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 2: Let's talk about Fox News and this war on Christmas.
Speaker 2: So this is a fascinating one. You've got a Fox
Speaker 2: News anchor who is saying we all need to buy
Speaker 2: artificial Christmas trees to make room for the AI data
Speaker 2: centers because they're going to take over the real Christmas
Speaker 2: tree farms. Let's gohead and take a listen to this.
Speaker 3: This farm is one hundred and fifty acres. Yeah, they're
Speaker 3: going to be farms, be transmission lines that have to
Speaker 3: go through developments and farms. That's the very nature of
Speaker 3: a growing economy like that, everybody needs to get on board.
Speaker 1: I just don't.
Speaker 3: It's a you know what, buy a fake tree.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, digger right in my heart? What I have
Speaker 1: a fake tree coming time for this? I know I
Speaker 1: can't afford the tree.
Speaker 2: One can only imagine the executive orders and state mandated
Speaker 2: real Christmas trees that would arrive. If a lib said
Speaker 2: something equivalent O run MSNBC.
Speaker 1: You know what, I'll defend them. That would be a
Speaker 1: good executive order. It's a good thing. In fact. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm from Texas. I'm from Texas. We don't
Speaker 1: do real trees. Okay, right, it's not really a thing.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: Pretty much everybody has an artificier. Some people pay the extra.
Speaker 1: My wife feels very passionately about real Christmas trees, which
Speaker 1: were some original fights in our marriage. I have come
Speaker 1: to become a real tree guy. Real trees are good,
Speaker 1: and you know, it does get you a little bit
Speaker 1: more in the Christmas spirit. But more importantly about this
Speaker 1: whole data center buying artificial trees. This is a perfect
Speaker 1: example of what we've talked about with the mindset around AI,
Speaker 1: which is you need to personally sacrifice so that the
Speaker 1: slop can continue so that you need to personally sacrifice,
Speaker 1: not just monetarily, but let's say the human experience putting
Speaker 1: up a tree in your house, you know, having fun
Speaker 1: with your children, decorating that, so that we can have
Speaker 1: this impersonal technology which the CEOs say is going to
Speaker 1: take their job and to rip even more of that
Speaker 1: away from us. I actually can't think of a better
Speaker 1: kind of clip to that encapsulates that and what worshiping
Speaker 1: GDP really looks like, because that's what it is. That
Speaker 1: that is the explicit kind of view of what that
Speaker 1: means and of what people hold dear and why being
Speaker 1: you know, an anti AI disposition is so increasingly popular
Speaker 1: in American politics today.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, absolutely, I mean that's what they're saying, is like,
Speaker 2: we need to change our lives and our traditions to
Speaker 2: make way we need to adjust for the AI revolution
Speaker 2: that is here that is not really meant to benefit
Speaker 2: us at all. It's all to enrich and consolidate power
Speaker 2: in the hands of a very few number of people.
Speaker 2: I do have some good news on the AI front, however,
Speaker 2: Kirson Cinema, who is a former senator and cartoon villain.
Speaker 2: She has gone from being in the Senate to now
Speaker 2: being a lobbyist for AI data centers. She was pushing
Speaker 2: one in this one particular Arizona town and they overwhelmingly,
Speaker 2: i think unanimously the city council voted it down. But
Speaker 2: in any case, she was also welcomed onto Fox and
Speaker 2: Friends to make the case for AI data centers and
Speaker 2: how they are actually more eco friendly than they were
Speaker 2: in the past.
Speaker 5: SoC let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 6: As you know, there's this massive effort kind of on
Speaker 6: the left to kind of come into communities and give
Speaker 6: misinformation around water and energy and AI data centers, and
Speaker 6: that's a lot of misinformation. This administration is doing a
Speaker 6: good job of telling the truth, creating more energy domestically,
Speaker 6: the National Energy Dominance Council doing a whole of government
Speaker 6: approach to ensure that we're creating our own natural gas,
Speaker 6: our own nuclear to power the future. We're actually using
Speaker 6: less water with AI Data centers and in the past.
Speaker 6: So that communication is bringing people together who just want efficient, proactive,
Speaker 6: good lives where their kids have a better life than
Speaker 6: they had. So this is I think a really important
Speaker 6: issue that has nothing to do with partisanship.
Speaker 2: So keep in mind again this lady is paid to
Speaker 2: utter this absolute garbled nonsense. The fact that she can
Speaker 2: go up there with a straight face and be like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is all good for American energy production, Like we
Speaker 2: have looked the way the grid is already being strained
Speaker 2: by the power usage of these AI data centers. And
Speaker 2: I also find it very interesting saga that she is
Speaker 2: framing this as a partisan issue, that oh, it's all
Speaker 2: these left wing people who are coming in and telling
Speaker 2: you bad things about the AI data centers, while the
Speaker 2: President is telling you the truth that this is a
Speaker 2: good thing for the American economy, etc. Because the reality is,
Speaker 2: as we've covered here extensively, you know, if you look
Speaker 2: at the Georgia elections, if you look at the Virginia elections,
Speaker 2: if you look at local opposition to AI data centers
Speaker 2: being located here, it is very cross ideological and there
Speaker 2: is not a clear left right divide here. So that's
Speaker 2: something that clearly she and whoever's paying her are trying
Speaker 2: to push.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it's the Christen Cinema thing. It's just
Speaker 1: too much. And I think what everybody can appreciate now
Speaker 1: is how overtly corrupt so much of this is you
Speaker 1: have not only the I mean, this is an X
Speaker 1: senator who took multiple votes on behalf of big industry,
Speaker 1: which we covered here at the time, left in order
Speaker 1: to personally enrich herself. I mean, and you know, by
Speaker 1: the way, there was all this debate they were like,
Speaker 1: does she really believe this a shimatt. It's like, no,
Speaker 1: she just wanted to get I mean, it looks like
Speaker 1: she just wanted to get paid right in terms of
Speaker 1: her advocacy, and now she's like pro Trump now hilariously
Speaker 1: for big business reasons. I just want to put it
Speaker 1: all together just to show how corrupt so much of
Speaker 1: this is. I recently flagged this. I was reading through
Speaker 1: you know, I took interest in this de banking conversation.
Speaker 1: I think the conversation at in d banking is important.
Speaker 1: We've talked about Lefang with this before. There were legitimate
Speaker 1: instances of political deep banking that happened, which are really
Speaker 1: concerning at a free speech level. These were weaponized by
Speaker 1: the tech guys who started saying that depbanking happened in
Speaker 1: order to loosen restrictions around their industry. Famously, we had
Speaker 1: the Mark Andresen moment on Joe Rogan, but there are
Speaker 1: many others. We had Mark Zuckerberg and others for pro
Speaker 1: crypto interests. And again I think there are real concerns
Speaker 1: around industry specific for politics. But I could not get
Speaker 1: over as I was reading this new D Banking report
Speaker 1: only weirdos like me. This is the Office of the
Speaker 1: Comptroller from the Treasury, so they did a nine month investigation.
Speaker 1: They're going to look into who's getting D banked and
Speaker 1: you would be amazed to find that this new D
Speaker 1: Banking report signals out not just crypto and other industries,
Speaker 1: but pornography. Let's go ahead and put this up here
Speaker 1: on the screen. The OCC's preliminary finding show that between
Speaker 1: twenty and twenty twenty three, nine banks made inappropriate distinctions
Speaker 1: among customers in the division of financial services on the
Speaker 1: basis of lawful business activities by maintaining policies restricting access
Speaker 1: to banking services or requiring escalating reviews and approvals. Sectors
Speaker 1: subjected to restricted access included oil and gas, coal mining, firearms,
Speaker 1: private prisons, tobacco, eas cigarets, manufacturers, adult entertainment, and digital assets.
Speaker 1: Now let's stick with porn and with crypto. You know,
Speaker 1: there's this idea that these banks are ideologically opposed to
Speaker 1: porn and to crypto. These are some of the greediest
Speaker 1: people in the world. You think they don't want to
Speaker 1: take their money. Do you know why they don't want
Speaker 1: to take their money with crypto? They're worried about KYC
Speaker 1: Know your Customer laws and specifically money laundering, which they
Speaker 1: have a legal mandate not to to help prevent and
Speaker 1: to help report to the FBI or to the US
Speaker 1: authorities on porn. It's the same thing what the banks
Speaker 1: suddenly grew a conscience. Do you think that that's the
Speaker 1: banks are like, oh, my only fans, we can't be
Speaker 1: taking their money, or the banks are looking at human
Speaker 1: trafficking laws and at revenge porn laws, and at the
Speaker 1: internal enforcement of these gigantic conglomerates which are addicting all
Speaker 1: of these American men and which are flagrantly in violation
Speaker 1: of multiple trafficking laws on the books right now to
Speaker 1: help prevent women who are being exploited posted online international
Speaker 1: rings which are profiting to the tune of billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: and are like, yeah, we can't take their money because
Speaker 1: to do so would actually be a violation, specifically of
Speaker 1: trying to protect all of these girls, of which these
Speaker 1: laws were passed on their behalf. Maybe it's the latter.
Speaker 1: And so the Trump administration here taking significant pressure from
Speaker 1: the porn industry and others, which again are salivating at
Speaker 1: the idea of access to the legitimate banking system, and
Speaker 1: now effectively pressuring our largest financial institutions to basically take
Speaker 1: their money and look the other way. I can't think
Speaker 1: of anything worse. You know. Look, you know, tobacco, fine, whatever,
Speaker 1: I get it. You know, that's one of those where
Speaker 1: you know, I think tobacco is horrible smoking. Obviously, it
Speaker 1: kills a lot of people, the industry, et cetera. That's
Speaker 1: one which again I get not wanting, you know, especially
Speaker 1: with lawsuits and everything, you don't necessarily want to be
Speaker 1: connected to that. But with pornography and with crypto, like
Speaker 1: we said, the banks don't care about conscience. They're doing
Speaker 1: it for a reason. It's not ideological, it's.
Speaker 2: Not even I mean, these banks were happy to do
Speaker 2: business with like after de commission because the money was green.
Speaker 2: They're like, yes, let's do the deals. It's fine. We
Speaker 2: don't care like we're going to continue to hang out
Speaker 2: with him. We've had more and more reporting about that.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's not like they're out here being some
Speaker 2: like good lefties like we're gonna, you know, not work
Speaker 2: with the And it is interesting to me, uh, going
Speaker 2: back to the Mark Andresen Rogan appearance, and just to
Speaker 2: remind people, he used the conservative perception and probably a
Speaker 2: time it was like legitimate, legitimate reality that there was
Speaker 2: ideological debanking to then launch a war on the Consumer
Speaker 2: Financial Protection Bureau, which had actually stood up Rogi Chopra,
Speaker 2: who was ahead of that agency, stood up against ideological debanking.
Speaker 2: But they he found it to be a useful construct.
Speaker 2: And then even some of the examples that he offered
Speaker 2: that he was like, oh, this person was de banked
Speaker 2: just because they're like a conservative and they like Trump,
Speaker 2: and then you dig one layer Dee burn and it's
Speaker 2: like or maybe they were committing like scams and fraud.
Speaker 2: I think people need to really remember, especially crypto is
Speaker 2: rife with all kinds of scams and rug poles and
Speaker 2: fraud and money laundering, Like none of it's being prosecuted
Speaker 2: anymore under the Trump administration.
Speaker 5: But that has been the reality of crypto.
Speaker 2: So there have been very good reasons why banks would
Speaker 2: look a scance and not want to get involved with
Speaker 2: some of these sorts of things. So it's a classic
Speaker 2: playbook that they have used. David Sachs did this too
Speaker 2: in his defenseive AI of them like completely deregulating AI.
Speaker 2: They take a culture war issue and they frame it
Speaker 2: in a way to protect like a pro oligarch agenda.
Speaker 2: And so that's a lot of what's going on here
Speaker 2: as well. You remember David Sachs and his tweet he
Speaker 2: was talking about like, oh, if you don't want to
Speaker 2: black George Washington, then we've got to make sure States
Speaker 2: can never regulate AI and we could just do whatever
Speaker 2: we want to do. So you know, similar kind of
Speaker 2: bait and switch going on here as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, these culture war stuff, you know, in absence of
Speaker 1: big arguments around here. By the way, again, like I
Speaker 1: said on AI, I've never had more pushback from the
Speaker 1: White House. It's kind of fascinating. I enjoy arguing with
Speaker 1: them about it. There is a legitimate view about the
Speaker 1: AI States thing. I don't agree with it necessarily, but
Speaker 1: I'm telling you right now, this porn thing, there's no
Speaker 1: defense one hundred percent. It's being pushed by the industry.
Speaker 1: It's just like weed I talked about yesterday. You can
Speaker 1: defend weed rescheduling all you want, and if it was
Speaker 1: done through a real process, I would look, I would
Speaker 1: fight it, but I would I'd be like, okay, so
Speaker 1: be it. But this is literally because the White House
Speaker 1: tea the staff were about to talk about was hired
Speaker 1: by a weed company whenever she was outside of office
Speaker 1: and then brought that former client to the Oval office
Speaker 1: who has billions of dollars at stake and whose stock
Speaker 1: massively profited. That's it. That's the only reason that this happened.
Speaker 1: Because a bunch of multimillionaires hired pro Trump X campaign officials,
Speaker 1: donated or and or hired to the Trump campaign and
Speaker 1: then got their way to the Oval and then did
Speaker 1: a corrupt deal in order to get it done. Like
Speaker 1: that's it. It's the same thing here with porn. It's
Speaker 1: because I mean, also, you know, you kind of have
Speaker 1: to understand if you're saying banks should disregard KYC regulations
Speaker 1: whenever it comes to you know, like crypto and others,
Speaker 1: then you know, oh, okay, well it is kind of difficult.
Speaker 1: Let's say, to apply it to the pornography industry for
Speaker 1: them in general. They want to make it as easy
Speaker 1: as possible for all of these vice industries to do business.
Speaker 1: I think that's disgusting in an era where the very
Speaker 1: basics of life have never been more on affordable or
Speaker 1: unattainable for a lot of younger people, and that these
Speaker 1: are the very things which are destroying them from the
Speaker 1: inside out. And you know, this is a big talk
Speaker 1: from the administration which cares about Christianity or moral purpose
Speaker 1: or any of that. I have never seen a more
Speaker 1: socially libertarian administry, Not even the Biden administration did shit
Speaker 1: like this. Let's go to C four, you know, just again,
Speaker 1: just to give you an example, Trump is now considering
Speaker 1: wiping federal gambling winnings taxes. Let me explain something again.
Speaker 1: There's no such thing as gambling winnings. Only four per
Speaker 1: They did a study one hundred of thousands people who
Speaker 1: did sports betting. Four percent of people had a profit
Speaker 1: after five years four percent, ninety six percent. You're gonna lose,
Speaker 1: You're a loser, one hundred percent. Now, all this will
Speaker 1: do is give casinos and sports betting companies free advertising. Saying,
Speaker 1: by the way, when you have this parlay which you're
Speaker 1: definitely going to hit. It will also be tax free.
Speaker 1: It is a gig gigantic giveaway and brand you know
Speaker 1: benefit to these gambling it's so repulsive, like loosening restrictions
Speaker 1: on weed, porn, gamble. It's literally like they're personally attacking me.
Speaker 1: But look, this is not this isn't about me, Okay
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, like you can live
Speaker 1: your life the way that you want. But but and
Speaker 1: this is just my opinion. I think that the government
Speaker 1: should not make it easier easier for multi billion dollar
Speaker 1: industries to corrupt you, to corrupt the people around you,
Speaker 1: to corrupt your community. The point of the government of
Speaker 1: our society is to promote human flourishing. There's nothing about
Speaker 1: this which does any of that. All it does is
Speaker 1: vastly enriched people who wake up every single day thinking
Speaker 1: about how to milk you for as much money as possible.
Speaker 1: Those people are my enemies.
Speaker 2: The gambling thing is crazy because it comes to a
Speaker 2: moment too when I think there's increasing recognition of like,
Speaker 2: oh this this is a disaster, right, this is a problem.
Speaker 5: You know. There, we've got a major issue with addiction.
Speaker 2: We've got a major issue with people who are you know,
Speaker 2: giving all their life save and betting on whether it's
Speaker 2: boarding events. Now we've got you know, CNN making a
Speaker 2: deal with the betting companies you bet on literally everything.
Speaker 2: All these scandals coming out about insider trading and rigging
Speaker 2: the markets, all that sort of stuff. And you know,
Speaker 2: in the past, when we've had things that society is
Speaker 2: considered to be like a vice or behavior, they want
Speaker 2: to discourage, but they don't want to outright ban. Oftentimes
Speaker 2: what you do is you actually tax it, you make
Speaker 2: it more expensive, or you make it more difficult. Here,
Speaker 2: you're going in the opposite direction, Like instead of doing
Speaker 2: a vice tax, you're doing like a vice text credit,
Speaker 2: you're doing like a vice encouragement, actively trying to funnel
Speaker 2: people into something that we know is fundamentally rigged, exploitative, predatory,
Speaker 2: and damaging. So yeah, I mean, you know, come get
Speaker 2: your Christian nationalists. This is it is really pretty wild
Speaker 2: what's going on here. But it's the whole administration, the
Speaker 2: core foundation. There are no foundational principles outside of just
Speaker 2: like a money grop, I mean, that's what it is.
Speaker 2: It's just like a heist. They are taking everything that's
Speaker 2: not nailed down. Everybody's in it for their own bag.
Speaker 2: Like you know, even the foreign policy is run for
Speaker 2: a bunch of oligarchs. Bag the domestic policy, the economy
Speaker 2: is run for them. That's the whole thing. And so
Speaker 2: you know the fact that the gambling and the poor
Speaker 2: industry and whatever getting their seats at the table and
Speaker 2: getting their taste no surprise.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, all right, guys, I think we all talked a
Speaker 1: little bit too much. So we're going to have to
Speaker 1: go to Susie Wiles before we welcome our friend Juan
Speaker 1: David Rojas. Turning now to Susie Wilds. This just broke
Speaker 1: this morning. We had to add this in. This is
Speaker 1: one of the craziest interviews by a senior White House
Speaker 1: official I have ever seen in my life, in any
Speaker 1: other White House, any other time, normal time. She's getting
Speaker 1: fired today under this president who knows. Let's put this
Speaker 1: up here on the screen. This is a New York
Speaker 1: Times write up of a multi page interview that Susie
Speaker 1: Wiles has been sitting with Vanity Fair for over the
Speaker 1: last year, in which she gets candid about the entire
Speaker 1: Trump presidency admits that many of the things that the
Speaker 1: White House set are lies, admits that Elon is using ketamine.
Speaker 1: She criticizes the president. She says that the vice president
Speaker 1: is a conspiracy theorist who his conversion to away from
Speaker 1: never trump Ism was political. She says Trump has an
Speaker 1: alcoholic personality. So let me read from the New York
Speaker 1: Times write up of this lengthy vanity fair profile. President
Speaker 1: Trump's chief of staff said she tried to get him
Speaker 1: to end his score settling against political enemies after ninety
Speaker 1: days in office, but acknowledged the administration still ongoing push
Speaker 1: for prosecutions has been fueled in part by the President's
Speaker 1: desire for retribution. So number one, the mortgage fraud case
Speaker 1: against Letitia James or against James Comy, all of that,
Speaker 1: it's not about the case, it's political retribution from the president.
Speaker 1: She just tweeted it out. That's an old meme from
Speaker 1: the twenty tens. Is just tweeting out what you know,
Speaker 1: as journalists, we've been working on this story, trying to
Speaker 1: prove that this is the true reason why Trump is
Speaker 1: doing this, even though yes, it's obvious we need evidence,
Speaker 1: and now we have the White House chief of staff
Speaker 1: He's like, oh yeah, He's doing it for political retribution purposes.
Speaker 1: That's what these prosecutions are about. Okay, let's sit with that.
Speaker 1: Let's sit with that as we continue again for over
Speaker 1: eleven interviews that she's given the Vice president, she said,
Speaker 1: quote has been a conspiracy theorist for a decade. His
Speaker 1: conversion from Trump critic to ally was based on, on principle,
Speaker 1: what was sort of political. Elon Musk is an avowed
Speaker 1: ketamine user in odd duck whose actions were not always
Speaker 1: rational and left her quote aghast Russ's vote the budget
Speaker 1: director quote is a right wing absolute zealot, and the
Speaker 1: Attorney General Pambondi quote completely whiffed in handling of the
Speaker 1: Epstein files. She continued, by the way, to say about Venezuela,
Speaker 1: this is my personal favorite. She said here about the boats,
Speaker 1: that the policy of the United States is that or
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump is to quote blow up as many
Speaker 1: boats as possible until Maduro decides to leave office. That's
Speaker 1: what she said. So admitting none of this is about drugs,
Speaker 1: it's not about fentanyl, which is all bullshit and which
Speaker 1: again I knew that I've been saying that here. But
Speaker 1: to have the White House Chief of Staff just come
Speaker 1: out and be like, oh, yeah, yeah, it's all fake
Speaker 1: and it's about regime change. Ok. Thank you, thank you,
Speaker 1: Madam Susie Wiles. You know, I mean continuing here. Describing
Speaker 1: Trump as an alcoholic personality with respect to quote operates
Speaker 1: with the view that there's nothing he can't do. That's
Speaker 1: not usually something I would describe as an alcoholic. But okay,
Speaker 1: she said, so much of her job revolves around the
Speaker 1: president's personality and stream of consciousness public comments. She said
Speaker 1: that during the whole tariffs thing that the Vice President
Speaker 1: jad Vance was sent into convince Trump to pump the
Speaker 1: brakes on tariffs, and she said that there was a
Speaker 1: huge disagreement that they were deciding. People were predicting disaster
Speaker 1: on usaid. She thinks no rational person could think the
Speaker 1: USAID process was a good one. Nobody. I mean, the
Speaker 1: whole thing is crazy and we're just scratching the surface.
Speaker 1: I haven't even been able to I haven't been able
Speaker 1: to get even all of them just yet, what these
Speaker 1: comments are. But trashing the cabinet admitting the Epstein files
Speaker 1: is a huge problem. Says she can't understand why Gleane
Speaker 1: Maxwell was moved to a different prison, says that the
Speaker 1: Epstein files was mishandled says that Venezuela is really all
Speaker 1: about regime change, that usaid was a disaster, that she
Speaker 1: was a keep in mind, you know, part of why
Speaker 1: this is so crazy is it's not just about telling
Speaker 1: the truth. This White House, her employee, Caroline Leavitt took
Speaker 1: to the podium to defend every single part of this
Speaker 1: bullshit at the time, as the official part of the admitted,
Speaker 1: and she's admitting that in private. Oh my god, we
Speaker 1: were a gas by it. We were disgusted. We tried
Speaker 1: to move off of this policy. The prosecutions are political.
Speaker 1: I mean, how is that going to play in court?
Speaker 1: How is this going to play if this is a
Speaker 1: true court? James comy, congratulations, you just got acquitted, all right,
Speaker 1: Letitia James who they've tried to indict what three more times?
Speaker 5: Great times from a grand.
Speaker 1: Jury and can't get it. Yeah, good luck, you know,
Speaker 1: to the prosecutors who are trying to do this. It's
Speaker 1: just so crazy. I have never seen anything like this
Speaker 1: in my entire time covering Washington.
Speaker 5: Ever, it is wild.
Speaker 2: Let me read and she, by the way, undercut a
Speaker 2: number of other policies. She talked about how they mean
Speaker 2: to be more careful with deportations. She said she did
Speaker 2: not agree with pardoning the violent January sixth ers, that
Speaker 2: she pushed to just do the nonviolent ones and was overruled. There,
Speaker 2: So all kinds of the like most like core and
Speaker 2: controversial Trump two point zero policies. She's effectively undercutting here
Speaker 2: everything from the day one j six rioters pardons up
Speaker 2: into Venezuela, where she's just giving the game away, that
Speaker 2: the blowing up of the bots isn't about drugs, it's
Speaker 2: about regime change. On the political retribution piece, let me
Speaker 2: read a little bit of this, so she said, quote,
Speaker 2: we have a loose agreement that the score settling will
Speaker 2: end before the first ninety days are over, she said
Speaker 2: at the time when that did not happen. By August,
Speaker 2: she told mister Whipple that I don't think he's on
Speaker 2: a retribution tour, but said that Trump was aiming at
Speaker 2: people who did bad things and coming after him. In
Speaker 2: some cases it may look like retribution, and there may
Speaker 2: be an element of that from time to time.
Speaker 5: Who would blame him, not me? And so in terms
Speaker 5: of just.
Speaker 2: Actual real world impact, yeah, any of those court cases,
Speaker 2: Tisha James, James, call me Eric Swallwell, Adam Schiff. There's
Speaker 2: been all sorts of talk about people that are going
Speaker 2: to go after on this mortgage fraud bullshit. Those cases
Speaker 2: will all be undercut today extent that they had any
Speaker 2: likes to begin with, by this overt admission from the
Speaker 2: Chief of Staff that yes, these are political. This is
Speaker 2: about retribution, that's what he's doing. So that in and
Speaker 2: of itself is wild to undercut jd Vance. Trump may
Speaker 2: not really care that much about that, but to say,
Speaker 2: you know, oh yeah, of course he converted to trump
Speaker 2: Ism because it was.
Speaker 5: Political, which is obvious.
Speaker 2: But you know, here you've got the Chief of Staff
Speaker 2: acknowledging what everybody could see the reality in front of
Speaker 2: their eyes, calling him a conspiracy theorist, talking about Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: drug use, all of it. I mean, yeah, it's pretty wild.
Speaker 2: And the other thing about this saga is the White
Speaker 2: House participated with all of this, like this was authorized.
Speaker 2: I mean there's a big, like glossy photo shoot involved
Speaker 2: with a bunch of different administration officials. Other officials spoke
Speaker 2: to this reporter as well, So this was all this
Speaker 2: whole project. This whole write up was greenlit by the administration,
Speaker 2: even though you know, I would be very so prize
Speaker 2: if they knew the extent of what Susie Wiles was
Speaker 2: saying here.
Speaker 1: No, they didn't know. I can already my phone's it's
Speaker 1: pinging a little bit here right now. Yeah, I'll just
Speaker 1: I'll just leave it at that. In terms of what
Speaker 1: people around Washington, including people who are I mean, here's
Speaker 1: the thing. It's an unspoken rule here in DC when
Speaker 1: you work for somebody, you never make yourself the story.
Speaker 1: Never so the White House chief of staff, many chiefs
Speaker 1: of staff, you know, to presidents and others, they don't
Speaker 1: sit for interviews. Why because your job is to execute
Speaker 1: the agenda of the president. You're never supposed to be
Speaker 1: the main character. Ever, that's the job of the principle.
Speaker 1: I know this sounds like kind of servile, but like
Speaker 1: in a certain way, like that's the job, right, That's
Speaker 1: what you do as a staffer. And so for sitting
Speaker 1: for eleven interviews here, eleven interviews and just letting loose
Speaker 1: about your thoughts about how Pam Bondi's an idiot, she
Speaker 1: said completely whift on Epstein. I mean, if the White
Speaker 1: House Chief of Staff thinks this, How can we as
Speaker 1: citizens have any confidence in our government if the White
Speaker 1: House Chief of Staff is openly saying that what the
Speaker 1: President is saying is a lie, Is that many cabinet
Speaker 1: members are idiots or incompetent? Is that doge which was
Speaker 1: held up as a central pillar of the administration there
Speaker 1: at the time, what she was quote aghast by it?
Speaker 1: First of all, what are you doing in that job? Lady?
Speaker 1: What are you even doing? If you think this you
Speaker 1: should leave right? What does it say about you that
Speaker 1: you think all of this and that you're sticking around
Speaker 1: to quote do something about it because you're obviously you're
Speaker 1: not doing a very good job. You actually don't have
Speaker 1: that much influence if that's what you think that you're doing.
Speaker 1: And then second, yeah, I just I cannot get over
Speaker 1: how you can just openly admit so many things which
Speaker 1: again we all know are true. But there is a
Speaker 1: difference legally, first of all, in a court of law
Speaker 1: to say that you have a political prosecution. But second,
Speaker 1: like on regime change, that's got to be one of
Speaker 1: the most consequential policies of the entire Trump administration. And
Speaker 1: to just come out and be like, our flimsy bullshit
Speaker 1: pretext is in fact, the bullshit is amazing. I mean
Speaker 1: it's shocking to the cares well.
Speaker 2: And that's something in a future administration if you've got
Speaker 2: Democrats in control, like people need to think about the
Speaker 2: you know, potential prosecutions they clearly are worried about, like
Speaker 2: with the double tap strike, whether that was legal or not. Obviously,
Speaker 2: like I think the whole thing is illegal, but they
Speaker 2: clearly got nervous about that as well, judging by the reaction.
Speaker 2: So when you have her coming out and publicly undercutting
Speaker 2: the bullshit legal pretext that they've been using, Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: that's a big problem for Pete Hegseth. That's a big
Speaker 2: problem for that admiral what was it, Admiral Bradley who
Speaker 2: was kind of thrown under the bus. That's a big
Speaker 2: problem for all of the seals that were involved in
Speaker 2: this policy.
Speaker 5: It's that's a big issue.
Speaker 2: Let me read the part of the Epstein portion, because
Speaker 2: this is pretty wild too. So this is about Pam Bondi.
Speaker 2: She also gets into Trump a little bit with regard
Speaker 2: to Epstein. So, as you mentioned before, Soccercy says, I
Speaker 2: think Bondi completely whipped, appreciating that that was very targeted
Speaker 2: group that cared about this. First she gave them binders
Speaker 2: full of nothingness. Then she said the witness list or
Speaker 2: the client list was on her desk. There is no
Speaker 2: client list, and it's sure as hell wasn't on her desk.
Speaker 2: Mister Vance, by contrast, she said, understood the sensitivity because
Speaker 2: he himself was a conspiracy theorist. She said so again,
Speaker 2: saying directly, when Pam Bondi told you that this was
Speaker 2: on her desk, she was lying, there is no client list.
Speaker 2: It's sure as hell was not on her desk. That
Speaker 2: is what she had to say about that. And then
Speaker 2: she says that she has read the Epstein documents and
Speaker 2: acknowledged Trump's name is in them. Quote, we know he's
Speaker 2: in the file, and he's not in the file doing
Speaker 2: anything awful. Nothing awful, Sager. So rest easy there. But
Speaker 2: neither apparently, this is one more part on this. Neither
Speaker 2: apparently is Bill Clinton. Asked about Trump's claims going back
Speaker 2: years that Clinton had visited the Epstein island as well,
Speaker 2: said there is no evidence. Asked if there's incriminating evidence
Speaker 2: about Clinton and the files as Trump has suggested. She
Speaker 2: says the President was wrong about that. So she's saying
Speaker 2: Trump is lying. Trump is in the files but not
Speaker 2: doing anything awful, and that he is lying about what
Speaker 2: the files contained with regard to Bill Clinton.
Speaker 1: It's so crazy, man, I truly have never seen anything
Speaker 1: like this. The last interview that was anything remotely comparable,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, was maybe Steve Bannon in the first
Speaker 1: hundred Days where he openly trashed Jared Kushner and other
Speaker 1: members of the administration. Who was it to the American Prospect?
Speaker 1: Is that right? It was some like kind of.
Speaker 5: Left It was like New York magazine.
Speaker 1: No, it was a lefty magazine.
Speaker 2: I remember Near Magazine is kind of lefty. But anyway,
Speaker 2: I don't remember exactly, but yeah.
Speaker 1: There was that. But honestly, like Stan McCrystal, he was
Speaker 1: the general in charge of Afghanistan at the time, and
Speaker 1: Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone journalist, ended up being delayed
Speaker 1: and McCrystal, what did he say about Obama? He said
Speaker 1: he was an idiot something like that. I had some
Speaker 1: comment about Obama where he was like, he's dumb. Uh
Speaker 1: published it and he was immediately fired. But that was
Speaker 1: in the old rules. I don't know if that's going
Speaker 1: to happen now. I have no idea I have. I mean,
Speaker 1: how could you ever enter a cabinet meeting again when
Speaker 1: I mean Susie Wilds, who I guess is one of
Speaker 1: your technically kind of your boss, is out there just
Speaker 1: trashing you, uh in the public. It's amazing, But that's
Speaker 1: the world we live in. Is Cash Patel sitting for
Speaker 1: interviews about his love life with Stephen Miller's wife, who's
Speaker 1: dressed casually for some reason. This entire thing, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know what is happening to this uh, to
Speaker 1: this government. But yeah, we're being confederacy and I don't
Speaker 1: even have work. I'm literally speechless. How retarded this is.
Speaker 1: It's crazy. It's fucking crazy.
Speaker 2: So you have the chief of staff, so this is
Speaker 2: not live trust arrangement, Trump's chief of staff saying he's
Speaker 2: lying about the Epstein files, Pam Bondi was lying about
Speaker 2: the Epstein files, that she disagrees with the deportation approach,
Speaker 2: the USAID approach, that Elon Musk, who was handed the
Speaker 2: keys to the whole freaking government, is a drug addict,
Speaker 2: that russ vote who still has the keys. The whole
Speaker 2: government is a right wing ID love that the vice
Speaker 2: president is a conspiracy theorist. I mean, what more could
Speaker 2: you possibly get into this series of interviews.
Speaker 5: It's pretty wild. I don't know.
Speaker 2: I mean, I have to think that there would be
Speaker 2: some like, there has to be some blowback for this.
Speaker 2: I mean, especially the parts where she says things about Trump,
Speaker 2: in particular that he's lying and that she disagreed with
Speaker 2: him on the J six pardons and you know, the
Speaker 2: undercutting of the Venezuela policy. That's a live, active, very significant,
Speaker 2: serious issue, and here she is just like giving the
Speaker 2: game away on that one.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It's very different from my impression of her, Like I
Speaker 2: didn't know anything about her, but it seemed like she
Speaker 2: was just this very we haven't heard from her that
Speaker 2: she is very like disciplined and buttoned up.
Speaker 5: This is the total opposite of that.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, maybe everything Trump everyone turns into a
Speaker 1: narcissist around Trump. I guess you know that's possible, asked.
Speaker 2: I also wonder how hill you know he's he's very
Speaker 2: against alcohol at.
Speaker 1: All right being described.
Speaker 2: I also wonder how he'll react to being characterized as
Speaker 2: having the personality of an alcoholic.
Speaker 1: His brother that will land with him. Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: go over, No man, all right, more consequential news. We
Speaker 1: got Juanda vid Rojas standing by to talk about Chile.
Speaker 1: Let's get to it. Turning now to our friend Juanda
Speaker 1: vid Rojas, who joins us live to discuss the most
Speaker 1: recent elections in Chile, who have elected a new right
Speaker 1: wing president, Jose Antonio cast by nearly twenty point margin one.
Speaker 1: Our excellent analyst of all things Latin America joins us
Speaker 1: to break down. Good to see you man, Thanks for
Speaker 1: having guys. Absolutely so let's put this up here on
Speaker 1: the screen. Why the Chilean left fail you discuss some
Speaker 1: of the policies over the last five years, some of
Speaker 1: the rise here of Jose Antonio coast about how exactly
Speaker 1: this all came to be. Why don't you break some
Speaker 1: of it down for us and maybe what it means
Speaker 1: for the region and if anything, for the United States.
Speaker 4: So gust he's you know, he's been called far right,
Speaker 4: like ultra conservative. He's very conservative. He is an apologist
Speaker 4: for the Pinochet dictatorship, which for decades after the dictatorship
Speaker 4: of people on the right tried to like distance some
Speaker 4: distance themselves from the former dictator. And actually the first
Speaker 4: like few presidents after the dictatorship were all like center left.
Speaker 4: It was only until Seast I think in like twenty ten,
Speaker 4: who was like the first conservative when he was like
Speaker 4: tried to distance himself from the dictatorship. Cost is like
Speaker 4: he says that, like, you know, he condemns the human
Speaker 4: rights abuses, but that you know, his legacy and especially
Speaker 4: Pinochet's economic legacy were great. His brother actually was one
Speaker 4: of the Chicago boys that advised Pinochet and like installing
Speaker 4: this neoliberal model. The country is known as like the
Speaker 4: cradle of neoliberalism. And so his brother, Migekas, actually served
Speaker 4: as the president of Chile Central Bank during the dictatorship.
Speaker 4: And so you know, there's a lot of polarization around this.
Speaker 4: People on the left will say that, you know, will
Speaker 4: condemn the human rights abuses and like a lot of
Speaker 4: the legacy of the economic policies, and people on the
Speaker 4: right will say, oh, look, but we had this great
Speaker 4: economic growth afterwards and this kind of this kind of
Speaker 4: flaws and some of these arguments. So that's a bit
Speaker 4: of the rundown for the moment for the United States.
Speaker 4: Cost Almost all right wingers in Latin America, you could
Speaker 4: describe them as neo conservatives. They worshiped the United States.
Speaker 4: They hate Russia, China, I run blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 4: This guy like is going to be really good for
Speaker 4: the current administration. He loves me. Lay a lot of
Speaker 4: like posting after the election was showing how like geographically
Speaker 4: the continent of South the South America is like divided
Speaker 4: along the middle between right and left governments, and Melay,
Speaker 4: what he did is that he posted like the the
Speaker 4: like western half that are like conservative governments, this like
Speaker 4: tech bro like futurism stuff with like skyscrapers, and then
Speaker 4: the leftist governments are a bunch of like Brazilian favollas.
Speaker 4: So that's to give you an idea.
Speaker 5: Got it, gotcha.
Speaker 2: So they're they're excited about like the prospera type ification
Speaker 2: of those countries.
Speaker 4: So yeah, that's a good way of putting it.
Speaker 2: So his his brother was a Chicago School neoliberal economic
Speaker 2: adjustment austerity guy. Dad was a Nazi. He's a Pinochet apologist.
Speaker 2: This is a lot, it's a lot to take it.
Speaker 2: So what was it that you know, people were responding
Speaker 2: to to reject the the you know, more left leaning
Speaker 2: government and go with this guy who you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: his politics are pretty radical from those familiar collect Uh
Speaker 2: connections and his embrace or justification of Pinochet but also
Speaker 2: the embrace of Malay. Also says he wants to consult
Speaker 2: with Bikelly with regards to to crime. So, I mean,
Speaker 2: this is a pretty dramatic turn what led to it?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So I will say that Kas despite his past
Speaker 4: and and like he this is the third time he
Speaker 4: ran for president, and previous other times he was like
Speaker 4: really hardline on abortion, he kind of toned that down
Speaker 4: this time around. He is honestly, as far as like
Speaker 4: anyone can really say, a committed democrat, he's not. He said,
Speaker 4: he's not interested in like trying to take over all
Speaker 4: the institutions, persecute his opponents, and like govern for life
Speaker 4: like Pinochet, and in general you can he even also
Speaker 4: say that like the candidate that he defeated was the
Speaker 4: Communist Party candidate. She was nominated by the Communist Party,
Speaker 4: but for communists, honestly, she was pretty moderate. She was
Speaker 4: really critical of like human rights abuses by like Maduro
Speaker 4: and Artaica in Latin America, which is I said, like
Speaker 4: in some other time that it's rare for like leftists
Speaker 4: to openly like celebrate Maduro. It's also rare for them
Speaker 4: to be stridently critical of him too, So that's something
Speaker 4: interesting in Chilean politics, and I think that explains a
Speaker 4: lot why so many people were willing to gravitate towards him.
Speaker 4: As for the failings of the current government, current President
Speaker 4: Gabriel Borodich, he won in twenty twenty one, he was
Speaker 4: seen as like the shining star on the international left.
Speaker 4: The country was like trying to rewrite his constitution and
Speaker 4: he said he was going to ury neoliberalism. That didn't
Speaker 4: really work out, and we can talk some more about that,
Speaker 4: but in a nutshell, I like to say that he
Speaker 4: was basically like the Chilean Mam Donnie. And to be clear,
Speaker 4: I like him and mom Donnie. I think both of
Speaker 4: them like on a personal level. They seem kind of
Speaker 4: like nice guys and charismatic, et cetera. And Bodich actually
Speaker 4: did some really good things in my opinion. He raised
Speaker 4: them minimum wage like twenty percent the forty poorest Chileans,
Speaker 4: the bottom forty percent of Chileans now have access to
Speaker 4: free healthcare. Pensions are a little bit less miserly, which
Speaker 4: historically were terrible in Chile. And the best thing actually
Speaker 4: is that there's a gradual reduction in the work week
Speaker 4: from forty five to forty hours. That's something that unions
Speaker 4: had been demanding for decades, really really good stuff. The
Speaker 4: problem is that the broader political environment after the pandemic
Speaker 4: shifted two issues that really benefited the right. There was
Speaker 4: a crime wave. Some of that had to do with
Speaker 4: the fact that there were these like mass protests in
Speaker 4: twenty nineteen that led to the Constitutional Convention, similar to
Speaker 4: twenty twenty here with BLM like there was backlash against
Speaker 4: the police and that led to officers like not one
Speaker 4: even like police high crime areas. There's also been a
Speaker 4: broader reconfiguration of the drug trade in South America, favoring
Speaker 4: like Asian and European markets, so that's led a lot
Speaker 4: of organized crime to move into countries like Chile. There
Speaker 4: was inflation, and even though the government rage them in
Speaker 4: a wage the truth is that the increase was roughly
Speaker 4: in line with previous governments, so in relative terms, like
Speaker 4: people's buying power went down. And finally this is always
Speaker 4: the kryptonite for progressive governments. There was this huge migration surge,
Speaker 4: especially in ilegal immigration. The country's immigrant population is double
Speaker 4: to one point six million, is around three hundred thousand undocumented,
Speaker 4: mostly Venezuelan's now in Chile. And that doesn't sound like
Speaker 4: much here, but that's enormous in Chile, considering that the
Speaker 4: country's whole population is around twenty million. And so how
Speaker 4: did a Boord handle that? Similar to with Biden, his
Speaker 4: government had like the lowest amount of deportations in history,
Speaker 4: around half of the previous government and like, for example,
Speaker 4: with Biden, like you can say, for instance that Biden
Speaker 4: apported a lot of people at the border. Within the
Speaker 4: country not so much. And so there was this every
Speaker 4: single time, including in Latin American countries, you see this
Speaker 4: divide between people who are more college educated and more
Speaker 4: working class. And every single time the more college educated
Speaker 4: people have a reluctance understandably so for like you know,
Speaker 4: humanitarian reasons to not really want to like do think
Speaker 4: things like deportations, whereas working class people feel, you know,
Speaker 4: they have concerns over crime, strains the social services competition
Speaker 4: with illegal labor. So it it bords. To his credit,
Speaker 4: he did like militarize the northern border to try to
Speaker 4: stem new arrivals. But people really resented the fact that
Speaker 4: the government was not really keeping up enforcement. And Sokas
Speaker 4: has this trumpst program. He wants to build a border
Speaker 4: shield of walls, ditches, and.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a long shield.
Speaker 4: Man.
Speaker 1: That's a skinny country.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we all know the shape.
Speaker 1: That's tough. That's gonna be a tough wall to build.
Speaker 1: Love Chile, by the way, very cool country that I've
Speaker 1: been to before. So finally a question for you, Juan.
Speaker 1: You talked there about America. What about Venezuela, Like you
Speaker 1: just said, what's the opinion on the on the current
Speaker 1: government on regime change? Would they be supportive of something
Speaker 1: like that? Traditionally, you know, with Pinochet and our past relations,
Speaker 1: it was viewed as this like power center of bulwark
Speaker 1: against Latin American leftism. Is that something that we're going
Speaker 1: to see again? What do you think?
Speaker 4: Oh? Yeah, I'd say that the president elect his administration
Speaker 4: will be We'll go along basically with whatever the Trump
Speaker 4: administration wants, including of Venezuela. The current government of void
Speaker 4: each like I said, they were very critical of Maduro.
Speaker 4: They have said that they would not, you know, support
Speaker 4: any kind of regime change like by force and Venezuela.
Speaker 4: But yeah, it's yea, this is a really sensitive topic.
Speaker 4: I mean, who knows. Maybe cous could be apprehensive about
Speaker 4: this though, because the thing is, you know, the president,
Speaker 4: you set for this. It's like, okay, you know, maybe
Speaker 4: we're you like it if it's against Maduro, but it's like,
Speaker 4: you know what, if they can do it to Maduro, right,
Speaker 4: they can do it to anybody.
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's yeah, yeah, And just because they like
Speaker 2: you today doesn't mean in the future they won't turn right,
Speaker 2: So that very very interesting stuff.
Speaker 4: One yeah, yeah, oh you know one interesting thing actually
Speaker 4: in Chile, permanent residents, this is hilarious, are allowed to
Speaker 4: vote if they've lived in the country for five years,
Speaker 4: and so Venezuelans were actually a really coverted electorate during
Speaker 4: this past campaign and guess who they voted for. They
Speaker 4: voted for cast was promising to deport them because Venezuelans
Speaker 4: are super neo conservatives. So there's been a lot of
Speaker 4: discussion around that. The leading conservative candidate now in Peru
Speaker 4: for twenty twenty six said that Peru should just give
Speaker 4: citizenship to Venezuelans so that they can vote for him.
Speaker 4: It's a talk about importing voters.
Speaker 5: Wow, wow, it's uh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's it's funny stuff.
Speaker 1: Well, dude, this is why we like talking to you.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: A lot of other stuff going on in the world.
Speaker 1: Chile always a fascinating country, beautiful country. Wish them the best.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us, sir, Thank you, Thank you
Speaker 1: guys so much for watching. We appreciate it. We have
Speaker 1: a great Crowned Point show for you all tomorrow, and
Speaker 1: we will see you all on Thursday for our last
Speaker 1: show before Christmas. Christal will be back in the studio,
Speaker 1: don't worry, so we'll see all that