The Majority Report with Sam Seder - 3624 - Sam LIVE At Las Vegas Mass Torts Conference '26 Day 1

Episode Date: April 16, 2026

  Live from Sin City it's The Majority Report   On today's program:   While speaking on the Senate floor about Bernie Sanders' resolutions to block the transfer of bulldozers and weapons to Israel, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) highlights the story of Rachel Corrie, an American killed by an armored Israeli bulldozer. The resolution failed thanks to every single Republican and 7 Democrats - like Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand.   Scott Bessent claims that the tariff refunds are, thanks to the Supreme Court, going to China.   Sam hosts a series of interviews with lawyers from the firm Levin Papantonio the Mass Tort Conference in Las Vegas.   Glen Ged discusses his firms work on Internation Emergency Economic Powers Act tariff refunds.   Peter Mougey joins Sam for an update on his firms work on the opioid epidemic.   Chris Tisi joins Sam to discuss a mass tort case involving Johnson & Johnson and the toxicity of talcum powder.   Caleb Cunningham really piques Sam interest with his work on infections stemming from dirty scopes used in colonoscopies in a case near to Sam's...heart.   Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) sabotages the war powers act vote.   Pete Hegseth recites a prayer that is stolen from Pulp Fiction. Hegseth also went on an antisemitic rant about the media during a pentagon briefing.   Tim Pool has a theory about women that really applies to him in an outrageous display of total projection.   All that and more   To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com The Congress switchboard number is [phone]. You can use this number to connect with either the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives. 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 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: FAST GROWING TREES: Get 20% off your first purchase.  FastGrowingTrees.com/majority SUNSET LAKE: use coupon code 420 to save 30% sitewide at sunsetlakecbd.com The sale ends April 22nd at midnight Eastern time. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech On Instagram: @MrBryanVokey 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

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report. Support this show at join the Majority Report.com and get an extra hour of content daily. With Sam Cedar. It is Thursday. April 16, 2006. My name is Sam Cedar. This is the five-time award-winning majority report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gawanna

canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, USA, and from the bowels of one of the poshest hotels, the Las Vegas strip conference areas for the mass torts, 2026 conference conference, wherein I will be interviewing trial lawyers. on different tort cases that exist. And, of course, also on the program today, U.S. Navy has blocked 13 ships from Iranian ports in its non-blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, a jury finds ticket master in Live Nation

to be an illegal monopoly. This, despite the Department of Justice dropping out of the suit, Democrats make a shift on weapons for Israel. New Jersey special election today, New Jersey 11. That's Emma's home district. Yes. Go out for Mejia. Tulsi Gabbard attempting to criminalize the whistleblower and watchdog whose evidence led to the Trump impeachment. The second one, I believe.

Trump, meanwhile, is in Vegas today. touting his reduced taxes on tips and reduced taxes on overtime pay no word if he will make it for an interview today

report at least 88 top profitable corporations U.S. corporations paid zero dollars in federal income tax in 2025. House Democrats introduced articles of impeachment versus Pete Hegseth.

Six counts. The illegal war in Iran. The murders of people in boats in the Caribbean. His failed use of a non-authorized app signal. Preventing oversight for government, abuse of power. Number six, He brought disrepute to the armed services.

And if you wanted to add a seventh, it could be not knowing fact from Pulp Fiction. All this and more on today's majority reports. Thank you. Oh, yes, right? I made that up on the fly, actually. I hadn't even thought about that. Hello, Sam. Hello, Emma.

I am, once again, let me do this here just for the time. being and then I will switch it back when a guest is here. I am in Las Vegas, Nevada, as I often do once or twice a year, to catch up with trial lawyers who are bringing, it's not quite class action lawsuits, but similarly structured lawsuits against corporations for corporate malfeasance. and at times I run into other type of cases as well that we talk about. Today, we're going to be talking about tariffs. We're going to be talking about opioids, see where the status of that is. We're going to be talking about a medical device problem that, I want to say it's close to my heart,

but it's actually close to other parts of my body. and we'll be talking about talc. Yes, you'll understand. I'm concerned now. Oh, yeah, that one is going to be gross. The Swedish penis pump lawsuit. Well, it's not Swedish. But anyways,

we will get into that in just moments. In the meantime, Um, here is, uh, this is big news. In the, uh, Senate, the number of senators who are voting against some type of weapon support for Israel has in at least one instance doubled. Uh, there was both a vote for bulldozers, uh, to Israel. And of course, all of this is, it's symbolic on, some level, but it's also indicative of like where the Democratic Party is going to be if they get into power. It sets a parameters for them. 40 senators voted against providing bulldovers, the bulldozers for Israel. There were seven that were not. You could probably guess the seven.

I can list them. I wrote it down if you'd like. I'll see if I can do it off the top of my head. Okay. Chuck Schumer. Oh, yeah. Voting against 85% of his caucus and against the majority of the Democratic Party. Kristen Gillibrand. Both of our senators from this great state of Blue, Blue, New York.

For some reason, both senators from Nevada, Mastow and Jackie Rosen, I do not know what that is. I'm trying to figure that out. Also, of course, John Fetterman, who literally wants to drive one there himself or something, but I don't, I think he's lost his license. Chris Coons, who is a, who was probably the closest to Biden. Yes. And is that seven?

You got six. The Blumenthal of Connecticut. Oh, Blumenthal of Connecticut. No, no, not both Connecticut, just one. And then 36 Democrats voted to block bomb. So that was the vote, 40 out of of 47 voted to block those bulldozers, which by the way have been used to bulldoze homes in the West Bank, but also critically, like, level Rafa. And I think that they play a critical role in genocide evidence, uh, covering the covering up of the evidence there. They're just destroying people's bodies and paving over over the bodies there. But the 36 Senate Democrats that voted to block, that voted against blocking bombs. The ones that voted for blocking the bulldozers but not bombs were Gary Peters, Jack Reed,

Mark Warner, and Sheldon White House. All right. Let's play this clip. Senator Van Hollen on the Senate floor yesterday. No war. Now, colleagues, I want to focus for a moment on the portion. of the Sanders resolution that bans the transfer of bulldozers to the IDF. These are the bulldozers that helped raise Rafa in Gaza to the ground.

And for those who don't remember, I ask them to recall the case of Rachel Corey, a 23-year-old American peace activist who was killed by an Israeli bulldozer trying to block a gunned the raising of buildings in Rafa over 20 years ago. Rachel Curry has never gotten any justice, and her family will tell you that today. In fact, just since January of 2022, at least nine more American citizens have been killed by extremist Israeli settlers or security forces in the West Bank,

and not one of them, not one, has gotten justice. just like Rachel Corey, no accountability. Now, Mr. President, there's no... There's a peace in the nation by Rachel Corey's mother, Cindy. Let's finally do something about the bulldozer that killed my daughter. Rachel Corey was an American peace activist who was killed in 2003 when she was trying to protect a Palestinian home from being leveled by these very Caterpillar D9 bulldozers.

that were the subject of that bill that Bernie Sanders introduced. And to your point, Sam, in July 2025, Bernie also had a resolution that was aimed at blocking a certain transfer of weapons and materials to Israel, and it only got 27 votes. So we've gone from 27 to both 36 on the weapons, on the 1,000-pound bombs and 40 on the bulldozers. And no Republicans. So I just want to point that out because perhaps it's being a little bit overinflated the fact that there are media figures on the conservative side that are being critical of Israel's genocide.

But there is no actual meaningful constituency in Washington that's implementing it. Exactly. And that's the important part is that at the end of the day, it's not just your voting. I mean, and this change is indicative of it. I don't think it's that twice as many senators became sort of more morally righteous or something. I think what this is is a function of their responding to their constituents. And when you vote for a politician, you are also voting, if not primarily, at least significantly, you're voting for who is going to be influencing this politician.

In part, that is often, you know, big money and donors and whatnot, but also, in part, it is other constituents. And so you vote where you have the best opportunity to change how the politicians are functioning. I mean, that's, you know, that's, that's, that is an important thing to keep in mind. It does not matter if there is one politician in, um, a party that otherwise has absolutely no desire to move in that direction. And it does not matter if there is a, uh, conservative media figures who are essentially, you know, taking a uh this position but are unable to move any of the republican constituents um and so that that's the important thing to keep in mind yes and um it's also notable that we have a republican president who

his budget that he's introducing as uh lindsay graham is salivating over it when they're debating it in the Senate is a $1.5 trillion slush fund for the military industrial complex. He's, I mean, that was the Republican president already in the last budget increased the Pentagon budget by the highest percentage that it had been in, I think, either ever or years. And Trump is trying to do to give them even more money. So that, that, they're captured by the military industrial complex. It doesn't matter if you have conservative influencers that are saying this kind of thing when that's where the levers of power are. All right.

And in a moment, we're going to start some interviews. But the first one is going to be about tariffs. The, as you know, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump's tariffs under the IEP. Is that what it is? the IPA, basically the Emergency International IEPA, Emergency International Powers Act, economic powers act. And Trump issued something like close to $200 billion worth of tariffs, and now the government has to give those back.

the process starts soon, but I've got some bad news for you if you are not a corporation or an importer that paid those tariffs. They were passed on to you in many instances, but you will not be getting that money back. But here is Scott Besant explaining like, you know, we'll see what happens. So that's the amount. who have already requested refunds,

so they are already in the shoot, and we'll see what the timeline is for that. Will that affect the US economy, all of those refunds coming out of the US Treasury? Again, we'll have to see what comes out, and we'll have to see what the companies do with them. Just to be clear, just to be clear, thanks to the Supreme Court, some of this money is going back to China.

So is that going to affect the US economy? I don't know. So there's Scott Fassant saying, you know, thanks to Supreme Court. Well, really what it is is thanks to American law, and it would have never been taken in the first place if it was legal. And that's basically saying, like, you know, it wasn't those cops catching that bank robber and putting the money back into the bank, guys who you don't like, who have bank.

accounts there. That's why they're getting the money. And of course, that money is spent five times over at this point. Most of that money was already spent, I think, at this point, with the Iran war.

I miss that part of the Supreme Court ruling where they said that we have to, you got to send this money back to China. It's got to go to China. It's got to go to China. I mean, that's what the conservatives on the Supreme Court mandated. He's just,

lying. He's just completely lying. In a moment, we're going to be talking to someone about those tariffs, and we'll see how much of that money is going back to China. First, a word from our sponsor, did you know

fast-growing trees is America's largest and most trusted online nursery with thousands of trees and plants and over 2 million happy customers? I know that. I have been one of those happy customers for over a decade, I was a customer before they became sponsors of this program. Why? Because they have

all the plants, your yard or your home needs, including fruit trees, privacy trees, shade trees, flowering trees, shrubs, long grasses. They're all grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. It's like your local nursery, but anywhere you live with more plants than you'll find anywhere else. It doesn't matter what you're looking for. Fast-growing trees helps you find options that actually work for your climate, space, and lifestyle. Fast-growing trees makes it easy to get your dream yard. You click, you grow, you order, you grow, and you get healthy, thriving plants delivered right to your door. That means no more dirt spilling out in the back of your Subaru. It means no more going to a big box store and getting two different types

of Apple variations that are some of the worst Apple variations. that are around. It's actually coming from a nursery where people care about the plants. They have an alive and thrive guarantee. It promises your plants arrive happy and healthy. No green thumb required, just quality plants. You can count on and you can get ongoing support. They have plant experts there that will help you like, is this the right one for your zone? Is this the right one where in your yard should you put it? It needs more shade. It needs less shade. What kind of soil does it need, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I can tell you you, check out the bloomerangs if they still got them. Those are lilac plants that are trees,

like sort of bushy trees that bloom twice a year, both in May and then again in July. They're very cool. Right now, they have great deals on spring planting essentials, up to half off select plants. Our audience gets 20% off your first purchase when you use the code majority. at checkout. That's an additional 20% off, better plants and better growing at fastgrowing trees.com. Use the code majority at checkout, fastgrowing trees.com. Code is majority. Now is the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use majority to save today. Offer is valid for limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. All right, let's take a quick break. I will reset my camera here. And when we come back, we're going to be talking to a series of attorneys here at

the mass torts conference on an array of torts and then later in the program we'll have more news. All right. So a quick break. We'll be right back. Hello. We are back. Sam Cedar on the majority report. Emma Viglin is back in studio. I am live at the mass torts conference. Sitting with me now is Glenn Jed. his attorney at Levin Papantonio.

And, Glenn, welcome to the program. Thanks for having me. We were just playing a clip from Scott Besson, who was explaining that the Supreme Court has basically forced us to give a bunch of money to China for absolutely no reason. This, of course, is a function of Donald Trump's tariffs being found to be illegal, essentially, under his AEPA powers. So walk us through this. What is AEPA and what are these tariffs that we're talking? So AEPA is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Basically,

what it says is that during a time of national emergency, a president can impose certain regulations on trade. Now, it says can regulate trade. It doesn't say it can impose tariffs. It doesn't they can impose taxes, which is what the Supreme Court has equated to tariffs. And you also have to declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act. So here, what had happened in April of 2025, President Donald Trump essentially said that we are in a trade emergency, and he declared a national emergency, allegedly, or attempted to declare a national emergency, and said that now I have the power, I, President Donald Trump, have the power to impose tariffs all across the board.

Now, there were many different tariffs that he imposed. The AIPA tariffs, so the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs, were the statute that were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on February 20th of this year, and I'll discuss that in a moment. But there were also several other tariffs that President Trump had imposed under sections 201, 232, 301 for national security, unfair trade practices, and whatnot. Those tariffs are still in place right now. we are seeing emerging litigations on those tariffs, but they're structured a little differently.

The acts are structured a little differently when Congress opposed them. Now, back to the AEPA tariffs, what we're talking about. Essentially, what had happened was President Trump released a series of executive orders, starting in April of 2025, and then some other tariffs as well, starting his first presidency. Now, the AIPA tariffs in April of 2025 were the ones that were of issue. what had happened was he releases executive voters saying we're putting tariffs on basically all countries across the world starting off with the reciprocal tariff of 10% and now compounding for if you've done business with iran or if you're trading with russia

or if you're trading with china if you're trading with india or any of their partners or made fun of me exactly and it changed by the day it wasn't uh it was fluid as to say the least and a new frontier is definitely to say the least. President Trump was tweeting or posting on X and as well as his social media accounts saying that, oh, I'm changing these tariffs, I'm doing this, I'm imposing this. Quite literally, it was changing by the day.

Just like you said, someone made fun of me. Did the irrationality of all that contribute to a finding, like, this is not an emergency? If it was, like you wouldn't be willy-nilly doing this. you would be addressing the so-called emergency. So when the Supreme Court on February 20th released the opinion for the case, they didn't exactly get a lot into the, they discussed that, you know, it was changing by day and whatnot.

But what they really focused on, the majority opinion really focused on, was A, there was no national emergency declared. So starting off, it would become, the statute would become inapplicable just off the bat. Now the question leads to, well, what is, what can the president, do with the AEPA statute, with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Congress has not released any notes, additional notes about what they meant to say or what they had intended, but the Supreme Court rationed that regulate trade does not equal imposed tariffs. If they wanted to say that, they would have said imposed taxes and they equated taxes

to tariffs. The Supreme Court also referenced the Sugar Act and the Paper Act all the way back the precipice of the American Revolution. Because there was, A, no national emergency, or no valid national emergency, and B, the statute just did not allow for tariffs to be imposed. Essentially, there was no basis for these tariffs to be imposed. Now, in the Supreme Court's opinion, on February 20th of this year, they said, well, now you have to refund all the money. You have to refund it back to the importers.

Because the importers, the American importers are the ones that suffer from the tariffs. Those are the ones that pay the tariffs. There are, obviously, it trickles down like crazy to the consumer. The consumer is paying, and that's what's happening when the FedEx's MDL now. Why is China getting all this money? So I think there's kind of conflations there. The refunds are sent back to the consumer, not consumer, the importer, essentially. Are you suggesting that Scott Besant is saying without basis that Supreme Court is sending money to China?

I'm not saying that the Supreme Court is sending money anywhere. the Supreme Court just said, look, this is unconstitutional. We can't do anything with this. I think there's a conflation there. It's the importers of record, the American importers that pay the tariffs. And those are the ones that are getting the refunds. Now, there are also international importers, Chinese companies based in the United States that may be getting those refunds as well. But it's not really directed towards China, towards one specific. Now, we don't know what President Trump's going to do next. He could say, you know, send this money to China. He could say whatever he wants.

Now it's a matter of what's legal, what's constitutional. Right. And we see him tweeting saying, I'm importing, I'm replacing income tax with tariffs. The Supreme Court said, no, you're not, not with these ones. Okay. So I think Scott Besant may have been conflating things on purpose. And it's quite possible that there is, although it's just impossible for me to imagine that anybody from this administration would lie in any way about that. I'm not suggesting that he lied.

You know, there may be some other... Oh, I'm suggesting. Okay. Yes, I know it's uncomfortable. You could suggest that, but I am suggesting he lied. But that would not be the first time for Scott Bisson. And it is not a crime to lie to the American public. It happens quite a bit.

Okay, so there's what, like $170 billion or so? Yeah, there's about $330 billion in total on tariffs that were collected. About $175 billion, more. than that were from the AEPA tariffs. Okay. Those that are being refunded. And so, um, this could all be automatic. Right. Exactly.

Like they can say, okay, you shouldn't have collected this money. You know exactly who you took it from. Exactly. Because you, you have records. That's how you took it in the first place. Exactly. And so all the checks are going out, right? And that's it. Not quite yet. So there's a few stages that are now in place now.

So when the Supreme Court issued their opinion, they didn't say anything about how the tariffs would be refunded. So the Court of International Trade has exclusive jurisdiction. They're up in New York City. They have exclusive jurisdiction over all trade-related matters in the U.S. Now, what they have done is Judge Richard Eaton, originally in the Atmos filtration case, and now in the Euro Nations Florida case, has really been pushing the automatic refunds. So Customs and Border Protection has a system already set up called the automated customs environment, ACE. Now, what they do in ACE is that's where they submit all of their entry paperwork, Their entry summaries, I'm bringing this into the U.S., this is what I'm bringing, this is how much it's valued at, and if they need to amend it, they do everything in there.

And if prior to the tariffs, if they needed to contest something or protest, they would do it through there. Now, if that was denied, if the protest was denied there, then you would do a reliquidation in the Court of International Trade. But what has happened here is even before the Supreme Court had issued their opinion saying that these tariffs were unconstitutional and illegal, importers of record were lining up and filing suit in the court. of International Trade, preserving their rights for their refunds, should the Supreme Court rule. Now what has happened was in between February 20th and now Judge Richard Eaton and the Court of International Trade has really been pushing this automatic refund. So the Customs has released what's called the Consolidated Administration and Processing

of Entries. So CAPE. Cape is in the ACE platform now. And they're rolling it out in four different phases. So what CAPE is, it's essentially a claims portal for it. importers of record to submit their claims for the entries that are subject to the April refund. Why should they have to do that when the government already knows who got it?

Well, the alternative there was suing in the Court of International Trade, and then attorneys would get attorney's fees and whatnot. Right, I see. So, you know, this just makes it an administrative process. It's pushed toward. But you've sued, correct? So I'm licensed in the Court of International Trade. I have been, we've been prepping these actions for quite some time.

I've been working with a lot of experts, a lot of importers on what are the next steps. Will you have to sue or will Cape take care of it? Now, that's going to depend on what happens next month. So the government has until May 4th to appeal the opinion that says you have to roll out this Cape system. Now, I think it's going to be, personally, I think it's going to be a midnight appeal. They're going to submit it the day before just so that they can drag this on as much as possible. Right. Now, the government, Customs, has a five-year right of look back. So essentially, I'm an importer of record. I submit my data's paperwork or my entry summary. I get all of it. It's all good. Everything's in the U.S. and I'm the importer. I'm done. For five years after that happens, customs has the right to reopen that case and basically say, well, did you lie about what you were bringing in? Did you lie about the valuation? And if you did originally misstate it, Did you submit an amendment?

Did you submit a post-sumary correction, it's called? So if I hear you correctly, A, the government appeals this. It'll be a way of punting it probably past the midterm elections because they're very nervous about the idea of stories saying the Treasury has to give back $180 billion. Exactly. That's what I'm thinking. The B position for them after they do A is then we could start. to try and harass the importers who ask for stuff by looking back and going like, hey, on April 14th, 2022, you had a shipment of TVs come in and you said 45 TVs and they were actually 40 and they could just harass them.

Well, you know, I make it more difficult to get there. I'm weary just in my business to use the word harass, but there's any, they could do essentially whatever they want in reopening that case. Just like you said, you said you brought 40, not 45 televisions. And that's what they've really been using as a way to delay this process. They've been telling the court, the government has been telling the Court of International Trade, look, well, we have this right. How are we going to audit all these cases in X amount of time? And Judge Richard Eaton, who is very direct and to the point, said, well, here's, you have until April to do so. And now, already on April 20th, customs and border protection

is going to be rolling out that CAPE process. The refunds are going back to the importers of record. So those that have actually imported and were on the hook for Customs and Border Protection for those tariffs. Now, where are we going with this in the future? Again, it is a whole new frontier. There is a motion to consolidate for a multi-district litigation. So there was a motion for the judicial panel of multi-district litigation, the JPML,

on March 10th of this year, for. or the fees that FedEx, the company Federal Express, was paying, was charging those that were just receiving packages. And this was after the Supreme Court decision. So even after the Supreme Court said they kept charging. Okay. Exactly. Now, in many of these instances, the fees were passed on to the consumer. Yeah.

And what would you put the likelihood of consumers seeing a single dollar from them? I mean, you know, do I think that the right thing, do I know that the right thing to do is for these companies to somehow reimburse the consumer to somehow, I don't know, or offer free things? Yes, the consumers have been harmed beyond belief. It doesn't take an attorney or journalists to look around and see all the closing out of business signs. You go on Instagram, you see ads, the tariffs have put us out of business. I think that there should be some retribution. for that. Now, do I think it's going to happen is another question. We sue corporations all day, all night. We know how the American corporate system works. I don't, unless there is a law saying, that Congress is passing, which I don't see the likelihood of that saying, you have to do this. And even then, they'll try and fight it. So I don't think that corporations are going to, generally, for the most part, are going to have the good enough will to say, hey, consumer,

you were wrong. The T and DR, the too long don't read, is consumers are going to get zero. Now, I would imagine there's a good opportunity for some politicians who want to raise this issue as a political matter to try and raise legislation.

I don't anticipate it would pass. All right, so one other question I have for you. So we'll have a better sense of this come May when the deadline for an appeal happens. If the appeal happens, this all gets punted. we continue pushing forward

what about those guys now I know that uh... Uday and Cusay-Lutnik have claimed that they did not buy these coupons essentially to buy the right

to recapture these tariffs in the event that the Supreme Court found what they did exactly and they bought them on like you know 20 or 30 cents on the dollar yeah they claim they didn't do this I don't believe them, but certainly people have.

Where are they in this? Do you run into them in the halls of the court house? Yeah, right, quite a good bit. Because they're fighting for this payback too, because they own the rights to collect. Exactly. So essentially just to kind of recap what had happened. Companies are saying, okay, well, we don't know before the Supreme Court's decision. Okay, we don't know if we're going to be able to get this refund.

We'll sell it to someone who a hedge fund, someone over here for 30 cents on the dollar, 20 cents on the dollar saying if you can recover here here's the right to recover just give us the money and we'll be fine now what's happening is now they have the right to recover so now they can bring these actions in the court of international trade bring it in cape and say okay i'm an owed the money i've been given this right of refund now uh there's a back and forth on how the cape platform is going to structure that so right now the cape platform is only for importers of record You have to show that you're the importer of record. But like you said, all these hedge funds and all these people out here, whether they

admitted or not, we're purchasing the right of a refund. So that's going to be another development in the Court of International Trade, and it really changes day by day, hour by hour. Is it possible that that court could say, ah, you didn't have a right to assign this? I mean, what's possible is infinite. I don't see that happening. I think that the court is going to say, okay, you purchase the right for a refund. We'll figure out how we would go about that. Maybe it's not the first wave.

Or a legal or a signy. And maybe that's not the first wave. Phase one, like I said, is rolling out in April 20th of this year, of this month. Maybe that gets pushed back later. But the best thing to do right now, if you haven't submitted, if you haven't been submitting an action, file your action in the Court of International Law, reach out to Levin Papin, Antonio, us, and other law firms that are doing these actions, preserve your rights in the Court of International Trade, whether a automatic refund happens or not.

As long as you preserve your right, you file suit, you bring the action, the Court of International Trade has said that your rights will be preserved. Great. You, the importer. Glenn Jed, from Levin Papantonia, thank you so much for your time today. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much for having me. This was a pleasure.

All right, folks. And I think we're going to roll right into our next one. We have another attorney from Levin Papantonio. Yeah, here he is sitting down with me. Good morning. Mujet. Nice to see you again. Here, why don't you go to that two-shot, Matt?

Peter Mouge, you're from Levin Pappentoneo. We've spoken many times over the years of maybe the past 10, 15 years that I've been coming to this conference. and used to focus on you're one of the few lawyers out there who part of an organization, I said maybe the only organization that was advocating on behalf of people in the wake of the financial crisis. Yes. And what happened to pensions and in particular? and mom and pop investors at Main Street, everything from folks that work their entire lives, just put money away, went to a financial advisor, a firm for advice, and received terrible advice,

up to pension systems that are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into a particular space. Still practice in that area, but it's been 20 years. We've handled thousands of cases in that space. Very, very rewarding. I've really enjoyed that. makes you get up in the morning to feel like you're making a real impact on people's lives that have been devastated. Structurally speaking, were there any changes that came out of that stuff? Oh, absolutely. We've made a sea change from when I started in the space in the late 90s on the regulatory side.

Part of what I did over a course of almost two decades, I was president of the National Security's bar for a few years. I served on the board of directors for more than a decade. And quite frankly, we were a enough thing that nobody non-existent or were even at the table. And over the years, we have become a dominant force in dealing with the SEC, FINRA, the state regulators, where we were an active participant in how regulations are written, how we go to Congress more than, I think, two, three times a year, meet with congressmen, senators from around the country on legislation that's either being proposed or written. We've had a real impact on how the way business has done.

Obviously, some of that's been walked back over the last few years. But, and quite frankly, I think we're going to end up seeing more problems down the line because of the relaxed legislation. But we've made some huge differences. All right. And then subsequent to that, you were working a lot on the opioid cases. Give us, I mean, some of this is sort of old news on some level, but catch us up. Like, we're multiple different sort of parties that need. to be compensated for the opioid crisis.

And there were multiple different players who were responsible for that opioid crisis. Just give a sense of those two sort of like... So you'd have to be hiding under a rock at this point, not to know that there's an opiate epidemic that started in the late 90s with Purdue, with a sea change of marketing on how we treat pain. And for hundreds of years, rightfully so, People were scared of opiates. They're highly addictive.

You can go in for an injury. You can take your high school kid in that plays football, and he is in acute pain because of a broken ankle. And the longer you stay on opiates, the higher the likelihood that you're addicted. The oversupply in our communities caused a huge epidemic where regular people, mom and pop, regular kids migrated to heroin in fentanyl. And you saw what we call a mountain. a steep slope of users, deaths, a leading cause of death in the United States, 2010 was

opiate overdoses. So our communities were devastated because of all the opiates and the oversupply. So we started to represent cities and counties and states, which seems like kind of an odd step for me with my financial background, but I already had this huge client base that we're asking about what can we do with this opiate epidemic. Oh, folks who at city, like municipal pension funds and stuff like that? Actually, no, it was actually the one step above. It was the city counties.

We used to do with the pension systems, but now we actually represent the city and county, which are typically two different kind of entities under the same umbrella. But just simple terms like an ambulance runs, overdoses, having to pick people up, take them in. All those costs were born by taxpayers in our communities, and the communities didn't know what to do with it. So how do you clean up the mess with all of these folks that were addicted? How do you get them treatment? How do we stop this epidemic? Which every year deaths up, up, up, up, our life expectancy in the United States actually went down. Yes. Because of opiate overdoses. So just now, I'll take large credit for the work that we've done as a group in this opiate space

that we've now got the amount of pills back to where we were in the early 2000. Still have work to do. but we've turned that that tied back and and that is because all of the different sort of players whether it was um uh the manufacturers doctors obviously become more aware of that you know there's nothing special about oxycotton or uh you know or whatever it was that would uh keep you from getting addicted uh all the way through let's walk through that supply chain so it's it's fascinating really And we started with that sea change in the late 90s with Purdue and front groups that were out pitching, pains undertreated. We've created a magic opiate that's not addictive. Addictions rarely seen in opiate patients.

And that started at that manufacturer level with Purdue. So the way our system works with opiates, because everybody knows they're highly addictive and very dangerous, Congress created in the 1970s a controlled substance act. It's a closed system, a loop, so to speak. And so everybody in the system has to be registered with the DEA. So from manufacturers to distributors to pharmacies, then as you mentioned, doctors, which are the ones that write the script. PBMs, too, yes. You have PBMs, which is now the current hot litigation piece. Pharmacy benefit management.

The largest companies no one's ever heard of. I mean, ESI, for example, based out of St. Louis, Missouri, 30,000 people, employees, a Fortune 100 company, my guess is 90% of your millions. Fowers don't even know who they are. Neither did I, quite frankly, when I started looking at this. And in fact, recently, and I can't remember who, whether it was in the House or the Senate, a lot of these insurance companies were brought up in front to testify, and they were asked, how many of you own, you know, an insurance company, how many of you own pharmacies?

How many of you own pharmacy benefit managers who are, or like sort of like CVS is the poster child for the vertical integration. It's the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse. In that closed system, we were just talking about, every one of the participants in that closed system that are gatekeepers, so to speak, are supposed to have a system in place to look for outliers or red flags, high prescribers, patients that are receiving abnormal amounts, you name it. They're supposed to be watching in that closed system and have,

We have so many sophisticated computers and algorithms and in checking and spotting where those red flags are, including the PBMs, which are the gatekeepers for this whole system. And they're the ones that adjudicate the claims, meaning they pay for the claims based on your insurance. So if you have Blue Cross Blue Shield, who's your PBM? It's typically Optum, which is a part of United Health or ESI or CVS. and they I think the most sort of egregious case if I remember was like one county

in Kentucky maybe or it was West Virginia that was getting more pills and there were people it's not even close and quite frankly you could you could

the list is hundreds of cities and counties that were receiving hundreds if not thousands of pills per capita quite frankly the average in the United States we created a database with my firm Levin Pepentone

that we were responsible for, that we can track every pill from the manufacturer to the pharmacist to the pharmacy, the distributor that delivered it to the pharmacy in many states, the doctors, and now with the PBM data, the claims data, we have the patients. And of course, we don't know patient names, they're de-identified, but I can track every pill from 2006 to 2024 where it went in the country. The average city and county in the United States, the average is 33 pills per cap in every city and county per month over the period of 15, 16 years. Think about that. That's 33.

It's man, woman, child, and the population-based, that's the average. And in some of these communities, it was got as high as over 100. And in some of the super small communities in rural Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Panhandle, Florida, Alabama, kind of, started in an Appalachian Southern Ohio, they can get up over 100 bills per person, per man, woman, a child per month. And is there, were there obligations to various sellers, the PBMs or the pharmacies, did they have an algorithm or something where it was like, hey, the average for this, it's high, 33 per capita, but in this area, it's 100 per capita, that's a problem.

Like how, what was the nature of the mechanism that they would employ to, that they should have known was red flag? It didn't matter whether it was manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, or PBMs that all told Congress they had systems in place. They told their communities, they had systems in place. They were window dressing because every single one of these participants in this system made more money, the more bills they were. PBMs, for example, told their clients, our interest are aligned with you. When you save money, we save money. That's BS. And they know it is.

Their model is more pills, more money. So there's systems they had in place, whether it was a distributor. Think about this. We're going to flag it if it was three times higher than the average rolling six months. Three times. You can think about that over time. So if it was two times, that's six months. And the next time, next six months it was two times.

And the next six months it was two times. That's why you have the slope that the use of opiates in our country went up, seven, eight, nine hundred percent in the early 2000s. Oh, because it's not against the baseline. Right. You're comparing previous six months. To the rate of increase. Yes. And so.

So like the PBM's flags was, hey, Sam, if you have more than seven opiate prescriptions over two months, with three doctors or three pharmacies. What about the pill mill with the doctor that was writing scripts for money that was just, you know, the old adage, the weakest part of the chain, it's just one link. So as long as one link does work. So if you have a pill mill, that's writing scripts like crazy in exchange for cash or using their insurance to pay for it, the PBM system didn't catch it because their test was seven scripts, three docs, three patients.

So we're seeing in the data that there are patients that are receiving more than a thousand pills a month. It's 30 pills a day of huge oxy 80 milligram, oxy 40s for years and no flag was tripped. Doctors were ending up getting suspended and they were paying for those claims with your insurance dollars so somebody could get their hands on over a thousand pills. But the systems they designed were window dressing. And they were window dressing so they could tell Congress, they had all these great systems in place.

But the real business model was the more bills we sell, the more money we make, because they charge admin fees at the manufacturer level. They charge for per transaction, admin fee at the pharmacy, admin fee at the plan, and then they capture a spread the delta between what they have to reimburse the pharmacy and what the plan pays. there was so many avenues for volume equals revenue.

Why would they put meaningful systems in place to curtail volume? Those systems feel analogous to what, you know, we hear from like something like in that meta case where it's like, we have systems here to prevent this stuff from happening. But in fact, those systems are, don't actually do what they say they do. You have all these. They just imply that we're doing something about it. All these crazy smart Silicon Valley guys came up with, quote, unquote, algorithms to monitor and keep our kids safe.

Yeah, right. Those videos and social media, they knew exactly what they're doing in the exact same thing here while telling everyone we're keeping your kids and your family safe. The real deal was how much money can we make. Same business models, different industries, same business model. And so you just won a big award or a settlement for a bunch of cities and towns from, is it Albertsons? Albertson. So that was a, and we started this. You and I started talking, as you said earlier, about the opiate litigation in 2016 and 17.

So here we are 10 years into it. We started with manufacturers and distributors. Then we moved to pharmacies. We're over $62 billion right now. And Albertsons was the latest pharmacy that just settled $7,000. 50 billion my partner Jeff Gatti took point on that litigation along with several others from this group of PEC Plaintiff's Executive Committee with firms all over it's a great result we're moving down that supply chain where does that money end up like the cities in the town it'll be a treatment center

it'll be exactly it's really a cool model we've learned from like the tobacco days where the money didn't have to be earmarked and it went to potholes and uh and you know buying buying uh xyz infrastructure for the city and county. All the money that we've made, the 60, 62 billion at this point, it's gone back to cities and counties and states. There is a list of approved uses, which are predominantly clean up the opiate mess. So treatment, education are the huge pieces. We've made a huge impact already on the, I mean, people don't know. You don't know when your kid comes home with a, I mean, I just went, I got a little knee surgery 30, 30 day. I mean, I'm sorry, about six months ago. And it was a cleanup, a little scope.

It was no big deal. In-and-out, same day, outpatient procedure. I did two knees back-to-back in two months. And I came home with 120 Oxycontin. And I'm thinking I took one or two the day of, and I took usually half of them. But the fact that a kid can come home with 30 days of pills. And no one knows that every week you're on that opiate, the higher the percentage you're going to addicted to the tune of after two weeks there's a 50% chance you'll still be taking opiates a year

later whether legally or illegally and they knew it and and and what are i mean this is a sort of a little bit of firefield i mean you know there are still people out there with legitimate pain and whatnot absolutely so has there been any obligation for uh imposed on any of these entities to sort say like you got to provide something that is more safe or some type of standards to make sure that you can assess like someone is in pain and there are procedures to protect people from from abusing or from getting hooked when they actually have so there's kind of a two-pronged approach i mean you have to start with education and we have to uneducate or re-educate our medical system including doctors that for a period of over a decade uh received

education material from Purdue and front groups that Purdue funded that sounded really fancy like an American Pain Society, but that was funded by the manufacturers that had all of these great tests like the fifth vital sign for pain. I'm sure everyone's seen those little smiley faces. That came from Purdue. I pled guilty to a felony in 2007, but it came through one of their front groups. So we're working diligently to re-educate doctors on what are our appropriate, uh, uh, because we want to make sure that people, we're trying to find a balance.

People that are really in need of pain. We all have loved ones that are cancer, breakthrough pain. We don't want to see anybody in pain, but you don't need 90 pills for a tooth extraction. You don't need a sprained ankle. You need 30 days with opiates. Those are the kind of acute, short-term pain that we've got to make sure that we curtail and keep small. What's left on, you know, is there anything coming up in the horizon? anything coming up on the horizon has most of this stuff basically settled?

A lot of it's been settled and like Purdue's coming is done, which we're proud of that Purdue's in bankruptcy. There's no more Purdue. And that's almost finished. All the principals walked away and hid their money. But they did. You're right. It's over a period of 20, 20, 25 years. That money's all over the globe. They ended up paying, I think, $3 billion from the individuals, but out of the grand scheme of things, that could be a role of Nichols to most people in comparison. But trying to get to that money, it's been distributed out of the company and in family trust is extremely difficult. There was a whole team of lawyers, state attorney generals that worked on. So about $8 billion out of the Purdue entities with Purdue being shut down,

which is a big deal. So that's about $8 of the $62, $63 billion. What's left at this point are are smaller and smaller players. Judge Poulster has done a great job, which is where all the cases are consolidated. Really, PBMs are the last big fish. And we're right in the middle of the ESI and Optum litigation around the country. I take a deposition next week.

It'll be my 25th deposition in the last 18 months. And I'm looking forward to getting those cases tried and getting the evidence in front of the American public so they can really see what they did. Peter Mosey, always a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you so much. Thanks for having it. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Let me see about our next guess. I know that we have one at 10. Let me, Emma, let me throw it to you for a moment. Okay. How about some? I'll read some I'ms.

How about that? I'll be back in just a second. Okay. All right. Here I am. Off cam says the fentanyl issue is so self-manufactured that you can only... Can they hear Sam still? Okay.

Colonel Burner, there's no way the guest was given one... Okay. Off cam, the fentanyl issue is so self-exam. manufacture that you can only wonder why anyone still defends privatized health care, actually ruining lives for profit, yes. Henry Gold, hearing about the current

opiate, opiate crisis makes me grateful to be a pot head. Always start my day with Sunset Lakes coffee. Put some pep in my step and keeps my knees from hurting. Someone should click this so I can send it to my Jewish mother left is best. Here we go.

okay we are back with Sam and right now hi folks back here Sam Cedar at the mass torts conference in Las Vegas Nevada joining me Chris Tisi

Chris you are also another attorney that over the years we have spoken many times and and particularly about this issue in fact I was talking to another attorney last night and you had mentioned like this has gone on a lot longer than you had anticipated and I had mentioned it to somebody else and they go oh boy that that is that has been a long litigation

and I feel like I was here 10 years ago and eight years ago people were talking about this and that is talcum powder particularly from Johnson and Johnson being problematic. This is baby powder. Right. We just remind people like, you know, what this is and then give us a sense of like what the issue was and what's happened over the nearly decade that these things have been going on.

Well, first of all, it's good to see you again. And thanks for asking me to talk about it. I mean, the thing about Johnson's baby powder is. among all the products sold in the United States over the course of my lifetime, it is probably one of the most iconic products that we've had. I know that, you know, I had a client who talked to me about having a child in the 1960s, and I always say people left the hospital with the three bees. They left the hospital with the baby, a baby blanket,

and baby powder. And they established a lifetime, that established a lifetime of trust between the product and Johnson and Johnson and this product. So as long as this case has gone on, the issues relating to ovarian cancer and mesothelialoma, which are the injuries that have happened in this case, have gone off away longer. And a lot of people got sick. over the past half century or even longer and didn't know it, didn't know why, didn't know how. You know, I represented a gentleman who got mesothelioma from his exposure to baby powder every day for 50 years.

He was a doctor. He didn't work with pipes and brake pads, and he never worked in his shipyard. He was never exposed to asbestos, and yet he had this disease that was uniquely associated and caused by asbestos. And then we've realized he used baby powder. And there are a lot of people who that happened to who never knew why they got what they got. And that's a very painful death. I mean, right? I mean, these are femaleomas. It's all terrible.

And, you know, ovarian cancer, the women. women who I've had the privilege of representing is and their families are among the most wonderful, beautiful people I've met and clients have had the opportunity to represent. You know, these are people, these are women who, in the prime of their lives, you know, are in their 50s and early 60s, the kids are grown, they're putting the kids through college. They're reaping the fruits of their labor. And they get this terrible disease that is, by the time it is diagnosed, it's almost invariably fatal. And then their family has to circle around this, usually the center of the family unit and deal with that loss. It's a terrible thing. So give us a sense of like, what did, it was.

Was it specifically Johnson and Johnson? Was it really, was it any other towel? You know, there's, there are other, I mean, I primarily focus on Johnson and Johnson. But there are other talcum powders. And remember, Sam, that talcum powder, you know, we look at it coming out of a bottle. It looks like, you know, the sugar you sprinkle on your donuts, right? It looks pure. It looks like something that would be totally innocuous.

It has baby on the, on the, on the, on the, the label. Yeah, and the way it was advertised, and I'm going back and looked at the advertisements on it. It's like a mother cradling their child. There's nothing more pure. But if you think about it, it comes from the ground. And whichever in the ground, when it's dug up, it's, it is in the product.

So there's nickel and chromium and asbestos in it. And so depending upon where the mine, where the product was mine, it has either more or less asbestos, but it is never pure. There was never a time when you shook powder out of that bottle. It is talc and nothing else. And so in terms of liability, what did Johnson and Johnson have to, what standard did they have to meet in terms of safety?

What did they have to know to be found liable? And what did they know? Well, you ask a lot of broad questions. So let me say if I could take them one at a time. What is the standard? Johnson's baby powder like lipstick and deodorant and they're called consumer products. And while the FDA has some relationship to those products, they totally rely on the company to do the testing. They rely on the company to choose the ingredients.

They rely on the companies, you know, the company does not have to submit the kinds of support that they do. For example, a new drug pharmaceutical comes to market. It is totally an honor system. So it's a really highly unregulated business, cloaked in the FDA, and it's almost like giving it a good housekeeping seal. Now, what did they know? So I kind of look at this case in kind of two. And what is the standard before we move up? What is the standard?

Like, it needs to be safe? Oh, they have to, yeah, they have to demonstrate that it's safe and effective. And because there's no benefit to a, I mean, it's not like this is a cancer or an HIV drug where, you know, you have to benefit the risks against the benefits. Right. There's no, I mean, baby powder can, can disappear from, from the planet. And nobody would be the worst. And what makes it even worse is that there is and always was a safer alternative. for centuries

people have used cornstarch as a as a powder on their babies they use it when they when it's hot outside you know cornstarch has always been there as and today

if you go to the store and you want to buy powder that's what you buy is cornstarch they no longer sell talc so not only is it a useless product is a product where there's a safe safer alternative. So kind of going to the big picture, I always look at this as a two-tiered liability spanning decades. They knew early on they could never make baby powder safe. They knew and understood. They could never make talc. I'm sorry. Exactly. They could never,

because it was never such thing as pure talc and powder. So you could, you know, asbestos fibers are so small. You could have thousands of them who could fit on the nose of Abe Lincoln on a penny. Right. I mean, it's just impossible to get it out. And

they knew there was a safer alternative, and they knew asbestos causes mesothelioma. And they were finding asbestos in the ovaries of women who have cancer, ovarian cancer, in the early 1970s.

1980s, some folks at 1980s, some folks out of Harvard started looking, doing studies to see whether or not there was an increased risk in women who have used baby powder and they were finding more or less a two-fold increase. Like you increase

depending on how long you use it for feminine hygiene. It doubles your risk of ovarian cancer. So that's been going on for 40 years. Okay. And obviously Johnson and Johnson is aware of this. There's no reports that come out that they're not aware of about their problem. Oh, these were published in the medical literature. So why doesn't the FDA say like, hey, wait a sec?

Is it just there's not enough regulatory enforcement? Is it this? Would they have been, would the FDA even have a sort of like a legal authority based upon a study like that to say? say to Johnson, Johnson, you have to show us, in light of this report from Harvard, you have to show us that this is... You know, in fairness, the FDA's resources are always focused elsewhere. They are always focused on issues relating to drugs. You know, cosmetic safety is way, way down the line. Now, that's not to say that they should not have intervened. you know, in the 70s and 80s, and at different periods of time, they tried to get J&J and Calc manufacturers to be more rigorous in their testing.

But in the end of the day, it really, you know, these companies had trade organizations who lobbied heavily. One of the directors of the cosmetic department within the FDA went to work for left of the FDA, and actually went to work for the talc manufacturers. And there was never really the will to take care of it. Interestingly, former FDA Commissioner Tesla is one of the experts in our case. And he will say there was never a proof of safety for this product.

And the FDA just doesn't have the resources. And I would imagine statutory sort of like authority, I imagine the FDA has a some type of threshold that must be crossed for them to say it's unhealthy or to stop. And I also imagine a company like Johnson and Johnson is just so powerful. It's a self-regulating industry. I mean, really that's what it comes to. It's an honor system. They rely on the companies to do the right thing.

And I just want to say one other thing. Johnson and Johnson almost uniquely in amongst all American companies until relatively recently really got a pass for a lot of the things that they did because of baby powder. Because we didn't think of Johnson and Johnson at the way we think of Merck or Pfizer or Sinofi or any of the other met. We think of them differently. Why do we think of them differently because they marketed baby shampoo and talcumptu. Exactly.

And Talcum powder, like I, it is, the marketing works so well on me, and particularly because I'm of a certain age. It's like, I, I can, I could sit here and probably draw, uh, the baby shampoo bottle and the logo. I mean, that is, because that was everywhere. It was everywhere. That was a very ubiquitous product. And baby powder and baby shampoo are the only two products that the company had that actually

had the name Johnson and Johnson on it. They wanted that they wanted that association. They wanted that and that trust. And, you know, from where I sit, they breached that trust. And they, and I think the FDA. So they knew about these reports out there. Obviously, you know, their Harvard has done a study. I mean, they know about this.

Why didn't they like, what would it, what would it have cost them to, why didn't they just go, we should just switch to cornstarch? You know, that honestly is the question that I've struggled with for all the time that I've worked on this case. There was a time in the early 2000s where they actually made the decision to switch to cornstarch on a December day in the year 2000, and then they pulled the plug on it. I think it was a combination of arrogance and fear that this iconic product upon which the company was built, that people would realize that they're just another pharmaceutical company. I mean, it's almost look at it in the context of, I mean, we are old enough that we remember these things, Coke and New Coke.

Right. When the Coca-Cola company decided to change the product to new Coke, everybody lost their mind. Yeah. Right. So I kind of, I'm wondering whether that played into it. Plus, I do believe that there's a certain amount of arrogance of like, we know better. We are Johnson and Johnson. You know, we're not Merck.

We're not Pfizer. We're not like those other guys. And, you know, it's no longer on the market. It was taken off the market years ago, 2001, 2002. You know, but it should have been taken off the market decades ago. Right. And people died. I want to come back to one issue, Sam, if you don't mind that you raised early on.

Why is it taking so long to get justice for some of these people? Johnson and Johnson has tried to resolve this case in a unique way by trying to send this case into bankruptcy, by splitting off their liabilities for this product, throwing it into a sham company and sending it into the bankruptcy court. that has sucked that has sucked three years out of out of the time we could have spent getting these cases to trial and the really crazy thing and the really sinister thing about it you know clients in that three years passed away passed away is there no I mean this is the thing that I think it's hard for people for lay people to to understand like the bankruptcy court system is a completely different silo than the tort system. And it's almost like I get charged with a crime here and I leave the country and go to a

place where there is no, you know, I can't be sent back to the United States, right? And then you've got to go to the bankruptcy court in some fashion and essentially say this is a fraudulent or an abuse of the bankruptcy court because they're not really bankrupt. They're just siphoning off their liability from something that the actual company that still is around and is still full of money and operating, they just don't want the liability. So the bankruptcy code, I mean, I've learned a lot about bankruptcy over the past a couple of years. The bankruptcy code is intended, and I think the phrase is to protect the unfortunate debtor who spends their life and time trying to innovate and run a business.

It serves a really important purpose. I wouldn't dispute that. And it's an ability for a company to get a fresh start. And we want people to take risks and running a family farm and planting new... But, you know, a company with between half a trillion... dollars in assets to turn around and say they can't pay these these women and men and families who for decades have trusted their products and want to watch not put their company into the bankruptcy court basically take a shell company throw that into the bankruptcy court and walk away

to me is is a perversion of justice that I have never seen. It's got to be a perversion of the bankruptcy code. I couldn't do it. Right. Well, right. I mean, it's almost like me,

it's almost like me saying, you know, I got myself into debt. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to take it all, all my debt assigned to my son and send my son into bankruptcy and walk away and take my wife to dinner.

Exactly. And it's shocked. Is there a fix for that? Or is it just like so intricate that if you put enough lawyers on it, they'll figure out a way to get into bankruptcy court and hide? But was it successful for Johnson? No, they tried three times. And ultimately, the court said, see, what Johnson and Johnson wanted in that,

And that was to basically absolve the company, Johnson and Johnson, while sending this small company away. And so they wanted to basically have a release. And ultimately, the court said, no, if you want to go into bankruptcy, there's a way to do it. You send the whole company into bankruptcy. You submit to the bankruptcy court. You put all your assets there. And we will figure, and they didn't want to do that.

Which court made that determination? In the tort court. Bankruptcy court. Oh, the bankruptcy question. Okay. I mean, the whole thing, so they started out filing the bankruptcy in North Carolina. The North Carolina court said, you don't file your case here. You have nothing to do with North Carolina.

They sent it to New Jersey. The court of appeal said, not in this court, you can't do it. So they went to Texas where they thought they had a favorable judge. Right. And ultimately, that judge said, there's no way you should be in bankruptcy. There's no way you can get what you want out of this court. Even in Texas. I don't want to say that, but yeah, even in Texas.

All right, well, this is, I really appreciate you catching this up on this. It's a fascinating story. It's disturbing, but it really does, I think, illuminate, like, both what, you know, trial lawyers do, but also the sort of ways in which corporations function. And I imagine like the individuals in the corporation, there was nobody in there going like, I'm going to lead the charge for us to do the right thing here and lose. I wish there was. Of course.

I wish there was. And, you know, it's like everything else in our world today. You'd like to think if I was in that situation, I would have been that guy. I hope I would have been that guy. We all hope we would have been that person. That person is going to get fired. Sadly, it did not happen here. And I truly hope, you know, while a lot of these women have passed,

I truly hope that they get them and their families, who has left, get some measure of comfort from what we've done. That's our goal. Christy, thanks so much for your time. Always. I really enjoy speaking of you. Yep, thanks. All right, folks.

And I think we have our next guest is coming right now. and I will I am you his name it's Caleb Cunningham and bear with me sorry Caleb welcome to the show

you are working on a medical device case correct and I apologize for my voice in advance the desert air is not great for my allergies well that is also my excuse and it's not a function of the bourbon that I in.

This case is, I will say, gross. It's very serious and dangerous for people, can be. But when we started talking about it, I was like, I'm getting a colonoscopy. I'm due for mine. I get one every five years or something like that. And you're working on a case that involves the scopes. Right.

So most people don't realize that the scopes they use are reusable devices. So the scope they're putting in you has been in hundreds of patients before it was put in you. And so we rely on that and we think, oh, it's got to be sterilized. You know, there's some clean room somewhere that they're cleaning this out. And that's simply not the case. The way these things are cleaned, if you think of a complicated garden hose, they just run a brush. They can't see inside the garden hose. They run a brush through there.

They get as much as they can. And then they gas it. That's what they do. And so what happens sometimes is they call it proteinous fluid builds up. So it can be blood, it can be feces, it can be human necrotized tissue, builds up in there. The outside scabs over. And then when they stick it in the next patient, it cracks open. And so now you have feces or necrotized tissue or viral load or other bacteria, including superbugs, tuberculosis.

There's a documented case of HIV transmission from these scopes from a previous patient. And they've actually done genetic sequencing that they chase back to the scope that started these outbreaks. And there's more and more literature coming out about how serious these cases are. normally our immune system can fight some germs but you know and so you would think oh i'm a 40 year old or whatever i'm going in for a diagnostic procedure but it's not usually directly into the blood stream right so a lot of my clients have gone fully septic within 48 hours or just a few days from their scope procedure and you know sepsis is an infection in the blood yes a very life-threatening dangerous. Yes. So you have healthy people, nothing wrong with, doing just what you said. They're doing what the doctor told them to do. They're getting this checkup, this colonoscopy. And look, we've all had that grim and dignity of the prep. And we think, oh, the worst is over. And then at least we'll get some propothal and get some sleep out of it. Well, while you're under and they're rotoroturing you with this dirty device, you're gambling, unfortunately, with this infection.

Just one thing I should note is that we don't all get propothal. I went through a big fight. I don't know if Matt remembers this. I went through a big fight with my insurance company when they said, you've got to get local. What does that mean? The propothal is actually just when you have an anesthesiologists come in. There are other doctors who just provide you like a twilight.

thing that they can do. It's actually a separate, fascinating conversation because the propothnol knocks you out. A lot of insurance companies won't pay for that anesthesiologist. The customer has to pay for sometimes the insurance, but what it is, it's just a way to increase the efficiency of the doctor

who doesn't have to put you out. He just comes in and does the roto rooting, as you say. and that's a medical cost issue that's actually for another day. But okay, so what is the rate, what is the rate of incidents? So that's the interesting thing. As you may know, this is not a mandatory report country. You do not have to report device failures in this country until it gets the manufacturer. They have to mandatory report it, but a lot of hospitals don't report this.

information. And so when we look at countries where there are mandatory reporting, like France, for instance, they have a lot higher failure rate. Well, that's just not true. It's just because they have to report every failure. We don't have to report every failure. So this is this more systemic problem with regulation. So we anticipate that only about 10 to 15 percent are actually reported. Some estimates are as low as 4 percent of all failures are reported. Most folks, they go to a gastro doctor who has a little shop, right, that's not a part of the hospital, an endoscopy center or something like that. That's where you have the scope procedure.

But when they get sepsis, they end up at the AR. And those are two different facilities that don't necessarily talk to each other. And so a lot of times they're not blaming the scope because they don't know. They'll note in the medical records, what I see a lot in the medical records is, oh, they had a scope within 24 hours or whatever. They're checking for perforations, but they're not checking for dirty scope. The introduction of some type of a super bug or viral load. All right.

But okay. So with the caveat that anywhere from, you know, 85 to 95% are not reported, what's the rate of reported ones? So the rate of reported ones is about 2,000, 3,000 in the literature here in the U.S. We anticipate. Out of like how many opportunities for. an endoscopy or... So there's millions. There's millions of procedures.

But our research believes there's 20 to 30,000 failures in the U.S. annually. Now, you say, you know, where are you playing the odds, which we do, unfortunately, in this country a lot with medical devices. But this is a fairly significant failure rate. When you look at the level of infection, it's even higher. So some studies that have come out have shown up to 95% of all patient-ready scopes are contaminated. with viral load in the plastic. And so it's just a crapshoot if your antibodies are good enough to fight it off.

Particularly what we see is when they do a polyectomy. So they do the scope in a colonoscopy, right? There's a mucosal wall that generally protects your body, right? The intestines are gross. And so there's this layer in there that generally protects you. When they do the polyectomy, though, they've breached that. If there's, if there's polyp that they remove. Correct, correct.

Or they've sampled. Right, that's part of what they're doing is sampling. Do you have pre-cancer or something like that? Now they've breached that barrier, and that is allowed this dirty scope to put. Plus, they've used, you know, again, if we think of the scope as a complicated garden hose, they've deployed some of the mechanisms that are generally in that sheath. Really where we see the highest failure rate is duodenum scopes for ERCP procedures. So that's the bile ducts.

Yes. That doesn't have as much protection as, say, an endoscopy or, colonoscopy. That's not what that body part is designed to do. And there's a little elevator and actuator because it has to rise up and stuff. So you have a perfect storm of lots of little moving parts, a very nasty area of the body as far as bile and contamination. And then it's, once it's in there, the body doesn't know what to do. And so we have a lot of folks dying from this, unfortunately, that we've seen as we've taken on clients, you know, their loved one has passed from an ERCP procedure and it's within, you know, 30 days, most of them within a few

days of this procedure, they go septic and they pass. So the alternative, I mean, look, there's there's risk in every medical procedure. That is the nature of it and you weigh that risk. But we go in with that risk, we go in saying like, well, the risk that we're taking has been minimized. It is like the minimal risk. I need a colonoscopy. I go get one and I trust that anything that can be done to minimize the risk is being done. Well, unfortunately, that's naive. And I wish we lived in a world where that was true. But these companies are profit-based companies and they are wanting to make as much money as possible. They have known this particular

company was prosecuted criminally and convicted criminally for bribing doctors and failing to report failures, device failures that they were aware of. It's one of the only times I've seen a criminal successful criminal prosecution. One of their vice presidents got a felony conviction for what they did and they've continued to do it. Was it associated with this problem? Yes. How is that what percentage of this how many different devices are there on the market? Oh so there's quite a few devices and the FDA has even led an import ban last year, which I've never seen in my career for a major manufacturer. But the interesting thing is, is an import ban is not a recall. So they've stopped new ones from coming in, but the hospitals are free to use the ones that are already

here indefinitely because there wasn't a recall. And those weren't just, those weren't the gastric scopes, but bronchioscopes, laparoscopes, and several other types scopes made by the same manufacturer at the same plant. So there's no difference. It's really terrifying this particular. How many percent? What percent? What market share do they have? Up to 85 percent based on their records. I mean, so they're the thousand pound gorilla in this space. Interestingly, what agency should say like, hey, wait a second. Remember all this other stuff that we did? You need to do a recall of all this. Well, the FDA ideally would be the agency to do that. But unfortunately, as we've seen a lot of times, for whatever reason they failed to do that.

There's been letters sent by the FDA for what's called 483s where they've said, hey, you're not reporting these failures accurately. You're not complying accurately. And that's before the import ban. There's an interesting study the FDA did where they said, hey, we're going to take these experts, and we're going to try to follow your instructions for cleaning and see what percentage fail. And this was on the ERCP machine, the duodenum scope. 87% failed at some critical.

step of the cleaning process. They failed in, you mean, they were assessed after each part of the cleaning process, and despite the fact that they were cleaned in the way that the manufacturer said, these people failed to meet the standards that the manufacturer said. The problem is that the standards the manufacturer said are not humanly possible to follow. Then there's other research, and this is the FDA's on knowledge. This is a study of the FDA Commission that says that. Then further, one step further, there's a lot of literature, scientific literature, where these scientists have said,

hey, we have complied with everything you told us to do, and it's still contaminated. We're still getting viral load. We're still getting tissue or what they call debris out of this scope. Even though we've complied, there's one study, I think it was 20 or 40 times they tried to clean it in compliance with the scope, and they were still pulling out bacteria from that scope. I'm just thinking about my colonoscopy that's coming up. It's gotten that much more disturbing. What is there?

And so you guys are looking for what? I mean, obviously compensation for people who have been harmed by these. But really, these things, oh, and we should say, there is an alternative, right? It's single use. Which they make and is a growing market share for them. So they know they can make a single use device that doesn't have these issues. It exists. They make it.

But it's a cost issue for the insurance companies. And so you're seeing more and more market share move towards the single use device. But they can also say, hey, if you have a superbug, don't get this scope procedure. So there's other things they can do. There are tests they can do, very cheap test they can do to say, does this scope before we use it on little Timmy produce bacteria. Is their viral load or their proteins that are coming off the wash?

So they have very inexpensive cheap means at their disposal. They just don't want to do it. Because that would be emitting a problem. And that would create more liability. So they'd just rather go to court. They're going to try and basically avoid

any type of like a finding or maybe they'll do a settlement and sweep it under the rug is there like we're like US attorneys

what about state AGs I mean aren't there like well they usually medical device regulation is on the federal government so the state AGs really can't do much because again this is so it falls to plaintiffs attorneys a lot and I know

people see the billboards for car crashes and things and I'll agree with them on a lot of those complaints but plaintiff's attorneys have time and time again found these issues and created change. You know, I'm one of the trial attorneys with hernia mesh. I've been very fortunate to be involved in that case. Before the attorneys got involved, this wasn't an issue. Hernia mesh is a medical, I don't know, we call it device.

It is a device, yes. That they used to repair almost like, it's almost like what you use, like drywall. takes in some way. That's a good way of talking about it. And there were several devices that they knew they had problems with, but they kept selling them. And so multi-billion dollar lawsuits later, those devices are either off the market or coming off the market, and the people who've been injured by them have been compensated. Is it, could a, could actions that you guys take cause them to recall the ones that are out there already? Absolutely.

Or is there also liability? I mean, should hospitals that are aware like, okay, or insurance companies aware that, like, this is dangerous, this is going to cause, this could cause other issues. Do they have liability at one point? Well, certainly the manufacturer is going to blame them. Right. that's going to be their first step is, hey, you didn't follow instructions. Well, but if they know there's nothing they can do, I mean, the manufacturer has ultimate liability. It's quite clear.

But if I know that I've got a product that, you know, is design, it has a design flaw, which is what it sounds like, right, that there's no way to clean this. And I own one of those products and I'm using it. at what point do I have liability for having that awareness? Well, and so that's an interesting question because, again, that's going to be a specific question. Because what did you know? We know knowledge. Right. Knowledge is a loaded word.

You know, they'll say, well, we didn't know that they were dirty. We didn't know that they could be cleaned. We relied on the manufacturer and that sort of stuff. You know how lawyers are. Right. But I think they've been misled. I think a lot of them have been misled by companies over the years to, believe this device is safe. And there is a cavalier attitude amongst a bunch of surgeons because

they'll say, oh, I've never seen an infection. Well, you're the scope doctor. You're not going to see the infection because once I get septic, I'm not coming back to you. I'm going to the ER, which may not even be in the same hospital group or whatever. So again, I had an endoscopy fairly recently and I was talking to him before I went under. Again, based on my health issues, I decided, you know, I had to move forward, but I have more knowledge, a lot more knowledge, than the average person would be. And I was educating the doctor before I went under about what some of these issues were because he wasn't aware.

It's unfortunate, you know, nobody cares more about your health than you do. And ultimately, we're responsible for trying to educate ourselves and educate sometimes our own doctors, unfortunately. Yeah, I mean, if the doctors don't know, it's much harder. Right. You know, we don't go to them. They're not selling us like a stereo or something where you can go out. And I read this is the top rated.

Wow. So I guess for folks out there who have had some type of incident after a colonoscopy and endoscopy, this is something they should look into in terms of like finding an attorney who's doing this case. Where is the case in this at this point? So we're filing cases across the country. what they need to realize is that there's a time limit, right? So there's a statute of limitations on cases. You only have a certain period of time to file.

But even with that, we're only taking cases that my firm is only taking cases that had the infection within 30 days of the scope procedure. And they have to meet some other criteria, but that's because we're going to have an expert, a doctor who looks at this. And he has to be able to say, I've ruled out everything else. Right. They could have caused the infection. So ideally, you know, you have somebody who's 40 years old, they come in, they're great health, they have no infection, They're not on dialysis. They're not on chemo.

There's no reason for this person to be sick. They have a scope procedure at noon today, and by 8 o'clock at night, they're in the hospital with sepsis. You don't have to be Dr. House to figure out why that happened. There's no cuts. There's no open wounds. There's no predisposition to this. The only thing that has happened to this person is this diagnostic scope procedure. Those are the type cases that we're collecting.

Those are the type cases that we're filing. And again, we design this criteria in, in consultation with infectious disease experts. Caleb Cunningham, thanks so much for your time today. I really appreciate it. Disturbing and enlighten. So, well, that freaked me out a little bit. Yeah.

I got to have lunch. They dust you with asbestos and then they put a dirty rotor up when they try to find it. you guys want to shift me I think that'll be it for guess so you can switch that camera can you switch the camera there we go yeah well I mean there it is I mean those are all sort of fascinating and in some instances sort of gross cases

but it gives you a taste of like of the way that the regulatory agencies and the corporations function. And I think in a lot of instances, we have a lot less sort of like regulatory oversight than we imagine. And, you know, that's a problem. A lot of times Europe has a lot more of this in many instances. Tomorrow on the program, I don't know what guests I'm going to have.

I looked for them the day before, and there was a very big case against META and the attorneys around. I'm trying to locate that person. But I guess we can move on to other parts of the show. Might as well make it a freebie Thursday. Yeah. Right? We've got about, what, 40 minutes left or so?

Sure. What type of clips should we get into here? We could do Pete Heggzeth. Oh, yeah, this is a big story, right? Yes, yes. So Pete Hegseth, the articles of impeachment were introduced in the house. I think it was yesterday. Oh, we should also say.

say we have some breaking news, right? Yeah. What a coincidence. The Democrats are finding new ways to keep Trump's war in Iran going. The House just failed to pass the war powers resolution conveniently by one vote, 213 to 214. And the one Democrat who voted to let Trump continue waging this criminal war, is Jared Golden, who is leaving Congress. It's just, we know that Jeffries has the capacity with these votes,

and we know that they use a rotating villain strategy to disperse blame, and Golden is not going to be in Congress, so he can be the fall guy, and he might get another, I don't know, $500,000 in whatever board seat contract that he gets with a defense contractor over this, so it's a win-win. for Golden and for the Democrats, a Democratic leadership. Wasn't the last vote? There were four, right? There were four.

But the reporting was that they had the votes and they punted Meeks and Jeffreys. And they didn't force the vote on this prior to the two-week recess, which has enabled much of this horror as well. That they had the votes before the recess? That was, Axios was reporting that and it was kind of, well, they said that they had every Democrat on board and they also had, they felt Bobert said, or not Boeberts, sorry. Nancy Mays said that she was going to vote against it. I need, this is breaking news, so I want to see how the vote shook out, but. Yeah, they were supposedly had the chat. They were all there and then said, but we don't have enough Republicans. And then Nancy Mace broke. And they broke, I thought too, but maybe not. And then they're saying, well, now we don't have time for it. We're going on vacation. And they come back from vacation and what a surprise.

There's one Democrat there to kill it. This is why the party is hated. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if Golden just simply voted against this. I mean, but it's possible that I don't know. If Jeffries can't, we need somebody who can. Right, right. So it's either incompetence or he didn't whip the votes that he needed in the two-week recess. And were there other Democrats who voted?

Or was it a party line vote aside from that? It was every Democrat except for Golden and Massey voted with the Democrats. And there was a Republican that voted present. Warren Davidson. Interesting. I mean, it's just a little convenient that along these narrow margins, there's always just one Democrat ready to, ah, we came up so close. It's getting too obvious.

This is broken containment. It's not just people who follow this stuff closely. It's becoming, as I say now, a meme that Democrats do this. And that Israel controls Congress. Like that's basically, it's become a broadly understood. and this is what we're talking about with the Democrats not engaging democratically with their base. Like, it's more than just elections. It's about showing responsiveness when you're governing.

That's a really, can I just jump in on that point? Like, there's all this, you know, third ways when they're like, what's the best way to win X or Y seat? And I'm somewhat agnostic about that. If you can win other ways, fine. I do know that governing is not. does not go well with these people. Lewis, Mansion, Fetterman, all these people. Like, they're the problem when it comes to actually governing.

And it's, they don't believe you on democracy when you're not responding to, like, the support for Israel's actions in the Democratic base with Democratic voters is in the single digits. You know, over 70% of Democrats thinks Israel's committing genocide. How can you not get the entire caucus on board? I mean, and this war, this war, of course. Yeah, but that's what they, but they see this as a way to hurt him. They don't want to get in the way of Trump hurting himself. And it's a twofer because the Zionist lobby wants the war anyway.

So you can hurt your opponent politically and give the lobby what it wants. I think this is most prominent in the, in the Senate. Now, of course, Democrats don't control the Senate, but Chuck Schumer, willfully voting against his own caucus and, um, uh, he's a zealib. But like, what is Jillibrand's excuse? I mean, like, it's honestly, it's incredible to me. I, that she still thinks you're going to control the Democratic senatorial campaign committee. How's that been going? Because last I saw, even with all of your big money, Platner just outraised their pet candidate Mills, who isn't seemingly even trying it.

anymore. Haley Stevens is cratering in Michigan and they're looking for an off-ramp with McMorough. And like, you want to take credit for Sherrod Brown? He's already been in power and his race, he should be running away with it more than he is. They are failure. She's a failure and she's corrupted. Like, you can't even blame religious zealotry for this in the way that I think Schumer really does, you know, is, is extreme as a Zionist. But, but, but, but, but, With Gillibrand, what is it? Just racism or corruption? What is it?

It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both. It can be both. All right. Speaking of religious zealotry, members of the House have brought impeachment, not proceedings, but have raised an impeachment act, a bill against Pete Hegsseth.

and this coming in the wake or just before Pete Hanks's religion. I mean, this is sort of, it's sort of amusing, I guess. It's also sort of terrifying. Pete Higgs thinks he's waging a religious war. It's just that he doesn't quite know his religion in the way he thinks he does. quickening instrument. If nothing else will do to sever me from my sins, Lord, send me such sore and trying calamities

as shall awake me from my earthly slumber. It must always be best to be alive to thee whatever be the quickening instrument. Whatever be the quickening instrument, it's almost never what we've, well, sometimes it's what we want it to be, but often it's exactly the opposite of what we think we want, but Jesus Christ knows exactly what we need. And that was, everyone was looking for something else in Jesus' time.

We often look somewhere else and look at trials through the wrong lens, and Jesus understands what kind of recipe we need for his purpose. Which leads me finally to a prayer that I'll read, which was also handed to me a couple of days ago, delivered from the lead mission planner of Sandy 1. Sandy 1 were the A-10s that were a part of the daylight rescue mission of 44-alpha, dude 44 alpha out of Iran. And if you know anything about Sandy's, their job is to bring those 8-10s. I just want to just sort of catch you up to what's going on here.

this the secretary of war as he calls himself actually the secretary of defense is up there explaining to what seemed like a lot of military personnel at the Pentagon why we're doing this

and apparently has a lot to do with J.C. And then he goes into this because he's such a god-faring man and knows his Bible. Here he is. Alpha out of Iran. And if you know anything about Sandy's, their job is to bring those A-10s and put them in between the enemy and that downpilot. And so their job is to literally sacrifice themselves for someone else.

And in Iran, in contested territory, that's exactly what they did. So this prayer was recited by Sandy 1, which is one of the Sandys. to all Sandy's, all those A-10 crews, prior to all C-SAR missions, but especially this C-S-SAR mission that happened in real time. They call it C-Sar-2517, which I think is meant to reflect Ezekiel 25-17. So the prayer is C-Sar 2517, and it reads and pray with me, please. The path of the downed aviator is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of camaraderie and duty shepherd the loss through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down

upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to capture and destroy my brother. And you will know my call sign is Sandy One when I lay my vengeance upon thee. Oh my God. I can hear Samuel L. Jackson in my head. Yes. Can we play at least the audio from that? We have one that plays them both simultaneously. Yes, someone put it together. Let's let's see that. So the prayer is Cesar 2517 and it reads and pray with me, please. The path of the downed aviator is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of camaraderie and duty, who in the name of charity and good will, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger.

And I will attempt to capture and destroy my brother. And you will know my call sign is Sandy one when I lay my vengeance upon. And you will know my name. is the law when I lay my vengeance upon thee. Okay. Well, I mean... Oh, my God. Samuel Jackson did it much more dramatically.

Let's face it. But at least, right? I mean, I'm no Christian, but at least they're just both quoting a Bible verse. Isn't that right? Sort of. They're more quoting Tarantino 2517. There are a couple sentences from Ezekiel 25 that are borrowed, but it's mostly Tarantino's prayer. Tarantino is, you know, he's preaching the gospel.

He's living in Israel now, right? That's right. Just to get closer to God. So I can see why they got confused. What is with plagiarism and this administration? Melania's like, you stole my whole goddamn flow. Like, I mean, Come on. And I think people have to be sabotaging him behind the scenes, right?

This is embarrassing. No, this is what, like, religious, like, people in the military think. This is how religious they are. They don't know Jack about anything. And they'll just quote Tarantino thinking it's the actual Bible. But how did they even come across it? Because they cribbed it from this movie. It's probably Chad GPT.

No, they took it from San Diego, because they thought he's bad ass. Oh, and they think it's an actual Bible verse. They assumed Tarantino took it from the Bible. Why would you assume that? because they don't actually read the thing that they're doing for Sunday school, we're watching Pulp Fiction. Are they going to sue Tarantino for fraudulently making them

No, Tarantino's going to be like, I thought it was fucking awesome, okay? It's really good when it did. It got me about $2 million in royalties, are right? It's true. There's a lot of people who are going to watch. There's a lot of people who are going to watch that movie.

now just for the sake of I got some from the book of Sam Cedar here let's try this hearken unto these words of warning the combined treasuries of OSI and D-I shall be depleted in the year 2035 even as written in the previous scrolls

and when that day comes the treasury shall have sufficient tribute to pay but 83% of a scheduled benefit nonetheless they can raise the cap Who wrote that? You did, brother? It's all written.

Apostle Sam. It is written. That is hilarious. Well, you can't, I guess he, you can't, you can't impeach him for that. There's another Pete Hickset, excerpt here from a different speech at the Pentagon. I'm curious to get your opinion on the same. because I think invokes maybe the Old Testament, which I'm not going to lie, I'm less familiar with.

Yeah. I am also not fully briefed on the Old Testament. I know that's hard to believe, Brian. But I don't hear. I'll take my best shot. We urge this new regime to choose wisely. Speaking of choosing wisely, a note to the press, to the press.

Corps to the American media. As I just can't help, but notice the endless stream of garbage, the relentlessly negative coverage, you cannot resist pedaling. Is he going to cry? Despite the historic and important success

of this effort and the success of our troops. Sometimes it's hard to figure out what side some of you are actually on. It's incredibly on patron. going to blow his nose into that American Henke. Not this exact same press corps, but

at least an older press corps. It's a creation. Bent over backwards during the Biden administration. To explain away, you explained away, the disastrous and disgraceful Afghanistan withdrawal. You called it the greatest

airlift in American history. It's almost like you're cheering only for one side. This past Sunday, I was sitting in church with my family. And our minister preached from the book of Mark, the third chapter. And in the passage, Jesus entered a synagogue and healed a man with a withered hand.

The Pharisees came to watch. And as the scripture reads, they came to see whether he, Jesus would heal him on the Sabbath. So that they might accuse him. You see, the Pharisees, the so-called and self-appointed, elites of their time, they were there to witness, to write everything down, to report. But their hearts were hardened.

Even though they witnessed a miracle, it didn't matter. They were only there. Are you trying to figure out that the analogy is Trump and Christ? Yeah, oh, definitely. I mean, first off, this is not this is not the Old Testament. You're right. It's the New Testament. I'm Catholic.

We don't read the Bible. and it was not a synagogue at that time. It was obviously a temple, but whatever. And the Pharisees, I don't know, they would refer to themselves as reporters. Or elites. It's quite clear, though. The Jews are out to get Jesus over and over again. And I just want to make that clear.

That's what the answer is. I didn't know what Pharisees meant until I just looked it up because I'm very Bible illiterate as well. There was a group of Jews. A couple different sects of Jews, the Sadducees, the Pharisees, one other. That's a little on the nose then from Hegseth saying essentially. The Pharisees were the priests, essentially, I think, and the Sadducees were not. And they were the ones who didn't, hey, Jesus, don't tip over our money. changing, I don't know if it was money changing, but, you know, our, our, our, our, our, our, the sacrifice table, essentially, where we have the sacrifices that we're going to do.

All right, but continue. I'm curious where he's going to this. Oh, sorry. Let me pull it up again. I thought we were done with that clip. Give me a second. Because he's going to say that the press is, like the Jews. And he and Trump are, of course, like.

Christ. Like Christ. The Pharisees came to watch. And as the scripture reads, they came to see whether he, Jesus would heal him on the Sabbath so that they might accuse him. You see, the Pharisees, the so-called and self-appointed elites of their time, they were there to witness, to write everything down, to report. But their hearts. were hardened. Even though they witnessed a literal miracle, it didn't matter, they were only there to explain away the goodness in pursuit of their agenda. As the passage ends, the Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel against him, how to destroy him. I sat there in church and I thought, our press are just like these Pharisees. Not, I think I've seen mega church pastors

give this same sermon when they're in trouble for like money laundering and stuff. Yeah. Sexual assault or something. Yeah. These Pharisees are coming after me.

In other words, or as Taylor Swift called them, the haters. Church and I thought, our press are just like these Pharisees. Not all of you. Not all of you. But the legacy.

Not all Pharisees. Trump hating press. Your politically motivated animus for President Trump nearly completely blinds you from the brilliance of our American warriors. That's what I've been saying around here. The Pharisees scrutinized every good act in order to find a violation, only looking for the negative. The hardened hearts of our press are calibrated only to impugn. I would ask you to open your eyes. to the goodness, the historic success of our troops, the courage of this president in this historic

moment. Ain't nothing going to break a must trend. That was accidental. It was kind of perfect because this is now the move with the Trump administration people that are in hot water. They just go after the press because he's probably going to be the person that bears the brunt of Trump being angry that Iran is basically forcing the U.S. to surrender. Well, also like you'd, you'd double down on the religious stuff. It's like how the Nixon people just became born again after they got disgraced because that's the last people that will

pretty much accept you. Well, it's also, it's attractive to people that are horrible because they can feel cleansed of their sins without having to do any introspection like therapy would do. That's what religion provides. Russell Brand.

Diddy, reading the Bible in courtroom during his federal trial, reports TMZ. Yeah. I'm sorry, Your Honor. Only God can judge me. Let's move on to anything else. Do we do these two Tim Poole comments? Can we cover seven really quickly just because I want to cover that poll?

Oh, yeah. That's interesting. Because this comes on the heel of another poll, right? Wasn't there a data for progress poll that was out? Yeah, Emerson, I, data for progress is really good. It trends liberal, trends left. So Emerson's a larger pollster. And Emerson found that since January, Abdul al-Said has gained eight points in the Michigan Senate Democratic primary. So Hassan is just sinking him like a lead balloon. McMorro has gained one to two points. Haley Stevens has lost. support significantly. So it looks like McMorro and Al-Sayyad are essentially tied. And this is a really long primary. August is the date. I forget exactly which date it is, but it's going to be a marathon. I've said that, I think, exact word to Abdul Al-Saii when he was in studio the other day.

And I just think we should be watching what happens also with Haley Stevens. If she continues to collapse and and and you have McMorrow auditioning for Zionist money and by throwing Hassan under the bus that's what that was they're going to be people that are putting a ton of pressure and by people I mean like the the leadership that supported Stevens they're going to be putting a lot of pressure on her to drop out so that so that they can coalesce behind McMorro Shannon Watts who is been going at um I'm already seeing a here's one of the tweets. Seems like one of these people should drop out for the sake of the party.

And I saw another person say that too. So the Stevens is going to, I would say, Is he going to drop out? Haley's comments, it's time to make yourself heard. Make sure you don't let those nasty McMorrow people try to pressure you out of the race. Right, right. Let your light shine, Haley. Honestly, this is what we're saying.

It would be pretty, pretty, be embarrassing for Schumer to have his candidate have to drop out of the race. Right. Look for them also to start speaking more highly. I'm very surprised by Malam McMorrow because she's, you know, basically replacement level in terms of Haley Stevens here. Yeah. And Elizabeth Warren, what the hell?

she should rescind her endorsement who's running that political aside of Liz Warren I don't know who advises her on that stuff It's crazy It's crazy And I

I I She also endorsed Grand Platiner Which is awesome But it's not very politically Courageous to do so at this point Because of how well he's doing Yeah

So I'm not sure Warren endorsement Really even means anything at all So it doesn't matter But I just found that For her sake It'd be nice to not have

real head scratches from people who are supposed to be leaders? I mean, I suspect it has some influence in that race. I think, you know, she gives a license for lefties. But I, you know, the Mallory McMurrow's response on single-payer health care was, I don't know if I remember a single response to any question, anywhere that I found more problematic than that. The argument that we shouldn't have single payer health care because would you want Donald Trump in charge of your health care

is so disingenuous and problematic in terms of people's support for government. I mean, first of all, Donald Trump is in charge. of one-third of Americans' health care, arguably the most vulnerable, because we're talking about old people and children and through Medicaid and Medicare. And the idea that's a doctor. That is the reason why we wouldn't have health care, because RFK Jr. might be even remotely associated with it. I mean, that's just absurd.

That is an argument as to why we shouldn't have government for anything. I mean, this is the thing, if you are willing to make that argument about single-payer healthcare, I understand, like, people saying, you know, I would disagree, but if she came up there, the country's not ready for this, or it's not, you know, it's very complicated and how we would go about it. And we need to, you know, all the hemming and highing. But to make this argument, you then can. make that argument about every single function of the U.S. government. Yeah.

And rarely do those people make those arguments when it comes to things like spying authority, as we're seeing in the Senate right now. Yeah. And it's also why we hate those anti-tax arguments, sorry, Sam, but from the Democrats, like on, you know, slashing taxes as opposed to for some kind of, like, cheap populism on this front for middle income folks. It's we have to be making the case for more taxation, but specifically on on billionaires, to break their backs and then also to fund social programs.

And I guess McMorro previously volunteered for Warren and had endorsed her for her presidential run. So that might be why she weighed in. But that answer to your point, Sam, was so cynical. and messed up, like, that should, she should not be endorsing a candidate that has that view about single payer health care. I mean, it was so disturbing because I've seen people weasel around Medicare for All, and that's an option on the table for her. But the root that she took, I think belies either a willingness to say just about anything, or fundamentally, you're talking about somebody who has real hostility.

to government doing anything. And that's really problematic. Let's have some good news, though, shall we? Let's go to New York. You mentioned that taxation of the wealthy. We've had this problem in New York City for, I feel like, a couple of decades, where massive apartments are purchased. It's basically just sort of like,

a way for wealthy people to park their money. And, you know, maybe they come for X amount of days out of the year or not. But I suspect a lot of them, you know, do. And certainly we also have people who, and I've talked to people about this. And I can't, like, they've actually said it to me. And I just like, I can't believe that someone would even articulate this. I just found it so sort of grotesque

but I remember one person said to me like I was at some type of party and you know like a party I don't normally go to you know sort of a more literary type of thing and the guy said to me my wife is out of town because she has to spend you know X number of days in Florida to make sure that she's

not in New York for tax purposes. The way it works in, in, he didn't know who he was talking to, did he? No. I mean, I just like, really, tell me more. Yeah. And they will check your phone. They will check where your phone was pinging.

Or they'll check your credit card use to, if they find out that you've spent whatever half of three, 65 plus one it is in New York City then you are subject to things like New York City income tax and New York City income tax

I mean tax in New York is high but wealthy people are really wealthy in New York you know a $5 million dollar apartment

is the is the lot of we're talking about. That's the threshold. So for like the tax that we're talking about here that Hockel then agreed to, it's second homes from out of staters that are worth $5 million or more. And apparently there are 59,000 units in New York City that would be subjected to this tax and it would raise half a billion dollars annually.

I know some wealthy people, not a ton, but I know some. And they have apartments where I walk in. I'm like, oh, wow. And none of them are $5 million. I can't even imagine. And, you know, obviously apartments go up to like 20, 30, I don't know, get incredibly expensive here, but $5 million apartment. But here is Zora Mamdani.

And remember, he is trying to get a full sort of sweet, if you will, no pun intended, of taxes on the wealthy. And so, like, I don't know how much money is going to be. raised with this every bit counts because of Eric Adams massive uh hole that he dug for mom donnie but the idea is is that like you're opening the door to the idea and introducing to people like what the wealthy are getting away with yeah i'm sorry like the idea that you can come have a five million dollar a million dollar uh apartment and not have to pay you pay um uh you know real estate taxes, I presume.

But to not have to sort of like pay for any of the services that you clearly use in New York, just keep your apartment safe for that matter. It seems absurd to me. And it's 500 million is what it would raise of the of the 5.4 billion dollars budget. No, it's not nothing. Yeah, it's a start. But it is a start. When I ran for mayor, I said I was going to tax the rich.

Well, today we're taxing the rich. I'm thrilled to announce we've secured a piettaire tax, the first in New York's history. This is an annual fee on luxury property is worth more than $5 million, whose owners do not live full-time in the city. Like for this penthouse, which hedge fund CEO Ken Griffin bought for $238 million. This pia deter tax is specifically designed for the richest of the rich. Those who store their wealth in New York City real estate,

but who don't actually live there. But even so, they're able to reap the huge financial rewards of owning property and, dare I say, the greatest city in the world. And most of the time, these units are sitting empty, since again, they don't actually live here. This is a fundamentally unfair system that hurts working New Yorkers. Now, it's coming to an end. This tax will raise at least $500 million directly for the city. It'll help fund things like free childcare, cleaner streets, and safer neighborhoods.

As mayor, I believe everyone has a role to play in contributing to our city. And some, a little bit more than others. Happy Tax Day, New York. Announcing it on Tax Day, too, like a boss. upset a lot of right-wing podcasters who are saying it was a call for violence by naming that guy in his apartment how dare he name a private

citizen in front of his place of residence or not residents the idea I mean I don't think you'd get five feet close to that building but no actually if anything this is a

call for taxation on people like that and a outlet instead of violence being one where they are going to contribute to society. I mean, if you're going to take your apartment and turn it into a safety deposit box that just accrues wealth,

it's basically a wealth storage thing that functions as a wealth storage because of all money that people who live in New York pay for services to create value in that apartment. That apartment, you could put that apartment in, I don't know, Loll, Massachusetts, and I got news for you, folks, it ain't going to cost that amount of money. And 10 years later, it's probably going to cost less than it does.

With all due respect to Loll, I didn't say Worcester, because Worcester actually is really on the rebound. But, I mean, that's the point. You got to contribute to that which is creating and saving and protecting your wealth. it's nuts and good for him I loved one of the top replies to that tweet was Linda Yakorino who was the CEO of Twitter right

that she did end up leaving and she ate all of Elon's shit when he took it over she said this is actually one of the scariest things I have seen it won't stop here and I hope not I'd like to get that tattooed on my body what a little

that is unbelievable the fear that it creates they're taxing piette d'er's it's great to go out for the thing with a French name first 100% take all the tax programs unpronounceable yes croutet is next

you hear that Scott Busson the taxing the crudice Let's check in on Tim Poole, shall we? Let's. Yeah, so Tim... This is a two-part story, isn't it? It is.

So Media Matters covered something he said here, and then he later responds to the outrage over Media Matters covering him, but doesn't get the amount of support that he wants from his co-host. So let's watch the thing that got on Media Matters radar first, which is him complaining about Candace Owens. I am frustrated by stupid people who won't use Google, who won't try to read, who say I don't need to read, who say things like Tim Poole call me a retarded because I don't outsource my thinking to books. Actual quotes from a person. I'm not a big book guy myself.

I read all the time, though. No. Pause for a second. Pause for a second. Shocking. Okay. He's not a big book guy. Brazil, he's reading news articles.

But let's remember. Yeah. I sat in his studio with him on November 1st, I think it was 20, 24, and questioned him on Social Security, which is the largest line item that we have that our government does. I mean, Social Security is one of the biggest expenditures. there's so much is such a huge part of what our government does and I questioned him on

assertion he made about Social Security I can't even remember exactly what it was at the time and he admitted to me that he read only the first paragraph of a story about Social Security stopped and then made these proclamations

that were completely wildly wrong and that were disproven in the second paragraph that was on paragraph on the screen. And he admitted that to me. Well, I didn't read past that. So when he says he reads a lot, I believe him. I just think he reads a lot of headlines.

Maybe. Maybe. Maybe he gets down through the first paragraph. But let's continue. Oats from a person. I'm not a big book guy myself. I read all the time, though. I read digitally and always have.

And I've always been an advocate for the internet. as you can get better update information. Also, don't take him down, keep them up. But he may be interested in knowing that there are digital companies of books that are available on your computer or your Kindle type of device. Who says they read digitally? It's, anyway. And in real time where books don't change. And if the information is outdated or bad, you can't fact check it.

You got to go on the Internet to do that. Well, here's what I see. Women largely are motivated by drama. And it is the most infuriating thing imaginable. They vote for drama. They vote for stupid interpersonal trash that does not matter to the function of a society. They vote for soap operas. The response is to all of this, it's just women, completely.

complaining like retards. Oh my God. That's such a hack. You know, I got to be honest. I said this in December. And it's what kicked off that little beef between, you know, Candice and I, where she says, we don't care about your midterms to me personally. I said, this is demoralizing, entirely demoralizing.

Women don't care about tax policy. They don't, they care about interpersonal drama. That's what's motivated them in politics. And we will. This is so good. I wonder if he thinks it's demoralizing to half the population to be told that, you don't get complicated things. So I was wondering how he,

what, Tim has his own version of Trump's weave, where I don't necessarily know where it's going, but then we get down to brass tax because he brings up voting. And that's what he's concerned about. Since Tim wasn't unable to continue taking Edward Gregorian money, He's been cozying up with both Benjamin Netanyahu, Netanyahu's Miami-based son who loves his show. He's been meeting with him, supporting Israel, and the Trump administration more directly.

Everything going, all right? Yep. Okay. And so he's upset that Candace Owens is not joining in being a Republican hack for the party right now, and she has a large female audience, and she's telling them, don't vote. he's upset that the midterms are going to go badly. And that's why he's saying that they're overly emotional and they only vote based on drama

because her female audience is not interested in voting for Republicans in the way that he wants. And what also is not clear is if he says, exactly what policies is it that he's supporting that the Republicans who need to hold on to the tax policies. Oh, tax policies. Yes. He needs more.

Yeah, I see. Okay. entirely demoralizing. Women don't care about tax policy. They don't, they care about interpersonal drama. That's what's motivating them in politics, and we will burn for it. Unlike Trump. What motivates women to vote is that Trump is the bad guy, not whether his policies make sense.

What motivates women is whether or not Charlie Kirk's wife betrayed him, not whether or not a leftist who wanted to change policy or stop the advancement of turning point. killed him or not. There you go. So that's what Media Matters isolated. That is so unfair. Yeah. That is so unfair. I can barely understand what he was saying there.

Well, just remember all the macro statistics he cited because that's going to come. And if you don't remember any, it's because he didn't cite any. But this is how they start their response to this section here. This also George Santos is in the building. So we should say the first. the first one when was the first one uh late march okay late march and and just the other day uh george santo's uh is in there he's no longer in prison uh and uh although in many respects i imagine yeah it's like a torture chamber to be in the room with uh tim pool but nevertheless let's continue

here's why i'm not going to get an a bc daytime talk show uh phil you want to read that one Tim Poole, women vote for drama. They vote for stupid, interpersonal trash that does not matter to the function of a society. I don't mean to. I just, the reason why he's not going to get a daytime talk show on ABC is because you won't take his hat off. And we just can't underestimate how much real estate the view takes up in conservative pundits' minds. I'm never thinking about the view ever. But they're like post-men.

Anapausal women on television with opinions? It just breaks their brains. And by opinions, I mean emotions that are completely untethered from any rationality, I should say. Yeah, I'm like the policy brain, Tim Pua. Vote for stupid interpersonal trash that does not matter to the function of a society. They vote for soap operas. I took that out. I retweeted that and I said, it's all true because it is all true.

It's not all true. It is all true. I have a major female audience, so please don't say that on my audience. It is a generalization. Girls, I got you. I'm going to say this again, George. I am going to get business cards printed out that say, if someone presents macro-level statistics

and you respond with an anecdote, you are low- IQ. How small would that front have to be? Or I will say a person who responds to macro-level statistics with an anecdote is low- IQ. That way, when I point out to... Sorry, I just have to underline this. The macro level statistics are apparently him saying that women, because of what Candace Owens is doing, support drama and soap operas. He hasn't cited a macro level statistic. Oh, it's a macro level assertion.

Generalization, I think, as one of his co-hosts will say later. And this is also, by the way, there's so much projecting here. He's so emotional about everything. He doesn't read and is clearly self-conscious about it and brings that to the, because it's in his subconscious. and then this is what Tim does all the time. He did it with both of us in our debates. Coming up with anecdotes, what about that book, he said,

that I, you know, didn't think should be banned, and that was why I was a pedophile. That was the entire... Yes, his whole show is anecdotes. No, I think I actually said it to his face and said, you keep coming to me with anecdotes, and I'm coming to you with statistics.

Perhaps we're overestimating ourselves, but we may have gotten in his head a little bit. Well, he's about to show you how unemotional and detached he can be. Okay. A level statistics with an anecdote is low IQ.

That way when I point out to, when I talk to a woman and I say something like, well, in general, women vote for drama and interpersonal stuff. And they go, well, I don't. I can hand them the card.

And that's the point. It's not about women. It's about any group. Because this is what you see all the time. The truth is, women as a voting block, do trend this way.

Not every single one, of course. In fact, maybe about 35 to 40 percent do not. But as a voting block, it is reliable that if you want to maximize your female votes, social, trend, cultural, those are your key elements, which is why Candace Owens has a Stanley cup on her desk. This is a status symbol among women. It's not just about... Do you just pick up a Stanley Cup? Very feminine of you to have one. A Stanley Cup, a Stanley Cup

in terms of like a water thing or like the... It's a brand. It's a brand. It's a brand. It's not a hockey. It's a brand of water can that was popular on TikTok six months ago. Okay, wait a second. Wait a second. So if I understand what Tim Poole is saying here that he backed off it, it's not all women. It's only 60 to 65 percent of women. They vote as a block, which is actually not.

Block doesn't mean what he thinks it does. I mean, a majority of white. Trump won white women, by the way. There's no, there's no head woman who gets up and says, guys, this is the way we're voting. That is. So it's not like voting like a voting block. Sort of like an inappropriate usage of that term. But this dude is now commenting on Candice Owens having a specific brand.

of water thing. Look at behind him. Like everything he has there is supposed to sort of like this is me with my skateboard. Here's my katana. You know, like here's a gun hanging. Yeah, right.

You got my amp. Yeah, like, hey, I got all my mail gear here. It just happens to be behind me in my studio by mistake. Yeah. Whereas I just put my policy calculations. Yeah. We didn't have, I,

I screwed up when I bought this compound. I didn't get closet space. So I'm just going to put all my gag gear behind me. Go ahead. Trend, cultural. Those are your key elements, which is why Candice Owens has a Stanley Cup on her desk. This is a status symbol among women. It's not just about what she's saying because what she's saying is retarded, like debacle or kerflaffle.

These are not words. But women care largely about the imagery and the high status of it. So when Candace, DeFat, just freeze it right there. He's got a, look at what he has. Like his prominent skateboard stand behind it. Like, oh,

only women care about imagery. Well, dude, look at, look at your, why do you have a comic books behind you? Like, have a guitar or an amp. What the,

like, are you kidding me? You're like, I just need that skateboard really near me just in case. That's how I get here. Right. Oh, incidentally. Well,

does have trucks on it. Doesn't have trucks on it. But whatever. It's cool. He needs to be able to escape when they're coming for him, all those hunters with their guns. I mean, it is just fascinating how he has absolutely no idea that he's accusing Candace Owens of having a, and let's be clear, there's a lot of utility in having a water glass next to you because it allows you to drink. She's hydrating, yes. But behind him, he never turns on, he never plays the guitar there. He doesn't skateboard on a skateboard without truck.

sucks. He doesn't read those comic books that are behind him or whatever. Go ahead. This presents salacious of a drama like Blake lively. Oh my God. Brigitte McCrone has a penis. Women love it. That's why she has such a massive female audience. Guys don't. Our audience about 80% dudes. I know. And every time I come on, they're dying. They're like, why is he there? George can literally only talk about himself. Have you seen the viral video of the man, answering his wife's question like his wife.

I'm going to skip this just a little bit because it's just Tim talking about something irrelevant. I want to get to the part where he loads Does Tim's audience freak out that George Santos is there because he's gay? Is that what he's? No, because they really like that weird scammer, grifty gay guy with the long hair that goes on. I show they love him.

Milo enopoulos? No. He wears the cowboy boots. Oh, right. The guy that's going to primary John Cornyn if he doesn't agree to to the same fact. A weird guy. Yeah. They love him.

So George, maybe it's because he's a, I don't know. George just. A felon. I don't know. They don't care about that. Not engaged with what Tim is saying at all. And being like, and me, when I come up, people go crazy. Because you remember where I was saying, I was like, I'm going to meet with Jim.

I haven't seen him in a long time. So anyway, he tells us rambling, long-winded story. And then he goes, so, yeah, anyway, the guy that he worked with whose brother was friends with the chef actually has a restaurant downtown. And she goes, are you going to that restaurant? I was like, no, no, we're going for beers to talk. And then he walked at the door. And the joke was for men. This is how women answer questions.

It's true. And again, what irks me about stuff like this with media matters getting mad is getting mad, is that women get offended when men make observations from a male perspective that they wish did not happen. So when I say something like women vote for stupid interpret. Keep it up. Keep keep it. So in other words, when an entity makes an object. reservation literally quotes, men get mad that they have been shown this.

Like he once again is accusing Candace Owens. And I don't care about Candace Owens, but he's making an accusation and he is doing exactly what he is accusing women of doing. He is getting upset because Media Matters just pointed out that he said this. I mean, honestly, this should be put in... Yes. It should be analyzed psychologically in terms of like a case study on projection. He's done it now five or six times in this clip.

I'm sorry. Not analyzed. It should be in a museum. Right. Right. We don't even need to analyze it. Of art. The form and function of this projection is just fascinating.

That women get offended when men make. observations from a male perspective that they wish did not happen. So when I say something like women vote for stupid interpersonal trash, the rational response is not, F you, Tim Poole, don't talk about women that way. It's, well, I'd phrase it less harshly, but women prefer social issues over logistical issues. Men prefer hearing about objective straightforward. Women love hearing about the personal. So it's subjective versus objective. Which is why you bitch about can of souls all the time. I mean, what is this now? They're just upset about their audiences. Okay, you want to got to get to some. Okay. This is a longer clip. Okay, okay, okay.

This is not a wrong statement. It's offensive to women not on the merits, on the intention, on the emotion. I got it. Yeah. If it was a psychologist making this statement, it would say women tend to. That would be the only difference in the statement. No, it wouldn't. It's a tendency. If it was written by a psychologist, it would say, as a voting block, women vote for issues of social importance. Yeah, there would be like a as a voting block. A vote for interpersonal issues. and cultural issues as opposed to objective functioning of society. I mean, it would be just be you would make sure that they know the entire Republican Party

voted on a cultural issue about trans people. That is what we were told. Like his entire, his entire ideology is a function of like cultural issues. And the idea that like women vote on based upon interpersonal issues, like, What does that even mean? Like, they have to know the candidate? Or is he saying, like, they just care about stuff like child care or paraprentileve, like actual material things.

Emotional stuff like that. Issues of social importance. Yeah, there would be like an as a voting, vote for interpersonal issues and cultural issues as opposed to objective functioning of society. I mean, it would be just be, you would make sure that they know it's a tendency and not a hard truth. No, that's not correct. Well, this, not all women do what you say they do. So that does it is not true.

Do you need the card? Do you need the card, Ian? I made those cards for you because of exactly what you're saying right now. You said at the top that it's a generalization. Ian, for the love of all that is holy, I literally just made a whole joke tirade about how people who respond to macro level politics with anecdotes are low IQ. I know. And then you just said it. Yeah.

Funny. It doesn't mean that your joke is true. It's a fact. Wait. Let me, pause. Just go back for five, because he went off the screen briefly when he screamed and I just want to make sure we get the... Also, let's be clear.

Ian is absolutely right here. Yes. Tim Poole said, like, well, maybe, you know, maybe 30 or 40% women, it doesn't apply to. And so Ian is just saying, you need to correct yourself to make it in line with the way that you've retreated now that Media Matters has called you out about this.

I mean, putting aside whether there's any evidence that 60% of women vote on, interpersonal reasons. I don't know what the fuck that even means. But Ian is doing what Tim says that he's doing, which is he's trying to be accurate with language and rational and says it's a tendency, which with Tim's own made up statistics, that that's just getting incredibly emotional about it. And he, and before that, he was saying how Candace doesn't use words correctly. And this is, this is his co-host trying to get him to use words correctly and he's not

getting it. Tim is acting like he made, he keeps saying macro statistics. He made a generalization just because he put a horseshit percentage on it. It doesn't make it any less of a generalization. Yeah. And not a hard truth. No, that's not correct. Well, this, not all women

do what you say they do. So that does not true do you need the card? Do you need the card, Ian? I made those cards for you because of exactly what you're saying right now. You said at the top that it's a generalization. Ian? For the love of all that is holy. I literally just made a whole joke tiring about how people who respond to macro-level politics with anecdotes are low-key. And then you just said it.

Yeah, funny. It doesn't mean that your joke is true. It's a fact. Okay, but I didn't use an anecdote either. Anecdotal evidence is saying not all women. Macro-necdotal. It would be like, I know a girl and she's not. That would be an answer.

Macro-level statistics don't need qualifiers. Wait, that's not, I'm saying you're claiming- I'm sorry. That's not anecdotal evidence. I think Timmy needs some chocolate in a hot water bottle. Tim does not know what anecdotal evidence means. It is not a macro. What is you say?

Macro statistics. Like, Tim, you haven't provided any of that. He's made a macro generalization. But she classified as a joke, by the way. That was based upon probably his own anecdotal experiences. And what it's really based on is, Canis Owens is getting clicks from a lot of women, and he's jealous about that. Yes, and once again, it's about freaking audiences.

And now he's mad that Ian is embarrassing him on his own show. With logic. With logic. Women are going to love this episode. About how people who respond to macro-level politics with anecdotes are low- IQ. And then you just said it. Yeah, funny. doesn't mean that your joke is true.

It's a fact. Or funny. Okay, but I didn't use an anecdote either. Anecdotal evidence is saying not all women. Macro- Antiddle would be like, I know a girl and she's not. Macro-level statistics don't need qualifiers. Bro, I'm saying you're claiming a generalization

and you didn't tell people that was a generalization in your statement. Can I can someone help? I don't know what to say. There is no help. I hear this stuff at all the time. You just got to sit back and enjoy the ride. Yeah, there is no argument. Anyway, Ian, I'm a guest here.

I'm trying not to break anything. This is the best part of the day. Santos fucking kills me. There's some funny stuff we don't have time for where George Santos says, like, actually the real problem is Republicans, straight men don't know how to talk to women, and he's the only one Republican that can, like, break 50% with them because he, like, compliments them on their nails. But, um... Yeah.

I don't know if I would trust George Chos to be a... woke gay man protecting our rights. He might be one of those gay men that are just like misogynist. He's busy scamming like kill shelters. Right, right. All right. We got to go. I think that's enough.

By the way, can I just say that the handing out the card is that's Bill Ingval's bit from Blue Collar Comedy Tour where he says if you're stupid, his catchphrases, here's your sign and he just changed the sign to card. So he's stealing from blue collar comedy.

Macro level politics. I'm talking, I'm doing macro level politics. Okay. I'm like a super army soldier. What does that mean? Macro level politics. I wouldn't expect you to know. Here's your card, Emma. Don't make me give you the card. We do macro level politics t-shirts. I'm sorry, all jokes about Tim Poole being a dumb, hypocritical bitch aside. The fact that these A-holes are so freely slinging the R-word is atrocious. And Tim commenting briefly on Blake lively discourse such as females' thing to do,

and all we heard about from the right-wing Gryftersphere for an entire year was their astro-turf to hate campaign to smear Amber Heard, an abuse victim, is just a constant reinforcement that these are just plainly bad people. Tequila Willie. Emma, hydration is clearly a bourgeois girl boss status signal.

Left is rage. I wish they would stop with the R word every sentence. Urban's wank. Snakes got a snake and I'll read two more. Genova witness. I'm not reading the Bible anymore. I'm going to follow teachings of a Jewish carpenter who wants to change the world and help people and to also

plant apples for some reason. And the final IAM of the day, Kailak. Oh my God, the fake version of the violence up for Pulp Fiction. I don't know that meant, but, uh, folks, your support makes this show possible. You can become a member, join the majority of port.com. When you do, you don't only get the free show free of commercials. We also get the fun half. Also, don't forget, just coffee. Co-op, Fair Trade Coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code majority. You get 10% off. It's a co-op, and they have a majority report blend.

So do it now. Matt, what's happening on the Matlackian Media universe? Oh, yeah. There's going to be a new Jacobin show tomorrow with Grace Blakely. Go subscribe to Jacob and Meg YouTube channel. Also follow my Instagram at Matt Leck, where I am closing in on 10,000 followers. Whoa. Matt, Brian, Emma.

Great job today, folks. See you tomorrow. It might take all the strength I got to get to where I want. But I know I'm going to get there when I just got caught. But see the truth and a love.