Transcript

LIVE: Trump Admin IN CRISIS as Corruption Scandals EXPLODE

From MeidasTouch · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 56 min · 9,826 words · 107 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "LIVE: Trump Admin IN CRISIS as Corruption Scandals EXPLODE", an episode of MeidasTouch published January 14, 2026 (56 min, about 9,826 words). It mentions 20 people, works and ideas, including Harry Litman, ICE, Chairman Powell, Department of Justice, Federal Reserve.

What this episode is about

The discussion centers on the escalating corruption scandals surrounding the Trump administration, detailing multiple high-stakes investigations, including one involving Chairman Powell by the Department of Justice. The conversation also touches on international issues, such as developments in Venezuela and Iran, while emphasizing the urgency for Americans who support progressive values to mobilize and engage their communities.

Key takeaways

  • Chairman Powell's rare public defense signals an unprecedented battle for the Fed's independence amid political pressures.
  • Investigating Powell for perjury? A stretch—like trying to charge a banker for being too responsible.
  • The stakes are higher than legal fees; disrupting the Fed could threaten not just markets, but global stability.
  • In Washington, political pressure may outweigh legal credibility; can we call it a 'justice in name only' scenario?
  • If Trump succeeds in undermining the Fed's independence, it's not just Powell who suffers but the entire economy.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Harry Litman, Chairman Powell, Department of Justice, Federal Reserve
  2. – 10:00: Federal Reserve, Janine Piro, Department of Justice, Gene Piro
  3. – 15:00: Piers Morgan, ICE, Department of Justice, Federal Reserve
  4. – 20:00: Qualia, Harry Litman, Rodney King, Cenolytics
  5. – 25:00: Jim Miller, Rodney King, Kent State, Qualia
  6. – 30:00: Department of Justice, ICE
  7. – 40:00: Cook Unity, Measles outbreak
  8. – 45:00: Cook Unity
  9. – 55:00: Iran, Measles outbreak

Notable quotes from "LIVE: Trump Admin IN CRISIS as Corruption Scandals EXPLODE"

  • But I have brought in the big guns here. Harry Litman is a former US attorney and deputy assistant attorney general. He teaches constitutional law, national security law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.
    about Harry Litman · at
  • The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public rather than following the preferences of.
    about Chairman Powell · at
  • It normal? and lie to Congress. Did he know about it? Did he know about the numbers? Did he not know about it? I do an investigation and I do it quietly until I get to the point where I can say something.
    about Janine Piro · at
  • Paul and you want to avoid an indictment. How about you go to Gene Piro and say, I'll make a deal. I'll step down today if you'll drop the investigation today. To me, that would be a win-win for everybody.
    about Gene Piro · at
  • Opinion when I first saw the video, which was that this woman was murdered. and Tim Miller went on Pierce Morgan and I think summed up pretty clearly how I feel about this matter. Let's go to the clip.
    about Jim Miller · at
  • Piers, at times you've called it both ways, but you've been friendly with Trump. You're seeing it clearly.
    about Piers Morgan · at
  • To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.
    about ICE · at
  • Tens of thousands murdered and they're signaling they're going to go way further. The Trump administration has said that help is on the way. And the question is going to be…
    about Iran · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Harry Litman — Person · Main guest · 2 mentions · first at
    Provides legal analysis on DOJ pressure tactics against Fed Chair Powell, ICE shooting in Minnesota, and legality of Venezuela operation.
  • Chairman Powell — Person · Core topic (target of investigation) · 1 mention · first at
    Central figure in discussion of DOJ investigation framed as pretext to undermine Federal Reserve independence and pressure him to resign.
  • Jim Miller — Person · Referenced commentator · 2 mentions · first at
    Quoted from Piers Morgan segment arguing the Minnesota shooting was unjustified; used to show cross-spectrum condemnation.
  • Janine Piro — Person · Referenced official/media figure · 2 mentions · first at
    Presented as the U.S. attorney figure publicly defending the Powell investigation and rejecting claims of Fed-independence attack.
  • Piers Morgan — Person · Referenced media host · 3 mentions · first at
    Platform where Tim Miller debate clip aired; used to show public dispute over Minnesota shooting justification.
  • Gene Piro — Person · Referenced attorney/actor in resignation-deal talk · 1 mention · first at
    Named as the person to whom Powell's attorney might propose a deal to step down in exchange for dropping investigation.
  • Emma Chamberlain — Person · Referenced debater · 1 mention · first at
    Appears in Piers Morgan clip disputing Tim Miller and asserting the shooting was obvious self-defense; used as example of bad-faith/incorrect legal framing.
    Well, Will Chamberlain, why do you say Tim Mill is making that up?
  • Rodney King — Person · Historical reference · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced by Litman to contextualize evaluating disturbing use-of-force video evidence and the need for careful frame-by-frame analysis.
    Isn't it? To sort of double down and go hyperaggressive. Look, I want to be clear as a former prosecutor, I worked on the Rodney King case. You see something that looks bad…
  • Tim Dylan — Person · Referenced commentator · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as a pro-Trump podcaster who nonetheless viewed the Minnesota shooting as inappropriate, supporting cross-ideological criticism.
    It's a partisan. Obviously the Trumpers defend him and the never Trumpers don't. That's not true. If you look at Tim Dylan, who's a proTrump podcaster, Joe Rogan just today has said this was totally inappropriate and wrong.
  • James Comey — Person · Historical reference · 1 mention
    Referenced as an example of once-unthinkable political/legal events now seeming plausible in current DOJ climate.
    Hard to imagine with Comey... but with this Department of Justice...

Companies & orgs

  • ICE — Company · Core topic (law enforcement actor) · 2 mentions · first at
    Discussed as increasingly aggressive, masked, and politically encouraged; central to Minnesota shooting and broader civil liberties concerns.
  • Department of Justice — Company · Core topic (investigative/prosecutorial actor) · 5 mentions · first at
    Portrayed as weaponized to pressure Powell and to prejudge/shape the Minnesota ICE shooting investigation; led by Pam Bondi.
    Show on any normal week, but what is a normal week? We're going to talk about Chairman Powell being investigated by the Department of Justice. We're going to do some follow-on…
  • Federal Reserve — Company · Core topic (institution under pressure) · 4 mentions · first at
    Central institution in Powell investigation; discussion focuses on independence, interest-rate setting, and political coercion.
    And ongoing pressure. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress's oversight role.…
  • University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) — Company · Referenced affiliation · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as Litman's teaching affiliation, supporting his authority on constitutional and national security law.
    Attorney and deputy assistant attorney general. He teaches constitutional law, national security law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and the University of California, at San Diego Department of Political Science.

Products & tech

  • Qualia — Product · 3 mentions · first at
    Qualia is at the frontier of what is currently possible in human aging.

Places & events

  • Iran — Place · Core topic (foreign crisis, briefly covered) · 2 mentions · first at
    Referenced as undergoing currency collapse, protests, regime crackdown, and potential U.S. involvement; deferred for later episode.
  • Measles outbreak — Event · Secondary news topic · 2 mentions · first at
    Briefly covered as a major public health development (430+ cases, mostly unvaccinated children) illustrating broader governance failures.
    That I talked about at the top of the show and this is courtesy of CNN Jim Shudo. an ongoing measles outbreak in South Carolina has grown to more than 430 cases. the state…
  • Kent State — Event · Historical reference · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as example of notorious state violence to frame the gravity of government use of force and public trust.
    Horrific shootings in the past, Rodney King or the Floyd case or, any of a number, Kent State. But what's really crazy here is the immediate response by the administration, the…

Sponsors

  • Cook Unity — Company · Sponsor (advertised service) · 5 mentions · first at
    Meal delivery sponsor promoted for chef-designed meals; unrelated to legal/political analysis.
    Cook Unity is perhaps my favorite sponsor we have. And here's why. Cook Unity brings restaurant level flavor to your fresh start with chef designed dishes that balance.
  • Cenolytics — Concept · Sponsor-ad concept · 1 mention · first at
    Presented in Qualia ad as a scientific field targeting senescent ('zombie') cells to improve aging outcomes.
    Cenolytics are a science field revolutionizing human aging. And a big culprit behind that middle-aged feeling that we have can be scesscent cells, aka zombie cells that linger in your body.

Full transcript with timestamps

This may be the heaviest news breaking news week I've ever seen. We've got about five stories that would lead a show on any normal week, but what is a normal week? We're going to talk about uh Chairman Powell being investigated by the Department of Justice. We're going to do some follow-on discussion of what happened in Minnesota. Um we're going to talk Venezuela. We're going to talk Iran. Uh we got a lot of other things to talk about here today. Welcome back to the podcast. for the 54% of Americans who regularly vote for progress in every election and want to convince their friends and family members to join our majority. This is majority 54. Jason had the good sense to be on vacation today.

Um, but I have brought in uh the big guns here. Harry Litman is a former US attorney and deputy assistant attorney general. He teaches constitutional law, national security law at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law and the University of California, at San Diego Department of Political Science. Um, he's all over the place. He has the Talking Feds podcast, which I absolutely love. And we just have a lot of law and illegality to talk about today. Harry, welcome.

Really good to be here. Big shoes to fill with Jason, who's also on Talking Feds a fair bit. So, I'm really happy to um to return and uh be here for the first time.

Well, he and I are both fake lawyers. We have JDs, but really don't do any real practicing of law. Uh but before we go anywhere, let's start with Powell and hear from the man himself who actually, you know, tries to stay relatively private outside of official uh you know, Fed, you know, Fed speak uh you know, quarterly announcements and whatnot. But he uh he came out with a video that turned some heads this weekend. Uh let's go to this clip. But this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration's threats and ongoing pressure. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress's oversight role. The Fed through testimony and other public disclosures made every effort to keep Congress informed about the renovation project. Those are pretexts.

The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public rather than following the preferences of the president. All right. So, Harry, help me out here. Uh, and let's let's try to take seriously that they have some kind of charges that they could bring here. And obviously we'll talk about how specious this all is, but what's the what's the quote unquote best case scenario for the Trump administration charges that they could bring here? Well, let me just start by it's hard to take seriously and the statement by a guy like Pal who you say is as button down as they come is extraordinary. to come out of the box and just say the president is being pretextual as he plainly is really is a kind of seismic moment within the sort of cushioned uh polite um realm of Washington DC. Here's what they're saying, however, Robbie, that when he

testified to Congress, and you saw Trump previously sort of needling him about this about the cost of the renovations of the Fed building, which like most federal buildings have uh gone up and up. he was in some way deceptive about what what they uh what the overruns consisted of or whether they would happen, whether they were uh checking every box. It seems even uh in terms of the testimony that was totally down the middle and by the book, but the notion that this could ever ground a perjury investigation is really fanciful.

Yeah, there's there's stuff lurking in the background here, you know, because Oh, yeah.

If if you have anything like you you'll be watching the news, you'll be like, "This person resigned, that person resigned, including some people from the Fed." And what's obviously happening in the background is they're pressuring other people. And you know, some people might not have as totally clean a record as PAL. So, somebody might have something that's like totally legal, but they don't want to pay for a lawyer or they had some, you know, they messed up some paperwork on something. And what seems very clear to me is that this Trump administration, whoever they don't like in government, they're going to them and bullying them out of their positions and they're trying to now publicly bully Powell out even though they don't seem to have much on him. Uh, and

I mean, they have nothing. You you make two really good points. The first is for Trump's purposes, he he's got to know the case is going nowhere, but the expense of a lawyer, the sort of disrepute for, as you say, a guy who's led an impeccable uh life, the uh you know, general scandal, all of that exacts a cost uh of its own whether or not. And this you just can't imagine this one going to uh I say you can't imagine but it would have been hard to imagine with Comey would have been hard to imagine with James but with this Department of Justice led by Pam Bondi maybe it's not so hard to imagine but the second point here is what pal's really making if this succeeds even uh whether or not it goes to criminal charges it means the independence of the Fed and the Supreme Court in doing away with independence of a lot of agencies has really emphasized the feds can uh keeps its measure of professionalism and

independence. If he can succeed here in cowing Powell whether or not charges are brought it means future whoever he puts in in the future whoever anyone is in in that position the independence is compromised and that's just catastrophic really for the US economy the world economy and that's what Trump is real game is here

well uh Jannine Piro who I believe is the US attorney who's uh you know handling these charges and this investigation does not appear to be backing down. Let's hear from her.

But the chairman says, "No, no, you're attacking the independence of the Federal Reserve. That's not what we're doing. We're doing our job." And I think the sad part about this is no one is above the law, nor should anyone think that they have the right to be above the law. Sean, and I'm curious to those who claim, oh my gosh, this is a terrible thing, even in our own party. What do you suggest? Are there certain people that you cannot investigate? Are there certain people that we look the other way and throw complaints in the drawer?

That's not the America that I grew up in. Sean, just to be clear, judge, you you gave them an opportunity to just talk to you and say, "What's going on here? Why are these massive cost overruns?" They didn't get to. That's what happened.

He didn't respond. Instead, he comes out with this crazy video. If you write me one time and I don't respond, I'm dead. So I, you know, it would have been smart if they just responded and had a conversation with you.

It would I wouldn't be sitting here today Sean. And so what we've got now is a case that, you know, the chairman is very uh he's objecting to. And I can't tell if the claims are out of control or whether they're true. You know, if there are cost overruns, is it the contract? Is it the subcontractors? The contractors. Is it normal? Uh, and lie to Congress. Did he know about it? Did he know about the numbers? Did he not know about it? I do an investigation and I do it quietly until I get to the point where I can say something.

So, Harry, this whole idea of cost overruns, I just don't even This is a guy whose White House renovation has already doubled in cost in just three months. Like what what am I missing here about cost overruns and the criminality of that? Like when you're in a public role like Powell?

Um nothing. So yeah, this is the ultimate gambling in the casino or dog bites man. Every federal construction project has cost overruns. But of course perjury to Congress involves so much more. some kind of nefarious plot to know about overruns and deceive Congress, withhold it from him. As pal said, they were punctilious in doing all their notifications of Congress. Really, this is clearly a um a target in and in search of a case. And this was the best they could find, right? If they could have had some mortgage fraud or whatever as their as is their uh kind of memo with other officials, they'd have done that. If if it comes to it, maybe a traffic ticket. This is all they could get on him in order to exercise the kind of pressure that I think Pal is, you know, calmly but indisputably calling out. This is about policy interest rate setting which do you want to be in the uh independent expertise of the Federal

Reserve or do you want it to be dictated by you Donald Trump? That's really the question here.

Yeah. And Senator Kramer uh essentially admitted what this project is all about. Let's go to this clip.

Maybe pulling back, but maybe the point should be if you're the attorney for J. Paul and you want to avoid an indictment. How about you go to Gene Piro and say, "I'll make a deal. I'll step down today if you'll drop the investigation today." To me, that would be a win-win for everybody.

Well, I'd love that. I mean, we've all talked about getting him out of there. The

a win-win for everybody, Harry. I want to emphasize again because it gets a it gets a little arcane, but the Supreme Court has had a sort of demolition project that Trump has um championed and actually provoked of taking away independence from agency after agency saying that Trump can fire whoever he wants for whatever reason with the exception of the Fed, which everyone understands, even if it's legally inconsistent with what they're saying. they just are cabining it off because it's so necessary to the national economy, the federal economy. So this kind of, you know, clear assault on that independence and and what you just saw, oh, we can make a little deal. You can just step down uh and leave in the on the heels of scandal. That's not a very attractive deal is obviously designed to do the one thing that the Supreme Court says you cannot do. You can't just fire someone willy-nilly. And there's very

very good reason for that. And though it's those reasons that as I say are really at stake here.

You know, I think a final question to ask on this is whether Democrats should demand uh something and this is related to ICE cuts and the Federal Reserve. We'll talk about ICE in a second.

Yeah. Um ahead of this January 30th shutdown deadline. Um, Senator Tillis already said that he's going to hold up uh Fed nominations uh in light of this.

I think Warren said she'd hold up every nomination right? I think that should be the case. I mean, obviously there's only so much Democrats could do on their own, right?

Um, but they certainly can get back into the shutdown fight. And I and I know people might be tired of this, but I'm like,

you know, between this and what we're about to talk about with Minnesota, never mind the war powers questions and everything else, just the incredible disrespect. Respect is the wrong word. Just like unconstitutional steamrolling of Congress. Um, who by the way approve these nominations, right? Like this unconstitutional illegal uh, you know, um, you know, weaponizing of the Justice Department steamrolling ignoring Congress. At a certain point, Congress has to stick up for themselves. And

what is that? They You're right. They have been steamrolled. I mean, they are just flat. And really, you can, you know, Trump obviously is the center of attention, but so much of what's happened over the last year and the last several years has to do with the uh complete supine Congress, which to all accounts knows what it's doing, really has no love loss for Trump, but is just um cowed completely. that that's the real kind of core um challenge of uh of getting past this this mess is having them wake up just a little as they did for example in the Epstein vote.

Well, let's move on to Minnesota. Yeah. Uh last week when Jason and I were on, the video had just come out, so we reacted to it. And I would say that, you know, after looking at more uh video evidence, I'm only more certain um of my opinion when I first saw the video, which was that uh this woman was murdered. Uh and uh Tim Miller went on Pierce Morgan uh and I think summed up uh pretty clearly how I feel about this matter. Let's go to the clip.

Can we just be honest about this? Like there is no way this person's life was at risk. He the third shot. No one will just No one will address this. The third shot that he shoots, the third shot, he is to the side of the car. He shoots her through the through the driver's side window. The car has already passed him

and then he calls her a [ __ ] [ __ ] Like this guy's life is not you're trying to make this and others they try to say it's a both sides saying, "Oh, it's a partisan. Obviously the Trumpers defend him and the never Trumpers don't." That's not true. If you look at Tim Dylan, who's a proTrump podcaster, uh Joe Rogan just today has said this was totally inappropriate and wrong. Piers, you know, at times you've called it both ways, but you've been friendly with Trump. You're seeing it clearly. The only 28% of the country in a recent poll said this shoot uh was appropriate, including only 64% of Republicans. Like, no any 10% of independents, nobody who looks at this with open eyes can think this was justifiable. I'm sorry. That's just like we should just be honest about this. Like there is no way to kill that woman.

I don't even know if they're actually toys in the passenger seat. Well, Will Chamberlain, why do you say Tim Mill is making that up?

Well, he's he's essentially accusing all of us of bad faith. Like, I'm a lawyer. I've been trained. I've read a lot about the law of self-defense. This was the most obvious self-defense shoot I've seen in quite some time.

Really? And the Absolutely. He's directly in front of the car. Two feet in front of the car. He's looking through a grocery store parking lot. Will, how do you get out of Walmart without shooting somebody? I I'm hoping you don't you're not carrying a weapon when you're going through the grocery store because every day across the country arrests by

So, it's weird. This guy called he he basically like, "How dare you accuse me of bad faith?" And then says, "This is the most obvious case of self-defense he's ever seen." Um, I mean, that's crazy. Yeah, it's not only crazy, but it's very sort of Trumpy and crazy, isn't it? To to sort of double down and go hyperaggressive. Look, I I want to be clear as a former prosecutor, I worked on the Rodney King case. You see something that looks bad like this, you have to really push on it second by second, but I've done that and you know, I certainly agree with your assessment and these kinds of really loose and irresponsible charges. Oh, he was two feet from front. If you look very carefully, in fact, the car was not going right at him. If you look at his behavior all the way, it wasn't of a person who fears for his life. It was someone casually setting up. If you look at when he transfers the uh gun to his

right hand and begins to shoot, none of it seems to have any um justification in his being afraid for his life. Quite the contrary. Now, there's a difference between that overall assessment and what would have to precede the actual filing of charges of really plumbing the depths of the investigation, which going to be super hard here because the um federal government has outrageously already prejudged it and said nothing to see here. But you're totally right that this is sort of split into kind of rhetorical grounds where people I I read 64% 77% is what I've read. But that a majority of any party could look at this and say, "Oh, no problem here." It really is just seems to be a rhetorical circling of wagons at the very top. And the people who are going along and saying, "Oh, no problem." I think just haven't looked at the damn video. I, you know, just in objective terms, I did these cases and man oh man, it sure

looks uh like an execution. If you know, if he is not in uh imminent fear of death or bo or serious bodily injury, that is what it is, a flatout killing, as Swallwell said. You know, again, as a prosecutor, I want to, you know, get to the very bottom before, you know, saying I'm going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. But the the people, you know, coming out reflexively and saying this is a good shooting that, you know, they're they're they're just uh on another planet.

Yeah. And and he it seems very clear that this guy violated a lot of DHS policy by blocking car um by

But more than that, Robbie, and sorry to interrupt, but it's, you know, everything before the shoot, he saunters to the other side, sets himself up. This is a guy who seems casually and calmly ready to, you know, be uh threatening, which you can't do either, deadly force on someone who is not a remote threat. And then there's this argument that when she puts it in forward at that very second, it's a it isn't even then. But the, you know, the the um careful dissection of the tape, which is what you have to do, gives a pretty damn clear um overall perspective that you know this is a guy who is who is just shooting her not because he's not be and remember it's the car under the administration theory. It's not her. So, the idea is the car is this deadly weapon, but he is not in the line of the car. Contrary to what that guy just said in in your clip, it's close, but he's not. But doesn't matter. He sets himself

up there, moves to the side, and then of course, as um Tim says, you know, leans in the in the window and just like e executes her.

Well, we're going to take a break and when we come back, we'll talk a little bit about, you know, who can handle this investigation, who can't, um where there's any chance of a local investigation. We'll look at some surprising clips from across the political spectrum about how people have reacted to this. We'll talk Venezuela, Iran, um, and other topics when we return.

A lot going on. Qualia is at the frontier of what is currently possible in human aging. Cenolytics are a science field revolutionizing human aging. And a big culprit behind that middle-aged feeling that we have can be scesscent cells, aka zombie cells that linger in your body after their useful function, wasting your energy and resources. Let me break it down. The accumulation of those zombie cells can lead to less energy, slower workout recovery, joint discomfort, and basically feeling old. Qualiaenolytic is a groundbreaking clinically tested formula supplement with nine vegan plant derived compounds that help your body naturally eliminate those scinesscent cells, helping you feel younger in just months. Here's how it works. You could take it just 2 days a month, helping your body naturally eliminate zombie cells to age better at the cellular level. And Qualia's breakthrough formula is vegan, non-GMO,

and tested by leading scientists. And since Qualius Analytic, I've been able to turn back the clock. I have higher energy, less soreness after exercise, a big boost in productivity. Been taking them as I recover from my arm injury. Um, and it's made me feel youthful, energized, excited about life again. Um, experience the science of feeling younger. Go to qualia.com/majority for up to 50% off your purchase. And use the code majority for an additional 15% off. That's quali alife.com/majjority for an extra 15% off um uh your purchase and your older self will thank you.

Thanks to Qualia for sponsoring this episode. 2026 is the year you launch your business, the year you transform into an entrepreneur, founder, boss, and one powerful move put you firmly in your own hands, and that's starting a business with Shopify. Maybe you've got an idea you can't shake, a craft everyone tells you to sell, a store you've been designing in your head. With Shopify 2026 is when you finally make it happen. Shopify gives you everything you need to sell online and in person and millions of entrepreneurs have already made this leap from household names to first-time business owners just getting started. We at the Midas Network use Shopify for all our businesses and we couldn't be happier with them. Shopify gives you all the tools to easily build your dream store. Um, and you can choose from hundreds of beautiful templates that you can customize to match your brand. And setup is fast with Shopify's

built-in AI tools that write product descriptions and headlines and help you edit product photos. Marketing is built in, too. Create email and social campaigns that reach your customers wherever they scroll. And as you grow, Shopify grows with you. Handle more orders, expand to new markets, and do it all from the same dashboard. And in 2026, stop waiting and start selling with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com/majority. Go to shopify.com/majority. That's shopify.com/majority.

and uh and here's to your first with Shopify by your side. All right. Well, Tim Miller alluded to the fact that this is not just a liberal progressive Democratic reaction to this video. Um that there are a lot of people out there who've even previously supported Trump uh and endorsed him who are having a hard time with not just this video bit with ICE in general. uh and no more prominent than Joe Rogan. So, let's start with him.

It's also very ugly to watch someone shoot a US citizen, especially a woman, in the face,

right? Where it's like I'm not I'm not that guy. I don't know what he thought. And again, this is a guy who had almost been run over,

but it just looked horrific to me. Did I mean, when people are say it's justifiable because the car hit him, it seemed like she was kind of turning the car away. I think after that woman was shot, I think unfortunately well everything is unfortunate about it, right? But one of the one of the real problems is now ICE are villains and now people are looking at them like murderous military people that are on the streets of our city and they're masked up, which is also a problem, right? Because if you get arrested by a cop, you you're allowed to ask the cop, "What is your name and badge number?"

And you could film that cop. If you get arrested by an ICE agent, you have no such right. They're wearing a mask. They don't have to tell you [ __ ] That's a problem. That's a problem on our city streets, right? Because you you could also pretend to be an ICE agent,

right? So, you know, this is, you know, there's a lot of reasons for despair about, you know, the events of the past few weeks. I mean, this year we're only 14 days into 2026. I mean, this is I thought 2025, you know, everybody's like, "Okay, turn the page on this horrible year." So, there's a lot of reasons to be pessimistic, but people like Rogan are seeing, at least what the rest of us are seeing. Uh, and there was another clip that I didn't play here where the comedian Shane Gillis went on Rogan recently and they both talk about the the the strange gleeful marketing that this administration has been doing where they're they're, you know, they're gleeful and uh disrespectful um and happy as they deport people and they're creating all these weird videos.

And it just came out, I think it was the Washington Post reported that the government's paying $8 million to proceed influencers. Um, and so this is part of a sophisticated PR campaign, Harry.

Yeah. And to me, Robbie, that's really the point. Look, this looks to have been like Rogan's, excuse me, says, a horrific shooting, but we've seen horrific shootings in the past, Rodney King or the Floyd case or, you know, any of a a number, Kent State. But what's really crazy here is the immediate response by the administration, the government tasked ultimately with enforcing the constitution, taking care that the laws be enforced. The immediate reflexive us versus them notion that of course this uh what this ICE agent must must be uh justified. And as you say, they they they're really now it just seems to be a regular practice. The ve the first arrest here in in Minnesota, the guy who comes in and like puts his arm in and says, "Get the hell out of the car." There's no crime that's occurred. That's an unlawful arrest. We have daily videos of basically people filming them, perfectly lawful, as you

say, and nevertheless getting uh beaten up. That kind of thing couldn't spread as it's doing without some kind of tacit or maybe not even tacit kind of encouragement. And I mean from the top heath Trump they are chuffed about this. This is the image they want showing that they control the streets and they're being tough in um support of Trump's policy. So this makes it a more to me pernitious uh kind of development. It's not just, you know, a rogue uh agent or police officer who goes berserk and over the constitutional line in a in a uh street encounter. It's seems to be really in more than more than encouraged, championed from the very top that Trump could just come out at when all we'd see is the video and say, "Oh, it's a good shoot and hooray for him."

And he was hit by the car, which seems to be false. That's really to me the novel aspect here, the government's actual impromater. And one other aspect of, you know, us versus them and the the woke state, you know, complaining about little nicities like whether somebody is shot and killed in violation of the Constitution.

Well, you you you talked about how the messages uh the message is coming from the very top of the Trump administration. Uh here's Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller um talking about his view of immunity.

To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties. And no one, no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no uh leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. And the Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice.

So tell us what the immunity uh the qualified immunity is really about here. Yeah. So I'm sorry but you know the guy is like a legally speaking a [ __ ] and and as so with so many in the Trump administration the louder he talks the least the less authority he has. There's immunity if in fact you act and only if you act uh by you know the execution of a reasonable federal uh mission. there's immunity, but that doesn't mean there's immunity to violate the Constitution. The Department of Justice has plenty of times gone after federal officers uh who and actually states have as well. So, what he first came out of the box with here, you can see he's sort of retreating uh was there is absolute immunity. It's just wrong. You know, they it doesn't stop them from and stop him in particular from making these broad proclamations. So really all it's saying is yes, it's true if you're doing your job right. And here most um

immediately if uh Ross, Jonathan Ross, the shooter, is in reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm, that's tantamount to saying he's doing the job that a federal officer is supposed to be doing. And he would be. you're not, you know, you can use deadly force if someone's um imposing it on you, but if you're not, the immunity doesn't hold. So, it's really a, you know, a a pretty um kind of uh braggadosio from him suggesting that it's much stronger than it is. It really all reduces to the same point. Was the guy in reasonable fear of death or imminent bodily injury? And if not, you know, it gets it gets very fine grain. You can see the Supreme Court going the other way. But the basic notion it it comes down to that if he's not this this is not it's not cloaked in immunity. By the way, let me just say a quick point here.

This case, it seems to me that the US is uh completely uh smothering. If Minnesota goes forward, you're going to hear this claim of immunity made very quickly. And I think it's inevitable it goes all the way up through the courts the way the Trump immunity claim did. Meaning the whole thing gets frozen probably for a couple years if that's our fate to have Minnesota have to do it and better them than no one. Uh I think we're going to we're this is going to get on ice for a long time. And so so as as of today, uh the Trump administration is not cooperating with or sharing information with local authorities.

They're not going to conduct a real investigation. You have to be fairly um like I think it's fairly certain that they would pardon this guy. Uh

and so if if they did pardon this guy and they didn't investigate him for federal charges, uh you know, Minnesota could bring a case in federal court. Is there is there an equivalent state statute they could bring this under?

Well, no. They would bring it they would bring it in they would bring it in state court and it would be for homicide. That's you know that's you can look at

it's not pardonable at the federal level. Right. Right. Yeah. There. Oh, exactly. No. Minnesota homicide offense. You know, I I know it it frustrates Trump to no end. He's trying to get his uh clerk who who refused to do marriage licenses pardon for her state offense. That's right. Minnesota. Look, look what happened in the in the Floyd case. They This This would be Minnesota's law is a little tricky. It could be murder, too, down to manslaughter. But yeah, if he's not cloaked in immunity, that means it's just a uh probably a homicide under Minnesota law. Now, the point you're making though, Robbie, it's unprecedented. You have on the one hand the deputy attorney general saying, "Oh, no, no, no investigation, not even an investigation is necessary here." And yet they've opened some kind of case in the um US attorney's office in Minnesota. This is what prompted six career prosecutors from the office to

quit just yesterday saying, you know, you're basically telling us to investigate um the widow of uh the the victim here as being woke and that was the real problem. But anyway, that kind of investigation will permit them perhaps to stonewall the states. And normally, you would do one of two things as the feds. either you bring it yourself or you absolutely cooperate with the states. You've got parallel interests here, right? I mean, the federal it's a really serious constitutional violation and a really serious homicide if it if uh that's, you know, where the prosecutors determine things should go.

So, they are not only not doing it themselves, but it it would look like they're trying to gum up the works, not share information. It's it's really scandalous. Now, you know, in 2026, with all the video out there, all the eyewitness testimony, I think Minnesota probably can still make the case, but they are not just needlessly, but in an unprecedented way being literally hamstrung by the federal government whose job it is to, you know, enforce the constitution here. It's just uh gobsmacking. Well, you know, one last video here, you know, along the lines of the Gillis Rogan conversation about how gleeful these people are. I've often wondered, and Jason and I have been talking about this for over a year now, where,

you know, I I told him uh after the um the election that I was just worried about what kind of people would be signing up for these roles, these ICE roles.

Uh and here's one video. I mean, there have been thousands of videos that have been shocking this week, but here's one that I find interesting. Uh, let's go to this clip.

I don't care what they told you. If you guys get in my way, I will arrest you, sir. We're just observing. Please call me.

You're going to observe all you want. I am observing. Do you see me in the way? I am bad.

You had anger issues as a kid, didn't you? Were your parents present? You should be ashamed of yourself, man. He is.

I love my job. Thank you. You love your job? I can't believe I get paid for this.

Really? I do this for free. Really? I get 200k. I'm a physician assistant. How much How long did you go to school for that?

How many years? I went to high school. I make 200k. People regard me as someone valuable in society. What about you? So, for people who are just listening on audio, you've got this guy uh, you know, all masked up with his hands at his hips while the protesters very calmly are like, you know, ribbing him, which I think is a great act of civil disobedience. Good job to them. They're staying out of the way, but they're also making this guy annoyed. Clearly, he's so agitated. He keeps turning around and taking the bait every step of the way.

And he says two things that I think are fascinating. One is he has a high school education, which you know, no offense to anybody with just a high school education, but he he's he he mentions that fact as a way to be like, "Oh, you became a physician's assistant. You would seven years of education." which is like number one, it's like any law enforcement training is going to tell you like that to volunteer information to belittle people who are not in any way in your way, right, is just textbook like the opposite of what they would teach you to build relationships with members of the community and de deescalate a situation. But the most important thing he said was, "I would do this for free." which whether you're listening to this and you you want stricter enforcement of immigration or not, the idea that somebody would say they would, you know, deport people for free and and do the aggressive actions

that that guy's taking uh and they would do it for free, I think tells you a lot about the kinds of people that they're recruiting for these jobs.

There's a Yeah. Um, look, to all accounts, and we just get the the evidence accumulates every day, we're talking about really a kind of fascist force, an enclave within federal law enforcement. And it's the same, it seems to me, Ravi, silo problem that we have in the news and so many aspects of American society in their little silo and up to Hegath and Trump. They are heroes and champions and the uh the people that they're supposed to be uh serving or protecting are [ __ ] [ __ ] as you say, you know, and the like. And normally that kind of rogue force just couldn't uh you sometimes that culture will entrench itself in a particular local or even federal agency.

But that's where the adults in the room, if there were adults here, are, you know, are are there to make sure things are being done by the book. And, you know, as you say, by the way, it's so unprofessional for him to take the bait and and respond and say nener as he does. But I'll tell you, I've seen instances where um the protesters have done exactly what happened here and they got, you know, forcibly ar tackled and arrested from simply observing. They're supposed to know better. They do know better. But they this attitude of we're not here to serve you. We're here to control the streets and you get the hell out of our way and we're going to uh you know en enforce it and make you sorry if you don't. That's who ICE seems to be.

And and of course uh you probably you and Jason probably mentioned this only in blue America, right? They and the whole reason that they're there in the first place has to do with the political opposition to Minnesota or Chicago or Portland. It's this, you know, um ridiculous uh kind of political effort to get at his enemies by Trump. That's why he's inflicted this force on us. and the you know the force has the the support all the way up not uh including of its most sort of roguish elements.

Well, we're going to take a break, Harry. When we come back, we're going to talk Venezuela, Iran, uh measles outbreak, by the way. There's just a lot happening in the world. We'll be right back. Cook Unity is perhaps my favorite sponsor we have. And here's why. Cook Unity brings restaurant restaurant level flavor to your fresh start with chef designed dishes that balance nourishment, creativity, and everyday luxury. Choose your own path with new meal collections like fiber maxing, mood boosting, better for sleep, protein forward. And Cook Unity is also launching chef's table, lunar feast drop, a limited two-eek collaboration where chefs collaborate uh for the celebrate the lunar new year with symbolic fortune-filled dishes and behind the scenes storytelling. With Cook Unity, you can explore how chefs are redefining wellness and infusing their creativity and cultural tools into each meal. My personal favorite has been

the truffled fetuccini alfredo with grilled chicken and parmesan cheese by Chef Mina Shrenavan Shrenavanas. Um, and you could seriously taste the freshness of those ingredients and I was left just in awe. I've been studying pasta. Um, and I say that gets my seal of approval. A+. Um, I actually was a Cook Unity uh, customer before they actually became a sponsor. That's how much I believe in them. Um, and I really love the variety that they have to offer. Uh, and it means that you could get healthy meals while also getting variety. They make it easier to achieve those wellness goals, especially in the new year. We're all focusing on those goals. Um they have all-star chefs and their roster includes Food Network alums, James Beard award winners and acclaimed restaurant tourers who balance bowl flavors and nutrition in uh small batch meals delivered fresh, not frozen. Look, cooking quality makes

uh takes a lot of time, but it doesn't have to be your time. Uh with Cook Unity, there's no cleanup or meal planning necessary, and meals are delivered fully cooked, just uh heated up in as little as 5 minutes. Enjoy culinary masterpieces for way less than restaurants or takeouts and climbing grocery store prices. Taste comfort and craftsmanship in every bite from award-winning chefs behind Cook Unity. Go to cookunity.com/majority54 or enter majority54 before checkout to get 50% off your first order. That's 50% off your first order by using majority 54 or going or using code majority54 or going to cook.com/majority54.

Again, normally we would spend the whole hour on the fact that we just uh took out a leader, took out is the wrong word, um you know, invaded a foreign country and uh extricated.

That sounds pretty good to me. Yeah. Uh so there's a million things we could talk about. I'll just update the audience a little bit and say, you know, Jason, I I said something to Jason last week that I think probably confused some people where he was talking about how well we're we're doing this for the oil and for the big oil companies. And I said, you know, I was looking at the the big oil side of things and they didn't seem and I said this last week and it's only become more clear since that they didn't seem big oil that in interested in this question that actually there was this narrative out there that they were somehow driving this. And it's not to, you know, to to defend people who don't need defending, but actually my point was this was actually in all Trump's mind in his lizard brain. He's like, Venezuela has oil. we can take their oil. Uh there were million different ration that we wrestled with last week

and tried to figure out what was really going on. But one thing has happened over the past week is a lot of these companies like Exxon essentially said it's not worth it given the price of oil right now and what it takes to pull Venezuelan oil out of the ground and to refine it given the nature of the crude oil there that they're not that interested. uh not that it would matter one way or another for our well-being whether big oil in the US uh is makes a profit or not from this but it just adds to like the just total confusion around what the Trump administration was trying to do and then we also still have the vice president who now is the head of state in Venezuela same regime same lack of de you know still you know anti-democratic regime who's you know steamrolled past their opposition uh and now is you know doing very similar things to that Iran which we'll talk about in a second is doing to their own

population of protesters, you know, rooting out anybody um who's standing in the way. So, a lot of problems there. So,

yeah. You know what it Go I'm sorry. Go ahead, Robbie. Oh, no. You go, Harry. Sorry. Well, you know what it would matter for is the legal justification because the other thing that just happened in this morning is the release of the memo heavily redacted but written by the office of legal counsel to justify and people don't I think realize it's really sort of legal and technical not to mention pretty dubious but this has been justified as simply a domestic law enforcement mission nothing about law of war. Yes, maybe it's a violation of treaties. They don't even opine us to that. But this is just snatching someone who's broken our criminal law. That's the way anyway that the head of the office of legal counsel puts it. And in order to justify it, Robbie, he's he um part of the analysis is I'm give you give me the facts and I'll give you the memo. And the facts include this is a very small, contained, and temporary

little incursion. So, you're right that the, you know, the snatching looked, you know, oh, and h it doesn't not too much damage. Only, you know, had to kill 80 people. Uh, doesn't doesn't really take on the magnitude of an act of war. But that's the notion. It's domestic law enforcement. we can ignore our international obligations that we've signed on to as a treaty which the constitution says is the supreme law of the land. But in part because the administration reports to me the guy who's writing the memo. It's just going to be a sort of short quick little thing. Go in, snatch him, take him out.

And if this does involve a sort of heart of darkness, a whole long arm wrestling with the oil companies and an effort to get the oil out of the land and you know we've seen Trump now trying to browbeat the oil companies into doing his bidding that undermines the whole uh argument which in fact really does seem to be um pretty tendentious. Right. This is like Trump in the wake of pardoning the ex-president of Honduras for doing all this drug stuff now is saying we've got to go after this bad uh criminal for all the drugs. And yet, as you and Jason mentioned, sure seems to be a lot else going on. I just want to say that the actual legal justification depends on it being um a short little operation.

Well, you know, Senator Paul of all people made some of the points you just talked about, and we'll take this in two stages. This is from his appearance on Rogan, so we're very Rogan heavy today for some reason. But let's start with Senator Paul talking about some of those inconsistencies that you just mentioned.

I'll give you an example what I think is bizarre. So, we've been uh blowing up these people in boats off the coast of Venezuela. They're accused of running drugs, but nobody knows their names, and nobody's put up any evidence. When we um had them September 2nd, two of them were still clinging to the wreckage. They're shipwrecked. Um they blew them up. And so what I think is bizarre is I hear mostly my Republican colleagues say, "Well, um we shouldn't have to. How do we know they're not armed?" And it's like, but but there's this thing called presumption of innocence. They say it doesn't apply. It actually always has applied on the oceans. We have always we've had drug interdiction, but we have always stopped boats and asked to search them. If they flee or shoot at the Coast Guard, they will get shot and blown up, but it's usually an escalatory sort of steps.

We know that when the Coast Guard boards vessels off of Miami and off of California, one in four of the boats they board don't have any drugs on them. So, I I look at my colleagues who say they're pro-life and they they value God's inspiration in life, but they don't give a [ __ ] about these people in the boats. And are they terrible people in boats? I don't know. They're probably poor people in Venezuela and Colombia. And really, they say, "Well, we're at war with them. They're committing war by bringing drugs into America." They're not even coming here. They're going to these islands in the south part of the Caribbean. The cocaine and it's not fentanyl at all. The cocaine's going to Europe. Those little boats can't get here. No one's even asked this common question. Those boats have these four engines on them. They're outboard boats.

You can probably go about a hundred miles before we have to refuel. 2,000 miles from us. They have to refuel 20 times to get here. They really It was all a pretense and a false argument. But I guess what I don't feel connected to my Republican colleagues is that those lives don't matter at all and we just blow them up. and against all justice and against all laws of war, all laws of just war, we never have blown up people who were shipwrecked. It's against the military code of justice to do that and we're doing it and everybody just says, "Oh, well, they're drug dealers."

Well, and I think this is incredibly well said. I would add a nudge uh that Rogan did not give to Senator Paul, which is like, why are you approving all these people? Hegs, for example, like you are a senator. It's like actually Senator Paul would be a great podcaster. Uh like he's saying all the things better than I could say them, but he actually happens to be more than a podcaster. He has powers that he's not exercising. But he he also Harry um talked about the legal justification here. And so I'm going to play this and I would love for you coming out of this clip to to give your reaction to his legal analysis here. Let's go to this clip.

We never have blown up people who were shipwrecked. It's against the military code of justice to do that and we're doing it and everybody just says, "Oh, well, they're drug dealers." Why do you think they were attacking those people? Because I've heard a bunch of different theories and one of the big theories was they were trying to get the cartel upset at Maduro in order to get him out of office.

It's all been a pretense for uh arresting Maduro. So, we have to set up the predicate. We got to show you we care about drugs. And but the weird thing about it is they really care about drugs except for the former president of Honduras, Hernandez, who was given a 40-year sentence, was tried, was found guilty, was given 40 years in a US jail, and he's let go at the same time we're arresting Maduro because we're he's attacking the United States with drugs.

Seems like he agrees with what you're saying, Harry, that this was, you know, they're trying to get a narrow domestic law enforcement.

Yeah. So, not a very good look. I do want to say that what he's talking about uh the real illegality especially that double tap strike Ravi the time when they when they killed the two people the the supposed justification there there's a different justification and that's that somehow the drugs themselves are weapons of war just a a ludicrous concept it wasn't they weren't even going they were going to Surinom not the United States and they and they never could but that was the idea there here they've switched gears completely say, "Oh, never mind all this law of war stuff. This is just domestic law enforcement." But it really does seem to be uh you know basically how do we get Maduro out and the the oil is obviously in the consideration and that there seems to have been a whole kind of um uh kind of hatching of this idea with Stephen Miller, you know, about making a quick uh strike and having somehow to do

with the, you know, this whole notion that narotists are at war with us because they're selling cocaine really just you know doesn't hunt at all and now you know I think the administration feels chuffed even though the Maduro operation seems to have been unlawful but it's not I don't think it's going to uh wear very well this isn't exactly a legal point but uh you know it drags on and on and that the lesson always seems to be that the aftermath that we're buying on to is uh you know you see it in the in the certain in the flush of uh you know exaltation that he had when they when they snagged Maduro. But that's what's coming up is I think a long slow slog. But both either in domestic law enforcement with Maduro or the international law of war. It's very very dubious that we you know that we the United States haven't become the sort of villains of the world that you know the the scoffs who don't do right

who you know don't just traml international law and what what what does that you know I had a conversation with Mike McFall about you know what are we supposed to say to Russia about Ukraine what are we supposed to be about China about Taiwan this is really among other things shortsighted Well, um, you know, one related issue here, you know, we we're not going to talk about Greenland today. Uh, again, another issue that we could spend a lot of time on, and we're we don't have enough time to really do Iran justice.

So, um, we'll make sure that, you know, there's probably a lot will happen between now and that next week. I think for the audience's sake, it's just too much to talk about in this short period of time. But, you know, essentially for people who are just tuning in to that that uh crisis, it you know, essentially the currency collapsed, the the regime uh you know, people took to the streets uh because of a combination of the frustrations, the economic frustrations and a lot of other frustrations. Uh they took to the streets in ways they haven't in a long, long time. Uh the regime is cracking down on protesters. Thousands if not tens of thousands murdered um and they're signaling they're going to go way further. The Trump administration has said that help is on the way. And the question is going to be what does that mean? And that's prompting a huge debate. We do not have time to talk about that. The we'll we'll we'll make

sure to come back to it next week. Uh the other issue just worth mentioning I that I talked about at the top of the show and this is courtesy of CNN uh Jim Shudo. Uh an ongoing measles outbreak in South Carolina has grown to more than 430 cases. Uh the state health department has reported more than half of those reported in the past week. Uh the vast majority of the cases have been among children. 92% of those and nearly all have been on with the unvaccinated uh who did not get the MMR vaccine. So that is another issue and again Harry this is a it's probably the eighth time I've said this each one of these would lead a normal show. Um, I think indication that we're in some

and if you'll give me 30 seconds, who are we talking about? Heg Seth, uh, on the on the defense stuff, uh, Kennedy on the measles, Gnome saying, you know, forget about the shooting. These are the very people who, you know, it seems a generation ago that Trump strong armed through when we knew they were really problematic nominees, but the Senate laid down, let him have his ways, and we are really still paying the the cost of that big time week in week out. And as you say, it just seems to be going up and up and up.

Yeah. and you know to to the Tillis I mean the thing that's right now I think what distinguishes Tillis from from Rand Paul you know the two of them are better than the average GOP senator um but at least Tillis has grown a bit of a spine on the question of confirmation so I'm hoping that others like Ran Paul and Collins Mowski maybe even McConnell some of those people can step up um you know we we have

with the law of war resolution ution, right? Yeah. Yeah. You know, I I I'm not I wouldn't say I'm hopeful based on the history of all those people, but that's the only check on Trump that we have left here other than the courts, and we know what those courts have been capable of. So, Harry, uh, thank you for being with us. For everybody listening, check out the Talking Feds podcast. Harry, anything else you want to plug while we got you here? uh so kind, you know, also talking Feds Substack and YouTube, but I want to plug Jason Cander, your normal guy who is off and on talking feds and is just a real uh prince and very trench and observer of the American uh scene. So, thanks for having me uh in his uh in his big shoes for this week and let's do it again.

All right. Well, everybody, thank you for listening. Uh remember, we all have a platform. Make sure to use yours today. We'll be back next week.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "LIVE: Trump Admin IN CRISIS as Corruption Scandals EXPLODE"?

Harry Litman (Guest), Unknown Host (Host).

What is "LIVE: Trump Admin IN CRISIS as Corruption Scandals EXPLODE" about?

The discussion centers on the escalating corruption scandals surrounding the Trump administration, detailing multiple high-stakes investigations, including one involving Chairman Powell by the Department of Justice. The conversation also touches on international issues, such as developments in Venezuela and Iran, while emphasizing the urgency for Americans who support progressive values to…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

20 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Harry Litman, ICE, Chairman Powell, Department of Justice, Federal Reserve, Jim Miller. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "LIVE: Trump Admin IN CRISIS as Corruption Scandals EXPLODE"?

The episode runs 56 min; the transcript is about 9,826 words in 107 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.