[Music] Let's get Peppy! Welcome to Peppy 2.5A! That's Planet Extra Podcast. I am Charles Lachodola, host of Planet America and ABC Australia. And this is an official podcast of the ABC. So say hi to the Ombudsman for me. I'm Peppy, we cover all the stuff as turn to early for TV. If you listen, you can find us on YouTube and Facebook at Planet Pepp and you can find highlights there as well. You also find timestamps and show notes in our blobs. And if you leave a comment under our current episode, we are likely to see it. You can also tweet us all. BlueSky, I said P-E-P-C-H-A-S-D-R-D-A-V-E. That's @PeppChaseDockTheDave. If you want to chat to some fellow Peppers, you can join our Discord server. It's on the screen now or on the blooper podcast. But if you want to contact me, you're lucky to like you privately. Why not email us? The address is
[email protected]. Address again is
[email protected]. And I'm replying to them as well. I promise every now and then. And do not forget to subscribe for all that Peppy goodness that all helps. We're recording this at 2.16 PM on Friday the 1st of May or 12.16 AM on Friday morning. He's coast time in America. But for now, let's turn to the menu simply. We'll not raise the stakes on any of the questions. I'm going to speak of course about Dr. Pepper himself, Dr David Smith. Hi everyone. Happy Mayday solidarity forever. I am Dr. David Smith. I'm an associate professor at the United States Studies Center. But I do not speak for the United States Studies Center nor the University of Sydney, the institution in which it is located. When you listen to Pepp, you are hearing from me only. I'm hearing from some combination of my heart, my gut and my brain. I'll throw in my liver, kidneys, spleen and pancreas as well. But the one thing you will not hear from is an institution. You will not get an institutional point of view. I love the fact that you take it as an intellectual exercise. You can't be saying new to say every single time. And I'm looking forward to Pepp 780. And you have just run out of material. That one was inspired by my blood test results this week. Really? Yeah, all good by the way. You're spleen as I go. All of those organs fully functional. How about your institution? The blood test doesn't measure my institution. It tried and the blood said no comment. Fair for you, great for Dr. Dave. So last week there was another prominent Australian who died and that was David Maloof. Very grateful for him. So he died at the age of 92. Had a very long life and a very long career. Mastered just about every form of writing that there is. He was renowned as a poet as a short story writer as an SAS, but he is best known as a novelist. And on the day that we learnt that he had died, I started reading one of his novels, The Great World. I'm highly recommending The Great World that is going on to the list at One The Miles Franklin Award in 1991. What's remarkable about it is it's a war novel, but there's not a lot of action in the novel. It is about the characters in a state during war. And one of the things that he really gets at is that for a lot of people what war is, especially prisoners of war, as his characters are, there's a lot of time. There's just a lot of inaction followed by incredibly violent bursts of action. But most of it is about his characters in a lives. And it is incredibly compelling. Like this is a big novel. I've been amazed how quickly I'm getting through it. So I would really recommend that. Valle David Maloof. Thank you for everything. Very nice. I got two as I want to do at times. First of all, I don't think it was possible. But for the first time ever, maybe we saw someone in the Trump world fall because they're incompetent. Not because they're insufficiently loyal or insufficiently hackish enough or because they create bad publicity, but because they actually would just flood out incompetent, it should never have had the job in the first place. We are talking about Devon Noonus. I knew you'd like this day. He's a long time favorite of the podcast. In fact, for years, Pepp has been the only place you've been able to get regular updates on the life and works of Devon Noonus. This might be the last update. I'm definitely going to say. Yeah. He got the boot last week. For those who don't know, Devon, those who haven't pepped from the very beginning, Devon Noonus was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee during Trump's first turn. He was famous for two things back in that day. Number one, doggardly advocate for Trump in a way no ordinary hack was shameless enough to do back in 2017. Yeah. Now every hack does it. But back then, he was one of the kind. Yeah. Like now, you've got to be Randy Fine to really stand out. But yeah, back then, it was Devon Noonus. He was a leader. He's also from Florida, isn't he? Originally. He was a California congressman. Oh, I don't know where he was born, but he was a California congressman. No, no, you're right. I was projecting Floridaness. He's probably going to end up in Florida. Almost certainly, but yeah, sorry, apologies to Florida. You're not responsible for that one. Anyway, so that was the first thing he was known for doggardly advocate for Trump. The second thing was suing everyone for defamation. Yeah. He filed 11 different defamation cases over the years. All of them dismissed the most fame. And this is especially noteworthy because he lived, like I said, in California, yes, home of the slap statue, which is for those who don't know the slap statue. The next thing he did was to say, "Well, SLA double P is a statue where if you file bullshit defamation statues, not only do you lose very quickly, but it costs you money." And he kept on doing it. Because some people just love getting slapped. They do. He fought most famously, of course, sued the account on Twitter. Do you remember what it was called? No. Devon Noonus's cow. Wow, that is a blast from the past. Even a cow beat Devon Noonus in court. Yeah. Twitter cow. Anyway, he quit the house to become the first CEO of Trump's company, Trump Media, which seemed appropriate given what he was doing in Congress. We're talking about truth social here when that first started. And I think the best way I can illustrate how astonishingly incompetent he was as a CEO is to simply share your graph of Trump Media's share price over the years. Let's look at that graph. Those who are listening rather than seeing what we're looking at is a graph of stuff at $97 a share and has ended off on $9.18 a share. And it's been around $9.18, pretty much the entire time, except for in the middle there, he said that little spike in the middle was when they merged. It was a $6 billion merge with a fusion power company. Yeah. For some reason. You'd think just merging with a $6 billion company, you'd think it would go okay, but no, just from the assets alone. But no. Trump Media originally projected that they'd be making $1.8 billion of revenue in 2025. And $3.6 billion of revenue in 2026, Dave. Do you know what the actual revenue was in 2025? It doesn't start with the letter B. No, it does not. Does it start with the letter M? It does. It does. Right. So it's in the millions. Hello millions. Yes, it is the low millions, Dave. Yeah. Yeah. 3.7 million. And they made a loss of 712 million. The high M's. Apparently, stinking up as pungently as imaginable for four years was enough and Devon and then this will not be missed. Remind the peppers how much Devon Nunes was getting paid. Oh, I don't remember the numbers a lot. It's a lot. 48 million a year. Thank you. Thank you. I should have looked it up again. 48 million dollars a year. Well, earned. Well, earned. And second, my second grade for is, and this one is absolutely serious. There's no Devon Nunes as cow here. I'm the other person who was hoping for Trump to fail. There's a lot of people who were. I wasn't one of them. Either first or the second time. I reckon America is suffering enough over the last 25 years. Even though a lot of that suffering is America's own fault, I'm keen for that suffering to end. Yes. But sadly, as much as I try, there aren't much to cheer in this second term. I found a couple of things in term one. I was talking, I was really talking up the vaccine program. Yeah. But, yeah, there's just nothing to cheer in this term at all. But there was one thing last week. There was the marijuana rescheduling I talked about. That was that was something to cheer. That was good. Even though it was just trying to suck up to Joe Rogan, it was still nice. But now there's something else, which I'm bringing to grateful. I'm actually grateful in a veritable Sahara desert of appointments. Trump may finally have decided to nominate the Tony Slillo Aces of just a couple of normal people. Wow. I'm not saying great people. I'm just saying a couple of normal people. The sheriff of Lohbaugh is
back. I could not be more grateful for someone normal in the Trump administration. I got two for you, though. The person nominated lead famous a guy called Cameron Hamilton. Alright, FEMA being the federal emergency emergency. This guy is not an expert on disaster management. Okay. He is not a great pick. He's a Republican, which is not a surprise. Yeah. Right. But the important thing about him is that he was actually, he has done stuff in the area before. He directed emergency medical services at DHS from 2020 to 2023. Okay. And the Biden. So he's not that partisan hack. No. Right. He's getting it. That's kind of in the area, but he doesn't have disaster management experience himself. Right. So that's does he have experience of managing people who teleport unexpectedly? No, he doesn't have that experience. And I hopefully he won't have that experience. But sadly, he might have to learn. Captain teleboard still there. He's still there for now. Yeah. But yeah, the fact is, last year FEMA got abused and body relentless. I did. Christie, no, I wouldn't allow them to do anything without going through her first. And then she wouldn't do anything. It all but destroyed FEMA. Like, for example, 70% of the survivor calls went unanswered during the 2025 Texas floods for instance. Just an example. Right. Anyway, so Cameron Hill, Cameron Hilton with Hamilton was there before. He was down the Biden. He was he became. He was Trump's first pick early on to be FEMA head. And no one had a problem with him then. They said, yeah, that's fair enough. That's okay. Yeah. No worries. Cool. He where he seemed normal. And people were like, that's great. But then they sacked him. Do you remember why they sacked him? No. Okay. It was the day after Trump declared that he just wanted to dissolve FEMA entirely. And Hamilton appeared before US House Appropriation Subcommittee on Homeland Security. They asked him what his feelings were about that. And he said, quote, I do not believe it's in the best interest of the American people to eliminate the federal emergency management agency. They sacked him the next day. How dare you insult the president like that. And they replaced him with a mega hat. That's the mildest defense of your own job that I've ever heard. So anyway, they just got rid of him. And they installed the mega hack. And then that they went and there's another hack. And it's just got worse and worse and worse. Mark Wayne Mellon is bringing him back. That's nice. That person's kind of normal. That person wants their job. So that's number one. Number two, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been struggling for competent leadership for years. They haven't had a long time conferred direct that since Biden. Trump keeps no name. Weed-o's, recall that for months they looked like they were going to have someone normal there. Yeah. Which was Dr. Susan Monarest. And she was sacked almost immediately because she refused to go along with RFK's anti-vax agenda. That's not what Kenny said. Yeah. Kenny said she was sacked because he asked her if she was a trustworthy person. And she said no. I don't think that's what happened. Anyway, Trump has now nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz. Who's an actual physician? Wow. She holds degrees in biomedical engineering, medicine, public health and law, public health. She's qualified in public health. She's a retired admiral in the commission court of the US public health service, public health. And she served as a deputy surgeon general during Trump's first term when they had some staff that weren't shit. And she was also unambiguously pro-vaccine as well unambiguously. As Trump just run out of people who eat snow globes and I'm clonks to inoculate themselves against chemtrails. I think he's just sick of it. And I don't blame him. I'm surprised it took this long. Yeah. She's been widely complemented by people who work with her in the passing, including Dr. Jerome Adams. Who if you recall, the surgeon general during Trump's first term, he was a decent surgeon general. There's nothing wrong with him. He said she has the expertise, credibility and integrity to lead the CDC effectively. If I'll add to follow the science without political interference, she will excel. Courthusly optimistic, but encouraged by this pick. I mean, that's the kind of thing a normal person says. It's so normal. Anyway, the point is, CDC desperate and they did so incompetent and they've got it and I'm grateful. Okay. Dave. I'm not going to do correspondence. There's just way too much. Like Dave said, we got normal, love normal. We got a lot of DJ. We got a lot of shooting to talk about. We got a lot of stuff to run. So no correspondence. I'm going to do an extra corresponds extra. Actually, I have just an extra full stop of some kind in the middle of the week. There were some great correspondences. So definitely listen out for that one during the week, midweek. But for now, let's just get on to stuff. Okay. Update and Florida redistricting. We talked about Virginia last week with Malena. I spoke about how I'm like Texas and I'm like Florida. At least Virginia gave people a vote. Yes, they did. And to be clear, that was not how the goodness of their heart. It was required by law. But still, I think most people like me and like Malena, from the south, things like you, saw that as at least more democratically legitimate process than just having the legislature meet 3 a.m. and strong arm of Jerry Manderthra. Yes. Okay. So we're all on the same page. I read the political scientist blog after I recorded that, arguing the exact opposite. Really? Yeah. That direct democracy is actually less democratically legitimate than what I just described. Which I found an interesting argument. So Dave, I'm going to directly read this argument to you. Okay. I want to see what you think. This is a political scientist called Jonathan Bernstein. Okay. He's got a sub-stat called good politics, bad politics. If you're interested, he writes some interesting stuff. Okay. And so I'll quiet him and see what you think. To begin with, statewide propositions such as these give enormous influence to whoever gets to decide what will be up for a vote. Which topics, what the exact wording will be? As with all non-partisan votes, it also gives lots of influence to the media and to big money interests. That's because most voters have only vague opinions on many policy questions. So they're dependent on the immediate information environment, which is often dominated by the media and paid advertising. Candidate elections, on the other hand, are generally contested between parties. Voters can use party as a generally reliable shortcut. That's particularly appropriate on an issue such as districting where almost no one has strong views beyond their parties immediate interests. It's also true that drawing district lines as a host of technical issues of the general public and even most elites are not particularly familiar with. In short, even if voters have real opinions on questions like marriage equality or minimum wage, it's very unlikely they have strongly held views on how to draw district lines. Indeed, the Virginia campaign by the Democrats really came down to convincing people that voting yes was the way to support the party and stick it to Donald Trump. I have nothing against that. In candidate elections, those are good reasons for vote choice. But if that's all that a ballot measure is, it's hard to see what that brings. That represent government doesn't already bring, except for the chance that people's real preferences will be undermined by the media or by advertising. And while ballot measures make voting harder by removing the most obvious queue, they also in these cases took place outside of the normal November election and therefore introduced another bias in fray favor of habitual and against occasional voters. It's just another way that something that may appear to be the pure will of the people is actually the outcome of battles to manipulate the results. Of course, all elections have an element of elite manipulation, but fixed date high profile elections create a much more even playing field. On top of all that, taking important policy questions away from legislatures and placing them on the ballot tends to hollow out represent government. Why bargain and compromise in the legislature if there's a shortcut of going directly to the people? Where you're reckon? Okay, so he makes some good points, I think. I think though he's, this is really a normative question about what sort of forms of democratic procedures do you prefer? And he's almost presenting it as if it's kind of a, this is a technical problem. And one is better than the other technically. And I don't think that's true. Okay, so in 1993, there was an article written by Arthur LePierre who fall disclosure, he went on to teach me game theory at the University of Michigan, very, very prominent Michigan political scientist, but he did his PhD at Caltech. This is not the last time Caltech will get mentioned today. Okay. And he became really, because it was not from California originally, but he was really interested in the fact that on California ballots, you would have these direct democracy measures where yeah, it only took like 25,000 people to put it on a ballot in a state of 55 million people or whatever it is that would often involve highly technical issues that people would have absolutely no idea how they worked. Right? So his big question was, how can democracy actually work under these circumstances? And through a lot of empirical testing, his answer, which would go against what Bernstein was saying is that they actually perform surprisingly well. And he said, even in these kind of direct ballot measures, people still use heuristic.
Right, so Bernstein was talking about in candidate elections, obviously you usually know nothing about the candidate, the heuristic that you have is the party label. What he argued is that in any ballot measure, all the people need to know broadly is who's for it and who's against it. So one of his big examples was a ballot measure about some fairly obscure reform to car insurance in California. He said, "All people needed to know to vote according to their true preferences." And he verified this with a lot of experimentation was which side of the debate the car insurance industry was on. Now, admittedly, you're not even going to get that heuristic in a lot of direct democracy measures. Like people will be voting pretty much almost blind. But in this one, people definitely would have known who was on which side. So I think while he is making some legitimate points about the problems with direct democracy, first of all, I think that this is in the end a normative argument, not the technical argument that he's presenting. Second, I think there are some instances where direct democracy translates people's preferences as well as votes over candidates do. And I think that this would be one of them. But look, I'm glad that he's making that argument and putting it out there because yes, you shouldn't just assume that the more direct the better. So I thought it was interesting. I'm really glad you gave that answer. That's a great answer off top of your head. I didn't give Dave any warning on that one. Even remember the year 1993, on top of his head. And that was not what I was looking up on my phone either. No, I believe you. For what it's worth, I mean, leaving aside whether it represents people's views, bedroom or not, that's an interesting discussion. I disagree with them about the point of democracy. I don't think democracy is about consultation with the public. I think that's the branding of democracy. But I think that's real. I think there are far too many barriers for any real consultation with the public. I think there are two main reasons for democracy. Number one, to enforce accountability. Right. And number two, to make people feel like they're views mad at. Like they got skin in the game. And then they care. And they they they bind to the society more. There's more harmony. And I think direct democracy does both of those better in my view. So that's all I would add to that. Anyway, so that was that was last week. This week Florida has, I did flag this as this was coming. They have done their own redistricting. Rhonda Santas revealed his new maps. These are the maps he proposed. Flora has gone from a 20 to eight state to a 24 to four state. Now obviously four cities presumably are the four. The four tiny. Yeah, ten is Orlando. Yeah, 23 I think is for Lord of Dale. I know. And 20 and 24 repart to Miami. There you go. The legislature's already voted for this. That this is going to happen. It will undoubtedly be challenging court because the Florida Constitution bands get this. Drawing districts with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent. Do you reckon this violates that? That sounds pretty blatant. By the way, Charles, I know that you have been thinking about questions of who has maintained their integrity in the Trump era. Yes. We have talked about this in the media. You know, really good example of someone who I actually thought had a huge amount of integrity all the way through Trump's first turn but has now descended into the rank as tackry. Who's that? Henry Olson of the Washington Post. Oh, yes. Yes. I think that's fair actually on both counts. Yes. Yeah. Dear idea. Anyway, he thinks that this map is great. I love this. Yeah. Just like people know what you were referring to there. I actually talked today this week and was saying that I think someone who has maintained their integrity completely. Someone who I had very little respect for 15 years ago. Yeah. But he has just kept a very level head all the way through his Andrew McCarthy on National Viewer and Unfox News. Yeah. And he had very little respect for him because he was the preeminent advocate for torture. Yes, he was. In the Bush era. And so you can imagine I don't like torture very much. But the fact is he's the same guy he was 15 years ago. Yeah. He hasn't changed a bit. Yeah. And he's the only one who hasn't changed a bit. Even though he's right in the middle of Trump world hasn't affected him at all. No. But anyway, let's leave that aside. The courts, these are definitely going to the courts for the reason I just said. Yep. But I don't think so making a difference. I think they're going to lose in court. How can they possibly lose in court? What you just described is just clearly against the constitution. It's gerrymandering. Well, the previous map was 28. That tells you all you need to know about how the courts operate in Florida. So I'm sure the courts will find a way to let this through. Yeah. I mean, look, Florida has been getting more red. Yeah. Not that red. Not that red. Yeah. I haven't changed my mind from last week. I think they're not going to win all four of those new red seats that have created. I think they'll lose some of them because they're going to lose the Tino votes. And I think overall nationally, it's going to be a wise. And I mean, there's a general principle, which we've mentioned before, but we should mention again, which is gerrymandering can seem very clever under certain circumstances. But remember what you usually have to do with gerrymandering. What about distributing your own supporters more efficiently? Right. What you want in an ideal gerrymander is to have relatively small margins of victories in your seat, so that you can get more of those victories with small margins in a lot of places, whereas you want all of your opponent supporters, you know, packed into a couple of districts, hence the legendary district in North Carolina, which somehow manages to connect every college town in the state. However, the problem is in a wave election, if you've built your empire on small margins, those margins can evaporate really quickly in a lot of places at once. Yeah, altogether. So gerrymandering can be a double edged sword. Yeah. And I'm expecting, yeah, the Democrats to at least match them if not do better. And this election, we're seeing 2028. Obviously, there's another factor in 2028, which we're going to talk about next week, which is a Supreme Court case that just happened yesterday, which I haven't read about yet, which is why we're talking about today. Yep. This is about the banning of racial gerrymanders. That's going to completely change the district team for 2028. Yes. But we'll talk about that next week. Yes. Dave, you have an update about polling. Okay. Yes. So on the presidential level, Trump is looking at the worst polling of his second term. In fact, even worse than his first term. Yes. So, I mean, most of the aggregates at the moment have Trump on about 39%. Now, you might remember, most of last year his polling was very stable at around 43%. Like, no, I mean, it started higher than that dropped pretty quickly. No matter what was going on, nothing could drop him below 43%. That has plummeted. I mean, at least in real, a four point drop from 43%. That is pretty significant. That's a 10% loss of support. That is the Iran war. Yeah. Like that. There has been other stuff going on as well. I think Minneapolis didn't help much. Minneapolis did not help much either. But yeah, so that is the Iran. It has actually dipped even lower than that. It has recovered slightly during the last week. I've got the 50 plus one aggregate, which is even worse than what you just described. Yeah, yeah. Which is 36.9 approval, 59.1. Disappearable, that's 22.5 negative net approval. So those don't know what 50 plus one is. That's the vestiges of 538. Yes. So, yeah. Now, okay. So, the four point, if we take like the New York Times slash silver bulletin aggregate, which at the moment is 39, the way that I'm reading that four point drop is 3% of that is independence and 1% of that is Republicans. I think that that's about the ratio of what he's losing at the moment. Obviously, he still hasn't overwhelming majority of Republicans. You know, that you often see, oh, but Republicans who don't call themselves mega Republicans, like he's losing their support. But yeah, like something like 80% of Republicans call themselves mega Republicans if pushed by pollsters. The difference is now he is losing some of them as well, like not all of them, not a majority of them, but he's losing enough of them to have these fairly noticeable marginal changes in the polls. There are some abysmal numbers out there. There really are. Like in the Reuters poll, which is 34% approval by the way. Yeah, yeah. Guess the cost of living approval for Trump in the Reuters poll. There's approval of his handling of cost of living. It's below 27, right? Yes. 21. 22. 22% approval of how his handling of cost of living. Yeah. That's not good. No, not good. It ain't good. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that means like nearly half of the people who actually support him think he's doing a bad job with cost of living. One of the interesting things is, so looking at support for the war.
So that's also sitting around 39% at the moment. That is actually pretty stable, I gotta say. And I don't think that's because he's doing a great job with the war. I think that's because it started out so low in the first place. There's actually an interesting poll I saw on that. Yeah, this is a U-gov poll and it's really, really interesting because I know what you're saying about the the mega Republicans being greater than the non-magor Republicans in number. But they're polarizing on the war. And when I say polarizing, I just mean different. I mean, mega Republicans are liking the war more over time. And non-magor Republicans are liking it less over time. Okay, so what I've got here is if we have a look at the top line for those who are looking at the mega Republicans, the third line is the non-magor Republicans. You can see between the 5th of April and the 12th of April, this is a couple of weeks old now. You can see that mega Republicans actually, they became more pro-war from 78% approval of the war, to 83% approval of the war. And non-magor Republicans dropped from 53% support of the war to 43% support of the war. And the independence actually, which I found is really interesting. I don't know what we make of that, but yeah, I don't know if that's continued in the last two weeks, but I thought that was an interesting observation. Yeah, but you certainly can see from that graph, basically the only real fluctuation that is taking place is mega, non-magor Republicans. It's pretty stable. Everything, every other variance could really just be down to statistical noise. But yeah, that, as I say, is largely because the war was so unpopular from the outset. It really didn't have much further down to go. Yes. The generic congressional ballot, though, what I'm consistently seeing there, whatever the estimate is, is Democrats up by about five. Yeah, I've seen six, but yeah, around that region. I actually think is not, I think Democrats would actually be hoping, given everything that has happened that they would be further ahead. Yeah, I think that would be disappointed by that. Yeah, and that does, I mean, it just seems to be a stable enough gap that it looks pretty real. Now, that is still, that will be a decisive victory in the House to Democrats if that holds up. It won't be like netting them 30 seats. No. It would, yeah, be more like 15 seats, probably. Yeah. Which that, though, would give them a bigger margin than anyone has had in the House for quite a long time. It would certainly give them a big enough margin to work with. With the election, the other thing that gives Republicans hope is that they've got an enormous fundraising advantage. Yes. Like, this has been really notable. Now, I don't think that's going to matter much in the end, but this is the one thing that they keep pointing to. Yeah, we've got this huge fundraising advantage. Well, I would say, though, this is off to my head, so I don't have the numbers in front of me. Yeah. But I am pretty sure that what's happening is people, the Democrats, we've described have been on the nose for a while. Yes. People are not donains of the Democrats. No. What they don't naan to is individual races. Yeah. And I think you'll find, especially in the Senate races, the Democrats in the key Senate races are making out like bandits already. Yeah. Already they're making tens and tens of millions of dollars of donations. Yeah. And just wiping the floor with their opposition. Yeah. But people aren't donaing to the Democratic party itself. No, that is. And so, yeah. So I think on the key races that people are going to care about coming up, that they're going to be very well funded. Yes. But just overall, they're not going to be swinging money. Yes. Yeah. So I mean, the other thing that would give Democrats cause for optimism is just the way that elections have gone over the last year, which I mean, it's not by no means a perfect predictor because off your elections are really, you know, they've got very low turnout. And they favor Democrats at the moment because Democrats are favor educated voters. Yes. And nonetheless though, they do say something about people's ability to run campaigns and ability to mobilize voters. And I would say they do point to a certain enthusiasm gap between Republicans and Democrats. Absolutely. Well, on that note, what I was about to tell you before is that unless you were about to say this about the Cook report, you mentioned. I was not going to say this, so you go ahead. The Cook report have undertaken what I think is one of the more valuable polls. That goes around. They do this every hour and a half and they love when they do. It's a poll of just the districts and all the districts that the Cook report regards as toss-ups, lean Republicans or lean Democrats. So it's just the swing districts, essentially. Now Trump won these by an average of two points in 2024. At the moment, Democrats are six points up in those ones, like generally. But these are just the swing districts we're talking about. In those districts, Trump's approval is 42%, 28%, in just those districts, independence give Trump a 70% disapproval rating. Remember, these are just the swing districts, the 36 swing districts. Yeah. In 2018, independent voters went for the Democrats by 12 points, according to exit polls in these districts. Democrats are winning independent voters in the generic ballot in those districts by 25 points right now. On the economy, on lowering gas and energy prices, even on protecting tax pay the funds from fraud and abuse, which is Trump's favorite topic at the moment, independence preferred Democrats by double-digit margins. In enthusiasm, which is whilst reminded of this when you mention that, Democrats hold a 14 point advantage of the Republicans in those swing districts. That's 70% to 56%. Yeah. So that's where we're at. Those are the kinds of numbers that point more towards 30 seat majorities. That might be more useful than the generic congressional ballot, but I think we're too far away from the election to turn note. Yes. We are. Although my suspicion is that if this is like every other election, then history does tend to repeat itself. What's going to happen is there's going to be a period in about probably three months where Trump is looking okay. And then the bottom will fall out. Yes. But we'll say. That's what this is what tends to happen. And now we've got predictive markets to tell us just how much better Trump is doing and then just how much the bottom has fallen out the last second. Do you have anything else on this topic? No. That's why I run. Yes. Now, we haven't talked about it around for a little while because I didn't do that with Malena at all. When we left it, the American blockade of Iranian exports had just begun. Yes. And there was a brief ceasefire at the time. It was due to expire in a few days. F.T. reported that Vance told confidence after he left, he walked out of the negotiations that walking out would probably force the Iranians to fall within a few days with the blockade. Didn't quite work out that line. There was serious negotiating time. Trump said that he was speaking to the right people and they wanted to make a deal day. We've been called this morning by the right people, the appropriate people and they want to work a deal. They would like to work a deal. Remember, he was carrying two bags of McDonald's. He was. He even said he might go to the next round of talks. He was that confident to make a deal. I might go. Yeah. If the deal is signed in as one of them, I might go. The field marshal has been great. The prime minister has been really great in Pakistan. So I make a deal. They want to be a pro-sledie march. But there are a few problems. And we discussed the beginnings of this phenomenon last time we talked about this. Yes, we did. Which was every time someone something got out, that was being discussed. Yep. Trump would slap it down and go, "No! No, I'm a tough guy. No concessions. Nothing!" Yeah. No middle ground. The worst example of that was the 20 year office that the US was putting on the table. So we were talking a couple of weeks ago about my misplaced optimism that because both sides were at least talking about years. Right around saying, "Five years of no enrichment, you're saying 20 years of no enrichment." That at least gave us a. You know, there could be a some point in between them, but then Trump said, "No! Don't like 20 years. Has to be forever." My favourite quote about this day. Yes. When asked about how. Well, why don't you just ask, "If you're giving them a moratorium, it might encourage them to make an agreement." Trump responded with the following quote, "I don't want them to feel like they have a win." That's not how you do deals, mate. Mr. R to the deal. Yeah. Anyway, but there were two others. It wasn't just that. Now you're right. That was a great example. Yep. But there were two others. What to do with the enriched uranium was another one. America asked for Iran to ship it to them. Iran said, "Well, we'll downblender in Iran." And then they started to compromise where some of the highly enriched uranium would be shipped to third country.
Russia probably Russia some of it would be down blended in Iran under international monitoring Yes, and then Trump come over the top and said not our guys will get all the nuclear dust Whoever those guys are and whatever nuclear dust is It's a that's a second one and the third one Was how much of Iran's own money should be unfrozen? To purchase food medicine and other humanitarian supplies given that their country is on its knees Yeah, I think we can all agree on that aspect America has frozen well over a hundred billion dollars of Iran's oil money since 1979 America said they'd unfreeze six billion dollars as part of negotiations Iran said how about 27 billion dollars? At one point time America was proposing 20 billion dollars. Yeah And then it got out in the press and that's when Trump said The USA will get all nuclear dust created by our great B2 bombers no money will exchange hands in any way shape or form Out of the deal And by the way, I think part of the reason why he was saying that was because at the time it got out Yes, that that was about 20 billion dollars of course people immediately pointed out that the Obama deal There's Trump is obsessed with yeah, unfroze only 1.7 billion dollars. Yes Yeah, and yeah, and even though he kept on saying about the Obama deal gave around 150 billion dollars It didn't no and I think that yeah, he was a bit obsessed with that. So anyway, but so that was that was the situation So Trump was ruling out all concessions yeah while his negotiations were desperately trying to get with more concessions And then he just tattered it's a done deal very important is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and they've agreed to that Iran's agreed to that and they've agreed to it very powerfully They've agreed to give us back the nuclear dust it's way underground because of the attack we made with the B2 bombers So we have a lot of agreement with Iran and I think something's gonna happen very positive They agree very powerfully died We agree as it bench pressing like 200 pounds We agree with all the power of a helicopter on a putting green Bye bye if I go on hmm Do you find strange that no one calls him on the fact he keeps on calling which do Iranian Nuclear dust this is just one of the many things like okay It's just gonna be a massive waste of energy to even ask questions about this Let's just accept that it's called nuclear dust now yeah, okay So then we got the blockade yes, which was of all ships going into or out of Iranian ports with the exception of ships Can emergency medical supplies etc Theoretically I also include the shadow fleet of Iran where they spoof their locations The ports they go to and the nations they serve they turn off their transponders The United against the nuclear Iran organizations identified 570 vessels in the shadow fleet Are many of which are under us actions and this blockade is apparently going after all of them after 48 hours They made it global The joint force through operations and activities in other areas of responsibility Like the Pacific area of responsibility under the command of Admiral Paparo Will actively pursue any Iranian flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil and they also launched an economic blockade Which was what they called economic operation economic fury? Which was secondary sanction? Yeah They all stick together Dave which was secondary sanctions targeting third-party countries and third-party like banks They do business with Iranians who are sanctioned Okay I thought the Dory Kulloff Iranians banking but apparently not Now they mean it Yeah They're more Mr. Nice guy So then you got a radchi tried to deescalate Yes He tweeted out In line with the ceasefire and Lebanon the passage for all commercial vessels through straight of homo's Is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire Obviously trying to offer you know Offer something and then hope to get saying back from Trump. Yeah. This is what he's what he got got back from Trump He got an all caps tweet The stray of homo's is completely open and ready for business and full passage But the name of the cable remaining full force and effect as it pertains to Iran only Until such time as our very as our transaction with Iran is 100% complete This process should go very quickly that most of the points are already negotiated Thank you for your attention to this matter President Doljay Trump So that took the IRGC like five minutes to come over the top of a radchi Slip him down and declare with the continuation of the blockade the stray of homo's will not remain open Mmm And they also said it is impossible for others through the straight while we cannot If the US does not lift the blockade Movement through the stray of homo's will definitely be restricted Okay, so that's where we're out there Yep And they start to my tolls as well again Yes Which I don't know they might be bullshit Because they're probably super disorganized this tolling process Yeah, yeah, yeah So they just talk about it and then don't do it Yeah Um Apparently like from what I've read about 60 permits have been issued But payment requests have only been made for 8 chips 8 chips Yeah And no actual money has been netted today I've certainly read some things suggesting if the volume of shipping got back to You know what it normally is Like more than 100 vessels a day Then there's no way they would logistically be able to run a tolling system But at the same time whenever you hear Uh some voice from Iran saying the stray of homo's will be open There seems to be an implication in the background That that is with a tolling system Yeah Yes Yeah Yeah And then things got worse Iran physically attacks some ships to gun boats from Iran's revolutionary guard open fire in Tanka A container ship was hit by an unknown projectile which caused damage to some of the containers And then Trump fixed everything with a tweed Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the strafe of homo's A total violation of our ceasefire agreement Many of them were aimed at the French ship And a freighter from the United Kingdom That was a nice was it My representatives are going to Islamabad Pakistan They'll be there tomorrow evening for negotiations Iran recently announced they were closing a strait which is strange Because our blockade has already closed it They're helping us without knowing And they are the ones that lose with the closed passage 500 million dollars a day The United States loses nothing In fact many ships are headed right now to US, Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska To load up, compliments the IRGC Always wanting to be the tough guy We are offering a very fair and reasonable deal And I hope they take it because if they don't The United States is going to knock out every single power plant And every single bridge in Iran No more Mr. Naiski They'll come down far so come down easy And if they don't take the deal it'll be my honor to do Was to be done which should have been done to Iran By other presidents for the last 47 years It's time for the Iran killing machine to end You know I think angry and loud suits and balance smug Yes Anyway We're thoughts Dave Once again we never knew how much we would miss the character limit on Twitter Yes Until it was gone You want to know who reads them out Yeah What can you ever say? It's really always important to remember That everything he tweets The legal status of it is really unclear Yes Is this an order? Yeah that's true Of some kind But this is frequently the only thing that people have to go on Especially when you then have government spokespeople This still blows my mind saying things like Oh yeah Trump's true social account That is the official organ Yes The White House official account Oh yeah that's just for memes That's just for SpongeBob SquarePants Maps Yeah So it creates a very confusing situation It does Right And you have this dense irony Of Trump constantly complaining The real reason he's getting nowhere with the Iranians Is because they can't decide on who their lead is And they can't come to a coherent position Blah blah blah blah This is someone who is constantly issuing these pronouncements As I say Their legal status is completely unclear And he's often undercutting his own government spokespeople And they contradict himself Yeah Yeah like from Iran's point of view They're not dealing with a unified negotiating position No In the United States Even if it's only Trump that they're dealing with Yeah No you're right Yeah A guy also says The Bridges and Powerpoint plants talk It's getting really old Really really good I mean even his heart isn't anymore Just stop Just no one takes you seriously Just stop Also as little side Yeah I'm a bit sick of people talking about How we've been at war They've been at war with us for 47 years Oh yes yeah Given that Roll Reagan literally smuggled weapons to Iran They did It's wrapped the 80s Yes So At the very least Make it 37 years Not fully 7 years At the very least Okay So There you go Yeah
And the big worries arguing that Americans are trying to blockade the straight even more than Iranians are trying to blockade, what the hell? Like, uh, yeah, hey, I say-- - I mean, I just really wonder who the audience for this is now. Like even a lot of his most hard core supporters are no longer paying attention to this stuff. - Well, there's so much, there's so much. - Yes. - It's just a stream. - Yeah. - It's hard to keep track of. Yeah, I don't know, I don't know how it's for. I mean, like that shit about, we're making so much more money from all the countries coming to us for oil instead of you. - Yes. - Anyone who is important, anyone who he actually has a deal with, those that's not true. - Yes. - They can see where the ships are. - Yes. - Like, it's just, you can't bluff that kind of thing. - No, you can't. - So why is it trying? - Yeah. - I don't know. - Anyway. - And I mean, for those who haven't been keeping up with this, the oil industry is not happy about this war. - No. - The American oil industry is not happy about this war because this creates a massive environment of uncertainty. So they are not saying, great, the price is going up, let's go and drill some more. They're going, we have no idea what is going on. We have no idea what the next six months is going to look like. Trump can't give us a straight answer on anything. We are not going to invest in anything because this is not a climb at the U, invest in. - Okay, so that's all blockade stuff. Meanwhile, there's talks going on, right, Iran. - Oh, but one more thing about the blockade. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - You know who's lost faith in the blockade? This is really tragic. - Who's that? - Mark Thyson. - Really? - Mark Thyson. - He was Mr. Blockade. - He had a piece in the Washington Post today saying it's not actually going to make the Iranian government capitulate. Trump needs to go back to war. - Really? - Yes. - If anyone's going to say that, that would be Mark Thyson. - Yeah, yeah, he said, back to his roots. - Dean Cain said he needed two more weeks to hit all the targets. So he should give them another two weeks. And then America wins. - He's gone back to the W's. - Yes. That's why I just thought that was really sad. Given that two weeks ago, he was saying you cannot overstate the strategic brilliance. - See? - Of this blockade. And now he's like, it's clearly not working. See, this is going to sound funny. I mean, let's talk about this. So still you think. - Yes. - Because I've been maintaining all along. That to me, the blockade actually made sense. They should have done that from the beginning. - It made sense. It made more sense than the other things that they would do. - Yeah, yeah. As in to me, there were two things, assuming the war was to begin. - Yes, yeah, yeah. - There were only two options as far as I could say. - Yeah. - Getting out to grade their missiles and go back to negotiating on nuclear stuff. - Yeah. - In the long run. - Yes. - Which they pressure done before the war. - But anyway. - Yes. - But leaving our side. That was one option. - Yeah. - The other option was if you insist on getting the, getting some kind of deal on the nuclear stuff through pressure, then fine, pressure them. From the beginning, put your blockade in there. And just accept the fact, this is going to be months. This is not going to be week. It's going to be three or four months. And to me, the biggest fault was that they took two months to start. Like because it's going to be three months after they start. - Yes. - Yeah, like so. They could have had half the blockade out of the way already. If they'd start from the beginning. And like, because if you want to do pressure, that's the only thing you can do. That's going to pressure them. That isn't going to make you, isn't going to backfire on you in an obvious way. I mean, look, it backfires in the long run because oil prices remain higher and there's an election coming. - Yeah, yeah. - But now, if you did that from the beginning, I could see potentially, and whilst especially if he didn't keep on tweeting all the time, I could see some negotiators gain something down. Because Iran doesn't want this. This is not a situation Iran wants. If they can emerge with some kind of face, they will take that. And they will give you the nuclear dust that you wish. - Yes, yes. - You know what, for that to happen. But the, so actually, I don't think it's a terrible idea at all. I just think he needs, if he's going to do it, he's just going to have to lump it and back it and stop tweeting. But hey, what's your thoughts? - Well, first of all, I don't think they ever would have taken that approach from the beginning. Because they wouldn't have wanted any suggestion that the Straits of Hormuz could be shut down. And even if it was targeting ships leaving Iranian ports, that still would have created a lot of uncertainty around, you know, it definitely would have slowed shipping down. So I don't think they would have done that from the start. This to me is clearly a response to the fact that Iran showed that it was possible to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. - Iran were doing that in week two. - Yeah, they were doing that pretty early on. - Yes, yeah. - Yeah. - And obviously a lot better than a lot of the other alternatives that have been mentioned. - Bridges and power plants. - Yeah, seizing Carg Island. I mean, this was, as we said, there's my favorite bit about Mark Tyson's article. Like, he's worked out a way to achieve what seizing Carg Island would have achieved, but with much less risk. Might I remind everyone, Donald Trump is the only person I'm aware of who was talking about seizing Carg Island, which he has been since the 1980s. - Yes. - The weird obsession, yeah. For a man, otherwise not known for being well versed in geography, he really seems to be fixated on Carg Island. But anyway, so yeah, better than that, but still comes back to the same problem of you can look at some pretty impressive metrics about this. Like, you can look at the amount that it is supposedly costing around per day, yes, 500 million. Yeah, you can look at the number of ships that seem to have been stopped in their tracks by this. But remember, this is all aimed at a particular purpose. Is it actually achieving that purpose? Now, as you say, maybe if Trump wasn't tweeting about it all the time, maybe if he was prepared to accept like any semblance of a deal, then maybe it would be achieving something, but it is not achieving the aim of making the regime crack. - Oh, yeah, that's not going to happen. - And it is. I think that there is a considerable backfire just in terms of the way that it is reinforcing the blockade. Like a blockade where no Iranian oil is getting through, from the perspective of global oil prices, that's worse than a blockade where, you know, than the Iranian Straits of the, a closure of the Straits of the almost, where at least some oil is getting through, or be a Iranian oil. So it's not a costless process. - No, totally. And I'm just going to say one other thing on that. And that is that the reason why I was saying it's to be three or four months, is because the way I see this ending is with China putting pressure on that. - Well, yes. - And China has 100 days worth of oil storage. So there's not going to be anything, any kind of blockade's not going to affect China for at least three or four months. - Yes. - But if you get to that three or four months period, China doesn't have to run out of oil. It just needs to start going, guys, this is becoming a problem. - Yeah. - And then they will do it for you. - Yes. - If you can get them in that position. - Well, I mean, it was China that takes months. - It was China that got Iran to the negotiating table. In Islamabad in the first place, I think it's quite likely that any diplomatic solution is going to go through China. And the fact that Trump has a trip there in a month, I think that could be the kind of timeline that we're actually talking about. - Maybe. - He needs to get something done by then. - He does. - Yes. - So on the talks, there's relevant to what we're talking about. So Iran calls Trump's bluff. They threaten not to attend the talks. Trump says, well, Vance won't go to the talks. And Trump then says he'll blow a run up. - Just spoke with President Trump for about 20 minutes. And he told me, if Iran does not sign this deal, the whole country is getting blown up. He went on to say that bridges and power plants will be targeted if Iran does not sign this agreement. The President telling me that U.S. special envoy's Jared Kushner and Steve Whitkopf are heading to Islamabad Pakistan for meetings on Tuesday, possibly into Wednesday to try and get this agreement across the finish line. The President, telling Fox News, this is a very simple deal. But this is the last chance for the Iranians. The President, a very clear in our conversation that he is not making the same mistake that President Obama made, giving cash to the Iranians and allowing them to continue a nuclear program. - What's he needs obsessed with? The Obama deal, which he can't get out of his head. He says the deal's about opening up the strike, which he could have done days ago if he just listened to a ratchee. Batnik Le Transfer, which they were closing on negotiating until Trump blew it up. We've completely forgotten the proxy groups, by the way. - Yes. - And I mentioned them anymore. - All the ballistic missiles, which were the two of the main reasons that we started the war apparently. And then he started the wild threats again. He also told Axios that the concept of the deal is done. I think we have a very good chance to get completed. Iran says no. We're not going to the talks if events is not gonna go. And so then Trump said the event is on the wall.
and then Iran said they would attend the talks and it looked like it was going to happen. He did. The security in Islamabad was jacked up. And then Trump made an announcement. Today an Iranian flag cargo ship named Tuska, nearly 900 feet long and weighing almost as much as an aircraft carrier, tried to get passed our naval blockade and it did not go well for them. The US Navy got a missile destroyer USS Spruance intercepted the Tuska in the Gulf of the Ma'an and gave them fair warning to stop. The Iranian crew refused to listen so our Navy ships stopped them right in their tracks by blowing a hole in their engine room. And the Iranian source told the BBC that everything changed at that moment. Until then, Iran said they'd been haggling but when America blew a hole in their ship they decided talks were not worth it. They accused America of maritime piracy, they pulled out the talks for real and the spokesperson for the foreign ministry said while claiming diplomacy and readiness for negotiations, the US's campaign behaviors that do not in any way indicate seriousness in pursuing a diplomatic process, then the US interdicted the second ship away from the Gulf between Sri Lanka and Indonesia of all places and an article came out in Sengen which I will quote. Some Trump officials privately acknowledged the CNN that the president's public commentary has been detrimental to talks. Noting its sensitivity to negotiations and Iranians deep mistrust of the US, the Iranians didn't appreciate poached negotiations through social media and making it appear as if they had signed off on issues they hadn't yet agreed to and ones aren't popular with their people back home. One person familiar with the talks told CNN, adding the Iranians are particularly concerned about appearing to look weak. Surprise surprise. And so we get to the day before the talks got no idea who's going who isn't. Vance is supposedly applying about to go to Iraq. When Trump says this. >> You're saying that you need at least the prospects for a signed deal today and tomorrow or else you would resume bombing Iran. >> Well, I expect to be bombing because I think that's a better attitude to go in with but we're ready to go. I mean the military is rare and to go. They are absolutely incredible. >> Iran says get stuffed and Trump tweets out. Based on the fact that the government of Iran is seriously fractured not unexpectedly so and upon the request of Field Marshal Asemuna and Prime Minister Shabaz Sharif of Pakistan, we've been asked to hold our attack on the country of Iran until such a time as the ladies and representatives can come up with unified proposal. I've therefore directed our military to continue the blockade and in all other respects, remain ready and able and will therefore extend the ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted and discussions are concluded one way or another. The Iranian position is while the blockade continues they will not have talks of any kind. That's the fifth time Trump extended the self-imposed deadline to strike a deal and or he will bomb the bridges and power plants. And privately while it seemed like he'd learned his lesson to not sent a sixth deadline, he then leaked to Axios that privately he was only extended for three to five hours. The three to five days expired. Yep. They tried to organize one more serve talks. Karen Levitt said, "I can confirm special envoy Whitkopf and Jared Kushner will be off to Pakistan again tomorrow morning to engage in talks, direct talks, intermediated by the Pakistanis who have been incredible friends and mediators throughout this entire process with representatives from the Iranian delegation." Look, the Iranians reached out as the president called on them to do and asked for this in-person conversation. So the president is dispatching Stephen Jared to go hear what they have to say and we're hopeful that it will be a productive conversation and hopefully move the ball forward towards a deal. The Iranians reached out for this conversation. Even though the Iranians said there was no meeting and they would not be there. The next day Trump tweets out, "I just cancelled the trip of my representatives going to the Zomiband Pakistan to meet with the Iranians too much time wasted on traveling, too much work besides which there's tremendous infighting and confusion within their leadership. Nobody knows who's in charge including them. Also we have all the cards they have none. If they want to talk or have to call to which the press says, hang on, I thought you were talking to the people in charge, weren't you?" Yes. And Trump says, "The yesterday you said to Reuters that we're dealing with who is in charge now. What changed from yesterday to today?" Nothing. It's just that they gave us a paper that should have been better and interestingly, immediately when I cancelled it, within 10 minutes we got a new paper that was much better. We talked about, we talked about they will not have a nuclear weapon. Very simple. That's what they talked about. So back to the world of things that never happened. Since then, it's been a stalemate. Trump appears to be heading down, heading for a long blockade now. Iran is making proposals like, "Let's open the strafe of Hamuz now and then we'll talk about the nuclear situation later." Yes. Trump isn't having a bar of that and that's where we're at though. Yes. I thought. I first will want to talk about this line that Trump in particular keeps running about the only reason that the Iranians aren't capitulating to our demands is that they're in disarray with killed too many of their leaders. They don't know who the leader is. Blah, blah, blah. Okay. Sometimes we've seen in this conflict that there's a grain of truth to bombastic statements that the Trump administration makes. Like Pete Heggs have gloating about Mochetabar being disfigured. We are hearing reports that he's had to have some pretty significant surgical reconstruction. Yeah. New York Times said that he's been, this lips are burnt and his face is burnt. Yeah. And he's had a lot of oppression on his arms and his legs. I think he needs a epistemic leg. Yes. He's now come out looking like Darth Vader. Yes. And apparently, President Pzezekin is actually involved in the surgery because he was a surgeon. So, okay. Yes. There's some, there is some weird stuff going on. And look, there has been some serious reporting about the fact that the Iranians are not completely united. Right. So, but Trump seems to be making it sound like that there are these moderates who basically want to do everything that Trump wants them to do. Give away their nuclear dust forever, etc, etc. But there are these hardliners standing in their way. The genuine reporting that actually seems to have some insights is, no, that's not what the struggle is about. The struggle is about, it's the moderates of the people who think that there should be any negotiations going on at all. Yeah. The hardliners are the ones who don't want that's where the division is. Right. So, there is some truth in the idea that yes, they're divided, but the division, yeah, the dividing line is nowhere as close to the American position as Trump is making it out. Right. So, that's where the division is. There was an interesting article by Kylie Moore Gilbert in the Sydney Morning Harold yesterday. So, this is the Australian political scientist who spent a thousand days in prison in Tehran. So, I mean, she's very connected to the Iranian dissident community and to reports that are coming out of that. So, that's worth having a look at if you're interested in this issue of how much infighting is there in Iran. When Trump says there's incredible infighting going on, look, there's some truth to that. But as I say, it's not between hardliners and people who want to do everything that America wants them to do. It's between people who think there should be negotiations and people who don't think there should be negotiations. For the most part, this is just being used as an excuse. Why can't Iran compete? Because they don't even know who the leader is. Yeah. It's just Trump's, it's Trump needs a reason to back down every time he backs down. Yes. And this is his chosen reason. Yes. This is his chosen reason. Okay. So, since we seem to be settling in for a long blockade, time to go back to asking what is this war even about? Yes. In the first place. Yes. Okay. And I think that Pete Hegseth's testimony before Congress over the last couple of days is so often the case with Pete has been unintentionally revealing. Yes. Yes. On a number of levels. Okay. Let's see him talking about the threat that Iran posed to the United States. $30 billion for bureaucrats in Ukraine is more than the bill that we've talked about today for a existential and critically important war to ensure that Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. That's worth noting. So, you see the term existential. Right. Yeah. That he used. That's not the only time that he used that. He used the term existential threat as well. Yeah. Okay. Who believes that Iran has ever been an existential threat to the United States? Bearing in mind what the word "existential" actually means, that means it's about your existence. Threat to your existence. There are certainly people in Israel who argue that a nuclear armed Iran would be an existential threat.
threat to Israel. - Israel. - There have been arguments made for many years, because Israel is so close and because Israel is so small, like physically it's about half the size of Tasmania with population concentrated in a relatively few places that four or five nuclear bombs could actually be an existential threat to Israel. - Yes. - Okay. Under what circumstances could even a nuclear arm that Iran ever be an existential threat to the United States? This is not a straw man argument. This is what Pete Hegseth is claiming that the war is all about, an existential danger to the United States from Iran. So first of all, Iran is nowhere near developing nuclear weapons. - Even if they were. - Yes. - Sorry, just to jump in there. - Yeah, yeah. - Even if they were the logic he uses, I'm not skipping jumping ahead here on your clips, but the logic he uses is that they're using the North Korean model of having so many missiles that you can't stop them building out their nuclear arms, to may be more and more and more. The fact is if that's the case, if that's what they're doing, and they're trying to build nuclear weapons, and they're trying to use their missiles to stop you taking out their facilities, it took one day before America just totally annihilated the offensive threat from Iran. Like they're clearly not even close to being in the ballpark where it's a problem for America, the conventional missile load. - Yes. - So I don't know what these whole arguments just doesn't reflect the reality we've seen to date. - No, it does not. And on an even bigger level, the United States has spent something like nine trillion dollars on nuclear weapons since 1945. What is the point of having all of those nuclear weapons, if you think that one other country getting say 10 nuclear weapons would all of a sudden be an existential threat to you? The whole point of having thousands of nuclear weapons is no one can use nuclear weapons against you. The main reason countries want nuclear weapons is so that no one can use nuclear weapons against them. - Yes. - Right. And this I assume is the reason why Israel has developed nuclear weapons. Okay, so yeah, if we're going to say that Iran getting nuclear weapons poses an existential threat to the United States, why do we have nuclear weapons at all? Why has the United States got so many nuclear weapons if one other country getting a nuclear weapon is such a threat to the United States? I think it's a poor use of the word existential. - It's a very poor use of the term existential. Okay, but this brings us to the next point, which as I've said before, it is a very widespread point of agreement Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Okay, I agree with it. Pete Heggseth agrees with it. - I agree with it. - Chas agrees with it. Every Democrat that I can think of agrees with it. Anthony Albanese agrees with it. Right, but as I keep saying, there's never any serious discussion of this. - I'm just asking you that you know what your war cost in the average American taxpayer. What is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon that they wield? - I'm just asking if you know the cost the average American cost. - I'm asking you what the cost is. - It's about 600 dollars. - So what's the cost? Right, he's asked what is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon? Let's refaith that slightly. What are you actually prepared to pay to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Because throughout this whole war, and in fact going all the way back to the original bombing campaign in June this year, this has basically been presented as something where you can't even put a price on stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Okay. Now that is the sort of thinking that leads you into endless wars. It's the sort of thinking that got the United States into an endless war in Iraq. We'll remember the slogan that always put an end to every argument was weapons of mass destruction. You can't allow them to get weapons of mass destruction. Right. Now the fact is, as horrible as the prospect of nuclear warfare is, you can, and you have to put a price on things like, how much are you actually prepared to pay to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon? Especially when you've spent $9 trillion on building a deterrent which would stop them from ever using a nuclear weapon against you. Right. So how much are you actually prepared to pay for this? Imagine if that question had actually been put to the American people before the war in terms of, are you prepared to pay an extra dollar per gallon of fuel in order to stop any further development of the Iranian nuclear program, which has already been destroyed? Right. When you put it in those terms, are people going to say, well, there is no price that is too great to pay for this? I don't think so. No, I don't. Right. And as I say, as horrible as nuclear war is to think about, there are many other forms of war, which can take vast amounts of human life. And we have seen some of those forms of war waged over this century, when there has never really been any possibility of nuclear war actually happening at all. The Iraq war led to the deaths of about half a million people. Right. Hopefully this war won't, you know, won't lead to anything like that. But this is going to lead to significant economic costs that actually will be to use a term we've already heard today an existential threat to people. Not in the United States at least not yet, but in the Philippines, in Myanmar, in a lot of countries around the world where governments are already cutting back the number of days that people can work. In Kenya. In Kenya. Yeah, and Tanzania, I think, for memory as well. I think those two might be the countries that get most, a highest percentage of their oil from the Gulf. Yes, as well as fertilizer. Yeah. Everyone who's dependent on fertilizer, this is posing an existential threat to people's farms. And when you pose an existential threat to people's farms, it's not that long before you're talking about an existential threat to people's lives. At the moment we're talking about livelihoods in a lot of the world. Lives are not going to be very far away. So this kind of rhetoric that we just saw, which, first of all, the idea this is existential threat to the United States, which tends to be the sort of thing that you say you can't put a price on. And yeah, talking about this as if there is no price to great to pay. This is just bullshit. And this is the thinking and reasoning that leads you into endless wars. And there's no indication to me that we should believe that this will be a short war. I saw this article in the New York Times the other day that had this line, "The main international oil price known as Brent Crude jumped nearly 8%. Largely because investors were worried that the impasse in US-eraan talks could last for a while." That could keep Persian Gulf energy products from reaching the rest of the world for weeks. Or in a worst-case scenario, months. New York Times, how is months the worst-case scenario here? Maybe it's the most likely scenario, but it's certainly not the worst-case scenario. I can see ways where this war could still be going on during the 2028 election. I'm not saying that is the most likely outcome. I think the months is the more likely outcome. Weeks is just a fantasy at this point. There is no reason to believe that this war couldn't go for years, especially if both sides keep taking the same approach that they're taking at the moment. And for what? Because in the end, we're not even talking about a situation where it's as if Iran has a nuclear weapon that the US is trying to take off. Or is just about to get one. This one nuclear does. It is nowhere near. And what Trump keeps insisting on is the idea that Iran has to make a commitment to never having a nuclear weapon. How do you ever get that commitment out of a government, given that in 50 years' time, it will be completely different people in the government? Or as if you trust them anyway. Yes. Do you think Hegs'eth trusts the Iranians promises for the next 50 years? No. And that the Iranians certainly don't trust. The American promises for the next 50 years, given that they didn't stick to their last one for more than two years. Now, this is known in international relations as the problem of credible commitment. And like, it's not an unresolvable problem. There are ways around it. But at the moment, the thing is, what's the closest that you can get to an agreement? We will never get a nuclear weapon. the New Clean on.
proliferation treaty, which Iran has signed. So they actually have signed an agreement that they will never seek a nuclear weapon. Now, yes true. Yeah. So they've already said that in writing, but of course the other thing is they had a commitment. There was a lot more powerful than that. They had a religious fatwa. They had a religious edict from ito la Khamenei who was both effectively the most senior cleric in the country and the Supreme Leader of the country saying that weapons of mass destruction were uneaselemic. I was going to say on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as well, there are hardliners in Iran who have been arguing for ages that they should pull out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. You know that tells me? They're taking it seriously. Yes. Like because otherwise they won't take it seriously. They go, well, let's just build nuclear bombs. It's right. This is shit about the treaty. That is right. But they say no, no, no, we wouldn't get out of the treaty because we want to build a nuclear bomb. So they take the treaty seriously? Yes. That fatwa, the author of it is gone. And there's no guarantee that Mojtaba is going to equal another, it is going to issue another fatwa to replace it. So that religious commitment is may no longer be there. There's no guarantee that fatwa will exist into you three years time. We don't know what's happening there are now. Yeah. So, yeah. He's now looking for some sort of commitment where he's already literally killed the best commitment mechanisms that they're actually worth. Okay. So, now it comes down to the issue of what Trump keeps calling the nuclear dust. Yes. Okay. So the enriched nuclear material. Iran has made this very, very clear that they see this as absolutely vital to their sovereignty that they should be allowed to enrich nuclear material on their own soil, under their own steam. Even if it would arguably be a lot cheaper to actually import nuclear fuel from other countries, right? There clearly is something to this, which we've seen through a variety of different Iranian presidents of a variety of different sort of schools of thought from Iranian foreign policy. They all seem to be quite fixated on this idea that we need to be able to enrich nuclear material. That is absolutely key to our sovereignty. And what Trump wants from them is for them to give that up. We keep talking about this is real problem that Trump has this obsession with the Obama deal and that anything that is less than the Obama deal or even similar to the Obama deal is going to be just this completely unacceptable loss of face for him. Consider the loss of face that would be involved to Iran of actually giving up the right to nuclear enrichment. Well, he clearly never thinks about that. Yeah. He clearly never thinks about the loss of face of the other side. Yeah. There is some analysis that says that would actually be the end of the Iranian regime, because people would be like, what was this all for? Yeah. Yes. So, yeah, but yeah, that's what he's asking them to give up. And this is why it is very, very hard to see it happening. So when we come back to this question of what is this all about, you could see when you really go back through the threads, why this war is so unpopular with the American public, because as much as everybody loves to talk about Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, this is just not something Americans were getting upset about on a daily basis. As I've said before, this is not like the atmosphere that there was after the 9/11 attacks. Definitely not. People have not been getting upset about the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, at least not to the extent that they're prepared to pay a lot more for petrol for months and months and months. Ironically, the great military success they had so quickly, I think hasn't done them any favours. No, it has. Because it makes Iran seem pathetically weak to Americans. Yes. Which makes them less likely to want to pay a price. Exactly. To subjugate them. Yeah. This is just a couple of quick things. Just I always want to get some sort of where they're at at the moment, kind of info. With the blockade, about 44 commercial vessels have been, according to America, directed to turn around or returned the port at this point in time. Coins are Lloyd's list. At least 34 ships have gotten through the blockade. Yes. We don't hear much about this. Yes. And in terms of, even though the blockade often gets presented as this huge triumph, I would recommend reading a piece in the New York Times by Jennifer Kavanaugh about the problems with the blockade. She'd keep it in the homework. I will. I will put it in the homework. She was a classmate of mine. And actually a roommate at one point. In the last, when we were both working on the final stages of our dissertation, some friends of ours had to go away and it left their house. So we were renting the house. So she was a lot harder working than I was. That's why she's there. I can tell you exactly. Yes. But we did watch a few football games. That was the only way that I could get it to stop working, because she loved the New England Patriots. So we trust her work. We do very much. Do I trust her work more than I trust my own? Let's put it that way. We'll put it in the homework. So what were you going to say about her? You just brought her up. She wrote a fantastic article about what the problems with the blockade. Great. Yes. But yeah, and obviously the economic blockade would be hurting as well. Like cutting off any exports. It makes it harder to pay their armies. Unemployments with roof. Inflation is going through roof in Iran as well. There's critical shortages. Most Iranian industries have about a hundred days of inventory when the war started. So again, close to having a problem there. We've been hearing for weeks about a supposed two week limit that Iran has on storage of oil not exported. Because when they run out of storage, the oil worlds need to stop pumping out oils. And then they need to cap the wells. Originally they said, oh, since they cap the wells, they're done. But that's actually not true. Some of the wells react fine to being capped. Some of them react poorly. About half of Iran's wells are old and they tend to react poorly. Iran do have pretty good engineers who have done this before. So it's probably not the end of the world for Iran, but I'll be trying to avoid capping those wells. They're currently organizing floating tankers for storage and junk storage and expanding storage at cargiral and as well. I don't know how long they can keep it going. The two weeks is up. So I don't know how long they can keep it going. But in the long run, they're going to run out of room eventually. And now it's going to compromise. They're going to compromise to some extent their oil production forever. Yes. Those wells, those wells, all the wells are compromised, are compromised quite badly. So we'll see. And by the way, this is not going to help oil prices in the long run. But it will help them up. Yes, that is true. That is true. Yes, but given Iran is the second largest producer of oil. And there's a good point. Yes. And what I think he much about is the fact that Iran has more weaponry than you might think. If there is another round of war, if Mark Tyson does get his way, they've got thousands of short-range ballistic missiles, about half their missile launchers they've still got. Thousands of attack drones, two to 6,000 maritime mines, this is all according to US intelligence, no according to them. 50 to 70% of their ammunition is still intact according to US intelligence. Despite Hegs S claims their production facilities might be damaged but not destroyed. Also, Israel is running very low interceptors as well. So Iran could start making some serious hits if they have a second round. They've also got Navy, despite Trump continuously talking about their boat spin on the bottom of the sea. According to US officials, they told CBS News that about 60% of IRG sees Navy is still in existence. And about two-thirds of their Air Force is still believed to be operational. They don't hear that often either. No. Probably they conducted an attack a few weeks back with a jet on the American base in QA. Yeah. Like so. So it's not like this stuff doesn't happen. You should also know, there isn't something we don't hear so much about as well. Peace is its own problem for Iran. Because while war is going on, there's no revolutions happening. The second they have peace, they've got this incredibly poor country, which is under sanctions, like it's all screwed up in all kinds of ways, wasn't popular at the beginning with. And then the people aren't scared anymore because there's no more war. The regime could come under real pressure and they know that. So there is an aspect of the fact that this war suits them to continue on. A little net nyau-ish. Yes. Net nyau-ish. And I mean, the other thing they've got going for them is that the industry they are best
- Mm-hmm. - My mile is propaganda. - Yes. - Which at the moment this war is full of. - Yes. - I'm excited. - On that point, paid Hexath had something to say about propaganda. - What was that? - The way you stain the troops, when you tell them two months in, two months in, Congress, you should know better, shame on you. Calling this a quagmire two months in. The effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield, the create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president confront and nuclear Iran and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies, shame on you for that statement. And statements like that are reckless to our troops. Don't say I support the troops on one hand, and then a two-month mission is a quagmire. That's a false equivalation. Who you cheering for here? - You don't like that? - Okay, but just remember how strong the Iraq war was. - With this stuff. Like support the troops who's side of you on, saying that anything going wrong is enemy propaganda. Like this is an amazing turnaround from people who prided themselves so much on not wanting to fight stupid wars. - I will say this though. I think quagmire is the wrong word for this. It's not like it's like quick sand where there being something and drawn in and it's just a pill being killed left right in center. There's just no way they can end it. - Yes. - It's just in stasis. - Yes. - Which is, I mean, I'm not saying it's great, but what we're saying is it's been in new word. Like I don't know, I don't know. Like quagmire you associate with, you're trapped in there and everyone's shooting and everyone's in trench warfare and that's not like that. But it's just not ending. - Yeah. - But anyway, overwhelmingly, the Americans actually agree with the Democratic Senator who is pointing out that they seem to be in this conflict with no way out of it. - Yeah, totally. - Yeah. And the line that they keep running about, oh, it's only been two months. Like well, you said it was only going to be four weeks. - Yeah. - Originally. So yes, nobody plans along war. - No. - Right? Lyndon Johnson could have said at the start of the Vietnam war, it's only been two months. - By the way, it's not just, we talk about a run in America, but they're not the only one. - No, they're not. - Like you got bar rein, you got the UAE, they're running shotguns and this. They're not selling their oil either. - No. - They need to cap their wells too. All the situations facing around, are facing bar rein and UAE, who are supposed to allies. That's another issue as well, which I mean, of course, that was the original Iranian plan. - Yes, yeah. - Drag them into it, make America, put pressure on America through them. - Yes. - Tens out, there's no point in pressure on America. - Yeah, but in one day, yeah, so you've got, and also they're gonna have problems afterwards with minds, like bar rein and UAE, like if there are minds there, like it's affecting them as much as anyone as well. So there's that as well. I was gonna say the other thing is, we're getting, there's a couple of things which you haven't mentioned, which we should. The 60 day deadline for the War Powers Act is up on Friday. - Yes. - And for those who don't know what I'm talking about, when you start a war, you've got 60 days before Congress has to either approve it, - Yep. - Or it's theoretically, you can't be fighting anymore. - No. - Now, I believe Pete Hexeth said, oh no, our ceasefire stopped the clock. - Yes, he did. - Yeah, I don't know how that's gonna work. Having said that, a bar might just ignore the 60 day deadline. In Libya. - Yes. - So I guess Trump's gonna do that as well. - Yeah, I think that's gonna be ignored. - And there's next to 30 days you can get by, if you write a letter and say, oh, we can't pull them out for this reason. I don't know if Trump's even gonna bother. - No. - But just, but I should just, should just note. - We should just note that. - That's Friday. - Yes. - The other thing we should note is that until now oil prices and gas prices haven't been going up as much as they could because people have been thinking, isn't gonna last long. - Yes. - Now people start, I think this is lasting long. - That's right. - So if you look at the oil prices, it's $111 a barrel and going up. Look at gas prices. It's $4.41 per gallon now. - Yes. - And going up fast. - Yes. - So that's gonna become an issue soon for Trump. - It actually did get to $126 at one point today. - Like, oh, today. - Yes. - Okay. - It's come down to $120, but that's $122. That's still very high. Up until this point, there's been a significant discrepancy between the futures price, which is what we're usually looking at and the spot price, which is what you actually have to pay if you happen to want a barrel of oil at any given moment. The spot price has been way higher than the futures price. - Right, I can say. - So the futures price has been taking into account, people's beliefs about how long this is going to last. What's beginning to happen now is that the gap between those two things is shrinking. - Right. - Okay. - And then I come back to what Pete Hegseth said about staining the troops as if he's talking about staining his own pants. Because there is definitely one way in which the war is way ahead of schedule. And that is how close we, you know, sorry, that is how long it has taken for us to get to statements like this. - Unfortunately, as I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless naysayers and deftest words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Deftest from the cheap seats who two months in seek to undermine the incredible efforts that have been undertaken and the historic nature of taking on a 47 year threat with the courage no other president has had to great success and great opportunity for preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. - So scummy, that he hides behind the troops. - Yes, yes. This is what you want from a secretary of defense. A guy who's just gonna hide behind the troops as if they're his parents. Yeah, look, when I say the war's ahead of schedule, it took Vietnam years to get to that point where they say, well, the real enemy is the naysayers at home. Yes, they're the fetus from the cheap seats. - Oh God. - Look, yeah, he's talking about people who are actually pointing out the realities of this war. The one big reality of this war is the war had serious objectives, which no matter how impressive the military achievements were, those objectives have not been met by any standard. And there's no sign that they are going to be met by any standard. That's where the war actually is realistically at this point. There's this huge discrepancy between what the American military can achieve tactically, which is incredibly impressive, and what they can achieve in terms of the political objectives is the war, which is none of them. So that's where the United States is at the moment. - Except for your wrong, because Trump has tweeted out, for those people, fear a number now than ever before that are reading the failing New York Times or watching fake news CNN, I think it's tonight, you day. They think I am anxious to end the war if you would even call it that with Iran, please be advised. I am possibly the least pressured person ever to be in this position. I have all the time in the world, but Iran doesn't. The clock is ticking. So there you go. - That's what the American people want to hear. The Trump thinks they've got all the time in the world. - To sort this out. - Yeah. - We've probably done enough. Should we talk to the shooting? - Yes, let's talk about the shooting. - When this happened, I was a few days behind my reading as per usual, and you were texting me again, I have nothing to say about this. - Nothing. - But yeah, six days later, there's a lot to say about it. - Yeah, there is. - Why don't we start with the security questions? - Okay, yes. So there's been a lot of debate about whether this was actually a security failure or not. - Yes. - And the Trump administration seems pretty unified behind the line that this was not a security failure. - What do you think? - Well, okay, so let's have a look at some of the facts. The shooter was not even on the same floor as the ballroom when they were apprehended. - Yes. - They were quite close, sorry, he was quite close to a set of stairs leading to the ballroom, but no, we knew them. - I've actually got a schematic. We're gonna have a look. - Yeah. - So the magnetometers, at location one, only a few meters away at the top of the stairs is where Alan was apprehended, that's at number two. And if we got down the stairs, that's two, three. That's the entrance of the ballroom. And as you can see at four, Trump is on the far side of the ballroom. So even the best case scenario, we'll probably take an Alan, maybe 30 seconds to get near the present, maybe a minute. - Yeah. I think it's fair to say this gunman never had a chance. - Yeah. - Pulling it off. - His tactic was to run past security. - Yeah. The big question, which is a lot harder to answer is what if it had been someone competent? - Yeah. - Okay. - Or several competent people. Now, let's take a look at one of the biggest, most burning questions. So this was an event where the
- President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives were all in the same room. - Five of the top six officials. - That is very unusual. Usually that only happens at inaugurations and state of the union addresses, which are events where they have a designated survivor tucked away somewhere because of the fact that even though the security of those things is insane, they still make this effort to make sure that there's someone in the line of succession who is away from it. - Don't hit the person who wasn't the-- - It was Chuck Grassley. - Yeah, he could have been President. - Chuck Grassley. - Age 92. - By the way, just before you go on, this is actually the first hint of a fuckup. - Yes. - Is that when you do have five of the top six officials, they've got a term for that. It's a national special security. - Yes. - Are you about to say this? - It was not a national special security event. That was why the security perimeter was at the ballroom rather than around the hotel itself. - 'Cause you get more funds, you get the Secret Service controls, the whole thing and you just, like it's a much bigger deal, but they didn't do that. - Now, yeah, to me, the biggest question, which I don't think is being asked is, why were not just the President, but the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, why did they need to be there for this shit? So the Trump would have two people to laugh at his jokes? - I think there is no why. - The White House correspondence did, I mean, every year there is this rising kind of discourse about why is this event even happening at all? Even when it was supposedly good, like when the President would turn up and make good nature jokes and get roasted, people were like, this is actually a bit queasy. This level of closeness between the President and the people covering him, the years where the President doesn't turn up it's pointless, this one just promised to be ghastly. I mean, I'm quite glad that it didn't happen. I wish it hadn't been 'cause of an assassination attempt, but I am quite glad that, yeah, yeah, that it didn't happen. But why did all of these people need to be there for the worst comedy event in Washington? - I don't know. - Yeah. (laughing) That just makes very little sense to me at all. So, okay, yeah, that's the first big problem, especially with security. And, you know, why didn't this get more security? I mean, I'm sure by this point you've heard, the ABC's very own John Lyons saying he was at the event and it had less security than a domestic airport in Australia. He was waved through when he sort of showed his ticket which didn't even have his name on it. (laughing) That's all you needed to get into this event. - Well, to get into the hotel. - Yeah, to get into the hotel. - 'Cause there's two levels of security. There's outside the hotel and then there's the ballroom. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - So, the people who were at the ballroom were not very impressed. (laughing) Now, it did give a lot of journalists the chance to. - The name was not the ticket. - It did give them a lot of them to pretend that they'd been at the center of something really significant to talk about, you know, the trauma of having to hide, and, you know, get out of the table and like, they all applauded so bravely when they were told that the event was going to continue 'cause that's what America is all about and then they were told a couple of hours later, "Ah, no, sorry, why don't you see who's been getting cold "with decided not to do this event at all?" - I tried to help them by clearly not giving a shit. - Clearly not giving a shit. - Who'd you see on the table? It was like, "Ah, whatever." - Yes. - Even said afterwards, he slowed 'cause people were asking, why was Vance evacuated so much more quickly than Trump's, like, "Eh, that was my fault. "I kind of wanted to see what was going on." - But yeah, I mean. - Okay, so one of the things I was thinking about, 'cause there was a lot of chatter about this on Chinese social media. - Yeah, I got it. - And so one of the things I was saying was, "Well, what if the guy had a bomb?" - Yeah. - Now, so I was thinking about this and because I know so little about explosives, I would actually like peppers who know about explosives to weigh in in and not self-incriminating kind of way, if you know what I mean. I'm thinking, okay, so how feasible would it be for someone to actually come in with a bomb that could have killed a lot of people? - That'd be a big bomb to reach the president. - It wouldn't have to be a big bomb, but he did say he wanted to, you know, he was gonna target a lot of members of the administration. - That's true. - That got me reading about the provisional IRA's bomb of the Brighton Grand Hotel in 1984, which came quite close to killing Margaret Thatcher. Okay, so what do you have to do to set off a bomb that powerful? Okay, that bomb was 48 kilos of jelly-knight. And it had been set up four weeks in advance. So this PIRA guy called Patrick McGee had rented the hotel room which he thought that Ja might be in for he'd taken a guess. So it was room six to eight. He thought she might be on the sixth level 'cause for security reasons that, you know, that was very high up. She wasn't in the end. She was on the third level, but her room was actually close to the 28s, which became an important detail later on. So 48 kilos, that would be a huge amount for someone to be carrying around with them. Anyway, they set this bomb up. They detonated it with a, you know, by remote control. During the conference, what happened with that was the force of that blast actually dislodged a chimney and the chimney came crashing through all the levels. Basically, nearly everyone who was in a room 28 got killed in that bombing because of this chimney that was actually coming down or at least got injured. And it didn't touch that job, but it did actually, it destroyed the bathroom. So that's how, if she'd been in the bathroom, that she actually could have been killed by the amount of flowing glass. So it actually, that actually got pretty close to killing her and this led to the IRA's statement, you got lucky today. We just need to be lucky once. You need to be lucky every time. But I think it does shed some light on actually how hard it is for a bomb like this to work because the re, it didn't actually work as expected. They thought that she was gonna be on the sixth floor. She wasn't. The reason why it came so close was because they managed to structurally dislodge this chimney in this bombing. And that was with a 48 kilo bomb that they'd set up months in advance. I actually don't see it as likely that this guy could have replicated that. But as I say, I know nothing about explosives. If someone who does, no, about explosives want to weigh in about how possible it could have been for someone to carry out a bombing that could have killed one fleet, please do weigh in. Yeah, yeah, let's know. All I'd say is that, remember how he tried to get through? He ran. Yes, yeah. As quickly as he could pass them, he got about what, three meters before they stopped him. Yeah. Now, imagine him running with any kind of bomb. He's like a slower. Yes. Right. And I imagine if there were a couple of extra guys there, they probably had security on staff to do it manually. Yeah, probably. So I don't know. I have, as I said, have to be a big bomb. We're talking a whole that's two and a half thousand people. Yeah. Yes, it would have taken out some people. But in terms of threat to people in the chain of command who run the other side of the room, I think I'm likely. You have to say. But he was outraged about that situation. The colon. Oh, have you seen this? Oh, yes. I really said his manifesto. What the hell is the secret service doing? Sorry, go rant a bit here and drop the formal time. Like, I expected security cameras every bend, bug hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, middle detectives out the wa'zoo. What I got, who knows, maybe they're pranking me, is nothing. No damn security, not in transport, not in a hotel, not in the event. Like, the one thing I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance. I walk in with multiple weapons, and not a single person there considers the possibility I could be a threat. The security event is all outside. Focus on protesters and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before. Like, this level of incompetence is insane. And I very sincerely hope it's corrected by the time this country gets actual competent leadership again. Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Marju, says the machine gun, in here. And no one would have noticed that, no, this shit. So he was very disappointed. Yeah. In the security. What? That was before he got to the ballroom, though. Yes. Yeah, it was just the hotel security. Now that I think about it, I've been to conferences that had more security than this. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that-- Well, I've been to conferences where there were bomb dogs. I mean, that would just train like a hotel. Yeah. The security was for the ballroom. Like, people should stop comparing the hotel security. I mean, I know there was a perimeter outside. Yeah. And now stopping traffic and all the rest of it. But the, I mean, code pink got in there, right? So obviously it wasn't very strong. Yeah. The security. No, they weren't sweeping every room. No, no, no. It's, it's, yeah.
- Yeah, I-- - Trump doesn't like dogs either. - No, no, there you go. But I mean, the real security is the ballroom. That had the magnetometer. - Yeah. - And it gets at the empty their pockets, they'll pat it down. That's where all the shit was happening. - Yes. - And as you said, that was the level above the ballroom. - It was close to the door, but still. Yeah, so I don't know. I mean, obviously it wasn't an ideal, but I don't think it was as close to as this artist's people might have. - You know what, I've been in that hotel. - Have you? - It's just a shittle. - Okay. - The conference hotels, they, yeah, they often leave a lot to be desired. And I don't remember having a very favorable impression of that one. - Do we care about the fact that it took two minutes for them to get the present out? - No, 'cause Trump has said it's his own fault. - Yeah, I mean, also, I mean, they knew there was no thread at that point. - Yes. - I reckon they would go and map faster if they thought he had to get out. - No. - So I, by the way, I'm not entirely sure. So we've all seen the shirtless photo, right? - Yes. - Was he shirtless when he-- - No, he wasn't. We've sort of seen him in the hotel room directly before he went out. He had a shirt on. - Right. - 'Cause he knew they took the shirt off to see if he had a vest on. - That's what I'm assuming. (laughing) But the more I hear about this guy, I wonder if he might have just been shirtless. (laughing) - Okay, yeah. But okay, so shirtless man is on the floor, yes. They know that it's not-- - Yeah. - They know it's not much of a thread. - Yeah, and they know it's okay. So, anyway, I think that's been overplayed a little bit. - Yeah, so a little bit. There are points. - Yeah. - Okay, the next talking point is about the Democratic rhetoric, which they like to-- - Which you heard a lot about. - And every time there's an assault in the famous conservative, we hear about the violent Democratic rhetoric. - Yeah. - As soon as it happened, Fox was twinging out by those of the protests outside the hotel, where two people carrying signs that read death, deterrence, and death to all of them. The Dalaiwai had literally went to a nearby media party immediately, inside Vox Popping media people like the Lincoln Project Steve Schmidt, about the protesters. I will quote their own article, asked for his reaction to the shooting. Schmidt initially said, "pretterrible. "Don't know a lot of details yet." The Dalaiwai had then asked Schmidt if the protesters outside the dinner and the prominent commentators urging attendees to somehow disrupt the event, bore any responsibility for inspiring the shooter. Huh? So the shoot's just walking past the hotel when he sees the protesters and then decides to go back in time, check into the hotel with all his guns and then assassinate the president. Great thinking. And then they move on to the Democratic politicians and they decide it was Hakeem Jeffery's fault. - Oh, right. - So, for instance, the R&C tweeted out, "On Wednesday, you called the maximum warfare "on President Trump and the administration, "your disgusting rhetoric is inciting violence." I reckon Hakeem Jeffery's wishes people paid attention to him. - I was gonna say, Hakeem Jeffery's has never been able to incite anything. (laughing) - And just to be fair, we did mention this last work. - Yeah. - His rhetoric was taken widely out of context. It's about Jerry Manoran. - Mm. - Anyway, they also love to have Hassan Pica. - Oh, yeah. - Yeah, Hassan Pica talked recently. New poster boy for Democrats. And this clip was doing the rounds of Pica talking to writer Taylor Lorenz. - And you actually wrote about this and it was a great video where you talked about, you know, someone has to do it. - He, when I say that, everyone knows exactly what I mean. That, which is, I think that shows that there is a lot of anger, a lot of resentment and untap potential, untap revolutionary potential as a matter of fact. And it's a great opportunity for organizing, I think. - So in that clip, he's literally not endorsing the sentiment at all. - Not. - He's just saying, this is a great time for organizing. (laughing) And so, let's never side. What do you wanna ask you though? - Yeah. - His way referred to in passing is a bit of a meme. Let's go around at the moment. Where people on the left, I'm saying someone needs to do it. Tell me how to do it a lot. Presumably, meaning assassinating the president. It's kind of like a joke. - Yes. - They say, they talk about assassinating the president with that saying the phrase assassinating the president. They just say, do it a lot. Do you care about that? - This is the first time I've even heard about that. - Oh, it's an online thing. - Yeah. - But now you know about it. Like there are a lot of people doing it. I could give you, I could give you a number of examples. - A lot of people doing it the same. - Someone needs to do it. - Yeah, I mean, like it's, I mean to me, it's a joke. - Yes. - Like it's obviously them thinking they're being clever and hilarious and rye, whatever. I can't say a crazy person looking at it going, yes, I must assassinate him now. Like it's not, like to me, when we were talking about rhetoric and I'll come back to it again. I always think, are you spraying height or not? It's not about whether you talk about fighting or whether you talk about putting people in the firing line. - Yeah. - Like it's about, like are you dehumanizing people and making people hate each other or not? Because crazy people do respond to that. They don't respond to quirky jokes. - No. - That's my personal take on that kind of stuff. - Yes. - Yeah, what your vibe is. - Well, I mean, the thing is that obviously when, you know, the first wave of this bullshit started to lap at the shores of the discourse, we didn't know that much about the shooter back then, but we now know that the shooter had a very detailed manifesto, which included a lot of complaints about security. - Yes. - And that he had been a Christian youth group leader in college and he was trying to construct a Christian rational. - On social media, he was obsessed with the Dr. Jesus pick. - Yes. - Yes. - He's going about that. I'm not sure you can work for this administration and be any flavor of genuine Christian believer and see Trump post something like this without understanding some level deep down that you are fucking damned even if you'll never admit it to anyone. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image or for anyone who receives the mark of its name. - Yeah. - That, yeah. That is not left it's going, someone needs to do it. - No, it's not. - This is somebody who's got pretty strong convictions and pretty clear views. I'm not saying he's not confused in some ways, but he there is a clear logic to what he is doing, quite religiously motivated. Yeah. And I certainly don't think it's very connected to the Kim Jeffries talking about war on Jury Mandry. - I agree with that. (laughs) - Yes, so make a fairly obvious point. - Yeah, yeah. By the way, Trump's interpretation of that was, "Have you seen what this guy wrote? "He hates Christians." - Oh yeah, that's true. - Yes, that was his look. - On Trump, while we're playing Trump quotes. - Yes. - Trump himself doesn't seem particularly motivated by this talking point. - No. - On this particular occasion is what Trump at this hour. Political violence has touched so many people in that room. Is there something that you as president can do? What can be done to change the trajectory? - Well, you know, you go back 20 years, 40 years, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years. It's always been there. People are assassinated. People are injured. People are hurt. And I'm not sure that it's anymore now than there was. I do think that the hate speech of the Democrats, much more so, is very dangerous. I really think it's very dangerous in the country. - So he's the talking point, but pretty wishy-washy. - Yeah. - Like, it doesn't have passion there. - He actually also said, I don't think it was in that interview. It might have been in the press conference that he gave that night. He said, like, I've looked at assassinations. Who gets assassinated? - That's right, isn't it? And he said it's the most concert, I don't know if the concert quenching was the word that he used, but it's the most important ones. It's the ones who do the most. It's Abraham Lincoln. Like that too, that's who gets assassinated. And he said, I don't want to say I'm honored to join that group, but I think it's because we've done so much more than anyone. I hate to burst the bubble, but Gerald Ford survived two assassination attempts in a single month. - He did, although. - Although. - The Dallas Express has done the count. On the number of people who have tried to kill the president. Some of them are very pissy. - Yes. - But Trump is leading with 17. - Yeah, that's a lot. But what I'm saying is in terms of the correlation between like who's done the most and who's been targeted at the vote. - Gerald Ford, yeah. - Gerald Ford, yeah. There have only been 47 presidents, but you'd be hard pressed to include Gerald Ford in the top 50 of most consequential. - No, that's absolutely true. And even in Dallas Express's count, Gerald Ford's still number five. (laughing) By my do it, would you care to guess who number two is? By a mile. - No idea. - Obama. - Ah, okay, yeah. - Obama is on, I think it's off top, my head is 13. I've got that coming up later. - Yeah, yeah, okay. - And Obama and Trump are miles ahead of everyone else. which I think is something worth.
noting which I'll get to that. - Oh poor Biden. - Yes. (laughing) - Why would you try and kill him? - Why? - God's gonna do it for you, you know? (laughing) Why would you buy that? - If anything you might actually get in the way. (laughing) - That's right. Anyway, up. - Oh dear. - Um, say yes, so there was this, Trump wasn't really into this talking point, but the Republicans online were, the conservatives online were, and there was this desperate hunt for a Democrat scapegoat, and it led to Ben Stiller. Have you heard about this? - No. - Ben Stiller? - Ben Stiller of all people. Ben Stiller, if you look at his Twitter feed, all he does is tweet about the nicks. - Yes. - He's obsessed with the New York Nicks. - He totally is. One of their biggest celebrity fans. - It just so happened in New York. - He's replaced Woody Allen. - Yeah. - There's Nick's celebrity fan number one. - And it just so happened the nicks were playing that night. - Yeah. - And the nicks won. - Yeah. - And it just got just at the right moment. - Right. - And Ben Stiller tweeted out, got it done. (laughing) - And he just got buried with a views. (laughing) - If you think about it, it doesn't make sense. - It makes no sense. - 'Cause his sassin didn't get done, did they? - Nobody is going to look at picture of shirtless assassin lying with his nose in the carpet going there's a man who got it done. - But the fact that they didn't think about that for one second, they're so desperate to pin the blame on someone. That I think it shows the strong evidence that they didn't care. - Bit so ungrateful. This is the man who gave Trump his best ever movie role, which was in Zoolander. - Oh yes. - That's the only role he's had where he actually has any lines. - But Dave, what else is Ben Stiller doing in Zoolander? - Ah. - Trying to kill the Malaysian Prime Minister. - That's right. - He's pro-assassination. - Yeah. - Objectively. - That's a sleeper, that one. (laughing) - Anyway. - Thanks for that. We've got more conspiracy theories. - Oh, I definitely do. That's common. Yeah, I'll just say, this is what Karen Leva had to say about the whole thing. She, she, why didn't. - It's not just the media, it is the entire Democrat party has made their pitch to voters across the country that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to democracy that he is a fascist and that they compare him to Hitler. I mean, these are despicable statements that the American people have been consuming for years. And so many mentally perturbed individuals are led to believe these words are truth, and then are inspired to act on it. I have a whole host of examples that we can share with you after it is pages and pages of major Democrat party elected officials saying such as repraqueme Jeffries, just this April, this month, said, "We are in an era of maximum warfare everywhere all the time." Governor Josh Shapiro said, "Heds need to roll within the administration." Senator Alex Padilla said, "People are quote, dying because of fear and terror caused by the Trump administration." Senator Elizabeth Warren, President Trump is making the country look like a quote, fascist state. Senator Adam Schiff, saying President Trump using a dictator playbook, Senator Ed Markey calling President Trump a dictator, saying that this administration's actions are authoritarianism on steroids. I played that long just 'cause I want you to hear how piss-week her examples were. So piss-week. And there was another minute of that. Now all equally piss-week. Yes. I mean, you should be able to call the government authoritarian. Yes. Without being accused of inciting violence. Yes. You should be able to call people who showcase fascist elements fascists. You should be able to point out that people are dying as a result of the administration's policy. I need if you're wrong. Yes. Even if they're not fascist and another authoritarian and they're not killing anyone and you're exaggerating, that's how free speech works allegedly. None of the people she cited, not one of them actually called for political violence, not one. No. And most of them were talking about the way that Trump inspires political violence. Yes. But even once again, even if they were, no one gives a shit what Maxine Waters has to say. That's very. They really don't. We could easily, like you say, we could easily put together an amazing montage of Trump's violent rhetoric. But, and people have, but I'm not gonna do that. 'Cause that's not my point. My point is not all look at you. My point is, that's what free speech is. People just criticize each other. That's okay. Yes. Actually, I, I, I had to the guy. All that he came Jeffries have his say on this one. Oh no. Later, I know you said you stand by your comments at the same time you have been the subject of threats as well. So with respect to this comment about Maxine Waters, even if it's about redistricting, why not tone down the language here in this moment? I think that what's interesting to me, as you pointed out, is that it's so called White House press secretary, who's a disgrace, he's a stone-cold liar, had the nerve to stand up there and retocking points being critical of statements all taken out of context that Democrats have made and didn't have a word to say about anything that mega extremists have said or done, including providing aid and comfort to violent insurrectionists here at this capital on January 6th, who brutally beat police officers. The president then pardoned those violent rioters. Many of whom have gone back into communities across the country to reoffend. And as you pointed out, one of whom threatened to kill me, he said, kill the terrorist. Where did that language come from? What Republicans use that language? Why did that pardon, mega extremists, violent insurrectionists, choose to use the language of terrorism directed at me when he threatened to kill me at an event? And so how can we take them seriously when they raise these partisan attacks and completely ignore the fact that a lot of folks, including Governor Shapiro, his home was attacked by an arsonist when he and his kids and wife were there. And his so-called White House Press Secretary wants to lecture America and lecture us about civility, get lost, clean up your own house. I've just noticed how clearly you can hear someone's voice when they're not standing in front of a roaring helicopter. It really does cut through, doesn't it? Yes, standing under the crotch of a statue is really a lot better. By the way, unlike Maxine Waters, people actually do care what Trump says. Yes. Like there are people who follow what he says. Yes, there are. Yeah, but I mean, I still stand by what I said before, which is to me, it's not about rhetoric, it's about hate. Do you spread hate or not? And by I Trump does sometimes spread hate. He does. But yeah, like to me, that is the issue. Yes. What do you have to say about this topic before we move on? Let's move on. Okay, well, I'll just say two things before we move on then, quickly. Number one, pervert mention this, but it's just something to me. Have you ever seen Trump seem genuinely energized by violence? Not just, I mean, he wasn't a great mood that night. He was, yeah. He was chipper. He was serene when it happened. At the press conference afterwards, he's been in the best mood he's been for months. Well, that's literally the best thing that's happened to him for months. But that's what I'm saying. Yeah. I swear he likes combat. Like I know, it's easy when the guys surround by secret service, but I think he likes conflict and fighting and escalation. And he likes it when it's sent it around him. Yeah. But I mean, he also liked something that made him look sympathetic. Sure. Sure. That's a little instead of people blaming him for things going wrong. There is that. Just for once he wasn't, yeah, he wasn't at fault. And it's just a structure of mindset, which I just did. But also, a lot of this stuff, I think, is across the board. And the people who are more violent at any one moment are the people who are out of power. Yes. Yes. So yes, right now, I mean, I will talk a little bit more of this later on. But yeah, right now the Democrats do have a lot more violent. They do. It's just a fact. And then the reason for that is because the other guys are in charge. But there is a kind of language that only Republicans use. Well, mega Republicans. Yeah. And they use it all the time. And it's very violent. And no one ever mentions it. It's the word treason. Yes. They use the word treason a lot. Yes. Yeah. And they love treason. They use every word of treason. Mark Kelly reminding the troops that they're obliged to disabay illegal all this treason. Death penalty. Yeah. Exactly. And they're sarcastically tweeing that somebody talking about how badly America's going on the war is awesome. Like they'll use with treason allegations. And you're already cut to the chase here. When they say treason, what they mean is put them to death. Yes. And they definitely mean that. Because sometimes they say that as well. Trump has said that a number of times. Yeah. That's the punishment for treason. Like they're explicitly calling for people to put the death. And exactly the same way the Luigi Manjani fans
I don't like very much. Talk about billionaires. Yes. The same kind of vibe. But for some reason, Republicans don't see the parallel. I think it's because polls suggest Republicans don't see violence conducted by the government as violence. Like those apart from you, guys recently, where 34% Republican said the government attacking protesters is political violence. There was 89% of Democrats said it was. But anyway, I just thought I'd note that. I've talked about the violent rhetoric I found most revolting was the celebrations of the destruction of boats in the Caribbean. Oh, yeah. It's terrible. Yeah. And all the stuff that's come out of Iran as well, the meme stuff. That level of just grotesque celebration of murder, like that is what I found the most disturbing. Again, many people would not see that as political violence. But it absolutely is political violence. Or Republicans don't Democrats do according to polls. And on the stats about is there a Democrat problem with violence? Historically, no. Right now, well, there is. O'Shea Graff from the Center for Strategic International Studies shows that for almost every year in the last 30 years, there were more right-wing anti-government attacks than left-wing anti-government attacks until 2025. When the left-wing attacks jumped ahead 10 to 8, it's not massive smashing or anything. But just, you know, if you're asking these things go. But if you're asking is there more, just for once, there actually is more from the left than from the right. Once again, you expect that the Democrats are our power. Of course, when crazies feel powerless, they're more likely to turn to violence. Yes. What I think is actually more relevant is this graph, which shows domestic anti-government plots and attacks, and 2025 had more of them than any time in the past 30 years, 20 of them literally double the next most violent year in the last 30 years. That to me is more relevant. Because there's always one side out of power. But now, overall, there's more violence. Yes. Now, I should say there's many different systems of measuring violence. They all have different results. They have different flaws. The trends I've just described are in all of them. The left are particularly violent in the last 12 months. And across the board, people are more violent now than they have been for a long, long time. It's common to all of them. The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism Database at the University of Maryland suggests there was a 34% increase in total terrorism and targeted violence events in the first eight months of 2025 relative to the same period in 2024. I'm sure you've heard of many of them. The Ascent at Josh Shapiro's House, the murder of two Israeli embassy staffers at the party, the shooting of the two Minnesota politicians by that dude with the mask. The assassination of Charlie Kirk goes on. The US Capitol Police report an increase in threat assessment cases against members of Congress for the third year in a row increasing in 2025 with a 58% rise from 2024. The US Marshall Service has documented more than 560 threats against judges in the 2025 fiscal year, up 10% from the previous year. I told you that Dallas Express before with their 17 attempted assassinations of Trump, 13 of Obama, Lincoln and Clinton had five and jailed for their three. That's your top five. So yeah, Trump has faced a lot of attempts. But the takeaway for me is something changed in 2009. I wonder what that was. Well, I mean, there's a few things. I assume you're going where I'm going, but I mean, you could say maybe it's just those two presidents. We only got a small sample source right now. So who knows? And it wasn't Biden. Is it just partisanship gone while? Maybe. Is it social media? That's where I'm pushing. Is it depression related? Depression rates have increased a lot in this period as well and anxiety rates have increased a lot in that period. And not all I'm saying is it's a fact. But since 2008, there's a lot more assassination attempts. Not all Democrats. The Obama's one, the Obama assassination attempt went Democrats. Believe in Trump's, let's leave aside the weirdness of his first two attempted assassins being whatever the hell they were. People talk about them like they're all Democrats. Yeah, don't know about that. The last one was an Epstein freak. He was a dude wandering around Mar-a-Lago with a shotgun, who just before he went, he said, "I don't know if you read up. There's a text to him and his friends. I don't know if you read up on the Epstein files, but evil is real and unmistakable. Tell other people about what you hear about the Epstein files and what the government's doing about it. Raise awareness." Then he goes out to try and kill Trump with a shotgun. So this is not a left thing or a right thing and then necessarily there's a violent thing. And attacking free speech ain't going to fix it. No. I could go into the Jimmy Kimmel stuff as well, which is just made the most basic joke about Malania, which was obviously about age. Oh, this is why the joke just quickly. And of course, our first lady, Malania, is here. Look at more. So beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow. A joke was obviously about Trump being old. That's been in the news for months now. The Trump and Senile and all the rest of it. No one's joking about assassinations. No. That was made in assassination. I'm famous assassinated. I'm trying to attempt for a year. Anyway, the world's foremost comedy expert, Malania, Trump didn't like it. I actually tweeted out, "Kimmel's hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to devide our country. His monologue about my family isn't comedy. His words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America. People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening. The spread hate. A coward. Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows network will keep running, cover the protectum. Enough is enough. ABC take a stand. How many times are ABC's leadership enable Kimmel's atrocities, behavior, the expense of our community?" She's saying Kimmel's hiding behind ABC like a coward. Does she expect him to come in? He's on TV. She's expected to perform live at the White House. This statement tells you a lot about the Trump family's understanding of television, which is someone who's on television is literally in your house and there's nothing you can do about it. It's television. You can't turn it off. Yeah. Anyway, Trump joined a Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC. And then we got this bit where his administration's most dangerous hack, FCC chief, Brendan Carr, or there's a review of ABC license two years early. They said it was related to an investigation to ABC's diversity in inclusion policies that began last March and they said nothing to do with Trump calling for Kimmel to be sacked. We can't know for sure. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. All I know is if it wasn't, wouldn't you put it off a week or two so there's no confusion? You would. But also let's just consider what kind of world we are living in now. Where the administration is talking about is if it's normal to revoke a TV company's license because they apparently have in policies in place to try to raise the number of minorities who are working with them. Yeah. Well, that's the good take on what they're doing. That's the good take on what they're doing. Anyway, I'm not a big fan of cracking down on free speech for no apparent reason. All right, Dave, you got your one, the ballroom. Okay. So previously we've worried about assassination in terms of what is this going to be used to justify? What kind of crackdown on protest is this going to be used to justify? What kind of trumped up investigations? What kind of legal persecution? What is this going to be used to justify? Well, we learned pretty quickly what this is going to be used to justify. We have to have all of the attributes of what we're planning at the White House. Actually, a larger room and it's much more secure. It's got its drone proof. It's bulletproof glass. We need the ballroom. That's why secret service. That's why the military are demanding it. They've wanted the ballroom for 150 years for lots of different reasons. But today's a little bit different because today we need levels of security that probably nobody's ever seen before. He here. That's how the ballroom. Just to clarify, the secret service and the military have not wanted the ballroom for 150 years. No, 150 years. What's that? It's since 1880. Yeah. Yeah. They're big. Did the military even exist in its current form? Oh my goodness. Well, it wasn't the Department of Defence. There was a navy in an army. But you know, the famous secretary of the navy, Ellie, Ellie, who root, he was not demanding a ballroom. Yeah. Yeah. When Thierry Roosevelt was a military commander, he was not demanding a ballroom. No. I'm shocked. Yeah. So, look, I don't know if the proposal here is Trump basically saying we should build a ballroom. So every event can be held here. Yeah. Like, was he seriously suggesting the White House correspondence dinner should be held in the White House? A private event. Yes. He meant that, by the way, until now, he didn't want to go to. Yes. He was going to boy-coding. Yeah. He still thinks they should hold it in the White House? Yeah. Okay. Yes. In the ball. And so, this comes back to one of his lines of Defence of the ballroom, which is
is somehow it's a security issue. Right, so he talked about an enormous bunker. - Yes. - Being built under the ballroom. - Which, and that's fair enough. I'm okay with that, I don't know if you are, but I think having a bunker at the White House isn't a bad idea. They do have a bunker. So they've expanded, having expanded bunker, that's okay. You can ask Congress for permission to build your ballroom. - You can. - Before you build that bunker. - Yes. - I would have thought. - Yeah. - The thing they keep on acting is if either you're for the ballroom or you're not, when there is a third position, which is, yeah, have your ballroom after you follow the legal process to have the ballroom. - That's right. - That's the third bit he forgets. - Yes. - Yes. - Yeah. - And I mean, the ballroom also does not need to be as big as he is playing. - Well, ironically, the ballroom is way too small for that event. - Yeah. - So you win 1,500 people. - They do. - The ballroom fits 999 people. So they weren't going to hold the correspondence association dinner there. - Very sad. - Because it's way too small. - But it had so many columns. - To this. - Two rows of columns to block out the sun. - And stairs to the wall. - Because you know what everyone hates the sun. - Yeah, God. - I hate my mom. At a ball when I say the sun. - Yeah. - Anyway, yeah. And that doesn't really make a lot sense to me. I don't know what this has to do with the ballroom, but he does. - Yeah. - He's got a little worked out. And so does apparently every Republican online. - Well, this is interestingly. Yeah, Republicans had actually not been coming to Trump's aid about the ballroom. I've heard this point. They had. - They came now. - Yes. Yeah. He might even be able to get congressional permission for it. - Yeah, including, when I say Republicans, I mean Republicans and John Fedon. - Of course, yes. - Yes. - He also he tweeted that after witnessing the last night, drop the TDS and build the White House ballroom for events exactly like these, except they couldn't hold that event there, but say that side. And then there's a chorus as well. I'll put the chorus up of every single person. This is going around. - Well, if you're just watching this, just just freeze. They can enjoy, watch, read them one by one. - God, imagine pretending to care about this. - I know. I just couldn't care. Honestly, little self-respect do you have to have. - I just couldn't give us stuff about the ballroom. I have the ballroom. I don't know why you care. Have it. Just follow the legal process. That's all I keep on saying. I couldn't give us stuff. I always feel like it all worked out by architecture. I'm not one of them. - I know you aren't. (laughs) - That's just, hey, why? Just doesn't make any sense to me. I'm confused. - Have you, sorry, do you have more self-respect the ballroom? - No. - No. - The less said about that monstrosity, the better. - All I'm gonna say is just the legal side of this, which is that the, if you're wondering where the case is at. The judge pretty much has a very similar view to me. (laughs) The judge Richard Leon. Back in March, he was saying, well, while the case is happening, why don't you stop construction for a little while? And they said, well, secundational security. Okay, fine. Construction activities only allowed, the allowed, the only action strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds, including the ballroom construction site and provide for the personal safety of the president and his staff. Presumably they're referring to the bunker. Right. So Trump assumed that the order actually meant he could construct whatever he liked, 'cause it has bulletproof glass. - Yeah. (laughs) - Then the judge said, there is an incredible, if not disingenuous interpretation of my order. And then, the fact that the morrow's plan to include security features such as bulletproof windows and a drone proof roof does not bring the structure within the scope of the exception. While these features may well be beneficial, defendants have not provide any national security justification for why these features must be installed immediately, such as they should be excluded from the scope of the injunction. Anyway, no. Natural security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity. They should put down a t-shirt for the administration. Anyway, after this assassination attempt, they were back in court. I wanna read you the first paragraph. Well, the first bit of the first paragraph, because this, more than anything else, other than the topic where you're not gonna talk about, 'cause when it can be finished before we get to you, but I'm gonna talk about which is coming. (laughs) Other than that, no single thing has shown a degradation of the Department of Justice more effectively. Then this paragraph from about to read you. This is their submission to a judge, written supposedly by a lawyer. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a beautiful name, but even their name is fake, because when they add the words in the United States, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, it makes it sound like a government agency, which it is not. In fact, the United States refused to continue funding in 2005 because they strongly disagree with their mission objectives. They have very bad for our country. This is a legal submission. They stop many projects, they're worthy, and hurt many others. In this case, they're trying to stop one as vital to our national security and the safety of all Presidents in the United States, both current and future, their family, staff, and cabinet members. They were asked by the United States military not to bring this suit because of the top secret nature of the important facility being built. They were shown detailed plans and specifications of this knitted unified and cohesive structure by top officers and leaders in both the military and secret service, but this did not deter them because they suffered from Trump's arrangements syndrome, commonly referred to as TDS, as noted by Democratic Santa John Federman of Pennsylvania, and are represented by the lawyer for Barack Hussein Obama, Gregory Craig. That's a legal submission. - Chat G-P-T, make this legal brief, sound like a truth social post. Also has to have a shout out to John Federman and the word knitted for some reason. That's the grand mar. (laughs) - And this how it ends. If any other president had the ability foresight or talents necessary to build this ballroom, which will be one of the greatest safest and most secure structures of its kind anywhere in the world, there would never have been a lawsuit, but because it's Donald J Trump, a highly successful real estate developer who has abilities that others don't, especially those who assume the office of president, this frivolous and meritless lawsuit was filed. Again, it's called Trump the arrangement syndrome. On top of everything else, this project is a gift to our country from President Trump and other donors. It is free of charge, the American taxpayer. Who could ever objective that? This court should never have enjoying this project, but now after the Saturday night, after the Saturday night attempted assassination, which could have never taken place in this new facility, reasonable minds can no longer differ. The injunction must be dissolved. This court should immediately issue an indicative ruling that it will dissolve the injunction and put an end to this frivolous lawsuit, which greatly endangers the lives of all presidents, current and future. It's like their speedrunning idiocracy. Yeah. Like, the old guy. He does have some unique talents. Literally nobody else could build something this ugly. (laughing) Even if they were trying to. I was comfortable, leave out dumb that is. Yeah. What's happened? Okay. So, one time I dumb. Yeah. So, I shouldn't say that because we've had some very reasonable peppers and I love all the peppers. Who have asked me, have besieged me, have begged me to convince them that this wasn't staged. Ah, okay. So, I'm not gonna be too derogatory. Okay. But let's talk about the stage thing. Okay. Okay. A coin to the Washington Post. On the first night. Yep. The fifth of the left wing and liberal influences and politicians who posted about the shooting news conspiratorial hours. Continued our times more than 300,000 posts. Yeah. Contained the words staged, was shared on X before midday, on Sunday. Dave, do you want to start? Look, the overall observation that I want to make. Yeah, go for it. Is that there's a substantial body of scholarship about conspiracy theories out there and why people believe them and how they're prevalent. Yeah. And one of the findings of this body of literature is conspiracy theories tend to be more prevalent in places where politics is more conspiratorial. Yep. Okay. And so, yes, conspiracy theories often get things wildly wrong, but at the same time, they are a kind of rational response to a political environment where there is a lot of reason to think actual conspiracies are happening. Yeah. Bear in mind that part of the environment of the United States at the moment is people seeing large bets being won on prediction markets just before terrible events take place. That's true. Right. Could there be anything more encouraging of conspiracy theories than the prediction markets at the moment? That's fair. Yeah. That's fair. Yeah, I'm not surprised to see, I don't know if anyone did make any money out of this, but I'm just not surprised to see that many people immediately jumping to the conclusion that it's staged in this kind of environment. I look at this true. And one thing fair is true. There are many number of times when things have happened in this administration where my instinct is, well, no one's gonna be that corrupt. Yes, yeah. This is just,
just Occam's razor. - Yes. - Let's take the simplest explanation. And then it turns out actually someone was that corrupt. - Yes. - And it's like, so I do understand that. That is true. - Yes. - I will take this after you're gone, because I'm conscious of the fact that there's only 10 minutes left of you. - Yep. - And there's so many other topics we haven't gotten to. You can pick anyone and you can talk about it. - Well, I want to talk about the actual conspiracy. - You want to talk about the conspiracy one? - No, not the conspiracy theory, the actual conspiracy. - Oh, which one? - So, if Trump's speech had gone ahead, this is always the counterfactual you've got to begin with. So what would have happened if his speech had gone ahead? - Tell me. - It would have been the least funny comedy in American history. - Yes. - Now, you might think that sounds like a bad thing, but no. In the United States, unfunny comedy comes with incredible power and prestige. - Were there the biggest shows on TV? - Yeah. - And look at who the most revered comedians are, like Bob Hope. - Yeah. - Now, I don't agree with everything Christopher Hitchens ever wrote, but he got Bob Hope, absolutely right. When he noticed that in every obituary of Bob Hope, when they were quoting his jokes, they had to point out that it was a joke. And you're right, right? The biggest show is on TV. This is a, it's easily guarded ability to do genuinely unfunny comedy. Okay, and what would have been the comedy that got to throne as the unfunnyest comedy in American history? - The previously unfunnyest show in American history. I'm thinking two and a half men. - Very, very close. Same creator. - Big bang theory. - The big bang theory. - Yeah! - This maybe, I can see where this is going. - Okay. - Peppers. - In what institution is the big bang theory set? - It's set in Caltech though. - Caltech. - Where did the shooter graduate with an engineering degree? - Caltech. - You're welcome, sheeple. - Yeah, look, all the conspiracies I'm about to talk about have just been shown up. - What happened? - (laughs) - God damn. Okay, I'll tell you what Dave, I mean that's a great note for you to go out on. - Yes. - But there was a topic that you wanted to talk about that I have zero to say. - Oh, okay. - Unlike everything else, I can cover them in the extra. - Yes, yeah, yeah. - But this one I can't. And maybe you can do it in five minutes. - Okay. - Dave Brett. - Okay. - Dave Brett has just been named as the nominee for Ambassador to Australia. Now, if you're like me when you heard the name Dave Brett, you probably would have thought, "Wow, I haven't heard that name for a while." What he was famous for was in 2014. He primaryed Eric Cantor, who was at that point the house majority leader. That is the number two Republican in the House of Representatives. Eric Cantor was considered future presidential material. He was one of the young guns, remember? - I do remember. - Yes. And, but he had been making noises about comprehensive immigration reform. Dave, that primary to him from the right as a hard-line anti-immigration reformer. So, I mean, he was part of the Tea Party wave, but in many ways he was kind of a harbinger of what was to come. So he was in Congress in Virginia for, I think two terms before he lost to Abigail Spanberger, who of course is now the governor. So his whole career is like this microcosm of Virginia politics. Now, Dave Brett is an academic. - I didn't know that. - Yeah. So he was an academic before he ran for Congress, and then he went back to academic life afterwards, albeit he was the director of business development at Liberty University. I'm actually very, I'm quite interested in his academic ideas. Okay, so he's an economist and a libertarian economist, but in many ways quite unconventional. So he, I think this has been misquoted a lot. So there's this time magazine article that keeps saying, he believes that Christianity and capitalism should be merged. That's the simplification of what he's saying. What he's saying is to succeed capitalism is actually dependent on the culture that is created by Christianity. - Okay. - Now, Dave Brett is essentially part of this whole movement that was very big in the 90s and 2000s of saying economics is not just about rational calculation. That economics actually has cultural sources that what we might just regard as normal rational economic behavior, no, that actually depends on cultural context. And one of the most powerful carriers of cultural context is religion. So there was actually a surge in literature at that time about the relationship between economics and religion and a lot of it was really interesting. And it didn't just go in that direction as well. It went in the other direction. It was saying religion is not just some crazy irrational thing. If you look at how religious organizations work, you can actually understand them as rational market actors, especially in a very crowded religious marketplace like the United States. So I see him as part of that whole research agenda that became known as economics and religion. The best book from this whole period that I'll recommend is called economics as religion, which was looking at the Christian underpinnings of a lot of very significant economic thinkers. Now, okay, having said all of that, I don't think he was the best representative of the whole field. So he was basically taking Vabers Protestant Ethic theory, which is the idea that what capitalism really needed to flourish was the Calvinist conception of predestination, which means that people, they're really concerned with outwardly showing this virtue which might indicate that they're going to heaven. And the way that they show that is by being prosperous but not by being flashy with them. Because flashy spending is that that's a sign of lack of self-control. So what you want is accumulation. You want to get money and then you want to use it to get more of it. That's the sign of the kind of Calvinist virtue that shows you're going to heaven. And he said that was the basis of capitalist accumulation. Now, this is one of these beautifully compelling theories that doesn't stand up very well to historical scrutiny because capitalist institutions developed in city states in what is now known as Italy before the reformation took place. Right, so in Catholic Italy, there's one sociologist of religion, Rodney Stark, who went as far to say that this was basically just a reflection of Weber's anti-catholicism. Certainly, if we go forward in time, if you look at some of the countries that seem to embody that capitalist ethic that Weber was talking about, they're in East Asia, they're in Southeast Asia. And there are some Protestant sources there like Singapore, old money is often quite Protestant and there's a big evangelical population in South Korea. But there are clearly a lot of other cultural sources there as well. So I think empirically, the thesis that says capitalism is basically dependent on Christianity, particularly Protestantism does not hold up. Nonetheless, I like the fact that people are at least thinking about the relationship between things and that's what Dave Brat was doing. So therefore, that is the in-depth explanation of Dave Brat's academic beliefs that you will not get anywhere else except for PEP. Yeah. And he's now the American ambassador in Australia. Yes, no, okay. So let's look at why this actually happened. For most of his career, Dave Brat has argued pretty vehemently against any kind of government intervention in the economy because he's a libertarian. Sometimes in 2025, you started talking a little bit differently. You started talking about how important it was that tariffs would put capital back in the hands of the American people. He also started talking about the need for the government to rein in American corporations. He's not paying their fair share of tax. As we know, the Trump administration loves a credentialed economist who will defend tariffs. And they got one in Dave Brat. So I think that is the main reason that he is being nominated as the ambassador to Australia. Now, I don't think his nomination is going to be that controversial. Like by the standards of some of the people that Trump's nominated, he's really not very controversial at all, the gattoms. Yeah. But on the other hand, just the nominations are being held up for a long time. And Australia's now being without a US ambassador for 18 months. Yeah. Needless to say, he's somebody with no diplomatic experience at all. I mean, I imagine as director of business development at Liberty University, he's probably done quite a bit of overseas travel and fundraising and stuff like that, but not exactly the same thing. I think Australia is a country where you're probably need a lot of diplomatic experiences. Like, this wouldn't be too hard to be. Well, I mean, the previous ambassadors have been sent here, have been people with diplomatic experience. Is it necessary? I mean, is Australia a hard country to be an ambassador? Well, he is diplomatic-- We suck up to America pretty hard. Also, diplomatic relations between Australia and the US are so well established. They've been going without an ambassador for 18 months. Yeah. So my guess is he's very inexperienced.
and Steve will probably not rock the boat very much, although that could always go in the other direction. - Thanks. - But yes, anyway, so that is Dave Brett for you. - Thank you very much Dave. - My pleasure. - Okay, we'll head to the "Wife Flash" afterwards. I'm gonna take care of that, the inferior conspiracy theories for you guys. And we got some kami to talk about as well, all coming up after the "Wife Flash." - Say Peppy. ♪ Chaz on leash ♪ ♪ We're lucky ♪ - Welcome to the "Wife Flash," this is "Chaz on leash." - With "Locky the Lacky." Hi, I'm "Locky the Lacky." And I am grateful for Gina Reinhart not gifting me a $2 million private jet. - I have no idea what he's talking about. - I will continue to be grateful for things that Chaz will not know about. (laughing) - Peppa's done even explain it to me. I don't wanna know. I just, I was just about to begin talking about conspiracy theories and the shitting. So why don't I continue that? And then we got a little bit of Department of Justice to talk about, there's a lot of Spain happening in the Department of Justice. So let's get into it. - Why won't we start with the evidence of the conspiracy? - Of the conspiracy. - Oh, man, I assume we're just swimming in hard facts. - There is one. - There are some very, very difficult to dispute facts, which I have for you, Lacky. We'll start with a fellow called Brooklyn Dad Defined. He's pretty big on Twitter. - Tell me three things about him. - Yes, yes, and he's, he's, well, Lacky, he's working out for him. He's a lot bigger than I am on Twitter, I assure you of that. He did some, he did the classic conspiracy theory thing straight afterwards where he asked a million questions without trying to explain exactly how this conspiracy works. 'Cause you know, asking questions about weird things this administration does, that's easy. You know how many questions I ask about these guys every day? I ask a hundred questions about Cash Patel alone. The hard bit is to come up with a plausible alternative theory. Not just the motive, the whole theory. Okay, so if you're a conspiracy theorist, I want you to tell me how they picked this guy. I want you to tell me how they convinced this guy to ruin his life. I want you to tell me who was part of this conspiracy exactly. I want you to tell me why they didn't pursue their goals in a less risky fashion. I want you to tell me how this incredibly incompetent administration that can do nothing else right. Somehow managed to pull off this conspiracy perfectly without a single leak. I'm gonna tell you all of that. In the meantime, let's hear these questions from Brooklyn Dad to find. How the hell did the shooter, Thomas Cole, Thomas Allen, get that far into the hotel with a shotgun, a handgun, multiple knives, near the president with secret service? Why did Caroline Levit say just before the event? - I mean, there will be some shots fired tonight. - We've all seen how Trump looks when he's genuinely scared when something is actually going down. Why does he look so calm here? The shooter was way closer to Wolf Blitz than he was to Trump. Why are people calling this a third assassination attempt before we even know who he was there for? - There are these cubes. It's not really long. It's a lasting away. And I had no idea what was going on. But the next thing I knew, a police officer pushed me to the ground and jumped on top of me as if he was trying to protect me. I was just a few feet away from the gunman. - Why didn't the secret service remove Trump from the building? Why during his press briefing, did Trump put the focus on his ballroom? Making it seem like that was the whole damn point of all this. It's actually a larger room and it's a much more secure step. It's a drone proof, it's not a proof lie. That's why he's secret service. - And why? Why did all of the MAGA influencers immediately all start tweeting the same bullshit? Now that's why we need Trump's ballroom. So many questions. - Nice, creepy music, by the way. (laughing) (humming) - Let's answer some of these questions. Firstly, because he was a hotel guest, that's why he got into the hotel and the secret service weren't in charge of hotel security. We have already established this. That's how he got where he got. He only got about two steps past the beginning of security before he was apprehended. So he can get very close to Trump at all. The why the car on Levit say this. - It'll be funny, it'll be entertaining. There will be some shots fired tonight. - 'Cause that's a common expression. That's why she said it. - Or it was a leak. - But if she's part of the conspiracy, why would she forshead her way? - Mm. - What's, how's that in her interest? - No, you're right. We should be the way before her. - Mm. - There's no way of knowing. So it's not worth looking into. - That would be the last thing you would do if you were part of the conspiracy. Like you would say anything else other than these conspiracies about to happen. What's the benefit to her of saying that? I don't, I mean, not only with it ruin the staging, potentially if you teased your conspiracy, but it might give it away afterwards because there are idiots like Brooklyn Dad DeFong who, oh look, she said that. So of course you'd never say that if you were part of the conspiracy. According to, well, I'm still going through his questions, but there's also this ties into based Sam Parker's thoughts. He says literally one hour before the alleged gunshots, a huge mega-slopper count and press secretary, Carolyn Levit, tell us there will be shots fired. Then it releases perfectly time footage of Erica being rushed out with a prey for Erica Kirk sympathy tag. I'm sorry, but was this stage? Let's look at the Erica Kirk footage he's talking about. (audience laughing) - I just want to go find some things. - Is that an amazing footage? Is that, sorry, is that something we should know? Oh my God, they got some. That footage of a person walking out of a room. - Not like we haven't seen Erica Kirk before a camera for the last 12 months. - He says there's perfectly timed. It was released after the incident. Does that surprise you? - Well, if you accidentally released it before the incident, that wouldn't be perfect. - Well, that would be a conspiracy. (laughing) I don't understand. Are you surprised that was filmed that moment by a conservative media outlet? This was a Jernos event. Everything would have been filmed by hundreds of people and conservatives would have obviously been focusing on Erica Kirk. That's not a surprise. That's all expected. Okay, let's go back to Brooklyn and they're defined. Why did Trump look so calm? Because nothing happened in the room that he was in. That's why lots of people saying calm. A dude ate salad through the whole thing. There was calm people everywhere. Why are people assuming he was there for Trump and not Blitzer? Honestly, are you seriously asking that? Whether he was there for Trump and not Wolf Blitzer? - How many assassination attempts has Blitzer had on him compared to Obama? - But also, what is your rank? - Yeah, I think it's right up there. But also, I mean, if this is such a piece week assassination attempt that there's a chance that after Wolf Blitzer, rather than Trump, there's probably not very good conspiracy, is it? 'Cause you'd want your assassination attempt to be a bit more eye catching then, oh, maybe that after Wolf Blitzer. - But there's no other way to get to Wolf Blitzer than at the event that all five people in succession are gonna be in. - That's right, I heard all five people from singing in succession. Like Jake Tappel was there. - Vincent. - They're all there, they're all there. - Um, I was the other questions. Why did you tell it to ballroom? 'Cause he's absolutely obsessed with the ballroom. 'Cause he's talked about nothing else at every single public of every six months. Do you need to ask these questions, Brooklyn, Dad, Defiant? Why wasn't he removed from the building? They had him safe, and they probably want to make sure the outside of the building was clear before they took, I mean, these are all really obvious answers. Oh, why did the mega guy echo his talking point? That's what they do. They do that all the time. - Why do the birds crow in the morning? (laughing) - But once again, I love your music, Brooklyn, Dad, Defiant. This next one, he's more evidence. Sorry, so that was some evidence. Here's some more evidence for you. This got six million views. This tweet says, "Holy shit, Fox News just cut "one of their reporters off as they seem to indicate "the shooting was a pre-plan false flag." - I wouldn't just quickly tell you, I was sitting next to Caroline Levin, the press secretary's husband. He was one of our guests. He was feeding right next to me, and right as a dinner was starting, the national anthem happened, and then he kind of leaned over and said, "What's your own TV, you do a great job. "You need to be very safe." And he was,
was very serious when he said that to me. And he kind of looked around the room and he said, you know, there are some. - Sounds like we lost Isha's phone there. And this happens by the way, especially when you have so many people attempting to utilize the same cell service at the same time. - Good. - Likely excused. - Yeah, and I think exposed, that's a hard to dispute fact. I'll get to that in a second. Let's just say, let's just hear the excuse of the people involving the conspiracy. Isha, the Fox News Journal says, our calls were dropping because there's belly and he's servicing that ballroom to finish a story. He was telling me to be careful with my own safety because the world is crazy, which is what my and father and other people have also said to me recently. His expression is concerned for my safety. I was gonna say before I lost my signal, that it was unfortunate that only a short time later this all happened. When we heard people shouting, "Get down." He jumped into action and made sure myself and others at our table got in the ground. He was heroic in his actions. I'll forever be grateful. - Bullshit. I likely story. What's much more likely is that the press secretary's husband is part of the conspiracy. - Things like the Leavance of the two weeks. (laughs) 'Cause everyone told the press secretary's husband. And then when they do tell him he leans over to tell a member of the press before it happens 'cause that's what you do. And when he does, she doesn't tell anyone. She just keeps it to herself. 'Cause that's not gonna be an interesting new story. Why don't you tell anyone? But then later on she changes her mind and decides since she works for Fox News, she should tell Fox News this exclusive that the president staged his own assassination. But then the Fox News, they knew what she was about to say 'cause they could read her mind. - So Fox News are also in the whole of the-- - Yes, Fox News are in on the conspiracy too. And then they cut her off. So no one can ever find out. Except she then changed her mind again. - Again. - After changing my first time around. - I really like this level of the conspiracy where Fox News is in on it. But they don't want their journalists to be in on-- - Ah, deeper and deeper. This makes perfect sense, Locky. All these stupid conspiracies are like this. If you just examine them, if you scratch the surface for one second, that makes any sense at all. People just say, "Oh yeah, that motivation, "that motivation makes sense, "oh okay that's fine, I won't ask any more questions." No, if you want to try and validate conspiracy, ask every question and see how long it takes for it to sound really dumb. And what your fun usually doesn't take long. Okay, the next thing is, people need to work out what this was supposed to achieve, this conspiracy, because they've all got different reasons. Some say it's to increase its approval numbers, even though like I said before, they've been 17 assassination attempts, and only one increased its polling numbers. The first one, I'm not even, it was the only, it was the first one, it was one of them, sorry. Some say it was to push the ballroom, which I don't know why you would stage an assassination to try and push the ballroom when he owns Congress. - Well that does contradict yourself a little, 'cause he does love the ballroom. - Well, that is true. - He would do anything for the ballroom except talk to Congress. - But yeah, he's at desperate, once he just talked to Congress, they're there. They're Republicans. - This is what you need to do if you need to win them over. - At least just bizarre. Then some say it was to give him justification to attack Iran, 'cause he could blame Iran. Well, number one, he doesn't need most of his justification to attack Iran. - And that's attacking Iran without justification. - Yeah, exactly. And number two, like he hasn't, has he? Like he hasn't talked to Iran since. So, I mean, just work out what your motivation is. (laughs) And then ask some questions. Do we need a conspiracy to explain a shooter for Trump? There have been, America's a violent place. There have been 148 mass shootings in 2026 so far, okay? I've already told you the stats on political violence. They're going through the roof. There are record levels of polarization. We're constantly talking about authoritarianism, fascism and all the rest of it. Can't a shooting just happen on its own organically without the conspiracy? I think it's more likely. I can just, especially the ham fisted shitway he did it. If you were staging a shooting, but when you make it, when you get him to get inside the room, that was pathetic. There's a reason why no one's really gotten that excited about this one. It's because it was kind of lame. The guy got to shoot. That was the direct text that you and Dave sent to each other about 10 minutes after the event. We did, you were part of it. You saw it was going, wow, lame. (laughs) The guy got like two steps past security and they got tackled. They didn't even bother to shoot him. That's how little, that's how little threatening he was. He's America, they shoot everyone. It was the most half-ast attempt in assassination. It was a real conspiracy. That do a lot better. I have to say they really would. - I mean, maybe that just goes hand in hand. If it's an incompetent government, of course they're pulling off incompetent conspiracies. I think the problem is when you're so skeptical of these people, you can always respond to every question or every fact with, - Yeah, but I don't believe them. - That's why I have, sorry, finish off. - Well that's just why we have conspiracies. If we don't believe anything these people say. - Don't I, then, what about him? - The Trump or the shooter. - The shooter? - What's he doing? He's part of the conspiracy, isn't he? - Yeah, I don't believe Trump, so probably he was in on it. He was a sleeper agent. - And he wants to give up his life. - I'm not saying that it's a little. - The Trump's ballroom. - Yeah. - Probably what he wants to do. - I just sympathize with. - This guy's never leaving jail. That's just, - I just think that I sympathize with the skepticism of the government that conspiracy theorists have, even if I don't agree with that logic. - Sure, okay. - I think that people are angry. - Look, I understand the psychology. - And like me, they don't ask every single question. (laughing) - I tell you that, I mean, look, I do have a certain, I might be carrying off a bit harsh, but I do have sympathy for the people who fall for this shit because they're usually feeling disillusioned, otherwise they wouldn't be thinking this kind of stuff. They're usually feeling powerless. They're usually feeling like life has no explanation. Otherwise they wouldn't be reaching for this crap. They probably don't trust anything. I understand that. And then they preyed on by the worst people. Anyway, one more thing. While I was going through this, man, I saw a Manhattan Institute poll. 46% of Democrats say Butler was definitely or probably staged to increase sympathy for Trump. 46% of Democrats. - That's a lot of people. - There's a lot of people. - Whoa. - Now obviously those numbers might not be perfect. Like they, like maybe it's 40%, maybe 50%, whatever, it's still a lot of people. - This is significant. - Yeah. - Guys, we saw the bullet, okay? It was in a photo. Where did the blood come from if it was fake? Do you think Trump's an expert magician? He can just produce fake blood like him. - He used a president with talents like no other. - Does he strike you as a dexterous kind of a guy? Why, if he was going to stage an assassination, would he stage an assassination? Two weeks or three weeks, whatever it was, after Joe Biden had the biggest flame out in the history of politics. This was after the debate. When the Democrats were talking, he's doing so bad that maybe we should make the president quit. That's how badly he was doing. Why would Trump pick that moment to increase his numbers? People were talking about Trump, like he already had the presidency at that point in time. He did not need to take any risks. He did not need to increase his numbers at all. He was home. Why would he stage an assassination at that moment? And why would he stage an assassination using Biden's secret service? How Joe Biden's secret service playing a role in this? Which is, they would have needed to have been involved. Because-- - And helping out. - Yeah, a key part of this conspiracy is how bad the security was, right? That was a key part of the conspiracy. So the secret service had to be part of it. Huh? They're just, Biden's secret service, a part of the conspiracy get Trump elected. At the time, when he doesn't need any help whatsoever. Right. Honestly, and I'm getting angry, but just, I hope you're asking-- - You're asking a quite challenged by people asking stupid questions. Just, just, just,
- Or not answering their own questions. - Well, no, I just, I have a faith in progress. I like progress. I don't like seeing regression. It makes me very sad when I see regression. When I see society falling back, when I see anti-vaxxers, when I say, when I see us going in the opposite direction to what we should be going, it makes you very upset. Like, I'm a classical, I'm a classical liberal. Like, I believe in the age of reason and, oh God. Anyway, let's move on. - Real victim of the staged shooting was chaz. (laughing) No, that's not what I'm saying. Do you have anything else to add to the topic? - No, not at all. - All right, let's get to Komi. Like, with the Department of Justice, I've actually got a lot to say about it. Just as I'm going to cover a little bit of it now, we'll do more in the next, there is going to be a whole sort of extra paper to mail the way I think. I think if I can all go down to someone to do it with. But there's a lot to talk about. But let's start with the Department of Justice and then we'll pray finish the Department of Justice in the next one. - Okay. - Todd Blanche really wants to be Attorney General. (laughing) Okay, he really, really wants to be Attorney General. Now how much he wants to be Attorney General? - How much does Todd Blanche want to be Attorney General? - He's much. - I love working for President Trump. It's the greatest honor of a lifetime. And if President Trump chooses to keep me as acting, that's an honor. If he chooses to nominate me, that's an honor. If he chooses to nominate somebody else, and I go back to being the DAG, that's an honor. If he chooses to nominate somebody else and asks me to go do something else, I will say thank you very much. I love you, sir. So I don't have any goals or aspirations beyond that. - He really wants to be Attorney General Lucky. - He's trying to think about how to turn Blanche the lackey into a nickname. (laughing) That is the reverence that I talk about. My boss behind the scenes with. - I'm sure you do. He'll make anything happen to please Trump. Lucky. Hey, boss, you want to prosecute Jerome Powell? Fine. Let's talk up the probe into Jerome Powell. Well, even though there's nothing to it whatsoever. Hey, Tom Tillers says he won't vote to confirm. Trump's chosen Fed Treasurer while the probe continues. Fine, let's disappear the probe into Jerome Powell. Powell, just make it go. Boom, gone. Let's see, boss, I do whatever you want. Hey, boss. I know how you really dislike the fact that you were charged with like 37 different counts of stashing documents after you left the presidency. I know it really pissed you off. I know you wanna commit some crimes and not have any consequences. And you know, just tear up your documents and just have secrecy. Tell you what, how about I write a memo for you that claims that the Presidential Records Act is actually unconstitutional. How about I do that, boss? I know it was like a law back in 9.78 after Watergate where they were like trying to keep public records, accessible and stuff. I didn't want that. That law, you know the one? You know the one boss, you know the Presidential Records Act. It says five years after the end of a presidential administration, those records become subject to public release under the Freedom Information Act. So anyone can look into your shit, boss. But if you wanna stop them ever looking at anything that you've done and have zero transparency, what we'll do is we'll just claim it unconstitutional. Sure, let's do it, boss. Yay! Coincidentally. That's great. If that claim is correct, boss. (laughs) It would allow Trump to take all his records with him again after his presidency, legally. Wouldn't that be nice? He wouldn't be breaking seven laws. He wouldn't have 37 counts. Look, I don't know if this is about making his crime in more efficient now or just vindicating the crime he did last time around. I don't know. All I know is that it's bullshit to say that that's his unconstitutional. Jack Smith felt that Trump wanted to use his documents to further his business interests. That's why he thought they smuggled them out. 'Cause we've heard people who speculated why do you smuggle those documents out for? Why was he so zealously guarding them? So maybe that's an element too. Maybe there's like a business element for Trump. I don't know, but what I do know, is that just days after this stupid memo came out in the Department of Justice, Eric Trump revealed the presidential library. Remember the plans of the presidential library? Oh, very good one. The one on the moon or the one in Miami? No, the one in Miami. Okay. Remember what I told you about that I found odd about that presidential library? The 20-foot gold statue. No. That was unusual, but it was something else. I said, we had this like two minute video and there wasn't one second when you saw a place they store documents. No books, no documents, no nothing in this presidential library. How does the presidential library have no documents? Now we know why. (laughing) 'Cause they're gonna tell you. There'll be farther than the round file. That's why. Now, obviously, if the presidential record Zach was unconstitutional would legalize cover-ups, no president would ever retain documents for anything ever again. They would all head into the fireplace. They'd be complete impunity for the president. There were impunity that John Roberts hasn't already given them. They're already legally immune, but this would make them immune from scrutiny as well. Would be wonderful. What's their argument that's unconstitutional? Wait for this. They argue a president's records are private rather than public property. This is the legal complaint against them reads. In the administration's view, the records are the official activities of the president and nearly 1,000 White House employees generated using taxpayer funds on government property regarding official government business belong to the president personally and not to the American people. Government for the people by the people and other people? This is not. And the White House is already proposing that their text messages between officials should also be legally deleted. No need to keep any of them. The signal already does it automatically. Yeah, it's the right one. It's settling with payhegs at the user that does. That's for sure. They've got that signal for him. It also relaxes restrictions on emails from personal accounts in general, or keeping. I bet Hillary Clinton would find that very interesting. After Trump's obsession with her emails being acid washed, I'm sure she'd find very interesting that in Trump's opinion, there's no biggie keeping any emails ever from anyone. You really has learnt from the files. Anyway, there's been a lawsuit filed by the seasons for responsibility ethics in Washington and the Freedom of Process Foundation. I'm assuming they're going to win this one, but God, if you think I seem sarcastic and bitter now, you won't. If they win this record. I'm going to skip the firing squads. We'll say that for next time. Fire squads, oh my God. Let's go to Komi. Now, the Komi indictments for this, this famous C-shell orientation. For those who are listening, it's at 86.47 in C-shells. On the beach. On the beach. Okay, so this is a two-count indictment. By the way, the Secret Service investigated this. That was a Secret Service FBI, whoever. They're Secret Service. They investigated this like a year ago and just did not forget it. This left it. But now it's back because someone's trying to impress someone else. It's a two-count indictment. Count one, making threats to kill or harm President Trump. Count two, sending those threats across state lines using social media. There's a potential prison sentence of 10 years associated with this. Now, at this subtle point, I just told you the two charges. One of them was not incitement of violence. It's a prison. Making threat. No, yes, just making threats. Making direct threats. Not telling someone else to do it. Yeah. Now, it was just interesting because I would have thought, I mean, it's all bullshit, but I would have thought they had a better chance on solicitation. I agree, yeah. Anyway, but they're not going without it. Going with making direct threats. They're suggesting he's not encouraging people to kill Trump with that post. He's not doing what Hassan Piker did. No, he's being correct. Yeah, he's saying through the art of seashell orientation, he's saying, he's passed on this mysterious message, which I reckon at least half the people who saw that would have no idea what that meant. But he is apparently through that saying that he is going to kill Trump himself. Mm-hmm. And he wants people to know that. And that's the method he chose to communicate to them that he was going to kill Trump himself. All right. You gotta leave a calling card. Seat shells. That's his calling card. Seat shells lucky. That's supposed to strike fear into the heart of Trump. Seat shells. It's the New Zodiac killer. Good luck in court. Actually, it gets better. Because, "Sirza became a new story, long before it was visited by the FBI "as secret servers, however." "Sirza became a controversy. "Komi wrote, 'I posted a picture earlier "of some shells I saw on a beachwalk, "which I assume were a political message. "I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers "with violence. "It never occurred to me, but I opposed
of any kind, so I took the post down and he deleted immediately. Now look, I think he's been a smart ass. I don't think he saw those shells. I think he arranged those shells as a dumb dad joke. And so you're like, oh, well, he's been a smart ass. So so maybe he did think he did think it was violence as well. He's not telling the truth there. Does it sound like an intentional threat that you can prove beyond the reasonable doubt? They just took it down immediately. Yeah, particularly that he took it down. Like, this was what they got to prove. The first amendment exception, because it's obviously first amendment like through sea shells, you should be expressing yourself. Freedom of beach. Very good. Oh, my God. That money title. That's very good. That's very good. We got desperate for a title that got sell. Very good. First amendment exception is for true threats. Now according to the Parliament versus Colorado, 2023, the true in that term distinguishes what's that issue from guests, hyperbole or other statements that when taken in context, do not convey a real possibility that violence will follow. Say, for instance, I'm going to kill you for show. I blame. True threat to serious expressions, conveying their speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence and to punish a statement as a threat. The government must show that the defendant consciously disregarded the substantial risk these communications will be viewed as threatening violence. So not only intended to seriously communicate that he was going to kill the president, he intended it to be interpreted that way. It was knowing and willfully intended. That's one of the cases found. That's been knowing and willful. To put this in context, this one about to read you was a threat not charged by the DOJ as a threat. Okay. So this is not a threat. This is not a threat. We've already talked about this. Well, he came Jeffries did. He came Jeffries makes a speech in a few days in New York City. I cannot allow this terrorist to live. I will kill him for the future. Well, that could mean anything. It's so ambiguous. That was not. That's not as damning as saying shots will be fired. That was not charges of threat, but 8647 in C shells as charges of clear and unambiguous unintentional threat. This is hard for the prosecution because the number 86. Look, admittedly, this sometimes used an organized crime fiction. Sometimes. Like and sometimes it's used to mean killing. That is true. Trump backs this up. He he right, right, truth social 86 is a mob term for kill him. They say 86 him 8647 means kill president Trump. James Komey, who's a dirty cop, one of the worst, knows his full well. Eight miles out six feet down. Didn't he also lie to the FBI about this? I think so. Yeah. That is definitely not what it means. Eight eight miles out six feet down. Think about that. What's he saying there? What do you think that means? Okay, so you can be down. Eight miles out. What's that? Eight miles out. Eight miles out. Eight miles. M&M. Eight eight miles. Far was a shot fired from eight miles away. That's pretty long. Now I got nothing. I assume. I mean, I'm trying to interpret this. Eight miles out to me means eight miles out on the ocean dumping the body. Six feet down. It's not very deep in the ocean. But he's the thing. Six feet down is what you bury someone in the ground. Yeah. You bury them when they dump the notion. That doesn't make sense. That's contradictory. Yeah. Unless he means eight miles out in the field somewhere, send them eight miles out into the country. I don't understand. I've never heard this phrase. It's certainly not clear. I'm so nervous. I hear him out. This is the same. Like presumably he's getting this information from the same people who told him that a tattoo of marijuana, a skull, Jesus, and something else is MS-30. That is true. Probably the same person told him that. That it was tattooed. Sorry that it was not Photoshop. Someone has definitely told him this. This is not his common knowledge. You see, we got this thing Donald, because I know you're a pepper. We got this thing. If you want to know what the etymology of certain phrases are, everything called the internet, you can look out. And when you look up the internet, sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. But you know what? If there is a commonly understood meaning or etymology of a particular phrase, it will be somewhere on the internet. You can be sure about it. You can be sure of that. You try Google that one. You see what you come up with. Not much. Not much. While look, it's not certain what the actual etymology of 86 is. A coin of snopes at least, because I use the internet. It's most likely etymology is from rhyming slam, slang for nicks. Oh, I need to remove to it. That might not be true. I don't know. But no one thinks it's eight miles out, six feet down. No one. That's what the hell is that? The fact is there is a common definition of 86 out there. There are only one that I knew beforehand. And lots of other people say, "I'm the only one I knew." And that is, again, rid of something, tossing something in the trash. It's a service term. That's the one I knew. Like, like, 86ing the source, or something like that. I'm not saying that I can read James Komey's mind or the person who arranged the shells. All I'm saying is that it's selling not clear enough to get convicted of a threat, of a true threat. There's no clarity here. Let me put this way. There are definitely people out there who think that this doesn't mean killing. People like the Oxford dictionary, who primarily define 86 as "to eject or debar a person from premises, to reject or abandon, in LSUs, to refuse to serve a customer." And these are some examples the Oxford dictionary have given. 86 is the trade term for refusing to serve a patron any more liquor. If the patron begins to try and out airplane spins on innocent neighbors, for example, he is through. He is 86. 86 some square bankers from the temple. 86 means a victim. I'll have you 86 out of this bar. On the evening of July 22, Mr. Mallow's filming a dream sequence at the House of Alfonso, or sorry, when he's tamped. And when Mr. Smith came to the house, he told me, "Your 86, Mr. Smith recalled yesterday. This is a bar in phrase. That means you're banding here." Okay. So they've got proof that no reasonable person would agree with the Oxford dictionary, what the phrase 86 means. Instead, no reasonable person would believe anything other than the shit the Trump made up in that tweak. That's what they have to prove in court. That's a tough case. That is a tough case. Of course, I've left out context. Context can change anything. If I walked into a room waving a gun, going, "86, you, Locky, that would be a threat, wouldn't that?" Yes. So what's the context? C-shells is the context. That's the context. All right. There's even a sort of threat. Yeah. Okay. C-shells is not a threatening context, Locky. No, it's not. Instagram is not a threatening context. No, sorry. So they asked Todd Blanche how he's going to prove this exactly. And this is what Todd Blanche said. How will you prove intent when, as the director had acknowledged, Mr. Comey said he did not associate 86 with doing harm and he took it down promptly, said it was political speech, not an intent to harm the president? Well, it's not. This case was indicted today. This conduct occurred about a year ago, May 15th of last year. There's been a tremendous amount of investigation and how do you prove intent in any case? You prove intent with witnesses, with documents, with the defendant himself to the extent to the extent is appropriate. And that's how we'll improve intent in this case. And so, apparently, Locky, there's been a year of investigating and document gathering and witnesses and witness interviewing, etc. But the indictment was about 20 lines long. It was less than a whole page. I guess they're keeping their super, super evidence hidden. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Blanche auditioning for Attorney General. This is Comey's reaction, by the way. Well they're back this time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago. And this won't be the end of it. But nothing has changed with me. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary. So let's go. But it's really important that all of us remember, this is not who we are as a country. This is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be. And the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values. Keep the faith. Which I gotta say is more zen than I would be. I mean, it's more zen than I am right now, although I'm still worked up about that conspiracy. The thing I find most depressing about He's in all seriousness, now he's sacked as of now. He's the number of comments
I mean, I expected a bit of, oh yeah. Oh, you don't like law fair anymore? Do you, Democrats? Oh, we thought you loved law fair when it was Trump. I was expecting a bit of that. And oh, there's a lot of that. Yes. But what I wasn't expecting was the comments which say, well, we might not jowl you, but we'll bankrupt you trying. Like people openly saying, yeah, these are bullshit charges. We know they're bullshit charges, but the point isn't to throw you in jail. The point is to ruin your life. Right. Because that's been the understanding of how Trump's been operating. But these comments are-- But now people are so aware of it that that's their intent as well. Yes. That's our type of, I'm not supposed to Trump going, yeah, do this, destroy him through fake charges. It's financially destroyed here. Yeah. Like, they're excited over that. They're happy about it. They're excited about it. And to me, that's a doctor where you're openly-- I mean, where have you think of what the Democrats did before? And I've told you what I thought many times. I thought two of the charges against Trump had bullshit. And I thought two of them were absolutely dead to right. Anyone else is going to jail. But you can take away everything you want. But at no point in time-- They're going to bankrupt, yeah. And no point in what Democrats twirling their moustaches, like evil masterminds. Well, gay-- it wasn't like that. It wasn't like that. These people believe their stupid charges, even the ones I didn't like. They believe them. To be so cynical is to go, yeah, well, we ain't give a shit. We're just doing whatever we can, whatever tools are out of the disposal, to ruin you because you're our enemy. That is concerning. It's hard for a society to come back from that, because that begets more escalation on the other side. And then more. And then more. And then it becomes very hard to live together when that is worse a society becomes like. So it's just feel like what you were saying last week was Malena about the constant cycles of-- Yeah. --of fuck around find out. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like the find out is the beginning of the next fuck around. And then the other side will be doing the find out. And then that's the beginning of the next fuck around for your side and so on. The irony of this, Lucky, is that they're trying to prove a true threat with an indictment that is actually a true threat. It's not threat against Trump, obviously. It's threat against Democrats. Yeah. It's a threat saying that the Trump administration is going to get you if you're on their enemies list. One way or another. They don't care how. They don't care whether you end up in jail. They don't give a stuff. They're just going to make your life a misery. Well, perhaps that threat would be clearer if the indictment was written in C-shelves. They really should do that. At least James coming with understanding of that. Do you have anything else to say about any of this? No, I've got nothing else to add. OK, I'm going to end with a sad conclusion from Popat, who's a bit of a legal writer online. He captures my mood about this indictment, which I did for show this before, by the way. I do think this is-- I tell you, indictments, this is the biggest indictment on the Department of Justice. Trump's Department of Justice, I think, it is descending so rapidly. And this is its low point. I thought the-- Yeah. Until now, that submission about the ballroom was the low point. This is the new low point, this indictment. And Popat says, no rational person could see that and say, the former director of the FBI is saying he's going to kill the president. The point of the indictment is to demonstrate that the United States Department of Justice is holding an instrument of Donald Trump's senescent peak. No more independent of him than a boy on his ass. The point is to show that the administration can and will use the department's mechanisms to punish enemies. The point is to show that the department can and will punish protected speech. The point is to show that the department is staffed by committed fanatics willing to do anything, however unethical and unconstitutional to promote Trump. The point is to show that in the war between Donald Trump and the US Department of Justice, Trump has won. Now they're on the field, slitting the throats of the wounded and looting bodies. That's a nice image. That's-- Yeah, I'm not going to say nice. Yeah. Anyway, I'm going to continue on. Let's believe it or not. It goes on from there, whether the staff at the Department of Justice has been quite a couple of weeks for the Department of Justice since Todd Blanche began his audition. I'll continue more about this in the next pep, which will be with someone at some point in time during the week. So, see you guys there. Until then, stay peppy.
PodcastTranscript AI