The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3577 - Epstein's Birthday Card; Schumer & Jeffries Cave Plans w/ David Dayen

Episode Date: September 9, 2025

It's News Day Tuesday on The Majority Report On today's show: The Jeffrey Epstein estate has released the infamous 50th birthday book, which led Trump to sue the Wall Street Journal after it reported on it, claiming the coverage was false. Rep Dave Min (D-CA) pushes back on CNN's John Berman claiming there are no reasons to believe that Donald Trump participated in wrongdoings with Epstein. Executive Editor of The American Prospect, David Dayen joins the show to discuss the Democrat's plan to 'fight' the spending bill and the Google monopoly case. In the Fun half: Andrew Cuomo is using posters of Zohran Mamdani shaking hands with stream Hasan Piker in a useless and confusing attempt to scandalize Mamdani Despite polling that shows a sharp decline in Democratic support for Israel, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told Jewish leaders in Brooklyn that 9 out of 10 Democrats support Israel and reaffirmed her commitment to keeping the party pro-Israel. Tim Pool is taken to school over his support of the U.S. government deporting pro-Palestinian activists. All that and more. The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase Check out today's sponsors: CURRENT AFFAIRS: for 30% off for a year on any subscription of your choice, go to currentaffairs.org/subscribe and enter the code MAJORITYREPORT at checkout. The offer expires October 31st.   PROLON: ProlonLife.com/majority Get 15% off sitewide plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their 5-Day Nutrition Program SUNSET LAKE:  Head to SunsetLakeCBD.com and through September 14th, you can save 30% on all Sunset Lake CBD’s Tinctures when you use the coupon code FallTincture Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech Check out Matt’s show, Left Reckoning, on YouTube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder’s YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon’s show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza’s music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/

Hey, folks. Can you believe it? Summer is almost officially over. What is it like in a week or two? That's not funny. It's sort of like a sad laugh. I know. That is it. It's good. But if your summer was anything like mine, you're going to need to re-center a little bit this fall. Maybe you're looking to do more self-care, calm yourself. Have a little help relaxing. Maybe you have some aches from traveling or just, I don't know, dealing with your life, your

life, your children. Maybe you need a little help getting your sleep schedule back on track. Well, if these sound like good fall goals to you, our buddies at sunsetlake sabadeh.com are here to help. Now through September 14th, you can save. 30% on all sunset lake sabadee tinctures when you use the coupon code fall tincture. That includes their everyday formulas, their sleep tinctures, even their pet tinctures. I've been using the good night oil tincture for, I don't know, since they came out with it, maybe two years or something.

It is incredibly helpful to me to sleep. I have friends who use their tinctures for their doggies, and the sabade tinctures themselves are nice when you want to relax at night. You don't want to just, you know, get messed up, but you want to just chill. And they have them in multiple different strengths and flavors. Sale end September 14th at 1159 p.m. Eastern, so don't wait. Stock up on your favorite tinctures with this deep. discount sale now's the time to do it head over to sunset lake sabade dot com use the code fall tincture

all one word for 30% off of all sabade tinctures and of course you can always use our code left is best to save 20% on all the rest of their sungrown vermont products see their site for terms and conditions and we'll put a link in the podcast and youtube description now time for the show The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Tuesday, September 9th, 2020. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA.

on the program today, David Deyen, executive editor of the American Prospect Magazine, host of the Prospects Weekly Roundup and co-host of the podcast of Organized Money will be on to talk about the Democratic Leadership's Capitulation Plans. Google's Monopoly Get Out of a Jail-Free card. Well, not quite jail.

and the FTC's reversal on non-compete clauses. Also on the program today, Trump can't shake Epstein revelations. As Democrats seem to have secured the votes needed for a discharge petition on legislation that would release all the Epstein files. U.S. job growth revised down for 2024. Israel bombs Qatar an attempt to kill the Hamas negotiations team I've heard that before

also not Qatar but yeah indeed also demands one million people leave Gaza City as a prelude to bombing it and attacks a Gaza-bound flotilla boat meanwhile Supreme Court allows Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission

member, at least temporarily, despite all precedent. Zoran Mamdani, with a huge lead in New York City in the new pool. Trump regime halts an IRS crackdown on millionaires and corporations' tax shelters. Going to cost us about $100 billion over 10 years. Lockland Murdoch buys out his siblings to ensure that Fox News stays right-wing fascist propaganda Supreme Court

allows ICE to racially profile as it does roving sweeps and in the communist state of New Mexico they are now

going to be offering universal free child care it's the business community thinking what the heck don't piss down my

that's weird all this and more on today's majority report that's what I wanted to do with my soundboard is a weird tint to it so I got confused

it is Newsday Tuesday I almost forgot what it was yeah there you go I'm as exhausted from all the arguing about football with Brian

Brian things got very heated in a year before and I was it wasn't heated it was just loud it was super heated yeah we were just distracting sam it was super super heated and the anger the seething anger over this stuff yeah i'm filing an hr complaint at some point yeah well sadly brian is the one who you have to go through to file that's true that's the problem

um i came in i'm self hating enough for that to go well for her her um uh brian's on suspension uh self-s suspension. Interesting, self-paid suspension. Exactly. How will I recover? Yesterday, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, again, they don't run the committee, but they have access to documents that come in. And apparently, lawyers for some of Jeffrey Epstein victims, who had gotten some material in discovery in, and court cases in the past, provided the oversight committee with documents, including the birthday book that Jeffrey Epstein got on his 50th birthday, presumably, I don't know, Galane Maxwell may have, like, solicited from all his buddies um funny cards yeah um i mean they basically what was here the the maybe we can pull it up

really briefly sam just because like this is the letter that the trump administration and trump himself is saying he never wrote and doesn't exist in fact if i remember correctly jd vans do you know anything about donald trump this is absolutely a total fabrication if if they had the a letter, they would publicize it. Well, apparently it was given to the House Oversight Committee and it was released

in a Google Drive that basically everybody has access to. Here is the card. It is, as you can see, in the shape of a naked woman. Sort of. I mean, remember the renderings after,

like people were describing it or the Walser Journal described before publishing it, and so people were kind of imagining what it would look like better art than this this is maybe why Trump stuck to just drawing buildings because like this woman's form is not very well drawn i like my women without arms or also with well i guess it makes a little bit more sense because those breasts are pretty tiny if uh this is about little girls and to make it too dark but that's what we're discussing here uh voiceover unclear why it's a voiceover but maybe it's like a It's a script.

It's a script. It's a different. It's some type of script. There must be more to life than having everything. Donald. Oh, okay. There must be more to life. The voiceover says, there must be more to life than having everything.

And then Donald says, yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. Jeffrey, nor will I, since I also know what it is. Donald, we have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Yes, we do come to think of it. Donald, what is it? Enigmas never age. That's the great line. Enigmas never age.

Have you noticed that? Jeffrey says, as a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. Donald, a pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday. And may every day be another wonderful secret. Yeah. Donald Trump. Also, apparently, Enigma is an anagram for gamines, which is little girls.

and I'm not trying, but, Matt, they're all talking weird code here. I'm with you. I know, but I know, but I think the enigma thing is more likely him as an informant. Yes. Fair enough. I agree with that. But there was this just really quickly, this tweet from the guy for Jewish currents,

Jesse Brennan, who said, you know, Q and on followers, see here, see what Pelosi did, see how she blink twice and turned left. That's a code among pedophiles alluded to in the latest cue drop. Now, if we examine this now, And then Trump, you could say Jeffrey Epstein and I had the sexual secret, one that never ages, wink, which is kind of how this is playing out. So this drops yesterday. Trump continues to deny, deny, deny. And Trump's son said he never draws, which is just obvious lie.

Obvious lie. Also, why would he have to have necessarily drawn it himself? I mean, he signed the card. Like, you know, it's the idea that like, Oh, yeah, they're a synodic signature. He says, oh, yeah, well, right, of course. It's somebody who has, for whatever, forged a signature to Jeffrey Epstein on his birthday 20 years ago. In Sharpie, which Trump always uses.

Didn't out it in 2016. Exactly. It is a good, this is the long con. But the idea that, like, he didn't draw it. Okay. draw me a woman with breasts and then I'll sign it right in the vagina that's I mean that that's what that takes um oh yeah that's what that is you didn't realize that that's the whole uh joke there's pubic hair and um now I have to say on my 50th birthday I didn't get anything like this uh I mean even junior

high stuff like honestly it's literally junior high stuff um nevertheless Here is Representative David Min. He is on the Oversight Committee, a Democrat on that committee. Again, in about a month, the Democrats, plus four Republicans, are going to have the votes to force a discharge petition and essentially get legislation on the floor that would force all of the Epstein files to be released. the Democrats are still waiting for two Democrats to replace members who have passed away, including Connolly, who was the former most senior member of the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. And, you know, many people are suggesting that we wouldn't even have this information if Connolly was still alive. I mean, he was, I'm rest in peace, but he was on death's door and he won that position over AOC.

Well, he was very peppy. It was his turn. He was a pepby guy. And he was battle-hardened. Yes. But here's Dave Min on with John Berman on CNN. John Berman on CNN, the, I guess maybe they don't want to have to pay any type of fees. Let's put it this way.

They're treading lightly, although, you know, one of the ways that you can tread lightly and also report on the news to have somebody else on delivering the message. Again, I do want to say we have no reason to think that he was in any way involved with that check itself. Also, no reason to think he's connected any wrongdoing involving Jeffrey Epstein. You noted you're a positive. Now, okay, see, they have no reason when, and Dave Men will answer this. But I just want to be clear what Berman's saying, we have no reason to believe that Donald Trump was involved in any wrongdoing with Jeffrey Epstein

there's no definitive proof and there's no and nothing explicit that would say to but I think Dave Min is about to explain why we might have some reasons to think something's up because remember the White House

like virulently lobbied against the release of these files and the signing of this discharge petition this could all go away tomorrow if the White House wanted it to but for some reason either they want to keep it in play which is absurd are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein or they really don't want something to come out but here's David again I do want to say we have no reason to think that he was in any way involved with that check itself also no reason to think he's connected any wrongdoing involvement

Jeffrey Epstein. You noted, you're a prosecutor, you're a lawyer here, there's this defamation. I would say we have lots of reasons to think he was involved in wrongdoing. I mean, at this point, there's a lot of smoke. There may be some fire, but I would just push back and say, I think there's a lot of reason to think Donald Trump was involved. Involved with what? I'm sorry, what exactly, what proof do you have that he was involved with wrongdoing in regards to Jeffrey Epstein? And if that's the case, where why have there been no prosecutions over 20 years here? Because there haven't really been any allegations that he was involved with the wrongdoing? There are a lot of, a lot of connections where Donald Trump was

named, right? We had a 14-year-old claiming that she was raped by him, then withdrew that claim after she was apparently threatened. His name appears a lot. And again, we at this point, our job is to find justice for these survivors, and that means that we need to continue. I pause for one second. Let's just remind people about that allegation, because this was coming up in 2016, and then it went away. And then it, um, and then it, um, came back up again in 2019 as Ronan Farrow's book, Catching Release, what it was a Catch and Kill. Yeah. Came out, and he related this story.

Pharaoh in the book claims that AMI CEO David Pecker. Pecker was the one from the National Acquire, who also was implicated in the whole Stormy Daniels thing, where he was going to, to go out and uh you know uh cohen trump's lawyer was going to pay to essentially uh was going to give money to pecker to give money uh and the idea being like we go and we pay someone who's accusing trump for an exclusive rights to the story we buy the exclusive rights to the story and then we just don't publish it uh as a favor for don't trump uh pharaoh in the the book claims that Pecker was in close contact with Trump when the rape allegations were made public in a 2016 lawsuit.

And this is a rape of a teenager, an alleged rape of a teenager in 1994. Now Trump met Epstein in the late 80s and early 90s. So we don't know if this rape allegation is connected to Epstein, but it would very much fit the timeline of their friendship and relationship. the lawsuit filed against Trump in the lead up to 2016 claim that Trump raped a woman when she was 13 in 1994 Trump's lawyer said that was categorically untrue the anonymous plaintiff identified as Katie Johnson in an initial legal filing that was dismissed in California and Jane Doe in two subsequent legal filings in New York said that she was raped

by Trump during a party hosted by the now deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein at his New York City apartment. In the third and final lawsuit, Doe alleged she had numerous sexual encounters with Trump and Epstein at the latter's parties and said she was also raped by Epstein, as BuzzFeed News reported at the time. Trump and Epstein knew that I was 13 years old. Jane Doe wrote an affidavit. Now, Pharaoh alleges that after the state, you know, he said,

suit was filed in 2016 inquire editor Howard and Trump lawyer Cohen were in contact frequently and apparently this plaintiff the accuser there was like a break in at the lawyer's

house and then they basically just went away at one point Howard now chief content officer at am i tried to use his influence to convince lisa bloom a power attorney who agreed to represent jane doe to drop her client this is all based on pharaoh's reporting pharaoh's reporting historically has been very solid yeah um and harvey weinstein there's somebody in jail on multiple counts because of it um in november of 2016 just days before the presidential election bloom

suddenly announced that a press conference with Jane Doe had been canceled, saying Doe had become frightened after receiving death threats. Two days later, Doe's lead attorney, Thomas Meager, filed to dismiss the case. Jane Doe has not been heard from since. Bloom added, after we received numerous death threats in my law firm's website and emails were hacked, she did not want to go forward. Bloom said she did not enter any agreements with AMA on Doe's behalf. I represented Ms. Doe for free, and there was never any discussion of money or settlement,

as I strongly believed her allegations should be made public given that Trump was running for president at the time. So that's what David Min is talking about. Again, that's all, it's just an accusation. It's all circumstantial. Just like that photo of them together, just like that leather. You don't look good. Well, that's it. The photo is explicit.

The letter is explicit. I mean, there's obviously a relationship there. It's quite possible that a woman who is, by 2016, by 2016, she would have been 33 or 34, had decided to just, for whatever reason, interject herself into this situation with Donald. Trump. It's quite possible that Bloom, who was representing her for free, was just doing it on a lark and has no ability to assess the validity of her client. It's also possible that she just randomly decided not to pursue this, just had a complete change of heart based upon nothing, and that she didn't receive death threats. But that's a lot of stuff that had to have happened um in that uh year that uh you know running up to don't trump being president i mean

it's sort of strange well that was when he was deep undercover as an informant so we had to do the rape i bet those threats were coming from both sides during that election too you mean in terms of like uh the threat sorts her because if you look into that you're looking at epstein you look at bill it's mutual disarm it's possible it's possible it's not like there wasn't epstein stuff floating around, though. And they're not mutually, you know, they're not, I should say, necessarily tied in with each other. But here's, let's let David Min continue. It was named, right? We had a 14-year-old claiming that she was raped by him, then withdrew that claim after she was apparently threatened. His name appears a lot. And again, we at this point,

our job is to find justice for these survivors, and that means that we need to continue digging, knowing that there is a cover-up taking place right now. And I didn't say that we have proof. At this point, we have a lot of smoke. But Donald Trump's name is clearly mentioned multiple times. We've seen him lie over and over about things that we now know to be true. So, again, I think that we, as the Oversight Committee, deserve, we owe an obligation to the girls, the American people out there,

to keep digging and find out the truth, whoever's involved. Again, you know, Donald Trump has not been named in any connection. or charged with any wrongdoing there. Galeigh Maxwell, take this for what it is. But Glein. We just heard reports that he had been accused of rape. Now, he hasn't been named because we don't know that because we can't see the documents because Donald Trump won't release the documents.

So you can't say that he's been named and you can't say that he hasn't been named. And you could argue like, well, Well, you can't prove a negative, but there is somebody who could prove the negative, and his name is Donald Trump. Yeah. And he's refusing to release the information that would prove that he's not in there. Now, you could say, well, we don't know that Sam Cedar's name isn't in there, but I don't have control over keeping that documents of being released. I'm in favor. Release it. But you don't know that anybody's name is in there, but there is literally one person who is preventing these documents from being released.

and his name is Donald Trump. Yeah, well, there could be other reasons, too. I mean, there could be other, like, infrastructure, I would say, behind the scenes that doesn't want it released because it has, like, sensitive classified information in it, too. That's another speculation, but we don't know. It's just, like, over the top, Berman going back and back to this, it's one thing to say he's not been formally charged with wrongdoing. It's another thing to say that, like, he's basically not been implicated in any way and make

that assertion after Min lays that out. It's ridiculous. And it's indicative of how Donald Trump is bullying the media and using the government to try to extract all of this money from these media companies. Like, he should look at what just happened with the release of that letter. Trump sued the Wall Street Journal. What was down in Florida? Was he filed that lawsuit for $10 million claiming that they were making up that letter? And now that letter is public.

And we know, of course, he wasn't making it up. shouldn't the other media organization say like hey there's nothing here at this point they have emptied the clip on all of the lying this is going to catch up at some point but no we have to do this dance again it's absurd so you're saying you don't trust galane maxwell i'm not i don't trust galane maxwell who has been found guilty i believe of lying under oath but i want to hear the rest has not been named in any connection or charge with any wrongdoing there galay maxwell take this for what it is, but Galeigh Maxwell said, you know, she never saw Donald Trump or anyone for that matter. Engaged in any wrongdoing, connected to Jeffrey Epstein. I will just point out that Ghislane Maxwell was

indicted for perjury after she made that statement that you mentioned transferred a minimum of security prison in Texas. So, again. Look, Speaker Johnson sat right here and told me he doesn't really believe anything Galane Maxwell says. I was merely stating what was in that transcript, but

there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle who don't put much weight in it. Congressman Damon. Oh, okay. Well, it's good that you brought that up after you had said, I mean, that seems like a pretty important qualifier. A notorious liar trying to get something from Trump said something favorable to Trump. Okay, thanks, John. But if it wasn't, I mean, Min did a good job on this, not letting him get away with this. Also, worth reminding people that the DOJ official who went to interview Galane Maxwell when she, said these things

11 months ago was Donald Trump's defense attorney. Yep. That's quite a coincidence. Wasn't he involved in the shakedown of Eric Adams, too? That was, I think,

Bovvie. But although he could have been in the room. But nevertheless, I mean, that's, it seems like that's also something that any time you ever

cover this on on cable news should be mentioned. Galane Maxwell told Donald Trump's former defense attorney, now DOJ, representative, that Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong. Okay. You can, I mean, how, excuse me, convicted liar, Galane Maxwell told Donald Trump's defense attorney, now DOJ representative that Donald Trump didn't do anything. And it's not even the, the biggest part of that is that she has an incentive to do that because she wants a pardon. Like,

How do you not say that about what Galane Maxwell said as a journalist and make the obvious claim that she's, one, been shown to be a liar in court? And two, that she has an incentive to suck up to the president because she wants out of prison. And they've already rewarded her for her, you know, complicity in this cover up. They sent her to a nicer facility. against the Prison Bureau of Prison Regulation. And I'm not somebody that thinks like, oh, a prison should be as horrible. I think all these prisons should be like places of rehabilitation, regardless of the crimes that have been committed.

But it shows that there has been an exchange made. And if you're a journalist on television talking about this case, the idea that you're acting basically as a lawyer for CNN, functionally, and their parent company on television instead of doing real journalism is one of the more darkly depressing elements of like the state of our industry at this moment. When you're a star, they let you do it.

You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. Trump was found liable of sexual abuse in court. That's also some circumstantial evidence about this rape allegation. In a moment, we're going to be talking. Talking to David Deyen, he is the executive editor of the American prospect. We get a couple of things that we're going to talk to him about.

Before we do, a couple words from our sponsors, your glow-up starts from within. And no, it doesn't require an injection. Prolons, five-day fasting, mimicking diet is proven to deliver real results through deep cellular rejuvenation. What kind of results? you get fat loss, you get metabolic reset, radiant skin that will have you looking your best and feeling confident all through the fall. Prolon is a plant-based nutrition program, features soups, snacks, and beverages designed to nourish the body while keeping it in a fasting state, triggering cellular rejuvenation, I don't know

what's going on with me, and renewal. And the next generation builds on the original prolon with 100% organic soups, teas, a richer taste, and ready to eat meals. It's developed over decades at USC's Longevity Institute, backed by top U.S. medical centers. Prolon has been shown to support biological age reduction, metabolic health, skin appearance, fat loss, and energy. I did mine a little over a year and a half ago again, and I'm gearing up to do another five days. It was much, I mean, I thought it was going to be absolutely miserable, but I actually felt great during it. You were very energized. I kind of want to do it this year with you.

I was very energized, and it was also just, I don't know, a good feeling to be able to do it. And apparently, according to the research on this at the USC Longevity Institute, a couple of times a year really can help, basically helps with some process with the cells where the older cells sort of die off and get replenished. and it happens sometime like around day three or four your body thinks that it's like you know it mimics fasting and uh it reacts for a limited time you can be first in line to experience the new next gen at special savings prolons offering you 15% off site wide plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe to their five day nutrition program just visit prolonlife dot com slash majority that's PRO L-O-N L-I-F-E dot com slash majority. Claim your 15% discount and your bonus gift.

Prolonlife.com slash majority. Head over there at prolonlife. dot com slash majority. Check this out. It is a fascinating program. Also today, I want to remind you that we have a fortunate bit of a partnership with a current affairs magazine. If you like deep, thoughtful, progressive analysis, which, I mean, I imagine that's why folks are here listening to the show, or maybe it's my Chuck Schumer glasses, you're going to love the print or digital version of Current Affairs magazine.

Current Affairs combines intelligent commentary, biting political satire, and really a beautiful artwork to produce one of the country's most elegant and informative magazines, and it's all ad-free. Free. Current Affairs is a fantastic compliment to the Major Report. It delivers hard-hitting, totally independent, and entertaining coverage of the most important political, social, and economic issues of our time. You can use the Code Majority Report, all one word, for 30% for a year on any subscription of your choice. You're 30% off with the Code Majority Report at current affairs.org. subscribe, enter the code majority report at checkout. Offer expires October 31st. We will put a link, obviously, to that in the podcast and YouTube description. That's current affairs, one word.org slash subscribe and use the code majority report, all one word. All right, quick break. When we come back, I'll be interviewing David Dayn.

This is a conversation we had last night on what the Democratic. Democrats are, or what Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are planning to do in terms of the government shutdown, spoiler alert, you're not going to like it. And also, what's happening with the remedy part of the Google trial, at least on one of their cases of monopoly, and what's happening at the Federal Trade Commission, quick break back with David Day. We are back, Sam Cedar, on the Majority Report, joining us now, the executive editor of the American Prospect, and host of the prospect, week and review podcast. host the weekly roundup host the co-host of organized money that's right i'm very busy and and this week we have uh senator elizabeth warren on the show well all right uh david dan uh welcome to the show coming in big footing us a little coming in big coming in hot well all right that's uh apropos because uh lizabeth warren uh obviously known uh for her work in the uh antitrust

realm of the party, many of the trust busters that we had during the Biden administration sort of came from the Warren wing of the party. And this week, we had two sort of major developments or non-developments, I guess one could say, in the attempt to diminish corporate. power realm that I want to talk to you about. And then also we can talk a little bit about the democratic strategy on the government shutdown. But let's start with this.

I am quite sure that sometime last year, we spoke, we've spoken to probably a co-host to Matt Stoller and to others about the Google, the cases against Google that were taking place last year. And in one of those cases, Google was found to have been engaging in anti-competitive practices that they had violated antitrust laws. They were found guilty of being a monopoly by liable. You have to say liable. Lawyers will get you because it was a civil case, not a case where a winner has guilty. Liable for being a monopoly. Although, that's ironic based upon what has happened subsequently because their liability seemed to have been not terribly deep. But this was a D.C. District Court. The judge was Judge Amit Meta. No relationship.

No relationship to the company? No. To the company meta. No. He's not. No. And so the judge found Google liable for being a monopoly and this was the remedy sort of phase of the trial where they determine what we're going to do to fix that you're liable for being a monopoly so now it's time to pay the the piper as it were you can you can think about it like a criminal being found guilty of a crime and then there's a sentencing phase to figure out what we're going to do to punish the the the criminality so it's like that it's almost like more it's also the quality of restorative justice what can the defendant do to fix uh the that right in this in this case because it's you're talking about a business yes that that you you are sentencing the business effectively to do something

to make sure that there are actually actual stipulations on what the remedy is supposed to do it's supposed to end the illegal monopoly. It's supposed to disgorge the company of the fruits of that illegal monopolization. And it's supposed to make sure that this doesn't happen again with this particular company. That's what a remedy phase of a monopolization trial is supposed to do. and there's binding Supreme Court precedent on district courts to effectuate that. And in the conversations I had, as we prefaced the remedy with you and others, you know, there was some question as to how effective the remedies will be. Well, you know, will they go?

This ruling that came out, it's almost as if efficacy was not the issue. the issue is whether you're going to do anything at all it was it was bizarre i mean that's the way i would characterize it but it's a horrible cowardly ruling and i should say to start that google has been found liable of being a monopoly in three separate cases this is only one of those three uh this case involves google search which we all know literally google is a verb meaning to search for something at this point on the internet and And this was, the nut of this trial was that Google was maintaining its monopoly by paying browsers or devices, companies like Apple or maybe Mozilla for the Firefox browser for default status for their search engine on a browser on a phone. And paying huge sums of money, $26 billion paid to Apple in 2020.

for maintaining this default status, which obviously, if they're paying that much, it was probably worth it to Google, right? Because that default status, which people normally just sort of go along with, means that they were maintaining their dominance in the search market. 90% of all search goes through Google. If you're on your iPhone and you put in a search term in the URL bar, it goes to Google. Goes to Google. That's right. And Google pays for that. Google pays a lot of money so that that happens. And so the judge last year said that is monopolistic conduct. Now, you would think if that's the case, the least that the judge would do would be to say, Google, you can't pay another company to

be the default status in a browser? That is not the case. Judge Meta said Google is allowed to continue paying for placement in these browsers, in these devices. And he said that, oh, but the deals don't have to be exclusive. They can't be exclusive deals. So in other words, Apple could get payment maybe from another company other than Google and use that to determine whether or not they're going to use what they're going to put into the default. However, in this very ruling, Judge Meta says, well, and I could get you the exact quote, but what he says effectively is Google has so much money that if they pay a lot of money to a browser or a device company because that device company is going to want to continue to

renew their business, they're going to put Google in the default, and that means we're not going to have a lot of competition in the sensory. That's literally in the ruling where he says you're allowed to still do that. Which is basically a monopsony, right? he's they've got a they've got a monopoly as a buyer because they have so much money that nobody can afford to to lose them as as the buyer on some one right and the reason they have all this money is because of the extreme amount of revenue they've been able to derive from having this illegal monopoly and as we know uh in search the more data you have the more queries you get the

better the search engine becomes because it gets more queries. It can refine that information. So literally, that's the mother's milk, having that data. And so maintaining the monopoly through this default search is literally what creates the money that allows it to then pay back, you know, give a tip essentially to the browsers and the device companies and maintain this dominance. How does the judge like justify any of this like it doesn't make any sense

like I don't understand how you find them criminally not criminally civilly liable for being a monopoly and then ignore the three requirements of you and not just

do insufficient stuff it seems it basically just like you think like well I mean we should say what what meta did sentence them to do. So it says the deals can't be exclusive, they can't be tied together. And then he did say that Google needs to give up some of its search data to other companies so that they can improve their products, thereby, you know, hopefully improving competition. And this could

help on the margins. But in reality, if you're still going to have those defaults, settings, you're probably in good shape of maintaining that monopoly. Right. So that's what he did. And as far as why he said, oh, you can keep paying as Google, you can keep paying Apple, you can keep paying Mozilla. He basically said that if we take away this money from these browsers and device companies, they might not be able to deliver good products anymore.

So he's basically saying poor Apple, one of the richest companies in the world, Poor Apple. If they don't get this $26 billion, your iPhone might not be as good, which is crazy on a number of levels. First of all, really, we're worried about Apple's bottom line here. Second of all, this was a lawsuit about Google and the search market. And Judge Meta is basing his remedy on how it would affect the phone market, which he didn't study, which is not part of the case whatsoever. So that is, that was a really shocking and I would say illegal part of this, this ruling. There are other, the other big thing that Judge Meta said is that, well, fortunately, there's competition now in the search market because of AI. He basically said that, look, AI companies are getting a lot of venture capital money. They're going to create competitors to Google, things you can search on. And so we're all good here. We don't have to really go very far into punishing Google because of that. Now, the reality is that if you train an AI model, it only knows what it knows up to the end of that

training. The only way for an AI model to have continuing knowledge about the world is to hook it up with a search engine. And the only search engine out there is Google. is Google. Right. Well, so, yeah. Is there, I mean, I don't, I guess it would be the government if one, is there a way to appeal? I mean, I can understand like maybe Google can appeal. Both sides can appeal. Okay. And both sides in, at least at some level, are likely to appeal. So this is a really interesting case where you're going to have a cross appeal because here's the reason why Google will appeal. even though they got everything they wanted out of this remedy, there's still this verdict that says they're a monopoly in search. And private litigants can use that as a precedent to sue Google over

various levels of conduct. And they're doing that. There are private cases against Google in that realm. So they want to appeal to strike down the ruling itself, the liability phase of the ruling. Why the government might appeal is because this is a crappy remedy. Now, is the Trump administration going to appeal this? I don't think so because Trump, look, what did we see last Thursday? Trump with every big tech CEO having dinner and them being completely obsequious and fawning all over him. He's been big techs errand boy all over the world, threatening other countries. countries to impose tariffs if they put taxes or regulations on big tech. I don't think he's too

interested in pursuing this any further. However, there were partners to the Justice Department in this case, and those were at the state level. So there are several states that would have the ability to appeal this remedy, including the state of Colorado, which was the lead among the states on this Google case. And the AG there, Phil Wiser, is running for governor next year against Michael Bennett, the senator from Colorado, by the way. And I think, you know, attacking an oligarch

like Google might play well in his election campaign for governor. So I do think that the states will probably appeal and also Google will appeal. and you'll have this unique kind of cross appeal going on when what when will we know uh whether the any of those states end up uh they're doing their pretty soon uh i don't have a timeline for you but uh it's it's likely that we'll know uh pretty soon uh how they're they're going to attack it okay good so we're going to have another bite at that apple um let's talk about the i i should also

say that Google was found to be a monopoly in two other cases. And one of them involves its advertising technology, its online advertising market. They were found to be a monopoly in that. And that remedy phase actually starts in a couple weeks. So we're going to see this again. And Judge Brinkima, who is in Virginia, who is the trial judge in that case, has been much more of a hardliner on Google than Judge Meta, who is an Obama point to you, like, this reads like if Obama was a judge, very, very sort of even-handed, don't-make-waves kind of thing. And I think Judge Brinkum is going to probably bring a stronger ruling against Google. Interesting. All right. Let's turn to the other sort of, I guess, anti-corporate

measure, or at least, I don't even know if you call it anti-corporate as much as it is simply just, you know, doing something to level the playing field between the course of nature. Yes, pro-worker. And that is during the Biden administration, Lena Kahn as chair of the Federal Trade Commission had propagated a rule, a ban on non-compete agreements. um i characterized that that ban how wide was it um how many people would have been um subjected or i should say are subjected to non-compete that otherwise wouldn't be uh if that ban um remained or uh millions of people is the answer um one in five americans are subject to a non-compete

agreement currently one in five working americans and uh it's not just executives not just executives we're talking about pet groomers we're talking about janitors we're talking about fast food workers a whole host of industries have been subjected to non-compete agreements because they're not really about protecting business trade secrets anymore they're really about suppressing wages it this is about saying to your worker you can't go to another uh company in this field. And therefore, you can't have your services bid up in the attempt to sell your labor elsewhere. And therefore, you're stuck with whatever wage I give you. So that's what's going on here. And the FTC estimated, when they put this rule out, that it would bring $400 billion over

10 years back into the pockets of workers as a result of this. So that's a stunning number of money that's really being cheated by people because they're not allowed to bid up their wages in the marketplace. What did the ban ever get instituted and for how long? No, it did not get instituted because it was finalized and set to go into effect, but there were a number of lawsuits. And there were differing opinions issued in those lawsuits. So a judge in Pennsylvania said they rejected a lawsuit from a corporation and said the non-compete agreement can go forward. But a separate judge in Texas said, no, this was an illegal authority by the FTC, and we're going to block the non-compete agreement. So you had these differing agreements. And, you know, usually what happens in that case is it gets

funneled up eventually to the higher courts and eventually the Supreme Court. But before that had a chance to happen, we had to change over in power in Washington. And the new FTC under Andrew Ferguson had to make a decision as to whether to defend the cases or not. And what happened last Friday is that Ferguson, the chair of the FTC, who previously voted against finalizing the non-compete ban. So it was pretty clear what he was going to do, said, I am not going to defend this ban in court. I'm not going to defend the ruling that was in Texas that is now at the Fifth Circuit in Texas in the Fifth Circuit's in Texas and Louisiana and I'm going to exceed basically.

I'm going to surrender to the ruling of the district court and therefore that extinguishes the non-competed ban entirely. Does the ruling in Texas in the Fifth Circuit supersede the ruling out of Pennsylvania? which is in i'm not sure which circuit it is but it are obviously a different circuit like i mean this is when you go to the supreme court very often one or almost always when there are circuit court differences because you can't have one federal law uh existing in you know one quarter of the country and then uh it uh being uh different or non existent in another quarter of the country but so what happens uh indeed that is not

how it, that is you, what you've described is how it's supposed to work. But because the FTC said, nope, we're not, we're not prosecuting these cases anymore. And therefore, we give up, the Fifth Circuit is right, or not the Fifth Circuit, but the district court judge in the Fifth, you know, underneath the Fifth Circuit is correct. They're not prosecuting the case in Pennsylvania and they're not prosecuting the case in Texas. And therefore, it's, it's just over. And that's essentially what they've done. I guess why what is most relevant about that, I mean, to me is in the event that Donald Trump allows for elections, we have those elections, Donald Trump loses that election, the Democrat wins, or beats J.D. Vance or Don't Jr., or whomever it is.

how easy or difficult would it be for the next federal trade commission chair to say, we are reviving these bans against non-compete? Well, it's an interesting question because weirdly, in an attempt to cover this all up, the FTC is kind of reviving it already in a weird kind of fashion. The day before they decided to surrender on this nationwide ban, they issued a one-off enforcement action against the largest pet cremation services company in the country, which is a private equity roll-up, by the way, in case I needed to tell you that. Of course.

And they said, we're stopping this company from these non-compete bands, that they are from these non-compete agreements that they're forcing their workers to sign. And in a statement, Andrew Ferguson said something like the Trump Vance FTC will never stop fighting for workers. And literally they stopped fighting the next day. But the other thing that they did on Thursday, the day before, you know, basically ending the non-compete ban nationwide, is they issued what is called a request for information, a public comment period about the sort of. scope of non-compete bans across the country. Now, this original, the scope of non-compete agreements, I should say, keep saying bans. The ban, the rule on non-competes already went through a years-long process of looking at the scope

of non-compete agreements across the country. There were 26,000 public comments that the FTC received about the non-compete rule. almost all of them saying, go ahead and do this. And here's Andrew Ferguson, who, you know, we have a bunch of nicknames for, but my personal favorite is what Bert Reynolds used to write in Celebrity Jeopardy as his name on Saturday Night Live, which was Terd Ferguson. So Andrew Ferguson says, oh, no, I just want to study non-competes. So we're going to do another public comment period, and people can tell us how bad these things are as if they're engaged in a real process to deal with the scourge of non-compete agreements.

So to answer your question in a long-winded way, if Democrats take back power and take back the FTC, they're going to have a record about non-compete agreements and what they are and who they affect and what the harms are. And presumably they would be able to return to, to adjudicate this rather quickly. Because there's going to be a record that's going to be provided for them as the Trump administration pretends that it cares about workers. Correct. Leading up to that, well, I guess, thanks for that. That's something. All right. let's move on to one other topic that you've been writing about um we are 21 days i think it is

uh from the um uh potential government shutdown um people remember i think it was back in march uh the government need to be uh refund uh funded again um and chuck schumer ended up leading I think it was like 12 Democrats, but initially it was closer to like six or seven or eight. They needed to provide those votes for the Republicans to pass a budget. And many people said, don't do this. Donald Trump is like a burgeoning authoritarian. Doge is running around. Elon Musk is shutting down all sorts of agencies.

They are talking about rescission, pulling. back money that has already been appropriated by Congress. And Chuck Schumer's argument at the time was, well, a government shutdown is exactly what Trump wants, which he could have easily orchestrated

if that's what he wanted. But let's give Chuck Schumer the benefit of the doubt that you give Chuck Schumer the benefit of the doubt. In this very narrow place, that Donald Trump was playing, you know, 10, 10, 10 level chess here.

And then what they'll do is they'll shut down things like Medicaid or they'll fund agencies or, I mean, gosh knows what. He didn't say they'll make ice the largest federal or the largest, I mean, larger than armies. If we only had access to the future. We could have figured out that Chuck Schumer was full of crap. Right. If there had been some document like, you know, what we're going to do in 2025 by the

Republican. Right. Like their project. Like describing the whole project. Yes. Then maybe Chuck Schumer could have seen that's what they were doing. But nevertheless, we're back here again. Chuck Schumer voted to fund.

And it wasn't even a clean budget resolution. It also had like a clause where the Congress would not be responsible for tariffs. So it got the Republicans off the hook in the house. Right. Reversing Donald Trump's. Right. And it also had some other funding of stuff that the Republicans wanted. But we're back here again.

Yep. Even Schumer's biggest supporters, folks like Aser Klein, who are a friend of the show. friend of the show, friend of yours. Even Ezra Klein is now saying, well, it was a good idea then, but it's a bad idea now because somehow it seems like, I mean, look, Donald Trump has done all the things that Chuck Schumer said he would have done during a government shutdown, but worse, and has done so not totally undercover, but, you know, most people don't know the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has 80 has lost 80% of their staff. Most people don't know that all these grants have gone

away, that we've destroyed health and human services, that the FDA, the USDA, I mean, on and on and on, most people don't know this because most people don't follow this stuff. So they don't realize how much of a crisis the U.S. government is in right now. They don't know about FEMA. They don't know about all these things because people live their lives. And, you know, they're, they're got to make money and deal with their kids and whatever it is. So Chuck Schumer. I mean, the reality, the number that comes that I think is most prominent in this is that at the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, Patty Murray's minority staff, has estimated that the Trump administration is currently withholding $410 billion in grants that were appropriated by Congress.

In other words, as one of these budget deals, they said, we're going to give $400 billion to X, Y, Z, and Q. And Trump has just illegally withheld that money. And yet we're thinking about how are we going to do another budget deal where we give this, you know, we appropriate this money that Trump has already shown no willingness to abide by. And in, uh, in the wake of that deal, you had people, even like Nancy Pelosi saying like, well, uh, making a deal where you get nothing out of the deal, which is what Chuck Schumer brought home for the Democrats at that time. Right.

not a promise not to do rescission none nothing nothing zero less than zero um he's now a little bit embarrassed uh about it and so they're coming up of what the get can be and they have come to the get to something that it seems to me republicans desperately want to give but want to be forced into giving because republicans are looking at at one of the first, it seems to me, almost universal accountability moments where it cannot be ignored. And that is essentially a healthcare cliff, describe it to us. Yeah. So in the Inflation Reduction Act, actually, initially in the American Rescue Plan, but then extended in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Democrats created new subsidies for the Affordable Care Act

exchanges. So if you get your coverage in these marketplaces, before these new subsidies were added, there was a cliff in there where if you made over a certain income level, you suddenly had to pay a lot more for your health insurance. You lost all the subsidies. And so that got smoothed out and basically across the board the subsidies got more generous so that we had something approaching true affordability in these marketplaces. It wasn't universal health care, but by and large, these exchanges were much more affordable because of this and because the subsidies were expanded. And the last time this passed in the Inflation Reduction Act, it was for two fiscal years,

2024 and 2025 at that point. And so at the end of 2025, these enhanced subsidies expire, and we would go back to the old system. And what that means for an individual, we've heard some stories about health insurance rates going up, and that's largely because of the Medicaid cuts and the big, beautiful bill,

and some of the other things. Health insurance rates are probably going up 6% or so. And for exchange coverage, they're going up something like 18%. But this is separate from that. These are the subsidies that allow you to afford that insurance. And if those subsidies are taken away, people affected by this could see, on average, more than a 75% increase in the cost of their health insurance.

And an incredible number, almost double, the cost of their health insurance. And over millions of people that, yeah. overnight overnight and the congressional budget offices looked at this and said okay how many people are not going to be able to be able to afford health insurance as a result of this and they said five million people so five million people are going to according to this estimate lose their health insurance because they will no longer be able to afford it and those who will be able to afford it will just sort of barely hang on right with a with an increase of over 75 percent Okay. And so people should understand this is coming from two directions.

One, we have the biggest increases in insurance that we've probably seen maybe in a decade. Since the ACA. Since the ACA. So 2014, a decade. And then on the other side, the contraction, if not the elimination of subsidies that helped a lot of people do that. Yeah. But in the calculation, five million people are going to lose it because of how expensive it is to them. Have we figured out what the rate increase is going to be in the following year with

five million less customers? Right. It's going to get worse and worse. That's what we know about insurance. Like if you have a smaller risk pool, that means there's more of a chance that one person getting sick increases your costs. And then as an insurance company, you have to. rates that way. And there could be a death spiral in the exchanges if they just become more and

more unaffordable. So yeah, that's, yeah, it's, we're looking at year one here in the 75% increase, but it's going to keep going up. Let's go back to when John McCain gave his thumbs down for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act back in 2017, 2018. I can't remember exactly which year it was. Donald Trump was furious. It was 70. But the Republican Party was largely thankful because they had no, they had no replacement for this. Now, they all wanted to vote against the ACA because that became sort of a totem for the Republican Party. Right.

But John McCain knew he was doing this. And a lot of the Republicans knew he was saving the Republican Party from themselves. Right. Now, Chuck Schumer. is in the position of John McCain because the Republican Party desperately wants to avoid five million people losing their health insurance. And others and a large section of the middle class paying a lot more for health insurance. So let's just say, even before this deal we're about to discuss or proposed deal was put together,

Republicans were talking amongst themselves, oh, I think we're going to have to extend those ACA subsidies because if we don't, we're really screwed in the election. And so they were planning to do it themselves. I mean, it wasn't definite. They might not have gotten there. But there was going to be this big fight where they would either do it themselves or failed to get it done and then face the whirlwind of in next November. But they were also between a rock and a hard place because voting to expand.

or maintain Obamacare is poisonous to Republicans. Absolutely. So they were in a really, really tough spot. All those Congress people are like, I don't want to get primary from my right. And if I do this, I'm giving

weaponry to some lunatic in my district to primary me from the right. And yet they know this is something I need because in the general election I'm going to get pillared for it. Exactly. And so what they need is cover to have this done.

And Chuck Schumer is like, I've got cover. I've got something for you. The Bailey's want me to cover it. And to be clear, Democrats could also agree to this legislation outside of the budget. They could say like, this could be a separate.

It doesn't have to be part of the budget deal. Doesn't have to be part of the budget deal. It's obviously, you know, you can pass legislation on this anytime. There is a bill. There are two bills in Congress already. To extend these premium tax credits, one extends it for one year, and this is another important part of this, one of these bills, which was put together by a bunch of frontliners, you know, people who are worried about losing their election, bipartisan, says, let's extend it for one year. In other words, get it past the midterms, then we'll deal with it after that.

Another bill put together by Democrats says, let's make it permanent. And, you know, the question is, what is Schumer going to bargain for? going to say, I won't give you votes for the budget unless you extend it for one year or I won't give you votes for the budget unless you make it permanent. If you make it permanent, I still, there are a lot of reasons we can discuss why that's still a bad idea, but at least it's permanent, right? Imagine him saying, okay, if you extend it for one year, you know, just to get, to get Republicans pass the midterms, then you'd be giving something Republicans need in exchange for passing a budget which is something republicans want so like what is the trade here there is no

trade this is again schumer just trying to figure out how he can capitulate without and save face in it and they uh you know chuck schumer hakeem jeffreys are desperate for democrats not to understand this dynamic it seems to me right because and and they still have this this pathology where they see themselves as the responsible party and they can't imagine not you know they can't imagine a world where they shut down the government even if trump is violating law even if he is usurping the power of the budget the power of the purse from congress it's still this pathology or do you think it's just they're they're in service of of some other constituency i mean this is absurd.

I just don't think they're prepared for, let's say they go with this. I mean, I don't agree with it, but let's say they go with it. And they say, okay, we're not passing a budget unless you extend the tax subsidies. And then Trump says, no, I don't think they're prepared for what to do in that instance. Because they don't want, you know, like if you're in a negotiation and you're offering something as a condition and you're not willing to walk away from the table, than what you're offering is meaningless. And the idea that, like, it's just stunning to me. This is such malpractice because we now see Democrats, like, you know,

their Republicans have higher approval ratings than Democrats right now. It's just, it's shocking. It is shocking. And you have some people saying, yeah, but, you know, Democrats still have higher ratings on health care. so if they can back Republicans into a corner on health care, this can be our ask. This is a winnable fight.

I don't know. It's 50-dimensional chess that doesn't make any sense to me. You're basically relieving Republicans of the consequences of their own actions and not getting any kind of assurances that, oh, I'm not going to, you know, no guardrails about not following the budget that you're about to pass with them, et cetera, how close is this deal uh into happening i mean i'm reading the things i don't think it's very close i i think that johnson's like oh this is not something they desperately want this it seems to me the republicans desperate that like this is such a trap it seems i think the leadership would be happy

with it but i still think you know republicans have some problems on their rights in terms of people who absolutely don't want to pass an extension of these subsidies and they are concerned you know, Mike Johnson still has, you know, the right winger still have the ability to depose him from the speakership, right? So, so there's still problems there on the right. And Trump has not shown any aptitude or interest in any kind of negotiation with Democrats throughout this entire term. So, you know, I think it's a, it's something that certainly there's a trial balloon out there. Democrats are thinking about offering this. I don't think they formally offering this. I don't think they've formally offered it yet this is but if they do i think there's an interesting dynamic on

on the right as to whether they would be able they will willing to accept it i will tell you right you believe you believe they would look everybody thought that they would capitulate that the right would have essentially sunk every other whatever whatever it's been the budget resolution the single bell the big beautiful bill on and on and they they always capitulate somebody is all I just got to say to Trump, like, this is the safest thing for you. And boom, it will happen. Homework for people right now. If you live in a Republicans district, you call and you say no extension of the subsidies for Obamacare. I will not tolerate that. If you live in a Democratic district, you say, no deal with the Republicans, we need to shut the

government down unless Republicans are willing to fund the Republican. the government and promise that a whole litany of things. Right. I mean, there are a lot of things you could argue over that you could get in, in exchange for a budget deal. But it's just hard for me to conceive of doing a deal with Donald Trump, who has been unwilling to hold up his side of any bargain. Like, why are you negotiating with this?

Absolutely. The guy has shown that he's a complete, his total disregard for a law, laws. And I should say. It's good that Ezra said that very plainly. I'm very happy to see him here. And it would have been nice if he took a cue from Jamel Bowie and had done it seven months ago, or I should say 11 months ago, but whatever. Better late than never, I guess.

And so, yes, we'll take that. And hopefully they listened to him in a way that Joe Biden listened to Matt Iglesias. So we will see. David Dayn, you are the guy that all these people should be listening to. They should be reading the American prospect on a daily basis. They should be listening to big money. Organized money. Organizedmoney.fm is where you go to.

And, of course, your week in review at the prospect on Friday, available on demand uh david dan always a pleasure thank you very much all right folks we're going to head into the fun half just a couple updates uh day and uh wrote about the uh f tc um reversal essentially on the non-compete clause it will it will probably cost workers about $400 billion in over a decade that would have been gained from that non-compete rule because the non-compete clauses in these contracts depress wage growth in addition to costing people jobs and I don't know how you calculate having to retrain for a different job, et cetera, et cetera. So a heads up on that. And over the coming days, we'll talk about what the Democrats could ask for instead of giving the Republicans a gift in the form of them being forced

to save the ACA without having their, without having to actually exercise any agency. It could be things like you can't racially profile, ice can't racially profile, which, you know, one would think that the Supreme Court would have ruled something to that effect, or it could be like no rescission, or it could be, I mean, there's a whole host of things could be passed or asked for by the Democrats have the IRS go after corporations and millionaires instead of rolling back

you know policing their use of loopholes I mean there's a whole host of things that one could use that forcing Democrat I mean Republicans to vote against and forced them to vote against not allowing racial profiling. I mean, there's all, it's just, it goes on and on.

But, you know, you go to war with the leadership you have, unless you also go to war with the leadership you have to replace them. But wasn't this Schumer's whole theory of negotiation, which is that Trump would be so unpopular by this time, that he would be able to get more after being, more agreeable with Republicans earlier in the year. It's working. Let's see.

All the, look at the Republicans are running away from him. We will have an experiment in that very theory in the coming months. I think we should actually dig up some of the interviews that he gave in the wake of that as an example. Remember, he was also saying, like, we don't necessarily have a constitutional crisis. I mean, he's literally bringing the military into Blue City. at this point. I mean, took it over the power

of the purse as well. Folks, we're going to head into the fun half. Just a reminder, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a member

at join the majority report.com. When you do, you not only get the free show, free of commercials, but you also get the fun half. And also,

feel free to send the show to your friends, give us a, they still have reviews on they don't call it Apple Podcasts on iTunes

on iTunes bathroom walls yeah that's helpful actually that's surprisingly very productive I mean write the number on the bathroom walls of like Republican kind of

I don't know areas pickup spots yeah pick up spots and then you'll get the libertarian callers back let's hope 646-2573920 is that number uh but uh also don't forget the discord majority discord dot com and uh a m quickie check out the a m quickie three times a week for free email nine a m in the morning uh whitney and corey do a great job of uh giving you the news that you're going to need to know for the

course of the day also just coffee dot co-op fair trade coffee hot chocolate use the coupon code majority get 10% off. Matt, Left Reckoning. Yeah, Left Reckoning tonight. I got an interview on Iran. Also, I'm going to be talking about this huge Jeffrey Epstein story about J.P. Morgan Chase in New York Times. And James Tala Rico announces a U.S. Senate bid in Texas. And I have some reservations about Tala Rica. I don't like that. It's a crypto money. But in a race that is him versus Colin Allred, I am all the way with the church boy. So Allred is going to try again? Yeah, he's already announced. I didn't, I knew you guys were talking. He's a funding machine, so yeah. You and, and, uh, Griskin were talking about this a bit in Chicago. I hadn't

known it was official, but I interviewed already back when he was a justice democrat and he wasn't taking any corporate pack money. He won and he got into office and he turned right around became the most like centrist Democrat possible. And he just lost handily the last time he ran for Senate. So we're going to do that again, I guess. But he made a lot of money because you get into a room with them donors and you say I'm a big strong football man and that's what we need to win in Texas and they start writing checks church boy is a perfect opposition to that I'll take the church boy over Colin all right definitely I will say Tolariko went on Joe Rogan and I have a friend who's kind of you know independenty Rogan listener who said I really liked what he had to say so I'm going to

go with that guy as opposed to the proven loser uh from the last race I mean obviously We, you know, that getting that Senate seat as annoying as the person's going to be, it doesn't matter who it is. Exactly. Exactly. It honestly doesn't matter. As soon as they win, they're going to be our, like, if not our least favorite Democrat, probably close to it. But the reality is. Compared to replacement level.

Yeah. I mean, they're just, we're not going to like them. That's just the case. there is just we're in a situation where there's no way there's going to be 50 plus one Democrats who we we're supportive of in terms of all their policy is just not going to happen. The number of Democrats who I appreciate in the Senate is probably in single digits. but the fact of the matter is that, like, you know, to the extent that we have judges who are stopping anything, it's a function of having a majority of the Senate.

To the extent... We won't risk. I mean, hopefully it would be nice if some of these Democratic senators were running against Chuck Schumer in the way that some, like, Democrats used to run against Pelosi, but... You can bust the banner out. I mean, honestly, someone should also run against Jill Brand, but we'll play some clips. That's not until 2030. That's the thing that sucks. She just got reelected. And Schumer's not up until 2028. So, but this is the order.

I know. I know when Schumer's. This is the order. We primary Hakeem Jeffries first. Then we primary Schumer. Then we primary Gillbrand. These are the steps. Oh, also, check us out on Twitch. If you're on Twitch, you can, assign your prime subscription to us. 2,000 concurrent viewers on Twitch right now. Whoa!

Do we just get rated or something? No, that's been pretty consistent. It's actually closing up to, where are we out? I mean, that's about five times out on YouTube, but... They need you to say it, though,

and they want the Twitch streamers want you to say it. Where's that box I bought? Because I want to say poggers and then have it echo. Pogers. See you in the fun half. Left is best

Jamie and I may have a disagreement Yeah, you can't just say whatever you want about people Just because you're rich I have an absolute right to mock them on YouTube He's up their buggy whipping like he's the boss I am not your employer You know, I'm tired of the negativity I'm sorry, I didn't mean to upset you

You're nervous You're a little bit upset, you're riled up Yeah, maybe you should rethink your defense of that You fucking idiots. We're just going to get rid of you. All right. But dude. Dude.

Dude. Dude. You want to smoke this joint? Yes. Do you feel like you are a dinosaur? It's a good shit. Exactly. I'm happy now.

It's a win, win, win. Uh, hell yeah. Now listen to me. Two, three, four, five times. 847, 906, 501. One, four, five, seven, two, 38, 56, 27, one-half, five-eighths, three point nine billion. Wow. He's the ultimate math, there.

Don't you see? Why don't you get a real job instead of steering vitriol and hatred, you left wing limb? Everybody's taking their dumb juice today. Come on, Sammy. Dance, dance, dance. Oh, grand Paul, I had my first post-coital scene. with a woman. I'm hoping to add more moves to my repertoire.

All I have is the dip and the swirl. Fine, we can double dip. Yes, this is a perfect moment. No. Wait, what? You make under a million dollars a year. You're scum. You're not paying me. Excuse me? Fuck you.

You fucking liberal elite. I think you belong in jail. Thank you for saying that, Sam. You're a horrible, despicable person. All right, going to take a quick break. I'll take a moment to talk to some of the libertarians out there. Take whatever. vehicle you want to drive

to the library. What you're talking about is jibber japs. Classic. I'm feeling more chill already. Donald Trump can kiss all of our asses. Hey Sam, hey Andy. You guys ready to do some evil? Hitler was such

an idiot. You think I might be a Nazi. Agree. No. Death to America. You. Wow Wow, that's weird No way

Unbelievable This guy's got a really good hook Throw our hands Wow But Sam I gotta get off No worries I want to just flesh this out a little bit I mean look

It's a free speech issue If you don't like me Hey hey hey hey shut up Thank you for calling into the Majority Report. Sam will be with you shortly.