Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Thursday, have an amazing
Speaker 1: show for everybody today where we have a.
Speaker 3: Crystal Jimpac show.
Speaker 2: Today we're going to try to rip through as much
Speaker 2: news as we possibly can. So last night around midnight,
Speaker 2: we got the first Supreme Court weighing in not really
Speaker 2: a ruling but a temporary stay weighing in on some
Speaker 2: doge activity. So break all of that down for you
Speaker 2: what it means, what is going to happen next. Also,
Speaker 2: big Cabinet meeting yesterday that Elon Musk was at some
Speaker 2: very interesting things happened there. We'll show you some of
Speaker 2: the highlights. Saga really wanted to sound off on the
Speaker 2: Trump Golden visa, so Ryan Emily covered it yesterday, but
Speaker 2: we had a bit of a different view, so we
Speaker 2: wanted to express that as well. Obviously important in the
Speaker 2: context of sort of like philosophically and what is this
Speaker 2: country and how do we want to pursue immigration, et cetera.
Speaker 2: More airplane near missus absolutely terrifying too. Coming in a
Speaker 2: very close succession, will show you some really shocking footage
Speaker 2: from one of those near misses. There's a new Biden
Speaker 2: book that is going to be coming out.
Speaker 1: It is the.
Speaker 2: Inside story of his decline and the cover up. Jake
Speaker 2: Tapper is involved, so that's led a lot of people
Speaker 2: to ask whether he is the right person to be
Speaker 2: doing the reporting there, whether he was himself in on
Speaker 2: part of that cover up. And Jeff Bezos making it
Speaker 2: plane that the Washington Post is not going to brook
Speaker 2: any descent from.
Speaker 3: The pro oligarch agenda.
Speaker 2: So we'll talk to you about that and the fallout
Speaker 2: that commenced afterwards.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's there's a lot to say about it. It's
Speaker 1: just so hilarious to me the way that how naked,
Speaker 1: how all of these people are and more. It actually
Speaker 1: fits well with a guest that Counterpoints had on it yesterday.
Speaker 1: Really excited to be able to bring this to everybody.
Speaker 1: They got to sit down with the CFPB's former roe, Hitchopra,
Speaker 1: who was behind the scenes working at the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: Roichopra previously has not yet responded publicly to a lot
Speaker 1: of allegations made against him by Mark Andresen and by
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg. We will be exclusively dropping that for our
Speaker 1: premium subscribers early, So if you want to go ahead
Speaker 1: and subscribe, you can, but we're going to give you
Speaker 1: a little teaser of what that looked like. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen.
Speaker 4: When it comes to debanking, I don't think people should
Speaker 4: ever lose their account because of their exercising their religion speech.
Speaker 4: And I'll tell you one of the first things I
Speaker 4: did years ago was to put forth a stronger policy
Speaker 4: that made it clear when that type of discrimination or
Speaker 4: debanking ran a foul of the law. Guess who sued
Speaker 4: to block it. It was actually the bank lobby and
Speaker 4: the Chamber of Commerce.
Speaker 1: So if you want to hear the whole thing early
Speaker 1: Breakingpoints dot Com support the type of journalism that we're
Speaker 1: able to do here, Thank you very much. But well,
Speaker 1: why don't we get to the miniblock, Crystal?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So some news, some court news, legal news coming
Speaker 2: out last night, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts weighing
Speaker 2: in on whether or not the Trump administration needs to
Speaker 2: immediately unfreeze these USAID funds. Let's go and put the
Speaker 2: tear sheet up on the screen. Headline here from Politico.
Speaker 2: Chief Justice allows Trump administration to keep foreign aid frozen
Speaker 2: for now. And this actually applies specifically to foreign aid
Speaker 2: contracts where the work has already been performed and people
Speaker 2: are waiting on payments, so it specifically applies to those payments.
Speaker 2: This is part of a back and forth that's been
Speaker 2: going on that we've been tracking here about USAID that
Speaker 2: has been working its way through the court system. Multiple
Speaker 2: federal judges have said to the Trump administration, you have
Speaker 2: to unfreeze this aid, and rather than try to do that,
Speaker 2: the Trump administration has repeatedly come up with different legal
Speaker 2: rationales why they believe, like, oh, we are complying and
Speaker 2: we just have now a new different legal theory for
Speaker 2: why this aid can be frozen. A federal judge yesterday
Speaker 2: had said, listen, I'm done. You've been playing these games
Speaker 2: for weeks now. You have until midnight to unfreeze these funds.
Speaker 2: The Trump administration basically came back and said, we literally
Speaker 2: can't do that. They appealed to the Supreme Court. This
Speaker 2: is not any sort of a final decision or final ruling.
Speaker 2: This is just to preserve the status quo. John Roberts
Speaker 2: weighing in and saying Okay, we're going to give you
Speaker 2: some more time and asking for new filings to be
Speaker 2: put into this case by Friday. So Supreme Court almost
Speaker 2: certainly ultimately going to weigh in on this. But really
Speaker 2: significant because, like I said, it's the first time Supreme
Speaker 2: Court weighed in. And also, of course we've been tracking this,
Speaker 2: you know, building crisis of whether or not the Trump
Speaker 2: administration was going to comply with the court orders that.
Speaker 3: Are coming down now.
Speaker 2: So far, like I said, they haven't been in compliance,
Speaker 2: and there've been multiple judges on this case specifically we
Speaker 2: have said.
Speaker 3: You aren't in compliance.
Speaker 2: But at this point they're not just openly defying those
Speaker 2: court orders.
Speaker 3: They are coming up.
Speaker 2: With legal theories for why they think they are justified
Speaker 2: in continuing to freeze this AID. In addition, as part
Speaker 2: of this filing, the latest legal theory that they've put
Speaker 2: in front of the courts is Okay, well you said
Speaker 2: we couldn't do this blanket freeze. Now we've gone through
Speaker 2: line by line and we've decided that we want to
Speaker 2: freeze some ninety percent. We want to cancel some ninety
Speaker 2: percent of these contracts with regard to USAID specifically. So
Speaker 2: now they say, well, it's not a blank of freeze anymore.
Speaker 2: We just have gone through and decided that ninety percent
Speaker 2: of these contracts will want to be cut. That in
Speaker 2: and of itself socker of course, is very significant because
Speaker 2: it includes some of the things that had previously actually
Speaker 2: gotten waivers. So included in that ninety percent cut is
Speaker 2: things like pepfar funds for or people largely at Africa
Speaker 2: who have HIV and AIDS. It's going to tie in
Speaker 2: with some common city Elon Musk made with regard to
Speaker 2: the cabinet meeting on Ebola.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of pieces here.
Speaker 2: Obviously when you cut something by ninety percent that come
Speaker 2: into play, and this is all building up ultimately to
Speaker 2: that showdown where they want to take a case of
Speaker 2: Supreme Court and make the argument that they should be
Speaker 2: able to unilaterally cut funds as executive branch, even things
Speaker 2: that have been appropriated by Congress. This is part of
Speaker 2: that unitary executive theory. This is part of them wanting
Speaker 2: to deem the Impoundment Control Act unconstitutional, so that Congress effectively,
Speaker 2: in their view, sets what is a ceiling for funding,
Speaker 2: but then the executive branch can come in and say,
Speaker 2: but we don't like that program.
Speaker 3: We don't like that program.
Speaker 2: We don't like that program, and effectively consolidates the power
Speaker 2: of the purse largely within the executive branch. There, we're
Speaker 2: one step closer to that eventual showdown, and I think
Speaker 2: it's anybody's guess which way the.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is going to rule. Yes, very good summation,
Speaker 1: as we said, So it's that this is just a stay.
Speaker 1: It's a stay that will refer the matter to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, which will allow it to happen before they
Speaker 1: can make that. I will say, there's some interesting actually
Speaker 1: stuff also happening at the same time when the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives is continuing a resolution to fund the government. Now,
Speaker 1: theoretically that continuing resolution would do what it would continue
Speaker 1: to fund these very programs which have been paused by Dose.
Speaker 1: So there's actually an interim House maneuver which would both
Speaker 1: fund these perhaps adding more to House gotis will have
Speaker 1: to weigh it with the current Congress actually funding the
Speaker 1: programs right now, so legally as I understand that, that
Speaker 1: will add to some of the argument obviously for congressional
Speaker 1: power over the purse. But it will go to the
Speaker 1: full Supreme Court. I mean, that's that here before While
Speaker 1: you said it's definitely anybody's guests, I don't think Roberts
Speaker 1: would likely rule on behalf of the impownment clause in
Speaker 1: the way that the Trump administration wants to be with
Speaker 1: the most expansive views of presidential power are Justice Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: and Justice Alito. Justice Thomas is kind of a you know,
Speaker 1: kind of a wild card in this regard, so you
Speaker 1: would think theoretically, but again, as I understand it, in
Speaker 1: his like very small sea conservative views previously in the
Speaker 1: way they've been applied from a federalist society person I
Speaker 1: spoke to, he's more of a wildcard. And Justice Gorsich
Speaker 1: actually would be the number one person, Justice Gorsich and
Speaker 1: Amy Barrett both come from a similar, more libertarian school.
Speaker 1: If you look at some of the past rules Gorsich
Speaker 1: has made in this, it would seem to indicate likely
Speaker 1: to side with the liberals. So it's not it's not
Speaker 1: a slam dunk by the Trump administration at all. They're
Speaker 1: trying to get this as early as possible so that
Speaker 1: it could obviously inform what their stuff, what actions they
Speaker 1: can continue to make in the future. So it's interesting.
Speaker 1: None of the last thing. It is the latest thing,
Speaker 1: as you said, as a relatively routine legal maneuver, we
Speaker 1: see just go to stays all the time whenever before
Speaker 1: they want to decide a full movement at the court.
Speaker 1: And you were talking also about the midnight deadline. It's like, wow,
Speaker 1: you know, in terms of actually being able to comply
Speaker 1: with a literal midnight deadline with all these crazy governmental systems,
Speaker 1: doesn't seem particularly realistic. So they also want want to
Speaker 1: set up some sort of showdown just.
Speaker 2: On that totally, and I think that's an important part
Speaker 2: of it. I mean, I do think it was probably
Speaker 2: impossible for them to comply by midnight, which is what
Speaker 2: they were saying like, we really can't do this because
Speaker 2: the government is not just a.
Speaker 3: Switch you can flick on and off.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, the petitioners would say, you've had
Speaker 2: like weeks and weeks at this point to get it
Speaker 2: together and try to freeze these funds and in instead
Speaker 2: of taking any action in that direction, instead, you've spent
Speaker 2: your time to trying to come up with new legal
Speaker 2: ractionelles that would justify you defying this court order. So
Speaker 2: that's what this came down to. But you know, you
Speaker 2: have to keep in mind, if you're Chief Justice John Roberts,
Speaker 2: if you're the Supreme Court, you really want to maintain
Speaker 2: your legitimacy.
Speaker 1: So if you're.
Speaker 2: Weighing in and saying no, no, no, I agree, you
Speaker 2: have to unfreeze these funds by midnight, and you know
Speaker 2: that that's probably impossible to accomplish, well, then you're already
Speaker 2: in this situation of a total head to head showdown
Speaker 2: with the executive branch. And they know that the second
Speaker 2: that the executive branch, if they were to go down
Speaker 2: the path of open defiance, then the Supreme Court as
Speaker 2: an institution is on let's just say, very shaky ground.
Speaker 3: So you know, that's part of the.
Speaker 2: Dynamics that play in here is they want to preserve
Speaker 2: their legitimacy. And if there's a credible threat, which I
Speaker 2: think there is that the executive branch is just going
Speaker 2: to defy orders that they don't like and don't want
Speaker 2: to comply with, then that puts pressure on them to
Speaker 2: weigh in on the side of the Trump administration so
Speaker 2: that they can preserve the appearance of their own power.
Speaker 2: So that's one of the dynamics that go in here.
Speaker 2: And you've made the FDR comparison before. I think there
Speaker 2: is an apt comparison here because part of why the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court ultimately decides like, all right, we'll let you
Speaker 2: hear some of your programs go through that they were
Speaker 2: previously blocking is because he had threatened to pack the court.
Speaker 2: They knew that their sort of like power and legitimacy
Speaker 2: was on the line, and that's part of what applied
Speaker 2: pressure to them to go ahead and back what he
Speaker 2: was doing. And I think there is a kind of
Speaker 2: a similar dynamic that could play on here as well.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, there's a book I'm totally blanking on the name
Speaker 1: right now, which I highly recommend. God Okay, Supreme Power.
Speaker 1: That's what it is by Jeff Social. I read it
Speaker 1: several years ago. It's called Supreme Power Franklin Roosevelt versus
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, which goes into this. I should probably
Speaker 1: reread it for some of these before the decision comes down.
Speaker 1: But if anybody's interested, that will give you some parallels.
Speaker 1: So extraordinary cabinet meeting, I guess that's one way, yeah
Speaker 1: to put it. Everybody else is in suits, and say
Speaker 1: Elon's in the dark maga hat, wearing an overcoat and
Speaker 1: a T shirt. Okay, yeah, got it. That's definitely how
Speaker 1: we dress inside of the White House. Don't ask me why. Well,
Speaker 1: what the most interesting part was Trump basically settled the
Speaker 1: Elon question with his cabinet, which is who has the
Speaker 1: authority over this email and compliance? And previously I really
Speaker 1: thought that that email was a very important jump off
Speaker 1: point because I was like, Oh, the cabinet's really asserting
Speaker 1: itself here as the executive They're the people who have
Speaker 1: been said confirmed to run these government departments. But here
Speaker 1: is what Trump had to say. He said, if you're
Speaker 1: against Elon, we'll throw them out of here. Let's take
Speaker 1: a listen.
Speaker 5: I just wanted to ask you that the President Trump
Speaker 5: put a truth social today saying that everybody in the
Speaker 5: cabinet was was happy with you. I just wondered if
Speaker 5: that's if you had heard otherwise, and if you had
Speaker 5: heard anything about the members of the cabinet who weren't
Speaker 5: happy with the way things were going, And if so,
Speaker 5: what are you doing to address those any dissatisfactions.
Speaker 1: Left the cabinet Just make just.
Speaker 6: If you are, well, throw them at We have a
Speaker 6: lot of respect for Elon and that he's doing this,
Speaker 6: and some disagree a little bit, but I will tell you,
Speaker 6: for the most part, I think everyone's not.
Speaker 1: Only happy that the real Okay, all right, I mean
Speaker 1: settle the question. There you go, you have got there.
Speaker 1: Trump basically endorsing it one hundred percent, and he said, well,
Speaker 1: if anybody disagrees with it, get out of here. Elon
Speaker 1: also expanded, this is more in terms of the relationship.
Speaker 1: This is why it's important during the meeting where he
Speaker 1: expanded on why he decided to send that email in
Speaker 1: the first place, and as Trump had said previously, it
Speaker 1: was that his own urging. Here's what Elon had to say, Like.
Speaker 7: Last week, President encouraged me via truth social and also
Speaker 7: via a phone call to be more aggressive. And I
Speaker 7: was like, okay, you know, yes, sir, as president, we'll
Speaker 7: give you that. The President's commander in chief I do
Speaker 7: with the president.
Speaker 8: Asks so, and I said, can we send out an
Speaker 8: email to everyone just saying what did you get that
Speaker 8: last week?
Speaker 7: And the President said yes, so it did that.
Speaker 8: And you know, we thought a partial response, We're going
Speaker 8: to send another email.
Speaker 7: But our will is not to be capricious or unfair.
Speaker 8: It's we want to hear people at every opportunity to
Speaker 8: send an email. And the email could simply be what
Speaker 8: I'm working on is too sensitible classify to describe, like
Speaker 8: literally just where that would be sufficient.
Speaker 7: You know, I think this is just common sense.
Speaker 1: And what is your target number for for how many
Speaker 1: workers employees you're looking to cut total?
Speaker 7: We wish to keep everyone who is doing a job
Speaker 7: that is essential and doing that job well. But if
Speaker 7: they're if the job is not essential or they're not
Speaker 7: doing the job well, debously should not be.
Speaker 8: On public peril.
Speaker 1: So I just think it's important to say Trump is
Speaker 1: set and settled the elong questions like all right, this
Speaker 1: is this is what the future because conceivably looks like
Speaker 1: now and he is in control in terms of his
Speaker 1: ability to send these emails and whatnot. And I will,
Speaker 1: you know fully admit I had no idea that this
Speaker 1: would ever be the dynamic. And I would never have
Speaker 1: predicted that Donald Trump would allow this kind of subsuming
Speaker 1: of his own presidency over this. If I were a
Speaker 1: cabinet official, I would be furious, obviously, because this is like,
Speaker 1: you know, I got confirmed by the Senate. You know,
Speaker 1: my shit is all out there. I have to comply
Speaker 1: with all of these laws and sell stock and all
Speaker 1: these other like ethics things that you're allowed to do.
Speaker 1: Like meanwhile, you know, somebody can just bigfoot and come
Speaker 1: on in here. But I do think at a certain
Speaker 1: point we just have to be like, all right, this
Speaker 1: is what Trump wants, Like it's no longer some sort
Speaker 1: of secondary project like Trump fully he's had the information.
Speaker 1: It's February twenty seven, It's thirty seven days into Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's presidency. The fights and all of that have happened,
Speaker 1: and he has settled the question now that he wants
Speaker 1: Elon to at least be in charge of all of this,
Speaker 1: all of these cuts and basically of setting the guidance
Speaker 1: for federal agencies and so he can bear the consequences
Speaker 1: of that. Now, Donald Trump has made it clear that
Speaker 1: this is not some sort of fall guy or any
Speaker 1: of that. He's either endorsed some of the positions and
Speaker 1: door is basically saying he's a person who's in charge.
Speaker 1: And in a sense, that seems to be the point
Speaker 1: of that whole cabinet show. When I covered the White
Speaker 1: House last time, Trump famously would have the cameras and
Speaker 1: you would bring them in here and force his cabinet
Speaker 1: officials to be like, mister President, you're the greatest president
Speaker 1: to ever serve in the history of mankind. And I do,
Speaker 1: I do feel like this. This was the purpose of
Speaker 1: this entire gathering, especially to try and publicly be like,
Speaker 1: if anybody here has a problem, you know, go ahead
Speaker 1: and get out of here. So yeah, there we go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and also get on camera, yeah exactly say oh no,
Speaker 2: of course we love elon, we do whatever. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, that's what's wild is You're right. In the
Speaker 2: first administration, these gatherings of the Cabinet Secretary Trump were
Speaker 2: about licking the boots of Trump. This one was about
Speaker 2: licking the boots of Elon. So yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't think anyone could have predicted that. I mean, I
Speaker 2: saw the dynamic developing pretty quickly. I think the first
Speaker 2: real indication was over the H one B fight, Yes,
Speaker 2: where Trump really had to decide are you going to
Speaker 2: back Elon in an issue that he said he's going
Speaker 2: to go to war over or are you going to
Speaker 2: stick with you know, the previous incarnation in your MAGA
Speaker 2: base and some of your longtime supporters, et cetera.
Speaker 3: He came down very clearly. You know, he didn't equivocate.
Speaker 2: He came down very clearly on the side of Elon,
Speaker 2: and at every juncture he has handed power over to
Speaker 2: Elon Musk. And I don't think that there's any doubt
Speaker 2: that that trend is going to continue for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 2: Our friend Jeff Stein over at the Washington Post, who
Speaker 2: is doing fantastic reporting.
Speaker 3: He's also going to make an appearance in the.
Speaker 2: Bezos Blob because you're right in there as well. But anyway,
Speaker 2: he's reporting major changes coming to the federal government, led
Speaker 2: by Musk's doge most significant move to dismiss federal workers
Speaker 2: now underway. This is the big one. Agencies must submit
Speaker 2: plans to significantly reduce staff size by March thirteenth. Social
Speaker 2: Security Administration under instruction to cut staff in half. GSA
Speaker 2: says terminations there are imminent. Labor Department is eyeing gutting
Speaker 2: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office by ninety percent.
Speaker 3: Oh, you mean the office that Elon Musk and his
Speaker 3: companies have run a foul of.
Speaker 2: How interesting they're going to be gutted by ninety percent.
Speaker 2: Mass least cancelations of federal buildings underway, which is also
Speaker 2: interesting because everyone's been recalled to the office, but now
Speaker 2: they're not going to have any office, but they already
Speaker 2: don't actually have enough office space for everybody to.
Speaker 3: Be in the office.
Speaker 2: One hundred IRS leases to be nixed per records. Helps
Speaker 2: make sense, Jeff says of why Musk and Trump wanted
Speaker 2: a unified front today with cabinet secretaries, and you know,
Speaker 2: I also just want to reflect a little bit on
Speaker 2: the optics here, which you referenced a little bit with.
Speaker 2: You know, everybody else is forced to be in their
Speaker 2: formal attire, everybody including Trump seated at the table, and
Speaker 2: there's Elon standing in the sort of commanding position and
Speaker 2: really kind of running the flow of this meeting wearing
Speaker 2: whatever the hell he wants to mare where and his
Speaker 2: own branded dark mag a hat which is not the
Speaker 2: original red make America Great Again hat. He has created
Speaker 2: his own brand, his own following. And I you know,
Speaker 2: both of these individuals, Elon and Trump, their main genius
Speaker 2: really is around branding and symbolism, Like they think about
Speaker 2: what this imagery means. And so I think all of
Speaker 2: those pieces are very intentional. And Elon is the person
Speaker 2: in the government more than anyone, including Donald Trump, who
Speaker 2: holds the power and is making the decisions right now.
Speaker 2: And you're absolutely right, Zager, Like, if you're one of
Speaker 2: these cabinet secretaries, who this is your shot and you
Speaker 2: get to run the show, and you went through the
Speaker 2: Senate confirmation, you did all this, and now you get
Speaker 2: in there and some twenty something year old doge kid
Speaker 2: actually has more power in your agency than you do
Speaker 2: because they're you know, Musk's apparatic. That is a wild situation.
Speaker 2: And so at the beginning of the week, there's a
Speaker 2: real question are they going to stand for this, are
Speaker 2: they going to are they going to dissent? Are they
Speaker 2: going to revolt over this, and yesterday we got the
Speaker 2: infinitive answer, and that is no, they're going to do
Speaker 2: what Elon Musk wants them.
Speaker 1: To do, you know. And that's my thing now with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and all of this, I thought, maybe, you know,
Speaker 1: this is one of those times where you're going to
Speaker 1: try and set somebody else to absorb this. But when
Speaker 1: you definitively endorse it and then order your people to
Speaker 1: comply and listen, that's your prerogative. You're the democratically elected leader. Okay,
Speaker 1: you know, to build a little bit on your optics
Speaker 1: for anybody who's never been in that room, if you
Speaker 1: ever get the chance you go on an oval office tour.
Speaker 1: One of the very first things they're going to point
Speaker 1: out is in the cabinet room is that the president's
Speaker 1: chair is bigger than everybody else, because nobody's ever supposed
Speaker 1: to be taller or bigger than the president. Okay, interesting, right,
Speaker 1: in terms of who gets to stand and to speak? Look,
Speaker 1: do am I reading too much into it? Not necessarily,
Speaker 1: It's more just why are you allowing this to happen
Speaker 1: like this? Is the people who are branding and so
Speaker 1: called marketing experts, and I have no choice but to
Speaker 1: just say like, yeah, he believes it. He this is
Speaker 1: something that he wants, and now Trump will have to
Speaker 1: bear the sequences of that. So Elon also spoke a
Speaker 1: little bit about quote mistakes that have been made over
Speaker 1: a doze. Let's take a listen, and I should say,
Speaker 1: we will make mistakes.
Speaker 9: We won't be perfect, but when we make mistakes, we'll
Speaker 9: fix it very quickly. So for example, with USAID, one
Speaker 9: of the things we accidentally canceled very briefly was evola prevention.
Speaker 9: I think we will want ebola prevention. So we restored
Speaker 9: the ebola prevention immediately and there was no interruption. But
Speaker 9: we do need to move quickly if we are to
Speaker 9: achieve a trillion dollar deficit reduction and financially twenty twenty six,
Speaker 9: it requires saving four billion dollars per day every day
Speaker 9: from now through the end of September. But we can
Speaker 9: do it, and we will do it.
Speaker 1: So there you go in terms of the numbers that evolves.
Speaker 1: This is part of why I'm also starting to get
Speaker 1: very annoyed, is listen, you can doze all you want.
Speaker 1: If Congress can continues to fund it, then I mean,
Speaker 1: even if the government the government is not quote spending
Speaker 1: the money immediately, like at least it's being printed in
Speaker 1: or held or whatever in escrow by the government for
Speaker 1: the future. It's not like it's actually changed the stuff there.
Speaker 1: And also, as I understand it, the current way that
Speaker 1: the tax bill and all that is shaking out, as
Speaker 1: we're looking at some four point five trillion dollar increase
Speaker 1: in the overall debt limit for what the cap that's
Speaker 1: being allowed. This is openly acknowledged, Like I just want
Speaker 1: people to understand that it's not only a few hundred
Speaker 1: more billion in the Continuing Resolution, it's an extra one
Speaker 1: hundred billion to be spent over at the Pentagon on
Speaker 1: top of a major tax cut. I mean, we've talked
Speaker 1: here till we're blue in the face about the Pentagon
Speaker 1: and how if you ever really want to cut spending
Speaker 1: like it all exists right there, we can easily change
Speaker 1: procurement systems and all that we could spend. We could
Speaker 1: literally save hundreds of billions and all of that if
Speaker 1: we want to, I will say, I mean, on the
Speaker 1: popularity of this, I still have no idea. I think
Speaker 1: it's now obvious that there is a like blue Maga
Speaker 1: backlash against this, the resistance is activated and it exists,
Speaker 1: and I don't think anybody can say that's deniable. What's
Speaker 1: open question to me is the similar question of Democrats
Speaker 1: and Obamacare back in two thousand and nine. Will this
Speaker 1: be depressing to overall Republican turnout. Will it be one
Speaker 1: of those things where Republicans are tacitly okay with it,
Speaker 1: but they're not enthusiastic about coming out, or will they
Speaker 1: actively turn against it? And that's one of those very
Speaker 1: open questions. I also wonder about the independence and all this.
Speaker 1: You know, attitudes around government institutional trust still remain very,
Speaker 1: very low. Maybe this will change their mind. I'm still
Speaker 1: not sure. I still think, of course, the economy will
Speaker 1: be the number one determined factor out of all of this.
Speaker 1: But part of the issue is that at the very
Speaker 1: same time that all of this is happening, consumer sentiment
Speaker 1: is starting to tick down. Go take a look at
Speaker 1: the S and P five hundred and others and some
Speaker 1: of the reasons why even though Nvidia beat its earnings yesterday,
Speaker 1: while you're still seeing some shaky results in the overall
Speaker 1: stock market, people are pretty worried about tariffs and about
Speaker 1: the economy and without a big plan that kind of
Speaker 1: sells it to the American people. You kind of just
Speaker 1: get this chaotic feeling where feeling about the economy and
Speaker 1: savings and all that is bad. The fundamentals remain horrible obviously,
Speaker 1: as we talk about here all the time for cost
Speaker 1: of living, and you could end up in a really
Speaker 1: bad situation.
Speaker 2: Well, and it becomes increasingly clear it's a pro olagarch agenda.
Speaker 2: I mean, when you're doing massive four trillion dollar tax
Speaker 2: cut for the rich. You know, we'll see whether they
Speaker 2: do any of the populist no tax on tips or whatever.
Speaker 2: But even if they do, compared to the size of
Speaker 2: the four trillion that is going to the wealthiest, it's peanuts.
Speaker 2: So you've got that, you've got massive cuts to Medicaid,
Speaker 2: which you're talking some seventy to eighty million people, many seniors.
Speaker 2: I don't know if people realize as many seniors who
Speaker 2: are in long term care, it's Medicaid.
Speaker 3: That pays for that.
Speaker 2: Millions of berths in this country paid for by Medicaid.
Speaker 2: Many rural hospitals are utter dependent on this program. I
Speaker 2: saw a stat yesterday about the number of hospitals rural
Speaker 2: hospitals in Alabama alone that would close. We're in the
Speaker 2: double digits, so huge cuts to social safety net programs,
Speaker 2: massive giveaway to the rich, the richest man on the
Speaker 2: planet running the government to his own benefit. And I
Speaker 2: just always think it's important as we go through all
Speaker 2: of these individual developments of he said this, and he
Speaker 2: did that, and here's where the're cutting now and Social
Speaker 2: Security administration is being hacked by fifty percent. I think
Speaker 2: it's really important to zoom out and try to understand
Speaker 2: what the big picture is. As Sager says, this isn't
Speaker 2: about cutting spending. We know that because of the build
Speaker 2: that just passed the House with every Republican supporting it
Speaker 2: save for Thomas Massey and Donald Trump behind it, okay,
Speaker 2: which would massively increase the debt and the deficit. This
Speaker 2: is about Elon's ideology and personal goals. Number One, I
Speaker 2: think you know, as best I can tell, he wants
Speaker 2: to suck up as much data from the federal garment
Speaker 2: to feed his own AI to try to win that competition.
Speaker 2: Number Two, he wants to use the federal government as
Speaker 2: his own personal piggybank for his goal of getting to
Speaker 2: Mars and making humans an interplanetary species number three. I
Speaker 2: think Sager is right the other day he wants to
Speaker 2: be a trillionaire. And so the plan here, which has
Speaker 2: been laid out by Curtis Jarvin and discussed by JD.
Speaker 2: Vance and Peter Thiels behind it and Mark Andresen as well,
Speaker 2: is to have Elon be the CEO dictator of the
Speaker 2: country and Trump to be the chairman of the board.
Speaker 2: And I don't think we've ever seen a clearer image
Speaker 2: of exactly that dynamic as we saw in this cabinet
Speaker 2: meeting this week. That's exactly the dynamic that was playing
Speaker 2: out there, where it's really Elon making the decisions. And yes,
Speaker 2: Trump gets to have some sign off and gets to
Speaker 2: be involved, but Elon is the really the one who
Speaker 2: has taken charge. And of course, if you are taking
Speaker 2: the power of the purse from the from Congress, if
Speaker 2: you are completely consolidating power within the executive branch, if
Speaker 2: you are flirting with I mean, now they are defying
Speaker 2: court orders, but they're not in technical open defiance of
Speaker 2: court orders. But if you're flirting with that, all of
Speaker 2: those things are unconstitutional. All of that is illegal and unconstitutional. Now,
Speaker 2: how this is all going to play out in the
Speaker 2: court system. How the Supreme Court's going to respond when
Speaker 2: their own legitimacy is on the line. That also remains
Speaker 2: to be seen. But I also, just before we move
Speaker 2: on to the nets next set, I have to also
Speaker 2: clarify that ELIN with this Ebola thing, it's not even
Speaker 2: true that they turn the funds back on those. Yes,
Speaker 2: those funds are frozen, as are almost all the funds
Speaker 2: actually probably literally all the funds coming out of usaidea
Speaker 2: again in defiance of court order, in defiance of even
Speaker 2: the Secretary of State Mark or Rubio, who had put
Speaker 2: out some waivers for things like petfar and DOGE came
Speaker 2: in over his head. This is a dynamic ride was
Speaker 2: talking about yesterday's and none. It's still frozen. So it's
Speaker 2: not even the you know, agency heads that have control
Speaker 2: here literally is Elon Muskindos, et cetera. But Ebola prevention
Speaker 2: has not actually been turned back on. And of course
Speaker 2: this is not the only time when they've accidentally fired
Speaker 2: something that was really or frozen something that was absolutely critical.
Speaker 2: There was the people who were watching bird flu that
Speaker 2: they had to scramble and rehire. There was the nuclear
Speaker 2: safety guy that they had to scramble and rehire. There
Speaker 2: were some Transportation safety people, there were some FDA people,
Speaker 2: all of these big mistakes that if you saw them
Speaker 2: unfolding in any other part of government, Elon would be
Speaker 2: calling for these people.
Speaker 3: Look at you, how.
Speaker 2: Incompetent they are, look at how poorly they're doing their job.
Speaker 2: They would be fired immediately.
Speaker 3: But no.
Speaker 2: In fact, Ebola Prevention AID has not been restored. It
Speaker 2: continues to be frozen, as is almost everything in USAID.
Speaker 1: The only thing I would quibble with there is I
Speaker 1: think that Elon's agenda is not nearly as aligned as
Speaker 1: you might think with Cartis Jarvin, or or with Curtis
Speaker 1: Jarvin and or Peter Thiel slash JD. Vans. I think
Speaker 1: all of these are a little bit more distinct. Elon
Speaker 1: is like a power in and of itself who probably
Speaker 1: likes the idea of the so called dictator. But if
Speaker 1: you really think about the CEO dictator model that Jarvin
Speaker 1: and others had put out, it's a lot more rooted
Speaker 1: in like actual small d democratic legitimacy and being like
Speaker 1: a popular figure who takes strong control of the government,
Speaker 1: not dismantling the government itself. Much more like.
Speaker 3: That's true.
Speaker 2: I mean, because Jarvin talked about the rage like rage
Speaker 2: higher all government employees.
Speaker 1: Let me explain it. So rage is not a Javier
Speaker 1: Malay style thing. Rage is about deplacing the current regime
Speaker 1: by putting in a new regime. I don't think Elon
Speaker 1: wants a new regime, Right's the That's kind of the
Speaker 1: point that I'm trying to explain. As in Steve Bannon.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons Steve Bannon is against the administrative
Speaker 1: state is because he thinks that the administrative state as
Speaker 1: is currently constituted is against the like MAGA ideal. But
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon would not be against the idea of a
Speaker 1: MAGA administrative state right neither. I cannot speak for the
Speaker 1: JD or any these other people. I don't think so,
Speaker 1: just in terms of the stuff that they have said
Speaker 1: previously about government. I don't even think Jarvin would necessarily
Speaker 1: disagree with what I'm saying. I do think that Elon
Speaker 1: is against the administrative state period and is much more
Speaker 1: online with the privatized nature of where things are currently headed.
Speaker 1: And so that's where you can come at the same
Speaker 1: problem attack vector and say we need to get rid
Speaker 1: of the current government employees. But then from there is
Speaker 1: the divergence point. And this is what Steve Bannon ultimately
Speaker 1: correctly sees is he sees this as an attempt to
Speaker 1: basically privatize out all of these things so that you
Speaker 1: can have no regulatory regime as opposed to I would
Speaker 1: say people probably more like Curtis and JD or other
Speaker 1: figures who would swim in these waters, who would say, no,
Speaker 1: we need actually need our own government mechanism to enforce
Speaker 1: like our abilities and or control over like the broader market.
Speaker 1: So that's why I think it's still important to say
Speaker 1: why Elon is really his own strain of whatever the
Speaker 1: hell is going on.
Speaker 2: I think that's probably true. I think he's less like
Speaker 2: a true believer in the dark Enlightenment and you know,
Speaker 2: the neo reactionary movement and more finds it to be
Speaker 2: a very useful construct.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly for his own power graph.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But I mean in the end, whether he's like a
Speaker 2: true believer or whether he's just using that ideology for
Speaker 2: his own ends, the outcome is basically the same.
Speaker 3: And you're right, Elon doesn't want there.
Speaker 1: To he is.
Speaker 2: I think it's it's closest to say he's an anarcho capitalist.
Speaker 2: I mean he believes that every function of the government
Speaker 2: should effectively be privatized. And that relates more to this
Speaker 2: other related idea of network states, where they want to
Speaker 2: have these you know, many states, and they're already like,
Speaker 2: you know, there already are some of these cities that
Speaker 2: are set up this way that are basically private corporations
Speaker 2: and they are completely privatized. And when Elon says he
Speaker 2: thinks every single federal government worker should be out of
Speaker 2: the public sector and into what he describes as more
Speaker 2: productive private sector jobs, what you're describing is an anarcho
Speaker 2: capitalist ideology, which is.
Speaker 3: Distinct from you know, a russ vote.
Speaker 2: I think you would put more in the like libertarian category,
Speaker 2: which we want. He was, you know, libertarians want a
Speaker 2: small state, but they still think like, oh, we should
Speaker 2: have a military and a police force and a court
Speaker 2: system to enforce proper private property rights. You know, anarcho
Speaker 2: capitalists truly believe in privatizing literally everything, including security forces,
Speaker 2: and Elon appears to be much more in that camp,
Speaker 2: and as the richest man on the planet, even though
Speaker 2: he himself was the recipient of massive Government Aid Washington
Speaker 2: posted a great report on this at critical times like
Speaker 2: Tesla and SpaceX probably would not even exist today were
Speaker 2: not for loans and subsidies and the government ignoring him
Speaker 2: missing milestones at SpaceX and a massive almost five hundred
Speaker 2: million dollar loan that came into to Tesla under the
Speaker 2: Obama administration at an absolutely critical time. So even though
Speaker 2: he personally has been a massive beneficiary of government support,
Speaker 2: he wants to number one, make sure his competitors don't
Speaker 2: benefit from that same support. Number Two, that the government
Speaker 2: is not powerful enough that none of these regulatory agencies
Speaker 2: are powerful enough to rein in his power. And that's
Speaker 2: number three, to be able to have access personally and
Speaker 2: have the US taxpayer backstop his own net worth and
Speaker 2: fund his own ambitions. So if you know these ideas
Speaker 2: that are floating out there that have become very popular,
Speaker 2: like the neo reactionary movement, the Curtis Yarvin Ceo dictator
Speaker 2: with the Chairman of the Board thing, whether it's that,
Speaker 2: whether it's the network state idea, whatever is out there
Speaker 2: in the ether that he can grab onto to pursue
Speaker 2: his own personal ideological interest goals.
Speaker 3: And you know one other thing.
Speaker 2: And I'm sorry I'm going on here, but I think
Speaker 2: it's important for understanding his ideology as well. Is he
Speaker 2: also is a believer in simulation theory, like I think
Speaker 2: it's and I think that's me.
Speaker 3: I believe he.
Speaker 1: Is, and I'd be the lowest he does.
Speaker 2: I think that part of how he sees himself is
Speaker 2: that we all, including the President of the United States,
Speaker 2: including all those cabinet secretaries, we are quote unquote NPCs,
Speaker 2: non playable characters. And he is ready player one. He
Speaker 2: is the hero of this story. He is the only
Speaker 2: acting person with agency who is acting and creating this
Speaker 2: grand adventure of humanity. And if you internalize that, that
Speaker 2: that's the way he thinks of himself. I think his
Speaker 2: actions and his willingness again to do whatever to you know,
Speaker 2: whether it's he doesn't care about the kids in Africa
Speaker 2: with HIV, doesn't care about the thousands of veterans who've
Speaker 2: already been fired, He doesn't care certainly doesn't care about
Speaker 2: the laws or the constitution or whatever. He is the
Speaker 2: ready player one who is going to save humanity by
Speaker 2: bringing us to Mars, and anything is justified in pursuit
Speaker 2: of that quest.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, it does remind me that the movie is
Speaker 1: also very good. Let's continue here, shall we. Let's put
Speaker 1: the next one up on the screen. This one is
Speaker 1: about Medicare, and we're going to go ahead and play.
Speaker 1: That was just reaffirming what you were saying about Ebola.
Speaker 1: Let's get to the Medicare part, because this is also
Speaker 1: important for what the future of dose and all of
Speaker 1: that will look like in terms of whether they're actually
Speaker 1: going to be even able to achieve any cuts. Let's
Speaker 1: take a listen.
Speaker 3: I think we build their pass last night aims to cut.
Speaker 1: Two trillion dollars. Can you guarantee that Medicare, Medicaid, social
Speaker 1: Security will not be touched?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 6: I mean I have said it so many times. You
Speaker 6: shouldn't be asking me that question. Okay, this will not
Speaker 6: be read my lips. It won't be read my lips anymore.
Speaker 6: We're not going to touch it now. We are going
Speaker 6: to look for fraud. I'm sure you're okay with that,
Speaker 6: like people that shouldn't be on people that are illegal,
Speaker 6: aliens and others criminals in many cases, and that's with
Speaker 6: social Security.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of people.
Speaker 6: You see that immediately when you see people that are
Speaker 6: two hundred years old that are being sent checks with
Speaker 6: Social Security.
Speaker 1: All right, So there we go. Trump continues to say
Speaker 1: that he will not cut Medicare, as we said, the
Speaker 1: problem is that the current vending bill aims to cut
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars. It's going to be a difficult one
Speaker 1: if you. I mean, I was talking with a tax
Speaker 1: expert just yesterday and we're like, okay, so how do
Speaker 1: we even get to four point five trillion if we're
Speaker 1: doing no tax on tips, no social Security. We're also
Speaker 1: raising the salt cap up to twenty percent, which is
Speaker 1: not even what the New York delegation and all those
Speaker 1: other people want. And you extend all of it, it
Speaker 1: doesn't It doesn't pencil like the Marrier does not. And
Speaker 1: I'm not even talking about Medicare or Medicaid. That's leaving
Speaker 1: all that stuff untouched. So either they're lying or they're
Speaker 1: going to have to cut something else. I'm going to
Speaker 1: probably bet. Online speaker Johnson yesterday was on a was
Speaker 1: on TV and was asked specifically about this. He says, yes,
Speaker 1: we won't cut Medicare or touch medicare literally at all.
Speaker 1: But you know, we'll see, As I predicted.
Speaker 2: This Medicaid is the one that's really on the medicailock. Well,
Speaker 2: Johnson is out there saying we're going to do work requirements. Yes,
Speaker 2: if you're you know, a single mom or whatever, it'll
Speaker 2: be there for you. But if you are able bodied,
Speaker 2: you're going to be kicked off. I mean, they are
Speaker 2: talking about significant Medicaid cuts, and the numbers just I mean,
Speaker 2: the numbers just don't add up to make that level
Speaker 2: of cuts with adding money to the defense budget, by
Speaker 2: the way, and most of the federal government is military spending,
Speaker 2: healthcare spending, Social Security, and the bucket that they have
Speaker 2: targeted in particular for massive cuts is Medicaid. Now, when
Speaker 2: I hear Trump saying that in that particular sound bite,
Speaker 2: what I hear is him giving himself some wiggle room
Speaker 2: of no, we're not going to cut benefits, Oh, but
Speaker 2: we're going to root out fraud. And I think that's
Speaker 2: going to be the fig leaf of you know, we're
Speaker 2: not cutting really cutting benefits to people who deserve it,
Speaker 2: but they're still kicking millions of people off of Medicaid
Speaker 2: that they decide undeserving or they decide are quote unquote fraudulent.
Speaker 2: Because that's certainly the direction that things are.
Speaker 1: Hiking right now. Honestly though, that's going to be a
Speaker 1: much more difficult fight, right because welfare reform, whatever you
Speaker 1: think of it, was very popular in nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 1: So work requirements in general, from the polling and all
Speaker 1: that I've seen, are extremely popular. That would be an
Speaker 1: interesting way for them to square the circle. But I'm
Speaker 1: not yet sure. There was all these politics back in
Speaker 1: the day called Dole politics, absolutely fascinating. If people want
Speaker 1: to go back and look, let's just look in terms
Speaker 1: of any potential blowback and what all this is. Let's
Speaker 1: put this up there from NBC News. Guys, this is
Speaker 1: a six Somehouse Republicans are currently hitting the brakes on
Speaker 1: town halls after some of the blowback over the Trump
Speaker 1: cuts to try and avoid some of those some of
Speaker 1: those scenes that we've seen previously. And Crystal, you have
Speaker 1: one from your own district, which you're going to set
Speaker 1: up and tell us about.
Speaker 2: This is a district I actually ran for Congress, and
Speaker 2: they've since redistricted it, so I'm not technically don't live
Speaker 2: in this district anymore. But this is Republican Congressman Rob Women.
Speaker 2: He's really tried to position himself. He's a real kind
Speaker 2: of like Beck venture tries not to say too much,
Speaker 2: tries not to really rock the boat, et cetera, but
Speaker 2: just goes along with the party line.
Speaker 3: He had. It wasn't even him.
Speaker 2: One of his staffers had some remote town hall and
Speaker 2: it was flooded with you know, ultimately there were some
Speaker 2: one hundred constituents. There's a very mostly like rural part
Speaker 2: of Virginia. It's quite Republican. You know, he usually gets
Speaker 2: re elected pretty pretty easily, pretty handily, et cetera. And
Speaker 2: they were quite upset that he wasn't there and demanding
Speaker 2: him to show up and answer their questions.
Speaker 3: Let's take a lism where.
Speaker 5: Where ro.
Speaker 2: So flooding in even when he's not going to be there.
Speaker 2: And I predicted that they would just stop doing town halls.
Speaker 2: And I think that is certainly what's going to ultimately
Speaker 2: happen here because I think some of the early ones
Speaker 2: these are Republicans in super red districts that thought they
Speaker 2: would be safe. But obviously even in very red districts,
Speaker 2: you still have Democrats, right, still have in almost every
Speaker 2: district in the country. You still have a pretty significant
Speaker 2: number of Democrats who can show up, and you know,
Speaker 2: I have no doubt like there's been a lot of
Speaker 2: republica oh well, these are just astroturfed and they're just
Speaker 2: you know, being organized to show up. I don't doubt
Speaker 2: that that's the case that Move On and Indivisible and
Speaker 2: these other organizations and even just the local Democratic Party
Speaker 2: organizations are organizing people to go to these town halls.
Speaker 2: But that was the same case during the Tea Party era,
Speaker 2: and there was a lot of Democratic cope at that
Speaker 2: time as well about the way this was funded by
Speaker 2: the Cooke Network, et cetera. That was all true, But
Speaker 2: you have to have people who are upset and energize
Speaker 2: enough to listen when you send out your email blast
Speaker 2: saying show up at this town hall. And it takes
Speaker 2: extraordinary times for people to break down of whatever their
Speaker 2: normal routine is and show up at a congressional town
Speaker 2: hall to yell at their member of Congress. So I
Speaker 2: wouldn't dismiss it just because yeah, of course it's it's
Speaker 2: organized and there's you know, involvement from these activist groups.
Speaker 2: There still is a reflection here of genuine base energy.
Speaker 2: And when you're talking about a miterm election, in particular,
Speaker 2: that ends up really really mattering, and that's certainly what.
Speaker 1: We see party. Look, obviously they're being funded and or organized.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, welcome to politics. That's how it all works.
Speaker 1: By that definition, the entire Trump campaign, half of which
Speaker 1: was privatized by Elon, was privately you know, was organized
Speaker 1: right to get.
Speaker 3: Out the vote.
Speaker 1: Okay, you're still on right? Are we going to say
Speaker 1: that it was fake? Obviously not right. This is one
Speaker 1: of those where you're exactly right. Back in the day,
Speaker 1: it was such a democratic talking point. I can't even
Speaker 1: still remember. I can still remember they were like the
Speaker 1: Tea Party was fake. It was all funded by the
Speaker 1: Koch brothers. I actually I went to college here at
Speaker 1: that time, and I just remember all of the protesters
Speaker 1: flooding in from across the country. Did somebody pay for
Speaker 1: their transportation by busting or whatever? Yeah? Maybe Did that
Speaker 1: mean that they were any less activated and or organized
Speaker 1: whenever they went home to get people to vote for them?
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. These people were die hard. They would have
Speaker 1: paid for it if they could have, or they would
Speaker 1: have been at home cheering it on on TV. So
Speaker 1: just for people understand, like, just because you fund something
Speaker 1: and bring people here and try and bring it in
Speaker 1: tink does not make it fake per se. It's still
Speaker 1: a reflection of something. So I would very much caution
Speaker 1: Republicans from trying to get themselves out of like, oh,
Speaker 1: the big money groups are paying for it. I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 1: well that's what they always do. But you've got to
Speaker 1: have something to activate, you know, to be able, you
Speaker 1: have to have somebody there be ready to organize. You
Speaker 1: can't just you know, create it out of very thin air.
Speaker 1: So caution there for Republicans definitely could continue to be
Speaker 1: a problem. Turning now to Elon Musk and the potential
Speaker 1: interview situation coming up, which I think all of us
Speaker 1: would like to see. Let's go ahead and put this
Speaker 1: up there on the screen. Elon, responding to a video
Speaker 1: claiming that he should go on John Stewarage's show, replied
Speaker 1: saying I will do it if the show airs on
Speaker 1: an edited Daily Show quote tweeted and said at Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: we would be delighted. So that could be very interesting.
Speaker 2: And he did add one more condition after this, which
Speaker 2: was like he was like, oh, and it has to
Speaker 2: stream also on X which feels to me like he's
Speaker 2: kind of trying to get out of it.
Speaker 1: He tried, right, because from a copyright perspective, that would
Speaker 1: be probably really difficult or jailing in Comedy Central here,
Speaker 1: which is like archaic and stupid the way that they
Speaker 1: handle their copyright stuff. So maybe that could be the
Speaker 1: way that he'll get out of it. Let's discuss that
Speaker 1: after though, we see how John Stewart's been talking about
Speaker 1: Elon lately. Let's take a listen, and ten is all
Speaker 1: of them? Right? It would be embarrassing if it.
Speaker 10: Was a small drop in the bucket, and that the
Speaker 10: American people didn't expect that we should negotiate for all
Speaker 10: their frecking drugs because we've already paid for him with
Speaker 10: our subsody.
Speaker 1: It's fine. So he got so mad he literally busted
Speaker 1: a cup in his own hands.
Speaker 3: It was one of his better, better ones.
Speaker 1: Actually, I think John's back and forth, I.
Speaker 3: Feel like he I'm meeting the moment.
Speaker 1: I found obviously, you know, like became a fan during
Speaker 1: the Bush administration, and that's when I think he really
Speaker 1: became like a singular and very important force because he
Speaker 1: kind of did what we do. But before it's time,
Speaker 1: almost twenty years ago, where he would both call out
Speaker 1: Fox and MSNBC and CNN, ridicule kind of the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: but directly take you know, take like a very hard
Speaker 1: line against Bush and Cheney and a lot of the
Speaker 1: other bullshit claims. And he was really good in the
Speaker 1: Obama years too by basically countering not only like tea
Speaker 1: Party adioc from time to time, but he would give
Speaker 1: it to Obama and Nancy Pelosi and them just as much.
Speaker 1: And so I do feel like he's really made for
Speaker 1: this moment kind of to just ridicule every they makes sense,
Speaker 1: you know that he had to come back for right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the most of that segment was focused on like, hey,
Speaker 2: if you want to cut here's a bunch of places
Speaker 2: you actually could, like tax subsidies for the rich and
Speaker 2: oil and gas companies, or the defense budget. Here's you know,
Speaker 2: like all kinds of places where if you're actually serious
Speaker 2: about this, let's do it. And it was very effective,
Speaker 2: which is why I think Elon felt the need to
Speaker 2: jump in and you know, pretend like he's going to
Speaker 2: do this interview, which I don't think is going to happen,
Speaker 2: but we'll see. Somebody on Twitter was saying This might
Speaker 2: be another like you know how one was. Yeah, Elon
Speaker 2: and Mark Zuckerberg were supposedly going to fight and then
Speaker 2: of course that never came to fruition. If he does,
Speaker 2: I mean I would absolutely love to see it. John
Speaker 2: Stewart is a great interviewer, underrated interviewer. That was one
Speaker 2: of the best parts of his Apple show was all
Speaker 2: these people would sit down with him, was all it
Speaker 2: is John Stewart or the VA secretary or whatever, and
Speaker 2: he would just rake them across the coals or Janet Yellen,
Speaker 2: I mean, all these high level people, and he comes
Speaker 2: in prepared and serious and is very smart person and
Speaker 2: was able to do a very effective job. So I
Speaker 2: think it would be I think it would be very
Speaker 2: interesting and quite a uh. I think it would be
Speaker 2: quite good head to head combat for us to all watch,
Speaker 2: which is why I don't really think that Evan is
Speaker 2: going to go.
Speaker 1: Forward with it. All right, well we will see, shall we.
Speaker 1: They'll be exciting, h