WOW! Trump’s Joe Rogan Problem is BACK & WORSE Than Ever
PDS Published 08/21/2025
-
No matter how many distractions Donald Trump hurls at us, there’s at least one person who will not forget about Jeffrey Epstein.
[Clip, 01:30:30 - 01:30:58] Caption: [Jesse Welles:] “I don’t know, I heard it’s a Democratic hoax.” [Joe Rogan:] *Laughs* “Yeah, I don’t think that’s true. Well it’s certainly not a hoax if you go to jail. It’s certainly not a hoax if Ghislaine Maxwell’s in jail too. So like she’s in jail for sex trafficking, excuse me. She’s in jail for sex trafficking. But the question is: to who? You have to be sex trafficking to someone in order to go to jail, right? So who?”
It’s certainly not the first time Joe Rogan has criticized Trump’s response to the Epstein scandal, and if things keep going the way they’re going, it probably won’t be the last.
Because now, three federal judges have all shot down the Justice Department’s requests to unseal the grand jury transcripts from the Epstein and Maxwell cases. [Image]
Right, last month the first judge in Florida denied it, saying the request falls outside the bounds of narrow exceptions to rules about unsealing testimony. [Quote, find “narrow”]
Then last week, the second judge in New York said that nothing new would be revealed from the documents, that the public would “come away feeling disappointed and misled,” and that the request was simply a “diversion” tactic. [Quote]
And finally yesterday, another judge in New York said the grand jury transcript “pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials” already in the DoJ’s possession. [Quote]
Right, because the transcript is only about 70 pages long; the Epstein files proper comprise about a hundred thousand pages.
So the judge opines, “The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file.” [Quote same link]
“By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a ‘diversion’ from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged conduct.” [Quote same link]
But for that very reason, it was unlikely that the transcripts would’ve satisfied Trump’s critics anyway.
Which is why Congress has already begun issuing subpoenas for the actual Epstein files.
And in fact, the DoJ’s deadline to send the files to the House Oversight Committee was Tuesday.
But the committee’s chairman, GOP Representative James Comer, said on Monday that the White House would begin handing over the documents this Friday, which is tomorrow. [Image and Post]
With him writing, “There are many records in DOJ's custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted.” [Same post]
But way back in March, Pam Bondi reportedly directed the FBI to prepare the files for release, with agents working round the clock overnights and weekends to redact sensitive information, so it’s unclear why they needed more time this week. [Quote, first line]
Plus it’s unclear whether the committee’s receiving all of the files, and it could take a long time for them to be shown to the public.
Meanwhile, Ghislaine maxwell’s testimony, which was originally scheduled for mid-August, has been postponed while she appeals her case to the Supreme Court.
With three former attorneys general also testifying before this month is up, followed in September and October by several more officials, including Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Also, Republican Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna plan to bring some of Epstein’s victims to Washington for a press conference on September 3. [Image and Post]
Which also happens to be the day that Congress returns from its summer recess, so that could bring Epstein back into the spotlight just as Republicans are coming back to Capitol Hill.
And according to the two lawmakers, several of the victims will speak about their experiences publically for the first time. [Quote, find “first time”]
Only adding to the chorus of victims and their families who have criticized Trump’s bungling of the case, including Virginia Giuffre’s [Joo-fray’s] brothers.
With Trump so far biting his tongue, but in private he’s allegedly become annoyed at their statements.
With two sources telling The Rolling Stone last week that Trump had repeatedly criticized Epstein’s accusers and their families, claiming that they’re just trying to make him look bad. [Quote, find “look bad”]
And at times, reportedly he’s accused them of clearly having a “Democrat” political affiliation, while wondering aloud if some of them are coordinating with prominent liberal attorneys or groups. [Same quote]
With the journalist who broke this story telling MSNBC: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:48 - 01:03] Caption: “Whatever’s going on on the political or personal landscape, he always values casting himself as the victim, as the besieged one, even in a situation as black and white as this when it’s pretty clear who the survivors are and who the victims and alleged victims and accusers are.”
With the White House denying the report, calling it “just another desperate attempt by the failing Rolling Stone.” [Quote]
Meanwhile, having weathered the Epstein storm so far, Attorney General Pam Bondi has now emerged from her self-imposed exile to reassert control over her Justice Department. [Image]
With her announcing this week that she’s creating a new role at the FBI — co-deputy director — and that Missouri attorney general Andrew Bailey would be taking it up. [Image/headline]
So he’ll work alongside the current deputy director, Dan Bongino, who’s about to be knocked down to just the other co-deputy director. [Image]
And who reportedly had a heated confrontation with Bondi over the Epstein files last month and threatened to resign. [Headline]
So officials tell CNN they believe Bailey’s appointment is a signal that Bondi won that power struggle and Bongino is likely to exit. [Quote, find “Bondi won”]
Though others say her position was never really in doubt, because she’s far too valuable to Trump, being one of his most sycophantic henchwomen. [Quote same link, find “in doubt”]
And now, after nearly a month without taking any questions from the media, Bondi gave two interviews to Fox this week, but neither Sean Hannity nor Larry Kudlow asked her about Epstein. [B roll, 00:56]
Though if she ever testifies to Congress, Democrats have promised to grill her and other officials about the files.
Meanwhile, Massie and Khanna are also planning to file what’s called a discharge petition, basically something that would bypass House leadership and force a vote on a measure compelling the White House to release the files. [Quote, find “discharge”]
But for that petition to work, they’ll need signatures from a majority of the House, for at least 218 lawmakers. [Same quote]
And according to The New York Times, they appear to have more than enough support to succeed, though they can’t actually begin collecting signatures until next month. [Quote, find “more than enough”]
So we’ll watch out for that, as well as all these testimonies, the DoJ’s internal politicking, and the relentless clamour for more transparency from left and right alike.
But one thing’s for sure: next month the Republicans aren’t gonna be able to run away from this the way they have for the past five weeks.
And that’s because Congress has until September 30 to pass a bill funding the government and avoid a shutdown. [Quote, find “shutdown”]
So if lawmakers are determined enough, they could use that as leverage to push for votes related to the Epstein files.
Especially if Democrats on the House Rules Committee, the one that determines which legislation goes to the floor, paralyze it again by threatening to force a vote.
And this week a spokesperson for the committee’s top ranking Democrat told The Times they had “no plans to let up pressure on this until Republicans release the Epstein files.” [Quote same link]
Also, Speaker Mike Johnson’s rapidly running out of excuses not to hold a vote on the matter.
Right, first he said they couldn’t do it because they had to protect the sensitive identifying information of Epstein’s victims.
But then many of those victims themselves said they support releasing the files, and that the info can just be redacted.
So next, Johnson argued that the House couldn’t do anything related to the files while the courts were still deliberating on whether to unseal the grand jury transcripts.
But of course now all those requests are dead in the water, and last month Johnson promised that if the courts did nothing, “we’ll take appropriate action when everybody returns here.” [Quote]
So we’ll have to see if he finds another way to squirm out of it, but even if he does, we’re seeing movement from Democrats in the Senate as well.
Because last month, lawmakers invoked an obscure law that says if at least five members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee request information from the executive branch, it must hand it over.
So minority leader Chuck Schumer sent a letter to the DoJ giving it until August 15 to comply, but obviously that was last Friday.
So Schumer’s been pressuring majority leader John Thune to appoint a lawyer who can take legal action against the White House. [Quote, find “Thune”]
With Schumer writing last week, “If he chooses complicity — we’ll take them to court ourselves.” [Quote same link]
But that’s where everything Epstein-related stands right now; I know there’s a lot to talk about, so let me hear those thoughts and reactions in the comments.
-
Senator Amy Klobuchar wants you to know that she did not say this about Sydney Sweeney’s jeans:
“If Republicans are going to have beautiful girls with perfect titties in their ads, we want ads for Democrats too, you know. We want ugly, fat bitches wearing pink wigs and long ass fake nails being loud and twerking on top of a cop car at a Waffle House.” (0:04-0:19)
“Just because we are the party of ugly people doesn’t mean we can’t be featured in ads.” (0:22-0:28)
Right, and it might be obvious to you that of course, a Senator did not say any of that, but that deepfake circulated so much that Klobuchar just wrote an op-ed for the New York Times to, one, note it was not real, and two, warn about the dangers of AI.
With her saying:
“As anyone would, I wanted the video taken down or at least labeled ‘digitally altered content.’ It was using my likeness to stoke controversy where it did not exist. It had me saying vile things…Studies have shown that people who see this type of content develop lasting negative views of the person in the video, even when they know it is fake.”
And while she said that TikTok took the video down, and Meta labeled it as AI, X/Twitter refused to do any of those things, instead suggesting she try to get a community note on it, but not helping her in that effort.
So Klobuchar continued:
“For years I have been going after the growing problem that Americans have extremely limited options to get unauthorized deepfakes taken down. But this experience of sinking hours of time and resources into limiting the spread of a single video made clear just how powerless we are right now. Why should tech companies’ profits rule over our rights to our own images and voices?”
And she also noted that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Right, deepfakes are becoming more common, and they often are much more serious than just talking about Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle controversy.
Though, that whole ordeal did cause a small wave of AI being used against Democrats.
Right, Klobuchar was not alone, one deepfake we previously talked about had AOC saying:
“And that American Eagle campaign is blatant Nazi propaganda. I mean, fuck. Watching that sultry little temptress squeeze into a Canadian tuxedo three sizes too small.” (0:03-0:15)
And as for why people are making AI videos of Democratic politicians talking about Sydney Sweeney’s chest, well, it helps to stoke political outrage.
Right, journalist Chris Cuomo got duped by that video and accused AOC of fuelling culture wars, when she had really said nothing about this issue at all. []
The New York Times did a piece noting that the Right was really able to take control over this whole Sydney narrative, blaming Democrats for the backlash and accusing the party of getting distracted by one single denim campaign because they hate pretty women.
This even though the outlet reviewed data showing most of the controversy actually escalated once right-wing influencers pounced on it.
And while there was, of course, a substantial amount of outrage, actual elected Democratic officials were not talking about it, at least not in the way the right’s narrative would suggest.
So this Klobuchar video was just one way people with bad intentions can shape conversations and culture wars and pin these issues on the Democratic party, or whoever it is that they want to make look bad.
Which is also why Klobuchar called for more to be done to regulate AI in her op-ed.
Noting that, yes, Trump did sign the Take It Down Act this year, which gives people protections against intimate image abuse.
But she said that is really just the first step, so she and other Senators are currently working on legislation that:[]
“would give people the right to demand that social media companies remove deepfakes of their voice and likeness while making exceptions for speech protected by the First Amendment.”
“In the United States and within the bounds of our Constitution, we must put in place common-sense safeguards for artificial intelligence. They must at least include labeling requirements for content that is substantially generated by A.I.”
And of course, some of this is easier said than done, right, some states have already made individual efforts to restrict AI.
But just today, Bloomberg just published a report noting the many ways tech companies are trying to block those laws and limit regulation.
So this is a push and pull that is not going anywhere.
And so I would love to know your thoughts on this one, whether it be this Amy Klobuchar Sydney Sweeney video in particular,
Or on how this issue stands to impact politicians in general, right, since people keep making these videos of Senators, will this encourage them to act faster since they are personally impacted?
-
Giving cash to journalists, forging signatures, and even more corruption and bribery charges - the Eric Adams scandals just keep on keeping on.
ALT INTRO: Potato chips, bribe money, and forged signatures - welcome to the Adams re-election campaign.
Right, we’ll start with the cash - a top advisor to New York Mayor Eric Adams was just booted from his re-election campaign after giving a journalist a potato chip bag stuffed with cash.
The advisor here was Winnie Greco - Adams’ former director of Asian affairs at City Hall and one of his best fund-raisers.
Winnie returned to Team Adams on the campaign trail as a volunteer as he runs for re-election.
And yesterday, at an event in Harlem, she handed a journalist from the outlet The City a red envelope tucked into a potato chip bag.
But in that envelope was a wad of cash totalling more than $100.
With the reporter, Katie Honan, saying she was hoping to get some information from Winnie about the new indictments against Adams’ associates.
But when they met, Winnie just handed Katie a bag of chips - which the reporter tried declining but Winnie reportedly just walked away.
And when Katie opened the bag later, she found the cash and immediately tried calling to return it - saying,
“I initially hoped it was a note, a tip, and then I looked and I go, ‘Oh my God, it’s money.’”
According to Katie, Winnie laughed off the attempt to return the cash and that’s when Katie took the envelope to her editors and told them the whole story.
From there, the online outlet reported the incident to the city’s Department of Investigation and federal prosecutors in Brooklyn contacted the outlet’s lawyers.
And those prosecutors then took the bag with the envelope and cash in it.
As you can imagine, the campaign was quick to do some damage control - with a spokesperson saying they were shocked and adding,
“Winnie Greco holds no position in this campaign and has been suspended from all volunteer campaign related activities.”
Saying that Adams has, quote, “always demanded the highest ethical and legal standards.”
But according to Winnie’s attorney, it’s customary in Chinese culture to give reporters cash - saying it’s a gesture of friendship and gratitude.
And that’s exactly what Winnie told the outlet whose reporter she gave the cash to - insisting it was cultural and asking them not to publish about it.
With her attorney saying,
“I can see how this looks strange. But I assure you that Winnie’s intent was purely innocent.”
“Winnie is apologetic and embarrassed by any negative impression or confusion this may have caused.” []
But we should talk about the information the reporter was actually looking for from Winnie.
Which was anything about the indictments coming down the pipeline for several of Adams’ close associates and supporters.
Notably, this doesn’t include the mayor himself but it does include his closest political ally and former chief adviser, Ingrid Lewis-Martin and her son.
With Ingrid facing a tsunami of bribery charges accusing her of exchanging political favors for cash, home renovations, and a speaking role on a TV show. []
With her being accused of accepting more than $75,000 in bribes during her tenure as one of the most powerful people in New York City.
She’s been hit with a total of 4 counts of conspiracy and bribe receiving - and that’s on top of the wave of bribery charges from last year that resulted in her resigning from her position in December.
With Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg saying,
“We allege that Ingrid Lewis-Martin engaged in classic bribery conspiracies that had a deep and wide-ranging impact on city government. As alleged, Lewis-Martin consistently overrode the expertise of public servants so she could line her own pockets.” []
With a statement from Ingrid’s lawyer responding and saying,
“Ingrid Lewis-Martin is facing charges classified at the lowest level of felony in our justice system. Her only so-called ‘offense’ was fulfilling her duty -helping fellow citizens navigate the city’s outdated and often overwhelming bureaucracy.”
“At no point did she receive a single dollar or any personal benefit for her assistance. We will vigorously fight these charges and ensure that the facts prevail.”
But Ingrid isn’t alone here - there’s also charges against Adams’ friend and former state senator Jesse Hamilton - who Adams put into a powerful position in the city - as well as siblings Gina and Tony Argento, major supporters and donors to Adams.
And we’ve seen similar proclamations of innocence from their representatives.
Notably, however, this latest in a cascade of legal drama is happening as Adams is frantically trying to sanitize his political image while he lags in the polls.
With a spokesperson for the campaign saying,
”Mayor Adams was not involved in this matter and has not been accused of or implicated in any wrongdoing. He remains focused on what has always been his priority - serving the 8.5 million New Yorkers who call this city home and making their city safer and more affordable every single day.”
And she also noted specifically that Ingrid Lewis-Martin no longer works for the campaign.
But while all this is playing out and as we wait to see how things develop from here, there’s one more Adams’ scandal we need to talk about. A few weeks ago, the Gothamist published a report claiming that his re-election campaign submitted faked and fraudulent petition signatures to get him a spot on the ballot as an independent.
Right, because under state law Adams needed at least 7,500 signatures from voters who wanted him to run as an independent.
And to get those signatures, the Adams campaign reportedly hired several companies to send employees across the city and gather signatures from registered voters supporting Adams’ re-election.
But, according to the Gothamist, there were some corners cut - an executive from one of those companies said that he told the campaign they should run quality control measures.
Beyond just the signature from the gatherer promising they were all legit.
This executive said the campaign rejected the idea - with the campaign responding to the Gothamist’s inquiries saying they expected the companies to follow the law.
But promising now that this has gotten some attention, they’ll be investigating themselves.
As for what they’re investigating - when the Gothamist reviewed the petition, they reportedly found 52 signatures that were fraudulently obtained or outright forged - with thousands more that weren’t properly vetted.
They found issues like strikingly similar handwriting between residents of a specific building or just dubious numbers coming from campaign workers.
Like one who reportedly got 700 signatures in a single day.
The Gothamist spoke to several people who had seemingly signed this petition but claim that their signature was forged - one of which was out of the country the day that she supposedly signed.
And in some cases, signers names weren’t even spelled right in the signature.
And this seems like a pretty big deal, right? There should be consequences or something?
The truth is, while petition fraud is illegal, it’s not likely going to have much impact on Adams’ campaign.
According to the Gothamist, ballot petitions receive very little scrutiny from public officials.
And when Adams turned in his petition with some 50,000 signatures on it, nobody took issue with it.
So from here, it’s up to local prosecutors to investigate these allegations of falsified signatures.
Though, notably, the Gothamist says none of the city’s five district attorney’s offices would comment on whether they’ve opened investigations.
But what has happened here is the exposure of a massive vulnerability in the election process in New York City - with the Gothamist calling it, quote, “likely to be tested in the future as candidates look for ways to circumvent the ranked-choice primary system.”
So we’ll just have to keep our eyes on this - to see if anything more comes from it in terms of consequences or solutions to what is obviously a problem.
And also how this whole string of issues impacts Adams’ campaign - because it wasn’t exactly looking hot before all this.
In the meantime, though, I would love to know your thoughts about this in those comments down below.
Go to Helix for 27% off sitewide + free shipping!
-
The US government now won’t say it opposes the forced displacement of people from Gaza.
This as the White House has announced new sanctions against the ICC, and it’s increasingly clear that Trump’s unprecedented backing of Israel has only emboldened Netanyahu even further – despite domestic and international outrage.
And the starting point for this whole conversation is the US State Department.
And specifically, the recent firing of its top press officer for Israeli-Palestinian affairs – allegedly after his loyalty to the administration’s stance regarding Israel was called into question.
Right, there were reportedly several disputes about how to talk about America’s foreign policy, but one of the big ones?
It came up when this employee drafted a response to a question from the media about ongoing discussions regarding the possible relocation of Palestinians from Gaza to South Sudan.
Which, one, like Gaza, is a war-torn part of the world facing a hunger crisis.
And two, is a country that has already received immigrants deported from the US, despite the fact that most of those immigrants were not from there.
And so the draft response reportedly included the line: “We do not support forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza.” []
Right, which, notably, is something that Trump and envoy Steve Witkoff have both said more than once in the past.
Although, of course, they’ve also backed what Israeli officials have described as “voluntary relocation” – which rights groups say would not be voluntary at all – but there was at least some idea of at least saying the US was opposed to potential war crimes.
This time, however, the department reportedly rejected the idea.
With the fired employee now arguing his termination begs the question of whether the country’s Israel-Palestine policy “isabout to get even worse – including an unwillingness to take any stand against ethnic cleansing” – adding:
“The future looks bleak.” []
And beyond that, you reportedly have American officials telling the Washington Post that the firing has sent a chilling message that communication straying from ardent pro-Israel messaging — even if it’s in line with long-standing U.S. policy — won’t be tolerated. []
And of course, this is just one of the ways of taking US support of Israel to a whole new level.
With another thing we’re ewing this week being those new sanctions against the International Criminal Court.
Right, back in February, you had the White House announcing sanctions against the ICC’s former chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, after he sought arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Israel’s former minister of defense.
With the US then imposing sanctions on four ICC judges (1, 2, 3, 4) in June – two of whom authorized the arrest warrants.
And now, you have the latest round of sanctions being levelled against another two ICC judges (1, 2) – and two more ICC prosecutors (3, 4).
With the state state department saying in a statement that one of the judges has been sanctioned for authorizing an older investigation into US military personnel in Afghanistan.
But the other one has been targeted for authorizing the arrest warrants.
And the two prosecutors were on the list for continuing Khan’s investigation into Israel’s actions in Gaza – including upholding the warrants.
With Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying in his statement announcing the action:
“These individuals are foreign persons who directly engaged in efforts by the international criminal court to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute nationals of the United States or Israel, without the consent of either nation.”
And adding that the administration would continue “to take whatever actions we deem necessary to protect our troops, our sovereignty and our allies from the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions.” []
The ICC hit back with a statement calling the sanctions “a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution.”
And “an affront against the Court’s states parties, the rules-based international order and, above all, millions of innocent victims across the world.” []
But then Netanyahu, of course, welcomed the move, saying it was “a firm measure against the mendacious smear campaign against the State of Israel and the IDF.” []
And there, he’s seemingly referring to the fact that more and more world leaders are condemning his actions and the actions of the Israeli government.
But notably, despite that, Netanyhau and his allies? They seem as if not more emboldened than ever –
And that may have something to do with a level of unconditional support that seemingly goes even beyond what we’ve seen from previous presidents.
WIth Netanyahu saying in an interview released yesterday:
“Thank God, President Trump has proven an exceptional friend of Israel, an exceptional leader.”
“I think we've been very fortunate to have a leader in the United States who doesn't act like the European leaders, who doesn't succumb to this stuff. (BYTE: 33:48-33:54, 34:04-34:14)
And with that, let’s take a look at what’s happening on the ground.
For one, you had the Israeli government officially approving a West Bank settlement explicitly aimed at undermining the prospect of a Palestinian state.
Right, it would involve the construction of more than 3,000 housing units in what is known as the “E1 Area” and it would effectively cut the territory in two.
With the extremist minister who announced the project saying afterward that the idea of a Palestinian state “is being erased from the table” – and adding:
“Every town, every neighborhood, every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea.” []
And notably, the E1 project? It’s been under consideration for more than two decades.
But the fact that it never happened has been partially attributed to international and especially U.S. pressure – including in the form of sanctions against individuals and organizations involved in illegal settlements introduced by Biden.
And so, now despite most countries having their frostiest relations with Israel in years, it’s going forward.
And then moving on to Gaza? Israel has seemingly abandoned any pretense of working toward a deal.
Right, Hamas said it has accepted a ceasefire proposal by Qatari and Egyptian mediators, which would reportedly involve a halt in the violence and the exchange of prisoners and hostages.
The Israeli government, however, hasn’t said anything.
It’s just told 60,000 reservists to report for duty in September and is moving ahead with a plan to take over Gaza City..
With the IDF’s chief spokesperson claiming the military “has begun the next phase of the war.” []
And another official claiming the operation would be “gradual, precise and targeted” and that it would extend into areas of Gaza City where Israeli soldiers had not previously been. []
Although, notably, there’s not many areas the IDF hasn’t already been.
Right, the IDF claims it has obtained “operational control” over 75 percent of the Gaza Strip, but the UN has put that number closer to 90 percent. []
And in the process, it has killed tens of thousands of people and virtually leveled the entire territory – which seems to be continuing now.
With one resident telling The New York Times that Israeli troops were sending remote-controlled vehicles packed with explosives to blow up buildings, block by block, in the neighborhood near where he lives. []
And while thousands of Palestinians have already begun to flee, you have the UNRWA saying that nearly 1 in 3 children in Gaza City are now malnourished.
With the head of the agency saying that children in Gaza are "extremely weak" and that "many will simply not have the strength to undergo a new displacement” – adding:
"It is a manufactured and fabricated famine. It is deliberate. Food has been used as an instrument of war." []
Right, which to be clear, is the prevailing opinion among reputable experts and rightsgroups who not only say starvation has been used a weapon of war, but that it’s one facet of a genocide against the people of Gaza.
And with that, you acutally had Netanyahu addressing the allegations of genocide in that interview:
“If we wanted to commit genocide, we would have done it in one afternoon. We have the capacity, but we don’t do that.” (21:24-21:32)
And I mean, it’s not a genocide because we’re doing it slowly is just a wild defense, but that is, apparently, where we’re at right now.
-
It’s official: Hell has frozen over after Senator Bernie Sander came out and agreed with the Trump administration on something.
That thing? The government is getting involved in private businesses… (socialism???)
This all comes after Trump officials announced that they’re exploring the possibility of buying 10% of Intel.
The money would come from the Biden-era CHIPS Act, which had set aside billions to boost US microchip manufacturing.[]
The timing is also notable because Intel has been in the gutter recently.
Many of their newest consumer CPU releases have been lackluster compared to their rivals AMD.
Not to mention that other projects have also failed to meet expectations.
All of which led to its CEO being switched out last year.
That was a controversial decision in-of-itself, because the former CEO spent his tenure trying to set the company up for the future.
But the new CEO Lip Bu-Tan has done the opposite and gutted a ton of projects to save money.
Some of them have raised major eyebrows, such as the move to completely abandon the race for the latest semiconductor tech -- meaning that TSMC is almost literally the only player left in the space.
That right there should be a hint as to why the Trump administration is pushing for a 10% stake.
Right, TSMC is based in Taiwan -- meaning that the US won’t have any real players moving forward with advanced semiconductors.
The CHIPS Act wanted to prevent that, but using that money to expand factories didn’t seem feasible for Intel because they abandoned those projects.
Another factor are the allegations by the administration that Lip has a major conflict of interest due to his ties to China.
To be clear, Lip is not from China -- he’s Chinese Malay.
Instead the problem is that Lip has a bunch of other business dealings within China, which allegedly puts him into too much contact with the Chinese government.
Trump is so worried about this that he’s publicly called for Lip to step down as CEO.
The US government getting direct stakes in private companies is pretty rare, but what’s even rarer is that Sanders agreed with the administration on this.
In a statement he said: [read]
“If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment.”
His stance isn’t surprising, as he and Elizabeth Warren had both proposed an amendment to the CHIPS Act that would require the US government to get a stake out of each company that receives its extensive grant money.
That logic is pretty much exactly what the administration is saying, with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick adding: [read]
“The Biden administration literally was giving Intel money for free and giving TSMC money for free, and all these companies just giving the money for free, and Donald Trump turned it into saying, 'Hey, we want equity for the money. If we're going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action for the American taxpayer'.”
This also isn’t the first time Trump has pushed for the US government to be more directly involved with companies.
He made a deal with Nvidia and AMD that would let them sell advanced AI chips into China.
In return, the US would get 15% of the sales.
On top of that, the Pentagon just became the largest shareholder in a smaller mining company that specializes in rare earth minerals.
Then there’s Nippon Steel, which was trying to buy US Steel.
In return for letting that deal go through the US was given shares and given limited veto powers within the company.
All that being said, the news that the US government was becoming an actual player in the private sector raised some alarm bells and led to Intel’s stock falling about 7%.
With one of the biggest concerns being that it opens American taxpayers to risky investments.
Obviously that remains to be seen, but there’s a reason the US government has rarely done this in the past.
Not to mention that we still have to wait to see if this deal goes through.
-
Around the two billionaires. First being the founder of Kind Snacks, Daniel Lubezki yesterday made the decision to randomly come at me over Texas gerrymandering,
Which then ended up prodding me and, letting a little of the, old DeFranco out, much to y'all's pleasure, apparently,
by those comments and the update, there is $1 billion. Barry ended up apologizing kind of. I'll explain right on his post.
He ended up writing, I do want to apologize for saying this guy is pissing me off, because the headline should have been this guy is bringing to light a very important issue
because yeah, Daniel, I could see how you could mix up those two sentiments with and then going on to say we agree on the problem.
That said, this is a systemic issue with wide abuse by both parties. We need to recognize that in order to win for the people, look forward to discuss how we will do so.
As I've researching this for years, thanks for your passion about this critical issue and the reason I say he was only kind of apologizing, aside from you can kind of see why
he was leaving that initial comment then went to my Instagram real to write. You were persuading me. Until you rationalize what Gavin Newsom is doing in California as justified,
I'm totally in agreement with you that Texas Republican shouldn't cheat via gerrymandering. I just also want to hold the other side accountable.
We need a unified front against all the cheating from both parties, or they'll keep manipulating us with they did it. So now we must be glad to go deeper with you in person and apologize
for saying this guy is pissing me off when the truth is, I really should applaud your passion and look forward to work with you on this. And then I use an emoji that I've only ever seen people use when
they want to kiss someone. Which Daniel, I. I guess I'm flattered. Yeah.
No, you're still repeating the reason many people, including myself, have an issue with what you're saying. You want Democrats to drop the knife
in a knife fight that Republicans brought a gun to? And that's an easier thing to say when. Hey, congratulations on your success. When you're a fucking billionaire, you undemocratic power grabs
that we're seeing affect you in a far less. It's going to affect your net worth, not like your actual worth
to exist in the world. You're shouting from your ivory tower. We got to play by the rules when one side shank and the rest.
And again, it just seems like you're paving the way for authoritarianism by false equivalence.
Both sides is that, dear listener, is not where my experience with billionaires ended today.
Because today I had a big conversation with another billionaire, Billy, and that was the governor of Illinois, JB Pritzker.
He's been in the news a lot lately. He's been trying to combat Trump and his administration. Well, this is I'm getting involved in the Texas
gerrymander by Republicans when Texas Democrats fled to Illinois. There's just so much we need to talk about today. And we did.
And you can watch or listen to the whole thing on my brand new In Good Faith podcast. I got links to it in the description. You can subscribe to it on YouTube, Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Just one of the things that I want to include from it in today's show was this. So what you support, though, I imagine what Governor Newsom is trying to do
in California, though, based off of the realities of the situation right now, I would rather I mean, I,
I mean, you're asking me a straight up question about like today, here's what I think that should happen.
I think Texas should look at what California is now intending to do
and they should back down. I understand you don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that's going to happen either. But the reality is that we can do this tit
for tat for quite some time, and it will be bad for democracy. It will have been lit on fire by Donald Trump.
The fuze has been lit. Right. And then we're going to see Texas and then California. You're going to see Missouri and Maryland.
You're going to see Indiana and maybe Illinois. And, you know, you're going to see this happening wherever it can happen.
Because now we're in the situation of apparently the Republicans have thrown the rulebook out entirely, and Democrats have to do something.
And it is time for us to stop playing by the old rules. The Republicans stopped doing that for, I don't know, for a long time now.
And we've always held fast to we've got to do it this way. This is the way it's always been done.
And now, apparently, we're going to have to fight fire with fire so that I think, is why I support what Gavin Newsom is doing in California.
I don't want to redistrict in Illinois. I don't want to I don't want California to have to do what they're doing.
But it happens that that's a vote, rich, you know, and district rich environment as New York is.
And so at least in both of those places, if we have to counter as Democrats what's happening, what Republicans are trying to steal in Texas
are going to have to go to those states. And we can't unilaterally disarm by saying, well, in those we have these
independent commissions and everybody should have an independent commission. But only Democrats apparently have independent commissions,
and are trying to do the right thing. I mean, I I'm done many years ago, Paul Simon, one of my heroes in politics,
I'm not talking about the singer, but the US senator, who was opposed to PACs, political action committees, and, and then someone said,
why do you accept PAC money if you're opposed to me? Because I can't unilaterally disarm the other side, gets to go
raise PAC money? Well, I don't, because I'm opposed to PACs. I'm going to get elected so I can end PACs, and I unfortunately, that's where we are.
We can't unilaterally disarm. And that's why I think Gavin Newsom's got it right. I think it absolutely makes sense.
It's we're not in an ideal situation. And but I just I don't get people saying, well, yeah, fight with your hands behind your back.
At least there's honor in it. I think that's crazy. I'm going to I feel like as many years Democrats, we did that for too many years.
I feel like I, incidentally, ended up grilling you there for 20 minutes out of nowhere. That where we ended up going. I want to end on a lighter question, but that is where
we're going to end things for now, my friend, at least for this episode. Tapper click right here to watch the latest episode of my podcast, or go there and subscribe, because I have a new episode
dropping in the next 24 hours. Or tap or click right here to watch the latest episode of The Philip DeFranco show. I've even got links in the description for both.
If you want to get filled in on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify, no matter what you do, I'll see you right back here on Monday with more news you need to know.
