The Chris Cuomo Project - Eric Bolling and Chris Cuomo CLASH Over Tariffs and MAGA

Episode Date: April 29, 2025

Eric Bolling (political commentator, author, and host, “Bolling!” podcast and YouTube show) joins Chris Cuomo for a no-holds-barred conversation about the fractures inside MAGA, Trump’s unwavering support for Pete Hegseth amid media attacks, and why loyalty—not scandal—is what matters most to Trump’s base. Bolling explains why MAGA must circle the wagons ahead of 2025, calls out the media’s double standard, and warns about tech elites flipping their allegiance to Trump. Plus, Cuomo and Bolling dive deep into their economic disagreements over tariffs, free markets, and the future of American manufacturing—and debate whether populism is reshaping American politics for good. Follow and subscribe to The Chris Cuomo Project on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube for new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday: https://linktr.ee/cuomoproject Join Chris Ad-Free On Substack: http://thechriscuomoproject.substack.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Do you want to know what is going on inside MAGA? And so you can know how to understand what it is that you oppose? Good. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. Eric Bolling is my guest, okay? Came from the finance world,

but is deep, deep, deep in MAGA. And for the first time, is expressing a disagreement with President Trump. What is it about? Well that's what we're about to discuss because here's the fundamental mistake. You are against something, you don't like something, but you don't understand why people do and if you do understand it, you understand it in a simplistic and often dismissive way, like anyone who voted for Trump is a bigot. That's not the case.

And I hope you're starting to get that because you see that there are just a lot of people in America who believe that things are wrong and for whatever reason, and you need to understand what they are. They believe that Trump represented a better chance of fixing them than the Democrats did. Eric Bolling is someone who understands what Trump is supposed to be doing and what it's supposed to look like and what matters to people who support him.

Whether it's about Pete Hagseth, tariffs, okay, lawfare, all of these things through the filter of the people who are right now in power. Let's get after it. Eric Bolling, appreciate you taking the opportunity. Thank you for having me, Christopher. Mind if I call you Christopher? I feel like we're on a basis where we can call each other what we want. You feel free to call me anything you want. I'll call you Christopher.

I'll call you Christopher too. I wanna ask you about an analysis of Hegseth, but then I wanna use our time for you to ask me stuff that bothers you, that you perceive coming from the media slash left. Maybe I'll agree with you, maybe I won't. And we'll allow both audiences to kind of feel their suspicions engaged.

Does that make sense, my friend? That's fair. Fair enough. That's the first thing to say to my audience is, yeah, Eric Bowling, I consider a friend. He's always been good to me. He's reached out over the years when things were good, when things weren't good, and's always been good to me. He's reached out over the years when things were good, when things weren't good.

And I appreciate for all of it. I don't know how much I agree with you on, I also don't care. You're a good guy, you've been good to me, and I wish you well. Feelings mutual, Chris. Again, we started very, very bifurcated in our positioning and I think we're a little bit closer to the middle.

And you've always been honest and fair with me as well. So yeah, we do probably speak to different audiences, but it's good for my audience to see the relationship that could be made with someone who tends to have a far different audience than mine. So I think these are great moments. And it was really good spending some time with you on Patrick David's podcast, where that's a big podcast.

And a lot of people since then came up to me and on the street, people I don't even know, yes, friends, family mentioned they liked, but random strangers off the streets saying, Hey, you know, that was pretty good. I watched Patrick Big David's podcast and I learned something. That's what they said. I learned something from that. And that's, that was pretty good. I watched Patrick McDavid's podcast and I learned something. That's what they said. I learned something from that. And that's what, I guess, ultimately what our real job is as journalists.

Yeah, I mean, look, that's the key is you gotta be open to what you disagree with or what you think you disagree with or what you think you know. You do it everywhere else in life. You're not allowed in any other profession except politics to sit at a table and say, I don't wanna hear it. I don't wanna hear, I don't wanna hear any other ideas. I don't wanna hear any other say, I don't wanna hear it. I don't wanna hear any other ideas. I don't wanna hear any other strategies.

I don't wanna hear anything. But we allow it in our politics. So I have been telling my audience in this wave of new allegations against Hegseth, I don't have any reasons to doubt the reporting. Trump isn't going to go bad on Hegseth for something like this. It wasn't, as far as we understand,

giving away battle plans to bad guys, fucking up an operation because of what he did. That's not the circumstances. You can call it learning curve, you can call it whatever you want, but Trump's not gonna go bad on Hegseth. Do you agree with me about that, if not, if only, because Trump doesn't wanna give people the satisfaction

of going bad on one of his guys? So I get a call yesterday, I get a call the day that this New York Times article drops, and New York Times article says that Pete Hegseth is under a lot of scrutiny, a lot of heat internally, because there was another text exchange on a non-secure line and that internally his days may be numbered in the media, the left-wing media.

I'm not trying to be right-leftism here, Chris, but the left media is very voiced, very loud. They have loud voices. They seem to get together at the same time. And it was one after the others. NPR immediately came out and said, oh, there's inside people who are now talking about it's only a matter of time before Hegseth is removed. And then you saw Politico write about it. And it kind of snowballed. I got a call from a reporter at Newsweek who's looking for a comment. They know I know Trump well, they know I used to work with Pete Hegseth for many years at Fox.

And my comment to him was, Trump will not fire Pete Hegseth for this. This is not the Hill Pete Hegseth is going to die with Trump because Hegseth is doing exactly what Trump wants him to do. He's removing DEI from the military. He's going very hard in the Middle East. He loves, Trump loves what, the way Hegseth executed the plan against the Houthis. And bringing the military to the border is something that's very near and dear to Trump's heart. And so Pete is doing everything that Trump wants him to do.

So certainly this, if allegation, by the way, these are anonymous sources, which is problematic a bit, but if the allegations are true, yeah, it's not a good look for Pete Hegseth, but in my opinion, I think Pete is the right guy for this job. Trump knows what he wants. Hegseth knows how to give Trump exactly what he wants, and that's why we voted for him, Chris. That's why he had an overwhelming majority and mandate to do what he's doing. I don't disagree with the analysis of how Trump sees it. Also, I do believe that there is a please principle here, which is he's not gonna give the media the scalp.

The media wants the scalp. And I don't mean that in a judgmental way of its right to have the scalp or not. That's what the media does. It sees a currency, left and right media, of taking down names. There's a value in that. Hegseth would be a big scalp.

Look, the mistake he made, and I wanna ask you about the approach of the response from Hegseth that we saw at the Easter event. If I'm accused of something and it didn't happen, I say, this didn't happen, okay? My lawyers want me to hold fire and all that, this process, fine, but this is not true.

This didn't happen. He never said that. And again, I don't really care if this happened or not. He can't be this clumsy. He's got to know that he's got people around him now who are gonna out him. So, you know, be this clumsy. He's gotta know that he's got people around him now who are gonna out him. So, you know, be more careful. But the approach was fake news, media sucks.

This is what you guys do. Listen, you switch the R and the D, Eric, and Hegseth was still on Fox. He'd be talking about this all day. And that approach of attacking the media, is there a risk to that in terms of what it does to people's confidence in things that matter, like free press? Well, okay, so here, look, put yourself in Pete Hegson's position right now. He's, yeah, somewhere around two million souls are attached to the Department of Defense in one way, shape or another.

Almost a trillion dollars in spending attached to the Department of Defense in one way, shape or another, almost a trillion dollars in spending attached to the Department of Defense in one way, shape or another. He is the figurehead of the Department of Defense, but Pete's got an audience of one. He's got an audience of Trump. And if you look the way Pete handled this and others in the first one, the first one with the lead to the Atlantic, it was the same. It was fake news. Well, it wasn't so fake news, but that's the way Trump handles things too.

It's, remember when Trump said, famously, if you punch me, I'll punch you back harder? That's the methodology. And Pete is a very important, trusted member of Trump's inner circle. If you don't believe that, look at almost all the important dignitaries that come into the Oval Office when Trump is entertaining someone from around the world Yeah, you have you have Rubio. It's the Secretary of State, but then you got Pete Hicks that right there in all of them So that's all you need to know. I think I think Pete is giving back Trump almost like a mirror. This is yeah

Hey, mr Trump I'm like you in this and we're gonna be beat the shit out of the media. And it's a tactic and tends to work. I don't have any problem with it on one level. I think that we've crossed a Rubicon, which is if you're going to be in the gotcha game, I think that people should go after the people who are in the gotcha game. Now, I don't mean that to have a chilling effect on the media. OK, but I'm saying I'm not. It's not that I'm going after Pete

Hegseth because he sold equipment to bad guys or he did, you know, something that is obviously felonious, nefarious, wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter where you're coming from. That's my job. But if it's, did you hear that Pete Hegseth likes to be tickled with a feather? If you want to be in that business, you should be exposed to the same scrutiny. And I think that if that's what you want to talk about is his personal life, we should talk about your personal life.

I believe we've crossed that Rubicon because it's not a fair level of analysis. You want to talk about how he screwed something up at the DOD, knock yourself out. If you want to talk about something that he said that he was going to do for political expedience of theD, knock yourself out. If you wanna talk about something that he said that he was gonna do for political expedience of the president, knock yourself out. If you wanna talk about him in a way

that just attacks him as a person, but not to his performance, under this vague umbrella of judgment, hey man, history's filled with flawed men who made good calls in crises, even if they made bad calls in their personal life. I think that's the line that we've crossed, and I think that's what Pete and Trump more specifically

tap into when they go after the media. What do you think? Yeah, well, I think the media has learned their lesson. I mean, famously, I can grab them by the pussy, and Trump gets elected a month later, okay? And then Pete is up famously, I'll, I can grab him by the pussy and Trump gets elected a month later. Okay. And then Pete is up for, you know, fast forward eight years and Pete's up for, uh, secretary, secretary of the defense.

And it's exposed that he has some, an NDA from a relationship and he's still confirmed. So the personal gotcha and your personal life thing doesn't seem to be resonating anymore. And so I think the media is moving on. On the right, on the left, they can still get you. Well, they try. Right, Chris? They try. They can't get you guys. They can get me. They can get media. They can get perceived lefties. They can kill their own.

I had a member of Congress on my show, and I said, Hey, what if Hegseth was a Democrat? She'd say I'd be the first one to say he should be fired. And she's probably right because they will eat their own, which is one of the reasons they lost. For a text that he sent his wife. Right. I mean, meanwhile, the guy, he executes it perfectly.

A mission, a perfect mission against the Houthis. Trump is very happy with that. It seems to put Iran on their back heels as well. He's going hard against Iran. He's got the DEI out of the military, allegedly, and it seems like that seems to be true. We just heard December 2024 was the largest recruiting month in a century for the US military. I mean they're doing things that are right and if you're gonna nail Pete Hegseth for texting his wife that I can't come home early tonight we're gonna bomb the shit out of the Houthis well then then you're then you're if you're gonna hold

everyone to that standard there's literally gonna be no one left in politics and maybe media. Support comes from Irestor. Hey I gotta tell you I'm liking what I'm using from iRestore. I like my LED helmet, but the shampoo, the conditioner, I dig dissent, I dig how easily it washes out. Just started using my serum, so we'll see, because I've had a little bit of thinning, getting a little bit of the monkey's ass in the back of my head, and I gotta do something about it, and iris store is my best bet, okay?

Why? Because they got the technology, and it's clinically proven to make a difference in regrowing hair. 300 lasers, 200 LEDs, light therapy directly to the scalp. Google it and you'll see the science behind it. I'm using it and I'm going to tell you how it's coming along.

Okay? And so far I can tell you that the products are quality in terms of their usability, the scent, the packaging, idea, all of it. Give yourself the gift of hair confidence this spring. For a limited time only, our listeners are gonna get 625 bucks off their iRestore Elite when you use the code Chris at iRestore.com. That's 625 bucks off iRestore at iRestore.com

with promo code Chris. Please support our show. Tell them we sent you. Hair loss sucks. You don't have to fight it alone thanks to iRestore. So when you look at the landscape of what we're dealing with economically and tariffs and how the administration is being received and regarded, what are your beefs that you attribute to the media and the left? And let's have a little dialogue about what you don't like

and what you think the problems are. Well, I think the media's deranged. They have Trump derangement syndrome. It's a real, real thing. I mean, they literally look for every single minute thing that they can nail Trump with. I mean, the thought, by the way, that NPR is with one unnamed source saying that internally Pete Hegseth is on his way

out because someone high and close to Pete knows that he's on his way out. NPR, the journalist group that we fund as taxpayers doesn't come with a single name source and he uses one unnamed source to really, I mean, if I were Pete, I'd probably sue him, you know? I mean, let alone the fact that they should be defunded because of their nonsense left-wing. I mean, Chris, you would even, I think you would agree with me that if NPR had 87 producers that were hard right or lean right and zero that lean left or are left or Democrats, you'd say that's not representative of the American population. So why are the American people funding NPR? Conversely,

it's the opposite. So I think their funding should be pulled. I think Trump is completely right about possibly pulling NPR funding and others. The media, they want, you said earlier, they want scalps. And for pro-Trump people or for MAGA people, I'm gonna call myself MAGA. I've known Trump a long time, I like him, I just don't like his tariffs, so I can't say I like everything he's doing. But MAGA, we need to circle the wagons

because if you don't circle the wagons, they'll take you down one by one. One by one, you'll be picked off. It'll be Pete now. It'll be, who knows, Kristi Noem. They won't like the way Cash Patel is running the FBI, and they'll take you down one at a time until they get to their ultimate goal,

which is taking down Donald Trump. I think that it's all about the sides. I think that the binary nature of it is just an unfixable problem. The parties are the root cause, and every great leader we've had have always pointed to the parties as a bad thing. All they can do is divide,

and the media definitely plays that game. There is absolutely a justifiable and unjustifiable lean to the left, no question. I believe that the antidote to that is just- What's a justifiable part of that? A justifiable is that the media was set up to give voice to the voiceless, to empower the little guy in the system,

especially in America, to empower and protect minorities. And there is something in that kind of suffrage especially in America, to empower and protect minorities. And there is something in that kind of suffrage that will make you a little bit more sympathetic to populist and what used to be liberal causes. Who's gonna challenge the corporations? The media, for the little guy.

Okay, unions, all these things used to break left. I would argue now more and more they're breaking right, that populism is breaking right. So that would be justifiable in my estimation. Unjustifiable is when it's just preference. And I think the solution to that is transparency. I don't care if you're a Republican. I don't care. I don't care if you're a conservative.

Are you fair or not? And I feel the same way all the way up to the Supreme Court. The idea that these men and women don't have to talk about their politics as if somehow it doesn't come into play in their decisions is laughable. It's just the two sides agreed on it because they don't want to get their nominees

messed with too much. So it's like a detente. But I think transparency is the cure. The only industry or let's call it job description mentioned in the constitution is the media. And it's the first amendment protection of the free press, but that would assume that the press is free and balanced and unbiased.

And I would submit to you that the American media, a little bit better now in the last 94 days, but is generally hard left leaning. And there are the studies, I think Princeton did a study that found that 92% of journalists recognize themselves as left versus right, on the left versus the right. And that doesn't bode well for what I would say constitutional protections, because there are things that we can and can't do that are protected above and beyond what other jobs,

people, citizens with rights are not so protected with. So when the media becomes almost leaning one way completely, you're providing protections and benefits and an unbalanced scale for one side of the media island. That shouldn't be the case. And I think Trump has exposed that completely. I get it. Look, at the same time, he is such an inflammatory figure.

And you'll get what you ask for with the media when it comes to scrutiny. You know, we remember Gary Hart on Monkey Business when he said, yeah, go ahead and follow me. See what you find. Okay. And when you talk shit, antagonize, and blow up norms for, you know, as a business model,

you're gonna get scrutiny. I believe Trump is no victim. He's gotten what he asks for. He's also survived things I've never seen anybody survive, which is proof of your proposition, which is that there's a group of people, maybe a majority in this country, who want to see a different standard. But I do think you got to adjust your take on the media, because by what metric? The dominant cable news outlet, Fox, has been for two decades.

Digital media overwhelmed by righty voices. The idea that we're censored on internet platforms, well, maybe, but every biggest outlet on every platform of digital media breaks right when it comes to politics. Lately though, Chris, I mean, I'll give you that. And so I said 94 days.

So maybe since Trump came along in 2016, but for the vast majority of the time that we've been in the media, it's been basically a liberal media. In fact, famously, Roger Ailes built Fox News for that exact reason. There was not an opposing voice to the wildly liberal media at the time in 1995 when he said we need another voice. And he was the counter to the liberal media. What blows me away is that no one's figured out. It's everyone on the left.

Everyone on the left, on the left NBC ABC CNN MSNBC and then there was Fox and in this idea that there are groups that want to be in the middle doesn't doesn't make sense I mean people want to pick a side Fox still remains really the only conservative outlet that is the balance to the rest of the wildly left-leaning media. And it's shocking that someone hasn't come along and said, we're gonna take Fox on for real. Newsmax tried to, but it was a joke. They weren't equipped to do it, let's put it that way.

Well, I don't know, they just had their stock come out, went up to 260. And they definitely got an infusion of capital. When Tucker left and other guys left Fox, they mentioned Newsmax, even though he didn't go there, and they got a big chunk of audience. They're certainly kicking my ass, which, you know, I'm working on,

but you're right, picking a side matters. I don't think they're going to. I think you're gonna overtake, I think News Nation, if we're talking about that, will overtake Newsmax over time. Newsmax is not, they had their opportunity, they had two chances. Right after the 2020 election, when Fox called Arizona and the election for Biden early, first, everyone, the whole, like anyone who's in the middle went to, went to Newsmax, I can't do Fox anymore, I went to Newsmax. And

they had that moment and then they dropped the ball. And then they had the second time when Tucker was bounced out of Fox, I was the eight o'clock host at Newsmax at the time, we doubled overnight. The next day he was fired on a Monday, we doubled on Tuesday and we continued to be the highest rated show that wasn't a Fox show in media for a long time until again,

the folks at Newsmax, the people running the show had their idea of what they should be and what they tried to be was pro-Trump, but kind of almost like a blue dog Democrat type network. They wanted to hat tip the left, but also be pro-Trump and they couldn't. I'll give you a good example. Most conservatives, Fox or not, most conservatives are against continuing to fund the Ukrainian side of the Russian-Ukraine war. Newsmax had a policy, don't take the negative on that.

Make sure you're a positive Ukraine. Make sure you're doing it. If you don't do it, don't say anything. I almost got bounced out of there twice for, one time I brought Senator Mike Lee on, and Mike Lee wanted to talk about pulling the funding for Ukraine. This is prior to Trump's election.

He brought them on. We did a nine minute segment. They edited seven of the nine minutes out. Mike Lee went ballistic because they didn't want anything negative about Ukraine on their air. Vaccines, the same thing. But meanwhile, they wanted to beat Trump. So my point to Newsmax is they don't really know who they want to be. They got to figure out who they wanted to be Trump. So my point to Newsmax is they don't really know

who they want to be. They got to figure out who they want to be. I would say the same thing with NewsNation. What do you guys want to be? Do you want to be news for all people? Yeah, fair. You can't pick a side. You got to pick a side.

You can be fair. You got to pick a side empirically. You can pick a side and be fair. You got to pick a side empirically, though. For instance, like we can go through a bunch of issues. I can tell you where we focus on it as News Nation and why. And at the end of it, I guarantee you, it won't be consistent,

but that's the way American people are. And I think that's a good thing. And again, I think they're forced onto sides in a binary system, for instance. Can we break it down, Chris? Yeah, give me any issue. Any issue. No, I believe here's why.

If you wanna just be fair, if you wanna report the news to all people, there are two million podcasts out there. There are four million ways to get that news. What distinguishes successful news, let's call it news or journalism delivery, is with the opinion piece of it. There doesn't have to be outright opinion like Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow, but it needs to have that. Anyone can deliver a newsread. Anyone can

read the news together by chat and GPT, right? But when you add Chris Cuomo's spice to it, seasoning to the news, that's where the value added is. I agree. I just don't promote a side reflexively. So for instance, anything, it doesn't matter what the issue is, there's going to be a pragmatism to it. So the Garcia case, Garcia is a redux of George Floyd, okay? This is not a great guy.

This is not a guy to idolize as the American we want and need. The issue involved, the high ground, is due process still matters. Garcia can be a piece of shit, due process still matters. And the Supreme Court ruled the way it did for a reason. The Democrats are missing the principle and jumping to the political optic of championing Garcia, who is most likely a bad guy, just like they

did with George Floyd. There was a good principle involved, due process matters. And this guy had an order allowing him to stay in the country, show that that order shouldn't be fulfilled anymore. The threat's not real, the president of the other country says it's not real, and this guy is a member of MS-13, and here's how we know, and he's not a citizen, and we want him out.

And that's it, due process is satisfied and you're gone. Now, is that a Democrat or a liberal position? Is that a conservative position? That's wildly Democrat liberal. Here's why. What right of due process does an illegal who breaks the law to come over here into our country have? There is absolutely due process afforded

to everyone on American soil. That's not me, that's Nino Scalia. Nino Scalia said the Fifth Amendment- He broke the law coming here, whether he's MS-13 or not. Yeah, he came in illegally. And therefore- He came in illegally.

The due process should be, okay, we'll send you home and you apply for asylum the right way and you're gonna have to on the road after we vet you, maybe you'll get in. You can do that, but you'd have to change the law. In 1980, Reagan codified in American law the Refugee Treaty that we signed on to, okay? In that, it established asylum and this legal limbo. I don't love the mechanism, okay? But as a lawyer, Eric, if it's in the law,

it's in the law unless you can change the law. And the law is this guy came in illegally. When they caught him, he said, I want asylum. Now right there, I believe that the law should change. But it hasn't. Okay, so you get to ask for asylum. Yes. Is that the law all day,

all the way through the Supreme Court, 30 cases over? Okay, fine. Did he get asylum? Yes. Is that the law? All day, all the way through the Supreme Court, 30 cases over. Okay, fine. Did he get asylum? No. He was denied asylum. Why? Not a protected class. Gang bangers or fear of gang bangers? Not a protected class. Okay. So then he's not here. Additionally, asylum applies. The definition of asylum is you leave a dangerous, you're not, wherever you live, it's dangerous. You feel a threat to your life. Yes.

And you leave and you go to the next- Available place. Border state. Yes. You don't travel 700 miles and pass through four different countries to get there. That's not asylum. I agree.

And just throw this in here too. His own wife tried to get him arrested on two separate occasions for domestic abuse. I mean, at some point, okay, you want to call it a technical definition of due process that he should appear in court somewhere and have it decided, but I would say that there are overwhelming mitigating circumstances that would allow you to deport a criminal scumbag like this guy. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with everything you just said.

But I'm telling you, the reason Nino Scalia did the interview with RBG, may they both rest in peace, and they were an amazing couple, right? Different politics, very similar jurisprudential ideas. And Scalia, yes, I'm Italian and I'm biased, but he is one of the legendary justices of the Supreme Court. Every human being in American jurisdiction

has due process rights. Different degrees all day, 100%. Now, there's a legal limbo mechanism that Reagan put into our law as part of this treaty, which is withholding of deportation. So the guy comes in illegally, doesn't get asylum, but the judge finds that he does have a reasonable fear of this other gang whooping his ass for whatever reason.

So you can't deport him as long as that condition exists. He can stay in the country, he can even work. He can work in the country, get a social security number. That is the order that made the Supreme Court, come on, Eric, this court does not wanna go against Trump. They go against him nine nothing. They say in the decision, the president's got huge leeway on immigration.

Stephen Miller decides that that's the whole ruling, which of course it isn't. They say, but there is a legal federal order in effect, withholding deportation. You have to prove it no longer is satisfied. Trump ignores that. How is that a liberal position? Well, conservatives would disagree with federal law.

I just think that the media, and for whatever reason, Chris Van Hollen has decided to take up this thing as as Maryland man, not illegal El Salvadoran here in the country whose wife wants him deported at one point. And he hit his wife in the face. That's what she alleged. And then she didn't show up at the hearing.

Bad guy. Correct. Bad guy. Did you see the Michael Strahan interview with her? It was amazing. He asked her straight up, how can you call the cops on him and now be crying that he's not here anymore? And she froze and she was the longest pregnant pause you ever saw.

She had nowhere to go. And she said something like, well, he's alive. No one even knows what that means. The point is, the media has picked this up. Democrats have picked this up as some sort of, well, if Trump wants him deported, we don't want him to. Yeah, that's a mistake. Can you imagine saying we don't want this bad dude, bad hombre deported, and he comes back and does something?

What's Chris Van Hollen gonna do? His political career is over. Over. Yeah, maybe. I mean, to his own people, he looks like a champion, but again, they're mixing up, and not to be alliterative about it, but they're mixing up the principle to be illiterate about it, but

they're mixing up the principle, which is high ground for everybody. It is not a liberal issue with the person. And they did the same thing with George Floyd. Okay. Um, they, that guy, that cop did shit to Floyd. He should not have done and why he did it. I still don't know, not have done and why he did it I still don't know but to make George Floyd into Martin Luther King is crazy and they're doing that with this guy Garcia and that is the mistake that the Democrats make. I am not making that mistake. I'm saying I don't like this guy either. Do process, you know that's why we say justice is blind, right? Just have

the hearing and show what you say is obvious, and then you meet the satisfaction. That's the same thing. Well, maybe this, maybe this. Maybe Trump is playing 3D chess instead of 2D chess, and he's saying, I'm going to take this up, knowing legally I'm going to lose this challenge, but I'm going to paint the, let's see who bites on this because whoever bites on this is going to look like a clown to the 80 20 issue of, do you want to deport gang members? Right? It's gotta be at least eighties, maybe it's 90 10 who knows,

but all the people, all the folks who are out here, defending this guy over process look like morons. I get it. I get it. But what do you do? So here's where we are. And I don't believe it's a crisis. Okay. to process look like morons to the vast majority of the population. So here's where we are. And I don't believe it's a crisis. Okay, that's hyperbole. And that's just this binary game

of everybody scaring everybody all the time. However, so what do you do? The Supreme Court has said nine nothing. The guy's gotta be brought back and you've gotta make the case. What do you do? Ignore it? No, bring him back.

Bring him back. No, Trump says not bringing him back. What? I mean, right, Trump says not bringing him back. He also, he pivots on some things. I mean, he gets out there and gets in front of stuff, and then he does some, whatever he does, it's some gymnastics, and next thing you know know he's on the other side of the issue.

Bring him back and see what happens. See what happens with this guy. We'll see if he doesn't rape someone or hold up a badanger or some shit like that. You don't have to bring, see that's, you don't have to bring him back like that. You don't free him. You bring him back for the hearing.

Do what they do to the rest of the criminals that come across the border. Give them a ticket to show up in court seven years from now. No, no, you don't do that either. That's how far back the court is. You don't do catch and release. The vetting process for asylum is seven years to show up.

He got rid of catch and release and it was a good policy move. What he should do is bring him back in custody, have the hearing. If it's as obvious as his guys say it is, he'll never leave custody and he'll go right back. That's a waste of taxpayer dollars. I'm okay with that. The same principle as it play in this IAEA case,

the Alien Enemies Act, you've gotta let people have a chance to prove that they are not what you say they are. That's America. That's what makes us different than a banana republic. You can do that. He says, yeah, but then I can't deport enough people to get to the numbers that I want to get to. Hey, that's the challenge, brother. That's the challenge. But the idea that you're gonna get rid of due process, you're creating a problem for yourself when you don't need to. And that's what I don't get.

I don't know that that makes me a liberal. I mean, you know, Alan Dershowitz, Nino Scalia, you know, justice. You're testing the relationship between the judicial and the executive. That's really where you don't. Right? I mean, I don't think it's written anywhere that the president can't, you know, defy the Supreme Court. I don't know if it's even spelled out because it's never really happened.

That is written. You can't defy the Supreme Court. They are the law of the land. Us mortals can't, but the commander in chief might be the one who could. No, no, no, the president can't. None of the three branches can defy the other. What you can do is say this is none of your business. Okay. You're right, I mean, right?

You know, like, Right, you can continue to deport Supreme Court, even with a nine nothing, stop your deportation. But no, they didn't say stop or don't do it. They said pause it, right? They didn't say pause it. Right, if they rule and you breach it, you got a problem. What you can do though is litigate and say,

I don't think you should be ruling on this. And then you see how the court comes out and the court is the court. And by the way, this is his court. So the idea that this is some lefty exercise of political judiciary, these are his people. So I don't think he gets the benefit of that. Same way he doesn't get the benefit of it with Powell. Eric, you pick the guy. Jerome Powell is your guy. Now you say you don't really like, you never liked him, then why'd you pick him? When is this guy responsible?

Trump? Well. You know what I'm saying? Like you picked him. Tell him to leave. He evolves, you know, he evolves on ideas. I'm not sure. And again, he picked Ron Powell the first term,

and this is a completely different Trump and Trump presidency than 45. So tell him to leave. Don't say Powell is a lefty. The guy's a lifelong conservative. Because if he strongs arm him to leave, it'll look like the president is doing what he's not supposed to do and have presidential power over the money supply and, and, and the financial markets, which I guess he doesn't.

You know Trump wants that control. We both know he wants that control, right? He wants all control. I mean, he wants control of everything. Cause Trump believes in his mind that he sees the playing field for everything. And in his mind, he thinks he can fix every single facet of our society, of our business world.

I mean, I think he's off base with tariffs. I think he's completely off base with tariffs. I'm pointing the finger right at Howard Lutnick for whispering in Trump's ear, probably something Trump was thinking about wanting to do the first term didn't, and Howard just blew it up and he's doing it because he's got the mandate.

Navarro is in there also though. I don't know why, after what happened the first time around, but he's back in there. You talk about who's in the room I see his smiley ass every time he's having a photo op also Which I think is I I know Trump has better guys than that around him who would never want anything to do with Navarro I mean, I don't know the I know Peter long I'm not sure that Peter Navarro has the influence that you're giving him credit for I mean

He's going to be painted Maybe he's in the room because if it goes south they'll blame it on Pete Navarro and Howard Lutnick where the blame should be placed But I think Lutnick has power. I think Elon Musk has a ton of power unelected power by the way, which you know is interesting and if our you guys had be blowing that went up and It's it's a new presidency. It's a completely different type of presidency. I had a chat with Bannon the other day about, he mentioned something like he could possibly see

JD Vance winning the presidency in 28 and picking Donald Trump as his vice president and then stepping aside. I know, but there's one problem with that, which Steve knows, and I get not liking it, but again, either you have things that matter or you don't. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution says that to be vice president,

you have to be eligible to be president. If you have been elected to the presidency twice, you are not eligible to be president. Therefore, you cannot be the vice president. If you have been elected to the presidency twice, you are not eligible to be president. Therefore, you cannot be the vice president. They may argue on the point of eligible as in age and birth. No, it's being elected twice. That's what it says in the amendment. No, no, I know you can only be elected twice president, but you said to be vice president, you must be eligible to be president

And is it spelled out? Are they referring to? national where you were born and Your 35 years. I think they were referring to all of it if you were elected twice, then you can't be this Maybe the court will have to have to decide what they're referring to when they say look I'm fine with that I'm fine with that and and if they go to the court and the court says, nah, that's not what it means, okay, then he's in again, if they win and everything else happens. And if they say no, well, that's where we are right now,

which is no, I get that they said no. I don't like that they said no. And I'm not sure that they should have been able to say no. So I don't know that I'm going to listen to them. Well, then what good are the rules? What good are the rules? Oh, please, what good are the rules? You want to talk about what good are the rules? How many times do we have to hear Democrats saying, you know what, it's not written anywhere,

how many justices on the bench, on the high bench, maybe instead of nine, we'll do, I don't know, 15 and appoint six liberal judges. And all of a sudden the next guy comes in and says, 15, how about 23? And all of a sudden it's a game back and forth and the Supreme Court becomes irrelevant. So I'm not sure the rules are, I think the rules are made by, I guess, the leader, but also the mandate that has been given the leader. And I've never, Chris, as long as I've been alive, I've never seen a world leader, American or other, with the amount of support that Trump has gotten this term. Quantified by what?

Not the first time, this time. I mean, not the way he won. I mean, I saw the election as Democrats losing, not Trump winning. I mean, he did well through the swing states, but the margins were very small. He won the popular vote with a 5 million disadvantage, registered voter disadvantage.

Yes, he won the popular vote, which is very rare. He won every swing state, all seven swing states. He won all of them, and he won the popular vote, which is very rare. He won every swing state, all seven swing states. He won all of them and he won the popular vote. He crushed the electoral map. He destroyed the electoral map. And, you know, and by the way, here's what I think is power. When you can say something like, we're going to take Greenland

and everyone goes, I don't want to mess with them. Or Canada, keep it up, Trudeau, you'll be our 51st state. And no one says anything. We're going to take the Panama Canal back and not just stop the Chinese from operating the Panama Canal, we're actually going to take it back. Well, when you say nobody said anything, you mean Republicans. The thing is that he's doing that most people would say, if it was Obama, they would have figured out a way to drag him out of the office.

But there's a fear on the left. Like, first of all, the right loves him or are afraid of him. The right's afraid of him. Elected officials are afraid of him because the people love him. That's what's happening. He goes to UFC, the place goes ballistic. He goes to a football game.

Those are his people. The place goes crazy. Those are his people. When you do a poll, he's still underwater. Maybe they're smart though, Chris. They're smart. They realize these are the people who are, they're voting for him.

For his constituents and they love him. So they're afraid to take the other side of Trump. I totally agree. On the right, there is no Republican party. It is all mega. It's all Trump. And if you go against him, you got a problem. Like on tariffs, there are a lot of people who are real conservatives who are pissed off by it. It's not Trump. And if you go against him, you got a problem. Like on tariffs, there are a lot of people

who are real conservatives who are pissed off by it. It's not good economics. It's not good foreign policy. It doesn't work well out for Americans. You can't find me a case where it really did. They keep saying McKinley. They obviously haven't looked into McKinley and what happened, but they can't really say anything

because of what you're discussing. Support comes from American financing. Look, we all get the problem. Prices have been going up, up, up, and too many of us have to reach for a credit card to cover expenses. We know that credit card debt is higher than ever, and too many of us are getting trapped right here in America. American financing can help.

How? If you're a homeowner, you can pay off high interest debt by using much lower interest loans through your home's equity. Mortgage consultants at American financing are salary based. So there's no incentive for them to put you in a loan that doesn't make sense for you. Their customers save an average of $800 a month.

All they have to do is just call and let American Financing do the rest. You can close in as fast as 10 days. You may be able to delay up to 2 mortgage payments, creating even more savings up front. They've helped hundreds of thousands of homeowners create meaningful savings. And it's all reflected if you just look at the reviews on Google. Call today 866-889-4242. That's 866-889-4242. Or go to AmericanFinancing.net slash Cuomo, NMLS 182334, www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org. Support comes from SelectQuote. Insurance matters. You run in your household, you build in a family,

you get in your assets, how are you gonna protect it? Life is uncertain. There is no guarantee that we have anything but right now. This can be scary or it can be empowering. Either way, you need SelectQuote. Why? SelectQuote is one of America's leading insurance brokers, 40 years almost, they have under their belt of experience.

How many people have they helped? Over two million customers. How much money in policies is that? 700 billion in coverage since 1985. Now, look, there are a lot of people selling insurance out there, but for a lot of them, you know, it's kind of like a cookie cutter deal, right? One size fits all in personal volume business, right?

A lot of policies may cost more, cover less. SelectQuote has a team of licensed insurance agents that work for you. They tailor policies for you, for your life insurance needs as an individual, as a family with your own set of priorities. And they know how to do it and do it quickly. Can be as little as a 15 minute consultation.

Get the right life insurance for you for less at selectquote.com slash Chris C. Go to selectquote.com slash Chris C. Go to selectquote.com slash Chris C today and you'll get started. Selectquote.com slash Chris C. In terms of his overall popularity in the country, despite the fact that he has almost no opposition, that means anything, you know, Cory Booker spoke

for 25 hours, I can't remember one thing he said. He's still upside down in the polls. Why? He's a divisive figure. And I think it's needlessly divisive. I really do. Like, for instance, the other day, when the Pope died, and there was some stupid shit said about JD Vance. He should have come out and said, Hey, anybody making fun of the Pope passing is not for me and respect this. I love the Pope. There's a lot of conservatives who don't, but I'm saying a lot of us saw the Pope as a, you could be a unified woke. Well, of course the Pope is- As a woke Pope.

Yeah, you know who else was woke by that definition? Jesus. Right. You know what I mean? This was a guy whose message was seven times seven times 70, be for the downtrodden, be for the miserable. That's who I spend my time with. Not great politics, but that's certainly his message.

So of course that's where the Pope is on it. But the idea of being anti-Pope is crazy. It's just crazy. It's an easy way, you know, Trump's got a great eye for 80 20s. That's an 80 20. Don't make fun of the Pope when he dies. No, he didn't make fun of the Pope.

No, he didn't. You mean the JD Vance is the antichrist because an hour after they met he died. Right. I mean, yeah, but why would Trump wade into that, especially when he knows a lot of MAGA people aren't thrilled, weren't thrilled with the way the Pope was pushing through open borders for the United States Senate. Because you want to be a unifier.

You want to be a unifier. There is no great American figure in our history who was known as a divider, not one. And if he wants to be considered great, if that really is his motivation, people say that's why he's going to stop all this tariff stuff before the midterms. I don't know that the midterms are a real measure of a president's legacy. Most presidents take a beating in the first midterm. So I don't see that as being as much of an exigency as it's discussed right now. But if he has legacy on his mind, do you remember what Jared Kushner was supposed to be in charge of in the first term? Remember DJT 100?

They had this proposal that he wanted to get to 100% popularity. He wanted to do things that made everybody like him I did not know and if that's what he wants to be about. I don't think he does Chris I think he again, this is a different presidency. He may have wanted that or he was over he was a Rookie he was a newbie politician the first time. I think he realized that that was there was no politician the first time. I think he realized that there was no benefit to trying to get the left to like him. I think what he's doing, and he's doing it very well, he's becoming so patriotic, ultra-uber-patriotic, you know, just getting the center to move to the MAGA right is what he's doing. And I think he did it in the election. And I think they're firmly planted here too.

I mean, there's no one who could get away with doing things he's doing without the... If you had a thin margin, he'd never be able to do this. Never be able to do this. Well, again, I'm not as impressed by the margin as you're saying. He just has complete control over his party and he has Congress right now,

although he hasn't used Congress once. I mean, I guess this budget battle that's gotta happen, I mean, they keep making Johnson stall, but at some point the CR is gonna run out and he's got to negotiate a deal and you know what the problem is there. President Trump is not a conservative. That guy wants a tax cut, he wants it for the rich,

and he doesn't wanna pay for rich, and he doesn't want to pay for it. And he doesn't really want to cut spending because despite what you're saying, he's not looking to cut entitlements. He knows that's a bad look. He doesn't want to do it. And that's not conservative orthodoxy. Well, I don't think he is. Again, I think they're in, I alluded to this with Patrick Bedd-Dave without saying it because if I say it I'll probably get lit up. But no, I don't I agree with you I don't think Trump I just say Steve Bannon is the true north for MAGA. He is the true north I think Trump he's not a conservative either that boy's an Irish Catholic from Massachusetts

I would say Trump is a populist. Like he is a straight-up Populist in other words, he'll do the things that get the folks behind him, but he doesn't care about the other side. He's not trying to make the world better for all of us. I think he's trying to make the world better for people who are following him. And fortunately, I think a lot of the country has finally seen what I've seen in the guy for 10 years.

But he's not over 50% yet, and he's got to pick the issues. Like, I think a great one for him is the reciprocal side, not to use that word, in the way it's been used with tariffs. Here's the play that he should be making that I don't understand why he didn't make. The tariffs are a blunt instrument.

They're not gonna get you where you want. But he is on the right road. The road is, why doesn't Eric Bowling, Inc. have to give anything to America to have access to the most robust consumer market in the history of the world? Why can't we be a little more like China? You want to sell us shit?

You got to make some of it here. You got to use our people to do it and none of this Stitching sneakers bullshit. We want the jobs that China has also developed on the high tech space We want those jobs here. We want you to train stem people here if you want access to our market. What's wrong with doing that? You can't do it, Chris. And you know what? The average Chinese worker makes 600 bucks a month, works 12 to 15 hours a day all weekend long. They're actually housed in like dormitories.

I mean, you can't do it here with our employment laws. It would be cost prohibitive. Well, I don't want people to be working 15 hours a day and living in a bunk either. I'm saying, you do it that way. Your iPhone would be 4,000. You just can't do it. Well, I don't want people to be working 15 hours a day and living in a bunk either. I'm saying, you do it that way. Right, so your iPhone would be 4,000, not 1,000. But you do it that way. Well, maybe, maybe not.

Here's why. The iPhone has to be that much because you have a profit structure that you have decided is a mutable law. It used to be that the profits were one percentage. Now, it's an exponent of like 200% of what that used to be. And now, your top management makes 300, 350 times. You're doing it, you're doing it.

You're doing it, you're falling into the liberal trap right there. But how is it liberal? You're starting to talk about what's right, what's wrong, how much government should have, what a company should be able to make or not make if they're making too much. Well, that's not right.

Well, so I'm the free marketeer and this is where I- You're free market until we got to bail your ass out, right? No, no. In 2008, we bailed your ass out. How was that free market? I didn't bail my ass out. There's no one to bail out the big shots. Yeah, well, it was a mistake. Paul one to make the fail. It was a mistake.

Paulson, they screwed up. They made a mistake. Everything would have been, you know who was buying when the whole world was about to fall apart? Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett was putting $25 billion into Goldman Sachs at the bottom.

He bought Goldman Sachs. Because the free market knows, if they're gonna fail, let them fail, so they'll build back. That's how you build back better. You allow people to fail. You allow your kid to fall off his bike and guess what? Next time you won't hit that pothole

the way he did the first time. If it's a massive pothole, there's nothing too big to fail. I'm a free marketeer and my problem is when people start saying, well, Apple's making too much on an iPhone anyway. Then someone would come on and create a better iPhone at a cheaper price, and we'd all move over to whatever it's called, banana phones, right?

But no one's willing to do that. No one's willing to take the chance. And when government gets involved and pushes this envelope, like Trump is kind of doing right now, and the left wants us to say that you know millionaires and billionaires says Bernie Sanders right and puts his black mark on people just earning money I it's well that's wrong it's not what's made it's binary see it doesn't have to be binary that's binary you got to pick winners and losers you got to be good you got to be bad look, the longer Bernie Sanders and AOC are out there,

the happier you should be, okay? Because they're trying to do MAGA 2.0, which is to find their own angry base of people. But I don't think it's gonna work. But you know, whatever, time will tell on that. What I'm saying is this, and I don't think it's liberal. I think it's Keynesian, okay? The idea that you gotta allow the companies

to do what they want, that's capitalism. That's laissez faire, okay. So Walmart gets to distribute profits and pay management what they want because that's capitalism, yes. And when an extraordinary percentage of their workers are on social benefits, that's okay. Yeah, that's okay.

They can be on SNAP. Oh, so you get to make 350 times what you're paying this guy and then I as the taxpayer have to supplement it because they need food stamps. That's okay. I'll be extreme if you want. I don't think we should have transfer payments either, entitlement payments as well. They're in the law. Social security is one of the best things we've done. Every time you start applying laws to the free market, you screw something up. You open it up for waste, fraud, and abuse, and there's massive amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse. Imagine how much,

if we didn't pay taxes, how much more efficient everything would be. If we didn't have to pay taxes, we would have all that money to spend the way we want. You want protection? Great. Hire your own protection. You want to have your garbage taken away four times a week instead of twice. We do it four. Maybe you only want once, but I get to choose. When the government comes in and says you have to do this or unions say in order to get this, we need that union. We need all those bus drivers.

It fucks with the free market system. Supply and demand are the only two inputs that should happen in any product and any service in the world. When that happens, it's better. So when you put up financial tariffs to, the globe has become pretty intertwined right now. You can't make anything over here without buying stuff from over there, over there,

and maybe assembling it over there. So you're putting up- Now you sound like a globalist. They want you to die on your side of the political ledger, by the way. You sound like a globalist. No, no, I'm a financial free marketeer. If it's not, if it's better and more profitable without government influence, by all means, let's do it.

You'll get price, you create competition, create competition, creates lower, lower pricing. Competition creates more supply, brings the supply demand curve down to a lower pricing. Competition creates more supply, brings the supply-demand curve down to a lower price. And then when things get better, you increase demand and then prices start to move up. It corrects itself. Governments shouldn't have any say in that. Here's the problem with it. Works for me, what you're saying. But here's the problem. The true golden era, right? That's what it's called, of this country was where that was adjusted to have it not be so top-heavy. It was not the Gilded Age,

it was called the Gilded Age because it was fake. The Golden Age- You're saying the same thing, though. Was after World War II. Adjusted to not make it not so top-heavy. It was government getting involved in- Hold on, but what happened? People's ability to make and earn and tough. It is government getting involved in people's ability

make and earn and keep. But what happened after World War II when you had collective bargaining and other things brought in and all those government programs and social security and Medicare and Medicaid, that's when it all came in. You had the most robust growth of middle-class development in this country.

You had more families elevated, able to buy things, be things than ever before in American history. And you still had the very wealthy. They had a redonkulous amount of taxes on them. Don't get me wrong about that. I don't know how they were spending the money and whether it was efficient or not, but Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare,

are part of America's greatness. And you had that people were paying more for things and you didn't get to charge 4,000 because you didn't have to make 45 million. You were fine with your 7 million, you was still 50 times more than anybody working for you. But the idea that you have to make 350 times them, and then the government helps you with the bankruptcy laws,

helps you with financing, helps you with tax policy, helps you with structuring of regulation, so that you're always getting benefited by the system. Now you see where we are. We got a lot of cheap goods, but people can't afford their homes. People don't have high paying jobs anymore because everybody ran away to China and these other shitty places to make things on the cheap. And the American middle class has been dissolved.

And those are the people that voted for Trump. Yeah. Well, I would simply say that you're agreeing with me, but then adding this whole idea that- You gotta solve it. Wait, what? You gotta solve it. The people who voted for Trump want him to beat China's ass and bring those things back and just don't let the companies

make as much money off their back. Because they don't understand it, Chris. I mean, you're not gonna bring back a manufacturing plant. Now you're calling them stupid? You're just not gonna do it. I mean, let's be honest. And by the way, what Howard Lutnick doesn't understand is that if Apple is going to do a 500 billion, half a trillion dollar, 500 billion dollar investment in manufacturing

in the United States of America, how many actual human beings are going to be doing screwing in those little screws, Howard? How many? None. It'll be all robotics, all robotics. And the reason why it hasn't happened yet is because it's so expensive to build a manufacturing plant with robotics.

So you bring them in, you go to robotics, you're gonna have to do it anyway. You're not gonna hire human beings anymore. You're not gonna pay $70 an hour plus healthcare and then have to take care of them for the rest of their life. It's just not gonna happen anymore. So their math is wrong. They're probably not gonna ever do it.

If they do do it, it will happen when the timing is right, when the market tells them to, not because Howard Lutnick does. I gotta tell you, that is not what MAGA is about. MAGA is about restoring the empowerment of the working man and woman and their fate within the middle class. And that, look, when Trump said,

I couldn't believe he said this shit, and I haven't heard him say it again, but when the market first took the dip, when everybody got upset, and we started this unwinding of the sell America trade that's going on right now in the markets, he said, hey, if these Wall Street guys feel like they're not making enough, they've been at the trough long enough.

I was like, holy shit, who is that Bernie Sanders? I didn't hear that. It would be highly ill advised to continue that lane, so to speak. He was speaking to his base. The idea that somebody has three private planes and you can't pay for your kids to go to college doesn't work for Americans anymore. What's the fix, you tell me.

But the idea that while that's the free market. I think certainly MAGA, I think it's more younger bros, aspirational people looking to be like Joe Rogan or Dana White or Tucker or Elon. And they, you know, Bernie Sanders in ALC are the Democrat socialists who say being rich is bad. You're bad, if you're rich, you're a bad person. I don't think Trump or MAGA ever ever saw it that way

Eric bowling I love talking to you We wait you told me I could ask you a question. He said come on. It's me. Whatever you want. What do you got? Here's here's my question. Yeah, you got five Trump gets elected. Yeah, this what I believe is a massive mandate and majority whatever It's my belief and I think a lot of people did realize that. Elon was there before Elon came when he got shot in the year. But Bezos comes over, Zuckerberg comes over. There's a parade, you know, Joe and Mika with her tail between the legs. They come over.

Lindy Lee says, I was always mad. I was never really behind, you know, Kamala and Joe Biden. These lefties, I feel, are Trojan horses. I'm concerned. I don't think they're true believers. I think they're just saying to get the good graces of Trump and or MAGA and we'll go straight back to where they came from. If there's a Democrat in office in 2020, do you disagree with that? And wait, what should I, how should I handle?

I'll give you a good example. I have Lindy Leon. How should I handle someone like that? Who's a very nice person, was a fundraiser for Kamala Harris, worked for Joe Biden for, I don't know, 10 years. And all of a sudden, the minute Trump becomes elected, she says, I was conservative all along. I didn't really like what they're doing. I love this new president. How do I handle that? Free market. She's not burdened by any principle other than expedience. She's doing what's good for her in the moment like any businessman or woman does. Where's the market right now? Where's the demand and how can you supply it? That's what she's doing. That's what they're all doing and they're doing it in a more exaggerated way. Why? Because he's a more exaggerated cat.

And this is a guy who will not do it on the phone to just you, not do it in a meeting, not do it subtly. He is a hammer and everything is a nail. And he will come for you, Eric Bolling. And he will use a lot of time that other people would use other ways to come and bite your ass. That's what he'll do.

And the tech bros know it. So they're going where they need to be. And when that changes, so will they. And you know who will be okay with it? Their shareholders. Cause that's who they're beholden to. Fair enough. Fair enough. Yeah. No, it makes a lot of sense.

It's just because we're in the business of covering politics, the hypocrisy, it's what we do. We expose hypocrisy and it is rampant right now. If you look at it as being hypocritical, if you take the tack that you just did right there, it's actually helpful to me to- If you're not about anything,

then you are not a hypocrite. It is just, you know, I remember being taught in philosophy, situational ethics, and after talking about it for an hour and a half, this professor said, okay, so you all understand? Yeah, he goes, great, because I made it up. There are no situational ethics. You either have ethics or you don't.

And if the situation dictates the ethic, then that's not really an ethic. And that's where we are in our politics. You do what you need to do, you go where you need to go, you got Republicans who are being quiet about tariffs when you are built on free trade that is tariff free. That's where we are. Because it's safe.

Interesting concept. You know, it's almost like some sort of political, I don't mean like political vigilanteism. And it's an interesting tact. We're certainly in fun times to cover stuff as a reporter, as a journalist. The Asians have that expression, may you live in interesting times.

They just didn't qualify what kind of interesting. To me, this just sucks. And it's constantly undermining the prospects for hope and optimism, that there's something better there because it's not what's being rewarded. What's rewarded is finding a new avenue of division and showing people who you own and the gotcha and all this hyperbolic bullshit.

And that's what works. It works in our business, it works in politics. What else you got for me? Maybe we can blaze a trail, provide a light of two people coming from completely polar opposite spectrum, meet in the middle and have a human respectable relatable conversation and learn something in the process. Listen, I think that that I will almost guarantee you, dinner is on me if I'm wrong,

that people will listen to this and say, oh, I didn't expect Eric to say that. Oh, I didn't expect you guys to, and when he was talking about that, you don't agree about the corporate structure stuff, but I have a sense, like, do you like him? And the answer, first of all, is yes. And I don't have to agree with you to think you're a decent guy.

We're not talking about whether or not to kill puppies. We're talking about economic theory. We're talking about politics. We're talking about whose guns are bigger, I think. Oh, I mean, you, I think you win. You look good. I'm pretty sure. Look, be honest, you did some pushups

before the show, didn't you? I didn't do any. You just did pushups. But I'm pretty sure you're on something. I don't think you're natty. I'm natty. Gary said, Chris will be here in a minute. He's doing pushups before the show. I didn't do any. You just did push-ups. But I'm pretty sure you're on something. I don't think you're Natty. I'm Natty. Gary said Chris will be here in a minute. He's doing push-ups in the room over there

just so his arms were piping. Listen, you got that fake tattoo on. I don't even believe that's real. I think it's a sleeve. I think that's like a stocking, a hose. It's stocking. Taiwan, baby. I'm just kidding, it's Vegas.

You are the stronger guy. I give it up. I'm fine with that. But I think you're on a lot of stuff. I think you take in a lot of stuff. I think a lot of needles in your life. A lot of needles. A lot of needles.

There's no needles in my life. I do fat. I do just an 18 hour fast a day, every day. If anyone would be, that's it. I'm very health conscious. I do the same thing, but only from vegetables. Don't tell Magga this. Don't ever tell a human person in Magga,

I'm a pescatarian. I haven't eaten meat in 30 years. Really? Any meat. Well, I'll tell you what, my wife runs this business called The Purist. She'll say you're on the right track. And I am your boy because I am a fisherman.

And this summer, please, I want you to come up. I want you to be out here on Long Island. Patrick's coming up. He's taking a place out there. I would love to feed you and I'd love to give you a bunch Long Island. Patrick's coming up. He's taking a place out there. I would love to feed you, and I'd love to give you a bunch of fish. Let's do it. I'm in. I'm in. We'll have some fun. All the best to you and the family. Let's keep talking.

I'm always a call away to come on your show. You want to come on here, let's do it. Let's do it, Chris. Really good time talking to you. Appreciate you. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. You may agree, you probably disagree, but now you understand differently. And that is the key to two things.

Not only fuller understanding, but strategy. Strategically, you are better off if you understand why your opponents, and I don't believe you should see them that way. I believe you should be courting consensus. Try to find places where you agree and where things can be worked on that are bigger than just some BS binary battle to the bottom of two parties. But if you're stuck in that game, you better understand who you're against. And now you will better. Thank you very much for subscribing and following here at The Chris Cuomo Project. Thank you for wearing your independence and getting your free agent gear. Thank you for checking me out at News Nation 8P and 11P

every weekday night. The challenges are real. The approach is clear. Let's get after it.