Loading summary
Transcript72 lines
- [00:00]
Warby Parker / Noom Advertiser
Every idea starts with a problem. Warby Parker's was glasses are too expensive, so they set out to change that. By designing glasses in house and selling directly to customers, they're able to offer prescription eyewear that's expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Warby Parker glasses are made from premium materials like impact resistant polycarbonate and custom acetate, and they start at just $95, including prescription lenses. Get glasses made from the good stuff. Stop by a Warby Parker store near you. Have you ever been stuck on a weight loss plateau, trying everything and anything you can to lose that extra weight and reach peak health? We've all been there, but Noom's unlocked a secret to reaching the mountaintop. Go in micro the Noom GLP1 microdose program starts at $99 and is delivered to your door in seven days. Start your microdose GLP1 journey today at noom.com that's n o o m.com micro changes big results Noom GLP1 RX program involves healthy diet, exercise and support. Individual results may vary. Meds and personalization based on clinical need. Not reviewed by FDA for safety, efficacy or quality. No affiliation with Novo Nordisk, Inc. The only US source of FDA approved semaglutide not available in all 50 US states.
- [01:14]
Pablo Torre
Hi, this is Pablo Torre from Pablo Torre finds out and today I want to talk to you about Boost Mobile because we spend a lot of time analyzing inefficiencies in sports, overvalued contracts, money tied up in the wrong places, and so on. But those inefficiencies aren't just on a roster. Sometimes they're in your own monthly expenses. Boost Mobile says switching to their $25 Unlimited Forever plan can unlock up to $600 in savings a year. That's $25 a month for unlimited data, talk and text when you bring your own phone. If that money is trapped in a pricey phone bill, it might be worth a second look. Visit boostmobile.com to learn more. After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers pay $25 per month as long as they remain active on the Boost Mobile Unlimited Plan savings claim. Based on a January 2026 Boost Mobile survey of a thousand Americans with single line unlimited plans, comparing average annual payments of major carriers to 12 months on the Boost Mobile Unlimited Plan. For full offer details, visit boost mobile.com
- [02:13]
Charlie Sykes
I'm Charlie Sykes. Welcome back to the to the Contrary podcast. Well, apparently Armageddon has been postponed somewhat. We have peace in our time, at least for now. At least for today, Donald Trump backs down from his threat to erase a civilization. Now, of course, Donald Trump is and you knew that he would do Donald Trump is saying, this is a great victory. This is going to usher in the golden age for Iran. Everybody else who's looking at the deal goes, wait, wait, wait. This looks like a, not just your normal taco. This looks like a fundamental strategic defeat. And the question is, is this deal going to hold? What happens when it falls apart? When in fact, people look at the details of the deal, are they going to realize Donald Trump this is the art of the Iranian deal, not the art of your deal? So there is a lot of ground to cover. And meanwhile, we have JD Vance campaigning for Viktor Orban basically side by side with Vladimir Putin in Hungary. And we need to talk about what's going on in the Department of Justice because that should not be below the radar screen. So let's get into it. And joining me on today's podcast is Scott McFarland, by the way, who welcome to Substack. Welcome to Midas. Touch one of the, I guess you're part of the CBS diaspora. Would you describe it that way?
- [03:39]
Scott McFarland
I'm an expatriate of CBS News and those five years there were wonderful. But it's time for a new adventure.
- [03:47]
Charlie Sykes
Well, let me talk to you about that because this was big news when you left. You were one of the senior correspondents, one of the most recognizable faces in CBS News. And then you basically said, yeah, I, I want to move on with my life. I want to go over to Substack. And, you know, within a couple of days, you were named the chief correspondence for, for, for Midas Such give me your sense of like, you know, your, your path and because it says something about the media that you would leave CBS News to come over here to substack. So can you just tell me a little bit about your thought process and how you made that particular jailbreak?
- [04:26]
Scott McFarland
The first thing I had to do was convince my wife that this is a good idea and that there's going to be a way to pay the mortgage if we do this. But people, I'm not sure anybody's ever voluntarily walked away from network news, but use that as an indication of how strong independent media is right now and why we need to be pressing on independent channels to get information more quickly, more conversationally and more straight to the point to people. The network newscasts air at 6:30pm on the east Coast. How many times have you wanted to wait until 6:30pm to get updated on something Big that's happened today. That is a, that is a declining mechanism to use to get people information. An independent media, we can get right to it, open the camera, tell you what we have, tell you what's reportable, tell you what it means to you, and speak directly to you without the freaking bells and whistles and graphics and theatrical opens and airplane hangar sized TV studios. That type of thing isn't necessary to communicate information. And independent media is showing that that's where I need to be.
- [05:34]
Charlie Sykes
What were the turning points for you, though? You had a successful career at cbs. What was it that, what was your tipping point?
- [05:42]
Scott McFarland
Well, if you're in network news, it is a fight each day to get bandwidth, to get airtime. I mean, there's a lot of very talented people working in cities across the world and they have news to report, too. And that broadcast each night is 22 minutes long. So a lot of good, important things get put on the cutting room floor. And that's, that's, that's to the viewer's benefit that the best of the best makes it into the broadcast. But how many times do you have something important you want to say, information you do want to communicate, and you don't have a space for it that doesn't fit for enterprise reporters who have things they want to report every few minutes. Yeah, I'm somebody who covered, when I covered January 6th, Charlie.
- [06:22]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah.
- [06:23]
Scott McFarland
I put a, I put a phone in front of my face and tell people what happened in court. And oh, by the way, a couple million people would watch that. That's the same audience we'd get in the broadcast space. So it made a lot more sense to funnel the energy, funnel the attention towards just talking right to people directly in as conversational and as casual a way as possible.
- [06:44]
Charlie Sykes
Now, I've read elsewhere, though, that the January 6th was one of those, I don't know, again, you know, turning point tipping point moments where you talk to me about January 6th and how that, how that that shaped your view of what was happening with the media.
- [07:00]
Scott McFarland
January 6th was a turning point for me and my viewpoint of legacy, traditional media in general. I mean, the misinformation, the contagious, malignant misinformation that Trump and allies continue to perpetuate about January 6, about the 2020 election, about the peaceful protesters that were inside the Capitol that day instead of insurrectionists, that they were hostages who needed to be freed versus prisoners who were convicted by juries of their peers, that malignant misinformation, not intentionally, but finds its way to seep into mainstream media continuously. I mean it's because they platform Trump live and don't stop him to fact check that issue. They platform his allies in Congress who continue to lie about January 6th without stopping it, without counterpunching it and sometimes you logistically can't stop it and counter punch it. Sometimes it's actually out of your control. So it didn't feel good to be part of a infrastructure in legacy media that platforms lies platforms conspiracy theories invokes a menacing out of people felt like it'd be better to kind of cleanse that out of our information ecosystem and tell truth, tell facts, tell news.
- [08:19]
Charlie Sykes
Well, for people who aren't familiar, you've really taken substack by storm. You come out with a day ahead. My daily editorial note, which I'm guessing you must get up around 5 o' clock in the morning to put out because by the time I wake up, you've already got the newsletter. Out of all the things that are going to happen during the day, I would strongly urge people to subscribe to it if you really want to stay up to it. But I wanted to stick with this for a moment because I think you make reference to is liberating to be an independent media, not just for being able to stay with the news cycle, but you're able to say things that you would not be able to say. I imagine there's a lot of things that you are will that you're able to say here on substack@mediastouch. I'm sorry at Midas Touch that you would not ever have gotten away with saying on CBS News. True.
- [09:13]
Scott McFarland
Yeah.
- [09:14]
Charlie Sykes
I'm a reporter.
- [09:15]
Scott McFarland
I'm not an opinionist or editorialist, so I'm somewhat restricted to what's reportable, but I get to decide what's worthy of time. I think when you see dozens of dozens of Democrats call for the invocation of the 25th Amendment or an impeachment review of Trump, I think it's important to communicate that. But it's also important to say that's a political rhetoric. That's not reality and they know it. But it's something they have to say because Trump's been that unhinged on social media and in other ways. But, you know, it's CBS news. I got 10 seconds to say that story. 10 here on Independent media, I have limitless bandwidth to put that in context to explain why it's a political message and why it may be an important political message. It gives you a good read on how popular this war in Iran was that they're talking about the 25th Amendment. Trump has not galvanized the country behind him, despite being at war. I got more time to put the kind of context behind.
- [10:14]
Charlie Sykes
I'm glad you brought, I'm glad you brought this up. And I don't want to be a buzzkill at the top of the show, but for the people who are saying, you know, it is now time to remove Donald Trump from to the 25th Amendment, and I understand the impulse, I understand the emotion, and yet, as you point out, this is not going to happen. Donald Trump's Cabinet is not going to get together and say, it's time to move on from Donald Trump. I mean, have you seen this Cabinet? Do you know who these people are? What would happen at the first meeting where they gathered to even discuss this? Donald Trump would just simply fire them all. So there's a certain amount of maybe venting going on when people are talking about the 25th Amendment. And it's an indication of how angry people are, what the politics are. But as you point out, look, this is not really going to happen. Right. And I, and I do think every once in a while, it's like, all right, before you go too far down that rabbit hole, let's have a reality check. Fair.
- [11:07]
Scott McFarland
Very fair. But it does give you a glimpse, a window into the political moment where Democrats are overachieving in special elections. They're feeling incredibly bullish about November and putting a real check on Trump by winning the House and or the Senate. But think back, Charlie. When we were younger in 1991, when George H.W. bush, Persian War, had an approval rating that was almost 100%.
- [11:30]
Charlie Sykes
I mean, it was 90 at the
- [11:32]
Scott McFarland
start of the Iraq war. After 9, 11, George W. Bush commanded a bipartisan set of statements and votes in his behalf. They ain't happening right now. I mean, you got Democrats talking about the 25th Amendment. That's what the war in Iran looks like politically in Washington. That's how divisive and unpopular it is. So when they say, impeach him, 25th amendment, that's nonsense. It's never gonna happen. But it does give you a window onto how unpopular he is right now.
- [12:02]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, it did strike me listening to that. And of course, the last 72 hours or so with Trump's demented rants about erasing civilization, I suppose, you know, if we had had this conversation last week, I would have been somewhat skeptical about whether or not a Democratic majority in the House, you know, will or should go ahead with impeachment proceedings. It seems like right now, if I had to put my money down, Donald Trump's going to be impeached a third time. What do you think? I mean, it feels like there's that much momentum that Democrats almost could not say no to their base. If they take the majority, if Donald Trump continues, which he will continue to behave in this egregious manner. What do you think?
- [12:44]
Scott McFarland
Well, I talked to Democratic campaign officials and Hakeem Jeffries this week. It's quite clear to me they have a mission to campaign on prices, on gas, on food, on everything getting more expensive and everything being too unpredictable for families. And you want to come out of the gates with a new majority showing a laser focus on the mandate you believe you've won and the issues you've championed. So I don't see a quick move toward impeachment out of the Democrats. I think that would just be. That would be the antithesis of what they campaigned on. But I also mindful that the January 6th impeachment, there's a lot of regrets over how that went. That seemed like a slam dunk to the impeachment managers. The Republicans who voted to convict Trump in the Senate, I think were gobsmacked there weren't more joining them that There were only 10 House Republicans. They're almost all gone. They were surprised the numbers weren't larger. It begs the question, Charlie, did Democrats fire their impeachment bullet too soon on the Ukraine issue and make it less of a volatile weapon, less of a powerful weapon when January 6th happened and impeachment seemed necessary?
- [13:57]
Charlie Sykes
Well, and also, it does seem that sometimes the impeachment or the pushing against causes people to rally around. The harder you push at something, the more resistance you get. Okay, so I do wanna talk about Iran and what happened, but there are so many other things that I wanna make sure we get. And you made a reference to a couple of them. The first are the special elections, which continue to show a real gap, an enthusiasm gap between the right and the left. And Democrats, Democrats continue to overperform. And I want to talk about what just happened here in my home state, my home county. I live in Ozaukee county in Wisconsin. And as I wrote in my newsletter yesterday, look, I've been involved in state Supreme Court elections around Wisconsin for a very, very long time. And so believe me when I say that what's happening right now is really a bfd. You had the liberal candidate for the Supreme, Chris Taylor, winning more than 60% of the vote here in Wisconsin, where everything is right on the race 60%. And she flipped places like my home county, which used to be one of the Republican strongholds. And so once again, you are seeing this shift. And I would just say historically, conservatives used to dominate the Wisconsin Supreme Court, had big majorities, won all of these elections and they have had one defeat after another and, and basically felt like they kind of gave up. This year it was not a real high profile race. But liberals now control the Wisconsin Supreme Court 5 to 2 and will control the court through 2030. So this is, you want to talk about a political shift in a key swing state, and that's certainly one of them.
- [15:34]
Scott McFarland
And if I'm not mistaken, it's a state with not just a competitive House race in its southwest area, but gubernatorial race coming this year. Yeah. Everything is coming up roses right now for Democrats if they can get, if they can get that kind of margin in a state Supreme Court race in a state that doesn't have that kind of margin typically. And you had, I think, 12 counties in Wisconsin that were red in last year's court election go blue this year. That's a big shift. And I think that's indicative of what's to come. And I also know Georgia, Georgia, in part because Democrats made incredible inroads narrowing the margin in the Marjorie Taylor Greene seat. But the road to the Senate majority goes through Georgia for both parties. If they can pluck off Jon Ossoff, Republicans are much better situated to hold the Senate. Democrats have to protect Jon Ossoff to win the Senate. Georgia is giving them good early indicators in April. It is.
- [16:34]
Charlie Sykes
And I would say, by the way, this is not really a digression. I get text messages from people all the time. And I got a text message yesterday from J.D. vance saying, Charlie, this is the most important election in 2026. And it was about Wisconsin. Now, keep in mind that J.D. vance is in Hungary right now campaigning for Viktor Orban, you know, the authoritarian, ill liberal leader of Hungary. But he took time out from his trip to Hungary to send me a text message saying how important the congressional race in Wisconsin is. So he's campaigning for Derek Van Orden, who's the most vulnerable Republican in Wisconsin in the western part of the state at the same time, Viktor Orban. So I'm just throwing that out here for Democrats that J.D. vance, Viktor Orban, Van Orden, same day, same time. So this is what's going on again. Before we get to Iran, talk to me about what's going on with the Department of Justice. Todd Blanche is now, you know, has now Taken Pam Bondi's place. And I got the real vibe from him that he was kind of campaigning for the job yesterday. So tell me what's going on in the Department of Justice, because this is in your wheelhouse. You know, that place inside now, what's happening there?
- [17:48]
Scott McFarland
I got the same vibe, in part because Blanche literally said I love you to Trump in one of the responses he was giving about why he's loyal to Trump. So, yeah, that sounds like somebody who's trying to audition. I'm not sure what the pathway is, Charlie, for somebody to get confirmed by this U.S. senate as the next Attorney general. I'm not sure what it is, so I'll explain why in a moment. But I'm also not sure Trump cares about Senate confirmation. He made a great use of acting Cabinet members in his first term, and he may want to just keep the next acting attorney general on a real short leash to ensure he exerts leverage over the Department of Justice. So he may have an acting attorney general for a while. So the path to getting confirmed through the U.S. senate means you got to get approved or at least have a favorable report from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Tom Tillis did something important that we're not talking about.
- [18:37]
Charlie Sykes
Enough.
- [18:38]
Scott McFarland
Thom Tillis said declaratively that he will not, with his swing vote on the Judiciary Committee, approve any nominee for attorney general who denies January 6th. And that is a hell of a bar for a Trump nomination for the Department of Justice. If you have to be a January 6th realist, somebody who acknowledges it was an insurrection, it was a horror, it was a threat to democracy, it nearly destroyed democracy. If you gotta be one of those people, you're not in Trump's orbit, or you're not.
- [19:06]
Charlie Sykes
You're not gonna be on that short list new.
- [19:08]
Scott McFarland
And you're not gonna get the. If you're the other person who denies January 6th, you're not getting Thom Tillis's vote, you're not getting out of the Judiciary Committee. I don't know who can be confirmed as the next attorney general, so I think we may have an acting attorney general the rest of this year. What does that mean? It means Trump has a little more leverage even than he did already over how the Department of Justice investigates things and who the Department of Justice investigates. And Charlie Todd, Blanche, yesterday, I should say earlier this week, said at a news conference that, yeah, Trump has some interest in the people we're investigating. We're fine with that.
- [19:45]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah. And he didn't rule out an attempt to save to spare Pam Bondi from having to go to testify about the Epstein files. What are you hearing? Is the Department of Justice really going to now go after. Is it Cassidy Hutchinson, who everybody remembers, one of the star witnesses in January 6th? What would they go after her for? I mean, we know why they're going after her, because she's, you know, Donald Trump wants her head on a platter. But. But do we have any idea, like, is there some legal theory about why you would go after somebody who testified before Congress?
- [20:17]
Scott McFarland
It's a really good question. First of all, you need. You need not have an actual, you know, reason to launch a criminal investigation in this Department of Justice, at least not a criminal reason, because we've seen grand juries say no to cases this Department of Justice has brought multiple times. They knocked down that case that was being offered against Letitia James, the New York Attorney General. Grand jury seem to say no to this preposterous notion of prosecuting six Democratic members of Congress for recording a video in which they read the military code of justice. So grand jurors are stopping some of these investigations because they don't have a real criminal kernel to them. So the same can be true of Cassidy Hutchinson. It can be an investigation into a whole bunch of nothing, but it still causes her trouble, it still causes her pain, still costs her money and heartburn, and that may be part of the motive here. I have a source at the Department of Justice which confirms the reporting that there is an attempt, an investigation, to potentially criminally charge Cassidy Hutchinson. Here's the issue that so many Trump allies have with her. Not just that she testified at those primetime hearings that millions of people watched about January 6th, and she was a star witness who had some very interesting things to say about what was going on in the White House while the insurrection was going on at the Capitol. The lethargy and ambivalence at the White House. She painted a pretty colorful picture. She did give some secondhand information during her testimony that she had heard somebody tell her that Trump made a move for the steering wheel in the Beast to try to direct it somewhere on January 6th. She was pretty unambiguous. That was secondhand information. I think that information ended up being untrue or demonstratively untrue. So she's been accused of. Of. Of lying. I. I think that's a misrepresentation because she was explaining that this is somebody, something somebody else told her, not something that she saw with her own eyes or heard with her own ears. But when that fell apart, there were calls to investigate Cassidy Hutchinson by the same crew that denies January 6th was an insurrection at the 2020 election was legit.
- [22:20]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, so so much for
- [22:24]
Warby Parker / Noom Advertiser
taking care of your eyes. Shouldn't be a hassle. That's why Warby Parker is a one stop shop for all your vision needs. Our prescription glasses and sunglasses are expertly crafted and unexpectedly affordable. Stop by a nearby store or use our app to virtually try on frames and get personalized recommendations. Did we mention we offer eye exams and take vision insurance too? For everything you need to see, head to your nearest Warby Parker store or visit warbyparker.com today. That's warbyparker.com Unlock the savings at Boost
- [22:55]
Pablo Torre
Mobile and save up to $600 a year I've been scouting these big carriers for a minute now and I've seen them pull the same play a thousand times. They promise you the world, then hit you with a price hike right when the game gets tight. But boost mobile, their $25 a month unlimited wireless plan, is the most consistent player on the floor. No contracts, no price hikes. Unlock the Savings today@boostmobile.com Unlock based on average annual single line payment of AT&T Verizon and T Mobile customers compared to 12 months on the Boost Mobile unlimited wireless plan as of January 2026. For full offer details, visit Boost Mobile.com
- [23:26]
Charlie Sykes
that okay, so as part of our mission not to let too many things fall below the radar screen, you have actually been following some of the court cases involving the Trump Ballroom and the Kennedy center. And I guess I'm just somewhat skeptical that anything can stop Donald Trump from building the ballroom or inside of Find the Kennedy Center. But, but people are, people are trying. Where are we at there?
- [23:52]
Scott McFarland
The judges are a firewall and have been over the last 15 months. Whether they can stop these two is an open question. But they have started to slow the process down by having legal challenges thrown out there in court. Former Kennedy center board members filed a brief in support of the current Kennedy center board member, Joyce Beatty, the Democratic congresswoman from Columbus, who says this, this is an unlawful process. They're trying to shudder gut the Kennedy center and do great damage to it. Judges hearing arguments right now, but you can see the mobilization of people trying to get the courts involved to stop Trump or at least slow that thing down. If they don't slow it down, Charlie, the place closes for two years on July 4th. And Lord knows how you rebuild from zero the Kennedy center in two years. As for the secondary issue where you've got people fighting on Matters involving the Federal Reserve Board, people fighting on matters involving Trump executive orders. All this stuff goes through the courts and it can be a process and a pain to the administration. But I agree with you. There's no indication you're going to stop things like the ballroom or the Kennedy center from eventually happening.
- [25:04]
Charlie Sykes
Yeah, in the future, we'll have an interesting debate about what does the next president do without that ballroom and with the Kennedy Center. But that's, that's, that's for another day. Okay, so big story, big elephant in the room, obviously, is what happened with Iran. We had, you know, on Easter Sunday, the President, United States putting out an F bomb laden threat that he would attack Iran if they did not open the Strait of Hormuz. You crazy bastards. This Easter Sunday. Easter Sunday, people thought that was the most deranged tweet they'd ever seen, even from Donald Trump. He said, hold my beer. The next day came out, threatened to erase an entire civilization. Monday was a tense day, and I'm underplaying it. I mean, this was throughout the day Monday, the entire world shocked, waiting for some sort of a, what, mass disaster, a catastrophe, when you have the President, United States threatening to erase a 7,000-year-old civilization at the last minute. They came up with a deal, a ceasefire deal for two weeks. The 10 point Iranian deal, the 10 point deal looks like. Give me your sense on this. I mean, Donald Trump, of course, is saying what a great victory it is. It looks to a lot of observers as not just a taco, you know, Trump always chickens out, but as a really fundamental, almost Suez crisis level strategic failure. So, first of all, what is your sense and how is this playing in Washington? Are people buying the. Yes, my complete surrender to Iran. It was a great victory and it's a golden age. What do people think? What do they make it? What's the fallout?
- [26:54]
Scott McFarland
Awful lot of cynicism, an awful lot of skepticism. This was a good deal. And that's not just from the predictable parties. There's this unique coalition of conservative talk radio, longtime Trump allies and Democrats across the board saying it looks like he gave away the store in the name of reaching an artificial deadline he himself set. The Strait of Hormuz now being under more direct Iranian control with, unable to leverage it more for power. It's not an ideal situation. The, you know, the efforts by the US to exact some pain on the Iranians seems to have worked, but wasn't debilitating to the hardliners who now continue to run the Iranian government. And I'll tell you, I, I'm really taken by the silence from his party on those unhinged social media posts. You didn't have the normal supporters of the president going out there saying, yeah, we should destroy a civilization because, or yes, we should destroy bridges and power plants aggressively because. That lack of support of those posts gives you an indication of how unpopular those were and how those did not resonate with everybody who's typically on Team Trump.
- [28:10]
Charlie Sykes
Well, what I think is really gobsmacking about this deal, as you point out that you go through each of the points and frankly, and I quote Phillips o', Brien, who is an expert in strategic thinking, basically, look, no regime change, no denuclearization. It gives Iran a green light to enrich uranium. Iran keeps control of the Hormuz Strait and gets to charge tolls. A complete US Withdrawal, compensation to Iran for war damages, the lifting of all sanctions against Iran that had been imposed by other administrations. So, I mean, his take on this is that Iran is in a much stronger strategic position than it was on February 27, the day before the war began. This is what he writes. Edit all together and Iran has basically proposed a detailed plan for its victory and Trump has accepted it as the basis of negotiations. Now, we're gonna see how those talks go. But it looks like Iran is in an excellent position to improve its security, secure massive reparations and tolls, and end its diplomatic isolation and, and improve its nuclear technology. It is hard to think of a more comprehensive US Strategic failure. Now, other people may have different takes on that, but what's yours?
- [29:33]
Scott McFarland
I keep viewing it through the prism of domestic politics because we are in an election year and people are getting crushed by gas prices and by what it does to food prices and vacation and airline trips. I don't see that moving the meter at all. Politically, he is an unpopular war that was divided along party lines, which is a preposterous thing to have a war that's divided down party lines. But Trump has accomplished it. None of these 10 bullet points seem to have won anybody over that wasn't won over already. And it has drawn skepticism from his own allies. Lindsey Graham's asking questions about this deal. Mark Levin is asking questions about this deal.
- [30:12]
Charlie Sykes
And these are the big cheerleaders.
- [30:14]
Scott McFarland
Politically, they are cheerleaders. And I'm not sure where he's gained politically at all. And it's not an unimportant time politically. If he wants to continue his agenda internationally and domestically, that Democratic controlled U.S. house is going to be a problem. And he seems to be walking right into it. And these 10 points don't seem to have helped.
- [30:34]
Charlie Sykes
Well, what was interesting. And try to think about what somebody's going to do, a timeline of what happened yesterday through the day. We know he starts off, you know, with this threat. And then throughout the day, you know, seemed pretty adamant that that 8pm Eastern Time deadline was solid. We're going to do it. He calls up Brett Baer and he says, I'm serious about doing it. I think a lot of people around the world thought he was going to actually do it. The Pope did something that was truly extraordinary. We ought not to pass that over. The American Pope actually came out and told people to contact their Congress, congressional representatives, to back away from the madness. This is how alarmed the world was. And yet he backs off in the end, it seems that at some point, the Iranians didn't want to be bombed, of course, but Donald Trump also didn't want to go through with it. That Donald Trump was looking for an off ramp, and he was willing to take any off ramp, including this absolutely humiliating off ramp. So by the end of the day, perhaps he was thinking of it in those same domestic political terms. I just got to get out of this thing. I'm willing to walk away without regime change. I'm willing to let them keep the enriched uranium. I'm willing to do anything. I'm willing to give them control over the Strait of Hormuz as long as I can extricate myself and not have to worry about the gas prices, not have to worry about the markets, because, I mean, he clearly just doesn't want this to go on. And so Lindsey's now enjoying his time back under the bus.
- [32:00]
Scott McFarland
I talked to Adam Smith, who's the top Democrat on the House Committee on Armed Services, who says the US can't blow up the civilization in a matter of hours. It's a. A fan fiction, fanciful idea to begin with. The Trump nukes offering that proposal. Well, exactly. Unless there's nuclear weapons, which is perhaps an even scarier prospect than trying to blow up a civilization through traditional means. You can't do it. So it was an empty threat to begin with. An empty threat that was views as morally repugnant on an artificial deadline. It is hard to jam yourself up more than putting all those things together into the same. Into the same demand. So if it's not a good deal, if time shows it's not a good deal, you might be able to attribute that to an artificial deadline that the President set for himself.
- [32:49]
Charlie Sykes
Could just bear with me, Scott, it's almost as if this raises the possibility, the remote possibility, that maybe Donald Trump is not the master negotiator that he thinks he is, that he is not the art of the deal guy. Because what you're describing is not, you know, not, not four dimensional chess. It's basically how he backed himself into a corner. Is it possible that Donald Trump is just not that good at being a negotiator?
- [33:18]
Scott McFarland
Real estate deals are different than War and Peace. I'm just, I'm just assuming. Who knew that they're different? I'm no expert at either of them, but they're probably. I wouldn't have my realtor out there negotiating with a third party country. I think that they say it so often that they reaffirm he's a master negotiator. If he is, you shouldn't have to say it. If you're the greatest, you shouldn't have to say it's one of those things where don't tell me how great you are. Show me how great you are. The more I hear he's a master negotiator from his cabinet, the more cynical I think people are.
- [33:47]
Charlie Sykes
Now, when I wrote my newsletter yesterday, I sort of backed away from the details of the deal as they're sifting out. And the point I was making was sometimes once you say something, you can't unsay it. You can't un ring a bell and use the term morally repugnant. And it was this morally repugnant moment where the whole world is going, okay, we are waiting on the whim of this man who represents the United States of America. And I do wonder about the long term implications of this. And not to get too earnest or corny about this, but, you know, the whole world is looking at the United States and realizing how dangerous we are. We saw the damage that we did with Trump's rhetoric about Greenland. What do you think the fallout from this is going to be? Because, you know, American exceptionalism used to be, hey, you know, we might fall short, but we were aspirational. We were a symbol of freedom and hope and decency and the rule of law. What is the United States seen as right now? I mean, what is the kind of long term generational fallout from the threat, leaving aside the fact he didn't follow through on the fact, the fact that the President of the United States says those words, the kinds of words that you only hear from the monsters of history, what do you think the fallout's going to be? The damage done.
- [35:15]
Scott McFarland
You can see how it would possibly fuel anti American sentiment globally and domestically. By the way, where we have a heightened security concern about domestic terror, are people exacting terror here on US Soil? The fractures of the relationships are not easy to rebuild. You can see that with NATO. I mean, the more President Trump dunks on NATO, the harder it is for NATO to step in when, when the US Needs them to. Even though the NATO Secretary General visited Washington Wednesday, you know, fix a relationship that quickly. And I, I do wonder, does the next guy seek to repair some of this internationally? Does he seek, does he campaign on, I'm going to fix these things internationally? And is that a winning campaign message? Or do Americans like this Trumpist position on international affairs? It's going to be a real rorschach test in 2028.
- [36:06]
Charlie Sykes
Well, you know, you think about the 250th anniversary of this country, and, you know, I, and again, I keep coming back to the, you know, what made us exceptional? I mean, I was a believer in American exceptionalism, but it wasn't because we had the biggest biceps or because we had the bristling, you know, arsenal. It's because of what we represented. And I'm willing to concede, you know, obviously we fel of all of that, but I just think that this, and we've talked in the past about soft power, just the importance of soft power. Donald Trump dismantled much of our soft power. But there's also that image, that sense that if you were an Iranian two months ago, you might look at America as being someone who might come and save you. That would liberate you. In a more rational world, the world might have been with us going after this evil regime. In a different world, the Iranian people might look at us as, you know, you are our friends. But the Iranian people spent yesterday thinking, what happened to American values? Who are you? What is America in the world? How is America morally different than Vladimir Putin? And this is just a horrific thing for me even to say. And yet my guess is that tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people around the world are saying, you know, what is the moral authority of the United States of America? Why should I think of the United States of America, you know, differently than I think think of the, the other rogue nations of the world.
- [37:29]
Scott McFarland
I bring it back to the domestic affair that made us look questionable to the rest of the world. You understand, what other world powers were saying the night of January 6, 2021, were they weren't worried about the stability of America. That was an unstable moment in our history. And it's been whitewashed. It's been, it's been completely misrepresented by the president. History is literally being erased from the government websites. And he freed and pardoned everybody involved with it.
- [38:01]
Charlie Sykes
Everyone.
- [38:03]
Scott McFarland
That's a moral repugnancy to a lot of people, especially the victims. And it really does beg the question is that can he get away with such a thing again? Can he do things that are viewed as morally repugnant and then just try to raise, whitewash them in the months and years to come? We have some history. Did it once.
- [38:23]
Charlie Sykes
You're my spirit animal on this. And I really appreciate the fact that you bring this up because it does feel as if this is memory hold. And folks, we all saw it on television. There are pictures. You can Google it. This is a man who incited an attack on the Capitol to overturn an election. So we have these discussions like, well, is Donald Trump going to interfere with the midterms? Is Donald Trump going to go along with a peaceful transfer of power? And it's like people, you know, have you. I understand we have this collective national amnesia, but he's already done it once and he is far, you know, less fettered now than he was back then. But, you know, this is one of the most extraordinary things in my lifetime is to, is to watch that January 6th, January 7th moment where America saw Donald Trump in Technicolor for what he was and they decided, yeah, they were okay with that or just simply, as you point out, whitewash it. The fact that, you know, on today's program, we're talking about possibly a criminal investigation about a White House aide who blew the whistle about that, that, that is the focus. The people who beat cops up, who tase cops, they were pardoned. The people who tried to tell the American people about an attempted overthrow, they are the ones. I mean, talk about the world being turned on its head, the justice system being turned absolutely upside down.
- [39:42]
Scott McFarland
Yeah, it's fair. But Charlie, we continue to talk about it, the victims continue to talk about it because they now believe there's been no accountability. All the rioters have been freed and lionized. Trump is back in office, whitewashing the history. January 6th is a kinetic current part of our country's politics and our country's view of government. There's no memory holding it, even if they try to.
- [40:08]
Charlie Sykes
Okay, one last question. The time we have left the Epstein files, whether or not you think we have been successfully distracted from them, previous podcast guest was arguing, no, they are still going to have an impact on the Midterms because they connect the dots about the privileged elites. What is your sense? Because again, you've watched how stories in terms of the news cycles, scandals that would have dominated the news for months or forgotten within 10 minutes. The Epstein files has been the one exception, hasn't it? So give me your sense of whether it will have momentum going forward for the rest of 2026 in Congress. Outside of Congress, I think it's safe
- [40:53]
Scott McFarland
to say this is what a doctor would call a chronic condition. If you and I walked in here with a bad knee, the doctor would say, you didn't just injure it. It's a chronic condition. Get used to it. Try to figure out how to alleviate the pain. That's what the Epstein files is going to be throughout this term. They can never at the administration prove that they've released everything. Even if they tried to, they couldn't convince everybody everything's been released. So there's always going to be a question or a theory that there's a cover up going on and that the administration's got its fingerprints all over it. Even if they were being fully transparent, giving up everything they could, they'd never be able to disprove the negative. So this is going to be a chronic problem for them. It's going to flare up like a bad knee from time to time. When Pam Bondi gets deposed on April 14, that's going to be a flare up. Whether she shows and answers questions from Democrats and Republicans or whether she finds a way out of it, it's going to be a problem either way. Every time another name comes up, every time another conversation surfaces, every time another piece of paper has another interesting nugget, it flares up for them and the president's name's all over the file, so he can't say he knows nothing about the guy. And we're respectfully Democrats have been pretty effective at driving this message and keeping the attention on the Epstein files, perhaps understanding that it's about justice and helps servicing the victims and the survivors. But also if they're helping inflame a chronic condition for the administration politically, well,
- [42:20]
Charlie Sykes
and then let's circle back to the point you were making before. Another flashpoint will be if there is an appointment to the position of attorney General, those confirmation hearings will be a flashpoint. You know, Todd Blanch, who clearly wants the job. If Donald Trump names him as Attorn Attorney General, he is all over the Epstein file. Fubar. He is all over the attempts at the COVID up. He was the guy that went down and tried to turn Ghislaine Maxwell around. So if Blanche is the appointee, would it be reasonable to expect that the confirmation hearings would be very much dominated by discussion of the Epstein files?
- [42:58]
Scott McFarland
You're going to get a lot of questions about the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a low security prison camp in the hours after she sat down with Todd Blanche for what seemed like a softball interview. Yeah, I'd bet the farm that there's a lot of focus on that.
- [43:12]
Charlie Sykes
And yeah, I wouldn't take that bet. Scott McFarland, thank you so much for joining me again. If you don't subscribe to the day ahead, your daily editorial note and you have the Scott McFarland Show. I'm sorry, Scott McFarlane reports. And you've actually been staying on this Epstein story. You talked with one of the survivors. Where can we find the McFarlane reports?
- [43:36]
Scott McFarland
Best place to find it. It's on YouTube and substack. And I know it's on YouTube punctually because my kids find it accidentally and say, dad, this is boring. I don't want to watch dad talk. So that's not the best endorsement. But I pledge to you it's not boring. It is interesting. It's straight to the point. It's news in my voice every night with a newsmaking interview.
- [43:59]
Charlie Sykes
I am sure that it is not boring, but at least your kids are seeing it.
- [44:03]
Scott McFarland
Exactly.
- [44:04]
Charlie Sykes
See, that's like the first that you're in the algorithm that they're seeing. So you know, they should be warned.
- [44:10]
Scott McFarland
And they know I'm working at least.
- [44:11]
Charlie Sykes
Scott, thank you so much. I appreciate it very, very much. And thank you all for listening to this episode of to the Contrary Podcast. I'm Charlie Sykes. Once again, this is another week where we need to continually remind ourselves of this one important thing. We are not the crazy ones. Thank
- [44:31]
Scott McFarland
you. Foreign.
- [44:41]
Pablo Torre
Hi, this is Pablo Torre from Pablo Torre finds out. And today I want to talk to you about Boost Mobile because we spend a lot of time analyzing inefficiencies in sports, overvalued contracts, money tied up in the wrong places and so on. But those inefficiencies aren't just on a roster. Sometimes they're in your own monthly expenses. Boost Mobile says switching to their $25 Unlimited Forever plan can unlock up to $600 in savings a year. That's $25 a month for unlimited data, talk and text when you bring your own phone. If that money is trapped in a pricey phone bill, it might be worth a second look. Visit boostmobile.com to learn more. After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience lower speeds. Customers pay $25 per month as long as they remain active on the Boost Mobile Unlimited Plan Savings claim based on a January 2026 Boost Mobile survey of 1,000Americans with single line unlimited plans, comparing average annual payments of major carriers to 12 months on the Boost Mobile Unlimited Plan. For full offer details, visit boost mobile.com
- [45:40]
Scott McFarland
Acast powers the world's Best Podcasts here's the show that we recommend.
- [45:47]
Warby Parker / Noom Advertiser
With so much uncertainty in the economy, we need to rely on experts we can trust. So Money, hosted by me, Farnoosh Tarabi, is a Webby Award winning podcast now in its 10th year. The new York Times calls it one of the most respected personal finance shows out there. As a financial journalist for more than 20 years and best selling author, let me tell you it is a privilege to produce this show. And whether you want to save more, invest or negotiate a better salary, I've got you covered with fresh episodes three times a week. And here's something extra. I'm giving away a free money call to one lucky listener every week. A chance for you and I to talk one on one and create a personal plan for your goals. Listen and subscribe to Sew Money wherever you get your podcasts.
- [46:31]
Charlie Sykes
ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere.
- [46:37]
Scott McFarland
Acast.com.