INSIDE EPSTEIN OPERATION, VENEZUELA AIR STRIKES, GAZA PEACE DEAL W / CIA Insider Mike Baker

Summary

---

Podcast Summary:

Keeping It Real with Jillian Michaels
Episode: INSIDE EPSTEIN OPERATION, VENEZUELA AIR STRIKES, GAZA PEACE DEAL W / CIA Insider Mike Baker
Release Date: November 23, 2025
Guest: Mike Baker, Former CIA Officer, CEO of Portman Square Group, Host of The President’s Daily Brief

---

Episode Overview

Jillian Michaels brings on CIA insider Mike Baker for an unflinching conversation about three major current event flashpoints:

• The true story (and theories) behind Jeffrey Epstein and his possible intelligence connections
• The recent US naval airstrikes against Venezuelan narco-trafficking operations, and whether they signal deeper geopolitical motives
• The changing landscape of the Middle East, political jockeying over the Gaza ceasefire, the roles of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and the challenge of Iran.

Michaels, playing the role of the inquisitive everyperson, asks Baker to clarify rumors, cut through misinformation, and articulate what intelligence professionals really see happening in the shadowy intersection of power, politics, and global security.

---

Key Topics and Insights

1. The Epstein Intel Asset Question

[03:00-35:10]

• Popular Narratives vs. Reality:

  • Michaels lists widely discussed claims: Epstein as an intelligence asset (CIA/Mossad/MI6), kompromat schemes, influence peddling, honeytrap operations, and the notion Ghislaine Maxwell inherited her father’s intelligence links.
  • Baker: “People have to be careful when they start talking about these things because there’s more complexity… There’s a range [of intel relationships].” (05:44)
  • He stresses the lack of hard evidence that Epstein was officially working for any intelligence service.

• How Spy Agencies Define “Assets”:

  • “If I’m an intel service, Jeffrey Epstein is a real person of interest… Would I want him as a recruited asset? Well, sure. Because he’s collected all these interesting people around him… I’m going to push this relationship and see what this is all about.” (09:46, 11:35)
  • Epstein’s Rolodex itself would attract agency attention, but it does not prove he was managed as an asset.

• Fraudster Patterns and Elite Circles:

  • Michaels probes strange career jumps (Epstein teaching at Dalton, then Bear Stearns), suggesting possible deep state placement.
  • Baker: “On the surface it sounds very bizarre… That sort of activity… are certain traits that fraudsters and scam artists typically do. Right. They’re inflating their cv, they’re getting a door open and then using that to push their way through.” (15:59)

• Conviction, Leverage, and Power:

  • Epstein’s 2008 conviction and light sentence are highly suspicious, fueling rumors of intel protection.
  • “He had developed quite the cadre of wealthy, influential individuals and he had probably co-opted some of them or felt… you kind of owe me.” (19:12)
  • Both guest and host agree it’s “friggin’ bizarre” such a high-profile offender received leniency.

• On Honeytrap (Sexual Kompromat) Operations:

  • “Are honey pots, honey traps a thing? Sure they are… If what he was doing was, I’m setting up this whole trafficking thing at the behest of an intel [service]… that’d be very sloppy tradecraft.” (27:58, 28:19)
  • Baker: Real intelligence ops are “much more discreet and clandestine.”

• Cynicism and the Stakes:

  • Baker is skeptical major truths will emerge: “It’s the city where investigations go to die.” (33:59)
  • Both parties reflect on how “both sides” exploit Epstein for political gain, rather than focus on justice for victims.

Notable Quotes:

• “If I saw Jeffrey Epstein, he was a collector of people... Would I want him as a recruited asset? Well, sure…” —Mike Baker [09:46]
• “It's speculation, but it's not uninformed speculation that you could say, 'Yeah, these people felt some form of obligation [to Epstein] beyond just, Well, I sure like Jeffrey.'” —Mike Baker [19:12]
• “If you’re going to run a blackmail operation for an intelligence agency, you’d do it more discreetly than this.” —Mike Baker [29:12]

---

2. Venezuela Air Strikes: Counter-Narco TK or Regime Change?

[35:21-53:57]

• Situation Recap:

  • US (under Trump) strikes boats off Venezuela, claiming counter-narco intent.
  • Michaels: “Is this about narco terrorism... or is all of this about regime change?” (35:21)

• Baker’s Analysis:

  • “The deployment... is designed to create an environment where the pressure builds so much internally... that either Maduro himself decides... [to leave or] his inner circle says, now you know what? Maduro’s got to go.” (37:43)
  • The real intent is to promote internal regime change without boots on the ground.

• Geostrategic Context:

  • Venezuela’s collapse began with Chavez; Maduro has deepened the crisis.
  • The region’s strategic importance comes from oil reserves and proximity to Russia and China.
  • “You can have people who legitimately are working this issue because… they want a better country, and others who look at it and go, man, we could certainly use those resources.” (53:35)

• Intel Caution:

  • Baker says agencies tend to be risk-averse about kinetic actions without “buttoned up” intelligence.
  • “I have no problem targeting narco traffickers, but… what’s the credibility of the intelligence that you’re operating on?” (48:59)

Notable Quotes:

• “You don’t send a carrier strike group to support just counter-narcotics… you send that to send a message.” —Mike Baker [37:43]
• “Multiple things can be true at the same time.” —Mike Baker [53:35]

---

3. The Middle East: Gaza, Saudi, Qatar, and Iran

[53:57-80:12]

• US Relations with Saudi & Qatar:

  • Discussion of Jamal Khashoggi’s killing and realpolitik: “Is it in our own nation’s self interest to burn down the relationship with Saudi Arabia? No… You can certainly express your displeasure and make a point of it... but I wouldn’t die on that hill.” (56:04)
  • Both Saudi and Qatar act in their self-interest; Qatar in particular “plays both sides of the fence better than anyone.”

• Gaza Peace/Truce Prospects:

  • Skepticism about the effectiveness of peace plans as long as Hamas maintains arms and control.
  • “You’re not going to get the cooperation of any nation to take part in this international stabilization force… if they have to go into Gaza with the notion that they’ve got to disarm terrorist groups.” (63:54)

• The Role of Iran:

  • Iran continues to build up arms and missile programs post-conflict.
  • Change can only realistically occur from within: “The only answer for Iran… is change from within. The people have to get to the point where they’re done with this.” (77:45)
  • US and West do have a history of complicating things: “It's not one nation or another... It's human nature.” (74:48)

• The “Vacuum of Power” Paradox:

  • In many regions, US intervention intended to improve authoritarian situations can lead to even more extreme regimes.
  • “Why is it always the most extreme that fills the vacuum?... The pendulum does tend to swing wildly.” (80:12)

Notable Quotes:

• “No one plays both sides of the fence better than the Qataris.” —Mike Baker [60:20]
• “They just want the problem to go away. The Qataris are probably the most pragmatic people out there.” —Mike Baker [67:11]
• “If the lack of water doesn’t finally wake up the people of Iran to say… we need a different form of government—then nothing will.” —Mike Baker [78:23]

---

4. Society, Government, and What Individuals Should Do

[83:26-end]

• US Domestic Parallels:

  • US faces its own unrest and systemic challenges—affordability, health care, immigration, debt, political polarization.
  • “Everyone knows the country’s in massive debt, right? ...But you can’t do that. Politicians don’t have the courage because they want to get reelected.” (83:49)

• Why Good People Avoid Politics:

  • The system is self-perpetuating; term limits could help.
  • “People look at it and go, I'm not putting myself and my family through that mess.” (86:04)

• What Can Citizens Do?

  • “The first thing people need to worry about is misinformation and disinformation… You're really the only meaningful line of defense.” (88:20)
  • Advocates for individual due diligence before spreading information, practice of civility even amidst strong disagreements.

• On Nuance in Politics:

  • Baker: “I'm pissing everybody off, right? Because I'm saying, well, that's a good idea, but that's also a good idea. And people on both sides are now pissed off at you—which probably means you’re doing something right.” (91:46)

Notable Quotes:

• “You have to, you're really the only meaningful line of defense. The individual is.” —Mike Baker [88:20]

---

Memorable Moments & Soundbites

• On being targeted by intel:
  • “If you were going to run a blackmail operation for intelligence, you’d do it a lot more discreetly.” —Mike Baker [29:12]
• Balancing principles and reality:
  • “There are the hills you die on: family, friends, honesty, loyalty. But with policies... you have to understand both sides.” —Mike Baker [94:15]
• On public debate:
  • “No one seems to be living in the middle… if you do, people on both sides are pissed off at you—which probably means you’re doing something right.” —Mike Baker [91:46]

---

Timestamps & Segments

• Epstein Allegations, Myths, and Reality: [03:00–35:10]
• Venezuela Strike Analysis: [35:21–53:57]
• Middle East, Saudi, Qatar, Gaza, Iran: [53:57–80:12]
• Why Regime Change Goes Wrong: [80:12–84:25]
• US Domestic Parallels and Political Dysfunction: [83:26–87:05]
• What Ordinary People Can Do (Misinformation, Due Diligence, Civility): [88:20–end]

---

Takeaways

• “Multiple things can be true at the same time.” US actions abroad can have several motives—and both critics and supporters may have valid points.
• Lack of evidence is not evidence of a hidden hand: Many theories about intelligence manipulation (Epstein, regime change) are plausible but unproven.
• Regime change almost never yields easy or straightforward “wins.” The power vacuum often leads to greater chaos or greater extremism.
• Political self-preservation and media amplification distort both policy and public comprehension.
• The biggest defense against manipulation or chaos? Individual critical thinking, fact-checking, and engagement—plus demanding integrity without self-righteousness.

---

Host: “If we role model civility, people will lean into those not engaging in hateful vitriol… If one person does it that we admire and respect, I want to be more like Mike.” —Jillian Michaels [90:10]

Mike Baker: “If you do [show nuance], people on both sides are pissed off at you—which probably means you’re doing something right.” [91:46]

---

Guest Plug:
Mike Baker’s podcast, The President’s Daily Brief, covers top global intelligence and security stories without telling you how to think. Available on all platforms and YouTube.

---

End Summary

Transcript

[A]

Every fall, there's that shift in the air, right? Mornings get a little cooler, the light changes, and suddenly you're reaching for layers that make you feel grounded, comfortable, pulled together. And those are just a few of the things that I love about coins, because their pieces don't scream for attention, but the second you put them on, you feel the difference. They've nailed the sweet spot of luxury quality without the luxury markup. Their 50 Mongolian cashmere sweaters are ridiculously soft. Not too heavy, not too thin, not itchy. It is literally the perfect layer that I wear under a coat or on its own. The denim fits like a dream. Clean lines, flattering on everyone. These are the kind of staples that end up on repeat. It's your personal fall uniform without even trying. My favorite piece is the Italian wool coat. Oh, my God. The one I have looks and feels designer, but it costs a fraction of the price. The tailoring is beautiful, the weight is perfect, and somehow I managed to look great effortlessly every time I have it on. And what makes quints different is how they work. So they partner with ethical top tier factories, the same ones that produce for major designer labels. And they cut out the middleman. So you're getting exceptional craftsmanship, responsible production, and prices that are about half of what you'd normally pay for pieces of this quality. So it's refined without being fussy, elevated, but approachable. The kind of wardrobe that makes you feel like you've grown into your style. And finally, stop compromising between quality and cost. Find all your staples at quints. Go to quint.comjillian for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com Jillian to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com/Jillian. Oh, hey.

[B]

Welcome to gift wrapping. Whoa. So is Saldana.

[A]

Hey, can you wrap these, please?

[B]

Wow. IPhone 17s.

[A]

You splurged at T Mobile. You can get four iPhone 17s on them. The new center stage front camera is amazing for group selfies. It's the perfect gift for everyone.

[B]

I'm the worst. I only got my mom a robe.

[A]

Well, it's better than socks.

[B]

So I have to trade in my old phone, right?

[A]

No, AT T mobile. There's no trade ins needed when you switch. Keep your old phone or give it as a gift.

[B]

Incredible.

[A]

In fact, wrap up my old phone too, for my aunt Rosa. Forget that. Aunt Liz will be jealous.

[B]

Sounds like my family drama.

[A]

Oh, I got it. I'll give it to My abuela. I'll take reindeer paper with. Hey, where are you going?

[B]

To T Mobile. The holidays are better. At T Mobile get four iPhone 17s on us. No traded needed when you switch plus four lines for just 25 bucks a line. And now T Mobile is available in US cellular stores with 24 monthly bill credits if we're eligible. Board inside essentials for well qualified customers to auto pay plus taxes fees and $35 device connection charge credits and imbalance due if you pay off earlier. Cancel contact US Finance Agreement 256 gigabytes. $830 required visit t mobile.com the1 and.

[A]

Only Mike Baker joins me today, former CIA covert ops officer, global intelligence insider, CEO of Portman Square Group, and host of the hit podcast the President's Daily Brief. We're going deep behind the scenes on the stories everyone's talking about, but. But almost nobody actually understands. So first up, Epstein, was he an intelligence asset? If so, for who and for what? Was he running kompromat, collecting leverage, or tied to a covert network way bigger than anyone has dared to admit?

[B]

Are honey pots, honey traps a thing? Sure they are. Of course they are. They've been ever since, you know, somebody invented espionage.

[A]

And then we're jumping into Venezuela, where the US Strikes on narco terrorist boats are blowing up the Internet. Is Trump really taking out drug traffickers or is this the first move in a high stakes geopolitical power play? Is it regime change, oil dominance, and a fight for control in our own hemisphere?

[B]

It's not the way the world works.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So everybody's out there doing the same thing. You can dislike all of it, but don't stand around and think that we're the only bully or bad guy on the block.

[A]

And finally, the Middle East. Will the Gaza cease fire hold? What's Trump quietly negotiating with Saudi Arabia and Qatar? And how do you neutralize Iran without triggering a regional explosion?

[B]

And everybody is going, huzzah. Look at that, we've got UN Security Council has approved the peace plan. Oh, yay. Well, it doesn't mean crap.

[A]

This episode is loaded and Mike's breaking it all down with the kind of clarity only a former CIA insider can deliver. Get into it. Keeping it Real with Jillian Michaels. Mike, how are you?

[B]

Doing good. Doing very well. Thank you very much and appreciate the opportunity to catch up.

[A]

Oh my gosh, you're so kind for joining me. I got a lot on the docket for you today. From Venezuela, narco terrorism to what Trump is doing in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Gaza and The ceasefire. What do we do about Iran? I cannot help but begin with Epstein. So I'm. I'm sure you. I'm sure you expected this. You know, I just recently heard of him, too. Uh, I want to start out by reading you what the average person is hearing about this guy and why. The average person, of course, I'm. I'm referencing myself here. Can't help but think there's a lot of nefarious stuff going on. So I want to read you this list, and then I just. Just weigh in. Tell me what I'm getting right, what I'm getting wrong, and what we can make of the things that are actually true. So first thing you've got is Ghislaine Maxwell's father is Robert Maxwell, who had confirmed intelligence ties to Mossad. True or false?

[B]

Yeah, you know, it depends on what you mean by confirmed intelligence ties. Like, there's this everything from recruited asset to cooperative contact. Right. To you know, unwitting, you know, provider of information or insight. There's a range here. And so typically, when somebody says, oh, he's, you know. You know, confirmed ties, you got to start defining what does that mean. I don't know what Robert Maxwell's specific connections meant in terms of his ties to Maasai, but there's no doubt that, you know, that there were linkages. I just don't know. It would be speculation to say to what degree. Right. Was he did. Mossad itself, Right. As an intel service. Because that's what you do. You categorize these people. Right? So if it's. If it's a CIA, for example, you would say, okay, this individual is a recruited asset. That means you can task them. You can say, here's what we want to know. You go out and get that information from your contacts. Because, you know, I've recruited the deputy foreign minister of a country, right? Now, he's a recruited asset. He's on the hook, right? So I don't have to beat around the bush. I can tell him I need the following information. There's the cooperative contact where, okay, you know, he's not disinclined to chat with me, but I can't direct him. I can't task him. Right. I can talk to him. And if I phrase my conversations correctly, right, he may either wittingly or unwittingly, provide me with the insight that I'm looking for. You know, and then there's. Then there's just the occasional contact that, you know, you don't. You kind of refer to them as a Source, but they're not taskable, they're not controllable and not recruited. And so maybe, you know, you're hoping that one day you can strengthen that relationship and turn it in the direction of something that's more taskable. So that's, That's a long winded way of saying people have to be careful when they start talking about these things because there's more complexity to it. And just. And. And there's a lot of folks out there that just, it's all. Everything for them is black and white. Yeah, right. So I'm just trying to be a little bit more nuanced, I suppose.

[A]

That's what, that's what exactly what I'm wanting to know from you. That's exactly why you're the expert here. You talk about these different levels of recruiting, recruiting someone and being able to utilize them. Why would they cooperate? And then it kind of leads me to the question of, is that actually what Epstein was supposed to be doing in jumping ahead, presuming he was an asset of some intelligence agency, would his gig be gain leverage to make them taskable, whoever he has gotten access to?

[B]

Well, yeah, I've had this conversation before. I remember I was, I was talking with, with Joe Rogan one time about this, and, you know, I just got pilloried by one like, slice of society that they're. They've got this unwanted confidence that they know everything that's going on. Right? So they, they, they, they say, well, of course, you know, Epstein was, you know, recruited asset of Mossad. Well, okay, A, you don't know that. B, maybe he was, but, but, you know, just going out there and saying, black or white, this is what it was. This is what it was. And who knows? And the emails that have been released so far still don't really clarify much.

[A]

Yeah, there's nothing confirmed. Zero. I have a whole list of everything that is not confirmed as I jump ahead here. No government has ever confirmed Epstein was CIA, Mossad, M16, or an intelligence agent. No declassified document identifies Epstein as an intelligence operative. No proven evidence that he ran an official honey trap operation for any government. No proof intelligence agencies directed or inter. Intervened in his 2008 plea deal. No documentation that financial structures prove espionage activity. And no confirmed evidence that Ghislaine Maxwell herself was an intelligence officer.

[B]

Right. And yeah, if I were, what I would say is this. Look, if. If I, you know, if I saw Jeffrey Epstein, he was a collector of people, right? And so either he did that because there are, There are people out there Right. That, that love to be close to people of importance. It makes them feel important. And then they start portraying themselves as movers and shakers and that's. And that's so you, you know, again, carving this out and saying, okay, it could be one scenario or another. I'm not saying which which one it likely is because we don't have that evidence yet. Right. But if I'm an intel service, and I've said this before, if I'm an intel service, Jeffrey Epstein is a real person of interest. Right. Would I want him as a recruited asset? Well, sure, because. Why? Because he's collected all these interesting people around him. Right. Both in diplomatic circles and finance circles, government, media, all these people. From my perspective, some of them are probably people that I would like to know what the hell they're doing. Right. So if I'm, if I'm Assad or I'm the Agency or I'm anybody. Right. As an intel service, Epstein is going to be the sort of guy I'm going to look at. Right. So all we can do is look at the, the knowns here, which are coming out from the emails, and hopefully they just go ahead and release everything. I don't think they will because they're not going to release things where there's an active investigation. But you look at his go, sure, he had a lot of contact with Ehud Barak as an example, right? Well, yeah. And what did he do? Well, he had intelligence responsibilities there in Israel and IDF responsibilities. And if, you know. So unless Ehud Barak was just in touch with Epstein for his own prurient interests because of Epstein's, you know, abuse and, and trafficking of, of young women.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Then, you know, maybe was there was something more. Well, again, I can only go by what I would do if I was an intel officer and Epstein crossed my path. I'd say, damn it, you know, a lot of interesting people. Yeah. I'm going to push this relationship and see what this is all about right now. Maybe one day all you are is an unwitting contact because you have this desire to surround yourself with people of interest. And there are a lot of people like that in financial circles who love to pal around with the elite in society. So that's not unusual by itself. But again, would an intel service be interested in them? Sure. Would Epstein be a recruited asset or just an unwitting contact or a winning source? You know, who knows? But there's a range there of possibilities.

[A]

Yeah. You got this guy with the director of the CIA, William Burns, in 2014. Apparently they met multiple times. I'm gonna butcher this woman's name. Katherine Ruemmler, former White House counsel for Obama, met with her. Ehud Barack, who you mentioned Lawrence Summers. Everyone's talking about former U.S. treasury Secretary. Like he. These are strange people that. Are you gonna drop William Burns name at a party? I know a lot of these billionaires and they, they name drop just the way you're talking about. Oh, and you know, Bill and Hillary this and Barack and Michelle that. And I understand all of that, but I very rarely hear. I was hanging out with Katherine Rummler the other day, and this is where.

[B]

You'Re just like, yeah, but in certain circles, that's got a lot of. A lot of weight. Look, in Washington, D.C. if you're carrying the bags, even if you're in the bag for, you know, some senior government official, you're an important person. In Washington, D.C. everybody goes, oh, he's got FaceTime with, you know, whoever it is. So suddenly you're important. And look, people, fraudsters. I will say this. You know, I've got a company that does an awful lot of fraud investigations. Fraudsters, scammers, they. They have certain indicators. They do certain things over and over again. And one of them is using entree from one person to get credibility with somebody else that they're looking at or targeting or want to talk to or want to have pulled into their orbit, right?

[A]

So of course, my business partner does it in business all the time. He's like, okay, this guy knows this guy. And if I let this guy know that I know this guy, it's going to give me like, I've been pre approved over here. I watch him utilize.

[B]

Nobody's doing their due diligence, right? Nobody's doing their due diligence because, hey, it was like, you know, it was like the crypto scam, right? Suddenly you had people like Tom Brady promoting crypto and then other people going, well, I got to get on board because, you know, I don't want to miss this train. And so I'm going to use somebody who, you know, for whatever reason is willing to vouch for me to gain credibility to this person who is not going to do any due diligence on me. Look, a lot of people were dealing with Epstein after he was already known to be, you know, a sex offense, right? And you would think that would be enough of a red flag to say, you know what, I'm not going to go to his party. Or let's, let's not have him come over to the office to me. But that didn't happen because other powerful or perceived as powerful people were vouching for him and he was using that to roll through and collect all these various people in his, in his orbit.

[A]

Mike, what about this? This is super weird, right? The guy never graduates from college, but he ends up working at Dalton, which is where like the most elite families send their kids to school, high school. It's run by Donald Barr, who apparently used to work, used to run the oss, which was a precursor to the CIA. I think I loosely understand that connection. I'll let you clarify that for me. And he hires this guy who's not qualified to work at Dalton to teach math and physics, and through that connection, a parent who sends their kids to Dalton hires him at Bear Stearns. Yeah, weird. Not weird.

[B]

Not really. Again, on the surface it sounds very bizarre, but I've been between a couple of decades with the agency and more than a couple of decades running investigations and security services firm. You see a lot. And so that sort of activity, again, I, I put that down to those are, those are certain traits that fraudsters and scam artists typically do. Right. They, they're inflating their, their cv, they're getting a door open and then using that to push their way through and get to a position where, because again, people, for the most part, and this is where I think society is really going to fall down. Right. Because we're going, we're moving into this fast paced world of AI, which is just accelerating. The problem with disinformation and misinformation. People are not naturally cynical, skeptical, curious, inquisitive, or they just don't have the time to be right. Yeah. And so Epstein fed off of that human trait and he knew that people weren't, once he got to a certain position, people weren't checking. You know, you would think they would, particularly after his conviction.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

But it just doesn't happen that way. So you see people rising way beyond where you think they should be because they're living off of some very shaky foundation, some lies that they've told and they've been able to scam somebody and that person's vouched for them and then it just keeps on going.

[A]

What about this piece? So 2008, you've got this guy, he's convicted of having sex with minors and I believe running some sort of a prostitution ring involving these minors. And he does like no jail time and he's allowed to leave for 10 hours every single day. And there's a rumor I Guess it hasn't been confirmed that when Alex Acosta was being vetted during his, I guess, joining of the Trump transition team in 2016 and he was the guy going after Epstein in 2008, he basically apparently said, I was told to stay away from Epstein, he's above my pay grade. And made some sort of implication. He was told like, Epstein's one of ours, back off again now. Not confirmed as far as, like, as far as I can confine anything that said it was confirmed that, that he said that. Having said that though, he did get Epstein got no penalty. No. Yeah, Mike. Like this is where I keep, just keep looking at this going. I, I, I hate going down the rabbit hole because we've all become so vulnerable to these conspiracy theories after Covid that at some point I feel like I'm wrapping myself in tinfoil and waiting for the mothership to land outside. But this like, I'm like, Jill, come back to Earth and let's deal with reality. We don't know, nothing's confirmed. But when you look at something like that, it's just so friggin bizarre and they just keep adding up. Like what would be any other reasoning for this guy walking pretty much with that kind of conviction in 2008?

[B]

Well, even by 2008, he had developed quite the cadre of, of wealthy, influential individuals and he had probably co opted some of them or felt that, look, you know, you kind of owe me, right? For whatever reason, that's probably how some of them felt. Right? So I think you had people, because you did have people, you know, pressuring and pushing on his behalf. I think that, you know, in a normal world, I think that's, that's crazy. Why would you, why would you maintain your ties with somebody that's, that's now in this position? So, you know, it's not, it's speculation, but it's not, you know, uninformed speculation that you could say, yeah, these people felt some form of obligation beyond just, well, I sure like Jeffrey, we had some great, great dinners together, you know, or he made me some money, right? So now I feel like I've got to vouch for a convicted sex offender. That doesn't make a lot of sense. So I, I would assume that part of what Epstein was doing, you know, he was not, I, I, I, I guess is that he was probably looking at every opportunity to gain leverage on all these various individuals who he was drawing into his orbit. And that then served him pretty well, it looks like, because you're right, he did almost no Time. It wasn't really even time. Half, half of every 24 hour day he was allowed to, to walk. Yeah.

[A]

So, okay, you mentioned leverage. Right. And now we're all hearing about, I think it's like Stacy Platnick, who's a congresswoman out of the Virgin Islands. I didn't even forgive my ignorance. I didn't even know they had congress people. I was like, oh, like I guess so. Yeah, that's part of the. Sure. And it comes out that she's texting with Epstein to get information on Trump while Michael Cohen is testifying. And I'm thinking, as we all are, hold on a second. This guy's got dirt that you're going to use against Trump. So there's, there's clearly the leverage there. He was a collector of compromising material. Just.

[B]

Yeah, I mean they were texting back and forth during Michael Cohen's, you know, testimony and, and questions that Epstein was suggesting be asked did then end up getting asked.

[A]

Right. Is this, I mean it's normal again.

[B]

You wouldn't think it would be. We don't necessarily have normal times. You know, Washington D.C. is a very dysfunctional place now. But look, I, you know, the author, Michael Wolff was, you know, he's neck deep in these, you know, emails and texts with, with Epstein offering up suggestions, you know, and look, he's, Wolf is making money off of writing about Trump. So that's all self interest to, you know, work with Epstein and try to provide him with advice. Who the hell would be providing Epstein with advice and guidance? But there you have it. So it is, you know, which again is. It all kind of circles back to why people are just so fascinated with this. I would argue that, you know, the Trump administration, the first thing they should have done was release everything as just as transparent as possible. Just say again, if you've got an ongoing investigation, clearly from a law enforcement perspective you have to redact.

[A]

Right.

[B]

That the problem sometimes can be they throw out a big net in terms of what they're going to redact. Right. So you're never really sure whether all of that information classification we, we tend to over classify everything. Right. But I would have thought that some strategist in the White House Trump administration would have been smart enough to say, you know what, let's just release everything, you know, but that it turned out to be a bit of a self inflicted one. But it's a self inflicted wound for everybody. It's the Democrats, it's Republicans. Because Epstein didn't care. He wanted to just pull everybody in that he thought could benefit him in some fashion or that he could gain influence or leverage over.

[A]

So Mike Johnson said that releasing the files without redaction could pose a national security risk. And it's like, well, what the heck would that be? And then he said that Epstein disclosures have to be limited so we don't do permanent damage to the political system. Again, what the heck? And then I guess he let it slip and then kind of pulled it back. And I actually watched this clip. I can even insert it. It's so hard to believe that Trump once acted as an FBI informant in connection with Epstein, which has not been independently confirmed. And he's like, no, no, I. I didn't really mean it. And it's like, okay, all right, let's presume that this guy is intelligence, and he's got compromising material on everybody. I mean, he's connected to frigging everybody in one way or another, whether it's Bill Clinton somehow, Donald Trump somehow, Barack Obama, Bill Gate. I mean, the list is so extensive, it's insane. And I'm an intelligence agency. What in the world am I doing with that compromising material, Mike? Like.

[B]

Like, if we.

[A]

Again, let's go, tinfoil hat. What am I doing if I have dirt on the leader of the free world? What am I leveraging?

[B]

Yeah, well, it depends. It depends on what that dirt is. It depends on, you know, the. The country that has it. You. You definitely want it, right? You want it in your back pocket. Maybe, you know, maybe don't use it immediately or deploy it immediately, but you certainly would want that information.

[A]

What.

[B]

And, and again, look, if.

[A]

To do.

[B]

If I'm. If I'm. Pick a service, right? The fsb, the, you know, Chinese intel, Mossad agency, UK Service. It doesn't matter. Pick any intel service that's got resources and. And the abilities, and, you know, they look. What are they doing? They're looking for targets of opportunity. They're looking for. Looking for interest. If. If you see. I keep going back to the same thing. If you see somebody like Epstein, who's got this big orbit, was able to get in front of people. And Epstein himself is promoting this, right? The emails show. Yes, that he was trying to posture himself, position himself as this guy who could talk to foreign, you know, authorities, whether it's the Russians. He. He offered to the Russians, said, I could talk to Sergey Lavrov, you know, and provide insight into how Donald Trump thinks. Because, you know, even though they didn't have a relationship at that point, I know Donald Trump you know, because I had a relationship with him at one point, so he's putting himself in that position. If you're an intel service, you're going to look at that guy and go to guy. Yes, I'm going to do what I can to try to. And again, in an ideal world, he's a recruited asset. Right. Would Epstein have put himself in that position? Who knows? I don't know. But, you know, at worst, he's a unwitting source that you develop a relationship with, so you've got, you know, one or more of your people bumped up against him, and you can, you know, reach in and out and find. And then, you know, his contacts, maybe then you target those contacts directly, and at some point, you benefit from that. So, yeah, I mean, that's. That's all I can. I'd be speculating if I said, oh, and that's where I do love. I do love social media. I do love the world of. Of social media experts, because there are people out there. God damn it. No, he was definitely working from a side. And. And you're thinking, okay, well. Well, you know, good luck, Spanky. I have no idea how you have so much confidence in your opinion based on no experience. I'm just saying, you know, could be a variety of them. And. And again, he had definite context with. With people who would have looked at him and thought, yeah, he'd make a. He'd make a really interesting contact. You know, intel services go after much less interesting individuals for targeting and recruitment. Believe me, some of them you look at and go, why would you even waste your time? But, you know, they do it because maybe one day it will turn into something valuable.

[A]

You know, I think it becomes a chicken and an egg conversation for people. And what I mean by that is zein a creep and a pervert who got compromising material for his own ego and to gain power and influence? Or was he a manufactured individual who set up this, I guess, honey trap, peto ring to go? Okay, this is all going to be structured. What is something nobody can come back from, you know, these kinds of crimes against young kids. It's just disgusting.

[B]

Yeah, if that was the case, I would think. I mean, look, you know, are honey pots, honey traps a thing? Sure they are. Of course they are. They've been ever since, you know, somebody invented espionage. If. What If. If what he was doing was, I'm setting up this whole trafficking thing at the behest of an intel.

[A]

Yeah, that's what people think that would be.

[B]

Really. That would be very Sloppy trade craft. Right. Because he's a convicted sex offender. He's, you know, he wasn't hiding it necessarily. Right. People, people were talking about this for years. Right? But, and, and now everybody's expressing outrage. It's like some of the Me Too people who were, like, just, you know, caught and castrated during the Me Too movement. People knew about their behavior for years, but it just, it didn't serve their purpose to, to complain about it at the time. And then it got, you know, enough of a head of steam that people suddenly could say, well, I'm outraged by this, which I've known about for years. Right. So, you know, it's, that would be my take on it. It would be. You would, you would. If you were going to do it, you would have done it if it was a professional intel service in a much more fashion and discreet and clandestine fashion.

[A]

That helps a ton, because I think people feel like, oh, my God, if our intelligence are willing to sacrifice children at the altar of, you know, geopolitical power, what does the world come to? But I didn't even occur to me that it would be sloppy, Spycroft, because I have no idea what that would even look like.

[B]

And that maybe that's probably one of my shortcomings is I, you know, I look at things from an operational perspective because my wheelhouse is not necessarily, you know, some grand geopolitical, you know, or, or political, you know, strategic thing. But I can't say from an operational perspective, he'd be a target of interest for absolute sure. And also, you probably wouldn't. I mean, you know, you'd be a lot more circumspect in how if you were going to do something like. And it's also just an awful, you know, I, I, you know, you wouldn't. He, he was, look, he was a horrible person who was engaged in horrible activity and, you know, frankly deserved to die. However, that's still not quite, quite clear. But I think, you know, I think he, if he was a, an intelligence asset, it's because he fell into or onto the radar, right?

[A]

Y.

[B]

At a certain point. And like I said, I would have. Hell, I would. I would have, you know, worked to recruit the hell out of him because I would want to know everybody in his Rolodex, of course. And, you know, but, you know, what you'd be looking for would be you'd be looking for those international contacts, right?

[A]

Ye.

[B]

You know, okay, what, he's got contact with some Russians, huh? Who's he dealing with? Right. He's got Contact with a Chinese financier. Okay, who is that? Right. Those are the targets I'm really interested in. But I'm using him to get to those individuals again. That's. If we're just talking operational strategy. That's, that's where you would have gone with it.

[A]

Of course. You know, the one conclusion that I did arrive at is why go through all the hoopla if he was intelligence and you wanted him gone, why put him in jail with two security guards? Like, it obviously is a very bizarre thing that he had two guards on him and nobody caught in and the one guy supposedly fell, whatever. But I imagine if you were intelligence, you could have just taken him out. Night night, couldn't you? Poison the underwear like Putin. I mean, like, Mike, I'm just thinking.

[B]

Yeah, you put some polonium in his dark, you know, like. Or he never makes it to, you know, on a flight to his island or.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Whatever, you know. Yeah.

[A]

Plane problems. I mean, why, why that. That's the one thing that, you know, I didn't, as mentioned I did it didn't stop to think about how if I was CIA or Mossad or MI6, whatever the heck, I would set up a honey trap operation. But I did think this is a hell of a long walk to get a ham sandwich. Like, why not just take the guy out?

[B]

Yeah. And the other thing about it is sometimes this is. Maybe it's apropos nothing, but it kind of speaks to all the, like the, the armchair quarterbacks on social media who sit and know everything that's going on. And you know, sometimes, you know, the, the truth is that an intel service honestly couldn't organize panic in a doomed submarine. Right. Regardless of which intel service you're talking about. Right. They. And by that I mean, it's oversimplifying, but I just mean that sometimes intel services are given a lot more credit than they should be. Right. Because of, you know, we're all used to films and beach books and we assume that, you know, they can. They're all knowing, all powerful, they're human run organizations and you know, sometimes they've got their limitations. So, yeah, you know, it's, it is interesting. But yeah. Epstein. Is the Epstein problem going away? No, because it serves a political purpose too. You know, so we're going to be talking about this for quite some time because until it becomes something that one side or the other in Washington D.C. can't beat the other with. Right. It's. It's going to be a thing.

[A]

Yeah. That's what I get to the end of this road. And none of this is about the victims anymore. It's being weaponized by both sides who both have skin in the game. So I can't really wrap my head around that. You know, we've all seen the clip of Stephen A. Smith pointing out very passionately that the Democrats had four years to release these files. Didn't do it. Trump ran on it. He began the whole conversation in 2016 on stage with Hannity implying that Clinton was going to go down because of it. And you're, it's like, what? You guys are absolute idiots on both sides. Where does this go, Mike? Do. What do you think we walk away from when all is said and done? And do you think we will have ever gotten to the bottom of it? Will there be a sacrificial lamb? Is no one gonna go down? Is it like Kennedy, Nothing ever comes out?

[B]

Yeah, no, I think it's. Look, I'm, I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I'm very cynical about what happens in Washington, D.C. it's the city where investigations go to die. So look, we'll get a bunch of files released. A lot of redactions because of legitimate reasons for, you know, active investigations or because of the, the, the victims were minors. You got to protect, you know, some of those identities. And so I think there will be redactions that will, you know, piss people off. But at the end of the day, like I said, I think if once it becomes something that, that's not viewed as a, as a potential two by four to hit the other political party over the head with, I think it just goes away at some point and we all get focused on something else. We have a hard time multitasking. It's not the way it should be. Right. It should be that, you know, you'd have a serious investigation and, you know, the, you know, the cards fall where they fall and there are consequences, but there typically aren't consequences for bad behavior when it comes to Washington.

[A]

You, I can see why you would be cynical. So moving on to something that I imagine the CIA may have a hand in.

[B]

What?

[A]

No, I know. I want to understand what is going on in Venezuela. So, okay, this is what the average. Again, I'm just, this is what the average bear sees. Trump's blowing up boats and they've got fentanyl in them, sent over from China, you know, in the waters off the coast of Venezuela. And for me, I'm thinking like as, just again, as the average person, how many people are we losing in American fentanyl Screw these guys. Now you've got the, the one side that's like, this is so irresponsible. It's debatable whether this is legal. We may not even know who's really on the boat. Then you've got the other side saying, none of this is about narco terrorism. All of this is about regime change. We're doing it again. So. All right, I want to go to the beginning of Venezuela to try to understand this. Does this start with Chavez or does it start with Nicolas Maduro? Where does this start, begin?

[B]

Well, the, the, the downfall of Venezuela, you know, as, as a, one of the wealthiest nations in the region. That, that, that all started with Hugo Chavez.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And, you know, he was not able to find a, a new form of socialism. God bless the young people in America. They seem to think that they can. Between Mamdani and now Katie Wilson in Seattle, some. There's a lot of young folks that seem to think that we're going to come up with a form of socialism or communism that for once in, in history is going to work. But anyway, so Chavez and then, you know, Maduro, you know, drafted in behind him and is the same mold, right. Actually probably a little less intelligent. And so the, the problem here is that all those people, the people on both sides of sort of like, oh, this is all about, you know, counter narcotics. And. But then the other people say, no, it's not. It's all about, you know, regime change. They're both right. You know, you don't, you don't send a carrier group. The most powerful projection of u. S. Power, you know that, that exists, right? It's the most powerful projection of power that exists in the world, frankly, is a carrier strike group. Right? You don't send that to a region to support counter narcotics operations.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

You send that to send a message. And so that, that deployment out there that exists. Right, is, you know, again, from my perspective, is designed to create an environment where the pressure builds so much internally within the Maduro regime that either Maduro himself decides, you know, it's time to try to think of how to save my skin and the skin of my family, immediate family, maybe some of his inner circle who know a lot about some of the things that they've been doing, or you create an environment where his inner circle says, now you know what? Maduro's got to go time to, you know, time to get this done. I don't think it's about them deciding somehow that we're going to set American military boots on the ground in Venezuela to affect that regime change. Right. I think they're looking to have pressured that creates that change from within. Now, that's not the same thing as saying they're not going to use some of those assets perhaps to target narcotics facilities in Venezuela. So you've got these things happening at the same time. Are they legitimately engaged in what they believe to be counter narcotics operations? Well, sure. And is the Caribbean, you know, are they, are they working along known narco trafficking routes? Yes. You know, is fentanyl, you know, primarily coming from Venezuela?

[A]

No, that's, that's the part where I'm like, well, why aren't they in the, with the, the, the southeastern Pacific? Why are we not doing this over here if that's what this is really about?

[B]

Yeah, well, we've, we've offered Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, the head of Mexico, and, and, you know, said, no, you're not, you're not going to engage in any military activity inside Mexico. It's not going to happen. Mexico is a different animal in terms of our relationship with them, the importance of them to us than Venezuela is. If you think about it, we can kind of get away with this crap related to Venezuela and not suffer the same blowback that we would from Mexico and Mexico's position in the world. Venezuela's got very few allies. Do we care if Cuba's upset about what we're doing? Do we care if, if Russia is upset? Look, Russia's, you know, Russia's landed a plane there full of, you know, Wagner mercenaries to try to show some minimal support for Maduro. China's been, you know, desperate to get their hands on Venezuela's, you know, oil and resources there. So there's other outside players involved in this. But for the most part, Venezuela, you know, doesn't get a lot of support on the international stage because, you know, Maduro legitimately stole this last election completely and he has continued to drive Venezuela into the ground. Right. That again, it used to be, used to be a very wealthy state and now, you know, millions of people have been fleeing because there's no hope there. So, you know, you could argue from a theoretical position. Sure. I can make the statement that, you know, would the Venezuelan people be better off with a different government that gives them more opportunity. Absolutely. Does that mean that I think we should militarily get involved in regime change here? Absolutely not. Right. If we think that would be a easy thing to do and not complicated and messy, then somebody in the White House would be seriously mistaken.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

But it's look, Maduro himself is now supposedly, supposedly talking, having back channel talks where he supposedly threw out the idea that maybe he could leave, right? And so now maybe that's just posturing on his part. Maybe he's floating that balloon to see what response he gets. Maybe, you know, he has legitimately realized it's time to go and he's got to save his skin and his family. So if that's the case, you know, then you have to ask yourself this question, well, what happens after? And you know, some people are like, oh my God, machine change, you know, look what, look what a mess Libya is after Gaddafi, look at Iraq. But they're not, they're not the same animal, right? You know, there's no mike.

[A]

It's like the color coded revolutions. And look where we did this over here and Noriega, this guy, that guy. Look what a mess we made. And we funded the Taliban. You know, we do this all over the world and we waste billions and it has to stop and innocent people die and you end up with the friggin Ayatollah, which I want to get to. It's just nobody really understands the complexity of this as you mentioned, and we don't, we don't have the depth of knowledge. So all we know is America gets involved in these regime changes for money. Oil, minerals, rare earth, this, that. It always ends up being a disaster. Nothing ever gets accomplished and a worse regime fills the vacuum that we create. So on one hand as the regular person, I'm like, well Maduro is a monster. He's a horrible, disgusting, awful person. And I don't really want Russia and China having this connection to all of his oil. Like, do I actually want Trump to go in there and get rid of this guy? Do I think this is better for America and do I care if he's blowing up narco terrorists? I mean, I know I should, I understand the legalities of this, but it, you know, deep down I'm like, not really. I kind of actually understand what he's doing and kind of actually want this guy gone. But even if that was the noble thing to do, history shows us it doesn't work. Like, what is the, what is your take?

[B]

Yeah, is this right?

[A]

Is it wrong?

[B]

Really complex, you know, sometimes you, you know, sometimes yes, it's really nasty, sometimes it gets really ugly. Right, Obviously we've seen those in recent times. Yeah, you know, it's a perfect example of it. It's a hot mess. Nobody likes to talk about Libya, but it is. And Iraq, you know, I was there beginning of 03, essentially as we were getting ready to, you know, go that first incursion and you know, you got, by the time you got to September, it, everything went sideways, right. And then you started getting that sectarian violence and it all turned into one big goat rope. So. So these things never typically work out the way that you imagine. I guess one, I mean, the point I would make though is Venezuela is not Libya. Right. And you know that Libya is a tribal nation, right. Has no idea, it's got 130 plus tribes. No idea about a centralized government that, you know, that's just never going to work. It never has never been there. Venezuela is a different animal in that regard. But you still have to understand how, how messy and complex it could be. Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So again, you have. Just like with Iran, you have to hope that the change comes from within. Right? And again, I, I do believe that's what the White House is probably strategizing is thinking if we put enough pressure on that, either he'll make the decision or those around him will make the decision. And then you get internal change. And then you, you hope for the best, but you can help to promote that by then you start relieving sanctions. Right. Lessening that pressure. You provide, you know, some support. You try to help it along, I suppose, but it's still, you know, my concern is that people in Washington, you've gotta, you've got a number of folks there who are never shy about pushing for a hard line, you know, approach. And usually those people couldn't find the, the business end of a weapon, you know, So I think that, you know, they're the ones who like to make those decisions. Yeah, we need to go in. You think? We have no idea what that looks like.

[A]

Every fall, there's that shift in the air, right. Mornings get a little cooler, the light changes, and suddenly you're reaching for layers that make you feel grounded, comfortable, pulled together. And those are just a few of the things that I love about coins, because their pieces don't scream for attention, but the second you put them on, you feel the difference. They've nailed the sweet spot of luxury quality without the luxury markup. Their $50 Mongolian cashmere sweaters are ridiculously soft. Not too heavy, not too thin, not itchy. It is literally the perfect layer that I wear under a coat or on its own. The denim fits like a dream. Clean lines, flattering on everyone. These are the kind of staples that end up on repeat. It's your personal fall uniform. Without even trying to My favorite piece is the Italian wool coat. Oh my God. The one I have looks and feels designer but it costs a fraction of the price. The tailoring is beautiful, the weight is perfect and somehow I managed to look great effortlessly every time I have it on. And what makes Quints different is how they work. So they partner with ethical top tier factories, the same ones that produce for major designer labels. And they cut out the middlemen. So you're getting exceptional craftsmanship, responsible production and prices that are about half of what you'd normally pay for pieces of this quality. So it's refined without being fussy, elevated but approachable. The kind of wardrobe that makes you feel like you've grown into your style. And finally stop compromising between quality and cost. Find all your staples at quints. Go to quince.comjillian for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q U I n c e.com/jillian to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com/gillian Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US so if you're intimidated about designing a website, don't worry. Shopify has got you covered from the get go with beautiful ready to go templates to match your brand style. And if you need a hand you can get help with everyday tasks like enhancing product images, writing product descriptions, generating discount codes. Shopify's AI tools are created for commerce. And if people haven't heard about your brand, Shopify helps you find your customers with easy to run email and social media campaigns. And if you get stuck, Shopify is always around to share advice with their award winning 247 customer support. They have you 365 degree covered. So turn those dreams into and give them the best shot at success with Shopify. So sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com Jillian Just go to shopify.com Jillian that's shopify.com Jillian so Mike, do we even know who's on these boats? Because I, I've spoken to a few people who suggest maybe we could make a mistake. Maybe we don't know who's on there and if we screw it up and there's like a little kid on one of these boats, big problem or is it like no, we know who's on the frigging boat. The, the CIA knows who's on the boat, you know, or who knows whatever the Heck, Heg Seth is doing like, do these guys know who's on the boat? Are, are we four going after these boats or is this a horrendous idea that could really backfire badly?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, look, I have no problem targeting narco traffickers, but you're absolutely right. The problem is what's the credibility of the intelligence that you're operating on, right? So all I can say is from, from my experience in there, you know, a couple decades working operations and some of it, fair amount of it in counter narcotics out in different parts of the world, you're targeting until, you know, you, you make sure it's buttoned up right before you take any action. And the agency is not like what it gets. It gets portrayed in, in beach books and films as just sort of this cowboy organization. There's never any risk, gain versus calculation. And I can tell you that is there's a lot of back and forth right over, you know, this. And oftentimes they just end up shit canning an operation because they decide, no, it's not worth the potential blowback or the risk involved. Okay, so here I, I would like to think that the targeting intel is solid. There are a number of agencies involved in that process. You're working off of human or human sources. You're working off of signals intelligence, communications, interception, doing a lot of things. You're working with everyone from the agency to DEA and liaison partners in other countries. So I'd like to think that the targeting information is solid. What I can't speak to, I can't speak to the, you know, the legality of it all. Okay, no idea where that's going to go. I do think that they're hurting themselves, meaning the White House, by not being more transparent about how they've chosen these targets and who they are. And I think you could do that without revealing sources and methods up to that point where you can do it without revealing sources, methods. You should. Because an environment like this, even if it's just self serving, the more transparent you can be, the less pushback you're going to get. People are going to go, oh, I get it, I understand now because you're giving me enough information so that I now feel better about the credibility of all of this. But they don't do that.

[A]

You're so right. Because, you know, as I mentioned, even I can figure out this can't really be all about narco terrorism because you're not going after those guys and these guys and those guys and they're worse offenders. So what do they have over there oil. Oh, okay. And they've got this alliance with what seems to be the new axis of evil of like Russia, China, all those guys. Is this all about oil though? It's so hard to wrap your head around the fact that that oil can create all of this madness and this death and destruction. Cuz clearly we don't care about these people, we don't care what's going on in South Sudan, cuz there's no oil. We don't care. I mean, I appreciate that Trump's going around the world and he's shutting down these conflicts. That's wonderful. But no one's ever cared about what goes on in parts of the world where people are being slaughtered because there's no oil. Is that all this is about oil?

[B]

Well, for, for some it is, yeah. Look, you know, multiple things can be true at the same time. You can have people who legitimately are working this issue because they, they firmly believe that Maduro is a terrible person that he's been. At best. Right. Allowing Venezuela to run as a narco state. Right. At worst, he's controlling it. Yeah, I mean, the jury's out on, on that. And the cartel that he, you know, that they keep talking about is kind of a loose configuration of, of, of senior people within the government who have definitely benefited from narco trafficking and have, have been enablers for the cartels and others engaged in the business. So, you know, there are people that, that want Maduro gone for, you know, good reasons. They want a better, you know, country for the, the people of Venezuela. There are people who look at it and go, yeah, that would be great to keep the Russians out and the Chinese out. Right. So they're looking at it from a geopolitical standpoint. Then you got people look at it and go, man, we could certainly use those resources and we'd like to, you know, at least have the a say in those resources as opposed to letting the Russians have that say. So, you know, there's, there's a variety of reasons why it's never just one thing or the other. And look, I've seen, you know, I've seen the government do things, you know, for, you know, questionable reasons. And I've seen the government do things for very noble reasons.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And you know, so it's, you know, I'm not one of those people. Again, I, I don't sit, I've had conversations with people in the past where, you know, it's, I'm always amazed. I just, it must be a wonderful world to Live in where you're so black and white about everything, and that's not how the world operates. It's like. It's. You know what it's like not to disappear down a rabbit hole, but it's like the.

[A]

Please.

[B]

The other day when.

[A]

Please disappear down the rabbit hole.

[B]

Disappear down the rabbit hole. Go.

[A]

Mike.

[B]

When. When mbs. When Bin Salman came to the White House.

[A]

I have a whole bunch of questions for you about this.

[B]

So let's.

[A]

Let's go there.

[B]

It's a little bit like, you know, when I'm talking about the world's a great place. Right. One of the reporters asked about Khashoggi, Jamal Khashoggi and the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, which was awful. Right?

[A]

Mike, just in case anybody doesn't know who that is, can you just tell people this is an American journalist, right?

[B]

Yeah, he's a. He's a American Saudi.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

He had U. S. Citizenship, but he was. He was a. A journalist, a columnist, primarily for the, you know, including for the Washington Post. Okay, not exclusive, but he. He was a real thorn in the side to the Saudi government, to the, you know, the ruling family, pushing for, you know, everything from press freedom to, you know, more of a open society. He was critical of. Of a lot of things that the Saudi government was doing. Ended up being coaxed to come into the consulate, Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was killed and cut up with a bone saw. So, yeah, it was pretty bad. And. And so, you know, for a handful of years, the Biden administration was like, you know, that's it. That's. That's the hill we're going to die on. Right? And, fine, you. You can do that. Right? But then the other side of that is the, you know, the world keeps marching on. It's a horrible thing. It has to be dealt with. But in a. In the world that we live in, you deal with what you got, right? You deal with the situation that you've got out of your own nation's self interest. Right. And is it in our own nation's self interest to burn down the relationship with Saudi Arabia, right, over something that was as horrific as the Khashoggi killing.

[A]

Right.

[B]

No, you can certainly express your displeasure and make a point of it. And, you know, and. And. But I wouldn't die on that hill because if I'm responsible for running the government and for US national security concerns, then, yeah, I'm not gonna just bend that relationship over that. So. But the problem is with the Trump administration, it's always messaging Right. So when he was asked about this question while Ben Solomon was in the White House and the reporter asked him directly about it, you know, Trump's response was a typical Trump response, right? Flippant. Right. And he said, you know, he said, essentially, yeah, hey, a lot of people didn't like him. Meaning Khashoggi. A lot of people didn't like. Well, clearly some people didn't like him. And he said, and things happen. Right? That was his response. So now if you sweep away the typical. And you think about what. Okay, what is that underlying that? What is that? Well, what. What he's. What he's. You know, if you're being gracious, you're saying. What he's saying is you have to keep marching on. Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Big picture.

[A]

Saying big picture.

[B]

Basically, big picture. It's just the way it's. Again, every. I don't know who runs messaging at the White House.

[A]

Oh, my gosh, Mike. I know, man. I see it with Maha. Even the stupid crap about the Tylenol, and he. And then he kind of like, bungles the messaging, and then everybody has the ability to jump down. Well, what if a pregnant woman gets a fever? No, you've compromised your life. And I cannot tell you how many times I've had to defend. I'm like, hold on. There are 20 plus studies that shows a correlation. This came from the dean of Harvard. Like it. Public health. But it's the way he messages it. Or like the other day when he was talking about Tucker and Fuentes is a guy, you know, I mean, everybody has a right to be heard. I'm like, no, no, not Tucker. But like, the Nazi guy was. We should shut that down. And it just. It's like, oh, God, it must make you. Because in your world, the stakes are so high.

[B]

So, yeah, you got. You got. It's. It's true. People parse. They. They. They look at every word like the ch. You know, the Chinese regime, Xi Jingpings and his. His folks, you know, the pla. They. The People's Liberation army, they analyze every word, every phrase for. For meaning and hidden meaning, and, you know, that you get this, you know, and so, hey, you know, on one hand, I guess that's why. That's. That's why, you know, supporters of Trump, love Trump, is because he talks like, you know, the guy who's tailgating with you at the football game. And so why not? But, yeah, I guess. I guess I shouldn't say. The messaging crew there at the White House are terrible. They've got a They've got a difficult job. Right.

[A]

So anyway, well, so in looking at mbs on one hand, you get a guy that's now opening up the country and he's letting women drive, but he's jailing the women who asked to be able to drive. And then apparently there's something like 80 executions a day over there for people who criticize the government. And it's like a 50 years in jail for a tweet where you criticize the girl. Just the Jamal Khashoggi situation again and again and again. And Qatar, that's arguably the one that I really can't wrap my head around because, like, are these good guys or bad guys or both? Like, oh, they fund terror and they're, you know, they're housing the Hamas guys.

[B]

Yeah. There are times when, and that's again, that I don't understand.

[A]

I really don't understand good guys, bad guys, better guys than Iran.

[B]

It speaks to how messy the world is. Right. So it, it, it again, for people who would like to think, well, we should never deal with these people, well, all right, you know, good luck. I don't know what planet you live on. Reality is, you know, the Qataris, look, no, there's, there's nobody out there that plays both sides of the fence better than the Qataris.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And so sometimes their interests align with ours. Sometimes it's in our interest to work with them. Sometimes they do things that are not in our interest, but that you could argue. That's the same with the Pakistanis, the Saudis. Right. Just pick up. It doesn't matter. Pick a place. Right? Every nation acts in its own best interests, you know, some more aggressively than others. The Chinese regime is always the. You can always count on exactly what they're going to do because you say, okay, what's from their perspective, in their best interest. Okay, that's what they're going to do. Right. They're not even going to try to pretend like they're part of a community of nations and maybe they should find a middle ground. So the, you know, the thing with the Qataris is we have our biggest base in the region out there, you know, located with them. People talk about how they were housing the, you know, senior management or leadership of Hamas. And yes, of course they were. And that was with the knowledge and, you know, I guess you could say tacit blessing of, of all the other key players, the Israelis, the US and others. In a way, it's handy to know where these people are. And it's not like you're not collecting intel on them.

[A]

Why are we not saying turn them over and then we will give you the diplomacy on the world stage that you're after. Hand us these guys, we're going to wipe them out like we wiped out Bin Laden and then we're going to try to fix what's broken over here in Gaza. But I, it, am I under the. Listen, I do not understand this at all and I've, I've really tried what goes on in Gaza. But what I, what I think I have extrapolated is there's not a ton of hope if Hamas still exists. It seems like, you know, ceasefire, not, not great if Hamas is still around.

[B]

Yeah. And this, this is, this is worrisome. There's a couple of things that are going on right now that are, that are kind of troublesome. One is the White House is now floating this idea that we can move forward with reconstruction without disarming Hamas. Right. And Hamas has refused. Part of that 20 point plan, you know, was the, you know, disarmament. And then it was also Hamas would not have any governance role.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And they've refused to do either. They have no interest in doing it. And they, in fact, they've been quietly, not so quietly building back up their, their arms and their control, you know, anywhere the Israelis have withdrawn from, they now are back in control. And so the idea somehow that we're going to create, you know, and everybody's going, huzzah, look at that, we've got a UN Security Council's approval. Approve the peace plan. Oh, yay. Well, it doesn't mean crap, right, if, if Hamas is, is still running things and is still armed and still maintains their objective and because it's what Iran wants them to do, which is the destruction of Israel. So at best, you know, you're putting lipstick on a pig. Right. And, and saying, well, you know, let's, let's talk about moving forward. Oh, well, that's good. You know, but it, practically speaking, it's, it's not going to happen. There is, you're not going to get the cooperation of any nation to take part in this international stabilization force as part of the, this peace plan. If they have to go into Gaza with the notion that they've got to disarm terrorist groups, Right. They're not going to sign up for that mess.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So I just, I have this, I sound terribly cynical, but, you know, it almost sounds like they're going through this paper exercise to feel good about themselves, saying, we're pushing, look at this, we've Got this plan and it's all happening and isn't that exciting and yet the reality is that, that it's not going to happen, right? Until, you know, I'm not saying you're going to destroy Hamas because you're not going to get to that point. Right? It doesn't happen. But at best, you know, you, you should at least hold that line and say we can't, you know, how are we going to do this without, you know, an alternative? And they keep talking about the Palestinian Authority. The vast majority of the Gazans can't stand the Palestinian Authority, right? They were booted out back in 2007. Hamas had since 2007 to show that they were actually serious about benefiting the, the, the, the people of Gaza. And again, this is kind of go where you go. And, and two things could be true at one time, okay? The, the, the, the, the horrors, the tragedy of the past two years on the Palestinians and the Gazan citizens is horrific and terrible and shouldn't, you know, shouldn't have happened. Was it triggered by Hamas going in and slaughtering a bunch of Israelis? Yes. Did Hamas have control over Gaza for all these years? Right. And instead of using all that money to better the, the lives of those citizens and to work towards a, of some sort of stability where everybody can benefit. No, they didn't do that. They siphoned off a bunch of that money and a number of the senior leaders of Hamas ended up incredibly wealthy. They used a lot of it to build their tunnel network so they could, you know, maintain their conflict with Israel. And so, but both those things can be true at the same time. Right? And so I guess I would argue that, look, the only reason the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas is so keen to take over and it's because they want to get their hands on the billions of dollars that are going to flow into Gaza.

[A]

Right?

[B]

There's not a decent alternative yet that's been floated that says, yeah, this makes sense now you're going to get a government that will actually work to the benefit of the people in Gaza. And as long as you got Iran sitting out there over looking the, you know, Hamas and the proxies and they're often stated objective is the destruction of Israel, you're not going to get, you know, long term peace in the region.

[A]

So what does Saudi and Qatar actually want? And the reason I bring this up is because Saudi doesn't like Iran. Right? So then, yeah, yeah, but, but this is like, this is so confusing for somebody watching the nightly news to try to Understand, Saudi doesn't like Iran. Qatar kind of likes the same guys that Iran likes. So they fund a lot of these terror organizations, but they're also like a great ally of ours. But that we're never going to have peace in Gaza because Hamas still exists. Like Mike, it doesn't make sense. What in the world does Saudi want and what does Qatar want?

[B]

They state that they want a two state solution. Right. And so, and I'm sure basically that's the case, they also want the problem to go away. Right.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

None of them have done really anything over decades to benefit the Palestinians, the Gazans. Right. The Jordanians. Look, Jordan has, you know, a very large refugee population now that's assimilated into, into Jordan in a way. So they've taken a lot of refugees. Egypt hasn't done, you know, anything they, except they built a big wall to keep the gossips out. And so apparently walls work occasionally on borders, but they, they just, you know, if you said, if you're being realistic, you said what would they want? They said they would want the problem to go away, just disappear. They don't want to have to, to deal with it. Right. Okay. The Qataris are probably the most pragmatic people out there. They again, speaking of acting in your own best interests, that's what they do.

[A]

What is their best interest? For Iran to go away? For Iran to exist. I don't even understand.

[B]

I think the best interest is to play all the sides to their benefit to stay out of the direct line of fire, to be seen as, as, you know, mediators, which is what they're doing and you know, to, to ensure they don't get caught up in, in this. The Saudis, you know, they, you know, over the years they gave a lot of leeway to extremists in their country with the idea that, you know, hey, look, if we let you kind of get on with your thing, you'll leave us alone. Meaning the royal family and the governing, you know, authority. So.

[A]

Yeah, like overthrow us or try to come.

[B]

Yeah. So they're all, everybody's acting in their, what they perceive to be their own best interest and it's really messy. And that's why, you know, I, I tend to be, I tend to be so sick about, about this region. And, and again, you've got, you know, you've got Iran, which hasn't changed its tune. They've been quietly rebuilding their missile program after the 12 Day War. There's all sorts of satellite imagery showing that they're doing everything they can to Harden their existing nuclear facility sites. And so they claim that they're not enriching uranium. They never, you know, stuck to their word in the past. I don't know why we believe them now. But if that's the case, if they're not enriching uranium, then fine. Open the doors and let, Let the inspectors in. Full transparency. Right. It's like with the Epstein files. Just release them. But I guarantee you the Iranian regime is not going to allow full transparency to say, yeah, you're right. You're.

[A]

You're.

[B]

You don't have this active weapons program enriching uranium way beyond what is needed for civilian use. So it's a, it's, it's a mess. It's been a mess for a long time. I don't see that changing. And I know that makes me sound.

[A]

Terrible, Mike, can we go back and look at how Iran became what it is today? Because I'm also under the impression to a certain extent, this involves our intelligence community. So correct me if I'm wrong. There was a diplomatically elected leader that everybody loved. This guy wanted to open up the oil that I guess the Brits had some sort of control over. The Brits were like, oh, my God, we can't do that. They came over to us and said, we got to get rid of this guy because this is going to cost us a ton of money on oil. We then got involved and helped overthrow that guy and install the Shaw. He was a douche. The people of Iran did not like this guy. They overthrew him, and then you got the ayatollah Khomeini. So is this our fault?

[B]

Is it?

[A]

Is this our fault? Which goes all the way back to my Venezuela question, is this our fault?

[B]

Yeah. Well, yeah, we certainly complicate matters. And sometimes we complicate matters again because, you know, it's self interest and we're looking at resources. Sometimes we complicate matters because we think, oh, I'll bet it would be better, you know, and more for us if we stabilize the region with more democracy, for instance. Right. And so, you know, usually for whatever reason, I guess you could always argue it comes back to. To u. S. Self interest or to other nations. So. And, and again, I'm not apologizing because I don't know what people think about the world. You know, somehow they think, well, it's just the US that's self interested. And that's. Right, that's. That's not the way the world works.

[A]

Right.

[B]

So everybody's out there doing the same Thing, you know, you can, you can dislike all of it, but don't stand around and think that we're, you know, the only bully or bad guy on the block. Right. So that's, I guess that would be my point. You can call balls and strikes and say when we behave badly, fine, of course. But don't pretend as if the rest of the world is just standing around hoping that somehow, you know, we could just hold hands and be a community of nations. And so I think, and if we.

[A]

Don'T do it, it becomes China, Russia kind of a thing, and then worse will prevail.

[B]

Well, look, you can only speak from your own experience, right? And my experience is that we're, we, we make mistakes. There's no, again, no doubt about that. I'm not arguing we don't.

[A]

Right.

[B]

But what I've, at least, what I've seen over, you know, 40 plus years of, of spending most of my time overseas and dealing with a lot of strange places is that the US does try to right the ship. We do try to correct mistakes. We, we identify those mistakes and we try for the most part to try to change things. Right. And yes, we act in our own self interest, but I have not seen another nation out there that, you know, when I'm talking about the global superpowers, if I'm talking about Russia, I'm basically talking about Russia and China.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And frankly, Russia's got the GDP of a small EU nation, but they've got that big nuke arsenal, so that counts for something.

[A]

Got it.

[B]

So I think, am I comfortable with thinking that one of those two nations would be at the top of the food chain and would make decisions that are in the best interests of, of the globe? On occasion, not saying we always do, but there, there is an element, there's always an element of, within the US government that, you know, you've got some folks that are like, okay, yeah, you know, let's, let's try to do the right thing. And again, sometimes they don't, sometimes they make mistakes or sometimes they do something that you look at and you go, what the hell was that all about? But, you know, there's, I guess what I'm saying is it's, it's flawed, it's not perfect, but it's better than the options that are out there. So I'm, I'm comfortable with the U.S. you know, at least trying to stay at the top of the food chain or making that effort. But yeah, look, there's no doubt about it. You know, when you look At a place like Iran, you look at the history of, of the Middle east manufactured nations, you know, it's.

[A]

Can you elaborate on that? This, I, I know a little bit about this. I don't think again what that means.

[B]

Nations have been shitty to each other forever. Look at what happens on the African continent. Right? The history of the African continent is just, is horrible actions and behavior towards each other, right? Yeah, you could make that argument that that's maybe it's human nature, right? It's not one nation or, or another that, you know, it's human nature. So, yeah, excuse me for not, you know, falling on my sword and, and thinking that the US is the arbiter of all evil out there.

[A]

I got it. You know, what ends up happening is you, you get this messaging in the social Zeitgeist from some pretty big personalities and it's like, look what we did. And that the reality, it's like, well, we went into Afghanistan for 20 years or however the heck long that was, only to hand it back to the Taliban. Look at Libya, look at. And you know, you end up thinking, okay, it starts with good intentions, but it always ends up worse. So now you've got what appears to be the worst case scenario with a guy like Maduro or, you know, the Ayatollah in Iran. And I could fully understand, I could see how you become a neocon or you're thinking like, these are bad guys. And worse bad guys, like Russia and China are going to exploit the smaller bad guys in Iran and Venezuela and they're launching cyber attacks and they're, they're funding all of these terror organizations. Like, of course we want to go in there and overthrow these guys. Of course we want to go in there and take control of the resources and allow like, our Western way of life, which seems to me a hell of a lot better than Sharia law to prevail and all of these things. But Mike, it always, it's never worked out, never. So it's hard to even make that argument. So then what do you do with Iran? And I had this fight while it was happening because I thought, well, geez, you know, I don't really want these guys to have a nuclear weapon. Trump's been pretty consistent always that they can have a nuclear weapon. He's not being pressured. He's a president for peace. We've seen that you could dislike them and all the things, but he's not a guy who starts new wars. Like, we can pick up on these obvious clues, but everybody was like, oh my God, Another forever war, and we're gonna kill all these innocent people. And, you know, Iran's innocent and, you know, Israel is the devil, and we're just doing this for money because it's never worked out. So it's hard to make a case that you do it when it never works out. What do we do actually with Iran? Because as you're saying, they're now rebuilding their nuclear arsenal. They are the top funders of terror. They are clearly anti west have said it. I could throw up a million videos of them saying, death to America, death to Israel. What is the answer, though? What do we do? Because a regime change thing doesn't work, clearly. That's kind of how we ended up with this guy.

[B]

The only answer for Iran, I think, is, is, you know, has changed from within. The people have got to get to a point where they're like, okay, it's, we're done with this, right? We, okay, you know, we actually want a better life. And, you know, the, the mullahs and the irgc, you know, are not providing it. And, you know, they had plenty of opportunity, but they've squandered it. Like they, the mismanagement has been so bad right now that Tehran is, you know, millions of people facing a, a real crisis, right? The, the reservoirs are basically dry and there is a massive water shortage and it's going to get worse.

[A]

Okay?

[B]

So, and if you think that, you know, food and water kind of the, the kind of, the basics, right? So if the lack of water doesn't finally wake up the people of Iran to say, you know, enough's enough, we need, we need a different form of government that actually pays attention to what, you know, okay, the, the country deserves what the people deserve. So I think that's, that's the answer. I've never been a proponent of regime change. You know, in the close that classic sense, is there anything you can do to support those people, you know, massive uprising or, you know, protests happen and what can the US Do? Well, typically it's just making declarations and statements and, you know, trying to, you know, document the abuses and etc. Etc. But I don't know that any of that helps. So I guess the point is, much like with Venezuela where you think, okay, the ideal situation would be that Maduro goes on his own volition or is convinced to go by his inner circle, you get the opposition government that legitimately won the last election and they're able to come in, the military reduces its role and is, you know, supportive of the incoming opposition it's much the same with Iran. You hope that the people will say that's, that's it. The irgc, though, unfortunately, is just woven themselves into every part of that nation for their own interests. Right. They've siphoned off huge amounts of money. Their senior people have made a fortune. A lot of that money could have gone to, I don't know, a better water management system which would prevent these people from now being in this terrible crisis. So. Right, that's that, that's, that's where I think Iran is, is going to have to go at some point.

[A]

Why is it always the most extreme that fills the vacuum? It never goes more towards a moderate position like, ah, you get rid of this guy, but the guy that came in is worse. So Kim Jong Un is worse. Oh, Uday Hussein, he would have been worse. Oh no, we got rid of the, these guys are. Oh, we got rid of those guys. Funded the Taliban. Holy cow. They're bad. Like, why is it always worse? You know, the Shaw was worse than the guy who was diplomatically elected. The I told is worse than the Shaw. How come these revolutions. Oh, the people overthrew. So it always ends up with a more extreme, like, like was. It seems like Hamas is worse than Arafat. Is there a reason for this?

[B]

Well, yeah, I mean, Hamas is a kind of, in part a creature of, of Iran.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And so they're, you know, in a sense doing Iran's bidding. Right. As for other proxies within that network. But yeah, the pendulum does tend to swing wildly. Right. It never stops and rests in the middle. But, but you could argue that's. Look, look at the U.S. right? I mean we're.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

You know, those people are moving further to the edges, or at least it seems that way because they're the most vocal. Right. And you've got. Now what have you got? You got someone like Mumdani, right? 34 year old. We've just handed the keys to the financial capital of the world to a 34 year old with no real experience, work experience, who was, you know, enamored, supposedly. Look, he grew up in a privileged environment. If he had been living in, in a socialist environment that espoused the ideas that he got himself elected on, he wouldn't have had the opportunities that he had growing up. Right. So I don't think that, you know, people aren't making that connection. They're just hearing free stuff. They're in the same thing that people have talked about for years. It's just a different generation of young folks who think, yeah, that sounds great, could work and legitimately. Yeah, there's an affordability crisis in the country. Of course there is. Housing is, is out of control, you know, insurance and health care that could be fixed, but it doesn't get fixed. And in part, you know, you could argue, well, it's because we send the same people over and over again to Washington and they're self interested.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

You know, how do you, how do you end up being a multimillionaire when what you've been doing is working in Washington, D.C. as a politician? And so I, you know, I think that's not a surprise. But I do think that to your point, the pendulums, you know, for, in some places, you know, swings hard left and, you know, fine, you know, they're going to get what they get. Let's see if mom, Donnie and Katie Wilson and others can invent a new form of socialism or pseudo communism that works and, and if they can, God bless them. But I'm not particularly optimistic there.

[A]

You know, you bring up a point though, like, hey, Iran, if you had spent the money building desalination plants or whatever, fixing your water filtration system, you might have been able to keep the people happy. But the pressure is mounting on you guys on Maduro, but it's mounting here. You just, you just brought up like, hey, if we'd fixed the system and kids could buy houses, they wouldn't be revolting.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, that's right. Look, we, there's a lot of things we haven't, you know, for years we knew the immigration system was, was, you know, failing and broken and, you know, we haven't. So. So what? Because we couldn't get our heads around the idea of doing more than one thing at one time. Right. We could have, we could have easily secured the border. But we could also have worked on the immigration system.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And you know, health care, Social Security. Look, everybody knows the country's in massive debt, right? How about we push the retirement age of the Social Security age, you know, up a couple of years. Grandfather, the people in that, you know, been putting in and then say, you know, going forward, this is the way it's going to be because, you know, life expectancy has changed. But you can't do that. Politicians don't have the courage because they want to get reelected.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So make them have term limits. Then maybe they make, you know, bolder, stronger, smarter decisions because they're not so goddamn worried about getting reelected. But that's just, I look at that. I just went down Another rabbit hole. Sorry, I just.

[A]

No, but, but see, that's the thing. You have the, you know, what is it? The 20,000 foot view, the perspective. You've seen all of this play out in countries all over the world for decades now, and we're doing so many of the same things and we're watching it and I just wonder all of the people like yourself who understand, like, I was just talking to Victor Davis Hansen and everybody who watched that podcast, they're like, oh my God, why is this guy not in office? Why is Mike Baker not in office? What is the answer to that? Is it because good guys can't get elected because the system is rigged? Or is it because good guys are like, I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than play these reindeer games? Because there are solutions. You see the. Them. Victor Davis Hansen sees them. You guys know, it's fascinating. I could probably do another 10 hour show with you where you could fix, probably, hey, I can fix immigration. I can fix that same if I put you in a room like a few other of these guys.

[B]

But yeah, I don't know that, I don't know that anybody can fix, you know, in the current system that we've got, again, in part because of, you know, I'm a big proponent of saying we got to have term limits. Right. And I think that's part of the problem. Is the system rigged? Well, it's rigged in the sense that once you're elected, it's easier to get reelected. Right. You've got certain advantages, unless you're just a complete. And not to say we don't send some of those to Washington, but not name and names. That would make a difference. If we could, if we could get our heads around the idea of term limits, then perhaps you get more people throwing their hat in the ring to run.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Part of the problem is I think people look at it and go, I'm not putting myself and my family through that mess.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Right. So, yeah, there's, there's a, I think a number of reasons you get. But again, it's like everything else you get. Some people run and they go to Washington for very good reasons. They're very, they genuinely want to make a difference. Some people go for ego, some people go for the benefits. How does, how does anybody get a lifetime pension if they just serve a term, you know, or two? How does that work? And so, and you know, how do you not ban, you know, any form of, of insider trading? So there's just certain things. But it is, it is fascinating I agree with 100. We don't get the right people. Look, having said that, I know some folks who were there in D.C. you know, in Congress and Senate that are very good people, very good, hard working, really well meaning and, and solid intentions. But that's not everybody. And I guess that's, that's the way it works.

[A]

But yeah, I was talking to Cali Means the other night and he works in the MAHA community and in HHS with Kennedy and he, he got promoted within the, within hhs and he texted me, we get on the phone and he's like, it's so dark. He's like, Jill, it's so dark. And at the end of the day he's like, people are gonna have to, they're gonna have to take agency. That's gonna be the only rebellion we're going to really get. So I know there are good people at HHS right now, and I also know what they're up against and how far they get remains to be seen. But any step in the right direction is a miracle because of the things that work against them. So for everybody watching this, what can we do as individuals to try to better society, to try to force change? Is it educating ourselves? So we're all playing with the same deck and we know how to vote, we know what, what these policies mean, we understand these things. Like what can we do as a little tiny infinitesimal cog in this insane machine?

[B]

I think the first thing people need to worry about is misinformation and disinformation. Right. That, that is spread primarily nowadays, you know, through everybody's smartphone, through social media. You have to, you're really the only meaningful line of defense. The individual is right. And in protecting yourself. And if enough people do that, then you're, you're know, collectively working to better society by stopping the spread of. And, and it's just, yeah, I'm shocked. It shouldn't be shocked, but every day I'm still shocked.

[A]

Me too.

[B]

About just how bad it is.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And the lack of, of, of, of, of due diligence on the part of people to say, okay, is what I'm reading right now, is this accurate or am I just happy to read it and pass it along? Wrong. Because it, it agrees with what I think. Right?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Yeah. So I think the individual needs to say, is this accurate? Is this credible? What's the actual source of this? Let me just check real quick before I absorb it and make it part of my zeitgeist, or before I click and pass it along. To a friend or family. Let me just think about this. Right?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And that would be a. That would be a really good step because that's how you can protect yourself. And then, like I said, I think it makes a difference to the community. And then, you know, civility's gone, you know, by the wayside. Right. You don't really see a lot of civility in conversations or discussions anymore when. When people are coming at a problem from different directions.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And so I think that would be the other thing. And it's just. I don't know. I don't think you ever get there. I'm not saying it's going to happen. I don't think it will. I don't think you walk that dog back, but that would be a nice thing.

[A]

I feel like if we role model it, then it, you know, people will lean into those that are not engaging in that hateful vitriol. That is my. That is my hope. I do find I've. I try so hard not to do it and to take the high road. Every now and again, I lose it on Gavin Newsom. And I like, like, no name calling, Jillian, this is. This is really a vile trait that you hate in other people. And it, you know, it's like, it's very hard to do. But I'm. I'm hoping that if we practice it, we stretch our emotional fabric. We take the high ground. We have principles over politics. We, you know, and if. If one person does it that we admire and respect, like yourself, it's like, okay, I respect Mike. Mike does it this way. I want to be more like Mike. I'm going to do that.

[B]

A great commercial.

[A]

I'm freaking serious. Like, Mike.

[B]

Yeah. So, yeah, I think that's, you know, and it is hard to do, right? Because sometimes you'll read something, you go, oh, my God, I can't believe you. But then you have to ask yourself, okay, did they really say that? Or in what context was that said? Yeah. And. And part of it is there's more of an obligation on. You mentioned Gavin Newsom. There's more of an obligation on people like Gavin Newsom, on people like, well, President Trump, on people like, you know, Adam Schiff, you know, anybody in a position of responsibility more so than anyone else, they should be buttoned up. Right. They should be careful about what they tweet or X or whatever we call it nowadays. Post. And they. But they're not.

[A]

No, they weren't. That's how they rally their base is. Is.

[B]

That's how they rally Their base, and that's the problem. So the more you do that, the harder that edge becomes on the left and the right, and then the more difficult it is because we have this primary system. So really only the edges are going out there and motivated to vote in the primaries. And then you get these people who are on the far edges, you know, getting into office. Right? And, you know, nobody seems to be living in the middle anymore. And that's. That's a shame. And if you do, I mean, I get it all the time. People criticize me on social media all the time because, you know, I'm pissing everybody off, right? Because I'm saying, well, that's a good idea, but that's also a good idea. You can probably marry those two. And people on both sides now are pissed off at you, which probably means you're doing something right.

[A]

It's scary, though, but you're. You're just like, I got to do it. I got to say it. Because there's right and there's wrong. There's true and there's false, and some things are pretty frigging black and white. You know, like a Nick Fuentes character. That one. I don't need nuance. I. You know, I'm against, you know, anti Semites. I'm against, you know, racists. I'm against misogynists. That's easy for me, but I know what you mean, and I know how scary it is. But I think that the majority of us are in the center. We're just not going bananas in the comments. Yeah, because we got kids.

[B]

I think. I think there's. There's. Look, some of it is. Some of it is self serving. Some of the folks in social media who. Who just constantly throw red meat out to whichever side they're feeding. Right. The right or the left. You know, I look at them and I think, okay, you're playing a game here, right? You know, when the camera light comes on, I know what you're doing. I don't know why you do it. Right? Like, if I wanted to. If I wanted to really boost the numbers for our podcast for the President's Daily Brief, I would just start tossing red meat out, right? And that would be it. But I don't want to. That's not what I want. I don't want to come home at night and think, wow, I'm just.

[A]

I made the world a horrible place.

[B]

Today at the Wall, so I can get more. More subscriptions. And. And so I think you have to, you know, you. You know, do I have certain principles. Well, damn right I do. Right. And those are the hills you die on. Right. The things, you know, family, friends, honesty, loyalty, all of that. But I'm willing to admit that, you.

[A]

Know.

[B]

You know, policies, things like that, you got to look at it from both sides. And you have to understand, I get why people are incensed with, you know, what's happening with Venezuela, for example, and. And say, oh, my God, I can't believe you're doing this. I understand that because. Yeah, because they're. They're thinking it's regime change and another forever war. And you. You're right. Right. In the sense that that's. That's a terrible thing. So I get that. I also understand the other people who are saying, well, you know, from a practical standpoint, from a geopolitical standpoint, this is in the nation's, you know, interest to pursue a different government there. And no matter how well, in some fashion, hopefully it's internal. Look, in Afghanistan, if you had told me back when the Soviets were there, that's how old I am, that, you know, we would be back in Afghanistan, you know, a couple decades later, making the same mistakes that the Russians made, I would have thought you were crazy. But there we were, right? We. We knew the problems the Russians had going into Afghanistan and then trying to hold Afghanistan and then trying to get out of Afghanistan, and we had the same problems, Right. But we were Americans, and we thought we were going to do it better. Right then. We were bringing democracy, and that was better. And that was. And so they'd appreciate it, and it all would work out.

[A]

Right?

[B]

And, you know, that's not. That's not a bad intention in the sense of they thought they could make it happen, and that was. Right. Right. But it wasn't very smart, and it wasn't based on reality. It's kind of based on hope.

[A]

So, anyway, Mike, I think you're fantastic. I am obsessed with your podcast. Tell everybody about it. Tell everybody where we can find you and all the awesome things you're doing so we can continue to better educate ourselves and subsequently be better global citizens. Reasons.

[B]

That's a. That's a. Yeah. Now I feel like I'm gonna let a lot of people down.

[A]

No, you're the exact opposite of that.

[B]

Yeah, no, it's. It's the President's Daily Brief. You can find it on all your podcast platforms. You can find it on YouTube at President's Daily Brief, we're on the first TV every weekend. We do an extended show with guests, and it's you basically morning and afternoon morning version is about 20 minutes to the afternoon version versions about 10 minutes. And all we do is highlight the top three or four international and and foreign policy, national security stories, things that are happening on the world stage. And we tell you what's happening without telling you how to think about it. So it's not an opinion based show. It's just here's a quick rundown of things you should keep on your radar that are happening around the world that could impact what's happening at home.

[A]

Thank you so much. I hope you'll come back and educate me further because as I mentioned, I could have done 50 shows but I know you have a life and you have to go.

[B]

So until this has been great, Jillian. Thank you. I really, I really enjoyed this. It's wonderful to be able to talk about things without having to fit it all into like three and a half minutes hit. So this has been excellent. This has really been great. Thank you for that.

[A]

Thank you so much. Have a good one.

[B]

Take care. Talk to you soon.

[A]

Thank you so much for watching. If you enjoyed the podcast, please please like comment, subscribe and share. And make sure to let me know what guests you want to see on in the future. Shopify's Point of Sale system helps you sell at every stage of your business. Need a fast and secure way to take payments in person? We've got you covered. How about card readers you can rely on anywhere you sell?

[B]

Thanks.

[A]

Have a good one. Yep, that too. Want one place to manage all your online and in person person sales? That's kind of our thing wherever you sell. Businesses that grow grow with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at shopify.com listen shopify.com listen.