Trump’s Florida Resort Becomes a Clemency Carnival for Key Coup Players 11/10/25

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Monday or not really happy Monday. It's Monday on the
Mark Thompson Show. I'm on Kelly Ba's in for Mark Thompson,
and I got to tell you. I have to be
honest with you. I was wrong. I was wrong about
the shutdown. I was of the opinion that it was
going to go all the way through possibly Thanksgiving into

(00:21):
the holidays. I was wrong when I said that the
Democrats and Republicans were equally committed to the shutdown and
wanted it. I was wrong. I was wrong because I
overestimated the will and the resiliency and the commitment of
the Democrats. And we're going to get into that and
the shutdown in just a second. We have to also

(00:44):
talk about the law and disorder which is really going on,
and I would say, in the wake of the Trump
presidential pardons, we'll talk about that. And we have doctor
Nicholas Wright who's going to be joining Mark Thompson a
previously recorded conversation which we'll have in the second hour.
But I have to say good morning, Slash, good afternoon
to my help and my host. I should say, is

(01:06):
they leave me along. I'm just here for the ride.
Kim McCallister and also Tony Sorrentino. I work with my
days at iHeart. Good morning and good afternoon to both
of you.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
Good morning. How was the weekend?

Speaker 1 (01:19):
It was way too short. I was doing all sorts
of various and sundry things. Kim, you were saying in
the pre show that you were looking at some of
the stuff that I was doing in martial arts.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
Well.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
On Saturdays, I teach most of the classes for kids
and adults in the morning, and then I went to
see one of my students perform in Willy Wonka play
at his middle school, and then went out to an
all evening affair with my wife Saturday night and watch
football Sunday. So it was a full weekend, but it

(01:51):
was way too short, and I wish you could have
been there to see my facial expression. When the news
report came down that the shutdown might be ending, it
was on the verge of any why because not one,
not two, not three, not four, but eight different Democrats decided,

(02:12):
you know what, we're not really committed to this fight.
We should try a different tactic. And if you haven't
heard by now, eight Senate Democrats have decided to break
ranks and vote for this, I guess continuing resolution. And
I don't know why they did it. I don't I'll

(02:33):
let them speak for themselves because I'm not going to
justify what they're doing. But I'm talking about Senator Dick
Durbin of Illinois, Janie Shaheen of New Hampshire, Maggie Hassan
of New Hampshire, Jackie Rosen of Nevada, Catherine Cortez Master
of Nevada, John Fetterman Pennsylvania, of course, and Tim King
of Virginia, former vice presidential candidate, and Angus King of

(02:57):
Maine who's an independent but fucuses with the Democrats. That
that's name by name, line by line of those who
broke ranks with the Democratic Party to go along with
the Republican bill and start the process to end this shutdown.
And I have some semi rhetorical questions here, What was

(03:18):
the point of the pain of the shutdown if you
were not going to see because at this point the
Democrats are walking away and they have nothing to show
for the pain that was inflicted upon everyday Americans, federal employees,
people who were struggling with the snap benefits. What was

(03:40):
the point of the pain if you originally if you
agreed with the original agreement handed down by the House Republicans.
I don't understand that. I don't have an answer for that.
And I was so so, I was so disenchanted to
get that news because if you're going to have people
so and I believe it was a righteous fight. There

(04:02):
are some fights you have to fight even if it
ends up that you lose, because the fight in and
of itself is righteous. For me, this was a righteous
fight for Chuck Schumer. This was a second chance of
getting his manhood back, that I would say, because he
gave the first time around, so I thought, there's no way.

(04:23):
There's no way he's gonna cave a second time. And
I don't know if I can blame him personally for caving,
but I can blame him for not keeping the Democratic
caucus together. And that's why you have strong leadership to
keep the caucus together. Now here's a video I want
to play. And mind you, when I said, Angus King

(04:45):
of Maine, he's an independent, so in other words, he
is not perfectly aligned with Democratic ideals as far as
the party platform is concerned, but he does caucus with
the Democrats. Meetings. He votes democratic most of the time.
Here's that's what Angus King had to say on MSNBC.
And I hope that you gleaned from it the same

(05:06):
thing that I did. Go ahead, Tony surrendering.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
Yeah, I know it happens as we wait for it.
I just want to mention that I was surprised that
they did all this without any promised movement on healthcare.
Really didn't even get anything except for we'll vote on
it maybe when the time comes. So all of that
really feels like for nothing.

Speaker 1 (05:31):
It was for nothing. It's not feels like for nothing.
They cannot legitimately say that they tangibly received anything returned.
It would be different if they said, Okay, we're going
to get a vote on healthcare and we're going to
get some of these subsidies and stated in the short term.
All they got was we'll just have a vote at
a later date in December. And do you honestly believe
that the Republicans who have been acting in bad faith

(05:54):
up until this point, we'll have a vote in good
faith in a month. Because because you've already turned you've
already showed your belly. You turned over, you showed your belly,
So why is it the Republicans then would then have
an earnest discussion about adding in adding back the Obamacare subsidies.
If you've already shown right now that you're willing to

(06:16):
walk away and get nothing, absolutely nothing, it's almost like
the shutdown did not happen. And I really want to
to emphasize the fact that the Democrats received nothing except
the pain of the shutdown. And here's the truth. And
I've said this before, and I remain of this opinion
that who gets blamed for the shutdown doesn't mean anything

(06:37):
because there will be some other world threatening issue or
controversy the next day and the next day and the
next day between now and the midterm. So who gets
blamed for the shutdown is secondary. But who wins the shutdown,
in other words, who get something out of it? It's
completely different. And the Democrats abrogated their responsibility to get

(07:00):
something out of the shutdown. Hey, Tony, do you have
the other video talking about the totality of the shutdown?

Speaker 3 (07:09):
Good morning, Robin. While President Trump was at the football
game last night as this was all coming together, telling
reporters only quote, it looks like we're getting very close
to the shutdown ending now, the President has stayed out
of all of this. Instead of negotiating and talking with Democrats,
he has urged Republicans to stand their ground, making it
clear to Democrats that they weren't going to get what
they wanted. Trump conceded, though, just days ago, that the

(07:31):
shutdown was one of the reasons that Republicans lost in
last week's elections, admitting the shutdown has been quote worse
for us than for them. But even as voters blamed Republicans,
It's clear Trump's efforts to up the pressure on Democrats
is working. Whether through those firings or the fight over
food assistants, the President is making the impacts of this
shutdown simply too painful to ignore.

Speaker 2 (07:51):
Robin Mary. Over the weekend, the President issued another round
of pardons. We know he did.

Speaker 3 (07:55):
Robin the President issuing sweeping pardons to key figures accused
of trying to help him overturn the twenty twenty election results,
including his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, attorney Sidney Powell
and John Eastman, adviser Boris Epstein, and his own former
chief of staff, Mark Meadows, as well as seventy two
other individuals. Now, these sweeping pardons cover each of the
president's co defendants who were charged in Georgia for a

(08:18):
sweeping scheme to overturn the election results, four of whom
pleaded guilty. But these pardons are largely symbolic. Presidential pardons
only apply to federal crimes, and none of these Trump
allies were charged in a federal case. But it is
just another example of the president trying to rewrite the
history of the twenty twenty election.

Speaker 1 (08:36):
Robin, Okay, that's good enough, and we can see right there. Yes,
the pardons were mostly ceremonial. They were symbolic. I think
the word was used, and it doesn't do anything substantively,
but I think it does change the messaging of the moment.
Where last week, less than a week ago, Democrats and

(08:57):
those on the left side of the aisle were celebrating
the results of those special elections, the result of Prop
fifty here in California, in the mayoral race in New
York City, we had the governor's race in Virginia, you
had the governor's race in New Jersey. Democrats are feeling
very good about themselves, and with good reason, justifiably so.

(09:21):
And then less than a week later. That's why I said, who.
All this talk about who wins the shutdown is neither
here nor there, because you can see, just in the
space of six days, the whole topic of conversation has
changed because the shutdown is ending, and for some reason,
the Democrats have broken ranks. I am so disappointed in

(09:41):
the fact that we had this shutdown and the Democrats,
who supposedly were committed to the shutdown obviously did not
have the resolve to see it through all the way
through and coming out of it, they're not getting anything.
They're getting absolutely nothing. The shutdown was under the guy
of fighting for health care subsidies, to keep Obamacare, the

(10:05):
Affordable Care Act, from collapsing, to keep you and me
and everyone watching this feed right now from paying thousands
of dollars more each month in healthcare. That was a
righteous fight to have. And yet here we are Chuck
Schumer could not keep his caucus together, and then you

(10:25):
have these eight defections, and now we're right back where
we started as a nation, all of us, right back
where we started. And then you're not any closer to
preserving healthcare. Oh, I'm sorry. You did get a promise
a promise, whatever that's worth from Republicans to revisit this
in a month. You think they're actually going to do

(10:46):
something to save health care and the Affordable Care Act
in a month. I'm hot, Kim. It's not the way
I wanted to start my week.

Speaker 2 (10:55):
You and delamater, He says, No, I was wrong. Also,
I didn't think there'd be a cave in. Now we
had them by the huh demos, we'll stout again, they said,
So there you go.

Speaker 1 (11:09):
It hurts me because I know people were hurting, people
are still hurting, and on top of that, people are
going to hurt even more because I cannot say confidently,
I cannot say seriously, I cannot say in any way
that the Republicans are going to come to the table

(11:29):
and then try to hash out some sort of agreement
before the winter recess, mind you, and everyone goes back
home for the holidays, and they're going to do something
to save the Affordable Care Act. Why you had more
leverage last week than you do now? You had leverage.
You had Republicans on the run. They were concerned about

(11:49):
the prospect of the midterms and what this shutdown could mean.
The President himself was saying because of the shutdown, the
Democrats won, those are less. Whether that's true or not,
that was what was coming out of the mouth of
the president. You had actual leverage, the shutdown was working.

(12:09):
And although and I'm not pushing aside the pain of Americans,
but the pain has to be for a purpose. Otherwise
you're just enduring abuse. You are abusing Americans if you're
not actually having them benefit in some way from the pain.
If you could go back to your constituents and say, yes,

(12:30):
I understand it's been painful for the past fifty or
so days we've had this shutdown. I understand that your
families have been struggling. But we were fighting for you
to ensure your health care, and on the other side
of it, we have preserved your health care and by
that saving you thousands of dollars per month. They can't

(12:51):
say that. All they can say now is, well, we've
helped reopen the government. And here's the flip side to that.
This is the bad news. If the Democrats go aroun
saying well, we help reopen the government, or we did
this to reopen the government, then you are in a
way arguing against yourself and then admitting air quotes that
the Democrats shut down the government, and I know that,

(13:16):
I know that's not actually what happened, but you're playing
into the Republican's own messaging. I just don't understand this.
And I understand that Chuck Schumer is more concerned with
saving his political career. He wants to remain minority leader
of the Senate, and I don't think he's going to
be able to do that because even though he may

(13:37):
not have been the one who cave, he is the
one who allowed this to happen. This was talk about
martial arts. Kim. Here's something that we teach our students
all the time. You don't want to be in a
fight because usually bad things happen in a fight. You
could win, you can still get hurt. You could lose

(13:57):
and get hurt. You could win, I get hurt and
still get sued. You can lose, get hurt, get sued.
All that you could win, person go to the car
and come back with a gun. In other words, avoid
a fight at all costs. But if you should fight,
if you find yourself in a situation where you must

(14:18):
defend yourself, defend a family member, permit, do all you
can to win the fight, worry about the other stuff
on the other side. But in the midst of a fight,
you have to do what you can to win the fight.
You can't agree to the fight and say, you know what,
on second thought, I think I'm gonna step out of this. No, no, no,

(14:41):
you've you've already endured the weight and burden. Big mistake
ask kicking go ahead, Big mistake on this fight.

Speaker 2 (14:49):
I didn't mean to get in here at all.

Speaker 1 (14:51):
No, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
It's crazy, It's just crazy. We got a message from Vilma.
She's upset. She says, a why to eight Democratic sid
speak for the whole party? You give up too soon?

Speaker 1 (15:03):
They didn't speak for the whole party, But I think
they were speaking out of their own selfish interests. We
know the history of John Fetterman. He's just completely on
his own agenda. I don't think he cares about the
party at all. And without knowing, I think Angus King
is retiring, and I believe a good number of these
senators have to look it up, are up for reelection,
and they're concerned about their own personal electoral prospects. And unfortunately,

(15:29):
when you're the minority party or we're only talking about
a small sliver of a party, you have outsized importance
and power. I think of this time maybe two years
ago with Joe Manchin and how he was trying to
play both sides of the isle and play both parties
against the other, and he wants to be king maker.
We're seeing this to a certain extent in these senators here,

(15:53):
whether they had power to get something out of this
or least preserve and I don't know what he was hearing.
They were hearing from their constituents. I get that they're
still responsible to the constituents. But part of the reason
why you may be an independent like Angus King, you
should not be beholden to certain things. You know, if

(16:13):
you're gonna caucus with the Democrats, you're basically saying I'm
throwing my hat in with the Democrats. And also the
Democratic platform. You can't have it both ways. If you're
gonna be caucusing with the Democrats, then you should be
mindful of the Democratic platform. And Angus King hurt the
Democrats and it's going to be a I don't know
what you can do about some of these members. It's

(16:35):
not like you can I don't know what type of
leverage you can maybe can strip some of their seats
from some of the committees, but they hurt the Democratic
Party today. They absolutely did. And I don't want to
sugarcoat this because some of you have been telling me, oh,
don't sugarcoat it. Well, this is one of those times
I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The Dems did not
get their ass kicked. They kicked their own asses, and
I say that.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
Yes, exactly. I have a couple questions for you. The
first is that do you think and I hate to
not have people get health care because I think that's dangerous.
I think it puts people at risk, their health at risk,
and people could suffer serious consequences because they won't be
able to afford healthcare. Means you won't go to the doctor,
you won't get treatment, people could die, right right. I

(17:19):
don't like to see that. But if people are faced
with mounting health care costs as a mid term election comes,
do you think they'll more blame the Republicans for that
or the Democrats for that? And if people can't afford
their health care and we still have only concepts of

(17:40):
a plan from the president who's thinking, hey, I'd like
to give you some money to buy your own health
care not going to work. So we don't have that
plan at all. So that means that as we move
toward these mid term elections, could it play into the
Democrats' hands to have health care costs rising? And will
that reflect poorly on Trump or what people remember back

(18:01):
that the Democrats couldn't quite get it together to fight
for this.

Speaker 1 (18:04):
That's a great question, and I think the answer is very,
very complicated, if only because I happen to believe that
most Americans don't understand how health care works. They don't
understand like, for example, if you were to just go
to the doctor and you don't have health care coverage,
just getting a having your blood drawn, it's thousands of

(18:25):
dollars just have rudimentary tests to be taking the urgent
care be carried in an ambulance. We're talking about thousands
and thousands of dollars. And I don't believe most Americans
get that. And since they don't get that, they erroneously
believe that the health care system or the healthcare plan

(18:47):
they have right now is sufficient and sustainable. Neither is true,
and they don't understand that the only reason why it's
halfway sufficient is Obamacare, and the only way that Obamacare
halfway works is because of the subsidies. They have not

(19:08):
made the connection that this would be armageddon for our
health care industry, I should say, for the health care
for people like you and meet in America, no hyperbole,
because most people can't pay an extra one or two
thousand dollars per month just to keep their health care plan.

(19:29):
And then we're talking about where you're talking about, Kim,
where people are making then the decision to forego health care,
which is even worse, which goes back to what I
was saying. Now, try to see a doctor without health
care bill.

Speaker 2 (19:46):
There's the private pay price, and then there's the healthcare price. Right,
So the minute you have health care, even if you're
paying out of your own pocket, like say because I
have a plan where you have to hit a certain threshold,
so I have to pay a certain amount before insurance
kicks in and pays one hundred percent of everything. Right,
But there's a different price for me because I have insurance,

(20:07):
So it's much less with insurance even if I'm paying
out of pocket. But if people have no health care,
the price shoots up, even private pay.

Speaker 1 (20:16):
Price, and they may not realize that individually or collectively
until there's some sort of health or medical emergency. And
I'm not even talking about dental care. I'm just talking
about medical health care as we may think of it.
I'm not talking about like a vision plan. I talk
about these things because this is all very personal to

(20:38):
me because I am on the ACA California Exchange. You know,
I pay for my vision and I pay for my
dental out of pocket. This is all very real to me. Right,
So if I go to my wife and say, Okay,
we're gonna have to pay another two thousand dollars a month,

(20:58):
because we're talking about a family plan, We're not talking
about an individual. We're gonna talking about two adults with careers.
And then you have three kids in my case, you know,
one is still on our health care. The other two
have aged out. But what about them and them individually,
as far as them trying to procure health care? It

(21:20):
is it is one of the moments in American history
where we're going to possibly play with economic ruination because
we can't we can't find a way to do what's
best for the American people. This really should not have
anything to do with politics, because as long as you

(21:42):
exist on this earth, you have to have some sort
of health care component to your life. You have to. Now,
if you happen to be twenty one years old, in
the prime of your life, you may not think of it.
When I was twenty one, I wasn't thinking about health
care because I thought I was gonna live forever, and
I was in great health, and I was working out
every day, and you know, an agent is on my side.

(22:02):
Then all of a sudden, thirty five rolled around. Now
fifty five is rolled around. We if we don't get
health care right in the near term, as in right now,
either improving, fixing, or replacing Obamacare, whatever that looks like,

(22:25):
universal health care, if we don't do it now before
twenty twenty eight, I believe that our economy is going
to go through the floor because Americans cannot afford healthcare
as it stands. And Mike and Willa Glenn makes a
great point. I mean, we spend our money relative to
our priorities, and our priorities in America is defense spending

(22:50):
and ice spending, and spending money on Argentina, or spending
money for wars in the Middle East. We have plenty
money to spend for an administration's priorities, but for a
supposed administration which is about America first, and health care
is not in that equation. Education is not in that equation.

(23:12):
It boggles my mind. Health care and education should not
be political footballs. But that takes me back to the Democrats.
It's like this was one of those fights you had
to fight even if it was painful, because the pain
right now is going to be secondary to what the
pain is going to be without any type of subsidy

(23:35):
support for the Affordable Care Act. I mean, I'm voting
for universal health care because I've traveled enough around the
world to know that universal health care is the only
way to go. But for some reason, this rich nation
can't find its way to single payer universal health care,
and there's going to be a cost for it. And

(23:56):
I tend to be an a hole in arguing this
on on social media because I will go around two
different gofundmes and kickstarters and remind the people's like, oh,
you're the same individuals who wanted to complain about Obamacare,
who don't want single payer healthcare, and now you're begging
for money because grandma has cancer. I'm sympathetic, but not

(24:18):
all that sympathetic because these things are not separate. They
are connected in the larger issue of trying to find
some way to have affordable health care so your loved
ones don't have to either go into to debt or
bankruptcy to hopefully save a loved one, hopefully.

Speaker 2 (24:41):
Got a message from Luis and five he says, Trump
and omics. Yeah, Trump economics for the common citizen. Receive
a one time two k tariff refund but pay two
k more for healthcare monthly makes sense, as they say.

Speaker 1 (24:54):
The kids say that math ain't mathing. And some people,
some people, and I don't want to be too disrespectful,
but dumb people don't understand the math of receiving a
one time check which may never come, you know, just
like the five thousand dollars doze check. But you know,
some people are actually moved by the idea of a

(25:16):
two thousand dollars check, not knowing that that's not going
to cover even a blood draw if it came down
to it. And I'm not exaggerating, it's crazy. I'm angry
at the Democrats today. I'm angry because they were not
just fighting for Democrats. They were fighting for all Americans,

(25:38):
because every American has to have some form of health care,
not only for themselves, but for the whole system. You know,
because when you have more and more uninsured people entering
the system, the healthcare system is more likely to collapse
on itself. And if they're not getting that money from

(25:59):
the insurance, and they're not getting that money from the uninsured,
it's only going to have a bad ending. You know,
when you have a for profit healthcare system, this is
the inevitability. And I'm and I'm a capitalist through and through,
but I'm a capitalist eyes wide open, and I know
when you have a profit motive healthcare, invariably, it's always

(26:22):
going to become more expensive forever. For as much as
we say we can't have a socialist nation, we can't
have a communist nation. Those are the same damn people
are complaining about how high the rent is, same people
complaining about how high groceries are, or eggs are, or gases.
They don't understand there is a correlation. You know, I'm

(26:42):
all for capitalism, but let's be let's be clear here
that a lot of capitalism is unsustainable in its current form.
First and foremost, exhibit A healthcare.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
Jesseph says states should create their own universal health care.
Stop thinking Washington's going to do it for you.

Speaker 1 (27:00):
Well, Mitt Romney tried to do that in the late
nineteen nineties slash early two thousands, and they had an
approximation of that in Massachusetts. Barack Obama tried to take
that exact same plan and bring it to a federalized platform,
and they said it was socialism, you can't do it.

(27:22):
And so they dropped the universal single payer component, which
was originally a part of the Affordable Care Act, because
they couldn't get that through Congress. So yes, it has
been tried on varying levels on a state level, to
varying degrees of success. And that model was supposed to

(27:46):
be the foundation in blueprint for the Affordable Care Act
slash Obamacare. And that's something else, the fact that it's
been branded Obamacare. It will never be successful because it's
seen as connected to Barack Obama, not for the benefit
of the whole nation, you know. And I think the

(28:07):
Democrats have done a good job as far as retaking
that or embracing the Obamacare name, which was meant as
a slight and insult and remaking it into something positive.
But still there are far too many Americans who don't
understand what the Affordable Care Act was and how that's
no different from Obamacare, and this way there's a there's

(28:31):
a majority of ignorance out there surrounding health care, which
makes these moments almost impossible to navigate, because if you
don't understand health care, then you are at the whims
of politicians who are telling you it is like, oh,
we can't have Obamacare, or we need to replace Obamacare
with what with what? They won't tell you the truth.

(28:53):
They don't have a better idea. The only better idea
is universal health care, single pair. That's the only better idea.
And the Republicans can't say that they would rather you
just believe that there's some sort of magical concepts of
a plan which is going to turn into a plan
that is better than what we have right now. And

(29:14):
I'm here to tell you what we have right now
is not great, not great. It is a band aid,
and it's like a band aid we put on a
sore three weeks ago. That band aid is not doing
any job. It's doing his job anymore. So we have
to do something. But the Republicans are suggesting that we
go back to the old system, which is not an option,

(29:37):
and they say that there's an old saying. They say,
don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
And the Republicans are arguing, we need the perfect plan,
but not single pair, not universal health care, but we
want to have the perfect plan because it's better than
what we have right now. But they can't tell you
what that plan is because if they tell you, they
have to invariably come to the realization as single pair

(29:59):
or universal health health care. I'm hot, I'm hot today,
I'm hurt. I'm high, and I'm hurt at the Democrats
because they gave up this fight and they have nothing
to show for. They can't, honestly, they cannot genuinely go
to constituents and say we fought for you and we
won this for you.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
No m m. They can do nothing. What was the
whole point of it all? And what what did they get?
They got a promise that the people that were laid
off during the shutdown will be rehired, maybe promised that
maybe if Trump even signs this thing right, And they
got the promise that the furloughed federal workers will get

(30:42):
their back pay that they missed during the shutdown, and
they got a promise from Republicans that we will consider
and vote on an extension to medical benefits in the
coming weeks. That's all they got all of this for that.

Speaker 1 (31:03):
I think you were I think you're being kinder than me.
I think they got less than nothing. And what I
mean is they got nothing for the fight, and they
got less than nothing because they have to then deal
with the reality of people going through pain for no reason,
which makes it even worse. Yeah, and I am very

(31:25):
very disheartened and and actually in disbelief. But I don't
I don't know, And and h asked, I wonder how
much those eight got from their vnors donors to cave.
I don't know. I don't know if it was a
it was a financial consideration, a donor consideration. I don't know. That.
There's no telling what type of conversations the eight who

(31:47):
defected behind the scenes, what they thought that they were
doing to help their personal political careers or the party
more broadly, I don't know. You listened to Angus King,
we played a little bit of that. That was a
ridiculous excuse. Paraphrasing him, said, we tried standing up to
him as in the president, and that didn't work, so

(32:09):
they I guess they decided, well, all we can do
now is cave. It's like I tried to fight the bully,
but he hit me in the mouth and it hurt
real bad, so I went home.

Speaker 2 (32:21):
They need some mil Kelly training, that's what they need.
Look and how to fight.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
You know, there are there's a way to fight, and
you have to think about the fight before you get
into fight. You have to think about all the constingencies.
In other words, if this shutdown is to last more
than a month, what does that mean for us? You know,
are we willing to fight more than a month? And
if you're not willing to fight more than a month,

(32:49):
then you shouldn't have started the fight in the first place,
because you're not really committed to it. And any fight
that you're not committed to you are going to lose,
and you're going to lose badly. And if I can
say any thing in support of the Republicans, I like,
if I compartmentalize, I like the fact that they don't care.

(33:10):
And what I mean by that is their goal is
most important and it doesn't matter if you don't like them.
If you don't like their executive actions, you don't like
their rhetoric, you don't like their racism, you don't like
their sexism, you don't like their law islamophobia or homophobia.
They don't care, and that's why they're willing to hold out,

(33:35):
because they know that the Democrats do care and they
will give in. And they're proven right. Again, that's not
in support of the Republicans. I'm saying that there's a
lesson to be learned from the Republicans.

Speaker 2 (33:51):
If people can't afford to pay for their Affordable Care
Act or Obamacare healthcare, then Obamacare really dies because no
one can afford it. Then no one's going to use it,
and it becomes I think dead in the water, right
and you are. And perhaps that may have been the
goal for Republicans all along, who fought tooth and nail

(34:14):
against it, right. I mean, Trump has been saying he
wants to kill Obamacare this whole time. He doesn't come
in offering anything in its place. But maybe this is
the point. Maybe they just want to, you know, stick
a knife in the heart of Obamacare and let it go.

Speaker 1 (34:30):
They've tried a couple of strategies. You know, the whole
repeal and replace, and then people were saying like, well,
what are you going to replace it with? And they
and then they found that that wasn't going to work,
and so they've stopped that whole message unit repeal and replace.
I remember Senator Ted Crew said very early on, I
think it was in a conversation with Rush Limbaugh, where

(34:51):
he said that we have to get rid of the
Affordable Care Act Obamacare because people get addicted to the subsidies.
They have always targeted the subsidies from the very beginning,
knowing that if you strip the funding of the Affordable
Care Act, you basically gut it. And they've done this
with a lot of legislation. They've done it with the
Voting Rights Act, where you stripped certain foundational principles and

(35:14):
support for it, then you've effectively gutted it. They're using
that same type of tactic and approach with the Affordable
Care Act. Well, if you get rid of the subsidies,
well the Obamacare doesn't really exist in any form or
measurable way going forward. But I want to put a
pin in that right there, because alongside of what we're

(35:36):
seeing the shutdown, there's a lot of law, and there's
a lot of disorder going on at the same time.
There's all that silliness in Washington. So kim take it away.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
This is law and disorder. I think we haven't. Oh no,
we lost Tony oh Man. That's all right, I got you.
Hold on.

Speaker 1 (35:58):
Here it is in the criminal justice to the people. Camps, addicts, thieves, bumbs, linos,
girls who can't keep on address, and men who don't
care are represented by two separate and equally important groups.

Speaker 4 (36:09):
Coppa flat Foot, a bull of Dick John Law.

Speaker 1 (36:11):
You're the fuzz, the heat, you're poison, your trouble, your
bad news. These are their stories.

Speaker 2 (36:19):
And here we are. You want me to read the stories? Yes, please,
all right, I'll do it. Gallaine Maxwell's prison emails show
she's happier moe at a minimum security Texas facility. Of
course she is right. Maxwell is indeed a convicted sex
offender connected to Jeffrey Epstein, as you know, and was

(36:39):
moved to a less restrictive federal prison over the summer.
Congress now investigating potential allegations of special treatment on the
part of Gallaine Maxwell. She was moved to the all
women's federal prison camp which houses inmates convicted of nonviolent
defenses and white call crimes. They've got dormitory style quarters.

(37:03):
A lot of people saying this is very unusual for
prisoners with sex offenses on their record to be incarcerated
in such an unconstrained setting, and they think that means
that Maxwell is getting some preferential treatment here. She had
been in a low security federal correctional institution in Florida
after her conviction on federal sex trafficking charges, and so

(37:29):
now she NBC News is reviewing some of the emails
She's sent during her first few months in the least
the less restrictive setting, and the emails were obtained by
the House Judiciary Committee, and the emails describe Maxwell's relief
at being in a calmer facility without violence, where staff
is polite and the food is better if. She said,

(37:51):
my situation is improved by being at Brian, that's the
name of the camp. The kitchen looks clean too, no
possums falling from this to fry unfortunately on ovens and
become mingled with the food being served. She said, I
feel like I have dropped through Alice in Wonderland's looking glass.
I am much much happier here and more importantly safe.

Speaker 1 (38:14):
You know, you know what that is, right, that's that's
an open letter thank you note to the Trump administration.
There is no reason in the world, not legal, not moral,
not ethical, for this woman convicted of these crimes to
get any improvement in her housing or facilities or her

(38:38):
prisons day. And it's being done out in the open,
which goes back to what I was saying about the Republicans.
They don't care why because there are no consequences to anything.
There are no political consequences. Maybe there may be some
electoral consequences, but we won't know that until next November.
But they're basically no consequences. There is really nothing for

(39:00):
them to lose in a short term or long term
as far as we can see, by giving Glane Maxwell
anything she wants, including a pardon, and you know with
the pardons we talked about a little bit earlier in
the show of how these six symbolic pardens for all
the people who were helping with the fake electors, they're symbolic.

(39:23):
But again it's another open letter thank you message for
those individuals who held the line, who did Trump's bidding.
No consequences at all.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
Speaking of pardons, former January sixth defendant arrested on kidnapping
and aggravated assault charges. Maybe that whole idea of the
blanket pardon for everyone involved in January sixth not such
a smooth move. This man from Utah previously charged with
firing a gun outside of the Capitol during the January
sixth attack in twenty twenty one. He was apparently a

(39:59):
T supporter, right, and he was arrested during the attack
on the US Capital pardon and then arrested again last month,
this time on kidnapping and sexual assault charges. What a
nice guy, Forty year old John Benuelos from Utah. He
says he's got a sister who lives in the Chicago area,
so he was arrested in the Chicago area. The warrant

(40:23):
issued in Salt Lake County on charges of aggregated kidnapping
aggregated aggravated sexual assault. He was previously identified in an
NBC news story revealing him as the man who shot
off a weapon at the Capitol on January sixth. So,
I mean, I have.

Speaker 1 (40:43):
Some rhetorical questions, Kim, and I'm sure I'm not the
only one who's come up with him. I've seen him
ask other places, but I need some help better understanding.
The auto pin with Joe Biden is an issue allegedly,
But I'm supposed to believe that Donald Trump signed fifteen
hundred pardons just for January six That's the first record

(41:08):
rhetorical question. I was under the impression that January sixth
was a hoax, or it was something perpetrated by the
Democrats and TIFA undercover Feds. Why then, would Donald Trump,
in his inimitable wisdom, not use his auto pen and

(41:33):
pardon some fifteen hundred ANTIFA adherents. And at the end
of it all, why would we keep allowing the Trump
administration to tell these lies? Lies because they're aware of them,
tell these lies with not enough pushback. There's been some pushback,

(41:56):
but every time you see a pardon of Brudy Giuliani,
a pardon of the fake elector's scheme, that is an
opportunity for the Democrats to say again and again and
again that this administration is not only corrupt but criminal,

(42:19):
because if you are participating in an exoneration of the criminals,
you are also criminal. If you had a role in
the fake electors, and you're also pardoning them by in
any other world you would be an accessory to that crime,

(42:42):
and here we are. And I understand that there are
no consequences, but it's incumbent upon the Democrats to keep
pointing this out every step of the way. And when
I say, to the credit of Republicans, I believe this
is intentional. You do these pardons when they would be
a lesser story as opposed to the end of the shutdown.

(43:05):
So just kind of kind of just like an extra
ingredient in the cake that is also thrown in there,
but you're not necessarily paying as much attention to. These
are the times where the Democrats need to be strong
on something something. I want to fight for healthcare, fight
for something someone. That's why I'm an independent. I'm sorry,

(43:29):
go ahead. It's like they just.

Speaker 2 (43:30):
Threw all the all this. They say they got tired
of going through all the names, and they just said,
you know what, I just pardon everybody. I think that's
what happened. Just go ahead and pardon everybody in the
January sixth debacle, instead of taking the time and going
through and thinking does this person have a prior history,
does this person have a you know what's going on
looking at case by case bases. Right, they just did

(43:54):
a blank blanket thrown to the wolves, and now we
see that a lot of the people, many of the
people who were not the people involved in a protest
outside the capital, but people who were in the capital
who were breaking laws, have a history of breaking laws.
They were the criminals anyway.

Speaker 1 (44:14):
Scott Healy asked Moe why and how minimal pushback? Honest question? Well,
if I understand your question correctly, why are the Democrats
pushing back in a minimal way or is it?

Speaker 2 (44:25):
How is it?

Speaker 1 (44:26):
I see that it's minimal pushback because this is not
something that they are Democrats are talking about consistently every
step of the way. There have been consistent ardans of
all people who have been connected to January sixth or
overturning the twenty twenty election. This is something I believe

(44:47):
is a missed opportunity for the Democrats in a messaging sense,
to consistently portray this administration is not only corrupt but criminal.
You get the opportunity to remind people of the criminality
which was going on in the wake of the twenty
twenty election. You could talk about the corruption as far

(45:08):
as the crypto scams, the enrichment of the Trump family,
that's one thing. But I think the Democrats should have
been stronger on reminding people of the criminality. And you
can remind them each time every time they try to
pardon someone connected to the criminality. What was happening in
Georgia and trying to find those eleven thousand extra votes

(45:31):
was criminal in nature. It never, unfortunately, got to see
the light of day in a trial sense, and I
have all sorts of issues with Fani Willis and how
it got to that point, but it still was a
criminal matter, which is different from corruption, which is usually
having to do with lapse and ethics. You can be
corrupt and not necessarily also criminal. This was straight up criminal,

(45:55):
and the Democrats don't highlight that. I think that there's
a I could focus in the DNC in the way
that the Republicans are always focused. Now they may be
focused with lies and untruths, but have you ever been
on social media and the bots are all saying the
same thing, and Republicans are all saying the same thing

(46:17):
like they're getting their talking points from a central news
service box news, and they are, But The point is
they're on message and they're consistent, and I wish the
Democrats could do that, not lie, just tell the truth.
There's ample amounts of truth out there that you can
point to to remind people. And that's part of the reason

(46:40):
I believe, Sorry to digress, that's part of the reason
I believe that Donald Trump was reelected because there was
not enough reminding people of how bad he was in
his first term. And people said, well, you start romanticizing,
and he said, well, maybe he wasn't that bad, or
maybe he wasn't that much of authority. You know, he's
not gonna actually try to do all those things in
Project twenty twenty five. He was gonna be that bold

(47:04):
and we're here because people didn't necessarily remember or wasn't
emphasized enough. And I hope that answers your question, Scott.
I mean, it's the Democrats could do so much more.
They need to do so much more, and it's not
about being the majority party. It's not about what they
can do legislatively. There are things they can do as

(47:25):
far as manipulating the news cycle and also the messaging
to reaffirm how criminal Donald Trump has always been in
this moment, he's pardoning these people, And he used to
be where president didn't do a pardon until the end
of his term, and they were loathed to pardon someone

(47:45):
who was directly connected to the president. Now it's just
whatever you want, whenever you want. Go ahead.

Speaker 2 (47:51):
Kim like to mention that the people he pardoned are
his were his co defendants in the Georgia case, So
he's one of them. Man, what's goloes? Back to the criminality.

Speaker 1 (48:01):
I mean, I'm sorry I got in the middle of
your law on disorder, but those are the things that
he just really kidting at me.

Speaker 2 (48:07):
Speaking of criminality, do you think it's criminal for law
enforcement to lie? Maybe? Border patrol chief reprimanded for lying
claims shots were fired at immigration officers in Chicago. Once
you lie like crying wolf, do you believe him anymore?
Gregory Bovino called out by a judge only two days

(48:28):
earlier for lying about being assaulted by a protester. He
said that agents came under fire in Chicago while conducting
immigration enforcement operations, just two days after a federal judge
said he lied to her about having been hit by
a rock during a previous confrontation with protesters in the city.

(48:48):
So what he said is that on social media is
that his agents had been shot at and subjected to
vehicular assaults, physical assaults, impeding violent mob the vehicular blockades
for a number of hours. In a written statement, the
Department of Homeland Security said that Border Patrol agents were

(49:09):
conducting immigration and enforcement operations in Chicago when an unknown
man driving a black jeep fired shots at agents and
then fled the scene. Chicago police called out. They say
they found no signs of anyone having been struck by
gunfire where the alleged shooting took place, no reports of

(49:29):
anyone hit by gunfire at all. According to the police.
One officer was in good condition after being struck by
a vehicle during the operation. A driver was ticketed, but
no evidence has yet surfaced of an alleged shooting. So
there you go.

Speaker 1 (49:45):
Let me just say this, welcome to being black in America.
I mean, the idea, the idea that a member of
law enforcement would lie on the citizenry alledging that the
law enforcement officer was either in fear of his life

(50:07):
protecting himself or was attacked or was assaulted, is not new,
especially not to African Americans. And when I see that
story and I view it through the prism of the
context of the world we live in right now, where
there are no consequences to lies, even though we have videotape,

(50:29):
even though we have body cams.

Speaker 2 (50:32):
You know.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
That's why they say, like a lie can travel around
the world quicker than the truth can get out of bed.
You know. Whatever they say is we live in the
world where there's no value in the truth. And when
the truth does not have any value, then people are
going to hew much more closely to lies. And I
saw this story when it originally broke about the alledged

(50:57):
fire that these ice officers were under, and I was
just sent everywhere. It's like CCC told you, told you.
You know, the left is unruly and they're attacking law enforcement.
They have no respect for the society. Then we find
out it's a lie, but unfortunately it's not going to
make a big difference in the grand scheme of things,

(51:19):
and they're going to be moral lies and moral lives
and more lives.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
Yeah. Uh, mister Bovino, this is a quote from the judge.
Mister Bovino in the Department of Homeland Security claimed he'd
been hit by a rock in the head before throwing
tear gas. But video evans evidence disproves this, and ultimately
he admitted it was not until after he threw the

(51:45):
tear gas. So they get caught in these lies. And
here's what I wonder, MO, When you have a guy
in a position of authority who clearly has been caught
in a lie, don't you fire that person? You have
someone in in a position to be respected and believed
and have to be called. This is someone who's going

(52:07):
to have to go testify in courts, and now every
single time he's called to testify in court, they're going
to bring up the fact that he's shown proven liar.

Speaker 1 (52:15):
Yes, and you are right, and that's the way it
should be. But that's not the way it is. I mean,
we could say the same thing about this whole presidential cabinet.
You know, they have been dishonest. They are not even
qualified for their positions. They've lied on Capitol Hill as
far as what they plan to do while in the
cabinet position. From RFK Junior to Pete haig Seth. We

(52:36):
can run the list, we can play all the videos,
but there are no consequences. What I mean by that
is It's not like Pete haig Seth was fired or
forced to resign. It's not like anyone in the Trump administration,
with the exception of Mike Waltz, has been even moved
to a different position. So the fish rocks the head,

(53:01):
as they say. And if you know that there are
no consequences for anything that you do, so long as
you stay in alignment and support of Donald Trump and
his presidency and the legislative agenda, you will be protected.
And that's reinforced once again today by the presidential pardons

(53:22):
co defendants in his attempted criminal behavior. It's seen time
and time again the truth does not have any value.
And if you lie, so what If you're caught, so
so what? That's about where its Thanks.

Speaker 2 (53:39):
To our viewer Lee for sending in this next story.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
ICE.

Speaker 2 (53:42):
Over the weekend a little busy in the Fremont area
that's in the South Bay kind of the cusp of
the East Bay, South Bay and the Bay area. ICE
was conducting what they call knock and talk in Fremont,
which was raising concerns among some community leaders there. They
showed up in Fremont early Saturday morning in the Sundale
neighborhood which is a home to a very diverse community

(54:06):
and apparently just went knocking on doors. The area is
home to many refugees from Afghanistan that came here legally,
but many have been threatened that their humanitarian parole visays
could be revoked. And then they say, we see ICE
comes into communities and conducts raids like this, and the

(54:27):
aftermath is that kids don't go to school, people don't
seek health care, life as they know it just stops.
So also, many of these refugees are on snap, so
they're doubly impacted by the shutdown as well. And here
we go the mayor of Fremont confirming that ICE did
contact Fremont police ahead of their deployment. They said they

(54:48):
were very alarmed when they first heard about it. They
were informed it's a knock and talk program, voluntary. They
talked to folks and tried to see if they'll come
talk to them. And that says the the Mayor of Fremont,
is all we know.

Speaker 1 (55:04):
Tommy Stanzel says it best in the comments. That is
stopping frisk on speed. Yes, it is when you have
people I can't stay law enforcement officers because I can't
guarantee the actually law enforcement officers people coming to your
door under the pretense of having a conversation with you
to glean whether you are in the country legally or not.

(55:27):
There is no upside to you opening that door and
having that conversation. And it may be reported as going
on in Fremont, I'm quite sure it's going on elsewhere
around the country, especially here in California.

Speaker 2 (55:42):
Well, what happens if you just don't open the door.

Speaker 1 (55:44):
Nothing. That's what I tell people who don't open the
door unless it's exigent circumstances. They legally, and I say
this with a grain of salt, legally can't kick open
your door, but they're less likely to involve themselves in
a city situation just because you didn't open your door.
You know, you don't have to open your door. You

(56:05):
don't have to talk to them through your door, and
I would recommend neither. I just have a general rule.
I don't if you show up to my house unannounced,
I'm not opening the door. Not if it's police, I
will ask, excuse me, what are you here for, and
they say, yeah, there are reports of a burglar in
the neighborhood. Thank you very much. I'll make sure that

(56:26):
all my doors are locked good night.

Speaker 2 (56:29):
I don't open the door either, unless if someone is
rolling up unannounced, they'll text me, they'll say hey, I'm
here whatever. If I don't know you, then I don't
want to talk to you. I don't want you to
tell me anything I don't. You know, there's no reason
for anyone to be on my porch unless there's someone
that I invited to be here.

Speaker 1 (56:47):
So why would I open my door and negate the
whole purpose of a lock and an alarm? You know,
why am I going to willingly open my door to someone?
At least first blush? I know it's going to be hostile.
It's a hostile engagement. There's no need to open the door.
And and some was saying ICE is smashing and breaking

(57:09):
into cars. Yes, but that's different from you opening the
door and having the conversation with them. In other words,
if their ICE is going to do something illegal, then
don't help them. You know, there's there's no upside to
having a conversation with Ice. None. We know that they've
detained people who were citizens and had proof, So why

(57:32):
would you put yourself voluntarily put yourself in a situation
where you or a family member or a friend can
be unlawfully, illegally, violently detained. If you're gonna kick in
my door, come on with it, Castle doctrine.

Speaker 2 (57:49):
You know.

Speaker 1 (57:50):
I would rather go that route than open the door
and have them lie and say I invited them in
or something.

Speaker 2 (57:58):
I can imagine. If you're a refugee from Afghanistan. You're
here legally, but you look through your people or your
side window or what have you when you see uniformed
weapon carrying big men on your porch. It can be
intimidating and your first thing maybe would be to open

(58:19):
the door because you're scared of them.

Speaker 1 (58:23):
Among two minds, there are people who say, like, hey,
it's law enforcement. I should not be afraid of law enforcement.
I'm not afraid of law enforcement. But my experiences with
law enforcement, I say, law enforcement be at federal, state, local.
My experience with law enforcement is not the same as
most other people. I mean, and I'm a person who

(58:45):
I don't wear my pants sagging. I don't engage in
criminal behavior. If I'm pulled over by an officers, yes sir,
no sir, yes, ma'am, no, ma'am. I'm always polite, but
despite that, the type of treatment I've received in response
has not met that level of respect and politeness. So

(59:06):
how I respond to law enforcement or what I recommend
from my sons if they're in approach by law enforcement
two different things. What I'm saying is I tell them
always be respectful, always be polite, do not argue. But
also I tell them do not engage. You know, That's like,
if you're at the house and law enforcement knocks on

(59:27):
the door, you're free to talk to them through the people,
but under no circumstances are you to open that door.
There's nothing that they can tell you sort of there's
a bomb threat and everyone needs to evacuate, or there's
a fire you need to evacuate that you need to
open that door, sort of that there's nothing, and I

(59:50):
encourage them not to open the door because that's the
only line of protection they have. To a misunderstanding or
some sort of verbal confrontation, it then escalates, don't open
the door. So that's just where I'm coming from.

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
Minute they opened the door, they could see something suspicious
behind you, and then then there and then all bets
are off.

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
It's been called probable cause, right, you know, and it
could be marijuana on the table, but a certain amount
of marijuana. I mean, it could be anything. I'm saying.
You lose control of the situation and you lose your
autonomy the moment you open the door. So be it ice,
be it fake ice, be it local law enforcement. I

(01:00:38):
always say, if you want to have a conversation, you
can talk through the door. I can hear you just
find me. I don't even enter into the conversation, but
if you want to at least find out why they're there,
then I wouldn't go any further than that, because you
know ICE is only there for the express purpose of
taking people away. Why would you open the door?

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
And that, my friends, is law and disorder.

Speaker 1 (01:01:03):
Tune in again next time. Four more Law and Disorder
about Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 4 (01:01:08):
All right, that's it, let's roll.

Speaker 1 (01:01:11):
Hey, let's speak careful out there, Kim. I feel it's
kind of unfair, but I think we do need to
have at least a little bit of news before we
can do that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
I like it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:24):
I think it happened.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
On the Mark Thompson Show. I'm Kim McAllister. This report
is sponsored by Coachella Valleycoffee dot Com. The Flight delays
and cancelations are rising at the nation's airport. The FAA
started cutting the number of flights on Friday due to
shutdown related staffing issues. As of this morning, more than
seventeen hundred flights have already been canceled, with more than

(01:01:56):
forty five hundred delays, and air travel is likely to
remain a bumpy ride for a while, even with the
Senate so called breakthrough on funding the government. That's because
the upper chamber needs to rewrite and submit the new
text of the agreement for approval. Even if the Senate
is able to act quickly on the agreement, it still
has to be approved by the House and signed into

(01:02:18):
law by President Trump. All of this takes time, so
those delays at the airport will not be over quickly.
Arizona Congresswoman elect at Alita Grijalva will be reportedly sworn
in as early as this week. Multiple reports say she'll
be sworn in by House Speaker Mike Johnson before a
vote is held on this government funding bill Forrihalva won

(01:02:41):
a special election in September, but Johnson has not sworn
her in due to the House not being in session
well at least That's what they say. This is the reason.
What the real reason is? You know that Epstein files.
The Supreme Court is rejecting a challenge to same sex marriages,
the justices declining to take up the appeal from former

(01:03:02):
Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis. Remember her, she was the
one who refused to marry same sex couples even when
it became the law in her state. The county clerk
Kim Davis to overturn the twenty fifteen landmark decision. Davis,
as I mentioned, received national attention by refusing to issue
same sex marriage licenses to a couple due to her

(01:03:25):
religious beliefs. So she went to the Supreme Court to
challenge same sex marriages, and the Justice declined to take
up the appeal.

Speaker 1 (01:03:32):
And Kim, can I jump in there and any The
only note I would make is the Supreme Court decline
to take up the challenge for this case. But I
firmly believe that another one, which would be more suitable
for the scotis to what's the phrase I'm looking for

(01:03:52):
to at least give the pretexts that it is a
legitimate case to look at. Then roll back rights as
it relates to gay marriage, Kim Davis and her case.
It was too flimsy. But I believe that they are

(01:04:13):
devising that case to run up the latter to the
Supreme Court to roll back gay rights. Gay marriage. It's coming,
it's just not this case.

Speaker 2 (01:04:24):
The Supreme Court will consider whether or not mail in
ballots received after election day can be counted. Shouldn't they
be counted if they were stamped received by election day
by the time stamp. I don't know. The case involves
a Republican led lawsuit over a Mississippi state law put
into place during the pandemic. The law let mail in

(01:04:44):
ballots postmark by election day to be received up to
five days later be counted. Supreme Court expected to hear
arguments next year and rule by the summer, ahead of
the midterm elections. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says the United
States out strikes on two more alleged drug boats over
the weekend. Strikes took place in the Eastern Pacific yesterday

(01:05:07):
and killed six people in a post on x Hegsas
said the vessels were known by US intelligence to be
associated with illicit narcotics smuggling. More than seventy people have
been killed and the more than a dozen strikes started
in September. Thus far, two top BBC executives are stepping

(01:05:27):
down following backlash over the editing of a speech made
by President Trump. On January sixth of twenty twenty one,
Trump welcoming the resignations of BBC Director General Tim Davey
and Chief Executive of News Deborah Turnus, calling them both
very dishonest people. The BBC has also recently faced criticism

(01:05:48):
for other news coverage, including a documentary on Gaza. The
latest controversy happened after the Telegraph newspaper published a leaked
internal memo claiming parts of Trump's speech war edited together
to make it appear that he explicitly encouraged the storming
of the Capitol.

Speaker 1 (01:06:05):
Can we stop right there for a second, we talk
about lies and truth. He explicitly encouraged the storm of
Capital I and I am a paid contributor for the BBC,
So I say that in the interest of full disclosure
interviews speeches are edited all the time, and this goes

(01:06:29):
back to even sixty minutes, and how they edit interviews.
It's usually for time and space. And I looked over
the speech and it wasn't a material change to the
expression of what was the sentiment of the speech. But
now it is a time where it is looked upon

(01:06:49):
that you are a forwarding some sort of political agenda
simply by editing something. You're editing for time and clarity.
You know, like a sixty minutes interview might be able
to case of of the course of three hours, you're
trying to boil it down to I don't know, thirty
minutes that will actually be on air, and you're trying

(01:07:10):
to edit it for clarity. That is what is happening here.
But since so many outlets, including ABC and including MSNBC
have capitulated and paid money and paramount CBS because they
want these mergers and what have you, we're not a
point where people who I believe are largely ignorant of

(01:07:33):
the journalism process how it works, especially good journalism. They're
assuming that the president has been harmed when it is
it is not that at all. You are just editing
for clarity and condensing it to fit within a certain
amount of page length or a certain broadcast window. That's it.

(01:07:56):
And now the BBC has rolled over firing executives and
this is going to make it even worse for what's
happening now in this in this era of journalism, there.

Speaker 2 (01:08:09):
Is a blanket policy usually for journalists that you don't
edit the president of the United States, at least in
this country now and over in England they probably don't
have that policy when it relates as it relates to,
you know, the leaders of other countries. But in America,
like I remember when Barack Obama used to take the

(01:08:31):
biggest pauses. He would, you know, and it was like
you weren't cutting anything out but dead air. But still
you wouldn't touch it because that's what the president said,
that's how he spoke, That's what you leave. That's it.
So I understand editing for time, but just like as
a you know, a journalistic practice, editing what the president says,

(01:08:55):
there's enough wrong with what he says and does. We
don't need to make it look any worse like Paradolf.
Let it stand on its own merit because what he
said was bad enough. I don't know. Cleveland Guardians, Pitchers,
Luis Ortiz, and hopefully I'll say this man's name right,
Emmanuel Clase are facing charges related to US sports betting

(01:09:18):
investigation mode. The two were accused of taking part in
a scheme to intentionally throw bad pitches during games so
betters could wager both players were indicted and or Tease
has been arrested place not currently in custody. And it
goes to what you were saying, the tip of the iceberg, right.

Speaker 1 (01:09:35):
Yep, Wait, we still haven't hit the real iceberg yet.
These are indictments coming out of investigations which were started
months years ago. In some respects, there are plenty more
investigations getting to the heart of the matter which are
going on right now, and those indictments are coming in

(01:09:56):
the future months, the really really bad ones.

Speaker 2 (01:10:01):
We haven't seen him yet.

Speaker 1 (01:10:02):
Oh no, no, no, it's going to be hell of
a lot worse. And I believe it's going to fundamentally
change our view of whether the sports that we watch
professional and college. And you didn't include the story about
the college athletes, the basketball athletes who were banned this
week as well because of their attempts to rig games.

(01:10:22):
So it is across all levels of competitive sports, from
college to pro, from basketball to baseball to football, from
umpires to referees. Our concept of sports and what is
legitimate is going to go through a reckoning which I

(01:10:44):
don't know whether our sports will ever be able to
fully recover from.

Speaker 2 (01:10:49):
I should have put this next story in Law and Disorder.
A New Mexico man charged in a double homicide told
deputies a cockroach told him to kill the sheriff's department there,
says twenty five year old Alexis Hernandez was charged with
two open counts of murder in connection with a Friday

(01:11:09):
incident inside of a home in Albuquerque. The man allegedly
said he received an encrypted message in a cockroach that
he needed to kill. Hernandez said he had to do
what he had to do, so Cockroach Killer. iHeartMedia and
TikTok teaming up to launch the first of its kind
multi platform partnership. The venue includes a launch of the

(01:11:32):
TikTok Podcast Network, which will feature up to twenty five
new podcast hosted by TikTok creators. The partnership also includes
TikTok Radio, a fast paced format pairing TikTok creators with
experienced iHeartRadio personalities, where listeners will feel like they're scrolling
on TikTok but with their ears.

Speaker 1 (01:11:53):
I thought, in factly, I know for a fact serious
exam as a TikTok radio channel. No do they, Yes
they do. I wonder just about the legalities of it,
the trademark copyright of just using TikTok radio, because I
know for a fact Sirius XM probably has a copyright
on that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:14):
What's that the thinking about TikTok radio? Like you go
from O there is go from scroll to scroll to scroll.
I mean, isn't that a little busy for the ears?
No smooth transitions, just like this blast of information coming
straight in your ears.

Speaker 1 (01:12:32):
It sounds like some the way to describe it. It's
not unlike what we're doing right now, where you have
these news bites and just short vignettes that you can
digest and you move on. You don't spend a lot
of time on it, go from topic to topic to
topic to topic. And the way that we kind of
scroll on our phones and we move from thing to
thing to thing, we don't spend a lot of time.

(01:12:53):
Most people just spend time reading the headlines and not
the body of the article.

Speaker 2 (01:12:58):
Sure, and that makes sense, but I just mean audio wise,
if it's only audio and not video, and there's a difference,
like at least as we're moving from topic to topic,
it's a little more smooth. There's you know, polish transitions
or hopefully polished transition. You know, it's more like a
traditional like I'm not trying to assault your senses. Whereas

(01:13:21):
with that, I just feel like this barrage of different
sound not sound like all kinds of stuff coming at
you could be very disconcerting for the ear.

Speaker 1 (01:13:31):
It could be, and it also could be something that's
not meant for us. What I meant, you know, yeah,
because what I want as an almost fifty six year
old man, or what I enjoy or how I consume
information is probably very different from the TikTok generation and
how they consume information. I do know that a lot

(01:13:51):
of gen Z people get most of their news from
social media outlets, not traditional news sources, so they're not
sitting down watching a full news show. They consume information
very differently, and so this is probably not something that's
meant for me, not meant for you, definitely not meant
for Tony. But I'm quite sure there is a sizable

(01:14:13):
audience out there who does consume information in such a way,
just not us.

Speaker 2 (01:14:20):
This is a story, you know, I need to have this,
this item Wizard of Oz fans will soon have the
chance to own one of the most iconic costume pieces
from this film. Margaret Hamilton's original Wicked Witch of the
West black hat, goes up for auction next month. It'll
be part of the Heritage Auctions December Hollywood Signature auction.

(01:14:42):
It'll also include Judy Garland's red rehearsal slipper and that
there's a bunch of those different pairs of red slippers,
so here's another one coming up. The cast signed copy
of the script of the book rather the original book.
Other items that will be part of the auction include
Elvis Presley's nineteen seventy six Harley Davidson, Marilyn Monroe's Cleopatrick costume,

(01:15:03):
and artwork from Star Wars. Oh to own that hat?
Can you imagine?

Speaker 1 (01:15:09):
Uh, it'd be great to have, but I can't afford it.

Speaker 2 (01:15:12):
No, I can't afford it either. No, thank you. This
report is sponsored by Coachella Valleycoffee dot Com. There is
the Lions Main coffee. If you haven't had a chance
to try it, Boy, is it really really good. The
tea is good as well. All coming with Lions Main's
supposed to give you some clarity and mental alertness. But

(01:15:33):
there's so much more to explore at Coachella Valleycoffee dot com.
And the tasting notes will tell you exactly what it
is you're about to order from the best coffee that
you'll put past your lips. As Mark likes to say,
to my very favorite teas Coachella Valley Coffee dot com.
And if you find something you like, please use the
super secret Mark Thompson's show code. It'll save you ten

(01:15:55):
percent off. It is Mark Tea at checkout, markt at
check out, We'll get you ten percent off. No space
is there. And I will say it's time for me
to order some of these teas because I like to
use them as stocking stuffers. So I have to go
on the website and pick out some gifts Coachella Valleycoffee
dot Com.

Speaker 1 (01:16:13):
I agree, stocking stuffers. It's not a time to start
thinking about that.

Speaker 2 (01:16:20):
It is the time. And you know what I was
reading is that apparently there's going to be all kinds
of shipping delays from things coming overseas. So in this
particular instance, it's coming right from California in Coachella Valley,
so it'll get to you, no problem. I'm Kim McCallister.
This is the Mark Thompson Show, and.

Speaker 1 (01:16:41):
There you have the news. And I want to remind
you coming up at the bottom of the hour, we're
going to have a little bit of Mark Thompson and
his previously recorded conversation with Doctor Nicholas right at the
bottom of the hour. So if you're missing Mark, and
I understand that I don't take it personally, you get
a little bit of Mark at the bottom of the
hour with Doctor Nicholas right before we get there. And

(01:17:02):
also want to say thank you to Harry Magnan for
the five dollars for the Mohattan at the Red Jack.

Speaker 2 (01:17:10):
Hey, so the Red Jack is a bar in San Francisco.
They have been so supportive they put up these drinks.
They have the Marktini, the Chemikazi and another coworker from
KGO Radio when the station shut down, the Meduro Mule,
and they have these drinks there and a portion of
the proceeds gets kicked right back to these shows. So

(01:17:33):
that's at the Red Jack. So they say Mo needs
his own Red Jack drink, the Mohattan.

Speaker 1 (01:17:38):
You know what, I cannot disagree with that yes, anything
named after me is very cool, but I would not
want a stadium oh non me really, And our president,
in his never ending quest to self aggrandize, wants to
have a stadium named after him. In fact, he was

(01:18:00):
recently yesterday at the Washington Commander's game. And I'm a
firm proponent of stopping with this whole idea that politics
shouldn't be in sports. Politics has always been in sports,
and this particular president is ever present and his politics
are ever present relating to sports, and the Washington Commanders

(01:18:22):
have been long fighting for a new stadium to replace
RFK Stadium. To that end, President Donald Trump put it
out there through his advisors and you know in the
Whisper campaign he would like this new stadium named after him.
Hopefully that won't happen, but there's a possibility it could.

(01:18:45):
Usually they name will put it this way. Usually they
name stadiums after dead people.

Speaker 2 (01:18:51):
I thought, Moe, they named stadiums after companies that paid
big bucks for it.

Speaker 1 (01:18:56):
Well, they usually have a name of the stadium and
then there's naming rights on top of it. Like for example,
you had the Forum in Englewood where the Legas used
to play. Then it turned into the Great Western Forum
because they had Great Western Bank, and then they change
it again. And then they will build certain stadiums like

(01:19:19):
Staples Center with a naming corporation already connected to its creation.
If there's no corporation connected to the stadium, like in
La we have Stofie Stadium so far was connected to
the construction of the stadium, so they had first chance
at naming rights. Sometimes they just build a stadium and

(01:19:43):
then they'll put something on top of it. Arlington Stadium
with a Dallas Cowboys play. That was Jerry Jones's creation,
and then they brought it AT and T on top
of it, and then they said AT and T Stadium.
So it depends on how the stadium is is constructed.
But yes, for the most part, they're just naming rights deals.

(01:20:05):
Like for example, the Staples Center where the Lakers played
is now Crypto dot Com Arena, right, so if they
change the naming rights to it, so it could go
either way. It depends on how they want to do it.
It could be I don't know, it could be FedEx
from stadium or something like that. Heaven forbid.

Speaker 2 (01:20:25):
Yeah, well, you know, he likes to slap his name
on everything. Isn't this the guy that wants himself posted
on the you know, yes, mountaintops and they he would love.

Speaker 1 (01:20:37):
To be on Mount Rushmore. He would love to be
on the name of the ballroom. He wants to put
Malanya's name on the Kennedy Center. And like I said,
you know, if your name is on something, it gives
the sense that either you created it, you own it.
He's as all presidents are. They're concerned with their legacy,
but he for some reason associates having his name on

(01:21:00):
it as part of his legacy. It's not likely to happen,
but it possibly could happen. And I mentioned this story because.

Speaker 2 (01:21:12):
He's billions from Crypto mo so he could pay to
have his name put on there, right.

Speaker 1 (01:21:16):
He could. But he's he's never supposed to use his
own money. Oh he's supposed to get other people. He doesn't.
He doesn't pay his own contractors. About money, no, no, no.
But I mentioned this because President Trump and the involvement
of the President in sports. It's one thing if he's
just showing up to games, but it's another thing when

(01:21:37):
he's always actively commenting about the sports. What's going on
in the NFL, he's complaining about the kickoffs, or he
was complaining about Colin Kaeperdick, or he's complaining about who
is or is not coming to the White House and
why that's involving himself in sports. And when he went
to the Commander's game yesterday, he decided, because we're on

(01:22:01):
the eve of Veterans Day, to read the oath that
all veterans take in pledging the support and defense of
the Constitution. And all I can say is we have
some video. It didn't go as well, I think as
the President would have liked.

Speaker 2 (01:23:10):
That is a lot of booing.

Speaker 1 (01:23:11):
Mo. It's not only it's a visceral response. I've been
at events where you have political figures who may show up,
and whatever president shows up, you're going to get some booing, regardless.
That has always been the case. But I've never heard
anything like that, the visceral response, And maybe DC is

(01:23:33):
not indicative of the rest of the country, because I
know the President is beloved in some quadrants, like he
would show up for a college football game down south
or a NASCAR event and you have a very different reaction.
So I'm not going to say that what happened in Washington,
DC is emblematic of the rest of the country. That
would be untrue. But I will say that I don't

(01:23:55):
remember any president being booed like that as vociferously as
that as frequently as he is as he travels around
the country. Now, he'll show up next week at a
usc event and they'll just love him. But I've never
seen that type of negativity voice in relation to a president.

(01:24:18):
And we can talk about his polling numbers, but you
can't deny that he actively employs tactics which does not
endear himself to the majority of Americans. And again I'm
not going to contradict myself. Part of the Republican's superpower

(01:24:39):
is they don't care. This is part of that. They
don't care. It doesn't matter whether you boo him, it
doesn't matter whether you protest him. Like we saw with
the Dope Kings protests. President Trump is going to do
whatever he wants to do, Number one, because he knows
he's not going to get any measure or significant pushback

(01:25:02):
from Democrats and he's not going to lose any report
from his Republican base. Now, as long as those two
things stay true, there's no reason for him to change course.
Even though he's insecure as an individual and wants to
be beloved.

Speaker 2 (01:25:18):
Got a message from a c C rider with a
ten thank you for that. CC the North Korea, Kim
to Sung University, Kim to Sung Square, come Susan Palace
of the Sun, Kim to Sung Stadium, she writes, a
major sports venue in Pyongyang, and Kimisungia National Flower. So yeah,

(01:25:39):
equating to the Trump Stadium idea to that. Dictators do
this all the time, name things after themselves.

Speaker 1 (01:25:46):
Right absolutely, and Donald Trump wants to be remembered. He
wants that statue, he wants that monument and however shape
it may take, that form where he wants to be
seen in that same light. And what he leaves out
and forgets is that's forced support. If you see Kim

(01:26:11):
John ill, Kim John um, excuse me, and you have
any type of gathering, people are forced to applaud under
threat of death. And he wants to be revered that way.
He wants to be seen as someone who's an authoritarian
that way. He just doesn't want the title of authoritarian.
I'll give you an example, and this has to do

(01:26:32):
with race and racism. I'll go on social media and
I'll point out, you know, that's racist or that's racist,
and people bristle at the title, at the accusation. They're
okay with the behavior, They're okay with the tactics, they're
okay with whatever is being done. They just don't want
the title. Donald Trump is okay with everything which is

(01:26:56):
connected to being a dictator. Donald Trump is okay with
all the trappings of quote unquote being a king. He
just does not want to be seen in that light
and affixed with that title. He doesn't want to be
called a dictator. But he's just fine with pulling out
the dictator's playbook. He's just fine with closing up to

(01:27:19):
victor orbad. He's just fine with hanging out with Kim
John Ouhm and sending love letters back and forth. You know,
he's fine with all of that. But he doesn't want
to be called a dictator. He doesn't want to be
called a king. But he's okay with everything which is
emblematic and reminiscent of them.

Speaker 2 (01:27:41):
Scott Rittenberg with the five thank you, Scott says, mo,
is this gambling scandal the route to my life? My
Lions have never won a Super Bowl. I wonder how
many of them will get a pardon. Maybe it's part
of the pact.

Speaker 1 (01:27:54):
I think the Lines are actually going to make it
to the super Bowl this year if they can get
past my Rams. The Lions are very very good. I
would not use any conspiracy theory to keep the Lions
out of the super Bowl because historically, and I say
this because my mother is from Detroit by the Lions
had always been my second favorite team, going back to
when Wayne Fonce was coach, So I mean I am

(01:28:16):
intimately familiar with the history of the Lions. It wasn't
a well run organization. It's much better now, and I
believe they're closer to a super Bowl than ever before.
And if I weren't rooting for my Rams, i'd be
rooting for the Lions. But I don't think it's a
conspiracy theory. They might get there this year.

Speaker 2 (01:28:34):
Kung Fu fems with a five. Thank you. Kung Fu says,
do you think Trump will ultimately pardon Maxwell?

Speaker 1 (01:28:40):
Yes? Yes, What more evidence do you need. He's pardoning
his co conspirators, you know all of those other crimes.
Why would it. He's gonna pardon it. He's gonna pardon
anyone who can do anything for him, and there was
no reason to move Maxwell in the first place. So
they've all already capitulated on some level. She's going to

(01:29:03):
get out of prison.

Speaker 2 (01:29:06):
Louise with thive thank you, Louise smoke. People are uneducated
there for ACA but against Obamacare, though they're the same.
It's like I hate avocados, but I really enjoyed guacamole.

Speaker 1 (01:29:19):
As I said earlier, I don't believe people fundamentally are
informed or educated enough to understand the health cliff that
we're on, healthcare cliff that we're on the precipice of,
and the fact that they can't distinguish between Obamacare and
ACA is just further evidence of that. And it's going

(01:29:41):
to get much worse before it gets better.

Speaker 2 (01:29:44):
Lastly, Carrie thrown in a couple Thanks for all you do,
right Carrie, oh Carrie, thank you weak for Carrie.

Speaker 1 (01:29:49):
But all the things go to Kim and Tony and
Albert when he's here, and Mark obviously when he's here.
But thank you for supporting the show. It does mean
a lot, and just a moment and make sure Tony's ready.
Were going to go to a conversation between Mark and
doctor Nicholas Wright and I know you miss Mark. I
miss Mark as well, So this is a way that

(01:30:10):
we can incorporate Mark into the show. So you have
just a little bit of Mark every now and then.
I'm going to be with you for the rest of
the week, but thank you for supporting the show as
we go through this week. I know I'm very different
than Mark and I have a different delivery and somehow,
in some ways a different outlook. I am a I

(01:30:32):
think I'm more pessimistic and critical of the Democrats than
Mark would be. This is just one of those days
where it hurt me to my soul and I got
that news alert that eight Democrats had defected, effectively ending
the shutdown. Now there are other hoops that have to

(01:30:53):
jump through procedural measures, but effectively this would end the
shutdown and the Democrats have come away empty handed. That
broke my heart, and that's the only way I can
describe it.

Speaker 2 (01:31:06):
Yeah, it's going to be very expensive for a lot
of Americans who are not going to be able to
afford to take care of themselves and their families with
health insurance.

Speaker 1 (01:31:16):
Yeah. Yeah, And this goes back to something I said
last week where I said, with the election, of Donald
Trump a second time. It's not that I wanted him
to win, but I said, if he were to win,
there have to be consequences. That's a word. I always
focus on consequences, so people would not ever make a
similar decision ever again, And this might be some of them.

(01:31:40):
For people to see. It's like, we voted collectively as
a country against our own interests and it has to
hurt on some level. Oh, we might do it again.

Speaker 2 (01:31:52):
Well, you see it with people like Marjorie Taylor Green,
who didn't seem to get it until it personally affects her,
And now that she's looking at increased health care costs
for her own children, right, and she's looking at it going, oh,
we can't do this to America because it affects me personally.
So maybe it has to have a personal effect for
anybody who voted for Trump who then turns around and says, oh,

(01:32:16):
what just happened to me? Right, Maybe that's the only
way to get through to people. I just hate that
people will die because of it.

Speaker 1 (01:32:23):
They will, they will, and people will suffer, and maybe
the needs of the many will be served better for that.
I don't want that, but maybe that's the only way
that we can get to the other side of this
is to actually deal with the destruction of this country.

(01:32:44):
And I don't mean to sound hyperbolic, but I've reserved
my remarks for moments just like these, where we can
tell what's going to happen with health care, we can
tell what's going to happen to people everyday Americans who
cannot afford this country. We can tell. And there's no
happy ending there. And the only way that we can
possibly make sure this doesn't happen again is to go

(01:33:07):
through it. So we have a reference point that we
never want to experience this again. And now we're going
to go to Mark Thompson and doctor Nicholas Wright and
I'll rejoin you on the other side the Mark Thompson Show.

Speaker 2 (01:33:28):
Who's Mark Thompson.

Speaker 5 (01:33:32):
I'm excited to have a real, honest to goodness smart
guy in our midst and this is someone who is
a member of the Royal College of Physicians. He's a
neuroscientist who studies researches the brain technology also investigates security
the University College in London, Georgetown University Center for Strategic

(01:33:56):
and International Studies in Washington, DC. He also advises the
Pangone Joint Staff. He works with governments in the private sector,
worked as a neurology doctor in London and Oxford, and
has published numerous academic papers. It's like reading my own
resume when I read his introduction. The BBC, the New

(01:34:17):
York Times have all covered and integrated his research. He's
appeared on CNN and the BBC regularly contributes to outlets
like Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, and Slate. His
new book is Warhead, How the Brain Shapes War and
War Shapes the Brain. How about it for the wonderful

(01:34:40):
Nicholas Wright. Everyone, man, you've done a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:34:46):
Nick Wright, congratulations.

Speaker 6 (01:34:48):
It sounds a lot more impressive than it looks from
the inside.

Speaker 5 (01:34:53):
Don't worry about that, fair enough, boy, You seem well
positioned to help us evaluate the kind of stressors that
we've all endured to some extent, or that many chunks
of society.

Speaker 1 (01:35:11):
And humanity have endured.

Speaker 5 (01:35:13):
Tell me about Warhead and about your research and how
it works.

Speaker 4 (01:35:18):
Yeah, so, I'm as you said.

Speaker 6 (01:35:20):
I was a neurology doctor and then spent a number
of years using functional brain imaging and other research to
really looking at human brains. And then I spent I've
also spent now over a decade advising the Pentagon Joint Staff,
and I've learned their perspective, how they think about things,
and Warhead is bringing those two together and making it
understandable for a general audience. And the reason why that's

(01:35:43):
so important right now for the concerned citizen is that
right in our time, we could lose. Right the democracies
could lose. The United States could lose a war against China.
And that's one of the to literally I start the
book in the preface, you know, I'm having I'm sitting
in a pub with a friend of and he's.

Speaker 4 (01:36:00):
Like, oh, what are you working on. I was like,
I'm writing a book about war.

Speaker 6 (01:36:03):
In the brain, it's like, no one's going to go
to war over someone like Ukraine or Taiwan. And even
if they do, don't worry. America is going to be fine.
And I'm like, that's not what they think in the Pentagon.
We could lose, and we need to think about the
central weapon of war. What has always been the central
weapon of war, which is the human brain. And we
need to think about it, not just because we need

(01:36:25):
to win wars and not lose wars, although that's very important,
but also because you know, we have incredible capacity for destruction,
and we need to understand why humans fight so that
we can try and prevent wars from happening. And if
wars do happen, then we can try and prevent war
from escalating. So we need to understand why humans fight.
We need that knowledge about ourselves as humans. And I

(01:36:49):
believe that I'm optimistic. I think that if we can
build our knowledge of humans, we can build a more
peaceful world through better self knowledge of our as humans.
And that makes me optimistic.

Speaker 5 (01:37:03):
Sure, first of all, optimism has no place on this show.
I will continue under protest, but I think, of course
you're right. I shouldn't say of course. I mean, I
think it's a really decent insight. But it makes sense,
I guess, is what I mean when you say, if
we know ourselves, we can avoid these conflicts and we
can avoid war. And I want to learn more. But

(01:37:23):
just to step out for a second, I would say,
problem is I think that that introspection that you're suggesting
we need, either culturally, societally, politically, whatever. I don't know
that you see a lot of that. It feels as though,
particularly in this moment, we see a lot of masculine
flex ego associated with so many decisions, even those decisions

(01:37:46):
involving the military.

Speaker 6 (01:37:48):
I think, look, we need masculine flex to some extent.
I mean, that is part of what we need because
we need people who are going to go into the
line of fire and stand and fight. So we need something.
It doesn't have to be masculine flex, but it needs
to be something that is tough and is you know,
and that is not easy. That is not a simple

(01:38:09):
thing for people to do, right, professor, exactly, you know
this is this is dangerous and difficult stuff, and I
have a huge amount of respect for those people who
who do it and who I've worked with now for
over a decade. But the other thing I'd say is
that people are often very negative about, you know, people
in the Pentagon or people in the US military, and

(01:38:30):
that is just not my experience. Yes, of course, there
are some people who are more you know, you know,
more reflective than others. But let me give you one
tangible example. The very first US flag officer I ever
briefed in person in the Pentagon, it was just over
ten years ago. He was a brigadier general. We spent
an hour just me, him and a couple of his team,
and we were talking about the brain. We were talking

(01:38:52):
about Iran, what motivated Iran, How could we come to
a better accommodation with Ran? If we needed to signal,
how could we make that and do what we wanted
them to do and not accidentally do things we didn't
want them to do?

Speaker 1 (01:39:03):
And so on.

Speaker 4 (01:39:04):
He then I wrote a.

Speaker 6 (01:39:05):
Book about Ai and he wrote a forward for that book. Right,
and now he is the most senior US military officer
in Europe. He is the full star head of Europe
Command and NATO.

Speaker 4 (01:39:18):
Right.

Speaker 6 (01:39:18):
And he is a tough, but reflective and intelligent guy.
And there are lots of people like that in the
American military.

Speaker 5 (01:39:25):
Wow, thank you for that example. I mean, maybe there
really is optimism in all of this. You know, in
this moment, one can be optimistic, So you know one
of the things that historically is the case. And I
want to double back to something you said, because you're
talking about a war with China, et cetera. I kind
of feel like a shooting war with China, a hot

(01:39:47):
war with China, maybe over disputed territory. I wonder if
that's what you're saying, or what I was getting from
you as you were speaking about it was perhaps that
a nation can find itself backing into a conflict or
involved in a conflict, and before you know it, I mean,
you're at war in a way that you didn't think

(01:40:09):
you were.

Speaker 1 (01:40:10):
Which one of those things is.

Speaker 6 (01:40:12):
I mean, I think so one of the things here
is to try and get a complete enough picture of
the challenges we face. You can't know everything you know,
As Oscar Wilde said, the problem with socialism is it
takes too many evenings. I'm not expecting you to read
every book think about every problem.

Speaker 4 (01:40:27):
To do with war.

Speaker 6 (01:40:28):
That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is there
a number of things you need to think about. So
if you think about Taiwan now you are absolutely right.
What we could end up with is an accidental war,
a bit like the run up to World War One.
None of the great powers Britain, Germany, Russia, France, none
of them really wanted to go to war, certainly not
the cataclysmic war that they ended up having, and yet

(01:40:51):
that's what happened. And so yes, certainly it is possible
that America and China could go to war inadvertently over Taiwan.
But there is also the possibility, and we must remember
this too, that Xi Jinping is an extremely powerful leader.
He is the most powerful leader since Moute Dong in China.
China is a very powerful country. It now produces as

(01:41:12):
much as the next four or maybe even nine countries
in the world put together in terms of manufacturing amazingly
sophisticated technologies. Now too, he could, if he wanted, press
the metaphorical button and order an invasion of Taiwan. He
has that capability and if he wants to do that,
it will happen. And he could want to do that,

(01:41:32):
that could be his intention. Many people do want to
invade other countries or invade other territories because he sees
that's part of his own country. You know, Vladimir Putin
did want to invade Ukraine, right Adolf Hitler, And I'm
not saying Jinping is Alf Hitler, but I'm saying Adolf
Hitler did want to invade Poland and then France and
then Russia. People do want to invade other countries, and

(01:41:54):
there will also people like that, and Chi Jinping could
well be like that we cannot you know, we cannot
say that's not possible.

Speaker 4 (01:42:01):
It is possible, and.

Speaker 5 (01:42:02):
You're saying, so the emerging conflict would then find its
way to your shores in the United States, I mean,
or at least a decision about whether or not you're
going to be involved in a conflict like that.

Speaker 6 (01:42:15):
I mean, America is a big place and it seems
very far from everywhere else. But that's not really true,
so that even if you think it's so, you know,
George C. Marsha, you've probably had a George C. Marshall,
you know, the very the top American military officer in
World War Two, and he had this thing, why we fight,
and he was like, look, the Western Hemisphere is actually
if you say the whole of the Western Hemisphere, the

(01:42:36):
US has every bit of the Western Hemisphere. There are
just many more people who live outside the Western Hemisphere
than live in the Western Hemisphere. The Western hemistere now
is about thirteen percent of the world's population, and the
geography is not what most people think. So Houston, Texas
is closer geographically to me now in London than the
ist of Buenos Aire's right, the Western Hemisphere is very

(01:42:57):
long and also, America may get no choice, right. Pearl
Harbor was not America deciding to sink the aircraft carriers
of the Imperial Japanese Navy. It was the Imperial Japanese
Navy who felt threatened by the United States. What the
United States could choose to do, regardless of what the
US was doing, what it could choose to do, and

(01:43:18):
they attacked the United States. That's what Pearl Harbor was.
Why would countries not worry about what the United States
could choose to do?

Speaker 5 (01:43:29):
Well fascionating and it puts it in a context. And
so with your book, you get into the thinking of
the neurology, really the thinking the I suppose how that
manifests philosophically in the way we behave. How war takes
shape in the human brain?

Speaker 4 (01:43:50):
Is that yeah, I mean that's what war is.

Speaker 6 (01:43:52):
War is politically motivated violence at scale between human groups.
It is funda mentally human is part of what we are.
And so the book takes you on a journey. It
starts at the brain stem right at the very bottom
of the brain, and goes through many different brain areas
and ends right up by the front or pole right
at the other end. That does our most sophisticated thinking
about thinking. That's the most uniquely human area of the brain.

(01:44:15):
That every part of the brain that we journey through
can drive us towards wall. So, to give you an example,
the amigdala is a region right deep, quite deep down
in the brain, and it's involved in fear. Now, we
think of fear is something we don't necessarily want, but
fear is useful. We need fear if you don't have fear,
right So, there are some very rare patients who lose
these the amygdala. They lose this little part of the

(01:44:37):
brain that's involved in fear, and some of those patients
can't feel fear and they don't recognize fear in others.
And that doesn't make them some kind of fearless criminal
who can take whatever they want and get everything without
worrying about the consequences. What that makes them is a
victim of crime. We need fear. Fear is useful, and
yet fear can when two groups fear each other, or

(01:44:58):
two people fear each other, that can drive and towards conflict.
So that's just one example. There's so much about our
brains that drivers us towards conflict. But if we understand
how that works, then and we understand how we can
make wiser decisions, not just cleverer decisions, but wiser decisions,
then we can do better than our forebears did, and

(01:45:19):
we can hopefully build a more peaceful world.

Speaker 1 (01:45:22):
Are human beings biologically neurologically wired to be aggressive creatures?

Speaker 4 (01:45:33):
I think yes. It is part of us.

Speaker 6 (01:45:35):
It is not all of us, and it's very important
to remember that reconciliation, for example, is every bit as
human as conflict. But we must not pretend about ourselves
that violence isn't and conflict is not a part of us.
That's just not a you know, we don't have the
luxury of living with an incomplete picture. To give you

(01:45:58):
an example, the two biggest book of the last fifteen
twenty years on the Brain and War One with Stephen
Pinkert the better range of our nature. Don't worry, guys,
you know the art history bends towards peace. I'm obviously paraphrasing.
He's a very intelligent, very clever guy. But the thing
is is that he's not so much wrong. The arch
of history probably does bend towards peace. It's a dangerous
The incomplete picture of the world because wars do happen

(01:46:22):
and they don't win themselves, and we need to really
think about that, you know, like Ukraine or Robert Sapolski,
don't worry guys. The way we're going to crack the
problem of war, and he wrote a brilliant book but
about the brain and violence. But the way we're going
to crack it is just by being nice to each
other or nicer to each other. And you know, realizing
war war is bad, well that yes, war is bad,

(01:46:44):
but that doesn't help us, you know, understand how to
prevent wars and win wars if we must fight them.
And that's what I try and do in the book
is walk through the brain. Understand all the different major
things about the brain and how the brain works, and
then how that can drive us towards war, how it
can help us create peace, and how it can help
us win wars and not lose wars.

Speaker 5 (01:47:06):
It's just a fascinating science that you've applied to what
feels as though it's human nature. Human nature is an
area of scientific discourse and investigation, one that you've been
intimately involved in, and is your research the productivity that

(01:47:26):
you found, the results that you've found the conclusions that
you've reached, is.

Speaker 1 (01:47:31):
That the result of.

Speaker 5 (01:47:33):
Anecdotal looking at the subset of humanity that you look
at the history, which are obviously so very well steeped in.

Speaker 1 (01:47:45):
I would think it's more that than it is.

Speaker 5 (01:47:47):
You know, the kind of laboratory experimental psyche that I'm
used to.

Speaker 6 (01:47:53):
The whole of the book. The whole idea is to
bring those two worlds together. So that's I think exactly
the idea of the book there is, and that's why,
for example, like the people who very kindly said, oh,
it's a great book by this book, you know, the
endorsements on the book, Jack and whatever, it's leading scholars
of war, historians of war, really leading thinkers on war.
And at the other side, people who are hardcore neuroscientists,

(01:48:17):
you know, and among the top ten most cited neuroscience
in the world. Those are the two different worlds I've
tried to bring together and bring those two sorts of
evidence together, because often if you can bring two very
different sorts of evidence together, you can really create something
new and different and fresh, and you see both things
better than if you just stick with your normal perspectives

(01:48:39):
that you know, you always have. Human nature can be studied.
We've studied in the lab, and I've tried to apply
that knowledge to how we think about human nature in
the most difficult circumstances, which is war.

Speaker 5 (01:48:51):
Let me share a couple of quick notions about your
book that did make it into my press kit. Truly
original and unfortunately timely. Right combines brain science, history, and
psychology to challenge our views on war and peace. Would
understanding the mind help bring peace or help nations fight better?

(01:49:15):
Perhaps both fresh, engaging and provocative.

Speaker 1 (01:49:19):
Wow.

Speaker 5 (01:49:19):
That's from the author of The Influential Mind, a fresh
neuroscientific exploration of the science of war. Warhead is for
anyone who thinks conflict is explained by cold reason and
analysis rather than by understanding our imperfect brains. That's from
the distinguished professor at the Free University of Brussels, an
author of Flawed Strategy Why Smart Leaders Make Bad Decisions.

(01:49:41):
These are other very smart and students of letters. That
is to say, authors who are opining on your book. Wow,
it's really getting some great reception, and I congratulate you
on it. I mean it sounds like some sort of
breakthrough conclusions that you're reaching and the way in which

(01:50:02):
you the way in which you understand or seem to
understand kind of the warring nature of human beings, but
also the way in which that can be defused such
that we understand it and then end up in a
place where we're not actually at war.

Speaker 6 (01:50:23):
Yeah, I mean, and that is our goal as a
human species. Our goal is not to fight wars. Our goal,
I mean, we have many goals. We can choose our goals,
but it's to be constructive. It's to build new things.
War will always be a part of that, partly just
because we're driven towards war through fear and all sorts
of things and misunderstandings and so on, but also because

(01:50:45):
we're constantly so vibrant, so creative. There each new generation
comes along and it feels that what it's you know,
what it's inherited is the boring status quo. And because
of that vibrancy, there will always be competition, and that
competition can get out of hand. But hopefully if we
understand ourselves better, we can keep a lid on some

(01:51:06):
of that competition. We can walk back from some of
the most dangerous parts we might be going down. And
that matters within our societies, within our everyday lives as well,
you know, in our families and so on. Like for example,
if you ask a question what I really want?

Speaker 4 (01:51:20):
Why am I?

Speaker 6 (01:51:21):
You win the argument with your partner, But what is
that really winning the war? As it were, Sometimes it's
better not to win the argument. You know, it sounds obvious,
but this is something people do. They ad off. Hitler
kept winning battles, but he did not win the war,
thank goodness. So you know, I hope we can make
a better world, and I'm optimistic that we can if

(01:51:43):
we have better self knowledge.

Speaker 5 (01:51:45):
I have a confession to make, which is that through
much of what you've said, in certain instances, I apply
it to domestic kinds of arguments one might have, or
just interpersonal relations that one might have that seem fraught
with our kinds of similar problems to the ones that
you referred to. So very app that you had mentioned

(01:52:05):
it as well. Warhead is the book How the Brain
Shapes War and War Shapes the Brain by Nicholas Wright.
Doctor Nicholas Wright is again the leading neuroscientist advisor to
the Pentagon. It is a fascinating work, well celebrated at
this point and there'll be a link to it. You
can buy it and connect with it under this video.

(01:52:28):
What a pleasure to meet you. Thank you for joining
us from far away and for an Oscar wild quote.
I'll give you a ding that was very strong.

Speaker 6 (01:52:37):
Yeah, possibly apocryphal, like every other quote that one looks
up now on the internet, so I apologize.

Speaker 4 (01:52:43):
It's like quote investigate.

Speaker 5 (01:52:45):
It was quite special, quite special. Thank you all right,
doctor Nicholas, right, thank you, my produm.

Speaker 1 (01:52:51):
The Mark Thumbson Show, The Mark Thompson Show. It was great.

Speaker 5 (01:52:58):
I loved it.

Speaker 4 (01:53:00):
How would you have this? We could try ignoring.

Speaker 3 (01:53:03):
It, sir mining You cannot say you love your country.

Speaker 1 (01:53:08):
Where are my weed smokers at?

Speaker 2 (01:53:10):
Stay at home and get baked.

Speaker 1 (01:53:15):
Very topical, very timely, very scary conversation actually with doctor Nicholas, right,
because all the uncertainty in the world today. I was
in agreement with what could happen in Taiwan. How we're
not that far away from some sort of conflagration with China.
It's a scary world. And the psychology behind the men,

(01:53:38):
Let's be honest, the men and the decisions that they
make which may lead us to war, should keep a
lot of us up at night, Kim, what was your takeaway.

Speaker 2 (01:53:48):
For frightening, especially with everything going on with Venezuela, there's
been a drum beat seems like to war talking about
land incursions. It's very timely, I think interview doctor Nicholas
right and an interesting book for sure.

Speaker 1 (01:54:03):
He didn't sugarcoat anything, he didn't pull any punches and
laid it bear Doctor Nicholas Right, that has laid it
bear for us that uh, you know, if you've been
paying attention to history, you know where all of these
events of today can lead and have led before. He
had plenty of examples, and hopefully we will not ignore

(01:54:23):
history at our own peril. But there was a very,
very fascinating conversation.

Speaker 2 (01:54:30):
Tammy popping in with a couple says, this Mark guy
deserves a tip.

Speaker 1 (01:54:35):
It's pretty good at what he does. I'll tell you
that Mark Thompson guy.

Speaker 2 (01:54:38):
He's all right. You know you have no mo Kelly, but.

Speaker 1 (01:54:41):
Please please, I'm always humbled that he thought enough of
me to say, Hey, I'm going to be out of
the country, how about you host for a few days. Mark.
Of course, I don't know if I could fill your shoes,
but he's given me all this love, encouragement and support
that I could ask. I want to thank Tony. Those
who don't know Tony and I worked together in various

(01:55:03):
capacities for the past fourteen years. And if you can
see that it's been a while, and if you can
see this beautiful studio behind me, Tony put it together.
Do you remember that you did it right? Yeah? I
was a video COVID.

Speaker 3 (01:55:17):
Yeah, it was all during COVID to just sitting on
the floor just like quickly putting plug and stuff back.

Speaker 2 (01:55:22):
In and out of while we were live.

Speaker 1 (01:55:24):
It was great, best investment I ever made, best investment ever.
And you didn't know where this world was headed at
that point. It was interesting. When I was working at
Cafe at the time, our then program director, Robin Bergolucci
called me on a Sunday morning, said, mo, can you
get on the mic? I said, well, I'm twenty miles

(01:55:45):
from the studio. The reason is January. It was the
death of Kobe Bryant and to be able to handle
breaking news in a moment, the station was ill equipped
to be able to do that. This is a couple
months before the pandemics started, but I credit her vision
making sure that hosts had the ability, at least in

(01:56:06):
an audio sense, to be able to get on the
air at a moment's notice. And then you had the
pandemic and the rest, they say is history. But Tony
was the person who came through and set up the
first iteration of the studio. I don't know if you
would even recognize it. Oh, I'm sure You've probably just
got so much cooler stuff. Now it's a standing desk,
even though I'm sitting right now. It's you know, because

(01:56:29):
you know your studio has to fit your particular your workflow. Yep, yeah,
your workflow. And now it's finally there. And I say
all that to say, going back to doctor Nicholas, right,
this world changes so quickly. We think we know where
all this is headed, but we really don't because we
were living our lives as usual on February first of

(01:56:52):
twenty nineteen and then the world shut down a month later.
You just don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:56:58):
A lot of love for you in the chat moment
lashing them up on the screen. But a lot of
people are so excited that you're here for the week,
the rest of this week, and I'm loving the mo
love well.

Speaker 1 (01:57:08):
I appreciate that and I accept that with great humility.
I know. If again, here's a sports analogy, there's nobody
more popular on a football team than the backup quarterback
because the backup quarterback. You're always mad at the quarterback,
and you say, well, bringing the backup and the ring
and the backup is fine for short durations, you know,

(01:57:31):
just for one play here? Who plays there? A game?
If the if the you know, the first stream quarterback
is out. So I appreciate that, and I love all
of you for the positive feedback that you've been offering.
But I'm still going to give it to you raw
and unfiltered, uncensored. For the most part, I cuss a lot,

(01:57:51):
so I try to temper my profanity.

Speaker 2 (01:57:54):
I only heard it. I heard you say ask today.
But that's about it.

Speaker 1 (01:57:58):
Oh, there's plenty more a why vocabulary when it comes
to profanity.

Speaker 2 (01:58:02):
We'll just wait then for the rest of the week
to unfold. On the show. You're gonna love it, MO.
We've got David K. Johnston coming in tomorrow. He is
so good, so good, so he will be here tomorrow.
It is also Tech Tuesday, so Jefferson Graham will bring
it in, will do that tomorrow as well, and more
Mo Kelly, which everybody loves.

Speaker 1 (01:58:24):
It's the Mark Thompson Show. Love you, we'll miss you,
and we'll do it all again tomorrow right at eleven am.
See you then

Speaker 2 (01:58:33):
By

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Ruthie's Table 4

Dateline NBC

.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’s Florida Resort Becomes a Clemency Carnival for Key Coup Players 11/10/25

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Ruthie's Table 4

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Trump’s Florida Resort Becomes a Clemency Carnival for Key Coup Players 11/10/25

Stuff You Should Know