Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2: Arm Strong and Getty and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3: The stunning breach in national security involving the ongoing highly
Speaker 3: classified US attacks targeting Hoothy rebels in Yemen. The details
Speaker 3: reportedly discussed openly over a group chat on the unauthorized
Speaker 3: signal app among members of President Trump's national security team.
Speaker 3: The Atlantic, now revealing its editor in chief, who was
Speaker 3: invited to join the group chat, says he was included
Speaker 3: on all the sensitive information hours before the military strikes began.
Speaker 3: President Trump pressed about the report, saying he didn't know
Speaker 3: anything about it.
Speaker 4: Okay, so we'll play the Trump part here in just
Speaker 4: a second. The timing of all this, nobody knows when
Speaker 4: Trump was alerted to this.
Speaker 2: You'd have to assume somebody told him.
Speaker 4: He acts like he didn't know here when he's asked
Speaker 4: about it by a reporter, But it was fink four
Speaker 4: or five hours later, so he certainly somebody should have
Speaker 4: hipped him to it. Well, let's let a reporter ask
Speaker 4: the question and Trump respond, Mister President.
Speaker 5: You reacted to the story of the Atlantic that said
Speaker 5: that some of your top account officials and aids had
Speaker 5: been discussing very sense of material from Signal and included
Speaker 5: an Atlantic reporter for that.
Speaker 2: What is your response to that?
Speaker 6: In our opinions, I don't know anything about it.
Speaker 2: I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic.
Speaker 6: It's to me it's a magazine that's going out of business.
Speaker 6: I think it's not much of a magazine. But I
Speaker 6: know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what.
Speaker 5: They were using signal to pour date on sets of
Speaker 5: materials and.
Speaker 6: Having to do with what, how did you do with what?
Speaker 2: What were they talking about with the hookies? The who dies?
Speaker 6: You mean the attack or the hood is Well, it
Speaker 6: couldn't have been very effective, because the attack was very effective.
Speaker 6: I can tell you that I don't know anything about it.
Speaker 6: You're telling me about it for the first time.
Speaker 4: I believe him. Okay, I don't, but that's fine. I
Speaker 4: don't think he'd ever heard of Signal before yesterday. I'd
Speaker 4: be surprised we had. And then him saying on signal
Speaker 4: and then saying about the hoofies. I think that was
Speaker 4: a great way to handle it through the day when
Speaker 4: they tried to go with and the attack was successful.
Speaker 4: So what's the problem, which is not a bad spin
Speaker 4: on the whole story.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Trump has subsequently done a quick interview with NBC News quote,
Speaker 1: Michael Waltz has learned a lesson and he's a good man. Actually,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, I got tickled in my throat. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I believe so, because it's believed that Waltz organized the
Speaker 1: signal group that accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic,
Speaker 1: which is a hell of a mistake to make.
Speaker 2: I have my final analysis.
Speaker 1: I have been able Supreme Court like to take in
Speaker 1: all of the testimony and have come to a ruling.
Speaker 2: But I'll wait for that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, we'll let this unfold a little bit as
Speaker 4: it did yesterday. She had Trump asked about it and
Speaker 4: him saying he didn't know anything about it. And then
Speaker 4: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseath, who was on the chat
Speaker 4: on Signal, which is a encrypted private messaging app.
Speaker 2: There's a whole bunch of them out there, I guess
Speaker 2: I'm finding out. I know of a couple of them.
Speaker 4: I didn't know of this one, and it's either used
Speaker 4: by everybody in DC all the time, or it's a
Speaker 4: horrifying idea to use it.
Speaker 2: We'll get to that.
Speaker 4: A couple opinions on that coming up also, But here
Speaker 4: getting off playing tarmac sect death, ask about it.
Speaker 2: You're talking about.
Speaker 1: A deceitful and highly discredited so called journalists who's made
Speaker 1: a profession of pedaling hoax his time and time again.
Speaker 1: I'm post details shared on signal and how did you
Speaker 1: learn that a journalist was privy to the targets, the
Speaker 1: types of weapons used.
Speaker 2: I've heard of his character. Nobody was texting war plans.
Speaker 2: And that's all I have to say about.
Speaker 1: That is that a lawyer lead denial. Because if you
Speaker 1: accept texting is messaging, MMS messaging, they weren't.
Speaker 2: They were going through an encrypted message.
Speaker 4: Or define war plans. Maybe it's a lawyer le denial. Okay,
Speaker 4: Because Brit Hume of Fox after so sectef hegzeth there
Speaker 4: said that a couple of hours after the administration said, yeah,
Speaker 4: that happened, the group text happened with the journalist and
Speaker 4: all that sort of stuff actually happened. Britt Huma responded
Speaker 4: to that on Twitter. Oh, for God's sake, the administration
Speaker 4: has already confirmed the authenticity of the message about Pete
Speaker 4: has saying it's a hack journalist, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's kind of weak.
Speaker 1: I mean, he just reported the truth, so and I
Speaker 1: share his dim view of Jeffrey Goldberg.
Speaker 4: But in this case, well here's Goldberg responding to Hegzet's
Speaker 4: comment on CNN. The Goldsberg's the actual Goldberg is the
Speaker 4: actual journalist who was on the chat by accident.
Speaker 1: Nobody was texting war plans, given you were privated this
Speaker 1: group chat, is that how you saw it?
Speaker 7: No, that's a lie. He was texting war plans. He
Speaker 7: was texting attack plans, when targets were going to be targeted,
Speaker 7: how they were going to be targeted, who was at
Speaker 7: the targets when the next sequence of attacks were happening.
Speaker 7: I didn't publish this, and I continue not to publish
Speaker 7: it because it felt like it was too confidential, too technical,
Speaker 7: and I worry, honestly that sharing that kind of information
Speaker 7: in public could endanger American military personnel. But no, they
Speaker 7: were plans for the attack.
Speaker 4: Toy's credit, he didn't run to Twitter or a microphone
Speaker 4: or whatever to start shouting about this the moment he
Speaker 4: found out about it, or more.
Speaker 2: Likely published them in The Atlantic.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so one other part of it before what you're
Speaker 4: calling it your ultimate point, Joe's ultimate point, Joe, Joe
Speaker 4: nailed something.
Speaker 2: Joe's final ruling.
Speaker 4: So the idea of having the Secretary Defense, the Secretary
Speaker 4: of State, the Vice President of the United States, the
Speaker 4: CIA director, the d N I, I mean, the most
Speaker 4: powerful people in all of our government discussing war plans
Speaker 4: for an attack on this method, using this method of
Speaker 4: communication that is telegrammer what is it? I can't remember
Speaker 4: which one we're talking about. On signal it's either okay
Speaker 4: or horrible.
Speaker 1: So we'll start with Andrew McCabe, former FBI director who
Speaker 1: liked he got preferred to the FISA court and violated
Speaker 1: the Constitution. Yes, he had to step down. He got
Speaker 1: convicted of something. I don't even understand how he's still
Speaker 1: a but anyway, he's on CNN saying this.
Speaker 8: So, convening a small group to discuss a military strike
Speaker 8: on a commercially available messaging app is outrageous.
Speaker 2: It's absolutely unthinkable.
Speaker 8: I can't even imagine a scenario in which that would
Speaker 8: have happened, or that anyone who was asked to engage
Speaker 8: in it would agree without very quickly objecting and saying, hey,
Speaker 8: this is content that we can't possibly expose on a
Speaker 8: non classified system.
Speaker 4: So I would say that as watching Mark Halprin's emergency
Speaker 4: podcast last night, and I trust his opinion on these things.
Speaker 4: He said, talking to people around DC, everybody just is
Speaker 4: jaw dropped. They can't believe that this conversation was happening
Speaker 4: on this app. I mean, they just can't believe it.
Speaker 4: It's just, like he said, outrageous. On the other hand,
Speaker 4: here you've got Lawrence Jones of Fox and Friends, who
Speaker 4: has a lot of sources in the government, saying it
Speaker 4: happens all the time.
Speaker 9: As it relates to government officials using signal, they all
Speaker 9: use it. They're not supposed to, but they use it.
Speaker 9: But if you secret stuff, they use it. CIA every
Speaker 9: single intelligence agency uses signal. I know that for a fact.
Speaker 9: I talk to them on signal. They're sources of mind.
Speaker 9: They all use signal.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 9: It is the best way and the most secure way
Speaker 9: to get information out. And that's why a lot of
Speaker 9: journals use it as well. They don't want it, they're
Speaker 9: not supposed to do it, but they do it anyway.
Speaker 4: So it's interesting I know, so outside of whatever even
Speaker 4: happens with this little scandal, whether it's a big deal,
Speaker 4: we got to nail down the hole. Are classified documents
Speaker 4: actually classified?
Speaker 1: Can you take them home or not? Or do you
Speaker 1: have to go into the skiff to read them? Or
Speaker 1: can you read them.
Speaker 4: With your buddies, you know, sitting around watching football game,
Speaker 4: or can you have conversations on these private apps or not.
Speaker 1: Let's let's nail this down so well. Don't constantly have
Speaker 1: these conversations.
Speaker 2: And you're leaving out a big one too.
Speaker 1: Are the very people in government who most need to
Speaker 1: preserve records ignoring the preservation of records laws.
Speaker 4: I'm glad you brought that up because that was one
Speaker 4: of Mark Alpern's big point. He said, I doubt anybody
Speaker 4: was transcribing this as it happened. And this one of
Speaker 4: the reasons you're supposed to use the official government channels
Speaker 4: is this is all supposed to be documented.
Speaker 1: These are for the archives, for historians, for you know,
Speaker 1: for US citizens to see how their government works.
Speaker 2: And enforcement of law. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, so you don't have rogue operators going outside the constitution. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the whole thing's pretty troubling, just one quick note, because
Speaker 1: I can't resist. Matt Tayebe has come as close as
Speaker 1: any human being has ever done to actually having his
Speaker 1: head explode over an issue. And that is because he is.
Speaker 1: If you read Matt, you know this insane with wonder
Speaker 1: and anger that the demamocratic side of America has embraced
Speaker 1: and lionized all of the worst lying spooks in our
Speaker 1: recent history. You're Andrew mccabes, you're John Brennan's. Who is
Speaker 1: the other guy who's always on that list? I can
Speaker 1: picture them, but I can't think of his name. All
Speaker 1: of the CIA and NSA guys and crooked FBI agents
Speaker 1: are now on CNN and MSNBC because they're anti Trump.
Speaker 1: But they're the very sort of thing the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: for everybody's whole lives has despised and called out. They're
Speaker 1: the unholy Satanic love children of Jay Edgar Hoover and
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon, these guys, and the left has embraced them. Anyway,
Speaker 1: That's just the quickest side. My final judgment is this,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of interesting questions to be asked
Speaker 1: about who is using, for instance, signal and in what way,
Speaker 1: and how right and how wrong it was. This has
Speaker 1: shown some real sloppiness. How does Jeffrey Goldberg get in
Speaker 1: on the group? Because I guess on signal you use
Speaker 1: like aliases and initials, and Waltz's screen name was Waltz,
Speaker 1: Rubio's was mar short for Marco, and so somebody just
Speaker 1: scanned it real quick and saw I don't know what
Speaker 1: Goldberg's handle was, but just didn't notice it, And so
Speaker 1: I went ahead and was texting.
Speaker 2: And that's the problem.
Speaker 1: Those not given access to the classified stuff can accidentally
Speaker 1: or nefariously be on these these strings. It's sloppy, it's dumb.
Speaker 1: Is it like fatal? These people should lose their jobs.
Speaker 1: It's close.
Speaker 4: Maybe I'm just naive about how things work, but I'm
Speaker 4: surprised they don't all get together in a room with
Speaker 4: very few exceptions, when you're two hours from launching an
Speaker 4: attack on somebody, I would that rises to the level
Speaker 4: of he let's take our Saturday or Sunday or whatever
Speaker 4: day it was, and go ahead to go into the
Speaker 4: office and sit there and discuss whether we're going to
Speaker 4: launch the biggest military attack of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's go ahead and drive in from Arlington and Fairfax.
Speaker 4: And if there's some that's and if there's somebody on
Speaker 4: the other side of the world, you get one of
Speaker 4: those super secret, top level, you know, video connections, and
Speaker 4: they talk to them there in the war room as
Speaker 4: they discuss it. The fact that they're all just going
Speaker 4: about their day, like I don't know what they were doing.
Speaker 4: I'm at the grocery store and I'm at my kid's
Speaker 4: soccer match or whatever, and we jump on this thing
Speaker 4: and have a conversation. It seemed a little loosey goosey
Speaker 4: to me, But maybe I'm naive. Maybe this happens all
Speaker 4: the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Well, one thing we haven't gotten to is
Speaker 1: what the conversations have revealed about the balance of power
Speaker 1: and philosophies foreign policy wise within the administration, which I
Speaker 1: found really really interesting. I got the trans and encouraging. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I think it's all, you know, good news. Some of
Speaker 1: the folks opinions are you know, a little troubling to me,
Speaker 1: but seems like a very healthy team of rivals type discussion.
Speaker 4: Well, we only have this transcript because they accidentally invited
Speaker 4: a journalist. Otherwise it would have been lost to history.
Speaker 4: They wouldn't have would have never existed, and that interesting.
Speaker 4: I don't know what's your opinion on this text line
Speaker 4: four one five two nine f KFTC.
Speaker 1: Shortan ASH will send allow customers to pay for food
Speaker 1: deliveries in several installments.
Speaker 3: Great news if you've ever dreamed of one day owning
Speaker 3: a Big Mac.
Speaker 1: Wait a minute, I have had that happen yet before.
Speaker 1: Break up the payments on a meal. Yeah, I've had
Speaker 1: that happen before.
Speaker 4: So like, I get some stuff for the kids, you know,
Speaker 4: we order from Panda Express regularly, and then it says
Speaker 4: would you.
Speaker 1: Like to break up into payments? And I always think
Speaker 1: that's hilarious. You know it's forty two dollars? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Can I get it over sixty months? What's the interest rate?
Speaker 1: It's not the worst idea I've ever but it's in
Speaker 1: the top three. Oh boy, do not get upside down
Speaker 1: on Big Max. Oh you'd be upside down immediately because
Speaker 1: you're gonna beat the well. Yeah, and if you don't,
Speaker 1: the resale is well, it's not good.
Speaker 2: I got a used big Back barely.
Speaker 1: You know how when you drive a car off a
Speaker 1: lot you lose one third of its value.
Speaker 2: It's much worse for Hamburgers. Trust me. Okay.
Speaker 4: So we were talking last hour about they're having trouble
Speaker 4: with AI write and resumes, and so it's not like
Speaker 4: the old days where you could say, oh my god,
Speaker 4: look at the spelling on this resume or whatever. This
Speaker 4: person can't work here, AI's writing for you grammar and
Speaker 4: blah blah blah.
Speaker 2: Had this actually happened yesterday.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to I won't get distracted with what I
Speaker 4: was trying to get this person to do. But I
Speaker 4: was trying to basically hire someone to do something, and
Speaker 4: was communicating with them through.
Speaker 2: A chat place where they post accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg
Speaker 2: of The Atlantic. Yes.
Speaker 4: Uh so it was like a bolton board thing, and
Speaker 4: his bulletin board post was really well written and it
Speaker 4: sounded great. So I reached out to him and then
Speaker 4: like the first thing was really good and I thought, Okay,
Speaker 4: this person's going to be good.
Speaker 2: I think this is somebody I can trust.
Speaker 4: But then when I got into questions like how about this,
Speaker 4: or like individual questions, his answers like the grammar fell apart.
Speaker 1: Completely, Like I mean it was like, are you I
Speaker 1: thought you can't be a native English speaker. I mean
Speaker 1: it was just it was almost nonsensical, and it happened
Speaker 1: so fast after the initial posting, and then like the
Speaker 1: initial thing they said, which was kind of generic, it
Speaker 1: all completely fell apart, and I was wondering. I thought,
Speaker 1: what the heck went on there? I couldn't figure it
Speaker 1: out till today when you mentioned the AI resumes that's
Speaker 1: almost guaranteed what it is. He's got the initial post,
Speaker 1: he runs through that. Or I suppose he could have
Speaker 1: his girlfriend write a for him or something like that.
Speaker 4: But anyway, somebody else wrote it, and then the first
Speaker 4: generic response and then when he got into the question
Speaker 4: and answer, it made no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 1: What's your gut feeling. Is it just somebody covering up
Speaker 1: their inadequacies or a foreign scammer or what are you saying?
Speaker 2: I don't think it was a foreign scammer.
Speaker 1: I think I think it was a non native English
Speaker 1: speaker trying to hide that that not that that automatically
Speaker 1: makes you unhiable or something like that. But I couldn't
Speaker 1: communicate with them and it was sketchy, so I moved on.
Speaker 1: But yeah, but that's going to be hard to suss
Speaker 1: out in the future. Oh yeah, and I'm surprised he
Speaker 1: didn't like keep up the ruse by running that stuff
Speaker 1: through AI.
Speaker 2: I don't know how it all.
Speaker 4: It would have been pretty hard because it was weird
Speaker 4: down to the just back and forth communication texting at
Speaker 4: that point. Yeah, but yeah, I'm sure if you're really
Speaker 4: good with the technology, you could have AI doing that
Speaker 4: in real time and then you'll you know, you'll meet
Speaker 4: the person mowing your lawn or fixing your roof or
Speaker 4: whatever the heck you're doing, you know, fishing guide whatever
Speaker 4: you do with completely illiterate right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So the big story today is the Trump national
Speaker 1: security team accidentally including a journalist on their super private
Speaker 1: string of how we're going to attack the hu Thies
Speaker 1: and when and whether the actual conversation in the differing
Speaker 1: opinions and philosophies within the Trump team super interesting.
Speaker 2: We'll take a look at that in the moment.
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4: So there just coincidentally with this mini scandal or Maxi scandal,
Speaker 4: depending on how it turns out. Going on around intelligence,
Speaker 4: the big Senate hearing today where all the intelligence heads
Speaker 4: come in and talk about the biggest threats around the world.
Speaker 4: I love this every year and we always end up
Speaker 4: talking about it because lots of interesting stuff comes out
Speaker 4: of but because he had this kind of scandal thing happen,
Speaker 4: which is about if you don't know what we're talking about,
Speaker 4: it's about to be laid up by Mark Warner, Democrat,
Speaker 4: co chair of this committee. Democrats have something to talk
Speaker 4: about for the first time practically in the second Trump administration,
Speaker 4: and they're so excited about it.
Speaker 2: But here it goes.
Speaker 10: And according to reports, two of our witnesses here today were.
Speaker 2: Members of a group chat.
Speaker 10: To discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly
Speaker 10: even included weapons packages, targets, and timing, and included the
Speaker 10: name of an active CIA agent. There's plenty of declassified
Speaker 10: information the shows that our adversaries China and Russia are
Speaker 10: trying to break in two encrypted systems like signal.
Speaker 2: I can just say this, if this.
Speaker 10: Was the case of a military officer, oh boy, or
Speaker 10: an intelligence officer and they had this kind of behavior, they.
Speaker 2: Would be spared. Perfect.
Speaker 1: That is perfect for what I'm about to talk about here.
Speaker 1: Mark Warner walked into that. Here he downed two double
Speaker 1: espressos and took a viagra. He was so excited about
Speaker 1: getting in there and laying it to the Trump administration.
Speaker 4: But somebody pointed this out on and it's absolutely true.
Speaker 4: You just gotta love the rich. Only in Washington, irony
Speaker 4: of one Republicans who tormented Hillary Clinton for her private
Speaker 4: e mail service scandal, now trying to downplay what could
Speaker 4: be some sort of breach a sense of info, while
Speaker 4: at the same time Democrats pouncing on this controversy after
Speaker 4: defending Clinton's email bruhaha for years. The Ours will argue
Speaker 4: these episodes are not equal. The Dems will argue these
Speaker 4: are not equal, and that's where we are. But him
Speaker 4: bringing up any regulars, I have heard this before. Any
Speaker 4: regular man in uniform would have been court martialed for
Speaker 4: this exactly.
Speaker 2: The same thing we said on the other side, right right, exactly.
Speaker 1: I had just seen that Hillary herself was commenting, Hillary,
Speaker 1: do you even know what irony is?
Speaker 2: Can you please set this one out, just this one,
Speaker 2: wipe it like with a cloth.
Speaker 1: Oh my, it's all too much, it is so Look,
Speaker 1: this is not a good deal.
Speaker 2: It's not a good look.
Speaker 1: It's certainly not a security protocol to include Jeffrey freaking
Speaker 1: Goldberg in this stuff. I suspect the course will be
Speaker 1: corrected and this will not happen again. But we've talked
Speaker 1: about that a fair amount, and there's more to develop,
Speaker 1: I suppose in the days to come, and we will
Speaker 1: cover it for you. But I found this just irresistibly interesting,
Speaker 1: the actual conversations and the polls of power and philosophy,
Speaker 1: if you will, within the Trump national security team, and
Speaker 1: it strikes me as a very team of rivals thing.
Speaker 1: And I'll describe some of the specifics before I babble
Speaker 1: on more about what I think about it.
Speaker 4: But I, by the way, I've had a complete change
Speaker 4: of heart on this whole topic.
Speaker 2: Really, Yes, you're holding out on us or are you
Speaker 2: gonna hit us with that.
Speaker 4: I've brushed up against in the last couple of weeks,
Speaker 4: but I'm now It's one of the few major issues
Speaker 4: I've changed my mind on in adulthood, but this is
Speaker 4: one of them.
Speaker 1: Okay, fine, So anyway, the news, according to the comment
Speaker 1: here in the Wall Street Journal editorial board, was that
Speaker 1: the characters played to their public type, their public image,
Speaker 1: and I would agree. National Security Advisor Mike Walls came
Speaker 1: out for US leadership said, no, we've this is our
Speaker 1: role in the world. It's important that we do it,
Speaker 1: that we keep shipping free, for instance. And he was
Speaker 1: also very forceful in saying, look, this is the president's policy,
Speaker 1: that's his policy.
Speaker 2: Vice President JD.
Speaker 1: Vance was a voice for US retreat and or extreme caution.
Speaker 1: And we'll get more to why he thought that in
Speaker 1: a second, it's not crazy. Even though Trump had said no,
Speaker 1: we want to hit him. Vance was like, Hey, I
Speaker 1: think we're making a mistake here. Stephen Miller, who's a
Speaker 1: screen name, was sm said, as I heard it, the
Speaker 1: president was clear green light, paraphrasing, now, why should Tehran's
Speaker 1: proxy get away with shooting at navy ships, US Navy
Speaker 1: ships and aircraft and blocking critical waterways for everybody but
Speaker 1: around Russia and China the way they did under Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: Stephen Miller was not having that.
Speaker 1: Michael Waltz in the Key exchange on March fourteen, which
Speaker 1: was the day before the strikes on Yemen, wrote quote, team,
Speaker 1: you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per
Speaker 1: the president's guidance, but not all preferred to take to guidance,
Speaker 1: said jd Well, a user who went by the screen
Speaker 1: name jd Vance, who that is historians will have to
Speaker 1: parse out anyway, This mysterious JD. Van's character says, I
Speaker 1: think we're making a mistake. Three percent of US trade
Speaker 1: runs through the Suez, while forty percent of European trade does.
Speaker 1: I am not sure the President is aware how inconsistent
Speaker 1: this is with his message on Europe. Right now, there's
Speaker 1: a further risk that we see a moderate to severe
Speaker 1: spike in oil prices. There is a strong argument for
Speaker 1: delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why
Speaker 1: this matters and seeing where the economy is, et cetera.
Speaker 4: And that's just an interesting insight into his philosophy. And
Speaker 4: I mean that's gonna matter when he runs for president.
Speaker 4: I don't like his point of view. I think he's wrong,
Speaker 4: but he's he's pretty hard core that direction, it would seem,
Speaker 4: and he will be heard from again in a moment.
Speaker 1: Ah, let's see this council of delay waiting for economic
Speaker 1: news that may never come. Was echoed by Joe Kent,
Speaker 1: whose name you might not know, but he's a noted
Speaker 1: isolationist to pull backerr, whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 1: whom Director of National Intelligence Tulsey Gabbard has named in
Speaker 1: the chat as her point of contact. So he's her
Speaker 1: point man, and he's a bit of an isolationist. In reply,
Speaker 1: Pete Hegzeth pointed out the risks of waiting and stressed
Speaker 1: Iran's role, and then made the case for the operation
Speaker 1: quote I see it as two things. One restoring freedom
Speaker 1: of navigation, which is a core national interest, in two
Speaker 1: re established to terrence which Biden cratered. Trump later made
Speaker 1: similar points in public, reflecting their being on the same page.
Speaker 1: I think, well, I'll say my analysis for a second.
Speaker 1: This reflects well on mister heg Seth, writes the editorial
Speaker 1: board of the journal, though it's notable that he named
Speaker 1: Don Caldwell as his point of contact, and Caldwell comes
Speaker 1: from the isolationist Coke network, as in the Koch Brothers,
Speaker 1: which Trump has been highly critical of, which is again
Speaker 1: team of rivalsy Waltz explained the damage to global trade
Speaker 1: in the limits of Europe's navies quote, whether it's now
Speaker 1: or several weeks from now, it will have to be
Speaker 1: the United States that reopens these shipping lanes.
Speaker 4: He wrote, Yeah, I thought an interesting point. You might
Speaker 4: think Europe should do it. They can't. They don't have
Speaker 4: the ability.
Speaker 1: And then vance showing his reasonableness in the face of
Speaker 1: disagreement to me, and I disagree strongly with JD on
Speaker 1: several things, but he said he finally conceded to reality. Quote,
Speaker 1: I just hate bailing Europe again. Hexeth agreed. I fully
Speaker 1: share your loathing of European free loading. It's pathetic. That's
Speaker 1: probably not the sort of thing you want to leak.
Speaker 1: But but Mike, meaning Mike Waltz, is correct about how
Speaker 1: we have to do that. Mister Trump now now knows
Speaker 1: which of his deputies tried to block it and which
Speaker 1: tried to carry it out.
Speaker 2: I don't like that last bit of an house No,
Speaker 2: that's not That's not what you want at all. No,
Speaker 2: I the last thing you want is group think.
Speaker 1: And I you know, I see it as as as
Speaker 1: poles as like magnetic poles in the group. You know,
Speaker 1: not to flog the team of rivals thing too much.
Speaker 1: But I mean, if you're in an organization, maybe you're
Speaker 1: doing software or something like that, and you have a
Speaker 1: brain trust of people, and one of your people is
Speaker 1: always harping about innovation. How if we stay still, we're
Speaker 1: going to get left behind. The business we're in is innovating.
Speaker 2: What's next?
Speaker 1: We've got to improve this. And then you have people saying, look,
Speaker 1: this is the most popular ex software in the world.
Speaker 1: We can't mess with it until we're one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: We're ready, our customers are satisfied. You're right, but caution.
Speaker 1: You don't want to cut out innovation guy just because
Speaker 1: for now you're leaving Salesforce or Microsoft Order or whatever
Speaker 1: the hell as it is.
Speaker 2: For now. You don't want to silence that voice.
Speaker 1: You don't want to silence Jdvance saying look, we've got
Speaker 1: to keep putting the screws to the Euros or they
Speaker 1: will stay lazy and we will pay for and earlier
Speaker 1: said that at the least we ought to get some
Speaker 1: money out of them for doing this, reopening their freaking
Speaker 1: shipping lanes. I love jd Vance's voice in that discussion,
Speaker 1: and I think they did the right thing in spite
Speaker 1: of it.
Speaker 4: So I'm this is an innocent question, not trying to
Speaker 4: push anything any direction. How does the chain of come
Speaker 4: in work on this whole thing. So it sounded like
Speaker 4: Trump had already signed off on the idea of we
Speaker 4: need to attack the hoothies then, so like could have
Speaker 4: it got stemied in this conversation and like was so,
Speaker 4: then did somebody report back to him We're not doing.
Speaker 2: It or how does that even work? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I think uh probably hexeth end or Waltz would
Speaker 1: have gone back to the President and said, uh, hey,
Speaker 1: we've got some serious concerns about A and B. And
Speaker 1: then of course the commander in chief would say, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's nice, that's that's sweet.
Speaker 2: Do it anywhere, bominam, do it anyway, and it would
Speaker 2: have happened.
Speaker 1: It sounded like Waltz was just wanting another hearing with
Speaker 1: the president, but he was talked out of it.
Speaker 2: Okay, we go ahead on just that topic.
Speaker 4: I think I've become convinced that because I've been I've
Speaker 4: been yelling about this for years.
Speaker 2: It goes way back to college, Gladys, goes way back
Speaker 2: to college, well after.
Speaker 4: I had my permanent parachute pants before I graduated for
Speaker 4: the baldness. Yes, constantly hearing from college professors about how
Speaker 4: much greater it was in Europe, how many weeks of
Speaker 4: vacation they get and they only have to work this
Speaker 4: many hours a week, and how wonderful it is without
Speaker 4: pointing out to me a stupid college kid who didn't
Speaker 4: know any better. That's because we provide their national defense.
Speaker 2: So of course they.
Speaker 4: Got plenty of money while it lasts and it's about
Speaker 4: to run out. It's all running run out.
Speaker 1: In France, for instance, or Greece, we provide the national offense,
Speaker 1: so of course they don't have to be as productive.
Speaker 1: They can, you know, take nine months of vacation or
Speaker 1: retire at fifty or whatever the hell they do in
Speaker 1: all these guds. None of the college professors pointed that
Speaker 1: out of course. Well, and it's as if Europe itself
Speaker 1: is a retiree. They have more time to do fun stuff.
Speaker 1: They spend more time on the golf course than I
Speaker 1: do because I'm still working. But they are heading toward
Speaker 1: you know, decline and perhaps the tomb because we spend
Speaker 1: they're no longer young and dynamic and growing and achieving,
Speaker 1: and right they're just in that phase of their life.
Speaker 2: I don't want the US to be in that phase
Speaker 2: of life.
Speaker 4: We spend eight hundred million dollars a year on defense,
Speaker 4: I think it's roughly that number, and that's so we can,
Speaker 4: you know, do what we want to do around the world,
Speaker 4: and that protects Europe. And then then they don't have
Speaker 4: to hardly spend any money all until recently.
Speaker 1: Well at risk of flogging the metaphor to death, Europe
Speaker 1: is on social security and we pay we're current workers.
Speaker 2: But my butt is I felt that way for decades.
Speaker 4: Now I've become convinced listening to a variety of different
Speaker 4: podcasts and thinkers and that sort of stuff, that is,
Speaker 4: we're much better off with the world that way.
Speaker 2: I have been living with this idea.
Speaker 4: You know, France, Germany, England, all these countries, they basically
Speaker 4: line up with us, and they'll continue to line up
Speaker 4: with us when we're not providing. That is probably not
Speaker 4: going to be the case when they actually are independent
Speaker 4: enough to provide their own security or work together in security.
Speaker 4: Next time we need to do anything or want things
Speaker 4: to be a certain way, they're gonna say, yeah, good
Speaker 4: for you, do it yourself or whatever. But for the
Speaker 4: past many decades we really need to do anything, they're
Speaker 4: on board because they kind of have to be, because
Speaker 4: we provide all the security. And I think we're gonna
Speaker 4: miss those days when a nine to eleven comes along
Speaker 4: and immediately all those countries are on board.
Speaker 1: In the future, when they're more independent, they'll be like, Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's in it for me? That sounds like a you problem?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I see your point.
Speaker 1: I just I think is the sands of history shift,
Speaker 1: new realities take hold and there's.
Speaker 2: No use postion for the old stuff. Not that you are.
Speaker 4: It's possible that we just flat can't afford it anymore.
Speaker 4: So it's not an option, it's a it's not a discussion,
Speaker 4: it's not a policy choice.
Speaker 2: It's just we can't afford it anymore.
Speaker 1: Right, but I bungle a merkle crawling into Vladimir Putin's
Speaker 1: lap for a cuddle in some natural gas, right, was
Speaker 1: a sign of the way it could go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, for who knows, for a lot of those countries.
Speaker 4: France was getting around the uh, the sanctions on a
Speaker 4: rack the whole time. We were trying to pressure them
Speaker 4: everything like that. So and that's when they needed us.
Speaker 4: Wait till they don't need us.
Speaker 2: How are they gonna act?
Speaker 4: They're gonna cozy up to China in kind of ways
Speaker 4: we really really don't like.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, with baseball season about to start, which has to
Speaker 1: be very excited. We're a team that had an eleven
Speaker 1: game winning streak. Now it's back to reality. We've lost
Speaker 1: a couple and we're going to play the Yankees.
Speaker 2: It's that's history. We got a lot more on the
Speaker 2: way difference. Yes, we do, by gully.
Speaker 4: Is this a big scandal or not? That that's what
Speaker 4: I wonder. I guess we'll see how it unfolds throughout
Speaker 4: the day.
Speaker 2: Stay here, strong, Hetty.
Speaker 11: The business news I've read the twenty three and me
Speaker 11: just filed for bankruptcy. The companies said they were fifty
Speaker 11: percent sad, thirty seven percent disappointed, and thirteen percent Scottish. Yes,
Speaker 11: the worst news to hit the DNA test business since
Speaker 11: Maury was canceled.
Speaker 1: So the obvious question, twenty three meter goes bankrupt? Where
Speaker 1: is my spit? Who has control of all of our spit?
Speaker 1: I demand my saliva back with interest? Wait a minute,
Speaker 1: Oh so, speaking of science, here is the headline. How
Speaker 1: do I put this? The headline most likely to make
Speaker 1: you cringe today? Would you let a robot draw your blood? Oh?
Speaker 1: Northwestern among health systems trying new device. No way that,
Speaker 1: no possible way a robot can ever do that? Well,
Speaker 1: not possible. My response is six simple words, get that
Speaker 1: thing away from me. Can you imagine.
Speaker 4: I actually don't think AI could be capable of doing that.
Speaker 1: Several health systems are gearing up to try a new
Speaker 1: way of drawing blood using a robot.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, who are they going to practice on?
Speaker 2: Who's volunteering for that?
Speaker 1: I tell you what you are, brave, says this chief
Speaker 1: chief commercial officer for the company making it. It starts
Speaker 1: wheeling towards you. You get that need a little high,
Speaker 1: don't judge my head?
Speaker 2: Well, what are you doing? All stale? Human?
Speaker 1: All stale, says the guy who works for the company,
Speaker 1: And probably it's also remains unjabbed. This all ensures high
Speaker 1: accuracy and high reliability, and with such precision, it reduces
Speaker 1: any paint and discomfort associating with a normal blood.
Speaker 4: Try a chance, that's true, not a come on now true?
Speaker 1: The patient, I don't even want to describe the process.
Speaker 1: I'll get light headed. So you sit in the chair.
Speaker 1: That's the regular part. The patient then presses a button.
Speaker 1: The tourniquet tightens around your arm, making the blood dry
Speaker 1: easily easier. Then Aletta this is the name of this beast,
Speaker 1: then uses infrared light to locate the veins. The device
Speaker 1: s praised the patient's alcohol arm with alcohol to clean it,
Speaker 1: and an AI driven Doppler ultrasound probe on a robotic
Speaker 1: arm helps selective ain and determine needle placement, and then
Speaker 1: it does it's dirty deed and collects the blood into twoe.
Speaker 2: I can less malfunction. I just don't believe that's possible.
Speaker 2: Here's Michael. We could rename your what was it Pong?
Speaker 4: He was the guy, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, your favorite
Speaker 4: flebottomistic yeah, who unfortunately quit to drive a truck because
Speaker 4: there's more money in it.
Speaker 2: But he was the best drawn blood. Uh.
Speaker 4: He absolutely made it painless. I just can't imagine that
Speaker 4: a machine would ever be able to do that.
Speaker 2: I was hoping to.
Speaker 1: Squeeze this in, but it might have to wait until
Speaker 1: a little bit later on. Can you imagine if the
Speaker 1: thing went all right? Hey, look, look about one times
Speaker 1: out of ten we got to recalibrate it, and yeah,
Speaker 1: you'll be fine.
Speaker 2: Uld your arm in the air. The bleeding of stuffs,
Speaker 2: nothing counts so much as blood.
Speaker 1: Sorry, I couldn't hear you over my screaming. All right,
Speaker 1: a couple of disappointing stories. First of all, do you
Speaker 1: have kids in those high fellutin traveling sports? Leagues, and
Speaker 1: you ever get the sense you're being ripped off, that's
Speaker 1: a good reason for that, because you are. And second secondly,
Speaker 1: and discouragingly but not shockingly, science believes we have passed
Speaker 1: peak intelligence as human beings and are as a race
Speaker 1: getting dumber.
Speaker 2: I know, I am.
Speaker 4: If you missed the segment, get the podcast Armstrong and
Speaker 4: Getty on demand
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty