Loading summary
Transcript273 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign.
- [00:14]
B
Welcome to Uncovered. It's Wednesday. I'm Anthony, he's Ron. And together we're about to uncover the MAGA propaganda that is not covered by the mainstream and corporate media. Ron, hope you've had a good week. We hope. I know you, I know you're busy cause I read your daily Midas news blog and it's probably just to give it a little plug. It's probably the most in depth news coverage. Uncovering the reality and the facts, not this kind of alternative universe that the regime has created for us in this weird authoritarian hellscape. Breaking news is that Steve Witkoff, who is Donald Trump's special envoy for or everywhere, I guess, or certainly Russia in this case everywhere, has just had a meeting with Vladimir Putin last night. And there is, there is an update we've been waiting to hear because wasn't tomorrow the deadline or Friday the deadline for the Russia to Friday ceasefire in Ukraine, otherwise something was going to happen. What was going to happen? What was the leverage?
- [01:19]
A
Well, I mean he threatened SEC secondary sanctions on any, which is secondary tariffs on any country that bought oil from Russia. And of course, you know, there are some big countries that buy Russia from oil from Russia. The two biggest are China and India. So you know, if he was going to hit them with 2550 tariffs on any thing the US buys from them if they buy Russian oil, that would be very significant. And I can tell you that there's a lot of people in Europe who are like very excited and Ukraine thinking that that was going to happen because they, they correctly view this as Russia's Achilles heel is their oil industry. You know, it fuels their entire economy and their war machine. So you know, if you cut off their ability to sell oil on the international market somehow then you've, you, you've just wiped out Russia's economy.
- [02:14]
B
So let's read what Trump posted on Truth Social. My special envoy. Not ours. Not America's special envoy. Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff just had a highly productive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Great progress was made. Afterwards I updated some of our European allies. Everyone agrees this war must come to a close and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come. Thank you for, for your attention to this matter. Okay, so where do we start with this? Taco Trump is probably the best place to start. Or Taco Trump as you might say. Is that fair enough?
- [02:54]
A
Yeah, I mean the meeting was only three hours, which is not a long time to discuss a lot of heavy duty stuff. So what that tells me Is that, and then, you know, this statement comes out from Trump, like immediately thereafter after he first talked to Zelensky. So they have this meeting, Witkoff contacts Trump, Trump contacts Zelensky, then he puts out the statement. It all happens very fast. So what that tells me is that Putin had something very specific that he went in there and proposed and Witkoff took it to Trump and Trump took it to Zelensky and everything got, probably something got worked out. My. It hasn't, nothing, no specifics have been announced. But here, here's what I think is going on. Over the last month, Ukraine has focused almost all of their attention in their longer range weapons, which they have recently acquired, on Russia's oil refineries. Russia's oil refineries are not well protected at all by air defense systems. I think that they've, they have focused their air defense systems on their population centers, on their military bases, etc. Not on their oil refineries. And so they have taken tremendous damage. Gas prices in Russia have gone up tremendously in the last month. They've spiked. And obviously it's harder for them to sell oil on the international market, especially if Trump hits countries with these sanctions. So what I believe is that what Putin wanted is for Ukraine to stop bombing their oil refineries. Okay, that was number one. And, and what Ukraine wants is Putin to stop bombing apartment buildings. So what I think Putin proposed, and we'll see if I'm proven correct when the, when the details finally are released, is I will stop bombing your population centers for 30 days. He probably put a number out there if you can get Ukraine to stop bombing my oil refineries. And so my guess is that this is sort of like a temporary limited agreement just to do that. And, which probably, you know, I don't know. I mean, Zelensky wants his people to stop being killed and, and Russia wants their oil.
- [05:13]
B
You know, I mean, that's a, that's a tragic amount of leverage, isn't it, considering that Russia's more, more protective of its oil than it is of, of its military and its people. My view is probably less detailed than yours. I guess I have more of an overview. And that is that I do believe that Donald Trump takes his orders from Vladimir Putin. And I think that it's basically whatever Putin wants is what Putin's gonna get in this case. And Putin makes himself entirely unavailable. And when he does make himself available, I think he's very clear. I don't think he negotiates. I think he basically tells Trump in this case, via Steve Witkoff, what it is that he needs. So I don't think that there will ever be any true punishment of Russia as long as Donald Trump is in office. And actually this is going to end up being a very softball, temporary solution, if anything. And I think that's very sad. But that's the reality that Trump is glued to Putin more than he is to Europe.
- [06:20]
A
I'm sure this has to be very frustrating for Zielinski and Ukraine, you know, because they finally, you know, they found something that is really hurting Russia a lot. They found their Achilles heel, you know, and they're, they're really pressing that. And then, you know, of course that, that, and that's the only reason why Putin is, is willing to do anything, willing to even talk is because of that, because Ukraine is really hurting their economy. And so, yeah, it's a, I'm sure that, I'm sure that Ukraine probably doesn't want to stop bombing, you know, the refineries, but they really probably don't have much of a choice. You know, clearly, if this, if this could get Russia to, if, if they struck a deal, let's say a long term deal where the war would continue. All right. But Russia would agree not to bomb, to only bomb military targets, not civilian population centers. And Ukraine would do the same, which includes energy infrastructure on both sides. But they continue fighting on the battlefield. You know, that would be the best case scenario. But whether any agreement is going to go that far is very questionable.
- [07:33]
B
Well, Trump has keep saying it's Biden's war is kind of, you know, he doesn't want to have anything to do with it, really doesn't really care and you know, there's nothing he can benefit here. And, and he's done, done this work around selling weapons. Right.
- [07:49]
A
He wants to be the peacemaker. He wants the, the Nobel Peace, the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, he wants credit for ending this war. He does want that, you know, very, I think he wants that very badly.
- [08:00]
B
But has, I think, I agree that he probably wanted that for the first three or four months because of course he promised to end it on day one. But I think he's also come to realize there was this whole coverage a few weeks ago of has Trump finally worked out that Putin is not actually a good person and his best friend after all, and that maybe he's been played. And, and so, you know, Trump's just got egg on his face now, hasn't he? I guess that's what that coloring is.
- [08:26]
A
Yeah, yeah. And I think so. He's Looking for a way to save face, too. Not only is he looking to be the hero, get credit for ending the war, but he's also looking to save face on all of his campaign promises.
- [08:35]
B
Right.
- [08:35]
A
And he wants to be able to fulfill them, because he does look like a fool after making all those promises, so. Yeah, but we know Putin. I mean, he's only going to do things that are in his interest. He doesn't care about peace. He doesn't care about Ukraine. He doesn't want to end the war. I mean, the most, you know, dumbest thing about Trump's statement that you just read was he said everyone wants the war to end, which, of course, is, you know, it's just a ridiculous statement to make. Putin does not want this war to end. I mean, he wants it to end. If Ukraine is completely subjugated, you know, and Zelinsky and the leadership of Ukraine is dead. Yeah. Then he wants it to end, but he doesn't want it to end before that. So for Trump to continue to say like, Putin wants peace is really insulting.
- [09:19]
B
Putin also could be leveraging things like, get me back into the G8 or.
- [09:24]
A
Absolutely.
- [09:25]
B
Or the US needs to leave NATO. You see what I mean?
- [09:28]
A
Like, sanctions lifted.
- [09:29]
B
Right. These are the other things that he has.
- [09:32]
A
There's lots that he wants. Sure.
- [09:34]
C
Right.
- [09:35]
A
I mean, and the only thing he's. So far, he's been willing to. I mean, he hasn't been willing to do anything. So my thing is, like, I think he escalated the bombings of the population centers over the last 60 days specifically for this day, so that he wanted to make it as painful as possible. And they just bombed a maternity hospital two days ago.
- [09:58]
B
Yeah.
- [09:58]
A
And then. So that he could extract as much as many concessions as possible to get him to stop doing that. It doesn't mean he's going to stop the war, but he may agree to temporarily stop bombing hospitals.
- [10:13]
B
It's just the whole thing is just. It's so depressing because the wrong people are representing the US and, you know, as our negotiators, you know, Steve Wykoff is not a master diplomat. That's not his experience, and, you know, no experience. It's. So it's just all these people that Trump brings in. I mean, we'll talk a little bit later about, you know, the Olympic Committee that he's heading up. But, I mean, it's like bringing in people that have no experience because they are loyal. And that is the theme, really, with Donald Trump. And so America suffers because these people are all idiots. But Trump Benefits, because they are all going to blow smoke up his backside.
- [10:58]
A
Yeah. I mean, Marco Rubio should be the one doing this.
- [11:00]
B
Right.
- [11:01]
A
But, but Marco Rubio, you know, has his own. He's not, he's not, he's going to push back a little bit on some of this stuff. Not a lot, but a little bit. Whereas Witkoff will become Putin's friend, as we've seen over time.
- [11:14]
B
Right.
- [11:15]
A
So the other problem is, if you're gonna have a, have a real estate, if you want your crony buddy, real estate pal from New York City to be your special envoy to Putin, that's fine. But, you know, here's the question. Why him? No, why is it a buddy of his, why is it a crony of his that he trusts completely and, and to have these conversations with Putin? Because he, and, and why does he not bring anybody with him? He doesn't even bring his own interpreter. He doesn't bring anyone from the State Department, same as Helsinki, no diplomats, people. Because he doesn't want anyone in the room to know what's being said between Putin and Trump as he relays things back and forth. He doesn't want anyone else in that room, which is a dangerous proposition for the world, really.
- [12:03]
B
And it's no different to when Steve Witkoff is in Israel talking with Netanyahu.
- [12:09]
C
Yeah.
- [12:10]
B
And trying to deal with Gaza.
- [12:13]
A
Or Iran.
- [12:14]
B
Or Iran. It's probably more about how can I build the Gaza Riviera with Trump's hotel in the middle? Then that's like the priority is how we, how can we mine this for revenue and business opportunities.
- [12:27]
A
Look, he does, he learned his lesson with Vindman, you know, and impeachment one, you don't want anyone else in the room when you're having these kind of conversations because you can get impeached because whistleblowers will go to Congress, you know, so. Or the, or the press. So he learned that lesson in term one, and that's why it's Witkoff and no one else doing this stuff.
- [12:50]
B
And this exposes the pure corruption of this administration based upon, I mean, the, for me, the biggest of the, of the most corrupt positions is Pam Bondi and, and Todd Blanche, you know, just like basically Trump's personal legal team. That, that for me, will come again. We'll come on to that later because we are going to talk about the Epstein files in a little while, and then people can get their kind of daily, daily dose of what's happening there. But that this is a problem across the board with this administration, from Tom Homan through to, you know, anybody and everybody that Trump has handpicked. They're handpicked for their loyalty, their ability to lie convincingly and their ability to enact these horribly corrupt policies and, and, and try and sell them as if they're normal when they're anything but.
- [13:45]
A
Yeah, yep, absolutely. So, yeah, I don't know. You know, we'll see that when the details come out. I, I suspect it's not going to be good. I suspect that Ukraine was forced to agree to a deal that they don't especially want to agree to, but they really had no choice. And maybe there's no deal, it's going to be temporary.
- [14:03]
B
Maybe there's nothing wrong. I mean he, you know, based on that, on that there may, there may.
- [14:07]
A
Be nothing other than promises. There may not even be what I said, you know, there might, there may be less than that. Right. You know, so, because that truth social.
- [14:15]
B
Post actually just says typical Trump language, doesn't say anything, does it? And it's again that two or three week time shift that he likes to do where he hopes that some other shitstorm has happened in a couple of weeks time and everyone's forgotten about it.
- [14:29]
A
Well, and the other bizarre thing about this is yesterday he put out the notice. He actually put out an order. I saw the order. So it's more than a true social post. Imposing sanctions on India for buying Russian oil. An additional 25. Now we buy a lot, we trade a lot with India. Right? A lot. And we already had a 25 tariff. So this is an additional, so now we're talking about 50 tariffs on India which is just a massive tariff on a huge trading partner. So this is very bizarre because he hasn't taken this back yet. So he went ahead and imposed the secondary sanctions, the secondary tariffs on India for buying Russian oil, but did not do the same with China, who buys even more Russian oil than India or Brazil or any other country that buys Russian oil. He didn't do this. He specifically targeted India and then he didn't take it back later, least not yet. So what I think is really going on here is his, his negotiations with India have gone nowhere. Y, they've basically stopped even talking to the U.S. they're just not going anywhere. Part of the problem is, yes, India has a massive trade deficit with, which is kind of a nonsense number anyway. But because look, India doesn't, isn't just simply isn't able to buy very much from the, that's manufactured in the United States. They're the average consumer in India is Not able to buy many things that are made here. So we just have this natural inbuilt trade deficit with this country. And so what I think is that Trump is using this Russian oil thing as like a pretext just to stick it to India even harder in these trade negotiations.
- [16:26]
B
Sorry, I just lost you for a moment then. Oh, your last sentence you just disappeared for, but not your fault. We should probably talk very quickly about leveraging policy and using tariffs to leverage policies where what I'm trying to say is normally tariffs, you know, you're, if you're doing trade deals, you're doing trade deals. If you're discussing kind of issues of state and international relations, then that is separate. But what Trump is doing is he's kind of crossing those over, isn't he? And he's basically threatening countries like Brazil for wanting to prosecute Bolsonaro for his insurrection. And, and, and, and this is so interesting to me is that this is probably the first time that a president has ever leveraged this, these kind of international sanctions with tariffs over political issues that actually have nothing to do with America. Is that, is that fair to say?
- [17:33]
A
It's. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's an interesting, it is something I don't think any president has tried before. It's an interesting proposition. Well, here's, here's part of the problem. If you're just thinking about it from like a real politician, you know, a president can do whatever he wants and think at it from that level, like he's an authoritarian ruler. Using the US Market as leverage, excluding people from the US Market as leverage to accomplish other foreign policy goals is an interesting idea. I suppose it could be. It US is in a unique position in that so many countries around the world have companies in their countries that are very dependent on the US Market and selling to the US Market. So I suppose as. As a matter of just real politic. Sure. Any president use the use of tariffs to accomplish other foreign policy goals is an interesting thought. Certainly not something that would ever be taught in like an international relations class.
- [18:35]
B
Right.
- [18:35]
A
The State Department, but a novel idea and one that's not. I wouldn't completely dismiss it if it was in the hands of somebody who was like, intelligent. Okay, but, but okay. His justification for imposing, first of all, Congress is allowed to impose tariffs in the Constitution, not the president. So, so in other words, like the president using these tariffs, he's only allowed to do it under the law that was passed by Congress under like emergency war powers. Right. That's the justification. So it's like an emergency power. And, and, and that is being litigated. That's in front of the.
- [19:18]
B
We're being attacked by Venezuelan gangs, remember Ron?
- [19:21]
A
So, yeah, I mean, so he's invoked this for ev.
- [19:23]
B
Yeah.
- [19:24]
A
So many different things.
- [19:25]
B
Yeah.
- [19:25]
A
Which is the Supreme Court's. So the Supreme Court ultimately is going to have to decide does the president really have this power, this, this power to use tariffs to basically sanction foreign governments? Because like you said, the, the legal underpinnings of tariffs under our constitution, is it supposed to be economic related? These are two separate lanes, separate things.
- [19:51]
B
But the reason he's doing it, it's interesting that you say, could it be a smart move? My view is that he doesn't know how to do international relations. It doesn't know he's a, he's, he's a, a real estate guy. Right. So if India is buying oil from Russia, Trump doesn't know any other thing other than to hit them with a tariff. It's the simplest thing. Tariffs is his language. He's been talking about them for 30 years. And so that is really all that's in his skill set. Like a percentage number, a, a random number chosen on a vibe because he feels grieved. So that's what he's. How he punishes people. It's a very gangster like way business.
- [20:35]
A
What else can he do to get India to stop buying Russian oil? That would work like, you know, diplomacy, reasoning with them, appealing to their sense of morality. You know, I mean, I mean it's probably correct that like nothing else could work. But that's what diplomatic. But is that legal? Is that constitutional in our system? Yeah, you know, that's why I was separating out like, let's just assume a president can do whatever he wants. Is this a smart tactic versus, like, okay, now the second argument. Is an American president even empowered to.
- [21:15]
B
Use terrorists by cutting the State Department in half as he has? You see, Trump has no understanding of what diplomatic channels are all about. And, and these back channels and these diplomats and these people that work in the State Department, they would probably in previous administrations advise the President on how to stop India from take, you know, taking oil or buying oil from Russia. But because he, that's all been gutted. So really all that's left and because he wants to have all the glory and flex his muscles is I'm imposing a 25% additional tariff.
- [21:52]
A
Yeah.
- [21:52]
B
It's so basic, it's so base level and it's probably what's going to end up getting us Into World War Three. That's my one.
- [22:00]
A
Well, that's the other question is we don't know that this is going to work. I mean.
- [22:03]
C
Right.
- [22:04]
A
You know, just because it's a, it's an interesting, novel approach to foreign policy doesn't mean it's going to work. It doesn't mean India is going to suddenly. And that's what the Indians have responded to this. I've read their foreign policy ministers and they've said, look, we have long term contracts with these Russian companies to buy oil for X number of years at X amount. We can't just turn on a dime and cancel all those contracts and find all the oil that we need for our economy elsewhere.
- [22:32]
B
And again, Trump doesn't know this. He doesn't care for this detail.
- [22:36]
A
Yeah. It's like those things are, that's what he's, they're trying to explain to him. Like, it doesn't, like you can't just shift your entire economy on a dime as far as, for a billion people, you know, be on a whim of Trump.
- [22:50]
B
Yeah. I don't think he realizes. He doesn't, because he doesn't know anything about the demographic or the culture of these nations or even where they are. To him it's just, just words and just percentages. It's, you know, and in the meantime, every time he's changing these tariffs, there are people working in back offices in countries all over the world. There are people at the ports, there are exporters and importers. Imagine what their paperwork is like. It's like, you know, what time is it? Oh, Trump's changed the tariff again. Like the, I just feel for the people that are having to pick up the slack of Trump's kind of whims and his. And this is why the global economy is crashing and will continue to crash.
- [23:38]
A
And really, like over the past month, I think that like for four, three or four months, companies really didn't feel the brunt of these tariffs.
- [23:48]
B
Yeah.
- [23:48]
A
You know, they, a lot of them hadn't even kicked in yet. They were, a lot of them were delayed. And I think that a lot of them were in denial and I think the market is still in denial that they think that this is all going to go away sometime soon. But when you read a lot of the financial analysts, the economists, the industry analysts, as I, as I do every single day, you know, what they're saying is the reality is now sinking in with a lot of CEOs.
- [24:14]
B
Yes.
- [24:14]
A
That these tariffs are here to stay. And they may be here to stay. For the next three years. And they're now sort of dealing with the reality of that. Whereas I think they have been eating the tariffs, they have been stockpiling on inventory as a short term solution to deal with this. But all of that has now come to an end and now they're dealing with the reality that, like, he's not going to back down on all of this. Like we thought he's like legitimately, seriously going to do this. So I think the economic pain is really starting to be felt like from this point forward.
- [24:53]
B
And remember, Trump is going to lie about the data when we get to that point. And he's, because he's already telling us that the tariffs are doing wonderful and he's lying about all the deals that have been done and claiming that, you know. Oh, why did you change your mind, sir? Oh, well, you know, they're giving us all this money.
- [25:09]
A
We'll, we'll, there's one, there's one thing about the tariffs that he is telling that he does tell the truth about, and that is how much money it's bringing into the government. I mean, the government, the last two months has taken in a tremendous amount of money in tariffs from the American consumers. And, and part it's come partially from companies eating the tariffs, cutting into their profit margin, and partially from the consumers. But as every economist and CEO says over the next few months, it's gonna, these companies are not going to eat anything, right? It's all going to be passed on to the consumer once they realize these are not going away.
- [25:49]
B
And once they realize, or once we all realize, hopefully that Trump is lying and about the leverage that he has and the deals that he's done. You know, that announcement about Europe where they're giving us $600 billion and I can do whatever I want with it. Let's take a look at that clip.
- [26:04]
A
Mr. President, what kind of teeth, though, are in those, in those investments? What kind of teeth are in those investments mean that would force the EU to make those investments. If they don't make those investments, what happens on the other side?
- [26:16]
D
Well, then they pay tariffs of 35%. No, no, they brought down their tariffs. So they paid $600 billion. And because of that, I reduced their tariffs from 30% down to 15%. And a couple of countries came, how come EU is paying less than us? And I said, well, because they gave me $600 billion. And that's a gift. That's not like, you know, a loan, by the way. That's not a loan that, oh, gee, Three years comes up, we have to pay it back. There's nothing to pay back. They gave us $600 billion that we can invest in anything.
- [26:48]
A
We want the deal that you.
- [26:52]
D
And nobody knows it, Becky. Nobody knows it because, you know, they don't know.
- [26:55]
A
No, we have been trying to figure.
- [26:57]
B
Out the details on that, Mr. President.
- [26:58]
D
So there are no details. The details are 600 billion to invest in anything I want. Anything I can do anything I want with it. And the purpose was they've been, you know, ripping us for so many years that it's time that they pay up and they have to pay up. We couldn't afford to have the deficits. Look, I did something with Switzerland the other day. I spoke to their prime minister. The woman was nice, but she didn't want to listen. And they paid essentially no tariffs. And I said, we have a $41 billion deficit with you, madam. I didn't know her. I said, we have a $41 billion deficit and you want to. You want to pay 1% tariffs. You wanted 1%. I said, you're not going to pay 1%. We lose because I view deficit as loss. You know, you have some people. By the way, I think pharmaceuticals are.
- [27:44]
A
A big issue with Switzerland. I think.
- [27:46]
D
Well, I'll go into pharmaceutical. Pharmaceuticals. They make a fortune with pharmaceuticals, and they make our pharmaceuticals in China and Ireland and everything else. And within the next week or so, we're going to be announcing tariffs on. Specifically, this is a. You know, this is a separate class than the 15% tariffs on sort of everything. These are excluded classes. I call them. I like to call them excluded, like steel, aluminum, etc.
- [28:11]
E
Right.
- [28:12]
D
We're going to be announcing on semiconductors and chips, which is a separate category because we want them made in the United States. And by the way, they're being made in the United States.
- [28:21]
B
You know, we have all lies, all of it. I should probably just quickly read the statement that came out of the eu. Two senior European Commission officials clarified that this money would come exclusively from private European companies with public investment contributing nothing. They said it's not something the EU as a public authority can guarantee. It's something that's based on the intentions of the private companies. This is a 600 billion billion that Trump is talking about.
- [28:49]
A
Yeah, exactly.
- [28:51]
C
Right.
- [28:51]
A
I mean, I've been saying this for weeks. Right? Yeah. So I didn't need that statement. I mean, because I. I saw the, the outline of the agreement.
- [29:01]
B
Yeah.
- [29:02]
A
What Trump is saying on a. On a financial network, on cnbc, where the hosts all Know better. I mean, they, this isn't him going on Fox or even NBC or CNN where like, you got some paid person who's paid to read a teleprompter asking the questions. He's on cnbc. These people know what they're talking about. And he's saying something that is complete fiction. And I watched that whole interview because it was absolutely bonkers. And they were at times like exasperated, shaking their head, laughing, like they, they, it's like they couldn't, they didn't know what to do with him. He, it was just, there were so many lies. Every statement was just a fire hose of obvious lies. And, you know, they tried to push back sometimes and then eventually I think they just kind of threw up their hands. And as you saw with that one, where she knows what he's saying is a lie, but she's just like, you know, trying to humor him and get him to stop so they can ask the next question, you know, whatever, but there's no stopping him once he gets going. But look how Trump is selling this. Is that the EU to the American people? He's saying the EU is giving him $600 billion. What he just said, as a gift for him to then invest in an.
- [30:21]
B
America, whatever he wants. Yeah, right.
- [30:23]
A
When the reality is there's no money. Zero. There's. The EU is not giving us a penny. Trump is not investing anything. What the EU has pledged to do in order to get the tariff deal that they got, they promised that companies in Europe will spend $600 billion over the next several years in the United States, which, where did they arrive at that number? I read, I read their, I read a lot of European reporting. How did they come up with that number? They came up with that number because that's what they were planning on spending anyway, just on oil and weapons. 600 billion over the next several years. So they just took what they were already, plant what, you know, their, their member nations were already planning on spending in oil and weapons and, and promised that to Trump so he can then go lie about what the agreement is so they kind of get what they want, you know, and this was sold in Europe as this great disaster for Europe and stuff. Look, I mean, you know, a lot of this is smoke and mirrors. You know, if, if, if you believe Trump. Sure, the deal was terrible for Europe, but that's not. I think they're just acting like the deal was bad for them to kind of pretend like they're giving Trump a win.
- [31:43]
B
I 100% agree. I think, you know, Ursula von der Leyen is very smart. As we said last week, she's totally played him that I think all of these nations now know that you have to give Trump a win. You have to give him something to announce. It doesn't matter if it's not going to be followed through with because he don't really care either. He just likes the kind of public face of this. It's a little bit like, you know, I was, I was watching this clip with him and Bibi Netanyahu in the White House and he had just made this reference, very quick line. He said, yes, I was just talking to Bibi about this backstage. Yeah, backstage, yeah. It's all a show. This is just a TV show to him. And as long as what's happening on the studio floor is good for the cameras, then that's all that matters. Let's, let's talk about in that same.
- [32:36]
A
Interview, by the way.
- [32:37]
B
Yeah.
- [32:37]
A
You know, he told the interview that his approval rating was 71. I mean, and the guy was like, joke. Joe Carnan is a Trump supporter. I mean, he's the lead host of cnbc. He's their number one guy. Right. He's their Jake Tapper.
- [32:52]
F
Right, right.
- [32:52]
A
So, you know, he, he's like, no, no, no, he's like, I've, I've seen some polls in the high 30s. He's like, no, he's like, what you're talking about is your approval in the Republican Party. And Trump was like, oh, no, no, that's 94. You know, it's like, you know, Kernan's just like, all right, man, you know, whatever.
- [33:10]
B
Like the whole world is having to deal with.
- [33:12]
A
That's what you're gonna get.
- [33:14]
B
You know, the whole world is having to deal with Trump's random number game. Whether it be on, on, on his polling, whether it be on tariffs, whether it be on foreign gifts that he says, they've given me, they haven't given the US they've given me. Including a plane from Qatar worth 400.
- [33:30]
A
Lies about that billion dollars. Right. That's not going to cost us anything. You know, I mean, they've hidden, they've.
- [33:35]
B
Hidden the cost of that in, in, in, you know, some budget that is never going to be discovered and then it's going to end up with his foundation and before you know it, it's not going to be.
- [33:45]
A
They shifted the money away that was allocated to modernize our nuclear weapons.
- [33:49]
B
That's right.
- [33:50]
A
That's our ground based nuclear weapons. They shifted it over to the plane. Yeah, refurbish his plane and it replaces going to keep.
- [33:57]
B
Yeah, it replaces his, his 35 year old 7:57.
- [34:02]
A
So tax dollars that were being used to up grade our ancient ground based nuclear arsenal, right, is now being put into Trump's plane.
- [34:12]
B
I mean if people on his team cannot see the, the corruption and the theft, I actually think that people are starting to be able to see this. I think that there is so much brazen corruption that we're starting to see, especially some of these town halls and other places where a Republican voter is standing up for their rights as a, you know, regular working American. And you know, I do think that the tide is turning. Let's talk about Texas, because this is a perfect example of the corruption. Basically Trump says to Greg Abbott, find me five more seats. That's what I need. Greg Abbott. Yes sir, yes sir, of course I will. The only way he can really do that is by gerrymandering, redrawing these boundary lines. He takes it. You know, they need to obviously vote on it and they require a quorum. The Democrats know that if they're out of town, they don't have a quorum. And so fascist Greg Abbott's like, arrest the Democrats. I mean the corruption is not, and the fascism is not just coming from the White House. Now we're starting to see it in these Republican states. Two, let's take a look at what Greg Abbott had to say.
- [35:32]
F
It opens up several opportunities. One, bribery in Texas is a felony. Felony is the type of offense that we can issue papers to have these Democrats brought back. Another thing though, that Democrats don't seem to know, and that is taking or receiving a payment like they have to escape or not take a vote, subjects them to forfeiture of their seat. That's going to be one of the legal grounds you're going to see asserted here immediately to seek the vacation or elimination or abandonment of these House seats by the Democrats. So we will remove them from office and call for elections to replace them.
- [36:13]
A
But what kind of timeline? You said immediately. My understanding is that is a legal process. It would have to be established by a judge. At least that's the opinion of the Attorney General, I believe established in 2021. And, and that would require a judge to discern abandonment. So that seems like that could take some time.
- [36:33]
F
So when I say immediately, I'm talking about when all the paperwork is going to be filed with the courts, which is going to be immediately. Secondly, there will be requests for immediate responses from these courts. Knowing that they're dealing with an immediate Timeline. You're a lawyer. You know, you can go into court and you can get a quick resolution for matters that have a short timetable. That's exactly what we're dealing with right here.
- [36:57]
B
Okay, so just, just explain this grift to us, Ron, because this, this is serious. And we've even heard about retaliation in California with Governor Newsom there, who, who says, well, if they're going to do it, we're going to do it too. But before we get to that, just, just explain what's going on in Texas and why this could upset not just the midterms, but. But voting indefinitely.
- [37:20]
A
Yeah, I mean Texas has some peculiar laws. So by the way, he filed this petition right after that interview the next day. They filed it with the. Directly with the Texas Supreme Court direct. They like skipped over the lower courts. They want a ruling on this directly and not not only. By the way, are all. I think there's nine, not seven justices in Texas. Some states have seven, some have nine. I think they have nine, but they might have seven. But they're all Republican appointees. Of course. Not only that, they're all Abbott appointees because he's been governor for a while. So every appointee on that court is an Abbott appointee. So he files this petition directly with them. So the peculiar law is that they have to have a quorum, I think it's 2/3 where they have to be present for them to conduct any business. So he calls a special session on flood relief, you know, to give some disaster aid to the victims of the flooding, which of course, you know, okay, a special session is an emergency, like everybody's being recalled back because state legislatures are not like Congress where they're full time jobs. They're generally part time gigs. And a lot of these people have careers and jobs outside and they, they report to Austin for nine, three months or something and they do their business and they go back to their job. So special sessions at the state corps level are unusual. They're only done in emergency situations. So the flood thing makes sense. So then what they did is they, they called the special section, but then they tacked on redistricting, mid decade redistricting which no state has ever done to this to the session. And of course Dem. They have to have a quorum to, to move forward. So last time this happened with the voting suppression bill, Democrats tried to do this. They didn't show up. But they stayed in Texas and they sent out deputy sheriffs, their houses, threatening to arrest them and take them to jail if they didn't show up. So they caved. They basically decided, okay, we're not all going to go to jail. We're going to show up. And it passed. So this time they came up with a better plan and they enlisted people like J.B. pritzker and, you know, Kathy Hochul in New York and the DNC chair, Ken Martin to arrange flights, hotel room to leave the state. Because, as he mentioned there, you can't arrest somebody in another state and extradite them unless you have a felony arrest warrant. So how do you get a felony arrest warrant? Well, deciding not to show up for quorum is not a crime. So you can't get anything. So he's talking about bribery. So what is the bribery? The bribery theory of the bribery charge would be if they accepted a benefit, a free flight, free meals, free hotel rooms, things that they're not paying for from some third party in order to abscond and not do their job, then that could be considered somebody paying a bribe to them to get them to not. Not to do their job. I mean, it's a preposterous, ridiculous legal theory, but in Texas, in the courts.
- [40:30]
B
Anything'S possible because we are now living in a lawless society where the courts are controlled by the same people who are in politics and, and, you know, running these, running these states, it's happening on a national level, it's happening on a local level, and it means that there's no justice for regular people because, you know, it sets a precedent.
- [40:55]
A
You know, not only, by the way, and this is here, this is a problem on so many levels. We could do the whole show just on this, because the dis. You look at how they're redrawing because the map is out, the draft map is out. So what it, it takes. You take two of the rising stars of the Democratic Party in Texas, Greg Kazar and Jasmine Crockett, and they directly target those people, people of color. And that's a problem for the, the white minority in Texas. And it's a minority now in Texas, if you add the Hispanic and the black vote together, they are the majority. But they have, they, they control everything. The, the. The white population of Texas controls everything. So, and what they're, what they're doing is they're targeting the Latino and black districts in Texas. They're taking. And, and, and the young ones, the, the stars, the future stars. So they took Kazar's district and merged it with Lloyd Doggett, who is like an older white guy. You know, he's a liberal Democrat, but he's still one of the old guard who has no intention of leaving Congress anytime soon. So they put Kazar in that district. So it basically would force them to have to run against each other, which could result in Kazar losing because Dog has been there for much longer. Then Jasmine Crockett, they redrew her district. She doesn't even live in the new district.
- [42:23]
B
Right.
- [42:23]
A
They, they took her house and put it out, out of the new district. So they obviously she's somebody that they don't like. Trump is personally continues to insult her and call her a low IQ person. So, so not only are they trying to pick up seats, but they're trying to take out the young people of.
- [42:41]
B
Stars, Democrats, the future of the Democratic Party. That's what they're, they're doing.
- [42:45]
A
They're not going after the old guys. They're not going after Henry Cuellar or Lloyd. They're going after the young people of color.
- [42:54]
B
I mean, this is, you know, it's, it's, it's just, it's Jim Crow in, you know, weaponizing the kind of Jim Crow view of America, which is, which is, I just think we're starting to see the cracks are starting to appear. You know, I want to give people some hope because it does seem so desperate. We had some great protests happening on Saturday. And, you know, I'm getting a sense that, that the corruption is so obvious now and the coverage is, is so wide that, I mean, I saw, I tell you, I saw Robert Reich on the Late show with Stephen Colbert. Lovely, lovely interview. And he also was very optimistic. He was saying that all of this corruption is going to cause a huge swing for the Democrats for progressive voices and votes. And if, if Kamala Harris was to, you know, be up on the, on the ballot today, she, she would win by a comfortable, I think it was 7 to 10 points.
- [44:00]
A
Okay, to your point, yes, you're, you're correct. I agree with, with your take completely. And this is shooting them in the foot. So if we look at the last three presidential elections, right? 20, and you look at the, if you break it down the vote by the different demographics and you, and you pour into the numbers, as I've done and other consultants type people, do you dig into 2016 numbers? Why did Trump win? Trump won because of new voters. He brought in a lot of people who had never voted before in the Republican Party, an unprecedented number of people. Then 2020, why did Biden win? Because of a big shift in the vote totals from suburban women. Suburban women shifted like 20 points to Biden. From 16. And that gave him the win. That was the difference. Why? What was the difference in 2024 was the Latino vote. The Latino vote there was a big shift of about that same number, about 20% that shifted from Democrat to Republican in 2024. So what have we had we since the 2024 election? All the deportations, the ICE raids and now taking out some of their representative representation. And this is not going to be limited to Texas because this is going to be an arms race. It is going to be. Mike Madrid tweeted this last night, who's a big Latino voter consultant guy I think is the title of his podcast is called the Latino Vote. And he said, you know, this is, this is going to lead to mutually assured destruction. As the blue states are going to reconvene, they're going to start gerrymandering. Then states like Indiana, Georgia, they're going to retaliate. Florida and it's going to be back and forth. And what we're going to end up having all over the country is just this, these insanely gerrymandered. I mean we already have gerrymandering. Every state has gerrymandering. I'm talking about insane gerrymandering across the board. And you know, I can tell you the first people that are going to be hurt in this are the, the representations of racial minorities. Those are the ones that are going to lose their seats. As we saw in Florida, they cut three black Congress members of Congress out of Florida in the last redistricting.
- [46:18]
B
So what does that mean that the, that your Democratic right to a free vote. What does that look like in five or 10 years time or even in.
- [46:28]
A
20, 28 example, you're going to have so many races where they're just non competitive races. Yeah. You know, and, and, and as we've seen that results in the most partisan people in both parties. The most partisan people come from these 75, 25 districts. All your Freedom Caucus Republicans all come. Marge Green. They all come from districts that they can win by 30 points without even trying to.
- [46:55]
C
Right.
- [46:56]
A
Same thing with the Democrats. You know, some of the, some of the, the squad, some of the most partisan Democrats come from those same kind of districts. Okay. And so what you're going to have, and then you've got a bunch of people in the middle that are in these 50, 50 districts. I think there's about 30 of them right now that are kind of like toss ups everywhere. You're gonna, those are going to be eliminated. And so you're not going to have Anybody in the middle. Every, you're not going to have any moderates in either party. Everybody's going to be pushed to the extra, to the extreme. It becomes siloed.
- [47:25]
B
But it's like, it's like a, it's like a civil war without weapons, isn't it?
- [47:28]
A
Yeah. And, and, and you know, Madrid's take, which I thought was so smart. I had the exact thought in my head but he, he put it into words better than me. I had it in my head but I didn't know how to say it was in a tweet length post was the only way to end this is if Republicans in blue states end it. You know, in other words, like they're the ones who are going to lose their. There's a lot of Republicans in California, right. And New York and Illinois and you know, there's, there's a bunch of members of Congress in blue controlled states who are Republican who are going to lose their seats over this when this happens, when this war happens and it's up to them to stand up to their own party and say, you are going to cost us our seats. Do you care about us, the Republicans in blue states like Stefanik? And you know, so far, and we did a search of this last night, we said, has there been any Republicans in blue states that have stood up and objected to what's happening in Texas? We can only find one, Mike Lawler. Just so happens he's in New York and his district is 50, 50 district. So of course he's objecting. But you're going to need like eight or 10 of them to basically go to Mike Johnson, say we're going to, you know, shut down the House.
- [48:48]
B
Right.
- [48:49]
A
If you don't end this war. But I don't know, Mike Johnson already shut down the House to do it.
- [48:55]
B
What do you think of Gavin Newsom's response to this in California? Do you think it's going to work to kind of do retaliatory redistricting? Is that a good idea?
- [49:06]
A
Yeah. So, I mean, Abbott in a separate interview was basically taunting Democrats about the fact that in so many Democratic states we have these independent commissions that do redistricting that are bipartisan, that are set up either in their constitution or by statute. In California it's, it was a referendum that was passed. New York has it too, whereas many of these red states in the south don't have those independent commissions. They just do what they want. They just draw. As we saw in Florida, the, the Republican legislature in Florida came up with this map that they worked on for months. They put it out. Ron DeSantis took it and threw it in the trash and said, nope, here's where's what we're doing. One guy drew the districts in Florida, Ron DeSantis. So the Democrats, they don't do that. And so you're hearing a lot of this talk about how we're unilaterally disarmed. We're trying to do things the fair way. And I, look, I agree with independent bipartisan commissions. I hate gerrymandering. I think it does lead to worse representation and worse outcomes. But the problem is you have only Democrats that have these independent commissions when Republicans just do whatever they want. So what Abbott was sort of mocking Newsom and Hochul about was you're not going to be able to get this done by the midterms because you're going to have to amend your constitutions and hold referendums, which is true. It's going to be a real pain in the ass for Democratic states to go through all of that and expensive. But I think that they're prepared to do it and fast track it.
- [50:44]
B
Well, Newsome has ring fenced funds for this. I mean, you know, they, they had a plan because they knew this would probably happen. And again, you know, if we're looking at potential presidential candidates going forward, Newsom is really giving, you know, putting his best foot forward here and showing a level of leadership that people have been calling for. Because all we've been hearing is where, where are the Dems and who, who's, who's in charge and, and, and people like Newsom are, are stepping up in this moment. I mean, there are others too. You know, James Talarico, this last week in Texas has been fantastic and you know, I would love to see him kind of rise through them.
- [51:22]
A
Well, and you know, there's definitely some presidential race implications here. I mean, look, Pritzker hosting most of these. Texas, wonderful. You know, that's like, that's an, that's, that's an interesting move in the, in the Democratic primary for 2028.
- [51:40]
B
But this is what we've been calling for.
- [51:42]
A
That's right.
- [51:43]
B
Play the system if you have to. If they go low, go lower. You know, Michelle Obama was wrong. It's, it's important, as I see it, to really fight fire with fire.
- [51:54]
A
Well, we saw, you know, with Merrick Garland and the special counsel and all that, that, yeah. You know, doing that doesn't, doesn't pay off for you. Right at, in this moment in time, in this moment in history, we just have to take the gloves off.
- [52:07]
B
Yeah.
- [52:07]
A
You have to stop being polite, stop being fair and just play bare knuckle, hardball politics with these people until we defeat their movement. And then maybe we have the luxury of like going back and trying to do it the nice way again and.
- [52:21]
B
Remind ourselves that America as a whole, when polled nationally, is a progressive nation. It is not full of people like Trump and his henchmen. It is people who believe in a woman's right to choose, who don't want to see these ice abductions of innocent people who have no criminal record. You know, this is not what these people voted for. And, and, and the US Is a far kinder, more thoughtful place than I think. Sometimes, you know, we forget because, you know, we, we tar Republicans all with the same brush. And I just, I don't believe it is.
- [52:58]
A
Well, and that's why Republicans have to revert to these culture war, divide and conquer issues.
- [53:04]
B
Yeah.
- [53:04]
A
To try and find a way to carve out majorities using those, the trans issue and you know, things like that, crime, you know, to try and divide Americans because that's, that's the only way they can win because their policies aren't majority policies.
- [53:22]
F
Yeah.
- [53:22]
B
We have to take a quick break, but we're going to come back and look at the Epstein files and the, and the latest with Ghislaine Maxwell and, and everything that goes with that. Next on Uncovered. Feeling your best starts with the right products and for me that means Via. We're proud to have them sponsoring this episode. If you haven't tried them yet, you're seriously missing out. Whether you need to unwind, refocus or boost your mind, Via is here to enhance your everyday and night. Trusted by over half a million happy customers and Via is changing the game in natural wellness. Blending powerful high quality hemp derived ingredients to deliver real effect driven benefits. Whether you're looking to sleep better or have a better libido, improve focus, recover or simply relax, Via has a tailored solution just for you. Via lets you fully customize your experience to fit your needs. Whether you're looking to support your daily wellness routine, enhance focus and clarity or unwind with deep relaxation, Via has you covered. From their award winning effect forward gummies to calming drops, every Via product is thoughtfully crafted, made with organic lab tested hemp, sourced from trusted independent American owned farms. And the best part, VIA legally ships across the usa, Discreet direct to your door, no medical card required and backed by a worry free guarantee. Not sure where to start? Take Via's product finder quiz to get personalized recommendations tailored to your needs. It can take you less than 60 seconds to complete, so if you're 21 +, treat yourself to 15% off and get a free gift with your first order using our exclusive code uncovered@viahemp.com + enjoy free shipping on orders over $100. That's V I I A H E M P.com when you start a podcast, it seems like you have to figure it all out on your own scripts and setup and filming schedule logos. It can be super overwhelming and every day seems to introduce a new decision that needs an answer. When you're starting off with something new, it seems like your to do list keeps growing every day with new tasks and that list can easily begin to overrun your life. Finding the right tool that not only helps you out, but simplifies everything can be such a game changer for millions of businesses. That tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like Mattel and Gymshark to brands just getting started. Accelerate your content creation. Shopify is packed with helpful AI tools that write podcast descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product photography. Get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you. Easily create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling. And best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. If you're ready to sell, you're ready to Shopify. Turn your big business idea into With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com uncovered go to shopify.com uncovered that's shopify.com uncovered welcome back. Links to the sponsors are in the description below.
- [57:07]
A
By the way, let me, let me just throw this out because I know this isn't on our topic list, but I was just thinking about how crazy on the tariff thing. So think about this. The tariff, the, the. The comp. A company that's really hurting bad from the tariffs is Ford, right? Because Ford F150. This is the things that Trump doesn't think about when he's like pulling numbers out of a hat that like serious trade negotiators do think about. So the Ford F150 uses aluminum, you know, a lot of aluminum in their trucks. They're unlike other vehicles. Most a lot of other vehicles aren't made of aluminum, but the Ford F150 truck uses a ton of aluminum and import it because we import a lot of our aluminum and copper. And Trump just slapped this big tariff on aluminum which has basically caused Ford to panic because their F150 trucks are going to go through the roof and make them non competitive and that's like their number one vehicle. So Trump comes out and, and he's asked about this and he says, oh my, I just worked out this trade deal with Japan. We have no auto tariffs in Japan now, so they can sell their F150 trucks in Japan. I'm like, has he been to Japan? Has he, has he taken a look at like, no one's gonna buy these giant Ford trucks.
- [58:28]
B
Nope.
- [58:29]
A
In Tokyo.
- [58:29]
B
Nope.
- [58:30]
A
But that, you know that's his solution to the problem. Right? I mean, I know that's like off topic, but I was good, because it.
- [58:37]
B
Goes back to what we were saying about his lack of knowledge of the world and of culture and, and being so isolated and, and, and having no empathy and no interest in anything else is, makes him just the worst candidate, not just for president, but for somebody who is heading up trade. It's, it's. But he doesn't care, Ron. He doesn't care. It's just something to announce, to say that.
- [59:03]
A
Do you think, like, he knew that Ford F150 trucks are made out of aluminum and an aluminum tariff would hurt? Like, he has no idea. That's why you don't have one dude in the White House decide tariff, decide trade policy.
- [59:18]
B
That's why it has to go through Congress. Well, he probably doesn't know that the F150 Lightning is the electric version, which Ford have been trying to pivot and sell all of their existing 150 owners to switch to the electric version because it's much better. And Trump is rubbishing electric vehicles.
- [59:35]
A
He just killed it with his aluminum.
- [59:37]
B
Killed it.
- [59:37]
A
But he didn't think about that when he, oh, I'll hit. You know, they can just buy American aluminum.
- [59:42]
B
Yeah.
- [59:43]
A
Again, they have long term contracts with companies overseas that they're bringing the stuff in from. And it just got like 50% jacked up in price.
- [59:52]
B
You know, whenever I land in England at Heathrow Airport and hit the M4 motorway, the first thing I think having been in the US Is wow, it's so small here. Like these tiny little cars are everywhere and three little lanes of traffic and we're so close to each other and you know, the biggest car anyone's got is like a little hatchback and it's like being in toy Town, you know, and I don't think Trump realizes when he, you know, goes in the beast to Scotland, he's not getting the kind of essence of what driving in Europe is a, is like. And Japan is exactly the same. And it's just, it's just, again, it's just so frustrating because, you know, the world just.
- [60:35]
A
Trump knows the Japanese consumer and knows what they're going to want to buy for video. Right.
- [60:42]
B
Come on.
- [60:43]
A
I mean, it's not just, I mean, you have the, it's these trade negotiators who have trained their whole life and who have been doing this their whole life and to negotiate trade agreements and they typically negotiate them over five or six years, you know, where they take all of these factors into account. But now we just have one dude, you know, pulling numbers out of a hat and slapping them on countries.
- [61:06]
B
Random numbers. Okay, let's, let's. I should just say that while we were talking, there was news out of Illinois that there were these bomb threats at the hotel where some of these, some of these people were staying. Again, you know, surprise.
- [61:22]
A
I'm, I'm surprised they even disclosed the hotel.
- [61:25]
B
I know. Well, I think, I think the stakes are just rising all the time for these situations. It's increasingly dangerous. Okay, let's, let's talk about.
- [61:34]
A
Well, and by the way, they're gonna have to return to Texas at some point.
- [61:36]
B
Yes.
- [61:37]
A
The session expires in 30 days.
- [61:39]
B
Yes.
- [61:39]
A
I mean, what's it going to look like for them back in Texas, you know?
- [61:43]
B
Yeah. Abbott will be waiting for them, I'm sure. All right, this, let's talk about this meeting with Epstein, the kind of Epstein files meeting that's going to be taking place in the vice president's office. Has that happened yet? Was that, is that today?
- [62:02]
A
Well, you know, of course they got two things going on right now. You got number one is they're apparently meeting about whether they're going to release the, the tape. They tape recorded the, the meeting between Blanche and Maxwell, which was over two days. It's all tape recorded. So they're deciding on what they're going to release. We. So we'll talk about that in a second. But the other thing is this Vance meeting. So this is supposed to be at Vance's house, you know, where they're going to strategy. Here's to me, like, here's what's going on. Vance. Vance's political future is tied to Trump unlike any other Republican contender. And I know we're going to do a special show here coming up on all the different contenders, and, you know, there are going to be other Republicans that are going to run, and basically whether Vance is going to get the nomination and ever become president is all going to be tied towards the record of the Trump administration. In other words, like DeSantis, whatever the Trump administration does has nothing to do with DeSantis. Right. His political future, he's distant. Same thing with Haley. Same thing even to Marco Rubio, to an extent, because he's just dealing with one part of the administration, foreign policy. Right. So he can be held accountable for the foreign policy, but not really for anything else. So. But Vance is uniquely tied to everything happening, is going to stick on him for the rest of his life, for the rest of his political future. So if the economy tanks, anything, anything goes bad, it's going to hurt him in 2028. So this Epstein thing is a problem for him, unlike all those other people, and it's a problem for his political future. So. So, yeah, it makes sense. You know, you could see where some people have said that this was his plan to sort of stab Trump in the back, to distance himself on Epstein, because Vance has nothing to do with Epstein, but he's going to be stuck with. He's stuck at joint, at the hip with Trump on all this stuff.
- [63:57]
B
Yeah.
- [63:58]
A
So he's trying to figure out, I think, a way for him to kind of like, stay good with the base, who's mad, you know, at the same time, stay loyal to Trump. And he's trying to thread this needle. So his team. So this story breaks and his team then puts out a statement 12 hours later, which was about two hours ago, saying, this is fake news. There's no meeting. Right. So this follows a familiar pattern. We've seen this with, I can give you 50 examples. I mean, we saw it with like, Ruby, not Rubio. Musk was supposed to be getting that top secret briefing at the Pentagon about China.
- [64:38]
B
Right.
- [64:38]
A
It got leaked to the press. The story came out overnight, and then they canceled the briefing and said it was all fake news. But we know it wasn't fake news because the guy who leaked it to the press ended up getting fired later by Hegseth. So we know that. So their pattern is they do these. They do all these shady schemes behind the scenes. Someone in their orbit is like, holy, what are we doing? And they leak it to the press because they don't like what's happening. There's always going to be one person in the chain who doesn't like something or has an ulterior motive. Then the press does a story about it, hits the fan, they get the backlash from the public, and then they go, oh, no, we were never gonna do that. That's all fake news. This happened. This has happened like 50 times already and it's happening again on this.
- [65:26]
B
We've got a couple of clips on this. I think we should kind of dive into the analysis of, well, certainly Trump's analysis of the situation, which as far as I see is. I don't know anything about it. I don't, I don't know what's going on. I don't even know who Ghislaine Maxwell is. We should say, as far as I'm concerned, moving Ghislaine Maxwell from a high security prison where, you know, as, as a, as one of the worst sex traffickers in American history, where she is securely kept into the lowest level security prison, she's been moved from, what, Florida to Texas or something. It's as good as I have.
- [66:06]
A
Letting her alternative takes on that one is a very blue and on conspiratorial take that I'll throw up, which I think many in our audience will very much like that take, because they always like when I put my tinfoil hat on, which is rare.
- [66:22]
B
Yep.
- [66:23]
A
And I have my practical take on that too, which is. Okay, so my tinfoil hat take is like, why would they do that? That's the question. Why would they do that? Okay, so my, Let me give you my non, My non. My traditional Republican Ron Conservative take practical, you know. Okay. Why are they doing that from a practical. Okay, well, just to give her a benefit. Because they can't pardon her yet. They. Because it would kill Trump in the midterm. Kill the Republicans. Right. I think that they're going to reduce their sentence eventually, but they can't pardon right now. So they got to do other, they got to do other things to keep her happy and, you know, be able to put out the story that, like, she exonerated Trump. So, so this is a big benefit to her and a big way to help her out in terms of, like, to make her happy. Because they can't partner right now. They could also not try very hard on her appeal. They could promise her a sentence reduction in the future. Wink, wink, nod, nod. Nothing in writing. You know, I think all of, all of that's probably happening. But, you know, if you want to get conspiratorial. Look, moving her to this kind of facility in reality, I think puts her in more danger, more danger physically, because in the old facility, there's very Limited number of people who would have access to her. You know, maybe one other bunk mate, one other inmate. You know, she doesn't have as much time out in the yard and at the exercise. Like, she's just not coming into contact with very many people. But now this facility has like 600 women in it. They're all, everybody's out in the open. They're doing yoga classes, they're doing weights, they're walking dogs, they're, it's like very minimum security, which can be a blessing in the curse, right? It's a blessing. Oh, you have all this new freedom. The curse is now you have all these other inmates who can get to you because you're more exposed.
- [68:21]
B
Well, Elizabeth Holmes might want to test her blood.
- [68:24]
A
Another inmate, take out someone. You would put them in this kind of facility to make that happen.
- [68:29]
B
You are quite the conspiracist today, Mr. Fakowski. I, I, so if something happens, we.
- [68:36]
A
Can go back and play this?
- [68:38]
B
Yeah, well, look, we still don't know. We don't, we still don't know definitively what happened to Jeffrey Epstein.
- [68:45]
A
So there you go.
- [68:46]
B
That's the category they might be wanting to put this in. Let's, let's look at some of the coverage of this.
- [68:52]
E
We have some breaking news this hour as sources are telling CNN that top Trump administration officials are going to meet tomorrow night at the Vice President's residence, where we are told that the main focus is going to be the administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, as well as the need to present a unified front. That meeting is going to include White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, the Vice President, of course, J.D. vance, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Cash Patel, and the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who recently sat down with Ghislaine Maxwell. CNN reported earlier that the administration is weighing whether or not to release an audio recording or a transcript of that interview that he did with Maxwell last month and tonight. Sources say that there have also been internal discussions about what exactly Blanche's next step could be, including hold up holding a press conference or doing a high profile interview, possibly with someone like Joe Rogan. Though I should note those conversations are still preliminary based on our understanding.
- [69:50]
B
Joe Rogan, I mean, please, I don't believe for a second that they are going to record a legitimate interview with Ghislaine Maxwell that they would show to the public, redacted or otherwise. I think they'll probably have a secret conversation with her first and say, okay, you ready? 3, 2, 1. Let's record the Tape.
- [70:08]
A
Yeah, but they had lengthy discussions, you're right, but they didn't record everything, of course. But look, the reason why this report was. Well, get to the transcript thing in a second, because that is important. Yeah, but the reason why this report coming out is so damaging to Vance, which led to his denial, is because the way this thing is being framed is that Vance is now the point man for the Trump administration on Epstein, and he's now directing the strategy, and that's not a real good position for him to be in because this is not necessarily. I understand him quietly behind the scenes wanting to manage this situation and take control of it since Trump has been screwing it up so bad. Every time Trump opens his mouth, he makes it worse. So I understand Vance wanting to, like, step in and say, let me take this and let me manage this crisis, but he doesn't want anyone to know that he's the point man. So, so when this story came out, it, it was like they had to deny it. I mean, it was. He had to say, look, no, this is fake news. Because if he's seen as like the Epstein point man, he's going to start getting treated like Pam Bondi, and that's the last thing he wants from, from the MAGA base, you know.
- [71:25]
B
Well, as I see, advance has been staying out of all government business. I mean, he, he really is waiting.
- [71:32]
A
On the cotton wallets here any day, by the way.
- [71:35]
B
I know he's, he's, he's waiting for Trump to fall. He's got, you know, he's, he's got his own puppet masters. He's in his own track.
- [71:43]
A
The conspiracy theorists are out there saying that that's what he's doing here, that he, the reason why he wants to take control of this situation is actually to knife Trump, you know, and to undermine him, which is entirely possible. But I think he's so tied to the Trump administration and the record of the Trump administration. See, the conspiracy theorists think that he's trying to take out Trump now and get him removed from office. Now, see, that's where they lose me, because I don't think that any. That's going to happen. So I think what he's trying to do is not take out Trump. I think he's trying to manage the situation because Trump has done so poorly with handling this and so has Bondi, and so is Bongino, that he wants to say, look, I'm in charge now. I'm taking over. This is what we're going to do. He doesn't want to Leave that up to Bondi and Trump anymore.
- [72:36]
B
Let's take a look at.
- [72:38]
A
I was going to take the transcript thing, but if you got something else.
- [72:40]
B
Well, let's just see this clip of Trump denying any knowledge of Ghislaine Maxwell being moved prisons. It's quite funny because, you know, watch it with knowing that, of course he knows.
- [72:51]
E
Two questions for you. One, did you, were you aware of and did you personally approve the prison transfer for Ghislaine Maxwell that your Justice Department.
- [72:58]
C
I didn't know about it at all. No, I read about it just like you did.
- [73:01]
E
And do you believe that she is.
- [73:03]
C
Not a very uncommon thing.
- [73:04]
E
Do you believe that she's credible to be listening to? Your deputy attorney general sat down with her recently.
- [73:10]
C
Well, he's, let me tell you, he's a very talented man. His name is Todd Blanche. He's a very legitimate person, very high. I just a very highly thought of person respected by everybody. And I didn't talk to him about it, but I will tell you that whatever he asked would be totally appropriate. And it's not an uncommon thing to do that. And I think he probably wants to make sure that, you know, people that should not be involved or aren't involved are not hurt by something that would be very, very unfortunate, very unfair to a lot of people.
- [73:44]
B
Gibberish. I mean, lots of gibberish.
- [73:47]
A
Cross examine thousands of witnesses. Okay, so I, let me just take that and cross examine Trump with that.
- [73:53]
B
Okay, So I want to hear this.
- [73:54]
A
So here we go. What do we know from that now? He just gave up one thing. Okay. He gave up the fact that Todd Blanch is the one who moved her. He just said that. Now, I don't know that that's necessarily something Blanche would have admitted to, but Trump just blurted it out, right? He just Blanch. If that's, he said that's what he decided to do. Okay, so, so my first question would be, Trump, you said that it's very uncommon for somebody to be moved from a medium security federal prison to a minimum security.
- [74:26]
B
He said it was very common scenario.
- [74:28]
A
How do you, how do you know that that's uncommon? Who told you it was uncommon? Because Todd Blanche is the one who told him that Todd Blanche is the one, you know, you know that he had a conversation with Blanche and he said, well, okay. Blanche said, look, this is what we're gonna do. I think we want to move her to this Club Fed in Texas, you know, but obviously there's going to be some backlash. People are going to say, you're giving preferential treatment. So I'll just say, you know, you had nothing to do with it. And this is a very common thing. This happens all the time with inmates get moved. And that's going to be our story. So Trump doesn't know anything about the classification in the federal prison system for inmates. He doesn't know how that works. He doesn't know how inmate transfers work. He doesn't know how somebody goes from medium to minimum security only. What he knows is what Todd Blanche told him, which he just gave up. He just gave that up right there. He just admitted it. So for him to deny that, oh, I had nothing to do with it.
- [75:27]
B
Right.
- [75:27]
A
I mean, like, no one, no one should believe that. So, regarding the transcript, though, because they're weighing whether, whether it is how much to put out. Obviously, he had a lengthy interview with Maxwell, as we know. Like, there's no possible way, we said it before the interview even happened, that there's no possible way that she was going to implicate Trump in anything, because if she did that, that's basically the end of her life. She's never getting out. She's probably not going to have a good ending in her facility. If she implicates Trump, her life expectancy would be less than a machine gunner on the front lines at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. That would be her life expectancy if she in prison, if she implicated Trump, and she knows that. So we know that what's on the tape is her implicating a lot of other people, probably a lot of prominent Democrats and businessmen and other people. So the question is, what are they going to release? So are they going to release the Raw. Are they going to release anything? That's the first question. If so, are they going to release just a transcript? Because that's what I think they're going to do. The problem with that is we don't have the tape. So we have no idea whether that transcript is complete, accurate, been fudged, faked. We have no idea. So that's, I don't think that's going to really satisfy anybody. I mean, but they're, they're gonna hope that all these big names that came out, Bill Clinton, whoever you want to say, Lawrence Summers, there's been a bunch of names that they're thinking is in there. They're gonna hope that that's going to be enough to distract their mob, you know, and to keep them busy, you know, with all that. I don't think they're gonna release the audio. The Actual tape itself. And. And I would not put it past them if they don't release audio to doctor the transcript. And. And by the way, I wouldn't put it past him to doctor the audio if they put the audio out.
- [77:23]
B
Right. But. Because this is who they are. It is a criminal enterprise. And we should remind people that Todd Blanche, as deputy AG Is Trump's personal lawyer. For all those cases where we saw Trump going in and out of the courtroom, and Todd Blanche was always standing next to him, sometimes looking a little awkward and embarrassed because Trump was saying too much in front of the cameras. This is a guy who Trump has complete and total loyalty with.
- [77:51]
A
Can I say the critique about the press when it comes to this? Because I read all these articles about this meeting, you know, and. And I keep reading in these articles, it says the Department of Justice interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell. Right?
- [78:07]
B
Yeah.
- [78:08]
A
Deputy Attorney General, officials with the Department of Justice did this on Matt. And it's like. No, no. Like, I know that's like, traditionally the way media would frame this.
- [78:21]
B
Yeah.
- [78:22]
A
But in the scenario we're in now, you. I think you have to say every single time in your story, as I do, Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, now deputy AG Interviewed Maxwell.
- [78:40]
B
You got to give the context.
- [78:41]
A
I say that every single time. But you know what? Media does not.
- [78:46]
B
Well, as you say, they're. They're stuck in the churn of just delivering what they've always done. And I keep saying America is not set up to deal with a fascist takeover of government and the judiciary and the Supreme Court. It just. It never thought it could happen here, and it's happening in real time. And the system, I. E. The media, which is supposed to be, you know, almost a, you know, part of our democracy, holding officials to account, it just is not cut out for it. There's no plan for this. You know, there's. There's a plan from. When someone important dies. There's a folder on the shelf. You know, Jimmy Carter's died. Okay, we'll get that folder. Right. These are the protocols. This is how we cover it. But if an authoritarian takeover of government, there's no folder for that.
- [79:36]
A
Think about this. They would say, well, you know, we have never done that in the past. We've never characterized an attorney general as, you know, a former anything. We just use their current title.
- [79:47]
B
Yeah.
- [79:48]
A
I would say to them, we have never in the history of the United States.
- [79:53]
B
Correct.
- [79:53]
A
Had a president appoint an attorney or a general or a deputy aggressive. That were both his personal lawyers, his personal criminal defense lawyer right before he assumed office. And that. So this is what's happening. He put in his own criminal defense lawyer to. To handle this situation. So he might have the title Deputy Attorney General, but he is not acting like a deputy Attorney General. He is acting like Trump's personal lawyer.
- [80:28]
B
Just want to dig a little deeper on this notion of, of Trump requiring total loyalty, but also the visual. You know, he talks always about people's looks and the importance of that. And I'm not about Caroline Levitt because, you know, he's given this interview where he talks about Caroline Levitt in the most vile, kind of misogynistic way. But what it also does is it exposes his admiration for people that will lie with impunity, that will hold water for him and are completely loyal. Let's take a quick look.
- [81:06]
A
But she's on my list. Caroline Levitt.
- [81:10]
C
She's become a star. It's that face. It's that brain. It's those little lips, the way they move. They move like she's a machine gun. Is she in the room?
- [81:19]
B
She's in the room.
- [81:20]
C
She's a star and she's great. She's a great person, actually, but she, She's. I don't think anybody has ever had a better press secretary than Caroline.
- [81:29]
B
She's been amazing, Mr. President, because nobody has ever lied for the president as often as Caroline Levitt does. He's obsessed with her because she is carrying out the orders. It's no different to Hitler and his generals. These are people that are. Are completely in his camp and will say anything. And she. The thing is, she's not smart. She's so obviously lying to anybody, you know, who thinks critically. You can see that she's just play acting. But it's good enough for him.
- [82:04]
A
Yeah. So, I mean, you know, look, she's right out of MAGA central casting.
- [82:08]
B
Right?
- [82:08]
A
Mar A Lago central casting. You know, she's married to someone who's 36 years older than her. I think Trump likes that because it tells her. It tells him, oh, she's attracted to older men.
- [82:24]
B
So this gives him a chance.
- [82:26]
A
Young, beautiful woman who's attracted. You know, some people would argue with me about that. I'm just saying she's attracted. You know, a lot of people would find her attractive. Let me just put it like that. And she likes old guys. She likes old rich guys. So that appeals to Trump. That's half of the. Half of the youngish, attractive women in Mar A Lago are married to old, rich guys that are 30 years older than them. So he's comfortable with that, you know, but you know, just the way he said that, you know, he's asked his first impression. Oh, before I get into that, he also said she was the best press secretary that he's ever had.
- [83:02]
C
Right.
- [83:02]
A
Well, you know, if I was like Kayleigh McEnany.
- [83:05]
B
Right.
- [83:05]
A
Or, or Huckabee Sanders.
- [83:08]
B
Yeah.
- [83:08]
A
Or who's the alternative Facts one, the Kellyanne Conway, I'd be like, what, what about me? Like I did a good job for you. So I mean, that's the other thing. He says that she's the bet. Bet. When she says she's the best, then she's better than the other ones that he's had. So. Insults them backhandedly. But, but yeah, talking about, I mean his two of the first three things he said were how beautiful she was and how her lips move.
- [83:40]
B
He's by her lips, the way those lips, they move.
- [83:44]
A
She's had some work done. We've seen before and after photos, I'm not, I'm not going to spend time on that. But she got the Mar a Lago look, you know, that's been much written about and talked about to make her look, she got the Michael Jackson nose and the lip fillers and all that to make her look like what Trump likes. And what does he comment on?
- [84:07]
B
Just that, you know, all of these conspiracies that have come through, this kind of far right Maga movement going right back to Pizzagate, they all kind of come to nothing. And then there has to be this pivot. And my feeling with this Jeffrey Epstein story, just going back to that for a second, is that all of this work that's going on and Caroline Levitt's gonna do her fair share of, you know, telling stories on the podium. For Trump to kind of distance him from it is that it just requires people to end up kind of putting their obsession on ice. Because I mean, a report just came out yesterday. What was it that they were, they discovered? Was it the Russia report or something? I forget which one it was, that there was, there was nothing there that, you know, something that all of these right wing people have been hanging on for waiting. And the report came out so there's no, there's nothing there. And so they're like, oh, and this is what's happened, as we've, you know, said with Jeffrey Epstein and his suicide slash murder. They were all waiting for Cash Patel and Dan Bonino to come out with something. There's nothing there. So then they have to kind of move their goalposts or suspend their disbelief. And this, I just think that this keeps happening as I'm just kind of.
- [85:25]
A
Predicting it with the Obama Russiagate thing.
- [85:28]
B
Now where that's actually, that's the one that I was thinking of and couldn't remember. So. Thank you.
- [85:32]
A
Yeah. They are all expecting Obama to be arrested any day.
- [85:35]
B
Right. So, so this is, I'm just predicting how I think this, this whole Epstein thing is going to end, end up. It's just going to become one of those crescendos or these cliffhangers that kind of comes to nothing and there's no kind of final episode to the, to the season and everyone's just going to have to reposition their, their, their views.
- [85:56]
A
And, and Trump is just hoping that he can drag this out long enough to where they'll get distracted and focus on something else.
- [86:03]
B
Exactly that. And that's why it's so important for him to have all these people around him like Todd Blanche and, and like Pam Bondi and like Caroline Levitt who are going to just carry water for him. And, and, you know, I've said, I started saying a few months ago on this show that I was worried that the statistics that are going to start coming out, you know, government statistics with this administration are going to become so untrustworthy. The world economies and certainly the U.S. economy will, will not be able to function. We saw this with the jobs numbers. You know, he wasn't happy with the jobs numbers, so he fires the statistician. Let's just, we have a clip of the, you know, one of these kind of government heads talking about this, and then we'll, we'll debrief.
- [86:48]
A
Just to be very clear, do you.
- [86:50]
D
Have, does the administration have any evidence.
- [86:53]
A
That it was rigged, as the president said?
- [86:55]
D
Will you be presenting that to the American public there?
- [86:58]
A
Well, the, the evidence is that there have been a bunch of revisions that could hardly be. Well, I mean, the revisions are hard evidence. For example, there was 800,018, 818,000 revision making the Joe Biden job record a lot worse. That came out after he withdrew from the presidential campaign. There have been a bunch of patterns that could make people wonder. And I think the most important thing for people to not is that it's the president's highest priority that the data be trusted and that people get to the bottom of why these revisions are so unreliable. Well, let me ask you about what will.
- [87:36]
B
So Kevin Hassett is another one of these people who's just going to hold water for Trump, right?
- [87:40]
A
Okay, now think about what, like, a real interviewer could do with that statement.
- [87:45]
B
I knew this was coming.
- [87:46]
A
Okay, what did he say? He said there was a big revision. A downward revision. Yeah, it went from, like, 800,000 new jobs to 500,000 new jobs, which is still way more than any numbers that have come out during Trump, that these revisions were revised down by the same woman's agency who was in charge at the time. And he said it came out right after Biden dropped out of the race. Okay, well, interesting. What happened then. Kamala Harris was running, the vice president of this administration. So what you're saying is that this big revision was done by this supposedly highly partisan person when Kamala Harris was running against Donald Trump. If this person is trying to make Trump look bad and help Democrats and manipulate numbers, why would she revise the job numbers down 300,000 two months before the election? And he's.
- [88:51]
B
He's.
- [88:52]
A
That's what he's saying. I mean, Welker could, you know, point that out. That revision was done in August 2024, when people were just starting to do early voting. So you just hurt the Biden administration's job numbers right before the election. The same person who you're claiming is a conspiracy is conspiring against you. Now, look, here's what we know, and let me just. We have a problem. We have. We have the world's best government reporting data on economics, but it also has flaws. And part of the flaw we have with reporting the jobs numbers is the. The agency that does this, Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, they compile. They get thousands of reports from companies all over the United States that report their layoffs. There are new hires, and they use that data to compile the job numbers. And what has happened, especially since COVID is the percentages of companies reporting those numbers on time has gone down from about 80% to 60%. Now, they still ultimately get them all in, but sometimes it's just like voting, where, like, the mail in ballots come in after.
- [90:03]
B
It takes a while.
- [90:04]
A
It takes a while. So when they put out those first numbers, it's about 60% of the data. And that when. So when we're talking about revisions, that means two months later, they've gotten all the rest of them in. And now this is the definitive correct number. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. In this particular situation, it went down, as it did before the election, to Joe Biden. There's no conspiracy here. These are technocrats. These are statisticians. These are accountants. These aren't you know, crazy radical libs.
- [90:39]
B
But they're going to keep using the. Because they, you know, they know that they can use these systems and delays in these systems to their advantage to claim that everything is a conspiracy because it gets Trump off the hook. And, you know, ultimately inflation is rising. And Trump is saying inflation is down. He said he killed it. It's gone. There's no inflation.
- [91:00]
A
And by the way, one more thing. When Trump was asked about this, he said those jobs were revised down after the election. Yeah, he completely lied about it. At least Hassett told, like, a partial truth.
- [91:13]
B
Right. You know, but this is going to keep happening, and it's not just going to be with jobs numbers. It's going to be with growth, it's going to be with gdp. We've seen it with tariffs and these gifts that supposedly other countries are giving America. You know, the, the list of investments that Trump has on the White House website, all these companies, if you go through these, this list, none of them are true. These are, these are either things that were announced years ago or the. Or they are things that Trump has conveniently made up or countries like, you know, like the EU are using as leverage.
- [91:46]
A
Apple today, by the way.
- [91:48]
B
Yes, that's right.
- [91:49]
A
Apple is going to announce that they're, you know.
- [91:51]
B
Yeah.
- [91:51]
A
Building a new factory, which they were going to do anyway, you know, and it's like Trump's going to take credit for it. And it's frustrating that people like Tim Cook allow themselves to be, like, propaganda pawns. But I guess he's just worried about Apple, you know.
- [92:06]
B
Okay, we have to finish. We didn't get to talk about Sydney Sweeney's jeans, which I was looking forward to doing, because that's a very interesting story, embedding white supremacy into American Airlines advertising. But maybe we'll do that next week. Thanks for joining Uncovered today. Don't forget to download the audio podcast that drops later tonight. We also encourage you to comment down below, share the show, and come back next Wednesday and join us for another Uncovered. Thanks a lot, Ron.
- [92:35]
A
All right, see you next week.
- [92:43]
B
Sa.