5/2/25: Walz Gets Ousted, Trump Judge Blocks Deportations, Rand Paul Trashes Tariffs & MORE!

Krystal, Ryan and Emily discuss Mike Walz ousted, Ukraine minerals deal, judge blocks Trump deportations, Rand Paul slams tariffs, Bannon with Lina Khan, and MORE!

If you need any help, please contact http://breakingpoints.locals.com/contact

To connect your RSS feed, use this link: https://breakingpoints.locals.com/rss

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Happy Friday, All, how's everybody doing this morning?

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Great, We're on you.

Speaker 4 (00:35):
Glad to see you guys.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Good to say you guys do A bunch of stuff
that was breaking right after our show yesterday, A bunch
of moves. Mike Waltz out at NSA and Ryan, I
think you have a scoop with regard to some of
his last acts in that position.

Speaker 5 (00:49):
Correct, Yeah, thanks to the tech.

Speaker 4 (00:51):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (00:51):
People thought that he was caught using signal on the
day that he was fired for right, is poor signal use,
But it turns out he was using an.

Speaker 4 (01:01):
Israeli tech firm's version of Signal.

Speaker 5 (01:04):
Oh, that sounds even better because.

Speaker 6 (01:06):
That tech firm, that tech firm kind of makes a
copy of everybody's messages so you could keep it so
it might comply with record keeping rules in the federal government.
But it also means that the Israeli tech firm would
plausibly who and which is made up of former Israeli
intel officials, would have access to these potentially would have
access to all of these messages set by our national

(01:28):
security team.

Speaker 3 (01:29):
Right? Is this because people saw the Reuter's picture of
him in the cabinet meeting. Was he using the app?
Then that was the Israeli Tech Firms app?

Speaker 4 (01:37):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:38):
Yeah, And if you if you look close enough, and
we have a story over at drop site that people
can read if you look close enough at it, it's
not the Signal app.

Speaker 4 (01:45):
It's this Israelly Tech Firms app.

Speaker 5 (01:48):
All right, So we'll get into that.

Speaker 2 (01:49):
We got more details on the Ukraine minerals deal Emily
and I covered the outlines of it.

Speaker 5 (01:53):
ESGM.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
Curious to get Ryan's take on that and where we
are with regard to ending hopefully one day the Ukraine
Russia War. We had this also, we kind of previewed
yesterday Emily, a Trump appointed judge has now blocked his
invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, and we were just
saying yesterday that we expected that to come at some point,
and then lo and behold, basically after we finished the show,

(02:16):
you get exactly that ruling. We've got also a bunch
of stuff that's going to be in the premium section,
including a really interesting clip of Tucker and Matt Walshin,
Tucker kind of calling him out with regard to Israel,
sort of casually calling him out on that, and a
really horrific new development there drones attacking and aid flotilla
that was headed to Gaza. Also Trump weigh in on

(02:39):
virgins because that's something we all wanted, and Mark Zuckerberg
wanting all of us to have more robot friends. So
things are going good, guys, Things are going good.

Speaker 3 (02:49):
And maybe questions as well if we have time for them.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, So we put on a post for premium subscribers.
We're going to take a few questions at the end
from the comments you guys submitted. So again, you know,
we're going to do a bunch of stuff for the
free show, and then we'll have some bonus content for
premium subscribers, including those questions. If you guys want to
become a premium subscriber, go to Breakingpoints dot com and
appreciate all of you guys for making the show possible.

(03:14):
You know, an expansion at this moment of economic uncertainty
is a bit of a risk, but you guys make
it so that we're able to do it. So shall
we go ahead and dive in here, guys? Sue all right,
So Mike Waltz out at nssay he is being given
the consolation prize of you an ambassador, which the administration

(03:35):
is trying to spin is like, oh, that's definitely not
a demotion. That's like totally the same level of prestige
and import as an essay director. But I'm going to
pull up this this element, but first, just guys weigh
in on that piece, which is kind of preposterous Nicky
Haley's old job.

Speaker 3 (03:51):
In other words, Yeah, jd Vance has tried to say,
you can plausibly make it. I think you said you
can make a good faith argument that it's a promotion,
which is a really funny way of saying, well, if
you kind of stretch and squint. You can see how
maybe this would look kind of like a promotion. Of course,
it's not. The amount of power that you wield as
NSA is significantly more than the amount of power you

(04:12):
wield as a UN ambassador, where you're largely a figurehead,
an important figurehead. Nonetheless, something to be said for that.
But I think it was Trump's way of not completely
capitulating to the media firestorm over Walls while also you know,
getting him out of his his tight inner circle.

Speaker 6 (04:32):
Yeah, go ahead, Ryan, Right, Yeah, the reporting was all
that Trump did not want to look like he was
the chaos agent of Trump won. He really regretted, you know,
all the people that he fired within you know, the
first several even weeks of his administration. And so he
was like, I'm not firing this guy under pressure because

(04:54):
I don't want to. I don't want to do that again.
So he waited and then sort of didn't fire him,
just moved him, but did fire him.

Speaker 3 (05:01):
So yeah, I want to say, yeah, well, no, I
mean there's something like from just a last time around,
you could get someone fired if you were inside the
administration with strategic leaks, and it created just from like
a management perspective, an impossible situation because people were constantly
they realized the power of their leaking. They could sideline people.

(05:22):
It was just like straight up hunger games and so.

Speaker 4 (05:26):
Be done by Laura Lumer.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Yes, now you have they've consolidated the firing power.

Speaker 3 (05:32):
Yes, so it's a much more efficient process.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
Let me go ahead play this because we do have
video of like, this is this is really this is
really cool. We have video of him like getting the
news he's gonna board Air Force one and then someone
comes over to him and is like, yeah, you're you're
not going to be on this trip, and then he's
like escorted off the tarmac. Let me go ahead and
play this for you guys, so we can we can

(05:56):
see the moment that it all went down and well
traveled marine touch two point oh but a little too
early for that.

Speaker 5 (06:06):
Here we go.

Speaker 7 (06:08):
That's his figure. He does not get on Air Force one.
It's only about a ten minute flight. So it's extremely
odd to take the helicopter flight and then not actually
go on the trip.

Speaker 3 (06:18):
I was told he was not supposed to.

Speaker 7 (06:19):
Go on the trip, and so people raised questions about
what this moment meant. So we've been asking White House
officials about it, and essentially just got to a point
where he didn't have a lot of confidence, not of
the President, not of his senior staff. And he was told,
I was told earlier this week that his time as
the National Security Advisor had come to an end and
it was time for him to leave. And now we
are told that he will be departing and so will

(06:40):
his end life.

Speaker 3 (06:41):
So he took so he took Marine one to drink
Base Andrews. So what they're saying and didn't get on
Air Force one. That's brutal. That's mean girls type stuff.

Speaker 6 (06:53):
Also, it's so obnoxious that all of these guys take
helicopters to Andrews Like.

Speaker 5 (06:59):
It's like five, we're right there.

Speaker 4 (07:02):
Take take an uber, guys.

Speaker 5 (07:03):
I mean, in fairness, the traffic in DC can be
really bad.

Speaker 6 (07:06):
It's true, that's true. Yeah, but he can he can
work from his phone.

Speaker 4 (07:10):
So what's it? What's it matter?

Speaker 6 (07:12):
But yes, to like get turned around on that is
I mean, you sign up to work for Trump, you
know you are most likely it's like life, You're signing
up for a brutal end. It's just going to come
a lot faster and it's going to be even more brutal.
And you know what do you get he got How
many scaramouchies did he get?

Speaker 4 (07:33):
Maybe eight? But now he has to be un ambassador.
So that'll be cool, that's not bad.

Speaker 6 (07:39):
Somebody you can go to restaurants and he'll be fine.

Speaker 2 (07:42):
Imagine being a least staphonic right now. Seriously, who okay,
just what people recall she was supposed to be you
an ambassador. She's in Congress, she's supposed to be you
an ambassador. But they picked uh, well, they pulled Matt Gates.
You know, they were going to make him a g
and then he ends up pulling himself out of contention.

Speaker 5 (08:01):
But that's one House seat. Then you've got Mike.

Speaker 2 (08:02):
Waltz is pulled, and then isn't there one more that
they pulled out of the House into the administration And
they basically with Stefani, I'm sorry, I know you're in
like a R plus twenty district, but we're not all
that confident that you're going to be able to we're
going to be able to put a Republican in that
seat after you, so you have to stay. So now
she not only has to deal with the like the
sting of she thought she was going to be you ambassador,

(08:22):
but she's not, but now so also the degradation of
like them using this as some sort of a consolation
prize for Mike Waltz was her colleague in the House
as well, like that's that's a rough hand that one.

Speaker 3 (08:35):
And she gave up her leadership post to accept this
nomination to be you on ambassador, and so now she's
back in Congress and it's sort of put them at
a loss because they're trying to figure out how to
let Alista find it come back into Congress heat it's
a leadership post or in a post that makes her
feel like she's leadership adjacent. So it's been a really
brutal few months for her. She's she's sacrificed for the

(08:57):
cause and is not getting rewarded for it.

Speaker 2 (08:59):
And then the other piece of this, so Waltz is
over to the the UN and then the person who
at least for now is replacing him is Marco Rubio,
who already is wearing a bunch of different hats, so
he is already obviously Secretary of State, now Usaid Administrator,
US archivist. I didn't even I didn't even know this one.

(09:21):
Apparently he's also the head of the US Archives and
now also National Security Advisor, So I don't know if
he's going to stay in definitely as NSA, but that's
where who has been filled in right now, So you know,
to the the ideological piece, Rubio is also a ha.
I mean, Waltz is a hawk. That's, you know, part
of why Lumer and others wanted him out of there.

(09:41):
I certainly wanted him out of there as well. Rubio
is not really an improvement, though he's reconstructed.

Speaker 4 (09:47):
Though Emily give us the pro Rubio case.

Speaker 3 (09:50):
Well, I was going to say, Waltz is an unreconstructed
neo kan who packages himself as a reconstructed neokon. But
Rubio is sincerely a reconstructed neokon. Not that he is.
To be very clear, he does not have the foreign
policy of someone like JD. Vance or Tucker Carlson. He's
still fairly hawkish against China, but he's definitely shifted significantly

(10:14):
in very sincere ways. He's it's but the question is,
you know, does that do your ambitions also allow you
to be co opted by the unreconstructed conservatives who do
still work in these high level positions and the foreign
policy establishment, because you also kind of came in with
the residue of new Conservatism. So it's not like we're

(10:36):
putting Tucker Carlson in these positions.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
To be very clear, my impression of Rubio is he's
reconstructed is just like a total and complete Trump Sika fan.
Like whatever Trump's ideology is, to say, that's what margat
Rubio's ideology is going to be that. I mean, we
saw that on full display at that grotesque North Korea
style cabinet meeting this week, which is just I mean, really,
this is one of the key characteristics of Trump two

(11:00):
point zero. Not to say it wasn't there in Trump
one point zero, but the levels of just dear leader,
you know, boot licking are off the charts. They have
reached grotesque new levels. And you know to that point too.
I don't know if you guys saw the news that
Trump is planning on throwing himself this giant military parade
in DC.

Speaker 5 (11:20):
For his birthday.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
I mean, this is this shit is incredibly disturbing to me,
Like just disturbing.

Speaker 3 (11:26):
Isn't it also like the anniversary of the army or
something like that. I have to pull the article back up.
It's an ap story and it's it happens the fall
on his birthday. But it's also like the army is
that they.

Speaker 4 (11:37):
Always finds something that falls on your birthday.

Speaker 3 (11:40):
Every day is a holiday? Is a holiday?

Speaker 5 (11:42):
Very true.

Speaker 2 (11:43):
All right, let's let's get to this signal Israeli signal story. Ryan,
I don't know if you could pull up the drop
site thing, but let me first pull up.

Speaker 5 (11:51):
Let me pull up this real quick.

Speaker 2 (11:53):
So here's the image that this is pulled from that
cabinet meeting, the North Korea cabinet meeting, where this is
Mike Waltz. I mean, you can fully read a text
here from the Vice President of the United States. You
can see Tulsi Gabbard's in there, you can see wit Cough,
you can see Rubio. I'm not sure who that other
the one above Gabbard is. Maybe Emily knows, but in

(12:13):
any case, everyone was looking at this and like, oh
my god, you know here he is using signal in
the middle of the cabinet meeting, and you can read
some of the text messages just from the photography. And
then this guy points out, actually, no, it appears they're
using it as rarely firm's archive wrapper app called tele Message.
Hence the TM signal in the pin pop up means
they're attempting to archive to comply with federal records laws.

(12:35):
But I'm skeptical of security implications. And then Ryan, why
don't you pick up with your reporting?

Speaker 6 (12:40):
Yeah, so it popped up because because of this thing
right here, whereas verify your TM SGNL PIN. I remember
I saw that too, and I was like, that's not
that's as you I'm sure you guys noticed too, that's
not Signal, Like you know, Signal says verify your signal pin.
So this is a firm called tele Message and they

(13:01):
have this software called Signal Capture. So Signal is is
open source, but you need a license to use it.
Signal would not confirm that they had given us a
license or that that they had given this israelly firm
a license. But let's let me find this quote. We
did get a quote from them where they say we

(13:23):
cannot guarantee the privacy or security properties of unofficial versions
of Signal. So this is an unofficial version of Signal.
Like basically, what it's doing is using the signal base.
So the messages should be secure, uh, you know, end
to end. But then it makes a copy of them
and it puts it somewhere and we don't know where.

(13:45):
We don't is it is it putting the copy in
some White House server? Is it putting it in some
server that this is really firm controls but then licenses
back to the to the White House.

Speaker 4 (13:56):
Uh, this was something that was put together on the fly.

Speaker 6 (13:59):
You had Carolyn Levitt say recently that the administration was
working to solve the problem of transparency and of record
keeping because you know, under the record Keeping Act, you're
required to keep you know, official communications between between members
and signal disappears messages. So this seems to be the

(14:21):
answer to what Caroline Levitt was saying was the solution
that they were coming up with. But okay, that's a
it's a good thing that you would do that. But
because they slapped it together so quickly, they just went
out and got this israelly firm.

Speaker 4 (14:36):
And so the firm is just completely stocked.

Speaker 6 (14:42):
Its top two its top two officials are former Israeli
intelligence officials. A lot of you know, and a lot
of the engineers and other people who work for. It
also came out of Israeli intelligence, and the kind of
profile of the the people that work there is similar
to all of the Israeli spyware and surveillance companies.

Speaker 4 (15:05):
And I'll just read this part.

Speaker 6 (15:07):
Tech professionals have moved between companies like Telemessage and some
of the leading Israeli spyware firms. For example, a Loan Fallaw,
a technical support manager at Telemessage until twenty twenty one,
left the company a joint NSO Group. According to his
LinkedIn profile, NSO Group is the one that does Pegasus.
Pegasus is the no click penetration software. Will you don't

(15:28):
even have to click on anything, and it will get
into your get into your phone. The US has alternately,
like if supported it and even tried to sanction it
at times because it's so dangerous. Another employee joined Telemessage
last year after a stint at Celebrate, maker of hardware
and software widely used by law enforcement to extract data
from smartphones.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
So, and the thing with Pegasus is all you need
to know is the person's phone number. Right, And another
thing we learned about was it.

Speaker 4 (15:59):
Walter heggs hesth but probably also well probably I.

Speaker 2 (16:02):
Mean that their numbers were just like freely available online,
easily obtainable. So I sort of assumed that the Israelis
and probably a bunch of other foreign nations as well,
already had access to all of these all of these messages,
because yeah, that that Pegasus program allows you just to
be able to get into someone's phone and all you

(16:23):
need to know is the phone number, which is terrifying.

Speaker 6 (16:26):
Although if you if you have your phone on lockdown
mode and if there aren't any new exploits, it's difficult.
You know, pegasust requires your phone either to like you
have not been updated, you know, since the latest hack,
and especially if you have it on lockdown mode, pegasusts
can't really get in. And also apparently it costs something

(16:47):
like a million dollars a shot. It's extremely expensive. So,
like it reminds me of who was at Chris Rock
who was saying, we don't need gun control, we need
bullet control, Like make the bullets you know, cost twenty
thousand dollars and you're going to reduce crime. And so
if it costs a million dollars to fire off a
hacking attempt at say hag Seth, you're gonna be careful

(17:08):
about how many times you do that. Whereas if Mike
Watas and Haseth and all these others who were using
Signal just went to the app store and downrote, downloaded
this Israeli app boom like they're in.

Speaker 3 (17:19):
Well, Ryan, do we have an indication of when they
did that? Is, do we know that it happened after
Signal game or could it? Is it plausible that they
were already using this and are they using both versions
of Signal? Because I'm wondering how contacts work, Like the
Jeffrey Goldberg thing, how he just get quote unquote sucked
in the reporting is that it came straight from Waltz's contact,

(17:40):
where like Apple Intelligence had saved Goldberg's phone number because
his aid sent it, and when he was going to
save his aid's number, it sucked in Goldberg's number. So
I'm just wondering, like what the what that might mean.

Speaker 6 (17:55):
I mean, we don't know when they started using it.
It would stand to reason that they started using it
after they got busted using regular Signal, and and we're told, hey,
f yi, this is a this is a violation of
the Record Keeping Act. So we need we need to
figure out a solution, and so then they're then they're like, okay, well,
what kind of app can we get that uses Signal

(18:17):
as its base but also makes a copy. And the
way that Signal is vulnerable is the exact way that
Jeffrey Goldberg got in there user error, uh you know,
user error, and the device itself, like, because it's end
to end encrypted, you can't get in unless you're in
the person's device where they accidentally send you something. So

(18:39):
what this app does is it creates extra vulnerabilities because
it's taking the data, the messages that are on Mike
Waltz's phone and copying them onto another device somewhere, like
we don't know where, like some serve for somewhere. So
then now you have two points of vulnerability where a
hacker could get in, or an intelligence company again in

(19:00):
if the intelligence officials have access to that separate that
second server, because they set it up, you know, through
this bywear farm, you know, or through this Israeli tech farm,
then they would just be able to read right into it.

Speaker 3 (19:16):
And this is really low hanging fruit. But I just
want to say you can see in that picture that
you guys use and drop site from Reuters he has
a reporters behind him. So he's sitting at the table
and he is openly on his signal. He's not like
covering the screen. He doesn't have a screen protector. He
has a message from the Vice President of the United
States up on his screen, including also Marco Rubio. He

(19:38):
has a call from Telsea Gabbart that just came in.
But there is a message that you can read from
jd Vance something about his counterpart. We don't know where,
We don't have all of the context. But if you
are a reporter sitting behind him. There are a lot
of foreign reporters, by the way, that are in the
White House press pool, and so it is just low
hanging fruit, but so enormously stupid for him to be

(20:00):
at a cabinet meeting with the press directly behind his shoulder.
Men have long lens cameras. Yeah, of course, but like
also they're standing five feet behind you. I cannot wrap
my head around the stupidity of voice.

Speaker 6 (20:13):
Last point on this, if people think that I'm being
unfair and suggesting that Israel might actually have the motivation
to spy on the United States, there's a paragraph in
the story that sums it up well. In nineteen ninety eight,
Israel was identified by the National Counter Intelligence Center to
be on the Department of Energy Sensitive Country List. In
a two thousand report, NCIIC listed Israel as one of

(20:35):
the quote most active collectors of intelligence against the private
sector unquote. In twenty nineteen, the US government determined that
Israel had most likely planted stingray surveillance devices that mimics
cell phone towers around the White House, if you remember
that scandal, intending to spy on President Donald Trump in
his top aids. According to a Politico report, Israel denied

(20:57):
those allegations with their in mind with many other stories
that we've heard from decades.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
We know, we know that they have great interest in
what we're going to do visa vi Ran, so they
have every incentive to know what you know. Pete hagg
Saith and Mike Waltz and all of these other characters
are saying to each other in signal, I mean, to
be honest with you, I'm a little surprised that they
reacted at all to the revelation that, like, hey, using
signal like this is actually illegal because you are not

(21:26):
complying with Foyer requirements. I'm actually a little bit shocked
that they cared at all about that, and we're't just like, yeah,
we're just.

Speaker 5 (21:33):
Going to keep doing it. We really want there for
you basically, you know.

Speaker 2 (21:37):
So here Spencer, Yeah, just to go back to the
Laura Lumer piece of this. You know, Emily, what do
we know about or Ryan either one of you? What
do we know about her involvement? Because we know she
went to the White House the other a couple of
weeks back, and she got some other officials fired, but

(21:59):
not Mike Waltz. And also, by the way, it was
what his like cheep of staff or his like top
eight also was shown the door here and Walts of
course to be technically correct, being moved over to U
an ambassador book anyway, and she had indicated she had
some video that was going to be very damaging to
Waltz as well. So I mean, what do we know
about her involvement? I did see an Axios report that

(22:21):
also said that people just kind of didn't like Waltz,
like outside of an ideological bassist like Jade Vance had
pulled him aside on the Greenland trip and was trying
to explain to him, you have to work better with people.
Apparently he treated Susie Wilds poorly, which seems like about
the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

Speaker 3 (22:39):
Doing right, So it's about as dumb as using signal
to talk to the Vice president front of reporters.

Speaker 6 (22:45):
Front of reporters, right, so really tech firm version of signal.

Speaker 2 (22:48):
I feel like there was a coalescing, a sort of
horseshoe between an ideological distaste for Mike Waltz and just
a this guy's an idiot, he doesn't know what he's doing,
and we don't like him and we don't want him
around anymore.

Speaker 3 (23:01):
Yeah, bear in mind, this is the National Security Advisor,
so he's like, can't even protect his own security, let
alone the nation's security as national security advisor. But yes,
there's reporting that Susie wils thought he had been quote
too big for his breeches. And so I assume when
the President of the United States is taking meetings with
Laura Lumer, who is floating the possibility of some deeply

(23:24):
damaging video, the guy has already embarrassed the administration had
the weakest appearance on primetime Fox News that you could
possibly conjure, and he was already he came into the
administration with a massive trust deficit with people that are
in the more realist foreign policy circles, the like America
First MAGA. Foreign policy circles have always been suspicious of

(23:45):
Mike Waltz and definitely of the people he surrounds himself with.
So it's not insignificant that Laura Lumer in that White
House meeting seems to have named Alex Wong, who was
a top advisor to Mike Waltz, who was actually out
the door yesterday, somebody who does have Now Laura Lumer
is constantly invoking that he's Chinese and invokes his wife's

(24:07):
ties to the foreign policy establishment. So that's sort of
in the air about, you know, the conversation, or it's
part of the conversation that's been had about Alex Wog.
I have no idea what the validity of all of
the accusations against him are, but his pedigree is from
the foreign policy establishment, and that's exactly why people have

(24:29):
not always trusted Mike Waltz. And Ryan you actually might
even know more about the lumour of it all.

Speaker 6 (24:35):
She said she would come on the show next week
so we can ask her then. But yeah, she she
she was hitting Alex Wong with like really not even
veiled kind of you know, like going after his Chinese
ethnicity and saying he was like had like secret links
to the CCP and like.

Speaker 4 (24:55):
A little much.

Speaker 6 (24:57):
So we can ask her about that next week looking forward.
But yes, she came in.

Speaker 3 (25:01):
So how I suspect you have secret links to the IRA?

Speaker 4 (25:07):
They could, That's why we had.

Speaker 6 (25:08):
To Lumer's credit, she came in to the Oval office
with Mike Waltz present and ripped him to shreds, like
in front of him. And now he's fired like that,
you get like tip of the hat to Lumer for that.

Speaker 2 (25:26):
I mean, I mean remember during the campaign, Susie Wilds
had Lumor kicked off the campaign plane before she had
been with Trump before the first debate, and then after
that they Susie Wiles said, you cannot be around this
woman anymore. So when you have the the partnership between

(25:48):
Lumor and Susie Wiles, they come together to you know,
to get you out of there, then I think you're
probably you're probably done unstable combination.

Speaker 5 (25:58):
I'm gonna guess what if she'strategically brought.

Speaker 6 (26:00):
Lumer back, and I think there's no question, there's no
question that is exactly what happened.

Speaker 3 (26:06):
Amazing.

Speaker 6 (26:06):
You do not f with Susie Wilds Amazing, Like are
you crazy? Like yees, she absolutely ushered him in, ushered
her in and was like go to town, Laura.

Speaker 2 (26:18):
They said he treated her like she was a staffer
to him and which also I mean to me.

Speaker 6 (26:24):
I'll show you what a stafford is thirty minutes in
the Oval with Laura Lumer.

Speaker 5 (26:29):
Yeah, like, we'll see how this goes for you.

Speaker 2 (26:31):
Yes, I wanted to get to this Ukraine minerals deal
that has now been signed. We now have more details
than yesterday when Emily and I were talking about it.
Plus I wanted to get Ryan's reaction to this. So
you guys, remember this minerals deal was sort of Zelensky
had this ideal, Lindsey Graham had this idea, and there

(26:52):
were some Trumpeline billionaires who also had this idea, basically
a way to pitch a transactional relationship to Trump visa
the Ukraine that would keep him invested in the conflict.
And this deal was subject to you know, this was
what Zelenski had come to the US for before when
they had that big blow up in the Oval Office.

(27:13):
And now some of the details here have changed. It's
actually become much more favorable towards Ukraine. It's still basically like,
you know, a lot of economic exploitation, but it's not
quite as exploitative as the original deal had been. And
so we've got a threat here from Michael Tracy, who
read all the details and has a breakdown here. He
says the text the minerals deal that was signed yesterday

(27:33):
is substantially different from earlier drafts. For one, it says
that future US military assistants to Ukraine, not past assistants,
will constitute capital contributions to the newly established Joint Investment Fund.
This can now be presented as the US in some
sense getting quote unquote paid for continuing to armed Ukraine,
which could be a useful political argument for continuing to
armed Ukraine. But with a more profitable deal. He goes on,

(27:55):
the agreement contemplates that Ukraine could or will receive reparations
for the invasion from Russia. This makeup as news to Russia. Yeah,
good luck, but that one compared to pass drafts US
ownership of Ukraine's physical infrastructure, it pears to have been
watered down with legal lease, but the US receives fifty
percent of the revenues from a large variety of natural resources,
including oil and natural gas. The agreement is purported to

(28:16):
strengthen the strategic partnership between the US and Ukraine, establish
a long term strategic alignment between the US and Ukraine,
including support for quote Ukraine's security, And that was kind
of the idea here, is that by having US investment
in Ukrainian minerals and US capitalists profiting off of Ukrainian minerals,
that would serve as a sort of like de facto

(28:37):
security guarantee for Ukraine, because we wouldn't want the Russians
messing with our capitalist stuff. One oddity would be people
who cast to get Ukraine for corruption and denounce the
Biden family for profiting from Ukraine related graft. Sharing this
sweeping economic and security integration between the US and Ukraine
without regard for whatever graft, it's likely to induce a
point that our own Emily Kashinski made yesterday as well.

(28:59):
So what is your reaction to this development and the
signing of this Ukrainian minerals deal, what it means for
this war going forward?

Speaker 6 (29:07):
Right, yeah, it's it's there, hold my beer moment, Like you,
what's this, like, Penny Anti fifty thousand dollars a month retainer?
Corruption you're doing with this energy company? Now just extort
and exploit the entire country.

Speaker 3 (29:21):
Let's do lithium.

Speaker 6 (29:23):
I noticed on the screen there that Big Balls is
trending to I don't like what is Big Balls still doing.
I thought Doge was wrapping things up.

Speaker 2 (29:31):
But they did some interview with Jesse Waters I think yesterday,
so that's probably, Oh.

Speaker 4 (29:36):
My goodness, okay.

Speaker 6 (29:39):
I mean every every country is claiming to have these
rare earths, and the real problem is the is the
refinement ability, like can you can you get them out
and can you turn them into the products that are
then needed? And that's that's the real problem. The rare
earths are not actually that rare. So yeah, this is

(30:00):
this seems like just a gimmick to try to which
Lindsey Graham like said publicly it was a gimmick. Like
he rolled out this map and he said, look, I
know you're not into the war, you don't like all
the killing, but look at this map. This is all
money underneath the ground here. Wouldn't this be amazing if
we could just have all this money we're getting ripped off.
We're giving them all this for nothing. Binds an idiot.

(30:23):
You can be a genius and have all these things.
And he took it hook line and sinker.

Speaker 8 (30:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (30:30):
Well, I was gonna say, there's reporting that Chevron and
Shell have tried to do big business like lots of like,
like they have really tried to make money in Ukraine
in recent years, and the corruption has been a significant
impediment to that. And if it's too corrupt for Chevron
and Shell to be able to feel comfortable making money,
you can see the just enormous rats mess that the

(30:54):
United States has just injected itself. And now, what are
the significant differences that's worth mentioning, of course, between like
Hunter Biden and general Ukrainian American corruption here is that
this is in the service of hopefully putting us on
a glide path to ending the slaughter.

Speaker 6 (31:10):
But isn't it isn't the attempt here to keep the
slaughter going.

Speaker 3 (31:14):
Kind of And definitely it does feel to me like
something that makes it much more And I think Tracy
just made this point. It makes it. It doesn't come
up with a long term solution to the conflict. If anything,
it feels like it's going into slow burned territory.

Speaker 4 (31:28):
That's like the stated goal of it.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
Yeah, yeah, because the idea is this obligates the US
to Ukraine in perpetuity. Now we have this locked in relationship.
I had a quote in the show yesterday from somebody
from the Council on Foreign Relations where they're basically like,
you know, our investment in their geology is the is
a de facto security guarantee.

Speaker 5 (31:51):
And that's that's the idea.

Speaker 2 (31:53):
I mean, that's why Zelensky immediately, uh, you know, being
a savvy political operator, as soon as Biden loses, he
switches the language from preserving democracy and we're in this
fight against a their authoritarianism whatever, switches it to let's
make a deal. And he had allies from Lindsey Graham,
who also Emily and I covered yesterday, is now out

(32:14):
with some big like let's sanction Russia somehow even harder
than we were before, which appears to have very likely
a veto proof majority in the Senate. We'll see if
it comes up for a vote or not. But you
know that is the idea is, effectively, this would enable
Ukraine to continue receiving weapons just in exchange for selling

(32:35):
the country's geology out from under the people of the country.
And it's also interesting to me, I'm curious what both
of you guys think about this, that the terms of
the deal have gotten much more favorable towards Ukraine since
that Oval Office blow up meeting, when a lot of
the reaction was like, oh, you know, Trump's done with
the LENSCA and it's over for him, and they're just gonna,

(32:56):
you know, they're going to cut off communications all together
and he's screwed, etc. And in the meantime from that
interaction to now, actually he won some significant concessions. They
don't have to give up all their port infrastructure. The
previous deal is basically like we're taking half your country
and that's it, end of story. This one is still
again very exploitaive, don't get me wrong, but it's not

(33:17):
as bad as the first one. And then the really
significant concession is you'll recall Trump was really adamant about
we want to get paid back for what we've already
given you, what we've already shipped, and this agreement says no.
I mean that was always like sort of a preposterous demand,
but this agreement says no, you know, this is just
going to be on a moving forward basis. So what

(33:38):
do you guys make of that? Of that shift in
the agreement and Zelenski seemingly getting some significant concessions here.

Speaker 3 (33:45):
I think there are a couple of things behind it. First,
Trump is now over his one hundred day mark and
has not secured a ceasefire in a conflict he said
he could end on day one as president. He understands
how significant for his voter's foreign policy is in a
way that the media often doesn't understand. I mean, he
has a lot of support and areas that are super
war weary because they don't like they're very, very very

(34:09):
cautious of entanglements that might end up with US boots
on the ground. And it's a personal sensitive issue for
a lot of the places where he gets support from.
And I think he understands that about his own voters
in a way that media doesn't understand that about his
own voters. So I think on the one hand, he's
very aware of how weak it makes him look if
he's not able to secure an end to the or

(34:30):
secure a ceasefire, because you guys are right. I mean,
I don't think this is an end to the conflict
over the Dawnbass or over crimea by any means an end.
Hopefully as step towards an end to the daily slaughter,
we will see that is to be determined. But on
the other hand, I also think Donald Trump really is
and I'm trying to say this without sounding like insulting,

(34:51):
but he really is as simple as you think, like.
He wants to look strong, he wants to look like
he has made deals, and he wants to look like
people have come crawling back to him. And as soon
as people realize that, I mean, we talk a lot
about the difference between Claudia Scheinbaum and Justin Trudeau and
maybe now Mark Carney, but as soon as people realize

(35:14):
that there is a very simple way to deal with
Donald Trump, they can get gains. And I think Zelensky
was sufficiently sort of chastened by even Lindsay Graham freaking
out after that Oval Office meeting that he realized he
went on Ben Shapiro's show, he was talking to the
press about how much he loves the United States, and
they had that little conversation at the Vatican literally in

(35:39):
the Basilica. And so I think Donald Trump, on the
one hand, is getting more eager, even more eager to
look like he has a political win on his hands
and he's getting closer to ceasefire. And then on the
other hand, I feel like he thinks that he looks
strong because Zolensky has come back to him to get
the deal. Now, whether or not that's true because the
deal is now even more sweet for Ukraine is a

(36:01):
different question. But I think that's what Donald Trump saw,
what he wanted to see from Zelensky, and it made
him comfortable moving forward.

Speaker 6 (36:10):
The whole thing just seems kind of fake to me,
like in the sense that it's going to be overtaken
by events. Like it's like Ukraine is, as Trump very
correctly said in the Oval Office, doesn't have any cards
to play yet. Now Trump is like spending all his
time playing cards with them.

Speaker 4 (36:30):
What are you doing?

Speaker 6 (36:31):
You take their chips? They don't have any chips, like
Russia's taking their chips. So the whole so it feels
like a total distraction from the reality on the ground.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
Let me go out and play. Let this last piece
for you guys. This was Scott Bessett. It's another Michael
Tracy pulled this this clip, and this is Scott Bessett saying, basically,
we're fully and completely on the same page. There's no
daylight between US and Ukraine at this point. Let's take
a listen to that.

Speaker 4 (36:58):
It's good for America.

Speaker 8 (36:59):
It's good for you Ukraine, I believe also for Europe
in a lot of ways.

Speaker 4 (37:04):
And tell us the details of that.

Speaker 8 (37:07):
Showing it. It's a great deal. Thanks for having me
on tonight. And look that this is President Trump's deal,
that he's done trade deals, tax deals, and now we've
got this Ukrainian American economic partnership deal. And it's win
when it is a way to show that there's no

(37:29):
daylight between Ukraine and US. As President Trump presses to
end this horrible war, he wants both sides to come
to the table now. By showing that the US has
an economic interest in Ukraine, it's a signal to the
Russian leadership. It's also a signal to the American people

(37:52):
that we have a chance to participate, get some of
the funding and the weapons compensation for those and be
partners with the success of the Ukraine people. Bring American
know how best practices to the rebuilt Ukraine. But the
rebuilding can't stop until this war ends, and President Trump

(38:14):
is committed to that.

Speaker 5 (38:17):
So what do you guys make of that?

Speaker 2 (38:18):
And I do think, you know, I mean, a lot
of the Republican base that is animated by the Ukraine
War they have come to just outright hate Zelenski outright right,
you know, have distaste for Ukraine. And so I think
this is this is a very different approach and tactic
certainly than what they were expecting. What they were expecting

(38:39):
was more like what the Oval Office blow up, like
the Magarite freaking love that they ate it up right,
They thought it was great. You know, have you ever
said thank you once? Et cetera, et cetera, And now
here you are back to this deal that really doesn't
look all that different from the Biden administration's approach of
just sort of like maintaining a status and continuing to

(39:00):
ship weapons and letting this thing drive on in perpetuity.

Speaker 3 (39:06):
Well, I think I mean in a non great way
that this actually is sort of a security guarantee and
that's kind of thee Yeah, and I feel like, you know,
the Biden administration didn't actually even really go that far.
I get what they're doing right, that it's sort of
they're trying to have it both ways, that it doesn't

(39:26):
look like a security guarantee, and then it is a
security guarantee, like they're using it intentionally as sort of
a roorshosh test, like if Ukraine wants it to be
a security guarantee, it is, But in like pragmatic terms,
it obviously could very much function as a security guarantee.
It's not NATO membership. But what does this mean for
how many Americans will regularly be on the ground, and

(39:50):
you like, we don't really know what that's going to
look like in a way that I think is quite concerning.
But what was important from Trump's perspective, I really think
it was making it look like Zelenski kissed the ring
and came back to the table for a similar deal.
So I don't know, I think that's a really good point. Christal, like,
what is Maga thinking now? I think maybe the best thing,
the best way that they're spinning it is this was

(40:11):
a big win for Trump. He had Zelenski come crawling back,
But it's not clear that that's actually what happened.

Speaker 6 (40:16):
To me, it flows from the same error that Trump
made with with tariffs. Like he has he's identified, he's
correctly identified a problem in both cases, and then he
in his mind has identified a solution on the When
it comes to you know, manufacturing the working class, his
solution is, somebody do big, beautiful tariffs. When it comes

(40:38):
to this war is bad, He's going to just end
the war.

Speaker 4 (40:42):
Like he kept.

Speaker 6 (40:42):
He never he never expounded upon why he was going
to be able to do that. All he would say
is that if he if the election hadn't been stolen
from him, the invasion never would have happened. And when
I get in, the war is going to end. So
was his plan a but without any you know, skitched

(41:04):
sketch behind it. And when that didn't work, now he's
just flailing. So I think it's similar to how he
approaches most things.

Speaker 2 (41:14):
Yeah, and the gaps are being filled in by people
who do have an idea, a logic, who do have
ideology and do have a plan. And that would be
like the Lindsay Grahams of the world, who you know, yeah,
pushing this minerals deal, and like I said before, has
a plan to even more aggressively sanctioned Russia because that's
definitely totally worked so far.

Speaker 4 (41:31):
Yeah, that's what we need a few more sanctions.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
Last point on this, this is just like, you know,
the Michael Tracy Ukraine segment, but I forgot it was
actually him that did this interview with Bannon. I'm not
going to play it, but I'll just pull it up.
You remember he asked Bannon about this proposed minerals deal
and Bannon being kind of the emblem of the you know,
MAGA nationalist America first, right, his reaction was walk the
fuck away. He warns that the US needs to stop

(41:57):
entangling itself with quote that cursed part of the world.
To get a flavor of how you know this person,
who certainly is in a lot of ways a leader
of the MAGA, right, how he feels about this direction.

Speaker 8 (42:10):
Now?

Speaker 2 (42:10):
Do I think he'll be like super critical of it
now that Trump is inked it and it's done.

Speaker 5 (42:14):
I don't know. I won't hold my breath. But that
was his reaction initially.

Speaker 3 (42:18):
Yeah, that's a great point I forgot about. That was
a sea pack and we'll see how Bannon reacts now.
Be interesting.

Speaker 5 (42:26):
Yeah, indeed, we can ask Laura Lumer to next week
ran right.

Speaker 4 (42:29):
Yes, indeed, all.

Speaker 2 (42:34):
Right, let's get to the latest on the Alien Enemies Act.
So this is pretty extraordinary.

Speaker 5 (42:38):
We now have a.

Speaker 2 (42:40):
Trump appointed judge who has barred the administration from removing
migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, saying that his invocation
of that law in the context of trender Aragua was illegal.
So this isn't saying like, you know, you did it
wrong with this this person in particular, you can't apport
that particular person. This is saying, no, no, no, on

(43:03):
the merits, your invocation of this law was illegal. So
everyone who has been deported under this invocation of the
Alien Enemies Act according to this again, Trump appoint a
judge that was all done, you know, under illegal auspices.
And if you read I read through the relevant portions

(43:25):
of this of this ruling, and it's exactly it says
exactly what you would think that it would say, which
is basically like, we're not at war. We're not at
war with Venezuela. This is not an invasion. Venezuela is
not behind trend or Agua. It's just you know, goes
to the merits of Alien Enemies Act has been used
three times. It's really historically, the meaning of what war

(43:47):
and invasion is has been really clear, and what you're
doing here doesn't meet any of that standards, any of
those standards. So here is a portion they say as
to that question. The historical record renders clear the presence
invocation of the AEA through the proclamation exceeds the scope
of the statute, and it's contrary to the plain ordinary
meaning of the statute's terms. As a result, the Court
concludes that, as a matter of law, the executive branch

(44:10):
cannot rely on the AA. And then he goes on
from here. This is Kyle Cheneyish's Politico's Court reporter just now.
Judge Rodrigoz also denied effort by the Trump administration a
hurriedly to port today one of those AEA targets Daniel
Zacharias Mattos under other immigration authorities. He wants briefing on
the matter, needs to consider a jurisdiction, and a Trump

(44:33):
appointed judge says the present's use of the AEA was
unlawful because there's no evidence Trender Orwagwa, as harmful as
the gang is is literally invading the US as the
law requires. So Emily, let me get your reaction to
this because I thought that this would come at some point,
but I was sort of wondering, like, when are we
going to get to actually determining whether the use of

(44:54):
this law at all, not just in these individual habeas petitions,
but whether this use of this law at all is
And it seems that we have arrived to fully expect,
pee lightfully expect, probably end up before the Supreme Court.
But the fact it's a trumpet pointed judge is certainly
not a good sign for the administration.

Speaker 3 (45:10):
No, and but actually we talked about this yesterday. They
aren't really this is not something that they were not expecting,
like to that was double negative, like they were expecting
all of this. They knew that this would happen, and
that's why they assumed that this was likely to happen.
And that's why they're trying to go with a floodles zone,
throw everything at the wall, see what sticks legal strategy, uh,

(45:33):
and to do as much of it as quickly as
they possibly can, because they're very consciously concocting or they
already did. They spent the last four years concocting these
sort of novel legal theories in order to get people
out of the country as fast as possible to keep
up with the pace of how many people came into
the country under the Biden presidency, which is a lot.

(45:53):
According to the New York Times, some eight million nets.
So that's and some people think it's higher. But anyway,
all that is to say, they are are sort of
aware that they were skating on thin ice with this.
And I mean, it would be great to see a
judge find the entire Alien Enemies Act unconstitutional. That's like
the ideal situation, but they sort of knew that they
were stretching. It was kind of like, ah, look what

(46:13):
we can do. We can say that Trende Ragua is
an invasion like galaxy brain, and that's one way that
we could just get everyone the hell out of here.
So's it's definitely a set back because that was one
of the ways they would be able to get as
many people as they possibly could out really quickly. And obviously,
you know that wasn't going as well as they probably hoped.

(46:36):
But they also kind of knew that this was going
to be a problem. It just gives them an opportunity,
I guess, to rage on judges. But this is a
trumpet pointed judge, So it was a little harder in
that case.

Speaker 6 (46:47):
Yeah, I don't understand Emily why they don't just go
to Congress, Like and if they don't like the laws
that are on the books and they think the political
wind is at their back when it comes to masterportations,
why don't they just get Steven Miller in these other
you know, lawyers that he's got to draft legislation and

(47:08):
send it to Congress and change change the laws? Is
it really the parliamentarian? Like, are we back to the
parliamentarian because they can't do it without sixty votes?

Speaker 3 (47:17):
Like, well, the parliamentarian shouldn't even need to be a
problem in this case. They can write up new legislation.

Speaker 4 (47:22):
It doesn't happen it would need sixty votes unless they can.

Speaker 2 (47:26):
Yeah, you could do it through reconciliation, but you probably
have to ignore the ruling of the parliamentarian, which they've
already basically said that they plan to do for other
things as well.

Speaker 6 (47:33):
So why not just do Like what is what are
they so afraid of when it comes to writing new laws?

Speaker 3 (47:39):
Well, I don't know what they would do, and like
I honestly I'm trying to think of what type of
law that they could come up with, because what they
really could do, and Glenn Greenwald, who's guest hosting on Monday,
made this point recently, is that you actually can do
these things pretty quickly in immigration courts. You probably need
a lot more immigration judges. You'd probably need to beef

(48:01):
that up significantly, and.

Speaker 4 (48:03):
We have a lot of unemployed lawyers.

Speaker 3 (48:05):
Yeah, well that's right. But that's what I'm just going
to say is I think maybe they don't trust that process,
that they are sort of concerned that putting more people
through that legal process means a lot of people will
just be given like permanent status, permanent legal status, or
be on the glide path to citizenship. They're also concerned
that and this one I do think is a real

(48:26):
concern is that it becomes a carrot. It becomes a
draw for people to come in if you can get
processed really quickly.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
But I think that's I think it's the opposite because
the reason it's a draw right now is because you
know you can come in and it's going to take
years for your silent claim to be adjudicated. I mean,
that's the loophole that you know, Listen, I think I
personally am in support of a large number of legal
migrants into this country. But that's that's the real problem.
If you want to expedite the deportation of people who

(48:54):
are here, you have to allow them to adjudicate their
claims and yes, go through a process. And quite on
the contrary, they've been firing immigration judges, so going in
exactly the opposite direction. Another round of firing hits immigration
course in Massachusetts, California, Louisiana, even as the Trump administration
continues its efforts up downsizing the government but also increasing

(49:14):
immigration related arrests. At least eight immigration judges received notices
they be put on leave their employment be terminated on
April twenty second. So you know, I personally think that
there's some other things going on here. I mean number one,
as we talked about yesterday, Emily, like Stephen Miller explicitly
as part of his ideology, he wants there to be

(49:37):
a display of outrageous cruelty in hopes that that will
cause people to self deport and so shipping people off
either to go on tonam obay, which they also do,
or to this torture dungeon for life. Yeah, that's going
to scare the shit out of a lot of immigrants,
especially in that sense. Yeah, especially when you learned like, oh,

(50:00):
actually these aren't the quote unquote worst of the worst.
This is a makeup artist with mom and dad tattoos
and a soccer player who has an autism awareness tattoo.
Like the vast majorities, youll have no criminal record, so
you start if you're here, even if you did everything right,
because we also know that you know, uh, kill mar
Brego Garcia. He was removed even though there was an

(50:21):
order saying you cannot remove him to this particular country.
We know that others had come in via the CBP
one app followed the procedure. We're showing up for their hearings.
We're doing everything right, So none of that serves as
a protection. That's exactly the message that Steven Miller wants
to send, is that your entire life, like we can
casually destroy your entire life and not just deport you,

(50:46):
but we can send you and sentence you for life
to this horrific you know, this horrific place where the
Bekelly and his people say the only way you come
out as in a casket. So I think that's part
of it. I think the other part of it is
that their narrative on immigration, and this is really one

(51:08):
of the innovations of the Trump anti immigrant approach, at
least in you know, with regard to the US context,
is instead of primarily talking about challenge with immigration being
about jobs or being about housing or economic issues, he
talks about it almost exclusively as.

Speaker 5 (51:26):
Being about criminals.

Speaker 2 (51:27):
That these are all criminals, and they're you know, they're
coming in and they're raping our women, and they're you know,
murdering people. And that's why the Lake and Riley Act
is the first thing they passed through Congress. And so
if you go through a legal process, it is going
to become quite apparent that overwhelmingly they are not criminals.
You know, yes, there are criminals in the undocumented population,

(51:50):
lower number than the native born population. And so you
cannot keep up the farce of this is a group
of horrible, you know, savages who are destroying our country
and you know, are the worst of the worst, and
they're terrible people, and they let out the from the
insane asylums, as he always says, you cannot maintain that

(52:10):
farce if you're actually going through some process and people
have to interact with who these humans actually are and
the reasons they came, and you know, the way they've
been conducting themselves since they were here as well. So
to me, that's the reason why they really have no
interest in actually changing the law and going through some
sort of semblance of a legal and constitutional process, because

(52:31):
they want the cruelty and they also want to avoid
the scrutiny of hey, you know, these are like people
who often are good community members, are paying taxes and
trying to do everything right.

Speaker 3 (52:43):
Branded did you want to jump in, Okay, yeah, no,
I was just gonna say, I think I think part
of it is the cruelty. Yes, I agree with that,
and I think that's your point on the tactics is
also right. The more that you send people through immigration judges,
the more it becomes obvious that people who have much
more sympathetic cases. Now they might be ones that I
disagree with, but for the broader public, they're much more

(53:06):
sympathetic than MS thirteen members or trendy Ragua members being
booted out, because people, when they look around, realize in
their daily lives that there are a whole lot of
people who've been here for a very long time and
even five years is a long time. You belt Kilmara
Brego Garcia has been here since twenty twelve, He's got kids.
That's the case with many, many people married to US citizens.

(53:28):
And it's politically much even if there are a whole
lot of people in the country who are like, I
don't care, get them out, it's politically with the broader
public a much more difficult case to make, There's no
question about that.

Speaker 2 (53:40):
Yeah, I think the broader public rind was really sold
on mess deportation from this idea of it's largely this
is a largely criminal group. And we can already see
as the broader public is interacting with the actual details
of who these humans are and the Wave administration is
approaching all of this, the numbers have shifted already quite dramatically,

(54:02):
and so you can only imagine if you had, you know,
legal process playing out, and you were you able to
access more of these human details, that it would not
be you know, the public would not maintain the same
level of support for mass deportation as they did when
they were theoretically thinking of like, oh, it's going to
be the criminals and the worst of the worst that
are that are first in.

Speaker 5 (54:22):
Line for this mass deportation.

Speaker 8 (54:24):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (54:24):
And I think the conservative media did an effective job
at circulating a lot of you know, narratives about eating
cats and you know, the weird stuff out of Springfield
and the and the the mainstream media I think undermined
itself by like ignoring that when you know, when trende
a raqua took over basically took over that apartment complex

(54:47):
and like Colorado Springs or wherever it was, and it
didn't get you know, didn't get any attention. And then
the and then the right wing media was able to
like say, no, look, this is actually happening. And then
it raises questions in people's minds, like is there a
lot more of this happening that we're not being that
we're not being told about.

Speaker 4 (55:07):
And I think the the.

Speaker 6 (55:09):
Like brutal increase in housing probably probably was strung together
in people's mind with hostility to you know, mass migration,
like all these people came in and now housing prices
are out of control, which I understand, like why you
would intuitively kind of make make that link when you know,
in fact you actually need you know, labor to build

(55:31):
the housing that we need. Like the problem is we're
not building enough housing for a growing population. But certainly
if there's more people then just supply and demand is
going to put some pressure on housing prices. So I
you know, I think you, like you saw in Europe,
you can't really disconnect some of people's you know, frustrations
that they're going to then take out on immigrant.

Speaker 2 (55:50):
Population, especially when the Democratic Party just just just got
scared and we're like, yeah, they're right, we actually are
going to be even to hover on the border. And
so you have both parties basically, you know, putting the
same narrative of this is an invasion, This is the
number one problem. These are bad people. We need to
you know, Kamala Harris up there, I'm the only one
who's prosecuted transnational things, et cetera. And so yeah, if

(56:14):
both parties seemingly agree that, you know, these are criminals
and they need to they need to make it, but
then it must be true. And so you know who
we're gonna trust more to deal with that problem, Kamala
Harris or Donald Trump. I don't think there's any doubt
that if you are looking for who's going to be
you know, toughest and most aggressive in dealing with this

(56:34):
problem that both parties have now come to agree, as
you know, is uh through a shared frame of course,
you're gonna go in Donald Trump's direction with that one. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (56:44):
The last point on it is, I think that'll all
contributed to it. I just think it's the simplest answer
in the situation, which is that we hadn't seen immigration
happen at a rate as fast as the as it
was Daring Biden since Alice Island. And I think that's
just like it just sort of a shock to the
system that made people, you know, change from what they
thought under the first administration when.

Speaker 4 (57:04):
And we shut it down after Ellis Island for like
forty years.

Speaker 5 (57:08):
Yeah, yeah, true, all right.

Speaker 2 (57:10):
I wanted to get both you guys reaction to an
interesting horseshoe moment here. Let me, I don't know that
much about it, so I'm gonna let you guys kind
of set this up. But David Dan was tweeting about
this some good news. Jim Jordan and the gpgudiciary had
a surprising change of heart, had a dangerous proposals shift
the ftc ANTI trust capacity to the DJ big win.
Great to see a representative Jayapaul and Beca is her

(57:34):
last name. Balen I think take a strong stand, and
David Dan said, bad people with terrible political instincts tried
to make a thing and of Lena Kahan taking a
picture with Steve Bannon for short term political advantage. Bannon
was who pounded Jordan into submission on this proposal that
picture might have saved a federal agency. Ryan, give us
what's going on here?

Speaker 4 (57:52):
Yep.

Speaker 6 (57:53):
Beca Ballant was my state senator when I lived in Vermont.
She's now the congresswoman for the entire state of Vermont.
So we have a story coming on this. It drops
the news that I'm kind of sitting on. It's my fault.
I haven't moved it. But basically, Jim Jordan, you know who,
has been playing this and Emily can talk more about this,
playing this double game for many years where you know,

(58:15):
he bashes big tech on a cultural level and talks
about how it's awful that they're trying to, you know,
censor conservative speech. And meanwhile he hires a bunch of
people from law firms that work for big tech or
direct from big tech, or his people you know, go
then work for big tech. He takes a ton of
money from big Tech. They've taken well this will be

(58:36):
in our story, but you know, enormous amounts of trips
paid for by big Tech. His top tech aide left
his office and then went to work for Melissa Holyoake,
who is the most pro big tech FTC Commissioner. And
so you know, he's been there, he's been the big
tech's like best ally and as chair of the Judiciary

(58:58):
Committee despite but he says publicly to the you know,
his his MAGA base and his he put legislation out
that would basically strip the FTC of all of its
anti trust enforcement power a huge shot, and that that
that swing was so big, like he fell out of

(59:21):
his shoes, and it allowed it finally allowed Bannon and
others to say, look, we've been telling you that this
guy is actually a tody for big tech.

Speaker 4 (59:28):
Now now look how obvious it is.

Speaker 6 (59:30):
He's he's stripping the FTC of all of its anti
trust power. You know, Jordan was saying, oh, it'll go
to DJ and it'll be better because of that. And
the reason a lot of people don't buy that is
like here you've got Steve Bannon, with the powerful and
beloved FTC chair Lena Kah and so it reminds me, oh, yeah,
like FTC does good things, and now here's Jim Jordan

(59:52):
trying to take away its power while it's actively going
after you know, still going after big tech. So I
think Jordan has kind of been exposed by this and
he now backed off under pressure from Bannon. Emily, anything
you want to add about the game Jordan plays in DC.

Speaker 3 (01:00:10):
No, I just add to Dane's point that actually, if
Bannon hadn't done it, other people would have. And I
do think that's really interesting. I was at a big
anti trust, conservative anti trust event last night on the Hill,
and what's the problem is there aren't as many like
hardcore anti trust conservative anti trust like intellects because they

(01:00:30):
haven't been groomed over the course of decades to see
the world through this like Neil Brandeisian lens, which is
much more common on the left for obvious reasons because
it's an embrasive government power. But that's slowly, slowly changing.
So what we're just seeing is kind of a power
struggle tug of war because those people have a very
powerful ally in Steve Bannon, but they also have powerful

(01:00:51):
allies like in Mago world more broadly, which is again
it's not to say that they've won the party, not
even close. The Jim Jordan's are still much more common.
Big Tech used to give tons of money Conservatives. It
used to be a very natural marriage. They're always at
sea pack having like massive parties because they were the
free market's success. So it's it's changing very slowly, but

(01:01:13):
it's still an uphill battle, There's no question about it.
I would just say it wouldn't have only been Bannon
who was an uproar about it. He's a powerful ally,
but people like Mike Davis Article three Project like they
would have been firing off on this too, and he was.

Speaker 6 (01:01:25):
Mike Davis appeared on Bannon's podcast and ripped Jordan over
it with a with a funny pun where he said,
you know, Jim Jordan loves to go to the mat
for big Tech.

Speaker 3 (01:01:39):
You did there, Mike Wrestler.

Speaker 5 (01:01:40):
Guys, get it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:42):
We should We should reveal to the audience that Emily
actually changed our group chat picture to be that picture
so good.

Speaker 9 (01:01:49):
And you know what, I shouldn't say this, but I
have been I have my like glossy photo paper for
my printer, and I have been thinking of just secretly
putting a framed picture of that behind us on the set,
but I keep forgetting to do.

Speaker 4 (01:02:00):
Oh yeah, we need that.

Speaker 5 (01:02:02):
That's a great idea.

Speaker 3 (01:02:02):
That's such a funny picture.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
This is like kind of related actually, But there's been
pushback led by Rand Paul to the Trump tariffs on
the right as well. And this is an interesting comment
from him. So he met with Trump's trade rep. Is
that Navarro that he's talking about. He said, it reminded
me of a meeting on industrial policy in the Soviet Union,
where you have to be nice to the tsar because
if you're nice to the czar, they'll bequeath upon you

(01:02:27):
exceptions to the iron fist. And I mean that to
me is like the whole point of these terroriffts, by
and large is that it does consolidate that kind of
power with the executive. But there was also some preposterous,
you know, pathetic situation that unfolded in the Senate where
Rand Paul was trying to push the resolution that would

(01:02:47):
have you know, reclaimed power to levy terrorist which is
supposed to be with Congress anyway, and was at Sheldon
white House, the Democrat who's like in Korea right now,
So didn't get back in time for the vote, and
the vote failed forty nine forty nine, they weren't able
to get you know, one more vote.

Speaker 3 (01:03:04):
So the strongest anti corruption soldier.

Speaker 2 (01:03:07):
Yeah, in any case, I thought I was I thought
it was interesting Rand Paul, you know, specific like obviously
this is right in his ideological wheelhouse, and this is
a bridge too far for him to go.

Speaker 3 (01:03:20):
My sense is that so it was with Jamison Greer,
I think is who he met, so the ustr OK
and I think they.

Speaker 2 (01:03:27):
Are Borrow's official title. I don't know, it's like serious
or something. Senior crank. What about what is the what
is his pend of ron? What's the fake name?

Speaker 5 (01:03:39):
Oh yeah, what's his official title?

Speaker 4 (01:03:42):
Is his name? Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:03:44):
Somebody have to tell us in the comments because he's
got a fake advisor that he pretends Vera.

Speaker 5 (01:03:49):
Isn't that it? I think that's it? Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:03:53):
First of all, this is great news for you guys
that the power is being consolidated in a dear leader
communist type system. I think this is somebody them that
you guys is going to do a great job, perhaps
better than comrade Navarro. But though I think Greer is
in a situation himself where his tariff policy, because everyone

(01:04:16):
remembers the famous moment where he found out that Trump
had instituted the pause while he was testifying. I think
where Rand Paul is interpreting this from Greer is that
Greer is interpreting this from his own boss, which is
I'm the freaking boss. And so if you're James and Greer,
and you have to be the intermediary between Congress, which
are supposed to have this power, which is why you
also have Rand Paul making the weirdest like horseshoe in

(01:04:40):
the opposite direction ever, with like Susan Collins and Lisa
Murkowski and Chruck Schumer. It's sort of amusing to see
that happen. But you also then have Greer having to
communicate the policy is just whatever Trump says the policy is,
because that is ultimately what the policy is. So good luck.
That sounds like fun.

Speaker 2 (01:04:59):
Yeah, well we've already seen that, right, Like you know,
the people who are giving money to the inauguration and
paying to go down to mar A Lago and the
Nvidia guy had you know, paid however many millions to
get dinner with him, and then they get their car
downd et cetera. So and apparently actually Gretchen Whitmer humiliating
herself and ending up in these photoshoots with Trump has

(01:05:21):
paid some benefits for her getting some of the auto
teriffs rolled back, and that Sean Fain also being sort
of favorable on the auto tariffs, I think has also
given him an in to get some of these exemptions
and rollbacks on the auto tariffs as well. So, yeah,
that is that is definitely the system that we have
right now. You have to go and plead your case
to the King if you're going to have any chance
of survival, and of course, you know to go back

(01:05:43):
to the monopoly point. Who's going to be able to
do that? It's going to be the big companies. If
you're smaller, medium sized business, you're not going to have
that access. You're not gonna have the money to obtain
that access. You're not going to have the lobbyist to
be able to plead your case. You're not even going
to have if you're a small business, you're not even
gonna have the wherewithal to be able to all of
the day to day changes in the tariff and regulatory regime,

(01:06:04):
which that in and of itself puts you at risk
because you are struggling to be able to comply with
whatever the dictators of the day. So I do think
one of the impacts of these tariffs is going to be,
you know, a further consolidation among the big players at
the expense of small and medium sized businesses who do

(01:06:27):
not have the flexibility to adapt or the access to
be able to get their car buns.

Speaker 6 (01:06:32):
And the irony, of course, is that the small and
medium sized businesses are much more American, much more patriotic
to an extent, because they have been an.

Speaker 2 (01:06:43):
Important Republican base. I mean that's like the Republican Party.

Speaker 6 (01:06:47):
Yeah, it has been, yes, since since the fifties or whatever, yes,
even before that. And the big companies are multinational corporations
with no real allegiance to the UNI estates. So I
don't know what they think they're doing.

Speaker 5 (01:07:04):
Yeah, no, that's all that is all well said.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
All right, I wanted to get you guys reaction to
this kind of extraordinary moment with Tucker Carlson and Matt
Walsh here. All right, guys, thank you so much for
watching the free portion of the Friday Show. We're going
to move into some premium bonus content, so if you
want to watch that as well, make sure to go
and subscribe at Breakingpoints dot com. And for all of
you guys who are already premium subscribers, that portion is

(01:07:27):
going to start right now,