All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2025 - Sean Hannity Show
31:14
Elon's New Party - July 7th, Hour 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is an iHeart Podcast.
Hi, it's Peter Schweitcher.
That's Eric Eggers.
We're filling in for Sean.
We want you to join the conversation, specifically a question about this new political party that Elon Musk might be forming, the so-called America Party.
Mark Cuban says he's in, the Texas billionaire, and Anthony Scarmucci, the former spokesman uh for Donald Trump the first term, both say they want to join this political party.
Would you, the audience, consider joining the America Party?
We want to hear from you 1-800-941 Sean 1-800-941-7326.
Yeah, there was a moment over the weekend when the idea of Elon Musk, the billionaire who helped get Donald Trump elected announcing the creation of a new political party, might have been considered the biggest story of the weekend.
And then Donald Trump signs this big beautiful bill.
The New York Times uh outs there, you know, Mom Donnie for cultural appropriation.
And then, of course, last night we get this bombshell announcement from the United States government, or at least from Axios saying that the United States government has no evidence of any attempts by Jeffrey Epstein to blackmail people, essentially saying there's nothing more to see here.
They are shutting down the investigation.
Uh a lot of people are reacting very strongly to that news.
And so we thought who better to discuss that than former Epstein attorney, David Schoen, who joins us now in the Sean Haney program.
Mr. Schoen, how are you?
Thanks.
How are you?
Thanks for having me on.
Uh we're great.
We we would love to get just your reaction to the announcement last night, Axios uh gave an excerpt from this memo that has been unearthed from the Department of Justice saying, quote, this is this systematic review related revealed no incriminating client list.
There was no credible evidence found that Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.
And we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.
Your reaction to a that news and the fact that they're admitting this now.
I'm not surprised by it uh whatsoever.
I never thought that there would be a client list or that he was involved in any effort to blackmail anyone.
Um remember, you know, I I knew him pretty well.
Um he trusted me.
Uh he said once to his in-house counsel who said to me that I was the only person in the world he trusted with his life, and that's why he hired me to take over his criminal case.
Um for about a year before he died, uh, he was asking me to review his lawyer's work.
He had a battery of some of the top lawyers in the country uh representing him for a long time.
Um I was very flattered when he asked me to take over the case when he was really facing the criminal charges.
But um, you know, uh look, if he had information to use against other people, logically he would have used it in his case, and that would have been the first thing he would have used because he certainly could have helped himself.
I know that there have been all of these stories that there must be files out there in a client list and all that.
I've never believed it, frankly.
Um, listen, that doesn't mean everybody knows.
He ran with wealthy and powerful people.
He entertained them uh in his home, he flew with them, and so on.
Part of what sticks in my crow about all this is by the way, that those people really enjoyed their time with him.
They used him also, and all of a sudden when the stories came out and he was charged with a crime, they all cut their ties with him as if they had never known him, and so on.
I'll tell you one last interesting thing I wanted to just mention.
He had a very interesting photo array at his home of some of the wealthy people.
So for example, he had a picture there of Bill Gates with a dollar bill in it.
So I asked him, you know, what's this all about?
He said, well, he made a bet with Bill Gates, and what were they gonna bet Bill Gates?
So he bet him a dollar and he won.
There's no question he had close contact with these people.
But I don't think there's any evidence of uh you know anything further than that, and and in terms of any kind of list or blackmail effort.
Yeah, I mean, that's the interesting question to me, right?
Um, is there's no question that he had this these relationships, but you said whatever the extent of those relationships, we we don't fully know.
Um, but the fact that there is, as the Department of Justice says, not a quote unquote client list doesn't mean that there isn't necessarily a problem that some of these people have in terms of what their relationship was with Epstein.
Uh we were talking earlier on the show uh about this JP Morgan situation where um you know apparently uh they admitted that Epstein over the course of his relationship had uh uh you know drawn I think a billion dollars through JP Morgan accounts there were claims uh that this was related to human trafficking.
My question for you is, what do you think is perhaps the culpability or the vulnerability that these wealthy individuals have?
Because as you pointed out, they clearly enjoyed the relationship.
I don't think it was coercive.
I don't think that he was somehow manipulating them.
It was a friendship.
Do you believe that there is any legal culpability or problems not naming any particular individuals with some of the people that he was spending time with?
I don't think so.
quite frankly and I'll say this about the blackmail effort listen uh I know people have painted Jeffrey Epstein as his monster and so on from the way I knew him I don't think he was a kind of person who would blackmail someone had that in mind.
He was a different sort of guy obviously um in many ways but he enjoyed their company they enjoyed his and he wasn't a guy who wanted to then you know get people in trouble or expose what they did.
So much has never come out about the Epstein story because it doesn't play well in the media but you know you should be aware the re listeners should be aware there was a woman who sent young women to him who gave a sworn statement to the FBI who said Jeffrey Epstein had one rule no one under eighteen ever and so she told these people you better either have a fake ID or be over eighteen because he'll throw you out if he doesn't think you're eighteen.
Now nobody who believes the monster story about Jeffrey Epstein would ever believe that but this is a sworn statement you know under oath by this woman so I don't think we've really seen the full picture of Jeffrey Epstein.
But listen uh I don't think these people have vulnerability.
I was surprised when organizations gave back his charitable donations quite frankly I thought they should have taken them and enjoyed them and they were and put them to good use.
So what do you uh on the question of the suicide uh clearly uh Epstein's brother says he does not believe that he committed suicide you believe that he was killed uh FBI is saying conclusively um that he did commit suicide any thoughts that you have on the interactions that you had with Epstein on that question.
Sure, absolutely um listen nobody knows for sure but I've said all along that I don't believe it was suicide for two reasons primarily.
One anecdotally I met with him nine days before he died.
He hired me to take over his case.
He also asked me to do some other work for him not related to the uh not related to the case that only had an impact going forward.
The Friday before he died on Saturday, the people around him told me he was barking out orders to do the things that he and I had discussed would need to be done to go forward with the case.
I said to him I would take over the case but with the understanding I would have to meet with his current lawyers and either they approved it or I would bring in my own team and I had already put together another team.
All of that was fine with him.
We arranged a fee agreement and so on.
That's one anecdotally number two Michael Biden in my view is the top forensic medical examiner in the world.
He examined Jeffrey Epstein's body with the New York medical examiner.
During that um uh independent examination the medical examiner said to him she could not this is an assistant she could not conclude conclusively say what the cause of death was four days later she said they said suicide without any additional evidence.
Biden says in all of the thousands and thousands of cases he's done he has never seen injuries like this consistent with suicide period.
We're talking to you a former attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, David Show and David, you are the son of an FBI agent I know he died when you were quite young but but you are you your father was an FBI agent.
What do you make of then the people who run the FBI claiming the opposite and trying to release evidence of this footage of the jail cell showing allegedly no one entering this door that they offer up as proof that he did kill himself.
Yeah I'm disappointed by it because I don't think they can say with any level of certainty uh whether it was suicide or not and I don't like the idea of putting their impramater on the idea conclusively that it was suicide.
Obviously you know I'm a huge fan of the FBI my dad was one of my real heroes in the world um I have all of his memorabilia but uh I I don't think in this case that's fair I think maybe they thought there was some need for finality and all of that but if Michael Baden says otherwise I I take him over the oh the FDI on a forensic matter.
Yeah the the the question then David is and and I'm not asking for a list of names per se but then if you believe that he did not commit suicide what's the profile of the person you think that killed Jeffrey Epstein if he did not commit suicide?
Who would want him dead?
That's the puzzling part of it.
I don't subscribe to conspiracy theory, although many people did he had a lot of information and so on.
Usually in this kind of situation it would be someone who wants to get credit for for um killing, you know, a sex offender, that sort of thing, especially a high profile person.
That's the odd thing in this case.
No one has come forward for credit.
You do know, I'm sure though, that he was in prison.
Uh he was locked up there at the MCC with a guy who was a hitman for the Mexican mafia, allegedly, um, former policeman, huge guy.
They moved that guy out, and then they moved him in with a drugie, uh, was which was very upsetting to him.
And two weeks before this, there was an incident with uh with the first fellow he was in with, um, in which they called it an attempted suicide.
It was not, um, but he didn't want to get the guy in trouble.
Anyway, uh uh the profile, in my view, ought to be someone, you know, who really wanted the publicity from it.
No one has taken credit for it.
So that's the oddity.
That's what I can't answer.
That's one of the oddities.
Uh, in addition to representing Jeffrey Epstein, you also represented at his second impeachment trial, former President Donald Trump, his spokesperson Caroline Levitt was asked about the FBI's announcement today as it relates to the Epstein case.
Here's what she had to say.
Here's that interaction with the reporter.
So the FBI looks at the circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey, Jeffrey Epstein.
According to the report, this systematic review revealed no incriminating client list.
So what happened to the Epstein client list that the attorney general said she had on her desk?
Well, I think if you go back and look at what the Attorney General said in that interview, which was on your network on Fox News.
I've got a quote.
John Roberts said, "DOJ may be releasing the list "of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
"Will that really happen?" And she said it's sitting on my desk right now to review.
The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients.
Will that really happen?
It's sitting on my desk right now to review.
Yes, she was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
That's what the attorney general was referring to, and I'll let her speak for that.
But again, when it comes to the FBI and the Department of Justice, um, they are more than committed to ensuring that bad people are put behind bars.
Just your reaction to how you feel like the FBI has handled uh all of this, including since Donald Trump's election and the promises that were made and now the clear shift in tone.
Right.
Well, that's you know, uh part of sort of a rush to go to the media and so on.
I think that the Carol Levitt's explanation is perfectly plausible.
I do think the Attorney General is referring to document the file, Jeffrey Epstein file that was on her desk.
She said to be reviewed.
There's no such thing.
I don't believe there's any such thing as a client list.
And by the way, you can be sure in this day and age, if there were, it would have leaked out.
You know the number of FBI agents who searched his premises, people in the U.S. attorney's office, including uh Mr. Comey's daughter who was on uh the related case.
Um you can be sure that there would be leaks about this client list and some names on it if there really were client lists.
That's my view of things.
We're talking to David Schoen, who is an attorney for uh uh Epstein uh when he was incarcerated, also has represented Donald Trump in the impeachment hearings.
Uh David, um, and again, I'm not talking about particular names here, but it just seems to me that that as you acknowledged Epstein had this, let's say, very destructive uh lifestyle, these relationships that he had with uh women.
Um it seems to me that based on the stuff that came out from JP Morgan, a more than a billion dollars went through that that they said was related to human uh uh trafficking.
Um it's hard for me to believe that Epstein kind of did this and kept it to himself, right?
That that none of the friends that went to the island, no one at all participated in this except for Epstein himself.
Um so that seems to me to raise the question.
It wasn't coercion necessarily, as you said.
It doesn't have to be blackmail, it could have just been, you know, friends hanging out, uh, friends doing this stuff together.
Um the problem that I have with this case is it seems like you had this massive amount of human trafficking that was taking place just on this one billion dollar figure.
Uh you had Maxwell go to jail, but there doesn't seem to have been any other investigations, certainly not any other prosecutions of anybody else that could have been involved in this prostitution slash uh human trafficking.
What's your thoughts on that?
Well, you look, you raise a fair and important point uh uh without any question.
Look, uh my personal belief is that many of those wealthy people um and so-called prominent people engaged in his activities with him at the various places.
Um, but there may well not be a sufficient proof of it and so on.
Um, you know, when I spoke out the other day, um, and I don't talk about any sort of attorney client privileged information, but I spoke out the other day when Mr. Musk uh suggested that the reason records hadn't been produced is because someone was covering up for Mr. Trump.
I can tell you unequivocally, as I have said, that Jeffrey Epstein had no information whatsoever uh about any nefarious activity with Donald Trump.
Um I thought that was an important point to make after these that's what happens.
These rumors get out there.
I'm personally not a hundred percent satisfied with the JP Morgan figure that they can track uh track that money to the human trafficking and all that.
That that's a different question.
You ask an important question.
Why haven't there been any other um investigations?
And you can be sure again, Miss Maxwell would have spoken about uh other incidents that she was aware of and she would have been aware of them.
So I don't have the answer to that.
Well, we do know, and David Shown, we appreciate your time today.
While the FBI is attempting to, I think, end the discussion with their memo yesterday.
Uh the fact that we are talking about as much as we are, a lot of other people are talking about it suggests that the opposite is true.
So David Schoen, thank you for your time.
He's Peter Schweitzer, I'm Eric Eggers.
We host a podcast called The Drill Down.
You can find it at the drill down dot com.
We'll be back with more Sean Hannity show right after this.
I'm Peter Schweitzer.
This is Eric Eggers.
We are filling in for the Sean Hannity show today.
We want you to join the conversation one eight hundred nine four one seven three two six.
So interesting.
The Epstein bombshell that came out, the conversation that we just had with David Schoen.
Here's the problem.
One of the problems.
People don't trust what the government has to say.
Even if it is people that they are familiar and comfortable with, like Cash Patel or like Pan Bonnie, they don't trust the bowels of government.
And one of the reasons, of course, is we had another revelation break break right before the July 4th uh holiday, and that was this CIA assessment about Russia Gate and the fact that they were simply pushing product that they did not have confidence in.
They claimed that it was high confidence, that they had all this evidence that it was Russia collusion when they admitted that they only had one source and low confidence in it.
That's the problem.
Peter Schweitzer, that is Eric Eggers.
We are filling in for Sean today.
Uh we have a podcast called The Drill Down.
Please consider uh subscribing to it.
We want you to join the conversation.
We're gonna get a little political here now, right?
We talked about the tragedy in Texas uh and the heroic efforts of the Coast Guard.
Uh, we've talked about the attempted uh uh killing of ICE agents.
We've talked about the Jeffrey Epstein um uh ruling from the uh DOJ and the FBI.
Let's talk about the big, beautiful bill.
It passed barely, passed by a couple of votes in the House.
It passed in the Senate because Vice President J.D. Vance had to come in and cast the deciding vote, but it was signed by President Trump.
Um and it's very interesting uh the tensions that have been created.
We want to talk about the details of the bill, but also some of the reaction the Democrats is kind of predictable, but you also have Elon Musk out there wanting to start the America Party.
Yeah, we'll talk about Elon Musk, who's been steadfastly opposed to this bill, and we'll talk about his desire to create uh the America Party.
We'd love to hear your perspective on it.
Give us a call 1-800-941-7326.
That's one eight hundred and nine four-one Sean.
Do you support the passage of the bill uh as in uh in contrast with Elon Musk?
I think there's several fascinating things about the passivist bill.
Obviously a key tenant of the Trump administration, you know, it's been a massive priority.
They did a whole bill signing ceremony on the Fourth of July.
They said they wanted to do that.
There was and it's a credit to him and his political ability.
They were able to get it done by these narrow margins.
You also, by the way, I think have to give Donald Trump credit just as a branding expert.
We were talking about this a little bit earlier.
What was the signature policy accomplishment of the Obama administration?
The Affordable Care Act.
The Obamacare.
Yeah, the they called it the Affordable Care Act.
No one calls it that.
We all call it Obamacare, and not necessarily in a positive way.
Yeah.
Um, under Joe Biden, his signature policy achievement was what?
Uh the inflation reduction act.
Right.
Again, they tried to do that, but we call it the Green New Deal, the Green New Scam.
Right.
But Donald Trump just calling it the one big beautiful bill.
Like everyone calls it that.
I mean, it what is that?
That's not the name of a bill.
It is now.
I know.
But that doesn't tell you anything about what it is.
It's just a big, beautiful bill.
I actually looked on the uh congressional record, and that is literally the name of the piece of legislation.
This is not shorthand.
That's literally the name of the bill.
So you go on CNBC and you go in on these news outlets, they are talking about the big beautiful bill.
So it's sort of just genius that Trump has gotten many, you know, news anchors and everyone to call this thing, which they oppose in many respects the big beautiful bill.
Uh it is big and according to depending upon your perspective, it is beautiful.
It extends the tax cuts.
Uh, it's got a massive increase in funding for ICE and for immigration enforcement.
That I think is is the key for many of its supporters, right?
They say that the number one domestic priority continues to be enforcing immigration laws in this country and deporting people who shouldn't be here.
This bill gives people funding to do that.
It also then I think tries to enact some of the efforts of Doge, bringing more security and credibility to some of these entitlement programs.
What some people will tell you are cuts to Medicaid and cuts to SNAP are in fact just increases in work requirements or more paperwork requirements, more validity to make sure that the people that are receiving these benefits should be receiving the benefits.
One thing I'd very much like, you know, you and I've spent some time talking about the SNAP program, EBT, the food stamps, and how much fraud is there.
Uh a big deal now is that states may have to start in 2028 paying a portion of the food benefit costs.
Previously, states have only paid administrative costs.
I'll tell you why that's a big deal.
Because right now, this is just how much Donald Trump has changed the conversation about entitlements and eradicating waste, fraud, and abuse in those entitlement programs.
The current setup, or at least before Donald Trump became president, the federal government awarded states who claim to have the lowest error rate in the administration of these food stamp programs.
So guess what states were then incentivized to do?
Not report high error rates.
And there's been a lot of people.
Which is what fraud is, it's regarded as an error rate.
Absolutely.
So the states with the most fraud would pretend it wasn't very much fraudulent, and they got paid by the federal government for doing so.
We now are trying to reward states and say, no, you guys have to expose, root out the fraud, and you guys are gonna have to pick up a part of the check on this.
So you're now incentivized to make sure your your programs are well run.
Yeah, I mean, here's the bottom line question.
On all of these programs, whether it's Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security, you have to keep them viable, right?
You have to keep them viable.
And the problem with Medicaid is you had millions of illegal immigrants that ended up on Medicaid programs.
States like California sign them up because they wanted to take those federal dollars.
What this bill basically says is no, if states want to have illegal migrants on their uh Medicaid rolls, they have to pay for them themselves.
The second thing that they do with Medicaid is say, look, if you're able-bodied, does that's you know, determined by a medical doctor.
If you are able-bodied, you either have to work 80 hours a week.
80 hours a month.
Yeah, 80 hours a month, sorry.
Uh, and that that's two weeks out of the month.
Or if you can't find a job or you're not looking for a job, maybe you're in a situation where you can't have one, um, you have to at least volunteer.
The point is you have to do something constructive.
If you're sitting around playing video games, if you're sitting around on drugs and expecting people to just subsidize you, that's how we got to the point where this where this program uh is so expensive and it's not sustainable.
So these are really common sense remedies that are being pushed.
And of course, what Democrats are saying is no, they're cutting everybody's program, which is ridiculous.
And it, you know, there's this truism that the federal government programs never get smaller.
And unfortunately, that's continued to be true.
We saw a massive increase in these spending programs during COVID.
And it it took uh years, even after the pandemic ended, for some of these programs to start to come back down, and yeah, now you're hearing the screams and the worst case scenarios.
You know, this is always the case with Donald Trump.
Doesn't matter what he does, it's we're we're presented with the worst case scenario.
And the thing with Donald Trump is those worst case scenarios never proved to be true.
We didn't invade Iran.
We're able to just go after them and take out the nuclear capacity.
Um we're able, you know, we didn't start world uh a civil war here by enforcing immigration despite the best efforts of Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass, right?
And so now it is like, oh, well, you're gonna you're gonna kill people.
You heard Larry Summers suggest that a hundred thousand people will die over the next ten years because of uh this bill.
By the way, those work requirements can be waived if state unemployment goes above ten percent.
Do you know what state has the high do you know what the highest unemployment rate is of any state now?
California.
It's uh California's close, but the even the highest unemployment rates right now are still in the fives.
Yeah.
It's actually Washington, D.C. Interesting.
Highest California's like the fifth highest unemployment rate.
But so the point is these work requirements are going to be implemented because unemployment is not anywhere near where you'd be exempted from it.
So yeah, if you are someone who currently is receiving these benefits, uh, you will have to prove that you are attempting to do something to contribute to society.
Yeah, and wh why is that unreasonable?
I I don't understand.
Uh we know why it's being done for political reasons, but it's really an eminently responsible reform that ought to be supported.
By the way, it used to be supported by Democrats.
It was after all Bill Clinton, who back in 1996 set up a work requirement requirement to be on welfare to receive food stamps.
So this used to be the position of at least some Democrats.
And that's just one portion of the overall big, beautiful bill structure.
It's attempting to do three things as we understand it, right?
They're trying to lower taxes for many individuals.
And so not in addition to kind of making the tax cuts from 2017 continue them in place, they've lowered estate taxes, they've lowered taxes on a number of other things, including corporations.
So they wanted to do that.
They wanted to cut some spending, which they're trying to do with getting rid of uh the waste, the fraud and the abuse, which is what they're attempting to address in these financial programs here with the entitlements.
And then with the tariffs, which we're expecting more news on that any day, they're tempting to bring in new revenue.
So like those are the three streams they're trying to do at one time, which they think will ultimately benefit the economy.
Yeah, and it's all going to come down to revenue and growth, right?
Because all these estimates are put up by the congressional budget office.
They assume a low level of growth.
Oh, this is going to explode the debt.
Uh the fact of the matter is if you have high growth, it brings in large amounts of revenue.
That's really going to help on the on the debt and on the deficit.
And here's the interesting political jujitsu that's going on here.
So you have on the one hand, Donald Trump's big beautiful bill comes and barely passes, but it does, and he signs it.
It's got all these good things in it.
Um, you have Democrats who say, oh, the cuts are horrific.
It's going to, you know, kill all these people, and these tax cuts are irresponsible.
And then you have Elon Musk and some members of the House of Representatives and in the Senate who said the cuts don't go far enough.
Uh, in other words, Trump didn't go far enough in this direction.
So you have these three sort of um uh points of politics.
And Elon Musk has said he he apparently took a survey um of his followers on Twitter X, uh, and they came out, I think, two to one, saying they would support the formation of a third political party.
And this is all based, Musk says, on the fact that the cuts did not go uh uh far enough.
He argues that Doge was disrespected, that all the efforts they took in Doge to slash all of this waste and abuse has now been gutted by this bill.
Yeah, I think it's interesting to see people who would support the idea of a third party.
Yeah, like in in concept, I could see you being into it, but how many of the people who support Elon Musk's creation of a third party would support that party being even more aggressive in terms of cutting government programs and entitlements?
I suspect not very many.
If you're pro cutting government spending, you're probably much more conservative.
And I I wonder, I don't see a space in which a third political party is more conservative, although obviously Republicans haven't been great in terms of fiscal management.
Um, but you know, you get so much criticism and so much pushback.
It and it and it doesn't make sense.
It's actually hypocritical, or at least it's contradictory because on the one hand, people say that this bill explodes the deficit, while at the same time people say the bill cuts Medicaid for people who rely on it.
You kind of can't say both.
Right, right.
And I would say to Elon Musk, there already is a third political party.
It's called the Libertarian Party.
They want to slash government uh extensively.
But here's the thing.
I mean, Elon Musk says it's over principle if it's overcuts, but let's keep in mind the uh the bill, the big beautiful bill, did a couple Of things that are not great for Elon Musk's businesses and not great for his bottom line.
So for example, one of the things in the bill is after September 30th, it's ending the $7,500 tax credit for EVs for electric vehicles.
Tesla produces large amounts of electric vehicles.
The bill immediately scraps the highly profitable zero emission credits.
Other automakers would buy these credits from Tesla so they could meet the admission requirements, sorry, the emission requirements from the federal government.
In the first quarter of this year, Tesla would have actually lost money, except for the fact that they were able to um get these uh you know monetize these credits.
Uh and then finally the issue of tariffs.
Tariffs are going to dramatically increase increase the cost for the Chinese batteries uh that Tesla actually uses.
So maybe it's partly principal, but there's no question in my mind that he cannot be happy with some of the details of this bill and how it's going to affect his bottom line.
So if you're keeping score at home, Elon Musk is against the passage of the big beautiful bill.
Uh the big beautiful bill passes.
You just mentioned three things in that bill that'll be very bad for Elon Musk.
The bill passes, he says he's going to start his own political party.
That's essentially it.
Yeah.
And he's got Mark Cuban and Anthony Scarmucci are two of the people who've said uh they're interested in joining this political party.
It's interesting, by the way, he announced this new political party, and then people put up documents from the Federal Election Commission saying that the party had been formed.
They were fake.
Elon Musk said no papers have been filed.
Sounds maybe like a little bit of a paper tiger.
Um the other thing that's happened is Tesla stock is down eight percent uh with the announcement of this new political party.
So maybe the people that have invested in his business are a little tired of the politics from Elon, and they're probably saying get back to work and build those great businesses that you built in the past instead of trying to change the party system in the United States.
It's you know, just like Donald Trump, it's probably impossible and not fair to try to put Elon Musk into a box.
You know, not everybody fits as neatly into a box as something like, oh, I don't know, uh Mr. Mom Donnie's race, as we found out over the weekend with the New York Times coverage is African American.
We're gonna talk about the New York Mayor race, this push to make Democrats more socialists, what it means for the future of Democratic Party.
We've got a lot more to get into in the Sean Handy program.
He's Peter Schweizer.
I'm Eric Eggers.
We host a podcast called The Drill Down, which you can find at the drilldown.com.
We'll be back with more Sean Handy right after this.
Eric Eggers and Peter Schweitzer filling in for Sean Handy.
We'd love to have you join our conversation.
It's 1-800-941-7326-1-800-941 Sean.
We're going to talk about the pending disaster about to impact New York City, that is the Zoran Mom Donny uh mayoral campaign on the other side of this break.
But first, we've got some interesting news about one of the people connected to one of the people Zerwan Mamdanny beat, former aide to former governor Andrew Cuomo, Peter Schweitzer, is a Chinese agent.
Yeah, well, this is Linda Sun.
She's charged by the Department of Justice for acting as an unregistered agent for the Chinese government.
Uh that was a case filed a couple of months ago.
Uh, they are now accusing her just recently, alleging that she directed New York government contracts worth approximately $35 million to Chinese companies controlled by her husband and second cousin in exchange for large kickbacks.
The question was she worked for the state of New York, her husband was an unsuccessful businessman, but they had a four million dollar house on Long Island, a two million dollar condo in Hawaii, and a Ferrari, and they couldn't figure out how they made it.
This is the explanation.
Sun through an attorney is denying the charge, but this happened during COVID.
Remember when there was a scramble for PPE supplies?
Linda Sun now has been charged with taking kickbacks in addition to acting as an agent for the Chinese government.
Linda Sun, by the way, was the chief diversity officer for Governor Quovo's office.
And uh what I like is that when the New York office was trying to get PPE equipment from China, they decided to reach out via Linda Sun.
Yeah, we're we're gonna pick the Chinese aid.
She's the one to do it.
Uh so in the next hour, um, we are going to talk about the uh political tsunami about to hit New York.
Join the conversation 1 800 941 7326.
▲
Export Selection