Speaker 1: I made a prediction on the record on Twitter a
Speaker 1: couple of about a week or so ago.
Speaker 2: My great prediction was.
Speaker 1: That we weren't really going to learn as that basically
Speaker 1: the release of the Epstein files, the JFK files, the
Speaker 1: RFK files, and the MLK files we're not going to
Speaker 1: be nearly as interesting or as exciting as everyone sort
Speaker 1: of declared them to be. I feel like it's all
Speaker 1: going to be kind of a flop end. That is
Speaker 1: indeed what happened yes yesterday. Pam Bondi released some version
Speaker 1: of the Epstein files, and it was this binder that
Speaker 1: they were handing out to stupid right wing influencers at
Speaker 1: the White House who were parading around with it as
Speaker 1: if it was some moment of triumph. And then everyone
Speaker 1: looked at it and realized it was all stuff that
Speaker 1: pretty much everyone already knew before.
Speaker 2: It was all stuff that was already kind of like
Speaker 2: for the most part of publicly available. Actually, one of the.
Speaker 1: Really funny things was some of the stuff in the
Speaker 1: release files was redacted, even though that specific document had
Speaker 1: already been released to the public in an unredacted form.
Speaker 1: Nobody learned anything, so it was like, well, why release anything.
Speaker 1: Now Bondi is doing what appeerd. I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: it's a total BS save face move or if it's genuine.
Speaker 1: She released the same day that this version of the
Speaker 1: Epstein files gets released, which was filled with a whole
Speaker 1: lot of nothing, Bondi releases this letter that she sent
Speaker 1: to Cash Patel, the new head of the FBI, saying,
Speaker 1: I learned through a whistleblower that there are hundreds and
Speaker 1: hundreds and hundreds of pages of documents relating to Epstein
Speaker 1: that are in possession of the Southern District of New York,
Speaker 1: excuse me, of the FBI Field Office in New York.
Speaker 1: And I had requested all documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 1: and they told me they gave me everything. And now
Speaker 1: I've learned through a whistleblower that they didn't. So I
Speaker 1: want you to get me all this stuff. Okay, I
Speaker 1: don't know if that's really what's happening. My faith in
Speaker 1: this whole thing has been shaken by has been shaken
Speaker 1: by the release of that first binder, which was full
Speaker 1: of nothing very interesting at all. So here's a couple
Speaker 1: of reasons for my skepticism about the Epstein stuff. First,
Speaker 1: Gislaine Maxwell, who was Epstein's you know, partnering crime.
Speaker 3: Her.
Speaker 1: Some of her legal disputes are still in appeal, including
Speaker 1: that she's got an appeal going out to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court itself. So there may be actual litigation, ongoing litigation
Speaker 1: reasons to not release a bunch of new evidence relating
Speaker 1: to her that relates to Epstein and thereby relates to her. Okay,
Speaker 1: so that might be an issue. I mean, it might
Speaker 1: be the case that Bondie will get to the finish
Speaker 1: line of this and realize that she can't actually keep
Speaker 1: ongoing because it would jeopardize this federal case against Islane
Speaker 1: Maxwell that is currently on appeal. The other reason for
Speaker 1: my skipticism about this now, and again just for summary
Speaker 1: for those who don't know, Jeffrey Epstein was this suspiciously
Speaker 1: incredibly wealthy New York socialite type who got all kinds
Speaker 1: of money from all kinds of people and had an
Speaker 1: island in the Caribbean where he would fly apparently influential
Speaker 1: people out for sex trafficking of young women.
Speaker 2: And we have solid evidence, We already know that the.
Speaker 1: We already know a lot of stuff about Fstein's conduct
Speaker 1: and who he was doing stuff with. That That's part
Speaker 1: of the reason why I'm not like really expecting that much,
Speaker 1: because we already know a lot.
Speaker 2: We know that Bill Clinton took flights over there. We
Speaker 2: know he had a.
Speaker 1: Close relationship with Bill Gates that caused Milindigates to divorce
Speaker 1: Bill Gates. We know other people who flew on planes.
Speaker 1: We know Donald Trump took a plane flight at some point.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's much evidence that Donald Trump was
Speaker 1: doing anything Vodeo dose suspicious. But Epstein knew a ton
Speaker 1: of people in places of power in New York. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's photos of videos of Trump hanging out with him
Speaker 1: and talking to him. So I think we know a
Speaker 1: good bit of what he did and with whom a
Speaker 1: Stephen Hawking was going over to his island.
Speaker 2: We already know a good bit.
Speaker 1: We already know a good bit from the documents that
Speaker 1: were already released. So this is another reason why I'm
Speaker 1: just not sure that whatever else there is.
Speaker 2: Out there, that it's not going to be released. And
Speaker 2: this is maybe the.
Speaker 1: Last point for why I don't think the Epstein stuff
Speaker 1: is all that great. All right, say what you will
Speaker 1: about whatever. The problem with this is that a lot
Speaker 1: of the the narrative behind why everything hasn't been released
Speaker 1: about Jeffrey Epstein. The narrative is it's because Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: had compromat, compromising material.
Speaker 2: On all kinds of people in positions of influence.
Speaker 1: And power throughout our government, and that the powers that be,
Speaker 1: the establishment, whatever establishment bogeyman you want. And by the way,
Speaker 1: conservatives assume it's all Democrat powers that be and Republicans
Speaker 1: assume it's all Democrat powers that be.
Speaker 2: Someone doesn't want the truth to get.
Speaker 1: Out, and that is why Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, tried
Speaker 1: to play it off as a suicide, and that's why
Speaker 1: we don't know everything. The one problem with this conspiracy
Speaker 1: theory is that federal prosecutors did actually bring the charges
Speaker 1: against Epstein and brought the charges against Maxwell. Now, a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff in the Maxwell trial was not made public,
Speaker 1: which makes people very very suspicious. But I guess here,
Speaker 1: here's my thing with like your your Pambondy and Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Pambondy making this big stink about.
Speaker 4: When we come in, we're gonna find accountability. You know,
Speaker 4: We're we're gonna be the ones we're gonna release the
Speaker 4: Epstein list. We're gonna release the Epstein files. And the
Speaker 4: theory is, well, there's a list out there.
Speaker 1: Of all the people who went to Epstein's island for
Speaker 1: sex with underage women.
Speaker 2: There's a list, there's.
Speaker 1: Something, there's a smoking gun out there that shows all
Speaker 1: the rich and powerful people in society who were going
Speaker 1: to Epstein's island for their disgusting whatever, and that if
Speaker 1: only we can get that one document released, will be good.
Speaker 1: I just don't think that one smoking gun exists. First
Speaker 1: of all, I doubt David Epstein had his notebook of
Speaker 1: prominent people who are my clients for sex trafficking purposes.
Speaker 1: Be surprised if there was a lot of pen to paper. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe there's some evidence out there, Maybe there is some
Speaker 1: smoking gun out there.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think a more meaningful thing to do rather than
Speaker 1: making a pledge about some big showy release of documents.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Pam Bondi made this big stink about, oh,
Speaker 1: we're gonna release these documents, We're gonna show them. And
Speaker 1: she had nothing, I mean she had relatively nothing, nothing
Speaker 1: that interesting, and now she's saying, oh, now I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get all the documents. If you actually have a definitive list,
Speaker 1: go prosecute those people. I don't need you to release
Speaker 1: it to the public. Go prosecute them. That's what I want.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you actually got enough evidence, file charges.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean, call me crazy.
Speaker 1: I think I'd rather if a bunch of rich, powerful,
Speaker 1: famous people were engaged in sex trafficking, I would love
Speaker 1: for them to be prosecuted for sex trafficking. I don't
Speaker 1: need them to be embarrassed. I mean, yes, I would
Speaker 1: like them to be embarrassed, but I would like them
Speaker 1: to be worse than embarrassed. I would like them to
Speaker 1: go to jail. So, in short, this is what and
Speaker 1: I guess that's my thing is these federal prosecutors were
Speaker 1: aggressive enough. So I guess this is the problem with
Speaker 1: the conspiracy theory thinking if you take it too far.
Speaker 1: So federal prosecutors were unafraid enough of the repercussions of
Speaker 1: exposing the rich and the powerful, unafraid enough to prosecute
Speaker 1: Epstein and Maxwell, but they're too afraid to prosecute the
Speaker 1: other people they were servicing. Even though in prosecuting Maxwell
Speaker 1: and Epstein, information did come out that was at least
Speaker 1: somewhat embarrassing to Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: I guess I don't buy it. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just don't think there's some And I realize like
Speaker 1: everyone on the right is sort of conn I mean,
Speaker 1: everyone on the right has been thoroughly conditioned to reject
Speaker 1: the status quo answer that's given on so many topics.
Speaker 1: So much of what we were told about COVID was
Speaker 1: just a flat out lie. So much of what we
Speaker 1: were told about Joe Biden's health was just a flat
Speaker 1: out lie.
Speaker 2: Conservatives are understandably.
Speaker 1: Seeing lies and political manipulation around every corner.
Speaker 2: I get it. I guess it. I get it. I
Speaker 2: guess I'm just not seeing the internal.
Speaker 1: Logical consistency of federal prosecutors were brave enough, unafraid of
Speaker 1: the consequences enough to prosecute Maxwell and Epstein to have
Speaker 1: information be released that was damning to one of the
Speaker 1: richest men in the world, literally top five, Bill Gates is.
Speaker 1: I don't know where he is.
Speaker 2: It's musk.
Speaker 1: And then I think Bill Gates is like number two,
Speaker 1: number two, number three, something like that for the richest
Speaker 1: man of the world. A former American president and a
Speaker 1: current American president. I guess I just find it. I
Speaker 1: find it highly unlikely that there's someone there that we're
Speaker 1: still protecting, although I don't know, maybe the proof's in
Speaker 1: the pudding. I mean, here's Epstein dying under these incredibly fishy,
Speaker 1: suspicious circumstances when one guard turns off the cameras, has
Speaker 1: his back turned all of a sudden, No, David Epstein's
Speaker 1: dead by suicide. There was a lot of stuff within
Speaker 1: the Maxwell trial that was sort of sealed and not
Speaker 1: necessarily open to the public. But I just think in general,
Speaker 1: if you've got Epstein's documents and you've got Maxwell singing,
Speaker 1: wouldn't they have been able to prosecute some of these
Speaker 1: prominent johns. I don't know, maybe, or on the other hand,
Speaker 1: maybe they don't have much documentary evidence about specific persons,
Speaker 1: and maybe Maxwell wasn't giving up too many names.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean, I'd like to know as
Speaker 2: much of the truth as I can.
Speaker 1: But it clearly doesn't actually seem like it doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like the government has now unless all this stuff that's
Speaker 1: allegedly in the FBI field office in New York, unless
Speaker 1: that stuff's got the smoking gun somewhere. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm a little suspicious. And by the way, just
Speaker 1: from just for clarification, there is evidence of Trump having
Speaker 1: flown on Epstein's plane seven times, sometimes with his wife
Speaker 1: and his daughter. There's no evidence of Trump ever having
Speaker 1: gone to the island. Trump said in twenty nineteen, after
Speaker 1: Epstein was arrested that basically he hadn't spoken to Epstein
Speaker 1: for something like fifteen years after they had had a
Speaker 1: falling out. So I don't think Donald Trump was involved
Speaker 1: in sex trafficking or anything. Bill Clinton had a bit
Speaker 1: more of an interaction. Flight logs kept by one of
Speaker 1: the plane's pilots and used in court proceedings show that
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton flew from New York to Britain and back
Speaker 1: in March two thousand and two from its Sugi, Japan,
Speaker 1: to two locations in China, as well as to Singapore, Thailand,
Speaker 1: and Brunei between May twenty second and May twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: twenty of two thousand and two, Clinton in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two flew from Morocco to the Azores.
Speaker 2: And onto New York.
Speaker 1: On September twenty first, from the New York back to
Speaker 1: the Azores, tween October fifth and October ninth, Epstein's plane
Speaker 1: flew the former president from Oslo, Norway, to Russia three
Speaker 1: locations to China. Clinton flew from Miami to Westchester, New York,
Speaker 1: also in two thousand and two. I think it's getting
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two in two thousand and two mixed up
Speaker 1: in this Newsweek article about it. Anyway, I'm I guess,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying I'm becoming more and more skeptical whether
Speaker 1: there's any there there. And I think it was a
Speaker 1: dumb move by Trump and Bondie to sort of act
Speaker 1: like this was going to be a big deal and
Speaker 1: then it turns out not really to be that big
Speaker 1: of a deal.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Hopefully there's more, Hopefully there can be genuine justice shown
Speaker 1: on the matter when we return why I'm suspicious we'll
Speaker 1: find anything interesting in the JFK, MLK and RFK files.
Speaker 1: Next on the John Girardi Show, I have I'm going
Speaker 1: through my list of reasons why I'm skeptical that anything
Speaker 1: much will be learned from whatever release of whatever Epstein
Speaker 1: files end up being released.
Speaker 2: We had yesterday, Oh, we're releasing the Epstein files.
Speaker 1: And then they released a binder full of nothing interesting,
Speaker 1: all bunch of stuff that people mostly already knew about,
Speaker 1: a bunch of flight log the flight log information which
Speaker 1: pretty much everyone already knew about. As she's releasing it,
Speaker 1: Bondi clearly realizes how not interesting all these documents are,
Speaker 1: and she releases this letter to Cash Betel, saying, Hey,
Speaker 1: I learned through a whistleblower that there's a bunch more
Speaker 1: documents in the FBI office in New York. Get them
Speaker 1: to me, please. Why weren't they given to me initially?
Speaker 1: Maybe something there I don't know. Let me go further
Speaker 1: to talk about the pledged by Trump release of all
Speaker 1: the files relating to the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations. Now,
Speaker 1: I've heard a lot more inspiracy theorizing about the JFK
Speaker 1: assassination then I did about Robert Kennedy's assassination or Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King's assassination. So probably my comments are mostly going
Speaker 1: to apply to that, and I've heard many I'm not
Speaker 1: there's some people who are like really into the JFK
Speaker 1: assassination and really have studied it, read about.
Speaker 2: It, thought about it.
Speaker 1: I remember my brother once had a book I think.
Speaker 1: I think it was my dad or my older brother
Speaker 1: had a book about it, and it had a graphic
Speaker 1: showing the theory of the magic bullet and how this
Speaker 1: one bullet from a single shooter wound up hitting both
Speaker 1: JFK and the other guy who was in the car
Speaker 1: with him multiple times, and it's weird trajectory.
Speaker 2: I don't really care.
Speaker 1: I think it's much more of a pressing concern for
Speaker 1: baby boomers than it is for me. It happened during
Speaker 1: the lifetime of baby boomers. It was twenty years plus
Speaker 1: before I was born, so I don't really care.
Speaker 2: This is like getting up, Oh, we're going to get the.
Speaker 1: Real scoop on what really happened to Julius Caesar, like
Speaker 1: ancient history. As far as I'm concerned, I don't really
Speaker 1: care all that much. And by the way, there is
Speaker 1: nothing that's going to be released from the JFK files
Speaker 1: that will actually result in people running. JFK was not
Speaker 1: actually killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, conspiracy theorists and whatever
Speaker 1: range of I don't want to call it all conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's crazy to think the official story
Speaker 1: isn't true, But do you really think there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a CIA memo in there that says, we're going to
Speaker 1: tell the public that Lee Harvey Oswald did it. Actually,
Speaker 1: we the CIA assassinated JFK.
Speaker 2: Lee Harvey Oswald was clearly at guys.
Speaker 1: All of the JFK files have been in the possession
Speaker 1: of the federal government.
Speaker 2: Since nineteen sixty three. Whatever files there are about.
Speaker 1: It has been in the possession of the CIA or
Speaker 1: the FBI or whoever since the sixties. First, do you
Speaker 1: think all the documents are in one place. There's a
Speaker 1: file under the presidential desk that says the JFK files
Speaker 1: and all the documents are just right there waiting for
Speaker 1: the president to just PLoP him at a table with
Speaker 1: his declassify stamp.
Speaker 2: No, they're probably scattered all over the place.
Speaker 1: There's probably if there's information about it, it's probably a
Speaker 1: bunch of information that's scattered hither and yon.
Speaker 2: Different agencies looking at it from different angles.
Speaker 1: Secondly, if they release what if they release all the
Speaker 1: JFK files and everything in the JFK file says, yeah,
Speaker 1: we think it was just Lee Harvey Oswald. We think
Speaker 1: he acted alone. The conventional story, what are the conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 1: But what are the people, I don't.
Speaker 2: Want to call them conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 1: What are the people who don't think it was just
Speaker 1: Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. What are they gonna say, Well, clearly,
Speaker 1: they're gonna say that the fed's tampered with the documents,
Speaker 1: tampered with the evidence, and hid the evidence. They've had
Speaker 1: fifty years worth of time, including like years of thirty
Speaker 1: or forty years of pre internet time to actually physically
Speaker 1: eliminate physical pieces of paper with information on it that's
Speaker 1: not digitized and not scanned and not on the floating
Speaker 1: around on the Internet somewhere or saved in a server
Speaker 1: or in the database. So if the what if the
Speaker 1: conventional story is the story that comes out of whatever
Speaker 1: release of the JFK files actually happens, well, no one's
Speaker 1: gonna believe it. It's not gonna change anything. Everyone's just
Speaker 1: gonna say, well, yes, the CIA deleted all the CIA
Speaker 1: eliminated the information.
Speaker 2: By the way, if the CIA.
Speaker 1: Just to go to the full level conspiracy theory, the
Speaker 1: CIA is ticked off at JFK because if how he
Speaker 1: bungled the Bay of Pigs, they don't want him to
Speaker 1: be president.
Speaker 2: Anymore. The CIA assassinates JFK. Maybe they use Oswald as
Speaker 2: a cutout, or I don't know, whatever.
Speaker 1: The two guys on the Grassy Knoll were actually CIA
Speaker 1: assassins and Oswald was there as a plant.
Speaker 2: Whatever.
Speaker 1: Do you really think the CIA is gonna leave behind
Speaker 1: a piece of paper with that plan on it?
Speaker 2: Here is our CIA plan for how to assassinate John F. Kennedy,
Speaker 2: the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: An act that would be tree, I mean, a plot,
Speaker 1: a scheme that will certainly result in everyone doing it,
Speaker 1: going to jail for life and being executed.
Speaker 2: Like, no, there's it's not written.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure nobody wrote anything down, and if they
Speaker 1: did write anything down, they've had fifty years to shred
Speaker 1: that piece of paper.
Speaker 2: Guys, we're not gonna find anything all.
Speaker 1: That interesting in the JFK, RFKMLK files. I'd be delighted
Speaker 1: if we found something interesting. Would be super cool and interesting,
Speaker 1: just like if we found a new Roman historian writing
Speaker 1: about the death of Julius Caesar.
Speaker 2: But I don't know. I just don't think we're gonna
Speaker 2: find anything.
Speaker 1: All right, when we return the Trump administration catering to
Speaker 1: dumb conservative influencers and why it's not helping right now.
Speaker 2: That's next on the John Gerrardy Show. A lot of.
Speaker 1: Stuff in this nascent second Trump administration has involved.
Speaker 2: Catering to.
Speaker 1: Direction from right wing social media influencers. This has been
Speaker 1: behind the Trump administration's big move to keep TikTok afloat.
Speaker 1: It's been in spite of the fact that it was
Speaker 1: the Trump administer that was the first Trump administration that
Speaker 1: was calling for banning TikTok from the American market as
Speaker 1: a piece of Chinese spyware. Well, Trump changed his mind
Speaker 1: about it. And Trump has been very open saying his reasons, why, Hey,
Speaker 1: TikTok helped me win the election. I'm doing really good
Speaker 1: on TikTok, that that's one of his there's openly stated reasons.
Speaker 1: You know, forget the fact that it's Chinese spyware to
Speaker 1: suck up as much personal data on Americans and maybe
Speaker 1: there's more nefarious stuff behind it, like deliberately trying to
Speaker 1: you know, lessen American attention spans and make us stupider. No, no,
Speaker 1: it helped Trump win the election, so he supports it.
Speaker 1: And there have been a lot of other things that
Speaker 1: seemed to be driven by stuff happening in the world
Speaker 1: of right wing or at the very least like kind
Speaker 1: of right wing coded influencers. A lot of this stuff
Speaker 1: with the Epstein Files of one of the things that
Speaker 1: was happening was you had all these different light right
Speaker 1: wing online influencers who were at the White House parading
Speaker 1: around with the binders of the year. The Epstein files
Speaker 1: have been released, all so cool, and then people actually
Speaker 1: looked through what was released and realized, oh, there's actually
Speaker 1: nothing interesting in here. A lot of this stuff is
Speaker 1: already publicly, this is revealed. Actually absolutely nothing, giant fart.
Speaker 1: But you know who's been pushing for the other.
Speaker 2: People on right wing media, right wing twitter types.
Speaker 1: Okay, the latest thing that seems to be driven by
Speaker 1: Trump two point zero's desire to capture whatever is the
Speaker 1: uth right wing social media market has been this move
Speaker 1: to allow these two guys, Tristan and Andrew Tate to
Speaker 1: come from Romania to the United States. And it's showing
Speaker 1: some divides within the right. Who are these people? Andrew
Speaker 1: Tate and his brother Tristan Tate are guys who ran
Speaker 1: various kinds of promotion schemes for women who were only
Speaker 1: fans models. There is lots of evidence of basically they
Speaker 1: are being prosecuted by the Romanian.
Speaker 2: Authorities for sex trafficking.
Speaker 1: There is good evidence from Andrew Tates's own mouth and
Speaker 1: different interviews that he would bully, intimidate, manipulate women to
Speaker 1: sell themselves for sex and have sex with him. And
Speaker 1: they're pigs. I mean, they're disgusting people. But they've developed
Speaker 1: this sort of weird social media following as like right
Speaker 1: wing almost like right wing youth motivational speakers of like
Speaker 1: trying to sort of put themselves forward as like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're a young guy. You could be cool and rich
Speaker 1: and successful if you just don't be stupid and gay
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah blah blah. It's this whole bizarre
Speaker 1: sort of world that has attracted a bunch of teenage
Speaker 1: boy eyeballs in the United States and they became influential
Speaker 1: on YouTube, slash, TikTok, slash, various forms of social media.
Speaker 1: Now they are highly weird, revolting people. And if this
Speaker 1: is the you know, I guess I've been encouraged by
Speaker 1: a lot of the demographic things that seem to have
Speaker 1: been changing over the course of the twenty twenty four
Speaker 1: election cycle, it seems that young men are becoming much
Speaker 1: more conservative.
Speaker 2: That is good.
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's an unalloyed I don't know
Speaker 1: that every single you know, influencer on the right that
Speaker 1: has resulted in shifting young American men's views on things
Speaker 1: hasn't necessarily been one hundred percent positive.
Speaker 2: And and the Tate brothers.
Speaker 1: Are maybe the most prominent examples of how whatever sort
Speaker 1: of right word shift is happening among young men, we
Speaker 1: need to sort of take it with a grain of
Speaker 1: salt and think, Okay, well it's good, but this is
Speaker 1: kind of a poisonous idea of what masculinity is.
Speaker 2: Andrew Tate also converted to Islam.
Speaker 1: Seemingly because he liked the misogyny like like that seems
Speaker 1: to me the only reason he did it was because
Speaker 1: he was like, ah, yeah, it's actually ah, it's actually
Speaker 1: neat that you guys have polygamy and that you kind
Speaker 1: of put women in your place, in their place and
Speaker 1: tell them.
Speaker 2: To shut up.
Speaker 1: Like like, I guess the you know, sort of Middle
Speaker 1: Eastern style of Islam was appealing to entertate. Anyway, it
Speaker 1: seems as though some sort of diplomatic arrangement was made
Speaker 1: to allow these guys who I don't know the exact
Speaker 1: status of their criminal proceedings in Romania, but I mean
Speaker 1: they were arrested by Romanian authorities on sex trafficking charges.
Speaker 2: Why are we.
Speaker 1: Letting them into the United States? I mean, call me crazy.
Speaker 1: I don't want immigrants with extensive criminal records in their
Speaker 1: home country, any kind of criminal record, let alone sex trafficking,
Speaker 1: coming into the United States.
Speaker 2: That's what we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: And I get a sense that some sort of diplomatic
Speaker 1: something was arranged to allow these guys to come in.
Speaker 2: Now apparently they're coming to Florida.
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis made it clear he doesn't want these guys there,
Speaker 1: and he talked about it at a press conference the
Speaker 1: other day, and he was saying, I'm going to look
Speaker 1: into whatever mechanisms we legally have to not allow this.
Speaker 1: We don't want guys like this in Florida, thank you
Speaker 1: very much. You know, is there some kind of extradition thing,
Speaker 1: is the fact that they were accused of sex crimes
Speaker 1: over there? You know, blah blah blah blah blah. I
Speaker 1: DeSantis is not pleased with this whole thing. And I
Speaker 1: think there's some sort of divide between DeSantis versus folks.
Speaker 2: Within the Trump orbit.
Speaker 1: I mean there's always been, you know, always been tensions,
Speaker 1: certainly ever since the twenty twenty four primary cycle. There's
Speaker 1: always been tensions between the DeSantis people and the Trump people,
Speaker 1: and this seems to be another avenue now. I think
Speaker 1: basically what's happening is the Trump people have all sort.
Speaker 2: Of decided.
Speaker 1: If there is anything that is popular among right shifting
Speaker 1: gen Z voters, we are going to embrace it, and
Speaker 1: we don't care.
Speaker 2: Politically speaking, this is the path forward.
Speaker 1: Who cares about Chinese ownership of TikTok and whatever kind
Speaker 1: of threat it might pose it. But forget what we
Speaker 1: said in the first Trump administration about TikTok being beat.
Speaker 1: We're gonna come hell or high water, We're gonna keep
Speaker 1: TikTok afloat. Forget what anyone said about, you know, forget
Speaker 1: anything Andrew Tate has clearly done as far as being
Speaker 1: a pornographer and a pimp and a.
Speaker 2: Possible sex trafficker. Forget it.
Speaker 1: We don't care if he's popular among and if he's
Speaker 1: vaguely right wing coded, even though I don't think there's
Speaker 1: anything much he talks about that's necessarily conservative or right wing.
Speaker 1: Necessarily I guess he doesn't like liberals. If it's at
Speaker 1: all vaguely right wing coded. We're gonna be nice to
Speaker 1: the Tate brothers. Why well, because it's right wing influencers,
Speaker 1: and this is we perceive this to be popular with
Speaker 1: gen Z voters, so we're gonna embrace it. And politically speaking,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe that's the sound strategy. I just don't
Speaker 1: think it's the right thing to do at all. I
Speaker 1: get the broader picture. Yes, that's smart politics. It may
Speaker 1: very well be smart politics, but I think it's the
Speaker 1: wrong thing to do. I think it is bad to do.
Speaker 1: I don't think this is the kind of guy you
Speaker 1: should be promoting and pushing whatever. Go on to Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: go on to you know, all these other that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of other outlets that gen Z emails
Speaker 1: are looking at that aren't actively promoted, that aren't you know,
Speaker 1: actively promoting pornography and sex trafficking.
Speaker 2: But this seems to me more than a bridge too far.
Speaker 3: When we return my thesis about who is the happiest,
Speaker 3: that Elon Musk is the most prominent person in the
Speaker 3: Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Next on the John Gerardy Show, Elon Musk is a
Speaker 1: lightning rod. You know what a lightning rod actually does.
Speaker 1: So you put a lightning rod on the top of
Speaker 1: a building, and you then have the metal of which
Speaker 1: the lightning rod is made conducts electricity, conducts electrons. You
Speaker 1: then take the metal, have it, you know, sort of
Speaker 1: track along the whole side of the building until it
Speaker 1: gets to the ground, so that the electricity can safely
Speaker 1: be grounded and not harm anything. Instead of lightning striking
Speaker 1: this tall building and lighting it on fire and you
Speaker 1: have a disaster, you have your lightning rod. It hits
Speaker 1: the lightning rod, electricity harmlessly goes down to the ground.
Speaker 2: Easy pasy. That's what Elon Musk is.
Speaker 1: I don't really know how important Elon Musk is. He's
Speaker 1: very prominent and public facing. And wow, what a great
Speaker 1: way for Trump to sort of wave Elon around with
Speaker 1: one hand.
Speaker 2: You know who's happy.
Speaker 1: There's nobody happier about Elon Musk being where he is than,
Speaker 1: for example, the people who are on the Domestic Policy Council.
Speaker 2: Have you ever heard of the Domestic Policy Council? Of
Speaker 2: course you have it.
Speaker 1: These are like the advisors who actually are directing Donald
Speaker 1: Trump for day to day. It's all these people you
Speaker 1: haven't heard of, various kinds of Trump advisors who are
Speaker 1: getting everything they want out of the Trump administration as
Speaker 1: far as policy creation. Now, I'm not saying Musk is
Speaker 1: an uninfluential, unimportant person. Musk dropped tens of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars on the Trump campaign. Clearly he's getting something, Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, and clearly what the stuff that he's doing
Speaker 1: via Doge and whatnot is significant. I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: downplay it. But nobody's happier about this than Steven Miller. Okay,
Speaker 1: Steven Miller, who big time Trump advisor in Trump one,
Speaker 1: continues to be a big possibly even bigger time Trump
Speaker 1: advisor in Trump two, who's getting everything he wants, every
Speaker 1: policy decision he wants out of this Trump administration. And meanwhile,
Speaker 1: who's the media all mad at? They're mad at Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is the thing, with all
Speaker 1: that Elon Musk stirman drunk, Trump's gonna completely win all
Speaker 1: of that. Ultimately, the president gets to decide stuff that's
Speaker 1: done within the executive branch. If Trump is delegating Elon
Speaker 1: to issue those decrees.
Speaker 2: There's nothing wrong with it, Okay.
Speaker 1: Does anyone really think that cabinet secretaries weren't taking their
Speaker 1: orders from instead of Joe Biden himself, from Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: chief of staff, Jeff Resents Towards the end there especially,
Speaker 1: of course, they were.
Speaker 2: Taking orders from Jeff Zence. Nobody was seeing Biden.
Speaker 1: And probably it's fine even that in a certain sense,
Speaker 1: if it's coming from the president, you have to do it.
Speaker 1: So I think Trump's going to win all these legal challenges.
Speaker 1: Ultimately when it comes to Elon, that'll do it for
Speaker 1: Johns already show see you next time on Power Talk.