Shadowing Practice: Sen. Murphy vs. Trump's corruption | Today, Explained - Learn English Speaking with Video

So here's the thing about Donald Trump's blatant, sometimes open corruption.

If it's happening out in front of us, if it's largely been accepted by the public and seemingly the courts, is it even fair to call it corruption at all?

That was my first question to Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy at a recent forum about corporate monopolies

and corruption held by the American Economic Liberties Project in Washington, D .C.

That's this week on Today Explained Saturday.

Let's dig in.

Thank you to the American Economic Liberties Project.

Obviously, thank you to Senator Murphy for being here.

And thank you to you all, too, for being interested in this topic.

You know, when I think about corruption, particularly this bending the knee kind of framework, one thing that immediately jumps to mind for me is that,

you know, when we think about the Trump administration, this isn't happening in backroom deals.

This isn't happening in some secret basement a lot of these things are happening right in front of us.

So I guess my first question was, is corruption the right word to even use when it's been broadly sanctioned by legal and governmental entities?

Well, that's a good question to start with.

I guess I haven't really thought about it.

I think corruption is still a word that resonates.

I think people understand that corruption is a bad thing

that it is something that we have broadly tried to expunge from our politics.

And I do think that people generally understand corruption,

though, to be something that happens quietly behind closed doors.

Corruption is something you try to hide. And

so I do think the most important piece of this moment

in some ways is trying to understand what to do with the brazen public way that Trump is engaging in corruption,

because simply by the very fact that he does it every day, that he does it openly,

publicly, and proudly, it is causing some people to question, wait, wait, is this corruption?

Because this isn't what I learned corruption is.

There's no shame in this.

And generally, there's supposed to be shame in corruption.

But I don't necessarily know it means you change the word.

And I guess as I'm literally just thinking out loud, if you change the word, you're kind of ceding to his terms, right?

He's trying to change the very notion of corruption by doing it publicly.

And so if you call it something different, then I think you're probably playing his game.

You know, your corporate pardons report documents over 160 companies that have had federal enforcement actions dropped.

But as we know, corporate influence has been true in Washington for a long time.

You know, how do you think this is a qualitatively different moment than the usual pay -to -play

or the usual lobbying influence that we've seen?

Yeah, it's just so nakedly transactional right now.

And it's just a really easy story to explain,

you know, whether it's the donations that Boeing made that got them out of their trouble, whether it's the Toyota donations,

whether it's the money that Zelle pumped into the administration.

You know, it now doesn't happen through slowly putting money into the political system, slowly building up connections.

It's literally just a million dollars for a corporate pardon.

And that now happens, you know, within weeks or months.

It's put Eric Trump on your board.

The lawsuit or the enforcement action is dropped, right?

It's just so nakedly quick and transactional that it's hard to hide.

And again, it's that same problem.

It's so public, it's so transactional that to some people, it doesn't look like they're, you know, bread and butter of corruption.

But the story is just a lot easier to tell.

It doesn't make it any less forgivable.

The slow sort of building of influence in Democratic and Republican administrations is still unacceptable.

But in some ways, the way they're doing it makes it easy for us to explain.

What do you think is the impact of

that kind of flagrant degradation of the process or just doing it out in the open?

I mean, we've established kind of how different this moment feels in its in -your -face nature of it.

Does that have a democracy -corroding impact?

Like, what do you think is the consequence of its being in our face in this way?

Yeah, so I—listen, Trump takes over at a moment when a lot of Americans were seriously contemplating giving up on democracy.

And while that conversation may not be sort of on the surface of kitchen table talks in our country, it's right below the surface.

People just don't think that their voice matters.

any longer they for a long time have believed

that the elites get whatever they want out of the system

and the way in which trump has chosen to do this

so transparently i think is an effort to permanently shatter people's faith in the entire enterprise

so as to transition the country to a kleptocratic oligarchy and

so yes i think this is a particularly vulnerable moment for the country in

which a lot of Americans are unfortunately ready to just say, fuck it.

Like, this thing doesn't work any longer.

It now clearly doesn't work because we have an elected president who is just stealing from us.

I'm just going to walk away from the whole enterprise.

And when people give up, right, when people just retreat from public action, that's the moment that the oligarchs seize power and never give it up.

So, yes, the reason that I have been sort of raising the unacceptability of the corruption,

right, raising for people the fact that it is abnormal, that we should not normalize it,

is because I think Trump's core case here is in – and if he is successful in normalizing it,

it may be the death blow to people's faith in the entire democratic enterprise.

As you mentioned, kind of explicit examples, Donald Trump Jr. is a strategic advisor at Market Couchy.

He's joined the board of another prediction market.

Your Bets Off Act targets prediction markets banning bets on government actions, war, assassination.

But as we know, this kind of insider trading isn't a bug of these kind of things.

It's a feature.

And these companies have kind of built it into the cost.

Has the train left the station on these prediction markets?

Is there a way to rein them in as your Bets Off Act tries to do?

No, it definitely hasn't left the station.

And you're right.

I mean, these prediction markets are designed to make insiders and powerful people filthy rich.

So what the Bets Off Act essentially does is say anytime, first of all, you can't bet on government action, right?

Just period, stop, right?

Nobody should be able to make money off of war or famine.

You can't bet on government action.

But second, you also can't bet on an event where there is one person who controls and knows the outcome.

Because in almost every case where those bets are offered, you know, bets as benign as what a celebrity is going to say on the Jimmy Fallon show that night.

The bet is controlled by a powerful person,

meaning the powerful person and anyone who surrounds the powerful person knows the outcome of the bet,

can place wagers that they know will make money on the bet it's rigged

and only and always rigged in favor of the rich

and the powerful

so the prediction market game is really all about bets where powerful people know the outcome

and can profit and that's why eric trump

100

and donald trump are you know deeply integrated into these industries

101

because they and their friends are the ones

102

that profit they are the ones very likely

103

that placed those bets on friday before the iran war started

104

that the war was going to start 24 hours later

105

and they see an infinite amount of enrichment

106

that comes from these these markets now here's where your question is an interesting one right

107

and i literally got it two or three times yesterday is it too late like

108

and of course it's not too late

109

but people i feel kind of baked into the culture baked in this yeah

110

but it but it doesn't but

111

but people people are beginning to smell how corrupt these markets

112

are like a lot of people do know what happened with those iraq war bets

113

and here's where i just think the democratic party um perpetually suffers from lack of imagination right

114

so we should say that if you elect us we are going to take all these corrupt prediction markets down.

115

Now, whether we can or not, right, that's a question of the politics of the moment.

116

But we should promise that we are going to eliminate corrupt prediction markets the minute you elect us, just like we should be saying to the broader case of the work that this organization does.

117

If Democrats are elected, we are going to break up all these big, corrupt, monopolistic media companies that have been constructed under Donald Trump's regime.

118

We should just say like, okay, Paramount, enjoy this well you have it because as soon as we get elected,

119

we're going to break you into pieces, right?

120

And people would respond to that boldness of vision when it comes to antitrust.

121

And I think they would respond to that boldness of vision

122

when it comes to the most corrupt new ways that people in and around the president are profiting, like the prediction markets.

123

People will definitely respond.

124

I guess my question is, there is some form of a conflation between the overcorruption we were talking about in the beginning and something like corporate consolidation,

125

or do you see those as kind of a one in the same when we're talking about these monopolistic media companies?

126

Yeah, it's all part of the same story.

127

The only way that Paramount Skydance gets to be as big and as corrupt and as manipulative as it is,

128

is because of corruption, because of an underlying deal that is done between the Ellison family and the Trump family.

129

I mean, Hegseth literally says it on stage, right?

130

I can't wait until my friends, the Ellisons, get control of CNN because then you'll stop telling the truth about the war.

131

The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.

132

Like, that's literally what he says on stage is that I don't like the criticism that we're getting,

133

but it's cool because pretty soon my buddies will be in charge of the storytelling.

134

So, no, it's all part of one story.

135

And again, back to how you message this.

136

Yes, I understand that it's a hard thing to break up that corrupt consolidation.

137

Yes, I understand that by the time we get control of things here, the prediction markets will be even more mature.

138

But by stating what you are going to do, you can actually bend reality, right?

139

By being bold in your claims about what you will do with power,

140

people start signing up for the project.

141

Not just people out in the public, but members of Congress, right, start signing up for the project the bolder it is.

142

So, yes, those are hard things to unwind, but they become less hard if you state very clearly at the outset about what your intentions are.

143

To this point, you signed a memo with Senators Schiff, Warren, and Smith that argues that Democrats can't run on affordability without naming the corporations and the billionaires driving the crisis.

144

I guess I wanted to ask about that with the context of what the Democratic Party's history has been in mind.

145

You know, there's close relationships between the Democratic Party and some of these, let's say, Silicon Valley money or tech money.

146

There's close relationships between Democrats and folks in big law.

147

Are those relationships an impediment for Democrats doing that clear naming and shaming that you're talking about?

148

Absolutely.

149

I mean, like, absolutely.

150

So what did we do last year?

151

We passed a bill essentially greenlighting the massive expansion of the crypto industry and corruption inside the crypto industry with Democratic votes.

152

The Stablecoin Act, the Genius Act, which has like a modicum of consumer protections,

153

literally has in it a carve out from ethics rules for

154

the president of the United States to be able to issue his own cryptocurrency.

155

Like, that's incredible that the Democratic Party signed off on a crypto regulatory bill that greenlights Donald Trump's corruption scheme.

156

There's no explanation for why we did

157

that other than the integration of parts of our party and very powerful people in the crypto industry.

158

Or maybe more charitably, our fear

159

that the crypto industry is going to spend a ton of money against Democrats in the next election

160

if we don't do what they want.

161

But that's, you know, just a slightly more acceptable form of corruption, right?

162

Just the I'm going to do what you want because I fear

163

that there's going to be political consequences in the next election.

164

So, yeah, the memo that Adam and Elizabeth and Tina and I sent says very simply,

165

you're not going to win over the public unless you tell a story about corporate

166

and billionaire corruption because people are smarter than a lot of us think they are.

167

People understand that the corruption of the economy, right, their stagnation in their economic lives is derivative,

168

is downstream of the corruption of our politics.

169

Like, they get that.

170

And if you don't tell that full story, the influence that the corporations and the billionaires have in our politics and how that has limited your economic opportunities,

171

your message is just not believable.

172

If you just, like, start with, let's trim the sales of the way that the pharmaceutical companies price drugs,

173

it's like you're not telling me the whole story.

174

Like, the real story is that we got into this mess with prescription drug prices that are so high.

175

because our politics is corrupt.

176

And the prescription drug companies have way too much control over Washington.

177

So don't just tell me your plan for lowering prescription drug costs.

178

Tell me your plan for knocking out the prescription drug industry's power in Washington.

179

Like, I need to know both things.

180

I mean, that really rings true from, you know, even my some experience on the road.

181

I mean, oftentimes leading up to 2024,

182

things like corporate capture or corporate consolidation or things I heard even more Trump supporters or RFK supporters sometimes talking about, and not necessarily coming from Democrats.

183

What took so long to name this, to name something that feels like it's been in the populist air for a while?

184

I mean, listen, I think inside the Democratic Party,

185

there is an enormous hangover from Barack Obama.

186

And I mean this – I'm going to do this in a complementary way to Obama, right?

187

So Obama lifted our party, right, into power.

188

And we did really important things with him.

189

He did not use this frame for the world,

190

right, a frame of corporate capture and an agenda of release from that capture.

191

He was more technocratic, right?

192

More market -based in his reforms.

193

And we got away with that as a Democratic Party because of the unique talent of Barack Obama as a messenger.

194

He was just somebody

195

that we were never going to reproduce in our party as someone who just made folks feel better about government

196

because he was in charge.

197

And what it exposed, though,

198

in his absence is a lack of a narrative that the Democratic Party tells about who has power,

199

who doesn't have power, and how we're going to fix that. And

200

so I do think our reliance on Barack Obama as kind

201

of a savior for the party's messaging exposed us as not having a coherent underlying message

202

when we didn't have a uniquely talented political figure at the top.

203

Makes sense.

204

I'm going to end on a question about people's own kind of emotions in this moment.

205

I think the scope of Trump's corruption can feel disempowering.

206

The administration seems immune to public opinion at many times, undeterred by legal and kind of institutional restraints.

207

And it feels like, you know, we're kind of strapped in the beginning of a roller coaster that, you know, you don't know where it ends. Is that true?

208

Like, do we have our constraints coming?

209

Is moderation coming or is it just a matter of like, you know, fingers crossed?

210

Yeah, I think it's, again, I think it's only coming if the Democratic Party, as we head into this election,

211

the 2020 election, makes the unrigging of our democracy a tentpole for our party's messaging, right?

212

If it's up to me, our party's message is unrigging the democracy, unrigging the economy, kind of period stop, right?

213

And if you're like signed up for those two projects

214

and we got to fill out what that means to unrig the democracy, it probably means that we're running on a constitutional amendment to get dark money

215

and billionaire money and anonymous money completely out of politics.

216

But like people are up for that.

217

And I guess I'll end here because you are right that people are feeling super discouraged and super powerless right now. And

218

so we as a party have to sort of start our

219

analysis of what this moment needs through a diagnosis of the way that people are feeling.

220

And people are feeling like they have no agency, like they have no control.

221

So both our economic and political messaging has to be about returning control to human beings and explaining to them, as we've talked about a few times,

222

that it goes both ways the corruption of our economy is downstream of the corruption of our democracy,

223

but also, and I'll try to say this the right way to end, the corruption of our democracy is also downstream of the corruption of our economy in this way.

224

When our economy is an economy that only cares about profit and efficiency, it's a virtuous economy.

225

It's an economy where morality doesn't matter where the health of workers

226

or the health of communities is just irrelevant to economic decision

227

making it becomes this just winner take all economy in which the folks who do well just

228

grab it all and we've normalized that because we've normalized the idea

229

that that that sort of shared prosperity is not a value any longer in our economy okay

230

when that becomes normalized inside our economy, it becomes normalized inside our politics too.

231

Our politics becomes winner take all politics.

232

So if a CEO is justified in making a thousand times more than the average worker and using his power as CEO.

233

to abuse workers in order to enrich himself, and that's okay, then why is it wrong for a president of the United

234

States to use his power to abuse the people under his authority

235

and enrich himself maximally in the same way that a CEO would?

236

So when we normalize zero virtue in our economy, it's really easy to say, well, maybe virtue shouldn't matter in our politics either.

237

And so that's why the project is so big, right?

238

There's cross currents between what has happened in our economy affecting our politics, what's happened in our politics affecting our economy,

239

which is why your willingness to confront this question of corruption in government

240

and in our economy and recognizing how they flow back and forth, I just think is so critical and why I was So I'm glad to help kick this off today.

241

Well, Senator Murphy, thank you for coming.

242

Appreciate it.

243

Thank you.

244

That was Senator Chris Murphy.

245

Every Saturday, we'll be in your video and audio feeds with a new and interesting interview in politics or culture.

246

And of course, you can catch Today Explained every weekday, wherever you get your podcasts.

247

I'm Estet Herndon, and thank you for joining us.

248

And I hope you tune in next week for the first episode of our new podcast, America Actually.

249

Now, what's the show about?

250

It's about who we are beyond Donald Trump.

251

He's been defining our politics for more than a decade, but we're building to a presidential election that should theoretically replace him.

252

So who do we want to be?

253

I'm going to start asking those questions, and I hope you join me.

254

Subscribe so you don't miss a thing at youtube .com slash fox.

255

Thank you.

📺 Zelfde Kanaal

✨ Aanbevolen Video

B2 Shadowing Practice Missing A Connection At The Airport

2,529

12 zinnen

B2 Shadowing Practice Missing A Connection At The Airport

Travel EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

IELTS Speaking Part3 | Do people go to the countryside to travel or to live?#ieltsspeakingsample

557

5 zinnen

IELTS Speaking Part3 | Do people go to the countryside to travel or to live?#ieltsspeakingsample

IELTS PrepHigh School StudentsUniversity Students

You Need to Believe in Yourself I Robert Greene

201

12 zinnen

You Need to Believe in Yourself I Robert Greene

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

How Cell Phones Impact Our Relationships

260

24 zinnen

How Cell Phones Impact Our Relationships

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

215

28 zinnen

Weekly Team Meeting: Project Status Update

Business EnglishWorking Adults

if you wear nice clothes #denzelwashington #motiationalspeech #motivation

737

9 zinnen

if you wear nice clothes #denzelwashington #motiationalspeech #motivation

Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

396

6 zinnen

Not Everyone Can Be a Dad...

Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students

never ever put me in a position where I have to show you how ruthless I can bebe #denzelwashington

432

11 zinnen

never ever put me in a position where I have to show you how ruthless I can bebe #denzelwashington

Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

634

25 zinnen

My First Month Living Abroad

Travel EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students

Band 9 Response | IELTS Speaking Part 1 | Topic: Public Transport

192

7 zinnen

Band 9 Response | IELTS Speaking Part 1 | Topic: Public Transport

IELTS PrepHigh School StudentsUniversity Students

17 zinnen

How exercise benefits your body

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

6,682

15 zinnen

Friendly Speaking Tips for B2 Learners

Daily ConversationHigh School StudentsUniversity Students

Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les

Deze spreekles is gebaseerd op de video “Sen. Murphy vs. Trump's corruption”. Deze woorden komen het vaakst terug: corruption, bet, economy, politics. Deze video bevat 255 zinnen en 3456 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 21:50. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 158 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. 85% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden; de rest kun je beter vooraf bekijken.

Belangrijke woorden in deze video

15 woorden uit de video die het leren waard zijn, met uitspraak en betekenis:

Woord	Uitspraak	Betekenis
prediction zelfstandig naamwoord	/pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/	voorspelling
corrupt bijvoeglijk naamwoord	/kəˈɹʌpt/	corrupt, verdorven
prescription zelfstandig naamwoord	/pɹəˈskɹɪp.ʃən/	voorschrift, recept
billionaire zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˌbɪl.jəˈnɛɚ/	miljardair
enterprise zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈɛntəˌpɹaɪz/	onderneming
necessarily bijwoord	/ˌnɛs.əˈsɛɹ.ə.li/	nodig, noodzakelijk
enforcement zelfstandig naamwoord	/ɪnˈfoɹsm(ə)nt/	handhaving
essentially bijwoord	/ɪˈsɛnʃəli/	essentieel
bold bijvoeglijk naamwoord	/ˈbəʊld/	moedig
underlying bijvoeglijk naamwoord		onderliggend
bend werkwoord	/bɛnd/	buigen, plooien
consequence zelfstandig naamwoord	/ˈkɑn.sɪ.kwəns/	gevolg, consequentie
supporter zelfstandig naamwoord	/səˈpɔɹ.tɚ/	partijganger, partijgangster
elect werkwoord	/ɪˈlɛkt/	kiezen, uitkiezen
donation zelfstandig naamwoord	/doʊˈneɪʃən/	schenking

Phrasal verbs die je zult horen

Woord	Uitspraak	Betekenis
build up werkwoord		opstapelen
fill out werkwoord	/fɪl ˈaʊt/	invullen
give up werkwoord		zich overgeven
take over werkwoord		overnemen

Zinnen om te herhalen

Korte, volledige zinnen uit de video die je in alledaagse gesprekken kunt gebruiken:

I guess I haven't really thought about it.
Because this isn't what I learned corruption is.
You can't bet on government action.

Grammatica in deze video

De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:

Structuur	In de video
Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt	haven't really thought · has been · we've seen
Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet	been accepted · is dropped · are designed
Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding	person who controls · anyone who surrounds · Act, which has

Uitspraak om op te letten

De spreker gebruikt 62 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals doesn't, don't, I'm. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.

De “th”-klanken: ethics /ˈɛθ.ɪks/, filthy /ˈfɪlθi/
De klanken “sh” en “zh”: corruption /kəˈɹʌpʃən/, prediction /pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/, prescription /pɹəˈskɹɪp.ʃən/, capture /ˈkæp.(t)ʃɚ/, consolidation /kənˌsɑləˈdeɪʃən/
Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: consolidation /kənˌsɑləˈdeɪʃən/, necessarily /ˌnɛs.əˈsɛɹ.ə.li/, essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, explanation /ˌɛkspləˈneɪʃən/, efficiency /ɪˈfɪʃ.ən.si/

Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:

Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: enterprise /ˈɛntəˌpɹaɪz/, bold /ˈbəʊld/, bend /bɛnd/, rig /ɹɪɡ/, narrative /ˈnæɹ.ə.tɪv/
/æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: capture /ˈkæp.(t)ʃɚ/, transition /tɹænˈzɪʃ.ən/, narrative /ˈnæɹ.ə.tɪv/, absence /ˈæb.s(ə)n̩s/, talented /ˈtæləntɪd/
/g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: rig /ɹɪɡ/, argue /ˈɑɹ.ɡju/, engage /ɪnˈɡeɪd͡ʒ/, regulatory /ˈɹɛɡ.jʊ.lə.t(ɔː.)ɹi/, integration /ˌɪn.tɪˈɡɹeɪ.ʃən/

Zo oefen je met deze video

Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als prediction, corrupt, prescription.

Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?

Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.

Shadowing-techniek: lees de volledige stap-voor-stap-gids →

Shadowing Practice: Sen. Murphy vs. Trump's corruption | Today, Explained - Learn English Speaking with Video

How bite marks made one man a murder suspect | Part 1

How to solve problems like a designer

Why Latino voters have turned on Trump | America, Actually

Five things you need to know for the 2026 midterms | America, Actually

Why are weddings so damn expensive?

Are headphones destroying our hearing?

How to be less neurotic | The Gray Area

We’re already using AI more than we realize

The origin of the '80s aesthetic

Why “Buy one, get one free” isn’t a great deal

How F1 drivers survive their own cars

Why 350°F is the magic number for baking

How did pink become a girly color?

The real reason Boeing's new plane crashed twice

Food waste is the world's dumbest problem

Why AI art struggles with hands

How the rich avoid paying taxes

How Vladimir Putin won Republicans' approval

Zohran Mamdani on his first priorities as NYC mayor (Full video interview)

Why we say “OK”