Speaker 1: Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. Have an amazing
Speaker 1: show for everybody today. What do we have, Crystal?
Speaker 3: Indeed we do.
Speaker 2: As for usual, many many things are happening. Yesterday was
Speaker 2: the worst day of the year in these stock markets.
Speaker 2: We will get into what is going on there to
Speaker 2: the best of our ability and what the fallout could be.
Speaker 2: Republicans are scrambling to get a spending bill, paths to
Speaker 2: avoid a shutdown, and Trump is threatening a key hold
Speaker 2: out with a primary challenge that would be Thomas Massey.
Speaker 2: So interesting drama there also some drama with our great
Speaker 2: ally Israel over US.
Speaker 3: Negotiations directly with Hamas.
Speaker 2: We've also got a bunch of updates for you on
Speaker 2: that pro Palestine activist Green card Holder that the Trump
Speaker 2: administration arrested and starting with deportation.
Speaker 3: We've got a court.
Speaker 2: Update there and lots of news, so we'll break all
Speaker 2: of that down for you. We also have Elon and
Speaker 2: Bannon actually told by Trump to make up. So what's
Speaker 2: going on there in that key relationship. That's an interesting one,
Speaker 2: and Twitter was down for most of yesterday. Elon is
Speaker 2: claiming potentially Ukrainians were attacking it.
Speaker 1: We'll see, we'll explore who knows. I wouldn't put it
Speaker 1: past them. Also would like to see some evidence.
Speaker 2: I yeah, don't trust anyone involved in that particular dispute.
Speaker 3: So well, look at what we know there. I'm taking
Speaker 3: a look at Tesla.
Speaker 2: Actually I had to update my monologue because I woke
Speaker 2: up to the news that Trump is saying he's going
Speaker 2: to buy a Tesla to support the great and wonderful
Speaker 2: Elon Muss So that's kind of funny.
Speaker 3: And we had an interview.
Speaker 2: That we recorded yesterday with Brian Tyler Cohen his channel
Speaker 2: is just absolutely blowing up as liberals are fleeing MSNBC
Speaker 2: and CNN. So we really wanted to talk to him
Speaker 2: about who he thinks, his audiences, what they're interested in,
Speaker 2: and you know, to what he attributes his success and
Speaker 2: the sort of failure of liberal outlets.
Speaker 3: So really interesting conversation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I really enjoyed talking to him. I think that
Speaker 1: Brian Midas, Touch and a few others are really at
Speaker 1: the vanguard of where the Democratic Party is right now
Speaker 1: and just observing you know, here in Washington, everybody writes
Speaker 1: profiles about each other, but they're ignoring the actual stars
Speaker 1: on YouTube right now on the left who are not
Speaker 1: only exploding but like leading a lot of the liberal
Speaker 1: energy that's not on MSNBC, it's not on CNN. So
Speaker 1: I really wanted to talk to Brian just about like
Speaker 1: what he thinks about the current moment, what he thinks
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party should do, his analysis of where thing's wrong.
Speaker 1: And he's an interesting guy and I think people will
Speaker 1: get a lot out of the comment.
Speaker 3: And he's also a guy with access.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, that's right. This guy was on the
Speaker 1: White House, on the Capitol Hill like literally last week.
Speaker 1: He interviewed AOC. They're paying attention in an interesting way
Speaker 1: where he could be if he wanted to be one
Speaker 1: of the biggest, you know, most important young people so
Speaker 1: called in the Democratic Party. So it's important to get
Speaker 1: to know who are these people, what do they want?
Speaker 1: Policy wise? Politics wise? How do they think the last election?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 1: Who are the right? You know, the new stars and
Speaker 1: all of that will be so anyway breaking points. We're
Speaker 1: trying to be here at the vanguard literally where politics is.
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated by it. I really am. All right, might
Speaker 1: have touched guys. Ben what's that guy's name? Neck? I
Speaker 1: can never say his last name. He's whatever. Anybody, Ben,
Speaker 1: you should come on to I'll treat you fairly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would love to talk to him. I really would.
Speaker 1: It's purely analytical. I'm just like, who are you? What
Speaker 1: do you guys want? You know, you and a couple
Speaker 1: of brothers. You got the top podcast in the entire country.
Speaker 1: What's up with that? Right?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 1: What do you attribute your success?
Speaker 3: Change?
Speaker 1: Absolutely fascinated? All right, let's start with the markets. As
Speaker 1: you said, it's been an absolutely dizzying twenty four seventy
Speaker 1: two week hours in the markets. Absolutely, you know, terrible
Speaker 1: start right now. It's the worst stock market performance for
Speaker 1: an American president in their opening days since two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine. White House is not exactly offering up quite
Speaker 1: a bit of confidence. Here is Kevin Hassett. He is
Speaker 1: the White House Economic advisor previously served in the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: downplaying the stock market drop, saying it's just a blip.
Speaker 1: Let's take a lesson if.
Speaker 6: You think about, like, what's going to happen to capital
Speaker 6: formation of the US. If you take our costa capital measures,
Speaker 6: it goes up ten to eleven percent over the next year.
Speaker 6: There are a lot of reasons to be extremely bullish
Speaker 6: about the economy going forward. But for sure this quarter
Speaker 6: there are some blips of the data, including the negative
Speaker 6: GDP DOW, which are related both to the Biden inheritance
Speaker 6: and to some you know, timing effects that are happening
Speaker 6: ahead of tariffs.
Speaker 1: You don't think Trump owns any of that.
Speaker 7: I think you know someone there was right in the middle,
Speaker 7: right in the middle, would not immediately attribute to soft
Speaker 7: I'm seeing it on Twitter constantly. You know, how's this
Speaker 7: guy doing? Now, how's that feel? How's winning feel with
Speaker 7: the economy and they're not tying it to Biden, Kevin,
Speaker 7: they're tying it to some of the incertainty from the
Speaker 7: Trump administration.
Speaker 6: Well, well, let's be clear, though, Joe. The last year,
Speaker 6: the Biden numbers, we kept getting these great jobs numbers,
Speaker 6: and then by the end of the year we see
Speaker 6: that they're revised down by a whole million, and so
Speaker 6: a lot of the numbers that looked kind of good
Speaker 6: at the advance release weren't good and red words.
Speaker 1: They're still pretty good.
Speaker 7: And that was a technical.
Speaker 1: Thing then, So it's just a blip, just a blip,
Speaker 1: don't worry about it. I'm not so sure that's the
Speaker 1: way that I would read it, especially when you take
Speaker 1: a look at the indicies. Let's go and put this
Speaker 1: up there on the screen. So we got the Dow
Speaker 1: Jones Industrial Average dropped some six points in the last month,
Speaker 1: and a couple I think two or three percent of
Speaker 1: that or sorry, six percent just in the last month,
Speaker 1: and a couple of percent just yesterday. Let's go to
Speaker 1: the next one, please, and let's take a look at that. Oh,
Speaker 1: there's the NASDAC down eleven percent on the month, down
Speaker 1: full four percent yesterday. NASDAK is a very tech heavy index.
Speaker 1: So that's another reason why you should pay attention. Let's
Speaker 1: go to the next one, the S and P five hundred,
Speaker 1: and what do we see there? That's right down seven
Speaker 1: point five percent they are in the last month. Keep
Speaker 1: in mind, things obviously could change, you know, by the
Speaker 1: time that we post this, but futures are not looking
Speaker 1: that great right now. I mean, basically a point five
Speaker 1: percent increase there in the S and P five hundred,
Speaker 1: but not erasing the multiple points that were dropped yesterday
Speaker 1: in the overall index. And the most worrying part of
Speaker 1: this is it basically is making a reality of something
Speaker 1: that we've really been warning about here on this show
Speaker 1: now for several months, if not years, which is just
Speaker 1: the way that these indexes are. Indices are so heavily
Speaker 1: reliant on these so called magnificent seven stocks. And today
Speaker 1: is a very inauspicious day if you're a technology investor.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: Today is exactly twenty five years to the day from
Speaker 1: when the dot com bubble burst. And if you read this,
Speaker 1: it's really interesting what the dot com bus can tell
Speaker 1: us about today's AI boom is quote today some investors
Speaker 1: are worried the same cycle is playing out when it
Speaker 1: comes to artificial intelligence. Even if that's the case, there
Speaker 1: is an important lester for investors. Ultimately, the early Internet
Speaker 1: hype did prove correct, but it took years for that
Speaker 1: to materialize. The economy was effectively in a recession. I
Speaker 1: went back and was reading some chapters from John Cassidy.
Speaker 1: He's a New Yorker reporter book and he wrote a
Speaker 1: book in three Call dot Com highly recommend it, and
Speaker 1: that book just nails the very similar way that we
Speaker 1: think about Nvidia, about Google, about Meta, about not only
Speaker 1: there not only the amount of capital that they were
Speaker 1: burning as much at the time, but in the similar
Speaker 1: way of the sky is the limit in the moonshot
Speaker 1: ideas that people had behind them. Now, not everything is
Speaker 1: as insane as diapers or Priceline dot com per se.
Speaker 1: But remember even a modest correction of let's say thirty
Speaker 1: forty percent for end Video, which still leave it massively valuable,
Speaker 1: that's a huge percentage of the S and P five hundred,
Speaker 1: same for the Nasdaq, for the Dow Jones, for the
Speaker 1: total market, and it affects everything going forward, just as
Speaker 1: the dot com bubble did as well, interest rates, how
Speaker 1: Americans are thinking about their retirement, consumer spending. Don't forget
Speaker 1: how many of these dollars are flowing through the economy
Speaker 1: that are keeping up employment statistics, housing. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: so many different downstream effects of what the dot com recession,
Speaker 1: which we effetively were in recession for almost two years.
Speaker 1: After that period, it was not a good time. Remember
Speaker 1: we also had nine to eleven and even with that
Speaker 1: there was a huge public bailout, but the markets did
Speaker 1: not recover for quite some time. So I am very
Speaker 1: worried about this situation. No, you know, it's not about
Speaker 1: the fact that rich people have lost a bunch of money.
Speaker 1: It's that, especially today, America has a social contract. Our
Speaker 1: social contract is we don't have any social welfare beyond
Speaker 1: social Security. We have the number and the number has
Speaker 1: got to go up because if it doesn't go up,
Speaker 1: then none of us can retire. And with that, Americans
Speaker 1: are very very tuned in right now, just as they
Speaker 1: were back in two thousand and eight. It not only
Speaker 1: causes a lot of fear at the retirement level, it
Speaker 1: obviously restricts consumer spending, which is a disaster in an
Speaker 1: economy with seventy percent. Not on top of that, we've
Speaker 1: got tariff threats, some that are literally supposed to go
Speaker 1: into effect today and April second is the big one
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's words reciprocal tariffs. So all of that right
Speaker 1: now markets are spooked. Really with a takeaway that I've
Speaker 1: seen on Wall Street is he's not kidden around and
Speaker 1: this is bad for us. It could be good in
Speaker 1: the long run, could be you need to sell it
Speaker 1: to us though, you know, I remember the Biden administrations saying, oh, actually,
Speaker 1: what you're seeing and hearing is in all that is
Speaker 1: actually okay. Things are good at the fundamentals, or look
Speaker 1: in the future for where things are. Nobody, nobody in
Speaker 1: American politics has ever won a message with something like that.
Speaker 1: They need to have a lot of trust and a
Speaker 1: lot of faith they're going to put them through a
Speaker 1: period of pain.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and certainly Donald Trump has a vastly greater ability
Speaker 2: to sell a story to the American public than Joe
Speaker 2: Biden did. But as of right now, there is nothing.
Speaker 2: And I mean I think, you know, I have long
Speaker 2: thought that his policy was and sane and made no sense,
Speaker 2: especially given the economic landscape that we're facing today. But
Speaker 2: to your point, Sager, you know, for Hassett to say like, oh,
Speaker 2: this is just a blip.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sure, we're just we got the hangover from the
Speaker 3: Biden administration. We're dealing with.
Speaker 2: That, and you know, maybe there's a little adjustment period.
Speaker 2: Is the tariffs kick in, et cetera. It's hard to imagine.
Speaker 2: Maybe he's right, but it's hard to imagine that's the
Speaker 2: case when you have no end in sight of the
Speaker 2: sort of tumult and chaos. So, as Ager mentioned, you've
Speaker 2: got the imposition of the reciprocal reciprocal tariffs coming into
Speaker 2: effect on April second, So you know, all of the
Speaker 2: tariffs that were rolled back with regard to Canada and Mexico,
Speaker 2: those are supposed to be put back on at that point,
Speaker 2: along with additional tariffs, you know, levied against countries around
Speaker 2: the world. So it's going to be even larger action
Speaker 2: than the last one that he flirted with the last
Speaker 2: time we went through the teriffs. Are they on again,
Speaker 2: off again, et cetera. And also we should keep in mind,
Speaker 2: you know, we didn't roll back all of the terrors
Speaker 2: on Canada and Mexico, majority of them. The goods that
Speaker 2: are subject to the USMCA will rolled back, but there's
Speaker 2: still a significant portion of goods coming in from those
Speaker 2: countries that are subject to tariffs.
Speaker 3: So you already have that.
Speaker 2: You have, as we're going to talk about in this show,
Speaker 2: potential shut down battle.
Speaker 3: How is that going to go?
Speaker 2: It looks like there continue to be some Republican holdouts.
Speaker 2: Are they going to ultimately buckle? The Democrats say that
Speaker 2: they are holding the line, so you've got that as well,
Speaker 2: and you've got you know, Doge and elons still doing
Speaker 2: their thing out there, imposing austerity at a time when
Speaker 2: you know, it looks like the economy is in danger
Speaker 2: of pulling back and even potentially retracting, if you believe
Speaker 2: what the Atlanta Fed has to say. So there's just
Speaker 2: a lot out there, and consumers are increasingly concerned consumer
Speaker 2: spending is soft and is retreating. You have the reverberating
Speaker 2: effects of the federal government cuts and freezes that are ongoing.
Speaker 2: So there are quite a lot of reasons to think
Speaker 2: that this is not, in fact just a blip.
Speaker 3: Now, it's hard to know these things in the moment.
Speaker 3: You know, if you.
Speaker 2: Look at that graph of what the market did during
Speaker 2: the Dot com crash. It's not like it was straight down,
Speaker 2: you know. There it would go to oh, and then
Speaker 2: it's recovering. Now it's going back to oh, it's recovering
Speaker 2: a little bit more. And so it can be hard
Speaker 2: to know what the ultimate trajectory is. And you know,
Speaker 2: there's no guarantees here as well, what direction the market
Speaker 2: is ultimately going to go in. But while you know,
Speaker 2: the gains in the stock market are disproportionately consolidated among
Speaker 2: the rich, everybody suffers when the market crashes because people
Speaker 2: lose their jobs, consumer spending drops. And there is a
Speaker 2: theory out there that that's actually kind of a plan
Speaker 2: from Trump that you know, he's worried that the tariffs
Speaker 2: could hike inflation, and one way to deal with inflation
Speaker 2: is basically to crush regular people so they have no
Speaker 2: money to spend in the economy, so that there's less demand,
Speaker 2: as you know, to combat the other pressures that would
Speaker 2: cause prices to increase. So that could what's going on
Speaker 2: here as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they also call that the Federal reserve theory of politics.
Speaker 1: Let's also take a listen to Donald Trump on Air
Speaker 1: Force one being asked about a recession and how he
Speaker 1: will quote land the plane. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4: We're just about ready to land.
Speaker 3: Are you worried about a recession?
Speaker 4: Maria Burdero will ask you, and he kind of hesitated.
Speaker 4: I'll tell you what, of course you hesitated? Who knows?
Speaker 4: All I notice is we're gonna take in hundreds of
Speaker 4: billions of dollars in tariffs, and we're gonna become so rich.
Speaker 4: You're not gonna know where to spend all that money.
Speaker 4: I'm telling you you just watch. We're gonna have jobs.
Speaker 4: We're gonna have open factories. It's gonna be great. And
Speaker 4: to play is landing and we gotta go. Thank you
Speaker 4: for a lot of good questions. Okay, thank you very much, everybody.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So he still won't rule out a recession,
Speaker 1: even though his commerce secretary did and Fox News having
Speaker 1: a full blown freak out Fox Business over at Charles
Speaker 1: Gasparino is like kind of a what how would you say?
Speaker 1: It's he's kind of a business whisperer of the Fox
Speaker 1: business community. But he is definitely somebody who try has
Speaker 1: taken seriously. I know that for sure. Let's take a
Speaker 1: listen to what he had to say.
Speaker 5: One thing that people need to do maybe is go
Speaker 5: back and maybe Scott Besson should do this. Read his
Speaker 5: old boss's book, George Soros, The Age of Turbulence, where
Speaker 5: he talks about herd mentality. The herd is really negative
Speaker 5: right now and it's focused all on tarrs and I
Speaker 5: think what Scott Bessen needs to do, that's a treasure secretary.
Speaker 5: I saw him at the Economic Club, and you know,
Speaker 5: it was a very wonky speech where it was all about.
Speaker 1: Tariffs and trying to explain it and all this stuff.
Speaker 5: And at the end he starts talking about all the
Speaker 5: good stuff, the candy that's coming. We're getting good stuff
Speaker 5: coming for this economy and for the markets, and I
Speaker 5: think some of this is a sales job. They have
Speaker 5: to go out there and maybe stop talking about tariffs
Speaker 5: so much and start talking about how we're going to
Speaker 5: infuse the economy. We're we're going to release the animal spirits,
Speaker 5: we're going to deregulate stuff.
Speaker 8: Bich he has said in the past. Yeah, No, I
Speaker 8: think those are enormously stimulative positive messages or businesses especially.
Speaker 8: You know, there's been a number of things in terms
Speaker 8: of depreciation on equipment, all that kind of that business
Speaker 8: really really loves. And also the enticement to you know,
Speaker 8: to open new businesses, which is something they want. They've
Speaker 8: got a lot of business coming in from overseas and
Speaker 8: building companies here in the United States. So all of
Speaker 8: that very positive. I think this whipsaw effect of that
Speaker 8: the tariffs are in, the tariffs are out, and I
Speaker 8: see it from you know, small business owners. We're trying
Speaker 8: to figure out their supply chain. You know, might do
Speaker 8: you to be more on this or less on that?
Speaker 8: Do I have to stockpile stuff at my factories so
Speaker 8: that I you know, don't get over understanded.
Speaker 1: And is he serious or.
Speaker 5: Is he using this as a negotiating tool.
Speaker 1: We don't know.
Speaker 5: So there's always going to be turbulence in the in
Speaker 5: the in Trump in the Trump Economic Plan. But again,
Speaker 5: you've got to lead with your best shot, and the
Speaker 5: best shot here is the tax cuts. I will say
Speaker 5: this though, and here's another thing that I'm picking up.
Speaker 5: You get the impression that the that that the people
Speaker 5: in the White House say, well, our voters are not
Speaker 5: being affected by this.
Speaker 1: That you know, we had a very good base.
Speaker 8: What percentage of Americans have money in the stock market.
Speaker 5: Well, you know, they all have for own case, but
Speaker 5: what percentage, how much? How big are there are four
Speaker 5: to one k's, And I think they're making a calculus
Speaker 5: that most Americans did not do well over the past
Speaker 5: four years. They got hitmid inflation, the economy was revved
Speaker 5: up by the government by Joe Biden, and people could
Speaker 5: speculate rich people in the stock market to get around it.
Speaker 5: Average Americans working class couldn't do that. That theory is
Speaker 5: going to be put to the test.
Speaker 1: You know, he's actually making a good point there, which
Speaker 1: is the idea is that the stock market is only
Speaker 1: paid attention to by rich people. And I would say
Speaker 1: it's paid attention to the most by people who are rich.
Speaker 1: But that does not mean that people who don't have
Speaker 1: four oh one k's and or retirement are not paying attention.
Speaker 1: There's also something emotional about the stock market, as you
Speaker 1: and I know from covering politics, people feel very viscerally
Speaker 1: whenever they see it go down. I think as a
Speaker 1: measure of knowing so many times in the past, how
Speaker 1: when that thing starts to go down, that means my
Speaker 1: job is on the line. Yeah, that means that spending
Speaker 1: at my company is going to start to restrict that
Speaker 1: means you know X, y Z. There's been so many
Speaker 1: different periods where the recession, let's say from two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, wasn't just about housing. Of course it was devastating,
Speaker 1: but those stock market drops had a real pullback effect,
Speaker 1: and there was huge problems with consumer sentiment, with unemployment,
Speaker 1: there were issues with mass layoffs and with firing, and
Speaker 1: a lot of that was financialization. So even if you
Speaker 1: don't care, you should pay attention simply because you're going
Speaker 1: to be affected by it. No matter what every American is.
Speaker 1: It's like the Federal Reserve, there's just the American financial system.
Speaker 1: This is the bedrock really of our entire social contract.
Speaker 1: Let's go to a seven, please, because this again just
Speaker 1: highlights the real danger that we are walking into right now.
Speaker 1: The seven most valuable stocks on Wall Street yesterday lost
Speaker 1: seven hundred and fifty billion dollars in market cap, the
Speaker 1: worst day for the Nasdaq since two thousand and two. Now,
Speaker 1: the reason why I think that this is really interesting
Speaker 1: in a dot com bubble way is if, again, if
Speaker 1: you look back to that time, nothing really happened in
Speaker 1: March of two thousand and one, nothing or in March
Speaker 1: of two thousand. There was no great precipitating event. It
Speaker 1: was just a confluence of factors. It was the Federal Reserve,
Speaker 1: it was asking questions, It was this panal. As you said,
Speaker 1: there was a bump a little bit later on that
Speaker 1: definitely happened. So people weren't one hundred percent in that
Speaker 1: day saying oh, it's all a fugasi. It's just that
Speaker 1: it took time to evaluate those and it was pushed
Speaker 1: off a cliff for a variety of reasons. It was
Speaker 1: almost like the straw that broke the camel's back. That
Speaker 1: is the problem that we have here with the tariff policy,
Speaker 1: with the chaos and with everything, is that the pullback
Speaker 1: the yo yo from that gives a lack of confidence
Speaker 1: of both to investors and to companies, which was restricting
Speaker 1: overall consumer sentiments. So across the board, all of the
Speaker 1: inputs and the outputs of the economy are very very
Speaker 1: uncertain right now, which means that we're going to see
Speaker 1: that not only the drop there, but potential ramifications. The
Speaker 1: White House has got to project confidence and faith with
Speaker 1: the people, which I don't think that they have done
Speaker 1: a good job at right now. There's just no there's
Speaker 1: too much uncertainty for both Main Street and Wall Street,
Speaker 1: and in both of those you are not going to
Speaker 1: see enough confidence from them to be like I can
Speaker 1: make a decision for one month from now, three months
Speaker 1: from now, or even people who are retiring. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of old people in this country. A lot of
Speaker 1: them decide when to retire based on their four oh
Speaker 1: one k you know, so what are they going to do?
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be too happy if I was sixty nine
Speaker 1: years old right now. I can tell you that.
Speaker 2: The one thing he could do is if he said
Speaker 2: definitively we're not doing the tariffs, that's what the markets
Speaker 2: really want to hear it.
Speaker 1: Or you could say we're going to do the tariffs,
Speaker 1: and it's because we're going to do them. It's six
Speaker 1: months and in that six month period companies have X,
Speaker 1: Y and z. In the tax bill that's coming up,
Speaker 1: you will have specific investment credits for taking care of this.
Speaker 1: I will make that an absolute priority of this White House.
Speaker 1: Then you actually don't need to have a market correction
Speaker 1: at all. Will give you a tax break if you
Speaker 1: build stuff here, and we won't have to have a selloff,
Speaker 1: and we can have terrort. You can have everything that
Speaker 1: you want right now, just not this way.
Speaker 3: Maybe. I mean.
Speaker 2: The thing is like that sort of defeats the whole
Speaker 2: policy of tariffs because if you're like they're ending in
Speaker 2: six months, then everyone will go, okay, then we're.
Speaker 3: Just waiting the metal feel like we're not going to
Speaker 3: change their policy.
Speaker 1: They're going to effect six months, So you have six months.
Speaker 1: You have to reshore, figure it out. You have to
Speaker 1: come to this government and you have to say here
Speaker 1: is X, Y and Z, and if you don't do it,
Speaker 1: you're going to be severely punished. No Fox cons No
Speaker 1: more Fox cons man. You know, it's like, but that's
Speaker 1: what real policy make maybe looks.
Speaker 2: Like maybe, I mean, And that's the thing is like
Speaker 2: so much of his domestic policy has been outsourced to
Speaker 2: Elon who's just on this like radical Austerian austerity tour.
Speaker 3: Yesterday he said.
Speaker 2: That entitlements need to be eliminated, social Security, Medicare, and
Speaker 2: Medicaid eliminated because those are quote unquote the big ones.
Speaker 3: So you know, you've got that going.
Speaker 2: On, which obviously for average people is just a complete
Speaker 2: and utter disaster. You've got the government freezes going on.
Speaker 2: There's just a lot of headwinds at this point that
Speaker 2: are all directly generated by this administration and their decisions.
Speaker 3: And I just don't think that people are going.
Speaker 2: To buy this line from them that like, oh, if
Speaker 2: things are going poorly, it's all Joe Biden's fault, because
Speaker 2: I mean, Trump's been in charge for fifty days now,
Speaker 2: and it's quite clear he's doing a lot. We can,
Speaker 2: you know, have differing opinions about whether that a lot
Speaker 2: is good or bad. You guys know where I stand
Speaker 2: on that. But he's certainly doing a lot, and he
Speaker 2: owns what's happening in the economy now, you know, he
Speaker 2: really has taken control of it him and Elon, and
Speaker 2: he owns whatever happens from here on out. So, you know,
Speaker 2: to go back to Gasparino, I think it was interesting
Speaker 2: hearing what he was saying because it reminded me of
Speaker 2: a few things. First of all, it reminded me of
Speaker 2: all the wish casting that the business world in Wall
Speaker 2: Street did around Trump and what his policies would be.
Speaker 2: You know, there are a lot of things that have
Speaker 2: happened in this administration that I did not necessarily anticipate.
Speaker 2: Tariffs are not one of them. He was really clear,
Speaker 2: repeatedly on the campaign trail. Terras is the most beautiful word.
Speaker 2: I love tariffs, we're doing across the board.
Speaker 1: Terrors.
Speaker 3: I mean, he was consistent. And if you didn't listen
Speaker 3: to that and take.
Speaker 2: That seriously, like, I don't know what to tell you,
Speaker 2: because the man told you many many times that that's
Speaker 2: the direction that he was heading. So no one should
Speaker 2: be surprised when he moved forward with the plans that
Speaker 2: he himself repeatedly announced that he was going to put
Speaker 2: into place. The other thing it reminded me of is
Speaker 2: how Democrats would talk about like and still do act
Speaker 2: like their only issue is like a messaging problem, like
Speaker 2: that's what oh they need to, you know, just talk
Speaker 2: about the deregulation and just don't really talk about the terrors,
Speaker 2: like let's just pretend that is all not happening. No,
Speaker 2: especially when it comes to the economy, you have a
Speaker 2: reality problem. People have their own personal experience with the economy,
Speaker 2: and yes, they are subject to political narratives, and they
Speaker 2: are subject to changing their mind based on which president.
Speaker 3: Is in power or what they are.
Speaker 2: Leaders that are both trusted, you don't have to say
Speaker 2: about what the economic status is currently. But if you
Speaker 2: are looking at people are in the center, who are
Speaker 2: independents who could go either way in an election, they
Speaker 2: have their own personal experience with how things are going
Speaker 2: for them. I just don't think that you can spin
Speaker 2: and message your way out of real economic trouble. And
Speaker 2: it looks like we could very well be headed for
Speaker 2: real economic trouble. The last thing I would say, because
Speaker 2: we've made the dot com comparison and there are definitely
Speaker 2: there feels like there are some real echoes here with this,
Speaker 2: you know, technology that has yet to fully arrive, but
Speaker 2: there's a lot of speculation around it. The one thing
Speaker 2: that is very different though from this bubble versus that
Speaker 2: bubble is the fact that our eggs are in many
Speaker 2: fewer baskets this time around than last time. You know,
Speaker 2: the story of the dot com bubble was all of
Speaker 2: these startups that we're getting, you know, massive investment, and
Speaker 2: part of the pull back back starts when the Federal
Speaker 2: Reserve hikes rates and then they're financing becomes more expensive
Speaker 2: and lo and behold, they're not turning a profit yet,
Speaker 2: so you know, they're getting they're not able to get funding,
Speaker 2: and then there starts to be this gradual realization that
Speaker 2: a bunch of these things are just kind of like
Speaker 2: fake and not ever going to work and not ever
Speaker 2: going to really have a self.
Speaker 3: Sustaining business model.
Speaker 2: Here, I would say we have profoundly actually more risk
Speaker 2: because we have so much concentrated in these seven giant
Speaker 2: tech effectively monopolies. And that's what makes me really really
Speaker 2: nervous about this particular moment. You know, I think that
Speaker 2: Trump believes he can sort of control things and you know,
Speaker 2: put the terrafs on and take him off and let
Speaker 2: the market drop just enough so that he's comfortable and
Speaker 2: maybe flirt with a recession, but not go full recession
Speaker 2: or be able to pull back from that. Like I
Speaker 2: think he feels like his hands are on the levers
Speaker 2: in that way. But these things are really unpredictable and
Speaker 2: can have massive cascading effects that just get totally out
Speaker 2: of hand. And if you think that ordinary people don't
Speaker 2: suffer when the stock market drops, like I would recommend
Speaker 2: you go back and look at every major stock market
Speaker 2: crash and how ordinary people fared in the wake of that,
Speaker 2: because it ends up the pain does not just stay
Speaker 2: on Wall Street. The pain does not just stay with
Speaker 2: wealthy people or even with people who are looking towards retirement,
Speaker 2: and therefore a way and case has a massive reverberating
Speaker 2: effect throughout the economy.
Speaker 1: YEP, absolutely correct. So that's the last thing. I just
Speaker 1: want to make this point here. Yeah, let's put this
Speaker 1: up there on the screen. This is the changes in
Speaker 1: the S and P five hundred since the inauguration day
Speaker 1: of Trump's first and second term. And you can just
Speaker 1: see that yellow line going reel down in the first
Speaker 1: fifty days of the Trump administration as opposed to the
Speaker 1: first Trump administration, where even the drop that happened in
Speaker 1: even modest drops or whatever that happened, were overcome by
Speaker 1: some pretty overwhelming growth up to almost twenty percent in
Speaker 1: the first two hundred and twenty five days that he
Speaker 1: was in office. So keep that in mind. And that's
Speaker 1: certainly something that a lot of people who if you
Speaker 1: think back to especially the quote normal voter, like the
Speaker 1: voter who voted for Trump to restore normalcy, was like, listen,
Speaker 1: you know, we had a lot of issues. Sure it
Speaker 1: was chaotic, et cetera. But the stock market went up,
Speaker 1: and deregulation and the tax bill et cetera. Much more
Speaker 1: middle class, suburban type folks. And the big question here
Speaker 1: now is how working class voters, other populist voters who
Speaker 1: decided to back Donald Trump in a Hail Mary style
Speaker 1: for this election, how are they going to feel about
Speaker 1: much of this, especially if this continues. So we'll see,
Speaker 1: but I do think it's a significant problem for the
Speaker 1: White House, and if they don't adjust their messaging and
Speaker 1: policy soon, they could have a big, big problem on
Speaker 1: their hands.
Speaker 2: This sets up the spending bill because we've got more
Speaker 2: rocky road ahead of us this week, so Republicans planning
Speaker 2: to vote on what's called a continuing resolution to basically
Speaker 2: keep the government open. President Trump has been making the
Speaker 2: pitch like, just give me some a few more months
Speaker 2: so we can then tackle this out of control spending
Speaker 2: and pass our budget. So that's the pitch he's been making. Because,
Speaker 2: of course, you've got some people in the caucus who
Speaker 2: do not want to continue spending at the current levels.
Speaker 2: They're you know, into fiscal austerity and they're concerned about
Speaker 2: the dead and the deficit. People like Thomas Massey, who
Speaker 2: has been most consistent Republican on this issue, true, died
Speaker 2: in the wool libertarian and Tea party type, really concerned
Speaker 2: about smaller government.
Speaker 3: You know, he's not my.
Speaker 2: Political ideology, but I respect the fact that the man
Speaker 2: remains quite principled at times when it's very difficult, including
Speaker 2: on things like free speech in Israel. In any case,
Speaker 2: Trump is out now threatening Thomas Massey with a primary challenge.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put this up on the screen. He
Speaker 2: posted this on True Social He says, thank you to
Speaker 2: the House Freedom Caucus for just delivering a big blow
Speaker 2: to the radical left Democrats their desire to raise taxes
Speaker 2: and shut our country down. They hate American all it
Speaker 2: stands for. That's why they allowed millions of criminals invade
Speaker 2: our nations. Sometimes it takes great courage to do the
Speaker 2: right thing. Congressman Thomas Massey, a beautiful Kentucky, is an
Speaker 2: automatic no vote on just about everything, despite the fact
Speaker 2: that he has always voted for continuing resolutions in the past.
Speaker 2: He should be primaried and I will lead the charge
Speaker 2: against him. He's just another grand stander who's too much
Speaker 2: trouble and not worth a fight. He reminds me of
Speaker 2: Liz Cheney before her historic record breakings. Fault loss the
Speaker 2: people of Kentucky won't stand for it.
Speaker 1: Just watch.
Speaker 3: Do I have any takers anyway? Thank you again to
Speaker 3: the House.
Speaker 2: Freedom Caucus for you a very important vote. We need
Speaker 2: to buy some time in order to make America great again,
Speaker 2: greater than ever before. Unite and win soccer. You may
Speaker 2: know more about this than I do. I know Thomas
Speaker 2: Massey has faced primary challenges before.
Speaker 3: I don't think that he's faced one.
Speaker 2: That was backed so directly by President Trump or been
Speaker 2: put on blast quite to this extent by President Trump.
Speaker 3: So you have to take that seriously.
Speaker 2: I will say, I think he has his own support base,
Speaker 2: and people in his district seem to really, you know,
Speaker 2: really appreciate him for the principled stances that he's been taking.
Speaker 2: But when you've got the combination of Trump, who has
Speaker 2: his cult of personality and Elon who has almost limitless
Speaker 2: money to fund said primary challenges, of course you have
Speaker 2: to ultimately take this seriously.
Speaker 3: So what did you make of this move from Trump?
Speaker 2: And doesn't betray sort of any nervousness about whether or
Speaker 2: not the CR is going to pass? Because I did
Speaker 2: see there were a few other Republicans who may continue
Speaker 2: to be holding.
Speaker 1: Be afraid because it's not just about the House. Don't forget.
Speaker 1: They've got to pass this thing through the Senate as well,
Speaker 1: and all the Democrats are currently on the record. No,
Speaker 1: they're gonna have huge problems being able to get this
Speaker 1: piece of legislation on the Massy front. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: like you said, I remember five years ago, I hated
Speaker 1: Thomas Massey because he voted against a lot of the
Speaker 1: COVID stimulus checks and he was, you know, holding it
Speaker 1: all up. You could say what you want about the guy,
Speaker 1: but I think what it has proven out is, like
Speaker 1: you said, he's principal. He's one of the rarest people
Speaker 1: in Washington. Right, there's like only four or five people
Speaker 1: like him in the entire United States Congress, including the Senate.
Speaker 3: So if people having having people like him around.
Speaker 1: It's good. It's good for us to have wild cards.
Speaker 1: And it's not the Republic. It's not Massi's fault of
Speaker 1: the Republicans only have a two or three seat majority, right,
Speaker 1: It's like, it's why are we backing primary challenges against him?
Speaker 1: As you said, he'd been absolutely courageous on foreign eight,
Speaker 1: on Israel, he stood up to a pack free speech.
Speaker 1: I mean this got maha. I mean, don't forget. By
Speaker 1: the way, even on the Elon thing, it would be
Speaker 1: preposterous for Thomas Massey to speak out against Elon. Thomas
Speaker 1: mass was one of the first people in Congress to
Speaker 1: buy a Tesla, and if you'll all recall he Massey
Speaker 1: was on that call with Elon Musk when Ron DeSantis
Speaker 1: did his disastrous campaign launch. Thomas Massy loves Elon Musk
Speaker 1: and he loves Dose, So this idea is ridiculous that
Speaker 1: he's not, you know, in the camp. It's just that
Speaker 1: he is a libertarian and he doesn't want to vote
Speaker 1: for CRS and continued spending. He even said, he's like, look,
Speaker 1: according to you, Dose, you found massive fraud in USAID.
Speaker 1: This CR continues to fully fund USAID. So aren't you
Speaker 1: guys kind of full of it from the White House
Speaker 1: asking for full funding of an agency you say is corrupt.
Speaker 1: So what's up with that?
Speaker 9: Right?
Speaker 1: None of it makes it any sense? Now, you're right,
Speaker 1: he has survived multiple primary challenges. I was just looking
Speaker 1: back here.
Speaker 2: I know APAK came after Oh they came out and
Speaker 2: funded a primary challenge in twenty twenty. I don't think
Speaker 2: I don't think they even came close.
Speaker 1: No, he didn't even break twenty percent. Yeah, year, And
Speaker 1: Massy is again he's one of those folks who is
Speaker 1: genuinely he's like Bernie. He's one of those people to
Speaker 1: me at least, where all the caricatures of him are bs.
Speaker 1: You know who he is. He's a principal guy in
Speaker 1: his votes, in the way he talks, in how I mean,
Speaker 1: He's made decisions which are some of the most inconvenient
Speaker 1: in all of Washington because of what he believes, and
Speaker 1: I think his constituents reward him for that, so broadly,
Speaker 1: I don't think that this will work. You know, people
Speaker 1: like him. Chip Roy is another example who Trump is
Speaker 1: currently backing a primary challenge against these these guys are
Speaker 1: you know, they actually believe what they say, which is
Speaker 1: one of the most rare things in the entire city.
Speaker 1: So I'm behind him one hundred percent, and I do
Speaker 1: think it's pretty ridiculous to primary him for the problems
Speaker 1: and the challenges that are a creation of this GOP caucus,
Speaker 1: not of Thomas Massey. It's not his fault. Also, by
Speaker 1: the way, you could easily have the CR pass if
Speaker 1: you had worked with Democrats, right, but you're not. You
Speaker 1: don't want to do that, right, There's a lot of
Speaker 1: different varieties. It's like this is just where they demand
Speaker 1: fealty to the king, and I think that's just ridiculous and.
Speaker 2: Not to overend analyze this, but also the comparison to
Speaker 2: Liz Change, yeah right, I mean these are scottiologically like
Speaker 2: wild different people.
Speaker 3: But to me, it's the perfect emblem.
Speaker 2: Of how politics in the Trump era just collapses down
Speaker 2: to the central divide are you with Trump or are
Speaker 2: you against him? And so if you go against him
Speaker 2: on anything, even though he's like completely I mean, he
Speaker 2: is probably the biggest Doge supporter, you know, he's all
Speaker 2: about the project of cutting government that Elon is engaged
Speaker 2: in that Trump has fully you know, thrown his backing
Speaker 2: for At this point he would be the number one
Speaker 2: guy in support of that. But because he dares to
Speaker 2: buck Trump on anything, then you get thrown in the
Speaker 2: category of Liz Cheney, which you know, for the Republicans,
Speaker 2: that's like the greatest insult you can possibly be imagined
Speaker 2: to be compared to a trader such as Liz Cheney.
Speaker 2: So I thought that was you know, interesting and very
Speaker 2: telling as well, let me go ahead and get into
Speaker 2: some of the details of this bill. I think Soccer
Speaker 2: makes a good point about one of the levels of
Speaker 2: absurdity about this is, of course, all the Republicans are
Speaker 2: claiming that the government is rife with all of this
Speaker 2: massive waste, fraud, and abuse, that some of these agencies
Speaker 2: should be destroyed and cut out entirely. Get here, you
Speaker 2: are whipping your entire caucus to vote to continue what
Speaker 2: you allege is massively fraudulent spending across the board and
Speaker 2: all of this government. So this is one of the
Speaker 2: things that a Thomas Massey would certainly be bucking. But
Speaker 2: I think let's put this up on the screen. They say,
Speaker 2: the ninety nine page legislation was slightly decreased spending overall
Speaker 2: from last year's funding levels, but would increase spending for
Speaker 2: the military. Don't worry, and a not to the concerns
Speaker 2: of GOP defense hawks that stopgap measures would hamstring the Pentagon.
Speaker 2: Would not include any funds for any earmarks for projects
Speaker 2: in lawmaker's districts or state, saving roughly thirteen billion according
Speaker 2: to Congressional Aids. Also provides a slight funding boost for ICE.
Speaker 2: An additional four hundred eighty five million, gives administration more
Speaker 2: flexibility on how the agency can spend. It also increases
Speaker 2: funding for the federal program that provides free groceries to
Speaker 2: millions of low income women and children, known as WICK,
Speaker 2: by about five hundred million dollars. The other line from
Speaker 2: Democrats is who I think are going to hang together
Speaker 2: and vote in locksteps. Certainly in the House, Schumer has
Speaker 2: been a little bit cagier about the direction there. But
Speaker 2: I know Takim Jefferies is whipping a no vote among
Speaker 2: the Democratic House members, and I think they're likely to
Speaker 2: stick with that, and all of them vote against this
Speaker 2: continuing resolution. Basically be like, look, y'all have the majority,
Speaker 2: go ahead, do your thing. Republicans did get a little
Speaker 2: bit of a boost because a Democratic member just died,
Speaker 2: so their majority has They now have like a four
Speaker 2: vote margin instead of a three vote margin.
Speaker 3: I think I'm correct about the numbers there.
Speaker 2: But Democrats are also saying because of the nature of
Speaker 2: a continuing resolution versus actual budgeting and you know, specific
Speaker 2: appropriations and funding bills, it hands more power and discretion
Speaker 2: to the executive and you know, amidst their concerns and
Speaker 2: my concerns and many people's concerns about what Dose is
Speaker 2: doing and the unaccountable nature of the way that they
Speaker 2: are grabbing power for the executive That is one of
Speaker 2: the concerns that Democrats have with this as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean if the problem I just see with
Speaker 1: this is what are we trying to do here? Are
Speaker 1: you funding USAID or not? Why would you fully fund
Speaker 1: the government if you don't agree with funding the government?
Speaker 1: The argument right now from the White House is that, well,
Speaker 1: we need full range so that we can continue to
Speaker 1: work and then maybe in September, after all that runway,
Speaker 1: we'll be able to come back and say that we're
Speaker 1: going to It's like, okay, I've never seen that ever
Speaker 1: happen before. Right, This idea that you're supposed to vote
Speaker 1: for something that funds programs which you yourself are saying
Speaker 1: are bad, now, that's on the Republican side. On the
Speaker 1: Democratic side, it's the opposite. It's, well, why would we
Speaker 1: vote to authorize funding for these programs If you guys
Speaker 1: are just going to decide if you're want so, then
Speaker 1: if you're going to shut it down, then no, we're
Speaker 1: not going to vote for it. So it's a very
Speaker 1: ideologically inconsistent position and genuinely could lead to a shutdown.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's one thing that I think people really
Speaker 1: should pay attention to. Put B three back up there,
Speaker 1: because it's very important to say, like the House Democrats
Speaker 1: are whipping no on this plan. There is a razor
Speaker 1: thin margin right now in the House of Representatives. Massy
Speaker 1: is a no. How is this going to pass through
Speaker 1: the House. And even if it did as we said,
Speaker 1: they're going to have to have some votes that happen
Speaker 1: in the Senate and effectively play chicken. And if they
Speaker 1: do play chicken over this, I'm not sure yet that
Speaker 1: the Democrats wouldn't want to cause a government shutdown because
Speaker 1: I mean, can you think of anything that would send
Speaker 1: the stock markets and all of that even more over
Speaker 1: a cliff? It would be a shutdown, right because of
Speaker 1: how much public money and services and all that are
Speaker 1: the American public is dependent on, So purely from just
Speaker 1: a cynical standpoint, you would want to cause as much
Speaker 1: chaos as possible and just say like, no, we're not
Speaker 1: going to bail you out in a messaging war, I
Speaker 1: don't think you win. My general theory of shutdowns has
Speaker 1: always been that shutdowns always fall on the person who
Speaker 1: is in charge, and as much as the president and
Speaker 1: all of them try always try and campaign against Congress
Speaker 1: unless somebody like Knut Gingrich literally stands up and it's like,
Speaker 1: I'm shutting down the government specifically for this is and
Speaker 1: this You're gonna have a tough time and you're gonna
Speaker 1: eat it.
Speaker 3: I mean, they have a charge.
Speaker 2: No, I know, they're in control, so I mean, I
Speaker 2: think most people just logically can conclude you're in charge
Speaker 2: of the government, so this is probably your fault.
Speaker 3: And I think they know that.
Speaker 2: I mean, they're certainly trying to shift the blame to Democrats,
Speaker 2: but I don't know who could really buy that when
Speaker 2: Democrats don't control the House or the Senate or the
Speaker 2: White House. You know, in terms of the prospects in
Speaker 2: the Senate, there was some hope there on the Republican
Speaker 2: side because Schumer has said things about how Democrats don't
Speaker 2: want to be part of shutting down the government blah
Speaker 2: blah blah, but more and more moderate like sort of
Speaker 2: centristy type Democrats like Mark Warner, like Tim Kaine have
Speaker 2: come out and said, no, we're not we're not helping
Speaker 2: Republicans with this.
Speaker 3: This is all on them.
Speaker 2: So I think hope fading in the Senate too, that
Speaker 2: any Democrats would be likely to go along with maybe
Speaker 2: you'll get a John Fetterman. You never know, you never know,
Speaker 2: you could get a John Fetterman. But in any case,
Speaker 2: it's not looking great for Republicans in terms of Democrats
Speaker 2: helping them out of the jam that they have created
Speaker 2: for themselves. Just to get a sense of the democratic
Speaker 2: messaging on this, we have a clip who is this from?
Speaker 2: I don't remember some congressman that I don't know, McGovern
Speaker 2: congresson McGovern sort of laying out his case, and you know,
Speaker 2: I think this is pretty consistent with overall democratic messaging
Speaker 2: on the Continuing Resolution.
Speaker 3: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 10: I think maybe you guys get a take a refresher
Speaker 10: question at arithmetic. Last time I checked, you have the
Speaker 10: majority in the House and in the Senate, and you
Speaker 10: control the White House. The idea that somehow Democrats have
Speaker 10: the responsibility to pass a CR or any bill quite
Speaker 10: frankly where we don't have any input on I think
Speaker 10: is ridiculous. I mean, you will run around bragging about
Speaker 10: this big man we'll put on your mandate pants and
Speaker 10: pass whatever you want to do, and I think you
Speaker 10: probably will have the votes, because even the so called
Speaker 10: principal Conservators who don't like Sierras, I think they're suffering
Speaker 10: from a case of victorious spots syndrome, where on Monday
Speaker 10: there are hard no and then on Tuesday there are
Speaker 10: hard Yes, they'll cave so, but the idea that somehow
Speaker 10: being in charge means that you don't have to take
Speaker 10: the responsibility of running this place is absurd.
Speaker 2: So he's I think he may be correct there that
Speaker 2: at the end of the day, even the Republican holdowns
Speaker 2: save for Massy, will probably fall in line in the House.
Speaker 3: But for this they did last time.
Speaker 2: And I do think a lot of the Tea Party
Speaker 2: era rebellion is basically over, of course, the combination of
Speaker 2: Trump winning again and winning the popular vote, and the
Speaker 2: just like unbreakable culture personality that he has, and then
Speaker 2: Elon as the enforcer with limitless cash at his disposal,
Speaker 2: like the party is just whatever Trump wants the party
Speaker 2: to be at this point, and so I think there
Speaker 2: is very little appetite even among people like you know,
Speaker 2: Chip Roy or whoever else would position themselves as Freedom
Speaker 2: Caucus or tea party members, et cetera. I think there's
Speaker 2: very little willingness to buck what party leadership wants them
Speaker 2: to do.
Speaker 3: At this point.
Speaker 2: So I wouldn't be surprised if he's correct that almost
Speaker 2: everybody saved for maybe Thomas Massey does end up voting
Speaker 2: for it on the Republicans.
Speaker 1: Do I think this will go down in the House.
Speaker 1: Probably not. I still think the Senate is a huge
Speaker 1: bottleneck for them. I mean, at the end of the
Speaker 1: day too, let's not think so big of Democrats right
Speaker 1: in this moment. They're probably too afraid to shut down
Speaker 1: the government. So will that really happen? I don't think so.
Speaker 1: It's mart fourteenth, but look shut down politics and all that.
Speaker 1: And don't forget this would reauthorize much of the funding
Speaker 1: that the government itself says is fraud, so it doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense they should have just cut it. That's
Speaker 1: actually Massi's point. He goes, you told us you uncovered fraud,
Speaker 1: so why are you funding it? He's right, Why what
Speaker 1: would you fund it? If the government's position is that
Speaker 1: this is fraud and an unnecessary program, why would you
Speaker 1: reauthorize the fund You're actually wasting money by doing so,
Speaker 1: according to your logic, or it's off. So which is it?
Speaker 1: I mean, just this is the problem with Washington, just
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy of it, where we're not supposed to just
Speaker 1: notice these like basic procedural things. And you know, will
Speaker 1: anybody online who's like pro USAID being shut down and
Speaker 1: pro primary Thomas Massey even pay attention. Probably not, But
Speaker 1: you know, honestly, you should, like, if you're going to
Speaker 1: try and shut these things down and then also call
Speaker 1: out the one guy who's just asking you to be
Speaker 1: ideological consistent, the whole thing is ridiculous. Indeed, all right,
Speaker 1: I hope Massi makes it.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 2: We continue to get recriminations from the Israelis over the
Speaker 2: US's decision to negotiate directly with Hamas. Specifically, it was
Speaker 2: US President Trump's hostage envoy Adam Bohler who negotiated with
Speaker 2: Hamas and made some very interesting comments in a recent
Speaker 2: cable news segment.
Speaker 3: Let's take a some.
Speaker 6: Of those understand why N's on Yahoo Dermer Others might
Speaker 6: be upset.
Speaker 1: I do understand.
Speaker 11: I spoke with Ron, and I'm sympathetic. He has someone
Speaker 11: that he doesn't know well making direct contact with the moss.
Speaker 11: Maybe I would see them and say, look, they don't
Speaker 11: have horns growing out of their head.
Speaker 3: They're actually guys like us.
Speaker 11: They're pretty nice guys. So he doesn't know me, and
Speaker 11: there are big stakes. He lives in a country where
Speaker 11: if it sets certain precedents then it will hurt or
Speaker 11: help a lot of other people. So I understand the
Speaker 11: consternation and the concern, and I wasn't upset. At the
Speaker 11: same time, were the United States, We're not an agent
Speaker 11: of Israel. We have specific interests at play.
Speaker 2: So there were two comments there that caught a lot
Speaker 2: of attention.
Speaker 3: One him saying what.
Speaker 2: Should be just obvious statement of fact, which is we
Speaker 2: are the United States and not an agent of Israel.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that that also always plays out in practice,
Speaker 2: as we'll cover in our next segment about what's going
Speaker 2: on with deportations. But the other one is he said
Speaker 2: that he's they're worried. Ron Dermer is Bbi's one of
Speaker 2: his top aids is worried that he may realize in
Speaker 2: meeting with Hamas that quote, they don't have horns growing
Speaker 2: out of their heads. They're actually pretty nice guys, guys
Speaker 2: like us. So Yeah, this caused a lot of concern.
Speaker 2: Durmer was upset. Boehler sort of walked back the comments
Speaker 2: about the maybe they will find out that they're pretty
Speaker 2: nice guys. We also have some insight that apparently during
Speaker 2: a Security Cabinet meeting on Sunday, Dermer said that he
Speaker 2: was assured the meetings with Hamas did not represent the
Speaker 2: Trump administration's position. He also told ministers they received assurances
Speaker 2: from the Trump administration that a quote won't happen again
Speaker 2: and that Witkoff will be the only channel for the
Speaker 2: negotiations over the hostages. Also some indications that I mean,
Speaker 2: certainly they weren't able to strike a direct deal, but
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, I think in principle you should
Speaker 2: be negotiating with the parties who are involved in the negotiations.
Speaker 3: That seems like it makes sense to me.
Speaker 2: But you know, Trump administration, after getting a slap on
Speaker 2: the rist here from Israel, seems to be pulling back
Speaker 2: from that a bit.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And let's put the Wall Street Journal piece
Speaker 1: up on the screen, because this is actually kind of amazing,
Speaker 1: you know, as you said, inside of Israel, they he
Speaker 1: actually went Adam Mueller on Israeli television to say his
Speaker 1: main goal was just the release of the last American hostage.
Speaker 1: But the Israeli public broadcasters were then basically furious with
Speaker 1: him because they had told he had told them that
Speaker 1: they had offered a five to ten year truce under
Speaker 1: which they would release all of the hostages, and he
Speaker 1: called it quote not a bad first offer, which is
Speaker 1: where people really started to lose it. Now, it's still
Speaker 1: unclear how much Bohler speaks for the administration. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: backed him up. Yesterday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio kind
Speaker 1: of has downplayed him a little bit. Let's put c
Speaker 1: three guys, can we up on the screen. He said
Speaker 1: that the US hostage direct meeting with Hamas was quote
Speaker 1: a one off. They're affirming that Steve Witkoff is the sole, like,
Speaker 1: you know, major representative representative of the US government in
Speaker 1: their talks with Hamas. But Boehler still is receiving back
Speaker 1: up from the administration. One of the reasons why is
Speaker 1: I looked into his background. He previously worked on the
Speaker 1: Abraham Accords, and it does appear as you've got a
Speaker 1: lot of trust in at least in some of the
Speaker 1: closest circles. I think he also worked with Jared Kushner.
Speaker 1: So basically, with all of that together, what we're seeing
Speaker 1: is there's a split between actual like Israeli foreign policy
Speaker 1: goals and at least rhetorically in where the Trump administration is.
Speaker 1: I did see z say and suggest it's possible that
Speaker 1: one reason Trump is ramping up this deportation of these
Speaker 1: Palestinian students is specifically because he is behind the scenes
Speaker 1: pursuing a lot of policy where even the Zionists people
Speaker 1: will admit this, like if Biden Todd direct talks with Hamas,
Speaker 1: they would lose. Like you would find Tom Cotton and
Speaker 1: all those people screaming from the rooftop here there and
Speaker 1: they're saying nothing because they can't really right. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: I do think it's fascinating to watch this all play out,
Speaker 1: and listen, I'm cheering for this more than anybody else,
Speaker 1: like to have a guy, like a United States representative
Speaker 1: to finally just say we're not an agent of Israel
Speaker 1: and we have sometimes diversity interests. Just saying that, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, the Zionists, like the Zionist people online, were
Speaker 1: just absolutely furious with him for stating a basic fact
Speaker 1: of national interest on behalf of the United States government
Speaker 1: or that negotiating with terrorists. It's like, oh my god, again,
Speaker 1: they are the people who are in control. What are
Speaker 1: we supposed to do? They're holding our people. Of course
Speaker 1: we would talk to them. Who wo, we be idiots
Speaker 1: not to unless you don't care about the hostages. Oh okay,
Speaker 1: all right, it's very interesting, isn't it. So there's a
Speaker 1: lot going on behind the scenes, a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: what do you think?
Speaker 3: And I mean, I don't know's.
Speaker 2: There's also a lot of vibes here too, of sort
Speaker 2: of like the Biden administration. Oh, Netanya, who's really upset
Speaker 2: with us? You know, like leaked the leaked conversations. Oh,
Speaker 2: they're really upset with us this time. Like Biden's really
Speaker 2: pushing Bebe and he's really you know, standing up for
Speaker 2: American interest. So it does have a little bit of
Speaker 2: those vibes reducts for me as well. Rubio ultimately said,
Speaker 2: the full quote was that was a one off situation
Speaker 2: in which our special envoy for hostages, whose job it
Speaker 2: is to get people released, had an opportunity to talk
Speaker 2: directly to someone who has control over these people and
Speaker 2: was given permission and couraged to do so. He did so.
Speaker 2: So you know again emphasia as a one off. It
Speaker 2: didn't bear fruit. We won't do it again. It's just
Speaker 2: gonna be wit Coff who you deal with going forward,
Speaker 2: et cetera.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: It feels like they're more or less walking back this
Speaker 2: approach that they were taking and the reason it made
Speaker 2: the Israeli so nervous and Smochrich actually made some comments
Speaker 2: to this effect. He said he that Bowler sought to
Speaker 2: conduct negotiations to free American hostages on his own accord
Speaker 2: and called it an utter mistake. The issue there is
Speaker 2: they're concerned that Trump and Bowler and Witcough and whoever
Speaker 2: are just going to go be like, Okay, we'll make
Speaker 2: a deal with you for our American hostages and then
Speaker 2: good luck with y'all with the rest of this whole thing.
Speaker 2: Do I think that's likely what happens. No, But that's
Speaker 2: their concern. And the other thing is that Bibe has
Speaker 2: positioned himself like, oh, my first paramount concern is the
Speaker 2: return of the hostages. That has obviously never been the case.
Speaker 2: But if the Trump administration actually followed through with the policy,
Speaker 2: where the primary goal actually was the return of the hostages. Well,
Speaker 2: that would move us forward significantly in terms of, you know,
Speaker 2: continuing to phase two of this agreement, trying to actually
Speaker 2: wrap down this war, etc. Because right now bib is
Speaker 2: you know, doing exactly what he promised to do, not
Speaker 2: moving forward with negotiations and threatening to restart the war.
Speaker 2: We also know, you know, the other piece to add
Speaker 2: into this is that the Trump administration is backing the
Speaker 2: new siege on Gaza, where humanitarian aid is being blocked
Speaker 2: and now electricity is being cut off, which is incredibly significant,
Speaker 2: not just for you know, electricity being important in general
Speaker 2: and hospitals needing electricity, et cetera, but you also need
Speaker 2: electricity to be able to you know, purify water, and
Speaker 2: it would cut off some seventy percent of access to
Speaker 2: water in the Gaza strips. So the Trump administration is
Speaker 2: backing them in that particular policy, which is obviously a
Speaker 2: collective punishment of war crime and porrent and counter to
Speaker 2: the direction of wanting to resolve this issue and move forward.
Speaker 2: So I don't know, I continue to be not terribly hopeful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I'm not hopeful in the sense of
Speaker 1: my ideal. I am somewhat hopeful for having a envoy.
Speaker 1: He says, we're not your client state. And while yes,
Speaker 1: they may support this if they were able to get
Speaker 1: some sort of five to ten year truce, which clearly
Speaker 1: these Raelis are freaking out about because they're wondering if
Speaker 1: that's even a remote possibility. We went from basically zero
Speaker 1: chance I think under Biden to I don't know what
Speaker 1: fifteen two percent that's high enough. Yeah, Phase two right
Speaker 1: now is still up in the air. I wouldn't bet
Speaker 1: on it per se, but Wakoff is still dedicated to it.
Speaker 1: Trump has not yet mentioned we're going to take over
Speaker 1: Gaza in what the last like ten fifteen days or so.
Speaker 1: I'm hopeful that he didn't say anything in the State
Speaker 1: of the Union. All right. Ever, since that stupid video
Speaker 1: of bearded women and woke Gaza gone woke, haven't heard
Speaker 1: anything from the guy, So maybe you know there's something
Speaker 1: there right now. Actually, Secretary of Rubio is in Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia meeting with the Ukrainians. But importantly, the readout from
Speaker 1: his meeting with MBS was that they discussed the reconstruction
Speaker 1: of Gaza. Don't forget that the dream of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is Saudi is really normalization deal, of which the
Speaker 1: Saudi say they will not sign unless there is a
Speaker 1: free God or at least a different gaza under either
Speaker 1: the Palestinian authority or some sort of separate political entity.
Speaker 1: So they have a lot of different, you know, things
Speaker 1: that are pressing against them from the uae Emir, who
Speaker 1: is also very close with the Trump administration, and the
Speaker 1: Nowadiys of course have a ton of money that they
Speaker 1: very easily can deploy not only in our politics, but
Speaker 1: they can effect the Ukraine situation as well. Part of
Speaker 1: the reason that these talks are happening in Riod literally
Speaker 1: as we speak. Yeah, oh, I'm not discounting all that
Speaker 1: just yet. You know.
Speaker 2: I just to go back to Buller's comments about like, oh,
Speaker 2: they're worried that we're going to realize there are good guys,
Speaker 2: they don't have horns coming out of their heads or whatever.
Speaker 2: I actually think that comment is really revealing, and I
Speaker 2: think it does speak exactly to.
Speaker 3: Why there is such a prohibition on.
Speaker 2: They were very upset when Witkoff went to Gaza, obviously
Speaker 2: very upset about the direct talks with Hamas because you know,
Speaker 2: the Natan Yahoo has built his political career on making
Speaker 2: Hamas the ultimate boogeyman that you can never talk to,
Speaker 2: you can never negotiate. As long as they're there, there's
Speaker 2: no partner for peace. They're just like the epitome of
Speaker 2: absolute evil. And I know I'm not here to like
Speaker 2: whitewash or sanitize Hmas and what they're all about and
Speaker 2: the things that they've done or whatever. But you know,
Speaker 2: when you're actually sitting face to face with members of
Speaker 2: that group and you're talking to them, and they're explaining
Speaker 2: their reasoning and they're staking out positions and negotiating you
Speaker 2: with you like they are human beings, because they are,
Speaker 2: it makes it much more difficult to maintain.
Speaker 3: That caricature and have its stick.
Speaker 2: And it's such an important part both of Beebe's power
Speaker 2: and of you know, overall Hasbara propaganda campaigns that I
Speaker 2: think that is that really does speak to why they're
Speaker 2: such a freak out at the mere idea of any
Speaker 2: American representative meeting face to face with Hamas.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we'll see. I'm definitely enjoying some of the
Speaker 1: freak out that's going on over there. And if Trump
Speaker 1: wants to go more in this direction, be my guest.
Speaker 1: The problem, as you know, is that there is a
Speaker 1: major political force here in this town where even the
Speaker 1: mere suggestion of this the light up, you know, the phone,
Speaker 1: Marco Rubio. Can you imagine, you know, all of the
Speaker 1: people calling people like Mere Adelson and others and their
Speaker 1: pressure points over there. So there is a massive pressure
Speaker 1: campaign in Washington outside of Washington trying to basically derail
Speaker 1: any of this. Their dream is basically just blank check
Speaker 1: to Israel and then basically in an abandonment of a
Speaker 1: lot of this hostage negotiation period, right, And so for
Speaker 1: them watching them go from their wildest dream of America
Speaker 1: is going to take over Gaza to no, we're talking
Speaker 1: about Hamas in a five ten year truce. It must
Speaker 1: be dizzying, and they're trying everything they possibly can to
Speaker 1: push back against it.
Speaker 2: The next segment cuts against the idea that we aren't
Speaker 2: an agent of Israel, since we are apparently crushing people's
Speaker 2: free speech rights in service of making sure they can
Speaker 2: never criticize a foreign government. Yesterday we covered the story
Speaker 2: of Mahmun Khalil. He's a Columbia University graduate student who
Speaker 2: is a Green card holder so, a permanent resident of
Speaker 2: the United States who was a leader in the pro
Speaker 2: Palestine protest on Columbia's campus. He was arrested, reportedly without
Speaker 2: a warrant and put into a DHS facility and slated
Speaker 2: for deportation based on his protest activities. Now, we actually
Speaker 2: haven't gotten really any specifics from the administration about exactly
Speaker 2: why they targeted this guy, although we'll get to that
Speaker 2: in a minute, of why he ended up probably being
Speaker 2: at the top of their list.
Speaker 3: But we did get.
Speaker 2: Some what I considered to be encouraging news here, which
Speaker 2: is that yesterday a judge weighed in on this case.
Speaker 2: I was concerned that we weren't even going to get
Speaker 2: to like an immigration judge or going through normal due process,
Speaker 2: which you know, if you are a Green card holder,
Speaker 2: you have most of the rights of a US citizen,
Speaker 2: including certainly rights to due process. So we can put
Speaker 2: this important update on the screen here. Ryan has been
Speaker 2: following this closely, so he says, a federal judge has
Speaker 2: temporarily blocked the deportation of Mahmu Khalil, the Columbia protester
Speaker 2: detained by the Trump administration, and they also ordered that
Speaker 2: Council for all Parties appear for a conference with the
Speaker 2: Court on March twelfth at eleven thirty am in New York.
Speaker 2: And they said Council must confirm advance of the conference
Speaker 2: to submit a joint letter no later than today March eleventh,
Speaker 2: So you know they are intervening here swiftly. They also
Speaker 2: said they needed to preserve the court's jurisdiction pending a
Speaker 2: ruling on the petition, the petitioner shall not be removed
Speaker 2: from the United States and less and.
Speaker 3: Until the Court orders otherwise.
Speaker 2: So there seems to have been some concern here Soger,
Speaker 2: that the administration was just going to deport him before
Speaker 2: the justice system the immigration courts had a chance to
Speaker 2: weigh in on whether or not this was a lawful
Speaker 2: revocation of his green card holder status. Trump administration though
Speaker 2: certainly doubling down, tripling down, quadrupling down, whatever. We've got
Speaker 2: a couple of messages here from both Trump directly and
Speaker 2: from the White House account as well.
Speaker 3: It can put this up on the screen.
Speaker 2: Trump posted this on truth following my I previously signed
Speaker 2: executive orders. Ice proudly apprehended and de tayed machmu Khalil
Speaker 2: a radical foreign pro hamas student on the campus of
Speaker 2: Columbia University. By the way, it was also revealed that
Speaker 2: the DHS agent who arrested him was one of the
Speaker 2: guest special guests that Trump honored at the State of
Speaker 2: the Union, so you've got that as well. He goes
Speaker 2: on to say, this is the first arrest of many
Speaker 2: to come. We know there are more students at Columbia
Speaker 2: and other universities across the country who engaged in pro terrorists,
Speaker 2: anti Semitic, anti American activity, and the Trump administration will
Speaker 2: not tolerate it. Many are not students, they are paid agitators.
Speaker 2: We will find apprehended to port these terrorist sympathizers from
Speaker 2: our country, never to return again. If you support terrorism,
Speaker 2: including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence,
Speaker 2: it's contrary to our national foreign policy interest. You are
Speaker 2: not welcome here. We expect every one of America's colleges
Speaker 2: and universities to comply. Thank you, and then put the
Speaker 2: next one up on the screen, specifically targeting Mahmoud. The
Speaker 2: White House account put out this image of him that
Speaker 2: says Shalom machmod and then has a quote from Trump
Speaker 2: that says we will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist
Speaker 2: sympathizers from our country, never to return again.
Speaker 1: President Donald White House the United States using a Hebrew
Speaker 1: term interesting. Okay, all right, got it.
Speaker 3: But we're not agents of Israel.
Speaker 1: Don't worry like this whole thing is preposterous. Uh, and
Speaker 1: just looking, you know, why don't we play his words?
Speaker 1: I think that's important because everybody's talking about him, uh, characterizing,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Here this was from an oppo account. I
Speaker 1: want to make everybody clear on that this was posted
Speaker 1: by somebody who was making the case for why you should.
Speaker 2: Be Yeah, so this is a cherry pick us they like,
Speaker 2: oh see.
Speaker 3: How reasonable.
Speaker 2: No, this is the people who want to depoort him, right,
Speaker 2: compiling online dossiers of what they consider to be the
Speaker 2: worst things that they could find.
Speaker 1: So let's find it that he did.
Speaker 3: So this is c ten guys, let's go ahead and
Speaker 3: play it.
Speaker 6: Are you guys going to listen to the university and
Speaker 6: lead the in cam in here?
Speaker 9: Of course not. The university is the one who should
Speaker 9: listen to us. They should listen to their student body
Speaker 9: who are demanding to end their their investment and the
Speaker 9: war that's happening in Palestine. Our our demands are clear.
Speaker 9: Our demands are regarding the investment from from the Israeli occupation,
Speaker 9: the companies that are profiting and and contributing to the
Speaker 9: genocide of our people. Again the university. Uh, once again,
Speaker 9: they are so stubborn and and listening to their students.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 9: They they they are treating this matter as a disciplinary matter.
Speaker 4: They're not.
Speaker 9: They're not treating this as an anti war movement, an
Speaker 9: anti war movement that that actually gathered thousands of students here.
Speaker 9: They that actually sparked thousands of students across the United States.
Speaker 1: How far are you all willing to go here on campus.
Speaker 9: We're going to go as far as as as we
Speaker 9: need to to to pressure the university from from from
Speaker 9: the pressure the university today invest from from the occupation.
Speaker 7: Uh.
Speaker 9: This is up to the group that neither true of
Speaker 9: tigbook to decide how far they will go. But now
Speaker 9: it's clear that the students are will remain here. They
Speaker 9: will stay here until they achieved their units.
Speaker 1: Okay, I didn't hear anything that bad there. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can disagree with the guy. That's okay, you could
Speaker 1: deport him if he committed a crime, I'd be okay
Speaker 1: with that fine too, But he didn't commit a crime.
Speaker 1: He actually has not violated both New York State law,
Speaker 1: of New York City law, and or US government. Now,
Speaker 1: according to them, what they're saying is that they can
Speaker 1: make a case for deportation based on any alien present
Speaker 1: in the United States who poses a direct threat two
Speaker 1: hour foreign policy. Now that's a very interesting justification because
Speaker 1: what threat would it make two our foreign policy? So
Speaker 1: are we saying that his presence in the United States
Speaker 1: would be detrimental to the US relationship with Israel? Because
Speaker 1: if we're saying that, we're basically acknowledging that these campus
Speaker 1: protests are now a leverage point for the Israeli government
Speaker 1: in its relations with US. Now, they're not even supposed
Speaker 1: to have opinions about protests on our soil, I should
Speaker 1: you know. Look, if the US government was openly supporting
Speaker 1: or not those protests happening in Tel avivon it was
Speaker 1: like shut up, all right, let them deal with it.
Speaker 1: But even that's a little difference, since we do pay
Speaker 1: for most of the stuff that's going on in their country.
Speaker 1: I just think the whole thing is the most preposterous
Speaker 1: overreach I've ever seen. And that's another thing. I want
Speaker 1: to speak directly to a lot of these forces that
Speaker 1: are cheering this on. You have no idea what's coming
Speaker 1: your way when you break the seal something like this,
Speaker 1: you want to openly set the standard that people who
Speaker 1: protest on a foreign government are going to be violated
Speaker 1: or their due process rights and revoked permanent residency in
Speaker 1: the United States of America. That is like an anti
Speaker 1: Semitic caricature of how people are saying, but it's reality now.
Speaker 1: And so when you then at the simultaneously speak out
Speaker 1: against the Eai Carols of the world on Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: or Candae Owins or any of these other folks who
Speaker 1: are noticing things, even if oftentimes they may say things
Speaker 1: that are incorrect or whatever, good luck to you trying
Speaker 1: to police the opinion, because I think that Americans have
Speaker 1: very very open eyes, and especially if you're somebody like
Speaker 1: me who wants to see a lot less immigration here
Speaker 1: in the United States. It's absolutely insane that the United
Speaker 1: States government has actually paused military deportation flights because of
Speaker 1: the cost they got doged. So the cost of apprehending
Speaker 1: people who are present here illegally in the United States.
Speaker 1: Has is something that we can't bear. The deportation numbers
Speaker 1: are basically where they were with Biden, not particularly all
Speaker 1: that great, and the full force of the White House
Speaker 1: of the United States of America is focused on some
Speaker 1: campus protester. Give me a break if you think that's
Speaker 1: anywhere even close to America. First, so for all those
Speaker 1: people out there, for all the people who are supporting,
Speaker 1: cheering all of us on, good luck to you in
Speaker 1: the future. You have the cannon worms, the Pandora's box
Speaker 1: that you're opening, you bear a total responsibility for it.
Speaker 2: I mean this truly is it truly is a new
Speaker 2: red scare. I mean it truly is like it justifies
Speaker 2: the term McCarthyist, because they're saying openly it's not just this,
Speaker 2: there's nothing special about this particular guy. We have a
Speaker 2: whole list. There are going to be many more to come.
Speaker 2: They sent letters to sixty different universities accusing them and
Speaker 2: saying that they're going to be you know, there's going
Speaker 2: to be enforcement actions for them not upholding the civil
Speaker 2: rights of Jewish students.
Speaker 3: And if you read what they.
Speaker 2: Put down, it would be impossible for anyone to really
Speaker 2: prove that they complied with what they want. You know,
Speaker 2: to your point, Sager, we were all chuckling yesterday and
Speaker 2: Culter put on a tweet that said, there's almost no
Speaker 2: one I don't want to deport, but unless they've committed
Speaker 2: a crime, isn't this a violation of the First Amendment.
Speaker 3: So even in.
Speaker 2: Culter is like, yeah, this particular deportation, I'm not really
Speaker 2: sure that I'm on board with this one. And so
Speaker 2: you know, it is preposterous, it is naked, and yes
Speaker 2: it is dangerous. I mean it is a dangerous assault.
Speaker 2: The intent is a witch hunt to create an example
Speaker 2: so that people shut up about an issue that the
Speaker 2: administration does not want to hear about, that they find
Speaker 2: to be politically inconvenient, that you know, some significant of
Speaker 2: their allies and donors find to be politically inconvenient and
Speaker 2: disagree with and everyone, I don't care where you stand
Speaker 2: on this issue.
Speaker 3: Like you should you.
Speaker 2: In fact, if you disagree with these protesters, it's even
Speaker 2: more important for you to stand up for these First
Speaker 2: Amendment rights, because that's when it counts, when it is difficult,
Speaker 2: when it is potentially unpopular. Although I have to say,
Speaker 2: you know, the other thing that has been really noteworthy
Speaker 2: is how has this whole approach gone for you guys
Speaker 2: in terms of maintaining support for Israel. I can tell
Speaker 2: you if you look at numbers across the board in
Speaker 2: terms of when they ask who do you sympathize more
Speaker 2: with Israelis or Palestinians, those numbers have shifted dramatically towards Palestinians.
Speaker 2: In the Democratic Party specifically, it's completely switched, completely switched.
Speaker 2: So now many more Democrats say they are more sympathetic
Speaker 2: to Palestinians than Israelis. I cannot tell you what to
Speaker 2: see change that is in terms of American public opinion.
Speaker 2: And so for a country that is so dependent on
Speaker 2: the United States of America to provide a diplomatic shield
Speaker 2: and funding and military resources and all sorts of other
Speaker 2: things besides to be gambling with public opinion like this,
Speaker 2: you are one president away from someone who actually represents
Speaker 2: those shifts in the country from things being completely and
Speaker 2: totally different. Not to mention, you know, when you have
Speaker 2: the whole United States government cracking down on college student
Speaker 2: protesters for protesting israel foreign government, and you are you
Speaker 2: the Zionists conflate all the time Jews with Israel, something
Speaker 2: that the left is very careful and people who object
Speaker 2: to these follows are very careful to not conflate those
Speaker 2: two and say these are two very separate things. But
Speaker 2: the Zionist supporters frequently conflate Israel and non Jewish people. Yeah,
Speaker 2: do you think you're going to cause an increase in
Speaker 2: anti Semitism? Do you think that you're going to cause
Speaker 2: an increased spread in these sorts of tropes when it
Speaker 2: does seem like the US government is more interested in
Speaker 2: policing speech of Americans on behalf of this foreign country
Speaker 2: of course, Like, of course that's going to happen, and
Speaker 2: it is happening, so you know, this is an insane
Speaker 2: violation of First Amendment rights. These sorts of things never
Speaker 2: stay with you know, people who are over there you
Speaker 2: don't really care about, or issues that you aren't really
Speaker 2: particularly keen on. This is an aggressive crushing of descent,
Speaker 2: and every American who cares about their own rights needs
Speaker 2: to care about what is happening with MACUCLI.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well there you go. All right, Oh, why don't
Speaker 1: we play put C eleven up there from fire? We
Speaker 1: got to show them some LFE.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I gotta give them some lay.
Speaker 1: They're a great organization. Fire has written now to the
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security the Justice Department, requesting answers. This
Speaker 1: is America. The administration must not use immigration enforcement to
Speaker 1: punish and filter out ideas disfavored by the government, or
Speaker 1: deny due process to anyone facing arrest and detention. They
Speaker 1: ask a series of questions, what is a specific legal
Speaker 1: and factual basis for a coloil's arrest, for his detention
Speaker 1: for which you are seeking revocation of the careen card
Speaker 1: for where he'd be afforded due process protections required by
Speaker 1: US law? And is it your intention to seek the
Speaker 1: revocation of lawful immigration status on the basis of speech
Speaker 1: protected by the First Amendment. So we'll find out some
Speaker 1: answers to that question. Yeah, certainly.
Speaker 2: Well, one last thing I wanted to note on this is,
Speaker 2: you know, they were passing all these like definitions of
Speaker 2: anti Semitism and we were covering it here, and some
Speaker 2: of the pushback was like, ah, this is just kind
Speaker 2: of meaningless, like it's no big deal, They're just doing that.
Speaker 2: People say that, Yeah, yes, people were like down playing
Speaker 2: that this mattered. Well, Rubio is asserting that Mahmud Khalil
Speaker 2: is you know, damaging our foreign policy on the basis
Speaker 2: that part of our foreign policy is to combat anti
Speaker 2: Semitism around the world. And so those definitions that were
Speaker 2: passed come directly into play. As far as I can tell,
Speaker 2: and as we covered here and as you guys likely know,
Speaker 2: they very clearly conflate criticism of Israel with anti semitism.
Speaker 2: So those that's why it mattered that these official definitions
Speaker 2: were being adopted by the White House and passed through Congress,
Speaker 2: et cetera, because now you have a situation where they
Speaker 2: could say, oh, well, he said, you know, he criticized Israel.
Speaker 2: He said there should be a one state solution. He said,
Speaker 2: from the river to the sea, Palaesigne should be free.
Speaker 2: So this is a problem for our foreign policy of
Speaker 2: combating anti Semitism as defined by these you know, this
Speaker 2: resolution that we adopted. So that's why the things ultimately
Speaker 2: end up really mattering a lot, and you know, we'll
Speaker 2: see what happens. One other thing that I read is
Speaker 2: that a lot of times administrations will go like judge
Speaker 2: shopping for the immigration particular immigration judge that they want.
Speaker 2: We know, we can put C nine up on the screen.
Speaker 2: We know now that Mahmud has been moved all the
Speaker 2: way to Louisiana. And so the suspicion is that they
Speaker 2: are going to attempt to judge shop and get a
Speaker 2: Louisiana judge that they think will be more favorable to
Speaker 2: their arguments versus the judge that immediately jumped in here
Speaker 2: to you know, say you can't deport this guy. We're
Speaker 2: going to have a hearing, et cetera. That's a New
Speaker 2: York judge. So we'll see how all this plays on
Speaker 2: the legal system.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, they're going to be very very curious.
Speaker 6: Yeah,