Speaker 1: Happy Friday. Everybody. Take a look. We got everybody in
Speaker 1: the house. Nice to see you guys.
Speaker 2: Wow, nice to see right. Oh well, thank you.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: I appreciate we had to move some things around, but
Speaker 2: definitely had to be here.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: I just have a very rigid I ariginly have a
Speaker 2: really very rigid schedule, and as you guys know, with
Speaker 2: my sleep sleep schedule and other things, I'm very reluctant
Speaker 2: to move things around. But sometimes that's what that's what things,
Speaker 2: that's what things get called for here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well there's a lot of things going on, uh
Speaker 1: what many market moves that are kind of disturbing, and
Speaker 1: China's announcing new tariffs, and so we'll take a look
Speaker 1: at that stuff. We've got big Supreme Court, unanimous Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision last Friday. We actually talked to the lawyer
Speaker 1: for Kilmar Abario Garcia. He is the immigrant who was
Speaker 1: wrongfully the administration even admitted wrongfully sent to that person
Speaker 1: at El Salvador. The question was whether or not they
Speaker 1: would have to do anything to come back. In the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, in a nine to o decision, says you
Speaker 1: have to in this word is key facilitate his return
Speaker 1: so really significant there. We're also getting a look at
Speaker 1: the government's quote unquote case against Mockmood Khalil, which is
Speaker 1: revealing in the many things it doesn't say and doesn't argue.
Speaker 1: So we'll take a look at that, and then SAGERA
Speaker 1: in particular, very very interested in this Dave Smith Douglas
Speaker 1: Murray debate on Joe Rogan. You want to give a
Speaker 1: little previous Sager.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm heated, you know, I, as I said, I've
Speaker 2: got my schedule, you know, I'm at the gym ready
Speaker 2: for my cardio, and so I see this thing flash
Speaker 2: on my Spotify. As you know, Douglas Murray can't really
Speaker 2: I don't really like the guy, but I'll decide it
Speaker 2: within the first ten minutes. I'm I'm so, I'm texting, Dave,
Speaker 2: I'm tweeting. I'm fury. My entire workout has been screwed
Speaker 2: up and I'm enraged. I had to sit there and
Speaker 2: just work out. Oh I did afterwards, Yeah, afterwards, because
Speaker 2: my blood was so it was so hot over this
Speaker 2: entire thing. It was ever characteristic. And have been so
Speaker 2: reluctant to enter this so called woke right debate because
Speaker 2: I find it so tedious and annoying. Emily, I'm sure
Speaker 2: you find it similarly, But this is the best example
Speaker 2: to me of somebody who is, you know, double standards
Speaker 2: all of the tropes of actual wokeism, like in terms
Speaker 2: of lived experience and ad hominem attacks and expert you know,
Speaker 2: trolling or whatever, when you yourself are not even and experts.
Speaker 2: And we'll get to it, but yeah, I'm excited about it.
Speaker 1: I guess I'm just like, I don't know how it's
Speaker 1: even a debate at this point about the quote unquote
Speaker 1: woke right, Like, how is that even a debate? I mean,
Speaker 1: and they've crazy further than the craziest wokesters could have
Speaker 1: ever imagined with regard to like using the apparatus of
Speaker 1: the state to achieve their goals.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the thing is, Crystal is, as you understand it,
Speaker 2: the people who are pushing it, like Douglas are the woke, right.
Speaker 2: The crazy thing is they're the ones who coined the
Speaker 2: term for people who are against or not even against
Speaker 2: who want They're the ones who coined the term for
Speaker 2: people who are like, hey, like maybe we can talk
Speaker 2: about Israel or Ukraine immigration immigrant. I don't understand if
Speaker 2: they are the ones who created it, they're like and
Speaker 2: that's that's actually part of what makes it so maddening.
Speaker 2: And like I said, I don't generally engage with like
Speaker 2: low IQ individuals like James Lindsay, but you know, just
Speaker 2: like just the other day, just yesterday he tweeted and
Speaker 2: he was like, gosh, they're calling Douglas Murray and neo
Speaker 2: Khon And I'm just like, am I the only person
Speaker 2: who reads books or like knows anything anymore? Because he
Speaker 2: wrote a book called neo Conservatism Why we need It?
Speaker 2: And it's like in Europe, right Ryan, Like you know,
Speaker 2: for you've been in this game while what you know,
Speaker 2: if someone was like, hey, Douglas Murray's neo khon, you'd
Speaker 2: be like, yeah, we know, bro. She told us things.
Speaker 2: He told us that I read that book Incer Soccer.
Speaker 1: You're you're very animated this morning. Your mic is still
Speaker 1: like peaking a little association.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Okay, all right, I'll turn it down.
Speaker 4: He needs like a Douglas Murray James Lynn a button
Speaker 4: on his microphone when he gets mad, he hits.
Speaker 1: That great and then we go to the proper setting to
Speaker 1: bring back our tones. Okay, all right, well, with all
Speaker 1: that's being said, let's get to the markets. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna pull up the CNBC main page now so we
Speaker 1: can see it's nine to fifteen am. Market to open
Speaker 1: in fifteen minutes. We can take a look at the futures.
Speaker 1: So also this headline has been important. Jamie Diamond says
Speaker 1: he expects S and P five hundred earnings estimates to
Speaker 1: fall as companies pull guidance. And apparently Jamie diamond like
Speaker 1: basically runs the country since he's the one that Trump
Speaker 1: allegedly listened to about the potential for the potential for
Speaker 1: a recession. You can see here up at the top though,
Speaker 1: futures basically flat at this point. But saga, let me
Speaker 1: let me throw it to you a little bit here
Speaker 1: for what we saw yesterday, you know, originally obviously Trump
Speaker 1: makes his announcement. Okay, we're keeping the terrace on China.
Speaker 1: What are they now? One hundred and forty five percent? Yes,
Speaker 1: but we're rolling back other terriffs to quote unquote just
Speaker 1: ten percent except for Canada and Mexico, which you're staying
Speaker 1: with whatever they were before. Markets get really excited. There's
Speaker 1: a huge gain one of the largest single day gains
Speaker 1: in history, and then the next day looked very different,
Speaker 1: so a lot of those gains rolled back, and then
Speaker 1: overnight we were seeing some really troubling indications in terms
Speaker 1: of bonds, in terms of basically the world being like,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know if the US economy is
Speaker 1: really the place where we want to put our money
Speaker 1: with any regards. So Sager, why don't you go ahead
Speaker 1: and speak to a little bit of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sure, is my mic. Ok Now, I'm talking a
Speaker 2: little biteah about better. Okay, all right, sorry sales guy.
Speaker 2: Apologize everyone. I'm still a boomer in terms of my
Speaker 2: home setup. Yeah, the dollar, there's been some major selloff
Speaker 2: in the dollars. Actually, one of the most important things
Speaker 2: that's happening, aside to the bond market, the dollars at
Speaker 2: one of its lowest levels for international currencies, including in
Speaker 2: the European Union. This is not necessarily like de dollarization,
Speaker 2: but it is generally like a loss of confidence and
Speaker 2: reserve currency. I don't want to overstate the case, but
Speaker 2: obviously with trade instability, that's going to be a big
Speaker 2: part of it. The bond market continues to be a
Speaker 2: big problem and The funny thing is it wouldn't be
Speaker 2: as much of a problem if the administration had not
Speaker 2: said from day one that their stated goal was too
Speaker 2: lower the yield on the ten years, specifically to try
Speaker 2: and reduce the amount of debt servicing that would require
Speaker 2: from the federal government. And so the fact that the
Speaker 2: bonds have spiked in terms of the yield, and actually
Speaker 2: even the ninety day reduction did not have any general
Speaker 2: reaction on the price basically means that the administrations the
Speaker 2: administration strategy is failing on all fronts. From the bond strategy,
Speaker 2: we also have like this attempt to try and what
Speaker 2: is it. The attempt is to try and isolate China
Speaker 2: with the rest of the world. So not only do
Speaker 2: we still continue to have the ten percent tariff, but
Speaker 2: we're actually starting to see some interesting deals getting cut, right,
Speaker 2: So you could see there that you brought it back
Speaker 2: about the long term yields. But I actually think one
Speaker 2: of the more interesting stories is about this European Union
Speaker 2: side deal that's been cut with China. So actually the
Speaker 2: last twenty four hours has been very clarifying for US markets,
Speaker 2: and that's why I don't really think it's a surprised
Speaker 2: that we saw such a significant reduction overall yesterday. And yeah,
Speaker 2: as you said, it's nine to fifteen here on the
Speaker 2: East coast. We have a general decent idea of where
Speaker 2: things are, and the S and P basically is flat
Speaker 2: to yesterday. So you know, the total bump quote unquote
Speaker 2: from the ninety day pause, it's like maybe four to
Speaker 2: five percent. I mean, don't forget, we're still almost what
Speaker 2: fifteen seventeen percent down from the all time high on
Speaker 2: the SP five hundred and the day. There's still some Yeah,
Speaker 2: there are the deals, right, part of the deal Ryan.
Speaker 1: One of the things this morning, so China announced they're
Speaker 1: lifting tariffs to I think one hundred and twenty five percent.
Speaker 1: But they also said, and I think this is part
Speaker 1: of why futures are basically flat up a little bit.
Speaker 1: They also were like, that's all we're doing, like whatever
Speaker 1: Trump does, like we're just staying here. We're not doing
Speaker 1: this whole tip for tat thing. And so I don't know,
Speaker 1: I guess that's giving people comfort of like, well, I
Speaker 1: guess it's not going to get worse than it already is.
Speaker 1: But I also saw I think Wisenthal was tweeting that
Speaker 1: the the like discount store five and below canceled from China.
Speaker 1: Five below, Yeah, five below, you can't below. It's I
Speaker 1: have to say, they have some kind of cool stuff
Speaker 1: in there.
Speaker 2: Anyways, you ever need a gift, like a white elephant
Speaker 2: gift or something, It's a great place to go. I've
Speaker 2: bought a lot of stupid ship from there before.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: But anyway, I'd love for you to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about the China dynamics here, because, uh, I feel
Speaker 1: like there's a lot of overconfidence among the leadership of
Speaker 1: this country that we're positioned to win a trade war
Speaker 1: with China whilst also fighting trade wars apparently with the
Speaker 1: rest of the world.
Speaker 6: I don't know where that confidence comes from. China has basically,
Speaker 6: you know, all of the cars as Trump as Trump
Speaker 6: likes to put it, like, they have every they have.
Speaker 6: They have the treasuries, they have the manufacturing capacity, they
Speaker 6: have the supply chains. We buy things from them, like
Speaker 6: that's that's our entire leverage. And if they can find audiences,
Speaker 6: consumer bases for that for that manufacturing capacity, then we're screwed.
Speaker 6: And so they're they're already pivoting domestically they have a
Speaker 6: billion plus people. They're trying to grow their domestic consumer base.
Speaker 6: They're you know, there's the European Union, There's there's Southeast
Speaker 6: and South Asia. You know they have uh, they have
Speaker 6: they have political problems with all of these different entities
Speaker 6: of various ranges, but nothing like what they have all es.
Speaker 6: So it makes it makes their differences with Southeast Asia,
Speaker 6: you know, pale in comparison to US. And just so
Speaker 6: people understand the the profound implications of these of these
Speaker 6: yield numbers going up. I remember when I was taking
Speaker 6: the Series seven, like twenty five years ago or whatever,
Speaker 6: one of the you know, the on the bond side.
Speaker 1: How did you take the Series seven?
Speaker 2: I was a broker.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when have you looked like eight lifetimes right out
Speaker 1: right out of college, you have two thousand, two thousand,
Speaker 1: two thousand and one.
Speaker 2: So the dot com crash got you out of the business,
Speaker 2: got it?
Speaker 6: I was Yeah, I was there while it happened. Basically,
Speaker 6: it was actually I got there a little bit after.
Speaker 2: Not that's wild.
Speaker 6: That's my first article ever. Yeah, my first article ever
Speaker 6: was an expose a of the place where I worked
Speaker 6: actually hire this man, which was a It was a
Speaker 6: mobbed up shop and they're they're like, uh, they're going
Speaker 6: to kill you for this. I was like, no, they're
Speaker 6: not going to kill me, and they didn't kill me.
Speaker 6: But on the series seven they think this is a
Speaker 6: key thing that there's a seesaw effect with bond prices
Speaker 6: and interest rates. When bond prices go up, interest rates
Speaker 6: go down. When bond prices go down, interest rates go
Speaker 6: up because when you need to entice people with a
Speaker 6: higher interest rate to get them in, and so it's
Speaker 6: supply and demand. When there's more demand for a bond,
Speaker 6: the price of it goes up, and so when people
Speaker 6: sell stocks, they move money. This is the orthodox. When
Speaker 6: people sell stocks, they move money into bonds. Because there's
Speaker 6: now more people trying to buy bonds, the price comes
Speaker 6: up and the interest rate goes down. And that was
Speaker 6: what the Trump administration was counting on, that if you
Speaker 6: tank the stock market, you drive up the price of bonds,
Speaker 6: and then you reduce the interest rate, and then boom,
Speaker 6: we can when we roll over all of our debt our,
Speaker 6: debt payments are going to go down. But something broke.
Speaker 6: The orthodoxy is not working. People sold out of the
Speaker 6: market and they're going somewhere else. They're also selling their
Speaker 6: bonds Japan's as.
Speaker 1: A lot of it is into gold. By the way,
Speaker 1: gold prices are going up and up, So I mean
Speaker 1: there's a.
Speaker 6: Lot going on there looking for equities around the world too,
Speaker 6: somewhere other than the US that they can so we
Speaker 6: are screwed.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 4: So, I mean throughout the week I have been, I've
Speaker 4: probably had a different take from you guys, and that
Speaker 4: I've like, this stuff is so hard to predict it
Speaker 4: to the point that Ryan just made it's kind of
Speaker 4: like jury's all out. And I think Sager just said
Speaker 4: the last twenty four hours have been clarifying. That is,
Speaker 4: I mean, what we're starting to see is maybe this
Speaker 4: isn't a surprise, but the Trump administration said this is
Speaker 4: going to be a bet. We're gonna as we do
Speaker 4: this ninety day pause, we're going to just jack up
Speaker 4: the China tariffs. And this is going to force countries
Speaker 4: and Wisenthal pointed this out, like Cambodia and Vietnam to
Speaker 4: choose finally, between the United States and China. Nobody can
Speaker 4: have it both ways anymore, and so this is going
Speaker 4: to bring a rash of investment back into the US
Speaker 4: and it's going to be great. Everyone's going to be happy.
Speaker 4: And I do think there's just been a lack of
Speaker 4: evidence of any of that happening. You know, it's not
Speaker 4: like that's not shock, you're controversial, but they are not
Speaker 4: able to point to very many examples. And this is
Speaker 4: something we saw this in a CNN Wasn't this a
Speaker 4: CNN panel last night, where like actually pointing to examples
Speaker 4: of how this has panned out over the last week,
Speaker 4: like investments that have actually come into the United States,
Speaker 4: deals with those seventy five countries that have actually been struck. Listen,
Speaker 4: I'm still open to hearing great deals are coming through
Speaker 4: with these countries because we do have the leverage over
Speaker 4: things like the EU. But they can also just decide
Speaker 4: to go to China.
Speaker 1: And if you that's already happening, it's already happening, and
Speaker 1: think about it. But like, if that's the bet you're
Speaker 1: going to make, okay, then why are you running around
Speaker 1: the world like insulting everyone needlessly and you know, picking
Speaker 1: fights with Denmark and sending jd Vance to like shake
Speaker 1: his finger at the Europeans for their censorious ways, which
Speaker 1: there's some legitimate critiques there, but then you know you
Speaker 1: have no room to talk given what you're doing back home. Right,
Speaker 1: And so if okay, if you wanted to do this intelligently,
Speaker 1: which Sager was saying, this is like, in some ways,
Speaker 1: I hate even indulging an intelligent conversation about this because
Speaker 1: there is no intelligence behind this.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 1: If you wanted to do this intelligently, and you wanted
Speaker 1: to force the world to pick between you and China,
Speaker 1: and you actually wanted to win in that, why would
Speaker 1: you tearify entire world? Right? Why would you go around
Speaker 1: insulting all of these people, picking a fight with Canada,
Speaker 1: picking a fight with my picking a fight with Denmark
Speaker 1: over Greenland, picking a fight with the EU. No, you
Speaker 1: would want to isolate China. You would want to try
Speaker 1: to make that deal appealing for your allies, and they've
Speaker 1: done the total opposite of that. You know. I think
Speaker 1: part of it comes from Trump's like he's an old man,
Speaker 1: and his formative years when he was like at the
Speaker 1: peak of his powers, or like the eighties and early nineties. Okay,
Speaker 1: the US is in a very different position now. The
Speaker 1: world has moved on, Right, we have a true economic
Speaker 1: competitor in China, who is in many ways surpassing us
Speaker 1: at this point, especially on technological development and their ability
Speaker 1: to you know, build and deliver for their own people
Speaker 1: and have some sort of like unity and program and
Speaker 1: long term thinking behind all of that. And it just
Speaker 1: seems to me like he didn't reckon with any of that,
Speaker 1: because you know, I'm not a financial genius. I did
Speaker 1: never I never took the series seven. I'm looking at
Speaker 1: this all from like a political macro perspective, and it
Speaker 1: does not surprise me at all that as the stock
Speaker 1: market is tanking and as we are taking these insane
Speaker 1: like positions and total chaos and they're on, they're off,
Speaker 1: they're on, they're big, they're small, or whatever, we're doing
Speaker 1: it again in ninety days, that the rest of the
Speaker 1: world is going like we already were moving in the
Speaker 1: direction of moving away from the dollar. Did we learn
Speaker 1: nothing from the fact that we threw every sanction in
Speaker 1: the book at Russia and they were like, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: still okay, Like we're actually we were able to manage that.
Speaker 1: And China is so much better position than Russia, in
Speaker 1: such a wealthier place to be able to withstand what
Speaker 1: we have to throw at them.
Speaker 4: Well, I just want to say quickly, like on the
Speaker 4: so Scott Bessett was making the point on Talker last
Speaker 4: week that the mark a lot of the market dips
Speaker 4: started with deep seek, which is super interesting if you're
Speaker 4: making this bet about China, and I think what the
Speaker 4: reason that they were doing the penguin tariffs and the
Speaker 4: reason that they were like being so chaotic. I'm not
Speaker 4: saying that there was like a method to the madness.
Speaker 4: I think people were on different pages. I think Trump
Speaker 4: allowed that to happen because he was like, the more
Speaker 4: people have no idea what my strategy is, the more
Speaker 4: that they bet with the United States. It creates this
Speaker 4: complete state of total chaos and uncertainty, and we are
Speaker 4: the steady hand, and it's the.
Speaker 1: Study Are you kidding me? Are you kidding to China?
Speaker 4: But this is what I'm saying, this is what I'm
Speaker 4: saying with the best at point, he's making the point
Speaker 4: that the deep seek leap is baked into the market
Speaker 4: decline at the same time as they're saying the uncertainty
Speaker 4: will cause people to bet on the United States. I
Speaker 4: think there's there's something if you are Canada or Mexico
Speaker 4: and you were treated a little bit differently in all
Speaker 4: of this, but still got some attacks, although I know
Speaker 4: we have. Yesterday Trump said nice things about Queen Cloudy
Speaker 4: as shine Bomb the show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's part of that percent approval ratings she had.
Speaker 4: But for some people, like for some countries, it there's
Speaker 4: logic for Trump flex and his muscles and saying you
Speaker 4: don't want to be doing this with.
Speaker 5: China, like this is is the US. You're safer with us. Well,
Speaker 5: it didn't. It's not turning out that way.
Speaker 2: One thing I just want to put on quickly just
Speaker 2: to show you guys, like why China is so much
Speaker 2: better positioned is this story which I was just reading
Speaker 2: this morning. This will not really make sense to most people,
Speaker 2: but this is an example of what realestate capacity looks like.
Speaker 2: So JD dot Com, for people who don't know, is
Speaker 2: one of the biggest companies in the Fortune or in
Speaker 2: the Global five hundred and it is according to the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal. Here what the Chinese government has said
Speaker 2: is that this is effectively like forcing Amazon to then
Speaker 2: pump twenty seven billion dollars of money into their economy,
Speaker 2: to force that company to buy exclusively Chinese products and
Speaker 2: to boost their domestic manufacturing. So I just want to
Speaker 2: show people, like, when you have a wholesome strategy, you
Speaker 2: can absorb one hundred and twenty five percent tariffs. If
Speaker 2: this was a strategy that was pushing something like this,
Speaker 2: I would be behind it. But I don't see a
Speaker 2: dollar for dollar investment credit here being pushed in the
Speaker 2: United States. Instead, the Trump administration currently endorsed a one
Speaker 2: trillion dollar cut from the United States government budget, while
Speaker 2: we're also simultaneously increasing the Pentagon budget by one hundred
Speaker 2: and fifty billion dollars. So there is actually a reduction
Speaker 2: in state capacity and in cutting project yeah doze project
Speaker 2: cutting taxes, reducing state capacity. We're actually cutting manufacturing tax
Speaker 2: credits and extending them for corporations, all while trying to
Speaker 2: levy a massive tariff. China, on the other hand, when
Speaker 2: they absorb a massive tariff, what do they do. They're like, hey,
Speaker 2: JD dot Com aka Amazon or retailer or whatever. They're like,
Speaker 2: you're pumping twenty seven billion into the economy, and they
Speaker 2: can do that to every single company in their entire
Speaker 2: country simultaneously. They don't have We have some idiot Jerome
Speaker 2: Powell just like reading the tea leaves on an a
Speaker 2: magic eight ball. They're like, the rates are getting cut now.
Speaker 2: They also they don't have Congress. They can just pump
Speaker 2: money into their economy. They are ten x better position
Speaker 2: in my opinion, right now than we are because of
Speaker 2: these cross cutting forces. All of this is actually possible
Speaker 2: in a democratic system, but it would require a whole
Speaker 2: of government approach, manufacturing, tax credits and more. And I
Speaker 2: think that is really the most like blackpilling thing about
Speaker 2: all of this. And yeah, just reading that, I was
Speaker 2: I'm like in awe that they can just go imagine
Speaker 2: summoning bezos the way that they imprisoned that guy was
Speaker 2: at jack MA and they're like, yeah, you're putting twenty
Speaker 2: seven billion off the top, it's going straight into the economy.
Speaker 2: There's no yes or no, they're just like, this is
Speaker 2: what you're doing. And in that my admiration for that
Speaker 2: is that it's Yes, often they use their authoritarianism capriciously
Speaker 2: and to crack down whatever, but like, in this sense,
Speaker 2: it is so obviously intelligent in knowing exactly how to
Speaker 2: make sure that the Chinese customer is not you know,
Speaker 2: broadly affected keeping their supply chain. They don't care if
Speaker 2: it's going to impact jdstock or JD dot Com stock,
Speaker 2: which ironically it actually went up as a result of this. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but I'm just saying they don't care about these short
Speaker 2: term you know, you know, even quarter by quarter basis,
Speaker 2: and that's why they're well positioned for strength and frankly
Speaker 2: even more like the autaric protectionist vision that the Trump
Speaker 2: administration wants. You can have that, but then you have
Speaker 2: to do stuff like this, and you'd have to do
Speaker 2: it via Congress. You have to you'd actually have to
Speaker 2: endorse a one trillion dollar a one trillion dollar investment
Speaker 2: tax credit that would be giving to all of companies
Speaker 2: that want to build in the United States phase ins.
Speaker 2: But you need then you can't be cutting the EPA.
Speaker 2: You know, a friend of mine and very into regular
Speaker 2: nuclear energy just sent me this dose is trying to
Speaker 2: act the entire team that would be responsible for green
Speaker 2: lighting new nuclear reactors. Right, So what are we doing here?
Speaker 2: That's actually about if you know, abundance. We talk a
Speaker 2: lot about abundance. That's a key part I think of
Speaker 2: the abundance agenda. Meanwhile, you know, over there everything is
Speaker 2: so vertically integrated that yes, they obviously have inefficiency, but
Speaker 2: whenever it's like hyper focused on something very important, that is,
Speaker 2: they're ready to spring into action. They've studied the US
Speaker 2: economic playbook for years. Russia is the greatest thing that
Speaker 2: ever happened to them. They got to battle test it
Speaker 2: and they got to observe exactly how it all works.
Speaker 2: I mean, I remember screaming this at the time. I
Speaker 2: was said, why why would you blow it all here
Speaker 2: on a stupid conflict like Russia Ukraine? Whenever China is
Speaker 2: just sitting there and watching this entire thing.
Speaker 1: We talked about this, We talked about this. I mean,
Speaker 1: Ryan can't we can't beat the Hohu Thies in Yemen.
Speaker 1: We can't. Like we stay in Afghanistan for twenty plus
Speaker 1: years and the Taliban just to me, like, we think
Speaker 1: we're going to be able to go toe to toe
Speaker 1: with China at this point. I'm sorry, it's delusional. It's delusional.
Speaker 6: Yeah, And we're like, we're shocked at what China has
Speaker 6: been able to build development wise from two thousand up
Speaker 6: until twenty twenty five. And we're like, China is cheating us,
Speaker 6: you know, we are, We're such victims. How on earth
Speaker 6: could China have done this to us. We never should
Speaker 6: have let them into WTO and PNCR was such a mistake.
Speaker 2: It's like, well, what where did the What did the.
Speaker 6: US spend its trillions of dollars on from two thousand
Speaker 6: until today? We spent all of our money in Iraq
Speaker 6: and Afghanistan And during the during the Cold War, the
Speaker 6: US actually did have the capacity to organize its foreign
Speaker 6: in corporate policy in a uniform ish way, similar to
Speaker 6: how China can today, because the parties were the parties
Speaker 6: agreed on what US foreign policy ought to be taking
Speaker 6: on the Soviet Union, establishing American togemony, and the corporate
Speaker 6: CEOs were on board. They would like just pick up
Speaker 6: a phone like all right, this is these are your
Speaker 6: marching orders. And the corporations they would not China style,
Speaker 6: but they would they would follow the directions that they
Speaker 6: were getting from from a white House that had the
Speaker 6: buy in from the other party. Now Trump is fighting
Speaker 6: a two front war. He's trying to basically eradicate the
Speaker 6: Democratic Party and all of its constituent elements with universities,
Speaker 6: research union, you know, teachers unions, federal workers like he's
Speaker 6: trying to basically destroy his domestic enemies, while he is
Speaker 6: also then waging war trade war on all of these
Speaker 6: countries around the world. And that means you don't have
Speaker 6: a unified a center of power on which to take
Speaker 6: on China like you can't. Maybe he can win, you know,
Speaker 6: a two hundred and eighty five front war, but it's
Speaker 6: a little bit more difficult.
Speaker 5: We also have a corporate class compared to mid century
Speaker 5: post war period.
Speaker 6: That is, they're not pro American, they're global.
Speaker 4: And they're more there's there's so much more powerful. I mean,
Speaker 4: you have somebody like Markser who running a company that
Speaker 4: is significantly more powerful, the most RT right.
Speaker 6: And he speaks Chinese like like he's not gonna like
Speaker 6: be like all right, let's let's rally around the flag.
Speaker 2: He's like what flag?
Speaker 1: Yeah, Eli Mooble company, Yeah, same yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean the vast majority of Meta users are not American.
Speaker 2: That's people forget. That's like it's actually not really I mean,
Speaker 2: it's an American flagship company. But the absolute back I think
Speaker 2: they have three billion users, so you do math. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's not that difficult to figure out what percentage of
Speaker 2: people do use their platform just broadly. I think Ryan
Speaker 2: is absolutely correct and on all of this. Look, I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't want to understate the great strengths of the
Speaker 2: United States. Like the one thing we have going for
Speaker 2: us is that we are the greatest consumer market in
Speaker 2: the history of the world. Uh. Probably not a good thing,
Speaker 2: but that does mean that we have a lot of
Speaker 2: letter below. Yeah, shout out to five below. And I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, that's that's what makes American tick. Who am
Speaker 2: I say otherwise TJ Max Home Goods and all this
Speaker 2: other stuff. Uh. But and a lot of that does
Speaker 2: come from China, so they're obviously going to have an effect.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to say they won't make it. It's
Speaker 2: just like the Russians. No one will say that the
Speaker 2: Russians are materially better off than whenever they invaded Ukraine.
Speaker 2: But the idea that you can just overnight like crush
Speaker 2: them or something, when they have such incredible state capacity
Speaker 2: in China and they also have their own ability to
Speaker 2: act as well as a much more unified population. I mean,
Speaker 2: I don't know if you guys saw this, but that
Speaker 2: JD clip of him calling the Chinese peasants, yeah, talking
Speaker 2: about Chinese that has gone massively viral in chinaeah massively
Speaker 2: viral on I forget what it's called webo or something
Speaker 2: like that, and the state censors are actually usually they
Speaker 2: crush clips that get circulated around. They're like, oh, let fly,
Speaker 2: let fly, and that is rock. Some of the state.
Speaker 1: Folks people are sharing old clips of maw being like
Speaker 1: we will never give it, oh boy. And I mean,
Speaker 1: but that's a real phenomenon, Like look at what happened
Speaker 1: in Canada with the trade war. Suddenly it flipped politics
Speaker 1: on its head. The conservative dude was ready to run
Speaker 1: and now Carney the liberal has an eight percent chance
Speaker 1: of being the next prime minister. Like there was a
Speaker 1: real there was like a spark of Canadian nationalism, maybe
Speaker 1: at like historic levels, and it's going to be the
Speaker 1: same thing in China. Like they are unified behind We're
Speaker 1: going to win. Our country is not unified. But our
Speaker 1: country does not want this. If you had to vote,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think a majority of probably even Republicans
Speaker 1: would be like, I don't know about this direction, but
Speaker 1: certainly a majority of the public based on all of
Speaker 1: the polling that we've seen Trump himself, he has squandered,
Speaker 1: like his honeymoon period is over. The approval ratings now
Speaker 1: are back down to where they were in the first term,
Speaker 1: low forties. You know, he has expended the sort of
Speaker 1: like political capital that he had accumulated with an impressive
Speaker 1: victory and you know, Republican wins and all of that
Speaker 1: sort of stuff like that's over and gone. So even
Speaker 1: just in terms of the political positioning, they're in much
Speaker 1: better shape. The last thing, just before we move on,
Speaker 1: because the picture has changed just in the time that
Speaker 1: we've been speaking. The markets are now open and you
Speaker 1: can see there's you know, the that they're down a bit,
Speaker 1: So you know this is going to be who knows
Speaker 1: what things are going to look like today as we're
Speaker 1: moving forward.
Speaker 3: But I love to.
Speaker 2: Wall Street wraps one of the wildest weeks.
Speaker 1: There you go, for no reason. I love giving everybody
Speaker 1: insight into what the e commerce folks want me to buy.
Speaker 1: It's always like, all right, let's let's unless you guys
Speaker 1: have some final thoughts. Let's go ahead and get to
Speaker 1: this Supreme Court ruling that was pretty significant. Anybody any
Speaker 1: last thoughts on the tariff economic piece? We're good, okay,
Speaker 1: all right, So last week on Friday, we actually got
Speaker 1: to talk to the lawyer of Kilmara Brego Garcia, Marylyn
Speaker 1: father immigrant deported wrongfully. Administrative administration had admitted, like they
Speaker 1: called it an administrative error. He was sent to this prison,
Speaker 1: this notorious torture dungeon, Kelly's Dungeons and Salvador. And so
Speaker 1: the administration was like, yeah, we fucked up, but we're
Speaker 1: not going to do anything about it, and you can't
Speaker 1: make us. District Court judge said you need to do
Speaker 1: what you can to get him back. They said you
Speaker 1: need to facilitate and effectuate his return. Peel's Court agreed,
Speaker 1: went to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court initially issued an
Speaker 1: administrative stay saying, okay, well, the deadline that you had
Speaker 1: to bring them back tonight, like we're putting that on
Speaker 1: hold because we're going to take a look at this.
Speaker 1: And now we have their answer. And it's pretty remarkable
Speaker 1: because all nine justices sided with the lower courts saying
Speaker 1: you have to in this warning again is key facilitate
Speaker 1: Abrego Garcia's return from this prison in El Salvador. So again,
Speaker 1: everyone from Justice Alito and Justice Thomas to you know,
Speaker 1: Sonya Soto mayor, they all were on board with this.
Speaker 1: It's an unsigned order, and as I mentioned, these two
Speaker 1: terms are important. Effectively, what the order here from the
Speaker 1: court said is they have to facilitate his return. But
Speaker 1: the District Court needs to clarify the term effectuate to
Speaker 1: make sure that it is not overstepping its bounds with
Speaker 1: regard to the executive's prerogative to conduct foreign policy. The
Speaker 1: lower court has now amended its order to just take
Speaker 1: out the term effectuate. So I think this is being
Speaker 1: seen rightfully so as a major victory certainly for this
Speaker 1: you know, for this individual, for his family, also an
Speaker 1: indication of you know, the Supreme Court's willingness to stand
Speaker 1: up to this administration on some fronts. But I also
Speaker 1: don't want to celebrate here to early Ryan, because what
Speaker 1: does it technically mean to facilitate his return? Like if
Speaker 1: the Trump administration just goes to Bokelly and is like
Speaker 1: wink wink, non nod, can you send that guy back
Speaker 1: and Bekel is like, sorry, can't do it.
Speaker 5: They can.
Speaker 1: Can they go back to the court and be, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we tried, we did our best, and you know what
Speaker 1: what can be done? I guess he just has to
Speaker 1: stay there now and be you know, tortured and sold
Speaker 1: on for slave labor for life.
Speaker 6: And it's also worth noting that the administration fired the
Speaker 6: attorney who submitted the brief that acknowledged the administrative error.
Speaker 6: Uh and and uh, which suggests like where they are
Speaker 6: on this situation. I wonder if it's simply that they
Speaker 6: are they do not want this guy giving interviews if
Speaker 6: he comes back and talking about the conditions of the
Speaker 6: prison that that he's been that he's been living in.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 6: To to prevent that, I suppose they could facilitate his return,
Speaker 6: put him in detention and then deport him somewhere, you know,
Speaker 6: just keep him definitely in attention and to try to
Speaker 6: and while they try to either get the get the
Speaker 6: stay lifted on the ability to deport him to all Salvador,
Speaker 6: or try to deport him to some other country that
Speaker 6: would that would take him, or they maybe they send
Speaker 6: him to Guantanamo. There are all kinds of like evil
Speaker 6: options you know that Steven Miller has before him and so,
Speaker 6: which which to me means it's probably unlikely that they're
Speaker 6: going to do the non evil one, which would be
Speaker 6: our apologies, UH, please send this guy back. Uh and
Speaker 6: and then if they want to go through the deportation process.
Speaker 6: They could, you know, they could. They can do that
Speaker 6: and but you know, do it on the up and up.
Speaker 2: One thing I wanted to flag here while you guys
Speaker 2: were talking, was this a friend of mine jaos one
Speaker 2: of your guys thoughts. My friend Jason Willik says this quote.
Speaker 2: It is probably not unintentional that the Scotus order it
Speaker 2: refers explicitly to Abrego Garcia's release from custody rather than
Speaker 2: his return to the United States. Is that what you
Speaker 2: guys saw in this because it says the order posually
Speaker 2: requires the government to facilitate release from custody and to
Speaker 2: ensure his case is handled as it would have been
Speaker 2: had he not been in properly sent to L Salvador.
Speaker 1: I don't think so, because the thing is he is
Speaker 1: specifically barred from being sent to El Salvador. Specifically, that
Speaker 1: was what the I have. What is it called like
Speaker 1: an order which holding order or something like that, So
Speaker 1: it's specifically That's where they messed up, is they could
Speaker 1: have gone through the court process. He has an ongoing asylum.
Speaker 1: Came a claim too that you know, his attorney at
Speaker 1: least thought that he had a good shot at being
Speaker 1: at prevailing, and whether or not that's case, we don't
Speaker 1: really know. But you know, he had a they had found, okay,
Speaker 1: a credible fear, you can go through this asylum process.
Speaker 1: So he has an ongoing asylum case. But specifically the
Speaker 1: judge said he cannot be deforded to this particular country.
Speaker 1: So if you're just releasing him from custody, you are
Speaker 1: still in very clear blatant violation of what a US
Speaker 1: judge had prohibited and what this administration admitted they were
Speaker 1: prohibited from doing. So I think, I don't, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe I'm missing something. I'm not a lawyer, but I think,
Speaker 1: get that doesn't follow logically to me. What to me
Speaker 1: more of the gray area is sort of similar to
Speaker 1: how the Supreme Court had ruled. Are you you can
Speaker 1: go forward for now with this Alien Enemies Act while
Speaker 1: you know this is working its way through the lower courts,
Speaker 1: but you have to provide some level of due process.
Speaker 1: They have to be able to file habeas petitions, and
Speaker 1: they have to be given quote unquote reasonable notice. But
Speaker 1: they left it to the administration to define, well, what
Speaker 1: do we consider to be reasonable notice? So I sort
Speaker 1: of feel like this is a similar deal where it's
Speaker 1: like you're leaving it to the administration to determine what
Speaker 1: does it mean to quote unquote facilitate his return. And
Speaker 1: I think Rian is one hundred percent right. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's not just that they don't want him
Speaker 1: back and going on sixty minutes and talking about the reality.
Speaker 1: I think it's also, you know, they they want to
Speaker 1: maintain the image that you know, we can just send
Speaker 1: you if you want. They want to maintain that hard
Speaker 1: line image and that there's no recourse, and they certainly
Speaker 1: don't want people really getting a sense like you know,
Speaker 1: you're they They've called him, they've alleged she's a human
Speaker 1: trafficker and like a leader in MS thirteen. There is
Speaker 1: just zero evidence to support any of that, and so
Speaker 1: they certainly don't want the public to get a look
Speaker 1: at this, you know, seemingly innocent man with no criminal
Speaker 1: record that they sent to be indefinitely tortured.
Speaker 2: I think it's a go ahead.
Speaker 4: I was gonna say, sucker, is Jason making the point
Speaker 4: that they could get Mexico to accept him.
Speaker 2: I don't, like, I just would I did not understand
Speaker 2: because I was like, weoll as an el Salvadoran citizen.
Speaker 2: I was like, so would they just release him from
Speaker 2: custody now, you know? But if if that's how the.
Speaker 6: That seems plausible that they say, Okay, legally we can
Speaker 6: deport him to Mexico if Mexico will take him.
Speaker 1: But he but it also says in the order though,
Speaker 1: if you want to put that back up on the screen,
Speaker 1: it also says the case has to be handled as
Speaker 1: if this had never happened. So it says the language
Speaker 1: is such like you have to pretend go back to
Speaker 1: what you would have done, and you know, handle this
Speaker 1: in the way that it would have been handled had
Speaker 1: he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. So I,
Speaker 1: you know, I certainly he can't just be deported without
Speaker 1: again some sort of due process. There was no due
Speaker 1: process here. That would be in violation of the other
Speaker 1: thing that the Supreme Court said. That indicates you have
Speaker 1: to give these people due process.
Speaker 2: So I have to bring back give him Ahavius petition
Speaker 2: in Texas or Louisiana or whatever right that way.
Speaker 4: So that's what that's what's interesting about this particular case
Speaker 4: is that one of the reasons they're sending Venezuelans to
Speaker 4: Al Salvador is because obviously Venezuela is not accepting deportations.
Speaker 5: And so I think the administration.
Speaker 4: The error here, and it is incredibly stupid, is that
Speaker 4: they didn't realize his petition specifically was barring him from
Speaker 4: going back because of the asylum claim of credible fear.
Speaker 4: And so I think they keep trying to make the
Speaker 4: point that they can boot people to wherever they want
Speaker 4: to boot people, so long as that country accepts them,
Speaker 4: because they're struggling to do the quote mass deportations, and
Speaker 4: one of the ways that they're able to get more
Speaker 4: deportations is having Bukel, for example, just taken people who
Speaker 4: are Venezuelan. So I mean, I wonder if they will
Speaker 4: pursue some other deportation option. I don't know the legality.
Speaker 4: I think that's what was saying.
Speaker 2: I think the reason that they won't admit it is
Speaker 2: because it takes off the VEGNA. Right now, obviously the
Speaker 2: administration has lost a lot of credibility. I actually think Chrystal,
Speaker 2: did you guys cover the case, the MS thirteen case
Speaker 2: here in Virginia, the one where this is important where
Speaker 2: they yeah, Okay, yeah, talk.
Speaker 1: I'm actually looking for that right now.
Speaker 2: This is an important case because the administration keeps trying
Speaker 2: to do these flagship arrests where they'll be like this
Speaker 2: guy MS thirteen literally here not far from where I live.
Speaker 2: They arrested this guy and like he's a major leader
Speaker 2: of MS thirteen. They charged him with all of this.
Speaker 2: The Governor of Virginia was there, the Secondry of Homeland
Speaker 2: Security was there, like this was a major event. And
Speaker 2: then in the charging documents, basically all they said in
Speaker 2: the charging documents was like, we caught him in possession
Speaker 2: of an illegal firearm. Okay, I mean, listen, fine, but
Speaker 2: that is a crime and definitely you know it'll get
Speaker 2: sent to prison, not necessarily an MS thirteen quote gang leader.
Speaker 2: And it seems that the administration now is going to
Speaker 2: be dropping the case and instead pursuing deportation. Now, okay,
Speaker 2: like you can pursue deportation based on like, oh, he
Speaker 2: was charged or whatever with a possession of an illegal firearm,
Speaker 2: but that's pretty far from human trafficking orchestrating murders and
Speaker 2: being a gang leader. And it's pretty obvious that either
Speaker 2: a bad intelligence or b this was literally just like
Speaker 2: made up like it was a PR stunt, and I
Speaker 2: think that is now what's happening. Where if you see
Speaker 2: in the case here of Abrego Garcia and the government
Speaker 2: has to admit in writing and then facilitate the return,
Speaker 2: everyone's going to be because there's a lot of MAGA
Speaker 2: people who are still like, oh, this doesn't matter whatever,
Speaker 2: you come here legally, et cetera. They're going to be like, well,
Speaker 2: hold on, Like if you have to bring somebody back
Speaker 2: because you screwed up, it's like, well, how many other
Speaker 2: screw ups are there in the bundle? Right?
Speaker 1: And so to mention go ahead, I mean it just
Speaker 1: it makes it clear, like it there's nothing about this.
Speaker 1: Just grab someone and throw them in the prison. That
Speaker 1: would preclude US citizens or anyone else from being caught
Speaker 1: up in that as well. But I mean, to your point, Soccer,
Speaker 1: about this this guy like they did a whole thing
Speaker 1: and they portue he's the East Coast leader of MS thirteen. Okay,
Speaker 1: well don't you want to have that guy in prison?
Speaker 1: Because if you just deport him and he doesn't serve
Speaker 1: any time in prison, what's to stop him from coming
Speaker 1: right back? So you know, even Fox News was given
Speaker 1: Caroline Lovett a hard time about this one because they're
Speaker 1: thinking about it from that perspective of like, if this
Speaker 1: guy's such a big criminal, like, of course you want
Speaker 1: to prosecute him. Of course you want to get him
Speaker 1: behind bars. So let me just play a little that exchange,
Speaker 1: so you guys can hear how that went down.
Speaker 7: Can you shed some light on this because it was
Speaker 7: a story that we all covered that he was the
Speaker 7: East Coast leader of MS thirteen, So what was the
Speaker 7: evidence that supported that proclamation by the Department of Justice
Speaker 7: and the FBI.
Speaker 8: Here at the White House, we applaud the Attorney General
Speaker 8: Pam Bondi, our FBI Director Cash Fattel for working hand
Speaker 8: in hand with local law enforcement on the ground in
Speaker 8: the Commonwealth of Virginia to detain and arrest this MS
Speaker 8: thirteen ring leader. There was sufficient evidence to do so,
Speaker 8: and now the case is in the hands of the
Speaker 8: Department of Homeland Security, who will be deporting this individual
Speaker 8: from our country. These agencies are working together in a
Speaker 8: collaborative way to follow President Trump's directive to eradicate MS
Speaker 8: thirteen and foreign terrorists from United States soil. So this
Speaker 8: is an individual who was detained and arrested because of
Speaker 8: the President's policies, and he will no longer be residing
Speaker 8: in the.
Speaker 5: United States of America.
Speaker 7: I'm trying to get same for similarity on it, Caroline,
Speaker 7: because you know, if indeed he is what we were
Speaker 7: told he is, the East Coast leader of MS thirteen,
Speaker 7: wouldn't it make sense to prosecute him for crimes related
Speaker 7: to that. I know he was held on a gun charge,
Speaker 7: but to make sure that any victims of MS thirteen
Speaker 7: through his leadership, get their day in court here in
Speaker 7: the United States and then send him to an El
Speaker 7: Salvador in prison if he is deported and found guilty
Speaker 7: on those crimes.
Speaker 8: Well, again, this administration is doing things differently, Martha. And
Speaker 8: this President has made a directive to his agencies, but
Speaker 8: particularly the Department of Homeland Security, to remove foreign terrorists
Speaker 8: from America's homeland to protect American citizens. And we have
Speaker 8: an incredible diplomatic relationship with the President of El Salvador
Speaker 8: and his government who have been detaining these MS thirteen
Speaker 8: ring leaders and violent gang members in their prisons. And
Speaker 8: American taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for that cost.
Speaker 7: And so again the bottom line here in court said
Speaker 7: that the Alien and Act could be used to remove people,
Speaker 7: but they had to reach to do process first. I'm
Speaker 7: only pressing on this because it was a huge story
Speaker 7: and we covered it. Obviously, it would feel like that
Speaker 7: person could lead to a lot of other evidence. The
Speaker 7: DJ would be pressing to see this in court so
Speaker 7: that other people could be exposed. And suddenly none of
Speaker 7: that's happening. So can you explain why the change of
Speaker 7: course in this particular case.
Speaker 1: She doesn't explain the change of course, But in any
Speaker 1: case that's you know, in Fox News like okay, if
Speaker 1: this guy's such a big deal, what are we doing?
Speaker 2: I do at least appreciate that because they got fooled, right.
Speaker 2: They sent camera crews out there like they took it seriously.
Speaker 2: They covered the arrest, They made this into a huge thing,
Speaker 2: and you're like, so what, you just drugged me out
Speaker 2: there to cover a gun charge. You know how many
Speaker 2: gun charges there aren't this country. It's like, be serious, right,
Speaker 2: and okay, you want to deport somebody for a gun charge? Okay,
Speaker 2: yeah fine, but you know, be going around federal cases
Speaker 2: like acting like this is some rico mo boss and
Speaker 2: then just saying Oh, actually we're going to drop the case.
Speaker 2: We don't actually have to prove any of this stuff
Speaker 2: in court. There's a huge credit. I'm going to use
Speaker 2: an old school Vietnam term which Ryan will love. Credibility gap.
Speaker 2: There's a credibility gap that is opening with this white house.
Speaker 4: Wait until Fox News gets a hold of Drop Site.
Speaker 4: This is me teeing it over to Ryan because that's
Speaker 4: what should really be infuriating, I mean infuriates me the
Speaker 4: way there are clearly deals being struck and these guys
Speaker 4: are being used as pawns on a bigger drug.
Speaker 2: Yet Ryan, Yeah, story. Note, I still don't fully get it,
Speaker 2: So can you just explain it?
Speaker 6: So basically, what's going on here? And we don't know
Speaker 6: if that's this is exactly what's going on with this
Speaker 6: kid yet because he's twenty four and so Boo Kelly
Speaker 6: and MS thirteen struck a deal back around twenty nineteen
Speaker 6: where bou Kelly would give better prison conditions to MS
Speaker 6: thirteen members who were already locked up and other, you
Speaker 6: know other. You can see this story that jose A
Speaker 6: VARs and I wrote for Drop Site News, and in exchange,
Speaker 6: they would stop killing and kidnapping people, and this is
Speaker 6: not an uncommon tactic among South American or in Central
Speaker 6: American presidents to FMLN had tried to do the same thing,
Speaker 6: like back in twenty eleven or.
Speaker 2: Something like that.
Speaker 6: Part of the deal was that then MS thirteen would
Speaker 6: support bou Kelly in his next election, and they did that,
Speaker 6: and he woned a landslide, and then you saw this
Speaker 6: kind of breakdown of the deal and he, you know,
Speaker 6: he's become this much more aggressive, you know, anti gang dude,
Speaker 6: and so he has he has denied up and down
Speaker 6: that these negotiations ever took place, but the negotiations absolutely
Speaker 6: did take place, and so there has been this push
Speaker 6: and pull tug of war between the US and Bukelly.
Speaker 6: Bu Kelly wants all of the MS thirteen members who
Speaker 6: know about these negotiations in his dungeon. He does not
Speaker 6: want them in open court in the United States talking
Speaker 6: openly about the negotiations that they had with Bukelly, which
Speaker 6: are a real lightning rod, a real political lightning rod.
Speaker 6: In El Salvador, they wouldn't get attention here, but if
Speaker 6: they had testifying court up here in the United States,
Speaker 6: it would get a lot of coverage. In El Salvador,
Speaker 6: and he generally has the media locked down. But if this,
Speaker 6: you know, the media would cover something that happened in
Speaker 6: a US courtroom in El Salvador. So this would be
Speaker 6: a big problem for him. So that the price that
Speaker 6: Bukelly demanded to take these venezuelans was, I also want
Speaker 6: these MS thirteen guys that I've been trying to get
Speaker 6: from you and that you've been keeping from me. And
Speaker 6: so that's why we sent MS thirteen people along with
Speaker 6: along with these venezuelans, so and what. And in order
Speaker 6: to send them, they had to dismiss the charges, and
Speaker 6: they did that with a bunch of them, you know,
Speaker 6: back when they first sent them down. So that's what
Speaker 6: this looks like. We don't know the details yet. He
Speaker 6: would have been like eighteen when these negotiations were going on,
Speaker 6: so maybe he has knowledge of the negotiations subsequent or
Speaker 6: they just stitched up some random guy in Virginia and
Speaker 6: the thing is all now falling apart. But that's the
Speaker 6: backdrop that it could be part of this MS thirteen
Speaker 6: leadership round up that Bukelly wants Trump to help him
Speaker 6: effectuate and facilitate.
Speaker 2: Interesting wow, crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: Emily you're muted, you're mutiated, Emily not working. Okay, it's
Speaker 1: all good. All right, Let's talk quickly here about mack
Speaker 1: Mud Khalil, because this was important too. So you know,
Speaker 1: the administration has made it pretty clear for a while that,
Speaker 1: I mean, they have never said that Mackmud Khalil, who
Speaker 1: of course was the Columbia student legal permanent resident Green
Speaker 1: card holder who was arrested by Ice and shipped down
Speaker 1: to was he Louisiana. I believe he was shipped down to.
Speaker 1: And he was the real first big high profile case
Speaker 1: of like, anyone who's anything about Israel that we didn't like,
Speaker 1: we're going to round them up. If they're you know,
Speaker 1: here on a visa or a Green card holder or whatever,
Speaker 1: we're going to round them up, and we're going to
Speaker 1: detain them and we're going to deport them. He was
Speaker 1: the first big, high profile example of that. And the
Speaker 1: administration has never argued that he committed any crimes, even
Speaker 1: though many of their defenders have insinuated or insisted that
Speaker 1: this was because of a legal activity, they have never
Speaker 1: indicated that. And so the court has been asking them
Speaker 1: to provide their evidence of why they believe that he
Speaker 1: should be deported and effectively, you know they they so
Speaker 1: the government files you know this, this submission, and there
Speaker 1: is really no there there. I've got the key paragraph here,
Speaker 1: he says, pursuant to these authorities, I've determined the activities
Speaker 1: and presence of these aliens the US would have potentially
Speaker 1: serious adverse foreign policy consequences, would compromise a compelling US
Speaker 1: foreign policy interest. These determinations are based on information provided
Speaker 1: by the DHS ice HSI regarding the participation and role
Speaker 1: of someone else we don't know and Khalil in anti
Speaker 1: Semitic protests and disruptive activities which foster a hostile environment
Speaker 1: for Jewish students in the US. My determination for the
Speaker 1: other person is also based on some other citations for
Speaker 1: unlawful activity during these protests. But that's not Khalil, that's
Speaker 1: this other person. They're claiming engagement unlawful activities. The public
Speaker 1: actions and continued presence of these two in the US
Speaker 1: undermine US policy to combat anti Semitism around the world
Speaker 1: in the US, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish
Speaker 1: students from harassment and violence in the United States. So literally,
Speaker 1: the only thing that they cite here for Makmu Khalil
Speaker 1: Sager is his participation in what they describe as anti
Speaker 1: Semitic protests and disruptive activities.
Speaker 2: Mm. Interesting, isn't It definitely also fits with our anti
Speaker 2: Semitic screening that we're doing. Now, Ryan, I'm sure you
Speaker 2: saw that story. Oh wait, do we have the ice thing?
Speaker 2: I haven't gotten to react to this yet. The thing
Speaker 2: about ideas ideas, Ryan, you talk while I pull it up.
Speaker 2: Let me find that. No, Like, yeah, they they asked.
Speaker 6: They were told they have to come up with some
Speaker 6: evidence that he did something wrong.
Speaker 2: What's your case?
Speaker 6: Why is this permanent resident married to an American citizen
Speaker 6: whose wife is about to give birth in like, in
Speaker 6: indefinite detention without charge? And yeah, they they finally came
Speaker 6: back with because Marco Rubio can lock up anybody who
Speaker 6: he wants, who isn't a citizen for any reason. And
Speaker 6: the reason that he's claiming.
Speaker 2: Is that he's.
Speaker 6: Anti Semitic, which is which is wild because you he
Speaker 6: could bring if they actually wanted to try that, which
Speaker 6: apparently they don't think they have to. He could bring countless.
Speaker 6: It sounds like Jewish colleagues of his from Columbia, right, yeah,
Speaker 6: to bet anti semitism.
Speaker 1: Like attesting to his character. And you know he was
Speaker 1: going to shop at dinners. He was fighting antisemit. When
Speaker 1: there was somebody who did say something anti anti simitic,
Speaker 1: he was the first to intervene. So pullar opposite of
Speaker 1: the way that he's being portrayed, right, which just.
Speaker 6: To argue, well, if you're critical of Israel, we we
Speaker 6: we believe that that is anti semitism.
Speaker 2: Bingo exactly. Let's so as you guys could see herround
Speaker 2: the screen. This was a real thing that was put
Speaker 2: out by Ice. Quote. If it crosses the border illegally,
Speaker 2: it's our job to stop it. People, money products, Okay, okay,
Speaker 2: I understand ideas. Hold on a second, what whoa whoa
Speaker 2: whoa whoa whoa?
Speaker 1: Right, we talked about that last one.
Speaker 2: What was that last one? Ideas, Like, what does that
Speaker 2: mean exactly if it crosses our border illegally? Ideas, how
Speaker 2: does an idea illegally cross the s border? And now
Speaker 2: we're entering some difficult, difficult territory, aren't we, Ryan, And
Speaker 2: that's where the car. Yeah, in the trunk of our car,
Speaker 2: I've got your shine, Bob.
Speaker 1: Ideas, what's like the biggest apparently, Yeah, magic does this
Speaker 1: woman have? Though for real, I don't know. We're all
Speaker 1: referring to this Trump in the Oval office was like,
Speaker 1: she's a fantastic woman. She's doing a great job. We
Speaker 1: had a wonderful time. She has she's very dignified, she's.
Speaker 2: Very elegant, very elegant. I think it probably just has
Speaker 2: good Probably is just a good dipple match. Probably talks
Speaker 2: to them while on the phone. I mean, honestly, I
Speaker 2: can't really think of an alternative. But Emily, we're talking
Speaker 2: about Ice saying that they want to stop dangerous ideas
Speaker 2: from entering the country. We just put that graphic up
Speaker 2: from yesterday, and you're just.
Speaker 1: It's and that's the thing. It's like, it's the most
Speaker 1: obvious point to make. But can you imagine if the
Speaker 1: Biden Harris administration had done crazy half like you cannot
Speaker 1: have but there would be such a mount on over it,
Speaker 1: and understandably so, like it is truly Unamerican. It is
Speaker 1: a truly Unamerican thing to say and position to hold.
Speaker 1: And then the fact that you are clearly we also
Speaker 1: just push put up the machmun Khalil court filing. That's
Speaker 1: like h he was at a protest. That's why we're
Speaker 1: going to deport him. No allegations of illegality. No, even
Speaker 1: I thought they'd come up with something he said that
Speaker 1: was a little edgy, you know, that they could put
Speaker 1: in the butt. No, none of that.
Speaker 2: Just like he was, they even put like people from
Speaker 2: the river to the sea. They didn't even be like
Speaker 2: the well known anti Semitic phrase from the river to
Speaker 2: the sea.
Speaker 5: Well that is their definition.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean it said like even by their own definition, right,
Speaker 4: so they've accepted that definition. So they haven't even used
Speaker 4: that successfully to I mean, it's just.
Speaker 5: The ideas thing.
Speaker 4: If you flip it around and you see the Biden
Speaker 4: administration coming in and using this on Christians or people
Speaker 4: who are opposed like turfs.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's just like the possibilities are endless. The
Speaker 5: mind boggles, but they do need work.
Speaker 2: We need more turfs. Oh, by all means I call
Speaker 2: for more turf, but I mean.
Speaker 5: That this is so.
Speaker 4: When I was I was reading through the document that
Speaker 4: they submitted an evidence, the Rubio memo, I was just like,
Speaker 4: it's so it's not surprising, but they really do have nothing.
Speaker 1: Well, and Ryan, they had said some something maybe Pam Bondie,
Speaker 1: I don't remember. One of these people said that the
Speaker 1: reason he was being deported was because he aligned with Hamas.
Speaker 1: This document doesn't even mention Hamas, right.
Speaker 4: No, good point the DHS spokeswoman, Yeah, Tricia McLaughlin who
Speaker 4: said that.
Speaker 6: Right, They can't even prove that.
Speaker 5: That's what I was.
Speaker 2: Funny, you know where Tricia came from. She used to
Speaker 2: work for a vague mister ideas and mister debate. I'm
Speaker 2: just saying, you know, some of us, some of us
Speaker 2: remember things these are. It's a curse to actually remember
Speaker 2: anything in this business and just be like, what the
Speaker 2: talking you imagine?
Speaker 8: Mix up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like he went from that to uh, miss idea,
Speaker 2: mister we need to ban ideas? And well, can I
Speaker 2: such a great point, Crystal about the Hamas. Thing is
Speaker 2: they didn't even mention that. They just said he was
Speaker 2: anti Semitic. Go ahead, Emily, Well no, but.
Speaker 4: That's why this is also frustrating because christ So, do
Speaker 4: you remember we interviewed Mama du Taal on the show.
Speaker 5: Back in Well.
Speaker 4: His case is interesting because after he had gotten his visa,
Speaker 4: he had been tweeting things about how the US Empire
Speaker 4: he hates the US Empire. His goal in life is
Speaker 4: bringing down the US Empire. And he's like the one
Speaker 4: person from all of these cases like oz Turk for example,
Speaker 4: and op Ed. He's the one person from all these
Speaker 4: cases where like granted he'd said all of that after
Speaker 4: he got the visa up. I was like, could you
Speaker 4: have sussed that out in your interviews with him? Like
Speaker 4: did you know that he wasn't super pro America when
Speaker 4: you've said, here's a student visa, Like there are arguments
Speaker 4: that would be within the realm of like reasonable debate,
Speaker 4: and these are not them. These are like insane examples
Speaker 4: of op eds and trying to tie him to these
Speaker 4: posters that were handed out at protests, trying to tie
Speaker 4: him to protests that got like violent.
Speaker 5: He was he wasn't there.
Speaker 1: It wasn't wasn't with Khalil. Wasn't there also an allegation
Speaker 1: that he had lied on his green card application or
Speaker 1: something like that. He admitted that's not here either.
Speaker 5: Yeah, he admitted that there.
Speaker 2: Was something about for the I thought it was the
Speaker 2: U n like Unra.
Speaker 5: I thought it was the UK embassy.
Speaker 6: Because he had a joint job, like he had a
Speaker 6: UK security clearance while he was working for unra mm hm,
Speaker 6: which like I can't imagine why, like working for the
Speaker 6: UK would be disqualifying for an America like somebody applying
Speaker 6: for as the something.
Speaker 2: Maybe he's a spook. What if he's a spook.
Speaker 6: But he's a he's a there's a British spy is
Speaker 6: double O seven?
Speaker 1: Yes, they should put that in the application for his
Speaker 1: you know why he should be But it was wait,
Speaker 1: it was thinner. I knew it would be thin because right,
Speaker 1: the right has been digging through everything this man has
Speaker 1: ever said to try to come up with something to
Speaker 1: paint him. It's like always an anti Semitic, terrorist, loving monster,
Speaker 1: and they came up with nothing. So I knew it
Speaker 1: would be thin. This was thinner even than I expected,
Speaker 1: because I thought they'd have the thing in there. Oh
Speaker 1: he was lying on his application and know he said
Speaker 1: from the River to the Sea, and oh, here's a
Speaker 1: Hummus pamphlet. Remember Caroline Levitt did that whole thing. Of course,
Speaker 1: I can't even bring that literature into the briefing room
Speaker 1: because it was horrible. That was now, yeah, for sure,
Speaker 1: the horrible literature that we you know, can't even like
Speaker 1: the innocence of the American people.
Speaker 2: We saw.
Speaker 4: Men.
Speaker 1: It's a delicate flower.
Speaker 2: I actually wanted to see it. I was like, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, it'd be great. Actually I was. But yeah,
Speaker 2: that's all right, that's what that's what I need my
Speaker 2: government for. We moved to Dave Smith. You talk about
Speaker 2: Dave Okay, I got ready to lips. So what do
Speaker 2: you guys want to start with? Do you want to
Speaker 2: start with his lived experience thing about how you have
Speaker 2: to be able to have been to Israel?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Before you talk about okay.
Speaker 4: Can we just say, though, at off the top here,
Speaker 4: that what happened in this conversation is that Douglas Murray,
Speaker 4: who probably was under enormous pressure from pro Israel folks
Speaker 4: and people who are pro Ukraine and neo conservatives, just
Speaker 4: stand up to Joe Rogan. He starts the interview by
Speaker 4: asking Joe Rogan if he can ask him a question
Speaker 4: about why he doesn't so, I just it's sort of
Speaker 4: like the Oval Office meeting. That is genuinely important context
Speaker 4: for this three hour conversation is that it started with
Speaker 4: Douglas Murray challenging Joe Rogan about why he has he
Speaker 4: had Carroll.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, he coming into this. He's mad at Joe.
Speaker 2: He's snippy and he's or what what did Trump say? Yippy? Yep,
Speaker 2: he's yippy at Joe for quote not having enough pro
Speaker 2: Israel or pro Ukraine folks on the show, which by
Speaker 2: the way, is not even true. They're just a lot.
Speaker 4: He didn't even know some of the guests. Yeah, Joe
Speaker 4: tick off all these guys. He's like, I think God's sad.
Speaker 2: He says, I've had pro Israel folks and you know
Speaker 2: this one guy and I can't remember his name. And
Speaker 2: you're like, oh, if you can't even remember the name
Speaker 2: of the guy, you're calling anti Semitic. But okay, well anyway,
Speaker 2: So what he does in the beginning is he first
Speaker 2: of all, starts off with chastising Rogan for not having
Speaker 2: enough pro pro you folks would.
Speaker 1: Preposterous so much if a guest came on our show
Speaker 1: and was like, actually, I think here's how you should
Speaker 1: produce your show, here's how you should do your job,
Speaker 1: Like there is no worse way to start a conversation
Speaker 1: with with anyone.
Speaker 4: Let's start with that of hosting. I Carrol like he
Speaker 4: just had no relationship and was a little bit.
Speaker 5: It was a little bit off. I thought Joe handled
Speaker 5: it really well and it turned into a.
Speaker 2: Pretesting DISCUSSI Joe really held as cool. And I will
Speaker 2: say that Douglas is one of the smarmiest people I've
Speaker 2: ever seen on this because he spends the entire thing
Speaker 2: trying to but he tries to attack Smith's character, basically
Speaker 2: lies that Dave Smith is doing this for views or
Speaker 2: for clicks. Ridiculous. Dave has been in this business for
Speaker 2: a long time. Dave's most viral moment is not even
Speaker 2: anything to do with Israel. It's about vaccines from five
Speaker 2: years ago. Not that Douglas would know anything about any
Speaker 2: of that, but he's like, oh, Dave, your shtick is Israel, right,
Speaker 2: like implying that he's doing this for career purposes. Someone
Speaker 2: should tell me that because I don't remember my career
Speaker 2: between all that well because of any Israel criticism. In fact,
Speaker 2: it's the opposite of mister Murray, who went from you know,
Speaker 2: this flitting about neo conservative has been to you know,
Speaker 2: a little flack jacket tour vests all over Israel and
Speaker 2: so protectionization, right, that's the context is the concern trolling
Speaker 2: about quote expertise, and we'll get to that. But the
Speaker 2: really the best part was this where he tries to
Speaker 2: use a literal, woke style argument of if you've never
Speaker 2: been to Israel, then you're not allowed to talk about it.
Speaker 2: Dave handled himself incredibly well, in my opinion, in this
Speaker 2: back and forth. So let's go ahead and take a
Speaker 2: listen to.
Speaker 3: Some of it with no deficit of goods coming in.
Speaker 3: I've been plenty of No there, there are plenty. How
Speaker 3: have you been to the crossing points? When we ask
Speaker 3: there at all, I've never been. You've never been?
Speaker 9: Well, I'm not am I not allowed to talk about it?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 9: Have you ever been to? Have you ever been to
Speaker 9: Nazi Germany? Are you allowed to have? You can't time travel,
Speaker 9: but you can't? Okay, but so what, so what's the point? Like, No,
Speaker 9: I find that lots of people have been there and
Speaker 9: agree with me, and lots of people have been there
Speaker 9: and agree with you.
Speaker 3: I don't want to spend a year and a half
Speaker 3: talking about about a place you should at least do
Speaker 3: the courtesy of visiting it, all right.
Speaker 9: I just think this is a non argument. Okay, No,
Speaker 9: I think it's a non argument. But you have to
Speaker 9: go and touch the ground. I think you have to see.
Speaker 3: I think it's a good idea to see stuff, particularly
Speaker 3: if you spend a career talking about something. Yes, I
Speaker 3: have a journalistic rule of try never to talk about
Speaker 3: a country, even in passing, unless I've at least been there. Okay,
Speaker 3: it's normal, it's a normal thing to do. You're talking
Speaker 3: about Hang on, you're talking about crossing points, and not
Speaker 3: only have you never been to a crossing point in
Speaker 3: either Egypt or in Israel, but you never even been
Speaker 3: to the region. Okay, it's not a non ars is.
Speaker 3: It's not a non argument if you're insisting that you're
Speaker 3: an expert of some kind or not claiming you're an expert,
Speaker 3: but still talking about it, about the provisions going into
Speaker 3: Gaza or not. If you've never seen any of this
Speaker 3: going on, so.
Speaker 9: You're not amazing about things that you've read about. You
Speaker 9: can only speak about things that you've seen with your
Speaker 9: own eyes. You can talk about what you want as
Speaker 9: you're proving.
Speaker 3: But that is a different matter from spending an awfully
Speaker 3: long amount of time talking about an issue in a
Speaker 3: region you haven't even had the to see the visit.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 3: Developing all of these views about it. I mean an
Speaker 3: idea where you're coming from. You've read about this blockade,
Speaker 3: and so you imagine that that's what it is. I imagine
Speaker 3: you've read all the people who say that Gaza was
Speaker 3: a concentration camp.
Speaker 2: All right, we can call it there. This This is
Speaker 2: the dumbest form of argumentation. And there's there's a layer
Speaker 2: to this too. I actually texted this to Dave and
Speaker 2: I was like, I kind of wish you'd said this, Douglas. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I just want to be like, hey, Douglas, why do
Speaker 2: you think you got to go to the crossing points?
Speaker 2: My guy? Is it because you're on an ISRAELI bebe
Speaker 2: sponsored tour to go in to see this so that
Speaker 2: you go on the biggest platform in the world and
Speaker 2: say everything is fine. Why don't we call Ryan, Why
Speaker 2: don't you enlighten me and call as you have, some
Speaker 2: of the people who live there and tell me what
Speaker 2: they have to say who are not members of Go ahead, Ryan,
Speaker 2: tell me what the people who were on the other
Speaker 2: side of that crossing point have to say.
Speaker 6: They say they can't find food. Oh okay, and he
Speaker 6: got it, and they have phone numbers. Has has he
Speaker 6: spoken to them.
Speaker 2: Has he have you ever been to Gaza, Douglas, have
Speaker 2: you ever been to Gaza? He shouldn't say anything about.
Speaker 6: They blocked on March second, they said we're not letting
Speaker 6: any AID in.
Speaker 2: They said it publicly.
Speaker 6: Why does God Dave Smith need to go fact check
Speaker 6: the claims by the Israeli government and the Palestinians on
Speaker 6: the other side confirmed it. We have both sides saying
Speaker 6: we're not letting AID in.
Speaker 1: But if Dave doesn't weird, go ahead, grissol. It does
Speaker 1: remind me so much of like it truly is like
Speaker 1: a very woke reminiscent argument because one of the things
Speaker 1: the tactics that is used to shut down debate is like, well,
Speaker 1: if you're not a member of that marginalized group, you
Speaker 1: can't speak on issues related to that marginalized group. And
Speaker 1: I'm not going to say that there's nothing too like
Speaker 1: hearing someone's quote unquote lived experience, but that is a
Speaker 1: common tactic to just say you're not allowed to have
Speaker 1: a say at all. Don't care what you've read, don't
Speaker 1: care what your opinion is, what your moral compasses, don't
Speaker 1: care if you don't have these particular characteristics you don't
Speaker 1: get to weigh in. I've always objected to that, whether
Speaker 1: it was on the woke side, and it's the exact
Speaker 1: same thing here. It's also very like, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know if he's all if he's always debated this way,
Speaker 1: but it's a very Puresborgan panel debate tactic to just
Speaker 1: they spend so much time just like attacking each other's character.
Speaker 1: You're a racist, you're an anti semi, you haven't even
Speaker 1: been there, and you know, it's the type of thing
Speaker 1: that can play well in that format when you just
Speaker 1: have like fifteen minutes of yelling to filibuster and try
Speaker 1: to like out alpha the people on the panel, But
Speaker 1: when you actually have to sit there and explain yourself
Speaker 1: for hours on end, and everyone gets a chance to
Speaker 1: see Dave be like, this is a non argument, what
Speaker 1: are you talking about? It doesn't quite hit the same
Speaker 1: way as when you're just on some like Piers Morgan yellfest.
Speaker 4: Well that's really interesting because they actually started the entire
Speaker 4: podcast by Joe saying, the reason we wanted to do
Speaker 4: this is because so many of these debates are held
Speaker 4: on shows like Piers Morgan, and basically it's so theatrical
Speaker 4: and it's actually somewhat so it's expert it's just this
Speaker 4: deification of expertise, which is very disappointing from Douglas Murray,
Speaker 4: by the way, who on wokeness, on media corruption, all
Speaker 4: of that. He actually was with Tayibi side by side
Speaker 4: in an Intelligent Square debate against Malcolm Gladwell and Ryan
Speaker 4: Calmness in New York Times.
Speaker 5: Michelle Goldberg and wiped the floor with.
Speaker 4: Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg and Douglas Murray did some
Speaker 4: heavy lifting in abs excoriating the corporate media.
Speaker 5: And its corruption.
Speaker 4: And here he's flipping around and saying that because Dave
Speaker 4: lacks expertise. My favorite moment of this entire conversation is
Speaker 4: when Dave goes, I'm a free American.
Speaker 5: I can say whatever I want.
Speaker 4: And I just was like felt like wrapped in the
Speaker 4: American flag was going to like shotgun a. Miller lte
Speaker 4: when he said that it was glorious, because that's his point.
Speaker 4: His point is that the audience is smart enough to
Speaker 4: make up their own minds if they are listening to
Speaker 4: a comedian who's really interested in history or a you know,
Speaker 4: ex military guy who's really interested in history do thirty
Speaker 4: hours of a podcast. The audience is smart enough to
Speaker 4: make up their minds to do additional research. They don't
Speaker 4: need to be protected by expert gatekeepers in every situation.
Speaker 4: And it's just I found it very unfortunate to see
Speaker 4: that flipped again.
Speaker 1: It's also very selective because it's not enough. So he's
Speaker 1: decided Dave Smith's not expert. But he's also decided that
Speaker 1: is not sufficient for Dave Smith to read experts.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly have studied this.
Speaker 1: Been to the region, et cetera. So it's, you know,
Speaker 1: it's all very selective and very convenient when you get
Speaker 1: to be the expert. What when the expert opinion matters
Speaker 1: and can factor in and when it doesn't in his view.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is the expertise part of whist which drive
Speaker 2: drove me crazy. And so there's a specific, you know
Speaker 2: part of this. Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 10: Do also think that one of the bigger kind of
Speaker 10: the bigger picture dynamics to all of this is that
Speaker 10: we have at least since nine to eleven, been in
Speaker 10: a state of perpetual war, and all of these wars
Speaker 10: have been disasters. They have been so many lies involved
Speaker 10: in selling all of them. I mean, the whole Iraq war,
Speaker 10: the whole war in Afghanistan, lying the whole way through.
Speaker 10: I mean I remember literally having conversations with green Brays
Speaker 10: in the middle of the war in Afghanistan, and they're like,
Speaker 10: George W. Bush is telling you that the army we're
Speaker 10: building up there is really successful. This thing's going to
Speaker 10: fall in a week without us. And then all through
Speaker 10: the Obama administration it's just like lie after lie after
Speaker 10: lie with disastrous wars. And so this does create a
Speaker 10: fertile ground for people to say I wonder if they
Speaker 10: were lying about all these wars. Sure, again, I'm not
Speaker 10: really trying to argue about World War Two.
Speaker 5: I'd rather argue about the wars.
Speaker 2: I think the interesting question is whether you're busy watering it.
Speaker 1: We should you not talk about mistakes that were made overall?
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
Speaker 11: Okay, you should absolutely right all four go back and
Speaker 11: looking at missus.
Speaker 5: So what are you what is your argument?
Speaker 11: Then it's a very weird thing to go back zone
Speaker 11: in on a man say this one thing is a
Speaker 11: mistake and should characterize him, and you ignore everything.
Speaker 2: You're taking him out of context. Why when you're talking
Speaker 2: about Darryl.
Speaker 1: Who's done what was it, thirty plus hours?
Speaker 11: So what thirty plus hours? But you take it, you
Speaker 11: do that in a week.
Speaker 10: Yeah, but it's a very it's very very different. It's
Speaker 10: very different.
Speaker 5: He's not doing a podcast like talking to.
Speaker 11: People, Okay, nor is he doing scholarly work, nor is
Speaker 11: he working in the archives. Clearly, come on, I mean
Speaker 11: this is he is not the historian of our era.
Speaker 2: He's not complaining to me the historian jelly, but.
Speaker 5: Work.
Speaker 11: What I'm saying because I don't need to consume endless
Speaker 11: versions of revisionist history.
Speaker 2: I understand this vision history. Okay, So that was about
Speaker 2: the Darryl Cooper thing. But that pop part I found
Speaker 2: very illuminating is this he produced thirty hours of part
Speaker 2: He goes, so what you do that? And it's like
Speaker 2: Douglas is acting as if he is like one of
Speaker 2: the professors at Oxford that he got his undergraduate degree
Speaker 2: in English from. You were not that, bro. You have
Speaker 2: written books about multiple different subjects. You are the definition
Speaker 2: of like a journalist. Yeah, Dylan, you're little. Yeah, you
Speaker 2: are an influencer diletant. You are a literal diletante who
Speaker 2: flits about the world, writes neo conservatism and why we
Speaker 2: need it and now madness of crowds and the strange
Speaker 2: death of your It's like, are you a fucking expert
Speaker 2: on immigration? Are you an expert on Western civilization?
Speaker 5: Because you yeah, have you been to the mortar listen?
Speaker 5: He said he didn't listen. He said he didn't listen.
Speaker 2: It's sheer arrogance. And you know, Ryan, that was another
Speaker 2: thing that I really found about these ziobots, like uh Murray,
Speaker 2: is that this guy is pushing like completely debunked stuff
Speaker 2: about October seventh, like it was fact, Like he talked
Speaker 2: about like mass rape on October seventh, he was like
Speaker 2: this close to talking about the baby's thing, right, And
Speaker 2: it was so obvious to me that he has not
Speaker 2: engaged with any even like surface level Horretz level criticism
Speaker 2: of Israel. And that is his expertise, right, His EXPERTI
Speaker 2: is that he's been there. It's just the purest form
Speaker 2: of wokeism, of like concern trolling about expertise when you yourself
Speaker 2: have absolutely none. And I will say, like outside of Twitter,
Speaker 2: like Zionist Twitter, if you go look at the YouTube
Speaker 2: comments or the general reaction or anything. This Murray's getting cooked.
Speaker 2: People can see this level of like sneering and concern trolling,
Speaker 2: and just people are like, oh, I wasn't in the
Speaker 2: studio with Douglas, so I can't have an opinion about
Speaker 2: how much of a dickhead he was, you know, just
Speaker 2: like like that's the level of argumentation that he has,
Speaker 2: you know that he brings us down to.
Speaker 6: It's ridiculous and it is comical in one breath to
Speaker 6: say that, you know, Dave can't comment on Israel because
Speaker 6: he hasn't been there, but he can comment on a
Speaker 6: podcast that he's never listened to, right, because I actually
Speaker 6: disagree with the other point, Like you actually probably should
Speaker 6: listen to a podcast if you're going to have an
Speaker 6: opinion on the podcast.
Speaker 1: Right because you actually thing of having opinion on the
Speaker 1: podcast is like the content of the pop podcast. That's
Speaker 1: kind of the whole thing if you want to.
Speaker 4: And nobody has done like listen, I disagree with Darryl
Speaker 4: on Churchill. I just game with him on a lot,
Speaker 4: but if you listen to the podcast, absolutely nobody is
Speaker 4: doing what he is doing the level and Joe pointed
Speaker 4: this out. His fear and loathing and New Jerusalem starts
Speaker 4: from the emotional, visceral perspective of Jews who are fleeing pegroms.
Speaker 4: It's just absurd to act as though that is being
Speaker 4: put in the box of Pat Buchanan. It's not Pap Buchanon.
Speaker 4: It draws from Pap Buchanan, but it's not Pap Buchanan.
Speaker 4: And you don't know that unless you listen to it.
Speaker 2: That's another thing. I'm not even gonna go into the
Speaker 2: By the way, I love Darryl. Darrel's one of my brothers. Yes,
Speaker 2: I disagree with him. I actually text him often and
Speaker 2: be like, dude, you're totally wrong about all this. He's,
Speaker 2: you know, the guy who will send me books, obscure
Speaker 2: books about that he has on the Battle of Singapore,
Speaker 2: and so that you know, it's beyond the.
Speaker 5: Character a beautiful friendship.
Speaker 2: It is a beautiful friendship, just like Shinebaum and Trump,
Speaker 2: but like beyond even the like surface level criticism find
Speaker 2: if people want to have it for me? Is that
Speaker 2: arrogance of Murray and a lot of these pro Israel
Speaker 2: folks who resort to the most ad hominem and emotional
Speaker 2: attacks concern trolling about expertise, and then someone like you, Ryan,
Speaker 2: who actually has reporting expertise like knowledge and all that
Speaker 2: of the region is dismissed completely out of hand. And
Speaker 2: if someone like Dave, who is a consumer of your
Speaker 2: work or of Horetz or any of that, is laughed
Speaker 2: out of the room. You know, the idea is, you know,
Speaker 2: and I genuinely would say this is that the mean
Speaker 2: critic of Israel and of Israeli policy, and I mean
Speaker 2: this in the commentariat space, in my opinion, is ten
Speaker 2: times more informed on the conflict than anybody who is
Speaker 2: just mindlessly sucking up their propaganda about October seventh or
Speaker 2: the war in Gaza or the ends, you know. I mean.
Speaker 2: The other thing that I found preposterous, Ryan, is that
Speaker 2: throughout the podcast he's like Qatar is pumped money into
Speaker 2: our university system. Ryan, does he even know that Netan
Speaker 2: Yahoo is literally facing right, notch an allegation over probably not,
Speaker 2: That's my point. He doesn't even know anything about the
Speaker 2: place that he spent so much time.
Speaker 6: Right And that's a huge It's like the number one
Speaker 6: story in Israel right now. But it's structurally, if you
Speaker 6: are on the Dave Smith side, you you must constantly
Speaker 6: engage with the pro Israel side because it is it
Speaker 6: is the water that we're swimming in. If you are
Speaker 6: on Murray's side, you can actually just not read drop site.
Speaker 6: You cannot watch this program, like you can seal yourself
Speaker 6: off and just never encounter that. And so that's how
Speaker 6: you wind up with people repeating things that everyone already
Speaker 6: knows has been actually debunked by like even say like
Speaker 6: the BBC or somebody, but like not done it in
Speaker 6: a high profile enough way that it penetrated the pro
Speaker 6: Israel bubble.
Speaker 2: So or they do.
Speaker 1: There and they just want to and they just lie
Speaker 1: and don't expect to get called on it because it's
Speaker 1: emotionally uncomfortable to be like, well, actually there wasn't a
Speaker 1: mass rape on October seventh, and then you look like you're,
Speaker 1: you know, being a Hamas apologist or whatever. Like there's
Speaker 1: some of that going on too. Let's not deny that
Speaker 1: many of these people are happy to just lie or
Speaker 1: just believe a reality even though it's been debunked, you know,
Speaker 1: because it fits with their view of what's going on here.
Speaker 1: And I just want to drill down on this point
Speaker 1: a little bit more. I mean, two things. Number one,
Speaker 1: it seems to me, I didn't watch the whole podcast.
Speaker 1: I just watched the clips that you showed, so I
Speaker 1: don't I don't want to opine on a podcast that,
Speaker 1: by the.
Speaker 2: Way, listen to Crystal Don't subserve three hours everything you need.
Speaker 1: But you know, with the invoking of Ian Carroll, the
Speaker 1: invoking of Darryl it also feels like, rather than dealing
Speaker 1: with the arguments of the person who's right in front
Speaker 1: of you, you want to construct a straw man of
Speaker 1: you know, I mean Ian Carroll. There are some things,
Speaker 1: Daryl Cooper, there are definitely some things. Okay, they're not there.
Speaker 1: Dave Smith is there? What is his argument? Deal with
Speaker 1: his arguments rather than these other superfluous people who have
Speaker 1: been in the Joe Rogan podcast universe. Okay, that's number one.
Speaker 1: Number two, I want to say this since this view
Speaker 1: and this is the same thing I said when the
Speaker 1: argument's about you can't have an opinion on certain things
Speaker 1: if you're not part of that marginalized group whatever it is,
Speaker 1: fundamentally anti democratic, small de democratic. Our government is sending
Speaker 1: our money to bomb these babies. We're not allowed to
Speaker 1: have an opinion because we haven't fucking been there, Are
Speaker 1: you kidding me? Seriously, we're all about to pay taxes,
Speaker 1: taxes are doing what four days? Yeah, we can't have
Speaker 1: an opinion on that. B for real, we are obligated,
Speaker 1: obligated to have an opinion on what our government is
Speaker 1: doing in our name with our money to a trapped, starved,
Speaker 1: bombed population. We like, if you are a citizen who
Speaker 1: cares about the direction of the country in the world,
Speaker 1: yes you should have an opinion about that. And it
Speaker 1: doesn't require you going to the region, going to Israel,
Speaker 1: going on Bebe's press tour, going to the crossings, auditing
Speaker 1: what goods or No, you get to have an opinion
Speaker 1: because this is a fucking allegedly democracy. So that is
Speaker 1: why that thing pisces me off so much. And especially
Speaker 1: this is the way also by the way that like
Speaker 1: liberal Zionist shut people down too. Oh it's complicated and
Speaker 1: you just don't understand. This is what they do on
Speaker 1: you know, monetary policy, This is complicated. Just let the
Speaker 1: experts handle it. You just don't know.
Speaker 5: I've got this all of the time. On gender stuff,
Speaker 5: like from the from the left all.
Speaker 2: The time, and in too many genders. You understand.
Speaker 1: Well, no, it's very similars.
Speaker 5: You are not are you Are you a neuroscientist? Are
Speaker 5: you a biologist? Yeah? Are you a psychiatrist? No, it's
Speaker 5: it's it's a thing. That's a thing. It's just like
Speaker 5: this blocking with the expertise.
Speaker 1: I look, I think that we experts are important. I
Speaker 1: think it is really important to have people who have
Speaker 1: deeply studied fields medicine, science, history. I think it is
Speaker 1: important to take in that information. But they can't tell
Speaker 1: you what your values are, right, They can't like chew
Speaker 1: up your democratic food and spit it in your mouth
Speaker 1: and eat it for you Like, you have to engage
Speaker 1: with that content and think about the world for yourself.
Speaker 1: And yes, you are allowed to do that. That is
Speaker 1: like the base. That is like the foundation upon which
Speaker 1: this country is allegedly built. And we follow shor in
Speaker 1: many many ways. But when you just when you try
Speaker 1: to dumb down the population, don't worry your pretty little head.
Speaker 1: The experts over here they get it. You don't. It's
Speaker 1: too complicated. You don't get to have an opinion that
Speaker 1: is fundamentally anti democratic, It is anti populous. It is
Speaker 1: like the you know, I am just repulsed by that
Speaker 1: whole direction. And by the way, way, think of when
Speaker 1: Dave Smith is talking about these experts that got us
Speaker 1: into the Iraq war, right, how did that go? These
Speaker 1: experts who you know kept us in Afghanistan for decades?
Speaker 1: How did that go? These experts that were part of
Speaker 1: you know, deregular and financial industry. He didn't make these
Speaker 1: arguments on making these arguments and crash the entire like
Speaker 1: global economy. How did that go? How has deferring to
Speaker 1: experts and not worrying your pretty little head about these
Speaker 1: overly complicated topics, how has that worked out?
Speaker 2: Yeah, COVID, you know, we can go on for it.
Speaker 4: Well, Douglas talked about COVID and that Taibi debate, if
Speaker 4: I'm remembering correctly. And the last thing i want to
Speaker 4: say is that I'm sympathetic to a point that Douglas
Speaker 4: makes about losing the forest for the trees. I think
Speaker 4: that's sometimes what we get into when we're debating like
Speaker 4: gallipoly campaign and Churchill and all of that.
Speaker 2: I guess, oh, yeah, keep Gallipo out of your mouth. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but you know what.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, You're not an expert. Amalie I wasn't there,
Speaker 1: but I.
Speaker 4: Think that we said we do sometimes lose the forest
Speaker 4: for the trees, because some of these trees have not
Speaker 4: been you know, have not been well evaluate evaluated over
Speaker 4: the course of the last century, and so in revisiting
Speaker 4: them and saying, oh, the experts lied, we sometimes assume
Speaker 4: that when we're looking at a tree, we're looking at
Speaker 4: the whole forest, or we get lost.
Speaker 5: Man. This is a tortured metaphor. So I'm sympathetic to
Speaker 5: that point.
Speaker 4: But the problem is the experts are the ones that
Speaker 4: continue to just completely lose trust because they're wrong about
Speaker 4: certain things, and then so to defer to experts, to
Speaker 4: say the experts got COVID wrong, expert, but then to
Speaker 4: defer to them on Ukraine and Israel and act like
Speaker 4: anybody who is challenging those official narratives is siding with
Speaker 4: anti Semites or with Putin.
Speaker 5: It is so unfortunate and it's very telling.
Speaker 2: I think that's a great place to leave it. I think,
Speaker 2: great show, everybody, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Well it was too, It's nice having the whole crew
Speaker 1: or any last anything, last Ryan in particular, are you
Speaker 1: looking at anything working on any reporting you want to
Speaker 1: you want to highlight.
Speaker 6: Oh no, I should send this to Phil Emily. But
Speaker 6: a very cool story in drop set that we published
Speaker 6: yesterday afternoon. Interview with a top Hoothy leader who basically
Speaker 6: responding to Trump and Hexath, who said, Hey, if the
Speaker 6: Hoothi stop bombing American ships, will stop bombing the Houthis.
Speaker 6: And they told drop Site, we will stop bombing American ships.
Speaker 6: Then if you'll stop bombing us, they said, we will
Speaker 6: continue to bomb Israeli ships.
Speaker 2: They're not allowed, they're not walking through. But American ship's fine.
Speaker 6: We have no problem with America. So now the question
Speaker 6: will be did Trump and Hegseth mean Israeli ships under
Speaker 6: the definition of our ships?
Speaker 1: We all know the answer to that. Yeah, we know that,
Speaker 1: but it's good to have it clarified. Indeed. All right, guys,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Thanks to everybody out there. Appreciate you.
Speaker 3: Guys.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have some announcements next week. I'm just going
Speaker 1: to tease that, some big announcements all around, So stay
Speaker 1: tuned for that and have a great weekend. We will
Speaker 1: see you back here Monday.