← Wired In
Loading summary
Transcript99 lines
- [00:00]
A
Good evening, everybody, and welcome to Wired In. I'm Cabot Phillips, coming to you live from Daily Wire hq. Thanks for spending your Tuesday with us. We've got a packed show. A new foodborne parasite is spreading across America, wreaking havoc on digestive systems and causing major restaurant chains to remove entire food groups from their menus. We're gonna tell you what foods to avoid and what's being done to contain the spread. And I will actually be conducting a live experiment on air to see if the food is safe to eat. So stay tuned for that. The latest inflation report is out, and thankfully, prices are falling at their fastest pace in years. We're gonna talk with an economist about whether the trend is sustainable or a mirage. President Trump has scheduled a primetime address to the nation. We're gonna hear from the White House on what to expect. And we'll get you an exclusive report on a major shift in how ICE agents are conducting immigration stops. And of course, stick around until the very end of the show for our live listener Q and A. And if you're a Daily Wire member, get those questions in the chat right now. If you're on Apple or Spotify, go sign up@dailywire.com subscribe and join the fun. And while you're at it, please consider following our show on Apple and Spotify and leaving us a review. That's the best way to help us grow. All right, let's get to it. Roll that graphic. And just a reminder, Wired In Live is now streaming live at 4 p p.m. eastern Monday through Thursday. Get your daily coverage of the news happening right now, why it matters, and hear insight from experts who are actually in the story, not just sitting around giving opinions about it. Become a member and join the live chat@dailywire.com subscribe. All right, let's kick things off in Washington with Daily Wire D.C. bureau Chief Tim Rice. Tim, it's great to see you, but as I bring you on, I'm realizing we might need to change that intro that was written. Because I'm saying we're not just gonna have people sitting around in a room with bookshelves pontificating about the news. But I think that's what you're about to do right now, Tim.
- [02:08]
B
Well, that is true, but five minutes before this, I did cast a vote in the House chamber. So don't worry. I'm also very much in the thick of things.
- [02:16]
A
Exactly. I don't wanna throw you under the bus too much. Cause I know you are constantly running around the Hill talking to your sources. You're involved in these stories. So let's get to President Trump. Right after we wrapped the show last night, he announced on social media that he was gonna have a primetime address to the nation this Thursday night. What are we hearing about what he's going to discuss?
- [02:39]
B
Well, we're hearing all sorts of things, Cavett, and none of it is necessarily definitive. So the president himself keeps billing it in vague but grand terms. He says things like, it's going to be the biggest speech. It's frankly, I don't wanna spoil it. It's going to be one of the biggest speeches, the most important issue, it seems like it's going to be about election integrity. Now, yesterday when these stories broke, two stories broke at the same time. One, weirdly, was with MSNow, which is the network that used to be MSNBC. They said that the president was going to report that the two Georgia senators, John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, were both illegitimately elected because of some sort of voter fraud. And then our friends over at the Washington Reporter reported that it's going to broadly about declassified or unclassified files revealing attempted foreign meddling in the 2020 presidential election. The White House has will not really confirm either of those things. And, you know, it's a lot of backroom kind of, you know, disavowing of this and that. And, you know, no one can really get a sense here in Washington of what's happening. But it does seem broadly like it's going to be about election integrity. Now, whether that is is as simple as a pep rally for the SAFE Acts. We've heard some chatter. Some people have suggested renaming the SAFE act after Lindsey Graham. Right. So this could be a classic Trump bait and switch. Right. Leak the fact that it might be about saying that Warnock shouldn't have been elected, it might be about saying Russia meddled in 2020. We're hearing reports that Susie Wiles in the White House is pushing the president to not give the speech. And then after drumming up all this interest to make sure everyone watches, he just says that we're gonna rename the SAVE act and everyone should vote for it. So it could be as simple as that. It could be way crazier than that. We are doing our best over here at the Daily Wire to try to figure it out and have been posting updates on it, such as they are as we get them. But yeah, it's still kind of a big, a big black box and definitely something we're all going to need to be tuning into sometimes.
- [04:32]
A
Tim, on the weekend, I look at my wife and we have a free day and I say, you know what we're going to do today? And then I'll let her guess. And then I say, yes, that is exactly what we're going to do. I almost wonder if Trump is saying, we're gonna give an address, and then he waits to see what everyone is most excited about and then he says, exactly, that's what I'm gonna talk about. I know he's probably not doing that, but it would be kind of funny. Tim, on that topic of election integrity, specifically with Georgia, if those reports are true, if he is going to explicitly come out and say that John Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, the state's two Democratic senators, were illegitimately elected, what would that mean? Because Jon Ossoff released a statement saying, quote, this is a disaster for Trump puppet Mike Collins. That's who Ossoff is running against in November. Already mired in scandal, Mike will now have to double down on conspiracy theories toxic in the general election. Do you think he has a point? If this does make the Georgia race all about election meddling and from foreign interference, all that sort of stuff, would that hurt Republicans in the midterms?
- [05:38]
B
Absolutely. Jon Ossoff is incredibly popular. Raphael Warnock less so, but he's decently popular. He was elected. There was a lot of. Warnock had a lot of negatives stacked against him when he was first elected, but he prevailed. Ossoff is a force to be reckoned with, certainly in this Senate race, and I think he's a sleeper for 2028. He's not as flashy. We don't get as much chatter about him as we do speculation about Gavin Newsom or aoc. But as we know, the early ones tend to fizzle out. I think Jon Ossoff is certainly. I think his reelection, the race is heavily favored in his direction right now. I think that he's already setting his sights on 2028. I think that if the President does, I will caveat this. I think if the president makes these accusations without truly presenting truly incontrovertible evidence that what he's saying is the case. Right? If it's just a matter of, well, we' noticed some of these discrepancies and there was a little bit of this and some error here. And that means that John Ossoff is not legitimately elected. If we can't do, if he doesn't definitively prove that someone or some entity meddled to get Jon Ossoff elected, that he otherwise should have lost that race. I think that that hands Jon Ossoff the Senate race. I think that it sets him on a great gives him his talking points for 2028. I think that it gives talking points to every Democrat in the midterm. So it's a fine line in election integrity for Republicans because Republicans do well with voters when they point out actual fixable flaws in the election system. Right. Groups that are harvesting ballots from homeless people who might not necessarily have the wherewithal to register to vote themselves, that are basically saying just sign on the Democratic line and we'll bring that in for you folks who are registering illegal immigrants who otherwise should not have been voting. These are things that happen. These are things that Republicans are trying to fix. So when they point it out, it not only galvanizes voters to go vote for Republicans, but are assures them that Republicans are doing things to keep the election process secure. Right. When Republicans dip into and the president has certainly done this, just sort of talking wildly vague accusations about the elections are rigged, they're stolen, they'll never be a fair election again. A, that gives Democrats incredible talking points to use against Republicans and B, it discourages Republican voters from coming out because if the fix is already in, if the election's gonna be rigged no matter what we do, then why am I taking time out of a Tuesday in November to go down to the fire department and cast my vote for someone who's gonna lose?
- [08:10]
A
Tim on the topic of midterms, let's get up to Michigan, where far left socialist Abdul El Sayed is looking to win the Democratic nomination for Senate. The left wing establishment, they're coalescing around his opponent, Haley Stevens. But we've seen the far left folks, aoc, Bernie Sanders, they're on the ground this week in Michigan stumping for EL Sayed. Who do you see winning out here and more broadly, what does it tell us about the fight for the future of the Democratic Party?
- [08:36]
B
It's a great question. So I want to answer that by sharing two things that I saw today. One is that I saw a piece somewhere that said that with Graham Platner out of the race in Maine, progressive attention is shifting to EL Sayed, which I think is probably the case, certainly in terms of the media class. He's going to be the one that leftists and media outlets that favor these sorts of politicians will focus on going forward. I don't think it's a one to one matchup. Right. So no, I think Al said yes is part of this shift in the leftward shift of the Democratic Party for sure. But I think that his, unlike Graham Platner and unlike Zoran Mamdani, who are these very captivating and dynamic figures who do seem to be getting other people involved in politics and getting people convinced of what they're doing, I think that Al Said has the scales tipped a little bit to his advantage. And that brings me to the second thing I was going to say, which just before the show, a friend of mine texted me and said, I haven't been paying too much attention to the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, but I just watched a clip of Haley Stevens talking and now I realize why everyone is so excited about Al Said. Right. Which is, in other words, is to say that she is so odd, frankly, just an odd, odd duck, that I think that. I think it would be a mistake to overstate the appeal of Al Said's progressivism to the Michigan Democratic electorate, because I think really what they're looking for is someone who can win. And I think they've decided that Haley Stevens is Now, to be clear, this is not to say that the leftward shift of the Democratic Party should be ignored. This is not to say that Al Said siren song of socialism is not appealing to certain voters. It is not indicative of a broader threat. But I do think that unlike some of these more charismatic and appealing candidates, the Platners, The Mamdanis, the AOCs, I think what we're seeing here is more of a good old fashioned likability contest in the primary than necessarily one ideology or worldview winning out over the other.
- [10:37]
A
Yeah, Tim, I had a number of other questions I wanted to get to, but we've run out of time, so I'll just end with this one question. Are you trying to challenge me with your mustache? Because I had a mustache a couple weeks ago? Are you just trying to copy me and do it a little bit better than I did?
- [10:51]
B
I don't want to say I'm doing it a little bit better. Obviously your mustache is an inspiration to us all, but no, this is just. I did my. I've gotten to the point of the summer where it's too hot in Washington for the full beard. I have about a month every summer before my wife tells me, all right, you look ridiculous, go back to normal. So enjoy a lot less.
- [11:10]
A
Yeah. Our audience will Tim Rice, thank you as always for coming on. That is our D.C. bureau Chief, Tim Rice. Well, last week we brought you guys live coverage of the pre trial hearing for Tyler Robinson, the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk, our next guest was in the courtroom supporting his fallen friend. Its bestselling author, host and senior editor at humid events, Jack Posobic. Jack, it's great to have you on, man. Thanks for being here.
- [11:37]
C
Hey, thanks for having me on. And I appreciate you guys doing the yeoman's work to bring back mustaches. I think there was this sort of like millennial psyop that was like anti mustache, but, you know, the Tom Sellecks of the world seem to have won out. And I just appreciate that.
- [11:54]
A
It's important. It's part of our broader quest to bring back masculinity. I'm glad you're on board with that. But let's get to this important story. Last week. It's almost been a year. It's hard to believe since Charlie's assassination. I know that the two of you were very close. You were in that courtroom throughout the entire pre trial first, just why was it so important for you to travel to Utah to be there in person?
- [12:19]
C
Well, look, I mean, this was. This was for Charlie. You know, they took him away from us. And there's a debt, there's an absolute debt that needs to be paid, not just to the country, not just to the movement, but to Erica, to his parents, Rob and Kathy, and to their children for every single moment that they lost with their father. And so this is something as well where we have to make sure the justice is done. And of course, that that guy who's sitting there, that all the evidence points to, that he understands that he will get what's coming to him at the end of this process.
- [12:57]
A
And you've talked pretty extensively about how you feel like the death penalty, if there's a conviction, the death penalty needs to be brought here. And not just in this case, but for assassinations, political or not more broadly. Why do you think that's so important?
- [13:13]
C
Well, so a political assassination is a cancer upon society, specifically that one which destroys our ability to have our civic life. The First Amendment is about freedom of assembly, about freedom of speech. This is what Charlie fought for. On what place, more than any other than the modern public square, is of course, a college campus. This is what Charlie did. He engaged in political thought and political debate. That is our bedrock principle upon which all of our other civil liberties rest in the United States. So to conduct an assassination like this is an attack not just on Charlie, not just on conservatives, but actually on our very system here. In a country we cannot function if we devolve into the barbarism of assassinations, of political violence and political terrorism. And that's why I've said in this case and in all cases that assassins should always be executed. And if you look at presidential assassins in the past, that was always done.
- [14:15]
A
Jack, you mentioned evidence earlier. Throughout this pretrial, we saw the prosecution trying to provide enough evidence to move this thing to trial. What was the most compelling evidence that you saw in the courtroom?
- [14:30]
C
Well, you know, it's hard to say what was the most compelling. I mean, the DNA is a direct match. I mean, obviously that's always key. But the two pieces of evidence that I think, you know, just. Just really rocked.
- [14:47]
A
Sorry, Jack. You cut out there for a bit. I think we, I think we got you now, though. Go ahead, you can continue.
- [14:50]
C
Okay, good, good. Yeah, I'll close my tabs. That, you know, the, the, the testimony of Lance Twiggs, who could have provided an alibi, let's, let's not forget that Lance Twigs could have said, hey, he was with me the whole night. And in fact, that gun that you guys were looking for, it was stolen. And we haven't seen this thing, and it's, it's gone now and we can't. We can't find it. So, you know, I don't know what you're looking at. And no, he didn't do that. He stepped up and told the truth the same way that Tyler Robinson's parents, who were also in the courtroom, told the truth. And while that evidence wasn't presented, they didn't testify. But we know, of course, that they played the instrumental role in calling their son in. And then, of course, this zoomed in video that I really do pray that the judge does release to the wider public, or at least releases the raw video so that we can simply zoom in and show what's on that tape.
- [15:46]
A
You have been honing in on another piece of evidence here on your show, talking about this cell phone data and what it shows us about Tyler Robinson's location during this fateful day on September 10th. Can you just tell us what has been discovered on that front?
- [16:01]
D
Sure.
- [16:01]
C
So on the cell phone front, and this is in an old search warrant, people can go and check it out. But there's so many of these pieces of evidence that now that the hearing has happened, people need to go in. There's cell phone data that shows immediately after the shooting. So at about 12:47pm Remember, Charlie shot at 12:23pm this is Mountain Time, Utah time, that Tyler Robinson made in his phone on his Google Maps account, a Google route from his position, an area very close to UVU campus to a nearby car wash. No, we don't know why he did that, why he would go to a car wash at that time. We also found information, or I should say we investigators also found information. You could see it yourself if you read the documents, that he was conducting Google Maps searches in the middle of the night at about 12:44am so this is now September 11th, after the shooting, the early morning hours, and then again 1:31am from an address very close to where the rifle was found, all the way back to his home in St. George, Utah, about three hours later. So again, this is just more confirmation, his own cell phone data connecting him directly to the scene of the crime as well. By the way, if they look at that car, if there were, it does say there was a search warrant that went out for the infotainment system. Look, guys, people don't realize this. Your car is recording everywhere you go, every time you hit the gas, every time you hit the brake. Your car system has that stored internally. And yes, the investigators can get that.
- [17:34]
A
Jack, we've seen all sorts of people online claim to have smoking gun evidence that Tyler Robinson was not the shooter or even that he wasn't even on campus that day. And a lot of folks have said, okay, if people online are producing that evidence, wouldn't his defense produce that evidence? You were in the courtroom. Did his defense present any of this so called evidence that he was not there that day?
- [17:59]
C
No, they didn't. And you know, look, I understand the burden of proof, of course, is on the prosecution. That's that's no question. But you know, you one would think that if there just stands to reason that if there is a piece of exonerating evidence, a cell phone track or a photo of him at a restaurant, a receipt from a restaurant in a different part of the state or anywhere else, that they would simply produce that and then stop this thing, stop this train in its tracks. Because their client is of course at this point headed these charges be arraigned and then be put on trial. Well, they could stop it right away if they just produced one piece of evidence that exonerated their client. They did not do so.
- [18:38]
A
Yeah, well, Jack, all of us are so grateful that you were in the room to support Charlie and his family. We know you're going to continue to stand up to protect his legacy. We're grateful that you're doing that and we're grateful that you came on the show today to share that with us.
- [18:56]
C
Happy to do so. And it's just what you gotta do. And, you know, there's no way they can take out one of our guys like that, especially a guy that we were this close to and we don't be there for him to make sure that justice is done and make sure his family is taken care of.
- [19:09]
A
Amen. That should be all of our goal. Jack Bosobic, thanks again for joining. Well, following those two fatal shootings during ICE traffic stops in Texas and Maine, the agency this morning rolled out significant changes to their enforcement protocols. Daily Wire immigration reporter Jenny Terre has the scoop. She joins us now. Jenny, it's great to have you back. Thanks for being here.
- [19:33]
E
Thank you for having me.
- [19:34]
A
So two ICE related shootings in the last week, one in Houston, the other in Maine. Details have been slowly emerging. But can you just give us a breakdown of what we know from each case, starting in Houston?
- [19:49]
B
Right.
- [19:49]
E
So in Houston last week, there was a shooting involving an ICE officer who opened fire on a driver who the agency said was trying to get away, was trying to flee the scene. That ICE officer then, out of concern for his safety, fired upon him and resulted in killing him. That individual was later determined to be a Mexican illegal immigrant. However, he was not ICE's intended target, the agency says, and so there has been a lot of backlash after that shooting. And then around a week later, a second shooting occurs in Maine. Now, this shooting, ICE did not say that the individual was trying to ram them or get in their way, but that he was also fleeing. I should note also that the Houston case, they did say that that individual was trying to weaponize their vehicle. But in Maine, it appears that the sub or the individual who was shot and killed was the driver of a vehicle, again, but again was not their intended target and was not necessarily trying to hit them, but got away from them. And that the ICE officer had feared for public safety. And that's when they fired.
- [21:06]
A
Jenny. Shortly after the death of Renee Goode, we remember DHS quickly stood by their agents saying the shootings were justified. Have we seen that same sort of response from the agency following these latest incidents? Have they been so vociferous in their defense of these shootings?
- [21:25]
E
No. And I think this is a really big point to make, which is that that was the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary Noem who was actually fired after she jumped the gun on some of these shootings and came out with information that was later debunked about those officers and what was happening when those shootings occurred. When Mark Wayne Mullen came into power, he said that he wanted to conduct a quiet deportation operation, and that he wanted to keep ICE out of the news, largely. And what happened Yesterday was that ICE didn't release a statement until 12 hours after this shooting occurred in Maine. So I think that signals that shift in leadership style that we saw initially. But it also does leave the public with a lot of questions. And I think that waiting really made people concerned about what those officers were doing. There wasn't any video that came out. Those officers were not wearing body cameras, which also raises questions about why they weren't distributed, because Congress months ago had given funding for all ICE officers to receive them, and the Trump administration agreed with Democrats push to distribute those. So there are a lot of questions about these shootings, and the details are still pretty murky.
- [22:50]
A
Yeah. And that brings us to your exclusive reporting this morning. We now know, based on what you've been told, and it's since been confirmed, that ICE is going to be having some new protocols when it comes to where they are stopping potential illegal immigrants for deportation. Tell us what you've learned.
- [23:09]
E
Exactly. So ICE officers this morning received a notification from the agency saying that they will no longer be allowed to conduct traffic stops so that they can make arrests on the streets. And what this means is that the officers can no longer turn on their lights and pull someone over to make an arrest. It also means that the arrest numbers are going to go down. So what usually happens is they have an intended target in a vehicle when they go to arrest that person. They also often find that there are others in the car who are there illegally, and that brings up arrest numbers. Now they're going to have to seek new measures to go and find people. One of those is by obtaining judicial warrants, which takes a lot more legwork and time to obtain so that they can break down doors. But that also presents a danger to those officers who may catch someone in their element where they can have access to weapons. At the same time, they can go to court, courthouses. In some areas, they can talk to someone if they're coming out of a vehicle, if they've exited a vehicle, they can't approach them. But again, there's a lot of concerns for officer safety and for public safety with those. I think what the Trump administration was trying to do here was not only to say, like, we need to take a beat here after these shootings, but also we need to protect our own, because we know in the aftermath of these that things get a little tense in the streets with demonstrators and illegal immigrants alike.
- [24:36]
A
So is there going to be a long term shift here? Or is this something where they're pausing it for maybe a week or two, implementing some new training and then going back to this?
- [24:48]
E
It's not clear when this will stop, but it is currently being presented as a temporary measure. But a lot of my sources within the agency say that this could last a while, because the concern right now is that there have been thousands of ICE officers who have been brought on within a short period of time by the Trump administration. And in doing so, they actually expedited the training procedures. So some of the more seasoned officers believe that there were people who were brought on, who could be ones who are wrapped up in situations like this, in shootings, that they basically conducted sloppy work and that it makes the agency look bad, and it also leads to deadly consequences. So if they're going to take an accounting of all of that, I think we could be in for the long haul.
- [25:34]
A
Now, you spoke to a number of folks within the agency. What was the general response? Do they prefer traffic stops over other locations? What did you hear from the actual folks in ICE themselves?
- [25:48]
E
Most definitely, they prefer traffic stops. That is the main way they make arrests right now. And the Trump administration has recently put pressure back on ICE to increase numbers. In some ways, they've presented a quota, an unofficial one, for those officers to get numbers up, to work longer hours, to work weekends. And so this is going to hinder that campaign and their ability to make those arrests. And to get those numbers up now, it will be. They are going to take a longer time to get those people arrested and to satisfy what the Trump administration's demands are.
- [26:25]
A
Now, more big picture here, and I know you cover ICE and their deportation efforts more broadly. What is the status? Do we know just how many people have been removed from the country since President Trump took office?
- [26:41]
E
It's a great question because the Trump administration says that about 3 million people have either left or been deported. But there are some immigration hawks who are conservative groups who have come out and said that they're concerned about these numbers because the public has been presented with a different number than Congress and they're pushing back on this. They foiaed and now sued over it. That's the oversight project. So there are some questions over the accuracy of those numbers, and we'll see what comes of that, foia, but definitely something we're keeping tabs on.
- [27:13]
D
Yeah.
- [27:13]
A
Jenny, thank you so much for your reporting. Great job getting the scoop this morning. Everyone can go. Ready? Jenny's work on Daily Wire. Immigration reporter Jenny Tare, thanks again. Well, Guys, if you're watching Wired in live on the Daily Wire plus app, thank you. If not, you should know by now that's where you gotta be. That is how you get push alerts when we go live, Breaking news as it happens and the latest SMAR investigative reporting team. The Daily Wire app is free and available now on the App Store. Google Play, Apple TV, Roku, Samsung LG. Well, according to the CDC, more than 7,000Americans in 34 states have been afflicted with cyclospora, a foodborne parasite that causes, among other things, weeks of explosive diarrhea. But the true number of cases is almost certainly higher and it's growing fast. In response, Taco Bell locations across the country have stopped offering lettuce, cilantro, pico de gallo and other produce known to carry the parasite. And millions of Americans have grown uneasy about what they're buying from the grocery store or ordering at restaurants. Here with more is Dr. Yosef Wit Doering, a former FDA medical officer and board certified psychiatrist. Doctor, it's great to have you on. We've talked in the past about some mental health issues. I didn't know that you're a man of many talents, also an FDA officer, or I may have gotten the title there wrong. You've been holding out on us.
- [28:37]
F
Well, most doctors, even psychiatrists, we go through our standard training that involves a lot of infections, infectious disease, so we can talk on these topics. It's great to be here, Cabot.
- [28:47]
A
It's always great to have you on. Anytime you get a chance to say explosive diarrhea, live on air and have it be part of your work, I'm going to jump on that opportunity. But it is scary stuff. Look, I know it's easy to joke about, but this is something that has hospitalized hundreds of people already and cases are expected to continue to grow because the period from which it takes to actually diagnose this is fairly long. So first, can you just explain, doctor, what this parasite actually does?
- [29:18]
F
So it's a parasite that can cause explosive watery diarrhea. And so that's why it's so dangerous, because people can end up dehydrated from this. And one of the most concerning things about this is we still haven't identified the source of the outbreak. As you mentioned a moment ago, Cabot, it's something that can lay dormant for anywhere from two to two weeks. And so oftentimes people can't remember what they had two weeks while this, while this parasite is essentially replicating in the body and building up until the Infection manifests. And so right now we really don't know where it's coming from. People think that it could be coming from lettuce or cilantro or even things like raspberries. And many people have reported eating Taco Bell, but that may not be the only source. It could be coming from other places as well.
- [30:07]
A
I always say if you're eating Taco Bell, you might be having those symptoms and misattribute it to a parasite, because everyone knows the risks. And to that point, let's go ahead. Let's bring on. Our wonderful production team has brought me some Taco Bell. Thank you, Pavel. They're gonna give me a little thing here, so I'm just going to eat a Taco Bell Taco right now. And again, we're not blaming them. They do great work. We love Taco Bell. But I'm going to eat one of these tacos if I get sick and I don't have a show a few weeks from now. We know that I have come down with this parasite, but as I eat this. Doctor, you worked in the fda. What sort of steps can even be taken to prevent a spread like this? What is the work that they're doing? How are they trying to crack down on the spread?
- [30:56]
F
Yes. So Cyclospora is actually spread by contamination. So this is like feces. So one of the most important things that you can do is to wash your hands. I'm sorry for saying that as you're eating Taco Bell, but we're just going to go straight for it. And so washing your hands is really important. If you're buying produce from the grocery store, you want to wash it thoroughly. You can even add a little bit of vinegar to it as well. You could do one part vinegar to 3 parts water. That will kill it. But the best way, if you're eating fresh produce right now and maybe you're immunocompromised and you're really worried about this, just cook it for the next couple of weeks, you know, for the rest of the summer while this is going on, cook the food. And that's going to be the best way to essentially eliminate the risk of that bacteria, of that parasite infecting you.
- [31:46]
A
I'm going to ask a question that might be silly, but I do think it's worth asking. There's been this joke online of people saying I could get this parasite and not even know it because of what my stomach issues generally are. Is that possible or is this thing so serious that you would know if you had it.
- [32:06]
F
Yeah. So this, I mean, this is serious. This isn't just someone who, you know, who likes spicy foods and they're just like, hey, I know what I'm getting myself into. And this is just par for the course when I really want to have a binge. When you get cyclospora, one of the problems is this lasts a long time. This isn't just like a couple of days. There are people who will have this watery diarrhea for several weeks. And so it is, you know, unless you're pounding the jalapenos every single day, you're going to know that something is up.
- [32:37]
A
Okay, that makes me feel better. I have finished my taco. We're going to just a little science experiment here on the show. Of course, you waited to say the words feces until I put that first bite in my mouth. I thought we were friends. I'm a little offended by this. I said earlier, I love bringing you on because I just get the chance to pick your brain about a million topics. So let's get to another one of these topics. I saw you speaking recently about treatment for alcoholism and how a lot of times the most effective treatment is very different than the treatment that's given for other sorts of addictions and other sorts of mental afflictions. Can you just talk to us a bit about that? What is still the most effective treatment for alcoholism? And then I want to branch out after that.
- [33:19]
F
The most effective treatment for alcoholism is 12 steps. And the thing that is really unique about the 12 step program is that it's often a faith based program and it's often built around moral growth, spiritual development. Now if we were to compare this to the other treatments that are out there. There are things like naltrexone, which is meant to diminish cravings. There's things like motivational interviewing where you sit down with someone and they try and motivate you to come off the drugs. When you compare all of those things to doing 12 steps, long term, 12 step is the most effective. And I think it's because when you do the 12 steps, it's about growth. It's about insight into your problems, confronting your problems, asking for forgiveness from other people's. And I think there's something really special about a spiritual element to that treatment, allowing people to transcend their addiction.
- [34:17]
A
And one of the interesting things that you've noted is how when it comes to AA and the 12 step process, there's not as much dwelling on, you know, all dwelling on the affliction itself and dwelling on the negative side of it, but more an aspirational thing that you're working towards, you know, being better. How does that differ from what you see in the mainstream for treatments of other mental illnesses?
- [34:42]
F
Well, the thing about 12 steps is it's very empowering. I mean, it's about, you know, admitting that you are powerless in the face of this addiction, and then it's asking the higher power for guidance and growth. And that could be very different from a lot of the other messaging around this where it's like, hey, it's not your fault. It's a brain disease, it's genetic. And oftentimes people, when they hear that messaging, they can feel like, this is out of my control, I can't get my hands around this and essentially heal myself. And so there is something very empowering about doing the 12 steps as well.
- [35:21]
A
One of the things that we talked about a few months ago when this show first launched was some of the new research coming out about SSRIs and about the misconceptions that there were and how we're seeing more data that SSRIs are not always effective in actually treating the root cause of depression. Now that we've had a few months for those studies to kind of permeate, has there been any shift that you've seen from the broader medical community with regard to SSRI prescriptions?
- [35:53]
F
You know, what I notice online is that people are much more tuned into the problems with these drugs. And there's been massive shifts. I mean, all this week, HHS Secretary Kennedy's group have been meeting with psychiatric experts in deprescribing in D.C. they are putting together a new way of educating doctors about these medications, about educating them to talk to their patients about alternatives to the drugs, and also how to get people off these medications. And so I'm seeing this. You know, we're seeing this at the highest level of government. It's going down through the media. People are hearing about it, and thank God they are, because for the last three decades, everyone has been told you have a chemical imbalance. You know, there's something wrong with your brain, and there's this drug called Lexapro that's gonna fix it. And finally people are realizing, hey, you know, there's no shortcut in and healing from depression and anxiety. You really need to address it at its root. And that's gonna be the most sustainable long term solution for your mental health. And good God, Cabot, we really need it right now because 17% of our population are taking These drugs, every single year it goes higher and higher. And so what I'm really hoping to see over the next few years is that we bring that number down because people are actually getting non drugs, root cause based approaches for their anxiety and depression.
- [37:18]
A
When you see the government come out at the federal level and start to push these sorts of initiatives, how long does it take for the trickle down to be felt for the average patient?
- [37:30]
F
So it's quite immediate because what happens is when the government starts talking about it, the media talks about it, you hear it in the news, you hear it around you, and it's just another way of understanding what these drugs do. And as someone that has been immersed in this for the last 11 years, the dominant narrative around these drugs are, you know, depression, it's a medical problem, it's fixed by the drugs. You can never say anything negative about it. If you do, you know, you have a misunderstanding about these drugs, you are essentially stigmatizing people, telling them that they are weak, and they essentially have shut down the whole conversation. But now when we have serious scientists and healthcare leaders at the federal level saying, hey guys, we've gotten a little bit ahead of ourselves here, there's actually a whole bunch of systemic issues, mainly with our insurance system, about how doctors have to see people in five minutes. And it's kind of tilted them towards overusing the drugs rather than really understanding people and helping them with the other more time consuming approaches to their mental health. Now people are getting that alternative message as well. And they're. And it's really resonating with a lot of people because so many Americans out there, they intuitively know it's probably not a good idea to paper over symptoms in your life with a drug. I mean, our grandmas have told us for a really long time, you don't want to just sweep your problems under the rug. They're going to stay there and fester. We need to address them. And so I think a lot of people are finally hearing this message and just saying, hey, that's really intuitive. To me, that makes sense. And so I think it has had an immediate impact. I think it's saving a lot of lives and I think it's actually improving the health, the mental health of the country right now.
- [39:17]
A
Doctor, I did not tell you beforehand I wanted to ask you about this, but I just assumed that you're prepared to talk about anything. So I'm just gonna, I'm throw it out there. You mentioned the White House stepping in to kind of push back on the conventional wisdom. We've seen over the last few years, one of the best examples of that in the medical industry has been the White House signing an order opening the door for the treatment of like psilocybin and other psychedelics for people with PTSD and other addictions, basically making it easier for veterans and others to get their hands legally on some of these psychedelic drugs like psilocybin. Where do you fall on that form of treatment?
- [39:59]
F
I like that form of treatment and I am very pro psychedelic, which may surprise some viewers because I'm actually very cautious about medications. But I want to tell you why I like it. Right now the predominant way that we treat people in mental health is we give them drugs that essentially numb out their symptoms. They don't address the root cause. With psychedelics, the way these treatments are packaged and the way they are moving through the FDA right now is alongside therapy. And so we're not talking about people just, you know, tripping on drugs. When you do psychedelic assisted therapy, you meet with a therapist for several sessions, you set an intention around something that you want to work on in your life. And let me give you a few examples because these are the two major ones where these treatments have been really effective. The first one is in addiction and the second one is in chronic trauma. Now the reason it helps in things like chronic trauma is, let's say you were abused by a family member, you know, in a very terrible way when you were growing up. You are going to learn that, that people aren't safe. Even people that are supposed to love you aren't safe. You can bring that into your life and all of your relationships because that's how you were programmed growing up. Now how do you fix that? Oftentimes you need to have a very profound experience where you feel safe and you can relearn that people aren't dangerous. And that is what psychedelics can often do to people. So you go there, you set the intention with, with the therapist, you're like, I don't want to be afraid of people anymore. Cause that's gotten in the way of all sorts of things. And then you take the drug and while you're in this altered state because you can't access it normally, it's alien to you. When you're in that altered state, the therapist starts asking you a whole bunch of questions about safety and how you see other people. And oftentimes in that state, you're going to have new realizations. And then after you do the trip, you do multiple follow up sessions with the therapist and where they Help you integrate those new beliefs into your life, and they really help you change. Now, the reason I like that so much is you're in control. You're in the driver's seat. You are taking control of your mental health and actually growing through it. This is not a passive process where we're just medicating away your symptoms. You are developing through it. And oftentimes people just need one of these treatments, or maybe they'll need a refresher a couple of times a year. And so if we can get to a place where we can fix problems like addiction and trauma with just a treatment a couple of times a year or maybe just once, and people don't have to deal with side effects, I think that's a wonderful thing.
- [42:39]
A
Yeah, there's no doubt that this sort of treatment is effective. As, you know, as a Christian myself, I get a little concerned when I start hearing and reading some of the personal accounts of these, you know, these trips. For lack of a better term, I get a little worried about the spiritual component there. But I do understand, if you look at the data, there is very compelling evidence that this sort of treatment is far more effective than some of the big pharma solutions. So I'm at least supportive of more research from the FDA and other bodies, which we are seeing the White House push. But I guess that's a conversation for a whole other time. We'll get you back on because there's no shortage of things that I wanna pick your brain on. So, doctor, thank you so much as always, for being here. We always love talking to you.
- [43:21]
F
You great to be here. Thanks, Cabot.
- [43:24]
A
And I will call you if I start to have stomach problems from that Taco Bell that I ate. I want you to know that. Okay?
- [43:33]
F
Okay. Please do.
- [43:34]
A
Okay. I think it might be. I might be having a little bit right now of placebo where my stomach is starting to feel a little strange, even though I know that it's not. Tune back in tomorrow. If I'm here, it means that I'm safe. If I miss a week next month, you'll know why. All right, guys, let's get back to the actual news. In Washington, we've got Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan standing by. Mary Margaret, great to see you as always.
- [44:01]
G
Hey, Kevin. Sounds like I'm doing better than you are.
- [44:04]
A
Yeah, I just ate some Taco Bell live on the show to talk about the parasitic outbreak that is going on nationwide. So we're doing a little science experiment. Mary Margaret, I was talking with Tim earlier about President Trump's big address coming Thursday night. He said that he basically had no real idea of what was gonna be going on. You're a fancy White House correspondent, so I'm guessing you're more plugged in than Tim. What are you hearing about what he might talk about?
- [44:30]
G
Yeah, we have a little bit of idea about what the President's gonna talk about. Most of it is rumblings, of course, currently, msnow, or Ms. Now, as some of my friends like to call it, seems to be one of the only outlets with actual details from White House officials. My understanding is, because those are White House officials that weren't supposed to speak to them. But be that as it may, what we're hearing currently is that this speech will focus on election fraud. I just heard only a few minutes ago that it might be a kind of five pronged speech that deals with different aspects of election fraud, specifically in the 2020 election. So we were hearing a lot of rumblings on that front, enough in my own opinion, to know that that is what we will be discussed. But at the same time, the President said today that it won't be the only thing that comes up. There will be other topics of conversation. But he did tell reporters in the Oval Office today that it's going to be really, really important, I believe is his phrasing. Really, really important. And he stressed that it's a massive big deal and that nothing is more important than our elections. So we know that on that front, and we can at least know that we'll be hearing something on that front. But at the same time, there is speculation, too, that the President will want to take some kind of action on the Save America act, given that that has to do also with our voting system, also with election fraud. And it was one of the last projects that Lindsey Graham worked on while he was still alive. I believe he had told the President just hours before he died that he wanted to work with him and they were going to circle up on the Save America act on Monday. I believe so. So there's also speculation that the President is, you know, really going to carry this torch for Lindsey Graham. He's going to kick the football across the finish line, as it were, and make this happen in his memory. But, of course, President Trump can always change his mind. He can always weave away from what we expect him to talk about. So you can never fully guess. And I think it would be foolish to do so.
- [46:28]
A
If they were able to get the Save America act across the finish line in the Senate, it would be Something. If you saw Lindsey Graham's sister, who was just sworn in to the Senate yesterday, it would be something if she were able to cast the deciding vote in some sort of symbolic fashion. We'll keep an eye on that. The other big story dominating Washington, Mary Margaret, is Iran. President Trump had said that he was going to be charging a 20% toll for ships that were coming through essentially to fund the protection of the strait that the US was offering. He's backing down on that, though. What's going on there?
- [47:03]
G
Yeah. So he said today that the reason that he changed his mind on that is because leaders around the world called him and asked him to, and he decided that that was the best course of action. And I think there's plenty of people in Washington who are happy that the president is open to hearing and negotiating, working with other world leaders on this front. But he is getting some pushback for it from people who, whether it's the legacy media trying to hold him accountable for exactly what he says and does, or for people who disagree with the action. But that's where things stand now, I believe. Only a few minutes ago, I saw a post from centcom saying that they had begun launching additional round of strikes against Iran to continue degrading their capabilities, and that strikes are taking place as our American forces prepare to resume our naval blockade against Iranian ports and coastal areas. And that has gone into effect literally as we speak. So lots of action on that front as well.
- [47:55]
A
Yeah. We're gonna be keeping our audience updated again. This is the beauty of doing live news, is these things happen while we are live. Mayor MARGARET we're gonna be seeing Attorney General, or I should say acting Attorney General Todd Blanche have a confirmation hearing tomorrow on Capitol Hill. What are we hearing on that front on the congressional side, and then also, what is President Trump saying there?
- [48:16]
G
Yeah. So this is gonna be probably the biggest story tomorrow and the next day. This is Trump's former personal lawyer turned acting Attorney general, who kind of weathered the storm under Pam Bondi as she really dealt with some of the craziest PR we've seen under this second administration yet. Todd Blanche emerged, still a favorite of Trump's. He emerged from the Epstein fallout still largely unscathed and is now the acting Attorney General of the DoJ, and he will be going in for his confirmation hearings tomorrow and Thursday. Now, he's gonna face a lot of opposition from Democrats who already hate him because he was Trump's personal lawyer. They know he's very loyal to the president, but that's actually one of the main reasons that Trump loves him so much. The President put out a big truth social post just a couple of hours ago, singing Todd Blanche's praises and talking about all the wonderful things he has done so far in this administration. And to his credit, Cabot, Todd Blanche has been a pretty good attorney general. I know. I had heard concerns that he wasn't necessarily culturally conservative. I had heard concerns that, you know, he wouldn't really understand the importance of religious freedom. But so far, those concerns seem to be unfounded. He's really, as the President said, defended the integrity of women's spaces from men who want to play in their sports and be in their spaces. He's defended religious freedom. He actually released a massive report on the Face act and how the Biden DOJ had weaponized it against pro lifers, which he covered extensively for the Daily Wire. So a lot of different heavy hitting items on that front. But the main thing that the President talked about in this statement was that Todd Blanche has been loyal to him. Todd Blanche was there for him when, after the 2020 election, things went so wrong for Trump when he was enduring so much criticism and lawfare from the left. And he said Blanche was there for him when others were not. And that means a lot to this president. We've seen that repeatedly. He's surrounded himself with the people who have chosen, who have shown him that they can be trusted and that they're loyal. And so that means a lot, a lot in Trump world. And so now Blanche is heading into these hearings. I think we can expect some heavy criticism from Democrats, especially on the Epstein files, on the anti weaponization fund, which, which is their latest thing to be angry about. And then from Republicans, I think we'll see some of these more chastened Republicans like Thom Tillis and John Cornyn be a little angsty with him. But we could see some serious line of questioning, too, when it comes to things like abortion, drugs. I'm expecting Josh Hawley to kind of grill him on that topic. Possibly a couple other senators will as well. Republicans never seem to hold out. Even if they have have a candidate they like, they're still gonna make sure that their agenda and their items get in there. So it's gonna be some good television and it's gonna be an interesting news cycle for the next couple of days.
- [51:13]
A
Yes, it will. We know that there are plenty of Democratic senators who love nothing more than trying to get that viral moment when they get a Trump administration official or nominee before them. So we will have all of the highlights from that hearing tomorrow for our audience. Mary Margaret, thank you so much for coming on.
- [51:29]
G
As always, thank you for having me.
- [51:32]
A
That is Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan. All right, let's get to the economy where we have got some good news. The latest Labor Department report this morning showed that inflation fell to 3.5% year over year in June. That represents the largest monthly drop since April of 2020. And there was even better news on core inflation, which did not increase for the first time in more than five years. Here to break it all down is one of our favorite economists, also one of the favorite economists of President Donald Trump. It's Steve Moore. Steve, it's great to have you back.
- [52:05]
D
Thank you.
- [52:07]
A
So tell us, what does this inflation report today tell us about the state of the economy? Big picture.
- [52:14]
D
Well, I'm not quite as optimistic as you are about this report. You're right that it was a reduction in inflation rate, but inflation had really bumped up the previous month. So we're still running at three and a half percent inflation according to this new report. And that is still too hot. You know, the Fed target rate is 2%, I think, Kevin, worse. And I think a lot of consumers would like to see the inflation rate go down to zero given how much prices have risen over the last five or six or seven years. So, yes, some good news. I agree with you. The direction is good, but still a lot of work to do. And the fact that we're seeing the oil price creep up again is making me a little nervous. And, you know, a lot of this depends on whether we can, we can stabilize Iran. Nobody knows the answer to that. But until that happens, I think we're still looking at inflation that is too high for consumers.
- [53:08]
A
And to that point about oil prices, we know that this report was quantifying what took place in June. That is when the cease fire was largely intact. And so we saw those oil prices tick down. If this conflict does begin to expand further, just how much of an oil price uptick would it take for us to see inflation start to go in the wrong direction again?
- [53:30]
D
Well, I haven't checked in the last couple hours, but I checked around noon and the oil price was somewhere around $75 a barrel. I don't know if we looked more recently. You know, that's a remember before this all began, back in February, the oil price was $60. So, you know, that's a significant increase. We need to get the oil price, in my opinion, down below $70 a barrel for people to start paying less than 350 a gallon at the pump. And if that happens, and I think people will feel a lot better about things. I mean, obviously it depends on what state you live in. If you live in California and you're still paying 550 a gallon for gas, if you're legaling in Texas, you know, you're paying three bucks a gap. So it depends on where you live in.
- [54:13]
A
You mentioned the Federal Reserve earlier. What does today's report mean for potential rate hikes in the future?
- [54:22]
D
I'm, you know, I think Marsh is absolutely fantastic choice and I love this testimony yesterday. He's teaching economics to the nation and he's teaching economics to the, to the Congress as well. And you know, too many people on Wall street just think, oh, all we have to do is lower interest rates and everything will be just fine. The Fed doesn't control interest rates. The market controls interest rates. What the Fed does control is how much money is flowing in and out of the economy. And I think what you're going to see is Kevin Rose making sure that we bring that inflation rate continue gradually down to below 2%. And if that happens, by the way, in other words, I want to be clear on this, the inflation rate follows the interest rates. The interest rates don't follow the inflation rate. So the more the inflation rate comes down, the more those, those fairly high interest rates right now will come down. Steven?
- [55:12]
A
Absolutely. And I want you to help us make sense of another trend that we've seen this week. The 30 year U.S. treasury yield just pushed above 5% for the first time since 2007. You and I both know when people start to hear the words bonds and treasury yields, their eyes can kind of gloss over. So can you just please, Steve, put in layman's terms for our audience what that means and why that is significant?
- [55:36]
D
Well, let me ask you a question. Who's the biggest borrower in the world?
- [55:40]
A
The United States federal government.
- [55:42]
D
Yes, exactly. Ding, ding, ding. So every time the inflation, I mean, that interest rate goes up, you know, on the $37 trillion of debt, that means we have to pay more. So it's like a tax on the American economy. We want to see those, those interest rates come down. This is a function of the fact that inflation has been rising. It's exactly the point I was just making. So really important that we bring the oil price down, we bring food prices down. When that comes down, then I'll start, we'll start to see those interest rates come down. But to put this in perspective, by the way, I Remember when, you know, the inflation rate, the interest rate in the late 70s, early 80s was like 11% interest rates. So this is not nearly as bad as we saw back then. And I look, I think again, we have a Fed chairman who is completely committed. They're bringing inflation back down to 2%. When that happens, folks, I guarantee you those interest rates that you're talking about are going to start to come down as well. And that means, by the way, the 30 year mortgage, that's the one that people pay attention to. And we want to see that mortgage rate come down so people can afford to buy a house like my kids who can't buy a house right now.
- [56:47]
A
Steve, I know that you spent time advising President Trump and I'm interested in your experience on that front. We know that much of the economic strain that we're under right now is due to the war in Iran. In your experience working with President Trump, how much of his foreign policy was impacted by what he was seeing economically at home?
- [57:10]
D
Look, Donald Trump is completely committed to, he's a businessman. He wants the United States economy to soar. It happened in his first term and happened through the first year of his second term. And then Iran really set us off course, no question about it, when that oil price started to spike. So you could sense that Donald Trump is frustrated that oil price is not coming down, that Iran is turning to be much more of an adversary than we expected. And so I think there's frustration. But I never bet against this president. And I do think we talking about six weeks from now, things are going to look a lot better when the boom begins. It's going to be really strong. One other quick point is that the technology will which is very real, you're seeing all this money flow into technology, all of this like the artificial intelligence, robotics that is lowering costs for businesses and that's going to bring inflation down as well. I'm short term, a little nervous, long term, very bullish.
- [58:07]
A
All right, Steve, we will leave it there. Thank you so much for making time for us. We always appreciate your insight on the show.
- [58:14]
D
Okay, thank you. I'm off to the All Star game in Philadelphia.
- [58:17]
A
All right, have fun. I don't like Philadelphia sports, but I'll give you a free pass on this one.
- [58:25]
D
Have a good one.
- [58:26]
A
All right, thanks, Steve. All right, guys, thank you so much for tuning in to Wired In. If you guys are on Apple and Spotify, I will see you tomorrow. Before you go, though, please go leave us a review and go follow and subscribe on both platforms that's the best way to help us grow. And if you want the show to keep going, we're gonna head over right now to our live listener Q and A again. If you're on Apple and Spotify, go to DailyWire.com subscribe and get in on the live chat. I will see all of you tomorrow. Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately, though, Mint's story is better.
- [59:29]
C
Every plan $15 a month, even unlimited.
- [59:32]
D
That's it.
- [59:32]
A
Happy ending, zero tears.
- [59:34]
C
Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [59:37]
G
of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 month Plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms.