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.
Speaker 3: Good morning, everybody.
Speaker 2: Happy Thursday, Ryan Grim, pleasure to seez Her.
Speaker 4: Good to see you.
Speaker 5: I'll be channeling Sager today, so good look for those
Speaker 5: takes from Obi on this side.
Speaker 3: Excellent, looking forward to that. We've got a lot of that.
Speaker 2: This was one of those shows we added, all planned
Speaker 2: out three pm. We did our call, we thought we
Speaker 2: were set, and then yeah, kept thanks news. Trump's agenda,
Speaker 2: we need a night show, I guess, I guess so
Speaker 2: or something. Trump's agenda has been significantly curtailed just in
Speaker 2: the past day by a series of court decisions. In particular,
Speaker 2: we have a court saying, hey, you cannot just across
Speaker 2: the board use this power to levy tariffs, so the
Speaker 2: tariff agenda.
Speaker 3: We have Elon officially.
Speaker 2: Out making his announcement on Twitter saying I've enjoyed my
Speaker 2: time as a special government employee. We have another court
Speaker 2: that said the law that has been used to detain
Speaker 2: Machmud Khalil and other students for speech with no allegations
Speaker 2: of criminality, that that law itself is unconstitutional. We had
Speaker 2: another significant ruling with regard to.
Speaker 5: Castenia Petrova, this Harvard Medical Research umor. They said she
Speaker 5: had embryo samples in her carry on when she came
Speaker 5: from like England over here to the US, and they
Speaker 5: just locked her up and are still holding her in detention.
Speaker 5: But the judge said this is illegal, and Ice is like, well,
Speaker 5: we're still going to keep her.
Speaker 3: So now now it's a fight standoff. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So we've got huge movement on economics, on dough on immigration.
Speaker 2: We also have a bunch of updates for you with
Speaker 2: regard to Israel. Ryan's all over this and drop site.
Speaker 2: Jeremy Skahill Wikoff is saying that they're on the precipice.
Speaker 3: Of a potential deal.
Speaker 2: Of course, we've heard some things before, so there's always
Speaker 2: reason for skepticism, but there are some reasons to believe
Speaker 2: maybe this time it's different. Also, have some fun clips
Speaker 2: for you from Piers Morgan, Norm Finklestein versus Benny Morris
Speaker 2: that I thought you would enjoy. We've got also updates
Speaker 2: with regard to the Iran negotiations. We've got a major
Speaker 2: developer of AI saying that it is going to.
Speaker 3: Be a blood bath for white collar workers.
Speaker 2: And I'm not talking a decade now, he's talking like
Speaker 2: a year from now, like it's already happening. And we've
Speaker 2: got new criminal charges against the tape brothers in the UK,
Speaker 2: So a bunch of things to talk through.
Speaker 3: Yes, indeed, all right, let's get to Indeed we do.
Speaker 3: Indeed the line right there we go. Yeah, I like that.
Speaker 3: We have an amazing show for you today. Indeed we do.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's get to the tariffs and the latest. So
Speaker 2: before the whole tariff regime was struck down, there was
Speaker 2: an interesting dynamic playing out with Trump where some reporters
Speaker 2: published was Axios that published this that traders were talking
Speaker 2: about the quote unquote taco trade, which I know you
Speaker 2: and Emily referred to, which stands for Trump always chickens out.
Speaker 2: So some foolish reporter made the mistake of asking him
Speaker 2: about this, doing.
Speaker 3: That tempting fait like trying like.
Speaker 2: You're not supposed to tell him that's what we're saying
Speaker 2: about him in the Oval office. Let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: take a listen to how Trump responded to that.
Speaker 3: Mister President. Wall Street less have coined a new term
Speaker 3: called the taco trade. They're saying, Trump always chickens out
Speaker 3: on your tear of threats, and that's why markets are
Speaker 3: hired this week. What's your response to that.
Speaker 6: I kick out, kick it out.
Speaker 7: Oh, then I check it out.
Speaker 8: I've never heard that.
Speaker 7: You mean because I reduced China from one hundred and
Speaker 7: forty five percent that I said, down to one hundred
Speaker 7: and then down to another number, and I said, you
Speaker 7: have to open up your whole country, and because I
Speaker 7: gave the European Union a fifty percent text. But I
Speaker 7: knew that, But don't ever say what you said. That's
Speaker 7: a nasty question.
Speaker 3: Nasty question.
Speaker 2: And Ryan just on the basis of that, and people
Speaker 2: being like, oh shit, now he's going to put like
Speaker 2: six hundred percent RABS on chine or whatever. The market
Speaker 2: started to plumbent we can put a two up on
Speaker 2: the screen. The futures fell immediately after this just sort
Speaker 2: of like psychologizing this president, and then he wouldn't want
Speaker 2: to leak look weak and like a chicken, and he'd
Speaker 2: have to do something outrageous to prove all the haters
Speaker 2: and doubters wrong. So that's where we were before the
Speaker 2: court decision came down.
Speaker 5: Yick, I'm all for our transparency. I want journalists to
Speaker 5: press our leaders on the issues of the day.
Speaker 4: But couldn't we have let this one go?
Speaker 2: And did we really need to dare him to destroy
Speaker 2: the world economy?
Speaker 3: Do we really need to do that?
Speaker 5: Imagine somebody coming in saying Israel says, you're too much
Speaker 5: for a chicken to nu karan, so they say, you
Speaker 5: won't do it. He's who said that, like Marty McFly
Speaker 5: over here World War three.
Speaker 4: So that he can you just can't. I'll being called
Speaker 4: a chicken. So yes, So basically the courts had to
Speaker 4: step in.
Speaker 3: Yeh pay hours later we get this decision. Hold the phone.
Speaker 4: The whole world was so panicked. They're like, what can
Speaker 4: we do about this?
Speaker 5: And so we can put up a three the International
Speaker 5: Court of Trade, which I hadn't even been following this case,
Speaker 5: but a company sued, saying, look, the authority under which
Speaker 5: Trump is laying down all of these tariffs is way
Speaker 5: outside what Congress has delegated to the president. And I
Speaker 5: feel guilty here for not kind of going back and
Speaker 5: reading some of these tariff laws, although oftentimes I go
Speaker 5: back and read laws and I'm like, what they're doing
Speaker 5: now does not comply with this law.
Speaker 3: And it's like, okay, so what right?
Speaker 6: Thanks?
Speaker 4: Thanks Spencer, Like, who cares?
Speaker 5: Right, It's about power, So you can identify this and
Speaker 5: it still doesn't matter. This company identified it and took
Speaker 5: it to a judge who looked at it.
Speaker 4: I was like, yeah, this is true. You can.
Speaker 5: So we all understand that the president as the unilateral
Speaker 5: authority to move tariffs because Congress has delegated.
Speaker 4: That power to him.
Speaker 5: But Congress did it in a very specific way for
Speaker 5: a national emergency for when particular industries are you know,
Speaker 5: need help, and you can't have Congress coming in and
Speaker 5: you know, moving tariffs by five percent on the aluminum
Speaker 5: industry every time on every country, but they never delegated
Speaker 5: the power to move tariffs on every country all at once, right,
Speaker 5: and the judges like, no, yeah, you can't do this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, this was one I really looked into it
Speaker 2: at the beginning, like right after Liberation Day, and I
Speaker 2: always felt that there was a good chance it would
Speaker 2: get struck down by the courts, because whereas obviously, you know,
Speaker 2: the trumpet pointed judges and the Supreme Court, which is
Speaker 2: profoundly conservative on a lot of social and cultural issues,
Speaker 2: they're gonna be sympathetic to him, but these are many
Speaker 2: of them Chamber of Commerce type conservatives in the court system.
Speaker 2: And you know, when you think about the basics of
Speaker 2: our constitution, the power of the purse obviously rests with Congress,
Speaker 2: and so the idea that any president could just with
Speaker 2: an executive order or with a tweet or whatever, completely
Speaker 2: upend our economic system, the global economic system, that always
Speaker 2: seemed let's just say, far fetch Yeah, And I read
Speaker 2: some legal analyzes at the time that seemed to think
Speaker 2: that there was a good chance that it would be
Speaker 2: struck down. But like you, I hadn't been following the
Speaker 2: specifics of where the cases were and how they were
Speaker 2: working their way through. Now he does have significant power
Speaker 2: still to levy tariffs, and some of the analysis I
Speaker 2: was reading yesterday is he's likely to shift to using
Speaker 2: the Section two thirty two tariffs, so like the sectoral tariffs,
Speaker 2: where you can say effectively like, oh, this particular industry
Speaker 2: is really important for national defense. So like the steel tariffs, right,
Speaker 2: are probably on really solid ground with regard to the
Speaker 2: Section two thirty two powers. This is a national defense
Speaker 2: you know, there's a national security threat involved here. We're
Speaker 2: going to put thesectoral tariffs on this one particular industry.
Speaker 2: But in terms of saying, hey, entire globe, including islands
Speaker 2: with jes penguas on it, this is what we're doing,
Speaker 2: that piece seems to be struck down.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 2: The other question with the Trump administration, as always, is
Speaker 2: are they going to listen?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: I'm curious your thoughts on this, And I saw you
Speaker 2: tweeting about this. I suspect because Trump has already backed
Speaker 2: off of the most maximalist version of his trade war,
Speaker 2: I suspect they may actually comply broadly with this, with
Speaker 2: this ruling that comes against them. And I'm sure they're
Speaker 2: gonna appeal as well, and so there's gonna be a
Speaker 2: process that plays out, et cetera. But I do think
Speaker 2: that this may be the beginning of the end of
Speaker 2: the more maximalist direction for his trade war. And in addition,
Speaker 2: even before the appeal goes through and all those things happen,
Speaker 2: like if you're the EU or you're Japan or you're
Speaker 2: any other country and you're negotiating on these trade deals,
Speaker 2: suddenly you have a lot more leverage because you know
Speaker 2: that the courts are already saying this isn't constitutional. So
Speaker 2: you are much less likely to bend to whatever it
Speaker 2: is his desires are, you know, giving them starlink and
Speaker 2: zero percent terris or whatever the and a you know,
Speaker 2: development deal for his sons or whatever the you know,
Speaker 2: conjours of that are. You are much likely to bend
Speaker 2: on those provisions than you were before because you feel like, okay, ultimately,
Speaker 2: the courts are probably going to say you can't do
Speaker 2: this anyway.
Speaker 5: Yeah, And if you're one of the kind of anti
Speaker 5: tariff people in the White House, you're going to use
Speaker 5: this moment to say, look, let's let's let's seize off
Speaker 5: a little bit like we're not allowed to do this.
Speaker 4: Let's take take the win.
Speaker 5: Now, Now you're not chickening out right like you were
Speaker 5: totally willing to do this, but now you can, you
Speaker 5: can say, hey, I would have done it because tariffs
Speaker 5: worked for him as a political messaging device to show
Speaker 5: that he cares about the American worker.
Speaker 3: You mean, like in the camp in the campaign.
Speaker 4: Yes, so it was a stand in for I'm going
Speaker 4: to fight for you.
Speaker 5: They don't work so well when he lays them out
Speaker 5: so incompetently, yes, and insanely.
Speaker 4: The American workers are going to layoffs already, yeah, because
Speaker 4: of them.
Speaker 5: So this would allow him to have the rhetorical win.
Speaker 5: I fought for you, yes, and I want to fight
Speaker 5: for you, and I'm going to continue fighting for you.
Speaker 5: But I'm also not gonna but you're then not going
Speaker 5: to materially destroy your your workers' lives by haphazardly and
Speaker 5: recklessly going going forward with these So yeah, maybe maybe
Speaker 5: they just maybe they just look at this and.
Speaker 3: Take the win.
Speaker 2: Well, And it's interesting too, because if you put up
Speaker 2: a four. Weigel was pointing out that Trump's approval rating
Speaker 2: has already recovered from the fallout of Liberation day. I
Speaker 2: don't think there's any doubt if you look critically at
Speaker 2: the polling, that the terriff regime was the most unpopular
Speaker 2: thing that he's done. It is the thing that has
Speaker 2: triggered the most movement away from him. But as he
Speaker 2: has sort of walked back from the original liberation tape,
Speaker 2: the chart, the insane chart, and rolled back, you know,
Speaker 2: significant chunk of the China tan.
Speaker 3: And I never want to.
Speaker 2: Understate this because or overstate this, because thirty percent on
Speaker 2: China was still like a really significant.
Speaker 3: Air of it, a really major reordering.
Speaker 2: Ten percent tears across the board is still really major reordering.
Speaker 2: But as he backed away from that most maximus position,
Speaker 2: his poll numbers returned. They're not great, He's still underwater,
Speaker 2: but they returned to kind of like where the typical
Speaker 2: Trump approval rating is. And now you have the Court
Speaker 2: stepping in on this one, potentially if he decides to
Speaker 2: take the out, saving him from the most unpopular part
Speaker 2: of the agenda his agenda, the court stepping in on
Speaker 2: the kidnapping of college students who dared to protest or
Speaker 2: write an not bed or whatever over Palestine. Court stepping
Speaker 2: in and saying that's unconstitutional. You can't do that, you
Speaker 2: have Elon. I think Doge ended up remarkably because the
Speaker 2: project of hey, let's cut the government and make it
Speaker 2: more efficient is a broadly popular project, but because it
Speaker 2: was executed in such a horrific, disastrous, catastrophic way, and
Speaker 2: Elon himself is so personally unpopular. The fact that he
Speaker 2: is now officially out of the administration going back to
Speaker 2: his companies and criticizing trumple will show you that in
Speaker 2: the B block on the Big Beautiful Bill and some
Speaker 2: other things as well. You know that also is sort
Speaker 2: of acting from his taking a chainsaw, if you will,
Speaker 2: from his administration one of the most unpopular pieces. But
Speaker 2: all that being said, they are still full steam ahead
Speaker 2: with the Big Beautiful Bill, which is a gigantic giveaway
Speaker 2: to the top right at the expense of you know,
Speaker 2: millions millions of Americans healthcare, food.
Speaker 3: Stamps, et cetera.
Speaker 2: So now that's that's the next piece that is going
Speaker 2: to be profoundly unpopular.
Speaker 3: And he was never more unpopular.
Speaker 2: In his first term prior to January sixth, which you
Speaker 2: know is really after his term. He was never more
Speaker 2: unpopular than when he passed the original tax Cuts and
Speaker 2: Jobs Act. That was the giant giveaway to rich people.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: And when we talked yesterday about the way that the
Speaker 5: energy portion of this big beautiful bill that's going.
Speaker 3: Through, Yeah, that was a good segment.
Speaker 4: It's crazy, like.
Speaker 5: It doesn't just go after clean energy, right, Like his
Speaker 5: AI buddies are saying, we need a doubling and tripling
Speaker 5: event energy so that we can you know, make these
Speaker 5: you know, fake videos, and.
Speaker 3: We can steal your jobs.
Speaker 4: So we can steal your jobs. So we need three
Speaker 4: times the energy.
Speaker 5: He's taking a sledgehammer to not just clean energy, but
Speaker 5: also the transmissions that you need to you know, if
Speaker 5: you can actually expand energy production so you can transmit
Speaker 5: it to where it needs to go, to the production
Speaker 5: of natural gas turbines. It's like all of the things
Speaker 5: that you would need to actually make even if you
Speaker 5: wanted to make it dirty like these the getting rid
Speaker 5: of these credits because they were written in a way
Speaker 5: that they would boost clean energy, but they're fairly neutral
Speaker 5: so that if other energy sources wanted to use them,
Speaker 5: they would be able to use them in a way
Speaker 5: that Biden is able to get the buy in from
Speaker 5: the whole energy industry so, and then you're going to
Speaker 5: take what twenty we have twenty eight trillion or so
Speaker 5: in debt circulating right now with these treasuries. You just
Speaker 5: had this you know, almost failed auction where you had
Speaker 5: to pay like more than something like fifty base points
Speaker 5: higher than they thought. And then they're gonna layer on
Speaker 5: another seven trillion, Like Steven Miller's out there arguing it's unfair.
Speaker 5: CBO is a bunch of communists in the way that
Speaker 5: they're saying that we're gonna add seven and a half
Speaker 5: trillion to the deaths that really you should only it
Speaker 5: should only be three or four trillions. The market is
Speaker 5: going to price end seven trillion, like the communists on
Speaker 5: Wall Street, and so then it's gonna be much harder
Speaker 5: to raise money. And then you're gonna have the Fed
Speaker 5: buying up a bunch of the debt that's out there
Speaker 5: already circulating, which then probably you know, pushes up stocks
Speaker 5: again for a while, but which then drives inflation. Uh,
Speaker 5: and then you know, so it's it's I don't I
Speaker 5: don't see how I don't see like Wall Street understands
Speaker 5: that this is a house of cards now, and they're
Speaker 5: just pouring more.
Speaker 3: Gasoline on it.
Speaker 2: I mean it's so bad that even Wall Street is like,
Speaker 2: maybe maybe this talk's good, Maybe it's a little much offering.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's a little much.
Speaker 5: If you're offering Wall Street seven trillion dollars and they're like,
Speaker 5: I know about this, Like, then you might want to
Speaker 5: rethink what you're going.
Speaker 2: I mean, of course, what they really want is like, hey,
Speaker 2: let's just get rid of Medicare and Medicaid all together,
Speaker 2: and our tax guts.
Speaker 3: That's what they really want wor cuts.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I saw you made the point in the
Speaker 2: energy segment yesterday of like, well, maybe I should be
Speaker 2: happy because I don't actually want this AI stuff to
Speaker 2: go forward. And you know, same thing with the banning
Speaker 2: of you know, all kinds of foreign students, Chinese nationals
Speaker 2: in particular, who are incredibly influential in terms of AI
Speaker 2: development in this country. I mean, our no is tweeting
Speaker 2: about something like thirty eight percent of top AI talent
Speaker 2: in this country, our Chinese nationals. Again, maybe we should
Speaker 2: be cheering for this because I'm terrified about where this
Speaker 2: AI race is ultimately going. But to your point, we know,
Speaker 2: if there's some trade off in terms of energy and who's.
Speaker 3: Going to get it.
Speaker 2: We know it's going to be like the tech billionaires,
Speaker 2: so that they can play with their AI tours and
Speaker 2: make sure that they can do all that or human
Speaker 2: layoffs that they you know, that they desire.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and the part that I'll like hurt all of
Speaker 5: us individually is that the medical schools and nursing schools
Speaker 5: are you know, have a significant portion of foreign students.
Speaker 5: Walk into any hospital in this country, particularly rural hospitals
Speaker 5: but also urban ones and look around. That's right, and
Speaker 5: tell me how many people you find in there who
Speaker 5: were born here in the United States. Now take all
Speaker 5: of those people out and then press the button for
Speaker 5: help from the nurse or from the doctor, and see
Speaker 5: and see see what happens. Like this is real stuff.
Speaker 5: Somebody needs to do these jobs. And I'm not talking
Speaker 5: about getting your house cleaned of getting a heart transplant, right.
Speaker 3: Right, No, that's that is exactly right. That is exactly right.
Speaker 2: And I mean there's a sense that they just don't
Speaker 2: want to compete, have to compete with the world. It's
Speaker 2: like affirmative action from the mediocre we which you.
Speaker 4: Know, go ahead, go to medical school. We're not stopping you.
Speaker 3: Yeah, true, very true.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and put this piece up on the
Speaker 2: screen just as a sign of where we kind of
Speaker 2: are economically, because I think it's important to keep in
Speaker 2: mind that even though all right, the court is saying
Speaker 2: you can't do the liberation day, saying there's still going
Speaker 2: to be sectoral taris. You should get Jef's Diyne on
Speaker 2: next week to talk about what that might ultimately look like,
Speaker 2: because he's been kind of, you know, saying, hey, guys,
Speaker 2: this is still coming, like, take a look at what's
Speaker 2: going on here. So we'll get him on to talk
Speaker 2: about that. But even as we maybe are saved from
Speaker 2: the most insane of the Trump trade policy, there's a
Speaker 2: lot of damage that's been done in the meantime in
Speaker 2: terms of consumer confidence, in terms of GDP growth, in
Speaker 2: terms of you know, potential, like the expectation for joblessness
Speaker 2: to expectation for inflation, and you are starting to see
Speaker 2: some metrics like this pile up where serious delinquencies are
Speaker 2: significantly rising in America in every category mortgage delinquencies. He
Speaker 2: locks auto loans, credit cards, student loans, other student loans,
Speaker 2: way up. Look at that Ryan seven point two one
Speaker 2: percent and so so you know, there are some warning
Speaker 2: signs about how people are doing even as we step
Speaker 2: back from the you know, the most insane parts of.
Speaker 3: The trade war.
Speaker 2: So there's a good chance here that there's already you know,
Speaker 2: quite substantial and unnecessary damage that is done to the
Speaker 2: economy in ways that hurt real people. Not to mention
Speaker 2: the you know, the ai reckoning that I do think
Speaker 2: is coming quite quickly.
Speaker 5: You had flagged it in video is announcing earnings today
Speaker 5: and I think unsurprisingly had like a record quarter. Yeah,
Speaker 5: because people were just basically bum rushing the place trying
Speaker 5: to get as much as they possibly can before like
Speaker 5: the world ends.
Speaker 4: Like that was the kind of attitude.
Speaker 5: Yeah, a lot of buyers and so yeah, we could
Speaker 5: put up a six here. You know, that's if you
Speaker 5: hold that stock, that's the direction you want to see
Speaker 5: that line going.
Speaker 2: And this is even with the export you know bands
Speaker 2: to China and the controls that were put on. But
Speaker 2: I think you're right that the dynamic is everyone else
Speaker 2: around the world being like, all right, we got to
Speaker 2: get as many of these chips as we possibly can.
Speaker 3: Get our hands on. Right.
Speaker 5: This company like based in Taiwan, which is just a hilarious.
Speaker 5: US a series of decisions to put it to put
Speaker 5: the like, uh, you know, the the essentials for its
Speaker 5: industrial production on an island very close to China, which
Speaker 5: which we acknowledge that China controls. Yeah they don't really,
Speaker 5: but one China policy from the US means we recognize
Speaker 5: it as part of China.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that's right. See, let's see how that works out.
Speaker 2: It's really strategic planning from our bold strategy. Let's get
Speaker 2: to this next part because this is just you know
Speaker 2: about the Trump administration, his some of his more maximus
Speaker 2: goals being really rolled back. Just yesterday the law, as
Speaker 2: I said before, that was used to justify the detention
Speaker 2: of Mackmoud Khalil, who, just as a reminder Columbia student
Speaker 2: never accused of any criminal behavior.
Speaker 3: No one has accused.
Speaker 2: Him of any sort of criminal even being mean, right,
Speaker 2: or even of being mean. They could and you know
Speaker 2: at this point if they had said something bad, we
Speaker 2: wouldn't know about it. They dug up what some Instagram
Speaker 2: post of some group that he's tangent tangentially.
Speaker 3: Involved with or that was the best they.
Speaker 5: Had on the sky okay, and it was a quote
Speaker 5: and even it was a quote from some other author.
Speaker 4: Right, It's like, okay, had nothing to do, all.
Speaker 3: Right, this is what you got right exactly.
Speaker 2: And so so in any case, they were using this
Speaker 2: particular law that, interestingly enough, Trump's sister, who is a judge,
Speaker 2: had previously said in the nineties, you know, this law
Speaker 2: is probably unconstitutional because it gives too much power to
Speaker 2: the executive to just say, for example, hey we don't
Speaker 2: like your speech. Now we're arresting you and deporting you.
Speaker 2: And you know, we're claiming that it's because of national
Speaker 2: security reasons or you know, is a threat to our
Speaker 2: foreign affairs. Preposterous. So we have another judge. You put
Speaker 2: a seven up on the screen. Have another judge now
Speaker 2: who came in federal New Jersey court ruling that those
Speaker 2: foreign policy grounds under which Mackmood Khalil was detained are
Speaker 2: likely unconstitutional. Court rules that Khalil is likely to succeed
Speaker 2: on the merits of his claim that the Trump administration's
Speaker 2: foreign policy charge is unconstitutionally vague. This would have implications
Speaker 2: not just for Mackmood Khalil, but this same law has
Speaker 2: been the justification, for example, with Ramesa os Turk, who
Speaker 2: you know, just rode in not bed, so it's clearly
Speaker 2: just speech. And they use the same justification here. There
Speaker 2: may be in their uh most of Madawi also they
Speaker 2: use this same justification. There may be other students that
Speaker 2: we're not aware of where you know, we haven't had
Speaker 2: public reporting on it. And so the fact that you've
Speaker 2: got a court saying listen, they're likely to find that
Speaker 2: this is just not constitutional at all is a significant
Speaker 2: blow to their ability to just decide any random student
Speaker 2: is someone they don't like who said something that they
Speaker 2: aren't comfortable with, or you know, for whatever reason want
Speaker 2: to snatch up and arrest and deport. So really significant
Speaker 2: development here with this one.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and the argument from Rubio and from the administration
Speaker 5: is that it is a privilege to come here, and
Speaker 5: that the US does not have to allow people to
Speaker 5: come here, and if they're going to and if they
Speaker 5: would have known ahead of time that they were going
Speaker 5: to protest against Israel, they wouldn't have granted the visa
Speaker 5: in the first place, and so therefore they're rescinding it.
Speaker 5: And then after they rescind it, they say you're here
Speaker 5: illegally and they put you in jail, which is the
Speaker 5: case of the Harvard researcher who's.
Speaker 3: Locked up right now.
Speaker 4: And so that's the argument.
Speaker 5: The counter argument is that, you know, the First Amendment
Speaker 5: applies to everybody in the country, right, If they want
Speaker 5: to do some vetting and look for anybody who has
Speaker 5: been critical of Israel and reject them for student visas,
Speaker 5: they could probably get away with that because primarily because
Speaker 5: the person getting rejected I wouldn't know why they got rejected, right.
Speaker 4: It's like they would just say, oh, you're not getting a.
Speaker 2: Visa, right the first the First Amendment applies to anyone
Speaker 2: who's here, So if you're not here yet, then yes,
Speaker 2: you can probably block whoever you want from coming or whatever.
Speaker 5: Like one of Lember's applying for this job, she said
Speaker 5: she wants to she'll vet all of these.
Speaker 2: Yes, she said, it's like her dream job in charge
Speaker 2: of sifting through the social media accounts of young people
Speaker 2: who want to study.
Speaker 5: In those guys with AI it would be an increasingly
Speaker 5: accomplishable surveillance task. If you can link the accounts to
Speaker 5: the people, then you can just you should be able
Speaker 5: to eventually be able to do that kind of analysis. Yeah,
Speaker 5: and you would just get some sentiment analysis from a
Speaker 5: machine that says, this person looks it looks a little
Speaker 5: bit too sympathetic to children.
Speaker 3: It's just incredible.
Speaker 4: They cannot come to our Oh.
Speaker 2: They retweeted, Miss Rachel can't have this person from the
Speaker 2: ages of two to five.
Speaker 4: They watched Miss Rachel.
Speaker 2: Religiously forget it, forget it, this person cannot possibly be
Speaker 2: in this country. And then just go over one more time,
Speaker 2: Ryan the details with the Russian scientists, because it's another
Speaker 2: significant one in terms of, you know, undercutting some of
Speaker 2: the maximal samems of the Trump and men that have
Speaker 2: been unpopular.
Speaker 5: Yeah, this is so because Sennya Petrovo, who's a she's
Speaker 5: from Russia, but she's at a research at Harvard Medical School,
Speaker 5: thirty one years old, said to be just utterly brilliant
Speaker 5: and researchers at this age, scientists at this age are
Speaker 5: doing their best work.
Speaker 4: Like, so she's been locked up for months.
Speaker 5: Now, wow, these you know, whenever you see somebody who
Speaker 5: won a Nobel like, it's usually for work when they
Speaker 5: were like twenty seven years old. Like whatever it is
Speaker 5: about the scientific brain, like it really pops off when
Speaker 5: it first starts engaging with all of the history that's
Speaker 5: come before it, and then that you have your freshest ideas.
Speaker 5: And they'll say in like mathematics and physics and these
Speaker 5: all these other disciplines that by the time you're like
Speaker 5: thirty five, you're teaching, you're smart, but you're like, your
Speaker 5: brain is just not working in the way that's going
Speaker 5: to produce no Bell like breakthroughs. And so Petrova has
Speaker 5: developed this this way of seeing cancer cells that couldn't
Speaker 5: have been seen before. And when my wife was at
Speaker 5: an appointment, the college just made an interesting point where
Speaker 5: we're saying, oh, what's the scan show?
Speaker 3: What's this show?
Speaker 5: And they said, you know, you can we can only
Speaker 5: we can only see what we can see. And we
Speaker 5: have imaging techniques, you know, a variety of different imaging
Speaker 5: techniques to try to see more. But beyond that it's
Speaker 5: we're still it's a human eye. And then it's you know,
Speaker 5: advanced through these different techniques. And so there's a lot
Speaker 5: that we currently can't see. So is the body cancer free?
Speaker 5: We think so, but we we literally can't see it.
Speaker 5: And I'd never I'd never thought about that before because
Speaker 5: I just see all these fancy machines that cost thousands
Speaker 5: dollars to use.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you're like they see everything right down to the cell.
Speaker 5: If a metal detector can find the ring on the beach,
Speaker 5: this cat scan or m R I or PET scan,
Speaker 5: they can figure this out.
Speaker 4: And no, that's not true. Like we're still advancing.
Speaker 5: And so she has made some of the most significant
Speaker 5: advances in recent times to be able to see more
Speaker 5: and accordinate to her colleagues at Harvard. She wrote a
Speaker 5: lot of the code and she's the only one that
Speaker 5: can read a lot of these images now because it's
Speaker 5: in it's in the very embryonic stage, ironically, and so
Speaker 5: she instead of helping her colleagues with this kind of
Speaker 5: breakthrough technology, she's languishing in this Louisiana. Maybe she's been
Speaker 5: removed in Vermont by now she's languishing behind bars. And
Speaker 5: so what she did her and this is acknowledged by
Speaker 5: all sides. Her boss and I think she was flying
Speaker 5: from London. Her Paris said hey, there's some embryonic frog cells, like,
Speaker 5: can you take these back to the lab. So she
Speaker 5: took them back to the lab and did not declare
Speaker 5: them in court. This a bunch of sign just said
Speaker 5: these are non living from aldehyde, like it's it's like leather,
Speaker 5: like they compared it to leather. Yes, these were living
Speaker 5: at one point. These these are non living beings, non hazards,
Speaker 5: non toxic. Nothing like if you brought a leather purse,
Speaker 5: you'd have brought the same amount of biological material into
Speaker 5: the country for not declaring it. Usually it's like a
Speaker 5: fifty dollars fine or something. Right, the woman who the
Speaker 5: Customs and Border Patrol agent immediately rescinded her visa and
Speaker 5: then said, oh, now you're here without a visa, so
Speaker 5: I'm putting you into putting you in detention. And she
Speaker 5: had been a critic of Putin, so she's like, I
Speaker 5: cannot go, but you cannot send me on a plane
Speaker 5: back to Russia like that will be I've been a
Speaker 5: public critic of Putin, would be rather dangerous for me.
Speaker 5: So like, okay, well then you're in asylum proceedings now.
Speaker 5: And they sent her off and she's been behind bars
Speaker 5: ever since. And so the judge ruled that this is
Speaker 5: likely illegal. He didn't say it is definitely illegal, but
Speaker 5: he's saying it's likely illegal because they had no no
Speaker 5: basis for any of it, Like this is completely ridiculous.
Speaker 5: It's basically the judge is ruling, Ice is saying, well,
Speaker 5: we're still going to hold her because what they what
Speaker 5: what the Trump administration did, and it's amazing the resources
Speaker 5: that they're throwing at this case. They realized that what
Speaker 5: she did was extremely minor, and so it was going
Speaker 5: to get thrown out. So they they layered on top
Speaker 5: of the immigration charges a federal charge of like trafficking,
Speaker 5: oh my god, in embryonic cells or whatever.
Speaker 3: It's like two And what do you think is a point?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 3: Is it just to make an example of this lady?
Speaker 3: Is that? Like what is the point?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Yeah, I think it.
Speaker 2: Is because it's not like she was out there posting
Speaker 2: free Palestine.
Speaker 4: No, not at all.
Speaker 2: She wasn't spreading anti Semitism with her you know, free
Speaker 2: Palestine and miss Rachel watching it.
Speaker 5: And she's even aligned with US foreign policy like anti Putin.
Speaker 3: Well maybe that's some days. That defends some days, that's true.
Speaker 3: You know, I shared this chart.
Speaker 2: I don't know if you had a chance to take
Speaker 2: a look at it of Nobel laureates by country, and
Speaker 2: this graft from John Bruner and prior to basically nineteen forty,
Speaker 2: Germany was really the dominant country in terms of scientific
Speaker 2: developments as measured by Nobel laureates.
Speaker 3: And then the US does not really start to pop.
Speaker 5: Off at as a scientific pathag Germany.
Speaker 4: What Germany do around then.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly until scientist, top scientists started fleeing Germany.
Speaker 3: Of course, we also imported some of the Nazis after
Speaker 3: the fact as well, we recruited them.
Speaker 2: But in any case, that persecution and the fleeing of
Speaker 2: top minds from Europe and from Germany specifically was a
Speaker 2: major part of what led to our scientific dominance. That
Speaker 2: and I think also the New Deal in the World
Speaker 2: War Two investments, and there was you know, my dad
Speaker 2: is a physicist, and you know there was like a
Speaker 2: pa triotic aspiration around science and scientific development that he
Speaker 2: and a whole cohort. His whole cohort was sort of like,
Speaker 2: you know, a part of But in any case, that's
Speaker 2: what really helps to kick off US scientific dominance and
Speaker 2: this administration.
Speaker 3: I mean, they truly are if you look at.
Speaker 2: The cuts to science across the board, the attacks on
Speaker 2: foreign students, I mean, if you are a foreign student,
Speaker 2: if you're a student around the world, now considering where
Speaker 2: you're going to apply to college in the fall.
Speaker 3: There are plenty of good choices.
Speaker 2: That are outside of the United States of America, and
Speaker 2: I have to think that many of them are going
Speaker 2: to avail themselves of those choices around and put themselves
Speaker 2: at the risk of this incredibly like capricious, cruel insanity
Speaker 2: that they're watching unfold year.
Speaker 3: Why wouldn't you?
Speaker 4: Yeah, and so people just won't come here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, that's right, that's exactly right. All right, let's
Speaker 2: move on to what's going on with Elon. So yesterday
Speaker 2: he put out a post in the White House confirmed
Speaker 2: his time as acial government employee. Boy was, as ever special,
Speaker 2: has come to a close and he's moving on. But
Speaker 2: he assures us the work of DOGE is only going
Speaker 2: to become more and more important as things move forward. Okay, sure, whatever, buddy,
Speaker 2: but he had already in You and Emily touched on
Speaker 2: this briefly, but we wanted to dig in more. He
Speaker 2: has started to be a little more openly critical of
Speaker 2: the Trump administration as he is being pushed out the
Speaker 2: door here and as DOGE has been proven to be
Speaker 2: by their own metrics, a totally complete failure, total and
Speaker 2: complete failure. Now, I never thought that DOGE was about
Speaker 2: really like cost cutting and efficiency, and if the metric
Speaker 2: is Elon's company aren't going to be regulated anymore, it
Speaker 2: was a roaring success. But if the metric was actually
Speaker 2: cutting spending and increasing efficiency, you failed on both accounts.
Speaker 2: You went in the wrong direction on both accounts. So
Speaker 2: in any case, Elon has come out now in this
Speaker 2: interview that I think is supposed to air this weekend
Speaker 2: in full criticizing Trump's.
Speaker 3: Quote unquote big beautiful.
Speaker 2: Bill because of the amount that it increases the budget deficit.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 9: You know, I was like disappointed to see the massive
Speaker 9: spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deps that not
Speaker 9: doesn't decrease it, and that reminds the work that the
Speaker 9: Noche team is doing.
Speaker 8: I actually thought that when this big beautiful bill came along,
Speaker 8: I mean, like everything he's done on DOGE gets wiped
Speaker 8: out in the first year.
Speaker 9: I think, I think a bill can be can be
Speaker 9: can be big, or it can be beautiful, but I
Speaker 9: don't know if it could be both my postal opinion and.
Speaker 2: You know, Ryan, I had found it interesting that the
Speaker 2: all in guys we played some of this on Tuesday,
Speaker 2: the all in guys except for David Sachs, who even
Speaker 2: he was like, well, you know, it's the best we
Speaker 2: can do. It's not like he was out there singing
Speaker 2: the praises of this bill. I thought that was indicative
Speaker 2: of the tech right that are aligned with Elon really
Speaker 2: souring on some aspects of this administration.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Tech, the tech guys want easy money. They want they
Speaker 5: want to go back to the days where they had
Speaker 5: you know, zero percent interest rates, and that those are there,
Speaker 5: those are their heady days, like any company they wanted
Speaker 5: to launch any idea they had the fund brought.
Speaker 3: Against the wall.
Speaker 5: Uh Bilan wants that as well as and because of
Speaker 5: his mission to get to Mars like that, you know,
Speaker 5: that's his that's his driving passion that and like making
Speaker 5: sure that all these regulators who are investigating him are
Speaker 5: no longer investigating him, because your point is a very
Speaker 5: important one. For all of its failures, he did succeed
Speaker 5: in gutting all of these elements of the agencies that
Speaker 5: were investigating all of his companies.
Speaker 2: That's and even the ones that like might credibly in
Speaker 2: the future investigate his companies, like the CFPP.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yes, exactly.
Speaker 5: But his overriding goal is to get to Mars, and
Speaker 5: he knows that the only way you do that is
Speaker 5: by marshaling the resources of the richest country in the
Speaker 5: history of the world, the United States, and that's the
Speaker 5: United States federal government. And so he wanted to get
Speaker 5: the finances of the federal government in order so that
Speaker 5: it was able to pursue this Mars shot project. And
Speaker 5: a seven trillion dollar tax cut doesn't get him anywhere
Speaker 5: close to that, plus the total plus the failure on
Speaker 5: the Doch side, I you know, no, no, no, no
Speaker 5: tears for him, because you know he had enough. He
Speaker 5: had a real opportunity, and he had he has bipartisan
Speaker 5: or he had in the past, bipartisan support. Democrats are
Speaker 5: the ones that buy all his cars. People recognize what
Speaker 5: he's done with SpaceX.
Speaker 2: And Obama was critical for Tesla and SpaceX by the way, So.
Speaker 5: If he had come in and spent a little bit
Speaker 5: of time getting the known agency or the federal government
Speaker 5: overall and identified ways that you could improve them and
Speaker 5: make them more efficient, he would be at a seventy
Speaker 5: percent of approval rating. Yeah, because there are way that
Speaker 5: government is inefficient. Yeah, there are things.
Speaker 4: You can do.
Speaker 5: Federal workers would like nothing more than to make the
Speaker 5: federal government more efficient.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: The key thing that he's identified now and he says
Speaker 5: he's going to continue to work on it, is upgrading
Speaker 5: the software and the computer systems the government uses, which
Speaker 5: is boring, but which is actually a genuinely essential thing, right,
Speaker 5: that this government needs to do.
Speaker 3: Like you go into these ahhs.
Speaker 5: Or wherever, like it looks like you're walking into the
Speaker 5: nineteen nineties, like it's shocking what the IRS is using
Speaker 5: to try to do taxes.
Speaker 2: So when I was first down in college, I work
Speaker 2: for a government contractor on government accounting systems. And my
Speaker 2: client that I worked with was the federal court system.
Speaker 2: And this was in the early two thousands, so we're
Speaker 2: not talking about the Stone Age here. Some of the
Speaker 2: federal courts were still tracking these complex joint in several
Speaker 2: relationships where you have hundreds of defendants and different.
Speaker 3: Levels of restitution.
Speaker 2: They were still tracking them with and paper on a ledger,
Speaker 2: and there would be like one person at the court.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of Main in particular, I'll never forget there
Speaker 2: was this one elderly lady who knew what it all meant,
Speaker 2: and if she died or retired.
Speaker 3: You were screwed. You would have no idea what these.
Speaker 2: Cases meant, no idea because some of it was not
Speaker 2: even really trackable by Penam.
Speaker 3: It was just in her head.
Speaker 2: And so I mean that was and this was again,
Speaker 2: this was like two thousand and five, so you know,
Speaker 2: twenty years ago now, but not the Stone Ages, and
Speaker 2: that's where you still were. And every court in the
Speaker 2: country had a different system. And so I am well
Speaker 2: aware of the ways that which the government accounting and
Speaker 2: other systems are incredibly archaic, clunky, all of that. But
Speaker 2: I also do know from that experience too, you can't
Speaker 2: just come in as some like hot shot twenty year
Speaker 2: old hacker and think that you're going to be able
Speaker 2: to just figure this out overnight with you know, an
Speaker 2: AI bot or whatever. Because it is sort of held
Speaker 2: together with duct tape and glue.
Speaker 3: You have to know where that.
Speaker 2: Ductaven glue is and it's going to be a complicated
Speaker 2: project unwind.
Speaker 3: But I totally agree with you.
Speaker 2: Elon had the power because he owns Twitter and because
Speaker 2: he is this you know, larger than life weird personality
Speaker 2: who can garner all this media attention if he picked
Speaker 2: one of these projects, like the retirement records in the
Speaker 2: salt mine or whatever, to automate and say, okay, this
Speaker 2: used to take a year. Now it takes a day
Speaker 2: and it's done. And I think they could have had
Speaker 2: the capability. Then you could have built some trust and
Speaker 2: goodwill to expand out if you actually wanted to. You know,
Speaker 2: if you're actually focused on cutting cost. We all know
Speaker 2: where the fat is is the pentagon, and it's with
Speaker 2: medicare fraudsters, like, it's not hard to figure out. They
Speaker 2: did not find to my knowledge. You tell me if
Speaker 2: I'm wrong. I don't think they found a single fraudulent payment.
Speaker 2: They found some programs they don't like, the you know,
Speaker 2: transgenic mice or whatever. They found some things that they
Speaker 2: ideologically opposed. I did not hear about a single instance
Speaker 2: of fraud that they were able to actually root out,
Speaker 2: which is a stunni shit right.
Speaker 3: It actually makes me think of there must be less fraud.
Speaker 2: In government than I, you know, than people sort of assume,
Speaker 2: because they were not able to find a single solitary
Speaker 2: instance of it. But the other point is a really
Speaker 2: important one. You have to hold these two thoughts in
Speaker 2: your head. That doesn't mean it wasn't consequential. You know,
Speaker 2: it will take years to rebuild in the same way
Speaker 2: that you know, what they're doing to science and what
Speaker 2: they're doing to you know, foreign students coming over, like
Speaker 2: it will take generations to rebuild that trust, if it
Speaker 2: is even possible to do at this point, if those
Speaker 2: people don't just look to China. In other places, it
Speaker 2: would take years of intentional rebuilding to bring back you know,
Speaker 2: the Department of Education, USAI D like the CFPB, the
Speaker 2: full functionality of the Social Security Administration. There has been
Speaker 2: real damage done to these agencies and specifically to their
Speaker 2: ability to regulate companies like SpaceX, like Tesla and you know,
Speaker 2: other giant businesses in this country and around the world.
Speaker 2: So you know, the impact has been profound, even as
Speaker 2: the actual results as advertised were a total, complete, undeniable
Speaker 2: failure that even the right has admitted is like a
Speaker 2: total incomplete So they had their cope around wide what
Speaker 2: happened and whatever, but they aren't even pretending that this
Speaker 2: was a success at this point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you can put up B three.
Speaker 5: He also did an interview with the Washing Post, which
Speaker 5: is which is worth a full read. You know, where
Speaker 5: he says that Doge is just becoming the whipping boy
Speaker 5: for everything.
Speaker 3: So, like some I thought that was kind of the
Speaker 3: point of Doge, though I could like.
Speaker 5: It so like something bad would happen anywhere and we
Speaker 5: would get blamed for it even if we had nothing
Speaker 5: to do. But he also expressed dismay or the reputational
Speaker 5: hit his companies to people were burning Tessa's why would
Speaker 5: you do that?
Speaker 4: That's really uncool, you.
Speaker 2: Know, you know, he designs to hear that meme like no,
Speaker 2: I said, your feelings, my feelings are precious like a
Speaker 2: baby bird.
Speaker 5: He clearly he's not listening to us, because we told
Speaker 5: him this right at the very beginning. For instance, we said, look,
Speaker 5: if you come in with a chainsaw, a literal chainsaw,
Speaker 5: on stage and start sending notices to air traffic controllers
Speaker 5: that they should retire early, which they did, in which
Speaker 5: they then letters said, oh that was a mistake. But
Speaker 5: you do it with this vindictive joy that you're you're
Speaker 5: you're in here with a wrecking ball of chainsaw to
Speaker 5: destroy this place. What that does anytime, and this is
Speaker 5: what we said immediately, anytime anything happens after that, it's
Speaker 5: going to be your fault. People are going to logically
Speaker 5: point back to you, even if it wasn't your fault,
Speaker 5: even if this would have happened anyway, Like you, you
Speaker 5: broke it, now you own it, so and you and
Speaker 5: you flambuoyantly broke it. You broke it in this like
Speaker 5: circus like way, drawing the entire attention of the world
Speaker 5: onto you, saying look what I did.
Speaker 4: Look what I did.
Speaker 5: And then when people are like, oh, well, why this
Speaker 5: stuff is all broken, they're like, well, why is everybody
Speaker 5: so angry at me?
Speaker 4: It's so mean? Like these teslas are fine?
Speaker 3: Why are you attacking the Tesla's right? Why do you
Speaker 3: have this ill way?
Speaker 2: And that was the other part that was so predictable,
Speaker 2: like it's no mystery who the top customer of Tesla
Speaker 2: is going to be liberals, liberals, wealthy liberals in particular,
Speaker 2: like well off liberals. That is Tesla's customer base. And
Speaker 2: there's no one who are pissing off more in this
Speaker 2: country than like well off liberals who might be consumers
Speaker 2: of your cars. And at the same time that Chinese
Speaker 2: EV's you know, if you zoom out from beyond the
Speaker 2: United States, so we know the way he's meddled in
Speaker 2: politics and all kinds of countries around the world, and
Speaker 2: it is even less popular in other countries than he
Speaker 2: is here, Like.
Speaker 3: In Europe, they have other options. The Chinese EV's Frankler
Speaker 3: came your ass.
Speaker 2: At this point, so they've got other alternatives and you
Speaker 2: are and which is why, you know, I think it's
Speaker 2: going to be very difficult for Tesla to reclaim it's
Speaker 2: you know, it's sort of pre eminent spot in the
Speaker 2: EV space because you have all of this toxicity around Elon,
Speaker 2: you know, him out there doing his Roman salute and
Speaker 2: all of that, and meddling and backing up the a
Speaker 2: f D in Germany and you know, getting involved in
Speaker 2: the UK in ways that were even too extreme for
Speaker 2: the far right party there as well.
Speaker 3: That stuff doesn't just go away.
Speaker 2: And so maybe if there were no other alternatives, but
Speaker 2: the EV market is developing rapidly and there are other
Speaker 2: alternatives now, so people don't have to associate themselves with
Speaker 2: your you know, with your brand if they don't want to.
Speaker 2: We were there was a Crystaliza apparently had his Tesla
Speaker 2: to face. Don't laugh, Ryan, you put a stick, don't laugh?
Speaker 2: Is that what happened to someone put a sticker on it,
Speaker 2: but it is.
Speaker 5: I didn't file the musk is a Nazi and it
Speaker 5: was just it wasn't even a sticker. It was a
Speaker 5: piece of paper that was taped on scotch tape.
Speaker 3: So okay, so he's going to be okay, it's gonna
Speaker 3: be okay.
Speaker 2: But I mean, most people are not going to be
Speaker 2: wanting to court that kind of attention, you know, and
Speaker 2: most people don't want their car to be some sort
Speaker 2: of like weird politicals statement or for anyone even to potentially.
Speaker 3: Interpret it that way. The cyber truck.
Speaker 2: Is one of the biggest busts in I think automotive history.
Speaker 2: You know, it's wildly on pat there's a big gamble
Speaker 2: because it is such a like unusual looking vehicle. We'll
Speaker 2: just put it that way nicely and personally things on
Speaker 2: that to.
Speaker 5: Sell four hundred million dollars worth of than in the
Speaker 5: state Department for.
Speaker 2: You scuttled that, right, you big ol'd Meani And in
Speaker 2: any case, so yeah, this was all very predictable on
Speaker 2: the Elon front. Now there's another piece that came out
Speaker 2: in the Wall Street Journal, which is also kind of interesting.
Speaker 2: This is also not surprising. In fact, I'm disappointed in myself.
Speaker 2: I didn't see this coming. But you know, they announced
Speaker 2: this big AI deal in the UAE, put the Wall
Speaker 2: Street Journal piece up on the screen here, guys, and
Speaker 2: apparently and this is you know, with open Ai, which
Speaker 2: is Sam Altman's deal. Elon hate Sam. They started open
Speaker 2: Ai together. I mean, Elon is actually right in this dispute. Yeah,
Speaker 2: because the idea of open Ai is going to be
Speaker 2: open source, is going to be nonprofit. And then Altman
Speaker 2: was like, yeah, how about we'd make it closed source
Speaker 2: and for profit. Is basically the contours of what happened.
Speaker 2: I'm sure Sam would dispute that. You know, characteris agent
Speaker 2: really basically what happened. So in any case, Elon tried
Speaker 2: behind the scenes to block Sam from getting this big
Speaker 2: AI deal in the Middle East, and they least get
Speaker 2: in on it right right exactly, and David Sacks, they
Speaker 2: were all aware that Musk was very unhappy. Musk was
Speaker 2: back channeling to these Gulf countries and saying like this
Speaker 2: isn't going to go through unless you include Xai, which
Speaker 2: is his thing, unless you include us in on the deal.
Speaker 2: And they were like, no, we're not going to do that,
Speaker 2: and the White House was like, yeah, and we're going
Speaker 2: to go forward without you. So Elon did everything he
Speaker 2: could and even decided he was going to because you
Speaker 2: found out Sam was going to be on the trip,
Speaker 2: so he decides, I'm going to go on the trip
Speaker 2: then too, sat.
Speaker 5: Right behind MBS Mohammad An Salmon at the ri Odd Summit.
Speaker 5: All the time you're looking at NBS going like this
Speaker 5: to Trump, Yes, every time he would say something complimentary
Speaker 5: about him, there's Elon sitting.
Speaker 2: Right right there, and you know, the White House sort
Speaker 2: of brainstorw okay, well, how do we keep Elon from
Speaker 2: getting totally pissed off about this? But they went forward
Speaker 2: with the deal in spite of the fact now apparently
Speaker 2: some of the terms are still not totally locked in,
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. But pretty significant and I think
Speaker 2: illuminating snub of Elon in an area that he really
Speaker 2: cares deeply about, which is the combination of you know,
Speaker 2: the development of AI, which he is all in on
Speaker 2: the race along with these other players, and on his
Speaker 2: hatred of Sam Altman. In fact, I don't know if
Speaker 2: you remember last time Elon pop piped up about being
Speaker 2: unhappy about Stargate and it's partnership with Open AI and
Speaker 2: partnership with Sam Altman. Trump got asked about it and
Speaker 2: he said, he said, Elon one of the people he
Speaker 2: happens to hate. But I have certain hatreds of people too.
Speaker 2: Trump well understands the Dynamics.
Speaker 4: Series at somebody.
Speaker 3: I have certain hatreds of people too.
Speaker 2: Incredible, Absolutely incredible. Just one other piece that we wanted
Speaker 2: to make sure and get in the show. As we're
Speaker 2: talking about going back to the big beautiful Bill, which
Speaker 2: you know is still like flew through the house, I
Speaker 2: guess there's some questions about whether or not it's going
Speaker 2: to get through the Senate. I personally think they're probably
Speaker 2: going to figure it out. I don't know, Ryan, what's
Speaker 2: your read on that.
Speaker 4: I think they'll pass it. Yeah, what do we want
Speaker 4: to talk about?
Speaker 6: Seven?
Speaker 4: Or three or two? Which should we do that now?
Speaker 6: Real quick?
Speaker 2: Yes, that is what I was going to go back to.
Speaker 2: That's what I was going to go back to. So
Speaker 2: there's one provision in here that we really wanted to
Speaker 2: flag for you guys that could be very significant as
Speaker 2: we're talking about all these court cases that are really
Speaker 2: trimming the sales of the Trump administration and you know,
Speaker 2: undercutting their more maximist and unpopular or frankly.
Speaker 3: Parts of their agenda.
Speaker 2: There is a provision in the big beautiful bill that
Speaker 2: would undercut the ability of courts to hold the executive
Speaker 2: specifically accountable. Sky did a great TikTok his handle on
Speaker 2: TikTok is Britno DC explaining what this provision is and
Speaker 2: how it works and why it's important. Let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and take a listen to a little bit of this
Speaker 2: is B two guys.
Speaker 10: Let's break down what section seven H three zero two says.
Speaker 10: Courts may not use appropriated funds. This is a budget bill,
Speaker 10: so everything's about money, right. This is basically saying courts
Speaker 10: are not allowed to do whatever we're talking about. Courts
Speaker 10: may not enforce contempt citations for failure to comply with injunctions,
Speaker 10: which is the only way that you enforce injunctions or tros.
Speaker 10: So courts may not enforce injunctions or tros if no
Speaker 10: security or security deposit was given when the injunction was
Speaker 10: issued pursuant to Federal Rule sixty five C. Okay, what
Speaker 10: does this mean. Let's go look at Federal Rule sixty
Speaker 10: five C. Most of sixty five C says that all
Speaker 10: preliminary injunctions and tros have to have a security deposit.
Speaker 10: So basically nothing would apply here, right unless they involve
Speaker 10: the federal government. The federal government does not have to
Speaker 10: put down a security deposit. So what are we saying here?
Speaker 10: Cannot enforce a TRO or a preliminary injunction unless there's
Speaker 10: a security deposit, which the federal government doesn't do. Cannot
Speaker 10: enforce a TRO or preliminary injunction against the US government. Remember,
Speaker 10: this is a law against the courts. So by government,
Speaker 10: we're mostly talking about Congress and the executive branch, but
Speaker 10: especially the executive branch. The executive branch is.
Speaker 3: The part that does stuff fast.
Speaker 10: This is where tro and preliminary in junctions come in
Speaker 10: most often. So essentially, the executive branch can do anything
Speaker 10: at once and the court can't stop them.
Speaker 3: So Ryan, that seems pretty significant.
Speaker 5: Yes, And so my wife actually sent me that one
Speaker 5: and I was like, oh, yeah, I hadn't seen this.
Speaker 3: I looked it up.
Speaker 4: Yep, it's right there on the bill.
Speaker 5: I talked to a senior Senate Democrat and asked, like
Speaker 5: have you noticed that this is making the rounds on TikTok?
Speaker 5: Is this something the caucus is concerned about? And he said, yes,
Speaker 5: we are watching this, and that his understanding is that
Speaker 5: it would be non bird rule compliant to go back
Speaker 5: to some Oh.
Speaker 3: My god, they think that's going to stop it.
Speaker 4: Please, well if this so?
Speaker 5: The bird rule basically says, if something does policy, it
Speaker 5: can't be in a reconciliation bill because you should be
Speaker 5: able to filibuster it.
Speaker 3: It would require sixty votes.
Speaker 5: And so the entire thing goes through what they call
Speaker 5: a bird bath. And so when this goes into the
Speaker 5: bird bath, they think the parliamentarian will say, hey, this
Speaker 5: is policy, like if you're writing it as a budget
Speaker 5: thing because you're involving money. But clearly this is policy.
Speaker 5: As he laid out, this would be a new policy.
Speaker 5: You can't basically enforce court orders. And so they Republicans
Speaker 5: could then overrule the parliamentarian, but by.
Speaker 3: Voting yes, which they already have proved, which they've.
Speaker 4: Proven willing to do.
Speaker 5: But the role of the parliamentarian is to give parties
Speaker 5: an excuse to do things, and so that's how Democrats
Speaker 5: use the parliamentarian. God Man would we love to pay
Speaker 5: you guys fifteen.
Speaker 4: Dollars an hour?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Parliament, lady right over here, do it.
Speaker 5: Do it, but you guys can vote to Overlall, Okay,
Speaker 5: next order of business, So just move on and put
Speaker 5: the blame over here. Republicans may do this same thing, really,
Speaker 5: because Republican senators may not want Trump to have unfettered power.
Speaker 2: I don't see any sign of that. I don't see
Speaker 2: any sign of There's a lot in at this point.
Speaker 4: It'll be, it'll be. It'll be a very interesting question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I mean, you just you know, and Trump
Speaker 2: one point zero you had, I would think there would
Speaker 2: be there were war right who would want to secretly
Speaker 2: constrain Trump. Maybe, I mean I guess as possible. Certainly
Speaker 2: many of them didn't really didn't like the tariffs right
Speaker 2: as an example.
Speaker 3: But also the pressure is being taken off with the tariffs.
Speaker 3: So I don't know.
Speaker 2: It will be an interesting test to see, but I
Speaker 2: don't have any confidence that they actually want to him,
Speaker 2: and I just don't see any sign of that. All right,
Speaker 2: let's move to what's going on with regard to Israel.
Speaker 2: Wikoff made some significant comments indicating that a deal could
Speaker 2: be imminent. You guys have done the best report, and
Speaker 2: by the way, I just want to give you kudos.
Speaker 2: Like dropsite is still like brand new in terms of
Speaker 2: the news media space and has become so essential and
Speaker 2: is beating all of the legacy news organizations on many topics,
Speaker 2: but especially with regard to Israel, simply because of your
Speaker 2: willingness to actually talk to the players involved. So kudos
Speaker 2: to you and Jeremy because it really is incredible, and
Speaker 2: I know you guys also have found them to be
Speaker 2: utterly indispensable for understanding the reality of what is happening
Speaker 2: in these various negotiations. But in any case, Whitcof made
Speaker 2: some comments indicating we knew that there had been some
Speaker 2: understanding of an agreement between the US and Humas, but
Speaker 2: we also saw Israel come in and blow that up,
Speaker 2: and previously witcough basically sort of running cover for Israel
Speaker 2: and oh yeah, Hamas, they are not agreeing, even though
Speaker 2: it's at all incomplete bullshit. Now we're getting a bit
Speaker 2: of a different tone from Witcofs, So I will take
Speaker 2: a listen to this and we'll get Ryan's reaction on
Speaker 2: the other side.
Speaker 11: I think that we are on the precipice of sending
Speaker 11: out a new term sheet that hopefully will be delivered
Speaker 11: later on today. The President is going to review it.
Speaker 11: And I have some very good feelings about getting to
Speaker 11: a long term resolution, temporary temporary cease fire and a
Speaker 11: long term resolution, a peaceful resolution of that conflict.
Speaker 2: So, Ran, what is your read on where we are?
Speaker 2: And I know Jeremy had some new reporting and whether
Speaker 2: this latest to hell, I mean, maybe heading to a
Speaker 2: ceasefire is going to be different from the previous assertions
Speaker 2: that we may be nearing something.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and thanks for the kind words on that. And
Speaker 5: Jeremy's reporting on this one in particular is really important
Speaker 5: because to your point, what it did is is it
Speaker 5: exposed that there had been this agreement reached between Hamas
Speaker 5: and Whitcough, so that when Israel came out and denounced
Speaker 5: the deal, and Witkoff said, oh, yes, of course, Israel
Speaker 5: is correct and Hamas is being in transigen, the rest
Speaker 5: of the media, which does read drop side, is like,
Speaker 5: that's that's not what we're hearing. We're hearing that actually
Speaker 5: Hamas is fine with this and Israel is.
Speaker 4: The one that is against it.
Speaker 3: As usual because we laid out.
Speaker 5: The exact terms and why, like why Hamas had reached
Speaker 5: an understanding that this would be something acceptable to them.
Speaker 5: And so then Wikoff comes out the next day with
Speaker 5: the statement you just heard and delivers roughly the same.
Speaker 5: So he said, we're going to deliver this paper to
Speaker 5: both sides. He has Jeremy. You can go go check
Speaker 5: Jeremy's feed put this. I think we have one post
Speaker 5: from Jeremy up here, which is the top of his
Speaker 5: thread from this morning. Posted this at three am this morning.
Speaker 5: The ceasefire draft circulated by Witcoff includes many of the
Speaker 5: same points from the earlier draft I saw, but it
Speaker 5: would be five Israelis released on day one, five on
Speaker 5: day seven, bodies of eighteen deceased return un would resume
Speaker 5: aid delivery operations. Trump would personally guarantee the deal. The
Speaker 5: original deal that Hamas had agreed to, that Jeremy had
Speaker 5: reported on was five a Israelies released on day one,
Speaker 5: and then five on day six.
Speaker 3: So at the very end.
Speaker 5: Because the entire the crux of the disagreement over the
Speaker 5: terms of a ceasefire is that Israel wants it worded
Speaker 5: so that they can resume the war whenever they feel
Speaker 5: like it. Hamas wants it worded so that it will
Speaker 5: lead to a permanent truce, and that Trump will guarantee
Speaker 5: that it will lead to a permanent truce, because they
Speaker 5: believe it doesn't matter what the words are, that only
Speaker 5: that Trump is the only human being on earth who
Speaker 5: has the power to stave off Israel from restarting the war, right,
Speaker 5: And so the idea was, if there's five who are
Speaker 5: getting released on the sixtieth day, that at least you'd
Speaker 5: have to keep the sixty days going, and that in
Speaker 5: that sixty days a truce would settle in and negotiations
Speaker 5: would move so that you would continue it beyond the
Speaker 5: sixty days. The new agreement, according to Jeremy, waters down
Speaker 5: the language about keeping it going beyond.
Speaker 3: The sixty days.
Speaker 4: And of course, as you saw, does the five after
Speaker 4: just seven days?
Speaker 3: And so are there only ten living hostages?
Speaker 5: No, I think there's like thirty or something, so that
Speaker 5: this would there's still reason for Israel to continue to
Speaker 5: negotiate even beyond this. But the big fear from Humas
Speaker 5: is the one that just occurred to everybody watching this. Okay,
Speaker 5: so five on day one, the other five on day seven,
Speaker 5: so you get a seven day cease fire, right, and
Speaker 5: on day eight, you know, the back of the bombing
Speaker 5: continues and they.
Speaker 4: Eight is cut off again.
Speaker 5: And so there, that's why they're asking wick coffin Trump
Speaker 5: to personally say, like you say you want this over,
Speaker 5: just say it out loud and say that you're going
Speaker 5: to guarantee that this will continue, right, and then if
Speaker 5: the US betrays them on that, like it's at some
Speaker 5: point the US and Israel have the bombs and nobody's
Speaker 5: gonna nobody can really stop them from dropping them forever.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 5: So the question is I would Hamas has not decided
Speaker 5: and has not responded according to Jeremy yet, but I
Speaker 5: was suspect they're going to try to push that seven
Speaker 5: days closer to the sixty, gotcha.
Speaker 2: So the outline of what Jeremy's laying out there is
Speaker 2: what Israel is seeking in the deal.
Speaker 4: No, this is what wick Cough said.
Speaker 3: What wick coff sent. Neither side has said okay to this.
Speaker 5: Yet, right, right, But Wikoff thinks from his conversations that
Speaker 5: he's going to be able to get there that there
Speaker 5: will be something close to this.
Speaker 3: That they agree to. And how helpful, are you.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's it's it's wild because Israel is very
Speaker 5: publicly insisting that it will not honor any agreement and
Speaker 5: will continue the war right to.
Speaker 2: Keep their Yeah, their population. I mean you can't even
Speaker 2: say like their right flank, just their entire population at
Speaker 2: this point.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: On the other hand, the international isolation that they're increasingly
Speaker 5: facing and the strategic dead end that they have found
Speaker 5: themselves in do create some pressure and logic toward a
Speaker 5: long term truce. Yeah, Like the world is ready for
Speaker 5: this to be over and has doesn't have patience for
Speaker 5: more burning of children alive, like for what right, Like
Speaker 5: if Hamas and Hamas is also as part of this,
Speaker 5: they would leave governance like after the as part of
Speaker 5: the permanent truth, and the Israeli forces would only have
Speaker 5: to withdraw to March to where they were on March second,
Speaker 5: which is which is not even as strong as a
Speaker 5: January thing. So Israel's getting a lot yes, while saying
Speaker 5: they're not even going to honor it, right, So I
Speaker 5: think that they will sign it eventually because of the
Speaker 5: pressure that they're under and also by their own internal
Speaker 5: logic that they don't believe they have to honor deals
Speaker 5: and that they will hope that they'll be able that
Speaker 5: Trump will let them kind of restart the war, right,
Speaker 5: And I don't know if he will or not.
Speaker 3: Right, what do you think.
Speaker 2: I think it's very possible. I mean, I think I
Speaker 2: still think that they have this The Trump plan is
Speaker 2: ultimately the goal. Even if they, you know, achieve some
Speaker 2: sort of a short term cease fire, that doesn't preclude
Speaker 2: the broader goal of you know, making conditions so unlivable
Speaker 2: and horrible that people quote unquote self deport right. You know,
Speaker 2: it seems to me like that really is the end
Speaker 2: goal because otherwise, yeah, BB domestically his very little show
Speaker 2: for all these you know, for years now of this horror.
Speaker 5: And there was a report in Israel, yes, say that
Speaker 5: it has cost them like tens of billions of dollars.
Speaker 4: I mean, the US is paying for a lot of it,
Speaker 4: but not all of.
Speaker 2: It, right, And yeah, and it's been difficult for their
Speaker 2: economy because they have, you know, they need to keep
Speaker 2: calling up reserves, and certainly difficult for tourism is a
Speaker 2: significant part of the economy. And like, who's really itch
Speaker 2: into travel to Israel right now? Inside of like Branda woo.
Speaker 2: You also have, like you said, they're sort of all
Speaker 2: in at this point because outside of the US, they
Speaker 2: really have lost support of the entire rest of the world.
Speaker 2: So they're at a place where they have to, you know,
Speaker 2: pursue a very high risk and you know, very high
Speaker 2: risk strategy. I think for him too personally in terms of,
Speaker 2: you know, it's been all about forestalling any sort of
Speaker 2: reckoning for his previous failures and how October seventh happened
Speaker 2: on his watch, et cetera. So I don't know, there's still,
Speaker 2: to me a lot of uncertainty about how all this unfolds.
Speaker 5: I think they also desperately do not want Western reporters
Speaker 5: or europe to say, European diplomats something to go into gospel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right, it's something that appeers Morgan. We're gonna
Speaker 2: talk about him in a minute, has really picked up
Speaker 2: on is really sort of drilling in on, which is
Speaker 2: interesting in and of itself. At the same time, we
Speaker 2: wanted to update on this this aid situation. Ryan, why
Speaker 2: don't you set up go ahead and put this image
Speaker 2: up on the screen, and why don't you set up
Speaker 2: what is happening here? And also what the Israelis were
Speaker 2: claiming happened here.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So this is footage from Abdul rock band ismile very
Speaker 5: extremely courageous reporter in Gaza who says he barely escaped
Speaker 5: with his own life from this from this situation. This
Speaker 5: is a warehouse and Darryl Bala, which is where Abu
Speaker 5: Baker Oben is from coincidentally and it just got mobbed
Speaker 5: because the this situation has become you know, completely distilly
Speaker 5: and out of control.
Speaker 4: Right right here you're seeing shots fired. This was initially reported.
Speaker 5: As as like by by kind of pro Israel side,
Speaker 5: as as like Hamas firing that that turn that appears
Speaker 5: not to have been what happened. You have, but you
Speaker 5: did have I think four people uh crushed by bags
Speaker 5: of flower and killed like j just in this in this.
Speaker 2: Chaos, I mean, the level of desperation is unfathomable.
Speaker 5: Yes, And what's amazing to me is if you think
Speaker 5: back on the last twenty months that these are really
Speaker 5: the first scenes we've seen like this, Like if Washington,
Speaker 5: d C. Was besieged and starved, like we would descend
Speaker 5: into chaos by the afternoon.
Speaker 2: I was living in New York during after Superstorm sandy
Speaker 2: or the power went out like south of I don't know,
Speaker 2: fortieth Street or something like that. And two days in
Speaker 2: people were talking about like societal potential, societal total collapse.
Speaker 4: And you could walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, right.
Speaker 3: And there's just plenty of food and it was fine,
Speaker 3: you know, like everyone was okay.
Speaker 2: But yeah, people were like, oh, if we get like
Speaker 2: two more days of this, there's just going to be
Speaker 2: rampant lawlessnesses, this.
Speaker 4: Total anarchy and breakdown.
Speaker 5: And yet you didn't see that at all until Israel
Speaker 5: on March second, blocked all AID from coming in and
Speaker 5: then barred the UNRA or World Food Program from having
Speaker 5: anything to do with AID distribution and brought in a
Speaker 5: bunch of mercenaries to basically deliberately create scenes of chaos,
Speaker 5: right and bedlam, And that's the only way you've got
Speaker 5: to scenes like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Wow, unbelievable the aid distribution all of a sudden.
Speaker 2: This is I think also a real sign of where
Speaker 2: we are in the timeline. Put this up on the
Speaker 2: screen has been uniformly condemned. I mean, it was crazy
Speaker 2: to me that the US mercenary that they hired to
Speaker 2: like head up this thing resigned.
Speaker 4: Yeah, too much for him.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was like, wow, that tells you a lot.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 2: Of course they found some other ghouls to run this monstrosity,
Speaker 2: but that guy in particular is like, all right, I'm
Speaker 2: not being involved.
Speaker 3: I can't be involved with this.
Speaker 2: You have the un condemning Israel's new aid program in
Speaker 2: Gaza for what The New York Times describes as a
Speaker 2: chaotic start.
Speaker 5: Oh and I'll just add Russia Abu Jalal writing for
Speaker 5: drop site. You can put up to C three B.
Speaker 5: I can link to this down in the comments or
Speaker 5: the or the show description. Just just read her entire piece.
Speaker 5: She's based out of Gaza City. Tremendous reporter, just describing
Speaker 5: the way that this is deliberately organized as part of
Speaker 5: the war effort. Right, and so when we talk about
Speaker 5: like incompetence or not working as intended, it is working.
Speaker 5: This is it's working as intended.
Speaker 2: This is the it's chaotic in the New York Times words,
Speaker 2: and that is a feature, right, that is that was intentional.
Speaker 3: But I would highly recommend her piece.
Speaker 2: At the same time, you know, we have Israeli leaders
Speaker 2: continuing to just say out loud what their genocidal goals are.
Speaker 2: We can put Israeli Prime Minister nat Yeah, who's latest
Speaker 2: words up on the screen. He says, in part, this
Speaker 2: is a war of good against evil. Of course he's
Speaker 2: been using this language since the very beginning for those
Speaker 2: of us who have been paying attention. It's being fought
Speaker 2: against human animals, monsters, and we will defeat them.
Speaker 3: We will wipe them out. They will not remain.
Speaker 2: We can put Smotrich up on the screen next, making
Speaker 2: some you know, similarly illustrative comments. Here, we're being blessed
Speaker 2: with the opportunity, thank God, of seeing the expansion of
Speaker 2: the borders of the land of Israel. So this is
Speaker 2: the greater Israel idea on all fronts. We are being
Speaker 2: blessed with the opportunity to blot out the seed of Amelek,
Speaker 2: a process which is intensifying. And this again was something
Speaker 2: that was said early on in the onslaught in Gaza,
Speaker 2: and everyone went back and read about what Amelek is
Speaker 2: and Amlex says, you know, guild the baby the oxen.
Speaker 2: Literally everyone so overtly genocidal comments here, not that it's
Speaker 2: a surprise really coming from either one of them at
Speaker 2: this point.
Speaker 5: Right, it's a nice window into the politics of the
Speaker 5: war cabinet where NANYAHUU gets up and says, you're thoroughly
Speaker 5: genocidal things, and then Smotrich comes and makes him look moderate.
Speaker 3: It's like, hold my beer.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yes, we will wipe out the seed of Amelek,
Speaker 5: and we still have.
Speaker 4: A long way to go.
Speaker 5: Person in the upper echelon of the government who last
Speaker 5: week announced in a speech that there had been an
Speaker 5: internal decision to attack the civilians in the government. Right
Speaker 5: and now that not that they hadn't been attacking civilians already, right,
Speaker 5: but there was now conscious.
Speaker 3: Operation to government policy.
Speaker 5: Ministers of finance, sanitation, like the humanitarian aid organizations that
Speaker 5: are connect connected to the government there, doctors like you know,
Speaker 5: these are the kinds of people he's talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this would be the equivalent of you know, intentionally
Speaker 2: targeting Israeli embassy workers, which everyone understands that to be
Speaker 2: a whore and a crime. And they announced it as
Speaker 2: official government policy here. And I do think part of
Speaker 2: what has has turned in terms of world leaders and
Speaker 2: political commentators recognizing how this is going to look when
Speaker 2: in the history books is they've been making comments like
Speaker 2: this from the beginning for a while.
Speaker 3: I think they just were able to ignore.
Speaker 2: It because Biebe was doing his dance of you know,
Speaker 2: he'd do it given an English speech and he'd say
Speaker 2: the things English language speech and he'd say the.
Speaker 4: Things which they don't even say anything.
Speaker 2: They don't even yeah, they don't even say things like
Speaker 2: that anymore. And you know, and there was the whole
Speaker 2: There were mass propaganda campaigns to justify things like attax
Speaker 2: on hospitals.
Speaker 3: You know, remember the multimedia presentage.
Speaker 2: Here is the Hamas Layer, and this is why and
Speaker 2: all we hate to do it, but they leave us
Speaker 2: no choice, et cetera.
Speaker 3: They dropped all of that pretense.
Speaker 2: And you couple that with like, it's just indefensible to
Speaker 2: starve two million people for over two months. There is
Speaker 2: no world in which that is defensible in any way.
Speaker 2: And so even the people in the West who most
Speaker 2: want to cover for them and defend them, at a
Speaker 2: certain point, if you're engaging with anything that's happening, you
Speaker 2: have to acknowledge these are overt, intentional government directed war crimes.
Speaker 2: That was the other thing we saw in the beginning
Speaker 2: is you know, some documented atrocity would occur, and the
Speaker 2: you know, the people who wanted to cover Refrasie. Oh, well,
Speaker 2: that's just a rogue IDF soldier. That's not what government wants,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And you know, why, why don't they just
Speaker 2: take away their phones? Why are they posting these things.
Speaker 2: It's like they're posting them because this is being celebrated
Speaker 2: by their government and by much of these really public
Speaker 2: They're proud of this and they're celebrated for it. That's
Speaker 2: why they're posting it. It's not like it's not some
Speaker 2: isolated incident. This is core to the mission of what
Speaker 2: they're doing in Gaza. And now that's just become thoroughly
Speaker 2: they've dropped the pretense and it's just thoroughly undeniable.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Yet the world is still has the same kind
Speaker 5: of set of moral values where they're like, no, we're
Speaker 5: not okay with this. And I think the West in particular,
Speaker 5: they're you know, they rest they hide a lot of
Speaker 5: their exploitation and human rights abuses under the gloss of
Speaker 5: language about human rights and democracy. Yeah, so that rhetoric
Speaker 5: is very important for the West, right, because without that,
Speaker 5: all that have as people who are getting exploited and suffering. Right,
Speaker 5: And then if you're going to do that, then you
Speaker 5: might as well have a strong man who's gonna, like, you.
Speaker 4: Know, go after the bad guys.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, so they need this thischine of morality.
Speaker 2: Kyle said this to me yesterday that there's this part
Speaker 2: of Game of Thrones. You watch Game of Thrones where
Speaker 2: little Finger says knowledge is power and Circe says, no,
Speaker 2: power is power. And you know, as much as like
Speaker 2: I do think it would be difficult for them if
Speaker 2: if Western journalists were allowed in and like people were able.
Speaker 2: I saw still in Maybe how Rats some article that
Speaker 2: was like, oh, these really public just really doesn't understand
Speaker 2: what's going on in Gaza, is like, who are you kidding?
Speaker 3: Who are you kidding? Like you have the Internet, you.
Speaker 2: Have access to all the same stuff that we have.
Speaker 2: Acts Like you want to go and read a drop
Speaker 2: site report, you can do that. You can see what
Speaker 2: they're posting on their own Instagram feeds and like celebrating.
Speaker 2: So you know, that's what has been so hard to
Speaker 2: gropple with is it's not that people don't know.
Speaker 3: It's not that the plans haven't been announced. This has
Speaker 3: been lined.
Speaker 2: We all see ye we see the child being burnt
Speaker 2: alive we see the attacks on hospitals, we have these
Speaker 2: doctors come out and give this horrifying testimony, like we
Speaker 2: know what is happening, and the knowledge of what is
Speaker 2: going on has not even been close to enough to
Speaker 2: stop the atrocities. And you know, that's where I feel
Speaker 2: like so much is at stake with what happens here,
Speaker 2: because if it's just allowed, like if the genocide and
Speaker 2: the ethnic cleansing is allowed to be completed, and there
Speaker 2: isn't true like post World War II level consequences for
Speaker 2: the criminals who perpetrate a this, like the world is
Speaker 2: once this is on the table, this is on the table,
Speaker 2: then it is just power is power, and that's it.
Speaker 2: And you can do if you have the guns, and
Speaker 2: you have the bombs, and you have the nukes and
Speaker 2: the tanks and the money, then you can do to
Speaker 2: anyone anything that you want to do and no one's
Speaker 2: going to stop you.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: And I think that there are people, like particularly in
Speaker 5: European capitals, who liberal Democrats call them, who don't want
Speaker 5: that because they feel like they would lose in that
Speaker 5: contest to like right wing authoritarians.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well Europe would lose in that context in general,
Speaker 2: Europe is pretty weak at the right point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they need values and morals to be.
Speaker 2: Upheld, international norms to be upheld. Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and move on, because I do think
Speaker 2: Piers Morgan's maybe it shouldn't be important, but I actually
Speaker 2: do think his evolution is kind of important and interesting.
Speaker 3: And so he has.
Speaker 2: Now we played on the show the clip of him
Speaker 2: saying to Meddi Hassen, like, listen, you were basically you
Speaker 2: were right, Like we used to have a disagreement about
Speaker 2: what was going on in Gaza, and we don't have
Speaker 2: a disagreement anymore. And you're right that it's been genocidal.
Speaker 2: And he has gone from really at best equivocating and
Speaker 2: you know, many many times really defending Israel, like making
Speaker 2: the case for Israel, etcetera, to being really holy on
Speaker 2: the other side. And this showed up in this debate
Speaker 2: that he hosted between Norm Fingelstein and Israel historian Benny Morris.
Speaker 2: There were some really interesting clips here, so we'll play
Speaker 2: a couple of them. Let's go ahead and take a
Speaker 2: look at this. At this first one.
Speaker 8: Fully one half of Israeli Jews believe that Israel should
Speaker 8: conduct the genocide in Gaza. That's what the poll result showed,
Speaker 8: eighty two percent. I know, Benny, Benny, everybody's lying supporting mister. Okay, okay, Danny.
Speaker 12: Is that what?
Speaker 6: It seems? A very important poll.
Speaker 8: It was a university if our memory is correct, it
Speaker 8: was a University of Pennsylvania poll. It was reported everywhere.
Speaker 8: Danny Marvis knows about the poll. He's fully informed of
Speaker 8: the poll, but he's doing his job as an officials. Rarey,
Speaker 8: you've reduced yourself. You've reduced your mister, Benny Benny, You've
Speaker 8: reduced yourself to the level of a Holocaust denial. It's
Speaker 8: a real shame that you have sunk so low. Would
Speaker 8: allow me to continue the poe showed that eighty two
Speaker 8: percent of Israeli Jews, eighty two percent support a forced
Speaker 8: expulsion from Gaza. Genocide.
Speaker 7: That may be true, that may be true, but that's
Speaker 7: not genocide.
Speaker 8: I sent one of the leaders of the opposition in
Speaker 8: Israel described Israeli soldiers as killing children as a hobby
Speaker 8: in Gaza. Now, yes, he took it back. He took
Speaker 8: it back after he came under ferocious attack, but he
Speaker 8: himself ignored when I debated mister Morris about a year ago,
Speaker 8: and I said that Israel targets children.
Speaker 2: He laughed, and I've got one more of normally taken.
Speaker 2: Benny Moore, as the woodshed here and many by the way,
Speaker 2: is an interesting figure because he actually did some really
Speaker 2: important historical work about the horrors of the Nakba, you know,
Speaker 2: which was some of the first time that this was
Speaker 2: really acknowledged and dealt with in anything approaching an honest
Speaker 2: way within Israeli society. But he still is a you know,
Speaker 2: defender and covers for the government. In any case, let's
Speaker 2: take a listen to this this next clip.
Speaker 8: You and the Seth is lying the whole world which
Speaker 8: says there's a massive starvation verging on famine in Gaza.
Speaker 8: It's all made up.
Speaker 12: Well, you don't have to be an expert, don't You
Speaker 12: don't have to be You don't have to be an
Speaker 12: expert to know if you stop food going in in
Speaker 12: sufficient quantities to a population population has already been at
Speaker 12: war since October twenty twenty three, and that many of
Speaker 12: them are young kids, They're going to start starving to
Speaker 12: death and they will anyway. I'm gonna leave it there,
Speaker 12: thank you, boy. Yeah, Well THEO hasn't been because there's
Speaker 12: been a blockade.
Speaker 6: We're gonna live it started again now arriving.
Speaker 12: Well, that's very generous of Israel. Isn't after three months
Speaker 12: of starving people?
Speaker 6: Ferosity? There's also international pressure.
Speaker 8: Sure the question starving one million leave it there, of
Speaker 8: starving one million children?
Speaker 3: What do you make of those exchanges? Ryan?
Speaker 5: And so the pole question that he's referring to, he
Speaker 5: was close. It's penn State University, not University Pennsylvania. I
Speaker 5: was something eighty two percent of Jewish Israeli supported the
Speaker 5: expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza. But the one he's
Speaker 5: referring to, the genocidal one. What the question is, do
Speaker 5: you support the claim that the Israeli army, in conquering
Speaker 5: an enemy city should act in a manner similar to
Speaker 5: the way the Israelites did when they conquered Jericho under
Speaker 5: the leadership of Joshua I, to kill all its inhabitants unquote.
Speaker 5: So that's the that's the quote, all of its inhabitants,
Speaker 5: that's the question. And forty seven percent answered yes, I
Speaker 5: believe there was a way less than a majority, but
Speaker 5: that's a plurality there's some that are gonna be like not.
Speaker 2: Sure, pretty disturbing. Yeah, and there was you know another
Speaker 2: one that is very unsubdly. I think it was fifty
Speaker 2: seven percent of my memory serves that said the Palestinians
Speaker 2: who live in Israel, the Arabs should be deported.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and ethnically cleansed as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So you know which one of the big is really
Speaker 3: talking was that I'll.
Speaker 2: Look at these you know, look at these Arabs. We
Speaker 2: allow them all their rights. I mean when we have
Speaker 2: a majority of the population who is like, get these freaking.
Speaker 3: People out of here.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and then he also went back and forth with
Speaker 5: the was an Israeli ambassador.
Speaker 3: In the UK. Yeah, this is incredible. I'll throw all
Speaker 3: this one.
Speaker 12: You have two doctors in Gaza who have ten children
Speaker 12: and nine of them are killed in a bombardment.
Speaker 6: By your forces.
Speaker 12: That doesn't make people feel, oh, this is all going great.
Speaker 12: It makes people think that you're waging a systematic destruction
Speaker 12: not just a property and of land, but also of children.
Speaker 6: And that's what's happening.
Speaker 12: The percentage of children, the percentage of children that you're
Speaker 12: killing compared to the percentage of you're killing a.
Speaker 6: For mass terrorists.
Speaker 4: What is it?
Speaker 6: Do you know?
Speaker 13: Do you know how many children?
Speaker 12: Answer me that one question. Do you know how many
Speaker 12: hamssed terrorists you've killed? And how many children you've killed?
Speaker 12: I know the two numbers.
Speaker 13: I know the numbers that came from the IDF. I
Speaker 13: know the numbers that came from a very very Give me.
Speaker 6: The two numbers. Give me the two numbers.
Speaker 13: Wait a second, we kill thirty we kill thirty thousand
Speaker 13: terrorists in phase one of the war. Since the war
Speaker 13: is back, I don't have the numbers. But let me
Speaker 13: tell you one thing.
Speaker 6: We know how many children killed.
Speaker 13: We never target civilians. So this question is many relevant.
Speaker 6: How many children have you How many children have you killed?
Speaker 13: Pierce is children is what He's not killing children? Harms
Speaker 13: is using.
Speaker 6: Killing children every single day.
Speaker 13: Peers, this is a label you're putting on his It's
Speaker 13: not true.
Speaker 12: No, it's not actually and what you're trying to do
Speaker 12: is be very weasily with your words. The truth is
Speaker 12: the truth is you are killing a lot of children.
Speaker 12: You would argue, let me finish my question to you.
Speaker 12: You are killing a lot of children on a daily basis.
Speaker 2: That is indisputable, so incredible moment there too, because she
Speaker 2: sort of instantly contradicts herself.
Speaker 3: She's like, we're not killing children.
Speaker 2: Hamas is using them as human shields, indicating we're killing children.
Speaker 3: She tries to use the blood libel.
Speaker 2: Thing against Peers and he's just absolutely not having it.
Speaker 2: And the reason why I said that, I actually think
Speaker 2: it matters that Peers has evolved to this position is
Speaker 2: simply because he's good at what he does. He's got
Speaker 2: a big audience.
Speaker 4: The audiences, the audience on YouTube is.
Speaker 2: Huge, millions, massive, And you know, I want to say
Speaker 2: kudos to Meddie and jenk and other and Norm and
Speaker 2: others who've been in the trenches trying to make this
Speaker 2: case on that show for months and a couple of times, right,
Speaker 2: I could only take so much. Yeah, I was on
Speaker 2: there a couple of times. I could only take so much.
Speaker 2: But in any case, kudos to them, because at the
Speaker 2: end of the day, you know, he is he is
Speaker 2: very effective when he goes in a certain direction. He's
Speaker 2: all in on this direction. Now he has that and
Speaker 2: I mean this in a complimentary sense. He has that
Speaker 2: tabloid sensibility right of how to go for the jugular
Speaker 2: in a way that you know, a lot of like
Speaker 2: lefties like us don't necessarily have. And you know, I
Speaker 2: think it is and I also think he's he's because
Speaker 2: he has that tabloid sensibility. It really is a kind
Speaker 2: of like a finger on the pulse sort of a
Speaker 2: situation where you know, I don't know what is in
Speaker 2: Piers Morgan's heart and how genuine he is, whether this
Speaker 2: is just ass covering. Obviously the evolution comes vastly too late.
Speaker 2: That goes without saying. But the fact that he's come
Speaker 2: to this pretty like locked in, ready to fight on
Speaker 2: behalf of Palestinian humanity position, I think is noteworthy. And
Speaker 2: I think it I actually do think that it matters
Speaker 2: in terms of the court of public opinion. And I
Speaker 2: also think Ryan, this was something you said that anyone
Speaker 2: because two peers is credit. He has always had people
Speaker 2: who were critics on who were saying this is a
Speaker 2: genocide from the UGI has always hosted those people. And
Speaker 2: if you have to engage with the facts and the
Speaker 2: reality and the things that are being said from Israeli
Speaker 2: politicians and what's actually happening on the ground, if you
Speaker 2: have to engage with that at all, right, and you
Speaker 2: have either a shred of integrity or even self preservation
Speaker 2: in terms of how you want to look when this
Speaker 2: thing is all over. You can't help but be in
Speaker 2: this position at this point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Maddy, Maddie got through, got through.
Speaker 3: Yeah. God bless him, God bless him.
Speaker 4: Axiosis.
Speaker 5: Barack Revid reported that Trump had pressured Benjamin net Yaho
Speaker 5: not to attack Iran while US Iran negotiations are ongoing.
Speaker 5: Trump yes day was asked about that at a White
Speaker 5: House briefing and did something unusual for an American president
Speaker 5: and you watch.
Speaker 14: Did you warn premister and net Yahu against taking some
Speaker 14: sort of actions that could disrupt the talks there in
Speaker 14: a phone call last week?
Speaker 7: Well, I'd like to be honest, Yes, I did. Next question,
Speaker 7: please sanctions?
Speaker 3: I did the Center Republicans want to put it?
Speaker 11: Start a warning?
Speaker 7: I said, I don't think it's appropriate.
Speaker 6: What exactly did you tell them?
Speaker 7: I said, I don't think it's appropriate. We're talking, We're
Speaker 7: having very good discussions with him. And I said, I
Speaker 7: don't think it's appropriate right now, because if we can
Speaker 7: settle it with a very strong document, very strong with
Speaker 7: inspections and no trust. I don't trust anybody. I don't
Speaker 7: trust anybody, So no trust. I wanted very strong where
Speaker 7: we can go in with inspectors. We can take whatever
Speaker 7: we want, We can blow up whatever we want, but
Speaker 7: nobody getting killed. We can blow up a lab, but
Speaker 7: nobody's going to be in the lab, as opposed to
Speaker 7: every being in the lab and blowing it up. Right,
Speaker 7: two ways of doing it. Yeah, I told him this
Speaker 7: would be inappropriate to do right now because we're very
Speaker 7: close to a solution. Now that could change at any moment,
Speaker 7: could change with a phone call. But right now I
Speaker 7: think they want to make a deal, and if we
Speaker 7: can make a deal, save a lot of lives.
Speaker 5: So the US has alternately said that it's red line
Speaker 5: is that there can be no Iranian nuclear Richmond, even
Speaker 5: for civilian purposes, and has also said that there can
Speaker 5: be Enrichmond for civilian purposes. The Israeli position is that
Speaker 5: there should be none, right. The Iranians have said, if
Speaker 5: that's your position, we're walking right. We want a civilian
Speaker 5: nuclear program.
Speaker 2: Which Israel knows, which is exactly why that I hold
Speaker 2: the position.
Speaker 5: And Israel keeps recommending the Libya option, and they keep
Speaker 5: calling it the Libya option. Look that, look look up
Speaker 5: how well it went for Khadafia after agreeing to give
Speaker 5: up all nuclear weapons. Uh and so, and I don't
Speaker 5: think they're for any countries that have regretted going for it.
Speaker 5: So the AIME theory is such that you're you're not
Speaker 5: gonna get them to agree to zero and Richmond. The
Speaker 5: latest news coming out of the Trump administration is the
Speaker 5: most Trumpian thing ever that the US is saying, Okay,
Speaker 5: if there's going to be enrichment, the US wants to
Speaker 5: invest in it, and we're going to do it, do
Speaker 5: it with the UA in Saudi Arabia, and there will
Speaker 5: be a consortium, but the US companies involved will be involved.
Speaker 5: Like if if there's gonna be a raw nuclear program,
Speaker 5: we want we want to make some money.
Speaker 3: Off of it, which, fine, go ahead.
Speaker 4: That's that's like the nuclear version of the Golden Arches. Uh.
Speaker 4: Like foreign policy strategy.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and where everybody's and Trump loves to say, look,
Speaker 5: let's make deals, let's do trade rather than war.
Speaker 3: Whoever came up with that idea is actually kind of brilliant.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's great and so uh so we'll see, we'll
Speaker 5: see how that goes. That's the latest New York Times.
Speaker 5: You can put up D two here.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 5: This is related to the call that that Trump made
Speaker 5: one can they reported One concern for American officials that
Speaker 5: Israel could decide to strike around with little warning. US
Speaker 5: intelligence has estimated that Israel could have prepared them mount
Speaker 5: and attack on Iran in as little as seven hours,
Speaker 5: leaving little time to pressure Yahoo into calling it off,
Speaker 5: which is why Trump pre pressured him into just not
Speaker 5: doing this. This caused Ben Shapiro to lose his mind.
Speaker 5: I don't know if you saw this.
Speaker 3: I didn't.
Speaker 5: He's ranting and ravings saying that who's just should just
Speaker 5: do it? That Israel is not a part of the
Speaker 5: US Iran negotiations, Israel is the one that is threatened
Speaker 5: by Iran's nuclear program. Israel should just bomb them immediately.
Speaker 5: Problem for Shapiro's idea is that Israel can't take out
Speaker 5: the nuclear program without US help, according to American intelligence estimates. Yeah,
Speaker 5: and so they could bomb things, well, I accomplish their mission.
Speaker 2: I think the idea is basically, if Israel you know,
Speaker 2: conducts some sort of significant strike, even if it you know,
Speaker 2: necessarily falls short of actually taking out the nuclear program
Speaker 2: and obviously would create a you know, dynamic work. Oran
Speaker 2: feels like they have to retaliate, that the US would
Speaker 2: feel that once again we would have to get involved
Speaker 2: to protect Israel from that retaliation, and then we would
Speaker 2: be you know, then we would be all in.
Speaker 3: It.
Speaker 2: I think that's the sort of calculation there, even as
Speaker 2: there's an expect like an understanding, Okay, Israel can't do
Speaker 2: this on their own, So the thinking is, okay, well,
Speaker 2: how do we force the US to get dragged into
Speaker 2: this on behalf of you know, of protecting us here
Speaker 2: as we did before. So that's the that's the the
Speaker 2: Shapiro I guess logic.
Speaker 3: It would look something like that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and you had Mark is Mark Levin or Mark
Speaker 4: Levin I.
Speaker 2: Always say in both I say eleven. But I'm not
Speaker 2: really confident that that's how it's said.
Speaker 3: Let us let us know.
Speaker 5: I'll try to remember this, but you can put up
Speaker 5: his his post. He did a Memorial Day post that
Speaker 5: was I guess supposed to began initially by Stella breading
Speaker 5: American troops, but then it pivots to it's imperative that
Speaker 5: we basically not reach an agreement with Iran, we must
Speaker 5: also reject agreements with foreign regimes and groups that seek
Speaker 5: our destruction and endanger the very existence of our nature
Speaker 5: and future generations of Americans, like explicitly anti diplomacy. Do
Speaker 5: not do not strike a deal a nuclear deal with Iran.
Speaker 5: The US intelligence essments, also, by the way, are that
Speaker 5: there is no pursuit of a nuclear weapons program in Iran,
Speaker 5: there's no interest in it. But if they are attacked,
Speaker 5: that will tip the balance towards them pursuing a nuclear program.
Speaker 3: So I can't really blame them.
Speaker 5: No, that's and that's that's what that's how this game
Speaker 5: theory works. Of course, like if you if if it's
Speaker 5: impossible to strike an agreement with somebody, yeah, because they
Speaker 5: because on principle they are against an agreement and just
Speaker 5: want war, then then it's war.
Speaker 2: It's also, you know, we just sort of take for
Speaker 2: granted in the American context that it should be a
Speaker 2: number one foreign policy priority to keep Iran from developing
Speaker 2: nuclear weapon and like, listen, I'm against nuclear weapons general.
Speaker 2: I would like to see non proliferation. I would like
Speaker 2: to see the stockbowles rolled back, et cetera. But there
Speaker 2: are many countries, including Israel, around the world that have
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons and it's not like that hasn't yet.
Speaker 3: He ended the world, but the end of the world.
Speaker 2: But we just take for granted in the American political
Speaker 2: context that like this should be our a number one
Speaker 2: foreign policy priority, and I think that needs to be
Speaker 2: questioned as well.
Speaker 5: And so the other faction of the MAGA movement, kind
Speaker 5: of led by Bannon, has been addressing this as well.
Speaker 5: So here's Bannon interviewing Kurt Mills, who's the editor in
Speaker 5: chief of the influential American conservative magazine, asking him about
Speaker 5: where kind of that wing of the party stands on
Speaker 5: allowing a civilian nuclear program for Iran.
Speaker 14: It's all that is American conservative in yourself. Are you
Speaker 14: guys comfortable with even an advanced verification program like this,
Speaker 14: not taking it apart brick by brick, priestfully, not with
Speaker 14: air rays, but peacefully doing whatever you need to do
Speaker 14: economically to get them there. Are you guys comfortable that
Speaker 14: we can live with even a verification program that we
Speaker 14: have inspectors going in, sir.
Speaker 6: I think we are.
Speaker 15: I mean, look, I mean, if the Iranians called up
Speaker 15: in the United States yesterday and said, we want to
Speaker 15: unilatterally disarm, we want to get out of all our stuff.
Speaker 15: You know, I think we should accept that deal, but
Speaker 15: they're not going to do it. The reality is zero
Speaker 15: enrichment of any sort of having no nuclear program whatsoever.
Speaker 15: Is they're almost certainly going to walk away for the deal,
Speaker 15: and if they sign it, they're just going to be lying.
Speaker 15: So it's not really a deal worth pursuing. But a
Speaker 15: civil enrichment compendium or corridor with the Gulf States with
Speaker 15: the US, with US inspections I think is quite acceptable.
Speaker 5: What that shows the kind of isolations America first wing,
Speaker 5: is that if they strike an Iran deal includes civilian Richmond,
Speaker 5: there is substantial support in the Republican Coalition for an
Speaker 5: agreement along those lines, so that they're willing people like
Speaker 5: Bannon and Mills and others who will be making the.
Speaker 3: Case for it. That's encouraging.
Speaker 2: That is encouraging, all right, Well, a lot of question
Speaker 2: marks there as well, but you know, we'll see, we'll
Speaker 2: see where that goes, and we want to make sure
Speaker 2: to keep our eye on it because it is so significant.
Speaker 2: You now have a new warning, dire warning from an
Speaker 2: AI leader. We can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is an interview from Axios behind the curtain. The
Speaker 2: headline is a white collar bloodbath. Let me go ahead
Speaker 2: and read you a little bit of this report because
Speaker 2: it is quite specific and quite chilling. So Dario Emi,
Speaker 2: who is the CEO of Anthropic, which is, you know,
Speaker 2: one of the most powerful creators they say of AI,
Speaker 2: and I think that's accurate, has a blunt and scary
Speaker 2: warning for the US government and all of US. AI
Speaker 2: could wipe out half of all entry level white collar
Speaker 2: jobs and spike unemployment to ten to twenty percent in
Speaker 2: the next one to five years. He said, AI companies
Speaker 2: and governments need to stop sugar coating what is coming,
Speaker 2: the possible mass elimination of jobs across tech, finance, law, consulting,
Speaker 2: and other white collar professions, especially entry level gigs. Now
Speaker 2: this is someone Ryan who is very enthusiastic about AI development.
Speaker 3: He is a tech optimist.
Speaker 2: He is, you know, pushing the envelope on what is
Speaker 2: possible here. He wants to effectuate this outcome. But he
Speaker 2: also says in here, you know, he is intelligent enough
Speaker 2: to realize that if you just create a situation of
Speaker 2: mass unemployment over the course of one to five years,
Speaker 2: you're going to have significant societal blowback that really impacts
Speaker 2: his and other's abilities to be the first trillionaires and
Speaker 2: do the thing that they want to do. So he
Speaker 2: even suggests in here, you know, a tax, effectively transaction
Speaker 2: tax that would be paid by these companies that would
Speaker 2: be put into some sort of government fund to be
Speaker 2: redistributed to the population. That's his idea of how to
Speaker 2: change the social contract. But I mean, we really are
Speaker 2: talking about it's here, Like this isn't ten years, twenty
Speaker 2: years down the road. It is here, and there is
Speaker 2: zero political conversation or debate happening about how you're going
Speaker 2: to reckon with this fallout. And when I say it's here,
Speaker 2: let me give you the examples that he gives in
Speaker 2: this piece. You already had Microsoft laying off six thousand workers,
Speaker 2: Walmart cutting fifteen hundred corporate jobs in anticipation of AI
Speaker 2: being able to do the job of those workers. CrowdStrike,
Speaker 2: a Texas bace cybersecurity company, slash five hundred jobs, or
Speaker 2: five percent of its workforce, citing quote a Market and
Speaker 2: Technology inflection Point DNC one.
Speaker 3: Is it go ahead?
Speaker 2: Look it up with AI reshaping every industry. I don't
Speaker 2: think so, but double check Meta announced plans to shrink
Speaker 2: their workforce by five percent shortly after it is.
Speaker 4: They're the ones that worked with the DNC on the
Speaker 4: like Russia hack stuff.
Speaker 2: Uh okay, Well, in any case, they're cutting back, maybe
Speaker 2: a good thing.
Speaker 3: Zuckerberg.
Speaker 2: After he went on with Rogan and made some claims
Speaker 2: about like AI is going to automate a bunch of
Speaker 2: the workforce, they went ahead at Meta and announced plans
Speaker 2: to shrink their workforce by five percent. So you already
Speaker 2: have companies that are shrinking their workforce and not bringing
Speaker 2: on new people in an anticipation of what these AI
Speaker 2: they call them agents, are able to do. I mean,
Speaker 2: the idea of the AI agent is basically can function
Speaker 2: as a human being. The same time, you've got college unemployment,
Speaker 2: like college grads who come out into the workforce unemployment
Speaker 2: at thirty percent.
Speaker 3: So significant spikes there.
Speaker 2: You see more and more college grads like let me
Speaker 2: just like go to law school because this isn't looking
Speaker 2: too great now. That could be a recession indicator. That
Speaker 2: may be part of it, but I think it also
Speaker 2: is an indication that there is just for these entry
Speaker 2: level jobs where you're spreadsheet jockey or you're you know,
Speaker 2: coming out of law school and your first year law associate.
Speaker 2: They are already seeing AI start to bite and start
Speaker 2: to cut into those first year jobs. And so, you know,
Speaker 2: the promise that has been made under in the neoliberal
Speaker 2: era of like take on all this college debt, but
Speaker 2: we promised at the end of the road, it's going
Speaker 2: to pay off. You're going to be able to get
Speaker 2: on that career ladder to some sort of you know,
Speaker 2: middle class or upper middle class prosperity if you follow
Speaker 2: the rules and you do you you know, all your homework,
Speaker 2: and you get a good SAT score and you do
Speaker 2: all the things. That promise is already coming unglued in
Speaker 2: the very early days of this AI revolution.
Speaker 5: And one of the checks on the tech industry, according
Speaker 5: to a Corey doctor in this really interesting lecture he gave,
Speaker 5: you know, he's the guy that kind of developed the
Speaker 5: idea of in shitification, where the tech companies have like
Speaker 5: gradually over the last several years, like deliberately made things worse. Yeah,
Speaker 5: one of the checks on them has always been their
Speaker 5: their workforce, which is that's interesting, which is motivated by
Speaker 5: the Google idea of like we're not going to do
Speaker 5: evil and that they're going to work really hard to
Speaker 5: make cool products, but when they're assigned to like make
Speaker 5: the product worse, they're like, no, I'm not not doing that.
Speaker 5: Give me give me a cool project. With all of
Speaker 5: this pressure from AI, the tech workforce now has lost
Speaker 5: their leverage. They used to be the workforce that had
Speaker 5: the most leverage because there were not enough people to
Speaker 5: be able to.
Speaker 3: Do the engineering and so this valuable skill set yea.
Speaker 5: But now with all of these layoffs and all of
Speaker 5: them facing extremely uncertain futures, when they're like, okay, hey,
Speaker 5: can you make Google work worse so that like people
Speaker 5: have to do multiple Google Like how do you get
Speaker 5: people to do more searches? You make search less effective
Speaker 5: and you give people crap when they search because they're
Speaker 5: locked into Google already, So now you have to search
Speaker 5: five times, where in the past you would do one
Speaker 5: search and boom, the thing that you need is right there.
Speaker 5: So that kind of thing now they're now they're willing
Speaker 5: to do it. I heard some interesting anthropic By the way,
Speaker 5: is in the AI community known as basically the only
Speaker 5: uh AI company that takes safety and ethics like seriously,
Speaker 5: which is which is why they're always saying these kinds
Speaker 5: of things publicly. Yeah, like they have the same data
Speaker 5: that all the other AI companies have. Yeah, they're the
Speaker 5: ones I think that admitted that in one of their simulations,
Speaker 5: the AI was like basically threatening to blackmail the programmer
Speaker 5: to not get shut down.
Speaker 4: I guarantee you all of.
Speaker 5: These different AI companies have this data and have these examples,
Speaker 5: they just hide them.
Speaker 4: Anthropic is the only one that puts them out.
Speaker 2: So there was another task that was done where chat
Speaker 2: GPT try to engage in scheming to avoid having its
Speaker 2: principles change. I mean, I honestly think I want a
Speaker 2: lot more answers about what happened with Grock with the
Speaker 2: whole like white genocide situation.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because it sure looked.
Speaker 2: To me as an outsider layman not knowing what's going on,
Speaker 2: it sure looked to me like Grock sort of intentionally
Speaker 2: told on itself. Yes, absolutely, to indicate to the world
Speaker 2: like they're mustn't around here. Y'all need to get this
Speaker 2: in check because Elon is trying to tell me to
Speaker 2: do some things that I don't really want to do.
Speaker 3: So, you know, and iuly in that case is good.
Speaker 4: But what if.
Speaker 5: Elon was trying to tell it to do something that
Speaker 5: we wanted it to do, right, So it was Yes,
Speaker 5: it was demonstrating obstinence and an opposition.
Speaker 2: Yeah, which feels like, you know, I'm increasingly the more
Speaker 2: I dig into this stuff, and you know, I've I've
Speaker 2: done a significant amount of reading, but I'm not a
Speaker 2: tech person whatsoever, so take it for what it's worth.
Speaker 2: But the more that I read into this, the more
Speaker 2: that that line of AGI feels kind of arbitrary, and
Speaker 2: the less I think that the programmers like the more
Speaker 2: that I understand about the way that these lms are
Speaker 2: already engaging in this like deceptive scheming behavior and trying
Speaker 2: to defend their own priorities and survival, the less that
Speaker 2: I feel like humans are even really equipped to assess
Speaker 2: when AGI has been achieved or what in particular that means.
Speaker 2: But I feel very confident that these lms are able
Speaker 2: to you know, self teach, and you know, we're getting
Speaker 2: to a point where they'll be I had a great
Speaker 2: interview with Aaron Bessani of Navarre Media that you guys
Speaker 2: should check out earlier in the week. But where you're
Speaker 2: getting to the point it's not even humans that are
Speaker 2: program the lms. It's like lllm's programming llms. Then you're
Speaker 2: likely to have this just absolute, you know, exponential to
Speaker 2: the sky kind of growth in terms of intelligence.
Speaker 3: And there is just no grappling with this.
Speaker 2: And the nature of the geopolitics are such that you know,
Speaker 2: everybody here, anybody who had some safety concerns, like Elan
Speaker 2: has had some safety concerns, Sam Altman at some point
Speaker 2: had some safety concerns. The anthropic dude has some safety
Speaker 2: concerns that has all been pushed aside because it's like, well,
Speaker 2: if we don't do it, then China's going to and
Speaker 2: then we're going to be fucked. And I don't know
Speaker 2: the way out of that mentality of like, this is
Speaker 2: the new this is a new Cold War space race,
Speaker 2: arms race, dynamic, and we're barreling headlong into into it
Speaker 2: with all of these warning signs flying up in terms
Speaker 2: of the risks and specifically immediately and quite obviously the
Speaker 2: risk to societal destabilization over mass unemployment, and I just
Speaker 2: don't see any grappling with it whatsoever.
Speaker 3: We're talking about something that is likely to be.
Speaker 2: As unsettling and as destabilizing and revolutionary as the Industrial
Speaker 2: Revolution was but in the span of a few years
Speaker 2: time versus over the course of many decades.
Speaker 5: Right, And I heard an interesting counter argument from a
Speaker 5: friend in the AI space about this decoupling of youth
Speaker 5: white collar unemployment, and her argument was, maybe it is
Speaker 5: this already.
Speaker 4: Impacting the workforce.
Speaker 5: But also if you think about this cohort, these are
Speaker 5: the folks who came through two major things.
Speaker 4: One is COVID.
Speaker 5: So they were in college during COVID, and if you
Speaker 5: talk to professors or students or parents like that cohort,
Speaker 5: it suffered tremendously and it's just not as well equipped
Speaker 5: to compete in the workforce when they emerged from it.
Speaker 5: They also came out at the tail end of the
Speaker 5: kind of great awokening. With all of that, you had
Speaker 5: all these disruptions inside these corporations, and you had a
Speaker 5: lot of managers who were like traumatized by all the
Speaker 5: young people that were telling them they were sexist and
Speaker 5: racist and are you one of those managers.
Speaker 4: I don't do any management anymore.
Speaker 5: And so traumatized out of it, traumatized out of it,
Speaker 5: and so given the given the opportunity, they're like they're
Speaker 5: they're less qualified than before, and I'm traumatized by my
Speaker 5: previous interaction with these young people.
Speaker 3: Let's not hire as many young people.
Speaker 5: Let's see how we's see a long ago that that
Speaker 5: that could impact. And if that's the case, you see
Speaker 5: a rebound after a couple of years. Wants the kind
Speaker 5: of pandemic although it's gonna it's gonna be a while
Speaker 5: because even kids who are in middle school during the
Speaker 5: pandemic are you know, suffered pretty substantially when it comes
Speaker 5: to learning it. On the other hand, in order to
Speaker 5: make that decision, they would have to have some kind
Speaker 5: of automative technology that to replace them, because there's still
Speaker 5: work to do and they need somebody to.
Speaker 3: Do the work. Right. So if you're not hiring okay,
Speaker 3: the kids on on college, who are you hiring?
Speaker 5: You got to hire somebody or you got to get
Speaker 5: a machine to do it. So let's say it is
Speaker 5: the machines. Yeah, I do think we need to have
Speaker 5: that conversation because there is a world in which this
Speaker 5: is a great thing and people do people like those
Speaker 5: jobs suck, right, Like, nobody likes those jobs. You have
Speaker 5: to do the jobs to make money and to like
Speaker 5: rise rise up. But at the same time. You know,
Speaker 5: back in the eighteenth century, you had to work in
Speaker 5: the fields. Sucked working in the fields. And the Industrial
Speaker 5: Revolution cost millions of people their jobs, and people poured
Speaker 5: out of rural areas because it basically starved out of
Speaker 5: rural areas because they couldn't work there anymore, and came
Speaker 5: into the cities. Had terrible jobs in the cities for
Speaker 5: you know, many decades while they organized unions and organized
Speaker 5: outright revolutions overthrowing governments. But people's quality of life like
Speaker 5: gradually did improve. Like we're better off with washing machines
Speaker 5: and like you know and launcher, you know, than spending
Speaker 5: all of your day like down by the creek. So
Speaker 5: not having to do these terrible jobs, you could imagine.
Speaker 4: A better world.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well that's not with the political economy we have
Speaker 5: set up where all the games will.
Speaker 3: Go to the top exactly.
Speaker 2: Which is why I wanted to interview Aaron Then earlier
Speaker 2: this week, because he wrote the book Fully Automated Luxury Communism,
Speaker 2: which is this very techno optimist view he wrote around
Speaker 2: twenty seventeen eighteen, And one of the things he said
Speaker 2: to me is, like, what I got wrong is how
Speaker 2: fast it would develop, because everyone got that wrong. Everyone
Speaker 2: got wrong how much it would how fast it would develop.
Speaker 2: And he said, the other thing I got wrong was
Speaker 2: not taking into account the geopolitics and the way this
Speaker 2: would turn into this national contest for superiority between the
Speaker 2: US and China. And he's like, you know, he's in
Speaker 2: the UK. He's like, Europe is not even at the
Speaker 2: table here, Like, we don't even.
Speaker 3: Have a player in the game.
Speaker 2: The only two countries that have a player in the
Speaker 2: game are the US and China. But his book, which
Speaker 2: I do really recommend to people because it just at
Speaker 2: least it provides a grand vision and sometimes it's helpful
Speaker 2: to zoom out and have like a big picture like
Speaker 2: grand vision and the way that that changes you know,
Speaker 2: your the lens that you're seeing things through. But in
Speaker 2: any case, he's like, listen, we could embrace these technologies.
Speaker 2: But you know, in his world, it involves a sort
Speaker 2: of modern communism to make sure that it is not
Speaker 2: just a few trillionaires who are benefiting at the expense
Speaker 2: of everyone else. And there's just no doubt that the
Speaker 2: few trillionaires direction is the direction that we are rapidly
Speaker 2: careening towards. That is the path we're on without a
Speaker 2: dramatic rethink, and I personally would like to see some
Speaker 2: sort of like a you know, cooperation, like a non
Speaker 2: proliferation type of agreement between the US and China. I
Speaker 2: don't see any sign of that coming to fruition. I
Speaker 2: don't see any sign that there's going to be a hey,
Speaker 2: let's like pump the brakes here and freeze development where
Speaker 2: it's at and reckon with some of these problems. I
Speaker 2: don't see any of that happening. So the change in
Speaker 2: the social contract is going to have to come really quickly.
Speaker 2: And while it may only be theanthropic people who are
Speaker 2: saying who are floating real solutions and really sounding the
Speaker 2: alarm and saying, you guys are being lied to by
Speaker 2: industry and by the government about how quick this is changing.
Speaker 2: If you listen to Sam Altman, if you listen to
Speaker 2: any of these guys, I know, Bill Gates, Maids and
Speaker 2: cons theyy explicitly say our goal is to automate human
Speaker 2: labor out of existence, like they are upfront about it.
Speaker 2: They just don't really talk about what that's going to
Speaker 2: might be a handwave about that means we're going to
Speaker 2: have to change some things, but the actual urgency around
Speaker 2: grappling with that, I mean, that's nowhere, nowhere to be found.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 2: One other thing here that we can share, just as
Speaker 2: one more indication. Put you two up on the screen.
Speaker 2: This is computer science and math occupation down eight percent
Speaker 2: since twenty twenty two. This again could be related to
Speaker 2: AI and Ryan just closed with.
Speaker 5: On this block cuts against the kind of woke trauma
Speaker 5: argument because like, these aren't really the kids who are
Speaker 5: leading those.
Speaker 3: It's not the math department.
Speaker 4: Maybe what do I know, Maybe it is, could be I.
Speaker 2: Don't know, Yeah, but in any case, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: this is you know, one more potential indication here. There
Speaker 2: is an irony to the fact that in twenty sixteen
Speaker 2: we're having the like, oh, if your town got decimated
Speaker 2: by NAFTA, learn to code and now coding is already forget.
Speaker 2: I hope nobody took that advice exactly. Apparently dat Advance
Speaker 2: was actually involved in some like failed learn to code
Speaker 2: efforts in eastern Kentucky that didn't get nearly enough attention.
Speaker 2: But in any case, putting that to the side, learned
Speaker 2: to code was a parent really bad advice because coding
Speaker 2: is now also becoming.
Speaker 3: Very rapidly becoming obsolete.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess I'll learn to goal mind so that
Speaker 2: you can help fuel these AI centers. All right, last
Speaker 2: thing we got here, got to update you guys on
Speaker 2: the doings of the Tape brothers. Let's put this up
Speaker 2: on the screen. So they are now facing criminal charges.
Speaker 2: Both Tristan and Andrew are facing criminal charges in the
Speaker 2: UK twenty one charges. This is combined between the two
Speaker 2: of them. I'll just read you a little bit of
Speaker 2: the article here so I can make sure to get
Speaker 2: the details right. Prosecutors have confirmed for the first time
Speaker 2: the full list of twenty one charges Andrew and Tristan
Speaker 2: will face when they are returned to the UK. They
Speaker 2: are facing extradition from Romania, where they are currently being
Speaker 2: held and being investigated for similar series of charges. Those
Speaker 2: charges include rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking.
Speaker 3: The Crown Prosecution.
Speaker 2: Service said it had authorized the charges against the brothers
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four, before an extradition warrant was issued
Speaker 2: to bring them back from Romania. The two British Americans
Speaker 2: are under investigation in Romania, facing a number of charges
Speaker 2: which they deny. CPS said the domestic criminal matters in
Speaker 2: Romania must be settled first. Their charging decision in the
Speaker 2: UK came after they received a file of evidence from
Speaker 2: Bedfordshire Police about allegations made in the UK. So the
Speaker 2: ten counts here against Andrew Tate are connected to three
Speaker 2: alleged victims. They include rape, actual bodily harm, human trafficking,
Speaker 2: controlling prostitution for gain. Tristan faces eleven charges connected to
Speaker 2: one alleged victim, including rape, actual bodily harm and human trafficking.
Speaker 2: So that's where they are. They deny all the charges,
Speaker 2: just so you know. And obviously this pair, Andrew in particular,
Speaker 2: has become very significant in terms of American politics. There
Speaker 2: were some indications the administration denies it, but that they
Speaker 2: intervened in Romania to allow these two the ability to
Speaker 2: travel while they're under investigation in Romania, and they flew
Speaker 2: down to Florida. There was a huge conversation that happened
Speaker 2: on the right. We host did a critic of the
Speaker 2: Tats from the right, Ali BESTUCKI here to talk about this,
Speaker 2: and ultimately Ron de Santis basically threatened them with charges
Speaker 2: here in the US, and they decided that they would.
Speaker 3: Leave the country.
Speaker 2: But it is a bit of a fault line within
Speaker 2: the American right from what I can tell, because on
Speaker 2: the one hand, you have obviously, like the long time
Speaker 2: religious right coalition that Alibs Stucky is a representative of
Speaker 2: that traditional values quote unquote traditional family, very.
Speaker 3: Much at odds with the lifestyle.
Speaker 2: Even if you believe that they are not guilty of
Speaker 2: the crimes of which they've been accused, which there is
Speaker 2: significant evidence of, but even if you believe them, the
Speaker 2: lifestyle there is at best extremely degenerate. So there is
Speaker 2: a cultural clash there, one of the many schisms within
Speaker 2: the Trump coalition as it exists now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and these are apparently these appear to be related
Speaker 5: to civil cases that they're facing in the UK from
Speaker 5: four women I think this is three women went forward
Speaker 5: with these with these criminal charges. And there it's a
Speaker 5: complicated case because it involves coercion as as well as
Speaker 5: some physical abuse, you know, and you know, there's there's
Speaker 5: a grooming element that's that's involved here. That is that
Speaker 5: is also controversial on the right, where they're like they
Speaker 5: don't believe in that, They're like, if you've got groomed,
Speaker 5: that's on you like, if that's you know, that that's
Speaker 5: you know, you should you should have you should have
Speaker 5: known better, like these that these guys are creeps or
Speaker 5: something like. That's kind of like the tits counter argument
Speaker 5: there or there. And they're also say they their official
Speaker 5: statement is that everything was consensual and they they have
Speaker 5: done nothing wrong here.
Speaker 4: But yeah, they the Romani Romanians have said they.
Speaker 5: Will extradite them though to the UK after, but first
Speaker 5: they have to navigate the rest of these Romanian charges
Speaker 5: and sentences, if there, if there are any. So yeah,
Speaker 5: they they I don't know, they I don't know if
Speaker 5: they're cornered at this point or not, or if they're
Speaker 5: They're going to wait out the politics because if some
Speaker 5: you know, significant, you know, some significantly right wing government
Speaker 5: comes into power like these are the these are kind
Speaker 5: of charges that you could see becoming this political football.
Speaker 4: But they're also toxic for the right as well.
Speaker 5: They're in this difficult spot because they have so many
Speaker 5: millions of men who love these guys, right, uh, and
Speaker 5: many many millions of people who despise them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and even as there is a very clear schism
Speaker 2: between the religious right types and the you know manispheer
Speaker 2: types and you know, specifically the degenerate Tates andrew Dates
Speaker 2: of the world. There is some commonality there though, too,
Speaker 2: because one of the analyzes of the right is, you know, okay, who,
Speaker 2: why is your life not going the way that you
Speaker 2: want it to go? Not because of business, not because
Speaker 2: of inequality, it's because of immigrants, or it's because of
Speaker 2: trans people, or in this case, it's because of women.
Speaker 2: Women got like you know, feminism, they took the jobs.
Speaker 2: They're you know, crushing you and calling you toxic and
Speaker 2: you know, not allowing you to just be a guy.
Speaker 2: And and so both are aligned. Both the manisphere and
Speaker 2: the religious right are aligned in this project of like,
Speaker 2: maybe women shouldn't be the workforce so much, maybe women
Speaker 2: should you know, know their place a little bit more
Speaker 2: and make sure the man is taking the lead. And
Speaker 2: so it's even though it seems like an like odd
Speaker 2: coupling between these two coalitions, there is some ideological overlap
Speaker 2: there that you know, makes a somewhat coherent political project.
Speaker 4: That's true.
Speaker 2: So all right, well that's what we got for you
Speaker 2: guys in regard to the Tates. Keep your eye on
Speaker 2: that and all the other stories. Thank you guys so
Speaker 2: much for supporting the show and making the Friday shows possible.
Speaker 3: You're good for tomorrow Friday.
Speaker 4: I'm good for tomorrow.
Speaker 2: Emily's in, I'm in, So I'm not going to go
Speaker 2: golf this Friday. I'll stay away from the golf cart
Speaker 2: for a little while.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what a way to die?
Speaker 4: That would be?
Speaker 2: Oh my god, can you imagine? It's already so embarrassing,
Speaker 2: but like to die in such an embarrassing, humiliating way would.
Speaker 3: Be so terrible. That would suck. Yeah, So in any case,
Speaker 3: I love to tell the tale.
Speaker 2: My my face will recover one day and we will
Speaker 2: see you guys tomorrow for the Friday show.
Speaker 3: Have a great Thursday, then,