Anthony (2:32)

Anthony Cash Patel traveled to Italy on official business. His press secretary says security concerns, but there were some criticisms that he was going there just to soak up the atmosphere at the Olympics. Denied. They denied it left and right. But then we had a video coming out from Kash Patel in the locker room after the US Won the gold medal, chugging a beer. Someone put a gold medal around his neck. He was cheering, he was dancing. So that has generated more criticism than Kash Patel, who had already been open to criticism for using FBI jets to go to sporting events within the US but more criticism that he was misusing his authority and the accoutrements of his office. While one, there was a shooter, somewhat possible attempted shooter at Mar A Lago on Sunday. And two, Nancy Guthrie, the mother of Samantha Guthrie, the television personality, is still missing in Arizona. So, yeah, it's a bit of a controversy.

Host (3:33)

So this feels to me a bit like one of those stories where everyone gets very cross because it's Donald Trump's administration. But politicians of all parties in all countries have got. Have found very important reasons to take themselves off to sporting events.

Co-host (3:45)

In the past, they have, they maybe haven't drawn quite as much attention to themselves, though, as Kash Patel has posting on social media, him celebrating with the players. And then the whole thing has become a metaphor for the tensions between Canada and America. You've got the White House posting a meme of an eagle, like the American bald eagle stomping on something that may be a Canadian goose. Donald Trump posted an AI video of himself on the ice hockey rink, going around the place, crashing into Canadian players and eventually punching one. At the end of all of this, it's been. It's been a way of the United States really piling onto Canada and, you know, going back to this whole idea about them wanting to turn Canada into the 51st state of the United nations, the United States States.

Host (4:30)

I think actually we've got a clip of, of Donald Trump wading into the ice hockey control se. Let's take a listen.

Donald Trump (clip) (4:37)

I just told you people two minutes ago. I didn't know they'd be calling. I said, we're giving the State of the Union speech on Tuesday night. I can send a military plan or something. But if you would like to. It's the. It's the coolest night. It's the biggest. We're in speech. What would really be cool? And we'll do the White House the next day. We'll just have some fun. We have medals for you guys. And we have to. I must tell you, we're gonna have to bring the woman's team. You do know that. I do believe I probably would be impeached. Okay.

Host (5:16)

And how's that going down online.

Mariana (5:17)

Mariana, as you can, as you might imagine, a lot of this content is proving divisive. I mean, the thing is, is that Donald Trump, and I guess there are lots of people who've, who've been sharing this stuff saying, look, he comes across as really genuine and everyone's laughing and getting on and, and a lot of people really loving the kind of competitiveness and the patriotism and all of that kind of thing. Those comments about the women's team have been, have been received less favorably in some areas of social media, particularly people who don't like Donald Trump very much and also who are big advocates for women's sport. And also there have been quite a lot of people, particularly Canadian people, who have not loved the memes and content. I, for me, I think it's a flavor of what we might see during the World cup, although admittedly, the United States are much less good at football than they are at ice hockey.

Host (6:04)

Yeah, he might get a taste of his own medicine. We'll have to wait and see what happens there. Let's turn, let's crack on because we've got loads of questions. John in Yorkshire has emailed him. This is about Iran. He said, is Trump going to war or is the imminent attack on Iran a special military operation? Now we've, we've got a clip. This is Stephen Witkoff, who's Donald Trump's Middle east envoy, speaking to Fox News at the Weekend, describing how Donald Trump was feeling about the current situation with Iran.

Stephen Witkoff (6:29)

He's, I don't want to use the word frustrated. It's almost because he, he understands he's got plenty of alternatives. But it's curious, he's curious as to why they haven't, I don't want to use the word capitulated, but why they haven't capitulated. Why under this sort of pressure, with the amount of sea power, naval power that we have over there, why they haven't come to us and said, we profess that we don't want to be, we don't want a weapon. So here's what we're prepared to do. And yet it's hard to, to sort of get them to that place.

Host (7:02)

So what's going on there, John in Yorkshire saying, is he going to war or is it a special military operation?

Co-host (7:08)

There are talks going on at the moment about Iran. Well, what the US Wants them to get rid of their nuclear weapons program as well as some of their ballistic missiles and some other things. And Iran isn't giving much indication that it's prepared to do that. And you could hear Steve Witkoff, who is one of the people involved in the negotiations, basically saying, yeah, Iran are not giving the US what they want. What's really fascinating is that Wyckoff also yesterday was saying that the Iranian regime is about a week away from having industrial grade bomb making material. And so that's the level of the threat. They're telling people this is why they might need to consider taking military action. Well, it was less than a year ago, it was last July that those B2 bombers were flown halfway around the world and drop huge bunker buster bombs on the Iranian nuclear program. And that was when the Trump administration was saying the nuclear sites were completely destroyed and obliterated and that it would take years to bring them back into service. So it's quite something that they've now a week away from bomb making, which is what the administration is telling us as they're preparing people for the idea that there might be military action. And if there is, it won't be probably the kind of short, sharp action we saw last July. It may be something that's more involved and more prolonged.

Host (8:25)

Wait, see then. So all eyes on that for another week's time. Let's turn our attention to tariffs. Downey street has said no reciprocal action is off the table if the US does not honour its tariff deal with the uk, but then went on to say that KSOMER does not want a trade war. Dave is emailed from the self styled Seven Valley headquarters of AmericasT.

Mariana (8:47)

Thanks for that, Dave.

Co-host (8:48)

Very good.

Host (8:49)

Dave says, given that Mr. Trump's tariffs have been judged to be illegal and exceed his authority as President of the United States of America, could he be held personally liable for losses suffered by individuals and organisations as a consequence of the tariffs, which were seemingly imposed by Mr. Donald Trump personally, as they could not be ordered by the President. I apologize if this question seems somewhat partisan. Rest assured it is simply a curious inquiry. Anthony, this feels like it's very much in your wheelhouse constitution. Could individuals, organizations sue Donald Trump, not

Anthony (9:18)

Donald Trump personally, not for official actions that he has done, either civilly or criminally. The President has been very clearly ruled immune from that sort of thing at this point. Now, the United States could be sued. In fact, it has been and will be sued again to try to recoup some of the tariffs that have been taken from these companies over the past year, now that those tariffs have been ruled illegal. The Supreme Court didn't directly say whether those lawsuits would be successful or not. They didn't say anything about about these refunds, but they just handed it back to the lower courts, which are going to have to decide if refunds are in order and how they would be handed out. One of the big objections the Trump administration had during these legal proceedings was that it would be a big mess to try to figure out who gets what money and giving all of this money back. But there are companies like Costco, the big retailer here in the US that have already started the legal ball rolling. They want their money back even as Donald Trump and we've seen in the past few days has, has started to try to find new ways to impose tariffs in some cases like the UK And Australia, tariffs that are even higher than the ones that they had before after they struck the deal with the Trump and the White House.

Host (10:32)

Let's move on to a voice note that we've got from Andy in Reading.

Co-host (10:37)

Now that Andrew Batan Rinza has been

Anthony (10:40)

arrested for conduct unbecoming, has anyone in the US Been named, let alone arrested by association with Jeffrey Epstein? Where are all the names in the millions of the documents released?

Host (10:56)

Sam It's a good question this and one that lots of listeners have asked. The fallout from the release of these files seems to be far greater in the UK Than in America.

Co-host (11:04)

Yes, because you've got two really high profile people in the UK and being criminally investigated. It's worth noting, of course, that he has denied all wrongdoing in relation to his dealings with Jeffrey Epstein. There are lots of other names around in the United States. Some people, I mean, people have lost reputations as a result of this. But jobs as well, people have resigned, jobs at the top of law firms and things like that. So they would say that they had personally paid a pretty high price. But it's not quite to the extent of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor or even Peter Mandelson. And there's not quite so much international attention on them as there is in the two Brits. But what we're no closer to, it seems in the United States or in Britain is anybody being held accountable for abuse of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. So it's, as you know, misconduct in a public office that's being alleged against Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, something similar. They're possibly maybe coming for Peter Mandelson. But none of that is to do with, you know, actually the sex trafficking that we're talking about. And we're certain we don't appear to be any closer in the United States to anyone being investigated, let alone arrested for that.

Host (12:14)

Anthony, Once you put that down to. Is that, is it a lack of hard evidence that the, you know, the chatting on emails is more about the sort of apparent sharing of documents they shouldn't have been and all that? Actually not everything was put down. Or is it, is there an institutional reluctance to wade into it, what you put that down to?

Anthony (12:34)

I think it's a bit of both. Maybe the hard evidence, the kind of documented contact between the former Prince and Jeffrey Epstein was one of the reasons why he's been so caught up in this. The same goes for Peter Mandelson. All of these emails, but there are email correspondence with prominent Americans. Les Wexner, who is a retail tycoon, who funded Epstein, who gave considerable amounts of money to be managed by Jeffrey Epstein. The reason Epstein in the 90s became such a prominent figure. He has been implicated but has not been charged. And while there have been allegations around him, there hasn't been any kind of evidence that has been presented for legal proceedings. He just actually was spoken to by members of Congress this last week where they came to his mansion in Ohio and interviewed him. And he said that he was, had been duped by Jeffrey Epstein, that he had been suckered essentially and conned by him and pleaded no knowledge of any of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. So I think there's a high, there's been a high bar by the Justice Department to bring some sort of charges beyond Ghislaine Maxwell, of course, who is in prison for conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein. But that reluctance could be a reflection of how the justice system here in the United States works and the reluctance to hold people to power account, some people would say. But also the fact that the documentary evidence just is not quite there for the kind of case that you would need to bring a conviction, at least in the prosecutor's view.

Co-host (14:17)

What a lot of the Epstein survivors would say, of course, is that's because these crimes were not properly investigated. The evidence isn't there because the FBI or the police haven't gone looking for it because they never took the complaint seriously. And it would seem now as well that there, it still isn't any kind of in depth investigation that would try and uncover the evidence that would be needed to prosecute any of these men.

Host (14:38)

We should stress that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor has not been charged. He was arrested and then released and denies all wrongdoing, as does Peter Mandelson. Couple of lighter items to finish on. We'll start with quilts and then we'll do cows. We've got a quilting update So a couple of weeks ago, Americaster Alison Thomas in North Norfolk got in touch about the crossover between crafting and quilting, which she's big into and protests, and how her social media crafting. Social media being dominated by people wearing red hats in protest to the Nazis and so on. And we've got a development.

Mariana (15:11)

We do, yeah. So she, Alison, had got in touch, like you say, about. We spoke about those hats a bit and also about how just people were quilting anti ice messaging relating to what had happened in Minneapolis. And now in front of me, in my hands, I have a wonderful AmericasT quilt segment. And she sent several. It's got the Ameracast logo and then it's got US flags around the outside with gold stars. It is absolutely lovely. And we did say we'd love a quilt. So we really appreciate these are treasured bits of quilt.

Host (15:40)

Alison, I'm not. Well, I'm not being rude, Alison, but I mean, it's about the size of a sheet of A4. So I'm going to keep you that warm.

Mariana (15:45)

Yeah, but it's like a. It's like a quilt sample I think we can put up in the studio. You see, if it's like this because like we have in the worldwide headquarters, we have little framed photos so we can probably display it.

Host (15:55)

I wouldn't know. I haven't been. I don't know. I was. I was last summer. I was allowed in there especially. But then there was the injunction. I'm not allowed in the Winger.

Mariana (16:04)

Someone will pick that.

Host (16:05)

Alison, we. Alison, we like that. Thank you for setting in. And there's a nice red one as well. Sort of red check thing with some.

Mariana (16:13)

Yeah, thank you so much. They're amazing. I wish I was. I wish I could keep going.

Host (16:16)

Alison. By Christmas, Mary and I will have a whole, whole quilt. Because now she's 30, she's gonna just be staying in under a blanket watching box sets. Now, we've also had this is this I really like. We've had a text from Amy. She says, I'd love to ask the AmericasT team why a cow seemed to turn up during the recent emergency tariff podcast. My mum and I are sure we heard a moo between roughly 14 minutes, 30 seconds and 15 minutes. Well, we've had a listen back. We think we found what she's talking about. Let's see if you can spot the cow as well.

Anthony (16:49)

Republicans, particularly Republicans in swing districts, battleground districts, who are probably happy that this decision came down the way it did because these terrorists, if you look at polls aren't very popular.

Host (17:01)

So sorry, we've got to hear that again. I was expecting it to be. Because I hadn't heard it. I expected it to be much like in the distance. Yeah, like outside. There's a cow outside, not a cow. Leaning into the.

Anthony (17:12)

Hear it again looks particularly Republicans in swing districts, battleground districts, who are probably happy that this decision came down the way it did because these terrorists, if you look at polls, aren't very popular.

Mariana (17:25)

Is that not Justin just going.

Co-host (17:27)

I think it's Justin.

Host (17:27)

Do we think it's Justin being particularly bovine?

Anthony (17:30)

Yeah.

Mariana (17:30)

That's why he doesn't think.

Anthony (17:31)

I'll tell you, I did not have any cows with me when I was recording on Friday.

Host (17:36)

Well, we'll ask Justin and we'll try and get to the bottom of that next week. Well, once again, we've covered an awful lot of ground there.

Co-host (17:52)

Okay, We've just come off the air on five Live with Matt. Charlie. Mariana's had to dash off and do other things, but Anthony and I are still here because we've had so many questions from you on tariffs and the implications of the court ruling, and we wanted to chat a little bit more about it. There's one more question in from Jim in Aberdeen who is asking, has any previous president criticized or indeed insulted the Supreme Court so severely? Now, those he appointed have disappointed him. Is there any way he can unappoint them by claiming their decisions threaten national security, for instance? J.D. vance has been talking along those lines, and he also wants to know, does the Supreme Court decision matter? Because as I understand it, he says they previously ruled that the president, whatever he did in his role, was legal. Does this give the president the authority to do as he pleases? And even if it doesn't, what can they do? How many divisions do they have? So that's lots and lots of questions in one there, Anthony. Let's try and unpack it. So let's start with that Supreme Court ruling earlier where they basically said if the president does something when he's acting in the role as president, it is therefore legal. Why does that not mean that his tariffs are legal?

Anthony (19:02)

Well, he can't be held criminally responsible for his official actions, but that doesn't mean that he gets to do them. And he could say, I'm going to keep the tariffs on, but the people under him who would be following that direction are certainly liable for violating the law. They could be held personally or professionally responsible for that. And other courts can step in and block these tariffs from being gathered. So, yes, Donald Trump kind of floats above the law as the president and from criminal liability. But the US Government that has to enforce the policies, they are very much open to courts telling them what to do. So Donald Trump has tried to find new ways to put on tariffs to circumvent this Supreme Court decision. He's pointed to other authorities under the law and already imposed a 15% temporary tariff, citing a different provision of a different tariff law. But he can't go back and just ignore the Supreme Court as much as he would like to, because the people around him won't follow that, and courts will step in.

Co-host (20:08)

And of course, Jim was saying how much he'd criticized and insulted some of the Supreme Court justices. He said that he was ashamed of them, that their families ought to be ashamed of them. I mean, he really had a go on Friday. And we're going to see another showdown on Tuesday night when he's delivering the State of the Union address. The justices will all be lined up in the audience right in front of him. And we may well see some fireworks then, because, I mean, among the people who voted against him, effectively, six of the nine justices found against Donald Trump, two of them were ones that he had appointed himself, Nir Gorsuch and Amy Comey Barrett. So it's an interesting question, isn't it, Anthony, from Jim, about can he unappoint them in some way? Because the famous thing about being made a Supreme Court justice is that it is an appointment for life.

Anthony (20:54)

Right? There is a provision to remove Supreme Court justices, but it's out of Donald Trump's hands. It's the impeachment process, which is the same process that removes precedents. The House of Representatives, a majority would have to vote, and then two thirds of the Senate would have to convict. So it is a very high bar to remove a Supreme Court justice from a lifetime appointment, even if the person who appointed them. But Donald Trump was clearly not happy. He said he was ashamed of certain members. And I think he was speaking, as he mentioned there, to about Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gore, such as shamed for not having the courage to do what was right for the country. He said that they were lap dogs and fools and called it a disgrace. And to get back to the question, has previous presidents spoken that way about the Supreme Court? Certainly not publicly. There have been presidents who have been very critical of the Supreme Court decisions. We talked about Andrew Jackson in the past talking about the Supreme Court making their ruling but not being able to enforce it. And actually, if you remember Barack Obama during one of his addresses to Congress, criticized Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. It was a campaign finance decision, saying it was going to open the door to money overwhelming the political process. And he said that as those justices were down there right in front of him as he was giving the speech, and Samuel Alito, who is still on the court, mouthed, not true. And it became a big blow up where, you know, the president had the temerity to call out a Supreme Court in the middle of a speech. Well, that's nothing compared to what Donald Trump did in that press conference we saw on Friday.

Co-host (22:36)

Yeah. And the other thing we were talking earlier about some of the fallout from the tariffs decision in terms of what happens now going forward. And lots of companies who are going to ask ask for refunds because it's important to remember that once a tariff's imposed, it's not the foreign company shipping goods to the United States who pays it, it's the importer. So it's Toys R Us shops, for instance, who are bringing in toys from China. They're the ones who have to pay the tariff. And a lot of them are going to say they want that money back, but in many cases, they will have passed at least some, if not all of it onto consumers with higher prices. So are we going to get any money back? Is a question that people are going to start asking.

Anthony (23:16)

Right. And I think that that seems unlikely. And in part because of the uncertainty that's still out there with Trump trying to impose new tariffs using different laws. I think a lot of the importers, a lot of the companies that sell products that have been brought in from overseas are going to be very reluctant to roll back prices without knowing that the new order will definitely be tariff free, that they're going to be free of all of these tariffs going forward. They, they don't have that kind of certainty. And in fact, Donald Trump has been very active on Truth Social today, saying that he was going to be punishing countries that try to go back on the deals he struck, that if they don't confirm the deals like the EU has yet to do, then they will be singled out for particular attention. He's criticized the Supreme Court again. He's talked about these new tariffs he's going to be putting on that will not only be very easy to do, but even more harsh and high than the tariffs he originally had. So all of that new uncertainty is being injected in there. Companies are going to try to get refunds of the tariffs already collected, but I don't think they're going to be in any kind of a mood or disposition to want to immediately hand it back to the consumers. Not with so much doubt about what happens next out there.

Co-host (24:34)

He can't threaten higher tariffs, can he? I thought the new statute that he's using to give him the authority, he says gives them the authority to impose tariffs. Puts a limit of 15% on it, doesn't it? He can't go around threatening 50, 60, 70% tariffs against countries he doesn't like.

Anthony (24:50)

Not under that law. And that law was designed to address a balance of payments deficit, which is not clear. Is even the problem here that is open to legal challenge very quickly as well. But I think he's looking at other provisions, other tariff laws that he has used to say target the auto industry, the steel industry, which require a little more legwork, a little more fact finding to get in there. Most of them are, have time limits as well, but they could allow tariffs to go up above that 15%. I think the reason he used that one law, 122, I think, was the section is because he could do it fairly quickly and he can do it across the board. So he's trying to buy himself some more time. But as I mentioned, it's not even clear that he has the authority under that law to do what he's doing. We could be right back where we started before, which is lawsuits being filed and we'll see how long it takes to work through the legal system before we get a final determination. It took a year almost the first time around. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't hold your breath. But it is all just kind of a muddled mess. But the one that we can take away from all this is Trump doesn't want to just abandon tariffs. He still says he has this power to do it. He still says all the deals he struck are in effect and he's going to press ahead. He does not clearly does not want to accept defeat on this. As, as he tends to, to not deal well with these kind of setbacks. He pushes ahead.

Co-host (26:12)

Now, we've got another question that came in by email from Ewan in home Firth. And he says, I've been wondering whether we've become somewhat desensitized to the kind of behavior that Trump and the current administration display on a regular basis. It feels like every week something happens that would normally seem unbelievable, yet it's starting to feel like the new normal. For instance, the Board of Peace, the responses to the shootings, the handling of the Epstein files and so on. Yeah, and we could Go on and on and on. Because it is practically weekly that something that. Yeah, well, that we would call unprecedented happens. I worry about this too, Anthony, that we are becoming desensitized a bit to this, that we can't go on the air, whether it's on this podcast or all of our other journalistic work, screaming and shouting about. Nothing ever has ever happened like this before. This is. This is so big and so new and so surprising when it's happening all the time. But each incident is pretty enormous.

Anthony (27:08)

Yeah. The way Donald Trump talks about the Supreme Court, the way he talks about other politicians, the rhetoric he uses, all of it is kind of incomprehensible to someone who had been picked up 20 years ago and dropped into modern day to hear a president behave this way. And one of the things that. That Donald Trump supporters say they like about it is that it shows that he isn't calculating. He isn't saying things just because they've been tested by pollsters and telling you what you want to hear. He is talking the way he feels. And so at least you know where Donald Trump stands. But I think it is. It's a challenge for us as reporters to be able to still underline and highlight how unusual, how much of a break from norms and traditions this is. And it's ongoing and it's pushing the boundaries. And now we see other politicians start to replicate it. We see Democrats using curse words in their responses to Donald Trump's statements. All of that just feels like the ground is shifting. But I think we do have a responsibility to point out how much of a break from the past this is.

Co-host (28:21)

Donald Trump often accuses his critics of suffering from what he calls Trump Derangement Syndrome. There has to be some kind of other phrase for what happens to the likes of you and me, Anthony, who are following him every day, listening to just about every speech he makes, every press conference he gives. You know, our working lives are very heavily dominated by the messages that we're getting from Donald Trump all of the time. I need to. We need to come up with something, some sort of tds that's not derangement syndrome. That explains what it's like covering this day in, day out.

Anthony (28:51)

Yeah. I mean, it's been 10 years plus now of Donald Trump standing. Standing astride the American political system. And he's dominated our professional careers. Clearly, he has changed the way American politics operates. And it's exhausting for those of us who cover it because there's just so much churn. And every day it's something new. And every day it's pushing somewhere. Then as soon as you get ready to cover that one little bit, he's off doing a half dozen other things. We were all talking about tariffs this week, but as we discussed in the show, the United States could launch strikes on Iran. It seems likely that the United States is positioning itself to launch strikes on Iran in the next few days. And then tariffs will, at least for a while, be an afterthought. And then what about Epstein and the latest revelations there? It's just one thing after another, whether it's the Steve Bannon flood the zone sort of strategy where they keep throwing stuff out and journalists can't keep up, or if it's just the way American politics is now. It is, it's a lot for anyone to handle. And it does, it does take a toll.

Co-host (29:58)

And of course, that's what AmericasT is for, to to keep people across every twist and turn of what's coming out of the White House. And we will be back and pretty soon because Anthony, you and I are going to stay up late tomorrow night, Tuesday night, and listen to the State of the Union address and then put together a stick special. AmericasT.

Anthony (30:16)

Yeah, I'll be in the hall watching it take place. So I will share all the little tidbits I see with my own very eyes.

Co-host (30:22)

So we'll be back in the very early hours of Wednesday morning. But until then, bye bye, bye.

Anthony (30:30)

Thank you for listening to another episode. It's you, the ameracaster that makes americast the community it is. If you like what you've heard, please do subscribe to this podcast on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts. We always want to hear your feedback and we look at every single bit of correspondence we get. You can send us an email americastbc.co.uk our WhatsApp is 44331239480 and of course you can get involved in the AmericasT Discord server. The link to that is in the description. Until next time. Bye.

BBC News Announcer (31:28)

You know that goal you set at the start of the year? You can still do it. Whether you're committed to a thru hike with friends, lifting heavier or simply walking more. It's not too late to stick with it and make your future self proud. Especially with the all in One Nutrition shake from Kachava because quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated. Just two scoops of Kachava's all in One Nutrition Shake and you've got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens and so much more. Plus, it actually tastes delicious. No fillers, no nonsense, just the good stuff your body craves. So instead of adding to your backstock of supplements that over promise and under deliver, simplify your progress with just two scoops of the highest quality ingredients. Stick with your wellness goals. Go to kachava.com and use code NEWS for 15% off. That's kachava.com and use Code NEWS K-A C H-A V A.com Code NEWS A T shirt and jeans. Mac and cheese Some things in life are an obvious match, like Rias and Schwab Advisor Services, the number one choice for independent advisors. The difference is so obvious, it's Schwabius. Learn why at schwabius. Com.