November 26, 2025 • 32 mins
In this episode, Tudor and Rich Zeoli unpack the biggest political stories heading into Thanksgiving. They analyze the Left's military orders, the political “glam-up” trend, and the latest controversies involving Jasmine Crockett and lingering questions around the Jeffrey Epstein investigations. Tudor and Rich also break down Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resignation, discuss what it means for the future of the Republican Party, and examine President Trump’s recent Oval Office meeting with Mamdani. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. I have someone who
I love chatting with with me today, Rich Zioli from
Philadelphia's Talk Radio. Rich, thank you so much for joining me.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Well, Tutor, I love chatting with you and it's been
too long, so thank you for having me on this
pre Thanksgiving extravaganza.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
I appreciate it absolutely and there's so much to go over,
which I feel like sometimes towards the holidays there's a
little bit of a lull, but this past week has
been filled with just a lot, quite a lot of
gems that I wanted to discuss with you, So thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Just don't ask me to defy any military orders. Okay,
don't do that.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
We actually that, So that is one of them because
Alyssa Slotkin, who was I guess I would say she
was kind of the lead in that video. So if
you don't know what Rich is talking about, there was
this video of were they all senators some.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Members of the House actually, like a guy named Jason
Crow who I never heard of before and it sounds
me up, but he was in there too.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
So they were all like former military they all and
Elissa Slotkin, who was a senator in Michigan. She was
the leader of it, and I have a theory on her.
She was the leader who was like, you know, if please,
we were begging you not to commit illegal or allow
the president to give you illegal orders, which then was
(01:24):
this whole firestorm of the president like this is a
seditious act. They're telling the military to defy the commander
in chief, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
And the thing about it is that they kept saying
illegal orders, illegal orders, but then when they asked them, well, like,
what illegal orders are happening?
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Like nothing.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
In fact, that one guy, Jason Krogho I mentioned, brought
up Abu Grab, which was what twenty five years ago,
and then he brought up Vietnam and he's like, well,
there was a guy in Vietnam once who gave an
order that was illegal and went to jail. I'm sorry,
did we go back in time? Why are we bringing
up Vietnam here? So they couldn't actually bring up a
specific examples tutor of any illegal order as a commander
(02:03):
in chief has given, either in this term or the
other term. But they're like, but if it does happen,
you know, And the timing of.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
This is interesting too, because there's this movie Nuremberg that
just came out.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
So I actually think that the people behind the movie
paid these idiots to make the video to try to
help get people talking about war crimes.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
That's my theory.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
So so Alissa was asked over the weekend by ABC, wells,
have you seen any illegal orders being given? And she
was like, I wouldn't say illegal, but I would say
there's legal gymnastics with what we're seeing with these boats out.
So my theory on her, I just want to say.
I had the wonderful Stacey Washington on the podcast last
(02:47):
week and she had a great theory on Michelle Obama.
She said, I've never thought Michelle Obama was running ever,
but when she was interviewed, she was, you know, she's
doing this glow up thing. She's lost weight, she's working out,
she's got her hair well. Apparently she's had to do
her hair straight for a long time because of us
people out here that have straight hair. I don't know
(03:09):
she's complaining that the white people of the country have
made her straighten her hair. But I saw her doing
a photo shoot over the weekend. Just not to digress,
but just for a moment, I saw her doing this
photo shoot over the weekend, and I don't think that
they There were two. One she had braids in and
one she had her hair kind of like curled straightened
(03:29):
but curled a little under, And I think that she
chose both hairstyles. I don't think anybody forced her into it,
because she looked really happy. In fact, the one with
the braids, she looked a little bit a little bit crabby.
The one with her hair, I don't know if you
saw this, she had this like fancy shirt on with
these ribbons coming off of it, wind blowing, she's dancing.
She looked thrilled. So I think it's a lie that
(03:50):
she doesn't like to have her hair straightened. I think
she enjoys it. But Stacy was saying that because of
this and this new attitude, you know, dancing and all
of that, she thinks that she is considering a run.
I say it's Alyssa Slotkin because she's done the same thing.
And I don't think anybody's said this before, but she
(04:10):
has gone through a real serious glam up.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
She has a new well.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Her hairstyle when she's running for senate was like still
the same, but more in her face and no makeup.
She was no makeup girl for sure. Now she has
really glamorous makeup. The hair is a little bit more controlled,
and she's also lost quite a bit of weight. She
has had a major glow up. And I think she's
running for president president, Yes, I do. I think she's
(04:39):
going for vice president, but I think she'll be on
the ticket in twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Well, I've spent most of the morning with my hair
in rollers crollers, because you know, I thought I was
supposed to curl my hair. Everybody's talking about Michelle Obama
running for years. It's always been the theory that Michelle
Obama was going to throw her hat into the ring,
and if she does, then she wins and she domin everything,
and she clearly has no interest in doing it.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
I've lost money on that over the years, Tutor.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
As far as Lisis Lockin goes, I mean, why not
everybody else is running for president twenty twenty eight. Whitmer
was hanging out with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro at the
Eagles game last week, not the one that they lost
to Dallas this week, which was just an abomination. And
they're hanging out together, and I see those two as
a ticket, potentially a Whitmer Shapiro ticket. But you know
(05:26):
this is I mean, every Democrat's running, and why not
the parties in free fall?
Speaker 3 (05:29):
The party's in chaos. They don't know who the leader
of the Democrat Party is.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
I saw recently there was a poll on this issue
and they asked people and the number one answer was
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Number two I think was Kamala Harrison.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Number three was something like I have no frigging clue,
which is basically the same thing as number one.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
So nobody knows who's in charge of the Democrat Party.
Is it Bertie? Is it aoc is at ma'am Donnie?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Although his clout I think went down a lot after
the meeting with the President in the Oval Office. So
you know, Gavin Newsom's running with his glorious hair that
you and I have talked about many times before, even
on the run a Fox New Saturday night.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
He has to do a lot with his hair too.
These Democrats have hair. They have hair, and I think
that you could very easily make the argument that you've
been oppressed with your curly hair.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
I believe it.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
I believe so, And why I'm not more successful in
life is because of my curly hair. People judge me
and say that it's been a thing, and I've tried
to relax it over the years, but you know, I'm
just lucky to have hair at this point, Tutor, I
feel really lucky about it.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
There are a lot of men that are jealous of you.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Yeah, well, years of propecia and rogaine and hair transplants
and no. But I do think that there is something
to the fact that everybody now is clearly on nozembic
or something. Because you mentioned how these politicians have lost weight.
My only question is when is JB.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Pritzker going to start?
Speaker 1 (06:55):
I know, I know, you know, the President gives him
a lot of crap for that, But I love how
Donald Trump talks about it.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Is it.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
He's like, it's like the fat drug, but it doesn't
work for everybody. It doesn't work for everybody. Not everybody's
just wait yeah, yes, yes, Well, one person that we
didn't talk about who has always been very glamorous and
I you know who knows could be senate, could be
President Jasmine Crockett.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Josh, Well, I guess it's true that the brains only
run skin deep. With Jasmine Crockett, because she's a gift
that keeps on giving. I mean, she's a permanent SoundBite machine.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
I know she is lovely. I love Okay, So last
week the Epstein vote went through, and I'm sure you
all saw, but in case you didn't, Jasmine, who was
very beautified. I have to say she does always look beautiful.
She's always got her hair perfectly done, she always has
her makeup perfectly done. And she was She went on
the house floor and she said she was going to
(07:58):
just let the truth it was flagfly because she was
gonna let us all know that all these people had
taken money from a man named Jeffrey Epstein, and it
was all of these people and they were all Republicans,
Mitt Romney and all kinds of and the and Win
Read and all these things. And then she goes on
(08:18):
Cian Anna, Caitlin and Collins. It's like, but you know,
like that wasn't the same Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
She doubled down on it too, right, She's like, well,
I never said it was the same Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I had no Jeffrey epstcene.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
I time to research that. I had to just put
it out there.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
I mean, and then she was, well, we googled it,
but you know, but they didn't google enough, you know,
they just sort of semi googled, not fully googled. And
then she was, I didn't mislead anyone. I didn't say
it was Jeffrey Epstein. I just said it was Jeffrey Epstein.
I mean, it's the most my numbing clip I've ever
seen in my life. She just refused to acknowledge. And
she made a mistake, she said, double down.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
She didn't make a mistake. She knew, I mean even
and when you watch her announcing it in that hearing
or whatever it was that she was in, when she
announces it on the floor, you can tell she knows
because she says, we did a quick search, and so
what we found is that this Jeffrey Epstein gave money.
And who was it that came out and said, no,
(09:20):
this wasn't Lee Alden. Yeah, Leese Alden was on the
list too, and Lee Alden's like, you, moron, this is
not the same Jeffrey Epstein. But the beauty of this
this is this guy. I love him. So the doctor
Jeffrey Epstein who actually gave money, he went up on
one of the shows over the weekend, and he's like,
I did give to Jasmine Crockett just so that I
would be on her list.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Too, which I think is lovely. I'm like, I love
you, You're amazing. But she knew, so this is the manipulation
of politics today. She knew it wasn't him, she knew
it wasn't the maybe dead Jeffrey Epstein. She knew was
not the dirty guy. She knew it was a different person.
(10:02):
But she goes out there and then she goes on CNN.
And what makes me crazy about this is do you
think for a second that Caitlyn Collins would have calmly
sat there and slightly prodded.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
But but you know, it's not the same. Do you
want to apologize? And she's like, you know, I don't.
She would just not even concede that it was not
the same. She's like, I said it was Jeffrey Epstein.
I didn't say it was the Jeffrey Epstein. If that
were a Republican, Kaitlyn Collins would have gone.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Mad, yeah, and it would have deservedly. So, I mean,
it's the idea that there's only one person named Jeffrey Epstein,
in a country of three hundred and fifty million people,
or that anyone named Jeffrey Epstein is as bad as
Jeffrey Epstein just because of the name, as if it's
not the person, it's the name that causes you to
(10:55):
be a sick pedophile, you know, and so you're just
born that way. It's beyond ridiculous. She knew what she
was doing. She was purposely trying to associate Lee's Elden
with that. His response on Twitter was great when he
called her a freaking and I love that he used
the word like freaking, like you're a freaking genius, you know.
But it just shows what a clown show this whole
(11:16):
thing has been because for all these years Democrats have
been trying to obfuscate this sutor and you know this,
I mean they took money from this guy. I mean
the Democrat National Committee did. Ken Martin as chairman, was
defending this, so they try to associate Republicans. Well, it
turns out, yeah, there's a doctor named Jeffrey Epstein somewhere
who gave money to Leez Elden, and that guy's now
(11:36):
the most famous doctor in America, I think. And people
are probably lining up to go see the guy. Now
at this point, you know, they're like, we are sure
we heard.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
About you so well.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
And in the midst of this you have you what
we're uncovering here, And I think it's fascinating so far
because what we've uncovered is that there there have been
some people that have been associated with Jeffrey Epstein. And
this was after he was already convicted. So he was
convicted in twenty twelve. People knew who he was. It
wasn't a mystery as to how dirty Jeffrey Epstein was.
(12:09):
But you've got Stacy Plaskett who is actually texting him
in the middle of a hearing, and they have not
I mean, it's crazy because if you watch that video,
they have the text messages and you can see in
the video she looks down at her phone and then
she and then she says, I'm just about to go
and then she says exactly what Jeffrey Epstein tells her
(12:31):
to say. You can watch it in real time happening
on the video. And this was what Caitlyn Collins was
asking Jasmine Crockett about. Well, wait a minute, what do
you say about the fact that one of your Democrat
colleagues was talking to. Well, she didn't know he was pedophile. No,
everybody knew what his deal was at that point in life.
(12:52):
And she says, well, he was a constituent. He was
controlling a hearing, essentially controlling a representative. One person who
is a convicted felon is controlling a congresswoman who is
testifying or she's in a hearing against Trump. I mean,
(13:17):
we know that this was an anti Trump hearing.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Yeah, yeah, no, that's it.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
I mean right here to the they just think, God,
they weren't a lot of emojis used, because I've had
it with that, you know what I mean, Thank god
it in celebratory balloons and hearts. But the idea that
they would use him to try to bring down Donald Trump,
and it wasn't just her. I mean, what you're talking
about is so egregious because she's an elected member of Congress.
It's a congressional hearing. She's texting him, trying to get
(13:42):
dirt on Donald Trump, trying to help bring down this
presidential candidate. Michael Wolfe, the disgraced journalist. He reached out
to Jeffrey Epstein too, So even though they knew who
this guy was because I think anybody before the conviction
in twenty twelve, you got to pass. I mean, you're
with this guy unless you specifically know. I refuse to
(14:03):
do the guilt by association thing. If people had dinner
with them, if they went out with them, whatever. Unless
you knew specifically what he was doing, and you probably didn't,
then fine. But after that point, from that point forward,
if you're texting with him and you knew that he's
solicited an underage girl, that's on you and to do
so because your justification is he's my constituent, because I
(14:27):
love that. She's like, well, I mean he lives in
the Virgin Islands. I represent the Virgin Islands, so we're
texting about things. That's why you have congressional staff members
to do. I ran a congressional office many many years ago.
I was in charge of constituent relations. That's something you
pass off to a staff member. You're not getting a
social Security check, your veterans affairs check. Fine, you have
a constituent services officer deal with it. When the Member
(14:50):
of Congress is directly talking to somebody, it's because that
person is very, very important, and I still can't find
what the constituent related issue was other than we.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
Both want to bring down Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
We both hate Donald Trump, which proves that Donald Trump
did nothing with Jeffrey Epstein because they were searching Tutor,
they were trying everywhere, every rock they could uncover, and
he hated Trump.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Scuts, he wanted to see Trump come down. He just
had nothing to give her.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Two things there. You don't just
have your congressman's private cell phone number. I mean, really,
how many people have their congressman's private cell phone. It's
not like your constituents are like, okay, so here's my
number for all of you if you ever want to
(15:41):
call or text in the middle of a hearing, I
got you.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
That's not normal. That is not normal.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
And then the second thing is this is this to me,
is serious evidence that Epstein hated him. Ye hated Trump
and he wanted to take him down. Was this was
in the MP times, This was the time they were
working to destroy him, not just take him out of office.
They wanted to destroy him and Epstein was a part
(16:07):
of that.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Yeah, one hundred percent, You're exactly right. You're spot on.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
He hated him, their feud went back many years business feud,
and if there was something he could have offered to
bring down Donald Trump that would not have directly implicated him,
of course he certainly would have no question about it.
But it also points out that they were looking into
Jeffrey Epstein to bring down Donald Trump. So even if
(16:32):
he had not shared something because it would have implicated him,
which you know is logical reason, right, it still shows
that they were looking into this. And then if they
believe there was something there. Okay, fine, maybe twenty sixteen
you don't really dig too deep because the woman running
for president, well, her husband certainly had a lot of
connections with Jeffrey Epstein, so maybe you don't look.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
In that direction.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
But you know this as a as a person who's
run for say, white office. Opposition research is so key
to a race, and they do a lot of it.
I mean they find out if you put your garbage
and didn't mix your recycling. I mean, anything they can
use against you, they'll use against you. So they certainly
would have used it in twenty twenty and then the
(17:15):
four years they're in control of the Justice Apartment where
they're going after Donald Trump because they're saying that, well,
mar Lago's not worth what you said it is.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
It's really only worth nineteen ninety nine. And if you buy,
you know, you buy it now, you also get a
free set of dishes. I mean, it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Anything they could use against him, they would the full
resources of the United States Department of Justice was going
after him. So you mean to tell me that if
they thought there was something related to Jeffrey Epstein, they
wouldn't have brought.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
It up like they would have been like, ah, you
know what, forget that one.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Let's just go after the fact that he said this
building's only worth six hundred or is worth six hundred
million dollars, and we say it's worth five hundred million dollars.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
I mean, it's absurd.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
So let me ask you, because the Epstein files obviously
became a huge, huge deal when Trump was an after
his inauguration, and you had people on both sides saying
we need these files. I've always said it very interesting
because no one was screaming about it for the four
years that Joe Biden was in office. I mean, on
either side, this is what blows my mind. I'm like, well,
if you thought exactly what you just said, if you
(18:18):
thought there was something on Trump, you would have gotten
those files then. But Marjorie Taylor Green was one of them.
She was out there. She started to really hit on
the Republican Party. She started to hit on Speaker Johnson,
she was hitting on the president. She was taking these
kind of cheap shots some people thought from the MAGA world.
(18:41):
But there's this, there's a development over the weekend. She's
decided she's going to resign on January fifth. I believe
that's when she gets her pensions. So she's decided she'll
stay until then. That's a kick in the teeth too,
just for people who don't know to resign instead of
just say I'm not going to run again, that's a
kick in the teeth because you leave a seat open.
(19:02):
And she's doing that on purpose. Now there's a theory
that she is the one that people see as truly maga.
The President has said, you know, I like her a lot.
I'm sorry it went this way. We know that he
had gone to her early on and said, you your
pulling doesn't look good for you for senate. Don't run
for senate, and she is a far the right person.
(19:24):
In a state like Georgia, the Senate is hard to
run for it is not a red state. It is
a truly purple state. For someone who is a far
right conservative, it's it would have been a really tough road,
and that was what she was told. The story is
that that private conversation made her upset and she decided
that she was going to go against the president. And
(19:47):
a lot of that was through the Epstein files. But
now she's resigned. Do you believe this theory that in
twenty eight she's the one left standing that's considered the
MAGA candidate.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
Well, that's a really interesting question, Tutor Dixon. I would
say the first thing is this, I would not be
shocked if she ends up being a CNN contributor starting
on January sixth. I would not be shocked at all
to see that she's been going on that network.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
More and more. That network is trying to bring on
more conservative voices.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Your schedules limited as a member of Congress, and how
many times you can do that. So they may be
throwing some cash away, and apparently she's made some cash.
It's a member of Congress, which is of course not
at all surprising there is. I mean, the problem here
with Epsteine, as far as MAGA world is concerned, is
that many people promised that they would get to the
truth of Jeffrey Epstein. So you had a lot of
(20:40):
online influencers and other people who kept saying repeatedly that
if Trump wins, we're going to finally get to the
truth of Jeffrey Epstein. It's been a cover up, the
Biden administration's covered it up, and we're going to finally
get this out. Then the Attorney General does what I
think is still to this day, I cannot figure out
what that was all about. When she brings these influencers
into the White House or a complex, very weird hands
(21:02):
and binders, and says the truth is coming out, makes
a whole big song and dance about it, and then
suddenly it's like, oh, oops, these are maybe it's invisible link.
I don't know, there's nothing here, And that just made
people furious. And so for people within MAGA, I guess
as we'll use that term, and we're really talking, in
my opinion, about a lot of online influencers that caused
(21:25):
a tremendous blow up.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
There's this obviously civil war.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Going on right now, as you know, over Israel, and
there's that whole battle that's taking place there too.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
I mean, it's a mess right now.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Trump is not going to run again, and I don't
think there's anyone who can hold that coalition together except
for Donald Trump. I mean, Jade Vance camp Mark or
Rubio camp they just can't. Trump's a once in a
lifetime candidate. This is it, and he's the only one
who's able to, even when he does things that MAGA
doesn't necessarily prove of, still generally hold the coalition together.
(22:02):
The coalition is breaking apart already. And so the question
that becomes is is a MAGA candidate really the future
of the Republican Party. I think that's the better question,
And is there would that person still be able to
bring over traditional Republicans and MAGA and unite them. I
don't see Marjorie Taylor Green being that person. She may
(22:24):
be able to coalesce a lot of MAGA, but then again,
when the President called her a trader, there were a
lot of people within that universe who suddenly turned on her.
He has that ability, has that power, that effect to
be able to kind of redirect people towards or age.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
They don't just they stick with him. I mean, there's
a strong coalition that sticks with him. Let's take a
quick commercial break. We'll continue next on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
I believe that he.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
Still has the grassroots significantly. I mean, I think that
people will only come out for him. There are people
who won't. I mean know it, I mean Michigan. I
know that there is a yes, yes, exactly. And yet
there are i would say traditional supporters of the Republican
Party who refuse to accept this, and they believe that
(23:16):
they can go back to what the party used to
be used to look like before Donald Trump. I think
that that's a disaster. I know it's a disaster. I
know that we lose a massive amount of people that
would vote if you get rid of that mindset, that
make America great again mindset. And yet I know for
a fact, in the state of Michigan, we have traditional
(23:40):
supporters of the Republican Party who have gone to the
biggest donors in the state and said, we're not going
to give to the federal elections this time. We're only
going to focus on state. Why would that be unless
you were trying to kill mega. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
So Jersey broke my heart recently when my friend Jack
shitdareally lost what we all thought was going to be
a close race that he had a really strong chance
of winning, and the polling was way off on this
and everything, and then you find out that seventy percent
of the people that came out to vote for President
Trump voted for Jack, which meant that the other thirty
percent again did not vote.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
And this is a problem that we see. We see this.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
There was a special election in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Tutor
in twenty twenty five, a county that the President.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
Crushed it in.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
This was supposed to be a layup and a Democrat
won this special election, small election, it was nothing, but
because again, voters who vote for Trump don't vote for
other Republicans.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
They just vote for him.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
And so what I think you're also going to see
is this battle to try to take the Republican Party
and bring it back, like you're saying, to a different time,
a pre Trump era.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
And the real question as I.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Look at some of these figures who are emerging in
twenty twenty eight, Ted Cruz, Marc rub do they go
back to that because that's where they were. Obviously, is
a battle President Trump in the primary Jen or does
Rubios now say, hey, listen, I'm team make America great again.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
On that team and that team literally is or a
Rubio in JD vance ticket. It'd be very interesting to
watch that.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
But there's no question in my mind a lot of
this is going to be determined by what happens in
the midterms. Because if we get smoked in the midterms,
then there's a very compelling argument for people to make
to say the Republican Party needs to go back to
the pre Donald Trump era. Otherwise it's toast and that
battle will play out. I'm not suggesting that it should.
(25:42):
I'm just simply saying that that's what people are going
to start saying. Donors are going to start saying it.
I remember sitting down with a very rich Republican in Pennsylvania,
like a billionaire, the richest guy in the state actually,
and this was before the twenty twenty four election, but
he was convinced that Trump could not win again. And
I said, I completely disagree with you on this point,
(26:04):
but he wanted to back you know, the governor of Florida,
Ron DeSantis. He just said, we can't win now that
Trump is out of the equation, and he will be
out of the equation in twenty twenty eight if we
get smoked in midterms, and we look at the losses
in Jersey, we look at the losses in Virginia. We
don't know what losses we may have in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
I mean, you know it's I mean.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Then the argument then is going to be, now that
Trump is gone, MAGA can't go forward, So we can't
back jd events. We have to go back to a
more traditional Republican, even though ironically enough he was one
at one point, right and back a DeSantis or back
Ted Cruz or whoever. So I predict that that is
the way things are going to be, dependent upon how
(26:47):
things go in twenty six. And there's donors races and
senators races too.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
There are there are donors actively working to tank the
midterms to make that happen. Where head to years of
Trump not being able to accomplish anything and impeachments and
all of that hell, just to go back to what
they believe is the party they want, and they believe
that because they have the money, they get to choose it.
(27:13):
Doesn't matter what the grassroots wants. I'm telling you, I
know what's happening.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
Oh man, that is scary. I don't like hearing that.
I'm not surprised, though it doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Tootir So I just want to end on one last thing,
and that is the Oval Office meeting with Mam Donnie.
We have to go over it. We have to go
over it because I suspected that it would go this way,
and I think that some people don't necessarily know what
Trump did there. It doesn't matter if Trump embraces Mom Donnie.
(27:43):
The MAGA people know exactly what he's doing. It doesn't
matter if he even taps him on the back and
says it's okay call me a fascist. They know you
think that it totally castrated Mom Donnie.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Yeah, yeah, totally yeah. Yeah, he's a gelding after that.
And I think that.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Trump had nothing to lose obviously by being nice to
the guy and you know, coosing up to him. I mean,
I guess you could make an argument that maybe he
would normalize, help normalize a communist, but I don't really
think that that's a big problem. But for Mam Donnie
to now have to look AOC and the I and
these other wackos in the squad after that, after kissing
(28:21):
up to him like that and being his bestie, woof.
I mean, because they have spent the entire time saying
he's this existential threat, he's Hitler, he's a fascist. When
Bill Maher had dinner with Donald Trump, just dinner, and
it wasn't even public, and he goes on his show
and he says, it's a different guy than the guy
you see in public, and Larry David writes this op
ed in the New York Times to mock him, saying,
(28:42):
my dinner with Hitler, And the whole point of that was, oh,
you know, Trump's Hitler. You can't act like this as
a normal guy. Well, for Mam Donnie to sit there
and be, you know, BFFs with the guy as they're
out there saying he's the existential threat, he's a fascist,
he's Hitler, He's destroying democracy, that just completely undermines their argument.
(29:02):
And for him now to go back as this little
gelding who has you no jewels now and look these
people in the eye and say, oh, I'm still going
to fight him.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
I'm going to fight him at every turn, it's.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Like, stop, you got snacks, you got Oval office snacks
and probably souvenirs.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
You got a T shirt out of it.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
No, it was lovely because beforehand I thought it was
great watching him explain it's my staff set up this meeting,
and I thought, you are the incoming mayor, now the
mayor elect. You cannot say your staff did something that
you didn't approve. You can't blame your staff. That's not
how this works anymore. So he first of all, he
(29:42):
doesn't even want to acknowledge that he wanted the meeting,
and he does. He needs the meeting. He can't do
what he said he was going to do, and he's
figured that out. But the beauty of it, like I
loved when when Gretchen Whitmer was standing in there with
the folder in front of her face, because that is
a campaign ad for Gavin Newsom all day long and
twice it is great. I love the fact that she
(30:03):
did that and I and I will love every time
I see it when I won the commercials play because
she looked like such a moron and he played her,
but he played mom Donnie so much better because he
asked him behind the desk, like he's a partner smacking
him like, get there, chums. It was and it's I said,
(30:24):
I was on a show the night before. They're like,
what do you think it's going to be? Is it
going to be a big smack down? And I'm like,
he's gonna he is going to pat him on the
hat or on the back, maybe even on the head.
And it was as close to patty him on the
head as you can get.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
I mean, great prediction by you, well done. Yeah, it
was like a Buddy movie. I get Buddy totally.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
You know, the communists and the fascists is like, hey,
you know we both call each other names, we love
each other's stepbrothers or something.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
I mean, it was. I was watching it. We took
it live on my radio show, and I when it ended,
I said.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
I don't know what that was, but I'll tell you something.
I said, you couldn't have written that any better. From
the perspect of if you hate Donald Trump and you
were so ready for him to be rude to Ma'm donnie,
and then you're like.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
Oh my god, he was nice to the guy.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
And if you were the the AOC crowd and you're like, oh,
he's gonna really show this fascist what's coming as this
Democrat revolutions underway, because let's not forget something. I mean,
that's been their argument, right, that Maam Donnie is now
the leader of not just the Democrat Party but basically
like America. Like he's the other president. And he was
in there and he's like, I love him here. This
(31:28):
is so nice. He's so nice to me. He's just
gosh golly. He even defended the fact that I flew
here and didn't take a train like every other schlub
who comes to DC from New York. You know.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
I mean, he couldn't have.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
Defended him any more if they were like, yeah, but
that tie choice Trump like, it's a beautiful tie, looks
great on it.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
It brings out his eyes. He could not have defended
the guy anymore. And so it was just like, ma'am Donnie,
look here.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Remind even of a little kid who got to go
billing president in the Oval office and hopefully got some
of the souvenir eminem's out of it.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Yeah, oh, I'm sure.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
I'm sure he went home with a cookie with the seal.
I'm so happy about it too. It was lovely. I
was and this is and this, ladies and gentlemen, is
why Magga cannot go away, because these are the moments
that we live for. Is to watch him humiliate a
man in his office without this little boy even understanding
what's happening. It was delicious. It's always fun talking to you, Richdally.
(32:23):
Thank you so much for being on the podcast.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Thanks for having me Tutor. It's always a blast.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Thank you absolutely, and thank you all for joining the
Tutor Dixon podcast. Remember you can get it on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts,
and watch it on Rumble or YouTube at Tutor Dixon.
Thanks so much and have a blessed day.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. I have someone who
I love chatting with with me today, Rich Zioli from
Philadelphia's Talk Radio. Rich, thank you so much for joining me.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Well, Tutor, I love chatting with you and it's been
too long, so thank you for having me on this
pre Thanksgiving extravaganza.
Speaker 1 (00:19):
I appreciate it absolutely and there's so much to go over,
which I feel like sometimes towards the holidays there's a
little bit of a lull, but this past week has
been filled with just a lot, quite a lot of
gems that I wanted to discuss with you, So thank you.
Thank you for being here.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Just don't ask me to defy any military orders. Okay,
don't do that.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
We actually that, So that is one of them because
Alyssa Slotkin, who was I guess I would say she
was kind of the lead in that video. So if
you don't know what Rich is talking about, there was
this video of were they all senators some.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Members of the House actually, like a guy named Jason
Crow who I never heard of before and it sounds
me up, but he was in there too.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
So they were all like former military they all and
Elissa Slotkin, who was a senator in Michigan. She was
the leader of it, and I have a theory on her.
She was the leader who was like, you know, if please,
we were begging you not to commit illegal or allow
the president to give you illegal orders, which then was
(01:24):
this whole firestorm of the president like this is a
seditious act. They're telling the military to defy the commander
in chief, right, yeah.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
And the thing about it is that they kept saying
illegal orders, illegal orders, but then when they asked them, well, like,
what illegal orders are happening?
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Like nothing.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
In fact, that one guy, Jason Krogho I mentioned, brought
up Abu Grab, which was what twenty five years ago,
and then he brought up Vietnam and he's like, well,
there was a guy in Vietnam once who gave an
order that was illegal and went to jail. I'm sorry,
did we go back in time? Why are we bringing
up Vietnam here? So they couldn't actually bring up a
specific examples tutor of any illegal order as a commander
(02:03):
in chief has given, either in this term or the
other term. But they're like, but if it does happen,
you know, And the timing of.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
This is interesting too, because there's this movie Nuremberg that
just came out.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
So I actually think that the people behind the movie
paid these idiots to make the video to try to
help get people talking about war crimes.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
That's my theory.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
So so Alissa was asked over the weekend by ABC, wells,
have you seen any illegal orders being given? And she
was like, I wouldn't say illegal, but I would say
there's legal gymnastics with what we're seeing with these boats out.
So my theory on her, I just want to say.
I had the wonderful Stacey Washington on the podcast last
(02:47):
week and she had a great theory on Michelle Obama.
She said, I've never thought Michelle Obama was running ever,
but when she was interviewed, she was, you know, she's
doing this glow up thing. She's lost weight, she's working out,
she's got her hair well. Apparently she's had to do
her hair straight for a long time because of us
people out here that have straight hair. I don't know
(03:09):
she's complaining that the white people of the country have
made her straighten her hair. But I saw her doing
a photo shoot over the weekend. Just not to digress,
but just for a moment, I saw her doing this
photo shoot over the weekend, and I don't think that
they There were two. One she had braids in and
one she had her hair kind of like curled straightened
(03:29):
but curled a little under, And I think that she
chose both hairstyles. I don't think anybody forced her into it,
because she looked really happy. In fact, the one with
the braids, she looked a little bit a little bit crabby.
The one with her hair, I don't know if you
saw this, she had this like fancy shirt on with
these ribbons coming off of it, wind blowing, she's dancing.
She looked thrilled. So I think it's a lie that
(03:50):
she doesn't like to have her hair straightened. I think
she enjoys it. But Stacy was saying that because of
this and this new attitude, you know, dancing and all
of that, she thinks that she is considering a run.
I say it's Alyssa Slotkin because she's done the same thing.
And I don't think anybody's said this before, but she
(04:10):
has gone through a real serious glam up.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
She has a new well.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Her hairstyle when she's running for senate was like still
the same, but more in her face and no makeup.
She was no makeup girl for sure. Now she has
really glamorous makeup. The hair is a little bit more controlled,
and she's also lost quite a bit of weight. She
has had a major glow up. And I think she's
running for president president, Yes, I do. I think she's
(04:39):
going for vice president, but I think she'll be on
the ticket in twenty eight.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Well, I've spent most of the morning with my hair
in rollers crollers, because you know, I thought I was
supposed to curl my hair. Everybody's talking about Michelle Obama
running for years. It's always been the theory that Michelle
Obama was going to throw her hat into the ring,
and if she does, then she wins and she domin everything,
and she clearly has no interest in doing it.
Speaker 3 (05:02):
I've lost money on that over the years, Tutor.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
As far as Lisis Lockin goes, I mean, why not
everybody else is running for president twenty twenty eight. Whitmer
was hanging out with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro at the
Eagles game last week, not the one that they lost
to Dallas this week, which was just an abomination. And
they're hanging out together, and I see those two as
a ticket, potentially a Whitmer Shapiro ticket. But you know
(05:26):
this is I mean, every Democrat's running, and why not
the parties in free fall?
Speaker 3 (05:29):
The party's in chaos. They don't know who the leader
of the Democrat Party is.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
I saw recently there was a poll on this issue
and they asked people and the number one answer was
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
Number two I think was Kamala Harrison.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Number three was something like I have no frigging clue,
which is basically the same thing as number one.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
So nobody knows who's in charge of the Democrat Party.
Is it Bertie? Is it aoc is at ma'am Donnie?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Although his clout I think went down a lot after
the meeting with the President in the Oval Office. So
you know, Gavin Newsom's running with his glorious hair that
you and I have talked about many times before, even
on the run a Fox New Saturday night.
Speaker 1 (06:05):
He has to do a lot with his hair too.
These Democrats have hair. They have hair, and I think
that you could very easily make the argument that you've
been oppressed with your curly hair.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
I believe it.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
I believe so, And why I'm not more successful in
life is because of my curly hair. People judge me
and say that it's been a thing, and I've tried
to relax it over the years, but you know, I'm
just lucky to have hair at this point, Tutor, I
feel really lucky about it.
Speaker 1 (06:33):
There are a lot of men that are jealous of you.
Speaker 2 (06:35):
Yeah, well, years of propecia and rogaine and hair transplants
and no. But I do think that there is something
to the fact that everybody now is clearly on nozembic
or something. Because you mentioned how these politicians have lost weight.
My only question is when is JB.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Pritzker going to start?
Speaker 1 (06:55):
I know, I know, you know, the President gives him
a lot of crap for that, But I love how
Donald Trump talks about it.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Is it.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
He's like, it's like the fat drug, but it doesn't
work for everybody. It doesn't work for everybody. Not everybody's
just wait yeah, yes, yes, Well, one person that we
didn't talk about who has always been very glamorous and
I you know who knows could be senate, could be
President Jasmine Crockett.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
Josh, Well, I guess it's true that the brains only
run skin deep. With Jasmine Crockett, because she's a gift
that keeps on giving. I mean, she's a permanent SoundBite machine.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
I know she is lovely. I love Okay, So last
week the Epstein vote went through, and I'm sure you
all saw, but in case you didn't, Jasmine, who was
very beautified. I have to say she does always look beautiful.
She's always got her hair perfectly done, she always has
her makeup perfectly done. And she was She went on
the house floor and she said she was going to
(07:58):
just let the truth it was flagfly because she was
gonna let us all know that all these people had
taken money from a man named Jeffrey Epstein, and it
was all of these people and they were all Republicans,
Mitt Romney and all kinds of and the and Win
Read and all these things. And then she goes on
(08:18):
Cian Anna, Caitlin and Collins. It's like, but you know,
like that wasn't the same Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2 (08:23):
She doubled down on it too, right, She's like, well,
I never said it was the same Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3 (08:28):
I had no Jeffrey epstcene.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
I time to research that. I had to just put
it out there.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
I mean, and then she was, well, we googled it,
but you know, but they didn't google enough, you know,
they just sort of semi googled, not fully googled. And
then she was, I didn't mislead anyone. I didn't say
it was Jeffrey Epstein. I just said it was Jeffrey Epstein.
I mean, it's the most my numbing clip I've ever
seen in my life. She just refused to acknowledge. And
she made a mistake, she said, double down.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
She didn't make a mistake. She knew, I mean even
and when you watch her announcing it in that hearing
or whatever it was that she was in, when she
announces it on the floor, you can tell she knows
because she says, we did a quick search, and so
what we found is that this Jeffrey Epstein gave money.
And who was it that came out and said, no,
(09:20):
this wasn't Lee Alden. Yeah, Leese Alden was on the
list too, and Lee Alden's like, you, moron, this is
not the same Jeffrey Epstein. But the beauty of this
this is this guy. I love him. So the doctor
Jeffrey Epstein who actually gave money, he went up on
one of the shows over the weekend, and he's like,
I did give to Jasmine Crockett just so that I
would be on her list.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
Too, which I think is lovely. I'm like, I love
you, You're amazing. But she knew, so this is the manipulation
of politics today. She knew it wasn't him, she knew
it wasn't the maybe dead Jeffrey Epstein. She knew was
not the dirty guy. She knew it was a different person.
(10:02):
But she goes out there and then she goes on CNN.
And what makes me crazy about this is do you
think for a second that Caitlyn Collins would have calmly
sat there and slightly prodded.
Speaker 1 (10:15):
But but you know, it's not the same. Do you
want to apologize? And she's like, you know, I don't.
She would just not even concede that it was not
the same. She's like, I said it was Jeffrey Epstein.
I didn't say it was the Jeffrey Epstein. If that
were a Republican, Kaitlyn Collins would have gone.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Mad, yeah, and it would have deservedly. So, I mean,
it's the idea that there's only one person named Jeffrey Epstein,
in a country of three hundred and fifty million people,
or that anyone named Jeffrey Epstein is as bad as
Jeffrey Epstein just because of the name, as if it's
not the person, it's the name that causes you to
(10:55):
be a sick pedophile, you know, and so you're just
born that way. It's beyond ridiculous. She knew what she
was doing. She was purposely trying to associate Lee's Elden
with that. His response on Twitter was great when he
called her a freaking and I love that he used
the word like freaking, like you're a freaking genius, you know.
But it just shows what a clown show this whole
(11:16):
thing has been because for all these years Democrats have
been trying to obfuscate this sutor and you know this,
I mean they took money from this guy. I mean
the Democrat National Committee did. Ken Martin as chairman, was
defending this, so they try to associate Republicans. Well, it
turns out, yeah, there's a doctor named Jeffrey Epstein somewhere
who gave money to Leez Elden, and that guy's now
(11:36):
the most famous doctor in America, I think. And people
are probably lining up to go see the guy. Now
at this point, you know, they're like, we are sure
we heard.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
About you so well.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
And in the midst of this you have you what
we're uncovering here, And I think it's fascinating so far
because what we've uncovered is that there there have been
some people that have been associated with Jeffrey Epstein. And
this was after he was already convicted. So he was
convicted in twenty twelve. People knew who he was. It
wasn't a mystery as to how dirty Jeffrey Epstein was.
(12:09):
But you've got Stacy Plaskett who is actually texting him
in the middle of a hearing, and they have not
I mean, it's crazy because if you watch that video,
they have the text messages and you can see in
the video she looks down at her phone and then
she and then she says, I'm just about to go
and then she says exactly what Jeffrey Epstein tells her
(12:31):
to say. You can watch it in real time happening
on the video. And this was what Caitlyn Collins was
asking Jasmine Crockett about. Well, wait a minute, what do
you say about the fact that one of your Democrat
colleagues was talking to. Well, she didn't know he was pedophile. No,
everybody knew what his deal was at that point in life.
(12:52):
And she says, well, he was a constituent. He was
controlling a hearing, essentially controlling a representative. One person who
is a convicted felon is controlling a congresswoman who is
testifying or she's in a hearing against Trump. I mean,
(13:17):
we know that this was an anti Trump hearing.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Yeah, yeah, no, that's it.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
I mean right here to the they just think, God,
they weren't a lot of emojis used, because I've had
it with that, you know what I mean, Thank god
it in celebratory balloons and hearts. But the idea that
they would use him to try to bring down Donald Trump,
and it wasn't just her. I mean, what you're talking
about is so egregious because she's an elected member of Congress.
It's a congressional hearing. She's texting him, trying to get
(13:42):
dirt on Donald Trump, trying to help bring down this
presidential candidate. Michael Wolfe, the disgraced journalist. He reached out
to Jeffrey Epstein too, So even though they knew who
this guy was because I think anybody before the conviction
in twenty twelve, you got to pass. I mean, you're
with this guy unless you specifically know. I refuse to
(14:03):
do the guilt by association thing. If people had dinner
with them, if they went out with them, whatever. Unless
you knew specifically what he was doing, and you probably didn't,
then fine. But after that point, from that point forward,
if you're texting with him and you knew that he's
solicited an underage girl, that's on you and to do
so because your justification is he's my constituent, because I
(14:27):
love that. She's like, well, I mean he lives in
the Virgin Islands. I represent the Virgin Islands, so we're
texting about things. That's why you have congressional staff members
to do. I ran a congressional office many many years ago.
I was in charge of constituent relations. That's something you
pass off to a staff member. You're not getting a
social Security check, your veterans affairs check. Fine, you have
a constituent services officer deal with it. When the Member
(14:50):
of Congress is directly talking to somebody, it's because that
person is very, very important, and I still can't find
what the constituent related issue was other than we.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
Both want to bring down Donald Trump.
Speaker 2 (15:03):
We both hate Donald Trump, which proves that Donald Trump
did nothing with Jeffrey Epstein because they were searching Tutor,
they were trying everywhere, every rock they could uncover, and
he hated Trump.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
Scuts, he wanted to see Trump come down. He just
had nothing to give her.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Two things there. You don't just
have your congressman's private cell phone number. I mean, really,
how many people have their congressman's private cell phone. It's
not like your constituents are like, okay, so here's my
number for all of you if you ever want to
(15:41):
call or text in the middle of a hearing, I
got you.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
That's not normal. That is not normal.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
And then the second thing is this is this to me,
is serious evidence that Epstein hated him. Ye hated Trump
and he wanted to take him down. Was this was
in the MP times, This was the time they were
working to destroy him, not just take him out of office.
They wanted to destroy him and Epstein was a part
(16:07):
of that.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
Yeah, one hundred percent, You're exactly right. You're spot on.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
He hated him, their feud went back many years business feud,
and if there was something he could have offered to
bring down Donald Trump that would not have directly implicated him,
of course he certainly would have no question about it.
But it also points out that they were looking into
Jeffrey Epstein to bring down Donald Trump. So even if
(16:32):
he had not shared something because it would have implicated him,
which you know is logical reason, right, it still shows
that they were looking into this. And then if they
believe there was something there. Okay, fine, maybe twenty sixteen
you don't really dig too deep because the woman running
for president, well, her husband certainly had a lot of
connections with Jeffrey Epstein, so maybe you don't look.
Speaker 3 (16:54):
In that direction.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
But you know this as a as a person who's
run for say, white office. Opposition research is so key
to a race, and they do a lot of it.
I mean they find out if you put your garbage
and didn't mix your recycling. I mean, anything they can
use against you, they'll use against you. So they certainly
would have used it in twenty twenty and then the
(17:15):
four years they're in control of the Justice Apartment where
they're going after Donald Trump because they're saying that, well,
mar Lago's not worth what you said it is.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
It's really only worth nineteen ninety nine. And if you buy,
you know, you buy it now, you also get a
free set of dishes. I mean, it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Anything they could use against him, they would the full
resources of the United States Department of Justice was going
after him. So you mean to tell me that if
they thought there was something related to Jeffrey Epstein, they
wouldn't have brought.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
It up like they would have been like, ah, you
know what, forget that one.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Let's just go after the fact that he said this
building's only worth six hundred or is worth six hundred
million dollars, and we say it's worth five hundred million dollars.
Speaker 3 (17:55):
I mean, it's absurd.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
So let me ask you, because the Epstein files obviously
became a huge, huge deal when Trump was an after
his inauguration, and you had people on both sides saying
we need these files. I've always said it very interesting
because no one was screaming about it for the four
years that Joe Biden was in office. I mean, on
either side, this is what blows my mind. I'm like, well,
if you thought exactly what you just said, if you
(18:18):
thought there was something on Trump, you would have gotten
those files then. But Marjorie Taylor Green was one of them.
She was out there. She started to really hit on
the Republican Party. She started to hit on Speaker Johnson,
she was hitting on the president. She was taking these
kind of cheap shots some people thought from the MAGA world.
(18:41):
But there's this, there's a development over the weekend. She's
decided she's going to resign on January fifth. I believe
that's when she gets her pensions. So she's decided she'll
stay until then. That's a kick in the teeth too,
just for people who don't know to resign instead of
just say I'm not going to run again, that's a
kick in the teeth because you leave a seat open.
(19:02):
And she's doing that on purpose. Now there's a theory
that she is the one that people see as truly maga.
The President has said, you know, I like her a lot.
I'm sorry it went this way. We know that he
had gone to her early on and said, you your
pulling doesn't look good for you for senate. Don't run
for senate, and she is a far the right person.
(19:24):
In a state like Georgia, the Senate is hard to
run for it is not a red state. It is
a truly purple state. For someone who is a far
right conservative, it's it would have been a really tough road,
and that was what she was told. The story is
that that private conversation made her upset and she decided
that she was going to go against the president. And
(19:47):
a lot of that was through the Epstein files. But
now she's resigned. Do you believe this theory that in
twenty eight she's the one left standing that's considered the
MAGA candidate.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
Well, that's a really interesting question, Tutor Dixon. I would
say the first thing is this, I would not be
shocked if she ends up being a CNN contributor starting
on January sixth. I would not be shocked at all
to see that she's been going on that network.
Speaker 3 (20:12):
More and more. That network is trying to bring on
more conservative voices.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Your schedules limited as a member of Congress, and how
many times you can do that. So they may be
throwing some cash away, and apparently she's made some cash.
It's a member of Congress, which is of course not
at all surprising there is. I mean, the problem here
with Epsteine, as far as MAGA world is concerned, is
that many people promised that they would get to the
truth of Jeffrey Epstein. So you had a lot of
(20:40):
online influencers and other people who kept saying repeatedly that
if Trump wins, we're going to finally get to the
truth of Jeffrey Epstein. It's been a cover up, the
Biden administration's covered it up, and we're going to finally
get this out. Then the Attorney General does what I
think is still to this day, I cannot figure out
what that was all about. When she brings these influencers
into the White House or a complex, very weird hands
(21:02):
and binders, and says the truth is coming out, makes
a whole big song and dance about it, and then
suddenly it's like, oh, oops, these are maybe it's invisible link.
I don't know, there's nothing here, And that just made
people furious. And so for people within MAGA, I guess
as we'll use that term, and we're really talking, in
my opinion, about a lot of online influencers that caused
(21:25):
a tremendous blow up.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
There's this obviously civil war.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Going on right now, as you know, over Israel, and
there's that whole battle that's taking place there too.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
I mean, it's a mess right now.
Speaker 2 (21:38):
Trump is not going to run again, and I don't
think there's anyone who can hold that coalition together except
for Donald Trump. I mean, Jade Vance camp Mark or
Rubio camp they just can't. Trump's a once in a
lifetime candidate. This is it, and he's the only one
who's able to, even when he does things that MAGA
doesn't necessarily prove of, still generally hold the coalition together.
(22:02):
The coalition is breaking apart already. And so the question
that becomes is is a MAGA candidate really the future
of the Republican Party. I think that's the better question,
And is there would that person still be able to
bring over traditional Republicans and MAGA and unite them. I
don't see Marjorie Taylor Green being that person. She may
(22:24):
be able to coalesce a lot of MAGA, but then again,
when the President called her a trader, there were a
lot of people within that universe who suddenly turned on her.
He has that ability, has that power, that effect to
be able to kind of redirect people towards or age.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
They don't just they stick with him. I mean, there's
a strong coalition that sticks with him. Let's take a
quick commercial break. We'll continue next on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 3 (22:55):
I believe that he.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
Still has the grassroots significantly. I mean, I think that
people will only come out for him. There are people
who won't. I mean know it, I mean Michigan. I
know that there is a yes, yes, exactly. And yet
there are i would say traditional supporters of the Republican
Party who refuse to accept this, and they believe that
(23:16):
they can go back to what the party used to
be used to look like before Donald Trump. I think
that that's a disaster. I know it's a disaster. I
know that we lose a massive amount of people that
would vote if you get rid of that mindset, that
make America great again mindset. And yet I know for
a fact, in the state of Michigan, we have traditional
(23:40):
supporters of the Republican Party who have gone to the
biggest donors in the state and said, we're not going
to give to the federal elections this time. We're only
going to focus on state. Why would that be unless
you were trying to kill mega. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
So Jersey broke my heart recently when my friend Jack
shitdareally lost what we all thought was going to be
a close race that he had a really strong chance
of winning, and the polling was way off on this
and everything, and then you find out that seventy percent
of the people that came out to vote for President
Trump voted for Jack, which meant that the other thirty
percent again did not vote.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
And this is a problem that we see. We see this.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
There was a special election in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Tutor
in twenty twenty five, a county that the President.
Speaker 3 (24:28):
Crushed it in.
Speaker 2 (24:29):
This was supposed to be a layup and a Democrat
won this special election, small election, it was nothing, but
because again, voters who vote for Trump don't vote for
other Republicans.
Speaker 3 (24:41):
They just vote for him.
Speaker 2 (24:43):
And so what I think you're also going to see
is this battle to try to take the Republican Party
and bring it back, like you're saying, to a different time,
a pre Trump era.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
And the real question as I.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
Look at some of these figures who are emerging in
twenty twenty eight, Ted Cruz, Marc rub do they go
back to that because that's where they were. Obviously, is
a battle President Trump in the primary Jen or does
Rubios now say, hey, listen, I'm team make America great again.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
On that team and that team literally is or a
Rubio in JD vance ticket. It'd be very interesting to
watch that.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
But there's no question in my mind a lot of
this is going to be determined by what happens in
the midterms. Because if we get smoked in the midterms,
then there's a very compelling argument for people to make
to say the Republican Party needs to go back to
the pre Donald Trump era. Otherwise it's toast and that
battle will play out. I'm not suggesting that it should.
(25:42):
I'm just simply saying that that's what people are going
to start saying. Donors are going to start saying it.
I remember sitting down with a very rich Republican in Pennsylvania,
like a billionaire, the richest guy in the state actually,
and this was before the twenty twenty four election, but
he was convinced that Trump could not win again. And
I said, I completely disagree with you on this point,
(26:04):
but he wanted to back you know, the governor of Florida,
Ron DeSantis. He just said, we can't win now that
Trump is out of the equation, and he will be
out of the equation in twenty twenty eight if we
get smoked in midterms, and we look at the losses
in Jersey, we look at the losses in Virginia. We
don't know what losses we may have in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3 (26:24):
I mean, you know it's I mean.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Then the argument then is going to be, now that
Trump is gone, MAGA can't go forward, So we can't
back jd events. We have to go back to a
more traditional Republican, even though ironically enough he was one
at one point, right and back a DeSantis or back
Ted Cruz or whoever. So I predict that that is
the way things are going to be, dependent upon how
(26:47):
things go in twenty six. And there's donors races and
senators races too.
Speaker 1 (26:51):
There are there are donors actively working to tank the
midterms to make that happen. Where head to years of
Trump not being able to accomplish anything and impeachments and
all of that hell, just to go back to what
they believe is the party they want, and they believe
that because they have the money, they get to choose it.
(27:13):
Doesn't matter what the grassroots wants. I'm telling you, I
know what's happening.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
Oh man, that is scary. I don't like hearing that.
I'm not surprised, though it doesn't surprise me.
Speaker 1 (27:22):
Tootir So I just want to end on one last thing,
and that is the Oval Office meeting with Mam Donnie.
We have to go over it. We have to go
over it because I suspected that it would go this way,
and I think that some people don't necessarily know what
Trump did there. It doesn't matter if Trump embraces Mom Donnie.
(27:43):
The MAGA people know exactly what he's doing. It doesn't
matter if he even taps him on the back and
says it's okay call me a fascist. They know you
think that it totally castrated Mom Donnie.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
Yeah, yeah, totally yeah. Yeah, he's a gelding after that.
And I think that.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
Trump had nothing to lose obviously by being nice to
the guy and you know, coosing up to him. I mean,
I guess you could make an argument that maybe he
would normalize, help normalize a communist, but I don't really
think that that's a big problem. But for Mam Donnie
to now have to look AOC and the I and
these other wackos in the squad after that, after kissing
(28:21):
up to him like that and being his bestie, woof.
I mean, because they have spent the entire time saying
he's this existential threat, he's Hitler, he's a fascist. When
Bill Maher had dinner with Donald Trump, just dinner, and
it wasn't even public, and he goes on his show
and he says, it's a different guy than the guy
you see in public, and Larry David writes this op
ed in the New York Times to mock him, saying,
(28:42):
my dinner with Hitler, And the whole point of that was, oh,
you know, Trump's Hitler. You can't act like this as
a normal guy. Well, for Mam Donnie to sit there
and be, you know, BFFs with the guy as they're
out there saying he's the existential threat, he's a fascist,
he's Hitler, He's destroying democracy, that just completely undermines their argument.
(29:02):
And for him now to go back as this little
gelding who has you no jewels now and look these
people in the eye and say, oh, I'm still going
to fight him.
Speaker 3 (29:11):
I'm going to fight him at every turn, it's.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
Like, stop, you got snacks, you got Oval office snacks
and probably souvenirs.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
You got a T shirt out of it.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
No, it was lovely because beforehand I thought it was
great watching him explain it's my staff set up this meeting,
and I thought, you are the incoming mayor, now the
mayor elect. You cannot say your staff did something that
you didn't approve. You can't blame your staff. That's not
how this works anymore. So he first of all, he
(29:42):
doesn't even want to acknowledge that he wanted the meeting,
and he does. He needs the meeting. He can't do
what he said he was going to do, and he's
figured that out. But the beauty of it, like I
loved when when Gretchen Whitmer was standing in there with
the folder in front of her face, because that is
a campaign ad for Gavin Newsom all day long and
twice it is great. I love the fact that she
(30:03):
did that and I and I will love every time
I see it when I won the commercials play because
she looked like such a moron and he played her,
but he played mom Donnie so much better because he
asked him behind the desk, like he's a partner smacking
him like, get there, chums. It was and it's I said,
(30:24):
I was on a show the night before. They're like,
what do you think it's going to be? Is it
going to be a big smack down? And I'm like,
he's gonna he is going to pat him on the
hat or on the back, maybe even on the head.
And it was as close to patty him on the
head as you can get.
Speaker 3 (30:36):
I mean, great prediction by you, well done. Yeah, it
was like a Buddy movie. I get Buddy totally.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
You know, the communists and the fascists is like, hey,
you know we both call each other names, we love
each other's stepbrothers or something.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
I mean, it was. I was watching it. We took
it live on my radio show, and I when it ended,
I said.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
I don't know what that was, but I'll tell you something.
I said, you couldn't have written that any better. From
the perspect of if you hate Donald Trump and you
were so ready for him to be rude to Ma'm donnie,
and then you're like.
Speaker 3 (31:05):
Oh my god, he was nice to the guy.
Speaker 2 (31:07):
And if you were the the AOC crowd and you're like, oh,
he's gonna really show this fascist what's coming as this
Democrat revolutions underway, because let's not forget something. I mean,
that's been their argument, right, that Maam Donnie is now
the leader of not just the Democrat Party but basically
like America. Like he's the other president. And he was
in there and he's like, I love him here. This
(31:28):
is so nice. He's so nice to me. He's just
gosh golly. He even defended the fact that I flew
here and didn't take a train like every other schlub
who comes to DC from New York. You know.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
I mean, he couldn't have.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
Defended him any more if they were like, yeah, but
that tie choice Trump like, it's a beautiful tie, looks
great on it.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
It brings out his eyes. He could not have defended
the guy anymore. And so it was just like, ma'am Donnie,
look here.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
Remind even of a little kid who got to go
billing president in the Oval office and hopefully got some
of the souvenir eminem's out of it.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Yeah, oh, I'm sure.
Speaker 1 (31:59):
I'm sure he went home with a cookie with the seal.
I'm so happy about it too. It was lovely. I
was and this is and this, ladies and gentlemen, is
why Magga cannot go away, because these are the moments
that we live for. Is to watch him humiliate a
man in his office without this little boy even understanding
what's happening. It was delicious. It's always fun talking to you, Richdally.
(32:23):
Thank you so much for being on the podcast.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Thanks for having me Tutor. It's always a blast.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Thank you absolutely, and thank you all for joining the
Tutor Dixon podcast. Remember you can get it on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts,
and watch it on Rumble or YouTube at Tutor Dixon.
Thanks so much and have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.