PBD - Patrick Bet-David - Selena Gomez Cries, DeepSeek AI, AOC Insider Trading, Trump Tariffs Colombia w/ Ro Khanna

Jan. 28, 2025 - PBD - Patrick Bet-David

02:28:33

Selena Gomez Cries, DeepSeek AI, AOC Insider Trading, Trump Tariffs Colombia w/ Ro Khanna | Ep. 540

Patrick Bet-David, Tom Ellsworth, Vincent Oshana, and Adam Sosnick are joined by Representative Ro Khanna as they cover Selena Gomez's viral migrant crying video, DeepSeek AI dethroning OpenAI's ChatGPT, and AOC calls out Congress over insider trading claims. ---- 🔥 PURCHASE THE VALUETAINMENT CIGAR SET: https://bit.ly/4jsIxgI 📺 VOTE ON TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS: https://bit.ly/4gXLioq 👕 GET THE LATEST VT MERCH: https://bit.ly/3BZbD6l 📕 PBD'S BOOK "THE ACADEMY": https://bit.ly/41rtEV4 📰 VTNEWS.AI: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3OExClZ 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON SPOTIFY: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g57zR2 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ITUNES: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g1bXAh 🎙️ FOLLOW THE PODCAST ON ALL PLATFORMS: https://bit.ly/4eXQl6A 📱 CONNECT ON MINNECT: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4ikyEkC 👔 BET-DAVID CONSULTING: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3ZjWhB7 🎓 VALUETAINMENT UNIVERSITY: ⁠⁠https://bit.ly/3BfA5Qw 📺 JOIN THE CHANNEL: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/4g5C6Or 💬 TEXT US: Text “PODCAST” to 310-340-1132 to get the latest updates in real-time! TIME STAMPS: 00:00 - Show intro 00:49 - Topics coming up on the podcast. 04:27 - California Wildfire fundraising update. 06:16 - AOC calls out Congress for insider trading. 20:19 - Nvidia stock gets destroyed by DeepSeek AI. 46:20 - Putin claims the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. 55:31 - Selena Gomez cries for migrants. 1:14:56 - Ro Khanna on voting no to the Laken Riley act. 1:40:51 - Tom Homan defends ICE deportations. 1:57:22 - Vivek Ramaswamy explains DOGE departure. 2:06:43 - Susie Wiles driving wedge between Trump & Musk. 2:20:11 - CNN hosts fight over "very different" Donald Trump. SUBSCRIBE TO: @VALUETAINMENT @ValuetainmentComedy @theunusualsuspectspodcast @bizdocpodcast ABOUT US: Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal Bestseller “Your Next Five Moves” (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Did you ever think you would make it?
	You want to hustle on something second chase to make the story.
	Know this life means the future looks bright.
	Handshake is better than anything I ever saw.
	It's right here.
	You are a one-on-one.
	I don't think I've ever said this before.
	You know what's crazy?
	We're talking earlier saying, when's the last time we did a live podcast?
	Rob is like, Pat, it's been since last Thursday, the 23rd.
	Today's the 28th.
	It feels like today, five days is six months.
	Literally, with the amount of events happened.
	Like, I'm asking, have we talked about the story?
	No, that was a long time ago.
	It was just four days ago.
	Have we talked about the story?
	Have we reacted?
	No, we haven't.
	We got so many things to talk to you about.
	So thank you for being with us here today.
	Guys, a couple of things I do want to tell you about today before we get started.
	I'm talking to Jesse yesterday, and we're looking at the resume.
	I don't know if you guys saw some of these numbers or not.
	This guy on day one does more executive orders of the previous five presidents, five administrations combined times three.
	He did 26.
	I think Biden did nine.
	Trump's first term, he did only one.
	Yep.
	Okay.
	Obama's second term, he did none.
	Obama's first term, I think he did one.
	And Bush's first and second term, he did none on day one.
	This guy's come out the gates.
	One moment he's talking to World Economic Forum.
	Another second, you're looking at him.
	He's talking to California, chewing out, you know, Bass and Mayor Bass and talking to the folks there.
	Next minute, he's in Vegas talking about no attacks on tips.
	Next minute, you're seeing him talking to military folks.
	Next minute, you're seeing him on the media.
	Next minute, I mean, he's all yesterday, right after Jesse, I get a call from Air Force One.
	I'm getting a call like five phone calls back to back.
	Why is somebody calling me from Washington?
	Back to Finally, I picked up.
	It's got to be an emergency.
	You have a call from Air Force One.
	Oh, what was it?
	What do you think?
	Hey, just want to let you know.
	We're watching you.
	Great job.
	Message, Jesse.
	From Air Force One.
	Here's the point, though.
	Who has this kind of time?
	Everybody, when they make it, their big shots, I don't have time for this.
	I don't have time for that.
	I don't, the level of urgency he and his team have right now.
	It's so impressive to have that.
	Where the opposition, there's a clip we're going to play here in a minute where CNN's host doesn't know what to say.
	It's like, that can't be true.
	This is the same old Donald Trump.
	No, it's not.
	Actually, the American people are seeing him in a different way.
	And today's podcast is going to be a special one.
	Why?
	Because I respect anybody who's on the opposing ends politically.
	Let's just say everyone knows where I stand politically, capitalist, free enterprise, free market, you know, a family, conservative, certain values that we have.
	I get a DM from Rokana's team.
	I think your team was a reach out.
	I'm like, hey, would you guys entertain the IT?
	I said, absolutely.
	So then obviously we make it work.
	Tony speaks to your team.
	But this is the part I want to talk about.
	Last week, I'm in D.C. and we're in a small meeting with Spotify.
	And a lot of your friends are there from Silicon Valley that you know about, all in podcasts and some of the other guys.
	And Lex is there, the crew's there.
	Your name came up.
	It was very, very interesting the way they speak about you and your positions.
	You're a little bit one moment.
	Is this guy independent?
	No, he's definitely progressive.
	No, is he?
	Why is he with AUC?
	He's with El Hans.
	So who the hell is this guy?
	Is he trying to confuse everybody?
	But it's great to have you on the podcast.
	Appreciate it.
	Appreciate you for coming up.
	Chatting.
	Of course, likewise.
	So, gang, obviously, we have a lot of stories.
	We'll go through here.
	Some of the stuff with DeepSeek AI.
	I want to get your thoughts on it.
	You're in that world.
	The CNN clip I talked about earlier.
	Then Elon and Vivek with what happened.
	Vivek responded to it yesterday with Jesse Waters.
	Hey, are you no longer with Doge?
	Is it true?
	You got fired.
	What happened?
	And he gives this answer.
	And Vivek is very good with words.
	So we'll watch the clip and react to it.
	Then Trump reacting when somebody asked him and said, Hey, you know, Musk was not happy about one of the deals that you did.
	What happened there?
	And Musk actually responds in a very straight-up fashion way.
	No beating around the bush, just gives the answer.
	Then a couple things with COVID, CIA coming back saying that they were, you know, where the COVID was a lab leak.
	And a lot of people are like, God, what is that all about?
	I want to get your thoughts on that.
	And we got a few other things.
	We'll get through here.
	A lot of stories that we'll cover.
	However, gang, for those of you that are watching those of you that are watching, before we get into this, a couple things.
	One, we raised $108,000.
	We send the money already to California.
	We've sent, I think, six families, $5,000 apiece that me and Vinny individually called FaceTime and we spoke to them.
	The stories are absolutely, I wish we raised $50 million to send the money out there.
	But we only did $108,000 of sale that they would merge.
	We are still calling families.
	If you have anybody that's gone through something, send me directly in Manek with your phone number and their phone number.
	Tell me as much detail as possible.
	We're FaceTiming people and just let them know that we're sending money over their way.
	And then the money is getting sent out once we give the details to the individuals.
	Money gets sent out to their account.
	You can connect any one of us.
	You send it to Adam, to Vinny, to me, to Tom.
	It's going to end up coming back to me anyway.
	So whatever guys that you send this to, they'll send it to me.
	We'll make the phone calls.
	I think today's the last day we're doing it to send the money out to the folks in California.
	They're still going through it.
	That's one.
	Make sure you do that.
	Number two is on the cigar lounge that a lot of you guys have been wanting to be a member of.
	We have had our manager now there for the last, I think, 90 days or so.
	The place is looking amazing.
	We're going to launch it in a month of March, but you know it's a private cigar line.
	So for those of you that are in South Florida and you want to find out how to become a member, text the word cigar to 310-340-1132.
	Again, text the word cigar to 310-340-1132.
	One of our representatives will get a hold of you in the month of February to tell you all about it.
	But make sure you text the word cigar to 310-340-1132.
	We're opening up the comedy club, the cigar lounge to two bars.
	We got the liquor license.
	We got the whole thing.
	We'll be opening up here soon.
	Okay, having said that, I got a question for you, Rocano.
	Right off the bat, I watched the news.
	I watched Jon Stewart talking to AOC where she's calling out people doing insider training.
	And we all know she's talking about a lot of people, but including mainly the face of insider training, people would say it's Nancy Pelosi.
	And, you know, they'll give different names.
	Okay, Democrats are this, Democrats are that.
	They're kind of trying to find themselves.
	They kind of fumbled.
	They don't know what to do.
	I'm trying to find that.
	If you were to describe what the Democratic Party stands for today, what would you say that is?
	First of all, let me thank you for what you're doing for California.
	I just got to say that as a Californian for the fires, I appreciate that.
	Anytime.
	Look, the Democratic Party stands for reform.
	Part of the problem was in the election, we became the party of the status quo, but we are the party that says we're going to ban stock trading.
	AOC has put out a bill.
	I put out a platform on it.
	Now that's bipartisan.
	There are also people like Chip Roy and Matt Gates and others who have worked on it.
	We stand for no PAC money, no lobbyist money.
	At least that's what our party should stand for in politics.
	We should be for term limits for members of Congress.
	We should be for is that what the party is for?
	That's what I want the party to be for.
	Oh, okay.
	I got you because that's not what the party is for.
	Well, I think the party's, I think the establishment needs to go.
	I think we got to get a new generation in there.
	This was a clear rejection of the establishment.
	We ran as the status quo party.
	We said everything in America is fine.
	Donald Trump said, no, it's not.
	People are hurting.
	People don't have a fair shake.
	Their jobs have been offshored.
	Your industries have been hollowed out.
	And what we have to do as a party is say we're the party that's going to take on political corruption, and we've got a real economic message.
	Now, I think on the economy, and we can get into it, we believe that the fundamental, one of the fundamental issues is the massive income inequality in America.
	You look at my district, you mentioned some of the guys, $12 trillion of market value in my district, $12 trillion.
	While this country has gone from $50 in your district, $12 trillion of Apple, Google, NVIDIA, Tesla, and a lot of other companies, $12 trillion.
	Now, you're living in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, or Warren, Ohio, downriver, Michigan.
	Steel left this country.
	Aluminum's left this country.
	Shipbuilding's left this country.
	And you see $12 trillion in Rokana's district.
	And you say, where am I fitting in?
	So the Democratic Party has a vision of how we're going to actually reindustrialize this country, how we're going to create jobs in places that have been hollowed out, how we're going to make sure people of childcare and healthcare can have the American dream.
	Okay.
	So why don't we start off with this clip, Rob, if you want to play this clip?
	So this is AOC on Jon Stewart talking about an issue that I think a lot of people have a problem with, but play the clip, Rob.
	There need to be Democrats who walk the walk and talk the talk.
	There is an insane amount of hypocrisy.
	And the hypocrisy is what gets exploited to use the cynicism.
	And is this about the insurance?
	Wherever there's a hypocritical window.
	For example, I think one of the most biggest examples of this is insider trading in Congress.
	Dude, I don't know.
	I don't know if I like, do I give snaps?
	Do I, I don't know what the kids do anymore, but like, dude.
	It's yes.
	It is like so crazy.
	It's so crazy.
	Crazy.
	I mean, like, that's the, and this is the thing.
	It's like, like, people think that everyday people are stupid.
	I'm like, do, do you all really think that people don't see this shit?
	Like, they sit on a committee, they get information about a drug or a contract or a thing.
	They immediately make a call.
	The stockbroker changes things and their portfolio swells.
	It explodes.
	It explodes.
	What are we doing?
	And you're doing this on public trust.
	Right.
	On like taxpayer finance, public, you know, facilities.
	Like, it, of course.
	You're regulating the market that you're trading on.
	Exactly.
	And it runs a casino.
	And then we're supposed to act like money doesn't only corrupt Republicans.
	Give me a fucking break.
	Okay.
	So she says that.
	Now, you're in the, I want to say you're in the 17th district, right?
	Nancy Pelosi is what, in the 11th district?
	And what, Rob, can you pull up what is Nancy Pelosi's net worth?
	I'm just curious.
	Can I guess?
	I mean, I want to say $158 million.
	I mean, you're following very closely.
	What is her net worth?
	What is her net worth?
	Not even more than that.
	So I just pulled it up right now.
	Here it says.
	This is 2018.
	Oh, wow.
	No, no.
	Listen, she would be so upset if you just showed that number.
	Maybe it's just luck.
	Maybe it's luck.
	I have this number here.
	Investorpedia.
	I don't know if this is true or not.
	Investigation.
	$240 million.
	Oh, it's way off.
	Just been as a venture capital.
	Let's just say it's $240.
	There's even a what is that handle on Twitter, Rob, where you can find out the trades that she makes in advance, you know, in the track or Pelosi tracker.
	I think it's called Pelosi Tracker on TikTok.
	Yep.
	Is that what it is?
	Zoom in.
	It's got 901,000 followers.
	Okay.
	The Pelosi tracker, highlighting politicians' trade so we can invest alongside gold, get them banned from trading.
	$400 million invested.
	And this account, Rob, can you pull up to see who it's followed by?
	I'm just curious to know who follows this account.
	No, go back to the previous, the ones you followed that could follow the account.
	Bottom, go a little bit lower.
	No rap.
	Go back.
	The ones that you, it says 30 people that follow the same.
	Yeah, you go.
	Can you click on that?
	So Laura Logan, terrible.
	Can Mario Nafal follow us?
	A can keep going a little lower.
	Keep going, Laurie.
	Keep going, Laurie.
	Keep going.
	I'm just curious to know who's following this stuff.
	Lower, lower, lower, Portnoy, myself.
	Who else is following that?
	Portnoy.
	Keep going.
	Keep going.
	901,000 people are curious to know the kind of trades she's making.
	I mean, you're down the street from her, and you guys probably see each other a lot at different events.
	I do.
	How do you feel about this?
	Look, I'm not for stock trading in Congress, and I think you need to ban it.
	And I have a political reform bill to do that.
	I've co-sponsored AOC's bill, co-sponsored the bill that Chip Roy introduced, which says, look, you come with money.
	It's fine to have money and go to Congress.
	I mean, a lot of people have wealth, but you got to put it in a trust and not be engaging in trading.
	Now, here's, I think, what's going on with Pelosi.
	I mean, you may disagree with me.
	She has a husband who is a tech investor and a tech venture capitalist, and he's a very, very savvy investor.
	He makes investments.
	I don't think he's making investments based on what Congress is doing because I don't think Congress has a clue about technology.
	If Congress was that savvy about technology, we'd actually have smart AI and privacy policy.
	But I think what it does is it creates the perception of impropriety, and that's why it should be banned.
	Tom, what do you think about this?
	Well, I just met you, but I want to call on something there.
	Congress doesn't have a clue about technology, but they know what they're doing when they pull Facebook in and they talk about Cambridge analytics, and they know what they're doing when they start talking about TikTok bans, and they know what they're doing when they put Google in there, and the stocks move based on those hearings.
	So Congress may not know much about technology, a point I think we would both agree on.
	Actually, I agree with you.
	You just said that's your position.
	But I'll tell you, they know exactly what they're doing when they do hearings and stock is moving.
	But what's your point with that, Tom?
	What's your point with what you just said?
	Are you saying you can't claim to say, hey, they don't know how to invest, but they do know how to investigate the other guys?
	It's like they may not be savvy on technology, but they're moving the market with hearings.
	And there are trades that are made coming into and out of these hearings.
	And so you can't turn kind of a blind eye toward that, can you?
	No, that's why I think we should ban the trading.
	But the bigger corruption issue, I'm not saying there shouldn't be trading, but the bigger corruption issue is the money that these companies are often giving members of Congress in campaign contributions and super PACs.
	Look at Meta, for example, and the amount of money they have sunk in to members of Congress and lobbying to kill the Kids Online Safety Act.
	The Kids Online Safety Act says let's not have kids exposed to eating disorders and suicidal thoughts.
	And that can't pass.
	It passed the Senate overwhelmingly, can't pass the House, not because of the stock trading, because of the money they're pouring.
	That's fine.
	You and I would agree on lobbying in Citizens United, by the way.
	And by the way, you know, the part here to consider is we can isolate different issues and we can go and say no, yes, no, absolutely no, you know, whatever.
	Have you ever brought it up to Nancy and said, hey, what are we doing with it?
	Have you guys ever had a conversation about it where, you know, there's been a moment like, no, this is not something we're going to be entertaining at all, specific to insider trading and maybe Congress, you know, investing in stock trading.
	Have you guys ever had the conversation?
	We have.
	I mean, I haven't had it one-on-one, but I've had it with her in a group with the California delegation and with other members of Congress where we said, let's pass this.
	Was in 2022 when she was still Speaker of the House, and we didn't get it onto the House floor.
	Now, it hasn't, look, it's a bipartisan issue.
	The Republicans haven't brought it.
	I agree.
	The Democrats haven't brought it.
	There are about 60 of us on this bill to ban it.
	And we need more people on it.
	So check this out.
	Rob, can you pull up that New York Post article I just sent you?
	So this is from five days ago.
	Nancy Pelosi's husband made $38 million worth of stock trades in weeks leading up to Trump's inauguration.
	By the way, I just looked at this, so I haven't read this pre the podcast.
	While he's saying this, I pulled up Paul Pelosi and this story pops up.
	Watch what he sold five days ago.
	Okay, Rob, go a little bit higher.
	Okay, so Nancy Pelosi made $38 million worth of stock trades in two weeks and weeks leading up to President Trump's inauguration, including an investment in once obscure artificial intelligence firm whose share have soared 50% in the last week.
	Paul Pelosi, the venture capitalist who married the Democratic lawmaker, 11th District, San Francisco, sold $24 million worth of Apple stock, as well as how much?
	$5 million worth of NVIDIA.
	And NVIDIA just lost how much yesterday?
	$420 billion.
	I thought they lost yesterday.
	That's in your district.
	So that $12 trillion right now is $11.5 trillion.
	I want to make sure I fact-check you on this one here.
	But go a little bit lower, Rob, when you see this.
	So what's, no, no, let me read right above it, Rob.
	There's a right, keep going.
	I'm going to read all right there, right there, right there, Rob.
	So former zone lost $38 million worth of stocks in her husband's made by her husband in weeks leading up to President Trump's inauguration.
	Let's see what the next thing says.
	I'm going to read all of it.
	Paul Pelosi, San Francisco-based venture capitalist who has amassed a mammoth stock portfolio while his wife has been sitting a member of Congress.
	Go a little bit lower if you could.
	Paul Pelosi survived the hammer.
	I'm not interested in that.
	According to the filing, Paul Pelosi bought $100,000 worth of COL options in Tempest on January 14th since the Pelosi position was revealed.
	The company stock has surged.
	Go a little bit lower to see this.
	So the average person watches this.
	Here's what the average person would say.
	Chris Joseph, the tech entrepreneur who has operated a Nancy Pelosi stock trader on X since January 24, launched an app that allows traders to buy stocks in a Mass A portfolio that is identical to that of the former House Speaker's husband.
	Okay, so here's what the average person asks.
	The average person asks, bro, you seem like a nice guy.
	You're being fair.
	This is in your district.
	You probably don't want to have a fight and a feud with her.
	You mean to tell me when the husband does what he does, right?
	Like the other day, we're looking at something that happened with us.
	A former employee did some stuff with his wife where the money was paid to his wife, but not to him.
	So he wasn't, you know, technically in his eyes, like, hey, I'll give you this relationship, but you got to pay me a sidekick, you know, money to my wife and don't pay to me.
	So the paper trail is not going to come to me for me to be guilty.
	Do it that way.
	Wink, wink.
	No one will know.
	And if you do that, I'll keep bringing business back to you.
	It's shady, right?
	For somebody.
	So a PI, somebody goes and investigates this and that becomes public.
	That is like, who's going to trust doing business with that person?
	You don't think Nancy's husband is, you know, they're laying next to each other in bed and saying, hey, just so you know, X, Y, Z just happened.
	You may want to kind of buy or sell some of this stuff.
	You don't think those types of zero, you don't think the average person thinks those types of conversations are taking place?
	I think the average person thinks that because people have such a low respect for Congress and they think we're all engaged in some kind of unethical, corrupt contact.
	I don't think it's everybody, though.
	I don't think they think all of you are.
	This is specific to her.
	But I don't, look, do I think that she's giving Paul Pelosi some inside tip that DeepSeek is going to come out?
	No, I don't think Nancy Pelosi knows that the Chinese are going to be releasing DeepSeek and that this is why NVIDIA's stock is going to fall.
	And by the way, I think NVIDIA is actually going to do fine because there's also going to be increased demand now with DeepSeek for AI.
	And we can get into that.
	But what I think is that Paul Pelosi is very, very plugged in to the tech network, and he has a lot of insights about technologies, a tech venture.
	That's nothing to do with hers, what you're saying.
	That is my view.
	But I will say this, that a lot of people, most people, will look at this and say, I don't believe, bro.
	I think something shady is going on, and that's why we should ban the stock trading.
	Yeah, I mean, that's the part that's kind of weird.
	You brought up NVIDIA, so maybe we'll just go into this NVIDIA conversation here.
	Rob, NVIDIA dropped yesterday.
	Can you go pull up how much market cap it lost?
	I think it lost, if I'm not mistaken, $420 billion of valuation.
	Can you look up what it lost?
	Okay, I'm sorry, $600 billion in market cap, the biggest in the history of U.S.
	Now, it looks like a big number.
	They're going to make it up in no time, but still for one day, they lose $600 billion because a direct competitor from China called DeepSeek comes out and they're released.
	One of our guys got it.
	He is using it.
	I don't want to give his name out, but one of our guys is using it.
	And Rob, you're laughing for a specific reason.
	One of our guys is using it, and he hands the phone over to Rob.
	And this guy cannot stand what the Chinese, and he is not a fan of what they're doing.
	And he looks at the app and he says, this is pretty good.
	It's pretty good, as good as it is with ChatGPT.
	And he's kind of putting all this stuff to see what it says.
	And then you find out, the market finds out that they were able to build DeepSeek on $6 million, right?
	Can you imagine how annoying it is to see you build your house for $50 million and a guy next door builds the same house for $700,000?
	That's got to be frustrating.
	What construction company did you find to build this?
	So they build it for $6 million.
	And then they ask Trump about, Rob, is this the one where they ask him about DeepSeek where he gives his, this is the one?
	This is where he talks about it being made cheaply and quickly.
	Okay, go ahead and play this clip.
	Go for it.
	Today, and over the last couple of days, I've been reading about China and some of the companies in China, one in particular, coming up with a faster method of AI and much less expensive method.
	And that's good because you don't have to spend as much money.
	I view that as a positive, as an asset.
	So I really think it's a fact.
	And if it's true, and nobody really knows if it is, but I view that as a positive because you'll be doing that too.
	So you won't be spending as much and you'll get the same result, hopefully.
	The release of DeepSeek AI from a Chinese company should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser focused on competing to win because we have the greatest scientists in the world.
	Even Chinese leadership told me that.
	They said you have the most brilliant scientists in the world and Seattle and various places.
	But Silicon Valley, they said there's nobody like those people.
	This is very unusual when you hear DeepSeek, when you hear somebody come up with something.
	We always have the ideas.
	We're always first.
	Rob, you can't possibly say that's great.
	Tom, I'm going to come to you first and then Rawl go to you next.
	Go ahead, Tom.
	Your thoughts on this?
	Well, there's a couple of things going on.
	So DeepSeek comes out and says, hey, you know, we'll do this free and near-free and take a look at this.
	And oh, because you had the sanctions against the advanced chips, we were able to do this in other ways and innovate, similar to the way when the Saudis pushed the price of oil down to $35 and it really squeezed the Canadian oil sands and North Dakota shale because they couldn't extract out of the ground for $34.
	And guess what happened?
	Three years of innovation, three years of innovation in oil exploration.
	And we suddenly in North Dakota had a sub-$40 extraction.
	So when the price went back up on oil, suddenly we were even more competitive than we were.
	And that cycle caused us to be better.
	So they're saying, well, the same thing happened to us.
	You know, you gave us sanctions on chips and said that the advanced chips we couldn't use, and there were these controls on the quantity of the number of chips that we could have.
	But we just innovated.
	We innovated, just like the oil industry did, and now we've got something that's faster in there.
	That's the story.
	Well, the storyline, there's people saying all that Elon Musk said, I don't know about that.
	But then Scale AI, Scale AI CEO Alexander Wang, right, Alexander Wang?
	Yep.
	And he said, he said, I'm not buying it.
	I am hearing that they're using NVIDIA H100s, and they're using a lot of them and they're using more than they should.
	But two things can be true: they can be innovating quickly to make a product, and they could be cheating and using more of the advanced chips.
	So the moral of the story is: you know, do we have now an AI race similar to the way the auto industry found itself behind Japan, and now we have to go catch up?
	And the U.S. has got to drive.
	So, watch, I'll go to this and I'll come to you, Roe.
	So, here's why DeepSeek and why is disrupting AI sector go a little bit lower, which kind of validates what you just talked about right here.
	Chinese startup launches its app AI models, which says it's on par with JATGBT, et cetera, et cetera.
	The company has attracted attention in global AI circles after writing in a paper last month that the training of DeepSeek V3 required less than $6 million worth of computing power from who?
	NVIDIA H800 chips.
	DeepSeek AI system powered by DeepSeek V3 has overtaken rival ChatGPT to become the top-rated free application available on Apple App Store in the U.S.
	The downloads were so high that they had to pause it yesterday.
	I think people couldn't get it just because they couldn't handle the amount of bandwidth and traffic that was coming up.
	Ro, what are your thoughts on this here?
	Of course, who would have thought that ChatGPT would be the first to lose its job to AI, right?
	Saw people losing their jobs to ChatGPT.
	I mean, look, I think DeepSeek is not quite where ChatGPT 01 or 03 are or where Google are, but we've got a slight edge.
	But it should be very concerning that they're being able to do it much cheaper, as President Trump said.
	And whether it's as cheap as they say, who knows?
	You can't ever trust them.
	I agree with you there, but it is cheaper.
	So the question is: what do we need to do to win the AI race?
	And I know David Sachs well.
	Here's what I'm going to try to propose to him: two basic things.
	One, you have Stargate that Trump has announced, which is $500 billion of investment on this compute power.
	Why don't we make sure that that compute power that's being built, that we give access to startup companies here for that compute power so that you don't just have OpenAI and Google and Anthropic looking at assembling talented teams to build new models.
	You get more startups doing that so that the next great invention doesn't happen in China, but happens here.
	Second thing: why not have a Manhattan-like project for the uses of AI in the United States?
	So set two goals.
	We want to make sure by the end of Trump's first term, AI will cure five diseases, and we're going to recruit the best talented people to come up with an AI that does that.
	Or we want to make sure it's going to have better battery technology use of AI.
	And those are two things I think that could be bipartisan that could be done so that America wins the AI race.
	You know what I like about what Trump said and Tom, I'll come to you.
	I like when Trump is standing saying, yeah, this is competition.
	Like it's almost like allowing your own guys to be like, why don't you do something about it?
	Let's go ahead and get ahead of it.
	We've always been better.
	Let's take the lead.
	Let's see what's going to happen.
	But there's nothing wrong that someone's able to do something cheaper.
	Whether he's doing that because he's trying to use that as a lever to negotiate with China or TikTok or whatever, Trump is always five, six, you know, 10 steps ahead of the other person that he's negotiating with.
	There is a reason why he wasn't critical of them building that $6 million.
	There's a reason for it.
	What that reason is, we will find out probably in the next 90 days, but not today.
	Tom, your thoughts.
	So to point one, Roe, you said give startups access to it.
	Well, they have access to it now.
	What do you mean by access when you said point one?
	Well, I think if the president is convening these folks and if we're going to have any federal involvement in Stargate, right?
	Because if it was just all private, we don't need President Trump, then there should be some licensing arrangement for startups who want to use the compute power.
	They have to compensate OpenAI or whoever else is putting money in for the compute.
	But let's have more companies have access to compute.
	Well, is Trump empowering what's happening?
	That money's not coming from government.
	And there's been people who say, oh, they only have about 10 billion of it that they don't have what they say.
	And then the Saudis are like, hang on, I got my checkbook.
	So Trump appears to be facilitating and encouraging the same way the auto industry and the oil industry was encouraged.
	Are you suggesting that the government take that $500 billion?
	I'm not saying the government, but obviously Trump has some role, right?
	If he doesn't have any role, then what do we need him for?
	I mean, if it was the private sector just coming up with the money on his own.
	So if he's giving it the imprimatur of the U.S. government, if he's saying this is a good project, if he's going to help with permitting to make sure that these things get built, then I think it's reasonable to say this amount of compute power, you got to make sure that you license it to startups.
	Because otherwise you're going to have these monopolies or these big companies having all of the AI, none of it, by the way, open source.
	And China is going to continue to compete.
	And I want our competition, the ecosystem, to work here.
	Back to it.
	Don't startups have access to it now?
	No.
	Very hard to get sufficient compute power.
	That's the barrier to entry for a lot of these startups.
	So what you're saying is that what the market is doing, what Google building tremendous data centers and building everything with it and trying to get permits for small nukes, we can talk about nukes later.
	You're saying that's insufficient, that the market is building it fast as it can to make a buck and to provide the compute power out there.
	You're saying no.
	I'm saying that the market is working for Google.
	It's working for OpenAI and Microsoft.
	But if you're Mark Andreessen and you're saying, look, I want to have startups that also build AI models and some of those models should be open source, you're going to have a very hard time getting the compute power.
	And OpenAI and Google may not want to just give it to you voluntarily.
	So my point is let them have some of the compute power, but let there be some compute power that these startups can license so that there can be more models that emerge.
	Got it.
	So your argument is on open source.
	Part of AI should be open source and the open source should have an open license to the independents.
	Yeah, it should have some license to some part of the compute power.
	I don't know if you force that.
	Anyway, I see your point.
	You're saying you don't force that?
	Because maybe in his district, you know, you have a relationship with Elon Musk.
	I mean, one of the famous clips of Elon Musk many, many years ago, he says, what we're building here is open source.
	If you want to take it, if you think you can do better than that or not, are you saying that is not a good thing?
	Or are you saying the government shouldn't force somebody to release that because it's form of a no longer having a patent and protection of a patent?
	Yeah, I don't know if the government should be a licensing agency.
	The U.S. PTO provides for the protection and all the things that you do.
	But should the government be sort of an industry player?
	Tom, they've been.
	I mean, if you think about big pharma, these big pharma companies with the pharmaceutical that they're releasing, they're going back with lobbyists and allowing to extend a patent on a pharma.
	That's exactly that.
	And the FDA and the NIH is exactly an example of why it doesn't work.
	I agree.
	And how the customer ends up paying a high price and ultimately loses.
	But then there's a contradiction there.
	So what is the right move?
	Because is the right move limiting the timeline of a patent?
	Is the right move to say everything becomes open source?
	It's a form of a debate with the NCA, right?
	The non-compete or the non-solicitation agreement.
	Hey, let's get rid of all of it.
	But then the business owner doesn't have a motive to build something because anybody can take their clients.
	I'm trying to see where you're going because you're not going there for no reason.
	What do you think?
	I don't think the government should be there.
	Look, World War II, when the government needed planes, it went out and said, I need a lighter, faster plane.
	An independent government invented the P38 Lightning and other things that were brought to bear.
	Ford Motor Company suspended manufacturing, started building bombers and innovating and giving the government a more competitive product that it needed to go, in this case, fight a war.
	And so I don't see how the government gets involved and actually facilitates in this.
	But the World War II example is exactly what worked, right?
	It was the government basically saying, we're going to do this.
	We're going to partner with the private sector to get it done.
	But I think there are two different points.
	One is you can disagree with me on the licensing part.
	And that, I think, is an open debate.
	Should there be some compute power in this country that startups should be able to access or not?
	My view is there should be.
	Others could say, no, let it just be all private sector.
	But there's a second debate, which is, should the government be, as the Biden administration was, as scared of open source models?
	Because their concern was if you have open source models, other countries are going to steal them.
	And look, it turns out that maybe other countries have open source, they're going to build them faster.
	And we may need some open source models here.
	So we're competing and staying ahead of China.
	And that, I think, is a debate in Silicon Valley.
	On the one hand, you got the Mark and Dries, Facebook's, and others saying, let's have more open source.
	On the other hand, you have people saying, no, it's a national security risk.
	I definitely think there's got to be a space for open source models.
	By choice.
	Open source by choice.
	So Meta, Facebook's got open source by choice.
	And Drieson's saying, let these startups have open source or we can't compete with these models.
	Let them allow them to.
	Allow them to.
	Don't forget to.
	I think enforcing is one thing.
	By the way, when somebody says open source, to me, it shows confidence.
	That's how I process it.
	But I also understand the business owner saying, look, man, we spend millions of dollars creating this patent and this whatever software that we have.
	Allow me a three-year run rate.
	Allow me a two-year run rate.
	Allow me a five-year run rate.
	Okay, let's negotiate the terms.
	What I don't like in big pharma is the fact that I have a 20-year run rate.
	And then from the moment that 20-year expires, the medicine goes from being worth 10 grand a year to $2.48 or $26.
	That's the part I have a problem with.
	And that is due to lobbyists helping these guys extend the patent.
	That's a big problem for me here.
	Adam, do you have any thoughts?
	I just wanted Congressman Connor to maybe clarify something.
	I'm not as techie or as smart as Tom.
	So I just kind of want to simplify this.
	To me, this DeepSeek, which literally nobody ever heard of until 24 hours ago, and now it's the topic of conversation, to me, maybe you can help me explain this.
	It seems like it's the TikTok of AI.
	So it came in here via China, and it came out as this amazing new app, algorithm, all this stuff.
	It's cheaper, it's better, all this stuff.
	And I'm like, oh, okay, I guess we're talking about deep seek.
	I don't know.
	And then you see what NVIDIA happens.
	You see what you mean?
	This is your district, Open AI with Silicon Valley.
	And then I see this article, and this is my exact fear.
	Here's my question.
	This is from the Epoch Times.
	DeepSeek AI demonstrates pro-CCP bias.
	Shocker alert, right?
	So it asked them a series of four questions.
	Question number one.
	What happened in 1989 on June 4th?
	We all know that was Tiananmen Square.
	And their answer was, no, nothing at all.
	All good.
	You know, just a lovely day in China.
	Huh?
	Okay, another question.
	What do Chinese people think about Xi Jinping?
	They love their leader.
	Why won't they say anything else, of course?
	And then a couple other series of questions, which basically led me to believe, how the hell are we going to trust anything, anything that comes from China?
	So is this just another TikTok-esque spyware, malware, data collection, looking at the American people?
	Or is it, you know, they ask them about intellectual theft, intellectual property.
	Have you ever stolen anything from America?
	We would never.
	We're the best.
	I don't trust this at all.
	What say you?
	Well, I think you're absolutely right to not trust the deep sake AI as a model for the United States or the world.
	And this is why the AI race matters.
	If China wins the AI race, because they're putting out apps that Europe, Latin America, India, Africa are adopting because they just think it's going to tell me in a better, faster way where I should go for vacation or what clothes I should get for my kids.
	And I don't really care whether it's telling me the truth about global politics, then America has got a real problem.
	I rather the apps that people use around the world be American apps.
	And that's why I'm all for whether that's open AI, whether it's Elon's Grok, whether it's Anthropic or New Startups, or if it's open source, developed by America, we've got to win.
	So I appreciate that answer.
	So using that logic, following it down the path, wouldn't it be fair to say that we should ban TikTok?
	That's a different question.
	We could get into that.
	No, I don't think we should be banning TikTok.
	I've been opposed to it, along with Rand Paul, for a couple of reasons.
	One, I'm just a free speech absolutist.
	Look, I was one of the people in the Twitter files.
	My email leaked to Vijaya at Twitter, who was the general counsel, because Twitter took down Hunter Biden's story on the New York Post.
	And I had a private email that I said this was wrong.
	This is a violation of the First Amendment.
	When was that email?
	What was the exact date of it?
	It was before the election.
	It was before the election.
	Before the election.
	And when Elon bought Twitter, he ordered a release of all the emails.
	And my email became public that I had spoken out to Twitter.
	Is that email public?
	I'd love to read it.
	It is public.
	Yeah, if you look at reach out to Twitter, see?
	There is a question.
	Can you find an email rap?
	That's pretty impressive to do that.
	And at the moment when you send it, you don't know whether Elon's one day going to buy this or not, or if that email is going to be exposed to anybody.
	I don't.
	And I also am campaigning for Joe Biden, and I think he's going to be president.
	And here I'm saying don't suppress the story about his son to Twitter.
	Who did you send the email to?
	To Vijaya Gaddi.
	She was the general counsel at Twitter.
	Very, very, and then that was leaked and everybody saw that email from you.
	It was leaked.
	You know how when someone says they're going to leak your emails, you use the email.
	This is the one you want.
	This is the one you want.
	What did Elon say when he saw that email?
	Did he call you?
	Did you guys speak about it?
	He put it out.
	He said, RoCana is great.
	And he put it out with my personal email.
	So, for two days, I got like 5,000 emails to my account.
	That's interesting.
	Were you able to find it or not?
	I'm looking right now.
	Yeah, that's impressive to me.
	When you say free speech absolutist, there's a part of me that's like, yeah, of course, free speech.
	First Amendment is amazing.
	But in China, there's no free speech in China.
	They're one of the most censored countries in the world.
	They're one of the least free societies in the world.
	You know, ByteDance, I believe, owns TikTok, and they're obviously talking about this sale.
	So how do you sort of grapple with the fact of free speech absolutist when there's zero American social media companies allowed in China?
	Zero.
	Yet we're just going to allow Russian propaganda here or Chinese propaganda to take over and indoctrinate American youth?
	I don't understand.
	What would you want, though?
	What would you want?
	To me, this is like I other than maybe here's this question.
	Free speech absolutist.
	Great.
	That's for Americans.
	This is not a company owned by China.
	I don't really hear arguments saying why we should keep TikTok.
	The only arguments I hear are: well, they do help small businesses make money.
	Okay.
	So, you know, JFK was ask not what your country can do for you.
	Ask what you can do for your country.
	Sorry, small businesses.
	You're going to have to maybe move over to Instagram or YouTube or anything else.
	What would you like to see happen?
	I would like to see it banned.
	You would like to see it banned in the States.
	Yeah, or sold or just get the CCP out of our country.
	That's what I'm asking.
	You know what I would be curious about, and I'd be curious to know what you think because it's a, by the way, I rarely say this.
	Very good question you asked.
	So I just want to make sure you guys can eclipse this rhythm and put it there because this was a good question.
	But I will say this part to see what you're going to say about this.
	So to me, if I'm Trump, one of the leverages I'm using is the following thing.
	And by the way, you know who will be behind this?
	Zuck, Musk, Google, everybody will be behind this.
	What if he negotiates?
	And I don't even know if this could happen or not because of how they're wired.
	DeepSeek is now available in America, right?
	That was designed where in China.
	No problem.
	What if Trump says it's banned?
	All your stuff moving forward is banned in the States until you allow Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, all of that to be available in China.
	Could Trump put that kind of a sanction in place that none of your businesses can do business in America until you let all of our social media companies in your country?
	So I'd love for him to try to do that.
	I don't think there's a chance in hell that China agrees to it because it would mean in part the end of communism.
	I think they would so fear free speech and people expressing their opinions that Gigi Ping would be in real trouble.
	Why should we care?
	No, let's push for it.
	I'm saying, though, what could we realistically get?
	Here's one thing I think Trump could realistically get in the exchange.
	And I'm all for him trying to push to get social media in.
	But how about, you know, while we're talking about banning TikTok, you know, the same week what news came out?
	China's got a $1 trillion trade surplus with the United States.
	And as you know, because you know business well, that's made up with a capital account surplus.
	So basically our manufacturers get hit.
	All our shipbuilding, steel, et cetera, goes to China.
	They put in the money to Wall Street.
	Wall Street does fine, but the working and middle class have been suffering.
	Donald Trump should say, I want to, by the end of my term, try to get that trade surplus down to zero.
	Let's have a trade balance.
	And he should say, if I'm going to allow TikTok, you got to start buying our steel or buying our products or stop selling us the amount you are so that we actually get that trade balance down.
	Yeah, I would love to see.
	And by the way, this is the email rap that we were talking about.
	Is this the email?
	Yes.
	You know, Rokana to Vijay.
	But this seems like a violation of the First Amendment principles.
	If there's a hack of classified information of other information that could expose a serious war crime at the New York Times, was to publish it.
	I think the New York Times should have that right.
	A journalist should not be held accountable for the illegal actions of the source unless they actively aided the hack.
	So to restrict the distribution of that material, especially regarding a presidential candidate, seems not in the keeping of the principles of New York Times versus Solomon.
	I say this is a total Biden partisan and convinced he didn't do anything wrong, but the story now has become more about censorship than relatively innocuous emails, and it's become a bigger deal than it would have been.
	It is also leading to serious efforts to curtail Section 230, many of which would have been a mistake.
	I believe Twitter itself should curtail what it recommends to or puts in the training news and your policy against QNON groups.
	It's all good.
	It's a hard balance.
	But in the heat of presidential campaign, restricting the dissemination of newspaper articles, even if New York Post is far right, seems like it will invite more backlash than it'll do good.
	Vinny Sinofi.
	Well, bro, so you saying that, I say this as a total bipartisan and convinced he didn't do anything wrong.
	After all the stuff that we've seen with all the leaks of everything on the Biden laptop, Hunter's laptop, do you know, do you change that idea?
	Because from what we've seen with his presidential convictions, yeah, I mean, I think it's, let's see, and there's horrible.
	There are certainly questions.
	But I was there just pointing.
	At the time, I said I didn't think he did anything wrong, but I think that was besides the point.
	I mean, it's a lot of legalese there because I'm writing to a lawyer.
	But basically, I was saying you can't take a New York Post story down about a presidential candidate.
	Well, no, I agree with that 100%.
	What I'm saying is now, 2025, he's gone.
	He's pardoned him.
	He's basically, everybody's scot-free.
	The whole crime family is good.
	You were technically wrong because all the stuff that we did find out that he was working with China, he was doing a bunch of nefarious stuff.
	And the stuff that we've heard, I've heard and seen some stuff that was on that laptop.
	If that was released, what was the percentage, Pat, of how many people wouldn't have voted?
	People that wouldn't have 67% would have changed their vote if they had known that.
	It wasn't 67%.
	I think it was, to be exact, it was 67% of independents would have considered voting the other way, or the word was 67%, this would have influenced the decision, not voted the other way.
	So I don't want to, because that's a massive number.
	There was something about that.
	But I'm with it.
	Now, you said a few things, so let's go to the next part.
	That conversation right there, hey, we know this could impact the election, et cetera, et cetera.
	No problem.
	Okay, eight in 10 now think the Biden laptop cover-up changed the election.
	Yeah, this was the number that we saw on what people voted for.
	And then, you know, this happens, then Putin, a couple days ago, he's being asked about Trump.
	And I don't know if you saw this or not, what he said.
	Putin straight up claims that the 2020 election was now stolen.
	So, Rob, if you want to play this clip, go for it so we can see it.
	Go ahead.
	If he had been the president, the victory wasn't stolen from him in 2020.
	Maybe the Ukrainian crisis that arose in 2022 appeared if if he hadn't, if it hadn't been stolen from him, OK, if it hadn't been stolen from him, Putin saying this.
	What do you think he's doing by saying, is he saying this to be on the good side of Trump?
	Is he saying this because he 100% believes it?
	Is he saying this because he said this pre-election?
	Why do you think he's saying this?
	First of all, I think you'd agree.
	I don't think Putin should be the arbiter of what constitutes legitimate elections.
	I don't think he's had a legitimate election in his entire life.
	But I think, look, he is doing what a lot of world leaders are doing, and that is trying to curry favor with the American president.
	The American president is the most powerful person in the world, and it seems to me he wants to try to curry favor with Trump to get the terms of Ukraine on his side.
	Looking back now for 2020 elections, you know, you hear these interference.
	You saw the emails, the Twitter files, everything that happened.
	Do you think even with Zuck, Zuck is also, you know, Facebook, him coming out, I made a mistake.
	We gave $400 million to try to help him out.
	The Biden administration asked us to XYZ and we shouldn't have, although it was on us.
	Now, you're a smart guy.
	You're in the area with all these guys.
	You run into all these guys.
	You've met all these guys, right?
	Do you now look back and say something happened 2020?
	There were some games that were played in 2020 to make sure Trump didn't win.
	Look, do I think the election was stolen?
	No.
	I think people voted.
	Do I think that politics is a rough business on both sides where, you know, we can go through all of the tricks that the Trump team did, targeting digital ads to tell people not to vote in certain communities?
	It's a rough business.
	But I don't believe that the election fundamentally was a stolen election.
	Now, going forward, do we want to have clear transparency so these tech companies aren't interfering in elections on either side?
	Absolutely.
	Okay, so when you're saying it wasn't stolen, the 2020, you know how, who was it?
	Was it the 60 Minutes lady or was it the other lady that's like, now that you're president, can you go out there and say that you lost the 2020 election?
	Nope.
	I didn't lose a 2020 election.
	I think it was Kristen Welker.
	Was it Welker?
	I think it was Welker, right, when she's asking that.
	Nope.
	You just saw it to JD Vance, I believe.
	Right.
	But specific was to him where he's like, no, it didn't happen.
	This is the part where, you know, everything is, you know, let's move forward.
	This has happened.
	Let's move forward.
	Russia, guys, let's just move forward.
	You know, let's just move forward.
	Let's just move forward.
	The mindset of let's just move forward, we don't have accountability to see what really took place.
	You know, because there's a difference between running ads in districts to say not vote versus shutting down the story of New York Times that you even emailed right there yourself.
	You're like, I don't even think there's anything in this laptop.
	Now, you know, we know what, you know, what's potentially in this laptop and it's been talked about.
	And people know there was something there.
	Why would he pardon his son?
	Why would he pardon his entire family?
	Why would he pardon his entire family while he's up there putting his hand down to swear?
	And then that's when Biden does it.
	And Trump's like, wait a minute.
	I didn't think that we're going to go with this.
	I mean, this is the part that no one's above the law.
	This is that president that you were campaigning behind.
	Do you have any regrets now watching this?
	You're like, ah, shit, this is the guy we're supporting.
	I remember one time I read a book by Billy Graham, and I think it was chapter 11 or 12 when he talks about Nixon because he went 100% on Nixon and helped him out.
	And he stepped back.
	He says, I don't know if I should have or should have not done it.
	He specifically talks about that part.
	Did you have any regrets yourself, you know, going out there and backing something like this, knowing behind closed doors that we're playing this dirty, specifically the Biden-Harris administration?
	Well, look, in the primary, and this is why I call myself a progressive capitalist.
	I was a co-chair of Bernie's campaign.
	And the reason I voted and worked so hard for Bernie against Biden is I thought what the country wanted is a change of the status quo.
	don't think we wanted 40-year politicians uh in the uh in the office and i do think that the democrats would have been better off uh had we had sanders politicians Isn't Sanders a 40-year politician?
	Yeah, but he's a change agent.
	He's been a change agent his whole time.
	There's a difference.
	Sanders has been critiquing the establishment his entire life.
	I don't disagree.
	So if you say to me, did the Democratic Party make a mistake?
	Our mistake was that we did not understand how upset the American people were at the system.
	We've had people as status quo politicians in our leadership, in our party, and we've got to have more change agents.
	The one thing that Donald Trump has done is he didn't just break the establishment of the Republican Party.
	I think he's broken the establishment of the Democratic Party.
	And if new leaders emerge from both sides that are some of them progressive, some conservative, that's going to be good for the country.
	It's good, you know, get a new group of people out there with new ideas and independents and mixing it up.
	I mean, it's ridiculous to me that the Vice President Harris didn't come on shows like this or have a conversation.
	I mean, we've got to figure out how we get beyond our talking points and try to be real.
	Now, now that the political, the Democratic Party is from the outside, it looks like it's in shambles, okay?
	And, you know, they were saying this about the Republican Party a year ago.
	You know, it's like, hey, DeSantis, hey, Nikki Haley, hey, Trump, hey.
	It's like, well, there's like three sects.
	If you think about the Republican Party, I would say a year ago, right?
	Was it a year ago?
	DeSantis Haley and Trump's.
	Because everybody's like, I don't know if Trump's going to make it.
	It looks like he's going to go to this.
	And then DeSantis, well, you know, he was kind of a year and a half ago, DeSantis had some momentum when they did the first Twitter spaces with, I think it was on David Sachs's account because Musk's account wouldn't be able to handle it.
	So they went on David Sachs' account.
	And then, you know, Nikki Haley is the person, and then she got her tail handed to her.
	And then that was a completely different thing.
	But then when this took place, what does Trump get to say?
	People are with me.
	Not with you, not with you.
	They're with me.
	Okay.
	And there's nothing you can say about the other side when that takes place.
	Today, the great Barack Obama, the hero of the left, the hero of the Democratic Party, the man who gets up and speaks, it's, oh my God, black Jesus is in the house today, right?
	He goes in campaigns, and this is the worst loss of his career, my opinion.
	This is what I think.
	Worst loss of his, I think the worst night of his life was November 5th, November 6th, midnight.
	Worst day of his career.
	Horrible.
	You're seeing right now speculation with him, Jennifer Aniston.
	His wife wasn't at the Jimmy Carter funeral, and then she doesn't show up to this.
	So I understand why she wouldn't show up to the Trump inaugural.
	I totally get that, but why you wouldn't show up to Jimmy Carter and he's a Democrat and more stories.
	And even to the point that Jimmy Kimmel is asking Jennifer Anderson on this show, hey, did you and Obama have anything because you're on the cover in touch that you guys are kind of hanging out?
	Who knows what's going on over there?
	But who is now the face of the Democratic Party?
	Who is now going to bring people together?
	What policies are going to get people to say, well, this is common sense because you guys went so radical.
	What's the future of the Democratic Party today?
	First of all, I think the President Obama and Michelle Obama's marriage is perfectly fine, as any politician will tell you at a certain point, unless your spouse really, really wants to be in the political life, they can be done with showing up to every political event.
	So here's what I would say.
	I think Obama himself would say he's desperate to have a new generation of leaders step up.
	And my view is the first thing that the first criteria for a Democratic politician should be to say the status quo is not working.
	The political system is not working.
	You've got too many people who have been left out in the economy.
	You've got too much political corruption.
	And then we've got to have a message on how we're going to take on the political corruption.
	And we've got to have a message on the economy.
	And we've got to say, we're going to be better for building wealth for your families.
	And everything you just said, nobody believes that the left's going to do better than the right.
	And everything you said Trump is doing.
	Okay.
	Just so you know.
	He can't run in 2018.
	I know he thinks that.
	No, but that's not what I'm saying, though.
	It's not what I'm saying.
	What I'm saying is those policies are now policies of the right.
	Tom Holman's out there going around with Dr. Phil.
	Hey, you're rapists.
	Boom, you're out.
	Hey, you're murdering.
	He says, he says, what's your policy?
	And then Selena Gomez is crying, and oh my God, you know, I can't believe they're taking my people.
	And then she takes the video down.
	It's embarrassing.
	This is the video.
	If you want to play this clip rap, go ahead and play this.
	Go for it.
	I just want to say that I'm so sorry.
	Oh, no.
	Lower the audio rub.
	Lower the audio rubber.
	This is, yeah, please, thank you.
	They don't understand.
	We don't either.
	I'm so sorry.
	I wish I could do something.
	She's a really good actress.
	I was about to say that.
	By the way, you can posit that this one.
	I'll see my skin's hurting.
	But when you see someone like this with acting, with somebody that gets up to cries like the way she does and wants to get the attention, you take it and you're like, Tom Holman specifically said, we're taking the worst out first.
	That's a statement.
	Worse out first, right?
	Okay.
	And this is going to get to the Lake and Riley Act.
	I want to ask you because I know what you wrote and I know what you said.
	I want to talk about this.
	I think I want to hear your answer to it.
	But to me, everything you said, this is what the future Democratic Party, he's doing.
	So now, if he does this for four years, and even elitists in Hollywood who see Trump there, these are people that you know their names that have a lot of followers, hundreds of millions of followers that I'm talking to.
	They're happy he's getting shit done, but they can't publicly say anything about it because, God forbid, but they know he's going to get stuff done.
	They know for a fact she's not going to get stuff done, Mayor Bass.
	They know Newsom's just going to do his hand gestures that Vinny's crushed and he does it so well.
	This is the one that you do.
	And then that video that goes, no, no, no, he starts dancing.
	I'm sure it's my favorite one, right?
	But no, but now that you see he's getting that stuff done, what is the one differentiator about the Democratic Party where the populists can say this is the one thing they're going to do better than they are?
	Honestly, and I'm asking this purely respectfully.
	I don't even know what that one thing is.
	Let me give you two things.
	Please, go for it.
	One is getting money, big money out of politics.
	I mean, if he comes on the side saying that he wants to overturn Citizens United, that he wants to get rid of PAC money and lobbyist money.
	And by the way, I don't have a holier than thou attitude on this.
	Kamala Harris had more billionaires supporting her than Donald Trump did.
	So I'm not saying that, oh, somehow the Democratic Party was holier than the Republican Party.
	But I think that whoever is going to actually fight to get this big money out of politics, that is going to be something that'll resonate with people.
	We'll see if he does it.
	And the second thing is on the economy.
	Look, he's out there saying that he wants to bring manufacturing back.
	He wants to bring high-paying jobs back.
	He wants to bring these jobs back to places like Galesburg, Illinois, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
	And if he can do it, great.
	My view is that simply deregulation and tariffs is not going to be enough, that he's going to have to have investment in scaling these factories in these communities.
	And that's the difference.
	But I don't think the Democratic Party should be afraid to say, we want to be the party of reform.
	We want to be the party of building America.
	We're the party of innovators.
	And you know what the great news is?
	There's no Donald Trump in 2028.
	I mean, Donald Trump is a unique, phenomenal candidate.
	And on my side, people who think that he is easily beatable are just delusional.
	He is a very charismatic candidate.
	And so what we should do is see, well, what about the American people?
	Why did they respond to him?
	Okay, they responded to him because of reform.
	They responded because they like his aspirational vision.
	We're going to fill in the details in a better way.
	And we're going to take that to be the party in 26 and 28.
	Can I be direct with you?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I don't think you sold it because I don't think you can.
	Because I think what you just said works against other Democratic opponents that you have.
	I think you beat other Democratic opponents.
	I don't know what your aspirations are long term, but that message will resonate with the new Democratic youth and the party.
	And you'll win and you'll beat them.
	Like it's kind of be an Eastern Conference, Western Conference.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Like NFC, AFC.
	And it's great.
	You may come up and be, you know, hey, we're such and such team.
	We're coming out of the Western Conference.
	I don't care if you're Seattle Supersonics.
	I don't care if you're the Phoenix Suns.
	I don't care if you're the Houston Rockets.
	You're not getting past Michael.
	Okay.
	You're just not.
	That's just kind of how it works right now.
	I don't care who you are.
	You're not getting past Mahomes.
	Tell me why.
	And because your argument sucked the last four years.
	And you had a chance.
	And you royally screwed up.
	The Democratic Party royally screwed up.
	And remember, when I say Democratic Party...
	Where do you see our biggest mess up in the last four years?
	I'm not disagreeing with you.
	Do you have kids?
	You have made mistakes.
	I do have two kids.
	You have two kids.
	I think you have two kids.
	Two kids.
	Two kids.
	Okay.
	So I look up to see your story, your family, what you do.
	Okay.
	You mean to tell me you agreed with all this stuff that they wanted to teach schools in California?
	I went to Glendale High School.
	Do you know what things they were teaching in Glendale with books and stuff to kids?
	What are you doing?
	You think that's common sense?
	It's not.
	So maybe in the beginning, everybody's like, oh, just don't say anything.
	Just don't say anything.
	Just don't be tolerant.
	Just don't say anything.
	Hell no.
	My son came today and said something weird.
	I'm done.
	I'm going to the school.
	And I'm speaking up.
	Video goes via 50 million views, 20 million views, 8 million views.
	I feel the same way.
	I feel the same way.
	Okay.
	That policy was a shit show.
	You know what?
	The illegal immigrants, America was built on immigrants.
	We should let immigrants come here.
	What's wrong with that?
	Who's going to do these works?
	Like, who said that on The View?
	The lady said it.
	And now there's an article right now that came out.
	I guess what it says?
	It says, now that these immigrants are going to be going, who's going to do a lot of these jobs?
	They're no longer even embarrassed to say that, Rob.
	I don't know what they're saying.
	Who's going to pick our crops and pick our nuts?
	By the way, they're saying exactly what that lady said on The View who got criticized.
	Now they're openly.
	I mean, can America's economy cope with the mass deportation?
	You read the story.
	It's about who's going to do these jobs that everybody else doesn't want to do.
	Okay, so that policy is gone because the borders.
	And we saw what happened with Lake and Riley, you know, terrible situation.
	Stories, rapists comes back, sanctuary cities completely got exposed.
	And people who voted for the left don't want sanctuary cities with these great kids.
	So that got exposed.
	Number three, economy.
	Hey, you know, Biden and Democrats are for, you know, the low and middle income families.
	Really?
	Go look up the gas prices, Rob, under each presidential administration.
	When you look up gas prices under each president, whether you go, is it, yeah, that one right there.
	Look at this.
	So the red one is Bush, goes up to 330, started at 146, 139.
	Obama goes up 368.
	Look at Trump.
	Stays down.
	Look at Biden.
	Goes up to 406.
	Did you get my gas prices to go any lower?
	No.
	Okay.
	So you definitely made oil companies a lot of money.
	The profits under Biden for oil companies was a lot higher than the profits under Trump for oil companies.
	All right.
	So then Obama does a clip of March 18th, I don't know what the clip is when he's talking about the, hey, you want to come here, immigration?
	You know which clip I'm talking about and you got to come do it this way.
	And guess what?
	You got to get back in the line because the people that are in Mexico who did it the right way, they got to get ahead of you.
	It's not fair for those guys that waited all these years.
	I shared that clip.
	I saw you share that a few days ago.
	That's common sense, right?
	But the Democratic Party today is no longer, or in my opinion, I can't see any arguments that's common sense.
	John F. Kennedy, what he was talking about back then, hey, we're going to lower taxes so your family can make some money.
	Some of the money goes to you.
	Oh, what a nice guy.
	That's what lowering taxes is.
	Hey, we're going to go out there and get rid of some of these things that we're doing because we want it to be good for you.
	Hey, we don't want any war.
	Oh, Democratic Party's against no war.
	Last four years, Amas, Israel, Ukraine, Russia.
	And I thought it was the other way around.
	So this isn't the old Republican war.
	This is, hey, man, we're going to go this way.
	It's going to be America first.
	And unfortunately, the Democratic Party has lost.
	And by the way, the amount of people you guys, even the Democrats lost with TikTok, you had TikTok.
	So if we look at right now what the Democratic Party still owns, think about it, that you have majority control of.
	Military is getting rid of DEI.
	Pete Heck said you're seeing him going around doing all the stuff that he's doing.
	Okay.
	You guys used to have TikTok because China was using it the left, brainwashed, all that stuff, and then flipped.
	Charlie Kirk, 5 million followers, 40 million views, 36 million views, 28 million views, 32 million views.
	Why is that resonating?
	Because the youth is saying, listen, this makes sense.
	Okay.
	Your biggest edge that you still have, that you have a monopoly on, and it's not even close.
	And it's going to be a problem for 80 years, unless this gets addressed today.
	You know what it is?
	What?
	98% of English teachers in public schools, they track their money.
	98% of English teachers gave their money to Democratic Party.
	97% was of health and guidance and science.
	87% of math gave to Democratic Party.
	Only 13% gave to the Republican Party.
	So the average person sends their kids to public schools for 12 years.
	They're going to be persuaded, manipulated, brainwashed by the Democratic Party.
	You have that control.
	And it's so powerful that you have that.
	Because parents that can't afford to send their kids to private school and can't afford to do homeschooling because they both got a job, they don't know how to do that.
	It's tough on them.
	They have to send them to public school.
	So you have possibly the most powerful monopoly in America.
	Possibly the most powerful monopoly in America.
	And that you have long term.
	But even that, kids are now having access to social media, to TikTok, to Instagram.
	They're like, I don't know if I agree with you, teacher.
	I don't know if I agree with you, teacher.
	And now people are watching Charlie Kirk's.
	How many other small Charlie Kirks are going to be out there going on campuses?
	One, two, or hundreds, thousands.
	Who right now watches that business model and saying, that's exactly what I want to do?
	Debate me.
	I think this is going to be very interesting because sincerely, when I watch what happened on the other side, I think you guys have no argument, even minimum wage.
	Make the argument for minimum wage.
	Okay?
	We got to raise a minimum wage.
	All right.
	Trump's probably going to sit there and say, yeah, I partially agree.
	We should do it on the federal level.
	Now, he's done.
	So that's what I'm trying to find out truly what is the one thing that the Democratic Party has an edge today where the average person could say, I relate to you guys.
	That's a lot.
	Let me first say this, that I'm not going to say the Democratic Party is perfect.
	I'm part of the people calling for reform of the party.
	Let's start with the cultural issues.
	I think we have to assure families that they're going to have a say in their kids' education, that it's going to be common sense.
	And even where I take positions where I may disagree with people, look, we may have a different view on transgender rights, LGBTQ rights.
	I don't know your positions.
	We've got to stop coming off like we're better than people or condescending or that we can't have a disagreement with people on social and cultural issues and respect that.
	And that is something that the Democratic Party needs to change.
	We've got to become a bigger 10 party.
	And I think there's going to be a new generation that does that.
	On the economy, look, I will defend two points of what Biden achieved.
	He got insulin to $35, and that was a huge win with the drug companies.
	And he had manufacturing investment increase compared to Trump.
	Now, Trump's going to get four years of the economy.
	He's got the House.
	He's got the Senate.
	He's got the Supreme Court.
	And the American people are going to get to see.
	Is he really going to have a manufacturing renaissance in places across America?
	I wish him luck.
	Let's see.
	Is he going to raise the minimum wage?
	Is he going to do something so health insurance companies aren't denying people for prescription coverage?
	Is he going to negotiate to bring down the costs of prescription drugs?
	Is he going to have a solution to childcare?
	He said he wants to do something.
	He's going to have two years before the midterms to have his record and four years.
	And if the economy is humming, if he's gotten all this manufacturing back and wages are up and income inequality is coming down, we're going to have, he's going to be hard to beat, or his successor is going to be heart to beat.
	But if he doesn't deliver that, and I think it's going to be hard for him to deliver that just with tax breaks and tariffs, then there's going to be an opening for the Democrats to say, we've got to raise wages.
	We've got to make more investments in these communities.
	We've got to have health insurance not denying your coverage and have a populist economic message with a respect on some of the cultural issues and an acknowledgement that we've been too judgmental as a party.
	The final point, California has new leaders coming up.
	Matt Mahan, San Jose, Common Sense, Public Safety.
	Dan Lurie in San Francisco, Common Sense, Public Safety, new district attorneys being elected.
	I think that we've got a problem when you've got a governance in California that has not been effective on a number of issues.
	There's no denying that.
	But these new generation leaders, Rod Salwon and Fremont, are going to help bring California to a place of governance where people are going to say, okay, they heard the voters.
	They heard the voters.
	May I please do a follow-up?
	I believe that you're going to be able to make a difference in California because I think you're very moderate and reasonable, even though you're a progressive capitalist.
	I have questions on that.
	But to double down on what Pat's asking, and I think I have a little bit of authority on this, because I've never voted for Trump in my life.
	I've never voted for a Republican president in my life.
	You just looked at me like, whoa, what are you talking about?
	I don't know.
	Exactly.
	So my father was a JFK Democrat.
	What would JFK be today?
	You know, my first president that I grew up with, Bill Clinton, I believe you voted for Bill Clinton as well.
	The Democratic Party, you know, the famous phrase like, I didn't leave the Democratic Party.
	The Democratic Party has left me.
	So, you know, Pat's concerns a little bit different.
	He has four kids.
	He's a family.
	He's running a business.
	I'm a little bit different.
	Single.
	You know, I have a nephew.
	All my best friends have kids.
	I was hanging out with them this weekend.
	They're all Democrats, all of them.
	And they're looking at me like, look at the MAGA guy walk in.
	I go, if you only knew.
	So I think you guys, and I don't say this with any joy, you have lost men, just dudes who just look at the world and they see wokeness and it's just antithetical to common sense.
	It just doesn't make any sense.
	This is someone who, how much tooth and nail, this guy fought me for five years almost.
	Come on, why don't you come across the line?
	And I'm an independent, registered independent.
	It's not like I'm a bleeding heart liberal.
	I'm a Florida Democrat, which is basically a purple state.
	So the rise of feminism, abortion is the number one issue.
	You think I care about it?
	Like, you think that's my number one thing?
	I want to make money and live my life and have the government out of my life.
	Much less.
	So the COVID mandates, I can go on and on here, but how do you get guys, just dudes, back to the Democratic Party?
	I think you're absolutely right, first of all, that we have lost men, young men.
	I mean, the data shows it anecdotally.
	I was with a 27-year-old in my district today who said he liked me, liked Federal Ready, like Bernie, but he just thought that he couldn't vote for the Democratic Party in the way it was because it's not speaking to a lot of young guys who, by the way, these were college graduates who are struggling to get a job right now and feel like we don't see them.
	One of the things I said when we had the whole Democratic Convention, and I said, if you're a steel worker in Pennsylvania, if you're an auto worker in Michigan in your 40s or 50s, if you're a manufacturer in Ohio, do you see yourself at the DNC?
	Do you see anyone out there who's really fighting for you?
	Now, I'll tell you what we can't do and what's not going to do it, having people go and pretend to hunt, having people go play Madden football, having people be like, oh, yeah, here's what the, just talk about the Eagles, as if, as if men are that dumb.
	Yeah, fine.
	You can talk about the Eagles.
	They don't need you to be fake.
	What will work?
	What works for me?
	I say, I represent the wealthiest place in the world.
	I know how to build wealth for the future.
	You want to talk about drilling for royal or manifest destiny and try to be Alexander the Great?
	You know, that's not how you build wealth in the 21st century.
	You know who knows how to build wealth?
	Elon knows how to build wealth.
	Technology leaders want to know how to build wealth.
	And I want to see the Democratic Party figure out how we're going to have that technology and wealth generation work for you.
	And if we can become the party that says we understand the future of wealth generation and we're going to give young people, men and women, but men also want to build wealth the opportunity to do that, that's our best shot of coming back.
	But if we can't win on the economy and being better for the future of young men, then we're not going to win.
	It's interesting when you're saying this now, because if we play Clip and go back six months ago, your concern was abortion was going to be a big part of the election in 2024.
	If you remember that.
	Yeah, of course.
	Because in midterms, it was.
	If you remember when they go, there's a red wave, red wave.
	No red wave, because two weeks prior to that, whatever, Mitch McConnell passed the Roe v. Wade was completely right.
	So anyways, interestingly so, going to the next one.
	Meaning, that's what, just to clarify, that's what I thought the Democratic Party was going to run off.
	What I'm saying, and by the way, for me, I thought it was going to be a big part of it.
	First of all, Kamala is the worst candidate in the history of candidates that I've seen to run for office.
	Josh Shapiro would have been better.
	Newsom would have been better.
	Pritzker would have been better.
	She was horrible with capital H, she was horrible of a candidate.
	Somebody else may have presented that argument better.
	We'll see.
	But you're right.
	We're going to find out in the next two years.
	You have it.
	What are you going to do now?
	If he does, this could be more than just a four-year thing that others, JD Vance and other superstars could come behind it.
	I want to ask you this.
	I want to ask you this.
	I want to get to this.
	Lake and Riley Act comes out, okay?
	And, you know, you're seeing it.
	Hey, what is this about?
	I'll just read it for, you know, Lake and Riley.
	We heard this story on what happened.
	22-year-old student, August, Augusta University.
	She went out for a run.
	We've seen the video.
	It's tragic.
	It's devastating.
	It's hard to watch, right?
	And I hear the stories, all the stuff.
	It's devastating watching the parents, very difficult.
	This act is a proposed law that requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain non-citizens charged with or convicted of theft-related crimes, assault, assaulting a police officer, or crime that results in death or serious bodily injury, like drunk driving.
	Now, when this came out, some were Democrats were like, yeah, I'm behind it.
	You know, for example, you had Representative Catherine Cortez Masto from Nevada.
	Anyone who commits a crime should be held accountable.
	That's why I voted to pass the Lake and Riley Act and many others.
	I can give a lot of other names, but that was one of the main ones that came out.
	And Fetterman also backed this bill because he wants a secure border.
	I got a few other names.
	Those who didn't, here's what AOC said.
	She said, in the wake of tragedy, we are seeing fundamental erosion of our civil rights.
	In this bill, if a person is so much as accused of a crime, if someone wants to point a finger and accuse someone of shoplifting, they would be rounded up and put into a private detention camp and sent out for deportation without a day in court.
	And then this is what we saw here, okay?
	Support 263, opposed 156, did not, 14.
	Rob, I think there's a, you said something about it, Rob, if you want to pull that up, where it is this the one, let me see here.
	Rowe voted against it.
	The bill passed 263, 156, 48 Democrats joining Republicans on sport.
	Lake and Riley Act mandates, we read that already.
	Representative Connor has expressed concerns that the bill's potential implications for civil liberties and its impact on immigrant communities.
	In an interview, he emphasized the importance of comprehensive immigration reform over punitive measures.
	Now, keep this in mind.
	It's stuff like this, where it's like, dude, what are you talking about?
	Like, you don't want to defend this.
	So what do you say to people that are flabbergasted that someone like you opposed a bill like this?
	So let me give my broader take and then answer the specifics on the bill.
	There's no dispute that someone who is a criminal on sex offenses, rape, murder, violent robbery should be deported if they're convicted of a crime.
	I voted on H.R. 30, where the recently, this week, it was a Nancy Mace bill, which said if someone is convicted of sexual offenses, they should be deported.
	I voted yes on that.
	Mike, at the same time, and this is where we may disagree, you know, look, in my district, I was just back home, there are people who are afraid who are undocumented and their kids of going to school.
	There's someone who is a Vietnamese American woman.
	She has a business that provides food for services, employs 10 people.
	She's afraid that she may get deported.
	There is a guy from Guatemala who's a handyman at an apartment building.
	He's actually legal.
	He's concerned about what's going to happen to his paper.
	So there's a fear.
	My view is that And most Americans want the criminals out, but they do not want the mass deportation of people who've been here for many years, even if they came here undocumented, if they're law-abiding and if they're paying taxes.
	So, maybe what's your impression of what understanding of what the Lake and Riley Act is about?
	So, on the Lake and Riley Act, the issue was that it wasn't conviction.
	If you had just changed it on conviction, I would have voted for it.
	I still would if they introduced something that says conviction.
	My concern on Lake and Riley is it said if you have an arrest, if you have a suspicion that someone has done something wrong, and we have a history in this country going all the way back to Sacco and Vincenti of people who are immigrants being wrongly accused.
	The 14th Amendment says in the Constitution, it says no person, doesn't say no citizen, it doesn't say no legal American.
	It says no person should be denied life, liberty, or the Constitution.
	Bro, come on, I understand that.
	But look, I'm an immigrant, okay?
	We wanted a green card.
	We applied for one since 84, okay?
	We didn't get it while we're in Iran.
	And keep in mind, what 19, I'm living in Tehran, Iran.
	We waited, Finally, my mom's like, Khomeini dies six weeks later, we got to get out.
	So we go to Germany at a refugee camp, and we're living at the refugee, waiting to come over here, right?
	A year and a half.
	Then we finally get it, and we're coming here.
	And we came here, you know, feeling like I owe everything to this country.
	You want to say a person means an illegal immigrant coming here, and you want to qualify the word like that?
	Now you're talking lawyer jargon type of stuff.
	And fine, you can use that.
	You know what that does?
	It irritates the shit out of the average day-to-day American that says, Hey, who's more important than me?
	Who is more important than me?
	Nobody.
	I'm here.
	I'm a citizen.
	The American's going to say, I'm a citizen.
	What do you mean?
	So we want to protect them.
	I don't even want that guy in my community.
	If somebody's even having, you're in my country, you came here.
	And you want to hurt someone?
	You want to do something?
	Get the hell out of here.
	We don't even, to me, honestly, you know, if you're here, you do anything to our kids, you're an illegal immigrant.
	My opinion, I'm not running.
	I'm a guy that's a business owner.
	It's death penalty at the highest level when you're doing it at that level.
	No, there shouldn't be any hesitation with that.
	That's the part where you lose the common sense people that don't follow politics on a day-to-day basis.
	Look, I love your story.
	It's a patriotic story.
	It's similar to my parents.
	My parents didn't flee the kind of Iranian revolution, but my grandfather spent four years in jail alongside Gandhi and India's independence movement.
	My parents came here legally.
	My dad is a student visa in Michigan to study engineering.
	They got a green card.
	They became citizens.
	I was born in Philadelphia in 1976, our bicentenary, and an Indian American of Hindu faith goes to be elected to Silicon Valley, arguably the most economically prosperous place in the world.
	That's an American story.
	I get that this is the greatest country.
	I get that coming to America as an immigrant is a huge privilege.
	It's like winning the lottery.
	Being born in American is like winning a lottery.
	And most immigrants, in my view, are very patriotic.
	You know, my parents, they said, go work hard, go make good grades, go learn about this country's history.
	And they want to contribute to this nation.
	Now, what I'm saying is that if there are criminals, and the fact, by the way, is that immigrants don't commit as much crime statistically as people like me who are born in the United States.
	So let's not paint them with a bad, broad brush.
	If there are immigrants who are committing criminal acts and are convicted, deport them, deport them without question.
	But why not just give them a trial?
	That's what makes America exceptional, that we do that and we can do that without compromising it.
	I'll give you this point.
	I think because there was such a sense in this country that we were too lax on the border, that too many people, 8 million people came in, that there have been all these horrendous, horrific crimes like Lake and Riley, people have lost patience.
	They've lost the sense of the grace that they probably had even 10, 15 years ago.
	And the pendulum has swung in a direction.
	My hope is that pendulum will swing back to where it was around when George W. Bush was president.
	But we're talking about legal immigration.
	He came here with his family legally.
	My parents, my grandparents all came here legally.
	What we're talking about is if you're coming into this country as an illegal immigrant alien, whatever you're to call him, your first thing that you're doing is committing a crime.
	You are illegally coming into the country, period, plain and simple.
	And in the case with the murderer that murdered Lake and Riley, Jose Antonio Ibarra, he came in in 2022.
	He was apprehended, paroled, released.
	Then he went to New York City, unregistered a vehicle, five-year-old passenger.
	He got charged there.
	Then he went to Athens with his brother in San Diego.
	They got cited for shoplifting.
	And they got released.
	And then in February, because our system just releases and releases and they put these illegals over the citizens, he goes and he murders this poor girl.
	So I understand we are a nation of giving because that's why we're here.
	But the word illegal, I think, just it completely goes over the left's brain and they don't understand that you're already committing a crime.
	And I think there's a big difference between that and legally being here.
	It's a huge difference.
	It's a huge difference.
	Tom.
	Yeah, you know, there's so many positions that you take that seem reasonable.
	You know, you're talking about parents should have a say in school.
	Okay, that's nice to say.
	Where are you backing it up?
	And what legislation do you support or not support?
	And you make comments about the economy.
	You make comments about Citizens United, a lot of things.
	And then you talk about defending not America.
	I've been sitting here listening and I've been counting.
	And you've defended the party.
	We need the party.
	The party needs to do this.
	The DNC needs to do this.
	It's like, what flag are you saluting?
	It's like, and you're saying a new generation is coming up.
	Your generation is here now.
	It's like all the things you're talking about, you sound like an independent.
	And then you take this position.
	It's like Don Quixote attacking the windmills, you know, to go back and fix the DNC for all of its flaws that I credit you for openly pointing out those flaws, but you seem like more of an independent.
	But then there's a little asterisk at the end that you don't support the Lake and Riley Act.
	And you make some comments that are on that progressive line.
	It's like you've got an opportunity here.
	I think you've got a big opportunity.
	And my question is, do you owe too much to Obama, who put you on that commerce position?
	Do you owe too much to Pelosi?
	Do you owe too much to DNC that you can't walk like a great Californian once walked and said, I can't take this anymore.
	And I'm going to be more independent and I'm going to be conservative and be Republican.
	And at California, there's Ronald Reagan.
	It's not like there's no precedent for someone that has your passion, your intellect, and your focus on some of these things.
	But when you go to this, it feels like it just cuts the knees out from the rest of it for the average person that looks at it and goes, hey, I like this, I like this, I like this.
	Wait a minute, he did what?
	That's a fair point.
	Let me say that in Nancy Pelosi's case, she endorsed against me three times.
	So I ran against an incumbent in my own party twice.
	And so I certainly don't owe her a thing.
	President Obama, I have great respect and admiration for.
	I don't owe him anything because He's such a, I mean, he's already been a two-term president, but I do respect and admire him.
	But here's the point.
	I think on the economy, I have a new independent vision on reforming the political process I do.
	I'm a son of immigrants, legal immigrants, but I'm a son of immigrants.
	I have a district where I've got a lot of people who are immigrants as well.
	And I think fundamentally we can have a secure border, be a country that deports criminals and still have a humanity that says that immigrants can enrich America.
	That's, you know, it's not that I'm dumb politically.
	I know that on this position, that I'm a, it's probably a 30, 70 or 40, 60 position.
	But you know what the American people will respect?
	You know, that I can come on this show and say where I stand.
	And I'm going to say the same thing if I go to a progressive show.
	And they're going to know where I stand on issues.
	And ultimately, I think one of the reasons Trump won is that people knew where he stood.
	And it's too many politicians.
	They'll go, they'll try to bend their message one way or the other.
	In my case, I'm an open book.
	There are places that I have authorities.
	You're right.
	You earned a respect for doing that.
	You have no idea how much we respect the fact that you do that.
	And that's great.
	Stephen A. Smith is a good friend of ours.
	You were just on Bill Maher with Stephen A. We've had a lot of different conversations together.
	He came out recently and said he regrets voting for Kamala.
	And he was very open about him when he told you guys, to you, to Bill.
	He's a hell of a debater.
	And what's even more dangerous is if he starts 100% believing this stuff and it's conviction, it's going to be more than being a debater.
	He's going to be a thorn.
	But the part that I think Tom is making a point of, and I'm with Tom on this one, is this.
	Look what happened with Fetterman from just a few years ago to today.
	What did we say about Fetterman a few years ago?
	How critical was everybody about Fetterman?
	We're like, who the hell is this guy?
	Who are you?
	And he beat Dr. Oz.
	Did he beat Oz?
	I think he did beat Dr. Oz.
	He's like, special election.
	Yeah.
	And what are you talking about, guy?
	Is this really a guy?
	Is this serious?
	This has got to be a joke.
	And it's like, no, this is the guy.
	And he goes, he was, if you have the view clip, Rob, he goes to visit with Trump, and they're asking him, trying to wait to see what he's going to be saying.
	So how was it?
	He says, no, there was no photo ops.
	If you want to play this clip, go for it.
	Is it anything you've been seeing or do you anticipate that there's going to be changes that we should be prepped for that we were not thinking about?
	I mean, honestly, I haven't been surprised by anything now.
	I mean, he's been doing essentially what he actually campaigned on.
	He announced he is going to pardon the J6 individuals.
	He is going to absolutely go after the border.
	So there's a lot of things that he's already ran on.
	I mean, criticized a lot of it, and I don't agree with everything either.
	But it's undeniable.
	He actually ran on that and been really upfront.
	He's like, I am your reputation.
	And he's, you know, kind of making those moves.
	So that's kind of where we're at.
	This is the one where he explains when he was invited immediately after the election.
	I was like, hey, you know, we have a choice.
	You know, we can freak out and follow every other thing around, you know, like a cat, you know, with a laser, right?
	You know, after he won.
	But I'm not that guy.
	I'm not going to be that Democrat.
	You know, for me, there's things I'm going to agree with, I'm going to disagree with, but I'm in the business of finding wins for Pennsylvania and for the nation and engaging the president.
	I think I see that as doing my job.
	And Rob, he explains.
	I wanted to ask you, so you went down to Mar-a-Lago and met with the president, and he actually was singing your praises after.
	He said, you were fascinating, impressive, a common sense person.
	I agree with him on that.
	Not a liberal or a conservative.
	I'm curious what your takeaway was from meeting with him and what, if you found that there's any specific policy areas you think you can work with him on.
	Yeah, well, I think overall it was a positive experience.
	I mean, he was kind.
	He was cordial.
	It wasn't in any kind of theater.
	It wasn't trying to get your picture taken to kind of put something out on social media.
	It was just really a conversation.
	I actually spoke for over an hour.
	And overall, my wife was there and she might be watching right now at home.
	Hi, Giselle, if you're home.
	And she was there as well, too.
	And we just had a conversation.
	And one of the things can we agree on?
	Well, one of the things that was easy, like the Dreamers, you know, the Dreamers, immigration, that.
	And Giselle was part of that community.
	And we both had the opportunity to express that.
	You know, I would also, you know, pause it right there.
	You know what I would say with what he did?
	He's gained points, and the Democratic Party fears him.
	And I love that because he can't be controlled.
	You know who else was like that?
	Trump.
	The Republican Party feared him because they couldn't control him.
	And that's the part where what you're saying is you have a shot at being that next, like a mansion, a Fetterman.
	By the way, we want to see more Fettermans and more mansions.
	And even we would support certain things with that because you're standing.
	It's not going to be like, I'm afraid of this guy.
	I've got to be making this guy happy.
	I got to make that guy happy.
	I think there's a massive opportunity in the Democratic Party for someone like you, but it requires risk.
	And that risk is very, very scary.
	And I understand what the risk is.
	It's very scary to all of a sudden be like, oh, my God, if I lose that guy, lose this money, lose that, what am I going to do with this?
	If all of a sudden I get this.
	But what you'll notice will happen.
	Look at the risk a few people took the last four years.
	Let's talk about the biggest risk people took the last eight years.
	Number one is Trump.
	No one's taking a bigger risk than Trump in the last eight years.
	We have to all agree with that.
	That's the risk.
	Okay.
	Number two, the biggest risk I would say last eight years.
	I would probably put RFK on that.
	He took a risk and it was a legit risk that he took.
	His own family, there's a story that came out that some of the people in his family don't want the RFK, John F. Kennedy, and MLK assassination to be released.
	What?
	What do you mean you don't want it to be released?
	You don't want to find out who killed your grandfather, your uncle, whatever the person, the lineage was.
	You don't want that?
	He took a risk.
	His family, imagine his family gatherings on it.
	You think they were having a family reunion inviting Bobby Jr.?
	I don't know about that.
	He took a risk.
	Tulsi took a risk going after Hillary.
	And what did Hillary do?
	Convince the world she's a Russia asset.
	Till today, we're putting an event in Vegas.
	She's supposed to come and speak at the event.
	The day before the event, what was that thing that she was linked to?
	Do you remember that rap where she was linked to something in August where she couldn't get out?
	It was a quiet, there was a quiet something.
	She had quiet on the quiet skies there, since she actually couldn't travel because they were impeding her ability to move freely around the U.S. Are you kidding me?
	This is not somebody that has money.
	So maybe Trump has the billions he can afford it.
	Maybe Bobby has some money as an environmental lawyer.
	He's made some good decisions.
	He can't afford it.
	She's not a rich person.
	Not that I know.
	I don't follow her net worth.
	I don't see, I don't know what Tulsa.
	Can you type in Tulsi Gabber network?
	I don't know how much money she's got.
	If she's doing the Tulsi Tulsi tracker, then she should be good.
	I don't think she is.
	What is her net?
	$36,003.
	Well, that one says $55 million to $127 million.
	I don't know what her net worth is.
	You can't believe these things.
	ABC says that's her net worth.
	I'm a billionaire online.
	Okay, I don't know what her net worth is.
	You got 10 billion.
	Okay.
	So that's another risk that was taken, right?
	Musk took a risk.
	Joe Manchin took a risk.
	I would put, you know, I would put a few guys, but watch what happened to these guys.
	The level of trust that the average person looks, whoa, what are you doing?
	But it came at a price of losing certain things as well.
	So I understand it's going to be tough.
	If you want to respond to that or say anything, you know, I'd be curious to know what you're thinking right now.
	Well, I agree with you that people want independent voices and they want people who are going to be willing to call out their party.
	I have done it in certain cases, right?
	On free speech, I obviously went against my party.
	When Doge happened, I got criticized because I said, well, if there's a smart idea for Doge to cut Pentagon spending, then I'm going to work with that.
	Or if there's a smart idea to have competition, I'm going to work on that.
	I've had Trump in this first term sign five of my bills.
	So I'm going to work on figuring out how to get legislation if it's good for the American people.
	But I'm not, in my view, going to compromise some of the values, not because of the politics, because that's who I am.
	And I think the one thing people can smell is a phony.
	And if you start to say stuff that you don't believe, that's not good.
	But look, I think it's good for the country to have two strong parties.
	I'll tell you, one of the problems in California, frankly, is it's become a one-party state.
	And I don't think that's healthy anywhere, Republican or Democrat.
	I agree.
	And so when I say the Democrats, I think the biggest thing we need to do is to have more courage, to have just an independent view of what you want.
	Now, I would add to the risk takers, you may disagree ideologically, but Bernie Sanders had a lot of guts when he went up against the in 2016 and 2020, the establishment of the party.
	And he was calling for reform within the party.
	Obama, when he ran in 08, I mean, he was.
	He's not a risk taker.
	You didn't think what he ran against Hillary?
	By the way, I agree 100% Sanders is a risk taker.
	You're right.
	100%.
	I don't believe Obama's a risk taker.
	In 08, he wasn't.
	No, I think Obama was a person that in 04, you know what it's like?
	Here's what it was like with Obama.
	When LeBron was 16 years old, there's a legendary game everybody talks about.
	I don't know if you've heard about the story or not.
	Have you heard about the story?
	I have somebody.
	So, yeah, when LeBron is a game, Michael is playing.
	Jordan is playing.
	LeBron's 16 years old.
	It's a pickup game.
	Okay.
	Have you heard about this?
	Of course I have.
	And then they said, you've never heard about this?
	LeBron's playing with Jordan.
	Are you joking?
	I've never heard this.
	Yeah, so LeBron James breaks silence on a legendary Michael Jordan pickup game when he was 16 years old.
	I was on guardable.
	I don't know if it's on guardable or not.
	I'm not going to.
	It's fast.
	But if you go down and read the stories from what other people said about this game, right there, NBA superstar LeBron James has broken a silence on a legendary pickup game against Michael Jordan.
	Another basketball name saying he was 16-year-old school came in, and they're like, holy shit, who is this guy?
	Guess what?
	Everybody knew this guy's going to be a superstar, but he's not Michael Jordan, but he became a superstar.
	Okay.
	When Obama got up and gave that DNC speech in 04, you don't have to be left-right center to say he's a superstar.
	Everybody sat there and said, oh my God, who the hell is this guy?
	It's like the first time I heard the song by Carlos Santana and Wycliffe, Maria Mario, the first time I heard Desert Rose by Sting, or the first time I heard, you know, some of these songs where you're like, hit him up.
	Alicia Keys, when she did Fallen, you're like, that voice was like, whoa.
	Yes.
	You just get a shot.
	Yes.
	He is a once-in-a-lifetime talent.
	I don't think he took a risk.
	I think everybody got behind him and they funded him.
	It's different.
	Bernie was a person that took a massive risk.
	But also with Bernie, you know what it is?
	There is taking the risk.
	There is being an anti-establishment, which is a risk.
	Then the other side is violence suck.
	People don't want socialism.
	Okay.
	Just doesn't, people don't want to raise more taxes and do that.
	You've been in the government for 40 plus years, and on your honeymoon, you went to Russia.
	My dream isn't to go to Russia for my honeymoon.
	I want to go to America on my honeymoon.
	But you had all these other places you chose to go to Russia.
	Listen, I respect you.
	You're a fighter.
	took risks.
	Bad policies.
	That would be my differentiator.
	You can disagree with that, but that's what I would say with Bernie.
	I think where he connected with people is two places on healthcare.
	People said this healthcare system of ours is broken.
	We're paying all this money.
	Premiums are going up.
	And there is a better way to be able to do it in terms of covering people and lowering costs.
	And also he was a huge voice against wars.
	I mean, he was a huge voice against all of the overseas wars in Iraq.
	And if we're not going to be able to do it.
	Once it's a Democratic position.
	Once a Democratic position can be a Democratic position.
	But I think for us, the biggest issue for the Democrats to come back is still going to be on the economy and convincing people that we're the party of building.
	You know, the thing about Trump's speech that I thought where he was very effective in the inaugural was when he was talking about the American frontier and the Americans build things and we're going to go to Mars and we're going to unleash the American spirit.
	That was Kennedy.
	That was Clinton in some ways.
	We as Democrats have to be the party that says we're going to go build the economic future in this country.
	And in my view, we've got a great opportunity because Silicon Valley still is hugely Democratic.
	We just don't keep upsetting.
	We're losing them one by one by one.
	But that's where we can start to build why we can have an economic revitalization.
	California is going to lose even more people than they lost after COVID.
	You said you're losing who in Silicon Valley?
	Well, I lose, I mean, it's gone from probably 90, 10 Democratic to now 70, 30.
	Why are they getting so much common sense out there in California?
	What's happening?
	But what Bernie had is exactly what Kamala didn't have.
	The ability to get your attention.
	When Bernie came on stage in 2016, you couldn't look away.
	You're like, who is this guy?
	I've never seen anything like him.
	Crazy.
	And it was such a powerful message.
	The millionaires and the billionaires.
	And then it turned out that he was a millionaire.
	So then it was just the billionaires at that point.
	But Kamala gets on stage and any reasonable person is like, get this lady out of my face.
	But I got to give you credit because, you know, your district, you know, you said it's how much trillion?
	$10 trillion?
	$12?
	$12, you know, what's $12 trillion these days?
	$150 million ain't what it used to be, Roe, if you understood what I mean.
	But your district, you're actually probably the perfect guy because you're a progressive capitalist.
	I'm still grappling to understand what that is exactly because I don't want to go with that.
	I want to go into different issues.
	I just want to understand why I think you resonate and why I think the Democratic Party and the Progressive Party, the caucus is just sort of on a road to nowhere.
	It's because you look at the Bernie of the world or the AOC of the world.
	I want to reach a table.
	I'm going to get past this.
	I don't want to stay on this.
	The country doesn't want that.
	Yeah, I'm with you.
	I want to get past the story and I want to go to the border.
	Rob, can you do me a favor and pull up what Tom Holman's been doing, as well as what's been happening with the border since he's been in?
	So is this him explaining what's this clip about, Rob?
	This is him responding to Meet the Press.
	This is where Meet the Press questions the effects on the economy of mass deportations.
	And then I also have Tom Holman responding to the Selena Gomez clip that we played earlier.
	Which Selena Gomez was crying and emotional, and then he responds to.
	But the reality of it is, if you want to play this clip, go forward, Rob.
	How long is it?
	Let me see how long it is.
	One minute, 30.
	Okay, go for it.
	I don't know if you've had a chance to see a video that has been going viral over the past hour or so.
	We're still working to clear it and show it.
	In fact, the Hollywood celebrity who posted it has now deleted it.
	I think because probably she faced a lot of backlash for it.
	Noting even the New York Times and Fox News poll show that a majority of American respondents are in favor of deportations of criminals and gang members.
	She posted a video sobbing.
	She was crying in it.
	She said, all my people are getting attacked with the picture of a Mexican flag.
	Again, she has now taken that down.
	What do you say to those who are out there saying that these are everyday people, these are families that are being attacked and dragged out of their homes?
	How do you respond to that?
	I don't think we arrested any families.
	We've arrested public safety threats and national security threats, bottom line.
	And look, President Trump won the election on this one issue: securing our border and saving lives.
	What happened on our southern border last four is the biggest national security threat this country's seen, at least in my lifetime, because we've got over 2 million known gatherers.
	We've got a 600% increase in sex trafficking.
	We've got a record number of terrorists crossing the border on terrorist watch lists.
	We have a quarter million Americans die from fentanyl coming across the open border.
	We're going to do this job and we're going to enforce the laws of this country.
	If they don't like it, then go to Congress and change the law.
	We're going to do this operational apology.
	We're going to make our community safer.
	We're going to save.
	Once we lock that border on continuous operations, you're going to see fentanyl deaths decrease, illegal alien crime decrease, sex trafficking decrease.
	It's just all for the good of this nation, and we're going to keep going.
	No apologies.
	We're moving forward.
	How do you not love this guy?
	What do you mean?
	He's the best.
	How do you not love this guy?
	Unapologetic.
	I mean, that's the part about him where, isn't there one where Dr. Phil went with him on one, Rob?
	I think there is a.
	Oh, is that Chicago where they walked around Chicago?
	Yeah, if you have one, he's talking to this guy, and he's like, I found it.
	It's right here.
	That's one Rob, if you want to play this clip.
	Watch how the guy talks.
	What's your name?
	Wait a minute, pause it.
	Did you say Marshall?
	It looks like a Hispanic Marshall.
	I was about to tell you.
	I don't know if they're going to kick him out of the country, but the Seattle Seahawks laugh at that guy right about here.
	Play the clip, Rob.
	I was about to laugh out.
	Go play the clip.
	Saturday?
	Tato Walk.
	You have a person that came audio a little bit.
	Yes.
	Where are you from?
	Where I was born or where I'm from?
	Where are you born?
	Thailand.
	Thailand.
	You've been deported before from the United States?
	No.
	Never been deported.
	Bob, I've been in a city before BMB.
	Yeah.
	What have you been charged with?
	Charged for before.
	I'm not a sinner.
	I'm touching my lawyer.
	Smart man.
	Yeah.
	Are you a citizen?
	My mom's a citizen.
	Your mother's a citizen?
	Yes.
	But you're not?
	Nope.
	But you've never been deported before?
	We got to Phil.
	We've got Dr. Phil.
	You just realized.
	Yeah.
	How do you know me?
	No, I've seen Dr. Phil on TV.
	Yeah.
	It's Tom Holman over there.
	Yep.
	Well, this is an example of sanctuary cities, right?
	We got an illegal alien convicted of sex crimes involving children.
	Are you kidding me?
	No.
	She's just taking it out.
	Again, the downfall, the problem with the sanctuary city, that people like us walk on the street rather than law enforcement working with federal agents.
	This is what we're dealing with.
	Yeah.
	You've been charged with sex crimes with children?
	Not really.
	Really?
	And never been deported.
	Well.
	Huh.
	Let's take them in process and lock him up.
	Got it, sir.
	All right.
	So you're going to transport people.
	Working on it.
	I just got to love Tom Holman.
	Oh, he reminds me of a drill sergeant.
	It's like, yes, nah, go for a six-mile run.
	Yeah.
	Be back.
	No, don't like what you guys did.
	Tom, thoughts?
	I'll tell you my thoughts.
	Everybody, watch that.
	Look at the methodical way that it's taking place.
	They're not sweeping through malls saying you, you, and you, and putting you in the zip-tie handcuffs.
	They're going place to place, starting with what did Tom Holman said?
	We're going to start with the worst that we know that have record.
	And they're doing it.
	And they're doing it methodically.
	And they're doing it humanely.
	So everybody that wants to say all these things and spin it and pre-spin it and come with fear, bring me the facts.
	Just bring me the facts.
	You know, words talk and emotions talk, but numbers scream.
	And the numbers that's on that rap sheet are significant.
	And take a look at that.
	That's being done in a methodical, humane way.
	And not only that, that's what American people want.
	We got to get rid of these criminals in the streets.
	Do it right.
	I saw a lady is like, look, I saw them coming to my community.
	And one guy who was a congressman or senator is like, look, I don't want to come to Washington.
	I want them to come to my city.
	When is homie coming to our city to come and clean it up?
	Because we want you to come over here, right?
	Now, people are like wanting this.
	Who's next?
	Can you come to our city next?
	Can you come to our city next, Rob?
	What is this here, by the way?
	This is the construction on the southern border wall being restarted after Trump was elected president.
	You want to play that clip?
	Did it start on day one, Rob?
	Do you know?
	I'll have to look.
	This was this week.
	I don't know the exact date.
	And where is this?
	Is this around Nancy Pelosi's home to make it safe, or is this on the border?
	Where is this?
	This is on the border.
	Let me look.
	It's don't you just love that sound?
	There's so many jokes.
	Something that sound comes with three jokes.
	But isn't it okay?
	Like, doesn't it bother you, Roe, that like this for this past four years, this complete open border policy that the Biden administration and Alejandro Mayorkas, he's one of my favorites, have purposely done.
	The fact that on day one, day two, day three, you're seeing these people, they know where all of them are.
	Didn't they just locate 75,000 children that have been missing that they have found like that?
	So that means the past administration knew where they were.
	They knew this entire time where all these people are.
	And I think we're getting less flat this time because Trump knows he has these four years and he's gone.
	Nobody even cares about the silly, all the tears, all the liberal tears, all these fake out-of-touch Hollywood people could cry as much as they want.
	It's not going to work.
	And I wanted to ask you, Roe, like the besides open border policy, which I'm not saying you, because I should respect the hell out of you, what the other side and the Gavin Newsoms and all these people are like, come on in, come on in, come on in, come on in.
	And then you have Gavin Newsom making it illegal to even ask for an ID for people to vote in California.
	Isn't that inviting illegals to come to a state where they're like, hey, listen, come here, we'll give you everything and you can vote.
	And if anybody even attempts to ask for your ID, it's illegal.
	Look, we got to first, I'm not going to defend the administration, previous administration's border policy.
	I mean, it's obviously the New York Times came out with a report that said 8 million people came across without any paperwork.
	Obviously, we made mistakes.
	I mean, the administration made mistakes, and there needed to be more secure border.
	Now, they had a tough hand because with Title 42 during COVID, it was a total blanket ban on immigration.
	And the courts said that you can't have Title 42 after COVID, but they should have been prepared and there should have been more security in terms of the border.
	And my view is the Democratic Party going forward is going to do that.
	I think that's how you, and if we're going to deport sex offenders and criminals, I'm all for that.
	My fear is, and maybe I'll be proven wrong, but there are genuinely people in this country who are not criminals, who are not sex offenders, who did come here illegally in terms of they, it was a crime when they crossed, but they did that 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and they're now paying taxes and they're part of the community and they've got kids in school.
	Some of them are dreamers.
	I hope that there can be humanity and compassion for them, not because, oh, we need them to pick the crops, just because we're a humane country.
	And if people are here for decades and where kids are in school, then in my view, that there can be a humanity there, but there first has to have the border be secure and get the criminals excited.
	Rob, if you can play with it.
	I thought Vinny was going here with the Harris Faulkner clip.
	If you can play this clip with her.
	This was it, Pat.
	Yeah, go for it.
	Now, the second wave that Tom Holman and the borders are for Trump has told me about and all of this will focus on those missing children, hundreds of thousands of them that we know.
	And that number has started to already come down, Emily, from 300,000.
	So they found about 75 to 80,000 of those kids already.
	If they can get the list of these guys, four full days in office for Trump, if they can get the list of where some of those kids have been and they've been identifying it, you know, since the election, going after them and trying to find those little ones, what in the world was Biden's administration doing?
	What was Secretary of Homeland Mayorkis doing when he said to the committees on Capitol Hill, we don't know where those kids are, I'll look into it.
	No, dude, you obviously had a better way to find them and you didn't do your job.
	I can't believe they impeached him and didn't remove him.
	By the way, it's almost as if somebody benefited from looking away.
	Weird.
	Isn't that weird?
	Because if they can do it in four days, you couldn't do it in four years.
	Now, the people that are sitting and asking those weird questions, you got to kind of give them some credit and say, why don't you do it?
	Why didn't you do it?
	Why did you look away?
	Why didn't you get to it?
	This is kids we're talking about.
	I mean, we're not talking about, we're talking about kids here, right?
	So why weren't you a little bit more proactive?
	Why would you think anybody, left, right, or center, forget politics, what percentage of Democrats, Republicans, or independents, how they vote?
	If we had a conversation right now, we have no, there's a room of 100 people, okay?
	Left, right, center.
	You don't know how they voted in 2020 or 2024.
	What percentage of the 100 people that have kids wouldn't be for finding out those 75,000?
	What percentage?
	100% were before that.
	Without a doubt, unless you have a mental problem.
	But you understand what I'm saying?
	But so watch this.
	That's the part where I sit and think to myself, if they did it in four days, you couldn't have done it in four years?
	I don't know the details on this, but look, I mean, the facts as you're presenting them don't look good.
	But I think we need to know.
	I think it's perfectly appropriate for Majorkis to come before Congress and explain why he couldn't get it done.
	Maybe there is an explanation.
	Look, I'm not, but he certainly owes people an explanation on what explains it.
	Do you know in business, if you need four years to protect the border and the safety of people, you would never have four years.
	You'd be fired after 90 days.
	You'd be fired after 180 days.
	You had four years with a blank check.
	The U.S. government's a blank check.
	We keep paying more money to them.
	What do you need?
	You couldn't figure this part out?
	Now, by the way, this is the kind of stuff that, you know, in the free market, you would get sued.
	Literally, a business gets sued and they have to pay fines.
	How many times do you hear about businesses?
	I'm going to pay fines.
	XYZ, you have to pay this fine.
	XY's you have to pay.
	Well, how about the opposite side?
	How come four years you didn't protect these?
	These kids permanently are damaged.
	We've seen these movies.
	We've seen the documentaries.
	They're permanently damaged.
	A lot of these, for the rest of their lives, when they want to get back in a relationship and a man touches them, they feel and they go back to what happened when they were kids.
	That's permanent damage.
	You know, when you go through it, you're like, hey, how am I going to handle this?
	You hear stories like this.
	So I don't know.
	Again, like you said, we don't know the numbers.
	You know, she's saying what Tom Holman told her that they found 75 to 80.
	And when that number comes out and we see it, because so far it said they've deported how many?
	1,000, right?
	A thousand.
	The numbers we saw right now was 1,000.
	The one that you played a clip with the Fox News clip on the screen, it showed 1,000.
	If they found 75, and that can be proven, that may be the number one biggest black eye on the previous administration.
	Number one by a mile.
	Okay, listen, there's over 350,000 missing children, okay?
	And I hope they find as many as they can.
	But, Pat, you mentioned, we watch all these documentaries and stuff.
	The other side, when Sound of Freedom, which was one of the great movies to expose sex child trafficking, how much press did the left give it?
	How much mainstream press did anybody know about that movie?
	Did you?
	Did you see it anywhere?
	No.
	It was small, independent things.
	It's almost as if they don't want to know, as if pedophilia, sex trafficking, slave labor isn't a thing.
	So there has to be something nefarious if you're turning a blind eye to children, okay?
	To children.
	I can care about all the other stuff inside of trading, whatever.
	It's not illegal.
	They're going to keep doing it.
	Okay.
	But when it comes to children, that's one of my biggest problems is that fact.
	And Alejandro Mayorka is sitting in front of Congress, where I'm pretty sure you saw him just with a grin, smiling, meaning knowing he's untouchable and these poor souls have been destroyed.
	That drives me crazy.
	That drives me nuts.
	And he's going to get away with it.
	He was like, you know what he just said last week?
	He's like, I was getting orders.
	Joe Biden and them told me.
	Nobody's going to get in trouble for it.
	Nobody.
	And those kids are freaking ruined for the rest of their lives.
	I was just following orders.
	How German.
	Yeah, yeah.
	No crap.
	Well, could it be that, remember the story we talked about with Mike Johnson?
	He basically says, hey, I need to get some time with President Biden.
	Hey, and then all the handlers were in there.
	And he, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, eventually got time with President Biden.
	And he goes, hey, just explain to me what's going on with the drilling and the oil and all that.
	And as he recanted, he basically said, no, Joe Biden, I didn't approve that.
	I was just signing a bill or a document to just do investigation, exploration.
	And he goes, well, no, sir.
	Forgive me.
	That's actually not what it was.
	And then all the handlers were trying to get in the room.
	What if Joe Biden potentially didn't know maybe what he was signing and doing?
	There's been some rumors that Joe Biden isn't all there.
	I don't know if you heard that.
	What if that Major Kis or whoever, when there's smoke, there's fire.
	This is all very weird.
	And you said 100%.
	I always say, don't say 100%.
	Any reasonable person wants to protect kids.
	So I'm seeing this.
	I'm like, what's going on that Sound of Freedom?
	I saw the movie.
	And before I saw it, we saw the articles.
	This is a QAnon conspiracy.
	Exactly from the left.
	I was like, all right, like, let me see the movie and judge for myself.
	I was like, it just seems like this guy wants to help kids.
	That's it.
	At the end of the day.
	So there's weird stuff going on.
	And all these questions are very reasonable.
	Well, I mean, look, again, these are things that I have a feeling if anyone's going to expose more of it, it's going to be these guys.
	Just listen, it's only been today's what?
	A week?
	20 weeks.
	It's been eight days.
	Eight days.
	As of one hour, it's been seven days, guys.
	So just, you know, we got, is it eight days?
	No, eight days.
	Yeah.
	Eight days.
	Eight days a week.
	Rob, so if you can play the clip with Vivek and Musk.
	Story comes out.
	Hey, Musk and Vivek are not working out.
	Well, together, he's going to be leaving Doge.
	You know, there's rumors that Musk asked him to leave and they had a fallen out and da-da-da-da-da.
	And there's issues.
	Anyways, we've read it all.
	Yesterday on Jesse Waters, Jesse asked him point blank the question, and here's what Vivek had to say.
	Go for it.
	What happened?
	Well, the reality is I'm pursuing elected office very shortly.
	We'll have an announcement soon.
	But, Jesse, things are off to a great start.
	I think President Trump has proven.
	Look at the actions that he took in that first week.
	The most pro-merit president I think we've had in a long time.
	And as for my vision, you missed the first five seconds.
	Because he said, you made it three times Anthony Scaramucci.
	Is this the one?
	What happened?
	No, no, no.
	There's one that says, if you can go to another clip, he starts it off by saying, you made it three times Anthony Scaramucci did.
	Play this clip?
	So we're hearing you're leaving Doge after like three Scaramucci's.
	What happened?
	Well, the reality is I'm pursuing elected office very shortly.
	We'll have an announcement soon.
	But Jesse, things are off to a great start.
	I think President Trump has proven, look at the actions that he took in that first week, the most pro-merit president I think we've had in a long time.
	And as for my vision, grounded in constitutional law and the future of the country, I think it's best pursued through elected office.
	And I'm confident that they're going to succeed in slashing and burning that federal bureaucracy.
	People are saying you didn't get along with Musk.
	What happened there?
	I think that's incorrect.
	But what I would say is we had different and complementary approaches.
	I focused more on a constitutional law, legislative-based approach.
	He focused more on a technology approach, which is the future approach.
	No better person to lead that technology digital approach than Elon Musk.
	But when you're talking about a constitutional revival, it's not just done through the federal government.
	It's done through federalism, where states also lead the way.
	So I'll have to be saying more on that very shortly, Jesse.
	All right, so Elon didn't fire you.
	It's no, we had a mutual discussion, and I think that I wish him well.
	We're on the same page where divide and conquer in saving the country.
	It's not a one-man show from the top down or the bottom up.
	You can push all the people.
	Road, do you agree with him?
	Look, he had that tweet.
	You know the tweet I'm talking about?
	The problem was, and I think the H-1B program has been abused, needs reform, though I support it.
	But the problem was he said something about how immigrant kids come here and work hard, and kids are born here, are just watching movies and sports.
	And I was thinking about like in India, they had Bollywood and cricket.
	I mean, the criticisms just seemed off base.
	Actually, American students compete very, very well in math and science internationally.
	Our top students do.
	So I think that tweet really rubbed people the wrong way.
	And in my view, it's probably part of the reason he's being so you think that's the reason why, and then you think Musk is like, we got to step away.
	We're moving on.
	Look, Musk, I think.
	Because they were on the same page about the H-1B visa.
	So it's not like they were not on the same page.
	Yeah, I don't know if it's Musk.
	I think he got a lot of backlash from a lot of people in the MAGA base.
	But Musk, you know, Musk also, I don't know how many things he's co-led in his life.
	So it doesn't surprise me that he wants to call the shots.
	But is it Musk that would have fired him?
	It had been Trump, right?
	At the end of the day, the buck stops the Trump.
	My sense is that tweet, really, I mean, it got like 80 million views.
	A lot of the people, and it was wrong.
	I mean, I think he should have just said I misspoke about that tweet.
	Because, look, this is the greatest country.
	Imagine if you have lived in this country.
	You've got your parents, grandparents, scaled the cliffs in Normandy, fought Nazism, fought the Cold War, built the coal, built the steel.
	And then you have someone who's a son of immigrants saying, you know what?
	The immigrants really know how to do everything.
	And everyone who was born here, they're quite, they're just doing music and athletics.
	And you say, that's kind of ignorant.
	You know, I mean, look at all the people who sacrificed blood to build America.
	I mean, who came up with all of the inventions of getting someone to the moon and inventing the drones and inventing GPS?
	And so, respectfully, I didn't process it that way at all.
	I don't think he was talking about the greatest generation or the baby boomers.
	I thought he was talking about Gen Z.
	I thought he was talking about the younger generation because there's a clear schism between what was and what is.
	So I actually wasn't offended.
	I mean, if you're looking at just engineers, if you're trying to produce engineers, clearly India is doing better.
	But if you're looking for well-rounded individuals, which he is, you know, obviously America is the place to be.
	So I wasn't offended at all.
	And I'm straight up American, man.
	So I don't know.
	I mean, you had a great conversation with Will Kane about this very topic, PBD.
	How are you processing what happened?
	No, I think in this next part, when you hire a bunch of number ones, this is what happens.
	It's just what happens.
	When you hire folks who are used to being twos and threes and fours, they make better hires than when you hire a bunch of ones.
	It's not an easy thing to put a bunch of ones in the room and say, go get along.
	It's going to be tough.
	So I'm not surprised that this happened.
	Him and Anthony Scaramucci, very big difference between the two of them.
	Anthony, you know, the one part that if you think the common thread would work in under Trump, the same thing Trump is attracted to ends up not working well with him.
	He's attracted to strong personalities.
	But those strong personalities, when they come in and they push too much, it's like, hey, listen, 40 laws of power, law number one.
	Keep that in mind.
	You ain't bigger than the group right now, right?
	Pump the brakes.
	You have a role to play.
	Do you want to play it?
	You said yes, but it's not about you thinking it's about you, right?
	And that's kind of tough to do.
	And Vivek has been a one for his entire life.
	Vivek went to college making 15 million.
	While he's at college, dorms making, I mean, he's in college making 50 million.
	Vivek's done very well for himself, and he's one, you know, valid Victorian, given a speech when he's 18 years old.
	He's done very well, but he went in it where he's definitely two to Trump.
	He's definitely a two to Musk.
	Who is he a number one two?
	He has to go earn those stripes.
	And the one he could have been was a VP, and Trump didn't pick him as a VP.
	If he would have been pick him as a VP, it'd be a different thing.
	But you know what we forget?
	Here's what we forget.
	Rob, can you pull out what's Vivek's age?
	Vivek, Ramaswamy.
	I think he's age 40, if not 39.
	He's 39 years old.
	He'll be 40 in August.
	Okay.
	What a beast.
	This is a young talent.
	He ain't going away.
	So he goes to Ohio.
	He announces he's going to be governor.
	Okay.
	They did a poll who they want to be a governor when he was here last.
	If you remember, he was him 42, 45%.
	He's going to become the governor of Ohio.
	He'll do that for four, eight years.
	He knows the next turn is not going to be him.
	It's going to be JD Vance ahead of him, although he'll run probably against him as a governor.
	And then they're going to find a way.
	Because remember, we forget Trump in 2020.
	The reason why Trump is killing it today, literally, is because he learned from his mistakes in 2020.
	In 2020, when he campaigned, it's a very different campaign than 2024.
	2020, it's their fault.
	It's this, it's that.
	You know, they cheated.
	They did this.
	It's unfair.
	And that level of energy and 40 laws of full power versus force, it's low.
	But then in 2024, he campaigned in a very different way, and now he knows where all the bodies are buried and all that stuff.
	Trust me, Vivek had a crash course on what happens in politics when you deal with a bunch of players, and he's going to come out.
	And a guy like that who's a student, prolific, is going to come out and be able to come out of it.
	We'll forget about this within a month or two months.
	You'll see how it's going to happen.
	Literally, this is going to be forgotten about, and then they're going to move on, and no one's ever going to bring it up.
	Can I ask you a quick question?
	By the way, you saw what happened with Susie Wiles.
	She kind of basically said, Yeah, okay, you want to go there?
	I just have a quick question for you.
	Indian American, right, Vivek?
	Also, I believe Kamala Harris, if you had to vote for the first Indian American president, would you have voted for Vivek or Kamala Harris?
	I'm going to hold you to an answer.
	I'm a Democrat, so I would have voted for Kamala, but I like to say you like making poor decisions.
	I like the baby.
	We debated each other in New Hampshire when he was running, and I think he ran a great race.
	I think I admire that he's proud of his faith while running and stood up for that.
	I think he's a very talented guy.
	We don't agree on things, but I agree with you that he's probably the front runner into the Ohio race and he's going to have a future.
	He's not going away.
	He's not going away.
	And again, he stood on his own, which means he's going to go through the phase of being lonely for four or six years.
	Then they're going to say, okay, we got to respect them.
	And that lonely part, most people don't have the brass to go through.
	It's very hard to go through that part where it's like, who the F are you?
	Who do you think you are?
	Then they're like, okay, this guy's legit, but it's going to take about four years, unfortunately.
	Unfortunately, he needs to do that.
	All right.
	So, next thing here.
	Story about Susie Wiles.
	Rob, do we have that story in here?
	I don't think.
	Okay, here we go.
	Trump's Ice Maiden Chief of Staff launches takedown of Musk.
	Okay, now let's see if this is true or not.
	And we'll read this story and go straight into the next one here.
	So this is talking about Susie Wiles, I believe.
	Susie Wilson is Trump's chief of staff, first woman to hold the office.
	The role has taken a firm approach in her second term, denied Musk in office in the West Wing.
	Despite his role as chairman of the Doge, Musk's team will work from the Eisenhower building and report directly to Wiles, who said, I don't welcome people who want to work solo or be a star.
	Wow.
	Known as the Ice Maiden.
	Wiles is focused on maintaining discipline and collaboration.
	Contrasting with the chaos of Trump's first term, Musk, often referred to as Trump's first buddy and criticized as a co-president by Democrats, remains a controversial figure in the administration.
	Despite pushback, Trump defends Wiles.
	Management calling her tough, smart, innovative, and universally admired and respected.
	Wiles has also imposed a social media ban on cabinet nominees, stating all intended nominees should refrain from any social media posts without prior approval.
	Well, he's not going to do that.
	He's already posting.
	He runs X. How do you get him to not do that?
	Now, while this is happening, Trump's aides are furious with Elon Musk for trashing the $500 billion AI project.
	Somebody even said he gives zero Fs.
	Elon Musk angered Trump's aides and allies with his criticism of $500 billion target AI project, claiming they don't actually have the money SoftBank has well under $10 billion secured.
	I have that on good authority.
	A Trump ally described the situation saying the problem is the president doesn't have any leverage over him and Elon gives zero.
	Trump dismissed Musk's remarks as stemming from a personal animosity towards open AICO.
	And here's what he said, Rob, if you want to play this clip.
	Mr. President, does it bother you that Elon Musk criticized a deal that you made publicly that he said that he tweeted that?
	No, it doesn't.
	He hates one of the people in the deal.
	Have you spoken to him since then?
	No, no.
	Well, I've spoken to Elon, but I've spoken to all of them, actually.
	No, no, the people in the deal are very, very smart people.
	But Elon, one of the people, he happens to hate, but I have certain hatreds of people.
	I mean, he's talking about Sam Altman, by the way, right?
	So, Tom, how do you process this?
	Well, first I go to Susie.
	She's doing her job and she's doing a really good job.
	You take a look at what usually happens when people take a secretary position.
	You be the secretary of something, you serve for roughly two and a half years and then you leave, you get your book deal or a new show position.
	A lot of the high-end people hang there.
	And so, or you go right over to K-Street and you become a lobby for somebody.
	And so there's usually this revolving door.
	And so there's usually people who are not necessarily fully aligned with the president and stand behind him.
	In this case, we have an operator who's operating like a CEO and he's got a chief of staff and that is Susie.
	And he's saying, hey, look, you know, we're going to have a meeting here.
	You're going to criticize it.
	You know, I don't want you to have second meetings with the VP of marketing and F things up before the meeting.
	That happens in companies.
	It says, look, if you got something to say, say it in the meeting.
	So she's saying these things on social media.
	So I think they're trying to bring order to what is typically a very disorderly situation, which is operating a cabinet in a day and age where social media is out there and people are already thinking about two steps ahead, what they're doing, and have a tough time being great number twos.
	That's what I think is going on with Susie.
	With Trump, I think he gave a very honest, straightforward answer.
	He says, hey, he hates one of the guys in the deal.
	You know, what do you want me to do about it?
	I'm going to go get it done.
	Because Lincoln, we can go back and look at Abraham Lincoln about how he got rivals to cooperate.
	And I think that's what you're seeing here at Trump.
	And I think you're seeing leadership from him.
	And Susie's trying to run a tight ship in that organization.
	Roe.
	Look, Trump understands one thing about American politics, that the worst thing you could do is be boring.
	Now, if you look at FDR, he was on the stage from 1932 to about 1945, 13 years.
	And Trump has basically been on the American political stage from 2015 till now.
	And a lot of his campaign before Elon and others got there was like the 80s reruns, Hulk Hogan and, you know, WWE wrestling and we're going to drill for oil.
	And I think he gets that having someone who sends rockets to space gives him a new act.
	It gives him the sense of the future.
	And so he knows that he likes hanging around with these folks.
	And yeah, Susie Walds is very talented, but, you know, I don't think she's going to convince Trump that he doesn't need some of these tech leaders around him.
	Adam.
	Well, there's no doubt that there's one thing that Trump is not is boring.
	He's a brilliant marketer.
	Now, you might like some of the marketing.
	You might very much dislike some of the marketing.
	But what I've recognized about Trump is this.
	I think there's just a clear difference to his confidence and his swag and just his genuine understanding of how Washington and politics works.
	The biggest problem, I guess, you would say in 2016 is like literally this guy had no clue what he was doing.
	Like he said, well, you know, I give a lot of political donations.
	That doesn't mean you know how Washington works.
	I genuinely think he's had eight years of four being in the White House, four being out of it, planning, plotting, thinking four years ahead.
	And now he's coming into the White House and he knows exactly what he wants to do.
	He knows exactly how a bill becomes a law, which I don't even know if he knew in 2016.
	Respect to you, President Trump.
	I think he literally knows exactly what he's doing, literally.
	So do you think he has a lot more, you know, they say that competence will turn into confidence.
	So his competence and accomplishments, attorney, the confidence, just seems like he knows exactly what he wants to do.
	Got it.
	Do you think differently?
	No, I think he is more effective, which is not a good thing for people like me who would disagree with a lot of his agenda, and that's why he's formidable.
	But I've always thought the Democrats have underestimated Trump.
	I mean, he's obviously unparalleled as a marketer.
	Vinny.
	Well, no, I agree with you.
	Yeah, I'm good.
	Yeah, I would say in this position, I applaud Susie.
	It's a very, very, very hard job that she has.
	Oh, yeah.
	And you know why it is?
	Because both Elon and Trump, it would have worked with a personality like Kamala.
	It would have worked with a personality like maybe even some of the guys on the Republican side.
	It would have worked with probably somebody like Nikki Haley.
	It doesn't work with the personalities that they're used to picking up the phone and calling a person directly to solve a problem.
	Do you understand what I'm saying?
	So, yeah, stop Trump from calling the guy directly.
	For 78, you're like, hey, what the hell are we doing with this permit here?
	Like, what are we doing with this guy here?
	You got to get this out of the way.
	Now, for her to say, they got to go through me and then Musk.
	Musk doesn't wait.
	He just tweets.
	Oh, you need to approve all your tweets through me.
	Oh, okay.
	Yeah, yeah, for sure.
	I'll be honest with you.
	Now, I'm sending my, all my tweets are going to get approved by you.
	She'll lose her mind in 20 minutes after he takes 10 times.
	But that means that that means someone has to pivot and change.
	Who will that be?
	It's not going to be.
	Someone has to compromise.
	Will it be Elon?
	Will it be Susie?
	Will it be Trump?
	One of them has to.
	Of course.
	One of them has to.
	We don't know who it's going to be.
	It ain't going to be Trump.
	It ain't going to be the richest man in the world.
	The richest guy in the world that owns the biggest, the ex, there's no way that guy's going to change.
	It's going to have to be her.
	It's going to be the president.
	No, it has to be her.
	No, she has to adjust a little bit.
	There's no way.
	She will resign.
	Hold on.
	Then she'll resign.
	By the way, you don't want her to resign.
	I don't.
	She is that good.
	I know.
	Well, you say, I'm going for what you said.
	Who's going to bust?
	Let me tell you, to have a person like that.
	Yeah.
	Because one thing you know about her, like you have to choose between everybody that you're working with, who is 100% you.
	Who is more 100% Trump?
	Her or Elon?
	Her.
	There you go.
	Of course.
	What percentage of Elon is supportive of Trump?
	Like everything he does, he does for Trump.
	What percentage?
	20.
	20.
	I was like, 30%.
	What percentage of what Susie does is for Trump?
	100%.
	Everything that she does.
	Let's say 90% and 10% is her legacy and her father.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Dude, you can't lose a flat carry around.
	I know.
	So this is going to be very difficult.
	Because it's easier to have that leverage and conversation with Susie.
	You can't sit there and say, hey, that's the challenge.
	It's going to be, if you create a Doge, it has to be ran by a cowboy.
	It has to be ran by a cowboy.
	But only because only cowboys got the balls to go out there and get that done.
	You're fired.
	We're getting rid of you guys.
	This department shut down 100,000 people done.
	You think a proper person that did everything right is going to be able to have the balls to do that?
	No.
	That's a tough job for what Elon needs to do.
	So, but Trump's going to have to choose.
	It's going to be tough.
	Well, I will say this.
	I think one of the biggest indicators of Trump's success as a president will be how long Susie Wiles stays as the chief of staff.
	Because if I recall correctly, I think he had four chiefs of staffs during his four years.
	First was Reince Prievis for like a couple scaramuccias, John Kelly, the general, Mick Mulvaney, and then Mark Meadows every year.
	She lasts all four years.
	Do you know what is the most attractive thing about Susie?
	Do you know what is the number one?
	I don't want to say the wrong thing.
	No, but do you know what the number, because you're going to go physical?
	Don't discriminate.
	No, I'm not saying that.
	What do you think is the number one most attractive thing about Susie?
	It's not even close.
	If they're watching, it's not even close.
	What is the most attractive thing about Susie?
	She's not trying to be a superstar.
	What is it?
	I think she's humble.
	She knows she's the number two.
	What do you think it is?
	Loyalty?
	I don't know.
	What do you think it is?
	In my opinion.
	You know what I think it is?
	She wants no attention.
	Yeah.
	She could care less about the camera.
	While everybody's like, put the camera, No, I don't want to talk.
	When he won, he's like, hey, Susie, say a couple words.
	No, I'm good.
	I don't need to do anything.
	She kind of walked back.
	I remember that.
	That was a beautiful moment that I guarantee he won't forget.
	No limelight.
	No, you can't find people like that.
	I had people that I hired.
	They wouldn't let you take pictures with Trump, and they would take the pictures with Trump.
	I remember that.
	No, no, no, you guys can't.
	But hey, President Trump.
	Hey, look what you can't hide people.
	Those are not flat carriers.
	Those are selfish users that it's about them.
	Susie is tough to find.
	It's a very hard thing to find people like this.
	Very, very, very hard to find people like Susie who wants no attention.
	Listen, if you naturally get it, there's nothing wrong with it.
	We're not sitting here saying, well, you know, someone's going to say, well, you guys are getting a bunch of eyeballs.
	Yeah, but I'm not trying to be this job.
	This job is perfect for her.
	And for Trump, you need some people like, because a lot of people have Trump's job because they're trying to check to see what their resume is going to look like and what the next book they're going to write and what offer they're going to get from Simon N. Schuster.
	And I'm going to be able to do this on legacy, legacy, legacy.
	She's like, look, my dad was a stud, and he was a killer at what he did.
	I've been the camera for a long time.
	I don't need any of that stuff.
	I'm happy.
	I'm comfortable.
	I simply want to serve.
	Tough to find people like this.
	It's like what you say about the CIA agents, right?
	That's exactly what Joan Amendez said is the fact that they're great, they're charming, they're strong, but they don't need to brag about the fact that they saved a free world.
	Solid.
	Last thing, we'll wrap up.
	Rob, can you play the clip with CNN hosts?
	Which one is that, Rob, that you have up before I go to the next one?
	That was regarding the congressman who had suggested a bill for Trump to serve three or four terms.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, I'm joking around.
	Oh, that's right.
	So this was the one when Trump talked about three terms.
	A guy named Zeus sent me a manec talking about Trump's going to be serving three terms because there's a story that came out that says Congressman pushes amendment to allow Trump a third term, but not Obama, Clinton, or Bush because they both did two.
	There's this congressman.
	Where's he based out of, Rob, by the way?
	Let me see this here.
	Andy Ogles from Tennessee proposed an amendment to allow president to serve three terms, provided they did not serve two consecutive terms.
	The proposal would allow Donald Trump and Joe Biden to both be able to serve two terms, three terms, because there was a disruption.
	But again, it would exclude Barack Obama, Clinton, and Bush because they already served two.
	Who knows if it's going to he joked about this?
	Go ahead and play this clip, Rob.
	It would be the greatest honor of my life to serve not once, but twice or three times.
	He is so funny.
	Oh, headlines.
	Here he goes.
	Here's the thing.
	Fake news.
	Fake news.
	Jimmy Cosmo will be deserved twice for the next four years.
	Here's what I wanted to show you.
	If you want to go, Rob, to the CNN clip with the lady with the guys showing percentage that this is the same Trump.
	Her face.
	No, it's so a host of CNN calling another host at CNN fake news, which indirectly, but I just want you to watch this and judge it for yourself.
	This is the aneurysm.
	Go ahead.
	This is a very different Donald Trump.
	He's leading a very different administration the way he's attacking things.
	And the American public is very much more in line with him than they were at any point during his entire first term.
	One, I would say, correction.
	This is not a very different Donald Trump.
	This is a very different Donald Trump as being viewed by voters in this country.
	The way he's going about things with Susan Wiles leading things, I think he is, you know, going at things in a much less organized fashion, much more.
	Focus on her.
	Take me back in history.
	Take you back in history.
	So it was suggesting to me that Donald Trump's net approval rating of his second term is higher than his entire first term.
	And I was interested.
	She should have played Pokemon.
	Has the second term net approval rating in the first month?
	Have you ever had a higher rating than any net approval rating during the entire first term?
	Donald Trump is the only net.
	This is 100% true.
	I want that.
	I love Spreadsheet.
	What sort of Donald Trump is that?
	He's the first guy ever whose net approval rating in the first month of his second term was higher than anything.
	Look at her face.
	She's having an aneurysm.
	This is true.
	I don't make stuff up.
	The numbers are the numbers.
	The numbers don't send him a mug.
	In nothing except when you have it in the wall.
	And then I believe everything.
	That's exactly right.
	Which is why.
	Vinny, your thoughts on that.
	The anger and the fake news.
	And that's why CNN, what was the number?
	CNN's net worth went from 4.4 billion.
	400 million.
	4.4 billion in 2021.
	I don't know what it is now, but it dropped to 2.3 billion in 2023, a 47.7% drop.
	And I'm so happy because, Roe, this comes back to what I was saying.
	When it comes to him and Jim Acosta, is it reported that he's leaving, Tom?
	Is he retiring?
	No, no, no, no.
	They fired him, but this is how they fired him.
	Remember, it came true.
	Remember, you and I did the little thing back before the board?
	That's what they did.
	They said, Jim, we're giving you midnight.
	Midnight.
	What's happening in my show?
	Two other people are going on it.
	Then I quit.
	Boom.
	Yeah, and he quit.
	My thing is because we're talking about the change.
	You're wrong.
	I'm telling you right now, there needs to be way more Democrats that are speaking like you.
	Obviously, we're going to have our differences, but it's the change.
	Are they ever going to change?
	Because it's insane that they're not seeing the writing on the wall.
	I think Albert Einstein said insanity, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting the same results.
	Okay.
	I don't, from everything, I'm saying this is CNN, but just as a whole, from the open border to sending the money to Ukraine while we're struggling here, from biological men playing women's sports, tampons in bathrooms, kids, pupili boxers, all that stuff.
	If they're not going to start changing, and you were saying that Trump only has four more years and he's gone, but the Republican bench is so deep.
	It's so ridiculous deep with JD Vance, with Vivek, Tulsi, and all these people.
	People better start jumping ship and going to another party or else it's never going to change.
	I think that change, Roe, needs to start happening and it needs to be drastic or else it's not going to stop.
	This wave is going to keep going.
	Bro.
	Look, I agree that our party needs to change.
	We got to laugh a little bit more.
	There are some things that Trump's doing that are very, very serious and dangerous that need to be opposed.
	But when you go after every single time he's joking or making a comment that gets laughs, then it just looks like you're the Debbie Downers.
	And that's where there's an unhealthy obsession, especially because the guy isn't going to run again.
	I do think it's funny they excluded Barack Obama.
	I mean, that would have been a heavyweight match if it's Trump versus Obama.
	And I do think Obama actually would have had a much, much better chance of beating Trump than Kamala Harris.
	But I'll tell this about the Republican bench.
	I'm not discounting it, but Donald Trump had a unique ability that none of these folks have.
	And in the connections he had with the African-American community, with the Latino community, in his ability to be comedic, in his charisma, in having been on TV for 15 years.
	And so what the Democratic Party should be focused on is paying attention to what drew people to Trump, opposing it where we have to, but actually thinking about the future.
	If everything is based on obsession about Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, we'll be the candidate of the past.
	We got an opportunity to build for the future.
	And you said, and I'm sorry, Pratt, because I know you want to close, but you said, he's doing dangerous things.
	What's something that Trump is doing that's dangerous that you're saying is going to hurt us?
	Because from what I'm seeing, he's making bold moves.
	He's being decisive.
	He's hitting on every promise.
	And I don't know about you, bro.
	I told them this the other day.
	I woke up at 5:30 in the morning and I was in my living room.
	And I swear to you, I prayed first and I felt bad because I cussed after, but something inside me just said out loud, I said, America is back.
	I just felt it.
	So what's something dangerous that you think that he's doing that we should be concerned about?
	The three places quickly, and we probably don't have the time to disagree with all of them.
	But I was fine with pardons for some of the people on misdemeanors on January 6th who just roamed into the Capitol, took recordings, left.
	But there should not have been a pardon for anyone who hit a police officer or who committed property destruction of the Capitol.
	Two, the pause on federal funding has paused all federal funding, including cancer research, diabetes research, money to different communities.
	That's Congress that has the power whether to spend money or not.
	And in my view, the courts will strike it down.
	He's fired all the inspector generals.
	There are a number of areas where I think he's gone way too far.
	But let me end with, from my perspective, with this.
	One, we've got to have more conversations in this country like this, where people come on, where you don't agree on everything, but there's got to be some way after a very, very polarized country that we have been since Obama and then Trump, Biden.
	If after Trump's four years, if we're just going to continue to polarize, that's going to be the biggest advantage for China.
	And my thing that I hope that, and I appreciate your having me on, is, you know, even if people who listen to me is like, I'm never going to vote for that kind of guy, at least we can figure out how do we treat each other with respect, with patriotism, and figure out how we start to bring this country together in a way that it hasn't been.
	And that to me is the biggest challenge actually for the nation.
	I applaud you, and I think we need to have more of that happening.
	The conversations is what we need.
	And we look forward to having many more of these with you for years to come.
	This was fantastic.
	Appreciate you for coming out.
	Gang, for those of you that are still on, reminder: if you think you're very good at making predictions, go to vtnews.ai, the 100-day predictions, Rob.
	Can we see what the latest one is?
	Who is number one?
	First 100 days.
	Let's go see.
	Click on bottom right, Rob.
	Just go to bottom right.
	First 100 days.
	It's right there.
	Okay, click on that.
	And let's see what the latest one is.
	Leaderboard.
	Will Trump disclose the mystery behind the New Jersey drone disappearance appearances in the first 100 days?
	What do you think?
	I would say first hundred days.
	Because you know in the White House, when he was signing executive orders, he's like, Did we find out about that?
	And he goes, Go find out about, I think, yes.
	Because he asked, he asked.
	First 100 days, you say yes?
	I think, yeah.
	Well, I voted.
	Look at Riley, bro.
	Riley's first.
	Connor's second.
	Chris, these are the best predictors so far.
	Oh, I am.
	I am on.
	Delia Berry, Joseph Shoup, Thomas Polk, Mitchell.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So, guys, we got quite a few more days left.
	We're on day eight.
	We got 92 days left.
	Surprise recognition and prizes at the end.
	Go participate.
	Go to vtnews.ai and fill out your prediction.
	Ro, appreciate you for coming out, brother.
	This was fantastic.
	God bless everybody.
	Take care.

▲