What Comes After the Iran War? - with Rep. Jim Himes

Speaker A: Support for the show comes from Odoo. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow none of them talk to each other. That's where Odoo comes in. An all in one business management software that brings every part of your business together, from sales and accounting to inventory marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. So stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today@odoo.com profg that's o d o o uh.com Prof. G.

Speaker B: This

Speaker A: episode is brought to you by Google Chrome. You think you know a browser, but Gemini and Chrome? That's new.

Speaker B: It can help you with practically anything on the web, like restoring a vintage

Speaker A: motorcycle from a 50 page restoration block or or finally break down that long article you've had open for weeks. Gemini in Chrome is here for it,

Speaker B: ready to make anything online make sense. There's no place like Chrome.

Speaker A: Check responses Setup required compatibility and availability

Speaker B: various 18 chronic migraine 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four

Speaker A: hours or more, can make me feel

Speaker B: like a spectator in my own life. Botox Anabotulinum Toxin a prevents headaches in

Speaker A: adults with chronic migraine.

Speaker B: It's not for those with 14 or

Speaker A: fewer headache days a month.

Speaker B: It's the number one prescribed branded chronic migraine preventive treatment Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, Myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.

Speaker A: Why wait?

Speaker B: Ask your doctor, visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

Speaker A: Episode uh, 403403 is the area code serving the Canadian province of Alberta. In 2003, MySpace launched Too Stupid. When I was on MySpace, I used to get a lot of overtures from ladies asking me if I wanted to Come over, Blockbuster and chill. Go, go, go. Welcome to the fourth and third episode of the Prof. Gpod. I was just in Cannes. Cannes. I used to go and actually work meetings all day. There's something about being in Cannes where you feel as if you're in a room with people more important than you. It makes you more important. It's like you're the average of all the people around you. So when you go to Cannes, try and get in rooms with people more important than me, which was basically any room. And something about being in the south of France, Uh, it's. I wouldn't never go to Cannes. For Cannes, I would never go to Lions. Just for lions. But can and lions together, that's chocolate and peanut butter. Now I just hole up at the hotel. I hire a guy, a Zodiac all week, who manages to drive a speedboat, a rubber speedboat. Constantly smoking. I've never seen him light a cigarette, but it always seems to be. He always seems to be smoking anyways. And I feel like James Bond. And I roll up and I crash. I'm like an American invading Normandy for the second time, minus the courage. Uh, and I was trying to roll up to Meta beach, and I walked through the Croisette with a flashing. The bird in the air.

Speaker B: Whoa.

Speaker A: Aren't I a rebel? Oh, my gosh, what an intense hero I am. Anyways, what did I notice about Cannes this year? Uh, crater economy. Pretty basic. It went from 400 people to 500 creators. It used to be that the creators were invited to the after party. Now they're hosting the after party. It's now more than half of marketing spend is on some sort of creator or influencer platform, whether it's YouTube or an individual showing you how to cook using, you know, whatever Crisco or how much fun it is to use whatever it might be. Um, other insight, AI has gone from being this magic trick to the plumbing. People are talking about the boring workflow and how you, uh, integrate AI and starting to talk about roi. And there's also less fear around it. And that is, there's a recognition that creativity is as in demand, maybe even more, because essentially, creative or marketing is chip and salsa. You need a platform, you need the product, and then the salsa is the creativity and the design that makes it stand out. And AI can produce a bigger chip, but it's desperate for Salza. Remember Sora and how the first Coke ad, that was all AI. That shit is just so fucking boring and anodyne that it doesn't break through or grab anyone's emotion. And if you think about AI, it takes everything to the median, which is the exact opposite of where creative is supposed to be. And as a percentage of their total employee base, tech firms now have more designers and more creatives than they did pre AI. So I think there was a bit of a sigh of relief and an appreciation for creative. 13,000 people from 90 different countries. Crazy expensive inflation. I'll come back to that. Well, let's talk about it now. About 12,000 new millionaires in the Bay Area because of the AI and space boom, or as I call it, the douchebag wave or army that's about to descend on Europe this summer. If you're a 34 year old and didn't have a lot of social capital in high school and you got a CS degree from Carnegie Mellon, and then you wake up at the age of 34 after graduating, working your ass off, and you're worth $11 million, you're going to Ibiza. I'm going to Ibiza. Anyways, that's going to happen. And then the other thing, sports. Uh, when I first started going to Cannes, there was no sports. Now it's everywhere. Sports beach, that's kind of the cultural religion. It's still the only programming, uh, where you opt for the commercials. And I think World cup is the biggest story playing out culturally and economically. Culturally, the world needed to feel better about itself. I would describe the World cup as cousins who really like each other doing a sleepover without, despite the fact their parents keep arguing. Uh, and also, um, what's happening on calcium polymarket? I think we're going to find out that more gambling or more money was being wagered on the World cup than any sporting event, anything in history. I think you're going to see that way more money was, uh, bet on the World cup by young men, mostly young men, um, during the World cup than was was wagered in all every gambling mecca, whether it's Macau, um, or Vegas or Reno or Atlantic City. Um, anyways, why go to the casino when the casino's in your pocket? Uh, I think those are the biggest stories of what I took away from Cannes. And also just a recognition of. I still think, I think Europe's going to boom, boom. I think it's going to recover, I should say, in the next few years. And every time I'm in France, I look at the economics and I look at how hard it is to start a business and then I end up spending a crazy amount of money just to be surrounded by that culture and that Beauty. Something in the water there goes all the way back to the time of Marie Antoinette, when the, essentially the head of the treasury said that their luxury goods, which they spent at peak 5% of GDP, was going to be the equivalent of their Chilean gold mines. And that is. He saw that wigs and powders and makeup and incredible dresses were, in fact, going to be an economic engine. And it has been. Uh, whether it's Chanel or LVMH or Clarins, I mean, these companies are just absolute, um, juggernauts. Ton of margin, ton of economic growth. Uh, anyways, uh, absolutely love can. I don't know if there's any enormous overriding theme there other than, uh, I love just. My life has changed so much. It used to be getting up so early, trying to have as many meetings with people as possible. Now I wake up late and try to avoid meetings. I like that. Anyways, uh, in today's episode, Talk about an altitude shift. We speak with Representative Jim Himes, the U.S. representative for Connecticut's 4th congressional district. Uh, I really enjoy Representative Himes. I think he's fearless and very knowledgeable about foreign affairs and our Defense Department. He brings clarity, uh, to these issues. And I'm a big fan of Representative Himes. So with that, we hope you enjoy our conversation with Representative Jim Himes. Uh, Representative Himes, where does this podcast find you?

Speaker B: I'm sitting in my office here in Washington.

Speaker A: All right, let's bust right into it. We signed a memorandum with Iran two weeks ago, but this weekend, the US And Iran exchanged direct strikes. Iran hid Bahrain and Kuwait, the US Hit Iranian military targets, and Trump is now threatening that Iran will no longer exist if it continues. How would you describe the state of play here?

Speaker B: Yeah, well, um, you know, this memorandum of understanding, by any standard, um, is a catastrophe. You know, it gives orders of magnitude more money to Iran than the Obama deal in 2015 did. It, uh, you know, it empowers this regime. It recognizes this regime as, as. As the legitimate rulers of Iran. That has implications, obviously, for what the president told the people of Iran, which is that help was on the way and they should plan on rejecting those rulers. Um, the one thing I can say about the memorandum of understanding, as catastrophic as it is, is that it's better than going back to war. Um, which, of course, was crushing the global economy and causing, you know, people here in the States to pay a buck 50 a gallon more for gasoline. Um, and look, the Iranians know that you, you quoted the president on his, you know, weekly threat to, uh, to obliterate Iran. The Iranians know that's a bluff. You know, they, they're savvy people. They understand the president's political imperatives and the fact that he's not going to go back to war. Uh, and so we find ourselves in a really tough spot, which is instead of fighting with the Iranians, which, you know, at least as a tactical matter, we can win. We're negotiating with the Iranians, and there's about 4,000 years of Persian history to suggest that that's not a happy place to be.

Speaker A: Do we have any leverage in these negotiations at all?

Speaker B: Well, not really at this point. The regime now knows they can survive the worst that we can throw at them. Uh, they now know something they didn't know a, ah, year ago, which is that they can control or at least have a profound impact on the global economy simply by flying a bunch of drones over the Strait of Hormuz. Um, and what do we have? We can, uh, you know, bloviate the way the president is. That has no impact. Or, yeah, we could, we could go back to war. Uh, we could cause a lot more damage. Uh, we've kind of played that card twice in the last year, but that's the one card we have to play. But again, the Iranians know what that means. Uh, the Iranians know that that means a heightened risk that, you know, bodies are being unloaded from a transport aircraft at Dover Air Force Base, which is, you know, unacceptable, uh, to most Americans who despise this war or that, you know, the all important gasoline prices will once again skyrocket. So we, at this moment in time, we don't have a lot of leverage.

Speaker A: So Trump promised or claimed that he would deliver unconditional surrender, and it feels like he's made good on that promise. But it's unconditional surrender on our part. I mean, are we coming out of this just much weaker and they're coming out of this m much stronger?

Speaker B: Well, I certainly agree with the second part. Again, you know, they always wondered whether we could knock over their regime. They always wondered whether the people of Iran would finally get angry enough to overthrow them. We know the answer to that question now, and the answer is no. Uh, that regime is not going to get overthrown or, or taken out by the United States or Israel. Um, and again, they know that they, with minimal technology, can control the flow of energy and helium and fertilizer out the Strait of Hormuz. So they're obviously hugely empowered. Um, you know, whether, whether that weakens us, I don't know. That's a more complicated question. You know, uh, all of the President's military adventures have shown how spectacular our military is. And I include Venezuela in that. Uh, that's got to cause pause amongst people like Vladimir Putin and G, you know, President Xi in China. Um, it is a slow bleeding, right? Um, there's requests to the Congress for, you know, 80 billion additional dollars. That's dollars that didn't get spent on infrastructure or education. So it's probably a slow bleed associated with, um, these crazy wars that we keep getting into in the Middle East. But I'm not sure it makes us obviously weaker the way our attacking NATO does. You know, when we attack NATO, Vladimir Putin says, huh, huh. That's interesting. My chief objective of breaking up the Western alliance seems to be working. I'm not sure that that's happened in this case.

Speaker A: You're on the Intelligence Committee. You're the ranking member on House Intelligence. So going or believing that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that felt like a pretty big intelligence failure. Isn't the inability to predict, uh, what would happen with the Strait of Hormuz and effectively handing the IRGC what is arguably more powerful than a nuclear weapon. Isn't this arguably one of the greatest intelligence failures in recent history?

Speaker B: You know, I don't necessarily see it that way, Scott. Um, and the reason I don't necessarily see it that way is because we see a syndrome similar to what happened with the George W. Bush, Dick Cheney administration. The intelligence was on, uh, you know, on weapons of mass destruction back then in Iraq. Um, the intelligence was, at best, ambivalent. In fact, if press reports are to be believed, four months ago, uh, John Radcliffe, the Director of CIA, told Trump flat out that, um, the regime was not going to fall in Iran and that, you know, there would be very real dangers associated with them closing the Straits of Hormuz. So in both cases, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and recently with Donald Trump, you could argue that the Intelligence Committee, sorry, the intelligence community didn't get it wrong. Maybe they didn't get it right enough, but that the President and the President's people ignored it. Um, so I'd contrast the two examples you gave, maybe with September 11, 2001, where that was obviously a massive failure. You know, the information was all there. It just didn't get knit together in a way to allow us to prevent it. Uh, what we're talking about here is the most powerful man in the world either having a political agenda the way George W. Bush did, or not being particularly interested in reality, uh, the way Donald Trump is not.

Speaker A: And so you're saying it's a failure of leadership. You think the intelligence was there, it just, the president decided to ignore it.

Speaker B: Yeah, I didn't and I look at an awful lot of intelligence. I didn't see a single bit of intelligence that suggested that the regime would crumble. In fact, much to the contrary, you know, our people were watching pretty closely when those, um, protests were set off and ultimately the Iranians killed tens of thousands of Iranians. The intelligence did not in any way, shape or form suggest that this was a regime, uh, or a country that was just going to go belly up, you know, after a couple of bombs. So my guess is the president got pretty consistent advice to go a different direction and just simply ignored it. I think some people got in his ear and just said, you know what, you know, you need to say to Donald Trump to persuade him, which is, you will be the greatest leader since Napoleon if you end this regime and painted a picture of, you know, Trump as conquering hero and Trump towers being built in Shiraz and Tehran and that sort of thing.

Speaker A: And let's talk a little bit about U. S, Israeli relations. There's a, ah, feeling that, or among some people that Trump was co opted into this war or that Netanyahu is now acting unilaterally. Can you give us, or provide some color on the US Israeli relationship?

Speaker B: Look, I don't think there's any doubt at all that Netanyahu, who is a very wily guy, uh, probably the wiliest leader I have ever met, um, no doubt in my mind, and I wasn't in the Oval Office, but you know, in the many hours they were speaking prior to the uh, decision to go to war, no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister was uh, telling a little bit of that story of greatness and how quickly the regime would fall. Remember, the press reported that Netanyahu made that case and that John Radcliffe DCIA said no, it's fantastical. Anyway, um, you know, I've watched now the Prime Minister try to get America to go to war under several presidents and none took him up on it. You know, Obama didn't, Biden didn't, Trump didn't in the first term. Well, this time, this time he did. And uh, you know, we're paying the price for that now more broadly, um, because of prime minister Netanyahu's decision to cater entirely to the Republican Party in the United States, uh, to disdain the Democratic Party, starting with when he showed up in Washington to argue in front of the Congress against the Iran deal that President Obama was negotiating. And the examples go on and on. But, you know, he was the first Prime Minister to decide that he would be partisan. And then of course, more obviously, um, you know, the, the plight of the Palestinians has always been for most people, kind of a slow burn issue. You know, I think most people, and by most people, I mean just, you know, folks that don't work inside the Precincts of Washington D.C. probably felt that, you know, the Palestinians have had a raw deal for some time, support, uh, Israel strongly the way there was a consensus in this country for a long time. But of course, um, a combination of the Gaza war, um, with its tens of thousands of dead civilians, with its, you know, pulverization of all of the urban areas there, the treatment of the Palestinians in the west bank, the brutal treatment of the Palestinians in the west bank, and then of course, the rhetoric of the more extreme members of the Prime Minister's, um, government. I'm thinking of Smotrich and Ben GVIR here who openly call for the commitment, the commission of war crimes. I think that turned, I think that turned a real corner for the way a lot of Americans, not just members of Congress, but certainly anybody under the age of 40 in this country, um, thinks about it. And if you're our generation, you know, you are more swayed by the story of survival of the establishment of the state and the survival of the state in the most improbable circumstances than you are if you're 28 years old. And that seems like textbook history.

Speaker A: So it feels as if you're an investment maker. I was an investment banker. A memo of understanding was a business term that one party would issue to another party, perhaps in the context of an acquisition. And I loosely estimate that somewhere between a third and 50% of memos of understanding actually resulted in a deal. I'd never seen that term used in a geopolitical, uh, context before. What do you think happens from here?

Speaker B: Look, the MoU is what it is, right? It's a statement of intentions. It has no legal effect. And even something that did have a legal effect in this case would have all kinds of outs, right? And we're seeing that just turn on cable news, right? I mean, all weekend long though, we have a ceasefire. Uh, the US and Iran were trading munitions. You know, they attacked a whole bunch of our bases this weekend and, you know, we undertook bombing raids along the strait there. So, you know, no legal effect. It's a statement of intentions that was very convenient for both parties. Right. The president absolutely, positively needs to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. And the Iranians obviously would, like, love to get their hands on a whole lot of money. Now the Iranians are starting to get their hands on a whole lot of money. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz remains an open question. Right. Every time I open up, you know, my Twitter feed, it's either closed or open, or they're saying it's closed, they're saying it's open. Behind this, of course, is two other huge things. The nuclear negotiations. Right. Um, I remember watching Obama and his, you know, merry band of two dozen experts negotiating this thing. It's hugely complicated. And, you know, there's a saying about the Iranians, right. They never win a war, but they never lose a negotiation. And, you know, the idea that in 60 days, you know, Jared Kushner and, you know, a bunch of real estate guys are going to get a deal negotiated on the, on the nuclear stuff is, Is crazy. It's just not going to happen. And eventually Trump will forget about it, and, you know, it'll be the usual neocons that remain angry about it, but Trump will stop talking about it. And then you have the other stuff, by the way, that Obama was deeply, deeply criticized for not including in the deal, which is, you know, the Iranians, um, ballistic missiles. We've already heard President Trump say, well, everybody else has got them. What do you want me to do? So we know we're kind of done on that. And the Iranian, uh, sponsorship of terrorists. Right. Which, again, Obama got brutally criticized for not including those two things in the nuclear deal. Um, you know, good luck. Good. You know, good luck. Even if the Iranians do commit to stop funding Hezbollah and Hamas, which I don't think they will, how you're going to verify? You know, I just, I just think you, you just. To end this long speech, you're. You're exactly right to say an mou. That doesn't seem like much, because it's not.

Speaker A: How do we ensure, though? It feels to me that just by demonstration of their willingness to fly drones over the Strait of Hormuz and an inability for insurance companies to ensure vessels. Don't. I mean, it feels to me like they've got total control, and I don't see under what circumstance they give it back, the. The free flow of, or the freedom of navigation, make recommence under, you know, their terms. But what is the scenario under which they do not control the Strait of Hormuz?

Speaker B: Well, at one level is There is, there is no scenario. Right? I, uh, mean, you could put treaties and uh, you know, agreements and everything else on the table, but when push comes to shove and they need to, uh, again, they'll just fly a bunch of drones. They don't need a Navy. You know, Pete Seth is in his testosterone fueled, you know, orgasm of manliness is, you know, focused entirely on the Navy at the bottom of this. They don't need that navy. Right. Again, um, you made exactly the point. You don't actually need to sink a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz to stop the flow of stuff. You just need to fly a bunch of drones, maybe fly, occasionally fly one into a cargo, ah, ship the way they last weekend in that, into that Singaporean ship. Because at that point the insurers, Lloyds of London and all those guys say you're not going anywhere near that place. Um, and so there's really nothing we can do to stop them from controlling it. Now, the way I think this will play out is, and I'll give you the sort of medium term, in the long term, in the medium term, the President's going to make some kind of deal and it's going to be ugly, right? Uh, the Iranians are going to reserve the right to provide services and insurance to trips to ships transiting the Strait, uh, of Hormuz. Well, the magic is going to be in the fees and services and insurance that the Iranians reserve the right to, uh, provide. So it's going to be a really crappy deal. And then secondarily, while, while that is in place or not, you know, we'll be working like mad with the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia to basically make the Strait of Hormuz irrelevant to the flow of, uh, of energy in particular. So we'll build more pipelines across the Arabian Peninsula. We'll figure out other stuff. And the reason I highlight that this is, this is really important. The reason I highlight that is that the Iran, they're very savvy, Very, very savvy. And they know that. They know that having played this card, it runs out. Bad metaphor. But having played this card, it's no longer valuable five years from now when we've built pipelines across. So guess what I think they're doing to maintain the leverage they've acquired. I think that over the next five years, they're going to work like mad to develop a nuclear weapon. Because they look at Pakistan, they look at India, they look at North Korea, and they say, you know, what doesn't happen to those three Three countries, they don't get invaded, they don't get bombed. And so one of the byproducts of this war, I think is going to be taking an awful regime that was ambivalent about having a nuclear weapon and creating a regime more ideological, more extreme who now says, guess what? Now we have to build a nuclear weapon because eventually the Strait of Hormuz is not going to be a point of leverage.

Speaker A: And how does Israel respond as they get intelligence that. My understanding is, uh, when we ripped up the, when President Trump ripped up the JCPOA, the IRGC had nuclear material that was enriched to 3.7%. My understanding now is that intelligence says it's around 60. If it gets to 80 or 90 and they get within, you know, spitting distance of a, of a nuclear weapon, do you think Israel most likely, um, preemptively strikes? I mean, aren't we just setting ourselves up for what could be a pretty ugly confrontation here?

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. You know, except for that period of time when the jcpoa, the Obama Iran deal was in place. You know, the Iranians have always had 60%. They always had little bits of 90%. There's no peacetime use for 90%. Um, and that's probably where they are right now. Um, now it just so happens that all this stuff is at the bottom of a lot of rubble, um, in three or four locations in Iran still there. Um, but yeah, I mean the answer to your question is 100% clear. You know, the Israelis, uh, you know the Israelis, and this isn't even a Netanyahu thing, they will do everything, literally everything in their, um, in their arsenal to keep, uh, Iran from getting there. The question is, can they, you know, if this 300 billion reconstruction fund gets set up, how many of those 300 billions get used to. Get used to build a, you know, hardened, um, a hardened facility, even more hardened than the old ones that the Israelis can't get to. Um, so, yeah, one level, of course, Israel is always going to regard a nuclear Iran as, as unacceptable. Um, but it's an open question about whether they'll be able to. I mean, look, if this rift between J.D. vance and President Trump and you know, and the growing alienation of the American political apparatus, um, from providing weapons to Israel, if that were to go further south, um, that could be a real military problem for Israel.

Speaker A: We'll be right back after a quick break. Support for the show comes from Nutrafol, the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement brand used by over 1.5 million people. We all have unique grooming routines. It's a normal part of upkeep for everyone's confidence. So if it ever takes a hit, you can always go back to the basics and revisit your routine, specifically your hair care. That's where Nutrafol can help. Nutrafol has formulas built for men at different life stages. There's Nutrafol men for guys 18 to 49 plus the new Nutrafol Men 50 plus. It's the first product of its kind, specifically made for men over 50. Wherever you're at in life, you can address the key root causes of thinning and grow visibly thicker, fuller hair in three to six months with Nutrafol. It's backed by peer reviewed studies and NSF Certified for Sport, which is the gold standard for supplement quality. Start Nutrafol today and make the hat optional. Visit nutrafol.com and enter promo code Prof. G for $10 off your first month subscription and free shipping. Find out why Nutrafol is the best selling hair growth supplement brand@nutrafol.com spelled n u t r a f o l.com promo code prop g that's nutraful.com promo code propg. Support for the show comes from Odoo. If your business runs on five different apps, 12 browser tabs, and one spreadsheet that everyone's afraid to touch, it's probably time for Odoo. Odoo is an all in one business management software that connects every part of your business into one powerful, easy to use platform. So instead of wasting time switching between disconnected systems, your entire business works together in real time. Your team moves faster, your data stays accurate, and you can actually focus on growing your business. Let one unified system run your entire business. From the first opportunity to the final payment, everything works together in one place. Whether you're a small business or managing a large operation, Odoo gives you one flexible platform built to grow with you. Try today for free at odoo.com profg that's O-O-O.com Prof. G. Support for the show comes from ima. Every day it seems like there's a new fad diet that wants to tell you what to cut out and what to add in. But before you go and fill your fridge with beef tallow and salmon skin, ask yourself if you're actually getting the full scope of vitamins and minerals you need in a day. Here's a tip to help you fill in the gaps. Im8's daily Ultimate Essentials drink Im8 uses clean ingredients. It's NSF certified, which means all the ingredients are third party tested for purity. Our colleague Ed Elson has been enjoying im8ed. Im8 love it.

Speaker B: Hydrating, refreshing, makes me feel like I'm healthy.

Speaker A: I hope I am healthy, but this makes me really feel that way.

Speaker B: So, big fan of iM8.

Speaker A: Nice. Give your body what it deserves. With iM8 go to imaidhealth.com propg and use code propg for a free welcome kit. Five free travel sachets plus 10 off your order. That's I am M number 8 H-E-A-L-T-Com prop G code prop G for a free welcome kit. Five travel sachets plus 10 OFF your order. Imaidhealth.com prop G code prop Garden these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Let's move on to sunnier sky, so to speak. Let's talk a little bit about Ukraine and the sense or the thesis I would put to you is that this has been an incredibly pivotal or positive few months that Ukraine has gone from playing defense to playing offense, which is a victory for the west, specifically Europe and Ukraine itself. What's your assessment of the situation there?

Speaker B: Yeah, I was just there three or four weeks ago, um, and I'd been three times and I would, I would completely agree with your assessment. I was in Kiev and Odessa and I'll tell you, it's a weird schizophrenic feeling there now because on the one hand missiles are flying in and hitting schools and you know, creating five, six, seven fatalities a day or whatever really tragic scale stuff. On the other hand, there's such a spring in the step of most Ukrainians because they now understand that they're winning this thing. You know, they're taking the fight to Moscow, uh, they're imposing, shocking. I mean, the brain doesn't process the number of Russians that the Ukrainians are killing every day. I mean, between now, you know, between now and the weekend, the Russians are going to lose the same number of men that we lost in Vietnam in, in, in 13 years of war. There's um. And so the Ukrainians really feel like they're winning now. They're realistic, right? Winning doesn't mean that, you know, all of a sudden the Russians are pulling back to the pre war borders. But they do know two things. Number one, that anything gets negotiated, it's going to be a radical, different, radically better negotiating negotiation for them than it would have been A year ago. And number two, I think they think, um, that there's some chance that the Russian people are going to do what they do every 50 years or so and decide we got to get rid of the czar. Um, and again, I wouldn't tell you that anybody thinks that's a high probability thing, but it's certainly a heck of a lot higher now than it was a year ago.

Speaker A: Do you think we're close to or, um, some sort of negotiated settlement or peace?

Speaker B: You know, I'm going to say something terrible, um, which is. I hope not. And the reason I feel really guilty saying that is that so many people are dying, so I probably shouldn't say that, but, you know, each and every day, the Ukrainians are delivering such massive punishment to a guy who badly needs punishment. Right. Um, you know, who, five years from now may very well try this in Estonia, with all of the implications that has for us as a NATO partner. Um, and so, uh, you know, quite apart from my own, uh, belief, I think the Ukrainians feel the same way, which is, we're on the march. You know, let's position ourselves even better for, uh, an ultimate negotiation.

Speaker A: How insecure do you think Putin's position is, uh, amongst Russians right now?

Speaker B: You know, I'm not a. I'm not a Russia guy, and I listen to people, you know, and there's the school of thought that says the Russians are the people that fought the battle of Stalingrad, right? You can never break them. Um, you know, and then there's a school of thought that says, you know, the oligarchs that support this guy, you know, are getting pretty tired of not being able to go to their houses in London and seeing their bank accounts emptied and their yachts confiscated and their, you know, kids denied admission to Stanford and Oxford. Um, so I. The. The honest answer to your question is, I don't know. What I do know is that, um, the situation for the. The. For the average Muscovite or, you know, middle, uh, class person in St. Petersburg is a hell of a lot worse than it was two years ago.

Speaker A: You're the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee. And most recently, um, the President, uh, appointed Bill Polta as Acting Director of National Intelligence, replacing Tulsi Gabbard, who announced her resignation at the mma. And, um. Bill Pultec currently heads a Federal Housing Finance Agency. No national security background. He's led many of Trump's legal crusades against opponents, including Lisa Cook and Jerome Powell, pushing for mortgage fraud charges. You've said it's Open quote, probably the worst appointment into the Intelligence Committee you've ever seen. Can you share more about your reaction and the intelligence community's reaction to this news?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, you walked through the. The. The resume challenges there. Um, you know, you could have just pulled somebody off the street in Cleveland, Ohio, uh, with zero national security experience, and you'd have. You'd have Bill Pulte. The problem is, you know, what did Bill Pulte spend his time doing at this obscure federal housing agency that almost no one's heard of, the fhfa. What did he do? He dove into records to find, you know, to examine Adam Schiff's mortgage history, Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York's mortgage history, to look at Lisa Cook, uh, you know, Governor of the Federal Reserve's mortgage history. And then he tried to get court cases built up against him. So we know who this guy is. Right? And he's a hell of a lot worse than that guy off the streets of Cleveland, Ohio, because he's dedicated to being a servile, you know, eunuch to, um, Donald Trump. And, you know, I mean, even when he gets elevated to a national security position, does he change his stripes? You know, does the sort of seriousness of his office, uh, change him? No. Like, look at his Twitter feed right now. You know, every 14 hours, he's posting a loving Pyongyang, like, Portrait of the Dear Leader. Um, and there's a couple problems with that one. You got a lot more tools in the, you know, in the intelligence community to go after Americans. None of them are legal or acceptable because they're all designed to be used against our enemies abroad. But, you know, the intelligence community has surveillance authorities. It's got skills. It's got, you know, in the extreme, guys who know how to rappel out of helicopters dressed in black with guns. So it's just a much more serious thing. Um, and I worry about that. And then secondarily, you know, it's not a much discussed thing, but the intelligence community is comprised of tens of thousands of extraordinarily capable patriotic people who could be making far more money in the private sector because they're mathematicians or linguists or, you name it, wonderful analysts. And, you know, when they have to deal with sort of nonsense, it just that, uh, many more of them head for the doors. And, you know, there's serious threats out there, and I don't want those folks heading for the doors.

Speaker A: It feels as if fealty has taken precedence over competence. Is this just at a senior level, uh, in the intelligence community or has it been hollowed out? How worried you are you about the general corpus and competence of the intelligence community?

Speaker B: Yeah, it really varies by agency. Um, and by the way, it's not uniform. I've been a little tough on Pulte. Um, but you know the director of CIA, John Radcliffe? I, I know him very well and we used to serve together, and I wouldn't put him in the same category. Um, anybody who works for Trump needs to do lots of annoying North Korea genuflection. Um, but I think differently about John than I do about Bill Pulte. I would say the same, by the way, for the President's original nomination of Jay Clayton. I happen to know Jay very, very well. And if I were President of the United States, would I appoint him dni? No, I wouldn't. But in the Star wars cantina of cabinet secretaries and purported leaders, you know, Jay would be very much on the good side. So it's a little bit of a mixed bag. But I think the most important thing I can tell you, Scott, is that, um, these political types don't penetrate too far into the agencies. Right. So, you know, just down the road here at the Defense Intelligence Agency or up the road at the National Security agency, you know, 99% of the people are real professionals who are steeped in a culture of objectivity, who are studiously non political and they're human. So they will from time to time respond to the incentives that come from the very top. But by and large, I think they're doing a good job. I have no doubt that if Bill Pulte ordered the CIA to hover a bunch of helicopters over Adam Schiff's house, that you would see mass resignations at the CIA rather than compliance to that. So, you know, there are some safeguards in the system.

Speaker A: I want to speak more broadly. You chair the New Democrat coalition, the centrist caucus, and that lane feels increasingly uncomfortable, even untenable, in today's party. Uh, where do you think the center actually lives right now?

Speaker B: Yeah, I always object a little bit to the notion of the center. You know, it's not a mathematical thing. Um, you know, the way I think about it, I've been around this place for a while. The way I think about it is that there are people who are more inclined to do what the software of the Constitution in Washington demands, which is to make the compromises to actually get legislation passed. And look, it sucks, but if you don't have 60 votes in the Senate and you have a filibuster you're going nowhere. And it sucks that you have to pull together big coalitions to actually move something in the House, but the software of the system demands that. And there's some people who are really comfortable with that, and then there's some people. And I'm making no value judgment here, because I think both instincts are important. There's some people who are kind of more activist in orientation and say, no, here's the North Star, and there's where we need to go. You know, so it's, it's more which camp do you fall into, rather than, you know, centrists are trying to measure the extremes and get halfway between. But, but let me, Let me put forward just a couple of principles quickly, Scott, that I think are really important that are maybe get. Being lost here. Um, first, this country of 350 million people has two political parties. Two. Um, that means both of those parties are going to have internal dynamics that are really, really hard. So the fact that I, representing Fairfield County, Connecticut, don't have quite the same orientation, you know, that Zoran Mandani does, it should not be a surprise and should not be a problem. And I've argued this on the right side of the party before. I've lost enough elections and seen Donald Trump reelected enough times. I haven't personally lost elections, but I've seen the House lost, I've seen the Senate lost and the presidency lost to know that you better lean hard into including diverse viewpoints, right? So I've. I've usually thought about it like, gosh, in the Democratic Party, could we tolerate somebody who's pro life? There are people who say no. I, um, would say, you know, what, if you share 70% of the values, but you disagree on some, you know, what you need to govern this country? A majority. So here's my take on the folks that just won primaries in New York. First, it's New York. You and I know New York, right? It ain't America in any way, shape or form. Number two, those candidates, including the mayor, tapped into something really important, which is that people are pissed off, and rightly so. Our lifetime financial crisis, Iraq War, catastrophic mistakes done by the establishment, and they are pissed off. You better grapple with that rather than what we all did in the Biden administration, which is to say inflation is transitory. My God. Right? And so, number one, it's New York. Number two, they've tapped into something important, not just on substance. And by the way, I'm not validating the substance. I happen to believe that rent control is Not a good idea. And every fact out there suggests that that is true. I think if you want to lower the price of housing, build a hell of a lot more housing. So I'm not validating the, the, the policy positions. Um, but again, back to what I said before. I appreciate that these folks that are far to my left are saying shut up about everything except how are we going to make health care and housing less expensive. Now I may disagree with their prescriptions, but I think it's great that they're doing that. My one request to them, back to what I was saying about the majority, is you're joining a team and I'm not in. I'm not on the Godheimer team that says that if you call yourself a socialist, you don't get to be on our team. The critical aspect of being on our team is acknowledging that you go nowhere without a majority. If you've got a, if you don't have a majority, you're just talking. That's all you're doing. You're getting paid $174,000 a year to talk. So you want a majority. And if you want to win a majority, say and do things that don't damage our ability to win seats in North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia. Because if you put out crazy stuff that alienates those people. And in this era of social media, when you say something a little crazy in a basement in Brooklyn, it is about 3 milliseconds before it gets broadcast in Arizona and Michigan. Comport yourself in a way that is consistent with winning a majority. That's my one. That's my one. Oh, and by the way, don't be anti semitic. I, I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm cartooning

Speaker A: things here right now. It feels as if the Democratic platform is. Can you believe he said that? And I would say that we need to move from indignants to ideas. As the Democrats think about their messaging around 26 and 28, what does representative Himes believe is the right message that moves just beyond the anti Trump message?

Speaker B: I have one obvious thought and one non obvious thought for you. The obvious thought is, um, that we need to be ruthlessly focused on the cost of health care, the cost of food, the cost of energy, um, and, and resist the temptation to chase the squirrel. Um, and that sounds like a no brainer, but we're terrible at it. We're terrible at it. You know, we're going to, some crazy immigration thing is going to happen in Houston and we're going to take three days to stop Talking about affordability and talk about that crazy immigration thing in Houston. And then the next week, um, you know, something is, some vile thing is going to happen to a transgender individual in the United States Marines or whatever it is. And we're going to chase that for a week and we're going to get to the end of the month and we're going to realize we didn't actually talk about affordability. No. Now let me be very clear here. I'm not saying that immigration policy, cultural issues don't matter. On the contrary, you know, I'm enormously proud of my party that we fight for decency and immigration and equality for the transgender population. But how you sequence these things again back to winning the majority of. If you're not convincing people that each and uh, this is what Mamdani did, right? If you're not convincing people that you are all over the thing they care about most, which is expenses, the expensiveness of life, they're not listening to you on the other stuff. So we got to get that right. Second thing, this is the non obvious piece. We gotta actually do it. You know, I've been thinking a lot about why there are always these swings, right? 06 and 08, big swing to the Democrats under Obama 2010, there's, you know, we get obliterated 2018. I think the way we stop that pendulum and actually gain traction as a party is not because we have a perfect, um, housing policy, um, but because we actually do something. I mean, I can't tell you how frustrated I am thinking back over the four years of the Biden administration. When I campaigned in 2024 on, we passed the biggest infrastructure bill since the Eisenhower presidency and we passed the biggest investment climate change, you know, ever. And you know what we actually did in the state of Connecticut? Nothing, Nada. Uh, zilch. And voters know that, right? They listen to some blowhard like me say, oh, we passed this incredible bill. And they're like, wait, wait, I'm looking around here. This shitty little bridge on the post road is still not built. And so anyway, the non obvious thing I have to say is that actually doing it is going to be as powerful as getting it right. So, um, and I got nothing good to say about Donald Trump. But I do admire this, um, administration's bias to action. Now half the time it's illegal, but I'll tell you what, the Democrats better get a big infusion of no, no, no, no. When we allow for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, it happens tomorrow morning, not five years from now, because you know, Americans are just so sick of the rhetoric and the blowhards, um, in office and not seeing anything change.

Speaker A: We'll be right back. At Ollie.

Speaker B: We've got wellness down to a science.

Speaker A: From PMS to pregnancy to menopause.

Speaker B: Our women's wellness line offers science backed support for every stage.

Speaker A: No judgment, no shame, none of the stigma.

Speaker B: Just supplements designed to meet you wherever you're at. Ollie. Choose science over shame. Find support at a retailer near you or on ollie.com. that's o l l dash y dot com. Did you know Sam's Club isn't a store? It's actually a club with cool finds and like a whole community. Uh, it's a club, of course, Jason.

Speaker A: It's in the name. Sam's Club. Oh, yeah.

Speaker B: Come join us, Sam's Club. When you need to build up your team to handle the growing chaos at work. Use Indeed sponsored jobs. It gives your job post the boost it needs to be seen and helps reach people with the right skills, certifications and more. Spend less time searching and more time actually interviewing candidates who. Check all your boxes. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast. That's Indeed.com podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need a hiring hero. This is a job for indeed. Sponsored job.

Speaker A: We're back with more from representative Jim Himes. We were talking off mic a little bit about our backgrounds. Can you provide us with your backstory?

Speaker B: Yeah, um, as I mentioned to you, it weirded me out a little bit because it's a lot like your own. Um, uh, single mom from age 10 onward. Uh, my parents split up, little, uh, town in New Jersey. Uh, worked in the hardware store, the pizza place, the drugstore, delivered papers, et cetera, et cetera. Uh, and then, um, went off to college. Uh, and I don't want to paint too much of an Oliver Twist story here. My parents had good college educations, ultimately wound up after grad school, uh, like you in investment banking. Like you didn't love it, but I learned a hell of a lot. I got pulled in because the first 10 years of my life were in South America and I was fluent in Spanish. And so the bank said it doesn't matter that this guy doesn't know a thing about banking. He speaks Spanish. And so they hired me on that basis. Um, and now I'm doing what I sort of suspected I would always be reasonably good at doing, um, which is public, um, policy. And it's crazy polarized times, but, um, um, I'm very lucky to represent a thoughtful, um, pragmatic constituency.

Speaker A: So you're a Goldman for 12 years. I imagine you're a VP or maybe an MD. I don't know where you were at that point. And you're making really good money. Uh, I know you didn't grow up with a lot of money, or at least that's my sense. And what's the decision? To leave a job and take a pretty substantial pay cut and go to work in public service. What led you to public service?

Speaker B: You know, the answer is, uh, I never really thought about it that way. In fact, um, I think I stuck around the bank too long, you know, like you. It didn't move me. It didn't sort of satisfy my soul in any meaningful way. It was great. I learned a lot, made a little money, and, you know, got skills that I use to this day, but it didn't move me in any way, um, the way policy always had. And both my parents are, were service, uh, oriented. And my dad was at the Ford foundation with unicef. My mom did a lot of education stuff. So that was always kind of my inclination. And this comes through a little bit in your book too. The question is more if you do go into a bank, you had the wherewithal to say the hell with it after two years. Um, I sometimes counsel young people, go to the private sector, go investment bank, or be a consultant, but have an exit strategy, um, because you can get pretty used to the lifestyle and you can get 10 years in, as I did, and say, wow, I'm a little off track of what I thought I would be doing. And as you know, those organizations make it pretty hard to leave. Um, I was a little lucky in that, um, I was doing technology banking, uh, uh, when the technology market went completely belly up. So I sort of looked around and went, wow, not much going going on here. But, um, yeah. So then I was able, uh, you know, and the one thing I give, you know, a lifetime spent following, following directions and decisions. The one thing I do give myself credit for was in 2007, I'd gotten pissed off about George W. Bush and Republicans at the time. Little did I know what was coming. But I, um. In 2007, after helping a woman who ran for this seat twice and she lost twice, I said, what the hell, I'm going to run, I'm going to lose. I know I'm going to get my clock cleaned, but I'm at least going to be proud of myself for having tried. And I would have lost. But out of nowhere comes Barack Obama and, man, I grabbed those coattails in 08 and hung on for dear life.

Speaker A: And, uh, having served in public service for now 17 years. Is that right?

Speaker B: Yeah, coming on 18.

Speaker A: Yeah, coming on 18. Compare and contrast. Working in the private sector versus the public sector. And what surprised you most to the upside and the downside around serving in Congress?

Speaker B: Yeah, you know, I get. I get irritated with the, you know, the mantra that, oh, government just needs to be more like business. Right. It's a. It's a fundamentally different thing. Right. Every business has as its objective to make money. At the end of the day, um, they have lots of different ways of making money, but it's just a very clear objective. And good leaders and CEOs, you know, get rewarded for making lots of money. Um, government is a fundamentally different thing. We don't have a bottom line. Government is the division of power and resources amongst a massively fractured population of 350 million people. It's an exercise in compromise. It's how you bring the evangelicals in Idaho together with the Amherst graduates in Westport to have some sort of coherent national policy. There's no bottom line, and there shouldn't be. Now, by the way, government should be efficient. No question about it. And it makes me nuts that it's not. But it's a fundamentally different exercise. Uh, so I really reject that. Um, m. My own view, Scott, is that, uh, a life well lived and maybe in the service of our country should include a little of each. And obviously, I'm talking my own book here. Um, maybe it's just me rationalizing and being self satisfied, but I do walk around the hallways here and see folks who have spent time in the military or in law or in the private sector. And it tends to be those members who really bring the kind of perspective to legislating that I think is hugely valuable.

Speaker A: You're a father of two girls and married. Any thoughts? A lot of young men listen to this pod. Any thoughts or learnings on what you've gotten right and what you've gotten wrong in terms of being a dad and a good partner?

Speaker B: Couple of thoughts. Number one, I. I got two. I got way too old before I learned the power of saying, I don't know. I mean, it's funny, now that I'm a guy of some power, I guess, coming on 60 years old, I feel very comfortable saying, I don't know. But when I was in my 20s and 30s, I was uncomfortable saying that because I thought that it would indicate that I. That every. That I was dumb and that People would be like, oh, he's the idiot in the room. And as a consequence, I learned a lot more slowly than, uh, I might have. Um, this bleeds into something that I think is denigrated by maga. Conceptions of manhood. Listening. Listening is a more general, uh, um, characterization of what I just said about asking for help. Um, I think, uh, good leaders, uh, listen more than they transmit. Um, I was in a couple of. I've been in the company, both in the private and the public sector of people and, you know, powerful people in rooms, board, boardrooms, um, you know, cabinet rooms. And usually the individual with real influence, the real leader is the one who doesn't, um, speak first, who reserves his or her counsel. And then, you know, 20 minutes in the meeting says something, and everybody just sort of turns around and says, wow. And so, you know, I think that's an attribute to be admired. Uh, uh, and, you know, strived after a couple other things. I just jotted down the notes. Um, uh, maybe it's elsewhere in your book. I think one of the most transformative things that a boy or man can do, uh, and I. And I don't mean this to be exclusive. It's probably true of women as well, but is to develop competence in something. Um, you know, the discipline and the artistry and the commitment and all the things you need to do to become a great piano player or rower or beekeeper or speaker of the Farsi language. I think the process itself, you know, helps you become a, uh, I'll say a man in full, since we're talking about men. But I would not in any way exclude females. It helps you become a person in full by pursuing something really chasing competence. I, um, think that can be transformative.

Speaker A: Jim himes is the U.S. representative for Connecticut's 4th congressional district, a seat he's held since 2009. He's also the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, serving as its ranking member. He joins us from our nation's capital. Representative Himes, very much appreciate your time today and your good service.

Speaker B: Thank you, Scott. Pleasure being with you.

Speaker A: Algebra of happiness. My son's high school graduation was on Friday, and it's been the fastest four years. Uh, a lot of mixed emotions and not all of them positive. Some, um, of that is my depression and anger kicking in. When my son and his mom decided it would be a good idea for him to go to boarding school. I now look back and I kind of resent the decision. And I feel like my son was taken from me early. I did not like having him at boarding school. It was sold to me to be home Friday and leave Sunday night. He comes home Saturday afternoon, he's gone Sunday afternoon, he's basically at home for just a day. And I missed him terribly during those years. And the first thing I remember when he got into these two boarding schools, I took him for a walk and I told him which boarding school I thought would be better, and he agreed. Or, uh, I thought it's neither here nor there, but driving up to this school. And this is a story of privilege, um, because he went to an amazing school and most people don't have that opportunity. But the first thing I remember thinking is, I wish my mom were alive, because she just. It's a boarding school outside of London. She just wouldn't believe that her grandson got to experience something like that. And his first year was tough for him. I didn't realize how tough until later. But he didn't do well academically. I think he felt a little bit ostracized as one of the few Americans at his school. I thought that'd be a feature. It wasn't. They. I don't know. He did fine, but not great. And one of the reasons he ended up getting into a great school was his momentum kept building. Anyways, the thing that just struck me and that has made me sad. I was fine Friday night at his graduation celebration. But I got very upset Saturday morning, or melancholy, is that there were all these things we were going to do, right? We were going to. Or I planned. I wanted to buy an old car and try and renovate it with them. I think it would have been a ton of fun. I'm not handy, but, you know, I wanted to, uh. You know, I wanted to go to Alaska with him for some. I had never been to Alaska. And I thought, you and I are going to go to Alaska together. There was all these things I was planning to do with him, and now he's gone. And when he was a young kid and it was the right decision, I focused on work and economic security. So I was there, but I was gone a lot. Um, I would sometimes be on the road for two or three weeks. If I had speaking gigs or work in Europe, it just made sense to stay over there. And I would come home and notice that my sons had physically grown. So I missed a lot. Kind of 0 to 8, and then 8 to 12 was great. And then he kind of left when he was 14. And I just feel like, uh, there's this part, this real sadness, like there was so much we were going to do that, we didn't. And now he's gone and it's kind of heartbreaking. And I'm very proud of him. He's done really well. He's going to a great university in the fall. But this, you know, you lose your kids, it's like. I think the reason we're so in love with our kids is the same reason why luxury brands are successful. It comes down to scarcity. The 10 year old you have at home is not going to be there in a year. They're just going to be different. And you still love them and you still have a similar relationship, but they're an entirely different person. And I had so many plans for us and a lot happened. You know, we went to a lot of Premier League games, we traveled a lot together, we took trips on our own. I took them on a college tour. I, I think I've been more present than most fathers, mostly because I have the resources. But I just am haunted by this notion that there was so much we were supposed to do that we didn't. And, and it just goes 0 to 2 went slowly, 2 to 8, less slowly. 8 to 12 went kind of fast. And 12 to 18 just was over in an instant. And there's no, like, profound insight here or, you know, wondrous. Aha. Ah.

Speaker B: Huh.

Speaker A: Other than the following. To the extent you can plan those things, if you want to take, if you, if you want to go to, you want to show your son the Imperial War Museum, buy tickets and go. If your kid's into Pokemon and you think I should go to one of those Pokemon conferences with him and take the train to Heathrow and go to that thing. Because what they say is true, it goes fast and there's just no getting around it. I have a pretty large, um, void about the things we were supposed to do. This episode was produced by Jennifer Sanchez and Laura Gennar. Cami Reek is our social producer. Bianca Rosario Ramirez is our video editor and Drew Burrows is our technical director. Thank you for listening to the Prop G pod from Prop G Media. I have a really dirty one. Do you guys want to hear that? It's pretty bad. Okay, you asked for it. I didn't want to do it, but you guys asked for it.

Speaker B: All right.

Speaker A: Episode, uh, 403. 403 is the area code serving the Canadian province of Alberta in 2003. MySpace launch. My ex, uh, used to get her sexual fetishes and her social media platforms mixed up and kept asking her friends to come on my face. Uh.

Speaker B: Athletic Brewing Company crafts award winning non alcoholic beers for those who want to be part of every round. With over 185 flavor awards, they're exceptional NA beers that fit your lifestyle and any social occasion. Summer Summer full of good times and Athletic fits right in. Go to athleticbrewing.com to have brews delivered to your door or find them at a bar, restaurant or store near you near beer Athletic Brewing Company Fit for all Times. There are two types of business owners those who are busy and those who want to be busy. Toast is designed for both with tools to keep you humming and help turn grind into growth that that's how you turn busy into business. Toast built for busy uncovered windows can make your home feel up to 20 degrees hotter. Stay cool and save up to 50% off custom window treatments during the 4th of July mega sale@blinds.com from outdoor shades to room darkening blinds, finding the perfect fit is easy. Get free samples, expert design help and professional measure and install services or diy with confidence and support every step of the way. Shop up to 50% off site wide plus huge savings on doorbusters right now during the 4th of July mega sale@blinds.com.