December 3, 2025 • 42 mins
The Majority Report’s Sam Seder examines Trump’s unhinged cabinet meeting.
Then The New York Times’ Ryan Mac details David Sacks and his corrupt dealings inside the Trump White House.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And on Monday night, Donald Trump shared
over one hundred and fifty brain rot posts on truth
social We have such a great show for you today,
The Majority Report Sam Cedar stops by to talk about
(00:22):
Donald Trump's North Korean style press conference. Then we'll talk
to The New York Times his own Ryan Mack about
David Sachs and his double dealing in the Trump white House.
But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
My the Republicans are in disarray. Elise Stefanic, whose aspirations
are very large, about as large as her mouth when
she's saying really racist and as long as public things.
I was very very mad at the speaker today. How
are you feeling about this?
Speaker 1 (00:49):
It's been a tough road for at least Stephonic and
I don't hate it. You'll remember that last week Democratic
Mayor elect Zori and mom Donnie went to the White
House and Donald Trump threw a last Dephonic right under
the bus, saying that she had called him a geh
hottist because that's what you do in a campaign, and
not because she's legitimately racist, which I guess is better.
(01:12):
I don't know anyway, at least demonic. She's posting through it,
and she's posting through it against the Speaker of the House,
Mike Johnson, a lawyer who is known best for holding
the phone when Donald Trump doesn't tell a rally. I
don't know what's going to happen here. Look, he's got
a very small majority. He is trying to do everything
(01:35):
he can to keep control of the House. You know,
you really see how having Donald Trump pick leadership and
just picking the people who will suck up to him
the best is really not working out so great. And
so here we have it. Chip Roy argued that Congress
should fully intervene a wide swath of issues in college athletics.
(01:59):
Maybe we should fix the mess. I mean, again, these
guys can't fucking do anything, so why are they going
to get involved with college sports? It doesn't even make
any sense. It's just very, very stupid. I think that
we're going to see a lot more of these kind
of problems that are you don't even think that can
go wrong when you have someone like Nancy Pelosi in
(02:20):
the job, and now we have Stephonic blaming Johnson for
delaying and ultimately killing her nomination to keep the House
GOP majority from further dwindling. You'll remember Marjorie Taylor Green
is resigning in January. They're just in every point different
sort of stupid things happening here that have gotten us here,
(02:42):
and Stephonic has more bills she wants to pass. On Monday,
Stefanic accuse Johnson of getting rolled by Democrats after Jamie
Raskin succeeded in stripping this provision she wants. I mean,
this is just like little backbiting in fighting, but it
wouldn't be coming out on Twitter were these guys not
(03:03):
in real trouble keeping the majority trying to pass stuff,
and I, for one love to see it. By the way,
this is Johnson said to a journalist. I don't know
why at least won't just call me. I do. I
texted her last night and said I would help figure
out what happened. Again, Stavonik, being you know, the ultimate
(03:25):
Trumpian move, she quickly shot back, posting on X just
more lies from the speaker. This is his preferred tactic
to tell members when he gets caught torpedoing The Republican agenda.
I mean, just wild way to behave and pretty unusual.
It's trump Ism has got to Congress.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Yep. So this is a really interesting one. Costco is
suing the Trump administration for a full refund of the
tariffs incurred at their stores, which is quite a hefty
penny considering how much inventory Costco moves.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Yeah, this is pretty nuts. There are a couple of
other companies that have lined up for refunds that are
suing the Trump administration. Trump unilaterally put together these tariffs.
He did it as an emergency order, whatever that means.
The Supreme Court may say he has no right to
do any of this. That is very possible, slash likely. Yeah,
(04:22):
this is such a good example of how these private
companies can in fact push back. They just have so
far chosen not to. And here we have a really
good example of a private company that is a huge retailer.
And you know, we're still waiting. There's going to be
a Supreme Court decision on this emergency powers law and
(04:45):
we'll see, and you know, it may be that this
gets repealed, that he has to pay back all the tariffs.
The problem with having a president who does lots of
illegal stuff is that you really don't know what's going
to get ruled illegal by this court, and that's where
Costco finds itself. But it's good to see that they're
doing this, and probably this is the only way to
(05:07):
push back.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Yeah, and it's interesting too because Costco is one of
the most different business models when it comes to employees,
is that they pay their employees much better than their
competitors at a bit of very lefty organization, as lefty
as corporations get. So this is a very interesting way
of fighting back against trump Ism.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Yeah, and look, it's probably the best way to do it.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Agreed. So another interesting move that could really really change
our politics. One hundred former wallmakers have called on the
House to band stock trading by members of Congress.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Don't get my hopes up. I love those dock trading bans.
That's like my favorite. You know, we were talking about
it earlier, Like I love a stock trading ban. So
let's hope it happens again. It's wildly popular. There's no
reason not to do it. It's called the Restore Trust
in Congress Act. I have a lot of trouble imagining
(05:59):
that Republicans will passet, but you know, the former lawmakers
to sign the letter. By the way, Tom Dashell, did
gepart Olivia Snow, Fred Upton, sixty Democrats, twenty eight Republicans,
two independents. Yeah, and look at the polling on it
is wildly popular. There had been some machinations to pass
(06:20):
something like this, and Donald Trump had said he wanted
to cut out for the president. I mean, we have
a president and executive branch that is doing corrupt things
at a scale we've probably never seen before. Makes Tibat
Dome look like Lincoln. So I do think it makes
sense that you would want to have broad, sweeping reforms.
(06:40):
But I also think that you're going to have a
lot of trouble passing that in Trump world right now
because for obvious reasons.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
So the entire chain of command under Pete's hexas Department
of Work could be held liable for the boat strikes.
I think this is pretty interesting. It seemed like in
that press conference to a whiskey, Pete was trying to
put on a smiley face as much as he could,
but really wasn't giving a good acting job. To me.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Donald Trump hates firing
people at least in two point zero. He hates firing people.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
I must say, very ironic for the year fire. Yess.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Yeah, he does seem to not want to fire. Hegseet
though ultimately, sooner or later, this whole thing is going to,
you know, killing the fishermen. You know, there's only so
many Laura Lumer Pedagon press conferences. There's only so many
times you could have Matt Gates in there asking fake
questions and pizza Jack. I'm talking about that incredible, incredible
(07:42):
Pentagon press conference today where they called on an entire
media made up of MAGA to tell them how great
they are. But I think eventually the bill will come
due on this, and it's hard for me to imagine
that it's not going to end pretty terrible. Sam Cedar
is the host of The Majority Report. Sam Cedar, Molly
(08:06):
John Fast Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
I just figured out what fast politics meant.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
What does it mean?
Speaker 3 (08:14):
It's your last name? Yes, I had not put that together.
I was like, why fast politics? And then I realized, like, oh, okay,
oh got it.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
When I start my own school of political theory, it'll
be called FasTIS Oh?
Speaker 3 (08:30):
I like that?
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Yes, just like Trump's razor is that the stupidest explanation
is always the right one.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
It's also the easiest one for him to reach for.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
So I actually believe that his North Korean style cabinet
meetings where every member of the cabinet goes around and
praises him are appalling, hilarious and also actually quite smart,
and the Democrats should do them.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
I mean, it creates the mess of He's it's sort
of like, you know, what it does is it reprises
his role in The Apprentice, where everybody goes around and
sort of placates him and looks like they're supplicating themselves
to him. And in The Apprentice, to be fair, he
never fell asleep, and this time around he did on
(09:20):
multiple occasions.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
You know, I was reading this book. It's a very
smart book of political profiles by someone whose name I
will not mention because they are a serial fabulous and
I do not want to give them any attention. But
the writing is very, very good, and that's why I
was reading it. And what I found so interesting about
(09:42):
it is that it talked about Donald Trump as a
seventy year old, and it made me remember that we
have been doing this for an entire decade.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Oh, I mean sort of more when it comes to Trump.
But I mean, yes, we've been doing for a decade.
It is exhausting. But you know, we had a problem
with politics before and we were just saying, you know,
before the show, like people forget that Mitt Romney made
a big, big production of coming to New York to
kiss Donald Trump's ring and get his permission in his impromatur.
(10:18):
I mean then that was in twenty twelve, and so
you know, Donald Trump was one of the intellectual pillars
of the Republican Party. All of the birth certificate stuff,
the brother stuff was he was the main tent pole
for that, and people forget John Bayner wouldn't push back
against it. This is well, you know what this is.
This is a Republicanism that has been around, I would
(10:41):
argue for close to two decades plus.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
And you know, if you want to go down that
rabbit hole of the America First Movement, I mean you
can you can parse it back Pat Nickson, Pat Buchan, Yeah,
I mean, but even Nixon, I mean even you can
go further and further back. I mean, you have Republicans
supporting horrible dictators for you know, the.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Last Democrats, Democrats too.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
I mean, look, you're talking to someone who's the granddaughter
of the last living recipient of the Stalin Peace Prize.
So people make mistakes. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
It's true, people make mistakes. But also I mean I think,
like you know, the we've had when it comes to
foreign policy and being supportive of dictators, that has been
largely a bipartisan project in many respects.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
But it stops today with Pete haig Seth bombing fishermen
in the Caribbean.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
See here's what I find stunning about this story. This
has been going on since September second, and we have
heard virtually nothing, and now you know the issue is
and I sort of, I mean, I sort of understand
this dynamic. I don't want to be sort of Pollyannish
about this, but the idea that it's only occurring to
people now that this is a crime, like I don't
(12:02):
even know if it's a war crime. People want to
argue it's a war crime because once you attack vessel
or the enemy, and if they're in a boat, and
if there's any chance of them surviving, you're not supposed
to double tap. But we're not at war with these people.
We don't even know who they are, so it's not
a war crime. It's a crime crime that is being
(12:24):
committed on top of a crime.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
I laugh, to keep from crime, and.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
With alute no substantiation as to who they are, no
authority even if they are who they say, who the
administration says they are, and there's no reason to believe that.
I mean, we were told they were going into that
building in Chicago with the Blackhawk helicopters and they were
basically putting Latino people in one moving truck and black
(12:52):
people in another moving truck because that whole place was
full of trend to Agua and there was none. And
so there's only for us to believe them about this.
But even if we were to believe that they were
trend to Agua in these boats that were incidentally both
on the Pacific and the Caribbean, there's no authority to
you laterally bomb these people. Yet we haven't heard a
(13:14):
word about it, and now it's just coming out as like,
you know, because there are some Republicans who decide that
they see this as an opportunity to get rid of
HEG Sith, and of course heg sys is throwing his
uh you know, is admiral under the bus. This is
like three months overdue in my estimation.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, oh yeah. And also I mean they very likely
are fishermen too. I mean there's there's the illegality of
the war, which is maybe not a war because it
has in Congress hasn't said it's a war. And then
there's also just the fact that they're probably not even
those people anyway, right.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I mean, but who would you who would you declare
war against boats? Like well, honestly, like like these are
fish to not that there has any been any reporting
on who they are, right, there's a lot of evidence
that it was just uh, fisherman. But the United States
is going to go to war with a gang. I mean,
(14:08):
now there's no like, there's no authorization for this. It's absurd.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
You know what I think though, is the most interesting
part of this is that in Trump one point, oh,
we always see Trump is like a master of sequels, right,
he cares a lot about So in Trump one point,
h he had this idea that he was going to
go to war with Mexico, remember that, And he wasn't
going to go to war with Mexico. He's going to
go to war with the cartels in Mexico. So I
(14:33):
think this is a continuation of that. But it makes
me wonder about the government in Mexico and how they
managed to distract Trump with a new government, because like,
do you remember all throughout one point, oh, he was
like going to go to war with Mexico, And now
Mexico has a woman president sort of she's kind of
(14:55):
a cutout, but and she's sort of pretty, and now
he's not going to go to war with Mexican.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
I think it's frankly, it's because I think they have
stopped immigrants from traversing through Mexico. This is my guest,
and I I've seen some reporting of about this, but
not much that they've you know, essentially shut their borders
to uh, Central America, at least for people, you know,
for immigrants attempting to get to the US. And so
(15:23):
I think he's happy with the amount of immigrants that
are not coming into the border. And I think there's
also like a I don't know who's driving this compulsion,
if it's Rubio or what, but there's a serious compulsion
within his administration to overthrow a Maduro in Venezuela. And
(15:44):
I think there's probably you know, two projects, you know,
only one project at a time in that region that
he wants to pursue. I mean, that's why there, that's
why he's bombing these boats. It has nothing to do
with with drugs. And not even ten percent of drugs
that enter into the United States are coming from Venezuela.
I mean, there's just.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Now that's just coming from China.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
It's a complete pretense. And when he brought Juan Guido
to Congress, I can't remember what year it was, Guido
got a standing ovation for both sides of the aisle
and he clearly he was not the president of Venezuela
and he's never has been since. So you know, Trump,
(16:25):
I think has they want Venezuela and oil, and that's
what I think a lot of this is all about.
At the end of the day, I think he says
as much, almost.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
Let's talk about the Congress because Mike Johnson, I am
really enjoying this, the misery that is Mike Johnson's life
right now. He had he's fighting with a least aphonic
on Twitter. He has got this special election in Tennessee.
It's in R plus twenty two, it's happening. So when
(16:56):
people listen to this tomorrow, they will be they will
know if it Democrats probably will overperform. How much we
don't know enough to make Donald Trump tweet about it
and call in on the phone. And it just seems
to me, you know, he has a four or five
seat majority, he has all these specials coming up, he
(17:17):
still has another year before the midterms.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I think this race is going to have a lot
more relevance as a special election than most because putting
aside the first order issue of like this would flip
another seat, and he has a dwindling majority in the
in the House, and put aside you know, the sort
of like the tea leaves that people read from a
(17:43):
special election, it's a you know, it's a Trump plus
twenty two district. You know, you account for some Democrats
are going to be more motivated in a special election
than Republicans. But that's also case on the on the midterm.
But I'm convinced that if ban gets in there, like
within like let's say four or five points, or wins
for that matter. But if she gets within four or
(18:04):
five points, I think you're gonna see another two or
three resignations or retirements, I should say, maybe even a
resignation of House members, because if she's gonna overperform by
seventeen points, again Trump, this with with with all the
deployment of all the money, all the Trump I mean,
(18:26):
most Congress people are not gonna get that much attention
in their midterm races, and from the national Party and
from Donald Trump. You've got a lot of people who
are gonna be like, I don't want to spend the
next year fundraising or running against somebody in the primary
who's gonna be a pain, then running in the general election.
(18:47):
And even if I win, which means I have to
overperform what I did in the twenty twenty four election
by ten fifteen points, I'm gonna be in the minority.
And so I think there's gonna be if this is
even remotely close, I think they we're going to see
more resignations.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Frankly, yeah, And I mean we already saw Marjorie Taylor
Green is out in January, which is like a huge
fuck you when you have such a small majority, and
then you have members of Congress using discharge petitions.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
And so let's talk about Jeffries has actually put together
a discharge petition. I'm not sure about the Obamacare premiums,
trying to sort of get that together. I mean, it
seems unlikely that goes. But Republicans don't have some other
healthcare idea.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
No, and you have you know, some Republicans like you
know Lawler, and you know, like New York Republicans, probably
some California Republicans to the extent that they're going to
exist as exist the redistricting.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Who darryl Isa, darryl.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Isa suppose're gonna run in Texas. You know, it's possible
you get a couple of Republicans to sign on to
something like that because they know they're going to get destroyed,
you know, as these healthcare premiums go through the roof.
I mean, it's going to be really debilitating for millions
of people. But it also speaks to, I think, in
(20:17):
many respects, the failure of parts of the Affordable Care
part of the Affordable Care Act, right, it was the
Patient Patient Protection Affordable Care Act is what the official
name was. And the patient protection's pretty good. You know,
you have, health insurance is a better product now than
it was in twenty thirteen. But the affordable part. No,
(20:42):
not so much, and hopefully slowly the Democrats will get
to the point where they realize, like, we need to
have a fundamental shift in the way that we pay
for health insurance in this country, and that it'll be
a single payer system. It's just more efficient.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Yeah, I'm wondering if you think that, like there's any
way in which like Trump clearly sees this coming. Members
of the House understand, I mean, people see you know
that we so Trump said We're gonna like, let's extend
the premiums and basically let's do what Democrats wanted. That
was last week's drama, and then members of the House
(21:23):
were like, fuck, no, we're not doing that. But the
but it is, if you wanted to not get completely
creamed in the midterms, that would be really the only
way to do it. Right.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Well, I mean, I think the problem is is that
you have so many of the Republican lawmakers who are
in such polarized and safe Republican seats. You know, we forget,
this entire movement was built, you know, at least part
of it on voting to repeal Obamacare, and the idea
(21:55):
for them to like do a full one eighty one.
I think it opens them up to primary challenges in
their districts. And two it I think it you know,
opens them up to charges of being you know, rhinos
and the margins are so thin. I think it's wrong
these days to look at at least the Republican Party
(22:19):
and frankly on some level of the Democratic Party, to
look at them as the first lens being their party
affiliation on things like this, because I don't think there
is a if they wanted to do something. I think
it's a bunch of individuals who are making the assessment
as to what helps them in their district first, and
(22:41):
what their brand is, and you know, what their relationship
with their voters are. So I think it's hard to
you know, assess like if the Republicans were smart, they
would have done that. If the Republicans were smart, they
would have done this, they would have just brought it
to open up the government. But you know, in those things,
they don't function as a hive mind. They all, all
(23:02):
of them as individuals know that. Like I made my
bones on arguing against Obamacare, I can't fine off on
Obamacare on anything. I can't validate it in that way.
If the members of the Democratic Party were more aggressive,
they would take any capitulation by Republicans on this and
walk the other distance, you know, the other direction like
the Republicans would.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
They don't do that, though, Yeah, if only they were
more aggressive.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
I mean, just think there has been a significant portion
of the Democratic Party which is vehemently against any type
of expansion of Medicare. We could have done that during COVID,
could have said, if you've lost your job and you
need health insurance, we're going to expand Medicare temporarily. Nancy
Pelosi fought that tooth and nail, and instead we subsidize Cobra,
(23:53):
which possible efficient for a dollar for a dollar a
way of providing health insurance to people. I mean, just incredibly,
it's the most expensive way. But I think that was
done as a way of maintaining the sort of fiction
that we can't expand Medicare for people under the age
(24:13):
of sixty five. I mean, that's absurd. It's the more
you expand it going down in age.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
The cheaper against because those people don't need.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Yes, and so, I mean everybody knows this, and but
there's just too much. I don't know if it's there's
a reason for ideological stuff. It's both.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Probably there's a reason that Canada doesn't want old people
coming there. It's because it's very expensive the healthcare, whereas
if you're younger, it's cheaper because you don't have to
And I think that's a really good point. And also
I just want to add, if you were going to
bring up Nancy Pelosi, who was in many ways a
(24:58):
great fighter for the cause, the most important thing now
is to ban congressional stock trading, because that is something
that we opens the door to trump ism. Right, it's
not as bad, but you get when you have members,
you know, but when you have members of members trading stock, yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
I mean, you know, the only downside is is that,
you know, those people who use an app to shadow
Nancy Pelosi's stock trading and have made a killing off
of it will feel bad. But yes, of course, I
mean we're just watching the complete like sort of monetization
(25:41):
of of our government. And you know, this is the
thing if like you've ever been involved in like small
town governance, it's it's the same dynamic. You know, people
people become the city councilman or all the people or whatever,
or sit on boards because it's an extension of their business.
(26:01):
This is the way I network. I'm going to throw
this county grant to my friend who does food distribution,
and they're gonna give me a deal on this. And
that's what Trump is doing, you know, but doing it
on a national level. And the inside insider trading that
takes place with congress people's is a perfect example of this. Yeah,
(26:24):
it seems to be to be a no brainer, and
I think when she's gone, it's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
Sam Cedar, will you come back, of course anytime. Ryan
Mack is a journalist at the New York Times and
the co author of Character Limit, How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter.
Welcome to Fast Politics.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
Ryan Mack, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
We're going to talk about David sax in the micro
and the macro right, because like David Sachs is both
a guy who found himself in the Trump administration, but
he's also like a larger example of things that the
Trump administration is doing that are not subject to the
normal ethical anything. So I want you to first talk
(27:05):
about David Sachs, the investor Slash cryptos are slash ai.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
Zar, who is David Sachs. Basically, yeah, So David Sacks
is a born in South Africa guy that came to
the US as a child, went to Sanford University, linked
up with Peter Teel at Stanford, worked for The Stanford Review,
the libertarian newspaper that Peter Teel founded, and then was
an early employee of what became PayPal. So he's part
(27:32):
of the PayPal mafia, this famed group of entrepreneurs and
investors in Silicon Valley that have gone on to create,
you know, other companies, and you know, over the years,
has just become a fixture in Silicon Valley. He's you know,
founded companies. He has a venture firm called Craft Ventures.
He's established himself as a podcaster as one of the
four members of All In this podcast about tech and
(27:55):
politics and culture that is very popular with you know,
the tech crowd, and recently became a kind of close
associated the Trump family. A recent Trump supporter. Eventually was
named as the AI and cryptos are of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
So historically in administrations you wouldn't have people like this
because so David Zax besides being a podcaster, he's also
an investor in many, many, many companies that actually will
benefit from his job in the federal government.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
When you first asked a question, I was like imagining
like Woodrow Wilson having a cryptosar.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Right exactly, or even like having a railroad zar, right,
or I mean who also was a Carnegie, which is
basically what this is.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Right.
Speaker 4 (28:45):
There certainly have been people from the private sector that
have gone into government to advise or lead cabinet positions
what have you, Rex Hillerson for example, in the last
Trump administration. But this is a very unique position for one.
David's sex as a special government employee, which means he's
not a full time employee of the US government, and
(29:05):
he's not sent and approved in any way. There's no
congressional approval. And it's really a new position, this position
that the White House created to essentially what they call,
you know, keep the US as the leader in AI
and crypto globally. And so his job is to facilitate
anything that will help, you know, the US artificial intelligence
(29:27):
industry or the US cryptocurrency industry, while at the same
time he still maintains a position as a venture capitalist,
the leader of this venture fund that invests in crypto
related companies, and invests in AI related companies and that
is very unique.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
So he's advising on something and also investing on something,
and he has portfolio companies that could be pipped as
winners or losers by his job in AI and crypto right.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
I think he would argue he is not current investing,
but he certainly holds hundreds of stakes in AI related
companies and crypto companies. You know that we've gone through
with his financial disclosures, and yes, so as he is
helping to influence policy as it relates to AI in
the White House or cryptocurrency, the very companies that could
benefit from those policies are the ones in his portfolio
(30:22):
or could you know? And that is typically been a
no no in you precedented times.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
I guess it's technically an enormous conflict of interest to
have somebody who's serving in the government while also owning
parts of companies. He is perhaps dolling out, but I mean, again,
nothing new for Trump world. We saw Trump the administration,
the federal government took a share of Intel, and then
right afterwards Donald Trump bought between one and three million
(30:49):
dollars of debt he personally bought it in Intel. So
we are seeing conflicts of interest every which way in
this admin. But I'd love you to talk about what
we're you were surprised about when you were reporting the story.
Speaker 4 (31:02):
App What I was surprised about was this was kind
of all in plain sight. So basically, David Sachs received
these two waivers, an AI waiver and a crypto waiver
in March. That said, it was the White House that
gave him these waivers and essentially acknowledge that there could
be some conflict of interest, but his value as an
advisor outweighed those potential conflicts, or you know, the things
(31:24):
that he held were so small he couldn't be conflicted
by them. So, you know, all we did was kind
of go through these waivers and analyze what he continued
to hold in terms of his his stockholdings and his
private holdings. You know, he has he has shares in
these private companies and some of these are clearly AI companies,
are clearly companies that incorporate AI into their everyday business.
For example, he is a shareholder and Palanteer, which is
(31:46):
a major government contractor. He is Craft Ventures as an
investor in and Erroll, one of the leading drone defense
companies in AI companies led by Palmer Lucky that is,
you know, signing government contracts and right. You know, all
this was kind of just there to see, and it
wasn't like he was necessarily hiding it. You know, It's
(32:06):
just that no one had ever taken the time to
go through these disclosures and analyze what was going on here,
and some of it was just so again, I wouldn't
say blatant, but like in his disclosures he designated somebody
these companies as software companies or hardware companies, you know,
in order to say, you know, these aren't AI companies,
therefore I should be able to hold them. Some of
those very software companies had AI literally in their names,
(32:27):
like more than forty I think is the calculation we did.
Something like Tesla was designated as a hardware company in
these waivers, and Tesla, you know, has a self driving
car AI. You know, it's central to the business. Elon
Musk has described the company as an AI robotics company,
and so in some ways it felt I don't know,
disingenuous might be too far, but you know, there was
(32:48):
you know a certain kind of smoke and mirrors to
it in a way.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Yeah, and if you don't have journalism and you have
such a small world of journalism versus Trump. One point
out the world has gotten so small and there's so
few outlets. There aren't that many people who have them
wherewithal to be able to chase down just what the
disclosures mean and what they look like.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
Yeah, I think having worked at various other places than
The New York Times, it is discouraging to see, I guess,
the lack of options when it comes to well financed
and well resourced newsrooms. You know, this story took months
for us to do. It has five people on the
byline as well as a number of people that contributed
reporting and research. You know, that's that's a big investment
to do in a big investment by this newsroom to
(33:34):
examine something like that. And I think if you'd ask
anyone on the street, Democrat or Republican, you know, you
probably you'd want the press to, you know, scrutinize this
type of power, whether that you know who levers in
the administration. So, you know, the New York Times has
the ability to do it. And it's sad as an
industry that we don't have other folks that have those
kypts of resources.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
I guess one might argue that Bloomberg has the resources
and that the Washington Post may or may not have
the you know, there are a few other places, but
not much. Right, Really, nobody has the kind of resources
at the Times has.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Yeah, I guess, you know, and that's kind of the
stay of journalism today.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
So I want to talk about what happened next, because
David Sachs completely melted down and had all his friends
circle the wagons talk to me about what happened next.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
So we published our story on Sunday morning, And to
be honest, I didn't know what to expect in terms
of the reaction to the story. I mean, he's certainly
a big name in the White House, but he is
not a household known by any means. But yeah, there's
been a big reaction to the story in large part
field by the reaction on X. And these tech folks
are pretty big on X now that Elon is taken over,
(34:43):
and they made their opinions very clear on the piece.
You know, they've called this all sorts of names and
attacked a reputation, but haven't been really able to dispute
the merits of the story or the actual reporting in
the story. But that cycle has gone on for the
last couple of days, and it's I think draw more
readers and attention to the story itself, which you know,
(35:04):
something called the stress end effect. I guess.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
Yeah. It's a great example of like the power of
not posting through things, right that if you really have power,
you probably want to not post. I just wonder his
crew said, it's a hippiece. But ultimately, what you did
was follow the disclosures, find the companies, match the companies. Obviously,
(35:32):
Tesla is a company that uses AI. Like there wasn't
like a huge amount of hiding going on here.
Speaker 4 (35:40):
That was certainly one part of the story, and it
relies on those wave reforms, which are public documents for
anyone to see. I think what's really interesting here that
we really didn't go over is, you know, David Sachs,
in taking this position, did somewhat say like, you know, look,
I'm actually potentially conflicted here, and he did divest from
certain shareholdings, divested from Meta Amazon, Taiwan Semiconductor, which is
(36:03):
a mixed chips for AI companies, and he said he
was going to divest from Xai Elon Musk Company. So
there was almost an acknowledgment here that you know, I
probably should do this because I'm taking this role. But
he left hundreds of the other stakes on the table,
and it was just you know, took a bit of
organizing and spreadsheeting and going through that some of that
stuff to realize that, you know, that that was kind
(36:25):
of an incomplete picture of what he divests or probably
you know, someone argues she should have divested.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
I'd love you to talk about sort of what you
think is happening right now with this White House and
AI and Crypto.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
At this point, it's I view it as in some
ways a reaction to the Biden administration. And you know,
the tech industry viewing the Biden administration is so antagonistic
and so over regulatory to the point where they'd support
anyone that had a lighter touch. And so when the
Trump administration came in with David Sachs, the idea is,
(37:00):
you know, we need someone who can remove the red tape,
who can get out of the way, who can you know,
create policies that encourage the A industry and help us
build and help us grow, that can encourage things like
the Genius Act, which you know, allow for stable coins
to be sold in the crypt industry, that allow for
easier trading of crypto assets, and so that's what they're
(37:21):
essentially getting someone that is, you know, rubber stamping everything
that these companies want. David Sachs's feelings on AIRE are
pretty widely known. If you look at his x account,
he's calling it, you know, the driver of the American economy.
We can't you know, he said, like, we can't have
the a industry fail. And his policies and his actions
and his speech reflect that very much.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
So can we just have a real conversation about AI
for two seconds? Can you explain to me just as
someone who maybe I'm stupid, but AI has yet to
do anything good for me.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
There's two camps I think on this. You know, some
people that don't use AI at all in their daily lives,
and millions of people around the world that do you
use chat, GPT, or do use Claude or Gemini for
drafting of emails or writing speeches or what have you.
So there are seemingly real world applications for these things,
and they help people in their everyday lives, whether or
not they're these like insane valuations that we're seeing. They
(38:15):
justify that is, you know, remains to be seen. But yeah,
you don't use opening eye, or you don't use chat,
GPT or anything, or you're not making memes or no
fake images.
Speaker 1 (38:25):
I'm not making slop that I can you know, kill
the planet with. And I mean I just I spend
so much time trying to read out crap that wasn't
written or drawn by a human that I've become very
anti AI.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
Have you had AI slop made about you or like
shay I trained against your voice or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
I hope not.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
It's probably out there.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
I try very much to like keep my blinders on
and not like Google myself and not I just because
I don't think it does me any good. Elon Musk
also took an interest in this story. He also was
a special government employee who managed to do as much
as it install. His people in the government do a
(39:09):
lot of stuff that certainly seems on the boundaries of legality.
What do you think of.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
That, Elon? So I'm going to cover regularly. You know,
David Sachs is a close friend and associate of his
who worked on the Twitter takeover with him, and so
I felt like it was natural for him to weigh
in and then defend his friend. He doesn't like critical
reporting or pretty much any reporting at this point, so
it's not surprising for him to join in the name
(39:36):
calling and the mud slinging. I think it's very interesting
to distinguish between the two of them, though, you know,
you mentioned they're both special government employees. But Elon went
in flamed out, really hard fought with Donald Trump, and
he's sort of on the outs in some ways. You know,
at least he's at arms distance now from the Trump administration.
With David Sachs, he's been able to play in both worlds.
You know, he's very close with Elon. He's obviously very
(39:59):
close to Trump and Trump administration still in the administration,
and he's been able to kind of play this very
political role and please everyone in a way, and that
may be you know, his best quality in some ways.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Yeah, so interesting. Brian Mack please come back of course anytime. No, normlutely,
Jesse Cannon my junk fast.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
So it seems we're going to go to war with
Venezuela for oil, but in the meantime, we're gonna pardon
former Honduran President Jan Orlando or Hernandez, who did a
lot of the things that they're accusing Maduro of. What
the hell's uppling here?
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Yeah, it's hard to keep consistent when you have no ideology.
But Donald Trump is doing it. Yeah. So here's the thing.
He wants to stop drugs, but he also wants to
pardon drug dealers. Make it makes sense, it doesn't. He
formally pardoned former Honduran president. He did it. It's a
full and complete pardon. This is a guy who is
(41:00):
raising a major US drug trafficking conviction for a one
time US ally. He was sentenced to forty five years
in prison. I think that Trump is going a little
pardon crazy. But you know, it's amazing any Republicans are
still in jail at this point. I like that. Carolyn Levitt,
whose job is basically to defend the Indiventivill said, it's
(41:21):
a clear Biden over prosecution. I bet it's not. I'm
gonna say it's not. Yeah, So killing Fisherman okay, Pardoning
drug traffickers also, okay, make it make sense? It doesn't.
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday to hear the best
(41:46):
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4 (42:00):
M
Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
today's best minds. And on Monday night, Donald Trump shared
over one hundred and fifty brain rot posts on truth
social We have such a great show for you today,
The Majority Report Sam Cedar stops by to talk about
(00:22):
Donald Trump's North Korean style press conference. Then we'll talk
to The New York Times his own Ryan Mack about
David Sachs and his double dealing in the Trump white House.
But first the news.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
My the Republicans are in disarray. Elise Stefanic, whose aspirations
are very large, about as large as her mouth when
she's saying really racist and as long as public things.
I was very very mad at the speaker today. How
are you feeling about this?
Speaker 1 (00:49):
It's been a tough road for at least Stephonic and
I don't hate it. You'll remember that last week Democratic
Mayor elect Zori and mom Donnie went to the White
House and Donald Trump threw a last Dephonic right under
the bus, saying that she had called him a geh
hottist because that's what you do in a campaign, and
not because she's legitimately racist, which I guess is better.
(01:12):
I don't know anyway, at least demonic. She's posting through it,
and she's posting through it against the Speaker of the House,
Mike Johnson, a lawyer who is known best for holding
the phone when Donald Trump doesn't tell a rally. I
don't know what's going to happen here. Look, he's got
a very small majority. He is trying to do everything
(01:35):
he can to keep control of the House. You know,
you really see how having Donald Trump pick leadership and
just picking the people who will suck up to him
the best is really not working out so great. And
so here we have it. Chip Roy argued that Congress
should fully intervene a wide swath of issues in college athletics.
(01:59):
Maybe we should fix the mess. I mean, again, these
guys can't fucking do anything, so why are they going
to get involved with college sports? It doesn't even make
any sense. It's just very, very stupid. I think that
we're going to see a lot more of these kind
of problems that are you don't even think that can
go wrong when you have someone like Nancy Pelosi in
(02:20):
the job, and now we have Stephonic blaming Johnson for
delaying and ultimately killing her nomination to keep the House
GOP majority from further dwindling. You'll remember Marjorie Taylor Green
is resigning in January. They're just in every point different
sort of stupid things happening here that have gotten us here,
(02:42):
and Stephonic has more bills she wants to pass. On Monday,
Stefanic accuse Johnson of getting rolled by Democrats after Jamie
Raskin succeeded in stripping this provision she wants. I mean,
this is just like little backbiting in fighting, but it
wouldn't be coming out on Twitter were these guys not
(03:03):
in real trouble keeping the majority trying to pass stuff,
and I, for one love to see it. By the way,
this is Johnson said to a journalist. I don't know
why at least won't just call me. I do. I
texted her last night and said I would help figure
out what happened. Again, Stavonik, being you know, the ultimate
(03:25):
Trumpian move, she quickly shot back, posting on X just
more lies from the speaker. This is his preferred tactic
to tell members when he gets caught torpedoing The Republican agenda.
I mean, just wild way to behave and pretty unusual.
It's trump Ism has got to Congress.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Yep. So this is a really interesting one. Costco is
suing the Trump administration for a full refund of the
tariffs incurred at their stores, which is quite a hefty
penny considering how much inventory Costco moves.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Yeah, this is pretty nuts. There are a couple of
other companies that have lined up for refunds that are
suing the Trump administration. Trump unilaterally put together these tariffs.
He did it as an emergency order, whatever that means.
The Supreme Court may say he has no right to
do any of this. That is very possible, slash likely. Yeah,
(04:22):
this is such a good example of how these private
companies can in fact push back. They just have so
far chosen not to. And here we have a really
good example of a private company that is a huge retailer.
And you know, we're still waiting. There's going to be
a Supreme Court decision on this emergency powers law and
(04:45):
we'll see, and you know, it may be that this
gets repealed, that he has to pay back all the tariffs.
The problem with having a president who does lots of
illegal stuff is that you really don't know what's going
to get ruled illegal by this court, and that's where
Costco finds itself. But it's good to see that they're
doing this, and probably this is the only way to
(05:07):
push back.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
Yeah, and it's interesting too because Costco is one of
the most different business models when it comes to employees,
is that they pay their employees much better than their
competitors at a bit of very lefty organization, as lefty
as corporations get. So this is a very interesting way
of fighting back against trump Ism.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Yeah, and look, it's probably the best way to do it.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Agreed. So another interesting move that could really really change
our politics. One hundred former wallmakers have called on the
House to band stock trading by members of Congress.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
Don't get my hopes up. I love those dock trading bans.
That's like my favorite. You know, we were talking about
it earlier, Like I love a stock trading ban. So
let's hope it happens again. It's wildly popular. There's no
reason not to do it. It's called the Restore Trust
in Congress Act. I have a lot of trouble imagining
(05:59):
that Republicans will passet, but you know, the former lawmakers
to sign the letter. By the way, Tom Dashell, did
gepart Olivia Snow, Fred Upton, sixty Democrats, twenty eight Republicans,
two independents. Yeah, and look at the polling on it
is wildly popular. There had been some machinations to pass
(06:20):
something like this, and Donald Trump had said he wanted
to cut out for the president. I mean, we have
a president and executive branch that is doing corrupt things
at a scale we've probably never seen before. Makes Tibat
Dome look like Lincoln. So I do think it makes
sense that you would want to have broad, sweeping reforms.
(06:40):
But I also think that you're going to have a
lot of trouble passing that in Trump world right now
because for obvious reasons.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
So the entire chain of command under Pete's hexas Department
of Work could be held liable for the boat strikes.
I think this is pretty interesting. It seemed like in
that press conference to a whiskey, Pete was trying to
put on a smiley face as much as he could,
but really wasn't giving a good acting job. To me.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Yeah, I mean, I don't know. Donald Trump hates firing
people at least in two point zero. He hates firing people.
Speaker 2 (07:14):
I must say, very ironic for the year fire. Yess.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Yeah, he does seem to not want to fire. Hegseet
though ultimately, sooner or later, this whole thing is going to,
you know, killing the fishermen. You know, there's only so
many Laura Lumer Pedagon press conferences. There's only so many
times you could have Matt Gates in there asking fake
questions and pizza Jack. I'm talking about that incredible, incredible
(07:42):
Pentagon press conference today where they called on an entire
media made up of MAGA to tell them how great
they are. But I think eventually the bill will come
due on this, and it's hard for me to imagine
that it's not going to end pretty terrible. Sam Cedar
is the host of The Majority Report. Sam Cedar, Molly
(08:06):
John Fast Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome, Welcome.
Speaker 3 (08:10):
I just figured out what fast politics meant.
Speaker 1 (08:13):
What does it mean?
Speaker 3 (08:14):
It's your last name? Yes, I had not put that together.
I was like, why fast politics? And then I realized, like, oh, okay,
oh got it.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
When I start my own school of political theory, it'll
be called FasTIS Oh?
Speaker 3 (08:30):
I like that?
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Yes, just like Trump's razor is that the stupidest explanation
is always the right one.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
It's also the easiest one for him to reach for.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
So I actually believe that his North Korean style cabinet
meetings where every member of the cabinet goes around and
praises him are appalling, hilarious and also actually quite smart,
and the Democrats should do them.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
I mean, it creates the mess of He's it's sort
of like, you know, what it does is it reprises
his role in The Apprentice, where everybody goes around and
sort of placates him and looks like they're supplicating themselves
to him. And in The Apprentice, to be fair, he
never fell asleep, and this time around he did on
(09:20):
multiple occasions.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
You know, I was reading this book. It's a very
smart book of political profiles by someone whose name I
will not mention because they are a serial fabulous and
I do not want to give them any attention. But
the writing is very, very good, and that's why I
was reading it. And what I found so interesting about
(09:42):
it is that it talked about Donald Trump as a
seventy year old, and it made me remember that we
have been doing this for an entire decade.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
Oh, I mean sort of more when it comes to Trump.
But I mean, yes, we've been doing for a decade.
It is exhausting. But you know, we had a problem
with politics before and we were just saying, you know,
before the show, like people forget that Mitt Romney made
a big, big production of coming to New York to
kiss Donald Trump's ring and get his permission in his impromatur.
(10:18):
I mean then that was in twenty twelve, and so
you know, Donald Trump was one of the intellectual pillars
of the Republican Party. All of the birth certificate stuff,
the brother stuff was he was the main tent pole
for that, and people forget John Bayner wouldn't push back
against it. This is well, you know what this is.
This is a Republicanism that has been around, I would
(10:41):
argue for close to two decades plus.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
And you know, if you want to go down that
rabbit hole of the America First Movement, I mean you
can you can parse it back Pat Nickson, Pat Buchan, Yeah,
I mean, but even Nixon, I mean even you can
go further and further back. I mean, you have Republicans
supporting horrible dictators for you know, the.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Last Democrats, Democrats too.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
I mean, look, you're talking to someone who's the granddaughter
of the last living recipient of the Stalin Peace Prize.
So people make mistakes. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
It's true, people make mistakes. But also I mean I think,
like you know, the we've had when it comes to
foreign policy and being supportive of dictators, that has been
largely a bipartisan project in many respects.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
But it stops today with Pete haig Seth bombing fishermen
in the Caribbean.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
See here's what I find stunning about this story. This
has been going on since September second, and we have
heard virtually nothing, and now you know the issue is
and I sort of, I mean, I sort of understand
this dynamic. I don't want to be sort of Pollyannish
about this, but the idea that it's only occurring to
people now that this is a crime, like I don't
(12:02):
even know if it's a war crime. People want to
argue it's a war crime because once you attack vessel
or the enemy, and if they're in a boat, and
if there's any chance of them surviving, you're not supposed
to double tap. But we're not at war with these people.
We don't even know who they are, so it's not
a war crime. It's a crime crime that is being
(12:24):
committed on top of a crime.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
I laugh, to keep from crime, and.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
With alute no substantiation as to who they are, no
authority even if they are who they say, who the
administration says they are, and there's no reason to believe that.
I mean, we were told they were going into that
building in Chicago with the Blackhawk helicopters and they were
basically putting Latino people in one moving truck and black
(12:52):
people in another moving truck because that whole place was
full of trend to Agua and there was none. And
so there's only for us to believe them about this.
But even if we were to believe that they were
trend to Agua in these boats that were incidentally both
on the Pacific and the Caribbean, there's no authority to
you laterally bomb these people. Yet we haven't heard a
(13:14):
word about it, and now it's just coming out as like,
you know, because there are some Republicans who decide that
they see this as an opportunity to get rid of
HEG Sith, and of course heg sys is throwing his
uh you know, is admiral under the bus. This is
like three months overdue in my estimation.
Speaker 1 (13:29):
Yeah, oh yeah. And also I mean they very likely
are fishermen too. I mean there's there's the illegality of
the war, which is maybe not a war because it
has in Congress hasn't said it's a war. And then
there's also just the fact that they're probably not even
those people anyway, right.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
I mean, but who would you who would you declare
war against boats? Like well, honestly, like like these are
fish to not that there has any been any reporting
on who they are, right, there's a lot of evidence
that it was just uh, fisherman. But the United States
is going to go to war with a gang. I mean,
(14:08):
now there's no like, there's no authorization for this. It's absurd.
Speaker 1 (14:12):
You know what I think though, is the most interesting
part of this is that in Trump one point, oh,
we always see Trump is like a master of sequels, right,
he cares a lot about So in Trump one point,
h he had this idea that he was going to
go to war with Mexico, remember that, And he wasn't
going to go to war with Mexico. He's going to
go to war with the cartels in Mexico. So I
(14:33):
think this is a continuation of that. But it makes
me wonder about the government in Mexico and how they
managed to distract Trump with a new government, because like,
do you remember all throughout one point, oh, he was
like going to go to war with Mexico, And now
Mexico has a woman president sort of she's kind of
(14:55):
a cutout, but and she's sort of pretty, and now
he's not going to go to war with Mexican.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
I think it's frankly, it's because I think they have
stopped immigrants from traversing through Mexico. This is my guest,
and I I've seen some reporting of about this, but
not much that they've you know, essentially shut their borders
to uh, Central America, at least for people, you know,
for immigrants attempting to get to the US. And so
(15:23):
I think he's happy with the amount of immigrants that
are not coming into the border. And I think there's
also like a I don't know who's driving this compulsion,
if it's Rubio or what, but there's a serious compulsion
within his administration to overthrow a Maduro in Venezuela. And
(15:44):
I think there's probably you know, two projects, you know,
only one project at a time in that region that
he wants to pursue. I mean, that's why there, that's
why he's bombing these boats. It has nothing to do
with with drugs. And not even ten percent of drugs
that enter into the United States are coming from Venezuela.
I mean, there's just.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Now that's just coming from China.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
It's a complete pretense. And when he brought Juan Guido
to Congress, I can't remember what year it was, Guido
got a standing ovation for both sides of the aisle
and he clearly he was not the president of Venezuela
and he's never has been since. So you know, Trump,
(16:25):
I think has they want Venezuela and oil, and that's
what I think a lot of this is all about.
At the end of the day, I think he says
as much, almost.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
Let's talk about the Congress because Mike Johnson, I am
really enjoying this, the misery that is Mike Johnson's life
right now. He had he's fighting with a least aphonic
on Twitter. He has got this special election in Tennessee.
It's in R plus twenty two, it's happening. So when
(16:56):
people listen to this tomorrow, they will be they will
know if it Democrats probably will overperform. How much we
don't know enough to make Donald Trump tweet about it
and call in on the phone. And it just seems
to me, you know, he has a four or five
seat majority, he has all these specials coming up, he
(17:17):
still has another year before the midterms.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I think this race is going to have a lot
more relevance as a special election than most because putting
aside the first order issue of like this would flip
another seat, and he has a dwindling majority in the
in the House, and put aside you know, the sort
of like the tea leaves that people read from a
(17:43):
special election, it's a you know, it's a Trump plus
twenty two district. You know, you account for some Democrats
are going to be more motivated in a special election
than Republicans. But that's also case on the on the midterm.
But I'm convinced that if ban gets in there, like
within like let's say four or five points, or wins
for that matter. But if she gets within four or
(18:04):
five points, I think you're gonna see another two or
three resignations or retirements, I should say, maybe even a
resignation of House members, because if she's gonna overperform by
seventeen points, again Trump, this with with with all the
deployment of all the money, all the Trump I mean,
(18:26):
most Congress people are not gonna get that much attention
in their midterm races, and from the national Party and
from Donald Trump. You've got a lot of people who
are gonna be like, I don't want to spend the
next year fundraising or running against somebody in the primary
who's gonna be a pain, then running in the general election.
(18:47):
And even if I win, which means I have to
overperform what I did in the twenty twenty four election
by ten fifteen points, I'm gonna be in the minority.
And so I think there's gonna be if this is
even remotely close, I think they we're going to see
more resignations.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Frankly, yeah, And I mean we already saw Marjorie Taylor
Green is out in January, which is like a huge
fuck you when you have such a small majority, and
then you have members of Congress using discharge petitions.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
Yep.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
And so let's talk about Jeffries has actually put together
a discharge petition. I'm not sure about the Obamacare premiums,
trying to sort of get that together. I mean, it
seems unlikely that goes. But Republicans don't have some other
healthcare idea.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
No, and you have you know, some Republicans like you
know Lawler, and you know, like New York Republicans, probably
some California Republicans to the extent that they're going to
exist as exist the redistricting.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Who darryl Isa, darryl.
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Isa suppose're gonna run in Texas. You know, it's possible
you get a couple of Republicans to sign on to
something like that because they know they're going to get destroyed,
you know, as these healthcare premiums go through the roof.
I mean, it's going to be really debilitating for millions
of people. But it also speaks to, I think, in
(20:17):
many respects, the failure of parts of the Affordable Care
part of the Affordable Care Act, right, it was the
Patient Patient Protection Affordable Care Act is what the official
name was. And the patient protection's pretty good. You know,
you have, health insurance is a better product now than
it was in twenty thirteen. But the affordable part. No,
(20:42):
not so much, and hopefully slowly the Democrats will get
to the point where they realize, like, we need to
have a fundamental shift in the way that we pay
for health insurance in this country, and that it'll be
a single payer system. It's just more efficient.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Yeah, I'm wondering if you think that, like there's any
way in which like Trump clearly sees this coming. Members
of the House understand, I mean, people see you know
that we so Trump said We're gonna like, let's extend
the premiums and basically let's do what Democrats wanted. That
was last week's drama, and then members of the House
(21:23):
were like, fuck, no, we're not doing that. But the
but it is, if you wanted to not get completely
creamed in the midterms, that would be really the only
way to do it. Right.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Well, I mean, I think the problem is is that
you have so many of the Republican lawmakers who are
in such polarized and safe Republican seats. You know, we forget,
this entire movement was built, you know, at least part
of it on voting to repeal Obamacare, and the idea
(21:55):
for them to like do a full one eighty one.
I think it opens them up to primary challenges in
their districts. And two it I think it you know,
opens them up to charges of being you know, rhinos
and the margins are so thin. I think it's wrong
these days to look at at least the Republican Party
(22:19):
and frankly on some level of the Democratic Party, to
look at them as the first lens being their party
affiliation on things like this, because I don't think there
is a if they wanted to do something. I think
it's a bunch of individuals who are making the assessment
as to what helps them in their district first, and
(22:41):
what their brand is, and you know, what their relationship
with their voters are. So I think it's hard to
you know, assess like if the Republicans were smart, they
would have done that. If the Republicans were smart, they
would have done this, they would have just brought it
to open up the government. But you know, in those things,
they don't function as a hive mind. They all, all
(23:02):
of them as individuals know that. Like I made my
bones on arguing against Obamacare, I can't fine off on
Obamacare on anything. I can't validate it in that way.
If the members of the Democratic Party were more aggressive,
they would take any capitulation by Republicans on this and
walk the other distance, you know, the other direction like
the Republicans would.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
They don't do that, though, Yeah, if only they were
more aggressive.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
I mean, just think there has been a significant portion
of the Democratic Party which is vehemently against any type
of expansion of Medicare. We could have done that during COVID,
could have said, if you've lost your job and you
need health insurance, we're going to expand Medicare temporarily. Nancy
Pelosi fought that tooth and nail, and instead we subsidize Cobra,
(23:53):
which possible efficient for a dollar for a dollar a
way of providing health insurance to people. I mean, just incredibly,
it's the most expensive way. But I think that was
done as a way of maintaining the sort of fiction
that we can't expand Medicare for people under the age
(24:13):
of sixty five. I mean, that's absurd. It's the more
you expand it going down in age.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
The cheaper against because those people don't need.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Yes, and so, I mean everybody knows this, and but
there's just too much. I don't know if it's there's
a reason for ideological stuff. It's both.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Probably there's a reason that Canada doesn't want old people
coming there. It's because it's very expensive the healthcare, whereas
if you're younger, it's cheaper because you don't have to
And I think that's a really good point. And also
I just want to add, if you were going to
bring up Nancy Pelosi, who was in many ways a
(24:58):
great fighter for the cause, the most important thing now
is to ban congressional stock trading, because that is something
that we opens the door to trump ism. Right, it's
not as bad, but you get when you have members,
you know, but when you have members of members trading stock, yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:17):
I mean, you know, the only downside is is that,
you know, those people who use an app to shadow
Nancy Pelosi's stock trading and have made a killing off
of it will feel bad. But yes, of course, I
mean we're just watching the complete like sort of monetization
(25:41):
of of our government. And you know, this is the
thing if like you've ever been involved in like small
town governance, it's it's the same dynamic. You know, people
people become the city councilman or all the people or whatever,
or sit on boards because it's an extension of their business.
(26:01):
This is the way I network. I'm going to throw
this county grant to my friend who does food distribution,
and they're gonna give me a deal on this. And
that's what Trump is doing, you know, but doing it
on a national level. And the inside insider trading that
takes place with congress people's is a perfect example of this. Yeah,
(26:24):
it seems to be to be a no brainer, and
I think when she's gone, it's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (26:28):
Sam Cedar, will you come back, of course anytime. Ryan
Mack is a journalist at the New York Times and
the co author of Character Limit, How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter.
Welcome to Fast Politics.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
Ryan Mack, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (26:43):
We're going to talk about David sax in the micro
and the macro right, because like David Sachs is both
a guy who found himself in the Trump administration, but
he's also like a larger example of things that the
Trump administration is doing that are not subject to the
normal ethical anything. So I want you to first talk
(27:05):
about David Sachs, the investor Slash cryptos are slash ai.
Speaker 4 (27:10):
Zar, who is David Sachs. Basically, yeah, So David Sacks
is a born in South Africa guy that came to
the US as a child, went to Sanford University, linked
up with Peter Teel at Stanford, worked for The Stanford Review,
the libertarian newspaper that Peter Teel founded, and then was
an early employee of what became PayPal. So he's part
(27:32):
of the PayPal mafia, this famed group of entrepreneurs and
investors in Silicon Valley that have gone on to create,
you know, other companies, and you know, over the years,
has just become a fixture in Silicon Valley. He's you know,
founded companies. He has a venture firm called Craft Ventures.
He's established himself as a podcaster as one of the
four members of All In this podcast about tech and
(27:55):
politics and culture that is very popular with you know,
the tech crowd, and recently became a kind of close
associated the Trump family. A recent Trump supporter. Eventually was
named as the AI and cryptos are of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
So historically in administrations you wouldn't have people like this
because so David Zax besides being a podcaster, he's also
an investor in many, many, many companies that actually will
benefit from his job in the federal government.
Speaker 4 (28:31):
When you first asked a question, I was like imagining
like Woodrow Wilson having a cryptosar.
Speaker 1 (28:35):
Right exactly, or even like having a railroad zar, right,
or I mean who also was a Carnegie, which is
basically what this is.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Right.
Speaker 4 (28:45):
There certainly have been people from the private sector that
have gone into government to advise or lead cabinet positions
what have you, Rex Hillerson for example, in the last
Trump administration. But this is a very unique position for one.
David's sex as a special government employee, which means he's
not a full time employee of the US government, and
(29:05):
he's not sent and approved in any way. There's no
congressional approval. And it's really a new position, this position
that the White House created to essentially what they call,
you know, keep the US as the leader in AI
and crypto globally. And so his job is to facilitate
anything that will help, you know, the US artificial intelligence
(29:27):
industry or the US cryptocurrency industry, while at the same
time he still maintains a position as a venture capitalist,
the leader of this venture fund that invests in crypto
related companies, and invests in AI related companies and that
is very unique.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
So he's advising on something and also investing on something,
and he has portfolio companies that could be pipped as
winners or losers by his job in AI and crypto right.
Speaker 4 (29:58):
I think he would argue he is not current investing,
but he certainly holds hundreds of stakes in AI related
companies and crypto companies. You know that we've gone through
with his financial disclosures, and yes, so as he is
helping to influence policy as it relates to AI in
the White House or cryptocurrency, the very companies that could
benefit from those policies are the ones in his portfolio
(30:22):
or could you know? And that is typically been a
no no in you precedented times.
Speaker 1 (30:28):
I guess it's technically an enormous conflict of interest to
have somebody who's serving in the government while also owning
parts of companies. He is perhaps dolling out, but I mean, again,
nothing new for Trump world. We saw Trump the administration,
the federal government took a share of Intel, and then
right afterwards Donald Trump bought between one and three million
(30:49):
dollars of debt he personally bought it in Intel. So
we are seeing conflicts of interest every which way in
this admin. But I'd love you to talk about what
we're you were surprised about when you were reporting the story.
Speaker 4 (31:02):
App What I was surprised about was this was kind
of all in plain sight. So basically, David Sachs received
these two waivers, an AI waiver and a crypto waiver
in March. That said, it was the White House that
gave him these waivers and essentially acknowledge that there could
be some conflict of interest, but his value as an
advisor outweighed those potential conflicts, or you know, the things
(31:24):
that he held were so small he couldn't be conflicted
by them. So, you know, all we did was kind
of go through these waivers and analyze what he continued
to hold in terms of his his stockholdings and his
private holdings. You know, he has he has shares in
these private companies and some of these are clearly AI companies,
are clearly companies that incorporate AI into their everyday business.
For example, he is a shareholder and Palanteer, which is
(31:46):
a major government contractor. He is Craft Ventures as an
investor in and Erroll, one of the leading drone defense
companies in AI companies led by Palmer Lucky that is,
you know, signing government contracts and right. You know, all
this was kind of just there to see, and it
wasn't like he was necessarily hiding it. You know, It's
(32:06):
just that no one had ever taken the time to
go through these disclosures and analyze what was going on here,
and some of it was just so again, I wouldn't
say blatant, but like in his disclosures he designated somebody
these companies as software companies or hardware companies, you know,
in order to say, you know, these aren't AI companies,
therefore I should be able to hold them. Some of
those very software companies had AI literally in their names,
(32:27):
like more than forty I think is the calculation we did.
Something like Tesla was designated as a hardware company in
these waivers, and Tesla, you know, has a self driving
car AI. You know, it's central to the business. Elon
Musk has described the company as an AI robotics company,
and so in some ways it felt I don't know,
disingenuous might be too far, but you know, there was
(32:48):
you know a certain kind of smoke and mirrors to
it in a way.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
Yeah, and if you don't have journalism and you have
such a small world of journalism versus Trump. One point
out the world has gotten so small and there's so
few outlets. There aren't that many people who have them
wherewithal to be able to chase down just what the
disclosures mean and what they look like.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
Yeah, I think having worked at various other places than
The New York Times, it is discouraging to see, I guess,
the lack of options when it comes to well financed
and well resourced newsrooms. You know, this story took months
for us to do. It has five people on the
byline as well as a number of people that contributed
reporting and research. You know, that's that's a big investment
to do in a big investment by this newsroom to
(33:34):
examine something like that. And I think if you'd ask
anyone on the street, Democrat or Republican, you know, you
probably you'd want the press to, you know, scrutinize this
type of power, whether that you know who levers in
the administration. So, you know, the New York Times has
the ability to do it. And it's sad as an
industry that we don't have other folks that have those
kypts of resources.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
I guess one might argue that Bloomberg has the resources
and that the Washington Post may or may not have
the you know, there are a few other places, but
not much. Right, Really, nobody has the kind of resources
at the Times has.
Speaker 4 (34:07):
Yeah, I guess, you know, and that's kind of the
stay of journalism today.
Speaker 1 (34:11):
So I want to talk about what happened next, because
David Sachs completely melted down and had all his friends
circle the wagons talk to me about what happened next.
Speaker 4 (34:22):
So we published our story on Sunday morning, And to
be honest, I didn't know what to expect in terms
of the reaction to the story. I mean, he's certainly
a big name in the White House, but he is
not a household known by any means. But yeah, there's
been a big reaction to the story in large part
field by the reaction on X. And these tech folks
are pretty big on X now that Elon is taken over,
(34:43):
and they made their opinions very clear on the piece.
You know, they've called this all sorts of names and
attacked a reputation, but haven't been really able to dispute
the merits of the story or the actual reporting in
the story. But that cycle has gone on for the
last couple of days, and it's I think draw more
readers and attention to the story itself, which you know,
(35:04):
something called the stress end effect. I guess.
Speaker 1 (35:06):
Yeah. It's a great example of like the power of
not posting through things, right that if you really have power,
you probably want to not post. I just wonder his
crew said, it's a hippiece. But ultimately, what you did
was follow the disclosures, find the companies, match the companies. Obviously,
(35:32):
Tesla is a company that uses AI. Like there wasn't
like a huge amount of hiding going on here.
Speaker 4 (35:40):
That was certainly one part of the story, and it
relies on those wave reforms, which are public documents for
anyone to see. I think what's really interesting here that
we really didn't go over is, you know, David Sachs,
in taking this position, did somewhat say like, you know, look,
I'm actually potentially conflicted here, and he did divest from
certain shareholdings, divested from Meta Amazon, Taiwan Semiconductor, which is
(36:03):
a mixed chips for AI companies, and he said he
was going to divest from Xai Elon Musk Company. So
there was almost an acknowledgment here that you know, I
probably should do this because I'm taking this role. But
he left hundreds of the other stakes on the table,
and it was just you know, took a bit of
organizing and spreadsheeting and going through that some of that
stuff to realize that, you know, that that was kind
(36:25):
of an incomplete picture of what he divests or probably
you know, someone argues she should have divested.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
I'd love you to talk about sort of what you
think is happening right now with this White House and
AI and Crypto.
Speaker 4 (36:37):
At this point, it's I view it as in some
ways a reaction to the Biden administration. And you know,
the tech industry viewing the Biden administration is so antagonistic
and so over regulatory to the point where they'd support
anyone that had a lighter touch. And so when the
Trump administration came in with David Sachs, the idea is,
(37:00):
you know, we need someone who can remove the red tape,
who can get out of the way, who can you know,
create policies that encourage the A industry and help us
build and help us grow, that can encourage things like
the Genius Act, which you know, allow for stable coins
to be sold in the crypt industry, that allow for
easier trading of crypto assets, and so that's what they're
(37:21):
essentially getting someone that is, you know, rubber stamping everything
that these companies want. David Sachs's feelings on AIRE are
pretty widely known. If you look at his x account,
he's calling it, you know, the driver of the American economy.
We can't you know, he said, like, we can't have
the a industry fail. And his policies and his actions
and his speech reflect that very much.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
So can we just have a real conversation about AI
for two seconds? Can you explain to me just as
someone who maybe I'm stupid, but AI has yet to
do anything good for me.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
There's two camps I think on this. You know, some
people that don't use AI at all in their daily lives,
and millions of people around the world that do you
use chat, GPT, or do use Claude or Gemini for
drafting of emails or writing speeches or what have you.
So there are seemingly real world applications for these things,
and they help people in their everyday lives, whether or
not they're these like insane valuations that we're seeing. They
(38:15):
justify that is, you know, remains to be seen. But yeah,
you don't use opening eye, or you don't use chat,
GPT or anything, or you're not making memes or no
fake images.
Speaker 1 (38:25):
I'm not making slop that I can you know, kill
the planet with. And I mean I just I spend
so much time trying to read out crap that wasn't
written or drawn by a human that I've become very
anti AI.
Speaker 4 (38:40):
Have you had AI slop made about you or like
shay I trained against your voice or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
I hope not.
Speaker 4 (38:48):
It's probably out there.
Speaker 1 (38:49):
I try very much to like keep my blinders on
and not like Google myself and not I just because
I don't think it does me any good. Elon Musk
also took an interest in this story. He also was
a special government employee who managed to do as much
as it install. His people in the government do a
(39:09):
lot of stuff that certainly seems on the boundaries of legality.
What do you think of.
Speaker 4 (39:15):
That, Elon? So I'm going to cover regularly. You know,
David Sachs is a close friend and associate of his
who worked on the Twitter takeover with him, and so
I felt like it was natural for him to weigh
in and then defend his friend. He doesn't like critical
reporting or pretty much any reporting at this point, so
it's not surprising for him to join in the name
(39:36):
calling and the mud slinging. I think it's very interesting
to distinguish between the two of them, though, you know,
you mentioned they're both special government employees. But Elon went
in flamed out, really hard fought with Donald Trump, and
he's sort of on the outs in some ways. You know,
at least he's at arms distance now from the Trump administration.
With David Sachs, he's been able to play in both worlds.
You know, he's very close with Elon. He's obviously very
(39:59):
close to Trump and Trump administration still in the administration,
and he's been able to kind of play this very
political role and please everyone in a way, and that
may be you know, his best quality in some ways.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Yeah, so interesting. Brian Mack please come back of course anytime. No, normlutely,
Jesse Cannon my junk fast.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
So it seems we're going to go to war with
Venezuela for oil, but in the meantime, we're gonna pardon
former Honduran President Jan Orlando or Hernandez, who did a
lot of the things that they're accusing Maduro of. What
the hell's uppling here?
Speaker 1 (40:36):
Yeah, it's hard to keep consistent when you have no ideology.
But Donald Trump is doing it. Yeah. So here's the thing.
He wants to stop drugs, but he also wants to
pardon drug dealers. Make it makes sense, it doesn't. He
formally pardoned former Honduran president. He did it. It's a
full and complete pardon. This is a guy who is
(41:00):
raising a major US drug trafficking conviction for a one
time US ally. He was sentenced to forty five years
in prison. I think that Trump is going a little
pardon crazy. But you know, it's amazing any Republicans are
still in jail at this point. I like that. Carolyn Levitt,
whose job is basically to defend the Indiventivill said, it's
(41:21):
a clear Biden over prosecution. I bet it's not. I'm
gonna say it's not. Yeah, So killing Fisherman okay, Pardoning
drug traffickers also, okay, make it make sense? It doesn't.
That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
every Monday Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday to hear the best
(41:46):
minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4 (42:00):
M
Host
Molly Jong-Fast
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.