4/23/25: Trump Surrenders To China, Tesla Stock Tanks, Layoff Bloodbath, RFK Autism Database & MORE!

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

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

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

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

Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Welcome to Counterpoints, Crystal, thank you so much for joining
us today.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
It is my pleasure, and we start today with some fantastic,
fantastic news. Emily, you want to share the latest with
regard to Ryan and his wife who had a significant
surgery yesterday.

Speaker 4 (00:48):
Yeah, absolutely so.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
Ryan was actually able to post on AX yesterday update
surgery today went very well. Doctors described it as a
quote best case scenario. Thank you to everybody for the
wild wishes and the prayers. It means a lot, So Crystal,
you just said best news. Yeah, I mean, this is
fantastic and a huge relief for Ryan.

Speaker 4 (01:08):
So we're very.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
Excited for them and continuing to.

Speaker 4 (01:11):
Hope for the best.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Yes, absolutely, so he's with her today helping her to recover.
But we're really glad to hear that news. We've got
a bunch of other world news, domestic political news to
get to. Trump making some really significant comments appearing to
back down from his trade war against China, so a
lot to say there. We also got some numbers from
Tesla where their net income was down seventy one percent

(01:36):
in the first quarter, so things not going too well
for Elon Emily No.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
I was going to say, we had the whole show
basically set yesterday and we did it late, but even then,
Donald Trump suddenly was talking about how well, maybe the
tariffs won't be one hundred and forty five percent.

Speaker 4 (01:50):
We will get to that in a moment.

Speaker 3 (01:51):
We have video, we have more updates on how the
tariffs are affecting the economy. And Crystal a great guest
lined up for today.

Speaker 2 (01:59):
Yeah, Eric, and he focuses on unions. He had a
really important piece a while back in Jacobin talking about,
you know, debucking the Smith that you can just put
tariffs on and you're going to end up with manufacturing jobs,
and that those are going to be good jobs. You know,
at the beginning of the turn of the century, the
era that Donald Trump sort of idealizes under William McKinley, etc.

(02:19):
Factory jobs were not good jobs. They were dirty, they
were dangerous, they were low wage, et cetera. It was
really the union movement and a series of sort of
historical events as well the US being kind of the
only power in the world after World War Two that
enabled that dynamic. So we wanted to dig into that
with him at a time when you're already starting to
see actually manufacturing job losses because of what is Trump

(02:43):
has done on tariff. So really excited to talk to Eric.
We also, Emily have a bunch of updates.

Speaker 4 (02:48):
Pete.

Speaker 2 (02:48):
Hegsett seems to really be flailing, and you know, I
rely on you heavily to understand what the hell is
going on in this situation to the best that any
of us know, because it just seems like a total
and complete mess over the Pentagon.

Speaker 3 (03:00):
And both of us will be relying on Ryan, who
will be with us in spirit to some extent because
he has a massive new scoop about what's actually going
on behind closed doors. So that I have to say,
I think provides maybe the best explanation, so everyone should
stick around for that we have.

Speaker 2 (03:14):
Yeah, he actually told me Emily that he was occupying
himself working on that piece to distract him while his
wife was in surgery. He was in the waiting room
and trying to distract himself to keep from going crazy
working on this piece.

Speaker 5 (03:25):
I forget Ryan.

Speaker 3 (03:26):
I figured that's what was happening because the piece ran.

Speaker 4 (03:28):
Well at the hospital. Is classic Ryan, but it's a
very important story. We will get to all of that.

Speaker 3 (03:35):
We're going to do a check in on the Maha
movement because there were a couple of pretty interesting developments
that just happened yesterday.

Speaker 4 (03:42):
A new announcement about food dies.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
But we also have some updates on how the FDA
is approaching milk and other important questions. So we are
going to go ahead and dip into Maha world for
a segment this morning, Chris. So we have some interesting
stuff from the Dems too. Rama Manuel went on the
I've Had It podcast to sort of unload on his
fellow Democrats as he considers a possible twenty twenty eight

(04:06):
presidential run.

Speaker 4 (04:08):
It's so ridiculous to say that, but here we are.

Speaker 3 (04:11):
Gavin Newsom made new comments and David Hogg continues to
get pressed. We have quite an interesting clip of him
and a conversation with Major Garrett on CBS News.

Speaker 4 (04:20):
So a lot to talk about there.

Speaker 2 (04:22):
Yeah, indeed, And I know you love those ladies from that.
I've had a podcast even looking for a reason to
pull some content from them and really uplift them. So
I'm excited that we finally got you that chance.

Speaker 4 (04:33):
Yeah, I do.

Speaker 3 (04:34):
I have like a barning bias against them based on
Bravo World, But anyway.

Speaker 2 (04:38):
I didn't know they existed until recently. You know who
clued me into them was actually Pisco, who you guys
had on to talk about immigration. He was like, I
think you'd love these ladies. Sure enough, I do love
these ladies.

Speaker 4 (04:49):
That's hilarious. We'll hash this out. I'll clue you in
on all of the Bravo drama.

Speaker 3 (04:57):
But before we do that, we will get to So
sixty Minutes having its executive producer, only the third person
to ever lead.

Speaker 4 (05:05):
The show as executive producer. By the way, that's wow.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
Yeah, it's a crazy fact, but left the show yesterday
with a complaint about lacking editorial independence amid CBS's battle
with the Trump administration, or I guess its efforts is
going to placate the Trump administration as they do get.

Speaker 4 (05:23):
Out in court.

Speaker 3 (05:24):
So some interesting stuff going on behind closed doors there,
and it's probably representative of a broader struggle in the
media to Crystal.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
Yeah, absolutely, before we jump in, thank you guys so much.
We've been getting a bunch of new premium subscribers. You
guys made it possible to have the Friday Show officially
locked in, which we're really proud to be able to do.
If you can't buy a premium subscription, we totally get it.
If you can like, if you can share the podcast
in particular, if you could share, if you can leave
a review, all of those things really help us.

Speaker 5 (05:55):
So thank you guys so much for your support.

Speaker 2 (05:57):
And Emily, you want to go ahead and tell the
people what Trump had to say about the trade war yesterday.

Speaker 4 (06:01):
Let's do it.

Speaker 3 (06:02):
Let's move to these comments that Donald Trump made at
the White House yesterday evening as he was discussing the terraff.

Speaker 4 (06:08):
So we can go ahead and roll a one here.

Speaker 6 (06:10):
One hundred and forty five percent is very high, and
it won't be that high. Not going to be that high.
It got up to that. We were talking about Fenton
hal where you know, various elements built it up to
one hundred and forty five. No, it won't be anywhere
near that high. It'll come down substantially, but it won't
be zero. Used to be zero. We were just destroyed.

(06:35):
China was taking us for a ride and just not
going to have It's not going to happen. We're going
to be very good to China, have a great relationship
with presidentcy but they would make billions and billions and
billions of dollars a year and they would build their
military out of the United States and what they made,

(06:55):
so that won't happen. But they're going to do very well,
and I think they're going to be and I think
we're going to live together very happily and ideally work together.
So I think it's going to work out very well.
But no, it's at one hundred and forty five percent.
There will not be anywhere near that number.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
So that was at about five fifteen in the evening,
and we're going to get to this in a moment,
but came after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett reportedly in a
private JP Morgan meeting, had been saying something really similar
and Chris, so, we have a lot of elements to
get to in this black but I want to just
camp out on this point quickly and.

Speaker 4 (07:28):
Get your reaction because this is huge.

Speaker 3 (07:31):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, because this is what we've gone through
the seesaw for the last several weeks about whether the
tariffs are this is the best in distinction.

Speaker 4 (07:40):
What did he say?

Speaker 3 (07:41):
They are negotiable but not a negotiating tactic. And there's
Donald Trump putting it very clearly all on the table.

Speaker 4 (07:49):
This is just a negotiating.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
Tactic, right and you know, I'm going to defer to
our no bertrand had a good analysis of this, he says,
Trump saying the tariffs of China won't be anywhere near
as high tonically is probably going to have an even
worse impact than the US economy in the short run,
because if you import stuff from China, number one, you're
going to wait until the terrors come down. You're not
gonna be oh yeah, let me pay the highest possible

(08:11):
rate right now. So that's going to compound shortages right
now in the immediate term, because people are just going
to weigh out now that Trump has said this is
not going to stay where it is, and he says,
you're going to be less motivated to look for any
alternatives or establish, certainly in domestic manufacturing. Why would you
go through that effort when the President has already told
you this is not going to last, which, again he says,

(08:32):
is why Trump's approaches anything but fort ychs. He's basically
negotiating with himself in public and making the business environment
for US companies utterly unpredictable and chaotic. And I think
all of that is really well said. Obviously, Waltree is
going to be super happy to see him climb down
from one hundred and forty five percent. I think the
China tears were even technically higher than that at this point.
But you get to a certain level where it's just like, Okay,

(08:54):
we're just not trading with China outside of these few
exemptions that Trump put into place, which significant, which had
to do with you know, a lot of high tech
items that we are not going to be producing in
the US anytime in the near term. But you know,
we've been saying emily from the beginning that of trade
war with China, even under the best circumstances, was going

(09:15):
to be very difficult for us to win at this
point because we are so reliant on them for so
many things. And Trump did not set any sort of
conditions in which it was even theoretically possible that we
were going to prevail in this, because he turned the
entire world against us in the midst of you know,
launching a trade war against not just China, but the
entire world, and he's not doing any of the sort

(09:38):
of domestic policy to assist US consumers or US businesses,
which were, you know, being slaughtered by these terrorsts, especially
small businesses, like there was no way they could survive
all of this. So in every way he went about
this and just the worst for his own goals, supposed goals,

(09:58):
whatever those are, he went about it all in the
worst possible way. And now, frankly, it's humiliating that he
has to back down already in this very public way
when China hasn't budged an inch.

Speaker 3 (10:10):
Well, his i mean, his strategy was dependent on maintaining
this sort of bluff, and we all kind of knew
and there were hints of it obviously that this was
just I mean, everyone knew that this was a negotiating tactic,
but what they didn't know is whether or not he
would just say like screw it, keep it out one
forty five, like we're just gonna go full send for

(10:33):
an indefinite period of time, even if this was always
meant to be a negotiating type but what he did
just there is both take away his leverage but also
without providing certainty for domestic producers. And so it's it's
really like, not only is it not being augmented with
the sort of policies that you would see domestically, not

(10:54):
as not only is it not being augmented with a
really coherent so far, with a really coherent set of
deals to reshore particular industries, to support particular industries, it's
still like it's just as he's received from him right there.
It's completely being dominated or defined by what he chooses

(11:15):
to say on a daily basis, which is not at
all helpful to the project of onshoring.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
And yes, go ahead, just really quick, just to summarize,
you know, in terms of what he and his advisors claimed.
There were a variety of goals that were claimed here,
right one of them was to get the treasury bond
rate down. That has gone in the opposite direction, And
I do continue to think that is a significant reason,
the fact that it was so clear the world was

(11:42):
not fleeing to safety in US bonds or in dollars,
they were just fleeing the US all together. And I
continue to think that was probably the most important reason
why Trump is now backing down from this, because that
was so incredibly, like catastrophically existentially disastrous the US economy
so fail on the chargery bond rates. Supposedly this was

(12:05):
going to bring back manufacturing jobs, where we're going to
cover with Eric the way that manufacturing jobs were already
taking a massive hit because of this policy. And then
the other thing that you alluded to there, Emily is oh,
we're going to get all these great deals. Well we
have no deals, zero deals. We're at zero deals right now,
so you know, none of these purported somewhat contradictory aims.

(12:28):
We're actually coming to fruition. And now Trump is you know,
Trump is sort of pulling the record saying, okay, we
got to we can't keep this up. This is just
not going to work out.

Speaker 3 (12:39):
And let's roll this clip of Harry Enton on CNN
as we try to figure out why Donald Trump so
as the things that he says. What's sort of the
backdrop Harry Anton explaining some of the drama in the
stock market actually historical parallel.

Speaker 4 (12:53):
So let's roll this next clip.

Speaker 7 (12:54):
A two.

Speaker 8 (12:55):
The SMP has dropped the most under Trump for any
president at this point in their presidency since the SMP
five hundred was in fact created back in nineteen hundred
and fifty seven.

Speaker 4 (13:06):
And indeed it is not anywhere.

Speaker 8 (13:08):
Close, folks, It's not anywhere close.

Speaker 9 (13:09):
Under Trump.

Speaker 8 (13:10):
It's dropped get this fourteen percent. The next closest one
was George W. Bush back in two thousand and one,
a drop of just half that at seven percent. No
other elected president at this point in their presidency saw
a drop of five percent or more. So Donald Trump
is on a planet all by himself, a planet you
do not want to be on. The American people don't

(13:31):
want to be on chance of a recession. You see,
I have four different little metrics. We can look at
JP Morgan's sixty percent polymarket fifty seven percent Reuters forty
five percent, Goldman Sachs forty five percent. Blame Trump if
there's a recession in the next twelve months. Look at
this a lot or quite a bit. That's the majority
winner right there at fifty two percent, a little or
not at all, Perhaps a little bit high, some might

(13:53):
say at thirty two percent, but still here, the clear
majority of Americans say that if in fact there is
recession in the next twelve months, which at this point
looks about fifty to fifty, the majority of the American
public says that the buck will stop at the White House,
stop at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue.

Speaker 3 (14:09):
So, Crystal, to your point, there's a lot weighing politically
on Donald Trump.

Speaker 4 (14:14):
And this idea. As they said when they.

Speaker 3 (14:17):
Rolled these terraces out, I mean, they had again mixed
messaging about how serious the quote short term pain would be.
Everyone kind of knew it was very obvious there would
be short term pain looking back to Ronald Reagan's presidency
and stany recovered by nineteen eighty four from the recession
in nineteen eighty one.

Speaker 4 (14:32):
But that gave them some comfort.

Speaker 3 (14:34):
And the question is, though, how long they're willing to
stomach the short term pain, and if the short term
pain is actually reflective of something that is a ship
that's not going to be turned around by the time
the midterms come, by the time there's another presidential election.
Whether or not Donald Trump cares about that as a
different question, but the politics of this are going to

(14:56):
get pretty rough, and Trump seems to be responding to
that too.

Speaker 4 (15:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
I just have two questions. One of them is, you know,
all the the botchiest of the world, the people, the
maga world influencers who were like making name for themselves
by being like tariffs now, tariffs forever, this is the
greatest economic policy. This is delivering for Main Street over
Wall Street and showing the ELI It's like, what's what's
the reaction now going to be now that he's like, yeah,

(15:24):
we're we're just not really going to do that anymore.
I guess they'll go back to from the this will
create jobs. Now, they'll go back to art of the deal.
In the meme that shows them going back and forth.

Speaker 3 (15:34):
Well, it's interesting because it's also like, where does he
land on this when he says it's not going to
be one hundred and forty five, What.

Speaker 4 (15:39):
Does that mean?

Speaker 3 (15:39):
What is it going to be eighty percent? Does it
mean one hundred and twenty percent? Like it's just so crazy.

Speaker 5 (15:45):
Because it's gonna be one hundred and forty four percent, one.

Speaker 3 (15:47):
Hundred forty four And if it does remain something like
one twenty or he changes his mind, I mean he's been,
you know, trying to maintain a bluff for a few
weeks and then just comes out and says that on
a day like yesterday. So it's it's really still very
hard to know where this goes.

Speaker 4 (16:04):
But what we do know is.

Speaker 3 (16:05):
That he's willing to make deals, and we just don't
know where those deals are going to end up.

Speaker 5 (16:11):
But is anyone willing to make a deal with him
at this point?

Speaker 2 (16:13):
I mean, I think that was the you got you
and Soccer covered this like that the Japan dating that
they came away empty handed. That's part of what triggered
you know, will market selloff on that particular day, because yeah,
the rest of the world is that, like, why would
we make a deal with you? You people are crazy and
you can't even tell us what you want, Like, even
if we want to make a deal, you don't even

(16:34):
know what you're doing, So how can we even, you know,
settle on some sort of terms here.

Speaker 3 (16:38):
Nobody knows because it's just Donald Trump and Scott Bessett
can go out and make this sort of intellectual case
for it and try to put like meat on the
bones of the policy that Donald Trump changes when he speaks,
you know, just like because he's talking and he's in
a question an answer session with reporters and ends up
saying something.

Speaker 4 (16:58):
That you know, maybe he didn't plan this, but that
doesn't reassure markets.

Speaker 3 (17:03):
It's not, you know, and we should get into this
crystal because this was really interesting as it was happening yesterday.
We can put a three on the screen. This is
the CNBC tear Street. Tear Street just about how markets
closed yesterday. So DOWD jumps a thousand points Tuesday to
snap four day string of losses. That's where things ended up.
But as the day was going on, there was some

(17:23):
quiet interesting movement. We can put the next element up.
This is Joe Eisenthal noticed Scott Bessen gave comments that
massively moved the markets earlier to a private JP Morgan
event that wasn't open to the public or the media.

Speaker 4 (17:37):
What he said.

Speaker 3 (17:38):
What Besson said was that quote the tariff stand off
with China is unsustainable and that he expects the situation
to de escalate. That's per Bloomberg's description of what he
was actually talking about. So we can put that element up.
This is the next this is the next element. This
is how Bloomberg This was a JP Morgan investor summit

(17:58):
here in Washington, DC, is not open to the public,
and what Bessant was saying at the investor's summit move
markets because when the Bloomberg report came out, it was
kind of a preview of what Donald Trump would say
later after the closing bell run five PM that they
expect to de escalate with China. Charlie Gasparino, this was

(18:21):
later in the day as well as around two eighteen PM.

Speaker 4 (18:24):
And it's the next element, he said.

Speaker 3 (18:25):
I've been told by a person close to Bessett the
reports on his remarks about a trade deal with China
having been imminent overstate what he said. He meant that
there's roover talk to de escalation, but much also depends
on China's willingness to compromise on trade as well. So
Crystal just stopping right there with the Charles Gasparino point
so Besant says something behind closed doors that is on

(18:47):
the same page with what the president says later in
the day. But the Treasury tries to clean up, or
the administration at least tries to clean up the best
remark by talking to Gasparino and trying to downplay what
Besant said.

Speaker 4 (19:03):
That's my assumption.

Speaker 3 (19:04):
I mean, maybe it was somebody who's in the meeting
who's not the administration. I don't know who the source is,
but he says it's a person close to Scott Bessant.
So I would assume that somebody in the administration, they
try to clean it up, and then Trump just comes
out a few hours later and it's like, yeah, we're
de escalating one forty five.

Speaker 4 (19:20):
That's a crazy number. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (19:22):
Well, and yeah exactly.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
And to your point earlier, Emily, like we all know
that the only reason he climbed down from his original,
like the insane original chart of tariffs was because Bessant
and Lutnik figured out how to get Peter Navarro away
from him for a little while to be able to
convince him and then type out the tweet in real time,

(19:44):
you know, so hey, they were able to get a
yer yesterday maybe to today. Peter Navarro is going to
have his year and it's going to be a totally
different approach. We have no idea but to go back
to the Scott Bessant comments and why this I think
is quite significant is they're framing themselves and their defenders
are framing themselves as oh, they're looking out for Main Street.

(20:05):
Here is Scott Bessett giving market moving information to insiders
at a JP Morgan investor summit who had hours and
the markets were moving for hours, and people are like,
why are the markets going Like what is going on?
Why are the markets going up? And now we know
it's because all the insiders got this information that hey,
we're backing down on the China piece, and the you know,

(20:27):
they get to benefit and they get to cash in,
and the public gets Charles Gasprino coming out and whatever
his sourcing was. We be like, oh, no, no, that's not
really true. That's not really true. So I mean, it's
just it reminds very much of the day that Trump
spiked the markets with rolling back, stepping back from his
original Tarff posture and alone and behold Charles schwab Is

(20:50):
in the White House that day and Trump's out there
bragging about how he was able to cash into the
two point five billion dollars on a single day. So
there have been a lot of people who have benefited
and accumulated vast resources because of these massive market swings
that have been wholly engineered by this White House.

Speaker 3 (21:10):
I kind of continue to think the tweet, or I
guess the true social post Trump put out that day,
like all caps It's a good time to buy, was
a cover your ass post knowing that you know they're
going to be It's hard to prove a lot of
this stuff, but it also just says like it gives
everyone excuse that.

Speaker 4 (21:29):
We were listening to the president.

Speaker 3 (21:30):
You know, maybe they had information that wasn't public, but
also maybe it was just tweet Like that's where you're
able to sort of land on all of it. But
what I mean this is such a there was a possibility,
and I know you and Sager have covered this a lot.
There was a possibility I think for something that was

(21:51):
upsetting to Wall Street but coherent and did and do
some short term pain, but was I think very clearly
for the sake of long term and where we.

Speaker 4 (22:01):
Are right now. On April twenty third is.

Speaker 3 (22:03):
Sort of Trump waving has wand in different directions every
other day, and movie markets and affecting I mean, if
you think, you know, like the Trump comment is very
trumpy and funny for a second, and then you're like,
oh my gosh. Small businesses who are trying to make
plans around these tariffs just at the whim of what

(22:25):
the President decides to do on a given day, their
livelihoods are affected by it.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
So it's yeah, if you're a small business, like, it's
not just your business, it's your life. Like people put
their whole like hopes, dreams that you know, lady I've
talked about with the busy baby business like she leveraged
her house to be able to expand into Walmart, and
it's all on the line for them. And so for

(22:50):
this whole thing to be so haphazard and so casual
and with no attention whatsoever to the cruelty that is
entailed at the heart of this policy with regard to
workers and with regard to small and medium businesses is
just you know, it's it is astonishing. It truly is
astonishing to watch. And now the only question left is
so I said earlier, I was like, I have two questions.

(23:12):
One is about what are all the defenders going to
say now? The other one is about how much damage
has already been done? Like even if okay, let's say
he fully backs away and okay, we're not doing this
anymore and we're just going to go back to more
or less the status or whatever, Like, how much damage?
How many businesses have already gone under? How many businesses
are already so freaked out about whatever the hell he's

(23:34):
going to say tomorrow or the next week or ninety
days from now, that they're just like, I'm freezing investment.
We're already seeing layoffs. We're already seeing huge freezes in
terms of you know, businesses investing for the future. So
is that all going to just magically reappear? Are we
going to have shortages and messed up supply chains for

(23:55):
a long period of time because of this huge disruption
that is engineered by this administration? You know, I think
there's probably going to be a lot of fallout even
from what has already been done. Not to mention the
way that the world has now significantly moved against the US,
as evidenced by you know, gold going up and the

(24:17):
dollar weakening against basically every currency, and you know, chargery
bonds moving the opposite way of what you would expect
if there's a flight to safety. I think some of
these things there's no there's no putting the toothpaste back
in the tube.

Speaker 3 (24:31):
Probably true, And it just doesn't have to That's again
what's so frustrating is it doesn't have to be this way.
Whether or not you sort of come to this question
of protectionism from the left or the right, there's a
pretty good argument for some targeted tariffs. And again, if
you're a free trader, you absolutely hate that, but there's
a pretty good argument for some targeted tariffs, even I

(24:51):
think and Soccer and I think I agree on this.
There's a decent argument for the ten percent global tariff.
It's not like the craziest.

Speaker 4 (24:57):
Thing in the world, but but it doesn't have to.

Speaker 3 (25:01):
Be done in a way that leaves people stressed every
single day with no clue what's going to happen next. Like, yes,
the uncertainty I think was an interesting leverage point for
the time leading up to Liberation Day and the immediate
aftermath of Liberation Day, But then what did the administration
do to actually seal these deals?

Speaker 4 (25:22):
With all of these different countries.

Speaker 3 (25:23):
What did they do to augment domestic industry that was
going to be hit so hard by this.

Speaker 4 (25:28):
It just none of it had to be this way.

Speaker 3 (25:31):
Even if you support the end goal, maybe you do
it from the left to the right.

Speaker 4 (25:34):
It just didn't.

Speaker 3 (25:35):
This doesn't have to happen like this, and that's really
sad at the end of the day.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
At the same time, Elon actually waged in yesterday about
the tariffs, and Tesla had their earnings call.

Speaker 5 (25:50):
We found out that they're earning.

Speaker 2 (25:51):
I mean that company is in dire streets and we'll
get to a little bit more of that. But on
the earnings call, he really did stance himself from Trump's
tariff policy, saying, listen, is this the policy of the
United of the President of the United States. It's up
to him. But I've made clear I don't support this direction.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to what he
had to say.

Speaker 10 (26:11):
I just want to size that the tariff decision is
entirely up to the President of the United States. I
will weigh with my advice with the President, which he
will listen to my advice, but then it's up to him.
Of course, to make his decision. I've been on the
recquort many times, is saying that I believe lower tariffs

(26:33):
are generally a good idea or prosperity, but this decision
is pominently up to the elected representative of the people,
being the President of the United States.

Speaker 3 (26:42):
So you know, I'll.

Speaker 10 (26:45):
Continue to advocate for lower tariffs rather than higher tariffs,
but that's all I can do.

Speaker 2 (26:52):
So the highest profile member of the Trump administration outside
of Trump himself saying that he does not support the
direction of the cariffs, not that that's any sort of
a surprise, and he had been sniping at Peter Navarro
and made clear already his upset with that direction. He
also said something else very significant, Emily, which is he said,
starting next month, I'll be allocating far more time to Tesla,

(27:15):
but also indicated he's going to continue to spend a
day or two per week on government for as long
as Trump wants. So you know, it's he's he's kind
of doges. I don't want to say it's completely ending,
but it is petering out. And on the one hand,
it has certainly been a complete failure with regard to

(27:35):
the stated goals of Doge of any sort of efficiency.
They've definitely made the government less efficient. They have failed
to cut costs. Government spending is at an all time high.
But they have done a lot of damage and this
will actually come up in the block we do on Maha,
you know, cutting food inspectors so we can no longer
like regulate milk. Basically, you know, social Security has been

(27:58):
under assault, and now if you need to call, if
you need to go to a field office, the line
is going to be like a mile long, and you're
going to wait hours to get your issue dealt with.
So you know, it's been effective at making the government
work a lot more poorly. And Elon as libertarian and
someone who also has all of these conflicts of interest

(28:19):
and doesn't want these agencies regulating his businesses, so he
got a lot out of it. But you know, in
terms of the publicly stated advertised goals of efficiency and
cost savings, that has all been a total and complete,
undeniable failure.

Speaker 5 (28:34):
At this point, The.

Speaker 3 (28:35):
Wall Street Journal This is a eight had a big
piece on how this all has gone down for Tesla
as Elon Musk started to get closer and closer to
Donald Trump, and you know, it is It was always
an interesting move because from Musk's the perspective of his portfolio,
it's more than just Tesla, and Tesla, of course, is

(28:57):
more than just a car company. A lot of its
valuation is about the technology as much as the AI technology,
as much as it is about the cars themselves, and
that's why it's always been valued so high. But from
the perspective of his portfolio, becoming part of the Trump
administration could benefit his other companies in ways that go
beyond just sort of Tesla's relationship with the government. I mean,

(29:20):
this is a man who has SpaceX and Neuralink and
Boring Company, and it's we just keep listing them. So
it was just, you know, if you get really close
to Donald Trump and you're an electric vehicle company, what
does that do to the customer base? That in and
of itself was always.

Speaker 4 (29:39):
Like a huge, huge risk.

Speaker 3 (29:41):
Crystal, and I feel like, I'm curious what you make
of this. I actually feel like that's probably hit the
sales the most, Like Tesla has become.

Speaker 4 (29:50):
It's a brand.

Speaker 3 (29:51):
It's a brand that is now associated with Donald Trump,
and that's you know, you get roughly half of the country,
a little less than half the country voting for for Trump.
That's not a big enough market, especially when you're already
trying to pull people who are interested in electric.

Speaker 2 (30:09):
Vehicles, right, And the half of the country that support
more or less that supports Trump is the half that
is much much, much, much much less likely.

Speaker 5 (30:17):
To buy evs.

Speaker 2 (30:18):
So you're directly alienating your own customer base, and not
just here in you know, Europe, in Canada, in China
and so yes, I think the net incomes line seventy
one percent like that is an astonishing collapse for Tesla,
and it I think is not one hundred percent, but
significantly due to Elon making him such a toxic, divisive figure.

(30:44):
Because remember, he's not just you know, taking control vast
swaths of our government. He's meddling in UK politics, he's
meddling in German politics. He's trying to involve himself in
all of these countries and they're domestic political life and
a lot of consumers. Elon has been profoundly unpopular in
Europe for quite for a while before his popularity plummeted

(31:07):
here as well, and so yes, the brand is very
closely associated with him. There are a lot of competitors
out there. Now you know, if you are in most
of the world, you can buy a BYD. It appears
to be a better car, the technology appears to be better,
it is less expensive. So you have that competition coming
online at the same time that he becomes such a

(31:28):
toxic figure. And even here in the US, you know
the domestic automaker EVS. I happen to own one of
them at the board and they're good. You know, it's
no longer that they're the only game in town. So
and because Tesla as a brand has become such a
sort of polarizing brand, a lot of people are not

(31:50):
trying to make a political statement with just their vehicle
drive down the street.

Speaker 5 (31:53):
They're not trying. They don't want to.

Speaker 2 (31:54):
Get like dirty looks or judged or like have their
political views on display or whatever just based on the
car that they're driving. And so that's going to make
it less appealing as well. And I think it's going
to be difficult for them to climb out of this
because you face not only him as a toxic figure
and so closely aligned with the brand, you also face
this you know, competitive pressure coming from BYD and you

(32:17):
know Tesla has a relatively stale inventory. And then another
piece of this that we'll get to in a minute
is the cyber truck has been one of the biggest
flops in automotive history.

Speaker 5 (32:27):
Just a total complete flop.

Speaker 2 (32:29):
We cover before that Tesla dealerships are not even taking
it as like a trade in. So Tesla is not
taking their own vehicle as a trade in because no
one wants this thing. They've had to recall almost all
of them. They've had all kinds of quality issues. It
looks freakish, you know, it's already. It's already just the

(32:49):
look of it is going to be divisive. And then
with the normal Tesla cars, it's like, Okay, maybe you
got this before, you knew what was going on with
Elan whatever, before he was on their sigiling on Inauguration Day.
But with the cyber truck, like you kind of feel like,
all right, you knew what you were getting with this guy.
And so it is a very overtly political symbol and
most people just don't, like they're not looking for that

(33:10):
in their vehicle.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
Yeah, I mean, we could do an entire show on
how much I despise the cyber truck, but we should
probably get to the rest of the news here, but
a nine B up on the screen. This is Joe
Wisenthal pulling out a quote from the Boomberg article about
how Trump's Tesla says that Trump's trade war has had
adverse impacts on Tesla's global supply chain. No surprise there,

(33:37):
And the trade war quote could have a meaningful impact
on demand in.

Speaker 4 (33:40):
The near term.

Speaker 3 (33:41):
Again, no surprise there. Then we can move on to
the next element. This was the one that we just
showed earlier about how bad the quarter was for the
cyber truck. That is a twenty four percent dip, which
is about double the dip for the Model Y and
the other Tesla offerings. And finally, last element in this

(34:05):
block is a eleven.

Speaker 4 (34:07):
This is a report in the Washington Post.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
This is a story about report in the Washington Post
in which Elon Musk has reportedly said he wants to
leave politics because he's tired of quote attacks from the left.
So Crystal, one of the big questions that we've had
here on the show is the extent to which Elon
Musk is benefiting both in front of the public and

(34:31):
behind closed doors. And a lot of that would not
come from Tesla, but from probably companies were like Starlink
in space that are more closely intertwined with the government,
and that's a giant unopened question or unanswered question. Jury
is out on it. We may not know the details
of that literally for years to come, because a lot

(34:51):
was happening really quickly behind closed.

Speaker 4 (34:53):
Doors with DOJ.

Speaker 3 (34:54):
But Tesla obviously is like his signature brand company and
all of that. I think it'll be, like you said,
difficult for it to recover from this. I don't think
it'll be impossible for Doesla to recover, because there is
a lot of value in the tech itself.

Speaker 4 (35:11):
But all that is.

Speaker 3 (35:12):
To say this is for Usk, the Tesla drop is
probably nothing compared to the benefits he's still reaped by
being so closely intertwined with a Trump administration, or will
continue to, or we'll see.

Speaker 4 (35:26):
Those benefits coming down the line.

Speaker 3 (35:28):
So I just wanted to make that point quickly, because well,
it's true that Trump is heard in Wall Street and
Elon Musk is part of that, and he has probably
sacrificed a little bit with Tesla here, significantly with Tesla here,
whether it was intentionally or otherwise, those benefits are still
we don't really know exactly what he's gotten out of this.

Speaker 5 (35:49):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 2 (35:50):
And you know, I think Elon is a very ideological force.
I think it's wrong to think of his aspirations solely
being I mean, he likes to make money out and
you know, he's been able to shift some contracts in
his direction and gut the regulators that were causing him
problems other businesses whatever. So he gets that out of it, certainly.
But you know, my sense from the reporting on him

(36:13):
is that his real tesla is not the apple of
his eye right now. His real goal is this SpaceX
colonizing Mars, which you know is sort of an insane thing,
like if you know anything about the actual atmosphere on Mars,
et cetera. And so remains to be seen how much
he is able to shift Pentagon resources and NASA resources

(36:39):
in his direction for SpaceX to try to accomplish his
like you know, man on Mars colony dream or whatever
it is that he has in mind. So, like you said,
a lot of unanswered questions about how much this is
going to serve Elon's interest in the long term. It's
also possible that he placed a big bet that it

(36:59):
would serve his interest in his goal, his main character
goal of you know, making humans interplanetary and interplanetary civilization,
and then he ends up just screwing himself because the
bets don't pay off. That's certainly the possible outcome here
as well.

Speaker 3 (37:16):
We're sending Sager to Mars and he's going with Katy Perry.
That's that's what we're leaving this block.

Speaker 5 (37:23):
I think that will heal the world.

Speaker 4 (37:24):
He will heal the world, right, Crystal, Let's get to
the guests.

Speaker 2 (37:31):
Joining us now for a conversation on the way that
Trump's trade war has already hurt manufacturing jobs and what
it would actually take to make not only more reindustrialization
in this country, but make those jobs good jobs again.

Speaker 5 (37:42):
Is Eric Blank.

Speaker 2 (37:43):
He's an assistant professor at Rutgers and he's also out
with a terrific new book, highly recommend. Let's put it
up on the screen. It's called We Are the Union.
How worker to worker organizing is revitalizing labor and winning
big and extremely relevant and timely book given and how
important unions were to building factory jobs into good, well

(38:06):
paying jobs that were you know, regulated and safety regulations
and all of those sorts of things. So Eric, great
to see.

Speaker 5 (38:12):
You, welcome.

Speaker 9 (38:12):
Yeah, thanks for having me on.

Speaker 2 (38:14):
Yeah, of course, guys, if we could put up on
the screen.

Speaker 5 (38:18):
B two.

Speaker 2 (38:20):
We've had already some indications that because of the chaos
of Trump's trade war and the way that it's you know,
unilateral and across the board, we've had some early job losses.
A paper mill that has been opened for two hundred
years that is now going to be closed. Could put
the next one up on the screen. We've got a
list of a number of different companies Stalantis, Mac Trucks,

(38:42):
Cleveland Cliffs, John Deere, Summitt, Interconnect, Whirlpool, and Tenaco where
workers have already been laid off. Now, I do want
to say I think some of this, you know, uh
Stilantis in particular, I saw some reporting on how they
just you know, bought a bunch of their shares back,
like some of these companies are always looking for an
excuse to layoff workers and blame some other factor. But
I also think it's fair to say that Trump has

(39:05):
created a business environment, given that there's tariffs on so
many of the inputs that are required for manufacturing as well,
that has led to directly to some of these job losses.
So Eric wanted to get you know, your thoughts on
not only the impact of these this trade war now
in the near term, but also more importantly, what would
it actually take to make sure that we did make

(39:28):
more things in this country as many people want to,
and not only that that it wouldn't be done just
by robots or by low paid workers the way that
it was in the early nineteen hundreds that the era
that Trump really sort of idealizes.

Speaker 11 (39:42):
Yeah, you know, the first thing to say is that
Trump's actual rollout of these tariffs has been extremely counterproductive,
at least in the short term, for the nominal goal
of increasing manufacturing.

Speaker 9 (39:53):
So you give the numbers. I don't need to go
into that more.

Speaker 11 (39:56):
Depth, but it is just worth saying that because of
the across the board this and then frankly just because
of the volatility and a no ability of what Trump's
actually going to end up doing, it's hurt the economy
as a whole, and so it's very counterproductive for the
goal of if this is actually the.

Speaker 9 (40:12):
Main goal of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Speaker 11 (40:15):
That being said, it's also just worth questioning the basic
premise of Trump's vision insofar as it exists, which is
that you're going to bring back American prosperity just by
bringing back factory jobs. And essentially what this leaves out
is that the reason today we associate factory jobs with
you know, a middle class lifestyle, you know, images of
the nineteen fifties and all that is because there were unions.

(40:37):
Factory jobs were horrible in this country before unions, and
it took the unionization jobs of the nineteen thirties and
nineteen forties to make them decent jobs. And you don't
need to just look back, you know, to the Gilded Age,
which is what Trump does. You know, Trump's always talking about,
you know, we need to go back to the Gilded Age. Well,
you know, read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair to get
a sense of, you know, how horrible it was to
work in the factories of that era. But you don't

(40:59):
have to go back, you know, the century you go
to understand what kind of jobs would come back if
these factory jobs aren't union jobs. Just like look at
the US South right where Honda workers, for instance, Honda
workers in the US South make less than McDonald's workers
make in Denmark, right, the pay and the security that
we associate with factory jobs in general just don't exist

(41:20):
when you don't have unions.

Speaker 3 (41:21):
And I wanted to actually ask about that tension because
I went back and looked recently at where the jobs
from chips restoring all of the industrial policy basically went
over the last.

Speaker 4 (41:32):
Several years, and they went overwhelmingly to write to work states.

Speaker 3 (41:35):
I mean, if you map them onto a map of
right to work states, it's like, it's crazy. And it's
not just red states, it's purple states and more Lake
Arizona places like that, And that speaks to I guess
I'm curious for your take on this. How it's true
that American labor costs more than labor in Mexico or
in other parts of the world, and so if you

(41:56):
want to reshore in a way that actually benefits the
middle class and doesn't create jobs that pay less than
the example you just gave a fast food work that.

Speaker 4 (42:05):
Has to be coupled with something.

Speaker 3 (42:08):
And the way that I'm asking this question to you
is we've seen the right really struggle with what to
do with organized labor and what to do with this
idea that you know they want jobs that support middle
class families and communities. So what would your advice be,
or what would your response be, your argument be to

(42:30):
people on the right who say, these are coming in
to right to work states, we need more right to work,
we need cheaper labor, how should they be thinking about that?

Speaker 11 (42:39):
Well, you know, the first thing to say is that
for a lot of these capital intensive factory jobs, labor
costs are really a marginal part of the overall profitability.
So it's just not the case that what is driving
these companies to Mexico and to China is just that
labor coasts themselves are so large. This is a tiny

(43:01):
fraction of the overall pie. And in fact, a big
reason for the lack of competitivity of America and manufacturing
is just, frankly, the lack of investment in new technology
and the lack of real infrastructure development, the types of
things that you need government policy to boost. So it's
not the case that the only way or even the

(43:22):
main way to have a more flourishing manufacturing sector is
by keeping wages as low as possible.

Speaker 9 (43:28):
We've seen that in the nineteen fifties.

Speaker 11 (43:29):
Think about the peak era of the US, when we
had the best manufacturing we've ever had, well that was
when it was entirely unionized. So it's just not the
case that it's necessary precondition. In fact, you can argue
the opposite that oftentimes it's unions because they raise the
wage ceiling of force companies to have to develop more
because they can not getting that just by extracting sort

(43:50):
of superprofits from exploitation. They have to innovate, they have
to do the things that frankly, our competitors and other.

Speaker 9 (43:54):
Countries are doing.

Speaker 2 (43:56):
We can go ahead and put your article for Jacobin
on this topic. You you know, you really make the
cases say union's not just factories will make America grade.
And you know, I think another piece of this with
regard to and your answer with regard to, you know,
labor costs being a comparatively small part of the profitability
of these companies as well taken. But the other thing
I think we have to consider is because the US

(44:18):
has such a barebone social safety net and frankly insane
healthcare system. It means that you are relying on workers'
wages to provide everything for them, so you don't have
a government healthcare system, so that cost is borne somewhe
by the businesses. You know, housing is extraordinarily expensive, so

(44:40):
if you want to have a prayer of even getting
an apartment, you're going to have to earn a certain
wage as well. So it seems to me like the
social safety net piece of this has also been missing
because you know, at the time of peak manufacturing post
war manufacturing power in the US, which is somewhere around
nineteen fifty three, not only did you have high unionization,
it was a time period when we were in the

(45:00):
process of expanding the social safety net through the New
Deal as well.

Speaker 11 (45:05):
Yeah, and this is one of the ironies of the
fact that we don't have Medicare for all like we
should in the United States is that it would actually
in many ways benefit most big employers, right because it
would take off these costs that oftentimes they end up
having to bear, and it would you know, socialize them.
So this is a reason for having a strong social

(45:25):
safety net that we don't have. And then just more generally,
I think your point is well taken, which is that
you know, it's not just about the union, it's about, frankly,
what the broader policy environment is to make this stuff happen.
And one of the really bad aspects of the Trump
rollout is that it's not real industrial policy.

Speaker 9 (45:43):
Tariffs. Targeted tariffs can work, right.

Speaker 11 (45:46):
Unionization in factories can be boosting productivity, it can be
conducive towards a flourishing manufacturing economy, but it has to
take place in a context of an industrial policy that's
comprehensive that we saw aspects of frankly at its best
in the early Biden domestic agenda, where there really were
real incentives from the government to manufacturer in certain like

(46:07):
key industries. This is the type of thing that you
need to pair unionization, real industrial policy with tariffs. And
in the absence of those other background conditions, including a
stronger welfare state, well then just tariffs on their own
aren't going to deal what Trump is saying they're going
to do.

Speaker 3 (46:21):
And can you talk to us a little bit about
what you've seen from organized labor. I mean, obviously we've
seen you know, Sean Fain be sort of in the
media having these conversations in the last couple of weeks.
There's the big bet from the teamsters over the course
of the election, and this is, you know, April twenty
twenty five, and here's where we are So what do

(46:41):
you make of how organized labor has approached Trump? Super
interesting and complicated figure for them, no question about it.
But how have they handled this discussion about tariffs just
in the last let's say, the last month.

Speaker 11 (46:54):
Yeah, I mean, I think I think the UAW is
in a tricky situation because the UAW is very on
the record is being opposed to Trump, went really hard
against Trump, and I think it's to their credit that
they did and they understood the stakes because frankly, Trump,
contrary to all of the rhetoric about him being pro worker,
pro labor, has been the most anti labor president in

(47:16):
US history. It's certainly recent US history. Just the fact
of taking away a million union members right to collective
bargaining overnight through an executive order, this is just, you know,
this is the type of administration we're dealing with. So
on the one hand, the UAW sees that and many
of their own members, because it's not just autoworkers in
the UAW, they represent researchers and the representing graduate students,

(47:36):
are being attacked by the Trump administration. At the same time,
the UAW correctly understands that the free trade you know,
experiment if you want to call it that, for the
last three or four decades has been just a total
disaster for their members. And so in that context, I
think the UAW has threaded the needle pretty well, which
is to oppose the overall Trump agenda while saying, yeah,
targeted tariffs could work. This is frankly different than some

(48:01):
of the other blue collar unions. You know, I would
include the team stars there that have really been completely
uncritical at this point of the administration. I think the
UAW is walking and showing them at the same time.

Speaker 9 (48:12):
But it's not easy.

Speaker 4 (48:14):
Eric.

Speaker 2 (48:14):
I wanted to ask you a little bit more specifically
about your book, which again I highly recommend to people
where you dig in for you know, this is the
first book that really does this to these new labor
organizing movements, whether it's at Amazon and whether it's Starbucks,
the sort of worker to worker organizing model, and you
see this as a really hopeful direction for the labor movement,

(48:36):
even as you know, you have Trump decimating the National
Labor Relations Board and you know, really, just like you said,
being the most anti union president that we've had in
modern history. So do you still see even in this context,
you know, hopeful developments within the broader labor movement.

Speaker 4 (48:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 11 (48:55):
I mean, look, the labor movement resurgent hasn't just gone
away now that Trump got elected.

Speaker 9 (49:00):
We've already seen this.

Speaker 11 (49:01):
Federal workers are organizing all across the US and fighting back.
There's actually been a surgeon membership in the federal workers
unions and response to Trump. You know, despite all these sects,
in many ways, because of them, You've had more workers
joining the unions in the last three four months than
joined in the last three or four years combined. So
in the federal sector, we're seeing that sometimes the boss

(49:22):
is the best organizers.

Speaker 9 (49:23):
It's old labor saying that's true.

Speaker 11 (49:24):
Sometimes these attacks force people to fight back, and just
more generally, I would say that even if it's the
case that a lot of the battles right now are defensive,
and it's certainly the case, you know, right now we're
facing an authoritarian takeover. You know, the attacks on federal
services and unions are really intense. But labor can keep
up its momentum, and it's starting to if it is
able to rise to the moment and take a lead

(49:46):
in defeating these really crucial attacks for all American people.
You know, it's not just unions. If you destroy federal services,
how are people going to get their Social Security?

Speaker 9 (49:55):
How are you going to get your medicaid? Right?

Speaker 11 (49:57):
So, these workers are sort of the front edge of
the spear in fighting for all working people at this point.
And so if labor is able to win that battle,
and that's a big if because frankly, most unions are
at least on the top, extremely risk averse, extremely calcified,
which is why the energy has come from below. This
goes back to Sabanda you've thought a lot about, which
is the teacher strikes in twenty eighteen, you know, starting

(50:19):
then where the rank and file took the lead, and
one in you know right to work states, Republican states,
that show that's possible even under Republican governments, to win
big if you get the community support. So I think
that we're going to need to have that energy again
like we saw in the Red state teacher strikes, and
that that moment spread to Starbucks, that's spread to Amazon.
And I think if we're able to defeat Trump around

(50:41):
these fights right now, that's going to set a huge
precedent for then going on the offensive to organize the
Amazons to organize Starbucks, which I think will get their
first contracts soon.

Speaker 9 (50:49):
There's a lot of potential there.

Speaker 11 (50:51):
There's a lot of young workers who are still angry,
and there's a lot of anti billionaire sentiment.

Speaker 9 (50:54):
To me, it's actually is.

Speaker 11 (50:55):
Very interesting because if you think about like my normy
liberal family members, who are you know, now all into
Bernie and AOC and an anti billionaire. That's the overall
sentiment of a lot of the base is very anti billionaire.
And then the question is posed, well, how do you
beat the billionaires? What's the labor movement? So I think
there's a lot of political space for continued labor re vitalization.
It's a question of the unions and if the rank

(51:16):
and file take advantage.

Speaker 2 (51:17):
Of that moment, Yeah, I think that's that's a great point.
This was I mean, I guess somewhat of a small gesture,
but I was really hardened to see the president of
the sheet metal local that kil Maraabergo Garcia was part
of come out and call out the Trump administration for
disappearing him into El Salvador, and I thought, you know,
we need to see a lot more of that, And

(51:38):
you know, it gets into a complicated question of different
unions have different views of like, you know, we just
focused on our wages and you know, working conditions right
here in the here and now, or is this a
broader movement?

Speaker 5 (51:48):
But the way you put it, I think.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
Is very apt that there has been a real sort
of radicalization of normy liberal Democrats and you see that
in a variety please watching MSNBC, and Nicole Wallace is
out here sounding like you know me in twenty sixteen.
So it certainly creates an opportunity I think for labor
if they can, if they can seize the moment. Eric,

(52:12):
tell people where they can follow you and where they
can buy your book, which again highly recommend to everybody.

Speaker 9 (52:18):
Yeah. Thanks.

Speaker 11 (52:19):
The best place to follow me is probably at my substack,
Labor Politics.

Speaker 9 (52:23):
You just go Labor politics dot com. You can sign
up there and yeah, get a copy of the book
We Are the Union. You can get it anywhere online
or in person. Yeah, and again thanks for having me
on it.

Speaker 11 (52:32):
And I'll just say, if you're out there and you
want to get involved in fighting background the federal workers,
you should go to Save Public Services dot com. There's
a growing movement to support them. And if you are
a worker who's not in a union, you should organize
your workplace and the way to do that is you
go to worker Organizing dot org. Sign up and you'll
get support for organizing a workplace today.

Speaker 5 (52:52):
Amazing. Thanks Eric, It's always great to see you.

Speaker 9 (52:55):
Yeah, thanks for having me on.

Speaker 3 (52:59):
Well defend Stuckert. Pete Hegseeth is still under fire. He
gave an interview to Fox and Friends. We covered some
of it yesterday morning, just as we were reacting in
real time as it had recently happened. But there's so
much more to get to, including I think a real
bombshell from Ryan and drop site about what's going on
behind the scenes at the Pentagon. This report explains a lot,

(53:21):
but let's start with this clip from Pete HeiG Seth
on Fox and Friends yesterday morning, trying to defend himself
amidst all of these firings.

Speaker 12 (53:30):
That's why we've I've fought for the budget that the
Defense Department requires, and the presidents said, we'll have our
first trillion dollar budget because my kids, my fourteen year old,
if he joins, he's going to have a great military,
he's going to have peace through strength because of the
historic investments of this president. So no, I haven't blinked
and I won't blink because this job is too big

(53:53):
and too important for the American people. And I'm grateful
for every opportunity the President has given him.

Speaker 6 (53:57):
And I was grateful to see the heg that Seth
army on the Easter egg roll yesterday in the backdrop
they are ready to go.

Speaker 3 (54:04):
Okay, So Pete HeiG Seth went on Fox and Friends
to defend himself amidst what we've been covering here. It's
a major story, all of these terminations of his very
very close staff, people who have been around him for
a long time, just in recent days over allegations.

Speaker 4 (54:23):
Of a leak.

Speaker 3 (54:24):
So one of the things we covered here yesterday just
to catch up if you didn't see the addition of
breaking points yesterday, is that Dan Caldwell. Again, this is
a very senior advisor to Pete Hegseth, someone who's.

Speaker 4 (54:35):
Been around him.

Speaker 3 (54:36):
I think, going back to their concern veterans for America days,
really long time, Dan is terminated, walked out of the
Pentagon along with another guy who's been around heg Seth
for a long time, pretty high up in the circles
at the Pentagon these.

Speaker 4 (54:51):
Days, I think the total comes to like.

Speaker 3 (54:53):
Five major departures, one of which Juliot is sort of
anti Hegseth, and more and Concamp, but just around Hegseth himself,
four people who are sort of allies to him have
left the Pentagon recently. Caldwell then goes on Tucker Carlson's
show says he absolutely did not leak.

Speaker 4 (55:12):
He has no idea if there is.

Speaker 3 (55:13):
An investigation into a leak. And then Ryan comes out
at drop site with the story that I think blew
this wide open yesterday, Crystal. So let's put the next
element up on the screen. So what Ryan is reporting
basically is that, I mean, it's the narrative itself, and
Ryan's writing is so good, but this is just an

(55:34):
insane story. But what happened basically is that, let me
summarize it this way. The paranoia about being caught leaking
at the Pentagon is so strong that people are getting
falsely accused of leaking because there's such a freak out
about whether or not anybody is leaking. So think of

(55:56):
it like this, and just to go through Ryan's story quickly.
So on April, Star Calling Carol gets a phone call
and it is from Dan Littman. So Politico reporter Dan Littman,
who had recently written a story kind of a hit
piece on Carol, calling him a quote bad boss. I
don't mean hit piece in necessarily a pejorative way, but

(56:18):
it was negative negatives. Yeah, exactly. So Carol texts Dan
Caldwell to tell him about this call with Litman. Litman
had asked if Joe Casper was facing an investigation by
an IG and he wanted to know if Carol could
confirm that. So you have a reporter calling someone at

(56:40):
the Pensagon and saying, hey, do you know about Joe
Casper being under investigation?

Speaker 4 (56:47):
So he then texts Caldwell being like, what do I
do with this?

Speaker 3 (56:50):
I don't want to be accused of leaking like that
is the fear, and says I just had a political
reporter call me and asked a comment on an ongoing
IG and criminal in messation the Casper I told him
no comment. Same reporter that did a hit piece on
me two weeks ago for getting fired for bad leadership
last time around. I feel like I should report this
call to someone, but not sure who.

Speaker 4 (57:10):
Given the leak and disclosure stuff.

Speaker 3 (57:13):
This is an amazing signal message that Ryan has in
the story. Ryan's sourcing here is just incredible. Called Well
replies flag it for your PAO, and then Sean Parnell,
who does comms at the Pentagon, so that all happens,
and basically then Carol Caldwell and the deputy chief of

(57:33):
Staff Darren Selnik get marched out of the Pentagon and
subsequently fired and accused of leaking information. So Crystal this
story again, it is insane. It is like ripped from
an episode of Veep. But the takeaway here is they're
so paranoid about being caught leaking that even when they're

(57:55):
not leaking, they're getting accused of leaking.

Speaker 4 (57:57):
Even when they're paranoid, when they're trying.

Speaker 3 (58:00):
To cover all of their bases, they're still being in
case of leaking.

Speaker 2 (58:04):
So just basically their association with this political reporter and
the fact that they surface this created this impression of oh,
you're leaking, and you're trying to sabotage Joe Casper in particular,
so he and it also feels like Casper, there's all

(58:24):
kinds of stories down about him. At this point, he
seems like, you know, a real will just say wild card.
Apparently he's in high level meetings bringing up exploits at
strip clubs, announcing to everybody that he's just taken a
giant shit Like that's the level of leadership that we're
talking about from that dude in particular. But it seems

(58:44):
like he was also looking for a pretext to fire
a knife some of these people. So then when they
get associated inadvertently with this political reporter and this potential
leak coming out of the Inspector Generals with regard to
Joe Casper, he potentially sees this as an opening of like, oh,

(59:05):
this is how I'm going to get these guys out
of here. So some of this is just complete insanity
and paranoia, you know, very poor leadership in terms of
Pete hegg Sath clearly like that's just undeniable at this point.
Some of it is potentially ideological. That's the piece that
we don't really know, And it sort of doesn't matter

(59:26):
whether it's ideological or not, because the end result is
that you've got Dan Caldwell out, who was a really
important voice for you know, restraint with regard to Iran
and not going along with Israel and what they want
the United States to do. So whether or not it's ideological,
it has an ideological impact. And then some of this

(59:46):
just seems like, you know, people who don't like each
other in turf wars and like kind of bureaucratic bullshit
run amuck because you have such a weak and ineffectual
and chaotic leader in the person of Pete Heggsath.

Speaker 3 (01:00:00):
So Carolyn Levitt was asked about this d yesterday at
the White House briefing. Let's roll clip not I should
say she wasn't asked about the drop site story. I
don't think it had come out by the time the
briefing happened. But let's take a look at her answers
to questions about Pete Heigseth.

Speaker 4 (01:00:13):
I have two.

Speaker 13 (01:00:14):
Questions, one on the Pentagon and another on the economy.
You said on Fox News that the entire Pentagon is
working against Secretary HeiG Sith.

Speaker 5 (01:00:25):
But the people who were fired were.

Speaker 4 (01:00:28):
Heikesa's own guy. So how do.

Speaker 13 (01:00:31):
You square that and what do you say to concerns
that that's bad management?

Speaker 14 (01:00:35):
They were Pentagon employees who leaked against their boss to
news agencies in this room, and it's been clear since
day one from this administration that we are not going
to tolerate individuals who leaked to the mainstream media, particularly
when it comes to sensitive information. And the Secretary of
Defense is doing a tremendous job, and he is bringing

(01:00:55):
monumental change to the Pentagon, and there's a lot of
people in the city who reject my fumental change, and
I think, frankly, that's why we've seen a smear campaign
against the Secretary of Defense since the moment that President
Trump announced his nomination before the United States Senate. Let
me reiterate, the President stands strongly behind Secretary Heigseth in
the change that he is bringing to the Pentagon and
the results that he's achieved thus far speak for themselves.

Speaker 3 (01:01:18):
And christ Lo, I want to bring up this New
York Times rundown that published yesterday because it gets to
the points you made about Joe Casper, some of the
allegations about how he conducts himself at the Pentagon, bringing
up conversations about strip clubs and then.

Speaker 5 (01:01:36):
The literal shit show.

Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
Apparently, this New York Times story has all kinds of
details from behind the scenes, but Joe Casper, Heike Seth
has stood behind. And what's very interesting about that is
the question that I believe that was Dasha Burns just
asked Caroline Love.

Speaker 4 (01:01:54):
It's as though there has been.

Speaker 3 (01:01:56):
A wedge driven between Haigs's own allies side the Pentagon.
And if you are Pete Heigseth, and I'm just speaking hypothetically,
you come into the Pentagon hypothetically and sort of charitably
like say you're you're Pete Hegseth. You have these goals
that you want to accomplish at the Pentagon. You really
want to do some reform, whatever that reform is. You

(01:02:17):
let's just say, want to bust up a status quo
that has been around for a long time.

Speaker 4 (01:02:21):
And it is very hard to disrupt.

Speaker 3 (01:02:23):
What's very predictable is that these sort of forces that
you're trying to reform and disrupt are going to drive
a wedge between yourself and your allies. Because again we
talked about this when Heike Seth was first nominated. Basically nobody,
even in the private sector, has the experience that you
need to be the Defense secretary because it's.

Speaker 4 (01:02:45):
Such a vast.

Speaker 3 (01:02:47):
Job. It's your oversight is just over such a vast
swath of the economy of the sort of global security apparatus.

Speaker 4 (01:02:57):
It's a really really difficult job.

Speaker 3 (01:02:59):
And even if you lad concerned vets uh and you
know you're a Fox of Friends host, it just there's
nothing that can prepare you, whether you're that or you're
Jamie Diamond, Like, nothing can prepare you for what's going
to happen at the Pentagon, let alone if you want
to reform it. So I think some of this Crystal
is really like bad faith neo conservative defenders of the

(01:03:22):
status quo trying very hard to push Heg Seth out
and replace him with somebody who's more along the lines
of like a Mike Waltz or a Mike Pompeo. So,
I you know, as as wild as the sort of
or let's just say, as unorthodox as HeiG Seth is
as a defense secretary.

Speaker 4 (01:03:43):
I mean, I think some of this.

Speaker 3 (01:03:44):
Is just like the predictable machinations of the neo conservative
blob that operates inside of the Pentagon, and it was
always going to happen, and that's I mean, it's sort
of It's a very difficult job. And as much as
like hag Seth has made some pretty obvious mistakes, signal

(01:04:06):
Gate being the clearest man.

Speaker 4 (01:04:09):
This is this is a mess.

Speaker 3 (01:04:12):
And I don't know, I don't know what. It doesn't
make me feel great about what's happening at the Pentagon.

Speaker 2 (01:04:19):
That doesn't make you feel great, doesn't make me feel great, Crystal.

Speaker 5 (01:04:22):
I mean, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:04:23):
I'm just I'm going back to the first clip where
you played, where he's like bragging, my, oh, we're gonna
have a trillion dollar defense budget. It's like, Okay, where's
the grave, where's the big break with the status quo?
You know, I get it. He talked about DEI and
Wokeness a lot, and you know, you wanted.

Speaker 3 (01:04:38):
To get rid of like a bunch of those guys,
you know what I mean, like the generals that have
been along around for a really long time.

Speaker 2 (01:04:43):
Like yeah, but now we're just like reinflating the budget
and making it bigger than ever. So I you know,
I'm just I'm not all that sympathetic to the narrative
that he really is, that he has really had this
grand evolution in terms of his ideology and his really
pushing in a different direction than what we've seen before

(01:05:03):
in terms of fighting wars, you know, endlessly around the world.
I just don't think that he I think he is
an ambitious guy. I think you know, when it was
the thing to do to get ahead to be in
favor of the Iraq war, he did that. When it
was the thing to do to get ahead to be
in favor of the Ukraine War, he did that. When
it was the thing to do to get ahead to
turn on the Ukraine War, he did that. And now

(01:05:24):
he's going to do whatever Trump wants him to do.
That's how I ultimately.

Speaker 4 (01:05:28):
He's not going to push back on Trump.

Speaker 5 (01:05:30):
Yeah, no, we know that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:31):
I mean, you know, he saw it in the Signal
Gate in the chats that we all got access to.
And then I don't know if we've covered on the
show or not, there is another signal Gate controversy now
where he was including his wife and his brother with
this sensitive information that had been shared with him. We
know it was classified because it was shared with him

(01:05:51):
from a general who shared it through the proper classified channels,
so you know. And the reason to share these things
a signal is because you can evade any sort of
government transparency. That's the reason they do this. They never
said they were going to stop using signal and I'm
sure they've continued to use it routinely, et cetera.

Speaker 5 (01:06:12):
And you know, there is like.

Speaker 2 (01:06:14):
A basic level if if you okay, let's let's take
seriously the idea he's a revolutionary, really wants to change
the direction of the Pentagon, et cetera, et cetera. Like
that does mean to your point that you need to
be even more locked down, competent, you know, efficient, like
all of it versus this you know, chaos, paranoia mess

(01:06:35):
that has apparently been fomented at the Pentagon. So if
you want to do some sort of revolutionary action, you
better have all of your ducks in a row, because
of course, the you know, the neocons and the people
that are going that are in the entrench status quo
are going to be coming for you, and you can
bet that they are organized.

Speaker 5 (01:06:56):
So you know, I, I.

Speaker 2 (01:06:58):
Personally don't give a lot credence to the narrative about
his big ideological shift, but even if you do, that
makes it even more important that he be a hyper
competent person. And there was never any evidence of that, frankly,
never any evidence of that. There were mismanagement problems that
his you know, concerned vets organization. Being a Fox and
Friends weekend host like doesn't require you to manage personnel whatsoever.

Speaker 5 (01:07:23):
And so the the short.

Speaker 2 (01:07:27):
Falls in terms of his basic level of leadership and
competence are even more important if he is trying to
truly do something different here.

Speaker 3 (01:07:36):
And let's we can put the last almond on the screen,
because this gets to the point that you're making about
to what extent Pete Heike Seth is able or willing
or interested in reforming the Pentagon. Donald Trump posted on
True Social yesterday quote, I've just spoken to Prime Minister
of Israel Bibi and Yahoo relative to numerous subjects, including
train trade, iran, et cetera.

Speaker 4 (01:07:55):
The call went very well.

Speaker 3 (01:07:56):
We are on the same side of every issue.

Speaker 5 (01:08:00):
Now cool, great, love that Chris issue.

Speaker 3 (01:08:04):
And this speaks to how serious I guess the tensions
or the because what is genuinely different or was genuinely
different about Haig seth Pentagon is that he surrounded himself
with people like Dan uh. Dan Caldwell is somebody who
would look at that True Social post and say, this
is ridiculous.

Speaker 4 (01:08:25):
We're on the same side of every issue.

Speaker 3 (01:08:27):
This is a huge problem with American foreign policy and
for a Republican or Democrat administration frankly to have deep
skeptics of the US foreign policy establishment, especially as it
pertains to the Middle East, especially it pertains to Russia
in such a senior role.

Speaker 4 (01:08:44):
That was genuinely.

Speaker 3 (01:08:46):
Different, and it was you know, whether it would have
translated into massive substantive differences. I mean, we saw this
on the signal Gate chat itself when jd Vance pushed
back a little bit. It was Pete Hedseth who jumped
in and made the argument on behalf of trump Ism
basically for the UTI strike. And so whether it would

(01:09:07):
have translated down the line into big substantive differences, we
don't know. The early signs suggested that it wouldn't. But
this is the sort of like classic Trumpian dilemma or
not dilemma. But one of the big questions is whether
his I guess, stylistic gestures that he's willing to make
on things like organized labor, with Chavez, Drimer being in

(01:09:30):
support of the Proacer, formerly being supported the pro Act,
all of these different things, do they ever translate into
sort of substantive or trade war for example, Does he
end up going like blinking on these tariffs and you know,
pissing off Wall Street so much that he ends up
playcating Wall Street like these we just don't you never,

(01:09:51):
you never have a good sense of how serious he
is about actually reforming the status quo. And in this case,
the potential reformers have been pushed out the door.

Speaker 4 (01:10:01):
What's three months into the administration?

Speaker 2 (01:10:03):
Yeah, and I mean yeah, bottom line, this goes again
to you know how much Pete Hegseeth really cares about
going in some different direction. He fired maybe the best
guy that he had around him on these issues, the
best voice against war with Iran, One of the best
was Dan Caldwell, and Pete Hegseth is the guy that
fired him. So you know, what are we to make

(01:10:23):
of how committed he is to a different ideological direction.
And you know, these things matter because Trump can be
very impressionable, Yes, you know, you see that certainly in
the tariff fight, where Bessen and Lutnik realize that they
if they can get Peter Navarro on the other side
of the White House and some other meeting, they can
come in and they can you know, make their case

(01:10:43):
and they can effectuate some sort of action just from
them being there. And Peter Navarro not being there. So
that's why it is very consequential who is who is
in the room. And to see that tweet from Trump saying, oh,
We're on the same side of every issue with Israel
like that, it's just it's just so preposterous. We should
not be on the same side of every issue of

(01:11:05):
any country in the whole world, like the whole idea
of America versus you have your own interests, right, And
that's the kind of the polar opposite of what is
being conveyed in Sweeten is deeply troubling because obviously Israel
wants us and has long wanted US in a war
with Iran, even though many of even Mike Waltz acknowledged that,
you know, it was it would be a risky gambit

(01:11:27):
to try to take out Iranian nuclear facilities through military means. So,
you know, you have a lot of Americans who realize
that this would be a bad direction. But that doesn't
mean that you aren't going to have you know, you
aren't going to have a lack of patience for Trump
to pursue the diplomatic process. And at the end of
the day, the neocons be able to catch him in

(01:11:49):
a moment when you know whoever is a voice of
reason is on the other side of the of the
White House and persuade him into taking really dangerous and
horrifying action.

Speaker 4 (01:11:59):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:11:59):
I think your point about the importance of having people
in the room who are skeptics or kind of heater
docs on these questions is really really well taken and important.
Let's go check in on the MAHA movement, Crystal, because
there's some developments we should talk about. Yesterday it was
a pretty big announcement on food die. We have stuff

(01:12:22):
to talk about when it comes to milk inspections. Let's
start with this this clip of Robert F. Kennedy Junior,
who's obviously Secretary of Health and Human Services. This was
this was a clip that came out last week. We're
going to get into the new developments this week. But
the clip that came out last week when RFK Junior

(01:12:43):
was speaking about autism, we want to start with because
it went really viral and was was really polarizing, polarized
had had some polarized reactions that we'll talk about, but
we could go ahead to roll the clip first. This
is RFK Junior speaking on autism last week.

Speaker 7 (01:13:00):
This is an individual tragedy as well. Autism destroys families.
More importantly, it destroys our greatest resource, which are our children.
These are children who should not be who should not
be suffering like this. These are kids who, many of them,
were fully functional and regressed because of some environmental exposure

(01:13:23):
into autism when they're two years old. And these are
kids who will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job,
they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll
never go out on a date. Many of them will
never use a toilet unassisted. And we have to recognize

(01:13:47):
we are doing this to our children. I mean, in
your direction.

Speaker 9 (01:13:51):
We are going to know by September.

Speaker 7 (01:13:52):
We've launched a massive u testing and research effort that's
going to involve hundreds of sciencests from around the world.
By September, we will know what has caused the autism
an epidemic and will be able to eliminate those exposures.

Speaker 3 (01:14:10):
This comes as news actually broke yesterday.

Speaker 4 (01:14:14):
This is D two.

Speaker 3 (01:14:15):
We can put on the screen that this big autism
study that he is trying to wrap up, I believe
by August is amassing medical records of many Americans. As
the CBS headline puts it quote, the new data will
allow external researchers picked for Kennedy's autism studies to study
comprehensive patient data with broad coverage of.

Speaker 4 (01:14:36):
The US population for the first time.

Speaker 3 (01:14:37):
NIH director doctor j Batcharia said the idea of the
platform is that the existing data resources are often fragmented
and difficult to obtain. The NIH itself will often pay
multiple times for the same data resource. Even data resources
that are within the federal government are difficult to obtain,
he said in a presentation to the agency's advisor.

Speaker 4 (01:14:57):
CBS goes on a note.

Speaker 3 (01:14:58):
That medication records from pharmacy chains, lab testing and genomics,
data from patients treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs
and Indian Health Service, claims from private insurers, and data
from smart watches and fitness trackers.

Speaker 4 (01:15:10):
Will all be linked together.

Speaker 3 (01:15:12):
So Crystal, that's On the one hand, it's sort of like,
if you're doing these studies, yes, you should be getting
as much data as you possibly can.

Speaker 4 (01:15:22):
On the other hand, it sounds like.

Speaker 3 (01:15:24):
What the government is doing is correlating data that can
be bought from third parties. So if we're talking about
smart watches, fitness stuff, there are serious efforts to ban
that the government being able to buy that data, because
then the government is able because I mean, you can
buy it like a private people can buy that data.

(01:15:44):
Should the government be able to buy it is a
different question, But the government's argument is that, well, if
you can buy it in the marketplace, why should the
government be at a disadvantage to sort of have access
to it. So it's not the clearest cut question in
the world, but is always creepy.

Speaker 2 (01:16:00):
Yeah, they're creating a national registry of people with autism, Like,
it's very creepy, and then collating all of this data
together allegedly. I mean, this is some of what DOGE
is doing in other departments as well, putting together this
like mass federal government database of every characteristic, every interaction
you've ever had with the government. And I think people

(01:16:22):
are right to be uncomfortable with that, you know, going
back to RFK Junior's like, if you're autistic, you'll never
play baseball, you'll never go.

Speaker 5 (01:16:29):
On a date. The one that's jumped down to meze
he said, you'll.

Speaker 2 (01:16:33):
Never pay taxes, Like is that a shot at elon
Musk not really paying taxes because I'm just saying, I'm like,
you do know that the most powerful man in government
outside of Donald Trump is autistic?

Speaker 15 (01:16:46):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:16:46):
Like?

Speaker 5 (01:16:46):
Are you aware of that?

Speaker 4 (01:16:47):
Probably?

Speaker 2 (01:16:48):
You know would I would wager probably significant number of
the Doge Packer apparatics may also share that diagnosis. So
I just when you hear comments like that, you're like,
do you not recognize the very basics of this thing
that you claim to take such interest in? Because clearly
it's a broad spectrum of people with many varied capabilities,

(01:17:09):
and yes, some are more profoundly impacted than others. So
it again speaks to me to a just ignorance on
the basics of a topic that he purports to have
a deep interest and you know, supposed expertise in. And
there's a lot that's really concerning about the way that
he's going about this whole study. I mean, first of all,

(01:17:30):
he's already decided he thinks vaccines cause autism. We all
know that, we also know that that is not the case.
The primary study that you know, purported to show that
was thoroughly discredited. This he's got involved in this study.
This guy David Giery's a vaccine skeptic. He was fine
for practicing medicine with analycense. He's known for retracted papers

(01:17:52):
linking vaccines to autism. So that's the other question is
if they're basically just like cooking the books to get
the answer that he believes, whether it's you know, vaccines
are some sort of other environmental you know, toxin factor.
And I think it's great to research and learn more
and really test the case of whether it is truly
that there's you know, a greater diagnostic awareness and that's

(01:18:14):
why we have a you know, a larger percentage of
people who are autistic. Is that really true? Is there
something else going on? But you also can't just discard
all of the research and the science that has been
done before, including research into significant genetic factors. He calls
autism like an injury, Like it's something specific in the environment,

(01:18:35):
whether it's vaccines or toxins that have been done to you.
But there's tons of research to show like if you
have a real genetic component, if you have someone else
in your family who's autistic, you're much more likely to
yourself be autistic. You can't just ignore that and pretend
that doesn't exist. So I mean, this is my issue
with him. I just I think he's dishonest. I think
he's a crank, and I also think he's incredibly poorly informed,

(01:18:56):
as is evidenced by you know him thinking that people
who are autistic, none of them can play baseball or
go on a date or use the bathroom by themselves.

Speaker 3 (01:19:04):
It was so there were some groups that represent the
interests of people with autism who took issue with what
he said because of their argument is that it stigmatizes
people with autism. Yeah, and you know, this is the
sort of trouble with RFK Junior is similar from my

(01:19:27):
perspective also to what happens with HeiG Seth. It's like
there's there's something really serious that they get right, which
is these like structural problems with the agencies that they've
been tapped to lead and with the culture of the
industries that the agencies are supposed to oversee. Then the

(01:19:49):
problem is those what does that mean in terms of
like the policy execution. Mass data collection is not my
favorite thing, whether it's private companies or the government do
doing it. So this is Jay Baticharia. I've interviewed him.
He's great. I really like Ja bodicharia. But the description
of this database is definitely troubling. They want to use

(01:20:10):
it for more than just research into autism. They want
to have a pretty broad, comprehensive database that they can
use to study other health issues. And they're promising protections
for privacy. I've heard that many times before and deeply
suspicious of it. While we're actually talking about badicharia, I
just want to mention the Lefong story from yesterday as well.

(01:20:30):
You can go read it on Lee's substack, But basically
that nih was making Grant's contingent on people not getting
involved with BDS, like, yeah, you can. You can look
at the new policy and it has some stuff that
I fully support about because like my take on this

(01:20:52):
is that DEI violates civil rights law and we don't
have to necessarily agree on that. But they put in
this poison pill about BDS into this basically new policy,
saying that you can't be discriminating on the basis of
race in the name of DEI. But then they toss
in a description essentially that's that's BDS and compare it

(01:21:13):
to racism, and it's just some of the stuff is
so frustrating.

Speaker 2 (01:21:20):
I mean, he said he was going to use AHHS
to combat anti Semitism, like it yeah, whuich he likened
to like, you know, a greenhouse guest. So yeah, it's
it's just it's I don't think anyone really asked him. Well,
I know there were some people who asked him, but
I don't think that the MAHA movement was looking for

(01:21:42):
him to weaponize the HHS in a hyper woke fashion
to combat this alleged scourge of anti Semitism.

Speaker 5 (01:21:52):
And you're right.

Speaker 2 (01:21:53):
I mean, the reason why an RFK junior can rise
to such prominence is because people recognize, of course they're
are big issue. There's you know, obviously big issues with
our food supply that is making us sick. We obviously
have a system that is set up to keep people
chronically ill because that is profitable. I mean, that's really
the core of it is. You have, whether it's big

(01:22:14):
food or whether it's big pharma, they profit off of
people being chronically ill. But none of that is actually
in the analysis of what he is trying to accomplish
at HHS, Like none of the you know, going after
making sure you know, whether you want to nationalize big
farm or whether you want to push for medicare for all,

(01:22:35):
to take the profit motive out of these things. None
of that is really there. And so even you know,
he's announced this effort, which I support, to get some
of these food dies which are there is some research
to suggest can be you know, can can be negatively
impactful to kids in particular. And so look, if there's
a question, just yes, take it out. I'm all for

(01:22:55):
that absolutely. But even with this, it's like a voluntary program,
and if food companies feel like it, whatever, So let's
go and take a listen. This is D three to
RFK talking about getting these food dyes out of our
food supply chain.

Speaker 16 (01:23:09):
Hey, the FDA is taking action to remove petroleum based
food dyes from the US food supply and from medications.

Speaker 9 (01:23:18):
For the last fifty years.

Speaker 16 (01:23:19):
American children have increasingly been living in a toxic soup
of synthetic chemicals. The scientific community has conducted a number
of studies raising concerns about the correlation between petroleum based
synthetic dyes and several health conditions.

Speaker 7 (01:23:37):
We are spending as much on mitochondrial disorders like diabetes
as we spend on our military budget. We can't continue
to exist like this. And you know the problem is
industry is making money. I'm keeping us sick.

Speaker 9 (01:23:55):
And these are a.

Speaker 7 (01:23:57):
Broad category, the ones that Marti mentioned like ADHD, neurological
disorders add ADHD, speech delayed language delay, TICS to red syndrome,
and arcolepsy, ASD, and autism. All of these are injuries
that I never heard of when I was a kid.
They were not part of the nomenclature, They weren't part

(01:24:19):
of the dialogue. There was zero spent in this country
treating chronic disease when my uncle was president. Today is
about one point eight trillion dollars annually. Is bankrupting our nation.
Seventy four percent of American kids cannot qualify for military service.
How are we going to maintain our global leadership with

(01:24:43):
such a sick population. We have all these autoimmune disease,
these exotic diseases, and again I never heard of juvenile diabetes,
rheumatoid arthritis, loupis, Crohn's disease, and one hundred others that
were just unknown when I was a kid.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
And I mean again, it's like part of this is
correct about definitely the you know, obesity and chronic illness,
et cetera, and then part of it is just like complete,
you know, ill informed bullshit of these you know, various
illnesses that he describes again as injuries. It's trying to
indicate that these are all, you know, environmentally caused or

(01:25:21):
vaccine cause or whatever that he never heard of when
he was a kid. Well, I mean, you could go
through each one of them. But some of them it
was because they used a different word for it. Some
of them is because, you know, I mean, some of
these things that he says he never heard of had
been identified in the late eighteen hundreds, et cetera. But
you know, I think the effort to get these food
dies out is a good effort. But we could put

(01:25:43):
the next peace up on the screen. Like I said,
it's completely voluntary to the food companies. And I also
don't think we should delude ourselves about like this is
not going to change the health status of Americans. You
need a much more rev plutionary program that actually attacks
the central problem, which is the profit motive. And you know,

(01:26:05):
they've got the head of the USDA is a freaking
seed oil lobbyists. So I'm just you know, and at
the same time, Emily, the other piece of this is
most of the and that the seed oil lobbyist things
speaks to the fact that most of the Trump administration
is running a million miles and the other direction of
like giving chemical companies and polluters everything they want. And

(01:26:25):
Doge has gutted the FDA so they can't even properly
regulate our food supply at all. I mean they were
already incredibly stretched thin, so it was difficult for them
to be able to, you know, make sure that what
we eat is safe. But if we put D five
up on the screen, this is great reporting from lever
News about industry getting a big win here. The Trump

(01:26:47):
administration hid data that allows communities to know about dangerous
chemical facilities in their midst comes after lobbying from the
chemical industry and after massive inauguration donations from chemical companies.

Speaker 5 (01:26:59):
We can put up D six about milk.

Speaker 2 (01:27:02):
So they are halting milk quality tests at the FDA
amid workforce cuts. So thank you Doge for making it.
And you know, it's not like there's like an avian
flu that we're worried about passing through a milk supply
right now or anything. So this is this is not
all that you know, I guess this is not all
that important, making sure that the milk supply is safe

(01:27:23):
and sufficient, and then put this last one up on
the screen. They're also set to cancel tens of millions
of dollars in grants from the EPA to scientists studying
the environmental hazards faced by kids in rural America, the
harms of pesticide exposure, and preventing forever chemicals from contaminating
the food supply. So, you know, I don't know what
I don't know what administration he's talking about when he,

(01:27:45):
you know, thinks that we're going to be getting the
toxins out of the food supply and whatever, because the
the doge efforts, the overall Trump administration coziness with business
has meant that some of the small things that the
Biden Ministry, small steps that they took with regard to
forever chemicals in particular, are being rolled back a million

(01:28:07):
miles per hour by this administration and making it so
that we can't even know whether there are toxic chemicals
anymore in our own communities.

Speaker 3 (01:28:14):
You know, the Obama administration initially considered RFK Junior to
head up the EPA, And this is what's actually and
by the way, you've seen as.

Speaker 4 (01:28:22):
Too much of a liability to the Obama administration.

Speaker 3 (01:28:24):
Because he's been always kind of on the fringes of
the left. And that's what's so interesting about slotting him
into the Trump administration is that you have these sort
of directionally radical and I mean that in a good
way radical correct points about how completely corrupted our food

(01:28:46):
supply is, how corrupted the government is. And he's surrounded
by because he's at HHS, which is extremely powerful, but
it's not in charge of it's not entirely in charge
of things like agriculture.

Speaker 4 (01:29:01):
That's where Brooke Rollins, this is your point.

Speaker 3 (01:29:02):
About seed oil, it is that's where Brooke Rollins comes in,
somebody who's had really good relationships with the industry there.
That's where over at the EPA, Lee Zelden is somebody
who's really opposed to, you know, the broader green agenda.

Speaker 4 (01:29:17):
And I'm sympathetic to that.

Speaker 3 (01:29:19):
But if you're RFK Junior, you are now I guess
your efforts to clean up HHS in the name of
reforming American government and improving American health from your own
vantage point. This is the like fascinating tension and in
Doge and elon world, it's like a more efficient government.

(01:29:43):
But that's like if your goal is a more efficient government,
if you're a RFK junior, you're not really somebody who's
historically loved this idea of slashing and burning, because a
lot of times your argument is in fact that the
government is understaffed and has been gutted by industry, isn't
able to perform oversight.

Speaker 4 (01:30:02):
It is the most bizarre. It is the most bizarre.

Speaker 3 (01:30:07):
Like marriage in the most bizarre time, and it's I
guess having the expectedly bizarre effects.

Speaker 5 (01:30:14):
Yeah, I guess so.

Speaker 2 (01:30:15):
And you know, he talks a lot about or did
talk a lot about corruption in these agencies and the
way moneyed interests, you know, get to say in all
of this, I would I'm very comfortable saying this is
the most corrupt administration in certainly modern American political history.
There's nothing like you know, Trump saying Okay, you can
pay a million dollars, you can come tomorrow, Laco, and

(01:30:37):
you can make your case directly to me. I'm going
to set up a shit coin so you can just
like bribe me and catch in directly. We covered earlier
all of the allegations of direct insider trading over the
way that they're moving the markets, and you know, you
can see it in these moves with oh, we're just
not going to regulate the food industry anymore because they
want that. We're just not going to expose you know,

(01:30:58):
where toxic chemicals are and communities because that's what industry wanted. So,
you know, he, in his supposed quest against corruption, has
signed up to be a defender of a wildly like
historically corrupt administration where you know, everyone is just trying
to trying to get theirs and certainly Trump and his

(01:31:19):
family are trying to cash in in every way that
they can.

Speaker 3 (01:31:22):
It'll be interesting to see how RFK Junior responds to
some of this stuff. He'll definitely be getting questions about
it as we go forward. What's happening with agg and EPA,
So we will.

Speaker 4 (01:31:33):
Stay tuned for that.

Speaker 3 (01:31:37):
And meanwhile, christ so let's turn to the Democrats because
rom Emmanuel went on the I've Had It podcast and
this comes as David Hogg is facing tough questions over
not just from the media, by the way, but also
from Hakeem Jefferyes. I think we have a clip of
that over his pledge to actually like have a robust

(01:31:57):
primary effort against the democratic status quo. Let's take a
look at this clip. Let's start with this clip of
Ram and Manuel Rumored, twenty twenty eight presidential candidate on
the I've had a podcast.

Speaker 4 (01:32:13):
This was released yesterday. Take a look.

Speaker 17 (01:32:15):
So what have you had it with?

Speaker 8 (01:32:17):
I would say, we have a series of topics that
I think sometimes consume in the other topics that don't
actually get the attention that they should get, And we
ended up fighting for the wrong things.

Speaker 7 (01:32:27):
We were really south on kitchen table issues. We weren't
really good about the family room issues.

Speaker 17 (01:32:32):
Disagree with you, I disagree with you.

Speaker 3 (01:32:35):
Okay.

Speaker 13 (01:32:35):
The only room we are the only room we do
really well was the bathroom, and that's the smallest room.

Speaker 17 (01:32:40):
Such bullshit, that is total bullshit. That is buying into
the right wing media narrative. And I'm so sick of
democrats like you selling out and saying this. You know
who talks about trans people more than anybody. Maga Kamala
Harris talked about homeownership, she talked about kitchen table issues.
Trump's over there droning on about Hannibal Lecter.

Speaker 4 (01:33:00):
Are you kidding me.

Speaker 17 (01:33:01):
This is where the Democrats lose because we're playing the
game with the rule book. They've writ the rule book
up and a cramedit down everybody's throat and crows are
upset because Joe Biden pardoned his said, we kind of
fucking fight. They're the gender obsessed weirdos, not us. We're
the ones who fight for social security.

Speaker 4 (01:33:19):
We fight for Medica.

Speaker 17 (01:33:21):
And yeah, we're not gonna bully trans people. We're not gonna.

Speaker 9 (01:33:23):
Fucking do it.

Speaker 5 (01:33:25):
Do it fine? I mean, I love this lady. I
don't know you.

Speaker 2 (01:33:30):
I did not know they existed until like a week ago.
So Emily, give me, give me the backstory here, And
you're antipathy towards it because I enjoyed her given it
to Rama Manuel, even though my view was like, in
a nuance way different from hers, But I just enjoyed
her being like, the problem is people like you, ram Emanuel.

Speaker 4 (01:33:46):
Yeah, no, I mean that is that was deeply cathartic
to watch.

Speaker 3 (01:33:49):
And of course, because ram Emanuel is sort of squirming,
he's like, you also seem to be a wealthy Democrat.

Speaker 4 (01:33:55):
Why are you yelling at me?

Speaker 2 (01:33:57):
On the podcasts, he thought he was giving her exactly
the answer, Oh, yes, you're right, the bathroom too much
and not enough the kitchen table, and she's.

Speaker 5 (01:34:04):
Like fuck you.

Speaker 2 (01:34:05):
Basically, I mean the one before I hear they're like
backstory and what they've been up to. The thing that
I would say is that the reason that the party
has become has lost its credibility on kitchen table issues
is because of people like Rama Manuel. So you don't
get to now come in here and pretend like, oh,

(01:34:28):
you understand and you're the savior of the Democratic Party. No,
you are what's wrong with the Democratic Party. And she's
also right that, like, you know, the reason why Republicans
are successful at or were successful. I don't think they're
particularly successful at this anymore, but we're successful leading into
this election of painting Kamala Harris as being, you know,

(01:34:48):
just concerned with these sort of like niche, unpopular issues
is because Democrats don't have a broader narrative of what
they're fighting for a lah Bernie Sanders and oligarchy where
it's like, okay, yeah, he's you know, he supports trans rights,
but no one is going to say that's like the
thing the core of everything that he is focused on

(01:35:10):
so you know, that's why I say my view is
like subtly different from hers, because really the problem is
that the way Republicans were able to successfully paint the
Democratic Party as being overly concerned with issues that were
not top of mind priorities for them is people like
Rob Emmanuel and their abandonment of the working class and

(01:35:31):
affirmative alignment of the Democratic Party with corporate interests.

Speaker 3 (01:35:36):
Well, her point, I mean something that we've covered and
I think is a helpful point that both you and
Ryan have made for a long time. It really undermines
the point she's making that it's the right wing that
was talking about all of the stuff for a long time.
Like I don't disagree obviously that the right has exploited
some like culture war issues that I think are really

(01:35:56):
serious and they do it for red beat purposes. Like
when the r and cl Richmond North of Richmond at
a debate was that the rn C, I think it was, like,
I think it was a decision from the RNC.

Speaker 4 (01:36:07):
To play it.

Speaker 5 (01:36:07):
I think that's right. I think that's right.

Speaker 2 (01:36:09):
There certainly was a lot of enthusiasm for the song
at the time, but.

Speaker 3 (01:36:13):
The RNC USUIA is just like so grading in so
many different ways.

Speaker 4 (01:36:17):
So I don't disagree with that point.

Speaker 3 (01:36:18):
But these issues were used as shields by corporate Democrats
who were actually talking about them disproportionately to distract from
their oligarchical policies on like labor and families and all
of that. So that underminds the point she's making that
is just the crazy right wing people who were talking
about these things. Actually there was a concerted effort by

(01:36:41):
corporate America to embrace things like DEI and ESG to
shield to.

Speaker 4 (01:36:46):
Play kate the left.

Speaker 3 (01:36:48):
And so that's what really pisses me off about that,
And it pisses me off when Rama Manuel is also
suddenly coming out in twenty twenty five and acting like
it's a really like big point that he's brave for
making and he can sort of design this presidential run.

Speaker 4 (01:37:02):
Around like it is stupid and profoundly stupid.

Speaker 2 (01:37:07):
It Also if he does want to, I mean, I
don't really take seriously this whole like he wants to
run for president or whatever, But him, Gavin Newsom, there's
a handful of them that are so out of touch
with where the Democratic base is.

Speaker 4 (01:37:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:37:20):
Well, and again, like he's someone who who worked for
Barack Obama and Gavin Newsom is somebody who has not
like exactly been kicking the left to the curb. Like
if they really were good at reading the political wins,
they would probably be coming to this in a way
closer to her, to be honest, because the ram Emmanuel
Gavin Newsom approach is getting pilloried on social media. Like

(01:37:43):
even Charlie Kirk, who had that conversation with Newsom about
trance stuff, has come out and been like, oh so
he was just lying, like the face to face having
this great conversation. But Gavin Newsom is now getting hit
from the left and from the right. He's not making
the right happy and he's not making the left happy.
So if they were actually really adept at reading the
political win they would sound closer to that. I've had

(01:38:05):
it podcast Girls who My Beef with goes back to
Bravo World. They had a show on Bravo called Sweet
Home Oklahoma. And we don't even need to open this
can of worms, but.

Speaker 5 (01:38:12):
It open it. I want to know what I want
to know these worms.

Speaker 3 (01:38:17):
I just I hate, like I just really hate the whole,
like corporate America, like propping up the hicklib thing.

Speaker 4 (01:38:25):
It just drives me nuts.

Speaker 3 (01:38:27):
It just I can't stand it because what I think,
like genuinely lacks representation in that world is like people
who aren't who.

Speaker 4 (01:38:38):
Are are Hicks but not Libs.

Speaker 3 (01:38:40):
And so I think corporate America just like soothes itself
by saying, oh, we checked off the Oklahoma box, but
they can throw people out there who are utterly unrepresentative
of probably most of Oklahoma.

Speaker 2 (01:38:51):
So anyway, so you're judging them for their identity. I
got it, for their identity. You wanted a different framing
of identity politics.

Speaker 3 (01:38:57):
I want affirmative action for fascist conservative pixs, affirmative action
for fascists.

Speaker 2 (01:39:06):
It's like the same thing that the Trump administration sent
to Harvard, like you can only only MAGA is allowed
into your school now, sorry, only MAGA professors heading the
physics department, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (01:39:16):
Representation for Curtis Jarvin and academia is DEI worth doing.

Speaker 4 (01:39:25):
Let's let's get to David Hogg actually.

Speaker 3 (01:39:27):
Because like we could we have a serious discussion about
the different point.

Speaker 4 (01:39:31):
But that's basically the backstory of my being.

Speaker 2 (01:39:33):
Okay, your antipathy towards them, Okay, Yes, exactly, but I
want I'm enjoying them. I'm enjoying them. I want to
try to get them on the show.

Speaker 4 (01:39:41):
The Oliver Anthony.

Speaker 3 (01:39:41):
They actually kind of connect to it, by the way,
which is that like the right uses Oliver Anthony and
thought like, oh, we finally found someone that we can
elevate who's like this working class guy. But they didn't
love it when he started coming out against Republicans either.
This is actual presentation of how people think, but it's

(01:40:03):
never convenient to people who elevate them. So anyway, David Hogg,
let's roll this clip of David Hogg tustling with Major
Garrett on CBS, because Hogg, as we've covered before, is
now supporting this idea of a fairly robust primary campaign
against establishment Democrats.

Speaker 4 (01:40:18):
So let's roll e too.

Speaker 18 (01:40:20):
Let me let you address some social media criticism you've gotten,
Matt Bennett from the Clinton Gore era. This is insane behavior.
John Angeloni Polster, most recently for President Biden. Twenty million
dollars should be spent on swing state legislative races, meeting
state legislative races, and down ballot, not on this. Steve

(01:40:40):
Shale of Florida Democratic strategists, saying the DNC's vice chair
should be focused on this kind of engagement meeting, engaging
in places in battleground states where Democrats have lost ground,
not over which deem in a plus twenty seat should
be primaried.

Speaker 19 (01:40:59):
And you know, look at the last results of the
previous election. Those are the purported experts that brought us here.
Just to say, it's not personal, right, I don't take
those attacks personally in this regard. This is a strategic disagreement.
And I want to be clear. All this money that
we're raising is not just only being spent on primaries
by any means. That is the story of a lot

(01:41:19):
of journalists and media run with We.

Speaker 18 (01:41:21):
Are working to spend it on, We're.

Speaker 19 (01:41:23):
Also going to be spending it on frontline seats where
great young people are running right if they are the
Democratic nominee, to make sure we're bringing in fresh faces
to Congress right now. We talk about diversity all the
time in Congress. One of the things that we don't
talk about as much in regard to that is age. Currently,
if we have the same number of twenty five to
thirty year olds in Congress as we do proportionally to

(01:41:44):
the population, we would have over forty people under the
age of thirty in Congress. And I don't know if
you've looked at Congress recently, we have one that is
under the age of thirty. That is not good for
the future of the Democratic Party. Is this just out
with the old and in with the new. I would
say no, this is out with the ineffective and in
with the effective, because we need members who are ready
to meet this moment to fight back against Donald Trump.
And what that looks like are people like Senator Van

(01:42:06):
Holling who are literally going to El Salvador to say
this man needs to come back. It looks like people
like Corey Booker, who mind you did primary somebody to
get to that position. It looks like people in many
ways like a king Jeffries who primaried multiple people to
get to that position. Right, this is a healthy process
for our party and I think we should have an
embrace of that when it doesn't risk us losing the House.

Speaker 3 (01:42:26):
Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom is also giving more interviews on his
attempt to write the ship of the Democratic Party.

Speaker 4 (01:42:35):
We can put the next element up on the screen.
This is E three.

Speaker 3 (01:42:38):
I gave an interview to The Hill yesterday where he said,
we have not done a forensic of what just went wrong, period,
full stop.

Speaker 4 (01:42:43):
I don't think it, I know it. I mean to
the extent that I'm marginally part of his party.

Speaker 3 (01:42:47):
I remempresent the state larger than twenty one state populations combined,
and I can assure you there's not been a party
discussion that I'm aware of that has included the state
of California. I don't know what the party is, he said.
I'm still struggling with that, Gavin. Maybe people aren't considering
the state of California as prominently as you want them
to because the state of California is an utter disrepair.

Speaker 4 (01:43:08):
Maybe that has something to do with it.

Speaker 3 (01:43:10):
Well done, Gavin, on that we can move to the
next element, as well as another comment from him about
when he had Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon on. He says,
what I feel was exactly to me exhibit a of
what I feel is wrong right now with my party,
an unwillingness to even engage in platform to listen, and
so I'm testing that at the same time I'm being

(01:43:31):
tested by it because the reaction has been a little
more bumpy than I anticipated.

Speaker 5 (01:43:38):
And you know, this is such a bullshit from him.

Speaker 2 (01:43:40):
Honestly, it's such because the vast majority of people who
were who were unhappy, myself included. With the Charlie Kirk
and the Steve Bannon interviews, it wasn't because he platformed them.
It's because you, like it was a softball interview. You
elevated them, You made them look good, even as they
were the whole time taking jabs at him. I mean,

(01:44:01):
Charlie Kirk from the outset was like, oh, you don't lunch,
your son stay home from school to meet me? Why
not you close the schools during COVID? You know, the
whole thing with Steve Bannon. I think it was I
can't remember who it was that said the Sun. Twitter
was like Gavin Newsom being like, oh, you're amazing and
I appreciate you, and Steve Bannon being like you're a demon.
So the problem wasn't platforming them. It was Gavin Newsom.

(01:44:23):
We know you're actually good at debating. We saw you
do it with Ron DeSantis very effectively. Make the case
for your principles, make the case for like a liberal view,
you know, an appealing democratic party. They used you on
your own platform to further their ideology. So yeah, of

(01:44:45):
course the Democratic base is not going to be psyched
about what you were doing there. And you know, also
it was not like it was just Democratic elites or
influencers online or whatever. Look at how he's faring in
these early who do you want as the next time
Democratic leader? Like the Democratic base was disgusted by this
approach because there truly is and I think you see

(01:45:09):
Chris van Holland, and you see Maxwell Frost, you see
other Democrats who I think have been coming around to Okay,
we got to do something, We've got to be more aggressive,
we got to use the tools that we have, etc.
But that has been led by a base that has
been utterly disgusted with the failures of people like Gavin
Newsom to put up a fight who were much more inclined,

(01:45:31):
whose instincts were all in the direction of let me
just lay down and capitulate. And with Gavin Newsome in particular,
like I know where it comes from. It's because he's
so close with all of these Silicon Valley donors who
are all super jealous of the you know, Mark Andrieson's
and the Elon Musk and whatever of the world who
jumped on the other side, and so they're not getting

(01:45:52):
their goodies now because they picked the wrong team. And
that's who he that's who has his ear and why
he so profoundly misad this political moment in terms of
what the Democratic base wants.

Speaker 4 (01:46:06):
Huh, that's really interesting.

Speaker 3 (01:46:08):
Let's roll this clip of Hakim Jeffreys responding to the
Hog aligned efforts to potentially primary some candidates, which were
I mean, I think similarly tone duff, though not unpredictably
tone duff.

Speaker 4 (01:46:20):
So let's roll the club.

Speaker 15 (01:46:21):
Well, I look forward to standing behind every single Democratic incumbent,
from the most progressive to the most centrist, in all
points in between. Primaries are a fact of life. But
here's the thing. I'm going to really focus on trying
to defeat Republican incumbents so we can take back control
of the House of Representatives and begin the process of

(01:46:43):
ending this national nightmare that's being visited upon us by
far right extremism.

Speaker 3 (01:46:49):
So, I mean, that's his job, Crystal. He's not going
to come out and be like, yeah, we got some
old people we want to just give the boot.

Speaker 2 (01:46:56):
Yeah, well, listen, if he actually holds to that. That
would be an improvement because in the past, Yeah, in
the past, the Democratic Party has yes stood behind their
like corporate aligned members. But if you know, if a
Jamal Bowman or Corey Bush orra Shidah Hlib gets primaried,
they're good with that.

Speaker 5 (01:47:17):
They're good with that.

Speaker 2 (01:47:19):
So you know, if he actually listen, I understand if
you are the you know, you're the House majority leader,
and these are your people, and you're just going to
uniformly back whoever the incumbent Democrat is. I mean, I
don't support that, but at least, you know, that's a
principle of neutrality ideologically, but that has not historically been
the case within the Democratic Party. And so that's what

(01:47:41):
they're really upset about with regard to David Hogg is.
They're worried that, you know, he is going to be
on the side of you know, people who are more progressive,
who are even outside of the ideological valance, who just
you know, actually understand that what they're up against, that
they're up against this authoritarian takeover, that the stakes are
quite high, that they need to be visible, that they

(01:48:03):
understand social media, and you know, I was actually a
little bit hopeful about David Hogg coming into this position.
I argued with Soccer on the show about this simply
because he is younger and he does at least understand
the current media ecosystem, and that is something that is
sorely lacking within the Democratic Party. And so I think

(01:48:26):
that it has already borne out that to have him
as DNC vice here and be like, yeah, if you
are a weak and ineffective Democrat who's been around too long,
We're going to come for you. I mean to me,
that is an extraordinarily like positive development that I think
will be wildly supported by the Democratic base at this point,
which really has Eric Blanc was saying this too early
in our interview, really has become much more radicalized in

(01:48:48):
this Trump era and much more disenchanted with a lot
of Democratic leadership.

Speaker 3 (01:48:53):
Yeah, I think you were totally vindicated in that about
David Hogg, and I think I was pretty skeptical of
it just and maybe I'll be vindicated in that way too,
in like a cultural sense. I don't know that Hog
is right, but this is I think probably outweighs that
to be honest, like coming out and saying no, you
have to put the fear of God in the Democratic

(01:49:13):
Party's establishment, and they just haven't had that. This is
very like Mitch McConnell versus Ted Cruz circle, like twenty fourteen,
And it's kind of what the Democrats need to be honest,
because there's been a lot of going along to get along.
It doesn't mean you have to burn the party down,
but you have to threaten to burn the party down
otherwise you don't get anything. Now, you don't negotiate with

(01:49:34):
Donald Trump, like Donald Trump on tariffs, but you can,
you know, have some measure of like serious like it
just mounts a serious threat otherwise you don't get taken seriously.
So I think that argument about howg has been vindicated
so far and Crystal, this is just, I mean, genuinely
a very difficult problem for Democrats to solve on the

(01:49:56):
cultural front because the people like Rama Manuel and Gavin Newsom,
they're the ones who were happy to use these issues
as shields and.

Speaker 4 (01:50:07):
Now they're happy.

Speaker 3 (01:50:08):
You know that they don't believe anything because just as
quickly as they embraced all of this, and you have
Gavin Newsom on tape waxing, you know, sanctemonious about the
Latin X community just as quickly as he did that.
He's literally saying no, I would never use that word.
So that's how you know, he believes literally nothing. And
they were using these issues all along as like to

(01:50:28):
they were exploiting these issues all along as like shields,
and they're not willing to go along with the like
genuine anti oligarchy policies. And that's the crossroads that, as
I see it at least, is really difficult for Democrats.
By the way, what was really difficult for Republicans is
the Tea Party base was actually more similar to Occupy
Wall Street than anybody.

Speaker 4 (01:50:49):
Wanted to admit.

Speaker 3 (01:50:51):
And they never were like they were willing to like
sort of do these cultural signifiers like we need term
limits and we need to like screw Mitch McConnell, but
not until Trump came along, and even to this day
with Donald Trump in office, they're not really willing to
wrap their arms fully around the policy agenda that a
lot of their working class voters would want them to.

(01:51:11):
And that's sort of that's the impasse that Democrats find
themselves at too.

Speaker 2 (01:51:15):
Yeah, I mean liberal elites and the rama manualsives did
virtue signaling and on the Republican side they do vice
signaling like that's but it's functions the same, it's the
same function. You know, we were talking about Pete Hegseth
earlier and it's like he can, you know, talk all
about DEI and make people feel like there's something probationary
going on at the Pentagon I. Meanwhile, he's like, oh,

(01:51:36):
and we got a trillion dollar budget, so yeah, it's
going to be the biggest military budget ever in the
history of the world. So you know, this was used
as a trojan horse also for a lot of the
like dose agenda of completely defenestrating the ability to regulate
corporate America. You know, if you just say like, oh,

(01:51:56):
Conservats are being debanked or cancel culture DEI wokeness enough
times they felt like they could smuggle in this pro
oligarch agenda. And so you know, at this point, the
wing of the party that has most stepped up to
fight has been the left, or at least left liberals.
Bernie and AOC really set the mark when I watched
MSNBC and you got Nicole Wallace out there like they're

(01:52:19):
the leaders of the party and they're doing a great
job and they're doing everything right. I'm like, what is
even going on here? I mean, is so profoundly different.
I can't even wrap my head around it. And the
cynical take is, well, that's all nice, well and good
now that Bernie is too old and is never going
to run for president again. I do think that there
is some of that that now it's sort of more
safe for them to embrace him. But I also think
there is a genuine divide among people who thought who

(01:52:44):
genuinely wanted to fight Trump and saw his threat for
what it was, but thought that the way to do
it was through you know, democracy talk, fascism talk, and
like a standard liberal approach like Joe Biden and people
who So those are people who you know, genuinely understood
the stakes and want to fight, and now that the
information has showed them like that was not the right

(01:53:06):
way to fight, they are shifting their approach. And I
think much of the Democratic base falls into that camp.
And people like rom Emmanuel who have I wouldn't say
they don't believe anything. He believes in his own ambition.
He believes in, like, you know, serving corporate interests, and
so even though the writing is on the wall, about
what would be more effective to combat Trump and trump Ism.

(01:53:28):
They are not going to change because they're ideologically committed
to preserving a certain status quo that is deeply unpopular
in the country.

Speaker 3 (01:53:38):
Let's move on to the drama at sixty Minutes and
CBS more broadly crystal. Because a story broke yesterday in
The New York Times that the executive producer we can
go ahead and put this first hairs sheet up on
the screen. The executive producer of CBS's sixty Minutes resigned
and cited a quote loss of independence.

Speaker 4 (01:53:56):
This is Bill Owens.

Speaker 3 (01:53:57):
He's actually only the third person, as the New York
Times notes, to run the program, and it's fifty seven
year history that speaks really the continuity of leadership behind
sixty minutes.

Speaker 4 (01:54:07):
And I think Chris.

Speaker 3 (01:54:08):
Will probably also how serious CBS is about having continuity
of leadership at sixty minutes, Owen said, quote. Over the
past months, it has become clear that I would not
be allowed to run the show as I have always
run it, to make independent decisions based on what is
right for sixty minutes, right for the audience. So having
defended the show and what we stand for from every angle,
over time with everything I could, I'm stepping aside so

(01:54:30):
the show can move forward. That memo was leaked to
The New York Times strategically, probably not by CBS, but
maybe by CBS. But we learned more as the day
went on about exactly what happened there.

Speaker 4 (01:54:45):
This is from This is from Semaphore.

Speaker 3 (01:54:48):
They had a pretty good report on what was happening
behind the scenes, because I just want to say that
Bill Owen's memo is pretty careful in remaining vague about
how he wasn't able to make quote independent decisions. Obviously,
the New York Times immediately framed it in the context
of the suit that Donald Trump is fighting CBS and

(01:55:10):
over that Kamala that edited Kamala Harris interview on sixty
minutes ahead of the election. The Trump campaign is still
the Trump camp is claiming that that amounted to election interference.
But we've seen like ABC News settle with Trump over
the Georgie Stephanopolis case, and so questions about what's really
going on between the Trump administration and CBS were immediately

(01:55:35):
raised in light of this information. And then Semaphore had
a scoop from Max Tanny yesterday that Sherry Redstone, who
is the head of CBS. She owns paramount and is
therefore the head of CBS, was keeping tabs on sixty
minutes sixty minutes segments about Donald Trump. According to two

(01:55:58):
people familiar to the situation, this was in quote recent days,
she sought to know which upcoming sixty minute stories were
about Trump and why that's interesting.

Speaker 4 (01:56:10):
Also is that sixty.

Speaker 3 (01:56:11):
Minutes there was an ap story I went and found
yesterday Crystal about how fearless sixty minutes had been about
Donald Trump after he was around the time of the inauguration,
despite the legal battle.

Speaker 4 (01:56:24):
So there's something in.

Speaker 3 (01:56:25):
Recent days here according to the Semaphore report, where Redstone
was looking to kind of keep tabs on how they
covered Donald Trump.

Speaker 4 (01:56:33):
So what's your reaction.

Speaker 2 (01:56:35):
Crystal, Yeah, no, I mean I think there were a
lot of indications. So sixty minutes has I think done
some fantastic journalism in the Trump two point zero era.
We highlighted here a report they were one of the
first to dig into, like, okay, well, who actually were
these people you claimed were the worst of the worst
gang members that got disappeared into the torture dungeon in
El Salvador. In particular highlighting the case of Andre the

(01:56:59):
makeup artist, and they, you know, dug into his story
and those of others and talked to his loved ones,
and they were the ones to first analyze and find
I think it was their finding was seventy five percent
of those who were sent had no criminal record whatsoever.
So they have done some extraordinary work. I don't think
anyone could deny that, and seemed to be unflinching. On

(01:57:22):
the other hand, apparently Emily, according to I believe this
was a New York Times report, some of the problem
began after a sixty minute segment that you might remember
in January about the war between about Israel's assault on Gaza,
and they interviewed State Department former State Department officials who
had resigned over the you know, their horror at what

(01:57:46):
the US was doing there. They shared exclusive images from
within Gaza that exposed how barbarous it was. They talked
about how by one analysis, there were seventy thousand Palestinians
who had been killed there. And apparently Sherry Redstone after

(01:58:06):
that complained to CBS executives about that segment, and they
appointed a CBS producer to a new role overseeing the
news division's journalistic standards, and she was put into place
to review any segments that were deemed politically sensitive, so
that appears to have been part of it as well.

(01:58:27):
And then and she, by the way, she's paramounts controlling shareholder,
so she's like the one one in charge, and they're
trying to approve get approval for a multi billion dollar
sale of her company to Skydance, which is run by
Larry Ellison. So you know, I mean, this is the
problem with corporate media, right, This is the problem with
corporate media. Sixty minutes is not important to Sherry Redstone.

(01:58:51):
They want their merger deal to go through. That's what
the real you know, the real interest of the bottom
line is, and doing really hard hitting journalism on the
Trump administration is not consistent with the goal of obtaining
your merger approval, especially with this administration which weaponizes the
government to punish those that they perceive to be enemies.

(01:59:12):
So you add to that the Kamala Harris thing, and
you can see that, you know, pressure was coming down
of well, how often are you going to say negative
things about the Trump administration and cover things that they're
doing in an unflattering light. You know, we need to
soften the edges, we need, we need to be made aware.
And even just that, and I speak from experience, even
just that insertion of like the top corporate brass needs

(01:59:36):
to know if you're doing a Trump related story that
is intended to have a chilling effect, because who wants
to always go up the chain to the boss and
beg and plead your case and whatever. So if you're
weighing two different storylines and one requires you to do
that and one of them can sail through and you're
not gonna have many political issues within the company, there's
going to be heavy incentive to move in that direction. So,

(01:59:58):
you know, I think it's I think it's I think
it shows a lot of integrity that he got to
a point where he felt he had fought as hard
as he could to maintain his journalistic independence in that
of the program and got to a place where it's like,
I can't associate myself with this anymore.

Speaker 3 (02:00:11):
And this is really interesting, the guidance stuff. So The
New York Times, in this report says Redstone is eager
to secure the Trump's administration. The Trump administration's approval for
multi billion dollar sale over company is Skuydance, a company
run by the son of tech billionaire Larry Ellison. Bear
in mind, and I'll get to this more in a second.
Larry Ellison is fairly close with the Trump administration. The
Times also reports that Redstone has quote expressed a desire

(02:00:35):
to settle mister Trump's case, which stems from what the
president has called a deceptively edited interview on October with
Vice President Kamala Harris that aired.

Speaker 4 (02:00:42):
On sixty minutes.

Speaker 3 (02:00:43):
That would essentially, I mean, it is such a stupid
and ridiculous case, even if CBS did deceptively, which they
but corporate media.

Speaker 4 (02:00:52):
Is always like deceptively editing stuff.

Speaker 3 (02:00:54):
It's not illegal and it's not defamation in the vast
majority of cases, including this one. To settle that case,
Unlike the George Stephanopolis one, which I think was actually
a lot trickier from ABC, this is not the same
thing that would basically amount to a bribe in the
context of this sale. Like, that's how stupid it would
be to settle this case with Trump. From just a

(02:01:16):
legal standpoint, that's how stupid it would be. But from
a business standpoint, it may indeed be it very clever.
I want to flash back to a New York Times
headline or a New York Post headline I'm sorry from
January when Donald Trump announced his big AI deal.

Speaker 4 (02:01:30):
This is an exclusive in the New York Post.

Speaker 3 (02:01:32):
Larry Allison's backing of Trump's five hundred billion dollar AI
project could help save Paramount merger. According to sources, Ellison, Right,
whose networth is currently pegged by Forbes at two hundred
and five billion, is likely hoping his show of support
for Stargate will help his son, David's Skydance Media to
gain regulatory approval for his controversial eight billion dollar deal

(02:01:54):
to merge with Paramount. That's what's going on. That's like
how serious they are about this freaking merger that it's
now affecting sixty minutes. It's just so I mean this again,
like this is not exceptional.

Speaker 4 (02:02:09):
This stuff happens. This is the habit of corporate media.
It's how they.

Speaker 3 (02:02:14):
Handle their news. But holy smoke, so this one is
so brazen.

Speaker 2 (02:02:18):
I mean, I think, yeah, this is at a new level.
I don't think there's any doubt that it's at a
new level. And it's because the Trump administration is at
a new level and just making it really clear that
they're going to help their friends and they're going to
fuck their enemies, and they're going to use, you know,
every power that they have in the state, legal and
illegal in order to do it. And you know, this

(02:02:38):
is my concern with the you know, something like an
anti trust agenda, which I think is so important and
which you know, was significantly moved forward under the Biden
administration with Lee Na Kahan and with Jonathan Canter, and
you know, one of the most positive developments of the
Biden administration was moved in that direction. But if you

(02:03:01):
have an administration that is just going to use those
powers of green lighting and blocking mergers as basically a
political weapon, you're going to discredit an entire project which
is actually really important and really positive for the American people.
And that certainly that's how corporate America thinks that the
Trump administration is going about their business, that it has

(02:03:24):
nothing to do with the merits of whether the merger
is going to be beneficial for the country or not,
and everything to do with whether or not you appropriately
praised him, how much money you gave to inauguration, whether
you ponied up the money for his Stargate thing, whether
you spent a million dollars to go down to mar
Lago and plead your case, et cetera. And that's a

(02:03:47):
that's a really bad place for a purported democracy to be.
That's a very bad place for it to be, because
then you just end up with a cult of sycophantic,
favored oligarchs who get to do what they want with
impunity and run everything.

Speaker 4 (02:04:02):
This is yeah, I mean, this is oligarchy.

Speaker 3 (02:04:04):
This is i this is your classic example. A source
coast to Paramount back in January said, quote, this is
very smart for Larry to do. It tells me he
won't have any issues with the Paramount deal. And that's
in reference to again him backing the Stargate project, the
five hundred billion dollar AI project that Trump came out

(02:04:24):
and did that press conference with very early in the
second term, surrounded by Sam Altman and Larry Allison and
others right away. And so then you have a source
talking in your post say, oh, it tells me he's
not gonna have any problem at all with this Guide
Dance merger. Unbelievable, it really, I mean, it's perfect. But
what's also interesting about it is it reminds me so
much of what happened with Mark Zuckerberg last week.

Speaker 4 (02:04:47):
We'll see, But Mark Zuckerberg.

Speaker 3 (02:04:49):
Has been pouring millions of dollars to lobby the Trump
administration to back off the anti trust suit, and he
got smacked in the face for glue last week when Trump's.

Speaker 4 (02:05:02):
FTC went through with it. Because Trump's FTC, in a sort.

Speaker 3 (02:05:06):
Of nod to the New Right that kind of helped
Trump get back in power, is staffed by legit like
Lena Kahan type, and we'll see again. You know, if
you're Alena con type operating under Donald Trump, you probably
aren't the same as Alena con type operating under Joe Biden,
who was like just vacant, mentally vacant for most of

(02:05:30):
his presidency. So you know, if Donald Trump does pick
up the phone and tell them to stop the anti
trust case into Facebook or Meta, then maybe that does
legitimately change things. But Zuckerberg was in for a spent
all this money and was in for really harsh awakening
when he realized Andrew Ferguson was not dropping the suit

(02:05:50):
and Gil Slater is serious and these people are like
actual we don't know how much power they'll have when
everything is said and done at the end of this administration.
But they're like actual anti corporate ideologues who have this
like opposition to the ideology of anti trust that was popular.

Speaker 4 (02:06:08):
On the right and the center left for a long time.

Speaker 3 (02:06:10):
And I don't know if Larry Elson is about to
run headfirst into the exact same thing. Maybe because this
is the nature of Donald Trump. We were talking about
this in the tariff block. This is about what move
Donald Trump is in on a given day, and who
can have his ear on a given day. We now
know that with Facebook he was urmeta. I'm sorry, he
was persuaded by a meeting that he had with Andrew Ferguson.

(02:06:32):
So we don't we actually don't know what's gonna happen
with us, but it is sort of I guess the
silver lining is amusing Crystal to watch the oligarch sort
of stretch their necks out with millions and millions of dollars,
put the credibility of their flagship news program on the
line to get a freaking merger through.

Speaker 5 (02:06:50):
It's just so pathetic. It is pathetic.

Speaker 2 (02:06:53):
I mean, Zuckerberg is particularly pathetic, particularly pathetic because he
didn't just do all the like sucking up up and
the you know, here's some cash for your inauguration or
I don't remember the details. I think he did give
for the inauguration. But he also like completely changed his
personal appearance and went on joor gonna like I'm moving
content moderation to Texas, like he did the whole, the

(02:07:16):
whole thing, and they're still like now I still don't
like you, sorry.

Speaker 4 (02:07:19):
And it's just like it is.

Speaker 3 (02:07:20):
So it goes to what we're talking about with Rom
and Manuel again earlier in the show, or Gavin Newsom
going from like using latin X to being like I
never used latin X.

Speaker 4 (02:07:29):
It's like they.

Speaker 3 (02:07:30):
Believe in their own power and their own bank accounts
and their own businesses more than they believe in any
of the politics that they wear literally in Zuckerberg's case,
like fashion.

Speaker 5 (02:07:41):
His big chain.

Speaker 3 (02:07:42):
Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, he wears his politics like his
politics changed with his fashion because he's trying to like
suck up to people and he's trying to do something
with his like it's all very.

Speaker 4 (02:07:53):
Obvious what he's what he's doing. It's very transparent what
he's doing.

Speaker 3 (02:07:56):
Yeah, and with him, he goes from taking meetings with
the FBI and then taking their wink wink and suppressing
the Hunter Biden's story on Meta to being like, oh,
the censorship is horrible and we never intended that, you know,
to be as it's just so stupid.

Speaker 2 (02:08:13):
And well and they're still censoring aggressively on behalf of
the Israelis by the way, which has been exposed, especially
on Instagram.

Speaker 4 (02:08:20):
It's so pathetic. It's also a pathetic.

Speaker 5 (02:08:22):
Yeah, it's I mean it is, Yes, it is pathetic.

Speaker 2 (02:08:25):
And it does get to like the Gavin Newsom point too,
of like they still don't like you, bro, Like they
still aren't going to like you.

Speaker 5 (02:08:32):
And I just want to say.

Speaker 2 (02:08:33):
Like the instinct on the from the base of the
Republican Party on the populace right that the tech oligarchs
are an evil, malevolent force in American society, like that
instinct is correct. Yeah, I think that they are a
malevolent force in the world. I think they are anti human.
I think they are Naomi Client said this, and I agree.

(02:08:56):
I think they are anti creation. I think that they do.
They you know, have these bizarre like End Times cult
type fantasies about uploading their consciousness to the cloud and
what did Elon say, We're being used to like boot
ai Like, that's their view of the world, and I
think they should be I think they need to be
stopped at all costs. And one of the most one

(02:09:19):
of the things that has disturbed me the most in
this Trump administration is the way that their ideology, through
the person of Elon and Doge and how much power
and sway he has had in the government, has been
quite ascendant in a way that I think is genuinely
like a threat to people who value humanity.

Speaker 4 (02:09:39):
Yeah, and we'll see.

Speaker 3 (02:09:40):
I mean, I think there's just we're in a time
when people are so you know, rootless, and you know,
it's easy to get caught up and going along with,
you know, whatever someone like Donald Trump is surrounding himself with,
because people put their trust in different figures and we're
like looking for that. I think it's where the the

(02:10:02):
you know, whether you agree with it or not, the
moral clarity that Bernie Sanders has come out with in
the last month or so is really really attractive to
people because it's not wishy washy milk toast rama, manual
Gavin Newsom and bullshit.

Speaker 4 (02:10:15):
It's this is a coher a clear and coherent.

Speaker 3 (02:10:18):
Worldview that I deeply believe in in the fire with
every fiber of my being. Here's why. Uh, that's really
attractive to people right now. And you know that's something
for I think the right to watch out for as well,
because it's it's not clear, it's it really muddles it
to bring Elon Musk and some of these tech guys
into the picture.

Speaker 2 (02:10:39):
Yeah, yeah, no doubt about it, no doubt about it.
And the agenda that they want is not when that
serves humanity, that's right.

Speaker 4 (02:10:46):
Well, I not know, Chris, the destruction of humanity.

Speaker 2 (02:10:51):
I like that we started with this peg about sixty
minutes and somehow ended up in the tech barons wanting
to destroy the world. I'm not even really sure how
we got mergers.

Speaker 5 (02:10:59):
That's how.

Speaker 3 (02:11:00):
I was just over here like googling Larry Allison getting
to the New York Post article, and then we went
off the rails, because why not.

Speaker 4 (02:11:07):
It's a girl show.

Speaker 5 (02:11:09):
Girl show, that's what it is, the girl shows.

Speaker 2 (02:11:13):
We need to invite those ladies what are their names
from the the.

Speaker 5 (02:11:17):
What I've had it, I've got a podcast.

Speaker 2 (02:11:20):
We need to have those ladies on with us, Emily.
We need to make amends. I can I can do
like a you know, we can do a restorative justice
with you and them.

Speaker 4 (02:11:29):
Wit cough.

Speaker 5 (02:11:34):
Be like, you don't want me to meet with.

Speaker 2 (02:11:35):
Them, Emily because you are afraid I'm gonna realize they're
actually nice people.

Speaker 4 (02:11:40):
Maybe I don't know. We'll find out. Maybe we'll find out.
We'll see, we'll see what we can do.

Speaker 5 (02:11:47):
Crystal, there you go, we'll work it out. Well. Thank
you for having me, Emily.

Speaker 2 (02:11:51):
I enjoy it. It's always fun. And I'll be back
with soccer tomorrow. Should be back to normal tomorrow. And
we've got the Friday shows, so we'll see who can
who shows up for that. We kind of keep it
loose about which hosts joined for the Friday show, so
you'd be surprised.

Speaker 3 (02:12:03):
Yeah, no, it's always a fun surprise. I was actually
Ryan and I didn't know that you and Sager weren't
going to be on last week, and we logged on
and we were like, oh, okay, I guess we're We're
just going to be playing the roles of Crystal and
Sager as best we can, in addition to the Ryan
and Emily, which was you know it was an interesting experiment.

Speaker 5 (02:12:23):
You don't have to play our roles.

Speaker 4 (02:12:24):
You guys just do you, but you're always with us
in spirit.

Speaker 5 (02:12:28):
Well, thank you, I appreciate that.

Speaker 4 (02:12:30):
Well, we'll see everybody on Friday. Thank you so much
for tuning in.

Speaker 3 (02:12:33):
As a reminder, if you can't subscribe over at Breakingpoints
dot Com Premium, go ahead and just like the video,
send it to a friend.

Speaker 4 (02:12:39):
It helps us so much. We appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (02:12:41):
And we'll see you back here with more Crystal and
Sager tomorrow morning.

Speaker 4 (02:13:00):
Ka

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}4/23/25: Trump Surrenders To China, Tesla Stock Tanks, Layoff Bloodbath, RFK Autism Database & MORE!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

4/23/25: Trump Surrenders To China, Tesla Stock Tanks, Layoff Bloodbath, RFK Autism Database & MORE!

On Purpose with Jay Shetty