The Problem With Jon Stewart - The For Profit Presidency

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

As concerns mount over presidential profiteering, Jon is joined by Susan Glasser, New Yorker staff writer and co-author of "The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021," and Eric Lipton, investigative reporter for The New York Times. Together, they explore the scope of Trump’s business entanglements, discuss the challenges of covering these ethical breaches, and examine the legal and historical precedents that laid the groundwork for Trump’s unprecedented abuses of power. This podcast is brought to you by Ground News. Go to  https://groundnews.com/stewart to see how any news story is being framed by news outlets around the world and across the political spectrum. Use our link to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast> TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod   > BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/theweeklyshowpodcast.com Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic  Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Researcher & Associate Producer – Gillian Spear Music by Hansdle Hsu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hello, everybody. Welcome to the weekly show podcast. My name is John Stewart. It is Wednesday. May 14th, the president is in the middle of his tour of kings, his king of kings tour, kings of comedy tour, kings of corruption tour. He is on his way. I have to say, I don't know that I've ever seen the president so happy and comfortable. I think this is his happy place that, being with kings, having just a lot of camels. I would not be surprised if when the president comes back from the middle-laced, he ditches pantaloons. I believe he may think, you know what, these guys have it, the free-flowing robe, let the boys breathe, let me have it. Because I think the accoutrema of monarchy truly suits him. he seems happier maybe when he's done being president if i should qualify if he's done being president

that is where he will end up in the way that like certain like the shah of iran ends up sort of an exile somewhere else he may end up there because i think that's how he views the world i just who's in charge here that dude the dude with the robe who's got the giant sword he's in charge let's make a deal with him. It's why he fucking hates Canada in the EU now. It's like, what do I have to do? Well, we have a Congress, we have to check with them, and then the parliament's going to vote on it.

He's like, ah, just give me the plane, and I will give you these weapons. And that's how shit's going to go down. I'll be honest with you. I expect big things to come out of these meetings because this is the type of, deal making that he prefers. He doesn't want to talk about it. He sits, you saw it today. He sits, I was sitting with the Muhammad bin Salman. He's like, you should really take all the, you know,

everything away from Syria, the sanctions and everything. He's like, you make a very convincing case. I'll just go do it. Like he could come back. You don't even know what he's going to come back. He could come back and just be like Palestine's estate, actually Israel, you're out. And now he's got the South African refugees are allowed in because that's a genocide. I, you know, look, there's children in Gaza, apparently, that should get visas right away if that's going to be the rule. I mean, you don't know what's going to happen because there is no larger governing principle other than, I like these guys, I dig these guys, they treat me well, I'll treat them well, handshake, you scratch my back. It's pure transactional wildness.

And I think he prefers it. it's the level of the corruption because this is how those countries operate to begin with that they have sovereign funds they hey you know what we should do buy some golfers how much you think it would cost for a mickleson to 200 million dollars like trump is shopify for nations it's just all this stuff's coming up on my feet i guess they really know what i like let me just press this button hey look at that i just bought a golf course in doha boy I swear to God, he is a Greek mythological figure and not in the good way, in the, in the Icarus way, in the King Midas. Oh my God, I just, everything I want to touch should turn to gold.

Oh no, my balls. So we're going to talk, we're going to talk a little bit about these systems now and how we are operating as a country with two experts on the topic. And we'll get to to them right now. So corruption, conflict of interest, this is all the name of the game that we are talking and we're delighted to have our guest today. Susan Glasser, staff writer at the New Yorker, co-author of the divider, Trump in the White House, 2017, 2021, I'm assuming there will be a sequel because I don't know if you guys have heard.

He's back. And Eric Lipton, who is an investigative reporter in the Washington Bureau of the New York Times and has wrote about these issues. Susan and Eric, thank you so much for taking the time today. Eric, I'm going to start with you because you're in mid-curfuffle right now. You are curfuffling as we speak. You've been writing about these conflicts of interest and corruption. Can you explain to us very briefly what happened to ignite blue sky,

which turned into red sky when they got a hold of this? Eric, what happened? I've been writing about the Trump family for a decade now, and I've been watching the conflicts of interest that emerge from the mixing of their personal businesses with the governance of the United States. And, you know, at the times we're quite careful about the terms that we use. And what I'm seeing in this administration without question is conflicts of interest. These are not apparent conflicts.

These are real conflicts. I'm seeing ethics violations. I'm seeing, you know, unprecedented. kind of breaking of norms in terms of, you know, these financial conflicts. But when you use the word corruption to me, you really need a quid pro quo, which is you need to take a gift and then the action that comes as a result of that gift needs to be in response to that specific gift. And I think that there is the appearance of corruption and the governance is being corrupted. But whether or not President Trump is acting in a corrupt way.

I see. People were upset that you were not being definitive enough about calling it corruption because you were using the more legal definition, which has been watered down, I guess, by the Supreme Court. Is that sort of where all this is coming from? I mean, I relate more to the terminology like around a bribe. A bribe is something when you take money and you respond to that bribe offer with a direct, you know, with that cash.

You got to go full Menendez. Right. You got to go full. Gold bars. I have gold bars sewn into my jacket. Yes. And I am going to be now giving Egypt a better deal because of that. I think the governance has been corrupted through this process.

As to whether or not President Trump is acting corruptly is I'm observing and waiting for additional evidence. Agnostic. I'm interested, Susan, and what you think. Maybe you disagree. Susan, talk to me. Talk to me, Susan. This word corruption. Look, let's stipulate on the front end here that corruption knows no party and no bounds.

We are here in Washington, both Eric and I, and we've been around long enough to see Democrats and Republicans, of course, Menendez, not the only gold bar. I remember there was a congressman Bill Jefferson years ago. They found piles of cash in his freezer. In his freezer. Right. So I want to say that on the front end. However, I also want to say that even for we journalists who are generally allergic and should

use this word unprecedented very, very sparingly, that this is a fair word, in my view, to use right now for what's happening. And the reason that I think Eric is being cautious about the word corruption, it's good to be cautious. But what I would say is that that's what we used to have a justice department for. And the thing that I think is the particular tragedy of the moment is not only that Donald Trump and his family members are literally adding zeros to the amounts involved in any previous known examples. They're doing quite well. You know, they're adding a lot of zeros. There's no freezer big enough to put what they're getting into there. Can you put Air Force One in a freezer? No. But it's not only the scale and scope of the corruption that take it into a different

realm, but the fact that they've systematically gone after weakening the rule of law that would go along with constraining our leaders from accepting this kind of money from, you know, it used to be a big deal to do something that had the appearance of potential impropriety or the appearance of confruction. I mean, this is what a lot of Washington quote unquote accountability reporting was like when I got here as a kid right out of college in the 1990s. Okay, you know, there was a whole Bill Clinton fundraising scandal, no controlling legal authority. Forget about that, right? Okay, now we've just exploded the campaign finance laws. We have, and I'm sure we'll talk about it, crypto coin for the Trump family that's literally going into the

pocket of the president of the United States. So for me, this issue of, I'm glad we started with this question of when is it corruption or not? Because if we stick to that legal definition, Eric, unfortunately, in a world where Donald Trump has appointed his former personal lawyer to be the Attorney General of the United States, who literally was a registered foreign lobbyist for the government of Qatar and has, according to you and your colleagues at the New York Times, personally signed off on illegal guidance allowing Donald Trump to accept a $400 million Boeing jet to be the new Air Force one from Qatar. Yes.

In his defense, it is a very nice plane apparently. Two bedrooms, nine bathrooms. It is, if this were being rented on the Upper West Side, I think people would throw down quite a bit for it. But let's talk about it. So I find this to be a fascinating. discussion because in the United States, there's sort of this idea, this fiction, I think. And the same with separation of church and state. There is this wall, the separation of governance

and business. But that separation with Trump does not exist. But let's roll back further than Pam Bondi and, you know, whatever the DOJ might be saying about this jet. And let's talk about what has set the ground for this, which I think is Citizens United. A, right, all those campaign financing, B, when the Supreme Court said it has to be an explicit, right? Quid pro quo, was that that case? Yeah, no. For the former governor of Virginia. Right, and it was ultimately acquitted.

And then the third leg of this chair is the decision that the president is immune from any of these kinds of corruption investigations, as long as he is acting within the bounds of his presidential duties, given those three tent posts, is there a world where even explicit quid pro quo can be investigated when it comes to the activities of the president? Haven't we disarmed our entire ethics infrastructure through the Supreme Court? I'm not even talking about he's doing unprecedented things. Eric, I'll start with you. Yeah, it is a really important question.

I mean, first of all, the president is exempt under law from the criminal conflict of interest law. It's a crime, and you could go to jail as a federal employee for taking an action that, a particular action that impacts your family or yourself and your financial interest. And you could be charged by the Justice Department if the Justice Department were investigating that. The president and the vice president are exempt from that. But so already, you know, he, and this president has. cited that frequently. I have no conflicts of interest. Legally, I can't. Right. But what the Supreme Court did last year, it opens a question as to whether or not the Justice Department could even charge the president with accepting a bribe, because if it's an official act, there is an open

question. There's a footnote in that decision, which leaves slightly ambiguous as to whether or not actually in what the Supreme Court majority wrote. There's a footnote that leaves a bit unclear whether or not, there's enough room still to charge a president with bribery. And how would you gather evidence if you're not allowed to get his, everything's under executive privilege? But the Constitution does make clear, though. There is, the language in the Constitution does, that impeachment, that one of the crimes and misdemeanors that, you know, that you could be, that could justify impeachment, the word

specifically bribery is there in the Constitution as the grounds for an impeachment. proceeding. Well, isn't it even the emoluments clause, isn't that, you know, doesn't that in and of itself justify not being able to take a giant plane? An emoluments clause would be, could result in a civil suit against the president that would require the president to, to give back the emolument that he or she received from the foreign government. And it could also be the basis of potentially an impeachment proceeding, but it wouldn't be a criminal matter. Let that be a lesson, by the way, the kids out there. Never take an emolument. If any of your classmates, if anybody offers you an emolument, tell them constitutionally. Right. All right. Quick break, and then we shall be right back.

Guys, I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but getting through the news is, well, it, what's the word I'm looking for? It sucks. Terrible. It's really hard to figure out. But I got to tell about ground news, website and app dedicated to helping readers navigate today's headlines with, and I, These words, I don't know if you, with critical thinking, media literacy, getting through the headlines with critical thinking, think of it. Ground News pulls together thousands of news stories from around the world every day. Each story organized with, you know, very clear visual breakdowns of what the political bias, the ownership, the reporting differences. It helps you better understand not just the story, what you're reading, but why you're seeing it presented in the way that it is. And it's built around transparency.

Ground News doesn't run ads. doesn't run ads. Podcasts don't even do that. What are they thinking? They don't use algorithms to customize your news feed. How dare they not try and manipulate you? Their bias ratings come from the averages

of three different independent organizations and it gives you a more balanced and comprehensive view. When you're using ground news, you can see how many outlets have covered a story, how the coverage is distributed across political spectrums. You can scroll through the headlines with the bias labels attached. You don't have to leave the air.

app. I know you don't want to leave the app, and you don't have to. You can even directly compare how different outlets report the same story. The blind spot feed. Highlight stories that are being underreported by either sides of the political spectrum, any side. It gives you a broader, fuller view. All you got to do to explore everything ground news offers, groundnews.com slash Stewart. Subscribers get 40% off the vantage plan, unlocking all the features. That's groundnews.com slash Stewart. When you subscribe, you are supporting an independent platform committed to making news more transparent and empowering readers to make informed decisions, which, oh, those are the best kinds of decisions.

Hey, everyone, John Stewart here. Do you guys get hungry? I know I do. And when I get hungry, I love to have a sandwich. Sandwiches. I don't know if you've had them. I've talked to people and they're like macaroni and cheese. Yes, fine. You can eat that too in a bowl. But a bowl is not how certainly lunch should occur. So for me, the sandwich is the perfect choice. You can take a variety of different breads and a variety of different ingredients and combine them. I'm telling you the options are limitless. So the next time you find yourselves hungry, try a sandwich. They're delicious. We are back. But the bottom line question that you ask is that over a series of things that have happened over the last decade, it has made these questions much harder. And it's also part of the reason

that what's happening is a conflict of interest. It is unethical. It is unprecedented. It is corrupting the government. I agree with all those things. But whether or not it is legally, you know, he is acting corruptly. I think that has become a harder question to answer. But it almost doesn't matter. These terms are important, and we have to be careful with the words we use. But it doesn't matter because what's happening is unethical and wrong, and it's just damaging to American history and to democracy. And we are committed, and Susan is as well. We're documenting this. The thing that I think really matters is as a reporter is that let's get the primary details, the primary documents, the proof, and let's bring that to the public. And that's what we've been doing. Transparency,

it's the only thing you can do. It's right. We are the only thing left of accountability. The Justice Department, the IGs have been fired. Oh, my God. The Office of Government Ethics, the head has been far, you know, so. The Speaker of the House today. This was a great one today. The Speaker of the House, I don't know if you saw this, Mike Johnson. So they asked him about these gifts that are coming, to your point, Eric, of the unprecedented nature. And he said, this is nothing like what the Biden crime family did. Trump is transparent. And the reporter said, we don't know who these meme coin people are. We don't have any information on that. They're just putting money directly in. And he goes, I don't know anything about that. And the reporter goes, isn't, isn't Congress the over

oversight body, and he just goes, ah, we're good. Right. Susan, talk about how that's changed. You were talking about since you've been there, you've seen the erosion of these barriers. How are you seeing that play out? Because it's definitely not just this administration. Oh, no. I mean, this is this sort of the final death rattle of the post-Nixon era, you know, post-Watergate

reforms that were designed to protect the country in many ways and protect our political system from the kind of abuses that Richard Nixon envisioned. Because it wasn't just, by the way, his specific cover-up of Watergate. There were a whole host of abuses of power that Richard Nixon- That's why Agnew went down, right? Didn't Spiro Agnew? Well, that's right. So, Vice President, that was actually for corruption of a very old-fashioned, you know, Menendez like crying. He was literally getting bags of cash predating his time in the federal government as vice president. That's right. I believe B.B. Robozo had a slotho. flush fund and they were all. That's right. Richard Nixon was seeking to weaponize the IRS against

his political opponents. I mean, there was a whole array of abuses of power that will be very familiar to anybody who spent any time reading Eric's terrific coverage in the New York Times about the Trump family. And it's, you know, essentially use of the inner, the basically the unclear barriers between their personal financial interests, their personal political interests, and use of official government agencies and actions to benefit themselves in a whole host of ways, both personally, financially, and politically. You know, that's what Donald Trump's 2019 impeachment was over, was essentially seeking to take hundreds of millions of dollars in military and security assistance

that the United States Congress had authorized Ukraine and to say, I'm not going to give that to you unless you undertake this personal political errand for of investigating my political opponents. So this is Donald Trump's playbook, his MO, and the scale and scope of it is, frankly, Richard Nixon's fever dream. I mean, the level of, you know, not only the dollar signs, but, you know, across such a wide array of fronts. And the fact that Trump sort of does it almost in front of us, flaunting us, has served in a bizarre way to insulate him. But you're right, John, I think to underscore that Trump is the beneficiary of this erosion over time of these laws and institutions. And by the way, one of the most important of the post-Watergate reforms was a

level of campaign finance limits, disclosure. There was even a system of public financing that had previously collapsed for our presidential general election nominees. And, you know, the Supreme Court essentially dealt the final blow to those post-Watergate. campaign finance rules in its Citizens United thing. And actually last year, when I went back and did a big piece for the New Yorker on the kind of Republican fundraising in this post-citizens United era and looking at basically the final co-opting of the Republican establishment on behalf of Donald Trump in the 2024 campaign, the amount of money that was flowing into Donald Trump's coffers in that campaign, that should have been this incredible.

warning sign for democracy. And of course, we all know now that Elon Musk managed to spend at a minimum around $300 million, essentially, to promote Trump and other Republican candidates and causes last year. It's just an extraordinary amount. And I think it's the classic thing. The red lines were crossed before people even understood that they were red lines. And now we're living in a world where what really frightens me is, as Eric said, that most of the watchdogs are gone, most of the accountability that had been built in our system is gone. And even when journalists, like Eric at the times, are doing this great reporting, you know, the public is, is even those people who don't like Trump, I fear is supine, is overwhelmed, is unable to meaningfully process how

serious a blow this is to our democracy. And actually, what I'm worried about, I don't know if both of you think this as well. What I'm worried about right now is that we're actually seeing corruption being institutionalized into our executive branch in Congress refusing to operate as any kind of a check and balance in ways that will actually have long-term ramifications even beyond the personal enrichment of Trump and his family. I agree wholeheartedly. And Eric, I'll get you on this because to that point, Susan, what I would say is right now the only check on any sort of corruption is partisanship, is ideological opposition. The Republicans were very clear about going after the Joe Biden crime family. They wanted to impeach on that. But even impeachment, I think,

has shown itself to be a feckless check on whatever corruption. The situation in Ukraine in terms of weapons shipments for investigations into a political opponent is as clear cut as you can possibly let alone the January 6th insurrection as clear cut an impeachment as it can be and it and it failed basically because at its heart it's a political process and if the political process is broken but I'll go further than that you know Eric I once asked Nancy Pelosi she was on the show and she was talking about we got to get money out of politics it corrupts people and I said well you know, you raised $32 million for your PAC, and she said, that's different. And I said, well, why is that different? And she said, because it doesn't corrupt us.

I said, well, you just said money corrupts. Yes, them. But what about you? No. And even when Ed Martin, when he took over for the DNC, what did he say, we need these billionaires out. They're billionaires. Not our billionaires. Our billionaires are good. Their billionaires are bad. So the system I fear has surrendered. We've already surrendered. Now it's just a question of how bad is this going to get, Eric? Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, unfortunately, campaign finance at this point, given the Supreme Court actions is sort of a lost cause.

And I don't really see, you know, unless you kind of completely remake the Supreme Court, how we're ever going back. And, I mean, but what we're seeing is the personal enrichment of, with Trump, he is both, you know, effectively the chief regulator of securities and exchange by pointing the head of the SEC. And his family now runs one of the world's largest cryptocurrency stablecoin issuers that is regulated. So he is both the regulator and the regulated. And that's the threshold that we have crossed that really has no precedent. And that, you know, campaign finance and the corruption of government through, you know, influence and access that

comes with campaign donations, it's been something we have written about for many years and tried to document. But we just have never seen something where the elected official is personally benefiting to the extent that Trump is through his family. And that, and it just, you know, so like the whole campaign finance debate is important, but it's sort of like, it's like tangential to what's going on here, which is direct personal enrichment in a way, You know, the fact is that, like, President Trump will benefit from, there's this legislation pending in Congress called the Genius Act that would, for the first time, recognize the issuance of stable coins, which are a form of cryptocurrency as legally part of the financial system in the United

States. As a security or just as a, just as a... As a form of currency, basically, as an alternative form of currency that in which you could, you have a form of crypto that's worth a dollar consistently, and it's backed up with treasuries, and it's constantly worth a dollar. FDIC insured? It's not insured. Okay.

But it would be recognized by the government and it would be regulated by the government. But once that happens, while it does create a regulatory structure, to some extent, you know, you think the industry doesn't want that. But what the industry recognizes is as soon as that exists, then banks and other financial institutions will begin to embrace stable coins. And they will really become almost a competitor of credit cards and financial cash. Oh, my God. And for the Trump family, they are the seventh largest stable coin issuer in the United States now.

And so he is urging Congress to act. Wait, you issue stable coins? You don't have. So it doesn't have to be created through mining or anything. You just issue it? You issue it. And the Trump's got $2 billion worth of stable coin deposits from the government of UAE a few weeks ago just before Trump flew over there. And now, overnight, they became one of the world's largest issuers of stable coins.

and Trump is urging Congress to act on this legislation and he's going to sign it, but his family is already profiting and he is profiting enormously off of the same industry that he is giving birth to as the top regulator. It's like we've never seen anything like that. That is such a blatant profit. But isn't he just exploiting, don't we owe him to some extent a debt of gratitude? Is he not making explicit what is the operating system oftentimes we like to pretend it's not of the world, which is a pay-to-play system where the rich and the powerful have an unusual

back-scratching relationship and access to each other. I'll give you an example. So here's the small bore example of that. Susan, you can talk to this. Congressional members serve on committees that regulate pharmaceuticals, other types of things. They can also trade stocks. And there are numerous examples of congressional leaders being in meetings where they learn information about what is going to happen to a certain product that is going to have profound impact on stocks and then making trades that play upon that information and nothing ever happens to them. And how is that different other than the scale? Isn't he just supersizing the corruption that we have allowed? You know, I mean, I take the point, but I think that you, you know, we're capable of, you know,

holding multiple different levels of thoughts in our head. And, you know, the difference between the petty crook who keeps cash stashed in his freezer and the most powerful man in the world, accepting billions of dollars in personal enrichment while at the same time negotiating major international arrangements is, is so fundamentally different in scale, scope, and character. that it is, of course, a much greater thing. I say scale and scope, but is it different in character? There are sins and there are sins. Is it different in, is insider trading amongst congressional people really different in character?

Yes, it is. By the way, it's interesting. I think insider trading among members of Congress a good example of something that they may finally be doing something right now, which is something. But, you know, it's like handing out traffic tickets. when, you know, that the head of the city is a murderer. I mean, you know, the scale of the actions that you're talking about are so vastly different. And I think Eric is making a point here that, you know, imagine essentially if Andrew Carnegie

or John D. Rockefeller was the president of the United States setting the rules by which he could have that railroad monopoly, you know, in the end of the 19th century. you know, disabling his competitors and, you know, rigging the system in every possible way, and performing both functions all at once. All right. All right. All right. We're back.

We're back. On the crypto thing, by the way, it's not just Donald Trump and his sons who are now in this business that the government is essentially going to determine the future of at the same time they're earning money from it. Their partners in this business are the sons of Steve Whitkoff, Donald Trump's everything envoy, who is, no, that's literally true. And who is traveling the world going from Gaza and Hamas to meeting with Putin all by himself without a translator to Iran.

Whitkoff and his two sons are the business partners of Donald Trump and his two sons. Howard Lutnik is a huge proponent and investment. in the crypto industry. Last summer, I think one of the signal moments very overlooked, although covered in the Times and the journal and elsewhere, was when Donald Trump took time out of the campaign trail in 2024 and went to Nashville, Tennessee for the annual national crypto conference. He was cheered like a hero by the crypto industry, and he made promises that he is now fulfilling to this industry, to essentially help treat it like a currency and to give it the status that will enable them to become even more wealthy. And he followed that up in September, again, in the

middle of this campaign by taking time out to announce that they were going to get into the crypto business with the Whitkoffs and his sons and create this company called World Liberty Financial. There's a classic quote from Donald Trump because he used to call crypto-executive. quote, scam. And then when he made this announcement in September of 2024, he said, well, you know, I don't really know what it is, but everybody's got to get into it. So we got to get in it. Everybody's in on it. Everybody says it's great. So I'm going to do it. Yeah. Yeah. No, you're you're dead on right. But you brought up a really interesting point, Susan, which is you kind of reflected it back to imagine if Andrew Carnegie or any of these guys

was also president. So there is a really unique situation here, you know, to Mike Johnson's point, which is, well, the Biden crime family, they're not business people. Trump is a business person. So why shouldn't he, rather than corruption, isn't he just monetizing his brand? Isn't that how he would view it? How is that different from the Biden family, which is what, consultants and lawyers? I don't know. I think you can answer that question by looking at the differences between the first term and the second term.

And in the first term, the president and his family agreed to not do what they called new international deals. So they continued to run their real estate business. To avoid the conflict. Right. Right. And now we did all write about the Trump International Hotel in D.C. and how it became a den of lobbyist and foreign diplomats that were buying, you know, $50 martinis or, you know, $100 Trump seafood towers at the Benjamin bar. And Mar-a-Lago. By the way, the crab was fantastic. Yeah. The Mar-a-Lago also became a magnet, and he tried to bring like the G7 or the G20, I forget which, to Trump Dorell, but they were not, in fact, doing deals overseas announcing new ones. Still small ball, right.

But now not only are they doing new international deals, but they're actually doing new international deals with foreign government entities. So, you know, UAE is putting $2 billion into the World Liberty Financial, you know, in stable coins. Cutter just a couple weeks ago signed a deal to do a $5 billion real estate project that's going to have a Trump hotel. Oman has a project. It's leasing the land for another project that's going to have a Trump golf course. The Saudis gave $2 billion to Jared Kushner to invest, didn't they? And Serbia at the site that NATO bombed during the Clinton administration to stop the Balkans war

is now turning that same site over to Jared Kushner where there's going to be a Trump hotel. And Donald Trump Jr. was in Serbia and having dinner with the president of Serbia. And the president of Serbia was posted on Facebook how, I'm roasting. a pig tonight to have dinner with the son of the president of the president as he's trying to keep his job as president because there's huge protest in Serbia. Oh, dear Lord. And he's giving land to the family of the president to build the Trump International Hotel. So having that kind of interactions with foreign governments at the same time as you, that you are directing foreign policy and making decisions, for example, should Saudi Arabia be able to get F-35s, should the United

States authorized the sale of advanced AI chips to Saudi Arabia or to, you know, UAE, you know, Qatar and what role is, you know, the military presence in Qatar? And Serbia, should Serbia, should the United States help Serbia's effort to get into the EU? I mean, these are all huge. And how are those choices influenced by the fact that money is flowing from those governments to the personally to the pockets of the present of the United States? That creates an appearance of corruption that really undermines the legitimacy of government. in a way that is for any person would be disturbing. And it's happening again and again and again in front of us as a scale that's

totally, it's much worse than the first term. What you just said there, I thought, was really the crucial point, which is undermining the stability. For those of us, and this part, I think it's important to get into because all these ideas of, well, they're going to benefit from this and they're going to benefit from that. It's all sort of amorphous, right? So let's get into what can be the real ramifications of this. Those systems that don't have the institutional checks undergirding their financial situation

or any of those other things are less stable. The governments that function in this way, much more autocratically, much more the kleptocracies, all those other things, hollow out the state. the civil institutions that hold countries together in difficult times. It's why you see those countries and systems collapse violently. Is that, when we talk about the ramifications of this and we really want to get into, what are we risking? Is that something that comes to mind?

You know, John, right now, the United States of America is the single largest source of global instability. That's bold. Yeah. I mean, there's no question about that. When a superpower goes rogue, you have an enormous crisis for the world. And the one element that we should add to Eric's already very daunting and distressing list of ways in which the co-mingling of Trump's personal business and America's, foreign policy interests create a crisis is, of course, Donald Trump's single-handed upending of the world economy, and by imposing, quote, unquote, reciprocal tariffs that aren't reciprocal

on essentially all of the world's major economies. And in particular, targeting America's allies as much, if not more so, than most of her adversaries. And the reason this matters is because this is the ultimate vehicle for conflicts of interest, for ways in which the President of United States personally is the decider on what happens to the fate of countries and companies. And that opens up corruption. Every lobbyist in the world is busy investing, you know, and getting other companies to invest in lobbyists who have direct connections to the Trump family here in Washington right now. The reason for that is that Donald Trump has fundamentally shifted the balance of power in our society to essentially, instead of a rule of law society, to essentially a personalist regime.

So he has become the kind of, he's become the kind of instability that you're talking about. Right. You know, that was America's theory of the case in what we saw in the 1990s as kind of the democratizing world. It's like, you know, democracies don't go to war against each other, you know, that this notion, call it the quaint Washington consensus of the late Clintoner, which was the notion that integrating countries who had previously been outcast into the world economic and political order, drawing China and Russia into the rule of law, to the web of institutions would lead to

democratization, to further stability, and to further peace in the world. It didn't work out that way. And so now we have a situation where, you know, a quarter century later, it's the United States that has gone rogue on the very institutions in the world that have actually secured and maintained our power. So, for example, Donald Trump is going after. He doesn't like the idea that the U.S. dollar, you know, is so strong. He wants to weaken the U.S. dollar. He's risking, undermining the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. And why does that matter? Because that's one of the main reasons that we're all so rich, and we enjoy this incredible lifestyle here in the world. When countries are making now a determination that Donald Trump is not just some crazy for your aberration in

the world, that he might actually be a long-term new direction for the United States and therefore the world. They're making decisions in a way that I think they weren't, they were avoiding making in Trump's first term that really have the kind of consequences. But yeah, I don't think it's overstating it. Maybe you guys do. But in my view, we're the instability. No, I think it's, I think changing it into a transaction. And I'll go further. Eric, you know, maybe one of the reasons why Trump has a bigger problem now with Canada and with the EU, is that they still operate through this system of democratic checks and balances. It's a bit more bureaucratic.

It is not one man, one man sitting in a room, shaking a hand, going, I'll give you a jet and you'll give me this. It's not as transactional because it goes through the processes that are created by constitutional stability. But if you remove that, you really are knocking away. You're hollowing something out that has worked for us for a very long time. Yes? Yeah, no, it's really interesting just because this nation for decades now has been the promoter of what's called the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I mean, we were effectively punishing companies and governments in nations around the world, if there ever was any type of a government contract that involved a payment to an executive,

you know, abroad, basically. And it was, the United States was trying to enforce its value system across the world for decades now in Africa and Europe and, you know, and Trump is basically announced that, you know, FCPA is, you know, which is the Lingo in D.C., that they're not really going to do Foreign Crump Practices Act enforcement anymore. No, he said, basically, you can, if you can, if you can't bribe foreign leaders, you are going to put American businesses at a disadvantage. So we have to be able to bribe. I guess the question is, is he just saying, well, I'm going to operate in the world as it is, not in the world as we would like it to be. I mean, I think the United States was successful in a way. I mean, you know, there's still parts of, you know, particularly like, you know, Democratic Republic

of Congo, which I've spent some time writing about and where it's still overt. And companies, the American companies left DRC, mining companies, because they were so concerned about the corruption and being accused of it. But the United States, to some extent, has succeeded in really discouraging that kind of corruption. And so when you say Europe and Canada and other nations are like, they're, reacting, like, how is this possible? Because the United States actually successfully created a norm that now Trump is exploding. And so, I mean, to some extent, he's benefiting. And not just exploding, suggesting that creating that norm made us suckers and that we are the big losers of the international order that we created. That is such an important point.

Donald Trump sketches this American hellscape vision, which is fascinating that, you know, for the guy who also... A shining city on fire on a hill. Yeah, exactly. You know, the dumpster fire vision of America is what he's been selling to his base for, you know, essentially this whole almost. most decade that he's been in politics. And it's completely at odds with the notion if America was getting ripped off and was at a disadvantage because we wouldn't pay bribes and everybody else would, then how come we were the world's largest, most successful economy? How come everybody from around the world wanted to come here? How come our regulatory norms used to be the leading norms for people

around the world? Obviously, since the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was passed, I believe, in the late 70s or early 80s is kind of one of the last gasps of that post-watergate bout of reforms. The United States economy has only grown and grown and become more dominant and successful. And so it's really about making war on the idea of America as being a kind of a value-based global superpower. And, you know, in the past, right, you know, you look at other superpowers, other empires. they were ethnic-based or they were nationalist at core.

And the United States was always about the notion of an idea. Now, we didn't always live up to it. And even the spreading of it caused instability. I mean, you mentioned the past 20 years of war to spread this stable system that completely destabilized entire regions. Yeah, and by the way, that continues to fuel a lot of Donald Trump, right? You can definitely continue to see him as a reaction against the excesses of his predecessors' foreign policy and activism in the world. In fact, just in his Mideast tour this

week, you hear him complaining about neocons and military adventures, and I'm not going to lecture you. And he's responding as much to George W. Bush's Republican-led invasion of Iraq as he is to any acts by Democratic predecessor. So, you know, it's a reaction. It's a reactionary movement that Trump has led of a minority of Americans, by the way. He won the popular vote. He came just short of a majority in the 2024 election. But it's really the core of MAGA is a minority of Americans that have passionately subscribed to Donald Trump's essentially rejectionist view. Somebody said to me, you know, Donald Trump wants to repeal the 20th century. Well, a lot of it came with all these rules and norms and laws. I mean, I think he goes by the great man theory, the, you know, like you

say the Vanderbilt's the the Carnegie's the great men that created something that wasn't stable though and it collapsed in the Great Depression and we rebuilt something that had more stability and I think we're undervaluing you know all those all those different institutions and checks and balances as flawed as they may be for holding the world somewhat together financially at least over this time would that be fair yeah I mean I think that if the United States is saying that it is okay to be completely transactional and to be accepting multi-billion dollar payments and foreign governments as you're making critical foreign policy decisions, it just opens up the world to a kind of a, you know, a family

oligarchical, you know, global governance that that isn't transparent, that that doesn't have any accountability that is profiting a very, very thin, you know, it's like the Turkey's government or, you know, the kind of, you know, where the government, we were both the financial leaders and the government leaders. And it just, the United States worked so hard for so many decades to create a world order where that was not, you know, we were trying to move beyond that. And it's, the consequences of this, you know, could last a really long time. If it, if you, if the one nation that, that just imposed this new value system globally, it says, okay, we're not, we're done with that, you know, we don't really agree. And we're going to start, you know,

taking payments and making decisions. So it, yeah, it's potentially enormously consequential to the whole world order, honestly, unfortunately. His comfort in this trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, you know, UAE is, is obvious. His comfort in a system of royalty, he looks so much happier there than he ever does here. You know, the only moment that I saw that that felt like the Donald Trump that we see in the United States was, I think somebody from ABC News asked him about the plane. And he went, that's an embarrassing question. But mostly, man, he's in his happy place. Monarchy, I think, is his happy place. I think in some respects, is America, this Constitution. Republic that has survived 250 years and built itself up over myriad difficulties and all these

the tumult of world wars and everything else. Are we now just a subsidiary of the Trump organization? You know, certainly in the Middle East, he is in his preferred aesthetic. There is enough gold everywhere to satisfy him. But I think you're right. He essentially does not subscribe to the basic principles in our Constitution. And in fact, he was directly asked about this in a television interview a couple of weeks ago and meet the press, Kirsten Welker. And she said, aren't you supposed to uphold the Constitution? He paused. And he literally said, I don't know. Right. He said, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, they were talking specifically, I think, about due process for these immigration cases.

And he said, I'm not a lawyer. I think what he's shrewder than that. I think what he is doing is doctor shopping lawyers. If a lawyer says, well, this is the Constitution. He goes, get rid of that lawyer. And get me a lawyer who'll come in here and tell me, you don't have to do due process. I think you're right that, again,

this was a key shift from Trump's first term to Trump's second term, is understanding, especially in the key positions like Attorney General, like White House counsel, you want to have lawyers who are going to give you what you want. And so he's taken the extraordinary step of appointing his multiple of his personal lawyers, by the way. So it's not just Pam Bondi. Todd Blanche, who's the deputy attorney general now also acting librarian of Congress because they fired the librarian of Congress. She was making inappropriate books available to children. And you're like, you can't just, that's

not what's happening at the library. No, that is not what's happening at the library. What are you talking about? It's the personalization of power, which is so fundamentally at odds with and incompatible with a system of constitutional checks and balances. That's what Trump doesn't subscribe to. This goes all the way back to his first term. By the way, he said, you know, I have the power to do anything I want. I'm the only one that matters in our system. You know, he's long, can fix it. Exactly. He's long betrayed sort of a complete not just ignorance for the Constitution, but, you know, a sort of rejection of its basic principles. So he goes to the Middle East. He's surrounded by emirs and kings. He's greeted with

monarchical reverence. Love it. This is what he wants to be. This is who he is. All right. Quick break. And then we shall be right back. We're back. It's not an accident that since he stepped on the world stage. It's our allies, our Democratic allies, he's consistently attacked, and it's our adversaries that he's praised. And just a point, it's not about lecturing, by the way. Human rights is not some abstract construct. Saudi Arabia, it's not just that they took a bonesaw to a critic of theirs, Jamal Khashoggi, who was a columnist for the Washington Post.

This is one of the most unfree societies on the planet. Okay, this is a place where women don't have basic rights granted to others in the West centuries ago. China, it's not just that Donald Trump wants to treat as an equal with Xi Jinping. It's that he's been perfectly fine. At times in his first term, he seemed to even, you know, wave away or to justify China's human rights crack down on the Uyghurs, putting a million people in camps. Not a big deal to Donald Trump. Well, he says always, what are we so good? Are we so nice? Right. And in some respects, you know, look, we have. oftentimes, as you said, failed to live up to those higher ideals.

But I think this goes beyond the types of higher ideals of personal freedoms and treating, you know, with equality and respect. This is a whole other thing that, you know, you can back off of personal criticism. We do business with terrible regimes all the time. And they do business with us. but this is very different in that we're throwing away the system for the writ of one man that's the part that and eric i'll ask you once you throw that away do you know of a situation where people have been able to get it back once you go to a transactional strongman theory of

he makes the decisions well i don't know how you you claw that back unless he gets called on it and challenged, particularly by his own party. I was up on Capitol Hill last week. Yeah, good luck with that. And I was on the Senate side, and I spent my entire day, I spent like, you know, 10 hours right at the, where the senators walked out of the chambers. I was focused almost entirely in Republicans. And I ended up speaking to over 25 U.S. senators in the course of a day. I just, you know, spent the whole day there as soon as they were walking out and pestering them. And I only found two, I was asking each one of them about the Trump meme coin. And is it, you know, that he's selling access to a dinner with, for 220 buyers of his

meme coin, whoever spends the most money on his meme coin, they can have dinner with him. And 25 of them can have a VIP reception, and 25 of them will get a White House tour. And so, you know, was that, is that acceptable to you? I was asking the U.S. senators this. And there was only two of them that were willing to, to, to, to, give any, most of them gave the answer, I don't know enough about it, you know, that the Republican, or I don't do, I don't do walk and talks. That was, I don't do walk and talks, but I will never sit down with you. Right. Yeah. And I, yeah, so I think that what's the lasting implication

of this? I mean, I think it really is going to depend upon a kind of a, you know, a rejection of this approach. And if that doesn't happen, then maybe it is normalized. But so far, I mean, the cutter, you know, 747, you're hearing resistance from Republicans in the Senate in particular. And if it really does start to go forward, there could be a significant backlash there. Each step that seems more outrageous, there's, you know, there's a certain hints of maybe he's gone too far. And so to answer your question, how normalize this becomes, it really depends upon if it becomes normal. And if we, if as an American public, we begin to accept it. And as Susan says, one of the challenges that we face as reporters is that even when we write these stories and we try to

make sure that they're understandable, plain language and that they're distinct, they're not, they don't, I don't sense that they're resonating as much. I mean, the American public is sort of like, well, there's nothing we can do about it. This is, you know, and, and it's just that I don't feel like the public is engaged or as outraged by some of the things that are happening. Right. And that that's also part of the normalization. So if both the Republicans in Congress and the American public is just going to sort of let this become normal, then it does become normal. Well, some of that I think is because, you know, the competing vision that they're up against. First of all, it's amazing how crazy shit has to get for even a couple of Republicans to go,

yeah, I might have to look into that. Like, it's bananas to me how far it goes. And it just shows how fearful they are for their own political lives over that. You've seen people excommunicated just for speaking out against that. But the other side of it is, you know, the corruption of it just gets embedded into it and with no powerful alternative. I mean, for God's sakes, on the Democratic side, you've got Chuck Schumer going, I'm going to send a strongly worded letter with eight pretty hard questions. And you'll see. Now, maybe it's because we're in an unusual situation.

of they control the Senate, they control the House, they control the executive, they mostly control the Supreme Court. Maybe if that shifts, some of this begins to get adjudicated in a different way, do you think, Susan? Yeah, I mean, the fear is that an election is a long time away, first of all. Second of all, Democrats have a much harder road ahead to actually win back control of the Senate, so that seems more unlikely. The House. is much more in reach in the midterm elections. But, you know, it's not just about the partisan advantage, right? You know, the system is being changed right now in ways, some of which will be quite hard to undo. So that's, first of all. Second of all, I do think that the drama of Republicans was the

story of the first term. And Trump won that battle. That was a hostile takeover, as he and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, put it in the first term. And they succeeded in that hostile takeover. And And now you've essentially got Lisa Murkowski and a fully Trumpified GOP Senate. So, you know, I'm not wasting a lot of energy or breath thinking that Republicans are going to do anything other than the most mealy mouth of statements. In fact, Mike Johnson, you referenced him earlier. He also, I think, came out and said, oh, the plane, never mind, even though that emoluments clause in the Constitution specifically says it would require congressional approval for some

kind of massive gift from a foreign government. But don't you think they would regain their oversight immediately if a Democratic president was there? In other words, will this just be, it's sort of in the way they look at the debt ceiling. Like if it's a Republican, oh yeah, no, we're going to lift the debt ceiling and everybody's going to do it. And then a Democrat comes into office and say, aren't we going to be responsible here? Let's do that.

Is there a chance that we once again become a rules-based responsible country as long as a Democrats in charge of it, that this is a Trump phenomenon, not a permanent change in autocratic rule. Well, remember that Democrats and Republican presidents have participated in the creeping imperial presidency. You know, right now, Republicans definitely subscribe to much broader, more sweeping vision of executive authority. But, you know, most presidents want to have more authority, not left. the institutional shifts, like not just in foreign policy, but broadly speaking, toward the presidency are a long-term trend that have happened under Democrats and Republicans alike. So I think you would see some, you know, reorientation were Democrats to regain control

of one or all of the branches of government. But I think that it's really hard to see a meaningful way where this is just going to be wiped away, given that one of our two major political parties has become completely all right with a series of things that just don't check the box for basic democracy anymore. And that's the part that is a long-term trend, especially because we're in so much more of a politically polarized system. It is basically a fully partisan system now. The idea of a nonpartisan civil service Trump is blowing up, the idea that there's institutional

imperatives for Congress rather than just partisan imperatives. you know, that's all, I think, disappearing very quickly. Do you see that, Eric, in any way being a corrective once the cult of Trump has gone? No, I think that the partisanship has really undermined accountability. It makes it hard to have accountability when all of these investigations, whether led by Democrats are Republicans, that the other side is immediately dismissing them as, you know, witch hunts that are politically driven. And the Congress used to be made up of Democrats and Republicans, more so, at least. I mean, like a Frank Wolf was a Republican that I can remember, or Tom Davis

is a Republican. I mean, these were, you know, they're conservatives, but they-partisans, but not ideologues. They were value-based Republicans. Even Orrin Hatch was a value-based Republican. And, you know, Chuck Grassley is, you know, a value-based Republican, you know, to some extent. And, you know, now it's just all investigations are so partisan and even the way that the public reacts to them is so dismissive, depending on which side you're on, that it empowers the executive, the president, to just ignore them and to say, oh, this is just political, you know, nonsense. And I think that that feeds into this pursuit of greater executive power and ignorance of red lines. And I think it's unfortunate. And I think social media is also a factor in this where, you know, the tribes are

feeding each other, you know, they're through tunnels of information that just backs up their favored politician. So I do, I think this, this, all of this is becoming more normalized in a way that is unfortunate and potentially long lasting. But, you know, we'll see how it plays out. And, you know, first of all, we've got to get through the Trump years. And, you know, we're just going to continue to, we're going to continue. Which by the way, may continue until, we don't even know when it's going to end. Right. And by the way, the more power that the family amasses. Look, dynastic families in American politics are not abnormal.

And the more power and influence that they amassed, the more likely a dynastic influence emerges through there. I don't think that's any question. I think this is going to be with us, depending, for a very, very long time. And I will end with this. The fear for me is always the stability of these societies demands the consent of the government. And if you don't have it, things like martial law get declared or they pull all kinds of emergency powers and crack down on certain things.

And it creates the volatile political cycles that you see in countries that don't have the fealty not to a man, but to a constitution. And that's my fear for the cycle that we're heading into. I'm looking 70 years down the line, not just five. Would you guys comment on that? Yeah, I mean, rule of law, it's just, you know, the Republicans and the Democrats love to use that term, but the rule of law is becoming less, you know, less real and less apparent in society today. And that's, I mean, our country has really been, you know, held up by that norm for

centuries now and it's becoming less and less apparent and that's really problematic but susan what what do you thoughts last word susan you got this sum it up bring us home susan rule of law you'll miss it when it's gone that's the bumper sticker you never see at the rest area on the jersey turnplay uh thank you both uh very much man very enlightening conversation very much appreciated susan glasser staff writer at the New Yorker and co-author of The Divider, Trump in the White House, 2017, 20201, and Eric Lipton, who is an investigative reporter in the Washington Bureau of the New York Times. Thank you both so much for enlightening us during this time. Well, I didn't want it to end so dark.

I didn't want it to end with, we are entering an 80-year, era of darkness and despair. by which the rule of law shall be punished. You thought a conversation about Trump's corruption would end on a glass half full moment? I don't know. I thought maybe they had some key to this. I kept trying to throw in there like, what about when the Congress changes it? Hey, didn't we? What about insider trading?

They're like, you don't understand, motherfucker. How deep this goes. You don't get the, is that where you guys were thinking? I mean, I was kind of focusing on, you said it a few times, I think, about how. how crazy it is that Trump is just like so comfortable on this trip. And of course he is because he's making lots of money. But I just cannot imagine being in the same room as MBS and doing what he did, which was fall asleep. Hey, listen, man.

Got to keep one eye open. Nap time. Listen, man. Yeah, they're not, listen, that's not where they're taking the chainsaw. That's for sure. And, you know, listen, you guys know when you fly east, much harder on the jet lag. Absolutely. And listen, I loved Susan's sort of the scope of her knowledge I thought was really interesting.

And I also, I mean, I found the conversation just around the use of the word corruption that you guys started with very interesting. Because, yes, the Supreme Court changed what's considered to be bribery and corruption in government. But the Supreme Court is corrupt. Like they accept millions of dollars in gifts and have made it easy for themselves to do that. That's a great point. So at what point do we stop using their definitions and start using the definition that you're just using your eyes and ears to accurately describe a situation? That's a fabulous point.

And I also think anytime you get in on the idea that corruption is purely defined in the legal arena, you'll lose sight of what real corruption is. It's just corruption to me is the erosion of those things that hold something up with integrity. and the minute you erode that, whether it's the legal definition of it or not, it is certainly corrupting of the tent post that we kind of relied on. If you want a quo at this point, like, you're going to have to pay up. Oh, we're getting the quids, but I don't know about. One million dollars to the inaugural fund does not get you a quo.

Yeah. And also the idea like, so Cutter, they're going to give them a $400 million jet just because, just because. Okay. They're just cool like that. Yeah. Yeah. They're cool like that.

Yeah. How about Susan dropping bars on rule of law? Bars. I was like, okay, Susan. And by the way, gifts are corrupt. Like, why do you think grandparents lavish grandkids? But that's not like, oh, I gave you a toy plane because I am buying your love. I give my dog so many treats.

Right. This is how I became the favorite. Also, the proving, I mean, I can't imagine trying to parse through all of the companies. and all of the shady movements to prove. You're not allowed access to the communications now. The Supreme Court has made it so you don't have it. You can't have access to the communications. You can't prove anything if the president is involved.

And do you think like if he was just doing one of these things, it would be easier to indict him on, like, both literally and in the court of public opinion? Because isn't that what like the Biden crime family was? Was it was just one thing that everybody could sort of focus on? Look at how long it takes to investigate. Like even just Hunter Biden, the dude had like a laptop with images of him like naked holding a gun. And like that was a three-year investigation. Like imagine if you can't get access to anything.

And it's crazy. Like you just had an hour long conversation. You didn't touch on the media. What about all of the money he's making there? Like it really is endless. Oh yeah. True social. No.

$40 million for a documentary. I'll get them back on the line. I want to ask them more. Now I feel terrible. I've missed all these things. No, there's not enough time, I think. Whole another episode. What about the listeners?

What do they want to know this week? All right, we got a couple for you this week. All right. What are we going? Nowadays, what's the point of playing by the rules? I don't know anymore because the system requires. Yeah, I don't fucking know. It's a great, like, I remember in the old days, like, if the president can get a blowjob from an intern, what's keeping the earth on its axis?

Like we're so far beyond. I think that's really where you get down to. Is he exploiting the system that we've all been operating in, but with rose-colored glasses on and didn't recognize like, yeah, money talks, bullshit walks. And that's kind of how it is. And this dude's just ripped the band-aid off and said, look at yourselves. like he's forcing us to view how this whole thing really works. Rules of a secas, that's what I'm saying, kid.

And what's the other one? If you could only choose one, would you advance or destroy AI? Wait, well, I can only choose one? That's correct. No, but that's, no, you can't. Keep in mind the AI is listening. Oh, this hypothesis question. It's like if if and butts are candy and nuts every day would be Christmas.

Like, no, it doesn't work that way. I refuse to answer your hypothetical on there. It's like saying like, you know, if we had never advanced, you know, physics, well, then there wouldn't have been an atomic bomb. Like, you just can't work that way. What I would choose to advance is humanity's understanding of not having to do everything that they can do, that you don't always have to be in the meeting and go, hey, should we reanimate the virus from 1919 that wiped out all those people and like somebody in the office should be like

I don't know about Rihanna is there something else we? Is there some way we could learn about it without unleashing it again? Is that something we could do? No progress requires providence and caution. And so you have to advance it because it's going to anyway, there's an inevitability to it. But you also have to advance our ability to understand how to mitigate. It's like, you know, We've all talked about global warming like this all the time. I'm like, look, I don't care how many cop conferences they do. I don't care how many times you tell people, what if you just got a smaller car? Like, that's not, somehow we're going to have to figure out a way to mitigate.

Like, somebody's going to have to clean this shit up if they're relying on humans to stop being humans. And that's, I feel the same way about AI and everything else. This is the darkest episode we've done. And on that note. But it's like saying like, the. wheel. Would you go forward with it? And you're like, yes. But that means that there will be, you know, trucks that have missiles on the back of them. Like, yeah. It's yin and yang, baby, light and dark. We got to manage it. Got to manage the shadows. Hell yeah. Speaking of bars. All right.

How are the ways that they get a hold of us? Twitter. We are weekly show pod. Instagram threads, TikTok, Blue Sky. We are weekly show podcast. And you can like, subscribe and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with John Stewart. Thank you once again, guys. Fabulous. And thank you for the conversation after that. I thought that was very, very thoughtful of you guys. Lead producer, Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mehmedevick,

video editor and engineer Rob Bacolow, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, researcher and associate producer Jillian Spear and our executive producers, Chris McShane, Katie Gray. Come on, people. Stand in the light. Oh, fuck. All right. We'll see you guys next time. Bye.

The weekly show with John Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Bus Boy Productions. Podcasts.