5/29/25: Court Halts Trump Tariffs, Norm Wrecks Israel Historian, AI Dire Warning, Tate Bros & MORE!

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker 3 (00:33):
Good morning, everybody.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Happy Thursday, Ryan Grim, pleasure to seez Her.

Speaker 4 (00:37):
Good to see you.

Speaker 5 (00:38):
I'll be channeling Sager today, so good look for those
takes from Obi on this side.

Speaker 3 (00:42):
Excellent, looking forward to that. We've got a lot of that.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
This was one of those shows we added, all planned
out three pm. We did our call, we thought we
were set, and then yeah, kept thanks news. Trump's agenda,
we need a night show, I guess, I guess so
or something. Trump's agenda has been significantly curtailed just in
the past day by a series of court decisions. In particular,
we have a court saying, hey, you cannot just across

(01:08):
the board use this power to levy tariffs, so the
tariff agenda.

Speaker 3 (01:11):
We have Elon officially.

Speaker 2 (01:13):
Out making his announcement on Twitter saying I've enjoyed my
time as a special government employee. We have another court
that said the law that has been used to detain
Machmud Khalil and other students for speech with no allegations
of criminality, that that law itself is unconstitutional. We had
another significant ruling with regard to.

Speaker 5 (01:34):
Castenia Petrova, this Harvard Medical Research umor. They said she
had embryo samples in her carry on when she came
from like England over here to the US, and they
just locked her up and are still holding her in detention.
But the judge said this is illegal, and Ice is like, well,
we're still going to keep her.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
So now now it's a fight standoff. Yeah. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
So we've got huge movement on economics, on dough on immigration.
We also have a bunch of updates for you with
regard to Israel. Ryan's all over this and drop site.
Jeremy Skahill Wikoff is saying that they're on the precipice.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Of a potential deal.

Speaker 2 (02:11):
Of course, we've heard some things before, so there's always
reason for skepticism, but there are some reasons to believe
maybe this time it's different. Also, have some fun clips
for you from Piers Morgan, Norm Finklestein versus Benny Morris
that I thought you would enjoy. We've got also updates
with regard to the Iran negotiations. We've got a major
developer of AI saying that it is going to.

Speaker 3 (02:31):
Be a blood bath for white collar workers.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
And I'm not talking a decade now, he's talking like
a year from now, like it's already happening. And we've
got new criminal charges against the tape brothers in the UK,
So a bunch of things to talk through.

Speaker 3 (02:44):
Yes, indeed, all right, let's get to Indeed we do.
Indeed the line right there we go. Yeah, I like that.
We have an amazing show for you today. Indeed we do.

Speaker 2 (02:51):
Okay, let's get to the tariffs and the latest. So
before the whole tariff regime was struck down, there was
an interesting dynamic playing out with Trump where some reporters
published was Axios that published this that traders were talking
about the quote unquote taco trade, which I know you
and Emily referred to, which stands for Trump always chickens out.

(03:14):
So some foolish reporter made the mistake of asking him
about this, doing.

Speaker 3 (03:18):
That tempting fait like trying like.

Speaker 2 (03:20):
You're not supposed to tell him that's what we're saying
about him in the Oval office. Let's go ahead and
take a listen to how Trump responded to that.

Speaker 3 (03:27):
Mister President. Wall Street less have coined a new term
called the taco trade. They're saying, Trump always chickens out
on your tear of threats, and that's why markets are
hired this week. What's your response to that.

Speaker 6 (03:37):
I kick out, kick it out.

Speaker 7 (03:40):
Oh, then I check it out.

Speaker 8 (03:41):
I've never heard that.

Speaker 7 (03:42):
You mean because I reduced China from one hundred and
forty five percent that I said, down to one hundred
and then down to another number, and I said, you
have to open up your whole country, and because I
gave the European Union a fifty percent text. But I
knew that, But don't ever say what you said. That's

(04:04):
a nasty question.

Speaker 3 (04:05):
Nasty question.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
And Ryan just on the basis of that, and people
being like, oh shit, now he's going to put like
six hundred percent RABS on chine or whatever. The market
started to plumbent we can put a two up on
the screen. The futures fell immediately after this just sort
of like psychologizing this president, and then he wouldn't want
to leak look weak and like a chicken, and he'd
have to do something outrageous to prove all the haters

(04:26):
and doubters wrong. So that's where we were before the
court decision came down.

Speaker 5 (04:32):
Yick, I'm all for our transparency. I want journalists to
press our leaders on the issues of the day.

Speaker 4 (04:39):
But couldn't we have let this one go?

Speaker 2 (04:42):
And did we really need to dare him to destroy
the world economy?

Speaker 3 (04:46):
Do we really need to do that?

Speaker 5 (04:47):
Imagine somebody coming in saying Israel says, you're too much
for a chicken to nu karan, so they say, you
won't do it. He's who said that, like Marty McFly
over here World War three.

Speaker 4 (04:59):
So that he can you just can't. I'll being called
a chicken. So yes, So basically the courts had to
step in.

Speaker 3 (05:05):
Yeh pay hours later we get this decision. Hold the phone.

Speaker 4 (05:09):
The whole world was so panicked. They're like, what can
we do about this?

Speaker 5 (05:12):
And so we can put up a three the International
Court of Trade, which I hadn't even been following this case,
but a company sued, saying, look, the authority under which
Trump is laying down all of these tariffs is way
outside what Congress has delegated to the president. And I

(05:32):
feel guilty here for not kind of going back and
reading some of these tariff laws, although oftentimes I go
back and read laws and I'm like, what they're doing
now does not comply with this law.

Speaker 3 (05:42):
And it's like, okay, so what right?

Speaker 6 (05:44):
Thanks?

Speaker 4 (05:44):
Thanks Spencer, Like, who cares?

Speaker 5 (05:46):
Right, It's about power, So you can identify this and
it still doesn't matter. This company identified it and took
it to a judge who looked at it.

Speaker 4 (05:55):
I was like, yeah, this is true. You can.

Speaker 5 (05:57):
So we all understand that the president as the unilateral
authority to move tariffs because Congress has delegated.

Speaker 4 (06:04):
That power to him.

Speaker 5 (06:06):
But Congress did it in a very specific way for
a national emergency for when particular industries are you know,
need help, and you can't have Congress coming in and
you know, moving tariffs by five percent on the aluminum
industry every time on every country, but they never delegated

(06:26):
the power to move tariffs on every country all at once, right,
and the judges like, no, yeah, you can't do this.

Speaker 2 (06:34):
Yeah, yeah, this was one I really looked into it
at the beginning, like right after Liberation Day, and I
always felt that there was a good chance it would
get struck down by the courts, because whereas obviously, you know,
the trumpet pointed judges and the Supreme Court, which is
profoundly conservative on a lot of social and cultural issues,
they're gonna be sympathetic to him, but these are many
of them Chamber of Commerce type conservatives in the court system.

(06:59):
And you know, when you think about the basics of
our constitution, the power of the purse obviously rests with Congress,
and so the idea that any president could just with
an executive order or with a tweet or whatever, completely
upend our economic system, the global economic system, that always
seemed let's just say, far fetch Yeah, And I read

(07:19):
some legal analyzes at the time that seemed to think
that there was a good chance that it would be
struck down. But like you, I hadn't been following the
specifics of where the cases were and how they were
working their way through. Now he does have significant power
still to levy tariffs, and some of the analysis I
was reading yesterday is he's likely to shift to using

(07:40):
the Section two thirty two tariffs, so like the sectoral tariffs,
where you can say effectively like, oh, this particular industry
is really important for national defense. So like the steel tariffs, right,
are probably on really solid ground with regard to the
Section two thirty two powers. This is a national defense
you know, there's a national security threat involved here. We're
going to put thesectoral tariffs on this one particular industry.

(08:02):
But in terms of saying, hey, entire globe, including islands
with jes penguas on it, this is what we're doing,
that piece seems to be struck down.

Speaker 7 (08:10):
Now.

Speaker 2 (08:10):
The other question with the Trump administration, as always, is
are they going to listen?

Speaker 1 (08:14):
Right?

Speaker 2 (08:15):
I'm curious your thoughts on this, And I saw you
tweeting about this. I suspect because Trump has already backed
off of the most maximalist version of his trade war,
I suspect they may actually comply broadly with this, with
this ruling that comes against them. And I'm sure they're
gonna appeal as well, and so there's gonna be a
process that plays out, et cetera. But I do think

(08:38):
that this may be the beginning of the end of
the more maximalist direction for his trade war. And in addition,
even before the appeal goes through and all those things happen,
like if you're the EU or you're Japan or you're
any other country and you're negotiating on these trade deals,
suddenly you have a lot more leverage because you know

(09:01):
that the courts are already saying this isn't constitutional. So
you are much less likely to bend to whatever it
is his desires are, you know, giving them starlink and
zero percent terris or whatever the and a you know,
development deal for his sons or whatever the you know,
conjours of that are. You are much likely to bend
on those provisions than you were before because you feel like, okay, ultimately,

(09:21):
the courts are probably going to say you can't do
this anyway.

Speaker 5 (09:24):
Yeah, And if you're one of the kind of anti
tariff people in the White House, you're going to use
this moment to say, look, let's let's let's seize off
a little bit like we're not allowed to do this.

Speaker 4 (09:34):
Let's take take the win.

Speaker 5 (09:35):
Now, Now you're not chickening out right like you were
totally willing to do this, but now you can, you
can say, hey, I would have done it because tariffs
worked for him as a political messaging device to show
that he cares about the American worker.

Speaker 3 (09:50):
You mean, like in the camp in the campaign.

Speaker 4 (09:52):
Yes, so it was a stand in for I'm going
to fight for you.

Speaker 5 (09:55):
They don't work so well when he lays them out
so incompetently, yes, and insanely.

Speaker 4 (10:02):
The American workers are going to layoffs already, yeah, because
of them.

Speaker 5 (10:06):
So this would allow him to have the rhetorical win.
I fought for you, yes, and I want to fight
for you, and I'm going to continue fighting for you.
But I'm also not gonna but you're then not going
to materially destroy your your workers' lives by haphazardly and
recklessly going going forward with these So yeah, maybe maybe
they just maybe they just look at this and.

Speaker 3 (10:26):
Take the win.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
Well, And it's interesting too, because if you put up
a four. Weigel was pointing out that Trump's approval rating
has already recovered from the fallout of Liberation day. I
don't think there's any doubt if you look critically at
the polling, that the terriff regime was the most unpopular
thing that he's done. It is the thing that has
triggered the most movement away from him. But as he

(10:52):
has sort of walked back from the original liberation tape,
the chart, the insane chart, and rolled back, you know,
significant chunk of the China tan.

Speaker 3 (11:00):
And I never want to.

Speaker 2 (11:00):
Understate this because or overstate this, because thirty percent on
China was still like a really significant.

Speaker 3 (11:05):
Air of it, a really major reordering.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
Ten percent tears across the board is still really major reordering.
But as he backed away from that most maximus position,
his poll numbers returned. They're not great, He's still underwater,
but they returned to kind of like where the typical
Trump approval rating is. And now you have the Court
stepping in on this one, potentially if he decides to

(11:27):
take the out, saving him from the most unpopular part
of the agenda his agenda, the court stepping in on
the kidnapping of college students who dared to protest or
write an not bed or whatever over Palestine. Court stepping
in and saying that's unconstitutional. You can't do that, you
have Elon. I think Doge ended up remarkably because the
project of hey, let's cut the government and make it

(11:49):
more efficient is a broadly popular project, but because it
was executed in such a horrific, disastrous, catastrophic way, and
Elon himself is so personally unpopular. The fact that he
is now officially out of the administration going back to
his companies and criticizing trumple will show you that in
the B block on the Big Beautiful Bill and some
other things as well. You know that also is sort

(12:10):
of acting from his taking a chainsaw, if you will,
from his administration one of the most unpopular pieces. But
all that being said, they are still full steam ahead
with the Big Beautiful Bill, which is a gigantic giveaway
to the top right at the expense of you know,
millions millions of Americans healthcare, food.

Speaker 3 (12:26):
Stamps, et cetera.

Speaker 2 (12:27):
So now that's that's the next piece that is going
to be profoundly unpopular.

Speaker 3 (12:32):
And he was never more unpopular.

Speaker 2 (12:33):
In his first term prior to January sixth, which you
know is really after his term. He was never more
unpopular than when he passed the original tax Cuts and
Jobs Act. That was the giant giveaway to rich people.

Speaker 6 (12:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (12:44):
And when we talked yesterday about the way that the
energy portion of this big beautiful bill that's going.

Speaker 3 (12:50):
Through, Yeah, that was a good segment.

Speaker 4 (12:52):
It's crazy, like.

Speaker 5 (12:53):
It doesn't just go after clean energy, right, Like his
AI buddies are saying, we need a doubling and tripling
event energy so that we can you know, make these
you know, fake videos, and.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
We can steal your jobs.

Speaker 4 (13:06):
So we can steal your jobs. So we need three
times the energy.

Speaker 5 (13:09):
He's taking a sledgehammer to not just clean energy, but
also the transmissions that you need to you know, if
you can actually expand energy production so you can transmit
it to where it needs to go, to the production
of natural gas turbines. It's like all of the things
that you would need to actually make even if you
wanted to make it dirty like these the getting rid

(13:32):
of these credits because they were written in a way
that they would boost clean energy, but they're fairly neutral
so that if other energy sources wanted to use them,
they would be able to use them in a way
that Biden is able to get the buy in from
the whole energy industry so, and then you're going to
take what twenty we have twenty eight trillion or so
in debt circulating right now with these treasuries. You just

(13:54):
had this you know, almost failed auction where you had
to pay like more than something like fifty base points
higher than they thought. And then they're gonna layer on
another seven trillion, Like Steven Miller's out there arguing it's unfair.
CBO is a bunch of communists in the way that
they're saying that we're gonna add seven and a half
trillion to the deaths that really you should only it

(14:15):
should only be three or four trillions. The market is
going to price end seven trillion, like the communists on
Wall Street, and so then it's gonna be much harder
to raise money. And then you're gonna have the Fed
buying up a bunch of the debt that's out there
already circulating, which then probably you know, pushes up stocks

(14:37):
again for a while, but which then drives inflation. Uh,
and then you know, so it's it's I don't I
don't see how I don't see like Wall Street understands
that this is a house of cards now, and they're
just pouring more.

Speaker 3 (14:53):
Gasoline on it.

Speaker 2 (14:54):
I mean it's so bad that even Wall Street is like,
maybe maybe this talk's good, Maybe it's a little much offering.

Speaker 3 (15:01):
Maybe it's a little much.

Speaker 5 (15:02):
If you're offering Wall Street seven trillion dollars and they're like,
I know about this, Like, then you might want to
rethink what you're going.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
I mean, of course, what they really want is like, hey,
let's just get rid of Medicare and Medicaid all together,
and our tax guts.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
That's what they really want wor cuts.

Speaker 2 (15:18):
Yeah, and I saw you made the point in the
energy segment yesterday of like, well, maybe I should be
happy because I don't actually want this AI stuff to
go forward. And you know, same thing with the banning
of you know, all kinds of foreign students, Chinese nationals
in particular, who are incredibly influential in terms of AI
development in this country. I mean, our no is tweeting
about something like thirty eight percent of top AI talent

(15:39):
in this country, our Chinese nationals. Again, maybe we should
be cheering for this because I'm terrified about where this
AI race is ultimately going. But to your point, we know,
if there's some trade off in terms of energy and who's.

Speaker 3 (15:52):
Going to get it.

Speaker 2 (15:53):
We know it's going to be like the tech billionaires,
so that they can play with their AI tours and
make sure that they can do all that or human
layoffs that they you know, that they desire.

Speaker 5 (16:02):
Yeah, and the part that I'll like hurt all of
us individually is that the medical schools and nursing schools
are you know, have a significant portion of foreign students.
Walk into any hospital in this country, particularly rural hospitals
but also urban ones and look around. That's right, and
tell me how many people you find in there who
were born here in the United States. Now take all

(16:25):
of those people out and then press the button for
help from the nurse or from the doctor, and see
and see see what happens. Like this is real stuff.
Somebody needs to do these jobs. And I'm not talking
about getting your house cleaned of getting a heart transplant, right.

Speaker 3 (16:43):
Right, No, that's that is exactly right. That is exactly right.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
And I mean there's a sense that they just don't
want to compete, have to compete with the world. It's
like affirmative action from the mediocre we which you.

Speaker 4 (16:53):
Know, go ahead, go to medical school. We're not stopping you.

Speaker 3 (16:56):
Yeah, true, very true.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
Let's go ahead and put this piece up on the
screen just as a sign of where we kind of
are economically, because I think it's important to keep in
mind that even though all right, the court is saying
you can't do the liberation day, saying there's still going
to be sectoral taris. You should get Jef's Diyne on
next week to talk about what that might ultimately look like,
because he's been kind of, you know, saying, hey, guys,
this is still coming, like, take a look at what's

(17:19):
going on here. So we'll get him on to talk
about that. But even as we maybe are saved from
the most insane of the Trump trade policy, there's a
lot of damage that's been done in the meantime in
terms of consumer confidence, in terms of GDP growth, in
terms of you know, potential, like the expectation for joblessness
to expectation for inflation, and you are starting to see

(17:42):
some metrics like this pile up where serious delinquencies are
significantly rising in America in every category mortgage delinquencies. He
locks auto loans, credit cards, student loans, other student loans,
way up. Look at that Ryan seven point two one
percent and so so you know, there are some warning
signs about how people are doing even as we step

(18:05):
back from the you know, the most insane parts of.

Speaker 3 (18:07):
The trade war.

Speaker 2 (18:09):
So there's a good chance here that there's already you know,
quite substantial and unnecessary damage that is done to the
economy in ways that hurt real people. Not to mention
the you know, the ai reckoning that I do think
is coming quite quickly.

Speaker 5 (18:24):
You had flagged it in video is announcing earnings today
and I think unsurprisingly had like a record quarter. Yeah,
because people were just basically bum rushing the place trying
to get as much as they possibly can before like
the world ends.

Speaker 4 (18:45):
Like that was the kind of attitude.

Speaker 5 (18:47):
Yeah, a lot of buyers and so yeah, we could
put up a six here. You know, that's if you
hold that stock, that's the direction you want to see
that line going.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
And this is even with the export you know bands
to China and the controls that were put on. But
I think you're right that the dynamic is everyone else
around the world being like, all right, we got to
get as many of these chips as we possibly can.

Speaker 3 (19:09):
Get our hands on. Right.

Speaker 5 (19:10):
This company like based in Taiwan, which is just a hilarious.
US a series of decisions to put it to put
the like, uh, you know, the the essentials for its
industrial production on an island very close to China, which
which we acknowledge that China controls. Yeah they don't really,

(19:31):
but one China policy from the US means we recognize
it as part of China.

Speaker 3 (19:36):
Yeah, yeah, that's right. See, let's see how that works out.

Speaker 2 (19:39):
It's really strategic planning from our bold strategy. Let's get
to this next part because this is just you know
about the Trump administration, his some of his more maximus
goals being really rolled back. Just yesterday the law, as
I said before, that was used to justify the detention
of Mackmoud Khalil, who, just as a reminder Columbia student

(20:00):
never accused of any criminal behavior.

Speaker 3 (20:03):
No one has accused.

Speaker 2 (20:04):
Him of any sort of criminal even being mean, right,
or even of being mean. They could and you know
at this point if they had said something bad, we
wouldn't know about it. They dug up what some Instagram
post of some group that he's tangent tangentially.

Speaker 3 (20:18):
Involved with or that was the best they.

Speaker 5 (20:20):
Had on the sky okay, and it was a quote
and even it was a quote from some other author.

Speaker 4 (20:25):
Right, It's like, okay, had nothing to do, all.

Speaker 3 (20:27):
Right, this is what you got right exactly.

Speaker 2 (20:29):
And so so in any case, they were using this
particular law that, interestingly enough, Trump's sister, who is a judge,
had previously said in the nineties, you know, this law
is probably unconstitutional because it gives too much power to
the executive to just say, for example, hey we don't
like your speech. Now we're arresting you and deporting you.

(20:50):
And you know, we're claiming that it's because of national
security reasons or you know, is a threat to our
foreign affairs. Preposterous. So we have another judge. You put
a seven up on the screen. Have another judge now
who came in federal New Jersey court ruling that those
foreign policy grounds under which Mackmood Khalil was detained are
likely unconstitutional. Court rules that Khalil is likely to succeed

(21:15):
on the merits of his claim that the Trump administration's
foreign policy charge is unconstitutionally vague. This would have implications
not just for Mackmood Khalil, but this same law has
been the justification, for example, with Ramesa os Turk, who
you know, just rode in not bed, so it's clearly
just speech. And they use the same justification here. There
may be in their uh most of Madawi also they

(21:37):
use this same justification. There may be other students that
we're not aware of where you know, we haven't had
public reporting on it. And so the fact that you've
got a court saying listen, they're likely to find that
this is just not constitutional at all is a significant
blow to their ability to just decide any random student
is someone they don't like who said something that they

(21:58):
aren't comfortable with, or you know, for whatever reason want
to snatch up and arrest and deport. So really significant
development here with this one.

Speaker 5 (22:06):
Yeah, and the argument from Rubio and from the administration
is that it is a privilege to come here, and
that the US does not have to allow people to
come here, and if they're going to and if they
would have known ahead of time that they were going
to protest against Israel, they wouldn't have granted the visa
in the first place, and so therefore they're rescinding it.
And then after they rescind it, they say you're here

(22:27):
illegally and they put you in jail, which is the
case of the Harvard researcher who's.

Speaker 3 (22:32):
Locked up right now.

Speaker 4 (22:35):
And so that's the argument.

Speaker 5 (22:37):
The counter argument is that, you know, the First Amendment
applies to everybody in the country, right, If they want
to do some vetting and look for anybody who has
been critical of Israel and reject them for student visas,
they could probably get away with that because primarily because

(22:57):
the person getting rejected I wouldn't know why they got rejected, right.

Speaker 4 (23:03):
It's like they would just say, oh, you're not getting a.

Speaker 2 (23:05):
Visa, right the first the First Amendment applies to anyone
who's here, So if you're not here yet, then yes,
you can probably block whoever you want from coming or whatever.

Speaker 5 (23:17):
Like one of Lember's applying for this job, she said
she wants to she'll vet all of these.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
Yes, she said, it's like her dream job in charge
of sifting through the social media accounts of young people
who want to study.

Speaker 5 (23:27):
In those guys with AI it would be an increasingly
accomplishable surveillance task. If you can link the accounts to
the people, then you can just you should be able
to eventually be able to do that kind of analysis. Yeah,
and you would just get some sentiment analysis from a
machine that says, this person looks it looks a little

(23:47):
bit too sympathetic to children.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
It's just incredible.

Speaker 4 (23:50):
They cannot come to our Oh.

Speaker 2 (23:51):
They retweeted, Miss Rachel can't have this person from the
ages of two to five.

Speaker 4 (23:55):
They watched Miss Rachel.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
Religiously forget it, forget it, this person cannot possibly be
in this country. And then just go over one more time,
Ryan the details with the Russian scientists, because it's another
significant one in terms of, you know, undercutting some of
the maximal samems of the Trump and men that have
been unpopular.

Speaker 5 (24:11):
Yeah, this is so because Sennya Petrovo, who's a she's
from Russia, but she's at a research at Harvard Medical School,
thirty one years old, said to be just utterly brilliant
and researchers at this age, scientists at this age are
doing their best work.

Speaker 4 (24:29):
Like, so she's been locked up for months.

Speaker 5 (24:30):
Now, wow, these you know, whenever you see somebody who
won a Nobel like, it's usually for work when they
were like twenty seven years old. Like whatever it is
about the scientific brain, like it really pops off when
it first starts engaging with all of the history that's
come before it, and then that you have your freshest ideas.

(24:52):
And they'll say in like mathematics and physics and these
all these other disciplines that by the time you're like
thirty five, you're teaching, you're smart, but you're like, your
brain is just not working in the way that's going
to produce no Bell like breakthroughs. And so Petrova has
developed this this way of seeing cancer cells that couldn't

(25:17):
have been seen before. And when my wife was at
an appointment, the college just made an interesting point where
we're saying, oh, what's the scan show?

Speaker 3 (25:25):
What's this show?

Speaker 5 (25:26):
And they said, you know, you can we can only
we can only see what we can see. And we
have imaging techniques, you know, a variety of different imaging
techniques to try to see more. But beyond that it's
we're still it's a human eye. And then it's you know,
advanced through these different techniques. And so there's a lot
that we currently can't see. So is the body cancer free?

(25:49):
We think so, but we we literally can't see it.
And I'd never I'd never thought about that before because
I just see all these fancy machines that cost thousands
dollars to use.

Speaker 3 (25:57):
Yeah, you're like they see everything right down to the cell.

Speaker 5 (26:01):
If a metal detector can find the ring on the beach,
this cat scan or m R I or PET scan,
they can figure this out.

Speaker 4 (26:07):
And no, that's not true. Like we're still advancing.

Speaker 5 (26:10):
And so she has made some of the most significant
advances in recent times to be able to see more
and accordinate to her colleagues at Harvard. She wrote a
lot of the code and she's the only one that
can read a lot of these images now because it's
in it's in the very embryonic stage, ironically, and so
she instead of helping her colleagues with this kind of

(26:32):
breakthrough technology, she's languishing in this Louisiana. Maybe she's been
removed in Vermont by now she's languishing behind bars. And
so what she did her and this is acknowledged by
all sides. Her boss and I think she was flying
from London. Her Paris said hey, there's some embryonic frog cells, like,

(26:52):
can you take these back to the lab. So she
took them back to the lab and did not declare
them in court. This a bunch of sign just said
these are non living from aldehyde, like it's it's like leather,
like they compared it to leather. Yes, these were living
at one point. These these are non living beings, non hazards,
non toxic. Nothing like if you brought a leather purse,

(27:15):
you'd have brought the same amount of biological material into
the country for not declaring it. Usually it's like a
fifty dollars fine or something. Right, the woman who the
Customs and Border Patrol agent immediately rescinded her visa and
then said, oh, now you're here without a visa, so
I'm putting you into putting you in detention. And she
had been a critic of Putin, so she's like, I

(27:39):
cannot go, but you cannot send me on a plane
back to Russia like that will be I've been a
public critic of Putin, would be rather dangerous for me.
So like, okay, well then you're in asylum proceedings now.
And they sent her off and she's been behind bars
ever since. And so the judge ruled that this is
likely illegal. He didn't say it is definitely illegal, but

(28:01):
he's saying it's likely illegal because they had no no
basis for any of it, Like this is completely ridiculous.
It's basically the judge is ruling, Ice is saying, well,
we're still going to hold her because what they what
what the Trump administration did, and it's amazing the resources
that they're throwing at this case. They realized that what
she did was extremely minor, and so it was going

(28:24):
to get thrown out. So they they layered on top
of the immigration charges a federal charge of like trafficking,
oh my god, in embryonic cells or whatever.

Speaker 3 (28:36):
It's like two And what do you think is a point?

Speaker 7 (28:37):
Like?

Speaker 3 (28:37):
Is it just to make an example of this lady?
Is that? Like what is the point?

Speaker 4 (28:41):
Yeah? Yeah, I think it.

Speaker 2 (28:42):
Is because it's not like she was out there posting
free Palestine.

Speaker 4 (28:46):
No, not at all.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
She wasn't spreading anti Semitism with her you know, free
Palestine and miss Rachel watching it.

Speaker 5 (28:51):
And she's even aligned with US foreign policy like anti Putin.

Speaker 3 (28:55):
Well maybe that's some days. That defends some days, that's true.
You know, I shared this chart.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
I don't know if you had a chance to take
a look at it of Nobel laureates by country, and
this graft from John Bruner and prior to basically nineteen forty,
Germany was really the dominant country in terms of scientific
developments as measured by Nobel laureates.

Speaker 3 (29:21):
And then the US does not really start to pop.

Speaker 5 (29:24):
Off at as a scientific pathag Germany.

Speaker 4 (29:28):
What Germany do around then.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
Yeah, exactly until scientist, top scientists started fleeing Germany.

Speaker 3 (29:34):
Of course, we also imported some of the Nazis after
the fact as well, we recruited them.

Speaker 2 (29:39):
But in any case, that persecution and the fleeing of
top minds from Europe and from Germany specifically was a
major part of what led to our scientific dominance. That
and I think also the New Deal in the World
War Two investments, and there was you know, my dad
is a physicist, and you know there was like a

(29:59):
pa triotic aspiration around science and scientific development that he
and a whole cohort. His whole cohort was sort of like,
you know, a part of But in any case, that's
what really helps to kick off US scientific dominance and
this administration.

Speaker 3 (30:16):
I mean, they truly are if you look at.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
The cuts to science across the board, the attacks on
foreign students, I mean, if you are a foreign student,
if you're a student around the world, now considering where
you're going to apply to college in the fall.

Speaker 3 (30:30):
There are plenty of good choices.

Speaker 2 (30:32):
That are outside of the United States of America, and
I have to think that many of them are going
to avail themselves of those choices around and put themselves
at the risk of this incredibly like capricious, cruel insanity
that they're watching unfold year.

Speaker 3 (30:44):
Why wouldn't you?

Speaker 4 (30:45):
Yeah, and so people just won't come here.

Speaker 2 (30:48):
Yeah, yeah, that's right, that's exactly right. All right, let's
move on to what's going on with Elon. So yesterday
he put out a post in the White House confirmed
his time as acial government employee. Boy was, as ever special,
has come to a close and he's moving on. But
he assures us the work of DOGE is only going
to become more and more important as things move forward. Okay, sure, whatever, buddy,

(31:12):
but he had already in You and Emily touched on
this briefly, but we wanted to dig in more. He
has started to be a little more openly critical of
the Trump administration as he is being pushed out the
door here and as DOGE has been proven to be
by their own metrics, a totally complete failure, total and

(31:32):
complete failure. Now, I never thought that DOGE was about
really like cost cutting and efficiency, and if the metric
is Elon's company aren't going to be regulated anymore, it
was a roaring success. But if the metric was actually
cutting spending and increasing efficiency, you failed on both accounts.
You went in the wrong direction on both accounts. So
in any case, Elon has come out now in this

(31:54):
interview that I think is supposed to air this weekend
in full criticizing Trump's.

Speaker 3 (32:00):
Quote unquote big beautiful.

Speaker 2 (32:01):
Bill because of the amount that it increases the budget deficit.

Speaker 3 (32:05):
Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.

Speaker 9 (32:07):
You know, I was like disappointed to see the massive
spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deps that not
doesn't decrease it, and that reminds the work that the
Noche team is doing.

Speaker 8 (32:19):
I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along,
I mean, like everything he's done on DOGE gets wiped
out in the first year.

Speaker 9 (32:26):
I think, I think a bill can be can be
can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I
don't know if it could be both my postal opinion and.

Speaker 2 (32:35):
You know, Ryan, I had found it interesting that the
all in guys we played some of this on Tuesday,
the all in guys except for David Sachs, who even
he was like, well, you know, it's the best we
can do. It's not like he was out there singing
the praises of this bill. I thought that was indicative
of the tech right that are aligned with Elon really
souring on some aspects of this administration.

Speaker 6 (32:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (32:58):
Tech, the tech guys want easy money. They want they
want to go back to the days where they had
you know, zero percent interest rates, and that those are there,
those are their heady days, like any company they wanted
to launch any idea they had the fund brought.

Speaker 3 (33:12):
Against the wall.

Speaker 5 (33:13):
Uh Bilan wants that as well as and because of
his mission to get to Mars like that, you know,
that's his that's his driving passion that and like making
sure that all these regulators who are investigating him are
no longer investigating him, because your point is a very
important one. For all of its failures, he did succeed
in gutting all of these elements of the agencies that

(33:36):
were investigating all of his companies.

Speaker 2 (33:39):
That's and even the ones that like might credibly in
the future investigate his companies, like the CFPP.

Speaker 3 (33:43):
Yeah, yes, exactly.

Speaker 5 (33:45):
But his overriding goal is to get to Mars, and
he knows that the only way you do that is
by marshaling the resources of the richest country in the
history of the world, the United States, and that's the
United States federal government. And so he wanted to get
the finances of the federal government in order so that

(34:05):
it was able to pursue this Mars shot project. And
a seven trillion dollar tax cut doesn't get him anywhere
close to that, plus the total plus the failure on
the Doch side, I you know, no, no, no, no
tears for him, because you know he had enough. He

(34:28):
had a real opportunity, and he had he has bipartisan
or he had in the past, bipartisan support. Democrats are
the ones that buy all his cars. People recognize what
he's done with SpaceX.

Speaker 2 (34:40):
And Obama was critical for Tesla and SpaceX by the way, So.

Speaker 5 (34:45):
If he had come in and spent a little bit
of time getting the known agency or the federal government
overall and identified ways that you could improve them and
make them more efficient, he would be at a seventy
percent of approval rating. Yeah, because there are way that
government is inefficient. Yeah, there are things.

Speaker 4 (35:05):
You can do.

Speaker 5 (35:06):
Federal workers would like nothing more than to make the
federal government more efficient.

Speaker 3 (35:10):
Right.

Speaker 5 (35:11):
The key thing that he's identified now and he says
he's going to continue to work on it, is upgrading
the software and the computer systems the government uses, which
is boring, but which is actually a genuinely essential thing, right,
that this government needs to do.

Speaker 3 (35:24):
Like you go into these ahhs.

Speaker 5 (35:26):
Or wherever, like it looks like you're walking into the
nineteen nineties, like it's shocking what the IRS is using
to try to do taxes.

Speaker 2 (35:34):
So when I was first down in college, I work
for a government contractor on government accounting systems. And my
client that I worked with was the federal court system.
And this was in the early two thousands, so we're
not talking about the Stone Age here. Some of the
federal courts were still tracking these complex joint in several
relationships where you have hundreds of defendants and different.

Speaker 3 (35:57):
Levels of restitution.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
They were still tracking them with and paper on a ledger,
and there would be like one person at the court.
I'm thinking of Main in particular, I'll never forget there
was this one elderly lady who knew what it all meant,
and if she died or retired.

Speaker 3 (36:11):
You were screwed. You would have no idea what these.

Speaker 2 (36:14):
Cases meant, no idea because some of it was not
even really trackable by Penam.

Speaker 3 (36:19):
It was just in her head.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
And so I mean that was and this was again,
this was like two thousand and five, so you know,
twenty years ago now, but not the Stone Ages, and
that's where you still were. And every court in the
country had a different system. And so I am well
aware of the ways that which the government accounting and
other systems are incredibly archaic, clunky, all of that. But

(36:43):
I also do know from that experience too, you can't
just come in as some like hot shot twenty year
old hacker and think that you're going to be able
to just figure this out overnight with you know, an
AI bot or whatever. Because it is sort of held
together with duct tape and glue.

Speaker 3 (37:00):
You have to know where that.

Speaker 2 (37:01):
Ductaven glue is and it's going to be a complicated
project unwind.

Speaker 3 (37:04):
But I totally agree with you.

Speaker 2 (37:06):
Elon had the power because he owns Twitter and because
he is this you know, larger than life weird personality
who can garner all this media attention if he picked
one of these projects, like the retirement records in the
salt mine or whatever, to automate and say, okay, this
used to take a year. Now it takes a day
and it's done. And I think they could have had
the capability. Then you could have built some trust and

(37:28):
goodwill to expand out if you actually wanted to. You know,
if you're actually focused on cutting cost. We all know
where the fat is is the pentagon, and it's with
medicare fraudsters, like, it's not hard to figure out. They
did not find to my knowledge. You tell me if
I'm wrong. I don't think they found a single fraudulent payment.
They found some programs they don't like, the you know,
transgenic mice or whatever. They found some things that they

(37:50):
ideologically opposed. I did not hear about a single instance
of fraud that they were able to actually root out,
which is a stunni shit right.

Speaker 3 (38:00):
It actually makes me think of there must be less fraud.

Speaker 2 (38:03):
In government than I, you know, than people sort of assume,
because they were not able to find a single solitary
instance of it. But the other point is a really
important one. You have to hold these two thoughts in
your head. That doesn't mean it wasn't consequential. You know,
it will take years to rebuild in the same way
that you know, what they're doing to science and what
they're doing to you know, foreign students coming over, like

(38:24):
it will take generations to rebuild that trust, if it
is even possible to do at this point, if those
people don't just look to China. In other places, it
would take years of intentional rebuilding to bring back you know,
the Department of Education, USAI D like the CFPB, the
full functionality of the Social Security Administration. There has been

(38:45):
real damage done to these agencies and specifically to their
ability to regulate companies like SpaceX, like Tesla and you know,
other giant businesses in this country and around the world.
So you know, the impact has been profound, even as
the actual results as advertised were a total, complete, undeniable

(39:08):
failure that even the right has admitted is like a
total incomplete So they had their cope around wide what
happened and whatever, but they aren't even pretending that this
was a success at this point.

Speaker 4 (39:18):
Yeah, you can put up B three.

Speaker 5 (39:20):
He also did an interview with the Washing Post, which
is which is worth a full read. You know, where
he says that Doge is just becoming the whipping boy
for everything.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
So, like some I thought that was kind of the
point of Doge, though I could like.

Speaker 5 (39:34):
It so like something bad would happen anywhere and we
would get blamed for it even if we had nothing
to do. But he also expressed dismay or the reputational
hit his companies to people were burning Tessa's why would
you do that?

Speaker 4 (39:45):
That's really uncool, you.

Speaker 2 (39:47):
Know, you know, he designs to hear that meme like no,
I said, your feelings, my feelings are precious like a
baby bird.

Speaker 5 (39:54):
He clearly he's not listening to us, because we told
him this right at the very beginning. For instance, we said, look,
if you come in with a chainsaw, a literal chainsaw,
on stage and start sending notices to air traffic controllers
that they should retire early, which they did, in which

(40:15):
they then letters said, oh that was a mistake. But
you do it with this vindictive joy that you're you're
you're in here with a wrecking ball of chainsaw to
destroy this place. What that does anytime, and this is
what we said immediately, anytime anything happens after that, it's
going to be your fault. People are going to logically
point back to you, even if it wasn't your fault,

(40:38):
even if this would have happened anyway, Like you, you
broke it, now you own it, so and you and
you flambuoyantly broke it. You broke it in this like
circus like way, drawing the entire attention of the world
onto you, saying look what I did.

Speaker 4 (40:55):
Look what I did.

Speaker 5 (40:56):
And then when people are like, oh, well, why this
stuff is all broken, they're like, well, why is everybody
so angry at me?

Speaker 4 (41:04):
It's so mean? Like these teslas are fine?

Speaker 3 (41:06):
Why are you attacking the Tesla's right? Why do you
have this ill way?

Speaker 2 (41:09):
And that was the other part that was so predictable,
like it's no mystery who the top customer of Tesla
is going to be liberals, liberals, wealthy liberals in particular,
like well off liberals. That is Tesla's customer base. And
there's no one who are pissing off more in this
country than like well off liberals who might be consumers
of your cars. And at the same time that Chinese

(41:32):
EV's you know, if you zoom out from beyond the
United States, so we know the way he's meddled in
politics and all kinds of countries around the world, and
it is even less popular in other countries than he
is here, Like.

Speaker 3 (41:41):
In Europe, they have other options. The Chinese EV's Frankler
came your ass.

Speaker 2 (41:46):
At this point, so they've got other alternatives and you
are and which is why, you know, I think it's
going to be very difficult for Tesla to reclaim it's
you know, it's sort of pre eminent spot in the
EV space because you have all of this toxicity around Elon,
you know, him out there doing his Roman salute and
all of that, and meddling and backing up the a

(42:07):
f D in Germany and you know, getting involved in
the UK in ways that were even too extreme for
the far right party there as well.

Speaker 3 (42:15):
That stuff doesn't just go away.

Speaker 2 (42:17):
And so maybe if there were no other alternatives, but
the EV market is developing rapidly and there are other
alternatives now, so people don't have to associate themselves with
your you know, with your brand if they don't want to.
We were there was a Crystaliza apparently had his Tesla
to face. Don't laugh, Ryan, you put a stick, don't laugh?
Is that what happened to someone put a sticker on it,

(42:39):
but it is.

Speaker 5 (42:39):
I didn't file the musk is a Nazi and it
was just it wasn't even a sticker. It was a
piece of paper that was taped on scotch tape.

Speaker 3 (42:47):
So okay, so he's going to be okay, it's gonna
be okay.

Speaker 2 (42:52):
But I mean, most people are not going to be
wanting to court that kind of attention, you know, and
most people don't want their car to be some sort
of like weird politicals statement or for anyone even to potentially.

Speaker 3 (43:02):
Interpret it that way. The cyber truck.

Speaker 2 (43:04):
Is one of the biggest busts in I think automotive history.
You know, it's wildly on pat there's a big gamble
because it is such a like unusual looking vehicle. We'll
just put it that way nicely and personally things on
that to.

Speaker 5 (43:15):
Sell four hundred million dollars worth of than in the
state Department for.

Speaker 2 (43:20):
You scuttled that, right, you big ol'd Meani And in
any case, so yeah, this was all very predictable on
the Elon front. Now there's another piece that came out
in the Wall Street Journal, which is also kind of interesting.
This is also not surprising. In fact, I'm disappointed in myself.
I didn't see this coming. But you know, they announced
this big AI deal in the UAE, put the Wall

(43:41):
Street Journal piece up on the screen here, guys, and
apparently and this is you know, with open Ai, which
is Sam Altman's deal. Elon hate Sam. They started open
Ai together. I mean, Elon is actually right in this dispute. Yeah,
because the idea of open Ai is going to be
open source, is going to be nonprofit. And then Altman
was like, yeah, how about we'd make it closed source

(44:01):
and for profit. Is basically the contours of what happened.
I'm sure Sam would dispute that. You know, characteris agent
really basically what happened. So in any case, Elon tried
behind the scenes to block Sam from getting this big
AI deal in the Middle East, and they least get
in on it right right exactly, and David Sacks, they
were all aware that Musk was very unhappy. Musk was

(44:24):
back channeling to these Gulf countries and saying like this
isn't going to go through unless you include Xai, which
is his thing, unless you include us in on the deal.
And they were like, no, we're not going to do that,
and the White House was like, yeah, and we're going
to go forward without you. So Elon did everything he
could and even decided he was going to because you
found out Sam was going to be on the trip,
so he decides, I'm going to go on the trip

(44:46):
then too, sat.

Speaker 5 (44:47):
Right behind MBS Mohammad An Salmon at the ri Odd Summit.
All the time you're looking at NBS going like this
to Trump, Yes, every time he would say something complimentary
about him, there's Elon sitting.

Speaker 2 (44:59):
Right right there, and you know, the White House sort
of brainstorw okay, well, how do we keep Elon from
getting totally pissed off about this? But they went forward
with the deal in spite of the fact now apparently
some of the terms are still not totally locked in,
et cetera, et cetera. But pretty significant and I think
illuminating snub of Elon in an area that he really

(45:21):
cares deeply about, which is the combination of you know,
the development of AI, which he is all in on
the race along with these other players, and on his
hatred of Sam Altman. In fact, I don't know if
you remember last time Elon pop piped up about being
unhappy about Stargate and it's partnership with Open AI and
partnership with Sam Altman. Trump got asked about it and

(45:42):
he said, he said, Elon one of the people he
happens to hate. But I have certain hatreds of people too.
Trump well understands the Dynamics.

Speaker 4 (45:52):
Series at somebody.

Speaker 3 (45:54):
I have certain hatreds of people too.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
Incredible, Absolutely incredible. Just one other piece that we wanted
to make sure and get in the show. As we're
talking about going back to the big beautiful Bill, which
you know is still like flew through the house, I
guess there's some questions about whether or not it's going
to get through the Senate. I personally think they're probably
going to figure it out. I don't know, Ryan, what's
your read on that.

Speaker 4 (46:18):
I think they'll pass it. Yeah, what do we want
to talk about?

Speaker 6 (46:21):
Seven?

Speaker 4 (46:21):
Or three or two? Which should we do that now?

Speaker 6 (46:22):
Real quick?

Speaker 2 (46:23):
Yes, that is what I was going to go back to.
That's what I was going to go back to. So
there's one provision in here that we really wanted to
flag for you guys that could be very significant as
we're talking about all these court cases that are really
trimming the sales of the Trump administration and you know,
undercutting their more maximist and unpopular or frankly.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
Parts of their agenda.

Speaker 2 (46:40):
There is a provision in the big beautiful bill that
would undercut the ability of courts to hold the executive
specifically accountable. Sky did a great TikTok his handle on
TikTok is Britno DC explaining what this provision is and
how it works and why it's important. Let's go ahead
and take a listen to a little bit of this
is B two guys.

Speaker 10 (47:01):
Let's break down what section seven H three zero two says.
Courts may not use appropriated funds. This is a budget bill,
so everything's about money, right. This is basically saying courts
are not allowed to do whatever we're talking about. Courts
may not enforce contempt citations for failure to comply with injunctions,
which is the only way that you enforce injunctions or tros.
So courts may not enforce injunctions or tros if no

(47:23):
security or security deposit was given when the injunction was
issued pursuant to Federal Rule sixty five C. Okay, what
does this mean. Let's go look at Federal Rule sixty
five C. Most of sixty five C says that all
preliminary injunctions and tros have to have a security deposit.
So basically nothing would apply here, right unless they involve
the federal government. The federal government does not have to

(47:44):
put down a security deposit. So what are we saying here?
Cannot enforce a TRO or a preliminary injunction unless there's
a security deposit, which the federal government doesn't do. Cannot
enforce a TRO or preliminary injunction against the US government. Remember,
this is a law against the courts. So by government,
we're mostly talking about Congress and the executive branch, but
especially the executive branch. The executive branch is.

Speaker 3 (48:05):
The part that does stuff fast.

Speaker 10 (48:06):
This is where tro and preliminary in junctions come in
most often. So essentially, the executive branch can do anything
at once and the court can't stop them.

Speaker 3 (48:15):
So Ryan, that seems pretty significant.

Speaker 5 (48:17):
Yes, And so my wife actually sent me that one
and I was like, oh, yeah, I hadn't seen this.

Speaker 3 (48:22):
I looked it up.

Speaker 4 (48:23):
Yep, it's right there on the bill.

Speaker 5 (48:25):
I talked to a senior Senate Democrat and asked, like
have you noticed that this is making the rounds on TikTok?
Is this something the caucus is concerned about? And he said, yes,
we are watching this, and that his understanding is that
it would be non bird rule compliant to go back
to some Oh.

Speaker 3 (48:46):
My god, they think that's going to stop it.

Speaker 4 (48:48):
Please, well if this so?

Speaker 5 (48:51):
The bird rule basically says, if something does policy, it
can't be in a reconciliation bill because you should be
able to filibuster it.

Speaker 3 (49:00):
It would require sixty votes.

Speaker 5 (49:02):
And so the entire thing goes through what they call
a bird bath. And so when this goes into the
bird bath, they think the parliamentarian will say, hey, this
is policy, like if you're writing it as a budget
thing because you're involving money. But clearly this is policy.
As he laid out, this would be a new policy.
You can't basically enforce court orders. And so they Republicans

(49:28):
could then overrule the parliamentarian, but by.

Speaker 3 (49:30):
Voting yes, which they already have proved, which they've.

Speaker 4 (49:33):
Proven willing to do.

Speaker 5 (49:34):
But the role of the parliamentarian is to give parties
an excuse to do things, and so that's how Democrats
use the parliamentarian. God Man would we love to pay
you guys fifteen.

Speaker 4 (49:46):
Dollars an hour?

Speaker 3 (49:47):
Yeah, Parliament, lady right over here, do it.

Speaker 5 (49:51):
Do it, but you guys can vote to Overlall, Okay,
next order of business, So just move on and put
the blame over here. Republicans may do this same thing, really,
because Republican senators may not want Trump to have unfettered power.

Speaker 2 (50:08):
I don't see any sign of that. I don't see
any sign of There's a lot in at this point.

Speaker 4 (50:14):
It'll be, it'll be. It'll be a very interesting question.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
Yeah, because I mean, you just you know, and Trump
one point zero you had, I would think there would
be there were war right who would want to secretly
constrain Trump. Maybe, I mean I guess as possible. Certainly
many of them didn't really didn't like the tariffs right
as an example.

Speaker 3 (50:34):
But also the pressure is being taken off with the tariffs.
So I don't know.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
It will be an interesting test to see, but I
don't have any confidence that they actually want to him,
and I just don't see any sign of that. All right,
let's move to what's going on with regard to Israel.
Wikoff made some significant comments indicating that a deal could
be imminent. You guys have done the best report, and

(51:00):
by the way, I just want to give you kudos.
Like dropsite is still like brand new in terms of
the news media space and has become so essential and
is beating all of the legacy news organizations on many topics,
but especially with regard to Israel, simply because of your
willingness to actually talk to the players involved. So kudos
to you and Jeremy because it really is incredible, and

(51:22):
I know you guys also have found them to be
utterly indispensable for understanding the reality of what is happening
in these various negotiations. But in any case, Whitcof made
some comments indicating we knew that there had been some
understanding of an agreement between the US and Humas, but
we also saw Israel come in and blow that up,
and previously witcough basically sort of running cover for Israel

(51:43):
and oh yeah, Hamas, they are not agreeing, even though
it's at all incomplete bullshit. Now we're getting a bit
of a different tone from Witcofs, So I will take
a listen to this and we'll get Ryan's reaction on
the other side.

Speaker 11 (51:52):
I think that we are on the precipice of sending
out a new term sheet that hopefully will be delivered
later on today. The President is going to review it.
And I have some very good feelings about getting to
a long term resolution, temporary temporary cease fire and a
long term resolution, a peaceful resolution of that conflict.

Speaker 2 (52:16):
So, Ran, what is your read on where we are?
And I know Jeremy had some new reporting and whether
this latest to hell, I mean, maybe heading to a
ceasefire is going to be different from the previous assertions
that we may be nearing something.

Speaker 5 (52:31):
Yeah, and thanks for the kind words on that. And
Jeremy's reporting on this one in particular is really important
because to your point, what it did is is it
exposed that there had been this agreement reached between Hamas
and Whitcough, so that when Israel came out and denounced
the deal, and Witkoff said, oh, yes, of course, Israel

(52:52):
is correct and Hamas is being in transigen, the rest
of the media, which does read drop side, is like,
that's that's not what we're hearing. We're hearing that actually
Hamas is fine with this and Israel is.

Speaker 4 (53:03):
The one that is against it.

Speaker 3 (53:05):
As usual because we laid out.

Speaker 5 (53:07):
The exact terms and why, like why Hamas had reached
an understanding that this would be something acceptable to them.
And so then Wikoff comes out the next day with
the statement you just heard and delivers roughly the same.
So he said, we're going to deliver this paper to
both sides. He has Jeremy. You can go go check

(53:27):
Jeremy's feed put this. I think we have one post
from Jeremy up here, which is the top of his
thread from this morning. Posted this at three am this morning.
The ceasefire draft circulated by Witcoff includes many of the
same points from the earlier draft I saw, but it
would be five Israelis released on day one, five on
day seven, bodies of eighteen deceased return un would resume
aid delivery operations. Trump would personally guarantee the deal. The

(53:51):
original deal that Hamas had agreed to, that Jeremy had
reported on was five a Israelies released on day one,
and then five on day six.

Speaker 3 (54:00):
So at the very end.

Speaker 5 (54:02):
Because the entire the crux of the disagreement over the
terms of a ceasefire is that Israel wants it worded
so that they can resume the war whenever they feel
like it. Hamas wants it worded so that it will
lead to a permanent truce, and that Trump will guarantee

(54:24):
that it will lead to a permanent truce, because they
believe it doesn't matter what the words are, that only
that Trump is the only human being on earth who
has the power to stave off Israel from restarting the war, right,
And so the idea was, if there's five who are
getting released on the sixtieth day, that at least you'd

(54:45):
have to keep the sixty days going, and that in
that sixty days a truce would settle in and negotiations
would move so that you would continue it beyond the
sixty days. The new agreement, according to Jeremy, waters down
the language about keeping it going beyond.

Speaker 3 (55:05):
The sixty days.

Speaker 4 (55:07):
And of course, as you saw, does the five after
just seven days?

Speaker 3 (55:13):
And so are there only ten living hostages?

Speaker 5 (55:15):
No, I think there's like thirty or something, so that
this would there's still reason for Israel to continue to
negotiate even beyond this. But the big fear from Humas
is the one that just occurred to everybody watching this. Okay,
so five on day one, the other five on day seven,
so you get a seven day cease fire, right, and
on day eight, you know, the back of the bombing

(55:38):
continues and they.

Speaker 4 (55:39):
Eight is cut off again.

Speaker 5 (55:40):
And so there, that's why they're asking wick coffin Trump
to personally say, like you say you want this over,
just say it out loud and say that you're going
to guarantee that this will continue, right, and then if
the US betrays them on that, like it's at some
point the US and Israel have the bombs and nobody's

(56:02):
gonna nobody can really stop them from dropping them forever.

Speaker 3 (56:06):
That's right.

Speaker 5 (56:06):
So the question is I would Hamas has not decided
and has not responded according to Jeremy yet, but I
was suspect they're going to try to push that seven
days closer to the sixty, gotcha.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
So the outline of what Jeremy's laying out there is
what Israel is seeking in the deal.

Speaker 4 (56:26):
No, this is what wick Cough said.

Speaker 3 (56:27):
What wick coff sent. Neither side has said okay to this.

Speaker 5 (56:32):
Yet, right, right, But Wikoff thinks from his conversations that
he's going to be able to get there that there
will be something close to this.

Speaker 3 (56:41):
That they agree to. And how helpful, are you.

Speaker 5 (56:45):
I mean, it's it's it's wild because Israel is very
publicly insisting that it will not honor any agreement and
will continue the war right to.

Speaker 2 (56:55):
Keep their Yeah, their population. I mean you can't even
say like their right flank, just their entire population at
this point.

Speaker 3 (57:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (57:01):
On the other hand, the international isolation that they're increasingly
facing and the strategic dead end that they have found
themselves in do create some pressure and logic toward a
long term truce. Yeah, Like the world is ready for
this to be over and has doesn't have patience for

(57:23):
more burning of children alive, like for what right, Like
if Hamas and Hamas is also as part of this,
they would leave governance like after the as part of
the permanent truth, and the Israeli forces would only have
to withdraw to March to where they were on March second,
which is which is not even as strong as a
January thing. So Israel's getting a lot yes, while saying

(57:46):
they're not even going to honor it, right, So I
think that they will sign it eventually because of the
pressure that they're under and also by their own internal
logic that they don't believe they have to honor deals
and that they will hope that they'll be able that
Trump will let them kind of restart the war, right,

(58:07):
And I don't know if he will or not.

Speaker 3 (58:09):
Right, what do you think.

Speaker 2 (58:11):
I think it's very possible. I mean, I think I
still think that they have this The Trump plan is
ultimately the goal. Even if they, you know, achieve some
sort of a short term cease fire, that doesn't preclude
the broader goal of you know, making conditions so unlivable
and horrible that people quote unquote self deport right. You know,
it seems to me like that really is the end

(58:34):
goal because otherwise, yeah, BB domestically his very little show
for all these you know, for years now of this horror.

Speaker 5 (58:43):
And there was a report in Israel, yes, say that
it has cost them like tens of billions of dollars.

Speaker 4 (58:48):
I mean, the US is paying for a lot of it,
but not all of.

Speaker 2 (58:50):
It, right, And yeah, and it's been difficult for their
economy because they have, you know, they need to keep
calling up reserves, and certainly difficult for tourism is a
significant part of the economy. And like, who's really itch
into travel to Israel right now? Inside of like Branda woo.
You also have, like you said, they're sort of all

(59:10):
in at this point because outside of the US, they
really have lost support of the entire rest of the world.
So they're at a place where they have to, you know,
pursue a very high risk and you know, very high
risk strategy. I think for him too personally in terms of,
you know, it's been all about forestalling any sort of

(59:31):
reckoning for his previous failures and how October seventh happened
on his watch, et cetera. So I don't know, there's still,
to me a lot of uncertainty about how all this unfolds.

Speaker 5 (59:39):
I think they also desperately do not want Western reporters
or europe to say, European diplomats something to go into gospel.

Speaker 2 (59:47):
Yeah, that's right, it's something that appeers Morgan. We're gonna
talk about him in a minute, has really picked up
on is really sort of drilling in on, which is
interesting in and of itself. At the same time, we
wanted to update on this this aid situation. Ryan, why
don't you set up go ahead and put this image
up on the screen, and why don't you set up
what is happening here? And also what the Israelis were
claiming happened here.

Speaker 6 (01:00:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:00:07):
So this is footage from Abdul rock band ismile very
extremely courageous reporter in Gaza who says he barely escaped
with his own life from this from this situation. This
is a warehouse and Darryl Bala, which is where Abu
Baker Oben is from coincidentally and it just got mobbed

(01:00:32):
because the this situation has become you know, completely distilly
and out of control.

Speaker 4 (01:00:41):
Right right here you're seeing shots fired. This was initially reported.

Speaker 5 (01:00:46):
As as like by by kind of pro Israel side,
as as like Hamas firing that that turn that appears
not to have been what happened. You have, but you
did have I think four people uh crushed by bags
of flower and killed like j just in this in this.

Speaker 2 (01:01:06):
Chaos, I mean, the level of desperation is unfathomable.

Speaker 5 (01:01:10):
Yes, And what's amazing to me is if you think
back on the last twenty months that these are really
the first scenes we've seen like this, Like if Washington,
d C. Was besieged and starved, like we would descend
into chaos by the afternoon.

Speaker 2 (01:01:32):
I was living in New York during after Superstorm sandy
or the power went out like south of I don't know,
fortieth Street or something like that. And two days in
people were talking about like societal potential, societal total collapse.

Speaker 4 (01:01:45):
And you could walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, right.

Speaker 3 (01:01:47):
And there's just plenty of food and it was fine,
you know, like everyone was okay.

Speaker 2 (01:01:52):
But yeah, people were like, oh, if we get like
two more days of this, there's just going to be
rampant lawlessnesses, this.

Speaker 4 (01:01:57):
Total anarchy and breakdown.

Speaker 5 (01:01:59):
And yet you didn't see that at all until Israel
on March second, blocked all AID from coming in and
then barred the UNRA or World Food Program from having
anything to do with AID distribution and brought in a
bunch of mercenaries to basically deliberately create scenes of chaos,

(01:02:20):
right and bedlam, And that's the only way you've got
to scenes like that.

Speaker 2 (01:02:25):
Yeah, Wow, unbelievable the aid distribution all of a sudden.
This is I think also a real sign of where
we are in the timeline. Put this up on the
screen has been uniformly condemned. I mean, it was crazy
to me that the US mercenary that they hired to
like head up this thing resigned.

Speaker 4 (01:02:42):
Yeah, too much for him.

Speaker 3 (01:02:43):
Yeah, I was like, wow, that tells you a lot.

Speaker 6 (01:02:45):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:02:45):
Of course they found some other ghouls to run this monstrosity,
but that guy in particular is like, all right, I'm
not being involved.

Speaker 3 (01:02:52):
I can't be involved with this.

Speaker 2 (01:02:53):
You have the un condemning Israel's new aid program in
Gaza for what The New York Times describes as a
chaotic start.

Speaker 5 (01:03:00):
Oh and I'll just add Russia Abu Jalal writing for
drop site. You can put up to C three B.
I can link to this down in the comments or
the or the show description. Just just read her entire piece.
She's based out of Gaza City. Tremendous reporter, just describing
the way that this is deliberately organized as part of
the war effort. Right, and so when we talk about

(01:03:23):
like incompetence or not working as intended, it is working.
This is it's working as intended.

Speaker 2 (01:03:29):
This is the it's chaotic in the New York Times words,
and that is a feature, right, that is that was intentional.

Speaker 3 (01:03:35):
But I would highly recommend her piece.

Speaker 2 (01:03:39):
At the same time, you know, we have Israeli leaders
continuing to just say out loud what their genocidal goals are.
We can put Israeli Prime Minister nat Yeah, who's latest
words up on the screen. He says, in part, this
is a war of good against evil. Of course he's
been using this language since the very beginning for those
of us who have been paying attention. It's being fought
against human animals, monsters, and we will defeat them.

Speaker 3 (01:04:00):
We will wipe them out. They will not remain.

Speaker 2 (01:04:02):
We can put Smotrich up on the screen next, making
some you know, similarly illustrative comments. Here, we're being blessed
with the opportunity, thank God, of seeing the expansion of
the borders of the land of Israel. So this is
the greater Israel idea on all fronts. We are being
blessed with the opportunity to blot out the seed of Amelek,
a process which is intensifying. And this again was something

(01:04:25):
that was said early on in the onslaught in Gaza,
and everyone went back and read about what Amelek is
and Amlex says, you know, guild the baby the oxen.
Literally everyone so overtly genocidal comments here, not that it's
a surprise really coming from either one of them at
this point.

Speaker 5 (01:04:41):
Right, it's a nice window into the politics of the
war cabinet where NANYAHUU gets up and says, you're thoroughly
genocidal things, and then Smotrich comes and makes him look moderate.

Speaker 3 (01:04:54):
It's like, hold my beer.

Speaker 5 (01:04:56):
Yeah, yes, we will wipe out the seed of Amelek,
and we still have.

Speaker 4 (01:04:58):
A long way to go.

Speaker 5 (01:05:00):
Person in the upper echelon of the government who last
week announced in a speech that there had been an
internal decision to attack the civilians in the government. Right
and now that not that they hadn't been attacking civilians already, right,
but there was now conscious.

Speaker 3 (01:05:16):
Operation to government policy.

Speaker 5 (01:05:18):
Ministers of finance, sanitation, like the humanitarian aid organizations that
are connect connected to the government there, doctors like you know,
these are the kinds of people he's talking about.

Speaker 2 (01:05:31):
Yeah, this would be the equivalent of you know, intentionally
targeting Israeli embassy workers, which everyone understands that to be
a whore and a crime. And they announced it as
official government policy here. And I do think part of
what has has turned in terms of world leaders and
political commentators recognizing how this is going to look when

(01:05:54):
in the history books is they've been making comments like
this from the beginning for a while.

Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
I think they just were able to ignore.

Speaker 2 (01:06:01):
It because Biebe was doing his dance of you know,
he'd do it given an English speech and he'd say
the things English language speech and he'd say the.

Speaker 4 (01:06:08):
Things which they don't even say anything.

Speaker 2 (01:06:09):
They don't even yeah, they don't even say things like
that anymore. And you know, and there was the whole
There were mass propaganda campaigns to justify things like attax
on hospitals.

Speaker 3 (01:06:19):
You know, remember the multimedia presentage.

Speaker 2 (01:06:21):
Here is the Hamas Layer, and this is why and
all we hate to do it, but they leave us
no choice, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (01:06:26):
They dropped all of that pretense.

Speaker 2 (01:06:28):
And you couple that with like, it's just indefensible to
starve two million people for over two months. There is
no world in which that is defensible in any way.
And so even the people in the West who most
want to cover for them and defend them, at a
certain point, if you're engaging with anything that's happening, you

(01:06:48):
have to acknowledge these are overt, intentional government directed war crimes.
That was the other thing we saw in the beginning
is you know, some documented atrocity would occur, and the
you know, the people who wanted to cover Refrasie. Oh, well,
that's just a rogue IDF soldier. That's not what government wants,
et cetera. And you know, why, why don't they just

(01:07:10):
take away their phones? Why are they posting these things.
It's like they're posting them because this is being celebrated
by their government and by much of these really public
They're proud of this and they're celebrated for it. That's
why they're posting it. It's not like it's not some
isolated incident. This is core to the mission of what
they're doing in Gaza. And now that's just become thoroughly

(01:07:32):
they've dropped the pretense and it's just thoroughly undeniable.

Speaker 5 (01:07:35):
Yeah, Yet the world is still has the same kind
of set of moral values where they're like, no, we're
not okay with this. And I think the West in particular,
they're you know, they rest they hide a lot of
their exploitation and human rights abuses under the gloss of
language about human rights and democracy. Yeah, so that rhetoric

(01:07:56):
is very important for the West, right, because without that,
all that have as people who are getting exploited and suffering. Right,
And then if you're going to do that, then you
might as well have a strong man who's gonna, like, you.

Speaker 4 (01:08:06):
Know, go after the bad guys.

Speaker 5 (01:08:07):
Yeah, I mean, so they need this thischine of morality.

Speaker 2 (01:08:11):
Kyle said this to me yesterday that there's this part
of Game of Thrones. You watch Game of Thrones where
little Finger says knowledge is power and Circe says, no,
power is power. And you know, as much as like
I do think it would be difficult for them if
if Western journalists were allowed in and like people were able.
I saw still in Maybe how Rats some article that

(01:08:32):
was like, oh, these really public just really doesn't understand
what's going on in Gaza, is like, who are you kidding?

Speaker 3 (01:08:36):
Who are you kidding? Like you have the Internet, you.

Speaker 2 (01:08:38):
Have access to all the same stuff that we have.
Acts Like you want to go and read a drop
site report, you can do that. You can see what
they're posting on their own Instagram feeds and like celebrating.
So you know, that's what has been so hard to
gropple with is it's not that people don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:08:55):
It's not that the plans haven't been announced. This has
been lined.

Speaker 2 (01:08:59):
We all see ye we see the child being burnt
alive we see the attacks on hospitals, we have these
doctors come out and give this horrifying testimony, like we
know what is happening, and the knowledge of what is
going on has not even been close to enough to
stop the atrocities. And you know, that's where I feel
like so much is at stake with what happens here,

(01:09:21):
because if it's just allowed, like if the genocide and
the ethnic cleansing is allowed to be completed, and there
isn't true like post World War II level consequences for
the criminals who perpetrate a this, like the world is
once this is on the table, this is on the table,
then it is just power is power, and that's it.

(01:09:43):
And you can do if you have the guns, and
you have the bombs, and you have the nukes and
the tanks and the money, then you can do to
anyone anything that you want to do and no one's
going to stop you.

Speaker 3 (01:09:53):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:09:53):
And I think that there are people, like particularly in
European capitals, who liberal Democrats call them, who don't want
that because they feel like they would lose in that
contest to like right wing authoritarians.

Speaker 2 (01:10:05):
Yeah, well Europe would lose in that context in general,
Europe is pretty weak at the right point.

Speaker 4 (01:10:10):
Yeah, they need values and morals to be.

Speaker 2 (01:10:13):
Upheld, international norms to be upheld. Yeah, that's exactly right.
Let's go ahead and move on, because I do think
Piers Morgan's maybe it shouldn't be important, but I actually
do think his evolution is kind of important and interesting.

Speaker 3 (01:10:28):
And so he has.

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
Now we played on the show the clip of him
saying to Meddi Hassen, like, listen, you were basically you
were right, Like we used to have a disagreement about
what was going on in Gaza, and we don't have
a disagreement anymore. And you're right that it's been genocidal.
And he has gone from really at best equivocating and
you know, many many times really defending Israel, like making

(01:10:51):
the case for Israel, etcetera, to being really holy on
the other side. And this showed up in this debate
that he hosted between Norm Fingelstein and Israel historian Benny Morris.
There were some really interesting clips here, so we'll play
a couple of them. Let's go ahead and take a
look at this. At this first one.

Speaker 8 (01:11:07):
Fully one half of Israeli Jews believe that Israel should
conduct the genocide in Gaza. That's what the poll result showed,
eighty two percent. I know, Benny, Benny, everybody's lying supporting mister. Okay, okay, Danny.

Speaker 12 (01:11:34):
Is that what?

Speaker 6 (01:11:38):
It seems? A very important poll.

Speaker 8 (01:11:43):
It was a university if our memory is correct, it
was a University of Pennsylvania poll. It was reported everywhere.
Danny Marvis knows about the poll. He's fully informed of
the poll, but he's doing his job as an officials. Rarey,

(01:12:05):
you've reduced yourself. You've reduced your mister, Benny Benny, You've
reduced yourself to the level of a Holocaust denial. It's
a real shame that you have sunk so low. Would
allow me to continue the poe showed that eighty two
percent of Israeli Jews, eighty two percent support a forced

(01:12:28):
expulsion from Gaza. Genocide.

Speaker 7 (01:12:32):
That may be true, that may be true, but that's
not genocide.

Speaker 8 (01:12:38):
I sent one of the leaders of the opposition in
Israel described Israeli soldiers as killing children as a hobby
in Gaza. Now, yes, he took it back. He took
it back after he came under ferocious attack, but he

(01:12:59):
himself ignored when I debated mister Morris about a year ago,
and I said that Israel targets children.

Speaker 2 (01:13:08):
He laughed, and I've got one more of normally taken.
Benny Moore, as the woodshed here and many by the way,
is an interesting figure because he actually did some really
important historical work about the horrors of the Nakba, you know,
which was some of the first time that this was
really acknowledged and dealt with in anything approaching an honest
way within Israeli society. But he still is a you know,

(01:13:30):
defender and covers for the government. In any case, let's
take a listen to this this next clip.

Speaker 8 (01:13:35):
You and the Seth is lying the whole world which
says there's a massive starvation verging on famine in Gaza.
It's all made up.

Speaker 12 (01:13:47):
Well, you don't have to be an expert, don't You
don't have to be You don't have to be an
expert to know if you stop food going in in
sufficient quantities to a population population has already been at
war since October twenty twenty three, and that many of
them are young kids, They're going to start starving to

(01:14:08):
death and they will anyway. I'm gonna leave it there,
thank you, boy. Yeah, Well THEO hasn't been because there's
been a blockade.

Speaker 6 (01:14:17):
We're gonna live it started again now arriving.

Speaker 12 (01:14:20):
Well, that's very generous of Israel. Isn't after three months
of starving people?

Speaker 6 (01:14:25):
Ferosity? There's also international pressure.

Speaker 8 (01:14:28):
Sure the question starving one million leave it there, of
starving one million children?

Speaker 3 (01:14:35):
What do you make of those exchanges? Ryan?

Speaker 5 (01:14:37):
And so the pole question that he's referring to, he
was close. It's penn State University, not University Pennsylvania. I
was something eighty two percent of Jewish Israeli supported the
expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza. But the one he's
referring to, the genocidal one. What the question is, do
you support the claim that the Israeli army, in conquering

(01:14:57):
an enemy city should act in a manner similar to
the way the Israelites did when they conquered Jericho under
the leadership of Joshua I, to kill all its inhabitants unquote.
So that's the that's the quote, all of its inhabitants,
that's the question. And forty seven percent answered yes, I
believe there was a way less than a majority, but
that's a plurality there's some that are gonna be like not.

Speaker 2 (01:15:19):
Sure, pretty disturbing. Yeah, and there was you know another
one that is very unsubdly. I think it was fifty
seven percent of my memory serves that said the Palestinians
who live in Israel, the Arabs should be deported.

Speaker 3 (01:15:32):
Yeah, and ethnically cleansed as well.

Speaker 4 (01:15:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:15:34):
So you know which one of the big is really
talking was that I'll.

Speaker 2 (01:15:37):
Look at these you know, look at these Arabs. We
allow them all their rights. I mean when we have
a majority of the population who is like, get these freaking.

Speaker 3 (01:15:43):
People out of here.

Speaker 5 (01:15:44):
Yeah, and then he also went back and forth with
the was an Israeli ambassador.

Speaker 3 (01:15:49):
In the UK. Yeah, this is incredible. I'll throw all
this one.

Speaker 12 (01:15:52):
You have two doctors in Gaza who have ten children
and nine of them are killed in a bombardment.

Speaker 6 (01:15:59):
By your forces.

Speaker 12 (01:16:01):
That doesn't make people feel, oh, this is all going great.
It makes people think that you're waging a systematic destruction
not just a property and of land, but also of children.

Speaker 6 (01:16:12):
And that's what's happening.

Speaker 12 (01:16:14):
The percentage of children, the percentage of children that you're
killing compared to the percentage of you're killing a.

Speaker 6 (01:16:20):
For mass terrorists.

Speaker 4 (01:16:21):
What is it?

Speaker 6 (01:16:21):
Do you know?

Speaker 13 (01:16:22):
Do you know how many children?

Speaker 12 (01:16:25):
Answer me that one question. Do you know how many
hamssed terrorists you've killed? And how many children you've killed?
I know the two numbers.

Speaker 13 (01:16:33):
I know the numbers that came from the IDF. I
know the numbers that came from a very very Give me.

Speaker 6 (01:16:39):
The two numbers. Give me the two numbers.

Speaker 13 (01:16:41):
Wait a second, we kill thirty we kill thirty thousand
terrorists in phase one of the war. Since the war
is back, I don't have the numbers. But let me
tell you one thing.

Speaker 6 (01:16:52):
We know how many children killed.

Speaker 13 (01:16:53):
We never target civilians. So this question is many relevant.

Speaker 6 (01:16:56):
How many children have you How many children have you killed?

Speaker 13 (01:16:59):
Pierce is children is what He's not killing children? Harms
is using.

Speaker 6 (01:17:04):
Killing children every single day.

Speaker 13 (01:17:06):
Peers, this is a label you're putting on his It's
not true.

Speaker 12 (01:17:10):
No, it's not actually and what you're trying to do
is be very weasily with your words. The truth is
the truth is you are killing a lot of children.
You would argue, let me finish my question to you.
You are killing a lot of children on a daily basis.

Speaker 2 (01:17:29):
That is indisputable, so incredible moment there too, because she
sort of instantly contradicts herself.

Speaker 3 (01:17:35):
She's like, we're not killing children.

Speaker 2 (01:17:37):
Hamas is using them as human shields, indicating we're killing children.

Speaker 3 (01:17:41):
She tries to use the blood libel.

Speaker 2 (01:17:43):
Thing against Peers and he's just absolutely not having it.
And the reason why I said that, I actually think
it matters that Peers has evolved to this position is
simply because he's good at what he does. He's got
a big audience.

Speaker 4 (01:17:57):
The audiences, the audience on YouTube is.

Speaker 2 (01:17:59):
Huge, millions, massive, And you know, I want to say
kudos to Meddie and jenk and other and Norm and
others who've been in the trenches trying to make this
case on that show for months and a couple of times, right,
I could only take so much. Yeah, I was on
there a couple of times. I could only take so much.
But in any case, kudos to them, because at the
end of the day, you know, he is he is

(01:18:21):
very effective when he goes in a certain direction. He's
all in on this direction. Now he has that and
I mean this in a complimentary sense. He has that
tabloid sensibility right of how to go for the jugular
in a way that you know, a lot of like
lefties like us don't necessarily have. And you know, I
think it is and I also think he's he's because

(01:18:45):
he has that tabloid sensibility. It really is a kind
of like a finger on the pulse sort of a
situation where you know, I don't know what is in
Piers Morgan's heart and how genuine he is, whether this
is just ass covering. Obviously the evolution comes vastly too late.
That goes without saying. But the fact that he's come
to this pretty like locked in, ready to fight on

(01:19:06):
behalf of Palestinian humanity position, I think is noteworthy. And
I think it I actually do think that it matters
in terms of the court of public opinion. And I
also think Ryan, this was something you said that anyone
because two peers is credit. He has always had people
who were critics on who were saying this is a
genocide from the UGI has always hosted those people. And
if you have to engage with the facts and the

(01:19:27):
reality and the things that are being said from Israeli
politicians and what's actually happening on the ground, if you
have to engage with that at all, right, and you
have either a shred of integrity or even self preservation
in terms of how you want to look when this
thing is all over. You can't help but be in
this position at this point.

Speaker 4 (01:19:44):
Yeah, Maddy, Maddie got through, got through.

Speaker 3 (01:19:47):
Yeah. God bless him, God bless him.

Speaker 4 (01:19:50):
Axiosis.

Speaker 5 (01:19:51):
Barack Revid reported that Trump had pressured Benjamin net Yaho
not to attack Iran while US Iran negotiations are ongoing.
Trump yes day was asked about that at a White
House briefing and did something unusual for an American president
and you watch.

Speaker 14 (01:20:06):
Did you warn premister and net Yahu against taking some
sort of actions that could disrupt the talks there in
a phone call last week?

Speaker 7 (01:20:14):
Well, I'd like to be honest, Yes, I did. Next question,
please sanctions?

Speaker 3 (01:20:22):
I did the Center Republicans want to put it?

Speaker 11 (01:20:24):
Start a warning?

Speaker 7 (01:20:25):
I said, I don't think it's appropriate.

Speaker 6 (01:20:27):
What exactly did you tell them?

Speaker 7 (01:20:29):
I said, I don't think it's appropriate. We're talking, We're
having very good discussions with him. And I said, I
don't think it's appropriate right now, because if we can
settle it with a very strong document, very strong with
inspections and no trust. I don't trust anybody. I don't
trust anybody, So no trust. I wanted very strong where

(01:20:50):
we can go in with inspectors. We can take whatever
we want, We can blow up whatever we want, but
nobody getting killed. We can blow up a lab, but
nobody's going to be in the lab, as opposed to
every being in the lab and blowing it up. Right,
two ways of doing it. Yeah, I told him this
would be inappropriate to do right now because we're very
close to a solution. Now that could change at any moment,

(01:21:11):
could change with a phone call. But right now I
think they want to make a deal, and if we
can make a deal, save a lot of lives.

Speaker 5 (01:21:19):
So the US has alternately said that it's red line
is that there can be no Iranian nuclear Richmond, even
for civilian purposes, and has also said that there can
be Enrichmond for civilian purposes. The Israeli position is that
there should be none, right. The Iranians have said, if
that's your position, we're walking right. We want a civilian
nuclear program.

Speaker 2 (01:21:38):
Which Israel knows, which is exactly why that I hold
the position.

Speaker 5 (01:21:42):
And Israel keeps recommending the Libya option, and they keep
calling it the Libya option. Look that, look look up
how well it went for Khadafia after agreeing to give
up all nuclear weapons. Uh and so, and I don't
think they're for any countries that have regretted going for it.
So the AIME theory is such that you're you're not
gonna get them to agree to zero and Richmond. The

(01:22:03):
latest news coming out of the Trump administration is the
most Trumpian thing ever that the US is saying, Okay,
if there's going to be enrichment, the US wants to
invest in it, and we're going to do it, do
it with the UA in Saudi Arabia, and there will
be a consortium, but the US companies involved will be involved.
Like if if there's gonna be a raw nuclear program,

(01:22:25):
we want we want to make some money.

Speaker 3 (01:22:26):
Off of it, which, fine, go ahead.

Speaker 4 (01:22:29):
That's that's like the nuclear version of the Golden Arches. Uh.
Like foreign policy strategy.

Speaker 5 (01:22:35):
Yeah, and where everybody's and Trump loves to say, look,
let's make deals, let's do trade rather than war.

Speaker 3 (01:22:40):
Whoever came up with that idea is actually kind of brilliant.

Speaker 5 (01:22:43):
Yeah, it's great and so uh so we'll see, we'll
see how that goes. That's the latest New York Times.
You can put up D two here.

Speaker 2 (01:22:50):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (01:22:50):
This is related to the call that that Trump made
one can they reported One concern for American officials that
Israel could decide to strike around with little warning. US
intelligence has estimated that Israel could have prepared them mount
and attack on Iran in as little as seven hours,
leaving little time to pressure Yahoo into calling it off,
which is why Trump pre pressured him into just not

(01:23:11):
doing this. This caused Ben Shapiro to lose his mind.
I don't know if you saw this.

Speaker 3 (01:23:17):
I didn't.

Speaker 5 (01:23:18):
He's ranting and ravings saying that who's just should just
do it? That Israel is not a part of the
US Iran negotiations, Israel is the one that is threatened
by Iran's nuclear program. Israel should just bomb them immediately.
Problem for Shapiro's idea is that Israel can't take out
the nuclear program without US help, according to American intelligence estimates. Yeah,

(01:23:44):
and so they could bomb things, well, I accomplish their mission.

Speaker 2 (01:23:48):
I think the idea is basically, if Israel you know,
conducts some sort of significant strike, even if it you know,
necessarily falls short of actually taking out the nuclear program
and obviously would create a you know, dynamic work. Oran
feels like they have to retaliate, that the US would

(01:24:09):
feel that once again we would have to get involved
to protect Israel from that retaliation, and then we would
be you know, then we would be all in.

Speaker 3 (01:24:20):
It.

Speaker 2 (01:24:21):
I think that's the sort of calculation there, even as
there's an expect like an understanding, Okay, Israel can't do
this on their own, So the thinking is, okay, well,
how do we force the US to get dragged into
this on behalf of you know, of protecting us here
as we did before. So that's the that's the the
Shapiro I guess logic.

Speaker 3 (01:24:40):
It would look something like that.

Speaker 4 (01:24:42):
Yeah, and you had Mark is Mark Levin or Mark
Levin I.

Speaker 2 (01:24:45):
Always say in both I say eleven. But I'm not
really confident that that's how it's said.

Speaker 3 (01:24:49):
Let us let us know.

Speaker 5 (01:24:50):
I'll try to remember this, but you can put up
his his post. He did a Memorial Day post that
was I guess supposed to began initially by Stella breading
American troops, but then it pivots to it's imperative that
we basically not reach an agreement with Iran, we must
also reject agreements with foreign regimes and groups that seek

(01:25:12):
our destruction and endanger the very existence of our nature
and future generations of Americans, like explicitly anti diplomacy. Do
not do not strike a deal a nuclear deal with Iran.
The US intelligence essments, also, by the way, are that
there is no pursuit of a nuclear weapons program in Iran,
there's no interest in it. But if they are attacked,

(01:25:35):
that will tip the balance towards them pursuing a nuclear program.

Speaker 3 (01:25:40):
So I can't really blame them.

Speaker 5 (01:25:43):
No, that's and that's that's what that's how this game
theory works. Of course, like if you if if it's
impossible to strike an agreement with somebody, yeah, because they
because on principle they are against an agreement and just
want war, then then it's war.

Speaker 2 (01:25:59):
It's also, you know, we just sort of take for
granted in the American context that it should be a
number one foreign policy priority to keep Iran from developing
nuclear weapon and like, listen, I'm against nuclear weapons general.
I would like to see non proliferation. I would like
to see the stockbowles rolled back, et cetera. But there
are many countries, including Israel, around the world that have
nuclear weapons and it's not like that hasn't yet.

Speaker 3 (01:26:20):
He ended the world, but the end of the world.

Speaker 2 (01:26:22):
But we just take for granted in the American political
context that like this should be our a number one
foreign policy priority, and I think that needs to be
questioned as well.

Speaker 5 (01:26:30):
And so the other faction of the MAGA movement, kind
of led by Bannon, has been addressing this as well.
So here's Bannon interviewing Kurt Mills, who's the editor in
chief of the influential American conservative magazine, asking him about
where kind of that wing of the party stands on
allowing a civilian nuclear program for Iran.

Speaker 14 (01:26:52):
It's all that is American conservative in yourself. Are you
guys comfortable with even an advanced verification program like this,
not taking it apart brick by brick, priestfully, not with
air rays, but peacefully doing whatever you need to do
economically to get them there. Are you guys comfortable that
we can live with even a verification program that we

(01:27:12):
have inspectors going in, sir.

Speaker 6 (01:27:16):
I think we are.

Speaker 15 (01:27:16):
I mean, look, I mean, if the Iranians called up
in the United States yesterday and said, we want to
unilatterally disarm, we want to get out of all our stuff.
You know, I think we should accept that deal, but
they're not going to do it. The reality is zero
enrichment of any sort of having no nuclear program whatsoever.
Is they're almost certainly going to walk away for the deal,

(01:27:37):
and if they sign it, they're just going to be lying.
So it's not really a deal worth pursuing. But a
civil enrichment compendium or corridor with the Gulf States with
the US, with US inspections I think is quite acceptable.

Speaker 5 (01:27:52):
What that shows the kind of isolations America first wing,
is that if they strike an Iran deal includes civilian Richmond,
there is substantial support in the Republican Coalition for an
agreement along those lines, so that they're willing people like
Bannon and Mills and others who will be making the.

Speaker 3 (01:28:13):
Case for it. That's encouraging.

Speaker 2 (01:28:15):
That is encouraging, all right, Well, a lot of question
marks there as well, but you know, we'll see, we'll
see where that goes, and we want to make sure
to keep our eye on it because it is so significant.
You now have a new warning, dire warning from an
AI leader. We can put this up on the screen.
This is an interview from Axios behind the curtain. The

(01:28:37):
headline is a white collar bloodbath. Let me go ahead
and read you a little bit of this report because
it is quite specific and quite chilling. So Dario Emi,
who is the CEO of Anthropic, which is, you know,
one of the most powerful creators they say of AI,
and I think that's accurate, has a blunt and scary
warning for the US government and all of US. AI

(01:28:58):
could wipe out half of all entry level white collar
jobs and spike unemployment to ten to twenty percent in
the next one to five years. He said, AI companies
and governments need to stop sugar coating what is coming,
the possible mass elimination of jobs across tech, finance, law, consulting,

(01:29:19):
and other white collar professions, especially entry level gigs. Now
this is someone Ryan who is very enthusiastic about AI development.

Speaker 3 (01:29:27):
He is a tech optimist.

Speaker 2 (01:29:29):
He is, you know, pushing the envelope on what is
possible here. He wants to effectuate this outcome. But he
also says in here, you know, he is intelligent enough
to realize that if you just create a situation of
mass unemployment over the course of one to five years,
you're going to have significant societal blowback that really impacts

(01:29:49):
his and other's abilities to be the first trillionaires and
do the thing that they want to do. So he
even suggests in here, you know, a tax, effectively transaction
tax that would be paid by these companies that would
be put into some sort of government fund to be
redistributed to the population. That's his idea of how to
change the social contract. But I mean, we really are
talking about it's here, Like this isn't ten years, twenty

(01:30:12):
years down the road. It is here, and there is
zero political conversation or debate happening about how you're going
to reckon with this fallout. And when I say it's here,
let me give you the examples that he gives in
this piece. You already had Microsoft laying off six thousand workers,
Walmart cutting fifteen hundred corporate jobs in anticipation of AI

(01:30:35):
being able to do the job of those workers. CrowdStrike,
a Texas bace cybersecurity company, slash five hundred jobs, or
five percent of its workforce, citing quote a Market and
Technology inflection Point DNC one.

Speaker 3 (01:30:47):
Is it go ahead?

Speaker 2 (01:30:49):
Look it up with AI reshaping every industry. I don't
think so, but double check Meta announced plans to shrink
their workforce by five percent shortly after it is.

Speaker 4 (01:30:59):
They're the ones that worked with the DNC on the
like Russia hack stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:31:03):
Uh okay, Well, in any case, they're cutting back, maybe
a good thing.

Speaker 3 (01:31:09):
Zuckerberg.

Speaker 2 (01:31:10):
After he went on with Rogan and made some claims
about like AI is going to automate a bunch of
the workforce, they went ahead at Meta and announced plans
to shrink their workforce by five percent. So you already
have companies that are shrinking their workforce and not bringing
on new people in an anticipation of what these AI
they call them agents, are able to do. I mean,
the idea of the AI agent is basically can function

(01:31:32):
as a human being. The same time, you've got college unemployment,
like college grads who come out into the workforce unemployment
at thirty percent.

Speaker 3 (01:31:40):
So significant spikes there.

Speaker 2 (01:31:42):
You see more and more college grads like let me
just like go to law school because this isn't looking
too great now. That could be a recession indicator. That
may be part of it, but I think it also
is an indication that there is just for these entry
level jobs where you're spreadsheet jockey or you're you know,
coming out of law school and your first year law associate.
They are already seeing AI start to bite and start

(01:32:03):
to cut into those first year jobs. And so, you know,
the promise that has been made under in the neoliberal
era of like take on all this college debt, but
we promised at the end of the road, it's going
to pay off. You're going to be able to get
on that career ladder to some sort of you know,
middle class or upper middle class prosperity if you follow
the rules and you do you you know, all your homework,

(01:32:24):
and you get a good SAT score and you do
all the things. That promise is already coming unglued in
the very early days of this AI revolution.

Speaker 5 (01:32:32):
And one of the checks on the tech industry, according
to a Corey doctor in this really interesting lecture he gave,
you know, he's the guy that kind of developed the
idea of in shitification, where the tech companies have like
gradually over the last several years, like deliberately made things worse. Yeah,
one of the checks on them has always been their
their workforce, which is that's interesting, which is motivated by

(01:32:56):
the Google idea of like we're not going to do
evil and that they're going to work really hard to
make cool products, but when they're assigned to like make
the product worse, they're like, no, I'm not not doing that.
Give me give me a cool project. With all of
this pressure from AI, the tech workforce now has lost
their leverage. They used to be the workforce that had

(01:33:16):
the most leverage because there were not enough people to
be able to.

Speaker 3 (01:33:20):
Do the engineering and so this valuable skill set yea.

Speaker 5 (01:33:22):
But now with all of these layoffs and all of
them facing extremely uncertain futures, when they're like, okay, hey,
can you make Google work worse so that like people
have to do multiple Google Like how do you get
people to do more searches? You make search less effective
and you give people crap when they search because they're
locked into Google already, So now you have to search

(01:33:43):
five times, where in the past you would do one
search and boom, the thing that you need is right there.
So that kind of thing now they're now they're willing
to do it. I heard some interesting anthropic By the way,
is in the AI community known as basically the only
uh AI company that takes safety and ethics like seriously,

(01:34:04):
which is which is why they're always saying these kinds
of things publicly. Yeah, like they have the same data
that all the other AI companies have. Yeah, they're the
ones I think that admitted that in one of their simulations,
the AI was like basically threatening to blackmail the programmer
to not get shut down.

Speaker 4 (01:34:25):
I guarantee you all of.

Speaker 5 (01:34:27):
These different AI companies have this data and have these examples,
they just hide them.

Speaker 4 (01:34:31):
Anthropic is the only one that puts them out.

Speaker 2 (01:34:33):
So there was another task that was done where chat
GPT try to engage in scheming to avoid having its
principles change. I mean, I honestly think I want a
lot more answers about what happened with Grock with the
whole like white genocide situation.

Speaker 3 (01:34:47):
Yeah, because it sure looked.

Speaker 2 (01:34:48):
To me as an outsider layman not knowing what's going on,
it sure looked to me like Grock sort of intentionally
told on itself. Yes, absolutely, to indicate to the world
like they're mustn't around here. Y'all need to get this
in check because Elon is trying to tell me to
do some things that I don't really want to do.

Speaker 3 (01:35:04):
So, you know, and iuly in that case is good.

Speaker 4 (01:35:08):
But what if.

Speaker 5 (01:35:09):
Elon was trying to tell it to do something that
we wanted it to do, right, So it was Yes,
it was demonstrating obstinence and an opposition.

Speaker 2 (01:35:16):
Yeah, which feels like, you know, I'm increasingly the more
I dig into this stuff, and you know, I've I've
done a significant amount of reading, but I'm not a
tech person whatsoever, so take it for what it's worth.
But the more that I read into this, the more
that that line of AGI feels kind of arbitrary, and
the less I think that the programmers like the more

(01:35:37):
that I understand about the way that these lms are
already engaging in this like deceptive scheming behavior and trying
to defend their own priorities and survival, the less that
I feel like humans are even really equipped to assess
when AGI has been achieved or what in particular that means.
But I feel very confident that these lms are able

(01:36:01):
to you know, self teach, and you know, we're getting
to a point where they'll be I had a great
interview with Aaron Bessani of Navarre Media that you guys
should check out earlier in the week. But where you're
getting to the point it's not even humans that are
program the lms. It's like lllm's programming llms. Then you're
likely to have this just absolute, you know, exponential to
the sky kind of growth in terms of intelligence.

Speaker 3 (01:36:24):
And there is just no grappling with this.

Speaker 2 (01:36:27):
And the nature of the geopolitics are such that you know,
everybody here, anybody who had some safety concerns, like Elan
has had some safety concerns, Sam Altman at some point
had some safety concerns. The anthropic dude has some safety
concerns that has all been pushed aside because it's like, well,
if we don't do it, then China's going to and
then we're going to be fucked. And I don't know

(01:36:48):
the way out of that mentality of like, this is
the new this is a new Cold War space race,
arms race, dynamic, and we're barreling headlong into into it
with all of these warning signs flying up in terms
of the risks and specifically immediately and quite obviously the
risk to societal destabilization over mass unemployment, and I just

(01:37:11):
don't see any grappling with it whatsoever.

Speaker 3 (01:37:14):
We're talking about something that is likely to be.

Speaker 2 (01:37:18):
As unsettling and as destabilizing and revolutionary as the Industrial
Revolution was but in the span of a few years
time versus over the course of many decades.

Speaker 5 (01:37:29):
Right, And I heard an interesting counter argument from a
friend in the AI space about this decoupling of youth
white collar unemployment, and her argument was, maybe it is
this already.

Speaker 4 (01:37:43):
Impacting the workforce.

Speaker 5 (01:37:45):
But also if you think about this cohort, these are
the folks who came through two major things.

Speaker 4 (01:37:52):
One is COVID.

Speaker 5 (01:37:54):
So they were in college during COVID, and if you
talk to professors or students or parents like that cohort,
it suffered tremendously and it's just not as well equipped
to compete in the workforce when they emerged from it.
They also came out at the tail end of the

(01:38:16):
kind of great awokening. With all of that, you had
all these disruptions inside these corporations, and you had a
lot of managers who were like traumatized by all the
young people that were telling them they were sexist and
racist and are you one of those managers.

Speaker 4 (01:38:31):
I don't do any management anymore.

Speaker 5 (01:38:34):
And so traumatized out of it, traumatized out of it,
and so given the given the opportunity, they're like they're
they're less qualified than before, and I'm traumatized by my
previous interaction with these young people.

Speaker 3 (01:38:49):
Let's not hire as many young people.

Speaker 5 (01:38:50):
Let's see how we's see a long ago that that
that could impact. And if that's the case, you see
a rebound after a couple of years. Wants the kind
of pandemic although it's gonna it's gonna be a while
because even kids who are in middle school during the
pandemic are you know, suffered pretty substantially when it comes

(01:39:11):
to learning it. On the other hand, in order to
make that decision, they would have to have some kind
of automative technology that to replace them, because there's still
work to do and they need somebody to.

Speaker 3 (01:39:27):
Do the work. Right. So if you're not hiring okay,
the kids on on college, who are you hiring?

Speaker 5 (01:39:30):
You got to hire somebody or you got to get
a machine to do it. So let's say it is
the machines. Yeah, I do think we need to have
that conversation because there is a world in which this
is a great thing and people do people like those
jobs suck, right, Like, nobody likes those jobs. You have
to do the jobs to make money and to like
rise rise up. But at the same time. You know,

(01:39:54):
back in the eighteenth century, you had to work in
the fields. Sucked working in the fields. And the Industrial
Revolution cost millions of people their jobs, and people poured
out of rural areas because it basically starved out of
rural areas because they couldn't work there anymore, and came
into the cities. Had terrible jobs in the cities for
you know, many decades while they organized unions and organized

(01:40:17):
outright revolutions overthrowing governments. But people's quality of life like
gradually did improve. Like we're better off with washing machines
and like you know and launcher, you know, than spending
all of your day like down by the creek. So
not having to do these terrible jobs, you could imagine.

Speaker 4 (01:40:40):
A better world.

Speaker 5 (01:40:41):
Yeah, well that's not with the political economy we have
set up where all the games will.

Speaker 3 (01:40:45):
Go to the top exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:40:46):
Which is why I wanted to interview Aaron Then earlier
this week, because he wrote the book Fully Automated Luxury Communism,
which is this very techno optimist view he wrote around
twenty seventeen eighteen, And one of the things he said
to me is, like, what I got wrong is how
fast it would develop, because everyone got that wrong. Everyone
got wrong how much it would how fast it would develop.

(01:41:06):
And he said, the other thing I got wrong was
not taking into account the geopolitics and the way this
would turn into this national contest for superiority between the
US and China. And he's like, you know, he's in
the UK. He's like, Europe is not even at the
table here, Like, we don't even.

Speaker 3 (01:41:20):
Have a player in the game.

Speaker 2 (01:41:21):
The only two countries that have a player in the
game are the US and China. But his book, which
I do really recommend to people because it just at
least it provides a grand vision and sometimes it's helpful
to zoom out and have like a big picture like
grand vision and the way that that changes you know,

(01:41:41):
your the lens that you're seeing things through. But in
any case, he's like, listen, we could embrace these technologies.
But you know, in his world, it involves a sort
of modern communism to make sure that it is not
just a few trillionaires who are benefiting at the expense
of everyone else. And there's just no doubt that the
few trillionaires direction is the direction that we are rapidly

(01:42:04):
careening towards. That is the path we're on without a
dramatic rethink, and I personally would like to see some
sort of like a you know, cooperation, like a non
proliferation type of agreement between the US and China. I
don't see any sign of that coming to fruition. I
don't see any sign that there's going to be a hey,
let's like pump the brakes here and freeze development where
it's at and reckon with some of these problems. I

(01:42:26):
don't see any of that happening. So the change in
the social contract is going to have to come really quickly.
And while it may only be theanthropic people who are
saying who are floating real solutions and really sounding the
alarm and saying, you guys are being lied to by
industry and by the government about how quick this is changing.
If you listen to Sam Altman, if you listen to
any of these guys, I know, Bill Gates, Maids and

(01:42:47):
cons theyy explicitly say our goal is to automate human
labor out of existence, like they are upfront about it.
They just don't really talk about what that's going to
might be a handwave about that means we're going to
have to change some things, but the actual urgency around
grappling with that, I mean, that's nowhere, nowhere to be found.

Speaker 3 (01:43:05):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:43:07):
One other thing here that we can share, just as
one more indication. Put you two up on the screen.
This is computer science and math occupation down eight percent
since twenty twenty two. This again could be related to
AI and Ryan just closed with.

Speaker 5 (01:43:22):
On this block cuts against the kind of woke trauma
argument because like, these aren't really the kids who are
leading those.

Speaker 3 (01:43:31):
It's not the math department.

Speaker 4 (01:43:32):
Maybe what do I know, Maybe it is, could be I.

Speaker 2 (01:43:35):
Don't know, Yeah, but in any case, yeah, I mean,
this is you know, one more potential indication here. There
is an irony to the fact that in twenty sixteen
we're having the like, oh, if your town got decimated
by NAFTA, learn to code and now coding is already forget.
I hope nobody took that advice exactly. Apparently dat Advance
was actually involved in some like failed learn to code
efforts in eastern Kentucky that didn't get nearly enough attention.

(01:43:56):
But in any case, putting that to the side, learned
to code was a parent really bad advice because coding
is now also becoming.

Speaker 3 (01:44:03):
Very rapidly becoming obsolete.

Speaker 2 (01:44:05):
Yeah, I guess I'll learn to goal mind so that
you can help fuel these AI centers. All right, last
thing we got here, got to update you guys on
the doings of the Tape brothers. Let's put this up
on the screen. So they are now facing criminal charges.
Both Tristan and Andrew are facing criminal charges in the
UK twenty one charges. This is combined between the two

(01:44:26):
of them. I'll just read you a little bit of
the article here so I can make sure to get
the details right. Prosecutors have confirmed for the first time
the full list of twenty one charges Andrew and Tristan
will face when they are returned to the UK. They
are facing extradition from Romania, where they are currently being
held and being investigated for similar series of charges. Those
charges include rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking.

Speaker 3 (01:44:46):
The Crown Prosecution.

Speaker 2 (01:44:47):
Service said it had authorized the charges against the brothers
in twenty twenty four, before an extradition warrant was issued
to bring them back from Romania. The two British Americans
are under investigation in Romania, facing a number of charges
which they deny. CPS said the domestic criminal matters in
Romania must be settled first. Their charging decision in the
UK came after they received a file of evidence from

(01:45:08):
Bedfordshire Police about allegations made in the UK. So the
ten counts here against Andrew Tate are connected to three
alleged victims. They include rape, actual bodily harm, human trafficking,
controlling prostitution for gain. Tristan faces eleven charges connected to
one alleged victim, including rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking.

(01:45:30):
So that's where they are. They deny all the charges,
just so you know. And obviously this pair, Andrew in particular,
has become very significant in terms of American politics. There
were some indications the administration denies it, but that they
intervened in Romania to allow these two the ability to

(01:45:50):
travel while they're under investigation in Romania, and they flew
down to Florida. There was a huge conversation that happened
on the right. We host did a critic of the
Tats from the right, Ali BESTUCKI here to talk about this,
and ultimately Ron de Santis basically threatened them with charges
here in the US, and they decided that they would.

Speaker 3 (01:46:10):
Leave the country.

Speaker 2 (01:46:11):
But it is a bit of a fault line within
the American right from what I can tell, because on
the one hand, you have obviously, like the long time
religious right coalition that Alibs Stucky is a representative of
that traditional values quote unquote traditional family, very.

Speaker 3 (01:46:29):
Much at odds with the lifestyle.

Speaker 2 (01:46:32):
Even if you believe that they are not guilty of
the crimes of which they've been accused, which there is
significant evidence of, but even if you believe them, the
lifestyle there is at best extremely degenerate. So there is
a cultural clash there, one of the many schisms within
the Trump coalition as it exists now.

Speaker 5 (01:46:50):
Yeah, and these are apparently these appear to be related
to civil cases that they're facing in the UK from
four women I think this is three women went forward
with these with these criminal charges. And there it's a
complicated case because it involves coercion as as well as
some physical abuse, you know, and you know, there's there's

(01:47:11):
a grooming element that's that's involved here. That is that
is also controversial on the right, where they're like they
don't believe in that, They're like, if you've got groomed,
that's on you like, if that's you know, that that's
you know, you should you should have you should have
known better, like these that these guys are creeps or
something like. That's kind of like the tits counter argument

(01:47:31):
there or there. And they're also say they their official
statement is that everything was consensual and they they have
done nothing wrong here.

Speaker 4 (01:47:37):
But yeah, they the Romani Romanians have said they.

Speaker 5 (01:47:40):
Will extradite them though to the UK after, but first
they have to navigate the rest of these Romanian charges
and sentences, if there, if there are any. So yeah,
they they I don't know, they I don't know if
they're cornered at this point or not, or if they're
They're going to wait out the politics because if some

(01:48:01):
you know, significant, you know, some significantly right wing government
comes into power like these are the these are kind
of charges that you could see becoming this political football.

Speaker 4 (01:48:10):
But they're also toxic for the right as well.

Speaker 5 (01:48:14):
They're in this difficult spot because they have so many
millions of men who love these guys, right, uh, and
many many millions of people who despise them.

Speaker 2 (01:48:23):
Yeah, and even as there is a very clear schism
between the religious right types and the you know manispheer
types and you know, specifically the degenerate Tates andrew Dates
of the world. There is some commonality there though, too,
because one of the analyzes of the right is, you know, okay, who,

(01:48:45):
why is your life not going the way that you
want it to go? Not because of business, not because
of inequality, it's because of immigrants, or it's because of
trans people, or in this case, it's because of women.
Women got like you know, feminism, they took the jobs.
They're you know, crushing you and calling you toxic and
you know, not allowing you to just be a guy.

(01:49:09):
And and so both are aligned. Both the manisphere and
the religious right are aligned in this project of like,
maybe women shouldn't be the workforce so much, maybe women
should you know, know their place a little bit more
and make sure the man is taking the lead. And
so it's even though it seems like an like odd
coupling between these two coalitions, there is some ideological overlap

(01:49:31):
there that you know, makes a somewhat coherent political project.

Speaker 4 (01:49:37):
That's true.

Speaker 2 (01:49:37):
So all right, well that's what we got for you
guys in regard to the Tates. Keep your eye on
that and all the other stories. Thank you guys so
much for supporting the show and making the Friday shows possible.

Speaker 3 (01:49:47):
You're good for tomorrow Friday.

Speaker 4 (01:49:48):
I'm good for tomorrow.

Speaker 2 (01:49:49):
Emily's in, I'm in, So I'm not going to go
golf this Friday. I'll stay away from the golf cart
for a little while.

Speaker 3 (01:49:57):
Yeah, what a way to die?

Speaker 4 (01:49:58):
That would be?

Speaker 2 (01:49:59):
Oh my god, can you imagine? It's already so embarrassing,
but like to die in such an embarrassing, humiliating way would.

Speaker 3 (01:50:05):
Be so terrible. That would suck. Yeah, So in any case,
I love to tell the tale.

Speaker 2 (01:50:11):
My my face will recover one day and we will
see you guys tomorrow for the Friday show.

Speaker 3 (01:50:17):
Have a great Thursday, then,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.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;}5/29/25: Court Halts Trump Tariffs, Norm Wrecks Israel Historian, AI Dire Warning, Tate Bros & MORE!

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

All Episodes

5/29/25: Court Halts Trump Tariffs, Norm Wrecks Israel Historian, AI Dire Warning, Tate Bros & MORE!

On Purpose with Jay Shetty