← The Majority Report with Sam Seder
The Majority Report with Sam Seder
3577 - Epstein's Birthday Card; Schumer & Jeffries Cave Plans w/ David Dayen
01:29:06
It's News Day Tuesday on The Majority Report On today's show: The Jeffrey Epstein estate has released the infamous 50th birthday book, which led Trump to sue the Wall Street Journal after it reported on it, claiming the coverage was false. Rep Dave...
Loading summary
Transcript255 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey folks, can you believe it? Summer is almost officially over. What is it like in a week or two? That's not funny.
- [00:12]
B
It's sort of like a sad laugh.
- [00:14]
A
I know that is it. It's good. But if your summer was anything like mine, you're gonna need to recenter a little bit this fall. Maybe you're looking to do more self care, calm yourself, have a little help relaxing. Maybe you have some aches from traveling or just, I don't know, dealing with life. Your life, your children. Maybe you need a little help getting your sleep schedule back on track. Well, if these sound like good fall goals to you, our buddies@sunsetlakesabade.com are here to help. Now through September 14th you can save 30% on all Sunset Lake Saba de tinctures when you use the coupon code Fall Tincture. That includes their everyday formulas, their sleep tinctures, even their pet tinctures. I've been using the Good Night Oil tincture for, I don't know, since they came out with it, maybe two years or something. It is incredibly helpful to me to sleep. I have friends who use their tinctures for their doggies and the Sebodeia tinctures themselves are nice. When you want to relax at night, you don't want to just, you know, get messed up, but you want to just chill. And they have them in multiple different strengths and flavors. Sale ends September 14th at 11:59pm Eastern. So don't wait. Stock up on your favorite tinctures with this deep discount sale. Now's the time to do it. Head over to sunsetlake sabade.com use the code fall tincture all one word for 30% off of all Sabade tinctures. And of course you can always use our code Left is best to save 20% on all the rest of their sun grown Vermont products. See their site for terms and conditions and we'll put a link in the podcast and YouTube description now time for the show the Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Tuesday, September 9th, 2025. 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, David Dayen, executive editor of the American Prospect Magazine, host of the Prospects Weekly Roundup and co host of the podcast Organized Money, will be on to talk about the Democratic leadership's capitulation plans. Google's monopoly get out of Free a Jail free card. Well, not quite jail and the FTC's reversal on non compete clauses. Also on the program today, Trump can't shake Epstein revelations as Democrats seem to have secured the votes needed for a discharge petition on legislation that would release all the Epstein files. US job growth revised down for 2024. Israel bombs Qatar in an attempt to kill the Hamas negotiations team.
- [03:58]
C
I've heard that before.
- [03:59]
A
Not Qatar, but yeah, Indeed. Also demands 1 million people leave Gaza City as a prelude to bombing it and attacks a Gaza bound flotilla boat. Meanwhile, Supreme Court allows Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member at least temporarily despite all precedent. Zoran Mamdani with a huge lead in New York City in the new poll. Trump regime halts an IRS crackdown on millionaires and corporations tax shelters gonna cost us about $100 billion over 10 years. Lachlan Murdoch buys out his siblings to ensure that Fox News stays right wing fascist propaganda. Supreme Court allows ICE to racially profile as it does roving sweeps. And in the communist state state of New Mexico they are now going to be offering universal free child care. It's the business community thinking what the.
- [05:19]
B
Heck, don't piss down my.
- [05:22]
A
That's weird. All this and more on today's Majority Report. That's what I wanted to do, but my soundboard has a weird tint to it so. So I got confused.
- [05:33]
C
It is news day Tuesday. I almost forgot what it was.
- [05:38]
A
Yeah, there you go. I was exhausted from all the arguing about football with Brian. Things got very heated in here before and I was. It wasn't heated, it was just loud. Super heated.
- [05:51]
C
Yeah, we were just distracting Sam.
- [05:53]
A
It was super, super heated. And the anger, the seething anger over this stuff.
- [05:58]
C
Yeah, I'm filing an HR complaint at some point.
- [06:01]
A
Yeah, well all of that. Sadly, Brian is the one who you have to go through to file.
- [06:05]
C
Sure.
- [06:06]
A
That's the problem. I came in. I'm self hating enough for that to go well for her. Brian's on suspension. Self suspension.
- [06:20]
C
Interesting. Self paid suspension.
- [06:22]
D
Exactly.
- [06:22]
A
How will I recover? Yesterday, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee again, they don't run the committee, but they have access to documents that come in and apparently lawyers for some of Jeffrey Epstein victims who had gotten some material in discovery in court cases in the past provided the oversight committee with documents including the birthday book that Jeffrey Epstein got on his 50th birthday. Presumably. I don't know, Ghislaine Maxwell may have like solicited from all his buddies funny cards.
- [07:19]
C
Yeah, I mean they basically what was here the. Maybe we can pull it up really briefly, Sam, just because like, this is the letter that the Trump administration and Trump himself is saying he never wrote and doesn't exist.
- [07:34]
A
In fact, if I remember correctly, J.D. vance says, do you know anything about Donald Trump? This is absolutely a total fabrication. If, if, if they had the letter, they would publicize it. Well, apparently it was given to the House Oversight Committee and it was released in a Google Drive.
- [07:54]
C
Yeah.
- [07:54]
A
That basically everybody has access to. Here is the card. It is, as you can see, in the shape of a woman, sort of.
- [08:06]
C
I mean, remember the renderings after, like, people were describing it, or the Wall Street Journal described it before publishing it. And so people were kind of imagining what it would look like. Better art than this. This is maybe why Trump stuck to just drawing buildings, because, like, this woman's form is not very well drawn.
- [08:24]
A
I like my women without arms or also with.
- [08:27]
C
Well, I guess it makes a little bit more sense because those breasts are pretty tiny. If this is about little girls to make it too dark. But that's what we're discussing here.
- [08:37]
A
Voiceover. Unclear why it's a voiceover, but maybe it's like a fake ad. It's some type of script voiceover. There must be more to life than having everything. DONALD oh, okay. There must be more to life that the voiceover says, there must be more to life than having everything. And then Donald says, yes, there is. But I won't tell you what it is, Jeffrey Nor will I, since I also know what it is. DONALD we have certain things in common, Jeffrey. JEFFREY yes, we do, come to think of it. DONALD what is it? Enigmas never age. That's the great line.
- [09:15]
B
Enigmas never age. Have you noticed that?
- [09:18]
A
Jeffrey says, as a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you, Donald. A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday.
- [09:29]
B
And may every day be another wonderful secret.
- [09:32]
A
Yeah, Donald Trump.
- [09:33]
C
Also, apparently enigma is an anagram for gamines, which is little girls. And I'm not sure, but Matt, they're all talking in weird code here. I'm not going on.
- [09:46]
A
I think, I think the enigma thing.
- [09:48]
B
Is more likely him as an informant.
- [09:51]
C
Yes, fair enough.
- [09:52]
A
I agree with that.
- [09:54]
C
But there was this, just really quickly, this tweet from the guy for a Jewish Currents Jesse Brennaman, who said, you know, QAnon follower. See here? See what Pelosi did? See how she blinked twice and turned left? That's a code among pedophiles, alluded to in the latest Q drop. Now, if we examine this napkin and then Trump, you could say Jeffrey Epstein and I had the sexual secret one that never ages. Wink. Which is kind of how it, how this is playing out.
- [10:19]
A
So this drops yesterday. Trump continues to deny, deny, deny.
- [10:24]
B
And Trump's son said he never draws, which is just obvious lie, obviously.
- [10:30]
A
Also, why would he have to have necessarily drawn it himself? Yeah, I mean, he signed the card like, you know, it's the idea that like.
- [10:43]
B
Oh, yeah, they say that's not his signature.
- [10:44]
A
He says, oh, yeah, well, right, of course. It's somebody who has, for whatever, forged a signature to Jeffrey Epstein on his decade ago, 20 years ago Sharpie, which.
- [10:55]
C
Trump always uses out it in 2016.
- [10:58]
A
Exactly. It is a. This is the long con. But the idea that like he didn't draw it. Okay, draw me a woman with breasts and then I'll sign it right in the vagina. That's. I mean, that, that's what that takes. Oh, yeah, that's what that is. You didn't realize that that's the whole joke.
- [11:17]
D
It's pubic hair.
- [11:18]
A
And now I have to say, on my 50th birthday, I didn't get anything like this. I mean, even junior high stuff. Like, honestly, it's literally junior high stuff. Nevertheless, here is Representative David Min. He is on the Oversight Committee, a Democrat on that committee. Again, in about a month, the Democrats plus four Republicans are going to have the votes to force a discharge petition and essentially get legislation on the floor that would force all of the Epstein files to be released. The Democrats are still waiting for two Democrats to replace members who have passed away, including Connolly, who was the former most senior member of the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. And you know, many people are suggesting that we wouldn't even have this information if Connally was still alive.
- [12:23]
C
I mean, he was. I'm rest in peace. But he was on death's door and he won that position over aoc.
- [12:29]
A
Well, he was very, it was his turn. He was a, he was battle hardened. Yes. But here is Dave mine on with John Berman on cnn. John Berman on cnn. They, I guess maybe they don't want to have to pay any type of fees there. Let's put it this way, they're treading lightly. Although, you know, one of the ways that you can tread lightly and also report on the news to have somebody else on delivering the message.
- [13:04]
E
Again, I do want to say we have no reason to think that he was in any way involved with that check itself. Also no reason to think he's detected any wrongdoing involving Jeffrey Epstein.
- [13:14]
A
You noted you're a positive now. Okay. They have no reason when and Dave men will answer this, but just want to be clear what Berman saying. We have no reason to believe that Donald Trump was involved in any wrongdoing with Jeffrey Epstein. There's no definitive proof and there's no nothing explicit that would. But I think Dave Min is about to explain why we might have some reasons to think something's up. Because remember, the White House like virulently lobbied against the release of these files and the signing of this discharge petition. This could all go away tomorrow if the White House wanted it to. But for some reason, either they want to keep it in play, which is absurd. Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
- [14:10]
D
Or.
- [14:12]
A
They really don't want something to come out.
- [14:15]
E
But here's David again, I do want to say we have no reason to think that he was in any way involved with that check itself. Also no reason to think he's detected any wrongdoing involving Jeffrey Epstein. You noted you're a prosecutor, you're a lawyer here.
- [14:29]
F
There's this, we have lots of reasons to think he was involved in wrongdoing. I mean, at this point there's a lot of smoke, there may be some fire. But I would just push back and say I think there's a lot of reason to think Donald Trump was involved.
- [14:41]
E
Involved with what? I'm sorry, what exactly what do you have that he was involved with wrongdoing in regards to Jeffrey Epstein. And if that's the case where why have there been no prosecutions over 20 years here? Because there haven't really been any allegations that he was involved with wrong wrongdoing.
- [14:56]
F
There are a lot of, a lot of connections where Donald Trump was named. Right. We had a 14 year old claiming that she was raped by him, then withdrew that claim after she was apparently threatened. His name appears a lot. And again we at this point, our job is to find justice for these survivors and that means that we need.
- [15:12]
A
To continue positive for one second. Let's just remind people about that allegation because this was coming up in like 2016 and and then it went away. And then it came back up again in 2019 as Ronan Farrow's book Catch and Relieve. What it was Catch and Kill came out and he related this story. Farrow in the book claims that AMI CEO David Pecker. Pecker was the one from the National Enquirer who also was implicated in the whole Stormy Daniels thing where he was going to go out and you know, Cohen, Trump's lawyer was going to pay to essentially was going to gave money to Packer to give money. And the idea being like, we go and we pay someone who is accusing Trump for an exclusive rights to the story. We buy the exclusive rights to the story, and then we just don't publish it as a favor for Donald Trump. Farrow, in the book, claims that Pecker was in close contact with Trump when the rape allegations were made public in a 2016 lawsuit.
- [16:30]
C
And this is a rape of a teenager, an alleged rape of a teenager in 1994. Now, Trump met Epstein in the late 80s and early 90s. So we don't know if this rape allegation is connected to Epstein because. But it would very much fit the timeline of their friendship and relationship.
- [16:51]
A
The lawsuit filed against Trump in the lead up to 2016 claimed that Trump raped a woman when she was 13. In 1994, Trump's lawyer said that was categorically untrue. The anonymous plaintiff, identified as Katie Johnson in an initial legal filing that was dismissed in California, and Jane Doe, in two subsequent legal filings in New York, said that she was raped by Trump during a party hosted by the now deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
- [17:25]
C
Oh.
- [17:26]
A
At his New York City apartment. In the third and final lawsuit, Doe alleged she had numerous sexual encounters with Trump and Epstein at the latter's parties and said she was also raped by Epstein. As BuzzFeed News reported at the time, Trump and Epstein knew that I was 13 years old. Jane Doe wrote an affidavit. Now, Farrow alleges that after the suit was filed in 2016, Enquirer editor Howard and Trump lawyer Cohen were in contact frequently. And apparently this. This plaintiff, the accuser, there was like a break in at the lawyer's house, and then they basically just went away. At one point, Howard, now chief content officer at ami, tried to use his influence to convince Lisa Bloom, a power attorney who agreed to represent Jane Doe, to drop her client. This is all based on Farrow's reporting. Farrow's reporting historically has been very solid.
- [18:36]
C
Yeah. And Harvey Weinstein.
- [18:38]
A
There's somebody in jail on multiple counts because of it. In November of 2016, just days before the presidential election, Bloom suddenly announced that a press conference with Jane. That a press conference with Jane Doe had been canceled, saying Doe had become frightened after receiving death threats. Two days later, Doe's lead attorney, Thomas Meager, filed to dismiss the case. Jane Doe has not been heard from since. Bloom added, after we received numerous death threats in my law firm's website and emails were hacked, she did not want to go forward. Bloom said she did not enter any agreements with AMA on Doe's behalf. I represented Ms. Doe for free and there was never any discussion of money or settlement as I strongly believed her allegations should be made public, given that Trump was running for president at the time. So that's what David Min is talking about. Again, that's all. It's just an accusation. It's all circumstantial.
- [19:42]
C
Just like that photo of them together. Just like that leather.
- [19:45]
B
You don't look good.
- [19:46]
A
Well, that's it. The photo is explicit, the letter is explicit. I mean, there's obviously a relationship there. It's quite, it's quite possible that a woman who is, by 90, by 2016, she would have been 33 or 34, had decided to just for whatever reason, interject herself into this situation with Donald Trump. It's quite possible that Bloom, who was representing her for free, was just doing it on a lark and has no ability to assess the validity of her client. It's also possible that she just randomly decided not to pursue this, just had a complete change of heart based upon nothing, and that she didn't receive death threats. But that's a lot of stuff that had to have happened in that year that, you know, running up to Donald Trump being president. I mean, it's sort of strange.
- [20:54]
C
Well, that was when he was deep undercover as an informant, so he had to do the rape.
- [20:58]
A
I bet those threats were coming from both sides during that election too. You mean in terms of like the threats towards her? Because if you look into that, you look into Epstein, you look into Bill.
- [21:07]
B
It was mutual disarmament.
- [21:08]
A
It's possible, it's possible. It's not like there wasn't Epstein stuff floating around though. And they're not mutually, you know, they're not, I should say necessarily tied in with each other. But here's, let's let David Min continue.
- [21:26]
F
Was named, right? We had a 14 year old claiming that she was raped by him, then withdrew that claim after she was apparently threatened. His name appears a lot. And again we, at this point, our job is to find justice for these survivors. And that means that we need to continue digging knowing that there is a cover up taking place right now. And I didn't say that we have proof at this point, we have like a lot of smoke. But Donald Trump's name is clearly mentioned multiple times. We've seen him lie over and over about things that we now know to be true. So again, I think that we, as the oversight committee deserve, we owe an obligation to the girls, the American people out there to keep digging and find out the truth, whoever's involved.
- [22:07]
E
Again, you know, Donald Trump has not been named in any connection or charged with any wrongdoing there. Ghislaine Maxwell, take this pause for a second.
- [22:14]
D
But Ghislaine, what do you mean?
- [22:17]
A
We just heard reports that he had been accused of rape. Now, he hasn't been named because we, we don't know that because we can't see the documents because Donald Trump won't release the documents. So you can't say that he been named and you can't say that he hasn't been named. And you could argue like, well, you can't prove a negative, but there is somebody who could prove the negative and his name is Donald Trump and he's refusing to release the information that would prove that he's not in there. Now, you could say, well, we don't know that Sam Seder's name isn't in there, but I don't have control over keeping that document being released. I'm in favor release it. But you don't know that anybody's name is in there. But, but there is literally one person.
- [23:06]
C
Yeah.
- [23:07]
A
Who is preventing these documents from being released and his name is Donald Trump.
- [23:12]
C
Yeah, well, there could be other reasons too. I mean, there could be other like infrastructure, I would say behind the scenes that doesn't want it released because it has like sensitive classified information in it too. That's another speculation. But we don't know. It's just like the over the top Berman going back and back to this. It's one thing to say he's not been formally charged with wrongdoing. It's, it's another thing to say that like he's basically not been implicated in any way and make that assertion after Min lays that out. It's ridiculous. And it's indicative of how Donald Trump is bullying the media and using the government to try to extract all of this money from these media companies. Like, he should look at what just happened with the release of that letter. Trump sued the Wall Street Journal. What was down in Florida was he filed that lawsuit for $10 million claiming that they were making up that letter. And now that letter is public and we know of course he wasn't making it up. Shouldn't the other media organization say, like, hey, there's nothing here at this point, they have emptied the clip on all of the lying. This is going to catch up at some point. But no, we have to do this dance again. It's absurd.
- [24:22]
A
So you're saying you don't trust Ghislaine Maxwell I'm not.
- [24:25]
C
I don't trust Ghislaine Maxwell who has been found guilty, I believe of l lying under oath, but I want to hear the rest.
- [24:33]
E
Has not been named in any connection or charge with any wrongdoing there. Ghislaine Maxwell. Take this for what it is. But Ghislaine Maxwell said, you know, she never saw Donald Trump or anyone for that engaged in any wrongdoing connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
- [24:46]
F
Congressman point out that Ghislaine Maxwell was indicted for perjury after she made that statement that you mentioned. Transferred a minimum of security prison in Texas.
- [24:56]
E
So again, look, Speaker Johnson sat right here and told me he doesn't really believe anything Elaine Maxwell says. I was merely stating what was in that transcript. But there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who don't put much weight in it. Congressman Damon.
- [25:10]
A
Oh, okay. Well, it's good that you brought that up after you had said. I mean that seems like a pretty important qualifier.
- [25:18]
B
A notorious liar trying to get something from Trump said something, something favorable to Trump. Okay, thanks, John.
- [25:23]
A
But like if it wasn't, I mean, Min did a good job on this, not letting him get away with this. Also worth reminding people that the DOJ official who went to interview Ghislaine Maxwell when she said these things 11 months ago was Donald Trump's defense attorney.
- [25:44]
C
Yep.
- [25:47]
A
That's quite a coincidence.
- [25:49]
C
Wasn't he involved in the shakedown of Eric Adams too?
- [25:52]
A
Like that was I think Bovey. But although he could have been in, in the room. But nevertheless, I mean that's, it seems like that's also something that any time you ever cover this on, on cable news should be mentioned. Ghislaine Maxwell told Donald Trump's former defense attorney now DOJ representative that Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong.
- [26:19]
C
You. Okay, you can, I mean, convicted liar.
- [26:24]
A
Elaine Maxwell told Donald Trump's defense attorney now DOJ representative that Donald Trump didn't do anything.
- [26:31]
C
And it's not even. The biggest part of that is that she has an incentive to do that because she wants a pardon. Like how do you not say that about what Ghislaine Maxwell said as a journalist and make the obvious claim that she's one, been shown to be a liar in court and two, that she has an incentive to suck up to the president because she wants out of prison. And they've already rewarded her for her, you know, complicity in this cover up. They sent her to a nicer facility.
- [27:03]
A
Against the prison Bureau of Prison Regulation.
- [27:08]
C
And I'm not somebody that thinks like, oh, a prison should be as horrible. I think all these prisons should be like places of rehabilitation regardless of the crimes that have been committed. But it shows that there has been an exchange made. And if you're a journalist on television talking about this case, the idea that you're acting basically as a lawyer for CNN functionally and their parent company on television instead of doing real journalism is one of the more darkly depressing elements of like the state of our industry at this moment.
- [27:41]
B
When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything, grab them by the pussy.
- [27:47]
C
Trump was found liable of sexual abuse in court. That's also some circumstantial evidence about this rape allegation.
- [27:58]
A
In a moment we're going to be talking to David Dayan. He is the executive editor of the American Prospect. We got a couple of things that we're going to talk to him about. Before we do, a couple of words from our sponsors. Your glow up starts from within. And no, it doesn't require an injection. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet is proven to deliver real results through deep cellular rejuvenation. What kind of results? You get fat loss. You get metabolic reset, radiant skin that will have you looking your best and feeling confident all through the fall. Prolon is a plant based nutrition program features soups, snacks and beverages designed to nourish the body while keeping it in a fasting state, triggering cellular rejuvenation. I don't know what's going on with me. And renewal and the next generation builds on the original prolon with 100% organic soups, teas, a richer taste and ready to eat meals. Developed over decades at USC's Longevity Institute backed by top US medical centers, Prolon has been shown to support biological age reduction, metabolic health, skin appearance, fat loss and energy. I did that mine a little over, well a year and a half ago again and I'm gearing up to do another five days. It was much, I mean I thought it was going to be absolutely miserable, but I actually felt great during it.
- [29:34]
C
And you were very energized. I kind of want to do it this year.
- [29:37]
A
I was very energized and it was also just, I don't know, a good feeling to be able to do it. And apparently according to the research on this at the USC Longevity Institute, a couple of times a year really can help. Basically helps with some process with the cells where the older cells sort of die off and get replenished. It happens sometime like around day three or four. Your body thinks that it's like, you know, it mimics fasting and it reacts for a limited time. You can be first in line to experience the new next gen at Special savings. Prolon's offering you 15% off site wide plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their five day nutrition program. Just visit prolonlife.com majority that's P R O L O N l I f e.com Majority Claim your 15% discount and your bonus gift. Prolonlife.com Majority Head over there prolonlife.com Majority Check this out. It is it's a fascinating program. Also today, want to remind you that we have forged a bit of a partnership with Current Affair, a current affairs magazine. If you like deep, thoughtful, progressive analysis, which, I mean, I imagine that's why folks are here listening to the show. Or maybe it's my Chuck Schumer glasses. You're going to love the print or digital version of Current affairs magazine. Current affairs combines intelligent commentary, biting political satire and really beautiful artwork to produce one of the country's most elegant and informative magazines. And it's all ad free. Current affairs is a fantastic complement to the Majority Report. It delivers hard hitting, totally independent and entertaining coverage of the most important political, social and economic issues of our time. You can use the Code majority report, all one word for 30% for a year on any subscription of your choice. You get 30% off with the code majorityreport@currentaffairs.org subscribe. Enter the code majority report at checkout. Offer expires October 31st. We will put a link obviously to that in the podcast and YouTube description. That's current affairs1word.org subscribe and use the code majority report, all one word. All right, quick break. When we come back, I'll be interviewing David Dayen. Is a conversation we had last night on what the Democrats are or what Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are planning to do in terms of the government shutdown. Spoiler alert, you're not going to like it. And also what's happening with the remedy part of the Google trial, at least on one of their cases of monopoly. And what's happening at the Federal Trade Commission. Quick break. Back with David Dayen. We are back, Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Joining us now, the executive editor of the American Prospect and host of the Prospect We Can Review podcast host, the.
- [33:35]
D
Weekly Roundup host, co host of Organized Money.
- [33:38]
A
That's right, I'm very busy.
- [33:40]
D
And this week we have Senator Elizabeth Warren on the Show.
- [33:46]
A
Whoa. All right, David Dayan, welcome to the show. Coming in and bigfooting us a little.
- [33:51]
D
Coming in big, coming in hot.
- [33:53]
A
Well, all right, that's apropos because Elizabeth Warren, obviously known for her work in the antitrust realm of the party, many of the trust busters that we had during the Biden administration sort of came from the Warren wing of the party. And this week we had two sort of major developments or non developments, I guess one could say, in the attempt to diminish corporate power realm that I want to talk to you about. And then also we can talk a little bit about the Democratic strategy on the, the government shutdown. But let's start with this. I am quite sure that sometime last year we spoke, we've spoken to probably a co host too, Matt Stoler and others about the Google, the cases against Google that were taking place last year. And in one of those cases, Google was found to have been engaging in anti competitive practices. They had violated antitrust laws. They were found guilty of being a.
- [35:20]
D
Monopoly by liable, you have to say liable lawyers will get you because it was a civil case, not a case.
- [35:29]
A
Where one has liable for being a monopoly. Although that's ironic based upon what has happened subsequently because their liability seemed to have been not terribly deep. But this was a D.C. district court. The judge was Judge Amit Meta. No relationship.
- [35:52]
D
No relationship to the company? No.
- [35:54]
A
To the company? Meta. No. And so the judge found Google liable for being a monopoly. And this was the remedy sort of phase of the trial where they determine what we're going to do to fix that. You're liable for being a monopoly. So now it's time to pay the piper, as it were.
- [36:20]
D
You can think about it like a criminal being found guilty of a crime and then there's a sentencing phase to figure out what we're going to do to punish the criminality. So it's like, I would also say.
- [36:33]
A
It'S almost like it's also the quality of restorative justice. What can the defendant do to fix.
- [36:40]
D
The right in this, in this case? Because it's, you're talking about a business. Yes. That, that you, you are sentencing the business effectively to do something to make sure that there are actually actual stipulations on what the remedy is supposed to do. It's supposed to end the illegal monopoly. It's supposed to disgorge the company of the fruits of that illegal monopolization. And it's supposed to make sure that this doesn't happen again with this particular company. That's what A remedy phase of a monopolization trial is supposed to do in. And there's binding Supreme Court precedent on district courts to effectuate that.
- [37:28]
A
And in the conversations I had, as we prefaced the remedy with you and others, you know, there was some question as to how effective the remedies will be. Will, you know, will they go? This ruling that came out, it's almost as if efficacy was not the issue. The issue is whether you're going to do anything at all. It was bizarre. I mean, that's the way I would characterize it. But you.
- [37:59]
D
It's a horrible, cowardly ruling. And I should say, to start that Google has been found liable of being a monopoly in three separate cases. This is only one of those three. This case involves Google search, which we all know literally. Google is a verb meaning to search for something at this point on the Internet. And this was the nut of this trial, was that Google was maintaining its monopoly by paying browsers or devices, companies like Apple or maybe Mozilla for the Firefox browser, for default status for their search engine, on a browser, on a phone, and paying huge sums of money, $26 billion paid to Apple in 2021 for maintaining this default status, which obviously, if they're paying that much, it was probably worth it to Google. Right? Because that default status, which people normally just sort of go along with, means that they were maintaining their dominance in the search market. 90% of all search goes through Google.
- [39:15]
A
If you're on your iPhone and you put in a search term in the URL bar, it goes to Google.
- [39:24]
D
Goes to Google. That's right. And Google pays for that. Google pays a lot of money. So that. That happens. And so the judge last year said that is monopolistic conduct. Now, you would think if that's the case, the least that the judge would do would be to say, google, you can't pay another company to be the default status in a browser. That is not the case. Judge Mehta said Google is allowed to continue paying for placement in these browsers, in these devices. And he said that, oh, but the deals don't have to be exclusive. They can't be exclusive deals. So in other words, Apple could get payment maybe from another company other than Google and use that to determine whether or not they're going to use what they're going to put into default. However, in this very ruling, Judge Mehta says, well, and I could get you the exact quote. But what he says effectively is Google has so much money that if they pay a lot of money to a Browser or a device company, because that device company is going to want to continue to renew their business, they're going to put Google in the default. And that means we're not going to have a lot of competition. In a sensory. That's literally in the ruling where he says you're allowed to still do that.
- [41:03]
A
Which is basically a monopsony. Right? He's, they've got a, they've got a monopoly as a buyer because they have so much money that nobody can afford to lose them as, as the buyer on someone.
- [41:16]
D
Right. And the reason they have all this money is because of the extreme amount of revenue they've been able to derive from having this illegal monopoly. And as we in search, the more data you have, the more queries you get, the better the search engine becomes. Because it gets more queries, it can refine that information. So literally that's the mother's milk having that data. And so maintaining the monopoly through this default search is literally what creates the money that allows it to then pay back, give a tip essentially to the browsers and, and the device companies and main. And maintain this dominance.
- [42:04]
A
How does the judge justify any of this? It doesn't make any sense. I don't understand how you find them civilly liable for being a monopoly and then ignore the three requirements of you and not just, not just do insufficient stuff. It seems it basically just like, like.
- [42:29]
D
Well, I mean, we should say what, what, what matter did sentence them to do so. It says the deals can't be exclusive, they can't be tied together. And then he did say that Google needs to give up some of its search data to other companies so that they can improve their products, thereby, you know, hopefully improving competition. Now this could help on the margins, but in reality, if you're still going to have those default settings, you're probably in good shape of maintaining that monopoly.
- [43:08]
A
Right?
- [43:09]
D
So that's what he did. And as far as why he said, oh, you can keep paying as Google, you can keep paying Apple, you can keep paying Mozilla. He basically said that if we take away this money from these browsers and device companies, they might not be able to deliver good products anymore. He's basically saying, poor Apple, one of the richest companies in the world. Poor Apple. If they don't get this $26 billion, your iPhone might not be as good. Which is crazy on a number of levels. First of all, really, we're worried about Apple's bottom line here. Second of all, this was a lawsuit about Google and the search market. And judge mehta is basing his remedy on how it would affect the phone market, which he didn't study, which is not part of the case whatsoever. So that was a really shocking and I would say illegal part of this ruling. The other big thing that Judge Mehta said is that, well, fortunately there's competition now in the search market because of AI. He basically said that, look, AI companies are getting a lot of venture capital money. They're going to create competitors to Google, things you can search on. And so we're all good here. We don't have to really go very far into punishing Google because of that. Now, the reality is that if you train an AI model, it only knows what it knows. Up to the end of that training. The only way for an A model AI model to have continuing knowledge about the world is to hook it up with a search engine. And the only search engine out there.
- [45:00]
A
Is Google is Google, right? Well, so, yeah, is there. I mean, I don't. I guess it would be the government, if wanted. Is there a way to appeal? I mean, I can understand, like, maybe Google can appeal.
- [45:18]
D
Both sides can appeal.
- [45:19]
A
Okay.
- [45:20]
D
And both sides, at least at some level, are likely to appeal. So this is a really interesting case where you're going to have a cross appeal because here's the reason why Google will appeal. Even though they got everything they wanted out of this remedy, they. There's still this verdict that says they're a monopoly in search, and private litigants can use that as a precedent to sue Google over various levels of conduct. And they're doing that. There are private cases against Google in that realm. So they want to appeal to strike down the ruling itself, the liability phase of the ruling. Why the government might appeal is because this is a crappy remedy. Now, is the Trump administration going to appeal this? I don't think so, because Trump. Look, what did we see last Thursday? Trump, with every big Tech CEO having dinner and them being completely obsequious and fawning all over him. He's been Big Tech's errand boy all over the world, threatening other countries to impose tariffs if they put taxes or regulations on big tech. I don't think he's too interested in pursuing this any further. However, there were partners to the Justice Department in this case, and those were at the state level. So there are several states that would have the ability to appeal this remedy, including the state of Colorado, which was the lead among the states on this Google case. And the AG there, Phil Weiser, is running for governor next year against Michael Bennett. The senator from Colorado, by the way. And I think attacking an oligarch like Google might play well in his election campaign for governor. So I do think that the states will probably appeal and also Google will appeal and you'll have this unique kind of cross appeal going on.
- [47:30]
A
When will we know whether any of those states end up doing their.
- [47:35]
D
Pretty soon. I don't have a timeline for you, but it's likely that we'll know pretty soon how they're going to attack it.
- [47:45]
A
Okay, good. So we're gonna have another bite at that Apple. Let's talk about the.
- [47:49]
D
I should also say that Google was found to be a monopoly in two other cases and one of them involves its advertising technology, its online advertising market. They were found to be a monopoly in that. And that remedy phase actually starts in a couple weeks. So we're going to see this again. And Judge Brinkama, who is in Virginia, who is the trial judge in that case, has been much more of a hardliner on Google than Judge Mehta, who is an Obama appointee. This reads like if Obama was a judge, very, very sort of evenhanded, don't make waves kind of thing. And I think Judge Brinkham is going to probably bring a stronger ruling against Google.
- [48:38]
A
Interesting. All right, let's turn to the, the other sort of, I guess anti corporate measure or at least I don't even know if you call it anti corporate as much as it is simply just, you know, doing something to level the playing field between the nature, yes, pro worker and that is during the Biden administration, Lina Khan, as chair of the Federal Trade Commission had propagated a rule, a ban on non compete agreements. Characterize that that ban. How wide was it, how many people would have been subjected, or I should say are subjected to non compete that otherwise wouldn't be if that ban had.
- [49:36]
D
Remained or millions of people is the answer. One in five Americans are subject to a non compete agreement. Currently one in five working Americans. And, and it's not just executives, not just executives. We're talking about pet groomers, we're talking about janitors, we're talking about fast food workers. A whole host of industries have been subjected to non compete agreements because they're not really about protecting business trade secrets anymore. They're really about suppressing wages. This is about saying to your worker, you can't go to another company in this field and therefore you can't have your services bid up in the attempt to sell your labor elsewhere and therefore you're stuck with whatever wage I give you. So that's what's going on here. And the FTC estimated when they put this rule out that it would bring $400 billion over 10 years back into the pockets of workers as a result of this. So that's a stunning number of money that's really being cheated by people because they're not allowed to bid up their wages. And in the marketplace what did the.
- [50:55]
A
The ban ever get instituted and for how long?
- [51:00]
D
No, it did not get instituted because it was finalized and set to go into effect. But there were a number of lawsuits and there were differing opinions issued in those lawsuits. So a judge in Pennsylvania said they rejected a lawsuit from a corporation and said the non compete agreement can go forward. But a separate judge in Texas said no, this was illegal authority by the FTC and we're going to block the non compete agreement. So you had these differing agreements and usually what happens in that case is gets funneled up eventually to the higher courts and eventually the Supreme Court. But before that had a chance to happen, we changed, we had a changeover in power in Washington and the new FTC under Andrew Ferguson had to make a decision as to whether to defend the cases or not. And what happened last Friday is that Ferguson, the chair of the FTC who previously voted against finalizing the non compete ban, so it was pretty clear what he was going to do, said I am not going to defend this ban in court. I'm not going to defend the ruling that was in Texas that is now at the 5th Circuit in Texas, in the 5th Circuit's in Texas and Louisiana and I'm going to exceed basically I'm going to surrender to the ruling of the district court and therefore that extinguishes the non compete ban entirely.
- [52:50]
A
Does the ruling in Texas in the 5th Circuit supersede the ruling out of Pennsylvania which is in. I'm not sure which circuit it is, but obviously a different circuit like I mean this is when you go to the Supreme Court very often when almost always when there are circuit court differences because you can't have one federal law existing in, you know, one quarter of the country and then it being different or non existent in another quarter of the country.
- [53:26]
D
So what happens indeed that is not how that is what you've described is how it's supposed to work. But because the FTC said nope, we're not prosecuting these cases anymore and therefore we give up, the fifth Circuit is right or not the fifth Circuit, but the district court judge in the fifth underneath the fifth Circuit is correct, they're not prosecuting the case in Pennsylvania and they're not prosecuting the case in Texas and therefore it's just over. And that's essentially what they've done.
- [54:01]
A
I guess. Why. What is most relevant about that, I mean to me is in the event that Donald Trump allows for elections, we have those elections, Donald Trump loses that election, the Democrat Wins or beats J.D. vance or Don Jr. Or whomever it is. How easy or difficult would it be for the next Federal Trade Commission chair to say we are reviving these bans against non compete?
- [54:43]
D
Well, it's an interesting question because weirdly, in an attempt to cover this all up, the FTC is kind of reviving it already in a weird kind of fashion. The day before they decided to surrender on this nationwide ban, they issued a one off enforcement action against the largest pet cremation services company in the country, which is a private equity roll up by the way, in case I needed to tell you that, of course. And they said we're stopping this company from, from these non compete bans that they are, from these non compete agreements they're forcing their workers to sign. And in a statement, Andrew Ferguson said something like the Trump Vance FTC will never stop fighting for workers. And literally they stopped fighting the next day. But the other thing that they did on Thursday, the day before basically ending the non compete ban nationwide is they issued what is called a request for information, a public comment period about the scope of non compete bans across the country. Now this original the scope of non compete agreements I should say, I keep saying bans. The ban, the rule on non competes already went through years long process of looking at the scope of non compete agreements across the country. There were 26,000 public comments that the FTC received about the non compete rule. Almost all of them saying go ahead and do this. And here's Andrew Ferguson who you know we have a bunch of nicknames for. But my personal favorite is what Burt Reynolds used to write in Celebrity Jeopardy as his name on Saturday Night Live, which was Turd Ferguson. So Andrew Ferguson says oh no, I just want to study non competes. So we're going to do another public comment period and people can tell us how bad these things are as if they're engaged in a real process to deal with the scourge of non compete agreements. So to answer your question in a long winded way, if Democrats take back power and take back the ftc, they're going to have a record about non compete agreements and what they are and who they affect and what the harms are. And presumably they would be able to return to adjudicate this rather quickly because.
- [57:30]
A
There'S going to be a record that's going to be provided for them as the Trump administration pretends that it cares about workers.
- [57:37]
D
Correct.
- [57:37]
A
Leading up to that. Well, I guess thanks for that. That's something. All right, let's move on to one other topic that you've been writing about. We are 21 days. I think it is from the potential government shutdown. People remember, I think it was back in March the government need to be refund funded again. And Chuck Schumer ended up leading. I think it was like 12 Democrats but initially it was closer to like six or seven or eight. They needed to provide those votes for the Republicans to pass a budget. And many people said don't do this. Donald Trump is like a burgeoning authoritarian. Doge is running around. Elon Musk is shutting down all sorts of agencies. They are talking about rescission, pulling back money that has already been appropriated by Congress. Right. And Chuck Schumer's argument at the time was, well, a government shutdown is exactly what Trump wants, which he could have easily orchestrated if that's what he wanted. But let's give Chuck Schumer the benefit of the doubt that, that, that you.
- [59:07]
D
Give Chuck Schumer the benefit of the.
- [59:08]
A
Doubt in this very narrow place that Donald Trump was playing, you know, 10, 10, 10 level chess here. And then what they'll do is they'll shut down things like Medicaid or they'll to fund agencies or I mean, gosh knows what he didn't say they'll make ICE the largest federal or the largest, I mean larger armies.
- [59:40]
D
If we only had access to the future, we could have figured out that Chuck Schumer was full of crap.
- [59:47]
A
Right. If there had been some document like you know, what we're going to do in 2025 by the Republicans. Right. Like they're Right.
- [59:55]
D
Like describing the whole project.
- [59:57]
A
Yes. Then maybe Chuck Schumer could have seen that's what they were doing. But.
- [60:01]
D
Right.
- [60:02]
A
Nevertheless, we're back here again. Chuck Schumer voted to fund and it wasn't even a clean budget resolution. It also had like a clause where the, the Congress would not be responsible for tariffs. So it got the Republicans off the hook in the House reversing Donald Trump's.
- [60:25]
D
Right.
- [60:26]
A
And it also had some other funding of stuff that the Republicans wanted. But we're back here again. Yep. Even Schumer's biggest supporters, folks like Ezra Klein who are friend of the show, friend of the show, friend of yours. Even Ezra Klein is now saying, well, it was a good idea then, but it's a bad idea now because somehow it seems like, I mean, look, Donald Trump has done all the things that Chuck Schumer said he would have done during a government shutdown, but worse, and has done so not totally undercover, but, you know, most people don't know the Consumer Financial protection bureau has 80, has lost 80% of their staff. Most people don't know that they're, you know, that all these grants have gone away, that we've destroyed Health and Human Services, that the fda, the usda, I mean, on and on and on. Most people don't know this because most people don't follow this stuff. So they don't realize how much of a crisis the US Government is in right now. They don't know about fema. They don't know about all these things because people live their lives and, you know, they're, they're got to make money and deal with your kids and whatever it is.
- [61:49]
D
So Chuck Schumer, I mean, the reality, the number that that comes, I think is most prominent in this is that at the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, Patty Murray's minority staff and has estimated that the Trump administration is currently withholding $410 billion in grants that were appropriated by Congress. In other words, as one of these budget deals, they said, we're going to give $400 billion to XYZ and Q. And Trump has just illegally withheld that money. And yet we're thinking about how are we going to do another budget deal where we give this, you know, we appropriate this money that Trump has already shown no willingness to abide by.
- [62:45]
A
And in, in the wake of that deal, you had people even like Nancy Pelosi saying, like, well, making a deal where you get nothing out of the deal, which is what Chuck Schumer brought home for the Democrats at that time. Not a promise not to do rescission, None, Nothing, nothing. Zero. Less than zero. He's now a little bit embarrassed about it. And so they're coming up of what the get can be, and they have come to the get to something that it seems to me Republicans desperately want to give, but want to be forced into giving, because Republicans are looking at one of the first, it seems to me, almost universal accountability moments where it cannot be ignored. And that is a, essentially a health care cliff. Describe it to us.
- [63:43]
D
Yeah, so in the Inflation Reduction act, actually initially in the American Rescue plan, but then extended in the Inflation Reduction act, the Democrats created new subsidies for The Affordable Care act exchanges. So if you get your coverage in these marketplaces before these new subsidies were added, there was a cliff in there where if you made over a certain income level, you suddenly had to pay a lot more for your health insurance. You lost all the subsidies. And so that got smoothed out, and basically across the board, the subsidies got more generous so that we had something approaching true affordability in these marketplaces. It wasn't universal healthcare, but by and large, these exchanges were much more affordable because of this and because the subsidies were expanded. And the last time this passed in the Inflation Reduction act, It was for two fiscal years, 2024 and 2025, at that point. And so at the end of 2025, these enhanced subsidies expire, and we would go back to the old system and what that means for an individual. We've heard some stories about health insurance rates going up, and that's largely because of the Medicaid cuts and the big beautiful bill and some of the other things. Health insurance rates are probably going up 6% or so, and for exchange coverage, they're going up something like 18%. But this is separate from that. These are the subsidies that allow you to afford that insurance. And if those subsidies are taken away, people affected by this could see, on average, more than a 75% increase in the cost of their health insurance, an incredible number, almost double the cost of their health insurance. And millions of people. Yeah.
- [65:51]
A
Overnight.
- [65:52]
D
Overnight. And the Congressional Budget Offices looked at this and said, okay, how many people are not going to be able to afford health insurance as a result of this? And they said 5 million people. So 5 million people are going to, according to this estimate, lose their health insurance because they will no longer be able to afford. Afford it. And those who will be able to afford it will just sort of barely hang on. Right. With a. With an increase of over 75%.
- [66:21]
A
Okay. And so people should understand this is coming from two directions. One, we have the biggest increases in insurance that we've probably seen maybe in a decade.
- [66:33]
D
Since the ACA.
- [66:34]
A
Since the ACA. So 2014. A decade. And then on the other side, the. The contraction, if not the elimination of subsidies. That helped a lot of people do that.
- [66:48]
D
Yeah.
- [66:49]
A
In the calculation, 5 million people are going to lose it because of how expensive it is to them. Have we figured out what the rate increase is going to be in the following year with 5 million less customers?
- [67:05]
D
Right. It's going to get worse and worse. That's what we know about insurance. Like, if you have a smaller risk pool, that means there's more of a chance that one person getting sick increases your costs. And then as an insurance company, you have to set rates that way and there could be a death spiral in the exchanges if they just become more and more unaffordable. So, yeah, that, yeah, it's, we're looking at year one here and the 75% increase, but it's going to keep going up.
- [67:34]
A
Let's go back to when John McCain gave his thumbs down for the repeal of the Affordable Care act back in 2017, 2018. I can't remember exactly which year it was. Donald Trump was furious.
- [67:50]
D
It was seven.
- [67:52]
A
But, but the Republican Party was largely thankful because they had no, they had no replacement for this. Now, they all wanted to vote against the ACA because that became sort of a totem for the Republican party. But John McCain knew he was doing this and a lot of the Republicans knew he was saving the Republican Party from themselves. Right now, Chuck Schumer is in the position of John McCain because the Republican Party desperately wants to avoid 5 million people losing their health insurance and others.
- [68:31]
D
And a large section of the middle class paying a lot more for health insurance. So, so let's just say even before this, you know, this deal we're about to discuss or proposed deal is, was put together, Republicans were talking amongst themselves, oh, I think we're going to have to extend those ACA subsidies because if we don't, we're really screwed in the election. So they were planning to do it themselves. I mean, it wasn't definite. They might not have gotten there, but there was going to be this big fight where they would either do it themselves or fail to get it done and then face the whirlwind of in next November.
- [69:14]
A
But they were also between a rock and a hard place because voting to expand or maintain Obamacare is poisonous to.
- [69:24]
D
Poisonous to their base. Absolutely. So they were in a really, really tough spot.
- [69:29]
A
All those Congress people are like, I don't want to get primaried from my right, and if I do this, I'm giving weaponry to some lunatic in my district to primary me from the right.
- [69:40]
D
And yet they know this is something I need because in the general election, I'm going to get pillared for it.
- [69:45]
A
Exactly. And so what they need is cover to have this done. And Chuck Schumer is like, hi, I've got cover. I've got something for you.
- [69:56]
D
The Baileys want me to cover it.
- [69:59]
A
And to be clear, Democrats could also agree to this legislation outside of the budget. They could say, like, this could be a Separate. Doesn't have to be part of the budget deal.
- [70:09]
D
Doesn't have to be part of the budget deal. It's obviously, you know, you could pass legislation on this anytime there is a bill. There are two bills in Congress already to extend these premium tax credits. One extends it for one year. And this is another important part of this. One of these bills, which was put together by a bunch of frontliners, you know, people who are worried about losing their election, bipartisan, says, let's extend it for one year. In other words, get it past the midterms, then we'll deal with it after that. Another bill put together by Democrats says, let's make it permanent. And, you know, the question is, what is Schumer gonna bargain for? Is he gonna say, I won't give you votes for the budget unless you extend it for one year, or, I won't give you votes for the budget unless you make it permanent? If you make it permanent. I still. There are a lot of reasons we can discuss why that's still a bad idea, but at least it's permanent, right? Imagine him saying, okay, if you extend it for one year, you know, just to get. To get Republicans past the midterms, then you'd be giving something Republicans need in exchange for passing a budget, which is something Republicans want. So, like, what is the trade here?
- [71:22]
A
There is no trade. This is, again, Schumer just trying to figure out how he can capitulate without in safe face. And it. And they, you know, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries are desperate for Democrats not to understand this dynamic, it seems to me. Right, Because.
- [71:43]
D
And they still have this pathology where they see themselves as the responsible party. And they can't imagine not. You know, they can't imagine a world where they shut down the government, even if Trump is violating the law, even if he is usurping the power of the budget, the power of the purse from Congress.
- [72:08]
A
Do you think it's still this pathology, or do you think it's just they're in service of some other constituency? I mean, this is absurd.
- [72:18]
D
I just don't think they're prepared for. Let's say they go with this. I mean, I don't agree with it, but let's say they go with it. And they say, okay, we're not passing a budget unless you extend the tax subsidies. And then Trump says, no, I don't think they're prepared for what to do in that instance, because they don't want. You know, like, if you're in a negotiation and you're you're offering something as a condition and you're not willing to walk away from the table, then what you're offering is meaningless.
- [72:50]
A
And the idea that like the, the, it's just stunning to me. This is such malpractice because we now see Democrats like, you know, their Republicans have higher approval ratings than Democrats right now. It's just, it's shocking. It is shocking there.
- [73:11]
D
And you have some people saying, yeah, but you know, Democrats still have higher ratings on health care. So if they can back Republicans into a corner on health care, this can be our ask and we, this is a winnable fight. I don't know. It's, it's 50 dimens chest. That doesn't make any sense to me. You're basically relieving Republicans of the consequences of their own actions and not getting any kind of assurances that oh, I'm not going to no guardrails about not following the budget that you're about to pass with them, et cetera, et cetera.
- [73:46]
A
How close is this deal into happening? I mean, I'm reading the things.
- [73:51]
D
I think it's very close. I mean, I think that Johnson's like.
- [73:54]
A
Oh, this is not something they desperately want. This, it seems to me Republicans desperate, like this is such a trap, it.
- [74:01]
D
Seems, I think the leadership would be happy with it. But I still think, you know, Republicans have some problems on their rights in terms of people who absolutely don't want to pass an extension of these subsidies. And they are concerned, you know, Mike Johnson still has, you know, the right wingers still have the ability to depose him from the speakership. Right. So there's still problems there on the right. And Trump has not shown any aptitude or interest in any kind of negotiation with Democrats throughout this entire term. So, you know, I think it's something that certainly there's a trial balloon out there. Democrats are thinking about offering this. I don't think they've formally offered it yet.
- [74:46]
A
This is.
- [74:47]
D
But if they do, I think there's an interesting dynamic on the right as to whether they would be able, they will willing to accept it.
- [74:55]
A
I will tell you right now.
- [74:56]
D
You believe, you believe they would.
- [74:58]
A
Look, everybody thought that they would capitulate the, the, that the right would, would have essentially sunk every other whatever, whatever it's been, the budget resolution, the single bill, the big beautiful bill, on and on and on and they always capitulate. Somebody's all just got to say to Trump like this is the safest thing for you and boom, it will happen. Homework for people Right now, if you live in a Republican district, you call and you say, no extension of the subsidies for Obamacare. I will not tolerate that. If you live in a Democratic district, you say no deal with the Republicans. We need to shut the government down. Unless Republicans are willing to fund the government and promise that. A whole litany of things, right?
- [75:49]
D
I mean, there are a lot of things you could argue over that you could get in exchange for a budget deal. But it's just hard for me to conceive of doing a deal with Donald Trump, who has been unwilling to hold up his side of any bargain. Like why are you negotiating with this?
- [76:07]
A
Absolutely. The guy has shown that he's a complete, he has total disregard for our laws.
- [76:13]
D
And I should say it's good that Ezra said that very plainly.
- [76:17]
A
I'm very happy to see him here. And it would have been nice if he took a cue from Jamelle Bouie and had done it seven months ago, or I should say 11 months ago. But whatever, better late than never, I guess. And so yes, we'll take that. And hopefully they listen to him in a way that Joe Biden listened to Matt Iglesias. So we will see. David Dayan, you are the guy that all these people should be listening to. They should be reading the American Prospect on a daily basis. They should be listening to big money, Organized money.
- [77:01]
D
Organized money. FM is where you go to like.
- [77:04]
A
The FM and of course your week in review at the Prospect on Fridays available on demand. David Dayen, always a pleasure.
- [77:16]
D
Thank you very much.
- [77:27]
A
All right folks, we're going to head into the fun half. Just a couple updates day and wrote about the FTC reversal essentially on the non compete clause. It will probably cost workers about $400 billion in over a decade. That would have been gained from that non compete rule because the non compete clauses in these contracts depress wage growth in addition to costing people jobs. And I don't know how you calculate having to retrain for a different job, et cetera, et cetera. So a heads up on that and over the coming days we'll talk about what the Democrats could ask for instead of giving the Republicans a gift in the form of them being forced to save the ACA without having their, without having to actually exercise any agency. It could be things like you can't racially profile, ICE can't racially profile. Which, you know, one would think that the Supreme Court would have ruled something to that effect. Or it could be like no rescission. Or it could be, I mean there's a whole host of, of things could be passed or asked for by the Democrats. Have the IRS go after corporations and millionaires and instead of rolling back, you know, policing their use of loopholes, I mean, there's a whole host of things that one could use that forcing Democrat, I mean Republicans to vote against and force them to vote against, not allowing racial profiling. I mean, there's a, it's just, it goes on and on. But you know, you go to war with the leadership you have unless you also go to war with the leadership you have to replace them.
- [79:57]
C
But wasn't this Schumer's whole theory of negotiation, which is that Trump would be so unpopular by this time that he would be able to get more after being more agreeable with Republicans earlier in the year?
- [80:08]
A
It's working.
- [80:09]
C
Let's see all the, look at the.
- [80:10]
A
Republicans are running away from, from him.
- [80:13]
C
We will have an experiment in that very theory in the coming months.
- [80:19]
A
I think we should actually dig up some of the interviews that he gave in the wake of that. As an example, remember he was also saying like we don't, we don't necessarily have a constitutional crisis. I mean, he's literally bringing the military into blue cities at this point.
- [80:37]
B
I mean, taking over the power of the purse as well.
- [80:41]
A
Folks, we're going to head into the fun half. Just a reminder, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member@jointhe MajorityReport.com when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, we also get the fun half. And also feel free to send the show to your friends. Give us a they still have reviews on what did they call? Podcast, Apple podcast, itunes on itunes. Time machine, bathroom walls.
- [81:14]
C
Yeah, that's helpful actually.
- [81:16]
A
That's surprisingly very productive.
- [81:20]
C
I mean, write the number on the bathroom walls of like Republican kind of, I don't know, areas. Yeah. Pick up spots and then you'll get the Libertarian collars back.
- [81:31]
A
Let's hope 646-257-3920 is that number. But also don't forget the discord majoritydiscord.com and am quickie. Check out the AM quickie three times a week for free email. 9am in the morning, Whitney and Corey do a great job of giving you the news that you're gonna need to know for the course of the day. Also, just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. Matt, left reckoning. Yeah, left reckoning.
- [82:10]
B
Tonight got an interview on Iran. Also going to be talking about this huge Jeffrey Epstein story about JP Morgan Chase in New York Times. And James TALARICO announces a U.S. senate bid in Texas. And I have some reservations about Talarika. I don't like that he took crypto money. But in a race that is him versus Colin Allred, I am all the way with the church boy.
- [82:34]
C
So Allred is gonna try again?
- [82:36]
B
Yeah, he's already announced.
- [82:38]
C
I didn't. I knew you guys were talking.
- [82:40]
B
He's a funding machine. So.
- [82:42]
C
Yeah, you and Griscom were talking about this a bit in Chicago. I hadn't known it was official, but I interviewed Allred back when he was a Justice Democrat, and he wasn't taking any corporate PAC money. He won and he got into office and he turned right around, became the most, like, centrist Democrat possible. And he just lost handily the last time he ran for Senate. So we're going to do that again, I guess.
- [83:03]
B
But he made a lot of money because you get into a room with them donors and you say, I'm a big, strong football man and that's what we need to win in Texas, and they start writing checks.
- [83:13]
A
Church boy is a perfect opposition to that.
- [83:16]
B
I'll take the church boy over Colin Allred, definitely.
- [83:19]
C
I will say Talarico went on Joe Rogan. And I have a friend who's kind of, you know, independent Rogan listener who said, I really liked what he had to say. So I'm gonna go with that guy. As opposed to the proven loser from the past.
- [83:32]
A
I mean, obviously we, you know that getting that Senate seat, as annoying as the person's gonna be, it doesn't matter who it is.
- [83:42]
C
Exactly.
- [83:43]
A
It honestly doesn't matter. As soon as they win, they're going to be our, like, if not our least favorite Democrat. Probably close to it, but the reality.
- [83:55]
B
Is, compared to replacement level.
- [83:57]
A
Yeah. I mean, they're just. We're not going to like them. That's just the case. There is just. We're in a situation where there's no way there's going to be 50 plus one Democrats who we were supportive of in terms of all their policies. It's just not going to happen. The number of Democrats who I appreciate in the Senate is probably in single digits. But the fact of the matter is that, like, you know, to the extent that we have judges who are stopping anything, it's a function of having majority of the Senate to the extent. I mean, hopefully it would be nice if some of these Democratic senators were running against Chuck Schumer in the way that some like Democrats used to run against Pelosi, but can bust the banner out. I mean, honestly, someone should also run against Jill Brand. But we'll play some clips.
- [85:04]
C
That's not until 2030. That's the thing that sucks. She just got reelected. And Schumer's not up till 2028, so. But this is the order.
- [85:12]
A
I know, I know. When Schumer's.
- [85:14]
C
This is the order. We primary Hakeem Jeffries first, then we primary Schumer, then we primary Gillibrand. These are the steps.
- [85:24]
A
Oh, also, check us out on Twitch. If you're on Twitch, you can assign your prime subscription to us.
- [85:33]
B
2000 concurrent viewers on Twitch right now.
- [85:36]
A
Whoa. Did we just get rated or something? Pretty consistent.
- [85:40]
B
It's actually closing up to where we are. I mean, we're. That's about five times that on YouTube.
- [85:44]
A
But they need you say it though, Sam. They want the Twitch streamers. Where's that box I bought? Because I want to say poggers and then have it echo. Poggers. See you in the fun. Half left is best. Jamie and I may have a disagreement.
- [86:09]
C
Yeah, you can't just say whatever you want about people just because you're rich.
- [86:13]
A
I have an absolute right to mock them on YouTube.
- [86:16]
D
He's up there buggy whipping like he's the boss.
- [86:18]
A
I am not your employer. You know, I'm tired of the negativity. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you. You're nervous. You're a little bit got upset. You're riled up. Yeah, maybe you should rethink your defense of that. You idiots. We're just going to get rid of you. All right, but dude, dude, dude, dude, dude, dude. You want to smoke this joint? Yes. Do you feel like you are a dinosaur? Good. Exactly. I'm happy now.
- [86:48]
C
It's a win, win.
- [86:49]
A
It's a win, win, win.
- [86:51]
C
Oh, hell yeah.
- [86:52]
A
Now listen to me. 2, 3, 4, 5 times 8479-065014-57238, 56, 27, 1 half. 5, 8. 3.9 billion.
- [87:08]
D
Wow.
- [87:08]
A
He's the ultimate math nerd. Don't you see? Why don't you get a real job instead of stealing vitriol and hatred? You left wing Limbaugh. Everybody's taking their dumb juice today.
- [87:16]
D
Come on, Sammy.
- [87:18]
A
Dance, dance, dance. Grandpa, I had my first post coital scene with a woman. I'm hoping to add more moves to my repertoire. All I have is the dip and the swirl. Fine. We can double dip. Yes. This is a perfect moment. No, Wait, What? You make under a million dollars a gig or scummy. You're not there. Excuse me. You. You liberal elite. I think you belong in jail.
- [87:47]
D
Thank you for saying that, Sam. You're a horrible, despicable person.
- [87:51]
A
All right, gonna take a quick break. I want to take a moment to talk to some of the libertarians out there. Take whatever vehicle you want to drive to the library. What you're talking about is jibber jabba.
- [88:04]
C
Classic. I'm feeling more chill already.
- [88:09]
A
Donald Trump can kiss all of our asses. Hey, Sam.
- [88:14]
D
Hey, Andy.
- [88:15]
A
You guys ready to do some evil?
- [88:17]
D
Hitler was such an idiot.
- [88:19]
B
That guy might be a Nazi.
- [88:21]
A
Agree. No. Death to America. You. Yes.
- [88:30]
D
Wow.
- [88:32]
A
Wow. That's weird. No way. Unbelievable. This guy's got a really good hook. Wow. No worries. Let's. Let's. I want to just flesh this out a little bit. I mean, look, it's a free speech issue. If you don't like me. Hey, hey, hey, hey. Shut up. Thank you for calling into the majority report.
- [89:00]
E
Sam will be with you shortly.