11/17/25: Fuentes Says MAGA Is Dead, CNN Stunned By Epstein Israel Connection, Israel Demands 20 Year US Deal, Schumer Career Over

Krystal and Saagar discuss Fuentes says MAGA is dead, CNN stunned by Epstein Israel connection, Israel demands 20 year US deal, Schumer career over after shutdown cave.

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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 this show.

Speaker 3 (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 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Epstein obviously dovetails too much broader sort of breakdown going
on within MAGA centered around Nick Fuentes, who is an
over racist in neo Nazi and he is another element
and factor here that is splitting the Republicans apart at
this moment and hands some pretty interesting comments recently about

(00:54):
how he believes that MAGA is dead and also pointing
out some of the hypocrisy of the right and of
other MAGA influencers where they want to draw the line
at him, but they are perfectly okay with hateful, racist
rhetoric when it comes to other other groups, ethnicities, religions,

(01:14):
et cetera.

Speaker 4 (01:15):
Let's take a listen to see two.

Speaker 5 (01:16):
After this year twenty twenty five is the year that
MAGA died. This is the year that this hat is
no longer controversial. The hat is not edgy, the hat
is not provocative, it doesn't even mean anything. This hat
is dead. This hat is dead now metaphorically speaking. And
this is the future. And let's look at the ledger.

(01:39):
On the side of MAGA, you have Lindsey Graham, Ben Shapiro,
Marco Rubio, Randy Fine, Mark Levin. Apparently all of that
is MAGA together. They support war with Iran, Chinese students

(02:00):
and b visas, three hundred thousand deportations all year.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
And then on the.

Speaker 5 (02:07):
Other side, apparently what is not MAGA, what is kicked
out of MAGA, wacky crazy haters, Republican haters, democrats, third worldists.
You got Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey, Andrew Tate,
Nick Flentis, Alex Jones, you got all these people on

(02:29):
the other side in favor of America. First, mass deportations,
no foreign students, no foreign workers, no war with Iran,
no war with Russia in Ukraine. What has become of
the movement. It's been inverted and it is now dead.
This coming Monday, and I said, fuck Islam. I said,

(02:52):
these Muslims need to go home.

Speaker 1 (02:54):
Fuck them.

Speaker 5 (02:55):
They're barbarians. Their third world is they like to live
in open sewage and bomb crap. You think any conservative
would disavow me, any of them, any Republican? You think
if I was known for saying that, do you think
I would have any trouble getting into Seapack or the
New York Young Republican Club GWA or the GOP.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
Of course not.

Speaker 5 (03:15):
Because Laura Lumer has access to the White House and
she says stuff like that. Ben Shapiro has access to
Trump and he says stuff like that.

Speaker 2 (03:22):
I mean he's got a point. Doesn't mean that, right,
Listen and listen. I want people to be totally clear
because Nick Fuentes is trying to whitewash his image right
now and is being sanitized with the help of any
number of podcast hosts, but Tucker Carlson being one of them.
This is a man who says he loves thinks Hitler
is cool and denies a Holocaust and is an avowed racist,

(03:45):
hates Jews, but all sorts of other ethnic groups as well.
But he's completely correct there at the end when he says,
you know what, if I said all the things that
I say, if I said the things that Randy Fine
says and Laura Lumer says about how Muslims are discussed
and they're savages and they all need to be deported
and it's a horror show, it would be no problem.

(04:05):
So you are not going to be able to draw
the line, Like if all that hateful shit is fine
for all these other groups, you're not going to be
able to draw the line when it comes to Jewish people.
And he's one hundred percent correct about that. You know,
I also think, like I'm curious to your view though
on his assertion that effectively Maga is dead. I think
that in a sense he's correct about that, and the

(04:27):
fact that they have completely compromised any sort of moral
credibility that could possibly have in order to gatekeep a
character who's an avert like Neo Dotzi, like Nick Fuentes.
I mean, these people support a genocide. They're you know,
they are implementing a refugee policy that is whites only.

(04:48):
They're doing mass racial profiling of Latinos, including Latino American citizens,
across the country. They're sending people to Seacott And you
think you're going to have any sort of moral standing
to then be like, here's where we draw the line.

Speaker 4 (05:01):
It's ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (05:02):
I think that on the Israel issues where it's the
cleanest headshot. And this is also why this entire conversation
about trying it's like, oh, they must disavow. It's like, guys,
nobody more embodies no enemies to the right more than
the Zionist right. You can say literally anything about dual

(05:22):
loyalty for Muslims, about wanting Palestinian children to starve in Gaza,
about wanting and having joy, which they here's the thing
they say, all this shit. They're like, I get joy
when I see Palestinian children, you know, being killed and
God one of the people who has been openly going
after the Heritage Foundation has been increasingly making fun of

(05:45):
Palestinian women and children who are intense in Gaza, who
are being flooded by you know, more recent reigns, which
obviously is a mass spreader of disease, So you want
the moral authority to tone police what is or is?
I mean, it's like again, you know, I can't possibly

(06:06):
be lectured by the likes of Randy Fine, who said
he wants to New Kagaza. It's like, dude, you are
literally openly celebratory of deaths of women and children. And
the same standard that you want applied to rhetoric against
Jews is ones that you directly use against Muslims, not
even really just Muslims, because it's really just anybody who

(06:27):
you disagree with period. They most openly, you know, go
after Muslims. So in what and by the way, then
also you know they talk about damage and about how
hurtful and hateful rhetoric and all that is. Who has
the most power, Who has the most power The people
who have openly cheered on the deaths of women and
of children of funding you know, much of what is
going on there of directing US policy. So it's very

(06:48):
obvious that you know, if you look at actually has
been the most harmed by hurtful rhetoric, it's you, like
you're the biggest people for mass murder. And yeah, I mean,
look on the MAGA being dead point. We have counted
out Trump before, and that's why I don't I mean,
look back in after January sixth, you could have made
a good case that people were going to move on.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
Didn't work. Right.

Speaker 3 (07:10):
Not only just won the nomination, he won the election
by popular vote. Right, So I'm not ready to just
sit here and discount their own political talent because they've
pulled many, many rabbits out of a hat before. Now,
whenever it does come to the Israel issue, and specifically
with the current fight that is happening right now, this
is something where you cannot both sides it, and I

(07:32):
think that perhaps is where he is most correct in
terms of it is Rubio, It is Laura Lumer, Mark Levin,
the pro Israel crowd which have most directly hitched their
wagon to Donald Trump, and more directly, they're making it
the direct litmus test for twenty twenty eight. Now the

(07:52):
anti Israel right, or I guess the pro America right,
is also doing the same thing. Part of the reason
that that Tucker Fuentes interview happened, I believe I have
no inside information, is genuinely to force a choice for
a lot of people who are in the American right
wing to be like, Okay, well what do we find
most offensive about what's happening here? And you know, like

(08:13):
you said, look, I mean god, you know. You know, Nick,
he's a very very smart guy in terms of calibrating
a lot of his language now currently to be the
most appealing to mass audience in the hopes that a
lot of people may forget. However, for all the people
who complain about him, as I have said here before,
he literally was working on the Kanye West campaign he

(08:33):
was dead irrelevant in a joke back in twenty twenty
three October seventh, resurrected his entire image because he had
something to criticize, to expose, and to fight against. And
that's part of the reason that he is in the
prominent position of where he is right now. And that's
entirely a creation, I believe, of the Zionist right and
of the way that they've handled themselves over the last

(08:55):
two years. It's one where if they correctly see them
as a threat, but they are the mirror image in
a lot of ways rhetorically and into the effect also
of destroying Maga Israel is Destroying Maga Israel, is destroying
the Republican Party. It already destroyed the Democratic Party. It's
destroying much of the Republican Party because it's about generational lines,
and it's not just about the actions in kaza. It's

(09:17):
fundamentally a question of who do you work for and
who do you care about the most? If you care
about this foreign nation at the expense of ours, which
you can directly say about Islam, but you're not capable
of saying it about this, well, you're a hypocrite and
you're the people with all the power you're directly it
appears you know, this is the one issue in which
you're willing to compromise all of your principles.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
That's what makes people go crazy.

Speaker 6 (09:40):
You know.

Speaker 3 (09:40):
I read that quote from Tire. You may not have
seen it. There's a long piece and in your Times
about Tucker Carlson. What he says there is is he
was like, I was truly shocked to find out that
many of the Republicans who I have been friends with
and others do not care nearly as much about free
speech as they allegedly, you know, pretended to over the
last ten years.

Speaker 1 (10:01):
I feel that way too.

Speaker 3 (10:02):
I mean, I actually do feel more galled by a
Ben Shapiro or by I mean a myriad of other
right wing figures. The Trump administration to not only run
on a position of free speech, to you know, be
against the woke left and to say that this is
bad and anti American, and then to come into office
and directly use, you know, anti free speech measures to

(10:23):
shut down descent again over an issue, you know, of
a foreign country like That's why the Israel issue resonates
is because it's the one where people are willing to
compromise everything that they've ever said before in order to
act seemingly on behalf of this foreign power. And it's
what gives the cleanest hit to a Nick fuintest to
anybody else. And so in my opinion, you know, they
have nobody but themselves to blame. Why should we listen

(10:44):
to you about tone policing.

Speaker 1 (10:46):
We can't. I can't deal with it.

Speaker 2 (10:48):
I mean, as I think it would be ideal if
you had two political parties that both were able to
gatekeep actual neo Nazis. But when you have you know,
I mean listen on the on the democratic side, why
was Israel such a problem for democratic leadership. It's because
it exposed the hypocrisy of their of the distance between
their rhetoric about human rights right and these like humanity,

(11:11):
liberal international humanitarian values and claiming to care about democracy
and international on all these things, and then an active
genocide and they just, you know, the base looked at
that and it's like, this is disgusting, Like we actually
do believe in these international human rights values, like we
actually believe people should have equal rights, and we shouldn't

(11:32):
support ethno states and apartheid and genocide, and we cannot
understand why you would be such incredible, disgusting, murderous hypocrites
when it comes to this, you know, on the right
to go a level deeper even than in Israel. MAGA
is increasingly centered around Christian nationalism. So it's okay for

(11:53):
you to then say, okay, well, the Muslims have to go,
and the Hindus are disgusting and they have to go,
But no, no, no, we're to draw the line and
we're going to protect You can't say anything hateful about
Jewish people, Nick Fuentez, is the logical conclusion of the
philosophy that they have centered within the MAGA movement. Increasingly
centered within the MAGA movement, so when he says MAGA

(12:17):
is dead. I think he's absolutely right, because he is
part of he is like the logical end state of
MAGA and the fact that he is critical of.

Speaker 4 (12:29):
Them from the right.

Speaker 2 (12:30):
And you have Trump, who is incredibly weak at this point,
who just took this electoral shalacking, who is a lame duck,
who is an old man increasingly looking like an old man,
falling asleep in meetings, falling asleep while he's standing up
at wei White House events, whose lost control of his
own political party, can't even get them to vote his

(12:51):
way on the Epstein Valles as a completely one eighty.
Everyone is jockeying for what is going to come after Trump,
and so through the fact of his political weakness and
the exposing of the ideological fissures, flaws, hypocrisies and lies
of this sort of core MAGA ideology, I think Fuentes

(13:12):
is absolutely right. And you know, you can already see
and this is part of what's happening with Marjorie Taylor Green,
part of what's happening with Thomas Massey, part of what's
happening with Ted Kruz. You can see everyone starting to
jockey and JD Vance obviously is starting to jockey for
what is going to be next. This administration is already
a failure. You know, there's nothing Trump could do at

(13:34):
this point to like pull a rabbit out of the
hat and totally.

Speaker 4 (13:36):
Remake the economy.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
The economy is going in headed south and probably only
going to get worse. None of his fifty year mortgage
ideas are going to pull it out of the tailspin.
They're betting massively on AI technology that's going to replace
you know, millions of workers in their ideal, Like the
whole thing is completely bankrupt and is increasingly exposed as so,

(14:00):
so you know, I listen, I've been wrong about Trump before.
I thought he would lose Ta Kamala, you know, so
people should take my words with a grain of salt.

Speaker 4 (14:09):
I've been wrong in the past, There's no doubt about it.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
But I have never seen this level of weakness in
the coalition, this level of genuine sort of like foundational fissures.
And I've never seen someone from within the movement be
able to go up against Trump and get the better
of him. And now we have effectively like multiple people

(14:32):
who are able to do that and pull it off.

Speaker 3 (14:35):
Yeah, I mean Look, let's talk about Mago right again,
about what you were saying. Now, I mean, I think
that's a convenient left explanation because one of the things
that they dream about is that anybody who is opposed
to immigration is racist, right. I mean, that's literally kind
of been the talking point now for over a decade
about Trump. I personally did not believe that, and I
don't think that a lot of people believe that either.
Who supported Trump in the twenty twenty four election, people

(14:57):
wanted less chaos. There are legitimate, you know, no on
racial arguments to make about immigration restriction. There are a
lot also to make, let's say, even about Israel, anti Semitism,
about nationalism itself, and we talk about the intellectual airs
of American nationalism. Back to the early days, let's say,
with the Progressive Party under Theodore Roosevelt, there was an

(15:18):
explicit element specifically to fight against know nothings and the
other strain of racialism and anti Catholicism that was in
the right and instead to make it about the nation
centered in itself, to include the Irishman and the Scotsman.
As long as people were able to forego, you know,
their attachments to foreign nations and to buy into a
national civic project like you know, you're saying that's what.

Speaker 1 (15:40):
Mago's alway about. I don't believe that.

Speaker 3 (15:41):
I actually don't believe that that's really what a lot
of the people who voted for Trump and believed, you know,
America First itself as an ideology itself. Now, I think
Fwent does likes Magot to be this because that's what
he wants, right And part of what Trump has always
done is he's been kind of a rorshack test where
you could see civic nationalism if you want, you could
also see overt racialism if you want to. Some of

(16:02):
the actions of the administration, you know, don't necessarily make
the case you know that I'm making here, And that's
where that becomes the logical endpoint where when you start
to use free speech, you know, to go after people
who are criticizing Israel, when you are overtly just not
really allowing, you know, ethnocentrism itself to be a primary

(16:27):
argument for immigration instead of anything economic or to be
to your own benefit. That is where it validates some
of the Maga like of that you're talking about, one
that I've personally been trying to, you know, go fight
against now for ten years. But I'm not going to
sit here and say that I have been successful. I
think that that movement itself about competence, about civic nationalism,

(16:49):
which again I still believe validated. In twenty twenty four election,
a lot of people were actually on board with that
vision and they did win the popular vote, first time
Republican has done it since two thousand and four. That
is an extraordinary achievement. All of this is to be
said here is that if they want to go down
the rabbit hole of people who vote for Mamdani or

(17:13):
socialist Muslims, and that Mamdanni itself socialist Muslim needs to
be denaturalized, be deported, then don't be surprised when the
other side of that coin is going to be exposed.
When we got to start talking about do a loyalty
and about foreign you know, about being behold into foreign
ideologies or any of that, you cannot gatekeep in that,

(17:34):
you know, the better option is to basically embrace everybody
on the terms as Americans and to debate.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
But that's not what they've chosen to do.

Speaker 3 (17:43):
And that's also why, you know, that's why if you
accept that framing which the many current modern Republicans do,
which is to make it about foreign entanglements when it
comes to a Zorn Mamdani and not instead about the
campaign issue and the campaign related stuff itself for why
a lot of people voted for it, let's say, on affordability.

(18:03):
Then you do go down the ethnic rabbit hole, which
is to his direct benefit.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
That's what he wants more than anything.

Speaker 3 (18:09):
I mean, you know, he's it's ironic because he's talking
there about if I said this about most It's like, dude,
I'm pretty sure you have said all of Muslims number one, but.

Speaker 2 (18:16):
Number two, you like, it's not like he's some lover
of Arab Sermuslims and ery what.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Look.

Speaker 3 (18:21):
Let me also say, I know I'm not a great
you know fan. I mean, I've I've made plenty of
comments here, and I think it's totally legitimate to talk
about Islamic migration or anything.

Speaker 1 (18:30):
I will talk that all.

Speaker 3 (18:32):
Day long, as long as as long as what we're
trying to strive for is American values and a non
racialized view of the world.

Speaker 1 (18:42):
Okay, that's very different.

Speaker 3 (18:43):
But what they celebrate openly is this discussion of you know,
about what they celebrate openly, is this, this framework explicitly
around America must be a you know, Christian white name,
which a lot of the Islamic stuff kind of basically
you know, you know, tacitly embraces.

Speaker 1 (19:06):
They just have a Jewish carve out for it.

Speaker 3 (19:08):
And he's like, well, no, I don't want that Jewish
carve out too, So then you can't be surprised when
this happens, right, So in a lot of ways, you know,
you have your own you have only yourselves to blame.
And this is really where Richard Hanania, you know, I
have to give credit. Where do his Abeliophile defense notwithstanding
is which he docs has recently taken up as a cause.

(19:31):
What he says is about the groyperization of a lot
of Republican politics is if you openly embrace denaturalized deport
type rhetoric about anybody who opposes you, then it's not
an accident that some fuintez anti literally anti Jewish is
going to be openly embraced within that framework, because that

(19:54):
is the endpoint. And if that's the choice, well I
think it's pretty bad and I'm out of it.

Speaker 2 (20:00):
Yeah, I mean it. It reminds and I don't remember
who said this. It might have been Actually it might
have been Hynnania. I'm not sure, but it reminds in
a sense of the rise of Trump, where you know,
people Fox News.

Speaker 4 (20:12):
Or the George W.

Speaker 2 (20:13):
Bush Republican Party would flirt with rhetoric, but he would
come out and say it more directly and so increasingly,
especially in Trump two point zero, with Stephen Miller being
such a central figure who is a blood and soil
white nationalist like once, the Ethno state is you know,
quite upfront about that, and that is his ideological project,

(20:35):
and it drives him day and night when you have
him in charge, and you have the DHS posting the
way they are and the videos and the social media
content that they put out, and the way that they
conduct themselves and the things that they say, And yes,
Laura Lumer being a close advisor and describing yourself as
a proud Islamophobe who is just openly racist, you have

(20:57):
embraced a racialist view of the world. That is your view,
That is the policy you're implementing. That is a lot
of the communications that are coming out. But you aren't
going that next step of being quite as overt or frankly,
quite as consistent as Nick fuent Has is. Nick fuentt
Has says, yes, I am an overt racialist. Yes, I

(21:20):
want this country to be for white Christians. That's what
we should have. And guess what, Jews are not white Christians.

Speaker 4 (21:28):
So they're out.

Speaker 2 (21:29):
So he is taking the more overt consistent view of
the ideological project that they set in motion. Now I'm
not I think that my own view is that you're right, Soccer.
I don't think that some many of the people who
voted for Trump. I don't think that they want an
overtly like neo nazi, outright racist party. I think that

(21:53):
there are many people who voted for Trump who are
going to be repelled by that. But that is sort
of that is what they have set in motion. That
is the logical endpoint of the ideology that, especially in
Trump two point zero, they have put in place and heavily,
heavily flirted with. So that's why I think, you know,

(22:14):
when I say I think he's right that Maggot is
dead because Nick Fontes and others. But Nick fuont Has
is sort of forcing a choosing, He's forcing a divibe.

Speaker 4 (22:23):
He's forcing a choosing.

Speaker 2 (22:25):
Are you going to be this overtly racialist, white nationalist
ethno state, blood and soil project.

Speaker 4 (22:31):
Are you going to do that?

Speaker 2 (22:33):
And are you going to be consistent about it even
when it comes to the Jews and there aren't going
to be any sacred ethnicities or religions or you know,
of sacred cows. Everybody's on the table. Or are you
going to be you know, some sort of a some
sort of a squish and believe everybody should have equal
rights and that we should live together in this sort

(22:53):
of like pluralistic democratic project that you know has been
imperfectly practiced in the US for many years. He is
forcing a choosing, and that's why I think when that
plus Trump's political weakness and like being a lame dunk
in all of that sort of stuff, is why I
think he fundamentally is correct about MAGA being broken apart

(23:16):
and being dead and not meaning anything. And now people
are going to have to pick sides of where they are,
and you know, picking the Ben Shapiro side of it's
fine to hate everybody except the Jews. I don't think
that that's going to be a sustainable place to continue
to stand.

Speaker 3 (23:32):
No it's not a sustainable place, and that is ultimately
what is fracturing all of this. You can't support a
literal Jewish ethno state and overtly to the point where
you're willing to sacrifice all of your American principles and
then say no, we shouldn't have an ethno state here.
You're like, come on, okay, I mean, it's just so ridiculous,
and this is part of what is broken down a lot.
I mean, look, I find it really tragic. I think

(23:54):
it's bad, you know, and I think that I think
it's really grim because what they don't understand is that
their embrace of Israel has led to this embrace now
overt racialism. They also don't understand that for a lot
of people. Let's say, if you're younger, you're twenty two,
you know, and you're just getting into politics, you haven't

(24:16):
you know, Crystal, You and I have been aware of
fuintes and grew up a phenomenon or whatever for eight years, right,
so we remember a lot of the past, But they don't.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
They actually have no idea.

Speaker 3 (24:29):
They don't you know, they currently see Oh this is
very reasonable, of course, Oh calling out Trump, Well, yeah,
if that's the tact that we believe that we should
fully take it, you know, in this direction. And so
I fully understand how disgruntled and especially people who love
degenerate activity and are seething coping with the variety of

(24:53):
vices of which everybody knows that I hate, and you
embrace hateful politics, especially also in the age of large
unimp deployment and inability to meet a spouse, you're fully
addicted to pornography, phone, You're really in a place where
it does not seem society wants to help you. I
can always intellectually understand, as I have read many books

(25:13):
of previous countries where this has happened, how this can
go down that direction. I don't think that that is
an embrace of that. I think we can just all
simply understand that radical politics are a logical consequence of
the current conditions that we currently that we live in.
Part of the reason why I attack those conditions vehemently,

(25:34):
part of the reason why we talk about AI and
many of these other phenomena. But the problem too for
the Republicans is they're not really trying to address many
of those issues I just described as well. If anything,
you're probably making it worse with a lot of the
rise of AI.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
So in a multi kind.

Speaker 3 (25:48):
Of factorial way, I always look at who's in power,
who is to blame.

Speaker 1 (25:53):
I think they're the ones to blame. Now, you know,
people have agency.

Speaker 3 (25:55):
If you're going to say overtly racist shit, be openly
anti Semitic, yeah, screw you. Okay, you know, nobody is
absolving people who hold those views. But it's also not
difficult to see how that it could be a logical
endpoint for how you end up in this right now.
And you know, Charlie Kirk saw that coming with a
lot of the Israel stuff that they were dealing with

(26:17):
over at TPUSA. It's a problem now for the entire
not just Republican Party. That's just a problem for the
nation broadly, because you know, like you were saying about
norms and gatekeeping, if you're willing to blow gatekeeping institutions,
rhetoric and all of that on behalf of a foreign
government for Israel, then you, in my opinion again, are
the person then who opened up the so called gates

(26:40):
to every you know, crazy person in America. So, because
you have no moral authority anymore, you have to restore
some sort of moral authority and civic understanding between people
so that we can all reagree kind of on what
guardrails and all that were. That's part of the reason
I hate the mainstream media right is because I'm like, listen,
I know, yeah, independent media is in some great bastion,
But I thought that some of the norms and the

(27:01):
things that they find offensive whatever are horrible and aren't bad.
But what we're living through is kind of a reformation
of that, and we're living with the logical consequence of
what I think again, a lot of these establishment people
propped up and they normalized you know, ethno state worship
and sacrificing principles on behalf of foreign government. Well, where
did you think it was going to go? And many

(27:22):
people were warned about this too. Ze Jelani in particular
has been at the forefront always about how openly embracing
so you know, and supporting kakurrent Israeli government, Israeli policy,
the destruction a lot of the domestic policy which is
overtly on behalf of Israel, not only increasing anti Semitism,
undermining American values, and how ultimately the idea that we

(27:43):
should all just be treated equally is kind of directly
undermined by a lot of the pro Israel project. And
that's so when people take that seriously, that type of rhetoric,
they will embrace the American kind of end of that.
And that's scary for everyone, Jews included, but not just them.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
Yeah, indeed, and I mean, I want to be clear,
I don't think that Fuentes style neo Nazism is going
to succeed as a political project. I don't think it's
a majority coalition. But I do think it is succeeding
at destroying Mecca. And I think that it uh, you
know so, and look, put it on full display, let

(28:19):
people see, you know, what the views are, the hate
and the ugliness that is embraced by you know, people
within a validly like central racialist worldview. And you know,
I think most Americans, I have enough faith in the
in this country that I think most Americans will be
repelled and disgusted by you know, a group of people

(28:42):
who you know follows a guy who says that he
thinks Hettler's great and the Holocaust was was faked or exaggerated,
and that he's worried about quote unquote organized jewry and
you know, all the horrific things that he says about
every minority group. I think that will be rejected by Americans.
But he certainly has caused, like I said, he's caused

(29:04):
a choosing within the Republican Party. And it's probably a
good segue here to our conversation about Israel and what's
going on there.

Speaker 3 (29:15):
Turning now to the question of Israel in the American
right and also, as I mentioned previously, about not just
the right but also the mainstream media. There was an incredible,
incredible exchange between Marjorie Taylor Green and Dana Bash over
at CNN. Dana Bash has been pretty vehemently pro Israel
from the beginning of the October seventh attack and has

(29:36):
consistently defended the government and made accusations around anti Semitism
on CNN. But here, in particular, Marjorie Taylor Green raises
drop site newses and Ryan Grim's reporting around Epstein and
Israel connection, and Dana Bash seems a gas unaware And
this is one of the most exposing clips I've ever
seen yet on the issue.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 7 (29:56):
You questioned who and what country is putting so much
pressure on Trump to keep the Epstein files hidden, and
you included a picture about donations from pro Israel lobbying
group at APAC. What are you trying to say there?

Speaker 6 (30:12):
Well, I think it's the question that many Americans are asking,
especially when we saw information recently come out and these
emails that the Oversight Committee that I serve on has released,
and we saw Jeffriette Sein with ties to a hood Barack.
We saw him making business deals with them, also business

(30:33):
deals that involved the Israeli government and seems to have
led into their intel agencies. And I think the right
question is to ask is was JEFFREYE. Epstein working for Israel?
And I'm proud to say I don't take money from APAC.
I don't take money from any special group of people.

(30:55):
I'm just representing my district and the American people, and
so that's what I referring to.

Speaker 7 (31:00):
I just want to be clear. Are you saying Israel
is pushing the President of the United States to cover
up the Epstein files? And what evidence do you have
that that is?

Speaker 6 (31:10):
Simply no, I simply asked no. I simply just asked
out loud. Is there a foreign government? It could be
any foreign government, but is a foreign government pushing to
keep this covered up because people just don't understand the
big fight against.

Speaker 7 (31:28):
Well, you had APAC up there. It was pretty clear
which government you were talking about.

Speaker 6 (31:36):
That I'm questioning that government in particular, and questioning any
other foreign government.

Speaker 3 (31:42):
Oh, it's pretty clear which government. Yeah, what's wrong with
you talking about that government? The evidence is straight up,
it's right there. I mean, what's the problem with it.
It's just so ridiculous, and it's it's just crazy. It's
it's you know, I really believe that the Israel Epstein
connection is one of the reasons why not just Trump,
But a lot of the concern media was so reluctant

(32:02):
to actually go full on in the release of the
Epstein files. I've actually always found it a little bit ironic.
I've been at the story, you know, the Mosat theory
and all that.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
With Epstein.

Speaker 3 (32:10):
It was a theory now is basically confirmed in terms
of his acting as an agent often on behalf of Israel,
not just for Israel, many other foreign governments. But there
was you know, originally like this belief, Oh, it'll just
be the Democrats that are going to be implicated. Well,
one of the reasons why it appears he got the
sweetheart deal in more at least again, you know, my
personal theory is because of his power, broken connections all

(32:32):
across the world, Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia, all of these
different governments, Mongolia, the Cote de Noir. That's what Ryan
and the Full Picture have revealed of the backstory behind
Epstein money laundering, pedophilia and all of that was the
pedophilia was like a thing that he did with a
you know, at times with the global elite. But the

(32:53):
money laundering and his connections, his ability to be a
power broker, perhaps at times intertweeting the two, it's not
a ton of evidence, you know, to support that at
the very least was why he was protected at some
level by some of the most richest and powerful people.
So the very fact that CNN had data Bash are
acting like this is new information that they'd never even.

Speaker 1 (33:14):
Heard about before.

Speaker 3 (33:15):
It just shows you still the information bubble that a
lot of the mainstream media and all of them are
swimming in. And it's just such a disgrace that Ryan
and Drops are the only people who are willing to
report those emails that shows like ours are the only
people even willing to talk about it. And you know,
a lot of the public is just living in They
have no idea if they're not reading or paying an attention.

(33:36):
The New York Times will talk all day long about
Epstein and Trump, which is fine. I don't care publish it.
You know, sure, it's definitely a story. Epstein Israel is
also a big story. Where are you guys?

Speaker 1 (33:46):
Nothing?

Speaker 2 (33:46):
Yeah, Ryan Graham and Martazza Hussaying on every single byline
with regard to the connections between Epstein and various Israeli figures, spies,
former prime minister, dealings with foreign governments on behalf of Israel,
Like they're literally the only ones who are doing this reporting.
And then not only are the only the only ones

(34:08):
to do the reporting, then the mainstream press just pretends
that this reporting doesn't even exist. I mean, I actually
believe that Dana Bash doesn't even know that it exists,
and so she's conducting this interview like these questions to
Marjorie Taylor Green are some kind of a gotcha, like
are you insinuating that there's some Israel connection here? And

(34:28):
she's like, yes, i am, because that's been reported out.
So if you aren't aware of that piece, then you know,
Epstein is just effectively about morality, which is important. Like
I think the you know, people want to know about
the sleazy behavior of politicians and global elites and the
way they're all interconnected and cover from themselves, and that

(34:50):
has a lot to do with power, and so I
don't think that that you can just dismiss that on
its own.

Speaker 4 (34:55):
But if you're not tying that in with.

Speaker 2 (34:58):
Israel specifically, but more broadly, any other federal foreign government,
says Marjorie Taylor, Green represents there as well. If you're
not tying those pieces together, then you're not really connecting
it to the present day and the risk and the
danger from this president right now, and why this should
be a central story and why it is really important
and has immediate bearing on the conduct of our own

(35:21):
foreign policy. So it's just wild to see her living
in this completely different universe where any sort of Israel
Epstein connection is purely like fever swamp conspiracy, anti Semitic garbage.
That's how she sees it, and that's I think how
most of the mainstream press sees it as well. Either

(35:42):
that or they're just like you know, themselves, covering up
for Israel, which is certainly possible in many cases, but
a lot of it is just they sort of see
that as ichy conspiracy that they're not going to dirty
their hands with, and so she sees it as some
like gotcha question to Marjorie Taylor Green than a legitimate
line of inquiry and probably maybe the most legitimate line

(36:05):
of inquiry and concern with regard to releasing the Epstein
files today.

Speaker 1 (36:09):
I think this is a problem.

Speaker 3 (36:10):
I also I want to normalize because a lot of
Democrats are very new to Epstein, right. They always they
never paid attention. Now that Trump is involved with their
frothing and they're they're like, this is great. And I've
noticed this with like Ezra.

Speaker 1 (36:22):
Kleine and all of them. They see the political utility.

Speaker 3 (36:25):
But to them it's still icky because Republicans have been
talking about it, I let's say, for five years, and
they kind of think, like you said, it's a conspiracy
dream guys, the Israel thing. It's real, Okay, let's talk
about it. Let's talk about it. It's not just you know.
They're like, they don't. They're so new to the story
that they think anybody who's talked about that in the
past conspiracy brain, they don't know what they're like, No, no, no, no,

(36:45):
we have the evidence. Now look at what Ryan and
Martaza have reported. If I had that six months ago
on Targer, Carlson and all that, I would have blown
it out. And you know I was trying to be
careful at the time about well, you know, in terms
of theories and speculation, it's over security agreements with the
presidents among it's done military technology, add Barack. You combine
that with everything that we already had in terms of

(37:06):
a lot of the evidence. There's just not even a
discussion at this point in terms of acting on behalf
of Israel. We need to get this into the bloodstream
of the Midas, touch folks and others, because right now
everything is just focused on Trump. The point, as you
just said, is the connective tissue from yes, just Trump
also being mentioned, but the Israel part and its potential
relation to foreign policy, and also of the double standard

(37:29):
that we use in terms of counterintelligence and more on
the issue and potentially why Epstein was able to get
away in the sweetheart deal with this non prosecution agreement.
That's how you connect the two sides of the coin
and Unfortunately, CNN's of the World and others still want
to brand that as anti Semitic.

Speaker 1 (37:45):
No, it's just a fact. It's literally just a simple fact.

Speaker 3 (37:48):
I also did if I would be remiss if I
didn't show the more recent developments in conservative media. Let's
put this up here on the screen. The American Conservative
published this. I love it from Daniel Bogslaw, who's great.
New Farah filings, which are the Foreign Agent Registration Act filings,
show plans to promote pro Israel messaging at the conservative
Salem Media network. So you know, people at Salem Media

(38:12):
include they say, eighty two radio stations across the US,
major websites, manages, high profile websites, town Hall, Red State,
influential platforms, conserving discourse. Some of the programs that are
featured include The Charlie Kirk Show, The USA Show, The
Josh Hammer Show, The Right View with Lara Trump. Well, now,
according to the company data, the generate, you know, the

(38:33):
network generates some eighty million monthly page views, thirty seven monthly,
so you know, it's obviously it's influential. And so these
new FARA documents show that Salem Media may have already
begun integrating paid for Israeli government narratives across its extensive
network of platforms. This is according to this report from
the American Conservatives. Salem did not respond, by the way,

(38:55):
to the American Conservatives requests for comment. The Israeli government
retains Salem as chief strategy officer Brad Parscale, who's the
former campaign manager for Donald Trump, to advocate for Israeli
interest through a six million dollar financial arrangement. So this
is all directly acknowledged in FARA. But it also, by
the way, Denesh Jsuza very recently has been attacking Tucker

(39:16):
Carls and perhaps it's legitimate, but it does, you know,
genuinely raise a question when you see vast amounts of
money like this being thrown around to Brad Parscale who's
working for Salem, and its potential influence on the conservative
landscape and discourse. So you know, that's part of the
reason why all of this is so important.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
Isn't Parscale also doing some like trying to train like
AI chatbots to be more pro Israel?

Speaker 4 (39:41):
Did see the story behind I see.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
The story behind that.

Speaker 3 (39:44):
I would I definitely would like to I would like
to explore it more. I hadn't seen it like fully confirm,
but this one I was like, oh, they have him
dead to rights, So yeah, if you see people from there.
I mean, look, it's a legitimate question. That's part of
the reason our business is set up the way that
it is primary funded. Nobody can be coming around he
you're saying, oh, you're getting paid by X amount interest

(40:05):
or whatever, and if your views just happen to align
with the advertisers, maybe that's just the way it is. Like,
I don't think Josh Hammer is pro Israel because he's
being paid by pro Israel. You know, you can say
a lot about the guy, but I don't think that's why.
I think he genuinely believes it. With Danesh Thou, I
really don't know personally, and with a lot of the
others there. But at the very least, it just goes
to show you buying influence because they recognize or trying

(40:27):
to buy influence with brad par Scale and potentially with
ads and all this other stuff, specifically because they think
that they're losing the information war, and it's because they
have a reality problem.

Speaker 2 (40:38):
Let's talk more about that reality problem, because we don't
want to lose sight of what is happening in Gaza
right now. Put D three up on the screen, and
truly horrific mass rainfall and flooding when you have people
who are largely still living in tents with very limited supplies,
very limited to know, sanitation, soaking, wet, freezing, any ownings

(41:04):
and belongings that they still have completely destroyed, you know,
and this is after years of horror, so you can
only imagine how broken down they are and how dispiriting
it is now to also have these horrific floods that
are just I mean, it's complete, in total, complete and
total nightmare as winter looms. And at the same time,

(41:27):
let's put this up on the screen. This is pretty incredible.
Israel now is seeking a new twenty year security agreement
with the US, doubling the usual urn term and adding
what they describe as America First modifications to win the
Trump administration support.

Speaker 4 (41:44):
Is really a US officials.

Speaker 2 (41:45):
Told me now in the story, if you read it,
the two things that they mention as America First provisions
are number one, like the doubling of the length of
the agreement and the fact that they want more money
then they're already getting which is insane, or two some
sort of a like you know, military tech collaboration which

(42:05):
would further sort of entrench their interests and intertwine US
with them, et cetera. But to me, Sager, I mean,
this is another very interesting fight. On the right, the
fact that they are pushing for this twenty year understanding
really indicates that they see the writing on the wall.
They've already lost the Democratic base. It's gone, it's over.

(42:28):
I think it will be a central litmus test in
the twenty twenty eight primary, there's no doubt in my
mind about that. But on the right, they also see
these divisions and the writing on the wall with the
you know, the direction of the Republicans as well. So
they're trying to lock in their position as much as
they can because they don't have confidence that they'll be
able to achieve anything approaching the same level of support

(42:51):
in the future.

Speaker 1 (42:52):
Yeah, I think it is.

Speaker 3 (42:53):
I mean, the twenty year memorandum is fascinating for a
variety of reasons.

Speaker 1 (42:57):
Now.

Speaker 3 (42:58):
First and foremost, the reason that they want to lock
it in for twenty years is because they can see
that if they don't right now, that a future administration
may not do so. But second, let's actually read a
lot of the agreement, because what they want is they
want continued aid to Israel. But the way that they're

(43:18):
trying to sell it is the way that the Ukrainians did.
So you'll remember for the pro Ukraine Caucus, what they
kept saying was, guys, we're not giving money to Ukraine.
We're giving money to Ukraine so they can buy more
weapons from us. So it's actually good for your economy.
Now obvious basically money wandering, isn't it. It's like funneling
money to a foreign government so that they can buy

(43:39):
money from your weapons industry. It's like, well, we could
just buy our own weapons if we wanted to, and
then we could decide when and where it goes and
for what purpose. It seems reasonable if you ask me.
But some of the changes that they say not only
would change it from twenty years and make it to
the one hundredth anniversary of their independence, but what they
want to do is use some of the money for

(44:00):
joint US Israeli research and development rather than direct military aid,
and that would be defense tech defense AI Golden Dome
missile is Israeli said. The fundamental thing though, that we
come back to, is they still need the aid? Is
for years there's been this debate does Israel even need aid?
You know at this point, I mean, it's a country
with free health care. They have a fine economy, according

(44:22):
to them, mister high tech, silicon valley nation.

Speaker 1 (44:25):
All of that.

Speaker 3 (44:26):
It's like, okay, fine, So if you can afford all
of that, and you can afford to literally pay a
huge portion of your population to not work and to
worship and to read the Torah, then why am I
giving you billions and billions.

Speaker 1 (44:37):
Of dollars in order to subsidize that?

Speaker 3 (44:39):
It seems kind of sick, right, Well, this twenty year
agreement is still a tacit admission. They need the weapons,
and they fundamentally don't have the capacity to defend themselves
if they wanted to, because a huge portion of their
talking point is we stand you know, we will always
stand alone if and when we need to. No, it's obvious,
especially during the Iran crisis, we saw that. Look, you know,

(45:01):
in terms of their missile defense, the Iranians were able
to penetrate it. They bombed a lot of high value
targets in the middle of Tel Aviv and across Israel
despite all of their great technology, which we're basically the
ones running selling, and in the April attack back in
twenty twenty four, I believe it was the United States
ended up shooting down the vast majority of the missiles

(45:21):
that were incoming to Israel. They can't actually defend themselves
to the degree that they would need to if they
ever got into a full blown war. So the fact
is they need the US security umbrella, and all this
talk of being this strong independent nation is bunk and
it's ridiculous. Part of the reason I've also always said
too that and this is look, I'm a realist. Part
of the reason too is also the benefit is because

(45:43):
it creates more moral outcomes. Is would Israel have behaved
in the way that it has over the last two
years if it fully had to stand on its own
two feet. No, they would do what normal nations have
to do. Is they would have to assess, you know,
the variety of threat actors or whatever in the region.
They'd have to calibrate their response to October seven to
make sure that they could actually you know, be sustainable

(46:04):
to negotiate peace. The only reason they can act as
belligerent as they do is because they have the backing
of the full backing of the United States. That's what
enables such all of not only just the atrocity, but
they're basically like their gangsterism in the region that ultimately
is what creates destabilization. And so their admission that they

(46:24):
can only survive really with a twenty year agreement from
the US undermines their entire how sovereign they are. No,
they're a colony basically of the United States, like many
other of our so called allies across the region too.

Speaker 2 (46:35):
By the way, yeah, no, if they didn't have our backing,
they couldn't act with this level of impunity. They have
to maybe actually try to figure out how to get
along with their neighbors rather than just constantly relentlessly bombing
them and murdering people.

Speaker 4 (46:49):
Let's put D seven up on.

Speaker 2 (46:50):
The screens and indication of how their propaganda efforts are going.
Here in the US, you've got Shi Devidi, who was
the infamous Columbia professor. I'm not going to get it
to all the law right now, but guys, if you
aren't familiar with this character, you can go and look
them up. In the way that he's conducted himself. In
any case, Miss Rachel said, wanting kids to live is
not anti Semitic. I'd say that's that's fair, and he

(47:13):
says in reply, yes, but advocating only for non Jewish
kids to live is. This is such a lie and
a I mean, it's just so incredibly dishonest to portray
Miss Rachel as only caring about non Jewish kids, only
caring about Palestinian kids. I mean, this is just not true.

(47:36):
You can go look at the things that she said
after October seventh, you can go look at what she
says all the time. She loves kids, period. She upholds
the humanity of kids, period, no matter their racial or
ethnic background, unlike this dude, by the way. And so
it's just unbelievable to me, the way that Miss Rachel

(47:57):
has become this like central figure and just exposes the
horror and the immoral nature of this Jewish supremacist ideology
that undergirds Zionism.

Speaker 3 (48:10):
Yeah, I mean, for Miss Rachel, she's like I am
so from the beginning, here's what did Miss Rachel do.
She was like, what happened on October seventh was so horrible,
and what's happening in Gaza is so horrible, and by
saying that latter part, they're like, you're an anti semi.
From that point forward, all literally all she has done,
and I've watched all of her videos on Gaza is
she's like, look, I don't think that children should starve.

(48:31):
I don't think they should be intentionally targeted. And she's
been using a lot of her platform in order to
try and raise money for children who have been wounded
let's say, in Gaza, including videos doing them. Let's say,
you know, with the children who have lost limbs, what
exactly is anti Semitic?

Speaker 1 (48:46):
Are wrong about that? In fact, from the very beginning.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
She's made it an explicit point to make sure that
she does talk also about victims on October seventh, and
to specifically highlight the cause of children themselves. There is
nothing anti so Medic about that whatsoever. So the fact
that she gets attacked for talking about Palestinian children, if
that alone is anti Semitism, well then yeah, I mean

(49:09):
this to our whole Fuintes discussion.

Speaker 1 (49:11):
That's how you get here.

Speaker 3 (49:12):
If you're going to say that everything, any criticism, even
elevation in this case of Palestinian children is itself anti
Semitic and talking about their fate is explicitly undermining and
not advocating for.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
Jewish children to live.

Speaker 3 (49:27):
A lot of people are just going to say, screw you,
I can't even listen to you anymore. And you know,
by the way, a lot of the criticism what they
forgot about Miss Rachel is for her, this is an
issue that she deeply cares about. I've listened to interviews
with Miss Rachel before. She sees her main very much
in the way of mister Rogers. It doesn't take a
genius to see that this lady's made plenty of money. Okay,
so it's not like she can be attacked or bankrupted

(49:49):
or any of that.

Speaker 1 (49:50):
She's probably what the most watched show in the.

Speaker 3 (49:53):
History of Netflix, something like that, billions of views on YouTube.
She doesn't need you know, your endorsements or any of
that in order to live now at this point. So
for her, it's a cause that she just deeply cares about.
And all she's done is triple down on her platform
to try and raise awareness about the cause. And look,
she still has not only a parental like grassroots following there.

(50:14):
You know, podcasts and all of them are are like
jumping over themselves to trying to book miss Rachel. And
it's not about the Palestinian issue even then, it's about respect,
I think for her advocacy for children, and even mainstream
figures look far past that and they think that these
attacks are ridiculous.

Speaker 1 (50:30):
So I agree.

Speaker 3 (50:31):
I think it's one of the most exposing thing that's
happened in the discourse. It's like, really, they're going after
miss Rachel for saying children shouldn't have their limbs blown
off or starved?

Speaker 1 (50:40):
Is that the extent of where we are at Natro?
And yes, apparently that's the answer.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
Yeah, And just before anyone chimes in like, okay, but
why does she only care about Gaza and Palestinians. Why
doesn't she say something about Sudan. Not only has she
said something about Studio, she literally also raised money for
children in Sudan. So you know, for all those people
on there who only give about Sudan. By the way,
when it's to say like why don't you care about Sudan,

(51:05):
guess what, she also raised money for them and cares
about those children as well. All right, Should we get
a little bit into the Democrats here before we wrap
the show, I've got some interesting Gavin Newsom comments, let's
put this up on the screen. Speaking of maybe a
time of choosing within parties, Newsom said this about Zoronmumdannie.

(51:26):
He said, I think Mom Donnie is very good for
the Democratic Party. I want a broad tent. I want
a big tent. I want the party of mansion to
Mom Donnie. I want to be more inclusive. We have
to grow the pie. It's not about scarcity. It's an
abundance mindset. And I mean, I think here's my view
of Gavin. I think Gavin is having a very a

(51:50):
big moment with the Democratic base right now. I think
right now you'd have to say it's basically like the
twenty twenty eight front runner. And the reason he's gotten
such purchase with the Democratic base is because he is
positioned himself as this like anti Trump fighter. I did
the Prop fifty thing. He's on Twitter doing this whole
like Trump posting type of thing. He hasn't been afraid

(52:10):
to pick a fight with the sitting president of the
United States.

Speaker 4 (52:14):
But statements like this should give you.

Speaker 2 (52:16):
Pause about whether or not this guy is really going
to be the guy, because you are going to have
within the Democratic base, there has been a level of
radicalization where they find like the Mansions of the world
that just constantly capitulate and by the way, Mansion is
not like a populace. Mansion is a corporate guy. They

(52:39):
find that disgusting. And so I don't think that the
Gavin Newsoms of the world, who are trying to be
all things to all people and not pick a side
in whether or not you're going to continue to be
a donor party or whether you're going to confront capital.
That position of trying to be all things to all
people is not going to be sustainable going forward. And
we all know which side Gavin Newsom is actually on

(53:00):
and which side he is ultimately going to pick.

Speaker 3 (53:03):
Is actually kind of fascinating to see the way that
he is grappling, like the Mamdani to Mansion thing. Think
I think Gavin, his calibration right now, is really losing
people because he did best when he was standing against Trump,
right and he actually, let's give him, you know, political credit.

(53:24):
He came out against the shutdown deal, he said it
was caving, he said it was bad. But he is
trying to retain his ability to tap a lot of
the donor base and to still live in a world
where you get to raise money from all of the
rich people, many of whom are also pro Israel, and
then also live in the world of political success for
a zoron Mamdania for more populis style candidates. I don't

(53:47):
think that that circle can be squared. We talked about
the whole fuintest thing earlier. It just I just don't
think you can you can live with that anymore unless
the billionaires are literally just going to stop advocating for
the stuff that they do, which you and I know
they'll never do, uh, and they'll just accept They'll be like, oh,
we hate Trump enough that we're willing to just back
you up and you can say whatever you want.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
That is actually theoretically possible.

Speaker 3 (54:10):
I wouldn't entirely put that off the table, but I
don't think that that's going to happen. So then, dude,
you're gonna have to make a choice at a certain point.
And that apac answer that was the first time I
actually doubted him. I was like, oh my god, wow, Yeah,
like wow, because what I respect is his talent.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
He's a he is you know.

Speaker 3 (54:27):
Calibration is bad in my opinion, because you don't believe anything.
But if I respect talent and the ability to follow
that talent. But in that moment, I was like, Man,
your inability to be authentic or even to give a
normal answer on that was just a huge sell. And
this is another example of you know, it's constantly calibration.

(54:49):
Keep the donors happy, try to keep the voters happy.
Due to a certain point, you're just gonna have to choose.
And by the way, I mean maybe I'm curious for
what you think. I feel like the billionaires, they'll come
home if Goavin's Alt only the nominee and he just says, okay,
screw you right now for the primary, they would come
home because a lot of them will will you know,
be against Trump and they'll ultimately have fate that he'll
be better on policy then let's say a more populous

(55:11):
left style.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
Damn. So it's also just bad politics in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (55:15):
Yeah, no, I mean that that is a good point.
If he, you know, postured like he was gonna raise
their taxes or do whatever other thing that they're totally
terrified and disgusted by. But the thing for him is
his whole rise to power. The whole reason that he's
governor of California. I mean, listen, he has political talent.

Speaker 1 (55:34):
You know.

Speaker 2 (55:34):
Personally he gives me theck and he's like used car
salesman vibes all over him, like greasy Gavin. That's that's
my sense of him. But you know, he is a
talented figure in a lot of ways. Especially he can
mix it up with Fever, who did great in that
round de Santis debate.

Speaker 1 (55:48):
Whatever.

Speaker 2 (55:48):
But but yeah, I mean, if he postured like he
was going to be different in order to win the
Democratic primary, I think you're right that they would still
rather have him than a more you know, someone who
had a more consistent track record of confronting capital.

Speaker 4 (56:03):
There's no doubt about it.

Speaker 2 (56:05):
But his whole rise to power has been on the
corner of the market, on the Silicon Valley donors. I'm
in a corner of the market, on the you know,
the Hollywood donors. I'm in the corner of the market.
I'm sure he has plenty of you know, New York
City Wall Street type donors as well. That's really truly
his base, and so I don't think that he is

(56:25):
really fundamentally capable of going against them and you saw that.

Speaker 4 (56:29):
That's why that APAC.

Speaker 2 (56:31):
Moment was very important because it wasn't something you can spin.

Speaker 4 (56:36):
There's just there's either a yes. It's a yes or
a no.

Speaker 2 (56:38):
Right and increasingly a Democratic base is you know, they
see through these attempts to well, let me change the subject,
will let me dodge, will let me deflect. There are
some yes or no questions where you have to choose
a side, and when it comes down to it, Gavin
Newsom is going to choose the side of capital because
that is what he has always been throughout his career,

(56:59):
even as I think they really appreciates the fight that
he's sort of demonstrating against Trump right now. So another
pretty wild moment in New Hampshire. So Democratic Senator Jean
Shaheen was heckled actually by the guy who is in
a primary against her daughter for an open house seat.
And Jean shahen of course was the lead Democrat in

(57:22):
terms of negotiating the shutdown cave. This was at like
a Democratic Party function, so it's a lot of like
you know, of her fans and just sort of like
Democratic party type, the type of people that actually go
to the committee meetings and serve on the boards and
those sorts of folks who are in the room.

Speaker 4 (57:38):
But let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 8 (57:40):
So let me be clu nobody wants to listen the
Affordable Care Act tax credits more than the or more
than senator has. What did you vote for? You look
at our record, and you tell me what you've done
to protect the health.

Speaker 4 (57:57):
Care of America, And it's not.

Speaker 7 (58:01):
Done.

Speaker 2 (58:08):
So Soccer, she's like very nasty and aggressive against this guy,
and it's going to be interesting to see. So, as
I mentioned, her daughter is running for Congress, and her
daughter actually came out against the shutdown deal. So she's
on the opposite side of her mom. But at this
point in the state with the Democratic base, even though

(58:29):
in that room Jean Hihen gets some support, the overall
sense is like discussed over the shutdown cave And so
I wonder if the daughter, like you know, catches some
damage here just from being in the same family. And
then let's put this up on the screen of this
the guy who was doing the heckling, who is in
this primary with Jean Sheheen's daughter, and he talks about

(58:50):
his own medical issues and how fundamental that has been
to his own politics. In explaining why he decided to
stand up and have this moment. So he says, Senator Shaheen,
I suffered a severe spinal injury at age fifteen. My
spinal cord had to be rebundled. I had eight rods
and four screws put in my back. Four years later,
one of the rods in my back snapped and I

(59:10):
had to have another major surgery. I developed a recnoiditis.
I'm going to go with a chronic pain condition that
I live with for the rest of my life due
to surgery complications. The first photo shows my spine, the
second represents yours, and it's a box of wet noodles.
I will never back down when it comes to healthcare.
So you know, the shutdown has injected another sort of

(59:33):
litmus test issue within the Democratic primary and within Democratic primaries.
And what I've seen, Sager two, is it's not enough
to have opposed the shutdown. Cave basically everyone who was
running for office as they oppose it, including Gen Shhen's
own daughter. But the next level is saying that Chuck
Schumer needs to go. And that's the one that a
lot of candidates, including Peggy Flanagan in the Minnesota primary

(59:55):
that we interviewed, including I interviewed Antonio Delgado, who's Lieutenant
governor of New York, challenge jin Kathy Hochel aoc can't
come out and outright say it. That seems to be
the one that is more difficult for some of these
candidates to fully articulate and get on board with totally.

Speaker 3 (01:00:10):
And you know this also gets the Chuck Schumer element
that you set up. Let's go to that next one
and put it on the screen.

Speaker 1 (01:00:16):
E four just.

Speaker 3 (01:00:18):
About how the shutdown has left people questioning his future
more than ever. Like you have a record number of
Democrats who are speaking out specifically against Schumer's leadership in
the House. You had Rokhanna saying that he needs to resign.
You had multiple others in the Senate grumbling about his
handling of it. You have a historically unpopular Democratic leader

(01:00:39):
here for his handling of the shutdown. He has to
run again if he wants to in twenty twenty eight. Yeah,
he has to run again for re election. If he
wants to, the Democrats then would have to back him.
You have candidates explicitly like Plattner another saying I won't
vote for the guy. So this demonstrates where's not much

(01:01:00):
of the grassroots energy is on the Democratic Party. And
this tying it back to Gavin, the fact that Gavin
hasn't called for Schumer's head and still kind of maintains
friendly relationship with Democratic leaders, that's just such a liability
in this anti institutional moment, Like you have to just
be willing to come out and be like, no, he's done.
He betrayed us. He's got to go, Like there's just

(01:01:21):
only political upside to that. But because of political connections,
he can't do it with Gavin.

Speaker 2 (01:01:25):
I you know, I don't expect anything different with some
of these candidates who are positioning themselves as the progressive
insurgent in the race.

Speaker 4 (01:01:33):
I'm like, I.

Speaker 2 (01:01:33):
Don't get it. What is the hang up here? Like
he doesn't like you, he's supporting your opponent. Why can't
you just say, yes, we need new leadership. This guy
has got to go. But that article is interesting because
it says effectively like everyone knows this is Schumer's last
term except for him, Like he may be the last
guy to not realize that his political career is over.

(01:01:53):
Because I mean, AOC is the most obvious potential primary challenger.
I think she'd wipe the floor with him, but they
mentioned any number of other pat Ryan is one other
potential possibility, Letitia James. There are a lot of other
New York politicians who I think would handily defeat him
at this point in a primary. So, you know, I
think he'll probably remain on as leader because I don't

(01:02:16):
see any of the Senate Democratic Caucus that are standing
up to say, Okay, we've got to do something different.
It's perplexing to me because you'd be such a hero,
like if you're a Chris van Holland or whoever who's
sniffing around a presidential run, you'd be such a hero
to take that position. But I don't see any of
them doing it. So I think he'll remain as leader.
But you know, come twenty twenty eight, I think he's

(01:02:36):
going to be out. But you know, yeah, on the
Gavin point, you're absolutely correct. It's one more issue where
if he gets asked the direct question, people are not
going to like. They're not going to like his answer.
They don't want this Weasley crap. They want these old
failed leaders gone. They want a completely new direction, and
it's really going to advantage those who are outsiders to

(01:02:57):
the system, like you know this guy who challenge senator
who has you know, he doesn't give a shit which
Chuck Schumer thinks of him, or the grand Platners of
the world or whatever. They're like, Yeah, fuck that guy.
It's easy for me to be able to say it.
So it's another thing that's really going to advantage outsiders
in these upcoming Democratic primaries.

Speaker 3 (01:03:12):
Yeah, one hundred percent. And just look to back up
on the polling. We can end it here, e five
up on the screen.

Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
Just look at this.

Speaker 3 (01:03:19):
Most Democrats think congressional Republicans compromised too much fifty five percent.
Only thirty two percent say write them out. Only thirteen
percent say not enough. So I mean, look, it's overwhelming
in terms of the majority. And then put the next
one up there on the screen. Schumer apparently called the
Democratic hopefuls Andy Basheer, Josh Shapiro, and JB. Prisker and

(01:03:40):
told them not to criticize the deal that opened reopened
the government. First of all, that's to sell on all
three of them. If all three of them actually didn't
do that, I had to have to go back and
check their potential statements. But yeah, for all this talk
about how secretly he was fighting against the deal, It's like, well,
then why are you doing that, man, why are you
calling all these hopefuls and telling them not to vote
and telling them not to criticize the deal?

Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
Exactly exactly, And once again, like in the Epstein block,
got to give for Ocanna his due, Yeah, you do,
because he was the first sound of the gates to
say that's it, Schumer's gotta go. And then you had
a number of other Democratic raps who followed behind him.
But he seems to have, you know, much more of
his finger on the pulse of where the Democratic base
is than many other would be twenty twenty eight aspirins.

(01:04:24):
And I include aoc in that as well, because she
was very when she got asked about Schumer, she did
this whole well, they all kind of suck, so what
like sounding like Bernie's line on this thing as well.
And you know, he's he's been the one who figured
out Epstein was the place to push Trump and MAGA
and then has been much more in touch with the
Democratic base in terms of their discuss with leadership.

Speaker 3 (01:04:46):
Yep, exactly right. Okay, guys, thank you so much for watching.
We appreciate it. We'll have a great show for everybody tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (01:04:51):
We'll see you the