June 26, 2025 • 39 mins
Krystal and Saagar discuss Mitch McConnell says Americans will get over Medicaid cuts, Bernie and Rogan go off on AIPAC, Liver King arrested.
Scott Horton: https://x.com/scotthortonshow
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. Let's turn down to the one big, beautiful bill.
That's the major tax legislation being pushed by Republicans through.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
The House and the Senate.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
There's been some pretty big developments there, but really it's
the political development of the future of medicaid, which is
the one that is just hanging like a noose around
the Republican's neck. You've got two sides, really, You've got
President Trump and you've got Josh Holly and a few
other Republicans. We're saying we're not going to cut medicaid
we're not going to touch it. And then you've got
others like Senator Mitch McConnell who are like, yeah, people
(01:01):
will get over it. And if you think I'm making
it up, let's put this up there on the screen.
This is leaked from a direct meeting of the Senate Republicans.
Senator Tom Tillis warned GOP senators during a closed door
meeting that Senator Reconciliation Bill would prompt major electoral losses
because similar to Obamacare. Tillis aired concerns with Senate's Senates
Medicaid provider tax framework. The Majority leader John Thune defended it,
(01:25):
saying it's key component for their spending cuts. Separately, Mitch
McConnell said, quote, failure isn't an option. I know a
lot of us are hearing from people back home about Medicaid.
But they'll get over it. They'll get over.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
It, Okay, lot, Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Think so actually, And you know, just to show that
it's not just crazy people like Josh Holly or whatever
that are worried about this, let's put this up there
on the screen.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
From Politico.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
Even the Speaker Mike Johnson, who is not somewhat liberal,
like you know, is saying that Medicaid backlash could be
a serious problem for a lot of the House Republicans
and their majority next year. A lot of this just
comes down to the fact that because they're not willing
to cut the Pentagon and because discretionary spending is just
not that big, like in terms of Doze or wherever.
(02:14):
I think it's probably less than seven percent of the
federal budget, you've got to hit an entitlement program somewhere.
You can't touch Medicare, can't touch Social Security. So they're
going after at quote unquote reforms within Medicaid. But no
matter how which way slice it, it would lead to
less services. And that's of course where the spending cuts
are coming from, and that is one of the most
(02:35):
tangible ways which particularly lower middle class Americans and more
interact with the federal government for spending. It would just
be such a massive own goal, especially in the realm
of war with Iran and a trillion dollar Pentagon budget,
to show what the priorities are. Not to mention the
fact that extends many of those tax cuts from the TCJA,
(03:00):
which had lowered the taxes for the wealthiest income brackets.
There's also the salt provision, which continues to be battled
out within there, but Medicaid is like the number one thing,
and actually outside of Iran, I think this one is
breaking through. This is one of those where it's like
the Social Security thing. It's a service that people use.
By the way, my Social Security card for my daughter
(03:20):
took forever to come, thank you Elon. Oh yeah, it's
like a tangible thing. I was like, where is the
damn card I needed to sign up for help insurance?
But just goes to show you these are things people
actually need to use all segments of society, and so
that really, especially combined with a tax cut, it's just.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
A brutal headline for the Republicans.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Brutally even came Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer can figure out.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
How to message this. Yeah, that's right, you know, a
giant tax cut.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
You are losing your health care so that rich people
can get a tax cut. That's the promise of this bill.
And that's why some Republicans are wise enough to realize
this could be a political problem. I mean, I think
a lot of them realize. But remember, the vast majority
of the Republican caucus are incredibly safe seats, so they're
not worried about it. You have you know, the number
(04:08):
of swing states has like shrunk and shrunken trunks, so
you have a comparatively small number. And then they're terrified
of just getting crosswise from Trump with Trump because you know,
they see what he's doing to Thomas Massey right now
in the way he's aggressively going after we didn't even
get a chance to cover this.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
He set up an entire pack to.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Spend money against Thomas Massey to try to defeat him
because of his you know, defines over a number of issues,
but including the you know, illegal strikes on Iran, illegal
war waged against Iran. So you know, they know what
happens when you get crosswise with Trump, and so they're fearful,
even the ones who are in districts that are potentially
(04:44):
winnabowled by a Democrat.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yeah, that's right, and so let's go to the next one, please,
and just on the screen, just you underscore a lot
of this. This is D three and it shows all
of the polling. So this is from Fox News, by
the way, and that's why we picked it. So can
you understand what's in the bill sixty percent of Ye,
that's actually a lot. I'm pretty shocked that people are
paying attention that much. But here's the most devastating one,
your opinion. Sixty percent say they oppose, thirty eight percent
(05:07):
say that they favor for your family, the big beautiful
bill will quote make no difference, twenty six percent, twenty
three percent help, forty nine percent say it will hurt.
It's not exactly true, just because outside of Medicaid, it's
mostly extending tax cuts that were already passed. That's why
it's kind of funny seeing the Republican messaging. They're like,
if we don't do this, it will be a massive
(05:29):
tax hike. I'm like, well, no, it'll revert back to
the original tax of twenty sixteen. But what most people
don't actually pay them much attention to taxes. It's really
about services that broadly is one of the ones that
we're watching. So for example, let's put guys D four
up on the screen. This is about the process that
(05:49):
has happened inside of the Senate, and that's broadly where
these Medicaid stuff has come into play, because a lot
of the spending cuts are coming from the program. President
Trump actually spoke with a reporter today saying he was
against that. But then on top of that, and I
know this sounds like very in the Wieze. What it
really matters is that just this morning, the Senate parliamentarian
(06:09):
has quote struck a whole bunch of critical health provisions
from the bill, including the provider tax framework. Effectively, what
that means is it screws with many of the ways
they were going to pay and fund their tax or
their tax extension and their spending cuts. And so what
(06:30):
that would mean is would increase the deficit score. Now,
if it increases the deficit score outside of the Senate bill,
that will then move to the House. We're already you
had a lot of Freedom Caucus Republicans bucking at the
fact that the deficit was going to increase as a
result of this. So you got two kind of opposing
forces at work. And most importantly is that President Trump
(06:51):
has said he does not want Congress. We can put
that D five please on the screen. President Trump has
said nobody's leaving Washington until the mega tax bill is done.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
He wants to pass by July fourth.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
This makes that a hell of a lot more difficult
because they just lost a lot of their pay fors.
They're going to be in parliamentary hell for the next
week now, basically, and what that means is that they're
going to have to scramble and find some other stuff
to do that's going to run up against the House
Republicans in the Freedom caucuss and of course it just
makes not only is it more chaotic, but it's more
likely they're going to have to cut even deeper from
(07:24):
some other type of social program and find some other
way just to pay for tax cut, which people at
home are all paying attention to.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
A couple other provisions that the Parliamentarian has said cannot
be included in this reconciliation bill that are noteworthy. Number One,
we had mentioned before and covered before the fact that
in the House version there was effectively a provision that
is meant to make it difficult or impossible for federal
courts to enforce contempt charges against the federal government. The
(07:53):
Parliamentarian has said you can't do that. The Senate had
a slightly modified version. It would have required plaintiffs to
post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary
injunctions or impose temporary restraining orders against the federal government.
The House version had to do with contempt orders in
any case, she said, none of this can go in
this bill, so that is probably being stripped down. Another
(08:14):
couple that are really noteworthy. There was a provision that
would reduce the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that's basically the
anti scam Bureau funding to zero. That also was deemed
to not qualify for reconciliation. And there was another proposal
that would put the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which
is the US audit watchdog, into the SEC that again
(08:35):
was deemed not eligible for the reconciliation process. So these
are some of these provisions. The Court one is actually
quite significant, and the CFPB one also very significant. So
the fact they won't make it into reconciliation matters a lot.
But also to Sager's point, you know, as they go
through all these things, there was also a piece they
were trying to sell off all the US postal services
a new electric vehicle fleet and charging infrastructure, which I
(08:58):
can't imagine they were going to make like that much
money on it, but that was another one of their
pay for that also got that also got taken out
of the bill. So I'm sorry, you won't be able
to purchase one of the USPS electric.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Take it for pennies on the dollar. That sounds pretty
fun actually roll around in the electric post office.
Speaker 5 (09:15):
I mean.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
One of the weirdest things is I actually love not
even just electric vehicles, but resto mod stuff like stuff
that's electric, like a golf cart, you know, and things
like that.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
They're just fun to drive.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Like, be honest, at this point, a check relationship with
golf carts.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
I don't blame you.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
I don't blame you, but I enjoy him. I enjoy
seeing him around. Let's move on to Bernie, shall we.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Yeah, so Bernie Sanders went back on with Joe Rogan.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
I did.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Actually, I sort of skimmed through the whole conversation and
there was a long stretch that was interesting but kind
of you know, went on for a long time about
like AI and what do we do about this and
how do people find meanings?
Speaker 4 (09:52):
So that was a lot of it.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Also, Bernie just doing his normal Bernie thing talking about
healthcare and the millionaires the billionaires was also a good
part of it. There are a couple pieces that I
found pretty interesting. One of them is where Bernie is
talking about Connerson Massey and some of the some of
the attitude he's taken towards the Iran war in particular,
and you get Joe's response to that.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
So let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
I mentioned there's a guy named and knows firstly miss
the Massi is the name Thomas mass Toms from Kentucky.
And this guy, as I am, is opposed to this
war in Iran. Just yesterday, Trump gave a long post
about how they're going to primary this guy. And what
bothers me is you would hope that there would be
(10:35):
respect enough for members of Congress that you can vote
your own conscience. You could represent your constituency. Every district
is different than America. But right now, anybody stands up
and say, well, you know, I disagree with President Trump,
bamp you off finished, We're going to primary you. We
got all kinds of money.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
You're out of there. That happened to Massi yesterday.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
So I thought that was pretty interesting that coming up.
And you know Trump's attempt to punish Thomas, which we
were just talking about, and Thomas Massiw's been peeking out
a lot about APAC and I think it's been really important.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
He's also raised about million five in the last week,
so mass he's crushing it right now.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Yeah, I mean, I think that his speaking out on
a pack in particular, coming from a Republican who has
a lot of credibility, you know, is certain he's an
ideological libertarian, but he has a lot of credibility with
a pretty significant swath of the Republican Party, and for
him to be talking about the influence of this lobby
and the way that it works, I think has been
really significant broken through to people like Joe Rogan and
(11:33):
others where you know, I mean the left, we're always
talking about money in politics. Born He's always talking about
money and politics. It really does land a lot when
you have someone from the right who is making that
kind of a critique.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
There was another moment here that I thought was interesting
that I wanted to get your reaction to Sager where
Joe is talking about how he sees the divisions within
MAGA right now again about war, and I run, let's
go ahead and take a list of that part.
Speaker 7 (11:56):
I think the whole MAGA thing right now, I was
very divided, particularly because one of the things that they
voted for was no war. Well, now it seems like
we're in a war, right so, and it's quick. We're
six months in and that's already popped off. And then
people are very concerned with now what happens to our
(12:17):
troops overseas they are in these bases that are in
vulnerable positions, and what happens with I mean, there's supposedly
documented paracels that got in through the open border over
the last four years. So what happens now in America,
what happens on American soil?
Speaker 5 (12:36):
No, I'm mean I agree with those When a guy.
Speaker 7 (12:38):
Like Thomas Massey steps up and says something, he's gonna
have a lot more support as well.
Speaker 5 (12:45):
The d says yes. And my only point is he
has a right.
Speaker 6 (12:49):
Yes, you know, somebody else says, hey, I think the
war is a great I thought, that's right, you got
to go back.
Speaker 5 (12:53):
But what bothers me is that.
Speaker 6 (12:55):
If anybody stands up the next day, we're going to primary.
You're out of here, man, And that's the Republicans. Let
me talk about the Democrats for a moment, okay, And
I don't even know you have views on this, so
you may disagree with me, you know, Israel was attacked
by Ramas is a terrible terrorist organization. They killed twelve
hundred people, which in a small country like Israel's a
(13:15):
lot of people.
Speaker 5 (13:16):
Terrible, terrible attack. It's a war crime. Israel had a.
Speaker 6 (13:20):
Right, in my view, to defend itself, but the Netagnyahu
government did not have a right to kill fifty two
thousand people in Gaza wound over well over one hundred thousand,
and right now as we speak, Joe, children are starving
to death because of Israel's Blockasier starving to death. And
(13:44):
I brought forth two resolutions which basically were very simple,
and said no more US military aid to Israel under
these conditions. One vote got fifteen votes in the Senate
that the other one got sixteen. Do you think that
members of the Senate do not know what's going on
(14:05):
in Gauza? The kids are sloving to death, the innocent
people being shot down right and left.
Speaker 5 (14:10):
They know it. Why do you think I couldn't get
more votes?
Speaker 7 (14:13):
They wouldn't vote against Israel?
Speaker 5 (14:15):
Right, it's political suicide that now you're talking.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Right, all right?
Speaker 6 (14:19):
So in the Republican side, you have moneyed insurant saying
you speak up against Trump, you're out here in the
Democratic side. You speak up against the new government, you're
out of here as well. And they have been successful.
You have super packs like APAC spending a fortune. You
stand and they already knocked off a number of members
of good members of Congress, and they will do it again.
(14:40):
So all I'm saying is, you got a corrupt campaign
finance system on both sides.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
So what do you think of that?
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Well, that's what makes Burnie good at this right, is
that he's talking both about those sides, and he also
gets Joe to kind of agree with him.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
I mean, you know, it's funny.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
This is where the analysis just always and I understand
why people do this, But the MAGA base is an
actual thing.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
It's not just like something you talk about.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
I'm talking about people who love Donald Trump and say
that he is more important to them than the Republican Party.
That is not really the podcast audience really at all.
Most of those people are boomers, rural, working class voters
who mostly just like, don't vote for anything else than
they just love Trump. Now, outside of that is more
of what I would say is the MAHA base, And this.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Would probably be a more accurate way of talking about it.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Who are a lot more podcast aligned and who are
a lot more libertarian. Those are the people I put
Dave Smith into that category, maybe Candae Owens, probably Joe himself,
who were attracted to Trump for more of those element
Tulci Gabbard as well that if anybody's quote been betrayed,
I would say it's that segment of that audience. Now,
I'm not gonna sit here and claim that that's a
(15:45):
meaningful fifty or sixty percent or whatever of the Republican electorate, but.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
It is a new part.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
And it's also Look, when you win the popular vote,
you do so with a coalition. You have magas old
They're never going to go anywhere. That's not the point.
MAGA is not ever going to go anywhere. The boomer
Republicans are going to vote Republican no matter what the
way you win the popular vote. Always some really interesting
coalitional groups, Maha people, and also some of these more
(16:12):
anti war voters. You know, we were going to do
a segment before the Iran war end.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Ended whatever, at least paused for now about polling.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
But you know, these anti war Muslims in Dearborn. It
was not nothing that put him over the edge. That's
how you win x amount of electoral votes. And so
I think we need to be more accurate in terms
of the type of voter who is out there. Again,
I would never claim that this is a huge percentage,
but it can be your margin of victory, and I
think we should start thinking about it in those terms.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
To me, the way I've been talking about it is
the magabase versus independence. You know, independence, who swung to
Trump and that's what gives him this victory and gives
him the popular vote margin, et cetera. And I think
they're the ones who are up for grabs, and you know,
independence overall. If you're looking at the look at the polling,
people who don't identify as Republicans, don't identify Democrats, they
(17:01):
are not happy about the strikes. You know, the numbers
are significantly underwater. They're overwhelmingly underwater among Democrats, they are
significantly underwater among independents. Among Republicans, they all basically support him.
CBS did a to your point about like parsing that
the MAGA base. CBS did a poll separating out all
(17:22):
self described Republicans from self described MAGA Republicans and among
all Republicans, the strikes were supported eighty five to fifteen,
so still quite overwhelming among MAGA Republicans. Actually, the support
is even higher. Ninety four percent of the MAGA Republican base.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
Supported these strikes.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
So the accuracy in the language is something that's been
bugging me too, because if you say the magabase is
divided like they're not, the magabase is ninety four percent
in favor of these air strikes. They shifted before Trump
did it. There was a little bit more descent, a
little bit more. Once he did it, they were all
on board. And that is what we've seen. You know,
(18:05):
there is not a core ideology here. The core commitment
is to Donald Trump and what he does, what he says,
defines where MAGA is going to be. And that is
just reality that we've seen time and time and time
and time again. This is not the first time that
Donald Trump has claimed he was going to go in
one direction and then ultimately gone in the other direction.
(18:25):
And we've seen the MAGA base every single time find
a way to justify it.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Because Trump did it, ergo, it must ultimately be good.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Probably the most heated exchange over the course of The
interview came towards the end when Bernie seeks to bring
up some of Trump's authoritarian tactics and Joe starts to
get a little a little you know, it gets a
little more contentious here where Bernie is specifically talking about
some of the lawsuits and the attacks on free speech
(18:53):
by Trump, some of the lawsuits that he has waged
against various media companies. Let's go ahead and take a
listen this one on for a little while. But let's
go ahead and take a listen to a section of.
Speaker 5 (19:01):
This and what I worry about Trump?
Speaker 8 (19:04):
And is.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
You're right?
Speaker 6 (19:07):
You know, I read it is astounding. Back in the
seventeen eighties when these guys wrote the Constitution, how perceptive they.
Speaker 5 (19:13):
Were amazing, Yeah, I mean they.
Speaker 7 (19:15):
Understanding of human desires and the power the corruption exactly
pretty amazing.
Speaker 6 (19:23):
And they wrote that having just fought a war and
won a war against the most powerful despot on earth,
the King of England, right right, And I think in
the back of their minds was saying, all right, we
just beat the King of England absolute power. How do
you create a new country which has checks and balance
so that nobody ever.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
Has that power? Right? And I got to say.
Speaker 6 (19:45):
I mean, one of the things that there's a lot
of arguments about Trump that worries me very very much,
is this movement toward authoritarianism and going after media, suing media,
taking away the authority that Congress has.
Speaker 7 (20:02):
When you say suing media, are you talking about the
CBS laws? But don't you think there's a real issue
with what they did. No, we don't think that there's
a real issue in editing conversations to give someone an
answer I have different than what they really answered.
Speaker 6 (20:18):
Joe, I've been on eight zillion shows right in my life? Okay, Okay,
Now should I sue you? You asked me some sloopy
question that I don't like, right, or that you do something?
Speaker 5 (20:30):
Shall I sue you? Yeah?
Speaker 7 (20:32):
But that's not what he's getting.
Speaker 6 (20:33):
Well here sued He hassued ABC. He hassued Meta. He
issuing the Des Moines Register because of a poll that
came out during the campaign that he didn't like. All right,
he issuing CBS for this Kamala Harris interview.
Speaker 5 (20:49):
So do I think.
Speaker 6 (20:52):
How many I cannot tell you the number of stories
done about me that were based that we're not good stories? Right,
that we're dishonest stories. That's what a free press is about.
You don't like it, you got to live with it.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
So, you know, Bernie is sort of making the broader
point about the authoritarian tactics, and Joe is.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
I mean, Joe's.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Supposed to be a free speech guy, but then he's
down with these lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
I mean, I think the reason I understand is he's
probably deeply fed up with a lot of In fact,
I find this with a lot of rich guys who
are like relatively well known as they get pissed about
the media, And I actually understand.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
But the point is, is that too.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Right, Like I've literally had lies written about me multiple times,
and it's like, well, you know, uh, that's part I
think it's more useful to explain the principle. And I
haven't listened fully to the interviews. I don't know if
Bernie gets to this, but the point of the way
that the standard is set currently is that you have
to be able to prove as a public figure their
(21:51):
will like their willful knowledge that they knew what they
were saying was a lie at the time, and then
you have to be able to show a damage. Now,
the reason why it's set that way is from New
York Times or was it New York Times versus Sullivan
case at the Supreme Court back in the nineteen seventies,
because we actually used to live in a much more
censorious press. And the way that that current legal doctrine
looks like is Britain, And in Britain they actually have
(22:12):
a much lower standard for the ability to sue over
defamation and libel, and in my opinion, I don't think
that nearly an adversarial culture enough. You have much more
of like the power veto of somebody coming in and
saying no, that's not going to happen. And the reason
why I think that standard is important from a media
person who works in this is it preserves the ability
to report things that are off the cuff, on the
(22:35):
fly first draft of history. Of course, there are going
to be errors. As long as you have an editorial
process in place, and you can also demonstrate that what
you're trying to do is not willfully lie about somebody,
then it should be an extremely high standard to make
sure that you can disseminate.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
That level of information.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
And if that didn't exist, you genuinely would have just
a lot less of people. Okay, let's create to a
great example, this Iran intelligence story. Right, the Trump administration
is saying that they're trying to libel these pilots.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
You can see it's that's bullshit. That's not what's happening.
Speaker 6 (23:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
They took facts and they reported it.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
They're not willfully trying to a libel or defame the
pilots or taking information and they're putting it out into
the public. But people should know that prior to that
Solivan decision, and really to the Pentagon papers, that story
would never would have seen the light of day. You
and I would have no idea that that was actually
the case. Well, and I think we're better off.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Let's take that one step further because this gets to
the next point, which is that what happened with ABC
News and with CBS is because they didn't want to
get crosswise of the Trump administration, they didn't go forward
and fight.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
That's what those They could have taken it to trial
and they absolutely would have won they one, but.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
They decided they would rather effectively pay a bribe to
exactly so that their business deals could go through. And
Bernie does get to this point, their business deals can
go through and they're not going to get messed with,
et cetera.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
And so even though.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
You know, when they're out there saying, oh, these the
New York Times are whever is libeling these pilots, even
though that's obviously a bullshit and spurious claim. Because of
the track record of all of these media lawsuits and
the fact that these corporate entities are very willing to
bend the knee and capitulate and pay the bribe rather
than have their business messed with, it does it does
(24:19):
act as an effective check on the press because they
have that hanging over their head. We saw the way
that sixty minutes the fallout over there and their desire,
the leadership's desire there for them not to go too
far in terms of their Trump criticism so that they
wouldn't their larger business entity wouldn't get crosswise with them.
And so that's the point that Bernie is trying to make.
(24:41):
And you know, on the specifics of like the CBS
News I think was the one where there was an
edit of Kamala Harris that like made Kamala look better.
I mean, you can criticize the dur like as we did, yes,
but also news outlets edit interviews all the.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Time, right, not us.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Just so Fox News, I'm not gonna say we've never
edited an interview, like I don't know.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
If I'm not sure it's ever.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
I don't know if we have.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
But like, theoretically you could have mented, you know, the
okay that question like didn't we don't have time whatever?
But Fox News edited that interview with Trump, yes, where
to make his Epstein answer look better? Like Shakamala sue
Fox News over storing the election because they hid from
the audience the fact that Trump gave a really poor
answer on Jeffrey Epstein that actually raised a lot of questions. No,
(25:27):
she should complain about it, fine, But the idea you
should sue them or any other news outlet that edits
an interview a way that you don't find to be
advantageous for you or you find to be advantageous for
your opponent, that is ridiculous. I mean, it is completely absurd.
But again, the broader piece here is part and parcel
(25:48):
of this, you know, series of authoritarian tactics that are
used to force media organizations to trim their sales, to
not critique as much. Should be afraid of these lawsuits
to pay tribute to the king goes with the universe.
The proach to universities goes the approach to law firms,
and you know, is sort of like part and parcel
of this project. And that is really the important point
(26:09):
to make here versus even getting into the nitty gurty.
I mean the detail, sure they matter, but getting into
the nitty gritty of the lawsuits isn't really the point.
It's that bigger picture that is what really matters.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
I don't disagree, but I also think that part of
the problem this is actually I mean, I think Trump
is you know, what he does is he takes everything
to the nth degree. But the truth is is that
government has always used its leverage over these massive corporations
to influence media. And what we can see, like for example,
let's take CBS.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
CBS is owned.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
By Paramount Right and Paramount is now being sold to
sky Dance. Well see Sherry Redstone, who was the head
of Paramount, who is by the way, massive pro zionist
jew That's part of the reason she's interfering in CBS
sixty minutes, and also because she wants her merger to
go through, which is like Paramount studios in Hollywood. Yeah,
(27:00):
thus is trying to placate Trump over here. That's, by
the way, is again this is not just Trump. This
is the tail as old as time. The Bush administration
did this on a rat coverage back in the mid
two thousands. They've we've seen significant pressure in the past.
For example, I read Jack Welch's book, or a book
about Jack Welch, and he would never sell CNBC because
(27:20):
he was like, you don't understand. CNBC cost me x
amount of money, but its value to General Electric as
a company because of the ability to manipulate the stock
market and to influence all policy discussion is immense. Bloomberg
same thing. Bloomberg Terminal owns Bloomberg News. So really, I
think it's also a story of like corporate consolidation control
(27:41):
over media because of course the government and presidents and
that will use their leverage on those organizations.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
We've seen it threatened in the past.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
Mixon famously as well, would threaten their businesses and their
permits and all these other things.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
That won't be able to go through.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
It's part of the reason why you know, with the
Internet and more independent models, it actually you genuinely can
get a little bit more freedom. But yeah, I mean,
it's such a big story that it is important. Yeah,
people don't understand that.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
I just I was that's all accurate.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
I've never seen a president sue a media company overall
pole they didn't like.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
But that's Trump is like Trump just goes all out. Okay,
I want to say full something else, but I'll save it.
But like, that's that's what he does. But I'm just
he's less subtle about it. I guess I'm only just
contextualizing it in that so that people should understand that.
You know, I mean remember when Bernie what did he
say on the campaign trail about Washington Post?
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Yeah, and he was a who's that own? He's a
who's that owned by? Something like that? And everyone freaked
out at him.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
But it's just so obvious now, you know, the way
that this all and the way that they use their
media companies as tools for their broader empire. Bezos yesterday
rolled out a new policy where sources who disagree with
the way a story was framed are able to email
in their comments about a story.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Yeah, why do you think he did that?
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Okay, all right, let's let's let's wonder a little bit
about why these things.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Well, here's what I would say is different, and then
we can get to the liver King story, which also
directly involves Shrogan and also involves us. Potentially what Trump
has made has done differently with his administration. I did
a long monologue about this previously.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
Is there is.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
No longer even the appearance or clean claim or pretensive neutrality.
Everyone knows if you get crosswise with Trump, he will
get the DOJ after you.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
He will pull your funding.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
And whether it's Department of Education, whether it's your federal
you know, emergency, whatever it is, it is not.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
There is no pretext of neutrality. It's versa.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
You're so, you're completely accurate about that. So previously, I
remember in the Obama administration, is big scandal that you know,
allegedly there were tax statuses being revoked by the I R.
S in a political manner. This is a giant scandal. Okay,
this would go unremarked upon. I don't even know there'd
be a news article about it. But like it's it's
just that woman's name is Lowest Learner lowis it is
(29:58):
so that is what has truly been transformed about the
government under Trump is everyone expects that every single aspect,
every agency, every agency had every lever that they can
use against you, they will. And so that means that,
you know, if Trump threatens to sue you, that carries
(30:18):
a lot of power. If they're going out, if they're
university that they're going after, if it's a state they're
going after, it contains even more power.
Speaker 4 (30:26):
Not that it hasn't always been.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
You know, the federal government has always had a lot
of power, but now there's not even a pretense of
neutrality whatsoever. So they can go after and it is
barely even a scandal that they're doing it in a
politically motivated way. So that's what I think is, you know,
has that's what the rubicon Trump has truly crossed, and
you know, a way in which he has truly changed
(30:50):
the nature of the relationship that people expect from the
federal government vis a vis the citizens and civil societies.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Yeah, I don't really disagree with any of that. Let's
get over to Liver King, shall we?
Speaker 1 (31:05):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (31:06):
Again, just to bring it full circle, because we were
in the Liver King documentary and this also involves Joe
Rogan and it's a fun story to end on. After
an insane couple of weeks, liver King has found himself
under arrest in the city of Austin. Let's go ahead
and put some of that video up there on the
screen after issuing quote terroristic threats against Joe Rogan, I
(31:31):
mean liver King. His real name is Brian Johnson, as
revealed in the documentary and as he often would talk
about on his social media platform. And let's be honest,
this guy has totally lost it. He appears, he looks terrible.
Who knows exactly what's going on with him, whether he's
on something or whether he's withdrawing from the steroids that
he admitted to taking after lying to everybody about not
(31:53):
taking steroids. But the point actually as a sociological phenomenon
is important to see because, I mean, liver King is
a bullshit artist. I mean, this is a guy who
again lied about taking steroids, sold I think it was
like one hundred million dollars or something like that in supplements.
He pulled off a bunch of stunts to popularize the
carnivore diet. Fine, but really was like selling a vision
(32:16):
and lifestyle a centered around a body, which is just
fundamentally he was lying about and everybody kind of knew
he was lying, but the proof eventually being released by
my friend Derek over at More Plates, More Dates, just
really revealed him to be a total fraud and he
tried to have his whole redemption arc. But I mean,
what this just like demonstrates is also, you know, so
(32:37):
many people were looking.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Up to Liver King at that time.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
It's important to remember, you know that a huge part
of his audience was like teenage males who weren't really
able to discern a lot of this, And so, you know,
in the hopes of being able to show people what
the downside of frankly unhinged, you know, lying personality of
somebody who's willing to perpetrate you know, first of all,
like this massive attention grab, all this ridiculous shit that
(33:01):
he was doing, but also look at the downside of this,
you know, like he's literally melting down on his Instagram
page now being arrested by the police and is obviously unhinged,
Like he looks terrible.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
I genuinely hope he gets the help that he needs.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
He needs to be committed his wife and his kids.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Like you guys need to step up here.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Man because this is a crash out of epic proportions, Like, yeah,
take control because this is this is not good.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
You know whatever, I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
I watched the documentary last night about him that Sager's
monologue like builds to a crescendo and it wraps up
with Sager's monologue. Also, my voice is briefly in it
as well. From our last our Joe Rogan appearance, I
forgot that we talked about too, and Joe's like, yeah,
I knew he was a fraudunum like, oh, just based
on how he looks. So in any case, we you know,
we've been following it. He was obviously not on my readers.
(33:49):
I wasn't really the key demographic that they were going after.
But what jumps out in the documentaries, First of all,
you feel terrible for these boys.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
His I do I use his props to basically sell.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
And all this weird shit he has them do. I mean,
I've felt I feel bad for those kids. I think
we need to get like child influenced, like parents using
kids as influencers. There needs to be laws and regulation
around this because it is sickening. It really, It's a
huge industry and it's grotesque, and you know so first
(34:21):
and foremost you feel bad for these kids. Secondly, you
are wondering what is the like the wife is just
going along with all of this, like what is happening?
And then third was it was so disturbing to me
that this is someone who so many young men looked
up to as a role model when this person is
the polar opposite of who.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
A role model should be.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
I mean, now he's had the full mental break, but
this was not a well person. And obviously his whole
thing is built on a lie. He is a con artist.
It is complete fraud. I mean, I think a lot
of his Ora joint and story too is probably a fraud,
which involved his kids.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
By the ways, you.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Can't take any of this for granted now, because his
big selling point was I look like this because of
these nine ancestral principles or whatever tenant and yeah, nine
ancestral tenants. And that was all total and complete bullshit.
And it wasn't like he just didn't answer the question.
Multiple podcasts you'd go on and they'd say, oh, absolutely not. No,
(35:23):
I know, people can't believe I love when I get
this question, but no, it's all natural and you need
to stop limiting yourself and believing that this isn't possible
for you too. Blah blah blah. So this is a
con artist, charlatan, a fraud, someone who is clearly like
deeply insecure and in some sort of mental anxiety, anguish,
et cetera, and becomes an icon and a role.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
Model for millions.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
I mean, it does bring you back to the point
of like we have to do some self reflection about
what state young men are in that this would be
appealing to them, and so many people will gravitate to
such an obvious charlatan. So that was the piece for me.
And you know, I've watched a bunch of the videos
of him, just like hunting Joe Rogan throughout Austin, and
(36:07):
I think effectively like he has in his mental collapse,
fixated like a stalker on Rogan as the source of
his downfall because Joe had said, you know, several things
about him.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
He was the most prominent person to be like that
guy's a liar.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
Before it even officially came out. And then he had
Derek on the podcast to go through all of the
like you know, total evidence, like the you know, the
leaked emails and everything that just proved that he absolutely
was a fraud and a liar. And so it seems
like this guy is completely fixated on Joe.
Speaker 4 (36:39):
He's hunting him.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
He shows up in Austin, he's making these direct threats,
and he's carrying around this briefcase that has Joe's like
the Joe Rogan Experience logo, which includes his face of
course on it, and at one point he opens it
briefly and if you do like freeze frame of what's
inside of it, there's at least one gun in there.
Speaker 4 (36:59):
Yeah, and he's saying.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
You know all, he's saying he wants to fight him,
and he's coming after him and all of these sorts
of things. So I think that's what probably led to
them feeling like, Okay, we've got enough that we've got
to arrest this guy.
Speaker 4 (37:11):
But yeah, he no, I'm actually get glad.
Speaker 3 (37:13):
I'm glad that they arrested him, because you can't just
be rolling around threatening people with guns. Oh social media.
I mean, look, we have some video of this. I
much play it for you.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
You got to do me. This guy's lost it. Okay,
let's let's watch.
Speaker 8 (37:27):
Because Joe Rogan we don't have to make videos to
pretend anymore. All of this is happening. We're coming to you.
I've challenged you man to man to a fight, honorable,
and we don't have to pretend or make any videos.
The world is watching. They'll make the videos for us.
And you don't have to hold a camera. You can
(37:50):
hold the hand of somebody that you love. Because what
happens next to you, you're going to need to remember
that feeling. You're going to need something more than what
you did to give you something to fight for, because
I have my family to fight for. So what warriors
do you? And Andrew Tate are good warrior, good warriors,
but you're actually better than that real tension. We have comedy.
(38:10):
Comedy that you do is good and true.
Speaker 3 (38:13):
Yeah, it's creepy, man, I mean beyond creepy, it's terrifying, honestly,
So I'm glad that they pressed charges because this type
of behavior is just ridiculous. And yeah, honestly, we all
hope Brian, not the liver King, gets the help that
he deserves.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Yeah, I mean, look at those pupils. One is like
triple the size of the other. There's a lot going
on there and yeah he needs he needs mental help.
That's very clear. And frankly, like the kids are one thing.
Like you know, I don't know what age they are
at this point, but this is their dad, et cetera.
But shame on his wife and his handlers and whoever's
getting paid by him whatever for letting it get to this,
(38:49):
letting it get to this point. Letting it get to
this point is just absolutely.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
It's sad, all right.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
Maybe they can play this in the follow up documentary.
This is can be volume the liver King Down, shall
we Right, it's been a great week. Thank you all
so much. There'll be a great Friday show for everybody tomorrow,
but otherwise we will see you all next week.
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. Let's turn down to the one big, beautiful bill.
That's the major tax legislation being pushed by Republicans through.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
The House and the Senate.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
There's been some pretty big developments there, but really it's
the political development of the future of medicaid, which is
the one that is just hanging like a noose around
the Republican's neck. You've got two sides, really, You've got
President Trump and you've got Josh Holly and a few
other Republicans. We're saying we're not going to cut medicaid
we're not going to touch it. And then you've got
others like Senator Mitch McConnell who are like, yeah, people
(01:01):
will get over it. And if you think I'm making
it up, let's put this up there on the screen.
This is leaked from a direct meeting of the Senate Republicans.
Senator Tom Tillis warned GOP senators during a closed door
meeting that Senator Reconciliation Bill would prompt major electoral losses
because similar to Obamacare. Tillis aired concerns with Senate's Senates
Medicaid provider tax framework. The Majority leader John Thune defended it,
(01:25):
saying it's key component for their spending cuts. Separately, Mitch
McConnell said, quote, failure isn't an option. I know a
lot of us are hearing from people back home about Medicaid.
But they'll get over it. They'll get over.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
It, Okay, lot, Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 3 (01:41):
Think so actually, And you know, just to show that
it's not just crazy people like Josh Holly or whatever
that are worried about this, let's put this up there
on the screen.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
From Politico.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
Even the Speaker Mike Johnson, who is not somewhat liberal,
like you know, is saying that Medicaid backlash could be
a serious problem for a lot of the House Republicans
and their majority next year. A lot of this just
comes down to the fact that because they're not willing
to cut the Pentagon and because discretionary spending is just
not that big, like in terms of Doze or wherever.
(02:14):
I think it's probably less than seven percent of the
federal budget, you've got to hit an entitlement program somewhere.
You can't touch Medicare, can't touch Social Security. So they're
going after at quote unquote reforms within Medicaid. But no
matter how which way slice it, it would lead to
less services. And that's of course where the spending cuts
are coming from, and that is one of the most
(02:35):
tangible ways which particularly lower middle class Americans and more
interact with the federal government for spending. It would just
be such a massive own goal, especially in the realm
of war with Iran and a trillion dollar Pentagon budget,
to show what the priorities are. Not to mention the
fact that extends many of those tax cuts from the TCJA,
(03:00):
which had lowered the taxes for the wealthiest income brackets.
There's also the salt provision, which continues to be battled
out within there, but Medicaid is like the number one thing,
and actually outside of Iran, I think this one is
breaking through. This is one of those where it's like
the Social Security thing. It's a service that people use.
By the way, my Social Security card for my daughter
(03:20):
took forever to come, thank you Elon. Oh yeah, it's
like a tangible thing. I was like, where is the
damn card I needed to sign up for help insurance?
But just goes to show you these are things people
actually need to use all segments of society, and so
that really, especially combined with a tax cut, it's just.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
A brutal headline for the Republicans.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Brutally even came Jeffreys and Chuck Schumer can figure out.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
How to message this. Yeah, that's right, you know, a
giant tax cut.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
You are losing your health care so that rich people
can get a tax cut. That's the promise of this bill.
And that's why some Republicans are wise enough to realize
this could be a political problem. I mean, I think
a lot of them realize. But remember, the vast majority
of the Republican caucus are incredibly safe seats, so they're
not worried about it. You have you know, the number
(04:08):
of swing states has like shrunk and shrunken trunks, so
you have a comparatively small number. And then they're terrified
of just getting crosswise from Trump with Trump because you know,
they see what he's doing to Thomas Massey right now
in the way he's aggressively going after we didn't even
get a chance to cover this.
Speaker 4 (04:22):
He set up an entire pack to.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
Spend money against Thomas Massey to try to defeat him
because of his you know, defines over a number of issues,
but including the you know, illegal strikes on Iran, illegal
war waged against Iran. So you know, they know what
happens when you get crosswise with Trump, and so they're fearful,
even the ones who are in districts that are potentially
(04:44):
winnabowled by a Democrat.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yeah, that's right, and so let's go to the next one, please,
and just on the screen, just you underscore a lot
of this. This is D three and it shows all
of the polling. So this is from Fox News, by
the way, and that's why we picked it. So can
you understand what's in the bill sixty percent of Ye,
that's actually a lot. I'm pretty shocked that people are
paying attention that much. But here's the most devastating one,
your opinion. Sixty percent say they oppose, thirty eight percent
(05:07):
say that they favor for your family, the big beautiful
bill will quote make no difference, twenty six percent, twenty
three percent help, forty nine percent say it will hurt.
It's not exactly true, just because outside of Medicaid, it's
mostly extending tax cuts that were already passed. That's why
it's kind of funny seeing the Republican messaging. They're like,
if we don't do this, it will be a massive
(05:29):
tax hike. I'm like, well, no, it'll revert back to
the original tax of twenty sixteen. But what most people
don't actually pay them much attention to taxes. It's really
about services that broadly is one of the ones that
we're watching. So for example, let's put guys D four
up on the screen. This is about the process that
(05:49):
has happened inside of the Senate, and that's broadly where
these Medicaid stuff has come into play, because a lot
of the spending cuts are coming from the program. President
Trump actually spoke with a reporter today saying he was
against that. But then on top of that, and I
know this sounds like very in the Wieze. What it
really matters is that just this morning, the Senate parliamentarian
(06:09):
has quote struck a whole bunch of critical health provisions
from the bill, including the provider tax framework. Effectively, what
that means is it screws with many of the ways
they were going to pay and fund their tax or
their tax extension and their spending cuts. And so what
(06:30):
that would mean is would increase the deficit score. Now,
if it increases the deficit score outside of the Senate bill,
that will then move to the House. We're already you
had a lot of Freedom Caucus Republicans bucking at the
fact that the deficit was going to increase as a
result of this. So you got two kind of opposing
forces at work. And most importantly is that President Trump
(06:51):
has said he does not want Congress. We can put
that D five please on the screen. President Trump has
said nobody's leaving Washington until the mega tax bill is done.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
He wants to pass by July fourth.
Speaker 3 (07:02):
This makes that a hell of a lot more difficult
because they just lost a lot of their pay fors.
They're going to be in parliamentary hell for the next
week now, basically, and what that means is that they're
going to have to scramble and find some other stuff
to do that's going to run up against the House
Republicans in the Freedom caucuss and of course it just
makes not only is it more chaotic, but it's more
likely they're going to have to cut even deeper from
(07:24):
some other type of social program and find some other
way just to pay for tax cut, which people at
home are all paying attention to.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
A couple other provisions that the Parliamentarian has said cannot
be included in this reconciliation bill that are noteworthy. Number One,
we had mentioned before and covered before the fact that
in the House version there was effectively a provision that
is meant to make it difficult or impossible for federal
courts to enforce contempt charges against the federal government. The
(07:53):
Parliamentarian has said you can't do that. The Senate had
a slightly modified version. It would have required plaintiffs to
post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary
injunctions or impose temporary restraining orders against the federal government.
The House version had to do with contempt orders in
any case, she said, none of this can go in
this bill, so that is probably being stripped down. Another
(08:14):
couple that are really noteworthy. There was a provision that
would reduce the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that's basically the
anti scam Bureau funding to zero. That also was deemed
to not qualify for reconciliation. And there was another proposal
that would put the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which
is the US audit watchdog, into the SEC that again
(08:35):
was deemed not eligible for the reconciliation process. So these
are some of these provisions. The Court one is actually
quite significant, and the CFPB one also very significant. So
the fact they won't make it into reconciliation matters a lot.
But also to Sager's point, you know, as they go
through all these things, there was also a piece they
were trying to sell off all the US postal services
a new electric vehicle fleet and charging infrastructure, which I
(08:58):
can't imagine they were going to make like that much
money on it, but that was another one of their
pay for that also got that also got taken out
of the bill. So I'm sorry, you won't be able
to purchase one of the USPS electric.
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Take it for pennies on the dollar. That sounds pretty
fun actually roll around in the electric post office.
Speaker 5 (09:15):
I mean.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
One of the weirdest things is I actually love not
even just electric vehicles, but resto mod stuff like stuff
that's electric, like a golf cart, you know, and things
like that.
Speaker 1 (09:23):
They're just fun to drive.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
Like, be honest, at this point, a check relationship with
golf carts.
Speaker 1 (09:28):
I don't blame you.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
I don't blame you, but I enjoy him. I enjoy
seeing him around. Let's move on to Bernie, shall we.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Yeah, so Bernie Sanders went back on with Joe Rogan.
Speaker 4 (09:40):
I did.
Speaker 2 (09:41):
Actually, I sort of skimmed through the whole conversation and
there was a long stretch that was interesting but kind
of you know, went on for a long time about
like AI and what do we do about this and
how do people find meanings?
Speaker 4 (09:52):
So that was a lot of it.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Also, Bernie just doing his normal Bernie thing talking about
healthcare and the millionaires the billionaires was also a good
part of it. There are a couple pieces that I
found pretty interesting. One of them is where Bernie is
talking about Connerson Massey and some of the some of
the attitude he's taken towards the Iran war in particular,
and you get Joe's response to that.
Speaker 4 (10:12):
So let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 6 (10:14):
I mentioned there's a guy named and knows firstly miss
the Massi is the name Thomas mass Toms from Kentucky.
And this guy, as I am, is opposed to this
war in Iran. Just yesterday, Trump gave a long post
about how they're going to primary this guy. And what
bothers me is you would hope that there would be
(10:35):
respect enough for members of Congress that you can vote
your own conscience. You could represent your constituency. Every district
is different than America. But right now, anybody stands up
and say, well, you know, I disagree with President Trump,
bamp you off finished, We're going to primary you. We
got all kinds of money.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
You're out of there. That happened to Massi yesterday.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
So I thought that was pretty interesting that coming up.
And you know Trump's attempt to punish Thomas, which we
were just talking about, and Thomas Massiw's been peeking out
a lot about APAC and I think it's been really important.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
He's also raised about million five in the last week,
so mass he's crushing it right now.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Yeah, I mean, I think that his speaking out on
a pack in particular, coming from a Republican who has
a lot of credibility, you know, is certain he's an
ideological libertarian, but he has a lot of credibility with
a pretty significant swath of the Republican Party, and for
him to be talking about the influence of this lobby
and the way that it works, I think has been
really significant broken through to people like Joe Rogan and
(11:33):
others where you know, I mean the left, we're always
talking about money in politics. Born He's always talking about
money and politics. It really does land a lot when
you have someone from the right who is making that
kind of a critique.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
There was another moment here that I thought was interesting
that I wanted to get your reaction to Sager where
Joe is talking about how he sees the divisions within
MAGA right now again about war, and I run, let's
go ahead and take a list of that part.
Speaker 7 (11:56):
I think the whole MAGA thing right now, I was
very divided, particularly because one of the things that they
voted for was no war. Well, now it seems like
we're in a war, right so, and it's quick. We're
six months in and that's already popped off. And then
people are very concerned with now what happens to our
(12:17):
troops overseas they are in these bases that are in
vulnerable positions, and what happens with I mean, there's supposedly
documented paracels that got in through the open border over
the last four years. So what happens now in America,
what happens on American soil?
Speaker 5 (12:36):
No, I'm mean I agree with those When a guy.
Speaker 7 (12:38):
Like Thomas Massey steps up and says something, he's gonna
have a lot more support as well.
Speaker 5 (12:45):
The d says yes. And my only point is he
has a right.
Speaker 6 (12:49):
Yes, you know, somebody else says, hey, I think the
war is a great I thought, that's right, you got
to go back.
Speaker 5 (12:53):
But what bothers me is that.
Speaker 6 (12:55):
If anybody stands up the next day, we're going to primary.
You're out of here, man, And that's the Republicans. Let
me talk about the Democrats for a moment, okay, And
I don't even know you have views on this, so
you may disagree with me, you know, Israel was attacked
by Ramas is a terrible terrorist organization. They killed twelve
hundred people, which in a small country like Israel's a
(13:15):
lot of people.
Speaker 5 (13:16):
Terrible, terrible attack. It's a war crime. Israel had a.
Speaker 6 (13:20):
Right, in my view, to defend itself, but the Netagnyahu
government did not have a right to kill fifty two
thousand people in Gaza wound over well over one hundred thousand,
and right now as we speak, Joe, children are starving
to death because of Israel's Blockasier starving to death. And
(13:44):
I brought forth two resolutions which basically were very simple,
and said no more US military aid to Israel under
these conditions. One vote got fifteen votes in the Senate
that the other one got sixteen. Do you think that
members of the Senate do not know what's going on
(14:05):
in Gauza? The kids are sloving to death, the innocent
people being shot down right and left.
Speaker 5 (14:10):
They know it. Why do you think I couldn't get
more votes?
Speaker 7 (14:13):
They wouldn't vote against Israel?
Speaker 5 (14:15):
Right, it's political suicide that now you're talking.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Right, all right?
Speaker 6 (14:19):
So in the Republican side, you have moneyed insurant saying
you speak up against Trump, you're out here in the
Democratic side. You speak up against the new government, you're
out of here as well. And they have been successful.
You have super packs like APAC spending a fortune. You
stand and they already knocked off a number of members
of good members of Congress, and they will do it again.
(14:40):
So all I'm saying is, you got a corrupt campaign
finance system on both sides.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
So what do you think of that?
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Well, that's what makes Burnie good at this right, is
that he's talking both about those sides, and he also
gets Joe to kind of agree with him.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
I mean, you know, it's funny.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
This is where the analysis just always and I understand
why people do this, But the MAGA base is an
actual thing.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
It's not just like something you talk about.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
I'm talking about people who love Donald Trump and say
that he is more important to them than the Republican Party.
That is not really the podcast audience really at all.
Most of those people are boomers, rural, working class voters
who mostly just like, don't vote for anything else than
they just love Trump. Now, outside of that is more
of what I would say is the MAHA base, And this.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Would probably be a more accurate way of talking about it.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Who are a lot more podcast aligned and who are
a lot more libertarian. Those are the people I put
Dave Smith into that category, maybe Candae Owens, probably Joe himself,
who were attracted to Trump for more of those element
Tulci Gabbard as well that if anybody's quote been betrayed,
I would say it's that segment of that audience. Now,
I'm not gonna sit here and claim that that's a
(15:45):
meaningful fifty or sixty percent or whatever of the Republican electorate, but.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
It is a new part.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
And it's also Look, when you win the popular vote,
you do so with a coalition. You have magas old
They're never going to go anywhere. That's not the point.
MAGA is not ever going to go anywhere. The boomer
Republicans are going to vote Republican no matter what the
way you win the popular vote. Always some really interesting
coalitional groups, Maha people, and also some of these more
(16:12):
anti war voters. You know, we were going to do
a segment before the Iran war end.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
Ended whatever, at least paused for now about polling.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
But you know, these anti war Muslims in Dearborn. It
was not nothing that put him over the edge. That's
how you win x amount of electoral votes. And so
I think we need to be more accurate in terms
of the type of voter who is out there. Again,
I would never claim that this is a huge percentage,
but it can be your margin of victory, and I
think we should start thinking about it in those terms.
Speaker 2 (16:40):
To me, the way I've been talking about it is
the magabase versus independence. You know, independence, who swung to
Trump and that's what gives him this victory and gives
him the popular vote margin, et cetera. And I think
they're the ones who are up for grabs, and you know,
independence overall. If you're looking at the look at the polling,
people who don't identify as Republicans, don't identify Democrats, they
(17:01):
are not happy about the strikes. You know, the numbers
are significantly underwater. They're overwhelmingly underwater among Democrats, they are
significantly underwater among independents. Among Republicans, they all basically support him.
CBS did a to your point about like parsing that
the MAGA base. CBS did a poll separating out all
(17:22):
self described Republicans from self described MAGA Republicans and among
all Republicans, the strikes were supported eighty five to fifteen,
so still quite overwhelming among MAGA Republicans. Actually, the support
is even higher. Ninety four percent of the MAGA Republican base.
Speaker 4 (17:42):
Supported these strikes.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
So the accuracy in the language is something that's been
bugging me too, because if you say the magabase is
divided like they're not, the magabase is ninety four percent
in favor of these air strikes. They shifted before Trump
did it. There was a little bit more descent, a
little bit more. Once he did it, they were all
on board. And that is what we've seen. You know,
(18:05):
there is not a core ideology here. The core commitment
is to Donald Trump and what he does, what he says,
defines where MAGA is going to be. And that is
just reality that we've seen time and time and time
and time again. This is not the first time that
Donald Trump has claimed he was going to go in
one direction and then ultimately gone in the other direction.
(18:25):
And we've seen the MAGA base every single time find
a way to justify it.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Because Trump did it, ergo, it must ultimately be good.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Probably the most heated exchange over the course of The
interview came towards the end when Bernie seeks to bring
up some of Trump's authoritarian tactics and Joe starts to
get a little a little you know, it gets a
little more contentious here where Bernie is specifically talking about
some of the lawsuits and the attacks on free speech
(18:53):
by Trump, some of the lawsuits that he has waged
against various media companies. Let's go ahead and take a
listen this one on for a little while. But let's
go ahead and take a listen to a section of.
Speaker 5 (19:01):
This and what I worry about Trump?
Speaker 8 (19:04):
And is.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
You're right?
Speaker 6 (19:07):
You know, I read it is astounding. Back in the
seventeen eighties when these guys wrote the Constitution, how perceptive they.
Speaker 5 (19:13):
Were amazing, Yeah, I mean they.
Speaker 7 (19:15):
Understanding of human desires and the power the corruption exactly
pretty amazing.
Speaker 6 (19:23):
And they wrote that having just fought a war and
won a war against the most powerful despot on earth,
the King of England, right right, And I think in
the back of their minds was saying, all right, we
just beat the King of England absolute power. How do
you create a new country which has checks and balance
so that nobody ever.
Speaker 5 (19:43):
Has that power? Right? And I got to say.
Speaker 6 (19:45):
I mean, one of the things that there's a lot
of arguments about Trump that worries me very very much,
is this movement toward authoritarianism and going after media, suing media,
taking away the authority that Congress has.
Speaker 7 (20:02):
When you say suing media, are you talking about the
CBS laws? But don't you think there's a real issue
with what they did. No, we don't think that there's
a real issue in editing conversations to give someone an
answer I have different than what they really answered.
Speaker 6 (20:18):
Joe, I've been on eight zillion shows right in my life? Okay, Okay,
Now should I sue you? You asked me some sloopy
question that I don't like, right, or that you do something?
Speaker 5 (20:30):
Shall I sue you? Yeah?
Speaker 7 (20:32):
But that's not what he's getting.
Speaker 6 (20:33):
Well here sued He hassued ABC. He hassued Meta. He
issuing the Des Moines Register because of a poll that
came out during the campaign that he didn't like. All right,
he issuing CBS for this Kamala Harris interview.
Speaker 5 (20:49):
So do I think.
Speaker 6 (20:52):
How many I cannot tell you the number of stories
done about me that were based that we're not good stories? Right,
that we're dishonest stories. That's what a free press is about.
You don't like it, you got to live with it.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
So, you know, Bernie is sort of making the broader
point about the authoritarian tactics, and Joe is.
Speaker 4 (21:09):
I mean, Joe's.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Supposed to be a free speech guy, but then he's
down with these lawsuits.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
I mean, I think the reason I understand is he's
probably deeply fed up with a lot of In fact,
I find this with a lot of rich guys who
are like relatively well known as they get pissed about
the media, And I actually understand.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
But the point is, is that too.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Right, Like I've literally had lies written about me multiple times,
and it's like, well, you know, uh, that's part I
think it's more useful to explain the principle. And I
haven't listened fully to the interviews. I don't know if
Bernie gets to this, but the point of the way
that the standard is set currently is that you have
to be able to prove as a public figure their
(21:51):
will like their willful knowledge that they knew what they
were saying was a lie at the time, and then
you have to be able to show a damage. Now,
the reason why it's set that way is from New
York Times or was it New York Times versus Sullivan
case at the Supreme Court back in the nineteen seventies,
because we actually used to live in a much more
censorious press. And the way that that current legal doctrine
looks like is Britain, And in Britain they actually have
(22:12):
a much lower standard for the ability to sue over
defamation and libel, and in my opinion, I don't think
that nearly an adversarial culture enough. You have much more
of like the power veto of somebody coming in and
saying no, that's not going to happen. And the reason
why I think that standard is important from a media
person who works in this is it preserves the ability
to report things that are off the cuff, on the
(22:35):
fly first draft of history. Of course, there are going
to be errors. As long as you have an editorial
process in place, and you can also demonstrate that what
you're trying to do is not willfully lie about somebody,
then it should be an extremely high standard to make
sure that you can disseminate.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
That level of information.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
And if that didn't exist, you genuinely would have just
a lot less of people. Okay, let's create to a
great example, this Iran intelligence story. Right, the Trump administration
is saying that they're trying to libel these pilots.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
You can see it's that's bullshit. That's not what's happening.
Speaker 6 (23:08):
Right.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
They took facts and they reported it.
Speaker 3 (23:09):
They're not willfully trying to a libel or defame the
pilots or taking information and they're putting it out into
the public. But people should know that prior to that
Solivan decision, and really to the Pentagon papers, that story
would never would have seen the light of day. You
and I would have no idea that that was actually
the case. Well, and I think we're better off.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Let's take that one step further because this gets to
the next point, which is that what happened with ABC
News and with CBS is because they didn't want to
get crosswise of the Trump administration, they didn't go forward
and fight.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
That's what those They could have taken it to trial
and they absolutely would have won they one, but.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
They decided they would rather effectively pay a bribe to
exactly so that their business deals could go through. And
Bernie does get to this point, their business deals can
go through and they're not going to get messed with,
et cetera.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
And so even though.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
You know, when they're out there saying, oh, these the
New York Times are whever is libeling these pilots, even
though that's obviously a bullshit and spurious claim. Because of
the track record of all of these media lawsuits and
the fact that these corporate entities are very willing to
bend the knee and capitulate and pay the bribe rather
than have their business messed with, it does it does
(24:19):
act as an effective check on the press because they
have that hanging over their head. We saw the way
that sixty minutes the fallout over there and their desire,
the leadership's desire there for them not to go too
far in terms of their Trump criticism so that they
wouldn't their larger business entity wouldn't get crosswise with them.
And so that's the point that Bernie is trying to make.
(24:41):
And you know, on the specifics of like the CBS
News I think was the one where there was an
edit of Kamala Harris that like made Kamala look better.
I mean, you can criticize the dur like as we did, yes,
but also news outlets edit interviews all the.
Speaker 1 (24:56):
Time, right, not us.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Just so Fox News, I'm not gonna say we've never
edited an interview, like I don't know.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
If I'm not sure it's ever.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
I don't know if we have.
Speaker 2 (25:04):
But like, theoretically you could have mented, you know, the
okay that question like didn't we don't have time whatever?
But Fox News edited that interview with Trump, yes, where
to make his Epstein answer look better? Like Shakamala sue
Fox News over storing the election because they hid from
the audience the fact that Trump gave a really poor
answer on Jeffrey Epstein that actually raised a lot of questions. No,
(25:27):
she should complain about it, fine, But the idea you
should sue them or any other news outlet that edits
an interview a way that you don't find to be
advantageous for you or you find to be advantageous for
your opponent, that is ridiculous. I mean, it is completely absurd.
But again, the broader piece here is part and parcel
(25:48):
of this, you know, series of authoritarian tactics that are
used to force media organizations to trim their sales, to
not critique as much. Should be afraid of these lawsuits
to pay tribute to the king goes with the universe.
The proach to universities goes the approach to law firms,
and you know, is sort of like part and parcel
of this project. And that is really the important point
(26:09):
to make here versus even getting into the nitty gurty.
I mean the detail, sure they matter, but getting into
the nitty gritty of the lawsuits isn't really the point.
It's that bigger picture that is what really matters.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
I don't disagree, but I also think that part of
the problem this is actually I mean, I think Trump
is you know, what he does is he takes everything
to the nth degree. But the truth is is that
government has always used its leverage over these massive corporations
to influence media. And what we can see, like for example,
let's take CBS.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
CBS is owned.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
By Paramount Right and Paramount is now being sold to
sky Dance. Well see Sherry Redstone, who was the head
of Paramount, who is by the way, massive pro zionist
jew That's part of the reason she's interfering in CBS
sixty minutes, and also because she wants her merger to
go through, which is like Paramount studios in Hollywood. Yeah,
(27:00):
thus is trying to placate Trump over here. That's, by
the way, is again this is not just Trump. This
is the tail as old as time. The Bush administration
did this on a rat coverage back in the mid
two thousands. They've we've seen significant pressure in the past.
For example, I read Jack Welch's book, or a book
about Jack Welch, and he would never sell CNBC because
(27:20):
he was like, you don't understand. CNBC cost me x
amount of money, but its value to General Electric as
a company because of the ability to manipulate the stock
market and to influence all policy discussion is immense. Bloomberg
same thing. Bloomberg Terminal owns Bloomberg News. So really, I
think it's also a story of like corporate consolidation control
(27:41):
over media because of course the government and presidents and
that will use their leverage on those organizations.
Speaker 1 (27:46):
We've seen it threatened in the past.
Speaker 3 (27:48):
Mixon famously as well, would threaten their businesses and their
permits and all these other things.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
That won't be able to go through.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
It's part of the reason why you know, with the
Internet and more independent models, it actually you genuinely can
get a little bit more freedom. But yeah, I mean,
it's such a big story that it is important. Yeah,
people don't understand that.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
I just I was that's all accurate.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
I've never seen a president sue a media company overall
pole they didn't like.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
But that's Trump is like Trump just goes all out. Okay,
I want to say full something else, but I'll save it.
But like, that's that's what he does. But I'm just
he's less subtle about it. I guess I'm only just
contextualizing it in that so that people should understand that.
You know, I mean remember when Bernie what did he
say on the campaign trail about Washington Post?
Speaker 1 (28:33):
Yeah, and he was a who's that own? He's a
who's that owned by? Something like that? And everyone freaked
out at him.
Speaker 3 (28:38):
But it's just so obvious now, you know, the way
that this all and the way that they use their
media companies as tools for their broader empire. Bezos yesterday
rolled out a new policy where sources who disagree with
the way a story was framed are able to email
in their comments about a story.
Speaker 1 (28:54):
Yeah, why do you think he did that?
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Okay, all right, let's let's let's wonder a little bit
about why these things.
Speaker 2 (28:59):
Well, here's what I would say is different, and then
we can get to the liver King story, which also
directly involves Shrogan and also involves us. Potentially what Trump
has made has done differently with his administration. I did
a long monologue about this previously.
Speaker 4 (29:14):
Is there is.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
No longer even the appearance or clean claim or pretensive neutrality.
Everyone knows if you get crosswise with Trump, he will
get the DOJ after you.
Speaker 4 (29:24):
He will pull your funding.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
And whether it's Department of Education, whether it's your federal
you know, emergency, whatever it is, it is not.
Speaker 4 (29:31):
There is no pretext of neutrality. It's versa.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
You're so, you're completely accurate about that. So previously, I
remember in the Obama administration, is big scandal that you know,
allegedly there were tax statuses being revoked by the I R.
S in a political manner. This is a giant scandal. Okay,
this would go unremarked upon. I don't even know there'd
be a news article about it. But like it's it's
just that woman's name is Lowest Learner lowis it is
(29:58):
so that is what has truly been transformed about the
government under Trump is everyone expects that every single aspect,
every agency, every agency had every lever that they can
use against you, they will. And so that means that,
you know, if Trump threatens to sue you, that carries
(30:18):
a lot of power. If they're going out, if they're
university that they're going after, if it's a state they're
going after, it contains even more power.
Speaker 4 (30:26):
Not that it hasn't always been.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
You know, the federal government has always had a lot
of power, but now there's not even a pretense of
neutrality whatsoever. So they can go after and it is
barely even a scandal that they're doing it in a
politically motivated way. So that's what I think is, you know,
has that's what the rubicon Trump has truly crossed, and
you know, a way in which he has truly changed
(30:50):
the nature of the relationship that people expect from the
federal government vis a vis the citizens and civil societies.
Speaker 3 (30:57):
Yeah, I don't really disagree with any of that. Let's
get over to Liver King, shall we?
Speaker 1 (31:05):
Yes?
Speaker 3 (31:06):
Again, just to bring it full circle, because we were
in the Liver King documentary and this also involves Joe
Rogan and it's a fun story to end on. After
an insane couple of weeks, liver King has found himself
under arrest in the city of Austin. Let's go ahead
and put some of that video up there on the
screen after issuing quote terroristic threats against Joe Rogan, I
(31:31):
mean liver King. His real name is Brian Johnson, as
revealed in the documentary and as he often would talk
about on his social media platform. And let's be honest,
this guy has totally lost it. He appears, he looks terrible.
Who knows exactly what's going on with him, whether he's
on something or whether he's withdrawing from the steroids that
he admitted to taking after lying to everybody about not
(31:53):
taking steroids. But the point actually as a sociological phenomenon
is important to see because, I mean, liver King is
a bullshit artist. I mean, this is a guy who
again lied about taking steroids, sold I think it was
like one hundred million dollars or something like that in supplements.
He pulled off a bunch of stunts to popularize the
carnivore diet. Fine, but really was like selling a vision
(32:16):
and lifestyle a centered around a body, which is just
fundamentally he was lying about and everybody kind of knew
he was lying, but the proof eventually being released by
my friend Derek over at More Plates, More Dates, just
really revealed him to be a total fraud and he
tried to have his whole redemption arc. But I mean,
what this just like demonstrates is also, you know, so
(32:37):
many people were looking.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Up to Liver King at that time.
Speaker 3 (32:38):
It's important to remember, you know that a huge part
of his audience was like teenage males who weren't really
able to discern a lot of this, And so, you know,
in the hopes of being able to show people what
the downside of frankly unhinged, you know, lying personality of
somebody who's willing to perpetrate you know, first of all,
like this massive attention grab, all this ridiculous shit that
(33:01):
he was doing, but also look at the downside of this,
you know, like he's literally melting down on his Instagram
page now being arrested by the police and is obviously unhinged,
Like he looks terrible.
Speaker 1 (33:14):
I genuinely hope he gets the help that he needs.
Speaker 4 (33:17):
He needs to be committed his wife and his kids.
Speaker 1 (33:18):
Like you guys need to step up here.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Man because this is a crash out of epic proportions, Like, yeah,
take control because this is this is not good.
Speaker 1 (33:27):
You know whatever, I'll tell you.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
I watched the documentary last night about him that Sager's
monologue like builds to a crescendo and it wraps up
with Sager's monologue. Also, my voice is briefly in it
as well. From our last our Joe Rogan appearance, I
forgot that we talked about too, and Joe's like, yeah,
I knew he was a fraudunum like, oh, just based
on how he looks. So in any case, we you know,
we've been following it. He was obviously not on my readers.
(33:49):
I wasn't really the key demographic that they were going after.
But what jumps out in the documentaries, First of all,
you feel terrible for these boys.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
His I do I use his props to basically sell.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
And all this weird shit he has them do. I mean,
I've felt I feel bad for those kids. I think
we need to get like child influenced, like parents using
kids as influencers. There needs to be laws and regulation
around this because it is sickening. It really, It's a
huge industry and it's grotesque, and you know so first
(34:21):
and foremost you feel bad for these kids. Secondly, you
are wondering what is the like the wife is just
going along with all of this, like what is happening?
And then third was it was so disturbing to me
that this is someone who so many young men looked
up to as a role model when this person is
the polar opposite of who.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
A role model should be.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
I mean, now he's had the full mental break, but
this was not a well person. And obviously his whole
thing is built on a lie. He is a con artist.
It is complete fraud. I mean, I think a lot
of his Ora joint and story too is probably a fraud,
which involved his kids.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
By the ways, you.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Can't take any of this for granted now, because his
big selling point was I look like this because of
these nine ancestral principles or whatever tenant and yeah, nine
ancestral tenants. And that was all total and complete bullshit.
And it wasn't like he just didn't answer the question.
Multiple podcasts you'd go on and they'd say, oh, absolutely not. No,
(35:23):
I know, people can't believe I love when I get
this question, but no, it's all natural and you need
to stop limiting yourself and believing that this isn't possible
for you too. Blah blah blah. So this is a
con artist, charlatan, a fraud, someone who is clearly like
deeply insecure and in some sort of mental anxiety, anguish,
et cetera, and becomes an icon and a role.
Speaker 4 (35:43):
Model for millions.
Speaker 2 (35:45):
I mean, it does bring you back to the point
of like we have to do some self reflection about
what state young men are in that this would be
appealing to them, and so many people will gravitate to
such an obvious charlatan. So that was the piece for me.
And you know, I've watched a bunch of the videos
of him, just like hunting Joe Rogan throughout Austin, and
(36:07):
I think effectively like he has in his mental collapse,
fixated like a stalker on Rogan as the source of
his downfall because Joe had said, you know, several things
about him.
Speaker 3 (36:19):
He was the most prominent person to be like that
guy's a liar.
Speaker 2 (36:22):
Before it even officially came out. And then he had
Derek on the podcast to go through all of the
like you know, total evidence, like the you know, the
leaked emails and everything that just proved that he absolutely
was a fraud and a liar. And so it seems
like this guy is completely fixated on Joe.
Speaker 4 (36:39):
He's hunting him.
Speaker 2 (36:40):
He shows up in Austin, he's making these direct threats,
and he's carrying around this briefcase that has Joe's like
the Joe Rogan Experience logo, which includes his face of
course on it, and at one point he opens it
briefly and if you do like freeze frame of what's
inside of it, there's at least one gun in there.
Speaker 4 (36:59):
Yeah, and he's saying.
Speaker 2 (37:01):
You know all, he's saying he wants to fight him,
and he's coming after him and all of these sorts
of things. So I think that's what probably led to
them feeling like, Okay, we've got enough that we've got
to arrest this guy.
Speaker 4 (37:11):
But yeah, he no, I'm actually get glad.
Speaker 3 (37:13):
I'm glad that they arrested him, because you can't just
be rolling around threatening people with guns. Oh social media.
I mean, look, we have some video of this. I
much play it for you.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
You got to do me. This guy's lost it. Okay,
let's let's watch.
Speaker 8 (37:27):
Because Joe Rogan we don't have to make videos to
pretend anymore. All of this is happening. We're coming to you.
I've challenged you man to man to a fight, honorable,
and we don't have to pretend or make any videos.
The world is watching. They'll make the videos for us.
And you don't have to hold a camera. You can
(37:50):
hold the hand of somebody that you love. Because what
happens next to you, you're going to need to remember
that feeling. You're going to need something more than what
you did to give you something to fight for, because
I have my family to fight for. So what warriors
do you? And Andrew Tate are good warrior, good warriors,
but you're actually better than that real tension. We have comedy.
(38:10):
Comedy that you do is good and true.
Speaker 3 (38:13):
Yeah, it's creepy, man, I mean beyond creepy, it's terrifying, honestly,
So I'm glad that they pressed charges because this type
of behavior is just ridiculous. And yeah, honestly, we all
hope Brian, not the liver King, gets the help that
he deserves.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Yeah, I mean, look at those pupils. One is like
triple the size of the other. There's a lot going
on there and yeah he needs he needs mental help.
That's very clear. And frankly, like the kids are one thing.
Like you know, I don't know what age they are
at this point, but this is their dad, et cetera.
But shame on his wife and his handlers and whoever's
getting paid by him whatever for letting it get to this,
(38:49):
letting it get to this point. Letting it get to
this point is just absolutely.
Speaker 1 (38:52):
It's sad, all right.
Speaker 3 (38:53):
Maybe they can play this in the follow up documentary.
This is can be volume the liver King Down, shall
we Right, it's been a great week. Thank you all
so much. There'll be a great Friday show for everybody tomorrow,
but otherwise we will see you all next week.
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