B (3:02)

Well, let's start with exactly what Donald Trump is doing here, which is imposing a blockade on Venezuelan tankers, sanctioned what he says, oil tankers. He has already ordered the US Coast Guard to stop two of them. The first one was a little over a week ago. The second one was just this last weekend, where they took control of another tanker and now are in active pursuit, according to U.S. authorities, for a third tanker. So we can listen to Donald Trump announcing that blockade last week on the tarmac with Air Force One in the background. The goal of the blockade with Venezuela is to regime change. It's a blockade.

A (3:45)

After it let anybody going through that should be going through.

B (3:49)

You remember, they took all of our energy rights.

A (3:52)

They took all of our oil from.

B (3:54)

Not that long ago, and we won it back, but they took it. They illegally took it.

A (4:00)

Okay, so to get to the heart of Karim's question, can he do all of these things, you hear his justifications there. But can he do that without putting those justifications to Congress and getting congressional approval? And as I read it, Anthony, we've talked about this off and on, haven't we, for some time, that the situation is America hasn't declared war on anyone since the Second World War, has it? It has got congressional authorizations for kind of major actions. And I was thinking, and I think when we talked about this before, I came up with the first Gulf War, and you pointed out that that wasn't a declaration of war, but it was a kind of congressional approval. And there have been subsequent ones, haven't there, for the actions in Iraq, et cetera. And in a sense, when Trump goes after Islamic State targets in Syria, I think I'm right in saying he's still using, isn't he, a congressional authorization that he thinks he has from action against Al Qaeda and all its offshoots and anyone who'd follow on, etc. In this case, Anthony, that then raises the question, we're not talking about a declaration of war. That's certainly not going to happen. But is there a serious case for saying you do need a congressional authorization of some sort before you go any further?

B (5:20)

A blockade is generally perceived to be considered to be an act of war, full stop. And that is what Donald Trump is doing. I mean, he's imposed a blockade on Venezuela and there are members of Congress who say, no, you have to at least have some sort of authorization. You mentioned the authorization of military force that came after the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. that was kind of a blanket authorization for the war on terror. So it covered Afghanistan and all these other things. There is a separate authorization for the war against Iraq. But there has been nothing. Congress has done nothing here for this Venezuelan action. And so it comes down to one of these questions we talk about time and time again with Donald Trump. Is, does he have the legal authority to do this? It's not clear. Maybe not. But is there anyone who is going to try to stop him? And is there anyone who can stop him? And that also is unclear. Presidents generally have broad powers over directing the military. They're the commander in chief. And if they decide to use it, it's not clear how Congress, without an explicit vote saying, you can't do this to, are able to cut him off. So gray area, a gray area, once again, that Donald Trump is taking advantage of.

A (6:31)

Yeah, and it's a weird one because. Because they thought, didn't they, that. That the gray area had been ungrayed after the Vietnam War, which is, in a sense, where the modern discussion of all of this comes to. So you had the. The Vietnam War and that kind of massive escalation after escalation after escalation, never properly approved by Congress. I mean, there was approval, wasn't there, for limited action. But then people say. People look back on that after the event, didn't they, Anthony, and said, we gotta do this differently. And it just seems to me that they haven't necessarily managed it.

B (7:04)

Yeah, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was passed after kind of a staged incident at the beginning of the Vietnam War.

A (7:11)

That's right. It wasn't even a real incident, was it?

B (7:13)

Yeah, it wasn't even a real incident. It seems it covered the entirety of the Vietnam War. And then the post Watergate Democratic control Congress passed the War Powers act, which did spell out if the president uses military in a certain amount of time, it has to turn to Congress and inform them and get permission to continue it. And presidents of both parties have generally thumbed their nose at that. Barack Obama was bombing, sending drones into various countries. Bill Clinton was involved in wars in the Balkans against Serbia without getting explicit permission, if I recall correctly. But Obama, again, was in Libya supporting the war in Libya. To Al Qaddafi, all of this. Presidents don't tend to like Congress meddling in their war powers, in their exercise of military authority. But of Course, none of them have done quite so brazenly. Now, it seems, as Donald Trump is doing it with Venezuela, I suppose he.

A (8:14)

Could say Reagan invaded Grenada, didn't he? There was an invasion of Panama, wasn't there? Well, yeah, yeah, Bush invaded Panama. Neither of those things with explicit permission. As I remember. The only thing stopping Reagan in grenada potentially was Mrs. Thatcher, of whom he was quite frightened. There are lots of memoirs, a, lots of books have come out about the Thatcher government. It's fascinating that she, she really fell out with him over Grenada. I mean, they were of course, ideologically very close on so many other things. But I mean, if you can have, I suppose, bringing it back to Karim's question about Venezuela, if he can manage a short, successful military action, it probably doesn't matter, does it? In the sense that by the time the historians look this over, it's long gone. But if they get stuck in some sort of a quagmire there or lose significant numbers of American soldiers or airmen, God forbid, then it's a different situation.

B (9:18)

Yeah, yeah, that's the thing. If Americans start dying, the dynamic of this changes entirely. But until then, the American public only pays a half attention and there doesn't seem to be a will in Congress, a Republican controlled Congress, to do anything to really check him. All right, let's go on to our next question. This one is from Simon. He says how long will it take for all the Trump accolades to be reversed when the next administration starts? I'm thinking particularly of the public holidays for Trump's birthday, the renaming of various buildings, institutions, et cetera. What one president could do, another can do. Right, Justin?

A (9:55)

Yeah, exactly. And I mean, there are, there are a few of them, aren't there? The Trump birthed in Flag Day Holiday Establishment act, which I've completely forgotten about, has been introduced to Congress. I didn't realize this has, has actually been introduced to Congress back in February, hasn't yet been passed into law, I think we can safely say, and is, I suppose, unlikely to. The Kennedy center thing is, is interesting, isn't it though, Anthony, because this is close to you in D.C. anyone who's been to D.C. knows the Kennedy Center. It's a huge center for the American arts. It's been renamed. The first time it's been renamed after a sitting US President. The new lettering is there, isn't it? They haven't got rid of the John F. Kennedy bit of it, have they?

B (10:45)

No, now they just put up the Donald Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial center for the Performing Arts. Trump, of course, is not dead. Kennedy was assassinated and it was set up. The Kennedy center was set up by law as a living memorial, in the phrase to the life of John F. Kennedy, who was a patron of the arts. So the Kennedy center, the Kennedy family is up in arms about this. They can't add Donald Trump's name to it, even though there was a vote by the Kennedy center board to put that name on. It's statutorily detailed in Congress on the founding of the Kennedy center that would be named the John F. Kennedy Memorial. So I think there's questions about the legality of that. But also all a new president would have to do is come in, appoint a new board the way Donald Trump has, and they could vote to take the name off. And that could be done very quickly. The United States Institute of Peace, which the State Department has now named the Donald Trump Institute of Peace, which is a building that was right across from the Kennedy Center, a center that was set up, the institute that was set up by Congress in a law, in theory, the State Department could just change that the very next day. All of these things. The Flag Day, Donald Trump birthday thing was a national park decision to have free admissions on Flag Day, Trump birthday. Well, if a new president could put in a new interior secretary, a new head of the national parks, who could go and say, okay, these are going to be the new days where we give free admission, that also would be relatively easy to do. It's just a question of, I guess, political will. And if the public would perceive someone coming in, a Democrat coming in and changing all of this very rapidly, as focusing too much on the past, there might be political consequences for that. But I think there are going to be a lot of Democrats who are clamoring, who are looking forward to that moment when a Democrat gets back in office and just pulls everything down. Now, the east, the ballroom that's being built where the East Wing of the White House is, that might be a little harder to undo. But. But these names, I think will be fairly easy.

A (12:54)

Yeah. Oh, it's interesting you draw attention to the fact that the Kennedy center thing might be, although it doesn't in a sense, is not the most serious things with the renaming of an arts center. But actually it might be quite tricky for him. It could be challenged legally. And that's certainly the view, isn't it? The of the Democrats we've been hearing from, for instance, the House Minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, specifically on the changes at the Kennedy center, but they want to rename, allegedly the Kennedy center after Donald J. Trump.

B (13:26)

These are sick people. Something is really wrong with these folks.

A (13:30)

And here's the final thing.

B (13:32)

They don't have the power to do it. Only Congress can rename the Kennedy Center. The wannabe king and his sycophantic minions can't do it, but they're going to create a spectacle across the country and everybody's going to chase this story. But how does that actually help the American people who've already been convinced that Donald Trump is not focused on making their life better? The whole thing is extraordinary.

A (14:02)

And it's another indication of the fact.

B (14:06)

That things have fallen apart quickly for Donald Trump and the Republican Party. So tell us how you really feel, Hakeem. I think he's pretty clear on that. Although it's interesting. He did say the politicians and Trump should be focused on what's best for the American people and things they really care about. And that could be the same line that Republicans use if Democrats come into office and just start focusing on changing everything, undoing everything that Trump did.

A (14:31)

It's interesting, isn't it? You've got to. If something is named after you, and one day something might be named after you, Anthony, it's got to be, yeah, I'm flying into Czirka International, people will say, and you've got to survive, haven't you? The initial burst of unpopularity because some people don't like the person, and then subsequent bursts of popularity and unpopularity and then become just a kind of thing, which I suppose I'm just thinking about it. JFK Airport, I assume is always going to be that airport in New York is always going to be JFK. LaGuardia could one day be Mamdani, I guess. Airport. LaGuardia, the other airport named after LaGuardia, the former mayor. But it's kind of, In a way, LaGuardia is neither popular nor unpopular. He was for a time a very popular mayor, wasn't he? But he's not. I mean, most people, I think, probably don't know much about it. The classic one for me, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong in this. I used to know that very good airport that I really recommend to people going to Los Angeles who don't want to go through lax. There's another little airport in Burbank, and it used to be known as Bob Hope Airport. But I, I think I'm right in saying they changed the name back to Burbank because nobody knows where Bob Hope is. I should say as well, for younger listeners, Bob Hope was A very famous comedian. But of course, in the modern era, number one, a lot of people haven't heard of Bob Hope. But number two, where is Bob Hope? It doesn't tell you where the place is. And so they. I think I'm right in saying they, they moved it back away from the name so you can, you can lose it. But you think of Dulles actually at Washington. A lot of people think Dulles is a place, but of course it's named after a former secretary of state. But he. He died in the 50s, didn't he? If he. And he's survived now, it seems to me Dulles will not ever be renamed. Well, ah, ah. Am I wrong?

B (16:28)

They. There has been a push to rename Dulles Airport after Donald Trump. In fact, legislation has been introduced by a Republican Congress to do exactly that. Right. About the former Bob Hope Airport is now Hollywood Burbank. And I guess it was. They wanted to try to cash in on the Hollywood identity. It's like, oh, I want to go to Hollywood. Let's fly into Hollywood Burbank. Not some entertainer who was definitely beloved back in the day, but few people know. Another big one was Reagan National Airport. It used to just be Washington National Airport, and it was a big controversy. There's naming it after Ronald Reagan. The Democrats objected to it, but that has stuck. But that was done by statute. Congress did pass that. There were a lot of things that have been named after Ronald Reagan. There was a whole push after he died to memorialize him in names of places all over this country, in schools and post offices and roads. So that was definitely a big push. But what Trump is doing is different because he's doing it unilaterally and he's doing it while he is still president, which is kind of the truly remarkable thing. There was an effort during the Black Lives Matter movement to change. I think it was Cannon House Office Building, named after a kind of a segregationist former leader of the Senate. And to change that John McCain office building. And there seemed to be some support. Democrats were pushing for it. Republicans were like, no, we're not going to go along with anything that the Democrats want. And that stalled out. So it's hard to change the names of things if you have to rely on committees and legislation. It's much easier if it's just Donald Trump putting a bunch of people on a board who are truly loyal to him. And then they say, this is the best way we can show our loyalty and start naming things after him just by executive or presidential action.

A (18:21)

Yeah, I'm shocked about Dulles. That's fascinating. Okay, let's see what happens. I don't think he'll manage it. Okay, let's go to the next question. It comes from Adam on discord. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, what's the likelihood of all the Epstein files actually seeing the light of day? For instance, what's preventing the DOJ from simply destroying documents which potentially implicate Trump or other such persons in an attempt to prevent any future administration from releasing further information resultingly. To what extent, Adam asks, do the American public trust the Department of Justice? To be honest, Anthony?

B (18:57)

Well, it didn't take us long to get to the Epstein files, which actually was the big story this last week. At the end of the week, Friday, Friday night was the deadline for the Justice Department to release all the Epstein files with limited redactions. That was mandated by Congress. And that law that was passed, that we covered a couple of months ago, that a handful of Republicans broke and sided with all the Democrats in order to pass, and it was very specific about the what had to be released, all documents relating to investigations, interviews, financial, all of this. And that the redactions would have to be very limited only to protect the names of victims, to protect from disrupting ongoing investigations. And any redactions would have to be justified by the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, within two weeks. Well, here we go. On Friday night, the Epstein files, some of them came out. Hundreds of thousands of pages came out, but many of them were heavily redacted. There was an entire, entire Justice Department document that was part of the investigation that was 50 pages that were all blacked out. I think it was a grand jury document. There were photographs that were blacked out, hundreds of them. And so it didn't shed a whole lot of light on, well, Donald Trump's connections to Epstein. Trump's name only came up maybe one or two times. And in the entirety of these documents and not a whole lot on the network that Epstein had around him and anyone that he had financial ties with or possibly client ties with in his pedophilia ring, what we did see were some pictures of celebrities. We saw several pictures, more than several, a handful, dozen. So pictures of former President Bill Clinton traveling with Jeffrey Epstein, some of him lounging in a hot tub with a woman's face that had been redacted. There was a picture of Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson. There were photos of other relatively well known prominent people with Jeffrey Epstein, but not necessarily in any kind of incriminating way. And the Justice Department has since said that there are hundreds of thousands of more pages that they are diligently working through, but they just haven't had time to go through and redact all the potentially revealing details about victims. So will we see, Will we see it all come out? I think the people who had been calling for this are starting to get a little skeptical after Friday night's revelations.

A (21:36)

Yeah, I mean, it was interesting. So we talked that night, didn't we, Anthony? For my day job on the Today program here in Britain. And the thing that I forgot to ask you actually, and I probably should have done at the time, and it just seems to me this is really important, is that there wasn't any dating, was there, of quite a lot of this material in as much as those photographs, for instance, of Bill Clinton. Well, you could say, and I think this is the point that Clinton's office were making after they were all released. If they come from before 2006, you could legitimately say, I mean, he was a pretty weird guy, I suppose, but he. But I didn't know he was involved in anything criminal because he hadn't been charged with anything before then.

B (22:20)

And that's where all these supporting documents might provide further evidence. Their emails. If there's any kind of documents that show that people of prominence and power knew what Jeffrey Epstein was doing or, you know, God forbid, were involved in it or partook of what Epstein was doing with children, that would have been particularly damning. But we haven't seen that yet. And I said that Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, the two sponsors of this legislation in the House of Representatives, are upset that not more documents have come out. And they're not the only ones who have expressed dismay, to say the least, for what we saw on Friday night. This is a clip from one of the Epstein survivors talking about how this all played out. It's Charlene Rochard talking with BBC's partner CBS News. Well, this is a step, but it's not sufficient.

A (23:16)

Transparency means timely complete disclosure, not partial release or delay like we've had. We were given a clear expectation under the law. And when information is withheld or delayed, it undermines trust and it honestly re traumatizes survivors.

B (23:34)

And transparency isn't just about releasing some information. It's about following through fully and clearly as promised.

A (23:43)

Yeah, that last point is really important, isn't it? Because the survivors didn't just want it put out there for prurient reasons. The survivors want action taken. They want accountability. And then in the longer term, who were the people who were assisting him. If there were people assisting him in abusing these girls, who were the other people who abused the girls? And some of the victims, let's remember, have written about their abuse at the hands of people who were not Epstein and Maxwell. So why are they names not in the public domain? And it just seems to me, Anthony, that this, as we always said, I mean, in a sense, even if they release absolutely everything, there'd still be conspiracy theories out there and kind of reasonable ones, because it does look as if there have been various conspiracies to keep various things quiet. And I think it's fair to say that most people looking on all of this will still say, no, there's a load of stuff still to be answered.

B (24:41)

Yeah. And the one response is, well, Epstein, this was a long time ago, and he's dead, and let's just let it go. But I think this. One of the reasons why the public is so interested in this and one of the reasons why the story is still so important is it gets to the view that those in power, those with wealth, play by a different set of rules. And Donald Trump came in promising to take the elite down a peg, to change the way the system works. And here, now, it seems like Donald Trump's Justice Department is operating in a way that is defending the wealthy and powerful, or at least keeping them from being held to account. So the more this kind of drags on and the more it feels like they're not being fully forthcoming or complying with the law. And there has been some talk now of bringing impeachment charges against Pam Bondi for not. For not complying with the law, the more I think it damages the Trump administration and the more it looks like the president himself might have something to hide. Although there has been zero evidence so far, at least in any of these documents, that Donald Trump has any kind of inappropriate or illegal ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

A (25:51)

You see, that goes back to Adam's. The heart of Adam's question, doesn't it, which is, can the Department of Justice simply cover this up? And I mean, the honest answer that I think, Anthony, is probably, you would be running a considerable risk, wouldn't you? Because there would probably be witnesses, there'd be a paper trail of some sort, and the risk would be not necessarily that you'd be prosecuted under the Trump presidency, but that at some stage in the future, it would come back to haunt you. I suppose that would be the thing that would keep an official from doing anything to break the law.

B (26:30)

Right. And that's something that the members of Congress have said is that this law does not have a statute of limitations. A new attorney general can come in and could in theory, prosecute Attorney General Pam Bondi or anyone in the Justice Department who does not fully comply with this law. And that's also why this law specifically said you have to explain these redactions, because I guess one of the biggest blind spots here is that someone in the Justice Department is looking out for Donald Trump in theory could redact more than they should. They could redact every reference of Donald Trump, for instance, and they have to find a way of keeping that from happening.

A (27:10)

Okay, let's go on to the next question. It comes from John in Beckenham. Here it is. The news is filled with the many litigations President Trump is inflicting on news organizations and others he deems to be his opponents. Also, many states and other organizations are suing his government over policies they claim are illegal. Is it known what the legal bill for all this activity is or how much it will likely be if it continues for the next three years? Who is paying the lawyers? How much is paid by US Taxpayers, and do they know about this amount?

B (27:55)

Well, it's Donald Trump's personal lawyers who are bringing these lawsuits against news organizations. And I don't know the details of Trump's financial relationship with these lawyers, but my understanding is that it's not being paid by public funds. But Donald Trump is getting settlements from a lot of these lawsuits. The one against CBS and Paramount, about 60 Minutes, for instance, the one against ABC News, and what George Stephanopoulos said about the president's defamation trial in New York. Both of those produced tidy sums for Donald Trump, which I'm sure were partially shared with the lawyers involved. And I think that's why the lawyers are getting involved here, because they sense that there could be money at the end stage in it for them. So it is, it's not something that's coming out of the public coffers, but it's certainly something that has a public importance.

A (28:43)

I mean, it's not coming out of the public office, but it's coming from donations that the public have made. In this sense that one of the areas, gray areas, and Donald Trump is so adept at operating in these gray areas, isn't he? One of the gray areas is the extent to which he can use money that was originally raised for his campaigns and is deposited in a PAC somewhere, political action committee bank account, to the extent to which he can now use that money to go after people. And I think I'm Right. In saying, Anthony, it's not entirely clear actually legally whether he can or he can't, but that he is, and that some of the money that he's using is actually money that was originally raised for other purposes, not necessarily for going out after media organizations or whatever, but he is taking a broad view of his ability to. To use that money. The problem is, though, by the time anyone challenges it successfully, not just he'll be gone, we'll be gone too. We'll all be gone.

B (29:46)

Right. Campaign finance is a, is a kind of a gray area in the law. And the Federal Election Commission that enforces campaign finance laws now has Donald Trump appointees on it. So I think that also is going to make it less likely that Trump will get into any trouble for it.

A (30:01)

Okay, last one. It's a question from Matilda in Hampshire. I think this is old Hampshire, not New Hampshire. And let's listen to Matilda. Hi, americast.

B (30:11)

There are lots of videos going around on social media at the moment about Trump announcing his plans to celebrate America's 250th anniversary with the Patriot Games. The idea of these games is that two young people from each state will compete in athletic challenges. There are lots of clips comparing them to the Hunger Games. I would love to know if this announcement is real or A.I. oh, it's real. This is something Donald Trump mentioned in the Oval Office and we can listen to him talking specifically about this.

A (30:41)

In the fall, we will host the first ever Patriot Games, an unprecedented four.

B (30:46)

Day athletic event featuring the greatest high.

A (30:49)

School athletes, one young man and one.

B (30:51)

Young woman from each state and territory. But I promise there will be no.

A (30:56)

Men playing in women's sports.

B (30:59)

You're not gonna see that. You'll see everything but that.

A (31:03)

But beyond that, actually, Anthony, there's not a lot of detail, is there?

B (31:07)

No, there's not. I mean, that is the extent of what we know about it now. Patriot Games, I think it was a Tom Clancy book and a movie. That's what I know when I think Patriot Games about the ira. But this is something new that Donald Trump has come up with. And I guess we shouldn't be surprised that a man who rose to national fame on the back of a reality television show, the Apprentice, now wants to essentially have what sounds like a kind of a reality competition that the federal government sponsors and that he'll, I'm sure, be a central part of during these 250th centennial celebrations.

A (31:48)

Yeah, Patriot Games, they have to fight to the death. And I'm not sure he's necessarily suggesting that, although, as I say, the detail isn't, isn't really there, so who knows what they'll be asked to do. And I suppose it all. I don't think there's even a timing or all of that, but one assumes July 4th would be the obvious.

B (32:05)

Well, I said in the fall in that clip.

A (32:07)

Oh, okay. Oh, did he? Oh, okay, okay.

B (32:09)

So right around the midterms.

A (32:11)

Right around the midterms. Interesting. But then, I mean, that's the other point, isn't it? I mean, in a sense, tying it back to the naming of every building after Donald J. Trump, these games are going to be, to put it mildly, quite closely aligned with him, aren't they? And I just wonder whether because of that, they just don't get the sort of universal enthusiasm that he might want.

B (32:35)

Yeah, I mean, Donald Trump is such a divisive president and if you look at the poll numbers right now, not a very popular man. But he's doing these things that are trying to make a lasting mark on American life, trying to inject himself into the fabric of American culture and not just politics. So I'm sure he would want these Patriot Games to continue after he's gone so that it would be the Donald Trump Patriot Games that started during his presidency in the same way that Air Force One could have new colors on it that he came up with. There's a new ballroom by the White House that he designed and oversaw the construction of the new buildings named after him, old buildings renamed after him. He really, the entirety of his second term in office seems to be to try to put his mark on America the way he puts his mark on hotels in downtown Chicago or in skyscrapers in New York City. I mean, he is rebranding the United States with Donald Trump in gold and shiny right on the side of it.

A (33:40)

Legacy, eh? I think of my office and where you work now in D.C. i left there in 2009. Not only is there no plaque on the door, there's no door. The office is gone. The little office. I had a little box all of my own, which I don't think Sarah has and I don't. You've got, I mean, so the whole, the idea that you build something for the future is something that in presidents, I suppose, and in senior politicians right around the world, in the Western world becomes very important to them. And I just add to that. I do wonder whether it becomes important to his family as well, if his family have longer term political ambitions. In other words, it could all disappear. And even if there are Republicans. Even if Rubio or Vance take over or whatever, that actually interest in Donald J. Trump, this and that wanes. But actually if the Trump family want to keep going, then it becomes a bit more of an issue.

B (34:39)

Yeah, yeah. Then it becomes a platform on which they can stand in order to launch their own political careers. Which I think at this point, you know, knowing Trump and knowing Trump's interest in legacy, having children who get involved in politics probably would please him very much.

A (34:57)

Right, it's time to head to Czecha International Airport and go wherever we're going. See you, Anthony.

B (35:04)

Safe travels during these holidays, Justin. Bye bye.

A (35:11)

Thank you for listening to another episode. It is you, the ameracaster that makes ameracast the community that it now 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 as well. We look at every single bit of correspondence that we get so you can send us an email. AmericaSTBC.co.uk the WhatsApp is 443-301-239480 and you can get involved in the AmericaST Discord server. The link to that is in the description. Till next time, bye.

B (35:56)

Healthcare can feel complicated. That's why Optum uses technology to connect the people and processes that make healthcare easier, more affordable and more effective. We're making it clearer for you to know exactly what your benefits cover and to help you better manage your health. We're coordinating care between your doctors and your technology. We believe better, simpler. Healthcare is always possible. That's healthy options, optimism. That's Optum. Visit optum.com to learn more. Toyota Thon Toyota Thon Toyota Thon is on. Oh, what fun it is to drive a new Toyota today. Hey, Jan from Toyota here reminding you Toyota Thon is on. Make your holiday wishes come true with a new Camry RAV4 Tacoma and more. All right, let's sing it together this time. Toyota Thon Toyota Thon Toyota Thon Dealer inventory may vary.

A (36:49)

Toyotathon ends January 5th. See your participating dealer for details. Toyota let's go. Places.

B (36:56)

Every holiday shopper's got a list. But Ross shoppers, you've got a mission. Like a gift run that turns into a disco. Snow globe, throw pillows and PJs for the whole family. Dog included. At Ross, holiday magic isn't about spending more, it's about giving more for less. Ross, work your magic.

A (37:18)

It's finally happened.

B (37:19)

Your kid could be part of the.

A (37:21)

First generation to never suffer the rough touch of toilet paper on their tender tush.

B (37:26)

All thanks to flushable Little Dude Wipes.

A (37:28)

They clean like regular dude wipes, but come in bubble bum scent or fragrance free for kids because we know little butts can make a big mess. Kids love them, parents trust them, and messes fear them. Whether it's after snack time, potty time or mystery mess time, Little Dude Wipes have you cover.

B (37:44)

You can toss a pack in your.

A (37:45)

Diaper bag, glove box or backpack for a quick clean on the go, but.

B (37:49)

With Little Dude Wipes you can keep.

A (37:51)

Your kids keister clean without the burn and debris toilet paper can leave behind on their behinds. And since Little Dude Wipes are free of chemical binders and alcohol, you can.

B (38:00)

Be sure their little b holes get.

A (38:02)

The safest clean possible. No irritation, no dingleberries, just the confident clean you get from Little dude wipes. Made from 100% plant based natural fiber, Tiny hands, Big Wipe, Clean butt. Available exclusively at Walmart Nationwide.

B (38:19)

Toyota Thon Toyota Thon Toyota Thon Is on. Oh what fun it is to drive a new Toyota today. Hey Jan from Toyota here reminding you Toyotathon is on. Make your holiday wishes come true with a new Camry, RAV4 Tacoma and more. All right, let's sing it together this time. Toyota Thon Toyota Thon Toyota Thon.

A (38:40)

Dealer inventory may vary. Toyota Thon ends January 5th. See your participating dealer for details. Toyota let's go places.