Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/14/25: Epstein Brother Says Trump May Have Killed Him, Alligator Alcatraz Debate, FEMA Gutted Amid Floods

Episode Date: July 14, 2025

Krystal and Saagar discuss Epstein brother says Trump may have killed him, Alligator Alcatraz debate, FEMA gutted as they failed to answer Texas flood victims.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. United by Passion. Podcasts that amplify the voices of women in sports. Thank you for supporting I Heart Women's Sports and our founding sponsors, Elf Beauty, Capital One, and Novartis. Just open the free I Heart app and search I Heart Women's Sports to listen now. -♪ Smokey the Bar's boy. -♪ Then you know why Smokey tells you when he sees you passing through.

Remember, please be careful, it's the least that you can do. What's what you decide. Don't play with matches. Don't play with fire. After 80 years of learning his wildfire prevention tips, Smokey Bear lives within us all. Learn more at SmokeyBear.com. And remember,

Only you can prevent wildfires. Brought to you by the USDA Forest Service, your state forester, and the Ad Council. I also want to address the Tonys. On a recent episode of Checking In with Michelle Williams, I open up about feeling snubbed by the Tony Awards. Do I? I was never mad.

I was disappointed because I had high hopes. To hear this and more on disappointment and protecting your peace, listen to Checking In with Michelle Williams from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here.

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today, and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,

and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. So let's talk a little bit more about the direct Trump and Epstein connections. Interesting moment on Don Lemon's podcast. He had on Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Mark,

and asked him directly, hey, do you think that Trump during his first administration actually had your brother killed? Let's take a listen to that. When you saw that interview with them, I think there was a couple of interviews. The one thing with Maria Bartiromo where they sat down and I mean they were glum and they're saying there's nothing there. I would be honest with you, there's nothing there. After years and years of pushing and also calling this somehow a Democrat according

to them, conspiracy theory, and that somehow the Democrats were involved in your brother's death. I don't think the Democrats... Look, I look at it this way. Bill Barr, when he came out that ridiculous statement, he worked for... He was the attorney general. Look, if Jeffrey was murdered, He was the attorney general. You know, who did he? Look, if he was, if Jeffrey was murdered, which I believe he was, somebody did it. So the people who were coming out

with these ridiculous statements, I think are covering up for somebody, right? So who are they covering up for? You know, Bill Barr worked for the president of the United States. Cash Patel works for the president of the United States. Pam Bondi works for the president of the United States. Maybe Mattel works for the president of the United States? Pam Bondi works for the president of the United States? Maybe someone should ask him what he knows.

Who do you think they're covering up for? Who do they all work for? They all work for Donald Trump. Well, like I said in another interview, I wouldn't be surprised. You wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump was behind your brother's death? Are you saying that Donald Trump had your brother murdered, do you believe? I'm not saying that.

I'm saying if that's what it was, I wouldn't be surprised. We know that Jeffrey had dirt on Donald Trump. We know that. That's a fact. Because he said in 2016 with the election that if he said what he knew, they'd have to cancel the election. He didn't tell me what he knew, but that's what he said. And I the election that if he said what he knew they'd have to cancel the election He didn't tell me what he knew but that's what he said and I've been public about that before that shouldn't come as a shock

There like what dirt? What course you Bannon said that the only person he feared for Donald Trump's sake was Jeffrey Epstein Why what do you think Jeffrey's gonna beat him up? No, it's because of what Jeffrey knew And what did Jeffrey know? Why? What do you think? Jeffrey's going to beat him up? No, because of what Jeffrey knew. And what did Jeffrey know? Well, I don't know. He didn't tell me what he knew, but he said if he said what he knew, they'd have to cancel the election.

So very interesting comments there, Zager. Well, Mark is an interesting figure. So Mark, actually, some background, if people want to listen to my interview with Tucker. Tucker in 2019 was like, yeah, maybe he killed himself, we'll see, whatever. But he said that Mark Epstein called him and he was like, I'm telling you 100%, he did not kill himself,

based on everything that I know about this. And it began actually a years-long relationship between Mark and Tucker basically about this issue of whether he killed himself or not, which was an exploration about the intelligence connections, et cetera. So Mark is not a partisan democratic figure. I just want people to lay that out

and know it at the beginning. I mean, in a way, he's like advocating for his dead brother, even though he was the heinous individual, but whatever. The point is, is that it's an entree point to which you're asked to ask the question, why? Who is covering this stuff up and for what purpose? And I'll be honest, for me, I always thought the Trump thing was tenuous.

And Tucker kind of put it to me, he's like, well, you know, wouldn't the Biden administration release it? That's a compelling point. And then the second part is like, it's just not really who Trump is. And for all of his sexual proclivities, basically you can read it all for yourself

from Stormy Daniels, it seems like pretty standard horny old man behavior. But then, the way this is now being handled, combined with the totality of the reaction previously, that really makes me start to be like, man, what's going on here? And I don't know, is it Trump himself? Is it about his own enabling him?

Let's be honest, he hung out with him. He was a Mar-a-Lago friend. There was pictures of them all being together. So at this point, I almost have no choice but to ask, be like, look, maybe there really is something there. And I don't think that's a crazy thing to say. It's not a conspiracy theory. There's like, in the same way that we look past,

let's look at the evidence, about the way he said to Galane, I wish her well, right? About the way that that case was handled, in which they basically localized the entire prosecution to just to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just, to just of Bondi and others come from Trump himself, I would assume, and then there's his public record now in the camera. It's sketchy, I don't know another way to say it. And you have this choice of numerous Epstein-linked figures for his first and second administration,

whether it's Bill Barr, who's dad gives Epstein his first job at a private school. His very first job, yeah, who has never had a college degree at Dalton School, Bill Barr's father hires him where he gets introduced to whom? To Bear Stearns where he then goes, it's like, man, you're sending me down the rabbit hole. But this is important stuff.

People need to know. No college degree. I don't know if people, Dalton is highly elite. It's like the pinnacle of elite private schools. So he gets plucked with no college degree to go teach there. Then parlay's that into somehow becoming this financier managing billions of dollars.

Oh, who are your clients? We don't know. Don't know. Outside of Les Wexner. That's the only one we really know. But we're told this is so lucrative and he's so extraordinary at it that he becomes so wealthy that he has

actually sort of gifted to him, actually from Les Wexner, the largest private residence in Manhattan. I don't know if you guys are familiar with Manhattan, but there's a lot of wealthy people there. It's crazy. Yes, on the Aberie side, absolutely. Didn't you tell me he's neighbors with Howard Ludnick? Oh yes, he was also.

Howard Ludnick's there. Just so people know. By the way, Howard recently purchased a $1,200 bottle of tequila and bragged about it online. If you're wondering, in case you're wondering. Yeah, so I mean, you have that. You've got Alex Acosta, who is the person who gave Epstein that sweetheart deal, which really buried all of this evidence.

I mean, that was critical. And Alan Dershowitz was his lawyer in all of that and has continued to receive legal fees from Jeffrey Epstein over time. Here you've got Pam Bondi, who also was Florida, who also, there's linkages there as well. And so, and then you consider Trump and his long-time relationship

and the things that we know about that. And then there he is, acting guilty as fucking covering the thing up. Yeah, you have to ask some questions about that and then there he is acting guilty as fucking covering the thing up. Yeah, you have to ask some questions about that. Michael Wolf, a journalist who did hours of interviews actually with Jeffrey Epstein, talked about how a bunch of these linkages were just basically hiding in plain sight

with regard to Donald Trump. Let's take a listen to a little bit of that. Donald Trump has gotten away with literally everything. And it turns out to be one of his greatest gifts. And somehow, again, hiding in plain sight is long relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And Trump has just waved it away, swept it under the rug, ignored it,

and gotten away with it. Once when I was, this was in Mar-a-Lago, I went to have a sit down with him. And his aides just asked me a rough outline of what I wanted to talk about. And I had a lot of subjects, but I also said Epstein. And they said, you know, if you ask about that, he'll just stop the interview and you won't get anything.

So interesting there, he says, Epstein, other things fine, Epstein, off limits. And you know how that interview shaping works in advance. They say, okay, well, yeah, you can ask if you want, but that's just gonna be the end of it. Do you know what the key is to do that? Is to ask it at the end. The very last question.

Yeah, if anybody wants to know a nice strategy, that's what I did. Before I went into the oval ones, Sarah Sanders was like, hey, just don't ask about this whole E. Jean Carroll thing. And we were like, mm, for sure. And then, of course, when we were done, we were like, hey, by the way, what do you think about this whole,

and of course, we got this iconic answer, which she ended up using in her own defamation lawsuit, citing it multiple times, that answer. So yes, that's the strategy about what you're supposed to do. And Wolf has other things that he's said as well that Epstein told him that they were besties for over a decade, and certainly they were closely linked for quite a while in the early 90s

and in the 90s in general. He also has talked about, you know, photos with girls of uncertain age and his stain on Trump's pants and girls pointing and laughing at him. That's what his claim is in terms of things that exist out there. So another interesting data point here,

put C-3 up on the screen. Apparently Trump held some talks on a pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell, which fits with the response when he got asked about her, you know, when she was on trial, hey, I wish her well, and fits with a very persistent pattern of getting quite squirrely when asked about the Epstein files and the release of the Epstein files

every time he got asked about it. It would be like, yeah, well, maybe, no, actually, you've got to worry about people's privacy there. So for people who, I guess, wanted to hear that there would be a release, they just listen to the figures around Trump, or they listen to that first, like, yeah, sure, before the, well, I don't know, I'm not so sure.

The other one's yes, but not so much on Epstein. Let's put this next one up on the screen here. This is just another indication of like the things that were said about this case before we got the memo that was just like case closed, nothing to see here. Prince Andrew, by the way, and everybody else, you're all let off the hook. Don't worry about it, you're good to go.

Completely innocent. FBI employees had received a directive to begin working uninterrupted on the Epstein records. Hundreds, under pressure from Patel, hundreds of FBI employees, including special agents from the DC New York field office, have been working furiously to meet Pam Bondi's demands. They've been holed up in offices

at the Bureau's sprawling central records complex in Winchester, Virginia, houses two billion pages of physical FBI records, an older building a few miles away. They've been working alongside analysts tasked with processing FOIA requests at the department. So whatever happened with those hundreds of FBI employees? Like, what were they doing there?

What records were they looking at? What are we talking about here for it all to be just case closed with a single page memo that supposedly there's nothing going on and there's nothing to learn and we have definitively decided that he definitely killed himself. Yes, that's right. I mean, look, I think it's all just totally crazy. And you flagged this to me, this piece by Chris Hedges.

Let's put C5, please, up on the screen. I mean, really what Chris gets into is not only the list of all of the figures, including Trump himself, that are all tied up within this, but listen, I mean, when looking back also at the fact, at this point we have to acknowledge, we have Epstein who dies under Trump, we have all of these allegations and weird and sketchy things that happen

in terms of Trump's answer that specifically happened here around the Epstein scandal. He cites a lawsuit, which I actually was not aware about, about these Epsteinian orgies and weird things, which allegedly implicate Trump. I had no idea about this lawsuit. I didn't know about this either. This was what surprised me.

So let me just read this section to get the details very specifically correct here. The Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown, whose dogged reporting was largely responsible for reopening the federal investigation into Epstein and Maxwell, documents in her book, Perversion of Justice, the Defrey Epstein Story, as Brown writes, in 2016, an anonymous woman using the pseudonym Kate Johnson filed a civil complaint in a federal court in California, alleging she was raped by Trump and Epstein when she was 13 over a four month period from June to September 94.

I loudly pleaded with Trump to stop, she said, in the lawsuit about being raped. Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming he could do whatever he wanted. Now basically that lawsuit goes away. Is it because there's no there there? Or is it because?

Yeah, it's very possible about it. Maybe. Yeah, it's possible. I just not aware of this. Or is it because what Hedges alleges here is more likely is that Trump was able to quash the lawsuit by buying her silence is what he says and she has since disappeared.

So, you know, again, maybe it went away because there was no there there, or maybe he was able to use his wealth to make it go away. But this all just speaks to the fact that these entanglements, I mean, this was reported long ago. And these entanglements, this was all, this is not conspiracy, this is a thing that happened. And we have the pictures together,

we have the flight logs actually came out during Colleen Maxwell's trial. We know, we covered at the time, the way that the federal government case that was pursued against Colleen Maxwell, they called it like a thin case or something like that. It was very tailored. It was meant to be very narrow.

So it just focused on like the things that they felt really confident they could prove, but meant that anyone else who may be implicated, there was not gonna be a discovery around that. There was not gonna be any sort of like opening the books of which other powerful people were ultimately involved there. And then you also get the news,

oh, hey, Trump was actually thinking about pardoning her because he was kind of worried about what she might say about him. So I think there are real, justified non-conspiratorial reasons to look at this whole chain of events and have some real questions about how exactly Trump was implicated and involved here.

Was he in the Epstein files? I mean, there's no doubt about that. We know that, he's in the flight log. So I guess it depends on your definition of the Epstein files, but the extent or the nature that I think is an open question, but very reasonable one to ask. Yeah, and that's just my last point on F-Sync files, and I know we've talked a lot about it,

and I do understand maybe Fatigue and others, but this is important. There is no such thing as a ledger that's just like, client supports Israel now because we blackmail. That's not how this stuff works. What works is the totality of documentation, flight logs, IRS records, state filings,

LLCs, pass-through entities through which the money flowed in and to where it flowed out. Now, all the public evidence that we have right now from the nonprofit and apparatus at Deutsche Bank and others shows a lot of money coming in from the world's billionaires for purposes completely unknown to us, going out to Eastern European sex trafficking rings, paying off a whole bunch of other people, and being used for purposes that continue to remain unknown, very likely for intelligence purposes that implicate multiple billionaires, very famous people, prime ministers of Israel, all sorts

of Pritzker, the Pritzker family, the governor right now in Illinois, all of these people are implicated and they're using it specifically to fund a variety of different things, but that is not in Epstein files. That's financial records that exist right now. The IRS, if anybody could pull our documentation right now and look at everything that we've filed ever as a business to show exactly the money coming in, the money going out. The government has that, but people narrowly focus

and they make bombastic claims about the black book or whatever. It's like, that's not, I mean, yes, I want that released too, but my point is is that there's an entire vast apparatus that he was like sitting at the top of, but there's a whole lot of stuff other there. So let's also not get over our skis and then be satisfied if, oh, they released the black book.

It's like, no, it goes so much deeper than that. The question is why did Leon Black, a man worth nine billion dollars, pay $170 million for public tax advice from Jeffrey Epstein? That's the question I wanna know. And that's a much bigger question than any so-called client list. Where did that money go?

For what reason? And that's, when you really start to, I'm client list. Where did that money go? For what reason? You know, and that's, when you really start to, you know, I'm quoting the wire. When you start to follow the money, you don't know where the fuck it's gonna take you. So that's what I encourage people to do. How did he make his money? Yeah, I mean, I just.

What happened to all the videos, video recordings, that we know exist from both his Manhattan residence and the island? Like, there are some really big unanswered questions that remain and you know, one edited video with a portion missing, I don't think is gonna put to bed those persistent questions.

That's right. Okay, let's get to immigration. Yeah, so some really interesting polling just came out from Gallup. And I would say at this point, I would call this poll an outlier, although it is consistent with a trend in terms of public sentiment around immigration

that we have seen reflected in other polls as well. So let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. According to Gallup, we now have a huge search in the number of people who say, hey, actually, I don't want immigration decreased. I want it to stay the same. A significant the number of people who say, hey, actually, I don't want immigration decreased. I want it to stay the same. A significant surge also in those who say, I actually want it increased, and a major

decline in those who say they want it decreased. So now the plurality of people say, hey, let's just keep things status quo at the present level. But even more significant, we actually have a record breaking number of people who say that immigration is a good thing for this country today. So it has spiked up to now 79% of the public who say overall they think immigration is a good thing for the country. It's worth noting this number has based has always actually been above water. The lowest was near 50% that was in the year 2002, it was at 52%. But even as recently as 2024, when you had sort of like a nadir in support for immigration

in this country, it was still at 64%. But you've got a huge increase there to a record breaking number of 79% who are like, you know what? On that, I think immigrants are really a benefit to this country. They pulled a bunch of other, you know, you've got significant, obviously, partisan divides with regards to immigration, but they pulled a number of other questions and the shifts are all in the same direction, shifting towards more tolerance and support for immigration, less tolerance and support for, for example, hiring significantly more border patrol agents,

those numbers declined by 17%. And it's not a mystery to understand, Sagar, why this is going on. People are seeing the reality of the Trump administration's immigration policy. They're seeing these raids, including ICE agents in military gear and marching down suburban streets or riding on horseback through a park.

They're seeing alligator Alcatraz, they're seeing the sea cut, the lack of due process, they're seeing the distance between the rhetoric of, hey, we're gonna be targeting the criminals, to the reality of no, actually, we're gonna be going to the Home Depot, going to the 7-Eleven, et cetera. And it has caused a significant,

I think you can say at this point, backlash to the Trump administration's direction. Yeah, I mean, this is, I warned about this in the beginning in the Trump administration, the laws of thermostatic public opinion, there's probably no better issue than immigration. Whenever Trump is in office the first time around,

record support for immigration, when Biden's in office, record low support for immigration. Now we're right back to where it is. The question is about solving a consensus. And to the extent that I think that the Trump administration can be criticized the most, it is for shows and it is for shows of force compared to any sort of semblance of process

and of stability. I talked about this during LA. The reason people turned against the Biden administration was the reality of eight to 10 million people who flowed illegally into our country in an insane process. It was chaotic. And so the promise was we're going to solve the chaos. And on

the border, it's empirically true. They have. I mean, their border crossings are basically zero right now. And so in a way, they're almost benefiting from the success of the problem that they were truly elected to solve immediately on border. Then it's a common question of enforcement and or deportation. So it's one thing to have deportation or increase in the ICE budget of going after criminals, increasing investigation. It's another to send active duty US Marines to the streets of Los Angeles.

It's another to have alligator Alcatraz, and then even on the question of Alcatraz, it's like one of those questions of, specifically to emphasize the alligators there and the vibe of it. I understand tactically why they're doing it, which is the truth is that no matter how much money you spend, deporting 20 to 30 million people

is like, would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. A lot of it is about self-deportation. They have succeeded. Over a million people have self-deported in the last six months, at least rough estimate from the government figures. I'm not sure if we can trust that per se, but what we're watching is the thermostatic

public opinion in effect. So I guess at this point, here's my advice to Democrats. Don't over-read what these things actually mean. Last time around they were like, see, the public is with us, and that means we shouldn't enforce border laws at all. Eight to 10 million people is good. We need to decriminalize border crossings,

free healthcare for illegals, and all of this. You guys have your moment at this point, and you need to kind of settle on what the status quo going forward should look like. border crossings, free healthcare for illegals, and all of this. You guys have your moment at this point, and you need to kind of settle on what the status quo going forward should look like. And I think ultimately, the failure of the last multiple administrations on immigration is either punting things for amnesty

while not having enforcement, basically allowing rage to bubble up around the issue. I think the Trump administration unfortunately has just decided for these big headline grabbing things as opposed to actually trying to come to sort of consensus around this and so it is now a live ball, an issue also which they've ceded so much ground on, not just with CICOT,

but by turning it also into an Israel issue, which actually makes it, in my opinion, much worse for them, because it makes it seem capricious to the ends of their own individual priorities and not about America. Because it's not just about the illegals here. We're talking about the Mahmoud Khalil case. We're talking about the Ozterk case.

We're also talking about foreigners being detained for having memes on their phones when entering the United States under tourism visa. That, you know, the totality of that comes down to like, oh, hold on a second, we asked for law. I mean, if you look at the rhetoric, it was law and order. And I think that what we've had right now, it just strays far away from that to the public,

and specifically the independent mind. It makes it very, very difficult. So I actually think this is a democratic issue now where you guys need to solve it for yourselves. And I'm curious to see what ground that they end up with, for like, what does the next democratic candidate actually say on the issue of immigration?

Can't be Kamala, definitely can't be 2019, it can't be 2024 either. It's gotta be something authentic and kind of interesting to this moment. Yeah, I think that's well said, and the Israel part is interesting to me because I was saying the same thing and it's not just that it makes it seem like very clear

this is just like an ideological tool being used against people the administration doesn't like or their ideological enemies. It also made it feel very personal. It is personal, quite literally. Yeah, because it was like, oh, you can't even write a fricking op-ed about this, and you're being kidnapped

off the streets? That's insane. And so when you had that combined at the very same time with these guys, many of whom were completely innocent, Kilmar, Brieger, Garcia, of course, who was wrongfully deported with zero due process, it doesn't take a genius either to figure out like, oh, if they get no due process, like they didn't even have to prove that they were illegal immigrants.

Like they could just ship out anyone that they wanted to. So very quickly out of the gates, it became no longer about, oh, some sort of undefined distant group of potential criminals. It became like, oh, this is about us. This is about all of us. And I think that really, you know, the Kilmar-Brega-Garcia case really was a turning point in terms of Trump administration numbers on this issue.

And so, while, you know, I think you're right, I think Democrats have to figure out, you know, how do you have your own semblance of like, okay, this is gonna be, there's gonna be order, because I do think people wanna feel like, okay, we know who's coming in, and there's some sort of a process here, and it makes sense.

But I do also think that there's lessons for centers here. I mean, number one, there was this assumption that just like the immigration numbers are what they are, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. That's clearly not true. People change their minds based on reality and what arguments are being presented to them, and like how the issue is being framed,

and you know Just what reality is at the time so a public opinion can and does change number one and number two There was a real reluctance from centrist in particular to fight even on something like kilmar abrigo garcia Remember they were like you should just be talking about the price of eggs I remember well now at this point actually Trump's immigration numbers have fallen off even more than his economic numbers and are one of the sort of key sources of dissatisfaction with the public. So that was a dead wrong analysis.

It was wrong morally, in my opinion, but it was also wrong politically. And people like Chris Van Hollen, who went down to El Salvador, and the folks who really made this and prioritizeized that issue, again, it was the right moral thing, it was also the right political choice and has now created a weakness for Trump on the issue where he was previously strongest, which is a classic political tactic of like,

you go after the person's strength. That's actually the best way to bring someone down. So I think you had a combination of, number one, this became very quickly like, oh, this isn't about them. This is about us. Number two, I do think the imagery that they are intentionally cultivating to try to trigger these self deportations, you know,

and this is all being run by Stephen Miller, that same imagery of the ICE agents always being masked, of sometimes not identifying themselves, not having warrants, the show of force with like all of this freaking military gear, the literal deployment of national guardsmen and marines in the streets of LA, the way that these shows of force have occurred and just like, you know, there was there's a video of like ICE agents all kitted out marching down the street in suburban Utah, people like what the fuck, what the fuck is going on here to arrest them like landscaper what

is going on so I think that in addition to then CICOT and the cruelty there alligator Alcatraz and the like it's very intentional the language choice and the decision to sort of highlight the punitive nature of what is being done here I think when you put all of those things together and that sense of like, this is actually creating more chaos in my community, I think those are the things that have sort of like turned this issue as significantly as it ultimately has.

Yeah, I don't really disagree. What I would also caution for a lot of people is, and this is always my problem with the talk about immigration, they don't distinguish in the Gallup poll between legal and illegal immigration. I would be willing to bet that if you actually looked at the way that people feel about unchecked illegal migration Like what was happening under the Biden administration? I'd be willing to bet that those are still some pretty negative numbers

And that's part of why for the Democrats in the future you guys need to figure out like how you can Come to some sort of consensus on the issue the way that the Republicans got to where they are right now Is that for basically 40 years they were told amnesty is good, we'll do amnesty, and eventually we'll do border security. And in that time the illegal immigration population explodes under Bush, under Obama, under Trump, and eventually they're like no I'm done. And then Biden of course is like fire forever and so they don't even want to talk or hear about amnesty until a massive deportation effort begins to happen on the immigration side and question for the Democrats

It's also still remains like immigration fall numbers have fallen for Trump It's still one of his stronger issues and you know, it's not like he can't exactly get to a place where you could declare legitimate victory I mean look at the border security numbers or the border crossing numbers from the Biden administration compared to today. It's unbelievable. In a way, they're almost a victim of their own success because now people are looking at the deportation efforts in Los Angeles or Utah or whatever, and there's no more chaos at the border

because it's a solved question. It's like, no, you're staying in Mexico and you're not coming here. So the question is there around what the future looks like for our policy. And look, on the Trump administration thing, I generally, my problem for them, at least, you know, as somebody who's generally sympathetic,

I like, I still support mass deportation, but the way that they had done it is such that their trust in all their information is zero after CICOT. Because they said, very specifically, maybe I'm a fool, I believe them. I was like, okay, I mean, these I'm a fool, I believe them. I was like, okay, these guys are gang members. I said the federal government for years

has always validated gang members. This is not a difficult policy to be able to figure out. Go ask anybody in the Bureau of Prisons, there's an entire process, how do we validate people who are in gangs? Maybe there's some questions around that, but fine. Broadly, I was like, I don't think we have a bunch of an issue, and then you look at the stuff

and you're like, okay, I mean, there's a lie. And then you look at the stuff and you're like, okay, I mean, it's a lie. And then you look at the Israel stuff and you're like, okay, well, that's a lie too. And so you start to get the credibility gap on the issue such that you really, even when you are, in my opinion, sometimes deporting people really deservedly need to get the hell out of here, shouldn't even be here. But then you have an open conversation

where people are not even gonna be able to trust some of the facts that you're putting out. And so when you have that out on the ether, I think it's very, very difficult for all of them. But I don't know, I mean, look, for me, I had a conversation in 2016 with somebody who I really respect. And he said, Donald Trump will be the worst thing

that ever happened to the immigration restriction movement. And I was like, what the fuck are you talking about? And he was like, listen, guys, what's gonna? And he was like, listen guys, what's gonna happen is they're gonna go full retard, they're gonna do it in the dumbest way possible, and they're gonna polarize the public against all of this. And I was like, yeah, maybe it's valid, but look at all these other Republicans,

they're all pro-amnesty and all of that. And now, I'm starting to think he might be right. But it took years, I guess, for him to be validated. Sort of like what's happening with tariffs. In some ways, yeah, you're right. It's like, in some ways, it's like, maybe this was the enemy of the cause all along. The counter for what they would say is,

nobody else has the balls to just do it. He's in his second term. He's got three and a half more years to go. You can get a lot of million people out of this country and nobody else will do it. And then from that point forward, it's a future question. I guess I could see both sides, but as somebody who generally kind of likes

to see some sort of consensus on the issue, I don't see it coming anytime soon. On this, in this particular poll, he only gets 35% approval of his handling of immigration. Like you said, it's still, it's a leading outlier. 35%. And among independents, you have, I'm doing the math, I'm bad at math, 69% disapproval, 45% of them strongly disapprove. So almost half of independents say they strongly disapprove and then an additional 24% says they disapprove but not strongly and then you only have 28% who approve. This again, independents that I'm talking about here who say they approve. So you know it's obviously highly polarized Republicans are very content, very happy with the immigration policy.

Democrats are 81% say they strongly disapprove. But that number from independents, to me, was really quite significant. And, you know, they're not letting up. They just passed the one big, beautiful bill, which is going to surge massive amounts of resources into ICE. And so, you know, to, you're talking about whatever we're seeing now, times however much.

Now, I will say, these organizations are often incompetent. I think they'll have a hard time hiring and deploying, and you know, a bunch of the money will just be basically like stolen by private prison contractors who never really deliver what they promise and other consultants, et cetera. So there will be some discount on the money that's actually allocated, but they're about to have all of the resources in the world to do whatever they want. One of the things that I think is contributing to these very grim numbers on an issue that was previously a strength for Donald Trump

is the display of so-called alligator alcatraz down in Florida. You just had a couple of members of Congress go and tour that facility. And there had been previous reporting too to back up the comments here from we're gonna play a little bit of Maxwell Frost about the truly abhorrent conditions

in which people are being held within this facility. Let's go and take a listen to a little bit of what he had to say. They opened the door. There was about six security guards standing there kind of pushing us back, but we could see in and we could hear everybody. And when those doors opened, you know, what I saw made my heart sink. I saw 32 people per cage, about six cages in the one tent. I saw a lot of people, young men who looked like me and people who were my age. People were yelling, help me, help me. I heard in the back someone say, I'm a US citizen. And as we were walking away, they started chanting, leave it that, leave it that, leave it that freedom. And in looking into these cages, you could see,

of course it was warm and hot within the tent. People were sweating. Some people had taken off the top of their clothing because it was just so hot. Some of them were drenched in sweat. The food we saw is not enough food. They're being fed essentially a small sandwich and a bag of chips. And not just that, but the conditions outside, of course, it's blazing hot. And the fact that the cage comes from the toilet,

number one, not everyone's gonna be able to drink as much water as they'd like to because of that inconvenience, but also it's gross and it's disgusting. And this is where people are being held. So we've seen reporting indicating, backing up what he's saying there, we've seen reporting of worms in the food,

we've seen reporting of toilets that don't flush and sewage on the floor Insect infestations and the like and then you ask yourself soccer to your point. Okay. Well, who were they sending there? Because this is another instance where we were told this is only for the worst of the worst, right? Let's put this up on the screen. Miami Herald has been doing some great work on this Hundreds at alligator Alcatraz actually have no criminal charges whatsoever. So again, similar to what we saw when they sent immigrants to Guantanamo Bay, similar to what we saw when they sent immigrants to Seacat, in spite of the representation that this would be the worst of the worst.

In fact, you're sending many hundreds of hundreds of people here who have no criminal charges in the United States whatsoever. And it's completely at odds with the portrayal here. And some of the people who have been picked up, it's just like, oh, they had a traffic ticket, something of that nature. And I think Maxwell Frost in that particular saw it said that he heard people saying, hey, I'm a US citizen. And it's very maybe, maybe not.

But it's just you can't trust this administration to handle any of this in anything approaching in an appropriate manner and they will just lie about the types of people that they are ultimately picking up here. Yeah, it is difficult. I mean, I am very torn. I'm somebody who's, I mean, I don't think it's,

you would admit this, I'm radical on the issue. At the end of the day, I don't believe in exclusion. If you came here illegally, I think you should go. I mean, I'm fine with prioritization and all of that, but I don't know, I personally just get very annoyed. I mean, do we have any of that raid footage of the California thing? That's the perfect example to me.

You have a weed farm, a weed farm which is still federally illegal, where you have people who are illegal working there, nine of whom are unaccompanied minors, many of whom almost all are illegal, so that people in California can get high and they are working at like slave wages. It's like how is that a reasonable system? Like why is the governor of California and other standing up and saying, actually, this is all totally above board? I'm like, no, this is disgusting. It's bad for the kids. And then it's like the only time anybody expresses

any outrage is whenever you send people who are being exploited here back to where they came from. It's like the whole system is all fucked up. But people only care when they're removed. The status quo seems like fine. I mean, I don't think you support that, but functionally that's where the Democratic Party was on the immigration issue.

All this slave labor is totally okay, all of this unchecked illegal migration. You know, you have children basically working in these marijuana fields so that rich yuppies in Venice Beach can get high. I'm like, I'm sorry, that's a gross order to the way that our whole society works. And it's like, we only care whenever somebody goes

and like you know either takes care or arrests them. Some of these people have like serious criminal charges. That's where you know everyone's like, oh the cruelty of this. Is there no cruelty in the fact that these people, you know these kids are like working to like pick weed so that people, rich yuppies or whatever can get high? I think that's cruel.

I think it's bad. Why did nobody say anything when they were being sent here across the border? What kind of parent is sending their kid illegally across the border to go work in a weed field? And yet, oh, these are asylum and all. It's like, no, I'm sorry, that's bullshit. Nobody cared.

I don't really personally care what type of farm it is, but I mean, here's the thing though, Zagre, is that you're expressing a view of caring about cruelty or human rights and dignity. And so when you see someone who's being exploited by a system where these farms probably are labor abuses, hiring literal children, which is outrageous, they should be prosecuted for that, no doubt about it.

But then you're taking the farm worker and you're taking the farm worker and you're shipping them to a place like Alligator Alcatraz or just out of the country, no due process, to be abused and effectively tortured and held in completely inhumane conditions. That is certainly not a reflection of any sort of concern for humanity or dignity.

I don't disagree per se, but it's like, look, it's a stop off on the way for deportation. You are not supposed to be here. At the end of the day, you came here illegally. There are consequences for breaking the law. And there's also this idea that there's like a statute of limitations. It's like, oh, but they've been here for years.

It's like, okay, I mean, you came here, you shouldn't have been here. You're working illegally. Of course you're liable to consequences for your actions. It's like we take the agency away from these people and from the system. But I think you have to acknowledge though, I mean the point of a place like Alligator Alcatraz

is a demonstration of horror. I mean that's what it is intended to do. And that's the reason also for like, there's a freaking helicopter that landed in this field, in this farm, you know, there's a freaking like helicopter that landed in this field, in this farm, you know, and they're coming in and these armored vehicles and with, you know, the military gear and all of these sorts of things,

like it's meant to terrorize. That's, that is the goal. It's meant to terrorize. And so while I think it's, you know, it's certainly reasonable to say, okay, well, how many people can, you know, can we absorb and what's the appropriate level? Like these are questions nations have to ask themselves. certainly reasonable is, okay, well, how many people can, you know, can we absorb and what's the appropriate level?

Like, these are questions nations have to ask themselves. I don't think that many people find it acceptable that someone whose only crime was, which is not even, you know, a felony or whatever, it's a civil infraction, but whose only crime is crossing the border illegally and who has been living, working, doing the right thing, et cetera, that a punishment commensurate with that is being put into these horrific conditions in whether it's alligator, albatross, or the other detention facilities

also have quite abhorrent conditions as well. You see, that's my thing, then how do you deport somebody? Like, what is the process? Okay, but that's a reasonable question. Just tell them to leave? They're not gonna leave, they don't leave. But actually, in reality, the number of people who do show up for their court hearings is quite high.

You're talking about asylum. I'm talking about people who are already here. But number two, you know, another option is we have these things called ankle bracelets where you are monitored and tracked. And so you and doesn't require like insane cruelty. So, you know, your working assumption here is that they're trying to, like in a good faith way, I don't even know if you really believe this, but in a good faith way, deal with this logistical challenge. And I don't think that they are dealing in a good faith way

with this logistical challenge. I think there are many other routes, even if you wanted to accomplish the goal, which is not a goal I agree with, that would not entail mass institutionalized cruelty, but they intentionally choose the mass institutionalized cruelty, but they intentionally choose the mass institutionalized cruelty and don't look for any solution

that would probably create an even more rapid outcome, but that does not include that sort of horror because the horror and the terror, that is a core part of their whole fear. I don't disagree that it's a part of a strategy to get them to go, but it's also like, we do this for criminals too. You know, if you, for example, drunk driving is not,

I believe so, right? It's not a felony, am I thinking, what am I getting wrong here? There's something about, I think it's, there's some type of whatever misdemeanor, like you'll lose your license. You get thrown in the drunk tank, no? Like you get to go to prison, do you know why you do,

or not prison, you get to go to jail for a couple of days and you have, yes, you eat a sandwich and a bag of chips that's like standard prison food fare, why? Because drunk driving is bad, you broke the law. It's also, I think it's not a class A felony or whatever. There are all kinds of things for which we have preemptive, or we have punishment in which, yes, some of the treatment is part of the course to trying to discourage

to make sure that you don't participate in this illegal activity. And that's what I'm saying, is you come here illegally, you take advantage of the United States, the openness of the United States of America. There's also this talk about paying taxes, total bullshit. No it's not.

Yes, absolutely. No it's not. Oh yes, vast numbers of 30 million illegals are filing their income taxes, come on. Yes, actually. No, no, no, no. There is a huge, There is a significant tax contribution from undocumented immigrants.

Once again, if you look at that statistic compared to Gen Pop, and then also, even if that is the case, you're not supposed to be here at a principal level. And if we add up all the welfare and Medicaid and hospital bills of all these people in our society, I'd be willing to bet it's still a net negative on a social basis.

Just purely net in, net out. You can make GDP arguments in other cases. But it just comes back to like, yes, there are consequences for breaking the law. If you want to change that law, be my guest. Biden, Obama, all these people had multiple houses of Congress and they never did so. As long as the system is currently constituted,

you're here illegally, there are consequences for doing that. Yes, I think the government in many cases has both lied and gone too far under the Trump administration, but the core goal is still one that I think most people would want of some sort of order and the fact that we have to know who you are here, and yes, that if you came here illegally

under false pretenses, at the very least, the government needs to check you out. We need to figure out what's going on. And my belief is you should be sent back to where you came from and perhaps in the future we can have some sort of reapply. Now, many people will disagree with me on that subject, but I just, I don't, I really don't know how you could have lived through the Biden administration and the way that the permission structure came for what, eight to 10 million people flow illegally into our country, and not believe in a serious effort

to deal with this at a law and order level. I really just don't know how we can still come down to compassion and asylum. It's like, these people are the biggest abusers of US asylum law in all of history. They're all economic migrants. They'll admit it if you ask them. And it's like, we're just supposed to let them in

and give them citizenship, apparently, because they, quote, want a better life. You can want a better life wherever you are. There are people all over the world who want a better life. Just because you have the proximity to walk into the United States of America, you're not special. I mean, Sagar, obviously I disagree with you

on the policy, but I think what the punishment throughout history for that has been has been getting deported back to your home country. Not to some random third country where you may be in danger and don't speak the language and don't know anyone and have never been. Not being disappeared, which is what's happening without even any record, into someplace that has been set up

to intentionally be cruel and horrific and deny you basic human rights. Not to be disappeared into a foreign slave labor gulag intentionally like be cruel and horrific and deny you basic human rights not to be disappeared into a foreign goon slave labor gulag like CICOT the idea okay you're here illegally you're gonna go you know the country is voted and they've decided like we only want a certain level of undocumented population you're going back to your home country that's been the idea of the way that country won't take ultimately why do you think they're going to a third country

because they don't want them back. But that's not even true. What are we supposed to do? But that's not even true in many instances. So for example, Venezuela, there were ongoing negotiations. Venezuela was accepting immigration return, like deportation return flights into that country. So you also can't act like the Trump administration

has no power here to like make a deal and do some diplomacy To be able to effectuate those returns But you know just on the on the numbers of how people feel about this now And it's actually not that different from how they felt about it when Trump was running on mass deportation 78 percent say that they would like to see a pathway to citizenship For immigrants who are living in the US illegally if they meet certain requirements. So there is a sort of very widespread acceptance of immigration, of being an important part of the fabric and character of this nation, of the sense of like, hey, if you're here and you did the right thing and you were working and you didn't do anything wrong, like we should give you a chance to become a citizen.

That is a very popular and widespread view. And like I was saying, that number has gone up, but actually in 2024, it was still 70% who felt that way. So I think people are very on board with like, okay, you're a criminal, you're in a gang, whatever, yes, let's get you out of here. But the reason that there's been such a backlash is when you go much beyond that, it does start

to rub up against people's sense of actually what America is and certainly the way that they want to see people treated by their government, whether they're citizen or not. Look, that's just going to be a disagreement. You broke the law. You came here illegally just because you happened to be here and, you know, allegedly didn't commit a crime except for the first crime that you did by entering our country, you get a free pass. It's crazy to me, all right? It's an insult to the millions of people who spent,

you know, people like my parents and others who came here legally, spent thousands of dollars of their own money going through the process. It's a pain in the ass to ask anybody who's ever done it. And oh, because somebody gets to walk here and then be basically low wage labor, they're allowed, you know, a special process just by being here long enough?

It's preposterous. I mean, and that's one of those, look, I'll keep making that case forever up until the day they do eventually pass amnesty. I don't think there's any basic fairness. It is completely preferential treatment. It is just like, I don't know. We've debated this forever to continue.

One last news item I do wanna slip in here on immigration let's put D5 up on the screen. There was a significant court decision in California halting what they're describing as indiscriminate immigration stops in LA and beyond. And basically what a judge found here is that a lot of credible evidence that they are just basically racially profiling. Roll up on the Home Depot, see some Latino, like Spanish speakers, and just arrest them. And we've got a number of instances,

one that was a part of this case in particular was actually a car wash. And the guy was like, I'm an American citizen, here is my identification. And they were like, you don't have your passport, so that's not good enough, so we're arresting you. And they had other instances too where, you know, I mean, this seems to be the sort of approach

of just like, we're gonna go into places where we think that undocumented immigrants congregate, we're going to check out whether you're speaking Spanish and what your skin tone is, et cetera, and we're going to arrest you if we have any suspicion whatsoever, not based on anything other than basically like ethnicity and the location that you are. And you have a judge who says, that's racial profile, you can't do that. That's against the Fourth Amendment. Okay, so we're still focused on the aftermath of those horrific floods in Texas,

which I actually don't think we've gotten to hear anything from you on, so I'm interested to get your take here as well. But we have a lot of questions about DOJ, cuts to the National Weather Service and NOAA, the sort of pushing out of some key individuals who should have been involved in warning community members. So you have those, you know, what's the forecast?

Could the forecast have been better if you didn't have the Doge cuts? Could the warnings have been better if you didn't have the Doge cuts? Those questions on the front end. Now you have a question now that you're into the recovery phase about FEMA's performance. And let me go ahead and put guys E2 up on the screen here. There's some significant reporting from the New York Times that FEMA failed to answer thousands of calls from flood survivors. And this is directly attributable to the fact that, Christy, you know I'm at DHS, which

runs FEMA, they allowed these call center contracts to lapse. They were not extended. And so you had a loss of personnel, it's personnel who would ordinarily be the ones fielding these calls at this critical moment. And so you've just been hit with a flood, you've lost everything that you owned, you're trying to figure out, okay,

how do I interface with the federal government, et cetera. Most people, the way they go about trying to figure out, okay, how do I interface with the federal government, et cetera. Most people, the way they go about trying to navigate that bureaucracy and that paperwork is through this hotline, these call centers, and they did not have nearly the personnel in place to handle this flood of calls. In addition, there was another program previously in place where FEMA would actually go door to door

to people who had been impacted by any sort of natural disaster or flood in this instance and help them be able to organize their paperwork and figure out what they can apply for, et cetera. That program has also been cut. Kristi Noem, under fire and trying to answer for this on Sunday shows. Let's go ahead and take a listen to what she had to say. A rule that you recently implemented. It reportedly requires that every FEMA contract, every grant over $100,000 be personally approved by you.

Now officials within the agency have told multiple news outlets that the policy led to a slower deployment of some FEMA resources, including urban search and rescue crews. So let me just ask you, did your policy delay some of the critical response resources on the ground in Texas? Those claims are absolutely false. Within just an hour or two after the flooding, we had resources from

the Department of Homeland Security there helping those individuals in Texas. There were resources that were deployed, but I think the question revolves around where all of the necessary resources deployed. According to reports, multiple FEMA officials said you didn't approve the deployment of these FEMA search and rescue teams until Monday, which was 72 hours after the flood started. Nope, they were deployed immediately as soon as they were requested. When was the request put in and when did you approve it? And is this accurate that there's this $100,000 sign off that you have to do?

The $100,000 sign off is for every contract that goes through the Department of Homeland Security. So you did implement that policy. That's an accountability on contracts that go forward. When did you get the request for these search and rescue teams and other resources? Immediately, they were immediately responded. Immediately, what day? Yes, and everyone will tell you. According to reports, they didn't arrive until Tuesday.

Well, this is what I think is really unfortunate. And Sager Trump, of course, had originally been really sort of ideologically opposed to FEMA at all, wanted to send all disaster relief to the states in the wake of this. He seems to be backing off of some of those more maximalist demands. But there's no question that FEMA and National Weather Service, they have been impacted by the Doge cuts. And you know, some very serious questions being raised here about the impact that that had specifically in this horrific incident. You can roll the tape.

What did I say after the airplane disaster? I was like, it's coming. I was like, you don't want to do it. It's the last part of the government that you actually want to cut. NOAA and the National Weather Service and all these other places. But, you know, eventually they just forget. And you know, this also gets to a basic issue of competence.

And I've also been thinking about this with regard to the Trump administration. I actually can't underestimate how incompetent they have acted. Just look at the last six months. Elon's in charge, now he's not in charge. With the tariffs on, with the tariffs off. You can't look at the last six months. Elon's in charge, now he's not in charge. We have the tariffs on, we have the tariffs off. You can't look at the current cabinet,

except in some very few cases, and be like, yeah, they've got it. These are the guys who are really up to the job. I said that about Kirsten Noem, I remember. I was like, this lady was a governor of South Dakota, which, no offense, South Dakota, nobody even lives there. And now you're in charge of the largest law enforcement agency in the world.

What? Like in what possible way are you qualified? I don't think that she's handled herself all that way. But that's my point, right? I think, you know, that shit matters whenever you have a full blown flood. By the way, you know, I've been to a lot of those areas. It's horrible. I mean, it's devastating, you know, what happened there.

It's still like an open question is the whole National Weather Service, you know, I've been was reading the TikTok about the alert went out, but it was at 4 a.m. And there's open questions about the state agency and there's some stuff here about the camp, what is it, Camp Mystic, and how their actual, their permits kept getting delayed. It's a slow rolling disaster, actually,

if you kinda look at the background of the way this all happened. So nobody's like directly really attributed, but let's not forget, I mean, it's July 14th. You and I are talking right now. When's hurricane season, people? You know, do the math. You are only one disaster away

from a catastrophic news cycle for the administration. If there's even one way that the Weather Service and all those people didn't do something, and there's, I I mean remember Hurricane Sandy? That was a disaster, I mean it came out of nowhere, billions of dollars in damage, FEMA shit the bed on that one too. I can't even really think of the last time

they did a great job in response to a hurricane thing and that becomes like serious political issue which they can directly trace back to Doge. They have them literally bragging about it on camera and especially now with, you know now that the fact that the Doge project they have them literally bragging about it on camera. And especially now with, you know, now that the fact that the Doge project has basically been a complete failure, they just open themselves up for any future airline disaster,

any future storm, any future hurricane, and then they don't have the best and the brightest who are in charge right now. Yeah. And to that point, they had someone who had emergency management experience in place at FEMA. Originally, they had a guy named Cameron Hamilton. He was a Navy SEAL, former combat medic,

former director of the Emergency Medical Services Division at the Department of Homeland Security. He got fired a month ago because he dared to testify to Congress that he thought FEMA should continue to exist. So he got fired and they put in his place this guy named David Richardson, who there was all kinds of reporting, he has no background in this whatsoever,

there was all kinds of reporting about how he didn't know anything. He was like, oh, when's hurricane season, or what even is hurricane season? I mean, just a complete nutter moron, which is why you haven't seen him at all. I mean, think about the, like, good job Brownie situation.

At least Brownie was out there trying to do something. This guy, we don't even see him. He doesn't even exist. Because even this administration is smart enough to realize like, oh, this is gonna be a train wreck if we put this dude out there. Because he doesn't know shit about shit. So that's the guy who you have running FEMA.

I mean, FEMA, I'm sure has its problems. I have no doubt about it that you could do a better job with disaster recovery. But like, you are just making it so much worse and degrading its capabilities in ways that are Blatantly obvious not only do you have this call center? Fiasco, but you also had some reporting Independent reporting as well about how the number of FEMA staffers that were on the ground were way Next to nothing compared to what it would have been ordinarily in previous circumstances.

So yeah, I mean, it's just, this is an area where it felt like during all the doge, chainsaw madness, they just thought that nothing was ever gonna matter. You know, it just was this sense of unreality, like, oh, we can just slash and burn wherever and whatever without any regard, like not even trying to do it in an intelligent way.

And that there's never gonna be any impact from that. And this is like in the most horrific way possible. You got 130 plus dead now and 160 still missing. Reality hitting you in the face of like, no, actually sometimes government functions are literally life and death. Oh, absolutely. I mean, I, you know, it didn't take a genius

or anybody even remotely familiar with everything. And I think, yeah, I think Doze will continue to be a noose around the neck of the administration for the next four years. We're just, you're just waiting. One disaster. I mean, look at the Air India crash. That came out of nowhere. You know, Boeing 787, it crashed in the middle of a city according to pilot error.

I mean, imagine if something like that happened here today. I literally on my way here I saw a plane, it was maybe like 20, 30 feet above me as it was landing over Ronald Reagan, I was like I don't know about this man. No offense to Air India but don't fly Air India. No offense to Air India. It's scary.

Offense, sue me, you're the worst airline. Some of my scariest flight experiences are on Air India. So avoid, avoid. Sorry Air India, you guys got up your game of a void. Yeah, sorry Air India. You guys got up your game, it's terrible. Anybody fly Air, I mean, maybe if they have a deal, but honestly at this point, I'm not flying it anytime soon.

Anyways, thank you guys so much for watching, we appreciate you, we'll see you tomorrow.. The network has launched 15 shows and built a community united by passion. Podcasts that amplify the voices of women in sports. Thank you for supporting I Heart Women's Sports and our founding sponsors, Elf Beauty, Capital One and Novartis. Just open the free I Heart app and search I Heart Women's Sports to listen now. Don't let biased algorithms or degree screens or exclusive professional networks, or stereotypes. Don't let anything keep you from discovering the half of the workforce who are stars.

Workers skilled through alternative routes rather than a bachelor's degree. It's time to tear the paper ceiling and see the stars beyond it. Find out how you can make stars part of your talent strategy at tearthepaperceiling.org, brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council. I also want to address the Tonys. On a recent episode of Checking In with Michelle Williams, I open up about feeling snubbed by the Tony Awards. Do I? I was never mad. I was disappointed because I had high hopes. To hear this and more on disappointment and protecting your peace, listen to Checking In with Michelle Williams

from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.