2/7/25: Steve Bannon WH Correspondent On Elon, Trump, GOP Infighting!!

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

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

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

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

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

Speaker 4 (00:30):
As somebody who is generally supportive of Maga in there
pressing the White House Press Secretary of an opportunity to
do it, how are you thinking about that?

Speaker 5 (00:41):
We are forthright and our support for President Trump, And
I'm aware that maybe that's hard to square with the
idea of like being a journalist.

Speaker 6 (00:47):
I don't want to be a Trump cheerleader for four years.

Speaker 5 (00:49):
I don't really find any intellectual merit in doing that either,
if you can tell, like I love digging into documents,
I don't like standing there and being like Oh my.

Speaker 6 (00:56):
Gosh, we took over Gossa.

Speaker 4 (00:57):
I look at what Elon Musk is doing getting rid
of Usai, the amazing, cathartic, beautiful, a masterpiece. At the
same time, you now have like a genuine oligarch running
loose in the government.

Speaker 6 (01:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:08):
I don't think it's great to have unelected billionaires running
any government agency. But spare me, mainstream media the performative
outrage that you guys either a care about the constitution
or me that you care about unelected bureaucrats or billionaires
running government. So it's the framing of it. I sort
of rejected.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
Right over here at Counterpoints. You know that we like
to have long form conversations with people in the journalist ministry,
find out where they came from, where they're going. Independent journalists, independent, independent.

Speaker 4 (01:41):
Journalists Foratus, corporate apparatus.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
We had Ezra New York Times loves to call itself independent.
That's true, which it technically is technically like they own themselves.
That's right, fair enough. We have my dropsite colleague Jeremy
Scahill and Matt Tibon. That was a fun one. Today
we've got another fun one. We're joined by Natalie Winters,
who is the White House correspondent for the war Room podcast.

Speaker 6 (02:05):
Thank you so much for joining us.

Speaker 4 (02:06):
And I just want to say I think one blind
spot in DC, especially among Republicans, and maybe you've run
into this snadly. I'm curious. This might be a good
place to start to start. They don't realize.

Speaker 6 (02:16):
How powerful war Room is.

Speaker 4 (02:19):
If you look at the podcast charts, war Room is
routinely near the very very top. It is an extremely.

Speaker 1 (02:25):
Powell about the numbers, like sure, with an internal look
because it does seem like because when you guys ask
your posse or what asked the posse to do? Stuff
like the phone lines melt down, so the numbers got
to be big. What can you put some like what
are your highest numbers? What are your average numbers?

Speaker 6 (02:45):
Sure?

Speaker 5 (02:46):
Sure, I feel like it's a dark moment when you
just called me a journalist to be.

Speaker 6 (02:52):
Independent, Right, I guess I got it. I got to
accept it.

Speaker 5 (02:57):
Look, I think our audience is so powerful for two reasons,
quality and quantity. What do I mean by that? We're
first and foremost a TV show. We're on Real America's Voice,
which is in I think nine million plus homes.

Speaker 6 (03:09):
I think our average viewership average is.

Speaker 5 (03:12):
At least around seven hundred thousand plus or mine is
probably a few hundred thousand. But that's just people who
are watching on a traditional TV that excludes all streaming,
all Rumble, all Twitter.

Speaker 1 (03:22):
Live, watching lives Honest TV.

Speaker 6 (03:25):
Yeah yeah, but that's.

Speaker 5 (03:26):
Not including like I said, Rumble, which is another you know,
sixty thousand or so Twitter, the clips that go viral
after everything like that. So it's just a massive audience.
But to the quality. And I don't mean that our
viewers are better than yours. I just mean in terms
of engagement and grassroots activism, there really has never been

(03:47):
I think a more impactful or powerful audience. I would say,
just ask Kevin McCarthy. But any time that Steve Bannon,
who I always feel like what I call him my
co host, I am demeaning him.

Speaker 6 (03:57):
It's Steve A. K. Bannon's war room. But they will
do it.

Speaker 5 (04:01):
I've literally met audience members who take days off of
work to make phone calls, to call the Senate, to
call members of Congress, and in some ways I think
it's interesting. Actually, just last night they had Azra Eleven
of Indivisible on Rachel Mattaw talking about their sort of
resistance tactics, right, and they want to be burning down
the phone lines, they want to be writing off.

Speaker 6 (04:21):
Eds in the local papers.

Speaker 5 (04:22):
They have a very systematic sort of characterization of how
to push back.

Speaker 6 (04:26):
Through their manuals.

Speaker 5 (04:27):
And I think war Room has sort of culturally appropriated
a lot of the LEFS tactics, which I guess if
goes back to sort of McConnell in the early like
two thousands, right, so you know, you kind of a
debate over whose tactics they were. But I think Steve
Bannon has really capitalized on the art of the phone call.
And you know, I'm friends with a lot of members.
They're always texting us saying thank you for giving us

(04:48):
the cover to stand in the breach, to hold the line,
particularly against CRS kind of omnibus spending bills. So our
audience really really does have power. I'm honored to even
be able to speak to them. But I think people
really underestimate the power of our audience. But like I said,
I just asked Kevin McCarthy about the power of our No, it's.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Real, no, no, no doubt about it. It seemed like
the audience got steamrolled a bit by Musk in the
So let's talk. Let's start, well, actually, let's start with
the daily mail attack on you, because I think that's
a lot of people. That's what a lot of people
are going to be curious about. Put up this. You
can put up this first element and then we'll get
to some more serious stuff. So if you're just listening

(05:31):
to this on the podcast, that this is a daily
mail headline, You're not a hostess at Hooters. You work
at the White House. Kennedy's maternal warning to the scantily
clad correspondent moaning about her fashion critics. So walk us
through what what happened here? So this goes back to
the new White House opens up, uh, it's press briefing
room to non traditional folks. Breitbart, you know, got a

(05:54):
little seat along the side there. Other people. They said,
go ahead and apply. I applied for one, you know,
I used to I had permanent ish badge under Obama,
then Biden for a while, then they took away a
bunch of badges from Yeah, so now I've wonder of
mine was one of those. They're like, everybody has to reapply,

(06:16):
and I was like, I'm not reapplying because KJP is
like not answering any questions, I'm just going to go
to the state department, like that's stop wasting my time.
So I didn't even reapply, but I have applied to
this new one. So they're letting in new people. So
then they let you in, and then there's this social
media meltdown over how you looked? What was how walk
us through what happened?

Speaker 4 (06:36):
And before let me also ask because it was a
lot deeper than how you look, how you look, and
maybe you can win on this. It was even just
the fact of you being there was controversial to the
old guard, who really is uncomfortable.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
And in the old guard's defense, like, as you just
said yourself, you're brand new in thinking of yourself even
as a journalist. Yeah, sure, so you can imagine other
journalists are like waiting.

Speaker 5 (06:59):
And then look, I think the way you framed it
is the right way, right the buried lead. The significant
angle of the story is that new media is in
there in oppressed briefing room that for so long has
sort of been an active or really I think just
sort of propaganda esque in terms of not answering real questions,
kicking out journalists that they disagree with, and now President
Trump and Caroline Levet are taking historic steps to put

(07:20):
in new media voices. And I think the story should
have been, Wow, Steve Bannon's war room is in the
White House. Yeah, it's a controversial twenty three year old
girl who's maybe said some edgy things, which I all
stand by, But that should have been the story. So
I sort of viewed it when it really started to
I think snowball and become.

Speaker 6 (07:38):
A bigger and bigger thing.

Speaker 5 (07:39):
It was like article after article after article, and the
Kennedy piece, which I think is a ridiculous accusation to
say that I was dressed like a hostess at Hooters.

Speaker 6 (07:47):
I don't think Kashmir sweater with like Oli I was
gonna say.

Speaker 5 (07:51):
I think like all of Fox has that, Alison olivia'sweat
it's like the most basic, Like I'm very basic. It's
the most basic swetner that exists. I think that was
obviously outlandish, but more precisely, I just think it's sort
of what Rather going back to the original story, they
had said that I was being slammed on Instagram in

(08:13):
comments for saying that I was dressed and appropriately. I've
gone through my comments the typical haters who will always
comment on anything I wear or anything I do. Sure,
they said what they said, but overwhelmingly it was an
outpouring of support from our audience and from people who
are really truly excited to have war room in the
press briefing room. Like I said, our audience played a
critical role in President Trump's victory. So they saw I

(08:33):
was like, Wow, this is amazing. So I know that's
what the Daily Mail does, that's their business model, the
rage bait, the clickbait headlines. But it wasn't like I
was being slammed for what I was wearing. So when
I saw the stories continue to pile up, and then
the Kennedy article, which was just so offensive and if
you read it, she refers to herself as like a
fellow hot person and saying that I showed up to
the White House trying to look like Barbie. Just all

(08:55):
these really bizarre attacks, I was like, this feels like
more to impune my character, our show and make us
seem unseerious and mock this sort of whole new media
operation and take away sort of reframe the story as
opposed to, Wow, let's give the Trump White House credit
for putting in alternative media voices instead, it's like, oh,
they're putting in, you know, just.

Speaker 6 (09:16):
Some good looking chick because you.

Speaker 5 (09:18):
Know whatever, and it's it's an annoying story too to
I think engage with. I mean, for starters, I think
our show has been deplatformed, decensored, demonetor like everything. They
only threw my boss in wet prison for four months,
so we're used to the attacks. So you know, a
daily mail criticized criticism on my outfit kind of peels
in comparison. But I just think more broadly, it sort

(09:41):
of represents really an effort to just delegitimize us. And
now I feel every time that I walk into the
press briefing room, it's like just a loaded situation. And
I mean the first time that I opened the door
and walked in, everyone looked at me was like, what
the heck are you doing here?

Speaker 6 (09:58):
Like who are you? And I get it.

Speaker 5 (09:59):
It's as and I respect that, but I do think
that my presence being there, what we were just talking about,
in terms of warroom's viewership, it sort of holds a
mirror to their face, and I think it raises more
broadly the question, which is something we always dive into
at warroom, which is sort of the idea of credentialism
or the idea of like what even is the mainstream

(10:21):
media and why they're referred to as the mainstream media
because we trounce them in viewership, and if you look
at the trajectory of viewership, I would take our trend
line over theirs because they're essentially perpendicular and we trounce
them an impact too in terms of our audience calling
phone line. So I'm just curious by what metric and
what standard right that they would think that they're more

(10:44):
deserving to be there. But it's just annoying because I
think to respond to these accusations, I then become like
the trope of what they want me to become.

Speaker 6 (10:53):
Where I'm sitting here saying like.

Speaker 5 (10:55):
Sorry, I wore a sweater, like sorry, I'm blonde, and
I'm like, that's so and it cracks me up too,
And I know I'm rambling but in the stories, but
it really cracks me up because, like, for your audience
who's not familiar with me, my background was in investigative reporting.
I was the person who had no social life. All
I did was stay up and go through like pharophilings

(11:16):
and the Federal Register and USA Spending dot gov and
reading Brookings Institution reports. I have like never traded off
being a young girl in media I love.

Speaker 6 (11:26):
I always referred myself.

Speaker 5 (11:27):
As like an autistic in so like I love researching,
and it was just funny to be portrayed as something
that I so don't view myself as, but then like
deciding how to push back against. It was my first
time ever really being smeared as something that I just
felt so desperate from.

Speaker 1 (11:44):
Do some more. Let's hear some more background, like where
you came from?

Speaker 4 (11:47):
Sure?

Speaker 6 (11:47):
Sure?

Speaker 1 (11:48):
Like yeah, so where'd you grow up? And how'd you
become political for the first time?

Speaker 6 (11:52):
Sure?

Speaker 5 (11:53):
So, I was born and raised in Los Angeles in
Santa Monica, and my parents were conservative, but more run
of the mill kind of like a politically conservative, like
just default, like oh I just don't really want to
pay taxes like the classic trope. But I was fortunate
enough to go to a very Democrats.

Speaker 1 (12:11):
Now are they still? No?

Speaker 5 (12:13):
No, they're still My mom is like a Mike Lindell
super fan.

Speaker 6 (12:17):
She's watched too much more room. My dad's maybe not
so much. On the bipillage right now.

Speaker 5 (12:24):
But I was very blessed to have gone to probably
one of the most prestigious high schools in certainly California,
in the country, Harvard Westlake.

Speaker 6 (12:31):
Which is Zebra Alex Marlow. Yes andlia Han.

Speaker 4 (12:35):
I was going to say, this is this is not
uncommon in abandoned world that you come from.

Speaker 6 (12:39):
The defects from Oweden's public school.

Speaker 4 (12:42):
It's private, right, yeah.

Speaker 6 (12:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (12:45):
And the year that I was applying to college was
the year that Operation Varsity Blues, if you remember, the
girls like pretending to be on the growers. So actually
one of my best friends from elementary school was the
daughter of the individual people who sort of I guess
like radded to the Feds or leaked on the whole thing.

(13:05):
So that was an interesting just sort of like class
system understanding where I was like, oh, and for me,
getting into college at Harvard Westlake was like the apex.

Speaker 6 (13:17):
It was why you existed, the paragon of existence, right.

Speaker 5 (13:20):
And seeing a sort of admission system where it was
like you either had to be a first gen LGBTQ,
you know whatever to get in, or you had to
be some like old guard, old money, super blue bloody
type donating, you know, ten million dollars to.

Speaker 6 (13:37):
A fake sports program.

Speaker 5 (13:38):
I was like, oh, that's an interesting way to conceive
of American society, which I think is very bannon esque, right,
it is that Republican versus democrat.

Speaker 6 (13:47):
I was never really into that, but it was very.

Speaker 5 (13:49):
Like, oh, the elites and there's sort of woke pet
projects and then everyone else and concurrently on that timeline,
it was also or the year's prior, it had been
twenty sixteen. So I graduated high school in twenty nineteen
and I saw in twenty three and I was in
tenth grade during President Trump's twenty sixteen election cycle, and

(14:11):
I was not like the cringe person in the maga hat,
like trying to just cause conflict for the sake of
causing conflict. I remember at first I had like an
English teacher who was so radical, I mean, like the
short dyed hair. She ultimately became a they them and
encouraged other kids in our class to like transition like
the whole like literally the meme that you hear on

(14:32):
Fox News, like it was that kind of teacher. And
I remember one day I had lied to her because
it was the election day and I was like, oh,
because we were going around, she wanted us to all
tell stories of like how you know, politically and civically
engaged you were. And I was like, oh, I saw
like a young family voting and they all had like
Hillary weear on and it made me feel like really empowered,

(14:53):
and it was like the worst feeling that I ever had,
because I was like, I don't ever want to lie
to be and I don't want to live a truth
that is not my own. And very shortly after I
was like, I'm never doing that again. Got into a
very long form like controversial debate because they were having
a gender pay gap bake sale, and I was like,
the gender pay gap doesn't exist, rattled off to like

(15:16):
quintessential peak twenty sixteen culture war like prayer you talking points,
and from then on I think got sort.

Speaker 6 (15:23):
Of type cast, at least in high school.

Speaker 5 (15:25):
As like the Maga turning Point girl, which was so
not me. I always pride myself like I love my job,
but I have a you know, whole life outside of
it too, And I think that there's sort of this
weird urge to like type cast all conservatives on campus
as sort of like zoo animal that's your only personality.

Speaker 6 (15:43):
And I did a podcast because.

Speaker 5 (15:45):
They had started a show called Right on Point, and
I was under the impression that it was like, oh,
we can say what we want. And I'd been sort
of pushing the administration to bring conservative speakers. They had
literally had a member of the Communist Party USA come
and speak, and they had sort.

Speaker 6 (16:00):
Of abdicated their role.

Speaker 5 (16:01):
I would argue of admissions, and they kind of weaponized
that whole process just to accept essentially, like you know,
minority is the whole DEI trope. But I was very
disheartened sort of seeing all this happen around me, so
I tried to push back, not in like a hair
on fire kind of way, but just like raising points.
You guys say you care about diversity, what about diversity

(16:22):
of thought? And apparently what I said on the podcast
was really controversial. They had to call an emergency meeting
with like the Gay Straight Alliance, the Feminists Club, like
the Black Kids Club.

Speaker 1 (16:32):
What'd you say?

Speaker 6 (16:33):
I just said, I wasn't a feminist.

Speaker 5 (16:35):
I was like, you know, I kind of explained why,
like Trump, particularly on immigration, it wasn't a lot more
radical now for.

Speaker 4 (16:43):
Since in fact, when Ryan announced you were coming on
the shop I since referred to like Tranny is and
gone further along those lines, which I think is probably
an arc that a lot of people in your generation
have gone down in the last several years too.

Speaker 6 (16:57):
Yes, I think for sure.

Speaker 5 (16:59):
I mean also to just from my perspective, before Steve
went to prison, I was doing more investigative reporting, particularly
on Chinese Communist Party infiltration, which I guess was where
I was getting to my story, and I'm very proud
of the work that I did, you know, members of Congress,
the Republican Study Commission, sided at the National Association of Scholars.

(17:20):
I broke a lot of stories about the origins of COVID,
stories from Hunter Biden's Hard Drive that led to the
removal of you know, Peter Dawshak from the COVID Origins
investigative team. Doing like I said, the exclusives listening to
the audio tapes from Hunter Biden's hard Drive is I think,
an extremely cool career accomplishment. I was, you know, nineteen
or twenty at the time, so I always focused on that,

(17:42):
and my approach to doing media was like, I never
want to be an opinion commentator because I was very
cognizant of my age, and I think being a woman too.
I was just like, I don't ever want to come
off like my opinion matters because it doesn't like I
don't have experience, Like I was very cognizant of that,
always abstained from doing opinion commentary. And then when Steve

(18:03):
went to prison and I joined the show about two
years ago as a co host, I couldn't just rattle
off my like deep dive researching for an hour while
hosting a show, right, It's a different gig.

Speaker 6 (18:13):
So I always joke that, like, the.

Speaker 5 (18:15):
Worst thing they did was send Steve to prison because
it helped me kind of find my broadcasting voice and
go on the rants, which I know we were talking about,
but that sort of forced me, pushed me into that role.
But to my core, deep down, I'm like an OPO
researcher and I wish I had the time and the
chance to do that more. But I also think people
people like the rants. They like the kind of inflammatory content.

(18:38):
Not that I'm you know, trying to be like the
Daily Veil and go for clickbait, but you know, if
you're doing these long form investigative pieces and no one's
reading them.

Speaker 6 (18:47):
It's kind of like, what's what's the point.

Speaker 1 (18:52):
We have a clip from one short's going.

Speaker 6 (18:54):
To make me watch myself?

Speaker 4 (18:56):
I need that.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
It's pretty short. So yeah, let's ex two here.

Speaker 5 (19:03):
These House Republicans, they love to focus on the culture
war so much, right, the limited hangout that the trannys
in the bathrooms? Right, Well, Speaker Johnson and most of
your colleagues, maybe there are a few good ones, the
ones we have on this show, But I would humbly
suggest that before you start screaming about transgender surgeries, that

(19:25):
you focus on yourself because last time I checked, you
don't even have any balls. And I'm not being hyperbolic
when I say that, I'm actually just quoting you, Speaker Johnson.
Let's introduce you to a version of yourself just a
few months ago, who pledged that we were not going
to have a Christmas time omnibus. But oops, here we are, Denver.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Let's roll it so it goes. It goes on from there,
so obviously from the left to people who don't use
phrases like trannies. But one piece of that I wanted
to pick up on is what is an inherently left
wing analysis in there? Which is that elites use culture

(20:07):
war yeah drama to distract from material analysis. And I
was telling you before you came to the show that
oftentimes I'll listen to your rants and I'll be like
nodding along.

Speaker 4 (20:19):
He's a very regular listener.

Speaker 1 (20:20):
I'll be like nodding along for all yep, yep, check
check check check, and then it'll veer off and I'm like, WHOA, well, ky,
this is where I get off, and you you head
over here. I wonder and I'm I'm looking forward to
following your career because I wonder if and say the
same with you, like I feel like there's a more
space on the left for you guys, if you if
you can recognize like fully that that this culture war

(20:44):
stuff is genuinely what you're what you were saying it
was in that clip, That is, it is an elite
distraction from intended to divide the working class so that
the elites can go ahead and then accomplish their agenda.
In this show, we're always in you know, the right.
Left wing populism and right wing populists are always intention

(21:05):
and my my argument consistently is that they're whatever the
kind of motivations of good right wing populists. Actual right
wing populism in practice winds up being co opted by
the elon Musk's like the Ken Martin, who became the
DNC chair recently rightly has gotten pillaried for this hilarious

(21:29):
clip of him where he says, we're not going to
take money from bad billionaires, but there are good billionaires
and good like that's he should be pillaryed for that,
because that's completely absurd. Right wing populism often falls into
that same trap that and that's why sometimes it falls
into conspiracism too and anti semitism, because the left has

(21:51):
a structural analysis it's the one percent those are the
bad ones, and there's no division between within the one percent.
They're all bad, they're all capitalists, they're all ripping, ripping
off the workers. For the right, when they say it's
these cosmopolitan elites that are the bad ones and there's
and there's some good ones like Musk or others, sometimes
what that analysis needs is anti semitism to say it's

(22:14):
actually the Jews who are doing it. I'm not saying
that the war room does that, but like that, I
think that's why you get the strain of anti Semitism
and right wing popular.

Speaker 4 (22:22):
Because populism as well, far left wing populism has the
same problem.

Speaker 1 (22:28):
Well it shouldn't because it can say that all bankers
are bad. It doesn't have to say that Jewish bankers
are bad.

Speaker 4 (22:34):
Yes, but they will say that all of the bankers
are Jewish bankers, Sorrytalie.

Speaker 1 (22:43):
And if they do, they should be run out. But anyway,
so there's this tension between the different wings of populism
and uh so, and I often hear you talking about
you and and and Steve Bannon as well, talking about
the way that they're trying to divide people. Bannon recently

(23:03):
in that New York Times column was saying, Yeah, the
Democrats screwed up because they beat Dornie Sanders like if.
And I've spoken to him over the years, and I
know he's being he's he's said this in real time,
genuine he thought. He thinks Rokanna has a good analysis.
He thinks Elizabeth Warren had a good populist economic populist analysis,
and that if Democrats had effectively been able to render

(23:26):
that then they would have had more purchase with regular
people than they than with whatever this Ken Martin style
DNC stuff is, so you know, so, how did how
did your politics wind up kind of where they are?

Speaker 5 (23:41):
Well, I too, am an avid consumer of MSMBC. We're
the same kindred spirits, and I'm trying to understand why
I like watching it so much. I think I like
hate watching My conclusion I've come to is it's like
a slot machine. It's very dope magenic because you never
know when they're going to say something crazy, right, so
you're very hooked in. But I think that that clip

(24:02):
is sort of I think very I would say representative
of the distinction between war room and traditional conservative media
because that night, probably you know, Fox News's main story
was the transgender bathroom bill and the whole like Nancy
Mace debacle, and we're like, okay, yes, that's an important issue,

(24:24):
but it's sort of a shiny toy. It's a distraction.
And I think that that's how Washington has operated for
a very long time. I know, whence you was in prison,
we were really staunchly against the crplus Save Act because
we're like, you guys have done nothing for election integrity
for the two years you've been here.

Speaker 6 (24:38):
Don't tell us now.

Speaker 5 (24:39):
Like a month before the election, that you suddenly care about,
you know, securing elections. So that's where we need to
get behind omnibus spending like you guys have done for
what like sixteen times in the past few years. So
that is I think, you know, the tranny referends aside
an interesting I think sort of clip that shows you
the difference where our show, I think sort of excels
in terms of act taking on these issues.

Speaker 6 (25:01):
But I think it's interesting.

Speaker 5 (25:03):
And this is something too that Steve and I have
sort of talked about on the show a lot, which
is how Democrats will triage their twenty twenty four loss,
because whatever they choose to identify as being the variable
will obviously sort of dictate how they then progress forward.
And I think in the beginning you saw a lot
of meltdown over like misinformation and disinformation and we need
our own Joe Rogan, and you know, then that's sort

(25:25):
of a different position that they would take of like, Okay,
well we got to double down on the censorship.

Speaker 6 (25:30):
We need to like fund independent media.

Speaker 5 (25:32):
Though I think the way they use the term independent
media is a little cagy. But I think the civil
war that's brewing that I think Frankly, if it pans
out the way that.

Speaker 6 (25:41):
You're probably more inclined for it too.

Speaker 5 (25:44):
If it does pan out that way, it's bad for Republicans,
it's bad for like my side, the populist right, is
that the sort of more I think non establishment wing
in the Democratic Party wants to take us on. I
think probably has more similarities with us on protect workers rights.
You're against the H one B visa stuff, and that's
what most Americans I think support, right, it's sort of

(26:06):
the reorientation of the political system outside of Republican versus Democrat,
but like American workers and the ruling class, like Steve
always says, And I think what you're seeing now is,
you know, even with Ken Martin, like the Democratic establishment
and the same way that they sabotage Bernie Sanders, just
a refusal to hand it over to the sort of
more activist wing of their party, which they like to
decry and I think sort of villainizes like a bunch

(26:28):
of you know, Hamas caused.

Speaker 6 (26:30):
Player protester types, which is part of your party. I'm
sorry to report.

Speaker 5 (26:34):
But I also think that there are a lot of
like you know, the more disaffected Democrat coalition and I
think if you guys were to take those issues like immigration,
like workers rights, even Bernie Sanders was on the warm side.

Speaker 6 (26:45):
Of the HMMBVSA debate, right, that's a lot more politically salient.

Speaker 5 (26:49):
I do think, however, that the version of left wing
populism here in the United States is I think sort
of weighed down by the identity politics in terms of
you guys can't support you know, deportations or ice raids,
or strengthening the border or saw the idea of sovereignty,

(27:10):
because I think you guys are not saying you in particular,
but have really bought into some really radical propositions about
you know, like you know, starting off the DNC with
like the Stolen Land declaration and just the idea that
deportations are racist and that if you talk about, you know,
a great replacement theory, that like that's totally not happening,
that's a conspiracy. It's like, well, that's not a racialized sentiment,

(27:30):
it's a replacement theory, and it's happening of American workers, right.
They're importing our replacement and they're making Americans train their replacements.
So I think that the refusal for the populace left
to sort of engage.

Speaker 6 (27:43):
With that issue.

Speaker 5 (27:44):
Please keep doing it because it helps us. But if
you guys were to really embrace that, like you know,
Kamala Harris said, for I guess, for the first time
ever in her history, the word sovereignty down while she
was talking in the Arizona border during the campaign trail,
or the patriotic flags inside the DNC.

Speaker 6 (28:00):
It sort of took everyone for a shock. They're like,
what the heck? This is so new.

Speaker 5 (28:05):
But I don't think that the democratic elites will allow
that to happen. And even that Senator I forget who
did a whole tweet thread where they basically said that, like,
it's bad for our donors if we embrace populism.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
I missed that one, but yeah, it certainly is intention
with the donors.

Speaker 4 (28:22):
Well, and this is like a obviously a huge conversation
about the ideological overrap lap. We have a question from
one person in our audience, Nathan Carasberg.

Speaker 1 (28:31):
Gest readers that our viewers to send stuff in And.

Speaker 4 (28:34):
Nathan, that's what would it take for the populist left
and the populist right to agree to disagree on culture
and unite against the techno feudalists and transhumanists. Otherwise, I
don't see how we humans win. And this is a
really interesting question because of kind of the H one
visa dust up that we were talking about earlier in
that Elon Musk super pro H one B visa's behind

(28:56):
neuralink and a lot of AI software's complicated. Person but
that's the bucket that he's in. And for a lot
of people in the populist right, this is really offensive
and it's sort of exactly what the fight against the
left was.

Speaker 1 (29:08):
Who was given credit, Nathan.

Speaker 4 (29:10):
Finberg was positioned datas for a really long time. So
I'm curious what you make of Nathan's question, Natalie from
your vantage point, like can everyone agree to disagree on
culture or is this actually part and parcel of the
cultural war in and of itself.

Speaker 5 (29:25):
Well, I think that H one B eight all of you,
there's so many visa categories. It's insane that debate. It's wild,
Like that sort of represented that sort of re orientation,
like the political fracturing I think you saw most acutely
on the Republican side of things. I will say I
think it was really just kind of war room from
like an immedia perspective. Who and Steve Who who held

(29:45):
the line most people right, really kind of jumped on
the Elon Musk bandwagon.

Speaker 6 (29:50):
And I don't know.

Speaker 5 (29:51):
I mean, I think for starters, I love the idea
of a big tent, right, I love the idea of
bringing people in, and it's maybe great to see the
tech bros liking us, But you know, I also think too,
like you have to preserve some of the reasons that
those people didn't like us in the beginning, and that
was because we weren't like I would argue the Obama

(30:11):
White House that was just like, hey, here's free a
liv bit of money.

Speaker 6 (30:14):
We're not going to regulate you, just like please support
us it.

Speaker 4 (30:16):
Musk didn't like Trump in the beginning, and you, Musk
took a lot of money from Obama to start Tesla
when it was not start, but to reinvigorate Tesla exactly.

Speaker 5 (30:24):
And we've even more broadly, I think, have been very
critical of the tech bro like newfound Maga conversion.

Speaker 6 (30:30):
I think it's very performative.

Speaker 5 (30:33):
I think they have tried to do a kind of
limited hangout version of what they did to the Maga movement,
where they're like, oh, sorry, we accidentally censored you. I'm like, no, no,
you algorithmically manipulated, blacklisted, censored, D banked D platforms spent
what a billion dollars to like mess with the twenty
twenty election, So we're not going to let you get
away with that on like a two page letter, Mark Zuckerberg.

(30:56):
But I think that to me, the H and B
VSA debate was something that was very eye opening because
I have done War and what for four is years now,
which makes me feel very old.

Speaker 4 (31:07):
It's like your entire adult life really, since.

Speaker 6 (31:09):
I did the show the first time when I was
nineteen mm hm.

Speaker 5 (31:12):
Fun fact, I had no Wi Fi connection at my house,
so I had to do it in a friend's kitchen
and I was standing up.

Speaker 6 (31:17):
So we've come a long way. I'm sitting down in
a studio.

Speaker 5 (31:21):
But I had never received such an outpouring of support
from our audience because we took a really hard line.
I did an hour long episode with Steve where I
sort of dug into the myth that is a, we
need to be importing a bunch of foreign workers and
B that the people who were therefore importing are the
best and the brightest, and it wasn't I think talking

(31:42):
points that anyone had really heard.

Speaker 6 (31:43):
I stayed up literally all night, and I just.

Speaker 5 (31:46):
Like read every government testimony ever, government report, like read
a book on I was just like, the data is
truly astounding.

Speaker 6 (31:52):
You never hear about it. This was all based on
a lie.

Speaker 5 (31:55):
And of every issue I've ever covered, I never received
so many messages from people, not just saying like, yes,
you're on it, you're on the right side, but more
importantly people being like this is my lived reality. Like
I was replaced, I had to train a replacement, my
wife did this, my son can't get a tech job.
And that was when I really had a realization. I
was like, Wow, this really is a politically significant and

(32:19):
palpable issue. Like talk about the bathrooms, okay, whatever, that's
the crux of it. And frankly, I think the sort
of irony or paradox of the whole, like vivek situation,
was that I think the H one BH two be
all the visa categories. I think that's something that's just
sort of gets swept under the rug, like people don't

(32:39):
really know about it, like they do know about it,
like you know, vaguely. It's like a nebulous thing. It's like, yeah,
we're certainly like importing a bunch of workers.

Speaker 6 (32:45):
It's kind of symbolic, yeah, but it's not like, oh
my gosh.

Speaker 5 (32:48):
When you actually get the numbers and you see who's overstaying,
you're like, wow, this is a really, really, really deep problem.
And I think that they sort of unintentionally expose themselves
by like forcing a conversation, because now you know when
the hebh to bo whenever visa sort of regulation or
legislation comes.

Speaker 6 (33:08):
Through Congress or President Trump speaks on it.

Speaker 5 (33:10):
It's now such a hot button issue where I think
we're on the right side of it.

Speaker 4 (33:15):
But are you destined to divorce with Musk?

Speaker 6 (33:18):
I mean, he gets a seat at the table, and
you know what I mean.

Speaker 5 (33:21):
I think he recognized what was going on in Pennsylvania.
I think they were smart to not put all their
money into just like super TV ads, but it was
like boots on the ground, door knocking grassroots, like.

Speaker 6 (33:30):
We have an affinity there. But he gets a seat
at the table.

Speaker 5 (33:33):
He doesn't get like a commandeering presence to co opt
the entire MAGA movement. And I think that Warroom has
really been instrumental in pushing back against him, like imagine
a world in which Steve Bannon wasn't there from within
the Maga tent to be pushing back against some of
the stuff that Elon does. And I also think too,
like there's a very strong mindset to make everything very

(33:56):
black and white, like it's gray, Like some of the
stuff Elon does is good and some of it.

Speaker 6 (34:01):
Is probably not good.

Speaker 5 (34:03):
And maybe MSNBC's criticisms of him are accurate, and maybe
they're not, but I think it shows why. Frankly, I
think they don't want a sort of how we say, rogue,
kind of war Room esque outlet right because we call it,
we call the balls and stricks, like we are not afraid.
We don't cater or cow tow to anyone. I would

(34:25):
argue we're actually dependent. We're not beholden to anyone in
Maga world or the other side.

Speaker 4 (34:29):
But you're playing and ask tough questions then of Caroline
love It, which if people don't listen to war Room,
very critical of Musk, very critical of certain moves when
you get on the wrong side. So I think that's actually.

Speaker 5 (34:39):
People want mass deportations and we will, we need them.
And if we are not meeting that benchmark, then I'm
going to be asking about it. If we're not meeting
the benchmark on certain policy proposals or campaign promises that
our audience worked so hard to get them elected, I'll
be asking about that, which I think.

Speaker 6 (34:54):
Is really funny.

Speaker 5 (34:55):
The idea that, like I'm there's some like lackey to
just you know, make the Trump admin look great. I
think they've been doing wonderful stuff so far most part.
But my job there is to sort of speak for
our audience, and we've been very forthright in criticizing when
you know, criticized, criticism is necessary. We shouldn't be stapling
green cards to diplomas, and we criticized that. Yeah, And

(35:17):
I think the like trope of us is like Trump
sycophants or something is very off base if you actually
and this you too, like you were saying, so many
people don't actually watch War Room. And some of the
most like interesting funny conversations I've ever had is when
people start, you know, totally a political classic, oh so
what do you do?

Speaker 6 (35:33):
And I'm always like, I work in media, and they're like,
you know, finally it's like the eighth question. I'm like, Okay,
I'll just tell you what I do. Oh, you work
for Steve Bannon. I thought he hates women and he's
like a Nazi and blah blah blah.

Speaker 5 (35:43):
And I'm like, actually, no, Steve is for like taxing
the billionaires as much as possible. He's against concentrated well,
he's for breaking this up. And you know, he's all
about the America work. And they're like, oh my gosh,
that's so not what I thought he was, which I
think sort of speaks the way they've sort of defamed
the right wing populist movement because it is such a
politically powerful force, and.

Speaker 1 (36:06):
So compared to Musk, there are a lot of people
on the left that would prefer that Bannon when it
comes to those pieces that you laid out, not necessarily
the master deportations, but the other parts that he beat Musk.
And so we have a question here from David Flagg.
He says, what can liberals do to support Bannon over Musk? So, well,

(36:30):
you know, what would you what would you tell that
is a good question.

Speaker 6 (36:34):
Well, let's see, I got to put myself in the
mind of both liberals and Steve V. K.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
Bannon or not really, because pretend they're liberally are going
to do what you tell them to do. I think
what their question is because they don't really understand the
right wing ecosystem, and they don't know what levers to
pull and what would help and what what wouldn't help.
Sometimes what they do would backfire. They might if they
support something, then it might lead someone the right to

(37:00):
be like, well, if Bernie and AOC are for that,
it must be bad.

Speaker 5 (37:06):
I think what I would say is, I think the
media has a playbook with how they are covering the
Trump administration, and to sort of back into this, they
don't have any levers of governmental or institutional power right
now to necessarily push back.

Speaker 6 (37:23):
Right They've lost like everything.

Speaker 5 (37:26):
And I think if you read or just listen to MSNBC,
but sort of historically their playbook, and you know, I'm
inclined to bring up sort of like the norm Eisends
of the World, the Brookings Institution, their democracy playbook, how
they've sort of pushed for regime change in foreign countries
that's been through the idea of civil society in an

(37:46):
opposition to what they call democratic backsliding. And I have
always viewed the depiction of President Trump as a dictator
as an autocrat, as an authoritarian, as part of a
sort of narrative game to sort of stick us in
the mindset of like, oh, we're having democratic backsliding going on. Therefore,

(38:06):
even though we don't have the constitutional or electoral authority
to impeach Trump or push back against him, we're justified
because we're defending democracy. And I think the Elon Musk
coverage oftentimes, when it gets reduced into Elon is acting
like an autocrat and it's a hostile takeover of the

(38:29):
United States government, it's not really all that hostile. I
think Elon played a pretty visible role in the campaign trial.
I think Doze was probably one of the most visible
campaign promises of President Trump's twenty twenty four campaign. I
just would sort of reject that framing. So, if you
want to criticize Elon Musk, I don't think it's a
very powerful tactic to decry him as like unelected dictator,

(38:53):
shadow president evilman. I think it's more powerful when he
messes up on issues like the m B visa to
just call it out more plainly for what it is.
And I think remind Trump right that the people elected
you for the right wing populism stuff the Bannon world
view a step. I would attack it more from the

(39:14):
angle of like put American workers first, not oh, we
have to get rid of Elon Musk and defend USAID
because Elon's being an autocrat and he wasn't elected.

Speaker 6 (39:24):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 5 (39:25):
The whole agency is run by unelected baracots and billionaires
run the Democratic Party.

Speaker 6 (39:29):
So I think those attacks are.

Speaker 5 (39:31):
A lot more powerful than like buying into the paradigm
that it's dictator Elon and dictator Tron.

Speaker 4 (39:39):
So from the perspective of a conservative populist, I look
at Elon Musk and sort of like what Ryan Gerduski,
I don't know, did you see his post about Musk.
He said, let's just say there was a billionaire who's
made most of their money from businesses whose success was
based on government contracts and subsidies. The way you go
from being a billionaire to being a trillionaire is getting
a hold of government data and using it for your
next business. I thought that was pretty interesting because, again,
like as another served a populist, I look at what

(40:01):
Elon Musk is doing getting rid of USAID. Amazing, cathartic, beautiful,
a masterpiece. But at the same time, you now have
like a genuine oligarch running loose in the government, and
I can see easily how it would be a way
to enrich He could use it as a way to
enrich himself. And I feel like people who were against

(40:23):
the concentration of power in the hands of people like
Elon Musk on principled ideological reasons, I worry that we're
sort of getting numb to having him run loose in
the government. And I'm curious what you make of just
like from the principle of Elon Musk coming in and
cleaning house potentially in a way that could enrich himself,

(40:43):
what is that? Do you have similar sort of like
principled ideological aversions to the idea of as you said, well, okay,
under Biden it was on elected bureaucrats in the pockets
of billionaires. But then do we end up with like
replacing those un elected bureaucrats in the pockets of billionaires
with they're unlike to bureaucrats' billionaires.

Speaker 5 (41:02):
Our bureaucrats are better than their billaiers are right than
their billaires. No, I think there's there's so many verticals
that they're kind of carrying out this what I'm sure
Steve would call like deconstruction of the administrative state. And
I think you just have to take kind of each agency,
each department through its own paradigm. And what do I
mean by that, Like what's going on with DOJ and FBI.

(41:25):
I think that's more like a legal battle like unitary
executive theory, Like is President Shrump's chief magistrate? Like does
the president have authority over not as the mainstream media
makes it like, oh, he wants to control over all
three branches, but no of the entire executive branch.

Speaker 6 (41:38):
Does he have the right to hire and fire?

Speaker 5 (41:40):
And I think that's what you're seeing go down right
now with like the FBI purge right in the lawsuits
that they're putting out getting rid of January sixth agents,
Like that's the paradigm to view that through the USAID thing. Yeah,
I don't think it's great to have unelected billionaires running
any government agency.

Speaker 6 (41:56):
Of course that's bad.

Speaker 5 (41:57):
But spare me means media the performative outrage that you
guys either a care about the Constitution or b that
you care about unelected bureaucrats or billionaires running government so
it's the framing of it I sort of reject, but
I think you just have to take it.

Speaker 6 (42:14):
I mean, day by day.

Speaker 5 (42:15):
I mean I also think too, I'm also sort of inclined,
and maybe this is a little less ideological, but I
remember President Trump, what did he say in twenty sixteen
when he was talking to African Americans?

Speaker 6 (42:25):
He's like, what do you guys have to lose? And
I sort of feel.

Speaker 5 (42:28):
Like that's the approach of the Trump administration now in
a more broad sort of whole of government, whole of
society approach, which I mean by that it's like, we're
so fiscally insolvent. Fiscally it's so bad, Like what do
we have to lose by maybe taking a chance on
another way of running the government. And yes, I'm sure
you would give me a whole litany.

Speaker 6 (42:47):
Of what we have to lose.

Speaker 5 (42:49):
But on the other hand, what we're doing is not working,
and what we've been doing at USAID is not working.
And I think that there's this desire to sort of
whitewash and euphemize, particularly in the context of usaideas like oh,
we're helping Bangladeshi refugees eat, and it's like well, maybe,
I mean, what is like twelve cents to the dollar

(43:10):
actually makes it over to whatever country it actually is.
But a lot of those usaid programs not only are
a really concerning and have to do with like funding
biological weapons in China and collaborating with DARPA.

Speaker 6 (43:21):
And stuff where you're like, what is going on here?

Speaker 5 (43:23):
But as someone who frequents the USA spending you know,
database website a lot, there also is no oversight. And
I think that that lack of oversight is almost equally
bad as maybe lack of oversight on Elon Musk for example,
there are a ton of government grants and they all
curiously popped up starting around twenty sixteen combating misinformation disinformation.

(43:46):
I'm talking like thousands in foreign countries in I mean
Pakistan and India and the UK like everything everywhere, right,
And you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars, And
if you read the grants, it's literally just like to
empower and journalists and combat misinformation in Uzbekistan. And you're like, well,

(44:10):
what the heck does that mean? And then I've gone
a step further. If you look on Google Maps, like
you look at the addresses to the places that these
sizable sums of money are going to. There's shacks on
the side of the road, like they're not real.

Speaker 6 (44:23):
It's fun. You should people should go and do it.
It's wild, Okay, it's insane.

Speaker 5 (44:27):
And that's where I'm like, I think, if you look,
I think why they're melting down about usai D.

Speaker 1 (44:33):
Sometimes it's because these are basically almost spy programs and
they're trying to they're covering the real identity because but I.

Speaker 5 (44:40):
Also think it's how this town has gotten rich. I
think through usai D, I think they've laundered money and
I use that in the truest sense in the name
of democracy through a bunch of NGOs that you're like,
what are you even doing?

Speaker 6 (44:54):
And two, I think why.

Speaker 5 (44:54):
They're melting down about the USAID stuff. And I do
think it is interesting watching the mainstream media sort of
just what to take the bait on, because I think
that was the lesson that they learned from the Trump
administration the first iteration. They're like, we can't melt down,
we can't become apoplectic over everything. But I think they're
resistance strategy this time around, or what they now are
terming the opposition since they can't impeach him, since they

(45:18):
can't really do anything. I know they were standing on
the steps of USAID saying, you know, shut down the Senate,
and I'm like, all right, Ress's appointments vib I mean no.
But their plan and I think you see it in
the groups that they've been setting up, like, for example,
Democracy Forward, which is the like kind of consortium of
a bunch of resistance type orgs. They've started a group

(45:39):
called Civil Service Strong, which was outlining and coaching civil
servants how to be whistleblowers, how to sue if they
are feeling you know, put upon or whatever. And I
think that the crux, the sort of cornerstone of their
resistance tactics, was going to be whistleblowing and leaking and
doing their kind of typical sabotage from inside of these agencies.

(46:01):
And now that they can't do that, I think they're
panicking right because they're like, how do we go after the.

Speaker 6 (46:07):
Trump administration now?

Speaker 5 (46:08):
And moreover to that point, maybe.

Speaker 6 (46:12):
This is where we get a little more room conspiratorial.

Speaker 5 (46:14):
But as someone who has read a lot of the
texts coming out of these resistance type organizations, there's always
this sort of undercurrent of well, maybe we need to
partner with international organizations, we need to like go global,
which they have done. I would argue with a lot
of the censorship stuff. When they couldn't totally do it here,
they outsourced the infringement of the First Amendment to international groups.

Speaker 6 (46:37):
I think the UK has been a hot bed for it.
But I think too another.

Speaker 5 (46:41):
Reason kind of a compounding factor as to why they're
so nervous about USAID being shut down is that I
think again, maybe they weren't planning to launder the money.
I'll be a little nice, so I'll be more charitable.
They were just planning to send the money. But I
think they really wanted to kind of bankroll the resistance
internationally and sort of use that as a roundabout way
to come after President Trump because they couldn't really they

(47:04):
can't really do that much. They can call the Senate,
you know what I mean, and worm's great at that,
but they don't really have the ability to push push
back in a meaningful way. That's why they're you know,
groveling on the steps of USA. I d looking rather cringe.
I would have, like Jamie Raskin's gone from what impeaching
President Trump twice and like running circles around US from
a law fair perspective to now groveling outside of usai

(47:27):
D with like a bunch of freaks.

Speaker 3 (47:29):
You know.

Speaker 5 (47:30):
So I'm like, you know how, I guess times are
tough for Dirograts.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
Yeah, it does. It does have them in a bind
because they're trying to figure out how to defend usai D.
And you know, initially they were defending it as you know,
foreign aid as important and pointing to like if you
shut down pep FAR, you shut down this protection for
spending around infants in Sudan, and people like people are
going to die and people literally are going to die

(47:54):
if you do that.

Speaker 4 (47:54):
It's a clever insurance policy.

Speaker 1 (47:57):
But then Rubio can owner and say, well we're going
to keep those programs going. Yeah, And so now you've
started to see I think it was Chris Murphy who
is like, the reason we're funding USAID in Africa is
to counter China and so that we can extract the
resources from Africa. I saw that. I was like, Okay,

(48:19):
like now we're talking about what's actually happening, Like it's
it's out in the open like that is it's always
bodery with a foreign aid. I hate foreign aid, so
it's so wasteful far and spending, you.

Speaker 4 (48:31):
Said, Usa, he spends money to make sure that we're
countering Chinese influence inside of Africa and make sure we
don't lose minerals.

Speaker 1 (48:38):
To make sure that we don't lose access to critical
mineral supplies and.

Speaker 4 (48:42):
That we're fighting against Hesbula.

Speaker 1 (48:43):
Like, I hate this idea that the US is some
charitable organization that is just so benevolent and wasting people's
money by because we're so soft hearted that we're out
here helping people know we're like a ruthless empire that
is trying to extract resources from Africa, and usaid is
the soft power way that we go in and do that.
China's got its Belt and Road and this other efforts

(49:06):
that it uses to try to get resources. It's a
competition for resources. So finally, at least we're talking about
it openly and then you can debate it like do
we want to use this? And clearly what the MAGA
folks are saying is we don't actually believe that it's
for American soft power. We think you're going to use it.
As your own partisan weapon in this intra civil war fight,

(49:29):
which to me, if that helps to bring down the
American Empire, good well.

Speaker 4 (49:34):
And I was just gonna say that we have, speaking
of the American Empire, we have a question from Kevin McGonagall,
who says.

Speaker 1 (49:41):
I was going to ask this one too, I like
this one.

Speaker 4 (49:42):
Will there be a right populous pushback for American troops
being as he puts, a cannon fodder for Israel I
mean securing Gaza. It's been a whirlwind of last twelve hours, Natalie,
But as.

Speaker 5 (49:52):
You know, before we were booked to do the show,
apparently now we are taking over Gotha.

Speaker 4 (49:56):
Seriously. Yeah, So we're taping this within like twelve hours
of all of the happening, and you're sort of in
a position hearing from your listeners, who I'm sure probably
more in the Josh Howley camp of saying, I don't
know that this is the right use of US resources,
A similar argument that's made against usaid in fact, So,
how how are you? How's the war room audience kind

(50:18):
of grappling with this massive, dramatic new Trump plan through
the lens of everything you've talked about imperialism, USAID and.

Speaker 1 (50:26):
All of that.

Speaker 5 (50:26):
Sure, well, I think to sort of can join what
both of you said. I think the issue first and
foremost derives from the lack of transparency. And I think
one way to view what President Trump is trying to
doing or DOGE or anything. They view it as like, oh,
they're stealing the contracts and they're doing this, and they're
shutting it all down, and they, you know, I think
are maybe a little harsh and they're sort of depiction

(50:47):
of it. But I think the more maybe euphemistic way
of describing it is they also just want radical transparency
for the American people, and I do think that transparency
maybe is a little concerning if you try to really
understand what exactly has been going on at these agencies.
I'm inclined to bring up the final months of the
Biden regime.

Speaker 6 (51:05):
We caught a regime. I have like a reflexive. I
can't call them an.

Speaker 1 (51:09):
Administration as long as we can call it the Trump regime.

Speaker 6 (51:13):
That's cool, sounds better.

Speaker 4 (51:15):
Yeah, that isn't extremely That moment is extremely think like instructive.

Speaker 6 (51:23):
Yeah, there you go, that's the clip.

Speaker 5 (51:26):
But when the American people, when the support was cratering
for Ukraine aid. There was I think it was October
or last year, or maybe it's twenty twenty three, but
there's a whole political story where they had sort of leaked.
They were like, Okay, the White House knows that Americans
are kind of like Cagy on supporting Ukraine. So our
new effort, or our new sort of like propaganda campaign
to get Americans to support Ukraine aid is going to be.

Speaker 6 (51:47):
The messaging which they were pumping out through local.

Speaker 5 (51:49):
Papers and local media was the idea that Ukraine aid
is actually good for our industrial base and that it's
good for our economy, and that it creates American jobs
and we don't have to.

Speaker 1 (52:00):
Have that debates there.

Speaker 5 (52:02):
Yeah, And that was such an interesting moment for me
because I was like, no, no, no, If you want
the American people to support giving aid to Ukraine, the
number one thing that you should do would be an
audit and have a show us that our money is
a actually making it there, which what Zelenski said just yesterday,

(52:23):
He's like, I only got seventy seven billion, what about
the outstanding one hundred and seventy billion or whatever. And
it was that moment where I was like, oh, they
were not audit it because they can't because if we
were to know where that money's actually going, it's not
good for anyone. And to answer your question, I think, Look,
I think the Goaza thing is a little absurd. It

(52:47):
just kind of happened, right, But I also think too
the way that I've sort of been observing it is
more just watching if the media takes the bait on it,
which I think have though I was watching them at
NBC this morning and they seem a little more upset
over like the FBI lawsuits, like they're kind of focusing
on that.

Speaker 6 (53:06):
Most prices Ryan right there.

Speaker 5 (53:08):
You see it as bait, well, because I think their
whole paradigm is like cover what Trump does, not what
he says.

Speaker 6 (53:16):
And I think.

Speaker 1 (53:18):
It'll be interesting generally smart probably.

Speaker 5 (53:20):
Yeah, But I also think that I personally sort of
view this kind of bold proclamation, which I would also
love to know like behind the scenes, if this was
something that he had talked about with n.

Speaker 6 (53:30):
Yah, because if you look at the like.

Speaker 7 (53:31):
Facial reactions, it seems like Trump just said it, which
I mean for Trump to be telling in what a
matter of like twenty four hours, Israel, China, Mexico and
Canada like, actually, we're the top dog.

Speaker 6 (53:42):
We're gonna choose.

Speaker 5 (53:42):
What's going on here, I think is something we haven't
seen in a while. But to that point, I think,
I mean, it's not a cliche or you know, novel take,
but the thing itself is sometimes not the actual thing itself, right,
Like it's not actually about gos, it's.

Speaker 6 (53:58):
You know, for lack of better word, it's the art
of the deal.

Speaker 5 (54:00):
In the same way that the tariffs was it actually
about putting those tariffs in?

Speaker 6 (54:04):
Who knows?

Speaker 5 (54:04):
It was about extracting concessions. I will say this is sort.

Speaker 6 (54:08):
Of a like.

Speaker 5 (54:10):
A narrative like paradigm shifting idea where it maybe almost
like brings anything like whatever we want, we don't want that,
but I don't know.

Speaker 6 (54:19):
I think our audience, obviously, the.

Speaker 5 (54:21):
Israel issue, I always call it a lose lose no
matter what you say, you're gonna get harassed by everyone.
But the way that I've always approached it, and I
think our audience too, is just from the America first perspective.

Speaker 6 (54:32):
I think there's sort of a mere scheimer.

Speaker 5 (54:34):
Esque kind of quality to it, where it's just like,
are we super invested in it what you know the
offshore around, Like what exactly is our investment in the region.

Speaker 6 (54:44):
How does it benefit us.

Speaker 5 (54:45):
To either have you know, a more or less terrorist
state that absolutely hates us and is trying to attack us.
But it's also not our job to prop up the
opposition to said state. And I think our audience when
it's come to anything related to Israel, Palestine, Goza, whatever.

Speaker 6 (55:00):
Is first and foremost.

Speaker 5 (55:01):
We don't want any refugees from Gaza entering the United States.
Like that is sort of where I think we really
toe the line, and I think we will definitely push
hard on that.

Speaker 6 (55:10):
But I think, you know, if we.

Speaker 5 (55:11):
Were recording this episode tomorrow right like, it'd be a
different news cycle. And I don't really think that it's
about taking over Gaza.

Speaker 6 (55:18):
I think it's I hate to use.

Speaker 5 (55:20):
The words four D chess because I'm out one of
those people.

Speaker 6 (55:23):
But there is an element to it.

Speaker 1 (55:28):
You described the Israel's issue for you guys as lose lose.
I'm curious, like where your audience comes down on the
on the question, because from an obvious internal logic perspective,
America first and isolationism would include Israel like it would
it would it would call into question, are like reflexive
on apologetic, endless support for what they're doing. Yet there's

(55:53):
so much cross pressure to make an accept in America,
first exception to Israel and also apparently South Africa because
Elon Musk is upset about the law that they're passing
in South Africa coincidentally to Israel. So on the one hand,
I'm curious where they are on that, And then severally

(56:13):
oftentimes on the on the war room, you'll have people
like Frank Gaffney and others who will give this like
really vulgar history of like Islam and talk about how
like actually, you know, they're all polygamists and like warmongers
and if you look at the Qur'an, like they're just

(56:34):
violent people, and like it's really about the culture. And
oftentimes Bannon himself, I haven't heard you on with those
types of folks often banned himself. We'll say just as
a caveat, we're we're not referring to the law abiding
Muslim citizens of the United States, and like so you
can sort of see his wheels turning, like that's a

(56:55):
little bit like aggressive in how it's being phrased there.
Yet those types of people keep coming on and making
the case. Just last night, one of those guys was
on talking about the you know, the history of Gaza
and making the case that the Palacidians are just kind
of irredeemable, violent or something, so like, how does how

(57:18):
do you blend and think about that? Like it that,
I guess you don't. Guys don't like the phrase islamophobic strain,
but like the fairly vulgar thinking about a billion people
or two billion people, how't any Muslims are on the planet?
Compared to thinking about America first populism, which says, if
you're a citizen of the United States, like you have,

(57:40):
you're entitled to equal dignity and respect and it doesn't
matter what your race, religion, or anything else is.

Speaker 5 (57:47):
I think it's sort of the steep paradigm of wanting
allies and not protectorates. And I think that where audience
sometimes maybe gets a little tripped up or is sort
of anti age Israel, I think is just because the
sheer magnitude of the funds that are going to them,
And I don't think that it's ever really been clearly
articulated to the American people, like what exactly we're getting

(58:08):
in return for that. And I think too, I mean,
you know, as someone who's covered foreign influence right and
foreign lobbying, you know, the idea of any foreign country
having a strong lobbying presence in DC is something.

Speaker 6 (58:20):
That I take a version to. And I think that,
you know, whether it's APAK or whatever.

Speaker 5 (58:24):
Entity it may be, I think that that just sort
of hard hard to square.

Speaker 6 (58:30):
Conversely, it's like, well, I also don't.

Speaker 5 (58:33):
Want and I think if you go back to the
infamous Steve whiteboard pick what was it designating the Muslim
brother and a terrorist organization.

Speaker 4 (58:39):
From the White House.

Speaker 5 (58:41):
Yes, he always says that his biggest regret was never
doing that. And for Steve Bannon, who's had a lot
of lives and a lot of cool things, for that
to be as big as regret, I think tells you something.
And I think the way that our show sort of
conceives of Islam is probably a little more on the
not Islam with phobic scale. But I think maybe reject

(59:01):
the framing then it's a phobia, because I do think
some of the fears are are rational in the sense
that I think if you look at well, it's funny,
I sort of feel like the Chinese Communist Party threat,
and if even if you look at like the trajectory
of someone like Frank Gaffney sort of superseded the idea
that it was the Muslim Brotherhood who was coming to
overtake the global you know, hegemony of the United States
with the Caliphate, and then suddenly like the Chinese Communist

(59:22):
Party became the new threat. And I'm always cagy of
that kind of stuff because I do think it can
very quickly turn into like reductive neocon war mongering, right
where it's like, well, I'm a really bad, squishy Republican senator,
but I'm really tough on China, right, but.

Speaker 6 (59:36):
I'm really anti it. Yeah, I really think we need to.

Speaker 5 (59:40):
So I'm aware it can become performative very quickly in
the same way like the transgender bathroom stuff, right, it
sort of becomes a cultural thing.

Speaker 4 (59:47):
Muslims were, where it's like, oh, it sort of comes
comes back.

Speaker 1 (59:53):
It goes to my earlier point that right wing populism
often needs to because it won't go after the one
or said it often needs like, oh, it's the Muslim Brotherhood.

Speaker 5 (01:00:02):
I also think that that's a function two of right
wing media in terms of like I think our show
and it's funny, I'm even sort of struggling, like you played.

Speaker 6 (01:00:13):
One of my rants.

Speaker 5 (01:00:14):
I much prefer having something to rant about as opposed
to something to celebrate about from just a broadcasting perspective,
and I think we thrive on like having an enemy.
And I do think sometimes the MSMB secretique of us
is like we do better in opposition than actually ruling.
Is sort of an interesting critique if you look at

(01:00:36):
it through the lens of right wing media. In other words,
like we were all united right during the campaign because
we had a clear and defined enemy and a clear
and defined goal. But then very soon after you sort
of started to see the fracturing of the base, the
atual me stuff happened the sort of like yeah, right,
it happened very quickly. And that's why in some ways,

(01:00:57):
and this may be a hot take, I almost think
that it would have been better for Republicans. Don't actually,
but like had Democrats taken the House or something, because
then we would have had something to really push back
against as opposed to be infighting, because it'd be like, oh,
we're all concerned that they're going to impeach president Trump,

(01:01:18):
like we're very good. I would maybe push back on
the frame of a conspiratorial I think, is it conspiratorial?
Is it coincidental? But just sort of the like linking
of a bunch of stories. I think it's pattern recognition
is maybe how I would describe it. And I think
that now we're sort of like not struggling, but the
resistance is very weak.

Speaker 6 (01:01:38):
And if I had to host the show this evening, like.

Speaker 5 (01:01:43):
I could have, you know, two months ago, done a
whole rant about every way that in our view, they
were trying to sort of, you know, fool around with
election stuff, and they were trying to you know, lie
or smear President Trump. And now like the best that
I can do is into the you know, attorney who's
representing the nine and anonymous FBI agents who in twenty

(01:02:05):
twenty two is tweeting up the storm.

Speaker 6 (01:02:06):
About how quote all of MAGA needs to be fired
from the United States government.

Speaker 5 (01:02:10):
So it's it's just a shift, and I'm just like
I want to like, I'm like, give me a chance
to rant well.

Speaker 4 (01:02:16):
And so this brings me at least my last question,
because I could keep doing this forever. This is from
M and n H This is a viewer who says
what ethical consideration should be top of mind for war
Room and other new media outlets as they report on
the White House with their newfound access. We talked about
this a little bit earlier and how you feel like
from the America first perspective, your climb balls and strikes. So,

(01:02:36):
as somebody who is generally supportive of MAGA in there
pressing the White House Press secretary, you have an opportunity
to do it. How are you thinking about that? To
the point that M and N is making, Is this
like a is it a priority to push the White House?
Is it a priority to use your time in a
way that advances maybe concerns? How are you get about

(01:03:00):
this as somebody who's a journalist but also it's sort
of in the camp of the White House.

Speaker 5 (01:03:06):
Well, I would say my first and foremost ethical consideration
is what I wear.

Speaker 6 (01:03:10):
No, the skirts are not going anywhere, you know.

Speaker 5 (01:03:16):
It was funny they were mad at me for wearing sneakers,
which I was like everyone does when they're not on camera,
and I was like, look, I was actually go friendly
and I walked to the White House from Capitol Hill,
so I was like, I love walking.

Speaker 6 (01:03:29):
It's my favorite thing to do.

Speaker 5 (01:03:31):
So I was like, I was trying to reduce my
carbon footprint, and then I got ratioed for it, but
not ratioed. We ratioed the Daily Mail and they had
to take the journalist's name.

Speaker 6 (01:03:40):
Off the story. It's another war room wind, the power
of the war of audience.

Speaker 5 (01:03:44):
But no, I think that's an interesting question, and I
think that it's something that I've kind of internally struggled with.

Speaker 6 (01:03:50):
I've always said, despite my you know.

Speaker 5 (01:03:52):
Rather bombastic rhetoric like I have, I spent a lot
of my free time actually trying to deduce how to
be a responsible steward of this platform that I have
not stumbled into. But just you know, in twenty three,
put yourself in my shoes. You're speaking to hundreds of
thousands of millions of people, the most powerful politically. Like
it's a lot to conceive of and not sound cliche,

(01:04:16):
but I've always just sort of let the truth guide me.
That's why I've always stuck to sort of like primary
source based reporting also made writing copy easier because I
could just sort of copy and paste from one of
the documents that the grants were saying.

Speaker 6 (01:04:29):
But I also think.

Speaker 5 (01:04:30):
Too, like it's an interesting question because we are forthright
and our support for President Trump, and I'm aware that
maybe that's hard.

Speaker 6 (01:04:38):
To square with the idea of like being a journalist, but.

Speaker 5 (01:04:42):
I'm sorry every time I walk in that press briefing
room and everyone's sitting there, who has their you know,
superior superiority complex and like, you know, I guess really
chip on their shoulder, but like the idea that like
we're a clownish operation by being there, it's like, you
guys are probably more partisan.

Speaker 6 (01:04:57):
Than we are.

Speaker 5 (01:04:58):
And that's sort of what I find to be the
most cognitively dissonant or just gaslighting experience of that press
briefing room, where I'm like, I have to sit here
and pretend like what you guys are doing is telling
the truth. Like they act so professional and so serious,
and I'm like, you're a bunch of liars and you're

(01:05:19):
advancing a certain talking point or certain narrative. So I
just to keep our audience kind of ahead of the
curve because I don't want to be a Trump cheerleader
for four years. I don't really find any intellectual merit
in doing that either. If you can tell like I
love digging into documents. I don't like standing there and
being like.

Speaker 6 (01:05:36):
Oh my gosh, we took over Gassa and how I've
sort of come to.

Speaker 5 (01:05:42):
Really, I think square that is focusing on the resistance
because it gives me something.

Speaker 6 (01:05:48):
To latch onto because I guess maybe I need.

Speaker 5 (01:05:50):
An enemy or something to cover, So I really want
to focus on that angle. But I also think too,
like I want to cover the media, Like there's enough
people who are gonna be trying to ask questions.

Speaker 6 (01:06:01):
I you know.

Speaker 5 (01:06:02):
Learned the hard way, like this is where I stand,
this is where I sit. I'm like, okay, sir, I'm
not trying to come for your see, I'm new, like
I got it. And I think covering the media is
more interesting. And sure it's funny the people in the
briefing room and the masks and when someone asks the question,
they're like rolling their eyes because it's, you know, a

(01:06:23):
different outlet than what.

Speaker 6 (01:06:24):
They're used to.

Speaker 5 (01:06:25):
But I think, to wrap up my answer, what we
were talking about in terms of the resistance stuff like
civil society and the media is the crux is the
cornerstone of their ability to push back on President Trump.

Speaker 6 (01:06:40):
Right now, it's all they have, and being in that
press briefing room therefore, sure it gives.

Speaker 5 (01:06:46):
Me access to the White House, the President, but it
also gives me access to sort of ground zero of
the resistance, and that is what I want to cover
and sort of use that as like primary sourt of
supporting to supplement the reporting that I've been doing kind
of independently on tracking the resistance stuff.

Speaker 6 (01:07:05):
So that's how I.

Speaker 5 (01:07:07):
View it, which is, you know, maybe not the traditional
ethics space journal but I think we live in a
post journalism ethics world and I think I'm the first
to admit it. They'll if they want to admit otherwise
I would just point them to their viewership.

Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
I mean to support your point. And this probably happened
when you were in elementary school back when Time magazine
was a big deal in Washington. Time Magazine's White House
correspondent transition to become Obama's spokesperson. So it went and
went from the seat to the podium.

Speaker 6 (01:07:37):
So, Carolyn Love, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
Been on war room a ton, which now I would
humbly suggest that the resistance is boring and that you
should take your talents and focus them on Musk corporate America.
Trying to co opt the Mega movement and the intelligence community.
That element of the residence I think is very interesting,
and that brings me to this very interesting question that
I'm curious about too. Gbr You says, is Donald Trump

(01:08:03):
aware of the statements Steve Bannon has been making about
Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Andresen and their intellectual guru,
Curtis Yarvin, has war Room Bannon, you or any other
MAGA affiliated person or organization brought these concerns about techno
feudalism to President Trump? Is it? Is it breaking through?

Speaker 5 (01:08:23):
I think that person asse on that would be Steve, right.
I don't want to speak about their conversations, but I mean,
I don't even think it's just like a you know,
Steve president Trump conversation.

Speaker 6 (01:08:34):
I think that you can't like turn on a TV
or the media.

Speaker 5 (01:08:38):
Without being inundated with like this is the thing itself, right,
this is the the story right now, you know, Stephen
president Trump talk. Obviously he's not shy about that. But
you know, Elot obviously has a seat at the table too.
But I do think, I mean also to the sheer
power of our audience, Like I said, that's a very

(01:09:00):
grassroots force, so I don't think they're going to want
to alienate.

Speaker 6 (01:09:05):
Us.

Speaker 5 (01:09:05):
But like I said, it's all about having a seat
at the table and we can debate it out and
when you have full transparency, like we will win. I
have full faith in Stephen K. Bannon and myself and
our kind of approach to the issue. I mean, you
see Mark Zuckerberg and all these people are getting like
totally ratio and controlled. No one believes their conversion. So
I think I think it's just sort of a time

(01:09:26):
will tell thing, like you know, and maybe maybe.

Speaker 1 (01:09:29):
This could be the last one because there's a ton
of interest from our lefty audience.

Speaker 6 (01:09:34):
Here, and I was scared they were going to be
mean to me.

Speaker 1 (01:09:37):
Well they did want they are a bunch of them
said they wanted to ask you about the correspondence typo,
which I don't know what that means, do you know?

Speaker 5 (01:09:47):
I know this whole interview, I'm like, I'm so smart,
I'm so good at my job. I'm twenty three and
like the youngest white OSK correspondent ever, I'm so intelligent.

Speaker 6 (01:09:54):
No.

Speaker 5 (01:09:55):
When I when I tweeted out the now infamous picture,
I spol a co respondent with one R. And it
was because it was I was getting ready to like
go on air, and you know, you don't understand love
Real America's voice, but I put them in the category
like tech startup. So it's very like ratchet and and.

Speaker 6 (01:10:17):
I'm like getting pulled in this direction. I have like
my air pods in my phone's not connecting.

Speaker 5 (01:10:21):
Like every journalist that like we've ever attacked, I think
Steve the second before they came to me, they were like,
we need to send these people to prison, like and
I'm like, well it see anything. You just called like
three of the people that I just saw walk by
like that they should go to jail. So I'm standing
there so like and I wanted to tweet out the
picture because I was like, this is like a cool picture.

Speaker 6 (01:10:41):
It's like, you know, we'll make.

Speaker 5 (01:10:43):
Some people jealous, right, And so I know that when
I had typed out correspondent, which is sort of like
a difficult word spell, I was like the first rate, Okay,
it's still complicated. I'm I was very honest, and I
just got you know, like when you just want to
use autocorrect, so you just kind of like get the
gist of the word out there and then you let.

Speaker 4 (01:11:04):
It trust the machine. Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:11:06):
So I guess for.

Speaker 5 (01:11:06):
Some reason, autocorrect thinks that I am like, well, you know,
correspondent with one R means like the fair partner a divorce.
I did not know.

Speaker 6 (01:11:18):
I'm not.

Speaker 4 (01:11:19):
Wow, did you learn something you ever?

Speaker 1 (01:11:21):
Know?

Speaker 6 (01:11:21):
But that one super viral, So.

Speaker 7 (01:11:22):
I kind of know, though I guess I guess I'm
docsing myself.

Speaker 6 (01:11:26):
No I'm not.

Speaker 5 (01:11:26):
But yeah, so that was that was kind of annoying,
and then they all piled in foot I will defend
my honor and as a true opposition researcher. The lady
who first quote tweeted me that led to like, it's
like forty or fifty million impressions. I was like, oh
my gosh, this is so embarrassing. She spelled correspondent wrong too.
I went through Rachel Bitakoffer. I went through her Twitter,

(01:11:48):
and twice in February, it was February seventh and February
eighth of twenty nineteen.

Speaker 6 (01:11:52):
She was tweeting about.

Speaker 5 (01:11:53):
The Virginia Correspondence Association. They were having their like big
annual dinner, and she spelled it with one R, and she.

Speaker 6 (01:11:58):
Did it twice. So that's reflective.

Speaker 5 (01:12:01):
Of your intelligence, Buston, I am smarter than her.

Speaker 1 (01:12:05):
Aside from that, there does seem to be a lot
of lefty hope that your faction is going to beat
the techno feudalist authoritarian faction. And one of these this
all make this the last one is related to I
think asking you to look at some of the left
wing stuff that was done and evaluated in a fair way.

(01:12:25):
So they say, what are your thoughts on the Inflation
Reduction Act which promotes re shoring American jobs combined with
imposing tariffs on imports to boost the US energy manufacturing sector,
which is an accurate description of the IRA.

Speaker 5 (01:12:42):
Well, I will say I think they did an absolutely
horrific job on messaging on some of their their winds
like I can, like I said, we call balls and striking,
But from a more I think meta kind of bird's
eye view perspective, you can't really tell me they did
a good job with reducing inflation. And I think if
you look at their economic track record, whether it's the

(01:13:02):
revisions of the jobs reports, I think what was like
twelve out of thirteen times downward or the fact that
so many of the new jobs that they created. I
think it was at the end of it, like a
net loss for Americans, and the net gain was happening
among non citizens or like immigrant workers. So I always find,
and I'm the first to admit it, that like economic
data really confusing and overwhelming because there's so many layers

(01:13:23):
to it, and they're like, well, consumer confidence or the
price in decks is really high, and I'm like, well,
what is that based on Americans lived experience?

Speaker 6 (01:13:30):
Is absolutely horrific.

Speaker 5 (01:13:33):
So I don't I mean, I think if they want
to hang on to what they did with the economy
as being something really strong, I would highly.

Speaker 6 (01:13:42):
Advise against that.

Speaker 5 (01:13:43):
I also think too, it's a broader I think issue
in terms of I don't think any president who oversaw
an invasion of fifteen million illegal aliens the most oppressive
force on American workers' wages, you can't say that that
was good for reducing inflation helping American workers.

Speaker 1 (01:13:58):
Separate it from Biden and partisans the idea of the
Inflation Reduction Act, where you are subsidizing American jobs and
transition to a clean energy economy which China's killing us
in like in general directionally, if you separate it from Democrats.
Is that something that fits into abandoned style.

Speaker 5 (01:14:20):
I think they're supporting American manufacturing base. Of course, I
think President Trump kind of went a different way of
trying to do that, more like tariff get kind of
that sort of approach. But yeah, I think Peter Navarro,
who obviously helped co host the show while he was
in prison as close friends with all of us, we
were very close with him, is very supportive of that too.

Speaker 6 (01:14:40):
We're very for restoring. I mean, if it were.

Speaker 5 (01:14:42):
Up to Steve, we would like kick out all Chinese
companies and maybe the big tech ones too while we're
at it.

Speaker 1 (01:14:48):
But it did say break up the big tech companies. Yeah,
but he said they should have left Lean a conon place.

Speaker 5 (01:14:54):
But I just think it's sort of performative and not
just a Democrat thing. Not to skirt your question, but
like the idea that they're actually genuinely trying to reshore
manufacturing jobs, there's.

Speaker 6 (01:15:06):
Still that sort you know what I mean, Like it's it.

Speaker 5 (01:15:08):
I don't think it had the impact that they intended,
not because the legislation was bad or ideologically unprincipled. But
this city is just and big business, big donors, corporate interests.
They want to outsource and that's the fundamental issue, Like
they just hate American workers, So I think you have
to negotiate with them much more intensely.

Speaker 6 (01:15:30):
Like carrot stick. I think tariffs are more of the stick.

Speaker 5 (01:15:33):
I think stuff like that is a little more carrot based,
and they're not going to take the carrot like you.

Speaker 1 (01:15:37):
You have to smash them. Yeah, smash the rich.

Speaker 4 (01:15:40):
Fascinating right, Yeah, thank you for growing in us.

Speaker 6 (01:15:44):
Thank you so much. I'm so glad I wore that.
That's scared otherwise I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:15:49):
No, I mean, listen, like the media infiltration of the
White House PRESSU room is long overdue, like new media
infiltration or.

Speaker 1 (01:15:56):
The White House, I'll see you in there.

Speaker 4 (01:15:59):
Yes, that's right. But thank you so much for having
Thanks for thanks for being on taking the time.

Speaker 6 (01:16:05):
We appreciate it. Thank you guys. Awesome.

Speaker 4 (01:16:06):
Well, we'll be back with more counterpoints next week, so
stay tuned for that. Appreciate it season

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}2/7/25: Steve Bannon WH Correspondent On Elon, Trump, GOP Infighting!!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

2/7/25: Steve Bannon WH Correspondent On Elon, Trump, GOP Infighting!!

On Purpose with Jay Shetty