📄 Extracted Text (10,993 words)
[00:00:00] tape emerges of the presumed kidnappers
[00:00:02] in the Nancy Guthrie kidnapping. We'll
[00:00:04] go through all the details with Lynden
[00:00:06] Blake. We also have breaking economic
[00:00:08] news as well as a shooting in Canada
[00:00:10] that appears to be trans. The shooter
[00:00:12] appears to be trans and airspace was
[00:00:14] closed in El Paso supposedly for 10 days
[00:00:17] and that was revised down. Mexican drug
[00:00:19] cartels breaching American airspace. A
[00:00:20] lot going on. First tonight, we're going
[00:00:22] live with an allnew friendly fire. If
[00:00:24] you've never watched Friendly Fire
[00:00:26] before, here's the deal. It's the only
[00:00:27] time and place you're going to get me,
[00:00:28] Matt Walsh, Michael Moles, Andrew
[00:00:29] Claven, all in the same place for a full
[00:00:31] hour, and we're going to say exactly
[00:00:32] what we think, as you might imagine. We
[00:00:34] take the biggest stories in the
[00:00:35] headlines. We discuss them, debate them,
[00:00:37] and we probably disagree on them just a
[00:00:39] little bit. And yes, the live chat will
[00:00:40] be open for members, so you can jump in
[00:00:42] and be part of the conversation with us.
[00:00:43] It starts tonight, 7:00 p.m. Eastern.
[00:00:45] Watch it at dailywire.com or on the
[00:00:48] DailyWire Plus app. Well, we do have
[00:00:50] some breaking news in the Nancy Guthrie
[00:00:52] kidnapping case. Some of it is good news
[00:00:55] in the sense that we now have more
[00:00:56] information. Some of it is a little bit
[00:00:58] squirrely in the sense that somebody was
[00:01:00] suspected and then picked up and then
[00:01:03] released over the course of the last 24
[00:01:05] hours. So, according to the New York
[00:01:07] Post, the FBI finally released the first
[00:01:08] images of Nancy Guthri suspected
[00:01:10] abductor. It was 10 days after she
[00:01:12] vanished from her Arizona home. The
[00:01:15] delay was caused by a couple of
[00:01:16] obstacles. One, her security camera was
[00:01:18] missing. and two, she did not actually
[00:01:20] subscribe to the camera's backup storage
[00:01:22] plan. She was not paying for a Google
[00:01:25] Home subscription, which would have
[00:01:26] stored her Nest feed, even if the
[00:01:27] physical camera was removed. But Google
[00:01:31] apparently was capable of of still
[00:01:33] drawing up that data. So, it took them
[00:01:36] 10 days to find that data. Investigators
[00:01:38] apparently could have gotten the video
[00:01:40] from Google in a few different ways.
[00:01:41] They could have gotten a search warrant
[00:01:43] to issue to Google or the family could
[00:01:45] have authorized them to conduct a search
[00:01:46] or Google could have voluntarily opted
[00:01:48] to track it down. Bottom line is that
[00:01:50] they are retaining an enormous amount of
[00:01:51] data. Obviously, here is what some of
[00:01:53] the video looks like. It is very creepy
[00:01:55] stuff.
[00:01:57] This is the Nest camera footage. You can
[00:01:59] see a person who is masked and who
[00:02:01] appears to be carrying a pistol in in
[00:02:03] his waistband, but kind of in an awkward
[00:02:06] place. There's been suspicion that this
[00:02:08] person was was an amateur specifically
[00:02:10] because of how he is carrying the
[00:02:12] pistol. He is carrying it directly in
[00:02:13] front of his crotch, which is a very
[00:02:15] dumb place to carry a weapon. That is
[00:02:16] not typically where you're going to
[00:02:17] holster a firearm. The person walks up
[00:02:20] to the the camera, appears to be messing
[00:02:21] with the camera, and then goes over to
[00:02:24] the the front of the house and and picks
[00:02:27] up an object.
[00:02:30] And then we have another angle of the
[00:02:32] person attempting to obstruct the object
[00:02:34] with leaves, trying to obstruct the
[00:02:36] camera with leaves.
[00:02:38] There is some suspicion that perhaps
[00:02:39] there's a hole in the glove which may
[00:02:40] have led to the leaving of some DNA
[00:02:42] evidence. Of course, that is just
[00:02:43] suspicion at this point.
[00:02:47] Unclear at this point the status of
[00:02:48] Nancy Guthrie. There's been no proof of
[00:02:50] life that that has actually been put out
[00:02:52] thus far. At the same time, TMZ founder
[00:02:55] Harvey Leven told CNN that the Bitcoin
[00:02:57] account that was attached to the first
[00:02:58] ransom note for Nancy Guthrie actually
[00:03:00] saw some activity late on Tuesday. Here
[00:03:03] was Harvey Leven reporting
[00:03:05] >> about 12 minutes ago. Uh, we saw
[00:03:09] activity in that account.
[00:03:14] >> Activity like what?
[00:03:18] >> That's what I can't talk about. Um there
[00:03:20] are reasons I can't but all I can say is
[00:03:24] there is now activity in that Bitcoin
[00:03:27] account.
[00:03:28] >> Okay. Now let me just ask one more
[00:03:31] question and you'll share with me what
[00:03:32] you can. But when you say activity is
[00:03:34] that that you can see money is going
[00:03:36] into the account or are you able to tell
[00:03:37] whether it's money going in or going
[00:03:39] out?
[00:03:41] >> Well, it would only show as I understand
[00:03:44] this money going in. Um, and the only
[00:03:47] thing you would see is money. And Aaron,
[00:03:49] that's all I can say.
[00:03:52] >> Okay. So, not a lot more information,
[00:03:54] but obviously that suggests there's
[00:03:56] somebody on the other end of the Bitcoin
[00:03:58] account who is drawing down the money.
[00:04:01] Late yesterday, there was some news that
[00:04:02] a person had been detained for
[00:04:03] questioning. That person has apparently
[00:04:05] now been released, according to the New
[00:04:06] York Times. In an interview early on
[00:04:08] Wednesday, the man said he had not heard
[00:04:09] about Nancy Guthrie, but hopes she's
[00:04:11] found safe. He said, "I hope they get
[00:04:12] the suspect because I'm not it." The FBI
[00:04:14] and Pima County, Arizona Sheriff's
[00:04:16] Department on Tuesday, had carried out a
[00:04:18] court authorized search related to the
[00:04:20] investigation in a place called Rio
[00:04:22] Rico, Arizona, which is an hours drive
[00:04:24] south of Tucson. As of 1:20 a.m. local
[00:04:27] time on Wednesday, the department had
[00:04:28] not yet confirmed it had released the
[00:04:29] person it had detained for questioning,
[00:04:31] but apparently they had completed their
[00:04:32] search of a property in Rio Rico.
[00:04:36] Joining us online to give us all the
[00:04:37] updates is the host of Finding Nancy
[00:04:39] Guthrie, our ongoing true crime podcast.
[00:04:41] Again, if you want all the updates on
[00:04:43] this case, you should be a Daily Wire
[00:04:44] subscriber so you can hear Lyndon Blake
[00:04:46] report on this stuff as it happens.
[00:04:48] Lyndon joins us on the line now. Lyndon,
[00:04:50] thanks so much for the time. Really
[00:04:50] appreciate it.
[00:04:52] >> Of course, a lot has happened over the
[00:04:54] last several hours, 12 hours, I would
[00:04:55] say. Ben.
[00:04:58] >> Yeah. So, why don't you give us the the
[00:04:59] brief update on what exactly is going on
[00:05:01] and and whether the investigation is
[00:05:02] progressing or whether wheels are just
[00:05:04] sort of spinning?
[00:05:06] Well, I would say a lot has picked up
[00:05:07] since that FBI footage or that since the
[00:05:10] FBI released that footage of the armed
[00:05:12] masked person from Nancy Guthri's front
[00:05:15] doorbell cam. It took 8 days that they
[00:05:18] worked with Google with the Nest cameras
[00:05:20] to try to recover that footage. And
[00:05:22] since that went out, I would say about
[00:05:25] 18 hours ago, things have really just
[00:05:27] started to pick up. There was a person
[00:05:29] detained for questioning uh south of
[00:05:31] Tucson last night in a town called Rio
[00:05:34] Rico. I just want to say that was always
[00:05:35] just for questioning. And that person
[00:05:38] was released. His name was Carlos. He
[00:05:39] said he was a delivery driver in the
[00:05:41] Tucson area. And he said when he was
[00:05:43] detained by the authorities, they showed
[00:05:46] him the picture of the masked armed
[00:05:48] person. And Carlos said that authorities
[00:05:52] thought they had similar eyes, but he
[00:05:53] said he didn't know who Nancy Guthrie
[00:05:55] was, doesn't know who Savannah Guthrie
[00:05:56] is, and all that. So that was the lead
[00:06:00] last night that was unfolding in real
[00:06:02] time pretty late into the night. and you
[00:06:04] were thinking that, okay, this footage
[00:06:06] was released, someone recognized this
[00:06:08] person, and maybe this could have been
[00:06:10] him and now we know that it wasn't, but
[00:06:13] it's normal to to bring people in for
[00:06:15] questioning and then they're gone. Like,
[00:06:17] I wouldn't call this like, oh, we're
[00:06:19] back at square one. I wouldn't say that
[00:06:21] at all. I think the footage is very
[00:06:24] clear. Even though there's a mask on,
[00:06:26] you can still tell a lot about the
[00:06:28] person's eyes, eyebrows, you can see
[00:06:30] facial hair, a mustache. You can see how
[00:06:32] tall they are. You can see the way they
[00:06:34] walk. And and the big thing is he turns
[00:06:36] around, you can see a backpack. People
[00:06:38] have already started to identify the
[00:06:41] windbreaker in this footage. I mean,
[00:06:43] these are how these things are solved.
[00:06:44] You look at what type of shoes that was
[00:06:46] wearing. And if you think about other
[00:06:48] crime cases, you don't always get such a
[00:06:50] clear footage or picture. And here you
[00:06:54] have 30 seconds of video of this guy
[00:06:57] kind of messing around because for
[00:06:59] someone that walked up to Nancy Guthri's
[00:07:01] house with a backpack full to the rim of
[00:07:05] things he obviously came prepared to do
[00:07:08] with, he was not ready to cover up a
[00:07:11] camera and then that's what you see in
[00:07:12] the video. He tried to go off and get
[00:07:16] some grass bush something and then went
[00:07:21] back to the camera to try to cover it
[00:07:22] up. So just a treasure chest of things
[00:07:24] to uncover there. But yeah, the absolute
[00:07:26] latest now no one is in any type of
[00:07:30] custody or being detained. The one
[00:07:32] person last night, his name was Carlos.
[00:07:33] He lived in Rio Rico and he was released
[00:07:36] about 1:00 a.m. Arizona time.
[00:07:40] >> So [snorts] Lynon, one of the other
[00:07:42] pieces of information that was that was
[00:07:43] put out by Harvey Leven over at TMZ is
[00:07:45] that there was action in the Bitcoin
[00:07:46] account to which the Guthrie family had
[00:07:48] sent a bunch of money. He not really
[00:07:50] revealed much about what was going on
[00:07:51] with that. You you would assume that
[00:07:52] just means somebody was drawing the
[00:07:53] money down.
[00:07:55] >> Yeah. Well, that was interesting because
[00:07:57] Harvey and he did say Harvey Leven TMZ
[00:07:59] founder who has laid eyes on this ransom
[00:08:02] note. He said he did not feel
[00:08:03] comfortable revealing the amount that
[00:08:05] was in there. He just he just didn't
[00:08:07] want to do that. He was very cautious
[00:08:09] about the wording when even talking
[00:08:11] about the Bitcoin activity in the ransom
[00:08:12] note. But KGN, a local station in Tucson
[00:08:16] that also got the note, they said it was
[00:08:18] less than $300. And I think that's huge,
[00:08:22] too, because the more we're learning
[00:08:23] about this new digital age that we're in
[00:08:26] and doing all this investigative work in
[00:08:28] this new era, like people, you know, at
[00:08:31] first like, oh, how can you track this?
[00:08:33] This physical Bitcoin address, like it
[00:08:36] will be able to be tracked. So, we don't
[00:08:39] know if that payment came from the FBI
[00:08:42] or someone putting in a little amount to
[00:08:44] see if the person would react. We don't
[00:08:46] know if it was the Guthrie family doing
[00:08:48] a test. I mean there that's not revealed
[00:08:51] but what is the facts is there was
[00:08:53] activity in that Bitcoin account that
[00:08:55] was related to the ransom note. Again we
[00:08:58] still don't know if that was
[00:08:59] authenticated if the person that was
[00:09:02] doing the ransom notes or people is the
[00:09:05] person that is on that doorbell footage
[00:09:07] that we now have. I mean you could be
[00:09:09] working the same spiderweb of things.
[00:09:11] You could be working two separate
[00:09:13] things. someone or some group that was
[00:09:16] completely just trying to take advantage
[00:09:17] of the situation with this ransom ordeal
[00:09:20] and then someone who was clearly at the
[00:09:23] door to commit the crime and we don't
[00:09:25] know if those intersect yet. But again,
[00:09:27] very interesting how both sectors kind
[00:09:30] of started developing after that footage
[00:09:33] was released. And I will say that FBI
[00:09:36] director Cash Patel, he did kind of hint
[00:09:38] and he could have misspoke. you know,
[00:09:40] you're doing these interviews, you're
[00:09:41] talking and things come out. But he
[00:09:43] acted like they were continuing to look
[00:09:45] for persons of interest and we saw the
[00:09:49] one person on that doorbell camera. But
[00:09:52] it leads me to believe we know there was
[00:09:53] multiple cameras at the home. Maybe we
[00:09:55] get more footage. Maybe we do see more
[00:09:57] people. But right now with what
[00:09:59] authorities have given to the public and
[00:10:01] what authorities have gotten themselves,
[00:10:02] and I was also told that authorities got
[00:10:05] that video Tuesday as well, there's this
[00:10:07] big debate. Why did they keep it? so
[00:10:09] long they saw it for the first time then
[00:10:12] released it. So there may be more that
[00:10:15] that comes out but bravo to them for
[00:10:18] working with Google and Google for
[00:10:20] working with the FBI to get this
[00:10:22] recovered footage because this is how
[00:10:24] these things get solved.
[00:10:27] Now
[00:10:28] >> Lyndon one of the things that that still
[00:10:29] has not provided so far as I'm aware is
[00:10:31] any proof of life whatsoever. So we are
[00:10:33] now 11 days into this ordeal and the
[00:10:35] Guthrie family has been waiting for
[00:10:36] proof of life this entire time. We know
[00:10:38] that they didn't bring the medication
[00:10:39] because Savannah Guthrie mentioned that
[00:10:40] that they had not brought the
[00:10:41] medication. We know that that she had a
[00:10:44] life-threatening situation if she did
[00:10:45] not obtain medication. And you would
[00:10:47] imagine that that her kidnappers are not
[00:10:49] exactly going to head on over to the CVS
[00:10:50] and pick up the medication because that
[00:10:52] would be the number one red flag for for
[00:10:54] you know attempting to to track these
[00:10:56] people down. And so there's every
[00:10:58] possibility at this point that god
[00:10:59] forbid something has happened to Nancy
[00:11:01] Guthrie and and she actually is no
[00:11:02] longer alive.
[00:11:04] >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean that's like the
[00:11:05] that's the human part of this all and it
[00:11:08] just makes you so sad is that there is
[00:11:11] this 80 there's all this stuff happening
[00:11:13] with at the end of the day there's this
[00:11:15] 84 year old woman who is dependent on
[00:11:18] medication and help from people to
[00:11:20] survive right now and it's now 11 days
[00:11:23] without that but what gives me hope is
[00:11:26] that something and it could just be
[00:11:28] Savannah again leaning on her faith but
[00:11:30] she is saying even after that footage
[00:11:32] was released on Tuesday that she
[00:11:34] believes her mother is still alive. And
[00:11:36] that was a strong statement in response
[00:11:39] to the video that went out Saturday
[00:11:41] night where everybody could read into
[00:11:43] the words where Savannah said, "Bring,
[00:11:46] you know, bring her back to us. That's
[00:11:48] the only way we'll have peace so we can
[00:11:50] celebrate with her." People looked at
[00:11:52] that video and they're like, "Okay, does
[00:11:56] the family now think that NY's no longer
[00:11:59] with us?" But then you get the two posts
[00:12:02] on Instagram for from Savannah on
[00:12:04] Tuesday where clearly she is like
[00:12:06] someone knows this person. I believe my
[00:12:09] mother's still alive. Let's bring her
[00:12:11] home.
[00:12:14] Well, that is Lynen Blake. You can go
[00:12:16] check out all of her coverage of this
[00:12:18] issue. It it has been extraordinary
[00:12:20] throughout this entire process. She's
[00:12:22] doing a series called Finding Nancy
[00:12:24] Guthrie that is available only at Daily
[00:12:25] Wire Plus. Lynen, thanks so much for the
[00:12:27] time and the coverage as usual.
[00:12:29] Thanks, Ben.
[00:12:30] >> We'll get to breaking news from a
[00:12:32] terrible story in Canada in just one
[00:12:34] moment. First, when we launched the
[00:12:36] Daily Wire, we had all the usual
[00:12:37] uncertainties. What if nobody listens or
[00:12:38] people don't care what we have to say?
[00:12:40] Well, we're glad we took the risk. You
[00:12:41] can launch a business as well with our
[00:12:43] sponsor, Shopify. Shopify is the
[00:12:45] e-commerce platform powering millions of
[00:12:46] businesses all around the world and 10%
[00:12:49] of all e-commerce in the United States,
[00:12:51] including our very own Daily Wire Shop.
[00:12:52] Getting started is super simple. With
[00:12:54] hundreds of readytouse templates, you
[00:12:56] can build a beautiful online store that
[00:12:57] matches your brand's style. Shopify is
[00:12:59] packed with helpful AI tools that write
[00:13:01] product descriptions, page headlines,
[00:13:03] and even enhance your product
[00:13:04] photography so you can accelerate your
[00:13:06] efficiency. Whether you're uploading new
[00:13:07] products or improving existing ones,
[00:13:09] maybe you already know you have a good
[00:13:10] product, but you need help getting the
[00:13:11] word out. Shopify helps you find your
[00:13:13] customers with easy to run email and
[00:13:15] social media campaigns, making it feel
[00:13:16] like you have a marketing team behind
[00:13:18] you. You can tackle all those important
[00:13:19] tasks in one place. From inventory to
[00:13:21] payments to analytics without juggling
[00:13:23] multiple websites or platforms for small
[00:13:25] CPG teams or launching products, Shopify
[00:13:27] is indispensable. If you ever get stuck,
[00:13:29] Shopify's award-winning 24/7 customer
[00:13:31] support is always around to help. Plus,
[00:13:33] that iconic purple Shopay button just
[00:13:35] recognizable. It is the best converting
[00:13:37] checkout on planet Earth. And that means
[00:13:38] more sales for you. It's time to turn
[00:13:40] those whatifs into with Shopify today.
[00:13:43] Sign up for your $1 per month trial
[00:13:45] today at shopify.com/appiro. Head on
[00:13:47] over to shopify.com/appiro.
[00:13:49] That's shopify.com/appiro.
[00:13:52] In [bell] other criminal justice news up
[00:13:54] in Canada, one of the worst shootings in
[00:13:55] recent memory. According to the New York
[00:13:57] Times, Canada was reeling on Wednesday,
[00:13:59] a day after a shooter killed nine people
[00:14:00] and injured 25 others in a remote town
[00:14:03] in northeastern British Columbia, the
[00:14:04] third deadliest shooting in the
[00:14:06] country's entire history. Seven people
[00:14:08] were found dead in Tumblr Ridge
[00:14:09] Secondary School, including a person
[00:14:11] believed to be the shooter who
[00:14:12] apparently committed suicide. Two other
[00:14:14] people were found dead in a local
[00:14:15] residence people believed was connected
[00:14:17] to the shooting. Another person died
[00:14:19] while being transported from the school
[00:14:21] to the hospital. 25 people suffered
[00:14:22] injuries that were not life-threatening.
[00:14:26] This was the second deadly incident in
[00:14:27] British Columbia in less than a year
[00:14:29] because back in April, a man drove a car
[00:14:30] into a crowd. Now, the gun laws in
[00:14:34] Canada are incredibly strict. Gun
[00:14:36] ownership is allowed with a license in
[00:14:40] Canada, but they've had a number of gun
[00:14:42] buybacks. In the aftermath of shootings
[00:14:44] a couple of years ago, Canada tightened
[00:14:46] its laws even more. They essentially
[00:14:47] banned AR-15s. And so Canada should be
[00:14:50] sort of case in point of how gun control
[00:14:52] works, except for obviously in this case
[00:14:54] it did not work. Now, just as
[00:14:57] importantly, there are reports that are
[00:14:58] filtering out the police know exactly
[00:15:00] who did this, and they say they know
[00:15:02] exactly who did this, but as per our
[00:15:03] usual arrangement, if the suspect is not
[00:15:05] somebody who matches up with the profile
[00:15:06] of a straight white man of right-wing
[00:15:09] orientation, that means it's time for
[00:15:10] the police to obscure who the shooter
[00:15:12] allegedly was. Staff Sergeant Chris
[00:15:15] Clark was asked about all of this. And
[00:15:18] and he says that he's not going to name
[00:15:20] the shooter and then proceeds to call
[00:15:21] the person a gun person, which is a word
[00:15:23] I did not know existed.
[00:15:26] That includes the deceased gun person.
[00:15:28] >> Okay. And then separately, do you know
[00:15:30] the gun person's relationship to
[00:15:35] >> Okay. Apparently the the gun person the
[00:15:37] reason that this term is is being used.
[00:15:39] He says because it would impede the
[00:15:40] investigation and for privacy reasons.
[00:15:42] And I'm I'm less than concerned about
[00:15:44] the privacy of people who go and shoot
[00:15:45] school children. I don't really care
[00:15:47] very much about their privacy to be
[00:15:48] honest with you.
[00:15:50] I think that that they should be blasted
[00:15:52] all out over the news so long as it's
[00:15:54] not encouraging further shooters. Here
[00:15:56] is the police saying that they're not
[00:15:57] going to say anything about who the
[00:15:58] shooter was. Usually that's not about
[00:16:01] preventing future crime. Usually that is
[00:16:02] more about politics.
[00:16:04] >> We believe we've uh been able to
[00:16:06] identify the shooter, but for privacy
[00:16:08] reasons and and obviously for the
[00:16:10] conduct of the investigation, we're not
[00:16:11] releasing that information at that time
[00:16:13] until we're sure that we've connected
[00:16:15] with the appropriate people.
[00:16:18] And while the internet quickly went to
[00:16:20] work and it appears that the person who
[00:16:22] did the shooting was trans. That is at
[00:16:25] least the information that is filtering
[00:16:26] out.
[00:16:28] There are questions about this person's
[00:16:32] recent move toward identifying as
[00:16:35] female. The entire media have identified
[00:16:37] this person as female, which is
[00:16:39] malpractice. It is journalistic
[00:16:40] malpractice. If this person is a
[00:16:42] biological male who is masquerading as a
[00:16:44] female, a biological male with gender
[00:16:45] dysphoria, a biological male insisting
[00:16:47] that he be called a woman, that does not
[00:16:49] make him a female, and it is a slander
[00:16:51] against women to artificially increase
[00:16:53] their homicide rate against children by
[00:16:56] calling a male a female. If suddenly
[00:16:59] statistically there's just an uptick in
[00:17:02] women winning boxing matches against men
[00:17:05] and being able to dunk and also
[00:17:07] committing murder, it seems to me that
[00:17:09] that is a slander against women because
[00:17:11] if you're just calling men women now,
[00:17:12] then you got a problem.
[00:17:14] It is also a perverse incentive
[00:17:17] that the only way you earn respect from
[00:17:20] the mainstream media and and in life is
[00:17:22] to do harm to other people at which
[00:17:24] point the media will call you by your
[00:17:25] preferred pronoun.
[00:17:27] And all this information is filtering
[00:17:29] out right now. We'll bring you more as
[00:17:31] it develops. But once again, societies
[00:17:34] that tend to mainstream delusion and
[00:17:36] treat them as though they are normal and
[00:17:38] then blame the gun, blame the instrument
[00:17:41] rather than the mainstreaming of mental
[00:17:43] illness, especially mental illness that
[00:17:45] has an extraordinarily high crossover
[00:17:46] with suicidality and depression.
[00:17:49] Nobody is doing anybody any favors. the
[00:17:51] people who identify as trans or in
[00:17:55] outlying cases their victims.
[00:17:58] And it is very difficult to deny that we
[00:17:59] are now seeing a trend with regard to
[00:18:01] mass shootings that is emerging from
[00:18:04] trans shooters. This was not an issue 15
[00:18:07] years ago. It just wasn't. Derrangement
[00:18:10] took other forms that obviously has
[00:18:12] changed and the media and governmental
[00:18:14] policy have a lot to do with it. Joining
[00:18:16] us online is Leori, a senior fellow at
[00:18:18] the Manhattan Institute who covers
[00:18:20] topics related to pediatric gender
[00:18:22] medicine, education, policy, and
[00:18:23] culture. We of course at the Daily Wire
[00:18:25] have been covering this stuff
[00:18:26] extensively for years up to and
[00:18:28] including a bunch of breaking news about
[00:18:29] the AMA's treatment, absurd treatment of
[00:18:31] trans medicine. That was a story that we
[00:18:33] broke last year. It made a lot of the
[00:18:36] rounds and I think it made a significant
[00:18:37] shift in the culture surrounding the
[00:18:39] cult of trans medicine. He has a piece
[00:18:41] out recently talking about the lack of
[00:18:43] consensus among medical groups on what
[00:18:45] they are calling gender affirming care
[00:18:46] for minors. Leader, thanks so much for
[00:18:47] the time. Really appreciate it.
[00:18:50] >> Thanks for having me, Ben.
[00:18:53] >> So, why don't we begin with with sort of
[00:18:54] the news of the day. So, it is now being
[00:18:56] reported that the shooter up in Tumblr
[00:19:00] Ridge in Canada is a person who
[00:19:03] identified as trans. This has become a
[00:19:05] an alarming pattern in which people who
[00:19:08] identify as trans uh have been engaged
[00:19:10] in acts of violence. This of course is
[00:19:12] not totally surprising given the fact
[00:19:13] that people who identify as trans have a
[00:19:16] a very very high rate of of suicidality
[00:19:18] of of depression. And you know again the
[00:19:22] the media continue to treat this as
[00:19:23] though this is of no consequence.
[00:19:26] They're referring to the prospective
[00:19:28] shooter up in Tumblr Ridge as a she,
[00:19:30] even though pretty clearly there's a
[00:19:32] biological he. And this goes to kind of
[00:19:33] our entire society's willingness to say
[00:19:36] things that are biologically false
[00:19:38] supposedly in pursuit of sympathy for
[00:19:39] people who are suffering from a mental
[00:19:41] disorder. And and that of course is not
[00:19:44] backed by medicine which is the thing
[00:19:45] that you're writing about.
[00:19:47] >> That's right. That's right. Um, and so
[00:19:49] these are very troubled young, usually
[00:19:51] young, uh, adolescent boys, young men,
[00:19:55] um, who have, you know, a wide range of
[00:19:57] mental health problems and usually very
[00:20:00] troubled histories and, um, and they're
[00:20:02] not getting the care that they need.
[00:20:03] They're not getting the societal
[00:20:05] response that they deserve. Um, and
[00:20:08] instead, you know, they're being led
[00:20:09] down a path where they believe that, um,
[00:20:12] things like transition will be a cure
[00:20:15] for all their problems when we just know
[00:20:17] that that's not the case. Um, so it's
[00:20:19] it's unfortunate that we've gotten to
[00:20:20] this point, but you know, hopefully
[00:20:23] there will be a wakeup moment uh in the
[00:20:25] near future.
[00:20:28] So, speaking of that, it's it's been
[00:20:29] pretty amazing how over the course of
[00:20:31] the last couple of weeks, major medical
[00:20:33] groups have now come out and completely
[00:20:35] reversed themselves on what they were
[00:20:36] saying on quote unquote gender affirming
[00:20:38] care for years. For years, it was D.
[00:20:40] Regor in the medical community to
[00:20:42] proclaim that hormone treatment, that
[00:20:45] social transition, that that actual
[00:20:47] surgery was the solution for people
[00:20:49] suffering for gender dysphoria,
[00:20:51] particularly minors, because the idea
[00:20:52] was that if you didn't arrest puberty
[00:20:54] when a kid was 11 years old, that that
[00:20:57] person will look more like their
[00:20:59] biological sex than they otherwise
[00:21:00] would, and so you're doing them a grave
[00:21:01] of harm. Now, after a few lawsuits and
[00:21:04] after it turns out that the science
[00:21:05] doesn't reflect any of this, we're
[00:21:06] suddenly getting the the slow and soft
[00:21:08] walk back of, oh, well, actually, we
[00:21:10] don't have any evidence to show this
[00:21:11] worked in the first place. So, we've had
[00:21:13] thousands presumably of children who've
[00:21:14] been surgically or or hormonally
[00:21:16] mutilated. And does anyone pay a price
[00:21:19] for this? What What was the actual
[00:21:20] driving factor in them suddenly changing
[00:21:22] their tune?
[00:21:24] >> Well, I guess the first thing I would
[00:21:25] say is this was never a wide and deep
[00:21:28] consensus of the medical profession. Um,
[00:21:30] this was always a consensus brought
[00:21:32] about by a very small number of medical
[00:21:35] organizations and one activist
[00:21:36] organization that claims to be a medical
[00:21:38] group. That's the World Professional
[00:21:39] Association for Transgender Health. And
[00:21:42] once you start looking into how the
[00:21:44] consensus came about, you you start to
[00:21:46] realize that it was the result of a you
[00:21:48] know activists usually in key committees
[00:21:50] within these organizations
[00:21:52] um capturing the decision-m mechanisms
[00:21:55] and then the rest of the medical
[00:21:56] community remaining silent or saying
[00:21:58] look we're just going to trust our
[00:22:00] colleagues because they're experts in
[00:22:01] this area and you know we always trust
[00:22:04] um we always defer to our expert
[00:22:06] colleagues in medicine. So, um I think
[00:22:08] that's really important just to start
[00:22:09] there that this was never a wide and
[00:22:11] deep consensus, but you're right. Um uh
[00:22:13] you know, we've had last week we saw the
[00:22:16] first major medical group come out and
[00:22:17] say, um at least surgeries should be
[00:22:20] deferred until, uh, you know, minimum
[00:22:23] age 19. Um and I should point out that
[00:22:26] the American Society of Plastic
[00:22:27] Surgeons, that's the organization that
[00:22:29] published this statement, um is the
[00:22:31] largest organization of its kind. It
[00:22:33] represents 11,000 um plastic surgeons in
[00:22:36] the United States and Canada, which is
[00:22:37] over 90% of the field. So this is a
[00:22:39] major major medical group. Um and the
[00:22:42] American Medical Association the
[00:22:44] following day issued its own statement
[00:22:46] um to the New York Times and National
[00:22:48] Review um basically saying agreeing with
[00:22:50] uh with their colleagues, their surgeon
[00:22:52] colleagues, but they added the word
[00:22:54] generally. They said surgeries should
[00:22:56] generally be deferred until age 19 or
[00:22:58] above. Um and so if you know anything
[00:23:01] about the field and how it operates,
[00:23:02] that is a massive loophole. Um so it
[00:23:05] remains to be seen what exactly the
[00:23:06] AMA's position on this is. But the fact
[00:23:08] that the ASPS
[00:23:10] um issued this statement and it's a
[00:23:12] extremely good statement and we can we
[00:23:14] can talk about it, but it it's it's a
[00:23:16] very very important moment.
[00:23:19] Now, do you think that was driven by
[00:23:21] medical liability claims? Because
[00:23:22] obviously there had been a major lawsuit
[00:23:23] that was won by a quote unquote
[00:23:25] dransitioner, a person who had surgeries
[00:23:27] who then realized that that was a huge
[00:23:28] mistake and she sued her plastic surgeon
[00:23:30] and won a couple million dollars. And
[00:23:32] so, this is a real liability issue now
[00:23:34] for for surgeons. Certainly, the science
[00:23:36] didn't change between now and then.
[00:23:38] >> Well, I I can say one thing with
[00:23:40] confidence in that and that is that this
[00:23:42] uh statement was not issued in response
[00:23:44] to the uh that particular lawsuit. And
[00:23:47] you know, we can know that because it's
[00:23:48] a very carefully written statement and
[00:23:50] it came out within, I think, 48 hours
[00:23:52] after the lawsuit was announced and the
[00:23:54] lawsuit was not being reported until the
[00:23:56] jury actually reached the verdict. So,
[00:23:58] um there's virtually zero chance that um
[00:24:00] that the ASPS managed to draft this very
[00:24:03] careful statement and get it through all
[00:24:05] of its approval process within 48 hours.
[00:24:07] So I think that's important because if
[00:24:09] you read the statement you see that they
[00:24:11] are taking very seriously um all of the
[00:24:14] knowledge that has emerged in the last
[00:24:16] five or six years as scientific scrutiny
[00:24:19] of the field um began in earnest I think
[00:24:22] in in Scandinavia uh in 2019. Um and so
[00:24:26] the ASPS cites uh all of the systematic
[00:24:29] reviews. It cites the CAS review. It
[00:24:31] cites the HHS uh review of which I was a
[00:24:34] co-author. Um and these are you know
[00:24:36] these are massive um systematic reviews
[00:24:39] of the literature um which is the most
[00:24:42] reliable method in evidence-based
[00:24:43] medicine to evaluate uh uh medical
[00:24:46] evidence. Um I think it's important also
[00:24:48] that the ASPS includes um some
[00:24:50] considerations about ethics decision-m
[00:24:52] for minors. Um because one of the
[00:24:55] arguments, as I'm sure you know, Ben, as
[00:24:56] somebody who's followed this debate, one
[00:24:58] of the key arguments now being made um
[00:25:01] by Democrats, by LGBT organizations, by
[00:25:04] gender clinicians in particular, um they
[00:25:06] have conceded over the last few years
[00:25:08] that the evidence is very weak. What
[00:25:10] they argue is that in the face of weak
[00:25:12] evidence, um decisions about whether to
[00:25:15] treat and how to treat should should be
[00:25:16] be between parents who consent on behalf
[00:25:19] of their kids and doctors. meaning what
[00:25:21] should matter is the autonomy of the
[00:25:23] patient and the uh let's call it the
[00:25:25] proxy autonomy of the of the parents to
[00:25:27] decide well ASPS comes out and basically
[00:25:30] says you know autonomy is the right to
[00:25:32] refuse treatments that are appropriately
[00:25:35] offered to patients it is not a right to
[00:25:37] uh obtain any intervention you want from
[00:25:40] a doctor and that distinction between
[00:25:43] those two understandings of of autonomy
[00:25:45] is the distinction between medicine and
[00:25:47] consumerism and it's very important I
[00:25:50] think that ASPS of all organizations,
[00:25:52] the plastic surgeons came out and said,
[00:25:54] you know, we cannot allow medicine to
[00:25:55] devolve into consumerism. We have to
[00:25:58] protect the sacred principle of
[00:25:59] autonomy. And it's been misunderstood
[00:26:01] and mis applied in this area.
[00:26:04] And and this is I think why the
[00:26:06] statement is is really fascinating is
[00:26:08] because of where they set the the age
[00:26:09] limit, right? They said that it's about
[00:26:10] whether somebody is a minor or whether
[00:26:12] somebody's a major, which is a legal
[00:26:13] issue. That is not a medical issue. It
[00:26:15] is not as though, you know, your medical
[00:26:16] issue changes between the time you're 18
[00:26:18] and 19 or 17 and 19. The the real issue
[00:26:22] here is that if you don't want to get
[00:26:23] sued and and if you want to be able to
[00:26:25] quote unquote consent to a surgery, you
[00:26:26] have to be of a particular age. And so
[00:26:28] what that really suggests is that these
[00:26:30] surgeries are not they have no evidence
[00:26:31] they're therapeutic. And it it totally
[00:26:33] undercuts the argument of the the sort
[00:26:35] of trans grift medicine industry, which
[00:26:37] is that the reason that people are
[00:26:38] getting these things is not because it's
[00:26:40] a nose job, but because it's going to
[00:26:41] save your life and prevent somebody from
[00:26:42] committing suicide. Uh, and and so that
[00:26:44] that has always been the argument in in
[00:26:46] the genderbased trans community and and
[00:26:49] the the the evidence for that is so
[00:26:51] scanty that they're now basically
[00:26:52] reducing this to the question of whether
[00:26:54] somebody should be able to get a nose
[00:26:56] job once they're above age or not.
[00:27:00] >> Right? Uh I would say that when gender
[00:27:03] clinicians and their allies are speaking
[00:27:05] to the public in particular to the
[00:27:06] skeptical public, so you know lawmakers
[00:27:09] and legislative hearings to uh news
[00:27:11] reporters and mainstream uh media
[00:27:13] outlets um and even to parents who you
[00:27:16] know kind of have concerns about their
[00:27:17] kids and want to know what to do then
[00:27:19] yes they frame these interventions as a
[00:27:21] mental health intervention. They make
[00:27:23] claims about reduction in depression,
[00:27:25] anxiety, suicidal ideiation and and so
[00:27:27] forth. um when they talk amongst
[00:27:29] themselves um and you can see this when
[00:27:32] you know you look at their videos from
[00:27:34] conferences when you um when you you
[00:27:36] know see kind of uh when you watch um uh
[00:27:39] video calls in which which were somehow
[00:27:42] leaked to the public um you see that
[00:27:44] they actually offer different uh ration.
[00:27:46] They say that this is about helping kids
[00:27:49] who are or helping people in general who
[00:27:50] are otherwise healthy achieve their
[00:27:52] embodiment goals, achieve their cosmetic
[00:27:55] um goals for how they want their body to
[00:27:57] look in light of their internal sense of
[00:27:59] gender. So um so you know these are two
[00:28:02] rationes that have been offered for
[00:28:03] these interventions and they kind of hop
[00:28:06] back and forth between them depending on
[00:28:07] who they're talking to and what it is
[00:28:09] that they're trying to to persuade.
[00:28:12] >> Well, that's Leor Superior. Go check out
[00:28:14] all of his work over at Manhattan
[00:28:15] Institute. Leard, thanks so much for the
[00:28:17] time and the insight.
[00:28:18] >> Thanks, Ben.
[00:28:20] >> In other bizarre news, the FAA had
[00:28:22] announced there would be a 10-day
[00:28:24] closure over the El Paso airport.
[00:28:27] Apparently, the reason why the airspace
[00:28:30] had been closed, not sure why there was
[00:28:32] a 10-day period that was attached, but
[00:28:33] apparently, according to Jennifer Jacobs
[00:28:35] reporting for CBS News, the decision to
[00:28:38] close the El Paso International Airport
[00:28:40] to all flights for 10 days was triggered
[00:28:42] by Mexican cartel drones breaching US
[00:28:44] airspace. And apparently the defense
[00:28:46] department took action to disable the
[00:28:48] drones which you assume it means that
[00:28:49] they are shooting down the drones. Now
[00:28:51] I've seen those drones personally. If
[00:28:53] you go check out behind the payw wall
[00:28:55] our series about the divided states
[00:28:58] Biden, one of the things we did is went
[00:28:59] down to the Arizona border and there was
[00:29:02] a point where we literally saw cartel
[00:29:04] drones overflowing American territory
[00:29:06] along the Arizona border. This is what
[00:29:08] the cartels do. They fly these drones so
[00:29:10] as to monitor American law enforcement
[00:29:12] so they can smuggle drugs across the
[00:29:14] border. And so it is not a surprise at
[00:29:16] all that Mexican cartel drones were
[00:29:18] breaching US airspace. They've been
[00:29:20] doing this on a routine basis. Good for
[00:29:21] the Trump administration for finally
[00:29:23] shooting them down. Actually, I remember
[00:29:24] when I was at the border, I I asked
[00:29:26] Border Patrol, we were doing a ride
[00:29:27] along. I asked Border Patrol why they
[00:29:29] they weren't just shooting the drones
[00:29:31] down. They're on American territory and
[00:29:32] they said they would have had to had
[00:29:34] sign off from Alejandro Mayorus, then
[00:29:36] the head of the Department of Homeland
[00:29:37] Security. So presumably the Trump
[00:29:39] administration has now decided to
[00:29:41] activate with regard to these drones and
[00:29:43] shoot them down routinely. Still not
[00:29:45] sure why that meant a 10day announcement
[00:29:48] as opposed to a temporary announcement.
[00:29:50] Maybe they're expecting that more drones
[00:29:51] were coming and now they're not.
[00:29:53] Whatever the case may be, that is the
[00:29:54] right decision by the Trump
[00:29:55] administration. We should not have
[00:29:57] foreign overflights of American
[00:29:58] territory. Well, speaking of stories,
[00:30:01] upon which we are still finding out the
[00:30:02] whole story, as more Epstein files drip
[00:30:06] into view, a as as more pages drip out,
[00:30:11] as as redactions are undone,
[00:30:15] new questions emerge.
[00:30:17] John Thun, the Senate Majority Leader,
[00:30:20] he says that obviously if your name is
[00:30:21] in the Epstein files, you're going to
[00:30:22] end up answering some questions. This
[00:30:24] this applies presumably to Howard
[00:30:26] Lutnik, the commerce secretary whose
[00:30:27] name was brought into public view
[00:30:29] yesterday.
[00:30:31] >> Well, look, I think it's going to be
[00:30:33] ultimately what happens there is
[00:30:34] probably going to be up to the American
[00:30:35] people and um the what I've been for and
[00:30:38] I've been very clear about this from the
[00:30:40] outset is uh full disclosure, get the
[00:30:42] information out there. Let's have
[00:30:44] transparency and uh I think that's being
[00:30:46] done. And so, um, you know, for people
[00:30:49] whose names appear or in some context
[00:30:52] might be in the Epstein files, uh,
[00:30:54] they're going to have to answer the
[00:30:55] questions around that. And I think the
[00:30:57] American people are going to have to
[00:30:58] make judgments about whether or not they
[00:31:00] think those answers are sufficient.
[00:31:02] >> Now, there there are conflicting stories
[00:31:04] coming out about President Trump.
[00:31:05] Obviously, President Trump's enemies
[00:31:07] want to claim that he was deeply
[00:31:08] embedded with Jeffrey Epste. So far, we
[00:31:10] actually know the names of the people
[00:31:11] who are very much embed with Jeffrey
[00:31:12] Epstein, as we talked about at length on
[00:31:14] yesterday's show. Steve Bannon was one
[00:31:16] of those people, but obviously Peter
[00:31:17] Mandlesson, who was a member of the UK
[00:31:19] government, was another one of those
[00:31:21] people and their various business
[00:31:22] people,
[00:31:24] including, of course, Les Wexner, who
[00:31:26] were deeply in bed with with Jeffrey
[00:31:27] Epstein. Some new details are coming out
[00:31:29] about that. There was apparently an FBI
[00:31:31] file that listed him, Lex Wexner, the
[00:31:34] Victoria Secret founder, as a secondary
[00:31:36] co-conspirator with Epste. He was never
[00:31:38] charged as such, but a lot of money
[00:31:41] passing from Wexner to Epstein and vice
[00:31:43] versa. mostly from Wexner to Epstein and
[00:31:46] and not the other way around.
[00:31:48] Yesterday I suggested that if Roana and
[00:31:51] Thomas Massie wanted to actually forward
[00:31:53] the case, what they should do is just
[00:31:54] use their congressional immunity to read
[00:31:56] the names of people who had been
[00:31:58] redacted into the congressional record,
[00:32:00] which you can do without fear of
[00:32:01] liability. Roana actually did do that.
[00:32:03] So, you know, props to him. I think
[00:32:05] that's not a bad thing. I think now he
[00:32:07] should actually show evidence that the
[00:32:08] people he's mentioning did something
[00:32:10] nefarious. Just naming names without
[00:32:12] kind of explaining what they did seems
[00:32:14] like not amazing practice. Some of these
[00:32:16] people have already been mentioned
[00:32:18] publicly. Here is here's Roana doing
[00:32:20] this. The California congressperson
[00:32:22] yesterday.
[00:32:24] >> Congressman Massie and I went to the
[00:32:26] Department of Justice to read the
[00:32:28] unredacted Epstein files. We spent about
[00:32:31] two hours there and we learned that 70
[00:32:34] to 80% of the files are still redacted.
[00:32:40] In fact, there were six wealthy,
[00:32:43] powerful men that the DOJ hid for no
[00:32:46] apparent reason. When Congressman Massie
[00:32:49] and I pointed this out to the Department
[00:32:52] of Justice, they acknowledged their
[00:32:54] mistake. And now they have revealed the
[00:32:57] identity of these six powerful men.
[00:33:00] These men are Salvatore Nav'ora, Zorab
[00:33:04] Mikolads, Leapig Leonor, Nicolola
[00:33:08] Capuda,
[00:33:10] Sultan Ahmed bin Soliam, CEO of Dubai
[00:33:14] Ports World, and billionaire businessman
[00:33:17] Lesie Wexner.
[00:33:20] Okay, so again, some of those names you
[00:33:22] already know. We already knew about
[00:33:23] Lesie Wexner, obviously. Literally tens
[00:33:26] of millions of dollars passing hands
[00:33:27] from Wexner to Epstein.
[00:33:30] And what the files show is that again an
[00:33:32] FBI document apparently listed him at
[00:33:34] one point as a secondary co-conspirator,
[00:33:35] but he was never charged as such. Sultan
[00:33:37] Ahmed binam is the chairman and CEO of
[00:33:40] Dubai based logistics giant. And he was
[00:33:42] linked to a 2009 email that read, quote,
[00:33:45] I loved the torture video and apparently
[00:33:47] he was discussing sexual incidents with
[00:33:49] Epstein in 2015.
[00:33:53] Nicola Caputo. It is unconfirmed exactly
[00:33:56] who that is, but there is an Italian
[00:33:58] politician who served as a member of
[00:34:00] European Parliament whose name was
[00:34:02] redacted and then unredacted, which is
[00:34:04] which is how obviously Roana saw it. It
[00:34:07] is unclear what the allegations against
[00:34:08] him are. And this is sort of one of the
[00:34:09] problems with the entire release of the
[00:34:11] Epstein files. It was not done
[00:34:13] methodically. when when you just sort of
[00:34:15] dump millions of pages into the public
[00:34:17] view without any sort of contextual
[00:34:19] explanation of what people are looking
[00:34:20] at, it becomes very very easy to make
[00:34:23] allegations that are unevident. So I I
[00:34:25] don't know even what the allegations are
[00:34:26] against Nicolola Caputo. I just know
[00:34:28] that his name got mentioned yesterday by
[00:34:29] Roana. Same thing with Salvator Nara.
[00:34:32] Unclear who this person is. Doesn't seem
[00:34:34] to be a famous person. Or Zurab Micadzi.
[00:34:38] Unclear who he is or what the
[00:34:39] allegations are. Or Leon Leonov. Unclear
[00:34:42] who he is or what the allegations are.
[00:34:44] So they they sort of found some names.
[00:34:46] They they brought those names out in
[00:34:48] public. And again, I think that that is
[00:34:49] good for transparency. If there's no
[00:34:51] reason for those names to be redacted, I
[00:34:53] will say that if people's lives are
[00:34:54] ruined on the basis of no evidence
[00:34:56] whatsoever, that doesn't seem to be a a
[00:34:58] wonderful wonderful thing. As far as
[00:35:01] President Trump, apparently, according
[00:35:04] to the New York Times, one of the first
[00:35:05] calls the Palm Beach police received was
[00:35:07] from Donald Trump. According to a local
[00:35:09] police chief at the time, he told the
[00:35:12] FBI that more than a decade later. That
[00:35:14] was after it became known that Epstein
[00:35:15] was under investigation in the 2000s.
[00:35:17] Trump reportedly told the chief when
[00:35:19] Michael Ryder, "Thank goodness you're
[00:35:20] stopping him. Everyone has known he's
[00:35:22] been doing this."
[00:35:24] Trump apparently said it was known in
[00:35:26] New York circles Epste was disgusting.
[00:35:28] And he also suggested the police focus
[00:35:29] their investigation on Epste's
[00:35:30] associate, Glain Maxwell. So that is
[00:35:32] precisely the reverse of what some
[00:35:34] people are trying to claim about Trump,
[00:35:35] which is that he was deeply in bed with
[00:35:37] all of this. That at the very least does
[00:35:40] not seem to be the case. It seems to be
[00:35:42] that Trump was one of the people who
[00:35:43] called the cops on Epste as soon as the
[00:35:45] investigation was initiated. Now, one
[00:35:47] person who has been caught up in this
[00:35:49] scandal inside the administration is
[00:35:50] Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik.
[00:35:53] Letic said that he had cut off ties with
[00:35:56] Jeffrey Epstein years before he visited
[00:35:59] Epstein's private island in 2012 with
[00:36:01] his wife and his kids.
[00:36:03] So Lutnik described his contact with
[00:36:05] Jeffrey Epstein. He was being questioned
[00:36:06] by Senator Chris Van Holland yesterday
[00:36:08] in the Senate.
[00:36:10] I
[00:36:10] >> I think you understand the root of
[00:36:12] concern here. It's the way you described
[00:36:17] very emphatically your first encounter
[00:36:19] with him in his apartment. said you were
[00:36:22] disgusted, would never have any contact
[00:36:25] with him again. Did you in fact make the
[00:36:27] visit to Jeffrey Epstein's private
[00:36:30] island?
[00:36:32] >> I did have lunch with him as I was on a
[00:36:35] boat going across on a family vacation.
[00:36:38] My wife was with me as were my four
[00:36:41] children and nannies. I had another
[00:36:44] couple with they were there as well with
[00:36:47] their children and we had lunch on the
[00:36:51] island. That is true for an hour and we
[00:36:54] left with all of my children with my
[00:36:56] nannies and my wife all together. We
[00:36:59] were on family vacation. We were not
[00:37:01] apart to suggest there was anything
[00:37:03] unoured about that in 2012.
[00:37:06] I don't I don't recall why we did it.
[00:37:11] So obviously this has driven a lot of
[00:37:13] eye. Records released by the Justice
[00:37:15] Department appear to show Lutnik
[00:37:17] emailing with Epste arranging calls and
[00:37:18] being scheduled for a drink in 2011 and
[00:37:21] that yacht trip that he just mentioned.
[00:37:24] In subsequent emails, Lnik confirmed
[00:37:25] lunch plans with Epstein on the island.
[00:37:28] That is about all there is. In 2017,
[00:37:31] apparently Epste contributed some
[00:37:32] $50,000 to a dinner honoring Lednik and
[00:37:34] another investor which was put on by the
[00:37:36] Jewish philanthropic organization U.JA
[00:37:38] Federation of New York. Epstein was
[00:37:40] offered a table in 10 seats to attend
[00:37:42] the event but declined. Writing in an
[00:37:44] email to tell Letic he can film them.
[00:37:46] Were those associations criminal in
[00:37:48] nature? Doesn't appear to be evidence of
[00:37:49] that. Were they sexual in nature?
[00:37:50] Doesn't really appear to be evidence of
[00:37:52] that. But again, association with people
[00:37:56] who have been convicted or plead guilty
[00:37:57] to child sex trafficking or sex
[00:37:59] trafficking of a minor. That is a stain
[00:38:02] for sure. Caroline Lev over at the White
[00:38:03] House defended Lnik.
[00:38:06] So, does the White House stand behind uh
[00:38:08] Secretary Lutnik right now or given what
[00:38:12] he has said today, has there been any
[00:38:13] shift in how the White House is viewing
[00:38:16] um Secretary Lutnik's performance?
[00:38:17] >> No. Secretary Lutnik remains a very
[00:38:19] important member of President Trump's
[00:38:21] team and the president fully supports
[00:38:23] the secretary.
[00:38:26] >> Now, again, I think that it's important
[00:38:27] not to conflate all issues together. The
[00:38:30] evidence in the emails and in the text
[00:38:32] and everything else shows that Lutnik
[00:38:34] knew Epste and was friendly with Epste.
[00:38:36] That is not quite the same thing as, for
[00:38:37] example, Peter Mandlesen actually
[00:38:39] passing government secrets to Jeffrey
[00:38:41] Epstein or Steve Bannon planning a PR
[00:38:44] comeback with Jeffrey Epstein. That that
[00:38:46] is not quite the same thing. It's not
[00:38:48] it's not great. It's not wonderful. It
[00:38:50] is not criminal. And so I think it's
[00:38:52] important to, you know, keep those two
[00:38:53] strains apart for the sake of accuracy
[00:38:55] if nothing else.
[00:38:58] On the congressional side, the Democrats
[00:39:00] once again look to be staring down the
[00:39:03] barrel of another partial shutdown.
[00:39:04] There's an immigration shutdown that
[00:39:06] they're going to attempt to pursue.
[00:39:08] According to Axio, Senate Democrats are
[00:39:10] drawing a preemptive red line on ICE
[00:39:12] reforms, telling Axios any sanctuary
[00:39:14] city crackdown is now dead on arrival.
[00:39:17] Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's
[00:39:18] rank and file are in no mood to let
[00:39:20] Republicans turn a debate about ISIS's
[00:39:22] use of force into a conversation over
[00:39:24] sanctuary cities.
[00:39:26] Senator Chris Van Galand told Axios, "I
[00:39:28] know they're trying to change the
[00:39:29] conversation. The issue is ISIS
[00:39:30] conduct." That's the issue before, of
[00:39:32] course, that these issues are are
[00:39:33] absolutely linked. ISIS is being forced
[00:39:35] to take measures they never would have
[00:39:37] to take in a non-sanctuary city.
[00:39:40] The Democrats, of course, have been
[00:39:41] threatening a partial government
[00:39:42] shutdown, meaning not funding of DHS for
[00:39:45] the long term. Senator Thun moved
[00:39:48] Tuesday evening to set up a Thursday
[00:39:49] vote on a House passed DHS bill. He
[00:39:52] might instead do another short-term CR.
[00:39:55] Chuck Schumer might go for that because
[00:39:57] again they feel like the longer they
[00:39:59] push this issue, the better it is for
[00:40:01] them politically.
[00:40:03] President Trump, for his part, continues
[00:40:05] to maintain nobody's coming through our
[00:40:06] borders. It's interesting that the Trump
[00:40:08] administration is in fact making the
[00:40:10] case I possible PR case that they have
[00:40:14] shut the border, which is true. This is
[00:40:15] a a case that Trump is making. And also
[00:40:17] that they are in fact targeting criminal
[00:40:19] illegal immigrants, which we'll get to
[00:40:21] in a moment. Here's President Trump.
[00:40:23] >> We have the strongest border in the
[00:40:26] history of our country. We have Democrat
[00:40:28] people giving us the statistics that no
[00:40:32] people have come into our country
[00:40:35] illegally in the last 8 months. Even I
[00:40:37] can't believe that totally, but I'll
[00:40:39] take it. But essentially, no people have
[00:40:41] come in. Nobody's coming through our
[00:40:42] border. They only come in legally.
[00:40:46] >> Now, he's right about that. The
[00:40:47] administration has been trying to shift
[00:40:49] its focus from this idea that they're
[00:40:50] going to deport all illegal immigrants
[00:40:52] to that they are focusing at least
[00:40:54] primarily on criminal illegal
[00:40:55] immigrants. There's a story that came
[00:40:56] out from CBS News yesterday that said
[00:40:59] that less than 14% of nearly 400,000
[00:41:02] immigrants arrested by ICE
[00:41:04] had charges or convictions for violent
[00:41:06] criminal offenses according to an
[00:41:08] internal DHS document obtained by CBS
[00:41:10] News. So that appears to conflict with
[00:41:13] the argument being made by the Trump
[00:41:15] administration that they're not focusing
[00:41:16] on Abua who's been here for 20 years,
[00:41:19] that they're really focusing in on
[00:41:20] people who have committed crimes other
[00:41:22] than illegal immigration. Caroline
[00:41:23] Levit, however, pushed back on the
[00:41:25] statistic from the White House
[00:41:26] yesterday.
[00:41:27] Nearly 60% of ICE arrestes over the past
[00:41:31] year had criminal charges or
[00:41:33] convictions. And among that population,
[00:41:35] the majority of the criminal charges or
[00:41:37] convictions are for nonviolent crimes.
[00:41:40] Oh, well, what are non-violent crimes,
[00:41:42] you ask? This has coincided with what
[00:41:44] DHS has been saying all along, that
[00:41:46] approximately 70% of illegal aliens
[00:41:49] arrested under President Trump have
[00:41:50] pending criminal charges and/or prior
[00:41:53] convictions. And these so-called
[00:41:55] nonviolent crimes, drug trafficking,
[00:41:58] distribution of child, burglar,
[00:42:00] burglary, fraud, DUI, embezzlement,
[00:42:03] solicitation of a minor, and human
[00:42:05] smuggling, just to name a few. So just
[00:42:08] because a crime is not violent in ma
[00:42:10] nature doesn't mean that crime is
[00:42:11] victimless.
[00:42:13] >> Yeah. And this of course is exactly
[00:42:14] right. The Trump administration has not
[00:42:16] claimed they are going to arrest only
[00:42:17] violent criminal illegal immigrants.
[00:42:19] They said criminal illegal immigrants. A
[00:42:21] huge amount of crime is nonviolent. And
[00:42:24] so she is right about that. Democrats,
[00:42:25] by the way, continue to be as radical as
[00:42:27] they want to be. Yesterday, Todd Lions,
[00:42:30] who's the acting Immigration and Customs
[00:42:31] Enforcement Director, was in front of
[00:42:33] the House Homeland Security Committee,
[00:42:35] and Democrats went at him and he said,
[00:42:37] "Listen, I'm not going to unmask my
[00:42:38] agents. I I'm I'm not going to to not
[00:42:41] enforce the law. This is silliness.
[00:42:44] Will you commit, yes or no, to
[00:42:47] immediately unmasking every agent
[00:42:49] conducting immigration enforcement and
[00:42:51] requiring them to wear standard uniforms
[00:42:53] with identifiable badges?"
[00:42:55] >> No.
[00:42:57] Well, that's a sad response. Your answer
[00:43:00] is completely unacceptable.
[00:43:02] People who are proud of what they do
[00:43:05] aren't hiding their identity. We're a
[00:43:09] nation of laws and you, your boss,
[00:43:12] Secretary Gnome, and Donald Trump are
[00:43:14] not above the law.
[00:43:18] So again, this sort of stuff from
[00:43:19] Democrats that the big issue here is the
[00:43:21] masking of ICE agents. Good good luck
[00:43:23] with with all of this. Representative
[00:43:25] Lammon Monica R. Macyver of the New
[00:43:27] Jersey tents. She's one of the people
[00:43:28] who was briefly arrested for protesting
[00:43:30] outside an ICE facility and and
[00:43:32] obstructing law enforcement in the
[00:43:33] process. She asked Todd Lions if if he's
[00:43:35] going to hell. I mean, good good luck
[00:43:37] for Democrats if if their again if their
[00:43:39] claim is that non-inforcement of the law
[00:43:41] is superior to enforcement of the law,
[00:43:43] that is a radical proposal Americans do
[00:43:45] not like.
[00:43:47] >> Let me ask you some questions that you
[00:43:49] may be able to answer. Mr. Alliance. Do
[00:43:52] you consider yourself a religious man?
[00:43:54] >> Yes, ma'am.
[00:43:55] >> Oh, yes. Okay. Well, how do you think
[00:43:57] judgment day will work for you with so
[00:44:00] much blood on your hands?
[00:44:02] >> I'm not going to entertain that
[00:44:03] question.
[00:44:04] >> Okay. Of course not. Do you think you're
[00:44:05] going to hell, Mr. Lions?
[00:44:07] >> I'm not going to
[00:44:09] How many government the
[00:44:10] >> gentle lady will suspend? The gentle
[00:44:12] lady will suspend.
[00:44:14] >> Ridiculous. Ridiculous stuff. Truly
[00:44:17] ridiculous stuff from Democrats. I guess
[00:44:18] they can take this angle if they wish
[00:44:19] to. I don't think it's going to work out
[00:44:20] for them. They might win a temporary
[00:44:22] battle. They will lose the immigration
[00:44:23] war. At the same time, Congress is
[00:44:26] taking up the Save Act. Whether or not
[00:44:29] Democrats are forced to vote on it is
[00:44:30] the question in the Senate. President
[00:44:33] Trump outlined what is in the Save
[00:44:35] America Act on Fox News with Larry
[00:44:36] Cuddlo yesterday.
[00:44:39] >> You have a thing called Save America
[00:44:42] Act. Save America Act. And Schumer is
[00:44:45] going to say, "I oppose it." How do you
[00:44:47] oppose Save America? So this is simply
[00:44:51] on voting voter ID. Uh we want a
[00:44:54] statement that you are a citizen of
[00:44:56] America. I think that's a reasonable
[00:44:58] thing to ask. And no mail-in ballots
[00:45:00] which are very corrupt. No country in
[00:45:03] the world is doing mail-in ballots or
[00:45:06] especially the way we do them. I mean
[00:45:08] they send them all over the place.
[00:45:10] Nobody knows. It's totally corrupt. No
[00:45:13] country in the world does what we do.
[00:45:18] Okay. So, yep. Again, he is not wrong
[00:45:20] about this. Joining us on the line to
[00:45:22] discuss Democrats activities in the
[00:45:24] Senate obstructing the SAVE Act,
[00:45:26] obstructing DHS funding, is Senator Rick
[00:45:28] Scott of Florida. Obviously, he is
[00:45:30] sitting senator. He has also served two
[00:45:31] terms as governor of Florida. Senator
[00:45:33] Scott, thanks so much for the time.
[00:45:34] Appreciate it.
[00:45:36] >> The governor job was easier than just so
[00:45:38] you know, it's easier to get things
[00:45:41] done. This is hard.
[00:45:42] >> Yeah, it it certainly feels like that.
[00:45:44] That that is unsurprising. And speaking
[00:45:46] of which, it seems like the Democrats
[00:45:47] are now looking at yet another partial
[00:45:49] government shutdown, this time over the
[00:45:51] Department of Homeland Security. Can you
[00:45:52] give us the latest on what exactly they
[00:45:54] are demanding because we've heard sort
[00:45:55] of vague reports about what it is that
[00:45:57] they want, but some of the things that
[00:45:58] they seem to be asking for essentially
[00:46:01] look like they would end law enforcement
[00:46:03] with regard to illegal immigration in
[00:46:04] the country.
[00:46:06] >> Well, that's what they want to do. I
[00:46:07] mean, they don't want um they don't want
[00:46:10] ICE to be able to do their job. They
[00:46:11] want to defund it and they want to
[00:46:13] defang it.
[00:46:14] uh things that you don't ever have you
[00:46:16] don't require local law enforcement to
[00:46:18] do or our our sheriff's departments to
[00:46:19] do. They want to make ICE do. I mean,
[00:46:21] you have to look at where the Democrats
[00:46:22] are. They want open borders. They don't
[00:46:24] care the criminals are are murdering our
[00:46:26] kids or raping our daughters and
[00:46:28] granddaughters. I mean, they I mean, you
[00:46:30] look at what would they look at Lick and
[00:46:33] Riley's family in the face and say,
[00:46:34] "Hey, we don't care or join Angari
[00:46:36] because that's what they're saying." So,
[00:46:38] um I mean, there's some common sense
[00:46:40] things. I think in Florida when I was
[00:46:42] governor, we added um but we let the
[00:46:43] sheriff's department decide, police
[00:46:45] departments, we added um body cameras,
[00:46:48] but I mean there there's times for all
[00:46:50] these other things. There's times for
[00:46:52] mask. And by the way, you realize that
[00:46:54] we don't have any of these problems in
[00:46:55] Florida because our sheriff's
[00:46:57] department, police departments, they
[00:46:58] work with ICE. So we don't have these
[00:47:00] problems that they're having in these
[00:47:02] sanctuary cities where there's a
[00:47:04] criminal in jail and they know that he's
[00:47:07] illegal and they turn they turn over to
[00:47:09] ICE and then ICE has to go into the
[00:47:10] neighborhood with protesters and try to
[00:47:13] arrest him. So we don't have any of
[00:47:14] those problems in Florida. It's all
[00:47:16] driven by local mayors and governors.
[00:47:19] So Senator Scott, one of the things that
[00:47:21] we've been hearing is the possibility
[00:47:22] the Democrats are going to try to push
[00:47:24] for the use of judicial rather than
[00:47:25] administrative warrants by ICE when
[00:47:27] they're when they're performing arrests.
[00:47:29] Have you have you heard that from
[00:47:30] Democrats? They they've they've talked
[00:47:31] about changes around warrants, but
[00:47:32] again, it's kind of vague what exactly
[00:47:33] they're demanding.
[00:47:35] >> Absolutely. And what that does would
[00:47:37] mean that you you you know, you wouldn't
[00:47:38] have you would never be able to arrest
[00:47:40] anybody. Um the uh it it would it would
[00:47:43] set up a system to where none of these
[00:47:45] people get arrested. Like I don't get
[00:47:47] it. I I you know, as when I was
[00:47:49] governor, you know what people care
[00:47:50] about? They care about jobs, their kids
[00:47:52] education, public safety. So all these
[00:47:55] mayors and governors have forgotten the
[00:47:57] basic thing of government. keep [snorts]
[00:47:58] people safe. Um so yeah, we should be
[00:48:02] able to do administrative warrants um
[00:48:03] and deport people um and you don't have
[00:48:06] you don't have to go per person for a
[00:48:09] judicial warrant, which would which
[00:48:10] would mean that ICE couldn't do their
[00:48:12] job. Might as well shut down ICE.
[00:48:15] So, Senator Scott, what do you think are
[00:48:17] the possibilities that Democrats
[00:48:18] actually do shut down the government
[00:48:21] here? Or or do you think there are
[00:48:22] enough crossover votes from Democrats to
[00:48:24] prevent them from from being able to to
[00:48:26] use the filibuster, for example?
[00:48:29] >> No, we'll shut down government. There's
[00:48:31] I think there's only two options. Either
[00:48:32] government will get shut down Friday
[00:48:34] night or we'll do another continuing
[00:48:36] resolution for a couple of weeks uh to
[00:48:38] see if there's some deal. Um, but I look
[00:48:41] the Democrats, they don't they don't
[00:48:43] care about the public safety. I mean,
[00:48:45] they want open borders. They and and I
[00:48:47] think and there must the only thing they
[00:48:49] must be is they think it's the only way
[00:48:51] they can win elections.
[00:48:54] >> Well, meanwhile, the the Republicans in
[00:48:56] the House have already passed the Save
[00:48:57] America Act and and that has moved on to
[00:48:59] the Senate as well. Democrats are
[00:49:01] treating this as anathema. Why don't you
[00:49:03] first of all tell us what exactly is in
[00:49:04] the Save Act because what we have been
[00:49:06] told by Chuck Schumer is that this is
[00:49:07] Jim Crow 2.0 know which again that line
[00:49:10] is getting a little old since I've heard
[00:49:11] it applied to probably a dozen bills
[00:49:13] over the course of the last 10 years or
[00:49:15] so but this is their latest bugaboo is
[00:49:17] is voter ID in the states
[00:49:19] >> well it's pretty common sense you have
[00:49:21] to show an ID when you go to vote right
[00:49:24] you have to show an ID on an airplane uh
[00:49:26] I think you have to show an ID to get a
[00:49:27] lottery ticket things like that you just
[00:49:28] have to show an ID that's number one
[00:49:30] number two is to register to vote you
[00:49:33] have to uh prove citizenship you know I
[00:49:36] don't like macron
[00:49:38] vote against McCron in France. I don't
[00:49:40] like Starmer in UK. I don't get to vote
[00:49:42] against him. So, if you're illegal, you
[00:49:44] don't get to vote in our elections
[00:49:45] either. So, it's pretty basic. Uh I'm
[00:49:47] glad the House has passed it. The
[00:49:48] president's come out in favor of it. Um
[00:49:51] so, now we got to get it done in the
[00:49:52] Senate any way we can. Um if we might
[00:49:55] have to, you know, do it through the
[00:49:56] talking filibuster, uh which is probably
[00:49:58] the only way we'll get it done because
[00:49:59] the Democrats are all opposed to it.
[00:50:03] What What have you heard about that?
[00:50:04] because we've heard some conflicting
[00:50:05] reports about whether Senator Thun is
[00:50:08] going to is going to use the talking
[00:50:09] filibuster, meaning for for those who
[00:50:10] who don't follow Senate procedure, that
[00:50:12] there has been a a basic deal between
[00:50:14] both sides that if you don't have 60
[00:50:16] votes to shut down debate that you don't
[00:50:18] actually have to get up and talk,
[00:50:19] everybody, you know, tends to think of
[00:50:20] Mr. Smith and goes to Washington, you
[00:50:22] actually stand up there and you talk for
[00:50:23] a really long time. That's what a
[00:50:24] filibuster is. But that's almost never
[00:50:26] done. And so forcing people to actually
[00:50:28] do a talking filibuster means that
[00:50:29] somebody gets up there and rans for 25
[00:50:31] hours or or however long their their
[00:50:33] catheter holds out. What is the
[00:50:35] possibility that that Senator Thun is is
[00:50:37] actually going to force a talking
[00:50:38] filibuster on this?
[00:50:39] >> Well, the positive is uh Thun has
[00:50:42] committed that we're going to have a
[00:50:43] vote on the Save Act. So he said that.
[00:50:45] So that's positive. Now the way I think
[00:50:47] the only way we're going to get past is
[00:50:48] we got to go uh we got to work through
[00:50:50] to see if we can do it through a talking
[00:50:52] filibuster because we don't have enough
[00:50:53] Democrats going to support us. So what
[00:50:55] that so if you remember the filibuster
[00:50:57] was simply you didn't you didn't have
[00:50:59] six have to have 60 votes to pass
[00:51:01] something you had to have six you know
[00:51:04] you have to say we're going to stop
[00:51:05] debate at some point okay so what we
[00:51:08] need to do is make people talk um so
[00:51:10] hopefully that's what we'll do we
[00:51:12] yesterday at our Republican senator
[00:51:14] lunch we had a conversation about it uh
[00:51:16] so I think we're going to continue to
[00:51:17] have these conversations but hopefully
[00:51:19] we'll be able to do the talking
[00:51:20] filibuster um but the first step is we
[00:51:22] got to make sure 51 of us are on board
[00:51:24] for the sake America act. So I tell
[00:51:26] everybody call their h their senators
[00:51:28] and make sure they're on board of the
[00:51:30] Save America Act. That's number one
[00:51:32] because we have we're not going to get
[00:51:33] anywhere if we don't have 51 of us
[00:51:34] supporting it. That's number one. Number
[00:51:36] two is then we've got to say can we get
[00:51:39] it done through a talking filibuster. I
[00:51:41] mean the problem we've got is the
[00:51:42] Democrats are blocking everything. So
[00:51:44] ultimately what they're going to force
[00:51:45] us to do is actually I think get rid of
[00:51:47] the filibuster. I think the right way of
[00:51:49] doing it is okay, let's have a talking
[00:51:50] filibuster or if you want to talk about
[00:51:52] something, talk about it, but let's vote
[00:51:54] at the end.
[00:51:57] So, meanwhile, bipartisanship is not
[00:51:59] totally dead. One of the bills that you
[00:52:00] are promoting along with some Democrats
[00:52:02] is something called the Clear Labels
[00:52:03] Act, which is designed to make sure that
[00:52:06] everybody knows where their medicines
[00:52:08] are coming from, which presumably would
[00:52:09] help reshore a lot of the manufacturing
[00:52:11] process because a lot of people don't
[00:52:12] trust medications that are going to be
[00:52:14] produced in China, for example. Why
[00:52:15] don't you explain where that is and
[00:52:16] what's the possibility of that being
[00:52:17] brought to a a floor vote?
[00:52:20] >> Well, I've got the support of um the
[00:52:22] ranking member on the agent committee.
[00:52:23] I'm the chairman of that committee, uh
[00:52:25] Christine Gillibrand. And so, she she
[00:52:27] and I have this bill. It's the Clear
[00:52:29] Labels Act. It says that basically you
[00:52:32] you should know what you're putting in
[00:52:33] your body. So, when you when you get a
[00:52:36] prescription, you'll know where the
[00:52:38] ingredients came from and where it's
[00:52:40] manufactured. It's pretty it's pretty
[00:52:41] common sense. So I'm optimistic that
[00:52:43] we'll get that we will get that done. Um
[00:52:46] you know whether it's a standalone vote
[00:52:48] uh or whether we get it through another
[00:52:49] package like the National Defense
[00:52:50] Authorization Act. But we should not be
[00:52:53] dependent on communist China in India uh
[00:52:55] for our medicines. And and by the way
[00:52:57] it's not safe. The FDA is not doing
[00:53:00] inspections like they do in the United
[00:53:01] States of medicines the manufactured
[00:53:03] medicines. On top of that, there's been
[00:53:04] studies that say that you have a much
[00:53:06] higher chance of death um and
[00:53:08] hospitalization if you take a generic
[00:53:10] drug made in China or in India.
[00:53:15] >> Well, that is Senator Rick Scott.
[00:53:16] Senator, thanks so much for the time and
[00:53:17] for the updates and good luck and in
[00:53:19] what is a much harder job than being
[00:53:21] governor of Florida.
[00:53:23] >> It's going to get done. We're going to
[00:53:24] get there. Be optimistic.
[00:53:27] >> Meanwhile, for the Trump administration,
[00:53:28] excellent economic news. A good jobs
[00:53:30] report came out in January.
[00:53:33] There's some upside, there's some
[00:53:34] downside. The upside is very good jobs
[00:53:36] report in January. Apparently
[00:53:38] 170,000 private sector jobs, 130,000
[00:53:41] jobs added overall because some
[00:53:42] government jobs were done away with.
[00:53:44] That is much stronger than economists
[00:53:46] expected. They were expecting 70,000
[00:53:48] jobs in January. The unemployment rate
[00:53:50] has ticked down to 4.3% which is
[00:53:52] historically quite good.
[00:53:54] The downside is that the BLS in
[00:53:57] revisions shave down 400,000 jobs from
[00:54:00] the 2025 employment gain. Meaning that
[00:54:02] for all of 2025, there are about 181,000
[00:54:04] new jobs created, which is presumably
[00:54:07] one of the reasons why people are still
[00:54:08] feeling dispic about the economy. The
[00:54:10] reality is the Trump economy right now
[00:54:12] is quite strong. There's a very good
[00:54:14] piece by Romesh Penuru over at the
[00:54:16] Washington Post talking about the status
[00:54:19] of the economy and as he points out
[00:54:21] right now even though economic
[00:54:23] confidence is low like 21%. The
[00:54:25] unemployment rate is only 4.3%.
[00:54:28] There's a relatively low misery index
[00:54:30] which is unemployment plus inflation
[00:54:33] and the inflation adjusted wages have
[00:54:35] been rising pretty precipitously over
[00:54:38] the course of the last year or so.
[00:54:42] The the biggest problem in Ponuru's
[00:54:44] estimation as to why there's a
[00:54:45] disconnect between what Americans are
[00:54:46] feeling about the economy and how the
[00:54:48] economy is actually performing is
[00:54:50] because they expected that inflation
[00:54:53] going down meant actual deflation. This
[00:54:55] is something I've talked about on the
[00:54:56] show a lot. The way politicians talk
[00:54:58] about bringing down inflation, they
[00:55:00] don't explain that the prices are
[00:55:01] basically going to remain the same.
[00:55:03] You're not going to see a real deflation
[00:55:04] in prices. And so even if you've seen
[00:55:07] wage increases, those still have to eat
[00:55:09] away and chip away at a time when
[00:55:11] inflation far outpaced inflation
[00:55:14] adjusted wages.
[00:55:17] This is a point that Romesh Puru is is
[00:55:19] making. He says even though real wages
[00:55:20] have risen since 2022, their decline
[00:55:22] during the previous two years has not
[00:55:23] been undone. People can remember when
[00:55:25] they were making more. The current wage
[00:55:26] trend may have to continue for a while
[00:55:28] for Americans to be satisfied.
[00:55:31] Also, it doesn't really help that the
[00:55:32] president is constantly talking about
[00:55:34] tariffs. Most Americans don't feel that
[00:55:36] is is a big win for them. It's one of
[00:55:37] his more unpopular economic views. But
[00:55:40] overall, what this does suggest is that
[00:55:43] as the Trump economy continues to churn,
[00:55:45] maybe the sentiment with regard to the
[00:55:47] economy starts to starts to rise along
[00:55:51] with the economic strength of the
[00:55:52] country. All righty. Coming up, the New
[00:55:54] York Times has finally finally decided
[00:55:56] that hey, wait, you know, pot not great
[00:55:59] for you. Remember, in order to watch,
[00:56:00] you have to be a member. If you're not a
[00:56:01] member, become a member. Use code
[00:56:03] Shapiro at checkout for two months free
[00:56:04] on all annual plans. Click that link in
[00:56:05] the description and join us.
[00:56:07] >> Okay.
[00:56:12] [singing]
[00:56:21] >> No, not even close. Two. Three.
[00:56:24] Whatever. You know what? 2 3 4
[00:56:33] >> [singing]
[00:56:34] >> I cannot believe we're back here again.
[00:56:36] Ben,
[00:56:37] >> if the Ben Shapiro shows mom and Ben
[00:56:39] after dark is a cool mom.
[00:56:43] Jay, [laughter]
[00:56:44] >> you know, like irresponsible
[00:56:48] [laughter]
ℹ️ Document Details
SHA-256
yt_XclKcf8eBbY
Dataset
youtube
Comments 0