Latest / Palafox Media Network / Guardians of the Republic: Why America’s Short-Term Thinking Is Weakening Its Global Influence
Transcript
- speaker-0: Good evening everyone and welcome again to another episode of Guardians of Republic. Jonathan with me as usual is ⁓ Tony Hugh. How are you Tony? speaker-1: Hey Jonathan, doing really good. speaker-0: And joining us again is ⁓ Charles down in Orlando area. How are you, Charles? speaker-2: I'm doing good. Jonathan, Tony, how y'all feelin' story? speaker-1: Really good, good. Glad to have you. speaker-0: Yep. Exactly. Tony, what's our tagline? speaker-2: Thank you, thank you, glad to be here. speaker-1: What fresh level of hell have we descended into this week? speaker-0: Yep. So, ⁓ kind of all over the place this week, of course, whatever that was that happened that the, the Crescent, yeah. Still trying to sort that out. speaker-1: Well, let's at least say the good news and that is that there's nothing really new happening with the war in Iran. It's basically just been a stalemate, which means, you know, advantage Iran, I think, but that's just me. I did see that the price of gasoline was up to on average $4.18 a gallon nationwide. That's the highest it's been in four years. So the price of gasoline has continued to increase with the continue shortages of oil, not here in our country, fortunately, but in the rest of the world, which is what's driving these prices up. If you believe the reports, things are getting kind of desperate in Asia, China, the Philippines, and those areas that get the vast majority of their oil from the Arab states that come through the Shraddha Hormuz. Nothing, guess, speaker-0: See ya. speaker-1: No news is good news as far as we're not having any American deaths and things like that, things are really at a stalemate it looks like as far as negotiations are concerned. As of right now, that could change tomorrow. Yeah, it could change tonight. speaker-0: Yeah. Well, like I said, it's, think sometimes Trump just like wants to like not say anything and hope everybody just forgets this happened, you know? It's just, it seems that way. speaker-1: I think he's definitely bored with the war. has not turned out like he thought it was going to. ⁓ I do believe in my heart of hearts, he thought this was going to be another Venezuela. We were going to go in, shock and awe. Iran is going to capitulate. ⁓ Nuclear threat is eliminated forever. We all live happily ever after and Trump has got a war victory to add to his resume as president and it just has not turned out like at all like that. think Iran, I mean, we've achieved all of our military objectives. I don't really know if there's really anything militarily we can really hope to accomplish at this point because we've already destroyed, I think, pretty much everything we can get our hands on as far as Iran's military. you know, I think that's why Trump is now threatening or was threatening civilian targets because there's nothing else really to blow up. except for civilians. We've had such a long pause to the war. I just do not think that there's really any way Trump can start hostilities back up again unilaterally. I just don't think the American public has the appetite for it. If you believe the polls and they're usually more right than they are wrong, I think if they've been done statistically correct, know, 30 % of the nation is in favor of the war with Iran, 70 % is opposed to it. And that 30 %... pretty well tracks with that MAGA base, which will love anything that Trump does. There's just no broad, there's no widespread support for the war. I just really can't see him starting it back up again. speaker-2: I will say this is that I think that Trump has got American people and the American government and American military in an unprecedented quiet mouth. First of all, from a legal standpoint, because he didn't go to Congress, he violate the War Powers Act and Congress has the authority to declare war. Since he hasn't did that, he's running on a... on a Hail Mary legal technicality where he's got him out sort of like an escortion if you watch the language that he's using. But the problem with that is that don't quote on those exact days, but I don't know if it's 90 days or whatever. speaker-1: 60 days and they expire. The 60 days expires April 30th. speaker-2: Exactly. So that's the problem. now because of an American law that gives him that 60 days where, know, April 3rd, wherever. So he's got to do something one way or the other. And he's got to come back to Congress because it's going to be a legal non-brain with that. He's in violation if he keeps the troops over there. Plus the more practical thing is he put him in harm's way. The other thing is that we talked about this for the last couple of weeks is that we have depleted our big dollar weapons between the war, the villains, as well as the first several days, all the weapons that we use. Like you said, Tony, you know, we blow some stuff up, but every time we blow stuff up, that's a million or billion dollars a day. So if we have a real war from a really bad... nation that's legitimate. We're gonna have a problem as a United States citizens in our military because we don't... A lot of our weapons have been depleted. So when you look at the idea that the 60 days is about up, ⁓ we depleted our weaponry. And then now one of the non-starters, I don't agree, I ran on this, is that they're saying that they want to permanently charge to go through that straight now. That's Iran bottom line. And so that's like a non-starter. So the world is really in a very fragile situation here, all because of a unilaterally wannabe dictator is just doing what he wants to do, disregarding the Constitution and Congress. Congress is not as ⁓ loud and vociferous with their duties. I would love to go to sleep. and allow on it, but it's going to be interesting to see what's going to happen after that 60-day mark that happens. His hands are somewhat, meaning Trump, his hands are somewhat narrow and tight. But the fact that Iran is now saying that they're still going to be charged and go through the straits when it's never been done before. And then, you know, again, the Obama deal with Iran had international expected to verify. So... In every intelligent measure, regardless of ideological bent, we are way worse off economically. Our military weaponry, economic costs of now being charged to go to the straight, oil and gas prices out the roof. This is a mess. speaker-0: Think about the thing with this, with Trump is the vanity. Think about it. know, anything Obama could take credit for Trump had to disavow or get rid of. speaker-2: Exactly, I agree. speaker-0: It usually has huge consequences on this country. We go back to 2020, before that, when he, did away with the, uh, the, uh, center for disease, disease controls, uh, pandemic task force, which had successfully bought four pandemics during the Obama administration. But now that's, that's an Obama thing. We got rid of it. What do we get COVID? And now we had a deal in place with Iran. was working, but oh no. I can do better. They're already the deal. I'm a master negotiator. And where are we at now? Worse. speaker-1: Well, I'll tell you that the one country that you've not really heard anything out of for a couple of several weeks now, probably more than a couple. And I still think is the main player in all this and it's China. China, China, China, China, China. And I just don't think there's any way around the significance of China. You know, the, and who knows that the reports are correct. Yeah, I would be really, really surprised if someone truly in the military is leaking to the press our level of war shots, our ammunition levels. But if it is true, if it's truly somebody that knows, that has leaked this to the press, and if you believe them, their position was we don't have enough ammunition, we don't have enough weapons to defend, to send to Taiwan if China made a play against Taiwan. Now. I'm going to say my humble opinion is there's no way in hell we would send the first man, the first American citizen to defend Taiwan against the Chinese invasion. I just don't think that there's ⁓ an appetite for that with the American public. And I don't think anybody wants to China on head to head in a war, in a shooting war. Now, a lot of people that say we should have taken Iran out because of what they they've done in the last 47 years. said, well, what about China? Because China sent tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of troops against our guys directly in the Korean War. They sent troops to staff behind the line positions in North Vietnam to free North Vietnamese ⁓ uniformed troops to go fight against Americans in South Vietnam. So if you want to, if you want to, if you're going to equate Who have we been at war with in the past that got off with it, got away with it? China is at the top of the list. China decides to move on Taiwan. Do we have the weapons to defend Taiwan? Do we have the intestinal fortitude after a couple of months of war with Iran to take on China? China is Iran's largest customer of oil. And they're not getting any right now. And hardly any oil is coming out of the Arab States right now. China's a mass, even though they've done a lot of conversion to wind and solar and whatnot and electric, but they still got to have gasoline. They still got to have diesel fuel like everybody else does. And at what point in time is China going to say, Hey, I've had enough. We're sending our tankers escorted by our Navy into Iran to get oil. I mean, when's China going to do that? And you will definitely see Trump back down big time then. speaker-0: Well, but that's the whole point is, ⁓ you know, we've got our treaty obligations with Taiwan, but China's never dared challenge any U S president. Like even a bluff until this one, because he's so weak and he wants to be so strong, but all he ever does is weaken the U S position. But you're right. mean, speaker-1: Look, Donald Trump's fixing to get us out of NATO. You think he gives a rants ass about Taiwan? speaker-0: Well, no, but what I'm saying is, know, what was the whole point of make America great again, was that America wasn't great that we, on the world scale, we were looked down upon. And actually the opposite was true. We were still the greatest nation on earth. And he has eroded our prestige over the last, well, with the four year interlude, the last date. 12 years and it's only going to get worse because it's that thing. If China sends a fleet through the Strait of Hormuz, what are we going to do about it? I mean, nothing. And then every nation that's an ally or has a treaty, we have a treaty obligation with, what are they asking themselves? You know, what happens? speaker-1: I don't think we're gonna do a damn thing about it. already are. You don't think every country in NATO is already saying that to themselves right now? Listen to what the Prime Minister, I mean Canada for God's sake. You hear the Prime Minister of Canada say, look, we're in a different world today. The United States is not our trusted partner any longer. And although we can hope that it goes back to normal in a few years after he's out of office, hope is not a strategy. We in Canada have got to start making plans to take care of ourselves. with our own trade deals with our more reliable trading partners. So if freaking Canada can't count on us, do you honestly think Germany thinks that they can count on us or France or Taiwan or any other nation in the far East? I mean, I've got friends on Guam. think they're kind of nervous in Guam. I've got a big Air Force base, a big Navy base there, but... I can tell you that the Guamanians do not necessarily feel like they're American citizens at all because they're small. They're out in the middle of nowhere and it's but military there. just a military. speaker-0: of that question is who's really benefiting from all of this? speaker-1: Putin. speaker-0: Yeah. speaker-1: He has not had to raise a finger. And guess where the Iranian foreign minister is, or at least was as of yesterday? Russia, talking to Putin. speaker-0: So, you know, that's good Charles. speaker-2: think that ⁓ Putin is like that old expression, if your enemy is destroying himself, why help him? So Putin don't have to do anything because he's already beaten me. ⁓ speaker-1: to We've lifted the sanctions on Russian oil. Oil has almost doubled in price. Russia's getting richer so they can fund their war against Ukraine and they can sell to countries they used to couldn't sell to because of the sanctions. So Russia is coming out of this spell like a freaking rose. No downside, no downside whatsoever. speaker-2: Correct. Exactly. those are exactly the points where I was gonna make Tony, but since you made them, that's one point. I think that, no, no, no, no, that's good. But the other thing is that I think that China, as you know, China is really being traditional 1970s China. They're very slow, they're very group, they do things methodically and they move very slow, okay? And they move in a group kind of context, right? And I think that Here is a twofold situation here, in my opinion. One, short term China is winning by doing nothing as well as Russia. They're winning. And ultimately, what Putin wants to do and what China and Russia both want is a NATO destroyer. That's ultimately what Putin wants. And China also, and China does not want any military presence in that region. They don't want that. And now Trump is giving Russia and Putin, as well as China, somewhat of a legitimacy with these consistent tax on nations that's very aggressive, that's not traditionally the way America operates. And so therefore, it's going to be very hard to say who the real bad guys are, who the real terrorists are. And then the third point from our range standpoint is that... You have a little, in the big scope of things, with all big military might and our big military budget, you have Iran still taking down big, big American planes with these $10,000 $20,000 drones. And I think what China is looking at is like, wow, maybe America is not as big alive for the big, you know, ⁓ the big bull of the woods, so to speak, that we thought they were. And that's the long-term problem I see. Because I think that we losing credibility with our weapons being depleted. And then think about it, China is a nuclear nation, right? So you're never gonna see Trump as ridiculous as he is, cerebrally. He's got enough sense not to be fooling around with a nuclear nation. He's not gonna do that. He's not gonna do that. Right? But the fact that he's trying to bully Iran and Iran has did this, well, six weeks now, you know, is Trump thought was going to be a Venezuela number two? Tony, you was right on that point. He thought this was going to be another Venezuela. And like I said last week, he's been around, been around tens of thousands of years. These people know how to survive. And I think he miscalculated. And the problem with it is that how we are viewed as Americans now. If you are non-American, you can view us as the real terrorists in the earth. So that's a big problem. And I don't know if you guys, or Tony, did you hear today, I was reading a report that the ambassador of the EU was on a hot mic or somehow it was saying about how we can't own a real friend. It may use a different adjective, but basically saying the only person America really, really like or loyal to, I might not use the right word, was Israel. Now this, the EU is saying that, and y'all was talking about Canada earlier. I think what it all boils down to is that our NATO allies, no one could trust America, would not rely on them no more. And we kind of... is a wealthy nation, but we are perceived now as a terrorist, aggressive bully that's attacking non-nuclear nations. I think that's not opinion. That's just objective facts. And we've seen three real wars because if you put a blockade, it's a race. It's local. It's race. It speaks for itself. And we got an effective blockade on Cuba that no one in the... I'm not... heard a media journalist in America. I'm not saying they haven't said it, but I haven't heard a journalist reporting about this blockade with Cuba. And when you do a blockade, Tony, you know, been a military guy, that is war. No one's talking about that. speaker-1: The last time I heard anything about the blockade of Cuba was just before the Russian oil tanker came through. And Trump said it was okay with him that the Russian tanker came through. And I don't know, we may have dissolved the blockade after that. don't know. Trump has definitely been distracted by other things since then. And I want to talk about the King of England in town because we're talking about allies, but I do want to circle back to China one more time, and kind of double tap something you said a little while ago. So about eight years ago, when I was on the Chief of Staff, Civil Leader Program, we did a tour of the Pacific and we did Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii. We went to Kunsan in South Korea. We went to, ⁓ Dakota and Japan, Anderson in Guam, Allison in Alaska in about 10 days. It was a lot of flying. The Pacific is a really, really big place. But we got, but, but, but the speaker-0: Yeah. speaker-1: The big bully next door in the Pacific is obviously China. And the whole trip was really about the Chinese threat. There's a book I've got, I've forgotten the title of it now. If I'd thought about it, would have gotten that back out to just remind everybody. It was really about the culture of China. Charles, you're 100 % right. China does, in the United States, we look at everything in terms of the next 90 days. All of our corporations are reporting. We gotta have good reports every quarter. Good earnings, good balance sheet, good this, good that. It's a 90-day cycle that we're always on. And God help you, if you've got a bad quarter, your stock's gonna drop, you're probably gonna lose, if you're the CEO, you're gonna lose your job. But that's just how we think. China is thinking multi-generational. They're thinking 100 years. We're thinking 90 days. China's thinking 100 years. This is just their culture. speaker-2: Is that? speaker-1: There's one aspect and it's probably the one aspect in China that I do admire of them because they are able to look past short-term pain because they're not thinking about what's going to happen for them today. They're thinking about what's going to happen for their grandchildren's grandchildren. speaker-2: Hmm. speaker-1: Just think if America was like that. Just think if our politicians and our business leaders were more concerned about our grandchildren's grandchildren than they were this next 90 day earnings release, how different our country would be. But China is doing almost exactly the same thing that Iran has done with the strait, and it's called the South China Sea. And Jonathan, didn't you have some Navy experience back in your background somewhere? Did I remember that correctly? you know, China has taken these shoals in the, what is it, the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands. speaker-0: Y and Matzoo, speaker-1: And they have just, they filled them all in. They built airstrips and military facilities in the middle of the South China Sea and had proclaimed this as territory of China. And then, and then now we're extending our territorial waters out past these new artificial islands that we've created. speaker-0: because the candidates were so closely aligned and thought anyway, was actually the biggest debate of the 1960 election besides let's get the economy rolling again. But Kimoyamatsu was yeah, it was like, what do we do with this? How did it come about? How did we miss this? Yeah. speaker-1: But if China and so far, you we've used, we've taken our Navy and we still consider South China Sea to be international waters. And we've, we've shown that freedom of navigation, but China always flies bombers over our ships as we're doing that. And at some point in time, I believe China's going to say, Hey, you're not coming through the South China Sea. And all this trade we have with Asia, all the trade that Europe does with Asia, all comes through the South China Sea. I mean, it's just a massive amount of tonnage is shipping that comes through that area that China is positioning itself to completely control at some point in time. You know, like Taiwan, like Hong Kong, you know, they took this long-term view that these are Chinese territories. And we're going to wait until the time is right to take them. speaker-0: Britain had already negotiated a treaty over Hong Kong and they did, they honored the treaty. Our treaty all along has been the defense of Taiwan. And the thing is, the thinking had always been, yeah, China can try that, but they're not going to like the result. But I can't think that with Donald Trump in office because no matter how much he plans, he says he's strong. He has the most spineless commander in chief we've ever had. It's just, I can see him acquiescing and it'll be a precedent we get past. I got to thinking the other day, we talk about this book a lot as an apocryphal tale. We talk about big brother and surveillance and all that. But if you really look at Orwell's 1984, it was a global struggle between three powers. Oceania, Eurasia, East Asia, US, Russia, China. And it's starting to become just that because if you remember from Oceania. No, we're at war with Eurasia. ⁓ no, don't know that. We never said that we're at war with, with East Asia. You know, we're allied with your eyes and it's like everything changes and everything is, and people gobble it up. And it's like, ⁓ like you said that, that 30 % still thinks right now that we're doing really well and we're showing the world we're boss, but we know better. speaker-1: I just, just, just, just chat GPT'd whether Trump has ever explicitly pledged to militarily defend Taiwan and he has not. speaker-0: He has luck. speaker-2: Well, let me ask you, wasn't there a couple of incidents in his first presidency where the China see where China basically was bothering with some of our military pilots and that's supposed to be international wars, kind of like a known safe zone, but wasn't there a couple of incidents back in his first term where China was kind of... You know, being a little aggressive. speaker-1: They were flying very unprofessionally around some of our strategic bombers that we'd sent just on training missions through the South China Sea over international waters in international airspace. And I think we actually had, I think one actually made contact with one of our airplanes. I don't remember the specifics of it at this point in time, but it has been several years ago, I think now. Of course we had the famous Chinese spy satellite or spy balloon that floated across our country. for a week when Biden was president. I mean, while that thing, they get shot down immediately. had no idea, but I felt like that the excuses they gave were really lame. It was like, ⁓ it may land on somebody. Well, yeah. But, know, do we really want them to, of course, I know they got their satellites up there, but apparently the balloon can get closer, more high fidelity and I don't know, but it just seemed odd that It's like nobody really cared that way until it was actually over the Atlantic to shoot it down speaker-0: So, know, if you look at most major battles in history, how does it usually start? Probes and skirmishes, know, what can we get away with? What can we get away with? All right. Let's do more. Let's do more. So China's sizing this up and we're not, we're not, we're not standing up to it. So they're going to try a little harder next time. We're going to try a little harder next time. I'm trying to just go. speaker-1: Well, you know, I do think one key weakness that Trump has is that he is so full of himself that he really truly believes if he has this special relationship, you know, I'm good friends with Xi. I'm good friends with Kim Jong Un. I'm good friends with Putin. I can talk to them. No, you can't. They play you for the fool that you are. Exactly. know they can kiss your ass and then you walk away thinking that you've won something when you really, really haven't. And that's just, I remember Ronald Reagan, when he went to Iceland and was meeting with Gorbachev and they, and he was trying to, he was trying to basically negotiate away all of our nuclear weapons. And, you know, and it was, and that meeting did not end well. And Reagan knew it did. And he could read it all over. I mean, even though he was professional actor, you can read it all over his face. When he walked away from that, that it's like, okay, just fixing to get real here with Russia because it did not end well. And, and of course wound up Soviet Union went up on as a result. speaker-0: think the fear was that, you know, that last gasp maybe before they fell would be some sort of an incident or attack, it didn't happen. you know, but I mean, did the Soviet Union really, really fall? mean, Putin's a dust putter. He's piecing it all back together again. speaker-1: They get the gang all back around. So, you there used to be that Soviet block with just a few exceptions is right back in there again. That's what the whole war with Ukraine's over. You know, they believe that's part of the old Soviet Union, the mother Russia, if you will, and they want that brought back in. That's what Crimea was all about. They want it all back under underneath his arms. And he's going to get some of it. know, he's going to... speaker-0: Yeah. speaker-1: I read somewhere that Russia has lost between wounded and killed a million men now. That's just almost unfathomable to me. But yeah, but then again, that's the culture of Russia. Look how many people they lost in World War II. If they believe in Mother Russia and they're willing to sacrifice their blood, their treasure for it. speaker-0: Yeah. speaker-2: You speaker-1: You would have thought with no more results in Ukraine than Putin's has gotten, with that much of a cost of killed and injured, because you can't hide a million casualties. You can't hide a million casualties. The people of Russia know about that, and they're not doing anything to try to get rid of Putin. I think they still love Putin. speaker-0: Well, also in a form. speaker-2: of thing is that in terms of like Putin's he always wants to have Crimea, Ukraine. He wants that, a part of the old Russian empire. And it's understandable. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know why he want that because he doesn't want a Democrat-leaning ⁓ nation that used to be a former country under... ⁓ Russia or the old Soviet Union with United States or the West or even potential NATO allegiance because that's in their backyard physically, the proximity, you know, to use any kind of base to launch war or anything against them. Get the freak out from a proven standpoint. mean, that's very understandable. But the thing about it is that was unacceptable in international law of sovereign nations, we cannot have imperialistic, you know, breaches of humanity and laws like we did in World War I and World War II, because first of all, blowing stuff up now is way more expensive than back then. From an economic standpoint, you just can't recreate stuff like on the cheap like it was back then. Because first of all, most society was agrarian and land-based with water and sea, and there was no urbanized cities to rebuild stuff. have, every nation has expanded their home, the residential businesses, their empire. So stuff is way more expensive now than to have any nation, particularly one that's your enemy, bombing you. Okay? So all this is a practical, common sense kind of thing. But my other point would be this, as far as Ukraine, those people, as Zelensky had fought valiantly, and what's outraged to me is unacceptable is that those people are not, they gave up their nuclear weapons because Bill Clinton, under the authority under the United States government, told them to, that if you give up these weapons, that the United States would be there. Our word is counterfeit. We have no international capital, trustworthiness, credibility, because the average American citizen think, we giving you a grain of money. No, we supposed to, because we had a written deal under President Clinton that told those people that if you give up your aspiration to be nuclear power and weapons, and that was part of negotiation with Putin and Russia to allow them to be free, right? So America has reneged on that deal. I'm just, I think Ukraine has fought amazingly on the low budget with the inferior second class citizens or second class weapons. We basically gave them and it's horrible. And I think it goes back to what we were saying earlier, the United States credibility around the earth outside of wars of the United States. I don't know where the credibility is even there anymore. That's the problem. And then what did Trump do in his administration? He gave bees a dollar to Russia. Tony, John, you know what he's gonna do. Putin's gonna do with that. He's gonna use that money that Trump gave him to defeat and try to destroy Ukraine. So, none of that makes sense to speaker-0: Well, that's, that's where the money's coming from the, you know, the, sanctions are lifting on our oil. They sell it. They buy weapons or manufacture them either way. speaker-1: Did y'all King Charles' speech to Congress today? So just a couple of quick points because part of it was about Ukraine. It was, I cannot tell you how refreshing it was to see standing ovations in the will of Congress from both Democrats and Republicans applauding things that King Charles was saying. And he specifically talked about protecting the independence of Ukraine. And Mike Johnson, God love him. I'm sure he's going to hear about it from Trump tonight. But I think he was the first one out of his chair right behind King Charles to applaud for that. To hear a speech that was not, and I know he was, I know he's, I mean, I've been to United Kingdom, but I, and I'm just gonna say, I don't get it. I don't, I don't understand why they still use their nation's wealth to prop up a family who has been the king. know there's tradition there, blah, blah, but that's their deal. I'm not gonna complain. It's not my money. So I don't, I don't complain about it. speaker-0: Well... speaker-1: But I will say that it was, it was nice to see virtual unanimous agreement with things that he was saying at a joint session of Congress. And I really can't tell you how long it's been since I have seen that. Now I know you weren't talking about anything specific to do with us, our own politics and what we're facing as a nation. speaker-0: Actually, no, he did bring up the point. He, he, he scolded Trump because even he brought out the, ⁓ checks and balances. think he used that term. speaker-1: Well, he went back to the Magna Carta. went back to the Magna Carta. And he had the statistics of how many times the Magna Carta has actually been cited in United States Supreme Court decisions as evidence of a check on executive power. And the entire Congress stood up and clapped. Now, again, I'm sure Trump's going to be calling some people later tonight and chewing their ass out for that. speaker-0: That's where the limit's speaker-1: because I don't think Trump would have gotten, Trump would not have stood up for that because that's just not what he's looking for. But I did, I really appreciated what he had to say about Ukraine tonight or today. And I really, and it was just refreshing it. And it would, and it's almost like, man, what would it take to get our Congress? Because our Congress has become, I mean, you want to talk about why Trump is like Trump is today? It's because our Congress. can is not allowed to compromise any longer with each other. You know, if you're a Democrat, you're evil. If you're Republican, you're evil. We're not even going to talk to you. We can't have bipartisan legislation any longer. We've got to win every battle by 50 % plus one. There is no 60%. There is no 80 % of anything. speaker-0: I heard a figure the other day, there have been more congressmen who have either resigned or said they're not running again than actual bills have passed in the law in this country. That's sad. You know, and think about it. Trump hasn't even used the veto pen once because nothing's coming to his death. You know, speaker-1: Yeah. Nothing's coming to his desk. And so Trump is substituting it with executive orders because Congress can't pass laws. speaker-0: Yeah, but a bit has limited legal value. But another thing with Charles speech is something I've always parked on. And even like you said, you dig it, George Washington, what did he accomplish in his four, eight years as president? Not a lot other than he established all the precedents, but the word that I've heard since I was a kid, statesmanship. King Charles was a statesman today. Now compare that to the state of the union a few months ago. ⁓ We don't have a statesman in the White House. speaker-1: Yeah. Well, Trump doesn't even, Trump doesn't even try. And, and, and, and, and in, I'm not going to be, I'm not ever going to come to the defense of Donald Trump, but at the same time, I was, I'm also going to say that, you know, Hakeem Jeffers and Chuck Schumer don't try either. No, no, no one is trying to reach a consensus on anything any longer. You know, I think about the DHS quagmire that they're in. You know, I personally think that the Democrats have got a great point. You know, like, okay, this 60 vote majority is the only thing we have. It's the only bullet we have in our gun. And so when something is really important to us, when something is really important to American people, like runaway ICE agents, Yeah. Well, this is the only place that we can try to have some negotiation over something. Yeah. And the Republicans just say, Nope, Nope. It's going to be our way on the highway. speaker-0: When they do submit bills, attach so many writers and amendments and then are unacceptable, you kill the entire bill. speaker-1: Yeah, but that's just, but this, but my point is that with this DHS bill, there's really no one sitting down. There's no Democrats and Republicans who have common sense to say, let's see where we are. Let's see how we can find a way to yes. But I, and maybe there, maybe there's something going on behind the scenes. Obviously I'm not up there. don't know, but it sure never reported. And if it was reported. It's got to pass a veto. It's got to be veto proof by Trump because even when the Senate did pass something and then the House said, no, we're not going to pass it because Trump changed his mind and told Johnson not to pass it. So, you know, so the Republicans in the Congress are taking a hundred percent of their cues from Trump. They no longer think for themselves. That's just like, what will Trump sign? If Trump won't sign it, we're just not going to get involved with it. And it'll just sit there. it's just like the save America act. You know, there's some things I just believe that if like when I was growing up, know, when there was, when there was divided government and you know, when it was Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, you know, they still found ways to be cordial to each other. They were both statesmen. ⁓ They disagreed politically. and philosophically about almost everything, but they still found a way to work together without calling each other names and being hateful to them and telling the same that their family was embarrassed to be around them. it was just, it's just so different now. speaker-0: Interesting fact, Tip O'Neill allowed more Reagan initiatives to pass in his first four years than he allowed Carter initiatives in his four years. But that's just it as it used to be. The parties in the United States used to be a lot different. Every party had a conservative wing, a moderate wing, and a liberal wing. I mean, and for a while... And the sixth up until the sixties, the two parties almost kind of looked alike. mean, Rockefeller was more liberal than most Democrats in Congress. And the, it's like everything got in the centrifuge and every, all the elements separated and then the party switching started. And now it's like both parties are really run by the extremes instead of the center where it used to be. speaker-1: Yeah. speaker-0: The extremists could do their thing. You know, it used to be everybody like, well, Barry Goldwater is fixing to give a speech. Wonder what kind of lunacy he's coming. The Republicans would say that, you know, know, uh, they would come together and things would happen. mean, civil rights acts was a very bipartisan effort. If you look at it by the votes, you know, everybody blame that segregationist, they blame. Johnson and Humphrey, but it was ever Dirksen and a lot of Republicans that they've got that thing through. You just can't imagine that happening now, but a lot of it is it's not a matter of what they think Trump will sign. They're just taking orders from Trump. Let's just be blunt. speaker-1: Nobody's, nobody's thinking for themselves. And I got it. And we've become some mean spirited and that leads me into the Jimmy Kimmel, another Jimmy Kimmel controversy tonight. You know, I'm not a fan of Jimmy Kimmel. I don't think he's really particularly funny. I don't watch him at night. You know, this, this thing about this comment he made about Melania having the globe and they expect it with them. I mean, I get it. You know, it's, you know, it may be a chuckle, but You know, he records this on Thursday night. They broadcast it on Friday. Nobody says a word about it. There's no controversy Saturday morning. ⁓ my God. You know, what is he doing? Poor Melania, know, Melania is a hot chick married to an old fart, you know, an old rich guy. ⁓ God, that has never happened in this country. ⁓ poor Melania. ⁓ no, I'm saying a word. Then they have the assassination attempt. And the next thing you know, ⁓ well, Jimmy Kimmel should be fired. It's like, come on, you know, speaker-2: Another thing, Jonathan, Tony. First of all, my first basic point is this, democracy only works if both sides believe in democracy. And I really honestly, intellectually, spiritually, practically, I don't think that the GOP believes in democracy anymore. I really don't. I think that they want a whole new constitution, a whole new country, and they're not just flirting with this authoritarian... speaker-1: Charles Charles Charles please this thing was MAGA from GOP I'm still Republican I'm not MAGA I think you're right about MAGA I think you're right that's MAGA speaker-2: But this is the difference though, Tony, is that if we allow 30 % to run things, then what's the distinction? Because the 30 % is running things. the other point is, I believe we need to update their cultural and paradigm shift that the whole point of the Constitution is to add and make amendments to the Constitution. It was originally designed that way. I fundamentally believe, my own personal opinion, is that we need to update our Constitution on a basic level. One, the Speaker of the House should have...it's implied that we need to expressly give some written context to the role of the Speaker of the House. Regardless of what part of affiliation they're from, it needs to be a neutral position, you know. because it's so central to democracy because equivalent to what the expected general is supposed to be. The expected general role, but Trump is changing that role, but the Speaker of the House role has got to be one that has department that control and will perpetually keep democracy going or flowing. And it can't be one part of whatever. It's got to be for the for democracy. The other point is, think that, and I'll let you, I'll yield to you a minute Tony, but I don't get this point out. Because you and Johnson make some good points, but this is the problem. The reason why both parties to the state that they're just, you know, kind of doing what they, but I do believe the Dems are trying to fundamentally, they can get laws done, but when they, when they agree to a bill and they agree with the Republicans, when they agree with Trump to say, he'll flip. like you do Taco Tuesday. So they don't know who they're dealing with. But I think the problem with this is twofold. When SCOTUS allowed that nonsensical Citizens United case, it allowed unregulated, dark money to come into politics so the corporations run things and the people and that one vote stuff really is not how things really work. And those continuing with Jerry Mannion or districts. We gotta stop gerrymandering districts because if we keep allowing these gerrymandering districts, this is why people on both sides, they don't have to listen to each other because they know if they got gerrymandering districts, their constituents are gonna reelect them. That's our problem. And so we gotta stop gerrymandering districts for Americans. But regardless of political bent, I just don't believe in that. Now, We have that going on with Ron DeSantis in Florida, which he alone just made up potentially five new districts. But the difference between Florida and lot of states is a unconstitutional per the unconstitutional. But he's doing it anyway. So this is our problem. We as Americans gotta say, we gotta stop this. We just gotta stop. speaker-1: Well, I was going to point out that back when the Republicans could never could not, I mean, they were firing Speaker of the House's left and right and they could never elect a new when it was worse than trying to get a new pope. I think I forgot who it was. They did a kind of a deep dive on this. What are the rules for a new speaker? And if I remember correctly, you don't even have to be a member of the House of Representatives to be the Speaker of the House. You can have an independent speaker of the house. In fact, a lot of people wanted Donald Trump to become the speaker of the house. Can you imagine that? The president being also the speaker of the house. speaker-0: Yeah. Well, you know, if you, ⁓ if you look at, ⁓ the British constitution, prime minister is the speaker of the house because he is the leader of the majority party. And if you ever watch parliament in action where he gets up and speaks and then he sits down and the opposition gets up and they speak and then he gets up and defends it. It's kind of interesting sometimes, but, ⁓ they get more things done than we do. That's for sure. speaker-1: They absolutely do, there's no question about it. speaker-0: But you know, to go into your point a minute ago, Charles, about the 30, well, the 30%. You gotta remember when the Nazis got their majority in the Reichstag in the 1930s, they only had 33 % of the seats. There were so many parties in Germany. That's how they got a majority. But the other 67 % didn't stand up to them and look where it got them. speaker-2: And then the... speaker-0: Why did Hitler come to power crop Messerschmitt, ⁓ bear Siemens, all of the moguls, the rich, the rich industrialists bank rolled him. And when you say national socialism, it doesn't mean the same thing as socialism. It means that they're only preferred. monopolistic industries and, and that's what we're having here. You know, pretty much it's getting aware three or four guys are owning everything, whether it's Bezos or it's Musk or guy with, ⁓ can't think of his name all of a with Facebook. mean, you know, I still think Zuckerberg, yeah. But, I still think that, ⁓ the grand plan is to continue defunding. speaker-1: Zuckerberg. speaker-0: postal service and get people mad at it so they can privatize it and give it to Jeff Bezos. You know, that's where it's headed. But, but I mean, but, but Charles, you're exactly right. The one person, one vote, it just doesn't work in this country anymore. speaker-1: Yeah. You know, we need to acknowledge that Trump kept another campaign promise today to not attack political figures with lawfare. ⁓ wait, he actually broke that promise because they indicted James Comey today for taking a picture of some seashells in the beach and spreading a message of assassination throughout the world. It's just the most ridiculous thing. You can't make this shit up. mean, he... ⁓ speaker-2: You speaker-1: He posed a picture of some shells on the beach that had been, I don't know whether he put them there or they were already there, but it said 8647. And he did, he is like, that's an interesting number, you know? And, of course, know, thin-skinned Donald Trump says, oh, well, he's sending a message to the world that they should assassinate me. Now I got news for you. If I, if I, I'm not planning on assassinating the president, but if I was, think, you know, putting shells in a number on the beach is how I'd get the word out. Cause I mean, you know, that's, that's going to be seen by millions of people, the seashells and, and, ⁓ you know, but he's been indicted two counts and, and, and apparently they found a grand jury in North Carolina to go along with it. Cause he got, he got indicted by grand jury. So yeah. speaker-0: gonna go anywhere. speaker-2: and Jonathan Tony again. What really bothers me as a licensed attorney for decades now, going into a body of my triple decades of ⁓ law, what really frustrates me and when non-lawyers ask me these questions, I'm as flabbergasted as them. And this is the constant question that I've been getting since 2016. Why do these judges and courts allow this foolishness? And what hurts me is I cannot give them an intelligent professional. speaker-1: I got an answer for you. got an answer for you. It's because the circuit court judges want to get on the appellate court and the appellate court just won't get on the Supreme Court. those are politically appointments. So yeah, that's why they make these dumbass rulings. Just because they're trying to gain favor. speaker-0: Judges aren't legislators though. They can't do anything unless cases are brought before them. We're not bringing enough cases before them. So you can't challenge anything unless there's a court case. Otherwise they can't make up laws. can't enforce things. speaker-1: I know, but like in bringing an indictment to a grand jury, that, you know, of course, you know, there's not really a judge over the grand jury. The grand jury does their own thing and we'll see how far it goes once it does go in front of a judge to get tossed, to get thrown out. I mean, it's just the most, I mean, it's like, well, we couldn't indict him before, so what else can we get him on? ⁓ well, he took a picture of some seashells and posted on Instagram. And then took it right back down because he said, you know, I didn't know that 86 meant violence, but apparently some people do. So I don't, I don't condone violence. I took, I took the post down. I mean, it's a social media post. We're indicting people over social media posts now. speaker-2: Yeah, but what I'm saying is that it used to be a day when real judges respected the rule of law, regardless of who appointed them, they would dismiss this quicker than a hurry, as I used to say. But we don't have it now. have, James Comey and some of these other politicians have enough funds, but what about these people who just barely making a decent living that were just frivolous, bullfrog crap? that they have people, you know, those local people that they're indicting, all kinds of stuff. In other words, we as Americans cannot allow people to have baseless charges for going against them for doing their job because they can't afford high-power lawyers and they end up getting debt after a bankruptcy. That's fundamentally, flagrantly not fair. And we got to stop this, regardless of... political bit, we gotta have some basic rules that say, as society, no, we're not doing that. We're not allowing that. And I think now, again, it's like anything goes. Like, crazy has become our norm now. We look crazy. We look worse than extraterrestrials. We just, we governing crazy, we thinking crazy, we saying crazy stuff, we treating each other crazy. We just all crazy now, statistically speaking. speaker-0: And remember too that since 2017 to 2021 and now from 2025 to now, Trump has appointed a ton of judges onto all of the circuits and he didn't just throw a dart at a board full of names. He put people in there. He knew we're going to go along with him and that it's corrupting the judicial system. Now it was like that. I forgot what it was last week where the judge had, there was something he ruled on and then the appellate court overruled him, but the two judges that voted yes were Trump appointees. And they didn't really have a logical legal grounds for him not doing it. They just said, you can't do it. and I've been saying that since 2016, but nobody listens. You know, you know, I remember that in 2016. speaker-1: Elections have consequences. speaker-0: ⁓ what harm can he possibly do in four years? And then, well, then you just give him another four. Yeah, it's here's, here we are. ⁓ it's. But again, you know, he's not one man with a vision. There's a lot of people behind him that are using him as the power to get what they want. And, ⁓ that's the scary part. speaker-2: Well, let me ask y'all about what I think is not kind enough media attention is that, you know, Trump, and he was bothered with the Pope in my articulation because the Pope was standing on biblical authority. Now, this is my pastoral preacher's hat. I don't know if you're aware of it, but I think it's a day old. yesterday, well, the Trump administration cut $11 million from the Miami Catholic Charities because of this beef with the Pope last week. So now he's being predictive and cut $11 million from the Catholic Charities, ⁓ you know, administration. You they do a lot of great charade with the Capitol. This is what I'm talking about. What I want to know is, let's move to 30 % of wackos, the MAGA wackos out the way. What I want to know, Tony, where are the regular, clear-thinking Americans and why they don't have an issue with this? It's clearly... speaker-1: Well Charles, think they do. It's almost a 70-30 split now in the nation as far as his disapproval rating is concerned. Seven out of 10 Americans are disapproving of Trump and how he's running the country. And the 30 % that approves, I mean, it's obviously, you know, 99 % Democrats disapprove. The last I saw was like 80 to 85 independents disapprove. And even in the, but in Republican party, it's only about 35 % of Republicans disapprove. So that's the 65 % of the Republican party, which is obviously a predominant majority, which is drank the MAGA Kool-Aid that goes along with whatever he says. And I'm telling you, this is going to be the death knell of the Republican party. MAGA is going to, Donald Trump is going to run the Republican party out of business. You know, I saw, I saw a funny clip and it was truly funny of. J.D. Vance from 10 years ago, from 2016. And it's just this continuous clip about, you know, they kind of cut about eight different comments together. And he's talking about, you know, Donald Trump is a fraud. He's a liar. He never tells the truth. He is not concerned about the American public. He's only concerned about himself. He's a narcissist. He may be the next Hitler. I mean, all these things that J.D. Vance said. that are a hundred percent accurate even today, but he's the vice president. And once he found, and I'm telling you the drug of power is the most addictive drug known to mankind because you take people that called it for what it was when they first saw him, JD Vance, Marco Rubio, that massive fight. now. They're the two most important cabinet members, ⁓ you know, in the Trump administration. Probably gonna be fighting for who's gonna be president, who's gonna be vice president in four years or in three years now. So they all hated Trump until they realized that they could drink for that power, that power nipple and kiss that power milk. And it's like, ⁓ you mean I could be secretary of state if I kiss your ass? I can be vice president, maybe president one day if I kiss your ass. Okay. So. Wow. They just, they just, they have just transferred over their own personal credibility. It's like, ⁓ well, once I got to know him, it was a lot different. Bullshit. You got, you got offered a job. One thing I will have to, I will give Trump credit for this. Trump realized he can't do it all on his own. He had to have lieutenants. He has to have minions. And, and when he convinces these minions that they can expand their cell, they can get speaker-0: Yeah. speaker-1: They can get some of the, he will let them have some of his power and they can exert some of their power. Secretary of state, secretary of defense, vice president, whatever they can expand their brand at the national stage. And it's like, okay, okay. Satan, where do I sign? Yeah. Where do I sign Satan? speaker-0: Let me ask you a question because I've been thinking about it more and more, this assassination attempt. You know, and I'm thinking all the world, does kind of look like a pit-up job because I'm watching the video of the guy running through a checkpoint and eight different law enforcement agents pull weapons, but don't fire them. You know, and the guy gets all the way almost to the ballroom and opens fire, but he's not shot, he's just tackled. But the biggest thing I noticed. If you look at the angle where they show the entire stage, why did the Secret Service get JD Vance out of there first and just left Trump alone? speaker-1: actually thought that was pretty funny. I noticed that wrath of that. Of course, Vance moves a lot easier than Trump. speaker-0: If you look, the secret service converged on him, not the president. speaker-1: One guy, well, one guy came and got, one guy came and grabbed Vance by the back of his jacket and pulled him up out of his chair and then Vance ran off with him. So I think there was only one agent and then, but then. speaker-0: There were two or three around and if you look at the full front, like the whole table in the distance, if you watch. speaker-1: Well the SWAT guys were trying to put this speaker-0: Going on with Vance and get him out of the room. Trump's still at the table looking around and there's a guy whispering in his ear and you think that's not how. speaker-1: Well, that was, that was the mentalist that was whispering in his ear. You know, I don't really want to get into conspiracy theories because I have obviously no, absolutely no worth the idea. I will say this though. I've seen a couple of clips. The security protocols had to be just horrendous at the Hilton because I saw one news report that was, mean, these were reporters that were invited. These are correspondents that were invited. had tickets. ⁓ Nobody ever checked their One guy checked the ticket, but it's just a printed ticket. It's not even a QR code ticket. It's like, okay, you got a ticket. Okay, fine. Going in. Nope. There was no identification. They never checked anybody's name off a list. It's not like going into a concert where they scan your, your, your ticket off your phone to make sure it's valid. There was none of that. So it was kind of come and go access until you get to the, to the, ⁓ the metal detectors. So I don't understand that there's a, there was two Fox hosts. who were caught on a hot mic before, they were even commenting that they couldn't believe how, and this is before the shooting, but they said, know, man, they're letting anybody in here. I can't believe this. And so, you know, I don't know whether it's a setup deal or not. I did, I did find out, mean, one interesting thing is that the, that the, this would be assassin has not been charged with firing his weapon at a secret service agent. because the one ace that was hidden in the vest. speaker-0: Body armor, yes. speaker-1: But he's not been charged with that. where would be the, I mean, you would think that'd be attempted murder. You know, it's another, I mean, you're, you're trying to build the case. mean, Charles, you know how this works. We're going to, we're going to paper the file. We're going to throw as much crap as we possibly can. it might be that it was friendly fire. It was another agent that did not care. And, but it is ironic as much training as you like to think they have. speaker-0: times. Yeah. speaker-1: I don't know. wasn't there. I don't know if the guy was zigzagging and I know that that handguns are notoriously inaccurate if you're trying to shoot under stress and under pressure, but that is I thought what these Secret Service agents are trained for and the fact that nobody could put a bullet in this guy as he's running toward the ballroom with weapons is a little disturbing that they tackle him instead of shooting him. speaker-0: Trump wasn't shielded. mean, the president's supposed to be shielded. You're supposed to give up your life for the president as a secret service agent. like I said, for the longest time, he's like looking around wondering what's going on. When it finally dawns on him, it ain't that brave fist pumping thing like in Pennsylvania. He's kind of scared and trying to get out of there. speaker-1: Well, it fell on his face, you know, of course, I thought it was kind of funny. Trump can never admit that he's human because it's like, because Norah Donald interviews him for 60 minutes the very next day and ask him, well, exactly what happened there? Because it looked like he went down. He said, well, the agent asked me to go down. He asked me to get down on the floor. Really? I mean, I've just pulled you from the table. We've just started moving backstage. All of sudden, now you face plant. And they pick you right back up again. It's not like you stay there. anyone at the time, pick you right back up again and keep walking around. Just, just say, look, they were manhandling me. I tripped. It's okay. speaker-2: Cut. speaker-0: Here, uh, teen 81 when Reagan was shot, they didn't like ignoring. they, they gang tackled him into the limousine. They didn't know he was wounded yet. know, but they covered him with their bodies, pushed him in limousine. The bullet wound. actually thought you broke my rib pushing me so hard. know, secret service typically supposed to do. And I haven't seen that now in two attempted. Assassinations. speaker-1: I don't know that I necessarily, I I've heard the thing about Butler, Pennsylvania and you know, I agree there's questions at the same time. don't, I'm not going to say that Trump is responsible for it though, but at the same time, who knows? Who knows? But I tell you what, you know, that's, that's, ⁓ that's asking an awful lot. to know that I'm going to be sitting here and some guy's going to take a shot in my general direction and gee, I hope he misses. I hope he hits the guy to the right of me, behind me, instead of hitting me and oh snap, he hit my ear, I guess. speaker-0: That alone is eye-question. Go ahead, Charles. speaker-2: I think I grew with Jonathan 100 % because I don't get all those weird theories, but there's several things that's fundamentally ridiculous. Number one is that the Secret Service is trained to prioritize the president of the United States. That is the person running the freaking country. So therefore, that's who you prioritize. So they got JD Vance, the vice president first. And then secondly, they got Trump. So that right there is really ridiculous. Number two, the Fox News host already knew, that they already was talking about this is going to happen, like prophecy, intel to know that. Then ⁓ Trump's just little bit too cool. I mean, he was way too cool. And even when it got JD Vance, he wasn't like disordered or whatever. So. To me, just seemed like a Saturday night liar could did a better job of that if it was unconcerned. I honestly believe that somebody in the highest level of Secret Service or authority knew that this guy was trying to do what he was gonna do. And they played into that narrative knowing that they could limit what he was gonna do because The fact that these two Fox people was saying this is going to happen before it happened, I mean, that's a dead giveaway. And two, like John was saying, there you go, protect the vice president. Why are you trying to protect the vice president? You need, regardless of how I think of Trump, you supposed to get the president first. That's your job. And so you go to the vice president first. That's beyond crazy and ridiculous to me. So it's just not making sense. I'll find out for this is this. We got two of these when his population was lower than you could imagine and we have these two mysterious kind of assassinations and then have any of you heard any kind of investigation about the first one? Because I haven't. He's investigating Comey twice and everybody else and you mean tell me you ain't put your, you pulled a string to get your quote unquote first assassination, investigated? I have heard anything about that first investigation of y'all. speaker-0: Think beyond that, what does Donald Trump usually do with people who go against him? Bellifies them, trashes them, everything. He a word about his shit. speaker-2: Quiet, he's quiet as a church mouth. So when you put all that totality, like, ⁓ it's just a whole lot of flags. speaker-0: Aaron, thing with Butler, three things. I had a ballistic expert tell me there is no way in hell the 5.56 NATO around that over 3,500 feet per second could nick his ear without doing extremely more damage. And even the shock waves could cause a mild concussion and him just turn his head and, Oh, my ear. The other was a doctor told me there are no major. vessel blood vessels in the ear. It's mostly capillaries. Nobody worries about blood loss when you get your ear pierced. But there's all this blood on the side of his face. It supposedly came from his ear. And then, you know, after he took the tampon bandage off later, it looked fine to me. I want to pick, I got a picture. I'm going to send you guys on our group thing. It's one I screen shotted back when it happened and you cannot find it since. speaker-1: Completely healed. speaker-0: It's a picture of Trump in the huddle with the secret service. There's, it's a pretty vivid picture. There's like something silver right here. I'm thinking capsule. If you watch him and he hears a shot and he turns his head, snap, there's blood. speaker-1: And then, I'm not, well, I'm not a ballistics expert, but I do have a, I do have an AR 15, five, five, six, uh, know, chambered at five, five, six. You know, that's, that's, it's basically a 22 caliber bullet, it's got a lot of gunpowder. It's got a lot of gunpowder behind it. It's got a lot of, it's got, it's really fast, but to say that if it just went by your head, it would cause a concussion. I just don't know that I necessarily believe that. So is the grain. It would. speaker-0: This speaker-1: If it hits you, it's going to make a lot of, it's going to make a lot of damage just because of the velocity of the bullet once it goes inside. And plus the bullets are basically just disintegrate once it, because it's going so fast. Once it slows down, it's going to lose its integrity and kind of fall apart. But if it's aiming along and it's, and it's spiraling like a football from the rifling in the, ⁓ in the rifle, in the rifle barrel, I just don't know. mean, that's a, that's a. I mean, you, you, you talk about a shockwave. just don't know that I necessarily believe that because, ⁓ know, they make a, they make a dovetail, dovetail bullet just to help reduce as the bullet rides the shockwave. But those are larger caliber. Those are usually 30 calibre and up bullets. I had a, I had a, an old, ⁓ British rifle chambered in 303. speaker-0: can. speaker-1: And I had to shoot dovetail bullets out of it because it just was not accurate. It was a World War II gun. The barrels kind of shot out. It didn't really spin the that well. And you had to kind of use the dovetail so it wouldn't tumble from the velocity. And like I said, I'm not a ballistic science expert. I'm not going to say it's not true, but just at the times I have shot the gun, you know, I just... speaker-0: think if it passed his head, you'd think about the distance from the top of the ear to the head. We're talking millimeters. speaker-1: Yeah, speaker-0: You know, so, but the third point that I've always stuck with me was the whole way that all that and tribe where the kind of shielding, but then he stands up and he makes the big, which was a break protocol. speaker-1: There's another great target there. speaker-0: ⁓ here's the thing. If you've known Donald Trump for 40 something years, he's George Costanza at a party when someone yells fire. He would push his own children down, down, down, down off a building to save himself. He is not a brave person. If he literally had been shot at, he would have crapped his pants and would have cowered. speaker-1: Yeah The other thing too is that when Butler happened and the Secret Service sniper team did react very quickly and they killed the shooter, but they didn't know there was another shooter. And that's why that is one thing I will kind of throw that BS flag on. It's like, why did the Secret Service let him fight, fight, fight, make such a big target of himself when you don't really know yet. Exactly what the thread is. mean, so the first shooter gets, gets taken out, but what if there's a second shooter that has been undetected and then as soon as Trump comes up and it's like, yay, well you take him out that way. I it doesn't make any sense. That part does not, that had to be a break in protocol. Cause I just cannot see the secret servers letting him stick his head up like that. Yeah. They were surrounding him, but he was a big, he was a big target. He's a tall guy anyway, he's a big target. When you step in, you shake your fist and you stop and they're not trying to keep him going. I don't understand that. Yeah. I'm like, try not to say it's a conspiracy theory, but at the same time, it could just be a screw up by the secret service agents. don't know. speaker-0: And it's true that they've screwed up twice now ⁓ in a, in an extreme manner. He's not questioning that. Nobody on the Republican side is questioning that. ⁓ If that shooter had made it into the ballroom far enough to take shots at him, he was a sitting duck. So it's, and that, you know, that's the question on Facebook right now at that point. It's one of two questions. Are they that inept or was it a pit on? You know, and you know, and what perfect timing, you know, you started the Iran war to smoke, smoke screen the Epstein files. Well, now the Iran war is just, just as big a gossamer around your neck. So what do we know? speaker-1: Now we gotta build a ballroom. speaker-0: Yeah, yeah, you know, and actually that's what a lot of the Republicans are saying now. See, we need this. speaker-2: ⁓ speaker-1: Yeah, the president's never gonna leave the White House ever again. He's never gonna go on a campaign stop. He's never gonna speak in another hotel. He's never gonna go to Los Angeles and never speak or to Chicago. He's going to stay in the ballroom for the rest of his life. And you know, I can understand. Okay. If you want to have something like the, like the state of the union address where you've got the entire cabinet, the vice president, you've got literally the entire United States government. In one building, okay, you need something that's uber secure. But there was no reason why we had to have the president and the vice president and all, and the cabinet at the White House correspondence dinner. It doesn't make any sense to me. I ran, I ran an $800 billion bank, you know, when I was in my, in my day. But let me tell you, you know, and I traveled, me and my executive officers traveled occasionally to conferences and whatnot. You know, I never flew on the same airplane with my chief financial officer. I never flew on the same airplane with my, with my chairman of the board directors, although he was not an active officer of the bank, but we just felt like it was not a good, not a good idea. Right. To have both of us on the same airplane at the same time, because we're shareholders. We've got responsibilities. Why somebody thought it was okay for the president, vice president to be within 30 feet of each other in a ballroom. to have the secretary of defense and the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of health human services and the secretary of this and secretary of state and to have all the big hitters have the speaker of the house have the I mean that you basically had everybody but Supreme Court justice is there. I mean, it's okay. If I'm going you can't go I outrank you so you can't go JD. You got to sit home tonight, you know, because speaker-2: I mean it was like a state of reunion kind of thing. All those major cabinet people there and I don't know if I ever had that particular media event where you had the vice president there. I've never seen the VP there. speaker-0: And David, traditionally that event was, it was really a roast of the president. It had been for years. It wasn't this big spectacle. So, it's kind of funny the day before that thing, one of the, on the internet, one of those news magazines or whatever, the word was expect the unexpected at the press dinner. Well, yeah, we, we, we really got that. You know, it was almost like it was being set up. for that, that situation, but, I guess, ⁓ we hit our, we've gone past our time, but we always do, it's okay. We probably need to stick a pen in tonight and see what we visit next week. ⁓ So Tony and Jada Charles, appreciate it too. And we thank everyone for tuning in. ⁓ and then next week for the next segment of guardians of Republic. Hope everyone has a great night. speaker-1: We'll see you next week. Bye. Good night. speaker-2: Good night everybody.