Trump Turns Troops Loose, Targeting Dissenters as Enemies of the State 9/29/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Oh, I love the Monday recorded audience. You are also kind.
Please find a seat as we prepare to shine a
light on all that is wonderful in America and the world.
There's a little something somewhere, and we will find it
so cool to be here, of course, with Tony, who

(00:21):
makes all things technical happen on the show, and Kim,
who makes all things happen. Kim, how are you quite
thorough in pointing out various things? Yes, so she's she's
getting better. I'll be honest with you. She's getting better,
all right. Maybe it's my fault for her slow progress,

(00:42):
but I'm I'm just saying that it's getting better. Is
the point.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
So I do not know what you are talking about.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
I have much to get to today. First into the
chat today was who was first into the chat? I
thank you? It was a zero sum at nine to
thirty Pacific time. Then Nullafidian with the question about that
whole bad card that Trump is you're going to offer

(01:13):
every American. Yeah, I wouldn't wait by the mailbox for that,
but I wouldn't wait for the mailbox to give you much.
After all, there are some changes in that world as well.
But this is the America we end up with, and
we will sort out a lot of the issues confronting
America at the moment and also confronting the world, because sadly,

(01:37):
the rest of the world has to deal with a
smack talking, arrogant pomposity that defines America at the moment.
We have become the ugly Americans. I always thought during
the war in Iraq, we were the ugly Americans, and
now we've just taken you. Hold my beer. Let me
show you how to really be the ugly Americans. I
can smack talk the un You're all a bunch of

(01:58):
losers either way. Fix that escalator and my prompter. Lucy McAllister,
my favorite McAllister is work Like, how can I not
have a great day when Lucy McAllister is part of
our scene? Yeah, she's my favorite McAllister. Twenty dollars supertout. Yeah,
as soon as Kim starts spinning off super chats, she

(02:19):
could become my favorite McAllister. All a question of being
bought out. Trevor Starr in Hollywood says Mark is never late.
He always gets here right when the show starts. Thank you,
Trevor Flick. Yeah, Trevor also noted, I guess that he
that I said happy birthday to him. Oh, here it is.

(02:40):
Last tw week someone said happy birthday to me and
Mark repeated it. I think you should tell Mark it's
my birthday every Monday and see how long it takes
him to figure it out. I guess he claims his
birthday regularly on Mondays? Is that it Courtney? I mean
Courtney Kim Courtney just reported in that somebody bought two
one hundred dollars worth of merch.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
Wow, it's gonna be a very merry Christmas.

Speaker 1 (03:04):
Now, it's just that that really shows me. Hey, there's
a lot of fun stuff on the merch side. Get
markmerch dot com. And we have all of our resistance
shirts peaceful Resistance, and we have and a bunch of them,
a bunch of different color. Of course they are PET approved.
Born to peacefully resist, being Born to peacefully protest is

(03:26):
the is the mug. It's actually the mug. I think that.
I'm Oh, no, I have one of my old school
mugs today, but anyway, Born to Peacefully Protests is my
new favorite mug. And there's all kinds of great colors
that are all kinds of great art layouts. Courtney did
all of it. She's so wonderful. Peacefully Resist. You see

(03:46):
that one that white mug tony peacefully Resist. I really
liked that one. I just like how simple it is.
I like the message and our logos on the back. Anyway,
there's that in a bunch of stuff you can wear.
So I mentioned it because, yeah, there's a lot of
cool stuff. They're cool mugs, they're cool shirts. There's the
barbecue apron, there's the they're the sweaters that I'll start

(04:11):
wearing as fall gets along. But I mentioned it because, yeah,
those things are fun. But when I see that somebody
bought two hundred dollars worth of merch those are people
really supporting the show, you know, So really do appreciate that. That's,
in a sense like a supersticker or a super chat,
So it means so much when the audience steps up.
We're really the new independent business model when it comes

(04:35):
to media, so we're completely dependent on the support of
our listeners and viewers and really do appreciate it. And
speaking of that, I got a received a lot of
positive legs. I got an email from Australia. What I know,
Milton the ause Bookbinder.

Speaker 4 (04:56):
We have a big fooming in Australia.

Speaker 1 (04:58):
Actually I didn't know that. I'm I'm encouraged by that.

Speaker 4 (05:03):
If you look at the YouTube will tell you where
you're the most popular, and I think our top city
is New York and Los Angeles and Bay Area, San Francisco,
San Jose. But in there Australian cities some a couple
of them popping up.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
So wow, what I'm very impressed and pleased. And my
dream is to go to the Australian Open which is
coming up in January.

Speaker 3 (05:30):
Well, they'll know who you are.

Speaker 1 (05:32):
I'm at least you know. It would be nice we
could stream the show from there. It is truly my dream.
I hope it's far away and a lot of logistics
go into a trip like that, but I it continues
to be my dream. This goes. Let me get back
to the email if I can please. I've received, Oh hi,

(05:53):
it's Milton here in Australia, the Ause Bookbinder. Yeah, the
Aussee Bookbinder. I thought it was member, but for some
reason I could not see the payment going to you.
So I've done it again. Can you please confirm the
payment is coming to you now? I have to do that.
I have to confirm, thanks so much. Absolutely love the show.
It's on at four a m. Here. Wow, I mean

(06:15):
what I know, And I'm working from around one am
to four am. I'm working. I'm sorry. I'm working from
around one am, six days a week. So I do
look forward to it coming on and appreciate your show
and all who get it on for us to watch Tony.

(06:37):
That means Ki. Yeah, the guy works overnight and he
likes to watch and listen to the show.

Speaker 4 (06:44):
Like making donuts is an early morning thing. Book finding is.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
I guess the night shift job. What a family kind
of legacy business that feels like it is. You know,
I think he sent a video. Didn't he send a
video not too long ago with them the last year.
I don't know remember that. Maybe I've imagined the whole thing. Gosh,
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (07:05):
I'm living in dreamland again.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
I can't remember much anymore where maybe, but Milton the
Aussie book binder, thank you for your support. Thank you
for being a Patreon member and supporting our show. And
I'm so glad that we get into Australia and maybe
there are a few people down in Australia who enjoyed
the show. So it's four fourteen AM in Australia right now,

(07:33):
it's A plus. It's GMT plus ten. Wow, good work, Tony.
So shout out to our pals in Australia. I do
I do the hack American imitation of the Australian accent,
but I know that I would just anger you, so
I'm not going to do that. Yeah, but I think they.

Speaker 4 (07:57):
Watched the show specifically because you don't do that.

Speaker 1 (08:02):
That may be as well. Yeah, you're right, but it's
very cool. Wherever you are anywhere in the world. We
appreciate you being here. We come to you from the
US of A, and the USA is not the it's
not your daddy's USA anymore. As you're probably aware, and
we detail a lot of what's going on. I'm I'll

(08:22):
just reiterate. We're on from two to four in the
Eastern time zone of the US and we're on from
eleven to one in the West, but you can listen
and watch any time. We then become an audio podcast
after the show is done. It goes up to Spotify, iHeartRadio,
goes to Apple Podcasts, any of those places you can
find the Mark Thompson Show share it and that just

(08:43):
helps improve our footprint. I do want to tell you
who is on the show today, because it's a pretty
special show and I've been looking forward to it all weekend.
And the Mark Thompson Show. In just about fifteen minutes,
Gary Dietrich, who is the ninja from iHeartRadio. He is
their political analyst. He will join us and he can
give us a sense of the government shutdown, the impending shutdown,

(09:06):
the plans strategically to blame the other party if there
is a government shutdown. Also, I'm going to ask him
about the troops that are now on their way or
already in Portland, Oregon. Donald Trump, as you know, he
is the president and he can send troops anywhere he wants.
At least that is the expressed theory. He is doing

(09:27):
it based on the flimsy constitutionality that he points to.
But we will ask Liz Oyer, who joins us an
hour or two about that. Liz Oyer, the former US
Pardon Attorney. She is brilliant, she is wonderful. I've got
a mad crush on Liz Oyer. Oh, just so smart

(09:49):
and just so good at breaking stuff down legally. So
I think it's her superpower, and we'll run a little bit.
I send you Tony. I sent her later latest Instagram post,
which is kind of good. I don't know, you can't.
You don't see it. Tony's looking around like, I don't know.
I don't I don't remember you sending me anything. But anyway, regardless,

(10:13):
we'll get into a lot of who li Zawyer is was.
She was fired from government because she wouldn't grant Remember
she's the US Pardon attorney. And across her desk comes
a request to give mel Gibson his gun back. The
gun was taken and his gun. What am I trying

(10:37):
to say?

Speaker 4 (10:39):
He has gun rights restricted because he's a he committed.

Speaker 1 (10:42):
A domestic abuser. Yeah he was. He was a domestic abuser.
But what is that a license for with a gun?
Or the permit is the word I'm looking for. Permit
is there? I would have awarded points for permit And
her rule is and the rule is that once you've
been convicted of domestic abuse US you do not get
your permit license back for a weapon, for a firearm.

(11:08):
He is a friend of Trump's and so she was
fired as a result of that and holding the line
on that decision. She's become since then quite outspoken about
a lot of the system by which pardons are issued
under this administration. As you know, pardons have been issued
in an extremely liberal way, quite broadly to all the
JA sixers and to anybody who, it would seem is

(11:31):
able to put it bluntly pay for it. So she
will be joining us in our two. A quick shout
to Chaplain Fred with a twenty dollars super chat. Wow,
good to see you, Chaplain Fred. Chaplain Fred is rapidly
on his way to getting a statue on Thompson Terrace.

(11:53):
In the metaverse, Hi, Mark, kim Tony, may Grayson Peace
be with you today. Now you're really talking like a chaplain,
Chaplain Fred. Mine was ugly. Mine was ugly due to
the shooting, Due to the shooting, but a good day.
A skunk sprayed my backyard, indeed, a good day ahead.

(12:19):
Well if it was a holy skunk, who's to say
that that spray wasn't holy spray? So I'm just saying
that could be. Thank you, Chaplain Fred, Appreciate you very much.
All right, without any further delay, I'd like to uh
to move on. If Mark Thompson Show. It is it

(12:44):
is the case that there was another shooting over the
weekend a Michigan the the this guy shut up a
Mormon church, is that what it was, Kim.

Speaker 4 (12:55):
All right, Yeah, and then set it on fire.

Speaker 1 (13:00):
This is a truly twisted brand of cravenness and.

Speaker 4 (13:08):
Happened to Michigan.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (13:11):
And we know that at least four people have died,
but there were others taken to the hospital in critical condition.
Really scary, you know, whether or not you subscribe to
the Mormon religion, you know, the Catholic religion, as we
saw shooting in Minnesota at a Catholic church recently. This
whole opening fire when people are worshiping. It's awful.

Speaker 1 (13:35):
Yeah, of course, it's another soft target that these people choose,
you know, I mean schools, places of worship. These are
you know, easy targets for these guys. Now, they haven't
identified a motive yet. I know, as usual, there's a

(13:58):
scramble right, he was left, he was right? I mean
this one, I think there's a little less than a
stone's throw from the answer. Because the Mormon church shooter
had a Trump sign outside his home and wore Maga merch.

Speaker 4 (14:17):
This one doesn't fit so neatly into the box that
Trump is trying to put all this violence into.

Speaker 1 (14:23):
Does it. I mean, the Trump administration has dry cleaned
government websites and Justice Department references to any growing neo
Nazi white supremacy movements in America, and his dry cleaned
the references to white nationalist violence. So now we'll start

(14:47):
all over again and again. Public records showing that Thomas
Jacob Sanford, who's forty, lived in a brick home in Burton, Michigan,
a fifteen minute drive away from the Church of Jesus
Christ of Ladder Saints in Grand Blanc Township. That's where
he opened fire on hundreds of congregates. He rammed into

(15:10):
the church's front door with his pickup truck before he
started shooting, later set the building on fire. He was
killed in a gunfight with two officers within ten minutes.
They cordoned off his block, and images of his residence
show a blue Trump poster hanging on his fence, just

(15:31):
above a red stop sign. The Trump sign outside his
home has fueled a lot of speculation about his politics.
Some social media users have used the Trump placard to
claim he is a Republican, while those across the aisle
see the placement of the poster just above a stop
sign as an indication then he wanted to stop Trump
and that you really see how people can become record

(15:55):
show he had no recorded party affiliation Michigan and has
open primary, so party registration isn't required there where he lived.
But it appears that he had some MAGA merch and

(16:18):
any speculation according to state police about his motives are
exactly what it is speculation.

Speaker 3 (16:28):
That's peer speculation.

Speaker 1 (16:30):
So that's where we are on this.

Speaker 4 (16:32):
He was a veteran. He was a member of the
United States Marines, went to Operation Iraqi Freedom, served there
for a year, had a year long deployment. So yeah,
he was a member of the military. And we've seen
that before, you know, with the shooting up of military

(16:53):
forts and whatnot where people It just shows me it
doesn't matter whether you're Democrat, republic MAGA, religious, not religious,
what have you. There are crazy people everywhere.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
I think that what Kim has said really is the
last word on it. These are crazy people. Okay, I
don't know right left now, I think it's worth spending
a beat on the fact that more crazy people are
radicalized as a result of right wing ideologies. There are

(17:29):
frankly more people who are part of a gun culture
on the right than there are in the left. But
that doesn't mean that those on the left aren't capable
of being crazy nutjobs the way this guy's a crazy nutjob.
They are crazy people. So when Trump comes out and says,
you know, it's all coming from one political party, those

(17:51):
crazy radicals on the left, No, the only thing you
said that's accurate is the crazy part. These people are
crazy to take up arms against anyone. It's horrifying. Okay,
goes into it. Shit's horrifying. So I mean, the only
thing worse is to somehow weaponize that horror for your

(18:12):
own political means. And that's what's happening in America now.

Speaker 4 (18:16):
Exactly what's happening. It's all for a purpose, and this
is all a reason to crack down on political dissent.
Doesn't want anyone disagreeing with him at all, and is
now willing to go after people that he feels are
not in line.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
Well, after the Charlie Kirk murder, you heard and saw
members of the Trump family saying, Okay, if that's the
way you want to do it. That's the way we're
going to do it. This is war now. Now it's
on all this stuff that they said, which was absurd.
Again Kirk murdered by a crazy guy. Now. I also

(18:57):
spent part of the weekend with all of these different
conspiracy theories and all these different videos about the Charlie
Kirk murder. I got it. The palm pistol where you know,
some guy moves and you see a little bit if
they're everywhere, if you want to see it, and we
were thinking and we're still debating, you know, a distillation
of all that stuff and somehow presenting it to you
so you can evaluate it on your own. But here's

(19:20):
the part that doesn't make any sense of all the
conspiracy theories. If I can just segue into this for
thirty seconds, explain to me. And by the way, a
lot of the video is I would put it into
the compelling narrative category where you go, wow, that does
look like that guy's going like this and holding his

(19:40):
hand like that and firing that palm pistol. There's another
one where there's a guy he's supposedly got a cell
phone pistol and he holds it up with both hands
and it looks like he's cocking it type of this,
and then and his movement is concurrent and synchronous with
the sound of the bullets firing. So you end up

(20:05):
in this place you go, wow, how can this not be?
I mean, it looks like one of those guys, or
both of those guys, or multiple shooters were involved with
this Charlie Kirk murder. Okay, only one big thing. Explain
to me why this kid confessed to his parents, confessed

(20:28):
to his pastor, and ultimately confess to cops. And then
the more we learn about his motivation, we think maybe
it had something to do with his roommate, with the
romantic tie to the transitioning roommate. I mean, there seems
to be a lot to Charlie Kirk's murder that we
kind of know. I'm not saying, you know, he's his
own brand of crazy, right, but the idea somehow that

(20:51):
you know, he wasn't working alone. There were actually several
people there. It was really like the JFK killing, all right.
I mean, guys, maybe it was some elaborate scheme to
murder Charlie Kirk, but sounds to me like you've got
all of these people shooting. You've got the guy with
the cell phone, You've got the guy with the palm pistol,

(21:14):
you got the other guy on the roof with the
long gun. How come there was only one shot fired?
I mean, if all this sounds like, you know, the
the Okay Corral, the way you guys tell it. So
I don't mean to always crap on a conspiracy theory.
And you know, as I say, just because someone's a
conspiracy theorist doesn't mean that the theory that they're putting

(21:37):
forward isn't true. So I'm ready to take a meeting
on a lot. But I'm just saying, we're really getting
into an area with I think some very thin motives
yet established. But they may come to be established. I
just haven't seen them yet.

Speaker 4 (21:57):
Well being, the whole thing is being used, in adition
to several other violent incidents, as a reason to squash dissent.
And on Thursday of last week, Trump issues this presidential
memo directing all of the executive branch to take what
they're calling a whole of government approach to fighting what

(22:19):
they are deeming domestic terrorism. And they go on and
they list all of the recent violence against folks on
the right, and they leave out the murders of the
people in Minnesotera lawmakers in Minnesota. They don't talk about
Paul Pelosi. They don't talk about any attacks on people
of the left, but they say they you know, they
talk about Kirk and even the murder of health the

(22:43):
United Health CEO Brian Johnston Johnson, the assassination attempts against Trump.
There was I guess an attack that was an attempted
attack against Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.

Speaker 1 (22:55):
And they say, yeah, we'll come back to that a second,
go ahead.

Speaker 4 (22:59):
Continue, and they say that all of these attacks, these
specific attacks, right again leaving out any attacks that go
the other way, are a culmination of sophisticated this is
from the memo, a culmination of sophisticated organized campaigns of
targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence. All right, And then

(23:22):
it says these organized campaigns are designed to silence opposing speech,
limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent
the functioning of a democratic society. Well what does that mean?

Speaker 1 (23:38):
And it goes on.

Speaker 4 (23:41):
They talk about that they're not wanting anyone to foment
political violence, and what does that mean, anyone who espouses
this is a quote, anti Americanism, anti capitalism, anti Christianity,
support for overthrow of the United States. It's government extremism

(24:02):
on migration, race and gender, and hostility towards those who
hold American views on family, religion, and morality will be
subject to suspicion according to this memo. What have we entered?

Speaker 3 (24:15):
What is that?

Speaker 4 (24:16):
What dark, sinister horribleness is that we're all under suspicion
if we don't agree with Trump.

Speaker 3 (24:23):
And what happens to us when.

Speaker 4 (24:24):
We're under suspicion.

Speaker 1 (24:26):
Yeah, the idea somehow that there's been a radicalization if
you speak out against Donald Trump. That's kind of absurd
on its face based on the number of people speaking
out against Donald Trump. He's not a popular president. And
so the policies of this maga, right, this extreme crew,
there's a lot of pushback, just push back in terms
of look at all the people. You know, they're probably

(24:47):
one hundred thousand podcasts that have been hatched overnight. You know,
everybody with an opinion now has a podcast or a
TikTok following, and they should. There's no problem with that.
But I'm saying that is that radicalization. This just basically
espousing your viewpoint toward the administration, towards the regime. I mean,

(25:08):
let's face it, it's a pretty aggressive regime when it
comes to clamping down free speech. You go after Colbert,
you go after CBS, you go after ABC, You go
after Colbert and successfully in all those cases, primarily because
those holding companies, the companies that were in control, the
corporate entities that are connected to those things, they need

(25:29):
government approval for various things. Then you go after Kimmel,
and you go after Kimmel with this FCC chief who
comes on like a mobster. I mean, I really think
that was a fair parallel made by several people. You know,
we can do this the easy way, or we can
do this the hard way, and actually mentioning the control
that government has over Sinclair and Next Dour stations. Those

(25:51):
are the companies that own all those TV stations, all
those ABC affiliates, Like you know, those licenses are in
play all the time. We can pull those licenses any
time they want, anytime we want. Is the view that
the FCC chairman was espousing. So anyway, my point is
that you know, this is an administration that has taken
a very aggressive view of speaking out against it, and

(26:14):
ultimately they really go after Jimmy Kimmel, and it was
only I give the guy great credit, I mean tremendous
courage to come on the way he did undaunted. And
so you see the way in which government power is
being leveraged against the citizens in America right now, against
their free speech. And I don't think that that's an

(26:36):
exaggeration in the least. So when you see what kim
is talking about, a memo from the President talking about
speaking out against the government and America, I mean speaking
out against America as domestic terrorism. Again, when you say
speaking out against America, it sounds like you can do

(26:57):
the arithmetic anyway you want. So that allows you really
to openly go after anyone you want. This is why
the weaponization of the Justice Department, and this isn't just
a talking point that's produced by the right. You're actually
seeing it where an enemy's list is expressly noted by
the President of the United States go after these people.

(27:20):
It's the old line, bring me the man and I'll
tell you what he did wrong. I'll tell you how
he broke the law. So it's scary and just on
the James Camy thing, because I know that's kind of
floated to the top of things. We'll talk to the
Zawyer in the second hour about it, and I can
even mention it to Gary Dietrich. But I've said this before.

(27:40):
I don't like James coy at all. I don't like
him at all, not one cell of his body do
I like. I think he's the ahole who served up
this election to Donald Trump the first time. Now, maybe
his intentions were good, but he's died in the wool
Republican who wanted to see Republican win. And I think

(28:03):
he's essentially honest. But I also think he can rationalize
whatever decision he wanted to make. And that's the rationalization
that he made when he announced I'm reopening the investigation
at the FBI over at Hillary Clinton's emails. The whole
election came down to forty eight thousand votes. You're telling
me that didn't affect it. So Jim Comy can burn
in hell for all I care. But what's happening to

(28:24):
him is wrong. It's a concoction of a weaponized Justice Department.
And again, we'll talk more with Liz Oyer about this
in hour two. But it's clearly the case. But the
idea that they could weaponize this same Justice Department against
a Kim McAllister or Mark Thompson or you watching, we've
noticed you've reposted a bunch of stuff that is against

(28:47):
the current government. I mean, this is the stuff of despotism,
of authoritarianism, and you're seeing it played out. And as
far as Jim Comey is concerned, he's likely going to
be able to beat these charges because you can point
to the political witch hunt that was underway. I mean
the President expressly called it out, and you can also

(29:08):
you can also look at the case and see how
flimsy it is, given that no a Justice Department who
wanted to follow through on it, no one wanted anything
to This case had ten foot pole marks all over it.
You had major MAGA attorneys at the Justice Department, your
own mega people, mister President. They all said, no, there's

(29:30):
no there, there, there's not enough evidence here. We cannot
bring this case. So you fire that person, that Eric Sebert,
and you hire this insurance attorney. She's never even prosecuted
a case, and she hatches your egg for you. In
a poorly worded and oddly filed indictment and presentation before

(29:55):
a grand jury, that it barely got across the finish
line with the grand jury, you know, the whole You
can get a jury to a Ham's sanlench exactly, but
not always. And they just got it. They barely got
the threshold of grand jury votes to make this indictment possible.
So all I'm trying to say is Comy himself will

(30:15):
likely get by. But the case I made to you,
I think it was last week, and I'll make it
to you again. I'll just reference and I'll make it
to you again, probably in the future. Is something really
worth keeping in mind because I think it's something that
all Americans should be aware of, and that is the
government can ruin your life. The government doesn't need to
get a guilty verdict on anything. They need to begin investigation,

(30:39):
They need to freeze your assets, they need to just
begin the process, and you will go bankrupt defending yourself.
Your life will be ruined. So again we get into
the legal eese and the back and forth and all
of the punditry of the law, and you can go, oh,

(31:01):
this case doesn't hold any water. It doesn't have to
hold water because once the government comes after you, they
can drain you of your life force, start with your money,
and then they can so disrupt the rhythm of your life,
your kids' lives, et cetera. That it is. It's depressing.
And so all I would say is be careful. This

(31:24):
is a government that seems really bent on that kind
of destruction.

Speaker 4 (31:29):
So is the guy who's speaking out.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
No exactly, I mean and I and I would be
lying if I told you I wasn't concerned. Yeah, So
all right, from the from the heavy to the the
YouTube craziness of smash the like button with your iron rod.
Smash the like button, please everyone, it's all we have left.

Speaker 5 (31:55):
Smash with your iron rod.

Speaker 1 (31:57):
Yeah. The thumbs up helps us in the YouTube universal
help make sure that this feed shows up in other
people's feeds who may not even know we are here.
So it's a great pleasure to recognize our next guest,
and let's do it. Mark Thompson Show. He is the
political analyst for iHeartMedia and also across the CBS television
stations when it comes to politics. Love chatting with this guy.

(32:20):
He's the great Gary Dietrich.

Speaker 2 (32:22):
Hi Gary, Hello, Mark Times. When I thought I'd love
to steal that smash you.

Speaker 6 (32:28):
With your iron rod appropriated, appropriated on national television.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
Sometimes I don't know how, but find a ways.

Speaker 6 (32:36):
Just just sneak the drop in with some kind of
gnat sound in the background.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
I don't know. I just love that thing time you play.

Speaker 1 (32:43):
I love my drops and you're welcome to steal any
of them if you ever feel the need. We'll help
facilitate it.

Speaker 2 (32:51):
Attribution for attribution only, of course.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
You Uh all right, Uh, I want to get you
right to the down of the government. We've been to
this precipice before, and usually something's worked out at the
eleventh hour. Last week you saw the president cancel a
meeting with the leading Democrats, and usually the meetings with

(33:17):
leading members of the opposing party help get you across
the finish line of, you know, keeping the government open.
And now I guess the President is saying, yeah, I'll
meet with them, So maybe there's some light at the
end of this dark tunnel. Although it seems as though
there were a lot of interests on both sides that
might be served by a government shutdown. So give me
your calibration of all of this. Maybe that'll help get

(33:40):
us through.

Speaker 6 (33:41):
Yeah, Mark, you really laid it out well, because you
know there's the policy things in that. Of course, sometimes
weighing even heavier is the politics, and that is made
even more consequential by the gargantuan stakes. It seems like
we talk about every week of next year. Okay, there
were now thirteen months from any people saying this could
be the most literally the most consequential midterm elections of

(34:05):
our certainly of the modern era in the last few decades,
some people say, of their entire lives.

Speaker 2 (34:09):
So all the other stuff, like the.

Speaker 6 (34:12):
Setting meetings, canceling meetings, all the rest of it, as
you will, No, Mark, much of that is simply political fear.
It's simply gainsmanship. It's eleventh hour stuff. You see it
in almost every swell. I'm just not gonna I'm not
going to qualifire every state capital every time we.

Speaker 2 (34:29):
Reach one of these things in Washington.

Speaker 6 (34:31):
And so today is the day because you're supposed to
have the Big Four and Sacramento called the Big five
because the governors included. Anyway, it's the it's the you know,
Republican and Democratic leaders from both houses supposed to be
meeting with Trump at the White House today, Why is
that important Because tomorrow night at eleven fifty nine and
fifty nine seconds is when all you know what hits

(34:53):
the fan and you know.

Speaker 2 (34:55):
This can this can cascade pretty quickly as you know
more people, oh who cares.

Speaker 6 (34:59):
Well, Yes, some of the big things people probably know
this drill by now, things like national defense, things like
Medicare and Medicaid, sales security, none of that can be touched.
It's all the discretionary funding. But the things that are
included in discretionary often surprise people. You know, yessebody Park
could be shut down immediately. I mean, there's just a
whole host of things. We don't have time to go

(35:20):
down the whole list, but there's a lot of things
that can be impacted immediately. And this time the stakes
have been raised because there's talk about, well at least
bluster about what we're gonna do permanent layoffs. It's not
just gonna be a one month furlough of federal employees.
So this is a big deal. But I'll just say
a quick word about the politics.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
Mark.

Speaker 6 (35:38):
The problem right now is with exactly what you said,
my friend, and that is that you know, you have
to get to where one or both sides say, uh, oh,
this is not going to be good right for my
party for our re election chances for both parties sometimes
come to this conclusion way, we're both going to suffer
in this potentially this time around. Unfortunately for the people

(36:00):
of the United States American beyond. It looks like both
parties are making a very risky calculation.

Speaker 2 (36:07):
Oh, we could benefit from a shutdown.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
This is where I'm glad we're speaking to you, because
you can at least throw some history, even though I
understand that we're living in times during which maybe history
doesn't apply to everything because we are seeing things that
are so very unprecedented. But historically, isn't the party in
power usually blamed for the shutdown?

Speaker 6 (36:30):
You know, it really depends mark because the party in
power is an interesting notion. Also because sometimes let's just say, okay,
for example, you have a Republican president but a democratically
controlled House and Senate. Well, what's the power on fiscal measures?
Many people may not realize this, but that all fiscal
measures must originate.

Speaker 2 (36:50):
In the House of Representatives.

Speaker 6 (36:52):
So if you have a House and then on top
of that a Senate that looks like it's to the people's.

Speaker 2 (36:57):
Way of thinking being obstructionist.

Speaker 6 (36:59):
Even if there's a Republican sitting in the Oval office,
the Democrats may get blamed.

Speaker 2 (37:03):
And that's why this calculation.

Speaker 6 (37:05):
Is a very inexact science, if it can be called
a science at all, because honestly, Mark, people are sitting
around what may now be non smoke filled rooms, but
there are still rooms jammed with operatives trying to figure
out Okay, listen, if we can we get away with
this for a day or a week. And here's another thing, Mark,
Remember that democratic the Democratic base was really unhappy with

(37:29):
Schumer and the gang earlier this year when they thought
he caved. And so there's a big, big part of
the democratic machine and a lot of the Democrats in
Congress saying, listen, I don't care what it takes, I
don't care what we have to risk. We cannot go
along and then fill in the blank.

Speaker 1 (37:44):
This time around, I'm going to take you back to
what you just said, because we are not in those
times where Congress, I would suggest, respectfully control of things Fiscally,
You've just seen the President fully enabled by the Supreme
Court blawing back a lot of appropriated money for many
of the programs that he has disagreements with. Okay, everything

(38:06):
from usaid to domestic programs. All right, so we've now
seen the president flex and exert his power over a
lot of these things, and i'd include tariffs. He doesn't
have any control to impose tariffs unless you buy this
BS emergency thing. Again, my words, not yours. I know
you're far more even handed about these things. But what
I would say is that the old school thought that, well,

(38:29):
Congress controls the money and not anymore. The other point
I would maintain, again, you don't have to stipulate to
all these things. This is just my little pushback. But
the other thing I would say is in your hypothetical, yeah,
who has the power? If Democrats have Congress and you
have a Republican president, sure, then you have an issue.
That's not the case here. You have a Republican president,
Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican Supreme Court. You tell

(38:53):
me who claims credit for the government shutting down.

Speaker 6 (38:56):
See, this is why I think it's going to be
a particular challenge four Republicans this time around, because you
don't have a so called divided government. You've got Republican House,
Republican Senate. Now, admittedly the margins are small, and in
the Senate, on these fiscal measures, including averting a government shutdown,
you've got to have sixty votes to avert a void

(39:17):
a filibuster. So there's gonna have to be And everybody
knows this because, by the way, Senator Ran Paul said,
I'm not voting for the measure that's already been passed
by the House. By the way, and this is the
one defensive posture that the Republicans have put forward. The
House has already passed a standalone Continuing Resolutions so called CRS.

(39:37):
People get sick of hearing this term, but essentially what
it means is, Okay, we need more time.

Speaker 2 (39:42):
We're going to continue what we already have.

Speaker 6 (39:44):
Okay, like whatever spending already exists, we're gonna just continue that.
The proposal now is until the end of the third
week in November. So that's been passed by the House.
That's sort of the gauntlets it's going to be thrown
down to get in this big meeting in the White House.

Speaker 2 (39:58):
Hey, listen, why wouldn't you vote for this?

Speaker 6 (40:00):
By the way, there are some Democrats in the Senate
that say, look, that's our best shot right now, just
kick this thing down.

Speaker 2 (40:05):
The road for seven weeks or so.

Speaker 6 (40:06):
Let us go hardcore on these negotiations, particularly over healthcare.
Those are the things that Democrats really want to see
changed before they're willing to vote yes on anything that's
more permanent in terms of budget stuff. But to your point, Mark,
the challenge for Republicans is going to be just that
they control the levers of power, accept needing those sixty votes,

(40:27):
which means eight Democrats because Rand Paul's not going to
vote he said for this regardless, need eight Democrats in
the Senate to get this across the finish line. So
there's the math, there's the politics of it. How this
thing's going to end up. I guarantee you nobody inside
the beltwait knows for sure.

Speaker 1 (40:44):
It's interesting also just as a I don't know a
point along the way that is related. There is a
push now and was always the case. Less government was
sort of a GOP a talking point for so long.
I say talking point because even under the GOP grew
a lot of government for a lot of different reasons.
But let's leave that aside. I mean, just generally, the

(41:04):
ethos of the GOP has always been less government. Now
I would say they supercharged that there's a sense that
we want to dismantle government. They did dismantle government. They
brought in Musk at the beginning of this thing. It
was the craziest thing, and he brought a bunch of
tech bros with him, and they essentially fired a bunch
of government workers, closed down a bunch of agencies, usaid,
et cetera, hobbled a bunch of others. So they've really

(41:26):
done a pretty good job as far as their concern
of dismantling things. But they want even more. In other words,
less government is their plan. So closing down the government
ain't so bad to a growing number of people. You
can tell me to what extent growing number of people
who subscribe to that kind of philosophy, But you can
tell me to what extent within government. Okay, because Congress

(41:49):
and the President they are still in government, to what
extent that kind of radical view of closing government is
a good thing is a persistent viewpoint.

Speaker 2 (42:00):
That's a little insider take all.

Speaker 6 (42:01):
Right inside the halls of Congress, the literal halls and offices,
This ain't popular with democratic or Republican staffers why they
don't get paid.

Speaker 2 (42:11):
They do not get paid until this thing gets resolved.

Speaker 6 (42:14):
So it sounds weird, but their staff pressure can mean
something sometimes, right, and they're like listen, boss, I know.

Speaker 2 (42:22):
But okay, right, So there's some of that.

Speaker 6 (42:25):
The other thing about it, Mark, it's really interesting is
that you have certain members who, you know, Republican members,
they're starting to push back on some of this Trump
closure stuff and especially with specific things that may impact
their states and like, no, no, I'm not going along
with that, right. So I think it's important, especially in
these times, Mark, to talk about the fact that there

(42:47):
is not a real monolithic sense in either party about
some of this. And that's I think really important for
people to understand. We know, we know there's been a
lot of talk about progressives in the Democratic Party versus
more moderates, you know, and by the way, the progressives
perceive Schumer as not part of their game, right, they
really don't. And you know, on their Republican side, there's

(43:08):
hardcore Republicans you say, man, got these fogus, oh fogeys
in the Senate. They just don't go along with what
the people, the MAGA base wants, and you know, what
To some degree, they're right, there's certain centers that are
on the Republican side saying okay, that's enough, I'm not
doing this anymore.

Speaker 2 (43:22):
So it's going to be really interesting.

Speaker 6 (43:24):
My point is marked for the internal dynamics of both
of these parties to see how this plays out.

Speaker 1 (43:31):
I'm wondering also to what extent the changing face of
there was a special election where a Democrat want I
thinks another that where a Democrat want You talked about
in reference the sort of thin majority that the Republicans have,
to what extent when it comes to something like the
Epstein files and forcing that vote on the Epstein files,

(43:54):
there isn't an anxiety, a palpable anxiety that's coming from
the head of state, from Donald Trump, and the notion
that congressional support, which again is so very thin, might
be melting away.

Speaker 6 (44:09):
Well, it's melting away seat by seat, because remember there's
been four vacancies in the House already majority for the Republicans.
But of those four seats that are and they are
now being filled. As you rightly point out, Mark, we've
had a couple of special elections. There's a couple more
to come. The general senses because of just the nature
of those districts and the way they were drawn, that

(44:31):
three of those four seats are likely to go to Democrats. Okay,
that is going to make a guard g intuing problem
for Mike Johnson.

Speaker 2 (44:39):
Okay, already narrow.

Speaker 6 (44:41):
Majorities four House Republicans that so far led by Thomas Masters.
You know, in Kentucky state, we are voting for those
Depteine files to be released, period, end of story. Don't
care what Trump says. Don't care Mike what you said,
don't care what anybody says. So this is a real
problem because until the midterms next year, when all four
of those seats are seated, Mike Johnson's majority could get

(45:06):
even tighter and more difficult, affecting things like the Epstein
vote that you point out, releasing the files, but a
whole host of votes for the next thirteen months.

Speaker 1 (45:15):
Mike Johnson is slow walking the swearing in of the
winner of the special election. I wonder if you could
speak to that.

Speaker 6 (45:24):
Well, that's part of this whole game, Okay, it's part
of like I mean, you know, so the people elect
their representative in a special election, and then they do
have to be formally sworn in. It happens in every
state legislature, every seat in Congress. Okay, and so you
know you just kind of conveniently, well, I've seen this.
I've seen this go the other direction too, a Democrats
with well, you know, we just can't quite get around

(45:45):
to scheduling when we need to swear that person in,
and that's.

Speaker 2 (45:48):
Done for strategic reasons.

Speaker 6 (45:50):
Right as you're pointing out about the Epstein files, I
think the game behind that right now is very simple, Mark,
and that is continuing to try to mollify the MAGA
base and others who very much want the Epstein files
released by the houses, in the committees in the House
for example, you know, releasing more of their own files, etc.

(46:12):
Trying to water down the impetus to release the entire
Bailey Wick, I don't know that that's going to succeed
right now.

Speaker 2 (46:19):
That air does not seem to be out of the
balloon to make that happen.

Speaker 1 (46:23):
Yeah, I think that there's a lot to the Epstein
files on both sides, and a lot of interests that
are going to prevent the release. But this is a
new threshold where you can force the vote, so you'll
actually see who is voting against the release, and then
they'll have to own that politically. Take me to California
real quick, because this is something that you just you
know the cast of characters so well. I think it's

(46:44):
kind of like a Greek tragedy in the characters that
are so kind of clearly drawn. Newsome, Harris, the back
and forth, it's all filled. But that's sort of a
I think, jealousy, ambition, money. So for these reasons, I
sometimes see it as a I don't mean to see
it only as theater. I mean, I think it's very

(47:04):
very important. But give me the latest time what's happening?
Because Harris and Newsom have done it back and forth
and it feels almost theatrical.

Speaker 6 (47:13):
Yeah, well, the states are raising mark. I mean, there's
no question about it. Because it's clear now Newsom is
running for president. He already has been I contend for
the last twelve to eighteen months. Harris, now with her
decision not to run for the California governorship next year,
has pretty much thrown down the gauntlet and there's wide
belief that there's only one avenue left for her, and
that's running again in twenty eight. What does that do

(47:34):
It immediately sets up what was already a behind the
scenes battle between them and their staffs and funders and
volunteers and true believers. Between here's two Californians, maybe the twoest,
two highest profile Democrats. Right now, one could say nationally,
who are going to be going at it? Not long
away from now? I mean, you know, certainly not later

(47:55):
than after the midterm election, but many people can by
early next year, these folks are going to out on
the campaign trill as are all the potential contenders in
both parties, raising money, getting endorsements, et cetera. So last week,
here's how the stakes were raised when Kamala's book came
out last Wednesday, and she said in the book, well,
you know, I called Gavin when the president, that is,

(48:15):
Joe Biden made his decision to drop out, and I said,
I was jumping in and the President got behind me
immediately called Gavin any cryptic message back basically hiking call
you later. And in the book she says I never
got the call basically in so many words.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
You know, he didn't call back. I think here's the words.
Whatever it was.

Speaker 6 (48:34):
Gavin then said, well, I'm sure she must have known that,
you know, Hey, things happen, He said, I didn't know
that number when I was on the trail, and by
the time I was going to text your back or
whatever call her back, we were already drafting my response
to getting behind her. Well, there's a lot of people
that don't believe any of that, okay, because why wouldn't
you just text back say hey, kamala u, I'm on

(48:55):
board something.

Speaker 2 (48:57):
She contends There was nothing.

Speaker 6 (49:00):
I mean, you know, it's real clear now there's no
love loss between these two campaigns potential campaigns, and let's
see where it goes. But two high profile Californians and
national Democratic figures looked like they are at absolute loggerheads.

Speaker 1 (49:14):
Well you identified this. I remember at the time when
the Harris ascendants was requiring everybody to kind of sign
on in the Democratic Party, and there was that sense
like should there have been open elections and you know,
open primary in some way to sort of establish who
would have the shot, and it was all sort of

(49:36):
done in this way, you know, but Biden had to
be pressured, then he had to be pressured again, that
had to be really like super pressured, and then he
finally dropped out. It was like the eleventh hour all this,
and I mentioned I remember the conversation with you because
we're talking about Newsom, and you said their political rivals,
if it would be a bit out of character, you
didn't say like this literally, but it was your point
for Newsom to kind of sign on to Harris in

(49:58):
any kind of really high profile way. Right.

Speaker 6 (50:00):
Well, remember Mark, then Obama and Pelosi and others kept
very overtly or somewhat quietly saying we need a primary,
we need a primary. Newson was among those, and he
floated his name out there. You know, there's no secret
now he was testing the waters and really wanted that
primary to go forward. I think when it became clear

(50:21):
very quickly that that was you know, that got squashed,
as you know, by the Harris people and the Biden people,
and finally people like Pelisi and Obama just kind of
act wees rolled the rise and said, well, you only
got one hundred and seven days now, we better just
throw our lot it together here and make this thing happen.
That's really how it went down. But it was very
clear that Newsom was angling for a shot in that

(50:43):
open primary, and he kind of said as much, Hey, listen,
we should all get involved. I mean, he was fully
prepared to run against Harris and a primary and win.

Speaker 1 (50:52):
Love our time together, we didn't even get to Portland
and sending troops into American cities. We'll save that for
next time. But we're going to continue in the next
hour talking a little bit about that with a legal
mind to kind of give us the sense of that.
But you're just so great on the politics, and it
feels like a real high stakes political moment in America

(51:13):
right now, as you say, on some level, even though
we visited this moment before, it exists in a different
environment that feels of far more intense. So I really
appreciate as always, my friend, thank you for being here.

Speaker 2 (51:26):
Have a great show, my friend.

Speaker 1 (51:27):
All right, we'll see again. Gary Dietrich is from iHeartRadio
and the CBS television network, and I just want to
mention Gary comes to us through Bill Campbell at Remax Gold.
He sponsors Gary's appearance. If you're relocating into or from
northern California, you need a highly respected real estate professional.
Bill Campbell is your man at Remax Gold. Call our

(51:48):
text Bill five to three oh four four eight seventy four,
seventy four five to three oh four, four, eight, seventy four,
seventy four. It's Bill Campbell, Max go Thomson right on,
very very excited by the way, there is an event

(52:09):
going on in the San Francisco Bay area. We have
a big Bay area audience. Cindy tells us that there
is the San Francisco Alzheimer's Walk. Is it Alzheimer's or
Alzheimer Can anybody help me with that? I mean, is

(52:32):
this a it's Alzheimer Alzheimer So it's the Alzheimer Walk.
It's October eighteenth and Mission Bay.

Speaker 4 (52:43):
Park, so San Francisco Walk, but they're all over the
Bay area as well.

Speaker 1 (52:48):
Yeah. The San Francisco Walk takes place at Bayfront Park
and you can find it. I think, well you can
google the information Alzheimer's Walks, s F Alzheimer's and it's
in Fairfield. Ronert Park. Kim's aunt organizes the one in

(53:12):
Ronut Park apparently.

Speaker 4 (53:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (53:15):
Yeah, Ronert Park is in the North Bank.

Speaker 4 (53:17):
Yeah, it's where they do it. I think they do
it at Sonoma State University.

Speaker 1 (53:24):
It's Oh, so the Ronert Park Walk is October fourth,
They're all different dates. The San Ramon Walk is October
twenty fifth. The Alzheimer's Walk in San Francisco and in
Fairfield is October eighteenth.

Speaker 4 (53:39):
Yeah, so you could probably do all of them if
you wanted to.

Speaker 1 (53:42):
I mean, these are people who already have Alzheimer, and
you're confusing them by giving them different dates about the walk.
I mean, it just doesn't who is having that conversation.
I'm saying it's flaw in the strategy. But as Kim says,
the virtue in the strategy is that everybody can go
to all the different walks. If that's your jam, there

(54:03):
you go. So thank you Cindy for that, And I
hope that that mentioned anyway brings brings additional people out
to the walk. It seems like a really great thing.
Alzheimer disease is just the scourge, truly, the scourge of

(54:25):
modern life. You know, as we've gotten older, we've been
able to extend our life spans. The idea somehow though,
that you retain mental acuity becomes so very important. I said,
as commonly known as Thilan, is that going to be
tied to alzheimer as well? Sir? Is that your thing? Now?
My god?

Speaker 4 (54:43):
Well, it's like you can you know, I feel like
I could deal with raggedy hips or knees or joint pain,
like things that happen as you get older. But the
thought of not remembering something or you know, or anything,
or of being like alive but not being myself anymore,
that that's what scares me the most.

Speaker 1 (55:04):
Of course. I mean, look all these horrible diseases at
the end of life, I mean the I mean als Alzheimer.
I mean it's just, you know, they're just two ends
of the same uh spectrum, and it's all bad right
where you where. You're all there, but your body starts
to shut down and you're still fine on the inside.

(55:25):
I mean, it's all grim, man, the end of end
of life, quality of life is everything right, which is
why the idea somehow that if you are facing down
any one of these things, you should you should have
any number of choices for palliative care and also for
you know, if if it's really grim, being able to
say goodbye to your friends and family and whatever and
not and maybe not have to live through it. I

(55:45):
mean this, I understand really grim stuff. But we've had
guests on the show talking about it, and you know
that's these are adult conversations, so so there you go.
I do have I do have news that I wanted
to touch on relate to what I thought is something
that we predicted on this show, Tony, Do you have

(56:06):
the was it meet the Press where that where Thune,
who's supposed to be like the you know, kind of
the level headed Republican John Thune is asked about something
that what did I predict what happened with these ridiculous tariffs?
I said, here's what's going to happen. The farmers are

(56:28):
going to get crushed because you're putting these insane tariffs
on and they're going to be reciprocal tariffs back or
countries are just not going to do business as a result.
So like a country, a country like China, a huge
consumer of soybeans, et cetera, they're going to go away,
and you think that America is the only place they
can get it. Yes, again, they're going to Brazil. We

(56:48):
talked about this, he said, these very words. Run the clip.

Speaker 7 (56:54):
To talk to you about the president's tariff policy. This week,
he announced a slew of new tariffs and including one
hundred percent tariffs on pharmaceuticals, kitchen cabinets, heavy duty trucks,
this week, he acknowledged that farmers are hurting because of
his tariff policy. He said he'd use some of the
tariff revenue to actually help farmers who are being hurt.

(57:16):
Right now, take a look.

Speaker 1 (57:17):
Right there, Tony. That's what I told you he was
going to do. I said, he's going to take care
of the farmers who are going to get crushed by this,
and he's going to use tariff money to do it.
And I wasn't being some incredible insightful nostradamus on this.
It's exactly what he did in Trump won the first
season when he crushed his farmers and the farming community,

(57:43):
and he used moneies, federal government moneies to give them
bailouts so that he wouldn't lose that base of support
in all of those states affected. Go ahead, run the
rest of it now, please thank you. It's been three
years since we've had this cart so Thun then answers
that point about the fact that Trump is now going

(58:06):
to jump a bunch of teriff money back to those
businesses that have been crushed by his own tariffs.

Speaker 8 (58:17):
Well, look, I think that the farmers and I represent
a lot of them, and they want nothing more than
open markets. There are markets right now that aren't open
to some of our commodities. As a consequence of that,
we've got a big harvest coming in here in South
Dakota corn and soybeans and no place to go with it.
So what the President has said is I'm going to
support and I'm going to help our farmers, and so

(58:37):
we are looking at I'm a member of the Senate
a committee, have been for some time, and we're looking
at potential solutions to make sure that we can help
support farmers until some of those markets come back. I
think part of it is that the presidents trying to
achieve with his trade policy, reciprocity with countries that have
been taking advantage of us for a long time. And
I think most of us support that. I think a
lot of our farmers support that. They are anxious, they

(58:59):
want to see markets opened up, and so I have
when I speak to the President and his team about this,
always reiterate the importance of keeping agriculture front and center
when you're negotiating trade deals. But at the end of
the day, our farmers are probably going to need some
financial assistance this year, and a lot of the revenue
coming in off the terrace is what they would use
to provide that.

Speaker 7 (59:19):
But later soon, why not ask the president's roll back?
Go ahead?

Speaker 8 (59:25):
Well, I was gonna say, and that's there, there's precedent
for doing that. I mean, there are many times in
the past where now this is different because you've got
terraf revenue coming in which you can use for that purpose.
But this is not something that we haven't dealt with before.

Speaker 1 (59:38):
Why you can stop. You can stop right there because
you had open markets. Let's cut the crap. But I
just want to see those markets opened up. I know
our farmers want nothing more than open markets. You had them.
The farmers were fine. The farmers were selling those soybeans
to China. You had that was your biggest customer. If

(59:59):
Trump had been smart, he would have come in and
not touched anything. You had the leading economy in the world. Instead,
out of some fever dream, he has these tariffs that
he pulls out of thin air, and they are screwing
everybody American consumers, farmers, auto production, fill in the blank.

(01:00:24):
And this is where we are. You're in this place
where this guy who's the leader of the GOP and
the Senate comes on and he's trying to twist himself
into a pretzel to somehow justify the way that his
constituency has been screwed by these ridiculous policies. Well, fortunately,

(01:00:46):
we've got that teriff money coming in, so we'll be
able to reduce you. You don't need the tariff money,
you had actual money coming in to farmers who want
not to live on the dole, but to actually have
a business that they have likely been involved in for generations.
Here's the news out of Indiana, the countries in the

(01:01:08):
middle of a tariffs standoff with President Donald Trump. We're
delaying orders for American shipments now more expensive to retaliatory
tariffs may provide China leverage and negotiations. The sheer amount
of the crop the soybean crop to China is immense.

(01:01:34):
China has not yet placed an order for US soybeans.
If a deal is not reached before South America's soybean
crop is ready, the consequences for US farmers could be
catastrophic in the coming years. It's not just this year, dude,
it's you are turning the economy of farming on its
side with these ridiculous tariffs. Some will have to cut

(01:01:58):
back on costs. Corn and soybean producers are having to
face down real issues, and tight margins couldn't mean that
their bank loans will be defaulted on if things don't
change the next year, said an Indiana farmer. I will

(01:02:22):
know somebody, meaning they're going to have to be some
kind of relief. There could be some relief on the
way Trump indicating that he wants to use tariff revenue
to supply aid to farmers. But farming is a livelihood

(01:02:44):
that may be going away from many of these various
families who've been involved in it for generations. So again,
I mentioned it because we think of ourselves and I
understand this kind of as we have this myth of
American exceptionalism that somehow this stuff won't affect us. Our farmers,

(01:03:07):
they farm the best stuff. We have relationships with buyers.
But these open markets that center Thune is talking about,
they existed and now they don't. So that's the story
on the tariffs. But it bears mentioning because there's a
real price that's being paid by many associated with the

(01:03:31):
farming community and with the American business community across the board.
And now you saw that just today, Donald Trump just
kind of woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Yeah,
and he is announcing a one hundred percent levy on
foreign made films.

Speaker 8 (01:03:47):
What.

Speaker 1 (01:03:48):
Yeah, Hollywood's in trouble, so I'm going to slap a
one hundred percent tax on movies made outside the US.
He said that movie production quote has been stolen from Hollywood,
and the US is no longer dominant in the way

(01:04:10):
we produce motion pictures. I will be imposing a one
hundred percent tariff on any and all movies that are
made outside of the United States.

Speaker 4 (01:04:16):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:04:17):
Well, here's the problem. So much of every movie, I
shouldn't say every movie, but many films. It's a little
like the auto industry. So much of it is done
in different places. Tony can tell you about this. I
feel like, you know, don't they record on sound stages
in London And they will.

Speaker 6 (01:04:32):
Because London gives really good tax breaks right now, so
they do it there.

Speaker 1 (01:04:35):
Vancouver gives huge tax breaks, so they're going to go
wherever it's cheapest. Sure, and that's why, like everyone went
to Atlanta for a while, right, Yeah, So what happens.
I mean, you consider like the James Bond or the
born identity films to be foreign films. A lot of
them are shot foreign locations, and they're I mean, they'll

(01:04:56):
have to be you know, as usual. It's a half
baked idea. It shouldn't have even been baked, the half
that was baked.

Speaker 4 (01:05:05):
Anyway, A lot of movies are filmed in Canada because
it's cheaper. And I know they've filmed that new series
Chief of War that is supposed to take place in Hawaii.
They filmed it in New Zealand because otherwise it was
not affordable.

Speaker 1 (01:05:19):
Of course, I will tell you that I have my.

Speaker 4 (01:05:21):
Own tariff situation over here. I ordered a camera from
Canada for my daughter's birthday in July, and I just
got a note from FedEx with a little letter from
Homeland Security that I owe forty four dollars in tariffs.

Speaker 1 (01:05:37):
Oh man, isn't that crazy? Wow? Yeah, I don't know, Kim,
Why would you order a camera from Canada? You cannot
say you love your country?

Speaker 4 (01:05:49):
Un camera that she wanted and she found it for
a great price on eBay, so we bought it and
apparently it came from Canada.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
All right, have it you're away. Yeah, it's going to
affect all of us. I mean, it's going to turn
the economy on its side. It's going to happen. I
gave you the farming example, and the farming narrative is
going just as we said it would with the farming bailouts. Now,
but I mean, the auto industry is in this. And

(01:06:17):
now he's got, you know, these tariffs on heavy trucks,
and I mean he's he's serving up these tariffs like
a short order chef and he has no idea what
he's no idea what he's doing. Yeah, anyway, I need
to move along. I've become such a fan of our

(01:06:37):
next guest. It's an extraordinary thing that this person, again
a public servant for so long she was the pardon
attorney for the US, was essentially chased out of government
over the mel Gibson situation. You remember the situation with
mel Gibson. He was convicted of domestic abuse and then

(01:06:59):
he wanted that license for the firearm back right, and
that flies in the face of existing law, and Liz
Oyer said, I can't do that. I mean, just the
history of horrors that have been wrought on those who've
been victims of domestic abuse who've then been able to
retain a firearm or get access to a firearm. That

(01:07:22):
list is pretty awful, So she pushed back. Mel Gibson's
a friend of the White House, friend of Donald Trump.
I think he gave him some ambassadorship. Remember he gave
the Hollywood he gave Mel Gibson sliced alone. Schwarzenegger I
think was one of them. John Voight might have been
one of them. He's a big maga guy. Gave them
ambassadorships in Hollywood in any case, but she held the line.

(01:07:44):
I've got mad respect for her and now her analysis
on things related to the law, I think it is
second to none. She's the brilliant Lizayer. Everybody look at you, Lizoyer.

Speaker 5 (01:07:56):
High oh, Mark, thanks for having me back on your.

Speaker 1 (01:07:59):
Show now, very excited to have you here. Of course,
am paying member of the Oyer Lawyer sub stack, and
I encourage everyone to do similarly. In fact, we'll have
a link under this video so that many watching this
can just click through and become part of the crew
that gets the benefit of your takes. Wow, the Justice Department, Now, Liz,

(01:08:22):
this is a total disconnect from any moorings associated with
constitutionality and sort of the history, even the troubled history
of America.

Speaker 5 (01:08:34):
Yeah, the Justice Department is in a historic crisis. We've
never seen anything like this before, and it's really intentional.
It's a lot of what Donald Trump has been doing
over the last eight or nine months, coming together, coming
to fruition. He on day one decided that he was
going to turn the Justice Department into his personal law firm.

(01:08:54):
So he started installing his personal attorneys in positions of
power throughout the Justice Department.

Speaker 2 (01:09:01):
All of the.

Speaker 5 (01:09:01):
Highest ranking DOJ officials are people who worked for Donald
Trump as his personal lawyers. His Attorney General, Pam Bondi,
messaged to the entire workforce on her first day in
office that we all work for Donald Trump. She sent
a memo to over one hundred and ten thousand employees
of the Department of Justice saying, we work for Donald Trump.

(01:09:22):
And at the same time, the President and his team
have rooted out the career experts, the non political employees
who could stand in the way of implementing the president's
political agenda. That includes people like myself, as well as
people with oversight of all sorts of non political functions
of the department, like ethics, professional responsibility, transparency, the types

(01:09:48):
of things that are intentionally safeguarded with career, non political employees.
And by doing all of this, he has created a
situation where there's really no one left in the Department
of Justice to resist his will. He is now able
to bulldoze through the Department anything that he wants to
see happen in the justice system, and that includes prosecuting

(01:10:11):
his enemies as well as rewarding his friends and donors
with special treatment in the justice system.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
What's the old line, bring me the man, and I'll
show you at the crime or I'll show you there's
a there's the despot sort of adage, you know, And.

Speaker 5 (01:10:27):
Yes, exactly, that's very much his approach to the justice system.

Speaker 1 (01:10:30):
And so he's named those people that he wants, which
is the thing about Trump, there's no sleight of hand.
You know, it's out there and he's saying it and
he's posting it. So, you know, bring me the head
of James Comy, and bring me the head of Adam Schiff,
and bring me the ahead of you know, whomever, anybody
who has perceived into these these FBI people, these these underlings,

(01:10:52):
I mean, Miles Taylor, et cetera. You know, but on
some level. I was making the point Liz earlier that
when the government comes after you and they even begin
an investigation, or you're a target of indictment, it can
be ruinous. I mean, you can go bankrupt trying to
defend yourself. It can they never even have to bring charges,
and your life can be destroyed.

Speaker 5 (01:11:13):
Yeah, that's exactly right. Being the subject of a criminal
investigation is no joke. It is incredibly invasive, it's costly,
it's time consuming, and it really can ruin your life.
For that very reason, there historically have been a lot
of safeguards in place about when a criminal investigation can
even be initiated, but those safeguards have all been stripped

(01:11:36):
away and removed, and Donald Trump is using the process
of investigating people as a punishment unto itself. He has
tweeted about this. He knows that there's a cost of
being investigated, and his view of it is, well, it
happened to me, so it's fair game for me to
inflict that on other people, regardless of whether they've actually

(01:11:57):
done anything wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:11:58):
I want to ask you about this, the demand that
Trump has made that troops show up in all of
these American cities to protect various things, ice facilities, federal buildings.
In the case of Los Angeles, et cetera, that would
be it would seem patently illegal, not for the fact
that he seems to be doing it over and over

(01:12:20):
and it seems to now be upheld on some level
by higher courts. Can you give me the legal aspects
of that.

Speaker 5 (01:12:27):
Well, the troops cannot be used for domestic law enforcement purposes,
so there's some debate about what the purpose of these
troops being there is. And Donald Trump doesn't really care
whether it's legal or not. I mean, that's the bottom line.
He's just going to go forward and do it without
waiting for any court to tell him whether it is

(01:12:48):
or is not legal. He's just plowing forward. This is
basically his approach to everything is to act first and
then deal with the consequences later. If a court intervenes
and says it's not legal. So there will be litigation
challenging this and it will eventually likely get resolved by
the Supreme Court. But it's very unlikely that the Supreme

(01:13:09):
Court is going to allow an injunction to stay in
place to prevent it from happening. And in the meantime,
Donald Trump will have his troops where he wants them,
and he will be able to do a lot of
damage in the interim before we get any final resolution
on the legality from the Supreme Court.

Speaker 1 (01:13:26):
Thank you for making that point. It's one that I've
made from the beginning, which is that this, as you say,
is an established Trump pattern. He can do so much
before there's any kind of legal judgment against him that
would necessitate him having to sort of recalibrate or refigure
a strategy. It's a way in which the undoing of
America can happen. And you know, you sort of can't

(01:13:46):
put Humpty Dumpty back together again. What's happened at the
federal level. I mean, I couldn't believe the way that
the Doge crew and Musk and his little band of
you know, tech wannabes, we're allowed into government, able to
scrape government systems for all kinds of data and to
dismantle government. I mean, major government agencies being hobbled from

(01:14:10):
EPA to USAID in a month, in a month's time,
and the legal challenges just couldn't be mounted more quickly enough.

Speaker 5 (01:14:19):
Yep. No, they went in there with a wrecking ball
and they did irreversible damage before any court could even
weigh in on whether it was legal. We're now seeing
that our court system is really too slow to address
and react to many of the unprecedented things that this
administration is doing. They're just not things that anyone ever
imagined happening before, and so they're all raising novel issues

(01:14:43):
of law and is taking quite some time for courts
to untangle the legality of some of these issues, and
in the meantime, many people are suffering as a result.
In the case of the Doge example, there are people
who lost their jobs, who've been unemployed, who have had
their lives ruined. That is victually so. In the DC
metro area where I live. We have seen the economy suffer,

(01:15:05):
the housing market suffer. We have seen so many people
dealing with food insecurity because they've lost their federal employment
or employment employment that was adjacent to federal employment, like
federal contracts. It's really just rereaked havoc on so many
people's lives, and there's just no sign that this administration
cares at all about the collateral damage they are doing

(01:15:27):
to many Americans in the process.

Speaker 1 (01:15:31):
Yeah, you know, I grew up in Washington, DC. My
dad worked for the government, and all my friends dads
and moms worked for the government. One of my friends
of mothers was the Secretary of Treasury for a while.
One of my friend's dads was Department of Commerce. Had
so Secretary of Commerce it was I mean, you realize
these and a lot of them leave aside the heads
of agencies, but a lot of these people have, like yourself,

(01:15:54):
really are public servants. You know, you have a history
in your case, Lizoyer, of service. Weren't you a public
defender for a considerable amount of time.

Speaker 5 (01:16:04):
Yeah, I've spent the majority of my career in federal service.
And for most federal servants, serving their fellow citizens is
a calling. It gives them a sense of purpose, It
gives them a sense of mission. There's this whole myth
about deep state bureaucrats being people who are just collecting
a paycheck and not earning it. That is absolutely false.
The people who work for the federal government or people

(01:16:27):
who could in most cases be making more money in
the private sector, but they choose to serve because they
believe that it is an important mission and calling, and
the displacement of those people is really a tragic consequence
of the approach of this administration to governing.

Speaker 1 (01:16:42):
Well here here so well said for you once the
Trump administration, but it was really Donald Trump who did
it with personal fiat and in a sweeping way pardoned
all those January sixth. There is without regard to how
involved with the violent overthrow they were. I mean there

(01:17:05):
were proud boys, there were these three percenters. There were
those who were beating police officers without within an inch
of their lives, alongside those who were more just there
and had some like like one toe in the water
type thing. But in a sweeping way, they were all
pardoned in just the same way. That had to be

(01:17:26):
a chilling moment for you because you were you were
the US Partner attorney. That's why I say that, Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:17:34):
It really was very shocking, Mark. I mean that happened
on the first day that Donald Trump was in office,
and I was the pardoner attorney, and I had no
knowledge that that was coming, no advance warning that that
was happening. It never occurred to me that they would
do that without giving me any notice. It's something that,
of course the president has the prerogative to do under
the Constitution, but the idea that it would be done

(01:17:56):
without consulting the pardon attorney, and that it would be
done on that tremendous scale and scope that you described
where everybody gets a pardon is really just shocking and
chilling and not something that I expected to see. One
really upsetting detail for me personally is that I have

(01:18:17):
now been replaced in the role of pardon attorney by
a person who is an election denier. His name is
Ed Martin. He's a person who was part and parcel
of the January sixth uprising. He described that day as
like Marti Grass in Washington, d C. He has been
a huge defender and supporter of the January sixth pardon recipients,

(01:18:40):
and just over the weekend he retweeted something suggesting that
January six was a hoax and that it was a
conspiracy that was actually orchestrated by people in the FBI.
So that person who was espousing falsehoods about the January
sixth and claiming that it was started intentional the FBI

(01:19:01):
now occupies my old job of pardon attorney, which is
really just a very disturbing development for the American people.
He also has another important job in the Justice Department.
He's the director of what he calls the Weaponization Working Group,
which is a group that is dedicated to investing Donald
investigating Donald Trump's political enemies. So on the one hand,

(01:19:25):
he's got his hand on the lever of punishment with
the Weaponization Group and on the other hand the leaver
of rewards with doling out pardons to people who are
mega supporters. He is really just a terrifying person. He's
not a serious lawyer, he has no qualifications for this job,
and he's got a tremendous amount of power in the

(01:19:46):
Justice Department.

Speaker 1 (01:19:47):
Wow, that's so very scary. I also saw, Liz that
some Jay sixers who've received these pardons are now going
after the government and sharing the government. So it's I mean,
insult to injury is like the adage that doesn't even
approach how offensive.

Speaker 5 (01:20:09):
That is exactly right. There are a bunch of different
types of lawsuits that have been filed. Some are claiming
that they were wrongly prosecuted and seeking damages. Others are
seeking the return of the money that they paid as
part of their sentence. Many of those folks had to
pay back the costs of property damage that they caused

(01:20:30):
on that day and they're asking for their money back.
In some cases they have gotten their money back, and
now the taxpayers will foot the bill of this tremendous
amount of damage that was done to the capitol, as
well as the injuries that were caused by these police officers.
So the partners have really opened up sort of Pandora's
box with a whole side set of issues that are

(01:20:52):
now arising in the courts that will probably continue to
be litigated for years to come.

Speaker 1 (01:20:57):
Liz Oier, this brings me to another thing that you
know so well, and that is sort of the ripple
effect of pardons and clemency. And there has been and
we've reported on it here for years, there have been
some high profile frauds that have been perpetrated by business
people and they say, I've got an electric car company,

(01:21:19):
I'm looking for investors, whatever it might be, And that's
an actual example, and millions are then funneled into what
is completely a fraudulent exercise. That's just one example. There
are a bunch of them. So the government of finally
putting together a bunch of facts and evidence, is able
to seek and get a criminal prosecution and conviction. And

(01:21:41):
then Donald Trump came in and he literally just pardoned
all of these people who perpetrated all of these frauds
on all of these people. And then this gets to
the other part that I just wanted to You can
review this with some specifics because I love how you
break this down. The penalties that they pay, which are
part of the adjudication. Those penalties are then waived.

Speaker 5 (01:22:06):
Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. Donald Trump has been granting
pardons primarily to people who are convicted of large white
collar fraud crimes, so crimes that involve stealing or cheating
other people out of money. And one example that you
noted is this guy Trevor Milton, who created this company
that was supposedly building the world's first electric powered semi truck,

(01:22:30):
and many pension funds invested in this working people had
retirement funds that were invested in this company, and the
whole thing, it turns out, was a fraud. He created
a commercial that showed supposedly a working prototype of the truck,
and it turns out that they had actually pushed the
truck up to the top of a hill and then
rolled it down the hill to make it look like

(01:22:51):
it was working. Because the whole thing was a fraud.
Through and through. He cheated his investors out of almost
seven hundred million dollars, and he went on to donate
almost two million dollars to Donald Trump as a result
of his donation, and he also hired Attorney General Pambondi's brother,
Brad Bondi to represent him, and he lobbied for a pardon,

(01:23:13):
and he got a full pardon very early in the
Trump administration that wiped out his obligation to repay nearly
seven hundred million dollars that his investors lost. So those
people are out of pocket that money, and he has
not paid back a dime. It's really quite shocking.

Speaker 1 (01:23:31):
It's again, it's sickening because, as you say, it's not
just a bunch of rich guys who are the investors.
It was, as you've correctly identified, pension funds and average
people that didn't even realize that they are invested in
this as a result of a group of investments that
their pension fund is involved in. And he was just
one example. I mean, this is one of the things

(01:23:51):
I love about your sub stack. You lay it all
out there and it's you know, in the collective. It
approaches two billion dollars that they've been allowed to scale on.

Speaker 5 (01:23:59):
I mean, you know, yeah, it's really incredible. There's another
really stark example of the pay for play aspect of
the pardon system. There's this a man named Paul Walsack
in South Florida who's a healthcare executive. He employed doctors
and nurses for nursing homes and he was skimming money
off the tops of their paychecks. He used the money

(01:24:21):
to buy a yacht and other luxury goods. He was
sentenced to serve a year and a half in prison
and to pay back the money, and the judge who
sentenced him said at his sentencing hearing, I am sentencing
you to prison time even though your lawyers are asking
me not to, because I want to send the message
to the American people that wealth is not a get
out of jail free card in this country. Then, shortly

(01:24:43):
after the sentencing, Paul Walsack's mother paid one million dollars
to attend a dinner with the President at Mar a Lago,
and days later her son got a full pardon from
Donald Trump. So he doesn't have to spend a day
in prison and he doesn't have to pay back that money.
It's hard to imagine a more straightforward quid pro quo
than that. It's just a total corruption of the pardon

(01:25:06):
power and a total abuse of the president's discretion to
grant pardons.

Speaker 1 (01:25:11):
It's one of the things about America, you know, Liz,
that it was the sense that on some level, and
we all understood that if you had money, you could
manage the justice system more broadly through good attorneys and
et cetera. But beyond that, there was sort of a
sense that no one's above the law. And again we
can argue about, you know, the fraud of that and

(01:25:33):
maybe that you know, there were always favors done on
some level, but this is, without a question, another universe
of patronage going on.

Speaker 5 (01:25:43):
Yeah. I think what's really changed, Mark, is that in
the past we all were at least striving toward a
system of equal justice. I can tell you as a
former public defender that we never achieved that ideal of
equal justice under law. There have always been disparities in
our justice system, but we were always striving for that goal. Prosecutors, defense, lawyers, judges,

(01:26:07):
everyone was working toward making our justice system as fair
as possible. That is out the window now, Donald Trump
has overtly embraced the idea of a two tier justice
system where his friends and donors get special treatment and
those he don't like. Those he doesn't like are treated harshly, unfairly,

(01:26:29):
and punished just by initiating persecutions against them in some cases.
So he really has openly and overtly embraced the idea
that our justice system can treat people differently depending on
the whims of the president.

Speaker 1 (01:26:43):
And there's a reputational damage that America is suffering now
in a lot of different ways, and the justice system
is one of those ways. It really has changed the
way you look at someone who's serving in this administration.
I mean, I'd say it's a blessing in a way
that you got out of there. I mean, I'm sure
there are a lot of life chatchallenges as a result
of this situation, but the reality is that those who

(01:27:05):
are working right now at the Trump Justice Department are
facing some real questions as to you know, how does
that look. I look like I'm a henchman to a
guy who just wants to open up a can of
whoop ass on his opponents.

Speaker 5 (01:27:20):
Yeah, the lawyers who are still in the department are
facing difficult decisions every day, and you know some of
the things that are being asked of them. You could
lose your law license, You could be in violation of
your duties as a professional if you take some of
the steps that are being asked of career professionals. So
that is forcing some folks to quit or be fired,

(01:27:40):
and others are just trying to navigate as best as
they can day to day. In my situation, I wanted
to stay on because I felt an obligation to try
to protect my team. I had a team of about
forty five people working under me in the department, and
I felt very dedicated to that team, and I really

(01:28:00):
wanted to protect them throughout the cuts in personnel, the
Doge fork in the road buyout that was offered, which
sort of terrified and traumatized everyone about losing their jobs.
I wanted to try to protect my team. But for me,
you know, I believe that once you compromise your integrity,
you cannot get it back. So I was not willing
to compromise my integrity. I was not willing to make

(01:28:22):
this recommendation about rearming a domestic abuser, because that's very dangerous,
and so I knew that maybe I would lose my
job over it, and I did, And in the end,
You're right, there was some sense of relief that came
with that, because it stopped the daily pressure of having
to make hard decisions about how to navigate this environment

(01:28:44):
where there's so much pressure to do whatever is in
the political interests of the president. But you know, not
having those career experts in the department, it just has
taken away all the guardrails and allowed the president to
plow forward with so many corrupt actions that we're now
seeing the consequences of the score.

Speaker 1 (01:29:03):
Of lawyers who worked under you. Are many of them
trying to hang on because they have kids in preschool
And that's the thing. I mean, these are real people
with real families and real concerns, or are they too
kind of eyeing the exit.

Speaker 5 (01:29:16):
Most of the team has since left since my firing.
I believe the office is down to about seventeen or
eighteen people from around forty five when I was fired,
and everyone is really facing challenges in terms of whether
to stay or whether to go. The problem in the
DC area where my office is based is that the

(01:29:38):
job market is now very challenging because so many people
are coming out of the Justice Department and other federal jobs,
and so for lawyers to find a new job in
this region and for non lawyer professionals as well, is very,
very difficult. But the Justice Department really has been gutted.
There was an article that came out this morning in
Bloomberg Law that said that about a third of career

(01:30:00):
professionals have left the department since this administration started, which
is really a huge number and a huge amount of
knowledge and expertise that is out the door. Many of
these people have either not been replaced at all, or
they have been replaced by people who are just political
operatives like Ed Martin who replaced me, or inexperienced, unqualified lawyers.

(01:30:23):
We saw that in the case of James Comey and
his indictment. The prosecutor who was appointed to secure that
indictment is actually an insurance lawyer by training. She has
no experience whatsoever in criminal law. She's never prosecuted a case,
she's never been involved in a criminal case before period,

(01:30:43):
and she actually had to get tutored by Todd Blanche,
the Deputy Attorney General, in how to present a case
to a grand jury so that she could go in
there and get that indictment against James Comy. She has
no business being in that role. She is a sham prosecutor,
and she was put in that position for the sole
purpose of seeking that indictment against James Cally because none

(01:31:04):
of the trained, experienced, career prosecutors in that office were
willing to do it.

Speaker 1 (01:31:10):
I saw that she double signed something that she wasn't
supposed to. She misspelled something on the complaint. It was
a short complaint that didn't really detail anything. Of course, Siebert,
who I think, and as you can correct me if
I'm wrong, I think Eric Sebert was kind of a
MAGA guy. He's a GOP guy. He's the guy that
Trump forced out because he said, look, I've been investigating this,

(01:31:30):
there's no evidence of criminality here against any of these people. Letisa,
James or James call me or any of these people.
And then Trump essentially said, oh you want to do it,
You're out, and I'm going to hire my insurance lawyer.
And it is as you said, yeah, yeah, I.

Speaker 5 (01:31:46):
Mean, Siebert, you're right, is a conservative guy with Republican ties,
but he also is an experienced career prosecutor, and so
he's familiar with the norms and the rules of engagement
for federal prosecutors, and he wasn't willing to go around
those roles. He insisted on following the basic principle that

(01:32:09):
you bring charges only when they're supported by facts and evidence.
And when he wasn't willing to set the facts and
evidence aside and plow forward anyway, he was removed from
his position and replaced by someone who is really just
a political operative masquerading as an attorney.

Speaker 1 (01:32:27):
Wow. I want to talk more about this Ed Martin
guy on another show, maybe with you, or even if
you're not around. I just think that, you know, it
sounds to me like that's all part of the sort
of jihadism that has really defined this presidency. We're seeing
it now with the James Comy prosecution. I have no
love for James Comy. I think he served up an
election to Donald Trump. But that said, I also feel

(01:32:50):
as though that, you know, the justice system should on
some level reflect real evidence. And you know, it's funny.
My sister was also a public defender in New York
and she told me at the time, remember that no
one knows their case as well as these people that
I'm defending. She said, they're like lawyers, but imagine like

(01:33:11):
a lawyer only knew one case. Really well, true, that's true.

Speaker 5 (01:33:17):
Yeah, you know the James Comey situation, it's not about
James Comy. It is about all of us. It is
about fundamental principles of the American justice system. I mean,
there are legitimate criticisms of James Comy that are coming
from both sides of the aisle, But what his case
is really about is basic principles of justice in our
country and can the president use the Justice Department as

(01:33:40):
a tool to settle personal grudges. The question that this
raises for me is where does this end. Donald Trump
has made it clear that he has a list of
enemies and he's going to go down the list and
try to get indictments against as many of them as possible.
Will that extend to anyone who speaks negatively about the president?
Will that extend to anyone who didn't vote for the president.

(01:34:04):
It's very scary to think about what the consequences of
that could be if he really carries it out as
far as he could, and it puts all Americans at risk.
So regardless of what you think about James Comy. You know,
we should all be very frightened and disturbed by the
way in which that indictment was obtained and what it

(01:34:25):
means that the president is now overtly and publicly using
the justice system as a tool of revenge.

Speaker 1 (01:34:31):
I'm so glad you say this, because this brings me
to the last question, which is really what you hinted at,
which is can the president, in an expressed way, broaden
this to include all dissenters, and I would consider democrats
or dissenters anybody on the left who is expressly pledged
an allegiance to another party whatever however he wants to

(01:34:54):
define it, or it's just you know, it's just a
thing where you don't actually define it, which is probably
more Trumpian. He bring that kind of sort of mass
characterization of a group of people in America as enemies
of the state, in effect the same way he did
with the press, call them enemies of the state. Could
he do this and in some way put all of

(01:35:15):
these Americans in legal jeopardy?

Speaker 5 (01:35:18):
He's trying to do it. I think that's exactly what
he's trying to do with this idea of characterizing Antifa
as a domestic terrorist group. Antifa is just really a
loose collection of people. And when Donald Trump says antifa,
he doesn't mean any specific group. He means people on
the left to oppose his policies and to speak out

(01:35:38):
about it. He means people who are dissenting against his policies,
and he is trying to label those people domestic terrorists
so that he can justify prosecuting them broadly without any
evidence of specific misconduct by individual people, but as part
of some broader cause. So he is looking for ways

(01:35:59):
to secute his political opponents or people who don't support
him in mass and that is one example of it.
I don't know how far he will get with that,
but he is trying very hard, and a lot of
historical safeguards in our legal system are failing us. So
it is a time when levels of alarm are rightly

(01:36:21):
very high.

Speaker 1 (01:36:22):
Well, he's going after FBI agents who knelt during a
Black Lives Matter protest. You could then extend that to
if you view that as something that's actionable, you could
view everybody at that Black Lives Matter protest as enemies
of the state or dissenters or domestic terrorists. However you
want to term it. It just seems like the door
is open. It's a scary time, Liz. I really I'm

(01:36:43):
troubled by it.

Speaker 5 (01:36:43):
It really is. Mark, It's a very scary time to
be an American.

Speaker 1 (01:36:48):
I have links to your sub stack under this video,
and just so appreciate your work. I know this world
of independent media and everything can have its challenges, but
I think you're performing a terrific public service, and so
I know it's different than the old public service. But wow,
we we love you as a guest, and I hope
you'll come back and visit again.

Speaker 5 (01:37:09):
Absolutely, have you back anytime. Thanks so much, Mark, I
really appreciate.

Speaker 1 (01:37:13):
The all the best. Yeah, Liz Oyer, everybody right on
right on the Mark Thompson Show. Yeah, she's great. Or
your lawyer is her substack or your lawyer. But we'll
have a link to it under this video. Yeah, good stuff, Kim,

(01:37:34):
I am I'm at a fork in the road.

Speaker 4 (01:37:37):
Oh what are my choices?

Speaker 1 (01:37:38):
Well? I wanted to see, first of all, do I
owe a mention or at least a I don't like
to do all these things. At the end of the show,
I thought we've discussed this. I want to be able
to give comments some air, not just at the end
of the show. You were busy, Charlene Slemmons with a
supersticker for ten bucks. Come on, that's nice.

Speaker 8 (01:38:01):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (01:38:02):
Give you a big shout out, Charlene. Yeah, yeah, thank you.
We are a crowdfunded show, so we make a big
deal out of the crowd that funds. Jesus is a fact.
You can't run away from Jesus. Alasco for two dollars.

Speaker 4 (01:38:15):
Yeah, and I actually banned Alasco. There's too much going on,
with too much Jesus.

Speaker 1 (01:38:22):
Your problem, Kim, you can't you can't. You can't embrace
the Lord and Savior.

Speaker 2 (01:38:28):
Is that your problem?

Speaker 1 (01:38:29):
I mean, you do not know what you are talking about.

Speaker 3 (01:38:32):
I am outraged by it.

Speaker 1 (01:38:34):
I think Lasco and I should do his own show,
the Jesus Show. He could call it Jesus Thing.

Speaker 3 (01:38:40):
But come on. Now, here's another one.

Speaker 1 (01:38:42):
Brad Bondi, brother of Pam, is leading the TikTok deal.
CCP controls Bondy. Oh, that's interesting.

Speaker 3 (01:38:51):
I didn't know that.

Speaker 1 (01:38:52):
Uh Luke Desmond from Paul Hastings where Brad Bondi. I
can't barely read it hang on a second Luke Jesman
from Paul Hastings where Brad Bondi is from. Is CCP
a running dog. I don't know about those specifics. I
do know that it is true that this is a gift.

(01:39:14):
The TikTok thing is a gift. That Bondi's brothers involved
doesn't surprise me. That it's being gifted to Larry Ellison
doesn't surprise me. Larry Ellison is in the Trump constellation
of those who are very close to him, and I
would say in this TikTok deal is again a gift

(01:39:37):
to those who are the billionaire class close to Trump.
Trump's cabinet is the billionaire boys club. And so the
reason you should be concerned with TikTok is the same
reason you should be concerned with the control of media
coming down to a handful of people. And so Larry

(01:39:57):
Ellison now would actually be more powerful than Rupert Murdock
with control over TikTok and the likely control over Warner
Brothers and the associated properties. So this is a big
news organization that Larry Ellison and his son particularly is
involved in as son as the next generation. So again

(01:40:18):
I'm not sure again how the TikTok deal specifics are
going down on some level, well, I know on a
big level it is as I've just described. I can't
believe how the American at how the Americans at that
golf tournament acted so very badly. What did the Americans do?

Speaker 4 (01:40:36):
Well, it's funny you should mention that, Vicky, because I
have this article in here from Mark about here's the
headline US. It's from the Guardian, so it's you know,
from the British perspective, US fan ugliness at the Ryder
Cup was merely a reflection of Trump's all caps America.

Speaker 1 (01:40:54):
Oh wow, I mean, isn't that great?

Speaker 4 (01:40:58):
And then I see someone using all caps in the chat.
But that is how they perceive us as someone. Are
people that will hurl these, you know, horrible things about
insults about the families of the golfers and yelling things
and being really really nasty. Well, that was bad, bad behavior.

Speaker 1 (01:41:20):
At a golf tournament. It's particularly not accepted. You kind
of are used to that kind of thing at a
baseball game or a football game. There's a little more hecklaying,
you know. But I would say this to be serious
about it. There has been a degrading of the dialogue

(01:41:41):
and the discourse just broadly speaking in America. It's happened,
without question, and it does on some level reflect what's
happening at the top. I mean, the President of the
United States, White House Press Secretary today from the White
House with White House insignia on the social media post

(01:42:06):
posted what to Gavin newsom anybody the F word fu?

Speaker 3 (01:42:16):
Oh that's nice.

Speaker 1 (01:42:18):
That's from the White House. So you've seen a degrading,
as I say, of the discourse, and on some level
it just does reflect the bare knuckles way in which
rhetoric and disposition toward back and forth has taken on

(01:42:39):
a much coarser tone. So I think I guess what
I'm saying is I agree with that article essentially. This
is from Harry Magnan. It's all Mark all Monday. Come on,
I love that. Great show time for Mark Tiny at
the Red Jax. Yeah, baby, come on, that's fans. It's fantastic.

(01:43:04):
I think it isn't fantastic. The Red Jack is a
great place in San Francisco for those who are headed
to the Bay Area or in the Bay Area now
you will love it. Go by and say hey for
us there. It is the Red Jack Saloon in San Francisco.
Truly will enjoy that. We've known them since we were

(01:43:27):
on the radio. So the people who own the Red
Jack Saloon live above the saloon, which to me is
always it's always felt like if there's a sitcom there
or something right but kind of cheers ish I suppose,
But in the cheers reboot or whatever, you know, the

(01:43:47):
owners Lauri and Mark live right above the Red Jack.
I don't know. We really love him, and so that's
the story there. Thank you, Harry, and enjoy that. Mark Tini.
There is a Mark teeny they've named it for our show.
And I think there's a Keemacazee for kem Mzi.

Speaker 4 (01:44:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:44:08):
Yeah. Biden should have jailed Trump in the last six
months of his term. Biden has had total immunity to
do it. Instead, he was at the beach, says Gerald Neil.
I think Biden was just he's just an institutionalist. It's
what I told you when he was president. I never
really liked him for that reason, but I mean, please,
compared to what we've got, oh my god, not even

(01:44:29):
But when he would worry about the institutions of power
being weaponized, that way. I think that's basically where Biden
would be on that. Here's Roger. Our family just meent
a week in Portland. We enjoyed it. The city's very quiet,
no riots or insurrections. Yeah, nice family. When's the insurrection start?

Speaker 4 (01:44:47):
I mean, who is having that conversation?

Speaker 1 (01:44:51):
Exactly?

Speaker 4 (01:44:51):
That whole insurrection thing. That's bad for tourism.

Speaker 1 (01:44:54):
It is really not cool. Lucy McCallister, thanks again for
that twenty dollars supersticker. Right on to you. You know,
big shout out, big shout out.

Speaker 4 (01:45:02):
I have to tell you because it doesn't look like
we're getting to news today that today is National Coffee Day?

Speaker 1 (01:45:09):
Are you kidding me?

Speaker 3 (01:45:11):
It is National Coffee Day?

Speaker 1 (01:45:13):
Why didn't we book a cliff from Coachella Valley Coffee today?
That would have been a great thing to do. Let
me have a.

Speaker 9 (01:45:18):
Yeah, I will tell you about a recent National Coffee
Association survey found two thirds of American adults or sixty
six percent of US, drink coffee every day, the average
about three cups.

Speaker 4 (01:45:32):
The average for most dot coffee drinkers.

Speaker 1 (01:45:35):
Wow, yeah, I love that. Well. I am a huge
fan of coffee. I've already had a couple of book
cups today. I'd be willing to bet my lunch that
there's alcoholidays no thing in my cup. But Coachella Valley
Coffee Always Coachella Valleycoffee dot com. You can find the
Clarity Blend, which I'm over the moon for. The Clarity

(01:45:58):
Blend is so good. But I've done now is I've
blended it with the Ocatillo espresso today and it is
so very special.

Speaker 4 (01:46:07):
Now you have clericy and a little Latin kick in
your step.

Speaker 1 (01:46:11):
But what you need to do is drink it out
of one of our our merch cups, which will show
you in a second. Coachello Valley Coffee dot Com do
use our discount code. Because they're teas and coffees and spices.
I mean it's really it's a boutique roastery. They take
such pride in everything that's there. You will adore everything
that comes to your home from Coachello Valley Coffee. So

(01:46:34):
Coachellavallei Coffee dot com use mark Tea at checkout for
ten percent off. And again under everything, under the tees,
under the coffees, under everything that there is on the site,
there are tasting profiles, so you know exactly what you're getting,
and you can just dial in exactly what you want,
and then they have subscriptions and all the rest of it.

(01:46:54):
Everything that you order ten percent off with markt at
checkout Coachella Valleycoffee dot com. Anything else happening in the
news that I need to be aware of. In the
Bird Cage movie, says Wes, Nathan Lane and Robin Williams
lived above their club, just like the Red Jack owners

(01:47:15):
live above that saloon. Isn't that interesting? I'd forgotten that. Yeah,
West Theory, big shout out, thank you for that. Yeah,
that was a good movie. I was cast in that
movie what as well as a reporter. That was something
I normally get cast and reporter at anchor. Yeah, I
pretty much only got called for that stuff. But Hi,

(01:47:38):
of course distinguished myself with a lot of different work. Kim.
I was in The American President as you know.

Speaker 10 (01:47:43):
You know, Yes, I'm kind of a big deal saying
that I had a an ouvre, a a compendium of
the work that I'd done, and so I went into audition.

Speaker 1 (01:47:56):
And here's why I mentioned it because it was one
of the most significant things. And some people won't be
able to get what I'm saying, but others will meaning
you might be too young for this. But if you
know the world of entertainment at all, you know the
power of Mike Nichols. Mike Nichols brilliant director, writer, producer,
and we had there's ben books about him, and we

(01:48:17):
had one of his biographers here on the show. So
Mike Nichols is directing the movie, so he handles the
So I go into audition, and first of all, it's
amazing that you would audition the reporter role like in
front of this legendary director. So just to meet Mike
Nichols for me was incredibly exciting. So I go in

(01:48:38):
to meet, you know, from my audition, just to read
the reporter thing, and there he is Mike Nichols, and
I check. I goh my god, I said, this is
such a thrill for me to meet you and his
partner as a comedy team coming up. His partner was
a comedian named Elaine May, who also went on as

(01:49:00):
a writer, director, producer. She's legendary, okay, And it was
Nichols and May that was the comedy team. And then again,
as they say, she went on on her own and
just became this robust creative force in Hollywood. So I say, so,
such a thrill to meet you. Have been, you know,
such a fan of your work through the years. And
then he says and that, and he's pointing to someone

(01:49:25):
behind me is Elaine May. It was like, are you
And I went, are you kidding me? This is great?
But we can stop right now. I'm loving this, I said,
It's such a pleasure to meet you. These are legendary people,
true living legends. So at the time, living legends. So

(01:49:47):
I went on to read the part. I got the
part in Bird Cage. Oh really, yes, but and this
is what you could consider me like so many of
the decisions I make about my career and stuff are
motivated by this kind of thing. It was an all
night shoot and I had a lot to do. I

(01:50:08):
still had my job on the news and all this
other stuff. I just had a schedule that wasn't going
to accommodate an all night shoot, and so I said no,
and they gave the role to somebody else, you know,
And of course the movie came out, it was a
big hit, and all the rest of it. Look, it
was a small part, super small part. As you can

(01:50:28):
imagine it but it would have been good. Yeah, I
should have secked it up. I turned down another movie
like that that that didn't go on to be that.
But to work with Mike Nichols and to just to
meet Elaine may was such a thrill. But that's the
story of a bird cage, and I'd forgotten that. You're
right in the movie they live above that club. It

(01:50:50):
was like the you know, it was like a review club,
like a cabaret club. So yeah, anyway, happy coffee with
a friend day, says Angel in the Bay Area. The
five dollars super chat. Thanks everyone for the show. Everyone,
Yeah all, yeah, that means you, Tony. Yeah, that's a
shout out to you when they say y'all. And the
most important part in Day After to Morrow says Angel

(01:51:12):
and the bay Ear. Thank you for recognizing my work
the weather man in the Day After Tomorrow, says Angel
in the Bay Area. You should have been dancing, dance
and dancing. Yes, bust a move. Well, thank you Angel
and the Bayer for remembering my work in Day After Tomorrow.
It was a pivotal sequence in the film. Of course.

(01:51:33):
I know, yes, I kin deal, but I wouldn't have
been able to dance the world is ending as it's
coming together with all these superstorms, you know, would have
been inappropriate for me to dance. Would have been so
cool to see you in that movie. Mark. Yeah, maybe,
he says, Angel and the Barrier with a ten dollars
super chet. Yeah, thank you. I would point you to
some of my other great work and other great films.

(01:51:56):
The American President was the very I mean, that really
was something I was with Richard Dreyfus. That was the
movie with Michael Douglas, Richard Dreyfuss and that Benning and
that was the very best, Ah Hollywood stories. I could
tell you. That's that's a great story only for one moment.
I'll tell you the story quickly. So I get cast

(01:52:17):
in The American President, which is really exciting for me.
And she says it's a name role, which is really like,
you're not reporter number two, you're not anchor number one,
you're not moderator.

Speaker 3 (01:52:27):
You have the casting director.

Speaker 1 (01:52:29):
Yeah, Jane Jenkins is are there and so I'm excited,
not even knowing how excited I should be. Was my
first audition. I was really great because I got it.
So it's a Rob Reiner movie. The American President written
by Aaron Sorkin. So it's like really great pedigree. So
I go on the day of the shoot. I'm all nervous.
I remember driving there and I arrived to the makeup

(01:52:52):
area and there in the chair is Richard Dreyfuss, the
actor Richard Dreyfus, he's in the American Bree kind of
plays the bad guy, sort of like a like a
bad like GOP senator, kind of an arch super arch
guy in the movie attack Dog kind of guy. So
I sit next to him and I just said, Hi, nice
to meet you, and there he is Richard Dreyfus. Thanks, Tony,

(01:53:14):
you're so good with the hustle. So but here's the
best part. So I didn't say anything. He's reading the paper.
I didn't want to bother him. You know. Rob Reiner
comes in, he's the director, and he doesn't even look
at me. Okay, he like but he says to Richard
dreyfe is this and this is the greatest thing to hear.
He said, now, remember Richard, this is a pivotal sequence

(01:53:40):
in the movie. And I'll tell you, Kim, I don't
remember what he said after that, because it didn't It
just didn't matter. I knew at that moment this sequence
will stay in the movie no matter what. They are
not cutting me out of this movie, all right, exactly.
And so that was the greatest moment of the American

(01:54:02):
President for me in the shooting, was just hearing that. Yeah,
And so I had great back and forth with him,
you know, we rehearsed it and everything was really really cool.
So that's a show business stories. What can I tell you?
I'm yes, I'm delighted to be able to share. So
Mark Thompson Show. There was a lot that we got

(01:54:23):
to today, but there's even more that we'll get through tomorrow.
Isn't that right? Kim, Please tell us what tomorrow looks like.
Kim McAllister, We have David K.

Speaker 3 (01:54:33):
Johnston on the show tomorrow.

Speaker 4 (01:54:34):
I do believe that Tech Tuesday is going off as
well because Jefferson Graham is his home for a minute
and we'll be on with us.

Speaker 3 (01:54:43):
So we got David K. Johnston's Jefferson Graham. It's going
to be great.

Speaker 1 (01:54:47):
Also, we'll talk about AI tomorrow in a big way,
and there's a lot of a ramp up to Halloween
that involves American business. I'll just say that. Also, the
Epstein file issue begins to take on more significance. Tomorrow
we'll get into that. There has been an announcement of

(01:55:09):
a release of some files. I will give you that
story tomorrow. Also the growing specter of a harder line
even than has been seen in the world of immigration
and the Venezuela situation as well tomorrow. Now I'm self
of Stevens for the Mark Johnson Show. Bye bye. Thank

(01:55:30):
you everybody for your support and love for the show.
Time bye out a time, Bye bye, thank you everyone
after party live going on till then, Bye bye,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Trump Turns Troops Loose, Targeting Dissenters as Enemies of the State 9/29/25

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Trump Turns Troops Loose, Targeting Dissenters as Enemies of the State 9/29/25

On Purpose with Jay Shetty