Selena Gomez Cries, DeepSeek AI, AOC Insider Trading, Trump Tariffs Colombia w/ Ro Khanna | PBD Podast | Ep. 540
en-us
January 28, 2025
TLDR: Representative Ro Khanna joins Patrick Bet-David, Tom Ellsworth, Vincent Oshana, and Adam Sosnick to discuss Selena Gomez's viral migrant crying video, DeepSeek AI outperforming ChatGPT, and AOC calling Congress out over insider trading claims.

In episode 540 of the PBD Podcast, Patrick Bet-David, alongside his co-hosts, welcomed Representative Ro Khanna to discuss current events ranging from pop culture to political controversies. The episode delves into topics like Selena Gomez’s emotional video regarding migration, the rise of DeepSeek AI as a competitor to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and the implications of insider trading concerns voiced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).
Key Topics Discussed
Selena Gomez’s Viral Video
The episode kicks off with a conversation about Selena Gomez, who recently shared a heartfelt video expressing her sadness about migrants being mistreated in the U.S. The panel discusses the impact of such celebrity messages on public opinion and the political discourse surrounding immigration.
- Emphasis on Empathy: The group reflects on how celebrities can influence societal issues and provoke discourse.
- Public Response: There is a recognition of the emotional weight these figures carry in a politically charged environment.
Rise of DeepSeek AI
The conversation shifts towards technological advancements, particularly DeepSeek AI, which is reported to offer competitive capabilities against OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
- Dethroning ChatGPT: Ro Khanna brings insight into DeepSeek AI’s rapid rise and its significance in the artificial intelligence landscape, highlighting America’s need to maintain its edge in technology development.
- Concerns on Competition: The discussion points out that competiting AI firms, especially from abroad, pose challenges that demand strategic responses from U.S. policymakers.
AOC and Insider Trading
Following the discussion on technology, the panel shifts to AOC's remarks about insider trading within Congress, a subject that stirs significant debate about ethics in governance.
- Call for Reform: With Ro Khanna’s support, the podcast highlights ongoing efforts to regulate and eliminate stock trading among Congress members, aiming to combat perceived corruption and restore public trust.
- Bipartisan Efforts: Both sides of the aisle are touched upon, with acknowledgment that it’s a broader issue than just partisan politics.
The Trump Tariffs and Colombia
The episode also explores the implications of Trump's tariffs on Colombia, alongside discussions about economic policies moving forward, particularly in the tech and manufacturing sectors.
- Economic Perspective: Representative Khanna analyzes the effects of tariffs on American businesses and consumer prices, drawing attention to the need for a strategic approach that benefits both U.S. interests and international relations.
- Future Economic Policies: There’s speculation about how the political climate might influence future economic rules and decisions.
Conclusion and Lessons Learned
The podcast wraps up with reflections on the interconnected nature of these topics, suggesting a complex landscape where technology, emotional public narratives, and policy debates converge.
- Empathy in Politics: Celebrity influence, as seen with Gomez, underscores the need for politicians to engage with voters on a human level.
- Importance of Integrity: Ro Khanna’s advocacy for transparency in Congress serves as a reminder of the continuing need for governmental reform.
- Future of AI in America: The rise of AI technologies like DeepSeek can drive legislative agendas, emphasizing the balance between innovation and ethical practices.
Listeners are encouraged to engage with these pressing issues, bringing their perspectives into future discussions as the political landscape evolves.
Was this summary helpful?
Did you ever think you would make it? I still am so pissed I could taste sweet victory. You know this life meant for me. Adam, what's your name? The future looks bright. The handshake is better than anything I ever saw. It's right here. You are a one-on-one? My son's right there. I don't think I ever said this.
You know what's crazy? We're talking earlier. Same. When's the last time we did a live podcast? Rob, it's like Pat, it's been since last Thursday, the 23rd, today's the 28th. It feels like today, five days to six months, literally what 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? 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 tax 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 back to back to back to back to back to back. Finally, I think I said, it's got to be an emergency.
You have a call from Air Force One. So what was it? What do you think? Hey, I just want to let you know we're watching you. Great job, message Jesse from Air Force One. You're gonna go, what? Here's a point though. Who has this kind of time? Everybody, when they make it, they're 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, so impressive to have that where the opposition, there's a clip we're gonna play here in a minute.
where CNN's host doesn't know what to say. It's like that can be true. This, 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 going to be a special one. Why? Because I respect anybody who's on the opposing against 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, I get a DM from Rokana's team. I think your team was a reached out. I'm like, Hey, would you guys entertain the idea? 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 DC 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 Lexus there, the crew's there. Your name came up. It's 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 IOC? He's with Ilhan. So who the hell is this guy? He's trying to confuse everybody, but it's great to have you on the podcast. I appreciate it. No, I appreciate it for coming up.
Chanting. Of course, likewise. So gang, obviously, we have a lot of stories. We'll go through here. Some of the stuff with deep seek 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 it gives us answer. And Vivek is very good with words. So we'll watch the clip and react to it.
then Trump reacting when somebody asked them 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 of things with COVID, CI 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'm gonna 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 before we get into this, a couple of 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 apps. I wish we raised $50 million to send the money out there. But we only did $108,000 a 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 land. So for those of you
that are in south florida and you want to find out how to become a member text towards cigar to three one zero three four zero one one three two again text towards cigar to three one zero three four zero one one three two one of our representatives will get a hold of you in a month of February to tell you all about it but make sure you text towards cigar to three one zero three four zero one one three two we're opening up the comedy club the cigar lounge to two bars we got the liquor lights we got the whole thing we'll be opening up here soon okay having said that
I got a question for you, Rokana.
right off the bat. I watched the news. I watched John Stewart talking to AOC where she's calling out, you know, people doing insider training. And we all know what 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're kind of fumbled. They don't know what to do. I'm trying to find that if you were to describe what does the Democratic Party stand 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 California 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 Gaetz 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 you are for or is that what the party is for?
That's what I want the party to be. Oh, I got you. Because that's not what the party is for. Well, I think the party, 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 fear. Shake. Their jobs have been off-shored. Your industries have been hollowed out.
uh... and what we have to do as a party to say we're the party that's going to take on political corruption and we've got a real economic uh... message now i think on the economy and we can get into it uh... 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 twelve trillion dollars of market value in my district twelve trillion dollars
while, uh, this country is gone from 50 just in your decision. You got Apple, Google, Nvidia, Tesla, and a lot of other companies, $12 trillion. Now you're living in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
or Warren, Ohio, down River, Michigan, steel left this country, aluminum's left this country, ship buildings left this country, and you see $12 trillion in Rokana's district, and you said, where am I fitting in? So the Democratic Party has a vision of how we're gonna actually re-industrialize this country, how we're gonna create jobs in places that have been hollowed out, how we're gonna make sure people of childcare and healthcare can have the American dream.
OK, so why don't we start off with this clip, Rob, if you want to play this clip. So this is AOC on John 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 inside of trading? A hypocritical window. For example, I think one of the most biggest examples of this is insider trading in Congress. Like, dude, I don't know about like, do I give snaps? Do I, I don't know what the kids do anymore? But like, dude,
It's, it is like, it's so crazy. It's so crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. I mean, like that's the end of the thing. It's like, like people think that everyday people are stupid. I'm like, do you 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 stock broker changes things and, and
their portfolio swells. It explodes. It explodes. What are we doing? And you're doing this on public trust. Right. On on like taxpayer finance, public, you know, facilities like it. Of course. You're regulating the market that you're trading on.
Exactly. You run the casino. And then we're supposed to act like money doesn't only corrupts 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's 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 dollars as you're falling very closely What is her net worth? What is her net might even be more than that? So I just pulled it up right here. It says this is 2008
18. No, no, she's 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. I don't know if this is true or not. And that's who PDS says 240, 240 million dollars. Oh, it's way off. Well, her husband is a venture capital. Let's just say it's 240. There's even a pants. What is that handle on Twitter, Rob, where you can find out the trades that she makes
in advance, you know, Pelosi track or Pelosi track. I think it's a Pelosi track on TikTok. Yeah, if you is that what it is, zoom in. It's got nine hundred and one thousand followers. Okay. The Pelosi track highlighting politicians trade so we can invest alongside goal.
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, Rob, go back. I'm sorry. The ones that you, it says 30 people that follow the same. Yeah, you go. Can you click on that? So Laura Logan, Terrible Kim, Mario and the fall follows, they can't keep going a little lower.
Keep going, Lord, keep going, Lord, keep going. I'm just curious, you know, who's following this stuff. Lower, lower. John Cena, lower, poor, knowing myself, who's following that. Poor, keep going, keep going, keep going, keep going. 901,000 people are curious to know the kind of trade she's making. How do you, I mean, you're down the street from her and you guys probably see each other a lot at different events. I know. 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, and a lot of people have wealth, but you've 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's 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?
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, then they talk about Cambridge Analytics, and they know what they're doing when they start talking about TikTok bands, and they know what they're doing when they put Google in there, and the stocks move based on those hearings. 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? Correct. 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?
Well, 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' airline safety access, 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 in. You and I would agree on lobbying and citizenship, by the way. And by the way, the part here to consider is we can isolate different issues. And we can go and say, no, yes, no, absolutely no, whatever.
Um, 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. It 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 that the Republicans haven't brought a degree. 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 to you? So this is from five days ago. Nancy Pelosi's husband made 38 million dollars worth of stock trades and weeks leading up to Trump's inauguration. By the way, I just looked at this. So I haven't read this pre to podcast. While he's saying this, I pulled up Paul Pelosi and his story pops up. Watch what he sold five days ago. Okay, Rob, go a little bit higher. Okay. So exit and Nancy Pelosi made 38 million dollars worth of stock trades in two weeks and weeks leading up to
President Trump's inauguration, including an investment in one obscure artificial intelligence firm whose share have soared 50% in the last week. Paul Pelosi, the venture capitalist who married the Democratic lawmaker, 11 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 and a half 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, what's, no, no, let me read right above it, Rob. There's a right, keep going. I'm going to read all right. They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right. They're right. They're up. So for me, it's over the level of 38 million worth of stocks and our husbands would.
made by her husband in weeks leading up to President Trump's inauguration. Let's see what the next thing says. I want to read all of it. Paul Pelosi, San Francisco-based venture capitalist who's amassed a mammoth stock portfolio while his wife has been sitting a member of Congress, go a little bit lower if you could.
pump policy, survived the hammer. I'm not interested in that. According to the filing, pump policy bought $100,000 worth of call options and temp is 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 the Nancy Pelosi stock trader on the Exyns January 24 launched an app that allows traders
to buy stocks in a massive 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
uh... 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, you know, money to my wife and don't boy 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. P.I. somebody goes 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 and better and saying, hey, just so you know, X, Y, Z just happened. You may want to kind of buy or sell some of the stuff. You don't think those steps, 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 conduct. I don't think it's everybody.
I don't 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 a deep seek is going to come out? No, I don't think Nancy Pelosi knows that the Chinese are going to be releasing deep seek and that this is why NVIDIA 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 deep seek 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 effort. 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 don't, I don't, 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 in video. So maybe we'll just go into this in video 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
And they're released. One of our guys got it. He's 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.
You know, 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 Chad GBT, you know, 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 deep-seek on $6 million, right? Can you imagine how annoying it is to see you build your house for $50 million and a guy next to builds the same house for $700,000? That's gotta be frustrating. What construction company did you find to build this?
So they build it for six million hours and then they ask Trump about the wrap. Is this the one where they ask you about deep seek where he gives his this is the one? This is where it talks about it being made cheaply and quickly. Okay, go to 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 want a 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 good 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.
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 something. Somebody come up with something. We always have the ideas. We're always first. I would say that's great. I'm going to come to you first and a roll. Go to your next. Go ahead, Tom. Your thoughts on this.
Well, there's a couple of things going on. So Deep Seat 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 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 Tamilam must said, I don't know about that, but then 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 with found itself behind Japan? And now we have to go catch up.
And the US has got to drive. So watch, I'll go to this and I'll come to you. What is DeepSeq and why is disrupt an 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 JatchyBT, et cetera, et cetera. The company has attracted attention and global AI circles after writing in a paper last month that the training of DeepSeq V3 required less than $6 million worth of computing
computing power from who? NVIDIA H800 chips. Deep-seq AI system powered by Deep-seq V3 has overtaken rival chat GBD to become the top rated free application available on Apple App Store in 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 year?
First, who would have thought that chat GPT would be the first to lose its job to AI, right? So people losing their jobs to chat GPT. I mean, look, I think deep-seek is
not quite where Chad GPT 01 or 03R 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.
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 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 open AI 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 if it 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 in time 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 the point one, Ro, 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 open AI or whoever else is putting money in for the compute. But let's have more companies have access to compute.
Well, is Trump empowering the what's happening? He's not that money's not coming from government. And there's been people say, well, 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 if obviously Trump has some role, right? If he doesn't have any role, then what do we need him for him? 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 US government, if he's seeing this as 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 with 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 open AI 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, you're going to have a very hard time getting the compute power.
and open AI 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 that have an open license to the independence. Yeah, there 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, well, we're building here's 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. 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 USPTO provides for the protection and all the things that you do. But should the government be sort of an industry player?
time they've been i mean if you think about big pharma these big pharma companies with the the pharmaceutical that they're releasing they're going back with lobbyists and allowing to extend a patent on a but that's exactly that that then the fd a and i h is an exactly an example of why don't work i agree and how the customer ends up paying a high price up ultimately loses but but but but but then that there's a 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-salescitation agreement. Hey, let's get rid of all of it. But then, you know, then the business owner doesn't have a motive to build something because anybody can take their client.
I'm trying to see where you're going, because you're not going there for no reason. 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. And independent government invented the P-38 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 fight of war. And so I don't see how the government gets involved and actually facilitates in this. The World War II example is exactly what worked. 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 Andreessen's, 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.
by choice. Open source by choice. So meta, Facebook's got open source by choice and recent saying, let these startups have open source or we can't compete with these models. Let them like allow them to allow them 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. You know, but, 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, did you have any thoughts? I just wanted Congressman Conner to maybe clarify something. I'm not as tacky or as smart as Tom, so I just kind of want to simplify this. To me, this deep-seek, 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, OK, I guess we're talking about deep seek. I don't know. And then you see what NVIDIA happens. We 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 Epic Times.
DeepSeq 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 would 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'd 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 a grok, whether it's an anthropic or a 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 down the path, wouldn't it be fair to say that we should ban TikTok?
that's a different that's a different question you get into that now i i i i i don't think we should be uh... banning tiktok i've been opposed to it uh... along with rann paul uh... for a couple reasons one i'm just a free speech uh... 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 this? It was before the election.
And it was 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, uh, reach out to Twitter, say there is a new friend. Can you find the email wrap? That's pretty impressive to do that. And at the moment when you send it, you don't know whether Elon's one, they're going to buy this or not. If that email is going to be exposed to anybody.
i i don't and i also i'm so campaigning for joe biden and i think he's going to be president here i'm saying don't suppress the story about a son uh... to to to twitter cuz i like you know i i i would have to send the email to vijaya godish is that she was a general counsel at uh... at twitter
That 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 usually... 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, Rokana is great. And he put it out with my personal email. So for two days, I got like five thousand emails to my account.
That's interesting. Were you able to find it or no? I'm looking right now. 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 the least one of the least free societies in the world.
You know, bite dance, I believe owns TikTok. And, you know, 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 an indoctrinated American youth? I don't understand this. What would you want though? What would you want?
To me, this is like, other than maybe here's this question, free speech absolutists, great. That's for Americans. This is not accompanied 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 asked not what your country can do if 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. You know, 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 you guys can you clip this for Adam and put it there because this was a good question. But I will say this part for you 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 at people expressing their opinions that Xi Jinping would be in real trouble. Why should we care?
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, while we're talking about banning TikTok, the same week when 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 wrap 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 a classified information about the 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 writer journal. It should not be held accountable for the legal actions of the source unless they actively aided
the hack, so to restrict the distribution of the material, especially regarding the presidential seems, candidate seems not in the keeping of the principles of New York, Thomas O'Sullivan. 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
Curtel's 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 Q and on 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. When you seem like you're missing something.
So you saying that, I say this as a total Biden partisan 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 saw him with his relationship. I mean, I think it's, let's see, and there's horrible, like there's certainly questions. But I was there at this point, I, 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 legal leads there because they're 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 part in him. He's basically everybody's Scott 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, that would have, what was the percentage pad of how many people wouldn't have voted
People that wouldn't have voted 67% would have changed their vote if they had known. It wasn't 67%. I think it was to be exact. It was 67% of independence 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, let's, 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 prompt. 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 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 forward so we can see it. Go ahead. If he had been the president, if
The victory wasn't stolen from him in 2020. Maybe the Ukrainian crisis that arose in 2022 was of never appeared. If it hadn't been stolen from him, okay? 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 that? 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's 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 hear these interference, you saw the emails, the Twitter files, everything that happened. Do you think even with Zuck, Zuck is also 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 for your 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 was 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 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's your president, can you go out there and say that you lost the 2020 election? Nope, I didn't lose the 2020 election. I think it was Chris and Walker. I think it was Walker, right when she's asking that, you know? Nope, I didn't. So I said 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 is, 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 and 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 this laptop now. You know, we know what, you know, what's potentially in this laptop and it's been talked to. 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 in 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, oh shit, this is the guy who's supporting. I remember one time I read a book by
Billy Graham, 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 and 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, known behind closed doors that were playing this dirty, specifically the Biden Harris administration?
Well, look, I'm the primary, and this is why I call myself a progressive capitalist. I was a culture 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. I don't think we wanted 40-year politicians in the office, and I do think that the Democrats would have been better off had we had... How long has the Sanders politicians... Is the Sanders a 40-year politician?
Yeah, but he's a change agent. He's been a change agent for his whole time. There's a difference. Sanders has been critiquing the establishment his entire career. 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 got to have more change ages. 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. You know, getting a new group of people out there with new ideas and independence 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 have tried to be real.
But now, now that the political, the Democratic Party is, 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, the Santis, 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? The red lady and Trump? Yeah, because everybody's like, I don't know if Trump's going to make it looks like he's going to go to this. And then the Santis, well, you know, he was kind of
year and a half ago, the Santas had some momentum when they did the first Twitter spaces with, uh, I think it was on David Saxon because Musk's account wouldn't be able to handle it. So they want a David Saxe 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 and 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 Davis 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, you know, and I totally get that, but why you wouldn't show up to Jimmy Carter and he's a Democrat.
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 of 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. Any politician will tell you it 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.
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. So everything you just said, nobody believes that the left's going to do better than the right. And everything you said Trump is doing. OK, just so you know, he can't run in 20. And I know he thinks he's going to run. 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 rapist, bone, you're out. Hey, you're murder. He says, he says, what's your policy? And then Selena Gomez is crying, you know, my God, you know, I can't believe they're taking my people. And then she takes the video down. It's embarrassing. Just the video, if you want to play this clip, Rob, go ahead and play this group. Go for it. Just wanted to say that I'm so sorry. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
I 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, do you do you do you do you do you do you do you can pause it at this bonanza in my skin certain but it when you when you see someone like this with with acting with with with somebody that gets up to cries like the way she does and wants to get the attention you take it like uh 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, you know, 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 elitist 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, you know, he does it so well. This is the one that you do.
And in that video that goes, no, no, no, he starts dancing. 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 populace 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 pat money and lobbyists money. And by the way, I don't have a holier than thou attitude on this. Kamala Harris and more billionaires supporting her than Donald Trump did.
So I'm not saying that 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 will 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 Gillsburg, 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 them?
Okay. They responded to him because of reform. They responded because they're 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 win, and you'll beat them. It's kind of be an Eastern Conference, Western Conference. You know what I'm saying? 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 my home show. Tell me why. 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 in New York. Where do you see our biggest mess up in the last four years? I'm not disagreeing with you. Do you have kids? I do have 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 the 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 do you do? Do you think that's common sense? It's not. So maybe in the beginning, everybody was 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, what's 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 said. Pick our crops and pick our nuts and all that stuff. 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 go to so that policies gone because the borders and we saw what happened with lakein riley you know terrible situation stories rapist comes back sanctuary cities completely got exposed and people who voted for the left don't want sanctuary cities with these great kids so i got exposed number three economy hey uh...
You know, Biden and Democrats are for, you know, the low, low middle income families really go look up the gas prices, Rob, under each president, 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 keep 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 18 to 2000. 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 of 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. I saw you shared out 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, you know, get rid of some of these things that we're doing because we wanted to be good for you. Hey, we don't want any war. Oh, democratic parties against no war. Last four years.
Hamas, 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.
Um, military is getting rid of DEI. Pete Hex said you're seeing him going around doing all the stuff that he's doing. Okay. You, the republic, you guys used to have TikTok because China was using it. The left brainwash, all that stuff. And then flipped. Charlie Kirk, five million followers, 40 million views, 36 million views, 28 million views, 32 million views. Why is that resonating? Because the youth is saying, listen, ah, this is, this makes sense. Okay. Your biggest edge that you still have.
They have a monopoly on and it's not even close and it's going to be a problem for 80 years unless if 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 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.
possibly the most powerful monopoly in America, possibly the most powerful monopoly in America. And that you have a 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 your teacher. I don't know if I agree with your teacher. And now people are watching Charlie Crooks. How many other small Charlie Crooks are going to be out there going on campuses? One, two, or hundreds, thousands who right now watches that business model saying that's exactly what I want to do. Debate me, debate me, 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, what
He's, he's done. There's, so that's why 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 part like some 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 they
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 over, compared to Trump.
Now, Trump's gonna 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 gonna get to see. Is he really gonna 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 gonna do something so health insurance companies aren't denying people for prescription coverage? Is he gonna negotiate to bring down the costs of prescription drugs? Is he gonna 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 in 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, he's going to be hard to beat or his successor is going to be hard 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 Mayhan, San Jose, common sense, public safety. Dan Loury 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 Salwan in 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. Man, 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 that you're a progressive capitalist. I have questions on that.
to double down on what Pat's asking. And I think I have a little bit of an authority on this because I've never voted for Trump in my life. I've never voted for Republican president in my life. My father, you just looked at me like, whoa, what are you talking about? Exactly. So my father was a JFK Democrat.
What would JFK be today? You know, my first president and 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 mag a guy walk in I go if you only know so I think you guys and I don't say this with 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, the 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 I 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 fraternity, liked 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, you know, go play Madden football, having people be like, oh, yeah, you know, here's what the, just talk about the Eagles. As if, as a man or that dumb, yeah, fine, you can talk about the Eagles. They don't, 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 oil or manifest destiny and try to be Alexander the Great. 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 gonna give young people, men and women, but men also wanna 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 gonna win. It's interesting. 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, of course, and because of midterms, it was if you remember when there was a red way, red way, no red way, because two weeks prior to that, whatever Mitch McConnell passed the.
Uh, uh, Roe v. Wade was, uh, completely domed. Right. So, so, uh, 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 on. What I'm saying, 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, you appear would have been better. Newsom would have been better. Pritzker would have been better. She was horrible.
to say, with a 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 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, you know, uh, uh, uh, uh, Lake and Riley, we heard this story on what happened 22 years old student August, uh, you know, 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. Watch an appearance. 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, assaulting a police officer or crime that results in death or serious bodily injury like drunk driving. Now.
When this came out, some Democrats were like, yeah, I'm behind it. You know, for example, you had representative Catherine Cortes, Masto from Nevada. Anyone who bit 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 Federman 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, two, six, three, oppose, 156, did not, 14. Rob, I think there's a, you said something about a Rob, if you want to pull that up where
it is this the one let me see here road road uh... uh... voted against it the bill passed a couple two sixty three one fifty one fifty six forty democrats on the sport they can rally act mandates we read that already represent kana has expressed concerns that the bills potential implications for civil liberties and it's 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 works 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 they're 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 was 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 papers. So there's a fear. My view is that 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 America. It says no person should be denied life, liberty, or oh my God, you're going to do that. The Constitution. Oh, come on. You're too should 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, we waited, we waited, we waited, we waited. Finally, my mom's like how many guys 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 come in 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's more important to me? I'm here. I'm a citizen. The American's gonna say I'm a citizen. What do you mean? So we want to protect them? I don't even want that guy my community. If somebody's even having you or 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 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, you know, 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 of people that don't follow politics on a day-to-day basis. 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 that 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, argue 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 were 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. We do that and we can do that without compromising it. I'll give you this point. I think because
They, 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 Raleigh. People have lost patience. They've lost the sense of the grace that they probably had even 10, 15 years ago, and the pendulum is swung in a, in a, 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 calling them, 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. 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 the same reasonable. You know, you're talking about parents should have a stay 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, you know, the economy and 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 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 Lincoln-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.
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 just feels like it just cuts the knees out from the rest of it for the average person that looks at and goes, hey, I like this, I like this, I like this. Wait a minute, he did what?
That's a fair 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 know 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 a 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 departs criminals and still have a humanity that says that immigrants can enrich America. It's not that I'm dumb politically. I know that on this position that 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 I 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 haven't seen. You earned the 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, you know, voting for Kamala. And it was very open about him when he told you guys to you to, you know, Bill,
He's a hell of a debater, huh? 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 with Tom on this one is this, look what happened with Federman from just a few years ago to today. What did we say about Federman a few years ago? How critical was everybody about Federman?
I'm like, who the hell is this guy? Who are you? And he beat Dr. Oz. Did he beat Oz? I think he beat Dr. Oz in a very short, yeah. And then special election. Yeah. And what are you talking about guy? Is this really guy? Is this, 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.
you've been saying or do you anticipate that there's going to be changes that we should be prepped for that we were not thinking about? Honestly, I haven't been surprised by anything now. I mean, he's been doing essentially what he actually campaigned on that. 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 repudition, and he's kind of making those moves. So that's kind of where we're at. Is this the one where he explains when he was delighted?
Immediately after the election, I was like, hey, we have a choice. We can freak out and follow every other thing around. Like a cat with a laser, right? After everyone. But I'm not that guy. I'm not gonna be the Democrat. For me, there's things I'm gonna agree with. I'm gonna 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 to, you went down to Marlago and met with the president. And he actually was singing your praises after. He said, you are 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 for 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 here 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, or that. And Giselle was part of that community. And we both had the opportunity to express that. You know, I would also, you know, I want to say- You get positive 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 Federman that the, by the way,
We want to see more federalism, more mansions, and even we would support certain things with that because you're standing. It's not gonna be like, I'm afraid of this guy, I gotta be making this guy happy, I gotta 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 a 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. Imagine his family gatherings, and you think they're having a family reunion in inviting Bobby Jr.? I don't know about that. He took a risk. Tossy 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 that right the day before the event. What was that thing that she was linked to? Do you remember that Rob? Or 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 skies. She had been on the quiet skies and she actually couldn't travel. Right. Because they were impeding her. That's right.
to move freely around the US.
It not that I know I don't I don't follow her network. I don't see I don't know what talk. Can you type in Tulsi Gabbard network? I don't how much money she's got she's doing the Tulsi What's the policy tracker than she should be good? She is what is her net thirty six thousand and three dollars? I tell the net well that one says fifty five million two hundred twenty seven million hours I don't know what her net worth is you can't believe these things. Yeah, ABC says that's her net a billionaire online. Okay. I don't know what her net worth. Okay, so that's another risk that was taken right? Musk took a risk
Joe Manchin took a risk. I would put a few guys, but watch what happened to these guys. The level of trust at the average person, like, 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, 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. I don't 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 signed 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.
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 2008, I mean, he was- He's not a risk taker.
You didn't think what he's running against Hillary? By the way, I agree. 100% Sanders is a risk taker. You're right. 100%. I don't believe Obama is a risk taker. No, 80 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 this? I have some of them. Yeah. When LeBron is a game, Michael is playing.
Jordan is playing LeBron 16 years old. It's a pick up game. Okay. Have you heard about this or no? 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 break silence on legendary Michael Jordan pick up game when he was 16 years old. I was unguardable. I don't know if it's unguardable or not. I'm not going to fast.
But, 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 Silas on legendary pickup game against Michael Jordan and other basketball to tell the 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 the 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 guest? Like the first time I heard the song by Carlos Santana and Wycliffe, Maria Mario. The first time I heard desert rose by stink. Or the first time I heard, you know, some of these songs, we were like, Alicia Keys, when she did Fallen, you're like, that voice was like, whoa, you just get a shot.
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 the policies 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 is then 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. You took risks, bad policies. That would be my differentiate. 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 health care. People said this health care 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 Afghanistan. Once a democratic position.
Once a Democratic position can be a Democratic position yet, 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 that 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 a one by one by one. But that's where we can start to build a 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, it's gone for probably 90, 10 Democratic to now 70, 30. Oh, why are they getting so much common sense out there in California? What's happening here? But what Bernie had is exactly what a Commolate didn't have, the ability to get your attention.
when they came on stage in 2016 you couldn't look away who is this guy never seen anything like crazy and then and like so and it was such a powerful mess of the millionaires and the billionaires and then it turned out that he was a millionaire so then it was just a billionaires at that point but calmly gets on stage and any reasonable person's like get this lady out of my face but i gotta give you credit because you know you're
your district, you know, you said it's how much trillion, 10 trillion dollars, 12, 12, you know, what's 11.5. These days, right? 150 million. And what it used to be, Ro, 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. Cause I don't want to go that I want to go on a different issue. So I just want to understand like,
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 pass it. I want to get past this. I don't want to stay on this. The country doesn't want them. 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, uh, uh, pull up, uh, what Tom home has been doing as well as what's been happening with the border since he's been in. So is this him, uh, explaining, uh, uh, what's this click about? This is him responding to meet the press. Uh, this is where meet the press questions, the effects on the economy of mass deportations. And then I also have Tom home and 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 for it, Rob. How long is it? Let me see how long it is. One minute 30. OK, 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, 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 polls 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 but what do you say to those who are out there saying that that these are everyday people these are families that are being attacked and dragged out of their homes had 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. This, what happened on our southern border last for is the biggest national security threat this country's seen, at least in my lifetime, because we've got over two million known Godaways. You've got a 600% increase in sex trafficking. We've got a record number of terrorists crossing the border on the terrorist watch list. We have a quarter million Americans diving in Pentagon 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 board on continuous operation, you're going to see fentanyl death decrease, illegal alien crime decrease, sex trafficking decrease. It's 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... Oh, is that Chicago? Or they walked around Chicago? Yeah, if you have one, he's talking to this guy, and his eye found it. It's right here. Oh, that's one, Rob. If you want to play this clip, watch how the guy talks.
I don't know if they're going to kick him out of the country, but I don't want to go out. Play the clip, Rob. I was about to laugh. Go play the play. I'm sorry. Where you from? Where I was born or where I'm from. Where you're born? Thailand. Thailand.
You've been deported before from the United States? No. You've never been deported? Yeah. What have you been charged with? I'm charged with. Before? I'm not going to say that. I'm going to talk about lawyer. Smart man. Yeah. Are you a citizen? My mother says that. Your mother's a citizen? Yes. But you're not? Nope.
But you've never been deported before? We got to fill. We got to fill. Oh, you just realized who he is. How do you know me? No, I've seen a doctor fill, you know, on TV. Yeah? Yeah. Yeah. There's time homing over there. Yeah. Well, this is an example of staying short of cities, right? We got an illegal handling convicted of sex crimes involving children. Children? Are you kidding me? No, this is what the streets of Chicago. He's just checking it out. Again, the downfall.
the problem of the sanctuary city that people like us walking the street rather than walking off horse and working with other agents. This is what we're dealing with. Yeah. You've been charged with sex crimes for children. Not really. Not really. And never been deported. Let's take a man process and lock him up.
I just got a love time moment. Oh, he reminds me of a drill sergeant's like, yes, go for a six mile run. Yeah, be back. No, don't like what you guys did. Tom, thoughts tell you to 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 the place starting with what a Tom home and said, we're going to start with the worst that we know that have record and they're 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. 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. 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 know when they're coming to Washington. I want them to come to my city. When is home, we come into 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 year, 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? Off the look. This was this week. I don't know the exact date. And where is this? Is this? Is this Iran Nancy Pelosi something to make it safe for? Is this on the border?
Where is this? This is on the border. Let me look.
that you just love that sound. There's so many jokes. Something I know. That sound comes with three jokes. But isn't it, okay, like doesn't it bother you, Ro? For this past four years, this complete open border policy that the Biden administration and Alejandro Mallorquez, 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 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 flack 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 gonna work. And I wanted to ask you, besides the open border policy, which I'm not saying you, could actually respect the hell out of you, with the other side and the Gavin Newsons and all these people are like, come on in, come on in, come on in, come on in. And then you have Gavin Newson 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, 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. Yeah.
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 have did come here illegally in terms of they it was a crime when they cross but they did that fifteen years ago ten 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 as are our dreamers i hope that there can be humanity and compassion for them and not because all 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 their first has to have the border be secure and and get the the criminals. I thought Vinnie was going here with the Harris Faulkner clip. If you can play this clip with her. This was it, Pat. Yeah, go for it.
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've 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 Mayorkas 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? But 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, 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 hundred people that have kids wouldn't be for finding out those 75. Now, what percentage? A hundred percent would be for that. Without a doubt, unless you have a mental problem. But you and someone I'm saying like that, 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, don't look good. But I think we need to know. I think it's perfectly appropriate for Mayorkas 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 that. 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 US 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 having to pay fines? X-wise, you have to pay this fine. X-wise, you have to pay... 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. 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 Homan 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 a thousand, right? The numbers we saw right now was a thousand. The one day you played a clip with the Fox News clip on the screen that showed a thousand. If they found 75 and that can be proven,
that may be the number one biggest black eye on the previous administration. I 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 the training, whatever. It's not illegal, they're gonna keep doing it, okay? But when it comes to children, that's one of my biggest
problems is that fact. And Alejandro Mayork 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, that drives me crazy. That drives me nuts. And what, he's going to get away with it. He was like, you know what he just said last week? He's like, I, I was getting orders. Joe Biden in them told me who's 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, no crap. So could it be that, remember the story we talked about with, uh, Mike Johnson, uh, he basically says, Hey, I need to get some time with President Biden. Hey, and then very well, the handlers were in there and he, uh, Speaker of the house, Mike Johnson eventually got time with, uh, 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, I didn't approve that. I was just signing a bill to, 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 Mayorkas or whoever, when they're smoked, 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 theory. Exactly. From the left. I was like, all right, 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. That's 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?
It's been literally the morning. 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. Eight days a week. So if you can play the clip with Vivek and Musk's 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 falling out 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.
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 that's for my vision. Go back. You missed the first five seconds. And because he said, you made a three times Anthony Scarimucci.
Is this the one? What happened? 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.
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 in 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.
Because people are saying you didn't get along with Musk. What happened there? I think that's, that's incorrect. But what I would say is we had different and complimentary approaches. I focused more on a constitutional law, legislative-based approach. I 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 pause the right road. Do you agree with them?