Krystal and Emily discuss Jan 6 pipe bomber, Hillary doubles down on Israel and TikTok, Sydney Sweeney backtracks after movie flops.
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
All right, let's go ahead and move on to these
updates with regard to the hype bombing suspect who has
now been apprehended by the FBI. So you guys covered
this on Friday, but there were some updates that happened
on Friday that we wanted to make sure to get
in here as well. So let's put d one up
on the screen. And you guys probably know this, like
(00:56):
this pipe bomber has been a real fixation on the right.
Understand why because it's like, okay, this was a series
that like pipe bombs were placed outside the RNC and
the DNC, and this just never we just never solved
this case. Like really, in this age of mass surveillance,
we can never freaking figure this out.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Oh what happening here?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Yeah on Capitol hillth and Kamala Harris was going in
the dance and we never figured this out. So in
any case, they apprehend this guy, and the initial thing
that was put out is he was an anarchist. Okay,
well now they're saying during interviews with the FBI, the
suspect told investigators he believed the twenty twenty election was stolen,
(01:35):
providing perhaps the first indication of a possible motive for
the bomb's place near the DNC and the RNC headquarters.
So basically, it looks, according to this interview in this report,
that he was a stop the steel guy. And the
reason I give this crudence is because this is not
what like a cash Betel.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
FBI would want him to.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Say that his motive is right this And that's why
I think when the government or any source says something
that is sort of against their interests, you can give
it more credence, not to say you shouldn't be still
step skeptical in the narrative whatever, that's like your responsibility
to ask questions and question the government, especially when they're
making claims. But if it's a clean that goes against
their parts and ideological interests, I do think that that
(02:18):
is worth giving more credence than something that just like
fits really neatly with what they would want this narrative
to be. So anyway, I apparently they brought this guy
in and Pierro Janine Pierrot is saying like, oh, he
was an equal opportunity.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
He hated both parties.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
That may also be the case, but in any case,
he at least bought into these stop the steal narratives.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
Yeah, the story is deeply weird, and I have all
kinds of skepticism about the story period. But just on
this note, Kendlanian right away, who is very tethered to
kind of like deep state for lack of a better word,
people who are.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Like careers at the FBI.
Speaker 5 (02:54):
Basically, he's I forget who called him fusion ken with
us because he was reporting so much on the Fusion
GPS stuff.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Maybe that's a.
Speaker 5 (03:01):
Glenn greenwaldism back in the Russia collusion days. But he
reported right away before the suspect was named, but when
we knew that there had been an arrest, that he
had quote anarchist leaning, anarchist leanings, and that was sourced
to two people with knowledge. And now Cash batalent And and
Bongino are getting asked about all of this. They're getting
(03:22):
asked about the fact that this guy worked for his
dad's bail bond company that worked with Benjamin Crump, very
you know, ideological attorney from the left as they were
bailing out immigrants in jail. And they're not going much further.
And now we get this that he's also stopped to steal,
and Patalent Bongino are kind of punting on it and saying,
(03:45):
we don't want to interfere in the legal process. So
I think Bongino has said this is chapter one of
a ten to twenty chapter book.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
And so just over the last five days, everyone's.
Speaker 5 (03:54):
Like, well, so what's actually going on right now is
what is actually happening with Brian Cole who was discovered
seemingly out of nowhere with information that Patalan Bongino said
existed at the FBI for years. And if you read
through the affidavit, they're essentially connecting the dots between phone records,
(04:18):
license plates, records purchases, hardware purchases, so pipe end caps,
things that are really specific, wires, that sort of thing.
Also though, that were bought after January sixth, So the
affidavit list out all of these purchases, a couple of
them that go into January late January, after January sixth.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
So it's a very very strange.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
The entire story right now is strange, and it could
be cleared up fairly quickly if the FBI opens up
and explain some of these inconsistencies and just you know,
question marks. But right now, I mean there's just such
a vacuum of clear explanations. It's like, what the hell
is the story supposed to be?
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, well, and if we think about a motive and why,
it would make sense if you're a stop the steal
person to you know, plan a bomb, both of the
DNC and the RNC. Like the DNC part, Okay, that's obvious, right,
you're you know, you're mad that the election was stolen,
you think they were complicit whatever.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
But I mean there was a lot.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Of upset too at the mainstream Republican Party in a
sense that like they weren't doing enough to go along with,
you know, to just quote unquote stop the steal and
to go along with Trump's election lies and delusions.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
So it's it does.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Make a level of sense that if that is your motivation,
you would be going after both the DNC and the
RNC and just generally looking to cause fear and chaos
on that particular day. Another, Uh, I don't know if
you could call it funny, but whatever you want to
call this ironic, Yeah, we'll call it amusing.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Put D two up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Element of this is it's possible that with Trump's very
broad pardoning of the J six rioters, that he may
have accidentally also pardoned this guy. So this says mister Trump,
in one of his first official acts after returning to
the White House this year, issued a grand clemency to
the nearly sixteen hundred rioters charging connection with the Capitol attack.
(06:15):
His clemency proclamation was extraordinarily broad, covering all defendants accused
or convicted of quote offenses related to events that occurred
at or near the US Capital on January sixth, twenty
twenty one, at or near it is possible defense lawyers
will ultimately try to argue that the placing of the
pipe bombs should also be covered by mister Trump's proclamation.
(06:39):
I'm not a lawyer, but I mean it seems like
they could definitely make that case because offenses related to event.
I mean, it was certainly related to the events. It
certainly occurred at or near the US capital. It was
on January sixth, So I don't know. I mean, maybe technically,
did he actually place the bombs on January fifth.
Speaker 5 (06:59):
Yes, but I think that might still be covered because
it's add or neared. I mean, they were discovered on
January six with timers that I bet are going to
be argued. I mean, that's another very strange part of this.
It looks like one hour. I mean, if people haven't
seen the pictures of the bomb, I keep telling everybody
of the pipe bombs. I keep telling people to google
them because they are the most cartoonish, looking like looney
(07:19):
tunes as devices, where they had kitchen timers strapped like
literal oven timers strapped to these pipes, and with like
the wires on the outside and all of that, and
so these look like one hour timers. So are the
timers being controlled remotely to detonate on January sixth. That
could be a pretty crucial question because if the administration
(07:40):
wants to put screws to this guy, they're going to
want to say that these devices were created, were viable.
We've already seen them hinting at that for January sixth,
so it might not be a wiggle room on the date. Actually,
if the date is the problem, because it seems like
what they're trying to insist is that January six these
were intent to disrupt the process.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Yeah, so I don't know, that's an interesting one. We'll
definitely continue to follow those developments.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
Emily.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Can you talk a little bit about some of the
theories that have been percolating on the right and how
the right is responding to these developments.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Yeah, let's put D three on the screen. So this
is from an account called at four five nine Crimes,
and this is where you're definitely starting to see the
anti deep state right split into two. So on the
one hand, you have people like Julie Kelly who have
covered this story really closely from the MAGA perspective for
a long time, and does seem to think that Cash
and Dan have the right guy. Then, on the other hand,
(08:38):
you have some other more skeptical folks. I mean, Thomas
Massey has already insisted he's not buying the story. This
thread that we have up on the screen now, it's
called the five year fuse. It's not even this thread,
it's a published article on X. You can do that
now very long that casts doubt on the official story
that Brian Cole is the man in question, and Kyle
(09:00):
Saraff and others still seem to be pretty set on
the idea actually that the person the Blaze named and
then retracted the report about this is D four. We
can go ahead put this up on the screen. Some
people seem to be still pretty serious about and this
was in the four five nine article we just had
on the screen too, that the person that Blaze named
(09:22):
and then retracted the article naming them, that that person
was or is still in their opinion, the likelier suspect.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
And that Cole is a patsy. So that's where this
is going. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (09:38):
I mean, Christal, I honestly have trying to reserve my
judgment in this entire case because the FBI is continuing
to say they don't want to interfere in the legal process.
They don't want to taint Jerry Pools or whatever, and
isn't giving us a lot of information about what's actually
going on.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
It sounds like Cole is cooperating.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
Patel and Bongino have said they've talked to him, they've
interviewed him. They're so sure that he's the right guy.
I mean, what I've soft theory, I think somebody definitely
planted that story with the Blaze, because I've gone back
and read it a couple of times, and I mean
to say, somebody within the government.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
It zeems to me planted that story with the Blaze,
which is a really weird thing to do.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
Obviously to name a specific person who also, by the way,
it had FBI outside the house next to their house
when the Blaze was scoping out the house before the reporting,
which again just it could mean a million different things,
but it does seem to me that there's something very
fishy happening with some faction of people, whether it's at
(10:40):
the FBI or elsewhere, who were trying to deflect, divert
or pin this person knowing that another person was about
to be found. It could be the tickling the wire
approach where they dangled that to the Blaze to see
how Brian Cole reacted, because the story of that, the
Blaze story popped right when they said they had a
(11:01):
break in the case, so four to five weeks ago,
the timeline matches up exactly. So maybe they were trying
to plant a story in the media to see how
Brian Cole would react. No idea, but there's something really
strange happening with this story, and I don't know what
it is. I don't want to speculate recklessly, but I
think clearly if you go back and look at the
Blaze of sourcing, they had people in the government pointing
(11:21):
them in the direction of this person at the CIA
who they've protracted the claim about.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
So weird shit.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Well, I never put a lot of stock in that,
even though you know, I've been following this pipe bomber
thing as well, because it's genuinely like what happened with that,
that was a significant event and then it just.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Never got resolved.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
And so I ride the Blaze's thing, and I didn't
put much stock in it because it was like based
on like oh a Gate analysis, like her Gate, Matt,
and like this seems like bullshit, like I'm gonna wait
on this one and see what transpires. But they did
have to your point, they claimed to have sources from
inside the administration that we're also saying, well, this is
the the lady, which is part of why when they
were challenged on it, they were so like, no, we
(12:04):
stand by our reporting. They were very adamant. There's also
weird tie in with like Tulsi Gabbard and the oposite
the DNI where they either I don't know if they
originated this or they wrote up it was very unclear
from the reporting they just wrote this up the Blazes
information as like a tip. But in any case, what
(12:25):
I definitely got out of it is that she and
her whole team are very much on the ounce. Apparently
the pissed people off too, because they were looking into
the Tyler Robinson investigation to see if there was anything
else there that was being missed. I think there was
another instance too, where they stuck their noses in and
the way that the rest of the administration was not
happy with. But what did you make of that Toulsi
(12:46):
Gabbard piece.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Yes, so it's very weird.
Speaker 5 (12:49):
What seems to be the case for media reports the
claim at least is that the Blaze went to the
government and maybe the Blaze got a tip from inside
the DNI, Like that's how circul these stupid intelligence leaks
can happen sometimes, right, went to the od and I office,
the Director of National Intelligence Hulsee Gabbard with this idea
(13:10):
that it was this person. Again, they've retracted the claim
that currently works at the CIA insecurity at the time
was in Capitol Police and from there the Blaze then
because the DNI.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Wrote the memo up.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
The Blaze then was able to report the story because
they reported on the DNI memo, which gives you a
hook to say, this is something that exists in the government.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
It's not just crazy speculation. Right, it's a government.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
But that could have been circular. It could have been
them putting it to the d and I. The DNI
writes up a memo, then they're able to report on
Oh there's a memo at the DNI, So this gives
us more credence.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
And it can get even crazier than that.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
Meaning, Okay, so this person who again the claim was
retracted about works at the CIA, worked in Capital Police.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
FBI has been doing this investigation this is the office.
Speaker 5 (13:54):
Of the DN I did another agency plant it with
the Blaze. The Blaze goes to DNI, the memo gets
written up, and because DNI is desperate to also look
like it's solving moving, you know, and getting to the
bottom of a big MAGA case, something that MEGA is
really concerned about, they write up the memo. Blaze reports
(14:16):
on the memo and they were played like a fiddle
by FBI, CIA or someone else. This stuff like sounds crazy,
but it does actually happen. A lot of this happened
with Rusher collusion, So there's something is really off about
this story. Maybe it'll all be cleared up, but so
far it's extremely weird, and I think people moving on
entirely from the Blaze story are probably missing a hint
(14:38):
as to how the like quote deep State was handling
this investigation before Cole was arrested.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yeah, well, you know, I was sort of skeptical when
the initial announcement about Cole came out. Yeah, we should say,
in terms of the evidence they're claiming to have against him,
they're my understanding three components from what I was reading
an endeamos. So you've got the the assembling of all
these parts right that the constituent elements of the pipe
bombs themselves. Then you have his vehicle is you know,
(15:09):
in the vicinity at the right time, and then you
have cell phone pinging in the relevant towers at the
appropriate points as well. And then I think there's also like,
you know, a stature analysis. He is I think five
to six the person that's roughly the same, which is
why it was credible that maybe is a woman because
it's a relatively small statue person. So those things all fit,
(15:30):
and I think there may be some other, you know, piece,
but those are the big pieces, Okay. I mean that's
pretty significant in terms of a you know, an evidentiary footprint.
I became more convinced that this was the guy when
he told interviewers, Oh, I was you know, I didn't
believe the Trump election claims because, like I said, that
goes very much against what they want the storyline to be.
(15:52):
So if you have a suspect that you are claiming
to have this evidence on and you have a motive
that isn't really the motive that they we're hoping for here,
that to me made it more credible that this is
in fact the individual because if they were going to
set it up and like, you know, blame some person
who's just a patsy and innocent whatever, that is not
(16:14):
necessarily the storyline that they would want to go with,
because the whole point is to satisfy Maga here, and
Maga is definitely not going to be satisfied with someone
who did this basically to avenge President Trump and to
buy into his claims that the election was stolen and
this was a great crime against American people.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
And I also think we should be open to the possibility.
So his grandmother has already come out in the press
and this just hurts to hear this type of thing,
and said that she thinks he's on the spectrum. Yeah,
so I think I'm also open to the possibility that
what we're seeing is a disgusting possibly I'm not saying
this for sure, but possibly exploitation. It's very easy, well
(16:55):
relatively easy, to get people in the spectrum to commit
to crimes that they didn't do in confessions. This is
a documented phenomena, and so it's it's possible there's something
going on with that too. I do not know, keeping
it open to that also, CRYSTIALLL just want to mention
the big picture I think always worth worth keeping in mind,
which is.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
That the implication of a lot of the conspiracy theories.
Speaker 5 (17:20):
And I don't say that pejoratively, because again I'm kind
of open to the idea that there's something weird going
on with this, but the implication is that the FBI
under Trump, by the way, had some role in whipping
up the violence on January sixth.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
That you know, either resources were diverted over.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
To the RNC and the DNC at a critical time
that is actually true, or that in a way that
let security sort of fall apart and people run into
the Capitol and create a pretext for mass surveillance of MAGA,
et cetera. Or that this could have possibly been these
these could have been viable bombs that you know, the
FBI was planning, not even just as a setup, but
(18:01):
to do real damage and violence.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
And that sort of thing just worth saying.
Speaker 5 (18:07):
Again, Yes, there were FBI assets at January sixth.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
True, there are a whole lot.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Of because like half of the oath keepers are fed boys,
all of these, all of these observations are top to
bottom chalk full of Feds.
Speaker 5 (18:23):
Yep, I'm reading from the obviously inspector General for a
just apartment right now, twenty six FBI confidential human sources
were in Washington, DC on January six in connection with
the events of January six is from Michael Horowitz. So, yes,
that did happen a lot of Another important point is
a lot of regular mega people were caught up on
January sixth.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Saw it with my own eyes.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
It was a lot of people who have since come
and said talked about how they got caught up in
violence and other Now that's not everyone, but some people
really did. And there were you know, average maga folks
who got caught up and did awful, horrible things on
January sixth, and again they've since talked about it. So
(19:06):
the FED surrection quote fed surrection narrative, to the extent
this pipe bomb thing could play into it. I'm open
to the idea that these were planted as some type
of op, but I also just want to say, like
that was not just a quote fed direction. There were
a lot of regular people who got caught up in it,
and I think it I think it diminishes the sort
(19:30):
of lessons from January sixth in a way that I
think people should be really honest about to pretend that
it was all I mean, some of it. I'm curious
if it was whipped up by FEDS. I think that's
essential information. We don't have much, and I think that's
probably possible. But at the same time, there were a
lot of average people who got caught up in this,
and that's I don't think it's I don't think it's
(19:51):
worth whitewashing that either.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean from the left, my perspective is
that you do. I mean, it's without a doubt you
had all these FED informants and assets within a bunch
of these organizations who would have been privy to some
of the planning. But many of those people were also
sympathetic to the right wing causes, Like even as they're
(20:13):
FED assets, are also genuinely sympathetic to right wing causes,
And so I think there was a downplaying of the
risk even as they were getting intel in that this
would turn into the violent, chaotic, you know, disaster that
it ended up being. So that's always been my interest
in understanding, you know, what they knew and when and
(20:36):
how many FED like human intel sources were involved and
were privy to the planning, and if they were there,
then why wasn't Why weren't the Capitol police more prepared?
Why weren't there more precautions taken on that day? So
you know, there's there's that aspect to it as well.
But in terms of the pipe bonb thing, we'll see
(20:57):
where it goes. We'll see what other evidence they're able
to offer you. It'd always be skeptical of government claims,
but like I said before, the fact it does not
fit the narrative they would want it to to me
gave it more credence than, you know, than if it
was just like very neatly like yeah, oh he was
he was anti he was actually trans Tifa. I'd be
(21:17):
like he wrote it on the pipe bombs that he
was trans Tifa. I'd be like, hmmm, gonna I'm gonna live.
Let's let's see some more evidence on that one.
Speaker 5 (21:26):
The bottom line on this is that they need to
tell the full story asap. I get not wanting to
interview the legal process, and I mean, we've seen our
government rush to do dumb stuff over and over again
for public relations purposes. But uh, the story is is
quite odd. So the more information the better.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
Somebody hates the Blaze apparently.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Or yeah, yeah, I mean somebody said.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
That somebody hates the Blaze and you know, really screwed
them over because they look, I mean, this humiliating for
them that they directly accused this one woman and who
had an alo like a very easy like here's a.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Video of me playing with buppies on that day. I
guess it wasn't.
Speaker 5 (22:03):
Well that I really was not me so sorry, but
I like, that's another part of the story to me
that I'm just like, what the they this? You name
a person who has this who works at the CIA
and has a literal video at the exact time of
the bomb plant being planted of her with her dog. Yeah,
what the like, it's a it's a lot they're asking
us so far by not filling in the gaps, they're
(22:23):
asking us to believe a lot. So uh hey, I'm
open to it. I want to see the information. It's
a crazy story.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Yeah, I want to know who's out to get the
Blaze and I just administration.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
One of the what I think one of the benefits
of the last like ten plus years is the right
developing this deep skepticism of uh the like intelligence agencies,
the intelligence community, which seems to be like not unsurprisingly
lapsing as they have retaken.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
The intelligence community.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
But I feel like this is just a great surprising
not I mean, it's a great reminder of why that skepticism. Uh,
those seeds were planted during Trump one that should be
continuing to blossom, to blossom into like permanent skepticism of
these agencies.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
All right, shall we check in with our friend Hillary
Clinton here?
Speaker 3 (23:11):
Why would we not?
Speaker 4 (23:12):
So? What was this conference? She was that? Some like
a do security comp security conference.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Tucker Carlson was also there for reasons I don't really know.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
But in any case, Well, the Global Security Forum in Doha.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Okay, so she's re emerging the Doha Forum. Okay, sorry,
Doha Forum. She has re emerged because she wants us
all to know that we just don't understand what's going
on with Israel Palestine and that the real problem is
not Israel murdering mass murdering babies with our support. The
real problem is TikTok. So she said this, We covered
(23:46):
it last week. Now she was sort of questioned more
aggressively questioned on these comments and asked to defend them,
which she did. Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 6 (23:54):
I want to talk about you now. You've been in
the news this past week for some comments you made
at an event in New York organized by the newspaper
Israel High m And I'm going to paraphrase here, but
you said that smart, well educated young Americans are getting
their news from social media and from TikTok and you
went on to say that this is how they're learning
(24:16):
about what happened on October seventh, and then what happened
in Gaza in the months that followed. And it appears
that this was a broader lament on your part about
declining support among Americans for Israel. That comment has generated
a lot of controversy, and it's led Congressman Rocanna, for example,
to point out that I don't think the answer is
(24:38):
to disparage the intelligence of young people. It's been a
few days now since you've said that. How are you
reflecting on your words and the controversy around it.
Speaker 7 (24:49):
Well, I think it is a provable fact that most
Americans and an even bigger percentage of young Americans, get
their news from social media. If that is controversial, then
people are not paying attention.
Speaker 6 (25:03):
To How is that a bad thing?
Speaker 7 (25:06):
I don't know if it's a bad thing, but I
think it's an incomplete We are not going to implement
the twenty point piece plan or any other piece plan
unless people come with some sense of historical perspective and
empathy about how we're going to move people toward what
I still believe is the only realistic outcome, a two
(25:28):
state solution. And we're not going to get there if
people you know, why when they say from the river
to the sea, and you say what river and what
sea and they don't know which have personally happened in
conversations that I've had.
Speaker 6 (25:40):
And I can't gauge how well young people grapple with history,
but what I can speak to is they're grappling with
the here and now, and they they are witnessing images
that are life streamed, that are coming out every day,
you know. And yes, there is misinformation and disinformation, but
a lot of it is real. And I think there's
a genuine anger in the United States and around the
(26:03):
world that some of that anger is deflected.
Speaker 7 (26:08):
But Robbie, I'm angry about all of the human rights abuses.
I'm angry about all of the excessive use of force.
I'm angry about you know, what happened on October seventh
in Israel and what happened in Gaza. I'm angry about
what Russia is doing in Ukraine. I'm angry about Sudan.
I'm angry about the Eastern Congo. I mean, I think
(26:30):
we should be all looking at the tragedies and the
conflicts that are bringing about so much suffering and be
dealing with them. That's why the National Security Strategy is
not to my liking, because I think the United States
has an important role in trying to resolve these conflicts
and alleviate the suffering and give people a chance to
(26:53):
have peaceful, prosperous lives. That should be our goal, that
is in America's interests. I don't care where in the
world you are, so of course, the suffering in Gaza
is horrific, full stop suffering everywhere is horrific.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
Suffering everywhere is horrific. And I mean she uses a
lot of tactics there that we've seen deployed before. I mean,
first of all, just suffering in Gaza. No attribution of blame,
of course, no attribution of blame on the United States,
no attribution of blame on Israel's if this is just
like a natural disaster that occurred in Oh my gosh,
these poor children, if only someone would do something, but
(27:34):
no direct assignment of blame. That's one thing, and then
the other where the other one of well, suffering everywhere
is horrific with the suggestion, the suggestion always, the subtext
there always is that, well, you only care about this
one because you're anti Semitic is basically the subtext there.
And if you aren't as focused on, you know, other
suffering other places in the world, it can only be
(27:57):
because you're anti Semitic. And also an attempt to sort
of like diffuse and deflect of like, well, of course
they care about that, but I care about other things
as well, So let's talk about those other things and
not so much talk about this one.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
So classic sort of liberal.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Zionist I would say, deflection tactics. Not to mention the
you know, original assertion from her in the original comments
and reasserted here as well that well, it's just complicated.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
You just don't really understand.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
Yeah, well, I mean there's a little bit of an
irony here in that people who make the argument Clinton
was just laying out about this being rooted in anti Semitism,
and the tell being that people are obsessed with this
particular conflict. You know, people right now are who make
the argument are very upset about this forum being in
(28:43):
Doha and Tucker Carlson going and all of these other
people taking money from Cutter, the United States supporting Cutter.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
Why well, because the United States is involved with Cutter.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
That is the same reason that people are upset, particularly
about Israel Palestine. It's that they don't like they believe
as Americans they have a responsibility to have an obligation
to follow this particular conflict so closely because it is
so heavily dependent on US involvement. Yeah uh, you know,
(29:18):
a fifth of you of Israel's annual military budget. That
might even be an understatement. You know, the the permission
structure that Yahoo was reliant on, whether it was Biden
or Trump to continue prosecuting the war like that is
the reason for the level of attention. And I remember,
you know, obviously, as somebody who is Christian, the treatment
(29:40):
of Christians in Nigeria is like horrifying to me. But
a lot of times that is used by people on
the right to say, see the anti Semits they don't
care what's happening to the Christians in Nigeria. It's like
a couple of months ago, I was like, I'm looking
it up. I'm going to see how much money, how
much aid is in one place versus the other.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
It's not close.
Speaker 5 (30:00):
I mean in terms of like percentage of even if
you look at percentage of animal budgets, what does USAID constitute?
So it's obvious. I mean, it's just it's that line
drives me up a wall. Because, of course it's true
that some anti some anti Semites are completely obsessed with
Israel and will find any reason to criticize Israel at
(30:21):
every turn because they're anti Semitic.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
Of course that's true, but to.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
Impugne the motives of people who care about this particular
conflict because the US has a heavy level of involvement,
it's the same reason people make the arguments about you.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
I mean, it's just Ukraine, Like.
Speaker 5 (30:38):
It's just all it's sophistry dressed up as a sophistication.
And by the way, the guy who's doing that interview,
I was like, wow, I need to look up who
that was because it was.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Really well handled.
Speaker 5 (30:48):
That was rabb Agra Wall of foreign politary. I was
actually just on his podcast and his voice was familiar.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
I was like, I don't that is.
Speaker 5 (30:56):
Fantastic job sticking it to her and saying this is
different than what you're saying it is.
Speaker 3 (31:03):
Yeah, you said one thing.
Speaker 5 (31:04):
I mean, even asking her about that I thought was
pretty bold, because she's the type of person that's now
seen as like an August states.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Yeah, it's sort of unimpeachable character. Yeah, right, sorts of things.
Speaker 5 (31:17):
Right, people use these opportunities to sort of fawn over her, Yes,
very deferential.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Yeah, so I thought that was actually really impressive.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
You know what I've witnessed too, is I mean, first
of all, to your point, there is just no other
country that we have a comparable relationship to as Israel. No, like,
there is just no other country. That is part of
what makes the Somali memes so funny.
Speaker 4 (31:39):
Yes, right, it's.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Because they're they're postularly like they have all this influence,
all this money behind them and a packed back. Of
course they don't, right, not nearly on the scale. If
they do nothing like the scale of what Israel has
in terms of their influence operation here, in terms of
what has been lockstep bipartisan support for decades that is
only now coming unraveled. And so there's just nothing comparable
(32:00):
that you could point to of another country that has
similar level of influence, similar type relationship as we do
with this one nation.
Speaker 4 (32:09):
So that's one thing too.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
But you know, I'll tell you as someone on the left,
what I've witnessed is as people have had their eyes
open to our malign influence in.
Speaker 4 (32:17):
Terms of, you know, the horrors that are being perpetrated.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
In Gaza, it has made them more open to, Okay, well,
what is what's going on in Sudan? Because you know,
with URSAF and this horrific massacres that they're perpetrating, and
we aren't the ones directly sending those bombs, but our ally,
the UAE is backing them, and we are certainly in
a position to put pressure on them to end their
(32:43):
support of OURSAF. We are certainly in a position to
use our influencer. And so what I've witnessed isn't that
people are like, oh, I only care about Gaza the
exclusion of everything else. In fact, what I've witnessed is
people sort of that being one area where they go
in really deep, and that opens their eyes to other
ways that we're impacting events around the world, and yes,
(33:04):
other horrors that are being perpetrated as well, and to
sort of expand their horizons rather than narrowing their focus
just to this one place.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
What was it?
Speaker 5 (33:13):
I mean, of course, it wasn't anti Semitism that made
people mad about what was happening in Nicaragua and Al Salvador.
It was US support, right like in the nineteen eighties,
it was US support the seventies, the eighties, it was
literally the very obvious issue of US support for backing death.
Speaker 3 (33:29):
Squads all that sort of thing.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
And again that does I think as far as like that,
it was a pretty similar side by side of people
who were furious at this at the US, not because
they really in every case, it wasn't that people were
sympathetic to the Sandinistas.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
They were like average Americans.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
Congress said that we could no longer fund it because
average Americans were like, hey, this is pretty bad, Like,
you know, they are priests that are being killed by
people using US weapons and US money and getting US backing.
So it wasn't just like sand Anista's sympathists who were
like upset about that. It was people who were upset
(34:10):
about cruelty backed by US support.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
Yeah, the US past dollar is going to that evil.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
Yes, and so argue against the actual argument. Stop making
suit up. It's not helping anyone.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
What about this? What about that?
Speaker 2 (34:24):
You don't get it, It's complicated, the problems TikTok, like
all of this. It just feels so tired at this point,
I know too and out of at this late date,
so on a touch, so tired and just really quite pathetic.
I mean, I think if the biggest thing is, you know,
Hillary Clinton is not a person without knowledge and skill.
He's been in the political arena for a lot of
(34:45):
years at this point. And for her for this to
be the best that she can do on behalf of
the Zionist cause, I think shows you how much all
of their arguments have just been thoroughly discredited, a really destroyed.
And that's why you see, you know, within the Democratic
Party support for Israel. I mean, it's dead, it's done,
(35:07):
it's over, and you're going to see that. You're already
seeing this playing out in a lot of Democratic primaries
right now. It is an earthquake within the Democratic Party.
It's an earthquake among young people in a really bipartisan manner.
Speaker 5 (35:19):
Well, I was just going to say, I mean Hillary
Clinton is like a seen as a leading figure in
the Democratic Party, not without reason. I mean, she's the
presidential nominee ten years ago, and she is so like
clearly out of touch with where the party is. I mean,
has she talked to a significant number of young Democrats
(35:40):
because she's calling them anti Semitic right here, Like she's
she's calling them anti Semitic.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
Or stupid and stupid yea, yeah, yeah, And.
Speaker 5 (35:46):
It's just such a giant cope rather than actually grappling
with it's not making their It's not making the situation
any easier at all. It's like how Republicans use we
were talking about this earlier in the show Obamacare to
not cope with healthcare problem. Like people actually want a
better healthcare system.
Speaker 6 (36:03):
Right.
Speaker 5 (36:03):
You can't just keep saying repeal Obamacare, repeal Obamaca. You
have to actually deal with their argument.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
Mainstream Democrats are used to these sorts of arguments coming
at them from like a fringe group.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
And her husband code pink.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Yeah, her husband, you know, really like pioneered the strategy
of like punching left right and using that as a
way to bolster his credibility, and they just have this
instinct for always doing that, and they haven't realized the way,
or she hasn't anyway realize the way the ground has
shifted where it's like, no, this isn't just you know, this.
Speaker 4 (36:36):
Isn't just Bernie supporters or Bernie bros.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Or fringe lefts or democratics like this is this is
the entire Democratic Party at this point that agrees with
this position. And you are in line with maybe maybe
like ten percent of where the Democratic Party base is
at this point. So when you're punching left right now,
you're punching like ninety percent of the party.
Speaker 5 (36:58):
Another good exempt of why that Agrowell question was important
because if people don't publicly push her on that, she
doesn't even know. Yeah, I mean like she just attributes
it all the anti semitis right, idiocy? Right when you
have like the editor in chief of Foreign Policy doing
it on stage and it's going to.
Speaker 4 (37:14):
Go viral, Yeah, patronizing.
Speaker 3 (37:17):
Yeah, you have to cope with that, all right.
Speaker 4 (37:21):
Shall we get to Sidney Sweeney here excited about this, Let's.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
F three up on the screen, and then we'll get
to what is actually a bigger story, but the Sidney
Sweeney one we're gonna start with because it's more fun.
Speaker 4 (37:31):
In any case, You're.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Use Sidney Sweeney to talk about anti trust.
Speaker 2 (37:34):
Yeah, that's all right, that's right, and Tim Dillon I
made that connection earlier as well.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
With the vibe shift.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
Yes, okay, So you guys will remember she did this
interview who was what was the outlet? It was like
uh gq right that she sat down with the reason
of this interview that went super viral, especially on the
right because she got asked about the eugenics adjacent nature
of the American Eagle ad that she cut, and she
(38:02):
said at that point she was like, when I have
something to say on an issue, you'll hear from me,
and sort of like shut her down in that moment.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
So I was like, oh, this is amazing, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Then her movie that came out totally bombed at the
box office, the one about a like queer boxer that
she put on a bunch of weight for.
Speaker 4 (38:21):
It was very sort of like artsy film. Hemsen.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
I don't know if it was good or bad, but
I know it did very poorly at the box office
in any case, Now she's talking to People magazine, and
her tone is a little bit different here, Emily, she says,
I was honestly surprised by the reaction. I did it
because I love the genes and love the brand. I
don't support the views some people chose to connect to
the campaign. Me being one of those people, I have
(38:44):
a sign motives and labels.
Speaker 4 (38:46):
To me that just aren't true.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
So she keeps a veg right. She doesn't directly disavow
like eugenics or MAGA or white nationalism or any of that,
any of the sort of like broad groups that have
embraced her. She doesn't directly disavow them, but clearly very
different tone being struck here and her wanting to, you know,
sort of clean up what I guess she's she and
(39:11):
her pr team because all these these actors, like you
really shouldn't think of them as individual people, you know,
you should think of.
Speaker 4 (39:18):
Them as like a whole team and a brand. It's
a business, it's a corporation.
Speaker 3 (39:22):
It's Sidney Sweeney Inc. Exactly.
Speaker 4 (39:23):
And so clearly Sidney Sweeney Inc.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
Decided that this direction was not going all that particularly
well for her, and there needed to be a recalibration.
Speaker 5 (39:31):
It's so funny because this is given as a statement
to People magazine. Yes, right, so it's not like she
put this on Instagram or anything. This is a complete
like why does it sound like it's not Sidney Sweeney
because it's not Sydney's.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
Sweet workshopped r yeah statement.
Speaker 5 (39:46):
She goes on to say, this might even be chatchepute.
Anyone who knows me knows that I'm trying to bring
people together. I'm against hate and divisiveness. In the past,
my stance has been to never respond to negative or
positive press, But recently I have come to realize that
my silent regarding this issue has only widened the divide,
not closed it.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
Not yet. Yeah, actually not all.
Speaker 5 (40:06):
Then she goes say, so, I hope this new year
brings more focus on what connects us instead of what
divides us.
Speaker 3 (40:11):
I mean, go on a statement to People magazine.
Speaker 5 (40:15):
I don't even know, Like if this were in politics,
you know, you wouldn't run with the statement as news
because it's so it's such a pr It's like running
a press release for Sidney Sweeney.
Speaker 3 (40:27):
Basically to just go with this as a quote exclusive,
which is what People magazine.
Speaker 5 (40:32):
Did I get it, it's entertainment news, But yes, clearly
somebody on the team was like Sidney Sweeney with gen Z,
which is true. Gen Z girls are kind of her
should be I would imagine her target demo, but.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
I don't think they are.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
Well, I mean, I'm sure it's men.
Speaker 5 (40:50):
But like for selling genes, you would want your value
to American Eagle is that you're selling women's genes. And
so if she wants to keep getting deals like the
American Eagle one, she has to have some appeal with
younger women, and younger women are like liberal, like increasingly liberal.
Speaker 4 (41:07):
There outside was then die in that fight?
Speaker 3 (41:09):
Oh my god ten times out of ten.
Speaker 5 (41:11):
Yeah, no, Like I literally was just writing a piece
about this, like young women are They're accelerating to the left,
and so the vibe shift did not.
Speaker 3 (41:20):
Come for young women. The vibe shift came for young men,
not young women.
Speaker 5 (41:23):
And so clearly Sidney Sweeney's teams like and I wonder,
actually if this is influenced at all by American Eagle.
Middle of Christmas season, Christmas shopping season, people should be asking.
Speaker 3 (41:32):
For the American Egle jeans.
Speaker 5 (41:33):
I definitely got American Egle jeans for Christmas twenty years ago,
so that I wonder if it has something to do
with American Eagle sales too.
Speaker 4 (41:42):
Could be, could be?
Speaker 2 (41:43):
I mean, I am curious what kind of factored into this.
And you know, I mean in terms of her personal views,
it almost doesn't really matter. Like she did she registered
as a Republican in Florida, so we know she has
and recently so like during you know, Trump two point
zero and mad and the Vibe Shift and whatever, she
registers as a Republican in Florida, which is a choice.
(42:05):
So you know, I mean think we have a general
sense of what her political leanings are. She comes from
a conservative family whatever. I do not buy that she
and her whole team because again we're not just talking
about Sidney Sweeney. We're talking about a whole team that
they did not realize what they were flirting with in
that American Eagle at I think they knew.
Speaker 4 (42:23):
I think they were fully in.
Speaker 2 (42:25):
With the Vibe Shift, thought she could be a sort
of pin up for the right and was by the way,
and already was occupying that space. So they thought, okay,
this is a good way to lean into this. This
is where the culture is going this will help us,
like this is where we are now, and so we're
going to play with these concepts that are in the air,
that are a little edgy and controversial for fun and profit.
And so she did that, and you know, thought that
(42:48):
that was like the lane for her to occupy up
until recently, when you have you have a political vibe shift,
which is why I connected us to Tim Dillon and
his comments. You have a very clear political vibe shift.
Whatever vibe shift young men had been caught up that
in that is also dissipated. I mean, the numbers for
Trump among young men are almost as devastating as they
(43:09):
are among young women.
Speaker 5 (43:11):
So on cultural issues, young men are still like attracted
to certain things that young women aren't, like certain cultural questions.
Speaker 4 (43:20):
They're still more liberal than every other generation.
Speaker 5 (43:22):
They absolutely are, just meaning that there's a golf culturally
between young men and young women. Like young men have
different opinions on like trans immigration, like they tend to
still be polarized from women.
Speaker 2 (43:33):
On those maybe the case, but in terms of affirmative
support for MAGA, no, that's totally different.
Speaker 4 (43:37):
Dead and gone right.
Speaker 2 (43:39):
And if you're doing an American Eagle brand I mean,
she really created a brand that wasn't really pitching herself
to young women. It really was leaning hard into the
male case. The problem with that is, number one, there's
no loyalty there. Right the minute you put on some
weight and do an artsy film, they're like, oh my god,
it's like, what are you doing.
Speaker 4 (43:57):
That's not what I'm here for.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
Right, You're an athlete, Like.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
The minute you you know, you hit a certain age,
it's over for you, or show any sign of aging,
like it's over. You know, if that's what you're catering
towards you, there's not gonna be any loyalty or longevity there.
And if you're trying air American Eagle carries, you know,
genes for men and women or you know, young people
of any gender, so the male audience matters there. But yeah,
if you are wanting to sell to women, you're really
(44:26):
sort of isolating yourself and ostracizing yourself from that part
of the market. So, you know, I don't know that
the box office bomb, and this wasn't her first box
office bomb, by the way, that that really had anything
directly to do with like the magaflirtation and all these
sorts of things. But maybe her team feels like it did,
maybe she feels like it did. Maybe the dynamics was
(44:47):
Zundaya were also like personally taxing for her. I don't know,
but to me, it's sort of emblematic of a movement
in the culture that we see in other you know,
in other spaces as well.
Speaker 5 (44:59):
Yeah, I mean gets into our next story, because Hollywood
is still not like an easy place to be seen
as quote pro Trump and I bet people were uncomfortable
working for Sidney Sweeney with this new reputation that she
was getting as someone who's like hardcore Maga and is
like a almost a mascot for Maga.
Speaker 3 (45:21):
So I'm sure some of that was uncomfortable.
Speaker 5 (45:22):
But just to get into the anti trust component, we
can but f two on the screen.
Speaker 3 (45:28):
I'm sorry, we can. We can. One second.
Speaker 5 (45:30):
We actually have a clip of Donald Trump, who was
on the red carpet of the Kennedy Center Honors last night.
Speaker 3 (45:34):
Which he hosted.
Speaker 5 (45:35):
We should know Donald Trump hosted the Kennedy Center Honors.
Speaker 3 (45:39):
Maybe that'll be a presidential tradition. So glad that Joe
Biden didn't do that.
Speaker 5 (45:43):
Actually, we could have gotten some great moments out of
Joe Biden attempting a late night Kennedy Center honors.
Speaker 3 (45:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (45:49):
So Trump is asked about this attempted merger between Netflix
and Warner Brothers and says something very interesting on the
red carpet last night at the Kennedy Center.
Speaker 3 (45:59):
Let's roll this pretty allowed to buy Warner Brothers.
Speaker 8 (46:02):
Should Well, that's a question. They have a very big
market share, and when they have Warner Brothers, you know
that chair goes up a lot. So I don't know
that's going to be for some economists to tell. And
also and I'll be involved in that decision too, but
they have a very big market share.
Speaker 5 (46:17):
Did he make any guarantees to you about the merger
if they do merge? Now, No, not at all.
Speaker 8 (46:22):
He came up. He was in the Oval office last week.
I have a lot of respect for him. He's a
great he's a great person. But he's done one of
the greatest jobs in the history of movies and other things.
And he's got a lot of interesting things happening aside
from what you're talking about. But it is a big
market share. Here's a question, though.
Speaker 5 (46:42):
So that is I mean, he said I'll be involved
in that decision. There you go now we can put
F two on the screen. This is the Netflix CEO.
Not a surprising story at all, but this is Ted
Strandos meeting with According to Bloomberg, Donald Trump in the
Oval Office just mentioned actually in the clip, and so
(47:03):
the connection was any sweety crystal. Basically is that the
vibe shift sort of came last year. Will remember, like
this exact time last year, it looked like Hollywood, Silicon Valley,
We're all getting swept up in kind of reckoning with
the reality that they'd alienated a lot of the country
and that Donald Trump was going to be mercurial and
was going to wield his power where he wanted you
(47:27):
to kind of come kiss the ring in an aggressive
way and then.
Speaker 3 (47:31):
He would reward you in reward you back.
Speaker 5 (47:36):
Now, this deal, this attempt a merger, which looks like
a pretty clear cut violation of the Clayton Act, although
another that stuff is super clear cutcuse it depends on
how you define market share.
Speaker 3 (47:45):
And all of that.
Speaker 5 (47:46):
It's already getting criticism from Mike Lee and Republicans and
it's getting absolutely panned across Hollywood. There is no love
in Hollywood for this. I mean, it's predicted to absolutely
decimate theaters. You could under and why. But people are
pissed about this. It is not going well for Netflix.
Speaker 2 (48:05):
So far well, and we've got a new factor to
add in as well. I think we can add this
and post this New York Times tearshet because we're just
learning now. Paramount, headed by David Ellison, is making a
hostile bid for Warner Brothers Discovery.
Speaker 4 (48:18):
I'll just read from this tear sheet.
Speaker 2 (48:20):
Paramount on Monday mounted a hostile takeover bid for Warner
Brothers Discovery, a brazen attempt to secure a Hollywood prize
snatched away by Netflix. Last week, Netflix announced an eighty
three billion dollar deal to buy a big part of
Warner Brothers Discovery and Friday, in an agreement approved by
the boards of both companies. In a news release on Monday,
Paramount went around the Warner Brothers Discovery board and straight
(48:41):
to shareholders with what it called a superior offer. Paramount
said it would pay thirty dollars per share in cash,
valuing the company around one hundred and eight billion dollars
including debt. Said it was going to shareholders because the
board of Warner Brothers Discovery is pursuing an inferior proposal
that would lead to a challenging regulatory approval process. Paramount
(49:01):
has offered to buy all of Warner Brothers Discovery, including
the Warner Brothers Movie Studio, the HBO Max streaming service,
in a portfolio of cable channels, including CNN. The cable
channels are not part of the Netflix deal. We believe
our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. David Ellison, the
chief executive Paramount, CID a press release.
Speaker 4 (49:19):
It is in the best.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Interests of the creative community, consumers, and the movie theater industry.
Warner Brothers Discovery had no immediate comment. How about none
of these would be in the.
Speaker 4 (49:30):
Best interest of creating a stronger Hollywood.
Speaker 3 (49:33):
How ants stopped mergers?
Speaker 2 (49:34):
Yeah, I mean this is this was expected from David Ellison,
and this has been a concern both because obviously of
the corporate consolidation, but also because of Ellison's ideological leanings.
So he is pro Trump's quotes, Trump ally very zionist,
pro Israel. You know, we've seen what's going on at CBS.
I mean, he's you know, so we're the idea here
(49:56):
is you have a consolidation of all these media properties.
Now under and like affirmative avowed Trump supporter, and so
more sort of like state influence on media bleeding over
into these other outlets, including HBO, Max, including CNN, So
obviously really significant there.
Speaker 4 (50:13):
So now you, I guess, have these.
Speaker 2 (50:15):
Two rival bids and even more uncertainty about what may
ultimately happen here, right, And what's the goal?
Speaker 5 (50:21):
I mean, that's Matt stolar over a big which is
the essential newsletter to read if you don't on these questions,
and he's been following the Hollywood stuff a lot, absolutely
open question as to what the goal of Netflix is
with this merger. You have to basically freeze the assets
of the competitor that you're trying to merge with. In
(50:43):
a case like this is what does David Ellison think
is going to come of this? Is he trying to
block Netflix from hurting the competitiveness of Warner like this is?
This is succession level drama, obviously, And I wonder what
we're seeing a little bit is somebody like Sarandos And
(51:03):
maybe you could argue even Ellison, who, by the way,
Trump did get to green light the new rush Hour movie,
So something good will.
Speaker 3 (51:10):
Come of this that actually happened. I don't know if
you get did you guys cover that like we did it?
Speaker 4 (51:15):
But I did see that it happened yet like.
Speaker 5 (51:18):
Just the perfect Trump story in every level, but it did.
It was there an overreach that has spawned serious backlash
that ends up actually hurting them more than it helps
them because they've overreached.
Speaker 3 (51:33):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (51:33):
That's I think an open question right now. And I
think the sort of way that we can make this
full circle with Sidney Sweety is that none of what
everyone was feeling this time last year was permanent, and
could the Trump administration have come in a second time
around and maintained that cultural momentum. I don't know, but
it's kind of an interesting counterfactual to ponder.
Speaker 4 (51:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (51:55):
Well, and they also came in with a lot of
you know, gestures towards the anti Tross movement and some
you know, even personnel decisions that were like oh maybe
you know, and some of the anti trust moments started
under the first Trump administration and now that's just been
basically completely abandoned. And certainly where tech world is concerned,
I mean, they're just given whatever whatever they want, and
(52:16):
if you can get in with good with Trump, you're
going to get your deals approved, and that's pretty much
how he operates. Now, they can use it as a
weapon against you if they hate you, then I'm you know,
I don't think anyone would be surprised to see them
using it as a weapon instead of just using it
as like a neutral enforcement mechanism. And that's really one
of the things that Trump has completely not to say
that the government's been perfect in terms of being neutral,
(52:39):
but the general expectation was that the government bureaucracy would
be neutral in its adjudication of these questions. And Trump
doesn't even pretend that that's a goal, like that's just
out the window.
Speaker 5 (52:52):
So and he says he's going to be involved in
the decision. So there's another component of it. If you
want to keep getting in Donald Trump's good graces, you
know how to do it.
Speaker 3 (53:00):
Apparently the Oval office is open.
Speaker 2 (53:02):
Yeah, not hard to figure that one out, all right, guys, Well,
thank you so much for watching, Emily, Thank you for
filling in today.
Speaker 5 (53:08):
I'm always happy to happy to help pick up Sager
slack and then to call him out for slacking. I'll
never just do it out of the goodness of my own.
Speaker 4 (53:17):
I know he appreciates that about you.
Speaker 3 (53:18):
I'll do it to roast him. That's my real motivation.
Speaker 2 (53:23):
I enjoy that aspect of your personality as well. I
think it should be we'll see how Sager's doing tomorrow.
Should be me and Sager tomorrow, but we'll see. In
any case, you guys have a great day.
Speaker 4 (53:33):
We're going to do.
Speaker 2 (53:34):
I'm going to do the AMA with producer Mac I
think because Emily has to jump. But if you want
to get access to those live amas, make sure you
sign up at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 4 (53:44):
See you guys soon,
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
All right, let's go ahead and move on to these
updates with regard to the hype bombing suspect who has
now been apprehended by the FBI. So you guys covered
this on Friday, but there were some updates that happened
on Friday that we wanted to make sure to get
in here as well. So let's put d one up
on the screen. And you guys probably know this, like
(00:56):
this pipe bomber has been a real fixation on the right.
Understand why because it's like, okay, this was a series
that like pipe bombs were placed outside the RNC and
the DNC, and this just never we just never solved
this case. Like really, in this age of mass surveillance,
we can never freaking figure this out.
Speaker 3 (01:13):
Oh what happening here?
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Yeah on Capitol hillth and Kamala Harris was going in
the dance and we never figured this out. So in
any case, they apprehend this guy, and the initial thing
that was put out is he was an anarchist. Okay,
well now they're saying during interviews with the FBI, the
suspect told investigators he believed the twenty twenty election was stolen,
(01:35):
providing perhaps the first indication of a possible motive for
the bomb's place near the DNC and the RNC headquarters.
So basically, it looks, according to this interview in this report,
that he was a stop the steel guy. And the
reason I give this crudence is because this is not
what like a cash Betel.
Speaker 4 (01:53):
FBI would want him to.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Say that his motive is right this And that's why
I think when the government or any source says something
that is sort of against their interests, you can give
it more credence, not to say you shouldn't be still
step skeptical in the narrative whatever, that's like your responsibility
to ask questions and question the government, especially when they're
making claims. But if it's a clean that goes against
their parts and ideological interests, I do think that that
(02:18):
is worth giving more credence than something that just like
fits really neatly with what they would want this narrative
to be. So anyway, I apparently they brought this guy
in and Pierro Janine Pierrot is saying like, oh, he
was an equal opportunity.
Speaker 4 (02:31):
He hated both parties.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
That may also be the case, but in any case,
he at least bought into these stop the steal narratives.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
Yeah, the story is deeply weird, and I have all
kinds of skepticism about the story period. But just on
this note, Kendlanian right away, who is very tethered to
kind of like deep state for lack of a better word,
people who are.
Speaker 3 (02:53):
Like careers at the FBI.
Speaker 5 (02:54):
Basically, he's I forget who called him fusion ken with
us because he was reporting so much on the Fusion
GPS stuff.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Maybe that's a.
Speaker 5 (03:01):
Glenn greenwaldism back in the Russia collusion days. But he
reported right away before the suspect was named, but when
we knew that there had been an arrest, that he
had quote anarchist leaning, anarchist leanings, and that was sourced
to two people with knowledge. And now Cash batalent And and
Bongino are getting asked about all of this. They're getting
(03:22):
asked about the fact that this guy worked for his
dad's bail bond company that worked with Benjamin Crump, very
you know, ideological attorney from the left as they were
bailing out immigrants in jail. And they're not going much further.
And now we get this that he's also stopped to steal,
and Patalent Bongino are kind of punting on it and saying,
(03:45):
we don't want to interfere in the legal process. So
I think Bongino has said this is chapter one of
a ten to twenty chapter book.
Speaker 3 (03:52):
And so just over the last five days, everyone's.
Speaker 5 (03:54):
Like, well, so what's actually going on right now is
what is actually happening with Brian Cole who was discovered
seemingly out of nowhere with information that Patalan Bongino said
existed at the FBI for years. And if you read
through the affidavit, they're essentially connecting the dots between phone records,
(04:18):
license plates, records purchases, hardware purchases, so pipe end caps,
things that are really specific, wires, that sort of thing.
Also though, that were bought after January sixth, So the
affidavit list out all of these purchases, a couple of
them that go into January late January, after January sixth.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
So it's a very very strange.
Speaker 5 (04:38):
The entire story right now is strange, and it could
be cleared up fairly quickly if the FBI opens up
and explain some of these inconsistencies and just you know,
question marks. But right now, I mean there's just such
a vacuum of clear explanations. It's like, what the hell
is the story supposed to be?
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Yeah, well, and if we think about a motive and why,
it would make sense if you're a stop the steal
person to you know, plan a bomb, both of the
DNC and the RNC. Like the DNC part, Okay, that's obvious, right,
you're you know, you're mad that the election was stolen,
you think they were complicit whatever.
Speaker 4 (05:13):
But I mean there was a lot.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Of upset too at the mainstream Republican Party in a
sense that like they weren't doing enough to go along with,
you know, to just quote unquote stop the steal and
to go along with Trump's election lies and delusions.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
So it's it does.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Make a level of sense that if that is your motivation,
you would be going after both the DNC and the
RNC and just generally looking to cause fear and chaos
on that particular day. Another, Uh, I don't know if
you could call it funny, but whatever you want to
call this ironic, Yeah, we'll call it amusing.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Put D two up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
Element of this is it's possible that with Trump's very
broad pardoning of the J six rioters, that he may
have accidentally also pardoned this guy. So this says mister Trump,
in one of his first official acts after returning to
the White House this year, issued a grand clemency to
the nearly sixteen hundred rioters charging connection with the Capitol attack.
(06:15):
His clemency proclamation was extraordinarily broad, covering all defendants accused
or convicted of quote offenses related to events that occurred
at or near the US Capital on January sixth, twenty
twenty one, at or near it is possible defense lawyers
will ultimately try to argue that the placing of the
pipe bombs should also be covered by mister Trump's proclamation.
(06:39):
I'm not a lawyer, but I mean it seems like
they could definitely make that case because offenses related to event.
I mean, it was certainly related to the events. It
certainly occurred at or near the US capital. It was
on January sixth, So I don't know. I mean, maybe technically,
did he actually place the bombs on January fifth.
Speaker 5 (06:59):
Yes, but I think that might still be covered because
it's add or neared. I mean, they were discovered on
January six with timers that I bet are going to
be argued. I mean, that's another very strange part of this.
It looks like one hour. I mean, if people haven't
seen the pictures of the bomb, I keep telling everybody
of the pipe bombs. I keep telling people to google
them because they are the most cartoonish, looking like looney
(07:19):
tunes as devices, where they had kitchen timers strapped like
literal oven timers strapped to these pipes, and with like
the wires on the outside and all of that, and
so these look like one hour timers. So are the
timers being controlled remotely to detonate on January sixth. That
could be a pretty crucial question because if the administration
(07:40):
wants to put screws to this guy, they're going to
want to say that these devices were created, were viable.
We've already seen them hinting at that for January sixth,
so it might not be a wiggle room on the date. Actually,
if the date is the problem, because it seems like
what they're trying to insist is that January six these
were intent to disrupt the process.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
Yeah, so I don't know, that's an interesting one. We'll
definitely continue to follow those developments.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
Emily.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Can you talk a little bit about some of the
theories that have been percolating on the right and how
the right is responding to these developments.
Speaker 5 (08:14):
Yeah, let's put D three on the screen. So this
is from an account called at four five nine Crimes,
and this is where you're definitely starting to see the
anti deep state right split into two. So on the
one hand, you have people like Julie Kelly who have
covered this story really closely from the MAGA perspective for
a long time, and does seem to think that Cash
and Dan have the right guy. Then, on the other hand,
(08:38):
you have some other more skeptical folks. I mean, Thomas
Massey has already insisted he's not buying the story. This
thread that we have up on the screen now, it's
called the five year fuse. It's not even this thread,
it's a published article on X. You can do that
now very long that casts doubt on the official story
that Brian Cole is the man in question, and Kyle
(09:00):
Saraff and others still seem to be pretty set on
the idea actually that the person the Blaze named and
then retracted the report about this is D four. We
can go ahead put this up on the screen. Some
people seem to be still pretty serious about and this
was in the four five nine article we just had
on the screen too, that the person that Blaze named
(09:22):
and then retracted the article naming them, that that person
was or is still in their opinion, the likelier suspect.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
And that Cole is a patsy. So that's where this
is going. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (09:38):
I mean, Christal, I honestly have trying to reserve my
judgment in this entire case because the FBI is continuing
to say they don't want to interfere in the legal process.
They don't want to taint Jerry Pools or whatever, and
isn't giving us a lot of information about what's actually
going on.
Speaker 3 (09:52):
It sounds like Cole is cooperating.
Speaker 5 (09:54):
Patel and Bongino have said they've talked to him, they've
interviewed him. They're so sure that he's the right guy.
I mean, what I've soft theory, I think somebody definitely
planted that story with the Blaze, because I've gone back
and read it a couple of times, and I mean
to say, somebody within the government.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
It zeems to me planted that story with the Blaze,
which is a really weird thing to do.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
Obviously to name a specific person who also, by the way,
it had FBI outside the house next to their house
when the Blaze was scoping out the house before the reporting,
which again just it could mean a million different things,
but it does seem to me that there's something very
fishy happening with some faction of people, whether it's at
(10:40):
the FBI or elsewhere, who were trying to deflect, divert
or pin this person knowing that another person was about
to be found. It could be the tickling the wire
approach where they dangled that to the Blaze to see
how Brian Cole reacted, because the story of that, the
Blaze story popped right when they said they had a
(11:01):
break in the case, so four to five weeks ago,
the timeline matches up exactly. So maybe they were trying
to plant a story in the media to see how
Brian Cole would react. No idea, but there's something really
strange happening with this story, and I don't know what
it is. I don't want to speculate recklessly, but I
think clearly if you go back and look at the
Blaze of sourcing, they had people in the government pointing
(11:21):
them in the direction of this person at the CIA
who they've protracted the claim about.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
So weird shit.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Well, I never put a lot of stock in that,
even though you know, I've been following this pipe bomber
thing as well, because it's genuinely like what happened with that,
that was a significant event and then it just.
Speaker 4 (11:40):
Never got resolved.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
And so I ride the Blaze's thing, and I didn't
put much stock in it because it was like based
on like oh a Gate analysis, like her Gate, Matt,
and like this seems like bullshit, like I'm gonna wait
on this one and see what transpires. But they did
have to your point, they claimed to have sources from
inside the administration that we're also saying, well, this is
the the lady, which is part of why when they
were challenged on it, they were so like, no, we
(12:04):
stand by our reporting. They were very adamant. There's also
weird tie in with like Tulsi Gabbard and the oposite
the DNI where they either I don't know if they
originated this or they wrote up it was very unclear
from the reporting they just wrote this up the Blazes
information as like a tip. But in any case, what
(12:25):
I definitely got out of it is that she and
her whole team are very much on the ounce. Apparently
the pissed people off too, because they were looking into
the Tyler Robinson investigation to see if there was anything
else there that was being missed. I think there was
another instance too, where they stuck their noses in and
the way that the rest of the administration was not
happy with. But what did you make of that Toulsi
(12:46):
Gabbard piece.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Yes, so it's very weird.
Speaker 5 (12:49):
What seems to be the case for media reports the
claim at least is that the Blaze went to the
government and maybe the Blaze got a tip from inside
the DNI, Like that's how circul these stupid intelligence leaks
can happen sometimes, right, went to the od and I office,
the Director of National Intelligence Hulsee Gabbard with this idea
(13:10):
that it was this person. Again, they've retracted the claim
that currently works at the CIA insecurity at the time
was in Capitol Police and from there the Blaze then
because the DNI.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Wrote the memo up.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
The Blaze then was able to report the story because
they reported on the DNI memo, which gives you a
hook to say, this is something that exists in the government.
Speaker 3 (13:29):
It's not just crazy speculation. Right, it's a government.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
But that could have been circular. It could have been
them putting it to the d and I. The DNI
writes up a memo, then they're able to report on
Oh there's a memo at the DNI, So this gives
us more credence.
Speaker 3 (13:43):
And it can get even crazier than that.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
Meaning, Okay, so this person who again the claim was
retracted about works at the CIA, worked in Capital Police.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
FBI has been doing this investigation this is the office.
Speaker 5 (13:54):
Of the DN I did another agency plant it with
the Blaze. The Blaze goes to DNI, the memo gets
written up, and because DNI is desperate to also look
like it's solving moving, you know, and getting to the
bottom of a big MAGA case, something that MEGA is
really concerned about, they write up the memo. Blaze reports
(14:16):
on the memo and they were played like a fiddle
by FBI, CIA or someone else. This stuff like sounds crazy,
but it does actually happen. A lot of this happened
with Rusher collusion, So there's something is really off about
this story. Maybe it'll all be cleared up, but so
far it's extremely weird, and I think people moving on
entirely from the Blaze story are probably missing a hint
(14:38):
as to how the like quote deep State was handling
this investigation before Cole was arrested.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Yeah, well, you know, I was sort of skeptical when
the initial announcement about Cole came out. Yeah, we should say,
in terms of the evidence they're claiming to have against him,
they're my understanding three components from what I was reading
an endeamos. So you've got the the assembling of all
these parts right that the constituent elements of the pipe
bombs themselves. Then you have his vehicle is you know,
(15:09):
in the vicinity at the right time, and then you
have cell phone pinging in the relevant towers at the
appropriate points as well. And then I think there's also like,
you know, a stature analysis. He is I think five
to six the person that's roughly the same, which is
why it was credible that maybe is a woman because
it's a relatively small statue person. So those things all fit,
(15:30):
and I think there may be some other, you know, piece,
but those are the big pieces, Okay. I mean that's
pretty significant in terms of a you know, an evidentiary footprint.
I became more convinced that this was the guy when
he told interviewers, Oh, I was you know, I didn't
believe the Trump election claims because, like I said, that
goes very much against what they want the storyline to be.
(15:52):
So if you have a suspect that you are claiming
to have this evidence on and you have a motive
that isn't really the motive that they we're hoping for here,
that to me made it more credible that this is
in fact the individual because if they were going to
set it up and like, you know, blame some person
who's just a patsy and innocent whatever, that is not
(16:14):
necessarily the storyline that they would want to go with,
because the whole point is to satisfy Maga here, and
Maga is definitely not going to be satisfied with someone
who did this basically to avenge President Trump and to
buy into his claims that the election was stolen and
this was a great crime against American people.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
And I also think we should be open to the possibility.
So his grandmother has already come out in the press
and this just hurts to hear this type of thing,
and said that she thinks he's on the spectrum. Yeah,
so I think I'm also open to the possibility that
what we're seeing is a disgusting possibly I'm not saying
this for sure, but possibly exploitation. It's very easy, well
(16:55):
relatively easy, to get people in the spectrum to commit
to crimes that they didn't do in confessions. This is
a documented phenomena, and so it's it's possible there's something
going on with that too. I do not know, keeping
it open to that also, CRYSTIALLL just want to mention
the big picture I think always worth worth keeping in mind,
which is.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
That the implication of a lot of the conspiracy theories.
Speaker 5 (17:20):
And I don't say that pejoratively, because again I'm kind
of open to the idea that there's something weird going
on with this, but the implication is that the FBI
under Trump, by the way, had some role in whipping
up the violence on January sixth.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
That you know, either resources were diverted over.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
To the RNC and the DNC at a critical time
that is actually true, or that in a way that
let security sort of fall apart and people run into
the Capitol and create a pretext for mass surveillance of MAGA,
et cetera. Or that this could have possibly been these
these could have been viable bombs that you know, the
FBI was planning, not even just as a setup, but
(18:01):
to do real damage and violence.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
And that sort of thing just worth saying.
Speaker 5 (18:07):
Again, Yes, there were FBI assets at January sixth.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
True, there are a whole lot.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Of because like half of the oath keepers are fed boys,
all of these, all of these observations are top to
bottom chalk full of Feds.
Speaker 5 (18:23):
Yep, I'm reading from the obviously inspector General for a
just apartment right now, twenty six FBI confidential human sources
were in Washington, DC on January six in connection with
the events of January six is from Michael Horowitz. So, yes,
that did happen a lot of Another important point is
a lot of regular mega people were caught up on
January sixth.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
Saw it with my own eyes.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
It was a lot of people who have since come
and said talked about how they got caught up in
violence and other Now that's not everyone, but some people
really did. And there were you know, average maga folks
who got caught up and did awful, horrible things on
January sixth, and again they've since talked about it. So
(19:06):
the FED surrection quote fed surrection narrative, to the extent
this pipe bomb thing could play into it. I'm open
to the idea that these were planted as some type
of op, but I also just want to say, like
that was not just a quote fed direction. There were
a lot of regular people who got caught up in it,
and I think it I think it diminishes the sort
(19:30):
of lessons from January sixth in a way that I
think people should be really honest about to pretend that
it was all I mean, some of it. I'm curious
if it was whipped up by FEDS. I think that's
essential information. We don't have much, and I think that's
probably possible. But at the same time, there were a
lot of average people who got caught up in this,
and that's I don't think it's I don't think it's
(19:51):
worth whitewashing that either.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Yeah, absolutely, I mean from the left, my perspective is
that you do. I mean, it's without a doubt you
had all these FED informants and assets within a bunch
of these organizations who would have been privy to some
of the planning. But many of those people were also
sympathetic to the right wing causes, Like even as they're
(20:13):
FED assets, are also genuinely sympathetic to right wing causes,
And so I think there was a downplaying of the
risk even as they were getting intel in that this
would turn into the violent, chaotic, you know, disaster that
it ended up being. So that's always been my interest
in understanding, you know, what they knew and when and
(20:36):
how many FED like human intel sources were involved and
were privy to the planning, and if they were there,
then why wasn't Why weren't the Capitol police more prepared?
Why weren't there more precautions taken on that day? So
you know, there's there's that aspect to it as well.
But in terms of the pipe bonb thing, we'll see
(20:57):
where it goes. We'll see what other evidence they're able
to offer you. It'd always be skeptical of government claims,
but like I said before, the fact it does not
fit the narrative they would want it to to me
gave it more credence than, you know, than if it
was just like very neatly like yeah, oh he was
he was anti he was actually trans Tifa. I'd be
(21:17):
like he wrote it on the pipe bombs that he
was trans Tifa. I'd be like, hmmm, gonna I'm gonna live.
Let's let's see some more evidence on that one.
Speaker 5 (21:26):
The bottom line on this is that they need to
tell the full story asap. I get not wanting to
interview the legal process, and I mean, we've seen our
government rush to do dumb stuff over and over again
for public relations purposes. But uh, the story is is
quite odd. So the more information the better.
Speaker 4 (21:41):
Somebody hates the Blaze apparently.
Speaker 3 (21:44):
Or yeah, yeah, I mean somebody said.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
That somebody hates the Blaze and you know, really screwed
them over because they look, I mean, this humiliating for
them that they directly accused this one woman and who
had an alo like a very easy like here's a.
Speaker 4 (22:01):
Video of me playing with buppies on that day. I
guess it wasn't.
Speaker 5 (22:03):
Well that I really was not me so sorry, but
I like, that's another part of the story to me
that I'm just like, what the they this? You name
a person who has this who works at the CIA
and has a literal video at the exact time of
the bomb plant being planted of her with her dog. Yeah,
what the like, it's a it's a lot they're asking
us so far by not filling in the gaps, they're
(22:23):
asking us to believe a lot. So uh hey, I'm
open to it. I want to see the information. It's
a crazy story.
Speaker 2 (22:29):
Yeah, I want to know who's out to get the
Blaze and I just administration.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
One of the what I think one of the benefits
of the last like ten plus years is the right
developing this deep skepticism of uh the like intelligence agencies,
the intelligence community, which seems to be like not unsurprisingly
lapsing as they have retaken.
Speaker 3 (22:48):
The intelligence community.
Speaker 5 (22:49):
But I feel like this is just a great surprising
not I mean, it's a great reminder of why that skepticism. Uh,
those seeds were planted during Trump one that should be
continuing to blossom, to blossom into like permanent skepticism of
these agencies.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
All right, shall we check in with our friend Hillary
Clinton here?
Speaker 3 (23:11):
Why would we not?
Speaker 4 (23:12):
So? What was this conference? She was that? Some like
a do security comp security conference.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Tucker Carlson was also there for reasons I don't really know.
Speaker 5 (23:21):
But in any case, Well, the Global Security Forum in Doha.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Okay, so she's re emerging the Doha Forum. Okay, sorry,
Doha Forum. She has re emerged because she wants us
all to know that we just don't understand what's going
on with Israel Palestine and that the real problem is
not Israel murdering mass murdering babies with our support. The
real problem is TikTok. So she said this, We covered
(23:46):
it last week. Now she was sort of questioned more
aggressively questioned on these comments and asked to defend them,
which she did. Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 6 (23:54):
I want to talk about you now. You've been in
the news this past week for some comments you made
at an event in New York organized by the newspaper
Israel High m And I'm going to paraphrase here, but
you said that smart, well educated young Americans are getting
their news from social media and from TikTok and you
went on to say that this is how they're learning
(24:16):
about what happened on October seventh, and then what happened
in Gaza in the months that followed. And it appears
that this was a broader lament on your part about
declining support among Americans for Israel. That comment has generated
a lot of controversy, and it's led Congressman Rocanna, for example,
to point out that I don't think the answer is
(24:38):
to disparage the intelligence of young people. It's been a
few days now since you've said that. How are you
reflecting on your words and the controversy around it.
Speaker 7 (24:49):
Well, I think it is a provable fact that most
Americans and an even bigger percentage of young Americans, get
their news from social media. If that is controversial, then
people are not paying attention.
Speaker 6 (25:03):
To How is that a bad thing?
Speaker 7 (25:06):
I don't know if it's a bad thing, but I
think it's an incomplete We are not going to implement
the twenty point piece plan or any other piece plan
unless people come with some sense of historical perspective and
empathy about how we're going to move people toward what
I still believe is the only realistic outcome, a two
(25:28):
state solution. And we're not going to get there if
people you know, why when they say from the river
to the sea, and you say what river and what
sea and they don't know which have personally happened in
conversations that I've had.
Speaker 6 (25:40):
And I can't gauge how well young people grapple with history,
but what I can speak to is they're grappling with
the here and now, and they they are witnessing images
that are life streamed, that are coming out every day,
you know. And yes, there is misinformation and disinformation, but
a lot of it is real. And I think there's
a genuine anger in the United States and around the
(26:03):
world that some of that anger is deflected.
Speaker 7 (26:08):
But Robbie, I'm angry about all of the human rights abuses.
I'm angry about all of the excessive use of force.
I'm angry about you know, what happened on October seventh
in Israel and what happened in Gaza. I'm angry about
what Russia is doing in Ukraine. I'm angry about Sudan.
I'm angry about the Eastern Congo. I mean, I think
(26:30):
we should be all looking at the tragedies and the
conflicts that are bringing about so much suffering and be
dealing with them. That's why the National Security Strategy is
not to my liking, because I think the United States
has an important role in trying to resolve these conflicts
and alleviate the suffering and give people a chance to
(26:53):
have peaceful, prosperous lives. That should be our goal, that
is in America's interests. I don't care where in the
world you are, so of course, the suffering in Gaza
is horrific, full stop suffering everywhere is horrific.
Speaker 2 (27:13):
Suffering everywhere is horrific. And I mean she uses a
lot of tactics there that we've seen deployed before. I mean,
first of all, just suffering in Gaza. No attribution of blame,
of course, no attribution of blame on the United States,
no attribution of blame on Israel's if this is just
like a natural disaster that occurred in Oh my gosh,
these poor children, if only someone would do something, but
(27:34):
no direct assignment of blame. That's one thing, and then
the other where the other one of well, suffering everywhere
is horrific with the suggestion, the suggestion always, the subtext
there always is that, well, you only care about this
one because you're anti Semitic is basically the subtext there.
And if you aren't as focused on, you know, other
suffering other places in the world, it can only be
(27:57):
because you're anti Semitic. And also an attempt to sort
of like diffuse and deflect of like, well, of course
they care about that, but I care about other things
as well, So let's talk about those other things and
not so much talk about this one.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
So classic sort of liberal.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
Zionist I would say, deflection tactics. Not to mention the
you know, original assertion from her in the original comments
and reasserted here as well that well, it's just complicated.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
You just don't really understand.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
Yeah, well, I mean there's a little bit of an
irony here in that people who make the argument Clinton
was just laying out about this being rooted in anti Semitism,
and the tell being that people are obsessed with this
particular conflict. You know, people right now are who make
the argument are very upset about this forum being in
(28:43):
Doha and Tucker Carlson going and all of these other
people taking money from Cutter, the United States supporting Cutter.
Speaker 3 (28:52):
Why well, because the United States is involved with Cutter.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
That is the same reason that people are upset, particularly
about Israel Palestine. It's that they don't like they believe
as Americans they have a responsibility to have an obligation
to follow this particular conflict so closely because it is
so heavily dependent on US involvement. Yeah uh, you know,
(29:18):
a fifth of you of Israel's annual military budget. That
might even be an understatement. You know, the the permission
structure that Yahoo was reliant on, whether it was Biden
or Trump to continue prosecuting the war like that is
the reason for the level of attention. And I remember,
you know, obviously, as somebody who is Christian, the treatment
(29:40):
of Christians in Nigeria is like horrifying to me. But
a lot of times that is used by people on
the right to say, see the anti Semits they don't
care what's happening to the Christians in Nigeria. It's like
a couple of months ago, I was like, I'm looking
it up. I'm going to see how much money, how
much aid is in one place versus the other.
Speaker 3 (29:59):
It's not close.
Speaker 5 (30:00):
I mean in terms of like percentage of even if
you look at percentage of animal budgets, what does USAID constitute?
So it's obvious. I mean, it's just it's that line
drives me up a wall. Because, of course it's true
that some anti some anti Semites are completely obsessed with
Israel and will find any reason to criticize Israel at
(30:21):
every turn because they're anti Semitic.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
Of course that's true, but to.
Speaker 5 (30:24):
Impugne the motives of people who care about this particular
conflict because the US has a heavy level of involvement,
it's the same reason people make the arguments about you.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
I mean, it's just Ukraine, Like.
Speaker 5 (30:38):
It's just all it's sophistry dressed up as a sophistication.
And by the way, the guy who's doing that interview,
I was like, wow, I need to look up who
that was because it was.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
Really well handled.
Speaker 5 (30:48):
That was rabb Agra Wall of foreign politary. I was
actually just on his podcast and his voice was familiar.
Speaker 3 (30:54):
I was like, I don't that is.
Speaker 5 (30:56):
Fantastic job sticking it to her and saying this is
different than what you're saying it is.
Speaker 3 (31:03):
Yeah, you said one thing.
Speaker 5 (31:04):
I mean, even asking her about that I thought was
pretty bold, because she's the type of person that's now
seen as like an August states.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Yeah, it's sort of unimpeachable character. Yeah, right, sorts of things.
Speaker 5 (31:17):
Right, people use these opportunities to sort of fawn over her, Yes,
very deferential.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
Yeah, so I thought that was actually really impressive.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
You know what I've witnessed too, is I mean, first
of all, to your point, there is just no other
country that we have a comparable relationship to as Israel. No, like,
there is just no other country. That is part of
what makes the Somali memes so funny.
Speaker 4 (31:39):
Yes, right, it's.
Speaker 2 (31:40):
Because they're they're postularly like they have all this influence,
all this money behind them and a packed back. Of
course they don't, right, not nearly on the scale. If
they do nothing like the scale of what Israel has
in terms of their influence operation here, in terms of
what has been lockstep bipartisan support for decades that is
only now coming unraveled. And so there's just nothing comparable
(32:00):
that you could point to of another country that has
similar level of influence, similar type relationship as we do
with this one nation.
Speaker 4 (32:09):
So that's one thing too.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
But you know, I'll tell you as someone on the left,
what I've witnessed is as people have had their eyes
open to our malign influence in.
Speaker 4 (32:17):
Terms of, you know, the horrors that are being perpetrated.
Speaker 2 (32:19):
In Gaza, it has made them more open to, Okay, well,
what is what's going on in Sudan? Because you know,
with URSAF and this horrific massacres that they're perpetrating, and
we aren't the ones directly sending those bombs, but our ally,
the UAE is backing them, and we are certainly in
a position to put pressure on them to end their
(32:43):
support of OURSAF. We are certainly in a position to
use our influencer. And so what I've witnessed isn't that
people are like, oh, I only care about Gaza the
exclusion of everything else. In fact, what I've witnessed is
people sort of that being one area where they go
in really deep, and that opens their eyes to other
ways that we're impacting events around the world, and yes,
(33:04):
other horrors that are being perpetrated as well, and to
sort of expand their horizons rather than narrowing their focus
just to this one place.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
What was it?
Speaker 5 (33:13):
I mean, of course, it wasn't anti Semitism that made
people mad about what was happening in Nicaragua and Al Salvador.
It was US support, right like in the nineteen eighties,
it was US support the seventies, the eighties, it was
literally the very obvious issue of US support for backing death.
Speaker 3 (33:29):
Squads all that sort of thing.
Speaker 5 (33:31):
And again that does I think as far as like that,
it was a pretty similar side by side of people
who were furious at this at the US, not because
they really in every case, it wasn't that people were
sympathetic to the Sandinistas.
Speaker 3 (33:49):
They were like average Americans.
Speaker 5 (33:50):
Congress said that we could no longer fund it because
average Americans were like, hey, this is pretty bad, Like,
you know, they are priests that are being killed by
people using US weapons and US money and getting US backing.
So it wasn't just like sand Anista's sympathists who were
like upset about that. It was people who were upset
(34:10):
about cruelty backed by US support.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
Yeah, the US past dollar is going to that evil.
Speaker 5 (34:16):
Yes, and so argue against the actual argument. Stop making
suit up. It's not helping anyone.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
What about this? What about that?
Speaker 2 (34:24):
You don't get it, It's complicated, the problems TikTok, like
all of this. It just feels so tired at this point,
I know too and out of at this late date,
so on a touch, so tired and just really quite pathetic.
I mean, I think if the biggest thing is, you know,
Hillary Clinton is not a person without knowledge and skill.
He's been in the political arena for a lot of
(34:45):
years at this point. And for her for this to
be the best that she can do on behalf of
the Zionist cause, I think shows you how much all
of their arguments have just been thoroughly discredited, a really destroyed.
And that's why you see, you know, within the Democratic
Party support for Israel. I mean, it's dead, it's done,
(35:07):
it's over, and you're going to see that. You're already
seeing this playing out in a lot of Democratic primaries
right now. It is an earthquake within the Democratic Party.
It's an earthquake among young people in a really bipartisan manner.
Speaker 5 (35:19):
Well, I was just going to say, I mean Hillary
Clinton is like a seen as a leading figure in
the Democratic Party, not without reason. I mean, she's the
presidential nominee ten years ago, and she is so like
clearly out of touch with where the party is. I mean,
has she talked to a significant number of young Democrats
(35:40):
because she's calling them anti Semitic right here, Like she's
she's calling them anti Semitic.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
Or stupid and stupid yea, yeah, yeah, And.
Speaker 5 (35:46):
It's just such a giant cope rather than actually grappling
with it's not making their It's not making the situation
any easier at all. It's like how Republicans use we
were talking about this earlier in the show Obamacare to
not cope with healthcare problem. Like people actually want a
better healthcare system.
Speaker 6 (36:03):
Right.
Speaker 5 (36:03):
You can't just keep saying repeal Obamacare, repeal Obamaca. You
have to actually deal with their argument.
Speaker 2 (36:09):
Mainstream Democrats are used to these sorts of arguments coming
at them from like a fringe group.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
And her husband code pink.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Yeah, her husband, you know, really like pioneered the strategy
of like punching left right and using that as a
way to bolster his credibility, and they just have this
instinct for always doing that, and they haven't realized the way,
or she hasn't anyway realize the way the ground has
shifted where it's like, no, this isn't just you know, this.
Speaker 4 (36:36):
Isn't just Bernie supporters or Bernie bros.
Speaker 2 (36:39):
Or fringe lefts or democratics like this is this is
the entire Democratic Party at this point that agrees with
this position. And you are in line with maybe maybe
like ten percent of where the Democratic Party base is
at this point. So when you're punching left right now,
you're punching like ninety percent of the party.
Speaker 5 (36:58):
Another good exempt of why that Agrowell question was important
because if people don't publicly push her on that, she
doesn't even know. Yeah, I mean like she just attributes
it all the anti semitis right, idiocy? Right when you
have like the editor in chief of Foreign Policy doing
it on stage and it's going to.
Speaker 4 (37:14):
Go viral, Yeah, patronizing.
Speaker 3 (37:17):
Yeah, you have to cope with that, all right.
Speaker 4 (37:21):
Shall we get to Sidney Sweeney here excited about this, Let's.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
F three up on the screen, and then we'll get
to what is actually a bigger story, but the Sidney
Sweeney one we're gonna start with because it's more fun.
Speaker 4 (37:31):
In any case, You're.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Use Sidney Sweeney to talk about anti trust.
Speaker 2 (37:34):
Yeah, that's all right, that's right, and Tim Dillon I
made that connection earlier as well.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
With the vibe shift.
Speaker 2 (37:39):
Yes, okay, So you guys will remember she did this
interview who was what was the outlet? It was like
uh gq right that she sat down with the reason
of this interview that went super viral, especially on the
right because she got asked about the eugenics adjacent nature
of the American Eagle ad that she cut, and she
(38:02):
said at that point she was like, when I have
something to say on an issue, you'll hear from me,
and sort of like shut her down in that moment.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
So I was like, oh, this is amazing, blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (38:13):
Then her movie that came out totally bombed at the
box office, the one about a like queer boxer that
she put on a bunch of weight for.
Speaker 4 (38:21):
It was very sort of like artsy film. Hemsen.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
I don't know if it was good or bad, but
I know it did very poorly at the box office
in any case, Now she's talking to People magazine, and
her tone is a little bit different here, Emily, she says,
I was honestly surprised by the reaction. I did it
because I love the genes and love the brand. I
don't support the views some people chose to connect to
the campaign. Me being one of those people, I have
(38:44):
a sign motives and labels.
Speaker 4 (38:46):
To me that just aren't true.
Speaker 2 (38:49):
So she keeps a veg right. She doesn't directly disavow
like eugenics or MAGA or white nationalism or any of that,
any of the sort of like broad groups that have
embraced her. She doesn't directly disavow them, but clearly very
different tone being struck here and her wanting to, you know,
sort of clean up what I guess she's she and
(39:11):
her pr team because all these these actors, like you
really shouldn't think of them as individual people, you know,
you should think of.
Speaker 4 (39:18):
Them as like a whole team and a brand. It's
a business, it's a corporation.
Speaker 3 (39:22):
It's Sidney Sweeney Inc. Exactly.
Speaker 4 (39:23):
And so clearly Sidney Sweeney Inc.
Speaker 2 (39:25):
Decided that this direction was not going all that particularly
well for her, and there needed to be a recalibration.
Speaker 5 (39:31):
It's so funny because this is given as a statement
to People magazine. Yes, right, so it's not like she
put this on Instagram or anything. This is a complete
like why does it sound like it's not Sidney Sweeney
because it's not Sydney's.
Speaker 4 (39:43):
Sweet workshopped r yeah statement.
Speaker 5 (39:46):
She goes on to say, this might even be chatchepute.
Anyone who knows me knows that I'm trying to bring
people together. I'm against hate and divisiveness. In the past,
my stance has been to never respond to negative or
positive press, But recently I have come to realize that
my silent regarding this issue has only widened the divide,
not closed it.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
Not yet. Yeah, actually not all.
Speaker 5 (40:06):
Then she goes say, so, I hope this new year
brings more focus on what connects us instead of what
divides us.
Speaker 3 (40:11):
I mean, go on a statement to People magazine.
Speaker 5 (40:15):
I don't even know, Like if this were in politics,
you know, you wouldn't run with the statement as news
because it's so it's such a pr It's like running
a press release for Sidney Sweeney.
Speaker 3 (40:27):
Basically to just go with this as a quote exclusive,
which is what People magazine.
Speaker 5 (40:32):
Did I get it, it's entertainment news, But yes, clearly
somebody on the team was like Sidney Sweeney with gen Z,
which is true. Gen Z girls are kind of her
should be I would imagine her target demo, but.
Speaker 4 (40:47):
I don't think they are.
Speaker 3 (40:49):
Well, I mean, I'm sure it's men.
Speaker 5 (40:50):
But like for selling genes, you would want your value
to American Eagle is that you're selling women's genes. And
so if she wants to keep getting deals like the
American Eagle one, she has to have some appeal with
younger women, and younger women are like liberal, like increasingly liberal.
Speaker 4 (41:07):
There outside was then die in that fight?
Speaker 3 (41:09):
Oh my god ten times out of ten.
Speaker 5 (41:11):
Yeah, no, Like I literally was just writing a piece
about this, like young women are They're accelerating to the left,
and so the vibe shift did not.
Speaker 3 (41:20):
Come for young women. The vibe shift came for young men,
not young women.
Speaker 5 (41:23):
And so clearly Sidney Sweeney's teams like and I wonder,
actually if this is influenced at all by American Eagle.
Middle of Christmas season, Christmas shopping season, people should be asking.
Speaker 3 (41:32):
For the American Egle jeans.
Speaker 5 (41:33):
I definitely got American Egle jeans for Christmas twenty years ago,
so that I wonder if it has something to do
with American Eagle sales too.
Speaker 4 (41:42):
Could be, could be?
Speaker 2 (41:43):
I mean, I am curious what kind of factored into this.
And you know, I mean in terms of her personal views,
it almost doesn't really matter. Like she did she registered
as a Republican in Florida, so we know she has
and recently so like during you know, Trump two point
zero and mad and the Vibe Shift and whatever, she
registers as a Republican in Florida, which is a choice.
(42:05):
So you know, I mean think we have a general
sense of what her political leanings are. She comes from
a conservative family whatever. I do not buy that she
and her whole team because again we're not just talking
about Sidney Sweeney. We're talking about a whole team that
they did not realize what they were flirting with in
that American Eagle at I think they knew.
Speaker 4 (42:23):
I think they were fully in.
Speaker 2 (42:25):
With the Vibe Shift, thought she could be a sort
of pin up for the right and was by the way,
and already was occupying that space. So they thought, okay,
this is a good way to lean into this. This
is where the culture is going this will help us,
like this is where we are now, and so we're
going to play with these concepts that are in the air,
that are a little edgy and controversial for fun and profit.
And so she did that, and you know, thought that
(42:48):
that was like the lane for her to occupy up
until recently, when you have you have a political vibe shift,
which is why I connected us to Tim Dillon and
his comments. You have a very clear political vibe shift.
Whatever vibe shift young men had been caught up that
in that is also dissipated. I mean, the numbers for
Trump among young men are almost as devastating as they
(43:09):
are among young women.
Speaker 5 (43:11):
So on cultural issues, young men are still like attracted
to certain things that young women aren't, like certain cultural questions.
Speaker 4 (43:20):
They're still more liberal than every other generation.
Speaker 5 (43:22):
They absolutely are, just meaning that there's a golf culturally
between young men and young women. Like young men have
different opinions on like trans immigration, like they tend to
still be polarized from women.
Speaker 2 (43:33):
On those maybe the case, but in terms of affirmative
support for MAGA, no, that's totally different.
Speaker 4 (43:37):
Dead and gone right.
Speaker 2 (43:39):
And if you're doing an American Eagle brand I mean,
she really created a brand that wasn't really pitching herself
to young women. It really was leaning hard into the
male case. The problem with that is, number one, there's
no loyalty there. Right the minute you put on some
weight and do an artsy film, they're like, oh my god,
it's like, what are you doing.
Speaker 4 (43:57):
That's not what I'm here for.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
Right, You're an athlete, Like.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
The minute you you know, you hit a certain age,
it's over for you, or show any sign of aging,
like it's over. You know, if that's what you're catering
towards you, there's not gonna be any loyalty or longevity there.
And if you're trying air American Eagle carries, you know,
genes for men and women or you know, young people
of any gender, so the male audience matters there. But yeah,
if you are wanting to sell to women, you're really
(44:26):
sort of isolating yourself and ostracizing yourself from that part
of the market. So, you know, I don't know that
the box office bomb, and this wasn't her first box
office bomb, by the way, that that really had anything
directly to do with like the magaflirtation and all these
sorts of things. But maybe her team feels like it did,
maybe she feels like it did. Maybe the dynamics was
(44:47):
Zundaya were also like personally taxing for her. I don't know,
but to me, it's sort of emblematic of a movement
in the culture that we see in other you know,
in other spaces as well.
Speaker 5 (44:59):
Yeah, I mean gets into our next story, because Hollywood
is still not like an easy place to be seen
as quote pro Trump and I bet people were uncomfortable
working for Sidney Sweeney with this new reputation that she
was getting as someone who's like hardcore Maga and is
like a almost a mascot for Maga.
Speaker 3 (45:21):
So I'm sure some of that was uncomfortable.
Speaker 5 (45:22):
But just to get into the anti trust component, we
can but f two on the screen.
Speaker 3 (45:28):
I'm sorry, we can. We can. One second.
Speaker 5 (45:30):
We actually have a clip of Donald Trump, who was
on the red carpet of the Kennedy Center Honors last night.
Speaker 3 (45:34):
Which he hosted.
Speaker 5 (45:35):
We should know Donald Trump hosted the Kennedy Center Honors.
Speaker 3 (45:39):
Maybe that'll be a presidential tradition. So glad that Joe
Biden didn't do that.
Speaker 5 (45:43):
Actually, we could have gotten some great moments out of
Joe Biden attempting a late night Kennedy Center honors.
Speaker 3 (45:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (45:49):
So Trump is asked about this attempted merger between Netflix
and Warner Brothers and says something very interesting on the
red carpet last night at the Kennedy Center.
Speaker 3 (45:59):
Let's roll this pretty allowed to buy Warner Brothers.
Speaker 8 (46:02):
Should Well, that's a question. They have a very big
market share, and when they have Warner Brothers, you know
that chair goes up a lot. So I don't know
that's going to be for some economists to tell. And
also and I'll be involved in that decision too, but
they have a very big market share.
Speaker 5 (46:17):
Did he make any guarantees to you about the merger
if they do merge? Now, No, not at all.
Speaker 8 (46:22):
He came up. He was in the Oval office last week.
I have a lot of respect for him. He's a
great he's a great person. But he's done one of
the greatest jobs in the history of movies and other things.
And he's got a lot of interesting things happening aside
from what you're talking about. But it is a big
market share. Here's a question, though.
Speaker 5 (46:42):
So that is I mean, he said I'll be involved
in that decision. There you go now we can put
F two on the screen. This is the Netflix CEO.
Not a surprising story at all, but this is Ted
Strandos meeting with According to Bloomberg, Donald Trump in the
Oval Office just mentioned actually in the clip, and so
(47:03):
the connection was any sweety crystal. Basically is that the
vibe shift sort of came last year. Will remember, like
this exact time last year, it looked like Hollywood, Silicon Valley,
We're all getting swept up in kind of reckoning with
the reality that they'd alienated a lot of the country
and that Donald Trump was going to be mercurial and
was going to wield his power where he wanted you
(47:27):
to kind of come kiss the ring in an aggressive
way and then.
Speaker 3 (47:31):
He would reward you in reward you back.
Speaker 5 (47:36):
Now, this deal, this attempt a merger, which looks like
a pretty clear cut violation of the Clayton Act, although
another that stuff is super clear cutcuse it depends on
how you define market share.
Speaker 3 (47:45):
And all of that.
Speaker 5 (47:46):
It's already getting criticism from Mike Lee and Republicans and
it's getting absolutely panned across Hollywood. There is no love
in Hollywood for this. I mean, it's predicted to absolutely
decimate theaters. You could under and why. But people are
pissed about this. It is not going well for Netflix.
Speaker 2 (48:05):
So far well, and we've got a new factor to
add in as well. I think we can add this
and post this New York Times tearshet because we're just
learning now. Paramount, headed by David Ellison, is making a
hostile bid for Warner Brothers Discovery.
Speaker 4 (48:18):
I'll just read from this tear sheet.
Speaker 2 (48:20):
Paramount on Monday mounted a hostile takeover bid for Warner
Brothers Discovery, a brazen attempt to secure a Hollywood prize
snatched away by Netflix. Last week, Netflix announced an eighty
three billion dollar deal to buy a big part of
Warner Brothers Discovery and Friday, in an agreement approved by
the boards of both companies. In a news release on Monday,
Paramount went around the Warner Brothers Discovery board and straight
(48:41):
to shareholders with what it called a superior offer. Paramount
said it would pay thirty dollars per share in cash,
valuing the company around one hundred and eight billion dollars
including debt. Said it was going to shareholders because the
board of Warner Brothers Discovery is pursuing an inferior proposal
that would lead to a challenging regulatory approval process. Paramount
(49:01):
has offered to buy all of Warner Brothers Discovery, including
the Warner Brothers Movie Studio, the HBO Max streaming service,
in a portfolio of cable channels, including CNN. The cable
channels are not part of the Netflix deal. We believe
our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. David Ellison, the
chief executive Paramount, CID a press release.
Speaker 4 (49:19):
It is in the best.
Speaker 2 (49:20):
Interests of the creative community, consumers, and the movie theater industry.
Warner Brothers Discovery had no immediate comment. How about none
of these would be in the.
Speaker 4 (49:30):
Best interest of creating a stronger Hollywood.
Speaker 3 (49:33):
How ants stopped mergers?
Speaker 2 (49:34):
Yeah, I mean this is this was expected from David Ellison,
and this has been a concern both because obviously of
the corporate consolidation, but also because of Ellison's ideological leanings.
So he is pro Trump's quotes, Trump ally very zionist,
pro Israel. You know, we've seen what's going on at CBS.
I mean, he's you know, so we're the idea here
(49:56):
is you have a consolidation of all these media properties.
Now under and like affirmative avowed Trump supporter, and so
more sort of like state influence on media bleeding over
into these other outlets, including HBO, Max, including CNN, So
obviously really significant there.
Speaker 4 (50:13):
So now you, I guess, have these.
Speaker 2 (50:15):
Two rival bids and even more uncertainty about what may
ultimately happen here, right, And what's the goal?
Speaker 5 (50:21):
I mean, that's Matt stolar over a big which is
the essential newsletter to read if you don't on these questions,
and he's been following the Hollywood stuff a lot, absolutely
open question as to what the goal of Netflix is
with this merger. You have to basically freeze the assets
of the competitor that you're trying to merge with. In
(50:43):
a case like this is what does David Ellison think
is going to come of this? Is he trying to
block Netflix from hurting the competitiveness of Warner like this is?
This is succession level drama, obviously, And I wonder what
we're seeing a little bit is somebody like Sarandos And
(51:03):
maybe you could argue even Ellison, who, by the way,
Trump did get to green light the new rush Hour movie,
So something good will.
Speaker 3 (51:10):
Come of this that actually happened. I don't know if
you get did you guys cover that like we did it?
Speaker 4 (51:15):
But I did see that it happened yet like.
Speaker 5 (51:18):
Just the perfect Trump story in every level, but it did.
It was there an overreach that has spawned serious backlash
that ends up actually hurting them more than it helps
them because they've overreached.
Speaker 3 (51:33):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (51:33):
That's I think an open question right now. And I
think the sort of way that we can make this
full circle with Sidney Sweety is that none of what
everyone was feeling this time last year was permanent, and
could the Trump administration have come in a second time
around and maintained that cultural momentum. I don't know, but
it's kind of an interesting counterfactual to ponder.
Speaker 4 (51:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (51:55):
Well, and they also came in with a lot of
you know, gestures towards the anti Tross movement and some
you know, even personnel decisions that were like oh maybe
you know, and some of the anti trust moments started
under the first Trump administration and now that's just been
basically completely abandoned. And certainly where tech world is concerned,
I mean, they're just given whatever whatever they want, and
(52:16):
if you can get in with good with Trump, you're
going to get your deals approved, and that's pretty much
how he operates. Now, they can use it as a
weapon against you if they hate you, then I'm you know,
I don't think anyone would be surprised to see them
using it as a weapon instead of just using it
as like a neutral enforcement mechanism. And that's really one
of the things that Trump has completely not to say
that the government's been perfect in terms of being neutral,
(52:39):
but the general expectation was that the government bureaucracy would
be neutral in its adjudication of these questions. And Trump
doesn't even pretend that that's a goal, like that's just
out the window.
Speaker 5 (52:52):
So and he says he's going to be involved in
the decision. So there's another component of it. If you
want to keep getting in Donald Trump's good graces, you
know how to do it.
Speaker 3 (53:00):
Apparently the Oval office is open.
Speaker 2 (53:02):
Yeah, not hard to figure that one out, all right, guys, Well,
thank you so much for watching, Emily, Thank you for
filling in today.
Speaker 5 (53:08):
I'm always happy to happy to help pick up Sager
slack and then to call him out for slacking. I'll
never just do it out of the goodness of my own.
Speaker 4 (53:17):
I know he appreciates that about you.
Speaker 3 (53:18):
I'll do it to roast him. That's my real motivation.
Speaker 2 (53:23):
I enjoy that aspect of your personality as well. I
think it should be we'll see how Sager's doing tomorrow.
Should be me and Sager tomorrow, but we'll see. In
any case, you guys have a great day.
Speaker 4 (53:33):
We're going to do.
Speaker 2 (53:34):
I'm going to do the AMA with producer Mac I
think because Emily has to jump. But if you want
to get access to those live amas, make sure you
sign up at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 4 (53:44):
See you guys soon,
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
The Brothers Ortiz
The Brothers Ortiz is the story of two brothers–both successful, but in very different ways. Gabe Ortiz becomes a third-highest ranking officer in all of Texas while his younger brother Larry climbs the ranks in Puro Tango Blast, a notorious Texas Prison gang. Gabe doesn’t know all the details of his brother’s nefarious dealings, and he’s made a point not to ask, to protect their relationship. But when Larry is murdered during a home invasion in a rented beach house, Gabe has no choice but to look into what happened that night. To solve Larry’s murder, Gabe, and the whole Ortiz family, must ask each other tough questions.