7/3/26: Jobs Disaster, Establishment Dems Bow To Zohran, Israel Journo Killings, Intercept Tipline, Palantir Freakout

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

Speaker 2 (00:02):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
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 (00:15):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 1 (00:26):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.

Speaker 3 (00:31):
Happy July third day before America Day, July fourth. We
all just got back from the two fifty Fair here
to give you a weekend Friday show. Ryan, you were
actually at the fair, right I did.

Speaker 4 (00:44):
I went by. They would not let me bring in
a backpack or my bike, and I was meeting someone
who had another backpack there, so I went in very briefly,
just left the backpack there. They're like, yeah, that's fine.
I'm like, really, I can just leave.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
You can leave it there, but you can't bring it in.
That seems counterintuitive.

Speaker 4 (01:03):
The funny thing is is that there were many, many,
many fewer people inside the fair than outside of it,
So it's like, who are you protecting, Like, there's nobody
in here. You couldn't do a mass shooting. There isn't
a mass in there. You can commit a crime, but
there's no mass shooting going on in there.

Speaker 3 (01:23):
They just didn't watch it to spark up, you know.

Speaker 4 (01:26):
Yeah, I guess.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
Something must protect the reflecting pull.

Speaker 3 (01:29):
At all costs.

Speaker 4 (01:30):
There was a there was a band on the stage
and two people sitting in chairs watching them.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
Oh my god, it's like a million degrees outside. That
doesn't help the situation.

Speaker 4 (01:40):
Yes, and that's all comical, But yesterday there was this
footage of a massive piece of equipment falling on the
stage right behind the dancers, which is the kind of
thing that kills people when you use kind of non
union labor that isn't following the rules of putting a
stage together, Like that stuff really matters, Like a two

(02:00):
hundred pound piece of equipment on you yeah, right here
from that distance, Oh my god, people like it is
and and normal at a normal event, that thing would
stop and be shut down until they figured out why
that happened. They just kept dancing. Look at that.

Speaker 3 (02:21):
Look we would kill that is keep dancing. Wow, wow, incredible. Well,
you know there's a lot of festivities in the air,
but like these performers, we also must keep dancing. We've
got we don't know that.

Speaker 5 (02:35):
To be clear, though, Griffin, we don't know like the
reflecting pool, that a lib didn't cut that part of.

Speaker 3 (02:40):
The st Yeah, there was a gash, a strong gash
were everywhere.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Did you guys see the lady who was like it
was too hot? I started seeing stars, but I managed
to find the baptism ten take a dip in the pool,
came out. People are having extraordinary experiences of this fair.

Speaker 4 (03:04):
Yeah, Julian is going for dropsled again later today. We'll
have we'll have his package jump sure at some point.

Speaker 2 (03:09):
Next week for Julian. He needs hazard pay. It's too
freaking hot out.

Speaker 4 (03:12):
There to himself that this is not on us.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
Okay, all right.

Speaker 3 (03:19):
All right, well Julian, avoid any head injuries if you can.
But yes, it is fourth of July. We're gonna be
looking at some job numbers, some barbecue prices for anyone
who is grilling this weekend. We're gonna be looking a
little bit into how one zoron Mam Donnie is becoming
the Democratic Party power broker, giving advice but potentially therapy

(03:39):
to a slate of twenty twenty eight hopefuls. We have
Alex Krp crashing out on live television. Ryan is going
to take a look at an interesting tip line hack
story that's been occurring at the intercept and then Ryan,
don't we have a journalist coming on the show.

Speaker 4 (03:58):
Oh well, we have the publisher of Drop Say News,
which that's the means runs basically the business side and operations.
She was basically kicked off the Committee to Protect Journalist Board.
And that was one of my cats, just falling off desk.

Speaker 3 (04:17):
Aircrash, non union cat labor keep dancing and keep dancing.

Speaker 4 (04:23):
Yes exactly, and no, I think when you stop down
and make sure that no cat is injured again in
the filming of this production. So uh, this CPJ, there
was an effort inside CPJ to redefine who is a
journalist in order to try to get down the number
of journalists that Israel has killed amid its genocide. That
was actually beaten back. Nica was part of that is

(04:44):
no longer on the board. I would say as a
result of that, so she can talk to us about,
you know, the fight that went on inside the Committee
to Protect Journalists, which which will continue to go on
even though this round has been one gotcha.

Speaker 3 (04:58):
And then in Crystal, we're going to cap it all
off with a Canada interview one Will Lawrence. What's his deal.

Speaker 2 (05:04):
Yeah, he's making waves in his congressional campaign with an
anti data center ad. So of course that caught our attention,
so we're going to speak with him about that and
his race in general. As you know, the left continues
to notch a lot of extraordinary victories on that front.
I just want to mention, you know, when election day
ended this week in Colorado, it looked like Julie Gonzalez

(05:25):
had been beaten fairly, you know, handily by John Hickenlooper,
the incumbent senator there, although even you know, the margin
that it was looking like it was going to be
was pretty impressive given how much she was outspent, how
little national attention went to her race. Now that the
votes have almost all come in, she was only lost
to him by a handful of points, like six points

(05:48):
at this point. So I think for the left, you know,
It was a real missed opportunity to take out one
of the worst Democratic senators, and it just shows how
powerful the change movement is within the Democratic Party that
even I think she was outspent thirteen to one, she
didn't get all the big endorsements, didn't get as much

(06:08):
national attention as Millot did, for example, and still still
almost pulled off this massive upset.

Speaker 3 (06:15):
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely so. We've got all of that and more.
But let's focus on the most important thing first today,
which is of course the grill. Crystal. What is going
on here with our barbecue prices?

Speaker 2 (06:31):
Well, I don't think Americans need me to tell you
that the costs are going up. We have some numbers
we can show you, though officially the barbecue index here
from the Economist. You can see the way that all
of these prices have continued to climb. Your over year
looks like ground beef and for some reason Coca cola,

(06:51):
which you guys should be skipping that entirely anyway. But
whatever those costs continue to climb. You can see steak
there that is only going to get worse. With this
whole screwworm situation unfolding in Texas. Usually just talked to
David Griskham for Crystal and Kyle Crystal Colin Friends yesterday
about Texas, and he was emphasizing what a big deal

(07:11):
that is in terms of Texas politics, that there could
be beef shortages even in that state, which is of
course famous for beef and barbecue. So in any case,
you know, people feeling the pinch as they head into
this holiday weekend. And you know, unlike with COVID, which
was this thing beyond the uh you know, that was

(07:32):
we can't say that global governments had nothing to do
with it, but this is a pandemic that you know,
was ont of the hands in a lot of ways
of the Trump and then the Biden administration, unlike the
Ukraine War, which again we can say the US had
a hand in creating the conditions, but ultimately it's this
you know, external factor, Russian invading Ukraine that leads to
the you know, but the increase in inflation or contributes

(07:54):
to it at least, this is entirely due to the
policy of Donald Trump, between the tariffs and now of
course most critically from the war in Iran. I guess
the other factor I would add to that is because
of the climate crisis. There have been tremendous drought conditions
as well that have devastated farmers crops, and so you're

(08:15):
about to have like the lowest wheat yield in decades
because of those climate conditions and the rising price of
fertilizer contributing to that as well. So all of this
has meant increasing pain for American consumers and really for
the globe and in poor countries. It isn't the difference
between you know, affording a stake for your Fourth of
July barbecue or not. It can literally be the difference

(08:37):
between life and death. And we have had an escalating
hunger crisis around the world that appears to be only
set to get worse, especially with climate conditions set to
be really difficult this year with the La Nina cycle too.

Speaker 5 (08:50):
I just wanted to put up on the screen here
wage growth versus the inflation rate, because that's another part
of this as well. So if we're looking at what
was the twelve percent year over year barbecue inflation index,
but right now, as of May at least, wage growth
is being outpaced by the inflation rate.

Speaker 6 (09:06):
So that's another aspect of this.

Speaker 5 (09:08):
We were talking Crystal yesterday about how I think the
Trump corruption stories are going to hit much harder politically,
and maybe you all can let us know. I'm sure
you'll shoot us in the comments, shoot us your thoughts
in the comments, because I bet that'll be a topic
of conversation at some barbecues where you have people feeling
like the prices are going up, wages aren't keeping up

(09:29):
with that, And on top of it, you see news
about the President of the United States just breaking in
one point four billion dollars in the first like eighteen
months of his presidency in crypto schemes. So when the
wages aren't keeping up, that's different than Trump one point zero.
So a little political problem obviously as well.

Speaker 2 (09:50):
Yeah, let's put Griffin the jobs numbers up. The jobs
report came out yesterday. Normally comes out Friday, presumement came
out yesterday because today is technically a federal holiday.

Speaker 7 (09:59):
That's my guess.

Speaker 2 (10:00):
Anyway, not a good jobs report. Only fifty seven thousand
jobs added one hundred and fifteen thousand were expected. This
is data pulled from Heather Long, who's an economics reporter
for the Washington Post who does good work there. You
can see the chart here, which shows the way that
job growth has really fallen off. So that we've had
in recent months since Trump hasn't been inaugurated, we've had

(10:23):
a mix of actually job losses and very modest increases.
The unemployment rate still stays low four point two percent,
but she points out this is mainly due to a
big decline in the labor force. You had a large
number of people, hundreds of thousands of people who said,
you know what, I'm just not going to even look
for a job anymore. I'm just I'm out out of

(10:43):
the business of looking for jobs.

Speaker 6 (10:45):
She says.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
The job market is stable, that's good for the FED,
but it's still tough to get a job outside of
healthcare or professional services. Hospitality shed about sixty one thousand jobs.
Inflation is wiping out wage gains. As Emily was just
putting out, bottom line, June jobs report is great for
the FED, disappointing for the rest of America. And Grimma
put the next one up on the screen because there

(11:07):
are a few dynamics here that are important. First of all,
we've talked before about the fact that you know, the
Trump administration, they really ran this very We're going to
look out for the men coded campaign, not even coded,
very overt right. It was very much chismo. We're going
to bring back the tough, the factory jobs, the manly
manned jobs. What has happened again directly as the result

(11:30):
of his policy and of the rolling back of some
of the some of the policies of Biden administration is
actually you've had a decline manufacturing sector, and the jobs
that are growing right now are the ones that women
traditionally have been more represented in, so things for example
like healthcare, social services. At the same time, this status

(11:54):
shows you that, you know, the last couple of years
for working moms in particular has been difficult because of
the return to office mandates and also because of the
skyrocketing cost of childcare. So you have more women who
are leaving mothers specifically who have young children under the
age of five, who are being forced out of the
workforce because it is just not a sustainable situation for

(12:17):
them to both have to be in office full time
and pay for full time childcare. So you've got that
hit being taken as well, and you can see that
in the chart here. So in any case, those are
some of the underlying dynamics and one more thing I'll
mention before Ryan gets you in here to react to
some of this is that you also had a downward
revision of the last two months as well. So the

(12:41):
last jobs report of memory serves looked pretty solid. Well,
now they've come in and said, well, actually, now that
we've got the full data in, we've got to knock
off tens of thousands of jobs off at that number
month before they also revised downward. So a pretty dim
picture here in terms of the job market.

Speaker 4 (13:00):
In One of the maybe Emily as thoughts is too.
One of the copes I've seen from some people is say, well,
this is not really factoring in the fact that Stephen
Miller's immigration policy has perhaps driven net net negative migration
for the first time in forever, and so therefore there's
actually fewer people, and so the way that you're looking

(13:22):
at this is not completely accurate. A couple responses that
one would be what Emily put up earlier, which is
that wages are growing slower than inflation. So if it
was truly the case that a reduction in a reduction
in the supply of workers was driving up wages, people
would be making more earning power. Instead, they are earning,

(13:45):
their earning, their their earning power is going way down. Also,
if you look at just kind of Latino employment, it's
slightly up over a year ago, just in absolute terms.
So that's you would expect. Because he's really rounding up
as many kind of Hispanic people here without and deporting them,

(14:07):
you would expect that number to be going down if
it was true that those numbers match. And yeah too,
to Cristel's point, you're manufacturing and construction are either flat
or down, depending on depending on how you do the counting,
but certainly not not up or seeing any kind of renaissance.

Speaker 5 (14:25):
Yeah, and what they typically point to is that it's
been a decline in the decline, and I don't think
that's nothing. But just to see a little bit here
from you all will remember the name EJ. And Tony,
he was Trump's pick for the BLS position, got booted out,
pointing out basically exactly what Crystal is pointing out here.
To today's June jobs report showed continued wage growth, and that,

(14:47):
combined with the CPI estimated to have been flat month
over month, means solid real wage growth. However, what the
average American's weekly paycheck can actually buy is still down
about three percent since January twenty twenty one, and up
less than one percent from January twenty twenty five.

Speaker 6 (15:00):
And further, Antoni.

Speaker 5 (15:03):
Again, who remember the criticism of Antoni was that he's
basically going to be a total.

Speaker 6 (15:07):
Trump shill, a Magas shill. And here's what he posted yesterday.

Speaker 5 (15:12):
Ugly jobs report for June, as payrolls rise just fifty
seven thousand, but two previous months were revised down again,
sounding like crystal combined seventy four thousand, a net loss
of seventeen thousand, while employment level plunges more than half
a million as people leave the labor force. One more
thing I'm going to put up here is you can
see this is from USAFX dot org, which I think

(15:33):
is technically a sponsor after party. They have this number.
See this purple downturn. That's the This is wages of inflation.
And so this is for the Trump administration a pretty
bad sign as they go forward into the summer into
midterm elections.

Speaker 2 (15:52):
Let me share something here on the manufacturing piece. So
this is manufacturing employment over time, and you can see
the way that it builds up through you know, fits
and starts even up through the eighties and then with
the hard neoliberal turn of the Reagan administration and the NAFTA.

(16:14):
You can see the downward spiral here which continues uninbated
till twenty ten. There starts to be an uptick. There's
this is a major COVID crash, and then this is
the Biden administration where you know, it's uh chipped, maybe
didn't get built back to better than it was in
let's say nineteen seventy, but it was building back better

(16:35):
than what it was, but there was some you know,
it wasn't sufficient, but there was actually some genuine manufacturing
employment improvement, and for the first time in a long time,
you coming out of a recession. Normally, what happens in
these drops is that the manufacturing employment never comes back,

(16:55):
and so this time it came back and it actually
recovered beyond where it was during the COVID crash. And
you know, now you can see you know, the rate
here under the Trump administration where it's just completely flatlined,
it's fallen off, et cetera. So you know, again this
is just the polar opposite of the promises that they

(17:17):
made and what the teriffs were designed to do, and
I think at this point, I guess the argument on
the other side would be, yeah, but the teriffs got
struck down and they never did what they were fully
intended to do. But lot, yeah, a lot of terriffs
were still in place, are still in place, and it
had the exact opposite impact of what you would expect

(17:37):
or what they promised. At least it was what we
all expected, but what they promised, so, you know, completely counterproductive.
And then the programs that genuinely were working to some
extent during the Biden administration they doged and destroyed.

Speaker 4 (17:50):
So there you go, and with the court ruling, you're
getting the worst of all worlds. The tariffs which do
produce revenue for the government are deemed to be illegal,
and then the government has to then give that money back.
Howard Lutnix kids and Howard Lutnox firm kind of bought
up most of the rights to get those rebates. So

(18:11):
not only are we are they kind of hurting manufacturing
because they're making it hard for people to import the
inputs that they need from manufacturing. We don't even get
to keep the money that goes back to Howard Lutnik.
And then Trump just puts in new tariffs under a
different legal rationale, which maybe gets struck down eventually, and
then that money goes to Howard Lutnik too. It's just

(18:32):
kind of self dealing all the way down at the
expense of American workers.

Speaker 5 (18:37):
And they totally worth noting they totally pulled out of
USMCA this week as well.

Speaker 3 (18:42):
Interesting but Emily, I've been told from the White House
Twitter accounts that we are you know, we are trad
caath now we like that women are leaving the workforce
and working at home. So this is a resounding success.

Speaker 5 (18:56):
Right Well, to be clear, we could have a separate
debate about that, but a lot of the numbers showed
that the preference of most mothers working age mothers is
to have some part time work arrangement. But a lot
of younger mothers particularly can't do that because wages inflation,
et cetera. They have to be grinding and out. And

(19:17):
as Crystal said, there's been an adjustment post COVID where
a lot of people are frustrated that they can't do
jobs from home.

Speaker 6 (19:23):
They feel like are perfectly they're perfectly capable.

Speaker 5 (19:25):
Of doing from home, and they've been put back into
the workforce as childcare prices are spiking as well. So
I don't know about the trad catholicism of the Trump administration.
That might just be wishcasting from Vice President Vance.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
Let me put this last one up here, just this
will feed into a leader conversation we'll have about AI.
But this is the change in US tech employment. And
you know this. Twitter user Joey Politano says the US
tech sector continues leading jobs. American tech sector is down
forty nine thousand over the last year, and data released

(20:02):
this morning nearly as bad as the worst of the
twenty twenty four tech sessions, significantly worse than either the
twenty eight or twenty twenty recessions. And I mean, I
think you have to point to AI as being a
significant factor here. All the people who were told learned
to code had the rug pulled out from under them,
and that's been the frontline of true AI. Job replacement

(20:25):
has been in the tech sector because the thing that
they can right now do with the most proficiency, and
you have a workforce that understands how to deploy the
technology is coding. And so I think that's why you
see a huge reduction in the tech labor force.

Speaker 3 (20:43):
All right, well, that'll do it for jobs. But why
don't we move over to Kamala who might be returning
to look for a new job. In twenty twenty eight,
We've got a report here that Kamala is not only
reaching out to zorroon mom Donnie, but pro Palestine activist
that says you're an axio scoop Harris reaches out to Madonnie,

(21:04):
prop houset and activist and run up to twenty twenty eight.
I guess she's going from I'm speaking to I'm listening.

Speaker 6 (21:11):
Oh Griffin.

Speaker 3 (21:16):
Now, outside of just this report, there's been reports of
her reaching out not only to or people reaching out
to Mam Donnie, like Pritzker, Joshapiro, Gavin Newsome. It really
does seem like mom Donnie is becoming sort of a
powerbroker of the Democratic Party. What do you guys think
about that?

Speaker 6 (21:34):
Can I actually also ask you too?

Speaker 7 (21:36):
Like?

Speaker 5 (21:36):
This is an interesting comparison because when AOC defeated Joe Crowley,
there was this idea that AOC, who by the way,
adorsed Abduel sayed this week as well in Michigan's Democratic
Senate primary, was going to be the new kind of
king maker. And what I think we're seeing is Mom
Donnie handling that in a really deft and like leaderly way.

Speaker 6 (21:57):
I don't even know.

Speaker 5 (21:57):
If leaderly is a true adverb, but it's kind of
been interesting. He's not like, he's sort of subtle about it,
but it's concerted and it's serious, and it seems like
it's coming to fruition in a way that people might
have expected earlier in the DSA boom, but now it
feels like it's actually really gelling.

Speaker 3 (22:15):
Yeah, but let's focus on Kamala and I want you
all to react to that first before we get because
I do want to talk a little bit about the
abdual endorsement here and you reaction to that because just
months ago, Kamala could barely even say Zorn's name. Let's
take a listen.

Speaker 8 (22:30):
What do you think of him and his candidacy and
what do you think of mainline democratic shyness and agitation
about the prospect that he's going to win.

Speaker 9 (22:40):
Look, as far as I'm concerned, he's the Democratic nominee
and he should be supported.

Speaker 7 (22:46):
What do you endorse his candidacy? I support the Democrat
in the race.

Speaker 3 (22:50):
Sure, what do you so, you know, not exactly brave,
but also probably more than a lot of other people
had to say at that at that time about him
to even support the Democratic nominee in the rays Ryan, Uh,
what do you think these conversations are going to be
like between her and the pro Palestine activists? How do

(23:10):
you think she's going to navigate that situation?

Speaker 4 (23:12):
And I guess it's a pets on who she talks to.
But let's not forget that the number one hit that
a Giano Espaot used against his opponent, Daria Lisa, was
that she had said, F Kamala Harris. He put it
on a giant mailer. He put her face on it.
If the mailer said F Kamala Harris, Daria Lisa. And

(23:35):
he mailed that to everybody in his district. And we're
still looking for a copy. If anyone has a copy
for us, Oh, copy, yes, put it in the put
in the museum. Uh So, if you're Kamala Harris and
you're watching that, to me, you'd be like, all right,
I guess it's a wrap for me. Like that's like,

(23:55):
how do you come how do you come back from that?
Like Normy voter in Harlem saw that and were like,
I'm with Daria Lisa, Like, where do you go from there?
I guess where she goes. She calls mom Donnie he
maybe uses his name at this point, and then asks like,
who do I need to talk to to get right
on this question? I think I think nobody. I think

(24:20):
there's probably room for people to be open to her
because nobody thinks she has any deeply held views period.
So it's not like she has a deeply held view
of support for Israel. She just doesn't care. She's just
a politician who's going to mouth whatever it is. At
this point, though, in our politics, I don't think you
need somebody like that. If you're the kind of progressive left,

(24:43):
you could get somebody who actually does believe things and
believes things that you agree with. So also, what like
she ran in twenty twenty didn't even make it into
twenty twenty. I think she dropped out before the calendar
turned into the election year. And then she gets picked
by Biden and then she becomes the nominee by FIAT, Like,

(25:07):
what is it about her that Democratic voters are going
to say, Yeah, this is the person that we need
to put out on the field. I just don't see it.

Speaker 3 (25:14):
Well, Chrystal, do you think if she does adopt a
pro Palestine position, she says, now I am listening and
what we did was wrong, or we should be actually
holding a larger candle to Israel and holding their feet
to the fire. Do you think that would get her
through at least a month or two of the primary
before crashing out like it does seem like she is

(25:35):
going to run.

Speaker 2 (25:36):
I mean yeah, I mean she can get through a
month or two or the primary just from being the first,
you know, black woman vice president and having some base
of support because of that in high name recognition. But
on Palestine, how could you ever trust her? Because when
it mattered, you did nothing. When it mattered. You would
not even let a Palestinian American who endorsed you and

(25:57):
wanted to speak on your behalf the DNC stage.

Speaker 4 (26:01):
What's that, Ryan, Yeah, and say nice things about you exactly.

Speaker 3 (26:05):
So very new speech, right, very iodyne speech.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
So and it reminds very much of Kamala Harris in
twenty twenty on Medicare for all. Remember she signed on
bar Bernie's bill as a co sponsor because she thought
that was a political thing to do, and then some
donors gave her some pushback, and she remembers she was
pretending she didn't hear the answer the question when she
got asked about private insurance. I mean, it's just a
mess because she doesn't have any core convictions. She's just

(26:30):
constantly finger in the wind, and the finger is not
even that sensitive to where the wind is blowing. Okay,
it's like she's getting the wind from like three years
ago from blowing by at this point. So yeah, I mean,
I would point to examples that I think Ryan has
pointed to in the recent election results, which is Antonio Renoso,

(26:53):
who was running against Claire Valdez. He said it was
a genocide, but he didn't say it until it was
politically convenient to him. It was not until he was
running and it was clear he needed to say it
before he said it, and people looked at that and
said not good enough. When it counted, when it was hard,
you were nowhere to be found. You could see Scott
Wiener being confronted by activists while he's at Pride events,

(27:16):
who and same thing. He has now said it's a genocide.
But people look at this and go, yeah, But when
it was hard when the you know, bombs were being dropped.
Now there's still mass burder happening in gods that, don't
get me wrong. But when the bombs were being dropped
and babies were being mass murdered, you had nothing to
say about it. It's not good enough. So I think
for you're going to see a lot of Democrats now

(27:37):
who have been horrendous on this issue, who are looking
at the election results or going holy shit, I better
get on board with this or I'm going to be
in big trouble. You're going to see a lot of
people repositioning themselves and suddenly you know it's a genocide,
and suddenly they can get on board with blocking weapons,
and suddenly they are repositioning themselves as economic, populous and

(27:59):
trying to meet the moment. That's it's a good thing
that cynical politicians are trying to move to be in
the correct place now. But no, I don't think voters
are going to forget. For Kamala Harris that when it counted,
both when you were vice president and when you were
campaigning for president and at risk of losing to Donald Trump,
which you did then lose, that you were terrible and

(28:19):
nowhere to be found. So no, I don't think a
few conversations with you know, pro Palestine activists or reaching
out to Zorra mom Donnie is going to solve that
issue for her. I don't think it's fixable.

Speaker 5 (28:28):
I wrote a piece on this this week, going back
with the not just the Medicare for All and Kamala Harris,
but also as you all remember, when she got a
town hall question it was like twenty eighteen or twenty
nineteen about accepting corporate money versus corporate lobbyist money, like
corporate pack money versus corporate lobbyist money, and she tried
to split the hair and it.

Speaker 6 (28:46):
Went super viral.

Speaker 5 (28:47):
She got just like roasted for it, and immediately within
like a couple of weeks, she went on Breakfast Club
and was like, I will not be taking corporate pack money.
And then within a year she was doing a tour
of the Amptons at just like trying to rake in
as much corporate money as possible, but within this framework
of Christian Jilbrand did it as well. There was this

(29:08):
like rush to say we're not accepting corporate pac money
in the twenty twenty Democratic primary and then instead of taking.

Speaker 6 (29:13):
The PAC money.

Speaker 5 (29:14):
They were just begging Wall Street and the like hedge
fund folks for donations either way. So they it was
like this meaningless thing where she had she had her
finger in the wind, to Crystal's point, but like couldn't
even pull that off because she is not principled enough
or smart enough politically, clever enough politically to pull it off.

Speaker 4 (29:33):
Right, It's like she doesn't understand campaign finance. It's like, bro,
corporate PAC money doesn't scale for a presidential campaign, Like
you're capped at like five thousand dollars or something like
from an individual corporate pack, right, Like do you know
how much you would how many corporate pack donations you
would need to get a billion dollars? I mean that's
it's like you'd need every company pack like on the

(29:56):
planet to give you multiple donations. But you can go
to the Hampton's and get a million dollar check from
the guy that owns the company. Forget the so to
not even know that, like like we need more competent
corrupt politicians. It's like, come on, give us, give us

(30:16):
something better here to do better there.

Speaker 3 (30:20):
Newsom well the politicians, Yeah, he's got it. So the
politicians are are coming around to the idea that they
need to pivot on the issue, but mainstream media seems
to be still stuck on this, which I think leads
us nicely to this clip of an Abdul al Sayed,
who's been making the rounds on mainstream media and recently
got into a little bit of a kerfuffle over saying

(30:42):
that his opponent Hailey Stevens couldn't string two sentences together
due to her APAC found a fund so much they
this this anchor grills him a lot on Israel's right
to exist. It's the whole shebang all over again. But
I think this sexist, misogynist accusation is the new one

(31:03):
that they're going with because APAC really can't run on
the issue of Israel. Let's take a little bit of casey.

Speaker 10 (31:11):
When you said that you hope that APAC could teach
Stevens how to stream, why is she standing together?

Speaker 2 (31:17):
Do you regret how you phrase that at all?

Speaker 7 (31:20):
The right way to put it?

Speaker 10 (31:23):
Obviously, Congressman and Stephns is really smart, which is why
it's so surprising that whenever you ask her why, for example, she.

Speaker 3 (31:29):
Took a trip to Portugal paid for by Center forward.

Speaker 10 (31:33):
One of the super PACs that is playing in this
election to Portugal with her mom, Why she took that trip,
why she's taking thirty million dollars from APAC, Where her
money comes from.

Speaker 3 (31:44):
She struggles to explain.

Speaker 10 (31:46):
What that's, what that is, and so I just think
it's really important for us to get a clear explanation
of where that money's coming from and what she's promised
to these corporations and super PACs, including APAC, about what
she plans to do for them when she's an AUF.

Speaker 5 (31:59):
Do you want to see the super pacic supporting you
air negative ads like they've now said they were planning
to do.

Speaker 10 (32:05):
Obviously I don't coordinate with them, but you're talking about
the National Nurses United, the UAW Working Families Party. These
are folks who are trying to push back against the
missing disinformation that you just saw from APAC. So at
the end of the day, I would rather not engage
in negative campaigning at all. I don't do it on
my campaign. We're focused on talking about getting money out
of politics, putting money in your pocket, passing Medicare for all,
standing up with and for women, doing the work that

(32:27):
builds in America. Where everybody knows that they can get
the health care they need when they need it, that
they get childcare when they need it, and that their
healthcare and their economy is not dominated by a large
corporation telling us what we can't have, shouldn't fight for,
and have to put up with.

Speaker 3 (32:40):
All Right, so we've got the thirty million APEX spend
versus the dark money of the nurses in the UAW,
what do we make of it?

Speaker 7 (32:50):
It?

Speaker 2 (32:50):
Let me just let me as a woman, let me
weigh in here. Since the ad that APET, the APAC
backed group put out, said that abdul ah Sayad has
like a history of disparaging women or something like that,
and the Detroit Free Press dug into the claims that
they made in this ad and were like, this is total,

(33:11):
incomplete bullshit. One of them, just to give you a sense,
was like he said Michelle Obama was ineffectual and incompetent
or something like that, and he was critiquing her, you know,
her push when she was the first lady the Let's
Move project, and he was saying, look, it's great to
encourage kids to move, and you know that's that's good,

(33:32):
but we also have to address these structural factors, very
consistent with his view on Medicare for all, and he
said that her program was well meaning but ineffectual, and
so they used that to be like, he hates Michelle
Obama and smeared her in a sexist way. It's total,
incomplete bullshit. Obviously, it's also very Hillary Clinton twenty sixteen
coded what they did to Bernie of the toxic Bernie bros.

(33:55):
And breaking up the big banks doesn't end racism. It's
a great reminder of where the you know, woke one
point zero type politics, the well from which they sprung,
which was the neoliberals trying to beat back this left insurgency.
They're trying to run the same playbook. I don't think
it's going to work. But the other thing I see here,
and you guys can tell me if I'm overreaching on this,
but Abdul Sayed is a Muslim Man, and I also

(34:19):
think there's a little bit of, oh, let's tell the
public that this Muslim man mistreats women, because that's the
Islami phobe stereotype of Muslim cin America. So I think
there's some of that going on there, which is really gross.
But if you watch that whole interview, Griffin. You referenced
the Casey was pushing him on, does Israel have a

(34:39):
right to exist? Why wouldn't you say Israel has a
right to exist? And Abdol handled it very well. He
was like, look, no one ever asked me if Palistein
has a right to exist. The reality is Israel does exist.
Let's ask the question with our tax dollars should be
going to them to bomb babies rather than let's say,
building hospitals in the state of Michigan. Great answer, but
I really think the media has lost the plot on

(35:00):
what is going to help and what is going to
hurt these candidates. For the vast majority of Americans, not
just Democrats, Americans, when they look at that exchange, they
are going to be on Abdul side. They're going to say, yeah,
he's right, Why are we spending our tax dollars? Why
is he being harangued over this issue? By the way,
again and again in this incredibly tired and cliche way.

(35:22):
So it reminds me somewhat of the way that some
of the attacks on Trump from the mainstream press have
backfired over the years in the same way where you know,
when he comes out and he's slinging, and he's making
them look like they're melting down, and he's sort of
like owning them. People are going, oh, yeah, I like
this guy versus they thought they were hurting him. And
I think there's a similar dynamic going on now where

(35:43):
the mainstream press doesn't realize that, for example, associating a
candidate with Hassan for the Democratic base, they're looking at
that and going, oh, I guess that's the candidate that
is actually good on Israel, that actually has a world compass.
I'm going to be with that guy, which is exactly
what happened in the Michigan race with Abdulla as well.

Speaker 5 (36:01):
I think there's something to that, And Casey Hunt is
a good example on CNN of somebody who I think
is it's odd because I'm trying to explain this and
you guys can tell me if I'm off on this,
but like post quote unquote woke politics are sort of
strange how they've split in the centrist media because on
the one hand, they know that like political correctness is

(36:23):
over and they should be having these like fiery panels
on the Abby Phillips Show whatever, like let everybody shout
at each other. On the other hand, they still do
want to like tone police sexism and misogyny and don't
understand in any way whatsoever that people don't buy these
like really thin attacks anymore. It does to a Crystal's point,
it does remind me a bit of every time the

(36:45):
media will.

Speaker 6 (36:46):
Melt down about tone policing Trump and knowing.

Speaker 5 (36:49):
That the public is, like, no, most people in the
public aren't on board with Trump's tone, but it's not
like the core issue that they're concerned about. Over and
over again. They're concerned about putting food on their table,
paying their healthcare bills, and like being able to afford
daycare stuff like that, and so it just it's a
strange dynamic when you see the media try to like

(37:10):
parse these politics in twenty twenty six they just don't
know what actually people care about Michigan. And you see
it with it's very Bernie twenty sixteen.

Speaker 4 (37:22):
Apak doing that type of attack ad, you know, basically
dredging up twenty fifteen again feels sort of like the
you know, hello, fellow Democrats, how do you do kind
of thing? Like you guys care about women and women's rights? Right, Well,
this and right, well, you're like ten years late on

(37:42):
this and I don't think people are going to buy
it from you. And politically, kind of pragmatically, he's going
to overwhelmingly win women in Michigan. His challenge against Mike
Rodgers is going to be independent women, independent men, and
old older men too. He needs to tighten the margins.
He's going to lose old older men to Mike Rogers.
But if he can shrink that margin, then you know

(38:05):
he can, then he's going to be more competitive. And ironically,
some of those older men uh in Michigan are going
to hear these ads saying that he's you know, hostile
to women, and it's going to cut against the Republican
attack that he's too far left, and they're gonna be
they're gonna be more open to him ironically.

Speaker 3 (38:26):
And there's there's a barstool there's also these like young
barstool guys. I'm seeing that I'm going out for Abdul
like I'm seeing I'm seeing these Dave port and I
esque bros. Holding women's our guy. Well, I think it's more. Oh,
I love that that's a good shirt too, really good shirt.

Speaker 2 (38:48):
I want that shirt. But you know, what. I just
have to give a shout out to David Serena, who
went to Michigan and did the gym thing with Abdul
despite decidedly not being a jim Bro himself. I'm just
really want to admire I just admire him for doing
that and making himself vulnerable in that way. He's like,
I got crushed, but it was a good time.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
Yes, he admitted to me on Twitter that he's actually
a gamer, So yeah, gamer in the gym is very unusual.
So we've been talking a lot though. There's another, you know,
big c change in this race because AOC just endorsed
I guess she heard that he was a misogynist and
now she's in. Now she's all in. Now. We talk
a lot about AOC's strategies on who to endorse and when.

(39:32):
So I did definitely want Crystal's reaction to this, you know,
crystals well or or Crystal can leave the can I
can get Ryan to do it.

Speaker 2 (39:41):
You're trying to give me yelled at again, But.

Speaker 3 (39:43):
There's also talk about yeah, but there's also talk about it.

Speaker 7 (39:47):
For their cons.

Speaker 2 (39:48):
It's great that she endorsed him. I just want to
see more of this, you know, and it's and it's
significant too because Hailey Stevens is one of her colleagues,
so you know, she to go in and endorse Abdoor
at this point I think makes a difference. I think
Abdullah's on track for victory. So I also think it's
like relatively safe for her at this point to jump
in the race. I just want to see her use

(40:11):
that power more so. A great example of you know,
another place where she could make a difference is with
Corey Bush and Missouri, and maybe she's going to get
in there, but Corey's a former colleague, you know, they
are friends as far as I know. But she's running
against Wesley Bell, who takes bajillions of dollars from a
pack roughly, and so that would be a race where
it will really make a difference. In terms of the

(40:33):
New York coordination thing, I completely you know, I'd seen
this reporting before that she and Zorn coordinated, and you know,
I don't doubt that that is the case. I just
from my perspective, Zorin has gotten justifiably a lot of
the credit and is now being called by Kam Layers
and Gavin Newsom, et cetera because he is perceived as
this kingmaker, and I think that's legitimate. You know, I

(40:56):
think he almost uniquely was able to transfer his coalition
to these candidates. In New York City, people spoke to
reporters on the ground who were voting for Daria Liza
and were just basically like, Yeah, I don't know much
about her, but it's Zoraen's candidate, so I'm voting for her.
I think that's pretty extraordinary. And so if AOC had
taken the risk of also backing some candidates against her,

(41:17):
against incumbents, which is what she was when she won,
she would also be able to accumulate that capital and
be seen very much as the leader of this movement. So,
you know, I think she's playing it too safe. I
think that she is deferring too much to the feelings
of her colleagues versus the needs of the movement. And
there are a number of races that it really could

(41:38):
make a difference. You Another example here is I think
if Bernie also I think plays it a little too safe,
al though not quite as safe as AOC. If he
and a AOC had endorsed Tom Steyer in California, who
was clearly the most progressive candidate. He would have made
the top two. It was very close, and he would
you know, be in the game and have a real
shot at winning in that state, and that would make
a huge difference. So I just think there's a lot

(41:59):
of miss opportunities here in too much of a cautious approach.
But I'm very glad to see her endorse Abdul And I.

Speaker 3 (42:05):
Mean, darl Lisa won by like two thousand votes. That
was a really close one, very close.

Speaker 4 (42:09):
Yeah, And I've seen people say, well, how come it's
okay for it's not okay for AOC to do it
this way, but it's okay for mom Donnie to do it,
And actually, you know, you're it's it's sexist, it's a
double standard. There's a there's a very big distinction between
the two at this moment. As as mayor, he's highly
dependent on what Albany kind of allows him to do

(42:32):
as mayor. Like that, his his agenda for the budget,
for the budget for lots of weathering is direct is
directly linked to his ability to get things done in Albany.
AOC does not need the House of Representatives. The House
of Representatives is her platform, but she is not like
she's not. She's not going to pass some like Okasio

(42:52):
Cortes Act over the next couple of years that Trump
is going to sign into law. And if she's going
to do it next term, it's going to be because
of the power that she builds nationally. Nobody in the
House except maybe a couple of Republicans likes Rocana like
they hate him. House Democrats they hate him. Yet he

(43:14):
passed the economassy legislation because of the raw power of
the public getting behind him. So yes, she's preserving her
relationships in the House by not endorsing any incumbents and
she and if she sticks by this apparent pledge that
she made to not endorse any challengers, that literally does
mean that she won't get behind Corey Bush against Wesley Bell,

(43:35):
who ran in twenty eighteen with her, was her former
incomment colleague that APAX spent millions to knock out.

Speaker 3 (43:42):
You know that.

Speaker 4 (43:43):
Slept out on the capital steps to protect people from eviction.
And you're not going to You're not gonna get behind
her because you're trying to preserve relationships with these people
you know that would love to see you burn And
for what It's not like you're developing any legislative.

Speaker 2 (43:59):
Power, and that's such an important Both of those are
important points. Okay, you don't think that the democratic establishment
would destroy her giving the slightest possible chance, Like this
loyalty she's showing is not going to be reciprocated. That's
number one. Number two, she's this is you know, she's
been taking this approach for a while. What has it

(44:19):
gotten you? When you wanted to be the ranking member
on over such they were like, no, we're going to
give it to this man who was literally going to
be dead in a few months. We will pick him
over you. I mean, it's that's.

Speaker 4 (44:32):
That's what it's doing. She made the promise in that
campaign that she wouldn't endorse.

Speaker 2 (44:37):
So she kept the promise but didn't even care.

Speaker 4 (44:40):
Even didn't get the position now any contract was the
front runner for president. So that's the counter argument.

Speaker 2 (44:46):
In contrast Zorn, you know, with his move some of
which I was critical of at the time, they've paid off.
He was right. I was wrong, you know, in terms
of preserving his relationship with Hochel, not endorsing against hackem Jefferies,
and as you pointed out right now, he went through
the DSA democratic process too, by the way, and made
his case and they were like, okay, narrowly, we agree
with you here. So it has been a successful pragmatic

(45:10):
approach with AOC who's been in the House now almost
a decade. It's hard to point to similar fruits of
you know, the approach that she's taken in terms of
like pragmatic legislative victories. And then the last thing that
we haven't even mentioned here is she's already come out
and said she's went for Hakeem Jeffreys for speaker. Why
would you do that? Why even if you, in your

(45:32):
heart of hearts know that at the end of the day, okay,
I will vote for him, why would you announce that publicly? Now?
That just means that going into those negotiations, you have
zero power and leverage. There is no ability of you
to join. You know, all of your new colleagues at
Chris Rabm and you know you've already got Summer Lean
and you've got Dari Lisa and Clara Valdez and all
of these people that are coming in now. And you

(45:54):
know in may Leed Kiros in Colorado you have a
genuine faction here who could push force real things and
extract some concessions out of Hakeem Jefferys and the Democratic establishment.
And you've just handed over willingly all of your power.
Why why would.

Speaker 7 (46:12):
Sense to me?

Speaker 3 (46:13):
But Chris rab also said the same thing on the show,
So it does seem to be some sort of keep
your powder dry strategy.

Speaker 2 (46:19):
Please you may remember better than me my recollection as
he was just like, I'm not sure, we'll see who's running.
AOC actively said no, I will vote for Hickem Jefferies.
So those are those are different things.

Speaker 3 (46:30):
Now.

Speaker 2 (46:30):
I prefer to see the malakiros approach of I will
not vote for Kiem Jefferies, but at the very least
have that line of like, I don't know who's running,
so we'll see, right, Yeah, keep maintain your leverage. That's
all you have to do. It was crazy to me
to see her give that up like that.

Speaker 5 (46:45):
Yeah, you can get so many different I mean, obviously
this was Ryan. We were talking about this the other day.
This was Kevin McCarthy's great downfalls that he ended up
giving so much away. I don't think it ultimately helped
the Freedom Caucus folks and those who voted against Kevin McCarthy.
But that's because they play it poorly, to be honest,
when they ousted him, but that is exactly how they
He ended up as a speaker because he had to

(47:06):
give so much to the HFC people just to secure
their votes, because they leveraged their votes, which is a
thing that you can do in politics magically. It's amazing
how that works. But I actually thought the way that
AOC played the Nancy Pelosi stuff was impressive in the moment.

Speaker 6 (47:24):
I actually though, on the.

Speaker 5 (47:25):
Other hand, now that we have some time in the
rear room mirror, look at that and say, well, with
Zorron and now this new wave, it's not even an
option for the Democratic establishment anymore to continue clinging to
their status quo because they literally do not have the
public on their side. They don't have the momentum of

(47:45):
the party's base, they don't have the grassroots, and so
it's not just kind of like, oh, maybe we're in
a transition phase circ.

Speaker 6 (47:52):
Twenty eighteen, twenty twenty, twenty twenty two.

Speaker 5 (47:54):
Now it is just like abundantly clear what direction the
party is going and what direction the voters wanted to
go in, and so it's it's like she is. She
could be more powerful than Hakim Jeffries if she chose
to be like Jakim Jeffries is this Leau guy. Yeah,
he's the guy who has no power anymore. I mean,
does he technically have power, yes, of course, but like

(48:15):
he doesn't really have people with him anymore. She's the
one who should theoretically have a ton of power because
she's representing the base and the grassroots that is now
firmly ensconced as the like engine of the Democratic Party.
So it doesn't make any sense to continue to be
deferential to the like leadership because they you can give

(48:36):
to them more than they can give to you.

Speaker 2 (48:38):
At this point, you know, the strategy maybe makes more
sense if she's planning to run for Senate instead of
for president. You know, maybe there's a theoretical like, Okay,
Kim Jeffries is powerful new York tech Schumer is powerful
in New York. Maybe if I don't rock the boat
with these people, maybe it'll be go easier for me
in a Senate primary.

Speaker 3 (48:58):
I think down the road.

Speaker 2 (49:00):
So I think the strategy is somewhat more logical if
you're going in that direction now in terms of what
would be best for the movement. There's still I think
a major flaw in the approach here where you know,
the left has the wind at their backs right now,
it's in a way that has never been the case,

(49:21):
even in a peak Bernie moment. You know, the democratic
base agrees with the left. The neoliberal establishment has been
destroyed in terms of their credibility, and so now's the
moment when you take those risks and use the political
capital and the prestiges you have with the liberal and
progressive base to try to expand that coalition and move
the movement forward. And I think she's you know, I

(49:44):
think she's missing the bark and being too cautious in
that regard, Whereas I think Zoron has really successfully combined
privatism in terms of I need to govern effectively in
the City of New York with taking some major risks
that have paid out off and have really been incredible
for helping to build the movement, including his own campaign.
By the way, I mean, let's not forget he start

(50:05):
at one percent. It's an incredible long shot, and nothing
has been more consequential in American politics for the left.

Speaker 7 (50:12):
Nothing.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
Well, Crystal, do we have a second to talk about
Colorado before we get to our guest.

Speaker 2 (50:18):
We better we better have a second to talk about Colorado,
because I am okay, I have been following this. You
know who turned to put me on to this complete
maniac who is now looks to be the Republican nominee
for governor of Colorado is actually my eighteen year old daughter,
who was like, Mom, have you seen this interview?

Speaker 7 (50:35):
This guy is.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
Insane and he is blowing is this interview is blowing
up on TikTok? So this man what is his name,
Victor Marx? His dad is actually named Carl Marx. Guys,
I should you not?

Speaker 7 (50:47):
This is how insane?

Speaker 2 (50:49):
Wait I think so. I saw that on Twitter. Double
check me, and maybe that's bullshit, but that is what
I saw on Twitter. In any case, he runs one
of these like, oh, we help women and girls that
been trafficked. But in an interview with a local news reporter,
he got completely called out. He refused to back up
the statistics that he'd put out there previously. Just you know,

(51:11):
the details around the reality of what is happening in
this organization are in doubt to say the least. But
the other thing that's insane and we'll play this clip
for you. He claims that his dad made him kill
a man when he was seven, and then when he
got asked whether he's killed other people, he refused to

(51:32):
say okay and was like, I don't see why that's important.
He's also claimed to lead these like strikes on terrorists,
but he was never in the military, so he's claiming
as a civilian he like directed these military operations against
terrorists and various locations around the planet. Also want specified

(51:52):
the details of that, So Griffin, can we go ahead
and play this clip because I just need everybody to
know the type of people that are getting nominated around
the country on the Republican side.

Speaker 3 (52:01):
This this clip feels straight out of the Jinks with
Robert Durst, The Greatest.

Speaker 6 (52:06):
Documentary of all.

Speaker 11 (52:08):
Your claim that your abusive stepfather forced you to kill
a man when you were seven years.

Speaker 3 (52:12):
Old is.

Speaker 12 (52:24):
Well as a as a child, yes, without questions. But
I've been in other situations where you know, possibly people
are persons died uh as a result of me defending

(52:47):
myself and other countries.

Speaker 11 (52:49):
Do you think that you've killed people as an adult?

Speaker 12 (52:54):
Does it matter?

Speaker 6 (52:55):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (52:58):
It is a pretty weighty thing.

Speaker 12 (53:01):
Yeah, if someone's trying to kill you, or you're in combat.

Speaker 11 (53:05):
It's still a weighty thing to take somebody.

Speaker 2 (53:07):
Else's again, was not in the military events.

Speaker 4 (53:09):
You justified, but it's still a weighty thing.

Speaker 11 (53:11):
So I'm just asking how many people if you killed?

Speaker 12 (53:15):
Well, if I did, I wouldn't be telling a reporter
sitting here my training center. How about voters? Would you
tell voters there's no need. I don't think that's important.
It's actually kind of it's an odd question to me.

Speaker 11 (53:34):
Because you actually talk about the idea of killing people
with some frequency and why it's a necessary thing to do.
Killing people, you said on NERATV in twenty seventeen. Now
a lot of them just.

Speaker 4 (53:45):
Got to be killed.

Speaker 11 (53:46):
I've had them shoot at me and I had to
shoot back. There's a time and place to eliminate the enemy,
and you have to, you said on Jeff Lerner's podcast
in twenty twenty five. Some people have to get killed,
some people have to die.

Speaker 4 (53:57):
But it's an odd question to ask you how many
people you've killed?

Speaker 3 (54:00):
Yes, all right, So okay, so I was just going
to say so.

Speaker 5 (54:05):
The Washington Examiner and the Army Website report that he
is he was a marine, So I don't know if
that I don't know.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
Yeah, so anyway, either way, it doesn't really check out.
Yeah it doesn't.

Speaker 4 (54:23):
I was ready. I was when I first saw that,
I was ready to defend him, because if you're in combat,
I think what he was trying to say at one point,
if you're in combat and you're shooting off into the distance,
maybe you don't necessarily know if you're not sure killed
somebody or not. But then when it gets when he
brings up the fact that you yourself have bragged about

(54:44):
killing people and talked about the importance of killing people
and how much it matters to kill people that are
trying to kill you. Like, if you're the one that
introduced it into the conversation, then it's a completely fair question,
all right.

Speaker 2 (54:56):
So here's what it looks like. It says he served
in from eighty three to eighty six under a different
name vond incredible, incredible, never bri zone or saw combat.

Speaker 3 (55:09):
Oh my god, so are these parking lot fights like
what's where.

Speaker 4 (55:13):
Where we already have killed people?

Speaker 2 (55:14):
Grenada Like it's never deployed to a war zone, never
saw combat, sothough And also, okay, if.

Speaker 5 (55:22):
You can't well and we're assuming that this name thing
is correct, because that's what's like confusing about all of
the like we've seen people embellish and have totally incorrect
information about whether or not they served in the military before.

Speaker 6 (55:35):
So that's it's it's enormously bizarre.

Speaker 3 (55:38):
And he's winning. He's winning.

Speaker 2 (55:41):
He's winning the Republican nomination. He will almost certainly lose
to the Democratic nominee. But Colorado on your Republican nominee
for governor Colorado?

Speaker 4 (55:53):
Yeah, Colorado elected Republicans.

Speaker 2 (55:56):
Not long ago.

Speaker 7 (55:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (56:00):
Wow, Well, everyone keep a far breadth away from the
Colorado Republican primaries and filling going on there. And DSA shout.

Speaker 2 (56:10):
Out to shoutout to Kyle Clark, who did a great
job in that interview. Everyone should go watch the whole
thing because there were many more moments like that that we're.

Speaker 5 (56:17):
Just like killing someone as a weighty thing.

Speaker 6 (56:20):
In the words Kyle's non.

Speaker 2 (56:23):
Question, Well, you've made some odd claims, so we're going
to have to ask some odd questions.

Speaker 3 (56:29):
All right, let's talk about journalism or protecting journalists. We
have a guest here, Ryan, Let's bring them on in. Ryan,
who do we have today?

Speaker 4 (56:42):
We've got Nica soon Chong, publisher of Drop Side News. Nika,
how you doing not so bad?

Speaker 7 (56:46):
How are you well? Thanks for having me, Thanks for
joining us.

Speaker 4 (56:50):
We appreciate it, of course. So you found yourself in
the middle of a controversy this past couple of weeks
just to get just to give it a little bit
of the background. But I want to want you to
kind of tell us everything I happened. So you were
were up until recently a member of the board of
the Committee to Protect Journalists, which, like other similar committees,

(57:14):
keeps a list of the number of journalists around the
world who have been killed while performing their journalistic duties.
That list has become a massive political liability for the
state of Israel, which has killed more journalists maybe than
any other country in modern history or I guess history

(57:36):
period in such a short amount of time. And so
there's been this then rearguard action by defenders of Israel
to try to either one by one eliminate people who
are or who were added to that list, but then
more importantly, to kind of change the definition of who

(57:56):
becomes a journalist. So can you talk tell us like
a little bit about how, like how it came to
pass that all of a sudden, CPGA was going to
review its definition of who counts as a journalist, and
what was the change that some advocates were looking for.

Speaker 7 (58:16):
Yeah, well, I'll say it's not CpG.

Speaker 9 (58:19):
It's specifically the CPJ Board, which has the independent authority
to change the definition for the organization. Right, And it
wasn't even an agenda item for the board to discuss.
It actually came from a discussion that was planned of
an article that was titled CPJ board stacked with figures
who accuse Israel of genocide and apartheid and then had

(58:43):
free beacon. Yeah exactly, And the article had several obvious
factual errors, et cetera. But first of all, Israel is
an apartheid state and it is committing genocide and we
should be able to say that.

Speaker 7 (58:56):
And second of all, we were.

Speaker 9 (58:57):
Supposed to discuss a response again against the piece which
cites accusations from honest reporting that drop site does quote
unquote terrorist pr Instead, the outcome was, well, maybe the
piece is wrong, but maybe it has a point. Maybe
actually some of the journalists in Gaza are legitimate combatants

(59:19):
and for that reason we should really reevaluate whether or
not they qualifies as a journalist. And so from there
the discussion was long, and the next thing I knew
there was a task force established to evaluate whether or
not CPJ's definition should break from international.

Speaker 7 (59:38):
Law and count.

Speaker 4 (59:40):
But not by a vote or anything of the board,
just a all of a sudden, somebody on the board,
it's just we're going to do a task force and
we're going to look at this, right.

Speaker 9 (59:48):
And then a couple of weeks later, the task force
had been selected, had been selected, with members including members
who advocated for the questioning of the inclusion of journalists
who are associated with MS and PIJ. And so from
there I sent an email asking very simply for a

(01:00:09):
vote and laying out some of what I thought the
moral stakes were of even beginning this process, of even
beginning this sort of collective active suspicion to reverify and
reevaluate the very terms the organization is built on.

Speaker 7 (01:00:23):
It's like the J and CPJ's journalists.

Speaker 9 (01:00:25):
If we really don't know what that is, then the
whole organization should shut down until it's figured out.

Speaker 7 (01:00:31):
And so it's quite consequential, and what's the current go ahead?

Speaker 2 (01:00:36):
I was going to ask the same question, what is
the current definition of journalists that is held by the CPJ,
How was that determined and how was it going to
be changed?

Speaker 9 (01:00:45):
Yeah, so journalists are people who regularly cover news, to
report or share fact based information. That includes journalists that
state back to publications. It includes freelancers. It includes journalists
at publications run by identified terrorist groups by certain countries.
Now journalists are excluded from inclusion from the Impunity Index

(01:01:08):
from the database if there's evidence that they were directly
participating in combat in armed conflict at the time of
their death.

Speaker 7 (01:01:16):
And so really, now the new.

Speaker 9 (01:01:19):
Element being introduced is, well, should civilian journalists affiliated with
non military wings of identified terrorist groups be excluded categorically
from being counted as a journalist?

Speaker 4 (01:01:33):
And the counter so that then I saw I saw
the email that you sent. You pointed out because people
have a very hard time humanizing Palestinians. So you said, okay,
the ANC, you know, Nelson Mandela's organization was listed as
a terrorist organization up until like relatively recently, and they

(01:01:53):
had a media they had a media wing, They had
reporters that would write for publications that were kind of
affiliated with the ANC. Most most political groups around the
world have like a separate media wing. Most states have
it too. Russia has RT, Turkey has multiple state backed ones,

(01:02:13):
the US has NPR and PBS, you know, Britain has
you know, the BBC like and so the idea was,
if if you're doing journalism for any one of these affiliates,
does not matter what the politics are of the organization
you're affiliated with, Like you can't kill an RT journalist
because you think that Putin is a terrorist, you can't

(01:02:35):
kill an a n C linked journalist because you think
that the anc IS journalists. You can't kill Hamas linked
because they've got their own news organizations. You can't kill
them if they're freelancing for this outlet. So that was
the counter argument, Like what was there? How do they
Everyone agrees with that in the world of journalism, So

(01:02:56):
how are how are they going to single out kind
of Palestinian journalists working for these organizations without also then
saying if you work for Israeli Army radio or an
Israeli you know, public news organization or the BBC, Like,
how are they because they wouldn't want to say a
BBC journalist is fair game, even though the UK is

(01:03:17):
complicit in a genocide, So what was there What was
their attempt to kind of write a definition that would say,
these journalists are terrorists and you can kill them, but
these journalists are not and you can't.

Speaker 9 (01:03:31):
I mean, I think in many ways it's driven by
the discomfort with the international laws acceptance of Palestinian's right
to armed resistance to a military occupation. And you mentioned
the ANC. It's not just that ANC had a newspaper
and an outlet, it also had an armed wing of
contud toce SI's Weight that Mendela was a founding leader

(01:03:52):
of and Mandela himself was on the US terror watch list.

Speaker 7 (01:03:56):
And so really it's it's the the acusations.

Speaker 9 (01:04:00):
Of violence on behalf of quote unquote terrorist organizations that
is really driving this special rule. But the logic doesn't
hold up if you push it just an inch forwards,
which is really why I thought the process was.

Speaker 7 (01:04:15):
In bad faith to begin with.

Speaker 5 (01:04:17):
Well, that was going to be my question is what
evidence do they have that any of these journalists may
have been acting, as you laid out NICA in violent
capacities at the time of their guests.

Speaker 6 (01:04:28):
Does that evidence exist?

Speaker 5 (01:04:29):
Is that would that put a serious dint in the
numbers if it were there.

Speaker 9 (01:04:34):
So that is the current definition now if their journalist
is acting in combat the time of their death and
there to be excluded. I know there are instances, and
again I haven't reviewed this myself, and I actually can't
speak to any of the data or the cases. But
there have been instances, for example, where there have been
habituaries published by hamas that have identified a journalist in

(01:04:58):
a particular way cause for a review of how they
were included in the database. And I think those rules
are legitimate, and that is a legitimate reason to review
that case. And it's unfortunate that a politically motivated board
led effort is being conflated with the review of the database,

(01:05:20):
which is conducted by CpG staff CpG staff that operate independently.

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
And So, Nica, what events led to you being off
the board? How did that transpire?

Speaker 9 (01:05:33):
Yeah, I mean I sent an email. The email that
I shared, there was one response from a board member
saying that they agree in terms of procedure, a board
vote should happen. There's another response from the person who
asked for this process to begin with, simply saying I
don't think Nico wants a debate and I desist from

(01:05:55):
responding the board. Shair didn't respond, and the next morning,
in fact, told me that my term limit was up,
and then I was no longer a board member and
that was it.

Speaker 7 (01:06:05):
That was the only communication.

Speaker 4 (01:06:08):
But then they did have a vote, right, they did
have a vote.

Speaker 7 (01:06:11):
They did have the vote.

Speaker 9 (01:06:14):
The vote cost so the definition and thinking the toss
wares isn't happening anymore.

Speaker 3 (01:06:21):
U Nika. I have a question because I see a
lot of the pro Israel design is crowd trying to
label some of these journalists as combatants. Now. They use
pictures of press sitting on top of tanks and things
like that. As we've seed he's a combatant, So I
wanted to know, like how you define combatant versus journalist?

(01:06:42):
And I also did want to share an image of
Douglas Murray and Deborah Messing who did right around with
some tanks with Israel. And if we're to go by
the definition of being near or around tanks, then aren't
Douglas Murray and Deborah Messing free game as well?

Speaker 7 (01:07:02):
I leave that up to CBJ, but but I really
do think the.

Speaker 9 (01:07:09):
Process and it's something for which there should be an
and actually is an open methodology that's being refined, that's
being reviewed to make sure that it captures these really
difficult gray areas quite carefully.

Speaker 7 (01:07:24):
And it's for that.

Speaker 9 (01:07:24):
Reason that defining redefining the very parameters of what is
a journalist would undo all of that work and categorically
mean that almost all Palestinians on the database would be removed.
And so we can talk about these individual cases and
the validity of their exclusion, but I think it's more

(01:07:45):
significant to consider the politically motivated entire reimagination of the term.

Speaker 4 (01:07:53):
That's a good point. There is really no significant political
faction inside of Gaza that has not been designated by
either the US or Israel as a terrorist organization. And
those are the organizations that have kind of media operations.
And so if you're going to freelance, and a lot

(01:08:13):
of them freelance for Western outlets and then also for
local outlets, if you're gonna do that, you're gonna have
you're it's almost impossible not to work with somebody that
Israel considers to be a terrorist. I'm just curious, and
maybe you don't know the answer to this. Do you
know if CPJ considers stars and Stripes which is the
American kind of newspaper. I would assume that those are

(01:08:33):
journalists and not combatants.

Speaker 7 (01:08:38):
I'm not sure, but I do know.

Speaker 9 (01:08:39):
That's farmed and it was on the board at some station,
and that's a state backed outlet.

Speaker 4 (01:08:46):
Okay, So Voice of America gets to qualify as journalism,
which they should. I don't think you should be able
to kill somebody at Voice of America. And also oftentimes
these journalists are killed in tents, so and they're killed
in tents that are known to be ware. The journalists
operate outside of Nazar Hospital and other places. So was

(01:09:11):
your term supposed to be over? What was the what
was the what were the actual details of that?

Speaker 9 (01:09:16):
Yeah, I mean I was emailed that my three year
term was over, and then the board chair said in
a media interview that my five year term was over,
and I looked and it is a five year term,
and it technically is over, but according to the bylaws,
I should remain being a board member until a replacement
is selected. And I'm not aware of a replacement, so

(01:09:37):
you there's a chance of It's just interesting timing that
it was brought to me this way, and it was
brought to me in lieu of a response to what
I'd written.

Speaker 4 (01:09:48):
I think nominare no. I think like who would annoy
them more than than stagger? They'd all resign, they'd all quit.

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
I like that idea.

Speaker 6 (01:10:01):
Nika.

Speaker 2 (01:10:01):
My last question for you is, and again maybe I
don't know how much insight you have into this, but
I suspect this wasn't a one off pressure campaign from Zionists.
Why do you think that, I mean this kind of obvious,
but why do you think they're so sensitive to these numbers?
To me, that's very telling that they you know, that
they care that this looks so incredibly bad for Israel?

(01:10:25):
And how significant has that that pressure campaign and how
long has that been going on?

Speaker 9 (01:10:31):
I mean, I think we have to ask why is
the world's leading press freedom organization at this time reevaluating
who is a journalist when the legitimacy of Palestinian journalists
is being questioned in mass And why is Honest Reporting
being cited? Why does Honest Reporting have offices in Tel Aviv?
Why did the IDF tweet that this I told you

(01:10:54):
so when this all went down. I mean, these are
really important questions. But I also think that CPJ's board
is comprised almost entirely of leaders of mainstream media New
York Times, Fox News, NBC. The list goes on, and
these are organizations whose complicity in the ongoing genocide is

(01:11:17):
really being highlighted and emphasized.

Speaker 4 (01:11:22):
Also the IDF, I wonder if I can find it.
The IDF even tweeted at Uniqua Ace a bizarre SpongeBob
meme that did happen, like the IDF's official count throwing
a SpongeBob mean at you, which I didn't quite even understand.
I'm like, maybe the IDF is a lot younger than me.

Speaker 7 (01:11:44):
I was like, what idea Canada account are we looking at?

Speaker 4 (01:11:50):
We'll add it to the link show. But well, I
can't find it right now. But it's like, what on
earth is going on here?

Speaker 5 (01:11:57):
Well, and I just want actually to get this the
question that Crystal asked home this was got heard of
theovon and Republican Senator John Kennedy on Theo's podcast this
Week and theopressed Republican Senator John Kennedy on death of
Journalists and you didn't want to kill the number and.

Speaker 13 (01:12:15):
We but but but Hamash would Hamash would hold the
Gossians hostage, that it would put them out front.

Speaker 3 (01:12:30):
But how do we know that they killed?

Speaker 4 (01:12:33):
But they killed two hundred and twenty something journalists that
went there to document what was going on.

Speaker 13 (01:12:38):
There's no question they would a civilian disk.

Speaker 4 (01:12:40):
They wouldn't let journalists in to even document what was happening.

Speaker 13 (01:12:42):
They have been civilian dish.

Speaker 6 (01:12:44):
But it is primarily the fault and.

Speaker 5 (01:12:47):
So what you see with that is just obviously the
stakes for Israel right now are very high when you
have Theovonne pushing a Republican senator and the senator has
no good response to that.

Speaker 7 (01:12:57):
Nica, absolutely, I think we're at a critical moment.

Speaker 9 (01:13:00):
So I'm grateful for the board's decision, and I think
it was the right one.

Speaker 4 (01:13:04):
That's indeed. Well, Nika, thanks for taking some time this
morning to join us.

Speaker 7 (01:13:10):
Thanks, thank you everyone.

Speaker 4 (01:13:11):
Yeah, you got it, talk to you later.

Speaker 3 (01:13:16):
While we're exploring the vast dangerous world of journalism, there
has been a story that Ryan has been looking at
with the Intercept and their tip line, which correct me
if I'm remember, Ryan was recently hacked for a period
of maybe even a couple of months. Now, what does
that mean for the Intercept? What does that mean for

(01:13:40):
all of the sources and people that potentially have been
submitting to this tip line, and maybe your thoughts on
who would have hacked it.

Speaker 4 (01:13:49):
Yeah, unfortunately, not that recently as far as we can tell.
It's been going on for quite some time. So back
up and people can read the details at dropsite. So basically,
the Intercept has a as many news organizations do have
a has a Signal tip line that people can send

(01:14:10):
in and in tips if you don't check a signal account.
So this is something everybody who has Signal should know.
If you don't check a signal account for some set
of time, it might be a year, We're not exactly sure.
We're trying to get this information from Signal, it becomes
dormant and then somebody else can claim it. So somebody

(01:14:31):
went in and claimed the intercepts signal account which I
think the Intercept dot one, and started messaging and start
and also set up a I'll show you this, also
set up a Twitter account that was and here here
it is.

Speaker 3 (01:14:48):
That was.

Speaker 4 (01:14:49):
They said they were the Intercept's kind of investigative intake sides.
So this this fake account here and then this is
me reaching out to them. Would underneath a tweet by
the White House or Chuck Schumer or Jim Jordan would say,
if you have more information on this, reach out to
the Intercept at the intercept dot qu one signal. And
then if you went to the Intercept's website, it would

(01:15:11):
say on their how to Leak that that was in
fact their signal account. And so this went on for
many months until until they recently discovered. Our understanding is
you know, we can I think we're going to learn
more about how exactly they discovered it. But all of

(01:15:32):
a sudden they're like, oh, we don't. We don't have
access to our tip line anymore, which also shows by
the way, they would have realized that if they went
to check it at any point in the past so years,
so you would go in and check it. So they
told us in a statement that they don't have any
information that any sources have been were compromised. Problem is

(01:15:55):
they wouldn't necessarily know whether or not a source was
compromised because the source is going directly to this third party,
which is then going kind of back and forth with
them and maybe soliciting information, soliciting their identity.

Speaker 3 (01:16:14):
At first.

Speaker 4 (01:16:14):
So when they finally learned and let me put this.
When they finally learned what had happened, I'll put this
back up. They put a rather innocuous sounding whereas it
a rather innocuous sounding update on their Twitter account. Oh
this is yesterday they had a virtual training session on

(01:16:36):
protecting your personal data. Not so sure about it.

Speaker 2 (01:16:40):
I might skip that one.

Speaker 4 (01:16:42):
So they said this basically, and they put this out
on Twitter as well. They said, in keeping with security
best practices, we have updated our signal tip line. If
you want to contact the Intercept, please get in touch
with our reporters individually or use the signal account the
Intercept Underscore tips dot one. Please do not use the

(01:17:03):
username Theintercept dot one. And then then they say the
username the Intercept Underscore Tips dot O one is up
to date as of June thirtieth and is the only
place to reach the Intercepts institutional signal account.

Speaker 3 (01:17:19):
They got to change the handle a little bit more
than that, right, that's like a typo like it's too close.
Got to do something else now, Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:17:28):
And the Intercept dot O one is still engaging with
people with the Intercept's logo on it. Hal All Flow
reached out to them and is in communication with them today.
He was just texting me that, like they're they're still in,
they're still using and they said and they're saying, yes,
this is the intercept, please please send your secure information here.

(01:17:48):
We guarantee you anonymity. So to me, the Intercept really
this that this is not enough to say, in keeping
with security best practices, we've updated our tip line is
not enough. What they need to do is to publicly say,
if you have communicated with the Intercept's signal tip line
in the past x months and they need to figure

(01:18:11):
out when the last time they checked it was, then
just be aware that you may know you were communicating
with somebody other than the Intercept. Like that needs to
be what they say.

Speaker 2 (01:18:22):
Publicly humiliating for a news organization because that the reason
they don't want to say that is because that requires
fussing up to like, yeah, we just don't really check
the tip line. That sort of news gatherings just not
really priority for us, apparently. I mean, that's just humiliating. Ryan,

(01:18:42):
did it feel to you when you were interacting with
this person who is impersonating the interceptor? The responses feel
sort of AI, did that come across to you or no?

Speaker 4 (01:18:51):
Either Ai or English as a second language. Yeah, we
like if you check when they were responding people that
it's and the account is link linked to Hong Kong Twitter.
You can't necessarily trust Twitter on this. But it also
aligns with Hong Kong slash Beijing's time zone. Now maybe
they're at night Oul, but like if they're doing work hours,

(01:19:14):
it's it's in the Hong Kong Beijing time zone. So
it struck me probably more as as English as a
second language because there's a delay in the response where
you usually if it's Ai, you're gonna get it late
right away.

Speaker 2 (01:19:28):
That makes sense, but.

Speaker 4 (01:19:30):
It's still going. So the way to actually fix this,
even though the Intercept doesn't seem intent on taking it
as seriously as I think they should, would be for
everybody to just message the Intercept dot o one with
fake tips and just make that account unusable to the
Chinese person who who's using it now. So just just

(01:19:52):
send them pictures, send send them, send them whatever you want.
Just tie them up until.

Speaker 6 (01:19:58):
The videos of Hailey Stevens can't.

Speaker 4 (01:20:00):
Yes say I got a huge tip on the Michigan
Senate race.

Speaker 2 (01:20:03):
Get together your best schizo posts and your.

Speaker 4 (01:20:07):
Way just like flood them and garbage. But also signal
if you're watching, shut that account down. The intercept dot
one is fraudulently soliciting tips pretending to be the intercept
And also if your source, do not leak to that
account like also that check anyway.

Speaker 5 (01:20:24):
So I'm leaking all of my fake tips about Sager
and Jetty to the intercept one.

Speaker 4 (01:20:31):
Excellent.

Speaker 3 (01:20:31):
Yes, if everyone for Breaking Points could send a meme
of Sager hitting the bong to this intercepts probably one
most useful way to use that imagery right now for journalism.
All right, that was our.

Speaker 2 (01:20:45):
Actually like legit if if Soger did get caught like
being a pothead, that actually would be news. That's news
for sure, that would actually be news.

Speaker 3 (01:20:54):
Ye, our signal lines remain uncompromised for any entrepre rising
audience members. All right, So that was our uh, that
was our look at the wide world of journalism. Up next,
we have a candidate, William Lawrence. Why don't we talk to.

Speaker 4 (01:21:13):
Him joining us now, is a Democratic candidate for Michigan's
seventh district, Lansing and the surrounding kind of mid Michigan area.
Will Lawrence will thank you for being here.

Speaker 14 (01:21:26):
Thank you so much, Ryan, I'm glad to be here.

Speaker 4 (01:21:28):
And so Will is in a competitive Democratic primary against
two other more kind of centrist opponents and for the
privilege of taking on incumbent Republican Tom Barrett. So you know,
if Will is able to win, will be this interesting
test of whether kind of the populist wing can also
flip red seats in a similar way that Randy Vegas
is trying to prove over in California. But we wanted

(01:21:50):
to start by playing for you this this super viral
clip of a very animated Alex carp the CEO of
of Pallenteer and then and then we'll get into this.
If people haven't seen this, this full clip, it's it's
it's quite something. But let's play a little bit of
it now, Griffin, We got that, who owns the data?

Speaker 15 (01:22:09):
Where is it cashed? Are the prompts secure? Is this
being transferred to you? Are you being comp okay? If
it was so valuable, Let's say I can make you
a billion dollars right tomorrow. Wouldn't I say I'll make
you a billion dollars and I want thirty Why are
they charging for tokens if it's so valuable.

Speaker 5 (01:22:25):
So then Alex, if the key from what I'm hearing
you say is a secure American born open source model,
how quickly can your model compete with the frontiera.

Speaker 3 (01:22:35):
Now what I'm.

Speaker 15 (01:22:35):
Saying, AI, Okay, what I am claiming obviously slightly true
but slightly self centered, is it's the model plus an
application layer plus compute.

Speaker 12 (01:22:48):
It is really all three.

Speaker 15 (01:22:49):
So in our jargon, it's the value the reason.

Speaker 14 (01:22:52):
Okay, just look at our financials.

Speaker 15 (01:22:54):
The reason why everyone is chillaxing with bad financials and
growth with while losing money is the client refuses to
pay the true costs. The two places that actually make
money like profit free cash flow are our application layer
called ontology and compute. Okay, what I am not just
claiming We can take an open model and in the

(01:23:16):
classified or non classified context get it to the point
of a frontier model. But a you control the weights.
So what is the true cost? Not just what you're paying.
The true cost is not just is what you make
minus what you lose, meaning the value of your business.
But we can get the frontier application to be exactly

(01:23:36):
the same as a frontier model without the risk of
transferring alpha of your business to another.

Speaker 4 (01:23:42):
Well, basically what he's saying there is related to Palenteer's
recent struggles. A bunch of countries around the world have
started to tell Palenteer, including France. I think the UK's
NHS is reviewing, France's kicking them out, Germany's kicking them out.
A bunch of countries are saying, wait a minute, we
don't want this closed American AI inside what he's calling

(01:24:08):
their alpha, like you know, their alpha is their business there,
the whole point of their business. And he's worried that
the US companies are going to go in basically steal
it and run it and can flick a switch and
turn it off. And so this closed model approach that
the US has been taking versus the Chinese open approach
is turning out to be a very expensive and very

(01:24:30):
incorrect be The open stuff also needs much less compute,
which also then means means many fewer data data centers. Meanwhile,
we are pumping endless amounts of money into building more
and more data centers. Any reaction to CARPS kind of
self motivated and I think actually fairly accurate in some ways.

Speaker 2 (01:24:55):
Common incoherent, but maybe accurate, yes.

Speaker 4 (01:24:58):
Right, and and how it fits and how it fits
into your campaign, which picked up a lot of attention
over the past week for your first television ad, you know,
standing up against the development of a local data center
in Michigan.

Speaker 8 (01:25:13):
Well, I think Karp is always very clarifying when he's
in the news because what he's clear about is that
this is fundamentally for the powerful technology of surveillance and warfare.
So of course there are sovereignty questions that are coming
up when that is what the technology is being used for.
And that's what Palneers proprietary software is designed to do,

(01:25:37):
is to help powerful people to surveil and make war.
And you know, the Pope said in his encyclical on
AI that the AI is making the to kill is
now as easy as snapping your fingers. In fact, you
don't even need to snap the fingers. You can have
the computer snap the fingers for you. That's what was
at stake in the debate between Anthropic and the d
O D. Right, is the computer press the but or

(01:26:00):
do we want the computer to line everything up, calibrate
the target and then you still require a human to
press the button. That's you know, that's an important distinction.
But the bigger picture we need to be clear on
here is that this is this is a tool of
surveillance and warfare that is being used to track all
of us. And so when I'm here in the ground

(01:26:21):
in Michigan and we're talking to people who are fighting
against these data centers, you know, the local company officials,
they come into town and they sign the township elected
ord members and whatnot to non disclosure agreements, and then
they come forward and they say like, oh, you know,
this is the wave of progress for the twenty first
century and you're going to miss out on it if
you don't take this deal and allow this behemoth data

(01:26:43):
center to be built in your front yard. And folks
are saying, well, what progress are you talking about? I mean,
you're talking about the ability to surveil us. You're talking
about the ability to kick ten million people out of
their jobs, which we're also hearing amoday, and you know,
so many others. And there are people who believe that,
you know, the ai IS could be used for the best,

(01:27:05):
and you know, I'm someone who believes we could be
using it to make biomedical advances and curing cancer and
things like that. But what's clear is that under the
current leadership and the current incentive system. It's going to
be used for surveillance, warfare and as a mass unemployment machine,
and people don't want to have any part of that.

Speaker 2 (01:27:20):
So let's go ahead and play your ad that captured
so much attention. And I'll just add to this. I
did a monologue this week, but in Utah, I'm sure
you were following the saga of this Kevin O'Leary backed
hyperscale data center in rural Utah. Local people did not
want this. There didn't matter got ran through by the politicians. Well,
the state Senate president just lost his seat in a

(01:27:44):
massive backlash to this data center. Two out of the
three counting commissioners, the only two that were on the ballot,
also lost their seats for greenlighting the regulatory regime that
would enable this data center as well. So I think
these politics are very potent. Let's go ahead and take
a look at your opening here.

Speaker 8 (01:28:00):
I'm Will Lawrence and tech billionaires want to turn this
whole field into a massive data center that'll jack up
our energy bills and ruin our home values.

Speaker 4 (01:28:09):
They put that in, it's going to plummet the values.

Speaker 3 (01:28:12):
It's an existential threat.

Speaker 8 (01:28:15):
I'm running for US Confas because I've never been afraid
to stand up corporate power. I'm backed by Bernie Sanders
and I don't take a dime from corporate packs.

Speaker 7 (01:28:23):
Well, Lawrence isn't going to let us be bullied by
big corporation.

Speaker 14 (01:28:27):
I'm Will Lawrence, and I approve this message.

Speaker 2 (01:28:30):
So what has been a response to this ad? And also, I,
you know, find it noteworthy that not only you, but
Abdulah Sayad are touting your Bernie Sanders endorsements in the state.
You know this after Bernie's been painted as this fringe character.
The polls tell a very different story about his popularity.
So I'm just interested in what the backstory is, why
you decided to launch with this ad in this particular
makeup with the response to it has.

Speaker 8 (01:28:52):
Been, Yeah, well just on Bernie, I'll say, you know,
people love Bernie. People who had never voted for him
in twenty sixteen or twenty twenty are now coming around
to the truth of his message. I hear that every
single day on the campaign trail. But the data centers
was not something I expected to be talking about when
I got into this campaign last August. But we've had
a wave of data centers proposed all across the state

(01:29:13):
of Michigan thanks to some tax incentives that were passed
on a bipartisan basis at the state level several years ago.
And again, how the playbook usually goes is that the
residents are the last to find out. The local elected
officials have been signed to non disclosure agreements, and then
the pr agents and the lawyers come in and they say, everybody,
this is a great deal.

Speaker 14 (01:29:33):
Just trust us.

Speaker 8 (01:29:34):
The utility companies have assured us that your rates will
not rise. There might be some inconvenience, but this is
just the price that we all have to pay for progress.
So get on board. And people say, why would we
trust you. You've given us no reason to trust you.
This was negotiated under an NBA. The utility monopolies are
completely untrustworthy. Sam Altman and Musk and Alex carp and

(01:29:58):
there Elk do not ex actually seem like the most
morally upstanding characters. I mean, all men'sone colleagues call him
a pathological liar. So people say, we've got good reasons
to doubt whether this is a good deal. And then
normally the LATINX line is like, well, don't you idiots
know that you don't have any better options because you
don't got a lot of money out here. We've got
billions upon billions of dollars in California, and if you

(01:30:19):
don't get this investment now, it's the last bet, best
option you're going to get, and you're going to be
left behind for the rest of the century. That goes
over like a lead balloon, and people say, hey, actually,
we kind of like our town the way it is,
and we might want some things to change, but we
want to be part of that change, because that's what
democracy and self determination means. And what you're offering us

(01:30:40):
looks a lot like a con job and you're acting
like bullies.

Speaker 5 (01:30:45):
And I've been on mute because it sounds like a
war zone here in DC because if you hear, if
you start hearing like fighter jets in the background, blame Trump. Yeah,
He's like, there's clearly something going on up.

Speaker 3 (01:30:55):
It's a data center.

Speaker 5 (01:30:56):
It's yeah, it's just the beautiful, al lullabit hum of
the of the data center in the background. But will
the question I wanted to ask is I think a
lot of people, my fellow conservatives look at candidates that
are aligned with Bernie DSA candidates, folks running in flippable
districts perhaps or red areas, and make the mistake of

(01:31:17):
thinking that because there are some cultural positions that might
be like disagreed on by some of the folks even
that you're talking to in that video, that might be
like there we go with the fighter jets. That might
be a little bit of a barrier. But I think
when the economy doesn't feel good, and as we were
talking about earlier wages not keeping up with inflation and

(01:31:37):
the show that I think my theory here is, and
I'm curious what you make of this. People prioritize someone
who has their economic interests and can kind of get
over some of the cultural differences they might have on
issues that are related to like maybe immigration, maybe I
those types of things. And I just want to I'm
curious if that's the response that you've got, because this
data center is really the data center who's really unil

(01:32:00):
like people across parties are on that and if you
can talk to them about something like this, you can
build trust. And so basically that's just the theory. I
wanted to lay out layout for you and see what
you think. You're totally right, You're on the money.

Speaker 8 (01:32:14):
People feel like so angry at the leadership of both
parties for rolling out the red carpet for big tech.
This is something that Trump has been all on board for.
It's something that our governor, Gretchen Whitmer has been all
on board for. And people see that. People see how
our congressional delegation and our state legislators have also been
silent or at worse, actively abetting these data centers coming

(01:32:38):
into our communities. So in that context, it's just reinforcing
what we already know, which is that people feel ripped
off by both political parties. People feel that both parties
are in league with the billionaires in Silicon Valley and
Wall Street more than they give a damn about the
working class or regular people across Michigan. And when somebody
just shows up and is willing to listen and say, hey,

(01:33:01):
you're not crazy for fearing this behemoth data center coming
into your front yard, and you shouldn't take kindly to
people coming in and lecturing to you about why it's
actually a great thing. People respond well to that, and
that's why I'm earning trust of people of all political
persuasions across the district who are impacted by this issue.

Speaker 4 (01:33:21):
Now, I want to play one more clip from this
Alex Karp interview because I thought it was extraordinarily revealing
and you kind of have to listen closely if you're watching.
But what he says is that he's super angry at
the sam Altmans of the world who have been talking
about the unemployment apocalypse that AI is going to bring about,

(01:33:41):
not because it's not true necessarily, but because what it's
going to do is allow the public to create a
wealth tax on billionaires because they're going to be so scared.
So listen to how he frames this.

Speaker 15 (01:33:56):
These people are livid. They're like, I am paying for
tokens that create no value. These people are stealing the
weights and alpha of my business, and they're creating a
wealth tax that does not help the poor. It just punishes.
Starts with the billionaires. Every single person at this table
is going to be paying a wealth tax only to
punish us. And the reason for it is because these

(01:34:16):
models have been completely over irresponsibly oversailed, and the sale
is it's dangerous for everyone, which is why I can
give it to all your adversaries. But I can't give
it to a Department of Wark, or I can't safely
give it to an enterprise in this country without being
certain that the alpha that business could transfer to this moment.

Speaker 4 (01:34:34):
So what he's saying is, because you've overhyped AI and
told the public that one hundred million people are going
to go out of get thrown out of work, they're
going to tax your wealth. First of all, would you
do you support a wealth tax? And do you think
he's actually right that the mood among the public is

(01:34:55):
actually getting ripe to say, you know what, this is
unsustainable and obscene. We need to tax these guys.

Speaker 8 (01:35:02):
I do support her well taxed because it is unsustainable
and obscene. I mean again, I'm an organizer and I'm
a public servant. I've spent my last five years most
focused on the housing crisis here in mid Michigan, and
you may be you may be surprised to hear that
even in Lansing, Michigan, the rent is way too damn high.

(01:35:23):
I don't think there is an affordable place anywhere in
my district or anywhere in the country these days. Frankly,
and I was just talking yesterday with a good friend
who I met because we were helping her to fight
a mass eviction with her neighbors, and she ended up
fighting that eviction, getting time and money to successfully relocate.

(01:35:43):
But now her new landlord is raising her rent fifty
percent and she is going to have to She's not
going to be able to pay it. She's going to
have to go find a new place, and Lord knows
what's going to happen to her. I'm hoping that we
can help her find a place. But people are getting
pushed out onto the street. People are going deeply into debt,
people are dying of preventable diseases because they can't afford

(01:36:03):
their healthcare. While we've got these billionaires getting richer than
anybody in the history of humanity and making their plans
to go off to space. This is not a sustainable
foundation for a society. We actually do depend on each
other still. These billionaires actually do depend on the working
class still, and they do depend on the relative peace

(01:36:25):
and harmony of the social fabric, so that people are
not bringing the pitchforks out into the streets because they
are so desperate to be fed and housed and to
ensure the same for their children and grandchildren. People can
see that it's not right and something is going to
have to give, because we're not just going to go

(01:36:46):
down lightly as these people, or at all of the
wealth of our society and take it away to Mars
with them.

Speaker 3 (01:36:53):
Will what other positions you know you said you didn't
want to start with data centers or you didn't think
that was going to be while you got into the race.
What other positions are part of your campaign? And what
does the race look like right now? Are your opponents
going all in on pro AI mentioned a little bit
about that, sure, Well.

Speaker 8 (01:37:15):
You know, I got into this race because we need
to flip the district. This is one of the top
five swing districts that's going to determine control of the
US House. It's a fifty to fifty even district and
it was formerly held by our now Senator Alyssa Slockin.
When she moved up to the Senate, it flipped into
Republican's hands and we have a first term Republican named
Tom Barrett who has.

Speaker 14 (01:37:35):
Not done the job.

Speaker 8 (01:37:37):
But when I was working in DC as a co
founder of the Sunrise movement and fighting for the Green
New Deal and then the Build Back Better Agenda, I
heard what the corporate lobbyists said about districts like mine,
the frontline swing districts. They said, basically, you know, we
can't extend the child tax credit because people in Michigan's
seventh district won't go for that. We can't have Medicare
for all, We can't block the bombs to Israel because

(01:38:00):
people in Michigan seven district and other frontline districts will
not go for that.

Speaker 14 (01:38:03):
That is a lie. It's a self serving lie.

Speaker 8 (01:38:05):
But that is one of the ways that the corporate
establishment on both sides of the aisle allows the status
quota to be maintained, is by telling these myths about
places like the place where I live. I know that
that's crap. We need to prove that it's crap by
winning with a populist progressive platform in a district like this,
so that we can redefine what is possible in the

(01:38:26):
United States Congress. And you know, one of the issues
that you know, so of course, it's the affordability, it's
the cost of living, it's housing, it's healthcare, it's protecting
social security.

Speaker 14 (01:38:36):
These are things I hear a lot about, and I've
been talking a lot about.

Speaker 8 (01:38:39):
But when I got into the race, you know, saying
no to war and really reevaluating our foreign policy was
one of my core convictions from the very beginning, because
again when I was at Sunrise Movement fighting for the
Green New Deal and build back Better, I saw how
the bind administration, you know, specifically under the leadership of
Jake Sullivan, took up the whole idea, idea of you know,

(01:39:01):
good green American jobs and green industrial policy, which I
stand by and still support. But then they added another
piece to it. They said, and therefore we must also
conquer China so that we can ensure American dominance worldwide
for the twenty first century in the economy.

Speaker 14 (01:39:20):
Of the future. And I was like, no, no, and
you need to go to we need to have a
shooting war.

Speaker 8 (01:39:26):
We need to have a shooting war in the Pacific
if that is required to maintain our unquestioned economic dominance.
And this is just nothing could be more disastrous for
the American economy, for the American people, for the Chinese people,
for the planet, or for humanity as a whole than
to think that we're going to go into some cold
war which then becomes a shooting war with China. We

(01:39:47):
need to reinvest in multi I mean, how about a
radical idea like multilateralism, diplomacy, dialogue, you know, being able
to actually solve problems with other nations around the world
that we don't agree with day of the week, but
we have to live with them in the same way
we have to live with our neighbors here in Lansing.
We don't always agree with them, but we don't just
fire bomb each other's homes. So seeing how that progressive agenda,

(01:40:11):
because I do believe that there was something good about
Biden's efforts to build a working class agenda, and he
did a lot to support unions, and his investment in
green industrial policy was significant, but that was all undone
by the hawkishness that pervaded his administration in the ways
I just mentioned, as well as and then especially the
blank check that was offered to Netanyahu to conduct the

(01:40:34):
genocide and Gazi. It destroyed the Democratic coalition. So if
we want to be able to win and keep winning
in the future for the American working class, we need
to bring a more sensible foreign policy into the center
of our politics, rather than thinking that we can just
focus on the domestic issues and let the warhawks and
the blob have their way with our foreign policy.

Speaker 14 (01:40:56):
It's just not going to work.

Speaker 2 (01:40:58):
Well, let me ask you a little bit more about that,
because obviously Gaza, the genocide in Gaza, has emerged as
a real moral litmus test in a lot of Democratic primaries.
It was front and center in New York City, was
front and center with Malakiros and her ability to defeat
Diana to get in Colorado. Are you seeing is it
a central question in your race as well? And where

(01:41:20):
do your opponents in the Democratic primary stand on that.

Speaker 8 (01:41:25):
It has been a central question. I mean, I remember
sitting in a meeting of the Clinton County Democratic Party
last October when I was just getting into the race.
This is a relatively rural county north of Lansing. Democratic
Party activists mostly over the age of sixty five, many
of them over the age of seventy five, and almost
entirely white, deliberating in really good faith for like forty

(01:41:49):
minutes about the language of a resolution to condemn the
blockade on Gaza in defense of the Palestinian children who
were starving there, and just really thinking about how do
we adequately express the humanity of these children and the
horror that we feel at our tax dollars being used
to send bombs and supporting this government which is maintaining

(01:42:12):
this blockade. And that was a real moment for me.
I was like, wow, conversation has really changed because five
you know, three years ago, you would have never ever
ever heard that conversation in the Clinton County and now
it was one hundred percent focused on how do we
how do we express the humanity of these children and
the horror that we feel at the crimes being committed

(01:42:33):
in our name. So it's been like that, you know,
since then. And it's true that the issue of gods
in particular kind of I think faded from the public
consciousness for a while, as so many other crises have
come to the four. But now the outrageous and disastrous
war in Iran which has started this spring, you know,

(01:42:54):
had then brought the question of our entanglement with Israel,
our alliance with the totally outrageous and aggressive Israeli foreign
policy as we went into this war where iron together,
and that is also you know, I think, brought Palestine
back onto the forefront again. And my two opponents are
hard pressed to even acknowledge the humanity of Palestinian people,

(01:43:16):
they will not acknowledge it there as a genocide. We
were asked that question straight up, yes or no at
a forum, and the two of them talked around it
for ninety seconds each without answering the question. Because you
know they're working to leave the door open for support
from Apak in their race.

Speaker 4 (01:43:34):
Well, well, yeah, the populist wing of the Democratic Party
has always wanted kind of a people powered campaign with
a moral center to be able to challenge a Republican
incumbent and say no. This kind of politic can actually
win in swing districts as well, so it looks like
you may get a shot to do that in the general.

(01:43:54):
We'll we'll keep following this race. But thank you for
you know, taking some time on this on this Friday
to join us.

Speaker 3 (01:44:02):
Yeah, and where can people find you? I'm sure this
is probably definitely resonated with a large part of our audience.
You're speaking their language. So if people want to learn
more about you, where can they go to find out?

Speaker 8 (01:44:12):
You can go to we will twenty twenty six dot
com and we will twenty twenty six on all social
media platforms.

Speaker 3 (01:44:20):
All right, thank you very much. Will We'll keep tracking
your race.

Speaker 14 (01:44:23):
Pleasure you much for having me love the show. It's
a pleasure to be here.

Speaker 4 (01:44:29):
All right. That was Will Lawrence and the primary is
going to be on August fourth in Michigan. Pretty impressive guy,
you got what do you think, Crystal?

Speaker 2 (01:44:38):
Yeah, definitely very thoughtful, very thoughtful. So, and I think
what he identifies is also very critical because the knock
now is like, oh, you guys can win in New
York City, maybe you can win in Denver, Colorado, young progressive,
you know audience there. But I don't know the type
of Melissa Slotkin district in mid Michigan. Don't know if
you can pull that one off. So I think I

(01:45:00):
think it is important test in that regard.

Speaker 5 (01:45:03):
Well, also to have I mean, Sunrise is hardcore stuff.
To do that in Michigan, you know where the auto
industry is historically psychologically so important.

Speaker 6 (01:45:13):
It's a pretty interesting experiment.

Speaker 4 (01:45:15):
Yeah, that'll be interesting.

Speaker 3 (01:45:18):
All right. Well let's end it with just a quick
rapid fire Ama. Of course, for anyone who's a new Emily,
I think I'm getting an echo from you right now.
It's the freaking headphone switched or something.

Speaker 5 (01:45:29):
No, nothing switched to You're probably hearing the Battle Britain
outside my window.

Speaker 3 (01:45:33):
The Battle of Britain. All right, let's do some rapid
fire AMA questions. Of course, you can submit a written
AMA question for the Fridays at the link in the emails.
Let's start with Reggie Blader. What AI search engines would
you guys recommend based on the safety and privacy? I
am a casual user, but I cannot find good information

(01:45:54):
online about which models do a good job of protecting data.
As such, I don't don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:46:01):
The answer to that. To be honest with you, I
guess I've given up on privacy.

Speaker 3 (01:46:06):
Is your data goodbye?

Speaker 2 (01:46:08):
Yeah? I mean I would be very cautious of the
agentic capabilities. I'd be really cautious about giving them access
to your email and your bank accounts and all the
stuff that's on off or now. I'm not there yet
in terms of turning them loose inside of that level
of personal stuff. But yeah, to to ask, you know,
query various things do data analysis and stuff. I personally

(01:46:31):
am a CLAUD user. Yeah, wow, I'm personally a Claud user.
I think their models are tend to be the best,
the most effective. Grock tends to be the worst. In
my opinion, But I would say Claude and chat GPT
are kind of relatively on power in terms of their
their effectiveness.

Speaker 3 (01:46:50):
Trust any right left turn? Question from Joseph D. What's
the last movie that you saw at the movie theater?
Anyone going to the theaters these days? The Minions Move
movie is out this weekend. I'm excited to see the Minions.

Speaker 6 (01:47:03):
Yes, Sames, I saw the movie I saw.

Speaker 5 (01:47:08):
I saw the Peaky Blinders movie.

Speaker 6 (01:47:11):
That was the last one I saw on theaters.

Speaker 2 (01:47:13):
Probably the last one I saw in the theaters was
Wicked too, the last time I went to the theaters.
I think that's alright.

Speaker 4 (01:47:21):
So Goat with the kids? How is that?

Speaker 9 (01:47:24):
Oh?

Speaker 4 (01:47:25):
That's excellent? Loved it? What about you got that plays basketball?

Speaker 3 (01:47:31):
Classic formulation speaking of goat kind of goat related or
a different animal. The Sheep Detectives is an incredible related films.

Speaker 2 (01:47:43):
It genuinely it lives up to the hype.

Speaker 3 (01:47:46):
It is great. It's fun for the whole family. I cried.
It's very emotional, it's very funny.

Speaker 15 (01:47:52):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:47:52):
And it kind of harkens back to sort of a
more nineties or like early two thousands kid film where
there's some dark material and it's it's really it's really
something for everyone. So I highly recommend the Sheep Detectives film,
one of my favorite films that I've seen, uh this year.
And then let's do one more, one more fun one here. This,

(01:48:15):
of course, comes from frequent questioner Sabas one oh one
Uh for the amazing BP with Trump's gay tendencies and behaviors,
why haven't news outlets sent out only their best dressed
and good looking men that bit Trump's type to get
more honest answers? In an Ama months ago, Soccer said
he wore his best suit for his Trump interview, and

(01:48:37):
it proves that it works.

Speaker 6 (01:48:38):
Oh it does, No, it does?

Speaker 4 (01:48:42):
Now they should.

Speaker 2 (01:48:43):
Yeah, Ryan, how are you at drop site? How are
you guys thinking about Trump's bisexual tendencies?

Speaker 4 (01:48:49):
Yeah, Julian gott to send Julian in there with a
nice fitted suit.

Speaker 6 (01:48:53):
Oh, he would be so impressed with Julian.

Speaker 3 (01:48:56):
He would.

Speaker 4 (01:48:58):
Look how tall this guy? Julian would get all the questions.

Speaker 6 (01:49:01):
He would be like this guy, he's like Baron.

Speaker 2 (01:49:05):
I feel like he has a real reaction though to
like the the uh. Uh sort of like tall, dark
and handsome.

Speaker 3 (01:49:12):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:49:12):
He loved the Syrian. You know, Jeelani was all about him.
Obviously loves Zoron, So I do feel like he has
a has a type you.

Speaker 4 (01:49:21):
Guys have, Jolannie. Maybe you guys disagree. Joelani is not
that hot.

Speaker 3 (01:49:26):
Look at this guy.

Speaker 14 (01:49:28):
I'm looking at him. I always wanted to look like that.

Speaker 15 (01:49:33):
I just didn't want to do the work.

Speaker 3 (01:49:37):
Would anyone stop? You look good?

Speaker 4 (01:49:41):
I love that accounting about that, Jane Joannie, Come on,
is he's not He's not that hot. He's like, he's fine.
But maybe that Trump loves that doesn't come across.

Speaker 2 (01:49:59):
I liked him. When the Iranian men's soccer team, there
were like thirst traps for them all over the h
all over the timeline, and it was around the time
that the Memo of Understanding got signed and they were like,
there you go. He saw that soccer team and was
like big stown guys, give him whatever they want.

Speaker 5 (01:50:16):
Or what he was talking about the LCC Egyptian president
and he was like did remember this one?

Speaker 6 (01:50:23):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (01:50:23):
Of course.

Speaker 2 (01:50:24):
He was like in the hotel much longer than we
were supposed to.

Speaker 6 (01:50:29):
A pot of Sarah Marshall. Sarah Marshall is so good.

Speaker 3 (01:50:34):
He also just likes men Yeah, he likes men in
all types of uniforms. He loves sailors. So I think
we should dress Julian up in a little sailor outfit.
And then I think, there you go. I think he'll say,
clear the room, just one on one interview, take him,
take Julian back to a hotel room.

Speaker 2 (01:50:51):
Yeah, I mean he also he loves musicals. You know,
there's just a there's a lot there, There's a lot theretics.

Speaker 5 (01:50:58):
He loves riding around in his golf cart that's been
tricked out with speakers. He has it connected to his iPad,
which has his personal Spotify account on it, and then
he will bump his show tunes as he rides around
in the golf cart tricked out with Pat DJ.

Speaker 2 (01:51:13):
It's a hantim of the opera Cats.

Speaker 7 (01:51:15):
Aren't those some of his favorites?

Speaker 6 (01:51:16):
Yeah, there's nothing like it.

Speaker 5 (01:51:18):
Yeah, there was a day last fall I was walking
around I had pool duty. I was walking around the
White House outside and you could just gently hear in
the background show tunes blaring from the speakers.

Speaker 3 (01:51:30):
Trump share the marrow Lago playlist for everyone's Fourth of
July barbecue. We can all have a great American time.
But that's going to do it for us for this
Friday show, extra jam packed with lots of stuff. We
hope you all have a really wonderful weekend, and we
hope you've been enjoying the newsletter. Now. I know that
there's been some people that have been having trouble getting
the new newsletter email, So make sure to check your

(01:51:51):
promo or spam folders for breaking points, because I know
it's getting shorted in there. I have some data that
I think we're at like ninety nine percent to live rerate,
so it's hitting your inboxes somewhere. Check your spam or
promo folders, and if you're still having issues, if you
want to email help at kit dot com. That's help
at kit dot com. They will make sure that newsletter

(01:52:14):
is landing in the right place. And that's going to
do it for us. Anyone else got any think I
wants to plug before we get out of here.

Speaker 2 (01:52:21):
Happy fourth of July. Everybody stay safe out there in
the heat. And I will be at the beach next week,
so I will see you guys a week from now.
Sago'll be back next week though, so and Ryan and
Emily of course always all right, Emily is always picking
up the slack for everybody else.

Speaker 3 (01:52:41):
All right, we'll see you then. Bye bye, everybody.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Betrayal Weekly

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}7/3/26: Jobs Disaster, Establishment Dems Bow To Zohran, Israel Journo Killings, Intercept Tipline, Palantir Freakout

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Betrayal Weekly

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

7/3/26: Jobs Disaster, Establishment Dems Bow To Zohran, Israel Journo Killings, Intercept Tipline, Palantir Freakout

Betrayal Weekly