Speaker 1: Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here
Speaker 1: and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of
Speaker 1: ways we can up our game for this critical election.
Speaker 2: We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade
Speaker 2: the studio ad staff give you, guys, the best independent
Speaker 2: coverage that is possible. If you like what we're all about,
Speaker 2: it just means the absolute world to have your support.
Speaker 2: But enough with that, let's get to the show. Good morning, everybody,
Speaker 2: Happy Thursday. We have an amazing show for everybody today.
Speaker 2: What do we have, Crystal boy.
Speaker 1: Oh boy, there's some interesting stories out there this morning.
Speaker 1: We're going to start with this wild DOJ indictment that
Speaker 1: involves a bunch of top online influencers. That details are
Speaker 1: really quite extraordinary. So break all of that down for you.
Speaker 1: Part of a broader crackdown on a Russian disinformation influence campaign.
Speaker 1: So we'll get into that broader effort as well. Trump
Speaker 1: did a Fox News town hall last night, was Sean Hannity,
Speaker 1: a lot of hard hitting questions there, but there were
Speaker 1: some interesting moments they would want to take you through.
Speaker 2: Despite it was despite Hannity, we got to yeah exactly yeah.
Speaker 1: And also it was built as a town hall, but
Speaker 1: then nobody actually asking Sean Hannity, what's going on with
Speaker 1: that whatever, So we'll show you the highlights, low lights, whatever,
Speaker 1: lights from that. We also have some new polls to
Speaker 1: break down for you, in particular a slew of new
Speaker 1: battleground polls from CNN that are quite interesting and if
Speaker 1: they came to fruition, would have the electoral college map
Speaker 1: so incredibly close. So this election continues to, you know,
Speaker 1: be just as as tight as it possibly could be.
Speaker 1: We're also going to break down fact from fiction on
Speaker 1: this wild a or a gang apartment building story that
Speaker 1: has gone viral that Elon Musk has been promoting. I'll
Speaker 1: just leave it at that, and we'll take you through all.
Speaker 2: The details once we get to that flock. So Boomers
Speaker 2: are up in arms about it, Yes, well perhaps you, yes.
Speaker 1: Indeed, all right, so let's go and get to this story.
Speaker 1: Just bear with me while I go through the details,
Speaker 1: because I think it will pay off for you in
Speaker 1: the end. So the dj put online an indictment of
Speaker 1: two Russian nationals who work for our team.
Speaker 3: Okay, what they are alleged to have.
Speaker 1: Done is to have funneled ten million dollars through a
Speaker 1: Tennessee based content creation company called Tenant Media. Okay, we
Speaker 1: can put this story up on the screen. So your
Speaker 1: major players are these two Russian nationals. They're the ones
Speaker 1: who are indicted. This media startup called Tenant who has
Speaker 1: a number of very highly recognizable and influential right wing
Speaker 1: media creators on their payroll, including Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, Timpoole,
Speaker 1: Lauren Southern, and a couple others. I was less familiar
Speaker 1: with Matt Christiansen, yes, and somebody Hansen.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's like the.
Speaker 1: Same name as somebody from the Hanson Bannon but it's
Speaker 1: not the same guy.
Speaker 3: And I actually looked it out just to make the.
Speaker 2: Major names of Danny Johnson, Timpoole, and Dave Ruben, I
Speaker 2: think may.
Speaker 3: Those are the major ones.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, And again, none of these individuals are accused
Speaker 1: of wrongdoing. However, the details here are quite extraordinary. So
Speaker 1: Tenant Media hires these influencers for extraordinaries of money to
Speaker 1: produce some content for them.
Speaker 3: I'm talking like.
Speaker 1: One hundred thousand dollars of video. Under the pretext that
Speaker 1: the Tenet Media people, run by Lauren Chen and her
Speaker 1: husband what's his name, dov Liam Donovan under the pretext,
Speaker 1: which they apparently knew was a false pretext, that there
Speaker 1: was this elusive, wealthy businessman who was funding all of this.
Speaker 1: And again we're talking like one hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 3: Of video plus.
Speaker 1: Insane amounts of money for this. Okay, So it turns
Speaker 1: out that this elusive businessman is totally made up. Turns
Speaker 1: out that these two rt like Russian agents, effectively were
Speaker 1: influencing content. They were in the discord telling these creators
Speaker 1: and the producers involved with these videos that were being
Speaker 1: you know, produced for this money, like, hey, let's focus
Speaker 1: in on this angle of maybe it was Ukraine that
Speaker 1: was behind the isis Moscow attack. Hey, why don't you guys,
Speaker 1: why don't you guys put this Tucker Carlson grocery shopping video.
Speaker 3: I'll show you that in a minute.
Speaker 1: Which is hilarious because one of the producers was actually
Speaker 1: like this, see just seems like direct shilling, and they're like, no, no,
Speaker 1: you should do it, and they're like, okay, fine, we'll
Speaker 1: do it. So directly shaping content and getting paid through
Speaker 1: this shady enterprise that comes truck. This is what's in
Speaker 1: the indictment. Okay, these are the allegations from the government.
Speaker 1: So let me read you a little bit of that
Speaker 1: article that we just had up that says, the indictment
Speaker 1: claims the personalities on tenant, we're not aware of the
Speaker 1: backgrounds and intentions of the two Russians, and the funding
Speaker 1: for the company came through a Canadian shell company from
Speaker 1: a frontman named and this is the fake.
Speaker 3: Guy Edward Gregorian, who did not exist.
Speaker 1: Despite the fact that Google searches for Edward Gregorian did
Speaker 1: not return any results. Two of the commentators, and it
Speaker 1: appears that those two commentators are one of them's definitely Timpoole,
Speaker 1: the other one's probably Benny Johnson, potentially Dave Rubin, are
Speaker 1: the sort of focus of a lot of what's in
Speaker 1: this indictment. In any case, despite the fact that the
Speaker 1: Google searches didn't return any hits for this dude, the
Speaker 1: two commentators went through with the deal. The indictment alleges
Speaker 1: after receiving a resume. Let's put a two up on
Speaker 1: the screen that has a little bit more detail.
Speaker 3: Eventually they did the deal.
Speaker 1: Benny Johnson, we think that could be Dave Rubin, but
Speaker 1: one of the two of them would unknowingly work for
Speaker 1: the Russians for four hundred thousand dollars a month in
Speaker 1: exchange for four monthly videos. Guys, we work in this
Speaker 1: into That is an insane amount of money per video,
Speaker 1: plus a one hundred thousand dollars signing bonus. Apparently Tim
Speaker 1: Poole also got one hundred thousand dollars a video, but
Speaker 1: no signing bonus. This person opines weak negotiating skills. Let's
Speaker 1: put the next piece up on the screen. This is
Speaker 1: the Tucker grocery store situation. I was telling you about
Speaker 1: so on or about February fifteenth. They say, one of
Speaker 1: these producers who was using pseudonym, who was also who
Speaker 1: was actually a Russian national works for RT and one
Speaker 1: of the individuals who's actually indicted, shared with Tenant Media
Speaker 1: a video of they say, a well known US political
Speaker 1: commentator visiting a grocery store in Russia.
Speaker 3: We all know that's Tucker.
Speaker 1: Carlson, but Russian National posted the video in the producer
Speaker 1: Discord channel. Later that day, a producer privately messaged one
Speaker 1: of the founders, Lauren Chen on Discord and said, they
Speaker 1: want me to post this, referencing the video that the
Speaker 1: Russian national had posted, but it just feels like overt shilling.
Speaker 1: Lauren Chen replies that her husband thinks we should put
Speaker 1: it out there. The producer acquiesces, responding, all right, I'll
Speaker 1: put it out tomorrow. So one of the reasons this
Speaker 1: detail is important is because it shows the direct impact
Speaker 1: that these Russian nationals who were posing as not Russian
Speaker 1: nationals and who were involved in this producer discord, were
Speaker 1: exerting on the type of content that was being produced.
Speaker 1: Let's put the ICE's Ukraine piece up here as well.
Speaker 1: It's another instance where they were trying to influence the
Speaker 1: content that was being put out by these creators. The
Speaker 1: Russians wanted to blame the i's Moscow attack this person
Speaker 1: who fines on Ukraine.
Speaker 3: They got commentator three.
Speaker 1: To do it, so that would either be Dave Rubin
Speaker 1: or Benny Johnson. Were not sure because the reason we're
Speaker 1: able to deduce who these people were is because the
Speaker 1: indictment lists not their names, but the number of YouTube
Speaker 1: subscribers they have, and Dave Rubin and Betty Johnson have
Speaker 1: basically the same number of subscribers. That's why we're not
Speaker 1: sure which is which. And they both ended up putting
Speaker 1: out statements. We'll get to those in a moment, but
Speaker 1: sager initial reactions to this extraordinary chain of alleged events, which, by.
Speaker 3: The way, no one is really denying it.
Speaker 2: Oh none of them are. Ye, Lauren Chen is not
Speaker 2: put out a statement, neither her husband Liam Donovan. So again,
Speaker 2: just to recap, in the indictment, Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson,
Speaker 2: and Tim Poole were not aware, according to the US government,
Speaker 2: that they were being paid via Russian cutouts. But the
Speaker 2: indictment makes it very clear that Lauren Chen and her
Speaker 2: husband were aware that quote it was the Russians in
Speaker 2: private communications right between the two of them. Multiple other
Speaker 2: circumstantial evidence guys showing that they were like when they
Speaker 2: couldn't get a risk spons for why invoices weren't being paid,
Speaker 2: they were googling time in Moscow as to why all
Speaker 2: of this was not coming in on time. I mean,
Speaker 2: at a philosophical level, it's sad, honestly, because it's very
Speaker 2: clear that the money was just so good that nobody
Speaker 2: was was not asking real questions. So, for example, let's
Speaker 2: put a five please up on this. This is delicious
Speaker 2: because at one point They're like, hey, who is the guy?
Speaker 2: I want to see something about him? And this is
Speaker 2: literally the resume that was sent to them of some
Speaker 2: mystery rich man named Edward Gregorian. Now we don't have
Speaker 2: a full Like the resolution on this is actually quite
Speaker 2: bad because it comes from the indictment itself, but it
Speaker 2: says experience finance, professional investor, deeply engaged in business and philanthropy,
Speaker 2: leveraging skills and resources to drive positive impact. Just a
Speaker 2: bunch of complete bullshit, honestly. Life and education. They say
Speaker 2: that he had a bachelor's degree in economics and master's
Speaker 2: in accounting. He had some professional experience in financial analysis
Speaker 2: and consulting, but they list some fake banks that he
Speaker 2: had allegedly worked at, and in general said he was
Speaker 2: an accomplished financial professional, mister Gregorian. The problem is is
Speaker 2: that a basic amount of research would have revealed that
Speaker 2: Gregorian does not exist because there was no financial footprint.
Speaker 2: There was no footprint on bank websites, there was no
Speaker 2: Google history. I mean, it's basically impossible in the world
Speaker 2: at this point to become a person who could afford
Speaker 2: ten million dollars funneling to these people without having a
Speaker 2: financial profile at all. It's basically the chance is zero,
Speaker 2: especially if you were working in finance LinkedIn any bank records,
Speaker 2: bank websites, you know, even if you were using archive
Speaker 2: or wayback machine or any of those, you'd be able
Speaker 2: to find them. And so that should have set off
Speaker 2: major alarm bills. But really what it is is that
Speaker 2: because we work in this business, sorry, those sums are insane.
Speaker 2: And if you go on the Tenet Media YouTube channel,
Speaker 2: the videos were getting like eight thousand views. Okay, So
Speaker 2: just so everybody understands, eight thousand views, I mean, how
Speaker 2: much you make off that, Maybe one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: bucks maybe maybe maybe if the producers want to correct me,
Speaker 2: they can, but it actually could be less. It could
Speaker 2: be like fifty oh they say much less. Oh okay,
Speaker 2: I don't think.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, well we don't.
Speaker 2: Get that low amount of I mean, I don't know.
Speaker 3: But especially when you consider the amount of product, I.
Speaker 2: Mean the production value.
Speaker 1: And I read in this entire indictment, which was enjoyable,
Speaker 1: to be honest with you, because some of the details
Speaker 1: there again are really quite entertaining. People were raising at
Speaker 1: the time, like yeah, you know the Tim Poole and
Speaker 1: whether it was Dave Ruben or Betty Johnson like they
Speaker 1: want all this money. There's no way this is going
Speaker 1: to be economic. And the Russians come back to are like, no, We're.
Speaker 3: Good with it. It's like, okay, what are we doing here?
Speaker 1: And the other funny thing about the fake resume, So
Speaker 1: whether Betty Johnson or Dave Ruben, whoever was the commentator
Speaker 1: that was, you know, raising these questions and was asking like, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, I can't find anything about this guy, like
Speaker 1: can you send me something?
Speaker 3: And so it gets this farcical resume pass.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And the one concern that he raises is somewhere in
Speaker 1: the buzzword gobbledegook that's on this resume, it references social justice.
Speaker 3: And that was the one thing that he was like, WHOA,
Speaker 3: I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'll speak up for it. That is a red flag,
Speaker 2: right because if somebody has that on your on your
Speaker 2: resume and you don't know anything.
Speaker 3: That of all those situation that would.
Speaker 2: Mean for me, the red flag is the money. I'd
Speaker 2: be like, hold on, so you won't pay me four
Speaker 2: hundredand a month to post four videos and each of
Speaker 2: those four videos going to get eight thousand views. So
Speaker 2: you're going to make maybe a couple hundred bucks at
Speaker 2: best over all of this, So what's in it for you?
Speaker 1: But you know the fact of the matter is, and
Speaker 1: you could speak to this probably about that, I can't.
Speaker 1: Like there is a lot of ideological money floating around
Speaker 1: in right wing circles. I mean this is like sort
Speaker 1: of in defense of them that you know, there's all
Speaker 1: these billionaires and one other taxes cut and so even
Speaker 1: if they don't and ten million dollars is nothing to them.
Speaker 1: And so even if it's the posting of that one
Speaker 1: video is an economic they're engaged in a broader ideological
Speaker 1: project that they believe is going to pay off for
Speaker 1: them over time. And so I mean that's what's crazy,
Speaker 1: is like, obviously we don't swim in these why we
Speaker 1: don't take money for many it's like all dependent on
Speaker 1: you guys, and you know, like really important obviously that we.
Speaker 3: Do those things. But that's why when.
Speaker 1: I read through this, it feels so preposterous because that
Speaker 1: amount of money just being thrown at you to do
Speaker 1: four video a month, yea, is insane.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll speak to a couple of things. Yeah, First
Speaker 2: is the way that we set up our business. I'm
Speaker 2: extremely vindicated on this because for people who you know,
Speaker 2: we've spoken about this some at length, but we are
Speaker 2: one hundred percent financed by our premium subscribers through our
Speaker 2: subscription program, and then programmatic advertising, which is placed on
Speaker 2: YouTube or podcast ads.
Speaker 1: That means your face never talk to an advertisers an
Speaker 1: advertising period.
Speaker 2: In fact, the only input that we have is that
Speaker 2: in certain categories that we don't want, so we could
Speaker 2: actually make even more money if we're willing to have
Speaker 2: like shilling credit cards or any of those other things playing.
Speaker 3: We're just want ads on our podcast.
Speaker 2: So that was my next thing. So then the next
Speaker 2: phase of that, and this is where you know, there's
Speaker 2: been a lot of pressure always from any people who
Speaker 2: are involved in business that they're like, well, you know,
Speaker 2: you can make five to ten times more if you
Speaker 2: were to just read ads, and we're always like, yeah,
Speaker 2: but you know, should a guy who's bringing you the
Speaker 2: news really be reading a ball shaving ad? Like I
Speaker 2: don't only think so. And by the way, that is
Speaker 2: where the most money is, or blueto or any of
Speaker 2: these others. If you're a comedian, I totally get it.
Speaker 2: That's fine. Get your bag, you know, But whenever you're
Speaker 2: in news like, it's just different. And so we never
Speaker 2: chased outside revenue. And that's part of what I see here,
Speaker 2: is that when you're out there and you're making deals
Speaker 2: with gold companies and shaving companies and all these other things,
Speaker 2: maybe it doesn't seem as preposterous if somebody wants to
Speaker 2: pay you x on hundred thousand dollars a month. And
Speaker 2: that's just in the private sector. Remember, these guys are
Speaker 2: getting millions and millions of views, Like, let's be real,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of money floating around. And then secondary
Speaker 2: to that is what you identified. And this is where
Speaker 2: I'm going to give them some defense and also just
Speaker 2: some criticism here of the DOJ where it's not one
Speaker 2: hundred percent fair. How many people do you guys know,
Speaker 2: who are on YouTube or elsewhere where you just suspect
Speaker 2: maybe these people are getting paid by Israel, by Ukraine, bye,
Speaker 2: I mean anybody, by Katar, by the Dubai, the United
Speaker 2: Arab Emirates, by anybody who has a vested interest in
Speaker 2: influencing US politics. In fact, I have it on good
Speaker 2: authority that there are several so called war YouTubers who
Speaker 2: are out there who are directly on the payroll of
Speaker 2: the Ukrainian government and or cutouts of the US intelligence community.
Speaker 2: You know, we've covered and we will get to this
Speaker 2: in terms of secret Israeli influence operations, Katari and influence operations,
Speaker 2: Iranian perhaps influence operations with a DJ obviously is very
Speaker 2: particularly singling out these Russian this Russian scheme of ten
Speaker 2: million dollars. Now, is that an excuse? No, because here's
Speaker 2: the truth. People with ethics or people with scruples like
Speaker 2: we would do this. We would never even be in
Speaker 2: a position where a deal like this even gets presented. Yeah,
Speaker 2: because our representatives are very aware. They're like, no, it's
Speaker 2: not on the table, not on the except.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And yeah, I mean I would have a
Speaker 1: lot of questions beyond like, let me say, social justice.
Speaker 1: If someone's trying to throw that kind of money at you,
Speaker 1: that's immediate red flag, and we wouldn't even.
Speaker 3: Be in a position to field those deals.
Speaker 1: You're exactly right, because the people we work with know
Speaker 1: that we would never ever even consider going.
Speaker 3: Down that path. But I mean the thing that, so
Speaker 3: your point.
Speaker 1: Is correct, there's obviously very selective enforcement of these laws.
Speaker 1: And if it's you know, friends then of the official
Speaker 1: friends of the United States, then okay, no problems on
Speaker 1: whoever you want, run whatever influence campaigns you want. We're
Speaker 1: going to talk more about that when we talk about
Speaker 1: the sort of broader operation that they're conducting here the
Speaker 1: DOJ is conducting under Merret Garland. No doubt that it's
Speaker 1: selective enforcement. But also the specific thing they're accused of,
Speaker 1: not again, not Timpoole, not Dave Rubin, not whoever, but
Speaker 1: the Russian nationals are accused of.
Speaker 3: I mean, it obviously is.
Speaker 1: Illegal and should be illegal if the allegations are correct,
Speaker 1: because not only I mean they adopted pseudonyms, they created
Speaker 1: a fake persona, they funneled, they laundered this money through
Speaker 1: shell companies. They were in these discord producer chats like
Speaker 1: under pseudonyms, pretending to be people that they weren't to
Speaker 1: manipulate this coverage like this is this is really it
Speaker 1: is really dirty and the fairies. Then the thing that
Speaker 1: discussed me to Saga is like, you know, you're every
Speaker 1: time we have some opinions on Ukraine, on Israel, on
Speaker 1: what we've been accused of taking taking money from this
Speaker 1: regime or that, and so when you actually did it,
Speaker 1: you give so much credence. He was going to get
Speaker 1: to that, you give so much credence to these arguments
Speaker 1: that anyone who has a view that's not the official
Speaker 1: US mainstream narrative, Oh well, they really have a secret agenda.
Speaker 1: They're really, you know, a useful idiot, like apparently Tempole
Speaker 1: and Dave Ruben and Benning ja are.
Speaker 3: So and that's what is.
Speaker 1: That's even though you know, like I said, I find
Speaker 1: the details sort of amusing, I also am like disgusted
Speaker 1: by it because it gives so much credence to those
Speaker 1: bad faith attacks that anyone who descends on the Ukraine
Speaker 1: War is actually being paid in rubles by the Kremlin.
Speaker 2: Or whatever exactly, and that on Ukraine and on Israel specifically.
Speaker 2: I mean Lorne Chen was somebody who was very vociferous
Speaker 2: about dual loyalty accusations and about she actually spoke about
Speaker 2: free speech for hamas protester. Is one of the very
Speaker 2: few right like right people who is doing that. And
Speaker 2: now everybody who is pro Israel is mismissing her out
Speaker 2: of hand and is like, look, she was actually the
Speaker 2: one guilty of dual loyalty at the time, and guess what,
Speaker 2: they're right. It's actually true. She literally knew according to
Speaker 2: the indictment. Look, maybe she has a defense. We haven't
Speaker 2: heard it yet. I've looked for statements from both her
Speaker 2: and her husband, nothing about whether what the allegations are
Speaker 2: true or not. That's a real problem, you know. And
Speaker 2: also in the independent media space, like you were saying,
Speaker 2: questioning Ukraine, how many times have accusations been leveled here? Oh,
Speaker 2: you're a pro Russian propagandist. It's like, well, apparently not
Speaker 2: a good one, because I'm not be nice by a
Speaker 2: pretty fancy cyber truck. I think some of that money up.
Speaker 2: But that's this is the issue, is that now all
Speaker 2: of independent people, especially people with descending views, are going
Speaker 2: to get smeared to high heaven by all of these
Speaker 2: you know who knows the Mueller she wrote, empty wheel,
Speaker 2: all of these lunatics, literal Russia Gate obsessed lunatics. They're
Speaker 2: having the greatest field day that they've ever had. I
Speaker 2: even see you know, generals, people like Mark Hurtling over
Speaker 2: at CNN. He's like, this is the tip of the iceberg.
Speaker 2: The Russian propaganda machine and all that and they take
Speaker 2: a they're going to take this kernel and explode it
Speaker 2: out to anybody who has a descending view. So I
Speaker 2: guess if any other independent creators and all that are
Speaker 2: out there, it is so imperative. Actually the onus is
Speaker 2: on you, and I don't think it's fair, right because
Speaker 2: what is paying its bills with pharma money? So is
Speaker 2: Fox News and all these other people. And they don't
Speaker 2: have to answer any questions because there's a legitimate and
Speaker 2: legal and that's all cool. They take political advertising dollars
Speaker 2: and literally go to the campaigns and sell them airtime.
Speaker 2: Apparently that's fine.
Speaker 1: Was it Saudi or one of the golf monarchies where
Speaker 1: they directly took a bunch of money and did a
Speaker 1: whole vertical that was just like, you know, propaganda to
Speaker 1: that country.
Speaker 3: I remember that CNN does that course.
Speaker 2: Remember CNN Turk. That's actually a whole ball bag of
Speaker 2: worms and nobody.
Speaker 3: I don't know anything about.
Speaker 2: My point is just they don't have to answer for
Speaker 2: all the sketchy hundreds of billions that they take from
Speaker 2: you know, major corporations, financial interest, Gold, Viagra and all
Speaker 2: these other places. And you know that's a double standard.
Speaker 2: But it doesn't matter. We're up against a system, and
Speaker 2: the system will use this to try and smear and destroy.
Speaker 2: You've given them more ammunition they could ever want, you know,
Speaker 2: and from now on that's just going to be the
Speaker 2: classic thing that people put out there. Why don't we
Speaker 2: get to the statement.
Speaker 1: Let's put Tim's statement ut this a six. By the way,
Speaker 1: you mentioned Lauren Chen hasn't put out a statement, at
Speaker 1: least when I was looking yesterday, she hadn't. I wonder
Speaker 1: if she's worried about legal jeopardy, because so I.
Speaker 2: Spoke to Brad Moss. Yeah, it was like she's in
Speaker 2: big trouble. The fact that she didn't meaning meet indicted
Speaker 2: this time around is kind of astounding. And maybe she's
Speaker 2: cooperating with the government. I find it hard to believe
Speaker 2: she was retweeting people and posting as of like eleven
Speaker 2: hours ago when they're the indoutment. Indictment came out, Yeah,
Speaker 2: how is that possible? Right?
Speaker 1: Well, because again there's no allegation that Tim Dane, Ruben,
Speaker 1: Benny Johnson, Lauren Souther and these other people did anything
Speaker 1: wrong In the indictment. They say, look, they had they
Speaker 1: had no idea, right, but the indictment alleges that Lauren
Speaker 1: Chen and Liam Donovan did know and referring to them
Speaker 1: as the Russians and were deceiving. Tim Pool, you know,
Speaker 1: Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin at OL. So yeah, I do
Speaker 1: wonder if they're in legal jeopardy anyway. Here's Tim statement,
Speaker 1: he says, my statement regarding allegations and the leak DOJ indictment.
Speaker 1: By the way, he corrected that it wasn't leaked, It
Speaker 1: was just like officially posted on their website.
Speaker 3: Anyway.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't these allegations prove true, I, as well as the
Speaker 1: other personalities and commentators, were deceived and are victims. Cannot
Speaker 1: speak for anyone else at the company as to what
Speaker 1: they do or to what they are instructed. The Culture
Speaker 1: War podcast was licensed by Tenant Media. It existed well
Speaker 1: before any license agreement with Tenant, and it will continue
Speaker 1: to exist after any such agreement expires. The only change
Speaker 1: with the agreement was that the locational live broadcast moved
Speaker 1: to Tenant's YouTube channel. I and TCW never produced any
Speaker 1: content for Contenant Media. Never at any point did anyone
Speaker 1: other than I have full editorial control of the show
Speaker 1: and the contents of the show are often aid political.
Speaker 1: Examples include discussing spirituality, dating, and video games.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what he's known for.
Speaker 1: The show is produced in its entirety by our local
Speaker 1: team without input from anyone external to the company TCW
Speaker 1: separate company not associated with timcast dot Com or their properties.
Speaker 1: It exists solely for the production of the Culture War podcast.
Speaker 1: That being said, we still do not know what is true,
Speaker 1: as these are only allegations. And then he goes, Putin
Speaker 1: is a scumbag Russia. Russia sucks donkey balls. The journalists
Speaker 1: who wish to jump the gun create their own narrative,
Speaker 1: rely about what is currently going on. You can eat
Speaker 1: my Irish et cetera. So that's his response, basically really
Speaker 1: trying to be like, no, I promise I wasn't taking
Speaker 1: you know, this was all my own idea that existed
Speaker 1: before this Russian influence operation, and trying to put some
Speaker 1: distance between himself and Tenant media. I mean it's listen,
Speaker 1: in a technical sense, yes, you are a victim. You
Speaker 1: were also getting millions of dollars to do this, so
Speaker 1: it's hard to like crime album.
Speaker 2: About the whole I mean, you were bamboozled it's true,
Speaker 2: but yeah, I mean, let's be real, there are a
Speaker 2: lot of people who were bamboozled who also should have.
Speaker 2: You know, whenever somebody gets conned, you're like, I feel
Speaker 2: bad for you, but also it's like, really, you know,
Speaker 2: you really thought that an Indian guy on the phone,
Speaker 2: and you know that he was from Microsoft, you're supposed
Speaker 2: give him fifty grand. Yeah, but.
Speaker 3: You're not getting cont out of money making millions exactly.
Speaker 2: That's my point is that it's like, Okay, yeah, technically yes,
Speaker 2: but you know, let's be honest here. Benny also put
Speaker 2: out a statement, let's put this up there, kind of
Speaker 2: similar vibe. A statement on the leaked DOJ indictment, again
Speaker 2: not leaked. A year ago, a media startup Pitch my
Speaker 2: company to provide content as an independent contractor. Our lawyers
Speaker 2: negotiated standard arms like deal, which was later terminated. We
Speaker 2: are disturbed by the allegations in today's indictment, which may
Speaker 2: clear myself and other influencers were victims in this alleged scheme.
Speaker 2: My lawyers will handle anyone who states or suggests otherwise.
Speaker 1: I have a Dave Urban statement too, which we don't
Speaker 1: have an element for because it came out later, but
Speaker 1: he says statement on the DOJ indictment, these allegations clearly
Speaker 1: show I and other commentators were the victims of this scheme.
Speaker 1: I knew absolutely nothing about any of this fraudulent activity.
Speaker 3: Period.
Speaker 1: People of the Internet was a silly show covering viral
Speaker 1: videos which ended four months ago. The DJ has never
Speaker 1: contacted me regarding this matter. I have no intention of
Speaker 1: comment further. This screenshot from the indictment speaks for itself,
Speaker 1: and he screenshots a part of the indictment that talks
Speaker 1: about the fact that Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan, who
Speaker 1: ran Tenant Media, that they work together to obscure the
Speaker 1: source of the funding. So basically saying like, listen, they
Speaker 1: tricked us, they knew they were lying, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's really on them, not on us, seems to be
Speaker 1: the implication of screenshotting that particular part of the indictments.
Speaker 2: I mean, look, they did trick them, right and Lauren,
Speaker 2: and I mean, honestly sorry, if this is true, your scum,
Speaker 2: you really are, because you not only you know, knowingly
Speaker 2: took money from a foreign government, you also put other
Speaker 2: people in a position where now they're named in a
Speaker 2: federal indictment. And look, I mean this is the other thing.
Speaker 2: Do they have to give that money back? Like what
Speaker 2: do the klawback things look like? From the Department of Justice.
Speaker 2: This is literally foreign cash. Yeah, that has been watched.
Speaker 2: I don't know what that asked. I asked a couple
Speaker 2: of lawyers. They said, it actually depends on what the
Speaker 2: government is going to do. If I'm I mean, if
Speaker 2: you're the DJ you probably hate all these people anyway,
Speaker 2: you're really going to give them a free ride. And
Speaker 2: it's not like that money hasn't already been put in
Speaker 2: the bank and probably paid to employees, Like you could
Speaker 2: be setting yourself up for a very serious problem with
Speaker 2: the US government. The other thing is too, with Lauren
Speaker 2: Chen and all of them, if they haven't even been arrested,
Speaker 2: then what are you did you roll up? Like did
Speaker 2: you cooperate? Now, so now you're both you know, cooperating
Speaker 2: with the government, and you were useful, not even a
Speaker 2: useful idiot, you knowingly conspired with a foreign government. This
Speaker 2: gets back to integrity. I mean, I remember at one
Speaker 2: point I was approached I think it was Al Jazera,
Speaker 2: and they were like, oh, there was some stupid thing
Speaker 2: that they were trying to do, and I was just like, hey,
Speaker 2: you know, no offense. You know, I'm sure this is fine,
Speaker 2: but you guys take money from you from the Qatari government.
Speaker 2: I'm like, I don't take money from foreign governments. That
Speaker 2: kind of took offense at that. Actually they're like, that
Speaker 2: suggests that we're not independent. Like it's not about that,
Speaker 2: it's just it's a conflict of interest. I don't do that.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't even take money from our own government. If
Speaker 2: some national state department thing was like, we're weant going
Speaker 2: to give you a fellowship, I'm like, yeah, that's weird. Yeah,
Speaker 2: And you know that's what you kind of have to
Speaker 2: do in this business is to bring it back to
Speaker 2: the ads. We could retire several times over. We're willing
Speaker 2: to read manscaped ads just not going to happen. And
Speaker 2: does that make life more difficult? I mean, I guess
Speaker 2: in a sense. But the point is that when you're
Speaker 2: up against large forces who are going to try and
Speaker 2: destroy you, then you should definitely have a lot more scruples.
Speaker 3: I mean, for example, you have to be unimpeaceable.
Speaker 2: Dave Rubin, you know, to look at some of these
Speaker 2: tenant videos about Dave Rubin. It's getting you know, eight
Speaker 2: thousand views of him being like why South Park is
Speaker 2: real life? And I'm like, bro, like, seriously, you really
Speaker 2: really believed you were gonna that this was making one
Speaker 2: hundred thousand dollars and you know I should say this.
Speaker 2: You know, Dave has happy to accuse people being pro
Speaker 2: Hamas and all this other stuff, right, so it's like, bro,
Speaker 2: what do you think happened? You know, who's paying for
Speaker 2: that fancy little studio down in South Florida, And you know,
Speaker 2: if some of this is all unfair, I'm just saying, like,
Speaker 2: it's not like they have all this charity when they're
Speaker 2: accusing other people, especially Dave. Now Benny, who I know
Speaker 2: on a personal level, I really I believe that he
Speaker 2: didn't know any of this. Tim you know, I don't
Speaker 2: know him as well, but the same thing. The problem
Speaker 2: is just that this the integrity is so important for
Speaker 2: independent media, and now of course all the Russian pro
Speaker 2: Ukraine people are pulling all of these clips of them
Speaker 2: who are doubting, you know, this the narrative or whatever
Speaker 2: in Ukraine and they're just saying, look, they were literally
Speaker 2: on a Russian payroll. You have discredited anybody in the
Speaker 2: independent space, and to that, I'm you know, that is
Speaker 2: actually what pisses me off the most about this entire thing,
Speaker 2: because again, for all of them, we all know what
Speaker 2: the actual dollars and cents look like, right, we know
Speaker 2: what the dollars and cents are supposed to look like,
Speaker 2: and when something changes orders of magnitude away from them,
Speaker 2: you got your bullshit detector should be very high. Now
Speaker 2: if it's a Silicon Valley American investor with a page
Speaker 2: and they're like, well, our plan is to start small
Speaker 2: and go big maybe even though it's a little weird,
Speaker 2: but yeah, it's a conceivable plan. But nothing about this
Speaker 2: makes any sense whatsoever at all.
Speaker 1: When that's the problem, a fundamentally uneconomic proposition, you have
Speaker 1: to ask.
Speaker 2: Why, yes, yes, why yes?
Speaker 1: Is this like what I am obviously being a tool
Speaker 1: for them for something?
Speaker 3: What is it right?
Speaker 1: And you know, maybe if it's an ideological project.
Speaker 3: You agree with, you can live with that.
Speaker 1: But yeah, to just you know, be placated by this
Speaker 1: phony resume and not ask any further questions. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's embarrassing, like there's no other word or about
Speaker 1: around it, And Not only have you provided ammunition for
Speaker 1: you know, people come after any independent media creators, but
Speaker 1: you've really discredited your entire body of work because I
Speaker 1: mean people are sharing all.
Speaker 3: The tweet menu tweets of Tempoole saying.
Speaker 1: Like it's civil war and like, oh gee, I wonder
Speaker 1: why Russia was interested in having like this particular commentary sponsored.
Speaker 3: So, yes, this was a relatively.
Speaker 1: You know, short lived It wasn't a long term media
Speaker 1: project or partnership or whatever. They'd go to great lengths
Speaker 1: in their statements to make it clear that this was
Speaker 1: a short term project.
Speaker 3: They've severed, tized, whatever.
Speaker 1: But if you think that people are going to to
Speaker 1: segregate off this one narrow slice of your commentary from
Speaker 1: the entire rest of your body of work, like I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: They're just they're not going to do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: No, you've called.
Speaker 1: Everything that you have ever said into Whether that's fair
Speaker 1: or not is a different story.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's fair. But that's the issue is that,
Speaker 2: you know, when you're up against the type of people
Speaker 2: like especially you, and I know on Israel's that is
Speaker 2: the red line, right and on that one this they
Speaker 2: are having the big, greatest field day of their lives.
Speaker 2: I see them all with the witch hunt already began.
Speaker 2: See her anti tem Semitism was sponsored by the Russians,
Speaker 2: you know, see this was clearly an effort to discredit
Speaker 2: the glorious nation of Ukraine. And it's like, no, these
Speaker 2: are legitimate points of view. And I mean, also though,
Speaker 2: it is kind of interesting because it does show you
Speaker 2: where they're true. Like Russian agenda. People always say it's
Speaker 2: pro Trump. Lauren Chen was actively trying to get people
Speaker 2: not to vote for Trump, like she's a chaos agent.
Speaker 2: She was like, she's one of these like repeal the
Speaker 2: nineteenth people like, don't give women the right to vote?
Speaker 2: With her, okay, I know of her more I was.
Speaker 2: I was catching up and it's funny there are actually
Speaker 2: people out there this conservative commentation. Ashley Saint Clair, who
Speaker 2: was on a podcast several months ago, asked about Lauren
Speaker 2: Chen and she was like, I think she's getting paid
Speaker 2: by some foreign influences, which is astounding. Yeah, she was like,
Speaker 2: I really believe that. It's pretty amazing, So credit to her.
Speaker 2: I wanted to give her a shout out because that's
Speaker 2: kind of amazing, and she was like, no, a lot
Speaker 2: of these like pro life people who are online trying
Speaker 2: to rally the vote against Trump. She's like, I think
Speaker 2: they're foreign out like foreign ops. It turned out to
Speaker 2: be right, and she specifically was talking about Lauren Chen.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's another couple of questions about maybe some
Speaker 2: of these other pro life activists who are doing that.
Speaker 2: But you know, I'll just wrap on this. There are
Speaker 2: a lot of people out there getting paid a lot
Speaker 2: of money. Russia was certainly one of them, but Israel
Speaker 2: is also certainly one of them, and Ukraine and Katar
Speaker 2: and so you know, look, if the DJ wants to
Speaker 2: indict all those people, I'm for it. I really am.
Speaker 2: Get all that money out of there. We'll be sitting
Speaker 2: here clean as a whistle. Yeah, And that's you know,
Speaker 2: that would be satisfying. But I also know that this
Speaker 2: selective in terms of the outrage, in terms of what
Speaker 2: people are gonna be looking, in terms of the discrediting
Speaker 2: for really for all time, you know that will follow
Speaker 2: from this, and I think that's actually a real tragedy
Speaker 2: for the independent media. Spase. Why you got to know
Speaker 2: a lot of.
Speaker 3: These people, why you got to give their resistance lives
Speaker 3: so much? Oh guy, Yes, why why.
Speaker 2: Are they are having you know, they're having such a
Speaker 2: field day. They really are so anyway, it's sad. It's sad.
Speaker 2: Let's move on to the next part. This is about Russia.
Speaker 2: This was actually the first Russia indictment to come down,
Speaker 2: and it was definitely kind of amusing. The DOJ is
Speaker 2: alleging a vast Russian social media campaign to influence the
Speaker 2: US election. Here is Meryk Garland at his press conference.
Speaker 2: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5: Today, our colleagues at the State and Treasury Departments are
Speaker 5: announcing parallel actions in both of these matters. Unfortunately, we
Speaker 5: know that Russia is not the only foreign power seeking
Speaker 5: to interfere in our elections. As a US intelligence community
Speaker 5: noted two weeks ago, we have observed increasingly aggressive Iranian
Speaker 5: activity during this election cycle. That includes recently reported activities
Speaker 5: by Iran to compromise former President Trump's campaign and to
Speaker 5: avoid an election outcome that it regards as against its interests.
Speaker 5: Those recently reported Iranian activities also include efforts to obtain
Speaker 5: access to individuals who themselves have access to the presidential
Speaker 5: campaigns of.
Speaker 6: Both political parties.
Speaker 5: The Justice Department's message is clear, we have no tolerance
Speaker 5: for attempts by authoritarian regimes to exploit our demogra our
Speaker 5: democratic system of government. We will be relentlessly aggressive encountering
Speaker 5: and disrupting attempts by Russia and Iran, as well as
Speaker 5: China or any other foreign malign actor to interfere in
Speaker 5: our elections and.
Speaker 6: Undermine our demopers.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that was part of the big press conference. Next,
Speaker 2: let's put this one up there on the screen. They
Speaker 2: have announced a plan to counter Russian influence ahead of
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty four election. I went through, and while
Speaker 2: this RT indictment was a separate one, it actually came
Speaker 2: out much later than the original one. The original one
Speaker 2: honestly is a complete joke, because if you go through
Speaker 2: and actually start to read what all of this is,
Speaker 2: they are targeting both individuals and others who basically like
Speaker 2: wrote op eds or appeared on RT Russia today as
Speaker 2: some sort of large encompassing Russian social media op on
Speaker 2: top of highlighting some of the so called Russian disinformation
Speaker 2: on social media. Somehow crystal, they have actually gotten worse.
Speaker 2: In my opinion from twenty sixteen, if you'll remember all
Speaker 2: those idiot Bernie bro memes and some of the pro
Speaker 2: Trump stuff. I will show you some of that in
Speaker 2: a little bit. But you know, one case I've really
Speaker 2: had my eye on, and this is actually part of
Speaker 2: this investigation. Let's put this up there, is that of
Speaker 2: the DOJ who is serving subpoenas and search warrants on
Speaker 2: certain individuals here in the United States who they allege
Speaker 2: our part of this vast Russian you know, state media campaign.
Speaker 2: One of them was Scott Ritter. Now, Scott is one
Speaker 2: of those people many people watch the show may even know.
Speaker 2: I would say it's probably fair to say he's like
Speaker 2: very anti establishment, has a very different view, i think
Speaker 2: in the most charitable sense of the Ukraine conflict, and
Speaker 2: has been pretty vociferous about US support to Ukraine. He's
Speaker 2: been accused of being quote unquote pro Russian, but his
Speaker 2: house was rated, as they put in here, the FBI
Speaker 2: went after him, and a lot of it seems to
Speaker 2: stem from the fact that he was very open about
Speaker 2: going on RT and or writing op eds you know,
Speaker 2: for them. Now, I think that's very different doing something
Speaker 2: out in the open and being very open with your opinions,
Speaker 2: as opposed to what Lauren Chen and Liam Donovan were doing.
Speaker 2: Which is taking money knowingly from RUSSI and then funneling
Speaker 2: that to other people and basically deceiving them into some
Speaker 2: sort of large scheme. So I haven't want to keep
Speaker 2: my eye on this. I'm not saying I'm pro Scott
Speaker 2: Ritter or anything, but I mean the US citizen and
Speaker 2: he has a legitimate opinion. You may not agree with
Speaker 2: that opinion. Why are they Why are they going through
Speaker 2: this man's house.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he hasn't been indicted yet, just to be clear,
Speaker 1: But yeah, this is where you get into like, listen,
Speaker 1: you're allowed to be pro pudin Like actually, like this
Speaker 1: is you know, this America. We're supposed to have free
Speaker 1: speech rights. And even if you know your speech is
Speaker 1: supporting official bad guy regime of the US government, like
Speaker 1: you're allowed to do that. So you know, that's where
Speaker 1: it starts to get. The other thing with all of
Speaker 1: this saga is you know you're talking about the one
Speaker 1: of the things that they're they're targeting is this this
Speaker 1: doppel ganger campaign they're calling it of you know, this
Speaker 1: is the kind of the creating fake a network that
Speaker 1: use sites they say that impersonated legitimate news entities and
Speaker 1: fake social media profiles impersonating Americans. This goes back to
Speaker 1: like some of the core like twenty sixteen allegations of
Speaker 1: the influence campaign that was being run there. And you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying any of this is good by the
Speaker 1: way we engage in these types of activities as well as.
Speaker 3: Does and we'll get to this a minute.
Speaker 1: Israel, and no one seems that upset about that, and
Speaker 1: there's no indictments coming down about that, but we'll pause
Speaker 1: that for a moment.
Speaker 3: We should also be clear about, like.
Speaker 1: We have wildly expensive, elaborate, sophisticated presidential campaigns. Okay, the
Speaker 1: means and the you know, fake news, the things that
Speaker 1: they're putting out, like it shouldn't freak you out that
Speaker 1: Russia is running our democracy. Okay, it's even these videos
Speaker 1: they got these top commentators on their payroll unknowingly again
Speaker 1: Tim Poole and Dave Ruma. These guys get millions of views, right,
Speaker 1: They're very popular and in plenty of circles, and even
Speaker 1: their content you were saying, it is getting like eight
Speaker 1: thousand views on these videos, like that's nothing, that's not thing.
Speaker 1: So even as you know, in that instance of the allegations,
Speaker 1: are true, Like, there should be indictments there, you're laundering
Speaker 1: money ten million dollars, Craine, fake businessmen, whatever. But let's
Speaker 1: also be really clear eyed about how much impact any
Speaker 1: of this is actually having on our politics. Absolutely, and
Speaker 1: there is going back to twenty sixteen, when you had
Speaker 1: the whole frenzy around this whatever, there was never any
Speaker 1: evidence that any of it meaningfully impacted how people voted
Speaker 1: and what the actual outcome of that election ultimately was.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and for example, I went through and actually read
Speaker 2: this indictment whenever it was coming out. Let's put this
Speaker 2: on the screen. I want people to see what was
Speaker 2: so spooky and scary. Here is one of the massive
Speaker 2: Russian influence operations. It was a Facebook page called CNN
Speaker 2: California in blue, not even in the CNN logo. It
Speaker 2: had two likes and seven followers. The description was from
Speaker 2: sunny Beaches to busting Techhubs. We explore the lifestyle, news
Speaker 2: and development Californian so drammatically in wrong logo and weird banner.
Speaker 2: The next seven followers, Yeah, with seven followers. Next is
Speaker 2: quote BBC California. Okay, like why should we care? Exactly?
Speaker 2: These were obviously a complete joke. And that's the point
Speaker 2: is that they're very obvious. Throughout all of these you
Speaker 2: had grammatical errors, you had social media pages with very
Speaker 2: few followers into accounts, and it actually reminds me of
Speaker 2: a lot of what came through the Twitter files where
Speaker 2: you would watch the FBI get up in arms about
Speaker 2: some account that had like twelve followers that said, hey, everybody,
Speaker 2: the elections on Wednesday. And there's an FBI agent sitting
Speaker 2: in northern Virginia getting paid probably one hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 2: a year plus benefits scrolling through and searching Twitter, spending
Speaker 2: our taxpayer dollars time interfacing with social media company to
Speaker 2: try and get the stuff taken down. That's what all
Speaker 2: of this read through. And I went through, guys, this
Speaker 2: was a hundreds of pages indictment and they point out
Speaker 2: these fake stories and they point out their like the
Speaker 2: Russian government created dummy news websites, and you'll look at
Speaker 2: it and it'll be like Washingtonpost dot KP or something. Sorry,
Speaker 2: who's going to that? Like for real? Like do you
Speaker 2: really Google? And then go to page twelve to click
Speaker 2: on Washingtonpost dot KP? Are you that stupid? And if
Speaker 2: you are like, you probably are gonna fall for a
Speaker 2: ten million more stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's what I was gonna say, is I
Speaker 1: mean out of all of us though, especially if you
Speaker 1: are on Twitter, like you just need to not believe
Speaker 1: anything that's on there anymore because so much of it
Speaker 1: is it's not even this foreign influence what some of
Speaker 1: it is that. Yeah, but people just make shit up now.
Speaker 1: I mean it's just I know it's always been the case,
Speaker 1: but I think it is worse than ever before under
Speaker 1: the new Elon model, where anyone can get a blue
Speaker 1: check and then they use that as some sort of
Speaker 1: credibility and they'll just make stuff up. Their sources say
Speaker 1: Tim Wallas is about to drop out, their sources say
Speaker 1: like Joe Biden's actually dead, and this is a body
Speaker 1: like they will make stuff up.
Speaker 3: So please, I implore you do.
Speaker 1: Not believe this, you know, really really double check anything
Speaker 1: that you are seeing spreading online because the problem has
Speaker 1: never been worse than it is right now, last piece
Speaker 1: of this we reference a couple of times put D
Speaker 1: six up on the screen. We know that Israel organized
Speaker 1: and paid for an influenced campaign that targeted lawmakers directly
Speaker 1: and especially black lawmakers and would pose as like black
Speaker 1: constituents trying to push the Israel agenda. And you know,
Speaker 1: I'll hold my I won't hold my breath on the
Speaker 1: indictments forthcoming for that one, which just show you like
Speaker 1: it's very selectively applied.
Speaker 3: Of course, bottom line is very selectively applied.
Speaker 2: Here is that there's so much filthy stuff out there
Speaker 2: and people who are trying to buy your attention. I mean,
Speaker 2: B five, you know I put this in. I put
Speaker 2: this in on purpose. Put B five please on the
Speaker 2: screen because as you see, they are also at the
Speaker 2: same time staying quote. Iran emerges as a top disinformation
Speaker 2: threat in you presidential race, and without fail. You know,
Speaker 2: with these conservatives, they're so laughable. For years they cry
Speaker 2: about Russia Gate and I mean Rushigate was a scam.
Speaker 2: But then the moment that there's some BSTA being like
Speaker 2: Iran's funding the protest, They're like the entire protest when
Speaker 2: was being funded by Iran? I'm like, do you hear yourselves?
Speaker 2: Do you hear yourself? Did we not just go through this?
Speaker 2: Are some of those people getting paid Byron? Maybe? You know,
Speaker 2: I need to see a lot of evidence. I mean,
Speaker 2: that's part of the thing too, relating back to our
Speaker 2: tenant media discussion, the evidence is pretty unrefutable. You got
Speaker 2: wire transfers, you got private communications, you got all this
Speaker 2: other stuff. Now again, I'm willing to hear them out,
Speaker 2: like if they really had some alternative explanation, that be fine,
Speaker 2: But we got to wait and see. This is the
Speaker 2: allegation of the US government here here as well. Though
Speaker 2: you can obviously watch Iran, Israel, Russia, all these other
Speaker 2: people have all these influence operations that are currently happening
Speaker 2: here in America, but only Russia is called out, and
Speaker 2: they were whipping it into hysteria. And that's another issue,
Speaker 2: is that the Russia Gate people are having the greatest
Speaker 2: day of their lives because you've got commentators who they
Speaker 2: despise who are revealed have been secret cutouts for Russian payments.
Speaker 2: On top of this, like oh my god, everything we
Speaker 2: see in social media already, you know, I watch these
Speaker 2: CNN freaks like Ashah, Ragan, Napa or whatever. If we
Speaker 2: worked at CNN, be like coincidentally, the Russian playbook exactly
Speaker 2: matches the Trump vance agenda. And you're like, okay, like
Speaker 2: here we go again again, right here we go again,
Speaker 2: and this is this is everything they've ever wanted. CNN
Speaker 2: is having a field day. By the way, who do
Speaker 2: you think broke the news that this was happening, CNN's
Speaker 2: Jim Acosta. It just tells you everything you need to know.
Speaker 2: Like it is obvious that they want to whip this
Speaker 2: all up again. The Democrats, especially the elite ones, and
Speaker 2: a lot of the commentators are loving this. We'll see
Speaker 2: if the Kamala campaign picks up on it. Wouldn't put
Speaker 2: it past them. It would be smart not to do it.
Speaker 2: But in general, what we can really learn, you know,
Speaker 2: from this indictment is that, you know, look, you think
Speaker 2: we're not up to very similar things in many other
Speaker 2: foreign countries. Hopefully we're doing a much better job. And
Speaker 2: CNN California, yeah, we probably aren't.
Speaker 1: Just a last thing on the Israel point that I
Speaker 1: just I wanted to point out, it's what they did
Speaker 1: are confirmed to have done according to multiple reports, including
Speaker 1: in Israeli news outlets, and again this came directly from
Speaker 1: the Israeli government.
Speaker 3: Is so similar to this whole doppelganger thing.
Speaker 1: They created fake news website, they invented fake personalities interacting
Speaker 1: with lawmakers. They got caught because somebody who was you know,
Speaker 1: involved with this didn't change their profile pick they kept
Speaker 1: it as like, you know, some random white dude and
Speaker 1: then they were posting like as a middle aged black
Speaker 1: woman blah blah blah. But that it's exactly the same
Speaker 1: as like the you know, the doppelganger thing that they're
Speaker 1: alleging with the Russians. So in any case, uh, I
Speaker 1: guess Russia Gate.
Speaker 3: Here we go again.
Speaker 2: Yes, here we go, we go again.
Speaker 1: But please, guys, if you're if whoever's out there listening, yeah,
Speaker 1: some random person who you can't find online is offering
Speaker 1: you millions of to produce a handful of videos.
Speaker 3: Like maybe maybe think a little bit about that one.
Speaker 2: Maybe I get it, you know, cyber truck. It seems cool.
Speaker 3: I am plenty of money anyway, Like there are so rich.
Speaker 2: That is what I was going to get to. At
Speaker 2: the same time, my guys, I know how much you're
Speaker 2: probably make it, and it's like it's enough. You know,
Speaker 2: at what point, good, You're very good. You don't need
Speaker 2: to take sketchy deals. You can make plenty of money
Speaker 2: legitimately and not have problems. Now with the Department of justice.
Speaker 2: And you know, I mean, look if you I mean
Speaker 2: the legal fees that you're going to incur on a
Speaker 2: case like this, Oh my god. Some of these you know,
Speaker 2: from what I understand, these Washington lawyers who work on
Speaker 2: these deals, they charge like one thousand dollars an hour,
Speaker 2: you know, just to interface with the government on your behalf.
Speaker 2: So good luck. You know, it's some of those folks
Speaker 2: out there. It's not worth it. It's not worth even
Speaker 2: the public reputation hit. They'll take the absolutely, it's just embarrassing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what happens with Lauren
Speaker 1: Chen from here yet.
Speaker 2: I mean, she should go to jail, she really should,
Speaker 2: or she should get at the very least she' should
Speaker 2: be put on probation or something like that. And all
Speaker 2: of those people involved, Ruben, you should sue her, They
Speaker 2: really should, like sue take their assets because they the
Speaker 2: public reputation would be pretty easy to prove about the
Speaker 2: damages of what you've done. And second, you know, the
Speaker 2: US government has the direct evidence of you lying to people,
Speaker 2: so screw you. Honestly, I have genuinely scum to put
Speaker 2: something like that onto other people. That's if anything you know,
Speaker 2: maybe you can live with taking money from a foreign government,
Speaker 2: but deceiving others that is the worst thing you can do,
Speaker 2: especially given what has happened now.
Speaker 1: Yep, So former President Trump did a big, supposedly town hall,
Speaker 1: but did the hall didn't actually ask any questions. What
Speaker 1: was Sean Hannity last night? Our producer Griffin pulled some
Speaker 1: of the most interesting moments from the evening. When he
Speaker 1: got a question, this was kind of elicit an interesting
Speaker 1: response about the contrast between the twenty sixteen campaign and
Speaker 1: this campaign.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to how he responded.
Speaker 7: Sixteen was about the forgotten man and forgotten woman.
Speaker 4: What is twenty twenty four about him? So it's not
Speaker 4: that different.
Speaker 7: It's still about the forgotten man and the forgotten woman.
Speaker 7: The people are being treated horribly in this country. We're
Speaker 7: a country that's being left at all over the world.
Speaker 7: And I'll be honest, if Joe Biden would be a
Speaker 7: great president, I would be happier than being the worst
Speaker 7: president in the history of our country, because I want
Speaker 7: to see what's good for the country and I would
Speaker 7: have been very happy.
Speaker 4: I have very nice places I could be. This is
Speaker 4: not easy. I got shot at you know, I mean,
Speaker 4: I got hit. I got hit. Why it would have
Speaker 4: been all over that place I could have.
Speaker 7: But you know what, it's very simple, and it starts
Speaker 7: with make America great again.
Speaker 4: That's what we have to do.
Speaker 1: Would you make of that soccer? Because I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just listen. Back in twenty sixteen, there was a lot
Speaker 1: there in terms of you know, talking about trade, talking
Speaker 1: about the Iraq War, like it was credible to say
Speaker 1: this is about the forgotten man and woman.
Speaker 3: It's not credible anymore. I mean, your biggest.
Speaker 1: Agenda item in the first term was this giant tax
Speaker 1: cut for largely for rich people, the type of people
Speaker 1: you put we were talking about this earlier that you
Speaker 1: put in your cabinet and key positions of power like
Speaker 1: Wilbur Ross, who's known for buying up and selling off
Speaker 1: steel Company, the polar opposite of what you said your
Speaker 1: priorities were going to be here. Your Nationalite Relations board
Speaker 1: was all about crushing workers. So and this time around,
Speaker 1: there just isn't even a lot of rhetoric around the
Speaker 1: quote unquote forgotten man and forgotten woman. So I don't
Speaker 1: know that that's very credible at this point.
Speaker 2: Okay, you and I may know that, but yeah, a
Speaker 2: field don't know that. Of course, Well, how many people
Speaker 2: are looking at policy or NLRB or who knows who
Speaker 2: Wilbur Ross is only people who follow very closely. So look,
Speaker 2: in a certain sense, this is was his best strength.
Speaker 2: I think that would be the best thing that he
Speaker 2: could quote unquote lean into. If you listen to many
Speaker 2: of the interviews that jd Vance gives works Ham, this
Speaker 2: is a lot more what it is I do. If anything,
Speaker 2: I'm gonna read it this way. Hannity seems to be
Speaker 2: clear that he believes like Trump has maybe lost his step,
Speaker 2: and he's like, maybe we should come back to the
Speaker 2: forgotten man, right and we should come back to some
Speaker 2: of that rhetoric, and that seems to be where you
Speaker 2: thrive the most. So he talked to Lar. I mean, look,
Speaker 2: immigration is probably his best issue, is probably the issue
Speaker 2: that resonates most with a lot of working class issues
Speaker 2: that are working class base that he has so far,
Speaker 2: That's what he's probably should be talking about where it's
Speaker 2: at his best. So the forgotten man thing is very
Speaker 2: powerful whenever you want to embrace it. This time around, though,
Speaker 2: and I mean, look, he did a lot of this
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty. It's very anti left. Now that can work.
Speaker 2: Let's be real, Like, it's potent, and it is one
Speaker 2: that is actually more unifying to the Republican coalition. It's
Speaker 2: a lot of these people are communists, Delroy, Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 2: And actually that's much more unifying in terms of like
Speaker 2: the Republican electorate because you've got people who you know,
Speaker 2: small business owners or whatever, who all they care about
Speaker 2: is low taxes, and you've got working class they don't
Speaker 2: care about that at all. They're animated about immigration, or
Speaker 2: they're animated about trade or you know, many variety of
Speaker 2: other things. But they also kind of hate cultural leftism.
Speaker 2: So this campaign to me seems much more about like
Speaker 2: cultural like capital l liberals and being anti that, and
Speaker 2: that is potent. I mean, you can easily win the
Speaker 2: White House. I think that's what we learn in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty whenever he did all that last time, and it's
Speaker 2: quite clear it could work against Kamala Harris as well.
Speaker 2: I prefer they're forgotten man stuff. Yeah, but that's not really.
Speaker 1: What you're describing is just a very standard Republican playbook.
Speaker 1: It's just very like you know, Mitt Romney, could have
Speaker 1: been launching these same sort of attacks against who And
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's Kamala or Joe Biden or Barack
Speaker 1: Obama or Bill Clinton, whoever it is, at some point
Speaker 1: they've all been called communists by Republicans. So it's just
Speaker 1: it's a very sort of typical Republican playbook. They also, obviously,
Speaker 1: the subject of Kamala Harris did come up, and Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity made a joke about, you know, the how the
Speaker 1: brevity of her interview with CNN. Now, when you're Sean
Speaker 1: Hannity and you're doing an incredibly thoughtful interview with Trump,
Speaker 1: I don't know that you have a lot of legs
Speaker 1: to stand on. But in any case, let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to that exchange.
Speaker 7: If you watch that interview, she had notes that means
Speaker 7: she knew the questions and she had notes she kept
Speaker 7: looking down. Nobody wants to cover it. I know all
Speaker 7: about notes. I mean, you know, it's all right if
Speaker 7: people know that. But she was a bestved notes. So
Speaker 7: she's asked a question, she looks down to keep. So
Speaker 7: she had notes that means she knew that she knew
Speaker 7: it was about did her campaign When they said that
Speaker 7: they wanted to change the rules that they had agreed to.
Speaker 4: Did they ask for notes? Did they ask for that?
Speaker 7: They wanted notes, They wanted to be seated, and they
Speaker 7: wanted your mic ho.
Speaker 4: They wanted a desk. I'm going to allow it.
Speaker 7: You can't take the chance. You have no choice. You've
Speaker 7: got to vote from me. You've got to vote from me.
Speaker 1: You got.
Speaker 4: Even if you don't like me. But even if you.
Speaker 7: Don't like me, you could sit there. I can't stand
Speaker 7: that guy, but there's no way I'm going to vote
Speaker 7: for her.
Speaker 1: I actually think that last part is kind of a
Speaker 1: good that that actually is his part is his core
Speaker 1: strategy is, listen, my favorability rating, it's not going to
Speaker 1: come up. It is what it is. I need to
Speaker 1: get some people who don't like me to hate her
Speaker 1: even more. And that's the goal between here and election night.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: So far, they haven't done a very good job of that.
Speaker 1: Her approval rating has gone up tremendously. But you know,
Speaker 1: even though in some ways the time is very short
Speaker 1: between now and election day, and another way it's very long.
Speaker 1: And so his goal is going to be to push
Speaker 1: up that number of double haters and be able to
Speaker 1: try to win a majority of them in the way
Speaker 1: that he did in twenty sixteen. And so that's his
Speaker 1: pitch is basically like, listen, you may not like me,
Speaker 1: but you got no choice.
Speaker 3: You can't vote for her.
Speaker 1: She's incompetent, she needs the notes, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: That really is kind of his core bet in terms
Speaker 1: of how he can win.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a bad strategy either. Remember in
Speaker 2: twenty sixteen he had a thirty five percent approval rate
Speaker 2: and he's still won some forty eight something percent of
Speaker 2: the vote. Twenty twenty, his approval rating was actually lower
Speaker 2: and he won ten million more votes than the last
Speaker 2: time around. The double hater thing is actually strong and
Speaker 2: coming at it head on. I kind of like it
Speaker 2: because at this point, what Trump has been in our
Speaker 2: lives since twenty eleven, he's been in a national political figure.
Speaker 2: Nobody is like, you know, I don't know what I
Speaker 2: think about this guy. There are a lot of people
Speaker 2: who hate him, but there are a lot of people
Speaker 2: will hold their nose and we'll also vote for him,
Speaker 2: as we've learned two times around now, so this time
Speaker 2: this whole look, you know, you may not like me,
Speaker 2: but you can't vote for the other guy. That's powerful.
Speaker 2: That's what happened with Biden in and twenty so again,
Speaker 2: I don't love this, like for the country, I don't
Speaker 2: think this is healthy. But from an objective standpoint, I
Speaker 2: think it can be powerful and it's not a bad
Speaker 2: one in particular. For let's think about like the conservative
Speaker 2: like moms and dads who are making let's call it
Speaker 2: like two hundred grand a year. These people don't really
Speaker 2: like Trump. They're much more Mitt Romney folks. They are
Speaker 2: lifelong Republicans, love McCain, love Romney. But they are like
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris either some of them have actually been voting
Speaker 2: for her, but this time around they're like, well, I'm
Speaker 2: just not so sure. And they hear something like that,
Speaker 2: maybe it's persuasive, it's possible, at least puts it in
Speaker 2: your head. And it's definitely one that a lot of
Speaker 2: their neighbors and others. This is where I think the
Speaker 2: biggest conflict is is over that Liz Chainey type voter.
Speaker 2: Right yesterday she endorsed Kamala Harris by the way, congratulations.
Speaker 2: She said, She's like it's too much, you know, to
Speaker 2: even write in and the swings to stakes are just
Speaker 2: too high. So I'm voting for Kamala Harris. But that
Speaker 2: fight is playing out in a lot of these upper
Speaker 2: middle class Republican circles. And that's the logic that I
Speaker 2: often hear, you know, from those types of people. They're like,
Speaker 2: I don't even like him, but I am going to
Speaker 2: vote for him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's you know, it's the existential type of you know, steakes.
Speaker 1: And like I said, I think if it's going to work, he's.
Speaker 3: Got to be more effective.
Speaker 1: They got to find some ways to dig her up
Speaker 1: more effectively, because right now our approval rating is in
Speaker 1: positive territory in moost bowls, which is actually pretty usual
Speaker 1: for a modern politician at this time. The thing that
Speaker 1: he was saying about, you know, the notes and trying
Speaker 1: to undercut her credibility and disqualify her, that hasn't.
Speaker 3: Worked so far.
Speaker 1: We showed that poll earlier in the week more people
Speaker 1: found her to be qualified to be president than him.
Speaker 1: So he's got some work to do if he's going
Speaker 1: to bring her favorability numbers. But you know, they've got
Speaker 1: a lot of ad spending plans and he's doing his
Speaker 1: his interviews and getting out there and doing his thing.
Speaker 1: So I have no doubt that by the time election
Speaker 1: day rolls around, some of that will land and.
Speaker 3: Her approval rating will take a hit.
Speaker 2: Between now today, I mean, it has probably nothing to
Speaker 2: do with her. People are going to make up their
Speaker 2: minds and they get hardened before the election. That's just
Speaker 2: how it goes in terms.
Speaker 1: Of But I do think he missed a key window here,
Speaker 1: like they waited too long.
Speaker 2: I said that from yeah, I go, hey, what are
Speaker 2: we doing here? You know? Even this, Sorry, why are
Speaker 2: we on a Sean Hannity Fox News interview? What is
Speaker 2: happening right for Sean McGuire, Yes, Sean, his whole audience
Speaker 2: is voting for Trump, like okay. Well, also, Sean didn't
Speaker 2: even give him any questions from the town hall, which
Speaker 2: would have allowed them to go viral and can be covered, right,
Speaker 2: because that's where the most interesting exchanges are. Now, this
Speaker 2: is the thing too with Trump and the podcast strategy.
Speaker 2: At the very least, you're getting clips of that that
Speaker 2: are going viral because they're different. So Trump in general
Speaker 2: does better actually, I think in adversari interviews. This is
Speaker 2: another thing I've been watching JD's media calendar. It's all adversarial.
Speaker 2: Almost none of it is friendly. He's going on the
Speaker 2: New York Times the Interview podcast. That's gonna be great, right,
Speaker 2: You're gonna have like Michelle Goldberg folks like that, like
Speaker 2: ultra Russiagate libs literally up against JD. I can guarantee
Speaker 2: you there will be some decent content that comes out
Speaker 2: of that. Trump needs to put himself more into that space,
Speaker 2: because I think he actually does better in some sort
Speaker 2: of a challenging environment as opposed to this just like
Speaker 2: this just fluid nonsense, right, And I'm sure it's comfortable.
Speaker 2: I get that from a human level. It's probably comfortable
Speaker 2: to sit there and bs with Sean Harris. But totally
Speaker 2: I don't see it. I don't see it for him
Speaker 2: me neither.
Speaker 1: I don't understand the strategy. Like I'll say this delicately
Speaker 1: because you have personal friends with JD. But he's the
Speaker 1: least popular person out of the four of these individuals.
Speaker 1: Why is he campaigning more than you are? I see
Speaker 1: the one out doing the interviews.
Speaker 2: By the way, I no more disagreeable. I mean, that's
Speaker 2: just the fact it's America's job to decide what they
Speaker 2: think about JD. I don't agree with them, but that's fine. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I don't agree with America on the.
Speaker 1: Law, right, So like, okay, you're putting your weakest asset
Speaker 1: in terms of how people feel about this guy out
Speaker 1: front to do like the heavy lifting of the campaign. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: you're going on. I think he's really convinced himself. Like
Speaker 1: in the Lex Friedman podcast interview, which was atrocious by
Speaker 1: the way, but we'll save that for another day, he
Speaker 1: mentioned how many views his Twitter spaces with Elon Musk
Speaker 1: got and I was like, you're really buying those numbers.
Speaker 1: You really believe that that had some sort of like
Speaker 1: massive traction and was really an incredible benefit for your kid.
Speaker 1: It was a disaster. You guys will remember how long
Speaker 1: did it take?
Speaker 3: We couldn't get on the tech failed.
Speaker 1: Once it did, it sounded like crap. He was slurring.
Speaker 1: That was you know, the microphone or whatever issue was going,
Speaker 1: but it sounded terrible, okay, And the numbers on that
Speaker 1: anyone with a brain knows as total, complete, made up bullshit.
Speaker 1: So I think he's really convinced himself of this strategy.
Speaker 1: And I said this before, but you know, just look,
Speaker 1: I would like it if the alternative media sphere was
Speaker 1: more powerful than it is, but it ain't. Look at
Speaker 1: Andrew Yang and how his campaign went. That was largely
Speaker 1: an online like, let me go on all the podcasts
Speaker 1: and do the thing campaign. Look at viveg Ramaswami, who
Speaker 1: also had this very online let me go on all
Speaker 1: the like you know, alternative media, right left, whatever, podcast.
Speaker 3: And do the thing. It was a four percent in
Speaker 3: the polls.
Speaker 1: So you know, he's Trump really understands television, really understands television.
Speaker 1: I don't think he understands the alternative media space at all.
Speaker 1: I don't think that the strategy makes any sense. I
Speaker 1: think he or his advisors or whoever, have convinced them
Speaker 1: that this is way more powerful than it ultimately is.
Speaker 1: And then yeah, and then you're spending your time doing
Speaker 1: this Sean Hannity interview to a friendly audience that already
Speaker 1: like knows, loves and is going to vote for you.
Speaker 1: None of it is very logical.
Speaker 2: I'll flip it. I think the podcast thing is great
Speaker 2: as long as it's additive, as long as.
Speaker 3: You're doing both right, but it's really not.
Speaker 2: Right that he needs to do. I think more adversarial stuff.
Speaker 1: And you're not even really doing a lot of routy,
Speaker 1: like he didn't even campaign on Labor Day, like to
Speaker 1: the Forgotten Man thing, and you're trying to drape yourself
Speaker 1: in like you know, working people and trying to win
Speaker 1: more of the union vote, and you don't even campaign
Speaker 1: on Labor Day.
Speaker 3: That's crazy.
Speaker 2: So I'm looking at a schedule. I believe he's got
Speaker 2: what He's got a rally that is this weekend in Wisconsin,
Speaker 2: and after or that, let's see, he will give a
Speaker 2: speech in Phoenix, Arizona. I think that's today, and there
Speaker 2: will be quote an agenda forty seven policy tour that
Speaker 2: is in Milwaukee, featuring Doug Burgum and a bunch of
Speaker 2: other people I've never heard of. So okay, all right,
Speaker 2: that's what's on the schedule for today. Right now, He's
Speaker 2: going to Wisconsin, which I mean that actually makes sense electorally,
Speaker 2: But look, in general, I think he needs to work harder.
Speaker 2: I think he needs to flood the zone. And this
Speaker 2: is the other thing. Twenty sixteen Trump actually genuinely flooded
Speaker 2: the zone. And this is where the podcast strategy can
Speaker 2: be genuinely additive. We'll see what they do, maybe he
Speaker 2: wants to take some time to prepare you know, what
Speaker 2: does it prepare for the for the debate, the debate
Speaker 2: which is coming up, that kind of that would be
Speaker 2: a fair human That.
Speaker 1: Would be a first that he wanted to prepare for
Speaker 1: a debate.
Speaker 3: He doesn't normally do that.
Speaker 2: I think he needs to work harder. I think jd
Speaker 2: strategy is much more effective actually, and it would be
Speaker 2: ten x more effective with Trump was just like with
Speaker 2: the most dynamic figure in modern American politics. So look,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm not running this campaign.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, and let me let me just say,
Speaker 1: let's talk a little bit more about Kammain the poll block.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that their strategy is particularly good either.
Speaker 1: They have you know, Tim Walls is very popular, and
Speaker 1: where is he on all of these It.
Speaker 2: Doesn't even take questions from freaking local media what is
Speaker 2: going on?
Speaker 1: I mean, they actually have a really tremendous asset in
Speaker 1: Tim Walls. He has sort of set the most effective
Speaker 1: parts of their campaign. We're about to show you a
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity clip with regard to Tim Walls in terms
Speaker 1: of you know, the weird thing, which, whether you like
Speaker 1: it or not, I think it is way more effective
Speaker 1: than the over the top, grandiose moralizing about Trump. The
Speaker 1: sort of like you know, laugh at him, roll your
Speaker 1: eyes at him, I think is a way more effective
Speaker 1: strategy the more populous elements of his policy when those
Speaker 1: have been highlighted, like I think those have been some
Speaker 1: of the best parts of your campaign, and he's not
Speaker 1: out here doing cable news interviews. They're shying away from
Speaker 1: talking about some of the most popular parts of their
Speaker 1: economic policy. She's too afraid to do interviews of any
Speaker 1: you know, significance or quantity. So it's not like I
Speaker 1: think that their strategy is great either, So let me
Speaker 1: be clear about that.
Speaker 2: Well, no, you're you're right. I think the reason why
Speaker 2: they don't do it is because if he did interviews
Speaker 2: and they'd be like, well, why doesn't your boss do interviews?
Speaker 2: And that's ultimately what it's about. Also, they don't want
Speaker 2: to make news on anything, They don't want to clarify anything.
Speaker 2: I'm like, yeah, so what do you believe on the
Speaker 2: capital gains tax? Your advisor said this, do you believe
Speaker 2: in the EV mandate? Yes? Or no? Because recently, apparently
Speaker 2: the answer is now no or maybe or maybe it's
Speaker 2: not what is your reaction to the did you watch that?
Speaker 2: You know the clip where they asked him, They're like, hey,
Speaker 2: what do you think about Hamas murdering those six Israeli hostage?
Speaker 2: He's like, all right, thanks everybody. That was it. It's like,
Speaker 2: come on, Bill, you want to be vice president? Or
Speaker 2: with Kamala? What is happening here? So yeah, let's not
Speaker 2: also leave them off the hook because anyway going.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so let's we'll get some more on that when
Speaker 1: we get to the polling piece. But here is a
Speaker 1: question answer with regard to Tim Walls and the quote
Speaker 1: unquote weird allegations with tay Listen.
Speaker 7: There's something, there's something weird with that guy. He's a
Speaker 7: weird guy. JD is not weird. He's a solid rock.
Speaker 7: I happen to be a very solid rock. We're not weird.
Speaker 4: We're other things, perhaps, but we're not weird. But he
Speaker 4: is a weird guy. He walks on the stage.
Speaker 7: There is something wrong with that guy, and he called
Speaker 7: me weird, and then the fake news media picks it up.
Speaker 4: That was the word of the day, weird, weird, weird.
Speaker 7: They're all going, but we're not weird, guys, we're very
Speaker 7: solid people.
Speaker 4: They want our country to be great again. I mean,
Speaker 4: it's very simple.
Speaker 1: See. I think he's in a certain sense making like
Speaker 1: a Hillary twenty sixteen mistake, which is when.
Speaker 2: What strives in affecting it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, now they have set the terms of
Speaker 1: the debate. It's impossible to disprove a weird allegation. And
Speaker 1: the more you're saying the word, the more you're validating
Speaker 1: the frame. So yeah, I think it's I think it's
Speaker 1: been effective, an effective attack on them. I think they
Speaker 1: have not dealt with it well. And I think the
Speaker 1: more they talk about it, the more it sort of
Speaker 1: like gets ingrained in the psyche and the association with
Speaker 1: the term.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'll just compare Ja. He doesn't talk about
Speaker 2: it at all. Every time they ask, he just laughs
Speaker 2: and he's like, Okay, you know, whatever, next question. I
Speaker 2: think it's probably more effective, right than than doing this.
Speaker 2: I don't disagree with you. We have what the last
Speaker 2: clip here from Trump about World War three and nuclear weapons.
Speaker 2: Let's take a.
Speaker 7: Listen, everybody was afraid of Trump. You bring them back,
Speaker 7: You're not going to have any problems. It's all going
Speaker 7: to go away.
Speaker 4: The world is blowing up.
Speaker 2: The world is blowing up.
Speaker 4: Bring and shown one thing. The world is blowing up.
Speaker 7: And when you look at Ukraine and you look at Russia,
Speaker 7: you look at all the things that are happening, we
Speaker 7: are potentially getting ready, I'm telling you. And I've made
Speaker 7: a lot of predictions, and this is not a prediction,
Speaker 7: because it's so bad. I don't want it to be
Speaker 7: a prediction. We're heading into World War three territory. And
Speaker 7: because of the power of weapons, nuclear weapons in particular,
Speaker 7: but other weapons also. And I know the weapons better
Speaker 7: than anybody because I'm the one that bought them. And
Speaker 7: you know, we rebuilt our entire militarily.
Speaker 2: All right. I mean, look the World War three stuff.
Speaker 2: I actually think it would be better if he was
Speaker 2: campaigning on it more. You know, this is the other
Speaker 2: problem too, with the you you know, every time he's
Speaker 2: asked about Ukraine, Israel, or any of these other things, Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: it's always it never would have happened if it wasn't
Speaker 2: for me. And while I get that that's an attractive answer,
Speaker 2: at a certain point you kind of do need to
Speaker 2: have a little bit of detail or offer something, or
Speaker 2: offer because right now he's all over the map where
Speaker 2: you're pro Israel and on Afghanistan. He's like, well, I
Speaker 2: would have kept a base in Bagram. I'm like, well,
Speaker 2: then you never actually believed in ending the war in Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: Just so you know, in terms of what.
Speaker 3: That means, you're actually not answering Ukraine.
Speaker 2: He's like, Wellkraine. It's like, well, okay, well now what
Speaker 2: you know. You say that the deal will be ended.
Speaker 2: I mean the war will be ended by the time
Speaker 2: in President Like great, but you know what is that
Speaker 2: going to do entail? What if Putin doesn't agree to
Speaker 2: your deal? Then what is Ukraine ever going to be
Speaker 2: allowed in the NATO under your watch? Yes or no?
Speaker 2: I mean, these are all like questions that genuinely need answers.
Speaker 2: So look, I think being anti war in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 2: especially on Iraq, and in contrast to Jeb Bush and
Speaker 2: the rest of the party, was so effective, and I
Speaker 2: don't see that from him as much these days.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a real there's a real risk, like a
Speaker 1: real world risk. We talked about like foreign influence whatever,
Speaker 1: baby Natanya, who would much rather have Trump in the
Speaker 1: White House, And he's trying to drag us into a
Speaker 1: broader Middle Eastern like regional war as we speak, and
Speaker 1: has long desired that, but knows that would be a problem.
Speaker 3: For Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: And you know, so while I don't think that this
Speaker 1: talking point from Trump, which again he's not anti war,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, obviously there's layers and layers of
Speaker 1: propaganda here, et cetera. It's not even clear where he
Speaker 1: stands on a variety of these issues. It is clear
Speaker 1: that he's way like even more pro Israel somehow than
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is. But you know, this talking point, I
Speaker 1: don't think today wins the day. But if we find
Speaker 1: ourselves in some better, you know, conflict with Iran and
Speaker 1: flare up in the Middle East, which is surely you
Speaker 1: can lay the blame for that at the feet of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and his vice president Kamala Harris, this talking
Speaker 1: point becomes much more salient.
Speaker 3: And there's a lot of risks, a lot of risks.
Speaker 1: Here, completely avoidable, you know, just focus on the politics,
Speaker 1: let alone the morality. Completely avoidable risks here that the
Speaker 1: longer that Biden has allowed bb to jerk his chain
Speaker 1: and do whatever the hell he wants with zero consequences,
Speaker 1: the more those risks escalating.
Speaker 3: That's where we are.
Speaker 1: So we had some new CNN polls come out across
Speaker 1: a variety of battleground states. Will show you the details
Speaker 1: of those in a second. David Challion, who's like their
Speaker 1: top like political guy.
Speaker 2: Biden was inaugurated. He's like you could feel the warm glow.
Speaker 3: The arms of the Capitol wrapping around whatever. Yet anyway,
Speaker 3: that's him.
Speaker 1: So he looked at some of the numbers in this
Speaker 1: and he said, there's some warning signs for Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: in terms of not fully reconsolidating the winning Biden coalition
Speaker 1: from twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen to his analysis here.
Speaker 8: If you look at the white voters without college degrees,
Speaker 8: this is a Trump based constituency. Obviously, you see his
Speaker 8: huge numbers with this group. You see that this is
Speaker 8: a trouble sign for Harris. She also, in place like
Speaker 8: Georgia is not doing well with white college educated voters.
Speaker 8: She probably wants to make up some ground with white
Speaker 8: college educated voters across these battlegrounds as well.
Speaker 1: Gay so a couple of demographic groups or she still
Speaker 1: has some work to do. Let's go ahead and put
Speaker 1: up on the screen the actual poll numbers. So we
Speaker 1: can take a look battleground by battleground, and we have
Speaker 1: the electro map which I'll talk through.
Speaker 3: So just keep this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: So in most of these battleground states, Kamala Harris is up,
Speaker 1: so in Wisconsin, up by six, in Michigan up by five,
Speaker 1: in Georgia up by one, which is within the margin
Speaker 1: of aaron Nevada up by one with the marchin of
Speaker 1: era error, Pennsylvania tied, and then Arizona is the one
Speaker 1: where Trump has a clear lead plus five. So the
Speaker 1: map on the screen here represents Okay, if we gave Trump,
Speaker 1: it's tied in this bowl. Let's say we give Trump
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania and we give him Arizona and North Carolina. What
Speaker 1: does that map look like? And he actually needs one
Speaker 1: more state to be able to put himself over the top.
Speaker 1: This map reflected by the CNN polls. Again, assuming you
Speaker 1: give Pennsylvania, which is tied to Trump, has Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: getting two seventy three and Republicans getting too sixty five. Now,
Speaker 1: one of the things that we talked about earlier this week, Sager,
Speaker 1: is that the ad spending really looks like Trump is
Speaker 1: going all in on like a Pennsylvania, Georgia Arizona play,
Speaker 1: and that would be enough. You know, if he's able
Speaker 1: to Georgia in this poll, Harris only up by one.
Speaker 1: If you're able to have Georgia go in your column,
Speaker 1: that would be enough to put you over the time up.
Speaker 1: But it's kind of the reverse of where the Democrats
Speaker 1: were under Joe Biden. Under Joe Biden, they had this
Speaker 1: very narrow, probably non existent, but very narrow path that
Speaker 1: they were attempting to pull off of keeping together Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: because he maintained some strength with those industrial Midwestern states
Speaker 1: that have a larger white voting base, older white voting base.
Speaker 1: They had this really narrow, very specific path. Trump's path
Speaker 1: has with Kamala Harris and now narrowed significantly, where now
Speaker 1: they're the ones that are charting this sort of narrow
Speaker 1: electoral college victory. Now that doesn't mean they can't pull
Speaker 1: it off, but in a lot of ways the tables
Speaker 1: have turned in terms of the expansiveness we'll say, of
Speaker 1: the map and the way the various combinations of getting
Speaker 1: to two seventies.
Speaker 2: Yes, let's keep this up there, please, because it's actually important.
Speaker 2: One of the things you learn is that in the
Speaker 2: Senate races that Democrats are running way ahead of Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: That's bad news for Kamala, but it's also bad news
Speaker 2: for Trump because in general, split ticket voting is so rare. Nevada,
Speaker 2: for example, we would have to believe that there are
Speaker 2: nine percent of the electorate that would vote for Jackie
Speaker 2: Rosen and then not vote for Kamala Harris. So either
Speaker 2: that's wrong, Democrats are just going to win by five
Speaker 2: or something like that, or Trump is just going to
Speaker 2: win and that number is totally incorrect. And so that's
Speaker 2: something that you should really bake in here. The analysis. Look,
Speaker 2: I get that, the pull looks you know this, This
Speaker 2: this scenario is very intellectually intriguing. I just find it
Speaker 2: so difficult to believe that Donald Trump could win the
Speaker 2: state of Pennsylvania, lose Michigan and Wisconsin, lose the state
Speaker 2: of Georgia, win the state of Arizona, and then also
Speaker 2: lose the state of Nevada. Like to me, the swing
Speaker 2: voter in Arizona and Nevada is the exact same. The
Speaker 2: swing voter is probably you know a white or Latino
Speaker 2: male who is roughly the same demographic and roughly the
Speaker 2: same economic status. Say, if I look at Georgia in Arizona,
Speaker 2: they have a lot of characteristics that they share. For example,
Speaker 2: it's those white suburban voters in Atlanta and the white
Speaker 2: suburban voters in Phoenix, which are the ones who swung
Speaker 2: the vote for Biden last time around. And then in Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: I mean, the same demographic that turned against Trump in Wisgon,
Speaker 2: in Wisconsin and in Michigan is exactly which turned against him.
Speaker 2: In Pennsylvania. It was in the mainline suburbs of Philadelphia
Speaker 2: where white suburban voters all came out to vote. So
Speaker 2: what I'm saying is that it's the same demographic basically
Speaker 2: across all of these places. Where you know, why would
Speaker 2: they be all that different in one state and not
Speaker 2: the other. Now, of course margins matter, right, so you know,
Speaker 2: theoretically it is certainly possible. I just find it hard
Speaker 2: to believe, especially Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. I mean, this is
Speaker 2: the same type of voter. Yeah, and every single you know,
Speaker 2: in all cases they share the exact same demographic profile.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I tend to agree with that it's just the
Speaker 1: elections are so national now, all of these states tend
Speaker 1: to trend in the same direction. That's why, you know,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, even though it was razor thin in a
Speaker 1: number of these states, he wins basically all the swing
Speaker 1: states last time around by narrow margins. They all sort
Speaker 1: of swing in the same direction. So I think that
Speaker 1: is true. The one thing you could say is the
Speaker 1: sun Belt demographics a little different than the industrial Midwestern,
Speaker 1: so you could see, you know, somebody out performing in
Speaker 1: one area but not the other. But yeah, I mostly
Speaker 1: think that these elections are pretty national and tend to
Speaker 1: you know, people come up with all these like exotic
Speaker 1: potential electoral maps, and I just think.
Speaker 3: That's why I'm fairly, fairly unlikely.
Speaker 2: I'm like, you either win or you lose. Like it's
Speaker 2: it's like you're either going to win white suburbanites. And
Speaker 2: that's the other thing in the national environment that we
Speaker 2: have today. You know, everyone talks about how we're so divided,
Speaker 2: and it is true politically, but we're also more connected
Speaker 2: than literally ever before. Yeah, media diet, Like the average
Speaker 2: white suburbanite living in any place in the country, they're
Speaker 2: all reading the same newspaper. They're all reading the New
Speaker 2: York Times, they're all listening to the New York Times,
Speaker 2: the Daily podcast or the Interview, same thing. Like the
Speaker 2: working class voter, they're probably getting stuff on YouTube or
Speaker 2: you know, on podcasts or listening, you know, to the
Speaker 2: extent that they interact with their local stuff at all.
Speaker 2: It's not politics. So I just find it very difficult
Speaker 2: to believe, given where we are right now, that you
Speaker 2: know you'll swing one way and then lose another. But
Speaker 2: you know, again, the margins do matter. So theoretically you
Speaker 2: could win Pennsylvan. How much do you win Wisconsin by
Speaker 2: in twenty sixteen it was like ten thousand votes. No,
Speaker 2: I'm thinking of Michigan. Michigan one, Michigan by tenth thousand.
Speaker 2: So yeah, theoretically you could lose in Michigan and you
Speaker 2: could win a Wisconsin. I could see something like that.
Speaker 2: But Pennsylvania and then also losing Georgia. I don't know
Speaker 2: about that. I just I find it difficult to believe.
Speaker 2: But in general, I think we should highlight that, you know,
Speaker 2: things are not as rosy for Kamala as as some
Speaker 2: people may think.
Speaker 3: The margin in Michigan was a little larger than your think.
Speaker 1: It was two point seven eight percent, so almost three
Speaker 1: percent of the vote twenty sixteen. Oh you think twenty sixteen?
Speaker 1: Oh okay, yeah, Biden got two point eight million. Trump
Speaker 1: got two point sixty five million, so it was rough
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand vote separating the two of them.
Speaker 3: Let's put this next peece up on the screens.
Speaker 1: Is gen Z specific poll by NBC News. So has
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris winning fifty percent, Trump at thirty four percent,
Speaker 1: someone else at six percent, and would not vote at
Speaker 1: ten percent. These are much better numbers than what Joe
Speaker 1: Biden was doing when he was in the race.
Speaker 3: However, it still.
Speaker 1: Lags by a bit what Joe Biden did in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: So on the one hand, you can say, okay, she's
Speaker 1: underperforming what he did and obviously every vote was really.
Speaker 3: Crucial to get him over the top.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you could say, okay, well, maybe
Speaker 1: she has room to grow here that could benefit her
Speaker 1: later in the election.
Speaker 3: We'll have to see.
Speaker 1: The other thing soager here that we've taken note of
Speaker 1: a few times is the gender gap with gen Z
Speaker 1: voters is pretty wild. It's bigger than any other demographic
Speaker 1: group by age, Young women say they're going to vote
Speaker 1: for him RS by thirty points. Young men only favor
Speaker 1: her by four. Yep, this is eighteen to twenty nine.
Speaker 1: That isn't I mean, we're used to gender gaps in
Speaker 1: American politics in modern history. That's nothing new, but this
Speaker 1: level of a generational gender gap is really pretty wild.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I hate to say I told you so.
Speaker 2: I don't think this is good for the country, but
Speaker 2: it's it's just an ongoing dynamic, especially with the bifurcation
Speaker 2: of culture and education is probably the most important one,
Speaker 2: you know. I can't wait until the admission stats, the
Speaker 2: matriculation stats come out for college this year because the
Speaker 2: current prediction on online ed boards is a sixty forty
Speaker 2: split of girls women women. I mean, I mean, sorry,
Speaker 2: girls to men. It's wild, Like that's so much bigger.
Speaker 2: And then if you think about what the Ivy League
Speaker 2: split is in the IVS and who matter because they
Speaker 2: eventually become the American elite, it's already sixty forty. It
Speaker 2: could go sixty six to thirty three, which would be
Speaker 2: if one third ratios like that just skew everything. They
Speaker 2: skew all of our politics culture, earning potential, et cetera.
Speaker 2: It's not necessarily a good thing. We're gonna put D
Speaker 2: four up on the screen and just look at the
Speaker 2: Nate Silver. Something he's saying is quote setting convention bound
Speaker 2: stuff aside, there has been not much positive state pulling
Speaker 2: data entering the system for Kamala Harris lately, and his
Speaker 2: own projection actually lately has what is it, Trump at
Speaker 2: fifty five percent in terms of winning the overall electoral college.
Speaker 2: If you look at Polymarket, which is the largest betting site,
Speaker 2: they currently have it at Trump fifty three percent, Kamala
Speaker 2: up forty six, which is I mean much, that's almost
Speaker 2: what That's a seven point swing of Trump to Kamala,
Speaker 2: and that largely tracks Nate Silver. I do believe, by
Speaker 2: the way, Silver is an advisor to Polymarket. I didn't
Speaker 2: know that until I read his book, but yeah, it
Speaker 2: did stright like that.
Speaker 1: Just saying yeah, So that's why in Nate's analysis, that's
Speaker 1: part of why you know, with his model, which you know,
Speaker 1: take it for what it's worth, but he has Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris ahead in the popular vote, but he favors Trump
Speaker 1: in the electoral college vote and these you know, swing
Speaker 1: state poles that have been sort of mediocre for her
Speaker 1: post convention are a piece of that. And then also
Speaker 1: his model kind of discounts the polls that come right
Speaker 1: after convention because they assume there's some level of temporary
Speaker 1: sugar high post convention, which we have really particularly seen
Speaker 1: for her. The poles have basically been stable. So does
Speaker 1: that mean that they're overstating her support and they you
Speaker 1: know they're going to come down? Does that mean that
Speaker 1: this race is just kind of like locked in where
Speaker 1: it is? And his convention didn't provide a bounce, They
Speaker 1: were extenuating circumstances there, but her convention also doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to provide a bounce. Maybe people are just kind of
Speaker 1: locked into whatever it's going to be. We shall see,
Speaker 1: but that's where things stand.
Speaker 2: Let's move on now, Aurora, Colorado. Many boomers are very
Speaker 2: very upset about this, and it's taken quite a bit
Speaker 2: of research to figure out what the hell is actually
Speaker 2: going on here. So all started with this viral video.
Speaker 2: Let's put it up there on the screen. What you
Speaker 2: see in front of you were what was alleged to
Speaker 2: be quote, armed Venezuelan gangs taking over whole buildings and
Speaker 2: vandalizing public properties in Aurora, Colorado, just outside of Denver.
Speaker 2: These were allegedly members of a Venezuelan gang who were migrants,
Speaker 2: illegal migrants to the United States, and that this complex
Speaker 2: was allegedly fully taken over by these people. You could
Speaker 2: see that they have large weapons in their hands, and
Speaker 2: there was quite a bit of consternation wondering whether this
Speaker 2: was like a full on takeover and this was like chaired.
Speaker 1: By Charlie Kirk, amplified by Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: It was a whole thing. It went everywhere than so
Speaker 2: next then came the parsing of the details. So there
Speaker 2: were conflicting statements initially from the mayor, from the city
Speaker 2: and from the police department. So we've learned now here
Speaker 2: from the interim Chief of Police, Heather more Rus, she says, quote,
Speaker 2: what we're learning out here is that gang members have
Speaker 2: not taken over this complex. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 9: Got quite a few of our officers out here that
Speaker 9: are out here tonight. Again. I've been out here for
Speaker 9: several weeks making contact with our residents, reassuring them about
Speaker 9: the criminal activity that's happening here and how we're going
Speaker 9: to address it. We're out here. We want to reassure
Speaker 9: the people that live in this community that we are
Speaker 9: actively investigating criminal activity that's happening and listening to them
Speaker 9: to so that we can learn anything that we're missing,
Speaker 9: you know, what are we missing and actually find out
Speaker 9: what exactly is going on. We're out here because we care.
Speaker 9: I mean, nobody should be wearing this uniform if they
Speaker 9: don't care, and we want the residents and the people
Speaker 9: that live here that know that we care. We've been
Speaker 9: talking to the residents here and learning from them to
Speaker 9: find out what exactly is going on, and there's definitely
Speaker 9: a different picture. I'm not saying that there's not gang
Speaker 9: members that don't live in this community, but what we're
Speaker 9: learning out here is that gang members have not taken
Speaker 9: over this complex. We've really made an effort to the
Speaker 9: last few days to just realiz asked the specific questions
Speaker 9: and the direct questions in terms of the gang activity
Speaker 9: and who's actually making sure that people aren't paying rent
Speaker 9: to gang leaders or gang members that that's not happening.
Speaker 9: And we've discovered here today and talked in yesterday talking
Speaker 9: to somebody residents that that's not the case we've been
Speaker 9: talking about, and they've been since here with this. We
Speaker 9: really believe that they are sincere with this, and we're
Speaker 9: standing out here and I can tell you that gang
Speaker 9: members have not taken over this apartment complex.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's the police chief. Let's put the next part
Speaker 2: up on the screen. It reiterates this is from USA today.
Speaker 2: What they say is not only reiterating many of the
Speaker 2: quotes that we just heard from the interim police chief.
Speaker 2: They also flag this. They say, quote rumors of the
Speaker 2: complex being run by the trend de Aragua gang is
Speaker 2: a large criminal organization from Venezuela, began circulating when that
Speaker 2: video of men carrying guns and entering apartments went viral.
Speaker 2: The Department of Homeland Security then confirmed news nations that
Speaker 2: the men see in the video were trend Agua members.
Speaker 2: The city of Aurora confirmed that there is quote a
Speaker 2: small trend at Agua presence in Aurora, and the police
Speaker 2: department has been taking it seriously. Now, though they say
Speaker 2: there has been a lot of misleading information shared about
Speaker 2: what is happening in our city. I believe, Crystal, that
Speaker 2: a lot of this stems back to the Colorado Aurora mayor.
Speaker 2: Mayor Kaufman, who is one of the people who reacted
Speaker 2: to this by going on Fox News and implying that
Speaker 2: this was taken over. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10: Can you confirm whether or not this gang has taken
Speaker 10: over these buildings there in Aurora.
Speaker 11: So there are several buildings actually under the same ownership,
Speaker 11: out of state ownership, that have fallen to these Venezuelan gangs.
Speaker 11: I'm trying to walk it back and do the investigation
Speaker 11: as to how there's a concentration of Venezuelan's in these
Speaker 11: these three buildings. Somebody put them there, and somebody funded it,
Speaker 11: whether it's federal government or not. We're trying to find
Speaker 11: out who these gangs apparently or are attracted to where
Speaker 11: there's a concentration of of Venezuela migrants and so UH
Speaker 11: they've in fact have kind of pushed out the property
Speaker 11: management through intimidation and then collected the rents. UH we
Speaker 11: have now or have had. UH. It is ongoing UH
Speaker 11: operations with a task force of local law enforcement, state
Speaker 11: UH law enforcement partners, and federal law enforcement partners to
Speaker 11: write the market and arrests have been made. But these
Speaker 11: operations are now are still.
Speaker 10: Ongoing with the arrests that have been made. Are these
Speaker 10: confirmed gang affiliated members?
Speaker 11: You know they this is an organized criminal effort. Whether
Speaker 11: it's trendy arragua, uh, that remains to be to be seen.
Speaker 11: But that really doesn't matter. I mean, if they're, if they're,
Speaker 11: you know, there's way when migrants and in their conducting
Speaker 11: crime and organized underside.
Speaker 1: So yeah, he since changes tune after this interview. He
Speaker 1: totally changed his story. He says, those people that came
Speaker 1: and talked to me he's talking about residents of the
Speaker 1: building themselves, didn't seem fearful. Quite frankly, they gave a
Speaker 1: lot of explanation as to why they weren't paying rent.
Speaker 3: There wasn't the property management there.
Speaker 1: I thought that the people who were the so called
Speaker 1: gang members again this is all that say Mayry it
Speaker 1: has heard, were extracting the rent from them. But the
Speaker 1: people that came up to me said that was not
Speaker 1: the case. They wanted to stay there, but they wanted
Speaker 1: the place maintain. He believes the property managers were chased
Speaker 1: off the premises. What we need to do is figure
Speaker 1: out how to bring it back under the control to
Speaker 1: owner the property and so there's a meeting with representatives
Speaker 1: of the owners on Thursday, all but participating. I think
Speaker 1: there's a pattern on all these properties. I'm going to
Speaker 1: be blunt. It's an out of state slum lord and
Speaker 1: hasn't maintained the properties.
Speaker 3: And that okay.
Speaker 1: So the police chief, the resident deep, the mayor, all
Speaker 1: of the other city officials and laboring Denver mayor and
Speaker 1: city officials as well now are all saying this building
Speaker 1: is run by an out of states slum lord. The
Speaker 1: residents are complaining about trash that hasn't been picked up
Speaker 1: for weeks.
Speaker 3: This slum lord has.
Speaker 1: Already been indicted on charges with regard to not maintaining
Speaker 1: another apartment building where the sewage was backed up, the
Speaker 1: trash wasn't picked up. We're talking rodents, we're talking infestations.
Speaker 1: The residents did their own press conference laying all of
Speaker 1: this out, and this slumlord hired a pr firm to
Speaker 1: basically push these claims to try to get out of
Speaker 1: these charges that he's already facing in court. So at
Speaker 1: this point it's pretty clear what happened. Since you have
Speaker 1: the mayor, who's a Republican by the way, Republican mayor
Speaker 1: and the city officials and the police chief and the
Speaker 1: residents all saying this is not at all what's happening.
Speaker 1: This is about a slum lord trying to get out
Speaker 1: of maintaining the property that we are paying thousands of
Speaker 1: dollars in rent to live in.
Speaker 2: We have E five please up on the screen. This
Speaker 2: is from the local press and it references of what
Speaker 2: you were saying. The residents at that complex state, deplorable
Speaker 2: issues are the cadooral conditions are the issue, not the gangs.
Speaker 2: They said, quote they are trying to put us along
Speaker 2: one group and all in one bag. They're trying to
Speaker 2: say that their delinquents their criminals here, There are moms,
Speaker 2: there are families. They did I believe acknowledge that there
Speaker 2: was like criminals that had been there. But they were like,
Speaker 2: that is not the fundamental issues. So okay, let's step back,
Speaker 2: like why did this all become a major conflagration. So
Speaker 2: this is part of actually references our original eight block
Speaker 2: is you cannot just simply believe everything you put out there,
Speaker 2: and you know, none of this whitewash is concerns about migrants.
Speaker 2: You know from the Denver Post forty three thousand Venezuelan
Speaker 2: migrants have arrived in the Denver area since January of
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three, and they don't even need to be
Speaker 2: committing crime for me to say that's crazy.
Speaker 3: And do you know what has happened with crime?
Speaker 2: What it drops?
Speaker 3: It dropped twenty percent.
Speaker 2: So what in the first eight months happened?
Speaker 1: Declines in homicides, robberies and aggravedoss. Well, it's very relevant
Speaker 1: to this story because obviously the point of blowing this
Speaker 1: up was like, oh my god, violent migrant criminals are
Speaker 1: taking over this town. And while I'm sure there are
Speaker 1: some migrants, as there are some you know, domestic born
Speaker 1: citizens who commit crimes, no doubt about it, the overall
Speaker 1: picture here is actually the exact opposite.
Speaker 3: These migrants haven't brought crime.
Speaker 1: The crime rate has dropped twenty percent, as it has
Speaker 1: by the way, as part of a national trend in
Speaker 1: a lot of.
Speaker 2: Eventually migrants is just about national trend and drop.
Speaker 1: True, but it's the polar opposite of the picture that
Speaker 1: was attempted to be painted with these false allegations about
Speaker 1: gang members taking over apartment complexes. And again not just
Speaker 1: you know, people like Charlie Kirker, right, Wing employee Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: who runs the whole friggin platform elevating this claim and
Speaker 1: another completely fake claim by the way, aner Chicago of
Speaker 1: a similar thing. So yeah, it's successiful. That's the bottom line, Like,
Speaker 1: don't believe these people. They lie, they make stuff. There's
Speaker 1: an ideological agenda here.
Speaker 2: I agree, And that is part of what reason that
Speaker 2: I wanted to say is that yeah, just because it's
Speaker 2: fake though, doesn't mean that there aren't concern And that's
Speaker 2: part of what it annoys me, is that when you
Speaker 2: tar yourself by pushing stuff that ends up to not
Speaker 2: be true, you actually do disservice to anybody who has
Speaker 2: a concern as I do that there are forty three
Speaker 2: thousand illegal Venezuelan migrants who are in the city of Denver.
Speaker 2: That's crazy. Also, whenever we are vetting, like whether something
Speaker 2: is committed by a crime or not, by pushing false stuff,
Speaker 2: you diminish genuine incidents of migrant crime and of people
Speaker 2: who are murderers and or rapists. You have to be
Speaker 2: solid in your facts whenever you make such claims. And
Speaker 2: this is what annoys me about the entire thing. I'm
Speaker 2: combining it with the tenant stuff. Is it simply allows
Speaker 2: a dismissal of any of legitimate concerns around migrant crime
Speaker 2: or even around migrant presence. Period. You don't have to
Speaker 2: be comitting crime for you to still be a problem.
Speaker 1: Here.
Speaker 2: Are they receiving city services? Who's paying your rent? Is
Speaker 2: that the government? Are you getting welfare from the Denver Coment?
Speaker 2: None of that should be allowed, period. I mean, that
Speaker 2: is why I get so annoyed about these, you know,
Speaker 2: the Elon and Charlie Kirk and the flourishing of this stuff.
Speaker 2: In fact, just this morning somebody told me, they said, hey,
Speaker 2: do you know about this Aurora thing. X's mom is
Speaker 2: super upset about it? And I was like, Oh, I'm
Speaker 2: actually covering on the show tomorrow. And it's it's because,
Speaker 2: you know, Fox News and many of these other places
Speaker 2: are not doing their genuine due diligence in presenting that,
Speaker 2: and they're just simply putting it all out there. And
Speaker 2: then will they do a correction or will they do
Speaker 2: a follow up? Almost certainly not now if it was real,
Speaker 2: would MSNBC or any of these other people cover it?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: But they certainly will cover it now because they'll be like, hey,
Speaker 2: look at these idiots who fell for all as they should.
Speaker 2: You know, I mean, I'm not saying it's not legitimate.
Speaker 2: I'm the political valance of this drives me crazy because
Speaker 2: it is whenever you whip people up based on something fake,
Speaker 2: then you just get to dismiss it out of hand.
Speaker 2: When I think, I think it's a very legitimate concern period,
Speaker 2: like who are these residents? Are any of them even
Speaker 2: legal residents? Like who is paying their rent? You know?
Speaker 2: Why is this all being taken up by people who
Speaker 2: are not even from here? I think that's a very
Speaker 2: legitimate concern. But then saying you know, oh, it's like
Speaker 2: part of some major gang activity, whenever that obviously ends
Speaker 2: up being bs, then everyone should frankly dismiss a lot
Speaker 2: of what the other stuff that you're.
Speaker 1: Saying, because it's a very clear attempt to demonize and
Speaker 1: lie about the migrant population. And you know, it's also
Speaker 1: very clear what's going on here. Immigration is the strongest
Speaker 1: issue for Trump. Yeah, Trump appears to be losing right now. Now,
Speaker 1: Who knows.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's true. I wouldn't say that,
Speaker 2: not when he's got a fifty some percent, fifty three
Speaker 2: percent or whatever chance by Nate Silvertall, we.
Speaker 1: Just showed the same swing state pool polls in CNN.
Speaker 1: I think that he's probably a little bit behind, but
Speaker 1: reasonable people could disagree on that. In any case, what
Speaker 1: I think is very clear immigration is his best issue.
Speaker 1: They want to have a conversation about immigration, even if
Speaker 1: that and Elon Musk is a two millions of dollars
Speaker 1: backer of Donald Trump explicit backer of Donald Trump. They
Speaker 1: want the conversation to be about evil immigrants because that
Speaker 1: benefits them politically, even if it means making some bullshit
Speaker 1: up and spreading a fake viral story. So just like,
Speaker 1: you know, keep these things in mind when you're looking
Speaker 1: at these stories that go viral, because they are shameless
Speaker 1: about it. And I reference, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: saw this. Elon also elevated there was like some claim
Speaker 1: that this was happening in Chicago too. Somebody had called
Speaker 1: in UH to nine to one one about a similar
Speaker 1: Chicago incident and the police went to the Parma Complex
Speaker 1: were like, this is not happening.
Speaker 3: People are just trying to like make.
Speaker 1: Like you know, cause a stir and create false narratives.
Speaker 3: So it was a total hoax that he also.
Speaker 1: Spread and shared, and I'm sure many of the people
Speaker 1: millions of people who saw that are not going to
Speaker 1: know that that was also complete hoax. So anyway, it's
Speaker 1: very clear this was just like, and you're benefiting this
Speaker 1: slum lord who was screwing these residents who were playing rent,
Speaker 1: who were paying rent, and you know, deserve to live
Speaker 1: in clean conditions without bugs and rats and sewage back
Speaker 1: up and trash piled up over weeks and weeks because
Speaker 1: you didn't pay to have the garbage collectors come. So
Speaker 1: in any case, it's the whole situation is sort of
Speaker 1: it's just disgusting to me, and the way that it was,
Speaker 1: the way that people ran with it, even after the
Speaker 1: residents themselves, the mayor, the police chief.
Speaker 3: Et cetera, said this is completely false.
Speaker 2: It's just yeah, it became a national story. Now you
Speaker 2: have the fact, you can make up your minds. I
Speaker 2: would say it didn't.
Speaker 3: There's no one to make it up your minds. It
Speaker 3: was fake. It was totally fake, but you didn't make
Speaker 3: up your minds.
Speaker 1: About Sure, yes, absolutely, but on the story there is
Speaker 1: no like, you know, evaluating decide everyone who's involved in
Speaker 1: this except for the clearly nefarious landlord is saying the.
Speaker 2: Same, this lord, this guy got off real well, didn't he.
Speaker 1: He's like, he didn't even pay because he had a
Speaker 1: court date set.
Speaker 2: I love the out of state he had a date.
Speaker 1: Set and the judge actually like let him push off
Speaker 1: his court date for a while while all of this
Speaker 1: was going on. So and so apparently, you know, at
Speaker 1: least in the short term, it worked. But what a
Speaker 1: disgusting scumbag.
Speaker 2: PERI yeah that I agree.
Speaker 3: Yes, all right, we'll end on that note of unity.
Speaker 1: All right, We've got a lot of interesting economic stories
Speaker 1: that came out about Kamala Harris has some new campaign
Speaker 1: small business proposals. There's a report that Biden is going
Speaker 1: to block this nip On Steel acquisition of US Steel,
Speaker 1: something we've talked about before. And also actually Jeff messaged
Speaker 1: me that he has some breaking news as well about
Speaker 1: we're talking about Elon Musk, this Trump Elon commission that
Speaker 1: had been floated before. So a bunch of economic stories
Speaker 1: we wanted to get. Jeff Steined from the Washington Post
Speaker 1: in away and on. Let's go ahead and get to it.
Speaker 1: Jeff Steinn in the Washington Post. Great to see you, sir, man.
Speaker 6: Where's the player to be on breaking points?
Speaker 1: Thanks guys, Yeah, it's our pleasure. Let's go and put
Speaker 1: this first piece up on the screen. So this was
Speaker 1: some significant news, something we've been tracking for a while.
Speaker 1: It does look like the Biden administration is preparing to
Speaker 1: block this nip on steel. It's a Japanese steel company's
Speaker 1: acquisition of US Steel. Subhad here from you and your
Speaker 1: colleague David Lynch, as the move would pose a setback
Speaker 1: for relations with Japan. Talk to us about this decision,
Speaker 1: why they would want to block this acquisition, and what
Speaker 1: some of the broader context here is.
Speaker 12: Yeah, so US Steel, really, an iconic American company, has
Speaker 12: been suffering tremendously the last decade plus. Unlike some of
Speaker 12: its sort of more nimble competitors, with the more agile
Speaker 12: furnaces in the South, US Steel has lost money I
Speaker 12: think don't quota on this, but something like eleven of
Speaker 12: the past fifteen years or thirteen years, and so they've
Speaker 12: been looking for a buyer. This Japanese company has been
Speaker 12: very interested in acquiring US Steel in part because you know,
Speaker 12: increasing US tariffs on on on imports of steel have
Speaker 12: made it harder to get into US markets, So if
Speaker 12: they acquire a US firm, they get around that problem.
Speaker 12: But the Biden administration, I think correctly is right about
Speaker 12: the politics of a foreign company acquiring this sort of
Speaker 12: symbol of American industrial light. Like a few months before
Speaker 12: very contested election in Pennsylvania, which is you know, this
Speaker 12: this obviously very important part of the election. And so
Speaker 12: the Biden administration tasked uh Scipius, this sort of obscure
Speaker 12: government committee that it sort of reviews foreign takeovers of
Speaker 12: US firms. This is pretty unprecedented for Japan. Japan is
Speaker 12: a major US ally and so it was really weird
Speaker 12: and surprising to see, you know, Japan's investment into the
Speaker 12: US be scrutinized this way. But as we reported yesterday,
Speaker 12: Buying is going to block block this this deal.
Speaker 2: So tell us a little bit about the union as well,
Speaker 2: because I know that they were very involved in this decision.
Speaker 12: Yeah, Biden has taken a lot of pressure, has been
Speaker 12: under a lot of pressure.
Speaker 6: From the United steel Workers union to not allow this
Speaker 6: to go through.
Speaker 12: There's a lot of concerns about layoffs and that the
Speaker 12: Japanese by switching to a new ownership structure, would be
Speaker 12: really bad for the workers. The management, the executives of
Speaker 12: the company were warning that the deal went through. If
Speaker 12: the deal failed at the deal didn't go through, that
Speaker 12: the company would collapse.
Speaker 6: I think the workers are saying that that's overblown hype.
Speaker 12: These executives are trying to cash out, and we should
Speaker 12: be skeptical of the sort of warnings. But yeah, the
Speaker 12: union has been very vocal and very in the year
Speaker 12: of the Democratic Party saying, you know, we're already struggling
Speaker 12: to keep our members from defecting to Trump. Do you
Speaker 12: really want to allow this company to be taken over
Speaker 12: by the Japanese.
Speaker 1: There's some other staying on the Democratic Party side, Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris been seemingly trying to quell some of the like
Speaker 1: CNBC revolts against them economic policies. He's trying to lean
Speaker 1: into a small business agenda. Could put this Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal article up on the screen. She's also breaking somewhat
Speaker 1: with Biden's previous capital gains tax proposal, so she still
Speaker 1: would increase the capital gains tax, but not as much
Speaker 1: as Biden had proposed. As part of her small business agenda,
Speaker 1: she wants to institute this new fifty thousand dollars tax credit.
Speaker 1: So what can you tell us about what she is
Speaker 1: proposing here?
Speaker 6: Yeah, aploy for the Jim Kramer vote.
Speaker 1: The coveted Jim Framer vote.
Speaker 12: Yeah, they were under The New York Times had a
Speaker 12: great story about sort of donors freaking out about the
Speaker 12: extent of the tacks hikes push by Harris. Just to
Speaker 12: give people a little bit of the last few weeks
Speaker 12: of history here, Harris came out with one point seven
Speaker 12: trillion dollars in new spending measures and increased child tax credit,
Speaker 12: other things that they sort of saw as sort of
Speaker 12: populist goodies that they could run on. But then reporters
Speaker 12: started out like, how are you going to pay for this?
Speaker 12: And then Harris said, oh, we support the Biden tax agenda,
Speaker 12: which is five trillion dollars of stuff. And then people
Speaker 12: started saying, hey, wait, like that has a lot of
Speaker 12: very significant tax hikes on investors through the capital gains
Speaker 12: tax and other measures, and so that led them to say, actually,
Speaker 12: you know what, like, let's kind of I want to
Speaker 12: be careful with how I phrase this. But they seem
Speaker 12: to be saying, like, we want to signal that we're
Speaker 12: listening to the business community. That we're listening to investors.
Speaker 12: You know, the only people who would be affected by
Speaker 12: this are those who earn over a million dollars a
Speaker 12: year at.
Speaker 6: Least that's what they've been saying.
Speaker 12: And so, you know, numerically, it's not that big of
Speaker 12: a percentage of the voting public. But if you include
Speaker 12: people who might be concerned that they could become millionaires
Speaker 12: and be affected by this, or people who don't believe
Speaker 12: that Harris, you know, won't lower that threshold a certain point,
Speaker 12: this is kind of meant to assure them that she's
Speaker 12: maybe more business friendly. I mean, the Harris people are
Speaker 12: really intent on showing that they're more sympathetic to, or
Speaker 12: at least open to listening to the business community than
Speaker 12: Biden was. Whether that is a message that's compatible with
Speaker 12: what they've said about banning price gouging and how those
Speaker 12: all shake out, I don't know.
Speaker 6: There's some Democrats have spoken to who are.
Speaker 12: Getting alarmed that, you know, Harris seems to be kind
Speaker 12: of going from crisis to crisis and kind of addressing
Speaker 12: her sort of most immediate short term political need. Obviously,
Speaker 12: the campaign would say that's highly ungenerous that they have
Speaker 12: a grand vision and this is all of all orchestrated
Speaker 12: and thought out.
Speaker 2: Well, okay, then that's kind of where I want to
Speaker 2: stick with you, Jeff, because as you and I both know,
Speaker 2: you know, each individual policy seems to be in a lab.
Speaker 2: It's getting tested, and then a statement will come out.
Speaker 2: So can you just explain to us how this fits
Speaker 2: in that context? For example, I believe yesterday they were
Speaker 2: talking about perhaps walking back from an evy mandate. Obviously
Speaker 2: there have been previous stories about the positions on the border.
Speaker 2: There's fracking, there's I mean, there's ad nauseum. I could
Speaker 2: go down the list of what these all look like.
Speaker 2: So how does it fit into that context?
Speaker 12: As you were saying, I'm really glad glad you brought
Speaker 12: that up, Saggar, because I don't want to, like, not
Speaker 12: discussed that there are huge reversals of her positions from
Speaker 12: twenty twenty, I mean, massive changes from what she was
Speaker 12: articulating just a few years ago. And I'm not sure
Speaker 12: I have great insight into exactly what is going on
Speaker 12: inside the campaign right now about how they're thinking about
Speaker 12: these questions, but I think it's fair to say that,
Speaker 12: you know, she's so new to voters She's still a
Speaker 12: relative unknown, and the amount of whiplash on some of
Speaker 12: these positions I think is a risk for the campaign.
Speaker 12: I mean, for all of Trump's sort of incoherence and
Speaker 12: his sort of quick changes and about faces on policy,
Speaker 12: I think a lot of voters could tell you, sort
Speaker 12: of in broad strokes what he stands for tariffs and
Speaker 12: tax cuts and you know, reducing immigration, those kinds of things.
Speaker 12: But you know, on fracking on all these economic policies,
Speaker 12: on environmental policies, we're seeing Harris undergo some really dramatic changes,
Speaker 12: of course, and whether those add up for voters I
Speaker 12: think is sort of a big question.
Speaker 6: I don't know if that really answers what you're asking now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, it's worth keeping in mind.
Speaker 1: She maintained a lot of the Biden who like Biden
Speaker 1: campaign team that was failing dreadfully, So you know, when
Speaker 1: these sort of perplexing about face decisions occur with Harris,
Speaker 1: I think that's reasonable to keep in mind. And I
Speaker 1: mean the other knock on her always has been that
Speaker 1: she doesn't really have a lot of and you looked
Speaker 1: into this like she doesn't have.
Speaker 3: A lot of core ideas.
Speaker 1: It's been more like Okay, Well, when I'm trying to
Speaker 1: get ahead in California during a certain era, it'd be
Speaker 1: tough on crime. Then I'm going to run to the left,
Speaker 1: because I think that's the lane in twenty twenty now,
Speaker 1: and with Biden and I got to win these you know,
Speaker 1: general election modern swing voters, I'm going to be in
Speaker 1: a different place. And that's starting to like, that's starting
Speaker 1: to feel like what's having here very clearly.
Speaker 12: I think the most generous interpretation is that this is
Speaker 12: sort of like trying to build as big of a
Speaker 12: tent as possible. But yeah, I don't know if there's
Speaker 12: a metaphor in here somewhere that like if tent is
Speaker 12: too big and like it doesn't really.
Speaker 1: But like we could leave, you know, we could leave
Speaker 1: the Jim Kramer vote out of the tent, like I would.
Speaker 3: I would be I would be good with that, you know.
Speaker 3: But all right, we'll put that.
Speaker 1: Let's let's turn to the news you broke with regard
Speaker 1: to Trump and Elon Musk. Put this up on the screen.
Speaker 1: We'll put this in in a in post guys, Trump,
Speaker 1: Ey's plan that may give Elon Musk role in auditing
Speaker 1: US agencies. This was some news that you broke earlier
Speaker 1: this week. This had been sort of floated that Elon
Speaker 1: would have a role in auditing federal government agencies. Of course,
Speaker 1: people immediately pointed out, hey, you have a lot of
Speaker 1: big government contracts. Seems like there could be a little
Speaker 1: bit of a conflict of interest here. And the news
Speaker 1: that you broke is that they're set to formally endorse
Speaker 1: this idea.
Speaker 12: Yeah, I mean, we'll see what this looks like if
Speaker 12: Trump is actually elected. But the idea is basically to say,
Speaker 12: like the government bureaucrats are all corrupt and doing everything wrong,
Speaker 12: let's bring in some like exact natives and CEOs Musk
Speaker 12: and maybe the CEO of FedEx and some other names
Speaker 12: I've heard tossed around, the former CEO of Home Depot,
Speaker 12: apparently Trump really likes.
Speaker 6: And so the idea is.
Speaker 12: Let's bring these guys in, go through all the federal books,
Speaker 12: find all the waste and taxpayers spending, and come up
Speaker 12: with a sort of list that they present to Congress
Speaker 12: and say, you guys need to get rid of this.
Speaker 12: And Reagan actually did this in the eighties. It was
Speaker 12: highly well, it was never actually implemented, but from a
Speaker 12: political standpoint, it produced all these headlines about, you know,
Speaker 12: the Department of Defense spent like eight hundred dollars on
Speaker 12: the toilet or whatever, and then that became like a
Speaker 12: whole controversy that fueled the sort of Reagan message about
Speaker 12: government waste and spending. And so I think the Trump people,
Speaker 12: you know, are spending a lot of time talking about
Speaker 12: you know, five six, seven trillion dollars in additional tax cuts,
Speaker 12: and so this question is growing.
Speaker 6: Of like what are they going to do to pay
Speaker 6: for that?
Speaker 12: Because Trump added more to the federal depth than any
Speaker 12: other president in American history eight million dollars of the
Speaker 12: course of four years, and so they're looking at, you know,
Speaker 12: potentially replicating that.
Speaker 6: And so this is partly an answer to that question.
Speaker 12: But as you said, you know, putting Musk in charge
Speaker 12: of federal regulations, federal spending, I mean, the amount of
Speaker 12: sort of direct interest he has, I mean, would he
Speaker 12: basically say that the US Agency is responsible for regulating.
Speaker 6: You know, self driving cars, that that is government waste? Right?
Speaker 12: Like, obviously I don't know if that is something he
Speaker 12: would come up with, but there's all kinds of reasons
Speaker 12: to believe that he's it's not a compromise party than
Speaker 12: one worth being skeptical of his ability to really impartially
Speaker 12: look at the government books.
Speaker 2: You don't have to be a lib to say, hey,
Speaker 2: if you get billions or dollars in government subsidies, you
Speaker 2: also should not audit government subsidies. Okay, all right, I
Speaker 2: think that's pretty basic.
Speaker 1: And your giant companies are subject to significant government regulation.
Speaker 2: As the government contractor, shouldn't also be saved. Yeah, look,
Speaker 2: and I'm supportive of cutting a lot of governments. Like
Speaker 2: let's be let's be very clear about that, Jeff.
Speaker 12: So you can imagine him being, you know, not allowed
Speaker 12: to look at the things that he's involved in. But
Speaker 12: the Trump people in their first turn were not particularly
Speaker 12: judicious about.
Speaker 2: That kind of exactly that was. That was going to
Speaker 2: be my point about some of the people that were
Speaker 2: involved anything else, Jeff, that you want to go over
Speaker 2: in terms of you've broken so many different stories here
Speaker 2: in terms of how you're watching economics kind of shape
Speaker 2: within the election so far.
Speaker 12: I mean, I think, I mean, I wasn't around for
Speaker 12: a lot of the campaigns that I'm about to refer to,
Speaker 12: but I do think it is I mean, maybe it's
Speaker 12: just like six nerds in Washington who care about this.
Speaker 12: It's probably the case, but it's pretty amazing, like how
Speaker 12: little detail we're getting about what the candidates want to
Speaker 12: do for the country.
Speaker 6: Like it.
Speaker 12: Obviously may seem quaint to even say that, but like
Speaker 12: I watched basically all both conventions, Like I listened to
Speaker 12: the candidate's statements, and we're really at an incredible like
Speaker 12: surface level of policy for I think more so for
Speaker 12: Trump than for Harris, but really even compared to what
Speaker 12: we got from Biden four years ago, but especially compared
Speaker 12: to Clinton eight years ago or Obama. You know, candidates
Speaker 12: used to release you know, dozens or hundreds of pages
Speaker 12: of detailed analysis about like the reason that like all
Speaker 12: of politics matters at some level, right, like all the show,
Speaker 12: all the pomp and circumstance, all the like, like TV
Speaker 12: and radio and like media, like all of it about
Speaker 12: politics is like in service of the question in my
Speaker 12: view of like what do you want to do to
Speaker 12: like change the country, And just in my brief time
Speaker 12: as a reporter, like that that has gotten so so vague.
Speaker 6: Yeah, the political incentives seems to.
Speaker 2: We used to argue about budgets, you remember that the
Speaker 2: book President's budget so percent less for the you know,
Speaker 2: and people would have cable news panels about it and
Speaker 2: op eds and you know, now somebody just the Harris
Speaker 2: campaign is like she no longer supports that, and the
Speaker 2: Trump campaign is like, hey says no tax on tips,
Speaker 2: And it's like, okay, what does that mean?
Speaker 12: In what way to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 6: That's the potentially two trillion dollars I was going to see.
Speaker 12: Incredibly complicated, like could speed up the data which social
Speaker 12: Security beneficiaries stop receiving checks they need to like buy
Speaker 12: food in medicine and we have no idea like how
Speaker 12: would work?
Speaker 6: Like literally like.
Speaker 2: A mandating IVF that's what a hundred billion, one hundred
Speaker 2: billion easily, right?
Speaker 12: And then the Harrors campaign the ban on on federal
Speaker 12: price gouging for groceries and food, Like what does that
Speaker 12: look like? Or is the FTC like going to be
Speaker 12: like checking all shots whe They're like, I don't know,
Speaker 12: we don't know, And so it's it's a it's kind
Speaker 12: of a frustrating time to be a policy reporter because
Speaker 12: we're just like we're we can get hit as reporters
Speaker 12: for trying to analyze what we think they're trying to say,
Speaker 12: and they'll say, no, no, we didn't mean that, But it's like,
Speaker 12: we don't don't know what you really and.
Speaker 3: Tell us what you actually mean.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, you can kind of see why they
Speaker 1: do it because on the flip example is you've got
Speaker 1: Project twenty twenty five, nine hundred pages of spelling out
Speaker 1: in elaborate detail what they would do, and it's a
Speaker 1: massive liability. You know, it's a big problem for them.
Speaker 1: Or who was it Rick Scott who put out that
Speaker 1: terrible like policy detailed proposal and Democrats were hanging that
Speaker 1: around the neck of Republicans and so they feel like
Speaker 1: there's more risk than benefit and actually telling us specifically
Speaker 1: their plans. And with Trump you have the added I
Speaker 1: mean with both of them in a sense, but especially
Speaker 1: with Trump you.
Speaker 2: Have that added.
Speaker 3: You know, he says all kinds of wild shit. Do
Speaker 3: you mean any of this?
Speaker 1: Like do you really mean ten percent tariff on everything?
Speaker 3: Do you mean a one time? He floated twenty?
Speaker 2: Is a ten?
Speaker 3: Is a twenty?
Speaker 1: Do you understand what massive implications I would have? Or
Speaker 1: on the immigration thing, like you're talking about rounding all
Speaker 1: these millions of people. That's an un believe put the
Speaker 1: morality aside, expensive invasive undertaking.
Speaker 3: What does that look like?
Speaker 1: And when you have industries like agriculture that are dependent
Speaker 1: on sixty percent migrant workers, what does this mean? But
Speaker 1: then you're you know, it's like, well it is even
Speaker 1: he's probably not even really serious about that level of
Speaker 1: deepest So it makes it your your job and our
Speaker 1: job trying to understand what the implications would be.
Speaker 3: It makes it sort of impossible. I saw this.
Speaker 1: It was a Goldman Sachs analysis that was like O
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris's economic.
Speaker 3: Proposals would add to the GDP and Trumps.
Speaker 1: I don't even know how they're doing these numbers when
Speaker 1: you have so little detail from either one of them.
Speaker 12: Yeah, my wife and I rewatched Idiocracy films. Whole plan
Speaker 12: is like we will fix what's uh. Luke Wilson's character
Speaker 12: is like he will fix everything. Yeah, that's the whole plan.
Speaker 1: That's very Trumpyan. Yeah yeah, all right, Jeff, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. It's always great to see you and help
Speaker 1: us sort through what little we can glean from these campaigns.
Speaker 6: Good to see you man, Seeing you guys, Thanks same.
Speaker 2: All right, guys, thanks for watching. We'll see you all later.