Nick Fuentes Fake Bots Scandal is Crazy, The AOC Situation, & Elizabeth Warren's Five-Alarm WB Fire

The scandal around Nick Fuentes is a very interesting one, because it's not one you might be expecting. And a lot of the recent focus was on Piers Morgan interviewing Nick Fuentes. They talked for two hours, there was yelling, there was fighting, there were insults, clips galore.

There's also been a conversation and debate about something that Piers Morgan and Nick Fuentes actually agree on.

And let's be clear, the main reason you're hearing about him

is because he's popular. I'm making a lot of money now. Now that I'm the number one live streamer in America, because people agree with me more than they agree with you. We're tired of hearing about slavery and the Holocaust and Jim Crow.

We're done hearing about that. There, you're starting to see more and more people questioning if that's really true. Are people asking, is Nick Fuentes actually on all these shows from Tucker Carlson to Pierce Morgan, because he's just too popular to ignore. Part of the reason that you're seeing more and more people bring this up is because of this new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute

that suggests that the answer is no. In fact, in their opening lines, they say, "'Nick Fuentes' surge into national visibility did not originate from a broad or sudden shift in American political sentiment. It emerged from a pattern of online amplification

that was unusually fast, unusually concentrated and unusually foreign in origin. And you had the researchers coming to that conclusion by sampling 20 of his most recent posts on X and then comparing them to similar posts from Elon Musk, Hasan Piker, Ian Carroll, and the streamer Destiny. What they say they found is that the engagement within the first 30 minutes of Fuentes posting something

routinely outperformed all the others, even accounts 10 to 100 times as large. And then with that saying that just over 60% of that engagement came from the same repeat accounts, which they said is highly suggestive of coordination or automation. With 92% of those repeat early reposters being fully anonymous, having no real name,

no real photo, no location, and no contact information. And with that, they said that a majority were openly or functionally single purpose accounts dedicated to promoting Fuentes and related extremist positions. And then on top of all that, they said that roughly half of all the accounts that promoted Fuentes' most viral pose

before the assassination of Charlie Kirk, they came from foreign countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia. So all sites have known content engagement farms. So then they say that after the Kirk assassination, that artificial engagement made Fuentes appear active,

relevant, and in position when a replacement narrative became available inside the broader MAGA ecosystem. Or I guess in other words, when Kirk was no longer on the throne, Bot Farms offered up Fuentes as his natural heir. So then as a result, you had mainstream media coverage of Fuentes increasing more than threefold since September. And also very interestingly,

even the way that he was covered, that changed. With him describing so-called high status descriptions, which portrayed him as vastly more consequential and influential than any material changes would warrant, increasing 60%. Whereas before, according to the study, outlets presented Fuentes in ghoulish, unattractive terms, saying even left liberal ones have adopted markedly more polished visual treatments up in those,

including studio-grade portraits, controlled lighting, shallow depth of field, and editorial framing that visually positioned Fuentes as a consequential political figure. And so then when Fuentes gets a chance to speak for himself on these mainstream platforms, he accepts his polished image.

And so for example, on Piers Morgan, he claimed that most of the worst racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic stuff that we've heard him say on Rumble, that's really all rhetoric, hyperbole, and jokes. Also in that interview on question after question, he was pretty unapologetic about things that he said.

You think women want to be raped, do you? That's what the studies show, Piers. Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part. Yeah. But you're basically saying, yeah, I'm a racist, aren't you? Yeah, yeah, I'm fine with that. You think Hitler was very f*****g cool? Yes, I do. And I'm tired of pretending he's not. He murdered 12 million people. What is very cool about that? Tell me. The edits, it's just cool.

The uniforms, the parades, it's cool as a guy. You look at World War II and it's fascinating

and it's interesting and it's compelling and it's cool.

With all this, a thing that I do wanna hit on and clarify is that just because Fuentes maybe became popular artificially, that does not mean that his popularity now is still artificial. Because as the study even notes, after Kirk's assassination,

the distribution of accounts that are promoting him, they shifted from those Asian and African ones to Western ones. And in the meantime, Groyber accounts, the name for Fuentes' followers, in the comment sections of Turning Point USA's content. All of which, according to the report, suggests that non-Western bot farms gave Fuentes the initial boost that he needed

and then genuine Western engagement followed suit. And you know, all of this has continued to snowball to a place where it really, it seems like Nick Fuentes is trying to conquer the Republican Party. Which I will say, I mean, my personal opinion is he could do it.

Especially because even probably to his own detriment, he is singularly focused. Have you ever had sex? No, absolutely not.

Wow. Have you ever been in love in your life? No.

You're not gay?

No, but I will say that women are very difficult to be around.

But then next up in the news, let's talk about how millions of kids and teens in Australia just lost access to social media. Because Australia is now implementing a world first ban on social media for people under the age of 16. And so under the law, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok,

Snapchat, X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Kick, and Threads, they're all expected to have taken steps to deactivate underage profiles, as well as prevent those users from signing up for new accounts. And if someone creates a new platform, that could be added to the list in the future. And those that don't comply, they risk fines of up to almost $50 million.

And actually on that note, X is the only company on the list that as of recording, hasn't publicly confirmed it would comply with the ban. So, you know, we're gonna have to see what happens with Musk and them, but even for the companies that do comply, there is still a very real question

of how effective will this actually be? of people under the age of 16, they've been able to get past facial recognition scans that are meant to keep them off platforms. You're even seeing things like one parent telling the Guardian that their 15 year old daughter, she was very distressed because all her 14 to 15 year old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat. And then you had another parent saying

he'd actually shown his child how to get around age restrictions using VPNs and other methods. Though I will say parents like that seem to be in the minority, at least in Australia, with polls showing that around two thirds of Australian voters supported the ban. But also if you look at the people affected most by the ban, that paints a different picture. Like one survey of kids between the ages of nine and 16,

they found that over half thought that the ban was not a good idea. And that is three quarters of them said they intended on continuing to use social media. And seemingly they didn't just mean finding workarounds or using VPNs. I mean, you had two 15 year olds bringing a legal challenge against the ban to the country's highest court. And so of course,

we're gonna have to see what happens with that. But you know, in the meantime, you had the country's prime minister writing an opinion piece this weekend. Saying from the beginning, we acknowledge this process won't be 100% perfect,

but the messages this law sends will be 100% clear. And then adding, the value of having a clear national standard. But again, not everyone is agreed here. We all know about the negative effects of social media, especially with young people. There are those who worry that blocking it could have negative effects as well. I guess some of the good news here is that

as part of all this, there's an independent academic advisory group that's supposed to look into the short, medium, and long-term impacts here. And with that, noting that the other potential unintended consequences could include whether children end up moving on

to other platforms or quote, darker areas of the internet. And so at the very least, I mean, this could provide some really useful information for the rest of the world. Though also as far as the rest of the world, I mean, you're already moving ahead with their own versions of this policy. And then, I mean, with the European Parliament, they also passed a resolution calling for a ban.

And so, you know, if you're one of the beautiful bastards from Australia or any of these places that are looking at this ban, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts. But then also, no matter who you are, I'd really love to know your thoughts

because there are these pushes in many countries. even more in just a minute. But first let me say, you ever notice how debt feels like a subscription that you never signed up for, but the banks just keep auto-renewing anyway? Because that is exactly why today's sponsor, PDS Debt, exists. Because someone finally needed to pull the plug on that nonsense. And if you're juggling credit card balances,

medical bills, personal loans, or collections, PDS Debt looks at your real situation, no judgment, no budgeting advice from people who think you can fix debt by buying fewer lattes. Their team, they build a custom plan to help you break the cycle instead of sinking deeper into it. And people swear by them. A plus rating with a BBB,

thousands of five-star reviews on Google and Trustpilot, and hundreds of thousands already helped. Meanwhile, banks are throwing confetti every time interest piles up because your struggle is literally their business model. Letting it sit, I mean, that just means more fees, more interest and more stress you don't need. You know, if I ever needed a backup, this is who I'd call.

Not a bank, not a spreadsheet, actual humans whose entire job is helping you get your life back. You know, right now you could be 30 seconds away from starting your journey to get a fresh start. So hey, get your free debt assessment at pdsdebt.com slash DeFranco. just use that QR code on the screen. But then next up today,

let's talk about who is going to lead the Democrats in 2028. Because you hear chirping here and there, but this new poll just revealed a clear early front runner for the Democratic presidential nominee for 2028. And also one of the things that shows in hard numbers is that Democrats are much more divided

than Republicans are about who should be the next president. And so in getting into the details, this newly released Yale Youth Poll, it surveyed more than 3,400 registered voters, including around 1,700 age 18 to 34. What they found is that California governor Gavin Newsom

is the top choice among Democrats for the presidential primary, leading by 25%. And Newsom, he's followed by Kamala Harris at 18%, AOC at 16%, and Pete Butt who judge at 14%. And those four are the only candidates who receive more than 5% support right now. But then also when you break it down by age, the numbers, they tell a very different story.

Right, a huge plurality of Newsom support, they come from voters 65 and up, with 38% of that group saying that they'd vote for him if the primaries were held today. But then for the three different categories voters age 18 to 34, AOC takes the lead, gaining nearly 30% or more among all those age groups. In fact, AOC absolutely dominated

Newsom across those demographics. She's got nearly double the support he has for voters 18 to 34, and she still majorly outperforms him with 35 to 44 year olds. But then support for AOC, it really starts to drop off among respondents 45 and older.

Right among the 45 to 64 age group, AOC has half as much support as both Newsom and Harris who clocked in at 22 and 23%. Also very significantly here, Democrats are pretty evenly split over whether the party should embrace moderate or progressive policies. 49% said that Dems should moderate their policies

while 45% said that they need to focus on turning out their voter base by running progressive platform. And then with all that, unsurprisingly you see a breakdown by age. With the majorities of voters 18 to 34 saying the party should shift progressive while a larger share of 45 to 65 plus groups

said that it needs to be more moderate and then voters 35 to 44 were evenly split. And so clearly we see that progressive policies and left leaning candidates like AOC, they have a lot of sway with a big chunk of younger Americans, but then also the real question

is whether she or really anyone can mobilize voters. Right, data from Pew Research Center shows that voters 50 and older, they were literally the only age groups that had a higher ratio of voters to non-voters in the last two presidential elections. For every other age group under 50,

people who chose not to vote at all, they outnumbered those who actually voted. Now with all of that said, we shouldn't say that this is a done deal or even gonna give us fantastic insight. None of these three people have even officially announced that they're gonna run. Though with that, back in October, you had Newsom telling CBS that he'd be lying

if he said he wasn't considering a potential run. Harris too has left the option open, saying she's not done when asked about a potential second run. And then while this new poll shows that she's the clear progressive front runner,

AOC hasn't publicly hinted that she's interested in the job at least in 2028. Also with this, I'll say, you know, very interestingly, despite the fierce and ongoing Republican civil war that's been playing out, the Republicans, they actually appear to have a much clearer picture on what they might want in the next election, at least compared to the Democrats. Because while the Democratic front runner

led with just 25%, a majority of Republicans, 51%, said that J.D. Vance was their preferred presidential nominee. And possibly even more important, that is more than six times the amount of support of the second ranking candidate, which oddly enough was Donald Trump Jr. at 8%. And then after that, you get kind of a trickling, Ron DeSantis clocking in just below that,

Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio each getting 5%. Though notably, you also had R.K. Jr. and Tucker Carlson making it on the leaderboard with 3%. But also maybe most significantly here, that the polls showed that the Republicans, they are still very much the party of Trump. Because when Republicans were asked who they would vote for in the primaries, if they were held today,

and Trump was allowed to run for a third term, the president just took the cake. 50% of Republicans said that they'd back Trump again for a third term, more than double the 19% that JD Vance got. And so, you know, all of this, I think it's important to know,

like this is not a crystal ball. doesn't even necessarily show us the path, but I think it does show us the temperature at this moment. But then next up today, we should talk about how Ron DeSantis, Florida's governor, just designated one of the largest Muslim advocacy groups in the United States as a foreign terrorist organization. And across the political spectrum, you've seen some loving this, some hating this,

some saying, where's this energy for AIPAC? But the group that we're talking about today on American Islamic Relations, also known as CARE. And this move from DeSantis isn't actually breaking new ground. It follows a similar declaration that was made last month by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. And actually both of the orders apply not only to CARE, but the Muslim Brotherhood.

Right, and the Muslim Brotherhood started in Egypt almost a century ago, and it now has a number of affiliated groups overseas. And while their leaders say that they've renounced violence, right, Islamic rule through elections and other peaceful means, it's viewed as a threat by certain governments in the Middle East, and it's been accused of supporting terrorism. And so the Trump administration, for example,

they've accused certain Muslim Brotherhood factions of backing attacks against Israel and other American partners in the region, as well as providing material support to Hamas. And actually with that, the White House recently began the process

of designating certain chapters as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists. Right, and the DeSantis order actually references that process as justification for its own designation, and they extended to CAIR by claiming that the organization was founded by persons connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

And with that, they reference alleged links to the Holy Land Foundation, which is a group that was federally designated as a terrorist organization back in 2001. And you know, some of its leaders are now serving sentences of up to 65 years in federal prison. Though there, I also have to know that some have questioned how that case was handled. For a human rights watch, for example, they've condemned the process

and called for the release of those convicted. But in any cases, far as what the Florida order actually means for care, it's not totally clear yet, and it doesn't carry anywhere near the same weight as a federal designation,

but still you had DeSantis writing, Florida agencies are hereby directed to undertake all lawful measures and unlawful activities by these organizations, including denying privileges or resources to anyone providing material support. But looking into it, the disorder actually doesn't appear to prohibit CARE or the Muslim Brotherhood for that matter

from buying land in the state. And I mentioned that because the Texas order, unlike the Florida order, does bar both groups in purchasing property in the state. And it also authorizes the state attorney general to sue to shut them down in Texas.

And also speaking of the Texas order, CARE has already sued Abbott in federal court, as well as announced its plans to sue DeSantis over what the group described as an unconstitutional and defamatory order. And then with that, accusing DeSantis of being an Israel first politician and added,

Governor DeSantis knows full well that CARE Florida is an American civil rights organization that has spent decades advancing free speech, religious freedom, and justice for all, including for the Palestinian people. But as far as, you know, what's going to happen from here, I will say, you know, it's probably going to be an uphill battle for the group. Right, I mean, on top of the executive order,

you had DeSantis claiming that the Florida legislature is crafting legislation to quote, "'Stop the creep of Sharia law.'" Right, and then adding that he hopes the legislature codifies these protections for Floridians, is at the federal level, you've had Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting in the past that similar actions were in the works. And that is conservative lawmakers

have previously urged Trump to investigate CARE and have even introduced legislation to designate it as a terrorist group. We've got more to dive into in just a minute, but first let me say, you may be thinking, why does Phil keep talking about digital security?

And it's for a lot of reasons, including, you know, smishing scams, like the ones run out of China where people click fake toll or delivery links and these guys stole over a billion dollars doing it. You know, those pay this $1 toll fee texts, those. So here I go again. That's why today's sponsor NordVPN is a must-have. NordVPN is threat protection.

It blocks shady links, malicious downloads, and trackers before they load. And all your internet traffic encrypted, meaning that your data stays yours even when the site that you're using is held together by duct tape and hope. I mean, I use NordVPN everywhere, including where I shouldn't trust wifi, airports, hotels, coffee shops with routers older than my career.

You know, it keeps my browsing private. It lets me switch virtual locations with one click. And yeah, it is fast enough to stream anything without buffering. no logs policy. They're not tracking you, storing you or selling you. They protect you, period. Right now you can get an exclusive discount on a two-year plan, plus four extra months free when you use my link.

And it's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee. So just scan that code or go to NordVPN.com slash Phil. It's NordVPN.com slash Phil. So getting back into the news, I really wanted to dive deeper on this whole Paramount, Netflix, Warner Brothers situation. Because among other things, more and more people are worried that David

and Larry Ellison, they're gonna shape CNN to President Trump's will. And again, that's just one of many concerns that people are bringing up as Trump has found himself right in the middle of this Warner Brothers merger. Because as you've probably seen,

Netflix already announced that they'd be buying WB, to hostile takeover bids. And while often hostile takeover bids, they fail, and both of these options, they come with red flags, this is a unique situation. Right, there's the Trump bid all, and among other things, you have tons of people worried about Paramount's ties to Donald Trump. You know, its CEO is David Ellison,

the son of Trump ally, Larry Ellison. And the funding for Paramount's offer is backed by Ellison family money, foreign wealth funds, in law, Jared Kushner. Something that many found alarming because if Paramount succeeds in its bid, it'll own CNN, a major news network that Trump loves to openly hate. And with all this, it's been reported that David Ellison has been speaking directly

to Trump's administration about his plans for it. He went to the Wall Street Journal claiming that on a recent trip to DC, David Ellison offered assurances to Trump administration officials that if he bought Warner, to CNN and Trump has told people close to him that he wants new ownership of CNN as well as changes to CNN programming.

And this also comes as the Guardian actually previously reported that Larry Ellison had been talking to the White House about firing CNN anchors that Trump hates the most. And you know, the idea of media moguls wooing Trump by promising to reshape a news network

sounds like corruption to you, you'd be right. But with that, I'll say at least as of right now, Now, neither the White House or Paramount has commented on that reporting. But for his part, yesterday you had David Ellison laying out plans for CNN, saying it could be combined with CBS News, which Paramount already owns, and adding, "'We want to build a scaled news service that is basically, fundamentally in the trust business,

that is in the truth business, and that speaks to the 70% of Americans that are in the middle.'" So there, you also, Trump's role in all this, it's still one of the biggest conversation points right now. And interestingly, in his most recent comments,

he's actually tried to distance himself from the merger. Telling reporters yesterday that he had not discussed Paramount's bid with Jared Kushner and claiming that neither Netflix or Paramount are particularly great friends of mine. But the thing is, Trump himself already said be involved in the decision. And that's even though he shouldn't be, right? Presidents are not supposed to have influence over corporate deals.

But that obviously is not how Trump wants to play. And with that, you had the journal reporting further, the president will want Paramount and Netflix to compete for his approval of a deal. You know, with everything that we've talked about here, this is just the politics of it.

There are also concerns about what this means and consumption of media. And there I'll say, it does feel like to me, whoever wins, it feels like consumers will ultimately lose. But also there are tons of other antitrust concerns coming from all angles. Right this morning, Reuters reported that Netflix is facing a consumer lawsuit over its bid for WB. And you have op-eds left and right discussing

how both of these deals stand to impact and harm the movie theater industry. And so because there's just so much going on here. I spoke to Senator Elizabeth Warren this morning because she's been sounding off the alarm saying that a Paramount Warner Brothers merger would be a five alarm antitrust buyer. So I wanted her to unpack that

as well as respond to defenses of these deals. So Senator Warren, I mean, what is your biggest concern with Paramount trying to take over Warner Brothers?

You know, where do we start? Let's back up just a tiny little bit about takeovers. And that is, there are basically three groups of actors in any business. And one are the people who actually produce the stuff, you know, make movies and drive trucks and pitch scripts and do all those things. Then there are the people who buy that, the customers, right?

And they pay for it. That's terrific. And then there are the investors who put up the money to make this happen. And so what's happening right now is that we have Netflix, for example, and now Paramount saying, hey, to their investors, we can make so much more money. We can make buckets of money.

We can make wheelbarrows of money. And you've got to stop and ask yourself, how are they going to do that? They don't have some pitch that somehow, by making either of these mergers, they're going to make better movies.

They don't have some pitch that by either one of these, they're somehow going to get more customers in. No, what the pitch ultimately is, is they're going to squeeze the people who actually make the movies. They're going to squeeze the truck drivers and the people who pitch movies.

There are going to be fewer options, fewer places for them to go. And that means you pay less, you make less of it, and the other is they'll squeeze the customers. In the case of streaming, they'll up the prices on the streaming. So between the three, the game is can they merge and get a bigger market share, and as a consequence of that, bring more money out of the other two groups. And that's my problem here.

We have antitrust laws to say, no, you can't do that. These are not new antitrust laws. They were not written for the movie business. Shoot, they were written back when the aluminum business was a problem. They were written back when the aluminum business was a problem. They were written back when the railroad business was a problem. And the whole idea behind it is to say,

we value a competitive economy. We value there being multiple studios where you can go and pitch your idea, where you can offer your services as a makeup artist, where your union can negotiate on your behalf to say, here's how there's going to be something there for your retirement and here are what your health benefits are. But as you lose the number here, there's one Goliath, one giant that dominates the field, you lose that competition. And that increases the ability of that giant to squeeze more out of the workers and to squeeze more out of the customers.

So that's my concern overall.

Well, with where we are right now, I mean, is there any buyer that is actually good for consumers or least bad? Because right, with Netflix, there are the monopolistic concerns. Their argument is that we're looking at it wrong, that Nielsen says that Netflix is actually sixth for total TV watching, that YouTube is number one. HBO Max would put them at like 9%.

They'd still be under Disney, Hulu, ESPN. It put them in line with NBC and NBC Universal. But then for Paramount, there's obviously the concern that it enables Trump and or Ellison to go after perceived enemies with CNN. And also there's a different kind of monopolistic concern there. So, I don't know, do you have a best case scenario that you're looking at right now?

So I'm going to put it the other way around. And that is to say, notice the arguments you're hearing. They're very legalistic arguments from Netflix. My opposition is when you break the law. And so they're trying to get into the definition. It's like, we came right up to the edge of the law. We're skirting the law.

We're shaving an edge off the law. And OK, I get it, they can make that argument. I just think they're wrong here. And that's the fundamental problem. You don't get to break the law. And by the way, can we bring in one more law here?

We've got antitrust laws, powerfully important. I think we should use them. They very much apply in the Netflix case, no matter how they try to slice and dice it differently. But there's also a law called, the shorthand for it is CFIUS.

But what it has to do with is foreign investment that could put our country at risk. So for example, we have laws that say, no foreign country can invest in defense contractors, right? We don't want them owning the companies that would help us with our national defense.

Well, same kind of thing maybe comes up when you're talking about meat packers. Do you want a foreign country deciding cleanliness standards or how much meat gets produced as people need it and want it. Think about that in the example of do we want a foreign country making a big investment and owning a big piece ultimately of CNN or any other? Not only the news part of the business, but also the movie part of the business. Do we want some foreign investor like

potentially Saudi Arabia saying, whoa, you only get to tell certain kinds of stories. You only get to make certain kinds of movies. We only carry certain kinds of things in streaming. I'm reminded in this whole dust up right now how important our movies are for helping us understand who we are as human beings, what it means to be part of this country. The issues that movies tackle that are hard, hard issues about race and about immigration and about gender and all of those issues.

Again, we have laws in place. They weren't written specifically for any one industry, but they're there to say that it is the job of the Department of Justice to enforce those antitrust laws and to enforce those laws about foreign investment So I think both of the proposed mergers here create

real Problems because I think they violate the law Other kinds of investments could be made that don't I'm all in favor of that

But not these two with that last bit that you mentioned I mean, do you trust this DOJ to fairly review a deal involving Ellison's and Trump's inner circle? And also with that, I mean, what are your reactions to Trump saying that he's going to be personally involved and who gets Warner Brothers?

Well, let me do the last one first. I am very concerned about Donald Trump, in effect, reminding everybody that he could be the ultimate decision maker. I mean, we've never had a president do anything like that, but for very good reason. Let's just talk about the C word for a minute here, corruption, right? We've been worried for a long time in this country about the power of giant corporations

and how they throw their weight around it a lot of different ways. And now Donald Trump has come into the White House and just put corruption, what appears to be right out on full display. Just last week, I sent a letter to six giant corporations that have two things in common. They all have antitrust actions of one form or another pending in front of the Trump administration. They want to do a merger. They're under an investigation.

They've engaged in violations of the law and would like charges dropped. And they have all made giant contributions to Donald Trump's gold-encrusted ballroom. And I want to know, what's going on here? I mean, is this just a, is it a quid pro quo? You know, we'll do things to suck up to Donald Trump and then Donald Trump will make the decision that we will be favored by his Justice Department. If that is happening, it is corruption,

plain and simple. And it's right out there for the American people to see. And it's powerfully important that we call it out. For Donald Trump to be stepping in right in the middle of this deal and saying, in effect, look at me, look at me, what have you done for me, is deeply worrisome that he is inviting another form of suck up to Donald Trump, make Donald Trump richer than ever through his cryptocurrency, follow through on Donald Trump's beloved, he wants

to build the ballroom, he wants to build the Arc de Trump as you enter Washington, D.C. And ultimately understand, you can't just roll your eyes and say, well, you know, that's just how it is now. There's a real cost to corruption because instead of decisions being made as this is a good movie,

or at least I think it's a good movie, I wanna get out there, I wanna make it, I wanna try it, others invest in I want to get out there. I want to make it. I want to try it. Others invest in it. Decisions get made by who paid the biggest bribe. And when that's the case, we lose that energy that makes us the country we are. We lose that competition, that sense that things happen because you did have a good idea, because you believed in it, because you sold other people on the idea and brought them in.

Not because you're the son of a billionaire and you could pay the biggest bribe to somebody who will be the ultimate power decision-maker in government. So that's my real concern. And my concern starts with Trump, but obviously it filters down then to Pam Bondi and his Department of Justice.

Clearly this is not a Department of Justice that is independent, and it should make every American worry that the decision will not be made based on law, but will be made based either on the politics of who they want to favor or just who's offering the best and the most for Donald Trump individually.

Senator Warren, thank you for the time.

I appreciate your having me here and I'm glad you're talking about this. It's really important.

But that my friends is the end of today's show, but you have even more to click away. You can check out that full hour I just did with representative Jim Himes over on the In Good Faith podcast. It's available on YouTube, Spotify, Apple podcasts,

or really wherever else you can get podcasts. And or if you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show, definitely check it out. There's a lot we had to dive into and really anything you need, I've got links in the description. But that said, thank you for watching. I love yo faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Cause it already looks like we're gonna have a lot Cause it already looks like we're gonna have a lot

to talk about.