Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here,
and we here at Breaking Points, are already thinking of
ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
the studio ad staff give you, guys the best independent
coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
it just means the absolute world to have your support.
But enough with that, let's get to the show.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Good morning, everybody, Welcome to Breaking Points.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
A bunch of stuff going on today, aamily.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
This is a very full show.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Oh yeah, we kept adding things up until like the
time I went to bed last night, so.
Speaker 4 (00:35):
And then afterwards. Yeah true, oh very Elon was up,
Elon was sweeting.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
The Tesla board was sweeting. Lots of things were unfolding
before we get to that. So that I don't forget
Spotify users. I know some of you guys are still
having issues getting the video to load. We are talking
to Spotify trying to work it out. We're kind of
at the whims of these tech giants, so please bear
with us. Sorry for the technical difficulties, but we're doing
everything we possibly can to resolve it. Because when it works.
(01:00):
It is a great experience on Spotify. So we're going
to keep working on that, all right. In the show today,
we have a Ukraine minerals deal. We have the leadst
with regard to terras, including Donald Trump basically going full
Grinch mode. Okay, no more dolls for little girls.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
Totally support this.
Speaker 5 (01:17):
The girls can only have two dolls, he said, maybe
you'd have thirty.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
But now you only have two.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
I have too.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
We'll play the videos.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Yeah, it's something, It's really something.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
As we were mentioning Elon, there was a report from
the Wall Street Journal that Tesla is looking for a
new CEO Elon, and the Tesla board now disputing that.
But obviously that is a remarkable turn of events. And
Tesla's dock has been plummeting in the Trump two point
zero era and their sales have fallen off the cliff
because Elon is so toxic, etcetera. So a lot to
get into there. We've got some developments with regard to deportations,
(01:45):
including New York Times had a good story about m
Kelly and this deal that he cut with the Trump
administration to house what he was insisting had to be
criminals and was apparently reportedly according to this report, set
at the fact that the people that they sent to
him did not have criminal records there but nothing adjudicated
(02:06):
in the courts, or at least many of them did not.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
So interesting insights.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
They're also one of the pro Palestine students foreign students
who had been arrested and detained, has now been released.
And what the judge says about that is also quite
extraordinary and would have huge implications if this is upheld,
you know, in higher level courts, huge implications for all
of the foreign students who have been detained simply for
(02:30):
their speech with regard to Palacin. So that's a really
important one. We're going to have Dave Weigel join us
to do a little rundown of the early twenty twenty
eight DEM contenders JB. Pritzker, Big JB out there making moves.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
Can we call them meetball JB?
Speaker 3 (02:45):
That's inappropriate, That's we got to come up with something original.
Lets men have Rhonda Santis yet, come on it.
Speaker 4 (02:51):
True, it do better. You're not right, Yeah, you're right,
you're right.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
But he's being he got asked.
Speaker 1 (02:55):
Weigel actually asked him an interesting question about like, well,
are you and oligarch and so his answer was was
pretty interesting and revealing any washersound there. Gretchen Whitmer is
out there, but with Donald Trump apparently, and not just
political instincts I've ever seen.
Speaker 5 (03:08):
Butshers on Fox News, Whitmer is giving speeches in front
of Trump.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Trump's hundred day rounds.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
You're weird, yep.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
So lots of different tactics being deployed by these early contenders.
I wanted to get this story into the show. Mark
Andresen made some crazy comp i mean not crazy perfect
comments about AI where basically said he thinks AI is
going to replace everyone but him. Yeah, venture capitalists will
be the only ones who are not replaced by AI.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
The valuable people. That's right. Yeah, that's whe we create.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Well truly irreplaceable. There's that industry.
Speaker 4 (03:38):
No computer could ever.
Speaker 1 (03:41):
These guys are amazing and we want to try to
get to some comments from Alex Jones little critique of
Trump alongside Fetess, who has long been critiquing Trump from
the right as a Nazi Trump not being Nazi enough
so but anyway, kind of interesting there and fits with
some of the other like little critiques that you've seen
come out of Magalworld visa be Trump.
Speaker 4 (04:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (04:02):
I mean this is a big show, and part of
it is because Crystal. You just had to get Mark
andresen and the what it resist?
Speaker 3 (04:07):
I can't.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
I can't resist that code hand. What could I say?
Speaker 4 (04:10):
Looking forward to it? It'll be good.
Speaker 5 (04:11):
Let's start with the mineral deal in Ukraine. We can
put the first element up on the screen breaking news yesterday.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
This is from the Wall Street Journal Ukraine.
Speaker 5 (04:18):
US sign economic deal for minerals, and the journals subheading
there is the two countries finally reaching agreement after several
false starts. You'll remember the mineral deal is what was
on the table when Zelenski visited the White House and
the infamous Oval Office meeting transpire just a couple of
months ago.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Now they're back at it.
Speaker 5 (04:39):
They finally got that deal signed, which I think Crystal
was very predictable that it was ultimately going to happen.
The fits and starts felt more like personnel personal I
should say not personnel personal hurdles for Zelensky and Trump
to both overcome in order to feel confident that it
made sense.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
I don't even know personal hurdles, more like posture.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Because the reality is There's an incredible quote here from
this woman, Heidi Kribo Ruddicker, senior fellow at the Council
on Foreign Relations, who says this is a win win
deal because quote, the US will have a vested interest
in the geology that the Ukrainians will be fighting for.
And this is you know, this is what Zelenski had
(05:22):
been pushing, This is what Lindsay Graham had actually been
presenting as a way to keep the Trump administration invested
in Ukraine and committed to Ukraine. This is seen as
a security guarantee. It is being explicitly pitched as such,
with the idea being that if you have a bunch
of American capitalists, American billionaires who are profiting off of
(05:46):
the minerals in Ukraine, that they are de facto then
backing up the Ukrainian government, and that you know, that
would act as a deterrent for Russia continuing to fight,
and you know, it would basically create a situation where,
you know, some millionaires who are tied to Trump can
make a lot of money and if things go sideways again,
(06:09):
America will once again be on the hook for defending Ukraine.
Whether that's through continued weapons, shipments or whether it through
would ultimately be through you know, sending soldiers.
Speaker 3 (06:18):
I don't want to like, you know, I don't want.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
To fear monger here, but that's effectively the dynamic that's
being set up. This would be a long term engagement
in the future of Ukraine, which is why, you know,
it's what Selenski wanted, It's what Lindsay Graham wanted, et cetera.
And I, you know, I always thought that the show
in the in the Oval with Zelenski. You and I
differed on this saga, and I differ on this as well.
But my analysis at the time was that this was
(06:42):
a way for Trump to give some red meat to
the base because he had this big blow up and
he's yelling at Zelenski and all of these sorts of things,
which you know, the base was very happy about because
they've turned Zelenski into this villain. You know, they overtly
like dislike Ukraine and want Trump to completely break with them.
So he gave them that. But in the end, the
(07:05):
result is exactly what, you know, what was pitched from
the beginning.
Speaker 5 (07:08):
Yeah, there's a The journal says there's a distinction that
was previously so it doesn't require Ukraine to repay past
military aid, and that I suppose is a pretty significant change,
but not dramatic. I mean, it's it's definitely a new thing.
But it also includes, as Wall Street Journal says, the
US being able to count new military aid into Ukraine
(07:32):
as a contribution to the fund. So yeah, makes sense
that they were able to reach this deal at this point. Obviously,
it's not the level of security guarantee that Zelensky was
fairly insistent on. That's what blew up the original deal
is that Zelensky didn't feel comfortable with a mineral deal
as a security guarantee. But it is seen as the
White House by the White House, as this is how
(07:53):
the journal puts it, quote a kind of security guarantee
for Ukraine. And I suppose that's true because there would
significant US business. There will be significant US business interests
on the table in Ukraine for this is a ten
year deal, but for the foreseeable future. Also crystal pretty
interesting question about what exactly exists to be mined right,
(08:15):
how much actually is there?
Speaker 1 (08:17):
There was some reporting that Zelenski was kind of overblowing
over selling.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
Yeah, what is actually there?
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Now it's also could be possible that it's not fully known,
like it's not fully mapped out what sort of minerals
they're there. I was also wondering if the tariff, the
trade war has put a little bit of pressure on
the Trump administration to get this mineral deal done, because
China is of course cutting off the supply of some
of the rare earth minerals that would presumably be you know,
(08:44):
be available within Ukraine. So that may have also provided
some of the impetus to get this signed.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
At this point.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
And I should also say, you know, as we're recording this,
we don't actually have all the details. There's a few
details in this Wall Street Journal report. There's been a
few details that are on there public. We saw a
previous draft that included not only minerals rights, but basically
that the US would effectively economically colonize Ukraine with control
over you know, half of ports and half of a
(09:12):
lot of economic activity in the country in perpetuity, above
and beyond the minerals rights. But as of yet we
don't know if that is what is entailed in this
in this deal that was ultimately signed or not. So
we'll await the details at the same time, Lindsay Graham
is in the Senate pushing you know, an even more
aggressive sanctions regime against Russia, an attempt I guess to
(09:35):
get them to come to the table. They seem to
be quite resist, resistant to coming to any sort of
deal at this point because they have the upper hand
in this war, including you know, behoming Kiev in a
way that required Trump to weigh in with his Vladimir
Stop tweet. But let's put Lindsay up on the screen here.
He's forging ahead, they say, on a plant and pose
new sanctions on Russia, steep tariffsun countries that buy Russian oil, gas,
(09:58):
and uranium, as Trump struggles to fulfill his campaign promise
to end the war. In terms of the votes, it
looks like Lindsey Graham does have the votes in the Senate.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Of course, that doesn't.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
Guarantee that it would be brought to the floor. You
would need you know, John Thune to decide that this
needs to be brought to the floor.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
By the end of the week. Lindsay Gram's predicting the bill.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Will have at least sixty seven co sponsors. That would
be enough to override even a potential presidential veto. Trump
himself has not weighed in on this, on this potential
bill that Lindsay Graham is working on, But I mean,
we already threw a lot of sanctions in Russia. We
threw effectively the entire sanctions playbook at Russia, and it
(10:40):
you know, it didn't have no impact, if there was
an impact, but it was not nearly what economists expected,
and in fact, it really ended up demonstrating a lot
of impotence on the part of the US because it
showed that you could throw the entire sanctions playbook at
Russia or at any nation and that they would be
able to survived and would be able to withstand that.
(11:02):
And I think it also gave China even a bit
of a dry run of what this could look like
if there was the sort of trade war, the sort
of complete economic cutoff that they're facing from US right now.
So interesting, you know, not surprising from Lindsay Graham taking
even more aggressive hawkish approach, but that's what's on the
table now.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
Well, yeah, and you know, it's important to actually think
it's a really important story to tack onto the context
of signing this deal, because the hopeful you know, even
though this involves colonizing Ukrainian mineral resources. And by the way,
I mean they do have Apparently they have twenty of
fifty critical minerals, minerals that we consider critical, so that's
like lithium and graphite, titanium, uranium, to your point, rare
(11:40):
minerals that could have something to do with There could
be added incentives based on the tariff struggles in the
last couple of months from the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (11:48):
But they're also incredibly corrupt.
Speaker 5 (11:50):
This was the entire Republican argument against Barisma and Hunter Biden,
and so it's definitely putting the United States into a
complete economic mess that has military implications in Ukraine. But
hopefully what this means at the very least, and it's
not nothing, is that we're on a glide path to
an actual ceasefire, so that the thousands of people who
(12:10):
are dying every single day, that those further lives can
be safe because these battle lines are probably going to
be whatever ceasefires eventually reached, it's probably going to look
like where the battle lines are right now in all likelihoods.
So Lindsay Graham continuing the saber rattle seems super unhelpful.
Speaker 4 (12:28):
To the entire purpose of inking this particular deal. But
we'll see where things go.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Yeah, indeed, I mean I think there's a lot of
question marks. It's hard to see. It doesn't feel like
we're terribly close to a cease fire at this point,
but you never know where we're going to end up.
And certainly, by signing this minerals deal, you are committing
the US to Ukraine for the long term so that
a bunch of billionaires can get their stuff and get
their rare earth minerals out of the ground benefit from it.
Speaker 5 (12:54):
You know. This is another thing the Journal had a
story on not long ago, is that Chevron and Shell
have tried to mind in Ukraine, but the corruption in
Ukraine has made it extremely difficult for that process to
be done in a way that's profitable for them.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
And so now we're just going.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
Even fully more into the experiment of trying to extract
minerals from Ukraine in an effort to stop a brutal
conflict that would further I mean, if the United States
sates this has a potential security guarantee, that is a
really scary thing. Actually, yeah, right, Like we're at.
Speaker 4 (13:29):
The whims of Ukrainian oligarchs.
Speaker 5 (13:31):
I mean, we'll have more control over them now at
this point, although we always had control over them. But
that's what's so gross about this is that it's just
American oligarchs mingling their interest with Ukrainian aligarchs in the
lives of thousands of people hang in the balance based
on not just the military concerns but also the economic concerns.
So it's definitely not the cleanest solution to this war.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Unfortunately, unfortunately, Americans don't understand the word oligarchs, so I
don't think they're really going to be able to grasp
what's going on here. Emily, they don't watch enough breaking points.
All right, let's get to the tariffs. We had a
big cabinet meeting. It was so grotesque the level of
North Korea propaganda and like slavish devotion to the dear
(14:15):
leader that was on display.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
We'll put that aside for the moment.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Trump sort of jumped in here and after the GDP
numbers came out and were really bad, and the inflation
numbers were bad, and the employment numbers were really bad,
he felt like he needed to say something about the
direction that the economy was going in and that something was,
it's all the fault of the last guy.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
Let's take a lism.
Speaker 6 (14:36):
You frequently took credit for the stock market highs. You
said it was a reflection of how well you were
doing in the polls. And then after you were elected,
you said the stock market highs were a reflection of
how well the transition's going and the American people's confidence
in your incoming administration. Now stock market's not doing so well,
and you're saying that's the Biden stock market. Yet you
(14:58):
are the president. Can you I'm.
Speaker 7 (15:01):
Not taking a credit or discredit for the stock market.
I'm just saying that we inherited a mess both at
the borders. You could look at every single one of
the people here and no matter who it is, they're
doing better and they are far superior to what took
place for four years before us. When you look at
prisoners being allowed to come into our country at will,
(15:24):
just at will, people from mental institutions, gang members, drug dealers,
when you look at what they've done to our country,
and also having to do with finance, look at what
happened with inflation. We had the worst inflation probably in
the history of our country. They say forty eight years.
But I would say in the history of our country.
Speaker 1 (15:44):
So he's not taking credit or discredit. But it is
all Binde's fault, which is also what he opened the
meeting up with, is like, you know, I know, you
saw some numbers. It's all Biden's fault. Put this up
on the screen. This is amazing. People were sharing this
two different, two different vibe here from Donald Trump on
true social So this latest one from April thirtieth, that
(16:05):
would be just this week. This is Biden's stock market,
not Trump's. I didn't take over until January twenty is
blah blah blah. But back in January of twenty twenty four,
he said this is the Trump stock market. So when
Biden was actually like in office at that point, he
was saying, oh, the stock market's good, it's because of me.
It's because my polls are so good. Everybody assumes I'm
(16:27):
coming back. That's why the stock market is doing great.
And now that he's actually in office, he's saying, no, actually,
this is Biden's stock mark.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Just amazing.
Speaker 5 (16:33):
I mean he's always had this fixation understandably, So, I mean,
we could debate the value of stock market for the
average person's finances.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
But he's always been obsessed with.
Speaker 5 (16:42):
Tracking stock markets and in an effort to sort of
attach them to himself. When I mean, yeah, it's been
going up, so it's like great for him.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
I mean it's the sort of real time indicator that's
kind of irresistible, you know.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
One hundred percent right, And so it was that was
actually always one of the things I found somewhat amusing
to extend anything was amusing during the Liberation Day couple weeks.
I mean, honestly, there were many things that we're amusing
during those couple of weeks, but it was always like
he has been obsessed with his influence on the stock
market for this long. How is he going to handle it?
It turns out he has already made excuse, it's just Biden.
Speaker 3 (17:15):
Yeah, exactly right.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
So one person in particular day Port apparently not buying
the spin here from Trump, we can put this up
on the screen from him, he says, what's that old expression,
don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Well, that applies here.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
The stock market is a direct reflection of Trump's first
one hundred.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
Days in office.
Speaker 1 (17:35):
Doesn't mean it won't get better, and that we don't
need to be patient. But this is his market, not Biden's.
So Portnoy has been has said some other things critical.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
I think he doesn't like the tariffs.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
He did originally say something critical about the Trump shitcoin
before sort of reversing course and being.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Like, this is great. I'm going to get rich off
of it. Whatever.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
So anyway, he's high profile, and so anytime he says
something critical it is interesting. This is really the moment
from this cabinet meeting and press conference.
Speaker 3 (18:03):
That is so wild to me.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
So he's getting asked about the price of toys in particular,
and you know, yes, Christmas feels a long way away now,
but actually the retailers who would mean to stock up
for Christmas there should be placing those orders right now,
and all of that is kind of on hold. So
he gets asked a question in this direction. Take a
listen to his response.
Speaker 8 (18:23):
They made a trillion dollars when with Biden a trillion dollars,
even a trillion one with Biden selling this stuff, much
of it we don't need, you know. Somebody said, oh,
the shelves are going to be open, Well, maybe.
Speaker 9 (18:36):
The children will have two dollars instead of thirty dollars,
you know, and maybe the two dolls will cost a
couple of bucks more than they would normally, But we're
not talking about something that we have to go out
of our way.
Speaker 8 (18:48):
They have ships that are loaded up with stuff, much
of which not all of it, but much of which
we don't need.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Many people saying like, okay, you're just the grunch now,
like that that's your political move is just like the kids,
they don't need toys. What are we talking about here?
Speaker 5 (19:04):
It's wild that he actually said it, right, because that's
the underlying it's you know, this is like sort of
cut pastint coming out and saying the essence of the
American dream is not cheap goods. And that caught a
lot of people on the right sort of off guard
because it's the conversation that has been percolating in like
white paper intellectual circles on the right for the last
(19:28):
like five ish years.
Speaker 4 (19:30):
But the problem is it's.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
A political disaster because you have to say things like,
for example, maybe the kids will have two dollars instead
of thirty.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
And they're going and those two dollars are going to
cost more.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
Yes the way, well, oh my gosh, absolutely, But that's
the I mean, it's true that at this point you
could probably get thirty dollars for like three hundred dollars,
and it's kind of insane. I mean, there's definitely a
bubble right now in cheap prices, but to actually do
what Donald Trump has done with the tariff regime that
he's put in place, two dolls, we're using the dolls
(20:04):
as a proxy for toys in general. That's I mean,
that's not what the American people are used to, is
not what the American people want, And good luck taking
that argument to the voters.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
I mean, I know he doesn't have to get re elected,
although we can well we'll see what he said. What
do you have to say about that?
Speaker 5 (20:21):
But man, other Republicans do Ja d Vance might have
to run for president at some point.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Yeah, I mean, here's here is the thing. And I
feel like a broken record. If there was some deal
on the table which was, Okay, your kids are not
going to get thirty dollars, they're going to get to
but you're going to be able to afford housing, you're
going to be able to get healthcare, education is going
to be cheaper, it's going to be you know more
it's going to be higher quality. You're going to be
able to have a better work life balance. Like if
(20:47):
there was another social contract on the table that had
some upside.
Speaker 3 (20:52):
Then we could talk.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
We could talk, right, we could consider maybe that is
an improvement over. Basically, the American dream is centered or
around cheap consumer goods. That is the American dream at
this point, as has been sold and implemented over decades
and decades.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
There is no.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Alternative deal on the table.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
So all that he's advertising here is my plan is
going to make you poor. You're going to be able
to buy fewer things. Those things are going to be
more expensive, and there is no compensation for that on
the other side. So, and which is why this has
been profoundly unpopular. I mean, of all the things that
he has done, many of which almost all of which
(21:30):
have been profoundly unpopular in this second.
Speaker 3 (21:34):
Term the Teriff regime.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
When you ask people what's his biggest grew up, it
jumps off.
Speaker 3 (21:39):
The page in terms of what they're concerned about.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
And so I think it would always be difficult to
ask people at this point in time in American history
to sacrifice in service of some larger goal. I think
that would be a difficult sell in general. But there
is no larger goal that is being offered or advertised
or has any like clear cut paths being achieved, right,
So instead you're just telling people your kids.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Are going to be unhappy on Christmas and.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
You are going to be poor and able to afford
less stuff than you can afford.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
Now, there's no clarity or light at the end of
the tunnel. And I think the other word that we
come down on a lot of certainty, because with more
certainty you could understand how companies would be adjusting with employment,
they would be adjusting with their plans for the future.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
One of the interesting parts of the GDP report yesterday.
Actually we did talk about that yesterday, But.
Speaker 5 (22:31):
That's I think the difficulty, both politically and on the
substance for the administration going forward is that if you
want to make this case that maybe people won't be
getting thirty things on shean for three bucks whatever, and
they'll have to buy five things that cost twenty dollars instead,
if you want to make that.
Speaker 4 (22:52):
Argument, you have to have a lot to show for the.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
Point about this being manufacturing in the US, like creating
jobs being built here revitalizing communities, and obviously that's a
very difficult thing to do within the.
Speaker 4 (23:04):
First month of this.
Speaker 5 (23:06):
But what we've seen evidence wise is a whole lot
of manufacturers leaving and jobs leaving, and we have not
seen deals inked with like serious substance of deals inked
with other countries. Yeah, and so that's where I mean,
that's both the substance in the style being married into one.
That's where it's going to get really difficult for them
to keep making that case.
Speaker 3 (23:24):
It reminds me, this rhetoric reminds me of like the
de growth Left.
Speaker 1 (23:28):
You know, Oh, great point, which is absolutely politically toxic
and unpopular.
Speaker 4 (23:33):
No, that's such a good point.
Speaker 1 (23:34):
And there's a reason why when the Green New Deal
came out and they screwed up when they sent out
the draft and there was like some language in there
about cutting back on meat consumption or something like that,
and they ran away from it at a million miles
per hour because they knew, like, we we are going
to be in a completely politically untenable position if we're
(23:55):
asking people to give up some of the things that
they are accustomed to and that they enjoy and appreciate,
and so even though look, the reality is that factory
farming does produce a lot of emissions.
Speaker 3 (24:07):
There is just a recognition in the.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Sort of like Green New Deal Left that some of
these things you just they're just politically effectively impossible, and.
Speaker 3 (24:16):
So yeah, that's to me. And this is you know,
the abundance.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Guys kind of talk about this, how the Trumpian program
is this anti growth very aligned in a certain way,
in a certain like ideological way with that de growth Left,
and yeah, it's totally politically toxic. So if you are
going to sell something like your kids are going to
have fewer toys on Christmas Day, which again I think
(24:41):
there is some merit to a potential shift in the
American social contract, there is a version of this that
I would be interested in. But you are not offering
anything to compensate for that loss.
Speaker 3 (24:55):
All your program is is people are going to be poor.
Speaker 1 (24:58):
And so you know, that's why it's thoroughly rejected. I
wanted to play this is kind of interesting. Is this
guy Sean Ray, and he's the founder of the China
Market Research Group. He put on this short video talking
about some of the reasons and we've talked about some
of this here, but some of the reasons that he
feels that China has the upper hand in terms of
this trade war, which is definitely something that the Trump administration,
(25:19):
the Scott Vessons of the world would definitely dispute. But
let's just take a listen to his analysis here of
why he thinks China will ultimately win.
Speaker 10 (25:26):
China is no longer buying American beef, They're buying beef
from Australia. China is no longer buying oil from the
United States, They're now buying oil from Canada. China is
no longer buying American soybeans, They're now buying soybeans from Brazil.
China is no longer buying Boeing airplanes Shaman Airlines actually
(25:49):
just refused to accept a Boeing airplane that had just
arrived in China. They're now instead buying air buses from France.
Or they're expanding Comak, the Chinese indigenous, homegrown domestic airplane brand,
which they just signed a deal to sell several Comacs
to Malaysia. So what's happening is the entire world's system
(26:11):
is shifting. China can basically buy everything that America sells
except for semiconductors from other countries. The United States can
only buy antibiotics, refined rare earth, iPhones computers from China.
Speaker 3 (26:27):
I think those are some solid points.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
I don't know if you saw this, Emily, but even
on the semiconductor piece. So, Huawei is now testing its
newest and most powerful marine for the Wall Street Journal
artificial intelligence processor. The company hopes it can replace some
of the higher end products of US chip giant Nvidia.
So they've also come a long way in terms of
positioning themselves even to replace some of that you know,
(26:50):
super high end chip technology that previously had been inaccessible
to them, and some of that has been you know,
the necessity of innovating in the face of the the
export controls that have been put in place by the
Biden administration as well.
Speaker 5 (27:04):
Yeah, and you know, this to me also is sort
of a case for what Trump is doing because it's
so dire, like the supply chain problems are so bad.
Speaker 4 (27:14):
But it's a case against what he's doing because he's
doing it in a way that makes so little sense,
that's right.
Speaker 5 (27:19):
So it's it's on the one hand, an argument about
how bad the situation is. The other hand, it's an
argument about how bad the attempt to write the ship Like,
how bad our attempt to address a.
Speaker 4 (27:30):
Bad situation has been. Yeah, Like there's a.
Speaker 5 (27:32):
There's a good way to do this, and an important
way to do this, and an argument that should be done,
and then there's a way to do it that makes
the situation worse.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
Let's go and put this next piece up on the screen.
This is tracking these shipments from China to the US,
and we're all just kind of waiting for this to
like truly and fully hit. CBS has this report. China
exports to US plunge as tariff's hit, leading some experts
to warn of product shortages. Shipments of goods from China
and US are dropping sharply. The trade war between China
(28:01):
and US has escalated, with each nation hiking its import duties.
They say that at the Port of La, which along
with the Port of Long Beach receives roughly forty percent
of all imports from Asia, shipments last week we're down
ten percent compared with the same period one year earlier,
and they are predicting the Port of La executive director
is predicting that in two weeks time, arrivals are going
(28:22):
to drop by thirty five percent. Flexport has even more
dire readings. According to their estimates, bookings from China to
the US are already down by as much as sixty percent,
So you're already starting to see an extraordinary slow down here.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
And look, the large retailers.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
Are going to be able to sort of weather the
storm and be able to figure it out.
Speaker 3 (28:47):
That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be some
shortages in the.
Speaker 1 (28:49):
Walmarts and home depots and targets and costcos of the world.
But the people who are really going to get screwed
are small and medium business owners, even from the perspective
of how much they have to invest in understanding what
the new policy regime is every single day. I was
also reading this morning the deminimous exemption for you know,
(29:10):
direct shipping under eight hundred dollars, where you're exempt from
the import duties from the terraffs that is going away,
And you know that is like, again, that's something that
I could imagine exactly right, But in the context of
all of this other that in and of itself is
this like massive profound change that is going to have
(29:30):
huge riverbrating impacts, not just for the Sheans and Timos
of the world, but for lots of small businesses who
avail themselves of this deminimous exemption to be able to
buy supplies and run their own businesses. And so this
is going to be you know, real hit for them
as well. And the fact that every day, seemingly there's
a new policy, things are shifting.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
The tariff is changing, even the at the border.
Speaker 1 (29:53):
You know, the customs officers who have to calculate these things,
they don't know what's going on, so they're not applying
the correct rates at times as well. Just up with
that is impossible to do as a smaller, medium sized business.
Speaker 5 (30:04):
Yeah, and so the Trump administration this is also very interesting.
I was talking to someone who works in Congress last
night about this. Larry Kudlow pointed out what he was
looking through the GDP report that one of the reasons
the numbers may not have been as bad as it
was as some people thought it might end up being,
even though so we could talk about it was the
(30:25):
projections versus what actually happened. But he said that if
you're looking at the increase in factory equipment, that sort
of thing, which is always an interesting indicator, twenty two
percent growth in business equipment.
Speaker 4 (30:38):
And machinery investment.
Speaker 5 (30:39):
He says it does not spell recession because of that
canary in the coal mine, or what could be a
canary in the coal mine.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
He's making this point.
Speaker 5 (30:46):
That Trump and his advisors have been going to the
business community and saying the tax bill is going to
include one hundred percent rite offs for investment or expenses
on business, factory and building that's retroactive to January twentieth.
You look at that and you're like, that's kind of
an industrial policy in an incentive structure way. In a way,
(31:07):
that's like using tax cuts, although they also have their
revenue problem in front of them, so that's a different story.
But that's their attempt. And you can see how some
of those things will help. Being able to write off
business factory and building expensively, that's huge, one hundred percent
right off on those things.
Speaker 4 (31:23):
So you kind of see how that stuff will help, but.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
It's not enough, and it's not even being packaged by
them as industrial policy.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
You need to get people back into the labor force
in some of these communities.
Speaker 5 (31:33):
You need to make sure that these jobs are good,
steady work that competes with service sector work. So I mean,
if their plan is to pass a big tax cut
that includes a corporate tax rate hike to I think
bestt wants to take it from twenty one to fifteen percent.
Speaker 4 (31:48):
That's the latest news. Again. Could that help with reshoring, Yes,
but that is I.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
Mean, you're taking a real gamble if you're putting all
your eggs in the tax cut basket as your industrial policy.
Speaker 1 (32:00):
Well because I mean last time with the tax cut,
most of them did like share buybacks, you know, to
create some manufacturing renaissance. So and this is the problem
when you're trying to, you know, just hope the market
does its thing, and you're not taking an affirmative, affirmative
action to make sure that capital.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
Is doing what you want it to do.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
And you know that's his theory is basically you can
just sort of like slap some tariffs on and you know,
throw a tax cut at them, and they're going to
invest in, create product lines and do what you want.
But no one's going to be investing anything if we're
in a recession like that's just you know, everybody's going
to pull back. Everybody's already pulling back and It's important
to remember those GDP numbers, which were already really bad.
(32:43):
That's before the tariffs were even announced or introduced. So
you know, that's I think what should be making people
really nervous is that we have not yet seen the
full economic impact of quote unquote Liberation Day. Here's another,
you know, not great sign. Dollars General is one of
the stocks that has been the best performers of Trump's
(33:04):
first one hundred days. And actually the full the list
of the top three performing stocks is quite grim, quite
Ryan Grimm, there's a Pallenteer good, Dollar General, and Philip Morris.
Those are the top three performing stocks of Trump two
point zero Emily.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
So, how does that make you feel the Golden Age?
Clearly it's the Golden age. I mean you can smoke your.
Speaker 1 (33:28):
SAgs, you can get by an AI robot, and you
can go to the Dollar General, and you.
Speaker 4 (33:33):
Know, there's what's not to love.
Speaker 5 (33:37):
I don't understand dollars Actually.
Speaker 4 (33:41):
You could probably get thirty at Dollar General now.
Speaker 3 (33:43):
Today, yes, but you know in the future by Christmas.
Speaker 4 (33:47):
Time that is bleak, bleak.
Speaker 1 (33:50):
I thought that was pretty depressing personally, No, thanks for that,
good morning. One last piece here, which you know, this
is I just thought this was funny. We put this
up on the screen. This is Financial Times. You got
to be reading the Financial Time. I'm honestly every good
left he knows you have to read the Financial Times.
In any case, this guy, Stephen Myron, they described as
a Trump top economic advisor, recently met with top bond
(34:10):
investors last week in an attempt to sort of calm
the waters, like Oh, we've got a plan and here's
what we're doing, and don't worry.
Speaker 3 (34:18):
We've got it.
Speaker 1 (34:19):
And I'm pretty sure this is the guy who'd pen
to report that in the early days of you know,
the new tariff regime, people were pointing to of saying like, look,
they have a plan and it's this forty chess and here's.
Speaker 3 (34:29):
What's going on.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
The problem is the report didn't match the reality of
what Trump was actually doing. But in any case, they
say here that they found his presentation, his comments around
tariffs and markets to be quote incoherent or incomplete. One
of them said Miren was out of his death and
said he got questions and that's when it all fell apart,
said one person familiar with the meeting. When you're with
(34:52):
an audience that knows a lot. The talking points are
taken apart pretty quickly, so noteworthy they're both in terms
of the fact that they felt the need to go
to these top bond investors and be like, Oh, it's good,
we got it. Don't worry, everything's good, and also that
they were extremely not impressed with the presentation, which they
described as incoherent.
Speaker 5 (35:12):
Yeah, well, not sending their best, to paraphrase Donald Trump himself,
not sending their best.
Speaker 1 (35:18):
Yes, let's get to Elon because this was big news.
So the Wall Street Journal yesterday put out this report
that Tesla is looking at moving on from Elon Musk,
that they are actively and have been actively searching.
Speaker 3 (35:33):
For a new CEO.
Speaker 1 (35:35):
Let's put this up on the screen, so they say,
Tesla board open search for a CEO to succeed Musk.
Speaker 3 (35:42):
Let me read you a little bit of this. They say.
Speaker 1 (35:43):
About a month ago, with Tesla's stocks sinking and some
investors irritated about Musk's white house focus, Tesla's board got
serious about looking for his successor. Board members reached out
to several executive search firms to work on a formal
process for finding Tesla's next chief executive According to people
familiar with the discussions, tensions had been mounting at the
(36:03):
company's sales and profits were deteriorating rapidly. Musk was spending
much of his time in Washington. Around that time, Tesla's
board met with Musk for an update. Board members told
him he needed to spend time on Tesla, according to
people familiar, and he needed to say so publicly. Musk
did not push back, So that is what they're saying.
(36:24):
I don't know if you have pulled up what Elon's
response was, but he and Tesla late last night denied
the report, said this is an absolute fiction.
Speaker 3 (36:34):
It's an absolute lie.
Speaker 1 (36:35):
I haven't checked in on Tesla's stock this morning, but
last night, after this Wall Street Journal report had come out,
it was plummeting even further than it already had been.
And you know, it's wouldn't be a surprise like in
any ordinary any normal company would look at the string
of events of Okay, our CEO is not even here,
(36:56):
like he's not even running the company, and his brand
is so toxic and specifically toxic to our particular customer
base that this is just an utter disaster. But you know,
it's Elon's baby. He stacked the board with people who
are mostly sick of fans, including like his brother and
one of the Murdochs is on there, and there have been,
(37:16):
you know, questions about the independence of the board because
they are so closely tied to him. So that's why
for even this board to be making moves to move
on from Elon is really really, you know, pretty like
pretty shocking. There are also details here that apparently Elon
and I kind of guess this, that Elon is kind
(37:37):
of over running Tesla. He's kind of sick of still
being there, and he's been doing Tesla for a long time.
Maybe his heart's really in SpaceX at this point is
like Mars delusions. That's that's been my sense from the
outside and from reading reporting about him, the way he's
oriented himself with regard to DOGE.
Speaker 5 (37:52):
But in any case, what's their response, so Elon, they're scrambling,
by the way to get all of this. As yesterday
the journal published this, When was this Crystal was like
later at night? I want to say, it was like
around the evening, yes, oh okay, well it was upwardted
that's today They updated it apparently at seven forty five am.
Speaker 4 (38:10):
Probably with response to Elin.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
But it was happening in the evening and so Tesla's
rambled to get a response together and posted a statement
at one I was think it was like one twenty
three am, and said earlier today there was a media
report erroneously claiming that the Tesla board had contacted recruitment
firms to initiate a CEO search at the company.
Speaker 4 (38:29):
This is absolutely false, and this.
Speaker 5 (38:31):
Was communicated to the media before the report was published.
The CEO of Tesla's Elon Musk, and the board is
highly confident in his ability to continue executing on the
exciting growth plan ahead. Now, what they're narrowly denying here
is that the board had contacted recruitment firms to initiate
a CEO search.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
At the company. You can parse that in different ways.
Speaker 5 (38:52):
You could say maybe one or two people on the board,
not the board itself, acting as a collective, had flirted
with the idea and maybe talk to a couple of
people that they know in these business circles.
Speaker 4 (39:02):
That's how it is. That you're like out a dinner.
Speaker 5 (39:04):
And you're like, hey, would you potentially, you know, be
able to help us with a recruitment search at Tesla,
and then that person goes to the media. The journal
has had the i would say, deepest reporting on Elon Musk.
And this is what's really irking musk heads right now
is that the journal is the one that had this
story because they're you know, already furious with the way
(39:25):
the journal is reporting on Musk. Musk quote tweets this
is all happening literally at one thirty in the morning
the Tesla statement and says all caps, it is in
all caps extremely bad breach of ethics that the Wall
Street Journal would publish a deliberately false article and fail
to include an unequivocal denial beforehand by the Tesla board
of directors. Now, I will say if Tesla's hold the
journal beforehand, that if they gave this statement to the
(39:48):
journal beforehand, basically saying that the board had not contacted
recruitment firms, then the journal should have printed that. But
I also don't like believe that the journal just wouldn't
print that because it doesn't really poke.
Speaker 4 (40:00):
A hole in their reporting.
Speaker 5 (40:02):
I mean, it's a denial from a company, but everyone
knows that companies will issue narrow, carefully worded denials and
situations like this when you have robust sourcing in a
major newspaper.
Speaker 4 (40:13):
So I started feel like they would have put that
in there if they had it, no matter what.
Speaker 5 (40:16):
It's not, you know, a super persuasive denial of everything
that they're reporting here. So, I mean, it's not a
great look for Musk, but it does make sense with
all of his moves over the course of the last month, Chrystial,
you and I have talked about how that Wisconsin election
felt like a turning point in Maga world when it
came to Musk, and it seemed as though, you know,
(40:38):
I think you and I had said this all along,
the quiet quitting of Musk would be the way that
this goes, rather than like a big kinetic explosion, was
always going to be sort of a conscious uncoupling that eventually.
Speaker 4 (40:49):
It just becomes untenable.
Speaker 5 (40:50):
And because the relationship between Trump and Musk is so
important of both of them, yeah, because for Trump it's
I mean, that's the money for the magnification of the
Republican Party going forward via America pack And for Musk, well, obviously,
this is the president of the United States. He oversees
five major companies, so it makes sense. But it also
(41:11):
I think makes sense with the UH disintegration or the
or Musk decision to take all of these steps back,
that this is what was happening behind closed doors with
his prized company. Obviously he loves Starlink and Boring and SpaceX.
His SpaceX is probably his favorite, who knows, But this
is Tesla, like this is his, this is his baby,
(41:31):
this is his what he's been known for most of
his career.
Speaker 4 (41:35):
So you understand why it would be sort of a blow.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
Yeah, well, and that is exemplified by the fact that
you know, we got Trump to do that, like Tesla
sale in the parking lot of the White House and
the Pam Bondie is announcing that like, if you harbor
ill feeling towards Tesla, you're basically terrorists.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
And whatever like it.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
Also, though, I mean, it is astonishing because the way
that Musk being so cozy with try would hurt their
sales to a what has previously been mostly like an
affluent liberal California customer base that is so incredibly predictable.
And you know, the stock really rose once Trump got
(42:14):
elected because everyone's like, oh, well, Elon is secondhand to
the king and he's going to be able to get
all these works, true, but you still have to be
able to sell cars, and not only here but around
the world. Tesla sales really plummeted, I mean really plummeted.
Cyber truck has been one of the greatest, you know,
automotive flops in history. Truly, even Tesla dealerships are not
(42:38):
even accepting cyber trucks as trade ins. That's how little
appetite there is for this very expensive and poorly created vehicle,
which has become this incredibly like political symbol that for
many people reads as extremely toxic. And so if you're
going to buy this really expensive thing, you also have
to expect you're going to get like flicked off and
people are going to give you dirty looks and whatever.
(42:58):
Most people just don't want to deal with that, right,
So in any case, not to mention, it's not really
a vehicle that makes any sense anywhere except for America,
So you're limiting your market to begin with. Then you've
got the trade war, which is bad for everybody.
Speaker 3 (43:14):
But Elon talked.
Speaker 1 (43:18):
About that on the investor call, and you know, a
lot of Tesla's hopeful growth was in China. China now
also with byd has. I mean, they've just out innovated
Tesla as well, like their product is better than Tesla
or the other ev makers here in America. So there's
all source of issues, but the biggest one is Elon himself.
(43:38):
So like I said, to get rid of him is
the most rational thing you could possibly do. But given
that the board is so closely tied to him, you know,
I always thought it was kind of unlikely.
Speaker 3 (43:49):
So even the fact that even if it's not.
Speaker 1 (43:51):
The whole board, but a few board members are reaching
out to these executive search firms or whatever, is really
quite something. We could put before up on the screen
of the Tesla stock which just shows you the you know,
the surge after Trump's elected and then the germantic crash.
Speaker 3 (44:06):
He's gained back a little bit, you know.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Like I said, I haven't checked in with it today.
The last piece we have here just a sign of
his failure here in Washington as well, in the quiet quitting.
Speaker 3 (44:15):
As Emily put it, he was at this cabinet meeting.
Speaker 1 (44:19):
Yesterday, not a member of the cabinet and not a
member of the cabinet, so you know, whatever that he's
there to begin with, but he's not even the head
of doge according to Trump administration, in court.
Speaker 3 (44:30):
But you know, previously at the.
Speaker 1 (44:31):
First cabinet meeting, he was standing up, he was holding court.
Everyone was doing some of their obsequiousness that they normally
direct to Trump, they were doing that with Elon as well.
Now he's getting this sort of like, you know, the
sort of like pity clap.
Speaker 3 (44:45):
It's more like what he's getting from Trump or like
the pad like do you want to go to the car?
Speaker 1 (44:50):
You know you could, you could stay, but I know
you want to get back to working on your cars,
don't you.
Speaker 3 (44:56):
So let's go ahead and take a listen to B two.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
And you know how things are going for Elon with
regards to the Trump administration.
Speaker 7 (45:05):
But you have been treated unfairly.
Speaker 11 (45:07):
But the vast majority of people in this country really
respect and appreciate you, and this whole room can say
that very strongs are really been a tremendous help.
Speaker 7 (45:18):
You opened up a lot of eyes as to what
could be done, and we just want to thank you
very much. And you know you're invited to stay as
long as you want.
Speaker 9 (45:27):
At some point, he wants to get back home to
his cars at his.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
Time, So what were What were the vibes of that
for you, Emily?
Speaker 4 (45:36):
It feels like a sendoff.
Speaker 5 (45:37):
Doesn't that feel like when you know, one member of
like the you know, drama club at high school is
about to graduate, Like one member of the basketball team
is about to graduate. You know, Yeah, you did a
great job. You know, you didn't start every game, but
you were always there. You had the heart, you had
what it took you. You'll always you will always remember
(46:00):
you didn't I feel like that.
Speaker 3 (46:01):
You were a critical part of this team.
Speaker 4 (46:03):
Yeah, you will always be a part of this team.
It had those vibes a little bit.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
It's funny you went to the sports thing too, because
I was also thinking about you know, when like after
one of my kids plays a game and like it's
the other bus game, You're like, you did good, Like
you did good. You know, look, it's not always going
to be your day. It's fine, but.
Speaker 4 (46:21):
You were good. But you were good. Yeah, I'm not
saying you weren't good. You were good, like great form. Yeah. No,
it does feel like that. And Trump at one point said.
Speaker 3 (46:30):
This is a learning experience. You know.
Speaker 5 (46:33):
Trump at one point said, you know, elin you know,
you're invited to stay as long as you want, which
is one hundred percent what you say when you're like
evicting someone, right, like politely evicting someone, just like a
family member's been CouchSurfing for a while and they got them.
Speaker 1 (46:49):
It's been literally like CouchSurfing in some federal government office yelling.
Speaker 3 (46:52):
So apparently, yeah, and.
Speaker 4 (46:54):
They got the hint, right, like this person got the hint.
Speaker 5 (46:55):
They realized that, like you're a little tired of, you know,
the CouchSurfing, and they're leaving, and you're like, you know,
you're you're invited to stay as long as you want.
Speaker 4 (47:02):
That was basically how you.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
Do it in Wisconsin, right, Yeah, of course, yeah, you
can stay forever, but I know you have things you
want to do.
Speaker 3 (47:10):
You want to get back to your cars, not here.
Speaker 5 (47:13):
Yeah, but I mean it's it's also like he's actually
not invited to say as long as he wants unless
he divests from like to be clear, he's only allowed
to stay for one hundred and eighty days based on
the special government employee distinction.
Speaker 4 (47:25):
So technically is not invited.
Speaker 1 (47:26):
Yes, but which, as we've discussed before, you know, they're
a stickler for the rules and regulations in this administrative.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
Oh you know, one hundred and eighty one days.
Speaker 3 (47:34):
Absolutely not unacceptable.
Speaker 4 (47:37):
That's the red line. No way, no way Elon is ticking.
It felt like a little send off. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
So anyway, that's what's going on with Elon as best
we know. But there were also some comments made at
this meeting from Marco Rubio with regard to deportation. So
let's get to that. So Marco Rubio saying that they
are exploring other countries outside of El Salvador to ship
deportees to listic A.
Speaker 4 (48:01):
Listen, and I.
Speaker 12 (48:02):
Say this unapologetically. We are actively searching for other countries
to take people from third countries. So we are active,
not just El Salvador. We are working with other countries
to say we want to send you some of the
most despicable human beings to your countries. We do that
as a favor to us, and the further away from
America the better, so they can't come back across the border.
I'm not apologetic about it.
Speaker 13 (48:22):
We are doing that.
Speaker 12 (48:23):
If president was elected to keep America safe and to
get rid of a bunch of perverts and pedophiles and
child rapists out of our country.
Speaker 3 (48:30):
So searching for other countries.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
You know, no details there about what countries or whether
they would also be shipped just to those countries or
to prisons as they have been in El Salvador, this
you know, place that people are never let it out
of and there indefinitely. And it's interesting only because it
comes as there's this New New York Times investigation into
the deal that the Trump administration made with bu Kelly,
(48:54):
who called what does he call himself, like the coolest
dictator in.
Speaker 3 (48:57):
The world or something like that, dictor the cool deck.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
So anyway we could put this is ce five guys,
if we could skip ahead to see five and put
this up.
Speaker 3 (49:05):
On the screen.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
So it turns out, you know, they have this sort
of contractual relationship where the Trump administration is paying some
amount twelve million is one of the dollar amounts I
heard floated of money to Bukelly to house these Venezuelans
who have been you know, who were summarily deported with
no due process whatsoever under the pretense that they were
(49:26):
alien enemies and they were the worst of the worst,
and they were trender Ragua gang members. So in any case,
Bikelly had apparently agreed to house only what he called
quote convicted criminals in the prison. However, many of the
Venezuelan Venezuelan men that had been labeled gang members and
terrorists by the US government had not been tried in court.
(49:49):
Mister Bkelly was willing to let the US use his
prisons with conditions. He told Rubio and Mauricio Clever Coronia.
I don't know, oh, mister Trump's Latin American envoy. He
did not want to bring in non criminal migrants. He
could not convince Salvadorans that he was prioritizing their national
interests if he turned their country into a dumping ground
for US deporties from other countries, he explained to mister
(50:11):
Trump's aids.
Speaker 3 (50:12):
But he did agree to take.
Speaker 1 (50:13):
In violent criminals, no matter their nationality, for a fee,
which would help to subsidize the country's prison system. So
because the Trump administration shipped off, the vast majority of
the people they shipped down had zero criminal records. According
to The New York Times, even Kelly was like, this
is a problem. This is not what we agreed to.
(50:34):
Now he of course has gone along with it. It's
very possible this leak to The New York Times is
a bit of ass covering for himself, especially as he's
found all of these Democratic senators and members of Congress
flying down Tella Salvador saying, hey, this guy has no
gang affiliation. They shipped him here indefinitely because of some
mom and dad tattoo or an autism awareness tattoo, or
in the case of kil Mar Brego Garcia, they admit
(50:57):
that they messed up and shouldn't have sent him here,
like you need to do something. So it's creating domestic
political problems for Bukelly. So it could have been that
that leads to this leak to the New York Times
of like, this is not really what we agreed to.
And the last thing, Emily I'll say before I get
your reaction, is in the initial three planeloads that were
sent and you guys remember this dramatic situation with the
(51:17):
judge saying you've got to turn those planes around. They
don't do it, and a third plane actually departs. They
claim not under Alien Enemies Act, but in any case
departs even after that order is issued.
Speaker 3 (51:27):
On those planes, there were a number of women.
Speaker 1 (51:30):
This is an all male facility, and so those women,
but Kelly's we're not taking these women, so they sent
the women back. In addition, there were also some high
level MUS thirteen members that were in our criminal justice
system facing charges and punishment that the Kelly wanted back.
(51:50):
And Ryan did the first report on this over a
drop site that the Kelly wanted back because he, as
part of his crackdown, has also been cutting deals with
MS thirteen, either for hey, you guys, can you know,
do your thing over there, but not in this neighborhood
where the tourists are. Hey, I'll make sure some of
your people get a little bit better prison conditions, et cetera.
So that was another part of the deal. And sorry,
(52:12):
I keep going on and saying one last thing. No, Also,
we had talked before about this dude who you know,
the Trump administration did a big press conference about this
is the East Coast head of MS thirteen. We are
going to charge him. He is going to prison. We
are so proud of ourselves. Now quietly, all of those
charges have been dropped and he is just being deported
(52:33):
through regular channels before there can be any scrutiny into
what the hell happened there. Now it's possible they just
didn't have the goods on this guy. And they just
made up some bullshit and he was not the MS
thirteen like East Coast head. And when it came to
trying to prove this in court, it was not going
to work out, so they just quietly tried to save face.
Or it could be this is one of the dudes
who was part of this dealing with bo Kelly.
Speaker 4 (52:54):
Well yeah, I mean, think about that for a second.
Speaker 5 (52:56):
This is the invocation of the There's a lot of
juicy stuff in this New York Times story, but the
invocation of the Alien Enemies Act is predicated on this
idea that the Venezuelan government is directing Trende Aragua to
invade the United States, which is a very flimsy premise.
Speaker 3 (53:09):
It's preposterous.
Speaker 5 (53:10):
It's a very flimsy premise that was intentionally concocted by
people in the Trump administration to be able to get
around the regular channels of due process.
Speaker 4 (53:19):
Stephen Miller said.
Speaker 5 (53:20):
That openly that it was part of the plan because
they know mass deportations with the regular due process. That
is the clear implication of what Steven Miller has said,
regular deportations. You can't do at the level of QUOTEO
mass deportations if you go through those channels without dramatically
boosting the immigration judge system, which then can.
Speaker 3 (53:41):
Cut and they're cutting the immigration judge system, by the.
Speaker 5 (53:44):
Way, there are problems with that because it can become
a carrot if you can start hearing cases really quickly.
It did become in the Biden administration and incentive form
of people to keep trying. But the Trump administration can
deal with that pretty easily by remain in Mexico policies.
If that is their problem with they could deal with
it in other ways. But the idea that the East
(54:04):
Coast kingpin of MS thirteen needs to be sent back,
that they have charges, that they do a big, splashy
press conference. Pam Bondi did a huge, high profile press
conference to tout the arrest of this man and the
charges against this man. I think the charges were dropped
within a month, it might have even been less than that.
Speaker 4 (54:25):
And they didn't just send him to El Salvador.
Speaker 5 (54:27):
They literally dropped these charges, this big case that they
were touting against him. And that gets to a quote,
which by the way, is again a follow up on
the drop site reporting, which was way ahead of the story.
CNN then had a piece that came out earlier this
week as well. This is from Douglas Ferra in The
New York Times, an El Salvador expert who between twenty
eighteen and twenty twenty two collaborated with the Justice Department
Vulcan Task Force, which targeted MS thirteen. He says, quote,
(54:50):
what Bucel is desperate for is to get these guys
back in El Salvador.
Speaker 4 (54:55):
Before they talk in US court.
Speaker 5 (54:58):
So I'm reading these leaks from State, which also included
that big CNN piece earlier this week. It looks like
some of this is probably coming from Boucalley world, and
I would take all of the sincerity of that. I
would take all of that with a grain of salt.
But what's also interesting is it sounds to make most
(55:18):
of this is coming from State Department world, that there's
ass covering happening in State Department world, saying we were
uncomfortable with the answers to bu Kelly's questions about whether
these were actually.
Speaker 4 (55:32):
MS thirteen members.
Speaker 5 (55:34):
So now the question becomes, and this has actually always
been the question to some extent, to on what level
does the Alien Enemies Act allow you to deport people
if there's tenuous or if there's very thin evidence of
their alleged involvement in this invasion. Right, So Steven Miller
(55:57):
thinks that you can just get rid of every foreign
national in that area. But if you your intelligence is
telling you that this invocation of the Alien Enemies Act
eight and of itself is a flimsy is the premise
to that doesn't work? Does that become a legal problem
for the administration. And let me just say, Stephen Miller
isn't sweating that. Stephen Miller like this. He does not
see this as a significant blow to his prom to
(56:19):
his process, that there are constitutional questions being raised, or
to his project, I should say, because their plan was
to throw everything at the wall and see what would stick,
knowing that some of it would not. Because they want
to do mass deportations. And if you want to do
mass deportations, they're correct, that is going to be very difficult,
and if the American people voted for that, there's going
to be a lot standing in the way of your
(56:41):
effort to.
Speaker 4 (56:42):
Achieve that end.
Speaker 5 (56:43):
But he's he knows that some of the stuff is
going to get hung up in the courts, and his
allies and the administration know that that's the point of
doing this strategy where you're just like there's actually some
quotes in this piece about how he was like don't worry.
Speaker 3 (56:59):
Said, don't worry about the law something like that.
Speaker 4 (57:01):
Yeah, right, like you have to go fast.
Speaker 5 (57:04):
And so they're worried that they're not going to be
able to do quote mass deportations. But what they're not
worried about is, you know, being accused of like flouting
the constitution. They think that the constitution isn't set up
to deal with this problem of mass immigration under Biden.
Speaker 1 (57:22):
Yeah, I mean, yeah, they just they don't care about
the constitution, they don't care about the legality, they don't
care about due process. They don't care if they mistakenly
send someone there, you know, and know that it's a mistake,
they'll just say, like he deserves to be there.
Speaker 3 (57:35):
I don't care.
Speaker 1 (57:36):
And part of the strategy is this is something we
talked about from the beginning of this administration too, is
the more horrific and the more cruel the images and
the stories that come out, the more they're hoping that
people will quote unquote self support, because there isn't there now.
The Republican budget has a lot more resources for ice
and a lot more resources for the private prison contract
(57:58):
or to set up additional detention centers, etc. But you know,
there are not the resources to have this, you know,
the mass deportation skill that a Steven Miller would love
to see. And so I know it's this cliche, the
cruelty is the point, but that they will actually the
best true and that it's true, And so that's how
he's looking. I mean, Steven Miller is he is truly
(58:22):
an ideological racist.
Speaker 4 (58:24):
Like he has.
Speaker 1 (58:25):
A political program and I don't think he cares whether
it's popular or not. He has a thing he wants
to do and he does not care what's going to
stand in his way of doing that. And I think
Trump has outsourced his entire immigration policy to Steven Miller.
Speaker 3 (58:39):
You guys talked about him.
Speaker 1 (58:40):
Actually believing MS thirteen was literally tattooed on kilmar Garcia's
knuckles when it was the most obvious photoshop in history.
I think Steven Miller just told him that this is
real and he just believes it.
Speaker 4 (58:53):
You know.
Speaker 1 (58:53):
I think Steven Miller told him that the Supreme Court
decision went nine oh their way, even though that is
the polar opposite of what happened, and he just believes it.
I mean, that's what he seemed to say in the
Oval Office. So this has been completely outsourced to Stephen Miller.
But you know, it did expose that there's a little
bit of a potential pressure point that Chris van Holland
and you know the other Democrats who flew down to
(59:15):
El Salvador that they were kind of pushing on, which
is that l Salvador. But Kelly has his own domestic
political situation. Yes, he's very popular there, but that can
always change, yep. So he has his own domestic political
situation to think about. And you also have to think
about like Republic, it's not going to be President Trump
forever yep. And so if you have made your country
enemy number one of Democrats and they're set to take
(59:38):
power to make control Congress, control Congress in you know,
less than two years, which is some investigatory powers, very possible, Yes,
that's right, and very possible that they take back the
White House in twenty twenty eight, you start to get
a little nervous about where all of this is is going.
And I do think we are ultimately headed to the alien.
This invocation of the Alien an Enemy's Act being deemed
(01:00:01):
like unsupportable, like, you know, because on so many levels,
and it should be. It's not an invasion, We're not
at war. Venezuela is not working with Trando Arragula the
way that it's been implementing. These judges are human beings
are going to look at this and be like, this
is outrageous what the administration is doing. And so I
think it is likely that their invocation is going to
get struck down. They're already being blocked in a number
(01:00:23):
of jurisdictions across the country from continuing these deportations under
this provision. But you know, and that comes back to
Marco Rivio saying, ah, well, we're looking at other countries
where we can do the same thing.
Speaker 5 (01:00:33):
Glenn has made this point that well, and that's the
Kilmra Abrigo Garcia case. They actually could have if they
had gotten an agreement from Mexico, for example, they could
have deported him at any moment. Basically, they just couldn't
deport him to Alsalvador. Based on all this, Miller argues
that because of the Alien Enemies Act, they still could,
but that's not clear cut, and even conservative attorneys like
and Annie McCarthy and Walen have come.
Speaker 1 (01:00:55):
The administration itself argued in court that it was a mistake.
Speaker 4 (01:00:58):
And it parts then they fired that guy from the
DJ like they but I.
Speaker 3 (01:01:02):
Mean, there were multiple court filings and the court is
that it was a mistake.
Speaker 5 (01:01:07):
Completely agree Stephen Miller would but Stephen Miller comes down
and says, like we could do what we want, like
get out of here DJ, like even the Trump DOJ
Like you guys, you know, why would you ever admit
an error. You're harming the project of mass deportation by
admitting we can't do this, because this is what we
have to do.
Speaker 4 (01:01:23):
We have to be.
Speaker 5 (01:01:23):
Pushing these lines in these boundaries in order to end
up with mass deportation. And honestly, like if if we
take this in a like seriously, because there is a
trunk of the American people that looks at the mass
immigration during the Biden administration and.
Speaker 4 (01:01:40):
Talking to some of.
Speaker 5 (01:01:40):
These people, it's so the lives that they live maybe
better than what they had in Venezuela.
Speaker 4 (01:01:47):
I mean, one of these migrants was protesting Maduro.
Speaker 5 (01:01:50):
And that's why Republicans have often supported the silent policies
that we have just protesting Maduro. They end up having
to live these precarious existences in the United States hiding.
You know, a Brego Garcia was pulled over for driving
radically with an expired license.
Speaker 4 (01:02:06):
I mean, a reason that you try.
Speaker 5 (01:02:07):
To avoid going to the government in some of those
like we're doing licenses or whatever, is because you're.
Speaker 4 (01:02:12):
In fear of being deported.
Speaker 5 (01:02:14):
It's not a great existence, even if it's better than
Venezuela or El Salvador. And our process right now sucks.
It keeps people in these situations for like ten plus years.
He'd come into this country, what twenty twelve at Brego Garcia.
I think that's and it had just sort of been
living in the shadows. And it's not good for anybody.
And there needs to be a solution to this. And
(01:02:34):
the solution is always going to involve horrible mistakes and
heart wrenching, heart wrenching examples of people who end up
getting deported who had lives here. The administration needs to
deal with that. They need to realize that you're not
going to be able to just flout the Constitution use
things like Alien Enemies Act. All that's going to end
(01:02:56):
up doing is creating less public support for what you're
doing in the first place, and it's going to take
time away from what you could be doing, which is
building up a system to actually deal with the literal
millions of people who are here living these precarious existences,
which isn't a good situation for anybody. But I don't
see basically any any movement in that direction. Glenn has
(01:03:20):
made this point that actually it's not that hard to
go through the court system if you focus on it,
it's not that hard to bring him back to try him.
Speaker 1 (01:03:29):
Yeah, well, they were already the State Department was coming
up with plans bringing back because this is not the
first time that someone has been mistakenly deported.
Speaker 3 (01:03:34):
Yes, and you just go to deal with it. This
is terrible.
Speaker 1 (01:03:37):
I'm sorry, We're going to get you back, and like
follow the They were already working on those plans, and
then you know, whoever in the Trump administration came over
the top and we're like, no, yeah, we made a mistake.
We don't care. He's going to stay. And again, this
is not just deportation, just deportation. This is you are
locked in a prison for life. Yep, your wife, your family,
your lawyers, like you have no access to anyone, accept
(01:04:00):
a brief meeting with Chris van Hollen. You are cut
off from the entire world, potentially forever, sentenced to life
in prison in a foreign prison. Not kill maraa Brego
Garcia has been moved to a different facility. But for
the rest of these guys in Seacott, like, this place
is known for torture and human rights abuse.
Speaker 5 (01:04:21):
And there's there are rules against that that we abide
by us.
Speaker 4 (01:04:24):
Yeah, sure, you your rendition.
Speaker 3 (01:04:25):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 1 (01:04:26):
You cannot ship someone off and then be like, oh, well,
you know, the Egyptian government or whoever, they're going to
do what they're going to do, and it's not our fault. Like,
if you know the conditions that the people are being
sent to, then you are still responsible for those conditions.
So in any case, you're absolutely right in the way
that I mean, if you look at the way public
opinion is dramatically shifted already with regard to how they
(01:04:48):
feel about immigration, certainly how they feel about Trump's handling
of immigration, how they feel about kill mar and Brego
Garcia and all of this. It has been a dramatic,
dramatic flip, and it's what we saw in the first
term as well, where the public had never been more
pro immigrant than they were during Trump's first term in office.
Speaker 5 (01:05:04):
And then that swung back wildly during the Biden administration,
which is why I think Steven Miller like, how often
do we hear them claiming.
Speaker 4 (01:05:10):
A mandate, a mandate, a mandate. Well, they're misinterpreting. First
of all.
Speaker 5 (01:05:14):
I mean, the question whether if you win, you know,
forty nine percent of the vote, you have a mandate
is rightly question. But they they're misinterpreting that mandate as
something that it isn't. And I don't even know if
it's an accidental misinterpretation. I think it's probably a wilful
misinterpretation because Steve Miller knows that this is a very
slim window and again, if you're doing the math as him,
that is correct, like, this is a very slim window
(01:05:36):
in order to do master deportations because House Democrats are
going to take back over, public supporter is going to shift,
so they're trying really hard to just put their foot
on the accelerator, you know.
Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
To go back to Glenn's point, like it's yeah, Democrats
pass the freaking Lincoln Riley Act with Republicans. If you
wanted to expedide the system, hire more immigration judges, and
have this aggressive approach. I don't support it, but they
could have done it. Democrats were willing to vote for
basically whatever on immigration at the beginning of this term.
You you know, have your budgeting process and you're willing
(01:06:09):
to do all move all sorts of moneys around with
doge Like. If you wanted to do this in a
in some sort of even approaching lawful way, that path
was available, but that would not have entailed the level
of horror that Stephen Miller wants this process to entail
so that they can trigger the you know self deportations
(01:06:31):
that they see as being critical to this. So, you know,
the the Guantanamo Bay that was the same the same
reason that they were sending immigrants also to Guantanamo Bay,
and I think are continuing to do so, even though
there had been some reports that a number of those
immigrants have been removed using military planes. This is this
is way more expensive than the private ice flights that
(01:06:54):
they normally use.
Speaker 3 (01:06:55):
But again it's to generate.
Speaker 1 (01:06:57):
This you know, this spectacle, the ASMR like deportation likes
discussed is like incredibly disturbing to be videos that they
put out Christino, I'm going down to Seacott. It's all
about a spectacle of horror. And you know, so he
he has no interest in going through like any sort
of approaching lawful process to effectuate this outcome because it
(01:07:19):
wouldn't achieve his aims ultimately, and so that's why he's
you know, pursued very specifically him has pursued this this
particular path. I want to get to some really good
news in the fight against the crackdown on pro Palestine
students who have been arrested for things like writing abeds
or you know, for in the case of Machmun Khalil,
(01:07:42):
for being a negotiating a negotiator on the Columbia campus protests.
One of the people who had really attracted a lot
of attention is Mosen Madali. He has now been actually
released from prison from detention while his case was adjudicate.
Let's take let's take a look at him walking out,
(01:08:03):
because this is quite extraordinary. You can see him walking
out here to cheers. I believe this was in Vermont
where this was all unfolding, and he also spoke and
his message to this cheering crowd. Here you'd see lots
of Palestine flags, free Muslim Madowi now calling for due process,
(01:08:27):
et cetera. His message coming out was, I am not
afraid of Donald Trump.
Speaker 3 (01:08:33):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 13 (01:08:35):
What did they do to me?
Speaker 14 (01:08:37):
They arrested me. What's the reason? Because I raised my
voice and they said no to war, yes to peace.
Because I said enough is enough to President Trump and
his cabinet, I am not afraid of you.
Speaker 1 (01:09:06):
The judge, in making this decision also made some extraordinary
statements which would have huge implications not just for Madowi,
but also for many of the other students who've been
arrested and detained and are being threatened with deportation for
their advocacy for Palestine. Let's go and put this up
on the screen. Jeffrey Crawford, the judge and Wednesday's ruling,
wrote that those who know Madowie describe him as a
(01:09:29):
peaceful figure who seeks consensus in a highly charged political environment.
But Crawford added, even if he were a firebrand, his
conduct is protected by the First Amendment. The court is
aware he has offended his political opponents apparently given rise
to concerns the State Department, he has an obstacle to
American foreign policy.
Speaker 3 (01:09:45):
Just think about how preposterous that is.
Speaker 1 (01:09:47):
Such conduct is insufficient to support a finding that he
is in any way a danger. As we use that
term in the context of detention and release. Legal residents
not charged with crimes from misconduct are being arrested, threatened
with deportation for stating their views on the political issues
of the day, Crawford said, citing the Red Scare and
McCarthy era a targeting of people.
Speaker 3 (01:10:08):
For their political views.
Speaker 1 (01:10:09):
The wheel of history has come around again. But as before,
these times of excess will pass. So, you know, we'll
see if this ruling stands. We'll see if there are
other judges who make similar decisions. But you know the
fact that Madowi at least was able to get this win,
and you have one judge, federal judge saying listen, you
(01:10:30):
can't just deport someone because you don't like their opinion
on a political issue, is a very significant development here.
Speaker 5 (01:10:35):
The justification for this deportation order via the State Department
is very problematic, similar to the Mahmud Khalil situation in
that they cite this is a Rubio memo anti Semitism basically,
and they say this is from the it's the Immigration
and Nationality Act. I think it's in nineteen fifty two,
is what Rubio has been citing. And that's what's we
(01:10:56):
were talking about this with Stephen Miller earlier and the
Alien Enemies Act. I think they're right now testing the
fundamental constitutionality of the State Department and the Secretary of
State being able to revoke visas on the idea that
somebody is a threat to the United States national security.
And then you take that second layer in this case
of saying that somebody's alleged anti semitism is a threat
(01:11:17):
to national security is a very like they're testing the
constitutionality of that, and I think rightfully so. Did you
see the government I'm reading from NBC News right now.
They included two exhibits in their filing which have been
filed under Seal. One of the exhibits, this has been
going sort of viral on x and I don't know
what to think of it, which NBC News has reviewed,
(01:11:38):
is a twenty fifteen report from the Windsor Police Department
in Vermont where a gun shop owner told officers that
Madowi supposedly told the owner that he used to build
machine guns to quote, kill Jews while he was in Palestine.
In his declaration, Madawi saidely that he recalled visiting a
gun shop in Windsor, Vermont, but that he is quote
absolutely certain that I never expressed the words the report
(01:12:00):
also attributes to me in that exchange or ever, I'm
a peaceful person and would never express wanting to harm
or kill anyone. I'm heartbroken to have such appalling words,
which Shannon complete contrasts to my philosophy of life and
spiritual beliefs misattributed to me.
Speaker 4 (01:12:12):
It's such a strange.
Speaker 5 (01:12:15):
Another situation where the administration you would think would have
cited that immediately if they would know about it.
Speaker 6 (01:12:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:12:23):
That so, I imagine there's more to come from this gunshop
owner as this case goes on, but a very strange
I just feel like that's a very strange part of
the story or subplot in the story, because I guess
if this is about anti Semitism to the Ruby Amendment,
the point in the Rubio memo, if he said that
(01:12:44):
he killed Jews while he was in Palestine, then I
suppose you can you can prove that he's anti Semitic,
but even then you have to prove the anti semitism
is a harm to US foreign policy. And again like
this is that would augment that argument. But quite an
interesting situation where you have, what is he's Buddhist?
Speaker 4 (01:13:04):
Yeah, I think so, it's very weird.
Speaker 1 (01:13:06):
Well, and if you listen to him on sixty minutes,
like he's very clear about I see the you know,
justice for Israelis and Palestinians and freedom for them as
being linked and I abhor anti Semitism, like he's been
very consistent on that.
Speaker 3 (01:13:20):
I mean, listen, I have no idea.
Speaker 1 (01:13:22):
I haven't seen or heard any thing about this, like
gunshop situation. I will say that, Look, even if you
say something that is horrible like that, you still shouldn't
be able to deport someone just for their speech. I
mean that's basically the judge's point is, like, there's no
evidence that he is a firebrand. All the evidence is
that he's you know, this very like peace loving, like
(01:13:42):
consensus building type. But even if he was, you still
can't just deport someone because you don't like what they
have to say. Well, you don't like what you imagine
is in their heart with regard to this group of
people or that group of people.
Speaker 4 (01:13:59):
It makes there is their justification.
Speaker 5 (01:14:02):
Here is what is the like they don't have whether
that justification, i should say, is legitimate. It remains the question.
Even if he said that, like that their justification from
reporting him, like they would have to find again, like
you can try people, you can actually go through another process.
But the point is just doing as many things as
quickly as possible in order to sort of flood the
(01:14:24):
zone and from there, yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:14:27):
Yeah, and to use this issue as a cudgel, you know,
both in their in their war against lefties generally in
their war against universities, like this is the issue that
they don't care about anti Semitism. They're using this issue
as a cudgel to effectuate other Well.
Speaker 5 (01:14:42):
I think, I mean, I think there's a part of
the sort of conservative movement that has very much been
conditioned that this is the most like, this is the.
Speaker 4 (01:14:57):
Type of the spear on campus issues.
Speaker 5 (01:14:59):
So if you get rid of the alleged anti Semites,
then you you've just removed the tip of the spear.
And it's I think some people genuinely do believe in this,
I think a lot of people don't and it's almost
like half and half.
Speaker 3 (01:15:11):
Yeah, I'm referring specifically to Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (01:15:13):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (01:15:14):
Donald Trump does not give a shit about anti summing.
Speaker 5 (01:15:16):
I don't think he's super concerned about this, but he
knows that again, like Miriam Madelson is and I'm sure
Marco Rubio probably is.
Speaker 4 (01:15:22):
So it's that's how it's.
Speaker 5 (01:15:24):
But again, like I think we've talked about this recently,
it's turning kind of the online. Some of the online
online write people off and some of them it's like, okay,
so you've turned off Candace Owens, but I guess she
has a big audience.
Speaker 1 (01:15:37):
Yeah, well, we'll get to the Alex Jones, Nick Fuenttez, Yes,
that's right.
Speaker 4 (01:15:40):
We have a good coming out.
Speaker 3 (01:15:41):
For our last block.
Speaker 1 (01:15:42):
All right, let's go and get to some of these
twenty twenty eight Democratic contenders in the way they're positioning themselves.
We have a bunch of Democrats have been making some
potential twenty twenty eight moves, so we wanted to make
sure and give a little speed run through all of them.
With Dave Weigel of Semaphore, who's always out on the
campaign trail these folks and talk to these folks and
can give us some of the inside knowledge here.
Speaker 3 (01:16:03):
So great to see you, Dave.
Speaker 13 (01:16:04):
Good to be here. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (01:16:05):
So let's start with Pritzker, who is governor of Illinois.
Who I mean, it looks like he wants to run.
Speaker 13 (01:16:10):
Right fair to say he was in New Hampshire. I
don't think his playing got diverted.
Speaker 1 (01:16:13):
I think he wanted to be in New hampt Indeed,
so he said a lot of things that a lot
of Democrats were like, Oh, okay, JB, you see what
you're bringing to the table. This line in particular caught
a lot of attention. So let's go ahead and play that.
Speaker 13 (01:16:26):
Never before in.
Speaker 15 (01:16:27):
My life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization,
for disruption.
Speaker 16 (01:16:33):
But I am now these republic cannot build a moment
of peace.
Speaker 4 (01:16:53):
They help don't understand that.
Speaker 16 (01:16:54):
We will fight there with every megaphone and microphone that
we have. We must have estimate them on the soap
box and then punish them at.
Speaker 13 (01:17:03):
The ballance box.
Speaker 1 (01:17:08):
And I did see some Republicans melt down over the
hole he's calling for violence because he said they should
never know peace, et cetera. But even that I think
sort of plays to his benefit because Democrats love to
see a Republican sort of like melting down and getting
triggered over something that a Democratic candidate says, and them
standing up for themselves and not just backing down in
the Faceboks this profile too too.
Speaker 13 (01:17:28):
Oh absolutely, And I was at that event in that room.
Before he was talking, there was a montage of protests
that had happened in New Hampshire on the screen. Maggie
Hafsen was talking about the protests. It you could see
from them from the kind of the hair of people
getting up. It was an older crowd of Democratic donors,
but these are the people showing up at Tesla takedown stuff.
So he was, first of all, right, right in the
(01:17:48):
sweet spot of where Democrats want to be. Yes, right now,
resist Trump with everything you have, and not just Trump,
but resists kicking college students of the country because they
wrote the wrong essay, that sort of thing. So he's
with that second part of it. So all of us
in the room, reporters knew that that line would land
at some level. But that was perfect for him because
the next day he was at u C at Chicago,
the University with students talking about Trump's challenges the university
(01:18:12):
endowments over protests on campus, and he got asked about it.
Guys Stephen Miller, the illinary Republican Party both said he
was calling for violence, and you can see needed a
defendive that. But you can see he talks about the
ballot box. He is saying, make sure that you're showing
up and yelling at Republicans, which is not the same
as blowing things up or doing and he is in
a good position. He leaned on another part of the
(01:18:34):
sorry interviews with people, not the speech. He mentions he's Jewish,
he has funded a Holocaust museum. He does not. He
is like Jos Shapiro. He is a Jewish liberal who
is critical of something is Rael is doing and has
used that clout to say, don't go after students who
are critics of Israel. There are other questions of an answer,
like is it a genocide, et cetera, But that's one
(01:18:55):
where Democrats want to be two very good for bating
Republicans who attacking him, and that is how you get attention,
Like you can get a bad attention from that, but
that is how you get attention from having Republicans be
so annoyed at you that they're attacking you and condemning you.
Speaker 5 (01:19:08):
Yeah, and so you've covered him longer than a lot
of people paid attention to him. So do you have
a sense right now of what lane he thinks he's
taking up in potential twenty twenty eight primary.
Speaker 4 (01:19:17):
It's it's so early, and it's so silly to.
Speaker 5 (01:19:19):
Even think about that because we don't know what the
competition will be, and that determines kind of what lane
people go in. But as of right now, what sense
do you have of what he what kind of candidate
he thinks he is. He's a billionaire, arguably oligarchic.
Speaker 4 (01:19:30):
I think you asked him that.
Speaker 13 (01:19:31):
I asked him, Yeah, I asked him when I asked him,
when Bernie Sanders talks about the oligarchies, he's talking about you, and.
Speaker 1 (01:19:36):
But defied upon the screenwall, Dave's talking. We pulled your
answer here, but go ahead, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 13 (01:19:41):
And he gave an answer, which is that, no, I
when he talks people talk about the aligarchy, they're talking
about people who were taking over the government giving favors themselves,
and that's not me I'm about And I had asked
him a separate question about he's very in favor of
progressive income taxes where the administration is trying to replace those.
Not really, but they're saying they're trying to place income
taxes with the tariff, and he was against that, and
(01:20:03):
so he's he is running as a sort of he
didn't say class trader, but sort of as a class trader.
I've been very successful. I'm a billionaire. I want to
take the government, reorient the resource to you that is progressive,
and that with some work done early on to say,
but I'm yes, I'm a billionaire. I'm not like those
others and there are other quite like we're two years
fro him announcing maybe will he spend his own money
(01:20:25):
like he has in Illinois, because that has irritated progressives.
Him spending I think three hundred and fifty million dollars
between all his campaigns of his own money. And if
you're worth you're a billionaire. It's hard to get poor again, right,
the investments compound, he keeps spending it. That does not
sit well with Democrats. They had Mike Bloomberg and Tom
Steyer do that in the last open primary, and it
did alienate them. I think he'll alienates even more the
(01:20:47):
way the mood their mood is going to be in
twenty twenty eight. But he's running as a progressive saying
I'm not like those other rich people. I would use
my status to redistribute income to not income, redistribute wealth
to everybody else. And then starting from there, what's that
mean to care for all?
Speaker 9 (01:21:00):
What is?
Speaker 13 (01:21:01):
He's not a Bernie candidate, but he is a progressive candidate.
Speaker 1 (01:21:04):
Interesting, and he also had some criticism by the way,
I think, you know, I actually think he should affirmatively
come out and say I'm a class trader and can
cast himself in the role I mean FDR was, you know,
was the prototypical like class trader, and I think he
could potentially get away with it. The self funding thing
is a problem both in terms of the optics but
also in terms of the reality of that means that
(01:21:25):
you don't feel like you need to solicit funds from
a grossroots base, so you don't need to be responsive
to them. So it actually can end up being a
problem for candidates politically just because they are a little
bit removed from where the base of the party is.
But I mean so far, he seems to be kind of,
you know, squarely in line and finger on the pulse,
much more so than some other candidates of where the
Democratic base is. One of the other things that he
(01:21:46):
said that you're mentioning to us is he's also critical
of Democrats democratic leadership that has been you know, seen
as being and I think legitimately so rather cowardly in
the face of Trump this time around. So you know,
talk about how that relates to how he's positioning himself.
Speaker 13 (01:22:01):
Yes, he attacked do nothing Democrats, he didn't name them,
and if you're reading, if you're reading between the lines,
it was hard to say who exactly was talking about,
except mostly James Carvel types pundits who have been saying
vaguely that the party is seen as too left wing
it needs to change somehow without explaining what that means.
So it wasn't saying, like Bernie might that this is
(01:22:21):
because of rich donors who were who want the party
to move in one direction, or because this is in
United He's not saying that. It was more generally there
are people in our party who are get scared of fighting,
and I'm not scared of fighting, and we're going to
change that, and that this has been complicated because because
the Biden record on policy on what bills were prioritized
was pretty progressive. Bernie had a big role in getting
(01:22:44):
some stuff he wanted through, and that's kind of been forgotten.
No Democrat is saying I'm going to return to what
Biden was doing, or that Biden set this up by
being too too far the right. And again, the gaza
issue is very complicated. Wasn't part of that. But what
is what is his criticism of Democrats? It's really this.
It's been pretty easy for progressive to say this. The
guys who were saying let's wait and fight Trump later,
(01:23:05):
let's not pick every fight, let's not fight about El
Salvador and Garcia, that's who he's criticizing. So it's not
quite an economic argument yet. It is that there are
people out there who attitude and only get worried and
don't want to give a comment or don't have a quote.
Here's me JB. Pritzker. I will jump out and immediately
be in front of a camera condemning something that might
pull badly. That was the key, and because I think
(01:23:26):
that fight might be over for Democrats for now. But
the Garcia thing. It was a lot of anonymous Democrats saying, please,
let's not talk about this. It was I saw heckem difference.
This week's already denying these saying, don't go to El Salvador.
But that's what he's talking about, that attitude. Are you
bold enough to just jump in and frankly, like Trump
was in twenty fifteen with Republicans, are you ready to
say something that everyone in the media is going to
say is a bad idea? That's what he was kind
(01:23:47):
of saying to Democrats.
Speaker 4 (01:23:48):
Interesting.
Speaker 5 (01:23:49):
Yeah, So let's roll Pete Bododha j Eddge a little
bit a clip of his appearance on The Flagrant Podcast.
One of the most powerful podcast appearances actually, Donald Trump
did in the twenty twenty four cycle was on that show.
So let's take a look at at Pete handling that appearance.
Pretty well, this is D two.
Speaker 17 (01:24:03):
I want everyday life to be better. That's what they
want to you get up in the morning. Yeah, but importantly,
like all the controversies are over, what that's like, Like,
I want you to be able to get up in
the morning, and the first thing you do is you
commute to work and by the way if you want
EV I want that to be affordable for you, or
if you're on public transit, not to get back into
the subway situation, but I want you to have good
(01:24:24):
public transition to get to where you're going. And then
when you get to that job, I want you to
be paid well. And if you're about to have a kid,
I want you to know that you're going to have
parental leave when you have that kid. And if you
don't want to have a kid, I want you to
have the right to choose whatever a kid, which means
access to birth control and abortion and those things that
give you the freedom to decide on that. And if
you already have a kid, when you pick them up
at school, I want that school to be good, not
(01:24:44):
having its funding slash while they set fire to the
Department of Education. And then when you get home, I
want you to be in a neighborhood that is safe
and where you can breathe the air because we didn't
let them get rid of the Clean Air Act, and
you don't have to think for one moment about whether
the airy breathe or the water you drink clean and clear,
which actually takes a lot because it means the government
has to constrain those actors that would make you unfree
(01:25:06):
by polluting there and polluting the water. And then when
you go to bed, I want you to know that
your families can be fine, even if it's family like mine,
despite there being some Supreme Court justice who wants to
obliterate your family because it doesn't match his interpretation of
his religion. Like that's the life I.
Speaker 4 (01:25:22):
Want everybody to be able to live.
Speaker 17 (01:25:23):
Yeah, and I think we can deliver that.
Speaker 4 (01:25:28):
Sort of abundance adjacent at that point. So if people are.
Speaker 5 (01:25:33):
Listening to this, they missed that Pete sort of grown
in everyman beard, which is kind of interesting. And going
on a bro podcast, how did this appearance? Did you
get a sense of how Democrats reacted to this appearance?
And maybe from your perspective as someone who's covered this,
what it says about Boodha Judge's plans for the future.
Speaker 13 (01:25:48):
Possibly that I did hear democrats say more how who
else can do this? Not just ready to give the
nomination to this guy, but who else can talk like this?
Who else can articulate? Take this? Because you mentioned abundance,
yea actually in abundance. The first chapter begins like that
is a very effective rhetorical tactic to say, imagine your
life minute by minute or hour by hour if we
(01:26:08):
get our way.
Speaker 1 (01:26:09):
It's sort of like that name of like you know,
the city looking glorious and you know, like this if
Pete Booter Jedge gets elected.
Speaker 3 (01:26:17):
Oh yeah, the.
Speaker 13 (01:26:18):
Original Green New Deal pitch was like that. Imagine you
wake up and you take cream public transit and then
you have the uh. And so that was what I heard,
not not jealousy, how do we copy this? But who
else can do that? Can Shapiro do that? Can That's
how they saw it in terms of the next presidential candidate,
in terms of rhetoric and going back to why they
lost last time. They do think that there is a
calcified democratic sultan class and really not shocking you saying
(01:26:40):
this that that is very scared of taking a risk
and saying something that might that might be hard to
defend in a debate that wants to use phrases like
opportunity economy, a phrase that you only mentioned anymore if
you're trying to say how bad it was.
Speaker 1 (01:26:54):
Pope Brothers, what's.
Speaker 13 (01:26:56):
The what's the sound bite? And and that's what he
was doing that they think other Democrats should should do.
Is how do you actually make this a memorable story
that stays in somebody's head and not talking point because
they hear a talking point. And even liberation when you
think of a concise phrase that probably sounded good in
the focus group, the next time you think of, it's
(01:27:18):
being made fun of generally. And that was what their
last nominee did a lot of to extend Obama. Sorry,
Biden had stock phrases that he'd repeat when he was younger,
and he was better. He was very good at talking
about good being at home at night with your kids
and think about your bills and waking up and wondering
how you're going to afford your family. That's very basic politics.
And that's part of this discourse is how come we
(01:27:38):
have so few people who are good at the basic
politics at that level? They have members of Congress who
are pretty good at it. But then they've got a
diferent discussion the seniority issue where they have old Democrats
who can't do it very well anymore. And that's what
they It wasn't let's give him the nomination, he's our savior.
It is how do we get Andy Basheer in that
conversation because they're Democrats who just don't who. I'm not
(01:28:00):
saying he can't do this, but Democrats have learned a
bad way of talking, and it's only dawning on him now.
This is a bad, unconvincing way of talking.
Speaker 1 (01:28:07):
Yeah, And I mean it's a it's also a sort
of subtle rebuke of the Kamala Harris like how safe
they were and how fraid she was and the you know,
the Joe Rogan not going on there.
Speaker 3 (01:28:18):
Whoever's felt that was whatever.
Speaker 1 (01:28:19):
But she has always been a politician that is very
carefully managed and very nervous about doing interviews with people
she doesn't know and not knowing how it's going to go.
And look, Pete, I'm a well established Pete hater, but
I will say I will say he did turn out
to be a pretty effective regulator in the Biden administration,
and you put him on Fox News, you put him
(01:28:40):
in setting like that, like the man has skills. So
I definitely, you know, I think he could. I certainly
think he could be a contender. He's got a lot
of name recognition, a lot of good will with the
Democratic base, So I think he could be well positioned.
The other person you just mentioned there is Andy Basheer,
who's the governor of Kentucky, who is I think still
the most popular democratic governor in the country, even though
(01:29:03):
he's governor of Kentucky, a state that is, you know,
very Trump friendly and very Republican. And you know, Anniebscher
is not a firebrand.
Speaker 3 (01:29:11):
He very much tries.
Speaker 1 (01:29:13):
To stay in the lane of like, I'm creating jobs.
He ran, you know, coming out of the teacher strike
wave against cuts to teacher's pensions and assault on education.
And you know, there's a lot of sort of backstory
there of how he's his political formation. But I just say,
and you've covered him a lot too. He's never impressed
me on like a charisma front. He's one who I
(01:29:34):
would say, you know, he's good when he's he's studied
his lines and he's got his like little you know,
Kentucky style jabs ready to go.
Speaker 3 (01:29:42):
He's one that I feel like has gotten better. And
he impressed me.
Speaker 1 (01:29:44):
It was just on Fox News and sparring with the
host there, and I thought he was pretty nimble and
handled himself pretty well. Let's go ahead and take a
listen to Andy.
Speaker 18 (01:29:53):
Basheer in the contrary to build plans. We're going to
hear announcements on that this afternoon.
Speaker 4 (01:29:57):
I guess all I'm.
Speaker 18 (01:29:58):
Saying is, isn't it worth kind of giving some of
this a try? Since he did win all of the
swing states across the country, which I know he points
out quite often. But I guess the question is the
things that voters were looking for and that got them elected,
writing our trade situation, fixing the border. Doesn't it make
(01:30:18):
sense to have at least a grace period for this
American president to see if some of this will work.
Speaker 19 (01:30:25):
I believe that Donald Trump isn't president because he talked
about trade policies. He's president because he talked about making
it easier. This idea that we can reshore immediately when
factories take three to five years to build, and even
when why not.
Speaker 4 (01:30:41):
Be built, why not begin the process?
Speaker 19 (01:30:43):
Share manufactured? Hight not begin the problem a significant way,
And our projects are being paused and they're being stalled
because even when you're building that new factory, you do
have to import certain goods. So I think you just
have facts about how this is hitting the economy, and listen,
I'm not trying to root against the president. I'm not
trying to do this because I'm a Democratic governor, he's
(01:31:05):
a Republican president. I'm doing it because I can support
any administration that helps our people. But it's my job
to speak out when the policies hurt our people.
Speaker 1 (01:31:14):
So what do you think of his prospects and how
he's positioned himself.
Speaker 13 (01:31:17):
Yeah, he is someone you hear you heard a lot
of in the Deep conversation. Uh, and he is more cautious.
So the important thing that the Peed interview is that
it was long and and a lot of Democratic staffers
don't let their bosses go on and talk for that much,
that much of a conversation because you saw this actually
with Tim Wallas yesterday. You give an hour long conversation,
five seconds get slipped on Twitter and that's all people
(01:31:38):
talk about. They're worried about that. And by the way, yeah,
I guess I'm spoiling it. But yeah, Bashier is better
at the at the I've got ten minutes to make
my case and make and soundbites, and very good at
relating to things in Kentucky because they've had a very
successful economy over the over the last six he's been
governor six years uh and can can get into the
weeds more than a host does, more than more than
(01:32:00):
Trump does. Trump is very very blase when he talks
about on shoring or Peter Navarro is and just slowing
people down and saying this is not going to work
because of here, let me, let me tell you this process.
He's been doing that when he's running in Kentucky. He
get very specific about here is how I brought this business. Here,
here's how many people employ I'm here with the ribbon cutting.
That is a different kind of politics that. Frankly, Joe
(01:32:20):
Biden did a lot of Here I am, and here
is how IRA is working. But Joe Biden was so
bad articulating it for just just charisma at that point
and articulation reasons that was a little redundant. But you
know what I mean. But Biden would give a speech
about that and all people would focus on us how
we shuffled out to it, and but shere does the
Biden thing of saying, here's how this actually works. Here's
that seriously with with like a little more youth and
(01:32:43):
a little more of ability to go back and forth
in an interviewer. But that's not the exact skill that
Democrats are looking for in the moment when they're trying
to robut Trump and say no, we do have an
economic agenda. That's part of it is can we can
we explain why because I would. I mean not to
be Tom Friedman, but I've been in cabs where he
loved Trump and they say, I love the terrorist because
he's going to bring factories back. And that is something
(01:33:04):
Democrats need to respond to because they had their own
bring factories back plan. It was what Biden was doing,
but we just said Biden didn't convince anyone he was doing.
Speaker 1 (01:33:12):
Yeah, I think the economy is going to, in a sense,
provide his own response. Yeah, it's almost like democratic messaging proof.
Speaker 5 (01:33:20):
Okay, so let's actually put D six up.
Speaker 4 (01:33:23):
This is a voiceover.
Speaker 5 (01:33:24):
You can see Gretchen Whitmer speaking of retail politics, Gretchen
Whitmer greeting President Trump as he arrived in Michigan for
his rally is one hundred day rally.
Speaker 4 (01:33:35):
And it only got.
Speaker 5 (01:33:37):
More uncomfortable from there because we have this is D
six b. Donald Trump basically calling the Democratic governor of Michigan,
Gretchen Whitmer, to the microphone while he was speaking to
a group, a military group on This was Tuesday, so
let's rule D six B.
Speaker 20 (01:34:08):
Well, I hadn't planned to speak, but I'm on behalf
of all the military men and women who serve our
country and serve so honorably, on behalf of the state
of Michigan. I am really damn happy we're here to
celebrate this recapitalization at Selfridge. It's crucial for the Michigan economy.
It's crucial for the men and women here, for our
homeland security and our future.
Speaker 4 (01:34:30):
So thank you.
Speaker 20 (01:34:31):
I'm so grateful that this announcements me today, and I
appreciate all the work.
Speaker 4 (01:34:36):
Thank you so again.
Speaker 5 (01:34:41):
If you were listening to that, you probably picked up
on how awkward it was. Watching it is even more
uncomfortable because at one point she as she's saying how
thankful she is, she turns to look at Donald Trump
as though she's about to say I'm grateful to President Trump,
realizes that she should just say I'm grateful this event
is happening, and that's what comes out of her mouth.
Speaker 3 (01:34:58):
I'm grateful that this is a thing that's happening.
Speaker 5 (01:35:01):
I'm grateful for the United States of America, Like that's
what was going on in her mind.
Speaker 4 (01:35:06):
You can just see the wheels turning.
Speaker 5 (01:35:07):
But Dave Gretchen and Whitmer, I'll also had that incident
in the Oval office not too long ago where she
was photographed covering her face with a binder, very conspicuously
looking like she was intentionally trying to cover her face
on this.
Speaker 4 (01:35:20):
So Kentucky is a redder state than Michigan.
Speaker 5 (01:35:25):
This is a very interesting, i think dichotomy or contrast
when you're looking at the way Bashir is handling the
Trump second Trump administration and Whitmer is handling the second
Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (01:35:36):
What do you make of her efforts to walk.
Speaker 5 (01:35:39):
The fine Trump line, especially in the midst of the tariff,
up ending the terraf War, up ending Michigan's economy.
Speaker 13 (01:35:46):
It hasn't gone well for her as a perspective presidential
candidate in New Hampshire. At this dinner, the Pritzkerer is
at this fundraising dinner just talking to people beforehand. People
brought that up as the first thing they knew about Whitmer.
These democrats, and these are plugged in democrats who have
see Whitmer campaign in the state before for other people,
and they have an open mind, but that already was
a strike against her. Why was it? It just was
(01:36:08):
that it made her look weak and that not that
every campaign is twenty twenty twenty, but I heard this
so much when people were looking for somebody who could
run against Trump. They really hated how it looked like
Hillary Clinton was dominated by Trump and in the town
hall debate, very superficial stuff. But I heard that again
and again, and just the fact that she didn't look
like she could stand up to Trump in the oval office.
(01:36:31):
This is a little bit different setting that came up
for her as a presidential candidate, for her as somebody
in Michigan trying to keep Democrats in power in the midterms. This,
I think that actually makes a lot of sense. She's
doing stuff that other Democrats would politically have trouble doing.
I think she has leaned into the fact that Trump
sees her as a potential presidential candidate, and it is
(01:36:52):
every time that she's there making a deal with him,
he gets to humiliate her. What she wants is something
she can come back and let, you know, Jocelyn Benson
or the other candidate's run on for her as a
for what the Democrats want to hear though Democrats who
are most active right now were very sincere that they
thought in twenty twenty four democracy was at risks. They
think right now democracy is at risk. And if they
(01:37:13):
see a Democrat making nice at all with Trump there
against it, like Janet Mills got, she's not running for
anything else. Janet Mills in Maine got like the reason
there was so much of a discussion about her was
because when she did not have decorum, when Trump was
calling her out, she responded, She responded to him, and
then he punished her state for it. Is it good
for Maine that he is punishing her state? Probably not.
(01:37:36):
And so I'm trying not trying to separate these two conversations.
But Wittmer's doing what Democrats do not want a governor
to do. It might help her party, and that if
that's what she's doing, she's not running for president, She's
trying to put her party in a good position. That'll
pay off for Democrats. They'd be easier for them to
wish Michigan if they control secretary of state, president sorry,
governor in twenty twenty eight. Then if they don't, do
(01:37:56):
you think she wants to run less and less.
Speaker 4 (01:37:59):
I think.
Speaker 13 (01:38:00):
So she's done the things you would do, which is
a pack, she's towd around the country, she wrote a book,
but it's not I wouldn't say any any female Democrat
looks at the looks at their aftermath and says they
won't nominate a woman next time. I do think that
that is part of the conversation, part of the conversation
democrats had. I heard it when I was at the
Fighting Oligarchy rallies with Bernie and AOC, because I was
(01:38:22):
looking to talk to people when I was at the
rallies who were not diehard fans. They look like they
hadn't shown up, and indeed they hadn't shown up at
a Bernie rally, and I found people who were Biden,
Warren or whatever voters, and that was the first thing
they said aout AOC. I love her, but a woman
can't win. And I do think that is part of
that's that's in the air right now with Democrats. Is
she now saying I'm never going to run for president?
Maybe not, but I think it's it's it's clearly less
(01:38:45):
in her front of vision than it is for Pritzker Shapiro,
who every Democrat tells them that they they have potential,
they run for president with Whitmer. She is wounded by
what happened in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1 (01:38:59):
So the last one we have here on our list
is Governor Tim Wallas, of course, was the vice presidential pick,
who you know, Republicans absolutely hate this guy. Think he's
a total flaw, disaster, terrible choice of the ticket. Democrats,
including myself, still have a lot of affection for him,
think that he has talent, think that certainly the agenda
in Minnesota is something that you know, he should be
(01:39:20):
proud of and something Democrats should have leaned into. More So,
he referred to this clip earlier. He recently, he's been
doing a lot and one of the things that he
asserted recently is that, you know, he was brought onto
the ticket to basically be able to code switch and
talk to white men.
Speaker 3 (01:39:36):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 21 (01:39:37):
I knew I was on the ticket. I would argue
because we did a lot of amazing progressive things in
Minnesota that improved people's lives. But I also was on
the ticket quite honestly, you know, because I could code
talk to white guys watching football fixing their truck during
that that I could put them at ease.
Speaker 17 (01:39:54):
I was the.
Speaker 21 (01:39:54):
Permission structure to say, look, you can do this and.
Speaker 4 (01:39:57):
Vote for this.
Speaker 3 (01:39:58):
So what did you make of that clip? And it's important?
Speaker 13 (01:40:01):
Yeah, I hope postishs don't stop being honest because that
clip has not played well. He was doing what some
politicians do, which is they've read. He's read about what
happened in the campaign. He's in repeating back some of
what he's heard since then. The word permission structure, term,
permission structure, very good poly side term. I use it
all the time. You're the usual role for candidates or
(01:40:22):
governors is don't use that jargon.
Speaker 4 (01:40:26):
Say code talk or code talk.
Speaker 13 (01:40:27):
But I think he was responded. It was at Harvard
i IOP audience, and he was in that. He was honestly.
That's a sign that he's not thinking what's my next
step for president? Because he's just very bluntly answering these questions.
And I talked to him on some of the one
of the town hall stops he did as he's been
going these districts and have events, and he's not being
very strategic. Here is our plan. It's a combination of
he will vent a little bit about why not vent
(01:40:49):
self analyzed why they lost, which is not he's not
doing here's what we did wrong and how I figured
it out. It's a bit like Evin Newsome. I don't
know how he got it wrong. They have they have
a similar course about the last campaign, which is I'm
still figuring this out, folks, you tell me what went wrong.
And he mentioned the record Minnesota a little bit. That
is a difference that's already emerging is Pritzker will talk
(01:41:10):
about the progressive record in Illinois, but sheer Camp because
Republicans run legislature in Kentucky. His record is much more
about job creation and stopping some things Republicans wanted to
do or vetoing it and not stopping it like some
of the trans legislation. And that's kind of the difference
in this field, is that Shapiro and right now, because
of the split in Michigan, Whitmer and Bisher are talking
(01:41:33):
about working with Republicans. Pritzker is talking about fighting, fighting
Republicans and winning for Democrats and specifically what's the policy
I've done. That is already a difference because it's not
going to be a very Senator heavy field. I don't
think in twenty twenty eight it is going to be
people who had this experience governing different skill level. You're
not surrounded by Washington reported all day. This has been
(01:41:55):
a problem even for Walls, who did have struggle a
little bit when he was at a high level of
competition and interview. But that's already a difference you're seeing
is who can talk about what they did versus who
can talk about how they fight Republicans. That is an anomaly,
is Tim Wall saying to a by a friendly audience, Yeah,
here's how the campaign thought about it. And the final
part say on that you do hear no one is
(01:42:18):
as we get from it from that campaign. Democrats are
more comfortable blaming the very consultant, heavy thinking, the very
risk averse thinking that they engaged in. And they're not
naming people saying this strategist is bad, this one's terrible.
They are saying that campaign was very thrown together in
phony and when Biden was the ticket, dishonest about well
(01:42:39):
how good Biden was on the stump, and we can't
do that again. And that is how you start to
get there by saying by awkward phrases like code talk.
I appreciate that as a reporter that you're starting to
say the party had a very lego like view of
the electorate, that we need to add some things together,
and that is wrong. So I think it's sophisticated what
he's saying. Will it help him in a poll next week?
(01:43:00):
But that's how were not somewhere's.
Speaker 1 (01:43:01):
Head at And is it your sense that AOC is
building up for a run.
Speaker 13 (01:43:04):
I wouldn't have ever thought that. I always thought that
it made more sense for her to run for Senate.
Not that I'm not that I'm like giving her advice,
but because because what she is doing now is because
she's polling well in these very early polls, because people
are talking about her, she has the ability to do
what Sanders did in two campaigns, which is drive the
(01:43:25):
conversation to progressive policy. Because if there's no one like
that you saw this in twenty twenty four with Biden,
if there's not a primary, then then you are not
having a policy discussion. You're responding to Republicans, You're not
having a discussion aside the party. You're responding to op
eds and by James Carville or something. So for that
role and Princeer's not doing all of that, but she
hasn't really done that she has. This is the paradox
(01:43:46):
of AOC right now, as she's gotten more popular, she
is not saying and here is a bold new Green
New Deal proposal that I have that I wanted to
talk about. She is attacking Trump. So I think if
she sees a way to change the party, that would
make sense for her to run for president. She's doing great.
It's week by week how she's responding. But we saw
yesterday Lee Zelden saying the Green New Deal is dead,
(01:44:07):
and as the one of the sherpas of the Green
New Deal in the Congress, AOC wasn't responding to that.
She was talking about whether she'd be on oversight and
if that's a good role for her to have to
fight Trump.
Speaker 9 (01:44:16):
It is.
Speaker 13 (01:44:16):
She's very interested in had Democrats being credible and people
looking at them as a party that actually fights the
super rich, et cetera. So if she sees a way
to do that for his presidential campaign, sure, but she's
not doing that right now. And that's been been interesting
to me because getting into the discourse, change the discourse
if you're not Donald Trump is pretty tricky. She can
do it, and she hasn't really been doing it right.
Speaker 3 (01:44:38):
Very interesting, Dave, thank you so much. Great to see you.
Speaker 13 (01:44:41):
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (01:44:41):
Yeah, a pleasure.
Speaker 5 (01:44:45):
Mark Andresen made comments on a new edition of The
Ben and Mark Show about which particular professions might be
best equipped to handle the oncoming the incoming onslaught of
job loss from Jenner of artificial intelligence, and you know, Crystal,
it's it's pretty convenient what he landed on. So let's
take a look at this clip. Let's roll of the
(01:45:07):
first element here.
Speaker 22 (01:45:08):
So the great vcs have a success you know, record
of getting i don't know, two out of ten or
something in the great companies of the decade, right, and
so you know, if it was a science, you could
eventually have somebody who just like dials it and he
gets eight out of ten. But in in in the
real world, it's not like that. Yeah, you know, it's
just it's you're you're in the fluke business. And so
there's there's this and there's a there's an intangibility to it.
(01:45:30):
There's a taste aspect the human relationship, aspect of the psychology.
By the way, a lot of it is psychological analysis,
like who are these people? How do they react under pressure?
How do you keep them from falling apart? How do
you you know, how do you keep them going crazy?
How do you keep from going crazy yourself?
Speaker 3 (01:45:45):
Uh?
Speaker 22 (01:45:45):
You know, you end up being a psychologist half the time.
And so like it it is possible. I don't want
to be definitive, but like it's possible that that is
quite literally timeless. And when you know, when the ais
are doing everything else, like that may be one of
the last remaining fields that the people are filing.
Speaker 4 (01:46:00):
Crystal is absolutely losing it. We could get this. It's
very convenient.
Speaker 5 (01:46:05):
It's very convenient that vcs will be those who emerge
unscathed from the onslaught of job blast from AI Crystal.
And you again not wrong, right that there is some
element of like subjectivity involved in venture capitalism that you
can't replace with machines. And it's just there are also
(01:46:25):
a lot of other professions that we think we can
replace with machines that actually we probably can't fully replace
with machines. But it's sort of amusing that Andresen sees
venture capitalism as the one that will probably be spared
because it's simply too valuable.
Speaker 1 (01:46:41):
See, I think it's the total opposite. Like I think
vcs would be one of the easiest things to replace
with robots, right right, because the thing is like if
you chumans, you know, if you have a relationship with
the person.
Speaker 3 (01:46:54):
And by the way, a lot.
Speaker 1 (01:46:56):
Of these vcs, the way they invest is basically like,
oh I know this person from another deed, it's very
relationship in network case, which makes you inherently very biased
in that process.
Speaker 3 (01:47:06):
So I think this is one of the areas.
Speaker 1 (01:47:07):
That is, you know, that is ripe to be taken
over by robots who can just like crunch the numbers,
what is the business done, and be able to much
more effectively decide which ones are likely to succeed in
which ones are not.
Speaker 5 (01:47:22):
Well, this is why I think it's funny, because that's
generally my perspective on generative AI, Yeah, is that like
there are things that can be done without human involvement
that you can mostly outsource to these machines.
Speaker 4 (01:47:34):
But I just use the word.
Speaker 5 (01:47:35):
Mostly because I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea, whether it's
a VC or journalism that's self interested of course, but
you know, all kinds of difference.
Speaker 1 (01:47:45):
There is timeless it's timeless. I don't think you can
replace it.
Speaker 4 (01:47:48):
You're replaceable.
Speaker 3 (01:47:48):
I think pretty much everything else you can replace, but
not us.
Speaker 4 (01:47:51):
Yeah, that's we did make a I say we.
Speaker 5 (01:47:56):
I did make an image for a group chat of
babys and glasses and a tiny suit yesterday. So those
are there are some things that they can do that
they get right. The machines can do really good work, Crystal.
But in all seriousness, I think the human touch is
important to way more professions than a lot of people
who are super bullish on AI realize. And so I'm
(01:48:17):
actually sympathetic to the point that venture capitalism has a
human element that's important, just like I'm sympathetic to most
jobs having a human element that's important. Because even if
it's true, I think it is true that VC is
probably one of those areas that you could do so
much of it with.
Speaker 4 (01:48:33):
The generative AI.
Speaker 5 (01:48:36):
I don't think any of these careers should have the
many of these careers should actually have a lot of
this outsourced without a significant chunk of the human element remaining.
I don't even think it's good for efficiency, to be honest,
if we define efficiency as also providing for the common
good in an efficient way. So it's sort of a
funny like two sides of the coin, or you know,
it's almost a catch twenty two with Indresin's point there,
(01:48:58):
because I do, like yes, like.
Speaker 4 (01:49:00):
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Speaker 5 (01:49:02):
But thank you for you know, saying that you, as
a person who is helping orchestrate this mass transformation of
the labor force, will be protected or should be protected,
right because you're just.
Speaker 1 (01:49:13):
That smart, because he recognizes his own humanity, even if
exactly recognize anyone else's humanity exactly, and how essential that
could could be to you know, society, the.
Speaker 3 (01:49:22):
World, et cetera.
Speaker 1 (01:49:23):
Because it's also not like you know, okay, these guys
will say out in the open, our goal is to
effectively replace all human labor, yep, and we'll talk openly
about how it's going to require a complete change of
the social contract. And but you know, but they're just
forging ahead without actually laying any of the groundwork for
(01:49:43):
this purported massive change and destruction of the requirement for
any human labor and upending of the social contract.
Speaker 3 (01:49:50):
Et cetera.
Speaker 1 (01:49:51):
They're just pushing forward with no breaks on whatsoever.
Speaker 3 (01:49:56):
You know.
Speaker 1 (01:49:56):
And by the way, I mean, there is something really
very not only anti human, but Naomi Climb makes this
makes this case that it's like also anti creation because
you are feeding into these AI machines, all of these
like you know resources that the world, the planet, the
you know, the the beings that live on this planet,
(01:50:18):
not just humans need to be able to thrive in
order to create our own replacements.
Speaker 3 (01:50:23):
This sort of like mirror world.
Speaker 1 (01:50:25):
Replacement for all of us, but in any case, not
replacement for him, because he is essential and could never
be replaced by these machines that are essential work. Yeah,
he's the essential worker, you know. I want to I
want to actually skip forward to E three because Derek
Thompson wrote a piece tracking the employment data for college graduates,
(01:50:48):
and there are some potential signs there that AI is
already starting to hit in terms of eliminating the need
for some college graduates. He says, something alarming is happy
to the job market, and some of the data that
he relies on here is the same that we've been
looking at at how much the how many college grads
(01:51:09):
are applying to law school. Now we read that as
a recession indicator of like, you know, if you are
graduating from college and things are not looking too great
with the whole trade war situation. You're like, you know what,
let me postpone my entry into the job force by
going into law school, and you know, see how things
are in a few years, see if things have gotten better.
But he is tracking what is called the grad grad gap.
(01:51:34):
The total employment might as recent grad unemployment. So how
much do you benefit from having a college degree? And
basically that metric has fallen off a cliff in terms
of job prospects for new college graduates. And one of
the theoretical possibilities for why that is the case is
that you know, instead of hiring twenty graduates, maybe you
(01:51:54):
get too and chat GPT because a lot of what
new college graduates do going into collar jobs is this
sort of like you know, spreadsheet jocking and pulling data
and doing like the work analysis for more senior people
at whatever company that you're at. And that is the
sort of thing that you could easily see chat GPT,
(01:52:15):
your GROP or whatever helping to provide that initial research
and analysis.
Speaker 3 (01:52:22):
So, you know, it's not clear that that's.
Speaker 1 (01:52:24):
What's going on here, but it is very possible that
we're already seeing in the data, the way that AI
is going to impact the labor force.
Speaker 5 (01:52:32):
Yeah, and the law school we talked about this yesterday.
The law school applications being up is quite that's a
stark indicator of what people are encountering. And it's graduation
month right now, so we're going to get a whole
flood of I think anecdotal reports and probably data too
about where people are landing in such an uncertain environment.
(01:52:54):
And you know, we remember as millennials how the recession
and changed that general like that changed the general completely
shaped our generation, shaped our politics and our culture. And
we could be looking at another really sort of crucible
type moment for gen Z.
Speaker 3 (01:53:12):
Yeah, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1 (01:53:14):
Yeah, he says, today's college graduates are entering an economy
that is relatively worse for young college grads than any
month on record going back for decades, So even worse
than the environment that you know, millennials graduated into the
financial crisis.
Speaker 5 (01:53:28):
And when there's uncertainty, and yeah, when there's when there's
uncertainty at the level that there is now, you're not adding, right,
You're you're sort of risk averse and you're staying with
what you have and so it's it's incredibly tough right now.
So it was already actually pretty hard based on how
the later labor forces changed and based on what people
are actually studying in college.
Speaker 4 (01:53:48):
But this is really difficult.
Speaker 1 (01:53:51):
One other piece of this that we just wanted to mention,
which is pretty wild. Put the second element here up
on the screen. So apparently in California, AI bots are
now stealing millions of dollars in federal financial aid. They
basically use AI to mass enroll in community colleges and
then you know, pocket this like the PELL grant aid,
(01:54:12):
and then you know, and that makes it unavailable for
actual students. They call them the scammers are known as
PELL runners, and they disappear after they collect their seventy
four hundred dollars federal grant. This is with regard to
California community colleges in particular. But you know, this is
a pretty widespread, pretty widespread scam that's going on right now.
(01:54:37):
As early as twenty twenty one, the Chancellor's office in
California estimated that twenty percent of the applications they were
receiving were fraudulent. Now increasingly sophisticated AI tools that made
the problem worst recent data suggest around thirty four percent
of California community college applicants are fake. Despite California allocating
over one hundred and fifty million dollars since twenty twenty
(01:54:57):
two towards cybersecurity help authenticate students and combat fraud at
community colleges, gammers have successfully stolen more financial aid with
each passing year.
Speaker 4 (01:55:06):
So shocking, cool, Yeah, it's the future, brave new world.
Speaker 1 (01:55:10):
Yes, indeed, indeed, should we talk about Alex Jones?
Speaker 3 (01:55:13):
Why not your fave?
Speaker 4 (01:55:15):
Let's do it so.
Speaker 1 (01:55:18):
Alex Jones recently in conversation with Nick Fuenttez, who is
a Nazi and has been criticizing Fuontez has been like
criticizing Trump for a while. So in any case, Alex
Jones also waded into some of the waters of like
beginning to a little bit timidly criticize some of what
Trump's up to.
Speaker 3 (01:55:38):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 23 (01:55:40):
You have very high priority fifteen hundred people with a
legal right to be here. They're being expedited, their removal
is being expedited for no reason other than they criticized
the fact that you know, we're supporting this foreign war.
Speaker 4 (01:55:52):
So I think, Oh, here's where I'm at.
Speaker 15 (01:55:53):
Though in general, I see the whole a lot of
the populis conservative space spinning half the time on this,
and I just I mean, I think it's way more dangerous.
Trump saying we're looking to deporting citizens.
Speaker 4 (01:56:06):
To El salbudor.
Speaker 15 (01:56:07):
Now, that's some constitutional and that is really bad.
Speaker 13 (01:56:12):
I agree with that.
Speaker 23 (01:56:14):
And then again, though I don't think that's a real
policy that hasn't happened. What is really happened.
Speaker 15 (01:56:18):
They're talking about using the enemy combatana to do it
for regular crime.
Speaker 23 (01:56:20):
It's I don't I think that's one of those throwaway comments.
Speaker 4 (01:56:24):
Do you think it's him truing.
Speaker 23 (01:56:25):
I think they're flooding the zone with pooh like ban
And said, I don't know if you'd swear on the show,
but they're flooding the zone with with with a bunch
of nonsense bullshit, so.
Speaker 3 (01:56:34):
Kind of interesting.
Speaker 1 (01:56:35):
It feels to me like there's a little bit of
like a shell game going on here with Alex Jones
where he is uncomfortable with like the reason Flint has
and people aligned with him object to the detentions of
Mosan Dowie and others who have been critical at israel
Is because they are actual anti Semites. Yeah, and they
actually hate Choose and so they end up in the
(01:56:57):
right position of like, we should stand against this and
you should be able to criticize Israel, but they do
so for you know, actually abhorrent reasons. And Alex Jones
doesn't really want to get cross eyes wise with that. No, so,
but so what he says is like, we're spending too
much time talking about this thing when what I'm really
concerned about is the threat to deport US citizens to
(01:57:21):
El Salvador and you know, Fuentez comes down. Oh, that's
not really happening yet, but this is really happening. But
in any case, kind of an interesting dynamic playing out
there on the fringes of the right.
Speaker 5 (01:57:31):
Yeah, and Alex Jones posted a video last night where
it's sort of summarized, so it says in this important breakdown,
Alex Jones explains that his criticism of Trump on a
few issues come from a place of deep respect and
love designed to support Trump and his overall pro human agenda.
As an example, Trump's fifty first state ongoing joke about
Canada just handed the World Economic Forum even greater control
than they had under Trudeau, which back check, yes, absolutely
(01:57:54):
because Mark Carney central banker is now in charge of
Canada and he likely would not have been Donald Trump
hadn't done this ongoing fifty first state joke about Canada.
Speaker 4 (01:58:04):
And so that's.
Speaker 5 (01:58:04):
Interesting because it's Alex Jones even like taking issue with
the style of trump Ism on the Israel stuff. Yeah,
that like sort of handholding emoji, Like that's how I'm
seeing it with the actual anti Semites and the civil libertarians.
And it's not the civil libertarians like actively trying to
hold hands with the.
Speaker 4 (01:58:22):
Literal neo Nazis.
Speaker 5 (01:58:23):
It's more than neo Nazis like grabbing the hands of
the civil libertarians and being like, look, we're in this
together now, and Alex Jones is.
Speaker 4 (01:58:30):
Trying to be like, yeah, no, we're not.
Speaker 5 (01:58:33):
But it's hard because there are serious civil liberty concerns
on the tables that I was thinking about this morning.
I mean, one of the I think it was it
was a huge wake up call for the right where
they were holding hands with the civil libertarians in twenty
seventeen twenty eighteen, when people like.
Speaker 4 (01:58:48):
Carter Page were being unlawfully spied on.
Speaker 5 (01:58:51):
By our intelligence community by the FBI when they didn't
take all the steps they needed to secure their FISA warrant,
they lied on the fight, all of that stuff. It's
like all of that has just been thrown out the window.
And like that's something that the Alex Jones universe was
furious about, was the FBI fudging the rules and ways
they did to spy on Muslims during the Bush administration,
(01:59:12):
the Obama administration. I mean, the it was all out
there for everyone to see. And now it's like, just
full steam ahead, don't worry about any of this stuff.
We'll get back to a place and we trust Trump
exactly exactly. And Alex Jones, to your point, is someone
who's very much like trusting of Donald Trump. So it's
(01:59:33):
very interesting. I think that's not wrong. Like this criticism
of him is from.
Speaker 4 (01:59:38):
Him is very interesting.
Speaker 1 (01:59:39):
I Mean, the other dynamic that's playing out here is
like there's a reason Alex Jones wants to have Nick
Quantaz on a show because Nick Fantas is popular with
some portion, probably a significant portion of Alex Jones's audience,
Which makes sense because Alex Jones' is conspiracy theorist. That's
his whole shit, and the ultimate like timeless conspiracy theory
is that the Jews control every Yeah, and so Nick
(02:00:01):
Fuentes is sort of like out conspiracizing.
Speaker 3 (02:00:04):
Is that a word, Alex Jones. Yeah, which is why
Jon he's too He's.
Speaker 1 (02:00:10):
Too nervous to actually say, like you can't like stop
fixating and saying Juice control everything and just being like
an out and out anti Semite yep, because that would
be very unpopular with the audience base that he's created
and with his brand positioning as like the ultimate conspiracy theorist.
So instead he has to couch it in just like, well,
I think you're fixating on that a little too much.
Speaker 5 (02:00:31):
Well, so Fuentes is ay, he's Catholic, and Alex Jones,
I'll say, as an evangelical, there are a lot of
like evangelical Christians who have now after COVID fallen into
at least being like Alex Jones curious, if not like
big Alex Jones supporters, but Alex Jones curious.
Speaker 4 (02:00:50):
That's also a group of people that is very pro.
Speaker 5 (02:00:52):
Israel, oh yeah, and very adverse to anti Semitism and
so from like a very sensitive to claims of anti Semitism,
and so I think Alex Jones is in this interesting
place where I mean you and I both remember like
in the mid auts, Alex Jones was way more popular
with people on the left because of a lot of
nine to eleven stuff.
Speaker 4 (02:01:11):
He was like in those bass.
Speaker 5 (02:01:13):
Rogan gets to be friends exactly, yeah, yeah, And so
he has such a strange coalition of people who follow him.
I think he feels pressure, not just in substance, but
like actually in being able to maintain the project that
he's overseeing. He sees himself overseeing as he feels some
pressure to try and like say, the Emperor has no
(02:01:35):
clothes when it comes to Flint does, and to try
to undercut Nick fent Flint does, or just like be
seen in debate with Nick Flint does, so that it
takes power away from Nick Flinty.
Speaker 1 (02:01:46):
He's you're making when you're making Alex Jones look moderate
and reasonable, Well, that's a wild place to be.
Speaker 5 (02:01:53):
I do also think that, like we can talk about
whatever Alex Jones's motivations are for this, he seems quite different.
Even some of his followers are criticizing him for seeming
different in recent.
Speaker 1 (02:02:05):
Tell me more about that, because I can't claim to
be like a regular viewer or particularly in touch with
his audience.
Speaker 5 (02:02:11):
No, I'm not a really viewer either, but he has
been a more regular presence in some conservative circles, like
he goes on talker show and I think again, like
we can criticize his motivations for this, but I think
he definitely was changed by his experience in court with
the Sandy.
Speaker 24 (02:02:28):
Hook stuff, and there was a consequence when there was
any and even if that consequence is sort of disproportionate,
which I'm not even going to start debating, that's definitely
Tucker's take on it.
Speaker 5 (02:02:39):
But even if that's true, he seems like, you know, again,
maybe he's doing it for the wrong reasons. To paraphrase
everyone on The Bachelor, but he seems like he's more
careful and cautious his followers, not all of them, but
there's like a sub sect. It's like funtest world, which
is why he wanted to debate Alex.
Speaker 3 (02:02:57):
Jones truly became president.
Speaker 5 (02:02:59):
Yes, it's finally right, but Flint's world does criticize him
for being Ah. I'm sure they call him a Zionist,
and I'm sure they say that he's been like co
opted by the vast Zionist conspiracy, just like Donald Trump.
And I think that's where he feels pressure to debate
flint Us and push back and try to put some
some guardrails up at least on that. But yeah, I
(02:03:20):
mean Oxtions is in an interesting place right now. Some
of his people think he's not hardcore enough anymore. He
definitely lost his edge. He has some guardrails obviously because
of the court situation.
Speaker 4 (02:03:32):
And to your point, don't you.
Speaker 3 (02:03:33):
Also think though that because there are.
Speaker 1 (02:03:36):
So much, so many wild conspiracies on the like, it's
hard for him to keep up, and not just with
Fontes but also like that, you know, all the QAnon
stuff and whatever.
Speaker 24 (02:03:47):
Like.
Speaker 1 (02:03:47):
He used to be the only game in town for
this kind of content, and now he's got a lot
of competitors. Then they're pretty fierce in terms of like
the you know, remember back in the campaign they thought
that the Democrats made the hurricane, Like, you know, like
he used to be really kind of have a corner
on that market and now there's a lot of competition
in the space.
Speaker 5 (02:04:06):
But a lot of those people still sort of I
don't want to say Revere, but a lot of those
people still pick up on Alex Jones's cues and follow
him and will like, you know, be deferential respectful of
Alex Jones is sort of like the figurehead of that
movement which a lot of people feel like was vindicated
around the time of COVID, And that's one of those
things where it's like he has been correct about certain
(02:04:28):
conspiracies and it gives him this power.
Speaker 1 (02:04:31):
The funny thing now is that, like, you know, all
the things they said about the World Economic Forum, they
want you to like have new things and eat bugs
and whatever. It's like now Trump is like, you can
only have two dollars, yes.
Speaker 5 (02:04:40):
And Trump is like welcoming like Scott Bessont who comes
from Sorels World into the fold. And besson is now
the architect, the man who's seen is like the trusted
figure of Trump's entire economic policy. So it's a very
odd time. The internal politics of this are very odd.
The Tucker the recent Tucker interview with Alection is quite
interesting because it's Tucker marveling at the fact that Alex
(02:05:03):
Jones predicted nine to eleven, which people dispute. He did
have some he made some comments before nine to eleven
that I think we're genuinely.
Speaker 3 (02:05:11):
Like pretty pression.
Speaker 4 (02:05:12):
Yeah, they're pretty prescient.
Speaker 5 (02:05:14):
But Tucker basically saying like, you were right about this,
and ever since the government has tried to silence you.
So this is where the power comes from of being
prescient on a couple of different things. So he does
have more competition now from the media that he helped democratize.
Speaker 4 (02:05:30):
Right, Like you said, Info Wars.
Speaker 5 (02:05:31):
Really was the only game in town and like some
weird even weirder blogs, But now you know, you can
say this stuff on x and you can say this
stuff on Rumble, so everyone's sort of in the game.
It's been democratized to the point where he does have
a harder time sort of holding conspiracy worlds together.
Speaker 3 (02:05:53):
This is why I love talking to you about.
Speaker 5 (02:05:54):
Oh, I'm not even that deep, Like you should talk
to some of.
Speaker 4 (02:05:57):
My friends, like Sager, my friend.
Speaker 5 (02:05:58):
You should talk to some of that, Like I'll be
able to give you a much more granular reading of the.
Speaker 4 (02:06:03):
Internal might need to do that. We should do that.
Speaker 5 (02:06:06):
Usually because I'm not even that deep, people would listen
to me and be like okay, yeah, yet, like.
Speaker 4 (02:06:11):
Flint is actually blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (02:06:13):
I'm like, oh, gosh, I try to stay out of it,
but we should get one of them on.
Speaker 1 (02:06:18):
Yeah, I like that. That'll be fun, all right, guys.
So that is a show for today. We are we
have our Friday show tomorrow. It looks like so baby
has not come as of ten twenty four am on Thursday,
but I do think Sager is now out for his
paternity leave just to be there for his wife and
make sure that they are ready to go. So we
are wishing him well. So you guys are going to
(02:06:39):
see you know, different hosts. Oh, it's exciting switching Around'll
go ahead. So on Monday, actually Glenn Greenwald is going
to co host with me for a portion of the show,
which would be super fun, which.
Speaker 3 (02:06:49):
I'm looking forward to.
Speaker 1 (02:06:50):
So we are going to bring in some sort of
like guest outside hosts, but also we'll be you know,
you and me and Ryan and we'll be mixing up
the hosting duties all around to cover for Soccer while
he is on maternity leave, and which is something we're
going to continue into the future as well, because that
has I think you guys have you know received that
really well, Like everybody seems to be enjoying the different dynamics.
(02:07:11):
We're enjoying the different dynamics. It's fun to get to
host with all of the all of the co hosts
here and so yeah, that's what's going on. So we'll
see you guys Friday, and then I will see you
on Monday with Glenn Greenwold.
Speaker 3 (02:07:23):
Have a great day, guys,