5/13/25: Rand Paul Rips Trump On China, Airport Safety Collapse, Hasan Piker Detained & MORE!

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Good morning, everybody, Welcome to Breaking Points. We have a
very special show this morning because we're being joined by
a celebrity guest host. Tim Miller is host of the
Bulwark podcast. You can find that on YouTube, and a
joins us now. Great to see you, Tim.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
Hey, christ I'm excited to dialogue. I heard yesterday we're
going to be dialoguing today, so looking.

Speaker 4 (00:54):
Forward to that.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
Yeah, hopefully I'll be a little bit more engaging than
I was at that particular moment yesterday. It's funny that
you were WT in the show, though, no, I know,
I have to be on my time.

Speaker 4 (01:02):
I had to do my OPO before I came on.

Speaker 5 (01:05):
You know, well, I read your book.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
I was telling you I read your book up through
the elastophonic part because I just like, you know, sometimes
I feel like like I was trying to read Elon
Musk's biography and I just felt like there was too
much Elon Musk in real life, and I was kind
of overwhelmed by it. So that's a little bit how
I felt when I got to that section of your book.

Speaker 3 (01:23):
I hear that totally. It's a slog for me to
read political books. I try to read mostly gay fiction
or like autocratic history, which is a little bit close
to our reality.

Speaker 4 (01:34):
But that's what I'm reading now.

Speaker 3 (01:36):
So I'm with you, and I give you dispensation for
quitting the book during the early sephonics section.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
Well, you can fill me and we're going to talk
to you a little bit about the book, which I
love the title you called it, why we did it
in a little OJ nod there, about your years as
a Republican hatchetman and how you sort of transitioned and
you know, ended up where you are, and also you
dig into the person types that really populate this town.

(02:03):
And this is not necessarily a writer or a left thing,
but the type of mindset that political operatives can get
in and end up justifying things, and that you yourself talked about.
You know, you were a compartmentalizer, how you justified flacking
for politicians who are anti gay even as you yourself
were a gay man. So I want to talk to

(02:23):
you about all of that stuff, and then we got
a bunch of news stories to get through. I want
to get your take on the China trade war, on
the latest failures at Newark Airport. Seohn Duffey knows exactly
who to blame, it's definitely not him. I want to
talk to you about some Democratic Party stuff too, with
David Hogg and the back and forth with regarding Jim Clyburn.
There's some news out this morning from that Alex Thompson

(02:45):
Jake Tapper book too, about how Staffords were concerned Biden
would be so physically frail that he may have to
use a wheelchair were he to be re elected. And
then was say goodbye to you unfortunately, because you have
other things to do with your life as well, and
David started going to join.

Speaker 5 (03:00):
To talk about Trump's fake prescription.

Speaker 2 (03:02):
Drug executive order, and I'm going to talk about Hassan
Piker being detained for hours and grilled about his political
views at the airport.

Speaker 5 (03:09):
Did you catch that story? I was wondering if you
had a no.

Speaker 3 (03:11):
I I'm excited to watch your segment on it because
I saw like he sent a tweet or whatever about it,
and I guess he was grilled. But I have not
heard all the details that I'm very intrigued to know
because I'm the immigration stuff. To me on a list
of things that I'm not thrilled about from the Trump administration,
just the treatment of folks, especially over I'm not a

(03:35):
big Hassan fan, right especially, but like the idea that
we are going to grill people over their political activism
in this country or jail somebody over and outbed insane.
So I'll tune in for it even I'm checking out perfect.

Speaker 2 (03:48):
All right, let's go ahead and get to the latest
with regard to Trump's trade war. As you guys know,
we covered yesterday that he backed off some of the
largest tariffs that had been levied against China. Yes and
press conference, he explained his view of what's going on here,
let's take a listen to that.

Speaker 6 (04:04):
In addition, yesterday we achieved a total reset with China
after productive talks in Geneva. Both sides now agreed to
reduce the tariffs imposed after April second to ten percent
for ninety days as negotiators continue in the largest structural issues.
And I want to tell you that a couple of things.

(04:27):
First of all, that doesn't include the tariffs that are
already on that are our tariffs, And it doesn't include
tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, things such as that, or
tariffs that may be imposed on pharmaceuticals, because we want
to bring the pharmaceutical businesses back to the United States
and they're already starting to come back now based on tariffs.

Speaker 2 (04:49):
So, Tim, I saw you fighting with Stephen Miller yesterday
online over all of this.

Speaker 5 (04:53):
So I mean, what is your view of what's unfolded here?

Speaker 3 (04:56):
Well, I mean it's a reduction of tariffs from trade
embargo that he had put in place that had I
don't think any really achievable end or objective moving the
tariffs up to one hundred and forty five percent. And
then it's like the dear leader is granted you relief.
We're down to thirty percent now, but but the tariff
on Chinese goods before he came in was ten percent.

(05:18):
So now we have a twenty percentage point or three
hundred percent increase on the amount of tariffs that consumers
are going to pay. So you know, if you're a
new mother or new parent, new father that is buying
a stroller or a car seat that has components made
in China, that's going to cost you're gonna have to

(05:38):
pay a thirty percent tax on that that you wouldn't
have had to last year. So I mean, this is
this stuff is going to cost more for working people.
Steven Miller's pushback to me on this was that, like,
I want all manufacturing to happen in Asia, which I don't.
I'm supportive of American manufacturing. There's a lot of ways
to encourage manufacturing here in America. I don't think a

(06:02):
totally insane trade war that is haphazard, that doesn't have
clear objectives. Where the numbers it's thirty one day, then
it's eighty, then it's one hundred and forty, then then
it's seventy. Now it's down to thirty again. How is
that helping to create a manufacturing in America. If anything,
that's creating uncertainty for businesses that might want to open

(06:23):
a plant here. Manufacturing was down in April, according to
you know, the government's kind of assessments. We had to
slow down to manufacturing, which isn't surprising again because there
was all this uncertainty out there. So I don't you know, look,
if we had to do targeted tariffs on microchips or
on certain pharmaceuticals because we don't want to be reliant

(06:43):
on China, could we could talk about that. I'm open
to that, But like this like just sort of totally
haphazard teriff regime has been a disaster, and the evidence
of the disasters that they've had to walk down from
it's without getting any con.

Speaker 2 (07:00):
Yeah, I mean, that's there's so much there because you know,
his supporters keep going back and forth from like, oh,
these this vast terror regime is going to create all
these manufacturing jobs, which to your point is not true,
at least not in the short to medium term. We
already see manufacturing investment declining. And then they when he
rolls the terraces back then it's oh, it's art of

(07:21):
the deal. He got all these great concessions. There's not
even anything that's like face saving in this. They talked
some about Fentanel. That's the most that we got out
of this. In the meantime, you know, you've had all
this chaos, all all this uncertainty. Small and medium sized businesses,
some of those are not going to be able to
make it through this period. We still have quite significant

(07:41):
teriff increase on China. We still have him saying in
ninety days we may revisit this. So you still have
this climate of vast uncertainty. And to your point, one
of the things that drives me crazy here is like,
you know, I'm not a total laissez faire free trader.
I'm open to some protectionist policies. In fact, I think
what the Biden administration did well, I had critiques of
them in other areas.

Speaker 5 (08:02):
All trade actually worked.

Speaker 2 (08:05):
Was you know, having the intended impact and was bringing
back those manufacturing jobs that the Trump administration claims to
care about. And instead they've taken a hatchet to some
of the most effective legislation and tools that were passed
during the Biden administration to actually effectuate the outcome that
they claim to want and which gets me to you know,
you raised the in your exchange with Steve Miller. You

(08:26):
kept referring to Trump as like the dear leader. And
they float all of these different potential reasons for the terariffs. Oh,
the terarifts are going to pay down the debt. Oh,
the tariffs are going to bring back manufacturing jobs. Oh,
the tariff's going to like make the dollar weaker. Oh,
the terrorists are going to rebalance trade global All these different,
sometimes contradictory by the way, potential goals and impacts of

(08:47):
the tariffs. But I've always thought the real core of this,
at least visa vi Trump is just he likes the
power of it.

Speaker 5 (08:53):
He likes to have everything centered around him.

Speaker 2 (08:56):
He likes to be able to go in and say,
you get your you know, you have to.

Speaker 5 (09:00):
And petition the king, and you get your low carve out.

Speaker 2 (09:03):
Every country in the world is going to have to
come to me and on bended me and have to
make a deal with me, et cetera. And so while
there may be these other ancillary goals or different people
in the administration, we have different ideas about what the tariffs
are supposed to achieve. I really think for Trump, it's
just part of his broader power play for sure.

Speaker 3 (09:21):
And I am probably more definitely not probably more sympathetic
to you than you to free market. Lais a fair economics.
And so this is why to me, it's insane that
it's like only Ran Paul of the ostensible free market
Republicans that have pushed back on this, and this is
Trump wants us to be a state managed economy. To

(09:42):
your point, That's why I was joking with Steven Miller
calling him Chairman Trump and jear leader Trump.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
That's what he wants. He wants to waive, you know, sign.

Speaker 3 (09:48):
An executive order and I'll set the rates for prescription
drugs and signings, and I'll check the rate for how
much people pay for our soybeans, and you know how
much we pay for the upp of babies that are
coming in.

Speaker 4 (10:00):
It's crazy.

Speaker 3 (10:01):
It is the opposite of any pre market economic principles
that these guys are put that are instituting. And again,
like there are certain moments, there are certain industries that
might call for this. We can have we can have
negotiations about this, but like that's how the American system
is supposed to work.

Speaker 4 (10:19):
Like Congress is supposed to have out of the purse.

Speaker 3 (10:21):
There isn't supposed to be a aspiring autocrat puts his
finger on his tongue and decides what the tax rate
is going to be on various products, and you know,
just back to like the working people side of this,
just or small businesses. One example, I'm met a woman
a couple of weeks ago. I was at jamz Fest
and she comes out to me and she's like, here
in New Orleans, she owns this chotski shop of tourists

(10:42):
touristy goods, you know, beads and other kind of marty
gross stuff you would wanted to go to New Orleans.
It's been here for sixty five years. A lot of
their stuff comes from China. And she's like, my business
is gonna shudder over these tariffs, Like I certainly can't
afford a hundred twenty five percent. Maybe they can survive
thirty percent, but on these little goods, that's still going

(11:04):
to be a huge increase in cost for her. That
is a small business. You know, that is not one
of these oligarchs that can get a carve out from Trump,
and they're going to be screwed over this, and there's
no rationale for doing it. I mean, does Trump and
Stephen Miller want us to be manufacturing Marty grambiads here
in America like little chotchkes? Is that the key chains

(11:26):
that's the future of our economy. It's crazy And so
you know, look, I think that obviously the incentive of
this is that Trump wants the power, but the ramifications
I think are going to be very real for people
who are kind of outside the corridors of power, who
can't you know, get the Tim Cook carve out.

Speaker 2 (11:44):
So to your point about Rand Paul, he was on
with Jesse Waters leveling some I would say relatively pild,
but still a criticism which is noteworthy at this point
from the Republican Party. Let's go ahead and take a
listen to what he had to say.

Speaker 7 (11:55):
If he succeeds in lowering tariffs and lessening the obstacles
to trade, I'll be right there. I think it's unknown.
With China, we started out at one hundred and forty
five percent, then we went to eighty percent. Now we're
at thirty percent. But that's thirty percent more than we
have on currently, So this will be a thirty percent
rise in any goods who are coming from China, and

(12:16):
somebody will pay that, it will be the consumer. If
the consumer's happy to pay more when they go to
Walmart or more when they go to Target in order
to get fairness or to teach China lesson, then so
be it. But the proof is in the pudding. We'll
see what happens over the next six months to a year,
you know.

Speaker 2 (12:33):
Going into Trump two point zero, I saw a lot
of I would call it cope from the Wall Street
types and from you know, the total free trade Republican types, who.

Speaker 5 (12:44):
Said some of it was, oh, you know, this is.

Speaker 2 (12:47):
Just campaign trail talk and it won't be any big deal.
And in fact, the terror regime that he put in
place was way larger than what he ever floated on
the campaign trail.

Speaker 5 (12:57):
And the other thing that I heard.

Speaker 2 (12:58):
A lot was well, he's going to use these tariffs
to actually negotiate to have zero tariffs, so it's going
to achieve more of a free trade, you know, a
free trade regime than we had previously. And I'm just
curious from your years inside the right and knowing some
of these individuals and the staffers and the dark money
groups that are involved et cetera. Are you surprised that

(13:19):
it's just Ran Paul effectively who has anything to say
about the complete insanity of the way that this has unfolded.

Speaker 3 (13:26):
And if you would have asked twenty seventeen, Tim, I
would have said, yeah, I'm surprised. I mean, I'm not
surprised that people went along, but that there are so
few who didn't.

Speaker 4 (13:36):
It was surprising to me at the start of this.

Speaker 3 (13:39):
I've been pretty beaten down by a decade, and frankly,
I'm pleasantly surprised that Ran Paul is on Fox doing
this rather than just kind of sending out one press
release and checking the box. So good on him for
doing some economics education on primetime Fox. But no, look
I don't I do. I guess I was more surprised
about the business community a little bit, because they don't
have I understand. And if you are a writer for

(14:01):
the Wall Street Journal editorial page, or you are a
staffer at the Manhattan Institute, or you work for one
of these superbacks or lobbying firms, right like your your
career is tied up in finding out post talk rationalizations
for whatever the Republican Party is doing. And arguing for them, right.
I've been kind of surprised that the business community hasn't

(14:22):
pushed back on this harder because if you just can
you imagine and you almost hate to do those games.
It's so cliche at this point. But had Obama put
in place a unilateral ten percent across the board tax
on every good coming from around the world, thirty percent
on China, something that is practically speaking, the largest tax

(14:42):
increase in either of our lifetimes, yeah, like the business
community would have been their hair would be on fire.
I mean, like Obama.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
Would be might have been a coup, Let's be honest,
I'm not even kidding. I mean, or if this was
like President Bernie Sanders, like forget it would be removed
from office weeks ago.

Speaker 3 (15:00):
CNBC would be like, you know, one of those you know,
like chaos scenes from a cafeteria in a nineteen eighties
moved people are throwing chairs, like throwing desserts at each other,
and CNBC would be on fire right now. And so
these guys have rationalized this in a way that I
think is only because of the Team Jersey.

Speaker 2 (15:19):
I think it's also tim because he is so dictatorial,
and because businesses are They do want their car ounce right.
They do want to be able to go pay their
million or five million dollars and go down tomorrow Lago
and make their case. And they want him to take
their calls and get their little exemption so that they
can survive the slings and arrows.

Speaker 5 (15:40):
I think that's the other thing, because.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
You see, you know, you see the way, even when
they do try to criticize, they'll front load it with like, Oh,
you're so amazing, You're so brilliant, this is so incredible,
you're such a genius, and certainly in all of your glory,
you'll understand why maybe we need a ninety day pause, please, sir,
you know, and free in terms of or the other

(16:02):
go to move that I see a lot is it's
never Trump's fault. It's like, oh, some staffer has misled
you and they're undermining.

Speaker 5 (16:09):
You, dear sir.

Speaker 2 (16:11):
So I think it's it's number one the team Jersey,
certainly for the Republicans, I think for the business community,
because the bottom line is the bottom line. They see
it as in their best interest to suck up to
this guy and overtly bribe him in certain instances as
much as possible.

Speaker 3 (16:23):
Yeah, it's Lutnick's fault, right exactly, like what And I
do think that, you know, the rationalization element is powerful.
You know, you saw the folks. It's like your co hosts,
there's folks on the nationalist side. They're like, we wanted
the tariffs, like this is what he's going to do.
And then meanwhile, the free marketers and the Ted cruz
Is the Wall Street journals are like, this is all
a big game to get down to zero. And I

(16:44):
think that's part of Trump's political power, which maybe some
Democrats could learn from, is it's actually good to be
a little bit vague and to allow people to project
their own hopes and dreams onto you. And so I
do think that's a political strength for him. But again
I don't I do. I do kind of blame the
rich guys a little bit on all this. Maybe now
I'm going to sound like the former Republican who's being radicalized.

(17:06):
But it's like, you really were that scared about a
two percent increase in the taxes? I mean, wasn't exactly
trying to push forth, you know, some nineteen seventies tax regime.
You know, it's like, think about how much money you
could lose, you know, from the economic instability if you're rich.
I just would have thought that the rational capitalists like
take would have been to a post Trump because of

(17:28):
the the you'd rather pay two more percent in taxes,
you know, in exchange for just having some economic stability
and having grown ups you know, in charge.

Speaker 4 (17:36):
But I guess not.

Speaker 2 (17:37):
Yeah, they wanted their tax cut and they just chose
to mentally discount everything else. And yeah, I mean you
make such a good point. We let's put a three
up on the screen. You can see, like the stock
market surge a thousand points, and it's up twenty percent
from its prior lows. It's still lower than it was
in January when he was inaugurated. And also, by the way,
you know, the odds of recession have also gone down,

(17:59):
but are still significantly higher than they were. And all
to accomplish at this point nothing but like pain and suffering.
But you know, to the Wall Street point, I think
there's a few things to say there.

Speaker 5 (18:10):
A number one.

Speaker 2 (18:10):
I think it was Joe Wisenthal who made the point of,
you know, if you pulled Wall streeterers, like would you
rather have a Bernie Sanders style millionaire attacks or would
you rather have all this, They would all prefer.

Speaker 5 (18:24):
The Millionaire Attact.

Speaker 2 (18:25):
So not even like the Kamala Harris more moderate, like
just you know, oh, we might do a little bit
of raining in price gouging, which was the most radical
thing she proposed on the campaign trail, and there was
a whole melt down from the Stephen Millers and the
Trumps of the world about price controls, et cetera. Not
even that, like even a more maximalist lefty position would

(18:45):
have to be vastly superior to the economic carnage and
chaos that Trump is creating here. And I do have
to say, like I'm not a the stock market is
beyond me. I think a lot of it's just based
on like vibes and feelings and emotions.

Speaker 5 (19:01):
And I think that's pretty.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
Apparent by the fact that, you know, you have such
a huge rebound when you still have thirty percent tariffs
imposed on China. Like if we just started with that,
there would have been a huge freak out about that.
But because you start at one forty five, or you
get to one forty five and then you back off,
then there's gleean celebration on Wall Street. I still feel

(19:23):
like they're underestimating the impact that this is going to cause.
And we saw this sum in COVID the way that
you know, when things get messed up, it takes a
while for them to get ironed out. We saw the
way that you know, four percentage points of inflation, how
dire that was for American consumers. And now you're talking
about a ten percent at the best kind of across
the board tariff around the world.

Speaker 3 (19:42):
Yeah, I once again we agree, Chris, We're going to
find something to fight about in a little bit. But
the uh, I think that the kind of day trader
types like the volatility, right, so it's good for them,
Like the hedgehung guys like the volatility is in a
certain band, they can time the market well.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
Especially the ones who are talking to the Trump administration
and getting inside tips about when they're going to spike
the market, et cetera, which I definitely think is happening.

Speaker 3 (20:03):
Absolutely it is happening. And then on top of that,
like the biggest companies are insulated, right, you know again
the Googles and the Apples, right, and so that's driving
also a lot of the prices going up. A lot
of these big tech companies are insulated from this. So
you know, I think that the pain is going to
be seen elsewhere, and I also agree there's gonna be
delayed pain. Look, I've justin Wolfers, the economist, on the
board pod today and it's like there's a delay in

(20:26):
you know, there will still be a delay in getting
stuff under the shelves. So there'll be some stuff that
is missing because you know, it takes a while to
get for ships to get across the ocean, and then
now we're going to have a pile up, you know,
like we saw post COVID at the ports, because folks
are going to try to get stuff in just in case,
you know, Donald Trump's feelings get hurt by something some
random you know, Chinese diplomat says and he decides, okay,

(20:48):
we're back up to ninety percent, right, like you want
to get the you know, the material in while you
at least know it's only going to be thirty percent
rather than more. So you know, it has caused it's
going to cause a lot of just ruption. Maybe it's
not the worst case scenario, which I guess is good. Right,
I'm not out here for a recession where everybody, you know,
where regular people suffer, but like there's still going to

(21:11):
be real pain. And again, like he was handed in
an economy that was not perfect but was directionally pretty good.
I mean, I was laughing at you know, Ross Doubt
at the New York Conservative New York Times College the
other day. That was like that was like Trump was
delivered a pretty good economy that he had a chance
to build on. And I was like, were you guys
saying that last year? I don't remember that. I don't remember.

Speaker 5 (21:32):
I don't know what she got till us gone to Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
And so you know, I mean he was delivered like
what there was two three percent growth and we just
they zeroed it out in one quarter over this dumb
trade war. So you know, I don't it's I definitely
think we might not be in worst case scenario. But
I also think that people are a little sanguine because,
like you said, it takes time for this stuff to uh,
not to trigger your hair, crystal, but to trickle down

(21:56):
through the through the economy.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
All right, let's move on to the dire state of
our nation's airports, the center of which has been Newark Airport,
which is I mean, it's just it's so disturbing and
terrifying that things you used to be able to take
for granted, like being able to fly on an airplane
without it crashing and you know, fiery wreckish or running
into another airplane, are just not things you can really

(22:23):
take for granted anymore. Let's put this tear sheet up
on the screen. I don't know if you've seen this
latest reporting of the New York Times. They're saying that,
in addition to the multiple equipment failures that we just
experienced at Newark Airport over the past week and a half,
they on Monday had three controllers on duty. The goal
is fourteen. Let me read you a little bit of
this report. They say as few as three air traffic

(22:44):
controllers scheduled to work on Monday evening at the facility
guiding planes to and from Newark International Airport. The FAA said,
far fewer than the target of fourteen controllers. The staffing
crisis added strain into an already troubled aviation system, with
flights to Newark delayed by as much as seven hours
on Monday because of that shortage. That FAA said in
the statement it had at least three controllers scheduled every

(23:05):
hour on Monday evening, but four people familiar with problems
at the airport said the number of fully certified controllers
on duty was at times one or two. Staffing shortages
affected flights at the airport for much of the day,
forcing the FAA to hold up incoming flights from taking off.
The delays primarily affected flights coming to Newark from the
contiguous US and parts of Canada, lasted on average more

(23:27):
than an hour and forty minutes and up to almost
seven hours, according to an online FAA advisory. So on
top of that, as we know, and we'll talk about
a little bit more, there were multiple three different equipment
failures complete failures at Newark Airport. Sean Duffy, the head
of Transportation, is trying to spin and miss and redirect

(23:49):
the blame anywhere he possibly can, and he thinks he's
found the culprit.

Speaker 5 (23:53):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to him.

Speaker 8 (23:55):
We've all been reporting and seeing what's happening at Newark Airport,
and I think it is clear that the blame belongs
with the last administration. People to judge and Joe Biden
did nothing to fix the system that they knew was broken.

Speaker 5 (24:12):
Your thoughts him.

Speaker 3 (24:14):
I mean, I don't want to pretend to be an
expert on the air traffic controlling system.

Speaker 4 (24:19):
And I'm sure that the Biden.

Speaker 3 (24:24):
He is an actor, a reality show actor at least,
so like, could the Biden administration have done more stuff
on this?

Speaker 4 (24:32):
Maybe? I don't know, but I.

Speaker 3 (24:34):
Think the important context here is that we're just going
through a period where Elon Musk is going to the
government running roughshot and randomly cutting a bunch of employees
like based on essentially nothing like not based on performance,
but just based on whether their employment what their employment
status was, you know, or based on whether they had

(24:57):
a DEI description and in their job description, right, And
so I think that, you know, these guys need to
take responsibility for what's happening.

Speaker 4 (25:06):
They're in charge.

Speaker 9 (25:06):
Now.

Speaker 3 (25:06):
It's been a while, it's I guess it's only been
three and a half months. It feels longer, but I
do think it's their responsibility. And I just want to say,
like as the whatever former Republican stand in here, like
there is something to be said for like we want
to make more efficient government. We want to make sure
that we're not bloated, that we're not wasting people's money.

(25:29):
I'm for all that, but is air traffic controllers the
right place for that?

Speaker 4 (25:33):
I mean, that seems like a.

Speaker 3 (25:33):
Pretty essential service, and it is. And for me, somebody
that actually cares about this stuff thinks that our debt
is out of control, thinks it's crazy that we're paying
one hundred million a month and interested in our debt.
They're not even doing it. They're not achieving anything on this,
Like the guys in the hill. Simultaneously to what all
of this disaster happening at Newark, the Republicans on the

(25:55):
Hill are proposing a tax bill and a budget bill
that's going to add twenty trillion into the debt over
the next ten years. So we are cutting all these
people and putting ourselves at risk, putting our own citizens
at risk who are flying around the country because we
don't have enough air traffic controllers in service of nothing.
It's just like the tariff situation. It's like it'd be
one thing if we had, if there was the objective

(26:17):
was being met, you know, And we are building more
manufacturing plants here, we are cutting the debt down. I mean,
I still don't think it probably would be worth it
to cut the debt to have only one air traffic
controller on a new or exact it would be one
thing if we were actually achieving the objective. But they're
not doing that. They're going to add to the debt
and they're cutting people just again I think, in service

(26:39):
of power and wanting to make sure they have political loyalty.

Speaker 5 (26:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (26:42):
I mean, the most obvious place to cut is the Pentagon,
and they're increasing the Pentagon budget. They want a trillion
dollar Pentagon budget. Cutting various government staffers is actually going
to end up costing you money, you know, especially in
a place like if you think of the most clear
cut example is the IRS, where you know, if you're
slashing and burning the IRS, guess what, you're not going

(27:03):
to be able to collect as much tax revenue from,
especially rich tax chiefs because they're the hardest ones to
go after because they've got lawyers and tax shelters, and
so it requires more resources. And so yeah, you're going
to end up actually spending more money after you cut
and fire all this workforce. And to your point, you know,
they did fire hundreds of FAA employees. Now they swear, oh,

(27:24):
they had nothing to do with safety, But if you
talk to the actual the air traffic controls, the people
that work at the agency. They say, just because they're
not like directly an air traffic controller doesn't mean that
they're not an important support for that system. So that's
point number one, point number two RUSS voting on the
project twenty twenty five. People like Carters Jarvin, who's one
of the you know, intellectual I guess architects of this

(27:48):
argv as skare quotes very much merited. Their whole program
is to traumatize federal government employees. So you go in
with an agenda explicitly stated of traumatizing all federal government
employees and then lo and behold, you have a staffing
crisis that is causing massive safety risks for the American people,

(28:09):
and you want to wash your hands of it, like sorry,
you don't get to you don't get to. And the
other piece of this is, you know, this goes to
sort of like a broader ideological point, which is everybody
hates government until you want to like land your plane safely,
and then suddenly you would like there to be air
traffic controllers. You were like there to be a new
system in place so that the copper wiring isn't like,

(28:31):
you know, burning out and causing the radars to go
out for you know, for long periods of time. And
I do think that Republicans have had obviously the most
sort of vigorous just across the board anti government ideology,
but it is also something that Democrats starting dabbling with
Jimmy Carter, but really starting with Clinton, embraced as well.

(28:52):
You know, Bill Clinton famously like the Arab big government
is over. And I think that that assault on government,
which has stripped government capacity and made it so the
government is less effective and is actually less efficient at
delivering services to people, creates a sort of doom loop
where then because government isn't working, then it justifies more

(29:14):
cuts to government. And next thing, you know, you're here
at this situation where there is a chronic staffing crisis.
And it does, in fairness to Sean Duffy, it actually
does predate the Trump administration.

Speaker 5 (29:23):
They've just exacerbated and made it worse.

Speaker 3 (29:25):
Yeah, just a couple of things, and that one they
definitely are trying to try to intimidate people to get
them to quit. I mean, getting people to self deport
from the government was like a stated objective of what
they're doing with DOJ and I also agree with you
in addition to the IRS just on the costs. The
way they did it was illegal, So a lot of
the people they ran out of government, you know, are
going to end up suing the government and getting back

(29:46):
pay for not working. So that's not efficiency, right, So
I don't you know, again, I don't know how many
of the people that quit, if any, were actually air
traffic controllers. But the idea that they are trying to
push people out of the federal workforce rather than recruit
the best US people, that is just their own stated objective.
And you know, look, when it comes to that broader

(30:07):
mission of undermining government that you're talking about, I'm more
sympathetic to out than you are. I still think that
there's a bloat in the federal government. You talk to
anybody that works in the federal government, they'll say there is,
by the way, you talk to anybody that works any
big organization, they'll say, we've got bloat.

Speaker 4 (30:20):
In our organization.

Speaker 3 (30:22):
But to me, the right thing to do is to
balance that with how do we modernize it, how do
we actually make it more efficient? Not like fake nineteen
eighty four, efficient like doge right, and the Obama administration
actually puts some effort into this, maybe not as enough.
And I mean that's like the craziest thing about Trump
surrounding himself with all these tech geniuses.

Speaker 4 (30:43):
I mean, he's got Elon.

Speaker 3 (30:45):
Who who I hate, but say what you want about him,
like figure it out better than the existing companies, you know,
how to get the low orbit satellites going so that
people can have Wi Fi. I mean, he wasn't like
the inventor of that, but his company was able to
do it. Marky Andreesen, who's around Trump, literally was the
inventor of Netscape, the browser.

Speaker 4 (31:06):
So he's got all these tech.

Speaker 3 (31:07):
Bros who've come around to him and rather than you know,
using their expertise to figure out, how can we make
the government more efficient, how can we make services better,
how can we perform at a higher rate, Like they
decided to take a blowdors to the place and now
and then they want to wash their hands of it
when there are problems associated with that. And to me,
I think that's the craziest.

Speaker 4 (31:28):
Part about it all.

Speaker 2 (31:29):
Yeah, well they I mean, it's much easier to destroy
than to build, you know, And I think you see
this in real time. Like I think Sean Duffy genuinely
would like to improve the air Draven control system at
this point, but that's you know, building out and refurbishing
the system that actually will take a congressional appropriation. You're
going to have to deal with Congress. It's going to
take time, it's going to take money, et cetera. Whereas

(31:49):
just Elon Musk coming in with the chainsaw and not
caring that it was unconstitutional and let the courts catch
up after the fact, like that's much easier to do.
The reality for these guys, I think Andresen and Elon
Musk and Peter Thiel and those types is they want
to completely defenestrate government so it can't regulate their businesses,

(32:10):
so that they can do whatever they want without getting
hamstrung by like oh I discriminated and now the Department
of Laborer is mad at me, or oh my Tesla
auto driving didn't really work that well, and now you
know people have been killed.

Speaker 5 (32:21):
In a car crash and I'm having to answer to
the federal government.

Speaker 2 (32:24):
They want to get all of that out of the way,
and especially in the context of you know, both of
these guys are major players in terms of the rapid
development acceleration of AI. And that really, I think is
a big part of their motivation is they want just
total wild West, no regulatory regime whatsoever when it comes
to AI. So it serves the interest of this specific

(32:45):
handful of oligarchs, and.

Speaker 5 (32:48):
That really is their goal.

Speaker 2 (32:49):
I mean, if you go back to the FDR era,
you had a bunch of industrials and industrialists who were
engaged in the government.

Speaker 5 (32:55):
And this is the point that roconomkes.

Speaker 2 (32:57):
They were engaged in the government in service of building
out capacity and actually making the government work better and
deliver more for.

Speaker 5 (33:06):
The American people.

Speaker 2 (33:07):
And here you have a complete reverse And they'll even
describe it this way, Frankly, the Curtis we talk.

Speaker 4 (33:13):
About doing that.

Speaker 2 (33:14):
Yeah, they and they actively talk about wanting to do
a reverse FDR that strips down the capacity of the
government and traumatizes those federal government employees so that oligarchs
can have more control and can operate with total and
complete impunity.

Speaker 4 (33:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (33:30):
Look, and you could imagine an alternate universe, you know,
bizarro world where you had Elon Muskin marking and Dreesen
in there grabbing the best people from Silicon Valley and
figuring out how do we modernize our FAA system, Like
how do we figure out how we can get the
ACELA to go from DC to New York faster than

(33:50):
you know, three hours and forty five minutes or however
long it takes now, right, like, how do we update
all these things in ways that will actually you know,
allow a Maria to compete better in the twenty first century.
And and none of the they're not even paying lip
service to that, right. All they're there to do is
deregulate AI and crypto and like real frankly, like that

(34:12):
like that is what cash. It's like a smash once
out of this and they're getting it right, like we
are not, Like the dj is no longer investigating crypto scammers,
Like there's not a real effort you know, to regularly
to AI. The Elon's positions a little more complicated on that,
but but in Reason's position as clear, like wanting total

(34:32):
deregulation of AI so that they can have you know,
that power for themselves, and and that that's just like unfortunately,
that's just like the reality of what we're dealing with
with these guys.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
Yeah, no, that's absolutely right, is why I always I
thought that the project needed to be opposed on principle,
because having the richest man on the planet unelected and
given vast control over the entire federal government is just
even if even if he did have worthy goals, which
he doesn't, but even if he did have like goals

(35:05):
that I thought were noble and could be good, I
think that project has to be opposed in principle because
of the damage that it does to our democracy and
because you know, we don't want to be ruled by
oligarchs and there you know, have to deal with their
conflicts of interest and wonder whether or not whatever they're
doing at the FAA has to do with modernizing the system,

(35:26):
or whether it has to do with like stealing a
contract from Verizon, which.

Speaker 5 (35:29):
Is something that SpaceX is accused of doing while they're
in there.

Speaker 4 (35:34):
Starlink.

Speaker 5 (35:34):
Yeah, that's that's exactly right.

Speaker 2 (35:36):
Yeah, it was a great report from from Jeff Stein
at the Washington Post about all of that. All right,
let's talk a little bit about you, Tim, so we
can put your book jacket up on the screen, which
I really recommended people, you know, wherever you are on
the ideological spectrum, I think it gives a really great
insight into like the very particular DC mindset of political operatives.

(35:57):
The headline here is why we did it, Travel from
the Republican Road to Hell. And you wrote this about,
you know, your own journey from being inside the you know,
the belly of the Visa and the Republican Party working for
Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, John Huntsman, you know, working for
some dark money groups as well into being a very

(36:18):
vocal Trump critic. So just sketch out for our audience
who may not know all of your background, a little
bit of like what you were up to and what
it was about Trump that really, you know, turned you
off and made you into this very vocal critic.

Speaker 4 (36:32):
Well, I appreciate that.

Speaker 3 (36:33):
As some folks came to me to ask me to
write a burn book, like mean girl style about all
the people I worked with the Republican Party, and I
was like, that's basically like that wouldn't feel good unless
I also like burned myself a bit on the you know,
And so that was basically how the format for the
book came out. I was like, I'd liked on my
own choices before I started, you know, taking the fire
torch to other people, and look, yeah, I mean I

(36:55):
was in Republican and politics from the time I was
a kid, Like I was my neighbor was a friend
of a guy running for governor of Colorado, and I
was just a political dork. I wanted to be in politics.
I was sixteen years old. I volunteered on that campaign.
I looked like I was twelve. I hadn't gone through
puberty yet. Everybody asked me who my parents were when
I was at the campaign office, and I was like,
I don't know. My dad's that's a you know, working

(37:17):
at his mutual fund. So, you know, I was just
kind of a precocious politics nerd. That guy won the
governor's race in this very exciting, kind of close late
night race, and I got very addicted to, you know,
kind of the competition of politics.

Speaker 4 (37:33):
Yeah, that was just like as a sport, right, Like
it was a sport.

Speaker 3 (37:37):
And so there were some earnest things we could talk about,
Like there was some earnest things that drew me to
the Republican Party over the Democratic Party.

Speaker 4 (37:43):
But like pretty.

Speaker 3 (37:44):
Quickly I became just kind of like a hired gun, right,
like a hatchet man.

Speaker 4 (37:48):
I enjoyed the competition of it.

Speaker 3 (37:51):
And you know, I had some directional political beliefs that
you just laid out. The people I worked for. I
worked mostly for the moderate Republicans. I have a few
people that I worked for that are on my shame
list that I did, you know, because you have you know,
if you're a political operative, sometimes you got to take clients,
but you don't have to you sometimes you choose to
take clients in order to help yourself succeed. So you know,

(38:12):
that was basically my background. And then Trump comes along,
and honestly, it just was not a close call for me,
and he was just so far beyond the pale. His
rhetoric around immigrants in particular was you know, my red line.
But like even you know, beyond that, like he just
did not appeal to me in any possible sense of
the word. He was anethical to the earnest parts of

(38:35):
why I became a Republican. And so, you know, after
Jeb lost, I got asked by some of those dark
money guys you mentioned, to be the point the spokesperson
for a group opposing Trump, and I did it without
really even thinking about the consequences. Honestly, Jeb and my
dad both said to me, like, you're being crazy.

Speaker 4 (38:52):
What if Trump wins?

Speaker 3 (38:53):
I was like, through whatever you know I got, I
don't know, he can't win, and so bad judgment there, maybe,
But do you think.

Speaker 2 (39:01):
If you had thought he was gonna win, do you
think you would have?

Speaker 3 (39:04):
I wouldne I was very much in comic Cozi mode.
I found Trump repellent, and so I always say that
whenever sometimes I get liberals will come up to me
or Democrats, longtime democrats particually like older mother figures, and
they'll be like, I'm so proud of you, like you
did the right thing, and I'm like, I actually don't
like I feel uncomfortable at that compliment because honestly, if
it was Ted Cruz, I don't know, it would have

(39:26):
been a closer call for me, Like I might have
gone along with it, you know, I don't.

Speaker 4 (39:30):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
My husband might have divorced me, so I might not
have done it because of him. But Trump was Trump
was something unique about Trump that that I just thought
everything about him, from his personal life to his ideology.
To spoke about immigrantsly spoke about people was just unacceptable
to me. And so you know, so I dove in immediately.

(39:51):
I was I was one of the ogs on the
never Trumper side.

Speaker 2 (39:54):
Yeah, you know, to be honest with you, some of
what she just said in Trump one point zero, I
would have been a little resistant to like the idea
that he was this particularly unique threat. And then it
wasn't just sort of like you know, revulsion, oh the
norms and oh he's uncouth and whatever. But in this way,
you know, I also think I've politically evolved recently to

(40:15):
feel like, you know, the liberals who were like really
concerned about the norms and really concerned about the rhetoric
and really concerned about his character, they had a point.

Speaker 5 (40:26):
They had a point, like.

Speaker 2 (40:27):
The most deranged Trump derangement syndrome person ends up looking
like they were kind of mild. Yeah, in comparison to
what has unfolded. And you know, I was really raising
an alarm in advance of this election, I thought because
he I thought that he would be in basically yolo mode.
The Supreme Court had given him complete and total immunity effectively,

(40:50):
and they had spent four years trying to figure out
how to move out of the way any even moderate
guardrail that had kept him even somewhat hemmed in in
the first administration, and even I have been horrified and
shocked by the speed of the dissent in this particular administration.
So you know, I certainly, I certainly have also tried

(41:12):
to learn from what is unfolded and you know, evolve
in my own political views. Let me ask you to
respond to what the haters would say about you, which
is that you know you previously you were doing what
she needed to do and saying what she needed to
say in order to serve the Republican side and your
Republican bosses. And now are you just doing the same
thing to serve you know, your your liberal audience and

(41:35):
to appeal to the MSNBC folks that you're speaking to
on a regular basis.

Speaker 4 (41:39):
I love talking to the haters.

Speaker 3 (41:40):
That's fine, No, I mean, look, so just on the
money side of things, not that I'm doing great, I'm fine,
but like the amount of money the people around Trump
are making right now is going to shock the conscience.
I mean, like Jason Miller also opposed Trump, like me,
initially he was with Ted Cruz as a JEB but
forgot got Jason Miller and he posted Trump said Kelly

(42:00):
and Jason Miller just got a contract from India that's
like one hundred thousand dollars a month or something, or
I forgot. I don't have in front of me a
hundred and fifty thousand dollars a month maybe, And so
you know, I'm not bringing in that much on YouTube.
I'm telling you we're doing okay. And so I'm not
looking for sympathy. But like, the way to whatever I
do well in the Trump Republican Party was to stay.

(42:22):
And a lot of my friends have have, you know,
expanded their houses.

Speaker 4 (42:27):
Well, a lot of my former friends have them.

Speaker 3 (42:30):
So you know there's that I hear what you're saying,
and I think, look, anybody that is in the business
of talking about the news, I'm sure you guys think
about this. We especially in this day and age, you
see what your audience likes and doesn't like. You know,
even if you don't read the comments, you see it
in the metrics, right, And so I understand that people
would be skeptical of all this, But I really I've

(42:51):
I tried my very best to just say what I
want with what I think, and I only care about
what I care about and not be pretend outrage about
things I'm not outraged about. And you know, and during
the campaign in twenty twenty four, people were very upset
at us over our thoughts about Joe Biden, which maybe
we can talk about in a second.

Speaker 4 (43:10):
I was horrified by Joe Biden.

Speaker 3 (43:13):
And I have not The Bowler audience is pretty bideny,
you know, center left folks. So like, there are a
lot of big Biden fans. To the extent that big
Biden fans exist, a lot of them were.

Speaker 4 (43:24):
Bowler consumers of them.

Speaker 3 (43:27):
Ola, Yeah, a lot of them were unhappy with my
views on him, and I just I didn't move an inch.
If anything, it radicalized me more because I was like,
screw you guys. I was like, are you kidding me?
Are you saying this? I I you know, I was
pressured into lying on behalf of Trump back when I
was a Republican, and I refuse to do it. And
now I've opposed Trump, and you're trying to bully me

(43:49):
into you know, arguing, you know, trying to tell people
that to not believe their lying eyes about Joe Biden.

Speaker 4 (43:56):
Like, no, I'm not going to do that. I I.

Speaker 3 (44:00):
So, you know, look, I mean I think that we're
doing the best we can to give people what we
honestly think every day. I think that there's no doubt
in the YouTube game, you know this. You know sometimes
that the little thumbnail has to be a little a
little more crazy. Yeah, but that's just like part of
doing all this and so you know, I mean, I

(44:22):
think that there's a little bit of that, and that's
probably a fair criticism for my haters.

Speaker 4 (44:25):
But no, I'm not. I'm not changing my views on anything.

Speaker 2 (44:28):
Have you have you ideologically, like do you see your
political views your political ideology as having.

Speaker 5 (44:35):
Shifted or yeah, just talk a little bit about that.

Speaker 3 (44:38):
How would you just yesterday as that I've gone fully
native with the left, and so I was like, I
was hoping Emily is gonna be on today so we
could hash that out.

Speaker 2 (44:46):
I was going to say, well, I'm hoping, I mean,
that's the whole reason you're here, so I can win
you over to being a social democrat.

Speaker 5 (44:51):
By the end, Bill Crystal.

Speaker 4 (44:53):
Might be full social democrat. But that's for another day now.

Speaker 6 (44:56):
I know that.

Speaker 5 (44:57):
Actually him and Nicole Wallace, I'm.

Speaker 3 (44:59):
Like, okay, yeah, you know, look, I've changed on some things.
I guess I'll just say this first. Yeah, when I
said I was ernest to get into politics, I was,
and I was a bush kid. I was like the
compassionate conservative thing, which Crystal maybe you saw through the
way I saw through a Trump. I believed it, like
I really did. And obviously the Iraq War it's you know,
it's eventually I got disillusioned by it, but initially, like

(45:21):
as a kid, as a high school kid, I believed it.
And I was radicalized by the Elian Gonzales thing. I
was like one of my first political awakenings. So I
was like, I was four people coming to this country.
I believed the land of milk and honey, Reagan, you know,
shining city on the hill, stuff like that was what moved.

Speaker 4 (45:38):
Me as a kid and drew me to the Republican Party.

Speaker 3 (45:40):
And so when you see the Janet Reno thugs like
putting a gun in front of the kid's face who
was playing communism, that was like a thing that got me.

Speaker 4 (45:48):
Excited when I was young.

Speaker 3 (45:50):
And it's that, you know, confirmed for me that whatever
I'll be on the side of the compassionate conservatives, whatever you.

Speaker 4 (45:55):
Want to call it.

Speaker 3 (45:56):
So to me in a lot of ways, like the
Trump movement is a total rejection of the things that
brought me into the Republican Party. You know, like I
was into like the kind of altruistic jingoism rather than
this like horrible cruel jingoism that they have now. And
and you know, so I think the core of the
Trump movement is anacthical to what what brought me to

(46:19):
being a Republican. That said, once you're freed from you know,
I think it's like anybody, right, if there are a
few issues that you really care about, and then if
you're in a party, a lot of people, particularly political
junkies or operatives, kind of like sign up for the
rest of the stuff.

Speaker 4 (46:35):
Like that's a pretty common thing.

Speaker 3 (46:36):
And so I think that there were a couple of things,
and the two that jumped to my mind right now
are taxes on the wealthy and guns. Like there are
two things in particular that I was kind of just
signing up for the program on that was not what
I was really there for. That I've like kind of
changed a heart on, right, and that I'm like, Okay,
now that I've had some distance from it, I'm like,
it's some of the stuff is crazy, right, And so

(46:59):
you know, I have changed my views in a couple
of things, for sure. But I also think that Trump
ran as a rejection of the kind of Republican politics
I liked, right, So it shouldn't be that surprising. Then
to me, it's more surprising that there aren't more mes
and mortical walls.

Speaker 4 (47:15):
I mean, I literally ran as a rejection of us.

Speaker 2 (47:18):
Were rejected in a sense, yes, But also you know,
if you look at the first Trump administration, his big
accomplishment is the tax cut for the rich, you know,
very George W. Bush, like very Ronald Reaganlake. And the
other thing I wanted to ask you about is I
think the people that I have the most difficult time
with the transition are the people who were most vocal

(47:41):
in supporting George W. Bush's constitutional abuses, you know, indefinite
detention and torture and Guantanamo Bay. And I am thinking of, like,
you know, Bill Crystal and David from Nicole Wallace, because
to me, there's such a direct line from that to
where we are now. And I'm not saying that they're
the same. I think Trump has taken the legal protectual

(48:05):
justifications of the Bush era in particular, and has expanded
and radicalized on them aggressively. But you know, the whole
thing of shipping people off to this foreign goolag with
no due process is like, well, they're terrorists, so we
can do whatever we want with them. The whole thing
of arresting students and you know, deporting them because they
ride in our ed God forbid, is same thing. Well,

(48:26):
we see them as supporting terrorists, so we can just
do what we want with them, no due process. And
so do you do you feel like there have has
been any grappling you were you were young, we're actually
basically like the same age.

Speaker 5 (48:39):
I think we're both forty three.

Speaker 4 (48:41):
But in any case, do you think aging mate publicly
on the YouTube? Can we cut?

Speaker 5 (48:44):
I'm the wiki?

Speaker 2 (48:45):
All right, listen, But do you think that there has
been a grappling with the way that that abuse of
the constitution leads directly to similar more expanded Trumpian abuses
of the constitution?

Speaker 4 (49:04):
Probably not enough.

Speaker 3 (49:05):
And I'll ask David from this question the next time
he's on the Board podcast.

Speaker 4 (49:08):
And see what he says about it. Probably not enough.
I don't know. It's funny.

Speaker 3 (49:11):
I get this this criticism from sometimes Glenn Greenwald likes
to tweet at me and be like he was a Bushy.
I'm like, okay, Like I'm happy. I have plenty of
sins that I'm happy to try to atone for. But
I was hitting the bong okay during Guantanamo in college,
like I was not.

Speaker 4 (49:28):
I was not part of the administration. I was not
even really paying that quotes of attention.

Speaker 3 (49:31):
I was partying, so like you know, and frankly, this
was one of those issues that I would put alongside
the ones I mentioned earlier with guns in Texas, where
I was like casually for Guantanamo. I guess, which is
wrong as somebody that was not involved in politics, but
I took a pretty radical shift against it, you know,
late in the Bush term. I remember getting into a

(49:53):
big fight with my parents over this one Thanksgiving. I
remember getting to a big fight with my friend Jamie
Kirchik maybe on the show about this sometime in the
late Bush administration, and uh and and John McCain really
changed my views on a lot of this stuff, who
you know, to his credit, based on his experience, really
spoke out quite passionately against the Bush administration's policies when

(50:16):
it really didn't benefit him. That much politically, So I
think that that's a totally fair criticism. I think some
people have grappled with it more than others. But uh,
you know, I don't. You haven't seen a really kind
of I can't at least think of one like kind
of a full throated, you know, reflection upon the degree

(50:38):
to which some of the civil liberties abuses during you know,
the Iraq War and the associated kind of war on terror.
I guess you know what drew a little bit of
a pretext for what we're seeing now, and I think
it's a fara critique.

Speaker 2 (50:53):
Last question for you, and then we can talk a
little bit about Biden. Then I know you have to
you have to run. But you talk a lot. It
was we're goody, okay, you don't have heard out?

Speaker 5 (51:03):
Okay, good?

Speaker 4 (51:03):
Great.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
You talk a lot in your book about the various
characters like you have different sort of archetypes of the
flavors of justification that people used, who went from you know,
being sort of repelled by Trump like you were, to
being in his inner circle, having positions of power, going
on TV and justifying every last thing that he does
up to and now including sending people for life into

(51:28):
foreign goologs from which there is no escape, with literally
zero due process based on a tattoo that' says mom
and dad as one example. I was curious if if
you have any updated archetypes, like, is there a difference
between the Trump one point zero personnel who sometimes had
this like, oh well, if I wasn't there, then someone

(51:48):
else would be and I'm raining things in and had
those sorts of psychological justifications versus Trump two point Oh.
It really does feel like it's like the true believers
who are who are all in at this point.

Speaker 3 (52:00):
Yeah, it's a good question. You're putting on the spot
a little bit, because I do think it's different. And
my one kind of self criticism of the book is
I wasn't really planning on Trump coming back, and so
it does feel like a little bit dated, like we
were like reading some of it, because it's like, man,
some of the people who had these really complex rationalizations
the first time around are pretty much full bore this time.

(52:21):
I guess I would say that the updated rationale is
really based on what I guess I would call it amnesia.
I guess I would have the amnich the Trump amnesia
category this time, probably, which is really just focusing on
the biggest picture view of the Trump first administration, like, well,

(52:42):
you know, there was a lot of crazy stuff day
to day, but like the things, you know, our democracy
didn't totally collapse, right, the economy generally got went the
right direction until COVID. He was like basically right about
some of the COVID stuff, right like this. I'm sure
you hear all this from friends where it's like, none

(53:03):
of that.

Speaker 4 (53:03):
Is really right.

Speaker 3 (53:04):
I mean, like we we got we got through it
by the skin of our teeth, right. I mean, I
think that many of the people who give the Anesia defense, Now,
if you brought them, if you went back in time
to twenty fifteen and brought them a newspaper with a
picture of what happened on January sixth and said you
will support this, they would tell you have trumped Arrangement Center.

Speaker 4 (53:21):
I mean, you're crazy.

Speaker 3 (53:22):
But now they would say, no, you have trumped arrangement
center for acting like that was such a big deal,
Like it was a little it was bad. Yeah, it
was bad, but it wasn't as bad as you guys say.
You're obsessed with it, you know. So I think that
there is just an on COVID right, they're like, well,
they focus more on how there was some overreach on
the left, which I agree with on some of the
COVID rules, or they focus on the discussion about the

(53:44):
wet market versus you know, whether it was from the
lab right, and there's again there's some legit points here,
but then they don't focus on the anti vax stuff
or the or the way that Trump downplayed it for
so long, or like all the other like the Ze
Prescott right.

Speaker 4 (54:00):
So I do think that there's a little bit of.

Speaker 3 (54:02):
Rationale now that's based on kind of like people's memories
fading and like trying to tell a story of the
Trump one point zero that's better than it was, and
telling a story of the Biden administration that's like the
worst possible story you could tell about it, rather than
a a more clear eyed version of what its strengths
and weaknesses were.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
Well, that's a good transition to talk about the latest
news with regard to Biden.

Speaker 5 (54:29):
We can put this up on the screen.

Speaker 2 (54:30):
So Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson are coming out with
a book that's kind of meant to be like a
tell all of you know, what was going on on
the inside and who knew what and when with regard
to Biden's significant decline, and the big scoop that's out
this morning is that his physical deterioration, most apparent is
halting walk had become so severe that there were internal

(54:52):
discussions about putting the president in a wheelchair, but they
couldn't do so until after the election. And I mean,
I I do want to say, like his physical deterioration
was not really my concern. The mental deterioration was more
of the concern. But you know, this is of a
piece with the decline that we were all watching, and
as you said, you know, the Democratic Party was asking

(55:12):
us and much of the media too, by the way,
was asking us not to believe our lying eyes at
this point. And I think there's again a direct line
between Biden deciding to run no one within the mainstream
Democratic Party really you know, challenging him. You did have
Dean Phillips jump in there. You had Mary and Williamson
in the race as well, but they blocked even having

(55:33):
primary contests in a number of states, so there was
really no chance for anyone to succeed. Direct line from
that to the reelection of Donald Trump and the world
that we now live in.

Speaker 3 (55:43):
Yeah, I had to do my Dean phillips Man culpa
a couple months ago because you know, I still stand
by I don't think the way he prosecuted his campaign
was the most effective, but I was a little too
mean to him because the premise of his campaign was correct,
and you know it was then later the summer was
very clear to me that that.

Speaker 4 (56:00):
Was the case.

Speaker 3 (56:01):
And look, I don't I'm with you. I don't care
that much about the wheelchair like whatever. But to me,
it's just one part of this broader thing, which is
regardless of what you think about some of the smaller
arguments about whether Biden should have stuck around and the
debate and whether he could have done it, and whether
he could do the job, or how much had he
really declined? Was it just one to right, regardless of

(56:23):
all that, Like, to me, the biggest possible picture is
it was ridiculous for them to try to sell us
on the fact that Joe Biden could be president in.

Speaker 4 (56:33):
Four years from now when he's eighties. It was ridiculous.
It was a ridiculous proposition.

Speaker 3 (56:39):
The American people saw through it, and we all saw
it with our own eyes on the debate stage, and
the fact that it took them so long to then
come around to it, and the fact that then even
once they did, you know, we had to have the
Biden tribute day at the Komal Convention, and then she
was pressured to not do distance from him, and like

(57:01):
all this sort of stuff. To me, I really think
their actions have been shameful, absolutely shameful in the last year,
and and it makes me very upset actually, And so
I don't even know. I hope Jake and Alex are
not watching this. I keep going over my head. I'm like,
can I even have Jake and Alex on the podcast?
Mostly because it makes me so mad. I kind of

(57:25):
just want to pretend I just want to move forward.
So I probably will, because you know, you have to
grapple with this sort of stuff. But it makes me
so upset that, you know, they're asking a lot of
other people to sacrifice and then not and then not
doing it, not only not sacrificing themselves, but really making
an extremely self decision. And I say they because it
was really the full family and his closest advisors made

(57:48):
a decision that was very, very selfish. And we're dealing
with the consequences. And I wouldn't say he's the number
one reason we have Trump right now. I definitely would
put that on Mitch McConnell and the Republican senators. It
didn't convict him after January sixth, when they all knew
they should have.

Speaker 4 (58:03):
But he certainly plays a role.

Speaker 2 (58:05):
Yeah, yeah, very central role, very central role. And listen,
like Kamala Harris could have decided to distance herself from him,
even in spite of the fact that he pressured her
not to. But it does just show a level of
ego and selfishness to your point, that is quite extraordinary.
I remember him making some comment at the time in
an interview. He was asked, well, what happens if you

(58:26):
lose Trump? He's like, well, as long as I tried
my best, it'll be fine. It's like, I mean, this
guy's a fascist.

Speaker 3 (58:33):
Like this, I'm doing a work beach vacation there. I
was going to a mat Gates event in the in
the Panhandle, but also my family was at the beach
and I went out back to the beach to watch
that interview. I mean, you're triggering me right now just
thinking about it. I was so enraged. Yeah, I don't
know if I've ever been mad or at somebody. And
also to do the thing where it's like our democracy
is on the line.

Speaker 2 (58:53):
Right And also you know, as I get a participation
award for trying my bests, it's like, no, it's not
good enough.

Speaker 5 (59:01):
You have to win. You have to win.

Speaker 2 (59:03):
And if you aren't the person to do that, you
needed to have stepped aside a year ago so that
you know, someone who was more able could carry the torch.
And I guess the big question is if they've learned
from this, and I think some have and some haven't.
This is, you know, in the context of so David
Hogg was elected vice chair of the DNC And you know, David,

(59:24):
first of all, I think is very impressive in terms
of there aren't a lot of Democrats who really understand
new media, know how to grab attention whatever. Just on
that metric, he's very effective. But also he's obviously really
trying to shake things up within the party. He was
on with Bill Maher this past weekend and made some
comments that he doesn't mention the name Jim Clyburn, but
this is clearly directed at Jim Clyburn, who previously you

(59:47):
made some statement about like what do they want me
to do or resign and my life from Congress. So
this sparked a lot of dialogue within the Democratic Party.
Let's go and take a listen to a little bit
of David's home David hog here on Bill Maher.

Speaker 10 (01:00:01):
What I'm trying to do with this initiative with Leaders
we Deserve, the organization that we're working with, is to
challenge democrats that we feel like are failing to meet
the moment in safe congressional seats that don't risk us
losing the House and say to them, look, nobody is
entitled to their position of power, because ultimately, the positions
of power in this country don't belong to any member
of Congress that is out there. They belong to the
people that vote them into office. Part of what happens

(01:00:23):
in politics is people want to do two things at
the same time that are incompatible. They want to keep
the same people in the positions of power that they're
in that are individually beneficial to them, and they want
to get back to winning. But we're not going to
be able to do that with the same cast of
characters that got us here. And the answer to that
is to use democracy within our own party to give
voters the option of voting for somebody new, so that
they at least.

Speaker 4 (01:00:43):
Have the opportion. So you want to get rid of
the dead would.

Speaker 10 (01:00:46):
Effectively yes, but it's not just a matter of age,
to be clear. Of course, there's been a few members
that have come out that have said, well, you know,
if I retire, my life is effectively over. And what
I would say is, get over yourself. This isn't about you.
This is about our country, about your constituents. Nobody is
in too. I don't care if you've been there for
decades or just one term. That seat is not yours.

(01:01:06):
It is your constituents. That is who we were there
to serve. And if they choose to serve somebody else,
so be it. That's all what all we're trying to
do with leaders we deserve.

Speaker 2 (01:01:13):
So the quote that he's referencing there put the next
piece up on the screen is this from Jim cliber
and he said, Nancy left her seat, Stanny left his seat.

Speaker 5 (01:01:21):
I left my seat. What the hell am I supposed
to do?

Speaker 3 (01:01:23):
Now?

Speaker 5 (01:01:23):
What do you want me to give up my life?
And so Cliburn and.

Speaker 2 (01:01:27):
Say listen, we step back from our leadership positions. But
you know, he continues to hold the seat and run
for reelection, and that appears to be what David Hogg
is referencing here. What do you think of what David
Hogg is trying to do with the DNC and also
the pushback that he's received for it.

Speaker 4 (01:01:42):
Yeah, we might finally get to our disagreement in the
last block. I don't know. I think everybody can get
over themselves in this story. I don't know the David
Hog thing.

Speaker 3 (01:01:51):
Like if David Hogg had not run for DNC vice
chair and decided to start a group that was primary
older Democrat and saying we want to get new youthful
Democrats in and it's it's ideologically, I don't care, Like
maybe it's in some this scenarios it's a Dan Osborne type.
Maybe it's a moderate bulwark type. Maybe it's a d

(01:02:13):
s A type, Like I'm okay with that program. That's
a good program getting a younger, you know, more diverse
both you know, ideologically and you know racially, uh group
of people into the party. Like I'd be for all that.
But he decided to run for DNC vice chair right.
And to me, this is like the thing about all
this about how just pathetically incompetent the d n C.

Speaker 4 (01:02:36):
As and I do, like I look at the story
and it's just like, you know, there.

Speaker 3 (01:02:41):
Are conspiracy theories out there about how the d n
C is like orchestrating things, like the DNC can't orchestrate
a two car parade, Like the DNC can't do anything.
It was insane for them to put somebody who was
vastly more famous and to your point, vastly more uh uh,
you know, kind of online and in the public eye
than the chairman as vice chair and and and have

(01:03:05):
him be a total loose cannon Like what was like
what is the point of that? Like what was the
like what did they think that they were going to get?
And so you know, now you have somebody in the
DNC who's like firing you know, inside the house and
going on too Bill Maher and going onto all these
shows and like critiquing other people within the party. Like
that's not the job of the dncvice share. It could

(01:03:26):
be a job of an outside group that wants to
do this, but it's not his job on the inside.
And so now like the DNC rather than focusing on
what they should be focusing on, which is how to
beat as many Republicans as possible in the midterms. They
have this internal firing squad going on, and they're having
a struggle session about, you know, whether the gender balance
is right. I mean, it's like the most pathetic, embarrassing

(01:03:48):
organization that I've ever seen. And and so to me,
like that's my takeaway from the story is that like
these the eye is not on the ball for basically
any of the characters in this story.

Speaker 2 (01:04:00):
See, I hear what you're saying, but I would say
that I support the internal firing squad, and I think
the lack of an internal firing squad is exactly how
Democrats ended up as pathetic and losing as many races
as they did, because what did we hear when it
was Biden, It was, Oh, we can't have a primary,
we can't be critiquing each other, we don't want the
internal firing squad. Everybody's got to you know, stay unified

(01:04:22):
and stay united and not criticize each other. And in
the end that ends up in disaster. Whereas you know,
to give the counterpoint, the Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama primary
was pretty vicious, you know, there was.

Speaker 5 (01:04:36):
It was raucus.

Speaker 2 (01:04:37):
You go back and watch, they were taking some real
shots at each other, and guess what you end up with,
You know, a candidate who was able to not only win,
but win handily and run for reelection and win quite
handily there as well.

Speaker 5 (01:04:51):
I know you remember that.

Speaker 2 (01:04:52):
One here because you're on the other side around me
on that particular campaign. But you know, I hear what
you're saying about, like maybe the wasn't the place for
David Hog to be to make his stand, but I
think he's thinking about it. Of if you want to
improve the party, if the goal of the DNC should be,
to your point, winning races, and part of that is

(01:05:13):
rejuvenating this party and making sure we don't have another
Diane Feinstein cover up or Joe Biden style cover up,
that we have people who are actually effective and responsive
and you know, embracing those small de democratic values.

Speaker 4 (01:05:27):
It's a fair counterpoint. I would support strategic competition.

Speaker 3 (01:05:30):
I would just say, to me, this looks like a
total cluster fork, not strategic competition within the party. I
just don't Again, if what I was seeing from David
Hogg was hey, I'm recruiting all these new people who
are you know, going to be the future face of
the party and are more reflective of working class voters.

(01:05:52):
And I'm going into red states and I'm going to
recruit people that can actually win in these districts. And
you know, we're going to go into deep blue districts.
We're going to find people that are younger, with more
vigor to challenge that. Okay, I would be for that,
but I see mostly like tweets and press releases and
bickering at James Carville and Jim Clyburn and media appearances.

Speaker 4 (01:06:14):
So I just I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:06:16):
I think competition can be good, but being strategic and
smart can also be good. And I don't think either
the DNC or HOG over the past month have demonstrated
a lot of smarts a strategy.

Speaker 5 (01:06:26):
Well, far be it from me to defund the DNC.

Speaker 2 (01:06:28):
So we can end on that note, Tim, thank you
so much, and just tell people where they can find
you and follow your podcast.

Speaker 4 (01:06:35):
Thanks Chris.

Speaker 3 (01:06:36):
So yeah, no, check us out with the Bulwark over
on YouTube, the Borg podcast. You can check us out
on substack, also the Bulk dot com. And you know
I'm here in my hole all the time talking, so
you know, just come find me all right.

Speaker 2 (01:06:51):
Thank you, Tim, it was great to chat with you.
I really appreciate it.

Speaker 4 (01:06:53):
Thanks christ I appreciate having me.

Speaker 2 (01:06:57):
So we covered a bit yesterday how Trump announced this
big executive order with regard to prescription drug prices that
he said was instantly going to reduce all of prescription
drug prices by thirty to eighty percent. Joining us to
break down the reality of this executive order is David Saroda,
founder of The Lover.

Speaker 5 (01:07:15):
Great to see you, David, Good to see you. Yeah,
of course.

Speaker 2 (01:07:18):
So let me go ahead and start with Trump's comments
at the press conference yesterday, which were quite a bit
different than the way he had sold this executive.

Speaker 5 (01:07:28):
Order on prescription drug prices. To start with, let's take
a listen to that first.

Speaker 6 (01:07:31):
I'm directing the US Trade Representatives and Department of Commerce
to begin investigations into foreign nations that extort drug companies
by blocking their products unless they accept bottom line and
very low dollar amounts for their product, unfairly shifting the
cost burden onto American patients. And we'll be taking a

(01:07:53):
look at that very strongly. The biggest thing we're going
to do is we're going to tell those countries like
those represented by the European Union that you know, that
game is up. Sorry, and if they want to get cute,
then they don't have to sell cars into the United
States anymore. It's a very big subject, and they won't
get cute because I'll defend the drug companies. From that standpoint, He's.

Speaker 2 (01:08:16):
Going to defend the drug companies and force the Europeans
to pay higher prices. That's actually the plan that he's
announcing here.

Speaker 4 (01:08:24):
Yeah, it's a little weird.

Speaker 11 (01:08:25):
In that he's saying that America needs a better deal,
but other countries shouldn't shouldn't be negotiating for a better
price deal. And I don't really understand the logic there,
because he's touting the idea that the United States should
use its power, its purchasing power, its market power to
get a better deal for Americans, which I actually think

(01:08:47):
most Americans probably agree that it's not fair at all
that the United States is funding with tax dollars a
huge amount of the research and development that goes into
creating lots of medicine across the world, and our return
on that investment is being forced to pay the highest
prices in the world. I think his executive order is

(01:09:09):
aimed at pointing out that problem, and it is a problem. Unfortunately,
the solution that he's put forward isn't a solution at all.

Speaker 4 (01:09:20):
And you don't have to trust me.

Speaker 11 (01:09:21):
You can look at the price of pharmaceutical industry stocks
on the day that he announced his executive order. They
actually went up. And so the pharmaceutical industry does not
think that what Trump is proposing, and it's not even
entirely clear what actually that he is proposing, that the

(01:09:42):
industry doesn't even see it as anything real at all.

Speaker 2 (01:09:45):
Yeah, actually we can put E two up on the screen.
Still are tweeted this, But I checked the stock prices
at the end of the day. They were up even
more than the Sofizer end of the day up three
point six. Mark was at four point four, Eli Lilly
was up two point eight, Bristol Myers was up three
point seven, and Santa Fe was up two percent, so
two point three percent by the end of the day.
And there are also analysts are putting out guidance saying

(01:10:07):
that they do not see this drug pricing executive order
as a material event, meaning that it doesn't matter at all.
Let's put E four up on the screen, because you
break down some of the backstory here over at the lever.
You say, Trump already disarmed the war on drug prices.
So not only do we have this executive order that
doesn't have really any force of law, we have Trump

(01:10:29):
saying actually he's going to defend the drug prices. You
have the stock market reacting in a way that was
positive for the drug makers ultimately, but we also have
other signs from the Trump administration that they're not serious
about this.

Speaker 11 (01:10:40):
Yeah, So there is one tool in the toolbox that
the government could use to lower drug prices right now.
It's part of a long standing law that's been around
for more than forty years, which says that when the
government licenses, when the government funds research and development that
is turned into, for instance, medicine patented medicines that the

(01:11:04):
government can march in. That's the term the government can
march in and license to other companies the patents the
rights to make those drugs if the current producer of
the medicine is not offering them on reasonable terms. Essentially,

(01:11:27):
if the Americans cannot get access to the innovation that
their own tax dollars funded. That's been on the books
for forty years now. To be clear, it's never been
invoked so called march in rights, but successive administrations have
been under pressure to use march in rights under that

(01:11:48):
long standing law to say, hey, if you're charging other
countries one tenth the price for the medicine the taxpayers
developed and American tax payers essentially don't have or have
very limited access to the medicines that their taxpayer money,

(01:12:09):
their public money supported, we can march in and offer
the license to other generic drug producers to make lower
priced versions of the same medicine. Successive administration has been
under under pressure to use that power. Unfortunately they haven't
used that power. The Obama administration rejected Congressional Democrats pressure

(01:12:32):
pressure to do that. Donald Trump, to your point, not
only didn't use march in rights, Donald Trump tried to
permanently prevent any future president from ever using those powers. Obviously,
the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want any president to use those powers.
The Biden administration, it did reject a request to use

(01:12:54):
marching rights on one particular drug, but the Biden administration
also put forward a set of guidelines and rules to
create more clear ways to use those march In rights.
But now here in the present we have Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. Who initially told people on Capitol Hill that

(01:13:15):
he would be interested in using march In rights, but ultimately,
when put under a confirmation scrutiny, he said, using march
in rights when drug prices are too high is not
something that he is going to do.

Speaker 5 (01:13:29):
And how does the.

Speaker 2 (01:13:30):
Biden error reforms They did some modest reforms that allows
Medicare to negotiate on a handful of prescription drugs.

Speaker 5 (01:13:40):
How does that play into this?

Speaker 2 (01:13:41):
Does that give the Trump administration any potential powers that
they could expand upon.

Speaker 11 (01:13:46):
Well, look, certainly Medicare is a big buyer of prescription drugs,
has purchasing power to try to negotiate lower prices. The
Biden administration program deals with ten particular drugs. It's called
a formulary. Certainly the Trump administration could push to expand
the formulary. It is statutory law. It would have to

(01:14:08):
go to Congress to do that. Medicare can also try
to essentially demand so called most favored nation pricing. That
is to say, if you're going to charge a lower
price in another country the United States should get access
to that. There's a question about how could medicare actually
pressure those prices down for drugs covered by private insurance. Frankly, Crystal,

(01:14:33):
it's not really clear what this executive order really is
beyond Trump saying to RFK and to saying to a
couple of other agency, you know, go lower the price
of prescription drugs. But again, I go back to this
idea that HHS under Trumps has essentially said, we are
not going to use the one weapon in our arsenal

(01:14:57):
march in rights to do any of So when I
look at the stock price jump of pharmaceutical stocks, what
I see is pharmaceutical pharmaceutical industry that was wondering whether
marching rights was going to be in this executive order,
knows that RFK has already said he's not going to
use those powers, knows that Trump has tried to permanently

(01:15:20):
prevent any president from using those powers. I see a
pharmaceutical industry that says, oh, that's not in the executive order. Well,
another example of Trump saying a lot of things, but
there's not really anything here that is going to bring
down the price of medicines in the United States and
not really anything going to cut into their profits. And
I want to make one other point that's really important here.

(01:15:42):
It's not like these drug companies aren't making big profits
and revenues in other countries. That's the part that just
should get to everybody, which is to say, they're they're
making profits in Europe, in other industrialized countries when they're
charging those consumers there one third the price of the

(01:16:02):
price that they charge Americans. They're making healthy profits there,
which means that what they're doing here is profiteering, and
their profiteering off of this is so important. They're profiteering
mostly off of medicines that we the public, we the taxpayers,
already funded.

Speaker 5 (01:16:22):
That is such a great point.

Speaker 2 (01:16:23):
And the other thing that I noted yesterday is this
is very similar to an executive order that he signed
also in the first Trump administration. So I think the
other reason why the drug makers have so much confidence
that it's not going to matter is because they went
to court and successfully were able to enjoin and get
an injunction against that executive order, and so they already

(01:16:45):
know effectively how how this story ends. And I suspect
Trump also knows how the story ends doesn't really care
about prescription drug prices, because if he did, he could
put pressure on Congress. He has marchin rights that he
could use. You've got Bernie Sanders and Rocan out saying, hey,
we've got a bill that would do what you want
to do. Why didn't you work with us on it?
He shows no interest in doing any of that. He

(01:17:06):
just effectively wants the headline here because his poll numbers
have been dropping and he wants to distract from the
fact that they're also set to do gigantic cuts to
medicaid in service of cutting taxes for the rich.

Speaker 4 (01:17:16):
That's exactly right.

Speaker 11 (01:17:17):
I mean, listen, Rocanna has been out there saying, let's
just take Donald Trump's executive order and put it into
statute so that if and when he tries to do,
for instance, most favored nation pricing via Medicare, it won't
be invalidated by a court.

Speaker 4 (01:17:34):
That's what happened the last time. So let's put it
into statute.

Speaker 11 (01:17:38):
You've got a Republican president, Democrats in Congress willing to
put it into statute.

Speaker 4 (01:17:43):
Let's do that.

Speaker 11 (01:17:44):
There's no sense that Trump is engaged with Congress at
all to do any of that, so again, I agree
with you. It's like a show. It's like a circus.
It's like, it's like, let me get a headline. People
will I guess I mentarily think that at some point
in the future, drug prices will come down, and hopefully,

(01:18:05):
I guess the hope is what everyone will forget about this.
We'll forget that he made this pledge that everyone has
a goldfish brain forgetting their entire world every fifteen minutes.
I mean, I don't think that's really going to work
when it comes to something like prescription drug prices, which
are a constant, a constant expense for millions and millions

(01:18:26):
of Americans.

Speaker 2 (01:18:27):
Yeah, well, some of us have goldfish brains, but you're
not one of them. David's already you remember all the details.
I had to go back and look up this exactly,
was like, did you do something similar in the first administration?

Speaker 5 (01:18:35):
Before I let you go?

Speaker 2 (01:18:36):
We're going to have our June on next week to
talk about Tax Revolt, your new podcast series, But just
give everybody a preview of what you guys have been
up to, because this is some extraordinary investigative journalism.

Speaker 11 (01:18:47):
Yeah, so listen, this week is tax Week in Washington.
Donald Trump's tax bill is coming down the pike. A
big question are they going to cut taxes on Are
they going to essentially make permanent Trump's tax cuts, including
tax cuts for billionaires corporations. There's some talk in the
Republican Party that they're going to try to raise some
taxes on millionaires, and I think that's a response to

(01:19:10):
the fact that, according to poll's, seventy percent of Republican
voters now want taxes raised on the wealthy. Our series,
Tax Revolt, it's an audio series. People can find it
at levernews dot com slash Tax Revolt. Our new series
takes a look at the history of the anti tax movement,
where it came from, how it grew into such a

(01:19:32):
political force, and as important, why it is potentially fraying
right now, which is kind of shocking.

Speaker 4 (01:19:39):
I mean, you know, the.

Speaker 11 (01:19:39):
Last fifty years, tax cuts have been the dominant religion
of the Republican Party.

Speaker 4 (01:19:46):
And why is the movement framing? Where did that movement
come from? That's what our series is about.

Speaker 5 (01:19:51):
All right, people should definitely go and check that out.

Speaker 2 (01:19:53):
And like I said, we're going to have urgency on
next week to break down some of the specifics there,
David Serta, so great.

Speaker 5 (01:19:58):
To see you, Thank you, sir, thank you, thanks so much.

Speaker 2 (01:20:04):
So, guys, there was one more story that I wanted
to make sure and cover today because it is deeply troubling.
Hassan Piker, who is one of the most, if not
the largest, most prominent pro Palestine voice in the country,
was detained for hours by customs and border patrol as
he tried to re enter the country. He was flying
in from France, and he was questioned on his views

(01:20:27):
on Israel Palestine four hours. Hassan recently spoke about this experience.
Let's go ahead and take a listen to a little
bit of.

Speaker 5 (01:20:34):
What he had to say.

Speaker 12 (01:20:35):
I'm sitting there and they're asking me about Trump, They're
asking me about like Hamas, And he kept saying stuff.
He kept saying stuff like do you like Hamas? Like
do you support Hamas? Do you think Hamas is a
resistance group? Do you think Amas is a terrorist group
or a resistance group?

Speaker 6 (01:20:55):
Like?

Speaker 12 (01:20:56):
He just kept asking over and over again. Right, I
kept repeating the same statement over and over again. And
every single time he asked me a question leading a
leading question about Hamas, I kept saying the United States
State Department recognizes hamas as a terrorist organization.

Speaker 4 (01:21:13):
The fact that a lot of the shit that like.

Speaker 12 (01:21:18):
The Ethan Kleines of the world have like cried about
over and over again were on ironically brought up in
that fucking conversation the houthy like did you interview a houthy?
It says here that you interviewed a Houthi, and I
was like, or was he actually a Houthi?

Speaker 4 (01:21:33):
And I was like, he's not.

Speaker 12 (01:21:35):
You can look to all of the reporting that came
up afterwards and before I interviewed him that he is
not a He's not a hoothy. The very fact that
that was like a point of contention that could have
fucking gotten me arrested is insane, And I genuinely, in
that moment was thinking, like, these fucking dumbass slop tubers
are actually playing with fucking fire.

Speaker 2 (01:21:57):
So there is a lot to say about this. So,
first of all, while he's referring to the quote unquote
hot Houfi that he interviewed a while back, turns out
the guy was not even a Houfi, which is what
he's talking about here. But clearly CBP grilling him on
his political views and stances over the course of hours.
And what Hassan points to there he mentions Ethan Klein,

(01:22:18):
who's his former podcast host, So he's had a falling
out with primarily over some personal things, but also primarily
over their respective views on Israel Palestine, and so Ethan
has been going in and criticizing Hassan for things like
his interview with the quote unquote hot Hoofi, And so
he's pointing to the fact that these CBP agents seemingly

(01:22:39):
knew about the nature of this online critique, and it
reminded me of the fact that you have this, you know,
extreme Zionist radical organization called Beitar that has been claiming
credit for giving the Trump administration list of students that
they want to be arrested and ultimately deported and have

(01:23:02):
been tweeting out these lists. And there's some indication that
the Trump administration is using social media for these types
of operations. That's certainly what Betar Worldwide is claiming confirmation
of that from the Trump administration. But the fact that
Hassan was targeted in this way and question in this
manner obviously deeply deeply troubling, and Hassan himself in another

(01:23:26):
portion of his commentary here talks about how he thinks
this was very intentional to create a climate of fear
and to try to get him and others to shut
up about their views that differ from the stance of
this administration.

Speaker 5 (01:23:39):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.

Speaker 12 (01:23:40):
The reason for why they're doing that is, I think
to try to create an environment of fear to try
to get people like myself, or at least like others
that would be in my shoes that don't have that
same level of security, to shut the fuck up. And
for me, I'm going to use the that I have
in that moment to try and see what the fuck

(01:24:03):
they're doing.

Speaker 2 (01:24:05):
So he talks there about how they're trying to create
a climate of fear. Hassan is not the first person
who has been seemingly targeted by Customs and Border patrol
by the Trump administration in this manner. An immigration attorney
who was returning back to the US was similar pulled
aside for hours and questioned with him.

Speaker 5 (01:24:22):
It was specifically about.

Speaker 2 (01:24:23):
The work that he does, and they wanted to seize
his phone and get a hold of his client list. Again,
an immigration attorney, and this ties in with the larger
project of the Trump administration where they have been either
overtly or floating the idea of labeling as domestic terrorists
anyone who supports the Palestinian cause. So Hassan, again, being

(01:24:48):
one of the most if not the most prominent pro
Palestine voice in the country getting targeted is deeply, deeply troubling.
So that's one category of people we've seen. Of course,
the way that they've applied this to students who are
here on visa's even legal permanent residence, like Mahmud Khalil,
not for any sort of criminal activity, but literally just

(01:25:11):
for their speech, for penning and op ed or being
involved in a protest movement that is pro Palestine. So
Hassan appears to have been directly targeted because of his
views on that issue. But that's not the only group
that they've been going after, as evidenced by the immigration
attorney who was pulled aside Sebastian Gorka, who is the

(01:25:32):
White House's counter terrors are and Ken Clepenstein has done
great reporting on this. He has floated that anyone who
opposes the Trump administration's deportation policy should be seen as
a domestic terrorist. And of course we saw a judge
who was arrested, you know, in that context, and AOC
and others who have been threatened with arrest for advising

(01:25:53):
immigrants of their rights and the rights that they can
avail themselves of in this country. He's also so floated
labeling as domestic terrorists people who are just critical of
the Trump regime. So the hands off protesters he mentioned
as well. Of course, Pam Bondi gave a press conference
where she officially said that people who harbor ill will

(01:26:16):
against Tesla that they should be treated as domestic terrorists.
And we know there have been you know, they really
threw the book at some individuals whore accused of vandalizing
Tesla's or Tesla property. So this is part of a
larger pattern, and it seems like Hassan handled it incredibly well.
I don't know that I would have been so cool
under fire as he was. Gave you know, answers that

(01:26:39):
they couldn't really use to do anything with. But he
had the sense that they were trying to get him
to express some sort of support for Hamas or for
the Housies, both of which are labeled terrorist organizations by
the State Department, as he rightly boinds out, so that
they could have some sort of pretext to potentially detain him,
arrest him, and hold him for a longer period of time.

(01:27:00):
So I don't know, guys, this is I think another
escalation when you're targeting prominent media figures simply for their
speech on a topic that is dissonant from the Trump administration,
from their regime. There were a few other things going
on here that I just wanted to make sure and highlight.

(01:27:21):
There's video that recently went viral of a Massachusetts ICE
raid where they are trying to arrest a mother. Her
teenage daughter is obviously very upset. She's also holding a
young child. There's a crowd that gathers at the scene.
The agents, I'm not sure if these were ICE agents
or local police also got involved with this, even though

(01:27:44):
they are not supposed to be involved whatsoever in immigration enforcement.
But in any case, the teenage daughter ends up getting
slammed and her face pushed into the ground. Let's go
ahead and take a look at that footage.

Speaker 4 (01:28:03):
Stop them.

Speaker 13 (01:28:09):
Definitely a chaotic scene on Eureka Street Thursday, as Worcester
police and ice agents detained a mother and her sixteen
year old daughter. That girl's face slammed into the ground
as she was taken into custody. They have not been identified.
Worcester Police said officers were dispatched to the area for
a report of a federal agent surrounded by about two
dozen people. When police arrived, they say the teen daughter
was holding a newborn baby in her arms and standing

(01:28:31):
in front of the ice vehicle that was trying to
leave with their mother inside. Officers told her she was
endangering the baby, so she handed the newborn to a relative,
but police alleged as the ice vehicle drove away, she
ran after it and kicked the side of it. She
was arrested in charge with reckless endangerment of a child,
disturbing the peace to sort of the conduct, and resisting arrest.

Speaker 2 (01:28:50):
These are the types of scenes that are increasingly playing
out across the country and including some of the public pushback.
You can see there there's a crowd that forms that
is very concerned about what is happening, that is attempting
to intervene. The police claim they were called in because
this is their line since they can't be involved directly
in immigration enforcement they were called in for crowd control

(01:29:11):
and that their actions were consistent with trying to get
the crowd.

Speaker 5 (01:29:16):
That had gathered there under control.

Speaker 2 (01:29:18):
But you know, there has been increasing pushback from the
public on these draconian tactics that are being utilized, including
against you know, a teenage girl here who gets thrown
to the ground. This is I was reading the local
Massachusetts press. I think you pronounced it Wooster. Sorry Massachusetts
people if I get that wrong. But in any case,
there's a local uproar about the way all of this

(01:29:40):
went down, and we've seen in other towns where actually
public protest led to the release of some other immigrants
who had been arrested and detained, including child who had
been arrested from school, and the principle and others pushed
back and they were able to secure the at least
temporary release. Some good news I did want to share

(01:30:00):
with you though, in light of the especially consistent with
the news about Hassan here, we've been tracking all of
the students that have been arrested for their speech, their
pro Palestine speech. One of those is Remesa oz Turk.
We all watch the video of her getting snatched and
kidnapped up off the street.

Speaker 5 (01:30:17):
Her crime.

Speaker 2 (01:30:18):
The only thing that this administration has ever accused her
of is penning an op ed for the student newspaper
calling for divestment from anything associated with Israel. That's literally
all that she's ever been accused of. She's never been
accused of any crime, even of saying from the river
to the sea, God forbid, none of that, just this

(01:30:40):
op ed in the student newspaper.

Speaker 5 (01:30:42):
She was arrested for that.

Speaker 2 (01:30:44):
The Trump administration shifted her down to Louisiana because they
thought that the judges there would be harsher Visa VI immigrants,
and that they would have a better chance of being
able to secure oz Turk's continued detention and eventual deportation
for what is very clearly just on the.

Speaker 5 (01:31:02):
Grounds of speech.

Speaker 2 (01:31:03):
They lost that battle to keep her in Louisiana, so
that was a significant win for Rameesa Osturk. She gets
transferred back to Vermont. They hear her case in Vermont,
and ultimately this has not been fully decided yet, but
they did decide while the case the trial is pending,
they did decide to release Ramesa oz Turk, so she
is now free for the moment.

Speaker 5 (01:31:25):
While that case is pending.

Speaker 2 (01:31:27):
She spoke out about everything that's going on, including why
she appreciates and respects this country, which I'm not sure
that I would be big enough to say at this
particular moment, but just take a listen to her comments.
Upon her release, I.

Speaker 14 (01:31:41):
Will continue my case in the courts. I come to you,
Mike to face to pursue my Gorge studies long I'm
girl as a scholars and as it's contributed chal developments
fields with my teaching research on Applight's work. America is
the greatest Demochrist in the it and I believe in

(01:32:01):
those wells that we share. I have faith in the
American system of justice.

Speaker 9 (01:32:09):
This is difficult time for my community, for my community
at toss at Turkey, but I'm so grateful for all
the sport, kindness and cash.

Speaker 14 (01:32:23):
My advisor sent me my dissertation proposal to the PISM.

Speaker 2 (01:32:28):
I was really struck there by. First of all, she
says America is the greatest democracy in the world. I
believe in those values that we shared, like the ability
to hold on to that sentiment at this particular time
when those democratic rights are very much under assault, and
that she is burying the brunt of that assault, I
thought was pretty incredible, and also that even in this
moment when she's going through such a trying ordeal, she's

(01:32:50):
still thinking about the other women that she saw and
the pain and the anguish that they were suffering inside
the immigration center. I was actually talking to producer Mac
before or this segment. It really is incredible the people
that they have made an example of.

Speaker 5 (01:33:05):
Every one of them.

Speaker 2 (01:33:06):
Appears to be just the most kind, big hearted, like
incredible people that you can imagine, whether it's moss of Madawi,
if you listen to what he has to say about
the need for justice for everyone and human rights and
dignity for all, Mack Mood Khalil, we can actually put
he just penned an on ed. We can put this
up on the screen. Remember, this is a guy who

(01:33:28):
he is still being held in detention. He was denied
the ability to be present for the birth of his
firstborn child, and that's who he's writing to hear and again,
all because he was just involved as a facilitator and
a negotiator in the Colombia pro Palestine protest. He says

(01:33:48):
to his newborn son, Dean, my heart aches that I
could not hold you in my arms and hear your
first cry that I could not unfurro your clenched fists
or change your first diaper. I am sorry that I
was not there to hold your mother's hand, or to
recite the ad hun, or to call to prayer in
your ear.

Speaker 5 (01:34:04):
But my absence is not unique.

Speaker 2 (01:34:06):
Like other Palestinian fathers, I was separated from you by
racist regimes and distant prisons. In Palestine, this pain is
part of daily life. Babies are born every day without
their fathers, not because their fathers choose to leave, but
because they are taken by war, by bombs, by prison cells,
and by the cold machinery of occupation. The grief your
mother and I feel is but one drop in a

(01:34:29):
sea of sorrow that Palestinian families have drowned in for generations.
And again here he is still still detained, still being
held for the crime of participating in a protest, and
barred from being able to be there for the birth

(01:34:50):
of his child, and still is thinking not just about himself,
but is thinking about the broader cause and those who
he says are suffering even more greatly than he is,
and his wife too, by the way, who is an
American citizen. I mean his child and is an American citizen.
His wife is an American citizen. And so while Mahmud
Khalil's rights are being denied here because of his speech,

(01:35:12):
so are those of his wife. Of his American citizen
wife is also having her life turned upside down because
he dared to speak out against genocide being committed with
our US tax dollars in Gaza. So extraordinary individuals and
deeply troubling times. You know, to go back to Hassan here,

(01:35:33):
I do wonder if the timing of this questioning and
detention has to do with you. He's recently the subject
of a New York Times profile like his. Hassan is
a huge has a gigantic audience. I think he's the
largest twitch political streamer that is out there. But he's
also had more and more sort of mainstream crossover lately,
which has also raised his profile, and so I wonder

(01:35:55):
if that's also part of what made him a target.
Kudos to him for not buckley under the pressure and
speaking out about everything that he experienced, because the goal here,
like he said, is to create a climate of fear,
and you cannot allow that to happen, you have to
continue to speak out.

Speaker 5 (01:36:11):
On issues of importance.

Speaker 2 (01:36:13):
And he also spoke about how, you know, having this
large profile and having this level of national fame also
gives them a sort of privilege. So very admirable that
he's thinking about that under those circumstances and not buckling
under the pressure.

Speaker 5 (01:36:28):
All right, guys, that is the show for today.

Speaker 2 (01:36:31):
Thank you so much for hanging out with me and
Tim Miller and David Sarota, Emiine Ryan are going to
be in tomorrow for Counterpoints. Thank you also to all
of the Premium subscribers out there who have been supporting
us an enabled our expansion to the Friday Show. Super
super grateful for all of your support. And we're going
to have some more big news for you guys coming soon,

(01:36:52):
so stay tuned for that and I'll see you soon.

Speaker 4 (01:37:01):
P

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Boysober

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}5/13/25: Rand Paul Rips Trump On China, Airport Safety Collapse, Hasan Piker Detained & MORE!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Boysober

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

5/13/25: Rand Paul Rips Trump On China, Airport Safety Collapse, Hasan Piker Detained & MORE!

Stuff You Should Know