Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody. Happy Friday, Emily, Ryan, Great to see
Speaker 1: you guys.
Speaker 2: Crystal Crystal for those who didn't see the behind the scenes,
Speaker 2: was Ryan's tech support this morning.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was pretty impressive and she nailed it.
Speaker 1: Geek squad, yeap, got it worked right down.
Speaker 3: Fixed we are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm a woman of many talents. What can I say.
Speaker 1: We've been calling these shows internally the mini show, but
Speaker 1: they're increasingly sort of not really many shows, they're just
Speaker 1: shows because of so much stuff that's going on. But
Speaker 1: excited to get both of your reaction to Liberation Day
Speaker 1: and you know, take your temperature as to how liberated
Speaker 1: you're feeling on this Friday. Got a bunch of a
Speaker 1: bunch of different stuff in regard to that, including new
Speaker 1: jobs numbers that just came out, which actually came out
Speaker 1: much stronger than expected, so that's kind of interesting. We
Speaker 1: also have a new poll, hypothetical poll AOC versus Chuck
Speaker 1: Shumer and for Senate she's deshrawing him, which is really interesting.
Speaker 1: Made you turn about in terms of how the Democratic
Speaker 1: base is feeling. Ryan also flag for us there's huge
Speaker 1: protest plan for you know, from the Democratic base across
Speaker 1: the country, a thousand different protests planned in you know,
Speaker 1: nationwide locations. We've got a few national security advisors who
Speaker 1: were officially lumored that U interesting developments there. And we're
Speaker 1: also really looking forward to speaking to one of the
Speaker 1: members of the legal team of that marilynd father who
Speaker 1: was wrongly deported to the El Salvador prison. So she's
Speaker 1: she actually represented him in that twenty nineteen hearing where
Speaker 1: the judge ruled that he cannot be deported to El Salvador,
Speaker 1: so she knows should know all the ins and outs
Speaker 1: of like the gang accusations and what they were saying
Speaker 1: and what the reality was, how the family's doing, all
Speaker 1: of that sort of stuff. So definitely looking forward to that.
Speaker 2: Good show. Like to your point about not calling these
Speaker 2: mini shows, that's a lot of.
Speaker 1: Crystal Yes, indeed. All right, so let's kick things off here.
Speaker 1: I guess we'll start with the latest on the jobsts. Obviously,
Speaker 1: Trump has upended the entire global economy, so you know,
Speaker 1: a lot to get to there. But we also had
Speaker 1: the jobs report come out this this morning and it
Speaker 1: actually crushed expectations two hundred twenty eight thousand. Unemployment rate
Speaker 1: actually rose a little bit to four point two percent.
Speaker 1: Joe Wisenthal here saying the economists had expected one hundred
Speaker 1: and forty thousand jobs unemployment of four point one percent.
Speaker 1: The reason that the unemployment rate actually ticked up is
Speaker 1: because you had more people, higher workforce participations, so sort
Speaker 1: of more people jumping into the market and trying to
Speaker 1: find a job. Any reflections on that, guys, just before
Speaker 1: we get into the latest Liberation Day fallout, I mean,
Speaker 1: what the.
Speaker 3: Business press was saying is that this was sort of
Speaker 3: an interesting but meaningless round of numbers because people were
Speaker 3: going to say, you know, if it was terrible, they
Speaker 3: were going to say, oh, well, like one more reason
Speaker 3: to sell. So terrible report would have been bad and
Speaker 3: like would have been like another kind of another straw
Speaker 3: on this camel's broken back. Yeah, but a good report
Speaker 3: is discounted by the market because they're like, Okay, well
Speaker 3: that was a good report in March. That was before
Speaker 3: Liberation Day and the fall of Western civilization because of
Speaker 3: the race in Wisconsin, supre Court race. So we're now
Speaker 3: in a post Liberation Day, post Western civilization world. So
Speaker 3: the things that happened before that, you know, don't don't
Speaker 3: actually matter. So it staves off a little additional extra
Speaker 3: sell off potentially, and but that's about it. And and
Speaker 3: it it you know, it bakes in some hopes among
Speaker 3: these folks that Trump is going to you know, uh,
Speaker 3: you know, cock things up so badly that the Fed
Speaker 3: will step in and and you know, lower interest rates
Speaker 3: a whole bunch of times between now and the end
Speaker 3: of the year and that and that that'll cushion some
Speaker 3: of the blows.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, and that's kind of one of the high
Speaker 1: IQ arguments for the terrorists is like, oh, this is
Speaker 1: all an effort to bring down interest rates so that
Speaker 1: also when the US has to roll all of this debt,
Speaker 1: that it will be at a lower interest rate. And
Speaker 1: so we need to like destroy the entire economy so
Speaker 1: that we can bring interest rates down as one of
Speaker 1: the sort of like high IQ versions of the Trump
Speaker 1: tariff thing. And it's nine point fifteen when we're recording
Speaker 1: this right now. This is what you know, CNBC. You
Speaker 1: got the ticker up here of the futures what they
Speaker 1: look like. You know, yesterday obviously was pretty bad in
Speaker 1: terms of the stock market, although to be honest with you,
Speaker 1: I thought it could have been even worse. Given the
Speaker 1: you know the nature of the tariffs, which are just
Speaker 1: so astonishing and massive and obviously global, and saying in
Speaker 1: my opinion and you know, we'll really have just I
Speaker 1: think it's impossible to really gauge exactly what all the
Speaker 1: fallout is ultimately going to be. But even with this
Speaker 1: job's report now coming in higher than expected, obviously future
Speaker 1: is still significantly down. And you know, China announced this
Speaker 1: more learning or last night or sometime before I woke up,
Speaker 1: that they were going to be retaliating with significant tariffs
Speaker 1: of their own and targeting a few key American businesses
Speaker 1: and industries in particular. So you know, the theory is
Speaker 1: the markets are sort of reacting to that, and that's
Speaker 1: why they're down even more than they already were yesterday.
Speaker 2: Also, really sweet to see you and Kyle dming.
Speaker 1: A lot of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, you know, China's response to me suggests what
Speaker 3: a difficult spot the US is in. Like I would
Speaker 3: imagine that she and his advisors are almost paralyzed by
Speaker 3: the sheer number of different effective ways they have to
Speaker 3: screw us, and they have a unified system whereby they
Speaker 3: can come up with an idea and then they can
Speaker 3: execute on it, whereas in the United States we are
Speaker 3: literally having chat GPT come up up with our plan.
Speaker 3: So it's like chat GPT versus you know, she and
Speaker 3: his economists. Yeah, when she and his economists are sitting
Speaker 3: on massive piles of cash and the manufacturing capacity of
Speaker 3: the world and the knowledge of the supply chains, and
Speaker 3: they can you know, largely kind of guide a lot
Speaker 3: of their companies. I've seen a lot of people say
Speaker 3: that Trump's actual scheme here is He's going to destroy
Speaker 3: the American economy, drive the prices down to bottom barrel,
Speaker 3: and that he and his billionaire buddies are going to
Speaker 3: buy up everything. I don't. I don't think that's right
Speaker 3: at all. But I think what he might end up
Speaker 3: doing is knock the price of everything way down, and
Speaker 3: then she and his buddies come in with their companies
Speaker 3: and buy everything up that they that that they can
Speaker 3: get at a you know, steep discount.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well that's important to notee. You know, recessions, most people lose,
Speaker 1: but not everybody loses. You know. Out of the financial crash,
Speaker 1: there was a massive consolidation. Banks got bigger than ever.
Speaker 1: It really was the kickoff of permanent capital being such
Speaker 1: a massive player in terms of buying up housing, and
Speaker 1: you know, these giant conglomerates becoming basically like America's landlord.
Speaker 1: Out of the COVID crash, we all know that the
Speaker 1: tech barons really consolidated a lot of power, Bezos, Zuckerberg, elon.
Speaker 1: They all came out of the COVID crash massively wealthier
Speaker 1: than before. And to your point about China, their markets
Speaker 1: are not down all that much. They take it a
Speaker 1: little bit, but nothing like what our markets are down,
Speaker 1: which tells you that investors are betting that they're actually
Speaker 1: going to be more or less okay out of this.
Speaker 1: And you can start to see in the specific retaliation
Speaker 1: that they picked. You know, it was not only okay, well,
Speaker 1: we're going to hit you with the same level of
Speaker 1: tariff that you're hitting us. It was also we're going
Speaker 1: to block you from being able to import some of
Speaker 1: these rare earth minerals that are in you know, all
Speaker 1: of our modern electronics and are really important. And that
Speaker 1: China has been to your boy ride about the level
Speaker 1: of planning for years and years, you know, consolidating their
Speaker 1: control over some of those supply chains. So they are
Speaker 1: certainly not powerless, to say the least emily in this situation.
Speaker 2: No, they they aren't. And it's interesting because a lot
Speaker 2: of this, uh well actually a lot of the like
Speaker 2: Liberation Day predicate. I was going back and looking at
Speaker 2: how people on the right talked about targeted tariffs in
Speaker 2: the years leading up to Trump two point zero, and
Speaker 2: it was always through the lens of national security, always
Speaker 2: like there were that was the sort of justification for
Speaker 2: protectionism that some of these think tanks like the Heritage
Speaker 2: Foundation had for a really long time cast as socialist economics,
Speaker 2: and uh, they've been such staunch champions of quote unquote
Speaker 2: free trade, and as they were warming up to Trump
Speaker 2: and acquiescing to Trump's hostile take of the Republican Party,
Speaker 2: it was okay, targeted tariffs. You could do targeted near
Speaker 2: shoring with Canada and Mexico, but it's because of national
Speaker 2: security and the argument that national security is stronger in
Speaker 2: these Just like a couple of weeks to come, we're
Speaker 2: going to get a lot more clues as to whether
Speaker 2: or not that's really the case. But a China that's
Speaker 2: not significantly hampered by this.
Speaker 3: That was the goal.
Speaker 2: I mean, that was an explicit national security ambition of
Speaker 2: tariffs that some of the people put forward before they
Speaker 2: joined the administration.
Speaker 1: Well, in some of the push to move manufacturing into
Speaker 1: like Vietnam was also you know, okay, you know, we're
Speaker 1: not near shoring New Mexico, are bringing jobs back to
Speaker 1: the US, but this is the country that we have
Speaker 1: better relations with than we feel more comfortable manufacturing there.
Speaker 1: Vietnam just got hit with a gigantic tariff, so you know,
Speaker 1: some of those prior efforts are also being completely undermined
Speaker 1: by this. One of the things that's go ahead, right,
Speaker 1: and just.
Speaker 3: One little point, China is retaliating against us. We're doing
Speaker 3: a trade war against the entire world, that's right, which
Speaker 3: makes China's positions so much easier.
Speaker 1: It's stronger, right, Like we're we're doing a trade war
Speaker 1: against Lesotho and you know that don't even have inhabitants
Speaker 1: in you know, some island that's largely like British and
Speaker 1: American military that.
Speaker 3: Like, and against people that I am be able to
Speaker 3: help us in a trade war with China.
Speaker 1: That's right, That's exactly right. And that was actually one
Speaker 1: of the points that like Nate Silvert was making, is
Speaker 1: are we really going to be negotiating with all one
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety two countries or whatever it is that
Speaker 1: we just tariffed. So yes, if it was a I mean,
Speaker 1: I hate to just keep repeating myself, but if it
Speaker 1: was focused, if it's you know, targeted particular industry or
Speaker 1: even a particular country in terms of China, then you
Speaker 1: can imagine a plan that where we could come out
Speaker 1: on top, where there would be there would always be minuses,
Speaker 1: potentially short term pain for sure, but there could be
Speaker 1: something that was work fit on the other side. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm someone who thinks that tariffs can be useful and
Speaker 1: important tool in certain instances. But the incredibly not just chaotic,
Speaker 1: but you know, insane way that this is done across
Speaker 1: the board and using chat GPT and pretending like a
Speaker 1: trade deficit is the same as a tariff just makes
Speaker 1: it impossible to imagine how this is ultimately going to
Speaker 1: work out. And one of the things and on that
Speaker 1: just I.
Speaker 3: Think just might help people understand that because I see
Speaker 3: a lot of people being like, we're getting screwed by
Speaker 3: all these countries. It's like, imagine California and Oregon, like
Speaker 3: they trade with each other now there's no tariffs because
Speaker 3: they're united you know, there's states within the United States.
Speaker 3: But I promise you that people in Oregon buy a
Speaker 3: lot more stuff from California than people in California buy
Speaker 3: from Oregon. So it would be like looking at that
Speaker 3: situation and saying, oh wow, like there's a giant tariff
Speaker 3: up that Oregon has on California. Right, It's like, no, no,
Speaker 3: Oregon just doesn't make that much stuff. California makes an
Speaker 3: enormous amount of stuff, right, That's how that's how trade works. Well,
Speaker 3: so maybe that will help people understand that it's not
Speaker 3: that they're setting up. Oregon is not screwing California in
Speaker 3: a slight.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't want to call it a defense
Speaker 2: of the administration because we haven't seen anything yet. But
Speaker 2: them telling bessn't well, besn't going out and saying, you know,
Speaker 2: these will be the higher end of the rate if
Speaker 2: you don't retaliate, and then the White House saying that
Speaker 2: is not the talking point, Like there are reports that
Speaker 2: the White House was saying that do not include anything
Speaker 2: about these being negotiating points. These are the final numbers
Speaker 2: in your talking points. It's hard to imagine the Treasury secretary,
Speaker 2: especially with something as sensitive as markets being literally off
Speaker 2: the talking points, so like one eighty degree from what
Speaker 2: you're supposed to be saying on that. But I like
Speaker 2: some of these random, completely random tariffs. I wonder if
Speaker 2: they like didn't take them seriously, because they don't take
Speaker 2: them seriously, and if you are the Soto or someone else,
Speaker 2: maybe Trump just wants to have it look like he
Speaker 2: was doing eighty deals and successfully negotiated with all of
Speaker 2: these different countries. So but the like we'll see, I
Speaker 2: genuinely have no idea. I don't think anybody has any idea.
Speaker 1: But the I don't think best has any idea. I mean,
Speaker 1: like he was completely clueless and terrified in all of
Speaker 1: those interviews. They're like, so are you going to go
Speaker 1: to China and talk to him? He's like, nothing on
Speaker 1: the calendar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an interesting idea, but that's the the USMCA exemptions,
Speaker 2: and what happens with that is pretty critical to what happens.
Speaker 2: We used to be China obviously, so you know, if
Speaker 2: you're you're going to be terrifying the hell out of
Speaker 2: Canada and Mexico in order to rebalance those relationships at
Speaker 2: the same time as you're trying to rebalance the relationship
Speaker 2: with China, the economic relationship with China for national security concerns,
Speaker 2: then you have to look very differently at your relationship
Speaker 2: with Canada Mexico, which Besson also said, he got Caitlin
Speaker 2: Collins and said they're USMCA exemptions, but that's going to
Speaker 2: be renegotiated. So who the hell knows?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, and I said this in the show yesterday.
Speaker 1: But just to drill down on the point Ryan was
Speaker 1: making to help people understand, like why a trade deficit
Speaker 1: is not the same as a tariff and does not
Speaker 1: necessarily represent a country screwing US our noeb but trend
Speaker 1: lay down the example of Lesotho. This is an incredibly
Speaker 1: poor country in Africa. They're actually part of a regional
Speaker 1: trading block that has uniform tariff policy. So in theory
Speaker 1: you would think, okay, well, South Africa and Lesotho part
Speaker 1: of this trading block, have uniform teriff policy, so they
Speaker 1: should be getting hit with the same level of tariff, right, No,
Speaker 1: South Africa's is far lower. Why because we do actually
Speaker 1: import a significant for that country and a significant amount
Speaker 1: of mostly diamonds and other sort of like, you know,
Speaker 1: raw materials, and this is a poor country. So the
Speaker 1: people there, they don't have the money to buy things
Speaker 1: like iPhones and Tesla's from our market. So does that
Speaker 1: mean that they're screwing us, No, it just means, you know,
Speaker 1: and it's not like we have a domestic diamond market
Speaker 1: that we need to protect and gin up here. And
Speaker 1: that's the other part of this. One of the other
Speaker 1: parts of this that makes no actual economic sense is
Speaker 1: that there are certain things that we just literally can't
Speaker 1: produce here. We don't have diamond mines, that's just how
Speaker 1: it is, right. We cannot grow bananas outside of a
Speaker 1: few locations, we cannot grow coffee beans outside of a
Speaker 1: few locations. Something like fifty percent of our fruits and
Speaker 1: vegetables come from other markets. And so when you're doing
Speaker 1: this across the board, not only across the board, with
Speaker 1: countries across the board, with all of these different products,
Speaker 1: all you're doing is creating a massively regressive tax. And
Speaker 1: that's the other part of this that is wild that
Speaker 1: I don't think people should just let go is the
Speaker 1: President has claimed for himself the single handed ability to
Speaker 1: completely upend our economy. The global economy. You know, these
Speaker 1: are powers that are supposed to be in the hands
Speaker 1: of Congress. You know, they're supposed to be the person
Speaker 1: raising revenue that is supposed to go through Congress. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, Jeff Stein was pointing out, he was like,
Speaker 1: you know, most experts that I'm talking to you are
Speaker 1: saying that they probably legally are going to go through
Speaker 1: because the courts have taken a very permissive attitude towards presence,
Speaker 1: ability to declare national emergencies or natural security situations or
Speaker 1: whatever and do what they want in the sphere of tariffs.
Speaker 1: But compare that to Biden's like comparatively pitdling student loan
Speaker 1: debt relief that gets struck down by the courts, and
Speaker 1: you have a you know, you just have a very
Speaker 1: remarkable situation. And I think it's also fair to say, like,
Speaker 1: and I believe that the tariff regime that Trump has
Speaker 1: announced is less about a particular economic outcome and more
Speaker 1: about him consolidating more control for himself. And that comes
Speaker 1: not only from the extraordinary nature of the tariff's largest
Speaker 1: tax hike, probably in US history, highest level of tariffs,
Speaker 1: uh since you know, it is much higher even than
Speaker 1: the Smoot Holly Tariff Act, which vastly exacerbated the Great Depression.
Speaker 1: But not only from just like that exercise of power,
Speaker 1: but also now every company, every country in the world,
Speaker 1: every industry, they all have to go on bended me
Speaker 1: to the dear leader and beg and plead their case,
Speaker 1: which is precisely why these powers were supposed to be
Speaker 1: with Congress, because that ryan is the way that a
Speaker 1: king operates. It's not supposed to be the way that
Speaker 1: a president ultimately operates.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think they there's a chance they might end
Speaker 3: up taking the powers away from him if if he
Speaker 3: abuses them too seriously and we see too much pain
Speaker 3: going around. I could because the Congress or Congress, Yeah Congress,
Speaker 3: because you saw me, they would need probably two thirds,
Speaker 3: a two thirds vote because obviously Trump is otherwise.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Right, So I mean, this is imagining a world in
Speaker 3: which you know, we've seen not just you know, twenty
Speaker 3: thirty percent come off the markets. You know, that's those
Speaker 3: that's still the market. But you start seeing you know,
Speaker 3: manufacturing plants close and like auto automakers layoff workers, still lants,
Speaker 3: and I think just laid off a thousand people yesterday,
Speaker 3: so if you start seeing like significant manufacturing industry layoffs
Speaker 3: and it's cutting against his the notion that he's bringing
Speaker 3: manufacturing back, then then I don't know, I don't know,
Speaker 3: if I don't know if there is anything that breaks
Speaker 3: the hold.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, oh, I was gonna say. This is the
Speaker 2: benefit of what Krystal was just laying out, Trump consolidating.
Speaker 2: I mean, other presidents have used these powers, but Trump
Speaker 2: using them more boldly than anyone in recent memory. The
Speaker 2: benefit from his perspective is that he can then cut
Speaker 2: these deals immediately to back off and try to course correct.
Speaker 2: He can just call up the folks in the Soto
Speaker 2: and say like, ah, you guys, you know you're such
Speaker 2: great partners. We're taking this right down. You know. He's
Speaker 2: able to like operate on his whims, which is absolutely
Speaker 2: for any president, terrifying amount of power. It should belong
Speaker 2: with Congress. It's an Article one power. But the presidential
Speaker 2: emergency declarations have ye held up in courts to that point.
Speaker 2: So I think you're right. There's something that he enjoys
Speaker 2: about being the guy who gets to have the final
Speaker 2: decision on such a significant basis because he feels like
Speaker 2: he's coarse correct. I mean, this is Trump's deepest ideological commitment.
Speaker 2: He's generally more transactional than ideological, except for tariffs and immigration,
Speaker 2: and so this is you know, whether he ultimately backs
Speaker 2: down from a significant terariff for jam, I think is unlikely,
Speaker 2: but he's able to. He probably thinks he'll be able
Speaker 2: to do carve out type deals with the sort of
Speaker 2: flick of a pen or the picking up of a phone.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And I've seen Matt, like Matt Stolar for instance,
Speaker 3: has been out there saying, like, you know, people on
Speaker 3: the left need to stop just sounding like CNBC or
Speaker 3: MSNBC and freaking out at this, like you have to understand,
Speaker 3: like Trump has a legitimate argument about the nature of
Speaker 3: global trade imbalances and the way that it is screwed
Speaker 3: up the middle class over the last fifty years and
Speaker 3: and undermined our ability to produce anything to an extent
Speaker 3: that you know, when there was a pandemic, if we
Speaker 3: hadn't gotten the supply chains going, we wouldn't have had masks, right,
Speaker 3: we could, we could, we could barely make like you know, soap.
Speaker 3: You know, they could, they couldn't. They couldn't make any
Speaker 3: of the ppe that we needed agree with that, But
Speaker 3: to me, you don't get points for your virtue and
Speaker 3: for your correct analysis if what you implement doesn't really
Speaker 3: have a chance of working. And the reason it doesn't
Speaker 3: have a chance of working is that we're we're still
Speaker 3: a capitalist system, which allows you know, capitalists to decide
Speaker 3: where they're going to invest their money. The state doesn't.
Speaker 3: Maybe it should, but the state does not direct in
Speaker 3: any considerable amount of investment. And so if you're an
Speaker 3: investor right now, like, on the one hand, okay, it
Speaker 3: looks like it's going to be cheaper to relatively cheaper
Speaker 3: to you know, sell things to American consumers if I
Speaker 3: build them right here in America. Is that going to
Speaker 3: be the case two weeks from now, Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 3: I don't know. And if you don't know, do you
Speaker 3: drop a one point five billion dollar investment in a
Speaker 3: Wisconsin factory. Well, Trump's point is advanswer that is, no,
Speaker 3: you don't unless you have some some sense of stability
Speaker 3: long term.
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's the flip side of the coin.
Speaker 2: And Trump would say the uncertainty is the only thing
Speaker 2: that gets them to do that, because they're so on
Speaker 2: Trump is the main take the bet on Trump.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, like it's going to take them longer to
Speaker 3: get the deal together that then the policies will be
Speaker 3: in place. There'll be new policies in like three days,
Speaker 3: that's right then, and the new ones after that, and
Speaker 3: the new ones after that.
Speaker 1: Right, So no one would expect that. I mean, this
Speaker 1: should in theory be Trump's last term in office. No
Speaker 1: one is going to think that the next president is
Speaker 1: going to continue with this particular terriff rut.
Speaker 3: You're just getting your factory online in like two years,
Speaker 3: and now Trump's a lame duck, and like that's the problem. Like,
Speaker 3: if you want to do this, go to Congress and
Speaker 3: do an industrial policy and buy in, get buy in
Speaker 3: from the American people and Democrats, like Democrats, you want
Speaker 3: to build factories in the United States, Democrats, all they're
Speaker 3: going to ask for is uh, as you know, Barat
Speaker 3: talked about day care in the factory and and union wages.
Speaker 1: Yeah, is that we could do?
Speaker 2: We could?
Speaker 3: Is that so bad?
Speaker 1: You know? This? Also one of the things that bothers
Speaker 1: me about this teriff for is that I actually do
Speaker 1: think it is going to negatively polarize many people against
Speaker 1: Tariff's period, and I think that is terrible, and it
Speaker 1: comes at a time when there wasn't increasing there was
Speaker 1: a bipartisan consensus in favor of targeted industrial policy, and
Speaker 1: Trump could rightly take credit for helping to create that
Speaker 1: shift in public policy. I mean, terroris in industrial policy
Speaker 1: were like, you know, seeing a knuckle dragging kind of
Speaker 1: stuff in the neoliberal era. And Trump comes in, he
Speaker 1: does his China terrorists. I supported them, Ryan, I suspect
Speaker 1: you probably did as well. Yeah, and then Biden keeps
Speaker 1: them largely in place, expandes that but couples it with
Speaker 1: actual industrial policies. So in truth, Biden's version of it
Speaker 1: was much more successful than Trump's version. You can see
Speaker 1: that with the you know, the.
Speaker 3: Chips, and Trump's had some positive impacts on manufacturing and yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: and so I.
Speaker 2: Drove through the Fox cun Cam.
Speaker 3: Oh boy, that was Scott Walker.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was that was a major l But put it.
Speaker 1: Let's put that aside. But you know, there was this
Speaker 1: true bipartisan consensus in favor of targeted industrial policy, and
Speaker 1: we're more, vastly more needed to be done. But Trump
Speaker 1: seems to have this idea that if you just put
Speaker 1: in place this giant terror regime. Everything is going to
Speaker 1: magically happen after that. And Ryan, you're so correct that
Speaker 1: he is not factoring into this the fact that number one,
Speaker 1: the rest of the world is going to get a say,
Speaker 1: and number two that you're still relying on capital and
Speaker 1: trying to figure out their incentives. And from the best
Speaker 1: we can tell, like their incentives are just going to
Speaker 1: be Okay, We're just not going to do really anything
Speaker 1: for the next couple of years. See how this shakes out.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be hiring, you know. I mean, even thinking
Speaker 1: about our little business, the way that we're going to
Speaker 1: be impacted by this. It's like, I'm not taking on
Speaker 1: big new risks right now because at.
Speaker 3: Drop site, because of people's so like the subscription base
Speaker 3: and the donation base, Like we could add a couple
Speaker 3: of people right now, but but we're not going to
Speaker 3: because we're probably going to see a downturn.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right.
Speaker 3: And and companies like well we're a nonprofit, uh, But
Speaker 3: to organizations like hours and and like breaking points, you know,
Speaker 3: they get hit in a recession because if you lose
Speaker 3: your job, it's like, hey, I'd love to, you know,
Speaker 3: help you guys out. I support the journalism that you're doing,
Speaker 3: but I'm going to watch the free clips on YouTube
Speaker 3: and I'm going to read the free stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, family, not at all.
Speaker 3: Obviously. If it's a choice between you know, making your
Speaker 3: bills and this, like this has got to go.
Speaker 2: I mean, I would choose my premium subscription over feeding children.
Speaker 4: But that's just.
Speaker 3: Depends on children.
Speaker 1: One of the things that's wild to me is like
Speaker 1: people are going to get hurt by this. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's a massive thing that Trump has just done,
Speaker 1: like insanely massive. And is he in the you know,
Speaker 1: the like economic situation room, crunching the numbers, seeing what
Speaker 1: the market reaction is, making deals whatever. No, he's like
Speaker 1: I think it's going well, and then he's off to
Speaker 1: play golf. Like this is so what. I just I
Speaker 1: cannot comprehend the mentality of someone who is so casual
Speaker 1: about doing something that is such a nuclear bomb around
Speaker 1: the world. I mean, so here, you know, Jake shrim
Speaker 1: President Trump leaving today for Florida, where he will attend
Speaker 1: the Live Golf Tour dinner at his Durrell Country club.
Speaker 1: Here he is yesterday getting asked about like, hey, the
Speaker 1: markets are completely shitting the bed. Are you, like, you know,
Speaker 1: good with this? Like, how are you feeling about this?
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to what he has to say.
Speaker 2: The markets today our way down. We're saying here.
Speaker 5: So how can I think it's going very well?
Speaker 3: It was an operation, like when a patient gets operated
Speaker 3: on and it's a big thing.
Speaker 2: I said, this good.
Speaker 1: Exactly, so he they love this. It's you know, an operation,
Speaker 1: it's a patient. The operation went well. But yeah, he
Speaker 1: thinks he thinks it's going great.
Speaker 3: And if I thought a few years from now this
Speaker 3: was going to turn around American manufacturing and production, like
Speaker 3: I'd be like, that's the coolest thing ever. Yeah, based
Speaker 3: like go for it, like yes, like it's it's going
Speaker 3: to short term pain, long term gain. I just don't
Speaker 3: see the long term gain.
Speaker 1: Well, we understand well and also sorry Emily, it just
Speaker 1: really quickly is we Also? I agree with that, Ryan,
Speaker 1: I absolutely agree with that, But we also can't be
Speaker 1: cavalier about this is a massive regressive tax, massive regressive tax.
Speaker 1: At the same time as it's not like you know,
Speaker 1: when he did tarifs in his first term, farmers got
Speaker 1: hurt and they had a big program to reimburse them.
Speaker 1: There's none of it. It's the total opposite of that
Speaker 1: at this point where you you know, can't get a
Speaker 1: hold of somebody at Social Security so you can get
Speaker 1: your benefits there. Republicans widely expected to cut Medicaid and
Speaker 1: they're also widely expected to give on a giant tax cut.
Speaker 1: So the you know, one of the theories they're trying
Speaker 1: to get the deficit down and do these things, well, no,
Speaker 1: they're about to blow up the deficit more than they
Speaker 1: ever abb of war, and so you're doing austerity at
Speaker 1: the same time that you're expecting people to be able
Speaker 1: to shoulder this massive regressive tax hike at a time
Speaker 1: when they already were Inflation was the number one issue
Speaker 1: for people, like prices. They already feel so stretched because
Speaker 1: prices have been high, and that's what he was elected
Speaker 1: on was to deal with those prices. So while I agree,
Speaker 1: if there was like you know, okay, and we're gonna
Speaker 1: it's really going to reindustrialize middle class jobs, like bring
Speaker 1: back the heartland of America and people are going to
Speaker 1: be able to you know, have this like solid union
Speaker 1: middle class job the way things were, Like okay, that's
Speaker 1: worth exchanging some short term pain for but you also
Speaker 1: have to help people to get through that period. And
Speaker 1: there's first of all, it's just short term pain and
Speaker 1: long term pain. And second of all, there is none
Speaker 1: of that policy happening to help people who are truly
Speaker 1: going to be hurt, whether it's regular ordinary people, businesses,
Speaker 1: et cetera. In the interim to get to that theoretical
Speaker 1: promised promised land.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that the tax cut situation is
Speaker 2: going to be completely crazy, but maybe they come up
Speaker 2: with something. I have no idea. It doesn't seem like it.
Speaker 2: Josh Holly said he went to the White House yesterday
Speaker 2: in secure commitments from Trump not to touch medicator social
Speaker 2: security again. We will see. There's a White House statement
Speaker 2: on the jobs report that says, quote, the economy is
Speaker 2: starting to roar, with a strong two hundred and twenty
Speaker 2: eight thousand jobs out in the month of March, well
Speaker 2: ahead of the market's expectation. There's also a sharp increase
Speaker 2: in transportation, construction, and warehousing employment. The President's pushed on
Speaker 2: short jobs here in the United States is working. The
Speaker 2: Golden Age of America is on its way.
Speaker 3: Awesome.
Speaker 2: Good luck with that.
Speaker 1: The Gilded Age actism, Golden Age. Not so sure about
Speaker 1: that one Yielded age definitely, And I mean that is
Speaker 1: their model. Is that era, the Gilded Age is the
Speaker 1: era that he says he's modeling these policies to achieve.
Speaker 2: I think it gets to your point about the not
Speaker 2: just the optics, because it's beyond optics. It's this optimism
Speaker 2: from multi multimillionaires and billionaires as markets are completely volatile
Speaker 2: and people are worried about their savings, they're worried about
Speaker 2: their month to month that I think politically is going
Speaker 2: to be incredibly difficult for the administration to continue pulling off.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I was talking to a friend last night who
Speaker 3: the couple is a teacher and a federal worker, and
Speaker 3: they would they've been doing a little house rehab, like
Speaker 3: a kitchen in a bedroom, and she said that she
Speaker 3: just went to order like the sink and the couch
Speaker 3: and stuff. And I was like, well, first of all,
Speaker 3: you guys are morons, Like Trump told you a month
Speaker 3: ago Liberation Day was coming. Yeah, you should have ordered
Speaker 3: it stuff. She's like she went back and looked and
Speaker 3: like a bunch of stuff was like already already up,
Speaker 3: like one hundred bucks two on her bucks, Like the
Speaker 3: catch had not moved yet, it was the same price
Speaker 3: as before, so she like immediately like you purchase on that. Yeah,
Speaker 3: but like things are moving, like people are. This is
Speaker 3: not all just the the Dow jumping jumping around, like
Speaker 3: these price sikes are coming.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I respond to that a little bit, Ryan,
Speaker 1: because that's been the other you brought up Stiller before.
Speaker 1: I've seen him and others being like, well, the stock market,
Speaker 1: you know, this isn't really an important economic metric, so
Speaker 1: stop obsessing over it. And by the way, what it's
Speaker 1: down to like where it was in the fall or
Speaker 1: something that's really no big deal. How do you look
Speaker 1: at that?
Speaker 3: I think that's fine. Yeah, Like if you're doing big,
Speaker 3: long term, huge structural things that are going to benefit
Speaker 3: the the real economy and you know that and Wall
Speaker 3: Street has a has a panic attack and and takes off,
Speaker 3: like like Stoller said, there was this big you know,
Speaker 3: uh drive up in prices after Trump won because as
Speaker 3: Jeff Stein keeps pointing out, the Wall Street does not
Speaker 3: have a subscription to newspapers, like they don't actually they
Speaker 3: don't actually read the Washington Post or like the other
Speaker 3: papers that have been telling them very clearly that this
Speaker 3: is what Trump's doing. They're like, no, Trump, He's not
Speaker 3: really going to do this, no way. So they artificially,
Speaker 3: you know, drove up the price of equities and now
Speaker 3: they're shaving that off. So like that's fine, Like I'm
Speaker 3: i'm I'm on board with that kind of broad stolar
Speaker 3: critique to to a degree, Like there is a level,
Speaker 3: there is a level of correction at which counterparties start
Speaker 3: getting affected and you you start to see a you know,
Speaker 3: a seize up in in liquidity and ability of of
Speaker 3: you know, businesses to like access capital, it becomes a problem.
Speaker 3: But this kind of stuff, if if it's if it's
Speaker 3: good for the patient, you know, fine, like you know,
Speaker 3: run run a little fever killed that killed that virus,
Speaker 3: but it's your This this to me is the equivalent
Speaker 3: of like bleeding, like the way that they used to
Speaker 3: bleed patients in this in like the seventeenth and eighteenth
Speaker 3: It's like, yeah, you're probably a little bit of bleeding
Speaker 3: is probably not gonna actually hurt you that much. And
Speaker 3: if it was actually going to make you better, then sure,
Speaker 3: go for it. But it wasn't like that that was wrong.
Speaker 3: So this is the wrong bleeding. So yeah, okay, little
Speaker 3: bit of bleeding, you can survive.
Speaker 1: But also it was like they're getting out the bad,
Speaker 1: bad stuff, the bad blood.
Speaker 3: Or blood was too hot maybe I don't know. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: And Washington had like four doctors and they all bled
Speaker 3: him and he died of losing too much blood. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So if you lose too much blood and the stock
Speaker 3: market loses too much blood, you know, it can it
Speaker 3: can be a problem. But yeah, that's what the real
Speaker 3: problem is. Yeah, actual prices for sinks are going up
Speaker 3: like right now, right and when people's washing machines break,
Speaker 3: they need they need a new one.
Speaker 1: Well Mark Cuban was out yesterday. Like, go to Costco,
Speaker 1: go to Sam's Club, stock up, like whatever storage space
Speaker 1: you have by phil with whatever, you know, non perishable consumables.
Speaker 1: You can bet toilet paper's going to be disappearing from
Speaker 1: shelves at a store near you very shortly. But Emily,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, he does have fantastic spokespeople like
Speaker 1: Howard Lutnick, who are making the case here. I mean,
Speaker 1: would you say that.
Speaker 2: I just took a sip of coffee my leftop.
Speaker 1: You know, and This is the other part of it,
Speaker 1: is like the argument that I saw from the cable
Speaker 1: news heads yesterday was just basically like, trust Trump because
Speaker 1: he knows what he's doing. And that's certainly what what
Speaker 1: Lutnik was saying yesterday. I've got a great Janine Piro
Speaker 1: clip I could show as well. But let's go ahead
Speaker 1: and take a listen to Lutnick and how he was
Speaker 1: pitching this.
Speaker 4: Let Donald Trump run the global economy.
Speaker 3: He knows what he's doing.
Speaker 4: He's thirty five years. You gotta trust Donald Trump in
Speaker 4: the White House. That's why they put him there.
Speaker 1: Let him fix it, I understand book.
Speaker 4: Let him fix it.
Speaker 6: The thirty six trillion dollar deficit, right is going to
Speaker 6: ruin our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives.
Speaker 4: Let Donald Trump fix the American economy. Follow up with you.
Speaker 1: So that's you know, we're just about to put our
Speaker 1: faith in the great leader. Howard Lutnick certainly has. There
Speaker 1: are others many others who who feel the same way.
Speaker 1: Emily that and you just, you know, just trust in
Speaker 1: Trump and he'll he'll work it out.
Speaker 2: Okay, But that quote, let Donald Trump run the global
Speaker 2: economy is a completely insane thing to say, but in
Speaker 2: true Trumpian fashion, it really is saying the quiet part
Speaker 2: out loud and so proudly too. I mean, American presidents
Speaker 2: wield the power basically to run the global economy, much
Speaker 2: to the chagrin of many people and the rest of
Speaker 2: the world. And he's just like, this is a wonderful thing.
Speaker 2: Let the dear leader run the global economy. It's just
Speaker 2: an insane way to approach it. But it's really what
Speaker 2: we have right, Like this is given that best is
Speaker 2: off of the Trump talking points on something so significant.
Speaker 2: It's like, I don't know that his closest advisors actually
Speaker 2: understand where he could take this, where he plans to
Speaker 2: take this. I think that is entirely intentional. And so
Speaker 2: the American people are left with the option of trusting
Speaker 2: Donald Trump. It's really their only talking point. Because we
Speaker 2: can all agree, like the three of us from the
Speaker 2: left and the right, on what's happened and the need
Speaker 2: for probably some tariffs, like we can probably all get
Speaker 2: to the table and think that through and Chips Act
Speaker 2: and all of that, But this particular execution of bringing
Speaker 2: jobs back to United States, of rebalancing global trade, the
Speaker 2: only thing you can do because there's so much uncertainty
Speaker 2: and so much bizarre tactical maneuvering. Is just say, let's
Speaker 2: how it all turns out, okay, And that is going
Speaker 2: to wear very thin, very quickly politically for them. And
Speaker 2: it's also just like as people are making decisions about
Speaker 2: kitchen renovations, kind of a it's kind of a fucked
Speaker 2: up thing to do to people.
Speaker 3: And Trump had a revealing and related remark yesterday where
Speaker 3: he said the problem with the bringing on income tax
Speaker 3: is that it made the American people fund the American
Speaker 3: government rather than foreign countries, which should be funding the
Speaker 3: American government. And you're like, okay, well that analysis is
Speaker 3: like completely insane because like it's actually you know, people
Speaker 3: eventually pay the tariffs. But but like hold on record,
Speaker 3: scratch reverse a second. You think that in an ideal world,
Speaker 3: foreign countries are funding the American government, It's like what right?
Speaker 3: What do you mean? Like could you unpack that for us?
Speaker 3: Like why why would they fund us? Like why don't
Speaker 3: they fund themselves?
Speaker 1: Like that you touch on some tribute important though, I
Speaker 1: mean because part of the alliance with Trump and capital,
Speaker 1: which is verily, very firmly entrenched this time around it
Speaker 1: does go back to that you know, McKinley utopia that
Speaker 1: he keeps referencing and and did on the campaign trail.
Speaker 1: You know, I went back during that time, like brushed
Speaker 1: up on my McKinley history. Is not a guy that
Speaker 1: I like particularly studied all that much. And the whole
Speaker 1: reason that the income tax was introduced is so you
Speaker 1: could have a progressive tax, so that rich people, so
Speaker 1: that capital could you know, would be the ones who
Speaker 1: bore more of the burden of funding the government. That
Speaker 1: was the whole idea. But now our income tax is
Speaker 1: not all that progressive at this point. We can tell
Speaker 1: that's a whole other can of worms, But that's the idea.
Speaker 1: Tariffs are deeply progressive. So what in practice this is
Speaker 1: not going to mean that foreign governments are funding our
Speaker 1: government for us, thank you very much, China, thank you
Speaker 1: very much, eu Fan, thank you very much, Canna or whatever.
Speaker 1: It's going to mean that more of the burden of
Speaker 1: funding our government falls on working class people and less
Speaker 1: of it, even less of it than currently falls on
Speaker 1: the rich, is going to fall on the rich, which
Speaker 1: of course consistent with the tax plan, and why you
Speaker 1: should never when these people talk about how they have
Speaker 1: to get the deficit under control. You should never take
Speaker 1: them seriously so long as one of their main economic
Speaker 1: priorities is extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which
Speaker 1: is a four trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy
Speaker 1: and is going to greatly exacerbate our debt and deficit.
Speaker 1: So you know, like how much of this Trump knows
Speaker 1: or how much his view of tariffs is just like
Speaker 1: this sort of like kindergarten level. Because also some of
Speaker 1: the things that he his priorities are directly at odds
Speaker 1: with each other. Maintaining the dollar as the world reserve
Speaker 1: currency is directly at odds with eliminating the trade deficit
Speaker 1: because you need the world to need dollars, and so
Speaker 1: you know, those things don't fit together. The idea that
Speaker 1: these are going to fund the government also doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: If everything's being reshored, then you're not going to be
Speaker 1: getting teriff revenue. Right that you get this back and
Speaker 1: forth of oh, he's just a great negotiator and these
Speaker 1: are just a starting point. Actually the direction is to
Speaker 1: bring all terrifts to zero. That's some of the cope
Speaker 1: from the like you know, the chamber type Republicans, is
Speaker 1: this is actually a tool to get the teriffs to zero,
Speaker 1: you know, And it's like, well, I cont of that.
Speaker 1: You should have just done TPP back in the day.
Speaker 1: You know, they were on a track with a bunch
Speaker 1: of Asian specific countries to go exactly in that direction.
Speaker 1: And then you know Trump is out there. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: this is the final offer. So all of it is
Speaker 1: very confused, which is why for me, the easiest lens
Speaker 1: to view it through is the same lens as the
Speaker 1: tax on universities, the tax on the media, the tax
Speaker 1: on the law firms, the tax on free speech, the
Speaker 1: attacks on protesters, which is a power consolidation play. He
Speaker 1: is a ceo. He is used to thanking every decision
Speaker 1: and everyone jumping to his back and call. And that
Speaker 1: is the way that autocratic ceo dictatorial style. That is
Speaker 1: how he wants things to be, and increasingly he is
Speaker 1: accomplishing that.
Speaker 3: I think if if you could, if the president could
Speaker 3: move tax rates unilaterally but had to go to Congress
Speaker 3: for tariffs, he'd be out here moving tax rates up
Speaker 3: and down. Yeah, Like you know, once a week I.
Speaker 2: Give people ideas you can declare some type of emergency.
Speaker 3: The historical irony by the way to pick up on
Speaker 3: your McKinley point. McKinley was that in a long running
Speaker 3: war with the Prairie populist movement and one of their
Speaker 3: main things that they hated was tariffs because it drove
Speaker 3: up their costs and it killed them. Yeah, so that
Speaker 3: our new populace is embodying too McKinley, right, and the
Speaker 3: enemy of the old populists is amazing.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Completely. And actually when McKinley was assassinating, he was giving
Speaker 1: a speech announcing that he was rolling.
Speaker 3: Back gone with them, Yes, caris because.
Speaker 1: The world needed to train and we needed to move forward,
Speaker 1: and that was an old economic model. So even McKinley
Speaker 1: at the end realized the error of something.
Speaker 3: The shooter there, I guess you know it was Antifa.
Speaker 1: We're taking this anti Yeah, So we've all been following
Speaker 1: the story. Trump administration admitted this week that they made
Speaker 1: a quote administrative error and deported a Maryland father to
Speaker 1: that El Salvador prison in spite of the fact that
Speaker 1: a judge had ruled he could not be deported to
Speaker 1: El Salvador. The administration, in spite of admitting this administrative error,
Speaker 1: have still maintained that you know he should have been deported.
Speaker 1: They also have maintained that there is nothing at this
Speaker 1: point that the courts can do to bring him back,
Speaker 1: even though they acknowledge this error. So we're very lucky
Speaker 1: to be joined this morning by part of the legal
Speaker 1: team uh for this man. His name is Kilmo Abrego
Speaker 1: Garcia and her name is Lucia Curiel, and she represented
Speaker 1: him in a twenty nineteen hearing where the judge originally
Speaker 1: ordered said he cannot be deported to El Salvador in that,
Speaker 1: of course, is exactly where he is now. Welcome, so
Speaker 1: glad to have you, Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, did I get all of the
Speaker 1: pieces there right? And can you just give us the
Speaker 1: timeline of his entrance into the country and you know,
Speaker 1: his interactions with the legal system, and especially address the
Speaker 1: allegations that he has been a gang member or in
Speaker 1: the words of I think Caroline Levitt, the a White
Speaker 1: House Press secretary, a MS thirteen gang leader.
Speaker 4: Yes, so he you know, he was born in Alsavador.
Speaker 6: He fled the country when he was around sixteen years old,
Speaker 6: entered the United States illegally around twenty eleven, and had
Speaker 6: been living in the uns United States in Maryland until then,
Speaker 6: until about twenty nineteen, was his first kind of contact
Speaker 6: with the law enforcement. He was at a home depot
Speaker 6: soliciting employment with three other men, two of which he
Speaker 6: had interacted with only in that context of soliciting employment
Speaker 6: at a home depot. It turns out one of them,
Speaker 6: at least unbeknownst to him, did actually have gang affiliation
Speaker 6: and had actually been convicted previously of gang participation in Maryland.
Speaker 6: So he but he didn't know that, you know, he
Speaker 6: didn't really know this guy. They were just standing there chatting,
Speaker 6: trying to find work when a police officer from the
Speaker 6: Heatsville Police Department approaches the group. They talked to this
Speaker 6: one man that did have this known gang affiliation. Two
Speaker 6: of the men also agedly kind of dropped something, took
Speaker 6: something out of their waistband uh and dropped it to
Speaker 6: the floor, some kind of plastic bottles that were later
Speaker 6: confirmed to contain marijuana.
Speaker 4: This was not kill Mars with some of the other two.
Speaker 6: And then this officer calls her backup and arrests all
Speaker 6: four of them. They don't tell they don't talk to
Speaker 6: kill Mar at all. They don't tell him why he's
Speaker 6: being arrested.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 6: But they take all four of them to the police
Speaker 6: station and begin to interview all four of them, and
Speaker 6: just at the outset, the only thing they interview him
Speaker 6: about is his gang affiliation. They begin to say, Okay,
Speaker 6: tell us what gang.
Speaker 4: You're part of?
Speaker 6: You know, what's your your rank in the gang? Uh,
Speaker 6: you know what's your what's your name in the gang?
Speaker 6: And he's he's just totally befuddled. You know, I don't
Speaker 6: know what you're talking about. I have absolutely no connection
Speaker 6: to a gang in this case they're talking about.
Speaker 4: I'm a certain.
Speaker 6: They don't believe him. And the next thing he knows,
Speaker 6: a n Ice officer is there to pick him up
Speaker 6: and take him to Ice attention center. This whole interaction
Speaker 6: is quite brief, so from the there's only one document
Speaker 6: that kind of documents this whole interaction. It's a gang
Speaker 6: field interview sheet, and it's the only single source of
Speaker 6: these supposed link gang allegations.
Speaker 4: The gang.
Speaker 6: The gang field interview sheet, it's all says that the
Speaker 6: officer approached the group at two twenty seven pm and
Speaker 6: the gang field Interview sheet is entered into the system
Speaker 6: at six forty seven pm, So that means you know,
Speaker 6: from the time that they apprehend the group, they then
Speaker 6: you know, call for backup, arrest everyone, transport, interview everything,
Speaker 6: you know, and then you know, right up the report
Speaker 6: turned the system is about four hours and twenty minutes,
Speaker 6: and in that time they have come to you know,
Speaker 6: that thorough After that very thorough, thorough investigation, they've concluded
Speaker 6: that he's an MS thirteen gang member. And in the
Speaker 6: gang Field interview sheet, it says that the basis for
Speaker 6: that is that because he was wearing at the time
Speaker 6: a Chicago bulls hat, which they say is.
Speaker 4: Officers no such clothing to.
Speaker 6: Be indicative of Hispanic gang culture, the Chicago wearing the
Speaker 6: Chicago Bulls hat represents that they are a member in
Speaker 6: good standing with the MS thirteen, And they also say
Speaker 6: that a hoodie that he was wearing, which his wife
Speaker 6: had bought him and ordered off the internet, is also
Speaker 6: indicative of this Hispanic gang culture and that they know
Speaker 6: that it represents see no evil, hear no evil, and
Speaker 6: say no evil, which is sort of of one of
Speaker 6: the slogans. And I'm as thirteen and the final at
Speaker 6: least a past, proven, reliable source that they they say
Speaker 6: they contact, can you.
Speaker 3: Talk about that this this alleged confidential informa.
Speaker 6: Yeah, all they say is that they contacted a past, proven,
Speaker 6: reliable source of information that said that he was a
Speaker 6: member of the Western's clique. They don't say any information
Speaker 6: there and that's all. It doesn't say who this person is.
Speaker 6: What they said their reason to fabricate for all we know.
Speaker 6: You know, it could have been one of the people
Speaker 6: that you know was seen kind of throwing out some
Speaker 6: containers with marijuana, because from what we saw, those people
Speaker 6: were never charged with any crime.
Speaker 1: Uh, you know, let me let me get you to
Speaker 1: respond a little bit to the Vice president, who has
Speaker 1: been very vocal on this case. So here he is
Speaker 1: sort of punching back. I guess at Kyle Cheney, who's
Speaker 1: the legal affair reporter at Politico, and he says he
Speaker 1: is apparently unable or unwilling to look at the facts.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 1: In twenty nineteen, an immigration judge under the first Trump
Speaker 1: administration to determine the deported man was in fact a
Speaker 1: member of the MS thirteen gang. He also apparently had
Speaker 1: multiple traffic violations for which he failed to appear in court.
Speaker 1: A real winner. It's telling that the entire American media
Speaker 1: is going to run a propaganda operation today making you
Speaker 1: think an instant father of three was apprehended by a goolag.
Speaker 1: Here are the relevant facts. Number one, the man is
Speaker 1: an illegal immigrant with no right to be in our country.
Speaker 1: Number two, an immigration judge determined he was a member
Speaker 1: of the MS thirteen gang. Number three, because he is
Speaker 1: not a citizen, he does not get a full jury
Speaker 1: trial by peers. In other words, whatever due process he
Speaker 1: was entitled to he received. Is what's your response to
Speaker 1: the framing and the facts also that the Vice president
Speaker 1: puts out.
Speaker 6: Yes, all three of those are incorrect. The judge in
Speaker 6: the case that was actually very heavily litigated, which was
Speaker 6: his final hearing where the judge granted him with holding.
Speaker 6: That was the case that actually took place over two days,
Speaker 6: which is heavily unusual an immigration court. Those cases often last,
Speaker 6: you know, one to maybe three hours. This case lasted
Speaker 6: over two days. And you'll see that. I mean, the
Speaker 6: the court decision granting him withholding is in the court documents,
Speaker 6: and I think two things are notable there. One that
Speaker 6: the gang allegations don't really even appear in there, and
Speaker 6: so I think it's it's just a testament to how
Speaker 6: the little weight the judge even gave them because they
Speaker 6: were he was questioned very very very very heavily about this,
Speaker 6: and in advance so that we did also filew a
Speaker 6: subpoena asking for the officers to appear and also asking
Speaker 6: for the government to produce any evidence substantiating the allegations.
Speaker 4: The government opposed that.
Speaker 6: They said that they've spoken to law enforcement partners and
Speaker 6: they had nothing else to offer. So the again, the
Speaker 6: only single piece of evidence was this gang field interview
Speaker 6: sheet that some guy basically no information about who that
Speaker 6: guy was. Reason to Fabrica, why he was credible. I
Speaker 6: mean it's kind of an in general, confidential informants are unreliable,
Speaker 6: and you know, what he said also doesn't really make sense.
Speaker 6: They said he was a member of a clique in
Speaker 6: New York, but also number two is he that's.
Speaker 3: A pretty key point New York.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's Western's clique as far as I.
Speaker 3: Have seen, spent much time in New York.
Speaker 6: No, he's never lived in New York. Yeah, he's never
Speaker 6: He's only ever lived in Maryland.
Speaker 3: Does MS thirteen have remote work back in twenty nineteen, No,
Speaker 3: I mean that's more of a that's an in office
Speaker 3: kind of yeah.
Speaker 6: They yeah, right, it's a data day, you know, you
Speaker 6: have you have to be Yeah, it's.
Speaker 3: Not very liberal on the work from Home thirteen.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but also number two in that decision, you'll see
Speaker 6: that he finds him credible, meaning he believed him and
Speaker 6: what he said, not only about what happened to him
Speaker 6: in the past in an Al Salvador, which you know,
Speaker 6: gave him the basis to grant him humanitarian relief and
Speaker 6: perform with all their removal, but that he believed him
Speaker 6: when he just vehemently denied being a member of MS thirteen.
Speaker 2: Can we talk about the decision in twenty nineteen which
Speaker 2: I mentioned you were involved with to claim asylum after
Speaker 2: many years in the country because some critics and I
Speaker 2: don't know if the Vice president posted about this, but
Speaker 2: would look at that and say immediately, huh, this seems
Speaker 2: like a sort of tactic to you know, bolster the case.
Speaker 2: But I know that he claims and you've claimed there
Speaker 2: were there were credible reasons to fear Eighteenth Street gang
Speaker 2: Paposa business. Could you take us through that decision a
Speaker 2: little bit?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean illegal standards are you know, if you've
Speaker 6: suffered past persecution in the past in your home country,
Speaker 6: then that gives you a presumption a future persecution in
Speaker 6: the future.
Speaker 4: And he had suffered past persecution.
Speaker 6: He had, He and his family had been through a
Speaker 6: lot by this this gang in the past.
Speaker 4: His father I.
Speaker 6: Think had been attacked about eighteen times, had been held
Speaker 6: up at gunpoint, rob he himself. They for many, many
Speaker 6: many years were really like terrorizing him. On two occasions,
Speaker 6: they like showed up at the family's home like fully armed,
Speaker 6: kind of if you do not give us money right now,
Speaker 6: we are ready to take your son from you, essentially
Speaker 6: kidnap him and his brother had also been like beaten,
Speaker 6: you know, lost consciousness from many meetings. They'd threatened to
Speaker 6: rape his sisters. The family had gone through, had moved
Speaker 6: three times to three different neighborhoods, and the threats persisted,
Speaker 6: so that this wasn't sort of just a one time
Speaker 6: hey want money if you know, you know, will hurt
Speaker 6: you if you don't give us money. This was like
Speaker 6: sustained over basically his his you know, since he was
Speaker 6: like an adolescent until he left El Salvador.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and the criticism, the criticis I saw was that
Speaker 3: why didn't he apply in twenty eleven for this, Like,
Speaker 3: why did he wait until he's picked up at the
Speaker 3: home depot?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean I think that's he could have if
Speaker 6: he probably, if he knew he could have probably and
Speaker 6: had legal counsel. You know, I certainly would have told
Speaker 6: him if I had heard his story and he had
Speaker 6: access to legal counsel, I would have told him, you know,
Speaker 6: apply right now, and then he would have He would
Speaker 6: have had a very strong kies and probably would have
Speaker 6: ingranted asylum instead of withholding a removal.
Speaker 1: Lucia. To get back to I think the core piece here,
Speaker 1: which I think can sometimes get lost in these details,
Speaker 1: not that these details aren't also important, But everybody involves
Speaker 1: admits this was a mistake.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: The administration admitted in court they made what they describe
Speaker 1: as an administrative error. And now Kilmar is in this
Speaker 1: prison in l Salvador, indefinitely a prison that is known
Speaker 1: for human rights abuses. You know, the whole point of
Speaker 1: sending them there seems to have been to send a
Speaker 1: message about, you know, exactly what sort of punishment will
Speaker 1: befall you. So everybody acknowledges this was a mistake. You
Speaker 1: should not have been removed to El Salvador period. What
Speaker 1: happens now? What is the next I understand there's a
Speaker 1: hearing it at one pm today. What do you think
Speaker 1: will happen there? And what sort of remedies do you
Speaker 1: believe are available? Because I was reading that. You know,
Speaker 1: administrations in the past have taken extraordinary measures to try
Speaker 1: to return people who were deported unlawfully or a mistake
Speaker 1: was made, but they may not be under an obligation
Speaker 1: to do so. So what are sort of the legal
Speaker 1: contours of that fight coming up?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 6: I mean this, uh, this is really is pretty unprecedented. Yes,
Speaker 6: as you stated, Usually, when in the past government does
Speaker 6: see that somebody was deported erroneously and they see that,
Speaker 6: they do take as steps to correct that because you know,
Speaker 6: a government makes a mistake, they should correct that. But
Speaker 6: here there they're refusing to do so, even though the
Speaker 6: consequences here much more drastic than him, just like being
Speaker 6: deported Telshodor and being able to just live a free life.
Speaker 6: He is now yeah, as you said, in a torture prison.
Speaker 6: Where he is he you know, he doesn't even know
Speaker 6: his names all over the news right now? You know,
Speaker 6: he is to you.
Speaker 1: You and his family have no ability to nobody.
Speaker 6: Nobody is able to even contact him. There's no access
Speaker 6: even to lawyers in there. They can't even receive letters.
Speaker 6: They are cut off from the world. So he is
Speaker 6: alone in there and has absolutely no idea that you know,
Speaker 6: he's making national news that people are fighting for him,
Speaker 6: and he you know, I'm sure he's very scared and
Speaker 6: he might be there forever, and so we're fighting to
Speaker 6: get him out of there. It's true that, of course
Speaker 6: the court here can't tell El Savador what to do,
Speaker 6: but what we're asking is pretty simple. We're telling we're
Speaker 6: asking for the court to just order the government to
Speaker 6: stop paying El Savador to keep him there, and to
Speaker 6: just simply request for him to be released from there.
Speaker 6: And there really is no reason to doubt that El Savador,
Speaker 6: which is a huge ally of the United States, would
Speaker 6: not uh, you know, do what the United States asks,
Speaker 6: but they're unwilling to do that.
Speaker 3: What's his what's his family situation? He's still live in
Speaker 3: highlights the Hiatts Bill, like kid's wife.
Speaker 6: He has, Yeah, he has a US citizen wife. He
Speaker 6: has a one uh biological child and that was actually
Speaker 6: uh he actually missed the birth of his son while
Speaker 6: he was detained.
Speaker 1: And uh.
Speaker 6: Nineteen Uh that child, you know, potentially because of the
Speaker 6: stress of on the life of her son, of her
Speaker 6: husband being detained, on knowing what would happen in son
Speaker 6: was born with autism. He's nonverbal, he can communicate. He
Speaker 6: I believe is deaf in one ear and has severe
Speaker 6: developmental delays.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 6: And then he also has two step children that he's
Speaker 6: they they for all, he's his their father. The biological
Speaker 6: father is not in the picture. One of the other
Speaker 6: kids also has special needs, and the other daughter has epale.
Speaker 6: I believe it's had like an episode recently, Lucia.
Speaker 1: My last question for you. If Emily or Ryan have
Speaker 1: any others, they can feel free to jump in as well.
Speaker 1: But let's say that the court tells the Trump administration
Speaker 1: you have to try to get him back, and the
Speaker 1: Trump administration actually complies and goes to Bucali says, hey,
Speaker 1: we screwed up on this one. We want this guy back,
Speaker 1: and he's brought back. What do you expect happens then,
Speaker 1: Because my understanding of his legal status is he could
Speaker 1: be deported somewhere else, just specifically not else Salvador. So
Speaker 1: if things work out and he is able to be
Speaker 1: brought back to the country, what do you think is
Speaker 1: the best case scenario for him then going forward?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 6: Yeah, there, it is possible for him to be deported
Speaker 6: somewhere else or our procedures to follow though to do that.
Speaker 6: It's also possible, you know, if they want, they might
Speaker 6: want to reopen is proceedings, which is what they would
Speaker 6: have had to do have done if they did want
Speaker 6: to deport him to El Salvador. In order to do
Speaker 6: that right, they can do emotion to reopen and to
Speaker 6: prove that you know, either the he no longer meets
Speaker 6: the requirements for withholding and in that case, you know,
Speaker 6: if that happens, you know, a new defense deportation can
Speaker 6: be presented, or you know, they could decide to do
Speaker 6: do nothing right and just let him live with the
Speaker 6: status that he's he has acause he you know, he
Speaker 6: has the illegal status here. He is since he was
Speaker 6: granted withholding a removal in twenty nineteen, he has been
Speaker 6: in the United States legally.
Speaker 4: Gotcha.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you so much for helping to break down
Speaker 1: all of these details because I think it, you know,
Speaker 1: really helps people to understand the ins and outs of
Speaker 1: the system and also the you know, the horror of
Speaker 1: what has happened here with Kilmar and with his family. Lucien,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's our pleasure, pretty extraordinary getting to speak with
Speaker 1: kill Mar's lawyer and get all the details there. You guys,
Speaker 1: have any any reflections before we move on to some
Speaker 1: sort of political news here.
Speaker 2: It's one of those those interviews that we do sometimes
Speaker 2: and we both like from both sides, we've all had
Speaker 2: this experience on our show. It's what makes her so cool.
Speaker 2: But for me to sort of like, I have such
Speaker 2: a fundamental disagreement with the entire process that I was
Speaker 2: like really eager to hear her walk through the steps
Speaker 2: and how this happened, especially the twenty nineteen thing. But
Speaker 2: you know, she's it's her job, she's doing her job.
Speaker 2: So it was I thought it was.
Speaker 3: It was pretty interesting, and yeah, it's just appalling that
Speaker 3: he's in a torture chamber.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, for what a disagreement there, Like if you
Speaker 1: want to go through the court system and you want
Speaker 1: to deport him, whether to El Salvador, I mean, she says, look,
Speaker 1: you can reopen the case and say, hey, this particular gang,
Speaker 1: the Kelly's delt with him, he could go back, who's
Speaker 1: the business would be fine, you can do that, but
Speaker 1: you cannot just send him with no due prosit to
Speaker 1: a specifically to a country where a judge has said
Speaker 1: you cannot send him. And then for all of these people,
Speaker 1: why are they being put in this torture change?
Speaker 3: Yeah, like the like the malnutrition, like the the treatment
Speaker 3: in that prison for a guy who, since he's sixteen
Speaker 3: years old is probably you know, work, work, works harder
Speaker 3: every day than I do in like weeks. And for
Speaker 3: that and raising these his step kids and his and
Speaker 3: his kid, who's got who's got special needs? To do
Speaker 3: that for your full life. And then the reward is
Speaker 3: to get sent to a dungeon where you're tortured and
Speaker 3: malnourished for what Like it's evil, it's evil.
Speaker 1: It is evil. And especially since the administration's position is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we fucked up. No, we're not going to do any
Speaker 1: thing about it. He just asked a rot like we're
Speaker 1: not even going to ask m kelly when you just
Speaker 1: had Christy know him down there, like you know, you
Speaker 1: can bring it into the prison, you.
Speaker 3: Know, and then you don't want to him to port him.
Speaker 1: Like right, exactly. You don't think that m kelly would
Speaker 1: be like sure if you were like, well, we screwed
Speaker 1: up with this one. We need to get this one back.
Speaker 1: But the thing is that it reminds me. I don't
Speaker 1: want to say that's exactly now a situation or anything,
Speaker 1: but it reminds me of the same incentives that Beebe
Speaker 1: has to not return some of the hostages, because when
Speaker 1: some of the hostages came back, they said, actually, we
Speaker 1: were afraid for our lives from the idea of bombing.
Speaker 1: And when I saw that, I knew what I mean.
Speaker 1: He had been indicating from the beginning like his priority
Speaker 1: was really not getting the hostages back, in spite of
Speaker 1: what he was saying. But it's the same thing here.
Speaker 1: You know, it's one thing to know about this man
Speaker 1: theoretically read an article about him, know he's a father,
Speaker 1: et cetera. It's another thing if he can actually tell you, like,
Speaker 1: this is what happened, this is what I went through,
Speaker 1: this is what that place is.
Speaker 3: Actually, right, they don't want him in sixty minutes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I was just go ahead, No, it's
Speaker 2: all going okay. I was going to get back into
Speaker 2: the whole asylum process thing. We don't need to go there.
Speaker 1: I'm sure we will on another day, so we'll just
Speaker 1: put a pin in that for now. Wanted to get
Speaker 1: in some political news here because this was pretty extraordinary
Speaker 1: indication of how much the Democratic base has shifted in
Speaker 1: Trump two point zero. So data of a Progress admittedly
Speaker 1: a progressive polling firm, but they put a hypothetical matchup
Speaker 1: between AOC and Chuck Schumer for Senate in the field
Speaker 1: and what they got back pretty astonishing here AOC winning
Speaker 1: handily fifty five percent to thirty six percent for Schumer.
Speaker 1: And Ryan, I mean, I'm really excited to get your
Speaker 1: thoughts on this because it truly is a shift for
Speaker 1: the Democratic base. You know, is this idea of AOC
Speaker 1: challenging Schumer in particular, or I guess potentially Kirsten Gillibrand
Speaker 1: that has been around for a while, but I think
Speaker 1: even people like you and I were probably like, I
Speaker 1: don't know if she could actually win statewide New York,
Speaker 1: Like it's a different deal, and she has has had
Speaker 1: more of this like niche progressive appeal her district makes
Speaker 1: sense obviously, but can she actually win statewide, let alone,
Speaker 1: you know, national ambitions. And because of the incredible contrast
Speaker 1: between the way she has taken the fight to the
Speaker 1: Trump administration versus how Schumer has been the emblem of
Speaker 1: laying down and playing dead, the Democratic based feeling very
Speaker 1: differently about this matchup going forward.
Speaker 3: And for the same reason that some on the left
Speaker 3: have gotten upset with her for being more of a
Speaker 3: Democratic team player, normy Democrats have warmed up to her
Speaker 3: because she is more of a team player, yep, with
Speaker 3: the Democratic Party. And that book right there at the
Speaker 3: end of it, it finishes not spoiler with a poll
Speaker 3: in New Hampshire where I think the Democratic primary voters
Speaker 3: in New Hampshire, you know, had the highest favorability rating
Speaker 3: for her, Like I think it might have been Bernie
Speaker 3: actually might have been a number one or something, or
Speaker 3: maybe she was even ahead of Bernie.
Speaker 1: You can think Bernie usually comes in number one of
Speaker 1: these things, but.
Speaker 3: In particularly among New Hampshire primary voters. So the question was,
Speaker 3: could she, you know, beat Schumer with upstate New York.
Speaker 3: You know, it's a combination of suburban and rural Democrats,
Speaker 3: And I think right now Schumer's at his I mean,
Speaker 3: maybe he has further low to go, but like he's
Speaker 3: at it sees at a low after, you know, just
Speaker 3: his complete capitulation. So a lot of the a lot
Speaker 3: of the lead you're seeing there is probably more anti
Speaker 3: Schumer necessary than necessarily prosy. But it shows that there's
Speaker 3: a majority of Democrats in New York are willing to say, yeah, yeah, AOC, fine,
Speaker 3: let's let's let's give that a shot.
Speaker 1: And Emily, I think it's not just First of all,
Speaker 1: I don't think it is just anti shum. AOC is
Speaker 1: such a big name, like she comes with a whole
Speaker 1: people have a feeling about her, right And I also
Speaker 1: don't think it's just that she decided tactically to take
Speaker 1: this approach of I'm not going to be the outsider
Speaker 1: bomb thrower. I'm going to play the inside game. But
Speaker 1: it's it's it's not only that that has made Norman
Speaker 1: Democrats more comfortable with her. It's also the fact that
Speaker 1: Norman Democrats are becoming more comfortable with a bomb thrower
Speaker 1: and they want I mean, what they're disgusted with the
Speaker 1: Democratic leadership over is you aren't being aggressive enough. So
Speaker 1: AOC has been critical of you know, Schumer and others
Speaker 1: for example, and that's exactly actually what they want to
Speaker 1: see at this point. And that's what is really a
Speaker 1: very different dynamic with your average Norman Democrat versus certainly
Speaker 1: back in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: Yes, And the reason this is so dangerous for Chuck Schumer,
Speaker 2: and this is why he knows that, this is why
Speaker 2: the Democratic establishment has tried to co opt people like
Speaker 2: AOC and squash any sort of hint of dissent from leadership,
Speaker 2: is that so many voters make a lesser of two
Speaker 2: evils calculation, especially in primaries. And so if they start
Speaker 2: to see Chuck Schumer as the greater of the two evils,
Speaker 2: maybe they're not culture warriors. And you can drag up
Speaker 2: things AOC may have said about the police or ice
Speaker 2: or something like that back in twenty twenty, and I
Speaker 2: think those things will genuinely be harmful to her odds
Speaker 2: in the place like Upstate if she decides to run.
Speaker 2: But if they look at Chuck Schumer and say, this
Speaker 2: guy is just a simp. He's not doing anything, sometimes
Speaker 2: people will side with the culture warriors over the people
Speaker 2: like Chuck Schumer, especially if AOCS sounds more like the
Speaker 2: version of her who unseated what's his name, Joe Crowley. Yeah,
Speaker 2: in the first place, I love that his name has
Speaker 2: just fallen away from consciousness.
Speaker 1: But I've forgotten.
Speaker 2: You can't forget him. But it is really like, this
Speaker 2: is what happened with the Tea Party. We talk about
Speaker 2: this like every week now, but the similarities are absolutely true.
Speaker 2: It's what happened with Donald Trump. Most Republican primary voters
Speaker 2: did not choose Donald Trump, and that's why there was some,
Speaker 2: you know, conversation about whether he would actually win the
Speaker 2: Republican primary in twenty twenty four. But they continued to
Speaker 2: see Trump as a lesser of two evils against the establishment,
Speaker 2: even though people get exhausted with all of the posting
Speaker 2: and they don't like the way that he talks, They don't,
Speaker 2: you know, necessarily love his history with women. It just
Speaker 2: gets down to a lesser of two evils calculation, and
Speaker 2: Chuck Schumer is being dangerously is flirting dangerously with being
Speaker 2: put in the greater of two evils camp, and that's
Speaker 2: really what could end up undoing him.
Speaker 1: And he's not up for another four years, so to
Speaker 1: Ryan point like this could be his low and he's
Speaker 1: able to get it back together. But Ryan, I mean,
Speaker 1: what do you how are you feeling about the AOC
Speaker 1: like potential national prospects because I was pretty skeptical. I'm
Speaker 1: still somewhat skeptical because I think Emily's right. I mean,
Speaker 1: she she did do a lot of the you know,
Speaker 1: the Latin X and birthing person like, she did do
Speaker 1: too much of that kind of academic language that doesn't
Speaker 1: land with normal people. But her messaging lately has been fantastic.
Speaker 1: You know, she's been on the Stopballergarchy tour with Bernie.
Speaker 1: She's been on the like bread and butter, like class
Speaker 1: war messaging that I personally think is you know, the
Speaker 1: most political politically both correct and also politically effective. And
Speaker 1: also she has won over a lot of the Democratic base.
Speaker 1: I think she's you know, she's grown in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways. So I am more open to her as
Speaker 1: an effective national candidate than I was previously. Where are
Speaker 1: you on that question?
Speaker 3: I think she's in the ballgame for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: The virtue that Bernie had is that even people who
Speaker 3: didn't agree with him would say, you know, he's he
Speaker 3: believes what he says he's been saying the same thing,
Speaker 3: you know, for fifty years, and you can find clips
Speaker 3: of him saying it fifty years ago, yeah, like verbatim.
Speaker 3: And so AOC will have the difficulty of like, hey,
Speaker 3: why aren't you saying LATINX anymore? Like what happened to
Speaker 3: your pronouns?
Speaker 2: And will go there?
Speaker 3: Or she'll stick with yeah, any of her opponents with
Speaker 3: the media will or she'll stick with LATINX and stick
Speaker 3: with pronouns. And you know, so anytime she, you know,
Speaker 3: you know, tries to move beyond that era, she's going
Speaker 3: to get pulled back by it. And and will I
Speaker 3: think we'll feel like she's being asked to throw some
Speaker 3: constituency under the bus and isn't going to want to
Speaker 3: do that, right, But then are you going to get
Speaker 3: wrapped up in the axle of some you know, silly
Speaker 3: policy as a result of that. And so so she
Speaker 3: she still has the kind of thorns of she's kind
Speaker 3: of she's kind of tangled up in it, and it's
Speaker 3: going to be difficult, I think, to just to untangle.
Speaker 1: I think, honestly, I don't I don't know, but I
Speaker 1: mean I think it's honestly better to just own it
Speaker 1: and lean into it than to be like, who me LATINX?
Speaker 2: I mean, especially when.
Speaker 1: You're AOC I mean or Kamala Harris, Right, you find a.
Speaker 3: Way of messaging in a little bit more, a little
Speaker 3: bit better. She's she's a great messenger. She could maybe
Speaker 3: find a way. Yeah, give up on LATINX. I mean,
Speaker 3: maybe that's the maybe that's your sister soulgent because nobody
Speaker 3: will actually care about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you could. You could see her saying, like,
Speaker 1: I find it interesting that you care more about a
Speaker 1: particular word that I use than the fact that the
Speaker 1: working class is getting screwed by Donald Trump and the
Speaker 1: billionaire you know, like you can you can there.
Speaker 3: Were some communities that there's some communities telling me that
Speaker 3: they wanted that term. They don't want it anymore.
Speaker 1: Fine, fine, Yeah, totally related to this, Ryan you Actually
Speaker 1: this was not actually particularly on my radar, but these
Speaker 1: protests that are coming up this weekend appear to be
Speaker 1: quite large Saturday nationwide hands off anti Trump protests. You
Speaker 1: see the map here. It was pretty extraordinarily broad movement.
Speaker 1: You said, you knew, you knew someone who was going
Speaker 1: to the one of the villages.
Speaker 3: Yeah, my dad, My dad is on the villages right now.
Speaker 3: He says he's a Pennsylvania snowbird. He goes down to
Speaker 3: the villages in the winter.
Speaker 1: So it it says more than eleven hundred rallies, they've
Speaker 1: had nearly two hundred and fifty thousand RSVPs. That was
Speaker 1: as of March twenty ninth, so I'm sure they have
Speaker 1: even more by now. So what's the particular messaging here?
Speaker 1: Is it just kind of everything or is there a
Speaker 1: particular focus.
Speaker 3: It's it's like anti doge Doge, anti doggie, hands off
Speaker 3: social Security, hands on Medicare and Medicaid, stop destroying the government,
Speaker 3: make things better, not worse. So it's kind of a
Speaker 3: broad resistance to what Musk and Trump are doing, kind
Speaker 3: of rally. But yeah, I think you're you're going to
Speaker 3: see I think, uh, you know, huge numbers of people
Speaker 3: I think are going to are going to turn out
Speaker 3: for this. There are buses coming to Washington, d C.
Speaker 3: So you know, it could be could be sizable here.
Speaker 3: But even for you know, if wherever you are watching this,
Speaker 3: there's probably a hands off rally, you know, fairly close.
Speaker 3: I asked my dad, like, is it a Tesler dealership.
Speaker 3: He said, now it's at a it's a parking lot,
Speaker 3: which is which sounds very sounds very villages. But yeah,
Speaker 3: if the villages is able to bring out you know,
Speaker 3: hundreds or even thousands of people, which is that this
Speaker 3: is famously the Republican leaning uh you know, retirement community
Speaker 3: in Florida.
Speaker 1: I think part of the village is was in one
Speaker 1: of these Florida districts. That was last week, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there were Randy Fine which which and my dad
Speaker 3: was saying, no, like, nobody down there likes the guy,
Speaker 3: including all the Republicans. DeSantis was just ripping him. I
Speaker 3: saw that yesterday. He's pretty it seems like a pretty
Speaker 3: despicable dude, and that kind of an arrogant guy who
Speaker 3: was like angered a lot of people with a real
Speaker 3: haughty attitude on whatever commission he was elected to serve
Speaker 3: before this. But you know, when Republicans, you know, win
Speaker 3: those races by thirty forty points, it's it's going to
Speaker 3: be hard to lose. And yeah, he ended up losing
Speaker 3: to his like a middle school teacher, Josh wheel Buy
Speaker 3: like ten points or something like that. I mean, being
Speaker 3: a middle school teacher.
Speaker 1: DeSantis said something like, you know, they wanted me to
Speaker 1: put this guy on the Florida Atlantic Board. I tried
Speaker 1: to get rid of him, and they didn't want him.
Speaker 4: It was pretty.
Speaker 2: You know, Santas is this guy is unlikable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, in a partisan way, like people just do not
Speaker 3: like this No.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well for good reason when you see the horrific,
Speaker 1: like monstrous things he says about kids getting slaughtered in Gaza.
Speaker 1: The thing that I think is important about these protests,
Speaker 1: Emily is it does comment a moment when Democratic electeds
Speaker 1: have kind of realized like, all right, we gotta up
Speaker 1: our game, right. That's what Corey Booker holding the floor.
Speaker 1: That represents them realizing like, okay, we're not meeting the
Speaker 1: but we got to do something right and or else
Speaker 1: there is going to be a tea party with you know,
Speaker 1: Pitchforks coming for us. And you also had these election
Speaker 1: results that Democrats are taking a lot of hard in.
Speaker 1: Obviously you were in Wisconsin. The Liberal there wins by
Speaker 1: double digits. They made huge you know, fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: point made up ground in those two Florida seats. So
Speaker 1: there's a little bit of mojo re entering the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: And then these protests come in and it's another you know,
Speaker 1: visible demonstration of okay, we the base of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is fired up, like they are ready to you know,
Speaker 1: they are ready to go to war. They are ready
Speaker 1: to go in whatever direction they think makes sense in
Speaker 1: order to protest what is being done in this country. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I think, like, I don't think anyone necessarily
Speaker 1: expects that it's going to change how the Trump administration
Speaker 1: is approaching Social Security, Medicare or whatever. But I do
Speaker 1: think it will probably strengthen the backbone a little bit
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party who will see this show of strength.
Speaker 2: I mean, it might change how Republicans approach soci security,
Speaker 2: Medicare because it's a confirmation of Trump's longtime political instincts.
Speaker 2: And that's why you saw Josh Holly go into the
Speaker 2: White House yesterday saying I talked to Trump. He says,
Speaker 2: nobody is going to touch social Security and Medicaid and
Speaker 2: you know, trying.
Speaker 1: To touching it. It's being touched right now.
Speaker 2: There's that video of Bill Cassidy this week on Newsmax.
Speaker 2: Did you see this crystal of him like accidentally saying
Speaker 2: cut Medicaid and then realized he meant to say reform
Speaker 2: and correcting it to the camera and giving a big
Speaker 2: old grin yea, and like it may turn into one
Speaker 2: of those situations where Trump ends up saying like, you
Speaker 2: guys got up stop. We don't know though, and that's
Speaker 2: probably not good enough assurance if you're just an average
Speaker 2: American who relies on those programs, Which is why I
Speaker 2: think this is a study in contrast with the resistance
Speaker 2: that bubbled up in twenty seventeen. And Ryan wrote a
Speaker 2: whole book about this, But I think as this has
Speaker 2: we've seen this over the first what almost one hundred days,
Speaker 2: seventy five days, I think as of tomorrow of the
Speaker 2: Trump administration, it looks this is a much better democratic
Speaker 2: resistance than the one of twenty seventeen, because I increasingly
Speaker 2: think the one that came to be in twenty seventeen
Speaker 2: morphed into something that ended up greatly backfiring on Democrats
Speaker 2: because it wasn't based on class criticism, and this one,
Speaker 2: so far is is much more focused on that, which
Speaker 2: is pretty interesting for the Democratic Party. And there's there's
Speaker 2: just like a recognition that this isn't don't talk about
Speaker 2: grab them by the pussy like talk about actual nuts
Speaker 2: and bolts, kitchen table issues that will break through with
Speaker 2: your regular voter every day.
Speaker 1: So not hands off my pussy, hands off my social security.
Speaker 2: It's like it's such an obvious, It's like it's you
Speaker 2: would think.
Speaker 3: It's been clarifying, I think for the Democratic base to
Speaker 3: have this multi billionaire, richest man on the planet, literally
Speaker 3: wielding a chainsaw on stage, hopped up on ketamine, all
Speaker 3: going after the you know, going after the federal government
Speaker 3: on cutting you know, and then and then now they're
Speaker 3: watching all their four oh one k's you know, collapse
Speaker 3: into into some puddle, and you know that that's a
Speaker 3: lot worse for somebody in their seventies than it is
Speaker 3: foreople in their thirties or forties.
Speaker 1: That is down twelve hundred points right now today, by
Speaker 1: the way.
Speaker 3: Another twelve hundred on top of yesterday is sixteen. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's like those are those are real numbers.
Speaker 1: Starts to be real for sure. Okay, last thing here,
Speaker 1: got to get Emily in particular, but both of you
Speaker 1: to weigh in on our friend Laura Lumer.
Speaker 2: No literally Ryan, Ryan is actually in touch with Laura Lumer.
Speaker 3: Yesterday, I'll pull it.
Speaker 1: Up did she yeah, so she she so this again
Speaker 1: like while the while the global economy is in free fall,
Speaker 1: and like you know from Trump's tariffs, he's not doing
Speaker 1: He's meeting with Laura Lumber at the White House before
Speaker 1: going to play golf. Right, this is his this is
Speaker 1: on his agenda. So anyway, after she visits, he fired
Speaker 1: what three people from the National Security Council. The way
Speaker 1: actios frames are come a day after conspiracy theorist Laura
Speaker 1: Lumer visited the Oval Office press Trump to fire specific
Speaker 1: NSC staffer's axios is not confirmed. Where the firings were
Speaker 1: directly linked to that incident, with the source familiar said
Speaker 1: they were being labeled as an anti neocon move. So, Emily,
Speaker 1: what do we know about these people and their alleged sins?
Speaker 1: And of course, I mean this comes as the whole
Speaker 1: Signal Gate thing happened, and no one was fired out
Speaker 1: of that, including Mike Walls, who is definitely a neo
Speaker 1: Khan as anyone could see for themselves within the signal chats,
Speaker 1: as were pretty much everybody else in that chat. By
Speaker 1: the way, So he's not fired, but these three people
Speaker 1: appear to have been have been lumored here in the
Speaker 1: wake of this meeting, like, what do we know about
Speaker 1: these people? What do you think Laura Lumer, what is
Speaker 1: her issue with them?
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: Well, Lumur is basically doing the Charlie Kelly chalkboard Peppy
Speaker 2: Silva thing from its always Sonny in Philadelphia the meme.
Speaker 2: And I don't mean that in a bad way actually,
Speaker 2: because some of these people's careers actually really have to
Speaker 2: start piecing together a puzzle in order to get the
Speaker 2: big picture of Like okay, and Mike Waltz is one
Speaker 2: of them. Uh, they may be talking like quote unquote
Speaker 2: America First Patriots right now, and you know, staunch supporters
Speaker 2: of the Trump movement, which is you moving towards China
Speaker 2: and you know, moving away from the same neo conservative
Speaker 2: position on Ukraine and Russia. But but h Luma is
Speaker 2: basically showing that these, uh, some of these allies of
Speaker 2: Mike Waltz are sort of like him. You know, he's
Speaker 2: someone who was an advisor to Dick Cheney, founded a
Speaker 2: defense contracting group that had big business in Afghanistan, and
Speaker 2: she was she was kind of connecting the dots and
Speaker 2: showing that these these folks had a similar career backgrounds
Speaker 2: that went through uh the like the National Security ringer,
Speaker 2: and they're, according to Lumer, bringing all of that baggage
Speaker 2: with them and wrapping it in the America first packaging.
Speaker 2: So it's she's completely right by the way. I mean,
Speaker 2: like there's been some ideological uh, there's been some sincere
Speaker 2: ideological shifts among people in the Trump orbit who have
Speaker 2: reconsidered their own priors, and some of that is genuine.
Speaker 2: But if you look at Mike Waltz, I don't think
Speaker 2: it's really the case with him. Uh And that's what
Speaker 2: she's saying is look at these guys he brought with him.
Speaker 2: You know, Ryan, you what does she tell drop Site yesterday?
Speaker 3: She's had a very statesman.
Speaker 1: Like respect for the White House in President Trump. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to divulge any details. Blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, which is uh so we reported over drop Site
Speaker 3: that inside the administration, Waltz's n sc IS is just
Speaker 3: colloquially referred to as the Neoconsecurity Council. It's just it's
Speaker 3: very much known as the kind of leading edge of
Speaker 3: the of the warhawk element. You know, she went in
Speaker 3: and got Doug fights NEPO higher. You know, Doug Fight's
Speaker 3: one of the leading neo cons of the Bush era,
Speaker 3: and his kid David apparently was. And it seemed it
Speaker 3: seems like Trump learned about this and moved on it.
Speaker 3: Now he sort of denied it, like do we have
Speaker 3: the Trump clip talking on Air Force one.
Speaker 2: On their first one.
Speaker 3: It's it's it's it's quite funny to watch because he's like, look,
Speaker 3: Laura Loomer, gotta see it. Let me, I'll see if
Speaker 3: I can find But he's like, look, Laura, Laura Lumer
Speaker 3: very strong. And what's what's amazing.
Speaker 2: Is that.
Speaker 3: She did this with Michael Waltz sitting there in the
Speaker 3: Oval office.
Speaker 2: Oh really, he was there, and she's the vice president
Speaker 2: apparently too.
Speaker 1: Lee's got some balls, man, I will give.
Speaker 3: She's just sitting there. Oh here it is, she's dropping here.
Speaker 3: Let me let me play this. She's just dropping all
Speaker 3: of this research, getting these getting these clowns fired, like
Speaker 3: right in right in front of their bosses. It's like,
Speaker 3: you gotta you gotta admire that.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 3: Let me let's play some Trump here. Tell us a
Speaker 3: little bit about your meeting with Laura Lumer and Mike
Speaker 3: Woltz today.
Speaker 2: How that? Yeah?
Speaker 5: So Laura Lumer is a very good patron.
Speaker 4: She is a very strong person.
Speaker 3: And I saw her, Yes, she has.
Speaker 5: She makes recommendations of nats and people, and sometimes I
Speaker 5: listen to those recommendations like I do with everybody. I
Speaker 5: listen to everybody, and then I make a decision. But
Speaker 5: I saw her yesterday. She was at the ceremony, and
Speaker 5: uh she is. She'll always have something to say, usually
Speaker 5: very constructed.
Speaker 2: She'll always have something to say, usually very constructive. To
Speaker 2: the administration.
Speaker 5: Not well, she'll recommend that too.
Speaker 3: Yesterday she recommends some people for jobs. Did she have
Speaker 3: anything to do with the.
Speaker 2: Nsc aids who were housed.
Speaker 3: No, not at all. No, No, not at all, not
Speaker 3: at all.
Speaker 1: I always have something to say, usually very constructive.
Speaker 3: Very strong, good patriot. That's so good. She sat there
Speaker 3: and ripped.
Speaker 1: These people off of Air Force one. And then that
Speaker 1: happened on the campaign. Laura was like on the plane
Speaker 1: a lot unless a strety in the inner circle. And
Speaker 1: then Susie Wilds came in and they started.
Speaker 3: Blamed they blamed her for him doing that embarrassing thing.
Speaker 3: They're eating the pets, they're eating the cats, they're eating
Speaker 3: the dogs. They kicked her.
Speaker 1: Off for that well turned down not to matter.
Speaker 2: So and to what we just watched from Trump him
Speaker 2: claiming that it wasn't. Lumer just retweeted herself from thirteen
Speaker 2: hours ago saying, you know how, you know how you
Speaker 2: know the NSC officials are reported to President Trump are
Speaker 2: disloyal people who have played a role in stuff. But
Speaker 2: tashi Donald Trump because the fired officials are being defended
Speaker 2: by Jen Saki Andrew McCabe on MSNBC and CNN right now. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's fair to take all of
Speaker 2: the way that she's talking about it and what happened
Speaker 2: is pretty clear evidence that this was directly connected.
Speaker 3: To making much of an effort to deny that. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that was one of his book casual No.
Speaker 1: Of course, Yeah, you said she recommended some people for jobs. Yeah,
Speaker 1: for those jobs after she told a fire those people.
Speaker 2: I mean she also absolutely bodied Dana Bash. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is nobody. I feel like it just never gets
Speaker 2: enough attention that Dana Bash's ex husband, they're married. Well,
Speaker 2: she covered the Obama administration. You guys remember this better
Speaker 2: than I do.
Speaker 3: But Jeremy the c I A, yeah, this is.
Speaker 2: Very closely on Panetta and I think what Lumor was
Speaker 2: pointing out, I didn't verify this, so it's probably true,
Speaker 2: sounds true, but it didn't verify this, but that one
Speaker 2: of Waltz's NSC guys worked for Jeremy ash who obviously
Speaker 2: has been you know, deep state circles.
Speaker 1: Interesting, gotcha, Yeah, Laura Lumeercy's never wrong, so no need.
Speaker 2: To there's I think, you know, I I trust her
Speaker 2: her fact checking new york you know, New Yorker level
Speaker 2: fact checking.
Speaker 1: I guess the last thing I'll say about this is,
Speaker 1: you know, Waltz seemed to have been protected by the
Speaker 1: fact that Trump hates Jeffrey Goldberg and didn't want to
Speaker 1: be seen as giving Jeffrey Goldberg a scalp. So instead,
Speaker 1: Yeahloomer comes in and is like, all right, well, I
Speaker 1: guess we're not going to take out that guy, but
Speaker 1: all of these underlings they're vulnerable, so we're going to
Speaker 1: come in with a knife with them. So that seems
Speaker 1: to be kind of what played out here.
Speaker 2: It's completely insane. I mean, he's Donald Trump. I have
Speaker 2: no idea why he's not pushing the issue with Mike
Speaker 2: Waltz because there are This is the point that we
Speaker 2: were talking about the internal reporting about UH from drop site,
Speaker 2: about people just calling it the Neo Conservative Security Council.
Speaker 2: It's there's like a lot of internal irritation with Mike Waltz.
Speaker 2: He's he's not the most popular person in Trump circles
Speaker 2: and he never has been.
Speaker 1: Even outside of like ideology.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's both that people see it both
Speaker 2: in the same way that he's someone who wants to
Speaker 2: he thinks he can steer Trump in the right.
Speaker 1: Here's the kind of guy that would have Jeffrey Goldberg
Speaker 1: in his.
Speaker 2: Phone exactly exactly and then go on Laura Ingram when
Speaker 2: you know he doesn't really have much of a defense
Speaker 2: to mount and say I got sucked in you like,
Speaker 2: it's not a But that's why I don't understand. I mean,
Speaker 2: he hasn't offered to resign, which would have probably been
Speaker 2: the patriotic thing to do, to borrow a phrase from
Speaker 2: Trump himself from reference to Laura Lumour. But maybe it's
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't.
Speaker 3: Know ye the start, Emily, but from the perspective of
Speaker 3: the internal fight between the neo cons and America firsts
Speaker 3: Mike Waltz staying on but being completely denuded and and
Speaker 3: like stripped of power and like losing his staff is
Speaker 3: probably better for the America First Isolationist Crew than are
Speaker 3: they replaced by another neo kon Well, the Signal Chat,
Speaker 3: it's so well jad, I mean yeah, jd Vance, whether
Speaker 3: or not Hexith you know, lives up to that or
Speaker 3: he just got reverse back to the you know what
Speaker 3: we saw in that Signal Chat A lot of the
Speaker 3: if you look at the all the different people that
Speaker 3: made it into the administration despite you know, Jewish Insider magazine,
Speaker 3: you're trying to stop them, like yeah, those those types
Speaker 3: what's his name, Bridge, Bridge, Colby, like that his whole faction, Like,
Speaker 3: you know, they're they probably benefit from Waltz having sticking
Speaker 3: around but having less power. But yeah, but then are
Speaker 3: they just going to fill the vacuum themselves and get
Speaker 3: all war happy?
Speaker 1: Yeah, fall in line when Steven Miller's like, no, big
Speaker 1: guy wants to bomb. So that's what we're doing.
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess I would rather, like my defense is,
Speaker 2: I'd rather have those guys in the room than have
Speaker 2: a room full of Mike Watson, John Bolton, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: No doubt, all right, guys, anything else, Ryan I know
Speaker 1: you had a story you were following it in God.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're at drop site where we're working on a
Speaker 3: piece about the medic massacre, which has kind of broken through.
Speaker 3: It's not out yet, so I'll well, we can talk
Speaker 3: about that later, but it's like, look for that. People
Speaker 3: have been following that, probably pretty closely. It's utterly, utterly incredible,
Speaker 3: utterly unbelievable.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well in March twenty third dose too. I mean, if
Speaker 1: this happened at the early stages of the Onslaught and Gaza,
Speaker 1: there would have been huge press attention. There would have
Speaker 1: been an effort, a mass propaganda campaign coming from the
Speaker 1: Israelis compelling, yeah, slide shows and here's a you know,
Speaker 1: fabricated document that remember the fake folk call, Yeah, the
Speaker 1: fake audio that was released. That there would have been
Speaker 1: a whole effort. Now they don't feel like they don't
Speaker 1: even have to really do it. Yeah, I mean not
Speaker 1: to say that they didn't claim they were Hamas or whatever,
Speaker 1: but uh, there was much less less effort required at
Speaker 1: this point.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, guys, Well, thank you as always, and
Speaker 1: thanks to all of you watching out there. By the way, guys,
Speaker 1: you know we're able to do these extra Friday shows
Speaker 1: with your support. So if you're able to become a
Speaker 1: premium subscriber, we do really appreciate it helps us to
Speaker 1: be able to, you know, continue, because we've really been
Speaker 1: trying to be as on top of the news as
Speaker 1: possible given just how much things are breaking, like all
Speaker 1: the time every hour. By now, when I go and Twitter,
Speaker 1: there'll be like five more stories that we should have
Speaker 1: covered just right right now, that'll be ready.
Speaker 2: Your quote unquote, vacation seemed very relaxing, like a great
Speaker 2: respite from.
Speaker 1: I wasn't spending hours every day doom scrolling, dough worry. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I totally wasn't doing that. Doesn't sound like you, well,
Speaker 1: you know seriously, though, I don't feel like I could
Speaker 1: with my daughter, Okay, Byron, I don't feel like I
Speaker 1: could step away from the news for a week, Like
Speaker 1: I feel like I would be lost when I came back.
Speaker 1: I feel like I would be completely lost. So I
Speaker 1: will say I'm glad it was that week and not
Speaker 1: Liberation Week, because then I just would not have taken
Speaker 1: a vacation at all, honestly, because it's just too wild.
Speaker 1: But in any case, yeah, those are the times we
Speaker 1: live in so we appreciate you guys support if you're
Speaker 1: able to.
Speaker 2: And now we have these Friday shows to work through
Speaker 2: some of the stuff that happens throughout the week.
Speaker 1: Yep, indeed, indeed all right, thanks Emily, have a great weekend, guys.
Speaker 1: We'll see you soon