March 25, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- Journalist included on classified text thread
- AI writing resumes
- Commentary on the classified text conversation
- A cringy headline!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Getty and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The stunning breach in national security involving the ongoing highly
classified US attacks targeting Hoothy rebels in Yemen. The details
reportedly discussed openly over a group chat on the unauthorized
signal app among members of President Trump's national security team.
The Atlantic, now revealing its editor in chief, who was
invited to join the group chat, says he was included
(00:45):
on all the sensitive information hours before the military strikes began.
President Trump pressed about the report, saying he didn't know
anything about it.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
Okay, so we'll play the Trump part here in just
a second. The timing of all this, nobody knows when
Trump was alerted to this.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
You'd have to assume somebody told him.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
He acts like he didn't know here when he's asked
about it by a reporter, But it was fink four
or five hours later, so he certainly somebody should have
hipped him to it. Well, let's let a reporter ask
the question and Trump respond, Mister President.
Speaker 5 (01:19):
You reacted to the story of the Atlantic that said
that some of your top account officials and aids had
been discussing very sense of material from Signal and included
an Atlantic reporter for that.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
What is your response to that?
Speaker 6 (01:31):
In our opinions, I don't know anything about it.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic.
Speaker 6 (01:35):
It's to me it's a magazine that's going out of business.
I think it's not much of a magazine. But I
know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what.
Speaker 5 (01:42):
They were using signal to pour date on sets of
materials and.
Speaker 6 (01:47):
Having to do with what, how did you do with what?
Speaker 2 (01:50):
What were they talking about with the hookies? The who dies?
Speaker 6 (01:53):
You mean the attack or the hood is Well, it
couldn't have been very effective, because the attack was very effective.
I can tell you that I don't know anything about it.
You're telling me about it for the first time.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
I believe him. Okay, I don't, but that's fine. I
don't think he'd ever heard of Signal before yesterday. I'd
be surprised we had. And then him saying on signal
and then saying about the hoofies. I think that was
a great way to handle it through the day when
they tried to go with and the attack was successful.
So what's the problem, which is not a bad spin
(02:28):
on the whole story.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Trump has subsequently done a quick interview with NBC News quote,
Michael Waltz has learned a lesson and he's a good man. Actually,
all of a sudden, I got tickled in my throat. Yeah,
I believe so, because it's believed that Waltz organized the
signal group that accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic,
(02:52):
which is a hell of a mistake to make.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
I have my final analysis.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
I have been able Supreme Court like to take in
all of the testimony and have come to a ruling.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
But I'll wait for that.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
Yeah, well, we'll let this unfold a little bit as
it did yesterday. She had Trump asked about it and
him saying he didn't know anything about it. And then
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseath, who was on the chat
on Signal, which is a encrypted private messaging app.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
There's a whole bunch of them out there, I guess
I'm finding out. I know of a couple of them.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
I didn't know of this one, and it's either used
by everybody in DC all the time, or it's a
horrifying idea to use it.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
We'll get to that.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
A couple opinions on that coming up also, But here
getting off playing tarmac sect death, ask about it.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
You're talking about.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
A deceitful and highly discredited so called journalists who's made
a profession of pedaling hoax his time and time again.
I'm post details shared on signal and how did you
learn that a journalist was privy to the targets, the
types of weapons used.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
I've heard of his character. Nobody was texting war plans.
And that's all I have to say about.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
That is that a lawyer lead denial. Because if you
accept texting is messaging, MMS messaging, they weren't.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
They were going through an encrypted message.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
Or define war plans. Maybe it's a lawyer le denial. Okay,
Because Brit Hume of Fox after so sectef hegzeth there
said that a couple of hours after the administration said, yeah,
that happened, the group text happened with the journalist and
(04:39):
all that sort of stuff actually happened. Britt Huma responded
to that on Twitter. Oh, for God's sake, the administration
has already confirmed the authenticity of the message about Pete
has saying it's a hack journalist, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Yeah, that's that's kind of weak.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
I mean, he just reported the truth, so and I
share his dim view of Jeffrey Goldberg.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
But in this case, well here's Goldberg responding to Hegzet's
comment on CNN. The Goldsberg's the actual Goldberg is the
actual journalist who was on the chat by accident.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Nobody was texting war plans, given you were privated this
group chat, is that how you saw it?
Speaker 7 (05:18):
No, that's a lie. He was texting war plans. He
was texting attack plans, when targets were going to be targeted,
how they were going to be targeted, who was at
the targets when the next sequence of attacks were happening.
I didn't publish this, and I continue not to publish
it because it felt like it was too confidential, too technical,
(05:42):
and I worry, honestly that sharing that kind of information
in public could endanger American military personnel. But no, they
were plans for the attack.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
Toy's credit, he didn't run to Twitter or a microphone
or whatever to start shouting about this the moment he
found out about it, or more.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Likely published them in The Atlantic.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Yeah, so one other part of it before what you're
calling it your ultimate point, Joe's ultimate point, Joe, Joe
nailed something.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Joe's final ruling.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
So the idea of having the Secretary Defense, the Secretary
of State, the Vice President of the United States, the
CIA director, the d N I, I mean, the most
powerful people in all of our government discussing war plans
for an attack on this method, using this method of
(06:40):
communication that is telegrammer what is it? I can't remember
which one we're talking about. On signal it's either okay
or horrible.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
So we'll start with Andrew McCabe, former FBI director who
liked he got preferred to the FISA court and violated
the Constitution. Yes, he had to step down. He got
convicted of something. I don't even understand how he's still
a but anyway, he's on CNN saying this.
Speaker 8 (07:08):
So, convening a small group to discuss a military strike
on a commercially available messaging app is outrageous.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
It's absolutely unthinkable.
Speaker 8 (07:18):
I can't even imagine a scenario in which that would
have happened, or that anyone who was asked to engage
in it would agree without very quickly objecting and saying, hey,
this is content that we can't possibly expose on a
non classified system.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
So I would say that as watching Mark Halprin's emergency
podcast last night, and I trust his opinion on these things.
He said, talking to people around DC, everybody just is
jaw dropped. They can't believe that this conversation was happening
on this app. I mean, they just can't believe it.
It's just, like he said, outrageous. On the other hand,
here you've got Lawrence Jones of Fox and Friends, who
(07:58):
has a lot of sources in the government, saying it
happens all the time.
Speaker 9 (08:02):
As it relates to government officials using signal, they all
use it. They're not supposed to, but they use it.
But if you secret stuff, they use it. CIA every
single intelligence agency uses signal. I know that for a fact.
I talk to them on signal. They're sources of mind.
They all use signal.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Uh.
Speaker 9 (08:22):
It is the best way and the most secure way
to get information out. And that's why a lot of
journals use it as well. They don't want it, they're
not supposed to do it, but they do it anyway.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So it's interesting I know, so outside of whatever even
happens with this little scandal, whether it's a big deal,
we got to nail down the hole. Are classified documents
actually classified?
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Can you take them home or not? Or do you
have to go into the skiff to read them? Or
can you read them.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
With your buddies, you know, sitting around watching football game,
or can you have conversations on these private apps or not.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Let's let's nail this down so well. Don't constantly have
these conversations.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
And you're leaving out a big one too.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Are the very people in government who most need to
preserve records ignoring the preservation of records laws.
Speaker 4 (09:12):
I'm glad you brought that up because that was one
of Mark Alpern's big point. He said, I doubt anybody
was transcribing this as it happened. And this one of
the reasons you're supposed to use the official government channels
is this is all supposed to be documented.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
These are for the archives, for historians, for you know,
for US citizens to see how their government works.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
And enforcement of law. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Absolutely, so you don't have rogue operators going outside the constitution. Yeah,
the whole thing's pretty troubling, just one quick note, because
I can't resist. Matt Tayebe has come as close as
any human being has ever done to actually having his
head explode over an issue. And that is because he is.
(09:53):
If you read Matt, you know this insane with wonder
and anger that the demamocratic side of America has embraced
and lionized all of the worst lying spooks in our
recent history. You're Andrew mccabes, you're John Brennan's. Who is
the other guy who's always on that list? I can
(10:15):
picture them, but I can't think of his name. All
of the CIA and NSA guys and crooked FBI agents
are now on CNN and MSNBC because they're anti Trump.
But they're the very sort of thing the Democratic Party
for everybody's whole lives has despised and called out. They're
the unholy Satanic love children of Jay Edgar Hoover and
(10:38):
Richard Nixon, these guys, and the left has embraced them. Anyway,
That's just the quickest side. My final judgment is this,
there are a lot of interesting questions to be asked
about who is using, for instance, signal and in what way,
and how right and how wrong it was. This has
shown some real sloppiness. How does Jeffrey Goldberg get in
(11:04):
on the group? Because I guess on signal you use
like aliases and initials, and Waltz's screen name was Waltz,
Rubio's was mar short for Marco, and so somebody just
scanned it real quick and saw I don't know what
Goldberg's handle was, but just didn't notice it, And so
I went ahead and was texting.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
And that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
Those not given access to the classified stuff can accidentally
or nefariously be on these these strings. It's sloppy, it's dumb.
Is it like fatal? These people should lose their jobs.
It's close.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Maybe I'm just naive about how things work, but I'm
surprised they don't all get together in a room with
very few exceptions, when you're two hours from launching an
attack on somebody, I would that rises to the level
of he let's take our Saturday or Sunday or whatever
day it was, and go ahead to go into the
(12:06):
office and sit there and discuss whether we're going to
launch the biggest military attack of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Yeah, let's go ahead and drive in from Arlington and Fairfax.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
And if there's some that's and if there's somebody on
the other side of the world, you get one of
those super secret, top level, you know, video connections, and
they talk to them there in the war room as
they discuss it. The fact that they're all just going
about their day, like I don't know what they were doing.
I'm at the grocery store and I'm at my kid's
soccer match or whatever, and we jump on this thing
and have a conversation. It seemed a little loosey goosey
(12:37):
to me, But maybe I'm naive. Maybe this happens all
the time.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Yeah, yeah, Well, one thing we haven't gotten to is
what the conversations have revealed about the balance of power
and philosophies foreign policy wise within the administration, which I
found really really interesting. I got the trans and encouraging. Honestly,
I think it's all, you know, good news. Some of
the folks opinions are you know, a little troubling to me,
(13:02):
but seems like a very healthy team of rivals type discussion.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
Well, we only have this transcript because they accidentally invited
a journalist. Otherwise it would have been lost to history.
They wouldn't have would have never existed, and that interesting.
I don't know what's your opinion on this text line
four one five two nine f KFTC.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Shortan ASH will send allow customers to pay for food
deliveries in several installments.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Great news if you've ever dreamed of one day owning
a Big Mac.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Wait a minute, I have had that happen yet before.
Break up the payments on a meal. Yeah, I've had
that happen before.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
So like, I get some stuff for the kids, you know,
we order from Panda Express regularly, and then it says
would you.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Like to break up into payments? And I always think
that's hilarious. You know it's forty two dollars? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Can I get it over sixty months? What's the interest rate?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
It's not the worst idea I've ever but it's in
the top three. Oh boy, do not get upside down
on Big Max. Oh you'd be upside down immediately because
you're gonna beat the well. Yeah, and if you don't,
the resale is well, it's not good.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
I got a used big Back barely.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
You know how when you drive a car off a
lot you lose one third of its value.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
It's much worse for Hamburgers. Trust me. Okay.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
So we were talking last hour about they're having trouble
with AI write and resumes, and so it's not like
the old days where you could say, oh my god,
look at the spelling on this resume or whatever. This
person can't work here, AI's writing for you grammar and
blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
Had this actually happened yesterday.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
I'm trying to I won't get distracted with what I
was trying to get this person to do. But I
was trying to basically hire someone to do something, and
was communicating with them through.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
A chat place where they post accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg
of The Atlantic. Yes.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
Uh so it was like a bolton board thing, and
his bulletin board post was really well written and it
sounded great. So I reached out to him and then
like the first thing was really good and I thought, Okay,
this person's going to be good.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I think this is somebody I can trust.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
But then when I got into questions like how about this,
or like individual questions, his answers like the grammar fell apart.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Completely, Like I mean it was like, are you I
thought you can't be a native English speaker. I mean
it was just it was almost nonsensical, and it happened
so fast after the initial posting, and then like the
initial thing they said, which was kind of generic, it
all completely fell apart, and I was wondering. I thought,
what the heck went on there? I couldn't figure it
(15:41):
out till today when you mentioned the AI resumes that's
almost guaranteed what it is. He's got the initial post,
he runs through that. Or I suppose he could have
his girlfriend write a for him or something like that.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
But anyway, somebody else wrote it, and then the first
generic response and then when he got into the question
and answer, it made no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
What's your gut feeling. Is it just somebody covering up
their inadequacies or a foreign scammer or what are you saying?
Speaker 2 (16:06):
I don't think it was a foreign scammer.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
I think I think it was a non native English
speaker trying to hide that that not that that automatically
makes you unhiable or something like that. But I couldn't
communicate with them and it was sketchy, so I moved on.
But yeah, but that's going to be hard to suss
out in the future. Oh yeah, and I'm surprised he
(16:28):
didn't like keep up the ruse by running that stuff
through AI.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
I don't know how it all.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
It would have been pretty hard because it was weird
down to the just back and forth communication texting at
that point. Yeah, but yeah, I'm sure if you're really
good with the technology, you could have AI doing that
in real time and then you'll you know, you'll meet
the person mowing your lawn or fixing your roof or
whatever the heck you're doing, you know, fishing guide whatever
you do with completely illiterate right.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Yeah, So the big story today is the Trump national
security team accidentally including a journalist on their super private
string of how we're going to attack the hu Thies
and when and whether the actual conversation in the differing
opinions and philosophies within the Trump team super interesting.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
We'll take a look at that in the moment.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
So there just coincidentally with this mini scandal or Maxi scandal,
depending on how it turns out. Going on around intelligence,
the big Senate hearing today where all the intelligence heads
come in and talk about the biggest threats around the world.
I love this every year and we always end up
talking about it because lots of interesting stuff comes out
(17:38):
of but because he had this kind of scandal thing happen,
which is about if you don't know what we're talking about,
it's about to be laid up by Mark Warner, Democrat,
co chair of this committee. Democrats have something to talk
about for the first time practically in the second Trump administration,
and they're so excited about it.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
But here it goes.
Speaker 10 (17:55):
And according to reports, two of our witnesses here today were.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Members of a group chat.
Speaker 10 (18:04):
To discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly
even included weapons packages, targets, and timing, and included the
name of an active CIA agent. There's plenty of declassified
information the shows that our adversaries China and Russia are
(18:27):
trying to break in two encrypted systems like signal.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
I can just say this, if this.
Speaker 10 (18:35):
Was the case of a military officer, oh boy, or
an intelligence officer and they had this kind of behavior, they.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Would be spared. Perfect.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
That is perfect for what I'm about to talk about here.
Mark Warner walked into that. Here he downed two double
espressos and took a viagra. He was so excited about
getting in there and laying it to the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
But somebody pointed this out on and it's absolutely true.
You just gotta love the rich. Only in Washington, irony
of one Republicans who tormented Hillary Clinton for her private
e mail service scandal, now trying to downplay what could
be some sort of breach a sense of info, while
at the same time Democrats pouncing on this controversy after
defending Clinton's email bruhaha for years. The Ours will argue
(19:21):
these episodes are not equal. The Dems will argue these
are not equal, and that's where we are. But him
bringing up any regulars, I have heard this before. Any
regular man in uniform would have been court martialed for
this exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
The same thing we said on the other side, right right, exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
I had just seen that Hillary herself was commenting, Hillary,
do you even know what irony is?
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Can you please set this one out, just this one,
wipe it like with a cloth.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Oh my, it's all too much, it is so Look,
this is not a good deal.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
It's not a good look.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
It's certainly not a security protocol to include Jeffrey freaking
Goldberg in this stuff. I suspect the course will be
corrected and this will not happen again. But we've talked
about that a fair amount, and there's more to develop,
I suppose in the days to come, and we will
cover it for you. But I found this just irresistibly interesting,
(20:21):
the actual conversations and the polls of power and philosophy,
if you will, within the Trump national security team, and
it strikes me as a very team of rivals thing.
And I'll describe some of the specifics before I babble
on more about what I think about it.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
But I, by the way, I've had a complete change
of heart on this whole topic.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Really, Yes, you're holding out on us or are you
gonna hit us with that.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
I've brushed up against in the last couple of weeks,
but I'm now It's one of the few major issues
I've changed my mind on in adulthood, but this is
one of them.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Okay, fine, So anyway, the news, according to the comment
here in the Wall Street Journal editorial board, was that
the characters played to their public type, their public image,
and I would agree. National Security Advisor Mike Walls came
out for US leadership said, no, we've this is our
(21:17):
role in the world. It's important that we do it,
that we keep shipping free, for instance. And he was
also very forceful in saying, look, this is the president's policy,
that's his policy.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
Vice President JD.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Vance was a voice for US retreat and or extreme caution.
And we'll get more to why he thought that in
a second, it's not crazy. Even though Trump had said no,
we want to hit him. Vance was like, Hey, I
think we're making a mistake here. Stephen Miller, who's a
(21:51):
screen name, was sm said, as I heard it, the
president was clear green light, paraphrasing, now, why should Tehran's
proxy get away with shooting at navy ships, US Navy
ships and aircraft and blocking critical waterways for everybody but
around Russia and China the way they did under Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Stephen Miller was not having that.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Michael Waltz in the Key exchange on March fourteen, which
was the day before the strikes on Yemen, wrote quote, team,
you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per
the president's guidance, but not all preferred to take to guidance,
said jd Well, a user who went by the screen
name jd Vance, who that is historians will have to
(22:35):
parse out anyway, This mysterious JD. Van's character says, I
think we're making a mistake. Three percent of US trade
runs through the Suez, while forty percent of European trade does.
I am not sure the President is aware how inconsistent
this is with his message on Europe. Right now, there's
a further risk that we see a moderate to severe
(22:57):
spike in oil prices. There is a strong argument for
delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why
this matters and seeing where the economy is, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
And that's just an interesting insight into his philosophy. And
I mean that's gonna matter when he runs for president.
I don't like his point of view. I think he's wrong,
but he's he's pretty hard core that direction, it would seem,
and he will be heard from again in a moment.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Ah, let's see this council of delay waiting for economic
news that may never come. Was echoed by Joe Kent,
whose name you might not know, but he's a noted
isolationist to pull backerr, whatever you want to call it,
whom Director of National Intelligence Tulsey Gabbard has named in
the chat as her point of contact. So he's her
(23:44):
point man, and he's a bit of an isolationist. In reply,
Pete Hegzeth pointed out the risks of waiting and stressed
Iran's role, and then made the case for the operation
quote I see it as two things. One restoring freedom
of navigation, which is a core national interest, in two
re established to terrence which Biden cratered. Trump later made
(24:05):
similar points in public, reflecting their being on the same page.
I think, well, I'll say my analysis for a second.
This reflects well on mister heg Seth, writes the editorial
board of the journal, though it's notable that he named
Don Caldwell as his point of contact, and Caldwell comes
from the isolationist Coke network, as in the Koch Brothers,
(24:27):
which Trump has been highly critical of, which is again
team of rivalsy Waltz explained the damage to global trade
in the limits of Europe's navies quote, whether it's now
or several weeks from now, it will have to be
the United States that reopens these shipping lanes.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
He wrote, Yeah, I thought an interesting point. You might
think Europe should do it. They can't. They don't have
the ability.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
And then vance showing his reasonableness in the face of
disagreement to me, and I disagree strongly with JD on
several things, but he said he finally conceded to reality. Quote,
I just hate bailing Europe again. Hexeth agreed. I fully
share your loathing of European free loading. It's pathetic. That's
(25:08):
probably not the sort of thing you want to leak.
But but Mike, meaning Mike Waltz, is correct about how
we have to do that. Mister Trump now now knows
which of his deputies tried to block it and which
tried to carry it out.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I don't like that last bit of an house No,
that's not That's not what you want at all. No,
I the last thing you want is group think.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
And I you know, I see it as as as
poles as like magnetic poles in the group. You know,
not to flog the team of rivals thing too much.
But I mean, if you're in an organization, maybe you're
doing software or something like that, and you have a
brain trust of people, and one of your people is
always harping about innovation. How if we stay still, we're
(25:56):
going to get left behind. The business we're in is innovating.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
What's next?
Speaker 1 (26:00):
We've got to improve this. And then you have people saying, look,
this is the most popular ex software in the world.
We can't mess with it until we're one hundred percent.
We're ready, our customers are satisfied. You're right, but caution.
You don't want to cut out innovation guy just because
for now you're leaving Salesforce or Microsoft Order or whatever
(26:23):
the hell as it is.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
For now. You don't want to silence that voice.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
You don't want to silence Jdvance saying look, we've got
to keep putting the screws to the Euros or they
will stay lazy and we will pay for and earlier
said that at the least we ought to get some
money out of them for doing this, reopening their freaking
shipping lanes. I love jd Vance's voice in that discussion,
(26:50):
and I think they did the right thing in spite
of it.
Speaker 4 (26:53):
So I'm this is an innocent question, not trying to
push anything any direction. How does the chain of come
in work on this whole thing. So it sounded like
Trump had already signed off on the idea of we
need to attack the hoothies then, so like could have
it got stemied in this conversation and like was so,
(27:15):
then did somebody report back to him We're not doing.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
It or how does that even work? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Absolutely, I think uh probably hexeth end or Waltz would
have gone back to the President and said, uh, hey,
we've got some serious concerns about A and B. And
then of course the commander in chief would say, Yeah,
that's that's nice, that's that's sweet.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Do it anywhere, bominam, do it anyway, and it would
have happened.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
It sounded like Waltz was just wanting another hearing with
the president, but he was talked out of it.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Okay, we go ahead on just that topic.
Speaker 4 (27:46):
I think I've become convinced that because I've been I've
been yelling about this for years.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
It goes way back to college, Gladys, goes way back
to college, well after.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
I had my permanent parachute pants before I graduated for
the baldness. Yes, constantly hearing from college professors about how
much greater it was in Europe, how many weeks of
vacation they get and they only have to work this
many hours a week, and how wonderful it is without
pointing out to me a stupid college kid who didn't
know any better. That's because we provide their national defense.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
So of course they.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Got plenty of money while it lasts and it's about
to run out. It's all running run out.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
In France, for instance, or Greece, we provide the national offense,
so of course they don't have to be as productive.
They can, you know, take nine months of vacation or
retire at fifty or whatever the hell they do in
all these guds. None of the college professors pointed that
out of course. Well, and it's as if Europe itself
is a retiree. They have more time to do fun stuff.
(28:49):
They spend more time on the golf course than I
do because I'm still working. But they are heading toward
you know, decline and perhaps the tomb because we spend
they're no longer young and dynamic and growing and achieving,
and right they're just in that phase of their life.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
I don't want the US to be in that phase
of life.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
We spend eight hundred million dollars a year on defense,
I think it's roughly that number, and that's so we can,
you know, do what we want to do around the world,
and that protects Europe. And then then they don't have
to hardly spend any money all until recently.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Well at risk of flogging the metaphor to death, Europe
is on social security and we pay we're current workers.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
But my butt is I felt that way for decades.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
Now I've become convinced listening to a variety of different
podcasts and thinkers and that sort of stuff, that is,
we're much better off with the world that way.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
I have been living with this idea.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
You know, France, Germany, England, all these countries, they basically
line up with us, and they'll continue to line up
with us when we're not providing. That is probably not
going to be the case when they actually are independent
enough to provide their own security or work together in security.
Next time we need to do anything or want things
to be a certain way, they're gonna say, yeah, good
(30:03):
for you, do it yourself or whatever. But for the
past many decades we really need to do anything, they're
on board because they kind of have to be, because
we provide all the security. And I think we're gonna
miss those days when a nine to eleven comes along
and immediately all those countries are on board.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
In the future, when they're more independent, they'll be like, Yeah,
what's in it for me? That sounds like a you problem?
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Yeah, yeah, I see your point.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
I just I think is the sands of history shift,
new realities take hold and there's.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
No use postion for the old stuff. Not that you are.
Speaker 4 (30:39):
It's possible that we just flat can't afford it anymore.
So it's not an option, it's a it's not a discussion,
it's not a policy choice.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
It's just we can't afford it anymore.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Right, but I bungle a merkle crawling into Vladimir Putin's
lap for a cuddle in some natural gas, right, was
a sign of the way it could go.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Yeah, for who knows, for a lot of those countries.
Speaker 4 (31:00):
France was getting around the uh, the sanctions on a
rack the whole time. We were trying to pressure them
everything like that. So and that's when they needed us.
Wait till they don't need us.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
How are they gonna act?
Speaker 4 (31:12):
They're gonna cozy up to China in kind of ways
we really really don't like.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Well, with baseball season about to start, which has to
be very excited. We're a team that had an eleven
game winning streak. Now it's back to reality. We've lost
a couple and we're going to play the Yankees.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
It's that's history. We got a lot more on the
way difference. Yes, we do, by gully.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
Is this a big scandal or not? That that's what
I wonder. I guess we'll see how it unfolds throughout
the day.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Stay here, strong, Hetty.
Speaker 11 (31:44):
The business news I've read the twenty three and me
just filed for bankruptcy. The companies said they were fifty
percent sad, thirty seven percent disappointed, and thirteen percent Scottish. Yes,
the worst news to hit the DNA test business since
Maury was canceled.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
So the obvious question, twenty three meter goes bankrupt? Where
is my spit? Who has control of all of our spit?
I demand my saliva back with interest? Wait a minute,
Oh so, speaking of science, here is the headline. How
do I put this? The headline most likely to make
you cringe today? Would you let a robot draw your blood? Oh?
(32:30):
Northwestern among health systems trying new device. No way that,
no possible way a robot can ever do that? Well,
not possible. My response is six simple words, get that
thing away from me. Can you imagine.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
I actually don't think AI could be capable of doing that.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Several health systems are gearing up to try a new
way of drawing blood using a robot.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Oh my god, who are they going to practice on?
Who's volunteering for that?
Speaker 1 (33:05):
I tell you what you are, brave, says this chief
chief commercial officer for the company making it. It starts
wheeling towards you. You get that need a little high,
don't judge my head?
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Well, what are you doing? All stale? Human?
Speaker 1 (33:19):
All stale, says the guy who works for the company,
And probably it's also remains unjabbed. This all ensures high
accuracy and high reliability, and with such precision, it reduces
any paint and discomfort associating with a normal blood.
Speaker 4 (33:33):
Try a chance, that's true, not a come on now true?
Speaker 1 (33:38):
The patient, I don't even want to describe the process.
I'll get light headed. So you sit in the chair.
That's the regular part. The patient then presses a button.
The tourniquet tightens around your arm, making the blood dry
easily easier. Then Aletta this is the name of this beast,
then uses infrared light to locate the veins. The device
(33:58):
s praised the patient's alcohol arm with alcohol to clean it,
and an AI driven Doppler ultrasound probe on a robotic
arm helps selective ain and determine needle placement, and then
it does it's dirty deed and collects the blood into twoe.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
I can less malfunction. I just don't believe that's possible.
Here's Michael. We could rename your what was it Pong?
Speaker 4 (34:21):
He was the guy, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, your favorite
flebottomistic yeah, who unfortunately quit to drive a truck because
there's more money in it.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
But he was the best drawn blood. Uh.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
He absolutely made it painless. I just can't imagine that
a machine would ever be able to do that.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
I was hoping to.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Squeeze this in, but it might have to wait until
a little bit later on. Can you imagine if the
thing went all right? Hey, look, look about one times
out of ten we got to recalibrate it, and yeah,
you'll be fine.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Uld your arm in the air. The bleeding of stuffs,
nothing counts so much as blood.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over my screaming. All right,
a couple of disappointing stories. First of all, do you
have kids in those high fellutin traveling sports? Leagues, and
you ever get the sense you're being ripped off, that's
a good reason for that, because you are. And second secondly,
and discouragingly but not shockingly, science believes we have passed
(35:15):
peak intelligence as human beings and are as a race
getting dumber.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
I know, I am.
Speaker 4 (35:20):
If you missed the segment, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Arm Strong and Getty and he Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 3 (00:23):
The stunning breach in national security involving the ongoing highly
classified US attacks targeting Hoothy rebels in Yemen. The details
reportedly discussed openly over a group chat on the unauthorized
signal app among members of President Trump's national security team.
The Atlantic, now revealing its editor in chief, who was
invited to join the group chat, says he was included
(00:45):
on all the sensitive information hours before the military strikes began.
President Trump pressed about the report, saying he didn't know
anything about it.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
Okay, so we'll play the Trump part here in just
a second. The timing of all this, nobody knows when
Trump was alerted to this.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
You'd have to assume somebody told him.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
He acts like he didn't know here when he's asked
about it by a reporter, But it was fink four
or five hours later, so he certainly somebody should have
hipped him to it. Well, let's let a reporter ask
the question and Trump respond, Mister President.
Speaker 5 (01:19):
You reacted to the story of the Atlantic that said
that some of your top account officials and aids had
been discussing very sense of material from Signal and included
an Atlantic reporter for that.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
What is your response to that?
Speaker 6 (01:31):
In our opinions, I don't know anything about it.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic.
Speaker 6 (01:35):
It's to me it's a magazine that's going out of business.
I think it's not much of a magazine. But I
know nothing about it. You're saying that they had what.
Speaker 5 (01:42):
They were using signal to pour date on sets of
materials and.
Speaker 6 (01:47):
Having to do with what, how did you do with what?
Speaker 2 (01:50):
What were they talking about with the hookies? The who dies?
Speaker 6 (01:53):
You mean the attack or the hood is Well, it
couldn't have been very effective, because the attack was very effective.
I can tell you that I don't know anything about it.
You're telling me about it for the first time.
Speaker 4 (02:06):
I believe him. Okay, I don't, but that's fine. I
don't think he'd ever heard of Signal before yesterday. I'd
be surprised we had. And then him saying on signal
and then saying about the hoofies. I think that was
a great way to handle it through the day when
they tried to go with and the attack was successful.
So what's the problem, which is not a bad spin
(02:28):
on the whole story.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Trump has subsequently done a quick interview with NBC News quote,
Michael Waltz has learned a lesson and he's a good man. Actually,
all of a sudden, I got tickled in my throat. Yeah,
I believe so, because it's believed that Waltz organized the
signal group that accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic,
(02:52):
which is a hell of a mistake to make.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
I have my final analysis.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
I have been able Supreme Court like to take in
all of the testimony and have come to a ruling.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
But I'll wait for that.
Speaker 4 (03:02):
Yeah, well, we'll let this unfold a little bit as
it did yesterday. She had Trump asked about it and
him saying he didn't know anything about it. And then
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseath, who was on the chat
on Signal, which is a encrypted private messaging app.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
There's a whole bunch of them out there, I guess
I'm finding out. I know of a couple of them.
Speaker 4 (03:24):
I didn't know of this one, and it's either used
by everybody in DC all the time, or it's a
horrifying idea to use it.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
We'll get to that.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
A couple opinions on that coming up also, But here
getting off playing tarmac sect death, ask about it.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
You're talking about.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
A deceitful and highly discredited so called journalists who's made
a profession of pedaling hoax his time and time again.
I'm post details shared on signal and how did you
learn that a journalist was privy to the targets, the
types of weapons used.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
I've heard of his character. Nobody was texting war plans.
And that's all I have to say about.
Speaker 1 (04:05):
That is that a lawyer lead denial. Because if you
accept texting is messaging, MMS messaging, they weren't.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
They were going through an encrypted message.
Speaker 4 (04:18):
Or define war plans. Maybe it's a lawyer le denial. Okay,
Because Brit Hume of Fox after so sectef hegzeth there
said that a couple of hours after the administration said, yeah,
that happened, the group text happened with the journalist and
(04:39):
all that sort of stuff actually happened. Britt Huma responded
to that on Twitter. Oh, for God's sake, the administration
has already confirmed the authenticity of the message about Pete
has saying it's a hack journalist, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (04:53):
Yeah, that's that's kind of weak.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
I mean, he just reported the truth, so and I
share his dim view of Jeffrey Goldberg.
Speaker 4 (05:01):
But in this case, well here's Goldberg responding to Hegzet's
comment on CNN. The Goldsberg's the actual Goldberg is the
actual journalist who was on the chat by accident.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
Nobody was texting war plans, given you were privated this
group chat, is that how you saw it?
Speaker 7 (05:18):
No, that's a lie. He was texting war plans. He
was texting attack plans, when targets were going to be targeted,
how they were going to be targeted, who was at
the targets when the next sequence of attacks were happening.
I didn't publish this, and I continue not to publish
it because it felt like it was too confidential, too technical,
(05:42):
and I worry, honestly that sharing that kind of information
in public could endanger American military personnel. But no, they
were plans for the attack.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
Toy's credit, he didn't run to Twitter or a microphone
or whatever to start shouting about this the moment he
found out about it, or more.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
Likely published them in The Atlantic.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
Yeah, so one other part of it before what you're
calling it your ultimate point, Joe's ultimate point, Joe, Joe
nailed something.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Joe's final ruling.
Speaker 4 (06:16):
So the idea of having the Secretary Defense, the Secretary
of State, the Vice President of the United States, the
CIA director, the d N I, I mean, the most
powerful people in all of our government discussing war plans
for an attack on this method, using this method of
(06:40):
communication that is telegrammer what is it? I can't remember
which one we're talking about. On signal it's either okay
or horrible.
Speaker 1 (06:50):
So we'll start with Andrew McCabe, former FBI director who
liked he got preferred to the FISA court and violated
the Constitution. Yes, he had to step down. He got
convicted of something. I don't even understand how he's still
a but anyway, he's on CNN saying this.
Speaker 8 (07:08):
So, convening a small group to discuss a military strike
on a commercially available messaging app is outrageous.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
It's absolutely unthinkable.
Speaker 8 (07:18):
I can't even imagine a scenario in which that would
have happened, or that anyone who was asked to engage
in it would agree without very quickly objecting and saying, hey,
this is content that we can't possibly expose on a
non classified system.
Speaker 4 (07:35):
So I would say that as watching Mark Halprin's emergency
podcast last night, and I trust his opinion on these things.
He said, talking to people around DC, everybody just is
jaw dropped. They can't believe that this conversation was happening
on this app. I mean, they just can't believe it.
It's just, like he said, outrageous. On the other hand,
here you've got Lawrence Jones of Fox and Friends, who
(07:58):
has a lot of sources in the government, saying it
happens all the time.
Speaker 9 (08:02):
As it relates to government officials using signal, they all
use it. They're not supposed to, but they use it.
But if you secret stuff, they use it. CIA every
single intelligence agency uses signal. I know that for a fact.
I talk to them on signal. They're sources of mind.
They all use signal.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Uh.
Speaker 9 (08:22):
It is the best way and the most secure way
to get information out. And that's why a lot of
journals use it as well. They don't want it, they're
not supposed to do it, but they do it anyway.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So it's interesting I know, so outside of whatever even
happens with this little scandal, whether it's a big deal,
we got to nail down the hole. Are classified documents
actually classified?
Speaker 1 (08:47):
Can you take them home or not? Or do you
have to go into the skiff to read them? Or
can you read them.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
With your buddies, you know, sitting around watching football game,
or can you have conversations on these private apps or not.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
Let's let's nail this down so well. Don't constantly have
these conversations.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
And you're leaving out a big one too.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Are the very people in government who most need to
preserve records ignoring the preservation of records laws.
Speaker 4 (09:12):
I'm glad you brought that up because that was one
of Mark Alpern's big point. He said, I doubt anybody
was transcribing this as it happened. And this one of
the reasons you're supposed to use the official government channels
is this is all supposed to be documented.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
These are for the archives, for historians, for you know,
for US citizens to see how their government works.
Speaker 2 (09:30):
And enforcement of law. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (09:32):
Absolutely, so you don't have rogue operators going outside the constitution. Yeah,
the whole thing's pretty troubling, just one quick note, because
I can't resist. Matt Tayebe has come as close as
any human being has ever done to actually having his
head explode over an issue. And that is because he is.
(09:53):
If you read Matt, you know this insane with wonder
and anger that the demamocratic side of America has embraced
and lionized all of the worst lying spooks in our
recent history. You're Andrew mccabes, you're John Brennan's. Who is
the other guy who's always on that list? I can
(10:15):
picture them, but I can't think of his name. All
of the CIA and NSA guys and crooked FBI agents
are now on CNN and MSNBC because they're anti Trump.
But they're the very sort of thing the Democratic Party
for everybody's whole lives has despised and called out. They're
the unholy Satanic love children of Jay Edgar Hoover and
(10:38):
Richard Nixon, these guys, and the left has embraced them. Anyway,
That's just the quickest side. My final judgment is this,
there are a lot of interesting questions to be asked
about who is using, for instance, signal and in what way,
and how right and how wrong it was. This has
shown some real sloppiness. How does Jeffrey Goldberg get in
(11:04):
on the group? Because I guess on signal you use
like aliases and initials, and Waltz's screen name was Waltz,
Rubio's was mar short for Marco, and so somebody just
scanned it real quick and saw I don't know what
Goldberg's handle was, but just didn't notice it, And so
I went ahead and was texting.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
And that's the problem.
Speaker 1 (11:28):
Those not given access to the classified stuff can accidentally
or nefariously be on these these strings. It's sloppy, it's dumb.
Is it like fatal? These people should lose their jobs.
It's close.
Speaker 4 (11:46):
Maybe I'm just naive about how things work, but I'm
surprised they don't all get together in a room with
very few exceptions, when you're two hours from launching an
attack on somebody, I would that rises to the level
of he let's take our Saturday or Sunday or whatever
day it was, and go ahead to go into the
(12:06):
office and sit there and discuss whether we're going to
launch the biggest military attack of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Yeah, let's go ahead and drive in from Arlington and Fairfax.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
And if there's some that's and if there's somebody on
the other side of the world, you get one of
those super secret, top level, you know, video connections, and
they talk to them there in the war room as
they discuss it. The fact that they're all just going
about their day, like I don't know what they were doing.
I'm at the grocery store and I'm at my kid's
soccer match or whatever, and we jump on this thing
and have a conversation. It seemed a little loosey goosey
(12:37):
to me, But maybe I'm naive. Maybe this happens all
the time.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Yeah, yeah, Well, one thing we haven't gotten to is
what the conversations have revealed about the balance of power
and philosophies foreign policy wise within the administration, which I
found really really interesting. I got the trans and encouraging. Honestly,
I think it's all, you know, good news. Some of
the folks opinions are you know, a little troubling to me,
(13:02):
but seems like a very healthy team of rivals type discussion.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
Well, we only have this transcript because they accidentally invited
a journalist. Otherwise it would have been lost to history.
They wouldn't have would have never existed, and that interesting.
I don't know what's your opinion on this text line
four one five two nine f KFTC.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Shortan ASH will send allow customers to pay for food
deliveries in several installments.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Great news if you've ever dreamed of one day owning
a Big Mac.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Wait a minute, I have had that happen yet before.
Break up the payments on a meal. Yeah, I've had
that happen before.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
So like, I get some stuff for the kids, you know,
we order from Panda Express regularly, and then it says
would you.
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Like to break up into payments? And I always think
that's hilarious. You know it's forty two dollars? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Can I get it over sixty months? What's the interest rate?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
It's not the worst idea I've ever but it's in
the top three. Oh boy, do not get upside down
on Big Max. Oh you'd be upside down immediately because
you're gonna beat the well. Yeah, and if you don't,
the resale is well, it's not good.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
I got a used big Back barely.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
You know how when you drive a car off a
lot you lose one third of its value.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
It's much worse for Hamburgers. Trust me. Okay.
Speaker 4 (14:24):
So we were talking last hour about they're having trouble
with AI write and resumes, and so it's not like
the old days where you could say, oh my god,
look at the spelling on this resume or whatever. This
person can't work here, AI's writing for you grammar and
blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
Had this actually happened yesterday.
Speaker 4 (14:40):
I'm trying to I won't get distracted with what I
was trying to get this person to do. But I
was trying to basically hire someone to do something, and
was communicating with them through.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
A chat place where they post accidentally included Jeffrey Goldberg
of The Atlantic. Yes.
Speaker 4 (15:00):
Uh so it was like a bolton board thing, and
his bulletin board post was really well written and it
sounded great. So I reached out to him and then
like the first thing was really good and I thought, Okay,
this person's going to be good.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I think this is somebody I can trust.
Speaker 4 (15:13):
But then when I got into questions like how about this,
or like individual questions, his answers like the grammar fell apart.
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Completely, Like I mean it was like, are you I
thought you can't be a native English speaker. I mean
it was just it was almost nonsensical, and it happened
so fast after the initial posting, and then like the
initial thing they said, which was kind of generic, it
all completely fell apart, and I was wondering. I thought,
what the heck went on there? I couldn't figure it
(15:41):
out till today when you mentioned the AI resumes that's
almost guaranteed what it is. He's got the initial post,
he runs through that. Or I suppose he could have
his girlfriend write a for him or something like that.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
But anyway, somebody else wrote it, and then the first
generic response and then when he got into the question
and answer, it made no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
What's your gut feeling. Is it just somebody covering up
their inadequacies or a foreign scammer or what are you saying?
Speaker 2 (16:06):
I don't think it was a foreign scammer.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
I think I think it was a non native English
speaker trying to hide that that not that that automatically
makes you unhiable or something like that. But I couldn't
communicate with them and it was sketchy, so I moved on.
But yeah, but that's going to be hard to suss
out in the future. Oh yeah, and I'm surprised he
(16:28):
didn't like keep up the ruse by running that stuff
through AI.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
I don't know how it all.
Speaker 4 (16:33):
It would have been pretty hard because it was weird
down to the just back and forth communication texting at
that point. Yeah, but yeah, I'm sure if you're really
good with the technology, you could have AI doing that
in real time and then you'll you know, you'll meet
the person mowing your lawn or fixing your roof or
whatever the heck you're doing, you know, fishing guide whatever
you do with completely illiterate right.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Yeah, So the big story today is the Trump national
security team accidentally including a journalist on their super private
string of how we're going to attack the hu Thies
and when and whether the actual conversation in the differing
opinions and philosophies within the Trump team super interesting.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
We'll take a look at that in the moment.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
So there just coincidentally with this mini scandal or Maxi scandal,
depending on how it turns out. Going on around intelligence,
the big Senate hearing today where all the intelligence heads
come in and talk about the biggest threats around the world.
I love this every year and we always end up
talking about it because lots of interesting stuff comes out
(17:38):
of but because he had this kind of scandal thing happen,
which is about if you don't know what we're talking about,
it's about to be laid up by Mark Warner, Democrat,
co chair of this committee. Democrats have something to talk
about for the first time practically in the second Trump administration,
and they're so excited about it.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
But here it goes.
Speaker 10 (17:55):
And according to reports, two of our witnesses here today were.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
Members of a group chat.
Speaker 10 (18:04):
To discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly
even included weapons packages, targets, and timing, and included the
name of an active CIA agent. There's plenty of declassified
information the shows that our adversaries China and Russia are
(18:27):
trying to break in two encrypted systems like signal.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
I can just say this, if this.
Speaker 10 (18:35):
Was the case of a military officer, oh boy, or
an intelligence officer and they had this kind of behavior, they.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Would be spared. Perfect.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
That is perfect for what I'm about to talk about here.
Mark Warner walked into that. Here he downed two double
espressos and took a viagra. He was so excited about
getting in there and laying it to the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (18:58):
But somebody pointed this out on and it's absolutely true.
You just gotta love the rich. Only in Washington, irony
of one Republicans who tormented Hillary Clinton for her private
e mail service scandal, now trying to downplay what could
be some sort of breach a sense of info, while
at the same time Democrats pouncing on this controversy after
defending Clinton's email bruhaha for years. The Ours will argue
(19:21):
these episodes are not equal. The Dems will argue these
are not equal, and that's where we are. But him
bringing up any regulars, I have heard this before. Any
regular man in uniform would have been court martialed for
this exactly.
Speaker 2 (19:32):
The same thing we said on the other side, right right, exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
I had just seen that Hillary herself was commenting, Hillary,
do you even know what irony is?
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Can you please set this one out, just this one,
wipe it like with a cloth.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Oh my, it's all too much, it is so Look,
this is not a good deal.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
It's not a good look.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
It's certainly not a security protocol to include Jeffrey freaking
Goldberg in this stuff. I suspect the course will be
corrected and this will not happen again. But we've talked
about that a fair amount, and there's more to develop,
I suppose in the days to come, and we will
cover it for you. But I found this just irresistibly interesting,
(20:21):
the actual conversations and the polls of power and philosophy,
if you will, within the Trump national security team, and
it strikes me as a very team of rivals thing.
And I'll describe some of the specifics before I babble
on more about what I think about it.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
But I, by the way, I've had a complete change
of heart on this whole topic.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Really, Yes, you're holding out on us or are you
gonna hit us with that.
Speaker 4 (20:47):
I've brushed up against in the last couple of weeks,
but I'm now It's one of the few major issues
I've changed my mind on in adulthood, but this is
one of them.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
Okay, fine, So anyway, the news, according to the comment
here in the Wall Street Journal editorial board, was that
the characters played to their public type, their public image,
and I would agree. National Security Advisor Mike Walls came
out for US leadership said, no, we've this is our
(21:17):
role in the world. It's important that we do it,
that we keep shipping free, for instance. And he was
also very forceful in saying, look, this is the president's policy,
that's his policy.
Speaker 2 (21:28):
Vice President JD.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
Vance was a voice for US retreat and or extreme caution.
And we'll get more to why he thought that in
a second, it's not crazy. Even though Trump had said no,
we want to hit him. Vance was like, Hey, I
think we're making a mistake here. Stephen Miller, who's a
(21:51):
screen name, was sm said, as I heard it, the
president was clear green light, paraphrasing, now, why should Tehran's
proxy get away with shooting at navy ships, US Navy
ships and aircraft and blocking critical waterways for everybody but
around Russia and China the way they did under Joe Biden.
Speaker 2 (22:10):
Stephen Miller was not having that.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Michael Waltz in the Key exchange on March fourteen, which
was the day before the strikes on Yemen, wrote quote, team,
you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per
the president's guidance, but not all preferred to take to guidance,
said jd Well, a user who went by the screen
name jd Vance, who that is historians will have to
(22:35):
parse out anyway, This mysterious JD. Van's character says, I
think we're making a mistake. Three percent of US trade
runs through the Suez, while forty percent of European trade does.
I am not sure the President is aware how inconsistent
this is with his message on Europe. Right now, there's
a further risk that we see a moderate to severe
(22:57):
spike in oil prices. There is a strong argument for
delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why
this matters and seeing where the economy is, et cetera.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
And that's just an interesting insight into his philosophy. And
I mean that's gonna matter when he runs for president.
I don't like his point of view. I think he's wrong,
but he's he's pretty hard core that direction, it would seem,
and he will be heard from again in a moment.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Ah, let's see this council of delay waiting for economic
news that may never come. Was echoed by Joe Kent,
whose name you might not know, but he's a noted
isolationist to pull backerr, whatever you want to call it,
whom Director of National Intelligence Tulsey Gabbard has named in
the chat as her point of contact. So he's her
(23:44):
point man, and he's a bit of an isolationist. In reply,
Pete Hegzeth pointed out the risks of waiting and stressed
Iran's role, and then made the case for the operation
quote I see it as two things. One restoring freedom
of navigation, which is a core national interest, in two
re established to terrence which Biden cratered. Trump later made
(24:05):
similar points in public, reflecting their being on the same page.
I think, well, I'll say my analysis for a second.
This reflects well on mister heg Seth, writes the editorial
board of the journal, though it's notable that he named
Don Caldwell as his point of contact, and Caldwell comes
from the isolationist Coke network, as in the Koch Brothers,
(24:27):
which Trump has been highly critical of, which is again
team of rivalsy Waltz explained the damage to global trade
in the limits of Europe's navies quote, whether it's now
or several weeks from now, it will have to be
the United States that reopens these shipping lanes.
Speaker 4 (24:40):
He wrote, Yeah, I thought an interesting point. You might
think Europe should do it. They can't. They don't have
the ability.
Speaker 1 (24:46):
And then vance showing his reasonableness in the face of
disagreement to me, and I disagree strongly with JD on
several things, but he said he finally conceded to reality. Quote,
I just hate bailing Europe again. Hexeth agreed. I fully
share your loathing of European free loading. It's pathetic. That's
(25:08):
probably not the sort of thing you want to leak.
But but Mike, meaning Mike Waltz, is correct about how
we have to do that. Mister Trump now now knows
which of his deputies tried to block it and which
tried to carry it out.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I don't like that last bit of an house No,
that's not That's not what you want at all. No,
I the last thing you want is group think.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
And I you know, I see it as as as
poles as like magnetic poles in the group. You know,
not to flog the team of rivals thing too much.
But I mean, if you're in an organization, maybe you're
doing software or something like that, and you have a
brain trust of people, and one of your people is
always harping about innovation. How if we stay still, we're
(25:56):
going to get left behind. The business we're in is innovating.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
What's next?
Speaker 1 (26:00):
We've got to improve this. And then you have people saying, look,
this is the most popular ex software in the world.
We can't mess with it until we're one hundred percent.
We're ready, our customers are satisfied. You're right, but caution.
You don't want to cut out innovation guy just because
for now you're leaving Salesforce or Microsoft Order or whatever
(26:23):
the hell as it is.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
For now. You don't want to silence that voice.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
You don't want to silence Jdvance saying look, we've got
to keep putting the screws to the Euros or they
will stay lazy and we will pay for and earlier
said that at the least we ought to get some
money out of them for doing this, reopening their freaking
shipping lanes. I love jd Vance's voice in that discussion,
(26:50):
and I think they did the right thing in spite
of it.
Speaker 4 (26:53):
So I'm this is an innocent question, not trying to
push anything any direction. How does the chain of come
in work on this whole thing. So it sounded like
Trump had already signed off on the idea of we
need to attack the hoothies then, so like could have
it got stemied in this conversation and like was so,
(27:15):
then did somebody report back to him We're not doing.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
It or how does that even work? Yeah?
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Absolutely, I think uh probably hexeth end or Waltz would
have gone back to the President and said, uh, hey,
we've got some serious concerns about A and B. And
then of course the commander in chief would say, Yeah,
that's that's nice, that's that's sweet.
Speaker 2 (27:35):
Do it anywhere, bominam, do it anyway, and it would
have happened.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
It sounded like Waltz was just wanting another hearing with
the president, but he was talked out of it.
Speaker 2 (27:44):
Okay, we go ahead on just that topic.
Speaker 4 (27:46):
I think I've become convinced that because I've been I've
been yelling about this for years.
Speaker 2 (27:53):
It goes way back to college, Gladys, goes way back
to college, well after.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
I had my permanent parachute pants before I graduated for
the baldness. Yes, constantly hearing from college professors about how
much greater it was in Europe, how many weeks of
vacation they get and they only have to work this
many hours a week, and how wonderful it is without
pointing out to me a stupid college kid who didn't
know any better. That's because we provide their national defense.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
So of course they.
Speaker 4 (28:24):
Got plenty of money while it lasts and it's about
to run out. It's all running run out.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
In France, for instance, or Greece, we provide the national offense,
so of course they don't have to be as productive.
They can, you know, take nine months of vacation or
retire at fifty or whatever the hell they do in
all these guds. None of the college professors pointed that
out of course. Well, and it's as if Europe itself
is a retiree. They have more time to do fun stuff.
(28:49):
They spend more time on the golf course than I
do because I'm still working. But they are heading toward
you know, decline and perhaps the tomb because we spend
they're no longer young and dynamic and growing and achieving,
and right they're just in that phase of their life.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
I don't want the US to be in that phase
of life.
Speaker 4 (29:09):
We spend eight hundred million dollars a year on defense,
I think it's roughly that number, and that's so we can,
you know, do what we want to do around the world,
and that protects Europe. And then then they don't have
to hardly spend any money all until recently.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
Well at risk of flogging the metaphor to death, Europe
is on social security and we pay we're current workers.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
But my butt is I felt that way for decades.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
Now I've become convinced listening to a variety of different
podcasts and thinkers and that sort of stuff, that is,
we're much better off with the world that way.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
I have been living with this idea.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
You know, France, Germany, England, all these countries, they basically
line up with us, and they'll continue to line up
with us when we're not providing. That is probably not
going to be the case when they actually are independent
enough to provide their own security or work together in security.
Next time we need to do anything or want things
to be a certain way, they're gonna say, yeah, good
(30:03):
for you, do it yourself or whatever. But for the
past many decades we really need to do anything, they're
on board because they kind of have to be, because
we provide all the security. And I think we're gonna
miss those days when a nine to eleven comes along
and immediately all those countries are on board.
Speaker 1 (30:21):
In the future, when they're more independent, they'll be like, Yeah,
what's in it for me? That sounds like a you problem?
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Yeah, yeah, I see your point.
Speaker 1 (30:30):
I just I think is the sands of history shift,
new realities take hold and there's.
Speaker 2 (30:35):
No use postion for the old stuff. Not that you are.
Speaker 4 (30:39):
It's possible that we just flat can't afford it anymore.
So it's not an option, it's a it's not a discussion,
it's not a policy choice.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
It's just we can't afford it anymore.
Speaker 1 (30:49):
Right, but I bungle a merkle crawling into Vladimir Putin's
lap for a cuddle in some natural gas, right, was
a sign of the way it could go.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Yeah, for who knows, for a lot of those countries.
Speaker 4 (31:00):
France was getting around the uh, the sanctions on a
rack the whole time. We were trying to pressure them
everything like that. So and that's when they needed us.
Wait till they don't need us.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
How are they gonna act?
Speaker 4 (31:12):
They're gonna cozy up to China in kind of ways
we really really don't like.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Well, with baseball season about to start, which has to
be very excited. We're a team that had an eleven
game winning streak. Now it's back to reality. We've lost
a couple and we're going to play the Yankees.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
It's that's history. We got a lot more on the
way difference. Yes, we do, by gully.
Speaker 4 (31:36):
Is this a big scandal or not? That that's what
I wonder. I guess we'll see how it unfolds throughout
the day.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Stay here, strong, Hetty.
Speaker 11 (31:44):
The business news I've read the twenty three and me
just filed for bankruptcy. The companies said they were fifty
percent sad, thirty seven percent disappointed, and thirteen percent Scottish. Yes,
the worst news to hit the DNA test business since
Maury was canceled.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
So the obvious question, twenty three meter goes bankrupt? Where
is my spit? Who has control of all of our spit?
I demand my saliva back with interest? Wait a minute,
Oh so, speaking of science, here is the headline. How
do I put this? The headline most likely to make
you cringe today? Would you let a robot draw your blood? Oh?
(32:30):
Northwestern among health systems trying new device. No way that,
no possible way a robot can ever do that? Well,
not possible. My response is six simple words, get that
thing away from me. Can you imagine.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
I actually don't think AI could be capable of doing that.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
Several health systems are gearing up to try a new
way of drawing blood using a robot.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
Oh my god, who are they going to practice on?
Who's volunteering for that?
Speaker 1 (33:05):
I tell you what you are, brave, says this chief
chief commercial officer for the company making it. It starts
wheeling towards you. You get that need a little high,
don't judge my head?
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Well, what are you doing? All stale? Human?
Speaker 1 (33:19):
All stale, says the guy who works for the company,
And probably it's also remains unjabbed. This all ensures high
accuracy and high reliability, and with such precision, it reduces
any paint and discomfort associating with a normal blood.
Speaker 4 (33:33):
Try a chance, that's true, not a come on now true?
Speaker 1 (33:38):
The patient, I don't even want to describe the process.
I'll get light headed. So you sit in the chair.
That's the regular part. The patient then presses a button.
The tourniquet tightens around your arm, making the blood dry
easily easier. Then Aletta this is the name of this beast,
then uses infrared light to locate the veins. The device
(33:58):
s praised the patient's alcohol arm with alcohol to clean it,
and an AI driven Doppler ultrasound probe on a robotic
arm helps selective ain and determine needle placement, and then
it does it's dirty deed and collects the blood into twoe.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
I can less malfunction. I just don't believe that's possible.
Here's Michael. We could rename your what was it Pong?
Speaker 4 (34:21):
He was the guy, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, your favorite
flebottomistic yeah, who unfortunately quit to drive a truck because
there's more money in it.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
But he was the best drawn blood. Uh.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
He absolutely made it painless. I just can't imagine that
a machine would ever be able to do that.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
I was hoping to.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Squeeze this in, but it might have to wait until
a little bit later on. Can you imagine if the
thing went all right? Hey, look, look about one times
out of ten we got to recalibrate it, and yeah,
you'll be fine.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
Uld your arm in the air. The bleeding of stuffs,
nothing counts so much as blood.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over my screaming. All right,
a couple of disappointing stories. First of all, do you
have kids in those high fellutin traveling sports? Leagues, and
you ever get the sense you're being ripped off, that's
a good reason for that, because you are. And second secondly,
and discouragingly but not shockingly, science believes we have passed
(35:15):
peak intelligence as human beings and are as a race
getting dumber.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
I know, I am.
Speaker 4 (35:20):
If you missed the segment, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand
Speaker 1 (35:25):
Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.