July 18, 2025 • 44 mins
Also, find out if Zohran caved on Palestine, what it means Stephen Colbert got cancelled and what Biden's aide had to do in Congress
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, My name is Spencer Walsh. Welcome to today's
episode of New Slash.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
We have a good one for you.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
As always on the show, Today, Epstein Ain't going away Baby.
A new letter has been released by the Wall Street
Journal showing the insane message that Donald Trump sent to
Jeffrey Epstein on his fiftieth birthday. It's probably about as
weird as you could imagine. Will we'll give you the
full details on that and the new actions Attorney General
(00:40):
Pam Bondi is taking to keep the Epstein case going.
She's going to release some grand jury testimony files in
light of incredible pressure on her and Trump from the
VAGA base for letting the Epstein case.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Go by the wayside.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Whilst gonna be taking a look at Zoran Mom, Donnie Dad.
He came to pressure regarding his roblast in a fat
of comments on which he said literally never said that
he supported loblast in a fauto, but he's still been
hounded about it anyway, will break down the new video
that's causing some consternation among his pro Palestine supporters. Also,
(01:17):
Stephen Colbert's show is canceled. Was a capitulation by CBS
to Trump for their merger, their paramount merger to go
through by the CBS bosses, or was the sign of
the changing media landscape, or with Stephen Colbert just not
that funny and not that popular anymore. We will break
(01:38):
it down, we will debate it, and we'll go through
all the details. Also, Biden continuing to be a deadaweight
around the neck of the Democratic Party. Another aid has
had to take the fifth in the congressional hearings about
his age cover up. So that is definitely something Democrat
(02:00):
don't want to see. And the headlines will break that
all down for you. And as a reminder, as always,
our clips from the show will be up on this
Spence Wald YouTube channel, so go check that out and
subscribe if you want a visual aspect to the show.
Donald Trump is continuing to fall apart over continuing questions
(02:20):
about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He had spent the
last week or so just doing everything in his power
possible to convince people that he's not in Epstein files,
that they shouldn't be talking about the Epstein files. There's
no point, just move on, it's no big deal whatever,
And the only thing he's really done is convince people
more and more that he was in the Epstein files,
(02:42):
even his own supporters, even people who never thought that
he would be a part of the Epstein files. So
it's a very very interesting strategy here. This is the latest, though,
there's a really big step up in terms of the
craziness going on. Jeffrey Epstein's friends sent him body letters
for a fiftieth birthday album. One of them was from
Donald Trump, so he essentially the article essentially goes through
(03:04):
Glenn Maxwell. You know, she got every all the squad
into group chat, you know, Jeffrey Epstein's fiftieth birthday group chat,
and she collected you know, obviously I'm joking there. There
wasn't group chats back in two thousand and three. But
she gets all the friends together, has them said, oh,
just send a letter into Jeffrey's birthday. And one of
the friends that she calls is Donald Trump, and she
puts together this huge leather bound binder that has all
(03:27):
these notes, these kind of kind messages, you know, you're
my favorite pedophile from all these various powerful people that
were Epstein's friends and associates at the time. So Donald
Trump's was one of the you know, kind of prominently
featured ones. Let's go through here and see what it's said.
So the leather the letter concludes, happy birthday, blah blah
(03:50):
blah blah. Let's get into the actual the actual kind
of text of the article. So essentially the Wall Street
article here explains it. By the way, the fact this
is the Wall Street Journal is pretty significant. This is,
you know, one of Trump's biggest ideological allies in terms
of newspapers. You know, he doesn't have many. Rupert Murdoch
(04:10):
owns it, the same person that owns Flox News, So
it's a pretty big deal that this stuff is being published.
So it so is Trump essentially draws a kind of
sketch of a naked woman, and you know he did
it because if the letter is apparently a thick sharpie,
which is what Trump used to uses to sign everything
quite famously, But there is a sketch of a hand
(04:35):
drawn sketch.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Of a naked woman on it.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
You know, the little lines to highlight the breasts, and
you know, the hair and all that stuff, and you know,
on the kind of pubic hair area he signed his
name Donald and the I'm sure you've seen at some
point the signature that Trump does everywhere, this kind of scrawling,
very scrib lead signature that could totally be used if
(04:57):
it was placed in that area to signify a pubic
That was.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
One part of the uh.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
That was one part of the letter that ended up
in this binder for Jeffrey Epstein's fiftieth birthday that was
examined by the Justice Department. And so he essentially then
writes out this imagined conversation which is incredibly weird and
funny and kind of bone chilling at the same time
(05:23):
because it's Trump writing it. It isn't clear how the
letter with Trump sign to show was prepared. Inside the
outline of the Naked woman was a typewritten note styled
as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in
the third person, and there absolutely, by the way, should
be now it is a moral journalistic responsibility for the
Weltry Journal, in my opinion, to come out and take
a picture, to send a picture of this letter that
(05:45):
they supposedly have here. So it was written in the
third person as a script, as a conversation between Trump
and Epstein voiceover. There must be more to life than
having everything. The Noe began Donald, Yes, there is, but
I won't tell you what it is, Jeffrey, nor will
I since I also know what it is. Hmmm, Donald,
(06:05):
we do have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Yes we do,
Jeffrey says. Come to think of it, Donald Enigmas never age.
Have you noticed that, Jeffrey. As a matter of fact,
it was clear to me the last time I saw you, Donald,
A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday, and may
every day be another wonderful secret. So that's how this
(06:25):
note ends up. May every day be another wonderful secret,
you know. And I think I'm going to be saying
that to people as a as a little you know,
well wishes there on their birthday cards and start sounding
it like that, like what a weird way to sign
off on a birthday card when you're talking about a
guy who has certainly had a lot of wonderful secrets
(06:46):
regarding it to do with age, we'll just put it
that way in his life. So not something that Trump
wanted to get out at all. He was saying that
he was going to sue Epstein over this letter, and
that's essentially all the letter says. You have the woman
with the squawald signature, the sketch of the naked women,
and that weird kind of conversation about you know, may
(07:06):
every day be another wonderful secret in this kind of
weird dialogue here. But Trump has been freaking out trying
to get it out. I mean, he's also been freaking
out insulting his own supporters over this whole issue.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
He says.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
This scam is essentially he puts it in the same
area as the Russian scam, the Russia Russia Russia scam itself.
He says, it's a totally fake, made up story use
in order to hide Crooked Hillary has been lost in
twenty sixteen presidential election. All the Democrats do with scams. Also,
unlike Republicans, they stick together like glue. Their new scam
is what we will forever called the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.
(07:41):
And my past supporters have brought into this bullshit hook
line and syncred, he says, past they haven't learned their lesson,
and they probably never will, even after being combine the
lunatic left for eight long years. I had more success
in six months than perhaps any president in my country's history,
in our country's history, and all these people want to
talk about with strong podding by the fake news and
the success starved DEM's as Jeffrey Epstein hoax. But these
(08:04):
weaklings continued forward and do the Democrats work. Don't even
think about talking of our incredible, unprecedented success because I
don't want their support anymore, saying these people are weaklings
for talking about the Epstein stuff. It's not something that
I entirely think is going to be the best strategy
for him going forward, because people are trying to starting
to notice it. This is him here talking to the
(08:27):
news about the Epstein story back three days ago.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
You were people to move on. But I'm curious, why
do you think your supporters in particular.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
Have been so interested in the Epstein story.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
I don't know what I'm saying about how it's been handled.
Speaker 6 (08:42):
I don't understand it why.
Speaker 5 (08:43):
They would be so interested. He's dead for a long time.
He was never a big factor in terms of life.
I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is.
I really don't ad the credible information has been getting.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
He was never a big.
Speaker 5 (09:03):
And all of the different things to steal dot c
A which was all fake. All that information was faked,
but I don't understand why the Jeffrey epste case would
be of interest to anybody.
Speaker 7 (09:15):
It's pretty boring stuff.
Speaker 5 (09:16):
It's sortied, but it's boring, and I don't understanding. I think, well, really,
only pretty bad people, including fake deuse, want to keep
something like like that going. But incredible information, I would say.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
By the way, and I think that's how I loved Nick.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
There's laughing in the background the Treasury Sector who, also,
by the way, was Epstein's neighbor in his New York
City Manhattan apartment. So the ties with this administration to
Jeffrey Epstein are frankly all over the place, and it's
something that now even his own supporters are noticing. Let's
take a look at this here. Uh, this is a
clip here from MSNBC. I don't like to normally just
play MSNBC clips, but they do go through, uh, the
(10:00):
various pushback that he has gotten from people that are
very very close to him and people that have really
called him out, saying if you especially that those were
those two the tweet, and that those remarks that I
showed you that audio clip there where he was talking
to reporters outside the plane that has really pissed people off,
(10:20):
because it's just like, you know, you came, you said
you're going to be the outside, You're going to try
and stop this, and now you're just telling us, not
only are you not going to stop it, but we
are stupid for continuing to care about it. You know,
that is something that they really just did not want
to take. Here, let's take a look at this reaction
from the.
Speaker 8 (10:38):
MAGA fault lines from the topic widening from a fracture
into a Grand Canyon size chasm. After President Trump called
the very MAGA supporters who reelected him stupid and foolish
for refusing his demand to back off the Epstein files,
it was former Trump confident on Elon Musk who dragged
conspiracies of an alleged secret upstate client lists back into
(11:01):
the mainstream spotlight. He posted again overnight and reacted to
the presidents, calling it all a hoax, complete one to
eighty to what he's been suggesting for years. And it
is musks so called free speech remake of X that
is now feeding the theories and the MAGA divide because
of them.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
Just by the way, it's get a very good point
there by by Musk In that tweet, he essentially says, Wow,
amazing that Epstein killed himself and Gilaine is in prison
for a hoax. So Gleayne Maxwell, who is one hundred
percent you know, she put together that book, she gave
Epstein all his girls, who were then given to other
(11:39):
various powerful people. You know, she's if it's a hoax,
why is she in jail? You know, that's the that's
the case her own lawyers are making say saying, the
government is now acknowledging, you know, in Trump's words, you know,
because Trump's acknowledging it that this whole thing's made up,
it's all hoax whatever. So my client Gleayne Maxwell should
(12:00):
get out of jail. That's what Maxwell leewyers are saying.
So it's opening up a whole new can of worms.
Elon Musk is I hate to give him credit, but
he's very much right to highlight.
Speaker 8 (12:08):
That calling it all a hoax, a complete one to
eighty to what he's been suggesting for years. And it
is musks so called free speech remake of X that
is now feeding the theories and the MAGA divide because
of them. Just listen to how some of the most
vocal Maga loyalists are now breaking with the president.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
If you talk about this, I'm going to excommunicate you.
Speaker 5 (12:30):
Well, you're not the pope, bro, I mean, you're not
speaking from the throne ex Cathra.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Why did they say?
Speaker 1 (12:38):
I mean it kind of is the thousands of hours
of tapes of people doing horrible Why did they say that?
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Right?
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Didn't Pam BONDI say that.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I mean, we're getting flooded with thousands, hundreds of thousands
of comments that are very unhappy about this. President Trump
was elected primarily to go after the deep state. We
want to go after the deep state.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
It seems like you think your base is too.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
That's how I feel.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
I feel like Trump thinks his base is stupid bringing
this into the arena.
Speaker 7 (13:06):
He absolutely, President Trump.
Speaker 4 (13:09):
That's a matter of historic record.
Speaker 8 (13:12):
Okay, I'm not to discuss.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
I mean, that's a very good point. All these are
very good points from these people. It's like, yeah, no, no, ship,
he thinks you guys are stupid. And I think you
if you were kind of in this department, if you
were in this kind of world, you should definitely have
realized that he thinks that the base is stupid. And
then that is not going to you know, we're down
well to you who also has to kind of keep
(13:35):
audience with these same people. At some point when he
finally kind of lets the mask slip and people, you know,
kind of realize that he thinks they're stupid, which, you know,
I guess with this it was the finally the straw
that broke the camel's back. We also have this year
from the New York Times the Attorney General planning to
ask a court to release the Epstein grand jury transcripts.
(13:56):
Trump is under intense pressure from his right wing base
after just Department you found no evidence to support conspiracy
theories about the sex trafficking case. Bondi now says she's
going to release all these kind of grand jury testimonies
that was only from when Epstein was kind of re
prosecuted in twenty nineteen and they imposed a grand jury
and there was some testimony about him for a few months.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Before he you know, killed himself. Wink wink.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yeah, But that is a very very small fraction what
Bondi is saying now that she's going to release, that
is a very small fraction of the entire documents that
were put out there. So it's definitely not going to
quiet fears at all of a cover up going on
or quiet a lot of the anger from Trump's base.
(14:44):
Trump's request came hours out of the Wall Street Journal
reporter on a fiftieth birthday greeting. It said Trump sent
Epstein in two thousand and three, including sexually suggestive drawing,
espression of friendship, and a reference to secrets they shared.
You know, may every day be another wonderful secret. I say,
just insane, insane way pudding. I just can't get over it.
So he says that Murdoch had agreed to take care
(15:05):
of the article, but apparently lacked the authority to overrule
the decisions of the paper stop editor Emma Tucker. He
accused the journal of publishing a false and malicious and
defamatory report. President Trump had already been beaten. George Chefanoflos
ABC sixty minutes and others looks forward to suing and
holding accountable the once great Wall Street Journal. This is
what the spokesperson said to regard regarding reports. I don't
(15:32):
know President Trump was the spokesperson, saying, you know, yeah,
we suit all these other media outlets into submission.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
We're gonna do the same to the Wall Street Journal
for publishing this.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Apparently he exposed Rupert Murdoch because he said Murdoch wanted
to take care of it. But yet, even if these
transcripts are made public, though that Pambody is now saying
she wants to released, which might involve months of legal wrangling.
The evidence represents a fraction of the material collected in
the investigation over the past several months. Dozens of FBI
agents and prosecutors with the Justice Departments Nowational Security Division,
(16:01):
we're diverted from other assignments to a view thousands of
documents and a astrobe of video evidence, including a footage
from video cameras in the prison. So it's only going
to be a fraction of this stuff collected in the investigation.
Most Republicans, even these Republican representatives, are calling for all
of it to be released. That's not something that we
are likely to see anytime soon. And I think this
(16:23):
kind of distraction, this kind of idea that, oh, you know,
these the base again because Trump thinks the base is stupid,
is going to be satisfied with just a very small
percentage of the testimony, the grand jury testimony that and
the total information that was released in this investigation, that'll
be enough to satisfy the base. That'll be enough to
(16:43):
satisfy all this angry questions, and we'll get back on
they'll get back on my good side again. But I
honestly don't think that is going to be happening anytime soon.
You know this, people are going to realize this distraction
and they are not going to just forget about it
that easily. Even as this the the connections to Epstein
(17:03):
and Trump, between Epstein and Trump in this case are
only getting deeper. Despite the fact that Zoramamdani literally never
ever said globalis anifada during his campaign, and the fact
that he won by talking about issues that matter to
New Yorkers a lot more than issue's genocide of the Palestinians.
He's really been asked by journalists, by business leaders who
(17:24):
wanted to distract away from the fact that Mambanni is
actually genuinely coming after their own kind of massive, massive
amounts of kind of ill gotten gains and into trying
to actually get them to pay a little bit more
money to fix the crumbling infrastructure of New York City.
And you know, they don't want to talk about that part.
You know, he's only been asked from from journalists, from
(17:46):
business leaders. He's only been asked about this globalized in
FATA comment again and again and again, and this is
something that he's never said. What he said about at
the time of the podcast that caused all this consternation
and all this craziness is that as New York City mayor,
I'm not going to be the language police. I'm not
going to be the person that comes in and tells
people how to protest. I get why people are concerned
(18:08):
about this on both sides. I get why Jewish New
Yorkers would be scared, I get why Muslim New Yorkers
are propoused any New Yorkers in general would say that
this is the the kind of way of silver disobedience.
I get where it's coming from on both sides, but
it's not something that I would personally use because I
believe in clear language that you know, everyone can rally
(18:29):
behind clear, broad, expansive language, which I think was a
very valid point. He now, though, has a new interview
where it was with The New York One's erl Lewis.
There's a kind of local outlet there in New York,
where he apparently supposedly has caved on this issue of
globise enervado. We are going to take take a look
(18:50):
at it and see if he actually did gave or
it's just a bunch of kind of left wing online
hype about him him caving.
Speaker 6 (18:58):
You know, I I've thought about quite a lot. And
for some New Yorkers this phrase is one that refers
to civil disobedience and protests, a call to end the
Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. But I know that for
many Jewish New Yorkers it brings to mind images of
the like that you are speaking of. I was sitting
(19:19):
with a rabbi not too long ago who told me
how the same phrase is heard very differently by her,
and it's heard as a reference to bus bombings in Haifa,
restaurant attacks in Jerusalem, and engenders of fear in her
and in others of the possibility of those very attacks
coming home here in New York City. And that distance
(19:40):
between what some intend and what others here is a
bridge that is too far.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
And it is.
Speaker 6 (19:45):
Why I have not used the phrase, and it is
why I discourage its use. And my focus is on
building a movement for justice and equality, and as it
pertains to Israel and Palestine. I think often of the
words of noikatsmen who lost their brother in the horrific
war crime of October seventh.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
The noise said, we must.
Speaker 6 (20:07):
Believe in all life Israeli and Palestinian, Jewish and Arab
that it is equally precious. And that is the vision
that I hope to fulfill.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
And yeah, so I think he looking at this video
that was on the kind of the first time I
really watched that video, I think it's pretty clear that
he didn't cave, and he essentially stayed with the same line,
which I think is honestly a very smart line, and
it's where a lot of people are on this issue,
and they've kind of increasingly become more sympathetic to the
(20:37):
Palestinian cause. It's like, you know, hey, I know a
lot of people think that this line means silk disobedience,
but and it's a kind of completely fair way of
protesting against the awful things that Israel does all too often.
But the reality situation is, if we are trying to
be good kind of organizers, if we're trying to build
(20:58):
a broad based movement for power siting injustice. We should
not be making a lot of Jews who would be
supportive of that feel unsafe, feel uncomfortable, feel alienated by
language referencing globalis and aout it, which is why I'm.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Not gonna use it.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
That's essentially what Mom Doddy said before the election, and
he's what he's saying in this clip, which I think
is a smart way to go about it politically because
it does kind of open the broadest possible base of
a coalition while finding for equality, while finding for you know,
both groups of people being viewed as equally human. It
opens this broad coalition while not compromising on those principles,
(21:38):
but still including as many people possible in your movement
that you could, you know, you could possibly have behind you.
So I think it's it's a very good way of
doing it. But to Mom Nannie, I would say to you, Zoran,
you've come this far, You've done a good job, and
I think it was almost kind of smart to give
the impression that you're gonna go back down and apologize
and get all these people to watch, only for you
(21:58):
to actually come in and say the exact same thing
that you've been saying before the election. But again I
don't I don't think this is the cave. I don't
think it's again compromising on the principles of Boutsnee liberation
of justice. He's just trying to make the coalition as
broad as possible and essentially the same again, the same
thing he said before the election. But I would not
give these people any more of an industry. Saw it
(22:22):
with Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, you saw it with
pretty much anyone illanom or whoever. You know, once you
apologize for these comments, even if you don't apologize for
these comments either way, they're still gonna come at you,
and they're still going to come and attack you. It's
like they think this is the wedge issue. They think
this is the best way to a lot of these
people that are pushing this stuff, you know, these are
(22:42):
these are powerful people. These are people that have other
business interests in front of mom Donnie, in front of
New York City government that they would want to see,
you know, go through they would want to see be
met with profit for them, and mom Nanni threatens that
through his various policies, and they, based on you know,
years and years of political calculation, have calculated that bringing
(23:04):
up Israel and kind of weaponizing anti Semitism is a
big part of the Andrew Cuomo campaign, you know, would
be a way to stop is momentum. But as we
could see in this past election, this failed drastically. This
is not something that works anymore, even in the city
with the biggest Jewish population outside of Tel Aviv. So
I would really say to mom Nanni, you have the
(23:26):
power here, z On, do not concede anymore in this.
Don't come out and apologize for the comments or whatever.
This should be the line. Keep it whenever you're asked
about it, and it will make them look bad for
continuing to focus on an issue that has been beaten
into submission so much. It's like he said the same thing,
that's the same thing, probably fifteen times in the last
(23:46):
two weeks alone on interviews. So it really really is
kind of ridiculous. But if you the thing is, if
you do give them an inch, if you do apologize,
if you do clarify your comments, it seems like the
easy thing to do. But they never stop there, and
that's because they're not interested in good faith, you know,
fears of how the average Jew in New York Is
feeling about this stuff. They are interested in driving Mamdani
(24:08):
out of politics and making sure that his ideology, his viewpoints,
and his program for dealing with billionaire wealth never sees
the light of day. And they just think that talking
about globalz and avada is going to be the easiest
way to do it. So again, they're not gonna stop.
You got to hold strong on that. Bernie Penn Spielberg
makes a pretty good point here or highlight's a pretty
(24:30):
good point from Yusef Mineer. Asking mom Nani and every
interview to denounced Clobe and a fada would be like
asking Schumer in every interview to announced amiel Hi. I
think that's how you say it there. You know, it's
the literal meaning of it is let the people of
Israel live. And there are plenty of instances with the
use of the phrase is mundane. However, the phrase is
routinely chanted by murders Israeli settlers as they engage in
(24:51):
gruesome mob violence against Palestinians. So does that make it
not okay? Because again, it can mean so many different
things to some different people. And I get the impulse
what Mom Donnie's trying to say is, if you're trying
to get a broad based coalition for palicity and justice,
you can still be principle, you could still be focused
on that, and you don't have to use language that
(25:13):
makes people that otherwise would support you feel uncomfortable. I
think that's a very very fair way of going about it.
But I really don't like, you know, this kind of
framing here from Bernie Sanders. He's told Zora Mam Donnie
that he needs to be careful about how he talks
about Israel. Sanders, who is Jewish, urged Mom Donnie to
be cautious about how he approaches talking about Israel. According
to person familiar with their conversation, Sanders told Mom Donnie
(25:34):
he had to do a better job explaining that his
criticism is not anti Semitic, and not let himself seem
like he's minimizing the fear of Jews in New York
and elsewhere feel, and the fear Jews in New York
and elsewhere feel from the threat of hate against them.
That's kind of a clunky sentence there, in my opinion,
But whatever, What is not clunky is the what is
(25:56):
actually quite poor is the kind of political thinking there
by mom, Donnie, because its just like, oh, you know,
you got to explain to Jews that you're doing a
better job, like they they're acting in good faith here. No,
they're not acting in faith good faith. There's there's plenty
of you know, average New Yorkers who are worked up
about this, but they're being worked up about it because
the media is hitting this narrative over and over and
(26:17):
over and over again. That is also driving a significant
chunk of the fear. And I think that is something
that he needs to realize. Bernie Sanders needs to realize,
because I think Zoramandani has really realized it already. You know,
he has the power on this. He's on the right
side of the issue, he has the political power behind it,
(26:38):
and he's already clarified so so many times it's an
issue that I think risk being beaten into submission. Here's
a piece of pretty shocking news I generally did not
see coming last night, a little bit random, but it happened.
Stephen Colbert announced that his show The Late Show was
being canceled last night on CBS's only going to run
(27:03):
for you know, another ten months, so it's not like
you'll still have your chance to watch Stephen as much
as you want.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Here here's how you made the announcement.
Speaker 9 (27:13):
Oh hey, everybody, we got a great show for you tonight.
Senator Adam Schiff was my guest. We harmonized on seven
Bridges Road. What a voice, I cried. But before we
start the show, I want to let you know something
that I found out just last night. Next year will
be our last season. The network will be ending the
Late Show in May. And yeah, I share your feelings.
(27:44):
It's not just the end of our show, but it's
the end of the Late Show on CBS. I'm not
being replaced. This is all just going away.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
And yeah, so Late Show is done. It's been obviously
an institution in kind of late politics. Guys are late
night chat shows forever. Ed Sullivan used to host it
and all that stuff. And the CBS says it's because
it's a financial decision, and I think that's definitely something
that I could imagine being a financial decision. But I
(28:13):
do think it is very interesting given the fact that
they have this Paramount merger going through where they're trying
to I think merge with I forget exactly the name
of the company, but Paramount, which is the company that
owns CBS trying to have a big, big business deal,
and that is something that the boss is. This is
what happened with sixty minutes. For sure. The bosses of
(28:35):
Paramount have already conceded quite a lot on the kind
of journalistic integrity front. They've watered down or sixty minutes
quite a lot. They settled with the Trump administration out
of court in a case that they definitely could have
won when Trump accused them of falsely editing a Kamala
Harris interview and some sort of election interference. You know,
they just settled that out of court when they totally
(28:58):
could have on the first amount of grounds feeding the press,
grounds kind of gone through with it quite easily. So
they are definitely in the kind of capitulation mood. But
on the other hand, I think this as we continue
to see even John Stewart now he's on a podcast,
he's doing YouTube videos. You know, it's definitely something that
speaks to the change of the media landscape, far far
(29:19):
away from the traditional oh, you know, we're going on
at eleven thirty every night, we're doing there's a standard broadcast.
That format is becoming increasingly out of date, especially for
people that want to hear Colbert's political takes. So you
can see how that would be an unprofitable model for Stevs,
and also it kind of could be an unprofitable model
(29:40):
for Stephen Colbert. We could get just as much, if
not more pop and more personal influence and honestly more
money hosting a very very well produced, slick podcast where
he essentially interviews people for a much longer and he
was able to say his own political opinions without any
sort of advertiser or business backlash considerations. But it was
(30:03):
I thought it was an interesting debate going on as
CNN where I almost didn't agree with either of the
two sides talking about why Colbert was canceled about potential
capitulation to Trump, which I definitely think is something that
you can't roll out, or the fact that you know,
which I think is a little bit more ridiculous, the
fact that Republicans were so mad about the lack of
(30:27):
good treatment from from Stephen Colbert.
Speaker 10 (30:29):
One massive part of the conversation that's been complete admitted
from this, and that is when you do a show
that attacks half of America every night, and you don't
have conservatives on and by the way, you're not funny,
but attacking half of America and your ratings suck.
Speaker 7 (30:43):
You might lose your show like this.
Speaker 4 (30:49):
But there's a lot of reasons why are not working
out that have nothing to do with the political device.
Speaker 10 (30:54):
But constant he's having on Democrats to trash Trump. He
has constantly and trashing conservatives. He referred to on Trump
as a Nazi lover in two thousand and seven.
Speaker 4 (31:04):
You that doesn't make half of the country happy, right,
but you don't have a country, but you don't need
they have the whole country watching your shirt.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
You'll need the country. That's great. Problem is.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
It's it is kind of tough because both sides are
kind of making good points. Like Colbert was not that funny.
He was offering kind of a low brand of like
just very standard basic liberal humor that would have worked
and did work a lot better in twenty seventeen, where
a lot of people were first getting into politics, were
much more normy, standard Democrats and they were willing to
(31:43):
hear this kind of kind of milk toe stuff about
oh Trump is a buffoon.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
But the Democrats are really great too.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
You know, a lot of people don't believe that anymore,
even on the Democratic side, which I think is a
reason why although you do have here, I don't know
the kind of source of these numbers, but I do
think there, yeah, here it is. This is apparently the
ratings for Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel and Jamie Fallon.
And you could see that Stephen Colbert is on the
top with two point four million and Jimmy Kimmel's the
(32:12):
next closest with one point seventy five million per night.
So that kind of goes against the idea that the
ratings were were so bad. But also I think the
idea that you know, so many Trump supporters were deeply
offended and were just it was eating them up inside
every night. They couldn't get it off their mind how
unfair it was that Stephen Colbert wasn't giving them, you know,
(32:32):
the time of day on TV. Like I do not
think that it's something that you know, a lot of
a lot of the magabas is too worked up about.
I just I think also because Colbert, the bottom line is,
he's just not that relevant, and a big part of
that is again because he's still in that kind of
liberal humor that is very family to the Democratic Party,
(32:54):
but also opposition to Trump that people just I think
really aren't aren't driving with anymore. So I almost kind
of think that they're they're both a little bit right
and they're both a little bit wrong here in this.
Speaker 11 (33:05):
Exchange, Larry, to to what you're saying, like the other
side of it is that you know there are shows
that I will not name that spend half their time
attacking liberals or attack all their time attacking the attacking liberals,
and it doesn't have impact on their ratings. So to
to raise Woint, I don't necessarily think that's really on
(33:28):
the ratings front. I don't really whatting.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Is good their dismal cable news show.
Speaker 7 (33:35):
Let's be clear about the network.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
The real problem is more like Netflix and the reasons
what the the democratization of the higher television landscape. There
are so many more options for people to watch. That's
going to cut.
Speaker 12 (33:47):
Into the actually part of it.
Speaker 10 (33:48):
But let's go back to you have a guy that
does a show that's funnier on cable that gets bigger ratings,
and they had warnings that' and again debatable.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
Remember it is extremely debatable.
Speaker 11 (34:01):
Is what I'm talking about but you maybe like him
and listen. The reason I say it's debatable is because
every human being in the United States of America has
a right to decide what they find is funny. And
if half of America likes Colbert and half of America
likes Scottfeld that's fine in the United States of America'm
okay with that.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
That's okay.
Speaker 10 (34:20):
But my point is the reason why it got canceled
because he was no longer funny and he was attacking half.
Speaker 4 (34:26):
That's not what's going on at all. I just explained
we're witnessing the end of an American television institution. It
doesn't make enough.
Speaker 12 (34:34):
One is throwing Colbert. Colbert will forever be known as
the person who frittered away David Letterman's legacy, which is something.
But may I bring everyone together. I think you're both right.
I think your conversation about the television models correct. I
think your points about the conservative you know, anti conservative
bent is correct. But I would just submit, this is
not even the most important media story of the day.
(34:55):
They're voting right now.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
Yeah, so Scott Jennings winging in saying whatever on that,
But I think it is is definitely very imaginable to
see that this could be a financial decision. But I
do think it also speaks to really really two major things. Again,
what Toree was talking about there, the liberal guy in
that video was essentially saying that a lot of people
are tuning off from kind of terrestrial standard TV, which
(35:21):
is very, very very possible. Also, I think it's very
possible that the Bosses did it as an extra favorite.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
To Trump for the paramount merger.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
I think this is certainly possible because you know, Trump
is still very very tied to terrestrial TV, and you know,
probably flips around and sees Colbert bashing and he gets annoyed,
and I'm sure he's tweeted badly about Colbert in the past.
But I also do think that he was in a
niche that was very not appealing to a lot of people,
(35:47):
where he was again just helping out the Democratic Party,
supporting the Democratic Party at all costs, when a lot
of people in bashing Trump but not really realizing and
tapping into a lot of people that a lot of
the anger in the disapp faction that people have with
the Democratic Party. I predict for him a very very
popular podcast launching sometime next year. That is very much
(36:10):
the same. So me personally, despite the fact that he
may have been set up for the fall by the
CBS bosses to please the Trump administration, I'm not going
to be crying or shedding any tears for Stephen Colbert's future.
Just when you thought that Joe Biden and his staffs
cover up of his mental acuity couldn't hurt the Democratic
(36:31):
Party anymore, we see this kind of incredible headline here
coming out another Biden and eight has taken the fifth
as Republicans hauling in the family of members for questioning on.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
The press decline.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
And that is as any Thomas Cini, who is the
deputy chief of staff for Biden in this investigation, that
the House Republicans are doing essentially really to get as
many bad stories about Biden out as possible. And I think,
for example, the auto pen, I don't think that's really
gonna resonate. I think that was just mostly a especially
with all the pressures that the Republicans and the administration
are under right now, I don't think people are really
(37:05):
going to get too worked up about his staff essentially
putting in a bunch of signatures for pardons that he
knew were happening anyway, kind of automated signatures. But le
ticlarly this this is a report here from News Nation
about this this whole amazing time.
Speaker 7 (37:20):
House Republicans continued to probe the alleged cover up of
President Biden's mental decline by his administration, including the use
of the auto pen. Today, longtime aid Annie Thomasini, who
served as the President's deputy chief of staff, spoke with
investigators behind closed doors after being subpoenaed by the House
Oversight Committee chairman, Representative James Comer, pleading the fifth to
(37:41):
all questions regarding the president. That makes Thomassini the third
former AID in the administration to plead the fifth during
questionings of this probe, as both President Biden's physician and
First Lady Jill, Biden's senior aide, invoked their rights earlier
this month. But the investigation is far from being over.
House Republicans are pla to still depose top names in
(38:02):
the administration, including President Biden's Press secretary Karine Jean Pierre
and his chief of staff Jeff Sides. News Nations Tom Dempsey.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Yeah, so that could be really interesting because you know,
those people have been really after it, but I'm not
sure what they are essentially trying to figure out, Like, yes,
they lied about it, Yes they covered up the age.
You know, what's the I don't think we need a
whole investigation to figure this stuff out. Are they trying
to say that, oh, he was making you know this,
his staff is making decisions for him. I think that
(38:32):
would be really interesting to know. But you know, it
was essentially you could see, you know, they were asking
this woman any Tomasini. Who was the recent most recent
person to plead the fifth after I think was Anthony Brunall, who,
you know, if you buy the Jake Tapper book, was
really really a big figure in uh, the cover up
and the whole you know, he's fine, keep keep him going,
(38:54):
don't let him stop.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
You know, he's all good, you know that whole effort.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
But he also pleaded the fifth I think, as did
who else was it Kevin O'Connor, who's the physician? You
know that was really crazy. But you know, like the
beyond what they're trying to find out on the fact that,
you know, yeah, House Republicans are probably do in this
just because they want bad stuff in about Biden.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
There's a huge, huge element of truth.
Speaker 1 (39:19):
To this is that a lot of people are still
very pissed off about the fact that the Democrats lied
and lied and lied and lied about the mental cuty
of the President of the United States and the ability
of him to.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
Carry out that job.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
And the fact that again, the fact they're pleading the
fifth the fact that they're kind of hiding this stuff
up suggests that, you know, in the best case scenario,
they haven't gotten their stories straight. But the very very
likely situation is there is some really bad, kind of
sketchy stuff that went on where the staff was taking
too many liberties, the staff was trying to do things
for their own benefit. Whatever they're acting selfishly, they were
(39:53):
trying to preserve their positions of power in the White
House and not have, you know, initiate a broader reckoning
about the health of their you know, and they're very
desperately trying to not have that reckoning. But you know,
I think it is it is very very clear that
this is an incredible problem. And I think also the
Democrats have not done nearly enough, nearly enough to continue
(40:16):
to to continue to distance themselves from this, to acknowledge
how bad of a screw up this was and how
much it damaged the trust with the American people that
you know, that is something that people are not going
to forget anytime soon, and nor should that because it
was you know, it was a clearly pulling the wall
(40:37):
over everyone's eyes, and it led to a very understandable
pervasive feeling that, oh, yeah, Democrats don't care about you.
They're just too incompetent, they're too insular focused to even
get the old guy, you know, the essentially dead president
out of the way so that they can focus on
(40:58):
actually running the country. It was just such a bad
look and some of that again, the Democrats have not
done newly enough to move past, which I think is very,
very impactful. So Bernal was again another guy who pleaded
the fifth refused to answer when refused to answer when
asked whether he ever advised President Joe Biden to punch
(41:20):
his pardon his son Hunter Biden Thomas. He began her
career as a press secretor for then Senator Biden when
he chaired the Chambers Foreign Relations Committee in the two thousands.
So Thomasini bernw Joe Biden. An ex special assistant Ashley
Williams all shield the president from the public and what
some dub operation bubble rapp because yeah, like we know
(41:41):
they did that. We know they we know they covered
him up. We know they kind of released or kind
of hid a lot of the stuff about Biden's age.
The question is, you know, how many liberty is how
much independent governing shall we say with the staff doing
But the biggest thing, the clearest thing on this situation
is that the Democrats have absolutely failed in terms of
(42:05):
distancing themselves and also acknowledging to the American people that
you know, there was no sort of truth or reconciliation committee,
There was no sort of published public acknowledging where the
Democratic leaders did a media around and say we screwed up.
And no, no, just it doesn't it doesn't have to
be a whole kind of you know, public apology tour
where it's over and over again. That doesn't make you
(42:25):
look good. But I think also you can say things,
but it also comes down to your actions. Are the
members of the old Biden team going to end up
back in kind of democratic circles like Koree John Pierre
for example, was in the at the Harvard and Student
politics saying all this stuff that you know, was just oh,
it was a circling fires firing squad on Biden. You know,
he didn't he was getting totally bashed by the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
It was really really bad.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
It was like, of course he was getting bashed by
the Democratic Party. He was he was costing them the election.
What else would you think? What else would you think?
Speaker 2 (42:56):
You know, So it is, it is.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
It is really really clear that the Democrats Party they
have not publicly excommunicated these people, and I think until
they do that, they will really be tied down by
a lot of this stuff with regards to Biden, because
it just represents a a perception that the American people
are stupid from the Democratic Party. You know, the Democratic
(43:20):
Party thinks, oh yeah, these these dumb hogs are so
stupid that they'll vote for a half dead man just
because he's a Democrat. And I think it also kind
of goes the other way around. For a lot of people.
It's like if were you really too incompetent to get
this guy out of here? And also there's a you know,
there's element of sinisters of that too. It's like, why
are you keeping this guy who was so clearly incapacitated
(43:42):
in such a position of power. I don't think you
either either a had something you know, going on there
that was not above board, or b you were too
incompetent to initiate the process to get that guy out.
And I don't want you if you're too incopetent to
get this guy out running the whole country. So I
think it's whatever way you spin it, it does not
look good for the Democratic Party. And yeah, you need
(44:06):
a full you need a full clean break. You need
to cut yourself loose from the people who were perpetrating
this and the people who were you know, lying to
the American people as members of Biden's staff and Biden's
really just incredibly dishonest surrogate team. All Right, that is
all we have for you today on all.
Speaker 2 (44:28):
Things to do with the news of the day. All
of the.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
Clips from today's show will be available by tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
Thank you very much, and have a great weekend. It's
use flush. We'll be back on Tuesday. Tuesday,
Hello everyone, My name is Spencer Walsh. Welcome to today's
episode of New Slash.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
We have a good one for you.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
As always on the show, Today, Epstein Ain't going away Baby.
A new letter has been released by the Wall Street
Journal showing the insane message that Donald Trump sent to
Jeffrey Epstein on his fiftieth birthday. It's probably about as
weird as you could imagine. Will we'll give you the
full details on that and the new actions Attorney General
(00:40):
Pam Bondi is taking to keep the Epstein case going.
She's going to release some grand jury testimony files in
light of incredible pressure on her and Trump from the
VAGA base for letting the Epstein case.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Go by the wayside.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Whilst gonna be taking a look at Zoran Mom, Donnie Dad.
He came to pressure regarding his roblast in a fat
of comments on which he said literally never said that
he supported loblast in a fauto, but he's still been
hounded about it anyway, will break down the new video
that's causing some consternation among his pro Palestine supporters. Also,
(01:17):
Stephen Colbert's show is canceled. Was a capitulation by CBS
to Trump for their merger, their paramount merger to go
through by the CBS bosses, or was the sign of
the changing media landscape, or with Stephen Colbert just not
that funny and not that popular anymore. We will break
(01:38):
it down, we will debate it, and we'll go through
all the details. Also, Biden continuing to be a deadaweight
around the neck of the Democratic Party. Another aid has
had to take the fifth in the congressional hearings about
his age cover up. So that is definitely something Democrat
(02:00):
don't want to see. And the headlines will break that
all down for you. And as a reminder, as always,
our clips from the show will be up on this
Spence Wald YouTube channel, so go check that out and
subscribe if you want a visual aspect to the show.
Donald Trump is continuing to fall apart over continuing questions
(02:20):
about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. He had spent the
last week or so just doing everything in his power
possible to convince people that he's not in Epstein files,
that they shouldn't be talking about the Epstein files. There's
no point, just move on, it's no big deal whatever,
And the only thing he's really done is convince people
more and more that he was in the Epstein files,
(02:42):
even his own supporters, even people who never thought that
he would be a part of the Epstein files. So
it's a very very interesting strategy here. This is the latest, though,
there's a really big step up in terms of the
craziness going on. Jeffrey Epstein's friends sent him body letters
for a fiftieth birthday album. One of them was from
Donald Trump, so he essentially the article essentially goes through
(03:04):
Glenn Maxwell. You know, she got every all the squad
into group chat, you know, Jeffrey Epstein's fiftieth birthday group chat,
and she collected you know, obviously I'm joking there. There
wasn't group chats back in two thousand and three. But
she gets all the friends together, has them said, oh,
just send a letter into Jeffrey's birthday. And one of
the friends that she calls is Donald Trump, and she
puts together this huge leather bound binder that has all
(03:27):
these notes, these kind of kind messages, you know, you're
my favorite pedophile from all these various powerful people that
were Epstein's friends and associates at the time. So Donald
Trump's was one of the you know, kind of prominently
featured ones. Let's go through here and see what it's said.
So the leather the letter concludes, happy birthday, blah blah
(03:50):
blah blah. Let's get into the actual the actual kind
of text of the article. So essentially the Wall Street
article here explains it. By the way, the fact this
is the Wall Street Journal is pretty significant. This is,
you know, one of Trump's biggest ideological allies in terms
of newspapers. You know, he doesn't have many. Rupert Murdoch
(04:10):
owns it, the same person that owns Flox News, So
it's a pretty big deal that this stuff is being published.
So it so is Trump essentially draws a kind of
sketch of a naked woman, and you know he did
it because if the letter is apparently a thick sharpie,
which is what Trump used to uses to sign everything
quite famously, But there is a sketch of a hand
(04:35):
drawn sketch.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Of a naked woman on it.
Speaker 1 (04:37):
You know, the little lines to highlight the breasts, and
you know, the hair and all that stuff, and you know,
on the kind of pubic hair area he signed his
name Donald and the I'm sure you've seen at some
point the signature that Trump does everywhere, this kind of scrawling,
very scrib lead signature that could totally be used if
(04:57):
it was placed in that area to signify a pubic
That was.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
One part of the uh.
Speaker 1 (05:03):
That was one part of the letter that ended up
in this binder for Jeffrey Epstein's fiftieth birthday that was
examined by the Justice Department. And so he essentially then
writes out this imagined conversation which is incredibly weird and
funny and kind of bone chilling at the same time
(05:23):
because it's Trump writing it. It isn't clear how the
letter with Trump sign to show was prepared. Inside the
outline of the Naked woman was a typewritten note styled
as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in
the third person, and there absolutely, by the way, should
be now it is a moral journalistic responsibility for the
Weltry Journal, in my opinion, to come out and take
a picture, to send a picture of this letter that
(05:45):
they supposedly have here. So it was written in the
third person as a script, as a conversation between Trump
and Epstein voiceover. There must be more to life than
having everything. The Noe began Donald, Yes, there is, but
I won't tell you what it is, Jeffrey, nor will
I since I also know what it is. Hmmm, Donald,
(06:05):
we do have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Yes we do,
Jeffrey says. Come to think of it, Donald Enigmas never age.
Have you noticed that, Jeffrey. As a matter of fact,
it was clear to me the last time I saw you, Donald,
A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday, and may
every day be another wonderful secret. So that's how this
(06:25):
note ends up. May every day be another wonderful secret,
you know. And I think I'm going to be saying
that to people as a as a little you know,
well wishes there on their birthday cards and start sounding
it like that, like what a weird way to sign
off on a birthday card when you're talking about a
guy who has certainly had a lot of wonderful secrets
(06:46):
regarding it to do with age, we'll just put it
that way in his life. So not something that Trump
wanted to get out at all. He was saying that
he was going to sue Epstein over this letter, and
that's essentially all the letter says. You have the woman
with the squawald signature, the sketch of the naked women,
and that weird kind of conversation about you know, may
(07:06):
every day be another wonderful secret in this kind of
weird dialogue here. But Trump has been freaking out trying
to get it out. I mean, he's also been freaking
out insulting his own supporters over this whole issue.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
He says.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
This scam is essentially he puts it in the same
area as the Russian scam, the Russia Russia Russia scam itself.
He says, it's a totally fake, made up story use
in order to hide Crooked Hillary has been lost in
twenty sixteen presidential election. All the Democrats do with scams. Also,
unlike Republicans, they stick together like glue. Their new scam
is what we will forever called the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.
(07:41):
And my past supporters have brought into this bullshit hook
line and syncred, he says, past they haven't learned their lesson,
and they probably never will, even after being combine the
lunatic left for eight long years. I had more success
in six months than perhaps any president in my country's history,
in our country's history, and all these people want to
talk about with strong podding by the fake news and
the success starved DEM's as Jeffrey Epstein hoax. But these
(08:04):
weaklings continued forward and do the Democrats work. Don't even
think about talking of our incredible, unprecedented success because I
don't want their support anymore, saying these people are weaklings
for talking about the Epstein stuff. It's not something that
I entirely think is going to be the best strategy
for him going forward, because people are trying to starting
to notice it. This is him here talking to the
(08:27):
news about the Epstein story back three days ago.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
You were people to move on. But I'm curious, why
do you think your supporters in particular.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
Have been so interested in the Epstein story.
Speaker 5 (08:40):
I don't know what I'm saying about how it's been handled.
Speaker 6 (08:42):
I don't understand it why.
Speaker 5 (08:43):
They would be so interested. He's dead for a long time.
He was never a big factor in terms of life.
I don't understand what the interest or what the fascination is.
I really don't ad the credible information has been getting.
Speaker 2 (09:00):
He was never a big.
Speaker 5 (09:03):
And all of the different things to steal dot c
A which was all fake. All that information was faked,
but I don't understand why the Jeffrey epste case would
be of interest to anybody.
Speaker 7 (09:15):
It's pretty boring stuff.
Speaker 5 (09:16):
It's sortied, but it's boring, and I don't understanding. I think, well, really,
only pretty bad people, including fake deuse, want to keep
something like like that going. But incredible information, I would say.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
By the way, and I think that's how I loved Nick.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
There's laughing in the background the Treasury Sector who, also,
by the way, was Epstein's neighbor in his New York
City Manhattan apartment. So the ties with this administration to
Jeffrey Epstein are frankly all over the place, and it's
something that now even his own supporters are noticing. Let's
take a look at this here. Uh, this is a
clip here from MSNBC. I don't like to normally just
play MSNBC clips, but they do go through, uh, the
(10:00):
various pushback that he has gotten from people that are
very very close to him and people that have really
called him out, saying if you especially that those were
those two the tweet, and that those remarks that I
showed you that audio clip there where he was talking
to reporters outside the plane that has really pissed people off,
(10:20):
because it's just like, you know, you came, you said
you're going to be the outside, You're going to try
and stop this, and now you're just telling us, not
only are you not going to stop it, but we
are stupid for continuing to care about it. You know,
that is something that they really just did not want
to take. Here, let's take a look at this reaction
from the.
Speaker 8 (10:38):
MAGA fault lines from the topic widening from a fracture
into a Grand Canyon size chasm. After President Trump called
the very MAGA supporters who reelected him stupid and foolish
for refusing his demand to back off the Epstein files,
it was former Trump confident on Elon Musk who dragged
conspiracies of an alleged secret upstate client lists back into
(11:01):
the mainstream spotlight. He posted again overnight and reacted to
the presidents, calling it all a hoax, complete one to
eighty to what he's been suggesting for years. And it
is musks so called free speech remake of X that
is now feeding the theories and the MAGA divide because
of them.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
Just by the way, it's get a very good point
there by by Musk In that tweet, he essentially says, Wow,
amazing that Epstein killed himself and Gilaine is in prison
for a hoax. So Gleayne Maxwell, who is one hundred
percent you know, she put together that book, she gave
Epstein all his girls, who were then given to other
(11:39):
various powerful people. You know, she's if it's a hoax,
why is she in jail? You know, that's the that's
the case her own lawyers are making say saying, the
government is now acknowledging, you know, in Trump's words, you know,
because Trump's acknowledging it that this whole thing's made up,
it's all hoax whatever. So my client Gleayne Maxwell should
(12:00):
get out of jail. That's what Maxwell leewyers are saying.
So it's opening up a whole new can of worms.
Elon Musk is I hate to give him credit, but
he's very much right to highlight.
Speaker 8 (12:08):
That calling it all a hoax, a complete one to
eighty to what he's been suggesting for years. And it
is musks so called free speech remake of X that
is now feeding the theories and the MAGA divide because
of them. Just listen to how some of the most
vocal Maga loyalists are now breaking with the president.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
If you talk about this, I'm going to excommunicate you.
Speaker 5 (12:30):
Well, you're not the pope, bro, I mean, you're not
speaking from the throne ex Cathra.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Why did they say?
Speaker 1 (12:38):
I mean it kind of is the thousands of hours
of tapes of people doing horrible Why did they say that?
Speaker 3 (12:43):
Right?
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Didn't Pam BONDI say that.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
I mean, we're getting flooded with thousands, hundreds of thousands
of comments that are very unhappy about this. President Trump
was elected primarily to go after the deep state. We
want to go after the deep state.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
It seems like you think your base is too.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
That's how I feel.
Speaker 4 (13:01):
I feel like Trump thinks his base is stupid bringing
this into the arena.
Speaker 7 (13:06):
He absolutely, President Trump.
Speaker 4 (13:09):
That's a matter of historic record.
Speaker 8 (13:12):
Okay, I'm not to discuss.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
I mean, that's a very good point. All these are
very good points from these people. It's like, yeah, no, no, ship,
he thinks you guys are stupid. And I think you
if you were kind of in this department, if you
were in this kind of world, you should definitely have
realized that he thinks that the base is stupid. And
then that is not going to you know, we're down
well to you who also has to kind of keep
(13:35):
audience with these same people. At some point when he
finally kind of lets the mask slip and people, you know,
kind of realize that he thinks they're stupid, which, you know,
I guess with this it was the finally the straw
that broke the camel's back. We also have this year
from the New York Times the Attorney General planning to
ask a court to release the Epstein grand jury transcripts.
(13:56):
Trump is under intense pressure from his right wing base
after just Department you found no evidence to support conspiracy
theories about the sex trafficking case. Bondi now says she's
going to release all these kind of grand jury testimonies
that was only from when Epstein was kind of re
prosecuted in twenty nineteen and they imposed a grand jury
and there was some testimony about him for a few months.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Before he you know, killed himself. Wink wink.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
Yeah, But that is a very very small fraction what
Bondi is saying now that she's going to release, that
is a very small fraction of the entire documents that
were put out there. So it's definitely not going to
quiet fears at all of a cover up going on
or quiet a lot of the anger from Trump's base.
(14:44):
Trump's request came hours out of the Wall Street Journal
reporter on a fiftieth birthday greeting. It said Trump sent
Epstein in two thousand and three, including sexually suggestive drawing,
espression of friendship, and a reference to secrets they shared.
You know, may every day be another wonderful secret. I say,
just insane, insane way pudding. I just can't get over it.
So he says that Murdoch had agreed to take care
(15:05):
of the article, but apparently lacked the authority to overrule
the decisions of the paper stop editor Emma Tucker. He
accused the journal of publishing a false and malicious and
defamatory report. President Trump had already been beaten. George Chefanoflos
ABC sixty minutes and others looks forward to suing and
holding accountable the once great Wall Street Journal. This is
what the spokesperson said to regard regarding reports. I don't
(15:32):
know President Trump was the spokesperson, saying, you know, yeah,
we suit all these other media outlets into submission.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
We're gonna do the same to the Wall Street Journal
for publishing this.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
Apparently he exposed Rupert Murdoch because he said Murdoch wanted
to take care of it. But yet, even if these
transcripts are made public, though that Pambody is now saying
she wants to released, which might involve months of legal wrangling.
The evidence represents a fraction of the material collected in
the investigation over the past several months. Dozens of FBI
agents and prosecutors with the Justice Departments Nowational Security Division,
(16:01):
we're diverted from other assignments to a view thousands of
documents and a astrobe of video evidence, including a footage
from video cameras in the prison. So it's only going
to be a fraction of this stuff collected in the investigation.
Most Republicans, even these Republican representatives, are calling for all
of it to be released. That's not something that we
are likely to see anytime soon. And I think this
(16:23):
kind of distraction, this kind of idea that, oh, you know,
these the base again because Trump thinks the base is stupid,
is going to be satisfied with just a very small
percentage of the testimony, the grand jury testimony that and
the total information that was released in this investigation, that'll
be enough to satisfy the base. That'll be enough to
(16:43):
satisfy all this angry questions, and we'll get back on
they'll get back on my good side again. But I
honestly don't think that is going to be happening anytime soon.
You know this, people are going to realize this distraction
and they are not going to just forget about it
that easily. Even as this the the connections to Epstein
(17:03):
and Trump, between Epstein and Trump in this case are
only getting deeper. Despite the fact that Zoramamdani literally never
ever said globalis anifada during his campaign, and the fact
that he won by talking about issues that matter to
New Yorkers a lot more than issue's genocide of the Palestinians.
He's really been asked by journalists, by business leaders who
(17:24):
wanted to distract away from the fact that Mambanni is
actually genuinely coming after their own kind of massive, massive
amounts of kind of ill gotten gains and into trying
to actually get them to pay a little bit more
money to fix the crumbling infrastructure of New York City.
And you know, they don't want to talk about that part.
You know, he's only been asked from from journalists, from
(17:46):
business leaders. He's only been asked about this globalized in
FATA comment again and again and again, and this is
something that he's never said. What he said about at
the time of the podcast that caused all this consternation
and all this craziness is that as New York City mayor,
I'm not going to be the language police. I'm not
going to be the person that comes in and tells
people how to protest. I get why people are concerned
(18:08):
about this on both sides. I get why Jewish New
Yorkers would be scared, I get why Muslim New Yorkers
are propoused any New Yorkers in general would say that
this is the the kind of way of silver disobedience.
I get where it's coming from on both sides, but
it's not something that I would personally use because I
believe in clear language that you know, everyone can rally
(18:29):
behind clear, broad, expansive language, which I think was a
very valid point. He now, though, has a new interview
where it was with The New York One's erl Lewis.
There's a kind of local outlet there in New York,
where he apparently supposedly has caved on this issue of
globise enervado. We are going to take take a look
(18:50):
at it and see if he actually did gave or
it's just a bunch of kind of left wing online
hype about him him caving.
Speaker 6 (18:58):
You know, I I've thought about quite a lot. And
for some New Yorkers this phrase is one that refers
to civil disobedience and protests, a call to end the
Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. But I know that for
many Jewish New Yorkers it brings to mind images of
the like that you are speaking of. I was sitting
(19:19):
with a rabbi not too long ago who told me
how the same phrase is heard very differently by her,
and it's heard as a reference to bus bombings in Haifa,
restaurant attacks in Jerusalem, and engenders of fear in her
and in others of the possibility of those very attacks
coming home here in New York City. And that distance
(19:40):
between what some intend and what others here is a
bridge that is too far.
Speaker 2 (19:45):
And it is.
Speaker 6 (19:45):
Why I have not used the phrase, and it is
why I discourage its use. And my focus is on
building a movement for justice and equality, and as it
pertains to Israel and Palestine. I think often of the
words of noikatsmen who lost their brother in the horrific
war crime of October seventh.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
The noise said, we must.
Speaker 6 (20:07):
Believe in all life Israeli and Palestinian, Jewish and Arab
that it is equally precious. And that is the vision
that I hope to fulfill.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
And yeah, so I think he looking at this video
that was on the kind of the first time I
really watched that video, I think it's pretty clear that
he didn't cave, and he essentially stayed with the same line,
which I think is honestly a very smart line, and
it's where a lot of people are on this issue,
and they've kind of increasingly become more sympathetic to the
(20:37):
Palestinian cause. It's like, you know, hey, I know a
lot of people think that this line means silk disobedience,
but and it's a kind of completely fair way of
protesting against the awful things that Israel does all too often.
But the reality situation is, if we are trying to
be good kind of organizers, if we're trying to build
(20:58):
a broad based movement for power siting injustice. We should
not be making a lot of Jews who would be
supportive of that feel unsafe, feel uncomfortable, feel alienated by
language referencing globalis and aout it, which is why I'm.
Speaker 2 (21:14):
Not gonna use it.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
That's essentially what Mom Doddy said before the election, and
he's what he's saying in this clip, which I think
is a smart way to go about it politically because
it does kind of open the broadest possible base of
a coalition while finding for equality, while finding for you know,
both groups of people being viewed as equally human. It
opens this broad coalition while not compromising on those principles,
(21:38):
but still including as many people possible in your movement
that you could, you know, you could possibly have behind you.
So I think it's it's a very good way of
doing it. But to Mom Nannie, I would say to you, Zoran,
you've come this far, You've done a good job, and
I think it was almost kind of smart to give
the impression that you're gonna go back down and apologize
and get all these people to watch, only for you
(21:58):
to actually come in and say the exact same thing
that you've been saying before the election. But again I
don't I don't think this is the cave. I don't
think it's again compromising on the principles of Boutsnee liberation
of justice. He's just trying to make the coalition as
broad as possible and essentially the same again, the same
thing he said before the election. But I would not
give these people any more of an industry. Saw it
(22:22):
with Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, you saw it with
pretty much anyone illanom or whoever. You know, once you
apologize for these comments, even if you don't apologize for
these comments either way, they're still gonna come at you,
and they're still going to come and attack you. It's
like they think this is the wedge issue. They think
this is the best way to a lot of these
people that are pushing this stuff, you know, these are
(22:42):
these are powerful people. These are people that have other
business interests in front of mom Donnie, in front of
New York City government that they would want to see,
you know, go through they would want to see be
met with profit for them, and mom Nanni threatens that
through his various policies, and they, based on you know,
years and years of political calculation, have calculated that bringing
(23:04):
up Israel and kind of weaponizing anti Semitism is a
big part of the Andrew Cuomo campaign, you know, would
be a way to stop is momentum. But as we
could see in this past election, this failed drastically. This
is not something that works anymore, even in the city
with the biggest Jewish population outside of Tel Aviv. So
I would really say to mom Nanni, you have the
(23:26):
power here, z On, do not concede anymore in this.
Don't come out and apologize for the comments or whatever.
This should be the line. Keep it whenever you're asked
about it, and it will make them look bad for
continuing to focus on an issue that has been beaten
into submission so much. It's like he said the same thing,
that's the same thing, probably fifteen times in the last
(23:46):
two weeks alone on interviews. So it really really is
kind of ridiculous. But if you the thing is, if
you do give them an inch, if you do apologize,
if you do clarify your comments, it seems like the
easy thing to do. But they never stop there, and
that's because they're not interested in good faith, you know,
fears of how the average Jew in New York Is
feeling about this stuff. They are interested in driving Mamdani
(24:08):
out of politics and making sure that his ideology, his viewpoints,
and his program for dealing with billionaire wealth never sees
the light of day. And they just think that talking
about globalz and avada is going to be the easiest
way to do it. So again, they're not gonna stop.
You got to hold strong on that. Bernie Penn Spielberg
makes a pretty good point here or highlight's a pretty
(24:30):
good point from Yusef Mineer. Asking mom Nani and every
interview to denounced Clobe and a fada would be like
asking Schumer in every interview to announced amiel Hi. I
think that's how you say it there. You know, it's
the literal meaning of it is let the people of
Israel live. And there are plenty of instances with the
use of the phrase is mundane. However, the phrase is
routinely chanted by murders Israeli settlers as they engage in
(24:51):
gruesome mob violence against Palestinians. So does that make it
not okay? Because again, it can mean so many different
things to some different people. And I get the impulse
what Mom Donnie's trying to say is, if you're trying
to get a broad based coalition for palicity and justice,
you can still be principle, you could still be focused
on that, and you don't have to use language that
(25:13):
makes people that otherwise would support you feel uncomfortable. I
think that's a very very fair way of going about it.
But I really don't like, you know, this kind of
framing here from Bernie Sanders. He's told Zora Mam Donnie
that he needs to be careful about how he talks
about Israel. Sanders, who is Jewish, urged Mom Donnie to
be cautious about how he approaches talking about Israel. According
to person familiar with their conversation, Sanders told Mom Donnie
(25:34):
he had to do a better job explaining that his
criticism is not anti Semitic, and not let himself seem
like he's minimizing the fear of Jews in New York
and elsewhere feel, and the fear Jews in New York
and elsewhere feel from the threat of hate against them.
That's kind of a clunky sentence there, in my opinion,
But whatever, What is not clunky is the what is
(25:56):
actually quite poor is the kind of political thinking there
by mom, Donnie, because its just like, oh, you know,
you got to explain to Jews that you're doing a
better job, like they they're acting in good faith here. No,
they're not acting in faith good faith. There's there's plenty
of you know, average New Yorkers who are worked up
about this, but they're being worked up about it because
the media is hitting this narrative over and over and
(26:17):
over and over again. That is also driving a significant
chunk of the fear. And I think that is something
that he needs to realize. Bernie Sanders needs to realize,
because I think Zoramandani has really realized it already. You know,
he has the power on this. He's on the right
side of the issue, he has the political power behind it,
(26:38):
and he's already clarified so so many times it's an
issue that I think risk being beaten into submission. Here's
a piece of pretty shocking news I generally did not
see coming last night, a little bit random, but it happened.
Stephen Colbert announced that his show The Late Show was
being canceled last night on CBS's only going to run
(27:03):
for you know, another ten months, so it's not like
you'll still have your chance to watch Stephen as much
as you want.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Here here's how you made the announcement.
Speaker 9 (27:13):
Oh hey, everybody, we got a great show for you tonight.
Senator Adam Schiff was my guest. We harmonized on seven
Bridges Road. What a voice, I cried. But before we
start the show, I want to let you know something
that I found out just last night. Next year will
be our last season. The network will be ending the
Late Show in May. And yeah, I share your feelings.
(27:44):
It's not just the end of our show, but it's
the end of the Late Show on CBS. I'm not
being replaced. This is all just going away.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
And yeah, so Late Show is done. It's been obviously
an institution in kind of late politics. Guys are late
night chat shows forever. Ed Sullivan used to host it
and all that stuff. And the CBS says it's because
it's a financial decision, and I think that's definitely something
that I could imagine being a financial decision. But I
(28:13):
do think it is very interesting given the fact that
they have this Paramount merger going through where they're trying
to I think merge with I forget exactly the name
of the company, but Paramount, which is the company that
owns CBS trying to have a big, big business deal,
and that is something that the boss is. This is
what happened with sixty minutes. For sure. The bosses of
(28:35):
Paramount have already conceded quite a lot on the kind
of journalistic integrity front. They've watered down or sixty minutes
quite a lot. They settled with the Trump administration out
of court in a case that they definitely could have
won when Trump accused them of falsely editing a Kamala
Harris interview and some sort of election interference. You know,
they just settled that out of court when they totally
(28:58):
could have on the first amount of grounds feeding the press,
grounds kind of gone through with it quite easily. So
they are definitely in the kind of capitulation mood. But
on the other hand, I think this as we continue
to see even John Stewart now he's on a podcast,
he's doing YouTube videos. You know, it's definitely something that
speaks to the change of the media landscape, far far
(29:19):
away from the traditional oh, you know, we're going on
at eleven thirty every night, we're doing there's a standard broadcast.
That format is becoming increasingly out of date, especially for
people that want to hear Colbert's political takes. So you
can see how that would be an unprofitable model for Stevs,
and also it kind of could be an unprofitable model
(29:40):
for Stephen Colbert. We could get just as much, if
not more pop and more personal influence and honestly more
money hosting a very very well produced, slick podcast where
he essentially interviews people for a much longer and he
was able to say his own political opinions without any
sort of advertiser or business backlash considerations. But it was
(30:03):
I thought it was an interesting debate going on as
CNN where I almost didn't agree with either of the
two sides talking about why Colbert was canceled about potential
capitulation to Trump, which I definitely think is something that
you can't roll out, or the fact that you know,
which I think is a little bit more ridiculous, the
fact that Republicans were so mad about the lack of
(30:27):
good treatment from from Stephen Colbert.
Speaker 10 (30:29):
One massive part of the conversation that's been complete admitted
from this, and that is when you do a show
that attacks half of America every night, and you don't
have conservatives on and by the way, you're not funny,
but attacking half of America and your ratings suck.
Speaker 7 (30:43):
You might lose your show like this.
Speaker 4 (30:49):
But there's a lot of reasons why are not working
out that have nothing to do with the political device.
Speaker 10 (30:54):
But constant he's having on Democrats to trash Trump. He
has constantly and trashing conservatives. He referred to on Trump
as a Nazi lover in two thousand and seven.
Speaker 4 (31:04):
You that doesn't make half of the country happy, right,
but you don't have a country, but you don't need
they have the whole country watching your shirt.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
You'll need the country. That's great. Problem is.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
It's it is kind of tough because both sides are
kind of making good points. Like Colbert was not that funny.
He was offering kind of a low brand of like
just very standard basic liberal humor that would have worked
and did work a lot better in twenty seventeen, where
a lot of people were first getting into politics, were
much more normy, standard Democrats and they were willing to
(31:43):
hear this kind of kind of milk toe stuff about
oh Trump is a buffoon.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
But the Democrats are really great too.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
You know, a lot of people don't believe that anymore,
even on the Democratic side, which I think is a
reason why although you do have here, I don't know
the kind of source of these numbers, but I do
think there, yeah, here it is. This is apparently the
ratings for Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel and Jamie Fallon.
And you could see that Stephen Colbert is on the
top with two point four million and Jimmy Kimmel's the
(32:12):
next closest with one point seventy five million per night.
So that kind of goes against the idea that the
ratings were were so bad. But also I think the
idea that you know, so many Trump supporters were deeply
offended and were just it was eating them up inside
every night. They couldn't get it off their mind how
unfair it was that Stephen Colbert wasn't giving them, you know,
(32:32):
the time of day on TV. Like I do not
think that it's something that you know, a lot of
a lot of the magabas is too worked up about.
I just I think also because Colbert, the bottom line is,
he's just not that relevant, and a big part of
that is again because he's still in that kind of
liberal humor that is very family to the Democratic Party,
(32:54):
but also opposition to Trump that people just I think
really aren't aren't driving with anymore. So I almost kind
of think that they're they're both a little bit right
and they're both a little bit wrong here in this.
Speaker 11 (33:05):
Exchange, Larry, to to what you're saying, like the other
side of it is that you know there are shows
that I will not name that spend half their time
attacking liberals or attack all their time attacking the attacking liberals,
and it doesn't have impact on their ratings. So to
to raise Woint, I don't necessarily think that's really on
(33:28):
the ratings front. I don't really whatting.
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Is good their dismal cable news show.
Speaker 7 (33:35):
Let's be clear about the network.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
The real problem is more like Netflix and the reasons
what the the democratization of the higher television landscape. There
are so many more options for people to watch. That's
going to cut.
Speaker 12 (33:47):
Into the actually part of it.
Speaker 10 (33:48):
But let's go back to you have a guy that
does a show that's funnier on cable that gets bigger ratings,
and they had warnings that' and again debatable.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
Remember it is extremely debatable.
Speaker 11 (34:01):
Is what I'm talking about but you maybe like him
and listen. The reason I say it's debatable is because
every human being in the United States of America has
a right to decide what they find is funny. And
if half of America likes Colbert and half of America
likes Scottfeld that's fine in the United States of America'm
okay with that.
Speaker 2 (34:19):
That's okay.
Speaker 10 (34:20):
But my point is the reason why it got canceled
because he was no longer funny and he was attacking half.
Speaker 4 (34:26):
That's not what's going on at all. I just explained
we're witnessing the end of an American television institution. It
doesn't make enough.
Speaker 12 (34:34):
One is throwing Colbert. Colbert will forever be known as
the person who frittered away David Letterman's legacy, which is something.
But may I bring everyone together. I think you're both right.
I think your conversation about the television models correct. I
think your points about the conservative you know, anti conservative
bent is correct. But I would just submit, this is
not even the most important media story of the day.
(34:55):
They're voting right now.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
Yeah, so Scott Jennings winging in saying whatever on that,
But I think it is is definitely very imaginable to
see that this could be a financial decision. But I
do think it also speaks to really really two major things. Again,
what Toree was talking about there, the liberal guy in
that video was essentially saying that a lot of people
are tuning off from kind of terrestrial standard TV, which
(35:21):
is very, very very possible. Also, I think it's very
possible that the Bosses did it as an extra favorite.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
To Trump for the paramount merger.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
I think this is certainly possible because you know, Trump
is still very very tied to terrestrial TV, and you know,
probably flips around and sees Colbert bashing and he gets annoyed,
and I'm sure he's tweeted badly about Colbert in the past.
But I also do think that he was in a
niche that was very not appealing to a lot of people,
(35:47):
where he was again just helping out the Democratic Party,
supporting the Democratic Party at all costs, when a lot
of people in bashing Trump but not really realizing and
tapping into a lot of people that a lot of
the anger in the disapp faction that people have with
the Democratic Party. I predict for him a very very
popular podcast launching sometime next year. That is very much
(36:10):
the same. So me personally, despite the fact that he
may have been set up for the fall by the
CBS bosses to please the Trump administration, I'm not going
to be crying or shedding any tears for Stephen Colbert's future.
Just when you thought that Joe Biden and his staffs
cover up of his mental acuity couldn't hurt the Democratic
(36:31):
Party anymore, we see this kind of incredible headline here
coming out another Biden and eight has taken the fifth
as Republicans hauling in the family of members for questioning on.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
The press decline.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
And that is as any Thomas Cini, who is the
deputy chief of staff for Biden in this investigation, that
the House Republicans are doing essentially really to get as
many bad stories about Biden out as possible. And I think,
for example, the auto pen, I don't think that's really
gonna resonate. I think that was just mostly a especially
with all the pressures that the Republicans and the administration
are under right now, I don't think people are really
(37:05):
going to get too worked up about his staff essentially
putting in a bunch of signatures for pardons that he
knew were happening anyway, kind of automated signatures. But le
ticlarly this this is a report here from News Nation
about this this whole amazing time.
Speaker 7 (37:20):
House Republicans continued to probe the alleged cover up of
President Biden's mental decline by his administration, including the use
of the auto pen. Today, longtime aid Annie Thomasini, who
served as the President's deputy chief of staff, spoke with
investigators behind closed doors after being subpoenaed by the House
Oversight Committee chairman, Representative James Comer, pleading the fifth to
(37:41):
all questions regarding the president. That makes Thomassini the third
former AID in the administration to plead the fifth during
questionings of this probe, as both President Biden's physician and
First Lady Jill, Biden's senior aide, invoked their rights earlier
this month. But the investigation is far from being over.
House Republicans are pla to still depose top names in
(38:02):
the administration, including President Biden's Press secretary Karine Jean Pierre
and his chief of staff Jeff Sides. News Nations Tom Dempsey.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Yeah, so that could be really interesting because you know,
those people have been really after it, but I'm not
sure what they are essentially trying to figure out, Like, yes,
they lied about it, Yes they covered up the age.
You know, what's the I don't think we need a
whole investigation to figure this stuff out. Are they trying
to say that, oh, he was making you know this,
his staff is making decisions for him. I think that
(38:32):
would be really interesting to know. But you know, it
was essentially you could see, you know, they were asking
this woman any Tomasini. Who was the recent most recent
person to plead the fifth after I think was Anthony Brunall, who,
you know, if you buy the Jake Tapper book, was
really really a big figure in uh, the cover up
and the whole you know, he's fine, keep keep him going,
(38:54):
don't let him stop.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
You know, he's all good, you know that whole effort.
Speaker 1 (38:57):
But he also pleaded the fifth I think, as did
who else was it Kevin O'Connor, who's the physician? You
know that was really crazy. But you know, like the
beyond what they're trying to find out on the fact that,
you know, yeah, House Republicans are probably do in this
just because they want bad stuff in about Biden.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
There's a huge, huge element of truth.
Speaker 1 (39:19):
To this is that a lot of people are still
very pissed off about the fact that the Democrats lied
and lied and lied and lied about the mental cuty
of the President of the United States and the ability
of him to.
Speaker 2 (39:28):
Carry out that job.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
And the fact that again, the fact they're pleading the
fifth the fact that they're kind of hiding this stuff
up suggests that, you know, in the best case scenario,
they haven't gotten their stories straight. But the very very
likely situation is there is some really bad, kind of
sketchy stuff that went on where the staff was taking
too many liberties, the staff was trying to do things
for their own benefit. Whatever they're acting selfishly, they were
(39:53):
trying to preserve their positions of power in the White
House and not have, you know, initiate a broader reckoning
about the health of their you know, and they're very
desperately trying to not have that reckoning. But you know,
I think it is it is very very clear that
this is an incredible problem. And I think also the
Democrats have not done nearly enough, nearly enough to continue
(40:16):
to to continue to distance themselves from this, to acknowledge
how bad of a screw up this was and how
much it damaged the trust with the American people that
you know, that is something that people are not going
to forget anytime soon, and nor should that because it
was you know, it was a clearly pulling the wall
(40:37):
over everyone's eyes, and it led to a very understandable
pervasive feeling that, oh, yeah, Democrats don't care about you.
They're just too incompetent, they're too insular focused to even
get the old guy, you know, the essentially dead president
out of the way so that they can focus on
(40:58):
actually running the country. It was just such a bad
look and some of that again, the Democrats have not
done newly enough to move past, which I think is very,
very impactful. So Bernal was again another guy who pleaded
the fifth refused to answer when refused to answer when
asked whether he ever advised President Joe Biden to punch
(41:20):
his pardon his son Hunter Biden Thomas. He began her
career as a press secretor for then Senator Biden when
he chaired the Chambers Foreign Relations Committee in the two thousands.
So Thomasini bernw Joe Biden. An ex special assistant Ashley
Williams all shield the president from the public and what
some dub operation bubble rapp because yeah, like we know
(41:41):
they did that. We know they we know they covered
him up. We know they kind of released or kind
of hid a lot of the stuff about Biden's age.
The question is, you know, how many liberty is how
much independent governing shall we say with the staff doing
But the biggest thing, the clearest thing on this situation
is that the Democrats have absolutely failed in terms of
(42:05):
distancing themselves and also acknowledging to the American people that
you know, there was no sort of truth or reconciliation committee,
There was no sort of published public acknowledging where the
Democratic leaders did a media around and say we screwed up.
And no, no, just it doesn't it doesn't have to
be a whole kind of you know, public apology tour
where it's over and over again. That doesn't make you
(42:25):
look good. But I think also you can say things,
but it also comes down to your actions. Are the
members of the old Biden team going to end up
back in kind of democratic circles like Koree John Pierre
for example, was in the at the Harvard and Student
politics saying all this stuff that you know, was just oh,
it was a circling fires firing squad on Biden. You know,
he didn't he was getting totally bashed by the Democratic Party.
Speaker 2 (42:48):
It was really really bad.
Speaker 1 (42:49):
It was like, of course he was getting bashed by
the Democratic Party. He was he was costing them the election.
What else would you think? What else would you think?
Speaker 2 (42:56):
You know, So it is, it is.
Speaker 1 (42:58):
It is really really clear that the Democrats Party they
have not publicly excommunicated these people, and I think until
they do that, they will really be tied down by
a lot of this stuff with regards to Biden, because
it just represents a a perception that the American people
are stupid from the Democratic Party. You know, the Democratic
(43:20):
Party thinks, oh yeah, these these dumb hogs are so
stupid that they'll vote for a half dead man just
because he's a Democrat. And I think it also kind
of goes the other way around. For a lot of people.
It's like if were you really too incompetent to get
this guy out of here? And also there's a you know,
there's element of sinisters of that too. It's like, why
are you keeping this guy who was so clearly incapacitated
(43:42):
in such a position of power. I don't think you
either either a had something you know, going on there
that was not above board, or b you were too
incompetent to initiate the process to get that guy out.
And I don't want you if you're too incopetent to
get this guy out running the whole country. So I
think it's whatever way you spin it, it does not
look good for the Democratic Party. And yeah, you need
(44:06):
a full you need a full clean break. You need
to cut yourself loose from the people who were perpetrating
this and the people who were you know, lying to
the American people as members of Biden's staff and Biden's
really just incredibly dishonest surrogate team. All Right, that is
all we have for you today on all.
Speaker 2 (44:28):
Things to do with the news of the day. All
of the.
Speaker 1 (44:32):
Clips from today's show will be available by tomorrow.
Speaker 2 (44:36):
Thank you very much, and have a great weekend. It's
use flush. We'll be back on Tuesday. Tuesday,
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