242. What Everyone Missed in Hegseth’s Impeachment Drama

Republicans have closed ranks to save Pete Hegseth last night, the house voted down the push to impeach him. But here's the question no one's answering, why did 11 Democrats skip the vote entirely? Antony, you and I have different views on this, so we'll get into it. Meanwhile, Caddy, in the Jack World, there's an uproar, one of AI's biggest names, has been having an affair with an alleged Chinese spy. Here's the kicker, Trump has known about it for a year, so let's get into the trillion dollar question, why didn't he do anything? This episode is brought to you by E. Toro. It's midterm season, which means the political madness is well underway. The drama doesn't stay in Washington, it can ripple through markets and portfolios around the world. And that is where E. Toro comes in. Their platform allows you to follow global market movements and see what millions of investors are doing. And it's data that shows that nearly half of all retail investors are repositioning their portfolios ahead of these midterms. And since politics rarely ends neatly, Caddy and I, we're going to be back with a special market watch segment at the end of November to unpack what happens. In E. Toro and get a welcome bonus exclusive to TripUS listeners, go to E. Toro.com/TripUS. Invest $200 or more to claim your free share. Keep in mind, the offer is subject to local regulatory restrictions and isn't available in all regions. As with all investing, your capital is at risk. See E. Toro.com/TripUS for full terms. Let's start with Pete Hegsith. Pistol Pete, who has now had a reprieve antennae in the House of Representatives, where there was an vote of 211 to 204 that killed an effort by Thomas Massey, the Republican Congressman from Kentucky, who had introduced eight articles of impeachment against Pete Hegsith. I was pretty surprised by the vote, because not a single Republican joined Thomas Massey to vote against Pete Hegsith, but you and I know they don't love Pete Hegsith up on Capitol Hill, not even in the Republican Party. They're kind of pissed that he hasn't come to them with more details about spending, that he hasn't kept them informed. This is what I hear from people up on Capitol Hill. He's not done a very good job of keeping Congress on side and Republican Party on side. I think Democrats thought that some Republicans might take this opportunity to show their displeasure with Pete Hegsith and kind of cast a vote against Donald Trump implicitly after the midterms dropping, but no, they're still sticking with the president. Okay, but let's just talk about the calculus and the branding of that. Tell me the upside as a Republican to vote against Pete Hegsith. As I know as a Republican, let's say we get this show trial, the Senate is not going to convict them. We all know that. And so then what is the upside to me and the branding? I'm differentiating myself from Trump, but in the meantime, Trump stole the president for the next two years. I'm in the Congress. I'm not a lame duck. I'm going to need the president for certain things. You know, certain things as a stroke of a pen, you can send money to my district. So why am I going to piss off Trump by voting against Pete Hegsith if I'm a Republican. Go ahead. I suppose the only argument would be to show your voters that you heard the anti-war message and that it wouldn't so much be a vote against Trump as a vote against the Iran war. I mean, Thomas Massey is anti-Iran, anti-Ukrain, anti-Israel. He's kind of anti-everything. And that may have been a problem, but he's a has been on January 1st. He's moving out. Exactly. And so Trump is staying where he is. Yeah. So again, just we're inside the sausage factory of Washington. See what you just said was very idealistic and it was Ivy Tower-ish. And maybe that works on the campaign, but I, as a member of the House of Representatives, have to live in Washington, and whether I like it or not, I'm wearing Trump's jersey in Washington. Right. I thought there might be some Republicans who were elected in the few swing districts that remain who would want to show their voters that they are opposed to the Iran war and voting against Hegseth who is not popular around the country necessarily and certainly not popular in those swing districts, voting against Hegseth would be a way to then go back to their electorate in 2028 and say, you see, I did vote against the Iran war when it mattered in voting to impeach Hegseth. In the end, though, I think you're right, those Republicans made the calculation that actually was better to stick with the president and not piss off the president and vote. Now, this could come back again, right? So they may be tested again because there's already a Democrat who is out there who's drawn up six articles of impeachment, not eight articles of impeachment, and she may try to bring it to the floor again. Here's my theory. Democrats were saved by this vote. Actually, although you're getting some regressive saying what the heck, you couldn't even show up and vote to those 11 Democrats who failed to vote for Democratic leadership. This may be a blessing in disguise because if they can get away with getting into January and not having their first action be an impeachment of Hegseth, but actually show that they're focused on affordability, I don't think Democratic leadership is going to be that opposed to that. What do you think? Am I being too. I feel like he's. I feel like he. Well, I think all of that makes sense, but I do feel like they're going to try to impeach him again, don't you? AOC said last night, there are so many criminals in this administration, we don't know where to go first. AOC is one voice and the progressives in the party are not as powerful as you and I said last week. The progressive caucus is not as powerful as it would have been if the Democrats hadn't had such a big win. They're comparatively a smaller block. So I'm not sure that they will vote again to impeach him. I think they could move on to other issues. All right, let's see. This is the one issue. I still think he's finished, by the way, though, because. Impeach, do not impeach him. Yeah, because Trump needs a scapegoat and Trump does not like people in the crosshairs making him look bad. This is not a beauty pageant, this impeachment process. This is a war declaration by Massie and a group of Democrats. Look at it, he tell us how the impeachment process works, so people understand how tenuous it is and how difficult it would be to remove a cabinet. Remember, Mayorkis was impeached. Of course, that case got dropped. He was the Homeland Secretary, if you will, for Joe Biden. It's almost impossible to get removed from office, is it? Well, here's the history on that. No, it's so difficult that no cabinet official has ever been removed from office through an impeachment vote, because although you only need a simple majority in the House, you need a two-thirds majority, 67 senators to vote to remove a cabinet official or a president from office, which is why this is very difficult to do. And also, just from a process point of view, not the board people, but the rules of evidence in an impeachment process to get actually evidence in the damning evidence, it's very hard to do. So it's a, you know, what Eggset did say about it is it's a political stunt, and I despise Eggset, but he is right, it is a little bit of a political stunt. So Donald Trump's reaction to Pete Hegset's first press conference in what four months that he gave yesterday as this impeachment vote was going forward, the president said it was a plus, plus, plus, not just a plus, but a plus, plus, plus. And you know that Pete Hegset went on national television for an audience of one person. No question. For an audience of the president, I think you're right by tying himself directly to Donald Trump. First of all, he did two things that were smart politically. He said this is an impeachment vote against the U.S. armed forces. It's not, but it was not a bad message politically, right, to say you're not trying to vote to impeach me, you're trying to vote to impeach all the soldiers. That's totally slippery and it's not true, but it probably works for some of the members who are on the fence. But the other thing he did is said, listen, they tried to impeach us twice already. I love the us there. Now they're going for a third time. He's basically saying Donald Trump. Say what? Because big Donald Trump. Yeah, because he also said that he was the orders that he was directing as Secretary of Defense were rendered by the Commander-in-Chief President Trump. So listen, I love the fact he's getting right over the calls. I despise what he's done to the American military, I despise the jingoism of him. Some will say, well, the recruiting up is up because he's Mr. Macho Man, but there's other factors why the recruiting is up. What all of them has to do with the weak jobs market. What all of them has to do with the wage numbers? People are like, okay, I'm in a sort of a helpless situation here. I'm going to go into the American military. I'm not going to get paid headset the credit for that because it was happening in the last year of the Biden administration. But here's the thing I will say, he's in trouble, and I do believe that his days are marked because Trump being who he is is not getting out of the Iran war anytime soon. And he may want somebody in there that's different, be hexad, that has a different differentiating skill set. Although, be hexad has a defender in Stephen Miller, right, who has now been elevated to chief of staff. Patriots are in charge, Gadi, who said that? Patriots are in charge. That would be it. Hexad says so. Yeah. And so Stephen Miller will have the ear of the president and will continue presumably even though he realizes the Iran war is tricky, he'll continue to defend him. So those 11 Democrats who failed to show up, who actually would have swung the vote the other way if they had bothered to show up. Why do you think they didn't vote on this? I think it's APAC related. And listen, again, ten of the 11 we know have taken money from APAC. I think they just decided that they're influenced by that political action committee. And Pete Hegg said this scene is being pro-Israel. And so they didn't want to go against where they're getting their money from. And I think it's that simple. And they said that they got stuck in traffic or some nonsense like that or they got some of them called in sick. It's like my dog ate the homework and so therefore I can't show up. And so APAC has a branding problem. And we can talk about that if you want, but they they have a branding problem because they're now in the spotlight. They're in the crosshairs and they're going to be examined. And these political candidates are going to be questioned related to them. And Trump brought it up himself on 60 minutes about how Israel unfortunately isn't polling like it used to in the United States. Yeah. And so you could see a movement in the Democratic party certainly now which awaits Israel. Again, you know, it's a very controversial issue. So I don't like talking about it that much. But I will say to people Israel has been a very useful ally to the United States from a national security perspective. We have shared a lot of intelligence. And I can point to very specific things that we've uncovered that have protected the homeland of the United States as a direct result of our alliance with Israel. And so we can attack politicians of Israel and we can attack some of the things that they're doing. Okay. And I definitely think they've caused you a Mediterranean crisis in Gaza. And I've said that openly, but we do have a 80 plus year relationship with Israel. And I don't, despite what people say, it's not going anywhere. So 10 of the 11 have taken money from APAC, probably a majority anyway, certain of members of Congress, but a lot of Democrats have as well. And a lot of Democrats who have taken money from APAC, I think it's over 200 did vote to impeach Pete, I guess yesterday. Because they also knew that it wasn't going to go through. Yeah. And they knew that they were in safe districts, I guess. But I actually buy the argument that some of them did get hold up. I mean, it sounds crazy that they get caught up in traffic and that there was some police escort of a bus outside the Capitol. It I think actually it's not possible because a lot of them arrived on the floor like moments after the vote had been gavilled in. Now, I also get what other members of the caucus are saying, come on guys, do your job. Turn up on time, schedule enough time. You knew this vote was coming. And it doesn't look great for Democrats that the very first vote they take after the midterm elections, they couldn't even organize enough people to be in attendance to get the vote to bus. I mean, it looks a little, if nothing else, it looks a little incompetent. They didn't want it, they didn't want it to pass. Nancy Pelosi was out in California getting some kind of lifetime honoring award. I think that's and one of them was sick. Actually, one of them was genuinely sick. Okay, but but this is how Washington works. You know, it better than anybody. We don't want it to pass. Some of us are going to vote for it because that plays well in our district. We also don't want it to pass because we know there's enough people that are not voting for it. So we're going to vote for it and it goes the way we want it to go anyway. And then there's a group of people that can't vote for it because they're getting money from the APEC pack. And they've got a lot of ambivalent people in their district about the issue. And so they'd rather just abstain from the vote by saying they were sick or they got stuck in traffic. And that's what happened. And we move on. But Hegseth wasn't getting removed from this, even if it passed and they got the 51 percent. It would never have gone through the set. It would have never gone through. And so this is like Hegseth said, a political stunt. But they're going to come after him again as my prediction. But I think he leaves before they do. Let's see. What do you think this tells us about the splits in the Democratic Party? Because I think we're going to see more instances like this where you've got the progressives saying to and this issue of Gaza and Israel is not going to go away in the Democratic Party. I think I get your point about the continuing funding for Israel. And that Israel has been useful when it comes to some counterterrorism issues. But this is a big issue in the Democratic Party. Still particularly it's going to be an issue in the nominating process. That back to you though. So you three point eight billion dollars of aid. Trump says we're no longer going to give it to Israel. You think that's true? No, they'll probably find a way to give it to Israel. Of course. They'll find it black. Even if it's not all of it. Yeah. That day is not going away. It's just you're not going to see. It'll be a slight of hand. And that aid is going to continue to go. And by the way, the aid was promised that the Israelis in 1978 at the Camp David Accords. And there was symmetry between what the Israelis were getting and the Egyptians were getting to maintain that peace agreement. And remember something guys. It's foreign aid and if you ram Paul or your Donald Trump you're saying we're giving too much money for foreign aid. But understand something. These are like insurance policies to maintain the peace. And so when you're maintaining the peace less costly to the United States. And it's better for commerce and better for the global economy and better for American citizens to have peace. So these payments are not that big. But they are very big if you think about it from the global benefit. But they are also becoming increasingly toxic in the Democratic Party. And I think we're going to see more testing by Democratic progressives, particularly on this issue, whether it's during votes in the House or whether it is during the nominating process for 2028. There is going to be increasingly a kind of political purity test on this issue. And a lot of Democrats who are running are going to have to distance themselves more and make commitments when it comes to untied military aid to Israel. Obama said in his memoir that he campaigned one way when he got the intelligence information. He operated totally differently than the way he campaigned. John Kennedy said there was a missile gap and that there was dereliction by Eisenhower and Nixon. And was there? No, there wasn't. Turned out we had a missile surplus. And so listen, you know, when you are in the seat and you're getting the full benefit of all the information and your responsible agent for America, you're going to change your tune. Okay, talking about getting the full benefit of information, how much did Trump know about Jensen Wang and when did he know it? We're going to come back after break. Okay. Talk about that. This episode is brought to you by the Financial Times. If you want to know what's going on, okay, in a way that's way deeper than you can get just from superficial discussion, you got to go to the FT. And I have, and I think I told you this, I've been an F maybe a three-decade subscriber now to the FT. And yes, I'm old-fashioned, Katty, I have that pinkish salmon paper in front of me every morning looking through what's important to the FD editors because if it's important to the FD editors, it's going to be important to you in your life, your business, and your understanding of the world. I particularly love my friend Ed Lucy's a Washington columnist. He has such smart columns. He's very well connected in Washington, calls up Donald Trump frequently. He's got a great piece this week. Scott Besen's wobbly house. He described Scott Besen as the "peat hegseth" of the Treasury. Definitely worth a read. For the why? It's the Financial Times. Visit FT.com/tripus to read more. See our latest offers and decide which subscription is right for you. We would need to understand the policy context. All the relevant context will be structured as a framework today and disseminated into an Operation Order or Frago. Frago that says to kill the president of Russia. Yes. New from Goldhanger. Who is going to be able to pull this off? An audio-drama journey like no other. Men like Duffy, they are our most valuable weapons. Devised as a technically rigorous geopolitical action forever. We're Britain plays its strongest arm. He's the best. Against its strongest foe. Bear hunt. Available now wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to the rest is Politics US with me and Anthony finally together. Anthony we don't see each other enough although we need more mid-term selection, so it's been more time together. - I enjoy time together. I always learn something. But, Katty, have you ever been hit on by a Chinese spy? - God damn it, not as far as I know. - It's never happened to me. Not that it was on my bucket list or anything like that, but I've never been. - Are you feeling a little sideline or something like that? - No, I'm feeling lucky that that bullet, like when passed my head, but somebody here got hit on by a Chinese spy, or an alleged Chinese spy, but we'll come on. You know, come on, alleged Chinese spy. Okay, but go ahead, Katty, go ahead. - Okay, should we tell the story for anyone who has been under a rock for the last few days? Jensen Wang, who has been the face of Nvidia for more than 30 years, co-founding the company back in 1993 and overseeing the company's growth into a multi-trillion-dollar chipmaker, has admitted to having an affair with a woman who is a suspected Chinese spy. Wang had the relationship with Alice Wang, confusingly same last name, I promise no relation. She is linked to a Singapore-based data center firm called Megaspeed, which actually does not actually have a huge amount of offices, right? Does not, when they went to find out what Megaspeed does, nothing there. - It's a shell. - It's a shell company based in Singapore, and what did she do? She created a romantic relationship with this man, and then she started buying unsanctioned chips from him. Or let me rephrase them, sorry, she created a relationship with this man. - With Jensen Wang. - With Jensen Wang, and there are sanctioned. - We call it Jensen and Alice. - Okay, we'll call it that. - Not to get confused, what do you think? - All right, it's fine. - As opposed to Wang and Wang, 'cause that's gonna get confusing. - Okay. - I mean, but anyway, it's really not that confusing, 'cause let me tell you what happened. This is my opinion, this is what I think happened. It's alleged, but I think she honey trapped him. And she bought chips from him that were sanctioned, and she pushed those chips through the shell company in Singapore into mainland China. And I'm sure she also got access to his phone and took all the information off of his emails and scanned everything. And now the Chinese, we spent billions of dollars trying to protect our national security secrets from the Chinese and billions of dollars trying to protect our trade secrets at this very large corporation, which is in the national security interests of the US, and being bang boom, one honey trap, and they got all of it. And so it's got the US government upset, and it's got the national security apparatus of the government upset and frosty towards China and Jensen, but not Donald Trump, catty case. So tell us a little bit about Donald Trump's reaction to the whole thing. - So Donald Trump was actually told about this last year, and he was reminded of it in May, when he led that trip, that state visit to China, which Jensen won, joined, oddly kind of flying to Alaska, 'cause he'd been left off the list, and then he joins, and Marco Rubio on that plane reminds Donald Trump on Air Force One, by the way, remember, Jensen Wang has been having an affair with a woman who we believe is a Chinese spy. Donald Trump, in his press conference at the White House, on Monday, that was kind of wacky, by the way, guys, at the press conference, on Monday, says, well, it didn't make much impact on me. So he is told, and then told again, that your buddy, Jensen Wang, who has just donated some 20 million dollars Mr. President to your ballroom, is having an affair, has been having an affair with a Chinese spy, and his answer is, yeah, whatever, yellow. - Did Jensen lobby the United States to sell more chips to China? - So that is now the question, because during the course of this year, Donald Trump, in a position that Jensen has pushed for lifted export controls on high quality Nvidia chips to be sold to China. Jensen has been pushing for more access to the Chinese market for Nvidia chips. So he's been pushing to be allowed to sell these chips in the argument that it's better that we sell them American chips, and so they don't develop their own technology to develop their own chips. That's Jensen's argument. But I don't know, it's starting to look now. Maybe this woman apparently, reportedly, was picked up by Chinese intelligence after she began her affair with Jensen. Now she used to work for Chinese state TV. So I'm not quite sure what Jensen was thinking. This younger woman, very attractive, starts hitting on him who used to work for Chinese state television, and he's thinking, what exactly? You see, this is how subtle you are and how gracefully you're, you know exactly what Jensen was thinking. So tell us what Jensen was thinking, because you had all of the women at this conference today, giggling away at what Jensen was thinking. So guys, tell the audience what Jensen was thinking. Jensen is thinking, wow, look at me with my black leather jacket and my black t-shirt. I've still got it. I'm an older man, but I must be so sexy that this young woman is hitting on me. I'm just gonna say this about him, the poor son of a bitch, because he's got to figure this out now with his wife. - No, no, no, no. - And he's got to figure this out now with his company. What do you say, no? - You think poor son of a bitch, this is on him. I mean, there is Donald Trump, also in his press conference saying, oh, I feel so bad for Jensen one, he's suffering. Poor Jensen, he's suffering. Seriously, the guy has just put the United States potentially in a national security peril, because he chose to have an affair with a young woman. - Is he resigning from the company? - I don't know if he's resigning. I think he should resign from the company. - He thinks he should resign from the company. - But he has no succession plan in place. - Is he? - A 60 direct reports, the guy has not set up this company to exist very well without Jensen one, but I don't feel an Iota of sympathy for him. - Okay, is he leaving the, is the board gonna force him out of the company? - Well, the board says now, so here we are. This is the latest, the board of directors has initiated independent investigation, but at the same time, as it initiated that investigation, says it has no reason to believe either company secrets or national security will compromise. So are they prejudging the investigation before they've even had the investigation? That sounds to me like a question. Is this whitewashing or is this a genuine investigation? - Is his reputation permanently damaged? - Oh God, I don't know that we live in a world where anything is permanent. I don't think the Democrats having just swept into on this massive blue tsunami is necessarily permanent. Nothing is permanent. Nobody should think anything is permanent, but I don't think it looks good for him. I would say, I don't see how he continues being ahead of this company. I don't know what do you think. - Okay, so you don't think he can, you don't think he can survive this? - I think this is difficult, 'cause this is not just a regular. - We're not in the, this isn't a fair with national security implications. - Well, we're not in the era of Donald Trump, shamelessness where you can get away with and do anything, and particularly if you are at a pivot, and what I mean by a pivot, you're sitting in a position where you made the company, you're the founder of the company, the company went from zero to four and a half trillion dollars of market cap in 33 years, and you are considered the man at that company. And you're in the national security apparatus and you're like, you want that company to survive and thrive. And if he leaves, and as you just said, he's got 60 reports into him, well, the company goes sideways, or will competitors or foreign competitors enter the business that he has such an overwhelming lead on? - Well, I suppose that depends slightly on whether you subscribe to the view of history that it is a single person who makes all of the difference, or by this stage, actually could somebody else run in video successfully? - Yeah, well, what the goal once said, there are graveyards filled of men who once thought they were indispensable. - Yeah. - Okay, you're on the board, Katty. We're role-playing, trip U.S. role-play. - Okay, I did not have this on my bucket. - You're on the board. And are you voting for his removal? Or are you saying no problem? - I think I am voting initially for an actual investigation, not a white wash. I think you actually need to know were company secrets given to the Chinese, and were they given in a way that is damaging to U.S. national security? If the investigation concludes that, and clearly Marco Rubio has his concerns about that, then I don't see how Jensen Wang stays on. Even though the board is Jensen Wang friendly. - You have a new role now, Katty. We're switching roles. - My bingo card is going to be my phone. - You're switching roles. You're now a lifelong friend of Mr. Jensen. - Yes. - And he comes to you and he explains this problem. And he's like, what do I do? Here is the cost-benefit analysis of me leaving or staying at the company because it looks to me like they're going to let him make this decision. By the way, that's just my opinion, but. - The board will let him. - I think so. I think they're going to. - I think this investigation is a bit of a white way. - Right, right. Okay, so they're going to let him make the decision and Trump, he's gotten enough money over to Trump. Or Trump's not going to push him out. Although Trump did damn him in the press conference. He said, well, you know, he told me that the girl wasn't a spy, you know, but he sort of knew that she wasn't a led spy. You know, so Trump hit him pretty hard at the press conference. - Well, go ahead. - Well, you're also called him an honorable guy. I mean, in Trump's world, listen, Trump's standard of honorability. - He talks that at both sides or not, but. But you're his friend and he's going to rely on your decision. decision-making in your judgment and your advice, and he comes to you and says, "Catty, what do I do?" and you say, "I say get a successor in place, fast-track that process whether is one of your kids who are in the company who may not be that happy with you right now, or somebody else in place, and then I think your reputation is damaging in video." I mean, look, the share price fell 4%, right? Let's see what happens. We live in a fickle world, the share price could rebound again, but if the share price continues to be damaged and there are more revelations about what actually this woman got hold of Alice. That's the answer. Then I think you will have to make a decision about it. In Jensen, you know how bad this is. I don't know how bad it is, but you know how bad it is. And you know if you're just scratching-- Jensen, you may not even know how bad it is. Right, right. If we're just scratching the servicier and it's a deep oil well, you may want to get out while the going is good, and you may want to-- it may be the best thing you could do for the company. You see, if Pete Hegseth was actually super loyal to Donald Trump, he would resign, okay? Because he's now become a distraction, and he's also mishandled the war, and so Supreme loyalty would require him to resign. But he's also another narcissist, so he ain't going anywhere, Trump will have to push him out. But Jensen's case-- Who has a bigger ego? Pete Hegseth, or Jensen Wang? So I don't know these guys. I've never-- you know Hegseth, I worked with at Fox News. He's got a very big ego. I don't know Jensen, but everybody likes him. I don't know anybody that I've never-- I've never come in contact with somebody who's met him, interacted with him. They didn't find him to be a down-to-earth, super-hard working, you know, brilliant-minded entrepreneur. And the best of what America has on this is-- He's not Elon Musk. We shouldn't say that. He's not. He's not Elon Musk. And remember something about Jensen. He said, and I quote, whatever the hell it is, I'm not leaving California, I'm paying my taxes. I'm due to fall, and I'm patriotic, okay? So there's an aura of likability about Jensen. I just don't know how deep the problem is. Like, if he came to me, I would say, "Moment, I don't know how deep the problem is, but you know." And your point is he may not know how deep, but he knows-- he knows levels of it, deeper than you and me. Yes. And if it's really, really bad, you may want to get out to help the company, maybe your best loyal act. Now, I mean-- And you do with markets, I mean, could it be a situation where if this continues being front-page news and the investigation continues revealing things that are not good for Nvidia or for the US, if he leaves, could that help the company in terms of market perception? At some point, I believe that, the Kelsey markets are such where it's at 15% now. But is Jensen-- Well, 15% that he leaves. That leaves. Yeah. Is Jensen going to leave in the side of the next year and a half? It's probable. It's probable. Well, he's created a lot of commotion and he's in trouble. And you know, listen, Bill Gates ultimately had the whole Epstein kerfuffle and the different affairs that he had ended up getting a divorce and ended up having to leave Microsoft for various reasons. Some of them were monopolistic-related and the Department of Justice related. So I don't know. But to me, this is a big enough blow where it eventually leads to a departure. That's my guess. I wish him well and I wish the company well. And I'm sorry that this happened to him. I'm sorry that he had this mistaken judgment. I'm sorry that this happened to have made it look like he had no control and no agency here. He chose to sleep with that young woman. This is a little bit like Aunt Agony, just so everybody knows that I'm the guy here trying to defend the guy. I'm sorry. So there are guys listening to our guys listening so you know I'm trying here. Sorry it just happened to me. It's bad, Jensen. I'm just telling it. There was a bad word. You do not have a lot of support, Jensen, from all of the women around the world right now. It was a bad look, Jensen. Let's just try to go into repair as quickly as possible. Okay. We're going to leave it there, guys. Thank you very much for listening. We will be back next week. We'll see you guys next week. (upbeat music)