8/19/25: Jeffrey Sachs Breaks Down Trump Ukraine Summit, Trump Pushes Mail In Ballot Ban

Krystal and Saagar discuss Jeff Sachs breaks down Trump Ukraine summit, Trump pushes ban on mail in ballots.

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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

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

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

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

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing
show for a buddy today we have Crystal.

Speaker 4 (00:37):
Indeed we do. We got a big show today.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
The one and only Professor Jeffersas is going to join
us to be able to break down that big Ukraine
summit from yesterday, So really looking forward to hearing what
he thought of everything that has transpired to this date.
We also had some other interesting sound come from Trump
as a part of that summit, talking about how he's
getting rid of mail in ballots. He also posted a
true social do the same effect also sort of floating

(00:59):
me of hey, maybe for a war, we just don't
have an election, so he.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
Wants to copy Ukraine. Yeah, got the idea.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Lots of take note of there and break down. Also,
we're asking the question whether Gavin Newsom is going to
mean his way to the presidency. He seems to be
making some progress in regard very interesting dynamics unfolding. There
a little bit of weird horseshoe going on as well,
so we'll break that down for you. The ADL chief
is just outright lying about Zorn Mandani, so we've got
the receipts on that, and some quite noteworthy developments visa

(01:28):
the Israel Hamas has.

Speaker 4 (01:30):
Accepted a cease fire deal.

Speaker 2 (01:31):
I wouldn't get too excited yet because you know Israelis
will probably decide they just want to continue the war.

Speaker 4 (01:36):
But we didn't want to give you those details.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
As well as some other updates before we jump into
the show. In this interview with Professor Sachs, Sager had
some great breaking news yesterday, very significant. Why don't you
break down for folks what you found and were able
to at your.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
Here our premium members are dropped at last night just
to get ahead of the news. But basically you'll remember
the story about Tom Alexandrovitch, the Israeli government official who
was caught up in an FBI child sex sting. Actually
got my hands on some of the arrest documents and
specifically the interview notes, and what we found inside of
the documents is that Alexandrovitch immediately identified himself as an

(02:12):
Israeli government official. The FBI and HSI agents who interviewed
him basically said we're going to contact the embassy on
your behalf. This directly contradicts the Prime Minister's office who
said that they didn't know that he had been arrested.
He said I need to get on a flight to
Israel immediately, like he was making it clear, I need
to arrange for my international travel back to Israel after.

Speaker 1 (02:32):
Being caught up in the sting.

Speaker 3 (02:34):
And most importantly, he was here basically on government business
to attend a quote black hat conference for cybersecurity professionals.
He had met with FBI agents and an upcoming meeting
with the NSA, so with our own security establishment. This
is all on the record here from the documents that
we were able to review.

Speaker 1 (02:52):
So we did drop that early for our.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
Premiums and if you can help support journalism like that
breakingpoints dot com, if you're able, weren't keeping it behind
the paywall or anything, I'm going to release it all
publicly today, but it was important to give it to
our premiums pscription. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
First, the other detail there is the undercover agent who
was posing as a fifteen year old.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
Oh I didn't yeah, I didn't even talk about the
actual crime. Disgusting.

Speaker 2 (03:14):
That's what you know is alleged to have occurred here
is he was arranging to meet up with this fifteen
year old girl for the explicit purposes of sexual contact,
unknownst to him. This was, you know, an undercover agent
who's going to take her to SIRC to solet yeah, classy,
very disgusting, utterly discussing. This is the guy that the
government was like, oh, let's just make sure you get
on a flight to Israel and.

Speaker 4 (03:35):
Escape scott free.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
Meanwhile, the other people who were caught up in this day,
you know, we are under arrest of court days, etcetera.

Speaker 1 (03:41):
So right, very interesting, interesting.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
Indeed, we will continue to follow the case hoping to
get some more And by the way, if you are
in the Henderson Police Department, the FBI, the HSI.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
If you were involved in this.

Speaker 3 (03:53):
Investigation in any way and you want to talk, hit
me up. Let's let's talk, all right, because you know
I will be knocking on your door and I will
be breeding down your door or I guess virtually to
try and get on the phone. There's still several leads
that I would like to follow up on. There's some
very interesting stuff potentially behind the scenes. But anyway, with that,
we've got Professor Jeffrey Sax standing by, let's get to it.

(04:14):
We are very excited now to be joined by our friend,
Professor Jeffrey Sachs, who is obviously a major geopolitical expert,
and he's gonna help us break down the Trump, Ukraine
and European summit that happened yesterday.

Speaker 1 (04:25):
Professor, thank you so much for joining us.

Speaker 5 (04:26):
Very appreciate it. Great to be with you.

Speaker 3 (04:28):
So, Professor, first, we're going to go through this so
that you can help break this down through the audience
kind of clip by clip and each one of those
things that it represents to us. The major headline that
came out of the summit was Trump not ruling out
United States troops on the ground in Ukraine to provide
some sort of Article five style security guarantee inside of Ukraine,

(04:49):
is some sort of grand peace deal with Russia.

Speaker 1 (04:51):
Here's Trump refusing to rule it out.

Speaker 3 (04:53):
Your team has.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
Talked about security guarantees.

Speaker 5 (04:54):
Could that involve US troops? Would you rule down in
the future.

Speaker 6 (04:58):
Will let you know that that maybe later Today we're
meeting with seven great leaders of great countries also and
we'll be talking about that. They'll all be involved, but
there'll be a lot of there'll be a lot of
help when it comes to security. There's going to be
a lot of help. It's going to be good. They
are a first line of defense because they're there, they're

(05:19):
Europe But we're going to help them out.

Speaker 5 (05:21):
Also, we'll be involved.

Speaker 3 (05:22):
We'll be involved, Professor, So not refusing to or basically
refusing to rule out not putting US troops on the ground.
There were several other instances during the meeting where this
quote Article five style guarantee was brought up by many
of the European leaders. Of course we're hearing from the Kremlin,
but first we want your reaction to what that would
mean to the overall situation. And Trump's rhetoric here and

(05:44):
what it could potentially mean for any sort of peace deal.

Speaker 7 (05:47):
Well, I don't believe we've just had eleven years of
war and that the war is about to stop because
the United States or Europe says they're going to have
troops on the ground or Article five like agreements. This
whole war started because the United States was pushing NATO
to surround Russia and as far eastward as they could get.

(06:13):
So I don't think that the Russian side is going
to say, sure, whatever you like. What we saw yesterday
was I wouldn't say a master class, but it was
a class in ambiguity on everything. Nothing was clear, nothing

(06:33):
was very truthful, nothing was settled. But there is a
general recognition that Ukraine is losing on the battlefield, a
general fact that the United States political scene is not
going to continue any large scale war, proxy or otherwise

(06:54):
with Russia, and so that something should be done to
end this. But the specifics are as vague as can be,
and deliberately so. And Trump thinks that the way to
make deals is to prevaricate, to make things vague, to

(07:18):
keep things behind the scenes, to pull each person in
as his buddy, to say yes to everything in an
oblique way, but it's not going to end with the
Article five like guarantees. In my view, the Russians have
been fighting against that basically for more than thirty years.

(07:40):
They've been in a hot war over it for eleven years,
because this war started in February twenty fourteen when the
United States conspired in a coup to overthrow a neutralist government.
And the Russians aren't going to just say, yeah, Trump,
you're our buddy. You put if you want. I don't

(08:01):
believe it. I think it would also be a terrible
idea if the United States had troops in Ukraine.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (08:06):
Well, and to your point, A four up on the screen, guys,
Kremlin negatively reacting to that proposal of Article five like
security guarantees. Certainly no surprise there, you know, just assumming
on a bit, professor. I just love to get your
thoughts on what are the core sticking points for the Russians,
What would be a deal that they would be interested in.

(08:27):
What sort of conditions would the US, the Ukrainians, the Europeans,
the West broadly have to meet in order to conclude
some sort of a grand piece deal and bring this
war to a close.

Speaker 7 (08:38):
We have to understand where the war came from and
therefore how it can end. The war started with the
continuation of the Cold War. After nineteen ninety one, people
thought there was peace, but the CIA, the military industrial
complex continued the effort to Russia. Brushinski talked about Russia

(09:05):
falling into three pieces in a nineteen ninety seven article,
saying that maybe there'll be a loose confederation of a
European Russia, Siberian Russia, far East Russia. But the US
design was that Russia should finally basically be crushed. That
the Cold War was with the Soviet Union. But we're
not over yet. We're dominant. We won, and on that basis,

(09:29):
Clinton began NATO enlargement. I say Clinton because basically every
president then did the bidding of the military industrial complex. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, won, Biden.
And maybe this is going to end this crazy misadventure.

(09:50):
But this has been thirty years of trying to push
NATO to Ukraine and to Georgia, by the way, in
the South Caucuses, where the US meddling continues to this day.
The idea is Russia is a big country and therefore
it should be a weak country. According to the US
strategic doctrine. Okay, we overthrew a government in February twenty fourteen,

(10:15):
installed a pro NATO regime. Russia immediately took back Crimea
at that moment because the post coup government in Ukraine said, okay,
we want Russia out of its Black Fleet naval base
in Crimea. That's a naval base that Catherine the Great

(10:37):
established in seventeen eighty three, and that has been core
to Russia's national security and power since seventeen eighty three.
The United States and let's say the deep State that
said we want Russia out of there. That was the
same idea of the British and the French in eighteen

(10:59):
fifty three. We have tried to get Russia out of
Crimea in the Crimean War. Okay, enough history. The basic
point is Russia does not want to be surrounded. It
does not want NATO present, It does not want security
guarantees like Article five. It does not want Western troops
on the ground. It wants Ukraine at a minimum to

(11:21):
be a neutral buffer zone between the United States and
its proxies and allies and Russia. That's the bottom line.
So starting point, no NATO similarly, nothing that NATO like
or NATO light of you know, French and British troops

(11:43):
and German troops, and that's what the whole war has
been about. Second, Crimea is never going back. This is
absolutely clear. This was a gambit.

Speaker 5 (11:53):
It was.

Speaker 7 (11:54):
This was a ploy of NATO to grab Crimea. And
the whole idea, which Brushinsky spelled out in nineteen ninety seven,
was if we can basically get Ukraine and push Russia
out of the Black Sea, then Russia has no power
in the Middle East, it has no power in the
eastern Mediterranean, and that was part of the strategy. So

(12:16):
Crimea staying. Then come the territories that Russia has annexed.
As of November twenty twenty two, this is two in
the East and two in the South. The idea of
this goes back to two points. One is that at

(12:36):
least in the East, these are overwhelmingly ethnically Russian regions
the Donbas, and Russia said in twenty fifteen, make them autonomous.
We don't want them as territory, but make them autonomous
under a treaty called the Minsk two Agreement. The United States,
typically because it was still in its expansionist mode said

(13:00):
now I told Ukraine you don't have to honor that agreement.
Russia did not claim those territories. It just said leave
them alone, to have the Russian language, Russian ethnicity, and
so forth. And Ukraine in the post coup environment said no,
we will take them in the unitary state. So Russia

(13:21):
grabbed those back. Now it's claimed those back because the
Mids two agreement failed.

Speaker 3 (13:26):
The reason why I think the map is quite important, sir,
is if you look at the red areas, this is
I guess this is I mean, probably as accurate as
it gets. This is the United States. You know, it's
intelligence community creating this map for the president in the
Oval Office, which you use. And as you were talking,
you can actually see the percentage numbers that have been
listed here by the US intelligence community. If we zoom in,

(13:48):
we can see some seventy to eighty to ninety percent
of many of these provinces like you were talking, or
are these areas like you were talking about, and they're
controlled by Russia. So you can, just as you can
see from that map back much of what you're saying.

Speaker 7 (14:01):
So the basic idea is that ironically, before the United
States made the coup in February twenty fourteen. Russia was
not claiming these territories at all, not at all. We
blew it for Ukraine because this is so typical of
the Cia, by the way, we lose for our supposed friends.

(14:25):
So when the coup Caine and Kiev, that is, the
new central government in the post coup Ukraine said we'll
crack down on the ethnic Russian regions in the east
and the south. A treaty was broken by Russia to

(14:48):
stop what was then in the beginning war called the
Minsk one and then the Minsk two agreements, and the
idea was that those regions, especially the two in the
east Luganskan Yetsk, would be.

Speaker 5 (15:03):
Autonomous.

Speaker 7 (15:04):
Interestingly, by the way, just a little footnote, the model
of that was a European model. In Italy, there is
a German speaking region called South Tyrol which has autonomy
within Italy. Actually Chancellor Merkel, who was then the German chancellor,
knew about that and said that the Minstool agreement can

(15:26):
be modeled like South Torole. In other words, an autonomous
region in Italy, but of German speakers, but very peaceful,
very successful, very beautiful wonderful skiing and tourism, by the way,
and they said that could be the solution. The United
States wasn't having it, and the extremist nationalists in Ukraine

(15:51):
were not having it. They said, no, no autonomy, unitary state,
and they blew the chance to keep those provinces because
after Russia's invasion.

Speaker 5 (16:01):
They control almost all of it.

Speaker 7 (16:04):
Now, that's what the shaded areas of the map are,
the battle line control, the battlefield control that Russia has
over these areas. Now where does that bring us Till today?
Ukraine cannot win back those territories other than through a

(16:25):
massive war, which could again be a massive failure, massive deaths,
a massive escalation to nuclear war. So it can't really
win those back. Ukraine has said every day, will never
give up a square meter of our territory. Impossible, this

(16:46):
is all ours. The European leaders who were there yesterday
have parroted that line. Well, what's the alternative. The alternative then,
is the fighting continues. If the fighting cantinues as it's
continuing now, Russia will simply take those regions physically.

Speaker 5 (17:07):
It will proceed to take.

Speaker 7 (17:09):
More territory by the way of Ukraine and eventually, I
think on the current scenario, Ukraine would simply be conquered
the hardline warmongers, and Mertz is a true warmonger. He
is really disgusting in my view. By the way, awful Chancellor,

(17:29):
It's just unbelievable. Every word he says is more war.
Basically they say, sure, let's escalate, we won't give up
an inch. Well, this already has been the last eleven years.
I don't think Trump wants that. I don't think his
MAGA base wants that. I don't think the American people
want that. The Ukrainian people don't want that. The most

(17:52):
recent Gallop survey in Ukraine said stop this war. Were exhausted.
More than a million Ukrainians have dined. So all of
this is to say that no NATO, a neutral Ukraine,
Crimea is ours, and these four territories are contested. What

(18:15):
is likely to happen is some de facto recognition that
Russia controls these that there will be a permanent peace.
Maybe Ukraine in the end will not recognize them de jouri,
but if the war ends, it will end with these
areas being under let's say, permanent Russian control.

Speaker 3 (18:42):
Just to back you up, on the Mertz point, the
German Chancellor set a condition which seems very important because
one of the goals of this meeting was to eventually
lead to a meeting between Donald Trump, Vladimir Zelenski and
Vladimir Putin.

Speaker 1 (18:57):
What has now come out.

Speaker 3 (18:58):
Is that there is a disagreement within the European Union
and buy these major NATO powers. As to the preconditions
for that meeting, Chancellor merce was probably the most pessimistic
in his language, demanding an immediate ceasefire as a precondition. Guys,
let's go ahead and take a listen, please A three.

Speaker 8 (19:17):
We all would like to see a ceasefire the latest
from the next meeting on. I can't imagine that the
next meeting would took place without a ceasefire. So let's
work on that, and let's try to put pressure on Russia.
Because the credibility of this efforts, these efforts we are
undertaking today are depending on at least a ceasefire from

(19:41):
the beginning of the serious negotiations from next step on.
So I would like to emphasize this aspect and would
like to see a ceasefire from the next meeting, which
should be a triateral meeting. Wherever it takes.

Speaker 3 (19:57):
Place, so you could see he says an immediate cease fire.
He was the most pessimistic in his language, but he
was backed up by Emmanuel Macrone. One of the things
I also took note of is that even though Donald
Trump in his truth social posts after the meeting said
there will be a meeting between Zelenski and Putin and
then eventually a trilateral there was no such mention of

(20:17):
any future meeting with Putin by Zelensky in his path
comments afterwards. It seems to be one that Trump wants
to happen. So this precondition of a ceasefire seems to
be the way that both the European Union the major
NATO powers in Zelenski can get out of any future
diplomacy or am I seeing it wrong.

Speaker 7 (20:37):
Nobody speaks in a straightforward way. Maybe that's to be expected,
but it's it also is why we're at war endlessly,
because there's a dishonesty everywhere. There was no straightforward discussion.
What are the alternatives? Mertz he hasn't said one thing

(20:59):
that I crequ since he became chancellor, and I would
say that that's basically true of the German people. Also
because Mertz's popularity is in a free fall, or is
approval rating, let's say, is in a free fall. It's
down to around thirty percent. He came in with the
majority support, as you do when you've won an election,

(21:21):
and it's in free fall. Because he doesn't make any sense.
Russia will not agree to a cease fire without a
solution to the issues that we've been discussing. That's been
Russia's position, understandably, by the way, in my opinion, from
the start, well, we are at war for reasons. Von Klauswitz,

(21:43):
the German war theorist of the nineteenth century, famously said
that war is a continuation of politics with other means.
And so this is a very important observation. This is
a war about politics. It's a war about NATO. It's
a war about US Russia relations. It's a war about

(22:07):
the US overthrowing governments with immunity. By the way, it
seems to be a rule that once you've overthrown a
few governments, you retired to Columbia University. As my colleague,
because we have a Victoria Newland, we have Hillary Clinton,
we have Mike Pompeo, I don't know, and they teach diplomacy.

Speaker 5 (22:26):
This is unbelievable to me.

Speaker 7 (22:28):
But this is part of what this war is about,
which is that the US acted with impunity after nineteen
ninety one and told us that they would the project
for a new American century. Said Hey, we're not only
the big kid on the block. We're the only kid
on the block. We're the sole superpower. We are the

(22:48):
world's policemen, we are the world's hegemon. We do what
we want. That's what this war was about originally. Now Trump,
I think probably understands that the American people are just
sick of this. By the way, it's endless wars. It's

(23:10):
not only this war, it's the wars throughout the Middle
East that Israel wangles us into absolutely destructive and vile wars.
Any American people are sick of it. Nobody speaks straightforwardly.
Trump doesn't explain after Alaska or after yesterday anything. There's
no speech from the Oval Office, there's no explanation. We're

(23:32):
in a different time from the time that I used
to remember. Not that things were perfect, but if President
Kennedy wanted to achieve a treaty with the Soviet Union,
he'd give a speech and then people would analyze the
speech and understand it and so forth. Now we have
true social posts that are completely ambiguous, mean nothing, and

(23:53):
we're trying to parse what the words mean and can
be reversed.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
The next day, by the way, the exact opposite thing
the next days with someone else. I wanted to ask
you about how Zelensky figures into all of this. Let's
say that the vibes between him and Trump were very
different this time than the last time Zelensky was in
the Oval office.

Speaker 4 (24:11):
Let's go ahead, guys and play a two.

Speaker 9 (24:13):
We had a very good conversation with President Trump, very good,
and it really was the best one, or sorry, maybe
the best one will be in the future, but it
was really good, and we spoke about very sensitive points.
The first one is security guarantees, and we are very
happy with President that all the leaders are here and

(24:34):
the security in Ukraine depends on the United States and
on you and on those leaders who are with us.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
And Professor Zagar and I both noted he seems to
have really been working on his English. Clearly he realizes
that it's very important he's able to have an effective
relationship with President Trump here. But you know, you said earlier,
it seems like the Ukrainian people are exhausted want to
bring this war to a close. It's not clear that
their president is on board with that. You know, what
do you make of his role in his positioning and

(25:03):
what he wants to see going forward.

Speaker 7 (25:05):
First, it's important to understand that there is martial law
in Ukraine. We watched the videos also of people being
forcibly knocked off their bicycles or dragged off the street
to the front line to their death. And Stolensky is
ruling over a military regime, not a democracy. His democratic

(25:30):
term of office expired years ago, and he continues to
rule by martial law, basically by decree. So I don't
give any I don't give any legitimacy to his statements
as reflecting the will of the Ukrainian people. This is

(25:50):
a starting point. I've never really admired what he's done because,
rather than signing a peace agreement that he had in
front of him in April twenty two that would have
ended this war on far better terms than anything that's
going to happen now, he let the United States talk
him out of that. Maybe he's a mere puppet anyway,

(26:13):
but instead of signing an agreement that was on the
table on April fifteenth, twenty twenty two, in the so
called Istanbul process, he walked away from a peace agreement.
Since then has lost massive territory and probably a million
Ukrainian dead.

Speaker 5 (26:28):
So I'm no fan.

Speaker 7 (26:29):
I have to say, no admirer, a no believer that
this is defending Ukrainian democracy.

Speaker 5 (26:34):
There is no democracy.

Speaker 7 (26:36):
And so one of the things that makes us the
idea that if Zolensky meets with Putin, he's shown to
be on the big stage globally, and then he can
maintain his power, either through winning a reelection perhaps or
just expanding and extending his military rule. But this seems

(26:58):
to be the carrot that Trump is dangling to Zelensky.
I'll put you on the big stage. We won't overthrow you,
we won't let Putin diss you. You'll have respect. But
you have to give in on this and this so frankly,
you know, Zelensky is Look, he's losing a war on

(27:19):
the battlefield. He doesn't have the public support. He rules
by martial law. By all accounts which I can't personally verify,
but by all accounts, the regime is incredibly corrupt, and
so not only am I no fan. I think probably
what Trump is trying to do is to appeal to

(27:43):
the most narrow and bassist survival instincts of Zelensky himself
and dangling this meeting with Putin the big stage summit
as the prime and then getting Zolensky in one way
or another to basically and the rhetoric of fighting on

(28:10):
to restore the nineteen ninety one borders.

Speaker 5 (28:12):
I think that's what's happening.

Speaker 3 (28:14):
Last thing we wanted your take on, sir, is some
of the continuation, because you know, the threat from the
United States is well, if this doesn't work, we'll just
go to more sanctions. As if Russia is not the
most sanctioned country in the world already we've actually seen
we can put a seven please here on the screen.
Both Lindsay Graham and the White House advisor to Peter
Navarro say that India's quote, Russian crude oil buying must stop.

(28:37):
Of course, even the imposition of fifty percent tariffs on
India has not changed their behavior a single iota. In fact,
Narandramodi is posting about phone calls with President Putin just yesterday.
I believe I was reading this morning that the Chinese
Foreign Minister is actually in New Delhi as of this
morning meeting with the Indian Foreign Minister, so still holding

(29:00):
up a middle finger to the US in response to
the ease tariff. So it does appear that many of
the cards that are supposedly left to play both by
the Europeans in the US don't really exist.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
If they want to put any more quote pressure on Russia.

Speaker 7 (29:13):
Lindsey Graham is the worst senator in the US Senate.
I just want to be on the record stating that
I will state that every show you have me on's
He's a fool, just a fool. Okay, let me put
that aside. To get onto the substance. The imposition of
the twenty five percent penalty tariff on India was the

(29:37):
stupidest tactical move of US foreign policy for a long time.
And that's saying a lot. By the way, I could
make a list of the top ten, the top twenty.

Speaker 4 (29:49):
I'd like to see that list, Professor.

Speaker 5 (29:51):
Yes, talk about that sometimes.

Speaker 7 (29:54):
But what it did overnight was unif by the bricks
countries as never before. That is Brazil, Russia, India, China
and South Africa. I watched it, by the way, pretty
close up actually, because I know the leaders in all
of these countries. Within twenty four or forty eight hours,

(30:16):
there was a flurry of calls Brazil with India, Brazil
with Russia, Brazil with China, China with India, China with Russia.
Donald Trump was the great unifier of the bricks and wonderful. Okay,
I like the bricks, by the way, so I have
no problem with that, but the opposite of what Lindsay

(30:38):
Graham conceivably could have been thinking. Or Peter Navarro, who okay,
I'll put him on the list of probably the most
incompetent PhD that my former department ever Granted he is
a PhD in economics that apparently learned nothing, certainly didn't
take my class. But in any event, going after India,

(31:04):
a country that the US has been cultivating for strategic
and diplomatic relations, and it's a long story, but trying
to get India on side against China and the so
called quad Arrangement and so many things, and Trump ended
it overnight. Because, by the way, even if this twenty

(31:25):
five percent tariff penalty is removed, and I think it
probably will be. The Indians learned a lesson that I
was trying to tell them, by the way for years,
you cannot trust the United States, and they no, No,
we've got the inside track, We've got good relations No,
you don't. There's no ability to have a trusting relationship

(31:46):
with the United States. This is improv land and you're
not going to get the kind of relationship that you think. Well,
everybody in India understands that completely. Not only have the
bricks country has been together, but in the media in India,
in the print and online media non stop days and days,

(32:10):
what is the United States doing?

Speaker 5 (32:12):
We have to find our friends and so forth.

Speaker 7 (32:15):
So this was a blunder that has zero practical import
of getting anyone to any negotiating tables, zero, But it
completely undermined one strand of US foreign policy built up
for years. I don't like that strand, So I like
the bricks so good. The bricks are much stronger and

(32:36):
more united now than ever.

Speaker 5 (32:38):
Fine.

Speaker 7 (32:39):
Donald Trump united them, Peter Navarron united them, Lindsey Graham
united them.

Speaker 5 (32:44):
Congratulations, totally agree.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
Professor, Thank you so much for spending some time with
us and helping us understand all these issues.

Speaker 4 (32:51):
We're going to have you back to get that top ten.

Speaker 1 (32:53):
List though we do. Thank you very much, sir.

Speaker 5 (32:55):
Okay, let's do that. That'll be fun, all right, great
to be with you.

Speaker 10 (33:02):
So.

Speaker 2 (33:02):
In addition, obviously to some of the comments we just
played you about Ukraine and Russia in the summit yesterday,
Trump also made some pretty interesting comments about our own elections,
including announcing that he wants to get rid of mail
in ballots all together. Let's go ahead and take a
listen to that.

Speaker 5 (33:16):
Mail in ballots are corrupt.

Speaker 6 (33:18):
Mail in ballots. You can never have a real democracy
with mail in ballots, and we as a Republican party,
are going to do everything possible that we get rid
of mail in boots. We're going to start with an
executive order that's being written right now by the best
lawyers in the country to end mail in ballots because
they're corrupt. And do you know that we're the only

(33:42):
country in the world I believe I may be wrong,
but just about the only country in the world that
uses them because of what's happened, massive fraud all over
the place. The other thing, we want change of the
machines for all of the money they spend it's approximately
ten times more than paper ballots, and paper ballots are
very sophisticated with the watermark paper and everything else.

Speaker 4 (34:05):
He is wrong.

Speaker 2 (34:06):
There are dozens of countries that use mail in ballots
around the world, but this devetails with a true social
push post. He also put up this the first element
in this block. Guys, we can throw this up on
the screen, he says. I'm going to lead a movement
to get rid of mail in ballots. And also, while
we're at it, highly inaccurate, very expensive, and seriously controversial
voting machines which cost ten times more than accurate and

(34:27):
sophisticated watermark paper, which is faster, leaves no doubt the
end of the evening as to who won and who
lost to the election. We are now the only country
in the world that uses mail in voting.

Speaker 4 (34:37):
Again, not true.

Speaker 2 (34:38):
All others gave it up because the massive voter fraud encountered.
We will begin this effort, which will be strongly imposed
by the Democrats because they cheat at levels never seen before,
by signing an executive order to help bring honesty to
the twenty twenty six mid term elections. So TLDR. Here
he's saying, he's going to sign an executive order that

(34:58):
will get rid of mail in ballots. He targets is
directly at the midterm elections and says, effectively, the only
reason that Democrats win is because they cheat. This comes
on the heels of some comments he made after his
meeting with Putin, where he claims Putin told him you
got to get rid of these mail in ballots.

Speaker 4 (35:17):
This is absolutely preposterous. This is be three guys, let's
just what he said Putin.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
This is what.

Speaker 2 (35:23):
Exactly Yeah, which is what he claimed that put Maybe
he did. I mean, it would be the sort of
thing that Putin could say to sort of play to
his ego, et cetera. Anyway, let's go ahead and play
B three.

Speaker 11 (35:33):
Vladimir Putin said something, one of the most interesting things.
He said, your election was rigged because you have mail
in voting. He said, mail in voting every election. He said,
no country has mail in voting. It's impossible to have
mail in voting and have honest elections. And he said
that to me. It was because we talked about twenty twenty.

(35:54):
He said, you won that election by so much, and
that's how he got it. He said, And if you
would have won. We wouldn't have had a war. You'd
have all these millions of people alive now instead of dead.
And he said, and you lost it because of mail
in voting. It was a rigged election. But mail in voting, Sean,
there you.

Speaker 2 (36:10):
Go again, insisting that we're the only country that does it.
That's just simply not true. But in any case, Sager,
what did you make of.

Speaker 3 (36:16):
What actually apparently in Russia? You know what's really crazy?
You can actually vote online in some place, which sounds
even frankly like.

Speaker 1 (36:23):
Or less secure. I mean, does your vote count for anything?
I'm not so sure.

Speaker 2 (36:27):
A bunch of people showed images Trump himself has voted
mail in.

Speaker 1 (36:30):
By the way, man, we got to get with the
Russian playbook. People who cannot come to.

Speaker 3 (36:34):
A polling station, who are elderly or disabled well can
request that election officials bring a portable ballot box to
their home. Not the same as the male in system.
It's even it's much more courteous. Remote mail in voting
or remote online voting in certain regions, not in Moscow.
Opposition groups have raised concerns about I mean, I guess
I shouldn't be saying this because that's not exactly.

Speaker 1 (36:54):
The Russian elections are like the greatest, most reinfair, Yeah,
in the whole world.

Speaker 3 (36:58):
This has always been my biggest be with the GOP,
and it's one of those which really annoys me because
two of the states, because a Marshal is from Oregon,
and I think I was there in Oregon visiting them
when they were voting, and I saw them fill out
their ballots and I was like, wait, so you guys
don't vote in person at all. Their voter participation is
actually very high, and it's super convenient, like they get
it at home. Everybody goes through and fills out their

(37:20):
ballot and you can go and drop it off at
a number of locations. There is identity of verification like
in terms of sending it in. But their voter participation
is actually quite high. I mean, that's all what I
really care about. I think high voter participation is good.
One of the things which is also annoying this is
very outdated, is that in the old days, the Republicans
would win the low turnout elections and the Democrats would

(37:41):
win the high turnout election. Republicans now have switched it
and are much better off with low turnout voters as
we saw in the twenty twenty four elections. So you
actually want more people to vote in your election in
terms listen, I mean these the people who dominate low
turnout elections, like suburban white ladies, an activists and all
these other people. You don't want those people to be

(38:03):
the only people who can vote because they'll drag their
ass across town to go stand in line for two
three hours a day. It's the you know, workman or
electrician or something like that, who is much less likely
to come out and voteunless they feel very strongly to
actually do so. So, just purely from like a tactical
point of view, I don't think it makes.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
A lot of sense.

Speaker 3 (38:22):
But that's just look I mean, in terms of his
ability to do it, as I understand it, they can
try to use the DHS to set standards. But in
part of the reason why we are where we are
with the most inaccurate like voting system in terms of
like compiling votes in the over a short period of time,
it's because we have completely unfederalized elections, which is a

(38:46):
lot of pluses and minuses.

Speaker 1 (38:47):
Like pluses.

Speaker 3 (38:48):
Now, when Trump is president, he can't just come in
and decree how Oregon or whatever is.

Speaker 1 (38:52):
Going to count votes.

Speaker 3 (38:53):
But the minus is, what is that New York takes
three or four weeks to count vote. It's ridiculous California,
in New York, it's out. And that is the one
thing I just wish Dems would acknowledge. It's like, guys
like I can't do it this way. It undermines trust
in the system and it's just ridiculous. I mean, the
most developed countries in the world can count votes in
twenty four hours, and even lesser developed countries, countries like India, Brazil,

(39:17):
Brazil has results in like twenty four hours, you know,
I think in the UK, Australia, all of them, every
time I've covered their elections, we know the exact winner,
you know, the night of even in fractional ones like
in France where they have to tally up various different
like parties and look at the percentage base. So that's
the one thing where for the Democratic states, like they
have to stop pretending like their voting system isn't just

(39:37):
like weird to the naked eye. And that's what provides
a lot of this stuff for the conspiracy theorists.

Speaker 1 (39:42):
I'm not saying they're correct.

Speaker 3 (39:43):
I'm just you know, I'm pointing out, yeah, like the
inefficiency is a huge problem.

Speaker 2 (39:46):
Yeah, yeah, fair in fairness, though it's not California or
New York's results that have been disputed by Trump. No,
not because they're not swing states.

Speaker 1 (39:54):
I am not saying that whatsoever.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
I'm just saying that the conspiracy theorists would find a
reason to be unhappy with the results that don't go
their way no matter what. Absolutely, and so that's why
I think one aspect of this is you're right. Tactically,
this is absolutely idiotic. We have brains and memories longer
than a goldfish and can remember back to twenty twenty
when arguably Trump lost the election because of the way

(40:18):
that he derided mail in balloting, and it's very possible
that that made up the margin in some key states.

Speaker 1 (40:25):
It definitely did, especially in Georgia.

Speaker 4 (40:27):
In twenty twenty four, they learned the lesson.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
They had very aggressive you know, quote unquote ballot harvesting processes,
especially in state like Pennsylvania, they really encouraged mail in
voting and lo and behold, Trump wins. Not to say
that was the only factor, but it certainly didn't hurt
that they were actually you know, availing themselves of all
of the methods with which they could gather votes and
get their voters to the polls. And now he seemingly

(40:52):
has forgotten that lesson on the other hand, because this
executive order is not going to be able to you know,
get rid of mail and balloting across the country because
it states quite plainly in the Constitution that the states
are responsible for setting the time and manner in place.

Speaker 4 (41:08):
Of the of the voting.

Speaker 2 (41:11):
What this is, really, in my opinion, all designed to
do is to cast doubt on the electoral results so
things go very poorly for him in the midterms, which
they are pretty likely to do, just historically and judging
by where his approval writing is and how you know,
people feel about the Republican Party having complete control of
DC right now, so that he can then say this

(41:32):
was all rigged, this was all fake, and really cast
out in the same way that he did in twenty
twenty with the regards the presidential election, cast out on
those results as well, and then you're off to the
races with challenging you know, as members of Congress come
to be sworn in and to be seated. Then you're
challenging individual members. This was rigged, this wasn't fair, et cetera,
and creating a giant chaotic mess that he can try

(41:54):
to use to his advantage. I think that's more what
this is about. And remember this isn't the first thing
that he's done or said with regard to voting in elections.
He also had a big executive order earlier. He's been
trying to get some of the election roles and voting
apparatus from different states sent to d C for analysis.

(42:16):
So this is an ongoing project and this is the
you know, latest iteration of this. He also said something
that was quite striking about the you know, as Professor
Sax was just reminding and informing all of us Ukraine
right now is not a democracy's Lenski rules by military
fiat effectively, and Trump seemed very interested in learning about

(42:36):
this when he was sitting there with Zelenski. This is
before guys, let's go ahead and take a listen.

Speaker 6 (42:41):
So you say, during the war you can't have elections,
So let me just see three and a half years
from now. So you mean, if we happen to be
in a war with somebody, no more elections.

Speaker 9 (42:54):
So it's good.

Speaker 6 (42:56):
I wonder what they.

Speaker 1 (43:00):
Really funny hilarious.

Speaker 3 (43:01):
Well, it's very hilarious too for Zelensky, you know, inviting
the thing on democracy to to joke about canceling elections.

Speaker 1 (43:07):
It's just super hilarious.

Speaker 3 (43:09):
This is part of the hypocrisy, like on the entire thing, Christal,
I wish I could say that it was a conspiracy
theory everything you just laid out, But considering what happened
in twenty twenty, you can't.

Speaker 4 (43:16):
Say that, can now that's it? It's like, well, like
while he's joking, but yeah, and we can.

Speaker 3 (43:21):
Uh, well not about the war thing, but about what
you were saying about contexting contesting potential races. It's like, well,
you know, you already did it, and you know Congress
is full of a lot of other people. Or they
would they really willingly want to turn over power, especially
if the Democrats take it. They could set up a
huge fight with Mike Johnson with you know, more like

(43:42):
establishment Republicans and empty You can imagine like the MTGS
or whatever the world contest or at least turning it
into a show.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
I mean, who hell knows?

Speaker 3 (43:51):
Right in terms of accepting members because the body has
to accept to swear them in. I mean, I guess
I could be uncharted territory.

Speaker 5 (43:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
And here's the other thing with regard to you know,
those specific comments about, oh hey, maybe if you have
a war, you don't have to have an election, is
we have seen the playbook that he has used in
this administration where what does he do He uses the
pretext of a supposed emergency in order to claim more
extraordinary powers. I mean, big balls being you know, beaten

(44:20):
up in DC and now we've got National Guard coming
in from all over the country for this, you know,
to stand around in Georgetown or on the National Mall
or at Union station or whatever you have. The tariffs
are justified based on a quote unquote emergency. This is
the playbook that he has used time and again throughout
this administration. So is it really so crazy to think

(44:42):
that this guy, who has never showed any indication that
he ever wants to give up power in any circumstance,
and who could face again potential legal ramifications if he
is no longer president of the United States certainly a
possibility that continues to be on the table. Do we
really think that it's crazy to imagine, and he's considering
the potential mechanisms to claim, you know, to continue to

(45:05):
stay in power past when he, you know, is democratically elected.
I don't think it's that crazy to consider, especially when
you're now we're can show this, we can play this
next one. He has a part of place in the
White House where he's got campaign merch, which, first of all,
again any other president, you would be like, this is

(45:25):
a scandal. Right with him, it's just like people don't
even notice. But not only does he have campaign merch,
he's got Trump twenty twenty eight campaign merch sort of
like hidden away that he was showing off to the
head of Azerbaijan recently in the in the White House.

Speaker 4 (45:41):
Let's go ahead and take a look at that.

Speaker 10 (45:42):
You know, you're not allowed to run a bit so
because everyone I'm twenty eight points higher than anything everybody
wants me to run, but including everything, you know, it's funny.
So this strategy creates, you like, for one more years,
so it's.

Speaker 9 (45:59):
Sot of cool.

Speaker 2 (46:00):
Bannon also says he's going to you know, they're going
to figure out Trump twenty twenty eight. Trump says different
things about this at different times, but again.

Speaker 1 (46:07):
He recently said he wouldn't run.

Speaker 2 (46:08):
Yeah, you you just can't put anything past him. And
whether he actually runs again, or whether he comes up
with some pretext of emergency he says we're not having
the elections, whether he has some sort of a puppet
who he feels like he can control and has to
come and like pay homage to him personally, I don't
see any indication that until he is you know, until

(46:29):
he is done with this world, that he is going
to just willingly hand off power.

Speaker 3 (46:32):
I think he won't run again, but he'll do what
I've predicted, which is be the king in waiting down
in mar A Lago who can constantly derail things, you know,
with the truth, social post or any of that. He
can be the anointer of the Republican Party. I've used
the analogy to Ronald Reagan, and I think I've also
just wondered watching Trump now. I genuinely think he might
be bored of actually being president. I remember noticing that

(46:55):
whenever I would interview him, it's like, you know, he's
almost childlikely gets distracted by things that are literally on
his desk, and that's why he's been doing all of
these great renovation projects in the you know, like the
ball you love them, Yeah, the the you know, the
rose garden or the gilded office or the ballroom or
the flagpole. Like he spends a lot of time, you know,

(47:19):
looking at these things. I'm not making this to remember
he went on the rooftop right like that seems to
be what a decent amount of his attention is actually
captured on. Is like leaving his own imprint on the
White House. Probably the most transformative of the physical real
estate of the White House since Harry Truman, who oversaw
a total renovation of the building.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
But also definitely the most like queer coded president with
like real love of Broadway musicals and interior design.

Speaker 3 (47:42):
Well, I wouldn't go that far because there's nothing makeup
and hair and makeup. There's nothing tasteful about Maybe this
is stereotypical, but there's nothing tasteful about the.

Speaker 1 (47:50):
Gilded the opposite, that's what I mean.

Speaker 3 (47:53):
So it's actually a very masculine code if you ask me,
it's like, you know, it's what somebody would think is
a good idea of decoration. If anybody's been watching HBOS
The Gilded Age, it's very It reminds me a lot
of how that stuff looks, or if you've ever spent
any time in the Middle East, that's basically what the
Saudi's and Kataris and all that stuff. I think is
tasteful in terms of their decoration. Just my own personal bias,

(48:16):
just saying, you know, not exactly the way I would
do it, but yeah, generally here with Trump, the most
likely look, the mail in ballot thing is probably doa
in terms of the way that they actually want to
do it, sewing or questioning election results.

Speaker 1 (48:30):
Nobody's going to question that. That's definitely gonna happen if
they do.

Speaker 3 (48:33):
There's just no question right in terms of how it
operationalizes and all of that. I tend to think it'll
probably won't go anywhere, but I could be wrong. You know,
he is the president. He can actually do a lot
of whatever he wants. And this time around, you know,
he've got Pam Bondi and these other morons who work
for him, so who knows, right, it's actually I mean,
there's a lot more up in the air where you know,
Maga and all other people rightfully in the past would

(48:55):
have been like, oh, that's not going to happen.

Speaker 1 (48:57):
But now it's like, well, I don't know, you know,
I personally don't know.

Speaker 2 (49:00):
Did you see they brought in some other guy to
be co FBI deputy alongside Dan Bongino. I mean, it's
definitely like a demotion for Dan. I think it was
like the Missouri AG or something.

Speaker 1 (49:10):
Missouri AG promoted him to the deputy.

Speaker 5 (49:14):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (49:15):
Yeah, I think Bongino is being punished for speaking out. Yeah,
if I have.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
Kids, you remember he had that whole like, you know,
sort of like mental breakdown, and then there were the
rumors that he was going to resign, and then he
came back and whatever.

Speaker 1 (49:26):
There were no rumors. It was him on the phone.

Speaker 3 (49:28):
I can exclusively Okay, it's not a rumor, all right,
whenever he calls people and says, hey, I'm.

Speaker 2 (49:32):
Thinking you're resigning, So apparently that's that's going on. Let's
put B six up on the screen. This is kind
of the last piece to put this, you know, the
pieces all in place. This was from a little while ago,
but Trump is demanding a new census to exclude undocumented
immigrants and redraw all the lines. Now do I think
they're going to be able to pull this up before

(49:53):
the midterm elections, census collection, it takes them years. They're
already preparing your purpose. They're already preparing for the twenty
thirty census now. So you know, the idea that they'd
be able to pull this off in time without court
challenges and get all the maps redrawn, I don't think
that's going to happen, but you do have you know,
the state of Texas.

Speaker 4 (50:13):
Is redrawing their maps.

Speaker 2 (50:15):
California, this will transition us into Gavin and what's going
on there. California is likely to retaliate and redraw their
maps as well. There are some other red states. There
are more red states that could redraw maps that you
know have full Republican control than there are Democratic states.
But all of this is a long way of saying,
you know, I think the playbook.

Speaker 4 (50:34):
Is number one.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
They're going to try to tilt the playing field as
much as they can to mitigate the potential midterm losses.
So that's number one then, and number two. As part
of that, there's going to be more of this casting
doubt on mail in ballots and casting down on the
process and creating the pretext and the narrative so that

(50:56):
if and when they do perform poorly in the midterms
that he can continue to so doubt on various electoral results.
And you know, I guess the question is whether or
not it's going to be quote unquote too big to rig,
because if you have Democrats, let's say, win the House,
but it's by two seats, then you could see an
all out court challenge and court challenges, an all out

(51:19):
narrative attack on those you know, whichever results were the
closest in whichever states they have, you know, the most
ability to cast out on if it's like could be
in California, and then the things you were saying about
how long it takes to cast the ballots that could
come into play. You could see the way that this
would all play out because while it's not you know.

Speaker 4 (51:39):
It's at the end of the world for Trump.

Speaker 2 (51:41):
If Democrats do win the House, it would mean that
they have subpoena power and they could cause some trouble.
He hasn't interested himself too much outside of the One Big,
Beautiful Bill and actually passing legislation through thousand and the Senate.
He prefers to act through executive orders, so it's not
like that aspect of his power would be curtailed. But yeah,
if you got Democrats in there, you know, doing subpoenas

(52:01):
on the Epstein files, on all of the incredible corruption
right throughout this administration, it could be an issue for him.

Speaker 4 (52:09):
He could end up getting impeached.

Speaker 2 (52:10):
Yet again, that's certainly possibility that's on the table, So
it's not something that he is wanting to see unfold.

Speaker 3 (52:17):
Yeah, I think it's I don't know, I have no idea.
Like you said, it could be several different scenarios. If
you win forty seats, then is not you know, like
two seats challenging or whatever is not going to happen. Yeah,
or any of that, I will say. On the census point,
that is something I one hundred percent. So we've thought
about this before. If you'll recall from the first Trump
administration about the idea that illegal should count in the
US Census as if they deserve representation when you're literally

(52:39):
not here legally in the country. It is a major
actually argument from the Commerce Clause, which original or the
Commerce Department, which conducts the census. And if you'll recall,
one of the first times that I truly realized how
incompetent the Trump administration was is when they tried to
do this in their first term, which again actually would
have changed the twenty twenty census results. Is when never

(53:00):
they were they implemented a rule, but the Supreme Court
struck it down actually because they did not do the
rule properly, misfiled the paperwork, and then Wilbur Ross lied
about it actually at the time. But I know that
there's all these legal fights about whether illegal should count
or not.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
But I mean, it's at a principal.

Speaker 3 (53:18):
Level, it's preposterous the idea that you're here illegally in
the country.

Speaker 4 (53:23):
Your beef is with the Constitution.

Speaker 2 (53:24):
No Christ specifically, I've heard this lib I've heard in
each state.

Speaker 3 (53:29):
Okay, so I've heard this lib nonsense now for a
long time. But there's still a lot of questions about
that person's and citizenship as to how it should be.
It has not yet faced any scrutiny a number of
it has as a repeats, has not faced representation or
any scrutiny before the United States Supreme Court that masion
thirty five million people here living illegally getting representation in

(53:51):
the Congress.

Speaker 4 (53:52):
Get the constitution.

Speaker 2 (53:53):
The constitution change the constitution specifically refers in the places
where you know it's only for citizens. It specifically refers
to citizens. Here it says the whole number of persons
in each state.

Speaker 4 (54:08):
So you may not like it.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
You may not think that was what the founders in
ten That is what the Constitution say.

Speaker 3 (54:12):
As I said, it has faced zero scrutiny before the
US Supreme Court. The only time that's ever gone down
was whenever it was improperly implemented in twenty eighteen.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Because of Wilver Ross.

Speaker 3 (54:21):
I would ask again for any person to think it
is it is reasonable in any way that some thirty No,
by the way, nobody even knows that number is like
probably a lower estimate that who are living here illegally
deserve representation in the US Congress, which skews things. By
the way, this is like the Republican fantasy dream that
people get imported into the country and that it increases

(54:45):
their overall congressional representation in the United States.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
It's ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (54:48):
It's almost like quasi citizenship giving the ability for a
number of electoral votes. If the illegals were all deported,
who even knows the number.

Speaker 1 (54:55):
Of electoral votes for the way that our system would change.

Speaker 3 (54:57):
So I mean, there's just I think it's indefensible the
idea that people here.

Speaker 4 (55:01):
I think the electoral college is in.

Speaker 2 (55:04):
I think that the way the Senate is designed is indefensible.

Speaker 4 (55:07):
But I don't pretend.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
Like the you know, like it's set up any differently,
like I have some.

Speaker 3 (55:11):
Court you really believe people here illegally should count to.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
For electoral college.

Speaker 2 (55:17):
I genuinely think states First of all, I think that
we should have path to citizenship so you have many
fewer millions of people in the shadows who are undocked.

Speaker 1 (55:25):
Well, that's very can too for legal people.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Giving politically all sorts of reasons why people who are
here in this country, who are living and working and
part of communities deserve political representation. But putting my feelings
aside about it, the Constitution is pretty clear about it.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
As I have said, it's not clear.

Speaker 3 (55:43):
It's never faced scrutiny before the US Supreme Court, and
we will find out how it actually hopefully will find
out how it actually goes. I just think, look again,
I ask any reasonable person.

Speaker 4 (55:52):
Again, Texas would lose a lot of power.

Speaker 1 (55:54):
I care go ahead.

Speaker 4 (55:55):
I don't think it's not even.

Speaker 2 (55:58):
This is all a you know, live I mean, that's
the way that it's it's frequently portrayed I think with
some like lib plot if but it's not even that
you know at this point.

Speaker 3 (56:08):
No, no, no, First, California is nobody again even knows
the population. It could be up to ten percent of
the population of californ maybe even more.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
California and Texas are the two states that have the
largest population and also.

Speaker 3 (56:19):
The number two documented im most populated states, so they
would still have proportional number.

Speaker 4 (56:23):
Of repeah that we still have larger.

Speaker 3 (56:24):
But I'm saying though that California, the idea of that
their appropriation should baby based on the population of illegals
is crazy.

Speaker 1 (56:31):
I mean.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
And then same again, I don't care whether at least
are more Republican or Democrats. This is purely a philosophical thing.
It's ridiculous, this idea New York. Sorry, my earpiece is
falling out, but New York. I'm trying to think of
any of the other states that would be probably majorly impacted.

Speaker 1 (56:45):
I think Florida as well.

Speaker 3 (56:47):
But my point is on that one is it will
all decrease in all of the populated states.

Speaker 1 (56:51):
Two of the states that we just listed or read
two of the states are blue.

Speaker 3 (56:54):
So fine, again, I could care less how it actually
works out, like in the immediate term. I'm saying purely
from this idea, and this has been a scandal. I
think from the very beginning of mass illegal immigration that
very few people ever actually want to acknowledge or talk
about and pathway to citizenship though is exactly is basically
rewarding people with political power for breaking the law.

Speaker 1 (57:13):
That is no, there's no other class of.

Speaker 3 (57:16):
People that gets rewarded with political power with representation in
the Congress for breaking laws. Well, felins can't even vote
in like half the states in the entire country, but.

Speaker 2 (57:26):
In legal which would also be changed. Okay, I also
been wildly opposed. I think people who are in prison
should be able to vote. But I know I'm an
olympics say but in any case, you know, I mean,
let's not spiral into a whole immigration debate. But I
think we can acknowledge the immigration system has been completely broken.
I am of the view you disagree that immigrants are
a benefit to the country, that it is good to

(57:48):
have people wanting to come to this country, that they
contribute to society, that they are part an integral part
of what makes America America. And so you know, to
support pathway to citizenship to gant those people status who
have been here, have been working, who have been paying taxes, doing.

Speaker 4 (58:03):
The right thing. I agree. I agree with that, and
at this.

Speaker 1 (58:06):
Point I think that's very rosy. First of all, that's
not true. But no, no, it's at all.

Speaker 3 (58:11):
Okay, the pulling on what because the way you just
framed it, his nice little rosy little picture, right, So
it's like, oh, the guy who came yesterday gets to
also get a pathway bitsiship, what about the guy who
came forty years ago? That's why everybody groups all immigrants
in the same group, and they don't divide anybody by
education status GDP, income, ability to contribute to the country,
whether they're going to be on welfare. When you ask,
you start to get down on the nitty gritty, is like,

(58:32):
do you think people are going to be on welfare
for fifty years deserve citizenship? Absolutely not, of course not.
Most people would radically oppose that. So that's my point.
It's just that broadly the way that this is all
being framed right now, and I get it.

Speaker 1 (58:45):
You know, you'll get smoke from this from the liberals.

Speaker 3 (58:47):
But the point is that when you actually pose a
lot of this to people.

Speaker 1 (58:51):
The details matter more than anything.

Speaker 3 (58:53):
So this whole pathway to citizenship question and political power.
I think if more people knew that their electoral system
was being rigged on behalf of a lot of illegals,
it would be furious about it.

Speaker 1 (59:01):
Now, I'm not sitting here claim the election is stolen.

Speaker 3 (59:03):
It's the way that it's always been, so be it
as I have always said, it should be changed in
my opinion for the US Supreme Court. But you know,
I just think that it's This is a classic, in
my opinion, democratic like overreading of what people actually think
about immigration.

Speaker 2 (59:17):
Sixty four percent of registered voters favor giving most undocumented
immigants status thirty one percent before deportation. Support is strong
among Democrats, eighty nine percent, independent, seventy one percent. Republicans
are the only ones who met oppose it.

Speaker 3 (59:31):
This is like saying that medicare for all is popular whenever, Like, well, okay,
but then I'm like, oh wait, what about transgender surgeries?
Is that going to be covered by taxpayer dollars? Absolutely not.

Speaker 4 (59:39):
In medical care across the board.

Speaker 1 (59:41):
Medically see This is what I mean about defining terms.

Speaker 3 (59:43):
And it's like, so welfare, transgender, care of a vaccine,
you're going to mandate all vaccines.

Speaker 1 (59:48):
For all the time.

Speaker 4 (59:49):
Does not relate to Medicare for all because if.

Speaker 3 (59:51):
It's a one pair system, then they could deny you
coverage and you can have seek no actual like individual
ability to go and pick whatever type of doctor. That's
what a government run system would look like for coverage.

Speaker 4 (01:00:02):
Then they can not the way medicare works up.

Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
No, but no, but it is because if they're refusing
to cover thing or you can get denied coverage. This
is a classic example of all socialized medicine systems.

Speaker 1 (01:00:11):
It's one of control.

Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
I mean, no, that's not true, but I mean there
are many ways you can do this Medicare. You know,
people are happy with Medicare. It costs less than the
private health insurance system. And yes, Medicare Medicare for all
is very popular. The reason it doesn't exist is because
of a political class that is opposed to it. With

(01:00:32):
regard to immigration, we have seen, and I think you
would agree with this, a huge backlash to Trump era
policies I agree, that have led people to be quite
supportive actually of immigrants, seeing them as a benefit to
society just in general, which actually majority has always felt
that way, and supporting specific policy proposals such as a

(01:00:54):
path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants. On the specific
question of how people feel about this, and says, I
don't know. I don't think they know, right, I don't
think they've probably thought.

Speaker 4 (01:01:04):
I have no idea.

Speaker 2 (01:01:05):
But just to bring it all back before we go
any further afield, so we can talk about Gavin Newsom
and his freaking memes, I will just say, we'll see
what happens at the Supreme Court with the census, even
if they're even competent enough to get it to that point,
because the plane face reading of the Constitution says all persons.

(01:01:25):
It does not specify citizen non citizen the way that
you want it to, and so we'll see. Then again, listen,
the score is very political, so they may find some
convoluted way to interpret it that way. But certainly the
plane face rating of the Constitution says all whole persons, and.

Speaker 4 (01:01:40):
We'll leave it at that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
Yeah, look, we'll see with that. I agree, all right,