3575 - Epstein's Influence; Left's Tea Party Moment w/ Jeet Heer, Dan Osborn

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode: 3575 – Epstein's Influence; Left's Tea Party Moment w/ Jeet Heer, Dan Osborn
Date: February 6, 2026
Host: Sam Seder
Guests: Jeet Heer (The Nation, Time of Monsters podcast), Dan Osborn (NE Senate candidate)

---

Overview:

This episode dives into two major stories:

1. The continuing fallout and revelations from the Jeffrey Epstein files, particularly their illustration of elite networks and systemic abuses among the powerful.
2. The changing tides in Democratic electoral politics, as grassroots and progressive candidates notch upsets (the “Left’s Tea Party moment”), with a specific look at New Jersey’s 11th District and labor-populist organizing in Nebraska.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Progressive Insurgency in Democratic Primaries

(Segment Start ~07:00)

• A special election in Texas saw a dramatic swing from a Trump +17 district to a Democrat +14 win, suggesting possible reversals in previous GOP gains among Latino voters and raising questions about “dummy mander” redistricting.
• In New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, progressive candidate Imani Mejia (endorsed by WFP, AOC, Bernie, Warren) is poised for a primary upset over moderate ex-Rep. Tom Malinowski—despite heavy outside spending against him.
  • Notable Quote: “AIPAC wanted to make an example out of him [Malinowski]…If you’re not 100% with us, we’re gonna spend a boatload of money… But the attack ads helped Mejia, not their preferred candidate.” – Emma [10:25]

Analysis & Implications (09:14, 12:41):

• Attack ads from AIPAC-aligned United Democracy Project backfired, inadvertently boosting the most progressive candidate.
• Elimination of NJ’s “county line” ballot system also contributed to progressive foot-in-the-door politics.
• The win signals both a substantive progressive policy shift and a warning to Democratic establishment about the perils of outside money.
  • “This is not a commie corridor district…If Mejia can win here, lefties can win all across the country.” – Emma [17:15]

---

2. Jeffrey Epstein Files & Elite Power Networks

Interview with Jeet Heer begins ~21:54

• Host Sam Seder and Jeet Heer detail the latest findings from newly released Epstein files, which implicate a sprawling network of powerful figures, reinforce suspicions of entrenched impunity, and demonstrate the durability of elite networks even after Epstein’s conviction.
  • Jeet: “The crimes Epstein was already known for in 2008 were absolutely not a deal-breaker for a wide swath of the global elite.” [24:53]
• Discussion of Epstein as a “fixer” or connector between Silicon Valley, finance, European (esp. London), Israeli national security, and oligarchic networks.
• Question of how Epstein rose so quickly in wealth and influence remains murky—possible origins: arms dealing, money laundering, Iran-Contra-era financial networks.

Notable Quote:
“This guy was a college dropout math teacher who suddenly…became very [wealthy and influential]—if he didn’t exist you’d have to invent him. Question is: who invented him?” – Jeet Heer [33:24]

Key Takeaways:

• Epstein’s role: facilitating ‘loyalty of transgression’ among powerful men via sex trafficking—serving both as social bond and potential blackmail.
  • “That’s how you build loyalty… If you want to psychoanalyze it, it’s replicating rapaciousness—eroticizing their domination.” – Emma [36:16]
• National security state: The off-the-books, privatized intelligence/lobbying/arms ecosystem emerges in the wake of post-70s reforms.
• Blackmail: Epstein collected footage for leverage; speculation about how this dynamic both bound elites and offered him protection.
• Radicalization post-conviction: post-2008, Epstein and certain associates move from Clinton-era globalist rhetoric to encouraging neoliberal crisis for profit.
  • Notable exchange: (Epstein to Thiel, 2016) "Brexit: Just the beginning… tribalism, counter to globalization... there will be bargains in chaos." [41:05]
• Connections to Palantir (via Peter Thiel) and early Bitcoin development noted—viewed as tools to destabilize or circumvent nation-state power and further oligarchic aims.

---

3. ICE, DHS Funding, and Electoral Repression

(Segment Start ~46:16)

• Analysis of current congressional fights over ICE and DHS funding; Democrats criticized for weak messaging and lack of will to truly break with repressive apparatus.
  • “They’re validating Trump’s worst impulses…On this issue, Schumer and Jeffries fundamentally agree [with] Trump.” – Jeet [57:02]
• Gabbard’s (now DNI) raid in Georgia seen as a preview of future attempts to use federal law enforcement for electoral intimidation, especially in swing states.
• Wyden’s cryptic CIA/activities letter: panel speculates it’s connected to Gabbard and either Georgia operations or weird international ties (e.g., possible Venezuela negotiations to aid GOP election conspiracy narratives).

---

4. Labor Populism & Corporate Consolidation: Dan Osborne Interview

(Segment Start ~62:31)

• Dan Osborne, union leader and independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Nebraska, discusses industrial collapse in rural America:
  • Closure of Tyson meatpacking plant in Lexington, NE (employing 3,200 in a town of 11k) to manipulate supply & maximize profits.
  • Systemic impacts of agribusiness monopoly on both producers (forced to sell to monopsonies) and consumers (rising prices, lost jobs).
  • Ricketts (incumbent, GOP): receives Tyson money, finds “no violation” in plant closure, offers only empty platitudes.
• Osborne highlights the absence of true wage-earner representation in Congress—favors right to repair, breaking up monopolies, defending local agriculture, getting money out of politics.
  • Osborne: “Less than 2% of elected officials come from the wage-earning class…Of course they don’t get it.” [68:24]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “AIPAC wanted to make an example out of him … but the attack ads helped Mejia, not their preferred candidate.” – Emma [10:25]
• “This guy [Epstein] was at the scene of every major crime for 30 years; almost wilder than fiction.” – Jeet Heer [23:40]
• “These crimes…weren’t a deal-breaker for the global elite.” – Jeet [24:53]
• “If he didn’t exist, you’d have to invent him. Question is who invented him?” – Jeet [33:24]
• “It’s replicating rapaciousness—they’re eroticizing their domination.” – Emma [36:16]
• "Brexit: Just the beginning…tribalism, counter to globalization…there will be bargains in chaos." (Epstein email to Thiel) [41:05]
• “[ICE] is overwhelmingly unpopular…They’re not even aware of the present moment.” – Jeet [53:21]
• “Less than 2% of elected officials come from the wage-earning class…Of course they don’t get it.” – Dan Osborne [68:24]

---

Segment Timestamps

• 00:00-04:26: Show intro, headlines (skip ads)
• 07:00-17:28: Texas & New Jersey special elections; analysis of progressive wins, AIPAC risks
• 21:54-60:38: Jeet Heer interview – Epstein files, elite networks, Palantir/Bitcoin, ICE/DHS fights, Gabbard, emerging GOP election strategies
• 62:31-85:29: Dan Osborne interview – Tyson plant closure, monopoly power in ag sector, critiques of political representation
• Post-85:29: Lighter segments, “fun half” (skip)

---

Tone and Language

• Direct, passionate, irreverent, but with a deep commitment to policy detail and political strategy.
• The guests and hosts frequently use humor and sharp criticism, but explain issues for listeners unfamiliar with in-depth details.

---

Conclusion

This episode melds irreverent deep-dive analysis of current political organizing (the “Democratic Tea Party”) with a sobering, at times jaw-dropping, examination of the power structures revealed by the Epstein scandal. The latter half grounds the conversation in economic populism through the voice of Dan Osborne, highlighting how monopoly power and political disconnect are affecting rural America.
Listeners get a blend of inside-baseball strategy, muckraking investigation, and practical calls for solidarity—reflecting The Majority Report’s tone and purpose.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, folks. Public service announcement. Valentine's day is just eight days away. And if you're looking looking for the perfect treat for your sweetheart, sunsetlakesabaday.com it's having a sale on all their sweet and tasty edible products now through February 9th. That's just three days from now. You can use the code VALENTINE26. VALENTINE26 all one word to save 30% on all Sunset Lake's gummies, chocolate fudge and even their farmer's roast infused coffee beans. In addition to the gummies that we all know and love, they've also just released a limited edition citrus flavor of their most popular. Or they're popular. I'm not sure it's popular. They're vibe gummies. The vibe gummies have a little bit of th say just enough to help you get through one of these typical days. These days, maybe you get pre date jitters, maybe get a little nervous. Well, one of these citrus vibe gummies can help put your mind at ease. Or maybe you want to bring your date a box of sweets. Sunset lakes full spectrum chocolate fudge. The perfect choice. The coffee is also great. That is my weekend brew when I want. I don't want to be as jittery and hyped as I am during the course of the week. And frankly, I have been leaning on the gummies a little bit more than normal these days. Also, they got great gummies, obviously to help you sleep as well. But the THC ones, they're fun and particularly, you know, some of us can't deal with that, like massive mgs of thc. I'm not looking at anybody in particular, but just about everybody in this office. So others of us, onemaker does this well.

[B]

Some people think they can handle it and then they don't handle it that well.

[A]

That's happened to me as well. Are you talking about yourself?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Oh, yeah, we talked about. I mean, I think people have seen that. The code again, valentine26. Valentine26. No spaces all one [e-mail] youm'll save 30% on all edibles. This sale runs through February 9th at 11:59pm Eastern. As always, see the site for full terms and conditions. Check it out. And now time for the show the majority report with Sam Cedar. Where every day casual Friday. That means Monday is casual Monday, Tuesday casual Tuesday, Wednesday casual hump day Thursday casual thirs. That's what we call it. And Friday casual Shabbat. The majority report with Sam Cedar. It is Friday, February 6, 2026. My name is Sam Seder, this is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Jeet here, national affairs correspondent for the Nation magazine and host of the Time of Monsters podcast. Then Dan Osborne, independent candidate for U.S. senate in Nebraska. On the story of the Tyson plant that is going to closed down in a town of 11,000 people. Almost half of them are employed by that Tyson plant. Also on the program today, major upset likely brewing in New Jersey's 11th special, 11th district special election. This as AIPAC is hoisted on its own petard.

[B]

We love to hear it.

[A]

We'll talk about that more obviously soon. DHS shutdown grows more likely as Republicans rebuff Chuck Schumer's capitulation. US And Iran in direct talks today in Oman. Virginia Democrats unveil new gerrymandered map with three potential Democratic pickups. January layoffs highest in a January since 2009. That's in the wake of, of the massive financial crisis. Project 2025 Schedule F is about to be implemented. It will strip tens of thousands of federal employees of their civil service status. Trump convening a meeting of FBI and elections officials in an unprecedented attempt to federalize elections. Oklahoma eliminates tenure at all of its public colleges. Day 26 of New York City nurses strike reportedly some progress. Senator Ron Wyden is sounding the alarm on CIA activities. We just don't know what he's sounding the alarm about. UAW reaches a tentative agreement, historical one with Volkswagen in Chattanooga. And lastly, just moments ago, Mamdani signs an executive order in New York City protecting New Yorkers from ice. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome ladies and gentlemen. It is casual Friday. Friday, I'm a big, I just, I get distracted. Someone just reminded me in Indiana there are Democrats running for every state senate seat for the first time since 1974.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

Yep.

[B]

Wow. All right.

[A]

So we will see. I mean there's, this is going to.

[C]

Be.

[A]

There is, there's a lot of things happening on the electoral front. A couple of days ago, was it a couple days ago, was it the beginning of the week when that special election in Texas happened?

[B]

I think, I think it was, yeah.

[A]

Was it six months ago or was it like four days ago? Yeah, I think that was Monday. Monday we got the news of that.

[B]

Elections on Tuesdays. It's throwing us, it's too much.

[A]

We're already thrown off like the NFL on Thursday.

[B]

Yeah. What are you doing?

[A]

So at the beginning of the week, there was a special special election in Texas in a state Senate seat where the Democrat made up 34, 31 to 34 points. Donald Trump had won that district by 17 points and the Democrat ended up winning it by something like 14 points. So maybe it was 31, that's a 31 point swing. It was also potential harbinger of what will happen in the midterms because it suggested that the gains amongst Latinos that the Republicans had made had completely reversed themselves. And of course those gains were in many instances in the redistricting in Texas the basis of these new districts that it may have turned out to be a dummy mander. And now this in New Jersey, this is a Democratic primary. Democrat is more than likely to win this district in the general election.

[B]

This is my hometown district, so I'm quite proud of this result here. It's heavy homeowner population, one of the wealthier districts in the country. It's a northern New Jersey suburb of New York City. And this is Mikey Sherrill's old district. And now that she has become the governor of New Jersey, they had to hold this special primary. So this is the primary here and we have the results. Over 90% of the votes are counted. There's still some ballots that need to be counted, but it's razor thin margins. Mejia, the Progressive candidate, the WFP candidate, former Bernie 2020 organizer, endorsed AOC, endorsed. Endorsed by AOC, endorsed by Bernie Warren among others, is now ahead by around 600 votes. And there were a bunch of outlets that called it for Malinowski really early on in the night. And she had this.

[A]

Well, we should tell people who Malinowski was. Malinowski is a former congressman here, leave that up. Malinowski's a former congressman, a moderate, I think you could say. And by moderate, you know, sort of like a corporatist conservative. I mean, however, and he had been a very faithful, and this is sort of like the, maybe the icing on the cake. It is a five way race and Malinowski was certainly favored, I mean, significantly, significantly. And, and Malinowski had, has been a faithful funder of, of Israel. Although he did say he was open to the idea, just open to the idea of potentially conditioning aid to Israel based upon, you know, how genocidal it becomes.

[B]

And that pissed AIPAC off. And they wanted apparently to make an example out of him saying like you could be 95% of the way that we need you to be in terms of lockstep genocidal voting or Whatever. But if you're not 100% with us, we're gonna spend a boatload of money on and help one of your opponents. That's way there. Who came in third? The dmfi. Also the Democratic Zionist funding majority for Israel. Yeah, they also backed her and they backed her by funding her campaign, but most importantly funding a bunch of ads against Malinowski.

[A]

Now the interesting thing about the ads against Malinowski, reportedly they sent mailers talking about Israel as the topic. But in terms of like the TV spends, the AIPAC and it's basically its front groups did what they do typically, which is not mention Israel at all and in fact attack Malinowski as if they're attacking from the left. And they made a wild miscalculation in this instance because the benefit of these attack ads ended up going to meja not to weigh who was their preferred candidate. And what's interesting about this is, is both that it may have two different implications that would both be positive. Aside from having a genuine progressive in that seat at least until 2026, where she would have to rerun again but would be doing from the benefit of being an incumbent. It also might signal to the Democratic establishment we need to stop having these people play in these races.

[B]

How do you think Haley Stevens is feeling right now? Now that she's been getting all this AIPAC money and is tied to them? She could cut it off tomorrow and she's still the APAC candidate in Michigan.

[A]

And, and I'm not even talking, I'm not even talking from the perspective of Israel, but rather the Democratic establishment might see that like, hey, wait a second, this is, this is supposed to help us, not hurt us. And not even as, even when it's under, sort of like under the underground. Their decision making is a little bit suspect here. Now, of course, all this money comes from right wing donors. So at one point the Democratic Party might want to make a, some type of. And you know, the best they can do simply say we're not going to provide you funds if you, if there are outside expenditures that benefit you in any way, etc. There's ways of them at least discouraging it. The other thing is, is that it reiterates that Democrats should be taking a much more aggressive posture when it comes to funding dhs. Here is that ad.

[B]

In a special election to fill Mikey Sherrill's House seat, Tom Malinowski says he'll.

[C]

Stand up to Trump.

[A]

But hold on. In 2019, Tom Malinowski voted with Trump.

[C]

And the Republicans to fund ICE. More than 200 million for Trump's deportation force. 200 million that got us this. Democrats called Malinowski's vote a blank check.

[B]

For the Trump administration and a betrayal.

[C]

We can't trust Tom Malinowski.

[B]

Pause for a sec. Wait. Who's responsible for this ad? What does it say there? Really quickly, I just wanted to read the box. We can't trust Tom Malinowski.

[C]

UDP is responsible for the content of this ad.

[A]

There it is.

[B]

United Democracy Project is the APAC front. Unbelievable.

[A]

But I mean, we could, we could say the same thing about Chuck Schumer in that ad, that Chuck Schumer was instrumental in funding the dhs. Now, I think he voted against it. I can't remember exactly, but we know how he manipulated the whole thing. He didn't want to have a shutdown this time. He was again forced to do so. And so there's a lot of good things that could come out of this and hopefully that 600 vote margin holds up. It's unclear whether this would trigger an automatic recount or not, at least on our end. We don't know yet.

[B]

But let me. I also just want to point out the county line piece of this is also immensely important. We saw that when New Jersey eliminated this county line, there was a big legal fight over it, that it's been benefiting some more progressive candidates. Andy Kim was a part of that. But also even who won the mayoral race in Jersey City because AIPAC split the vote among non progressive candidates. By doing this and say, you're a lefty person and you see that ad against Malinowski, what are you gonna do? Look up who the actual lefty is that stood up to Donald Trump. And Mejia benefited from that. I think also her work as an organizer, she really drove the numbers in Essex county, again, my hometown county, and turned out a lot of people which like, people like to be dismissive of door knocking and stuff like that. But her work in that area made a major difference. And it was incredibly implausible because in fourth place was the guy, Brendan Gill. He was the Essex county machine Democrat who normally would have gotten this position on the ballot that would have been favorable prior to this legal challenge, where instead of grouping candidates by office, as ballots tend to do in New Jersey Prior to 2024, they were grouping them by the party line. And the party line would be the Democratic machine in Essex county or in other areas of New Jersey putting their candidate forward. And that had like, it made a major difference in privileging them on the ballot. It looks like, oh, this is the Democrat. This is the person you should support if you support these other candidates. And he came in fourth. So the candidate that AIPAC spent to elevate came in third. The Democratic Party machine candidate came in fourth. And Malinowski had a lot of name recognition, but he was still kind of stuck in the middle. And Mejia looks like she could come in first here. So I mean, it's just, it's really, really important. And this is not a commie corridor district by any means. I mean, there's a lot of homeowners, it's more affluent. But it means that perhaps this Democratic Tea Party is here. And if Mejia can win in that kind of district, lefties can win all across the country.

[A]

So we'll keep you updated on that count. In a moment we'll be talking to Jeet here, national affairs correspondent at the Nation, host of the Time of Monsters podcast. And Dan Osborne, later independent candidate for U.S. senate in Nebraska who's most recent polls show him just about tied, if not statistically tied with Pete Ricketts. But we're going to be talking to him about this Tyson plant in Lexington that is slated to close in just days now, I think. First, a word from our sponsor. This episode is brought to you by Wild Grain. What is Wild Grain? It is almost too delicious to even talk about at this time of the day. I mean honestly like as soon as like I saw the ad and both I was like oh, this is the ad we're doing today. And both Brian and I were like God, that was so good. Wild Grain is the first baked from frozen subscription box. It provides for you artisanal breads, seasonal pastries and fresh pastas. I had forgotten about that. I think I had a ravioli that was unbelievable. All of these items bake in less than 25 minutes. Unlike many store bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients that you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. There's no preservatives, no shortcuts, except for you because all you need to do is put it preheat your oven to like four and a quarter and you pop it in there. Some of the stuff takes 10 minutes, some of it takes 15, some takes 25, but the stuff is absolutely delicious. Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten free box, they have a vegan box and now they have a new protein box. I had multiple loaves of bread. One was like a rustic, like a rustic bread. And Brian got like a sourdough. And croissants, they give you free croissants in every box. And the croissants were just amazing. Sal and I, over the course of like two weeks, I mean, I made them a croissant sandwich. I mean, it's, they're so delicious. Apple cider donuts. I had, I had some like, pumpkin spice rolls. And it's, it's delivered right to your door. Super easy. Drop it right in the freezer and use it as you need. I mean, you could bring it over. You could bake fresh bread and bring it over as if you had actually, like, done it from scratch. There's nothing like having an artisan bakery in your own freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now's the best time to stay in and enjoy comforting homemade meals with wild grain. I highly recommend giving a wild grain a try. Right now, Wild Grain is offering our audience $30 off your first box plus free croissants for life when you go to wildgrain.com majority to start your subscription today. That's $30 off your first box. Free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain.com majority or you can use the promo code Majority at checkout. We will put all that information in the podcast and YouTube description as well as at Majority FM. Quick break. When we come back, Jeet here. Live. We are back, Sam Cedar, Emma Viland on the Majority Report. It is a pleasure to welcome back to the program national affairs correspondent, host of Time of Monsters podcast. Jeet here. Jeet, as always, thanks so much for joining us.

[C]

It's always a pleasure to be on the program.

[A]

Quite a bit of news this week, but arguably the biggest news, arguably. I mean, honestly, like, I just want.

[C]

To contest that a little bit because 60 Minutes had a repeat show of celebrity interviews, which to my mind indicates that there is not a lot of news. But, but continue.

[A]

I. And in fact, now that you mentioned that the, the daily from the New York Times today was when anesthesia fails and the patient is cut open. That was the. That's what the daily, You know, there's not a lot going on.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

All right, let's start with Epstein, the Epstein files, because this was the sort of the biggest drop we've seen and it has ranged from implicating people with the sort of trafficking and to stuff about actually like Epstein's death in with new revelations about that and sort of the myriad of financial ties that Epstein has to. Not only things like Palantir and Peter Thiel, but also, like, in the founding of Bitcoin and in, like, sort of the genesis of stuff coming out of 4chan. It's like, it's crazy.

[C]

Literally. You would not write this in a novel. I mean, I'm a big fan of Thomas Pynchon, who writes many novels of, like, a lot of conspiracy theories, a lot of wacky stuff, actually a lot of, like, sex crimes. I don't think, like, this is actually, like, wilder than anything Pynchon has ever written, which is saying something. And. Yeah, it's almost, you know, like a James Bondian villain that somehow happens to be at the scene of every major crime over the last 30 years.

[A]

And we've seen, like, a series of resignations in Europe. We just saw a resignation in this country. A partner at one of the biggest law firms in. In the country had to resign.

[C]

Also the.

[A]

The.

[C]

The head of the School of Visual Arts in New York, Ross. I don't know if you saw that, but.

[A]

Oh, no, I didn't see that one.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, He's.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

So let's. What do you think is the most. I guess it's hard to pick one, but give me your top two or three sort of most important takeaways from what we now know about Epstein.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, first of all, it's the extent that the wealthy and powerful people that he already knew, who are already part of his network, I mean, they didn't mind the 2008 conviction, which was like, for trafficking in minors. I mean, like, that was like a pedophile accusation, which he got a slap on the wrist for. But I mean, like, it is like, he was convicted of that. And like, none of these people, you know, like, Teal Musk, Reid Hoffman, you know, a lot of elite figures throughout the world. So I think that, like, it is quite remarkable the extent to which, like, these people were completely unruffled and were, in fact, like, quite sympathetic. I mean, as someone who might be of interest to you as the former publisher of the New Republic, where I used to work, Marty Peretz, and he sent Epstein an email saying, like, sorry I didn't write to you when this was all happening, but I'm glad that you're free now. Oh, by the way, can you. I hit you up for some money for this Jewish archive that supporting in New York, which Epstein did give money to. So I think that, like, the one big takeaway is, like, the crimes that Epstein was already known to have done by the world in 2008 were absolutely not a deal breaker for, like, a wide swath of the global elite. The other big takeaway is the exact nature of this elite, which, you know, like, there's all sorts of speculation, you know, was he a Mossad agent or a CIA agent? And I think I've been on before and it said that's the wrong way to think about it. This guy was like, that's like a junior position. Like, he is, you know, like an asset is not working with the former Israeli prime Minister. This guy is a power player in the world. And the social world has a couple of nodes. One is Silicon Valley, like, all those people, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Musk. The other node is New York financial world, the world of banking. The other node is sort of European politics, London being the sort of counterpart to New York. And then the other node is like, these international connections he also had with oligarchs, Russian oligarchs, wealthy royal families in the Middle east, and of course, the Israeli national security state. And that all of these, like, you know, he is like a figure in that world, and he's kind of like the fixer or the connector that that brings everyone together. I mean. I mean, I think one way to think about it is it's a sort of like, classic figure whose talent is really just to be able to bring people together. You know, like, there are people who are, like, good at partying, you know, who know how to throw good parties.

[A]

This. There's a couple of things just to unpack those two. Like, first off, we still don't as of yet. It does not appear that we have any more insight into how he got so rich. That is. Is really unclear. The. You know, the. The.

[C]

I think there's some little bit more clarity in some of the stuff I've seen that he had sort of started off with the bank International bank of Credit in the late 70s and early 80s, which is very interesting because that.

[A]

Is a very dirty, dirty bank.

[C]

Very dirty bank and linked with, like, the CIA. And it also explains the interest that he and Bannon had in trying to influence Vatican politics, because, as people might know, the Vatican bank is actually like a major bank. And it actually has a lot of, like, power because it is like a national bank that is not like, under any sort of democratic regular control. And there have been all sorts of scandals where it's been a sort of conduit for money trafficking. So. So, yeah, I mean, I think if you think of the. Was it BC I Forget what the exact.

[A]

They were. They were in Iran Contra.

[C]

Yes.

[A]

All right, so. So we have like a vague notion, but it's still unclear. Like, yeah, yeah, I don't know his affiliations, but like, how did he.

[B]

But maybe Iran Contra is the best place to start. I mean, in like. Well, one understanding this informal network of elites that are actually calling the shots and breaking the laws of nation states and realizing we're like kind of transnational actors, we can operate above that. That's where intelligence comes in. But, you know, I mean, Maxwell's father, Robert Maxwell, was also involved in intelligence, KGB and Mossad. He was arms dealing with. And Jeffrey Epstein cut his teeth doing some arms dealing too. So I think Iran Contra is a really interesting place to start where it's a big network of money laundering, financial ties to these big corrupt banks, and the national security state of a variety of different countries associated with the West.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. Actually there's a direct echo of Iran Contra in the recent stuff. During Iran Contra, everyone knew that like the conduit for getting the weapons to Iran was Israel. And in all the reports, it was always referred to as third country. Third country was a euphemism for Israel and for Saudi Arabia because they didn't want to name them. And it was very interesting that right now in England, Starmer, trying to defend himself, says, you know, if more stuff comes out, it could endanger security in the uk, the usa, and a third country.

[A]

Yes.

[C]

Guess who?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

All right, so. So we have all these people who are not in any way. Hesitant, despite Epstein, you know, sort of getting a plea deal, I guess, for the 2008 stuff. Now, you know, there is a world where it's like, okay, you've served your time.

[C]

Because, I mean, that is something that's actually what unfortunately for me, tragically, Noam Chomsky said. And like. But I think that serious time only works if someone is like sufficiently punished. And you know, if you have someone who's like, it's a slap on the wrist, then you can't say they serve their time. Right.

[A]

And not only can you say can't say that they serve their time, but it's quite clear that there is a. And I don't know about each individual, but, but a general awareness that this is not behavior that is stopped. This is not like a one time thing, that there is like a systemic, like, that's what this guy was known for, it seems like throughout these circles. And everybody just sort of looked the other way. But the, the revelation of like how this Guy was able to operate in this fashion that his money opened up all these doors and he was creating all of these sort of like networks. There is a quality where we're starting to sort of get a notion of how they live, how these people live. Sort of skipping above all of the constraints and capital constraints, legal restraints, social. More constraints. They just sort of skate above it. Like, I've told this story many times before, but like, I had a listener who had once ended up at a dinner party or like a fundraiser next to Robert Rubin, and Robert Rubin was complaining about the traffic in New York City, and he obviously wasn't driving himself. He was in the back of a town car or whatever it was, and he had called the assistant mayor to complain about the traffic. And this listener asked him like, where were you? And he goes, I'm not sure. He had no idea where he was in the city. Cuz that's irrelevant. It's just like. And the. Just the fingers that he had in so many different. It's almost unbelievable. I mean, it's almost like he's a fictional character. Just to express a dynamic.

[C]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[D]

No, no.

[C]

I mean, if he didn't exist, you would have to invent. I guess the whole sort of question is, who invented him? Who found, you know, it useful to create this guy? Because it was like, you know, this guy was like a, you know, college dropout, math teacher, like at a private school, who suddenly, as you said, became very.

[A]

Whose father, Bill Barr, was the headmaster, we should say, at the Dalton School. And so. But do you think there was someone that created him?

[C]

I mean, I know it's like, I think that he took advantage of opportunities. And to go back to Emma's sort of point, this was like a period where there was a kind of like, deregulation of institutions. And in part, I actually think. I mean, we're taking the long historical view. I think that it was in response to the sort of attempt at democracy in the 1970s where you had like a real church committee investigation into the CIA, real pushback to like, restrain the national intelligence state, you know, new rules that you can't just assassinate people. And the response to all that was like, well, why don't we just take the CIA off the books? Why don't we like, you know, work with our friends who are arms dealers and bankers. And in that world, if you're someone who's like, very good at connecting people, very good at, you can function very well. And this is where the sort of sex trafficking thing gets tied up. Because the way, I mean, here's a pimp. And the way, you know, like. And that turns out to be a very good way of creating social networks that you create this bond with other. Well, with rich, wealthy men. And you have the sort of the loyalty of transgression. Like if, you know, like, you know, like at Skull and Bones, like how you're supposed to take off your clothes until all the worst things that you've ever done. You have this bond of like, we've all committed this horrible, unspeakable crime together. Like, you know, like, we're loyal to each other, we got to protect each other. And he was like within that environment where the national security state was going off the books and someone like, of his character was able to like, you know, fulfill the need. That was done, but he didn't create the need. The need was created by like, like the broader social policies. I mean, like, he's a product of Reaganism and the sort of 1990s neoliberalism. Yeah.

[B]

I mean, you. But like the bond that's created. I think that's fascinating. You also, though, he had the backstop of filming everything. Like he recorded. So the blackmail piece, I feel like you create the bond and then say things fall apart. Maybe you send yourself a draft email that you're gonna be sending to Bill Gates and his number two about how you know certain things about him. And he probably has the ability to back that up. But what I guess is really disturbing to me is how that is a bond between these incredibly rich and powerful men where, like the idea that these men who have so much and can dominate the world like that, try to replicate that and bond with the rest of this elite cabal through almost reenacting that with the most vulnerable person they can find, which is a sex trafficked child. And like the does that kind of says everything about what capitalism is. If that's almost. If you want to psychoanalyze it, it's replicating it. They. They're eroticizing their rapaciousness.

[C]

Yeah, no, I think that's right. I think the sexual thrill was partially one of sort of like domination and transgression. Like. Precisely. They got thrilled by a sexual act that reconfirmed that they are the masters of the universe. Sort of like these gods on earth, beyond good and evil. Yeah, I mean, I mean, I do actually think. I don't buy the conspiracy theory that Stanley Kubrick was killed. But I mean, that is actually the point of Eyes Wide Shut. Like, that is actually what that movie is. Is about. And so, yeah, I mean, like the national. But I do want to emphasize the sort of like the national security state aspect of it or the more the broader economics is. I mean, he did have like a kind of like a worldview and maybe like it. Even a worldview that kind of had different components or changed over time. Like, I do see him in the sort of 1990s as being this kind of like Larry Summers, Bill Clinton, like, globalist, you know, let's have trade, let's encourage stem. Let's have sexual liberalism. But what's interesting is like, after his. After he was arrested and got the slap on the wrist, like, there was a kind of radicalization. And I think this radicalization we see in other people who also get sort of like, me too'd. Right? Like, they suddenly think like, well, I don't have to follow any laws. Right. And so there's a very interesting exchange between him and Peter Thiel 2016, where Epstein says brexit is just the beginning. And Thiel says of what? And I'm paraphrasing here, but like, you know, Epstein says, you know, the collapse of globalization, chaos, you know, this is something that we can profit off of because there'll be like many bargains. And you added, you know, like, we both know, we both agree that even 0% interest rates weren't enough. So what he's saying there is like, even the sort of like, great deal that they had under, like, you know, like Obama, zero percent interest, which allowed them to make a lot of money, that wasn't enough. What you actually need is kind of like global chaos and, and things falling apart because then you can actually pick up real bargains.

[A]

That. That also feels like you want to.

[C]

You want to run that through. Like it's.

[A]

That.

[C]

That's actually a very crucial exchange.

[A]

Yeah, let's. Let's run this through. I also just want to ask because I haven't been able to sort of like, line up the timing. But this is also when Bannon was out there talking about the fourth turning and in which, you know, suggests that we're in this, like, sort of grand cycle where the world is going to be cast into turmoil. And I wonder, like, how much Epstein influenced Thiel's sort of like, subsequent. You know, this is Weimar and people are tired of. I mean, Thiel was certainly down the road of being anti Democratic.

[C]

Yeah, I know. I mean, Teal was sort of like already in that direction. But I think that the major turn was that they suddenly realized that chaos could be profitable. We also see this actually, like in 2014 with his exchange with a banker where he says, you know, like, upheaval in Ukraine has many opportunities for us. Or his exchange with Barack where he says, you know, like Syria, you mentioned Ukraine and a few other places, saying, like, you know, there's going to be a lot of desperate elites, and this could be, like, good for business.

[A]

All right, let's go through this because it's interesting and we should say that the. The equal signs here are just a function of the sort of taking whatever the original formats they were in and putting them into files.

[B]

No, I think actually, no, Epstein typed this way.

[A]

No, really, I don't think so.

[C]

It's a formatting error.

[B]

Oh, it is. Okay. I'm sorry. He had a lot of spelling errors.

[A]

He had a lot of spelling. And there's some that have also speculated that part of this might have been done in the formatting as a way of making it hard to search, although it doesn't make sense that way in my mind, but here it is. So Epstein writes to Peter Thiel, sort of unsolicited, on June 26, 2016, Brexit. Just the beginning, please note. And then Thiel writes back of what? And Epstein return to tribalism, counter to globalization. Amazing new alliances. You and I both agree, zero interest rates were too high. And as I said in your office, ao, I'm not sure what that is. Finding things on their way to collapse was much easier than finding the next bargain. And is that the end of the exchange?

[C]

He's basically talking about the business opportunities and the old sort of Silicon Valley model that you had in the Facebook era. You find this young, upstart unicorn. You invest early, you make a lot of money that's not working anymore. And so what you actually need is a world of tribalism and chaos, because that will drive the prices of businesses down. And then you can pick up bargains along the way.

[A]

I mean, this is all these sort of like. This is like post Iraq. It's like post. You know, it's. It's the World War, post World War II. I mean, shock. Every. Yes, Every. Every crisis ends up being an opportunity in this way. And it's interesting. At what point does. I mean, I've read, and it's sort of hard to sort of like, parse between what you're reading is sort of conjecture or not. But it seems like Epstein was involved in helping create Palantir, at least, you know, sort of like bring it into the next level. And also, there's some like that he appears to have been heavily involved in the creation or the sort of acceleration of bitcoin.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. And I think both fit into this, like, world of chaos, like model Bitcoin with the idea that, like, you know, you want to undermine fiat money and the sort of, you know, control that nation states have over currency and create this alternative model. With Palantir, I mean, it's actually very funny because he introduces Ehud Barak to teal and there's like an audio of this and he's to go back to Emma's point about the spelling. He's spelling out both teal and palantir to Ehud Barak and getting the spellings completely wrong. Like, this is funny. Whatever his talents were, they were not. He was not a spelling bee champion. But the. But the idea was like, you know, like, so early, sort of like investor encourager Palantir, but especially with the Yehud Barak connection, you know, Israel. And he is, like, not just a former prime minister of Israel, but like former defense minister. Israel, you know, is the place where these technologies of surveillance and destruction are tested. Out there is, you know, as a great book says, is the Palestinian laboratory. You know, this is the, you know, the Gaza and the west bank are research and development sites, you know, for the, you know, most destructive technologies on earth. And then, you know, aside from the crimes against the Palestinians, what this allows you to do is to sell them, you know, and partially based on Israel's reputation for military prowess, you sell them to other countries around the world in Asia and Africa, say, you know, like, this is cutting edge Israeli surveillance technology. And so there's a tight connection between people like Peter Thiel and the Palantir people with the Israeli National Security state, which it looks like Epstein played a role in helping, like, set that up.

[A]

It's crazy. All right, let's now makes me wonder about Zelig with all the stuff with Woody Allen and Woody Allen.

[C]

Actually, I don't want to bring up the aspect of comedy because I saw that interview you did with Brace Belden where he talked about how like Epstein was apparently, like, we have photos of this. He's on the site of Woody's last few movies.

[A]

Oh, yeah, he was. He was. He seems to have been very close. Woody Allen going to the sets. Quite.

[B]

They have in common.

[A]

And he also seemed. I mean, you know, because I definitely want to get to this other topic here, but he weirdly did not seem to be too plugged in to Hollywood.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

In any way. I mean, he seemed to like comedians. And so he had a Couple of dinner. And I will say happily, Marc Maron rejected the invite to the dinner canceled.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

So he was like, I could definitely see Marin going like, oh, fuck that. I'm not going to benefit to being a shut in. Exactly. But I found that interesting. But I want to turn to the other sort of like major story of the week. Obviously it is ice, but there's sort of like a projecting out ICE as a vehicle in which to inhibit the election of 2026 and then ultimately 2028, they're. The funding fight is happening right now. It appears that the Democrats made a sufficient. It was a rather weak ask in many respects and certainly horrible from a messaging standpoint. But it was enough for the Republicans to sort of like, say, no, we're not going to do this. But the Democrats don't get any of the messaging credit for it because they bungled this so badly, in my estimation. But you wrote that Gabbard's Georgia raid is a pretext for future election intimidation. How does that play out? I mean, there's reports now of like a big FBI meeting that's going to happen with election officials. Like, we don't know exactly, but it's. Things are starting to come into focus.

[C]

Yeah, no, no, I mean, I mean, this is like, you know, Trump has longstanding conspiratorial views of the 2020 election, which are not just about the past, but really are crucially about the future, that he wants to make sure that he and the Republicans don't lose again. So Tulsi Gabbard, who's like Director of National Intelligence, was supposedly brought in as an anti war voice, but has been totally shut out of all decisions about Iran and Venezuela and goes to Georgia, which is not her remit. She's supposed to deal with international policies and is part of this effort of seizing voting records. And I'll actually introduce. There's one foreign policy element which I actually think that they're going to try to make a deal with Maduro, because Trump has said that he thinks that Maduro was involved with like, the voting machine. So I can see where, like, you know, they say, you know, like, Maduro, like, you know, like, you just confess that you helped Joe Biden Seal the 2020 election and we'll, we'll let you off. And you can even go back.

[A]

Powell was like, floating this Venezuela connection for six years ago now in 2020.

[C]

And cited it, like, for the invasion of Venezuela. Like, this is like one of the rationales for kidnapping a foreign head of state.

[A]

And how do we Know how Maduro was able to sway the 2020 election?

[B]

Like, I thought it was the ghost of Hugo Chavez that they kept saying. They kept calling, saying it was Chavez who was.

[A]

Maybe Chavez was not really dead and he was like going around the country in like an RV messing with voting machines.

[C]

I'll confess I don't know the exact details of this insane theory, although I think it does involve voting machines. I think that's exactly right, that there's some sort of speculation that the voting machines were made in Venezuela. But certainly the fact that you have Maduro in custody and you have Donald Trump who's like, you know, been known to give pardons and amnesties to people who like, say the right thing, you know, that creates an interesting opportunity and you have Bannon out there saying, you know, like, we can send in ICE agents at voting stations. So I do actually think that, like, there's at least a faction within the Republican Party that really wants to do this. And, and they have Trump's ear. And I have to say, like, from the point of view of the Democrats, like, you know, like, in terms of like all the weak messaging, ISIS already unpopular, and if you like, you know, say that this is going to be used as a tool for electoral repression and we have like Trump's former White House advisor say this like, you know, like, that gives you like a political vantage point for like opposing like ICE in a way that I don't think Chuck Schumer is willing to do.

[A]

But it's. I mean, I know you guys talked about it yesterday, but it is absolutely just mind blowing how like, just bad they are at this in terms of messaging. I mean, they clearly, Chuck Schumer and Jeffries are clearly afraid of the potential of like some ICE agent not wearing their mask, their name being, you know, thrown around online and somebody coming and, you know, shooting that ICE agent and somehow Schumer and Jeffries are held responsible in some fashion for that, as if, like a. If that happened. The. Well, a, ICE is. Seems to be very universally hated at this point by just about everybody who's ever going to hate ice. B, the problem would be the shooting. Not that Jefferies and Schumer were somehow, like, they're not going to be like, they're not going to have immunity from the political accusation that they're afraid of.

[C]

Like, like accusing the Democrats of this because, oh yeah, Schumer and Jeffrey, they.

[A]

Did have, you know, special circumstances. And so therefore we can't. Donald Trump said, I can't blame them. They did the Right thing. Like, it's just absurd.

[B]

I just think perhaps, though, it's more than just like the ideological piece. I just don't think that we can, Can. Can be gloss over just because even the reforms that they're so inclined to propose, the body camera stuff, we've talked about that, like, a lot of people in ICE and DHS actually really like body cameras because they have. They can choose when they put out body camera footage and not they can bury it. They have control over the footage more than if you have observers out there with 10 different angles on Preddy's killing. And that's the thing that, like, you know, Cory Booker came out immediately after Renee Good's killing and was like, more body cameras. More body cameras. That they are not. They are not willing this leadership cadre or whatever, this class of Democrat to fundamentally like, reform to cut into ICE's budget. It appears at all, even though I would say a majority, it seems like of House Democrats are saying we should make that a part of the ass to claw that back.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, if one were to give them credit, like, maybe they think that they are these sort of swing districts where ICE is an issue and you have to support the Democrats that are there or the Democrats that. But I don't actually think that's even true. Like, ICE is, like, overwhelmingly unpopular among independents. Right. Like these. I. I think it's just like, you know, it's a class of older elected officials that have, you know, like, a mentality where it's always, like, 1993 or it's always 2003. Like, they are not aware of the present moment. And, yeah, they're not willing to have this sort of, like, fight. I mean, I think that Chuck Schumer's whole political life has been an environment where, like, it always made political sense to support the police funding. That's what the Baileys wanted. And I don't think he realizes, you know, the Baileys are in retirement home. They're not going to vote anymore.

[B]

And I wish I made this point yesterday, but when you have Schumer and Jeffries coming out there and saying no mass, except for in very specific circumstances. Because what Schumer said was, what if there's a terrorist that's trying to kill an ICE agent? Maybe that does make Sam's point stronger. Like, oh, that's if only. I'm glad we're not in a situation where the administration is classifying anybody that disagrees with them as a terrorist.

[C]

Exactly.

[B]

I'm so glad we're not in that. Oh, wait, we are in that situation.

[A]

That's how they arrested Don Lemon. It was the NPSM7. And according to that same document, anybody who is arguing against ICE is a terrorist.

[C]

Yeah, I know. I mean, there have been cases, like, down in Texas of, you know, protesters who might have actually, you know, committed what are normally criminal acts where they'd be prosecuted. But, like, it's up to the level of terrorism, which it clearly is not. It's a very disturbing thing. And, yeah, I mean, like, Schumer and Jeffries are basically validating some of Trump's worst impulses. They're giving, like, ideological cover for this. I mean, you know, this is something we've talked about before. Like, I don't think, like, any sort of political progress is going to come from that faction. They need to be deposed. I think, you know, the positive thing is they're good signs that the party's heading elsewhere, as we just saw with the special with the primary in New Jersey last night. So, yeah, I mean, you're gonna need a leadership change before things get better.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, I think that's the case. It is. It's just impressive to watch this level of. It's just incompetence. I mean, it's just a political incompetence. Like, even if I. I, at least in the context of dhs, I just think that, like, yeah, if you're going to ask for masks not to be worn, which I think you should, because in my mind, you can cut funding. They're going to move funding around. They're never going to have a funding problem. You know, they. I feel like they could lose 50% of their budget right now and they'd still be fine. All they're doing is just giving it out in contracts for detention centers. They have so much money, they don't even know what to do with it. They don't have the mechanism in which to deploy it properly. But on a, Like, a very real, basic level, if these ICE agents had to go around showing their faces, I think they would feel extraordinarily naked and unprotected. Yeah.

[C]

And, I mean, ICE already has a sort of morale problem there. There are people quitting left and right because, you know, it's not a good job if you're going out there and ordinary Americans are, like, yelling and swearing at you because they hate you. So. But I mean, like. Like Schumer. I mean, it is political malpractice, but it's malpractice because on this issue, as others like Schumer and Jeffries fundamentally agree with Trump. Like, their worldview is like, you know, Trump's going too far. He's not easy. He's incompetent in how he's enacting these policies, but the policies themselves are right. And I think that the line we have to take is like, no, you should not have the federal government have, like, its own Gestapo force which is used for political purposes against Americans, whether they're documented or not. Like, it's just like, it's. It's unacceptable.

[A]

Yeah. Do you have any sense of, like, I don't know if you paid any attention to this Ron Wyden thing. Lastly, Ron Wyden issued a letter to Radcliffe saying, hey, just want to bump up the urgent, urgent letter about a horrible matter that I sent you the other day, which was just activities, plural. Yes. And, you know, I'm sure you remember from the. The NSA spying era widen sort of issued similar, sort of like, second order smoke signals, like, something's really up. I can't talk about it, but I want everybody to be paying attention here and digging around.

[C]

Yeah, yeah. No. Okay. I don't, like, have any, like, inside scoop. I mean, there's. It seems to be Gabbard related. I think we can be pretty confident about that. Which leads me to think it's. It's related to maybe to the stuff about Georgia that we talked about. There has also been some speculation that it might also be related to Gabbard's, the strange sort of religious organization that she's part of and which seems to have.

[B]

No way.

[C]

I've heard that, like, I don't know anything more than what you guys know.

[A]

And so this would be. So you think it is Gabbard related as opposed to, say, like, Venezuela? Because, well, what's the CIA doing?

[C]

Venezuela and Gabbard are not two different things.

[B]

Right.

[C]

Like, I do actually think that they want to make Maduro basically say, you know, Donald Trump should have won that Nobel Prize. And you have the full spectrum of Venezuelan society supporting Trump getting the Nobel Prize. And also, by the way, I and the ghost of Hugo Chavez conspire to elect Joe Biden.

[A]

I mean, that. Yeah, that would be the connection right there. The CIA would be the ones making that deal with Maduro.

[C]

Yes, yes, yes. And that this would justify, like, you know, having, like, the FBI and ICE take over the voting stations at, you know, Fulton County, Georgia, you know, which is like, where the. The election is going to be settled in just a few months time. So, I mean, I do think that I mean, this is like, you know, like, I don't want to put this as absolutely factual, but, you know, like, based on all the different stories that are happening and the parts that are in motion, that seems to be a likely guess.

[A]

Jeet here, national affairs correspondent for the nation, host of Time of Monsters podcast. I suspect we'll be talking about this with you again soon.

[C]

As always, the fun never stops.

[A]

SAM oh, yes, I wouldn't mind it if it did for a little bit, to be honest with you. But Jeet here, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

[C]

Always great to be on the program.

[B]

Thanks.

[A]

All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, Dan Osborne, independent candidate for the U.S. senate in Nebraska, currently tied in the polls more or less the extent that we know the polling to talk to us about the recent closure of a Tyson plant In Lexington, Nebraska, 3,200 people lost their job in a town of 11,000. We'll be right back after this. Sam. Live. We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Viglin on the Majority Report. I want to welcome to the program Dan Osborne, independent candidate for the U.S. senate in Nebraska. Dan, welcome to the program.

[D]

No, thank, thank, thank you for having me on.

[A]

It's good to be here. This is your your second run at this seat, came relatively close last time. I want to speak to you about what what's taking place in this Tyson plant. We actually have some footage of Pete Ricketts addressing this. But before we do, just tell us a little bit about yourself, why you decided to run for the the Senate.

[D]

Yeah. So I suppose I'm just a regular guy who likes to drink beer and watch football. Right. And I haven't always been political. It really wasn't until I was president of my union during COVID And what happened there was Kellogg's struck. My union struck Kellogg's because of we had we were we were fighting for our wages and our benefits. And that, you know, made me political. I suppose it opened my eyes to the political world and the fact that this is, you know, where I'm at and shoot. So let's move on to the next question.

[A]

Sure. I mean, no, that's and I think, you know, just taking a people ever take a moment to head over to your your website and take a look at your platform, a lot of that is indicative of an economic populism that I think, you know, a lot of what unions are meant to do, a lot of your positions here are extensions of that give us a sense of like, what your experience has been in the context of Nebraska. I know I've spent a little bit of time in Lincoln and Omaha back years and years ago, but give us a sense of like, you know, what the dynamic has been in that state and what you see is sort of like the primary, I guess, problem with that dynamic.

[D]

Yeah, well, you know, I've done 200 public events in 2024 advertised, right? Like I go out and I talk to Nebraskans every day. We're continuing to do that. I've probably done close to 40 of them now. Hopefully we'll get 250 publicly advertised events where we go out and we meet every day people, you know, that go and punch a clock for a living or whatever it is they do. Nurses, teachers, truck drivers, plumbers, get out there and meet them where they're at. And what I'm finding is most people, whether they're Republican or Democrat, especially once we dive deep, you know, do a deep dive into the issues. We all agree on so much, right? And it's frustrating to see, you know, we all plug into the news, we all get on our phones and we're bombarded with all this information. But the reality on the ground is we agree on so many things. And so what I try to do is I try to focus on the things that we agree on. And what we agree on is the fact that, you know, the economy and affordability and paychecks. Because I work for a company called Grunwald Mechanical. I'm a steam fitter, I get a paycheck every week. I know how much comes in, I know how much goes out. And all of these policy issues, whether it's tariffs or, you know, especially in the ag sector, you know, with row crop farmers and beans, what's happening is, is we are seeing it's harder to live, right? Whether, I mean, and so many things go into that in healthcare. So the commonality between all of those things is the consolidation of our industries. And so we have, you know, antitrust and anti monopolies laws on the books. And so that, that, I suppose that's the basis of everything is, is fighting this monopoly in the consolidation of our industries. And agricultural specifically, it's, you know, farmers, when they, when they purchase their inputs, you're talking about seed and you're talking about chemicals, they have to buy from monopolies and then when they have their production at the end of the year, they have to sell to monopolies. And that, that again goes into also healthcare. It's, it's gone all the way down into even to youth Sports, this consolidation of industries. So that's something that I want to fight for, to break up because I think that is the basis, the derivative of this affordability problem that we're all experiencing.

[A]

I will say too, you're probably the only candidate in the country who has right to repair in the top five of their issues. And that obviously is because, you know, a lot of farmers and folks who want to be able to fix their vehicles, fix their equipment and increasingly warranties avoided if you don't have, if you're not using necessarily factory, you know, parts or factory service. And I mean, I think that's indicative of a lot of what you're talking about in terms of those.

[D]

Well, yeah, I mean, you nailed right on the head, right? If you own something you should have the right to repair goes to consumer protection laws is something that I'm very interested in as well. It goes to the fact that, I mean, you could, you could talk about printers, right? Something as simple as a printer. It's almost cheaper to buy a new printer than it is to buy the ink for the printer. And it goes back to our phones. You used to be able to take the back of your phone off and replace the battery for 50 bucks and then it was good for another two years. And now, you know, you have to buy a new thousand dollar phone every two years. It's this planned obsolescence that these corporations do. And that absolutely goes into being able to pay your bills and live a comfortable life. And that's something that I want to fight for. I want to go to the US Senate to do. And quite frankly, my opponent, Pete Ricketts is, I mean, he's a Nepo baby, right? He comes from. His dad is a billionaire. He started TD Ameritrade which sold out to Charles Schwab. And so he's never had to experience what it's like to put Christmas on a credit card or try to figure out how to replace something in your vehicle yourself because you can't afford to take it to a mechanic. Those are the things that our lawmakers in Congress don't understand because here's the facts. Less than 2% of our elected officials in both the House and Senate come from the wage earning class, right? The people like us who, you know, go to work and punch a clock every day. So of course they don't, they don't get it. So that's something I want to give. I want to give the people who don't have a voice in Congress a voice. That's why we're doing this every day.

[A]

You mentioned Pete Ricketts. Let's talk about this Tyson plant. I guess it was in, sometime in November, Tyson announced that they were going to close down this processing plant. It employs, if I remember correctly, something like 3,200 people in a town, Lexington, Nebraska, of about 11,500 and which of course, you know, directly employees. I would imagine that another, you know, half of the people, again some are kids who have jobs, have those jobs because they're selling to people who work there. Like the entire economy obviously is completely a function of that. They're closing the plant, not because it sounds like they're closing the plant as a way of constraining supply so that they can increase their markup, make the same amount, if not more profits on less expenditures, which I imagine, and you might know more than I, is simply a way for people in the C suite to make more money because they have stock options and that's the way they're going to get paid is the rate of profit as opposed to, you know, sort of like just revenue in general. Walk us through what you would do about this and what you think should be done.

[D]

Yeah, so, so it's a, it's a pretty clear case that Tyson is manipulating prices. Right? The three weeks ago, they just paid an $82 million lawsuit for this exact same thing. It happened 20 years ago in Norfolk, Nebraska. They shut down a plant and what happens is they don't sell it to a competitor. They actually poured concrete down the drain. And that plant still sits there today, empty, you know, weeds growing everywhere around it. So what they're doing in Lexington is the same thing. And we are a nation of laws. Right? I think everybody understands that. And this all started at the turn of the century, around 1900, with the robber barons, you know, carving up the country for themselves over, you know, 90% of Americans. The wealth has transferred from 90% of Americans to the top 1%. We're experiencing that again today. What did they do about it in the 1900s? Well, they created antitrust and anti monopoly laws. And so we have the Packard and Stockyards Act 1921, which is what, you know, I've tried to hold Tyson's feet to the fire on as far as, you know, the what, what that law says is if you close a plant, then you should have that plant available to sell to a competitor. And they are not doing that. They are going to mothball this plant. So they are trying to manipulate the market and the prices. So what that means if you, you know, Do a little bit of a micro dive into it. It means the producers or the ranchers who are actually finally making decent money for the, you know, the product that they raise, they're going to make it, so they're not going to make as much money. And then the consumers, which is us, when we go to the grocery store, which we're all experiencing. I haven't bought beef in probably six months. Like, I just walk right on by it because I just can't afford it anymore. So that's what's happening. And Tyson knows this. And they are continuing to enrich themselves because corporations, they have. They have one goal in mind, right? And that's profit. And that's to get their CEOs and their board enrich them as well as enrich their stockholders. That's their main reason for existence, I suppose. So I am for the workers. I have unapologetically have a workers platform, pro worker platform. I want to be for these people. And what's happening, you mentioned 3,200 jobs in Lexington. It's not just the 3,200 people that are affected. It's the entire town. I mean, you figure all the grocery stores, the gas stations, the car dealers, all these people are going to suffer. In fact, $1 billion per year is going to be taken out of Nebraska. So that's huge. So I went there and I did a press conference to highlight this issue, especially, you know, the antitrust issue that they're violating. And then so what? That prompted Pete Ricketts, my opponent, to come on and say, hey, I'm gonna look into this, guys. Right? Like, yeah, I'm gonna look into it. The day after he announced he was gonna look into it, he got a donation from Tyson. And now he's totaled $72,000 from Tyson. And now after looking into it, he's found that Tyson is not in violation of any law, which is complete bs. So that's where we're at.

[A]

Let's check in with him. This is a clip of him being asked by is a drop site, drop site reporter about that Tyson plant. Senator Ricketts, a couple months ago, you said that you were going to look into whether Tyson was violating the packers and Stockyards act. But now 3,300 people have lost their jobs. So I'm wondering what exactly you did to try to save that plant. So they are not violating the stockyard backyard. But I've been to Lexington to work with the mayor about being able to use that facility, continue to create jobs. So we're going to be working with Tyson. They're talking about their job, doing an evaluation of what they're going to continue it for. But there's valuable resources there with regard to the land, the railroad spur and the wastewater plant that could be used for future jobs.

[C]

What did you do to try to.

[D]

Save it before it closed down?

[A]

So again, this is one of the things where we have a private sector boy that that elevator door couldn't float.

[D]

Fast enough for him there, huh?

[A]

You, you could not have scripted that better. I mean, like you say, there was. It seems like he very conveniently looked into this, like when it was a done deal. And now he's talking about there being valuable resources there. There. There was also a valuable resource in the sense that there was a plant. And we should also say, not only is it impacting that town, but you make the point that, you know, there were suppliers to Tyson here. And when there are fewer buyers of that meat product, the suddenly the buyer gets a lot more power. It's monopsony power in that instance. But they then have the ability to dictate and to drive down prices for them, which, of course, it does not appear that they're going to pass it on to the consumer in any way and again raising their profits. Do you have a sense when he says, like there's valuable resources there, the land, that sounds like it's a valuable resource for Tyson. But do you have any sense of like what he's talking about in terms of helping the people in that town? Like he's met with the mayor. That's very sweet.

[D]

There's no making sense of what he said. I work for a corporation for 20 years. I work for Kellogg's. And I heard CEOs and plant manager talk, that mumbo jumbo buzzword, corporate buzzword speak, where you say a bunch of stuff with actually out saying or not saying anything. And that's exactly what he did there. The bottom line is, you know, especially with, in regards to Tyson, they're breaking the law. Everybody knows they're breaking the law. And again, they account for 5% of the beef production in this country, just in Lexington, Nebraska. That's huge. So this is obviously a clear case of price fixing. It's what they're going to do. We can have a class action lawsuit, which we're trying to do right now to get enough producers together or employees to create this class action lawsuit, and Tyson will pay out just like they did three weeks ago with $82 million. But, you know, you know, the DOJ business for them? Yeah, it's the cost of doing business. The DOJ and the FTC and our federal delegation here in Nebraska, they need to be holding these corporations accountable for, you know, consolidating the industries and price fixing. We're seeing it in every aspect of our life and I think this is a fight worth fighting. Everybody should be interested in this and paying attention to it.

[B]

What are you hearing from farmers, ranchers in Nebraska about what the biggest challenges that they're facing right now? I mean, maybe it's hard to disaggregate corporate consolidation from the general struggles, but I would imagine that the tariffs and those increases have been especially difficult during the past year.

[D]

Yeah, big time. I just, I just spoke with a row crop farmer, actually. Soybean. He had soybeans this year. His name is Bill. I'm not going to say his last name, you know, because most people in Nebraska are Republican and conservative and he's no different. But so what Bill told me was I asked him about the $12 billion bailout that President Trump has for our farmers. And, and I asked him, I said, is that going to help save your farm, essentially? And he said no.

[A]

What's.

[D]

What, what, what it is that $12 billion, and it's noteworthy to say that we've given Argentina $40 billion right. In bailouts for them when our farmers are getting 12. I'm not a mathematician, but that doesn't add up. But what he was saying is that's going to help him, you know, for next year to buy his seed and to buy the chemicals that he's going to need to plant his crop next year. But what it does for him this year is nothing. So what we're going to see is we're going to see bankruptcies at a massive scale. We're going to see farmers that cannot stand business because companies like John Deere have manipulated prices on their tractors. I mean, million dollar combines like this is insane. And they can't even fix their own equipment. Right. Like they're, they are just getting bombarded left and right by these corporations. Whether it's Sagenta, which is a Chinese owned seed corporation that has formed a monopoly around that. Like they, again, they have to buy their inputs from monopolies and sell their exports to monopolies. And what's going to happen, he told me, is, you know, he's got enough saved up and he's got enough kids working on his farm that they're going to be able to hold, you know, save it. But a lot of people are going to have to file for bankruptcy. Who's going to come in and buy them up? Private equity. Right. We're going to continually see this consolidation of our agriculture and look, 2%, less than 2% of Americans feed the rest of us. We have to protect our farmers. It is so imperative that we get ahead of this before it's too late. And I mean, it's so important. That's why, you know, my opponent, Pete Ricketts, he's on the side of the corporations. Right? That's who he is. And he's what's fundamentally wrong with politics in this country and the amount of money that it takes to run for office is. You know, I think one of the most important issues of our time is getting money out of our politics and just going back to the constitutionality of by a government, by and for the people. And right now it's a government for the 1% and the corporations.

[A]

Well, we should tell you we're getting a message from our, our resident farm reporter in the grand island area. He says Kowalski from Nebraska, from the Kowalski farm. Please let my future senator know that I've been spreading the good word of Osborne in the grand island area and most people are responding with positivity or pure hatred toward Pete. I have always been getting my fellow cattle producers on board with nationalizing and subsequently operating the meatpacking plants like the post office. Where can people go to get more information if they want to help you out? If they're in Nebraska and or neighboring states, I guess to come help with volunteering or if they want to support you in other ways. Where, where should they go? Online?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, you go, you go to osborne4senate.com it's O S, B O R N. I don't have an E at the end of my name like the famous coach. Unfortunately, no relation there. Arguably one of the greatest college football coaches in history. We have a rich football history and we know we're living in an upside down world, right. When Indiana is now a football school and Nebraska is a basketball school. Like what is happening. But I'll take it. I love, I love, I love Nebraska sports. I love the university. And you know, yeah, we're we're kicking some butt and some basketball and volleyball and. But I love that. Yeah. But yeah. Osborne4senate.com all right, we will put a.

[A]

Link to that at, in the podcast and YouTube descriptions and at Majority FM. Dan Osborne, thanks so much for coming on. Good luck with your race and maybe we'll check in in the coming months. Really appreciate it.

[D]

No, I appreciate you guys too. Thank you.

[B]

Thanks so much.

[A]

All right, folks, we're going to take a quick break and head into the fun half of the program wherein we will have fun. No side deals. No side deals will happen in the fun half the today. Just a reminder, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a [e-mail] when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, but you also get to IMs in the fun half. And you help this show survive and thrive in a rather tumultuous era for, well, just about everybody. Some worse than others. Like how when water circles a drain, it's tumultuous. Exactly. Also, don't forget just coffee.co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate, use the coupon code majority get 10% off support this co op in Madison, Wisconsin. Matt, what's happening in the Matt Leckian Media universe? How the am I even supposed to sell this property? Sorry, I just Jacobin show today. I didn't realize how intense he was. I mean, that's the one. It's he gets really animated over his assets, especially when you lose an income stream. Jack even show aired this morning, 10:00am we had Robin Wanze back on talking about what Democrats can do, both on a local level and if they're socialist or progressive, tap in to fight this ICE stuff above and beyond. What sort of the frying walls types are doing. And the Chip Givens talking about how Seth Harp is getting in trouble for journalism, which is now being redefined as doxing.

[B]

Oh yeah. And I mean, Seth, whatever's happening with Ross Dalfout is hilarious.

[A]

Oh my God.

[B]

It seems like for people that aren't as online as me, the New York Times is Ross doth out did a debate with Seth Harp about.

[A]

Well, he challenged him. Yeah, a debate. And then they had it.

[B]

And it's, it seems as if that debate has been buried. And Seth has some, some texts from like the immediate aftermath of the debate like that he sent to I guess his editor and stuff saying it went really poorly for Ross. I did quite well. And I mean Seth is obviously like, well, now that why would they bury it?

[A]

I mean, they wrote to him and told him they were pivoting away. They said we could, we tried. We were doing the editing and we couldn't make it work. And so we're pivoting away. Let's tell you how ridiculous that response is. First off, it's one thing to say we had a Piece that we were going to run on our finite amount of television space we have for this program. You know, like, not everything that, you know, we can't fit everything into this show because we have a finite amount of show.

[B]

Right.

[A]

There is an infinite amount of space on the Internet. You've already shot the thing editing a two person interview, Brian, I know you've done some editing. Yes. Are there times where you're like, gosh, I wish we had some B roll here? Or why didn't we take a picture of like somebody's isolation on somebody's hands? You know, so we could cut away to this shot or something? Like. Yes. Well, what? No, it's very simple to edit a two shot interview. We couldn't make the edit work. Like, what?

[B]

Then release the raw footage. We don't need to even see, like, fully. You don't need to do the side. I know it's very important for the New York Times to have both the profile of Ross and then apparently the side profile and then cutting in between like they do with Ezra. But maybe just pick one shot and release the audio so we can see for ourselves. Ourselves.

[A]

Like, Saul has editing programs on his phone that would just do it automatically. Yeah. AI does that.

[B]

Yeah, yeah.

[A]

This is Dross. Doubt that. In the editing room with his editors.

[B]

This screenshot is not specific. Oh, oh, I see it under.

[A]

Understand, Mr. Snippy Snip.

[C]

It's in succession.

[A]

When Greg tells. I just. He just wants like a welcome. I'm Ross Dathau and thank you for joining us.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

Just cobbled together. Seth saying, you make a good point. I respect the military.

[C]

What.

[B]

What is Greg cutting up here in this clip?

[A]

This is when they edit for that Life plus thing to make it work where it looked like the dead dad. Spoiler alert.

[B]

Oh, sorry.

[A]

Supported.

[B]

Yeah, supported.

[A]

The new investment, I think, in a show called Succession. There's no spoiler alert saying the dad died. It's only been two years. All right, we're gonna take a quick break. Fun half.

[D]

Yeah, fun half.

[A]

Here we go. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's gonna be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily gonna be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're gonna look back and go like, wow. What? What is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on. Hold on for a second. Emma, welcome to the program. What is up? Everyone unpack. No. Mickey, you did it. Fun hat.

[B]

Let's go, Brandon.

[A]

Let's go, Brandon. Fun hat. Bradley, you want to say hello?

[C]

Sorry to disappoint everyone.

[A]

I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

[B]

Fundamentally false. No. I'm sorry.

[A]

Women. Stop talking for a second and let me finish.

[B]

Where is this coming from? Dude?

[A]

But. Dude, you want to smoke this? 7A. Yes. Hi.

[C]

Me is me.

[A]

Yes. Is this me?

[C]

Is it me?

[A]

It is you. Is this me? Hello? Is this me? I think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[B]

Sports.

[D]

We can discuss free markets. And we can discuss capitalism.

[A]

I'm gonna go libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says of course.

[B]

Gobbledygook.

[A]

We nailed him.

[B]

So what's 79 plus 21?

[A]

Challenge. Man. I'm positively quivering. I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1, 0, 3, 5, 5, 0, 1, 1 half. 3, 8, 9, 11. For instance.

[B]

$3,400. $1900. 5, 4.

[A]

$3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game.

[B]

Actually. You're making me think less.

[A]

But let me say this poop. You can call it satire. Sam goes satire.

[D]

On top of it all.

[A]

My favorite part about you is just.

[B]

Like every day, all day, like everything you do.

[A]

Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you. All right, folks, folks, folks, folks.

[B]

It's just the week. Being weeded out. Obviously.

[A]

Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I. I don't know.

[C]

But you should know.

[A]

People just don't like to entertain ideas anymore. I have a question. Who cares?

[D]

Our chat is enabled, folks.

[A]

I love it.

[B]

I do love.

[A]

I love that. Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump.

[C]

I'm losing it, bro.

[A]

Two o', clock, we're already late, and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag.

[B]

Outrageous.

[A]

Like, what is wrong with you?

[C]

Love you.

[A]

Bye. Love you.

[B]

Bye.

[A]

Bye.