered to.
He didn't say that. So I was really in a way,

(01:37:32):
as I say, I thought he was kind of tepid
in the way that he defended the rule of law.
And so to this case, you end up with this
guy who may still be alive, maybe not, in this
horrible prison down in El Salvador, and he's just one
of many down there who need jurisprudence to weigh in
on whether or not they're actually members of this gang.

(01:37:53):
But in any case, Roberts and his court actually allowed
an extension on the amount of time, didn't they David
on the on the amount of time before any any
kind of rule and before this guy had to be returned.

Speaker 2 (01:38:07):
There is something called an administrative stay, and the chief
Justice or the justice who's responsible for a particular district
around the country, and Roberts was perfect for this because
he's the Justice for the District of Columbia and he's
also the chief Justice, so he could make this decision
on his own, and this one, I actually support him

(01:38:28):
on this one, Mark, I'm a I'm a fan of his.
I know he's a deep conservative, disagrees with me on
lots and lots of issues, starting with Citizens United, starting
with the gun decisions like Heller, the the the discrimination cases,
the voting discrimination cases like Shelby County. He's a hard conservative,

(01:38:49):
but I think he's a rational, intelligent person. I think
he does care about his legacy. So we can criticize
him on some other things, uh, you know, perfectly properly.
But on this one, Mark, I think that all he's
doing is maintain the status quo for a week. And
while it's true that someone might be killed in abil prison,
if you think about it, it's sort of unlikely, as
horrible as it is. And if you order him back here,

(01:39:13):
first of all, the order is fought because, as I said,
it's kind of ridiculous. They would have had Ivanka back
here in ten minutes if it happened to her. But
it is a little fraut. You know, who do you
hold in contempt? Do you issue an order down there
against somebody in El Salvador. It's not respected. That's even
worse now federal judges have issued orders. They're not respected.
So there's kind of a right way to do this.

(01:39:34):
And Roberts is thinking, huh, what's the right way to
do this? How do we approach this thing and sort
of the balance of equities to go through all of
that to bring him back within a day or two,
which is what basically Judge Bosberg had ordered, as opposed
to let's have a week to think about it. Maybe
I can get five votes. Roberts is thinking to do
something sensible and get the person back here. I just

(01:39:56):
think we can talk about the balance of equities in
some of the other cases, but I think in this
one he kind of got it right. And my instinct
is that this fellow will be brought back here. It's
so lawless, his case is so sympathetic. I think at
some point, either.

Speaker 1 (01:40:11):
True, there's a green he was a green card holder,
wasn't he?

Speaker 2 (01:40:14):
Yes. At some point I think Trump Trump is going
to say there was a huge mistake. I fired these
two people. I can't believe this and have a big thing.
Meet him at meet him at the airport, right, meet
him at the airport.

Speaker 1 (01:40:25):
We will never happen.

Speaker 2 (01:40:27):
Or this guy, I know this, this guy in El
Salvador will want to reinvent himself as a great humanitarian.
With all these people that he's got in this hell hole,
why shouldn't he stand there with this guy with the
wife and say there was a mistake. El Salvador solved it.

Speaker 1 (01:40:42):
And when was the last time you said that you
heard Trump say there was a mistake.

Speaker 2 (01:40:47):
Well, he just basically said it yesterday. I mean the market.
You have a lot of guests who talked about well.

Speaker 1 (01:40:53):
He didn't say there was a mistake. He just changed policy.
But you're right, you're right, And I don't mean to laugh,
but it just seemed like it just seems almost cartoonish.
And maybe I don't know, I think he's you know.

Speaker 2 (01:41:03):
You know, Senator Shift, Senator shiff has demanded an investigation
of insider trading because the way that that all happened,
as you say, maybe he didn't say those exact words,
but it was obvious that there was a mistake and
he couldn't live with it anymore because people were, you know,
in a in a in a nutshell. Not only had
the stocks collapsed and all these people's retirement accounts and

(01:41:24):
all these Republicans and all these rich people were freaking
out over Trump being in office, but also people weren't
investing in America. People should have said, you know, the
stock market's gone down, I'm buying treasury bills, I'm investing
in America. We had so Trump had so burned our
image with the world and so run our country down
that people weren't investing in America and they weren't buying

(01:41:45):
treasury bills. And when that happened, that's when the Secretary
of Treasury went to went to Trump and said, this
is this is a huge that this really is. We're
like in Smoot Hawley territory. People don't have any confidence
in America anymore, not just our stock market, they don't
have confidence in the American financial system. And that's when
he changed course. And of course Schiff wants to know

(01:42:05):
who made money, because a lot of people knew in
the hours before he suddenly encouraged people to buy that
there was going to be a change of policy, and
you could make a huge stock market went up three
thousand points. There was a lot of money to be
made and people want to know. And just because they
got rid of the Inspectors General, Mark, doesn't mean you
can't get to the bottom of it. There are very
good stock trading records and they can find out who

(01:42:28):
saw when.

Speaker 1 (01:42:30):
I was talking about this in the first hour, And
I love that you brought it up again, but I
have to say, David, with Pam BONDI running justice, I
don't think you're going to I think it's great that
shiff is talking about this, but I think there's no
cop on the beat anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:42:43):
There got to be some states, Mark. I've said this
every time I'm on your show that we bring up
this topic. The states have to come in and fill
the vacuum. Yes, there's lawlessness, there's no enforcement. And you know,
I'm a former prosecutor and you know I believe in
this idea of deterrence have I always will that if
you don't deter people, they'll commit crimes. You know, there's

(01:43:06):
a line. I hadn't cooperated with the government explain eloquently
that line between fear and greed, and a lot of
people are way over on the greed side, if they're
not fear if there's no fear of prosecution, but the
prosecution in the state courts, the states could take it seriously.
And I keep telling I know, California, New York, we
need to spend money on other things. But every time

(01:43:26):
Trump abandons the playing field, we ought to occupy the
playing field. If he fires FBI agents with experience, we
ought to hire them here in California to be in
our California Bureau of Investigation. If he doesn't investigate insider trading, okay,
you've swindled the person, the person that you've got. You know,
you have a transaction with a person, the person who
didn't know what the stock market was going to swing

(01:43:48):
up three thousand if you knew that it was on
inside information. You've swindled that person. These are you know,
these can be prosecuted in the state courts. But I
also say marked that even with BONDI there at some
point it's so clear. The front page of New York
Times says, you know Elon Musk's minions made They claim
they're doing pro bono work and helping with government efficiency.

(01:44:09):
They made seven million dollars on trades at eleven am yesterday.
That's very hard to ignore, and it's very hard to
go on with a normal life after the New York
Times has painted you with proof that you're a thief.

Speaker 1 (01:44:22):
I love that you mentioned it. I'd love to see
them nailed. It just seems as though maybe there's some
reputational damage. I don't know. It may be lost in
everything else. And I mark mark one last thing, being
there for more than three and a half years.

Speaker 2 (01:44:39):
The statue of limitations is five years. The statue of limitations,
I see, I see, okay, all right in office for
three and a half more years.

Speaker 1 (01:44:46):
So he can only kill the clock for so long. Yeah,
exactly how old will he be at that point? How
old will he be at that point?

Speaker 2 (01:44:52):
You can't let out, you can't cut out that. And
they won't be a third term. Bet your buddy Cats
put the guy up with the beer.

Speaker 1 (01:45:00):
Third term for Trumps.

Speaker 2 (01:45:01):
Right here on your show, breaking news. He will never
serve a third term.

Speaker 1 (01:45:04):
All right. My last thing with you, because it is
something that dovetails, was something you were talking about before
you were saying, Hey, it could happen to any of us.
Any of us could be plucked up and sent to
a Salvador in prison, et cetera. This just of yesterday
President Trump ordering the Department of Justice to investigate two
former officials from his first administration, including one of whom

(01:45:27):
that he accuses of being guilty of treason. This is
in a memo signed in the Oval Office, and it'll
be for Miles Taylor, the ex Homeland Security official. And
he wrote under an anonymous Remember, he wrote that I
think it was a piece for the New York Times,
an opinion piece. Under the just calls himself anonymous. He

(01:45:50):
was within the administration. He described himself as part of
the resistance to the president at the time. And it
is said this is from yesterday in the memo that
Trump signed, his conduct could properly be characterized as treasonous
and is possibly violating the Espionage Act. America is headed
down a dark path. That said Taylor never has a

(01:46:11):
man so inelegantly proved another man's point, he wrote, so
was he and one other person named Chris Krebs. He's
the former cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security agent who was fired
after he pushed back on the bogus claim of the
twenty twenty election fraud. So those two are now being

(01:46:34):
investigated by the Justice Department as potentially guilty of treason.
Can you speak to this well.

Speaker 2 (01:46:41):
He pushed back. Krebs did based on evidence and a
comprehensive understanding and analysis of what had happened in the election,
and said there has not been the fraud that's been
ballyhooed around. He's really an American hero because you remember
that Trump's plan and what he said on the phone
call down to Georgia his own voice taped. He didn't

(01:47:01):
know it was going to be taped. Trump is taped
saying that just find me another twelve thousand votes or something.
And he also said that just to when he tried
to push that lower down Clark, that Jeffrey Clark, who
was like number six in the Department of Justice, he
tried to vault him to the top. And the deal

(01:47:21):
with the devil there was that he just say that
there was fraud down in the Georgia election. And then
Trump said, my Republican Congress members will take it from there.
So Crebs was a huge hero because he stood up
a Republican. He stood up and said, based on the evidence,
there has not been any foul play or anything with
these elections, and I think he got fired and derided

(01:47:44):
after that. But the point is that this is really scary,
and as an attorney, I kind of wonder what I
would do if someone like Krebs or this fellow Miles
came into my office. And I guess what you do
is you watch anything that would be a normal process,
like the first subpoena for information that goes out, the
first information request. If you hear about it, you run
to the judge and you say, this is selective prosecution.

(01:48:07):
You want total transparency of how this thing got started.
If it's a tax investigation, you don't just assume that
it's going to be a mere audit. You want to
get to the bottom of all that. And I think
with this record a judge would back you up. Now,
selective prosecution means that you're treated differently from other people
in the same situation. They've certainly been treated differently from

(01:48:28):
other people in the same situation, because if you're a
target of a federal investigation, it's not announced by the president,
it's not broadcast to the world. So my hope would
be if I had such a client that Trump was
simply being bombastic and ballahueing this thing because that's what
he does. It's performative and at the end of the day,
know one at the Department of Justice would risk their

(01:48:50):
barcard and everything else to follow up on this because
there seems to be absolutely no basis to bring these
people up on any kind of charges, mark or open
investigation this Miles guy, you have a right to say
a part of the resistance. I mean, they're going to
go through and find every single person while Biden was
in office, every single person in the government who said

(01:49:10):
I'm part of the resistance to Biden. I'm not really
buying this Biden thing. You know, the border's open. I
don't like DEI all those people are guilty of treason.
It's just ridiculous. Now, I gotta say one more thing
about Trump if you don't mind that, you know, you
could say this whole economic calamity that he's just caused.
Who was helped like Russia, who was really helped in
all of this? Why is he always doing things that

(01:49:32):
helps Russia and meanwhile he runs around doing all these
things that really helped Russia and showing that Trump is
in the pocket of Russia. Maybe he's still dreaming about
a Moscow Trump hotel or something like that, and he
calls other people treason us. It is so the it's
just obnoxious. But if I represented one of those two people,
that's what I do, Mark, is I would track everything

(01:49:52):
that happened and I would run right to the judge
and say, this is selective prosecution. You should quash this subpoena.
You should not allow this to happen. You shouldn' inquire
into it in open court.

Speaker 1 (01:50:01):
In Laye says, I hope the first thing you would do,
David Catcher, is take the case.

Speaker 2 (01:50:06):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah, absolutely. You know, five hundred, five hundred
law firms file this amaricus brief on behalf of Wilmer
Hale a general block the law firms who are fighting it.
And so I think that, you know, not all lawyers
are about the money. You know, a lot of lawyers
are about taking cases. And I think that so many of

(01:50:26):
those law firms, over five hundred them, made it really
clear that they, you know, they want to make money.
Of course they want to make money, but they also
do care about you know, the impact they have on
society and the rule of law. And I think most
attorneys would take that case right now. The huge firms
do have the problem. When you have two thousand lawyers,
they become huge businesses like other businesses. And I think

(01:50:46):
a lot of them are thinking, I don't want to
have my income fall from five million dollars to three
million dollars because we took two or three legal aid.
Send it to legal Aid. Why do you think these
people part of the firm, Let's give a billion dollars
to legal Aid, legal ath.

Speaker 1 (01:50:59):
Go do it. You explained it. I think you explained
it a couple of weeks ago that you know, these
are these big corporate law firms. It's uh, you know,
Paul weis.

Speaker 2 (01:51:06):
The guy at Paul Weise. He quit the head of
pro Bona. With Paul Wise quit. He doesn't want to
find causes that Paul Weise agrees with Tropa that they
want to do pro bo to work for and he
went back to legal eight. That's what he did. He
went back to legal eight.

Speaker 1 (01:51:19):
God bless zero Sum says there's got to be a
constitutional amendment about presidential power in the next democratic administration.

Speaker 2 (01:51:25):
Well, I mean we did say, what does zero some
want that constitutional amendment to say? You can never get
a constitutional amendment through Mark.

Speaker 1 (01:51:32):
Yeah, that's one probable. Yeah, those those ships have sailed,
haven't they. Yeah, Yeah, yeah, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:51:37):
There needs to be a new ruling. There needs to
be eleven or thirteen members of the Supreme Court, and
they need to reverse that presidential immunity case that was
I'd love to.

Speaker 1 (01:51:45):
See the court expanded, love to see the court expanded.

Speaker 2 (01:51:48):
And seeing and seeing how it's actually worked out. This
idea that between the pardon power and presidential immunity for
anything that smacks of beneficial act, you really can have
things like sending Seal six out there to kill your
political opponent and then pardoning the Seal six members. And
the Supreme Court if they were really being diligent and
smart about this, they didn't think that through because they

(01:52:09):
left that horrible out there. You know, in law school
we always say, well, wait, your solution would allow that
horrible result. What's your response to that. They didn't seem
to have any response to that horrible.

Speaker 1 (01:52:17):
Exactly, And it was it was argued by I think,
I mean, she actually drew that out so you could
kill your Yeah, as you say, uh. Cc Ryder says,
this is a preemptive flex move by Trump to current staff.
Oh that's very very guy.

Speaker 3 (01:52:34):
I like that.

Speaker 1 (01:52:35):
Take. Do not write tell all books is what CC
writer is saying. Trump is essentially saying by declaring Miles
Taylor an enemy of the state, you know, and guilty
of treason. That's interesting. I mean a lot of this
stuff is a brushback pitch, you know. I mean it's
designed to cow any opposition within his administration, within the legislature,
within Congress, within the Senate, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (01:52:57):
So bendy Miles got signed up by random House a
couple of billion dollars for his book right now, that
would be right.

Speaker 1 (01:53:04):
He may need to break some of that off for
a legal fees.

Speaker 2 (01:53:06):
I don't think any of those fee I don't think
either of those two are in trouble. I think that,
like I said, the Trump regime will be over, uh
three and a half years, and I think the reign
in Congress is over in a year and a half.
I think that that's very clear. Then there'll be huge
investigations of all this, and there'll be nowhere to run,
nowhere to hide cash. Betel's got the wetpand right now
he's got the wetpand right now you watch how long.

(01:53:28):
That's gonna last if he starts going after people like
this Krebs and this Miles guy on no evidence at
all except Trump say so. And I've said this before, Mark,
you know, they say what goes around comes around. The
Democrats and the people who believe in the rule of
law can never do this to the other side. What
they're trying to do right now, to people like Miles
and Crebs. It's never going to be, you know, a

(01:53:49):
Democratic president going to come in three and a half
years and say, now we're going after them. I'm going
to do just like Trump, I'm gonna announce that you
ought to be indicted. That's never gonna happen with the Democrats.
But the courts and I think public opinion are going
to save people like Miles and Krebs. You're right, they
have to spend some money on attorney's fees. But at
the same time they're heroes. They're heroes, Mark, that's a
big deal.

Speaker 1 (01:54:10):
It's a complicated playing field. And the one thing that
Trump has shown Democrats is that you can do a
lot as president, and you can do a lot with
a party that closes ranks behind you. And I don't
think Democrats realize that Democrats are always looking at the
parliamentarian Democrats are always looking at you know, we have

(01:54:33):
to mollify this part of our coalition. We have to
get the Joe Manchions of the world on. But it's
a very you know, you know, a charismatic figure like Trump.
I mean again, the mad King for sure, but he
does show you the power if you can consolidate it,
you could do it and use that power for good.
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:54:52):
You know, Mark, I'm your moderate centrist all of those
kinds of things that some people think are all those
Dirney words, but moderate centrist rule in this country. Look
at all the things that we've achieved, not this extreme,
weird thing that we have right now. And hopefully we
won't have a weird, extreme thing when the Democrats come
back into power. You look at Biden. He got no
credit at all because he fumbled during the debate and

(01:55:14):
he was older, and they lampooned him on Fox night
after night. But the economy was roaring. We were the
envy of all of these countries in the world. Employment
was up, you know, there was respect for people's rights.
These cases went through the courts, and you know, sometimes
the courts ruled against Biden. But you know, I mean,

(01:55:34):
we had it so good and we're going to have
it so good again. And this thing that Trump does,
this is not this is not the we It's not
anything that we want to emulate. This is a disaster.

Speaker 1 (01:55:43):
Oh well, I mean, I mean, I take that point.
You don't want to emulate it from the standpoint of
repudiation and revenge. But I think when it comes to
using power for good, i'd like to and and you're right,
I mean, sadly, David, this is you know, a bit
of a digression from the your law. But I know
you do a lot of political analysis as well. But
I would just suggest to you that this is a

(01:56:04):
media environment now, and a political environment that overlaps the
media environment in which you have to express yourself in
the right way. Messaging is critical. So the fact that
then you'll forgive me that Biden I'm going to use
the word bumbled through a lot of them, because he
you know, he struggled to speak effortlessly. It wasn't his fault,
older man, et cetera. And I've said it, I'll say

(01:56:26):
it again. I take Biden on a hospital gurney before
Donald Trump. Okay, so I don't I mean, I don't care.
Oh but he can't speak, he doesn't know where he is.
I don't care. He's still my president. I mean over
over the alternatives.

Speaker 2 (01:56:39):
So it used to be called a blue dog democrat.

Speaker 1 (01:56:44):
Hey, love our time together. Thanks for us, you know,
extended time today. Thanks David.

Speaker 2 (01:56:48):
Being with you always a pleasure. All right, Albert everyone.

Speaker 1 (01:56:52):
Albert Kim, Thanks David, see you soon.

Speaker 3 (01:57:03):

Speaker 15 (01:57:06):
Who's Mark Thompson?

Speaker 6 (01:57:13):
Because when they rated monologo, God didn't lock.

Speaker 3 (01:57:19):
That right on?

Speaker 1 (01:57:22):
Everybody. Wow, what a day. Had some great guests in
Everything was really good. I felt good about things today.
David Katz, And look at this a shout out to
all of our Patreon and PayPal supporters. Come on, if
you're one of our Patreon and PayPal supporters, let me
tell you something. I don't want to be too heavy,
but you are literally the difference between the show existing

(01:57:45):
and not existing. If you hadn't been stepping up the
way you are on Patreon and PayPal, we would not exist.
There is not enough YouTube money to keep the show
on the air, plain and simple, and so to our
Patreon and PayPal supporters. We scroll your name at the
end of every show for a reason because you are

(01:58:07):
responsible for every show and you can keep the show
growing and going with a one time or monthly contribution.
At the Mark thompsonshow dot com, there are clickthroughs to
Patreon and PayPal. Please support us. There are also click
throughs to Patreon and PayPal under all of our videos.
Make such a difference, and I cannot thank enough all

(01:58:30):
of the Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
A big shot shout out to all of you who
are in the Patreon and PayPal community, thank you. Say
so much everyone ready to do appreciate it. And by
the way, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaking of how does the internet work, Well, you go
on the internet, you can find the links and it's

(01:58:51):
really not as complicated as you might think. Having a
quick cup of my favorite coffee, go Chilla Valley Coffee.
Oh oh oh oh oh that ah wrms the depths

(01:59:14):
of my soul. Coachella Valifoffee dot com. You too can
enjoy the best coffee on Earth Coachella Vali Coffee dot com.
They also have some of the best teas on Earth
that spices on Earth. Check them out Cochellavalifoffee dot com.
And then when you check out, use our discount code
mark T and you'll get ten percent off. All the

(01:59:36):
coffee is organic from women owned farms, and their blends
and their beans fresh crop. Again, not the discounted beans
that you'll find on the internet that have been sitting
around for months. This is all fresh. It's all hand roasted.
They take such great pride in the product they produce.

(01:59:57):
Coachella Valley Coffee dot com Albert showing. Now how you
do it, mark T, put in the discount code and
ten percent comes off anything you get on their website, spices, teas, coffee, whatever,
five pound bag, two pound bag, whatever, Load it up
and get the discount and thanks to Cochello Valleycoffee dot com. Now, yeah,

(02:00:18):
fresh Nutsdale, thank you, says Shadow producer Calvin Wong. All right,
now a little bit of business before we go off
the air. First, my favorite McCallister, Lucy McAllister. How about
Lucy with a twenty dollar supersticker. Thank you so much,
Thank you so much, Lucy, you are my favorite. Thank you,

(02:00:41):
Thank you so so much. Lucy nineteen ninety nine twenty
dollars supersticker. Thank you. This a super chat from w
or a five dollars super chat. She says, my first
three years of the National Park Service were called career conditional,
sort of like tenured as a teacher. Maybe probational is

(02:01:01):
the same thing, yet sounds like it's some version of that.
We were talking about these probationary workers and how that's
kind of a newer term. But does sound like it's
some version of what you're talking about, the career conditional thing. Yeah, GJ.
Thomas says Mark, I'm currently reading Poor Economics. It's an
older book, very eye opening though to this day, I
think you would enjoy it. All right, thank you. I

(02:01:23):
will look for it. Thank you. You got to have.

Speaker 6 (02:01:27):
A pile of books on your nightstand. I bet it's
ready to topple over.

Speaker 1 (02:01:31):
And I can't even keep track of where I've read
certain things, you know what I mean? That's the you know,
I went to school with this intellectual guy. Maybe you'll
know who he is, a guy named Chris Hedges, very
well known progressive voice, a Pulitzer winner in war, correspondent
for the New York Times, et CETERA really brilliant guy.
So I went to school with him, and so I

(02:01:52):
look at him out there, and he's really brilliant. Okay,
we don't agree on everything, but he's really brilliant. And
he remembers. And I've noticed this because I watched his videos.
He remembers exactly where he you know, he'll reference specific
texts and where he's seen stuff, and whenever he does,
I go, God, that's impressive. I can remember some stuff.

(02:02:15):
But he just seems to have that brain that remembers,
you know, all of these different quotes from various books
and various points from various books. I don't have that,
so it all kind of washes together.

Speaker 8 (02:02:26):
Maybe because he was such a great student, he took
notes and so he has, you know, like a I
don't know, a cheat sheet of notes of where.

Speaker 6 (02:02:35):
He saw stuff. You see, that could be he's reading it.
He's like, oh, that's good.

Speaker 1 (02:02:40):
I'm giving him a little more credit than maybe. Yeah, yeah, right,
it's not all just natural. You're saying he took notes
as well. Filma. Okay, all the billionaires and millionaires are
getting richer on our dime. Yeah, I mean that is.
It does appear to be. The kleptocrats are are in
charge and Carrie, thank you for the supersticker for nine ninety.

(02:03:00):
Thank you said so much and thank you so much,
thank you so much. Yes, I really do appreciate it. Wow,
A good day, A good day. Indeed, she gave us
a fish.

Speaker 6 (02:03:12):
Has a fish?

Speaker 3 (02:03:12):
There?

Speaker 1 (02:03:13):
Oh is that a fish? I couldn't tell what it was?
It small on I screen. Oh that's cool.

Speaker 2 (02:03:17):
Right now it's mating season and they're hungry.

Speaker 1 (02:03:21):
Yes, exactly. Don't eat the fish, Kim. Can you sideline
your news tomorrow? You've got the entire show to yourself.

Speaker 6 (02:03:33):
I know, I'm a little I'm I'm really excited about it.

Speaker 8 (02:03:37):
I'm taking a different tax. See last time I looked
at it as extra work. This time I feel the power.

Speaker 1 (02:03:45):
Yeah, yes, exactly. You spread your wings, baby, spread your wings.
You the talent, the magic that is Kim, use it,
maybe use.

Speaker 8 (02:03:53):
It, Michael Sure, Jim Off of Fabulous Florida.

Speaker 1 (02:03:57):
Don't forget tomorrow. You'll announce him. Albert will make sure
you announce it. You'll announce the championship players in Mark
snadis isn't that right? Albert will know tomorrow.

Speaker 4 (02:04:08):
Yeah, and this second hour before we go is a
lot closer. Oh, no little it's a little scary for kim'.

Speaker 1 (02:04:16):
Oh, I blame you may not make it. Look at this,
it's I blame you you versus it's a wild eyedea.

Speaker 3 (02:04:24):
Wild idea.

Speaker 1 (02:04:26):
I will have to right now. I blame you is ahead,
but fifty six forty four percent. You can vote until
midnight tonight Pacific time three am in the East. Albert
will tabulate all the votes and have the winners for tomorrow.
Kim this year and Shadow.

Speaker 3 (02:04:43):
I'm Show of Stevens for the Mark Johnson Show.

Speaker 1 (02:04:46):
Bye, Ba Comish, thank you, Kim, thank you, auto time
allow time, Thanks everyone, until next time.

Speaker 5 (02:04:55):
Bye by

Speaker 8 (02:05:11):
Tottingt

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Trump Takes Aim at His Next Tariff Target and it’s Not China 4/10/25

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Trump Takes Aim at His Next Tariff Target and it’s Not China 4/10/25

Stuff You Should Know