July 11, 2025 • 50 mins
Also, the latest fall out from Jeffery Epstein, a concentration camp in Gaza, and a MAGA podcaster praises AOC, Bernie and Zohran
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/newsflash--2206348/support.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/newsflash--2206348/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Hello, everyone, Welcome to the show today. My name is
Spencer Walsh.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Have a great show for you today.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
As always on the show, today we are taking a
look at the trade wars. They have resumed again and
no one quite knows what to make of them. Are
they going to be slapped with fifty percent or twenty
percent tariffs on a moment's notice or it's just before
the tariff is said to come into effects.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Is tru I'm gonna check it out.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Nobody can guess, and it's causing some chaos throughout the
global economy. Also, horrific news coming out of Gaza as
Israel continues their genocidal onslaught, now announcing plans essentially in
public to build a concentration camp.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Even Haratz, the top Israeli.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Newspaper, has called it such will give you all of
the disturbing details on that. Also, Jeffrey Epstein cover up
fallout continues. Dan Mangino, FBI deputy director, considering resigning over
the way it's all handled, and a new analysis from
Wired says that the footage could have been manipulated, could
(01:22):
have been edited in Adobe Premiere.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Pro of all places.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Tell you the implications of that and all of the
White House drama. Also one of the top pro Trump podcasters,
one of those podcasts bros who switched over and provided
a big support to Trump in the wake of twenty
twenty four now says Trump is no longer America First,
and he has a surprising new designation for who actually is.
(01:48):
It's not who you'd expect in American politics. While all
of those details for you and more, and of course
a reminder, all of our clips from today's show will
be on YouTube in the next forty eight hours. Donald
Trump has at least now for the moment, stopped starting
real wars and has now gone into starting trade wars again.
(02:12):
And it is really causing quite a lot of chaos
in the economy, but maybe even and this this almost
sounds kind of weird to say, not as much chaos
as the last time he went through with all of
this trade war business. Because of this new acronym you've
probably heard of called taco, which is Trump always chickens out.
But it is really really pissing a lot of people off.
(02:35):
But above all, it is confusing a lot of the
very same people he is trying to negotiate with. Here
blunt letters dictating terms posted to social media, and changes
late negotiations have left trading partners wondering what President Trump
will do next. That is how the New York Times
puts it. Six months into his new administration, President Trump'
(02:56):
assault on global trade has lost any seblance of organization
or structure. He changed headlines, He's blown up. Negotiations at
the eleventh are often raising unexpected issues. He has tied
his tariffs to complaints that have nothing to do with trade,
like Brazil's treatment of its foreign president jirobol scenario, or
the flow of fentanyl from Canada. And it's just like
you know, girabol scenario. First of all, he tried to
(03:19):
do his own January sixth that somehow went even worse
than Trump's January sixth. So of course, you know, Trump
sees a kindred spirit in him. But even no normal president,
no normal person sensible about leading the American Empire in
a way that is meant to continue the development of
the American outpire. Just leading America for America's sake, let alone,
(03:42):
doing the right thing, would raise this kind of domestic
issue when it comes to a trade negotiation. The point
is that is for Brazil to figure out, you know,
is something they have to deal with.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
And the thing, you know, if remember back in the.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Early days of this whole trade war business, it was
the Fed those footing over the borders from Canada and
Mexico again with no evidence. He's just throwing this stuff
out there, seeing what sis and the people who kind
of have followed him the best and who have kind
of covered him unbiasley for the longest period of time,
they say, it's really who gets in the room last
with Trump, who tells him this. One big thing that
(04:19):
really changes is thinking, you know, who puts the right
print out of an article in front of him where
he's like, wow, we're getting screwed here, you know, that
is what That's what shapes his thinking. That is what
shapes his decision making process. It's not anything. And this
comes with a lot of policy. This then comes with
immigration policy, this comes with foreign policy, and of course
(04:41):
with trade policy. There's no kind of guiding principle beyond
a vague sense of agrievement on all these different issues.
And the problem without with not having guiding principle is
you cause a lot of chaos.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
You throw a.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Big you know, create a big scene to create a
big whirlwind, and then you have the world when going
and you don't even know what to do next. You
have no plan, you have no broader vision, and that
is something we have really seen here with these tariffs.
This is the our Langa Hartarto definitely bushering that name.
(05:16):
She said, talks with or I hope that's she.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
I'm not I'm not too.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Familiar with the Indonesian names. Sorry, but it's it gave
me kind of female vibes. But anyway, talks with the
United States. This person says, we're like going through a
labyrinth and arriving back.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
To square one. Uh.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
She is the he she they whatever is the is
the Indonesian minister for Economic Affairs who met with US
officials in watching it on Wednesday and they're just like.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Well, I don't know what to do.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
This is this is crazy here, you know, Japan, South Korea.
They came to the White House. They went to Washington
to go and try and negotiate with Trump and gave
him what he wanted. And this was months ago and
the White House essentially didn't have an Instagram. They had
no clear plan. They created the tempest, they created the storm,
They kicked up the dust. And then when countries trying
(06:06):
and come and negotiate with the most powerful, powerful nation
on the face of the earth, you know they don't
have anything for them. Steve or not Steve Wikoff in
this case, but Howard Lutnik for example, Scott Bessen for example.
They have no concrete demands to even take to Ukraine,
to even or Japan to even begin the negotiation process
(06:30):
because they are not serious about actively fixing our trade
problems and actively re shoring American jobs because they just
you know, it's a it's a vague impulse. It's policy
making based on spur of the moment feelings and no
sort of broader plan. And we are again really really
seeing the consequences of it here. We're still far away
(06:51):
from making real deal, says Carston Bresky, the global head
of macroeconomics at the Bank i n G in Germany.
He called the uncertainty poison for the global economy. But
the interesting thing is here, you know, you you you're
pissing a lot of people off, you're not really making
any major deals, but you're also backing down on the deals.
If you're the Trump administration, so frequently that the markets
(07:13):
aren't even reacting. You know, you're just insulting these countries
for no reason, and you're not even really making any
dent in anything.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Like take a look at this here. This is from
Brazil just hours.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Ago, in the wake of these new trade wars. You know,
they're burning Trump in effigy on the street and burning
American flags.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It's quite crazy.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Seeing how to counter Trump's threat of fifty tariffs starting August.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
First, we can appeal to the World Trade Organization, demand investigations,
demand explanations, but above all, we have the reciprocity lawyer.
We'll try to negotiate, but if there's no deal, will
match his to keep the scene.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Yeah, so that's the Brazilian president there who is essentially
saying we are trying to we're gonna go in and
we're gonna match the fifty percent tariffs at a certain
point because we have that principle of reciprocity. And you know,
there's also a very good chance that he backs down
on this whole thing because someone else gets in his
ear and sells, well, this is not gonna be good policy,
or it gets struck down by the courts or whatever,
(08:22):
and we're all just back to square one, and it's
just completely completely chaotic scene and it's almost hard to
you know, the way these tariffs are done in the
first place, that is bad policy, because when you do
these tariffs, you're supposed to do them a lot slower,
a lot less steep. You know, you're supposed to maybe
do a ten to twenty percent traff instead of like
a fifty percent era or a you know, one hundred
(08:44):
and fifteen or whatever the hell Trump had to do
with China before he was kind of.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Talked off the ledge there.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
That's bad policy in the first place, because you're supposed
to again take it slow, build kind of invest in
American industry at the same time as you're doing these tariffs.
That's what all the series tariff advocates say, and I
would say that I'm a general support of that line
of thinking, not this kind of crazy method that Trump's
doing here. But also even you know, that almost doesn't
(09:11):
even really matter, because again, he is backing down on
these deals in you know, such a and these kind
of bold proclamations like oh, this is going to go
to effect August first, you know, get ready, Brazil, get ready,
South Korea, get ready copper industry. You know, we're gonna
come for you with these tariffs, and it just really
never seems to follow through. Gone is the idea here,
(09:35):
and I think this kind of goes along with this.
Gone is the idea that the White House would strike
ninety deals in ninety days after a period of rapid
fire negotiation, as Trump pledged in April, instead watching the
sign bare bones agreements with training partners, including China, while
sending many other countries blunt and mostly standardized letters announcing
hefty tariffs to start on August first, and you know,
the same way. I think the July ninth we just passed.
(09:56):
It was the last date, you know, and that completely
came and gone. A lot of the champs were pushed
back even further, like there is not even any credibility
to the rest of the world that they have towards
Trump that he will follow through on this crazy, stupid
way of implementing tariffs. So that is a kind of
incredible way of looking at it. The policy amakers in Indonesia,
(10:20):
Japan and elsewhere learned about letters setting tariffs only when
Trump posted them on social media. Erlanga said, oh, it
was a guy mister Erlanga said he was surprised and
amazed to find his country would face a thirty two
percent tariff, unchanged from what was announced on April. Negotiation
has been going well, he thought. Training partners who had
received such letters are now frantically pushing to reduce the
(10:41):
country's specific rates, which range from twenty to fifty percent,
though Trump has at some points suggested that rooms to
negotiate may be limited for those who have not received
a letter. Trump suggested on Thursday the European Unions was
coming imminently. The developments have underscored that any negotiations are precarious.
Trade deals appeared to hinge on one person and Trump,
and even carefully constructed agreements can be upended on a whim.
(11:05):
People are dealing with it as a rolling damage limitation exercise,
said Andrew Small, a senior fillow the German Marshall Fund
who worked until recently as an advisor to the European
Union's Executive arm And it really is, you know, it's
incredible for so many reasons here in this in this uh,
this whole entire trade war set up because, first of all,
(11:26):
even if it was done competently, the implementation of these
stereoups still again to all our allies in such a
steep way with no sort of domestic investment.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
That is stupid.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
First of all, you don't even have that. You have
Trump setting up these deals, blowing them apart for no
good reason, just because the last person in the room
told them, uh. And then you have to shut another deal.
And then when that deadlie comes, it's pushed off even further.
So again, it is a complete farce. It is a
complete joke. It's and it's it's turning a lot of
(11:55):
people who otherwise would have been very predisposed to America
so side more and more trade deals with China. Look
for that over the next coming weeks and months, as
we get closer to this August first deadline, we will
see more and more of countries who would have been
in any other time in the South Pacific and South
America whatever, you know, they would have been fined to
(12:15):
negotiate with America. They would have preferred to negotiate with America.
But now given this situation, you know, boy, are they
going to run for the safety and security of Xijiping,
China faster than you could.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Say Liberation Day.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
More and more disturbing news continuing to come out of
Israel as they continue there daily on slot in their
genocidal war in Gaza. We have actually seen some kind
of interesting, what felt like signs of hope. But then
of course, given the nature of the US and Israeli government,
it's there's a lot more there than meets the eye
(12:56):
with these ceasefire negotiations. Essentially what has been happening is
for since about Sunday, so about a week or so,
we've had Steve Whitcough in Dohat meeting with Kataris and
Egyptians Israelis on the other side, and then Hamas is
also negotiating there as well for you know, what would
(13:16):
be kind of a framework.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
To the deal.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
It seems almost certain at this point there's going to
be some sort of a sixty day ceasefire which is
going to essentially allow the Israelis to get back to
whatever they started doing, exactly what they did before in
terms of you know, pushing Palasinians down to the south,
killing them on a daily basis in these aid massacres,
and just generally continuing to raise and I'd say that
(13:42):
with the shaving down to nothing, not the building up,
the definition there of the gods strip and the main
kind of staking point. Essentially, Hamas has said that not
only will they step down from power, and not only
will they hand over power to a kind of human error,
a kind of a unity government, a technocratic committee is
what they call it in Gaza. While there is some
(14:05):
sort of actual Palestinian control of Gaza that is democratically
accountable and not under a constant stiege by the Israelis,
they've actually committed to doing that, but they've also kind
of held firm on what they want the seasfire to
look like and the big sixty ACS fire. Even though
they pretty much everyone knows that the Israelis are going
(14:27):
to restart this war come hell or high water in
sixty days after the ceasefire. No, there's now even more
plans for Israel that they want to speed up this
displacement of the Palestinians by building what even Israeli media
has called a concentration camp. Let's go to Ryan Grimm.
He explained this the day on Breaking Points. It's a
(14:47):
really great show, that very informative show that kind of
essentially what the Israelis are going after and why even
the US is saying, hey, let's just take a pause
for sixty days, then you can go back. Enough this
kind of concentration camp nonsense here, this is just just
a little bit too much here. Let's say look at
how Ryan Graham of drop site News explains it.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Israel.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
You can put up B three here the fundamental divide,
and there are you know, there still are, as I
understand it, these four major divides, which include humanitarian aid,
you know, governance of Gaza. But in particular, the main
divide is that Israel is insisting that it be able
(15:36):
to create a concentration camp for Palestinians in the south
of Gaza on the rubble of Rafa. They call it
a humanitarian city. They're saying it out loud. The idea
is that they would Palestinians, something like six hundred thousand
of them at first, would be moved into a makeshift
(16:01):
quote unquote humanitarian city, vetted ahead of time, so okay,
everybody in once in, would not be allowed out until
they are basically processed for expulsion what they call voluntary
immigration or whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
And we have this in the drop side News article
here as well. This is talking about this voluntary exportation
or deportation proposal. Israel Katz with the Defense Minister essentially
confirmed it confining to this camp, not gonna be allowed
to leave. They're gonna be subjected to security screenings and
then house intense and then they will kind of pave
(16:41):
the way for Saudi Arabia UAE to come in.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Take over the camp.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
And then oh, now we're getting these other people, not us,
but these other people to come in and work with
our allies to then essentially shift these people off to
you know whatever. There's a very reminiscent of Hitler's Madagascar plan,
where essentially say we're carting off these undesirables to another
you know, to another place, another far off African place
(17:08):
or whatever, so somewhere in the distance where we don't
ever have to worry about these people ever.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Again.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Uh, this is a quote here from net Yahoo. We're
seeking we're working with the United States very closely about
finding countries that will seek to realize what they always
say that they want to give the Palestinians a better future.
Dante claimed, I think we're getting close to finding several countries,
so that is what they're trying to do. And that
is what the US is working with them to do
here on this deal. You know, they have this these
(17:37):
fun facing negotiations and then they assigned negotiations where they're
making these broader uh, these broader, broader plans.
Speaker 5 (17:45):
And within this humanitarian city. Uh, then Israel would be
responsible for both security and and keeping people alive, no
medical care and food.
Speaker 6 (17:57):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
From the Palestinian perspective, this is a concentration camp and
it is not just Palestinian.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
By the way, there's an opt in Horrez today calling
it a.
Speaker 5 (18:08):
Concert from from from from the Israeli media. Again, it's
from from from from words like from like from the
description of it.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It's that's it's what it is.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
It's just it's it's utterly horrifying. And so uh, you've
I've seen some people joking that like Israel's insistence on
concentration camps seems to be a sticking point in the negotiation.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
It's like, yeah, what world you think?
Speaker 5 (18:31):
So but now we still we still may get a deal,
and so that raises very interesting questions and soccer I
were talking about this before the show started, which is why,
like if you would you would think from the Palestinian perspective,
if what's on the table for you is first a
concentration camp and then expulsion, that is a non starter.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yet it is.
Speaker 5 (18:58):
It is not a non starter. And Hamas's is very responded,
as they said, positively to the initial to the initial agreement,
which doesn't really include all of this, but like Israel's
being very clear publicly that this is what they consider
to be what would be the terms of the deal
(19:19):
and what they would do.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yeah, that it kind of goes why would Hamas agree
to this? From what I've seen and with the reporting
is from Dropside News, which is doing very valuable reporting
because they're really the only ones that actually talk to
the other side of this and not just take what
the United States and Israel say as the only side
of the story, the only kind of part of the story.
(19:40):
What they have said is the yeah, they know sixth
the acies are eventually going to lead to some sort
of a reinvasion, some sort of continuation on the genocide,
but they are willing to take that chance. They're willing
to just take that reprieve so long as they don't
have Israeli truths coming in and building this concentrate camp
(20:00):
on the South of the south of Gaza right by Rotha.
They have this this Morag corridor that you know, the
people in Hamas called this was a Morag ghetto. And
if they are staying at least when now they're saying
publicly insistently, we will not bend or break when it
comes to that particular part, we will allow maybe you know,
(20:22):
Las says they want the troops to go back to
where they were on March second, which was right when
they went back into Gaza after that three months ceasefire
and they started moving back in they which of course
would not allow them, and of course critically here they
would get rid of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and they
would then allow you know, normal aid distributing people that
(20:43):
don't shoot people trying to seek aid a k A.
The u N and the palsing in Red Crescent, which
has just done insane, insanely amazing work throughout this this
whole entire time side risking their lives on a daily
basis to be shot at by the Israelis. They want
them distributing aid, not the GHF, and they want Israeli
troops out for the sixty day ceasefire period, whether they
(21:06):
get some sort of chance to reveal and the boats
open with Egypt to get the sick and out there.
And again for all this they would say again, we
would even step down, We would even you know, transfer
control of our armed groups to other people. But we're
not getting rid of our arms because we know this
is going to happen again in sixty days. So that
is that is where the situation is. And I think
(21:27):
what's going to be really interesting here is to see
where the US plays in in all of this.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Are they going to.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Essentially force the big questions the US here is are
they going to force Hamas to or not force the Maas,
but force Israel to go some sort of the way
of saying, you can't have troops. Maybe you can have troops,
you know a little bit into Gaza, but not as
much into Gaza as you would want. And you don't
have to keep them all the way out like Hamas wants.
You know, you could or let some aid in but
(21:55):
not all the aid. We give the UN a chance,
but we don't let the palestinecrest come in. In other words,
force Israel to make some sort of concessions toward Hamas
to try and get this deal done even if it
is for sixty days, and even if there's an understanding
between which Bible accounts there is an understanding between the
US and Israel that we'll be able to resume this
(22:17):
thing in sixty days, then depending on how they do that,
it's very possible the United States and see Wick cough
could make a big show of it. But then they
just essentially let Israel or stand by the Israeli demand,
essentially to let let them come in build this concentration
camp in the southern parts of Gad, which they want
(22:38):
to do while this sixty eight cease fire is going on,
and then set away for expansion. They could totally end
up co signing these demands with Israel, even though in
the original stages the Americans and the Kataris told Israel
that goes too far. They could, you know, easily change
back on that. But then the question is would Hamas
agree to that. Would they agreed to letting Israeli continue
(23:01):
to operate within their boarders even and build this concentration
camp even after a safety day cease fire is in place.
So that's gonna be very interesting. I think it's gonna
be very interesting. Again, we already know what it is
we wants to They want to build this concentration camp.
They want to house these Palestinians in this concentration camp
where they have complete control over everything, could giving out
food and you know, giving medical care, which any you'd
(23:24):
have to be stupid to trust the Israelis to do
the Palestinians, especially after eighteen months of this genocide.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
That's what they want to do.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
But the question is will Hamas kind of give in
and allow them to do that. And if Amos does
give in, will the Americans let what Hamas eventually gives
into be less than what Israel ultimately wants. We'll be
some sort of reduced continuation on the genocide during this
(23:53):
sease fire. Those are going to be the kind of
key things to watch here. It really is primarily in
the United States court, but it's also gonna be very
very very interesting here to see what Hamas has to
say about all of this as well, and how willing
they are to interface with this incredible, incredible pressure and
this starving starve campaign of starvation and this perfidy perfidy.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
I think this is the right way you'd say it.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Whereas AID is being completely weaponized that people are being
killed every day and in trying to receive aid. You know,
how long are they going to let this continue to happen.
It'll be very very interesting to see. But then also
on the front of Iran, you know, the US and Israel.
This is the verge on how to pursue iran endgame
(24:41):
after strikes. Diplomats say this is in Reuters. Trump prefers
to use diplomacy in dealing with Ron. He said, Okay,
we bomb them, en off, Let's get them back to
the table. Let's get them try to negotiate. Even as
you know Opasarachi and Mazou pazeshkiin who are the respectably
foremist and President of Iran, They're saying, we want to
come to the table, even after the table last time
(25:02):
got blown up. And Trump doesn't want to get involved
in any sort of a broader conflict with Iran. Meanwhile,
netanyahuofavors using more force and essentially being able to bomb
Israel or sorry, enable getting a United States s green
light to let Israel bomb Iran as much as they want,
whenever they want, without any sort of consequence. It's gonna
(25:23):
be very interesting to see, you know where they where
they go there as well. So that is a very
big golf. And as we saw with the Twelve Day War,
Israel was losing out on interceptors already, so they need
US support to do this. If they If you see
Israel continuing to bomb Iran again, just know it is
with complete US backing, because they need US support when
(25:45):
it comes to interceptors, when it comes to refueling the
missiles in the kind of THAD batteries and stuff that
we're getting, those those high range missiles and all that
kind of stuff, So they need support for Israel needs
US support for that. That is one bottom line. But
the second bottom line here, and I think this is
really really important thing with regard to Gaza is it's
(26:09):
going to be very very interesting to see a how
what Hamasa is going to accept in order to give
their people a break on these seast right negotiations, and
b how much is the United States going to try
an adulter rate in some way to kind of lessen
the genocidal the demands of the Israelis. Are they going to,
for example, force Israeli troops to go somewhat withdrawal from Gaza,
(26:33):
or they can let them go in fully and build
this concentration camp that they want to build that Ryan
Graham explained, Or are they going to fully push them
back to the border between Israel and Gaza for sixty
days while they give essentially Gaza a chance to recoup.
How long how many of Amasa's demands is the United
(26:54):
States going to push Israel.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
To agree to?
Speaker 1 (26:57):
And let's be honest, it's very possible that there is
none at all. So really really awful, dark dark times
continuing for the people of Palestine and particularly Gaza. The
craziness and the fallout is continuing on this Epstein story,
both in Maga world and beyond. We have drama in
(27:18):
the White House Dan Bongino, who is this kind of
plucked out of conservative media, red face screamer type of guy,
former Secret Service agent who was put in charge of
deputy director at least of the FBI. The director Cash
Mattel was kind of much of the same story here
in terms of coming out of right wing social media
into the FBI with the explicit promise of breaking open
(27:40):
stories that would punch the deep state, like the Jeffrey
Epstein situation and many others essentially people that opposed Trump.
They were, and for the last few days have been
roasted over holes by the MAGA base for this Epstein
report that essentially said there's no there there. Epstein didn't
have a client list, he didn't blackmail anybody. He just
(28:03):
wanted all these girls, these underaged girls, for himself, and
there was no broader operation there. That means a lot
of people very very outraged and suspicious and in the
way that fallout. Now, Dan Bongino is considering resigning over
the way, and he blames Attorney General Pam Bondi for
(28:24):
the way this all went down.
Speaker 7 (28:26):
All right, This breaking news sources tell CNN that Deputy
FBI Director Dan Bongino has told people that he's considering
resigning amid a major clash between the FBI and dj
over the continued fallout from the release or lack thereof,
of the Jeffrey Epstein memo. Joining us right now in files.
(28:46):
Joining us right now on the phone is Sanna Anchor
and Chief White House correspondent Kaitlyn Collins. Caitlin, what more
are you learning?
Speaker 6 (28:53):
Yeah, Fred? It remains to be seen if he actually
follows through with what he has told colleagues. But what
we do know is that Dan Bongeo has told people
he is considering resigning as the Deputy director of the
FBI over the fallout that has continued ever since this
memo was released last time. The anger instead of the
maga bass has only continued to grow instead of going
(29:15):
away as some officials inside hopes it would. And now
our colleagues, along with Christian Holmes, Sannrabinowitz, and Evan Perez,
we're hearing that he's considering resigning after they had this
heated confrontation with the Attorney General Pam Bondi over the
handling of this earlier this week.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Yeah, so let's break that down here a little bit more.
This is from Axios, which is one of those that
was really talking about it. This is a scoop here
from Axios. FBI's Dan Mangino clashes with ag Bondi overhandling
of the Epstein files and essentially because the center of
the argument's all about this missing surveillance video from outside
(29:53):
Epstein cell the administration releasing was proof no one had
entered the room before he killed himself. The town Now
video has had what has widely been called a missing minute,
which fueled, of course, a lot of conspiracy theories that
something happened in that missing minute of the footage. The
missing minute authority say stem from an old surveillance recording
(30:14):
system that goes down each day at midnight to reset
and record anew It takes a minute for that process
to occur, which effectively means sixty seconds of every day
aren't recorded. All normal, Nothing to see here. What happened
with the guards prosposed to sleep? I don't know, but Bongino,
who had pushed the Epstein's conspiracy theories as a MAGA
(30:34):
friendly podcast host, and I kind of hesitate to call
them conspiracy theories, but that's what they labeled.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Axios is putting on it.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Before Trump had appointed him to help lead the FBI
had found the video and touted it publicly and privately
as proof that Epstein hadn't been murdered.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
That conclusion was.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Shared by FBI director Cash Mattel, another conspiracy theorist turned
insider anger. Many and Trump's backabase made criticism that increased
after Axios first reported the release of the video in
a related memo, He's been roasted over the clothes here
all week long. Two sources familiar with Bongino's position, saying
(31:12):
he said he was increasingly displeased with Bonnie's handling of
the Epstein case because she had publicly overpromised and underdelivered
disclosures about an Epstein client list that apparently never existed. Meanwhile,
Laura Lumer first kind of reported this and trying to
essentially stir up the fact that there was real kind
of beef essentially percolating between them in this White House.
(31:37):
Those witnessing the Wednesday clash between Bonnie and Bongino in
the White House or Patel, White House Chief of the
Staff Stoosey Wiles, and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowitch.
During the meeting, Bongino was confronted about a News Nation
article that said he and Patel wanted more information about
the Epstein to be released earlier but were held back.
Bongino denied leaking the idea, and apparently it was a
(32:00):
very angry, heated conversation that didn't end on friendly terms.
Bongino left angry. The sore said the fact is Dan
was for releasing the information with the video and had
no problem until he got heat online. Bongino found the
video with the missing minute, he vouched for it after
a thorough review and thought that would end the matter.
(32:21):
When that didn't work, he lost his mind and ran
out of DC. So Bongino was reportedly kind of hyping
up this missing video that was supposed to this missing
minute video that was supposed to be this whole saving
grace of this whole situation. So but the thing about
the missing minute video, and he's really what it seems
(32:42):
here is Bongino is mad at Pam Bondi for covering
it up in a way that would make Bongino look bad,
and Bondie in turn is mad at Bongino for hyping
up this missing minute which was a bunch of bs.
And I say it's a bunch of bs because this
is just now I have to use this Times of
India piece because Wired is behind the paywall. But Wired
(33:05):
is reporting now in a metadata analysis that the video
was edited on Adobe Premiere Pro and the metadata was
all messed up.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
Apparently.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
The report said the footage was not directly extracted from
the present surveillance system, but was likely modified using Adobe
Premiere Pro, but there is no evidence of what was
changed and whether the change was meant for any deception
that editing might just be a simple process before releasing
it to the public with no modifications together other than
joining two clips, Report added, But it triggered room for
suspicion that there had been no clear explanation. So it
(33:41):
wasn't just a file here. It was something that was
taken out, put into an editing software, and then something
was done with it, according to Wired. So it kind
of makes Bongino look pretty stupid for hyping up this
missing minute, even as Bongino is trying to blame Pam
Bondi because she apparently went on TV and she did
(34:01):
do this. She went on TV over promised talking about,
oh this this file list is out there, we have
the client list is sitting on my desk, and that
in turn made Bongino look bad. So they're both kind
of making each other look bad in the service of
trying to you know, and they're mad at each other
for that, in the service of trying to convince the
MAGA base.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
What they both believe is.
Speaker 1 (34:21):
That there's no more need for any investigation regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
So they're both kind of suspicious and self interested here.
But I think there's a wide report. It's really just
came out before we started recording. But it's gonna be
very interesting to see how this kind of feeds into
the conversation of a bunch of people who are going
to be quite worked up, if they get any sort
(34:43):
of hint, any sort of suspicion that the Trump administration,
of all people, the administration that was supposed to be
the fighters for truth, the fighters for justice, the people
taking on the deep state about this, if they were
editing this video, if they put this into an ending
software in any way, I think it's going to be
quite a big story.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
Jeffrey Epps.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
And by the way, people who know the situation, Julia Brown,
who's been a Miami Hill reporter on this story since
it first broke, like way back in two thousand and eight,
she said, Hey, you got the video from one way
into the cell, but there's also a video from there's
also a video from another way into the cell that
you didn't even catch. You know, there's a whole other
way into the cell that surveilled that wasn't part of
(35:27):
this video. Jeffrey Epstein. You know here was they give
a little background in this article. There were one hundred
and fifty in long surveillance cameras, but starting from July,
a technical error prevented almost half of them from recording.
The system was scheduled for repairs on August nine, the
night before Epstein was found dead, but it was not
done as the technician could not access the necessary equipment.
(35:50):
As a result, only two cameras were operational, one covering
the common area and another covering the ninth floor elevator bay,
which is where Epstein's cell was. The DOJ released thee
showing that no one entered the ninth floor area in
front of epstein'style between ten forty pm on Augustine twenty
nineteen and six thirty am the next morning. In the
footage released by the administration, it was a one minute
(36:12):
gap from leven fifty eight fifty eight seconds.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
To twelve o'clock at night.
Speaker 1 (36:18):
A turned General Pamboni explained this because again this technical
reason the restarting.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
The administration.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
They's explained that this gap is there in every recording.
But again, if that's true, why are you putting this
into the system. Why A you're trying to manipulate it,
why you're trying to do all these various different things
in Adobe premiere. I think that's going to be something
that's absolutely going to be adding a lot more fuel
to the fire here as this won't be going away
(36:45):
anytime soon in the conspiracy circles on the left, the center,
and the right, who are all very very much worked
up about the story because you put it in premiere
pro Why did you do that? I thought this was
supposedly the quote unquote off footage from the prison that
you know, Dan Bongino was finding, and it was so
(37:05):
hyped to put up to everyone. If it's not, if
it was edited, you know, that raises a whole host
of questions about what the hell are we looking at here?
And you know, really, what are these people who promised
to be so open and promise to be so forthright,
what the hell were they hiding. Andrew Schultz, who is
(37:27):
host of The Flagrant podcast, one of the biggest supporters
of Trump in the lead up to and really after
the twenty twenty four election, he has turned against Trump,
but he has not gone to the Democratic Party. He says,
the true representatives now of America first, and this is
really a clip that caught a lot of attention, caught
(37:47):
my attention for sure. The true representatives of the America First. Mantle,
in his opinion, are the Party of the Democratic Socialists
is what he says, not the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 8 (38:03):
The only party right now that to me seems America
first is the Democrat Socialist Party. Yep, Bernie is America First,
Mam Donnie and all his ideas that he will not
be able to execute it, and I frankly think many
of them are not good ideas, but he is, no
doubt New York First. The policies seem to want to
(38:25):
help people here. That's what I care about. If MAGA
wants to take this America First thing back, they got
to start looking out for America. It doesn't seem like
they're doing lying to Americans is not America person. There
is one lie, which is Epstein did not have a
blackmail ring on all these very influential people, and by
saying that that didn't happen, you have to tell a
lot of other little lies. Every one of them just
(38:46):
pulls a little piece of thread away from the family.
And we're starting to see right through right now, and
it's just embarrassing.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Yeah, So I think that's a really interesting clip for
so many reasons. And I think it shows that for
so many people, people like Andrew Shultz and especially his audience,
you know, they're too busy to be, you know, following
them in new show polities every day, like you know,
if you're listening to show, you probably do and I
do as well, you know, but people all over of
(39:14):
any sort of political persuasion, they realize that the elite
are screwing with us. The elite are up to no good.
And the biggest encapsulation of that is Epstein. And if
you're a truth teller like Donald Trump, you're like outsider
establishment inside person and you get a lot of people
to vote for you on that basis. And then now
you're you're coming out and saying, look this Epstein.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Guy, I don't heard about him. Well, stop talking about
this creed who even cares? Right?
Speaker 1 (39:38):
You know, it reads as so bs to so many
people who had a completely different perception of Trump. And
I also think it shows and it leaves a vacuum
for other people to come in, people like AOC, people
like Bernie Mom, Donnie whatever, these democratic socialist type people
to come in and make a case, build a path
(40:00):
for this is how we are going to win these
people back by being authentic, by being outsider, by pushing
for actual substantive policy change. Like it's it's not an
invitation for someone like mom Donnie to you know, talk
about Epstein all day long, but it's or for like
Burnie to talk about Epstein all day long.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
But what it does show you is quite clearly there
is a big, big space here for people who are
a authentic about what they believe, be unapologetic about what
they believe, and see actually have a vision that it's
you know, because of those two things, it's unquestionable what
(40:40):
they believe and you know, you know they're being honest
about what they believe in, but actually have a vision
that will shake things up, that will actually say, we
are going to leave your life, whether it be rent,
whether it be healthcare, whether it be childcare, whatever, we
are going to leave your life, especially on an economic basis,
better than we found it when we came into office.
(41:01):
We're going to actually improve your life, and we're we're
not gonna be afraid on stepping on some few toes
to do it. I think that is going it's incredibly
powerful message. And like you saw with Schultz, they're talking
about Mom, Donnie. You know, even if you don't agree
with the person on everything, even if you're a little
skeptical about how much they can get done, the authenticity,
(41:23):
the unapologetic confidence in a change based belief system, a
change based vision, changing his platform, whatever, that goes a
long way with a lot of people who may not
be necessarily the most predisposed to your ideas in the
first place. You know, like, I always remember talking to
my uncle like he's a right wing guy DVRs Fox
News to watch and he's like, my favorite pologist on
(41:45):
the Democratic side is Bernie.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
Even though I think he's kind of left you socials crazy, whatever,
he is honest, he's real and authentic about what he
believes in, and I expect that.
Speaker 2 (41:55):
I think that respect that.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
I think that that goes a long way to be
unapologetic but also have a vision of change, shaking things
up on common sense issues where Americans know they are
getting screwed. But I don't think the Democratic Party has
learned their lesson on this at all. This is a
very recent conversation the two Democratic centers here on the left,
(42:17):
Chris Coons of Delaware and gen Ji King of New Hampshire,
talking to this lady from Politico, and look how they
react when Rocanna, who is another person I put in
that boat who does generally want to change things, unapologetic
about his beliefs, wants to shake things up in the system.
This is how he is talked about by his colleagues,
who are now so confused about how they went wrong
(42:39):
in this whole situation.
Speaker 3 (42:41):
Well, and I think there are a lot of voters
that instinctively like cringe at this idea because they do
have those memories, right. And I've interviewed Congressman Rocanna recently
who's been advocating for the Democratic Party to be the
anti war party. He said that the party has become
too hawkish in his opinion. Is this an opportunity for
(43:04):
Democrats to move more in that direction? As you're hearing
from Americans that they don't want is I mean one
of the reasons so much of the president's base is
frustrated is because they voted for him because they felt
that he was the anti war president, that he made
promises that we would not be as t tangled foreign conflicts.
(43:25):
Is this an opportunity for Democrats? Might you be missing
that opportunity if you don't sort of look at that
messaging as a path for the party now.
Speaker 9 (43:35):
And I think Rokanna is wrong. Okay, the fact is,
foreign policy isn't that easy. You can't just say I'm
against all conflicts because they're all going to be against
America's interest or against global entering.
Speaker 3 (43:49):
What do you say to the.
Speaker 1 (43:52):
Yeah, so what a clip there? It just it shows
exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party is you
got people like from Andrew Schultz out on out, you know,
essentially telling you that we want change, we're inspired by
people like Zoran, we want to end the wars, we
want to focus on America. You know, even taking up
the America versus Jenny, it could go to the Democratic Party.
(44:14):
You could capture a lot of energy. You have to
call it America first. You don't have to, you know,
pan these people by paying some sort of lip server
as a Trump But these people are just the contempt
these two senators have for anyone says, oh, maybe we
shouldn't do these words. It's like no, don't you know
how complicated the world is. It's like, yeah, I know
how complicated the world it is. It's a lot of
it is because we've been intervening everywhere for the past
(44:35):
you know, twenty five years and also really a lot longer, NonStop.
And here's another another great article on that new poll
delivering troubling signs for the Democrats. The poll conducted by
Unite the Country, a Democratic super pac, showing voters perceiving
the Democratic Party as out of touch.
Speaker 2 (44:51):
Woke, and weak.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
The party has seen a support a road with white men,
Hispanic men, working class voters across the board, with the
approval rating sitting below thirty five percent across those demographics.
An enthusiasm within the party continues to wan in the
wake of twenty twenty four, the poll revealed. And it's
because you know, even after all this stuff, you know,
this searching for a way to make a dent in November,
(45:12):
you got all these post mortems and you got a
big kind of impact on you know, Trump's beautiful bill
just happened. That was a big situation, that was a
big opportunity for a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
They had hard but even these even.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
These kind of posters, these kind of super pac supported
posters who you know, probably wouldn't be open to they'd
be scared by the ideas of it, you know, Mom,
Donnie or Sanders. They are saying a lot of the
same stuff. We missed the opportunity to really define a
different kind of vision. This is exactly what so many
people on the left have been saying. But then the
thing is when you go and you ask for that
(45:45):
kind of vision, you're met with the same kind of
contempt from people like these those two senators and that
clip that we just played. So the party has some
serious rethinking to do when it comes about policies and
it comes about messaging. We must do better to This
is a great quote here from the guy who did
(46:06):
the poll. We do better when we meet voters where
they are and bring them along on the other issues.
And if you're where you know, we would say this
is where we are. We're fighting for this vision. You know,
we're going to be authentic about it, and we're going
to talk to you like you're kind of a normal person,
who talk to you like you're not some sort of
kind of child who has to be lectured about. You know, oh,
(46:28):
the world is so complicated you wouldn't understand that type
of thing, and bring them along on other shoes. And
nine times at ten, what they really care about is
whether or not they're going to be able to afford healthcare,
whether or not their kids are going to live, go
to a good school, housing, living paycheck to paycheck. And
I think what is really clear is and even you know,
even Andrew Schultz, even the kind of broad kind of
cultural middle, is starting to realize that Democrats in the
(46:52):
center don't have any answers on these kind of questions.
They don't have any answers about healthcare, housing, child wildcare,
we're kind of building a secure job, job security, getting
paid a good wage.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
They don't have any real answers on that.
Speaker 1 (47:08):
They're just saying no oh, talking about the biographical identities,
they're talking about literally anything other than transformative policy. And
it shows you that despite the contempt that you're going
to meet from so many people in the Democratic but
even the super Pac Bobby that did this poll is
(47:28):
not going to be a big fan again of those
of those some kind of more left wing policies.
Speaker 2 (47:33):
But you need to have a.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
Clear, confident, unapologetic vision to again make people's lives better
on those issues healthcare, schooling, housing, job security, wage growth,
all those kind of things. You need to be unapologic
and saying this is a problem, We're going to change it.
Here's how talk to people like, you know, like they
(47:57):
know what they're talking about and they're not idiots, because
a lot of them aren't idiots, and you could really
start to get somewhere the people that you don't need
to talk about Epstein all day. Essentially my point to
win back somebody like Andrew Schultz. If you push through
these people like these two senators, if you push through
(48:19):
people that say, oh, it's impossible, Oh, people are never
gonna support this, and you actually foster leaders who deliver change,
who are serious about it and also unapologetic and confident
about it, you really could be going somewhere. And I
think that really does and Steve Shale here, who is
I believe it's a pretty centrals Democrats says they want
(48:41):
us to have different leaders.
Speaker 2 (48:43):
There's a segment of voters said, I.
Speaker 1 (48:44):
Voted for Barack Obama and I voted for Donald Trump
because I thought they were gonna stand up to Washington.
They have very different views of the world, but I
believe they would go to Washington and fight for me
and not fight for Washington. It's a good argument for
more outside voices right now. If I could with a
magic wand I'd love to see the money that gets
spent on things like studying podcasts for young guys and
being spent on electing mayors and down ballot and city
(49:05):
council members and non partisan Democrats and even state legislators
to begin that process of rebuilding trust with voters.
Speaker 2 (49:12):
So again, I think he's even though.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
He's not going to you know, understand, I think the
policy part that makes all this so important and unapologic
belief and actually a policy vision. It's interesting to see
at least some parts of the Democratic Party realizing that
this old way of you know, playing to everything but
policy when it comes to the Trump era and just
(49:36):
being very meek and hyping up things like, you know,
kind of social and identity issues that aren't even resonating
with the people that they're supposed to be resonating with
is not going to be long for this world. And
you can certainly see that again it change is coming
the Democratic base, by the way, and this bowl shows
it as well.
Speaker 2 (49:54):
The Democratic base could.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
Not be more dissatisfying the current direction of the Democratic Party.
And it's very very interesting to see people like Andrew
Schultz turning away from Trump and his idiocy, but not
turning towards the mainstream center of Democratic Party because he
knows they have nothing to offer, but really towards the
people like Mom, Donnie, like Bernie, like AOC, like even
(50:17):
people like Rocanna, who are unapologetically advocating for a different
set of beliefs that is going to change things on
every level from again, from foreign policy to housing, to
healthcare to job security, all things like that, change it
all and take the fight to Washington. That is all
(50:44):
we have for you this week. Thank you very much
for listening. My name is Spence Walsh. Reminder, all videos
are up on YouTube and we are back on Monday.
Hello, everyone, Welcome to the show today. My name is
Spencer Walsh.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Have a great show for you today.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
As always on the show, today we are taking a
look at the trade wars. They have resumed again and
no one quite knows what to make of them. Are
they going to be slapped with fifty percent or twenty
percent tariffs on a moment's notice or it's just before
the tariff is said to come into effects.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
Is tru I'm gonna check it out.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Nobody can guess, and it's causing some chaos throughout the
global economy. Also, horrific news coming out of Gaza as
Israel continues their genocidal onslaught, now announcing plans essentially in
public to build a concentration camp.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Even Haratz, the top Israeli.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Newspaper, has called it such will give you all of
the disturbing details on that. Also, Jeffrey Epstein cover up
fallout continues. Dan Mangino, FBI deputy director, considering resigning over
the way it's all handled, and a new analysis from
Wired says that the footage could have been manipulated, could
(01:22):
have been edited in Adobe Premiere.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
Pro of all places.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Tell you the implications of that and all of the
White House drama. Also one of the top pro Trump podcasters,
one of those podcasts bros who switched over and provided
a big support to Trump in the wake of twenty
twenty four now says Trump is no longer America First,
and he has a surprising new designation for who actually is.
(01:48):
It's not who you'd expect in American politics. While all
of those details for you and more, and of course
a reminder, all of our clips from today's show will
be on YouTube in the next forty eight hours. Donald
Trump has at least now for the moment, stopped starting
real wars and has now gone into starting trade wars again.
(02:12):
And it is really causing quite a lot of chaos
in the economy, but maybe even and this this almost
sounds kind of weird to say, not as much chaos
as the last time he went through with all of
this trade war business. Because of this new acronym you've
probably heard of called taco, which is Trump always chickens out.
But it is really really pissing a lot of people off.
(02:35):
But above all, it is confusing a lot of the
very same people he is trying to negotiate with. Here
blunt letters dictating terms posted to social media, and changes
late negotiations have left trading partners wondering what President Trump
will do next. That is how the New York Times
puts it. Six months into his new administration, President Trump'
(02:56):
assault on global trade has lost any seblance of organization
or structure. He changed headlines, He's blown up. Negotiations at
the eleventh are often raising unexpected issues. He has tied
his tariffs to complaints that have nothing to do with trade,
like Brazil's treatment of its foreign president jirobol scenario, or
the flow of fentanyl from Canada. And it's just like
you know, girabol scenario. First of all, he tried to
(03:19):
do his own January sixth that somehow went even worse
than Trump's January sixth. So of course, you know, Trump
sees a kindred spirit in him. But even no normal president,
no normal person sensible about leading the American Empire in
a way that is meant to continue the development of
the American outpire. Just leading America for America's sake, let alone,
(03:42):
doing the right thing, would raise this kind of domestic
issue when it comes to a trade negotiation. The point
is that is for Brazil to figure out, you know,
is something they have to deal with.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
And the thing, you know, if remember back in the.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Early days of this whole trade war business, it was
the Fed those footing over the borders from Canada and
Mexico again with no evidence. He's just throwing this stuff
out there, seeing what sis and the people who kind
of have followed him the best and who have kind
of covered him unbiasley for the longest period of time,
they say, it's really who gets in the room last
with Trump, who tells him this. One big thing that
(04:19):
really changes is thinking, you know, who puts the right
print out of an article in front of him where
he's like, wow, we're getting screwed here, you know, that
is what That's what shapes his thinking. That is what
shapes his decision making process. It's not anything. And this
comes with a lot of policy. This then comes with
immigration policy, this comes with foreign policy, and of course
(04:41):
with trade policy. There's no kind of guiding principle beyond
a vague sense of agrievement on all these different issues.
And the problem without with not having guiding principle is
you cause a lot of chaos.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
You throw a.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Big you know, create a big scene to create a
big whirlwind, and then you have the world when going
and you don't even know what to do next. You
have no plan, you have no broader vision, and that
is something we have really seen here with these tariffs.
This is the our Langa Hartarto definitely bushering that name.
(05:16):
She said, talks with or I hope that's she.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
I'm not I'm not too.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Familiar with the Indonesian names. Sorry, but it's it gave
me kind of female vibes. But anyway, talks with the
United States. This person says, we're like going through a
labyrinth and arriving back.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
To square one. Uh.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
She is the he she they whatever is the is
the Indonesian minister for Economic Affairs who met with US
officials in watching it on Wednesday and they're just like.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
Well, I don't know what to do.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
This is this is crazy here, you know, Japan, South Korea.
They came to the White House. They went to Washington
to go and try and negotiate with Trump and gave
him what he wanted. And this was months ago and
the White House essentially didn't have an Instagram. They had
no clear plan. They created the tempest, they created the storm,
They kicked up the dust. And then when countries trying
(06:06):
and come and negotiate with the most powerful, powerful nation
on the face of the earth, you know they don't
have anything for them. Steve or not Steve Wikoff in
this case, but Howard Lutnik for example, Scott Bessen for example.
They have no concrete demands to even take to Ukraine,
to even or Japan to even begin the negotiation process
(06:30):
because they are not serious about actively fixing our trade
problems and actively re shoring American jobs because they just
you know, it's a it's a vague impulse. It's policy
making based on spur of the moment feelings and no
sort of broader plan. And we are again really really
seeing the consequences of it here. We're still far away
(06:51):
from making real deal, says Carston Bresky, the global head
of macroeconomics at the Bank i n G in Germany.
He called the uncertainty poison for the global economy. But
the interesting thing is here, you know, you you you're
pissing a lot of people off, you're not really making
any major deals, but you're also backing down on the deals.
If you're the Trump administration, so frequently that the markets
(07:13):
aren't even reacting. You know, you're just insulting these countries
for no reason, and you're not even really making any
dent in anything.
Speaker 2 (07:19):
Like take a look at this here. This is from
Brazil just hours.
Speaker 1 (07:25):
Ago, in the wake of these new trade wars. You know,
they're burning Trump in effigy on the street and burning
American flags.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It's quite crazy.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
Seeing how to counter Trump's threat of fifty tariffs starting August.
Speaker 4 (07:48):
First, we can appeal to the World Trade Organization, demand investigations,
demand explanations, but above all, we have the reciprocity lawyer.
We'll try to negotiate, but if there's no deal, will
match his to keep the scene.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Yeah, so that's the Brazilian president there who is essentially
saying we are trying to we're gonna go in and
we're gonna match the fifty percent tariffs at a certain
point because we have that principle of reciprocity. And you know,
there's also a very good chance that he backs down
on this whole thing because someone else gets in his
ear and sells, well, this is not gonna be good policy,
or it gets struck down by the courts or whatever,
(08:22):
and we're all just back to square one, and it's
just completely completely chaotic scene and it's almost hard to
you know, the way these tariffs are done in the
first place, that is bad policy, because when you do
these tariffs, you're supposed to do them a lot slower,
a lot less steep. You know, you're supposed to maybe
do a ten to twenty percent traff instead of like
a fifty percent era or a you know, one hundred
(08:44):
and fifteen or whatever the hell Trump had to do
with China before he was kind of.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Talked off the ledge there.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
That's bad policy in the first place, because you're supposed
to again take it slow, build kind of invest in
American industry at the same time as you're doing these tariffs.
That's what all the series tariff advocates say, and I
would say that I'm a general support of that line
of thinking, not this kind of crazy method that Trump's
doing here. But also even you know, that almost doesn't
(09:11):
even really matter, because again, he is backing down on
these deals in you know, such a and these kind
of bold proclamations like oh, this is going to go
to effect August first, you know, get ready, Brazil, get ready,
South Korea, get ready copper industry. You know, we're gonna
come for you with these tariffs, and it just really
never seems to follow through. Gone is the idea here,
(09:35):
and I think this kind of goes along with this.
Gone is the idea that the White House would strike
ninety deals in ninety days after a period of rapid
fire negotiation, as Trump pledged in April, instead watching the
sign bare bones agreements with training partners, including China, while
sending many other countries blunt and mostly standardized letters announcing
hefty tariffs to start on August first, and you know,
the same way. I think the July ninth we just passed.
(09:56):
It was the last date, you know, and that completely
came and gone. A lot of the champs were pushed
back even further, like there is not even any credibility
to the rest of the world that they have towards
Trump that he will follow through on this crazy, stupid
way of implementing tariffs. So that is a kind of
incredible way of looking at it. The policy amakers in Indonesia,
(10:20):
Japan and elsewhere learned about letters setting tariffs only when
Trump posted them on social media. Erlanga said, oh, it
was a guy mister Erlanga said he was surprised and
amazed to find his country would face a thirty two
percent tariff, unchanged from what was announced on April. Negotiation
has been going well, he thought. Training partners who had
received such letters are now frantically pushing to reduce the
(10:41):
country's specific rates, which range from twenty to fifty percent,
though Trump has at some points suggested that rooms to
negotiate may be limited for those who have not received
a letter. Trump suggested on Thursday the European Unions was
coming imminently. The developments have underscored that any negotiations are precarious.
Trade deals appeared to hinge on one person and Trump,
and even carefully constructed agreements can be upended on a whim.
(11:05):
People are dealing with it as a rolling damage limitation exercise,
said Andrew Small, a senior fillow the German Marshall Fund
who worked until recently as an advisor to the European
Union's Executive arm And it really is, you know, it's
incredible for so many reasons here in this in this uh,
this whole entire trade war set up because, first of all,
(11:26):
even if it was done competently, the implementation of these
stereoups still again to all our allies in such a
steep way with no sort of domestic investment.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
That is stupid.
Speaker 1 (11:34):
First of all, you don't even have that. You have
Trump setting up these deals, blowing them apart for no
good reason, just because the last person in the room
told them, uh. And then you have to shut another deal.
And then when that deadlie comes, it's pushed off even further.
So again, it is a complete farce. It is a
complete joke. It's and it's it's turning a lot of
(11:55):
people who otherwise would have been very predisposed to America
so side more and more trade deals with China. Look
for that over the next coming weeks and months, as
we get closer to this August first deadline, we will
see more and more of countries who would have been
in any other time in the South Pacific and South
America whatever, you know, they would have been fined to
(12:15):
negotiate with America. They would have preferred to negotiate with America.
But now given this situation, you know, boy, are they
going to run for the safety and security of Xijiping,
China faster than you could.
Speaker 2 (12:30):
Say Liberation Day.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
More and more disturbing news continuing to come out of
Israel as they continue there daily on slot in their
genocidal war in Gaza. We have actually seen some kind
of interesting, what felt like signs of hope. But then
of course, given the nature of the US and Israeli government,
it's there's a lot more there than meets the eye
(12:56):
with these ceasefire negotiations. Essentially what has been happening is
for since about Sunday, so about a week or so,
we've had Steve Whitcough in Dohat meeting with Kataris and
Egyptians Israelis on the other side, and then Hamas is
also negotiating there as well for you know, what would
(13:16):
be kind of a framework.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
To the deal.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
It seems almost certain at this point there's going to
be some sort of a sixty day ceasefire which is
going to essentially allow the Israelis to get back to
whatever they started doing, exactly what they did before in
terms of you know, pushing Palasinians down to the south,
killing them on a daily basis in these aid massacres,
and just generally continuing to raise and I'd say that
(13:42):
with the shaving down to nothing, not the building up,
the definition there of the gods strip and the main
kind of staking point. Essentially, Hamas has said that not
only will they step down from power, and not only
will they hand over power to a kind of human error,
a kind of a unity government, a technocratic committee is
what they call it in Gaza. While there is some
(14:05):
sort of actual Palestinian control of Gaza that is democratically
accountable and not under a constant stiege by the Israelis,
they've actually committed to doing that, but they've also kind
of held firm on what they want the seasfire to
look like and the big sixty ACS fire. Even though
they pretty much everyone knows that the Israelis are going
(14:27):
to restart this war come hell or high water in
sixty days after the ceasefire. No, there's now even more
plans for Israel that they want to speed up this
displacement of the Palestinians by building what even Israeli media
has called a concentration camp. Let's go to Ryan Grimm.
He explained this the day on Breaking Points. It's a
(14:47):
really great show, that very informative show that kind of
essentially what the Israelis are going after and why even
the US is saying, hey, let's just take a pause
for sixty days, then you can go back. Enough this
kind of concentration camp nonsense here, this is just just
a little bit too much here. Let's say look at
how Ryan Graham of drop site News explains it.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
Israel.
Speaker 5 (15:12):
You can put up B three here the fundamental divide,
and there are you know, there still are, as I
understand it, these four major divides, which include humanitarian aid,
you know, governance of Gaza. But in particular, the main
divide is that Israel is insisting that it be able
(15:36):
to create a concentration camp for Palestinians in the south
of Gaza on the rubble of Rafa. They call it
a humanitarian city. They're saying it out loud. The idea
is that they would Palestinians, something like six hundred thousand
of them at first, would be moved into a makeshift
(16:01):
quote unquote humanitarian city, vetted ahead of time, so okay,
everybody in once in, would not be allowed out until
they are basically processed for expulsion what they call voluntary
immigration or whatever you want to call it.
Speaker 1 (16:20):
And we have this in the drop side News article
here as well. This is talking about this voluntary exportation
or deportation proposal. Israel Katz with the Defense Minister essentially
confirmed it confining to this camp, not gonna be allowed
to leave. They're gonna be subjected to security screenings and
then house intense and then they will kind of pave
(16:41):
the way for Saudi Arabia UAE to come in.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Take over the camp.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
And then oh, now we're getting these other people, not us,
but these other people to come in and work with
our allies to then essentially shift these people off to
you know whatever. There's a very reminiscent of Hitler's Madagascar plan,
where essentially say we're carting off these undesirables to another
you know, to another place, another far off African place
(17:08):
or whatever, so somewhere in the distance where we don't
ever have to worry about these people ever.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Again.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Uh, this is a quote here from net Yahoo. We're
seeking we're working with the United States very closely about
finding countries that will seek to realize what they always
say that they want to give the Palestinians a better future.
Dante claimed, I think we're getting close to finding several countries,
so that is what they're trying to do. And that
is what the US is working with them to do
here on this deal. You know, they have this these
(17:37):
fun facing negotiations and then they assigned negotiations where they're
making these broader uh, these broader, broader plans.
Speaker 5 (17:45):
And within this humanitarian city. Uh, then Israel would be
responsible for both security and and keeping people alive, no
medical care and food.
Speaker 6 (17:57):
Uh.
Speaker 5 (17:58):
From the Palestinian perspective, this is a concentration camp and
it is not just Palestinian.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
By the way, there's an opt in Horrez today calling
it a.
Speaker 5 (18:08):
Concert from from from from the Israeli media. Again, it's
from from from from words like from like from the
description of it.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
It's that's it's what it is.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
It's just it's it's utterly horrifying. And so uh, you've
I've seen some people joking that like Israel's insistence on
concentration camps seems to be a sticking point in the negotiation.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
It's like, yeah, what world you think?
Speaker 5 (18:31):
So but now we still we still may get a deal,
and so that raises very interesting questions and soccer I
were talking about this before the show started, which is why,
like if you would you would think from the Palestinian perspective,
if what's on the table for you is first a
concentration camp and then expulsion, that is a non starter.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yet it is.
Speaker 5 (18:58):
It is not a non starter. And Hamas's is very responded,
as they said, positively to the initial to the initial agreement,
which doesn't really include all of this, but like Israel's
being very clear publicly that this is what they consider
to be what would be the terms of the deal
(19:19):
and what they would do.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yeah, that it kind of goes why would Hamas agree
to this? From what I've seen and with the reporting
is from Dropside News, which is doing very valuable reporting
because they're really the only ones that actually talk to
the other side of this and not just take what
the United States and Israel say as the only side
of the story, the only kind of part of the story.
(19:40):
What they have said is the yeah, they know sixth
the acies are eventually going to lead to some sort
of a reinvasion, some sort of continuation on the genocide,
but they are willing to take that chance. They're willing
to just take that reprieve so long as they don't
have Israeli truths coming in and building this concentrate camp
(20:00):
on the South of the south of Gaza right by Rotha.
They have this this Morag corridor that you know, the
people in Hamas called this was a Morag ghetto. And
if they are staying at least when now they're saying
publicly insistently, we will not bend or break when it
comes to that particular part, we will allow maybe you know,
(20:22):
Las says they want the troops to go back to
where they were on March second, which was right when
they went back into Gaza after that three months ceasefire
and they started moving back in they which of course
would not allow them, and of course critically here they
would get rid of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and they
would then allow you know, normal aid distributing people that
(20:43):
don't shoot people trying to seek aid a k A.
The u N and the palsing in Red Crescent, which
has just done insane, insanely amazing work throughout this this
whole entire time side risking their lives on a daily
basis to be shot at by the Israelis. They want
them distributing aid, not the GHF, and they want Israeli
troops out for the sixty day ceasefire period, whether they
(21:06):
get some sort of chance to reveal and the boats
open with Egypt to get the sick and out there.
And again for all this they would say again, we
would even step down, We would even you know, transfer
control of our armed groups to other people. But we're
not getting rid of our arms because we know this
is going to happen again in sixty days. So that
is that is where the situation is. And I think
(21:27):
what's going to be really interesting here is to see
where the US plays in in all of this.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Are they going to.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Essentially force the big questions the US here is are
they going to force Hamas to or not force the Maas,
but force Israel to go some sort of the way
of saying, you can't have troops. Maybe you can have troops,
you know a little bit into Gaza, but not as
much into Gaza as you would want. And you don't
have to keep them all the way out like Hamas wants.
You know, you could or let some aid in but
(21:55):
not all the aid. We give the UN a chance,
but we don't let the palestinecrest come in. In other words,
force Israel to make some sort of concessions toward Hamas
to try and get this deal done even if it
is for sixty days, and even if there's an understanding
between which Bible accounts there is an understanding between the
US and Israel that we'll be able to resume this
(22:17):
thing in sixty days, then depending on how they do that,
it's very possible the United States and see Wick cough
could make a big show of it. But then they
just essentially let Israel or stand by the Israeli demand,
essentially to let let them come in build this concentration
camp in the southern parts of Gad, which they want
(22:38):
to do while this sixty eight cease fire is going on,
and then set away for expansion. They could totally end
up co signing these demands with Israel, even though in
the original stages the Americans and the Kataris told Israel
that goes too far. They could, you know, easily change
back on that. But then the question is would Hamas
agree to that. Would they agreed to letting Israeli continue
(23:01):
to operate within their boarders even and build this concentration
camp even after a safety day cease fire is in place.
So that's gonna be very interesting. I think it's gonna
be very interesting. Again, we already know what it is
we wants to They want to build this concentration camp.
They want to house these Palestinians in this concentration camp
where they have complete control over everything, could giving out
food and you know, giving medical care, which any you'd
(23:24):
have to be stupid to trust the Israelis to do
the Palestinians, especially after eighteen months of this genocide.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
That's what they want to do.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
But the question is will Hamas kind of give in
and allow them to do that. And if Amos does
give in, will the Americans let what Hamas eventually gives
into be less than what Israel ultimately wants. We'll be
some sort of reduced continuation on the genocide during this
(23:53):
sease fire. Those are going to be the kind of
key things to watch here. It really is primarily in
the United States court, but it's also gonna be very
very very interesting here to see what Hamas has to
say about all of this as well, and how willing
they are to interface with this incredible, incredible pressure and
this starving starve campaign of starvation and this perfidy perfidy.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
I think this is the right way you'd say it.
Speaker 1 (24:20):
Whereas AID is being completely weaponized that people are being
killed every day and in trying to receive aid. You know,
how long are they going to let this continue to happen.
It'll be very very interesting to see. But then also
on the front of Iran, you know, the US and Israel.
This is the verge on how to pursue iran endgame
(24:41):
after strikes. Diplomats say this is in Reuters. Trump prefers
to use diplomacy in dealing with Ron. He said, Okay,
we bomb them, en off, Let's get them back to
the table. Let's get them try to negotiate. Even as
you know Opasarachi and Mazou pazeshkiin who are the respectably
foremist and President of Iran, They're saying, we want to
come to the table, even after the table last time
(25:02):
got blown up. And Trump doesn't want to get involved
in any sort of a broader conflict with Iran. Meanwhile,
netanyahuofavors using more force and essentially being able to bomb
Israel or sorry, enable getting a United States s green
light to let Israel bomb Iran as much as they want,
whenever they want, without any sort of consequence. It's gonna
(25:23):
be very interesting to see, you know where they where
they go there as well. So that is a very
big golf. And as we saw with the Twelve Day War,
Israel was losing out on interceptors already, so they need
US support to do this. If they If you see
Israel continuing to bomb Iran again, just know it is
with complete US backing, because they need US support when
(25:45):
it comes to interceptors, when it comes to refueling the
missiles in the kind of THAD batteries and stuff that
we're getting, those those high range missiles and all that
kind of stuff, So they need support for Israel needs
US support for that. That is one bottom line. But
the second bottom line here, and I think this is
really really important thing with regard to Gaza is it's
(26:09):
going to be very very interesting to see a how
what Hamasa is going to accept in order to give
their people a break on these seast right negotiations, and
b how much is the United States going to try
an adulter rate in some way to kind of lessen
the genocidal the demands of the Israelis. Are they going to,
for example, force Israeli troops to go somewhat withdrawal from Gaza,
(26:33):
or they can let them go in fully and build
this concentration camp that they want to build that Ryan
Graham explained, Or are they going to fully push them
back to the border between Israel and Gaza for sixty
days while they give essentially Gaza a chance to recoup.
How long how many of Amasa's demands is the United
(26:54):
States going to push Israel.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
To agree to?
Speaker 1 (26:57):
And let's be honest, it's very possible that there is
none at all. So really really awful, dark dark times
continuing for the people of Palestine and particularly Gaza. The
craziness and the fallout is continuing on this Epstein story,
both in Maga world and beyond. We have drama in
(27:18):
the White House Dan Bongino, who is this kind of
plucked out of conservative media, red face screamer type of guy,
former Secret Service agent who was put in charge of
deputy director at least of the FBI. The director Cash
Mattel was kind of much of the same story here
in terms of coming out of right wing social media
into the FBI with the explicit promise of breaking open
(27:40):
stories that would punch the deep state, like the Jeffrey
Epstein situation and many others essentially people that opposed Trump.
They were, and for the last few days have been
roasted over holes by the MAGA base for this Epstein
report that essentially said there's no there there. Epstein didn't
have a client list, he didn't blackmail anybody. He just
(28:03):
wanted all these girls, these underaged girls, for himself, and
there was no broader operation there. That means a lot
of people very very outraged and suspicious and in the
way that fallout. Now, Dan Bongino is considering resigning over
the way, and he blames Attorney General Pam Bondi for
(28:24):
the way this all went down.
Speaker 7 (28:26):
All right, This breaking news sources tell CNN that Deputy
FBI Director Dan Bongino has told people that he's considering
resigning amid a major clash between the FBI and dj
over the continued fallout from the release or lack thereof,
of the Jeffrey Epstein memo. Joining us right now in files.
(28:46):
Joining us right now on the phone is Sanna Anchor
and Chief White House correspondent Kaitlyn Collins. Caitlin, what more
are you learning?
Speaker 6 (28:53):
Yeah, Fred? It remains to be seen if he actually
follows through with what he has told colleagues. But what
we do know is that Dan Bongeo has told people
he is considering resigning as the Deputy director of the
FBI over the fallout that has continued ever since this
memo was released last time. The anger instead of the
maga bass has only continued to grow instead of going
(29:15):
away as some officials inside hopes it would. And now
our colleagues, along with Christian Holmes, Sannrabinowitz, and Evan Perez,
we're hearing that he's considering resigning after they had this
heated confrontation with the Attorney General Pam Bondi over the
handling of this earlier this week.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
Yeah, so let's break that down here a little bit more.
This is from Axios, which is one of those that
was really talking about it. This is a scoop here
from Axios. FBI's Dan Mangino clashes with ag Bondi overhandling
of the Epstein files and essentially because the center of
the argument's all about this missing surveillance video from outside
(29:53):
Epstein cell the administration releasing was proof no one had
entered the room before he killed himself. The town Now
video has had what has widely been called a missing minute,
which fueled, of course, a lot of conspiracy theories that
something happened in that missing minute of the footage. The
missing minute authority say stem from an old surveillance recording
(30:14):
system that goes down each day at midnight to reset
and record anew It takes a minute for that process
to occur, which effectively means sixty seconds of every day
aren't recorded. All normal, Nothing to see here. What happened
with the guards prosposed to sleep? I don't know, but Bongino,
who had pushed the Epstein's conspiracy theories as a MAGA
(30:34):
friendly podcast host, and I kind of hesitate to call
them conspiracy theories, but that's what they labeled.
Speaker 2 (30:39):
Axios is putting on it.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
Before Trump had appointed him to help lead the FBI
had found the video and touted it publicly and privately
as proof that Epstein hadn't been murdered.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
That conclusion was.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Shared by FBI director Cash Mattel, another conspiracy theorist turned
insider anger. Many and Trump's backabase made criticism that increased
after Axios first reported the release of the video in
a related memo, He's been roasted over the clothes here
all week long. Two sources familiar with Bongino's position, saying
(31:12):
he said he was increasingly displeased with Bonnie's handling of
the Epstein case because she had publicly overpromised and underdelivered
disclosures about an Epstein client list that apparently never existed. Meanwhile,
Laura Lumer first kind of reported this and trying to
essentially stir up the fact that there was real kind
of beef essentially percolating between them in this White House.
(31:37):
Those witnessing the Wednesday clash between Bonnie and Bongino in
the White House or Patel, White House Chief of the
Staff Stoosey Wiles, and Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowitch.
During the meeting, Bongino was confronted about a News Nation
article that said he and Patel wanted more information about
the Epstein to be released earlier but were held back.
Bongino denied leaking the idea, and apparently it was a
(32:00):
very angry, heated conversation that didn't end on friendly terms.
Bongino left angry. The sore said the fact is Dan
was for releasing the information with the video and had
no problem until he got heat online. Bongino found the
video with the missing minute, he vouched for it after
a thorough review and thought that would end the matter.
(32:21):
When that didn't work, he lost his mind and ran
out of DC. So Bongino was reportedly kind of hyping
up this missing video that was supposed to this missing
minute video that was supposed to be this whole saving
grace of this whole situation. So but the thing about
the missing minute video, and he's really what it seems
(32:42):
here is Bongino is mad at Pam Bondi for covering
it up in a way that would make Bongino look bad,
and Bondie in turn is mad at Bongino for hyping
up this missing minute which was a bunch of bs.
And I say it's a bunch of bs because this
is just now I have to use this Times of
India piece because Wired is behind the paywall. But Wired
(33:05):
is reporting now in a metadata analysis that the video
was edited on Adobe Premiere Pro and the metadata was
all messed up.
Speaker 2 (33:17):
Apparently.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
The report said the footage was not directly extracted from
the present surveillance system, but was likely modified using Adobe
Premiere Pro, but there is no evidence of what was
changed and whether the change was meant for any deception
that editing might just be a simple process before releasing
it to the public with no modifications together other than
joining two clips, Report added, But it triggered room for
suspicion that there had been no clear explanation. So it
(33:41):
wasn't just a file here. It was something that was
taken out, put into an editing software, and then something
was done with it, according to Wired. So it kind
of makes Bongino look pretty stupid for hyping up this
missing minute, even as Bongino is trying to blame Pam
Bondi because she apparently went on TV and she did
(34:01):
do this. She went on TV over promised talking about,
oh this this file list is out there, we have
the client list is sitting on my desk, and that
in turn made Bongino look bad. So they're both kind
of making each other look bad in the service of
trying to you know, and they're mad at each other
for that, in the service of trying to convince the
MAGA base.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
What they both believe is.
Speaker 1 (34:21):
That there's no more need for any investigation regarding Jeffrey Epstein.
So they're both kind of suspicious and self interested here.
But I think there's a wide report. It's really just
came out before we started recording. But it's gonna be
very interesting to see how this kind of feeds into
the conversation of a bunch of people who are going
to be quite worked up, if they get any sort
(34:43):
of hint, any sort of suspicion that the Trump administration,
of all people, the administration that was supposed to be
the fighters for truth, the fighters for justice, the people
taking on the deep state about this, if they were
editing this video, if they put this into an ending
software in any way, I think it's going to be
quite a big story.
Speaker 2 (35:04):
Jeffrey Epps.
Speaker 1 (35:04):
And by the way, people who know the situation, Julia Brown,
who's been a Miami Hill reporter on this story since
it first broke, like way back in two thousand and eight,
she said, Hey, you got the video from one way
into the cell, but there's also a video from there's
also a video from another way into the cell that
you didn't even catch. You know, there's a whole other
way into the cell that surveilled that wasn't part of
(35:27):
this video. Jeffrey Epstein. You know here was they give
a little background in this article. There were one hundred
and fifty in long surveillance cameras, but starting from July,
a technical error prevented almost half of them from recording.
The system was scheduled for repairs on August nine, the
night before Epstein was found dead, but it was not
done as the technician could not access the necessary equipment.
(35:50):
As a result, only two cameras were operational, one covering
the common area and another covering the ninth floor elevator bay,
which is where Epstein's cell was. The DOJ released thee
showing that no one entered the ninth floor area in
front of epstein'style between ten forty pm on Augustine twenty
nineteen and six thirty am the next morning. In the
footage released by the administration, it was a one minute
(36:12):
gap from leven fifty eight fifty eight seconds.
Speaker 2 (36:15):
To twelve o'clock at night.
Speaker 1 (36:18):
A turned General Pamboni explained this because again this technical
reason the restarting.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
The administration.
Speaker 1 (36:23):
They's explained that this gap is there in every recording.
But again, if that's true, why are you putting this
into the system. Why A you're trying to manipulate it,
why you're trying to do all these various different things
in Adobe premiere. I think that's going to be something
that's absolutely going to be adding a lot more fuel
to the fire here as this won't be going away
(36:45):
anytime soon in the conspiracy circles on the left, the center,
and the right, who are all very very much worked
up about the story because you put it in premiere
pro Why did you do that? I thought this was
supposedly the quote unquote off footage from the prison that
you know, Dan Bongino was finding, and it was so
(37:05):
hyped to put up to everyone. If it's not, if
it was edited, you know, that raises a whole host
of questions about what the hell are we looking at here?
And you know, really, what are these people who promised
to be so open and promise to be so forthright,
what the hell were they hiding. Andrew Schultz, who is
(37:27):
host of The Flagrant podcast, one of the biggest supporters
of Trump in the lead up to and really after
the twenty twenty four election, he has turned against Trump,
but he has not gone to the Democratic Party. He says,
the true representatives now of America first, and this is
really a clip that caught a lot of attention, caught
(37:47):
my attention for sure. The true representatives of the America First. Mantle,
in his opinion, are the Party of the Democratic Socialists
is what he says, not the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (38:01):
Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 8 (38:03):
The only party right now that to me seems America
first is the Democrat Socialist Party. Yep, Bernie is America First,
Mam Donnie and all his ideas that he will not
be able to execute it, and I frankly think many
of them are not good ideas, but he is, no
doubt New York First. The policies seem to want to
(38:25):
help people here. That's what I care about. If MAGA
wants to take this America First thing back, they got
to start looking out for America. It doesn't seem like
they're doing lying to Americans is not America person. There
is one lie, which is Epstein did not have a
blackmail ring on all these very influential people, and by
saying that that didn't happen, you have to tell a
lot of other little lies. Every one of them just
(38:46):
pulls a little piece of thread away from the family.
And we're starting to see right through right now, and
it's just embarrassing.
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Yeah, So I think that's a really interesting clip for
so many reasons. And I think it shows that for
so many people, people like Andrew Shultz and especially his audience,
you know, they're too busy to be, you know, following
them in new show polities every day, like you know,
if you're listening to show, you probably do and I
do as well, you know, but people all over of
(39:14):
any sort of political persuasion, they realize that the elite
are screwing with us. The elite are up to no good.
And the biggest encapsulation of that is Epstein. And if
you're a truth teller like Donald Trump, you're like outsider
establishment inside person and you get a lot of people
to vote for you on that basis. And then now
you're you're coming out and saying, look this Epstein.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
Guy, I don't heard about him. Well, stop talking about
this creed who even cares? Right?
Speaker 1 (39:38):
You know, it reads as so bs to so many
people who had a completely different perception of Trump. And
I also think it shows and it leaves a vacuum
for other people to come in, people like AOC, people
like Bernie Mom, Donnie whatever, these democratic socialist type people
to come in and make a case, build a path
(40:00):
for this is how we are going to win these
people back by being authentic, by being outsider, by pushing
for actual substantive policy change. Like it's it's not an
invitation for someone like mom Donnie to you know, talk
about Epstein all day long, but it's or for like
Burnie to talk about Epstein all day long.
Speaker 2 (40:20):
But what it does show you is quite clearly there
is a big, big space here for people who are
a authentic about what they believe, be unapologetic about what
they believe, and see actually have a vision that it's
you know, because of those two things, it's unquestionable what
(40:40):
they believe and you know, you know they're being honest
about what they believe in, but actually have a vision
that will shake things up, that will actually say, we
are going to leave your life, whether it be rent,
whether it be healthcare, whether it be childcare, whatever, we
are going to leave your life, especially on an economic basis,
better than we found it when we came into office.
(41:01):
We're going to actually improve your life, and we're we're
not gonna be afraid on stepping on some few toes
to do it. I think that is going it's incredibly
powerful message. And like you saw with Schultz, they're talking
about Mom, Donnie. You know, even if you don't agree
with the person on everything, even if you're a little
skeptical about how much they can get done, the authenticity,
(41:23):
the unapologetic confidence in a change based belief system, a
change based vision, changing his platform, whatever, that goes a
long way with a lot of people who may not
be necessarily the most predisposed to your ideas in the
first place. You know, like, I always remember talking to
my uncle like he's a right wing guy DVRs Fox
News to watch and he's like, my favorite pologist on
(41:45):
the Democratic side is Bernie.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
Even though I think he's kind of left you socials crazy, whatever,
he is honest, he's real and authentic about what he
believes in, and I expect that.
Speaker 2 (41:55):
I think that respect that.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
I think that that goes a long way to be
unapologetic but also have a vision of change, shaking things
up on common sense issues where Americans know they are
getting screwed. But I don't think the Democratic Party has
learned their lesson on this at all. This is a
very recent conversation the two Democratic centers here on the left,
(42:17):
Chris Coons of Delaware and gen Ji King of New Hampshire,
talking to this lady from Politico, and look how they
react when Rocanna, who is another person I put in
that boat who does generally want to change things, unapologetic
about his beliefs, wants to shake things up in the system.
This is how he is talked about by his colleagues,
who are now so confused about how they went wrong
(42:39):
in this whole situation.
Speaker 3 (42:41):
Well, and I think there are a lot of voters
that instinctively like cringe at this idea because they do
have those memories, right. And I've interviewed Congressman Rocanna recently
who's been advocating for the Democratic Party to be the
anti war party. He said that the party has become
too hawkish in his opinion. Is this an opportunity for
(43:04):
Democrats to move more in that direction? As you're hearing
from Americans that they don't want is I mean one
of the reasons so much of the president's base is
frustrated is because they voted for him because they felt
that he was the anti war president, that he made
promises that we would not be as t tangled foreign conflicts.
(43:25):
Is this an opportunity for Democrats? Might you be missing
that opportunity if you don't sort of look at that
messaging as a path for the party now.
Speaker 9 (43:35):
And I think Rokanna is wrong. Okay, the fact is,
foreign policy isn't that easy. You can't just say I'm
against all conflicts because they're all going to be against
America's interest or against global entering.
Speaker 3 (43:49):
What do you say to the.
Speaker 1 (43:52):
Yeah, so what a clip there? It just it shows
exactly what is wrong with the Democratic Party is you
got people like from Andrew Schultz out on out, you know,
essentially telling you that we want change, we're inspired by
people like Zoran, we want to end the wars, we
want to focus on America. You know, even taking up
the America versus Jenny, it could go to the Democratic Party.
(44:14):
You could capture a lot of energy. You have to
call it America first. You don't have to, you know,
pan these people by paying some sort of lip server
as a Trump But these people are just the contempt
these two senators have for anyone says, oh, maybe we
shouldn't do these words. It's like no, don't you know
how complicated the world is. It's like, yeah, I know
how complicated the world it is. It's a lot of
it is because we've been intervening everywhere for the past
(44:35):
you know, twenty five years and also really a lot longer, NonStop.
And here's another another great article on that new poll
delivering troubling signs for the Democrats. The poll conducted by
Unite the Country, a Democratic super pac, showing voters perceiving
the Democratic Party as out of touch.
Speaker 2 (44:51):
Woke, and weak.
Speaker 1 (44:52):
The party has seen a support a road with white men,
Hispanic men, working class voters across the board, with the
approval rating sitting below thirty five percent across those demographics.
An enthusiasm within the party continues to wan in the
wake of twenty twenty four, the poll revealed. And it's
because you know, even after all this stuff, you know,
this searching for a way to make a dent in November,
(45:12):
you got all these post mortems and you got a
big kind of impact on you know, Trump's beautiful bill
just happened. That was a big situation, that was a
big opportunity for a lot of people.
Speaker 2 (45:21):
They had hard but even these even.
Speaker 1 (45:24):
These kind of posters, these kind of super pac supported
posters who you know, probably wouldn't be open to they'd
be scared by the ideas of it, you know, Mom,
Donnie or Sanders. They are saying a lot of the
same stuff. We missed the opportunity to really define a
different kind of vision. This is exactly what so many
people on the left have been saying. But then the
thing is when you go and you ask for that
(45:45):
kind of vision, you're met with the same kind of
contempt from people like these those two senators and that
clip that we just played. So the party has some
serious rethinking to do when it comes about policies and
it comes about messaging. We must do better to This
is a great quote here from the guy who did
(46:06):
the poll. We do better when we meet voters where
they are and bring them along on the other issues.
And if you're where you know, we would say this
is where we are. We're fighting for this vision. You know,
we're going to be authentic about it, and we're going
to talk to you like you're kind of a normal person,
who talk to you like you're not some sort of
kind of child who has to be lectured about. You know, oh,
(46:28):
the world is so complicated you wouldn't understand that type
of thing, and bring them along on other shoes. And
nine times at ten, what they really care about is
whether or not they're going to be able to afford healthcare,
whether or not their kids are going to live, go
to a good school, housing, living paycheck to paycheck. And
I think what is really clear is and even you know,
even Andrew Schultz, even the kind of broad kind of
cultural middle, is starting to realize that Democrats in the
(46:52):
center don't have any answers on these kind of questions.
They don't have any answers about healthcare, housing, child wildcare,
we're kind of building a secure job, job security, getting
paid a good wage.
Speaker 2 (47:07):
They don't have any real answers on that.
Speaker 1 (47:08):
They're just saying no oh, talking about the biographical identities,
they're talking about literally anything other than transformative policy. And
it shows you that despite the contempt that you're going
to meet from so many people in the Democratic but
even the super Pac Bobby that did this poll is
(47:28):
not going to be a big fan again of those
of those some kind of more left wing policies.
Speaker 2 (47:33):
But you need to have a.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
Clear, confident, unapologetic vision to again make people's lives better
on those issues healthcare, schooling, housing, job security, wage growth,
all those kind of things. You need to be unapologic
and saying this is a problem, We're going to change it.
Here's how talk to people like, you know, like they
(47:57):
know what they're talking about and they're not idiots, because
a lot of them aren't idiots, and you could really
start to get somewhere the people that you don't need
to talk about Epstein all day. Essentially my point to
win back somebody like Andrew Schultz. If you push through
these people like these two senators, if you push through
(48:19):
people that say, oh, it's impossible, Oh, people are never
gonna support this, and you actually foster leaders who deliver change,
who are serious about it and also unapologetic and confident
about it, you really could be going somewhere. And I
think that really does and Steve Shale here, who is
I believe it's a pretty centrals Democrats says they want
(48:41):
us to have different leaders.
Speaker 2 (48:43):
There's a segment of voters said, I.
Speaker 1 (48:44):
Voted for Barack Obama and I voted for Donald Trump
because I thought they were gonna stand up to Washington.
They have very different views of the world, but I
believe they would go to Washington and fight for me
and not fight for Washington. It's a good argument for
more outside voices right now. If I could with a
magic wand I'd love to see the money that gets
spent on things like studying podcasts for young guys and
being spent on electing mayors and down ballot and city
(49:05):
council members and non partisan Democrats and even state legislators
to begin that process of rebuilding trust with voters.
Speaker 2 (49:12):
So again, I think he's even though.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
He's not going to you know, understand, I think the
policy part that makes all this so important and unapologic
belief and actually a policy vision. It's interesting to see
at least some parts of the Democratic Party realizing that
this old way of you know, playing to everything but
policy when it comes to the Trump era and just
(49:36):
being very meek and hyping up things like, you know,
kind of social and identity issues that aren't even resonating
with the people that they're supposed to be resonating with
is not going to be long for this world. And
you can certainly see that again it change is coming
the Democratic base, by the way, and this bowl shows
it as well.
Speaker 2 (49:54):
The Democratic base could.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
Not be more dissatisfying the current direction of the Democratic Party.
And it's very very interesting to see people like Andrew
Schultz turning away from Trump and his idiocy, but not
turning towards the mainstream center of Democratic Party because he
knows they have nothing to offer, but really towards the
people like Mom, Donnie, like Bernie, like AOC, like even
(50:17):
people like Rocanna, who are unapologetically advocating for a different
set of beliefs that is going to change things on
every level from again, from foreign policy to housing, to
healthcare to job security, all things like that, change it
all and take the fight to Washington. That is all
(50:44):
we have for you this week. Thank you very much
for listening. My name is Spence Walsh. Reminder, all videos
are up on YouTube and we are back on Monday.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com