11/24/25: MTG Resigns, Zohran Trump Meeting, Zohran Endorses Hakeem Jeffries, Ukraine Peace Deal

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 this 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 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. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an
amazing show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Indeed, we do a lot of very interesting things happening
this week. Marjorie Taylor Green has announced she is resigning,
so we will watch her announcement video and give our
thoughts on what is going on there. I actually don't
really have any theories, so can talk about that fall
out from the Zoron Trump meeting. Excited to hear Sager's
take on that since we haven't heard from him yet.

(00:59):
Goiations on a Ukraine, potential Ukraine Russia peace deal continue
breaking developments there ceasefire has been broken by Israel in
both Gaza and Lebanon. Jeremy Scahill is going to join
us with the latest. Mike Huckabee met with a trader
who has threatened to nuke the United States, who thinks
we should be nuked if we don't do what Israel wants.
You would think that I'm exaggerating. I'm literally quoting from

(01:22):
what he himself had to say. So certainly we're taking
a look at that. And a bunch of MAGA accounts
actually accidentally revealed on Twitter as foreigners.

Speaker 3 (01:31):
That's a fun one, right there.

Speaker 1 (01:33):
Can't wait for that. That's the Thanksgiving special that we needed.
Thank you to everybody who's been signing up breakingpoints dot com.
Please join us and support our show if you're able
to by joining our premium membership program breakingpoints dot com.
If you can go ahead and support us. If not,
no worries, please just hit subscribe on our YouTube channel.
If you're listening to this a podcast, send an episode
to a friend. It is very very helpful. Also, everybody

(01:55):
wish Crystal a very happy birthday. Happy Verda rystial. Thank
you all right, So let's let's get into it. Marjorie
Taylor Green she resigned from Congress in an absolutely shocking move.
She released a near ten minute long video explaining it.
We've cut some of the most important points. Let's take a.

Speaker 4 (02:13):
Listen, and I do not want my sweet district to
have to endure a hurtful and hateful primary against me
by the President that we all fought for only to
fight and win my election, while Republicans will likely lose
the midterms and in turn be expected to defend the
President against impeachment after he hatefully dumped tens of millions

(02:36):
of dollars against me and tried to destroy me.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
It's all so absurd.

Speaker 4 (02:41):
And completely unseerious. I refuse to be a battered wife
hoping it all goes away and gets better. If I
am cast aside by the President and the MAGA political
machine and replaced by Neo Khn's big Pharma, big tech
military industrial war complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor
class that can never ever relate to real Americans, then

(03:05):
many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.
There is no plan to save the world or a
four D chess game being played when common American people
realize and understand that the political industrial complex of both
parties is ripping this country apart, that not one elected

(03:26):
leader like me is able to stop Washington's machine from
gradually destroying our country, and instead the reality is that
they common Americans, the people, possess the real power over Washington.
Then I'll be here.

Speaker 3 (03:41):
By their side to rebuild it.

Speaker 4 (03:42):
I'll be resigning from office, with my last day being
January fifth, twenty twenty six, and I look forward to
seeing many of you again sometime in the future.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
I'm totally shocking move Marjori Taylor Green there saying she
doesn't want to endure her district have to endure a
painful primary challenge race. I guess it opens up a
whole bunch of questions. Immediately. Is she running for president
in twenty twenty four? Is she just fed up with
the system. There was one theory that she wanted her pension,
But immediately resigning means that they will immediately trim the

(04:15):
very very narrow margin for Republicans actually in the House
of Representative something they could barely afford to lose a
vote on. But I think more importantly, it's like a
direction of the party conversation. There was some immediate talk
of her possibly running for president. She's emphatically denying a
two please we can go and put this up here
on the screen. Time magazine wrote a piece saying that
she potentially could be running for president. She says Time

(04:38):
Magazine claimed sources told her I'm running means this is
a complete lie and they made it up because they
can't even quote the name of the people. I am
not running for president. I've never said I wanted to.
I've only laughed about it when anyone would mention it.
If you fell for this headline, you're being lulled every
day into the psychosist by the political industrial complex. She says.
You know, why would I even want to run for
president and sell out two big donors. I am personally thinking,

(05:00):
you know, there's a lot of secondary motivation conversation. Maybe
she's just fed up. I really think that she. You know,
Glenn Greenwild has described her as like a civilian, you know,
the ideal like from the Founder's Times of the idea
of like a civilian who's just interested in Congress, wants
to runts to run for office to try and effect change.
I think she saw the system from the inside. And

(05:20):
I think she also was a genuine believer in Trump
and so getting screwed here by Trump on the party line,
and also standing up for a lot of things she
believed in Epstein and others. She just said, Look, I'm
very rich, she's filthy rich, she likes where she lives,
she has, you know, family and all that. Why would
I continue to embrace this charade? But I do think
it's a loss. I think, especially because of having some

(05:42):
dissonant voices. I'm not so sure she would have lost
her primary. Thomas Massey seems to be hanging on very simply.
But you know, who knows, who knows? She certainly could have.
It's definitely gonna be a little bit more competitive, and
she certainly would have at least had a fight on
her hands. So I don't know, I mean, shocking, it's
definitely shocking. She's decided up and out to resign one
of the most prominent voices in all of MAGA for
the last what six seven years.

Speaker 2 (06:03):
Yeah, I think it's unfortunate because, like you said, I mean,
there's so few voices in the Republican Party who are
willing to go against the Green who are willing to
speak down against Trump, who are willing to buck him
on literally anything. And so it's a shame that, right
as she's getting very interesting and kind of at the
peak of her power in a sense, certainly in terms

(06:23):
of the attention economy, but also in terms of just
you know that they have an extremely narrow margin in
the House. So anything she and Thomas Massey team up
together to do, they only need to get a couple
more Republican on board to thwart the majority. So she
has a lot of power there that she obviously won't
have when she resigns from office. So I really think
it's a shame actually that she's decided to make this move.

Speaker 3 (06:46):
Look, I have no.

Speaker 2 (06:46):
Idea whether she does have future ambitions, you know, to
run for Senate, to run for president, whatever that may
look like. I do think that it's worth contemplating this
moment in the Republican Party, where Trump is increasingly a
lame duck. He's at one of the weakest points in
his power. His approval ratings are terrible on the economy,
which has always been his flagship issue. He just was

(07:08):
delivered a you know, a massive electoral rebuke. I think
she's right that the mid terms are going to be
extremely ugly for the Republicans. So, you know, certainly she
and others are thinking about what's going to come after Trump,
and perhaps there's some positioning of herself for that, although
again you would think that being in the House would
set her up better for some future political ambitions than

(07:29):
deciding to resign, which normally, you know, as it wears on,
people don't really look kindly at that. They feel like, okay, well,
at the moment when the district actually needed you and
we needed your voice, you decided to step away. I
will say, though, too, that the political landscape is very
different now than it used to be, where she could
be still incredibly prominent and powerful just by being you know,

(07:53):
on the podcast circuit and on the mainstream media circuit.
And so perhaps she's thinking that too, that she'll be
a little bit more are a little bit more free
to just say what she wants and not have to
take difficult votes, and just position herself however she wants
to for the future. And then Sager, there's also the
possibility that you mentioned, which is just she is feels
betrayed by a president that she supported extremely loyally, like

(08:18):
went to the mat for and when you know aggressive ways,
and says she spent millions of her own dollars to
help support brought her into politics. There's no way she'd
be a member of Congress without Trump and the MAGA movement.
And then he turns around and calls her a trader.
So I'm sure she feels disillusioned by that. She's also
talked about threats on her life, the type of death
threats that she's been receiving, and so it may well

(08:41):
just be that she's like, screw it, I don't really
want to do this anymore, and I don't want to
have to go through what may have been a very
tough primary if Trump, you know, really did back some
candidate against her in a district that is a very
red and Republican district. So she just may have said,
you know what, life is too short. I don't feel
like dealing with this crab.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
We will find out I think the answer to all
of these questions in about six months to seven months.
So if she's fully on the podcast circuit, I'm like, okay,
then clearly you know she's angling for something. She's venting
some of her frustration. We may just never hear from
her again. I think it's very possible she's just like,
forget it, I'm done. I gave it my shot. I
really believed in this movement. I spent a lot of

(09:20):
my own money. I saw the beast from the inside,
and at the end of the day, you know, this
is not something that has any redemption value. I do
think it's very you know, it's sad for a couple
of reasons. First and foremost is you were at the
peak of your powers, not just rhetorically, but as I mentioned,
you had one of those stray votes. There's a reason
that the House margin it's so low that if you

(09:42):
actually take very hardline positions as you did on the
Epstein discharge as you saw, you only need four or
five Republicans to sign on and you can actually make
some things happen. In terms of your own district. You
were very much at the peak of your powers, can
make serious demands in terms of things that are coming
to you. Your ability to parlay this into media appearances.
I mean, being a member of the United State's House

(10:02):
of Representatives is always going to afford you opportunities not.
I guess the Steelman case for it is, now you
no longer have to take stupid votes. Now you have
no pressure from inside of the system. You have no
Mike Johnson threatening, let's say, to defund your district or
you know, you don't have no Trump who has to
You don't have to dedicate probably hours years of your
life to a primary challenge to a campaign. Campaigning is

(10:25):
difficult even in the very best of circumstances. A contested
campaign may have made that, you know, much more difficult.
We really don't know. But as I said, if she
continues to keep her voice out there, then I think
her calculus would have been being in the house was
a loss. I already have my established name now, you know,
potentially starting a super pac an organization, remaining involved in politics,

(10:45):
that's very much, I think a live issue. It's also
very possible that she just sails into the sunset. She says,
you know, I'm a gazillionaire. I'm literally worth tens of
millions of dollars, and I own a lot of land
down in Georgia's what's not to live a full and
a good life.

Speaker 2 (11:00):
Well, if she if she's thinking of doing the podcast circuit.
I do have one podcast to recommend.

Speaker 3 (11:05):
We've been wanting.

Speaker 1 (11:06):
While for months. Yeah, I mean, one of the most
diff her and Thomas Massey. I don't know what's going on.
If you're listening. I know there's a lot of people
on Capitol Hill who are listening. Make it happen, guys.

Speaker 2 (11:16):
I don't love to speak with them, love to ask
these questions. Put these questions right too, or I mean,
one other possibility I'll hold out is which I think
has a good You know, this this does have some
logic to it, is that she was actually afraid of
a primary challenge and thought, with Trump putting his full
force behind someone, I think you have to be. I mean, Trump,

(11:37):
as much as he's in a weekend state, still has
so much pull with his own base, and you know,
we could pull that element. I don't remember what number
it is that lists all the Republicans who went against
Trump and then had to resign, and the logic for
all of them was basically the same, like I'm going
to lose, you know, and I would rather go on

(12:00):
my own terms. Trump has turned against me. He has
called me a trader. He is, you know, calling me
ugly names and saying I'm a rhino and all those
sorts of things. And so if I stick around, I'm
going to lose. I'd rather go out on my own terms.
And you know, if that's what she is thinking, it's
smart politically, if you want to continue to have a

(12:20):
voice and potential future political potential political future, it's smart
to go out before that primary challenge even really emerges,
because then it looks less like my hand was forced
because I was going to get my butt beat. It's
more like, Okay, well this is you know, this is
my moment. I'm taking the initiative, I'm doing this in

(12:42):
the way that I want to do it, and the
primary challenge is just sort of like purely speculative at
this point. But that does to me have a logic
to it. Again, especially since you look at the history
of all of these individuals who broke with Trump on
a variety of issues and end up either losing or
resigning and having to leave the party effectively.

Speaker 1 (13:01):
So I will say, if you look at that list,
ten out of the eleven they were just neo coons.
And that's what that's why the Marjorie thing is so different.
Is she I mean she really was, Yes, but I.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
Look as like Lindsey Graham as Bessie's of Trimune. Yeah,
like Trump, it doesn't there's no ideological tenor to it.
You're right that what's different about Marjorie Taylor Green is
the fact, like she was a true believer.

Speaker 3 (13:24):
She comes directly out of this movement.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
Most of those people, they were already members of Congress
or senators and then they either you know, tried in
some ways to accommodate themselves to the rise of Trump's
takeover of the party, or they you know, resisted it
the entire time, whether across the border, in certain important ways.

Speaker 3 (13:43):
She is different in that way.

Speaker 2 (13:45):
But at the end of the day, you know, Trump
still gets to say what mag is and he says,
Lindsay Graham is great, and he's going to do his
first fund raiser with him and Marco Rubus, the Secretary
of State, and you know she stood with the Epstein victims,
and so she's on the ounce.

Speaker 5 (13:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (13:58):
Wow, you know, maybe it's just clarifying. Here's what Trump
had to say. A three guys, let's take a listen.

Speaker 6 (14:03):
Are you willing to for deep combra Coleman Tanner Green,
don't forgetful us.

Speaker 7 (14:07):
No, I just disagreed with her philosopher. She started backing
perhaps the worst Republican congressman in our history, you know,
stupid person he named Massy and I could go your
own way. And once I left her, she resigned because

(14:27):
he would have she would never have survived a primary.
But I think she's a nice person.

Speaker 1 (14:32):
She's a nice person, but she never would have survived
a prime. Again, I mean, I just don't think so.
If you look at look look at Thomas. Massey's running
way ahead of all of his opponents. He has brought
in incredible amounts of small dollar donations from people who
appreciate him standing up. He also has survived multiple primary
challenges down there. Look, Georgia is different. I'm not going
to say that these are the same types of districts,

(14:54):
but you know, if you made it a district first
type of campaign and really made it about the issues,
maybe it would have worked. Again, I have no clue.
Trump is historically unpopular. He also has a lot of
Republicans who seem to be dissenting on the voter level,
not necessarily at the high level. So I don't know.
I mean, look, it's very possible. At the same time,
you know, with Trump. Just to underscore what you were

(15:15):
saying with Donald Trump and kind of his definition of MAGA,
let's put this up here on the screen. This was
a four. We can go ahead and look. You know,
this was his initial truth, much less nice than his
stated comments. Marjorie Trader brown because of plummeting poll numbers.
I don't know where the brown comes from and not
wanting to find it.

Speaker 3 (15:35):
It's because grass, when it rots, turns brown.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
Oh okay, that's wild. He's lost his touch, not wanting
to brown. Basic primary challenger with a strong Trump endorsement
has decided to call it quits. Her relationship with the
worst Republican Congressman in decades, Tom Massey of Kentucky, also
known as Rand Paul Junior because he votes against the
Republican Party, did not help her for some reason, primarily
that I refused to return her never ending Burrajja phone calls.

(15:58):
Marjorie went bad. Nevertheless, I always appreat Marjorie and thanker
for service to our country. President DJT, I mean, this
is where it just really you know, disgusts me. Is
Marjorie Trade. Marjorie Taylor Green is a trader. And meanwhile,
what we're gonna cover in our show later is your
administration literally hosted an actual trader at the US embassy

(16:21):
in Jerusalem, and you endorse and condone that meeting, A
real trader, a guy who sold secrets to Israel, and
you condone that meeting. Okay, so you know, let's let's
look up the definition of trader and of treason. By
the way, while we're at it's just repulse repulses me
on this issue, and it's one of those where look,

(16:42):
we'll see again how things will come together for the
Trump administration. They are all over the place. They're trying
to pursue this peace deal in Ukraine, which we're going
to talk about. It has a decent enough shot, it's maybe.
But also you know they're considering invading Venezuela potentially this
week sometime next week. You've got a coalition which seems,
in my opinion, in shambles. Here's Alex Jones, who I

(17:04):
would decide to say perhaps part of more of the
MAGA contingent, explaining why he may be breaking from Trumps soon.

Speaker 6 (17:10):
Let's take a listen, and I'm just going to say
at point blank. I'm not a bandwagon person. I don't
pile along and other people are doing something. But I
know MTG. Well, she's a woman of incredible integrity, brought
up poor self made, very successful destruction company. And it
sounded to me like she was thrown in the towel

(17:30):
just because she can't be part of something that's quote
the lesser of two evils. And she's very popular in
her district. I'm not a person that is normally conflicted.
I think I have a lot of knowledge, a lot
of depth, a lot of sources, a lot of context,
and when I do get conflicted on something, I just
have to go to God with it and pray about it.

(17:51):
A lot. I am seriously inches away from not support and.

Speaker 1 (18:00):
Trumpet one inches away from not supporting him anymore. So,
I mean, I don't know. It's at the very least
you could say this. Maybe Alex is just reading the
tea leaves. You know, I don't know where his own.
You know, he's been all over the place, especially on
the Epstein issue. In my opinion, he's been missing in
action from a lot of that he's been. He has
called the Trump administration in Israel out and all of that,

(18:20):
So I'll give him credit. I guess where it is due.
But you know, if you look at the audience that
kype of contingent, I don't think it's a secret that
they have been extremely dissatisfied with the Trump administration. You've
got voices like Tim Dillon and others speaking a guy.
I saw Joe Rogan talking about the Joe the Thomas
Massey things. So it's clearer that you know, there's enough
of a demographic kind of swinging against a lot of

(18:42):
what was promised on the campaign trail. It's been a year, now.
What have you done for me lately? Is always the
prevailing segment in politics, and it doesn't look like there
are any major developments outside of Ukraine that could potentially
fulfill some of those, especially in the midst of Epstein.
And look, I mean, we have thirty days, so sometime

(19:03):
before Christmas we're all going to have a news cycle
about those files release, the amount of redactions expected are
going to be once, you know, which just don't really
reveal quite a lot. I'm happy to be wrong. I
would love to be wrong if they actually did fully
release it, but there's not a general expectation that that's
going to happen, and so yeah, I mean, if you
put some Venezuela war on top of all that, it's

(19:27):
not looking good. I don't think it's like I think that.

Speaker 2 (19:29):
I think the twenty twenty five elections were a big
wake up call for people because when you were seeing
these special elections that were going shifting like fifteen points
towards Democrats, even twenty points towards Democrats, Like, all right,
but those are special elections. It's weird time They've got
this very high turnout voter base. When you saw the
slacking that Republicans took in state after state after state,

(19:51):
including like at the local level, like these you know,
right wing school board members got swept down of office
and just a real reckoning kind of across the board.
Then you have to grapple with, Okay, the poll numbers
aren't fake. There is a major backlash brewing here. Trump
is old and not at the top of his game

(20:12):
and seems more focused on his ballroom than really anything else.
American people are pissed about the state of the economy.

Speaker 3 (20:20):
I think that that.

Speaker 2 (20:21):
Was a real wake up call for a lot of Republicans,
and you know, people like Alex Jones, and because you
could have lived up to that moment in the you know, oh,
we just won this major election. We won this major mandate.
The American people are with us, the polls are wrong,
et cetera, and you just can't really deny that reality anymore.
So I think that's part of the you know, the

(20:42):
backdrop of what's going on here, both with Marjorie, with
Alex Jones, and you know why we're seeing more and
more dissatisfaction sort of vocally expressed from the coalition.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
Yeah, that's right. I mean, look, the permission structure is
obvious from the twenty twenty five election. It's also I
think obvious in terms of just the truth, like the
actual deliverables from the administration so far, and we've got
even the signature achievement the ceasefire, right, probably their single
best foreign policy achievement. It's kind of falling apart right now, guys,
which we can cover pretty soon in Israel, Like I

(21:15):
wouldn't be shocked if two three months from now we're
back to the full on war in Gaza. Not to
mention what's happening with Lebanon, I mean, you know, with
Bebe and his own political coalition problems. They have no
ability to tamp any of this stuff down. So I
don't know. I think that. I think at the end
of the day, her loss it tells us something I'm
just not entirely. Her resigning, it, yeah, tells us something.

(21:37):
I just don't know yet what it is. I hope
she wins. I really do. I think we need more
people like her.

Speaker 3 (21:43):
It'd be interesting.

Speaker 2 (21:44):
I do think it's a shame that she resigned, though,
you know, she was an important voice in there, and
I think even I saw Trump as planning of making
some announcement about healthcare and trying to do something about
healthcare premiums. We'll see what that amounts to, but I
think part of the reason he felt pressured to do
that is because of her consistent advocacy in that direction.
I don't think it was the sole factor, but having

(22:05):
someone within the party who'd been a Maga loyalist and
a Trump loyalist specifically speaking out about the cost of healthcare,
I think, you know, I do think that that mattered.

Speaker 3 (22:14):
And the fact of the matter.

Speaker 2 (22:16):
Is, as much as we would love to self aggrandize
about how important it is to be a podcaster, there's
nothing like having actual power within the system, you know,
in order to effectuate.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
Change one undred percent. Yeah, you talked about healthcare. Epstein's
was dead without her. I really believe it's not just
Nassy she needed She led the charge, her and she
wrangled a few of the other votes. Her ability to
stand up to the White House and say absolutely not.
She did a lot of the media stuff, not just
on healthcare. She's remained steadfast on Israel. I actually think,
you know, that type of pressure was one of the

(22:47):
reasons why they did ultimately go with the ceasefire deal,
because they could see that some people like Marjorie and
others were beginning to really crack in the foundation. If
you think even Ukraine, I mean a lot, a lot
of the signature foreign policy stuff that's been you know,
fights that's been happening behind the scenes. Marjorie Tilla Green
has been, in my opinion, you know, on the good
side of the issues and kind of leveraging her power

(23:09):
in her voice. So there, so losing it is it's
going to be a tough, tough loss because at this
point it's just Thomas Massey Massy. You know, he's he's
his own person. And he's always he's he's not maga right,
He's he's really his own libertarian.

Speaker 2 (23:22):
He's an ideological libertarian, relatively consistent and his viewpoint.

Speaker 3 (23:26):
But that, yes, is different.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
Than there's no hate towards the guy.

Speaker 6 (23:29):
He is.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
He's always he's been exactly the same. I've been many
times on the other side of the issue for him.
But Marjorie, I mean for her, she had a real
I think, credibility and a voice, and so her loss
is us. It's a It's a tough one, I think
for the country and for uh, for the Republican Party,
especially if you wanted to see a different direction. But
it is what it is. I guess that Donald Trump's
party always has people need to reconcile themselves to that.

(23:51):
Let's get to Zoran.

Speaker 2 (23:55):
So, as you guys almost certainly know Trump and zoron Mom,
Johnny had a big meeting at the White House last week.

Speaker 3 (24:02):
A lot has developed.

Speaker 2 (24:04):
Since then, A lot of fallouts went on meet the press,
but Casey missed some of the highlights. Let's take a
look at a little bit of how that went.

Speaker 5 (24:11):
Look, I think that there are many things in our
city where we have to own the responsibility of it.
Things that existed long before the president was the president,
and those are also part of the message of our
campaign was to take on a broken politics of the past,
and I ran against a number of candidates who represented
different versions of that past. And what we found time
and again is that working people were left behind in

(24:32):
the politics of our city. And what we're looking to
do is put those people right back at the heart
of our politics so that we don't have a situation
where we're in the wealthiest city in the history of
the world and yet one in five can't even afford
two dollars and ninety cents for a metro card.

Speaker 8 (24:47):
You know, we had some interesting conversation and some of
his ideas really have the same ideas that I have,
but a big thing on cost. You know, the new
word is affordability. Another word is just groceries. It's sort
of an old fashioned word, but it's it's very accurate.
We had discussions on something. I'm going to discuss what

(25:07):
they were, but that I feel very confident that he
can do a very good job. I think I think
he's going to be I think he is going to
surprise some conservative people actually, and some very liberal people.
He won't surprise him because they already like him.

Speaker 6 (25:21):
I might call him the president a fascist.

Speaker 9 (25:24):
And your answer was President Trump and I have clear
aout our positions in our views.

Speaker 6 (25:29):
Are you affirming that you think President Trump is a fascist?

Speaker 5 (25:33):
I've spoken about that.

Speaker 8 (25:34):
Okay, you just say, okay, it's easier. It's easier than
explaining a pedal.

Speaker 2 (25:40):
But I could not get over Like, every time I
watch back this meeting, I just can't get over it.

Speaker 1 (25:45):
It's wild.

Speaker 10 (25:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (25:47):
I mean we thought that he would be charm bizor on,
but I could not have anticipated him being like, it's fine,
you could call me fash, this is all good, Like
we're best buds now, it's cool.

Speaker 1 (25:57):
I think I think Trump is charmed by him. I
also think it shows Trump doesn't care about the Republican Party.
And I think because going into the midterms, the plan
was to try to use Zorn was going to be
like the new Pelosi. They were going to put him
in ads all across the Deep South. They're like, this
is why you got to come out and vote for
a Republican. You got to stop communism. They wanted him

(26:17):
to be the ultimate boogeyman, and Trump is like, yeah, no,
I'm actually good, you know, for the Trump administration. I
actually thought it was smart. You take the rising politician,
you know, this new young voice on affordability. He's got
this mandate at the end of the day, like you
take somebody who you know, really understood the same forces
that got Donald Trump elected, not just I'm talking about

(26:39):
the issues, but also the way that you get elected.
Being an insurgent taking over party, beating establishment, coming in,
actually reinventing campaign machinery, creating an incredible amount of buzz.
It's a brand. Trump always respects that the most, and
that's why I invited him, I think, and he wanted
this image to try and conflate the two of them
as kind of again, some sort of party establishment. I

(27:02):
also think it reveals a couple of things. Also, is
that the establishment Democrats clearly have much less respect from
Donald Trump than somebody like a Zoron Mom Donnie, because
Trump respects winners, and he also respects people who can
reinvent something that is, you know, inside of his established system.
This is New York City. It's one of the most
machine political places in the entire world. So the fact

(27:23):
that he prevailed is something that they had nothing but
a choice. That it also shows you for Trump is
he's not wedded to party orthodoxy and he doesn't believe
a lot of this bs. I actually thought that the
fascist line was it kind of revealed the veil of
kabuki from a lot of things, like in terms of oh,
yes we call each other fascists, Yes we call each
other communists. Whatever. It's all in good fun, and it's

(27:45):
all it's kind of like the Dick Cheney funeral in reverse,
where it's like, yeah, we all called him a war criminal,
but whatever. It's just about a big club, and I
guess he's reinventing kind of what that club means for Zoron.
I did. I mean, I don't know. I'm of two minds.
I could. I've always thought that him picking a fight
with Trump would be good to his political benefit. What

(28:06):
I thought that that meeting showed me. And this is
actually heartening because I think this is a good thing.
I think Zorn actually cares about doing some of the
stuff that he ran on, which is awesome. Okay, because
at the end of the day, if you get defunded
by the FEDS and you just end up in all
this brawl with Tom Homan Ice and all that. It's
not going to be you know, you're not building two

(28:26):
hundred thousand affordable housing units. It's just not going to happen.
You're going to be focused on trash, your city services,
your subway. You'd have huge problems New York State. And
he said, you know what, I got to swallow my pride.
I got a schlep to the Oval. He didn't give
too much, he didn't pull a Gritch and Whitmer right like,
he stood his ground. And you know, if you're a

(28:46):
New York City voter, you know I was very cynical
about Zoron's ability to deliver, just because I you know,
I kind of thought he was like a politician. You know,
at the end of the day, these guy guys just
mostly care about what they like getting elected. But I
was like, oh, man, no, he actually like he wants
to do this stuff he ran on and this is reality.
Trump is the president. So you got to charm the president.
You need money or the very least, you got to

(29:08):
keep this bigot on. If you really want the subway,
if you want free subway, free buses, or two hundred
thousand housing units, hud Right, You're gonna have to work
massively with the Housing and Urban Development, you know, and
that agency. So I think that's what he wanted. And
so look, I don't know. Perhaps it's a vision, a
new vision of leadership. It's the Shinebond model from a

(29:29):
lot of the left. And I respect the hell out
of him for the way that he did it. I
really do.

Speaker 2 (29:34):
Well, your point is an important one, which is, you know,
Trump was very obsequious, I mean, going out of his way,
and that clip we played, we have a lot of
the same ideas.

Speaker 3 (29:43):
You know.

Speaker 2 (29:43):
I think he's gonna I think he could make New
York great again. I thought the question he got about
would you feel safe living in New York City, He's like, absolutely,
no problem. Emily's question too about are you standing next
to jihadis? I mean, that was the one that was
really the most devastating to the Republican Party and especially
at least Stephonic trying to run for governor in New York.

Speaker 3 (30:02):
Now.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
I think she was going to get blown out anyway,
but this certainly doesn't help her case because they were
very much trying to make him into this national boogeyman
that they could use in districts across the country. Trump
totally took the air out of those tires. Now we
got to say, like, I think the confrontation may still
be brewing, right this is today, they had this chummy meeting.

(30:22):
Next week Trump could be pissed off at Zoron and
be sending in the ice agents and the CBP and
threatening their funding again. Like I think we probably will
see that eventually come to pass.

Speaker 3 (30:33):
But you're right about Zoron.

Speaker 2 (30:34):
You know, he I believe feels the weight of this
office and the weight of the movement that he represents.
He thinks very much about like the Sewer Socialists and
the need to actually deliver, and he believes, I think
that his political project will live or die by whether
or not he's actually able to govern effectively. So just

(30:57):
through this meeting already he's at least pushed off into
the future, you know, the mass invasion of federal agents
into the city, which even just that, even if the
federal funding isn't threatened, then you're having to deal with that,
and that's what the news is about. And it's a
major problem, a major distraction from you trying to get
your agenda passed. So I think he feels that very heavily.

(31:20):
And while Trump was being you know, was praising him
and sort of contorting himself to be on zor On side,
Zorin didn't give an inch in terms of what he
viewed he was not. He was very cordial to the president.
You know, we talked about how much he appreciated the meeting,
how he appreciated the opportunity for a partnership, but he
didn't bend on his principles, and I think that mattered

(31:41):
a lot in terms of how this was received after
the meeting. I thought there would be some left or
some liberal like upset. There was a little tiny bit
of that, but mostly people were just impressed with how
he was able to handle himself and you know, this
sense of him coming into the meeting, taking control and
really sort of you know, getting out of Trump what

(32:02):
he wanted to get out of Trump. Zorin went on
with Kristen Walker meet the press yesterday and there's some
interesting exchanges there, in particular about this that moment we
played where Trump's like, hey, go ahead and call me
a fascist. It's fine, Let's go ahead and take a
listen to how Zorn handled that interview.

Speaker 10 (32:19):
Mister Mayor elect, Just to be very clear, do you
think that President Trump is a fascist?

Speaker 9 (32:24):
And after President Trump said that, I said, yes, and
so you do. And that's something that I've said in
the past I say today. And I think what I
appreciated about the conversation that I had with the President
was that we were not shy about the places of
disagreement about the politics that has brought us to this moment,
and we also wanted to focus on what it could
look like to deliver on a shared analysis of an
affordability crisis for New Yorkers.

Speaker 3 (32:46):
Yeah, and Sager, throw this man off his game.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
I don't know. I will say internally it makes no sense, right,
because it's one of those days it's like, well, if
you think he's fascist, authoritarian, why would you meet with him?
And he's like, well, why would you try to work
together on some shared right? You know, that's literally the
opposite of the theory of any resistance. So, in my opinion's
kind of fake. But look, it would be fake and
it would also be weak if he backed down in
terms of what he said. I will just say again,

(33:12):
I mean what I am so impressed by is every
Democrat in the country knows how to win right now.
It's easy. You don't have to do shit at this people.
At this time, people are mad at Trump. They will
never blame you. So you just stand up and you
say screw you Trump, and you want Trump to Look
at what happened to Brandon Johnson. This guy was a

(33:32):
bum in the city of Chicago dead. Trump saved his ass.
Same with Pritzker. It's not like Pritzker was popular. This
is not just an American story. By the way, Uh
you know, I've shared some of my reporting here. The
president of Columbia, he's afraid that they're going to lose
the election. He is desperate to get sanctioned by Trump.
Trump bailed out Lula down in Brazil with those tariffs.

(33:54):
He screwed the Bolsonaristos. Anywhere that Trump is seen as
attacking you, it boost your popularity. You literally didn't have
to do anything. It would be too Zon's benefit to
have mass ice raids like throughout the city. It would
be to his benefit to get cut off because anyone
have to do. You literally don't have to do anything.
You could just go on MSNBC all day long and

(34:14):
be like, oh, as fast turn not do nothing. Every
single one of your voters will back you because they're
blamed Trump for not delivering on the promises. This time,
I was like, man, wow, he actually cares. It's a
rare thing in politics. Okay, you know, I've very rarely
seen it.

Speaker 2 (34:30):
I think the Claudia Scheinbaum model is actually the model
because she, you know, already had high popularity and she
has one of the highest approval ratings of any world
leader around the world, and the way she has handled
Trump has not been to have this extremely confrontational approach.
It is very reminiscent of what Zoren just pulled off
in the Oval office of I'm going to stand firm,

(34:52):
I'm not going to get pushed around, but I'm also
going to do a bit of a charm offensive, right,
I'm gonna, you know, play to his ego like this
is very easy to manipulate, man. And so she, I think,
like Zoron, really wants not just to have a decent
political standing, she wants to actually deliver for the people
of Mexico, and so far she's been effective in you know,

(35:15):
being able to do that. And Trump came in and
there was all sort of bluster about we're going to
bomb Mexico and we're going to invade Mexico and all
that stuff that has not happened.

Speaker 3 (35:23):
They have been.

Speaker 2 (35:24):
Able to have a collaborative relationship and that has been
effective for her both in terms of her political standing,
but more importantly in terms of the goals that she
has as the president of Mexico. And so I actually
think that that is probably the closest model you could
look at for the way that Zorn is approaching this
relationship with the Trump White House, because, like you said,

(35:47):
you have to deal in reality. He is the president.
He has tremendous power. He can make your life incredibly
difficult and incredibly miserable and make it impossible for you
to be able to actually accomplish your governing goals. Just
in a sign, we could put B three up on
the screen of how seemingly smitten Trump was. This meaning
he posted he did a photo dump on the truth

(36:09):
social of their photos in front of the FDR portrait.
He even posted the one of Zoran just solo there
in front of the FDR portrait. This one of them
sharing a moment there, you know, outside. So you know,
I think I think Trump was suitably impressed, and Trump
like he's just can't resist the star power of Zoran

(36:30):
And I think you're right, Saga that for Trump, this
actually is a good look for him, like, you know,
makes it seem he's makes him seem like he's also pragmatic,
like he's not an ideologue. You know, he's sort of
glomming onto the new hot thing who's put affordability at
the center. He also wants to associate himself with that
message of affordability. He wants to associate himself with the

(36:53):
star outsider who's you know, coming at the establishment, et cetera.
I think he probably likes the idea that this kind
of needles Schumer and Jeffreys and the Democratic leadership as well,
and he doesn't really give a shit about the fact
that it's actually terrible for the Republican Party because at
the end of the day, Trump is interested in what
serves Trump.

Speaker 1 (37:11):
Yeah, of course, look in all cases, everyone there benefited,
which is why I thought it was kind of fascinating
and potentially a new model for politics. I'm like, hey,
you know, I would love to see more stuff like this.
Let's go put B four up on the screen. Just
give everybody. An example, this is a very noteworthy tweet
only for you know, kind of insiders. But this is
James Blair. Okay, James Blair is a very high level

(37:32):
White House official. He's the White House Deputy Chief of Staff,
and he's a twenty twenty four political director for the
Trump campaign. This guy is an office in the West Wing.
And here he's quote tweeting a piece that says, mom,
Donnie says here he and Trump's share a commitment to
the affordability agenda. He says, yes. You know why, because
they're not stupid. At the end of the day, they
can look at poles, they can see exactly where the

(37:53):
wind is blowing, and they see the problem that they
continue to face on the economy. That's why Trump is
going to come out with some new fangled healthcare plan.
Which it's funny. For all the GOP talk of price controls,
the Trump plan as currently floated is basically telling healthcare
companies you're not allowed to raise premiums. Basically is a

(38:14):
price control, which I think is fine. Hey, I'm cool
with it. But he basically is like, we're not going
to subsize you anymore, and you're just not allowed to
raise premiums at all. That's kind of where you know,
he has pushed the Republican Party, not just Storm by
the way, we talked about MTG, others that are working
inside of the system now currently to try and at
least address some of the anger or mitigate some of

(38:36):
the pushback that will come next November in the upcoming
midterm elections. They see this as a problem for them. So,
you know, it is one where I really think it's
just big picture. Trump is smart at the end of
the day, understands brand and understands the power of non
of people who can beat the establishment and people who

(38:58):
have something different and interesting, and he says, you know what,
I want to connect myself to that. That's what he's
been a political entrepreneur from the very beginning. Zorn. The
smartest and easiest thing for him to do would have
been to not go and to pick a fight for
the Trump administration. This was a gamble, and so you
do have to give it to him. He didn't pull
a Whitmer holding the folder in front of his face

(39:18):
in the oval up right. That was disastrous. It looked
horrible for her. It didn't pull a Whitmer. He and
you know, again, maybe I'm just the only person who's
shocked to see a guy who actually wants to do
the stuff that.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
He ran on.

Speaker 1 (39:31):
It's been a long time. I don't really see it
all that often in politics, And so that's the only takeaway.
You're like, clearly, only he actually cares, he wants to
get some stuff done. So New Yorkers, you know, I
rescind my take. Maybe you actually will get what you
voted for. I'm hoping for you, all right. You know,
I walked two hundred thousand more affordable units in there.
It'd be awesome to see it, really would, just because

(39:52):
it's I mean, how many times have we seen this show? Right?
And you know we all know Spamberger, she's not going
to do a goddamn thing. Mikey, Cheryl, all these other people,
they're just gonna stand. They're going to grandstand. They'll do
some things on the margins, but anything transferrem me, it's
not gonna happen a lot of these Democrats. So for
Zorn profts to the guy, Seriously, it took it took
skill to navigate that.

Speaker 2 (40:12):
I think one other thing that I'll say, and then
we can we can just briefly touch on a little
bit of the Republican reaction, but it also shows you
the power of actually having an ideology that you're committed to,
because you know, Zoron knows what he's about, right, Zoron
knows what his goals are, he knows what he's about,
and so when he goes his message of affordability and

(40:35):
here's and just relentless focus on that and here's how
I'm going to make life livable for average people. I mean,
that has completely reshaped the entire national conversation. You talk
about Mikey, Cheryl and Abigail Spamberg. I mean, Cheryl in
particular really picked up on what Zoron was successful with
in New York and incorporated a lot of that language

(40:57):
into her campaign, including some specific propus is about freezing
the utility rates in the state of New Jersey. Trump
clearly also now he's he never talked really about he
never used the word affordability. Now he is using that
and wanting to associate himself with that message. And that's why,
you know, so much of the conversation, the entire conversation

(41:19):
in that Oval Office presser is around Zoron's priorities, around
his ideological ideology, around what he wants to accomplish, And
so I think it does show you the power of
when you actually believe in something and when that something
happens to dovetail with the interest of the American people.

Speaker 3 (41:35):
I mean, it is just an.

Speaker 2 (41:36):
Extraordinarily powerful force. It is obviously such a powerful force
that you can go from one percent in the polls
to beating a political dynasty in just a matter of months.
People were pointing out that that meeting with Trump happened
almost a year to the day from that video that
Zoron released where he was just standing on the street
and nobody knew who he was talking to people who

(41:58):
would voted for Trump.

Speaker 3 (41:59):
About why they voted for Trump.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
So truly, it's sort of astronomical rise that again I
think Trump can't help but respect and that has been
so dynamic and so magnetic that it has completely reshaped
the national conversation to the point of now you've got,
you know, the Trump White House bending to some of
those realities and having to feel like they got to
put on a healthcare plan. When on the campaign trail,

(42:23):
he all he said was he's got a concept of
a plan, So you know, I'll just we don't have
to play these thoughts because we've gone on now long enough.
But you have lots of Republicans who have postured about
how much they hate him and how he's an Islamist
and he's a jihadist, and he's doing Sharia law and
he's a terrorist in all of these things, and they
had to invent some fake reality where he was like

(42:43):
trembling at the feet of Trump. Jack Pisobic, who was
there in the White House who asked some question to
Zoron as well, was talking about Zoron was quivering there.
It's like, dude, come on, I mean, we all saw
the meeting, Like, let's be real about what this looked like.
Rue de Juliani said that he was sick to his
stomach seeing Zoran in.

Speaker 3 (43:01):
The White House.

Speaker 2 (43:02):
And Laura Lumer, of course, is just like having a
full blown crash out because she just I mean, she's
an open islamophobe, like just like the most bigoted person
against Muslims that you could possibly be. So to see her,
guy Trump in there, incredibly friendly with Zoron, who again
has been made out to be this like radical Islamist

(43:23):
jihadis boogeyman by the Republicans. There was there were a
lot of different directions of cope going on from the right.

Speaker 1 (43:29):
Yeah, definitely, because look, for them, it was easy, like
this is some stuff that boomers in Alabama get very
upset about, right, like, oh my god, New York City
and all of this, and so for them like taking
away that. But look, I actually think that's a good
thing because running on like low iq islamophobia is just boring.
And you know, it's a tried and true playbook, I

(43:51):
guess down in the South. But it also just you know,
it goes past issues affordability. It's like, if you can't
critique anything else, and if you don't have a solution,
which they're currently being caught with their pants down, both
on the economy and on healthcare, yeah you're gonna get
your ass beat. And you know, if anything, it's kind
of healing American politics. But why don't we get to
the next part, because I this is the side of

(44:15):
zoron the operator, which may may actually make him leftist upset.

Speaker 2 (44:19):
Yeah. Yeah, so I'll get my reaction on the other
side of this. But as you guys have probably been
tracking Hakim Jeffries, who is of course the leader of
the Democrats in the House, has a primary challenger, a
guy named Chios who is a DSA member. He's a
leftist on the Democratic City Council. He and Zoron were close.
He was a supporter of Zoron, although he did actually

(44:40):
jump into the primary game pretty late with a I
think a joint endorsement of a couple different candidates. In
any case, Zoron had discouraged him for running against Jeffries.
The suspicion is that he made some kind of a
deal with Jeffries to get the endorsement prior to the primary,
and part of that deal was like, I won't back
a Mary challenger. But not only did he not back Geosa,

(45:03):
but he actually went to the DSA endorsement meeting to
speak out against endorsement of him. So he really is
like using his political capital to undercut a challenger to
Hakim Jefferies. Hakim Jefferies has come up through politics as
an adversary to the left. He has sucked in his position,
just like on the merits. He has not done a

(45:24):
good job, et cetera. So Zoran got asked in this
meet the press interview. Okay, so we know that you're
backing Hakeem Jeffries in this primary, but do you want
to see him as Speaker of the House.

Speaker 3 (45:36):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to how Zorn
played this.

Speaker 10 (45:39):
Democrats when the mid terms, do you want to see
Leader Jeffries become the Speaker of the House. Yes, okay,
that was a firm Wick answer.

Speaker 2 (45:47):
Yes, I mean no, no equivocating, no word salad, no nothing,
And I mean, I guess I'll start with the positive r.
I'm curious to get your reaction. You can put V
eight up on the screen. Zorn's intervention and DSA endorsement
probably made the difference here because you had them voting
not to recommend endorsing TSA's congressional run. This was the

(46:08):
DSA Electoral working Group. Total of twelve hundred and five
DSA members voted, five hundred and fifty five voted to recommend,
six hundred and twenty six voted again.

Speaker 3 (46:16):
So it was pretty close vote.

Speaker 2 (46:18):
Very likely again that Zorn's intervention made the difference here,
and so on the positive side, listen, if you're going
to do it, I appreciate him not doing the words
out and just saying yes, I'm behind him. That's it,
let's move on. I understand why. I understand the logic.
I think it is similar logic as the one that
leads him to go to the White House and strike

(46:39):
up a friendly relationship with Trump, which is that he
feels that the end of the day, he wants to
do whatever he can and be as pragmatic as possible
in achieving his agenda. On this decision, though, I don't
think that the calculation really works out because Jefferies is
not the President of the United States. He does not

(46:59):
have that level of power in New York City. He
cannot thwart your ambitions to that degree. And I truly
believe that whether it's Jeffries or Pelosi or Schumer or
any of these democratic establishment types, first of all, they're
going to try to fuck you anyway, because they always do.
Aoc has tried playing this inside game. It has gotten

(47:19):
her effectively nothing really in terms of actual concrete policy deliverables.
And the only thing they really respect is when you
have power and they have to kowtow to it. That's
what's been going on more with Kathy Hochel, where she
saw the strength of Zorn's movement and she has had
to bend to his policy priorities. So in this instance,

(47:40):
with you know, go throwing in behind Jeffries and being
unequivocal about it and trying to Undercutchosa, I think it
is I understand the calculation he's doing it doing. I
disagree that this is the right approach in this case,
because I think that Jeffries will respond much more to
power and you will get much more of your way
if he is true you having to look over his

(48:01):
shoulder at a primary challenger and having to accommodate himself
to your goals and your power.

Speaker 1 (48:06):
I totally agree. And let's lay the flip side of
everything I just talked about with Trump. Trump is capricious
and three runs from now he could do it all over.
And so now you're actually gonna have the visual of
you in the oval, and you have to deal with
all the problems now here with Jeffries. And this is
the theory behind the Trump meeting and the Jeffreys endorsement
is one and the same. I need to work with
the political system in order to get my things done. Now,

(48:27):
we talked about this before he won, and I'll revert
to my cynicism. Kathy Hochel three days after the election,
what does she say, Yeah, this whole free bust thing,
it ain't happened. She literally said that. She's like, it
doesn't have the support in Albany, so it's not gonna happen.
It's like, okay, well that was one of your signature,
actual possible deliverables. The next one, the most difficult thing
he wants to do is Bill two hundred thousand units
of affordable housing. You're going to need federal dollars for that.

(48:47):
You're gonna need some hug You're going to need some
owning problems in New York City. You're going to need
the political establishment in New York to be defeated. And
you are also going to have to, you know, bulldoze
this through with a multiple different political city systems. They
don't have much of an incentive right now to work
with you. So if Kathy Hochele, at the peak of Zoran,
right after he gets elected with all the bus is

(49:08):
willing to come out and say free busses not happening,
that's a problem, right because you're not having a lot
of leverage in the political savage. She may face a
primary challenge. She still doesn't care. She's still not willing
to go along.

Speaker 3 (49:18):
She does.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
She does have a primary challenge from the Lieutenant Governor,
Antonio rettel Gotta.

Speaker 1 (49:22):
But that's my point. So even with the primary challenge,
she's still not afraid in order to come out and
say that you got to be afraid, I will say.

Speaker 2 (49:28):
I will say, though I don't know if you saw this,
she does want to. She has changed her position on
raising taxes in order to fund affordable childcare, which is
another one of his major priorities and maybe actually the
most difficult one to accomplish. So expanding you know, build
a Blasi is able to expand to free pre K
that was the one that is you know, that's a

(49:48):
huge that would be a huge, major new program that
requires new revenue. And she has signal she's willing to
work with him on that. But again I think that
is because of the you know, the power of his
movement and her really re the tiles about where the
Democratic Party is. But you know, so like I get it,
he doesn't want to have the relationship Build a Blasio

(50:08):
had with Andrew Cuomo where they just absolutely hated each
other's guts that made it very difficult for Deblasio to govern.
It really ends up, you know, putting a sort of
rock around the neck of his mayoralty, even though he
is able to accomplish the universal pre k So like
Kathy Hochel, has some genuine power and cards in the state. Obviously,

(50:29):
President Trump does as the prossy of the United States.
I don't really understand what you need, Hakim Jeffries. Like
it may be there are things under this. I think
it must be the case that there's some part of
his power struck that I'm not seeing above the surface,
But I don't really get what you need, HIKEM. Jeffries,

(50:50):
for to be totally honest with you, and even putting
that aside again, I think playing some more hardball and
showing some more strength, especially when this guy, like he
barely passive aggressively endorsed you two days before the primary
and now we owe him this big debt.

Speaker 3 (51:07):
Like I just I don't really.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
Understand the calculation that is going on here. Like I said,
there may be things beneath the surface that I'm just
not aware of that changes the calculation somehow. But I
think in general, what we've seen from from the left
is that the approach to power has to be more muscular,
you know, showing more of the strength of the movement,
showing hey, you are going to pay yourself in your

(51:31):
own district and have to worry about this primary challenge
if you don't come more in our direction. To me,
that seems like the you know, much more effective approach
to take.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
So I don't know.

Speaker 2 (51:43):
Maybe there are things going on here dynamics I don't understand,
But I don't really understand what it is that you
need so badly from Haqem Jeffries that you're willing to
just unequivocally back in kneecap his primary opponent, et cetera.

Speaker 1 (51:55):
I think it's a probably a backroom deal with power centers, right, Hakem.
You mean I have no political popularity. He's still the
freaking Democratic leader, and he's got access to every billionaire
in New York City, who if you want to build housing,
who owns all the housing, who owns all the buildings?
Like you know, I really think that's the only possible explanation.
If we think back to the Oval meeting that was

(52:16):
broker by one of these like Trump friendly real estate
moguls right, so you can see how you look. This
is the problem, as I've always said, with governing New York,
this is a city run by the filthy rich. Like
at the end of the day, you will have to
confront that. In some ways you can go against it.
You could try and they probably they're probably going to
defeat you, or you could try to work with them,

(52:36):
which in this case he probably is doing. In the
case of Hakem, I'll say what I think is the
craziest is the DSA stuff, because it's one thing to
stay out of the race, which I think he should
have done. I think the smartest thing would have been
stay out, don't endorse, but don't unindorse.

Speaker 3 (52:51):
But you can just do the voters right.

Speaker 1 (52:54):
That's a class thing.

Speaker 2 (52:55):
People do it all that district. I trust the people
in New York, they're going to get to evaluate it.

Speaker 3 (53:00):
Decision right.

Speaker 1 (53:01):
Nobody asks me, nobody asked you to do. To come
out affirmatively to endorse him and then go to the
DSA meeting and say don't endorse him. I also, by
the way, I think this is a critical moment for
the DSA because are you doing It's basically like the
Republican Party at Maggot's Like, do you work for zoron
or do you you know, stick to your own guns,
Like like, this is the most counter DSA thing I've

(53:23):
ever seen, is not endorsing Haking Jeffrey's primary opponent, Like
what are we doing here? I don't know, I don't
understand it at all on their part.

Speaker 2 (53:32):
Yeah, yeah, I mean it is a real show of
strength for Zoran with the organization for sure, you know.

Speaker 3 (53:39):
I mean the things that I've seen.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
Are she just joined DSA relatively recently, so they feel like, oh,
he's a little bit of an opportunist. He had said
that he voted for Bernie in twenty sixteen. He wasn't
actually registered to vote in twenty sixteen, so apparently there
are a few things like that that make them a
little skeptical of him.

Speaker 3 (54:02):
But I don't know.

Speaker 2 (54:03):
My view at this point is there's all this like
oh well, and then the other pieces. I think it's
a very difficult district to win, Like Hakeem Jeffries Zorn
won that district. He did, but Jeffries is well liked
there and apparently it's going to be difficult to win.
So that's the other piece. So what I've heard from

(54:23):
their perspective is Number one, I guess she has not
been a DSA member for long. So like, okay, as
this opportunism, you see the Zoron wave, you're jumping on it.
Number two he said he voted for Bernie in twenty sixteen,
apparently wasn't registered to vote.

Speaker 3 (54:36):
Number Three.

Speaker 2 (54:37):
The district I think is genuinely a very difficult one
to win. Hakeem Jefferies is popular. Yes, Zoron did win it,
but apparently Jefferies has a lot of standing in the district.
You're going to have to win over some of those,
like older working class black voters that have been very
difficult for leftists to be able to win.

Speaker 3 (54:55):
Now.

Speaker 2 (54:55):
Zoron won them actually in the general election, but in
the primary they were largely with Andrew. So that's kind
of the electoral calculus.

Speaker 3 (55:03):
I just I don't. I think it's an old.

Speaker 2 (55:05):
Way of thinking to do too much of like, oh
my god, can we win, Let me crunch the numbers,
et cetera. There are so many left insurgent candidates coming
out of the woodwork. I think it really to me
the way to go is to back a whole slew
of them, and then some of them are going to lose,
and some of them are going to get through, and

(55:26):
some of them are going to get through. That you
would not necessarily expect because what we have going for
us now on the left is that the liberal Democratic
base largely agrees with us now in a way that
they really didn't previously. They sort of bought into the project.
They believe they're the strongest fighters against Trump. You know,
they buy in certainly to the policy project, although that's

(55:49):
never really been the problem. The Democratic leadership is really
defenestrated and deeply unpopular with the liberal base. My view
is just like, get behind as many of these candidates
as you possibly can, and even if she, of say,
cannot win in that primary. Came Jefferies having to worry
about him. That's going to change the way he operates.

(56:09):
That's going to change his political calculus. You can already
see it with Richie Torres, who has drawn a primary
challenger and is having to change some of the way
he talks about is you're gon try to you know,
he came out right away and said we can't have
these Islamophobic attacks on Zora, and like you can see
the way, he's having to accommodate him and change himself
in real time to make sure that he can defeat

(56:31):
a potential a primary challenge from his left. So, in
my view, if you have all of these Democrats having
to look over their shoulder to the left and worry
about what is coming even though many many you know,
or if not most, of those challenges won't succeed just
because of the power of incumbency, that's still going to
change your political landscape. And we see that happen on

(56:55):
the right. I mean, that's what the Tea Party wave did, right.
You had people who lost in the primary, but more
than that, you had the whole Republican Party having to
worry like what is coming for me from the right,
and that changed in the overall approach to politics. So
that's my view of the approach here. Rather than being like,
oh my god, I don't know if you can win,

(57:15):
just get behind as many of these candidates as possible
who are strong on your issues.

Speaker 3 (57:20):
And Sheos is strong on.

Speaker 2 (57:21):
DSA's issues and has been a left voice on the
city council now so has a proven track record. That's
my view of how you know how to play this
moment for you know, for DSA and for the left
more broadly.

Speaker 1 (57:33):
Anyone out there. You're an idiot if you're this whole like, oh,
shut up, all right, this is politics. It's about opportunists.
Who do you think you're dealing with? You think you're
dealing with like normal, well adjusted people. No, the play
that you win is to make your side politically convenient.
It's like when all those neo con Republicans started calling
themselves maga. All right, that was a victory for maga.

(57:55):
Why now, you know it should have come with something
like in terms of well, then you're gonna have to change.
So that's a but why do they call themselves maga?
That's what the voters want to hear. That's what you do.
That's how you win. You think that everyone just Pollyanna
voted for the Civil Rights Act or everyone just Pollyanna
just comes around like, oh, actually I've had a total
change of art here. No, all right, they do it

(58:16):
for political opportunistic purposes. That's how you win. Shit, read
a book. These people are just so pyeing the sky honestly,
but you want it. That's a loser mentality.

Speaker 2 (58:26):
I mean, I agree the fact that it is now
the cynical political move is to be a DSA member, Like,
guys take the win win. That's great. You know that
has never been the case before. And now you're like I,
you know, you are adopting there. As you said, you're
positioning yourself in their lane. Like I don't really care

(58:48):
what's in his heart, you know, I care about what
political actions are being being compelled. And you know, after
the fact, if he doesn't stick to his principles, if
he gets elected, doesn't stick to his principles, then you
can unendorse.

Speaker 3 (59:02):
You could back a primary challenger.

Speaker 2 (59:03):
Whatever, or do what you need to do to discipline
your you know, people who run with your backing.

Speaker 3 (59:08):
But yeah, for now, just if they're with you, be
with them.

Speaker 2 (59:13):
Make these democrats have to fear you and worry about
whether you're going to back a challenge or against them.

Speaker 1 (59:18):
Think about this. They're like, he's a political opportunitist because
he lied about voting for Bernie. You should be happy
about that. You should want people to lie about that,
all right, come on, It's like all these Republicans who
all voted for like Jeb Bush and then they lie
that they've been as Trump supporter. That's a victory for
Trump morons, right, I don't.

Speaker 3 (59:35):
Know, Yeah, this is what we're not even really sure
I mean.

Speaker 2 (59:37):
And I also I'm not really even sure that it's
fair with regard to Chiosa, because like, I mean, nobody
says he's always certainly been a progressive, whether he's like
the brand a Newish DSA member or not. Like, he's
definitely broadly on the left. So this isn't like someone
who just showed up and suddenly flipped all of their positions.

Speaker 1 (59:54):
You know, I don't know, learn how to win. That's
what winning looks like. All right, let's get to the
brain turning down to Ukraine. Some major developments over the
last couple of days on a potential Ukraine peace deal.
There's been a lot of back and forth between the
United States and whether a peace plan is either real
or not. There is officially some progress, at least for

(01:00:16):
right now. The United States, the Europeans, and the Ukrainians
met in Geneva over the weekend. This is what the
Ukrainian lea negotiator had to say. Let's take a lesson.

Speaker 11 (01:00:26):
We have a very productive first session. We've distinguished American
delegation we have very good progress and we are moving
forward to the just and lasting piece. The Ukrainian people
deserve and want this piece more than any more anyone
in this planet. We think our big friends United States

(01:00:51):
and personal President Trump and his team to the commitment
to bring this piece. And we will continue to work today.
As Secretary set we will be working and say in
coming days to join proposals, and we will also will
engage European friends. And of course the final words will

(01:01:13):
be of our leaders of the President of the United
States and Ukraine, and I hope that we can achieve
the good progress today.

Speaker 1 (01:01:25):
Okay, so that was the words from the negotiator there
for the Ukrainian side. There has been so much back
and forth on a peace plan. There's a European counterproposal.
Let's go ahead and put the next element up on
the screen. I'm going to go ahead and read from
some of the most key parts of what eventually was
accepted by the United States as it's outline for a

(01:01:46):
peace plan. Here are the key points. Number one, the
size of the Ukrainian armed forces would be limited to
six hundred thousand personnel. Now, this is a sticking point
around the size of the Ukrainian military, the Ukrainians and
the Pans pushing it very very hard against this. Ukraine
currently has some two million people in the military, nine
hundred thousand active duty personnel. This was specifically a part

(01:02:08):
which is being requested and being pushed by the Russian
side because of course they don't necessarily want to sign
a peace deal, some end to the war, which would
also keep a massive major Ukrainian military there as some
sort of demilitarized zone, and then of course keep the
war continuing and make it so that some future some
sort of conflict may break out. Obviously that's up to them.

(01:02:30):
They didn't necessarily have to invade in the first place,
not justifying it, just explaining from their side. But this
is a huge sticking point for the Ukrainians and the Europeans,
but one that was accepted by the US and was
apparently requested or at least negotiated with the Russians. Number two,
this is the big sticking point too. Ukraine agrees to
enshrine in its constitution it will not join NATO, and

(01:02:51):
NATO agrees to include in its Statutes of Provision that
Ukraine will not be admitted in the future. I would say,
this is the biggest sticking point out of all of them, Crystal,
and this is the one which is directly countered in
the European peace proposal that is put forward. Let's go
back and rewind the clock all the way to the
very beginning. What was the number one reason that Russia

(01:03:12):
said that they invaded Ukraine NATO? They said, we want
an assurance that Ukraine will never be in NATO. And then,
if you want to rewind the clock even further, it's
NATO that actually invited Ukraine and Georgia to be in
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in the first place, which
was a huge sticking point between the US and Ukraine,

(01:03:33):
or the US and Russia a specifically NATO and Russia
about encroachment. All that we've gone a million times through
the justifications and for the US side as to why
it was a good plan. We've explained some of the
Russian security objections to increase NATO encroachment in their traditional territory.
Nobody said that they should have invaded, not justifying it

(01:03:54):
in that way at all, but it is a political reality.
Whenever you're a nuclear armed state with some nine thousand
warheads at the end end of the day, they did
invade Ukraine. And of course it's not like their military
did all that well in the first couple of years.
It's only recently, with brute force and manpower they've been
able to achieve any military success at all. But the
truth is is we are where we are. There are

(01:04:15):
probably a million or so people dead, hundreds of thousands
who have been wounded, millions who have been displaced from Ukraine.
The Russian military and the Russian people more importantly do
not seem to care whatsoever that hundreds of thousands of
their countrymen are being led to slaughter in Ukraine. They
just don't care. It's kind of remarkable, honestly, It's not

(01:04:35):
really something that I would have predicted. I thought it
might have gone the way of Afghanistan. But they're in
a much stronger position than they were in let's say,
a year or so into the war, when the ability
of the Ukrainians to actually mount a real counter offensive
could have happened. Putin's point, from the beginning, at least
in these negotiations, has been I'm really not going to

(01:04:55):
give up much some of this territory which I'm asking
for I'll either take it through blood, or you can
give it to me right now and we can stop
the killing and then we can sign some sort of
overarching peace agreement. But in my opinion, the European and
Ukrainian position remains delusional. You are not going to be
in NATO. Period. It would actually be insane to give

(01:05:15):
you NATO membership at this point because parts of your country,
which you claim is yours is literally under military occupation
by a nuclear armed state of foreign power. You can
invoke Article five at any time, and you know, there's
a case, I think, at least somewhat given Putin's reaction,
in the Russian people's reaction and more, that NATO membership

(01:05:36):
actually is just a non starter for a lot of
the Russian population, their political establishment and Vladimir Putin and
their ability to continue and to fight this war. So
what are we all going to do here? I'll just say,
which strikes me the most is that even this peace deal,
which guarantees gives security guarantees for the remainder of Ukraine,
that that's still not enough for the European This is

(01:05:59):
the best thing you can could possibly get. You're basically
getting some sort of NATO Article five style guarantee without
being inside of NATO. Yes, you have to give up
part of territory which are currently under Ukrainian occupation. That's
a bitter pill to swallow. I understand. I just read
a testimony from a Ukrainian soldier on the front line
who look, I am cherry picking, but he was like, guys,

(01:06:19):
there's nobody here. It's all destroyed anyways, and we're probably
going to lose it in the first place. To be fair,
fifty percent of some Ukrainian soldiers also say that they
don't want to accept the peace deal. But I don't know.
I mean this entire thing, it's a boondoggle. It's a
money laundering operation of apple proportions on the Ukrainian side,
insane corruption scandals that have been happening there day after day.
Their own military, the average age somewhere between forty and

(01:06:43):
fifty years old. Yes, they've stood firm, and you've got to,
of course give them credit for it, but they don't
have a chance of holding any of this territory in
the long run. You're going to lose it no matter
what I mean, It's just going to happen. The only
question is how much money, how many lives, and how
long much longer this thing has to continue. So I
really don't know. I mean, I don't really think there's
a weapon system in the world apps in and nuke

(01:07:04):
that we could give the Ukrainians that could help them
accomplish their military objectives at this point. So it's pretty delusional.

Speaker 2 (01:07:09):
Yeah, I mean, I think we should acknowledge the deal
is that as proposed is discussing and unjust based on
the fact that the Russians worthy aggressors. You know, it
includes giving up parts of so all of Crimea, Luhansk,
and Netsk, even parts that the Russians have not been
able to take militarily at this point. Kirsan and Zaborisia

(01:07:32):
will be frozen along the current contact lines. But those
other regions you're just handing over to Russia. You have
the limits on Ukrainian military size, and they're looking at
this going okay, but they just invaded us and now
you're limiting our ability to be able to fight back.

Speaker 3 (01:07:49):
And there's other pieces of this.

Speaker 2 (01:07:51):
I mean, the economic part of it is effectively I mean,
it's like colonial exploitation. You know, it's certainly another effort
to make billions of dollars for Trump and his family
in Witcoff or whoever else is going to get their
money grubbing hands on this. It is a disgusting and
unjust plan. Okay, now we have to deal with reality.
What are the alternatives? And you know, it may be

(01:08:12):
that through the negotiations, you can make this slightly more
you know, more just towards the Ukrainian side. It's not
going to be fully just, there's no doubt about that,
but you can, you know, maybe you can change some
of the territorial requirements, Maybe you can lift a bit
of the size of the military that will be allowed,
Maybe you can change some of the different terms, et cetera.
This is far from a done deal. But the reality is,

(01:08:35):
if you're going to end the war at this point,
it's going to be a hideous deal. It's going to
be hideous. You know, it's going to be hideous. It's
going to be unfair, it's going to be unjust, it's
going to be you know, all of those things. The
question is, is the continuation of the war more hideous
and more unjust? Is it going to lead to an
even worse outcome? And unfortunately, I think that is where

(01:08:57):
we are unless we're willing to go all the way
in and like he boots on the ground with them,
and go to a full blown war against you know,
this nuclear armed superpower, which I don't think is in
the best interest of our country or the world. Unless
you're willing to do that, you're talking about continued horror,
continued war, continued blood and death, and very likely Russia

(01:09:21):
ends up taking these parts of the territory that are
being offered in this deal to begin with. So it's ugly,
you know, it's an ugly it's if we're going to
end it now, it is going to be an extremely
ugly end. But what's even uglier is to continue the
war in this manner and just continue to bleed own

(01:09:42):
an entire generation of Ukrainian men.

Speaker 1 (01:09:45):
Yeah, it's look, I get it. It's tough, and it's
very easy for me to say, I live in the
most powerful military in a country with the most powerful
military in the world. It's not up for negotiation. But
that's not the case for the vast majority. And by
the way, if you look at your own history, you
are lucky to be alive. I mean that's truth. You

(01:10:06):
are lucky that you get to remain as a polity
in the first place. You have accomplished actually something quite great.
You've held off the Russians from taking over your entire country.
It's the Europeans and the US's fault for selling you
a dream that you were going to survive, you know,
completely intact, and you were going to take back Crimea

(01:10:26):
in the first place, but got way too high on
their own supply, and then the military reality of what
it's like to fight Russia started to set in. That
is the case. No one said, I mean, look, the
invasion of Russia was a disaster actually for Russia in
the initial beginning. But major countries with huge industrial bases,
with oil and with nuclear weapons, they can absorb some blows.

(01:10:50):
This has been the history basically of the Russian nation
now for over one hundred years. And all of the
promised hopes of destroying the Russian economy didn't happen. Creating
a coup against Putin, Nope, didn't happen. The only pooh
coup that they tried against him completely failed. And the
guy and what it is plane crash or something like that,
the Wagoner group, Dude, Yeah, he died, So there's no

(01:11:11):
organized political opposition. Putin threw everybody in jail that he
wanted to. If anything, he solidified his control over the
oligarchs who he thought were getting too friendly with the
European powers, and the people are mostly with him. People
still continue to join the military, they're paying out high pensions.
Their economy is a war machine and it's humming. It's
doing okay. You just none of these promises of how

(01:11:32):
they were going to end the war ended up happening,
and that was basically going to be the case from
day one. Also, looking at this, even from what the
Ukrainians are trying to demand, Look how much better off
they would have been back in April if they had
just taken the peace deal in the first place. The
US and the Europeans sold him a false bill of goods.
By the way, the Europeans, you know, I don't want
to let them off the hook here. All they want,

(01:11:53):
all they want right now is to keep this war
going because they need the spigot and to basically key
their domestic political crises off to the side. They want
the US security umbrella. The longer the conflict goes on
for them, it's good because it keeps them relevant in
the eyes of the United States. It keeps it a
live issue. One of the worst things that could ever

(01:12:13):
happen to the Europeans is if it ends. And right
now there's all of these fights between the EU and
the US, but withdrawing the US from the eastern flank
of NATO, like they need that to keep going. So
there's a lot of self interest that's happening here. At
the same time, I just want to skip ahead to
see four. Just don't want to let the US off

(01:12:35):
the hook. And this is where probably my most sympathetic
take from the Ukrainians comes is can we really trust
these people? I don't know, man, because here's really what
happened with the plan, the original plan that we just
showed you leaked. The US confirmed that that plan was real.
Some US senators condemned that plan. Then some US senators
said that Rubio called them and denied it was the

(01:12:56):
real plan. The White House then denied that denial, and
Rubio came full circle and said, yes, it was our
real plan. So there is a lot of chaos right
that's actually currently happening behind the scenes, and we at
the very least have to acknowledge that for the Ukrainians
because they're dealing with such a capricious and chaotic administration.
This is the fate of their country, and you know,

(01:13:18):
it is a bitter pill to swallow, So I understand it.
And they need to get their shit together if they
actually want anything to happen, because I'm personally tired of
all this BacT Zelenski Comms. Then they buried him, Zelenski Comms.
Now we're friends Zelenski Comms, along with all of these
EU ministers, and we have the whole Putin summit, and
shit doesn't happen, and then we're all we're going to
sanction Russia. Actually, so everything is all over the place.

(01:13:41):
And for all the Ukrainians who are crying right now,
you guys have all been here before. With Trump, he
could change his mind literally at any moment, So don't
be too assured that any of this is all that serious.

Speaker 3 (01:13:51):
So there are yeah, no, that's true.

Speaker 2 (01:13:52):
I mean the other part is like the you know,
I mean, the cash grab, disaster capitalism aspect of it
is obviously also discussing, you know, and that's that is
one of the areas where they're at odds with the Europeans. Too,
in terms of how they would use these Russian frozen assets.
You know, what they propose in the Trump Deal is

(01:14:13):
basically like you know, some portion of it will be
used for reconstruction. The other portion is going to go
into a joint investment vehicle with Russia. And even the
portion of the Russian assets that are being used for
Ukrainian reconstruction are going to be done so led by
directed by the US. So, I mean, listen, we know
how this administration operates. It's going to be you know,

(01:14:33):
a massive enrichment scheme for whether it's Kushner or Trump's
you know, other Trump family members, wit Cooff, his family members,
other allies, whatever. Like, we can all see how this
is going to go, which is utterly disgusting. Right, So
let's not let's not put that to the side. One
other aspect of this saga that you alluded to, it's
just important to understand the political dynamics here too, is

(01:14:56):
obviously Zelenski has pushed off any sort of elections while
the war was going on, saying, hey, we're in a
state of emergency, state of war, we can't have elections.
We've just got to you know, continue in the direction
that we are he is embroiled. Ukraine has long been
a corrupt state. Zelenski won initially on a promise to
retout corruption, so this has been a deep concern for
the Ukrainian people. There is a massive scandal with regard

(01:15:18):
to basically their like atomic energy agency, you know, goes
right into Zelenski's innermost circle. Does not directly implicate him,
but raises a whole lot of questions about what is
going on here. So the other piece is if the
war ends, then you're going to have elections and you're
going to have somewhat of reckoning around, you know, the
corruption scandals that have come out increasingly during this war.

(01:15:42):
So that is another piece of the backdrop here of
you know, the calculus from Zelenski himself.

Speaker 1 (01:15:48):
You're exactly right, there's been huge political scandals. In fact,
Tucker Carlson just tweeted out this morning, the Wall Street
Journal is sitting on a major corruption story for one
of Ukraine's closest political negotiators, and they won't run it
because they don't want to sabotage the deal. I don't
know if he's right. You know, we'll see what the
journal says. But just wouldn't surprise me as all I'll
say it

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

.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;}11/24/25: MTG Resigns, Zohran Trump Meeting, Zohran Endorses Hakeem Jeffries, Ukraine Peace Deal

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;}Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

11/24/25: MTG Resigns, Zohran Trump Meeting, Zohran Endorses Hakeem Jeffries, Ukraine Peace Deal

Stuff You Should Know