4/22/25: Worst April Since Great Depression, China Warns World On US, Hegseth Meltdown, Fired Antiwar Official Speaks Out

Emily and Saagar discuss worst April since Great Depression, China warns against teaming with US, Hegseth meltdown, fired antiwar official speaks out.

 

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.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show
for everybody today. Do we live for the pound or no?
All right, we live people live for the pound. There
we go. I still get to say it.

Speaker 4 (00:43):
We're fermenting a coup today.

Speaker 3 (00:44):
Yeah, we're frementing a coup here at Breaking Points. Emily
is in for Crystal, who will be back tomorrow and
on Thursday, so don't worry about that. But Emily, the
people have cried out for an Emily and Saga show
for a while. According to our records, it has been
two years since.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
The last Embly and Saga show.

Speaker 4 (01:02):
What a gift to everyone in the audience.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Yeah, so the it is. It is a great gift
that we do so people.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
People can't accuse us here of not of not giving
in to our audience demands. Right, So the people demanded it,
and the people are getting it by plebiscite.

Speaker 1 (01:17):
So there you go.

Speaker 5 (01:18):
I think that's last time we did. By the way,
there was a brick wall behind us.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yes there was. Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 3 (01:22):
That was before the new set and everything's. Oh yeah,
look you can see how far we come.

Speaker 4 (01:26):
That's all right.

Speaker 3 (01:26):
What the hell are we covering today? This is the
toughest part of the job setting all this up.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
Tariffs. All right, tariffs.

Speaker 3 (01:31):
We're gonna talk about Tariff's the a worst April for
the Dow Jones since the Great Depression. Uh, not exactly
a great headline there for the administration. We're going to
talk about some of the movements in the stock market,
big dumpy yesterday of major stock indusses, as well as
some major movements by China warning other countries not to
team up with the United States. We're going to continue

(01:53):
the coverage of Pete Hegseeth saga.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
There is just insanity going on.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
Pete Hagsath knifing his own own staff in the back
who recently were fired.

Speaker 1 (02:03):
From the Pentagon.

Speaker 3 (02:04):
We also have one of those former staffers, Stan Caldwell,
speaking out on the Tucker Carlson Show, really giving us
some insight into the knife fights that are happening in
the administration over war with Iran.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
We're going to talk about Kirsty Nome.

Speaker 3 (02:16):
She apparently got her purse stolen despite having been surrounded
by Secret Service agents.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
She had three thousand dollars in cash on her.

Speaker 3 (02:23):
Just some very weird stuff that's going on, and obviously
also an insight into one of the top law enforcement
officers in the United States. This is a topic I
selected specifically because Emily is here with me. We're going
to talk about the Trump administration's efforts to boost birth
rates here in the United States, focused specifically on motherhood

(02:43):
tax breaks for new moms, medals for mothers that have
more than several children. So we're going to break some
of that down. We're going to talk about that fight
with Harvard between the Trump administration and Harvard, a major
escalating legal battle between the two it stems from that
quote anti semitism fight, but it's actually become much bigger
than that. And then we're very excited to be joined

(03:03):
by Fire, the president of Fire, who is going to
break down some of the free speech attacks from by.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
The Trump administration.

Speaker 3 (03:12):
Fire Emily probably the single best organization that's been consistent
and principled on these matters over the years. Really, we
always look to them for guidance. They've spoken up on
very unpopular issues, popular issues they don't care literally at Also,
we're excited to speak with them.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
And then also, I guess people are also getting their wish.

Speaker 3 (03:29):
Here in AMA with Emily and I for our premium subscribers,
So don't forget. You can support us at Breakingpoints dot com.
You can participate in these live amas and more, and
also see Emily every Friday on the Emily Show or
on the Friday Show.

Speaker 1 (03:43):
Sorry, I guess we could call it. We should should
we call?

Speaker 4 (03:46):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (03:46):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (03:47):
I like it.

Speaker 1 (03:48):
I like it all right, don't forget.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
If you can't support us right now and all of
the new expansions that we're doing here, it's totally fine.
Just make sure that you like and subscribe to this
video and if you're listening to us on a podcast,
just go ahead, give us a five star review and
send the episode to a friend. That is the single
best thing that you can do for us. You can
even pick your favorite episode, Emily. You know what's fascinating
in our podcast downloads is that there are hundreds of

(04:13):
thousands of people who listen to these like at the end.

Speaker 1 (04:15):
Of the week, like like they don't listen to them daily.

Speaker 3 (04:18):
There we have a huge spike and Fridays and Saturdays.
I don't get I'll be honest, I don't get it,
but I guess it kind of makes sense.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
It's like cats up on the news.

Speaker 4 (04:27):
In any particular episode.

Speaker 3 (04:28):
Like yeah, like a Monday episode will boom on like
a Friday.

Speaker 1 (04:32):
I'm like, I just I don't get it.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
YouTube is much more like regular, you know, like after
forty eight hours or so, like most of the people
have watched something, are gonna watch it. There are a
few evergreen topics, but yeah, these podcast listeners, man, I've
been trying to understand these.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
People for four years. I'll never get it. But it's okay,
that's very interesting. Yeah, we love you anyway.

Speaker 4 (04:50):
So if you're listening to this.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
Four days from now.

Speaker 3 (04:52):
If you're listening to this four or five days from now,
go ahead and follow your instructions.

Speaker 1 (04:57):
All right, let's get to the tariff. So massive sell
off in.

Speaker 3 (05:00):
The stock market yesterday, not one particular thing that seems
to have set things off, but just still real signs
of danger. Here's CNBC right around the close. Let's take
a listen.

Speaker 4 (05:11):
Look at the markets.

Speaker 7 (05:11):
Which are very unwelcome on this Monday afternoon. The Dow
is down twelve hundred and seventy points right now, so
we're at session lows and if we close here, it
will be the eleventh thousand point drop in the Dow's history,
and it's the fourth this month. Now, the SMP broad market,
here's what you need to know, down three percent and
down sixteen percent from the fifty two week high. We're
about two hundred points above the intry day low of forty.

Speaker 4 (05:34):
Nine ten on April eighth.

Speaker 7 (05:35):
Keep these in mind as people look for a retest,
and is that an entry point. The Nasdaq is the
worst of the major averages, led lower.

Speaker 4 (05:42):
By Nvidia and Tesla.

Speaker 7 (05:43):
Tesla down seven percent ahead of its earnings tomorrow, and
of course, check the yield on the tenure because unlike
many most previous stock sell offs, where you at least
get some cushion here, Nope, not getting it today four forty.
This time, treasuries are being sold as investors sell stocks
as well, Dollars down, yields are higher.

Speaker 3 (06:01):
Yeah, and actually the yield is spiked even more since then.
We're going to get to that in a little bit.
But let's go ahead and put this up there on
the screen that Dow is currently headed for the worst
April since nineteen thirty two as investors are sending no
confidence signals. Quote few think the administration's negotiation with trade
partners will yield results soon enough to ease the strain.
And Emily, that really seems to be a big thing

(06:23):
that was donned on the market yesterday and a lot
of these investors is the fact that the Japanese talks
went so badly and that the Japanese Prime minister and
their team left Washington with no deal. And then, honestly,
the worst signal was not just them leaving, it was
the Japanese Prime minister going to Parliament and declaring, we
will not concede to all of the demands of the

(06:47):
United States. They are actively counter signaling the Trump administration
at home and by the way, too great popularity. Actually,
the Japanese people not very happy about the way that
they have been treated throughout this process. There's been ongoing
to time there with China and with South Korea something.
You know, Trump historically has made three countries which absolutely

(07:07):
hate each other's guts to at least move in some
solid direction as a result of the tariffs. And so
I think as this begins to dawn on the investors
and on the market, they're seeing that Japan, which was
supposed to be the check mark, like that was supposed
to be the easiest one to be done, and they're like, holy,
we have seventy more of these trade deals that are
supposed to happen in ninety days. They're like, this is

(07:29):
just not going to happen, Like this is not reality.
And then no signal yet from the Trump administration around
any sort of cave. The more that starts to set in,
I mean, you know, everybody celebrated that stock market bump
after the ninety day pause. We are just a few
maybe two three percent or something like that away from
being right back to where we started even before the

(07:49):
ninety day pause where they initially wanted the bonds. Obviously
we'll get to in a little bit, but this is
this is not a good sign.

Speaker 5 (07:55):
Yeah, I mean, this is maybe the worst sign because
there's a counterfactual here. Trump actually is signing and inking
all of these like really good deals, and that sounds
a little bit ridiculous. But it's possible, right that he
could be coming away from this with actually some significant
progress in these negotiations with Japan, with places like Vietnam.

(08:16):
It's entirely within the realm of possibility, but it's also
the predicate for his entire strategy. The strategy hinges on
being able to seal these deals, to seal them quickly,
and to get good ones. And again, I think it's,
you know, more likely than not. It's always been more
likely than not that wouldn't happen, but it was always

(08:37):
a possibility.

Speaker 4 (08:38):
It was always a possibility.

Speaker 3 (08:40):
What's interesting too, is Charles Gasparino over a Fox Business
just said today quote about ten days ago, Scott Besson
was telling Wall Street executives that he was making progress
cutting trade deals with India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia,
some of the largest trading partners quote, then nothing happened
in the market's tank. So there's been a combination of
a couple of facts. It's not only the lack of

(09:02):
trade deals. There's also been Trump's escalating attacks on the
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. And look, I mean, I
don't think Trump is empirically incorrect that we do need
a rate cut, but it's really more about the signal
that he himself would take like some of unitary executive
power over the central Bank, which would mean that there
would be an escalating fight and most importantly uncertainty. So

(09:24):
it's not the fact that investors don't want a rate cut.
They would be absolutely happy to do so, as we've
already seen the European Central Bank is cut rates. There's
been numerous other countries that have done so as well.
The dollar right now, by the way, is a disaster.
The dollar is down, to believe, almost every currency except
for the Turkish lira all time highs, or not all
time highs, but near all time highs, with the euro,

(09:46):
the Japanese yen, and a few other currencies which traditionally
actually were quite down. This is very difficult because even
without tariffs that means that these foreign goods are going
to be more expensive for United States investors and importers
that are able to afford this. That is not to
even mention, you know, the other stuff that's happening right
now in the markets. Let's put a two please up
on the screen, because this really actually underscores a lot

(10:08):
of what I'm talking about here about the dollar weakness.
Quote Trump trade offensive threatens America's financial primacy, and the
rising volatility in the dollar weakness is raising fears for
a financial realignment away from US shores. And so this
is the big fear right now, the move away from
the United States dollar as a reserve currency. Traditionally, as

(10:31):
they were talking about on CNBC, you see bond deals
start to go down, which obviously has major pressure in
terms of interest rates the Federal reserve, but we don't
see that. And so really what we're seeing is both
a fleeing from US markets and from the US dollar.
And so when you have massive uncertainty on those two things,
as well as this massive pressure in the bond markets,
you basically have financial uncertainty and pressure at all levels.

Speaker 1 (10:56):
At the consumer level, at the equities level, at the
bond level, and now at a currency level.

Speaker 3 (11:01):
In fact, I was just reading today that one of
the largest foreign exchange of traders, like of currencies, has
been margin called and has the heart basically halt like
all trading. And so there's you know, I mean, look,
I'm not shedding.

Speaker 1 (11:15):
Tears here for four X traders. It's like oh boo hoo.

Speaker 3 (11:19):
But it's a signal obviously that the uncertainty and the
like basically shocked to the overall dollar is causing fundamental
questions to be asked across the world. And I think
it always just returns to why. It's like, if that's
a result of a war, if it's that's the result
of you know, outside pressure, if that's a result of

(11:40):
a hyper intentional policy for d dollarization across the world
to make US goods more competitive for genuinely good trade deals,
a lot of people be fine with it, you know.
But the point is that within this vacuum of chaos
where there seems to be no policy agenda, everything is
basically at the whims of whether Peter Navarro is on

(12:00):
the right building in the White House complex or not.
That's when everybody is just like, yeah, I'm done, you know,
I'm hording cash if you're lucky enough to have some
taken out debt, or if you're a company, I'm buying
nothing for the next ninety days. And you know the
freight drop that's coming from China. It just still has
not set in for people because you're not ready for

(12:22):
like the price increase at Costco. You're not ready to
go there and to see stuff that you normally would
that's just not on the shelf. It takes a couple
of months to see that happen. I mean, don't forget.
The peak of inflation in the COVID era was twenty
twenty two. Even though twenty twenty one was marked by
all of those increases, it was really after the invasion
of Russia where we saw massive shock to the financial system,

(12:45):
massive shock to the energy market, and basically a year
of unchecked inflation that the government allowed to basically just happen,
where all of those things culminated where people were like,
I am done with Joe Biden, and you know, I'm
really done with the overall US economy, and they really
never forgave him for that, and I think that they're
really on track.

Speaker 4 (13:03):
You know, you know this as well, as I do.

Speaker 5 (13:04):
But a lot of people in the White House right now, specifically,
are looking back to nineteen eighty one and they say,
Ronald Reagan weathered a temporary recession. The short term pain
paid off for him. He was able to muster the
he was able to mobilize voters and have a very
successful return to the presidency. This is very different from
that in a couple of different ways. But just one

(13:26):
important way that you alluded to. It's not about price.
This is not just about price increases. This is about
the availability of goods. This is about scarcity. This is
about things changing. This is about the shelves changing, not
just the prices going up. And I think to your point,
not only has that not stunk in for consumers, I
don't think that that has sunk in for the administration.

(13:48):
And the uncertainty as leverage was always again, if this
deal were to if this entire strategy were to play
out successfully, that had to be very temporary. Yeah, because
it was good leverage.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
But let's talk about the nineteen eighty one recession, because
that's a very important point. But why did Reagan get
forgiven for the nineteen eighty one recession? Because it was
a hangover a vulgar monetary policy, and thus people forgave
Reagan because they didn't think it was his fault. And also,
Reagan was a really good politician at the height of
his literally probably at the height of his rhetorical powers

(14:21):
in nineteen eighty one, where he's like, oh, you know,
the happy optimism, the jelly beans and all that, and
he's like, look, you know, He's like, we're going to
get through this together. He was an excellent communicator, and
he was actually able to use that recession to eventually
push a lot of major legislation. Now we can debate
the effects in all of that, but that was a
hyper competent in my opinion, team, regardless of whether you

(14:41):
think that what they did was good or not. But
most importantly, they were able to blame Carter and Vulgar
for much of what transpired from eighty one and in
eighty two. The Trump administration does not have that luxury already.
America is like Biden, who They're like, who is that?

Speaker 1 (14:58):
And what we were talking about?

Speaker 5 (14:59):
They're also asking the public to significantly renegotiate its relationship
with consumer goods.

Speaker 3 (15:04):
Yes, and not just I would say beyond consumer goods.
I would say, they're asking them to renegotiate like the
very terms of which they understood their economic life, and
like that is again you know, you don't there's America
if we look back, like they're really only going to
tolerate that in a time of war, like and even
then people are gonna get pissed.

Speaker 4 (15:23):
Which is also where Igan was successful.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
Yeah, that's true, because it's the cool we had.

Speaker 3 (15:26):
The Cold War a very good point and I was
reading I think there was a during World War Two
there was like a national speed limit of like thirty
five miles per hour to serve get people.

Speaker 1 (15:35):
I hated it.

Speaker 3 (15:37):
But they were able to tolerate it because they're like, Okay,
you know, we're in the middle of a war. But
basically like the moment that I think the Japanese surrendered,
they're like, yeah, we're driving fifty miles an hour now, okay,
like the shit's over, Like where's my goods? I need
some I need some serious return for four years of
lack of food and of driving super slow, even though
we didn't even have any highways or anything back in

(15:58):
that time.

Speaker 1 (15:58):
So you know, America's always kind I'm.

Speaker 4 (16:00):
In that way you're full of fun facts.

Speaker 1 (16:02):
It's always fun times, you know.

Speaker 8 (16:03):
Over here.

Speaker 3 (16:06):
All right, let's go to the next one, shall we.
This is about the bond markets. So to resurrect the
Joe Wisenthal term, the bond market is the real deep
state A three please. And what you're watching there is
that the long term bond yields are absolutely blowing out
right now. And so look, obviously these things are variable,
but as of this morning, we saw a four point

(16:27):
nine you know, yield on bonds, which is like on
the thirty year bond at four point nine. The Again,
let's let's remember why this is important, which is that
this means that debt servicing, interest rates and all of
that are going to be more expensive for the government.
It also means that there is a either sell off

(16:50):
or lack of demand for the United States dollar and
for our bond. The very credibility of the United States
financial system and of the United States, Like I don't
even really know how to describe it because it is
so consequential. Remember it's the bond market that was took
down Liz Trusts as the Prime minister. But it's important

(17:12):
just to remember that when you see that happening. It
is a direct contradiction of the stated goal of the
Trump administration because one of the ways a Secretary Pston
was giving people a lot of cope is he was like, yeah,
the equities markets they go up, they go down, etc.
But the bond market, if we're able to do that,
because traditionally that's usually what happens during a downturn, well

(17:33):
that will be overall more beneficial to US consumers, to
our financial system, for the US Treasury. But instead they've
had the exact opposite, which definitely indicates foreign basically fleeing
of the dollar and of lack of confidence in overall
US markets. So that's what a lot of US are
looking at.

Speaker 4 (17:48):
Again, uncertainty.

Speaker 5 (17:49):
And I think fluctuations we see yesterday were because of
the I mean, I would argue that a lot of
it was a reaction to the tripling down of the
attacks on Powell, just because it creates certain.

Speaker 3 (18:01):
Of course, I mean, and that's I was talking with
some people yesterday, go why yes, because you know we
saw it like a three something percent drop in the
S and P five hundred and there was I mean,
by the way, that's the funny thing. Somebody said They're like,
we're so desensitized that a single three percent drop is like, eh, whatever,
I'm like, no, that's actually a lot. They look over
the you know, if you look over the traditional time horizon,

(18:21):
like this amount of complete like up and down, you know,
in a single day without any market react, without like
an announcement of bad earnings or a major policy announcement,
and everybody's kind of just collectively like, hmm, this doesn't
seem to be going that well. That's actually a really
bad sign because it means that the slide can just continue.
Keep in mind or recording this earlier in the morning,

(18:42):
So let me take a look at the futures. Yeah,
s and P is up by zero point seven percent. Great,
it was like, you know, still down obviously from where
we were whenever we began, even on Monday. And actually,
you know, Joe Wisenthal again flagged something which I thought
was absolutely harrowing for the private markets. Let's go ahead
and put a four up there on the screen. He says, quote,

(19:05):
Blackstone is now down forty percent from its November highs
and is now right back at its post Liberation day lows. Remember,
this is probably the best run manager of private assets
in the world. So just consider how your run of
the mill private equity or VC shop is looking right now.
You know why I found that so important is I'll

(19:27):
never forget. So the very first person I ever spoke
to who told me that there was going to be
major economic problems was actually David Sachs, and it was
an interview I think I did it with him back
in early twenty twenty two, before even the invasion of Ukraine,
and I remember him telling me, he goes, you know,
VC evaluations are down massively, and because this is the
bleeding edge of.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
The financial system.

Speaker 3 (19:48):
When we're watching like lack of liquidity and overall just
like lack of investment and VC evaluations and all the stuff
start to go down, that's usually an indication where the
private markets are or where the public markets will head soon.
And I would say maybe within three or four months.
Everything that he said ended up correct, and I was like, wow,
So they gave me a lot of respect for some

(20:09):
of the insight of where these private market entities can
tell us about not only valuations, but also what future
behavior will look like. So you know, if you're Blackstone,
you're down forty percent, you have to start selling stuff
like soon. You know, you're getting pretty close where if
you're going to half your value from November, like, you're
gonna have some serious pressure from your investors. And these people, unfortunately,

(20:30):
again I don't want it to be this way. They
control a lot of stuff, and so if they offload,
you know, single family houses, that could have a major
impact that they offload, you know, I mean they control
so many major companies or stakes in companies or this.

Speaker 1 (20:44):
Is the worst possible outcome.

Speaker 3 (20:46):
What do these private equity goons always do whenever there
is a downturn? They fire people. Yeah, well yeah, that too. Actually, no,
they're not doing cocaine, can afford it anymore, that's right. No,
So they're doing what's the legal cocaine now these days,
I don't know, celsius. They're drinking tons of celsius. But
the problem that we see for them is when they

(21:08):
have to offload, and then they come in and they
just gut these companies. And again you see tiny little
signs of this Southwest getting rid of seating right, jacking
up its rates, trying to add first class.

Speaker 1 (21:21):
You see already. You know, the airlines are.

Speaker 3 (21:23):
Always a classic example of recession indicators We're going to
see many other businesses which Blackstone again unfortunately does control
along with a lot of KKR, all of these major shops.

Speaker 1 (21:34):
They run massive businesses.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
That employ millions of people across America or they own
stakes in them, and as investors, they're going to put
pressure on them to probably reduce headcounts so that they
increase their overall share price. So I actually thought that
was one of the more important ones. And also you
know the indication they're on venture capital and on private
equity like that. When that stuff starts to dry up again,
we saw major problems in our markets in twenty twenty

(21:58):
two and in twenty twenty three.

Speaker 4 (22:00):
Before we move on that underscores.

Speaker 5 (22:01):
I mean, that's why I think again this question of
certainty and strategy, and you've been making this point all along,
but like there was to your point about David Sachs
having these insights literally years ago, there's a pretty optimistic
I think I was more optimistic than you when Liberation
Day was being teased and rolled out because this is
actually based on some very accurate and unpopular I think

(22:26):
understandings of the United States economy. Sure, and so there
was a way that with a strategy, with coherence and
with a sense of purpose and certainty, everyone looks like
they're walking in step. This would have actually done something
pretty interesting. There definitely would have always been short.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
Well, let me clarify, I was never not optimistic.

Speaker 6 (22:45):
I was.

Speaker 3 (22:46):
I had a baseline level of optimism until that chart
came out.

Speaker 1 (22:49):
Yeah, and when I.

Speaker 3 (22:49):
Saw that chart, I was like, that's it, but I
knew I will never forget it. And I was like,
holy shit, well looking at that, seeing what the fifth
percent whatever tariff on Vietnam, I was like, yeah, this
is over.

Speaker 1 (23:04):
And I mean and that's and then.

Speaker 5 (23:05):
Learning about could have recovered from that, right, like they
could I think they could have. They could have easily
come out the next day and said we'd talked to
Vietnam overnight and came but they.

Speaker 3 (23:15):
I think for me, it was that, you know, within
hours we learned the way that the trade, that the
actual calculation happened. And then when you learn that that
level of care went into the stewardship of the global economy,
that's when I was like, self, you know, it's like
the biggest cell signal I've ever seen. I was like,
nothing that these people do really they may stumble into
something good, but intentionality or planning behind it.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
No, no, no, no, And.

Speaker 3 (23:37):
I think that's really I mean, that's why the market's
tanked as well, you know, a ten percent uh universal terror. Again,
I mean, I don't think it's a terrible policy. We
could we could talk about it all day long. It's
one of those where if it had happened, there definitely
would have been obviously a market correction of some kind,
But I genuinely don't believe it would have been similar
to today where we have wild swings of up and down.

(23:58):
And I can tell you this, ten percent is still
even if you think that that's crazy, that ten percent
is still much more certain than the bullshit that we're
dealing with right now.

Speaker 4 (24:09):
Exactly.

Speaker 3 (24:09):
Yeah, And that's the problem, Yes, where they face. We're
watching this all play out, and I mean, really, the
signal to me, it's not just about China, which we're
about to talk about a lot and the level of
care that they're able to put into the stewardship of
their economy. It's watching the other countries have to deal
with this, the US allies, the people that we genuinely
do need, like the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Vietnamese,

(24:32):
and to watch She Shehingping get heralded on the streets
of Vietnam. You know, again a country which is basically
in a conflict with China over the South China Sea,
which doesn't necessarily like you know, they have complicated relationships
with them and complicated relationship with us, but broadly a
population of people which love the United States even though
we destroyed their entire country.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
It's kind of amazing actually.

Speaker 3 (24:54):
And then to see them immediately host She and She
going to Vietnam and then giving us beach about aligning
which and then watching same in Singapore and many of
these other countries, which these are very important to the
future of the globe because fifty percent of global GDP
will be there just in five years. And they feel

(25:14):
deeply abandoned. I mean from the jat that all the
stories coming from the Japanese are insane. They show up
here in Washington and good faith and they're like, so
what do you want And they're like, well, what are
you offering? They're like, but we literally don't know what
you want. And you know, you know, not just the
even culturally for them, they're like this is a clown show.
You know in Japan, you know, in their business culture

(25:38):
and all that, when we just think about respect and
certainty and consensus and who to trust, like they have
very well and clear defined avenues through which decisions are made.

Speaker 1 (25:49):
They along with US, have no idea if they can even.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
Trust Secretary Beston or if they can trust this or
the US Trade Representative. And then they watch the US
Trade Representative learn about the nine A pause when he's
giving a testimony before Congress. So if that guy's sitting
across from me, I go, you don't know anything.

Speaker 1 (26:08):
I'm not talking to you. I just want to talk
to Trump. And then Trump makes him.

Speaker 3 (26:12):
Wear a Maga hat that he signs in the oval
and put it on for a photo opportunities.

Speaker 9 (26:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (26:18):
Yeah, I don't know if I feel for them, I
really do. And it's not a joke, right, because it's
the fag future of their economies, the future of our.

Speaker 5 (26:25):
Cost I was gonna say that changes their own political calculations,
which is already happening.

Speaker 4 (26:29):
Yeah, there's a decent.

Speaker 5 (26:29):
Argument being made by Eric Kaufman, Matt Cottenenny and others
that what's happening is actually the undermining of global populism
which Donald Trump has tried to fuel, has actually like
sought to build up and because people are now responsive
to their own economic needs at home.

Speaker 4 (26:44):
Of course, Canada is a really good example of this.

Speaker 5 (26:46):
With polyev you have to come out swinging against Trump
and so it completely changes the incentive structure.

Speaker 1 (26:52):
That's a great point.

Speaker 3 (26:53):
I hadn't thought about that, but it's exactly right where
you know, you're actually empowering more establishment forces in the
European u SA, in Japan in I mean, even Javier
Malay is counter signaling Trump on the teriffs, like you know,
you've lost the lost right now. I mean, this guy
is like what probably the most maga that there is

(27:13):
in Latin America.

Speaker 1 (27:14):
All right, last part here, this is just this is
too much.

Speaker 3 (27:18):
At the very same time this is all happening for
US Secretary Beston, for some reason that will remain completely
unknown to me, decided to put out a lecture on
his Twitter account of financial literacy and savings for Americans.

Speaker 1 (27:33):
Let's take a list.

Speaker 8 (27:34):
Everyone should care about financial literacy, whether you are a
student with a summer job or a part time job
during school, whether you're in college, whether you're starting your
career or whether you are at the end of your career,
making good financial choices creates economic security. And look, it's fun.

(27:57):
You learn about the markets, you learn how to properly
allocate resources, and there's a big payoff over the long
term for something you can do early in your career.

Speaker 3 (28:12):
I couldn't believe that, you know, the tone deafness of
this near billionaire Secretary of the Treasury at a time
of financial stress trying to tell people about savings and
financial literacy.

Speaker 1 (28:23):
It's like, why don't we leave that to Dave Ramsey? Okay,
It's like, maybe.

Speaker 5 (28:26):
Maybe they should have just had Dave.

Speaker 1 (28:30):
Should have just had Dave coming yes and listen. At
least guys consistently stay in that at all the time.

Speaker 4 (28:35):
Dave Ramsey is the best.

Speaker 1 (28:36):
Yeah, I mean, look, you know, Dave.

Speaker 3 (28:37):
Is the goat as a longtime watchers know, at least
from my perspective. But I just thought it was unbelievable,
like to put that out as and it's just this
lecturing and this hectoring about savings. It's like, listen, he's
not wrong about the benefit of saving or learning financial
literacy or any of that. And I totally support it,
but now is not the time to be putting out

(28:59):
these types of public messages basically trying to signal like
everything is for you, like you need to learn public markets. Meanwhile,
I'm one of the most powerful, you know, individuals in
all of American finance, and I'm like screwing with the
bond markets and all the nuking your four oh one
K or your five twenty nine plan.

Speaker 5 (29:17):
That's a good point, so best says like I can
nuke your four o K with a single word.

Speaker 1 (29:22):
Yes.

Speaker 5 (29:23):
Meanwhile, you better get your financial literacy in shape, which
is because like it's not wrong, it's like he is right,
because our market is so convoluted and ridiculous and built
on this house of cards. Then yes, you should absolutely
be very You should basically go full Ted Kaczinski and
build a cabin in the woods because they can tank.

Speaker 4 (29:45):
Whatever you say for decades with a word.

Speaker 5 (29:48):
But rather than fixing that structure, you should just call
it gold.

Speaker 3 (29:53):
In the words of Dave, dead is dumb and cash
is king. All right, let's get over to the Chinese
segment here. This is actually really interesting and does give
us some indications about some thinking inside the Chinese, pull
up bureau, let's put this up there on the screen.

Speaker 1 (30:10):
So there were two.

Speaker 3 (30:11):
Kinds of theories of the way that China would react
to the Trump trade war. One was after the ninety
day pause the Chinese, the Trump administration said that China
has shown itself to be a bad actor. They said
that their goal is to use the ninety day pause
to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements with other countries to isolate
the Chinese, and they specifically instructed the Chinese not to retaliate.

Speaker 1 (30:35):
Instead, what immediately happened.

Speaker 3 (30:37):
The Chinese were like, we'll match you dollar for dollar
for every tariff. We'll cap it around eighty percent or whatever.
We're going to stay there, even though that eighty percent
is basically a se session of trade between our two countries.
And in the interim, instead of maintaining any trade negotiation,
there's been no high level talks currently beyond anything routine.
The Chinese are instead actually going around the world and

(30:59):
instruction their foreign ministry to tell countries do not team
up with the United States against us, or you will
suffer the consequences. So this actually was a statement from
the Chinese Ministry of Commerce just yesterday quote responding to
foreign media reports that Trump administration was trying to pressure
other countries on their trade with China. They said appeasement

(31:20):
will not bring peace, compromise will not earn respect. Seeking
so called exemptions by harming the interests of others for
one's own, selfish and short sighted gains is like negotiating
with a tiger for its skin. In the end, it
will only lead to a lose lose situation. China firmly
opposes any party reaching a deal at the expense of
China's interests, It's said, adding that China would resolutely take

(31:41):
countermeasures against any country which decided to do so. So
what we are basically watching then, is this like Teta
tet where the Chinese are very willing to exert their
own economic might, let's say over Japan, South Korea and
other countries do it in a much more targeted and
intelligent I mean already watching the way that they have

(32:02):
worked on the United States, it's honestly amazing, Like you
just have to respect competence. They're like, okay, where do
we have the most like the single most leverage consumer electronics,
so rare earth minerals, semiconductors and on consumer goods broadly.

Speaker 1 (32:21):
So what are we going to do.

Speaker 3 (32:22):
We're going to prop up our consumer manufacturers to make
sure that they remain whole. We're going to pump money
into all of our companies that we control. We're going
to rally the entire population around our flag because it's
an externally declared trade war. At the very same time,
we will use maximum pain leverage on any country which

(32:42):
decides to go behind the back of the Chinese State ministry.
And we're watching countries that have to choose, So Vietnam,
for example, Vietnam immediately cave to the Trump administration. They're like,
find no tariffs, nothing, don't worry about it. We still
hit them with the tariff.

Speaker 1 (32:56):
What are they supposed to think? What are they supposed
to do? But nobody knows.

Speaker 10 (32:58):
Well.

Speaker 5 (32:59):
Our strategy is based on this idea that we had
so much leverage that people would just come to us.
And we saw that like explicitly expressed by members of
the Trump administration. They articulated that that was basically their belief.
People will come to us because we have so much leverage.
Then like Japan, they can tell us what they're thinking
and we'll let them know if it's up or down,

(33:19):
good or bad, like the Gladiator thumb move. But China,
on the other hand, I think has handled this and
it pains me to say with cohesion and strategy, and
that's sort of the mirror image of the same noise
like rather than them saying, because we have so much leverage,
we're gonna let the chips fall where they may, which
is basically our strategy. And again it's true, we do

(33:40):
have a lot of leverage, and the uncertainty to some
extent at first at least was I think a sort
of clever use of the leverage, but trying to approach
it with the exact opposite strategy, which is, we're going
to be extremely strategic and extremely cohesive in our approach
to these different countries. And what they've seen, whether it's
with Greenland, the you or your point about Asia, it's

(34:02):
just obviously.

Speaker 3 (34:04):
Working and you know, even watching some of the things
that they're doing right now. So for example, I previously
talked about the Joe Wisenthal piece on private equity. Well
let's go and put a seven pleas up on the screen.
Don't forget that the Chinese are major investors in US markets. Now,
do I think that that should have been the case. No,
but you know it is the case of our debt. Yeah,

(34:24):
and so quote. China is now pulling back from US
private equity investments. Industry executives report a change of approach
as Beijing is bearing the brunt of Trump's tariffs. So
Chinese state backed funds are quote cutting off all new
investment in US private equity in the latest salvo against Trump.
State backed funds have been pulling back from investing in
US private headquartered private capital firms in recent weeks. The

(34:46):
moves come for pressure from the Chinese government. Some of
the Chinese funds are also seeking to be excluded from
private equity investments in any US based company. Trump has
imposed tariffs obviously of one hundred and forty five percent
on Chinese sports. Multiple buy out executives said that Chinese
investors have changed their approach since the very beginning of
the trade war, and they will make no new commitments

(35:08):
to US firms. China's Investment Corporation, which is among the
state backed firms that is pulling back, said that they
were ceasing all investment.

Speaker 6 (35:17):
Quote.

Speaker 1 (35:17):
Other Chinese funds have retreated.

Speaker 3 (35:19):
And this is the Chinese Sovereign Wealth Fund, don't forget,
which has massive shares of Blackstone, of TPG and of
Carlisle Group, which means that look, this is where the
difficulty of stating this is that on the one hand, yeah,
it's good, you know, we don't really want these people
to be investing in all of our private companies. Why

(35:41):
should they have so much leverage private equity firms and
all these Clearly they've been a tool of the Chinese
ministry and all them for years. But you know, if
there's no commits serate, like if there's no you know,
like change from the US in terms of policy to
make sure that all that capital that no longer come
in our markets doesn't cause the men's pain, then what

(36:02):
do you think that the net effect of all of
this is going to be?

Speaker 4 (36:05):
Right?

Speaker 5 (36:05):
And this is again like what we were talking about
earlier with the David Sachs observation back.

Speaker 4 (36:10):
In twenty twenty two when you interviewed him.

Speaker 5 (36:12):
I mean, there's this entire strategy is based on, i
think really accurate and again unpopular understandings of the United
States economy, the structural flaws in the US economy, and
part of that is because so much of Wall Street
was beholden to China and intentionally set themselves up that way,
and the governments are went along with the American elites

(36:35):
set the country up on this path. So it was
always going to be painful to disentangle it. And so
it's sort of for the average American and damned if
you do, damned if you don't. Right, they're in this
they're caught in this catch twenty two where elites set
up a system where at one point where it was
going to come to a head with China, and because
of that, you either have to stay completely entangled with

(36:55):
China and completely behold into China or disentangle a bit
from China for the consumer either way, and elites will
probably still be fine. They'll probably lose a little bit,
but they'll still be fine, or maybe some of them
will make lots of money, who knows. But it's such
a shitty situation for the average consumer. And it's not
even being now that the distent tangling is happening from
people who are right that there needed to be a disentangling.

(37:19):
The normal person is just getting completely screwed.

Speaker 3 (37:21):
Yeah, and you know, even right now, this just came
across my radar. Maybe actually we can put it in
in post. I'll just go ahead and read from some
of it. But Cambodia is you know, I wouldn't say
it's like a vital us ally, but we actually did
produce a decent amount of textiles in Cambodia.

Speaker 1 (37:39):
Yes, literally, just now, I mean across the wire.

Speaker 3 (37:43):
Trump's tariffs quote risk pushing Cambodia further into China's embrace
quote A massive canal highlights Beijing's now deep investment in
Cambodia just as the US is pulling back, so at
the same time that Cambodia is getting hit with tariffs.
And by the way, again, Vietnam and Cambodia the destination
for many textile manufacturers who were told in twenty eighteen to.

Speaker 1 (38:04):
Get out of China.

Speaker 3 (38:05):
Did the Chinese take advantage of this and use this
transhipping for control. Yes, let's be very clear, Yes, malfeasan's
absolutely across the board. But those governments are still a
lot more friendly to the United States of America than
the Chinese. And while they are quote controlled or they
have some investment from China, it's not the same thing
as literally being controlled by the Chinese directly like they
were previously. Well at the very same time that we're

(38:28):
hitting them with tariffs, what are they doing? The Chinese
are like here, here's one point two billion dollars. Ye, right,
here's a brand new canal that will go ahead and
we'll build you basically trying to fill in the space
from the United States.

Speaker 1 (38:38):
So anyway, just the last thing.

Speaker 4 (38:39):
The OG canal builders.

Speaker 1 (38:42):
Yeah, that's true of the OG canal builders.

Speaker 5 (38:44):
Before we Runzager quick take on JD in India, I
don't really have a take.

Speaker 3 (38:50):
I mean to be honest, like, look, first of all,
he's for he's the only he's just the vice president,
which is like I don't want to be two denigrated
nor like you know, he doesn't speak for the administration
in the same way. And there is just mostly like
platitudes about working with India and the Prime Minister apparently
they're going to talk about tariffs, but the Indians drive

(39:11):
and this will not surprise and want a very hard bargain.
This is one of the most protectionist global economy or
large economies in the world. It's actually difficult for people
to understand. They like take protection.

Speaker 1 (39:22):
They invented protectionism, like they take it to a whole
other level.

Speaker 3 (39:25):
And for them, like they're not going to be reducing
a lot of non tariff barriers. The Indians are much
smarter than us in some respects because what they do
is they'll do things which they know will cost them
foreign direct investment.

Speaker 1 (39:38):
They just don't care.

Speaker 3 (39:39):
They're like, fine, as long as we control and have
a total say over our government and our technology.

Speaker 1 (39:46):
We'll just do it.

Speaker 6 (39:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (39:47):
No, but guess what, they have a population which is
okay with that, and they at least have a financial
system right now, which, because this is kind of baked
in from the very beginning, is not going to cause
as much turmoil. I mean, the TikTok thing is a
perfect example. They were like, it's not a discussion, it's
getting banned. Just ban it, and nobody really cared. Then
they use alternatives now. I think YouTube shorts is big

(40:09):
in the country. The idea that any Chinese like major
global and manufacturer something is going to have as much
of a say.

Speaker 1 (40:15):
Over their affairs.

Speaker 3 (40:16):
They're like, it's it will never happen, right, Well, our
own industrialists will run it.

Speaker 1 (40:20):
Don't get me wrong.

Speaker 3 (40:21):
There's a lot of corruption and stuff like that behind it,
but they have a much more autocic model than basically
any other major economy in the world, and they have
the population to be able to sustain it. So look, yeah,
isn't nice. Sure it's great that JD and all that
is over there. Do I think that Mody is going
to immediately come out and say, sure, we're going to
lower all these non terra No, it will never happens.
That's like foundational to their entire country and to their ethos. Economically,

(40:46):
they will welcome some foreign investment, but like the Chinese,
they demand control. Remember this is a country that ban
bitcoin and crypto because they want control over their own
financial system. Try doing business in India. It's not so
easy if you're a US investor, and that's why a
lot of them don't do it. But like I said,
the Indians just don't care. They have enough population, they're
not as supermarket, they're not as wealthy. But broadly, you know,

(41:08):
they see it as their fate to control and to
really have a say over the industries in their country.
I mean, you know, who can't help but respect that.
So the speech I was looking at it today, Yeah,
it's good, But I mean, do I think it will
usher in like a big change in US relations? Like

(41:29):
not really, that's US and India relations. I don't think so,
at least right now. At the same time, Emily are
now going to take a look at Pete Hegseth where again,
you know, there is a meltdown happening inside of the building.
We've had a full scale purge of many of hegxat's
top advisors. There's now some floating out reports that maybe

(41:50):
the White House is looking to replace some of the
Pete Hegseth and some of the people around him, which
would be an extraordinary move. Hegset is trying to save
his job, basically putting all the blame for the purge
on the people who were fired themselves, even though many
of them are literally some of the most loyal people
who have been around him for years. So he was
asked about it yesterday at the White House at the

(42:11):
East Drag role. Let's take a listen Conson Crest.

Speaker 9 (42:16):
You know what a big surprise that a bunch of
a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of
hit pieces come out from the same media that pedaled
the Russia hopes won't get.

Speaker 6 (42:27):
Back their Pulitzers.

Speaker 11 (42:28):
They got Poltzers for a bunch of lies, Pultzers for
a bunch of lies, and on hoaxes time and time
and time again.

Speaker 9 (42:37):
And as they pedal those lies, no one ever calls
them on it.

Speaker 6 (42:40):
See, this is what the media does.

Speaker 9 (42:42):
They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees and then.

Speaker 6 (42:47):
They try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations.

Speaker 9 (42:50):
Not going to work with me because we're changing the
Defense Department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of
war fighters, and anonymous smears from disgruntled former employe he's
on old news doesn't matter.

Speaker 6 (43:02):
So I'm happy to be here at the Easter egg roll.

Speaker 9 (43:04):
With my dad and my kids because you know, this
is what we're doing it for these kids right here.
This is why we're fighting the fake news media. This
is why we're fighting slash and burn democrats. This is
why we're fighting posters, posters.

Speaker 11 (43:19):
This group, no, no, no, this group right here full of hoasters,
the pedal anonymous sources from leakers with access to grind,
and then you put it all together as.

Speaker 6 (43:29):
If it's some news story and what we know it.
We know exactly what it is.

Speaker 9 (43:34):
So I'm really proud of what we're doing for the president,
fighting hard across the board. And I'm gonna go roll
some Easter eggs with my kids, thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
That's rough.

Speaker 4 (43:46):
That needs to be on Broadway. Yeah, performance, I'm gonna
go roll some Easter egg.

Speaker 1 (43:52):
I don't know. That sounds like an off Broadway performance
to me.

Speaker 6 (43:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (43:56):
Wow, there's a lot going on there.

Speaker 3 (43:57):
So Yeah, first of all, he's talking there as if
it's a hoax, whether he shared this information in a
group chat with his wife or not.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
I mean, it's not a hoax. It's just a reality.
It's a fact.

Speaker 3 (44:10):
It's something also that you previously had said, Oh, I
never shared any classider information, right, you know long once
upon a time Signal Gate was actually a story. But
you know, beyond that, what I find extraordinary about this
is how he is just guns blazing against again top
aids to him in the Defense Department who were the

(44:31):
most loyal to Pete Hegseth, who worked for him probably
for over a decade now at this point, like actually
like his actual close friends, and he fires these people
on a dime. Now people are saying that, Oh, then
he must have caught them leaking or any of that. Look,
there is no evidence to support that from the department itself.
And also, even if you're going to fire somebody based

(44:52):
on a suspicion, you better have some damn good suspicion
or they could sue you for wrongful termination. All of
the indication right now from this of those three never polygraphed,
never presented with any reason or story for why they
were fired, unceremoniously marched out of the building. I think
Hegsath is in some like bunker mentality, Like clearly he

(45:14):
believes that he's just like massively under attack, taking it
out on some of the people most loyal to him.
His own chief of staff, who I guess is leaving
but is technically still going to keep working for him,
is a person he'd never even met before before all
of this, who was like installed, nobody even really knows
by whom. Apparently he's been causing a lot of drama
in the office.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
Around all that.

Speaker 3 (45:35):
But my point is just like this is not how
the Defense Department can be run.

Speaker 1 (45:38):
Like again, we're talking about the tariffs.

Speaker 3 (45:40):
How can the entire world, you know, look to the
stewardship of the largest military force in the history of
mankind and be like, yeah, this is exactly the way
that this is all supposed to be happening right now.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
So I mean, it's just chaos.

Speaker 5 (45:52):
Well, it's against the backdrop of tensions with Iran mounting,
and so the question then becomes whether that had anything
to do with high Seth of professional divorce from people
who have been loyal, who have been around him for years,
going back to when he was at Concerned Vets, And
that's I think where the fault line could be significant

(46:14):
for HeiG Seth. I still don't really I mean, I
could be proven wrong by Donald Trump at any moment
of the day, but I still don't really think Hegseth
is actually going to leave.

Speaker 4 (46:22):
I think, you know, Mike Waltz was able to.

Speaker 5 (46:24):
Keep his job after we heard report after report that
his departure was imminent and that never happened.

Speaker 4 (46:31):
And he's less important to the administration than Pete.

Speaker 5 (46:33):
Heigseth is, frankly is that had of the Pentagon, even
though he you know, is acting very heavily in the
spokesperson role.

Speaker 4 (46:39):
He's the head of the Pentagon.

Speaker 5 (46:40):
So yeah, I mean at the same time, if his
relationships with people who, for example, Donald Trump Junior is
close with Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson just had Dan Caldwell,
We're going to talk about this later in the show
on his program for basically an emergency podcast to go
over what the hell is happening at the Pentagon and
asked Dan, did you leak pint blank? And Dan said no,

(47:04):
So does that cause tensions? That become a legitimate problem
for Pete hag Seth as opposed to like a fake
media story. That's why you saw him, I think, leading
very heavily into the idea that this was a fake
media story when he was talking to reporters at the
Easter Egg role yesterday. So that's messaging to Donald Trump, right,
that's straight going straight to the president and signaling to him.

Speaker 4 (47:25):
Pete Hexath knows this. He was on Fox and Friends forever.

Speaker 5 (47:27):
He knows how to communicate through the TV with Donald Trump,
and that's what he was trying to say, mister President,
this is fake news, right.

Speaker 3 (47:33):
And we actually got even more from hag Seth where
again he's just going guns blazing against his own staff.
People who worked for him were loyal to him, basically
calling them liars.

Speaker 1 (47:43):
Let's take a listen.

Speaker 6 (47:44):
Over the last few days.

Speaker 12 (47:45):
You're senior Advisor Dan Caldwell, Darren Selnick, Colin Carroll, who
is chief of Staff, Deputy Secretary of Defense. The other one,
Darren is now former deputy chief of staff.

Speaker 6 (47:56):
Will let go? Did you let them go?

Speaker 9 (48:00):
It was a result of an investigation ongoing at the
Pentagon where we identified there was a sufficient evidence potentially again,
there's an investigation ongoing that will have to complete itself
sufficient evidence to.

Speaker 6 (48:11):
Believe that they or others near.

Speaker 9 (48:13):
Them were party to leaking, and then I have a
statutory responsibility, Brian, if I believe that's the case, to
ultimately ensure they're no longer have access to that and
that the investigation commences.

Speaker 6 (48:25):
There are a lot of ways to communicate in this building.
I do it every day. I was just doing it
this morning.

Speaker 9 (48:29):
Official channels by which we communicate classified information.

Speaker 6 (48:33):
If you want to do it and do it the
right way, you should.

Speaker 9 (48:35):
If we think you are leaking to the press, that's
a very real problem. We take that very seriously at
the Pentagon. I'm here to do one job, one job
for the President and the American people, secure the country.
America first, peace through strength. I don't have time for leakers.
I don't have time for the hoax press that pedals
old stories from disgruntled employees. We should be talking about

(48:56):
the decimation of the huthis, how we're pushing back to Chinese,
how we have a new defense area of the southern border. Instead,
disgruntled former employees are peddling things.

Speaker 6 (49:05):
To try to save their ass. Did you, And ultimately
it's not going to work.

Speaker 3 (49:10):
I mean again, I mean it's unhinged to be honest,
the way that he's reacting to this. But clearly there
is some stuff going on inside of the White House.

Speaker 1 (49:18):
Right now.

Speaker 3 (49:19):
President Trump is standing behind Pete Heggsath, even though apparently
he's not very happy about the latest signal story. Here
was Caroline Levitt, the Press secretary, talking about the Secretary.

Speaker 13 (49:28):
The President stands strongly behind Secretary heg Seth, who is
doing a phenomenal job leading the Pentagon. And this is
what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you
and working against the monumental change that you are trying
to implement. Secretary Hegswifth. Heg Seth was nominated for this
position because he is standing up for the war fighter,
the men and women in uniform who are putting their

(49:49):
lives on the line to protect our country and our homeland.
And unfortunately, there have been people at that building who
don't like the change the secretary is trying to, so
they are leaking and they are lying to the mainstream media.
We've seen this game played before. The Secretary is doing
a tremendous job, and the President stands strongly behind him.

Speaker 1 (50:09):
Presidents stands strongly behind him.

Speaker 3 (50:11):
And yet at the very same time, let's go ahead
and put B three please up on the screen. Emily,
what do you make of this? So from NPR, they're
really the only story to report it so far, so
you know, you could take it only so far. The
White House is looking to replace Pete Hegseth as the
Defense Secretary. They don't have a ton of detail. It
just says that it's something the process of looking for
a new leader at the Pentagon to replace him if.

Speaker 1 (50:32):
They need to.

Speaker 3 (50:34):
The quote source said that Hegseth used signal messaging app
on his personal smartphone. That's apparently what kind of set
Trump off. But of course heg Seth and the White
House saying that that's completely fake news and that they're
not trying to replace him. I'm just not so sure,
because when you see a complete collapse of your entire
front office, you also find yourself mired in this controversy

(50:59):
about not only sharing information. But look, I mean, just
look at the way that he is speaking here publicly,
like this is not somebody who feels secure, right. He
feels as if you have to go on the offense
survivability the people around him. Obviously, he doesn't even have
any real advisors or any of that point who he
could probably trust.

Speaker 1 (51:17):
He seems to be a man on an island. And
good point.

Speaker 3 (51:19):
It's just it's just a weird thing to watch because
not only does this secretary of Defense, but we're watching
this at the height of tensions with Iran, and a
lot of.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
These people who are just fired are people.

Speaker 3 (51:31):
Who I think are being framed and who were trying
at least to push the administration and develop options and
policy which would not lead to a direct confrontation. And
things genuinely seem to be sizzling to a boiling point
where the pro Iran war lobby again is more frothing
at the mouth than I probably have ever seen them.

(51:51):
I talked to yesterday about Mark Levin demanding that Tulsi
Gabbard fix US intelligence like that's that's that's crazy shit,
Like that's again, that's Iraq level stuff going in, doctoring
intelligence reports to back up what you want so that
you can bomb them. The purge here is happening. Ryan
and I did our story yesterday about it. Israeli Ministry
Defense official running the damn Israel and Iran portfolio on

(52:15):
the NSC.

Speaker 1 (52:16):
I mean, it's just crazy. And Mike Waltz gets to stay.

Speaker 3 (52:19):
The guy wants to push for Iran, so heg seth
if he stays or goes. I don't even know what
this guy believes. Honestly, at this point when you turn
on the people around you, he was one of only
three voices to speak up against a strike on Iran.
Maybe that's one of three gone right. Turns out pretty
well for these Raelies.

Speaker 5 (52:36):
Well and Dan and Tucker flesh this out in his
conversation with him. But Dan is a deep skeptic of
the Iron Hawks, and so there actually is probably something
legitimate to the I guess there's probably something legitimate to
the argument that Pete haig Seth is under enormous pressure
and from people who want to go to a war
with Iran, who are upset that he brought people like

(52:58):
Dan into the group. Go back to Signal Gate. Who
did Pete Heigsas say should be the principal communicator brought
in or the principle brought into the signal Gate chat
he sent to Mike Waltz.

Speaker 4 (53:10):
That's the signal Gate chat.

Speaker 5 (53:12):
Was created because Mike Waltz was asking all of these
guys who should be the point person for your department?

Speaker 4 (53:18):
Pete Heggsas said Dan Caldwell.

Speaker 5 (53:19):
And now Dan is out, So maybe there was some
funny business going on. I mean, I think there's a
non implausible theory that Pete Hegsath was getting rid of
these guys in order to protect them from an investigation
that seems to have been blown up by Pete Heggsas's
own account of what's happened, and Dan coming out point
blank and saying no, I never leaked, and going on

(53:40):
Tucker Carlson's show. That doesn't sound like a guy who's
being protected by a friend. It looks like someone who
is genuinely feels burned by all of this and the
other thing. Donald Trump Junior to go back to him.
He posted, you remember when John Ulliot got some headlines
for being for resigning. Well, Don Junior, remember he said,
this guy is not America first, I've been here for years,

(54:00):
that he works his ass off to subvert my father's agenda.
That ends today he's officially exiled from our movement. Well
what does that say. He's not the only one in
the Pentagon who is working to subvert, as Donald Trump
puts it, my father's agenda quote my father's agenda.

Speaker 4 (54:14):
There the other guys. He's one example, he's a high
profile scalp.

Speaker 5 (54:17):
There are other guys still in the Pentagon who don't
like the Dan Caldwell approach and don't want him to
influence Pete hegsa's decision making. And so yes, they were
probably doing from the moment the administration started and Hegsas
surrounded himself by guys from places like concerned FATS. They
have probably been trying to catch those guys doing something

(54:39):
wrong or set those guys up.

Speaker 1 (54:41):
Nobody knows.

Speaker 4 (54:42):
For weeks they've probably been trying to do that.

Speaker 5 (54:44):
And so yes, I think it is likely that some
of the stems from exactly that. But bad motivations don't
mean that people are blameless, that people are pure and
haven't done anything wrong, So those are not mutually exclusive.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
Yeah. Look, is it theoretically possibly are leaking.

Speaker 3 (55:01):
Yeah, I guess, but I mean, you know, at the
same time, like half few people are leakers. Anyway, that
huge did sir Pete Hegseth never leaked anything.

Speaker 5 (55:08):
Right, Well, that Hexeth was, to your point, disloyal to
his good friends. I mean, they're the pressure is going
to make him do things or could make him do
things that are bad. Yeah, whether or not he's inclined
to do something actually anti Neocon and smart.

Speaker 4 (55:22):
When it comes to these mounting.

Speaker 5 (55:23):
Tensions with Lebron Donald Trump is resisting pressures from the
Neocon so far, we'll see how that goes. And his
sending Steve Whitcoff to continue these negotiations, and the way
that he's approaching it, which is freaking everybody out. I mean,
it's freaking the Nikki Halees of the world out beyond,
like your point, beyond where.

Speaker 4 (55:40):
They thought they could go.

Speaker 3 (55:41):
Let's put B four up there on the screen. So
I you know, this is interesting. I rarely see this
actually happen, but you have a representative Don Bacon here
actually calling for Hegsath to go. He said that he
has concerns about him from the get go. Now tell
me about Bacon. I don't know much about the guy,
but I did. I didn't realize. I mean, this is
a hask person, the first sitting GOP lawmaker to suggest

(56:02):
that he should even fire Hexath. Clary's got a little
bit of an independent streak? Is this in his general
m O? What's up with this?

Speaker 6 (56:08):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (56:09):
I mean, so he's had a close he's had close elections.
He's been so he he won his last election fifty
one percent to forty nine percent in Nebraska. Yeah, so
he's like Omaha area and it's basically like one of
the it's it's a tough race for him.

Speaker 4 (56:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (56:27):
And I'm sure there's also a lot of weapons or no,
I shouldn't say weapons manufacturing, but I'm sure there's a
lot of Pentagon business. Okay, that matters to dun Bacon
in Nebraska.

Speaker 4 (56:37):
All right, Well, lots of lots of nuclear business.

Speaker 3 (56:40):
Oh that's right, Oh yeah, stract Com, that's right. Stract
COM's Yeah, I always forgot about.

Speaker 5 (56:44):
So that they're sort of economically tethered to the military
industrial complex and in a district that is like a
bit more urban and everything affluent.

Speaker 3 (56:54):
That's that Nebraska would be so reliant on the nuclear
weapons destriction.

Speaker 5 (56:57):
It is true, true nuclear It comes out and talks
about how she's obsessed with nuclear weapons.

Speaker 3 (57:02):
Yes, yeah, that's because what is it. That's where the
mountain is with the bunker and everything. I think Bush
went there on nine to eleven. All right, anyway, this
is that whole separate podcast. Let's get over to Dan
caldwell appearance on Tucker Carlson. Dan Caldwell, as we said,
was one of the individuals who was fired from the
Trump administration. Pete Heggsath, his former boss, basically calling him

(57:24):
a leaker, even though Dan literally worked for Pete heg
Sath and was one of the biggest supporters of his
secretary of becoming the Secretary of Defense. Well, here's what
Caldwell had to say, as point blank, did you ever
leak any classified information like what is being alleged from
the secretary and what is behind your firing?

Speaker 1 (57:42):
So let's take a listen.

Speaker 14 (57:43):
It seems like the fastest way to derail the whole project.
The Trump administration in the United States of America is
a war with Iran. And that's why I've just been
watching it as carefully as i can, because I feel like, again,
if you hated Donald Trump and you hated what the
administration is doing on immigration, trade, anti woke US whatever,

(58:09):
and you wanted to stop it, the first thing you
would do is apply pressure to have the US military
engage in a war with a run I mean that,
that's my perspective on it, anyway.

Speaker 10 (58:20):
I think that, and also continuing to do what we've
been doing previously in brush.

Speaker 14 (58:26):
You youth, Oh for sure, for sure, though it I
don't know why. Well, I'm going to ask you all
about this, but it feels like wi cough is is
helping a lot there.

Speaker 10 (58:34):
God he's I mean, I've already said he's a godsend.

Speaker 14 (58:37):
God blessed Steve wo Cough. I couldn't agree more. People
knew that you weren't fully on board with the regime
change program. Is that fair to say?

Speaker 6 (58:43):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (58:43):
I was very open about it. I was very on
the record about it, and most of the time when
I was saying that we shouldn't do this. It was
actually in support of, you know, the president's stated preferences,
Like the president clearly doesn't want this. In the first term,
there were people in his administration that wanted it, he
didn't clearly, he clearly didn't want it, and so it

(59:05):
was supporting people who didn't want the war. And so
I was essential what.

Speaker 14 (59:10):
Donald Trump had said, has said, and now his actions
make perfectly clear he would strongly prefer diplomatic solution.

Speaker 1 (59:17):
Correct.

Speaker 10 (59:18):
I don't want to speak for the president, but it's
fairly obvious that that's what he wants.

Speaker 14 (59:22):
Well, he said it. I mean, he said it again
and he ran on it.

Speaker 3 (59:26):
So look you can see that Caldwell was talking about
Steve Wickcoff. He's talking about war with Iran, about the
preference for Trump for a diplomatic solution. But look, we
can all do the math. Who's the person who got
fired here? You know, who's the person who's on the
app Is it policy? I have no idea, to be honest.
You know, basically, there's so much chaos that anybody can
read so much of what we like, anybody can read

(59:47):
any intention into what's happening. But it just seems as
if the collapse of the Pentagon Front Office, whether it
is policy motivated or not, is one where Mike Waltz
gets to keep his job. The neocons in the NS
you get to keep their job. Steve Wikoff is basically
safe for now. You have no idea if he'll make
it or not anytime, you know, in the future, because

(01:00:08):
you know, like with the Goaza thing, he could be
sidelined or it could be sent to Moscow with Putin,
you know, tomorrow. We have no idea what the progress
of those talks is going to look like. And the
forces within the White House and the Administration who want
more war with Iran are now counter signaling to protect Pete.
Heggsth for example, Tom Cotton and others are some of
his biggest defenders right now.

Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
So that's not a good sign, not a good sign
to me.

Speaker 5 (01:00:32):
But again, both of these things can be true that
this was driven fueled by ideological differences, sharp idiological differences,
and you have Neo CON's foreign policy blob coming hard
after people like Dan and then that pressure could have
forced Hegsath to do something that probably was like in
response to it and not good. So I feel like

(01:00:54):
both of that I don't know. I think you're right,
like we genuinely don't know what's happening behind closed doors
at the Pentagon right now. It sounds like Dan actually
did not do anything wrong because I think, you know,
you wouldn't go out aggressively in media and answer these questions.

Speaker 4 (01:01:07):
Point Blake, talk to Tucker if that were the case.

Speaker 5 (01:01:10):
And I think, you know, maybe Pete Hegseth fired these
guys to protect himself. Yes, that's these things don't have
to be mutually exclusive.

Speaker 1 (01:01:18):
Yeah, yeah, look, it's certainly possible. I just don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:01:21):
I do know, of course, though, that with the absence
of people like this that you know power, you know,
it fills a vacuum, and so we're nowhere that's going
to happen. He was also pressed specifically on leaking.

Speaker 1 (01:01:32):
Let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 14 (01:01:33):
So I just want to be totally direct with you.
Did you leak classified information against the wishes of your
superiors to media?

Speaker 10 (01:01:40):
Well, let's absolutely not.

Speaker 14 (01:01:42):
Did you photograph classified material and then text pictures of
that material to an NBC News reporter?

Speaker 10 (01:01:48):
Absolutely not? And I have not spoken to an NBC
reporter while at the Pentagon.

Speaker 14 (01:01:55):
Are you do you know what you've been accused of?

Speaker 10 (01:01:59):
No, I I don't sitting here right now, myself and
Darren Selnick and Colin Carroll, the other two individuals that
were escorted out of the Pentagon, initially placed on leave
and then fired on Friday, we have not been told
as of this recording. One is there what we were
being investigated for? Two? Is there still an investigation? In Three?

(01:02:23):
Was there even a real investigation? Because there's a lot
of evidence that there there is not a real investigation.

Speaker 3 (01:02:30):
So you could see specifically didn't leak classified information and
that was that. People were like, oh, well he didn't
say he didn't leak at all. It's like, well, PETEXS
just said you lead classified information. He said he didn't.

Speaker 1 (01:02:38):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:02:39):
You know, maybe, but no polygraph tasks Mark san Sierramoski
out of the building. Doesn't know if it's investigations, I
don't even know if it's an investigation. Has been cleared
of investigation, no result of investigation, you still just get
walked out. I mean he was talking about how up
until the minute before he was told to leave the building,
that he had access to classified information, which is not
the way that this all usually goes down, and let's

(01:03:01):
take it outside of Caldwell, those other two. I've gotten
to know some people who know them, and they're saying
it's preposterous that like Darren Miller.

Speaker 1 (01:03:09):
In particular would be leaky.

Speaker 3 (01:03:11):
He's like, he didn't even want to work at the
cell Selnick sorry, apparently he didn't even be wanting to
work at the Patagon did so out of loyalty to
Pete heggsat and now getting frog marks out of the building.

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
So again you can take that.

Speaker 3 (01:03:22):
For what you will, but clearly, the chaos inside of
all of this, it's going to have a long standing effect,
that's all I know.

Speaker 5 (01:03:29):
Yeah, and we're gonna, i mean, whatever anybody thinks they
know right now, we will probably find out that either
it's much more nuanced or that it totally wasn't true
because there's so much going on behind closed stores. But
it does sound very clearly, at the very least, it
sounds like these guys got burned by a friend, not
just colleague, but a friend.

Speaker 1 (01:03:47):
That's exactly right,