10/16/25: Trump Greenlights CIA In Venezuela, Debate On Totalitarianism, Dems Screwed By SCOTUS In 2026

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. All right, shall we get to Venezuela. Sticking
in terms of international affairs, huge news yesterday. I mean,
I don't know. I have a lot of thoughts about this.
Right now, the Trump administration is basically publicly telegraphing what
we did to Saddam. We're like, hey, Maduro, you gotta go,

(00:45):
and we are building up a military campaign. We're striking
drug traffickers right off the coast of Venezuela. We have
a fifty million dollar bounty on Maduro's head. Trump now
bragging in the Oval office, we are looking at land
strikes directly inside of Venezuela. Let's take a listen the
next step in this war on cartels and are you
considering options? Are you considering strikes on land?

Speaker 3 (01:08):
Well, I don't want to tell you exactly, but we
are certainly looking at land now because we've got the
sea very well under control. We've had a couple of
days where there isn't a boat to be found. Then
that I view that as a good thing, not a
bad thing. But we had tremendous amounts coming in by boats,
by very expensive boats. You know, they have a lot
of money, very fast, very expensive boats that were pretty big.

(01:30):
And the way you look at it is every boat
that we knock out, we save twenty five thousand American lives.
So every time you see a boat and you feel badly,
you say, well that's rough. It is rough. But if
you lose three people and save twenty five thousand people,
these are people that are killing our population.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
So he says, there we're looking at He won't rule
out any of the land strikes both. The reason why
pairs very importantly is with this story. Let's put it
up here on the screen from the New York Times quote,
the Trump administration is authorized covert CIA action in Venezuela.
It says they have secretly authorized the CIA to conduct
action against Nicholas Maduro specifically, so keep that in mind,

(02:08):
not against so called drug trafficking. They're saying against the
Maduro government specifically. They say that he has acknowledged in
fact that we are quote looking at land now because
we've got the CEA very well under control considering strikes
on Venezuelan territory. This new authority allows the CIA to
carry out lethal operations in Venezuela and conduct a range
of operations in the Caribbean. The agency would be able

(02:31):
to take covert action against Maduro or his government, either
unilaterally or in conjunction with a larger military operation. It
is not yet known whether the CIA is planning any
specific operations, but the development comes as the US military
is planning its own possible explanation. So one of the
immediate analyzes I saw of this is that if you

(02:51):
look at the way this all works is this could
be some sort of limited hangout thing to get in
the New York Times, specifically to make because it's the
front page story. Now, maybe they did just get it
as a leak. I'm a little bit suspicious. I tend
to think all of this is about a public pressure
campaign to try to get him to step down voluntarily,
because it's one of those where, look, you know, the

(03:13):
CIA is scary, especially Latin America, right, we have a
long legacy of trying to do stuff down there. You
have the military campaign, you have the boat, you have
the president not ruling it out. It seems to me
that this was supposed to be tough. I'm not excusing it,
by the way, because I still think it's completely insane,
and of course you could still follow through with it.
It seems to me, or on the immediate term, that
it was leaked intentionally to try to ramp up the pressure. Regardless, though,

(03:36):
this is a great gift to Madurero in my opinion,
because now what can he do every time that there's
an opposition leader CIA, If somebody tries to attack you, CIA,
just kill him, right, and the people will say, look
at these people, they're meddling in our government. Of course
they're trying to kill me, they're trying to overthrow me.
This is like the Latin American strongman argument for the
last fifty years down there, it's like, oh, it's always
CIA or somebody. Sometimes it is, but in this case,

(03:59):
what he's doing is actually making it so that Maduro
can blame all of Venezuela's problems on the United States,
which he's been doing for the last decade. But even
more importantly, I think here is the series. Like from
day one, I was like, I'm very scared. This looks
regime change. And even Wan David Rohaus we had on
he was like, Oh, I don't know, it's like, could

(04:20):
be just be like stupidity. Right in terms of striking
the drug boats. Now, I don't think it's deniable, from
the military operations to the bounty, to this authorizing CIA
action against Venezuela, the fact that Marco Rubio and Miller
are running the White House and the Pentagon. Right, so
keep in mind Rubio again, Rubio is somehow convinced Trump

(04:42):
that this Venezuela thing is connected to drugs. There's not
a scrap of evidence of that. It's complete bullshit, literally bullshit.
According to Dia Dea statistics, because especially in all the
interviews they mentioned fentional this is zero percent fentanyl comes
from Venezuela again according to the DEA. Now, if you
look at what's really going on here, it could be
about oil, It could be about a particular South Florida

(05:06):
constituency which is backed Rubio his entire life and political career.
The fact that Rubio has posted photos of Maduro next
to Gaddafi. I mean, this is scary because this could
create a chaotic political vacuum. Even if he did step
down voluntarily, what is going to come next? Right, what's
going to happen then? And then we're going to march
down in there, We're going to back some government like

(05:28):
the Juan Guido situation was humiliating, was a disaster.

Speaker 2 (05:31):
And I don't want to hear jackshit about migration from
any fool who is supporting any of this, like, you know,
creating a failed state, like going in and creating a
failed state, Like what do you think that is going
to happen there? How is that going to work out?
To work out with Syria? You know? How did that
go for Europe? How did that go for the Syrian people? So? Yeah,
I mean I have been trying to wrap my head,
like you around why Mark or Rubio? That makes sense?

(05:55):
I think it's both ideological and it's in his political interest.
These are his political backer he's trying to deliver for them.
He has long been in love with the idea of
regime change in Venezuela. But for Trump, like, did he
really was he really convinced of this bullshit drug trafficking thing?
Is it about oil? I genuinely, it's so insane insane
to me. And then the other part that is crazy

(06:17):
to me is like they don't really it doesn't seem
like they really feel the need to message this to
the American people, Like, I know, they talk about fentanyl
and they talk about the drugs, but there hasn't been
a major propaganda campaign to really get people on board
with the idea of some sort of large scale, you know,

(06:37):
covert and they're talking about mill direct military options regime
change in Venezuela. So the whole thing is wild, and
I think it's part of why people have struggled to
take it seriously. Like the media doesn't cover it nearly
as much.

Speaker 1 (06:50):
They don't. They really don't as it.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
Should because it just seems like such an insane, bizarre
thing to do. And yet here we continue week by
week to track how they're okay, now they're you know,
now they're blowing up these boats. Now they put a
bounty on his head. Now they're claiming that he runs
this drug trafficking network. Now they're saying that drug traffick ackers,
you know, are terrorists, and you can just take military
action against simbolle nilly. Now Here, we are greenlighting the CIA.

(07:14):
Now Here, we are developing military options. Now we've masked,
they say. In the New York Times, they say the
scale of the military build up in the region is substantial.
Currently ten thousand troops there, most of them at basis
in Puerto Rico, but also contingent of Marines on amphibious
assault ships. In all, the Navy has eight surface warships
and a submarine in the Caribbean. So all of the

(07:34):
pieces are there, and you have an administration with you know,
characters like Marco Rubio, who is one of the most
powerful people in the government at this point, has been
handed all sorts of responsibility who are dying the wole
like biocons have wanted this regime change forever. So I
don't know, at a certain point, you got to take
them really seriously that they actually intend it.

Speaker 1 (07:53):
Yeah, I agree, have taken it seriously from the beginning.
It's genuinely terrifying, and it actually does fit exactly with
what you're saying. I mean, actually, i'll skip ahead here
in some of our elements because they're important, just to
show you how it fits. Put to the last one
up here, please d five up on the screen. This
was a very recent visit from the top US admiral

(08:15):
to the Caribbean. Actually, amid all these Venezuela attentions, like
when you start to see the high level you know, generals,
the admirals and others start to make little trips down
there for what purpose. I mean, they try to describe
it as routine, but you have this huge naval build up. Also,
keep in mind what Trump even said in that statement.

(08:36):
Remember he was like, we have the c under control,
now we need the land. So he's basically describing it
as taking like a like you know, setting it up
for some sort of naval blockade or nobody really even knows.
Like here we had the Navy admiral he met with Antigua,
with Barbado, Barbuda, Granada and others at the US embassy

(08:59):
apparently in barb Betos some of the Caribbean nations, which
I'm assuming are near the naval flotilla that we have
out there. But the point remains, like you have two
visits apparently just already to southcom like where Latin America
US forces. You have the military build up, you have
the strikes which are happening, and then you have the CIA.

(09:21):
I mean, this is you have to put it all together.
I agree with you on the media stuff. I mean,
if I go to I mean, we'll give the New
York Times credit because they broke the story. It was
their front page and it's a great story. But I
mean if I turn on MSNBC or something like that,
what's the lead story going to be?

Speaker 4 (09:34):
Like?

Speaker 1 (09:34):
This is huge? This is huge, Like this is regime
change for real. Whether it comes violently or it coherst
it's it's still scary. And then you own it one
hundred percent. Who the hell even knows? And then the
bleed effect into Colombia, the entire Caribbean. They're already there
are all these Venezuelans coming here fleeing from Maduro. Can
you even imagine, you know, if you have a failed state,

(09:56):
which you know, it's already kind of there, But imagine
a complete political collapse in Venezuela could destroy so much
of what of Latin America, which we have responsibility for.
We have close allies there in the region. So I'm
very very worried about it, especially you know, you fit
it with this Colombian news put D four up here
on the screen. Colombia's president actually says that one of

(10:17):
the boats struck by the United States was actually carrying
Colombian citizens. The White House has called the claim quote baseless.
I mean, I don't know, but they give us no
you would assume, yeah, right, the White House.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
They've never given us any evidence for any of these
boats that they actually are what they say they are.
We know it is very unlikely because of the nature
of drug trafficking, like it's it's unlike now maybe, but
again they give us no evidence. And one of the
boats reporters were able to get in touch with the
widow of one of the guys who was murdered by

(10:49):
our military, and she was like, he's literally a fisherman.
I mean, they joke about it. They joke, Oh, I
wouldn't go fishing in that area. I mean, it's just
like that piece too. I put to the side. And yeah,
and I also want to say part of how we
get to a point where they can just blow up
random boats and you know, and with no accountability and

(11:09):
providing us no evidence that these are actually drug traffickers,
Not that I would find it acceptably even if they are,
you're supposed to interdict them or whatever. But the reason
that this groundwork has been laid is all because of
the War on Terror two, where you had the massive
you know, the drone strike campaign where you know, no
evidence was offered there, and Obama expands it and these
things become baked in to the executive power and now
you can just blow up random boats with random you know,

(11:32):
fishermen and be like, yeah, we got the bad guys.
You should congratulate us.

Speaker 1 (11:35):
Yeah, I mean this stuff happens what every like every
day in the War on Terror. Whenever we covered it,
like literally all the time, it would be I covered
the War on isis. Everything was just on the Pentagon's word.
They're like Ice is operating an oil refinery, this is
a hotel where isis sustained. They didn't really provide you anything.
It's like a grainy footage basically like what they did

(11:56):
in their latest strike. We can show you D three
please on the screen. This is all they I mean,
this could be anything, right, yeah, it's quite literally could
be anything. Uh. In one of them you could kind
of see packages of something which to the eye looked
like it could be wrapped up kilos of cocaine. This
one is there's nothing. That's all you get unclassified. You

(12:17):
got a boat in the ocean and then you have
a missile hitting it. That's that's all you got.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
And the very first one there were eleven people on
board the boat, and people who know a lot about
the drug trafficking trades that this is very unlikely to
have been drug trafficking boat, because you want to have
that thing loaded up with drugs, not with people. And
the more people you have on board, the fewer drugs
you can have on board, and so your profit is
way weighed less. So having eleven people on board, and

(12:43):
just the fact that it's coming from Venezuelan and this
is not the you know, the Venezuelan like drug boat
trafficking thing is not significant. So we don't know that
any of these boats were actually drug traffickers. They'll they'll
just say anything, and you know, we'll show you in
the next block the way that held just lie about
random stuff too, and completely shamelessly. You cannot trust anything

(13:05):
that they say. And listen, you shouldn't trust anything that
any government says, like you should always have skepticism, you
should always verify. But they've been completely brazen about inventing,
you know, the opposite of the truth and just lying
about it day in and day out, and then bragging
about how, yeah, you know, you shouldn't go fishing in
the region because you know, maybe we're going to blow
up your fishing boat. That's that's where we are with that.

Speaker 1 (13:26):
Yes, okay, why don't we get to ice.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
Things seem to be escalating in la in Chicago and
Portland as well. I've got some updates for you on
some of those cities. And Trump is saying that he
is now going to go into other cities in addition
to the ones that he is to already surch federal
agents into. Let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 3 (13:45):
We're just at the start. We're going to go into
other cities that we're not talking about purposely, we're getting
ready to go in. And when they go in, like
Cash is an example, tell me that people didn't even
know five months ago. They went into Chicago and they
started doing a lot to work in Chicago, and we
brought the numbers down a little bit. But that really

(14:06):
was just repertory work for what we're going to do
with the surge. We're gonna have a surge of strong,
good people, patriots, and they get to go in they
straightened it all out.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
Didn't get elected.

Speaker 3 (14:19):
I did get elected for crime, but I didn't get
elected for what we're doing. This is many many steps
above it. I want to thank Steven Miller, who's right
back in the audience right there. I'd love to have him.
I love watching him on television. I'd love to have
him come up and explain his true feelings. Maybe not
his truest feelings, that might be going a little bit

(14:39):
too far, but Steven, thank you for doing an unbelievable job.
And the people of this country love you, I'll tell you,
and they love what you say about crime and stopping crime.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
So some interesting comments there about Steven Miller. You know, previously,
you know, Trump had said something about like you would
just want everybody to look like you in this country,
so he maybe doesn't want those truest feelings from Steven
Miller being expressed.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
I don't think we should all want to look like
Steven Miller and no offense. It's the same, you can say.

Speaker 2 (15:07):
It with events. But the noteworthy part there, obviously, the
biggest news is that he's planning more of these searches
of federal agents into other cities. And we've got an
update the significant out of la So that city is
just voted to declare a state of emergency as a
result of the ice raids and everything that's going on there.

(15:29):
Let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 4 (15:30):
Lake County has declared a state of emergency over the
immigration raids. The Board of Supervisors voted today. Board members
say the raids are preventing people from going to work
and forcing some businesses to close. The emergency allows the
board to look at enacting an eviction moratorium and other
protections for people impacted by the raids.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
So it is a city where roughly a third of
the population is immigrants, the largest undocumented population in the country.
This sort of designation is typically used for like natural disasters,
but they feel like the economic and societal tumult is
enough to justify it here. I think there was only
one dissenter on the board who voted against this.

Speaker 1 (16:07):
Yeah, I don't know. I looked into this, and I
honestly find it a bit crazy. So the state of emergency,
as I understand it, allows the city to provide an
eviction moratorium specifically because they don't want to release immigration
status in a court. And in fact, some of the
times La County is funneling they said. This is not

(16:28):
exactly confirmed because the reporting out of Los Angeles is
very sketchy, but some of it includes rent dive like
rent specifically, not just to viction moratorium, but rent relief
for people, which I think would go to people who
are here illegally, which I honestly find a bit insane.
So that seems to be part of the city. I mean,
I cannot imagine living in the city of Los Angeles,

(16:50):
probably one of the most expensive cities in the world,
probably in the United States at least, where your effective
tax rate is going to be some fifty percent if
you're making over one hundred two hundred thousand dollars a year,
and then a significant portion of your tax dollars are
going to illegal relief. I mean, look, it's your money.
I guess you guys can do what you want, and
that seems to be politically the ways that you want
to go. But I don't know. I don't think it's

(17:12):
particularly like a winning message for democratic cities and counties,
like in terms of their prioritization. That's the immediately like
what I was able to see. It's also kind of
gives the game away. It's like, you're so reliant on
illegal labor that you literally a state of emergency if
you take away all your labors.

Speaker 2 (17:26):
So I think there's a few things that I would
that I would say to that. I mean, I have
no idea what the polling is. I suspect that there's
probably a widespread support since you had you know, you
had widespread support on the council, and I suspect there's
wide spread support. There's widespread rejection in the city of
the escalation in ice rates and ice tactics, and so
few things I would say about that. I mean, Number one,

(17:46):
undocumented immigrants do buy in large paid taxes into the city,
so it is some of their money as well. Two
third of the population are immigrants, and it's not just
undocumented immigrants that are being impacted here. As we've discussed here.
You know, you've got Kavanaugh stops, so basically anyone who's
Latino can be harassed. You've had some instances of people

(18:08):
being fined for not having their papers prove even though
they were citizens, being fined for not having their papers
to prove their citizenship. And then the other thing I
would say, so it's not just undocumented immigrants who would
be impacted, you know, eligible potential for a relief. You
also have a you know, a mass sort of societal

(18:28):
tumult in LA that has been likely very impactful in
terms of their economy. And you have a lot of
mixed status families. So if you have US citizens, this
is very common US citizen kids, undocumented parents. You know,
they're unable to go to work because they're afraid of
getting picked up by ice. Now you've got a situation
where the whole family is going to be evicted, and

(18:49):
what happens if they're evicted, Well, then you have more
of a burden on social services, you have more of
a burden on shelters. So you know, I think there's
a sense that well, if we can keep them in
their apartments, that actually could save money for the city.
Long term, because then we're not having this increased burden
on our.

Speaker 1 (19:04):
Social This is this is kind of like reducing it
though a little bit, where like at the end of
the day, I think this is kind of how you
get here where you have a system that's architected literally
for illegal labor, and you have an entire city of
Los Angeles where I mean, look, let's be honest, like
if we have to declare a state of emergency because
illegals can't come to work, what does that tell you
about the economy of one of the richest places in

(19:26):
the United States. And this is the part where you
know a lot of these leftists and liberals they just
never grapple with this, like is should we really have
a city of effective slave labor so that you can
have your villa where you get a door dash twenty
five dollars burrito deliver you to you buy an illegal immigrant.
I mean, remember we we argued about this on a farm.
They were like, oh, children have been swept up in farming.

(19:47):
Why are children on farms? Why are these illegal children
on a farm? You people never cared about that. When
you're smoking your toke from your cannabis, your cannabis retail store,
which gives you your little rewards program and your high potency,
you're way to bring them back to waves Sager. It
was that only farm get enjoyed. It was at a
weed farm. I didn't just shoe horn it in there.

Speaker 2 (20:07):
So let me say that, you know, this is We've
had this debates anytime. That's why I believe that people
should be brought out of the shadows so they cannot
be exploited. I think your concerns about, you know, the
exploitation of undocumented labor are entirely justified. I just come
down in a very different place in terms of what
the solution is. But I would also say Soccer that
it is like and you know, we'll show some more

(20:28):
clips here, but it is not just undocumented immigrants who
are fearful right now. In fact, there are a lot
of people even you know with legal status or who
are you know going through the asylum process or who
are green gardles, like, no one is exempt from this,
and so the fear and the disruption in their life
and the potential inability to go to work, all of
those things are not just with the undocumented community. It's

(20:51):
far more widespread and yes, LA is a city of immigrants.
I mean, like I said, it was, roughly a third
of the population who are immigrants are potentially impacted by this.
And that's the pre court decision that says, doesn't you
don't need any excuse to stop people other than them,
just like basically being brown makes it so that the
fear and the impact is much more widespread than it

(21:12):
would otherwise.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
Spit. I'll grant you that that's the cleanest hit that
the left has got right now, and they're not wrong.
But part of the reason I wanted to focus on
that La stuff is because I'm like, that's how you
got here, Okay, you created a political system where for
a lot of us, it feels like you have an
entire like the entire liberal city focus is on criminals,
making sure that they can get away with as much
crime as possible, and on making sure illgals apparently treated

(21:35):
as everyday citizens. I'll give you a perfect example here
in Washington, DC. You remember the whole Big Balls mugging
which justified the National Guard. Guess what happened to those
two teens who mugged them? Probation, nothing, no jail time,
nothing going after him the DC people just let them
right out of there. That's how you get to the
National Guard to deployment. It's like you have to grapple
with failed governance and with priorities. Live in the richest

(21:56):
city were literally one of the richest cities in the
history of the world, where you have ten percent of
the people there who are there illegally. You have to
tactically admit that your skyrocketing price and everything is not
capable without your slave labor from Guatemala, and then the
only possible solution you come to is pathway to citizenship.
That is why people freak out, people like me. I'll

(22:17):
give you example of who's the founder of Reddit. I
think his name is Alexis something. I forget his name.
He made a long post about ice and everything. He's like,
my family were undocumented and he goes instead of these
ice raids. That's why we need a pathway to citizenship.
And it just strikes me again, is like, if your
only option for many of us is amnesty or this shit,

(22:37):
a lot of people are going to choose this shit
because even in a pathway to citizenship, for example, there
will come a time where many of the people who
don't qualify what happens to them. Are they going to
leave willingly? They have to be deported somehow. Sometimes we're
going to have to go and find them. Are you
ever going to support that? No, we know the answer.
They don't support law enforcement removing illegals from the country.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Are making it such a binary choice.

Speaker 1 (23:02):
Like actually was either, like it really was.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
I don't think so, Soger, because I mean, listen to me,
it was right to me. It was when I saw
mass deportation. Now, I'm not going to say I knew
it would be black hawk helicopters rating apartment building the
middle of night and Zip taig naked children. Okay, I'm
not going to say I knew that. I knew it
would be something approaching. I mean, Trump talked about the insuraction,
like invoking the Insurrection Act. But there is a balance

(23:26):
that could be struck between like you know, ice absolute
terror rain in a variety of cities and targeting blue
cities in particular blue states because you don't like the politicians.

Speaker 1 (23:38):
Who are at where because they created but.

Speaker 2 (23:42):
A total impunity for these guys who are assaulting again
American citizens right, who are assaulting legal immigrants who are
racially profiling anyone who looks running around in masks and
terrorizing entire cities. Like there is a way of doing
some immigration enforcement that doesn't look like that, but we did.
This is what But hold on. This is what I

(24:04):
find frustrating about your analysis. I know how you feel
about immigration, okay, but I feel that there is such
a heightened level of like scrutiny and expectation on one side,
and then a total lack of accountability, like the upset
over the way that the Trump administration has conducted themselves.

(24:25):
You just want to blame, like, oh, well, it's the
liberal's fault, it's Biden's fault, it's Newsom's fault, it's Karen
Bass's fault. Like these are grown human beings who control
all of the government. They have responsibility for their own decisions.
You can't just always blame liberals for what the fuck
they're doing.

Speaker 1 (24:39):
I think that is entirely fair, But I would compare
it to can you are you capable of talking about
illegal immigrant crime without contextualizing it in the broader picture?
Not really like what I mean? Well, okay, so if
I was like, oh, if we talk about let's say
that Lake and Riley case or any of that. Every
time we do it always has to come back to Oh,
but actually statistically they do. It's a bigger picture, and
it's America's fault that they're coming from Guatemala anyway, and

(25:02):
actually they commit less crimes than whites, and that's why
they're Actually they're better citizens.

Speaker 2 (25:06):
Or carry you ready? No, no, no, criminal illegal immigrants
should be deported. Are you happy?

Speaker 1 (25:10):
Of course, it's not that.

Speaker 2 (25:11):
It's not hard to say, saga. You can say it.
I can say it very directly. I think that is
not what these people are doing. They are doing the
opposite of that. In fact, we have an element here
later in the show. You know the apartment building rate,
Yes one, they are claiming one trender Iragua member. The
vast majority of the people that are picking up have
no criminal records. The amount of drug trafficking and human

(25:33):
trafficking and convictions are down. They are doing the opposite
of going after undocumented criminals, illegal criminals. Okay, So like,
if the goal is let's get out the bad people,
they are completely failing at that.

Speaker 1 (25:46):
I grant you that. I grant you that entirely. What
I'm saying is about a political dynamic of which we
were entered. And now you talked about that there's a
middle way. We had it four years of the so
called middle way, where eight to ten million people entered
the country illegally. That was just as insane and lawless.
It absolutely no, It only wasn't because you don't because

(26:07):
you agree with the policy and you want to give
them citizenship. For many of us, we reject that. We say, actually,
that's a violation of immigration law. There is a violation
of the border, violation of our sovereignty as a country itself.
And yes, many people saw that as ridiculous, as lawless,
as out of control, and they gave us the option.
We had to choose between that and this, and the
majority of the people did choose at least some version

(26:30):
of this.

Speaker 2 (26:30):
Are rejecting this, okay, but we don't.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
We don't leave in government by pole immediately. So then
Biden should have just been thrown out of office. A
very privileged life, right, yeah, so do I let's put
that on the table too.

Speaker 2 (26:40):
I haven't owned my own home. I'm doing fine, right,
So let's think about the people who are directly who
were both directly impacted by undocumented immigrants coming in and
who are now directly impacted by what the Trump administration
is doing. Okay, the people in that apartment building in Chicago, Okay,
there were definitely undocumented immigrants there, Yes, and they if

(27:02):
you talk to the residents, they have been far more
traumatized by what was done to them by this government
than by any of the undocumented immigrants who were there
in that apartment building. So if you're just talking.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
Really correctly, but you're talking about about the.

Speaker 2 (27:17):
People, about the people who have been directly affected both
by undocumented immigration and by a fascist crackdown in their city,
helicopter raid, like all of this insanity, there is no
doubt that they would much rather have the undocumented immigrants
in their building then their whole life turned upside down,
their children dragged out of their business, traumatized.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
This seems very reductive because you're pointing to that one
apartment building. I could probably find ten apartment buildings where
people have said that illegals have come in with crime.
I mean, actually literally where I live, there's very nearby
there's public housing projects where they're having problems with MS thirteen.
And I actually even asked one of them I said,
what's the issue, said, Oh, we got all these Venezuelan
and migrants who've been coming in and breaking in.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yes, So then ask them if they would like, in
response to that, to have their apartment raided in the
middle the nine the children pulled down the street and
zip tied and throw a new haul.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
I'm giving you the prospect of they're also upset about
the former, which is how we got to the latter. Now,
I'm not justifying what the Trump administration is doing, but similarly,
in the way that we talk about illegal crime, or
at least any liberal has talked about illegal crime, we
have to look at it in the context of how
we got here. Like there's no way. I know this
for a fact, having debated immigration with liberals now for
over a decade, they can are literally constitutionally incapable of

(28:27):
talking about illegal immigration without oh, what America messed up
Guatemala or whatever in the nineteen eighties, And that's why
it's our fault that all these people came over here.
It's not possible. Of course, we can look at stuff,
but in the cove.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
A point, I mean, we're just talking about Venezuela, right,
We're just talking about Venezuela where we might do a
regime change where we have massive sanctions that have It's
not the only reason, but it's a big part of
a miserating the population. I mean, it seems to me
like that's actually a very important part of the conversation
because people don't want to have to leave there. They
want to be able to stay.

Speaker 1 (28:58):
I don't agree with that.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
I know it's absolutely it's absolutely.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
The case over a billion people around the world would.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
Even in a place like Venezuela, that is, you know,
where things are not good and haven't been good for
a while. It's not like everyone is leaving. People prefer
generally to stay where they're from. You know, the migrants
pushed down the Cereal like they don't want to have
to go to these European countries. We interviewed that Palestinian

(29:25):
now Australian doctor, doctor Poe, who grew up in the
UK and kids would be like, go back to where
your company is, Like I literally can't. Like I would
love to go back to Palestine. I would love to
not be a refugee, but I literally can't. So I
don't think that there's any problem with discussing those root casts.

Speaker 1 (29:42):
That's why I don't think there's a problem in talking
about the incentive structure in the thought the border.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
Hear you, I frustrat with me is it's every time
it's not the true. It's it's always trying to deflect
blame from the Trump administration onto something that some liberal
did that you didn't like, whenever or wherever. And it's like,
at a certain point, can we just say, you know what,
this is really unacceptable and I don't care what came before,
it is inexcusable. This is unacceptable, and we should be

(30:07):
outraged at the way their rights are being violated, at
the rate our rights are being violated, at the denial
of due process, at the fact that we can just
have mass racial profile, at the fact that these communities
are being terrorized, Like why can't we just have a
direct condemnation without all this, Like well, actually, but it's
the liberals.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
Because I just don't really think that exists whenever again,
when we talk about illegal crime, or when we talk
about any of these other problems that illegals, cause it's
like nobody's so because.

Speaker 2 (30:30):
You don't like the way liberals talk about immigration, you
can't well don't you think it's what they're doing.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
I think it's kind of emotional blackmail in a way, like,
did we for the last four years just cover every
single illegal rape in the country and and you know
completely for what it was?

Speaker 2 (30:44):
Like?

Speaker 1 (30:44):
No, because I think honestly it would be ridiculous. I
think this is basically the inverse of that, where it's like, oh,
we have to condemn this one specific thing, we can't
talk about the broader The broader context matters. The body
politic actually did vote in a very specific way on this.
Now maybe they're feeling differently. Now. We don't live in
Gouvy pole fiat where immediately like if that were the case,
where then we should have said, fuck Biden, let's get

(31:05):
him out of here nine months into tight I.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
Think your point would be reasonable if we're talking about
one offs, but we're talking about a whole government policy,
which is also not really about immigrant. It's partly about immigration,
but it's not really about immigration. This is about trying
to create a one party state. This is about trying
This is just the case. I mean, if you look
at we just said we didn't get this into this

(31:27):
show because it just broke yesterday. They're now trying to
turn the IRS into an investigation of any of their
political opponents. They want to go after George Soros's Open
Society's foundation. They want to try to criminalize basically donating
to any sort of left causes. You have NSPM seven,
which is meant to target anyone who is critical of
like the right or Trump, etc. You have them denying

(31:49):
visus to people because they said the wrong thing about
Charlie Kirk. They are we're going to talk to David
Sorrohata about these Supreme Court cases. They're trying to consolidate.
They are going for the whole thing. They're trying to
consolidate control, and part of that is the militarized response,
both with the National Guard but also with these federal
agents in the streets of these cities, which they are
only expanding. So yes, it's important to talk about what

(32:12):
that actually looks like on the ground. And it's also
really important when the government lies to you about what's happening,
to be able to expose the truth. They're trying to
provoke these direct confrontations because they want to use it again.
We know this from reporting to invoke the Insurrection Act,
which will give them an even freer hand. And this
is not just about immigrants, this is about all of
our rights. And I think that is abundantly claricy.

Speaker 1 (32:33):
I said, that's the cleanest hit that they've got in
that obviously is where they're out of control. I'm not
really disputing a lot of your critique of the way
that the Trump administration has carried this out. I really
am not. What I am trying to get to is, look,
I mean, I think you're off base with a one
party state thing. I think quite a lot of this
is either theater or in many cases it's like designed

(32:57):
to placate like specific political constitution and ses. I mean,
we can't cover the way that we've half handedly done
the world's worst trade war and then also say that
this is the most you know that this is some
like hyper efficient party state which is capable of takeover.
But also when.

Speaker 2 (33:13):
They're able to be successful or not is a different
question of what they're trying to do.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
Let me just take it back again. Hyper specific to
your critique is baked in like a liberal acceptance, let's say,
of the Voting Rights Act. I read a lot about that.
We're going to talk about that with SIODA. It's like,
should race really qualify as part of gerrymandering because of
some interpretation of the nineteen sixty five Voting Rights Act.
In my opinion, based on everything I've read is specifically
agreement and critiques of the Civil Rights Act, I would

(33:40):
say no. I actually think it's a violation of the
way that we were originally supposed to apportion. It's just
only baked in to the post liberal cause that race
itself should be an identity issue. Now, will it be
bad for Democrats? Yeah, I don't really care about that.
I mean, wouldn't really care because there's a principal issue
for me. You disagree, that's fine, I'm just I'm trying
to take it.

Speaker 2 (33:58):
Oh, I'll save that more of that country a moment.
But what we're talking about is taking, you know, an
area that is majority black and then dividing it like
a pinwheel to make sure that they have no representation.
And yes, I think that's wrong. And I think that
that means that those those are then just blumping them
all in one place, those people are being any political representation.
So I think, yeah, I think again.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
It's a racial carve out for political representation. I'm only
getting to implicit in all of this is a literal
liberal bias, where you see one as as more lawless
than another. You have to accept that, you know, if
we all want to live together. Many of us saw
what happened to the Biden administration as actually lawless insanity

(34:40):
and as a literal last chance, which is why many
people voted for Trump, and that theory pervades the current
United States government in their view of immigration specifically. Now,
I'm not going to say for National Guard or for
any of that, because I actually do think that's kind
of a separate issue, even though I know that you
think it is the same in general on this issue.
If the the fact is, if we are so far

(35:01):
apart that again, for the binary, is literal amnesty for
all of them twenty twenty five million or deportation. Many
of us are gonna choose deportation, which is simply are
because that does seem to me the binary. When the
liberal elite and others are all saying that this is
the only other acceptable solution for many people, that is
a genuine threat.

Speaker 2 (35:21):
And I just so I don't.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
Think that the liberals grasp that it's an actual red
line in the same way that maybe this is a
red line for you. And I don't begrudge anybody. If
you're liberal and you want to go out and make
this your number one issue, you have your absolute right
as an American you should try and convince people. In
my opinion, you're probably winning right now because most people
see lawlessness and chaos in the same way they saw
under Biden. And I think the cleanest hit that you

(35:44):
guys have is that this is a violation of our
rights as Americans, which to me is kind of nice
because it's like we finally get to talk about us
being as Americans. But one of the things that drives
me crazy is the conflation of the two and specifically
saying there might as well be citizens itself. That's why, honestly,
I'll say it, I still have a really hard time
with always trying to have a look at like, oh,

(36:05):
violation of this, this and that, And it's like, it's
so crazy to me that you can literally cross our
border illegally, take money, take a job, go live in
our housing, expect like the full you know, rights of
the US Constitution, of the government and all that other
people to protect you. I understand after talking with Glenn
why it has to be that way. So I accept it,
but intellectually I struggle with it. It doesn't seem right

(36:28):
to me that you can break our laws, that you
can enter here illegally, that in my opinion, you can
take and actually, you know, not do so much benefit
to our country, and that we have to roll the
red carpet out for you just to send you back
from where you came from. It's nuts in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (36:42):
Well, even if you feel that way.

Speaker 1 (36:44):
No, I've said, I accept that the law has to
be the way.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
It is no easy, and I realize even if you
feel that way, the reality of like due process, you know,
is the perfect example here. If you don't have due process,
you don't even get if you're a citizen, getting caught
up in this to prove you're a citizen. And that's
where we are. That's where we are now, you know,
I mean, we have a number of instances of American citizens.

(37:07):
I don't I think it was the day I was
with maybe it was the day I would cover with Emily,
but the you know, the guy who was going to
work American Army veteran, and they busted open the windshield
in his car, sprayed him with pepper spray, took him,
held him for days, wasn't allowed a phone call, wasn't
allowed to call his lawyers, was put on suicide watch,
was not allowed he was covered, and pepper spray was

(37:29):
you know, being like burned by this pepper stray, not
allowed to clean himself off. Those are the things that
are happening. And so you know, I understand that you
have a hardline position on immigration and it's important to you,
and I understand that I don't agree with it, but
I understand that's the case. But you know, I think,
especially at this point, you can't really claim the man

(37:50):
mantle of a popular mandate when you've seen such a
backlash against what all of this looks like.

Speaker 1 (37:56):
So concept okay, but sit with that conceptually, so then
when it in is unpopular, I should be able to
demand that he stopped. He's not going to stop. Like,
that's not how government by pole fee out.

Speaker 2 (38:06):
I mean, here's the thing that it's like.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
Can we would just have three months, you know, a
policy cycles? It doesn't work that way. The system is
literally designed so that you can get elected and then
you can do something about it in four years people
will get to vote and they can choose.

Speaker 2 (38:20):
What world they want of what the something is does
kind of matter, you know, if you're going to like, Okay,
we're going to we're going to beef up the FBI
and we're going to do investigations into you know, criminal
undocumented networks and we're going to have these cases and
we're going to take them down. In fact, what we
see in the opposite is him like making deals with
m Kelly to let down a bunch of gang leaders.

(38:40):
Like that's the reality of what's going on here. And
we're going to go after the you know, the person
who actually was going to their court hearing and is
following the process, and we're just going to snatch them up,
or we're going to you know, we're going to take
you because we don't like what you said about Charlie Kirker,
but and you said about Palistine or just because you
happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I mean, they truly are you know, reaking have in
these communities.

Speaker 1 (39:01):
So when we talk about so I'll give you the
Charlie kirk thing is a perfect example. And you guys
are gonna cover on the Friday Show. But yeah, for me,
one of those guys, So I conceptually I have to
be like, Okay, this is a this is a free
speech problem.

Speaker 2 (39:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (39:11):
One of those guys though, he talked about white trash people,
one of the people who posted that, and I go,
you know what, man, fuck you, Why are you in
our country and you're insulting our own citizens? That's I mean,
And that's where I guess liberals just don't have that
in them. It's like, you come here and you're going
to insult the people who live here.

Speaker 2 (39:27):
Go, difference between you get the fuck out of here.
There's a difference between your emotional reaction and your intellectual
understanding of the way that is an infringement on people's
First Amendment rights. And yes, immigrants do have free speech
rights as well, but we've also seen the way that
this government is does not keep these infringements. Just with

(39:48):
the immigrant.

Speaker 1 (39:49):
I'm giving you the example because that I mean, let's
take a poll, sholawisnins. We're so interested in polling. Should
people who think that white people live in our country?
Are white trash be allowed to live here? Most people say.

Speaker 2 (40:01):
No, there's people here in this country already who think
that like that there's you know, poor people are white
trash and guess what, it really is offensive. But you know,
in other instances like you're an offensive speech whatever, like
stop pearl clutching. You know, the point of the pearl,
the point of First Amendment speech is like it protects

(40:22):
you when things.

Speaker 1 (40:22):
Are you say that I'm not going to say you
should be like a choice.

Speaker 2 (40:26):
To let me have those rights is because there are
going to be instances where the majority is a post right.
But we don't want to deny people their rights just
based on like a mob mentality in the moment of
what we emotionally feel. So you know, that's why these
fights can be difficult but are important. But you know,
if you don't mind, I would like to show some

(40:47):
of the you know something to in Chicago because I think,
like this is potentially there is more and more backlash.
The Chicago seems to be the hottest at this point.
There's more and more backlash just from the community to
what's going on in Chicago. And so let me show
you this one instant instance that really turned into you know,

(41:08):
quite a you know, hot situation. Let's put let's show
E three please, So here you can see a white
vehicle that's the Ice vehicle, ramming this red vehicle in
a community in a you know, random neighborhood in Chicago,
and then they get out and they make chase and

(41:29):
allegedly these three people that they make chase of are undocumented.
And then you have people from the community, and we
could put you four up on the screen. Hundreds of
people come out of their houses because this accident has
just happened, because you know, Ice rammed this vehicle. Hundreds
of people come out and it turns into you know,
it turns into a chaotic situation. So this is from

(41:50):
the Chicago Sun Times. New York Times covered as well
as other outlets. Do they said, Feds ram suv after
chase down residential street in Chicago, then tear gas the crowd,
and we could show some of what this looks like.
This is E five. We can put this up on
the screen. So this is again similar to when we
covered before. I think what's important E five. Guys, go

(42:11):
ahead and put up the vo I think what's important
here To realize is this was not like an organized protest.
These are just random community people and maybe there were
some activists who after this all start to unfold, come
to the scene. You've got elderly people there were you know,
was at least one like baby in the crowd, and
then what the What they say is that people start
throwing stuff and they started tear gassing. They've been using

(42:34):
tear gas quite indiscriminately around schools. We saw the pastor
who was tear gassed, and Chicago PD who had shown
up to try to de escalate here and separate the
crowd from the federal agents. They actually got tear gassed
in this as well. You had one person with like
a baby in a carrier has to run away, and
tear gas is very particularly dangerous for children in particular.

(42:56):
And there's a couple of key things that I want
to point out here, just again on the theme of
like you cannot trust what this government is telling you.
They initially said that the immigrants had rammed the ICE agents.
You can see from the video they are the ones
who intentionally caused this accident. This is apparently a law
enforcement tactic. Familiar with this, but a law enforcement tactic

(43:17):
to stop vehicles, and it's banned by most police departments
because it's extremely dangerous and has caused a lot of
fatal accidents. So they're executing this extremely dangerous maneuver, then
they lie about it, and then even they picked up,
they arrested a few of the people that had gathered there,
and they said that they had, you know, assaulted the offictruments,
throwing at them, throwing things at them, etc. But then

(43:38):
they also released them without charges. So you know, we've
had other instances where they claim this woman that they shot,
they said, oh, she had a semi automatic weapon and
you know, she was trying to threaten us, et cetera.
And that turned out to not be accurate as well.
So they also have just been caught in a number
of instances where they will just lie about the scene
and the way things ultimately unfold.

Speaker 1 (43:58):
Again, I'm really not denying any of this. I'm not
saying they haven't lied. I basically, have you noticed me
defending the government since Seacott? Okay, all right, since since
we saw that the most of the people who said
were gang members. I'm not sitting here saying that the
apartment building was full of trendy aragua. I don't believe
them either, Okay. Trician McLachlan. Most of the time, she
doesn't say, tell the truth. From what I could tell,
she's the lady who's the Department of Homeland Security spokesperson,

(44:20):
A number of her stories have collapsed. I am not
denying it whatsoever. I will say this kind of gets
to our earlier debate or whatever about Chicago. I mean
everyone's focused on them. I mean, who's bringing a baby
to a protest? I mean it seems a little bit crazy,
don't you think? Well, I don't.

Speaker 2 (44:35):
And it's like, you know the circumstance, because I mean,
this was this just like unfolded in this community.

Speaker 1 (44:40):
So you bring I mean, I have a I don't know.
I'm not taking They have been.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
In the area, and you know, the traffic was stopped,
so I'm not sure why they were.

Speaker 1 (44:48):
Okay, But implicit kind of what you said gets to, oh,
they shouldn't fire tear gas if there's a baby around.
I remember, See this is the problem. I've covered the
ship for so long. I remember when illegals would bring
their kids to the border, and then people would get
upset whenever they would get interdicted, and they go, what
does that incentive say? Bring your kids, bring your kids
with you, and you can't do anything about it. You

(45:08):
think you're so sick of this emotional black miling.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
But do you think that the use of tear goss
has been appropriate?

Speaker 1 (45:14):
I mean, I don't know on a case by case basis.
And this is really more belies the point broadly about everything.
It seems to be framed, in my opinion at least
as these people should just be allowed to live here.
And it seems in general, having covered this again for
over a decade, what possible enforcement is acceptable to the
liberal conscious, Basically nothing remain in Mexico was cruel. Then

(45:38):
we let them come in here. The only acceptable solution
if you keep them in prison. Oh no, that's cruel too.
So they need a work visa. They need to be
able to go around here. If they skip their asylum,
oh those poor people, they skip their hearing. Even though
they did it, it would be cruel to go and
get them. So do you see how the permission structure
has risen? And anytime a liberal mob creates violence, riot
is a voice of the unheard, and they don't deserve
to be prosecuted.

Speaker 2 (45:59):
And everything that line in Chicago and in Portland like
la you could make you know, there were there was
like a hot protest before the National Guard searched in.
But Chicago was a lot more peaceful before these people
showed up. Chicago is much more peaceful. There were not
there were not riots, There were not even major protests.
And so, you know, if your concern is a lack

(46:22):
of chaos and law and order, this is the exact
opposite of what you would ultimately want.

Speaker 1 (46:27):
And so and I checked.

Speaker 2 (46:28):
I just think it's I just think it's such a
strong man to say, well, you wouldn't want any enforcement.
It's like, Okay, well we could argue about what would
be what would be appropriate, but can we all say
that this is not appropriate, that this is not an
acceptable way to go about it. You know that, you
know we've got this uh Walgreens, you know, chasing people
down in Walgreens and throwing them on the ground who

(46:48):
are US citizens, just because they happened to you know,
be in the wrong place, that the wrong tile. Like,
can we say that mass you know, out military officers
roaming this and terrorizing random people and crashing into cars
and shooting people, that this is not the way to
do it, And then we can talk about what would
be the right way to do it. But I don't

(47:08):
think it should be so hard to say this is
not acceptable, and that is this is an issue not
just for immigrants, but again for all of us and
for these communities in particular being impacted. And it's not
a one off. This is part of a plan. This
is what they want to do, and they're expanding this
to other cities because this is, you know, part of
their project of consolidating control and scaring people.

Speaker 1 (47:30):
Basically, so I can easily say, just like you did
about criminals, like yes, I think it's bad. I'm merely
pointing out that every level of enforcement is cruel and unusual.
The only acceptable things.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
Just don't know why you have to dodge light like
it's not a dog. It is, of course it is.

Speaker 1 (47:45):
I'm trying to put you into the personality in the
mind of people who share my politics are currently in
the government. Okay, I'm not even necessarily justifying it. I'm
explaining to you how it happened and how it's a
serious political constituency. Actually, that's why they don't give a
shit about Whenever they see these videos, remain in Max
go is cruel. Then whenever you're there, come over here.
And you put him in prison, that's cruel too. The
only acceptable solution is to let him loose, give him

(48:07):
a work visa. If you go and get him in
any criminal way, it's cruel, it's fascism. And so you
see the rat rhetorical ladder, so that we start to
climb up here and then when you violently riot across
the country actual fascism.

Speaker 2 (48:20):
Though, okay, we should be able to say this is
not acceptable. And regardless of what the Libs did that
you didn't like, they are grown ups. We'll have a
lot of power and control. And by the way, Stephen
Miller is running this and he's a total sadistic psycho
who even Trump says is like wild white nationalists, and
he's in control of this. And I don't think that
it would matter what the Libs did, because he has

(48:42):
an ideological project that he has been trying to effectuate
his entire life. So I don't know that the Libs
are really to blame for the existence of Stephen Miller.

Speaker 1 (48:51):
Well, well, actually he's from California and he was radicalized
by illegal politics, so I will say that, but actually,
if you take it a little bit further, I don't
know I just think that your desire to try and
talk about this in a vacuum in the same way
that if I were to try and talk about every
legal immigrant who rape somebody in a vacuum ignores very
important political contexts. On the political violence and chaos front,

(49:12):
everything was fine with it when people are burning, rioting
and looting. That was all MLK quotes galore. And you know,
even on the Charlie Kirk thing, I was thinking about
this earlier when everyone was like, Oh, it's bad that
we're being forced to mourn. How many times do I
have a packed George Floyd's face and have crowds of
people tell me I have to kneel for eight minutes
in whatever seconds, They had no problem with state mourning,

(49:34):
demanding me and my life and everybody around me, Like,
do you see how that's going to drive people to
a very very different place whenever you have that level
of cultural and governmental like actual trying to control of
your life for over a decade. And then same on
the immigration question, where every time they try to do
something about it called nazi and fascists, some of them
are just going to say fuck it, let's go. And

(49:56):
that's part of what you know. I do think that
that bears responsibility because things don't happen in a vacuum.

Speaker 2 (50:01):
Okay, but they just they just personal agency talk like
normally you're so fast to get, you know, ascribe people
personal agency. Where is it for these people?

Speaker 1 (50:09):
I just I said it's bad. I mean, yeah, absolutely, it's.

Speaker 2 (50:12):
Always got to be couched in. Yeah, but the Libs yeah,
but blm yeah, but gavenusom Yeah, it's like, why can't
we Why can't you ascribe the same level of personal
agency to these very powerful individuals who are have put
you know, extensive plans in place and who You're right,
I do think we shouldn't talk about this in the vacuum.
I think we should talk about it as part of

(50:33):
an effort at totalitarian control and achieving a one party state. Now,
you may think that they're too incompetent to be able
to pull that off. That may be the case, but
that is in fact what they're trying to pull off.
And so that's the other part of this that you know,
I think needs to be brought into the picture, is
that the National Guard surge and all of the federal

(50:55):
agents in some ways, the other federal agencies because they're
able to do more, are more of a threat into
these cities. The militarization of regular law enforcement. This is
part of a broader plan that is being effectuated by
this government. And I really don't give a shit at
this point what Joe Biden did or what some liberal
did in twenty eighteen that you were unhappy about, because

(51:16):
these are the people who have power now, and I
don't know why can't we can't just like deal with
the current existing threat and then yes, we can talk
about the root called we can think about how to
go in a different direction that's going to create an
immigration solution. It's more palatable for people so we don't
end up in the extremes. I am down with all
of that, But at the moment, the thing that we
need to focus on is what's happening right now with
this government. What they're doing and what their planning.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
I have no a problem with, and we just did right.
We'll focus on it for certain, even with the National
Guard and a lot, but you know, I don't think, frankly,
saying a totalitarian one party state is happening is all
that useful. Whenever we live here in Washington, DC, you
and I are, you know, recording just fine. There's a
bunch of idiots who are picking up trash down at
I didn't mean that, but I mean the people who

(51:58):
are commanding them, or idiots will put them in charge
of picking up trash. Yes, we're walking around. So the
bifurcation of the reality and then the you know the
reality of what's actually happening, and then yes, the deployment
in some cases seems like important context to me, Like,
nobody listen if they seize the ballot boxes or what
did Michael Moore wants to say on our show that

(52:20):
if they're going to go and seize the ballot boxes
and unironically rig the election. I'm with you. I'll even
promise you I will take to the street for real.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
I actually will something short of that.

Speaker 1 (52:29):
That's also like what I mean, Like we're about to
argue about the VR. It's like, yeah, you don't like that.
It's going to get struck down by Supreme Court. Sorry,
that's within the political mechanism.

Speaker 2 (52:38):
That's not about trying to criminalize, like dissenting from Trump
at all, like using the irs they're targeting. So they've
pulled the funding from blue states during the shutdown again
to try to cripple any sort of democratic descent and governance,
you know, chilling speech, policing, comedians, monologues, right, making it

(52:59):
so that you can't you can't be here if you
don't like Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 1 (53:03):
I mean, I objected to some of that that you're listen.
But it looks even on the demo rape again, nobody
wants to hear this. Obama actually set that up under
the twenty thirteen shutdown, the executive the executive branch's ability
to pull funding into at the total discretion to distribute
funds from which he wants.

Speaker 2 (53:17):
Has anyone ever has anyone ever denied red state funded
no right right? And so at a certain like where
is the line for you? Does it really have to
be they seize the ballot boxes, like it has to
go that far before you see the way the country
is being like the rights that we've enjoyed are being
taken away, and it's being turned and weaponized, and they

(53:38):
are like again, whether or not they can succeed, it's
very clear what the plan is. The plan is we
want to make it so there basically is no opposition,
so that we have control. So that they can't win
the House, you know, so that they're they want to
go after Act Blue so that you know, any sort
of fundraising is very difficult for Democrats. They want to
go after individual do'n so that you're too scared to

(54:01):
give your money to democratic causes. That is the plan,
And that they also want to change the composition of
the electorate so that you know, the people that vote
for them. They're changing the asylum refugee program to favor
like right wingers coming from Europe.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
Oh yeah, I mean that's listen, I'm with you. I
think that's not.

Speaker 2 (54:21):
All part and parcel of the same plan. So I
know it sounds wild to say, but that is in fact.
I mean, you don't think that's Steven Miller's goal, of
course it is, No.

Speaker 1 (54:29):
See, I genuinely don't. I actually think it's politics, and
I think that seems to be our fundamental disagreement. And
in some cases I think he's an ideological actor. No,
I said he's an ideological Yeah, I didn't think that
his plan is a totalitarian, one party state. I genuinely don't,
And that seems to be the premise of our disagreement.
In some cases, what you're talking about, is that many
liberals are so accustomed, let's say, on the nonprofit status.

(54:52):
It's like, well, yeah, it is. I'm not defending per
se in the way the Trump administration is going to
do it, but like, let's be honest, is it not
also been they fantasy like to investigate the Koch brothers
or to go in to look into right wing tea
party funding network. Like this is a long time normalized
rhetoric in terms of democratic administrations. If they weren't, yes, no, absolutely,
it's not. No, it absolutely is.

Speaker 2 (55:14):
In terms of their if anyone said that they should
like you should like criminalize Republican donors.

Speaker 1 (55:19):
Well no, okay, I don't think they said criminalize the
Republican donors, but they said that they flirt with the life.
I actually even agree in terms of let's say, in churches,
you know, in terms of their political activity. I'm just saying, though,
if you look at it, in some cases, all Trump
does is say thing. All Trump really does in some
cases is say the quietest part out loud. For much
of the way that the political system has acted, there's
legitimate well no, but see this just seems to be

(55:41):
our core. I guess disagreement here in everything you interpret
as a genuine crushing like what would it take for
me to say, yeah, this is it? Yes on ironically
like rigging the election, like actually rigging straight up the election,
or stopping the election, or seizing ballot boxes. Within that,
I mean, considering how much US history and all line
is there, it's pretty within the contre's.

Speaker 2 (56:02):
A theoretical trappings of some bullshit elections than anything else.
Is fine, But why think about what's not like me
or Tish James or Adam Shift. I like Leticia James,
the other two I don't care for. But now we've
got Okay, the DOJ is going to be my personal
like hit squad. I'm going to go out. I'm going
to gin up charges against whoever I want to. I'm

(56:23):
going to target. So you've got the DOJ acting now
you funds withheld from Blues states. It is an all
out war on the opposition. That's what it is. And
in a way that is truly different. And yes, some
Democrat might have said something or the other, we have
never seen in our lifetimes the complete weaponization of government

(56:46):
against not just political elites, but against the entire constituency
of the opposition party, and that is what they're that
is what they're doing and what they have plans to expand.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
So we have to even strow to standing by. So
this will be my last word, but my point. So
you choose to see that what I choose to see
is a federal grand jury throwing out the ham Sandwich thing,
making sure or saying the Chicago jury is saying that
much of what is is saying is bullshit. The Los
Angeles jury throwing that I'm like, that is still within
the confines of the system. That's not a theoretical election,
that's actually legal justification. By the way, James Comy's being

(57:17):
tried in this place where I live, I could guarantee
you he's being found not guilty one. Now, I mean
that doesn't say that he hasn't been harassed by the state.
So I'm not going to diminish that. That's really really bad, right, Okay,
But that's not the same thing as being thrown into
seacot without due process. Yes, a multimillionaire okay, well they're
all really well, but it's not the same thing though.

(57:40):
It's actually not is if a multi millionaire can contest
his defense and then can get released on bond and
also be found not guilty. You don't live in.

Speaker 2 (57:47):
Fashion, you know. I mean, you know that the point
of that is not just about comy. The point of
that is that Trump's enemies, anyone who would speak on
against him, are put on notice, we will do this
to you. That's the point of those actions. It's the
same thing I mean we objected vociferously to when like
a tax auditor or whatever showed up in Matt Taiemi's

(58:08):
house after we're on the Twitter files. Right, Yes, and
this is being done, you know, and that I don't know,
you know, was a legitimate or not. We certainly were
very uncomfortable with that. Now this is being done explicitly
in a hole of government way. So I would just
say that I see your ham Sandwich grand jury, and
I raise you a Supreme Court that's allowing things like
Kavanaugh stops, it's allowing recisions, that's allowing the complete you know,

(58:30):
destruction of government agencies. That's allowing this administration to do
whatever they want. Because that is a much more powerful
institution than you know, one or two grand juries here
or there that you know, check some of the abuses.

Speaker 1 (58:45):
I think that's a fair point. I just I mean, again,
based on your recisions, thing is kind of baked in
is that you agree with the race thing. So we'll
just put that to the sidecause we're going to talk.

Speaker 2 (58:52):
About it recisions. I'm talking about the funding.

Speaker 1 (58:54):
Oh sorry, yeah, a recision of the fund. Okay. So
within that, let's say that on the front of where
you think that things are going to go the worst
because I would say that the worst of the true
totalitarianism means that dissent itself does not exist, is that
criminalization has no pretense in the legal or the judicial system.
I just don't see it. I mean, I definitely do

(59:15):
think that we're that we Trump has an enemy's list. Yeah, absolutely,
I'm with you, I agree, but it's a big it's
a big, big difference again in my opinion, between that
and actually being thrown in jail no pretense, you know,
so show trial like in Moscow or something like that.
I would say, similarly with the Supreme Court Kavanaugh stuff,
you can agree with it. There's a lot of shit
the Supreme Court that does that I disagree with, but

(59:36):
that's not the same thing as saying that it was
declared by executive fiats. Some of the recisions have not
been held up. You know, Lisa Cook is still on
the Federal Reserve Board. Like, it's not exactly like it's
one hundred percent of what you want, maybe a lot
more than you would like, but that's very different in
terms of how the system is operating. And that's part
of why I'm like, yeah, I just think it's generally

(59:56):
I would say it's out of the confines of modern history,
definitely not out of the confines of American history. And
that's part of why I look at all this, in
particular Parrot, with some of the things that we've all
gone through, and I was like, yes, Trump is extraordinary
to the current mind. And I don't defend or even
frankly like I would say almost eighty percent of a
lot of what the White House has done. I think
it's grotesque. I think it has betrayed much of the

(01:00:19):
spirit of what people voted on. And in fact, I
think what discussed me the most really about it is
a lot of the lying is because you know, it's
not just Trump. Of course Trump was a liar, but
the people around him actually made assurances both privately but
also really publicly about the way things were going to go,
and then to just to flip on a dime like that.
I am much more concerned at a democratic level with that.

(01:00:42):
And because I don't see that the voters, I mean,
you know, I'm a rare exception. There's most people whose
support are just going to go along with everything. And
that actually probably scares me, maybe equally to what you are,
because it shows me that the stuff itself doesn't even matter. Yeah,
and I think see you talk about fake elections, That's
what I think is fake, is that the mind is
so controlled by so many of these people with call
the personality that you can literally flip on something that

(01:01:05):
you said that you were going to do and they're
going to do anything about it or create any sort
of democratic check. So in a way, I almost I
view that as one of the more dangerous elements of MEGA.
But we have let's get I apologize to the audience
and to David Sirota. So let's let's go ahead, get
him in here.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
All right, At long last, much anticipated we are joined
now by David Sarotta, of course is a founder of
lever News among many other things, and is out with
a new book. David welcome, Thank you, thanks for having me. Yeah,
of course, So let's put the book jacket up on
the screen here. Guys need to make sure to check
this out. You guys have been doing phenomenal work on
corruption in America. In particular. The headline the title of

(01:01:43):
the book is Masterplan, The Hidden Plot to legalize Corruption
in America. David, let's start with this news that's incredibly
relevant to put up three up on the screen here
about one of the cases that's going before the Supreme Court,
or actually is it two cases that are going before
the Supreme Court? That listen, we already don't have the

(01:02:03):
greatest campaign finance system. There already aren't a lot of limits,
but there's an effort afoot to try to eliminate what
meager limits we do have. So explain that to the
audience for us.

Speaker 5 (01:02:16):
So we're at the fifteen year anniversary of Citizens United
and Citizens United was the culmination of this movement that
we document in master Plan, and I should say we
call it the Hidden Plot. And people think they know
this story, but trust me, you do not know the
story of how corruption was legalized because it's been secret
for decades and we uncovered all sorts of documents exposing

(01:02:39):
how they wrote it down. I mean, they wrote down
how they were going to deregulate the campaign finance system
and weaken anti bribery laws. Americans in polls tell us
that they hate the Citizens United decision. But as you
allude to, the Supreme Court is literally right now going
to hear a case that could dismantle whatever was left

(01:03:02):
of America's anti corruption laws after Citizens United. And it's
a case spearheaded by JD. Vans. So essentially what this
case would do, what JD. Vance is trying to do
is say that parties, the limits on how much parties
can coordinate their spending with candidates should be essentially eliminated,

(01:03:24):
which the effect of that would be. The reason the
rules exist is to prevent what would end up being
if this happens, which is that donors could simply funnel
much larger amounts of money through parties to candidates, essentially
using parties as a kind of shell corporation or a
pass through entity to flood much more money directly to candidates.

(01:03:48):
So not even through supposedly independent super PACs. We're talking
about much larger amounts of money directly into candidates. And
the other case that's going on right now is a
case that's trying to narrow the enforceability of anti corruption laws.
This is the line of rulings like the Bob McDonald ruling,

(01:04:10):
the Bridgegate rulings, so further narrowing it. There's an appeal
at the Court that cites remember the story of Donald
Trump soliciting a billion dollars reportedly of campaign contributions from
oil executives in exchange for promising favors. This appeal at
the Supreme Court cites that situation to say, look at

(01:04:31):
this pay to play culture is now so pervasive that
essentially we need to make it unprosecutable because the pay
to play culture is now essentially what politics is. Situation
exactly exactly, I mean, it literally says, imagine if prosecutors

(01:04:51):
prosecuted this kind of quid pro quote corruption, this would
essentially criminalize all of politics.

Speaker 1 (01:04:57):
And that's where we are. Well, you also talk about
ferraris there in this article? Can you expand on that?

Speaker 5 (01:05:04):
Yeah, So that's part of the case. That's one of
the cases in this line of cases to weaken the
enforceability of anti corruption laws and anti bribery laws. That
quote from John Roberts where he says, you know, this
case is not having to deal with the tawdry details
of ferraris and rolexes. It's about the and this is

(01:05:25):
his words, the over zealous and I'm paraphrasing here, the
over zealous enforcement by federal prosecutors of anti bribery laws.
That's the court's posture here. And it's worth noting that
the Court has been issuing these rulings making it harder
and harder to prosecute bribery, while certain members of the

(01:05:45):
Court are accepting lavish gifts from billionaires with business before
the court. So in a certain sense, they kind of
have an interest in making sure that bribery and this
kind of corruption is is unprosecutable.

Speaker 2 (01:06:02):
That is such an important point and one that doesn't
go remarked upon enough. I did want to give people
a little bit of good news here though, because I
saw you were talking on Twitter about how the commonly
held belief is like, well, after Citizens United, there's not
a lot we can do about campaign finance require constitutional amendment.
We all know how likely that is to happen. But

(01:06:23):
you've actually been doing some investigating and there may be
actually some ways that individual states can help curb the
corrupt influence of money in their politics.

Speaker 5 (01:06:31):
Yeah, so this is actually some good news. In Montana,
luminaries of both parties are pushing a ballot measure that
takes a look at how to deal with money in
politics in a different way than standard campaign contribution limits
or disclosure requirements. The long and the short of it
is is that the idea that corporations are people that

(01:06:54):
are entitled to the rights to free speech, with money
being defined as speed. The whole idea that corporations are
people stems from state and corporation laws that deems them
or grants them the same powers as people under the law.
The Citizens United case, all the campaign finance cases rely

(01:07:14):
on those state and corporation laws. So what's happening in
Montana is there's a ballot measure to say, Okay, if
that's the case, then we can change our state laws
to grant corporations certain powers but not grant them other powers.
Legal scholars will tell you the corporations under the law

(01:07:34):
are artificial entities created by state laws, which means, and
we've done this in the past, way back where we said,
you know, corporations have this as part of their charter.
They have this power in this power, and they don't
have this power in Montana. What they're proposing to do
is say they have all the powers that they have,
but they do not have the power to spend in elections.

(01:07:55):
And here's the thing. I know people listening to this
probably saying, well, God, doesn't that mean that a company
could just like move out Montana and move to Delaware
and then do what it wants. Well, the answer is
not in inside the state, because all state laws have
a provision that essentially say, if you're an out of
state company doing business in our state, you must comply

(01:08:15):
with the basic laws and powers that we grant to
corporations in state. So the point is Montana doing this
can change its situation. For Montana. It doesn't have to
wait for other states to move forward with this. And
of course then you extend it, you say, well, listen,
Blue states that are more inclined to do this right
now don't have to wait to do it on their ballot.

(01:08:36):
They could do it through their legislature. So I think
what they're looking at in Montana is a template. And
the thing is that the Supreme Court just recently and
over many decades continues to have ruled that how corporations
are treated flows from state law. And my point in
saying that is is that this is a way to

(01:08:56):
use Supreme Court precedent to deal with the problem in
a way that the Supreme Court has previously and repeatedly
said is within what it considers okay under the law.

Speaker 1 (01:09:08):
Really interesting, So, David, how does this connect to the
upcoming midterm elections?

Speaker 5 (01:09:13):
Well, look, I think it's not. It's on the ballot
in the midterm elections, so I think, you know, it's
not going to be in place before the midterm elections.
But look, I think the Democrats have a big problem
in the midterm elections on the corruption issue. And I
wrote about this recently, which is to say that in
twenty sixteen, the last poll before the election showed Donald

(01:09:36):
Trump losing on every issue except for corruption, if you
can believe it here, in twenty twenty five, the most
recent Reuters poll showed the Republicans have a similar lead
on the issue of corruption as they did in twenty sixteen.
Who do you trust to deal with corruption? The Republicans
are actually leading the Democrats and I think the Demo

(01:10:00):
that's a huge problem for the midterms because clearly it
means the Democrats have not made a forceful case about
how they are whether or not they are serious about
cleaning up corruption. And I think part of the problem
here is that a lot of their anti corruption argument
is a purely anti Trump argument, and it doesn't it's
not willing to concede the system is corrupt. And if

(01:10:24):
you remember the John McCain race, I think back to
that a lot, the two thousand John McCain races where
John McCain at one point almost won the Republican nomination.
I would argue that the reason his anti corruption message,
and it was a pure anti corruption message, the reason
it resonated was because he was willing to talk about
both parties, and I think a lot of voters saw

(01:10:44):
that as you're willing to be authentic and speak honestly
about the situation as opposed to just blaming one side
for the problem.

Speaker 2 (01:10:54):
Yeah, gave him as sort of Maverick branding. Let's talk
a little bit about the a little more about the midterms.
So there's this other Supreme Court case where it looks
like the Supreme Court is poised to strike down additional
aspects of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to Harry Enton

(01:11:14):
talk about the impact that this could have our on
the midterms.

Speaker 6 (01:11:18):
Okay, so you know, if you go back six months ago,
you go back to April, k Paul, when what were
we looking at. Well, we were looking at the Democrats
with a very clear shot of taking control of the
US House of Representatives. According to the Calshi prediction market odds,
we saw them in an eighty three percent chance.

Speaker 7 (01:11:33):
But those odds have gone plummeting down.

Speaker 6 (01:11:36):
Now we're talking about just a sixty three percent chance,
while the gopiece chances up like a rocket up like gold,
up from seventeen percent to now a thirty seven percent chance.
So we'll look like a pretty clear Democrat likely Democratic
win in the House come next year has become much
closer to toss up at this point, although still slightly
leading Democratic.

Speaker 2 (01:11:55):
What's changed?

Speaker 6 (01:11:56):
What do you think should go back to April? Look
at the generic congressional ballot. What you see you see
plus three Democrats in twenty twenty five. In April, you
see plus three Democrats back in April of twenty seventeen.
Now jump over to this side of the screen.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
What happens, Well, the.

Speaker 6 (01:12:08):
Democrats are no longer keeping pace with the pace that
they were setting back in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen. You
look back in twenty seventeen, you saw that the Democrats
had leaped up to an eight point advantage. If both
sides max out, we're probably looking at a GOP gain
of plus seven House seats. That doesn't even take into
account the potential gutting of the VRA that is right

(01:12:30):
now going to be in front of the Supreme Court.

Speaker 7 (01:12:32):
If you add that in, you would be looking, well, yes,
exactly right, the Voting Rights Act. If you add that in,
then you could be looking about adding ten twelve, fifteen,
seventeen on top of this seven seats.

Speaker 2 (01:12:46):
See Nate ConA the New York Times analysis here and said, basically,
if Republicans really max out what they could do with
that section of the Voting Rights Act being nullified by
the Supreme Court, Democrats would need to win the popular
vote by more than five points to even have a
prayer of winning that control of the House. So talk
a little bit about that case and what you know

(01:13:07):
some of the details there and what you think the
impact could be.

Speaker 5 (01:13:10):
Yeah, so the case is basically making it easier to gerrymander.
I mean that's the top line for the especially in
Republican states. It basically would say that districts that are
drawn in accordance with the old Voting Rights Actor, the
existing Voting Rights Act, districts drawn to make sure there
is adequate minority representation, that that provision would essentially become

(01:13:35):
unenforceable if not eliminated. And what that would mean for
various districts with African American members of Congress and the like,
that it would eliminate or at least Republican legislators would
be empowered to eliminate more of those districts in a
way that increases their chances of winning those districts. And essentially,

(01:13:59):
what it would say, it would make it harder to
prove or harder to get the law enforced to say
that a specific map was violating essentially the basic civil
rights that were outlined in the Voting Rights Act, they
would raise the threshold. So I do think it's true.
The upshot here is our Republican states with Republican legislatures

(01:14:21):
and Republican governors. If this ruling comes down, are they
going to call emergency sessions to redraw their maps? I
think we should assume a lot of them are. And
I want to bring it back to what we reveal
in our book, which master Plan, which is Look, you
have to understand so much of this comes out of
that early nineteen seventies era where you've got conservatives saying, look,

(01:14:46):
we and this is in the Powell memo, Look, we
have a problem where the government has become too responsive
to what people want. This is essentially what Lewis Powell,
the Supreme Court justice, was arguing in the infamous Powell Memo,
and what it was really saying is democracy has become
a problem for us. So we need more investment in

(01:15:08):
essentially electing who we want corporations, oligarchs and the like,
to prevent the people from getting so much of what
they want because it's threatening our so called free market system.
So you've seen that in the deregulation of campaign finance,
that's one pillar. You're now seeing it in the attempt
to change the maps, right, change the process the way

(01:15:32):
we elect people. You've seen it in the attack on unions. Right,
these are the three pillars that we have to stop
the public from getting what it wants. So I look
at the redistricting stuff as one pillar of this larger
plan to reduce the power of people to essentially get

(01:15:53):
what they want from government. Because the people in power
with money don't want that. They see that response as
a threat.

Speaker 1 (01:16:01):
What I found interesting after Citizens United, David is there
was a lot of talk about, you know, I think
fine correctly, about a lot of Republican billionaires who would
take advantage. It ended up actually being quite bipartisan, including unions,
many others who used it much to their advantage. I
wonder if you could talk about that in the context
of you know this as well, specifically with California talking

(01:16:23):
about redistricting, and whether you see that as the acceptable balance,
like what's a better end state, because I think that's
what we're trying to get at.

Speaker 5 (01:16:31):
No, it's a fair question. Look, in my view, what
California is doing on its redistricting ballot measure is a
response to what the Republicans started. I think that's obvious.
Do I think it's a good thing, Like do I
think an arms race of gerrymandering is a good thing. No,
it's a very bad thing. Is this is where I

(01:16:52):
think we don't want to go, but it is where
we are. How to put this all back in the bottle?
I mean, that's the big question. I mean, I do
look to a place as an example, like New York
City with Zoron Mamdani, and I say, here, here is
something we can look at as a potential solution. And

(01:17:13):
I want to be clear about what I'm saying. I'm
not saying Zoron Mamdani is the solution. What I'm saying
is there's been a debate about how did Zoron Mamdani,
as an example, win a democratic primary against all of
that money in the financial and media capital of the world.
Was it that he was a compelling candidate, or was
it his slick ads? Was it a great message? All

(01:17:34):
of those things are important, But the thing that to
my mind that was most important was that New York
City has a system of public financing of elections which
allowed him to get enough resources to be competitive. Not
enough to outspend his opponents, but enough to be competitive.
And I look at systems of public financing of elections

(01:17:56):
which are operating about twenty cities and a couple of states.
And I say this is a way that if you want,
I don't care if you're a Republican Democrat and conservative liberal,
if you want candidates who come from outside of the
system of private financing of donations coming in with the
expectation of legislative favors, then we should be looking at

(01:18:18):
those systems as a way to do that. And look,
Congress has gotten very close at various points to creating
public financing systems of elections for Congress. It was first
proposed an old idea. It was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt.
So my point in bringing this up is, and we
talked about the Montana situation, we're going to have to
start thinking like way outside of the box. If you've

(01:18:40):
got jd. Vance at the Supreme Court saying we got
to dismantle what's left of what was left after citizens
united of traditional old campaign finance laws, it's time to
actually take a look at how do we actually change
the entire system, change state and corporation laws, public financing
of elections, Like that's where the discussion actually needs to be.

Speaker 2 (01:19:01):
Yeah, how do we get away from plutocracy and towards
something approximating like majoritarian representation, democratic representation. David, thank you
so much for your reporting. Tell people again, remind them
book title and where to find it.

Speaker 5 (01:19:16):
Yeah, it's called master Plan. It's the hidden plot to
legalize corruption. Again. You may think you know this story
like I've gotten Oh, you know, I already know everything's
like trust me, you do not know. These are never
before published documents, photos, transcripts, and you can find the
book at levernews dot com slash book. And I just
want to say thanks to both of you for having

(01:19:38):
us on to discuss it. And one of the things
I talk about that we talked about in the book is,
you know, the infiltration of media by the same Powell
memo billionaires and corporations. You know, we have seen that
of late or sort of a culmination of that, and
independent media the rise of it right now is also
one of those things that I look at as an

(01:19:58):
optimistic development, and you guys are really really a huge
part of that.

Speaker 3 (01:20:01):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (01:20:02):
Thank you, David.

Speaker 1 (01:20:03):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:20:03):
We feel very much the same about you and the
important work that you're doing out there. So thank you
so much.

Speaker 1 (01:20:08):
Great to see you, David A man, Thank you, Thanks
for having me. Thanks for watching, guys, we appreciate it.
Friday Show tomorrow. We'll see you then.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}10/16/25: Trump Greenlights CIA In Venezuela, Debate On Totalitarianism, Dems Screwed By SCOTUS In 2026

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Joe Rogan Experience

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

10/16/25: Trump Greenlights CIA In Venezuela, Debate On Totalitarianism, Dems Screwed By SCOTUS In 2026

On Purpose with Jay Shetty