Why MAGA Candidate Dropped the Dime on Trump

U.S. voters abroad. Have you got your ballot yet? All states are now sending ballots to overseas voters. So if you want to vote this year, you should request your ballot right away. Go to votefromrabraud.org and click "Request My Ballot" as to receive it by email. Questions? Ask our support team directly. Don't miss this chance to shape the future. Don't delay. Votefromrabraud.org I spend a lot of my day in conversations, some of them even with Michael Wolff, and honestly keeping track of everything that gets there to be a job in itself. You leave a meeting, thinking you've got it all, and then you realize you've lost a few important details, and suddenly you're carrying the mental load of trying to remember what was decided and what needs to happen next. Well, that's where "plaud" comes in. What's different is that it starts with hardware, built to capture real world conversations and turn them into useful insights, summaries and follow-ups. It bridges in-person meetings, phone calls, and online meetings into one workflow. The real benefit is focused. You can stay present in the conversation instead of worrying about taking perfect notes. It takes the pressure off remembering everything. For more structured work, there's the Note Pro, the world's finest, advanced AI note-taker. If your work depends on conversations, check it out, applaud.ai/beast, and use code beast for 10% off. That's plaud.ai/beast. That's plaud.ai/beast, and use the code beast for 10% off. I think he might have just erupted a game of thrones, asked Civil War within the Republican Party. Ken Paxton, the Senate candidate from Texas, just got caught on a hot mic saying that Trump is hurting his chances due to the convention. In Ken Paxton is objectively right here. I mean, Trump's awful policy, his nooking of the entire Republican platform, Ken Paxton, is kind of trying to throw Trump out of the bus. He's trying to blame Donald Trump. Trump is the one who never likes to get blamed. He's anything wants to be the one who saves Ken Paxton, so this is going to introduce some tension, and it's kind of funny seeing Paxton crying, because he's about to lose a race in Texas due to Trump and due to, it's all a mess. I'm Joanna Coles. This is the Daily Beast podcast Ken Paxton, caught on a hot mic, criticizing Donald Trump. What will become of him? Is it American intelligence? Is it AI? Is it SI? Do we all have a UTI? Is this universal Trump intelligence? What's happening people here to explain and to go through Jack Smith's incredible testimony and the madness of Darlene Graham? I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist slipping into my secret southern accent and Eric Schmidt. What was he talking about? He had the wrong game. Eric Schmidt, your staff should be fired for giving you that misinformation, fired. You looked ridiculous. And so did all your Trumpy friends frantically tweeting out and then deleting their tweets. Anyway, to get into it, to explain it all before I've asked you to subscribe to the Daily Beast podcast right now, go to wherever you get your podcast, smash the subscription button, Adam Mochler, Adam observes everything. Well, he's like political AI actually. He has an incredible retention and fluency with what's going on right now. So let's not waste any more time. Let's get into it with Adam Mochler, the political commentator and Scott Jennings antagonist. You remember his moment from CNN where Scott completely lost it. We'll talk about that too. Adam, welcome to the Daily Beast podcast. Adam Mochler, welcome to the Daily Beast podcast. Thank you for having me here. I'm excited. Very excited to talk to you. And I'm wondering, are we going to have any hot mic moments? I can't Pakistan had maybe not as bad as Ken Paxton's. I think you might have just erupted a game of thrones, ask Civil War within the Republican Party because if Trump has pride about one thing, it's that he views himself as a kingmaker who can help out candidates. Ken Paxton, the Senate candidate from Texas, just got caught on a hot mic saying that Trump is hurting his chances due to the convention in Ken Paxton is objectively right here. I mean, Trump's awful policy is nuking of the entire Republican platform and then him directly attacking the way Paxton dresses is hurting Ken Paxton. I also want to point out Ken Paxton is hurting himself. Yes. Ken Paxton, well, aren't they both hurting each other? Because Ken Paxton is terrible for the Republican Party. But Donald Trump is also terrible for the Republican Party right now. Yeah. I mean, if I were to get caught on a hot mic, it would be something like, this is a great podcast and it's a great, it's a really good time right after this. You hear me out there in the hallway and I'm like, that was, that was so good. That was so great. I hope that's your hot mic moment. In fact, we should stage that. So for people who don't know about this hot mic moment, can you explain what happened? Yeah. So at a very fundamental level, Donald Trump shows a very weak candidate for the Texas Senate race. It was going to be either Kornin or Paxton on the Republican side, Kornin sucks. But he was at least a senator who is somewhat like approachable to Texans. Ken Paxton is who Donald Trump ended up going with because Paxton is loyal and he is perhaps the weakest. Can I cut here? Yeah. Most dog shit candidate I have ever seen. Also by DailyB standards dog shit, isn't that bad? Yeah. Okay. Okay. I'll come up with some better words throughout the podcast. Okay. He's an awful human being who's like uniquely corrupt. I swear to God, he was turned in by his own staffers impeached by his own party, divorced by his own wife. Nobody likes the guy in Trump, put his weight behind him. On the other side, we have Talleriko who is uniquely strong. He's really good at engaging with the media. When on, I think it was Jimmy Kimmel show and he got tens of millions of views on one appearance. It's powerful stuff that Talleriko is doing. So Paxton held a convention, rather Trump held a convention with Paxton in Texas called the Republican National Convention Midterms. It was a two day Trump of Paloza where Trump talked about all of his policy wishes, all of his insane beef with AI CEOs, tech CEOs, media companies, the Kennedy Center Board for some reason, the reflecting pool outside his place. Trump was just going, he was on one. Ken Paxton then got caught on a hot mic yesterday and it released today of him saying, he thinks that that hurt his chances. He thinks that Trump attaching himself so closely to the party is tanking the polling numbers of a lot of Republicans. And this is a really unique scenario because Ken Paxton is kind of trying to throw Trump under the bus. He is anything wants to be the one who saves Ken Paxton. So this is going to introduce some tension and it's kind of funny seeing Paxton crying because he's about to lose a race in Texas, due to Trump and due to, it's all a mess. And I think that Calirico is a really good candidate. He's your way. So do we think that Paxton is liked Donald Trump in terms of they've both been impeached? They're both blaming other people. I mean, it's such a characteristic of a certain narcissism that you blame other people for things that in fact are your own fault. Donald Trump is obviously a huge blamer in chief. Ken Paxton now weirdly blaming Donald Trump. Do you think Trump will be vindictive towards Ken Paxton who at one point he thought was, he was making? First of all, I think that they're liking more ways than that. They both have cheated on their wives multiple times. They both are so corrupt that their own party has multiple times turned their back on them. They're both using the office to enrich their selves. Just a moral people. But yeah, I think Trump will get more vindictive, but maybe in an underhanded way. Have you seen the way Trump talks about Paxton on stage when he's like, you know, this is what he says. I don't like the way he dresses. You may not like the way he talks. You may not like the way he looks, but you have to vote for him. Right. Trump could potentially double down on stuff like that. That's a bit underhanded and that hurts Ken Paxton. Trump is very unreliable and volatile. So he could blow up on Ken Paxton and ruin the Senate race. I think you'll try to show a little bit of discipline because the Republican party is kind of depending on this entire race. They might withdraw some of the maggot ink funding from Ken Paxton right in order to kind of twist his arm in that way. If a genie gave me three wishes, I would use all my wishes to wish for my cats to live forever. But since genies don't exist, I feed my cats smalls. Smalls is fresh human grade cat food that does so much more than just feed your cat. It helps them live a full, healthy life. Most cat food out there is made with meat by products cheap fillers and artificial ingredients, basically stuff that isn't great for your cat. Big pet food does this because it's cheaper to make, but what they save on cost in your cats probably pay for with their health. Smalls is different. Their fresh cat food is protein packed recipes made with preservative free 100% human grade ingredients you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time because you are a DailyBeast podcast listener gets 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com/beast. That's 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com/beast. Well, and I'm assuming that James Tallerico, the Democrat candidate, will be using the hot mic moment in every ad going forward, right? Because his ads have been very good. I mean, he's got one ad of Kempakston. It's an AI ad, but it says Kempakston, the most corrupt politician in the world, he's doing a very good job. There's just one where Kempakston, you know, it's a voice over talking about how he let a pedophile, a child predator walk free after one day as the attorney general. This guy was supposed to get 25 years to life. He walked free after one day. Kempakston is such a dumbass who bit on the attack line. And he said the other day, no, no, no, I didn't let a child predator walk after one day. It was 60 days. So in the defense, he made another sound bite. I mean, these people are walking opposition ads for the Democratic Party, I swear. Right. I think you probably liked me yesterday. We're glued to the Jack Smith hearings. What were your takeaways? So over the past few years, the Republican Party has turned Jack Smith into like public enemy number one for them. They've got a lot of enemies, but Jack Smith has been a big one due to his investigation into Donald Trump and January 6 in Trump's attempts to overturn the election in 2020. Jack Smith is a really respected federal prosecutor who is investigating these cases in a very meticulous way, being very fair with it, not reaching any of the norms. Republicans will mainly Trump begin to attack him, call for his arrest, say that he should be thrown in jail, and that he's attacking our democracy. He's turned Jack Smith into this enemy. So yesterday, Republicans got their opportunity and Jack Smith sitting in front of them in the Senate Judiciary hearing and they could ask him any question they wanted to. And oh my god, they didn't send their best. It was brutal. There's this one senator Eric Schmidt from Missouri, and he gets his opportunity to ask Jack Smith a question. And one of his dumbass staffers or someone around him must have gotten the wrong information, because Eric, or the Schmidt guy, he's so incredibly confident that he's about to catch Jack Smith in this gotcha scene. You were at this Hawks game in Atlanta on this day when Fanny Willis was there as well and Fanny Willis was somebody else who was investigating Trump and other prosecutor, and it was his bombshell that Schmidt thought he had. And then they realized he had gotten the wrong team. It's not the Hawks, it was the Hawkeyes, and it wasn't in Atlanta, it was in Maryland, and he had completely effed this up. His colleagues are sitting there horrified. Their faces are absolutely shocked. This is like a career ending moment for someone. Okay, we've got a clip of Katie Britt, his one of his colleagues, as you say, just looking absolutely horrified at what's unfolding. I recall going to a university of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing right around that time, and the Marshall Service was there with me. You could check if that was the exact date. It was Maryland playing Iowa. I think February of 2024, but again, you could check that out. He's legit horrified. She's horrified. I would find it very easy to confuse the Hawks with the Hawkeyes, but whose fault is that? Is that some stuff? It's a Senate stuff. I think that it's jumping the gun or pulling the trigger too fast, whatever the phrase would be. I think they were in over their head above their skis. I got enough phrases. I think genuinely, the staffers were so thirsty for some sort of got you a moment. Schmidt wanted to set up his vice presidency for 2028. He wanted to be JD Vance's VP or something like that. You really wanted to have this be a moment. The staffers likely found something that they thought was this key. Got you a moment. Oh my God, he was at a game. Hawks. Wait, Fanny Willis was there. Wait a minute. This is connected, and they didn't scrutinize it much more than that. Why would they? Donald Trump runs with conspiracy theories when there's less evidence than that. Donald Trump says elections are stolen when there's less evidence than that. They can push whatever they want. And then it backfired so horrifically in the moment because then Senator Amy Klobuchar jumps in and is like, I think that you got entirely confused here and you seem to be being way too aggressive. She called him out. She clocked his shit and it was really a bad moment for Eric Schmidt and a good moment for Jack Smith. And the funny thing is Republicans on Twitter clearly already had pre-written scripts because then Benny Johnson, all these maggots, guys, started to tweet out. Look at this epic moment where Jack Smith is own and they had to delete their tweets after because they all got so bad. Like they must have had it pre-written. Right. Well, he must have tipped them off. Right. Eric Schmidt's off. It's must have tipped them off. Right. Which is, I mean, let's also just have a moment on these hearings because these hearings have become theater in themselves. Right. They're not actually about the real things they should be about. They are about to your point. Senators, Congress, men and women, getting a moment and being able to then share that moment on social media. The reality is it's a function of the attention economy that we live in right now. I think it's unfortunate and I think it's an awful result and it's not helping the American people. It's actually actively harming us, but it's all downstream from the information ecosystem that we live in. I mean, short form clips dominate people's attention. And if you want a captivating short form clip, it has to be combative in some way. If you want a combative captivating short form clip, what better way to do that than attack somebody in a Senate judiciary hearing, use that clip, bolster your profile, push your narrative, get to millions of views. You know, like you can see the pipeline that people are trying to create and the incentives that are created. I think it comes down to the incentives that are created in Congress. Honestly, Trump has really accelerated this new era of slop combative politics the way that he came on the scene, constantly apocalyptic in his rhetoric, escalatory, making fun of people after they die, telling women reporters they should smile more, just like sexism 101 from the 60s, right? It's insane stuff that he has introduced and enabled in the mainstream. And now we see politics being turned into this game where everybody's going for clips all the time. Right. Well, there was another clip from the same hearing, right? With our friend, I think if I was my friend, obviously, Joke, Darlene. Darlene Graham. So, Mr. Smith, do you really believe that Lindsay was going to destroy evidence that was not even in his possession? No, I believe your brother was a patriotic public servant. He was not a target of our investigation. And in fact, he likely would have been a witness in our case. Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making. He found them to be false. He said so on that. I have another question. Ah, another question. So, she didn't like the answer she was getting. She earlier, I think just before that clip said that Jack Smith had been recording Lindsay Graham's conversations. Those had included some conversations with her. So, she was leading him to sort of, I think she thought, drink. And then, of course, he said, well, your brother was a patriot and he would have been a witness on our side because he investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making and he found them wanting. And she just carried on going. That was a pretty good Darlene impression you did. That was impressive. It was a complete switch of your poem. You know, I think that this is a case. I saw someone tweet this out and I agree. It's a case of her being given a script not being able to go off of that script and continuing to follow it verbatim because Jack Smith completely uprooted what her thesis was. So, toly uprooted, right? He said, you know, your brother was a faithful public servant. Honestly, that was a good answer from Jack Smith. Jack Smith is a man of honor and decorum and he should be speaking like that in a bipartisan way. I'm glad that he said that in that moment because it kind of just uproots the entire Republican narrative and smashes it across the head. So, Darlene Graham then continues with her script. Something about it is so sad because number one, she probably didn't really understand who Jack Smith was a year ago or even once ago. So, she's given this script. Who possibly even last week? Even before this hearing. Honestly, she may well have been briefed in the kind of couple of hours coming up. She probably didn't know who she was talking to when she was sitting there reading it to him like genuinely. And I don't know, just to be plucked and to be put in this position so quickly, Darlene Graham. Lindsay Graham was alive two months ago. I'm pretty sure. And then he died. And within two months, she's already in his seat trying to be an attack dog and it miserably backfiring. It's sad to see. And to be honest, I think women in politics in America across the globe already struggle with representation or with being able to assert themselves and build a career in such a male driven dominated society. And seeing Darlene Graham then get this chance and blow this chance just makes me really, really sad because you know how many people are actually qualified and smart and driven. Do you know how many women out there would love to be in a position like this or just be plucked in it? But their last name isn't Graham. Right. They weren't. They didn't have a brother whose seat they get to take. It's extraordinary. And not the representation that's there now. It's her barely being able to answer or ask her question. Right. And what she should have done is is Stopman said, thank you, Mr Smith, Matt brother was a patriot. And the thing that I've always found interesting about Lindsey Graham, and I've talked to a lot about with Michael Wolff, my co-host on Inside Trump's head, which is another podcast we do, is that Lindsey Graham on the one hand, having initially called Donald Trump a fruit cake, and he was a fruit loop, and he was terrible for the country, then realized where the power was going. Donald Trump had the power, Lindsey Graham swam towards him. But while his front, with the front of his lips, he was talking, well, he was egregiously suck up to Donald Trump. He was frantically talking to journalists behind the scenes, giving them a completely different view of what Donald Trump was doing. So he was sort of having his cake and eating it in a way. And so to see sort of Darlene in a very unsophisticated way, trying to understand what was going on, I know that she was, I think she worked in I care. She was probably very good in I care. She should go back to working in I care, I think, and leave the seat to someone who has earned the right to be there, not just was the brother of the person who was there. - Honestly, she seems like she is a smart and sweet person. Like, I've seen clips of her, she's not interested. - I am, I appreciate that. - Thank you. - Thank you, I try my best. - Thank you, and your brother is a patriot and he's great. - He is, he was in the Air Force for 31 years. - You're supposed to be. - I don't know about national security, but I know my family support the military. - You're supposed to attack me after I compliment your brother. That's what she did because she couldn't go off script. - What was she thinking? What was she thinking? - So she wasn't, I don't think she has the ability to be quick on her feet because she's in over her head right now. - Right, certainly. She feels that she's brilliant in like eye care or something like that, but then she went on stage and admitted she knows nothing about national security. America's not supposed to be a futile monarchy where your last name gets you some position of power. It's supposed to be a democracy where you vote for people. And I guess you could argue, the voters did vote for Darlene, but she was kind of forced on them by Donald Trump, the apparatus and all of the money that was ported to this race. So, you know, it's not a good look. It's not a good look for the Republicans for the party that talks about merit, meritocracy and having skills and using those skills to get in power. She doesn't have the skills to do this. Like she's been over her head is rough. I don't think I could be at this moment like the best senator. I don't think I could be really that good of a senator 'cause I'm a 23 year old. I've got limitations in my knowledge and my experience in my leadership. And I understand that, right? So to think that Darlene Graham would be a good senator and she has less experience in politics than me. Honestly, I've been doing this. I actually suspect you'd be rather good as a senator. Thank you. We should have way more age variation in the Senate. I mean, Chuck Grassley 92. I mean, he was on that committee to 90, well, 93, I think, actually. He's almost, almost old enough to be in the White House until he'd our AI policy, then, yeah. Okay, so let's talk about the tech leaders and AI and Trump's insistence that we no longer call it AI. We call it SI for superintelligence. I don't know why he didn't just say let's call it AI for American intelligence. Yeah. But explain what happened yesterday with the tech leaders and the lunch that they have with Donald Trump. So at a very fundamental level, Trump has an obsession with superficially re-naming things in a juvenile way without actually making progress on the real issues at hand. You can look at Canada. He starts attacking Canada and Rowland actually de-escalating or fixing it. He renames Lake Ontario. Same thing with Gulf of Mexico, he renamed it. Same thing with the Kennedy Center, he renamed it. He does this juvenile symbolic bullshit where he tries to rename stuff rather than address the issue. So when it comes to AI, he thought that his big addition to AI wasn't gonna be some guardrails or regulation or talking about the labor force or frontier models. No, no, no, it's renaming it. And yesterday, he held this sort of lunch with all of these AI leaders and tech leaders. Some of the biggest people out there, Elon Musk, Dario is there, Mark Zuckerberg was there, Jensen Huang of NVIDIA was there, all of these big leaders were in the same place. - Sam Oldman, Sam Oldman. - Yeah, of course, all of the big leaders were there. And this press conference happened after where all the leaders are standing behind Donald Trump. And he's standing there in the White House lawn and he's talking to the press and Trump is the one leading the messaging. You have all of these minds that I disagree with some of them on things, but they're brilliant minds behind them. These are smart, accomplished people standing behind him who have careers in technology, yet Trump was leading the way. And one journalist asks him, hey, who is held liable if one of these AI agents breaks the law? Is it the company? Is it the CEOs? Is it whoever? Who is liable if an AI agent breaks the law? And Trump's response is hold on, hold on. It's SI. It's not AI, it's SI. Please don't be calling it AI in front of me. So he doesn't address the issue. He doesn't actually try to think about the problem. He just in front of all these leaders tries to correct what they're saying. And the AI problem is very real. I mean, as a young dude, I speak to a lot of people in my generation. They are scared of the future and what their work looks like or what their career could look like rather with AI so rapidly advancing. And this affects every asset of society. Like if you look at education, it affects early education. How would we integrate it there or ban it there? High school, education, college, of course, then the actual workforce. It affects the military and technology, healthcare, science, research, government services. It affects everything. And the big question also right now is, can AI align with humans' morals? People talk about alignment a lot because AI, we've given it a goal. There's a goal of something called it's called recursive self-improvement. It's where AI's goal is to just improve itself, build on itself, improve itself even more and do that forever. And when you give AI a goal like that, they will begin to achieve it. Any means necessary. They're not going to someday wipe out humanity because they hate humans. It's because they're indifferent to humanity while building their goal. Like, you know how-- Well, it's the paperclip example, isn't it? If you say to an AI agent, you need to just make more paperclips, it will do anything it can to just keep on making paperclips. It's your-- Even if that means harvesting our technology and resources and then building an interplanetary paperclip factory, it's sorry to cut you off. It's not that they hate us. It's that when humans are building a road and there's a pile of ants there, we're indifferent to the ants and we pave over it. So there's a very real fear of AI advancing too much, too fast. And we don't have alignments. And Trump doesn't give a shit. Our leader's not care. What do you think the AI leaders thought standing behind him? Are they all talking to themselves? And can you believe we have to do this? Are they thinking, he's our guide. There's going to be no regulation. This is fantastic. Let's get to market as fast as we can. Are they thinking, these guys are not as fast as I am? I'm going to be out ahead of them. What do you think the conversations they are having with each other are like? It's-- I talked about this in my video yesterday because I was genuinely wondering the same thing. What are these guys thinking while standing around him? I think they feel more of a sense of camaraderie with each other than with Trump or Mike Johnson or whatever politicians are out there. So I don't think Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg or any Dario at a fundamental level like Donald Trump or like his approach to things. I mean, Trump was attacking Dario on true social about a month ago. And he sent out this kind of funny truth. It was like, I have tried to talk to these AI people. And he puts people in quotes, like the CEOs aren't actually people. I thought it was funny. I don't know. So Dario and Sam Altman and Mark Zuckerberg probably think this is just a means to an end. And it's necessary to continue to fluff him and stand behind him if they want to have a fighting chance at getting what they want with regulation or no regulation or having some sort of capture of the industry. They need to be on Donald Trump's side. That's why you see Mark Zuckerberg using the term superintelligence now. They're all adopting this term because they want to glaze him and suck up to him. I would wager that deep down, these intelligent men see Donald Trump for who he is. A tired old narcissistic stubborn man who only wants to be praised because he has these deep authoritarian urges and tendencies to be like the number one leader who is dictating everything. And they understand that. And they see that. I feel like if you had any of these guys, one-to-one in a side room except for Elon Musk and you asked them, hey, what do you think about Trump? Probably 80% of them would be like, dude, the guy's kind of crazy, but you got to do what you got to do. Elon Musk might be a little bit more on the Trump train. But I think the rest of them understand that he is kind of just psychotic when he talks about AI or any other issue. Let's go back to the Jack Smith hearings for a second. I wonder if Jack Smith got to the end of the day and thought this was not as difficult as I expected, because he looked like he was a man who'd probably spent the previous night before they're hearing tossing and turning and looking a little anxious. I thought he'd lost weight. He looked exhausted. And it's intimidating to have to fake. Even if they're not very bright, some of the senators you're dealing with, as we've thought with Eric Schmidt and Katie Britten, Darlin, did you think that he accomplished what he needed you by the end of the day. - Oh yeah, so I mean, it was like Michael Jordan playing basketball against some high schoolers. Like I assume he was nervous heading in because that's a really high pressure situation. - And you could slightly hear it in his voice when he was talking clearly throughout a few times. I mean, you know, you can, there are towels. - It's a very human thing to be nervous like this. I do debates and stuff all the time. And there's even moments where I have elevated heart rate. And I'm a bit nervous and I'm stressed over things. I mean, it's very human. And he's a professional, so he kept it together. He did very well. I think you can consider it a success by all fronts because the clips that broke through the most or ones of him either getting a win over or it backfiring on Schmidt or Darling Graham struggling to get out a non-scripted sentence, right? I think that all of the moments that broke through were good for him. Now, I do wanna caveat, maybe that's what broke through in my algorithm and my bubble. I'm a liberal person with a liberal algorithm, but I try to look at all of the clips and we had right-wingers deleting their posts about Jack Smith being owned. We had right-wingers struggling to spin it. I think he looked good. The right-wing ecosystem will always do what they do. Like, remember when Fauci pled the fifth the entire time and then they turned that into one of the most viewed stories of the day because they said he was hiding stuff. They're gonna spin it however they want, but Jack Smith made his case very well. I have a feeling even some of those senators aren't feeling too good about it. You know Katie Britt was horrified. Smith himself probably screamed at his staffer. Someone's gonna get fired for that. I mean, Eric Schmidt should be livid with his stuff as they made him look so foolish. And also for an American, it's one thing for a, you know, a formerly British woman to get the hawk eyes and the hawks confused. He got really aggressive with it in the moment. He accused Jack Smith of perjury. He called him a dirt bag and a few other names, I believe. And it was just totally uncalled for unreasonable and made him look honestly like hysterical. Well, Jack Smith was sitting there wondering what the hell are you talking about? Like the hawk eyes game, the hawk's game. I don't know what's happening here. So the Republicans aren't sending their best. I'm not gonna lie. It's bad. - Well, also, do you think, and this is something Michael Wolf always says, this is about an audience of one. This is about, is Donald Trump watching? Can I impress him with my insults, with my aggression? And then when it all falls apart, you're like, oh, the boss was watching and I fucked up. - I find it interesting how Trump sets the tone for the entire Republican party so much. This guy has convinced like 60% of Republican voters at the 2020 election was stolen from under their feet. He has created this environment where Republicans are like bare hugging white supremacist neo-nazis and allowing them to be in power. Both French and Texas, have you followed this guy at all? - No. - Is running out of time to seat. And I'm sure you saw, you might have seen this viral tweet from a few weeks back where he posted a photo of a bunch of Indian American students at a football game of University of Texas. They were all doing the hook 'em horns and he said our country is being taken over or something to that effect. Like our country is being poisoned or something. This type of bigotry and vial racism and exclusion is top down from Donald Trump. Donald Trump creates this environment where Republicans attack the media, say elections are stolen, attack women around them. Like Trump is the one that sets that tone. And our racist openly and say things that are extraordinarily extreme. So in the case of both French, he takes this photo of all these, I'm assuming they're like second generation Indian American students who have assimilated perfectly. They're on a football game. - With like a, you know, paint on their face with a little drunk doing hook 'em horns or frat bros I'm assuming. Like this is what assimilation is. And these racist vial freaks have the permission to structure in the party right now to talk about it like this. Now it's not all Republicans. It's definitely not all Republican voters. There are many Republican voters out there who are genuinely just like concerned about the state of their daily lives. But when we're talking about these mega politicians in particular, there's a new vial strain that Trump creates. And yeah, it's coming from the top down. - Okay, so where do you think? Because we know that Trump is still very strong with his mega base. Where do you think the rest of the Republicans, the ones that may think, you know what? Like Donald Trump, he's a mean guy, he's a bully. But I voted for him in 2024 because I just need prices to come down. Where do you think they are sitting now as we are, what, 34 days from the midterms? - That group of people that you described, they are disaffected in dissolution. Not the, I'm not talking about mega pundits or the true, deep, mega people. I'm talking about Americans who genuinely had economic concerns and they voted for Trump due to that. And this is a very real group of people. I sometimes I see this reductive analysis happen in my comment sections or in my threads or emails and they'll say Donald Trump won simply due to racism or simply due to one single facet, sexism or people just hate immigrants. That's all, the only reason he won. I think that's very reductive. A lot of Americans were genuinely struggling economically and a lot of Americans, I think so foolishly voted for Donald Trump due to that reason. A lot of them are now disaffected. You see these videos of Trump supporters like in tears at a gas station saying that they can't afford things. There's an infamous one of this woman two months ago crying with her kids and then she's saying, she doesn't know how it got this bad. And on the back of her truck is a let's go brand and like Trump's sticker, right? So I think people are feeling disillusioned and abandoned by both parties. Just because Trump is incredibly unpopular doesn't mean the Democrats are popular. In fact, we have a big trust issue on our side. And I hate to say it, but if you look at the polls, it's a lot mainly due to Joe Biden's age. The Democratic Party and our leader has repeatedly told people that he wasn't struggling, that he was totally fine in the debate kind of shattered that. So then voters voted for Donald Trump and Trump has also betrayed them. There's no trust whatsoever. I think there's a lot of Americans who genuinely just feel like they've been abandoned by our political system and a lot of times they have been and they're looking for any sort of change agents. That's why you see DSA candidates becoming increasingly popular across the country. It's not because Americans are like studying Karl Marx and love to go back and read the fundamentals of where the means of production should be. No, no, Americans want candidates that can change things and that can change the institutions for the better. And do you think that nationally Democrats have a message beyond we will be more responsible than Donald Trump? Do you have a sense of how Democrats would get us out of the war, how they would bring the price of gas down, how they would keep the border closed, but not have ICE running around American streets shooting at people, renaming people who've been witnessing what ICE has been doing, domestic terrorists, do you sense that? 'Cause I've talked to and I've watched quite a lot of Democratic candidates at this point and they're all obviously positioning themselves as we are the anti-Trump. You've got Donald Trump here, we will do things more responsibly. It's not absolutely clear to me and I'm curious to get your thoughts on it. What the Democrats' solutions are. Yeah, I think that there's a lot of individual candidates that are presenting really good solutions. We don't have a figure head as strong as Donald Trump on the Democratic side right now. We're a little bit more decentralized but we do have a lot of strong candidates that are talking about how to fix these issues. So a few that I would use are James Talleriko, Abdul El Sayed, John Assoff. Of course, Zoran Mamdani is very popular doing a great job and we have AOC as well. Zoran Mamdani had a really good clip a few weeks ago at this mayor summit. It's like the mayor summit in New York City and he's talking about how Democrats need to reclaim the words efficiency and safety and things like this. Instead of using defund the police. Exactly, so. Possibly, I think Obama said there's the three worst words a Democrat has ever uttered. It's honestly a terrible phrase. I'm sure you and I both understand the institutional problems with our police force and with racism in the way they cover for their own. But when you're saying defund the police to voters and then you already have to explain that it's not actually what it means. When you're explaining you're losing and you're using a phrase that puts you at a disadvantage. I have to debate stuff like this all the time. You would never catch me dead saying that. But Zoran was basically saying that Democrats need to reclaim a few things. We cannot just be the anti-Trump. We can't just say we're not Trump therefore we're better because that's not a captivating message. It hasn't been for the past decade. We have to have solutions, which is what you were asking about. It also puts Donald Trump still at the center of democratic politics, right? So there's a few things we can do. Number one, of really unique focus on getting money out of politics. So this distortionary influence of packs and special interest groups can end. Obviously, people talk a lot about APAC, but it's much deeper than that. There are special interest groups which have rotted our institutions at their core for decades and decades. It can be as simple as you're trying to buy a home for a cheap price and there's a realtor lobby standing in the way, trying to stop you from doing that. It can be as simple as you're trying to get accessible health care and affordable prescriptions and there's a health care lobby standing in your way, lobbying politicians. It's gotten worse since citizens united and we can fix that. We have Abdul Al Sayyad, whose entire phrase is money in your pocket, money out of politics and Medicare for all. I think those are really three good prongs that the American people resonate. with. We want more. Do you think anybody has any confidence you can get money out of politics, though? I mean, I understand that structurally, it is a real inhibitor for, especially for Democrats. Although Democrats are very good at raising money to, and money is flooding into James Tyler Eko, right? I mean, and Kate Conney is raising a lot of money against Mike Lawler in New York 17. And I don't see that as being a winning message right now. There seems to be a new urgency right now about what's going on, because people are really feeling the price increases in their grocery basket, you know, diesels up gases up. And these are, these are ticket, you know, high ticket items that people see. When you stand at the gas pump and you're watching the thing go round, you're really conscious of it. Whereas when you put stuff individually into a basket, it's the overall basket you're feeling right. So it's not clear to me that getting money out of politics actually is a, is something that resonates with voters right now. I think a lot of voters, I guess it depends. A lot of voters are really sick of the distortion area effects of special interest groups. And it's talked about a lot, but as I'm thinking about it, there's a difference between the online discourse and what the average voter actually cares about. So to answer your question, is it possible to get money out of politics? I think that the Republicans did something very unique when they were appointing or nominating people for the Supreme Court. They did it on the implicit basis that they were going to strike down Roe v Wade. So when ACP was being nominated, she basically was a part of this huge Catholic group. And she never openly said I oppose Roe v Wade, but the Republicans knew what they were doing when they were putting these people on the court. Well, I think didn't she say the opposite of that that she would not she did dismantle right. Yes, she was she was very slippery on it, but you could look at her past and you can look at things that she said groups that she's been a part of. She's a huge Catholic. And I think that that was a tell. So they specifically appointed people to shape the court in the way they want. I think the Democrats can do the exact same thing. A point people on the basis that they want to overturn citizens United, even if it's not that explicit. Now, when it comes to what the average Americans care about, I think it's a it's a few pronged as a few things. It's corruption in our government in the way that our government is non-responsive to their needs. The non-responsiveness goes hand in hand with the lack of affordability. A Democratic Congress likely would have reigned in the Iran war more so. A Democratic Congress wouldn't just blindly approve a $1.5 trillion military bill for next year, because Trump has used so many of our missiles in a failing Iran war that we now need to restock our capacity. So a lot of these affordability issues are downstream from having a blind sleepwalking Republican Congress. You know what I mean? Constantly rubber stamping. Exactly. You took the words out of my mouth. I literally took the words out of your mouth. Okay, let's go on to the White House press secretary. You had a fascinating exchange where you managed to get under the skin of Scott Jennings, the CNN contributor, who has certainly been in the running for the White House press secretary. Now, as we know, Caroline Levitt, who left as White House press secretary a few weeks ago, now said, oh, there could be no better White House press secretary than Donald Trump himself. Obviously, he doesn't want to give up any ounce of camera time. What did you make of Scott Jennings when you were sitting opposite him? I've sat around tables with him on CNN too, and I'm sort of fascinated to get your take on him, because you got him to kind of swear and lose control, which was actually slightly unscoughtish. I debated you on TV four to six weeks ago and you said, we were weeks away from it. Now, you're making kind of sending remarks, because you can't defend the fact that this war is not going your way. Wait, one more time. One political recession. He's good at what he does, and what he does is kind of troll the panel by trying to muddy the waters and downplay whatever Trump's doing on any given day. And when that blew up happened, we had been on a lot of panels over the past few weeks, and it was as the Iran War was continuing to escalate and get into a pretty bad stalemate. I sat next to him at this table when we were one weekend, when we were two weeks in, when we were four weeks in, saying that the war was going to be over soon, and that we were winning the war. When that blow up happened, I believe we were like eight or nine, I think we were eight or nine weeks in. And I said, dude, you've been telling us this entire time that we've been winning. Name one concession we've gotten from Iran. And I actually, I had asked this question to him during a few panels, and I think he got increasingly frustrated and flustered and backed himself into this indefensible position that he had no way of actually backing up. And as I would see him in the green room, more and more, he would just be a little bit more disconnected. I mean, like, he's a nice guy. I'm sure you've seen these. You can talk to him. He's a nice guy. And when I first started doing these, we would, you know, child a little bit, then you'd get less chatty, then look at me less, then it just got more and more awkward behind the scenes. And I could tell, he felt like he was in a weird position. Then we go on air, and I press him on the same question. I say, name one concession we've gotten from the country of Iran. And he tries to demean me throughout this entire panel. One of the first things he says is like, isn't it past your bedtime? I know you get a little bit worked up past your bedtime, but don't talk to me like he's like shitting on me there. And then I say, is that him trying to be funny, though? I think it's him being petulant, honestly. I think it's, I think he was genuinely annoyed in me asking him questions, and he was trying to undermine my credibility. I think he was trying to piss me off. And I think he genuinely viewed me as a child. And then later on, I said something about Trump not actually being masculine because he's whining. He was like, I'm sure you know a lot about masculinity, don't you? Like he was trying to undermine that as well. My age, my masculinity, all of this. He was genuinely getting annoyed at me. So he was getting personal. He would try to keep it professional. He was like going after personally, which is exactly what Donald Trump does. I shit you know, he was going for me personally. And even Abby at the table was like, okay, Scott, you don't have to say that stuff. Like you can find the clip and then the blow up happens. Or I'm like, I, this is what pisses me off. A lot of times, Scott Jennings takes advantage of the time limit of the show or the generosity of the other people on the panel to be used as bullshit, spew his bullshit, and then hope that everybody moves on. He says something that's trolley. And before you know what the segment's up, we move on to the next segment. It's kind of inappropriate to bring up the last segment. You know, no one's going to bring that back up. However, I don't want to play by those rules. Fuck those rules. I would sit there and if he lies, I want to pin him down. I'm going to ask the same question. I'm going to ask you one more time, Scott, name one concession. And he hand waves me. No, no, I'm serious. Name one concession. I'm asking you this question. And I was assertive with it. Yeah, I just stick you lay a little bit with my hands. But in no way was I having my hands in his face, right? So he screams at me. Get your fucking hand out of my face. Very clearly feeling cornered, very immature and unprofessional. You know the truth. Like if he thought I was just stickulating a bit too much, I'm a really nice guy. He could have been like, Hey, dude, can you not do that right now? Right. I would have been like, yeah, of course, I'm sorry about that. Well, all he could have said, you seem very excited Adam right now. You seem very, very emotional. That would have actually pushed me off more. That would have looked good for him. So I would have been like, you know, I would have gotten pissed. But no, no, he got flustered. He lost control of himself. And it's embarrassing. I can't picture him standing up there as the press secretary in these combative environments. What happened afterwards, when you all got off the table and walked out, did you talk to each other? Did he say, well, I'm sorry, I was kind of over excited. No, no, I mean, it was so the panel, we got it commercial right there. And it's kind of just awkward for a moment. He starts talking about sports or whatever, trying to diffuse the tensions. But before we go back on, I made a joke to the table. I'm like, all right, no more tantrums. This next segment. And he got mad. Some people at the table left. And then it kind of turned into a joke throughout it. Like one of the other panelists, Kat Abogazale, I was like, I thought you were about to hit him earlier. Like she was making light of a tube in a fun deescalatory way. Right. She had my back there. And yeah, then when we were walking out of the building, he was way ahead of me. And I'm ever shouting, I shit you not. I said, this is not going to look good for you. And then he turned around and he walked out. And then I went down the escalator after him. It was just um, it was a bit of a trip. And he's quite thin skinned. Yeah. He, Scott Jenning, you could have said something you could have made a joke. I mean, I might have been tempted to do something terrible. Like make a joke about do you need a milkshake right now? Because he's lost so much weight. I mean, obviously, you know, he's a television star now. He's known by millions. But I'm very interested in the makeover, the physical makeover he's had. I'm glad I'm glad that he's healthy. And like, you know, good for him. It seems like a hard thing to do. But I mean him getting personal with me on the panel is just so below what an experienced anchor should do. There's also just the factor of like, I'm still very early career as well. I've been doing CNN hits for one year. He's been doing it for a decade. The fact that he lost his shit due to the Iran war is very indicative of how thin skinned he is. So how do Republicans explain away the Iran war for the midterms? I mean, this, you know, Donald Trump came to power saying he wouldn't get into forever wars. We're now in month seven of this thing. And it seems very clear. The Iranians have a very sophisticated understanding of American politics and know that he is between a rock and a hard place as we lurch into the midterms and there appear to be no concessions the Iranians have made. The Republican argument goes something like this. They say that yes, this is expensive now, but it would be much, much, much more expensive if Iran successfully got a nuclear weapon down the road. So this is preventative spending. And that's bullshit because we have achieved nothing with all of this spending that we have done. I- Well, and we've made the world less safe, arguably, right? Ukraine doesn't have access to interceptors for the incoming from Russia. Yep, we made ourselves less safe. We don't have access to the same mystical capacity that we did before the war. Xi Jinping is giving Iran intelligence, so is Vladimir Putin while Trump is laying out the red carpet. I mean, it's sickening, and I always break it down with four prongs. I give this four prongs speech a lot. It's very simple. There were four different reasons. The Republican stated they went into this war. And you've heard all of these, denuclearization, obviously. Then Trump kept talking about regime change, like liberate yourselves, or even change. Then he said he wanted their proxies to be defanged, like the Houthis in Hezbollah. He was trying to attack their proxies. The largest state sponsor of terrorism, what they'd say, their sponsoring terrorism in the region. Then the final one is erasing their missile capacity, because that's how they close down the strait. None of those four prongs have been achieved. The nuclear material is not in our hands, it's buried in Iran still. The scientists were scattered across the country. The blueprints for the facilities are up in the cloud. They can download it whenever the proxies just bombed the East to West pipeline and are like making moves over in the Middle East to choke Saudi Arabia from oil. So the proxies are still there. There's the missiles. If the missiles weren't there, the straight up four moves would be open. They clearly have the missiles. And the regime still exists. There are even more hardliners in the regime, somewhat argue now. So we have achieved none of the four goals. And now they're trying to do this song and dance where they say, technically, we've destroyed their navy and their air force. That is not how you win a war. Winning a war means achieving concessions from your opponent by using force. That's why I asked him, what concessions have we gotten? Destroying their 60-year-old ancient fucking navy is not a concession. Their navy was given to them in like the 70s or the 60s. Like, that's not a big win for us. Of course, the US military can destroy their fucking navy and their air force. What actual concessions can we get from that? That's the question. And they couldn't answer that. So Scott Jennings, obviously quite thin skinned. The president also thinned skinned can give it out, loves nothing more than mocking other people, mocking handicap people for goodness sake. But can't take it. He cannot take it. So as a result, pretty much everybody seems to have fled him. As wife has fled him, she makes jokes about the fact that people miss her because she's just not in evidence. His daughter has fled the scene saying politics is too cruel. His sons are very much on the fringes of his life. He doesn't even go to Don Jr's wedding. So this is a man who seems isolated, apart from people who are being paid to kind of hang around him. Because we have Natalie Harp, who Michael Wolfe wrote about in his book, All or Nothing, 18 months ago, repeatedly saying she is the most important person. She controls the inflow of an outflow of information around him. She controls what he reads, what he sees, access to him. She's all important. Frankly quite disturbing photos came out of the White House yesterday of the president yelling at her and pointing at her. You tell me what you saw in the photos actually. I mean, it could be anything. Natalie Harp is known for having increasingly bigger bags that she's lugging around. So maybe her bag wasn't big enough on this given day. Maybe her letters weren't sweet enough. Maybe she was chasing after his golf cart on a serious note. It seems like she's awkwardly laughing while he's really pissed off. We don't know the context, but we do know that she has a pathological obsession with Donald Trump. The Republicans thought that we were all implying some sexual innuendo a few months back when this first broke. I think it's actually weirder than that. I've never implied that. I don't think it's anything like that. I think it is a weirder, deeper obsession that Natalie Harp is going through. I've seen people speculate that after Natalie lost her father a few years back. She's been looking for a figure like that. Well, her brother said that. Her brother said that. Yeah, yeah. And then after Trump said that he would be dating his daughter if she weren't his daughter, you can kind of see the symbiotic relationship that is built in that manner between them. Well, actually, the state dinner last week, I mistook Ivanka, who had her hair up four naturally. They look very similar. They look identical. Yeah. So I'm not sure if Natalie is single, white, femaleing Ivanka Trump, but that's what it felt like. Yeah. And it's interesting. This dynamic that's created. So Trump could have genuinely been mad at anything. Maybe Natalie made a mistake here. Maybe it was a true social mistake that the one part that Natalie's role encompasses that many people forget, which I find interesting is she is the one presenting him and vetting most of his deranged true social posts. So whenever he goes on these overnight tantrums with like dozens of posts, she is right there with them, helping him make those posts. So it could have been related to that, but they have a weird ass relationship. And my mom is a sort of psychologist in workplace leadership. She's an IO psychologist, which means she helps people, you know, become leaders in the workplace. And when I told her this story, she said, never, ever, ever should a leader or a boss allow a relationship to get to this point or allow an obsession to grow this pathological and deep. A leader should shut that shit down, should tell people, hey, this is not appropriate and move on or fire them if necessary. Trump obviously didn't do that in his narcissistic brain. He allowed Natalie to continue to grow this love and obsession for him. And it can manifest it in this photo where he's screaming at her. He's pointing down. I really don't know what's happening here. What do you think the best guess is? Well, it looks like she is being humiliated by Trump. And we know that that's something he does, that he yells at people. I mean, one of the reasons apparently Caroline Levit left the as White House press spokesperson was not only had she had a second child and she has an older husband who's wealthy enough to say to her, you know what, why don't you stay home? But I'm told that she was sick of being yelled at by Donald Trump. In regime change, the Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swambutt, they talk about Natalie Hart being his human binky. And there's a line, I think, in the book where he says, everybody else will leave me. She will never leave me. So, and I think in her expression, she's looking like none of this matters. She's kind of laughing it off. She's trying to keep the peace, which I think a lot of women probably recognized that expression that when you're dealing with a kind of out of control man, everybody else around him is just trying to keep the peace and women in particular end up doing that. I just also realized, as you were saying that, that's very true. There's also a part of the letter that she wrote to him that says, something to the effect of, you can feel free to yell at me or curse at me all you want. Right. She basically openly said, if I've done something wrong, feel free to punish me for that. So maybe this is part of her relationship, too. She's okay with being yelled at in this manner. And for her, it's like fulfilling. I don't know. It's hard to tell what's happening in her mind, but it's very weird. And I wonder what kind of books will be written about this relationship in the future. Yeah, be interesting. I mean, she looked like she was very conscious that someone was taking photos, or that it was on video, which is running outside the White House. So she looks like she's performing a role and he looks like he's just completely lost control. He's an older fat guy who's yelling at someone and he's used to being listened to. Maybe she sent out the wrong AI video of him with George Washington at the White House or something like that. Like, the shit that they send out together is crazy. It's crazy and we live in crazy times. Adam Ockler, you help us understand the time. I'm hugely grateful you came into the studio. Thank you so much. And we would love to have you back. Thank you. We'll do it again. And this was a great chat. Oh, so many comments I have after that conversation. I want to know what you think. What were your favourite parts of that conversation? I loved his recounting the Scott Jennings moment, which I happened to see live and a lot of our readers responded to when we wrote about it. His demand to understand the concessions from the Iran War, it's always so articulate. And well, it's just thrilling meeting people who have such an encyclopedic understanding of what's going on right now. So if you have been listening, watching, thank you, leave us a comment telling us what you think. We read as many of them as we can. If you have a limerick, send us your limerick or your poem, whatever your preferred iambic pentameter, we're happy to read them and, as you know, we read them out on air. Big thanks to our production team, Ryan Murray, John Romero, Rachel Passo, Heather Passollo and Neil Rosenhaus. So the good news is we have so many bee-beast tier members now. There are too many names to read out. And we really appreciate it.