4/21/25: SCOTUS Blocks El Salvador Deportations, Japan Rebukes Trump On Trade, Full Blown Pentagon Meltdown

Ryan and Saagar discuss SCOTUS blocks El Salvador deportations in midnight order, Japan stands up to Trump on tariffs, full blown meltdown at the Pentagon.

 

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

 

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

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the 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 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. Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have an
amazing show for everybody today, bro show people live for
the Pound. Ryan Grimm is here in the house and
we have a packed show.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
All right, let's see what we've got here.

Speaker 3 (00:45):
Toughest part of the job, El Salvador, we're going to
be having peace go on from uh he's previously joined us.
He's a lawyer, he's got a lot of expertise on immigration.
You did a very good job of explaining and breaking
stuff down. There has been so many legal developments just
over the last like forty eight hours or is the
Supreme Court has gotten involved, basically blocked the entire Trump
administration using the Alien Enemies Act. He's gonna explain what

(01:06):
that means, what the justification is, and what the future
looks like.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
We are going to talk about tariffs.

Speaker 3 (01:10):
There's been some major hang ups in the Trump administration's
plan to negotiate bilateral trade agreements. The country of Japan
has indicated it is not going to see two US demands.
There's a lot of watch on Japan because it's the
first major ally to actually negotiate with the Trump administration here,
and there's some troubling signs as well as some peak
behind the curtain of how we got our little ninety

(01:30):
day pause. It's not exactly the best and the brightest.
We're going to talk about Pete hagg Set and Pete
hagg Set. It seems there's just insane insanity.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Going on right now at the Pentagon.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
There's a full scale perch, a literal purge of top officials,
many of whom are very against war with Iran, where
loyal to Pete hagg Sat. They all appear to have
been fired and at the very same time heg sat
now embroiled in a scandal where he allegedly sent those
same Yemen war plans to a group chat which included
his wife and brother. We are going to talk about

(02:01):
a little story here that Ryan and I worked on together.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
I believe Ryan.

Speaker 3 (02:06):
It's my first byline in six years, So it's good
to be back. It's going to be back at drop
sites and.

Speaker 4 (02:10):
For people who aren't in journalism.

Speaker 5 (02:12):
When two people write a story together, they called it
co byline, we gotta go with cobro line.

Speaker 1 (02:16):
Yeah, cob bro like get a lot.

Speaker 4 (02:19):
I like it.

Speaker 3 (02:19):
It's good to be back. Ryan and I worked on
the story together. An exclusive report that our subscribers will
hear first. So if you want to get that, go ahead.
Breakingpoints dot Com not going to give it away guess yet.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
Israel. We're going to talk about some updates there.

Speaker 3 (02:34):
Of course, just Israel admitting that they killed those medics.

Speaker 1 (02:39):
They call it a mistake. They fired the brigade.

Speaker 5 (02:42):
This is what accountability means. They removed one guy, that's
his job.

Speaker 6 (02:45):
That's it.

Speaker 3 (02:46):
And beyond that, Ryan, you're going to get into how
the deal, the TikTok of how they even got to
an admission of guilt.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
A lot of it was because of you guys. A
lot of it was because of.

Speaker 3 (02:55):
Journalists that were there on the ground, reporting from behind
the scenes, and it was specifically not because the legacy
media that forced this. We're going to as well give
some updates on the Iran potential Iran deal. There is
a full scale war and this relates very much the
story that Ryan and I are doing a full scale
war inside the Trump administration itself over the feasibility of
these continued negotiations with Iran. Negotiations do continue and they're

(03:18):
very positive signals. Of course, they could fall apart at
any time, and the neo con war on the individuals
who were involved, people like Steve Wikoff, Adam Boehler and
others continues. The Israel lobby is throwing everything they possibly
can to kill these We're going to give everybody an update.
And then finally, finally, some interesting moments there on the
Joe Rogan experience with Tim Dillon Rogan openly mockt Douglas

(03:40):
Murray and Douglas Murray and Bill Maher teaming up to
openly go after Joe Rogan. Interesting all former guests and friends,
you know, apparently together.

Speaker 1 (03:50):
So there's a lot going on.

Speaker 4 (03:51):
There, makes it too easy.

Speaker 3 (03:52):
Yeah, have seen too Yeah, I mean it's too Goodsten Douglas,
you did it to yourself, brother, You make yourself look
like an idio.

Speaker 1 (04:00):
People are gonna take a notice, all right.

Speaker 3 (04:02):
So before we get to that, just thank you to
everybody he's been subscribing to Breakingpoints dot com. Ryan and
Emlin did a fantastic job on the Friday Show, which,
of course we have extra premium content that they did
for us on Friday, available only to.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
Our premium subscribers.

Speaker 3 (04:15):
Tomorrow, Kris and I will be doing our live Ask
Me Anything and their continued expansions here. So if you
can support us Breakingpoints dot Com again. If you cannot,
it's totally fine. Just make sure that you like and
subscribe either to this video or any of the other
videos they're watching. And guys, if you are listening, just
go ahead take this podcast episode and send it to
a friend, lead a five star review. It's the best

(04:37):
possible thing you could do for this.

Speaker 5 (04:38):
If you can do it now, you should do it
now because thanks to Trump, you might not be able
to do it soon because it might be laid off soon.

Speaker 4 (04:45):
So point spend it while you've got it.

Speaker 5 (04:47):
Yes, Yes, support something that you care about so that
it can survive the coming time.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
There you go, all right, well, thank you very much.
Yes for and I do.

Speaker 3 (04:54):
I would never advocate for anybody going too credit card dad,
So if that's true, just.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
Like it to spare card like a share and subscribe
to the and send it to a friend. All right,
No hard feelings.

Speaker 3 (05:02):
Also, we had some very sad news that broke overnight.
Pope Francis officially died. He's eighty eight years old. Just
met literally yesterday with the Vice President of the United States.

Speaker 1 (05:12):
He wasn't looking so good in that.

Speaker 3 (05:14):
But of course there will be kickoff the major conclave
and all of the traditions surrounding the selection of the
new pope.

Speaker 1 (05:21):
So it is an end of an era. Certainly condolences
all the Catholics out there.

Speaker 5 (05:24):
And we'll talk about this later on the program. And
I promise I will not make fun of Jade vans Ford.

Speaker 1 (05:28):
Okay, I mean you can.

Speaker 3 (05:29):
I mean it's objectively funny, but I mean, you know,
it's not a funny moment, of course, for what is
it a billion Catholics something like that. He lived a
life around the world. Yeah, he had a very interesting life.
So we'll talk a little bit about his legacy. We'll
talk about it there at the end. But with that,
let's go ahead and get to Pisco. He's waiting for us.
Joining us now is Pisco. He is the host of
Pisco's Hour for our purposes. He's actually an attorney and

(05:50):
he's got a lot of specialization in immigration. She's been
doing a decent job. He joined us before. He did
a great job breaking down those legal developments. And we
have even more legal developments here, specifically involving the Supreme Court. So, guys,
let's go ahead and put this up there on the screen.
This came over the weekend where it was an extraordinary
order from the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court
blocking the Trump administration from deporting foreign nationals under the

(06:13):
Alien Enemies Act. So peace, go go ahead and describe
this order, how many justices were for, how many were against,
the timing of which it came out, because there was
a lot of legal analysis going over the entire breath
of the decision.

Speaker 7 (06:28):
Go ahead, yeah, sure, So this is an extraordinary order.
The ACLU went to the District Court, went to the
Appellate Court, the Fifth Circuit, and then also to the
Supreme Court, almost concurrently, you know, within hours of each other,
because there was news that the Trump administration was moving
quickly to deport tons of alleged alien enemies. If you

(06:51):
remember the last time we spoke, there was that ruling
and holding that even alleged alien enemies are entitled to
do process and to have habeas petitions. While as I predicted,
and as you know, we talked about, they were going
to interpret what reasonable noticement and according to the ACLU,
that meant twenty four hours and you got to sort
of signal that you were going to file a habeas petition.

Speaker 6 (07:12):
And so in an.

Speaker 7 (07:12):
Extraordinary order, the Supreme Court at like one o'clock in
the morning ordered quote the government to stop and pause
any deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. It was right now,
there's only two noted descents. We don't know for sure
that all the other seven were in favor, but there
were no other noted descents.

Speaker 6 (07:31):
So people are assuming now that there was a seven too, holding.

Speaker 7 (07:35):
To pause all Alien Enemies Act deportations in a certain
part of Texas.

Speaker 5 (07:39):
Okay, so let's put up a two speaking of these descents.
This is sam Alido. He writes in some literally in
the middle of the night, the court issued unprecedented and
legally questionable relief, without giving the lower courts a chance
to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight
hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for
its order, and without providing any explanation for its order.
Refused to join the courts order because we had no

(08:01):
good reason to think that under the circumstances, issuing an
order at midnight was necessary or appropriate. Both the executive
and the judiciary have an obligation to follow the law now.
At the same time, you had a rather dramatic circuit
court hearing with the judge there that the Trump administration
kind of despises, where you had the attorneys for the

(08:24):
migrants saying, we are hearing that people are being ordered
to change clothes right now, like we can smell the
fumes of the of the buses that are going to
take these men to the airport. Please, sir, please your honor,
like you have to act now. And he refused to
step in, saying that he didn't have the jurisdiction at
the time to inject himself into the controversy. But the

(08:46):
Supreme Court did then just hours later. So can you
talk about Alito's claim here that there actually is no
urgency and that they shouldn't get done that. Where were
the people in question at this moment?

Speaker 7 (08:59):
Yeah, by all accounts, the reporting is they were on
buses ready to go to the airport and they were
getting ready to take off. Now, I think you're referencing
a hearing with Judge Boseburg, and in that case it's
in a different jurisdiction. Boseburg is pretty much saying saying,
you know, my hands are tied. The Supreme Court said,
you know, the right venue for these habeas petitions has
to be in the place where the confinement you know,

(09:20):
was at the time the the Habey's pission was filed.
And so I actually don't blame Boseburg at all. He
was just you know, holding on to that rule earlier.

Speaker 5 (09:28):
His people as well, because it covers all class of
people under the Alien Enemies ect.

Speaker 7 (09:32):
It covers only people in Texas. The Supreme Court's order itself.
And but Boseburg is saying, listen, I don't have jurisdiction here.
I have to listen to the Supreme Court. So that
makes sense. As for Alito's concerns in ordinary circumstances, yeah,
Alito would be right. You know, you're supposed to go
through the ordinary process of appeal. You're supposed to, you know,
make sure that you're exhausting your remedies in the district

(09:55):
court and then at the Circuit Court of Appeals. Here's
the problem, nobody believes the government when they say, hey,
we're not going to deport these people. Oftentimes they're not
even able to make those representations in court. Oftentimes, you know,
they lie. You know, they're already lying about the decision.
They say that it was nine to zero in their favor,
the previous decision for kill Mar and Brego Garcia, and
so you can tell the Supreme Court they're a little spooked.

(10:17):
I think that those seven justices they don't trust the administration.
And so when Alito says there's no factual basis to
believe that these people are about to be deported, he's
taking the government at their word.

Speaker 6 (10:29):
And what the government has shown is you shouldn't.

Speaker 3 (10:31):
So I think that's actually the most interesting part about
the late night decision is it was clearly to the
Supreme Court trying to assert its jurisdiction and its orders
after watching the Trump administration and the way they have
handled a lot of the kill Mar Abrego Garcia case,
speaking of which there have been some extraordinary developments on
that over the weekend as well. We had a couple

(10:51):
of instances. Ryan and Emily did a good job on
Friday of breaking down the meeting between Senator Chris van
Holland and Abrego Garcia that took place in Elsialvador. But
what actually came following that announcement was interesting as well,
a continued claim from the Trump administration that Abrago Garcia
was a confirmed member of MS thirteen. We have a

(11:12):
little bit here from Abrago Garcia's lawyer being asked specifically
about tattoos that allegedly show his MS thirteen membership on
his hands, and then I want to get your reaction afterwards.

Speaker 1 (11:22):
Let's take a listen to his lawyer.

Speaker 8 (11:23):
One thing that we've heard from the legal team and
against this allegation from the White House is about his history.
I know that you've said he doesn't have a criminal history,
that he had never been arrested for anything before people
to the White House have pointed out to me. They
say that doesn't mean that he wasn't a member of
MS thirteen. There's not always criminal activity on someone's record
if they are in a gang. And I want to

(11:45):
show you something that the President posted tonight. It's a
photo of what he says is your client's left hand.
You can see his knuckles there, and the President is
showing these tattoos that the White House alleges.

Speaker 3 (11:57):
Break down what's going on there in terms of the claim.
I know that you've looked and actually read a lot
of the docket. There's a lot of conservative influencers of
like a confirmed member of MS thirteen break it all
down for the audience here.

Speaker 7 (12:08):
Yeah, So, first of all, it's important to note that
it doesn't matter even if you were an MS thirteen member.
Even the worst criminals in the country deserve due process,
and none of the Supreme Courts holding related to due
process you rely on whether or not you're a member
of MS R teen or not. But to actually address
the claim, they're basing on a sort of police report

(12:28):
that existed in twenty nineteen where a cop who was
later sort of suspended for behavior that's frankly, you know,
I don't know if I would say corrupt, but certainly
bad behavior where he was having sex with a prostitute
that he was also feeding you know, confidential information to
and this cop on the basis of really just hearsay,

(12:49):
someone said he's a member of MS thirteen and he's
wearing like Chicago Bulls clothing. They alleged that he was
a member of MS thirteen, and so that claim got
sort of funneled into the immigration court.

Speaker 4 (13:00):
Say like do we even know that this person exists?

Speaker 6 (13:02):
Like, we don't know who this person's name is, We
don't know who they are.

Speaker 7 (13:06):
Yeah, right, So the holdings of the immigration courts were
with respect to a bond hearing. Okay, a bond hearing
is a very different threshold than a finding a fact,
And like, you know, if there's some issue, uh, you know,
some legal issue that needs to be fettered out by
the court, imagine it, right, Imagine if in a bond
hearing you were accused of murder or something and the
court found probable costs to hold you or just to

(13:28):
hold you, right, just the amount of evidence it would
take for you know, them to keep you in a
cage until there is the process right. You don't have
any right to cross examine this person. There was no
availability of this officer to be cross examined. And so
it is the height I think of, you know, a
propagandist to suggest that these rulings related to the bond hearing,

(13:50):
you know, are actual findings of fact that the member
of MS R team, and all the evidence is to
the contrary in my opinion. No criminal record here, no
criminal record in El Salvador. You know those tattoos, it's
it's like the Glenn Beck You guys ever see the
Glenn Beck board where they're just like connecting dots and
they're saying that the marijuana leaf represents M, the smiley
face represents S, and so they're just trying to make connections.

Speaker 6 (14:11):
There.

Speaker 5 (14:12):
Don't how much you know about MS thirteen, but if
people look up the tattoos that MS thirteen gang members wear,
they will write MS thirteen, like across their face, it's
blaring and underlining, it's circling it all across their back.

Speaker 4 (14:28):
MS thirteen.

Speaker 5 (14:30):
They are not a shy gang like, they're not the
kind They're not like a fourteen year old who's, you know,
trying to get like something past their their parents or
their teacher, like haha, haa, I got a little marijuana leaf,
but it actually means the M and MS thirteen Like
they blare it out, you get kicked out of the gang.
If you're like, wait, are you in MS thirteen or not?

Speaker 1 (14:48):
Like what is this me noted MS thirteen?

Speaker 7 (14:50):
Expert, right, exactly, no, no, no, But you read the
like the tattoo analysis documents that they're giving to some
of these ice officers, and they're you, you know, there's
one tattoo. I remember it said ral asadamorte, which means
you know, real Madrid until death. But people take that
to be like a gang tattoo. It's just, you know,
absurd the lengths they'll go to. And even with some

(15:11):
of these other cases that are not seen as much coverage,
I think simply because this kill mar Garcia case is
so preposterous and so unlawful, but there are other cases
where we know, like it's an autism tattoo, or it's
a tattoo that says mom or dad, and so nobody
trust these tattoo experts, and when they actually go to court,
some of these habeas petitions have been brought in court.

(15:32):
In at least one instance, the court has asked the government, hey,
what's your evidence of this person as a gang member
and an alien enemy? And they have literally put up nothing, zero,
like not even just saying like the bad evidence that
they have here or the doctored photo or whatever.

Speaker 6 (15:45):
They have put up no evidence.

Speaker 7 (15:47):
And so this is really disturbing, and we shouldn't trust
the government's representations as to kill mar or as to
any of these alleged alien enemies.

Speaker 4 (15:54):
So yeah, just real quickly, I've seen real tattoo. People say.

Speaker 5 (15:57):
The most logical explanation for it would be weed makes
me happy. So Soccer would like to see him depoint it,
deport it just for that weed makes me happy, you know,
faith in the Lord till I die, like the Lord
till I die?

Speaker 3 (16:08):
Or what if it's faith in weed, which is even worse.
All right, let's get to make.

Speaker 4 (16:12):
It serious, all right, give them a second to make
it serious.

Speaker 1 (16:14):
To make it serious, let's let's turn to Tom Homan.
We're gonna be serious. Ryan's still on his high from
four to twenty.

Speaker 6 (16:23):
This is going on, all right.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
Let's get to Tom Homan.

Speaker 3 (16:26):
He's the immigrations are and he's asked specifically about this
tattoo identification process.

Speaker 1 (16:31):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 9 (16:32):
But no one's removed just because of a tattoo.

Speaker 10 (16:35):
In other words, the alienity next to me is you
can grab somebody and you can deport them without an
extended hearing because you have labeled them a terrorist, because
you've because you've said you've determined that somebody is a
member of the gang, and therefore they don't have to
go through the extended process of the of the opportunity
to have a full hearing.

Speaker 6 (16:53):
That's what you're saying. And let's just be clear.

Speaker 9 (16:56):
I'm saying, we're founding the laws of this country and
there's a different procedure of each one. We're doing things
when in the frame of the law, we're doing things legally. Okay,
I stand by that. Now Again, I'm not a constitutionist scholar.
I'm not going to argue this in court. That's what
the partner of justice does. But we're still I'm sitting
here today, I think we've done the right thing for
this nation, found the laws in the constitution in this country.

Speaker 3 (17:16):
So what do you get from that about not only
that the defense of the alien Enemies Act, the tattoo
justification and more.

Speaker 7 (17:23):
What do you think, Yeah, this guy's a depraved individual.
He has no idea what the law is. And they're
an open defiance of the Supreme Court. They're claiming that
they only have to give twenty four hours notice to people,
and that constitutes reasonable notice for some of these people
who don't even speak English to file habeas petitions. They
know they're flowed in the Supreme Court. That's one ruling, right,

(17:43):
that's the ruling related to the Alien Exact, that you
deserve a habea's petition.

Speaker 6 (17:46):
That's one rulein that they're violating.

Speaker 7 (17:47):
The second rule that they're violating is they're still not
facilitating the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmore
and now apparently he's been moved around multiple times. So
on the one hand, what I get from that is
open defiance. And the people who's most in charge of
the quote unquote border or enforcement doesn't even know the
bare bones of their enforcement policy, isn't able to speak
about it intelligently in a conversation, and in general, I

(18:10):
think this entire endeavor has been characterized by unlawfulness and illegality.
So his pretense that they've been doing everything to follow
the law, I think is just absurd.

Speaker 3 (18:21):
On the moving around part, that was one where I
was very confused as well. So Senator Chris van Holland,
who met with Garcia, broke down some of the things
he learned, not only about Garcia, but also about the
arrangement between the United States and El Salvador.

Speaker 1 (18:34):
Let's take a listen to that, and I want your
reaction as well.

Speaker 11 (18:36):
The Trump administration has promised to pay El Salvador fifteen
million dollars to detain these prisoners, including the illegally abducted filmore.

Speaker 12 (18:48):
Say honestly something about the government of Elsalvador. They are
making a huge mistake.

Speaker 6 (18:54):
You know.

Speaker 12 (18:54):
They want to brand themselves as a country for technology. Yeah,
you know, the presidents you know bitcoin is legal tender.
But now what they're branding themselves as as the place
for these huge prisons where people who are illegally deducted,
excuse me, illegally abducted.

Speaker 4 (19:16):
Are warehoused.

Speaker 12 (19:18):
There may be states that decide, you know, they don't
want any of their pension funds invested in companies that
invest in a place like El salvare.

Speaker 3 (19:29):
So that was an interesting kind of breakdown. He talked
about how there's a nine million dollar arrangement between the
United States and El Salvador about this movement of prisons.
What does that so, I mean, beyond the interest in
that in his particular circumstances, what does that.

Speaker 1 (19:42):
Mean for this legal arrangement.

Speaker 3 (19:44):
That's what a lot of people are trying to get
their heads around, both in the facilitation in terms of
ever being able to bring them back even if you
were to be deported again. Can you can you break
some of that down for us?

Speaker 6 (19:54):
Yeah?

Speaker 7 (19:55):
I think legally what is relevant about that is for
purposes of the concern regarding the Article to encroachment of
the court. So you'll remember and recall there was this
big discussion about, well, what can the Article two district
court or our Article three district court order the administration
to actually do you know, just facilitate me, I get

(20:15):
to order the Trump administration to invade El Salvador. Surely
it can't mean that, And so for purposes of that analysis,
I think the fact that there is a payment relationship
there makes us much more like a contracting situation. And
I think everyone would agree, right imagine that Guantanamo Bay
were being outsourced overset over Wa Tamamobai were being outsourced
to a private corporation or even like a foreign country

(20:37):
operate in Guantanamo Obay. That the nature of the payment
structure there sort of informs the court who actually has
the authority right if if he's in constructive custody of
the United States, regardless of whether or not the prison
guards themselves are Americans. That's a very different situation than
Britney Griner when she's in prison by the Russian Federation.

(20:58):
And so I think those are all things at the
Court is going to take into consideration there, and I
think it is legally relevant.

Speaker 1 (21:04):
Okay, Ran, you got anything else?

Speaker 11 (21:06):
All right?

Speaker 7 (21:06):
It?

Speaker 6 (21:07):
Well, I have a question for you, Seger.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
Sure, Tager, but yeah, oh.

Speaker 7 (21:10):
About Tager, I put my apologies. Isn't this condemnable? Didn't
the Trump administration do the wrong thing here?

Speaker 1 (21:16):
Oh? Absolutely?

Speaker 3 (21:17):
I mean I think that the way this has been
handled has been really a disaster. And I think, you
know the interesting thing, you know, I just I've said
this to Crystal also to Glenn as well, Like my
initial reaction, you know, to the entire case was a
baseline trust in like, not even trust per se, but
just in basic competence that I didn't expect that you
could actually be in a world where you would be

(21:39):
not only about Abrego Garcia being mistakenly deported, but where
you know, the United States criminal justice system validates gang
members in the brear of prisons literally every day. So
you would think that there is some baseline assumption around
how to classify people as a gang member. Let's say
you have eight to ten million, eight to ten million
I legals enter the country under Biden this conservative estimate,

(22:01):
and it's like, okay, it's reasonably assumption, you know, And
it's a reasonable assumption I think to say that a
two hundred and fifty or so they say that they're
the worst of the worst. I actually, you know, I've
approached that from a position of like, yeah, you know,
it sounds relatively reasonable. And then to see the way
that these claims have all fallen apart in court and
then the way that they've handled it, now, yeah, I
just don't think that it falls both under any legal scrutiny.

(22:22):
But I think also, you know, one of the things
I didn't take seriously at the time was not only
the due process, per position for any person in the
United States. But it really does validate a lot of
libertarian concerns and about defending the principle, even whenever it's
something that you matter the most, because it's obvious here
now that this is just the way that the administration
conducts itself, both on an immigration level, but also really
across the board whenever it comes to tariffs, whenever it

(22:44):
comes to so many of the different things.

Speaker 1 (22:46):
Signal gate the sheer stupidity, the.

Speaker 3 (22:48):
Incompetence, and then also just asking people to defend something
of which they themselves are admitting fault in a court
and then breaking it so that you have to completely
debase yourself. So yeah, I know, you know, you know,
I'm sure you wanted your gotcha, but you got you know,
you got right.

Speaker 6 (23:03):
Yes, I appreciate that.

Speaker 5 (23:04):
So I was coming around on this and a very
very tiny part of me is mad at the Trump
administration for what it did to its own supporters here
because it took it took the faith that its supporters
had that Trump was going to be diligent and honest
about Now, I never he didn't betray me, because I
never felt like he would do that. But they really

(23:25):
believe that, Okay, he's going to go in and he's
going to find three hundred of the worst, the worst,
and he's going to get them, get them out of here,
and instead he swept up. You know, at least it
looks like more than one hundred people have no gang
affiliation whatsoever. They're not even claiming they have gang affiliation.
The country's focused on Abrello Garcia, but you know, we
reported on what's his name, Sergio Reyes, who is a

(23:46):
goalkeeper from Venezuela who had a real Madrid. Another real
Madrid victim had a real Madrid tattoo and they locked
him up for that.

Speaker 4 (23:54):
Another one had.

Speaker 5 (23:55):
Like a tattoo autism awareness for because he had an
autistic brother. Then of course there's the makeup artist who
clearly is not an MS thirteen member, but I maybe.

Speaker 4 (24:05):
Had a tattoo.

Speaker 5 (24:06):
I forget why he wound up there, just mistake after
mistake and using people's kind of earnest support for the
Trump administration to marshal the capital to do that.

Speaker 1 (24:18):
Yeah, I think runs exactly right.

Speaker 3 (24:20):
And politically, I mean, I still think immigration is the
strongest ground that the Trump administration falls on, and I
think a lot of people are deluding themselves and thinking
that this is going to be like dramatically unpopular. Most
people don't watch the news or segments like this, and
they're broadly just like, oh, it was a gang member.
You know, there's still a lot of trust in the
Trump administration from the people who voted for Donald Trump,
but at a serious level, I mean, I think all

(24:41):
the concerns not only about due process, but about the
basic competence that an American can have in their government
in executing a policy which I do think was validated
at a large level by the American electorate on terms
of mass deportation. There was at least an assumption about
some basic levels of competence. One of the major hits
on the Biden administration was these of the most incompetent
people who've ever run the government.

Speaker 1 (25:02):
Look at the state of the country.

Speaker 3 (25:04):
We're going to restore some sense of normalcy, and I
just don't see that. You know, we've been some of
the ninety days ninety days now right in terms of
the Trump administration, from the DOGE cuts, which we're supposed
to be two trillion now they're one trinal. It's like
it really does become an all encompassing framework. And sure,
you know, liberals can say I told you so, but
you know, it's not like there's a lot of people
who trust them per se. So sometimes you do need

(25:25):
to see things. You need to see things for yourself.
And I encourage people to think for themselves and to
listen to people like you and to others and other debates, etc.
So thank you so much for joining us, man, We
appreciate it.

Speaker 6 (25:35):
Thank thanks so much for having them in.

Speaker 3 (25:39):
Let's get to the tariffs now, man, there has been
such a whirlwind around this. Let's put this up there
on the screen. Just actually very relevant something we've just
discussed about process, about incompetence. This is basically a straight
out of the first term so quote. Trump advisors took
advantage of Navarro's absence to push for a tariff pause.
Peter Navarrow quote had been a fixture on the President's

(26:01):
side after Liberation Day. So the Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik
and Secretary Besson they wanted a ninety day pause on
the global tariff plan. So what they did is they
basically created a situation where somebody else of the White
House complex invited Navarro to a meeting. Now he invited
them to a meeting which was across the street. Now,

(26:22):
while Navarro is conveniently across the street and cannot argue
against Secretary Bestin and Secretary Lutnik, Secretary Bestdon and Lutnik
rush into the Oval Office quote to see Trump and
propose a pause on these tariffs, without Navarro there to
argue her to push back. They know they had only
a very tight window. It was not on Trump's public schedule.
The two men convinced him of the strategy to announce

(26:43):
the pause and stayed with Trump until he tapped out
his truth social post, which surprised Navarro, who happened to
be in a meeting, and then immediately Secretary Beston walks
out of the West Wing in front of the cameras
to declare the policy.

Speaker 11 (26:59):
Ryan.

Speaker 3 (26:59):
So that is the level of care and attention the
steward of the global economy it currently has. Over all
of our fates are our business here at breaking points,
and so much more.

Speaker 5 (27:09):
The most important thing here is obviously the fate of
the global economy and all the people that of.

Speaker 4 (27:13):
Course rely on it.

Speaker 5 (27:15):
But underneath it there's this bit, this bubbling question of
insider trading.

Speaker 4 (27:20):
This, in an interesting way, exonerates, from my.

Speaker 5 (27:22):
Perspective, the charges of insider trading, because in order for
you to insider trade, you have to have reliable information
from the inside that you can then trade off. Nobody,
including the varrow, including Trump.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
Well and the US Trade representative.

Speaker 5 (27:40):
Including Besant, none of them knew that they would successfully
persuade Trump, like they had a plan. But you can't
trade off just a plan. Insider trading is supposed to be,
you know, for a fact X things. Well, so they
go in, that's just the three of them, and then
he taps it out on his phone.

Speaker 4 (27:55):
Right there, I'll give you a encounter three thousand points up.

Speaker 1 (27:58):
Here's my counter.

Speaker 4 (27:59):
Let's set a lot.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
So one of the reports from behind the scenes is
the secretary best and all week long, all he's doing
is taking calls from these Wall Street guns like you
need to stop, you need to stop, you need to stop.
Let's say that he tells them. He goes, listen, I'm
walking into the oval stone. Yeah, and I'm gonna try
and to change his mind. It's not a guarantee, right,
it's still a bet.

Speaker 1 (28:16):
Yeah, But these guys bets all the time. Right, a
tremendous amount upside.

Speaker 4 (28:19):
It's a stronger bet.

Speaker 1 (28:20):
It's a stronger bet.

Speaker 6 (28:21):
You know.

Speaker 3 (28:21):
It's a little bit of information like let's say, if
you can do more than you and I know here's
the thing, you know, I do a lot of reading
about ways to beat the casino plot twists, a dozen
years of work. But the thing is is that if
you can even rule out let's say, one fifth of
the roulette board, that changes the odds for everything else. Right, Yeah, yeah,
you're not gonna win, but in a long, long run,
you'll way, in the long run, you will win.

Speaker 6 (28:41):
So there you go.

Speaker 3 (28:42):
So that's a just even just a little bit of
information about what might not happen or might might happen,
is enough to make more of a structured bet which
you might be able to take to the bet and
obviously worked out for fair point.

Speaker 5 (28:52):
But like we said, the bigger point is we are
all living and dying by by this, and it does
not give you much confidence in the overasching strategy here,
which we can get which we can get into more
because the US is now dealing with the European Union,

(29:13):
we can put this next element up on the screen. Here,
we're seeing the US put into this extraordinarily difficult position
where we are going into these negotiations in a badly
weakened place, the dollars crashing, our stockbar is crashing, the
bond market is crashing, and you're seeing travel drop in

(29:36):
a way that is utterly extraordinary. So it's partly it's
the trade war that's going on. But I think primarily
I think so the trade war is creating a lot
of anger, But I think people don't make a lot
of their individual travel decisions based on their political thoughts
about the.

Speaker 4 (29:53):
Leadership of a country.

Speaker 5 (29:55):
People are nervous that they're going to wind up in
detention centers for some violation in their visa. I'm curious
how this lands on the right. On the left were like, a,
we we love foreign travels. It's good for the economy,
and we we don't do much else, Like we are
a service economy and so travel.

Speaker 3 (30:17):
I'm not going to downplay it. I'm not going to
overstate it either. It's nine percent of US GDP.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
That's a lot. There are rough.

Speaker 4 (30:26):
Total yah.

Speaker 3 (30:27):
Yeah, so if we look which is mass No, I'm
not so again, I'm not going to downplay it.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
It's also not in video. Okay, it's not the S
and P five hundred.

Speaker 3 (30:33):
Now, if that's easy for me to say, and I'm
not talking to what I'm trying to think.

Speaker 1 (30:38):
Orlando.

Speaker 3 (30:38):
If you own a hotel in Orlando, God bless you. Okay,
I feel bad for you. You know you just got
a massive hit if you own anything in upstate New
York or in Seattle, where a bunch of Canadians are
always traveling to. Apparently Canadians love Vegas. Vegas has taken
an absolute beating right now.

Speaker 1 (30:52):
I have more ambivalent about that one.

Speaker 3 (30:54):
But in terms of letting them take a hit, my
point is that there are a lot of people out
there rely on this rink.

Speaker 1 (30:59):
I'm not going to play that at all.

Speaker 3 (31:01):
At the same time, we are still talking about seventy
percent drop in travel, and you know that's not bad that.

Speaker 4 (31:05):
The bad numbers is just coming in zero.

Speaker 5 (31:08):
That's that's just what we've been able to measure so far.

Speaker 4 (31:11):
Like the direction of that arrow. It's like the Hamas Kara.

Speaker 3 (31:15):
Look, I feel complicated about it in certain ways because
you know, this is the same GDP argument, right that
people make about foreign real estate. It's like, listen, you
have to, Oh, we're the world's capital destination. I'm like, yeah,
but that's bad for a lot of people who are here.
One of the things I think that went most wrong
with America and it's global cities is that our cities,
when I say global, they really are global, as in,
they are the global playground for the world's rich in

(31:36):
the same way that Monaco or something is. Los Angeles
is not for America. Okay, it's for the richest people
on earth to all gather. Same thing with New York
City Manhattan real estate. It's a joke. Like if you're
a rich Chinese or rich Russian or rich whatever you know,
from some tiny African country, you're the one billionaire from there.
You're hanging out in Manhattan. Everybody who lives or in
any cities, they know that not only money laundering go

(31:58):
to Miami. What is it twenty six percent or whatever.
The real estate there is. But I'm talking fun occupied
about real estate. But what I'm saying is that but
there is a downside to being yes. But what I'm
saying is that being the global destination for the world's elite. Yes,
it's good for GDP purposes, but you lose a lot
whenever that happens as well, because you basically become this
playground where we're like serving these like super rich I

(32:21):
don't know, Guinea Bisawans like in Miami, and you're like, well,
what's going on here?

Speaker 1 (32:25):
Right right?

Speaker 3 (32:26):
I'm just I want to give the caveat for why
I don't think that it's as chopped up necessarily as
its usually.

Speaker 4 (32:32):
Yeah, and I agree.

Speaker 5 (32:34):
I just wish that the US had the kind of
political economy and the capacity to be able to say, Okay,
we're going to respond to this this Guinea Bissell oligarchs
to wants to park his you know, twenty five million
dollars that.

Speaker 6 (32:48):
He stole here.

Speaker 5 (32:49):
Well, you know it's going to cost you twenty percent
and we're twenty and we're talking about twenty fifty, way
more than let's negotiate for seventy five year period and
with that we're gonna we're gonna fund our school system. Instead,
we don't do any of that. We just completely sell
for nothing to the oligarchs. And if if that is

(33:10):
the system that we're going to have, then people are
going to burn it to the ground, and rightfully so.
But then you're not then without replacing it with anything else.

Speaker 3 (33:19):
Yeah, listen, not a lot of disagreement, just giving a
little bit of a counter perspective. Per se, I, you
don't really want an economy, right that relies entirely on
foreigners coming over here and spending a bunch of money. Right,
all those ship they don't need, and then we don't
need all.

Speaker 5 (33:31):
Those unoccupied rental properties that are or econominis or whatever
that are just money launtering and people stashing money. That
drives up the price of rent for everybody else there.

Speaker 1 (33:41):
You go, So maybe it'll be cheaper in plattsburgher and May.

Speaker 5 (33:45):
Everything is going to get cheaper in a lot of ways,
except for the problem that you're four to one. K
is going to crash. The tariffs are going to go
the currency's currency is weaker. But the good thing about
a deeper session is that, yes, rents are going to
go now true.

Speaker 1 (34:00):
Yeah, I remember talking about that about gas prices.

Speaker 3 (34:02):
I was like, well, you know, gass could go down,
but it will be because of demand nobody.

Speaker 4 (34:06):
That's actually really bad because nobody can afford it. Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1 (34:08):
Now in terms of the trade, so one relief the
market is looking.

Speaker 3 (34:11):
For is some trade deals They're like, give us trade deals,
give us trade deals, give us trade deals.

Speaker 1 (34:16):
Let's see some.

Speaker 4 (34:17):
Progress, because they think that'll signal because that means.

Speaker 1 (34:19):
To signal the end of the trade war.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
It means a nine day pause will not actually going
to effect after ninety days. It'll mean that the China
trade war is actually going well, that there's negotiations and
all of that happening. So everybody has been looking towards Japan.
And because Japan top you know three US ally G
seven economy, one of the world's developed slapped with a
twenty five percent tariff, Japan negotiated a trade agreement with

(34:41):
Trump in twenty nineteen. Trump notoriously respects them. He loves
Shinzo AaB thinks that he looked out for his country.
I love Japan as well, you know, as any watcher knows.
But what's interesting is that the Japanese this time around
are signaling much less optimism around any sort of trade negotiation.
There's been a massive decline in trust on the Japanese

(35:03):
side for how these are going to go. And already
just this morning I was looking at the futures. Let's see,
they are down about one percent on the s and P.
Five hundred largely as a result of this negotiation. So
what we have here is a very interesting video flagged
by our friend Arnau. This is the former Assistant Secretary
of Defense, Chas Freeman, who actually seems to have gotten

(35:24):
some inside information from the Japanese trade delegation.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
Let's take a listen to what he had to say.

Speaker 13 (35:29):
The White House claims that there are direct talks going
on somehow with the Chinese. I don't believe it. I
think what is happening is what I described earlier. The
Chinese are maintaining contact with US, routine contact. There is
no negotiation going on. The Japanese have just been in

(35:50):
Washington and their experience apparently was they went to talk
to the American leadership on this matter, and the American
leadership said what are you offering? And the Japanese said, well,
what is it that you want? And the Americans could
not explain what they wanted. This is a Kakamamy approach

(36:11):
to negotiation. And I think the Chinese, having observed the
United States break virtually every agreement it has agreed to
in recent years, including the replacement for NAFTA with proposed
tariffs and on Canada and Mexico. You know, that was
negotiated by mister Trump in his first term, and yet

(36:33):
he felt free to abandon it and repudiate it. What's
the incentive to negotiate with the United States when the
United States has no stated objectives that make sense and
no record of compliance with its own agreements. So I
don't think there is. I think the Chinese have decided
they will wait us out and see how Americans like

(36:57):
Walmart and Amazon denuative products.

Speaker 3 (37:02):
That was a really interesting perspective, obviously, but you know
it pairs with some of the reporting that's coming out now, Ryan,
this is extraordinary to come from a Japanese prime minister.
Can we go ahead and put B five please up
on the screen? So the Japanese Prime minister actually just
spoke before Parliament Monday his time, so several hours ago
and said quote, if Japan concedes everything, we won't be

(37:23):
able to secure our national interests, saying Japan will not
keep conceding to the United States in tariff talks. And
clearly they are just deeply confused. They don't know what
we want. My personal favorite is the demand from the
Trump administration of why don't you buy more American rice.
Why we're trying to tell the Japanese to buy our rice. Whoa,

(37:48):
that's like telling the Chinese to buy tea from like North.

Speaker 1 (37:51):
They're like, whoa, what hold on a second here, Yeah,
we got it. We solved that problem about two thousand
years ago.

Speaker 5 (37:59):
And the other one he talked about was, you know,
Trump is very fixated on the lack of American cars
on the roads. Yes, in Japan, and as he talked about,
and you can ye you were, you're there recently and
tell us about your on the ground reporting. The parame
Minister is like, look, man, the car the cars have
the steering wheel on the wrong side, like we drive

(38:21):
on the left side over here. So go ahead, try
to sell your your cars. But you know, I don't
think a lot of people are going to buy them
because they're not.

Speaker 3 (38:30):
They do manufacture them with a different steering they have
to England, but they don't have as big of a
production run on those cars. But I mean, look, this
is a secondary thing because.

Speaker 1 (38:40):
They're bad cars like that. It's like, let's just all admit.

Speaker 5 (38:43):
It, and we're lobbing them to like reduce their safety
standards so that our cars can compete.

Speaker 4 (38:48):
It's like, how about we make better car?

Speaker 3 (38:51):
No?

Speaker 5 (38:52):
And also consumer consumer choice matters.

Speaker 1 (38:55):
Yes.

Speaker 5 (38:56):
By driving the entire world economy into a session in
a tantrum style like Trump is doing to try to
pressure people to buy our products is going to backfire.
Even if you, let's say Japan is like, fine, we
will even subsidize your Fords to come into Japan.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
Oh they shouldn't.

Speaker 5 (39:15):
Japanese people still have to make the decisions to buy
a Ford. Americans don't even want to be seen in
a Tesla right now. You think a Japanese consumer is
gonna want to be seen in a Chevy?

Speaker 1 (39:27):
Dude? First of all, what is it?

Speaker 3 (39:29):
I think ten percent of Tokyo residents even own a car,
right over ninety percent?

Speaker 4 (39:32):
We're going to park that thing.

Speaker 3 (39:33):
So second, then secondary like, they're obviously a better run.
They're literally designed for them. People buy Toyotas in America. Okay,
So why would you win in Japan? Want to buy
a Ford or at Ford F one fifty, or let's
say even a smaller truck run from any of the
US manufacturers. You would be an idiot to buy that
over a Toyota high loucks. You literally would be an idiot,
a complete moron. And that's if you're an American. So

(39:57):
now compare it to your in Japan get subsidized rate
and his demandant domestically produced and oh it's for your
own market.

Speaker 1 (40:05):
By the way, I just looked it up. Japan produces
ninety eight percent of their own rice domestically. What are
we doing here? They only spend seven hundred million.

Speaker 3 (40:12):
Dollars on rice. Fifty percent of that is already from
the United States.

Speaker 1 (40:15):
Why who cares? They're basically self sufficient on rice.

Speaker 4 (40:19):
They're an art it's been a solved problem. Yeah, they're
also they're also.

Speaker 5 (40:22):
An island, like if you're not. And also the current
Prime minister's base is these farmers, so he's not going
to sell his farmers out.

Speaker 6 (40:31):
But if you're.

Speaker 5 (40:32):
Telling an island country they need to like reduce the
amount of food that they produce for themselves, what self
respecting island nation would do that?

Speaker 11 (40:40):
Right?

Speaker 4 (40:41):
Yeah, well they didn't make it.

Speaker 1 (40:42):
I could tell I can talk about the amount of time.

Speaker 3 (40:44):
It's just one of the dumbest things about the demand
for the Japanese. Like listening, we want to talk about
reciprocal tariffs, Fine, we want to talk about trade and
balanced deficit.

Speaker 1 (40:53):
Fine.

Speaker 3 (40:53):
Actually, by the way, the Japanese are the best ally
to work with on this. Toyota manufactures half those cars
here in the United States.

Speaker 1 (41:00):
Of America, so many of them are made.

Speaker 3 (41:03):
They have a seated too many of these demands, and
they still get slapped with a twenty five percent tariff. Now,
if we want more tax credits and or threats of teriffs,
I have no problem with that. If we go over
there and we say, hey, listen, you know x percentage
parts are still being manufactured in Japan. You guys are
keeping a lot of the gold for yourself, like in
terms of the high value chain, which we don't blame you,
but we want to bring some of that over to

(41:23):
make it more self sufficient. Absolutely nothing wrong with that,
and some carrot and stick approach with the tax credit.
But from the Japanese, they both are feeling threatened, which
is at the worst time. Right we're in an alleged
trade war with China, So what would we want. We
want all the Asia Pacific to stand with us. Well,
the South Koreans and the Japanese are like, I'm I'm
not so sure about this, right, They release a joint statement.

(41:44):
The Japanese Prime minister openly trying to declare independence from
the United States here on a trade war in his parliament.

Speaker 1 (41:50):
That's the worst possible.

Speaker 3 (41:51):
Outcome again for G seven nation, one of our closest
allies manufacturing powerhouse, and one that we are deeply reliant
on for a core segment of our autos.

Speaker 4 (42:00):
And real quickly, just to back back up Chas Freeman. Uh.

Speaker 5 (42:04):
The EU's Trade chief Mario Stefkovich met with Commerce Secretary
Howard Latnik, Bloomberg and others report on this. Also met
with you know, I say, Trade Representative jameson Greer and
the reporting is this, it's just an incredible line.

Speaker 11 (42:17):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (42:17):
Stef Kovich left the meeting with little clarity on the
US stance and struggling to determine the American side's aims.
So they did the same thing as the Japanese. All Right,
Americans like cool, what what are you going to give us?
And then they're like, well what do the Europeans are
like Okay, They're like, uh, because what Trump Trump wants

(42:38):
to you know, US manufacturing capacity to increase what is
what is?

Speaker 11 (42:44):
Uh?

Speaker 5 (42:45):
What did Japan and European Union have anything to do
with it, Like it's like, all right, go ahead, like
increase your manufacturing capacity, go for it.

Speaker 4 (42:51):
We're not gonna We're not gonna stop you do it.

Speaker 3 (42:54):
The entire thing is preposterous, not only in its demands,
in its execution, and the that other countries have no
idea what to do. And as I say, you can
support tariffs and all this stuff in principle, and also
look at the way that this is being implemented and
say this is a total disaster. I am for decoupling

(43:15):
with China that we would all recognize is going to
have a lot of pain. So how do you offset
pain with government subsidy, tax credits, a plan confidence, that's
what the Chinese are doing, and allies and allied And
then this is exactly so what does Jijingping do whenever
he faces a trade war? He pumps billions of dollars
in the economy, He lowers the interest rate. He makes
sure that Amazon and e commerce sites are supporting their

(43:37):
Chinese manufacturing base. To make sure that nobody in the
supply chain gets wiped out, from the small all the
way to the big manufacturers. You continue to supply and
make sure that you have an autonomous electric vehicle industry
that stands completely alone from the United States and the
Western markets. And then you go across the Asia Pacific
and you cultivate allies like Vietnam. That's everything he has done.
Look then at the United States. We have small e

(43:59):
commerce company. You know Ryan Peterson, my friend who works
at Flexport. We had him here on the show. People
will remember he predicts in ninety days mass bankruptcy at
a small AMA commerce level. They're dead dead at one
hundred and forty five percent. It's they're never coming back
from this. In fact, he even flagged that they're already
two companies who he knows they just gave up. They

(44:19):
sold to China because they were reliant on the factories
there to produce their goods. They said, listen, guys, we
can't do business anymore. Your government is propping you up.
We'll just sell you our business, our leads and everything.
You can take over after it. They're happy they've got
the cash and the balance sheet. Our people have nothing.
So that's the disastrous part of this.

Speaker 1 (44:38):
The big guys, Walmart.

Speaker 3 (44:39):
They'll be fine, okayh ish, Sure, they'll take a twenty
percent haircut on their stock. All of us will go
work for Walmart as a greeter or whatever.

Speaker 1 (44:47):
They will survive.

Speaker 3 (44:48):
I think that's the one thing we could say with assurance.
But many of the smaller products that go into a Walmart,
you know, many of the people who are e commerce,
you know folks or whatever, people will build big businesses.
They have no runway now, no product. I talked previously
as a new expected parent watching these stroller prices, it
hurts man, because you know what, Okay, yeah, I bought
mine before all these terriff things. But if you go

(45:10):
on Facebook, Marketplace, the secondhand market and all that, the
price there is already going to skyrocket. And people, you know,
people feel a tremendous amount of anxiety about buying the
proper car, SI the proper stroll. Of course, who doesn't
want to protect their child and now they're getting charge
for the privilege And that just is unconscionable to me.

Speaker 5 (45:27):
And the other thing that Chijiping is doing is targeted
supports for people who are getting hit by the policy changes.
So if you are a small business or a medium
sized business that was reliant on exports to the United States,
he is helping you find like he's doing all the
things you said, helping you find in the mestic audience.
His diplomats are working to find you consumers in Europe

(45:50):
or Africa or Japan or whatever else. And in the meantime,
he's offering financial support to you so you survive this
difficult time.

Speaker 4 (45:59):
The United States is not doing that.

Speaker 5 (46:00):
All of these companies that are facing the short term pain,
as Trump supporters call it, are not getting any support.
And so when the long term gain is that's supposed
to come rises, those people won't be around to reap that.
It'll be the Chinese companies and others who at the

(46:22):
Chinese companies and the oligarchs who are able to come in,
you know, and buy, buy for peanuts and buy for
scraps what's left of those companies, and then if there
is any long term gain, it'll go to the It'll
go to those, right.

Speaker 3 (46:34):
It's just one of the dumbest possible things that we
have seen this all play out. If they don't back
down soon, the damage is going to be immense. The
price increases are already here. You can see it as
the inventory starts to lead. And the next time you
want to go buy consumer electronics, iPhone and all that stuff.
Remember Trump did give a pause, but he said that
there is a separate two thirty two sections two thirty

(46:56):
two style tariff coming on tariffs specifically for consumer electronic goods.
And Vidia just got slapped with that export control. And
by the way, you know, even on this front, just
last Tangent and the CEO of Nvidia, the moment that
we announced our tarra or export license on his chips
to China.

Speaker 1 (47:14):
Guess where he was China.

Speaker 3 (47:16):
He flew to China to assure them that we will
always do business in China. He said, quote, we have
done business in China for thirty years and we have
no plans to stop. Okay, that's that's a problem because
we can see here he has no confidence that. First
of all, he doesn't know whether these tariffs are gonna
last or not. He has no idea. But second he
can see where his butter is. You know, where what

(47:38):
is his bread is buttered? Yes, fifty percent or some
revenue is over there, and he's not getting any help
from the United States of America. I can guarantee you
they probably threw everything in the book.

Speaker 1 (47:49):
At Jensen Wong.

Speaker 3 (47:50):
And look, I mean, I think that's deeply unpatriotic and
all that.

Speaker 1 (47:53):
But I'm a realist. It's a capitalist every what are
you going to do our like?

Speaker 5 (47:57):
Our companies are called multinational corporations for a reason. Yeah,
they are not American corporations, and we should stop believing
that they are.

Speaker 3 (48:03):
Right, Let's turn down to Pete Hegseth, Man, there is
a full scale meltdown happening at the Pentagon. It is
just unbelievable. Let's go and put see one up there
on the screen. This is just the latest quote Hegseth
to have shared attack details in his second second signal chat.
The Defense Secretary sent sensitive information about strikes and YEM

(48:25):
into an encrypted group chat that included his wife and brother.
His brother, to be fair, actually works for the Pentagon,
but his wife, yeah, not so much. It appears to
have been a it appears to have been a scheduling
like area, So there's not exactly it's not exactly clear
why in the scheduling group chat that he was also
sharing it attack details.

Speaker 1 (48:45):
But beyond the signal thing, because we've all covered that
at this point.

Speaker 5 (48:49):
Beyond the signal, this was his personal phone, which we
already knew, which apparently the other one was on his
regular his work phone.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
Wait what thought it was his personal phone first?

Speaker 4 (49:00):
This one is is on his personal phone.

Speaker 1 (49:02):
Okay, I thought, maybe it's confirmed this time.

Speaker 5 (49:04):
This is the person His wife probably does not have
her phone on lockdown mode either. Right there, you go,
that's a good point. His wife's phone must be hacked.
There's no like because she's known, you'd be an idiot.
Not too right, because she's known to go to all
these events and travel with him. So if you're any
spy agency with Pegasus, which is like all the big ones, now,
like you've hacked her phone, you were in there.

Speaker 1 (49:25):
Yeah that's right.

Speaker 3 (49:26):
Yeah, well all right, so they possibly had access to that,
you know. But beyond this is the reason that's coming
out right now. By the way, according to the Pentagons
would admission they're like former disgruntled employees. The reason why
all these leaks are happening is because of the insane
purge that is happening right now over at the Pentagon.
So not only are as Pete hexet here back in

(49:48):
the spotlight. He's going to have to answer for this
before Congress investigations, et cetera. But already the Trump administration
has set the standard that no, there was no classified
informations cent here.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
Bullshit obviously.

Speaker 3 (50:00):
And number two, we're not going to hold anybody accountable
for it, including Mike Waltz, the guy who literally is
responsible for munch of this and for any op set
concerns or whatever. But at the same time, they're firing
a bunch of people who clearly knew about some of
this stuff and are now out for revenge. They're out
for blood, and we can see out of some of

(50:20):
that right now, and there's deep policy implications.

Speaker 1 (50:23):
Let's put C two please up on the screen.

Speaker 3 (50:25):
This is a statement from three former Pentagon officials who
were fired and unceremoniously marched out of the building. One
of them former Senior Advisor Daan Caldwell. We've covered him
on the show before. He's an America First appointee, very
against war with Iran loyal sent out of the body,
loyal ally for employee of HEGSATHT for over a decade.

(50:47):
You've got his former deputy chief of staff, Darren Selnick
and Colin Carroll, who is the Deputy Defense Secretary's former
chief of staff as well. All said in a joint
statement that they had quote not been told what exactly
we were in investigated for, if there is still an
on going investigation, or if there was even a real
investigation of leaks to begin with.

Speaker 1 (51:07):
You know, remember in the original leaks around this, they
we were told that this was a result of a
leak investigation that involved.

Speaker 3 (51:14):
Polygraphs, and I was like, oh, man, that's like very serious. Well,
actually it turns out none of them have been polygraphed.
It was a complete like fake investigation from the first place.
Where Pete Hegsat stands in all of this is totally unclear.
It's like, are you running your own department? These are
guys not only loyal to you, but are much more
at least from what I know, are very against war

(51:35):
with Iran some of the more like bad elements of
the Trump administration's foreign policy, and for them to be fired. Meanwhile,
they're protecting Mike Waltz and many of these other people
obviously are very pro war. It's very troubling Ryan. So
he's got former disgruntled staff on his hands. I mean,
they're blaming the leaks on them. I don't know if
it's true or not. It's possible, but I think more

(51:56):
important is that when these people are not in the
building with Hegsath around.

Speaker 1 (52:00):
Look, he's a sponge, let's be honest, right he whatever
is around him.

Speaker 3 (52:04):
Well, if the only people that are left are the
pro war with Iran goons, not so good. He was
one of the only three people in the Oval to
speak out against an attack on Iran that the Israelis
wanted to.

Speaker 5 (52:14):
Say, right, and you see a lot of kind of
Trump supporting bots responding to this by saying, Hey, Heggas
is getting rid of the deep state, right, bro, hexts
brought these people in state. These are not people who
have been there before, hegseets. And now he's cleaning house. Yes,
he built the house and then burn it and then
burn it down. Immediately you put up this next element

(52:36):
on the screen speaking of people he brought in. This
is John Oillyacht, who was a the top spokesperson for
Pete Hegset yesterday published an op ed in Politico absolutely
ripping the Pentagon to shreds, saying that the thing is
in complete meltdown. One of the things he goes after.
The new kind of spokesperson department for Or was Hags's

(53:01):
first response to the signal chat. He said, you know,
Olliad says, the thing you do is you get all
the bad news out first.

Speaker 6 (53:09):
Yes.

Speaker 5 (53:09):
Instead, they tried to play semantic games with whether or
not these were war plans or attack plans, which then
prompted Jeffrey Goldberg to release all the attack plans and say, okay,
call them whatever you want. Here they are. From Olliot's perspective,
it's like, dude, what are you doing? Like one oh
one pr is to like seane Mike Waltz did that,

(53:33):
we won't let it happen again. Instead, he turned it
into a multi week story that then focused on him
rather than Mike Waltz. Olliocht, interestingly, in this piece says
outright that he doesn't think that these guys that were
fired for leaking were actually leaking, and that some of
them were told, according to Ouliot, that the investigation was

(53:56):
about to wrap up and was going to exonerate them,
and yet they were marched out anyway. Now we also
know that Joe Casper, who is Pete hex That's chief
of staff, is the one who was assigned to lead
the league investigation.

Speaker 4 (54:11):
Now he claims that.

Speaker 5 (54:13):
He delegated this to other people that's fine. That's what
chiefs of staff do. They delegate those. But he himself
has now been moved out of his job. According to Politico,
there's some dispute. There's some dispute about that, which is insane, Like, okay,
wait a minute, are you the chief staff?

Speaker 4 (54:32):
You're not chief staff.

Speaker 3 (54:33):
The whole thing is preposterous, and we are watching these
people now squabble in public, John Oliot, as you said,
the former spokesperson. They're like, oh, he was invited to
be fired or whatever. It's like, well, he was employed
there for at least you hired him. And not only
did you hire him, you've actually been working for the
Trump administration of the campaign now for like some seven years.
So you can't exactly say that this is not somebody,
this is never knew the guy, never seen the guy.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
Yeah exactly, And.

Speaker 4 (54:56):
Yeah, I mean I'm still a Hexth friend, right.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
Crazy within all of this.

Speaker 3 (55:00):
Let's put the next one up on the screen. Is
you can see here how the entire like inner circle
around Pete Hexath is now at war with one another.
And then all of the people who it seems were
most loyal to him somehow have been fired. Now I
have a very difficult time seeing how you can be
fired marched out of the building all the people who
are allegedly so loyal to you without you having some

(55:23):
say over it. I mean, can you really be fired
of the Department of Defense without the say so of
the you know, the Secretary of Defense.

Speaker 1 (55:30):
The person who's.

Speaker 3 (55:30):
Running must be read in on this, right, Yeah, So
either you're read in or you're not read in.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
That's even scary. That means if the building is running
without you, how.

Speaker 3 (55:37):
Does that work? Is it some deep state operation? That's
what some people seem to be claiming. I just have
no clue. I just know this is a cluster, and
this is not how you run the largest office building
in the entire world, right and literally the world's pre
eminent superpowers military. It's not even just about competence. Like
I said, the policy implications of this are crazy important

(55:59):
because people around him had views, they had strong views,
they'd been around him, they had trust, and in their
trust they were able to advocate four of you, which
is never held at the highest levels of the American government.
It was one of the hopes I had for this administration.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
For this government.

Speaker 3 (56:14):
So then to watch them get unceremoniously forced out and
then similarly to see Mike Wallas and the idiots around
him not only to be elevated, but to be entrenched
in power at a critical decision time about war with Iran.

Speaker 1 (56:26):
Very scary RN and.

Speaker 5 (56:28):
What's unfortunate for the quote unquote America first side of
the foreign policy argument is that Hegseeth claimed to be
and was kind of sold as somebody who had been
on the kind of warhawk side of foreign policy, supported
the Iraq war, et cetera. But you know, through his

(56:48):
through his lived experience as the left would call it,
and you know, through his camaraderie with veterans and seeing
the absolute failure of American foreign policy to achieve the
outcome that that that the young men and women were
sent to achieve, many of them dying to achieves and
then seeing it like just all turned to ashes right
in their mouth, that he turned into an America first guy,

(57:12):
if that's if that's true, he has he has not
stood up to that. There's so much pressure kind of
in the Pentagon and in a war machine to become
to push back to that warhawks side. He doesn't seem
like he's been able to withstand that pressure and instead
has pushed aside all of the people that would help

(57:33):
him stand up to that.

Speaker 4 (57:34):
One person I talked to who.

Speaker 5 (57:36):
Knows all of these people, including hag Seth, said that
it's a question of character that that heg Seth has
betrayed everybody who's ever been close to him in his life.
And you can you can run, you can run through
his life, ask his mother. Actually, well, I'm not going
to go there, but now it matters because this matters
to policy. And so now he has betrayed all of
those people who are professionally and personally close to him,

(58:00):
that he served with, that he worked in, concerned veterans
of America with UH, and is sycophantically siding with the
with the more like bloodthirsty generals and others who are
pushing him to stop stop saying those stop, don't get
in the way of this, like let's let's let's let's
bomb these people and just see what happens. And the

(58:21):
other knock on him besides the personal stuff, was that
you've never run a large organization before, and now you're
being asked to run the largest organization in the history
of the world.

Speaker 4 (58:35):
Are you going to be up for that. We now
have the answer, no, you're not up for it now.

Speaker 5 (58:42):
On the one hand, as somebody who doesn't want the
Defense Department to accomplish its subjectives, I support it being okay,
but I don't want it to be a flailing Exactly
what happens is there's a limit to that becomes a
power vacuum.

Speaker 3 (58:58):
The building will just do whatever the White House or
them tell you. A week Pentagon is actually very bad, yeah,
because it means that the White House is not only
totally in control, but also that they like, you need
war planners, you need advisors, you need people to game
all of this stuff out. And if you have a
vacuum there at the top, first of all, you're just
going to leave it to the career staff, who you know,

(59:19):
we should trust the least. But then also you're going
to leave it to the vacuum of the neocons who
are running the national.

Speaker 5 (59:25):
Security And it often is throughout history the men and
women who've been through war and are now at the
top echelons of the military, both in the United States
and other militaries, who paradoxically are the ones in the
room who are saying this might not be a good idea.

Speaker 1 (59:41):
Oh absolutely yeah, I'm.

Speaker 4 (59:43):
What Sherman said.

Speaker 5 (59:43):
Nobody who what do you say, Nobody who's been to war,
you know, could think it's anything other than hell.

Speaker 4 (59:48):
It was something war as hell.

Speaker 5 (59:49):
And anybody who you know who says otherwise hasn't been
involved in it. And they have the credibility to then
put the brakes on the chickenhawk neo cons who are
who are just ready to just you know, launch tomahawks
at for for whatever reason they can think of the
best the best time to attack Ron's yesterday, second best
would be today. If not, if not that, let's plan

(01:00:11):
for tomorrow.

Speaker 6 (01:00:12):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (01:00:12):
And so without a without a Pentagon, without any steady leadership,
you write, you could create a vacuum.

Speaker 4 (01:00:19):
That's people like that creep in