← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
The Breakdown | Trump GETS CAUGHT Hiding SMOKING GUN DOCS with FBI
00:34:20
Allison reveals a critical gap of time the FBI left out of the pipe bomber affidavit, plus 8 other things the administration covered up this past week.
Loading summary
Transcript56 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everybody, I'm Alison Gill. Why is the FBI withholding information from the public on the pipe bomber?
- [00:12]
Is it part of a cover up because his motive doesn't fit their narrative? Is it to create a vacuum of facts so right wing conspiracy theorists can fill it with their own theories about who the pipe bomber is?
- [00:32]
I mean, Trump has a well documented history of doing this. You recall Bill Barr announced the Mueller report came out and that it exonerated Donald Trump. And then he refused to release the actual report for like three weeks and went on a tour to spin the findings and set that first impression before everyone else could get the facts.
- [00:53]
So, you know, I'll ask again, is the FBI covering up details and hiding details from us about the pipe bomber? The FBI left crucial information out of their affidavit because the pipe bomber, Brian Cole, I'm sure he lived a life between December 13 and January 5.
- [01:18]
And as we know, one of the pieces of evidence that the FBI used to tie him to placing the pipe bombs is that he ate across the street from the alley where he walked back on December 13th or 14th. But Donald Trump made the call to bring everybody out to Washington on December 19th. And so I'm going to talk about this missing gap of time in the affidavit in today's episode.
- [01:47]
And in fact, this whole episode is about the Trump administration withholding information because if it went public, it would be counter to their narrative and participating in cover up after cover up. They're not just withholding information about the pipe bomber, they're withholding the Epstein files, they're withholding documents in the Abrego Garcia case, they're withholding or writing BS declarations in Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings, the newly revived contempt proceedings in the Alien Enemies act case. They're, they're hiding exculpatory evidence in grand jury proceedings, they're trying to hide the public testimony of Special Counsel Jack Smith to Congress. They're trying to keep volume two of his report from coming out. And all of this stuff has updates on it this week. Now, they claim to be the most transparent administration in history, but all they do is bury and lie and obfuscate and, and cover up. So I'm going to show you what I'm talking about on today's episode of the Breakdown.
- [02:52]
Hey, everybody. Welcome again. I'm Alison Gill. This week, The FBI arrested 30 year old Brian Cole. This is the man who allegedly planted the pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters near the Capitol. Near is an operative word. Here within a mile. And he did this the night before the January 6th insurrection. Now, in their arrest affidavit, the FBI said they used phone records to ping off cell towers to put him in the area. They used parts from the bombs that they traced to him purchasing. They used a license plate scanner that showed a car he drove registered to him or somebody he knew in the area, and that he purchased that meal I told you about with a credit card a couple of weeks, three. Three weeks before he planted the bombs. But there is a glaring gap of time in their affidavit, and this is something that was included in pretty much every single January 6th rioter affidavit issued by the Biden Justice Department. And it's a record of what this man was doing in the days and weeks leading up to January 6th. Marcy Wheeler pointed this out at emptywheel.net, so there's nothing in this affidavit between the time Trump called for everyone to come to D.C. will be wild. He did that on December 19th and the attack on the Capitol on January 6th. And I noticed that the affidavit says nothing about where he was on January 6th. Did he go? Did he go home? That would help you prove your case that he's some sort of lone wolf, whatever, and not associated with the January 6th attack on the Capitol. He was certainly being investigated with for a connection to January 6th, but they just left all of that out.
- [04:35]
And there's a reason why they want to create a vacuum of facts. MSNBC or Ms. Now learned that Brian Cole is a Trump supporter. He's MAGA and he's an election denier. He believes that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. He believed in the big lie, that Trump actually won the 2020 election.
- [04:56]
But it wasn't the FBI or a government official that told this to Ms. Now, it was two sources familiar with the matter who spoke on a condition of anonymity.
- [05:08]
Now, this guy Cole spoke with the FBI for four hours. We also learned that from msnbc and also confessed to planting the pipe bombs. Four hours of an interview and no facts. And then Pam Bondi says in her big fancy press conference that Brian Cole's politics are complicated.
- [05:30]
Really? No, they're not. You just don't want to say what his politics are for the same reason you left his personal communications and planning and whereabouts between the Will be Wild tweet and the insurrection. You're covering it up.
- [05:45]
You're letting the right wing influencers try to move this guy from maga. Over to lunatic leftist anarchist land. And you're doing it on purpose.
- [05:59]
Even this week, Dan Bongino admitted that when he was a podcaster making up these conspiracy theories that he got paid to lie. Now I'll work. Now I'm in the FBI. I work on facts. Ipso facto. Back then you worked on lies, not facts. And that the January 6 was an inside job. Conspiracy is, it's bullshit. Watch, watch this admission.
- [06:23]
B
You know, I don't know if you remember this. This is before you became the deputy FBI director. You put a post on X right after this happened and you said there's a massive cover up because the person that planted those pipe bombs, they don't want you to know who it is because it's either a connected anti Trump insider or an inside job. You said that, you know, long before you even thought of as Deputy FBI director.
- [06:52]
C
Yeah, that's why I said to you, this investigation's just begun. We are pretty comfortable. We have our guy. I think as the again, legal process starts to surface and information, facts start to come out, the public's going to be very comfortable with the investigation that was conducted under Director Patel and his leadership. He's been great on this. But I don't want to, you know, listen, I was paid in the past, Sean, for my opinions. That's clear. And one day I'll be back in that space. But that's not what I'm paid for now. I'm paid to be your deputy director and we base investigations on facts. And, you know, it was interesting, I was looking out in the crowd today.
- [07:28]
A
He is admitting he swindled his listeners. He's saying, I got paid to lie to your face. That is a pretty stunning confession. Yet they continue to withhold facts about the pipe bomber. We're working on facts. No, you're withholding facts from us. They're also withholding the Epstein files. Last July, right after we got that bombshell drawing by Trump of a young naked girl in the Epstein birthday book in an effort to try to look like they were doing something, Pam Bondi went to the courts in New York and Florida to release some of the Epstein files grand jury materials. The only problem is that amounted to what the judge referred to as about 76 pages of one FBI agent's grand jury testimony. In cases specifically against Maxwell and Epstein. They wouldn't mention anybody else. There wouldn't be anything in there about the client list. But they did that because they knew the courts would say no back, back in July, and then they could try to Convince the public, look, we totally want to release the files, but the courts won't let us. The court said, no, it's the activist judges. We did our best. Meanwhile, they've sitting on 300,000 pages of documents at the DOJ and the FBI that they could have released on January 20th.
- [08:50]
But this week they tried that trick again with the courts. They went back to the courts and asked them for those same files again, knowing they can actually release all the Epstein files in their possession anytime they want.
- [09:04]
And one Epstein survivor, Annie Farmer, knew that Trump would probably try to use this as an excuse to withhold the files and perpetuate the COVID up. And she actually wrote to Judge Berman, who's one of the judges considering this motion, and said, Ms. Farmer therefore respectfully requests that any decision as to the instant motions make abundantly clear that the court's rulings do not affect the Department of Justice's ability to release documents subject to the Transparency Act. For the avoidance of doubt, this would mean that nothing in the court's rulings affect the Department of Justice's ability to release other materials, including those contained in the more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence in the government's possession. The fact that the government styled their motions as modifications to a protective order, which reinforces Ms. Farmer's concern that the government will use orders issued by this court as a public excuse to continue to withhold crucial information.
- [10:04]
But everybody, another judge, a judge in Florida, called their bluff on this. Judge Smith, Southern District of Florida, said, yeah, pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, I'll unseal these grand jury transcripts. He's going to do it. And again, there's not going to be massive revelations in here. It's again 76 pages.
- [10:25]
Of one FBI agent's testimony to the grand jury specifically about Epstein's case. At least nothing like what's in the 300,000 pages that 1,000 plus FBI agents had to review this past summer. And the files that they stole from the Southern District of New York from Biden's open and ongoing investigation into the sex trafficking ring.
- [10:47]
Again, they can release those anytime they have been able to this whole entire time. But now Bondi can't use the course as an excuse to withhold anything. Again, she has until December 19th to release the entirety of the files. And by law, she must explain anything she redacts or withholds. And if she doesn't, she will be sued. This happened to Bill Barr. He was sued for his redactions of the Mueller report. And And a lower court judge before it got to the Supreme Court, a lower court judge ruled that he over redacted the report. He made inappropriate redactions and lacked candor. And he did this for the purposes of covering up the massive scope of Russian interference in the 2016 election. That all came to light and they released the full and redacted Mueller report. A lot of people aren't even, you know, don't even know that. I still get people email me saying, when are we going to get the unredacted Mueller report? So we got it pursuant to a lawsuit, the same kind of lawsuit Pam Bondi is going to face from a lower court judge back in 2020. So like I said, I imagine we'll see the same thing here. Also this week, the government is withholding court ordered declarations in the Boasberg Alien Enemies act contempt proceedings. You'll recall Judge Boasberg found probable cause that the Trump administration was in criminal contempt, criminal contempt, not civil contempt. For refusing to turn the planes around that were headed to El Salvador. And then the en banc D.C. circuit Court of Appeals revived his contempt proceedings and he ordered the government to submit declarations, written, sworn under the penalty of perjury, declarations from government officials involved in defying his court order by this past Friday. That's when the deadline was.
- [12:33]
And guess what? They turned in three declarations. And they are scant. Here's Kristi Noem's entire declaration. I made the decision to continue the transfer of custody of the Alien Enemies act detainees who had been removed from the United States before this court issued its temporary restraining order in the evening of March 15, 2025. And before making that decision, I received privileged legal advice.
- [13:03]
All right, first, she couldn't have decided to keep the planes in the air before Boasberg ordered her to turn them around. She decided to keep the planes in the air after he ordered them turned around. I don't know what it is with this administration and time travel. Like when Pam Bondi tried to appoint Lindsay Halligan special attorney in the past so that they could make the statute of limitations on Comey. Or when Hegseth decided to retroactively declassify the shit he set out on an unsecure signal chat that put US Troops in harm's way. I redacted it back then. Or I declassified it back then. Anyhow, that's the entirety of Kristi Noem's declaration. And here's Todd Blanche's. This is number two of three declarations. Blah, blah, blah, blah. Emil Bovey and I provided privileged legal advice to Kristi Noemi. The end. And here's Acting General Counsel Mazzara's declaration. This is the third and final one he says. I analyzed what the court said and the temporary restraining order hearing and in its subsequent written order. After my review, I then gave Secretary Noem legal advice prior to her decision about the legality of continuing with the transfer of custody to El Salvador of certain terrorist aliens detained under the Alien Enemies Act. DHS has removed these terrorists from the United before this court issued any order or oral statement regarding their removal.
- [14:33]
Nimrod. The order wasn't to stop the planes from taking off. It was to turn the planes around. And it was specific in the oral order. And Mazara doesn't even bother to claim privilege here. Just massive stonewalling. Cover up. It's a cover up. And Boasberg isn't going to like it. I just checked the docket. He hasn't responded. It's a weekend, so he might be opening these scant three declarations. There were like 10 people involved in these decisions.
- [15:09]
And the government tries to explain their shitty response. They say the court order directed declarations from all individuals involved in the decision. Defendants, we, the government, we interpret the word involved in this context to refer to the official who personally made the decision and the officials responsible for the legal advice regarding the decision. But not, for example, every individual who was involved in implementing the decision or every subordinate who conducted research during formulation of the legal advice because there would be no apparent basis to pursue criminal contempt charges against those individuals.
- [15:48]
Okay, let's look at Judge Boseberg. But Judge Boasberg's order. Shall we? The government says they don't think it included every individual who was involved or they want to change the word involved in implementing the decision. But Judge Boasberg, look, asked for all individuals involved in the decision not to halt the transfer.
- [16:12]
What do words mean? The government doesn't get to redefine what involved means. And I do. I look forward to what Judge Boasberg has to say about this stonewalling. We could actually be looking at multiple layers of contempt here. Contempt for refusing to turn the planes around and then contempt for refusing to tell the court why you refuse to turn the planes around. It's like a contempt turducken content inception. We will see if they face any consequences.
- [16:48]
So what else is the most transparent government withholding? How about exculpatory evidence before a grand jury? Well, at least Lindsey Halligan did that in the Jim Comey and Letitia James cases, possibly Letitia James, certainly Jim Comey. But maybe the new guy they tagged in from Missouri to re indict Letitia James actually didn't withhold the exculpatory information. And maybe that's why they failed to re indict Letitia James this week. And that brings me so much joy. Last week when we collectively learned that the Department of Justice was going to forego appealing the dismissal of the cases and specifically here the case against Letitia James in favor of seeking a new indictment. I posted on Blue Sky. Do it. Take these to another grand jury, then a second and a third until we get a breaking news story about how much you suck at this. Do it. I live to watch you lose. And then three days later, I got my wish. Grand jury rejects new mortgage fraud indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James.
- [17:59]
The failing, beleaguered, weak Department of Justice couldn't even meet the burden of probable cause. The the low bar that begets the idea that the government can indict a ham sandwich. But they just don't get tired of losing. Or more likely, they are just completely shameless because Carol Lennig reported Friday that the Department of Justice is contemplating going back a third time to try to indict the New York Attorney General this week, this coming week. And yes, in my post, I did ask for them to come back a third time, a second time, and a third time because of the immense schadenfreude that comes with watching this administration lose. But there's also legal peril that comes with trying to take too many bites of this apple. Let's say on the third or fourth try they do get a true bill, they do get an indictment. Well, the fact that you kept going back over and over again actually bolsters Letitia James case for dismissal on vindictive and selective prosecution grounds. Not that it needed bolstering, but we never got to the point where a judge had to decide on vindictive and selective prosecution because the cases were dismissed before we got to that, because Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed. And not only that, but if you keep getting turned down by a grand jury, it then becomes reasonable for Letitia James to ask for the grand jury tapes to see what the prosecutor did differently the third time or the fourth time. And that opens the door for dismissal on jury misconduct grounds. What did you say the fourth time that you didn't say the third time?
- [19:40]
That is why this administration is ridden with COVID ups. They know the truth will expose them as failures. So please, Pamela Jo, keep Stepping in it because we all need something to laugh about. But speaking of vindictive and selective prosecution, remember last week in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case when Costa Rica rebutted Donald Trump's government's lie that they we can't deport Mr. Abrego to Costa Rica. They closed the door. They won't take him. And Costa Rica was like, we never closed the door. He's welcome. And then Abrego's lawyers filed notice with the criminal court in his criminal case, saying, hey, we know you said it's likely you found a likelihood that the government vindictively and selectively prosecuted Mr. Abrego. So you want to have discovery and an evidentiary hearing about it, but this Costa Rica revelation is so terrible that you should just decide vindictive and selective prosecution. Now, we don't need a hearing, we don't need discovery. This is really bad. It's bad enough to dismiss without that. Well, this week there was a mysterious filing under seal on the Abrego docket, followed by the abrupt cancellation of the vindictive and selective prosecution evidentiary hearing that's supposed to start tomorrow. You can see it right here.
- [20:59]
That would. The evidentiary hearing scheduled on December 8, the 9th, 2025, is cancelled pending further order of the court.
- [21:07]
Now, they could be canceling this for any number of reasons. This actually happens a lot with the Trump administration in particular, because they stonewall everything. So it could be the judge has to postpone this hearing until further order from the court or cancel it until further order because the government's refusing to hand stuff over, the stuff that you need to do discovery and have an evidentiary hearing. Maybe they haven't handed over their evidence, I don't know. But you can bet I'll be keeping my eye on this docket as well. We also learned this week that Pete Hegseth refused to cooperate with the Inspector general investigation into Signalgate. He's covering that up. He wouldn't sit for an interview. He wouldn't hand over his phone. What's the matter, Pete? Why not be transparent? Like a booze soaked white button up shirt? You seem to have no problem with that kind of transparency. What are you covering up? The Inspector General found that he endangered the lives of US troops, particularly pilots, when he sent secret classified information out on a signal app. In a signal discussion, though, he says he, he did travel back in time, like I said, and declassify that stuff. And he does have declassification authority. That's kind of beyond the point when what you do endangers the lives of our pilots.
- [22:25]
Hegseth is also in a lot of hot water this week over the boat strikes in the Caribbean. The unlawful boat strikes that's been a top story all week. That bipartisan efforts are underway in Congress in both the House and the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees to investigate the follow on strike, the double tap strike on a drug boat. September 2nd. The first strike blew the boat apart, left two shipwrecked sailors waving in surrender and struggling for over 40 minutes when Admiral Bradley decided murder them.
- [22:58]
By the way, firing on the shipwrecked is the literal example they use as an illegal order in the Pentagon's law of war manual. Here it is clearly illegal orders to commit law of war violations. The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.
- [23:28]
That's the hypothetical clearly illegal order they use in the Pentagon manual for the law of war. Now, this isn't a war. A war has not been declared. It's not even an armed conflict. Trump has said it's a non international conflict.
- [23:42]
But it's not. He's claiming that the drugs are the weapons and that he somehow has the authority. He still can't get around Congress to declare this.
- [23:52]
But Hegseth got Admiral Bradley to take the fall for him. And I would like to ask Admiral Bradley under oath if he received anything in return for his testimony that he gave the order and not Hegseth.
- [24:08]
I'd also like to see the committees bring Admiral Halsey in for questions. He's the admiral that Hegseth fired. Well, Hegseth said he resigned, but he actually pushed him out and he was fired because he had problems with these unlawful orders. So I'll be following the congressional investigations closely. But Hegseth wants to cover up. Very transparent to not hand your phone over and not sit with an interview with the inspector general.
- [24:34]
Now, next up on the wheel of what this administration is covering up, how about the public testimony of special counsel Jack Smith. Jim Jordan invited Jack Smith to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. And Jack Smith wrote back and he said in a letter, I'd be glad to do that as long as it's public testimony, because smart people know that Republicans will lie about what you say behind closed doors. And Jim Jordan this week said, no, Jack Smith, the most transparent administration in the world is going to need you to testify behind closed doors.
- [25:09]
So he's been subpoenaed to appear before the committee. I think December 17th. The super transparent administration is also fighting the release of volume two of Jack Smith's final report. Trump is innocent, but don't let that report come out. We're super transparent, but we need to keep that secret. Just that one and everything else. Way back in February of this year, the Knight Institute of Columbia University, they filed a motion with Judge Cannon, Judge Eileen Cannon, asking her to vacate her order blocking the Release of Volume 2. That's the classified documents case. There's no longer a legal reason to keep it under seal. She blocked its release because Nauta and Deola Vera, Trump's co conspirators, were could still be on the hook for charges. But then in, you know, in February, the Department of justice under Trump dismissed the cases against them. Trump's co conspirators and said, and said, we are not going to try to bring charges in the future. So now Eileen Cannon's one reason for keeping volume two secret.
- [26:10]
Is gone. So that's why the Knight Institute filed and that motion sat on Judge Cannon's docket for eight months. And she didn't do anything. She's ignored it. So the Knight Institute went to the 11th Circuit and asked them to issue a writ of mandamus ordering Judge Cannon to rule on their motion.
- [26:33]
And the 11th Circuit said, We're going to hold that writ of mandamus in abeyance for 90 days. Judge Cannon, you have until January 2nd to rule on this motion. Well, I mean, they'll come back. If she doesn't rule on the motion, they'll come back and release the hold on the writ of mandamus and order her to.
- [26:55]
Rule on this motion. But that expires January 2nd. But this week, Donald Trump, Mr. Transparency, filed a motion asking Judge Cannon permission to file an amicus brief. I assume he's doing this to delay the release of volume two. But the 11th Circuit was very clear in their order. She has to resolve the entirety of the motion by January 2nd. She can't just respond to it by January 2nd because I was afraid she was going to on January 1st say, you're right, we need seven months of hearings and six more months of litigation on redactions and five more months on privileged whatever. You know, like I thought she was just going to do what she did in the classified documents case to begin with and just delay everything. But she has to resolve the whole thing by January 2nd. So I imagine she'll wait till the last minute, deny it or force the 11th Circuit to tell her to deny it, but then that will free up an appeal to the 11th Circuit by the Knight Institute. But again, you think the most transparent president in history would want to release it, since there's no legal reason to keep it sealed. And normally you don't release information about uncharged individuals. But like the Robert Her Special counsel report on President Biden's handling of classified documents, we got to see all that. Even though President Biden wasn't charged with. The rules governing the release of special counsel reports is different than just, you know, general information about uncharged individuals. So we'll see what happens. Also, why is President Trump pretending not to know anything about the notorious drug trafficker he just pardoned this week? Could it be because he's using drug trafficking as an excuse to murder people on the high seas? Or maybe he just used the auto penny to sign that pardon and he honestly can't remember.
- [28:48]
He says it's because Biden went on a witch hunt against Hernandez, this drug trafficker. But those investigations started under the first Trump administration. Though maybe he's covering up for the fact that he's helping drug traffickers. Remember last month when he let 17 members of the Sinaloa cartel family into the United States after making a deal with the son of El Chapo?
- [29:13]
And I'm sure it's a coincidence that the Sinaloa cartel bribed Hernandez, the guy Trump just pardoned bribed him over a million dollars to help him win the election and for him to help them not go to jail.
- [29:29]
And Trump also desperately tried to cover up the deal he made with Bukele, where he let some MS.13 drug traffickers go drop the charges against MS.13 drug traffickers and send them back to Bukele in exchange for a bunch of money and the use of his torture PR seacoat? I'm sure none of this is connected and I'm sure it's got nothing to do with the Venezuela boat strikes.
- [29:51]
Totally transparent. So. So, to recap, this week, the government took steps to hide the politics of the pipe bomber, the Epstein files, declarations in Boasberg's contempt proceedings, evidence in the grand jury room, discovery in the Abrego Vindictive and selective prosecution proceeding, Hegsest phone and testimony in the signal gate probe, Jack smith's Public Testimony, Volume 2 of Jack Smith's report, and knowledge of a drug trafficker pardon.
- [30:18]
C
I think we've been the most transparent administration in the history of our country. There has never been ever before an administration that's been so open and transparent.
- [30:29]
A
Now, as you know, I like to end the show on an up note and I'm going to start with the Supreme Court staying a lower court's order blocking the gerrymandered Republican maps in Texas. This decision will allow Texas to use the racially gerrymandered maps in the midterm elections. And Alito wrote for the majority that this wasn't a racial gerrymander, even though Greg Abbott and I think the speaker of the House in Texas said with their mouths that it explicitly is a racial gerrymander.
- [31:00]
The three liberal justices, by the way, dissented saying, quote, this court reverses that judgment based on its perusal over a holiday weekend of a cold paper record. We are a higher court than the district court, but we are not a better one when it comes to making such a fact based decision.
- [31:19]
So Alison, why are you putting this in your upnote section? Because I am willing to bet that Republicans would have preferred the courts throughout their Texas map because that would mean they might throw out the California map and then no one would get to redistrict, putting us right back where we were, which for them is already 14 points down on the general ballot. But by allowing it, I have to assume they'll allow it in California as well. Maybe in Virginia, but it might be too late, might be too close to the primaries.
- [31:51]
But they really should have done it sooner in Virginia. But that's neither here nor there because I mean that's the other reason the Supreme Court left the Texas map in play is because we're approaching the primaries and they said it's too late to put it back. But I think what Texas did is going to backfire spectacularly. Some of those newly drawn districts dilute the Republican power in other red districts. And right now 10 points, a 10 point lead for Republicans is a toss up. I mean we swung 13 points in Tennessee's seventh last week. We swung 18 points and 23 points in Florida's first and Florida sixth this past April.
- [32:32]
And the organization inside Elections just shifted ratings of 16 House races toward Democrats. And like I said, we have a 14 point margin on the general ballot. And the last time we had that was the year before we flipped 41 seats in the House Blue in 2018.
- [32:51]
Also, we might get the gavel back before the midterms. Nancy Mace is meeting with Marjorie Taylor Greene this coming week to talk about following her lead in resigning from the House early. Punchbowl News Punchbowl News reported earlier that a top House Republican said there will be more high profile resignations before this term is up. Apparently Republican women are mad at Republicans because they don't like the way Republicans treat women.
- [33:20]
Anyhow, despite all the COVID ups and corruption, there is plenty to be hopeful about. Keep up with the news every day, every morning, weekday mornings over on the Daily Beans Audio Podcast. Thank you for watching me here on the Breakdown. Thanks to the Midas Touch Podcast for giving me this platform and I'll see you all next week on the Breakdown.
- [34:09]
Thanks for watching. Be sure to add the Midas Touch podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcast for new updates every single day.