transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] Welcome back to The Siren Podcast, Congressman Jared Moskowitz. Hi, Congressman, how are you?

Speaker 2:
[00:04] What's going on? How are you doing?

Speaker 1:
[00:06] Well, we have so much to talk about. I'm fine, by the way. How are you?

Speaker 2:
[00:10] I'm delightful. I'm always a delight.

Speaker 1:
[00:15] There's always something going on on Capitol Hill. But I want to talk about something in particular first. I have a lot to cover with you, but the first thing I want to talk about is Pam Bondi. Because you're on the Oversight Committee, and the Oversight Committee was supposed to have her testify, I believe on the 15th of this month. She got fired. I could speculate, we could speculate that preventing her from testifying in front of you, and your colleagues was part of the reason she got fired. I don't know that that's true. That's just what I think might be true.

Speaker 2:
[00:44] Well, her performance in judiciary clearly didn't help.

Speaker 1:
[00:48] The Dow was over 50,000.

Speaker 2:
[00:50] Yeah, and the Burn Book stuff, obviously that obviously was a winner.

Speaker 1:
[00:56] Right. Yeah, but so let's talk about the fact that she was slated to testify and that Todd Blanch has said that she, and I believe James Comer, that she no longer had to testify because she was called in her capacity as attorney general. Let's talk about that.

Speaker 2:
[01:12] Well, the subpoena asks for her to testify, not necessarily in her capacity as attorney general. I think she's going to have to testify. I know she missed the date that they scheduled. It was first of all, it's a deposition. She's not coming to committee, right? It's just a deposition that she has to do. And so, look, if she isn't willing to show, I think they're going to have no choice but to hold her in contempt. And if James Comer now wants to go back on his word, which he was going to hold the Clintons in contempt if they didn't come, obviously former electeds, she's now a former elected. If he's not willing to treat Republicans the same way, when Robert Garcia is the chairman of that committee in January, when the Democrats take the House, which is going to happen, then she'll be subpoenaed and then she'll be found in contempt. And look, she could lose her law license if she's found in contempt of Congress. And so, either our subpoenas matter or they don't. They can't matter when it's just Democrats and not Republicans and vice versa. We remember we had a bunch of Republicans that disregarded their subpoenas in the January 6th investigation. So, I mean, the flip side of that, real quick, not that I'm defending Pam Bondi's decision, because I think she needs to come and testify, is I would understand why nobody wants to spend eight hours in a basement with James Comer. I mean, I totally understand why she's like, I don't want to go. I don't want to be there. He's there. Eight hours. Good God. I get it. I totally get it.

Speaker 1:
[02:34] Other than maybe Gargamel. But what do you think is really going on here? Why wouldn't she want to be deposed? Why wouldn't...

Speaker 2:
[02:45] There's so many questions. First of all, why did she hand out the binder that was full of all the Epstein stuff to the influencers? Then why did she say the list was on my desk? Then she said there was no list. Why did she say that why did the White House put out there that this was a Democratic hoax? We should move on from this. Why did the White House say anyone who sends the discharge petition is a hostile act against the White House? Why did they bring Republicans into the situation room trying to get them off the discharge petition? You know, the situation room where the president sits and goes to war. Where they threaten Republicans with primary opponents. They try to sweeten the deal by giving them stuff in the budget. Why did the president take on his own base for weeks? You know, telling them there's nothing to see here. Why did they redact the co-conspirators names? Why did they do that? Why did they release the victims names? Why did Cash Patel under oath say that Jeffrey Epstein only trafficked girls to himself when we know that's clearly not true? Why did he say Trump's name was only in the files less than 100 times when we now know his name appeared over 30,000 times more times than Harry Potter's name appears in the book about Harry Potter? So, you know, those I think are questions that she's going to get in the deposition. And if I were her, I would want to avoid those questions also. There's no good answers.

Speaker 1:
[04:09] Yeah. And your former colleague, Marjorie Taylor Greene, she was on. I was on Piers Morgan last week and she was on before me. And one of the things that she said.

Speaker 2:
[04:18] You mean Marjorie Taylor Brown? Marjorie Taylor Brown. She's brown.

Speaker 1:
[04:22] Has he gotten worse at those? Like they were never good. But has he gotten worse at those?

Speaker 2:
[04:26] Some of them were decent, but the brown one's not good.

Speaker 1:
[04:29] It's just so bad. It's so bad. So yeah, lame. But she said that, and we'll take her leave her, but she said that he called her screaming about the discharge petition saying that his friends would get hurt. And then she made a little bit of news when she said, he said to her, people she knows, people she knows would get hurt by what was released in those or contained in those files. I found that very interesting.

Speaker 2:
[04:54] Yeah. I mean, who knows? I mean, look, you know, I'm glad, I guess, that Marjorie is having her moment of lucidity, but she's also one of the worst people ever to serve in Congress. You know, she spent years upon years upon years dividing Americans, weaponizing the process. She came after the kids that, you know, escaped my high school after the shooting, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas and Parkland. I mean, she's one of the worst people ever. So now to be like, oh, I realized that was all bad. Yeah, but you have a track record of years of doing that, you know. I appreciate that you now, you know, don't agree with the president on multiple issues, but, you know, you can't go into a warehouse, burn it to the ground and being like, okay, I guess, you know, that was not the right thing to do. The warehouse is still burnt to the ground. And the trail of the damage that she did while she was up here is significant. So, you know, and look, it's been well reported. The reason she turned on the president is he refused to endorse her to run for Senate. Why? Because the people of Georgia weren't going to send a crazy Marjorie Taylor Greene to the Senate, okay? So she didn't turn on him because all of a sudden she hits a moral compass. She turned on him because he wouldn't send her to the Senate. And so look, you know, I know we like to take all the things that she's saying and that's fine. Some of it is probably true, but the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend all the time.

Speaker 1:
[06:26] Right. There is quite a bit of that going on within MAGA right now, quite a bit of in-fighting fracturing and some of it is-

Speaker 2:
[06:32] I mean, it's like, look, fine, you might like a thing that Tucker says now and then, but he's also a terrible person.

Speaker 1:
[06:38] Correct.

Speaker 2:
[06:39] I mean, like this idea that like, look, I get it, we want to win, winning is important. In fact, that's really the only thing that matters at the point is winning. But we can win without having to embrace Tucker and Marjorie.

Speaker 1:
[06:52] I agree. I agree and I know we 100 percent endorse that because I'm getting a lot of pushback by saying, I don't want Tucker in my tent and that's okay. I was like, oh, well, they've changed. They've seen the light. We should embrace them. I would say with some of the voters, fine, yeah, to me that's different, but the people who have put us in this mess intentionally and made a lot of money and were very successful doing it, I don't trust them and I don't need to court.

Speaker 2:
[07:19] Yeah, it's like two of the largest grifters of all time.

Speaker 1:
[07:22] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[07:23] Like, you know, so look, we want to win, we need to have a broad coalition.

Speaker 1:
[07:28] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[07:29] But the coalition doesn't need to be everybody. Some people should be excluded from the coalition.

Speaker 1:
[07:34] I agree. Let's talk about what's going on post Marjorie Taylor Greene's exit because there's been a lot of movement in the House of Representatives. We've had lots of members leaving for different reasons. I want to talk about Swalwell and Gonzalez, and now we have McCormick leaving. We had an unfortunately a death today on the Democratic side. I'm sorry, my condolences to you for the loss of your colleague and to his family, obviously. But I want to talk about that math, what that math looks like for votes, etc. But also I want to get your thoughts and your take on everything that went down with Swalwell and Gonzalez and the Ethics Committee and what appears to be something that has been systemic kind of in the halls of Congress in terms of these interactions with staff and other inappropriate interactions with women and girls.

Speaker 2:
[08:29] Well, I mean, first, look, I'm glad that Swalwell and Tony resigned and they're gone. We would have voted to expel them. I would have voted to expel both of them. So I'm glad that happened. I'm glad it was swift. I mean, obviously, everyone has read about the Eric situation. Obviously, there's no, there's never been room for anyone who's potentially raping people. You know, date rape is rape. And so, you know, so that saga is over with, you know, on the Tony situation. I mean, obviously, you know, he had a staff member light themselves on fire and kill themselves over his behavior. And so, I'm glad they're both gone and we're done with that. And it happened fairly quickly. You know, look, the Sheila incident had, you know, a two-year ethics process, you know, and, you know, they discovered that, you know, she abused her position and, you know, misappropriated federal funds. So I'm glad she resigned also, by the way. Had she not resigned, she would have been expelled, I think, yesterday or today as well. And so, you know, listen, obviously, having them all together, it's a cluster. You know, it reinforces why Congress has an 18% approval rating. But what it does remind me is that we got to fix the ethics process up here. It can't take years and years and years to handle this stuff. We got to figure out how to expedite that process.

Speaker 1:
[09:50] And why does it feel like they have to be compelled so forcefully? And like, you know what I mean? Like they're not just stepping aside. I'm not saying that allegations is equal proof and that you should necessarily concede to leave when there's just some allegations against you. But other than in Swalwell's case, which was very swift compared to what you just described.

Speaker 2:
[10:12] Because the allegations, I think, were overwhelming. It was an overwhelming amount of allegations, multiple allegations. It was coming from multiple different people at multiple different times. It wasn't just a one-off. And so I think that's, I think that some of the allegations were just so jarring. I think that's why that moved so quickly.

Speaker 1:
[10:32] Yeah. And what do you think of the Ethics Committee's decision to put out that statement, asking other people to come forward? What do you think that looks like down the road?

Speaker 2:
[10:42] Well, that's their job. I mean, I'm fine with that. That's their job. Now, in the event they get credible allegations that they're then going to investigate, they need to do so swiftly. It just can't take two years.

Speaker 1:
[10:52] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[10:53] You know, you asked me about the math. I mean, listen, obviously that's something that gets factored in here. It shouldn't when it comes to allegations of rape and things of that nature, but this is a political body, so that's always going to happen, right? And so, yeah, the Republicans picked up one vote because two Democrats left, one Republican left. So the Republicans picked up a vote through that process. But that is what it is, right? We can't keep somebody here because of that process.

Speaker 1:
[11:23] Yeah, because then that's just another layer of a lack of-

Speaker 2:
[11:27] Well, additionally, when we win the House in January, we can't prosecute a case of corruption against all the nonsense that's gone on here for the last two years, if we're willing to save people who are involved in corruption.

Speaker 1:
[11:38] Yes. Oh my God. Exactly. The Glass House shit. By the way, getting back to the Epstein files and oversight and depositions, I don't know if you saw this today, but Lutnick was in the Senate and Senator Van Hollen asked him about a letter that his office had sent him pertaining to Epstein that he had not answered. His answer in that committee was that he was going to be appearing before y'all in two weeks and that he had volunteered to do that so that he was going to not answer any questions today related to Epstein, that he was waiting to answer questions for you guys in two weeks. That made me curious as to why he wouldn't just full-throated to answer the questions now. But given the shenanigans we've seen with Bondi, do you think that Watnick's definitely going to be deposed?

Speaker 2:
[12:23] Well, I mean, I think he's agreed to sit for deposition in oversight. Look, I don't know that Howard's done anything wrong. I don't think there's any evidence that he's done anything wrong. But I think Howard's own statements have got himself in this quagmire. Howard went out and did an interview on a podcast and talked about how he lived next to Epstein. His wife and him went over there. Epstein showed them the massage table. Epstein said, this is for a special type of massage. He said, me and my wife decided we would never be in a room with him again. Okay? And that he was the world's greatest blackmailer. These are the things he said on the podcast. Well, first of all, how would he know that he's the world's greatest blackmailer? Like, how do you know that? You hear that from your friends. Were you blackmailed? So there's questions around that. And then the second thing is, after he said he would never be in a room with him again, years later after Epstein was already indicted, he went to the island with his family. So he was in a room with him again. So Howard's own statements have put himself, you know, have gotten him these questions. And so, you know, look, we'll see what he says in the deposition because obviously that's public information. And he's under oath. So that'll all come out.

Speaker 1:
[13:32] Yeah, I'm very curious about that, to your point. Last question, and this is something that I wasn't planning on asking you, but I was scrolling through your feed today, and I know that you've been one of the more outspoken members of Congress on UAPs. And I was just looking at something that you had posted, because I find this very, very interesting. You were talking about the American people, the American people have a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomenon. This is something that is very interesting to me, and it's pertaining to a documentary, I guess, you're featured in. What are your thoughts on all of this, and what do you say to anybody who says, oh, God, this is ridiculous, and this is all nonsense, and you're a conspiracy theorist, crackhead, all that stuff?

Speaker 2:
[14:19] Well, listen, I'm definitely not a conspiracy theorist. I'm far from it. In fact, I usually go after conspiracy theorists, but it's not a conspiracy theory if some of the things start to be true. And the problem that I had is, when I started getting involved in this, and Oversight had a hearing last year, we were getting tremendous pushback back from the Pentagon and from folks on our services. We were trying to pass bills here that Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid had been working on for years. And so, when I started seeing that resistance from the agencies to release information, that's when I started pulling that string. And then we obviously see that the Pentagon's misappropriated trillions of dollars, can't find trillions of dollars. And then we have very credible witnesses that come forward, people who worked at these departments that say to us, well, the Pentagon is misappropriating funds, and what they're doing is they're taking something that you funded here in Congress and they're moving it over to an advanced technology weapons program. And then you look at Area 51, which got ton of publicity about that's where the aliens are. Well, Area 51 is an advanced technology laboratory. When we killed Osama Bin Laden, we killed Osama Bin Laden with helicopters that we didn't ever fund. Nobody knew existed. These were helicopters that are stealth helicopters. That was already 11 years ago. They left Area 51 on that mission. Nobody knew that they were there. This is all verified, of course. Then we get people who are pilots and legitimate folks. These are not people living in Winnebago, saying that they were taken up by the aliens, and they played Marjan together. These are people that are telling us what they have seen with their own eyes, like legitimate people, decorated people, of what they've seen with their own eyes, that defies gravity, that defied our radar. Now obviously we have these 11 scientists, folks in the field that have died and committed suicide all in a period of a couple of years. So listen, what I would say is, I don't know that aliens exist, but I do think we have advanced technology programs that we're not being honest about. I do think we might have reverse engineered some of that technology from stuff we found here. I mean, if I said to you, hey, I have a story for you. So millions of years ago, there were these giant lizards that roamed the planet. They were all such a different lizard. Some of them ate meat and some of them ate vegetables. I don't know, one of them is called the Tyrannosaurus. You would look at me like I'm crazy. Now, the only reason you believe that is because we were like, here are the bones of these animals. So you've seen proof. Why is it any different than me saying millions of years ago, like there were crafts that crashed here, and we've recovered that technology and we've reverse engineered some of that stuff? I don't know that there's stuff going on now live, but this place is millions of years old. So the idea that there was a period when giant lizards roamed this place, or there was a period of time when this planet before humans were here might have been visited by other species in the universe, I don't know that that's not any less believable. And so I do think the government knows stuff, I do think the government is hiding stuff from us, what they know, how extensive it is, that, I have questions about that. I don't know that we have biologics. I don't know that. I need to see that myself. But the government pushes back, and hard, every time we ask tough questions, we want to see information, we want to visit these facilities, they say we don't have clearance, we have unlimited clearance. And so that's why I'm interested in it. I'm interested in it because I feel like the government is not telling us the truth.

Speaker 1:
[18:05] Okay, last thing. So how do we get them to?

Speaker 2:
[18:08] Well, I think we're continuing to put pressure on them. I mean, this literally just, if you go back just 10 years ago, it was literally just Harry Reid talking about this, Marco Rubio and a couple others. Now, it's dramatically different, right? You have people come up to me all the time and ask me about this, paying attention after they saw the David Grush hearing. And so people don't know what they don't know, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, there's a lot of known unknowns. But I think people know that we don't know the full truth, and that the government knows more than we know. And they want more, they want the truth. And so we'll see. The president, I think, has an opportunity to do that. We'll see if he does it, or if he falls into the deep state, as he would like to say.

Speaker 1:
[18:54] Yeah. Well, I'm fascinated by it. And as a kid, watching and walking through the grocery store and all the Inquirer magazines, and like, oh, that's not real. And the aliens found and stuff like that. I've always, I've been curious about it because, yeah, I don't know what I saw when I was a kid one time. But anyway, it's still fascinating. And thank you for making it a thing when, you know, it hasn't really necessarily been, or keeping it as a thing, more or less, when people have not been paying attention to it. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[19:21] Well, I'm just listening to these guys who have come in front of our committees. Again, like these are, these are pros. They have, they have distinguished careers, medals. They left on good terms with the military. These are not, you know, this is not, you know, Randy Quaid from Independence.

Speaker 1:
[19:39] Shooters full. Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[19:41] Well, although I do prefer, I do prefer Randy Quaid in Christmas Vacation.

Speaker 1:
[19:47] My God. So good. And the Quaids are a little crazy. They both ended up being a little crazy. I never thought Dennis was as crazy as Randy, but they both ended up being a little bit crazy. But thank you for joining me today, and thank you for doing everything that you do, and we'll be keeping an eye on Bondi in particular. I'm very curious because I would like more justice for the survivors than we have seen thus far, and we need all the answers to that as well. So thank you for joining me. Thank you for all your work, and nice to talk to you. Nice to see you.

Speaker 2:
[20:16] Thanks for having me.