Krystal and Saagar discuss Rogan speaks against Trump Home Depot raids, Tucker unloads on 'repulsive' Ted Cruz, Jeffrey Sachs on how Bibi will sabotage ceasefire.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (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 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
All right, let's go ahead and get to a big
Scotus ruling that came.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
I guess that's right.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
This is a major Supreme Court ruling that happened in
the middle of ceasefire, so you may have missed it
and you're definitely forgiven. We can go ahead and put
this up there on the screen, and I'll just read
a little bit from the decision. Quote, the Supreme Court
has now made it easier for the Trump administration to
deport convicted criminals. To quote third countries to which they
have no previous connection. In a brief unsigned order that
did not explain its reasoning, the court put on hold
(00:59):
a federal job is ruling that said those affected Nation
nine should have a needingful opportunity to bring claims. They
would be at risk if they were sent to countries
the administration has made deals with to receive deported immigrants.
As a result, the Administration will be able to quickly
remove immigrants to such third countries, including South Sudan. Affected
immigrants can still attempt to bring individual claims. So what
(01:20):
you're basically seeing there is this happened I know while
I was gone, but there was what was it? A
deportation to South Sudan of several I think individuals here
illegally in the United States. Well, what has now happened
is that the Supreme Court is allowing the deportation of this. However,
the legal process which is done still remains up in
(01:44):
the air. As I understand it, it allows for such
deportation to take place, but there's still open questions around
due process, just like with the Alien Enemies Act. But broadly,
it was a win for the Trump administration at an
executive level.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
No doubt about it, and was split along partisan lines.
The I don't think there was much question about whether
or not the administration could deport people to third countries
places they're not from. That has been, you know, a
long standing practice. You know, this is something that's going
to get broadly acknowledged that you know, the administration has
this power, whether I like it or not. The questionnaire
(02:21):
was all around due process. Do you have a chance
to challenge that decision to send you? For example, Libya
is one of the countries that they want to send
people to. We've talked about Libya a lot lately because
in the context of Iran, things are not going well
in Libya. Reports are that, you know, they certainly in
the past add effectively slave markets, and in fact a
lot of the people who were sold on those slave
markets were migrants into the country. So to me and
(02:44):
Soccer and I agreed, we don't have time to fight
about this today, so we'll table this, you know, for
a longer discussion later. To me, you should have the
ability have enough time to say, Hey, I think I'm
going to be tortured and murdered and sold into a
slave market if I go to this country, if I'm
shipped to this country and have that go through an
adjudicated process, effectively the Supreme Court here. And I think
you may agree with this, like not only did they
(03:07):
say no, you don't really deserve like any sort of
lengthy do process, but this is an important decision, and
it really bothers me that they didn't even explain their thinking,
you know, because.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
That really it's a procedural thing in terms of the
unsigned order, because it's like the un.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
They couldn't know they could have, and the descent, the
descent was written out and explained, but the actual decision
here they give no rationale for. So it continues to
leave all of these questions about why they interpreted it
this way and what made them come to this decision.
And I think that, you know, I disagree with the
decision outright, but I also think it's outrageous that they
(03:46):
didn't even bother to explain what is in effect quite
consequential decision here. Ultimately, we also wanted to highlight for
you guys a couple of interesting comments that I'm a
little bit surprised at from Joe Rogan and then some
from Andrew Schultz, where obviously, you know, both of them
were supportive of Trump in this past election, and Rogan
(04:09):
expresses here some discomfort with the extent of the Trump
deportation policy and the way they've gone about it, which,
you know, most of the people who are being detained
at this point, like the A Royal Major, I think
ninety percent are not violent criminals who have been picked
up by the Trump administration. And so he expresses in
this clip some discomfort with that. Let's go ahead and
(04:30):
take listen to that.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
Ice raids are fucking nuts, man, watching this protest on television,
it's like.
Speaker 6 (04:36):
Doing the raids or nuts. The broke the Yeah, it
a little too hard.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Well, I don't think if they the Trump administration, if
they're running and they said we're going to go to
Home Depot and we're going to arrest all the people
at Home Depot. We're going to go to construction sites
and we're going to just like tackle people with constructions,
I don't think anybody would signed up for that. They
said we're going to get rid of the criminals and
the gang member first, right, and now we're we're seeing
(05:04):
like home depots get rated.
Speaker 6 (05:06):
That's crazy.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Something that the Home Depot really struck accord with these
guys was just kind of interesting, I guess because it's.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
Just like so known, so suburban Joe.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Probably maybe even has been to because he used to
live in La. The particular home depot that was READD.
I don't know, but I just say sager, Like on
the Iran war stuff, yes, Trump said we should bomb
the nuclear sites. He also said he would be the
peace candidate. If you weren't paying that close of attention,
I can maybe sort of give you the benefit of
the doubt in thinking.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
There was genuine ambiguity there. Yeah, they were Okay.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
The guy literally came out and said, fuck Israel and Iran,
what the fuck they're doing today? And then also called
and then said no regime days today.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
But I'm just saying you can read whatever you wanted.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
You could also have looked at his first term in
the how hawk as she was towards run. But like
I said, I okay, I can see where you were
coming from and why you may have gotten the impression
that he would not be a hawk fece of the Iran.
I don't know how you could give that impression on deportation,
like the whole campaign was mass deportation or holding up
signs at the R and C that said mass deportation. Now, like,
what about that made you think that this was going
(06:08):
to be some targeted, we're only going after the criminals
kind of approach, because that was not at all what
was sold during the election whatsoever. And so I'm glad
to see him express concern, But i just think it's
insane that you didn't think that was the direction that
Stephen Miller was going to go and Tom Homan, we're
going to go in if they were put back into power.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Yeah, I mean, look, I don't disagree. I mean, the
mass deportation was about as clear as it was. I
think the mass deportation in the trade war. I guess
it's about implementation or seeing like there's something visceral probably
about it. I mean, I don't know, because it is
one of those things where, look, sometimes people believe in something,
but they don't necessarily understand what the overall implication of
(06:54):
what it's going to play out is going to look like.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
I mean, it's understandable.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
I guess there hasn't really been a serious massive ortation
effort like this in literally what fifty years or something
like that.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
So you know, to that extent that makes sense.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
But yeah, broadly, I mean I would say, in particular
with like Maga and you know what they were saying
literally at the time, and also in terms of practice,
there has not really been a single thing I would
maybe Seacott, I would say, the rest of it has
not personally surprised me, like like.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
Home Depot surprised me.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
But that's what I'm saying, Seacott.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
But even if he said he was going to do
the Alien Enemies Act literally on the campaign trail, I
think in the seventy days before he came to seventy
days before he was elected, he's like, here's my plan
to use the Alien Enemies Act and to immediately expedite deportation. Again,
you could sympathize because people are not paying attention, but
at a lack mass deportation level. They made it pretty clear.
I mean, yes, they were talking about criminal and illegal,
(07:47):
but you know, a large part of it here was
about labor and cheap labor specifically. That's been a central
point of the Trump talking points on immigration now for
quite some time.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
But I guess people.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Sometimes maybe see what I want to see as well
with a criminal comment.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
I think that I think that's a good point.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Let's go and take a listen to Andrew Schultz just
did this long interview with the New York Times, which
I listened to all of I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
I haven't listened the full thing yet.
Speaker 4 (08:12):
It wasn't I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
The two of the interviewer and him were kind of
like at odds the whole time.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
I was.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
I think the interviewer really didn't get his deal.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
And yet anyway, yeah, what I read in the transcript,
I didn't listen to it.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
I did listen to it, and you didn't get a
lot out of it. I don't know if it was Andrews.
I don't know if it's an interviewer's fault. They just
didn't really there wasn't. It wasn't a great pairing. I
would say, the two of them together in any case,
Andrew made some kind of similar comments with regard to
immigration and Trump. Let's go and take a listen to that.
Speaker 7 (08:41):
And in terms of immigration, like I want more like
if you broke the law, you did any if you
if you broke the law, you you fucked up. You
already here illegally, so you already broke the law, and
you're breaking the law.
Speaker 6 (08:52):
You got to go.
Speaker 7 (08:53):
If you've been working your ass off for ten years here,
you've got a family. There's got to be a system
where we can just give these people a pathway to
citizenship or a Greek card or something. There has to
be a better way than simply just hey, you go.
And that's what I was pleading with him for on
(09:15):
the pod, which is maybe pleading is a strong word,
but I was asking him to show empathy for these
people that he's also employed. I was like, listen, you've
had hotels. You know these people. You know that they're
going to bust their ass, They're going to work hard,
and they want a better life. It's like, why my
mom came here, so why your parents or maybe his
great grandparents.
Speaker 6 (09:30):
Or some shit came here.
Speaker 7 (09:31):
So it's like, I would like there to be much
more empathy in that department.
Speaker 6 (09:35):
I don't think that that's happening.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
And what would Democrat have to do to win your
vote back?
Speaker 7 (09:43):
He would just have to be named Bernie Sanders and
I fucking vote for him in a heartbeat.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
No, enjoy that last time was there.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
I'm an interesting horseshoe, But in any case, I'm actually
a little bit surprised that these guys didn't know what
they were getting with.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Well, no, I see, I think it's a little bit
more fair on Rogan's d on Andrews. And Andrew actually
literally was pressing Trump about immigration, and to the extent
that he was like pro Trump or whatever. I don't
think he ever signed up for the quote master.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
And that's my point.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
And this is why people are not to be put
into a box. And it is important as well to
play this all out. I would not have done it
the way that Trump has done it. However, you know,
and this I look, Andrew is a good friend of mine,
and I do disagree with him though. I mean, I
don't think that just coming to the country illegally and
just because you quote haven't committed a crime gives you
some great license for a green card. Frankly, it's absurd policy.
(10:34):
But as you just said, you don't want to fight.
But my main point remains is that immigration. You know, look,
the polling is all over the place. We can, I
think probably agree it's still the strongest place for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Maybe war will replace it.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
I still think it's the central reason why he was
elected president. Both in twenty sixteen and again in two
thousand and twenty four. But broadly, I mean, I think
one of the reasons, maybe it's the lesson for Democrats
as well, is that you have people who literally believe
in comprehensive immigration reform, but when you have border chaos,
they're like, yeah, fuck this, and they're going to go
(11:08):
with somebody who stands for mass deportation. In general, Americans
react to whoever they think is being more chaotic on
the issue of crime and or immigration. If anything, I
think it's a good lesson for those people. Also that
you can win people back or you know that the
narrative is not locked in if you want it to
be part of why I would encourage the Trump administration
to do this efficiently and not constantly. Just I mean,
(11:31):
this is now like the strategy of Trump is everything
is a show. Everything is dialed up to one hundred,
like we're doing regime change and unconditional surrender, and the
next day we're.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Calling all piece It's like, what are we doing?
Speaker 6 (11:45):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (11:46):
In terms of it's like the reporting, is he basically
on source the deportation policy to Steven Miller.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Yes, no, but then also he takes control of it
and then there's been a five time swing back. At
this point, I literally still am not clear. And so
whether we're raising farms or not, and it's been twenty
days of we're raiding farms. Actually, hotels and farmers need
illegals to work there, let's all ruminate on that for
a second two as to why that's apparently an allowable reason.
Then Steven Miller is like, no, actually we're going to
(12:13):
be rating them, and then Trump comes out as like, no,
actually we're not going to be rating them. I believe
we are back to some sort.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Of strategic CAPLI oh no, I thought we were back on.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
No, we were, but then two days ago, apparently in
that change. This is what I'm saying is that there's
been a complete like schizophrenia here and if anything, I mean,
that's what really hurts Trump's cause, is that nothing is
coherent and ideologically sold. America is I think absolutely on
board with criminal or illegal or criminal specifically people who
(12:42):
have committed crimes, but they've done a bad job. I
think of messaging, specifically on the labor issue, especially when
the President is out there talking about how these farmers
and hotel workers literally need illegal labor to function I
mean again, just it boggles the mind that a segment
of industry cannot function without hiring a US citizen. It's absurd,
(13:05):
And why would an American president endorse that? If that's
actually the case, that's your job to fix. So, you know,
I think that's the problem though, is these constantly got
these rich people in his ear, you know, talking his
head off about how, oh, we can't do that without
doing all of this. And it actually drives me particularly
crazy because one of JD's canned speeches on the campaign
trail I probably heard this like fifty times, is about
(13:28):
a hotel executive telling him about how he can't run
his hotels at a profit without using illegal ban work.
And so then the president is now parroting that same
the thing is at the podium.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
But the president is that no executive.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
That's really my point.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
I mean here, But I mean, here's the thing is,
I do actually want to fight with you, but we
don't have time to fight fully on this today because
there's we got Emily waiting, that we got Professor Sachs.
I will just say, I think where the confusion comes
from is that Trump aggressively sold the idea on the
campaign trail that undocumented immigrants overall were criminal, that there
(14:05):
was a huge number millions of criminals who had flooded
the country in an invasion. Oh my god, they're taking
over entire time. Oh my god, they're taking over entire
apartment complexes.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
And so I think.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
That's where a lot of people, not just your Wogan,
probably got the idea of like, oh, mass deportation, we
can do a mass deportation that is just criminals, when
in reality the numbers are comparatively small of actual like
violent criminals who are also undocumented immigrants.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
I'm not saying there aren't any.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
But you really get the sense of that when the
guys they shipped off to Seacott to a literal slave
labor camp for the rest of their lives with no
due process, when the mass majority, even of them, had
no criminal record here or in other countries around the world.
So I think that's where, you know, not only was
their confusion about what mass deportation would ultimately mean, but
(14:58):
also where there has been and significant yes, immigration is
still the strongest policy is now underwater on his strongest policy, though,
where there's been significant upset in the way that this
has gone forward because yes, if you ask people, should
we deport criminal illegal alience, you'll get like eighty nine percent, right,
including myself, Sure, yes, go do it. If you ask
(15:18):
them about you know, the person that Rogan or Andrew
are talking about there that have been like here for
years and years and they don't commit any crimes and
they pay tax, they do.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
The right thing.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Should you report them? It's actually the polar opposite. You
get almost eighty percent opposed to the deportation of those people.
And so I think that's why you've had a decline
and support and why you've had you know, some people,
some former supporters who are expressing concern over this and why.
I think it was an overreading of the mandate that yes,
(15:48):
I don't know. I'm not downplaying that immigration was an
important factor. I'm not downplaying there was, you know, rejection
of the of Biden eraror immigration policies. But I think
the reading was that then people wanted the Stephen Miller
deportation policy when that is not actually popular either.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
Well, I mean you also could say that they have
their last second term and now they don't have to
get reelected. So if in a sense they're like, look
this is the only chance that you actually have at
literal mass deportation. Again, we don't have time to fight.
But you know, if it's twenty million in the future,
we know one percent and twenty million is it's two
hundred thousand, So that's actually a lot of people, even
if just one percent are people who are violent criminals,
(16:24):
which would I mean, even the shit libs will admit
that that's a big number, I think, and that has
not yet reached for what in terms of the deportation
numbers that have been.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Released, so they're also not targeting those people.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
You know, it's the percent of immigrants who are detained
who have criminal records is way down under the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (16:45):
No, it's not.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
It's like ten percent, so violent criminal records, it's roughly tender.
According to a new Cato Institute said study.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Okay, well, yeah, that's good.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
But I don't think anyone wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
I don't think that anyone would deny that there has
been a reduction in the percentage of people who have
been in pain. Stephen Miller's policy went in and yelled
at I was like, why are you going after criminals?
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Go to the home depot? So that I mean that
is his that is his policy.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
I will grant part of it is about the larger number.
I'm not trusting a literal libertarian Open Borders Institute number
study for that, and I would like to I'm not
trusting the government either.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
So let's also say that.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
And I'm not going to deny that there have been
major problems I think on the Trump administration's end. However,
at a narrative level victory, how will Trump fare on immigration?
I think that the more that it is literally that,
the more that it is about order specifically, which is
really what I think he was elected to restore, the
better off he will be part of the reason. I
(17:41):
thought that LA really did not go well for him,
and I think a lot of the polling broadly backs
that up to the style of the government was kind
of part of what instigating more disorder than order. That's
broadly what America really wants in terms of its crime
and its immigration policy. And that is really the eternal
fight and large, I mean where the people suffer. Biden
(18:02):
suffered because you led eight to ten million people illegally
in the country, which is nuts, with literally no policy.
And if Trump suffers, it will be because it deported
people with no due process, and it's shoddy and shitty,
you know, obvious lies from the government, and people would
see through them and be like, okay, well, you know,
even though I was on board, this doesn't look like
restorant order to me, so to you know, for my
personal criticism of them and all that, it's the constant
(18:25):
chaos as it is throughout the implementation of all of
their policy, which actually undermines any real stated goal and
broadly will lead to pushback, I think from the American people.
And that's part of what these guys are picking up
on as well when they say home depot I don't
think it's actually physically just about the home depot rate.
I think it's about the fact that, like you said
about the Stephen Miller thing, being like, oh.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
Actually no, go in there and go against yeah, home dealer,
get the credit.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Look, we're going from this, and it's the schizophrenia actually
which makes people really react in a certain way. But
anyway we have.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
We really need to get to her apologize. All right,
let's get to it.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
We're very excited, how to be joined by our very
own Emily Jishinski, who is also the host of a
new show called After Party with Emily. You truly are
the Marco Rubio of podcasting. You have all these different shows,
You're working.
Speaker 4 (19:16):
For it on your behalfly you know.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
No, I mean it's it's a compliment.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
It's a compliment for the ability to very, you know,
competently hold all these hats. But Emily, you debuted your
new show with a major interview with Tucker Carlson could
literally not have been newsyear. We pulled a clip from it,
and then we want to get your reaction. So let's
take a clik Listen.
Speaker 8 (19:37):
Ted Cruise is already taking a victory lap. He says,
quote it turns out that Tucker was wrong. I just
want to get your thoughts on this. Tucker, did Trump
prove you and all of us who doubted the wisdom
of this strike wrong tonight?
Speaker 9 (19:49):
Well you could ask Trump, I mean, was this fraught
with like existential peril? Of course, I'm so grateful that
he brought it in for a landing. I mean, I
think we should be grateful to him. I think we
should be grateful to God. I think we should understand
how close we came. But I also think we should
step back and ponder what we've learned. And what we've
(20:10):
learned is who cares about the fortunes of the United
States and who doesn't? And Ted Creuse doesn't obviously, the
people who acknowledged no risk at all because they were
so focused on helping other country, like Ted Cruz or
like you know, the many people who revealed themselves in
the last two weeks, Mark Levin chief among them, Like,
those people should not have any access to power at all.
(20:32):
Those people roll the dice with your life and with
the lives of your children. It's disgusting. And so I mean,
just ask yourself, is is Mark Levin concerned it all
about the United States?
Speaker 6 (20:43):
Like at all?
Speaker 9 (20:44):
And the answer is no. Mark Levin is a repulsive
ghoul whose entire sex life consists of watching other people
get blown up. He was upset that there was a
ceasefire and said, so, how could you be upset with
a ceasefire? How could you be upset that people are
no longer dying? By the way, I think this seasfire Israel.
We have no idea where anything goes in life. That's
(21:05):
up to God. But as of right now, it's absolutely
real and we should be thankful for it. And so
if your first instinct is this is bad, then you've
just told us who you are. And look, that's between
Mark Levin and God. And I think it's going to
be a tough conversation. But for our purposes, you know,
Mark Levin should not have access to power. I mean,
he almost pushed the President of the United States into
(21:27):
a path that would have destroyed the presidency and the
United States.
Speaker 8 (21:30):
Why do you think the Mark Levin's of the world
didn't get what they wanted in this case, at least
as of right now.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Because the President Trump doesn't want nuclear war.
Speaker 9 (21:38):
I mean, as he said a million times, like he
doesn't want Ron to have the bomb because he doesn't
want more bombs, because he's afraid of nuclear war, because
he understands what it is. I've talked to him about
this on and off camera many times, and he has
unique among world leaders, like an instinctive aversion to killing
millions of people in seconds. And so he's tried about
(22:00):
nuclear awards. The reason Telsea Gabbard supported him is the
reason they hit Telsea Gabbard now because she raises the actual,
the very real specter of mass annihilation.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
So did what were your broad takeaways considering how newsy
it was. You're reacting in the middle of the ceasefire.
A lot of people were going after Tucker saying his
predictions were wrong and all that. So you had a
lot more in that interview. What were your main takeaways here?
Speaker 8 (22:25):
Well, yeah, I mean, I think that point is really crucial.
His predictions were wrong. But where he goes from there
he admits, I mean, in our conversation, he admits that
he was I guess technically wrong. He says that Iran
would not have come to the table without Donald Trump's
decision to make those strikes. That's one of the ones
one of the questions that I put to him. I
(22:46):
was curious what he would make of that, as someone
who was kind of cheering this apparent piece deal.
Speaker 6 (22:51):
We'll see, as Trump said.
Speaker 8 (22:53):
Like an hour ago, Israel and Iran don't know what
the fuck they're doing, so who knows where this goes.
But Tucker basically was saying even then, the probability of
catastrophe was so high that Trump was being pushed to
as he saw it being pushed, Which is interesting too,
to flirt with disaster, to flirt with utter catastrophe by
(23:17):
people like Mark Levin, whose sex life we talked about
more than I expected. I expect you to talk about
it a little bit, but not quite that much.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
Uh.
Speaker 8 (23:26):
And so when you so, that's I think the you
can call it cope. But it's also like hey to
be paranoid in the face of like thousands of people
potentially dying, which is what he predicted, and by the way,
I maintain, I think all of us maintained very easily
could have been the outcome of those strikes. And Iran sorry,
(23:49):
I'm apologized for being a little bit paranoid about that scenario.
And that's where he seems to have landed well.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
I also, I mean the point about he always shields Trump,
I think is an important one. You know, it's always
Mark Levin's fault, it's Ted Cruz's fault. And thank god
we have Trump in there, who actually cares about avoiding
nuclear war. I mean that also, I think leads him
to have to accept the Trump framing that this brought
around to the table, when, of course we know the
(24:15):
truth is Ron was at the table when we helped
the Israelis literally blow up our own negotiations, which appear
to have some prospect of success, So I think I
think that's significant. Obviously, I enjoyed watching him call Mark
Levin and Ted.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
Kruz repulsive ghouls. We have more on Ted Kruz.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
By the way, because he wasn't done with him and
you know, had some interesting comments about him and also
about Goza. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 9 (24:44):
I've got nothing against Ted Cruz personally. I feel sorry
for Ted Cruz obviously a totally hollow person taking instructions.
But I do think we learned this is not someone
who should be influencing wars because he just doesn't know anything,
he doesn't care, and he's not putting America's interests anywhere
near the top of his priorities. And that's you know that,
(25:07):
Like we saw that. It's on tape and it's kind
of hard to unsee it. So this is the moment
to just draw a line and say, we can have
all kinds of disagreements, and I'm sure that we will
over all kinds of things, including wars. But if you've
shown that you just don't care what happens to the
United States, if you're one of the people who said,
you know, the people in Gaza are so dangerous that
they have to be expelled from Gaza. And by the way,
(25:28):
maybe we should move them to the US. People said that.
I think Ben Shapiro said that if you are telling
me that the people who live in Gaza are so
evil that they can't live where they were born, they
have to move somewhere else, and oh, by the way,
they should move to my country. What are you saying.
You're saying that your country is a trash can into
which we can throw our refuse And that's their attitude.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
So totally hollow person taking instructions but nothing personal. Ted
Kruz there, and he also went after Laura Lumer. I mean,
he really went down the list of like, you know,
people who he saw as being complete and total enemies
at this point.
Speaker 8 (26:06):
He made it Dave Smith joke too, And after he
did that, he was like, I hadn't been there. And
after he did that, I was like, what we we're
playing like Tucker Enemy bingo, Like I have bingo at
this point, Like we've gone through everyone.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
So yeah, he also.
Speaker 8 (26:19):
Mentioned I asked him if he'd talked to Trump in
the last couple of days since their sort of back
and forth last week, where Trump said something like maybe
Tucker should get a cable in the show, like a
great boomer insults at Tucker so that people actually know
what he's saying. But they talked, and so Tucker said
that he had talked to Trump in the last couple
of days, and then he repeated the line that the
(26:40):
good guy is won this time. And that's really interesting
to me because it sounds like Tucker and Steve Bannon
feel as though their interventions over the weekend saved Trump
from going into regime change mode. And I don't know
how accurate that is because it's just really hard to
(27:01):
say what happened, but they seem to think that they
were lobbying against the Lindsay Graham, Mark Levin, and Mark
Levin is indeed still calling for Trump to push Iran
to sign a document of unconditional surrender, whatever that actually means.
And so there's still risk here that Donald Trump. It's like,
(27:23):
as Soccer says Versailles, I mean, this is truly what
we're learning. Not that we couldn't have predicted that, but
that's what we're learning right now. So that means there's
still I think there's still very real risk going forward.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Yeah, I mean, it is interesting in terms of what
you were saying about the lobbying, I do agree. I mean,
it's probably overstated to a certain extent, but to say
it had zero influence, it's just obviously not true. What
I actually find more interesting is the war that's happening
right now. Like you said, there really is just a
split completely on the Israel question at this point against
(27:55):
Tucker Carlson. I mean, you know, Dave Rubin, you have
multiple like Benchpiro and others, like I mean, I guess
you know, it's not like Tucker's been silent on them either,
and going back now probably a couple of years, but
I don't think it's ever been so like outright and
in the open. And it is interesting that he doesn't
seem actually all that interested in making peace per se
(28:16):
and is really just like no, like fuck you actually,
what do you make of that?
Speaker 6 (28:20):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (28:21):
No, I mean I think that's this is one of
the most important political consequences of all of this is
Mega is over. And that sounds dramatic, But uh, if this,
like this peace deal is sort of tenuous alleged piece deal,
we still have to see what happens is tenuous, but
Marjorie Taylor, Green, Tucker Carlson are never going to be
(28:41):
able to like just agree to disagree with the Dave
Rubins and Ben Shapiro's ever again. And does that mean
MEGA is over well? From my perspective, yeah, I mean
I think that actually is a permanent schism in the coalition.
And the other thing that we've seen over the course
of last week is that Trump violates what I call
(29:01):
a load bearing column of MAGA, which is anti interventionism.
It's not just like another thing that comes with the bundle.
It's a load bearing column. As so what holds up
this coalition when he violates that? People are Bannon Tucker,
They're willing to go against him. Maybe Talsei wasn't, but they,
like people on the outside, are willing to go against him. Now.
(29:23):
Of course, as we've been talking about, they feel like
they won. I kind of asked Tucker at one point
in our conversation, you know, like it I heard the
reporting that Trump was watching Fox News and was really
swayed by how impressive the images of the Israelis were.
And Tucker said he thinks that's true too. And this
is coming from somebody who talked to Trump in the
last couple of days. So there's something I think that's
(29:46):
really was lost for MAGA in all of this. And
the question is how serious that is, But it's it's there.
I mean, it's a scar for sure.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
But you know, Emily, I hear what you're saying on
that at the sort of influence level. But first of all,
you already had Tucker number disputed that he called Trump
to apologize Bannon before any of this was resolved. Came
out and said, listen, at the end of the day,
we're going to follow We're going to just trust in
Trump and believe that if he does something we don't
want him to, he had intelligence that we didn't see,
(30:15):
and we just know it's going to be the right decision.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
And I was looking at the polling from you goov.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
Before the bombing, fifty three percent of Republicans opposed it
and only twenty three percent supported it. After Trump decides
he's going to bomb completely flips, then you only have
twelve percent twelve percent who oppose it in sixty nine
percent who approve. So to me, that proves the point
(30:42):
that Trump was making of like I am America first,
I get to say, what is America first, because at
the end of the day, he knows whatever decision he makes,
his maybe not every influencer, but his base are going
to go along. And you know, I guarantee you too
that And we already saw it with Bannon, and you know,
Tucker didn't say as much, but certainly with Bannon, God
(31:03):
Charlie Kirk. Once Trump decided we are going to bomb
these nuclear sites, then the goalposts were moved again. And
then it was, oh, well, you know, we'll make sure
it's not a regime change, will make sure it's not
boots on the ground, and a lot of efforts but
justifying the decision after the fact, even as they had
originally expressed skepticism and discontent with that potential direction.
Speaker 8 (31:24):
Yeah, And I think what they would say is they
were the ones who prevented it from becoming a regime
change operation. So they feel like they won in some sense,
even though Trump actually like ordered the strikes, which is
why I asked talker, well, would this have happened, I mean,
this thing that we're holding up as a victory right now,
would this have happened without the strikes in the first place?
And he conceded, probably not so I think the polling
(31:46):
is really interesting on that too, Crystal, he could nuke someone.
Trump could nuke someone on Fifth Avenue and yes, still
not lose any here. But yeah, I think for the
sort of average voter, there's a level of trust and
Trump is still the glue that holds MAGA together. But
professional MAGA that's I mean, to whatever extent that's important.
(32:08):
It's probably not electorally important, but the groups that like
hold the conferences and do all of that, like professional
MAGA Beltway stuff, I think this is a real schism
for them, and that that could be more or less important.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (32:24):
As a content creator. To me, it's very important.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Well, okay, i'll put it. I'll put it this way.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
As the polling showed, these people are going to go
along with Trump no matter what.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
So I said this earlier. This is a game of elites.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
This is literally a Washington game as to if they're
going to go along no matter what, then we should
just do what we think is right at a policy
level and then let them follow. So if Trump, you know,
Trump is now calling for a world peace while you
and I are talking, he just is saying he's going
to remove sanctions on China buying oil from Iran, but
(32:55):
the NEOs are going to lose it over that one.
That's a multi billion dollar check going into the Iranian
bank accounts. I mean, now he's saying, God bless you Ron.
Like my point, they will go along with it, you know,
no matter what he does. So the point then is actually,
these factions and all of this stuff, it does kind
of matter because that's what's influencing stuff at the very
(33:17):
highest level inside a White House, in the National Security Council,
at a staff level, right, you know of what these
people are all reading. But yeah, anything else you want
to get into before you go. I thought it was
a great interview.
Speaker 4 (33:28):
Yeah, great job that way, And I told you I
did not envy you. Having to do that.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Interview is very consequential at a time when we were
all like, what the fuck is actually happening right now?
Speaker 4 (33:38):
So good job with that.
Speaker 8 (33:39):
No, it was overwhelming, and it was booked last week
before all of this happened, so it turned out to
be great time. But yeah, I just wanted to thank
you guys for being so supportive and having me here.
I appreciate you guys a ton.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
All right, everybody go subscribe links down in the description,
et cetera.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
We'll see you later.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
Yeah, I'll see you later.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
No, I'll see sorry last night.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
Yeah, you and I have a date, right.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Guys in late nights at ten pm? Did you come
up with that time? Where does it come from?
Speaker 8 (34:06):
I'm a night owl.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
That's crazy.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Yeah, yeah, we got from your producer like, oh, can
you guys come on?
Speaker 4 (34:13):
I'm like, what the Yeah, yes, I.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Will do it free tape, But you are it is
a sacrifice.
Speaker 4 (34:19):
I'm just going to tell.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
You that I understand.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
Congratulation, all right, I see you later.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Joining us now is Professor Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia University
and expert and somebody we wanted to speak with for
quite a long time. So Stir, thank you so much
for joining us. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
Great to be with you. Thank you absolutely.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
I mean, first, let's just start off with the insanity
of the last twenty four hours. I know you've been
monitoring quote the situation as all of us have, and
we just want to get your reaction to the broader
ramifications of this cease fire, at least for now between
Israel and Iran and the role here of the United States.
Speaker 10 (34:56):
Well, this has been absolutely why week. In a way,
it is BB's fulfillment of a thirty year mission to
try to drag the United States into a war with Iran.
This latest episode has been part of a long term
(35:18):
idea of net Yahu, which is we're going to do
what we want in Gaza, the West Bank. We're going
to control everything, will kill, will have a genocide, and
anyone that objects any other country in the region will
will overthrow that government. That's been the basic strategy for
thirty years. For thirty years, the United States has gone
(35:40):
along with that strategy, whether it is in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Soudan, Libya,
and Iran was always the big prize. So NETNA has
been absolutely itching for a big war with Iran, trying
to drag the US in. And what we saw last
(36:01):
week probably was the great battle inside between the Deep State,
which is absolutely in line with Mossad. It's basically a
Masad Cia operation for thirty years, and Maga, which has stopped.
We're sick of this, We're sick of these wars. The President,
(36:24):
I don't know where he is because I haven't checked
my social media for the last thirty seconds. But he's
been on both sides of this, but his base has
been saying do not do this, do not do this,
whereas NATO has been saying next year in Tehran or
his ministers have been putting that out in disgusting vulgarity.
(36:49):
So I don't know whether this is going to stop.
But this is a battle of a long term strategy
of NATNYA who remake the Middle East, to give basically
complete total impunity to Israel to do every murder, massacre,
genocide that it wants to do. And some of us
(37:10):
who think that's not making the world a better place, Yeah,
that's not helping anything, and it's not making America more secure.
Thanks God. If this cease fire holds, that's a good thing.
That's the bottom line.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Yeah, professor, let's pull on thread a little bit more
of the Israelis. As you mentioned, this has been a
multi decade project of not Yaho specifically, but it's broadly
supported with the Israeli public and certainly with his entire coalition,
including literal terrorists that are involved in his government. So
he's not going to give up and just say Okay,
sees fire and now we have peace. With a rod
(37:44):
that is certainly not going to happen. So what do
you expect to see based on previous historical actions from
the Israelis, what do you expect the Israelis to do
next to try to play their next card to get
as draw on in yet again.
Speaker 10 (37:59):
Well, the Israelis will make new provocations, that's for sure.
They will make arguments that now we see the perfidy
of Iran or for whatever argument to keep drawing us in.
I have said for years, i think decades now, that
the main job of the president of the United States
(38:20):
in modern times is to keep the foot on the
break of the war machine, because it's always revving. If
you went to the deep State in the last few days,
I think bombing missions against Iran are just splendid. Let's
try out those b two's, let's see how the bunker
busters do. And going beyond that, the regime change. Well,
(38:43):
that was in half the tweets of the last or
social truth posts of the last few days. So I
think that Israel will provoke, and it is the job
of the United States when in rare moments, presidents do
their job to keep the foot on the break. And
(39:03):
this morning, Trump unusually chastised Israel in a post saying,
do not drop that bomb. Well, actually that's his job.
It's pretty interesting he did it this time. Yesterday was different.
We'll see what happens tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
So one of the things I'm curious about, stir You're
obviously always looked at the bigger picture, and there was
a lot made potentially of Russia and China coming in
on Iran's side that didn't materialize to a major extent,
but there were at least some entanglements. We can put
this one up on the screen. For example, President of
former President Medyeviev of Russia at one point basically threatened,
(39:42):
you know, basically said, the Americans have accomplished nothing in
their strikes.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
Potentially we could transfer nukes to them.
Speaker 3 (39:48):
He walked it back a little bit later, saying a
number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with
their own nuclear warheads.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
But then he walked it back later.
Speaker 3 (39:56):
What do you make though of how the Russians and
the Chinese respond to what's transpired in the last twelve days.
Speaker 10 (40:03):
Yeah, I think, by the way, what Medvedev was saying
in that point number three was not Russia transferring nuclear
arms or endorsing that. But the fact that Pakistan is
a country closely aligned with the Islamic cause obviously and
with Iran, and absolutely able to transfer nuclear weapons North
(40:27):
Korea is another case. And I think that's an important point,
by the way, because we've been told that the be
all and end all is Iran's enrichment of uranium. That
is not the true issue at stake here. The true
issue at steak is Israel vulnerable by its own actions
(40:50):
to a nuclear attack on Israel. The answer is yes,
does Israel create more security for itself the way that
it operates, answer is no, it makes Israel more and
more dangerous. Not only did we see obviously that the
Iron Dome ain't so iron and that there were easily
(41:12):
it was not hard to penetrate the air defenses in Israel,
but Israel seems to think that Iran is the end
of the story, and it is not the end of
the story. There are fifty seven countries in the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation that are absolutely dead set against what
Israel is doing. The vast majority of the world is
(41:35):
dead set against it. When you ask about Russia and China,
it is their fundamental purpose not to be thrown under
the bus of the United States. This is the basic point.
They want a multipolar world, not a US dominated world,
and they are succeeding in that because the US does
(41:58):
not have the means, the power, in my view, the interest.
But put that aside, the means or the power to
make a US dominated world, despite what Washington has believed
for more than thirty years. So Russia and China are careful.
China is very precise. I think it is. It's a cliche,
(42:20):
but it's also true that Russia plays chess, China plays go,
and the United States plays poker, one hand at a time,
very quick, not any long term strategy, just to go
for the hand. And I think that China and Russia
bided their time in the first days. But the point
(42:42):
was really Iran was not decapitated and with regime change,
nor was it stopped in its ability to do great
damage inside Israel up until the very last moment, which
really irks the Israelis that it was the last exchange
(43:04):
of missiles in this case was Iran's, and then Israel
tried to violate the timeline and launch another one so
it could be last, and that's when Trump said, no, stop.
We already have an understanding about the chronology. So we
are watching step by step the emerging of a true
multipolar world where other powers that don't love the United States,
(43:30):
they don't hate it, by the way, they just don't
want to be subservient to it. They have nuclear arms,
powerful weapons, the technologies that we have so that we
can't dominate. And Iran is a regional power. It's not
a pushover for Israel by any means. There was no
(43:51):
one strike and it's all over one of the things
that may have happened last week. I don't know, of course,
but net Yau, you know, telling Trump, we can do it,
we can do we can do it. And they did
their decapitation murder's Masad really is a murder machine, of course,
and it did its decapitation strike, and it did not
bring down the regime. And so it probably led Trump
(44:15):
and people around him to say, come on, what you know,
the Israelis have given us a bunch of bs on this.
It didn't change the regime, it didn't and the threats,
and I think that's when Trump heard his base calling,
he heard common sense calling, and he said look, this
(44:36):
isn't going according to plan. And I think the main
point is with Russia and China they were cautious, but
they weren't letting Iran fall by any means. And if
Iran were to be facing a more cataclysmic set of
events in the last few days, I think the reactions
(44:56):
also would have been different.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Interesting to your point about perhaps Israelis were selling and
perhaps they even believed that they would be able to,
you know, create a regime collapse in short time. The
Washing Post got a hold of this leaked audio of
Masad agents calling Israeli generals and saying, you have twelve
hours or else we're going to murder you and your
wife and kids. By the way, and if you want
(45:19):
to avoid that fate, you need to record yourself surrendering.
You need to film this surrender video and send it
to us, which of course would have been used as
propaganda by the Israelis, And as best we know, not
one of them did that, which I think you know,
in and of itself is an indication that they may
have miscalculated the strength of this regime, especially once a
(45:39):
country is bombed like it's very common for people to
rally around the flag. But I wanted to ask you
with regards to Israel. So they have bombed, you know,
they're committing a genocide in Palestine in the Gaza Strip,
they bomb Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Ron, Iraq, and are a nuclear.
Speaker 4 (45:59):
Armed nation out side of the NPT.
Speaker 2 (46:01):
You know, did have a secret nuclear weapons program, and
you know, are a rogue nation. I think by any
characterization at this point, is there going to be any
consequence for them, Like, is there any sort of longer
term consequence for.
Speaker 4 (46:16):
The fact that they have behaved in this.
Speaker 2 (46:18):
Outrageous, barbaric fashion over years at this point and you know,
really made themselves a villain in terms of the eyes
of much of the world.
Speaker 10 (46:30):
I think Israel is in its worst insecurity in its
history by far, because it is utterly isolated in the
international system. I'm sitting just outside the UN. I've been
attending UN Security Council meetings, you own in General Assembly sessions.
(46:51):
You have a ninety five percent of the world population
voting against Israel right now. You have an overwhelming call
for the absolutely practical state of Palestine being established on
the borders of the fourth of June nineteen sixty seven
and Israel learning finally, after decades and decades, it's just
(47:12):
going to have to live alongside the Palestinian people, who
have the same number population as the Israeli Jews. And
this is the most basic point of all. Israel has
no security from all of this. It has achieved nothing
except to wasteland in its neighborhood. And if it wants security,
the only security is to rejoin the Family of Nations.
(47:36):
And the way to do that is straightforward. It's according
to international law, it's according to basic common sense, it's
according to decency, it's according to endless resolutions of the
US Security Council and the UN General Assembly, and that
is that there would be a state of Palestine for
the Palestinian people alongside a state of Israel. And President
(47:57):
Trump actually can make that happen if he wants his
Nobel Peace Prize. It's not by this ceasefire after this
behavior of the last week. It is by a Palestinian
state being established. How does that happen? One vote change
in the UN Security Council. The US vetoed this last
(48:17):
year when it came to a vote in the Security Council,
which is the part of the UN system. Or the
international system that establishes the statehood membership in the UN.
All the United States has to do is to say
we go along with all the rest of the world
and tell Israel, wake up, we're saving you. We're not
(48:39):
hurting you, we are saving you from yourself. However, it's
just crazy what Israel's doing and the idea that this
is any security. I think they should understand that with
apartment buildings in Versheva being destroyed, with Haifa being attacked,
with Tel Aviv being attacked, with the countries outside of
(49:02):
the region like Pakistan and DPRK watching, if Israel thinks
it has any security at all from its brazenness, it
should think again. And by the way, what we saw
in the Mosad tape, which is chilling of course to
listen to, is that Mossad became a killing machine. It's
(49:26):
very skillful at mass and murder. I would say, not
mass murder in the sense that the murder of the
leadership of the Iranian military last week. Yes, that's Mosad's business.
But to have that as your centerpiece of statehood, to
(49:47):
be murder incorporated is not going to get you safety
or security or any sound sleep any day.
Speaker 6 (49:56):
In your in your life.
Speaker 10 (49:57):
Israel needs to rethink fundament mentally this BB strategy, which
goes back to nineteen ninety six when he first became
Prime Minister.
Speaker 2 (50:06):
And I think to your point, they're not going to
rethink it because the public is broadly supportive of the
BB strategy. It has to be forced upon them, and
the United States of America can do that if there
is any will to do it.
Speaker 10 (50:21):
It depends always, it has always depended on the United
States going along. By the way, people should get online
if they haven't done it recently. And look at Natya
Who's speech to the US Congress in two thousand and
two telling him how wonderful the Iraq war is going
to be. Oh, it's a cakewalk. It's it's going to
(50:42):
inspire the whole region. This man is nuts. He's a
failure for thirty years. He's the biggest warmonger on the planet.
If Trump wants a successful presidency, don't sign on to
this idiocy. Do your job, mister president. Make peace in
the region that has to be you give the State
(51:03):
of Palestine along side of the State of Israel, stop
the genocide, and go along with international law.
Speaker 6 (51:09):
It's pretty straightforward. It's there for the taking.
Speaker 3 (51:12):
All right, Well, sir, we always appreciate your analysis. It
was great talking to you. Thank you very much for
joining us.
Speaker 6 (51:17):
Thank you for pleasure to be with you.
Speaker 3 (51:18):
Thank you, Thanks so much for watching, guys, We appreciate it.
Crystal and Emily on the live stream, and then Griffin
and Ryan from New York City covering the mayoral race tonight,
so make sure you tune in for that and we
will see you all later.
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (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 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
All right, let's go ahead and get to a big
Scotus ruling that came.
Speaker 4 (00:36):
I guess that's right.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
This is a major Supreme Court ruling that happened in
the middle of ceasefire, so you may have missed it
and you're definitely forgiven. We can go ahead and put
this up there on the screen, and I'll just read
a little bit from the decision. Quote, the Supreme Court
has now made it easier for the Trump administration to
deport convicted criminals. To quote third countries to which they
have no previous connection. In a brief unsigned order that
did not explain its reasoning, the court put on hold
(00:59):
a federal job is ruling that said those affected Nation
nine should have a needingful opportunity to bring claims. They
would be at risk if they were sent to countries
the administration has made deals with to receive deported immigrants.
As a result, the Administration will be able to quickly
remove immigrants to such third countries, including South Sudan. Affected
immigrants can still attempt to bring individual claims. So what
(01:20):
you're basically seeing there is this happened I know while
I was gone, but there was what was it? A
deportation to South Sudan of several I think individuals here
illegally in the United States. Well, what has now happened
is that the Supreme Court is allowing the deportation of this. However,
the legal process which is done still remains up in
(01:44):
the air. As I understand it, it allows for such
deportation to take place, but there's still open questions around
due process, just like with the Alien Enemies Act. But broadly,
it was a win for the Trump administration at an
executive level.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
No doubt about it, and was split along partisan lines.
The I don't think there was much question about whether
or not the administration could deport people to third countries
places they're not from. That has been, you know, a
long standing practice. You know, this is something that's going
to get broadly acknowledged that you know, the administration has
this power, whether I like it or not. The questionnaire
(02:21):
was all around due process. Do you have a chance
to challenge that decision to send you? For example, Libya
is one of the countries that they want to send
people to. We've talked about Libya a lot lately because
in the context of Iran, things are not going well
in Libya. Reports are that, you know, they certainly in
the past add effectively slave markets, and in fact a
lot of the people who were sold on those slave
markets were migrants into the country. So to me and
(02:44):
Soccer and I agreed, we don't have time to fight
about this today, so we'll table this, you know, for
a longer discussion later. To me, you should have the
ability have enough time to say, Hey, I think I'm
going to be tortured and murdered and sold into a
slave market if I go to this country, if I'm
shipped to this country and have that go through an
adjudicated process, effectively the Supreme Court here. And I think
you may agree with this, like not only did they
(03:07):
say no, you don't really deserve like any sort of
lengthy do process, but this is an important decision, and
it really bothers me that they didn't even explain their thinking,
you know, because.
Speaker 3 (03:18):
That really it's a procedural thing in terms of the
unsigned order, because it's like the un.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
They couldn't know they could have, and the descent, the
descent was written out and explained, but the actual decision
here they give no rationale for. So it continues to
leave all of these questions about why they interpreted it
this way and what made them come to this decision.
And I think that, you know, I disagree with the
decision outright, but I also think it's outrageous that they
(03:46):
didn't even bother to explain what is in effect quite
consequential decision here. Ultimately, we also wanted to highlight for
you guys a couple of interesting comments that I'm a
little bit surprised at from Joe Rogan and then some
from Andrew Schultz, where obviously, you know, both of them
were supportive of Trump in this past election, and Rogan
(04:09):
expresses here some discomfort with the extent of the Trump
deportation policy and the way they've gone about it, which,
you know, most of the people who are being detained
at this point, like the A Royal Major, I think
ninety percent are not violent criminals who have been picked
up by the Trump administration. And so he expresses in
this clip some discomfort with that. Let's go ahead and
(04:30):
take listen to that.
Speaker 5 (04:30):
Ice raids are fucking nuts, man, watching this protest on television,
it's like.
Speaker 6 (04:36):
Doing the raids or nuts. The broke the Yeah, it
a little too hard.
Speaker 5 (04:41):
Well, I don't think if they the Trump administration, if
they're running and they said we're going to go to
Home Depot and we're going to arrest all the people
at Home Depot. We're going to go to construction sites
and we're going to just like tackle people with constructions,
I don't think anybody would signed up for that. They
said we're going to get rid of the criminals and
the gang member first, right, and now we're we're seeing
(05:04):
like home depots get rated.
Speaker 6 (05:06):
That's crazy.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Something that the Home Depot really struck accord with these
guys was just kind of interesting, I guess because it's.
Speaker 4 (05:11):
Just like so known, so suburban Joe.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Probably maybe even has been to because he used to
live in La. The particular home depot that was READD.
I don't know, but I just say sager, Like on
the Iran war stuff, yes, Trump said we should bomb
the nuclear sites. He also said he would be the
peace candidate. If you weren't paying that close of attention,
I can maybe sort of give you the benefit of
the doubt in thinking.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
There was genuine ambiguity there. Yeah, they were Okay.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
The guy literally came out and said, fuck Israel and Iran,
what the fuck they're doing today? And then also called
and then said no regime days today.
Speaker 4 (05:45):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:45):
But I'm just saying you can read whatever you wanted.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:47):
You could also have looked at his first term in
the how hawk as she was towards run. But like
I said, I okay, I can see where you were
coming from and why you may have gotten the impression
that he would not be a hawk fece of the Iran.
I don't know how you could give that impression on deportation,
like the whole campaign was mass deportation or holding up
signs at the R and C that said mass deportation. Now, like,
what about that made you think that this was going
(06:08):
to be some targeted, we're only going after the criminals
kind of approach, because that was not at all what
was sold during the election whatsoever. And so I'm glad
to see him express concern, But i just think it's
insane that you didn't think that was the direction that
Stephen Miller was going to go and Tom Homan, we're
going to go in if they were put back into power.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
Yeah, I mean, look, I don't disagree. I mean, the
mass deportation was about as clear as it was. I
think the mass deportation in the trade war. I guess
it's about implementation or seeing like there's something visceral probably
about it. I mean, I don't know, because it is
one of those things where, look, sometimes people believe in something,
but they don't necessarily understand what the overall implication of
(06:54):
what it's going to play out is going to look like.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
I mean, it's understandable.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
I guess there hasn't really been a serious massive ortation
effort like this in literally what fifty years or something
like that.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
So you know, to that extent that makes sense.
Speaker 3 (07:06):
But yeah, broadly, I mean I would say, in particular
with like Maga and you know what they were saying
literally at the time, and also in terms of practice,
there has not really been a single thing I would
maybe Seacott, I would say, the rest of it has
not personally surprised me, like like.
Speaker 4 (07:22):
Home Depot surprised me.
Speaker 1 (07:24):
But that's what I'm saying, Seacott.
Speaker 3 (07:25):
But even if he said he was going to do
the Alien Enemies Act literally on the campaign trail, I
think in the seventy days before he came to seventy
days before he was elected, he's like, here's my plan
to use the Alien Enemies Act and to immediately expedite deportation. Again,
you could sympathize because people are not paying attention, but
at a lack mass deportation level. They made it pretty clear.
I mean, yes, they were talking about criminal and illegal,
(07:47):
but you know, a large part of it here was
about labor and cheap labor specifically. That's been a central
point of the Trump talking points on immigration now for
quite some time.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
But I guess people.
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Sometimes maybe see what I want to see as well
with a criminal comment.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
I think that I think that's a good point.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
Let's go and take a listen to Andrew Schultz just
did this long interview with the New York Times, which
I listened to all of I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
I haven't listened the full thing yet.
Speaker 4 (08:12):
It wasn't I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
The two of the interviewer and him were kind of
like at odds the whole time.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
I was.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
I think the interviewer really didn't get his deal.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
And yet anyway, yeah, what I read in the transcript,
I didn't listen to it.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
I did listen to it, and you didn't get a
lot out of it. I don't know if it was Andrews.
I don't know if it's an interviewer's fault. They just
didn't really there wasn't. It wasn't a great pairing. I
would say, the two of them together in any case,
Andrew made some kind of similar comments with regard to
immigration and Trump. Let's go and take a listen to that.
Speaker 7 (08:41):
And in terms of immigration, like I want more like
if you broke the law, you did any if you
if you broke the law, you you fucked up. You
already here illegally, so you already broke the law, and
you're breaking the law.
Speaker 6 (08:52):
You got to go.
Speaker 7 (08:53):
If you've been working your ass off for ten years here,
you've got a family. There's got to be a system
where we can just give these people a pathway to
citizenship or a Greek card or something. There has to
be a better way than simply just hey, you go.
And that's what I was pleading with him for on
(09:15):
the pod, which is maybe pleading is a strong word,
but I was asking him to show empathy for these
people that he's also employed. I was like, listen, you've
had hotels. You know these people. You know that they're
going to bust their ass, They're going to work hard,
and they want a better life. It's like, why my
mom came here, so why your parents or maybe his
great grandparents.
Speaker 6 (09:30):
Or some shit came here.
Speaker 7 (09:31):
So it's like, I would like there to be much
more empathy in that department.
Speaker 6 (09:35):
I don't think that that's happening.
Speaker 1 (09:37):
And what would Democrat have to do to win your
vote back?
Speaker 7 (09:43):
He would just have to be named Bernie Sanders and
I fucking vote for him in a heartbeat.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
No, enjoy that last time was there.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
I'm an interesting horseshoe, But in any case, I'm actually
a little bit surprised that these guys didn't know what
they were getting with.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
Well, no, I see, I think it's a little bit
more fair on Rogan's d on Andrews. And Andrew actually
literally was pressing Trump about immigration, and to the extent
that he was like pro Trump or whatever. I don't
think he ever signed up for the quote master.
Speaker 1 (10:10):
And that's my point.
Speaker 3 (10:11):
And this is why people are not to be put
into a box. And it is important as well to
play this all out. I would not have done it
the way that Trump has done it. However, you know,
and this I look, Andrew is a good friend of mine,
and I do disagree with him though. I mean, I
don't think that just coming to the country illegally and
just because you quote haven't committed a crime gives you
some great license for a green card. Frankly, it's absurd policy.
(10:34):
But as you just said, you don't want to fight.
But my main point remains is that immigration. You know, look,
the polling is all over the place. We can, I
think probably agree it's still the strongest place for Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
Maybe war will replace it.
Speaker 3 (10:47):
I still think it's the central reason why he was
elected president. Both in twenty sixteen and again in two
thousand and twenty four. But broadly, I mean, I think
one of the reasons, maybe it's the lesson for Democrats
as well, is that you have people who literally believe
in comprehensive immigration reform, but when you have border chaos,
they're like, yeah, fuck this, and they're going to go
(11:08):
with somebody who stands for mass deportation. In general, Americans
react to whoever they think is being more chaotic on
the issue of crime and or immigration. If anything, I
think it's a good lesson for those people. Also that
you can win people back or you know that the
narrative is not locked in if you want it to
be part of why I would encourage the Trump administration
to do this efficiently and not constantly. Just I mean,
(11:31):
this is now like the strategy of Trump is everything
is a show. Everything is dialed up to one hundred,
like we're doing regime change and unconditional surrender, and the
next day we're.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
Calling all piece It's like, what are we doing?
Speaker 6 (11:45):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (11:46):
In terms of it's like the reporting, is he basically
on source the deportation policy to Steven Miller.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Yes, no, but then also he takes control of it
and then there's been a five time swing back. At
this point, I literally still am not clear. And so
whether we're raising farms or not, and it's been twenty
days of we're raiding farms. Actually, hotels and farmers need
illegals to work there, let's all ruminate on that for
a second two as to why that's apparently an allowable reason.
Then Steven Miller is like, no, actually we're going to
(12:13):
be rating them, and then Trump comes out as like, no,
actually we're not going to be rating them. I believe
we are back to some sort.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
Of strategic CAPLI oh no, I thought we were back on.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
No, we were, but then two days ago, apparently in
that change. This is what I'm saying is that there's
been a complete like schizophrenia here and if anything, I mean,
that's what really hurts Trump's cause, is that nothing is
coherent and ideologically sold. America is I think absolutely on
board with criminal or illegal or criminal specifically people who
(12:42):
have committed crimes, but they've done a bad job. I
think of messaging, specifically on the labor issue, especially when
the President is out there talking about how these farmers
and hotel workers literally need illegal labor to function I
mean again, just it boggles the mind that a segment
of industry cannot function without hiring a US citizen. It's absurd,
(13:05):
And why would an American president endorse that? If that's
actually the case, that's your job to fix. So, you know,
I think that's the problem though, is these constantly got
these rich people in his ear, you know, talking his
head off about how, oh, we can't do that without
doing all of this. And it actually drives me particularly
crazy because one of JD's canned speeches on the campaign
trail I probably heard this like fifty times, is about
(13:28):
a hotel executive telling him about how he can't run
his hotels at a profit without using illegal ban work.
And so then the president is now parroting that same
the thing is at the podium.
Speaker 4 (13:38):
But the president is that no executive.
Speaker 1 (13:41):
That's really my point.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
I mean here, But I mean, here's the thing is,
I do actually want to fight with you, but we
don't have time to fight fully on this today because
there's we got Emily waiting, that we got Professor Sachs.
I will just say, I think where the confusion comes
from is that Trump aggressively sold the idea on the
campaign trail that undocumented immigrants overall were criminal, that there
(14:05):
was a huge number millions of criminals who had flooded
the country in an invasion. Oh my god, they're taking
over entire time. Oh my god, they're taking over entire
apartment complexes.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
And so I think.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
That's where a lot of people, not just your Wogan,
probably got the idea of like, oh, mass deportation, we
can do a mass deportation that is just criminals, when
in reality the numbers are comparatively small of actual like
violent criminals who are also undocumented immigrants.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
I'm not saying there aren't any.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
But you really get the sense of that when the
guys they shipped off to Seacott to a literal slave
labor camp for the rest of their lives with no
due process, when the mass majority, even of them, had
no criminal record here or in other countries around the world.
So I think that's where, you know, not only was
their confusion about what mass deportation would ultimately mean, but
(14:58):
also where there has been and significant yes, immigration is
still the strongest policy is now underwater on his strongest policy, though,
where there's been significant upset in the way that this
has gone forward because yes, if you ask people, should
we deport criminal illegal alience, you'll get like eighty nine percent, right,
including myself, Sure, yes, go do it. If you ask
(15:18):
them about you know, the person that Rogan or Andrew
are talking about there that have been like here for
years and years and they don't commit any crimes and
they pay tax, they do.
Speaker 4 (15:26):
The right thing.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
Should you report them? It's actually the polar opposite. You
get almost eighty percent opposed to the deportation of those people.
And so I think that's why you've had a decline
and support and why you've had you know, some people,
some former supporters who are expressing concern over this and why.
I think it was an overreading of the mandate that yes,
(15:48):
I don't know. I'm not downplaying that immigration was an
important factor. I'm not downplaying there was, you know, rejection
of the of Biden eraror immigration policies. But I think
the reading was that then people wanted the Stephen Miller
deportation policy when that is not actually popular either.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
Well, I mean you also could say that they have
their last second term and now they don't have to
get reelected. So if in a sense they're like, look
this is the only chance that you actually have at
literal mass deportation. Again, we don't have time to fight.
But you know, if it's twenty million in the future,
we know one percent and twenty million is it's two
hundred thousand, So that's actually a lot of people, even
if just one percent are people who are violent criminals,
(16:24):
which would I mean, even the shit libs will admit
that that's a big number, I think, and that has
not yet reached for what in terms of the deportation
numbers that have been.
Speaker 4 (16:35):
Released, so they're also not targeting those people.
Speaker 2 (16:37):
You know, it's the percent of immigrants who are detained
who have criminal records is way down under the Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (16:45):
No, it's not.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
It's like ten percent, so violent criminal records, it's roughly tender.
According to a new Cato Institute said study.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Okay, well, yeah, that's good.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
But I don't think anyone wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
I don't think that anyone would deny that there has
been a reduction in the percentage of people who have
been in pain. Stephen Miller's policy went in and yelled
at I was like, why are you going after criminals?
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Go to the home depot? So that I mean that
is his that is his policy.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
I will grant part of it is about the larger number.
I'm not trusting a literal libertarian Open Borders Institute number
study for that, and I would like to I'm not
trusting the government either.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
So let's also say that.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
And I'm not going to deny that there have been
major problems I think on the Trump administration's end. However,
at a narrative level victory, how will Trump fare on immigration?
I think that the more that it is literally that,
the more that it is about order specifically, which is
really what I think he was elected to restore, the
better off he will be part of the reason. I
(17:41):
thought that LA really did not go well for him,
and I think a lot of the polling broadly backs
that up to the style of the government was kind
of part of what instigating more disorder than order. That's
broadly what America really wants in terms of its crime
and its immigration policy. And that is really the eternal
fight and large, I mean where the people suffer. Biden
(18:02):
suffered because you led eight to ten million people illegally
in the country, which is nuts, with literally no policy.
And if Trump suffers, it will be because it deported
people with no due process, and it's shoddy and shitty,
you know, obvious lies from the government, and people would
see through them and be like, okay, well, you know,
even though I was on board, this doesn't look like
restorant order to me, so to you know, for my
personal criticism of them and all that, it's the constant
(18:25):
chaos as it is throughout the implementation of all of
their policy, which actually undermines any real stated goal and
broadly will lead to pushback, I think from the American people.
And that's part of what these guys are picking up
on as well when they say home depot I don't
think it's actually physically just about the home depot rate.
I think it's about the fact that, like you said
about the Stephen Miller thing, being like, oh.
Speaker 4 (18:46):
Actually no, go in there and go against yeah, home dealer,
get the credit.
Speaker 3 (18:49):
Look, we're going from this, and it's the schizophrenia actually
which makes people really react in a certain way. But
anyway we have.
Speaker 1 (18:57):
We really need to get to her apologize. All right,
let's get to it.
Speaker 3 (19:03):
We're very excited, how to be joined by our very
own Emily Jishinski, who is also the host of a
new show called After Party with Emily. You truly are
the Marco Rubio of podcasting. You have all these different shows,
You're working.
Speaker 4 (19:16):
For it on your behalfly you know.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
No, I mean it's it's a compliment.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
It's a compliment for the ability to very, you know,
competently hold all these hats. But Emily, you debuted your
new show with a major interview with Tucker Carlson could
literally not have been newsyear. We pulled a clip from it,
and then we want to get your reaction. So let's
take a clik Listen.
Speaker 8 (19:37):
Ted Cruise is already taking a victory lap. He says,
quote it turns out that Tucker was wrong. I just
want to get your thoughts on this. Tucker, did Trump
prove you and all of us who doubted the wisdom
of this strike wrong tonight?
Speaker 9 (19:49):
Well you could ask Trump, I mean, was this fraught
with like existential peril? Of course, I'm so grateful that
he brought it in for a landing. I mean, I
think we should be grateful to him. I think we
should be grateful to God. I think we should understand
how close we came. But I also think we should
step back and ponder what we've learned. And what we've
(20:10):
learned is who cares about the fortunes of the United
States and who doesn't? And Ted Creuse doesn't obviously, the
people who acknowledged no risk at all because they were
so focused on helping other country, like Ted Cruz or
like you know, the many people who revealed themselves in
the last two weeks, Mark Levin chief among them, Like,
those people should not have any access to power at all.
(20:32):
Those people roll the dice with your life and with
the lives of your children. It's disgusting. And so I mean,
just ask yourself, is is Mark Levin concerned it all
about the United States?
Speaker 6 (20:43):
Like at all?
Speaker 9 (20:44):
And the answer is no. Mark Levin is a repulsive
ghoul whose entire sex life consists of watching other people
get blown up. He was upset that there was a
ceasefire and said, so, how could you be upset with
a ceasefire? How could you be upset that people are
no longer dying? By the way, I think this seasfire Israel.
We have no idea where anything goes in life. That's
(21:05):
up to God. But as of right now, it's absolutely
real and we should be thankful for it. And so
if your first instinct is this is bad, then you've
just told us who you are. And look, that's between
Mark Levin and God. And I think it's going to
be a tough conversation. But for our purposes, you know,
Mark Levin should not have access to power. I mean,
he almost pushed the President of the United States into
(21:27):
a path that would have destroyed the presidency and the
United States.
Speaker 8 (21:30):
Why do you think the Mark Levin's of the world
didn't get what they wanted in this case, at least
as of right now.
Speaker 1 (21:36):
Because the President Trump doesn't want nuclear war.
Speaker 9 (21:38):
I mean, as he said a million times, like he
doesn't want Ron to have the bomb because he doesn't
want more bombs, because he's afraid of nuclear war, because
he understands what it is. I've talked to him about
this on and off camera many times, and he has
unique among world leaders, like an instinctive aversion to killing
millions of people in seconds. And so he's tried about
(22:00):
nuclear awards. The reason Telsea Gabbard supported him is the
reason they hit Telsea Gabbard now because she raises the actual,
the very real specter of mass annihilation.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
So did what were your broad takeaways considering how newsy
it was. You're reacting in the middle of the ceasefire.
A lot of people were going after Tucker saying his
predictions were wrong and all that. So you had a
lot more in that interview. What were your main takeaways here?
Speaker 8 (22:25):
Well, yeah, I mean, I think that point is really crucial.
His predictions were wrong. But where he goes from there
he admits, I mean, in our conversation, he admits that
he was I guess technically wrong. He says that Iran
would not have come to the table without Donald Trump's
decision to make those strikes. That's one of the ones
one of the questions that I put to him. I
(22:46):
was curious what he would make of that, as someone
who was kind of cheering this apparent piece deal.
Speaker 6 (22:51):
We'll see, as Trump said.
Speaker 8 (22:53):
Like an hour ago, Israel and Iran don't know what
the fuck they're doing, so who knows where this goes.
But Tucker basically was saying even then, the probability of
catastrophe was so high that Trump was being pushed to
as he saw it being pushed, Which is interesting too,
to flirt with disaster, to flirt with utter catastrophe by
(23:17):
people like Mark Levin, whose sex life we talked about
more than I expected. I expect you to talk about
it a little bit, but not quite that much.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
Uh.
Speaker 8 (23:26):
And so when you so, that's I think the you
can call it cope. But it's also like hey to
be paranoid in the face of like thousands of people
potentially dying, which is what he predicted, and by the way,
I maintain, I think all of us maintained very easily
could have been the outcome of those strikes. And Iran sorry,
(23:49):
I'm apologized for being a little bit paranoid about that scenario.
And that's where he seems to have landed well.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
I also, I mean the point about he always shields Trump,
I think is an important one. You know, it's always
Mark Levin's fault, it's Ted Cruz's fault. And thank god
we have Trump in there, who actually cares about avoiding
nuclear war. I mean that also, I think leads him
to have to accept the Trump framing that this brought
around to the table, when, of course we know the
(24:15):
truth is Ron was at the table when we helped
the Israelis literally blow up our own negotiations, which appear
to have some prospect of success, So I think I
think that's significant. Obviously, I enjoyed watching him call Mark
Levin and Ted.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
Kruz repulsive ghouls. We have more on Ted Kruz.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
By the way, because he wasn't done with him and
you know, had some interesting comments about him and also
about Goza. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 9 (24:44):
I've got nothing against Ted Cruz personally. I feel sorry
for Ted Cruz obviously a totally hollow person taking instructions.
But I do think we learned this is not someone
who should be influencing wars because he just doesn't know anything,
he doesn't care, and he's not putting America's interests anywhere
near the top of his priorities. And that's you know that,
(25:07):
Like we saw that. It's on tape and it's kind
of hard to unsee it. So this is the moment
to just draw a line and say, we can have
all kinds of disagreements, and I'm sure that we will
over all kinds of things, including wars. But if you've
shown that you just don't care what happens to the
United States, if you're one of the people who said,
you know, the people in Gaza are so dangerous that
they have to be expelled from Gaza. And by the way,
(25:28):
maybe we should move them to the US. People said that.
I think Ben Shapiro said that if you are telling
me that the people who live in Gaza are so
evil that they can't live where they were born, they
have to move somewhere else, and oh, by the way,
they should move to my country. What are you saying.
You're saying that your country is a trash can into
which we can throw our refuse And that's their attitude.
Speaker 2 (25:50):
So totally hollow person taking instructions but nothing personal. Ted
Kruz there, and he also went after Laura Lumer. I mean,
he really went down the list of like, you know,
people who he saw as being complete and total enemies
at this point.
Speaker 8 (26:06):
He made it Dave Smith joke too, And after he
did that, he was like, I hadn't been there. And
after he did that, I was like, what we we're
playing like Tucker Enemy bingo, Like I have bingo at
this point, Like we've gone through everyone.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
So yeah, he also.
Speaker 8 (26:19):
Mentioned I asked him if he'd talked to Trump in
the last couple of days since their sort of back
and forth last week, where Trump said something like maybe
Tucker should get a cable in the show, like a
great boomer insults at Tucker so that people actually know
what he's saying. But they talked, and so Tucker said
that he had talked to Trump in the last couple
of days, and then he repeated the line that the
(26:40):
good guy is won this time. And that's really interesting
to me because it sounds like Tucker and Steve Bannon
feel as though their interventions over the weekend saved Trump
from going into regime change mode. And I don't know
how accurate that is because it's just really hard to
(27:01):
say what happened, but they seem to think that they
were lobbying against the Lindsay Graham, Mark Levin, and Mark
Levin is indeed still calling for Trump to push Iran
to sign a document of unconditional surrender, whatever that actually means.
And so there's still risk here that Donald Trump. It's like,
(27:23):
as Soccer says Versailles, I mean, this is truly what
we're learning. Not that we couldn't have predicted that, but
that's what we're learning right now. So that means there's
still I think there's still very real risk going forward.
Speaker 3 (27:33):
Yeah, I mean, it is interesting in terms of what
you were saying about the lobbying, I do agree. I mean,
it's probably overstated to a certain extent, but to say
it had zero influence, it's just obviously not true. What
I actually find more interesting is the war that's happening
right now. Like you said, there really is just a
split completely on the Israel question at this point against
(27:55):
Tucker Carlson. I mean, you know, Dave Rubin, you have
multiple like Benchpiro and others, like I mean, I guess
you know, it's not like Tucker's been silent on them either,
and going back now probably a couple of years, but
I don't think it's ever been so like outright and
in the open. And it is interesting that he doesn't
seem actually all that interested in making peace per se
(28:16):
and is really just like no, like fuck you actually,
what do you make of that?
Speaker 6 (28:20):
Yeah?
Speaker 8 (28:21):
No, I mean I think that's this is one of
the most important political consequences of all of this is
Mega is over. And that sounds dramatic, But uh, if this,
like this peace deal is sort of tenuous alleged piece deal,
we still have to see what happens is tenuous, but
Marjorie Taylor, Green, Tucker Carlson are never going to be
(28:41):
able to like just agree to disagree with the Dave
Rubins and Ben Shapiro's ever again. And does that mean
MEGA is over well? From my perspective, yeah, I mean
I think that actually is a permanent schism in the coalition.
And the other thing that we've seen over the course
of last week is that Trump violates what I call
(29:01):
a load bearing column of MAGA, which is anti interventionism.
It's not just like another thing that comes with the bundle.
It's a load bearing column. As so what holds up
this coalition when he violates that? People are Bannon Tucker,
They're willing to go against him. Maybe Talsei wasn't, but they,
like people on the outside, are willing to go against him. Now.
(29:23):
Of course, as we've been talking about, they feel like
they won. I kind of asked Tucker at one point
in our conversation, you know, like it I heard the
reporting that Trump was watching Fox News and was really
swayed by how impressive the images of the Israelis were.
And Tucker said he thinks that's true too. And this
is coming from somebody who talked to Trump in the
last couple of days. So there's something I think that's
(29:46):
really was lost for MAGA in all of this. And
the question is how serious that is, But it's it's there.
I mean, it's a scar for sure.
Speaker 2 (29:55):
But you know, Emily, I hear what you're saying on
that at the sort of influence level. But first of all,
you already had Tucker number disputed that he called Trump
to apologize Bannon before any of this was resolved. Came
out and said, listen, at the end of the day,
we're going to follow We're going to just trust in
Trump and believe that if he does something we don't
want him to, he had intelligence that we didn't see,
(30:15):
and we just know it's going to be the right decision.
Speaker 4 (30:17):
And I was looking at the polling from you goov.
Speaker 2 (30:20):
Before the bombing, fifty three percent of Republicans opposed it
and only twenty three percent supported it. After Trump decides
he's going to bomb completely flips, then you only have
twelve percent twelve percent who oppose it in sixty nine
percent who approve. So to me, that proves the point
(30:42):
that Trump was making of like I am America first,
I get to say, what is America first, because at
the end of the day, he knows whatever decision he makes,
his maybe not every influencer, but his base are going
to go along. And you know, I guarantee you too
that And we already saw it with Bannon, and you know,
Tucker didn't say as much, but certainly with Bannon, God
(31:03):
Charlie Kirk. Once Trump decided we are going to bomb
these nuclear sites, then the goalposts were moved again. And
then it was, oh, well, you know, we'll make sure
it's not a regime change, will make sure it's not
boots on the ground, and a lot of efforts but
justifying the decision after the fact, even as they had
originally expressed skepticism and discontent with that potential direction.
Speaker 8 (31:24):
Yeah, And I think what they would say is they
were the ones who prevented it from becoming a regime
change operation. So they feel like they won in some sense,
even though Trump actually like ordered the strikes, which is
why I asked talker, well, would this have happened, I mean,
this thing that we're holding up as a victory right now,
would this have happened without the strikes in the first place?
And he conceded, probably not so I think the polling
(31:46):
is really interesting on that too, Crystal, he could nuke someone.
Trump could nuke someone on Fifth Avenue and yes, still
not lose any here. But yeah, I think for the
sort of average voter, there's a level of trust and
Trump is still the glue that holds MAGA together. But
professional MAGA that's I mean, to whatever extent that's important.
(32:08):
It's probably not electorally important, but the groups that like
hold the conferences and do all of that, like professional
MAGA Beltway stuff, I think this is a real schism
for them, and that that could be more or less important.
Speaker 6 (32:23):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (32:24):
As a content creator. To me, it's very important.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Well, okay, i'll put it. I'll put it this way.
Speaker 3 (32:28):
As the polling showed, these people are going to go
along with Trump no matter what.
Speaker 1 (32:32):
So I said this earlier. This is a game of elites.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
This is literally a Washington game as to if they're
going to go along no matter what, then we should
just do what we think is right at a policy
level and then let them follow. So if Trump, you know,
Trump is now calling for a world peace while you
and I are talking, he just is saying he's going
to remove sanctions on China buying oil from Iran, but
(32:55):
the NEOs are going to lose it over that one.
That's a multi billion dollar check going into the Iranian
bank accounts. I mean, now he's saying, God bless you Ron.
Like my point, they will go along with it, you know,
no matter what he does. So the point then is actually,
these factions and all of this stuff, it does kind
of matter because that's what's influencing stuff at the very
(33:17):
highest level inside a White House, in the National Security Council,
at a staff level, right, you know of what these
people are all reading. But yeah, anything else you want
to get into before you go. I thought it was
a great interview.
Speaker 4 (33:28):
Yeah, great job that way, And I told you I
did not envy you. Having to do that.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Interview is very consequential at a time when we were
all like, what the fuck is actually happening right now?
Speaker 4 (33:38):
So good job with that.
Speaker 8 (33:39):
No, it was overwhelming, and it was booked last week
before all of this happened, so it turned out to
be great time. But yeah, I just wanted to thank
you guys for being so supportive and having me here.
I appreciate you guys a ton.
Speaker 3 (33:50):
All right, everybody go subscribe links down in the description,
et cetera.
Speaker 1 (33:54):
We'll see you later.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
Yeah, I'll see you later.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
No, I'll see sorry last night.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
Yeah, you and I have a date, right.
Speaker 3 (34:00):
Guys in late nights at ten pm? Did you come
up with that time? Where does it come from?
Speaker 8 (34:06):
I'm a night owl.
Speaker 4 (34:09):
That's crazy.
Speaker 2 (34:10):
Yeah, yeah, we got from your producer like, oh, can
you guys come on?
Speaker 4 (34:13):
I'm like, what the Yeah, yes, I.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Will do it free tape, But you are it is
a sacrifice.
Speaker 4 (34:19):
I'm just going to tell.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
You that I understand.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
Congratulation, all right, I see you later.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Joining us now is Professor Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia University
and expert and somebody we wanted to speak with for
quite a long time. So Stir, thank you so much
for joining us. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 6 (34:37):
Great to be with you. Thank you absolutely.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
I mean, first, let's just start off with the insanity
of the last twenty four hours. I know you've been
monitoring quote the situation as all of us have, and
we just want to get your reaction to the broader
ramifications of this cease fire, at least for now between
Israel and Iran and the role here of the United States.
Speaker 10 (34:56):
Well, this has been absolutely why week. In a way,
it is BB's fulfillment of a thirty year mission to
try to drag the United States into a war with Iran.
This latest episode has been part of a long term
(35:18):
idea of net Yahu, which is we're going to do
what we want in Gaza, the West Bank. We're going
to control everything, will kill, will have a genocide, and
anyone that objects any other country in the region will
will overthrow that government. That's been the basic strategy for
thirty years. For thirty years, the United States has gone
(35:40):
along with that strategy, whether it is in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Soudan, Libya,
and Iran was always the big prize. So NETNA has
been absolutely itching for a big war with Iran, trying
to drag the US in. And what we saw last
(36:01):
week probably was the great battle inside between the Deep State,
which is absolutely in line with Mossad. It's basically a
Masad Cia operation for thirty years, and Maga, which has stopped.
We're sick of this, We're sick of these wars. The President,
(36:24):
I don't know where he is because I haven't checked
my social media for the last thirty seconds. But he's
been on both sides of this, but his base has
been saying do not do this, do not do this,
whereas NATO has been saying next year in Tehran or
his ministers have been putting that out in disgusting vulgarity.
(36:49):
So I don't know whether this is going to stop.
But this is a battle of a long term strategy
of NATNYA who remake the Middle East, to give basically
complete total impunity to Israel to do every murder, massacre,
genocide that it wants to do. And some of us
(37:10):
who think that's not making the world a better place, Yeah,
that's not helping anything, and it's not making America more secure.
Thanks God. If this cease fire holds, that's a good thing.
That's the bottom line.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
Yeah, professor, let's pull on thread a little bit more
of the Israelis. As you mentioned, this has been a
multi decade project of not Yaho specifically, but it's broadly
supported with the Israeli public and certainly with his entire coalition,
including literal terrorists that are involved in his government. So
he's not going to give up and just say Okay,
sees fire and now we have peace. With a rod
(37:44):
that is certainly not going to happen. So what do
you expect to see based on previous historical actions from
the Israelis, what do you expect the Israelis to do
next to try to play their next card to get
as draw on in yet again.
Speaker 10 (37:59):
Well, the Israelis will make new provocations, that's for sure.
They will make arguments that now we see the perfidy
of Iran or for whatever argument to keep drawing us in.
I have said for years, i think decades now, that
the main job of the president of the United States
(38:20):
in modern times is to keep the foot on the
break of the war machine, because it's always revving. If
you went to the deep State in the last few days,
I think bombing missions against Iran are just splendid. Let's
try out those b two's, let's see how the bunker
busters do. And going beyond that, the regime change. Well,
(38:43):
that was in half the tweets of the last or
social truth posts of the last few days. So I
think that Israel will provoke, and it is the job
of the United States when in rare moments, presidents do
their job to keep the foot on the break. And
(39:03):
this morning, Trump unusually chastised Israel in a post saying,
do not drop that bomb. Well, actually that's his job.
It's pretty interesting he did it this time. Yesterday was different.
We'll see what happens tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
So one of the things I'm curious about, stir You're
obviously always looked at the bigger picture, and there was
a lot made potentially of Russia and China coming in
on Iran's side that didn't materialize to a major extent,
but there were at least some entanglements. We can put
this one up on the screen. For example, President of
former President Medyeviev of Russia at one point basically threatened,
(39:42):
you know, basically said, the Americans have accomplished nothing in
their strikes.
Speaker 1 (39:46):
Potentially we could transfer nukes to them.
Speaker 3 (39:48):
He walked it back a little bit later, saying a
number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with
their own nuclear warheads.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
But then he walked it back later.
Speaker 3 (39:56):
What do you make though of how the Russians and
the Chinese respond to what's transpired in the last twelve days.
Speaker 10 (40:03):
Yeah, I think, by the way, what Medvedev was saying
in that point number three was not Russia transferring nuclear
arms or endorsing that. But the fact that Pakistan is
a country closely aligned with the Islamic cause obviously and
with Iran, and absolutely able to transfer nuclear weapons North
(40:27):
Korea is another case. And I think that's an important point,
by the way, because we've been told that the be
all and end all is Iran's enrichment of uranium. That
is not the true issue at stake here. The true
issue at steak is Israel vulnerable by its own actions
(40:50):
to a nuclear attack on Israel. The answer is yes,
does Israel create more security for itself the way that
it operates, answer is no, it makes Israel more and
more dangerous. Not only did we see obviously that the
Iron Dome ain't so iron and that there were easily
(41:12):
it was not hard to penetrate the air defenses in Israel,
but Israel seems to think that Iran is the end
of the story, and it is not the end of
the story. There are fifty seven countries in the Organization
of Islamic Cooperation that are absolutely dead set against what
Israel is doing. The vast majority of the world is
(41:35):
dead set against it. When you ask about Russia and China,
it is their fundamental purpose not to be thrown under
the bus of the United States. This is the basic point.
They want a multipolar world, not a US dominated world,
and they are succeeding in that because the US does
(41:58):
not have the means, the power, in my view, the interest.
But put that aside, the means or the power to
make a US dominated world, despite what Washington has believed
for more than thirty years. So Russia and China are careful.
China is very precise. I think it is. It's a cliche,
(42:20):
but it's also true that Russia plays chess, China plays go,
and the United States plays poker, one hand at a time,
very quick, not any long term strategy, just to go
for the hand. And I think that China and Russia
bided their time in the first days. But the point
(42:42):
was really Iran was not decapitated and with regime change,
nor was it stopped in its ability to do great
damage inside Israel up until the very last moment, which
really irks the Israelis that it was the last exchange
(43:04):
of missiles in this case was Iran's, and then Israel
tried to violate the timeline and launch another one so
it could be last, and that's when Trump said, no, stop.
We already have an understanding about the chronology. So we
are watching step by step the emerging of a true
multipolar world where other powers that don't love the United States,
(43:30):
they don't hate it, by the way, they just don't
want to be subservient to it. They have nuclear arms,
powerful weapons, the technologies that we have so that we
can't dominate. And Iran is a regional power. It's not
a pushover for Israel by any means. There was no
(43:51):
one strike and it's all over one of the things
that may have happened last week. I don't know, of course,
but net Yau, you know, telling Trump, we can do it,
we can do we can do it. And they did
their decapitation murder's Masad really is a murder machine, of course,
and it did its decapitation strike, and it did not
bring down the regime. And so it probably led Trump
(44:15):
and people around him to say, come on, what you know,
the Israelis have given us a bunch of bs on this.
It didn't change the regime, it didn't and the threats,
and I think that's when Trump heard his base calling,
he heard common sense calling, and he said look, this
(44:36):
isn't going according to plan. And I think the main
point is with Russia and China they were cautious, but
they weren't letting Iran fall by any means. And if
Iran were to be facing a more cataclysmic set of
events in the last few days, I think the reactions
(44:56):
also would have been different.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Interesting to your point about perhaps Israelis were selling and
perhaps they even believed that they would be able to,
you know, create a regime collapse in short time. The
Washing Post got a hold of this leaked audio of
Masad agents calling Israeli generals and saying, you have twelve
hours or else we're going to murder you and your
wife and kids. By the way, and if you want
(45:19):
to avoid that fate, you need to record yourself surrendering.
You need to film this surrender video and send it
to us, which of course would have been used as
propaganda by the Israelis, And as best we know, not
one of them did that, which I think you know,
in and of itself is an indication that they may
have miscalculated the strength of this regime, especially once a
(45:39):
country is bombed like it's very common for people to
rally around the flag. But I wanted to ask you
with regards to Israel. So they have bombed, you know,
they're committing a genocide in Palestine in the Gaza Strip,
they bomb Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Ron, Iraq, and are a nuclear.
Speaker 4 (45:59):
Armed nation out side of the NPT.
Speaker 2 (46:01):
You know, did have a secret nuclear weapons program, and
you know, are a rogue nation. I think by any
characterization at this point, is there going to be any
consequence for them, Like, is there any sort of longer
term consequence for.
Speaker 4 (46:16):
The fact that they have behaved in this.
Speaker 2 (46:18):
Outrageous, barbaric fashion over years at this point and you know,
really made themselves a villain in terms of the eyes
of much of the world.
Speaker 10 (46:30):
I think Israel is in its worst insecurity in its
history by far, because it is utterly isolated in the
international system. I'm sitting just outside the UN. I've been
attending UN Security Council meetings, you own in General Assembly sessions.
(46:51):
You have a ninety five percent of the world population
voting against Israel right now. You have an overwhelming call
for the absolutely practical state of Palestine being established on
the borders of the fourth of June nineteen sixty seven
and Israel learning finally, after decades and decades, it's just
(47:12):
going to have to live alongside the Palestinian people, who
have the same number population as the Israeli Jews. And
this is the most basic point of all. Israel has
no security from all of this. It has achieved nothing
except to wasteland in its neighborhood. And if it wants security,
the only security is to rejoin the Family of Nations.
(47:36):
And the way to do that is straightforward. It's according
to international law, it's according to basic common sense, it's
according to decency, it's according to endless resolutions of the
US Security Council and the UN General Assembly, and that
is that there would be a state of Palestine for
the Palestinian people alongside a state of Israel. And President
(47:57):
Trump actually can make that happen if he wants his
Nobel Peace Prize. It's not by this ceasefire after this
behavior of the last week. It is by a Palestinian
state being established. How does that happen? One vote change
in the UN Security Council. The US vetoed this last
(48:17):
year when it came to a vote in the Security Council,
which is the part of the UN system. Or the
international system that establishes the statehood membership in the UN.
All the United States has to do is to say
we go along with all the rest of the world
and tell Israel, wake up, we're saving you. We're not
(48:39):
hurting you, we are saving you from yourself. However, it's
just crazy what Israel's doing and the idea that this
is any security. I think they should understand that with
apartment buildings in Versheva being destroyed, with Haifa being attacked,
with Tel Aviv being attacked, with the countries outside of
(49:02):
the region like Pakistan and DPRK watching, if Israel thinks
it has any security at all from its brazenness, it
should think again. And by the way, what we saw
in the Mosad tape, which is chilling of course to
listen to, is that Mossad became a killing machine. It's
(49:26):
very skillful at mass and murder. I would say, not
mass murder in the sense that the murder of the
leadership of the Iranian military last week. Yes, that's Mosad's business.
But to have that as your centerpiece of statehood, to
(49:47):
be murder incorporated is not going to get you safety
or security or any sound sleep any day.
Speaker 6 (49:56):
In your in your life.
Speaker 10 (49:57):
Israel needs to rethink fundament mentally this BB strategy, which
goes back to nineteen ninety six when he first became
Prime Minister.
Speaker 2 (50:06):
And I think to your point, they're not going to
rethink it because the public is broadly supportive of the
BB strategy. It has to be forced upon them, and
the United States of America can do that if there
is any will to do it.
Speaker 10 (50:21):
It depends always, it has always depended on the United
States going along. By the way, people should get online
if they haven't done it recently. And look at Natya
Who's speech to the US Congress in two thousand and
two telling him how wonderful the Iraq war is going
to be. Oh, it's a cakewalk. It's it's going to
(50:42):
inspire the whole region. This man is nuts. He's a
failure for thirty years. He's the biggest warmonger on the planet.
If Trump wants a successful presidency, don't sign on to
this idiocy. Do your job, mister president. Make peace in
the region that has to be you give the State
(51:03):
of Palestine along side of the State of Israel, stop
the genocide, and go along with international law.
Speaker 6 (51:09):
It's pretty straightforward. It's there for the taking.
Speaker 3 (51:12):
All right, Well, sir, we always appreciate your analysis. It
was great talking to you. Thank you very much for
joining us.
Speaker 6 (51:17):
Thank you for pleasure to be with you.
Speaker 3 (51:18):
Thank you, Thanks so much for watching, guys, We appreciate it.
Crystal and Emily on the live stream, and then Griffin
and Ryan from New York City covering the mayoral race tonight,
so make sure you tune in for that and we
will see you all later.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com