8/4/26 Panel

So. 12 minutes past 9 o'clock on this Tuesday, the 4th of August. And we are thrilled to have you with us on this episode of the Roundtable panel, which will be the most exciting ever. I've had my little pep talk. We're ready to go. Good morning, all. Welcome to the program. I had this whole thing planned today where I was going to talk about. Do you remember this movie, this 1990 movie called Joe versus the Volcano? Oh, yeah. Yeah, it was a horrible movie. You liked it? Tommy. Yeah, well, Tom Hanks is fine, but it wasn't one of his greatest. It wasn't a Forrest Gump. No, right? You can't compare it to Forrest Gump. But he had a non-COVID, what they called, jokingly in the movie, as a brain cloud. And it was just sort of this lumber state that he would be in. And then they looked at him and said, well, it's fatal. And you're just going to go out bored and see. stupid and I was I was just starting to think to myself well that's how I feel today that I'm in this this brain cloud and it's me versus the volcano I didn't realize that the volcano was going to be Mark Whitman who was like dude come on this is exciting and I was like yeah you're right it is exciting and it's good to have everybody here hey by the way I've got a newsletter out and the second the second episode, a second issue, issue, went out. If it's digital, is this still an issue? I guess so, right? Yeah, definitely. And the issue went out yesterday and is out, and if you would like to... Take part and you would like to subscribe. All you have to do is go to wamc.org slash roundtable, wamc.org slash roundtable and sign up for it and it will hit your mailbox each Monday. And it's very fun. I'm having a lot of fun writing it and telling people about various things that go on here. And we're, I hope you enjoy it. People are interacting with it. They're talking to us and it's. It's very fun. It's very neat to have this opportunity. So I thank you for those of you who have participated.

Thank you. And if you would like to participate, wamc.org slash roundtable. This week's one was good, Joe. Well, thank you. There's an end of two, but this one was good. Yeah. Thank you. Actually, it's funny. You said that. I jokingly said to my wife, it's the second best one. Second one. Anyway, there's a story in there about a... Our book show today is called Country People, and it's by a guy by the name of Daniel Mason. Daniel Mason is a physician, a psychiatrist, in California. But he spends a lot of his time in the East Coast in New England. And he's written this book. country people about bringing this family across country to live in the Susie Wiles of Vermont while his wife is teaching and he is trying to finally finish his dissertation. Well, there's a moment in the book, maybe about 50 pages in, where he sort of as a little, I don't know, a pallet cleanser, does a scene of a radio talk show. And I'll be damned if you could read that as a fan of Vox Pop and not think of that as Vox Pop. So I was convinced this guy had listened to the show and wasn't mocking us, was paying great reverence, I thought, to the show. So then when I asked him about it, yeah, it was exactly what he did. So we're going to today at 11. We're going to talk to him about that, which is funny. And we're going to play the clip from the audiobook. And then, of course, you all know what Box Pop sounds like. And then at 3 o'clock today will be the actual book show with Daniel Mason. So all good stuff. We also, I also talk about a book called Etna, which is about, and we were just talking about this in the studio, but there's this book called Etna by Paul Eune, who also is a listener and lives in our region. And it's a beautiful, beautiful novel about a dog. in a contemporary war-torn country who finishes his service to his country and then is trying to make his way home and not sure exactly where home is and what that journey entails. And the dog is a very communicative shepherd mix animal. And it is a gorgeous, beautiful, very spare novel, I think of 150 pages. I refer to it, I think, in the...

newsletter as not a novel as much of a collection of perfect sentences and it's terrific and he'll be a guest coming up on the book show too but that's he's got an event tonight at the at oblong books in Rinebeck and it's the big book launch party for that book and it's amazing and if you're a dog lover and even if you're not it is a just a terrific beautiful novel All right, that's my good news. Now, we'll talk about all the other stuff that we have to talk about. And also, you know, other great news we have here is that we have an incredible panel, and we're very excited to have them with us. Bo Breslin joins us, Joseph Palomountain Jr. Chair in government at Skidmore College. I should mention, Bo is going to go teach in London for a semester. That's true. Yes. So we have him on virtually every day this week. Before we, we're going to lose them. We lose them on, I think on Thursday. We lose him. So we're trying to get the most we can. Get as much ink out of that pen as we possibly can. I'm still jockeying for tomorrow. Tomorrow I'm off, but Thursday I'm back on. Who knows what will happen. If you need me. Yeah. It's great to have you here. I'm delighted to have you here, and I thank you very much. We're going to miss you horribly when you're gone. I had a listener voicemail me yesterday telling me that you have to figure out a way to keep Boa. And it was funny because they were serious, and I was like, well, you know, he... Got a job. And I'm like, this job, his pays. Right. So, you know. But anyway. I'll be back. It's wonderful to have you here today, and we look forward to our conversations. Catherine Tan joins his associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Vassar College. research is on health, wellness, and medical knowledge. Good morning. How are you? Good. How are you doing? Well, you know, I'm great. I'm just happy to be alive. I'm a little skipping my step. You? Yeah, I'm doing fine. Last week, I went to Newport, Rhode Island for the first time. It's so pretty. I did the cliff, um, that cliff walk. And in heels, I did not realize. I didn't realize. It would be like. boulders. But you know what? I survived. I would have thought Cliff would have given it away. You know. Like I thought we were looking at cliffs. I didn't think I'd be on the cliff. All right. That's sort of fair. But you know, I did in heels. I survived. And, you know, I definitely outpaced a bunch of far older people. So that's backwards and in high heels, right?

Isn't that the old saying? But she didn't mention that a lot of places weren't that wheelchair accessible. Yes, that's true. That's true. Congratulations on behalf of your Vassar folk who the discrimination lawsuit was settled. Yep. And that's a coup. That's nice. Yeah, it's a huge achievement. And they've been, you know, that group of very brave senior women were fighting for this for a really, really long time. So it's such a, it's a big win. And I'm... Very proud of us. 80 professors in a class action lawsuit. We reported on it, but I just thought it was an interesting story and good stuff. All right. We welcome Mark Whitman to the program Investment Banker on Wall Street. Good morning. Mark. How are you? Joe, I'm so excited to be here. I can barely contain myself. I know that. I thought that was off the record, Joe. Well, no, I'm just, well, I could have been. Now I know the rules in here. No, I, well, yes, I know. This is the curse of being in the radio studio because you just, you know. You make of what you can make of. Your son's with us. Yes, Mr. George is here. George is here. Very excited to have George with us. How are you, George? I'm good, Joe. You know, just checking up on you and the environment and the deficit and the democracy.

And I'm the drag. I thank you very much for checking in. We're delighted to have you here. All right. Let's look at what is making news on the show this morning. And so a lot of places that we can start. I guess the I think the place where I want to I want to start is when it comes to the because a lot of these stories obviously mix in together and have common variables. Let's put it that way. Probably the easiest way I can explain it. And what I want to begin with on this Tuesday morning is the, because we talked about it at some, to some extent about Todd Blanche, that, uh, that. nomination moving forward and we at yesterday during the program bow was here we were we were in under the assumption that the two senators who were holding out john John Cornyn and Thom Tillis would give in once their demands were met which overnight on on monday morning were met by Todd Blanche in which they said in writing that they would not go ahead with this weaponization fund. Now the question becomes, okay, but exactly what does that mean for Trump's IRS immunity? And what does it mean for that? Republicans have let Trump keep his unparalleled benefit, which is IRS. immunity, the rebellion against Todd Blanche's nomination to be Attorney General now seemingly contained at no point fundamentally questioned President Trump's new protection from the IRS. Even as he bowed to Republican demands to pair back the extraordinary benefits, the Justice Department offered to President Trump and his allies this spring, the acting Attorney General Todd Blanche would only go so far. Mr. Todd Blanche did, after weeks of back and forth, put in writing that he was ending the $1.8 billion fund created to pay people who say they have been targeted by Democratic officials. And as part of the same announcement Sunday night, Mr. Todd Blanche clarified that there were actually some limits on the seemingly boundless protection from IRS examination that he ordered up for Mr. Trump, his family, and their businesses. But the fact remains that Mr. Trump, a billionaire who has tangled with the IRS throughout his life and career. No longer has to worry about the agency coming after him for any of the many aggressive tax positions that he has taken over the years. Is there a nicer way that the New York Times could have put that than aggressive tax positions? He has taken where the IRS previously made a point of regularly auditing, whoever occupies the Oval Office, Mr. Trump has leveraged his control.

of the federal government to instead escape the scrutiny that every other modern president, not to mention every other regular taxpayer has been subject to. And Mark Women, as I read that aloud to the listeners of this radio station from the New York Times, it's still... Even though the story has been in the ether for quite a while, it still seems hard for me to believe that somebody could have struck that agreement. Well, he struck it with himself. is the upshot of what we're seeing here. It's effectively as if you put your hand into a sock puppet. You sued the sock puppet and then came to an agreement with the sock puppet, which is what the judge effectively said when she initially expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the suit. But nobody has found fault with the sock puppet. Well, that... The Republicans, well, the Congress... In other words, he's getting away with it. Todd Blanche or Donald Trump. Trump and the Trump family are the ones that are benefiting, right? Yeah, look, the way I think this plays out, Joe, is I can't imagine that the IRS was going to aggressively pursue Donald Trump during his presidency anyway. I think... It's not a big leap to imagine that on his way out, Donald Trump will try to give himself a pardon for crimes past and future. If there is a Republican or, I'm sorry, a Democratic administration that's so inclined as to let the... IRS back and loose on Donald Trump, it will end up in court and before the Supreme Court and we'll see the true potential scope of presidential pardons argued, as Donald Trump would no doubt face continued scrutiny of his aggressive tax postures. I don't mind the IRS saying his tax postures are aggressive. They may or may not be illegal. There's a lot in tax law, frankly, a lot of standing near the cliff. That's just part of practice, particularly in corporate tax. And the IRS is there to correct that. But I think you'll see this play out in terms of, you'll see this played over years in terms of the full scope of a presidential pardon to decide whether or not the IRS can in the future audit Trump and the affiliated parties. Two other things. I think John Cornyn and Thom Tillis. are foolish if they truly think that any deal around this weaponization fund will last beyond midnight tomorrow in terms of its practical implications. But I think they're smarter than that. I think they're trying to make a stand and look good, but not ruffle too many feathers on their way out. But I don't think there'll be a practical limitation.

that results from this exercise, I think Congress in the future will have to continue to rein in Trump on that score. And I also think we need to look at the Justice Department broadly and just look at the carnage that's been created there by the Trump administration. I think they've lost over a quarter of the prosecutors. They've hired some back. More than 500. They've also shifted resources to this, you know, this immigration. orgy that they're on, anti-immigration orgy that they're focused on, and away from things like financial crimes. The economist had a piece the other day that basically said it's a great time to commit something like complicated financial fraud because it takes so much resources and so much time that even under normal circumstances, the Justice Department has trouble catching up with you. And given its incredibly diminished resources now, you could commit some pretty complicated fraud and make a reasonable bet that the resources available aren't going to be able to catch up with you before the statute of limitations lapses, which is something to think about. The other issue is that once he's, he, Trump has done this purge, he's forever tainted the Justice Department. And even if it's a Democratic... administration up next, they have to think long and hard about do they do a counter purge and are we always in this cycle in this democracy now? Or how do you fix the damage that he's wrought? So there's a lot going on here. We'll pause there. We'll be right back after this.

Listening to the Scottish rock band Friends, Ferdinand, they're going to be playing at Empire Live tonight in Albany starting at 8 p.m. You can see the playlist, wamc.org slash roundtable good Tuesday morning to you on this 4th of August. Let's get back to what we were talking about, which is Todd Blanche and... That nomination moving forward as we speak, actually, they're starting the vote in the Senate. But senators now also looking at this, what has become apparent is the weaponization fund is something that has been agreed to through this. this note in the file that Todd Blanche has now written, but what does it mean for the IRS immunity? Catherine. So, John Cornyn and Thom Tillis agreed to push Todd Blanche forward. If Todd Blanche agreed to dissolve or put an end to the $1.8 billion weaponization fund, which he eventually did. But, I mean, is that actually, is there going to be any follow-through? I don't know. I mean, when Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. was asked to... was asked if he was going to support vaccines before his confirmation. He suggested he would, and here we are now. But I also, you know, I feel like it was sort of low-hanging fruit to get Todd Blanche to back away from the $1.8 billion. I think, I mean, because that doesn't necessarily... affect Trump directly, right? But what they are still upholding is his immunity and protections from audit, which... impact Trump directly. So I think that was far more complicated and perhaps more consequential. And I don't, you know, with the sweeping protections, like no one else has ever been offered such a thing. And I don't even understand why his family is being protected. Like why are they experiencing, why are they granted immunity as well? That's sort of, I mean, that's really bonkers to me. But, you know, throughout his presidency, the first term, the second term. Trump has put in a lot of effort to take advantage of his position of power, to abuse his power to protect his and his family's finances. And this is just another example of that. I mean, already in this second term, he has made like $2.2 billion in cryptocurrency. I think that was like one of that. It's $1.4 billion. He's made $200 million in real estate holdings.

55 million in branding deals, 87 million in settlements for news media companies, but also his family has made a ton of money as well. I mean, it's egregious how he is blatantly using his position of power to protect his and his family's personal finances. And, you know, for John Cornyn and Thom Tillis to support Todd Blanche, if he agreed to... draw back the 1.8 billion. I feel like that's not as that that's not as um principled and heroic and as heroic as it's framed to be in in certain news outlets. Um, but yeah. What do you think about it? Yeah. Well, so Mark and Catherine customarily erudite and write on the money. I've got a couple of things to say about this sort of thing. Mark's absolutely right about sort of how it's going to play out. And I think... I think it's pretty clear. A pardon is in the future. But I'm very curious. I have always been very curious about how it would play out if a Democrat wins the presidency next time. And I think Mark is right about the fact that you can literally tear up that agreement. And if anybody listened to Morning Edition, Senator Alex Padilla also said that. You know, it's not worth the paper it's written on. I think that's part of the equation. One of the things that I want to talk about here is I'm curious how this will affect future confirmations, right? So I think the vote in the Judiciary Committee is going to go, as we expect, it's going to go with a slight Republican majority. But how is this going to affect future confirmations? Will senators require written? commitments in exchange for their votes in the future. That has not happened before, right? You get Supreme Court justices who are nominated who come before the court and say, oh, Roe versus Wade is not going to be overturned. This is a little bit of an unconventional approach. Now, is it because we're in a unique situation? Or is it because the written confirmation? Is it because Todd Blanche is in the position and he's the one who manufactured the policy to begin with? I don't know. But it's possible that confirmations from now on might require some, as in exchange for votes, Senator votes, might require some written confirmation. And I'll say this. This is how. The conventions in Washington slip right before our eyes. And there's an example that I raise fairly often.

which is during the Obama administration, when Harry Reid was upset about Republican opposition to Obama's judicial picks, he decides to institute a filibuster workaround and allow for Obama's lower court, federal court judges to be confirmed with 51 votes. But how has that worked for Democrats in light of the fact that? Mitch McConnell, a few years later, said, hey, yeah, we're going to do that for Supreme Court justices too, and we got conservative justices. The last thing I'll say before I hand it over to the rest of the panel is, Catherine, so true. Like, let's just assume this is the most corrupt administration and the most corrupt president we've had in a long time. Maybe ever, but there's been some pretty corrupt presidents out there. financially, this is the most corrupt presidency we've had. This is the absurdity of impeachment because the impeachment is the only way to get rid of the president and it will never happen. You note even Democrats don't talk about impeachment all that much anymore. So impeachment itself is one thing, but conviction in the Senate is a totally bar too high as a result. I'll just put in a nod for constitutional reform, get rid of the impeachment. and find some real way to get rid of presidents or incompetent. And minus, I'm sorry, I'll go right to you, but minus getting rid. But it also, and as our constitutional scholar in residence, but there is a, the mechanism was that the House and the Senate would oversee this and make sure that things like this would be. regulated and at least monitored and watched. Totally true. Which is the other big failure here. Yeah, I mean, I think the ins, I've always said on this show, and I might as well throw it in there, we need a complete constitutional overhaul. I'm all about going back to Philadelphia and rewriting the Constitution and figuring out a way impeachment is just one example of the way in which the text, the constitutional text, does not work for 21st century Americans. Catherine. I wanted to go back to what you were saying earlier, Bo. I think you're right. How is this going to change future confirmation processes? You know, the written commitments, like, is there anything enforcing them? No, right? Like, are they any better than a pinky promise? Right? And with Todd Blanche, we know that he was Trump's personal lawyer. Like, you know, he can say today that he'll dissolve the fun, but. His whole career has been, you know, he's indebted to Trump. So I don't know how, you know, as Mark pointed out earlier, I don't know if any of this is going to hold up once he's in office. And it would be naive for people to think that it would. Yeah. And I'll just say one thing before we throw it over to Mark. You're right. It's a pinky promise. That said, This is the, this is the, this is the, this could be the slight open door with which some people start to say, Susan Collins says to, to Brett Kavanaugh, give me your, your assurance that you're not going to overturn Roe versus Wade and put it in writing, right? That's the extreme version. There are confirmations that happen virtually every week, if not every week in the Senate. And those people don't get a whole lot of attention.

I'll withhold my vote, Senator X says, unless you give me assurance in writing. Well, back to the infirmities in the Constitution that have been revealed. This whole issue of confirmation by the Senate is a bit of a farce now because Todd Blanche could, he or somebody of his ilk could serve indefinitely from now until the end of this presidency without him being confirmed. So as much as I think. Todd Blanche. Look, anybody who's up for a confirmation in the Trump administration has to do the dance around. whether or not Trump won in 2020, right? And as George and I were talking about on the car on the way up, right, once you get squealer in charge of communications for the farm, as in 1984, right, it sort of wants you do the little lie, then all the big ones who cares, let's just go. Animal farm, not 1984. Oh, thank you. Thank you. So, uh... Still George Orwell. Yeah. So the point is, I don't really, if... I'm not going to be plused if Todd Blanche is or isn't confirmed because it's not going to change the future of the remaining time of the Trump presidency, frankly. And that's why people were so happy. Kevin Warsh is the Fed is a political animal, but there's a hope, a glimmer that he understands the Fed and monetary policy better than many of the that have preceded him. So despite the political infirmities in his candidacy. People applauded. Many in the markets plotted when he was appointed for just that reason. But again, if you're getting back to the founders assume that people in office were going to act within sort of reasonable norms and put the interests of the nation first. And they also had this thought that, well, at least if the executive were ever to not do that, certainly Congress would correct it by doing that themselves. And unfortunately, they seem to have been wrong on both accounts. We'll take a break. We'll continue and welcome your letters when we return. Panel at wamc.org panel at wamc.org. We'll be back right after this. Tonight, I said I'm going to make somebody love me. I'm going to make somebody.

Good morning. Welcome to the Roundtable for this Tuesday, the 4th of August 948 in the morning. And we have letters about the topic we have discussed so far, which is Todd Blanche, which is immunity. Dot, dot, dot. We talked about a lot of stuff. Changing the Constitution. All that stuff. A lot there will continue. All right. I see the role of the listener as offering the most, in politic way, view possible. Hence, I offer the following. We no longer have a Republican Party, but a mob with a boss. A consignary as soon as the slush fund can be put through an army of loyal extortionists. Even the dissenting Republicans forced out offer this on their way out. So, okay. We go to anyone want that? No one's going to do. Well, I do think there's a limitation on the slush fund because it would have to be approved by the House and the Senate. I think it's unlikely that the House is going to approve that on the other side of the midterms, assuming that the Democrats take control, which despite even the Democrats' efforts to thwart that, they still probably will. And so I do think it's limited in its scope by... by the legislative requirements that the funds be appropriated. The one thing that I did here pointed out the other day was that there is currently a compensation fund available for these people that is going to be run by the administration and still has money in it, but it is not of the quantum that's being discussed in this one point whatever billion dollar fund. It's so true. I'm so loathe on our 250th birthday to mention this, but folks know it's $1,776 million, 1776, which is such an insult to America 250. Well, I wanted to respond to what the letter writer said, pointing out that both Corn and Thom Tillis are on their way out. And this is, yeah, first, I find it really disappointing that... That Republicans, you know, Republicans are waiting until they're no longer, you know, running until they're lame ducks to vote in a principled or to stand up in a principled way. But even when they do so, this is still.

you know, insufficient. You know, this still feels really cowardly to me. This is sort of the least you can do. Yeah, and at the risk of stating the obvious. One of the tragedies, Mark, we can talk about the founding, right? One of the tragedies of the founding was that they constructed a constitution where parties were not supposed to be major part. Now, American politics, especially Washington Beltway politics, is only about... parties. And so, Catherine, you're not going to get Republicans who say anything against the leader of their party. All right. Let's go back to the letters and they... A lot of them are bitter. I just say that out front. I don't want to characterize. What would a non-bitter letter sound like? Well, if I find it, I'll let you know. Bart writes. Rework the Constitution? Now? What? Because it isn't working? It has never worked. What about the slaves? What about women? Remember the treatment of every new ethnic group that emerged in America? No Irish need apply, et cetera, et cetera. Ad nauseum. Today is nothing new. Just more and more stinking deceit. Gimmie, gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme lies and manipulation. That from Bart. Hey, Bart. If I may, politely, I've got to be really careful because I have the constitutional scholar here. You go. But Bart actually belies his own argument because he says, what about the slaves? Well, last time I checked, we amended the Constitution for that. And some of the other maladies that he mentioned actually have been addressed by amendments to the Constitution. And it's so great this opportunity. Thank you, Bart. The most amended clause in the Constitution. Anybody want to guess? We the people. We the people. Because there are no less than six constitutional amendments. Mark mentions the 14th. The 13th and the 14th and the 15th was the Emancipation Proclamation. There's no less than six of our 27 constitutional amendments that expand what it means to be a citizen and vote in this country. Who is we? Call me a conspiracy theorist, writes Janice. But my take on all of our government at this time of Trump is everyone has something on everyone else. And that's why the January 6 criminals want theirs. And they will tell the truth and Trump and his involvement in this riot. And it applies to all the rest of them to senators and congressmen included that from Janice. Then we go to Kevin. Hey, panel. Todd Blanche was let off because the esteem senators wanted to look like they were doing something but didn't want to jeopardize their lobbying careers. That is from Kevin. So looking at the post-senitorial work of Mr. Thom Tillis and Mr. John Thune. Todd Blanche write. No, this is about Todd Blanche. Apologies. It's from John. It's about Todd Blanche. Todd Blanche is writing in.

Defending himself. Planch, Sophia. If you think that Todd Blanche and Trump care about anything that they have written, i.e. a weaponization fund, you are dreaming. They will resurrect the fund whenever it is convenient for them to do so. But what about Todd Blanche's e.rigious IRS deal for Trump about taxes and other things? And that is exactly what we are exploring and talking about this morning. Hi, says Judith, or Judy. Isn't the IRS immunity deal like pleading the Fifth Amendment? Todd Blanche is just the latest in Trump's personal history of legal fixers. I think that's true. Then we go to Sarah. I assume the Supreme Court has concluded President Trump at all is insane and not responsible for their actions. Well, that's taking it one more step. Perhaps big step. I'm not sure the Supreme Court is thinking about that. No, I don't think that's being... factored in, but who knows? Eugene says, can Trump avoid prosecution if he commits a fraudulent act on his taxes? I mean, that's a super interesting question. I mean, it doesn't appear in what we're hearing because the agreement, also the other thing about the agreement, we don't know much of what you're giving me a look. Yeah, look, I think Trump's going to give himself the most creative, broadest, forward and backward-looking pardon. the world has ever imagined and it's going to have to be litigated for years up to the Supreme Court. Right. So the answer to the question is, we're going to find out, mark your calendar for about five, six years hence, and we'll see. Well, and the question of can Trump avoid prosecution, whether it's through this immunity or whether it's through a pardon, he can't avoid it. Perhaps. The issue, he's going to avoid it while he's in charge of the IRS because if they don't audit them, they're not going to find any fraud. And then henceforth, when he's not president anymore, if they come after him, they'll have to litigate the pardon that many, I presume he'll give himself. All right. Here's a good question. So he's going to get away with all of it, writes Anne, money laundering for the Russians, Capital One and Deutsche Bank, insider trading. Early access to truth social. Probably more money laundering through cryptocurrency, human trafficking, a pal of Epstein, government contracts awarded to his son, Saudi Arabia investments, and other grifting for his family, campaign contributions in exchange for access and favors. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Regarding the insider trading, though, how much trust can I put in the stock market? Mark Women. Well, first of all, I don't want to sign on publicly to all the allegations delineated in that letter just by virtue of care. I would rather take them one at a time. Look, Trump and his family...

have got significant equity stakes that we know of in Truth Social and some other related vehicles. If I were an investor, I would look at participating in those with quite a high degree of skepticism because you don't want to be on the other side. when those that own large stakes have a lot more information a lot sooner than you do on a consistent basis. That would be my appraisal of the situation. One more. Go ahead. Yeah, so Joe, at the risk of staying in the rabbit hole, a reworked constitution absolutely would include some clause about financial and medical disclosure for our chief executive. Andrew writes, I don't understand how it is. The American people are not completely outraged by all of this criminal grift by Donald Trump, his sycophants in all of Congress. Who are complicit? Oh, wait a moment. If there wasn't enough outrage to affect change after the gun violence of Sandy Hook or any of the other mass shootings at schools in this country, I'm guessing an issue that's only about money. Can't commend enough gravitas to cause us to fix it. That from Andrew. We'll end there during this first hour, and we will take a break. We'll be right back after news with Ray Graf. Oh, when I woke up tonight, I said I'm going to make somebody love me. I'm going to make somebody love.

to the roundtable and to our panel discussion. Very nice to have you on this, on this 4th of August. And we have a great panel. Catherine Tan is here. Bo Breslin is here. George Whitman is here. Mark Whitman is here. And we welcome you panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. All right. Let's change topics. We're going to go to, um, hmm. Can I have democratic socialism? Yes, you can. I was going to go there. I was going to, yes, absolutely. You absolutely can. I was thinking of going with the subject that would probably be able to knock out 20 minutes, and I think this is it. So here we go. The article in the New York Times that sort of kick-started this conversation or will kickstart this conversation is how Democratic Socialists are wrestling with their next moves. After notching primary victories, DSA members in Chicago debated whether socialist candidates should be free to distance themselves from goals like abolishing prisons as they chase more seats in the fall. This from Callan Browning, who writes, when a leader of the Democratic Socialists of America recently appeared on Fox News Sunday and enthusiastically affirmed the group's platform, including goals such as eliminating the U.S. Senate and working toward abolishing prisons, Democratic strategists wrung their hands, Republicans licked their lips. Acknowledging such aims, both parties predicted, could hinder progressive candidates and other Democrats painted with an extremist brush in the midterm elections. At the DSA's National Summit in Chicago over the weekend, many Democratic Socialists who had seen the Fox interview felt something different. They felt pride. You're going to have to constantly push and advocate for things that people don't think. Until they think it, said Shamfried Singh, a DSA leader from the city of Seattle, Washington. Hundreds of members of the group, the country's largest socialist organization, gathered at a moment of surging political influence, some wearing bright red shirts, swapping labor strike tips with their comrades, quote unquote, sharing voter turnout strategies and an admiring far-left merchandise. such as guillotine, guillotine earrings. Do you pronounce the als? Guillotine? Guillotine. Guillotine. Guillotine. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Landlord suck pins. And it is suck, right? Yes. And many dismayed the notion, or excuse me, dismiss the notion that their positions could be a political problem and said they felt no need to moderate them. Electoral wins were proof. They reasoned that Democratic voters were moving.

closer to them. The question now, of course, is where does this movement go next? And what are the big... tasks ahead and the big tests ahead for Democratic Socialists because Nira Tandon, the president of the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank, said, toxic to a broad majority of the country in describing the platform. Mark Wibben. Well, I have... A lot of issues with these folks. But let me just focus. And democratic socialism is a movement that has taken whole in the United States, but in many Western democracies. And let me just focus on the economics. If you look at their economic platform, they act inherently as if prosperity is a pie that somebody already baked. purpose of politics is to argue over who gets the biggest slice. And I want to give these folks a hug because I understand their frustration so long as it is earnest. I don't believe that all of them are politically earnest. I believe some of them are opportunists. But for those that are earnest, the burden on those of us. more towards the center is to show these folks the real magic of, for instance, a capitalist economy, right? That the magic is making a pie bigger, that price controls, rent controls, inordinate wealth taxes, and more government ownership may sound. satisfying, but historically, they almost universally discourage people from building, investing, and taking risks. And you end up with a smaller pie and a more intense fight over a smaller pie. But capitalism. has been and can be reformed and revitalized. And in this country, that's what needs to take place, as opposed to, you know, to use the Bernie Sanders term, the oligarchs taking control and taking bigger slices for themselves. We need to go back towards a marketplace that's more focused on efficiency and, yes, more unfairness. So the way to. cut these folks off at the past before they do something that they really don't intend to do is to show them that there are ways to build more housing, to cut red tape, to reward innovation, and to help people be less skittish about adopting AI. I mean, history shows that managing capitalism properly beats fighting over crumbs every day of the week. And that's the burden the center has to take on.

in terms of helping these folks sort of find a better way. You know, Dad, I've heard it, I've heard it said that the best thing the Republicans have going for them in the midterms is the Democrats. Well, and... Isn't this, and I'm boiling this down to probably diluting it too far, but I mean, the regular rap on Democrats is the circular firing squad. And I mean, isn't that, isn't this just a version of that? Yeah, I think so. Well, Mark, I think you're right. Capitalism is pretty janky, and it needs some fixing. T-shirt alert! T-shirt alert! You know, but, you know, we like to think we have a free market, but we don't, right? Like billionaires pay way less in taxes, you know, and they're constantly being swooped in and helped while the average American has to deal with whatever this free market gives them. The DSA is resonating with so many people in the United States right now because they are recognizing and addressing the... immediate troubles that people are experiencing. Like Zohran Mamdani has been enormously popular because he is addressing the issues that impact New Yorkers, right? He's talking about free child care. He's talking about freezing rent, holding landlords accountable, cheaper groceries, right? These are things that average Americans care about. And I think they're going to, you know, attract more than just Democrats. I think they might even bring in people from the rights because they are appealing to people's basic needs and what's impacting Americans most immediately. And so, and this is something that the mainstream Democratic Party has to learn from, right? They are clearly not speaking to their constituents. They are not appealing to their constituents. And they're really kind of, you know, who are they representing at this point? And I think that ambiguity has opened up space for the DSA to come in and address people's immediate concerns. And, you know, they're not, you know, in this country, The word socialism, you know, people are scared of that big S word, right? But what they're asking for is what most European countries already have, right? They want free health care, universal health care. They want free education, free good education, right? Like, these are not radical things. They're only radical to us. But in a lot of European countries, they have a system where, you know, where...

where taxes are channeled in ways that benefit a broader public. Yeah, and here's the mark super smart reform is needed in capitalism. I get it. Here's the problem. Two out of every three voters out there is seduced by labels. And that's just political scientists have found those numbers. Two out of three are seduced by labels. And so if the Republicans are saying that, as Catherine said, the Republicans are labeling folks, whether it's... Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Zohran Mamdani, who is now sort of the leader of the DSA, as socialists, especially in a period of time where we're still living in the shadow of the Cold War and so on, that's disqualifying for a lot of people. So they never get down to... what mark just did which is a close reading analysis of the ds um platform right and i might disagree with some of the dsa's stuff like um getting rid of prisons i'm not sure i want that but i'm all supportive of certain things and that's what katherine's saying like health care for all we should have that. Abandon the Senate, we should have that. Maybe universal basic income, these sorts of things, whether it's free childcare, I'm totally with that. And so right now, my concern is that the economic disparities. And Mark, maybe you can help me with this. Economic disparities are increasing in this country. And I'm not asking that, you know, that, well, I am sort of asking that there be a reshuffling of priorities so that. You know, the single mother in New York City doesn't have to spend all of her money on child care and can do something else. Or the family of four that can't put food on the table can put food on the table. I think the DSA has some good ideas. They're not messaging it right. And the last thing I'll say, if Andrew Cuomo had won the New York City mayoral race, we would not be having this conversation. That's the infectious. you know, sort of personality and charisma of Zohran Mamdani. It's a whole new ball game because Zohran Mamdani won New York. Right. And what voter can say that they co-sign everything their party says and does and represents, right? And yeah, I imagine a lot of DSA supporters don't sign wholesale, right, to their full agenda. But the key points are being, what people really care about are being met. Right? You're never, no politician is ever going to make you 100% happy as a

voter, right? But what DSA is doing is, I think, you know, even if, even if Zohran Mamdani fails to get half of his platform into policy, into action, what it does is it's changing the national conversation. And I think that is incredibly consequential. And that is going to also hopefully influence what mainstream Democrats. say they represent or push for, right? Because it's changing the conversation about what is important and what we should pay attention to and how we should direct our tax dollars. It is addressing people's concerns about affordability. And that's what's... You know, that's the big issue now. And, you know, on this show, we talk a lot about how we're kind of talking about the same thing over and over. And, you know, there's Iran War. There's, you know, Trump shenanigans. But at the end of the day, when you're asking people what matters to them, it's being able to afford their lives. Look, let me just quote from program.dsa.org. Oh, you want to do it? Yeah, you can do it. Yeah, let George do it. Why don't you read that segment? We did this in the dinner table last night when we were talking about. Get close to your mic. Read that little few sentences there. Your dinners are so different than when I grew up. But go ahead. Speaking of bills, you don't really have them anymore. You have no debt. You don't pay health insurance. You don't pay mortgage or a landlord because comfortable housing is your human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren't for-profit businesses. They're common goods and utilities. Then it describes what your day looks like. But you can't go to the doctor on your day off because the doctor will also be off. And then it says maybe in the morning you'll walk your kids to school. You can't do that because there'll be no school. The teachers won't be working. You can't run errands or go to a doctor's appointment. And in the afternoon, you might play a sport. practice a new skill read plan a trip or in the evening you could meet up with friends or family and eat together. But this, you don't pay a mortgage or have a landlord. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren't for-profit businesses. This sounds a lot like I'm standing in a line waiting for tangerines. Yeah, I mean, this sounds a lot like the Soviet Union to me in terms of what this becomes. Look, you can agree with their aspirations, okay?

There's no practical way to get to the world that they're pointing. And there are political opportunists in Zohran Mamdani probably is smart enough that he's probably one of them who are capitalizing on this for their own political gains. But if you think that- Oh, talk about what political gains. Look at what Trump is doing. Is that radically worse than what-and-one is benefiting from this? I wasn't saying Trump wasn't worse. I was saying if he either truly believes what he tells us he believes or he doesn't, in which case he's a- political opportunist, which I think is the more likely scenario to be blunt about it. And look, I think let's get to incarceration. I would love not to have prisons, but there are really helpful ways of looking at this. Sociologists talk about billion dollar blocks, right, where they talk about the blocks of youth who are raised in very difficult circumstances. And if you do nothing for them, the amount of money that you will spend incarcerating them. for the rest in their adult lives is tremendous. So shouldn't we as a society think about how to help those people along earlier, early childhood education as a movement that's arisen out of that sort of analysis? So are there ways to better achieve many of these goals? Of course there are. And we need to get on the project. But is our aspiration to do things like have the state-owned food companies? Well, they tried that in the Soviet Union, right? And as George said, you waited a long time in the tangerine line and then went to the breadline after that. A lot of this stuff, they should know will never work. Well, this is so you're right, but this is part of the problem, Mark. And part of the problem is that one can cherry pick, and I'm not saying you are because these are part of the DSA. platform. One can cherry pick particular things and make it difficult. I remember, I remember being on the show once with John Faso, and it was the period, you guys will remember this, it was the period in which the government was shut down because the Democrats wanted subsidies for Medicaid and the Republicans were unwilling to give it. And I had the conversation with John Faso at that point where I said, John, it's about choices. And when the defense budget goes up, and we can't afford to do education or subsidies for Medicaid. That's about choices. You could bring the defense budget down, bring those other things up. My point about the DSA, I'm going to pick and choose things that I like about the DSA, whether it's universal health care or universal child care. Those are the two things I think are important. That's about choices. We've got the money to do it if we reduce things like the defense budget. So, Mark, you can make absolute DSA movement. Government funded on a couple of the things. Prisons are not the ones that I would work towards. But universal health care, universal child care, these are the ones that I would, and we could do it if we wanted to. Well, mic drop. Okay. I don't think you and I are in radical disagreement. But you can't. Some have said that this movement and the Mondanis of this movement are sort of. what it was called rent control in the front and business in the back, that he's using these issues as a wedge to get into authority and then to use the authority to sort of massage our world more towards one. It should be like, by the way, Catherine, do your point about Europe? I mean, this gets back. This gets...

into all sorts of issues around Trump and NATO. But they were spending one and a half, two percent less of GDP on an annual basis on their defense because we were spending it, frankly. They were under our security umbrella. It's an open question whether or not, now that they're going to spend allegedly five, but really a couple more percent in practical terms, if we won't be able to spend less. And yes, there's a heck of a lot we need to do socially with that money in the United States. So there is a pretty. significant reordering of priorities that needs to take place in the United States. The problem I have is not the reordering of priorities. It's when you start to talk about things like state ownership or rent control, market solutions that we know have never worked. and are deleterious to the public, that's when I get really nervous. But, you know, trickle-down economics also doesn't work, but we're still very much committed to that, right? I think, you know, I think a lot of what you're describing Mark are caricatures of... of the DSA and Zohran Mamdani. Like, we don't really have evidence of rent control in the front, business in the back, like some sort of dark dealings. You know, like, what we do know is that the Republicans are doing that, right? We do know that billionaires are getting major tax breaks, right? And this is money that can be channeled towards public goods, you know? And, yeah, with DSA, they're not advocating for breadlines. Let me deal with an underlying. Oh, but they are. If they want state ownership of food production, they are ad- for breadlines. And let me just take issue with one of your underlying premises, if I may, because I have... Because I have vehement disagreements with how the DSA wants to run this country, at least how they – by the way, the stuff we quoted was from their webpage. So we weren't cherry picking or making stuff up. We were reading their platform. Because I'm doing that, does not in any – by any means mean that I want to sign up for defending the Republicans in trickle-down economics. There is a centrist view in this country. And that was my whole point at the beginning, the way to defeat – The either extreme, right, is to talk about what we know that really has worked and can work. So am I for abolishing prisons? Heck no. Am I for thinking long and hard about what we do as a society to help children out so they don't end up in prison? Of course I am. Have we done enough of that historically? By no means have we. So there's a lot to be gained by examining the social problems that they circle. But their prescribed solutions, if you let them have their way, would be disastrous. Go. I couldn't agree more. I'm a centrist. Pete Buttigieg is my hero. But I think FDR would have been a Democratic socialist today.

We'll pause there. We'll take a break when we come back. We'll continue the program we've got about, well, we've got another half hour with this wonderful group, and we'll move on to other topics. We'll welcome your letters as well. Panel at wamc.org. Panel at wamc.org. And we would love, as always, to hear from you. Keep your letters short and to the point, and that way we can get to as many as possible. We will do all of that after this break and news from the BBC. My innocence for pride crossed the end within my stride said I'm strong now I know that I'm a leader I love the sound I can't because I'm just having too much fun. Good morning. Welcome to the roundtable's last breathier. I was going to say last gas. That sounds awful. That sounds awful. No, we've got about 25 minutes and a lot. This may surprise you. I have urgent news for you, and that is. In our discussion about Democratic Socialists, we got a lot of mail. So I think we should probably address some of it. Here we go. Here we go. Carl writes, Mark his way off the truth comparing our Democratic Socialists with the Soviet Union. Ask him what his political and financial interests are. We'll not have breadwines, and about prisons, I'm against private for-profit prisons for obvious reasons. Money over rehab. Let's state the difference between types of prisons as well, and that from Carl. Well, I give Carl credit the subtleties of an issue of argumentation of should we have private or public prisons. That's a discussion worth having. And we certainly have seen, I think it was in Texas or Louisiana, where there were gruesome abuses of that system. So I think there's a lot more nuance, which I was trying to underscore. And if I didn't and Carl doesn't. Still understand that. I apologize, but there are extremes. I mean, if you read the platform, they want no landlords, no rent, and no mortgage. We used to have that arrangement, Joe. They were called caves. I don't want to go back there. We go to Shaila who writes, why are we assuming that the DSA is going to enact these policies, say one with no planning or preparation? Isn't it worth some nuance? I don't think anyone wants us to dismantle the Senate, housing, or food distribution, or the prison industrial complex overnight. But why can't they be long-term goals worth researching and reaching toward? I think it's disingenuous to put DSA policies up as if they're going to be implemented without foresight or...

without care, invoking the image of breadlines is inherently a distortion of the organization and its goals. Also, it's 2026, not 1917, so, you know, the world's changed a little bit since Russia tried it, and that is from Shiloh. If it's not happening in the near future, why should it be what we're campaigning on? And let's let's... Let's move forward. Let's play the crystal ball game again. And imagine post-midterm, right? I'm asking all four of you. Post-midterm, Democrats win the election, when a majority in the House of Representatives. Let's say they win majority in the Senate, too. Are we going to have just the Democratic version of what the Republican far right did in holding. the Republicans hostage in so many things. Are we going to have the far right DSA, the far left DSA holding the now majority Democratic Party hostage? Or is the Democratic Party mainstream going to move forward with some of the things that Mark and Catherine and... and George and I are talking about. Right. DSA, what is what they're doing, I think the most impactful thing right now is shifting the conversation, right? Because the Democrats have moved closer to the middle, and a lot of it is even more conservative than what Republicans were saying, like 30 plus years ago. And so DSA is changing the norms and the conversations that are happening in the Democratic Party. They have to reconcile with the existence of the DSA. We get this letter from Gretchen who says, Hello, Panel Community. The trouble with rampant capitalism, it incorporates gobbling up resources as quickly as possible at the production end and allowing squanderous waste of the consumer end. This works fine, right? right up until the time when it leads to massive ecosystem collapse. We claim to be the most intelligent species on Earth, yet our species is by and large still tied to the here and now short-sightedness of any run-of-the-mill animal. We don't need more wealth in the world. We need less. Also, we need more births and wealthy countries. We need more immigration. That from Oliver. Uh, let's see. We go to... Theodore, Theo, I apologize. It's 100% about choices. We print our own currency. We can pay for anything. We can have Medicare for all and support our teachers. But all we get instead are billionaires and fighter jets. This is unsustainable. It will revert to the mean, and that is why most billionaires seem to have, quote, unquote, bunkers. That from...

I mean, dude, you can't tax the billionaires so much to the point where they just up and leave. Yeah, they're pretty mobile. They got yachts. So, Deion, on the, we can just print the money is another falsehood. They try that in countries like... They try that in countries like the Soviet Union or in Latin America, say in Argentina or Brazil during periods. And what you get is rampant inflation. By the way, we tried that in the United States during COVID. And guess what we got as a result, if you remember, during the Biden administration. A lot of times these what are called progressive social programs are married. with what's called modern monetary theory, which those in the know call magic monetary theory, because it is magic thinking that you can just print currency and spend like there's no tomorrow. The bill for that comes due and disproportionately burdens those in our economies who are less vulnerable, or sorry, more vulnerable. Jane writes to us and says, why is it that whenever we talk about democratic socialism, we resort to this antiquated picture of an old woman in a kerchief, waiting in a line in the cold to get a potato or get some bread? That was ages ago, and lessons have been learned. Of course, there would be growing pains and mistakes along the way, but... What we're doing and have been doing for years is not working. If only we could commit to democratic socialism for the same length of time, then we've committed to trickle down economics. Life would get better. That from Jane. Then we go to... This from Teresa, there is certainly a middle way between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It's known, you know, as Europe, where no one goes bankrupt if they get sick for starters. I have close friends who have lived in France for years. The U.S. looks ridiculous to them. Yeah, I agree. That's what I was talking about in terms of choices. But going back to what Joe said, the circular firing squad, I do think what we would describe as the traditional or mainstream. Democratic leadership, the Chuck Schumer of the world and so on, are going to swallow up the DSA victors. I think there are going to be some DSA members that end up in Congress, but it's just going to be a lot more, Mark, Catherine, George, a lot more of the same because the real money is with the traditional mainstream Democrats.

Should I read this? Oh, yeah, now you got it. Yeah, it makes an interesting point. Dear panel, why do I get the sense I should speed up my application for citizenship for Canada? Consider that two of your very... Bright and best panelists, Jim Ketterer and Bo Breslin, are leaving the country for extended periods of time. I got to ask, do they know something we should know? Jim may know something that we should know. I don't. We've asked this question, but yes. There you go. All right, let's take a break. When we come back, we'll get to at least one, if not two more topics quickly, and we'll finish up our program together. We welcome you, panel at wamc.org. We'll be back right after this.

Good morning. Welcome back to the roundtable and to our panel discussion this morning, Catherine Tanbo, Breslin, George, and Mark Whitman. And it's wonderful to have you both all with us this morning and have you with us as well. All right. Let's see. We'll go to another topic here and we will. We'll do the Out to the Woodshed conversation regarding Janine Piro. Trump has met with Janine Piro after saying she choked in the reflecting pool case. Hours after railing about the reflecting pool case in the Oval Office, President Trump on Monday met with Janine Piro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and Doug Burgum, the Interior Secretary, whose department oversees the pool, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Ms. Piro's job is safe for now, it is said, according to the people in the room. And, however, the president was vocal in his criticism. She was not fired by Mr. Trump, nor did she offer her resignation in that meeting. But the president very upset. Meanwhile, Doug Burgum, the Interior Secretary, was also at the White House when she arrived. Mr. Bergam in recent days joined Mr. Trump in railing against Piro's decision to drop charges against David Hearn, a former Olympic canoeist, who was accused of pulling up a two-square-foot piece of the pool's lining. Both men assert that the damage to the pool has been the work of vandals and not, quote, the result of a body. installation and not vandalism as Ms. Piro indicated in a Friday court filing. The decision to drop the charges said Ms. Piro, a long-time ally and a loyal appointee of a president on a collision course with Mr. Trump who has made sure to inflict consequences on people. Within his orbit, who contradict his claims. In her filing, Ms. Piro openly undermine Mr. Trump's narrative that the reflecting pool's peeling liner was caused by people slashing its coating with knives. Speaking earlier in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump grew angry when asked whether he had spoken with Ms. Piro about her decision. He went on to say that he believed that Ms. Piro was intimidated by an unfriendly and vicious judge while pursuing a vandalism charge, and he lashed down. a reporter when asked whether he was reconsidering her role. He later ignored a question directly asking whether he was considering firing her. I guess she choked, Mr. Trump said. I don't know what the hell happened. I mean, it shows that he assumes she would do his bidding, right? And it also shows how.

quickly, he will just throw longtime allies under the bus the moment they diverge from his position. I mean, she, you know, there wasn't enough evidence to prove vandalism. So she's, you know, she also has her own career to look after. I think there would be consequences if she support, if she didn't throw the case out. And they found that. Yeah, I mean, the evidence is right there. So it's not like she can blatantly lie. I mean, I guess she could. A lot of politicians here do. But. I mean, this whole renovation thing has been just so ridiculous and bonkers. This is another example of, like, Trump trying to one-up Obama, right? He's competing against Obama, similar to what's going on in Iran. And in ways, there are a lot of parallels here. You know, he said that the renovation would cost less than $2 million and take less than two weeks. But here we are where for... $15.7 million in the hole, and it's going to cost a lot more money to actually fix this correctly. So, you know, so this is just like anything else that Trump does. You know, it's a lot, you know, it's far less consequential, but it's following in the same pattern as the war in Iran in which he's saying, well, this is not going to cost very much. This is not going to take very much time. But here we are. It's just this now, you know, blistering mess. Let's look at the numbers a little bit here. Mark mentioned this way back in the beginning of the show. According to Reuters, over 500 Department of Justice lawyers have left since January 20, 2025.

More alarmingly, in the federal programs branch of the DOJ, which is the main office, 69 of the 110, 63% of the lawyers have left. Trump himself has fired 40 career federal prosecutors. which is way out of the norm for the amount of prosecutors that have been fired by a president. This is, as Catherine said, this is presidency by pressure. The irony here, there's a great irony here, is that when Piro comes out and says, we're going to drop the charges, she... herself throws her investigators under the bus by saying that they did they had shoddy work and they didn't have they couldn't produce enough evidence so it's it's a trickle down of blame game across the board and i'll say one more thing historically It has always been a convention. I'm not always in favor of going back to conventions, but there are ones that make sense. Historically, presidents have always defended their appointees even when they disagree with them. They have private conversations in the White House and so on in the Oval Office. This is just another example. The public nature of the Trump-Piro feud is another example of politics being completely upside down in the last decade. I mean, one of the lessons from animal farms that the first lie is never the last, and once you've bent the truth to win the leader's approval, like saying the election was rigged and Trump won in 2020, and then you're endorsed by Trump, you're trapped, and if you admit the lie, you lose his favor, so you tell another lie to cover the first, and then another to explain that one, and then it's not really reality anymore. They say, like, once you haven't heard what you've heard and you haven't seen what you've seen, and you can deny the truth, knowing that the election wasn't rigged, then they've got you. But, I mean, $14 million on a reflective pool? In my opinion, it's just like, this is what we're feeding the press because we're playing more three-card Monty behind it. I don't know that this is as big of a deal as... We think it is, I want to say. Well, I mean, I agree. This is not like the biggest issue facing our country right now. I mean, but it's one of those things. It's, I mean, gaslighting of just like, okay, I mean. How many people seriously think, this is the question I have, how many people seriously think that it was the Olympians fault? No. No? I mean, how many of the public? Of the public? Like if you ask John Q. Public. Even if you look at the 30% that Trump has within that orbit, how many people think it was the Olympian?

And I just, like, it suspends believability on any of this that you're going to say, okay, one guy took out a chunk and the whole damn thing. And not even addressing the other part of it, which is the algae and all the problems they were having prior to that. So I just... It is a, I agree, it is not the most important issue by a long shot, but it does crystallize an overall problem. Yeah, and just to double down on that by saying one second, Mark, and then you can have the last, just to double down on that, the issue here is not the reflecting pool. The issue here is making a example out of this Olympic canoeer, and it's politics by intimidation. That's the playbook that Trump lives under. And my worry is the American political system has come to realize that politics by intimidation is a better way to go about it. That's a shame. I mean, next time my mom tells me to clean my room and I forget, I'm just going to tell him it was the vandals. I'm just going to tell them that an Olympic canoeist went in my room and moved all the clothes around and that it really wasn't me. Well, that's what I'm saying. It's all, it's laughable, and yet it's, but it seems to be. This is a feature. Back to your point of who really believes, there was a great discussion when the war in Ukraine started about the, Russians and there was sort of this 30% who knew better, 30% who believed everything that Vladimir Putin says. And then there's this middle that is so taxed by the conflict between what they hear in reality that they're happy to carry the cognitive dissidents of not exploring whether or not what the government's saying and they hear on TV is true. And that's the... critical answer to the question. And I do believe, right, that's why so many are focused on the reflecting pool because it's such a clear example of this attempt. put the bulk of the population into this position of cognitive distance. And juxtapose this with the $1.8 billion weaponization fund that is supposed to... 1776. Right. Like, think of all... Think of what they did on January 6th, right? That is far more destructive and consequential to, you know, to... government property to the people's property compared to what's happening here. The whole thing is just a charade. I also think that it is instructive because what's coming down the pike. What's coming down the pike is perhaps a completed...

West Wing Ballroom or East Wing ballroom. What's coming down the pike is a halepad. What's coming down the pike is an arch. So this can be instructive as to what we're going to, because we've already been through this on a number of occasions. Okay. You addressed them? I thought you were good. No, no, you're good. All right. Can I, before we end today, I just wanted 30 seconds on an obscure connection that I think has a real chance of being forefront in the news in the not too distant future. A while ago, I was going to send you an article about the Trump son signing up. to a blind pool that now has, and I didn't, but months later we found out that that's the pool that's chasing around all these government contracts. This is not... entirely analogous, but keep an eye on the U.S. defending the Japanese yen and the Strait of Hormuz. I think those are linked in ways that people do not totally understand. And I think it has the potential to become a market disruption in not only the U.S. but international money and equity markets that could cause a lot of consternation in the not too distant future. Well, and there on this Tuesday morning, my thanks to the entire group and thanks to you as well for being with us. It's always a pleasure. We'll continue and move into our third hour after this short break.