 It's 11 o'clock. Welcome to what now America. I'm Tim Apatial, your host today's title is Senate passes $1 trillion infrastructure bill. You know, when I talk to friends, you know, we talk about budgets and the concern for deficit spending and all that good stuff and I say, Do you know how much a billion dollars is. And I kind of get that that stare that far away look the deer in the headlights look if you will. And then the guesses range from 10 million to 100 million I go no no no no it's 1000 million equals a billion. So how many million does it doesn't equal one trillion. Well that looks gets worse it's more than the stare off from the distance there was this confusion and a bunch of mumbling that comes from my friend's mouth. Well it's 1 million million that equals $1 trillion. So, the Senate to its credit, it was a vote of 69 to 30, passed a $1 trillion or 100 million. No, one. Even I've done it. 1 million million budget proposal for the house to take up when they come back from recess on August 23. But Nancy Pelosi said that she's not going to entertain it unless the Senate passes, or it makes the first initial step towards passing the $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill I call it the social infrastructure bill, because it deals with human infrastructure. And lo and behold that was done at four o'clock in the morning Eastern time this on Wednesday today. So there's the green light for Nancy Pelosi to start working on gathering her consensus from all Democrats be a progressive or not to pass the $1 trillion infrastructure bill. So before I move on with our guests I'd like to introduce Jay Fidel, Jay it's old times again just you and you and me. Yeah, it feels great feels like a trillion dollars. Or a million million. There you have it. Thank you for my first question. Let me just run down the goodies of this $1 trillion infrastructure bill. 110 billion for roads and bridges. 15 billion for electric vehicles. 11 billion for road safety. 66 billion for passenger and freight rail. 65 billion for broadband. 64 billion for ports and waterways. 65 billion for clean water efforts, I think, particularly getting the lead pipes out of some of the Midwest states. 73 billion for the electric grid. 50 billion for water storage Western water storage. 39 billion for public transit. 25 billion for airports. And guess what, Mitch McConnell voted for this. Are you surprised because I think in previous discussions I think both of us were somewhat dubious on the fact that this would even go get through the Senate without having to mess with the filibuster. Are you surprised. I don't know if you saw Rachel Maddow last night, she surprised too. She said, you know, I was dead wrong. I thought they would never pass it and they passed it. That is really, really interesting. But then, you know, is Congress going to do the 3.5 trillion and that's the big question, one way or the other, because they're linked. They're linked in the house and they're linked on Biden's desk, they're linked. Okay, are they I think what Nancy Pelosi said is, she wouldn't support the one trillion unless they made the first. Remember the budget reconciliation can take months and months. Whereas she just said they needed to get the first step on that budget reconciliation process which occurred at four o'clock in the morning today. So are they linked. We'll see you're asking me to be optimistic I'm sorry. You know, Rachel Rachel is not going to talk about the second shoe dropping here and I'm, I'm not optimistic about it either. And you asked me and this is really an important question. Why did Mitch McConnell vote for this. Why did his boys all come around for this in the Senate. And I, and I think it's not simple as not because they felt, oh what a great democratic idea this one is. That's not how they felt. Remember he swore to oppose everything Biden did everything Nancy Pelosi did. So what happened what's new, what is his logic is reasoning what is his motivation. You know he's got to have a motivation it's got to be self serving in some way, there's no other way to look at it. So I'm thinking thinking banging my head on the wall thinking why did he do this and you know we can only speculate but the guy is really smart and really strategic. The one thing is, you know, it's all gravy right it's all earmarks kind of money for different locations and that's why they were able to negotiate it as a bipartisan bill, because everybody gets something that list of, you know, infrastructure is really a list of Christmas gifts to everyone in every state, including especially the Republican red states and Mitch McConnell state. There's going to be all this infrastructure coming in all these jobs coming in all this money. The country will, especially the Republicans will be awash in money. So that's one reason. The other reason is let us let us not diminish the possibility of another McConnell fake out. He's faked out the Democrats how many times already take him down a path and then change course and let them swing, you know, and public opinion is so important. So now that they voted for it. Okay, the public wants it. Everybody wants it. And if Nancy or Joe Biden refused to do it because troubles on the 3.5 trillion bill on they the Democrats will be very, very unpopular. This has got momentum all by itself is what I'm telling you. And the very strange arrangement that Biden fashioned about linking the two may not stand, because now we're on the track, literally, with the infrastructure on the one trillion bill. So watch this space Tim, it ain't simple. Well, you know, Joe mentioned no sooner did that 3.5 trillion dollar vote they called it the voter Rama. No sooner did that get the first to first base that Joe Manchin came out and here's a quote from Joe Manchin serious concerns about the grave consequences facing West Virginians and every American family, if Congress decides to spend another 3.5 trillion. So, you know, I mean, this is this is the art of the price me. I mean, Kristen, the cinema went along with him on that. I'm going to thank if you tell me she didn't. Well, couldn't have passed without her. Right, it couldn't have passed. But you know she said there's no way that she's going to support a 3.5 trillion. She just says there's no way I'm going to support that so I mean and I think a lot of Democrats have to agree that's a lot of money. I mean, just alone on the one trillion dollars there's an estimated 248 billion. We immediately added to the federal deficit, because it's it's not offset with funding. And in the one trillion dollar package they didn't get any tax increases against the wealthy. Remember, originally Joe Biden wanted to have a, I believe as a higher tax bracket for those making over $400,000 a year. That didn't go anywhere. So on the one trillion we have, you're going to have a potential for $248 billion add on immediately. Yeah, there's concerns from all Democrats I think about the 3.5 trillion and be honest with you on one of them. Okay, well, you know, and that makes sense in terms of public opinion. My theory, as we will see is that the 3.5 stalls and Nancy and Joe can't figure a way to, you know, link them up to the point where he gets both of his bills. And there's going to be tremendous. There is already tremendous pressure for the, the one trillion dollar bill which the Republicans love you think about it. All the stuff that Democrats love is in the 3.5 bill, all the stuff the Republicans love is in the one point trillion bill. The Republicans are going to get theirs and the Democrats are not going to get theirs. That's my, I'm sticking with it too. We can make a side bet if you like him. You know, I, I think the one trillion on day two when Congress comes back from recess on day two it's passed and on day three it's in front of Joe Biden for signature. Right. So is he not going to sign it. Of course he's going to sign it but that's one trillion. You know, there's a two and a half trillion dollar depth delta between the one trillion and the three and a half trillion. There's no way 3.5 trillion is going to get approved. I'll put, I'll put good money and a steak dinner on that one. Okay, we got two bets going that you know at the end of the day the Republicans get the bill that they want that they agreed to that's going to lay a lot of money into their states and have none of the Democratic idealistic, you know provisions. None of them. And the Democrats will not get to 3.5 how sad that is how very sad. And I don't, I don't care about the money I mean the economists are telling us it will be okay. If we spend that much, but the larger question is this this country is in is in distress. It's in a kind of a continuing emergency. It's not just coven, although it's the effects of coven on the economy. We really have to change things that has to be a transformation. If we are to survive that transformation is not happening. I agree that 3.5 has very little chance of passing. And as a result, you know, I, the transformation economically is not as likely to happen. And then you have voting rights and then you have gun control, and then you have immigration reform I could go on. None of those things ready Tim are going to happen. It astounds me that that we have not been able to repeal or even modify the filibuster, but that's not going to happen either because because your friend mansion is going to stop it. Well mentioned didn't say he wouldn't look at in fact I heard him numerous times saying he would look into reform of the filibuster but not three, the abolishment to abolish the filibuster. So there's a vast difference between the two. Well maybe a vast difference technically but I just don't think it's going to happen. And he's made it clear that he, you know, questions all of that and cinema will come along with him on it. And they won't be able to mount the votes necessary to do anything. Bottom line bottom line is that mansion has been holding all this up now for eight months. I suspect that he is really a Republican in disguise. I suspect this is all the sham on Congress and the American people and mansion is on the side of letting the country slide into oblivion that but that's just me. Well, I like to take that up because you know I'm not long ago Lindsey Graham came down with coven and how did he come up with coven. He was on a boat. He sponsored by Joe mansion and see a lot of people said well see there's proof Joe mansion really isn't a Republican. And I look at a completely different I'm going. Thank God. Joe mansion is inviting people from all sides of the aisle, the party on party on on the high seas, because that's how things get done. In Congress in the old days, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill would go out every Friday night and have a whiskey or two. You can't get along with people until you understand who they are, and you can't, you can't negotiate deals unless you don't trust them. And how do you trust people. You go out and have a couple cocktails, you get to know them you get to know about their families you get to know about, you know they're they're thinking about things are completely unrelated to politics. If something strange might happen, you might get to like them. And if you get to like them you might form a relationship and if you form a relationship you might form some sort of bond that says, let's do some horse trading. It's called making compromises in the in the Congress Senate in the house. What a great thing. I was elated to hear that Joe mansion invited Republicans on his boat and then. And that's how things used to get done. Silence. I don't know how to frame this. So I'm going to question, I'll try to carry and you need to take the needle out of your arm actually. Even assuming all of that is true, even assuming that you know mansion is his, he's sincere. And he wants to make friends and through friends you can have bilateral. The fact is he's opposed all the steps necessary to adopt by this most important, you know initiatives, and bottom line is he's standing in the way just him. And, and Biden can I reach him he not friendly with Biden what's happening here, you know bottom line is, he's, he's opposed at all. And because he's opposed at all, none of Biden's major initiatives have gotten through, and we're all hanging waiting. The metronome ticks every day. I agree that is that's a good point. Let's look at another optic though, you had 19 Republican senators vote in favor of the $1 trillion infrastructure bill. What does that say to Donald Trump, and the fact that his his faithful lackey Mitch McConnell supported it voted for it. Donald Trump you know was adamant about not having the GOP vote for it. What does it say, what were the optics on that in your mind. Well, let's, let's look at McConnell because he still has a lot of power in the Senate, doesn't he. It's not this is not a breakaway kind of thing. Nobody among those 19 has they voted that way yes, but nobody has said I'm I'm disagreeing with Trump. I'm out of the camp here. I'm changing my, my party or my affiliation with Trump. You know, to me this could easily be part of a grand strategy McConnell is orchestrating where we will find out as I said before that the Republican bilateral bill in quotes passes and the Democratic bill doesn't pass and Biden cannot link them together. So it's okay because all these Republican senators are going to get big bucks out of it. So I'm not, I'm not, you know, convinced that it's a bad thing for the Republicans. And I'm not convinced that that McConnell isn't on a grand strategy here to ultimately embarrass Biden, if Biden holds up on signing the $1 billion, $1 trillion bill, he's going to look terrible. And McConnell will attack him till the cows come home. They will attack every Democrat till the cows come home. It'd be a grand loss for the Democrats, who engineered the bill in the first place, which is very ironic. As for why is it 19 and not more than 19 was like enough but not much more than enough. I would not suggest that's part of a strategy. I guess in order to answer the question I would want to go down a matrix of exactly who it was, and how faithful and loyal they've been to McConnell and Trump in the past. And the jury's out until we can do that because it's nobody among the 19, not even McConnell has said, I'm doing this because I'm, I'm abandoning Trump, nobody has said that. Well, you know, Donald Trump has entered the conversation so let's, let's switch gears and kind of continue in the Trump vein here. And that is the recent reports that the DOJ Department of Justice was pressured extensively by Donald Trump, and I don't want to call out the 2020 election has corrupt. And I don't have the exact quote but he basically said, just call it corrupt and I'll take care of the rest, me and the other, the other ours, meaning the other Republicans. Wow. I mean that. And then of course, we had, I think seven hours of testimony from the former acting as Attorney General, basically agreeing that yes that's what Donald Trump was putting pressure on us to do. Does that close the loop, if you will, does that close the the evidence loop of Donald Trump you will remember he asked the Secretary of State of Georgia to find the 11,780 votes. And of course all the lawsuits, the frivolous lawsuits of you know declaring the election fraud, and Giuliani putting out you know the election machines, the Dominion election machines were switched. And now he's put you know the evidence is coming to light that he put on direct pressure to the DOJ. Does that show him culpable of trying to throw a democratic election. And the second part of that question is, does that help someone in the future to file a suit against Donald Trump on the 14th amendment paragraph three to prevent him from ever attaining public office again for his role in trying to overthrow a democratic election. I think there are a number of a number of points on which that suit could be based, not just this. My reaction is good for the, the committee I for a while I told you I thought the committee was, you know, going to go underground and be distracted by other shiny objects, shiny objects like the infrastructure bill, or bills as the case may be. But this means the committee is working. This, this means the committee has paid her on at least some witnesses and is finding out what happened in the Department of Justice. I'm sure it shows that Trump did what we all know he did he, he took every opportunity, every strategy, every wild maneuver to try to retain power. We know that and some of some of those things have come out I think there's even more to come. The, you know, the problem is what does the public think. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a member of the base. And I'm not sure what the member of the base would would say that this is all paperwork. You know this is the, he's entitled to try to stay in power. He's entitled to try to manipulate the Department of Justice. They're his lawyers you know, buying into the buying into the Trump's general position. In terms of public opinion, I'm not sure it's all that big a deal. In terms of the Commission's report it is a big deal. I think it leads to other similar things. You know we know now that he was doing everything he could possibly do. And you and I can also connect the dots and, and assume that he was doing other things and that the committee is looking into that. So kudos to them for finding these witnesses kudos to them for discovering this plan this this what do you want to call it treason treason is what it is. I don't know why they don't use that word. And there'll be more, there'll be more and good for them. The question is at the end of the day. We're going to get from this committee a report. And what what's what it all will fall on Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice to do something or not. And he in my opinion has been a wall. A nice man, a wonderful jurist, a great judge, but attorney general I'm not so sure it's going to fall on him to either prosecute or not. And what if the jury's out on that one. Well what if, what if okay so remember the inspector general is doing a parallel investigation. And what if the inspector general says there are grounds for criminal charges against the former president. And they make that a recommendation, rather than the DOJ coming up with this, this idea of filing criminal charges. And the DOJ act on that do you think, if it came from an outside source so they don't have to embroiled themselves in the politics of trying to prosecute a former president. The same thing going to follow the Department of Justice to actually prosecute in this capacity, he's a prosecutor in this capacity he has the power. And I don't know if Biden will influence him or try to influence him or not. He has the power to prosecute or not to impanel a grand jury to ask a grand jury to you know, bring back a true bill, and to haul that guy into court for criminal prosecution. Right now we know enough you and me to make that decision. Does Merrick Garland know enough. What are the considerations he faces, and what are the personal reservations he has about going after a former president. I'm, I'm not sure he's going to do anything. And the future of public confidence in the system in the Department of Justice, which by the way has taken a hit, you know, in these revelations, the Department of Justice what happened to those guys, it wasn't just a guy at the top. It was many, many lawyers and principles of the Department of Justice, who were part of Trump's inside team. So, query, you know what's left of them. Okay, well, not that there's a correlation or there should be any correlation between filing criminal charges against Donald Trump versus the reestablishment of credibility for the Department of Justice. In fact, though it would occur that if the Department of Justice were to file criminal charges, that would put them back in, I think, pretty good standing, as far as our credibility of an independent, technically an independent department. That's true as a decision. Okay, correct. But then you have to prosecute. You have to bring your best and brightest in from wherever they are. You have to make a trial team and, and you can't take wood and nickels remember that Trump has how many millions to spend to defend on this. He will defend. He's defended thousands of lawsuits before this, including criminal prosecutions. And he is, for the most part, he has succeeded. He gets away with it where poor Andrew Cuomo doesn't. He gets away with everything so far. And so it's a question of how ardent those prosecutors are, how good they are, how determined, how motivated, you know, and how they handle the prosecution. Well, all departments have politics embroiled within their their agencies and the Department of Justice is no different. I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about competence. I mean, but there is the politics of the optics of politics that says, Okay, not all prosecutions are successful. And they were to prosecute Donald Trump. There's no guarantee would be successful, but it certainly would enhance the credibility of that of that department. Would it not? Well, from where it is now, absolutely, it would enhance that they need to enhance their credibility. Because right now, you know, they're tarnished. Well, that's, that's my suggestion. Come off. But, you know, the problem, let me give you a scenario. Suppose they do prosecute, however well they prosecute, but Trump defends. And, you know, we had an earlier show where I gave you 50, 50 things that he could do 50 ways. He could defend himself and leave his lover so to speak. In the genre of Simon and Garfunkel. Suppose he wins. Suppose he is, you know, exonerated yet again in that prosecution. What do you think the public will say then. This magnet get away with any crime that he wanted, including shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. Yeah, okay. I appreciate your comments on this Jay. It's a it's a big development, I think, and I think we'll find out more. I think also that there will be other members of the Department of Justice that will testify without subpoena, and we'll find out more. And as the, you know, as the egg developed, so to speak. I only have a few minutes left but I did want to get your opinion about the United Nations declaration of code read for the planet planet Earth, and the fact that our climate change has now reached a point where we've might have passed a tipping point. And, you know, it's low, it's a low item in the news news cycle but it's, it's the fate and future of our planet. What do you think about the announcement that it's already too late in some areas of climate change and global warming that we've already surpassed and we're going to have to just bear the brunt of the negative effects of that via wildfires flooding. What I'm worried about is the, the cycle in the Atlantic Ocean, the conveyor belt that you know you get too much fresh water melting from Greenland and it affects the salinity of the conveyor belt, and that causes all sorts of problems because the conveyor belt or the the currents are slowing down, and you can have all sorts of increase hurricanes and, and horrible horrible winners. You're absolutely right. Absolutely right. You know, up to this point, we look at the wildfires and the extreme weather and all that is okay well so it's a bad storm or it's a wildfire we can deal with a wildfire. And you know so with bad weather might you know destroy some cities here and there, but we can recover from that. But your point about the quote conveyor belt in the Atlantic and other, you know, biochemical reactions in the oceans and in the atmosphere and on land are already well underway. And they may not be so quickly reversible they may not be reversible at all. This is the biggest story of our lifetime. All the other things are second to this. And for reasons that are not clear. The United Nations hasn't done much with it sorry cop hasn't done much with it sorry. Trump put it down the wrong way. Biden has his heart in the right place but he's been distracted by so many other things. Bottom line is the planet is failing. And as the planet fails humanity will fail. And the and the upshot of that will be millions, even billions of people will die before the planet is able to resurrect itself. And it goes extinct, which has been happening because of you know what what we do to the wild. It doesn't come back. And there are many things that are happening, which won't come back they're irreversible, and our world will be different and dangerous. It will not support as much humanity as it did before. There's a terrible shape here. And it's remarkable that you know there isn't a coming together all around the world, not just a report by the UN. This is not a surprise. Every scientist can tell you this. You know we are we are making a movie we have made a movie in think deck as you know, dealing with the convergence of climate change and coven. One element one convergence. There's so many things are happening that threaten us. And so this is not a surprise, but it should be. It should have been. It should have been a while ago should have been yeah yeah well I remember Al Gore on the ladder showing the rising carbon in the atmosphere and global temperature changes back in 2021 years ago. Yikes. Were you surprised at all that the car manufacturing companies the United States, both Ford and GM are more or less committed to having zero mission vehicles by the end of this decade. It's nice to see them do that. Is that still too late. It is too late and why didn't the government do this a long time ago. How hard would it be. You know this was a part of a political process and not and a business process on behalf of cars. The car manufacturers think that the public wants to see this. So they're responding to the public, but not doing it for love of love of humanity I tell you that now. And the problem is that we, we, we look to government to protect us. We look to governments and the United Nations to protect the world against a global threat like this. And we haven't gotten that this is a great biblical test of humanity in general. And so far, we have failed. All right, you get the last word on that. Any last comments you'd like to make for we conclude our show. I'm so sorry about Afghanistan you you mentioned that as a possible point of discussion here today. I'm so sorry we couldn't have found a way to at least, you know retain a presence there. No, we're not the world's placement and no we don't want to send troops into harm's way. But if we have, if we are a global leader. We have to do something. What's happening now is that a, you know, people are dying and will die in Afghanistan, and a terribly unfair brutal. It was worse. It is worse than it was before actually. So we haven't really helped them over these 20 years. Look at it now it's worse than before we ever arrived. I'm not, I'm not particularly sympathetic with the decision that Trump made to leave Afghanistan or Biden's follow up to leave Afghanistan. And I think it's very tragic. In terms of the American reputation on this, our credibility again goes down. The press will cover this it should cover this, and it is a terrible disaster story. There have been points made by various commentators about how how we can send our troopers back in on a limited basis and save those people. That's not going to happen. That's not going to happen we are wrong way car get on this, and that decision was and is bad, and we will regret it. Yeah, I have to agree. In fact, the collapse to on Kabul is almost faster than it was back in the Vietnam War when Saigon was overrun by the North Vietnamese. I just hope we don't have visuals of helicopters taking off from rooftops. And those images never left my memory and I'm sure millions of other Americans. Wait, wait till you see the images of the Taliban beheading people in the street. The interrogators that the interpreters that worked with the American troops, and it's contractors yeah I. I don't know how they get out of the country at this point because they're being all these capitals are being overrun within the provinces. So you're right Jay it's a topic for a next show perhaps so I want to thank you Jay for joining us it's like old times. I miss Stephanie Dalton, I miss Cynthia Lisa and Claire, we miss Winston Welch, but we'll get back on the show soon. So thank you Jay appreciate your time. Join us next week Wednesday 11 o'clock for what now America. I'm Tim Apachele your host, and we'll see you then. Aloha.