Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Vernic was center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you as well, and Senator. It was a very
Speaker 1: big day Thursday, as we got part one of the
Speaker 1: Epstein files that were released the public by a lot
Speaker 1: of conservatives that were at the White House. And then
Speaker 1: Pam Bondi came out afterwards and dropped a bomb that
Speaker 1: was pretty much, Hey, I may be the Attorney General
Speaker 1: in cash, but tell maybe the FBI director, but there
Speaker 1: are people in New York that are hiding documents from
Speaker 1: us that deal with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: Well that's exactly right. And let me start by saying
Speaker 2: thank you to Pam Bondy for honoring the promises she made.
Speaker 2: I have been calling on the Department of Justice to
Speaker 2: release the full Jeffrey Epstein files, and she is working
Speaker 2: to do that. And so she released the first tranch
Speaker 2: of information today. That was good, although a lot of
Speaker 2: the observers who saw the information were underwhelmed by what
Speaker 2: was in it. She released it to a group group
Speaker 2: of conservative influencers online and gave them a binder with
Speaker 2: the information and there were no no big smoking guns
Speaker 2: and what came out initially. We we do know that
Speaker 2: the the The new Jeffrey Epstein contact list included Alec Baldwin,
Speaker 2: Michael Jackson, and Mick Jagger. But it was for people
Speaker 2: who want to know who were Jeffrey Epstein's clients, who
Speaker 2: was who was complicit and and and who is guilty
Speaker 2: as he was of sexually abusing teenage girls. There was
Speaker 2: relatively little information in the files that were released, But
Speaker 2: then there was a bombshell because Pambondy accused the New
Speaker 2: York FBI office of with holding significant parts of the
Speaker 2: Epstein files. That that's a big, big deal, and she
Speaker 2: did so in a formal letter that she sent to
Speaker 2: Cash Pattel. So she sent a letter on February twenty seventh.
Speaker 2: I'm going to read you the entire letter because this
Speaker 2: letter's a big deal. February twenty seventh, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Dear Director Patel, before you came into office, I requested
Speaker 2: the full and complete files related to Jeffrey Epstein. In
Speaker 2: response to this request, I received approximately two hundred pages
Speaker 2: of documents, which consisted primarily of flight logs, Epstein's list
Speaker 2: of contacts, and a list of victims' names and phone numbers.
Speaker 2: I repeatedly questioned whether this was the full set of
Speaker 2: documents responsive to my request, and was repeatedly assured by
Speaker 2: the FBI that we had received the full set of documents.
Speaker 2: Late yesterday, I learned from a source that the FBI
Speaker 2: Field office in New York was in possession of thousands
Speaker 2: of pages of documents related to the invent instigation and
Speaker 2: indictment of Epstein. Despite my repeated requests the FBI never
Speaker 2: disclose the existence of these files. When you and I
Speaker 2: spoke yesterday, you were just as surprised as I was
Speaker 2: to learn this new information. By eight am Tomorrow, February
Speaker 2: twenty eighth, the FBI will deliver the full and complete
Speaker 2: Epstein files to my office, including all records, documents, audio
Speaker 2: and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and
Speaker 2: his clients. Regardless of how such information was obtained. There
Speaker 2: will be no withholdings or limitations to my or your access.
Speaker 2: The Department of Justice will ensure that any public disclosure
Speaker 2: of these files will be done in a manner to
Speaker 2: protect the privacy of victims and in accordance with law,
Speaker 2: as I have done my entire career as a prosecutor.
Speaker 2: Also directing you to conduct an immediate investigation into why
Speaker 2: my order to the FBI was not followed. You will
Speaker 2: deliver to me a comprehensive report of your findings and
Speaker 2: proposed personnel action within fourteen days. I appreciate your immediate
Speaker 2: attention to this important matter. I know that we are
Speaker 2: both committed to transparency for the American people, and I
Speaker 2: look forward to continuing to work with you to serve
Speaker 2: our President and our country. Sincerely, Pamela Bondi, Attorney General.
Speaker 1: This letter was incredible, and I actually talked to someone
Speaker 1: that you and I both know, Chad Prather. He was
Speaker 1: invited as one of the fifteen. He's a fellow Texan
Speaker 1: that went to the White House, and as soon as
Speaker 1: he left, we actually talked on the phone and he said, Ben,
Speaker 1: he said, none of us that were invited up here
Speaker 1: knew we were going to get the Epstein files. Number one.
Speaker 1: We were actually brought up to the White House to
Speaker 1: talk about communitys and we were going to meet with
Speaker 1: the Vice President. We didn't know we're going to be
Speaker 1: meeting with the people in the cabinet. We didn't know
Speaker 1: we were going to be meeting with the president. We
Speaker 1: certainly didn't know we were going to be given these
Speaker 1: Epstein files, and he said there was two parts of
Speaker 1: this that the big mainstream media clearly didn't understand. Or
Speaker 1: they were angry that we got the files before they did,
Speaker 1: and so they wanted to say that today was a
Speaker 1: nothing burger. He said. When they gave them to us,
Speaker 1: they said, look, there's really nothing new in here that
Speaker 1: you're going to find. This is why we're calling it
Speaker 1: Part one. And then they said what we want you
Speaker 1: to know is exactly the letter that you just read,
Speaker 1: which was we don't have the majority of the intel
Speaker 1: that we've been demanding because there are bad actors in
Speaker 1: the deep state who were refusing to give it to us.
Speaker 1: In fact, what they said was even more shocking was
Speaker 1: Pambondi did an interview with Waters last night on Fox
Speaker 1: and she was talking about the quote two hundred pages
Speaker 1: that she had there in essence of whistle blower that
Speaker 1: saw the interview and said, I need to tell you
Speaker 1: right now that you're missing a lot of pages and
Speaker 1: they're not giving them to you from New York FBI.
Speaker 1: And that's how fast this all came about. So you're
Speaker 1: thinking about when you're the attorney of the United States
Speaker 1: of America. You're going on TV and only because you
Speaker 1: gave a page number which was about ten percent of
Speaker 1: apparently what is actually out there based on what the
Speaker 1: whistle bober said. This is insane that this is our
Speaker 1: government right now and there's that many people fighting against
Speaker 1: the will of the people who elected the president, who
Speaker 1: had put Pambondi and Cashpit telling to these positions.
Speaker 2: Well, and from the letter, there may be audio and
Speaker 2: video recordings. There may be some issue that some of
Speaker 2: the materials were seized illegally. I mean, there's a suggestion
Speaker 2: there that regardless of how it was accessed, I want it.
Speaker 2: But look, I got to say, listen, I worked in
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice twenty five years ago. I have
Speaker 2: been been working in and around law enforcement for virtually
Speaker 2: my entire adult life. I have never seen something like
Speaker 2: this happened. So understand, the FBI reports to the Department
Speaker 2: of Justice, Cash Patel, his boss is Pambondi. The FBI
Speaker 2: is in the ORG chart reporting to the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: So when the Attorney General orders the FBI, I want
Speaker 2: to see these files. In every instance, I'm aware of
Speaker 2: the FBI complies they're supposed to be law enforcement. If
Speaker 2: the Attorney General says I want to see something, you
Speaker 2: give it to the Attorney general and look, presumably we
Speaker 2: will find out. And we'll find out I guess within
Speaker 2: two weeks when Cash Pateel prepares his report saying here's
Speaker 2: what happened. But it is astonishing if you have rogue
Speaker 2: agents in the New York office of the FBI who
Speaker 2: are just defying the Attorney General. That is a level
Speaker 2: of open warfare that I've never seen, and it really
Speaker 2: does indicate the need to clean house in a major way.
Speaker 1: There was also another aspect of this, and again this
Speaker 1: is coming from Chad and he was meeting right with
Speaker 1: the president and the vice president and these other cabinet
Speaker 1: members pam Bondi, Cashpateel, and he said they were also
Speaker 1: the letter has been basically just completely misconstrued as if
Speaker 1: there's some sort of disagreement or wedge between Pambondi and
Speaker 1: cash Ptel. But when you understand the backstory, he said,
Speaker 1: their lockstep. She's giving this letter out to give him
Speaker 1: the power to then go get the answers from the demands.
Speaker 1: And yet the media was reporting this tonight all over
Speaker 1: the place like oh, there's a big rift between the
Speaker 1: Attorney General and the FBI director. That is also not
Speaker 1: the case at all. Another lie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that's very clear from the letter
Speaker 2: where it says when you and I spoke yesterday, you
Speaker 2: were just as surprised as I was to learn this
Speaker 2: new information. And so Cash Betel has just been confirmed.
Speaker 2: As you know. I went to Cash Betel's swearing in
Speaker 2: at the White House last week. He's brand new on
Speaker 2: the job. He has a mandate to restore integrity to
Speaker 2: the FBI. And I guess the whistleblower, whoever the source was,
Speaker 2: contacted the Attorney General directly, and she's the one, the
Speaker 2: Attorney General who told Cashpateel about this documents. I am
Speaker 2: sure he is pissed off at what the New York
Speaker 2: Field Office apparently did, and I fully expect he will
Speaker 2: get to the bottom of it, and I expect they're
Speaker 2: going to make the results of that public. I think
Speaker 2: we're all going to know exactly who's responsible.
Speaker 1: And why let me ask about accountability here, because you
Speaker 1: would understand this the law more than I certainly do,
Speaker 1: and that is, if you've been directed by the FBI
Speaker 1: director or the Attorney General to turnover documents, and you
Speaker 1: work in the government, you deliberately hide those documents and
Speaker 1: do not turn them over. Are you committing a crime
Speaker 1: or is it basically worst case scenario, you'll lose your
Speaker 1: job and they fire you for insupportination.
Speaker 2: Likely the latter. There's not anything it would There's not
Speaker 2: an immediate crime that comes to mind. It's just defying
Speaker 2: your boss. I suppose you could try to characterize it
Speaker 2: as obstruction of justice. But but I think that the
Speaker 2: simplest explanation, the simplest remedy would be termination. And I
Speaker 2: expect any FBI agent that that deliberately disobeyed a direct
Speaker 2: order from the Attorney General, I expect anyone involved in
Speaker 2: that to be terminated.
Speaker 1: It's an incredible story, and I think one of the
Speaker 1: things that we should make clear is there's clearly significant information.
Speaker 1: We've been told that Pambondi has said that there is video,
Speaker 1: there is audio, there's a lot of recordings.
Speaker 2: Will be clear. To be clear, we don't know that.
Speaker 2: At the least, the letter doesn't say that. It just
Speaker 2: says deliver the full and complete files, including audio and
Speaker 2: video recordings. And look, lawyers tend to be pretty broad
Speaker 2: she may not know that their audio and video recordings.
Speaker 2: She may she may there may be, or there may
Speaker 2: not be, but she hasn't definitively said that there are
Speaker 2: audio and video recordings.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're absolutely right, that's what the letter said. But
Speaker 1: what's interesting is from the people that were in the meeting,
Speaker 1: they were told that this was in essence the tip
Speaker 1: of the Iceberger that they do have audio and video
Speaker 1: recordings that apparently have been withheld from the New York office.
Speaker 1: And that's part of the reason why I think you're
Speaker 1: seeing the demand come out this way is that there
Speaker 1: must be a lot that the deep state doesn't want
Speaker 1: us to see, which goes back to my final question
Speaker 1: for you center on this. Why is it they don't
Speaker 1: want us to see this? Is this because they're trying
Speaker 1: to protect people in the political world? What would be
Speaker 1: the reason you wouldn't want to know or for everyone
Speaker 1: to see what it is they're desperately trying to hide
Speaker 1: from not only us, but literally from the Attorney General
Speaker 1: in the FBI director.
Speaker 2: So look, I don't know, I can only speculate it.
Speaker 2: It may be that they want to protect people who's
Speaker 2: whose misconduct or criminal conduct is suggested or or demonstrated
Speaker 2: in the files. I don't know that, but that certainly
Speaker 2: could be a reason. We do know that Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 2: was very close to a number of Democrats, that he
Speaker 2: was very very close to Bill Clinton. Bizarrely enough, Jeffrey
Speaker 2: Epstein had a painting in in his his New York
Speaker 2: townhouse of Bill Clinton in a dress wearing pumps. Is
Speaker 2: really bizarre. A blue dress, right, a blue dress, yes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And a lot of people may they believe that
Speaker 1: was clearly the painting and reference to Monica Lewinsky in
Speaker 1: the blue dress. And you got to think to put
Speaker 1: that up and hang it in your in your home
Speaker 1: and have that relationship, It's like, well, you must feel
Speaker 1: pretty powerful to be to do that.
Speaker 2: So we don't know. It may be, you know, the
Speaker 2: reference to Regardless how the information was was accessed, that
Speaker 2: may mean some information was acquired illegally. That's a possibility.
Speaker 2: It may be. Look, there's there's speculation that that that
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein worked with intelligence operatives, either from from the
Speaker 2: United States or other nations. I don't know that to
Speaker 2: be the case, but that there's a host of things
Speaker 2: that could be in there, and That's one of the
Speaker 2: reasons why I think the Department of Justice should have
Speaker 2: released this a long time ago, because without the information,
Speaker 2: all people are left to do is speculate.
Speaker 1: There was another shocking headline that also came out today
Speaker 1: and that deals with the assassination attempt on Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and Butler, Pennsylvania. The headline for the New York Posts
Speaker 1: is quote would be Trump assassin may have had an
Speaker 1: accomplice and data shows as in investigators say FBI suppressed info.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't believe that headline if I wouldn't have just
Speaker 1: had the conversation with you for the last ten minutes
Speaker 1: that we just had about the FBI covering up at
Speaker 1: Epstein information as well.
Speaker 2: Well. This is a stunning article. I do not know
Speaker 2: if it is true, but if there is evidence that
Speaker 2: the attempted assassin, the man who shot Donald Trump and Butler, Pennsylvania,
Speaker 2: had an accomplice or multiple accomplices, that would be a
Speaker 2: big damn deal. And you know, I got to say,
Speaker 2: it has been a long time. It has been two
Speaker 2: hundred and twenty nine days since President Trump was shot
Speaker 2: at that rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and yet we know
Speaker 2: next to nothing about the shooter. It's almost as if
Speaker 2: it just dropped into a memory hole and disappeared. And
Speaker 2: I want to read some of this article from the
Speaker 2: New York Post because it it has some incredible information
Speaker 2: in it. It's not clear, it's not clear what's true
Speaker 2: or not. But let me read from the New York Post.
Speaker 2: Quote it's been almost nine months since a seemingly mild
Speaker 2: matter twenty year old attempted to assassinate then Republican presidential
Speaker 2: nominee Donald Trump at a rally in Butler, and we
Speaker 2: still have no good reason why, sources told the Post.
Speaker 2: The FBI has obstructed efforts to solve the mystery of
Speaker 2: why Thomas Matthew Crooks, who left no manifesto, did what
Speaker 2: he did. It's left local law enforcement, as well as
Speaker 2: Crooks's former friends, classmates, and teachers frustrated. Those who may know.
Speaker 2: Crooks's parents, Matthew and Mary, have refused all interviews and
Speaker 2: remain in their small, three bedroom home, sealed off from
Speaker 2: the world. Like Hermit's neighbors say, they only leave the
Speaker 2: house at three am to buy groceries. Quote, By the way,
Speaker 2: why do we know nothing about that guy in Butler?
Speaker 2: Elon Musk yelled out to the audience at Seapac last
Speaker 2: week before warning that FBI Director Cash Battel is going
Speaker 2: to get to the bottom of it. A veteran private
Speaker 2: investigator from Erie, Pennsylvania, who was hired shortly after the
Speaker 2: fateful July thirteenth event at Butler Farm to look into
Speaker 2: crooks by a private client, told The Post he believes
Speaker 2: a quote criminal network was operating with him at the
Speaker 2: time of the assassination attempt, is still in existence and
Speaker 2: still wants to kill President Trump. Doug Hagman, whose team
Speaker 2: of six other investigators had been working the case for
Speaker 2: months and have interviewed more than one hundred people, said
Speaker 2: they also conducted extensive geofensing analysis of cell phones and
Speaker 2: tablets not belonging to Crooks that were found with him
Speaker 2: at his home, at the rifle range where he took
Speaker 2: target practice, at the rally, and at Bethel Park High School,
Speaker 2: where he graduated in twenty twenty two. Quote. We don't
Speaker 2: think he acted alone, Hageman told the Post. Quote This
Speaker 2: took a lot of coordination. In my view, Crooks was
Speaker 2: handled by more than one individual, and he was used
Speaker 2: for this assassination attempt, and I wouldn't preclude the possibility
Speaker 2: that there were people at the rally itself helping him.
Speaker 2: Hageman said. One of the electronic devices geolocated with crooks
Speaker 2: at several different places at the time of the shooting
Speaker 2: is still pinging today at Bethel Park High School. Look,
Speaker 2: I don't know if this is true or not. I
Speaker 2: don't know any background about this private investigator, and I
Speaker 2: don't know if his allegations are are right or not.
Speaker 2: But it is frustrating that the American people. Look, I'm
Speaker 2: on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have no information that
Speaker 2: isn't public about who this would be assassin was, what
Speaker 2: is motivation was what evidence there is of anyone else
Speaker 2: being involved? And I'll tell you when when I sat
Speaker 2: down with both Cash Betel and with Pambondi when they
Speaker 2: were preparing for their confirmation, I had an extensive conversation
Speaker 2: with both of them about the need for transparency that
Speaker 2: when you've had four years of both the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice and the FBI politicized and weaponized, the result is
Speaker 2: that people don't trust the FBI. I mean. This article
Speaker 2: in the Post repeatedly argues that the FBI is an
Speaker 2: obstructing efforts to get to the bottom of what happened.
Speaker 2: That that's infuriating if true, and it is very much
Speaker 2: my hope that we'll see Pambondi and Cash Battel make
Speaker 2: significant information about this assassination attempt public. The American people
Speaker 2: have a right to know, have a right to know
Speaker 2: if anyone else was involved with this, And I don't
Speaker 2: know if the FBI, if they didn't put a priority
Speaker 2: on it, I don't know, if they didn't investigate, I
Speaker 2: don't I guess it is possible this kid acted alone.
Speaker 2: But the absolute dearth of information is is it frustrating
Speaker 2: and infuriating.
Speaker 1: Well, and it goes back to the point that I
Speaker 1: think Pambondi made at the White House with many of
Speaker 1: these conservatives, which is we're doing everything we can now
Speaker 1: to be transparent, but there is still a very deep
Speaker 1: state rebellion and they are hell bent on not when
Speaker 1: the American people know what's going on. They're above us,
Speaker 1: they think they're more important than us. They don't believe
Speaker 1: they have to play by the rules, they don't have
Speaker 1: to be transparent, and until you get that fixed, there's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of doubting in the American
Speaker 1: from the American people in these institutions.
Speaker 2: I think that's exactly right. You know, the the article
Speaker 2: says that Hageman, this private investigator, said that he was
Speaker 2: personally escorted to the Butler County line and told to
Speaker 2: leave twice during the course of his team's investigation. The
Speaker 2: people who did so were either federal agents or some
Speaker 2: type of private security and so look, and I actually
Speaker 2: I can understand an FBI investigation that they would be
Speaker 2: frustrated with having a private investigator interviewing the same people.
Speaker 2: So that actually the fact that the FBI was telling
Speaker 2: this guy, you know, buzz off, that's not shocking to me.
Speaker 2: But I don't know what investigation the FBI conducted. I
Speaker 2: certainly don't know the results of the investigation. They haven't
Speaker 2: made anything public to the American people, and I think
Speaker 2: the FBI's attitude has been in recent years. They don't
Speaker 2: know the publican answer, You don't get to know anything
Speaker 2: if they don't want to tell you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, great point. I want to move also to another story,
Speaker 1: and this goes back to the issue of trust. Elon
Speaker 1: Musk and Doge. New poll numbers are out saying that
Speaker 1: the majority of American people actually approve of what Elon
Speaker 1: Musk is doing, and they think that Doe is having
Speaker 1: a real impact in a positive way for this country
Speaker 1: and for taxpayers and the waste, fraud and abuse. They
Speaker 1: want them to keep moving forward. What we're also seeing
Speaker 1: centered at the exact same time is I would now
Speaker 1: describe it as a clearly well organized orchestrated effort by
Speaker 1: the media and the Democrats to ramp up their smears
Speaker 1: against Trump early on, or I should say against Elon,
Speaker 1: and early on, they were trying to drive a wedge
Speaker 1: between Elon and trust Trump. You could see it in
Speaker 1: their rhetoric where it's like, well, you know, Elon, it
Speaker 1: thinks he's the president, and oh yeah.
Speaker 2: The Time magazine cover story that put Elon at the
Speaker 2: resolute desk in the Oval office was obvious at a
Speaker 2: clumsy attempt to piss Trump off and get Trump mad
Speaker 2: at Elon, And it was so transparent that that that
Speaker 2: I think it did not remotely have the effect they
Speaker 2: were trying to have.
Speaker 1: Yeah, backfired, but that was where you could tell they
Speaker 1: were The first step was, well, maybe we can drive
Speaker 1: a wedge here. That hasn't worked. So now what we're
Speaker 1: witnessing is just a full on smear campaign against Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: even on the View. And this was an interesting moment
Speaker 1: for me because it's like you're getting real close to
Speaker 1: slander and libel when you do what the View does
Speaker 1: against Elon Musk. I don't know if they care that
Speaker 1: they have to apologize pretty regularly now for things they
Speaker 1: say on the air with legal notes they keep having
Speaker 1: to make. But Joe Bahart had this to say on
Speaker 1: the View about Elon Musk, and I want to play
Speaker 1: it and then get your reaction to it.
Speaker 3: And an Elon Musk kisses his butt and strokes his
Speaker 3: his tiny ego or big ego, whatever it is, and
Speaker 3: he doesn't get to do he can take a nap
Speaker 3: while the guy was not born in this country, who
Speaker 3: was born under apartheid in South Africa, so has that
Speaker 3: mentality going on. He was pro apartheid, as I understand it, right,
Speaker 3: he's a natural. Oh really, how did he do that?
Speaker 3: Did he come over the board? Believe yeah, he allegedly
Speaker 3: overstate that vs subject. But I think this is just
Speaker 3: perfectly but wonderful for Trump. He's been taken nap and
Speaker 3: let this foreigner, foreign agent, you know, an enemy of
Speaker 3: the United States do his job.
Speaker 1: I mean, not only does she say he's an enemy,
Speaker 1: but then she says in favor of apartheid, by the way,
Speaker 1: not true. Came back on the air later in the
Speaker 1: show and tried to undo that and said, Elon, don't sue.
Speaker 2: Well, look, I mean the View they are unhinged lunatics
Speaker 2: and they don't care about truth. But they know, you know,
Speaker 2: the crazy thing is Joi Biharr believes what she says.
Speaker 2: You know, it's a It's amazing. Apparently Elon Musk is
Speaker 2: the only immigrant that Joi Bihar and the crazies on
Speaker 2: the View dislike. If you're an MS thirteen gang member,
Speaker 2: if you're a murderer or a rapist, they're perfectly fine
Speaker 2: with you. They don't have a problem with Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: the Democrats releasing millions of criminals into America, that they
Speaker 2: have no problem with. But if someone comes legally to
Speaker 2: this country, if someone builds multiple incredible companies, creates thousands
Speaker 2: and thousands of jobs, is an incredible innovator and then
Speaker 2: volunteers his time to serve as nation that merits being
Speaker 2: called a foreign agent and an enemy of the United States.
Speaker 2: It you know, at the end of the day, what
Speaker 2: the view was saying doesn't say much about Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: but it says a lot about the media and the
Speaker 2: left and how terrified they are of him. And I'll
Speaker 2: tell you tell you. Marci Captor, a Democrat congresswoman, I
Speaker 2: had very similar comments. Listen to what she said about
Speaker 2: Elon Musk. Apparently she enjoyed Baharror reading from the same
Speaker 2: talking points.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and this was in front of the United States
Speaker 1: Capital where she said it.
Speaker 4: Mister Musk has just been here twenty two years, and
Speaker 4: he's a citizen of three countries. I always ask myself
Speaker 4: the question, with the damage he's doing here, when push
Speaker 4: comes to shove, which country is he loyalty to? South Africa,
Speaker 4: Canada or the United States? And he's only been a citizen,
Speaker 4: I'll say again, twenty two years.
Speaker 1: By the way, I thought it was Democrats for the
Speaker 1: last four years that were obsessed with the legal immigrants
Speaker 1: coming into this country and saying, who is anyone else
Speaker 1: to say that they aren't Americans and we don't even
Speaker 1: call them illegal as you must call them immigrants, and
Speaker 1: they're just like you and I. But all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: a guy by the name of Elon Musk is actually
Speaker 1: getting things done, and now they're just going to slander
Speaker 1: him and say which countries are really little too, like
Speaker 1: he's some sort of secret agent or bad actor for
Speaker 1: another nation.
Speaker 2: Well, look, I spent a good chunk of the morning
Speaker 2: with Elon over at the White House and he met
Speaker 2: with a number of senators talking about what he's doing
Speaker 2: on DOGE, and it was a very interesting meeting. And
Speaker 2: it's stunning some of the things that they're finding. They're finding.
Speaker 2: For example, they're going into agencies and finding agencies that
Speaker 2: have more electronic subscriptions than they have employees. Wow, And
Speaker 2: in many instances thousands and thousands more like like thirty
Speaker 2: thousand licenses for different electronic applications, thirty thousand licenses and
Speaker 2: fifteen thousand employees that order of magnitude. And so they're
Speaker 2: going in and canceling the ones that aren't used. They
Speaker 2: also went and checked and they said hundreds and hundreds
Speaker 2: of them had never been open, had never even been installed.
Speaker 2: So even of the employees, not everyone is using them.
Speaker 2: They've never logged in, and so they can go and check,
Speaker 2: all right, and so anyone who's not using it they're
Speaker 2: canceling those those are the sorts of things they're finding. Uh,
Speaker 2: they're really just astonishing.
Speaker 1: Well, when you met with him today, does it seem
Speaker 1: that he's even shocked by what he's finding.
Speaker 2: You know, there are things like he talked today about
Speaker 2: ghost payments, about the Treasury has computers that that that
Speaker 2: transfer funds that make federal payments and and he says
Speaker 2: that that that there are ghost payments that are going
Speaker 2: out that a program officer puts in for for for
Speaker 2: a payment to to a contractor to to to somebody,
Speaker 2: and then the program officer retires, dies, leaves is gone,
Speaker 2: and the payments just keep on going and and you
Speaker 2: know it, he said, it's stunning. The Treasury. Uh, the
Speaker 2: the Treasury computers have have a field where where where
Speaker 2: you categorize, okay, what is this payment for and and
Speaker 2: what in the congressional appropriation is it going for? And
Speaker 2: he said, routinely that field is left blank. He said, usaid,
Speaker 2: they always left it but blank, he said, So there's
Speaker 2: no way, he said, in many ways, it's incredibly difficult,
Speaker 2: if not impossible, to audit the billions of dollars that
Speaker 2: are going out the door because they don't keep the records,
Speaker 2: and it was interesting Elon's comments. He said, if any
Speaker 2: public company did this, he said, they would be massively
Speaker 2: fined and the executives would be put in jail.
Speaker 1: But hey, federal government just a normal way of doing business.
Speaker 1: I think the best part is the polls are showing
Speaker 1: that the media propaganda against Musk so far has not
Speaker 1: been working against the president. The majority of the American
Speaker 1: people love what Doge is doing, and as long as
Speaker 1: he's got the people behind him, it's going to be
Speaker 1: really interesting to see how this works out, and we're
Speaker 1: going to keep covering it here. Don't forget we do
Speaker 1: this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Hit that subscriber auto
Speaker 1: download button and we will see you back here for
Speaker 1: the wee In review on Saturday as well for some
Speaker 1: of the stories you may have missed this week. And
Speaker 1: make sure you download the show every time you see it.
Speaker 1: Download it and check your little boxes to make sure
Speaker 1: you have that auto download button on. Some of the
Speaker 1: algorithms change on a regular basis, so make sure you
Speaker 1: check that and we'll see it back here Saturday.