1
00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:03,440
Speaker 1: Cable news is ripping us apart, dividing the nation, making

2
00:00:03,440 --> 00:00:05,880
Speaker 1: it impossible to function as a society and to know

3
00:00:05,920 --> 00:00:08,680
Speaker 1: what is true and what is false. The good news

4
00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:10,800
Speaker 1: is that they're failing and they know it. That is

5
00:00:10,840 --> 00:00:14,840
Speaker 1: why we're building something new. Be part of creating a new, better, healthier,

6
00:00:14,880 --> 00:00:17,920
Speaker 1: and more trustworthy mainstream by becoming a Breaking Points Premium

7
00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:21,520
Speaker 1: member today at breakingpoints dot com. Your hard earned money

8
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:23,360
Speaker 1: is going to help us build for the midterms and

9
00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:27,360
Speaker 1: the upcoming presidential election so we can provide unparalleled coverage

10
00:00:27,360 --> 00:00:28,560
Speaker 1: of what is sure to be one of the most

11
00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:32,320
Speaker 1: pivotal moments in American history. So what are you waiting for?

12
00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:37,040
Speaker 1: Go to Breakingpoints dot com to help us out. All right, folks,

13
00:00:37,440 --> 00:00:41,360
Speaker 1: you've asked for it, and we have brought back a great,

14
00:00:41,680 --> 00:00:45,280
Speaker 1: longtime front of the Show DC viewera chief for the intercept,

15
00:00:45,360 --> 00:00:47,199
Speaker 1: the one and only Ryan Grimm. To see you min

16
00:00:47,360 --> 00:00:49,120
Speaker 1: very excited to be here. We missed you man. Yeah,

17
00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:52,160
Speaker 1: I miss you guys too. Yeah. So Ryan of course

18
00:00:52,200 --> 00:00:54,200
Speaker 1: has been over at Rising the show's tape at the

19
00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:57,320
Speaker 1: same time, so finally now we have an opportunity to

20
00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:00,560
Speaker 1: bring him back into our little world here as well.

21
00:01:00,600 --> 00:01:02,480
Speaker 1: So let's start with some of your latest reporting. Let's

22
00:01:02,480 --> 00:01:05,280
Speaker 1: go ahead and throw this up on the screen. Cryptopack

23
00:01:05,400 --> 00:01:09,679
Speaker 1: throws in one million dollars to back Ohio Representative Chantel

24
00:01:09,760 --> 00:01:13,280
Speaker 1: Brown over Nina Turner. Progressives are confronting a new obstacles.

25
00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:16,319
Speaker 1: Big spending from the crypto industry reshapes the electoral calculus.

26
00:01:16,319 --> 00:01:18,800
Speaker 1: So ran there's a couple pieces of this that are

27
00:01:18,840 --> 00:01:21,240
Speaker 1: really important. First of all, there's the piece of the

28
00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 1: amount of money that is flooding into this race of

29
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:29,320
Speaker 1: Chantell Brown versus Nina Turner, of a lot of it

30
00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:32,640
Speaker 1: coming from not great places. There's the piece of the

31
00:01:32,680 --> 00:01:36,399
Speaker 1: Progressive Caucus endorsing Chantel Brown and sort of aligning with

32
00:01:36,480 --> 00:01:38,600
Speaker 1: this corporate money that is flooding into the race. But

33
00:01:38,640 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 1: then there's also a bigger story about crypto asserting itself

34
00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:44,319
Speaker 1: in DC and becoming a sort of top influence peddler

35
00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:46,720
Speaker 1: in a very short period of time. Right right. The

36
00:01:47,400 --> 00:01:51,440
Speaker 1: Chantel Brown piece is interesting, and it's a high profile

37
00:01:51,520 --> 00:01:55,480
Speaker 1: race because it's got that establishment progressive wing feel to it.

38
00:01:55,840 --> 00:01:59,000
Speaker 1: But the piece is more broadly about this this kind

39
00:01:59,000 --> 00:02:03,440
Speaker 1: of new player on the field, which is crypto, and

40
00:02:03,480 --> 00:02:05,800
Speaker 1: what they've been able to do because they have so

41
00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:09,800
Speaker 1: much kind of disposable crypto cash that they can target

42
00:02:09,960 --> 00:02:13,600
Speaker 1: individual races and come in with huge amounts of money.

43
00:02:13,800 --> 00:02:15,880
Speaker 1: Like I wrote about how they're dropped, They've already dropped

44
00:02:15,919 --> 00:02:20,320
Speaker 1: six million in counting in this one sleepy Oregon Democratic primary.

45
00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:23,040
Speaker 1: And what's the reason for that? Well, I mean, I

46
00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:26,720
Speaker 1: think basically the reason is to elect this guy, Kerrick Flynn,

47
00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:33,200
Speaker 1: who worked for Sam Bankman, Freed's brother, and he grew

48
00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:36,880
Speaker 1: up in Oregon and has spent like ten years abroad,

49
00:02:37,040 --> 00:02:40,919
Speaker 1: worked as a lobbyist and a researcher in DC, and

50
00:02:40,960 --> 00:02:43,040
Speaker 1: then he moved back in the summer of twenty twenty,

51
00:02:43,080 --> 00:02:46,880
Speaker 1: and now this crypto pack is throwing millions of dollars

52
00:02:47,080 --> 00:02:49,600
Speaker 1: behind him to elect him. Tell people who Sam Begman

53
00:02:49,680 --> 00:02:55,040
Speaker 1: Freed is. He's this really fascinating kind of eccentric philosopher guy, right,

54
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:57,919
Speaker 1: and he's like that he's thirty years old. Forbes puts

55
00:02:57,919 --> 00:03:01,640
Speaker 1: his wealth at like twenty four billion. He was a

56
00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:06,600
Speaker 1: trader who left the kind of world of dollar trading, yeah,

57
00:03:06,720 --> 00:03:10,600
Speaker 1: and currency trading, and got into crypto and he built FTX,

58
00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:14,000
Speaker 1: one of this gigantic crypto exchange, and so all of

59
00:03:14,080 --> 00:03:18,000
Speaker 1: his money's tied up in crypto, and he is what's

60
00:03:18,040 --> 00:03:21,880
Speaker 1: what they call it, an effective altruist, and so in

61
00:03:21,919 --> 00:03:25,000
Speaker 1: his whole life he's been like he went into he says,

62
00:03:25,040 --> 00:03:28,360
Speaker 1: he went into investment banking basically went to Wall Street

63
00:03:28,400 --> 00:03:29,600
Speaker 1: to make a lot of money so we could give

64
00:03:29,600 --> 00:03:32,960
Speaker 1: it away on this Peter Singer utilitarian like that's how

65
00:03:32,960 --> 00:03:35,480
Speaker 1: you make this is very big in Silicon Valley. Sam

66
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:38,280
Speaker 1: Altman is a big proponent of effective altruism. I think

67
00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:39,760
Speaker 1: a lot of it is cringe, but I mean the

68
00:03:39,840 --> 00:03:43,080
Speaker 1: basic idea, as far as I understand, you could tell

69
00:03:43,080 --> 00:03:45,640
Speaker 1: me if I'm wrong about this, is effectively. These are

70
00:03:45,640 --> 00:03:47,600
Speaker 1: people who are saying, like we're going to crunch the

71
00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:51,520
Speaker 1: numbers to figure out what is the greatest amount of

72
00:03:51,520 --> 00:03:54,000
Speaker 1: good that we could do for the least amount of dollars.

73
00:03:54,200 --> 00:03:57,800
Speaker 1: The reason I'm always skeleted, which like I understand why

74
00:03:57,800 --> 00:03:59,520
Speaker 1: if someone would say, oh, that's great, and you know,

75
00:03:59,560 --> 00:04:01,240
Speaker 1: if I'm a genuine do good or that might be

76
00:04:01,280 --> 00:04:03,440
Speaker 1: a good approach. The reason I'm always skeptical of these

77
00:04:03,480 --> 00:04:06,360
Speaker 1: things is you can't run a math formula to figure

78
00:04:06,360 --> 00:04:09,280
Speaker 1: out your values. So that's the part that seems to

79
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:11,880
Speaker 1: be like a little bit lacking with the plush. Yeah, right,

80
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:14,280
Speaker 1: and it's trying to in some ways, it's trying to

81
00:04:14,360 --> 00:04:19,000
Speaker 1: hack politics or trying to get around politics, trying to

82
00:04:19,040 --> 00:04:23,359
Speaker 1: pretend like it's not a conflict over scarce resources. And

83
00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:25,240
Speaker 1: then it raises the question, Okay, if you're doing that,

84
00:04:25,400 --> 00:04:29,000
Speaker 1: how does spending a million dollars on Chantel Brown fit

85
00:04:29,279 --> 00:04:32,560
Speaker 1: fit into the greatest good for the greatest That's what

86
00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:34,880
Speaker 1: I want to get it right, because look, I'm pro crypto.

87
00:04:34,920 --> 00:04:37,200
Speaker 1: Everybody knows that here, and I do think you know,

88
00:04:37,240 --> 00:04:39,120
Speaker 1: in these crypto packs, I don't think necessarily speak for

89
00:04:39,160 --> 00:04:41,000
Speaker 1: the crypto community. Part of the problem is when everybody

90
00:04:41,040 --> 00:04:43,520
Speaker 1: gets fantastic wealthy, everybody starts just throwing cash around and

91
00:04:43,520 --> 00:04:45,880
Speaker 1: be like, I'm the person who's spoken for crypto. That's

92
00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:48,240
Speaker 1: a great point. And what I'm curious about on Chantal

93
00:04:48,640 --> 00:04:51,440
Speaker 1: is like, what is she said in the past about crypto?

94
00:04:51,520 --> 00:04:53,520
Speaker 1: Is she on the books is crypto? Or is there

95
00:04:53,640 --> 00:04:56,120
Speaker 1: sums about pro crypto or is there some like backdoor

96
00:04:56,520 --> 00:04:58,960
Speaker 1: stuff happening. I can't find much. But the way this

97
00:04:59,120 --> 00:05:01,520
Speaker 1: tends to work is that these organizations and this is

98
00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:05,640
Speaker 1: not just unique crypto, but your pro Israel group of Sunrise.

99
00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:09,080
Speaker 1: But when everybody give they give surveys to candidates, and

100
00:05:09,120 --> 00:05:12,599
Speaker 1: then the candidate answers the survey, and when if the

101
00:05:12,640 --> 00:05:16,120
Speaker 1: survey comes back with the right answers, this is an

102
00:05:16,160 --> 00:05:19,360
Speaker 1: A plus. Here's one six, here's six million. Let me

103
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:23,240
Speaker 1: also say somewhat less diplomatically, that you know, chan Tell

104
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:25,000
Speaker 1: Brown is someone who is more likely to be able

105
00:05:25,040 --> 00:05:27,719
Speaker 1: to be bought a Nina Turner. So does she care

106
00:05:27,760 --> 00:05:29,640
Speaker 1: one way or the other. It's like, is she right?

107
00:05:29,720 --> 00:05:31,760
Speaker 1: Is she committed to crypto or have some like fully

108
00:05:31,760 --> 00:05:34,560
Speaker 1: developed worldview? No, so if a crypto pack comes in

109
00:05:34,560 --> 00:05:36,720
Speaker 1: with a million dollars in her race when it comes

110
00:05:36,720 --> 00:05:39,320
Speaker 1: down the road and they want specific things to be

111
00:05:39,400 --> 00:05:42,720
Speaker 1: regulated or not regulated, she's likely to do what they

112
00:05:42,720 --> 00:05:45,080
Speaker 1: want because she's kind of unformed, right, And she got

113
00:05:45,120 --> 00:05:48,240
Speaker 1: a couple of million dollars from dmf I pack Democratic

114
00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:53,160
Speaker 1: Majority for Israel during her last campaign, and she's recently

115
00:05:53,800 --> 00:05:56,159
Speaker 1: was one of only about twenty Democrats or so to

116
00:05:56,200 --> 00:05:59,000
Speaker 1: sign this letter that was like a very you know,

117
00:05:59,080 --> 00:06:01,880
Speaker 1: hawkishly pro is Real letter. It's like, why did so

118
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:03,919
Speaker 1: chan Tell Brown all of a sudden is becoming like

119
00:06:04,000 --> 00:06:07,160
Speaker 1: this very hawkishly pro Israel candidate. But I think your

120
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:09,680
Speaker 1: point is really interesting about how they don't speak for

121
00:06:09,680 --> 00:06:13,600
Speaker 1: the crypto community. Yeah, because Citizens United has allowed this

122
00:06:13,839 --> 00:06:16,480
Speaker 1: unlimited spending in the race, So one person can come

123
00:06:16,480 --> 00:06:18,240
Speaker 1: in and drop six million dollars in this race, and

124
00:06:18,279 --> 00:06:20,080
Speaker 1: they also get it looks like they gave a million

125
00:06:20,120 --> 00:06:22,480
Speaker 1: to House Majority pack, which is a Democrat super pack,

126
00:06:22,839 --> 00:06:24,839
Speaker 1: and they dropped it on the race. So it's like

127
00:06:24,920 --> 00:06:27,640
Speaker 1: double blind. Well, so this isn't That was my next

128
00:06:27,720 --> 00:06:30,400
Speaker 1: question to you. Crystal alluded to this during our show,

129
00:06:30,480 --> 00:06:32,800
Speaker 1: which is that there has been pressure maybe you can

130
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:36,800
Speaker 1: expose some of this by Democratic leadership on the Progressive

131
00:06:36,800 --> 00:06:39,880
Speaker 1: Caucus and others in order to explicitly endorse Chantel Brown

132
00:06:40,160 --> 00:06:41,520
Speaker 1: and not to just stay out of the race with

133
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:43,360
Speaker 1: Nina Turner, can you speak to that in any way?

134
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:46,120
Speaker 1: So we did, and we teamed up with the lever

135
00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:48,559
Speaker 1: on this to do a bunch of reporting about how

136
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:52,240
Speaker 1: this process worked. And there's some people who who felt

137
00:06:52,279 --> 00:06:54,760
Speaker 1: like there was a thumb put on the scale and

138
00:06:54,839 --> 00:06:58,280
Speaker 1: that they should have stayed out, just completely stayed out

139
00:06:58,279 --> 00:07:03,200
Speaker 1: of it, whereas others we talked to said that, you know,

140
00:07:03,240 --> 00:07:06,880
Speaker 1: there were eight so basically Chantel Brown joined the CPC,

141
00:07:07,360 --> 00:07:11,280
Speaker 1: like immediately upon winning, she then signed on to Medicare

142
00:07:11,360 --> 00:07:14,520
Speaker 1: for All, became a sponsor of that for All. Jipaus

143
00:07:14,920 --> 00:07:18,520
Speaker 1: thanked her publicly, and so there is basically a process

144
00:07:18,520 --> 00:07:21,040
Speaker 1: in place that if you're a member of the CPC,

145
00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:24,920
Speaker 1: the CPC pack endorses you. It would be kind of

146
00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:27,920
Speaker 1: strange if you didn't. But there still was a vote

147
00:07:28,000 --> 00:07:31,800
Speaker 1: of eight. There was a slate of like eight members

148
00:07:31,840 --> 00:07:34,440
Speaker 1: who asked for the endorsement of the CPC pack, and

149
00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:37,200
Speaker 1: it just kind of went through. There wasn't any kind

150
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:40,560
Speaker 1: of internal fight over it. So the real decision was

151
00:07:42,280 --> 00:07:44,120
Speaker 1: who put her on that list rather than pulling it

152
00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:47,720
Speaker 1: out and saying, you know what, this is actually a

153
00:07:48,000 --> 00:07:50,520
Speaker 1: pretty big deal, like this is not something that you

154
00:07:50,520 --> 00:07:54,000
Speaker 1: should just go through pro forma. Well, and I mean,

155
00:07:54,040 --> 00:07:56,960
Speaker 1: the other thing is she's in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

156
00:07:57,000 --> 00:07:59,480
Speaker 1: She's also in the new Democrat Caucus, which is like,

157
00:07:59,640 --> 00:08:03,600
Speaker 1: you know, the two things they completely they should be

158
00:08:03,640 --> 00:08:05,640
Speaker 1: banned joined both of those. And so there's also a

159
00:08:05,680 --> 00:08:08,560
Speaker 1: question of like, you know, Congressional Progressive Caucus will just

160
00:08:08,640 --> 00:08:11,280
Speaker 1: let anybody in and doesn't have to actually stand with

161
00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:15,640
Speaker 1: their values or share their ideology. Ultimately, on the cryptopack thing.

162
00:08:15,800 --> 00:08:18,920
Speaker 1: I think this is so interesting because it's I mean,

163
00:08:18,960 --> 00:08:21,960
Speaker 1: it is just another like form of influence peddling. And

164
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:25,200
Speaker 1: my understanding isn't Sam Bankman Freed his mother is also

165
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:29,760
Speaker 1: a big Democratic donor in California Barber Freed, is my understanding,

166
00:08:29,760 --> 00:08:33,760
Speaker 1: And so it also seems like another sort of big

167
00:08:33,840 --> 00:08:37,679
Speaker 1: money interest group that is trying to influence the Democratic

168
00:08:37,720 --> 00:08:40,960
Speaker 1: Party writ large, not just in these individual races. Right.

169
00:08:41,000 --> 00:08:45,440
Speaker 1: And if let's say there were five million people who

170
00:08:45,440 --> 00:08:49,440
Speaker 1: own crypto and like agree with Saga and they love

171
00:08:49,800 --> 00:08:52,560
Speaker 1: you know, they follow Saga, you know, relentless, like this

172
00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:56,920
Speaker 1: is this this guy's writing like crypto don't and they

173
00:08:56,960 --> 00:09:01,439
Speaker 1: wanted to get together and each contribute. That's different, Like, okay,

174
00:09:01,600 --> 00:09:05,720
Speaker 1: that's that's a grassroots effort to like push forward something

175
00:09:05,720 --> 00:09:08,880
Speaker 1: that like the public once and that's much actually much

176
00:09:08,920 --> 00:09:12,120
Speaker 1: more spirit in the spirit of crypto a unilateral billionaire

177
00:09:12,160 --> 00:09:14,200
Speaker 1: who you know, got lucky on trade, like let's all

178
00:09:14,200 --> 00:09:16,360
Speaker 1: be honest, right, And then you know, all of a sudden,

179
00:09:16,520 --> 00:09:19,040
Speaker 1: I've seen this constantly. Guys who bought bitcoin in twenty eleven,

180
00:09:19,080 --> 00:09:22,920
Speaker 1: now I think they're like philosopher Kings, you know, I mean, look,

181
00:09:23,200 --> 00:09:25,280
Speaker 1: it made a good bet. That's great, it worked out

182
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:28,200
Speaker 1: fantastically for you. That doesn't mean that you like know

183
00:09:28,280 --> 00:09:31,520
Speaker 1: everything under God's earth. And a lot of them really

184
00:09:31,520 --> 00:09:33,600
Speaker 1: get it to their heads. So I think it's interesting

185
00:09:33,600 --> 00:09:37,679
Speaker 1: in those two concepts, Ryan just around both power how

186
00:09:37,720 --> 00:09:40,760
Speaker 1: it's the crypto people are spending it. But really I'm

187
00:09:41,280 --> 00:09:44,440
Speaker 1: just the most curious on that House Majority donation and

188
00:09:44,480 --> 00:09:47,440
Speaker 1: how whether that's linked to some other money, just simply

189
00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:49,960
Speaker 1: because we know via Nancy Pelosi and some of these

190
00:09:49,960 --> 00:09:53,840
Speaker 1: other Silicon Valley financier connections, via like a Reid Hoffman,

191
00:09:53,840 --> 00:09:57,160
Speaker 1: who's I understand, the biggest I think the biggest Democratic

192
00:09:57,160 --> 00:10:01,120
Speaker 1: donor probably maybe outside of George Sorows, right, And so

193
00:10:01,440 --> 00:10:04,559
Speaker 1: for people following along, so there's the Senate Majority pack

194
00:10:04,559 --> 00:10:06,160
Speaker 1: in the House majority pack, and there was the super

195
00:10:06,200 --> 00:10:09,760
Speaker 1: packs basically run by Schumer and run by Pelosi, and

196
00:10:09,800 --> 00:10:12,240
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, this pack dropped a million dollars

197
00:10:12,559 --> 00:10:15,960
Speaker 1: on this race where bankmin Freed had already spent six million,

198
00:10:16,400 --> 00:10:18,240
Speaker 1: and so the question and so all of the candidates

199
00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:20,720
Speaker 1: collectively put out a statement saying, like, where did this

200
00:10:20,760 --> 00:10:23,439
Speaker 1: money come from? For House races? What was it? What

201
00:10:23,520 --> 00:10:26,800
Speaker 1: was it offered because House majority Pack isn't just out

202
00:10:27,040 --> 00:10:29,720
Speaker 1: it should be a safe district. I think they there's

203
00:10:29,720 --> 00:10:31,360
Speaker 1: a good chance to end up losing it because of

204
00:10:31,400 --> 00:10:33,839
Speaker 1: all of this weirdness. Is this a terrible landscape for

205
00:10:33,880 --> 00:10:37,480
Speaker 1: Democrats in general? Terrible landscape. And if it becomes clear

206
00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:40,280
Speaker 1: that crypto like bought the nominee, then how's that going

207
00:10:40,320 --> 00:10:42,080
Speaker 1: to play in the general election. Well, there's a funny

208
00:10:42,080 --> 00:10:44,400
Speaker 1: detail in your story too, about how there was another

209
00:10:44,400 --> 00:10:48,000
Speaker 1: there's another candidate in the race who decided, like, you

210
00:10:48,040 --> 00:10:50,240
Speaker 1: know what I'm going to get in It's not just

211
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:52,920
Speaker 1: about the issues. You gotta have money. So I'm going

212
00:10:52,960 --> 00:10:54,560
Speaker 1: to get into crypto. I'm going to make a bunch

213
00:10:54,559 --> 00:10:56,120
Speaker 1: of money, and then I'm going to run for Congress.

214
00:10:56,200 --> 00:10:59,920
Speaker 1: Whole long game, right, And so this other like Crypto

215
00:11:00,080 --> 00:11:03,440
Speaker 1: pack is sort of big footing the actual crypto candidate.

216
00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:05,760
Speaker 1: He spent He spent two and a half million so

217
00:11:05,800 --> 00:11:08,760
Speaker 1: far of his own his own money, crypto money. He

218
00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:11,160
Speaker 1: had run four times before, he had run. He's got

219
00:11:11,160 --> 00:11:12,640
Speaker 1: to be losing his mind. He had run as a

220
00:11:12,679 --> 00:11:16,920
Speaker 1: Progressive Party candidate. Five percent ran as a Green Party candidate.

221
00:11:17,480 --> 00:11:20,839
Speaker 1: Four percent ran as an independent party, which is a

222
00:11:20,960 --> 00:11:23,160
Speaker 1: hilarious that. I love it when there's an independent party,

223
00:11:23,200 --> 00:11:25,520
Speaker 1: like how you vote? So he ran, he ran as

224
00:11:25,520 --> 00:11:27,760
Speaker 1: that he got like three percent per Senate and he

225
00:11:27,840 --> 00:11:30,960
Speaker 1: ran a fourth time and dropped out, and then he said,

226
00:11:31,120 --> 00:11:33,520
Speaker 1: I need to go get rich, and he got into crypto,

227
00:11:33,679 --> 00:11:35,360
Speaker 1: made a bunch of money. He's like, I'm going to

228
00:11:35,400 --> 00:11:38,280
Speaker 1: buy this seat, and he's spending all of his crypto.

229
00:11:38,360 --> 00:11:39,880
Speaker 1: I don't know how much crypto he has. He's spending

230
00:11:39,880 --> 00:11:42,120
Speaker 1: a lot of crypto and then boom, Sam bankin free

231
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:44,120
Speaker 1: Like you think you're rich, Here we go. I got

232
00:11:44,160 --> 00:11:46,679
Speaker 1: twenty four billion dollars. What do you know? What are

233
00:11:46,679 --> 00:11:49,280
Speaker 1: their priorities? Like what did they actually want to get

234
00:11:49,360 --> 00:11:52,319
Speaker 1: with this money? Sager would actually know better, but basically

235
00:11:52,360 --> 00:11:56,480
Speaker 1: I think they just don't want regulation and texts. It depends, right,

236
00:11:56,520 --> 00:11:58,840
Speaker 1: which is that there's a lot going on in terms

237
00:11:58,840 --> 00:12:03,080
Speaker 1: of like realized game because this capital gains applies on that.

238
00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:05,360
Speaker 1: But as I get it, it's actually less to do

239
00:12:05,400 --> 00:12:07,480
Speaker 1: with Congress and more with the executive branch because a

240
00:12:07,520 --> 00:12:09,319
Speaker 1: lot of this comes under the Department of the Treasury.

241
00:12:09,640 --> 00:12:11,880
Speaker 1: Federal Reserve wants to do its own stable coin, and

242
00:12:11,920 --> 00:12:16,080
Speaker 1: then there's also not disclosure requirements, but basically if they

243
00:12:16,480 --> 00:12:19,360
Speaker 1: crack down on the way that this is getting deep.

244
00:12:19,440 --> 00:12:22,040
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry, but it comes into the context of

245
00:12:22,080 --> 00:12:25,120
Speaker 1: like the actual mining itself and the types of way

246
00:12:25,520 --> 00:12:28,520
Speaker 1: if you write the law in a specific way, you

247
00:12:28,559 --> 00:12:33,559
Speaker 1: will actually disincentivize mining, which is the backbone of the blockchain,

248
00:12:33,800 --> 00:12:35,600
Speaker 1: and it would make it so that it moves outside

249
00:12:35,640 --> 00:12:37,640
Speaker 1: the US borders, which is not really what you want

250
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:40,320
Speaker 1: because I mean, look you for all of the criticism

251
00:12:40,400 --> 00:12:42,719
Speaker 1: and all that the people who are mining bitcoin in

252
00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:46,040
Speaker 1: China or in Odessa in Ukraine, we're doing so with

253
00:12:46,120 --> 00:12:49,280
Speaker 1: actually like very dirty energy. So there's also an energy

254
00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:52,240
Speaker 1: use perspective as a national security thing about where exactly

255
00:12:52,520 --> 00:12:54,680
Speaker 1: blockchain mining and all that is held. So it gets

256
00:12:54,679 --> 00:12:57,360
Speaker 1: pretty deep. But that's really, if you care a lot

257
00:12:57,400 --> 00:12:58,840
Speaker 1: about it, where a lot of them are, and that's

258
00:12:58,840 --> 00:13:00,520
Speaker 1: where they want to be, right, they want to be

259
00:13:00,679 --> 00:13:03,600
Speaker 1: go yeah, we'll see at that table. So I think

260
00:13:03,640 --> 00:13:06,439
Speaker 1: the important thing is some of their priorities may align

261
00:13:06,520 --> 00:13:09,160
Speaker 1: with yours, some of them may not. And the fact

262
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:11,480
Speaker 1: that you have this big money flooding in is shaping

263
00:13:11,520 --> 00:13:15,160
Speaker 1: our political system just like any other big money interest group. Ryan,

264
00:13:15,240 --> 00:13:18,640
Speaker 1: thank you, as always very interesting development in the Ohio

265
00:13:18,800 --> 00:13:22,839
Speaker 1: Senate race. So President Donald Trump has gone and endorsed JD.

266
00:13:23,080 --> 00:13:24,920
Speaker 1: Vance in that Let's go ahead and put this up

267
00:13:24,960 --> 00:13:28,000
Speaker 1: there on the screen. Full disclosure here, as I've always

268
00:13:28,040 --> 00:13:31,120
Speaker 1: promised you anytime I know somebody. I am personal friends

269
00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:33,400
Speaker 1: with JD. Vance and have been for a long time.

270
00:13:33,480 --> 00:13:36,760
Speaker 1: So take anything that I say with a grain of salt.

271
00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:40,000
Speaker 1: Here is what the President said in his endorsement. Maga,

272
00:13:40,040 --> 00:13:41,960
Speaker 1: patriots from across the nation are set to deliver an

273
00:13:42,000 --> 00:13:44,680
Speaker 1: election landscape blah blah blah in the great state of Ohio.

274
00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:46,959
Speaker 1: The candidate most qualified and ready to win in November

275
00:13:47,040 --> 00:13:49,840
Speaker 1: is JD. Vance. We cannot play games. It's all about winning.

276
00:13:50,200 --> 00:13:52,640
Speaker 1: Like some others, JD may have said some not so

277
00:13:52,720 --> 00:13:55,760
Speaker 1: great things about me, but he gets it now and

278
00:13:55,800 --> 00:13:58,160
Speaker 1: I've seen that in spades. He is our best chance

279
00:13:58,160 --> 00:14:00,000
Speaker 1: for victory and what could be a very tough race.

280
00:14:00,280 --> 00:14:02,640
Speaker 1: The Democrats will be spending many millions of dollars. The

281
00:14:02,679 --> 00:14:04,719
Speaker 1: good news is they have a defective candidate who ran

282
00:14:04,760 --> 00:14:07,320
Speaker 1: for president and garnered zero percent in the polls. Blah

283
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:09,360
Speaker 1: blah blah. The bottom line is we must have a

284
00:14:09,400 --> 00:14:12,800
Speaker 1: Republican victory. In Ohio, so some behind the scenes stuff.

285
00:14:13,040 --> 00:14:16,320
Speaker 1: The battle for this endorsement has been incredible to watch.

286
00:14:16,480 --> 00:14:19,160
Speaker 1: So there are multiple different candidates who are running, all

287
00:14:19,240 --> 00:14:23,280
Speaker 1: of them claiming the Maga mantle. Number one was Josh Mandel,

288
00:14:23,480 --> 00:14:28,520
Speaker 1: who can best be described as a neo con swamp

289
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:33,440
Speaker 1: clown who is trying to paint himself as Maga. He was.

290
00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:38,120
Speaker 1: It's unbelievable. We played on Rising in the past is

291
00:14:38,160 --> 00:14:42,880
Speaker 1: like fake Southern accent. It's incredible. But watching this guy

292
00:14:43,640 --> 00:14:47,120
Speaker 1: pretend to be some big, bad warrior has just been

293
00:14:47,160 --> 00:14:50,440
Speaker 1: really something to behold. Sadly, he was still always number

294
00:14:50,480 --> 00:14:53,680
Speaker 1: one in the polls, and I honestly absent the endorsement.

295
00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:56,240
Speaker 1: I thought he was going to win the primary. Number

296
00:14:56,280 --> 00:14:59,080
Speaker 1: two has been this guy, Mike Gibbons, who was really

297
00:14:59,160 --> 00:15:01,440
Speaker 1: kind of more of a dark course candidate who came

298
00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:04,480
Speaker 1: in and spent millions of dollars. Now, the thing to

299
00:15:04,560 --> 00:15:07,480
Speaker 1: understand is that the Club for Growth here in Washington, DC,

300
00:15:07,840 --> 00:15:11,680
Speaker 1: which is a much more libertarian organization, really declared war

301
00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:14,800
Speaker 1: on JD Vans and spent millions of dollars trying to

302
00:15:14,840 --> 00:15:18,960
Speaker 1: destroy his candidacy. JD, in my opinion, really only had

303
00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:21,800
Speaker 1: one chance of victory, and it's exactly what just happened

304
00:15:21,800 --> 00:15:24,880
Speaker 1: to you. Yeah, was the Trump endorsement, because there I'm

305
00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:28,160
Speaker 1: talking about millions spent on some of the past stuff

306
00:15:28,160 --> 00:15:30,480
Speaker 1: that he had said about Trump. And look, I mean

307
00:15:30,600 --> 00:15:33,560
Speaker 1: for him, I mean, I think what he said was

308
00:15:33,600 --> 00:15:36,360
Speaker 1: reasonable at the time, but like what he got into

309
00:15:36,480 --> 00:15:38,080
Speaker 1: trouble for is he was you know, he said he

310
00:15:38,120 --> 00:15:41,080
Speaker 1: didn't vote for Trump. I believe he said that some

311
00:15:41,160 --> 00:15:44,240
Speaker 1: Trump supporters. I'm not exactly sure what he's said. He

312
00:15:44,240 --> 00:15:46,960
Speaker 1: talks about racism as a motivator for Trump supporters. He

313
00:15:47,040 --> 00:15:49,800
Speaker 1: think Trump was like another opioid. I mean he was.

314
00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:53,680
Speaker 1: He said some very clear, strong anti Trump, right, that's

315
00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:57,080
Speaker 1: exactly in twenty sixteen. Then obviously Trump won the election,

316
00:15:57,600 --> 00:15:59,760
Speaker 1: and then JD finds himself having to try to win

317
00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:03,640
Speaker 1: public in open primary, which look, I mean, if you're

318
00:16:03,680 --> 00:16:05,840
Speaker 1: never Trump, that's one of those things that's always going

319
00:16:05,880 --> 00:16:08,400
Speaker 1: to go against you. And he was getting bombarded with

320
00:16:08,520 --> 00:16:12,320
Speaker 1: ads throughout that and so really this all just became

321
00:16:12,360 --> 00:16:15,160
Speaker 1: a proving ground of like who is the most maga,

322
00:16:15,200 --> 00:16:17,600
Speaker 1: which is kind of cringe, been embarrassing to what it's

323
00:16:17,600 --> 00:16:20,840
Speaker 1: been cringe in my opinion. Yeah, that being said, a

324
00:16:20,840 --> 00:16:22,440
Speaker 1: lot of people said that it wasn't going to work

325
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:24,960
Speaker 1: for him, and it did. He actually did get the endorsement.

326
00:16:25,080 --> 00:16:27,240
Speaker 1: So it's interesting and he will most likely be the

327
00:16:27,280 --> 00:16:31,080
Speaker 1: next senator from Ohio. Well, uh maybe because right now,

328
00:16:31,120 --> 00:16:32,920
Speaker 1: I mean he's in third place in the bulls, he's

329
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:34,400
Speaker 1: not even what was the second pre that was the

330
00:16:34,440 --> 00:16:38,440
Speaker 1: pre reindorsement. But I mean some of what we've seen

331
00:16:38,680 --> 00:16:41,440
Speaker 1: in these other races is that while people are still

332
00:16:41,520 --> 00:16:44,880
Speaker 1: very committed to Trump, it hasn't necessarily trans endorsements haven't

333
00:16:44,920 --> 00:16:49,280
Speaker 1: necessarily translated. I mean Georgia is the primary example of

334
00:16:49,320 --> 00:16:52,600
Speaker 1: this where you know, we both really thought Kemp was

335
00:16:52,720 --> 00:16:57,200
Speaker 1: probably done when Trump comes in and backs Purdue and

336
00:16:57,360 --> 00:17:00,200
Speaker 1: there's no one he has been more aggressively you know,

337
00:17:00,280 --> 00:17:03,480
Speaker 1: opposed to in the Republican side than Brian Kemp. And

338
00:17:03,600 --> 00:17:06,119
Speaker 1: yet the polls still continue to give him, like, you know,

339
00:17:06,320 --> 00:17:09,800
Speaker 1: close to, if not a double digit lead over Purdue.

340
00:17:09,920 --> 00:17:13,360
Speaker 1: So it hasn't quite translated in terms of his endorsements

341
00:17:13,760 --> 00:17:16,400
Speaker 1: the way that we might have expected. So we'll see.

342
00:17:16,640 --> 00:17:19,639
Speaker 1: It's also very difficult to pull in these primaries. You know,

343
00:17:19,800 --> 00:17:21,919
Speaker 1: the polls are a little bit all over the place.

344
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:25,159
Speaker 1: But I was just looking on real clear politics. Not

345
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:29,360
Speaker 1: one of the recent polls has JD in first, certainly

346
00:17:29,440 --> 00:17:32,679
Speaker 1: it's either Mandel or Gibbons. Most of them have him

347
00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:36,320
Speaker 1: back in third. So I don't think that this is

348
00:17:36,359 --> 00:17:38,720
Speaker 1: anywhere close to a done deal, which is why it's

349
00:17:38,800 --> 00:17:43,240
Speaker 1: very risky that Trump ultimately decided to endorse JD. Here

350
00:17:43,480 --> 00:17:46,080
Speaker 1: he continues to do he continues to be more or

351
00:17:46,200 --> 00:17:50,680
Speaker 1: less long shot, and we saw, you know, in Pennsylvania

352
00:17:50,960 --> 00:17:54,639
Speaker 1: when he backed doctor Oz. Won't see what the polls

353
00:17:54,640 --> 00:17:57,719
Speaker 1: say about whether or not this was more anecdotal or

354
00:17:57,720 --> 00:17:59,680
Speaker 1: more real, but there was kind of a freak out

355
00:17:59,800 --> 00:18:02,760
Speaker 1: of even local Republican electives, like I don't know what

356
00:18:02,760 --> 00:18:06,040
Speaker 1: he's doing with this, and sort of there's always this

357
00:18:06,200 --> 00:18:08,320
Speaker 1: way of, you know, if he does something they don't like,

358
00:18:08,400 --> 00:18:10,000
Speaker 1: it's never his fault. It's like, oh, I think his

359
00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:12,640
Speaker 1: aids convinced him to do this, and I don't really

360
00:18:12,720 --> 00:18:15,040
Speaker 1: understand it. But we're not going to vote for doctor Odd,

361
00:18:15,240 --> 00:18:17,760
Speaker 1: so forget about it. So we'll see if it has

362
00:18:17,760 --> 00:18:19,760
Speaker 1: the impact that he ultimately wants it to do. Because

363
00:18:19,760 --> 00:18:21,680
Speaker 1: they're up with millions of dollars of ads of JD

364
00:18:21,800 --> 00:18:24,840
Speaker 1: Van saying all kinds of you know, nasty things about Trump,

365
00:18:24,840 --> 00:18:27,119
Speaker 1: and I do think that that probably also lands with

366
00:18:27,119 --> 00:18:29,200
Speaker 1: the base. It definitely lands. Look, it's not a done deal.

367
00:18:29,240 --> 00:18:31,359
Speaker 1: I probably should have said that. I do think it

368
00:18:31,359 --> 00:18:34,320
Speaker 1: will work only because Ohio is just such a Trump

369
00:18:34,400 --> 00:18:37,000
Speaker 1: state in terms of the people there, but also in

370
00:18:37,080 --> 00:18:39,040
Speaker 1: terms of the undecided. And that's what they would always

371
00:18:39,080 --> 00:18:41,240
Speaker 1: point to me whenever I'd be like skeptical, I'd be like, yo,

372
00:18:41,320 --> 00:18:44,480
Speaker 1: come on, what's going on here? In terms of my

373
00:18:44,680 --> 00:18:46,800
Speaker 1: friends who know him or you know, we're much more

374
00:18:46,840 --> 00:18:49,280
Speaker 1: sympathetic to his campaign and always said that he was

375
00:18:49,320 --> 00:18:51,120
Speaker 1: going to win. They always pointed to the high level

376
00:18:51,119 --> 00:18:53,440
Speaker 1: of undecided and they said that the Trump endorsement was

377
00:18:53,480 --> 00:18:55,760
Speaker 1: going to move the needle. So Trump himself is scheduled

378
00:18:55,800 --> 00:18:58,879
Speaker 1: to arrive in Ohio ahead of the primary. He's going

379
00:18:58,960 --> 00:19:01,720
Speaker 1: to have a rally, very likely, I assume, with JD

380
00:19:01,840 --> 00:19:04,920
Speaker 1: vance right next to him, that's obviously gonna be a thing.

381
00:19:05,080 --> 00:19:07,320
Speaker 1: And in terms of who JD's up against, I mean,

382
00:19:07,320 --> 00:19:10,960
Speaker 1: it's like Tim Ryan at this point, good guy who

383
00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:12,800
Speaker 1: is trying to I don't know, he's trying to like

384
00:19:12,880 --> 00:19:16,600
Speaker 1: be populist, but obviously about cringe. Yeah, I mean again

385
00:19:16,720 --> 00:19:20,520
Speaker 1: talk about cringe of politicians. So I don't think the

386
00:19:20,520 --> 00:19:22,800
Speaker 1: Democrats have much of a prayer in Ohio. This, yeah,

387
00:19:23,400 --> 00:19:25,080
Speaker 1: I just I don't see it. I think whoever wins

388
00:19:25,080 --> 00:19:28,880
Speaker 1: the Republican primary is very likely to be the next Senator.

389
00:19:29,040 --> 00:19:32,280
Speaker 1: Mendel could win. It's still possible. He has a lot

390
00:19:32,280 --> 00:19:35,120
Speaker 1: of money behind him. Ted Cruz's people are running his campaign.

391
00:19:35,400 --> 00:19:37,720
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz also endorsed him. He's got a ton of

392
00:19:37,840 --> 00:19:40,480
Speaker 1: support the Club for Greef and a lot of billionaires

393
00:19:40,560 --> 00:19:43,160
Speaker 1: behind him as well. Voting has already started in a yeah,

394
00:19:43,280 --> 00:19:45,720
Speaker 1: I think early voting started last month. This is yeah,

395
00:19:45,800 --> 00:19:50,040
Speaker 1: this is coming very late in the game, so you

396
00:19:50,080 --> 00:19:52,000
Speaker 1: know he's going to do a rally. But again, people

397
00:19:52,000 --> 00:19:54,080
Speaker 1: have already started casting their ballots and have already kind

398
00:19:54,119 --> 00:19:56,320
Speaker 1: of decided which way they're ultimately going to go, So

399
00:19:56,640 --> 00:19:58,960
Speaker 1: we'll see. I have no idea. I'm not going to

400
00:19:59,080 --> 00:20:01,399
Speaker 1: pretend to be an expert on like Republican base in

401
00:20:01,440 --> 00:20:04,920
Speaker 1: the state of Ohio, but it is an interest, very

402
00:20:04,960 --> 00:20:10,440
Speaker 1: interesting test case of how much Trump's endorsement matters. Now,

403
00:20:10,520 --> 00:20:12,919
Speaker 1: I would implore you to take a different view of

404
00:20:13,040 --> 00:20:15,920
Speaker 1: like how much his endorsement matters versus how powerful he

405
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:18,600
Speaker 1: personally still is like Boma. Actually it's a good example.

406
00:20:18,640 --> 00:20:21,879
Speaker 1: That is a very good parallel. Obama himself blow by

407
00:20:21,880 --> 00:20:24,040
Speaker 1: the base all of that stuff. His endorsement didn't seem

408
00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:27,119
Speaker 1: to really matter for shit for anyone. So Trump may

409
00:20:27,119 --> 00:20:29,960
Speaker 1: be moving more into that terrain. But these little test

410
00:20:29,960 --> 00:20:33,080
Speaker 1: cases will be very interesting to track. We'll see there

411
00:20:33,080 --> 00:20:34,760
Speaker 1: you go. All right, guys, thanks for watching. More for

412
00:20:34,800 --> 00:20:38,879
Speaker 1: you later. All right, guys, a little bit of news

413
00:20:39,160 --> 00:20:43,399
Speaker 1: about how John Stewart's new show is actually performing. So

414
00:20:43,480 --> 00:20:45,560
Speaker 1: let's see how it's being reported here. Put this up

415
00:20:45,600 --> 00:20:48,560
Speaker 1: on the screen. So, according to The New York Post,

416
00:20:48,880 --> 00:20:52,440
Speaker 1: John Stewart's new show on Apple TV is reportedly a flop.

417
00:20:52,680 --> 00:20:54,480
Speaker 1: They say the problem with John Stewart, which launched on

418
00:20:54,480 --> 00:20:56,679
Speaker 1: Apple TV in September, appears to be a flop as

419
00:20:56,680 --> 00:20:59,480
Speaker 1: it trails far behind its competitors on broadcast and cable TV.

420
00:20:59,520 --> 00:21:02,840
Speaker 1: According to Bloomberg, show's first episode was seen by just

421
00:21:02,880 --> 00:21:04,840
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty thousand US homes in the first

422
00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:08,720
Speaker 1: week at debut last fall. Measurement firm Samba TV said

423
00:21:08,760 --> 00:21:12,119
Speaker 1: that number dropped to forty thousand by its fifth episode,

424
00:21:12,119 --> 00:21:15,600
Speaker 1: which aired in early March. They also include a comment

425
00:21:15,800 --> 00:21:18,120
Speaker 1: that I think is actually kind of revealing from John

426
00:21:18,160 --> 00:21:21,359
Speaker 1: Stewart on the show. He said, thank you for watching,

427
00:21:21,440 --> 00:21:23,800
Speaker 1: but my guess is you didn't. At the end of

428
00:21:23,840 --> 00:21:26,760
Speaker 1: the premiere episode of a show, You're probably just going

429
00:21:26,800 --> 00:21:29,760
Speaker 1: to look at aggregated clips of it's somewhere on YouTube

430
00:21:29,840 --> 00:21:32,119
Speaker 1: where you pirate Ted Lasso. I don't even know what

431
00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:34,520
Speaker 1: that is. You don't even know how to get Apple TV,

432
00:21:34,680 --> 00:21:38,040
Speaker 1: do you? And I actually think that is probably the

433
00:21:38,080 --> 00:21:41,720
Speaker 1: biggest issue, is like how many people like the platform

434
00:21:41,840 --> 00:21:44,840
Speaker 1: really matters, and so how many people actually have Apple TV,

435
00:21:45,320 --> 00:21:47,240
Speaker 1: know how to access Apple TV? You know, how to

436
00:21:47,240 --> 00:21:50,280
Speaker 1: get to his episodes on Apple tv, because you know,

437
00:21:50,320 --> 00:21:53,639
Speaker 1: when you look at his YouTube page and I think

438
00:21:53,720 --> 00:21:56,760
Speaker 1: we have a look at, you know, how his videos performed,

439
00:21:56,760 --> 00:22:01,359
Speaker 1: They actually do well on YouTube. He regularly gets views,

440
00:22:01,440 --> 00:22:04,360
Speaker 1: you know, always in the one hundred thousands, oftentimes five

441
00:22:04,400 --> 00:22:07,160
Speaker 1: hundred thousand, always sometimes his stuff gets you know, over

442
00:22:07,200 --> 00:22:10,160
Speaker 1: a million views or multiple millions of views, five hundred

443
00:22:10,160 --> 00:22:12,960
Speaker 1: and seventy thousand subs for a channel that's a year

444
00:22:13,000 --> 00:22:16,080
Speaker 1: old and where YouTube isn't even its main thing. That

445
00:22:16,080 --> 00:22:20,399
Speaker 1: he doesn't do daily news, Yeah, exactly, it's that's not good. Yeah,

446
00:22:20,440 --> 00:22:25,280
Speaker 1: and then I also looked at his podcast rankings on Spotify. Yeah,

447
00:22:25,440 --> 00:22:27,439
Speaker 1: we're beating him, of course we are, but only by

448
00:22:27,480 --> 00:22:29,200
Speaker 1: a little bit, eating most people, but only by a

449
00:22:29,240 --> 00:22:32,600
Speaker 1: little bit. He's not far behind us in the rankings.

450
00:22:32,920 --> 00:22:37,320
Speaker 1: So I think probably the biggest issue here is the

451
00:22:37,359 --> 00:22:41,760
Speaker 1: platform itself versus an appetite for this content. Because I

452
00:22:41,800 --> 00:22:44,520
Speaker 1: also have to say anecdotally, you know, when we had

453
00:22:44,600 --> 00:22:47,160
Speaker 1: him on, when we talked about having him on, when

454
00:22:47,200 --> 00:22:49,639
Speaker 1: we've covered some of the things he's done on his show,

455
00:22:49,760 --> 00:22:52,280
Speaker 1: like people have really responded to that content as well,

456
00:22:52,359 --> 00:22:54,159
Speaker 1: I completely agree. I think what they're doing is so

457
00:22:54,240 --> 00:22:56,440
Speaker 1: bad faith. Saying that it's a flop. Look, I mean

458
00:22:56,480 --> 00:22:59,640
Speaker 1: we first of all, Apple TV itself, let's all be honest,

459
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:02,320
Speaker 1: is kind of fake. It's a lost leader for Apple

460
00:23:02,400 --> 00:23:04,960
Speaker 1: in order to get into the content game, and they

461
00:23:05,080 --> 00:23:07,919
Speaker 1: use it as a way in order to increase the

462
00:23:08,000 --> 00:23:11,119
Speaker 1: value of the overall Apple bundle. These people print money,

463
00:23:11,160 --> 00:23:13,400
Speaker 1: they don't care that much. It's a lot like cable news.

464
00:23:13,520 --> 00:23:16,679
Speaker 1: And actually they said that his show is the number

465
00:23:16,680 --> 00:23:19,720
Speaker 1: one unscripted series on Apple TV, so it's already being

466
00:23:19,760 --> 00:23:22,359
Speaker 1: the most that you can given the platform that he

467
00:23:22,440 --> 00:23:25,280
Speaker 1: exists on. Okay, so you know this is it's so

468
00:23:25,400 --> 00:23:28,159
Speaker 1: bad faith in order to attack this, and Stewart is

469
00:23:28,200 --> 00:23:31,480
Speaker 1: one of the few who actually could succeed in the

470
00:23:31,480 --> 00:23:35,280
Speaker 1: open ecosystem. Personally, I would tell him, you don't need appleman,

471
00:23:35,320 --> 00:23:36,840
Speaker 1: you can do exactly Well, that was kind of what

472
00:23:36,880 --> 00:23:38,680
Speaker 1: I was thinking to Yeah. I'm like, look, I mean

473
00:23:38,880 --> 00:23:40,480
Speaker 1: not that he cares what I think. And he probably

474
00:23:40,480 --> 00:23:42,679
Speaker 1: got a fat multi million dollar check, so you know,

475
00:23:42,920 --> 00:23:45,439
Speaker 1: he's laughing all the way to the bank. But if

476
00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:47,560
Speaker 1: I were giving you advice, I would say, you don't

477
00:23:47,600 --> 00:23:50,080
Speaker 1: need Apple dude. You can do this all out on YouTube.

478
00:23:50,240 --> 00:23:52,520
Speaker 1: A ton of people know who you are, people really

479
00:23:52,560 --> 00:23:54,600
Speaker 1: love and your message, and people have been with you

480
00:23:54,640 --> 00:23:56,720
Speaker 1: for many, many years. And you could do the supercast

481
00:23:56,720 --> 00:23:58,320
Speaker 1: model just like we do. And I bet you'd be

482
00:23:58,359 --> 00:24:01,280
Speaker 1: probably making roughly the same amount of money, except now

483
00:24:01,320 --> 00:24:03,440
Speaker 1: he would have one hundred percent control and there would

484
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:06,800
Speaker 1: be no barriers to the content. Yeah. I wonder what

485
00:24:07,000 --> 00:24:11,320
Speaker 1: made him decide to do the Apple TV model, because

486
00:24:11,520 --> 00:24:14,800
Speaker 1: it may just be kind of like an older mindset.

487
00:24:14,920 --> 00:24:17,280
Speaker 1: I mean, you come out of the cable world, you

488
00:24:17,359 --> 00:24:20,280
Speaker 1: come out of sort of traditional broadcasts and cable media.

489
00:24:20,720 --> 00:24:22,720
Speaker 1: It can be hard to wrap your head around exactly

490
00:24:22,760 --> 00:24:26,000
Speaker 1: what this would look like. You expect a certain budget

491
00:24:26,000 --> 00:24:28,720
Speaker 1: and a certain production level on the show. If he

492
00:24:28,760 --> 00:24:32,439
Speaker 1: did it independent, you know, wouldn't necessarily look quite the same,

493
00:24:33,040 --> 00:24:36,240
Speaker 1: But there's no doubt what he would put out, honestly,

494
00:24:36,800 --> 00:24:39,439
Speaker 1: you know, a more sort of informal format, like if

495
00:24:39,480 --> 00:24:41,920
Speaker 1: you've listened to the podcast, it has a little bit

496
00:24:41,960 --> 00:24:44,240
Speaker 1: more of that, just kind of like conversational is a

497
00:24:44,280 --> 00:24:47,600
Speaker 1: little less highly produced. Actually, I think people would really

498
00:24:47,640 --> 00:24:50,879
Speaker 1: respond to that from him, because he's very sharp and

499
00:24:50,920 --> 00:24:55,080
Speaker 1: he's very good off the cuff. So if if his

500
00:24:55,280 --> 00:24:59,080
Speaker 1: goal was to reach the largest possible audience and have

501
00:24:59,160 --> 00:25:01,760
Speaker 1: the most in pact with what he was doing, yeah,

502
00:25:01,800 --> 00:25:03,439
Speaker 1: I think it would have been better for him to

503
00:25:03,880 --> 00:25:06,360
Speaker 1: forget about Apple and just do it on his own,

504
00:25:06,400 --> 00:25:08,760
Speaker 1: put on his own podcast, have his own YouTube channel,

505
00:25:09,160 --> 00:25:12,159
Speaker 1: and go in that direction. Some stunning new reporting from

506
00:25:12,160 --> 00:25:14,159
Speaker 1: the San Francisco Chronicle. Let's go and put this up

507
00:25:14,200 --> 00:25:18,359
Speaker 1: there on the screen. Several colleagues of Diane Feinstein spoke

508
00:25:18,440 --> 00:25:21,080
Speaker 1: to the paper, saying that they worry that she is

509
00:25:21,240 --> 00:25:26,080
Speaker 1: mentally unfit to serve. Diane Feinstein is eighty eight years

510
00:25:26,119 --> 00:25:29,720
Speaker 1: old and her bid or her current term does not

511
00:25:29,840 --> 00:25:33,400
Speaker 1: expire until twenty twenty four. Her husband actually just died,

512
00:25:33,440 --> 00:25:36,840
Speaker 1: which was really tragic. He was similarly aged. But what

513
00:25:36,880 --> 00:25:40,119
Speaker 1: they point to is that she is basically at the

514
00:25:40,160 --> 00:25:44,840
Speaker 1: point where they have to reintroduce themselves to her multiple

515
00:25:44,960 --> 00:25:49,960
Speaker 1: times during an interaction that lasted several hours. She appears

516
00:25:50,240 --> 00:25:53,080
Speaker 1: not to have a full understanding of the topics that

517
00:25:53,119 --> 00:25:56,040
Speaker 1: are being presented to her. And we're talking here about

518
00:25:56,240 --> 00:26:00,800
Speaker 1: four United States Senators on background, including three Democrats, as

519
00:26:00,840 --> 00:26:05,440
Speaker 1: well as three former staffers and a California Democratic Member

520
00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:09,800
Speaker 1: of Congress all said, yeah, her mental status has just

521
00:26:10,000 --> 00:26:13,200
Speaker 1: rapidly deteriorated, and this is sensitive and it's hard, right,

522
00:26:13,240 --> 00:26:17,119
Speaker 1: Which is that, Look, you know, it's not all old people,

523
00:26:17,359 --> 00:26:20,080
Speaker 1: but I think as anybody who's had an experience with

524
00:26:20,200 --> 00:26:23,119
Speaker 1: people who are like this, and especially at this age,

525
00:26:23,560 --> 00:26:28,160
Speaker 1: it can happen extraordinarily quickly. And that's nothing to denigrate her.

526
00:26:28,600 --> 00:26:31,880
Speaker 1: She's lived a great and a full life. But you

527
00:26:32,000 --> 00:26:35,840
Speaker 1: serve the public like there's forty million people who live

528
00:26:35,920 --> 00:26:40,440
Speaker 1: in California who deserve better service, and like somebody who's

529
00:26:40,480 --> 00:26:43,720
Speaker 1: really fighting and working for their interests. So it's a

530
00:26:43,800 --> 00:26:47,320
Speaker 1: tough situation there, Crystal. But I mean the inside reporting

531
00:26:47,320 --> 00:26:49,280
Speaker 1: of this fits with a long pattern of the fact

532
00:26:49,359 --> 00:26:52,560
Speaker 1: that I mean, it appears that she's probably senile, and

533
00:26:52,800 --> 00:26:55,200
Speaker 1: all of her colleagues know it, and it's probably time

534
00:26:55,480 --> 00:26:57,119
Speaker 1: to talk about it and to do something. Yeah, and

535
00:26:57,119 --> 00:26:59,680
Speaker 1: the people who are kind of covering this up, trying

536
00:26:59,680 --> 00:27:02,520
Speaker 1: to high it from public view, you're not doing the

537
00:27:02,560 --> 00:27:05,440
Speaker 1: public any favors and ring her any favors. And this

538
00:27:05,520 --> 00:27:09,000
Speaker 1: is she's she's planning on. She's filed for reelection. I mean,

539
00:27:09,040 --> 00:27:11,720
Speaker 1: she's planning on not only serving out her term but

540
00:27:12,040 --> 00:27:15,400
Speaker 1: running again. Some of the details here, I mean, really,

541
00:27:15,440 --> 00:27:18,280
Speaker 1: it really just is very sad, especially if you've had

542
00:27:18,480 --> 00:27:20,440
Speaker 1: you know, your parents or any loved one that you've

543
00:27:20,440 --> 00:27:23,040
Speaker 1: seen go through this kind of decline. They talk, as

544
00:27:23,080 --> 00:27:25,880
Speaker 1: you mentioned about how within the course of one conversation,

545
00:27:26,760 --> 00:27:28,840
Speaker 1: this person who had known her for a long time

546
00:27:28,920 --> 00:27:32,840
Speaker 1: had to reintroduce themselves multiple times. They talked about how

547
00:27:32,880 --> 00:27:36,439
Speaker 1: she spoke at a memorial service for someone again that

548
00:27:36,480 --> 00:27:38,880
Speaker 1: she had known for decades, who'd been a significant political

549
00:27:38,880 --> 00:27:42,200
Speaker 1: figure in the San Francisco Bay area, and her initial

550
00:27:42,280 --> 00:27:45,280
Speaker 1: comments she didn't even mention the person, and she said,

551
00:27:45,359 --> 00:27:47,720
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi was the leader of the Senate, and it

552
00:27:47,800 --> 00:27:51,800
Speaker 1: was so uncomfortable in the room that after she, you know,

553
00:27:51,880 --> 00:27:54,080
Speaker 1: she just kind of got up and gave these sort

554
00:27:54,080 --> 00:27:56,879
Speaker 1: of vague platitudes and shoutouts to different members of the

555
00:27:56,920 --> 00:28:01,000
Speaker 1: audience and then sits down. And it was so uncomfortable

556
00:28:01,040 --> 00:28:03,080
Speaker 1: that she actually her staff told her she had to

557
00:28:03,080 --> 00:28:06,520
Speaker 1: get back up and talk about the person whose life

558
00:28:06,560 --> 00:28:11,160
Speaker 1: they were actually there to memorialize. This, of course, comes

559
00:28:11,160 --> 00:28:13,760
Speaker 1: on the heels also of you guys might remember this

560
00:28:13,800 --> 00:28:17,760
Speaker 1: report from The New Yorker that Chuck Schumer sat down

561
00:28:17,760 --> 00:28:20,840
Speaker 1: to have this difficult conversation with her about, you know,

562
00:28:20,880 --> 00:28:22,480
Speaker 1: you're not going to be able to be chair of

563
00:28:22,520 --> 00:28:26,320
Speaker 1: the Judiciary Committee, and so he does this, you know what,

564
00:28:26,440 --> 00:28:30,520
Speaker 1: was painful, difficult conversation with her, and then she didn't

565
00:28:30,560 --> 00:28:33,800
Speaker 1: even remember that that had happened, so he had to

566
00:28:33,800 --> 00:28:37,359
Speaker 1: have that conversation with her all over again. What these

567
00:28:37,520 --> 00:28:40,240
Speaker 1: folks who are close to her say is that the

568
00:28:40,360 --> 00:28:43,480
Speaker 1: decline has been very rapid, that even just a couple

569
00:28:43,440 --> 00:28:46,160
Speaker 1: of years ago it was very very different. They say

570
00:28:46,160 --> 00:28:49,680
Speaker 1: that she has good days and bad days. But you know,

571
00:28:49,720 --> 00:28:54,680
Speaker 1: there are enough public incidents now and enough people who

572
00:28:54,720 --> 00:28:57,160
Speaker 1: are close to her, longtime colleagues, who are speaking to

573
00:28:57,200 --> 00:29:00,360
Speaker 1: the press to paint a pretty clear picture to say,

574
00:29:00,400 --> 00:29:04,600
Speaker 1: she's very, very reliant on her staff for basically everything.

575
00:29:04,960 --> 00:29:07,520
Speaker 1: She doesn't do any town halls, she doesn't take any

576
00:29:08,680 --> 00:29:12,560
Speaker 1: barely ever takes reporter questions. Even just for basic votes,

577
00:29:12,600 --> 00:29:15,120
Speaker 1: She's very dependent on the staff telling her which way

578
00:29:15,160 --> 00:29:17,720
Speaker 1: to vote. She's almost never without a staffer to help

579
00:29:17,760 --> 00:29:19,920
Speaker 1: make sure that she's kind of like doing what she's

580
00:29:19,960 --> 00:29:22,720
Speaker 1: supposed to be doing. So, I mean, there's a few

581
00:29:22,720 --> 00:29:25,760
Speaker 1: things to say about this, first of all, outside of

582
00:29:25,800 --> 00:29:30,280
Speaker 1: just like the personal dimension here. First of all, there

583
00:29:30,320 --> 00:29:33,880
Speaker 1: was a progressive challenger who ran against Diane Feinstein's primary

584
00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:38,080
Speaker 1: that got actually absolutely destroyed by the Democratic establishment, who

585
00:29:38,080 --> 00:29:41,560
Speaker 1: they completely quashed. So that's one thing to say about it.

586
00:29:41,920 --> 00:29:44,320
Speaker 1: Another thing to say about it is and this is

587
00:29:44,320 --> 00:29:46,959
Speaker 1: something that our great friend I Romi is always talking about.

588
00:29:47,280 --> 00:29:50,720
Speaker 1: You shouldn't be able to be a politician and get

589
00:29:50,760 --> 00:29:53,840
Speaker 1: away with not doing town halls and not answering public

590
00:29:53,920 --> 00:29:57,480
Speaker 1: questions and not being responsive because ultimately, you know, they

591
00:29:57,600 --> 00:29:59,200
Speaker 1: kind of frame this article of like this is why

592
00:29:59,240 --> 00:30:01,520
Speaker 1: we should have termline no, no, this is why the

593
00:30:01,520 --> 00:30:03,920
Speaker 1: public should actually be able to see who their representatives

594
00:30:03,920 --> 00:30:06,840
Speaker 1: are and have to face questioning and face the public,

595
00:30:07,160 --> 00:30:10,960
Speaker 1: because I guarantee you if Californians, you know, were able

596
00:30:11,000 --> 00:30:15,200
Speaker 1: to see fully what the capacity here was at this point,

597
00:30:15,520 --> 00:30:17,400
Speaker 1: they would be looking to go in another direction. And

598
00:30:17,400 --> 00:30:21,000
Speaker 1: in fact, our approval rating is falling precipitously in the

599
00:30:21,040 --> 00:30:24,440
Speaker 1: state as more and more of these reports ultimately trickle out.

600
00:30:24,520 --> 00:30:27,600
Speaker 1: So to me, that's what this really argues for is

601
00:30:28,000 --> 00:30:31,480
Speaker 1: if you're Nancy Pelosi and Shahad Baitar is running against you,

602
00:30:31,480 --> 00:30:33,560
Speaker 1: if you're Jim Clyburn and you've got a can't run

603
00:30:33,600 --> 00:30:37,800
Speaker 1: against whoever you are, you should have to do public

604
00:30:37,840 --> 00:30:41,560
Speaker 1: debates and actually respond to voters and to reporters and

605
00:30:41,600 --> 00:30:44,800
Speaker 1: to the public. And the fact that you know that's

606
00:30:44,960 --> 00:30:46,880
Speaker 1: just not the case, you can say, Nope, I'm not

607
00:30:46,920 --> 00:30:48,520
Speaker 1: doing any of that. I'm just going to be completely

608
00:30:48,520 --> 00:30:53,120
Speaker 1: sheltered by my staff. It really does fail our democracy

609
00:30:53,240 --> 00:30:56,440
Speaker 1: and make it make voters unable to make educated choices

610
00:30:56,480 --> 00:30:58,880
Speaker 1: about who they want to represent them. Yeah, I think

611
00:30:58,960 --> 00:31:01,120
Speaker 1: Iramy's point is actually really well said. The fact that

612
00:31:01,160 --> 00:31:03,160
Speaker 1: there was a challenger and it was quash as ridiculous

613
00:31:03,160 --> 00:31:04,840
Speaker 1: and look people in California you need to wake up,

614
00:31:04,880 --> 00:31:09,000
Speaker 1: and especially the California Democratic Party. She's eighty eight years old,

615
00:31:09,040 --> 00:31:12,040
Speaker 1: and I have nothing but sympathy for her, her personal

616
00:31:12,080 --> 00:31:14,880
Speaker 1: life and all that. But when it coincides with the

617
00:31:14,920 --> 00:31:18,800
Speaker 1: public and their ability to have representation the nation's most

618
00:31:18,880 --> 00:31:22,640
Speaker 1: populous state, that really begins to bother thea and Pelosi

619
00:31:23,000 --> 00:31:25,880
Speaker 1: was happy to go on the record here and basically fly, Oh,

620
00:31:25,920 --> 00:31:28,400
Speaker 1: she's just as fierce as ever, etcetera. Yeah, Okay, we

621
00:31:28,480 --> 00:31:30,840
Speaker 1: know that's not true at this point. Got it all right, guys,

622
00:31:30,840 --> 00:31:35,480
Speaker 1: Thanks for watching. One more for you later. Some very

623
00:31:35,600 --> 00:31:40,320
Speaker 1: revealing comments were just leaked from Congressman Mode Brooks, who's

624
00:31:40,360 --> 00:31:43,960
Speaker 1: right now running for Senate in Alabama, where he actually

625
00:31:44,040 --> 00:31:48,920
Speaker 1: explains in detail one of the mechanisms for corruption that

626
00:31:49,040 --> 00:31:53,680
Speaker 1: involves basically lobbyists and buying committee chairmanships. This goes into

627
00:31:53,720 --> 00:31:55,640
Speaker 1: a level of detail that even I didn't know this

628
00:31:55,760 --> 00:31:58,680
Speaker 1: was exactly how it works. Yeah, so it's quite interesting.

629
00:31:58,720 --> 00:32:00,400
Speaker 1: Take a listen to what he has to say. Sure

630
00:32:00,480 --> 00:32:05,640
Speaker 1: that y'all are very much concerned about why our Congress

631
00:32:05,880 --> 00:32:09,840
Speaker 1: is so unresponsive to the regular needs of America. Says

632
00:32:10,320 --> 00:32:14,400
Speaker 1: why some of these policies that come out are so bizarre,

633
00:32:15,600 --> 00:32:21,040
Speaker 1: so unfair, so steward against regular Jane and Joe citizens.

634
00:32:21,840 --> 00:32:27,400
Speaker 1: The reason is simple, special interest groups run washing them.

635
00:32:28,400 --> 00:32:32,320
Speaker 1: And I don't mean that metaphorically, I mean literally. Now

636
00:32:32,640 --> 00:32:37,720
Speaker 1: Here is how it happens in the House of Representatives.

637
00:32:37,800 --> 00:32:40,280
Speaker 1: I'll use that as an example because that's where I work.

638
00:32:40,920 --> 00:32:43,640
Speaker 1: If you want to be chairman of a major committee,

639
00:32:43,960 --> 00:32:48,200
Speaker 1: you have to purchase it. And the purchase price for

640
00:32:48,600 --> 00:32:53,160
Speaker 1: a major committee, say like Ways and Means minimum bid

641
00:32:53,600 --> 00:32:57,640
Speaker 1: is a million dollars. I'm talking literally here, I'm not

642
00:32:57,680 --> 00:33:03,320
Speaker 1: talking metaphorically. Okay, we have committees broken down by A group, B,

643
00:33:03,480 --> 00:33:07,400
Speaker 1: group and C. Group. C are the cheapest, B are

644
00:33:07,440 --> 00:33:11,240
Speaker 1: the most expensive, are middling. A is the most expensive.

645
00:33:11,760 --> 00:33:14,720
Speaker 1: It's the most expensive because those are the committees that

646
00:33:14,800 --> 00:33:18,840
Speaker 1: the special interest groups care the most about. So where

647
00:33:18,880 --> 00:33:22,840
Speaker 1: does a congressman come up with a million dollars to

648
00:33:23,040 --> 00:33:26,440
Speaker 1: be chairman of one of these A committees? You can't

649
00:33:26,480 --> 00:33:29,600
Speaker 1: get it from Joe and Jane citizen because joinsane citizen

650
00:33:29,680 --> 00:33:32,320
Speaker 1: back home, They're not going to be contributing that kind

651
00:33:32,320 --> 00:33:36,680
Speaker 1: of money. They don't have it. They need that money

652
00:33:36,680 --> 00:33:40,360
Speaker 1: for their own families. Okay, let me finish. Let me finish.

653
00:33:40,800 --> 00:33:44,800
Speaker 1: And so you have to get it from the special

654
00:33:44,840 --> 00:33:48,000
Speaker 1: interest groups. And with the special interest groups there is

655
00:33:48,040 --> 00:33:51,120
Speaker 1: a quit for flow. If you don't do what they

656
00:33:51,200 --> 00:33:53,240
Speaker 1: tell you to do, they won't give you the money

657
00:33:53,240 --> 00:33:58,800
Speaker 1: that finances your chairmanship. I had one guy who ran

658
00:33:59,080 --> 00:34:03,160
Speaker 1: for chairman of the NRCC, which is where the Republicans

659
00:34:03,200 --> 00:34:06,479
Speaker 1: pay their money for these committee assignments and chairmanships, just

660
00:34:06,520 --> 00:34:10,000
Speaker 1: as the Democrats pay theirs to the d Triple C.

661
00:34:10,840 --> 00:34:12,960
Speaker 1: And this guy who wanted to be chair of the

662
00:34:13,120 --> 00:34:17,640
Speaker 1: NRCC actually had a brochure and that brochure at price

663
00:34:17,960 --> 00:34:22,600
Speaker 1: listings written on it, and his argument for getting elected

664
00:34:22,840 --> 00:34:27,239
Speaker 1: was elect me, I will charge you less. Now you

665
00:34:27,480 --> 00:34:31,920
Speaker 1: understand how the public policy debate is corrupted when to

666
00:34:31,960 --> 00:34:34,560
Speaker 1: be in a position of power you have to do

667
00:34:34,640 --> 00:34:38,480
Speaker 1: what the special interest groups require, which undermines the public

668
00:34:38,520 --> 00:34:43,399
Speaker 1: policy debate. The money now is triumph. And I'll give

669
00:34:43,440 --> 00:34:46,520
Speaker 1: you a second example. So it's not Rote Brooks talking,

670
00:34:46,640 --> 00:34:51,680
Speaker 1: but there's no evidence to back this up. Congressman Thomas Massing,

671
00:34:51,840 --> 00:34:56,200
Speaker 1: by the way, endorsed me yesterday yesterday afternoon. I should

672
00:34:56,200 --> 00:34:58,520
Speaker 1: add that rand Pall has also endorsed me from the

673
00:34:58,760 --> 00:35:03,839
Speaker 1: w He had a lodgist come up to him, and

674
00:35:03,920 --> 00:35:08,440
Speaker 1: the lobbyist said, look, I will pay your five hundred

675
00:35:08,480 --> 00:35:11,759
Speaker 1: thousand dollars to be on ways and Means if you

676
00:35:11,920 --> 00:35:15,759
Speaker 1: will sponsor this patent bill. Thomas is brilliant. He has

677
00:35:15,880 --> 00:35:20,640
Speaker 1: patents mit grad and Thomas said, okay, I'll look at it.

678
00:35:20,719 --> 00:35:22,600
Speaker 1: And he looked at it and said, no, this hurts

679
00:35:22,600 --> 00:35:25,000
Speaker 1: the small event. The people with the power and the

680
00:35:25,000 --> 00:35:27,360
Speaker 1: money are going to use that power of money to

681
00:35:27,520 --> 00:35:30,640
Speaker 1: steal the patent rights from the person who actually had

682
00:35:30,640 --> 00:35:33,520
Speaker 1: the idea, who should be reefing the rewards of that idea.

683
00:35:34,000 --> 00:35:36,040
Speaker 1: And so Thomas went back to the lobby said no,

684
00:35:36,200 --> 00:35:38,120
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do it. The lobby said, okay,

685
00:35:38,160 --> 00:35:40,240
Speaker 1: I'm not going to pay that five hundred thousand dollars.

686
00:35:40,600 --> 00:35:43,279
Speaker 1: Thomas Massey got that published on the front page of

687
00:35:43,280 --> 00:35:46,080
Speaker 1: the USA today, that story, and I saw it and

688
00:35:46,080 --> 00:35:49,760
Speaker 1: I'm going finally, somebody else in the House of Representatives

689
00:35:49,960 --> 00:35:53,640
Speaker 1: who was honorable, who is ethical, and sees the corruption

690
00:35:53,719 --> 00:35:56,799
Speaker 1: associated with this process. And I went Thomas said thank

691
00:35:56,840 --> 00:36:00,799
Speaker 1: you for doing that. And Thomas responded, well, I made

692
00:36:00,840 --> 00:36:04,800
Speaker 1: one big mistake. It looked good to me, said, well,

693
00:36:04,880 --> 00:36:08,040
Speaker 1: I talked about it in terms of buying committee assignments,

694
00:36:08,320 --> 00:36:10,719
Speaker 1: when really it's a ritual agreement. You have to pay

695
00:36:10,719 --> 00:36:15,520
Speaker 1: it every two years. Now, the national media knows about this,

696
00:36:15,840 --> 00:36:20,319
Speaker 1: both political parties do it, so neither party rises to

697
00:36:20,400 --> 00:36:23,400
Speaker 1: the occasion and makes this a major public policy issue

698
00:36:23,760 --> 00:36:27,480
Speaker 1: that would increase exposure about what's getting done. But if

699
00:36:27,520 --> 00:36:32,200
Speaker 1: you want to know why our government is not properly

700
00:36:32,320 --> 00:36:35,479
Speaker 1: facing the challenges that are in front of the United

701
00:36:35,480 --> 00:36:39,560
Speaker 1: States in America, that more than anything else is the reason. Wow,

702
00:36:39,640 --> 00:36:43,120
Speaker 1: a million dollars h kind of amazing. Yeah, I mean,

703
00:36:43,200 --> 00:36:45,080
Speaker 1: of course there's a lot to say about this. First

704
00:36:45,080 --> 00:36:46,480
Speaker 1: of all, I've no doubt that this is how this

705
00:36:46,600 --> 00:36:48,920
Speaker 1: actually works, and so it shows you it's not just

706
00:36:49,280 --> 00:36:50,919
Speaker 1: like some of the things that we track in terms

707
00:36:50,960 --> 00:36:53,480
Speaker 1: of the stock ban, in terms of like the campaign

708
00:36:53,920 --> 00:36:58,000
Speaker 1: funds for actually running for election. But this is very,

709
00:36:58,200 --> 00:37:01,239
Speaker 1: very close to just a direct quid pro quo of

710
00:37:01,719 --> 00:37:04,880
Speaker 1: we will fund your committee chairmanship and you're going to

711
00:37:04,920 --> 00:37:06,680
Speaker 1: be in charge of this committee that we have a

712
00:37:06,680 --> 00:37:08,920
Speaker 1: lot of interest in, and we assume you're going to

713
00:37:09,000 --> 00:37:11,359
Speaker 1: do right by assaultimately. And see this is the other thing,

714
00:37:11,360 --> 00:37:13,719
Speaker 1: which is that the way that so there's two There's

715
00:37:13,719 --> 00:37:16,799
Speaker 1: a two pronged problem here, which is that the alternative

716
00:37:16,840 --> 00:37:21,160
Speaker 1: to this previously was the seniority system, which is obviously awful.

717
00:37:21,200 --> 00:37:23,680
Speaker 1: You don't just want a bunch of geriatric old people

718
00:37:24,000 --> 00:37:26,239
Speaker 1: luck into committee chairmanships because they happened to have been

719
00:37:26,239 --> 00:37:28,080
Speaker 1: there for forty years. That's how it was in the

720
00:37:28,160 --> 00:37:31,760
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties. The Democrats actually still abide by the seniority

721
00:37:31,800 --> 00:37:34,960
Speaker 1: system for ranking members whenever it comes to their committee chairmanships,

722
00:37:35,080 --> 00:37:38,320
Speaker 1: which causes its problems as we can see. The Republicans, however,

723
00:37:38,360 --> 00:37:41,399
Speaker 1: have rotating committee chairmanships. That's a good thing if it's

724
00:37:41,520 --> 00:37:44,839
Speaker 1: merit based, right. Instead, what it is is controlled by

725
00:37:44,840 --> 00:37:47,640
Speaker 1: the Central Committee and by the GOP leader in terms

726
00:37:47,680 --> 00:37:50,160
Speaker 1: of who gets a committee ship and who doesn't. Now,

727
00:37:50,200 --> 00:37:52,520
Speaker 1: and that what he's referring to there is the one

728
00:37:52,560 --> 00:37:54,880
Speaker 1: million dollars is that you have to have raised a

729
00:37:54,920 --> 00:37:57,920
Speaker 1: significant amount of money not just for yourself but for

730
00:37:58,000 --> 00:38:00,719
Speaker 1: the National Party and for the committee to rea And

731
00:38:00,800 --> 00:38:04,160
Speaker 1: by doing that the political is then tied to your

732
00:38:04,200 --> 00:38:06,720
Speaker 1: direct ability to have a chairman. Now, when you're chairman,

733
00:38:06,960 --> 00:38:11,239
Speaker 1: why does that matter? The chairman decides which legislation gets

734
00:38:11,239 --> 00:38:13,360
Speaker 1: to move in and out of committee, which gets to

735
00:38:13,360 --> 00:38:16,200
Speaker 1: get debated, which gets to allow to have petitions, he

736
00:38:16,280 --> 00:38:19,280
Speaker 1: gets to schedule hearings. All of that has an immense

737
00:38:19,280 --> 00:38:22,800
Speaker 1: amount of power over legislation. Also, don't forget the House,

738
00:38:22,920 --> 00:38:25,640
Speaker 1: the People's House has written in the Constitution, is where

739
00:38:25,680 --> 00:38:29,600
Speaker 1: all taxation legislation has to originate in terms of financing

740
00:38:29,800 --> 00:38:32,600
Speaker 1: appropriations and all that. Not the Senate, the guest Senate

741
00:38:32,680 --> 00:38:34,600
Speaker 1: has to advise on this, but they don't have the

742
00:38:34,600 --> 00:38:38,080
Speaker 1: same level of impact. So then the chairmanship matters even

743
00:38:38,200 --> 00:38:42,000
Speaker 1: more in terms of houseways and means house appropriations. Yeah,

744
00:38:42,000 --> 00:38:44,840
Speaker 1: those are the people, coincidentally who get the most amount

745
00:38:44,880 --> 00:38:48,080
Speaker 1: of donations and have the ability in order to have

746
00:38:48,280 --> 00:38:51,120
Speaker 1: a significant amount of influence and get invited all around

747
00:38:51,200 --> 00:38:54,600
Speaker 1: town into the most fanciest dinners because they have such

748
00:38:54,640 --> 00:38:57,480
Speaker 1: an immense amount of power. So that's like a short

749
00:38:57,520 --> 00:39:00,200
Speaker 1: history of how the system came to be. But it's

750
00:39:00,200 --> 00:39:02,719
Speaker 1: a perfect example of institutional corruption. Yeah, and I know

751
00:39:02,760 --> 00:39:05,960
Speaker 1: this stuff sounds boring, but I mean how the committee

752
00:39:05,960 --> 00:39:08,600
Speaker 1: ships get dolled out, it impacts you in a way

753
00:39:08,600 --> 00:39:10,880
Speaker 1: that you don't even probably know well. And then of

754
00:39:10,920 --> 00:39:13,800
Speaker 1: course the other piece of this is like I mean Obviously,

755
00:39:13,840 --> 00:39:16,200
Speaker 1: this dude is hardly a paragonom virtue. If you look

756
00:39:16,239 --> 00:39:18,240
Speaker 1: at him, and I just pulled up his open secrets.

757
00:39:18,239 --> 00:39:20,640
Speaker 1: He gets tons of money from like real estate interest

758
00:39:20,760 --> 00:39:23,680
Speaker 1: and developers, and also a bunch of sort of like

759
00:39:24,960 --> 00:39:30,400
Speaker 1: military industrial or like space tech type of companies. So

760
00:39:30,880 --> 00:39:34,439
Speaker 1: he's playing the game himself. He's exposed in the game

761
00:39:34,440 --> 00:39:37,080
Speaker 1: here in this regard, but he is in no way

762
00:39:37,160 --> 00:39:39,480
Speaker 1: or his hands clean. And it's interesting because as he

763
00:39:39,560 --> 00:39:41,239
Speaker 1: goes on, the clip goes about five minutes. The whole

764
00:39:41,280 --> 00:39:43,320
Speaker 1: thing is worth watching. He can take a look. I

765
00:39:43,320 --> 00:39:45,400
Speaker 1: think I tweeted, I think Ryan grim tweeted in others.

766
00:39:45,440 --> 00:39:50,320
Speaker 1: But he goes on to tell this anecdote about Jamie

767
00:39:50,400 --> 00:39:55,640
Speaker 1: Comer or not sorry, Thomas Massey, different Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massey,

768
00:39:55,680 --> 00:39:58,720
Speaker 1: who's kind of a libertarian, so he's credible in terms

769
00:39:58,760 --> 00:40:01,360
Speaker 1: of when it comes to corrupt and how he'd written

770
00:40:01,360 --> 00:40:04,319
Speaker 1: this op ed for USA Today exposing how all of

771
00:40:04,360 --> 00:40:07,760
Speaker 1: this worked and how one lobbyist had offered to basically

772
00:40:07,800 --> 00:40:12,120
Speaker 1: buy him this committee chairmanship, and then not like just

773
00:40:12,160 --> 00:40:14,920
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks later, there he was, after he

774
00:40:14,960 --> 00:40:17,880
Speaker 1: had been decrying how terrible this was there he was

775
00:40:18,120 --> 00:40:21,160
Speaker 1: sending out invites to all the lobbyists in Washington to

776
00:40:21,239 --> 00:40:25,360
Speaker 1: come to some fundraiser for him. So a lot of

777
00:40:25,360 --> 00:40:28,799
Speaker 1: the people they loved, right, they loved a posture, but

778
00:40:28,920 --> 00:40:32,120
Speaker 1: then they're just as guilty as playing the same game

779
00:40:32,239 --> 00:40:35,640
Speaker 1: as everybody else. So that's yeah, we'll review into the

780
00:40:35,680 --> 00:40:38,120
Speaker 1: system there. Indeed, all right, guys, thanks for watching. More

781
00:40:38,120 --> 00:40:42,880
Speaker 1: for you later. Hey, guys, Kyle Kolinsky is letting us

782
00:40:42,920 --> 00:40:45,120
Speaker 1: post some of the clips from his channel that we

783
00:40:45,200 --> 00:40:47,840
Speaker 1: think you guys will really love in the Breaking Points

784
00:40:47,840 --> 00:40:51,319
Speaker 1: community on our channel. Yep, let's get to it. So Nolm.

785
00:40:51,360 --> 00:40:53,799
Speaker 1: Chomsky has been doing a bunch of interviews recently. He

786
00:40:53,880 --> 00:40:56,960
Speaker 1: spoke to Nathan J. Robinson of Current Affairs, and he

787
00:40:57,000 --> 00:40:59,960
Speaker 1: also spoke to Jeremy Skahill of The Intercept. He's busy

788
00:41:00,120 --> 00:41:01,920
Speaker 1: man for being one hundred and seventy eight years old,

789
00:41:01,920 --> 00:41:05,080
Speaker 1: if I don't say so myself. So first what I

790
00:41:05,080 --> 00:41:06,799
Speaker 1: want to do. I'm gonna get to a video in

791
00:41:06,840 --> 00:41:09,640
Speaker 1: a second. It's, you know, a piece of the interview

792
00:41:09,719 --> 00:41:11,480
Speaker 1: he did with Jeremy S. K Hill of The Intercept.

793
00:41:12,080 --> 00:41:14,719
Speaker 1: But before I do that, let me show you the

794
00:41:14,800 --> 00:41:19,280
Speaker 1: thing he said to Nathan J. Robinson, which is leading

795
00:41:19,320 --> 00:41:23,279
Speaker 1: to quite a bit of backlash online. And I would

796
00:41:23,280 --> 00:41:28,240
Speaker 1: say it's, you know, bipartisan backlash to some extent. But anyway,

797
00:41:28,320 --> 00:41:33,000
Speaker 1: so somebody tweeted sage old Nome Chomsky patiently explaining to Ukrainians,

798
00:41:33,080 --> 00:41:35,520
Speaker 1: few of whom I suspect he's actually spoken to about this,

799
00:41:35,600 --> 00:41:38,360
Speaker 1: that they really have no choice but to surrender and

800
00:41:38,440 --> 00:41:41,719
Speaker 1: concede to Russia virtually everything it demands. Quote, because that's

801
00:41:41,800 --> 00:41:44,719
Speaker 1: just the way the world works. Disgraceful. So this is

802
00:41:44,760 --> 00:41:48,239
Speaker 1: what somebody said, a guy named Vincent Artman. So let

803
00:41:48,280 --> 00:41:51,160
Speaker 1: me read the passage that he he puts in the

804
00:41:51,200 --> 00:41:54,600
Speaker 1: tweet here, the passage that people are angry at him over.

805
00:41:55,360 --> 00:41:58,400
Speaker 1: So Chomsky said the following. So, I'm not criticizing Zelensky.

806
00:41:58,560 --> 00:42:01,440
Speaker 1: He's an honorable person and has shown great courage. You

807
00:42:01,480 --> 00:42:04,160
Speaker 1: can sympathize with his positions, but you can also pay

808
00:42:04,160 --> 00:42:06,400
Speaker 1: attention to the reality of the world. And that's what

809
00:42:06,480 --> 00:42:08,760
Speaker 1: it implies. I'll go back to what I said before.

810
00:42:08,880 --> 00:42:11,600
Speaker 1: There are basically two options. One option is to pursue

811
00:42:11,600 --> 00:42:14,879
Speaker 1: the policy we are now following to quote Ambassador Freeman again,

812
00:42:15,360 --> 00:42:19,040
Speaker 1: to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian and yes, we

813
00:42:19,080 --> 00:42:21,839
Speaker 1: can pursue that policy with the possibility of nuclear war,

814
00:42:22,480 --> 00:42:25,200
Speaker 1: or we can face the reality that the only alternative

815
00:42:25,239 --> 00:42:28,040
Speaker 1: is a diplomatic settlement, which will be ugly. It will

816
00:42:28,040 --> 00:42:30,400
Speaker 1: give Putin and his narrow circle and escape patch. It

817
00:42:30,440 --> 00:42:33,120
Speaker 1: will say, here's how you can get out without destroying

818
00:42:33,200 --> 00:42:35,960
Speaker 1: Ukraine and going back to destroy the world. We know

819
00:42:36,040 --> 00:42:39,440
Speaker 1: the basic framework is neutralization of Ukraine, some kind of

820
00:42:39,480 --> 00:42:43,160
Speaker 1: accommodation for the DNBAS region with a high level of autonomy,

821
00:42:43,520 --> 00:42:47,000
Speaker 1: maybe within some federal structure in Ukraine, and recognizing that

822
00:42:47,239 --> 00:42:49,680
Speaker 1: like it or not, CRIMEA is not on the table.

823
00:42:50,000 --> 00:42:52,640
Speaker 1: You may not like it, you may not like the

824
00:42:52,680 --> 00:42:55,160
Speaker 1: fact that there's a hurricane coming tomorrow, but you can't

825
00:42:55,160 --> 00:42:57,319
Speaker 1: stop it by saying I don't like hurricanes or I

826
00:42:57,320 --> 00:43:00,279
Speaker 1: don't recognize hurricanes. That doesn't do any good. And the

827
00:43:00,280 --> 00:43:03,279
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is every rational analyst knows that

828
00:43:03,400 --> 00:43:07,080
Speaker 1: CRIMEA is for now off the table. That's the alternative

829
00:43:07,080 --> 00:43:10,000
Speaker 1: to the destruction of Ukraine and nuclear war. You can

830
00:43:10,040 --> 00:43:12,760
Speaker 1: make heroic statements if you'd like about not liking hurricanes

831
00:43:12,840 --> 00:43:15,200
Speaker 1: or not liking the solution, but that's not doing anyone

832
00:43:15,239 --> 00:43:19,040
Speaker 1: any good. Okay, So I should note here that when

833
00:43:19,040 --> 00:43:21,520
Speaker 1: he says Crimea is off the table, he's clearly not

834
00:43:21,560 --> 00:43:23,800
Speaker 1: saying Crimea is off the table as in that will

835
00:43:24,000 --> 00:43:26,520
Speaker 1: continue to be part of Ukraine. He's saying Crimea is

836
00:43:26,560 --> 00:43:30,880
Speaker 1: off the table, as in Russia's had control of itsin

837
00:43:30,920 --> 00:43:33,280
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, and so it's going to be under Russian

838
00:43:33,320 --> 00:43:36,400
Speaker 1: control either officially or in some unofficial way, but it

839
00:43:36,440 --> 00:43:41,680
Speaker 1: will not leave Russian control. So a lot of criticism

840
00:43:41,760 --> 00:43:45,759
Speaker 1: over this. I would say. The aspect of the criticism

841
00:43:45,840 --> 00:43:49,719
Speaker 1: that I understand is, you know, if Noam Chomsky is

842
00:43:49,719 --> 00:43:52,399
Speaker 1: talking about the war in Iraq, I don't think Noam

843
00:43:52,480 --> 00:43:55,680
Speaker 1: Chomsky would say something along the lines of, you know,

844
00:43:56,239 --> 00:43:58,600
Speaker 1: Iraq needs to live in the real world and understand

845
00:43:58,800 --> 00:44:03,000
Speaker 1: that you're gonna have to make some giant concessions to

846
00:44:03,760 --> 00:44:07,799
Speaker 1: the marauding imperialist invader. That wouldn't be the bulk of

847
00:44:07,800 --> 00:44:10,480
Speaker 1: his commentary. Now, that's because he's from the US, and

848
00:44:10,520 --> 00:44:12,640
Speaker 1: so he feels responsible for the actions of the US,

849
00:44:12,640 --> 00:44:14,640
Speaker 1: and so he would put the burden more on us.

850
00:44:15,120 --> 00:44:17,040
Speaker 1: But I do get the criticism in the sense that,

851
00:44:17,719 --> 00:44:25,240
Speaker 1: you know, large superpowers do messed up things, and you can,

852
00:44:25,440 --> 00:44:27,799
Speaker 1: like across the board denounce it when the US does it,

853
00:44:28,040 --> 00:44:31,800
Speaker 1: but also you can recognize when another large, powerful government

854
00:44:32,200 --> 00:44:34,480
Speaker 1: is doing a messed up thing and put the burden

855
00:44:34,520 --> 00:44:39,239
Speaker 1: and the onus on that country. So I don't know

856
00:44:39,280 --> 00:44:41,320
Speaker 1: if I call it a blind spot, but i'd say

857
00:44:41,800 --> 00:44:46,040
Speaker 1: it is there is a problem with his thinking here

858
00:44:46,920 --> 00:44:51,319
Speaker 1: where you know, again, if it was the US doing it,

859
00:44:51,920 --> 00:44:56,760
Speaker 1: he would reserve the bulk of his commentary to bashing

860
00:44:56,800 --> 00:44:59,960
Speaker 1: the aggression of the US, But when Russia is illegal

861
00:45:00,120 --> 00:45:04,919
Speaker 1: evading another country and occupying it, he doesn't. There there's

862
00:45:04,960 --> 00:45:07,240
Speaker 1: not much of that. It's I mean, to an extent,

863
00:45:07,280 --> 00:45:09,680
Speaker 1: it's like, well, of course they shouldn't do it, but

864
00:45:09,840 --> 00:45:11,759
Speaker 1: it's also, hey, this is sort of the reality of

865
00:45:11,760 --> 00:45:14,320
Speaker 1: the world, so you know, you're gonna have to accept

866
00:45:14,480 --> 00:45:17,920
Speaker 1: certain things here, and so I do understand the criticism

867
00:45:18,000 --> 00:45:21,520
Speaker 1: to some extent. However, I also think people are sort

868
00:45:21,520 --> 00:45:27,000
Speaker 1: of misstating Chomsky's position because you can take this little

869
00:45:27,000 --> 00:45:30,839
Speaker 1: portion out of the interview and say this encapsulates everything

870
00:45:30,880 --> 00:45:34,560
Speaker 1: about Noam Chomsky's position. But that's definitely not true, because

871
00:45:34,600 --> 00:45:37,080
Speaker 1: I watched that entire interview, or I should know, I

872
00:45:37,120 --> 00:45:40,600
Speaker 1: watched a lot of the interview he did with Jeremy

873
00:45:40,640 --> 00:45:43,600
Speaker 1: Scahill over at the intercept, and now let me show

874
00:45:43,640 --> 00:45:46,040
Speaker 1: you that video so you get a more fully fleshed

875
00:45:46,080 --> 00:45:50,319
Speaker 1: out take on what his position really is. We can

876
00:45:50,360 --> 00:45:53,360
Speaker 1: take time to talk about the broader historical context, and

877
00:45:53,440 --> 00:45:57,239
Speaker 1: you've been discussing this a lot in other interviews, but

878
00:45:57,400 --> 00:45:59,600
Speaker 1: I want to just start by asking you, is there

879
00:45:59,640 --> 00:46:05,160
Speaker 1: any aspect of the US, NATO and European Union response

880
00:46:05,239 --> 00:46:09,239
Speaker 1: to this invasion that you believe is just the weapons

881
00:46:09,560 --> 00:46:14,880
Speaker 1: transfers to Ukraine, the sweeping economic sanctions and attempts to

882
00:46:15,320 --> 00:46:20,000
Speaker 1: entirely isolate not only Russia and Putin, but ordinary Russians.

883
00:46:20,320 --> 00:46:24,120
Speaker 1: Is there any aspect of the government response to this

884
00:46:24,560 --> 00:46:27,520
Speaker 1: by the US, NATO or the European Union that you

885
00:46:27,640 --> 00:46:36,200
Speaker 1: agree with? I think that support for ukraine effort to

886
00:46:36,320 --> 00:46:41,600
Speaker 1: defend itself is legitimate. If it is, of course, it

887
00:46:41,680 --> 00:46:47,440
Speaker 1: has to be carefully scaled so that it actually improves

888
00:46:47,480 --> 00:46:53,080
Speaker 1: their situation and doesn't escalate the conflict to lead to

889
00:46:53,400 --> 00:47:00,840
Speaker 1: destruction of Ukraine and possibly beyond. Sanctions against the aggressor

890
00:47:01,640 --> 00:47:07,160
Speaker 1: are appropriate, just as sanctions against Washington would have been

891
00:47:07,200 --> 00:47:12,080
Speaker 1: appropriate when it invaded Iraq or Afghanistan or many other

892
00:47:12,160 --> 00:47:17,520
Speaker 1: cases of course, that's unthinkable given US power and effect.

893
00:47:17,680 --> 00:47:21,040
Speaker 1: For a few times it has been done. The one

894
00:47:21,080 --> 00:47:24,399
Speaker 1: time it has been done, the US simply shrugged its

895
00:47:24,400 --> 00:47:29,839
Speaker 1: soldiers and escal escalated the conflict. That was a Nicaragua

896
00:47:30,560 --> 00:47:34,880
Speaker 1: when the US was brought to the World Court condemned

897
00:47:34,960 --> 00:47:40,680
Speaker 1: for unlawful use of force order to pay reparations, responded

898
00:47:40,719 --> 00:47:44,319
Speaker 1: by escalating the conflict. But so it's unthinkable in the

899
00:47:44,360 --> 00:47:47,840
Speaker 1: case of the US, but it would be appropriate. However,

900
00:47:48,200 --> 00:47:51,840
Speaker 1: I still think it's not quite the right question. The

901
00:47:51,960 --> 00:47:55,239
Speaker 1: right question is what is the best thing to do

902
00:47:55,840 --> 00:48:00,880
Speaker 1: to save Ukraine from a grim fate, from the destruction,

903
00:48:01,840 --> 00:48:08,040
Speaker 1: and that to move towards a negotiated settlement. There are

904
00:48:08,080 --> 00:48:13,759
Speaker 1: some simple facts that aren't really controversial. There are two

905
00:48:13,880 --> 00:48:17,960
Speaker 1: ways for a war to end. One way is for

906
00:48:18,120 --> 00:48:22,279
Speaker 1: one side or the other to be basically destroyed, and

907
00:48:22,360 --> 00:48:25,960
Speaker 1: the Russians are not going to be destroyed, so that

908
00:48:26,160 --> 00:48:29,960
Speaker 1: means one way is for Ukraine to be destroyed. The

909
00:48:30,040 --> 00:48:35,160
Speaker 1: other way is some negotiated settlement. If there's a third way,

910
00:48:35,640 --> 00:48:38,840
Speaker 1: no one's ever figured it out. So what we should

911
00:48:38,920 --> 00:48:42,920
Speaker 1: be doing is devoting all the things you mentioned, if

912
00:48:43,000 --> 00:48:52,400
Speaker 1: properly shaped, but primarily moving towards a possible negotiated settlement

913
00:48:53,080 --> 00:48:57,600
Speaker 1: that will save Ukrainians from further disaster. So that's his

914
00:48:57,680 --> 00:49:00,560
Speaker 1: full position, and when I look at him describe his position,

915
00:49:00,800 --> 00:49:04,160
Speaker 1: I think that's very reasonable. I don't see much to

916
00:49:04,440 --> 00:49:06,440
Speaker 1: pick apart there, so let's go through it. He says

917
00:49:07,520 --> 00:49:11,840
Speaker 1: support for Ukraine's effort to defend itself is legitimate, and

918
00:49:11,880 --> 00:49:15,920
Speaker 1: then he adds the caveat if it's carefully scaled and

919
00:49:15,960 --> 00:49:20,919
Speaker 1: doesn't escalate. So I think what he means by that is, yeah,

920
00:49:20,960 --> 00:49:23,000
Speaker 1: they have a right to defend themselves, and they can

921
00:49:23,080 --> 00:49:28,480
Speaker 1: and should be armed, but don't, you know, set up

922
00:49:28,480 --> 00:49:30,760
Speaker 1: a no fly zone for them and drag the US

923
00:49:30,800 --> 00:49:35,600
Speaker 1: into it. Don't essentially like, don't give them false hope,

924
00:49:36,320 --> 00:49:40,879
Speaker 1: and also perhaps don't arm the Azov Battalion, the Neo

925
00:49:40,960 --> 00:49:44,920
Speaker 1: Nazis who are officially part of the Ukrainian National Guard.

926
00:49:45,320 --> 00:49:48,040
Speaker 1: So I think he's just saying you can give them

927
00:49:48,080 --> 00:49:52,759
Speaker 1: weapons to defend themselves, but don't go too far, and

928
00:49:52,800 --> 00:49:56,000
Speaker 1: perhaps give certain kinds of weapons that could escalate the

929
00:49:56,000 --> 00:49:59,720
Speaker 1: conflict and draw in the West and make it devolve

930
00:49:59,760 --> 00:50:02,239
Speaker 1: out of control where you know, nuclear war is on

931
00:50:02,280 --> 00:50:05,160
Speaker 1: the table. So I totally agree with him on that point,

932
00:50:05,200 --> 00:50:07,960
Speaker 1: and in fact, I think he's way more correct than

933
00:50:08,000 --> 00:50:11,800
Speaker 1: the mainstream opinion, certainly in mainstream media, where they seem

934
00:50:11,840 --> 00:50:15,200
Speaker 1: to believe give them like any and all weapons, and

935
00:50:15,400 --> 00:50:18,040
Speaker 1: also set up an o fly zone where NATO end

936
00:50:18,200 --> 00:50:20,799
Speaker 1: or the US is shooting Russian planes out of the sky,

937
00:50:21,239 --> 00:50:24,040
Speaker 1: which is direct to military conflict between two nuclear empowers,

938
00:50:24,040 --> 00:50:27,200
Speaker 1: which would be an absolute catastrophe and disaster. So I

939
00:50:27,600 --> 00:50:29,000
Speaker 1: agree with him on that, and I gotta be honest,

940
00:50:29,040 --> 00:50:32,720
Speaker 1: I'm a little surprised that he's saying that he supports

941
00:50:32,719 --> 00:50:36,360
Speaker 1: any weaponry going to Ukraine, but he does. He just said,

942
00:50:36,719 --> 00:50:39,960
Speaker 1: I support Ukraine's effort to defend itself and it's legitimate.

943
00:50:40,000 --> 00:50:42,520
Speaker 1: You just need to make sure you carefully scale the

944
00:50:42,560 --> 00:50:46,280
Speaker 1: weaponry and don't escalate it. Then he even says sanctions

945
00:50:46,320 --> 00:50:50,600
Speaker 1: against the aggressor by that he means Russia are appropriate.

946
00:50:52,120 --> 00:50:54,359
Speaker 1: He goes on to say, as it was. You know,

947
00:50:54,400 --> 00:50:56,759
Speaker 1: if people wanted to sanction the US after what we

948
00:50:56,800 --> 00:50:59,440
Speaker 1: did in Iraq, that would have been appropriate. Now I

949
00:50:59,480 --> 00:51:01,960
Speaker 1: will add the little asterisk here, and this is just

950
00:51:02,000 --> 00:51:04,120
Speaker 1: my position, but I'm sure he would agree if somebody

951
00:51:04,120 --> 00:51:06,160
Speaker 1: were to bring this up to him. I don't support

952
00:51:06,200 --> 00:51:08,719
Speaker 1: any of the sanctions that hurt the Russian population. I

953
00:51:08,760 --> 00:51:11,080
Speaker 1: would try to target the sanctions as much as possible

954
00:51:11,440 --> 00:51:17,520
Speaker 1: to putin his inner circle the military, the oligarchs, and really,

955
00:51:17,560 --> 00:51:19,400
Speaker 1: as a matter of principle, I think that that's the

956
00:51:19,400 --> 00:51:23,280
Speaker 1: best response, even if it doesn't lead to quote unquote

957
00:51:23,320 --> 00:51:26,760
Speaker 1: positive outcomes. You can't just let, you know, one country

958
00:51:26,800 --> 00:51:30,000
Speaker 1: invade another sovereign country and sit there and watch it.

959
00:51:30,200 --> 00:51:31,800
Speaker 1: Now again, I'm consistent on that because I say the

960
00:51:31,800 --> 00:51:35,080
Speaker 1: same thing when the US does it. You know, nobody

961
00:51:35,120 --> 00:51:37,120
Speaker 1: should just sit there and watch the US commit war

962
00:51:37,160 --> 00:51:40,400
Speaker 1: crimes and invade sovereign countries. It's wrong when we do it,

963
00:51:40,440 --> 00:51:42,120
Speaker 1: so it's wrong when Russia does it. So there should

964
00:51:42,160 --> 00:51:45,400
Speaker 1: be standards and rules and laws that are upheld in

965
00:51:45,440 --> 00:51:49,040
Speaker 1: the process of that. So Chomsky doesn't say here that

966
00:51:49,600 --> 00:51:53,520
Speaker 1: you know, he supports or doesn't support the sanctions against

967
00:51:53,560 --> 00:51:55,560
Speaker 1: the people of Russia, but I assume he'd agree that

968
00:51:55,640 --> 00:51:57,319
Speaker 1: going after the people of Russia is way too far

969
00:51:57,360 --> 00:52:00,680
Speaker 1: because that's just collective punishment and their innocent bystander. They

970
00:52:00,680 --> 00:52:02,960
Speaker 1: didn't do anything wrong, and so you know, you shouldn't

971
00:52:02,960 --> 00:52:05,560
Speaker 1: crack down on them. But look, I mean when you

972
00:52:05,560 --> 00:52:06,960
Speaker 1: look at that first, when you look at the first

973
00:52:07,000 --> 00:52:09,279
Speaker 1: comment that I shared with you from the interview with

974
00:52:09,400 --> 00:52:13,319
Speaker 1: current affairs, you would have no idea that this is

975
00:52:13,920 --> 00:52:17,360
Speaker 1: what Chomsky believes as well, to some extent, arming Ukraine

976
00:52:17,400 --> 00:52:20,520
Speaker 1: to defend themselves and to some extent sanctioning Russia are

977
00:52:20,520 --> 00:52:25,600
Speaker 1: totally legitimate. So now you see maybe the backlash was

978
00:52:25,640 --> 00:52:29,200
Speaker 1: way overblown and people were strawmanding him to some extent

979
00:52:29,239 --> 00:52:31,839
Speaker 1: in the sense that it's misleading to just show that

980
00:52:32,040 --> 00:52:34,720
Speaker 1: comment of his without giving the rest of his position.

981
00:52:35,600 --> 00:52:37,319
Speaker 1: Then he goes on to say there's gonna have to

982
00:52:37,320 --> 00:52:41,279
Speaker 1: be a negotiation and some diplomatic settlement effectively, because the

983
00:52:41,320 --> 00:52:43,880
Speaker 1: other options are what like, what are the other options?

984
00:52:43,960 --> 00:52:47,480
Speaker 1: Endless escalation to eventual World War III, that's a potential

985
00:52:48,080 --> 00:52:56,319
Speaker 1: another option, or an endless ten year war where you know,

986
00:52:56,480 --> 00:52:58,600
Speaker 1: Russia is just bogged down in Ukraine and you get

987
00:52:58,640 --> 00:53:02,719
Speaker 1: the death toll rising NonStop. And so when you look

988
00:53:02,760 --> 00:53:06,200
Speaker 1: at all the real options that are on the table, yeah,

989
00:53:06,239 --> 00:53:08,480
Speaker 1: it makes sense we should want to have a negotiation,

990
00:53:09,080 --> 00:53:12,480
Speaker 1: wanna do a diplomatic settlement, and yes, the nature of

991
00:53:12,480 --> 00:53:15,720
Speaker 1: diplomatic settlements, especially in situations like this, nobody's gonna be happy.

992
00:53:16,040 --> 00:53:18,960
Speaker 1: Nobody's gonna be happy. You know, Ukraine of course isn't

993
00:53:19,000 --> 00:53:25,160
Speaker 1: gonna be happy. Russia is not gonna be happy. And well,

994
00:53:25,200 --> 00:53:26,839
Speaker 1: we need to find a way out, like we need

995
00:53:26,840 --> 00:53:28,680
Speaker 1: to find a way out because we're really playing with

996
00:53:28,680 --> 00:53:33,480
Speaker 1: fire here. And so the other point, though, is one

997
00:53:33,560 --> 00:53:40,120
Speaker 1: that is the most complicated to me, because what would

998
00:53:40,160 --> 00:53:42,880
Speaker 1: that settlement look like? That's the question. Well, I've reported

999
00:53:42,880 --> 00:53:44,560
Speaker 1: to you guys, based on a number of things I've

1000
00:53:44,560 --> 00:53:47,040
Speaker 1: read and a number of things that have been reported

1001
00:53:47,080 --> 00:53:50,360
Speaker 1: that Zelenski had put on the table basically all of

1002
00:53:50,440 --> 00:53:54,640
Speaker 1: Russia's main asks. So you know, Russia's main asks neutrality

1003
00:53:54,880 --> 00:53:58,400
Speaker 1: for Ukraine as in, you know, don't be part of

1004
00:53:58,480 --> 00:54:01,120
Speaker 1: NATO and perhaps don't form other alliances with the West.

1005
00:54:02,000 --> 00:54:04,320
Speaker 1: That's one of the things on the table. Zelenski had

1006
00:54:04,440 --> 00:54:06,680
Speaker 1: a number of times conceded on that front and said, look,

1007
00:54:06,960 --> 00:54:08,120
Speaker 1: it is what it is. Even if I want to

1008
00:54:08,120 --> 00:54:09,279
Speaker 1: be part of NATO, we're not going to be part

1009
00:54:09,280 --> 00:54:11,959
Speaker 1: of NATO because there's a roadblock within NATO. So yes,

1010
00:54:11,960 --> 00:54:14,600
Speaker 1: we're gonna be neutral. So total concession on that. The

1011
00:54:14,680 --> 00:54:18,000
Speaker 1: other thing is the Donbass region, some settlement for the

1012
00:54:18,040 --> 00:54:22,400
Speaker 1: Donbas region either where you have the two independent republics

1013
00:54:22,440 --> 00:54:25,520
Speaker 1: actually become independent republics, or you have them become part

1014
00:54:25,520 --> 00:54:27,840
Speaker 1: of Russia, or certain percentage of them becomes part of Russia.

1015
00:54:27,960 --> 00:54:30,000
Speaker 1: Now he has previously put that on the table as well.

1016
00:54:30,440 --> 00:54:32,680
Speaker 1: And then the other thing, of course is Crimea, and

1017
00:54:32,800 --> 00:54:35,560
Speaker 1: there were indications in the press that Zelensky had also

1018
00:54:35,560 --> 00:54:37,359
Speaker 1: put that on the table, and so on. The main

1019
00:54:37,360 --> 00:54:39,719
Speaker 1: problems is the one that they cannot give in on

1020
00:54:40,000 --> 00:54:43,840
Speaker 1: under any circumstances, you know, total disarming. That's that's insane.

1021
00:54:44,239 --> 00:54:47,520
Speaker 1: No nobody would give into that, nor should they, Okay,

1022
00:54:47,520 --> 00:54:50,680
Speaker 1: But all the other things are on the table, So

1023
00:54:50,960 --> 00:54:54,080
Speaker 1: some sort of solution would look like that. But now

1024
00:54:54,120 --> 00:54:59,439
Speaker 1: I've since seen headlines talking about how certain things here

1025
00:54:59,480 --> 00:55:02,480
Speaker 1: now off the table. So if Zelenski had put particularly

1026
00:55:02,560 --> 00:55:05,040
Speaker 1: I think the don Voss region in Crimea, they were

1027
00:55:05,080 --> 00:55:07,480
Speaker 1: put on the table, and now I've read some headlines

1028
00:55:07,480 --> 00:55:10,080
Speaker 1: within the past two or three days that they're off

1029
00:55:10,120 --> 00:55:13,560
Speaker 1: the table. So I don't really know. Now you know

1030
00:55:14,360 --> 00:55:16,400
Speaker 1: what truly is on the table and what isn't on

1031
00:55:16,440 --> 00:55:22,640
Speaker 1: the table. But any sort of deal is gonna include

1032
00:55:22,840 --> 00:55:26,640
Speaker 1: most of those things or all of those things. I

1033
00:55:26,640 --> 00:55:30,239
Speaker 1: will say there's one response to Chomsky here which could

1034
00:55:30,320 --> 00:55:32,800
Speaker 1: be correct, but we just have no way of knowing.

1035
00:55:33,280 --> 00:55:35,440
Speaker 1: Which is an argument you could make if you disagree

1036
00:55:35,440 --> 00:55:40,959
Speaker 1: with Chomsky is, look, you want to have some diplomatic settlement, right,

1037
00:55:41,280 --> 00:55:45,120
Speaker 1: and you want to enforce that and get relative stability

1038
00:55:45,120 --> 00:55:47,960
Speaker 1: and peace. You know, any reasonable person would understand that.

1039
00:55:48,320 --> 00:55:54,280
Speaker 1: But what if you do that and then Russia doesn't stop.

1040
00:55:54,640 --> 00:55:57,600
Speaker 1: What if you do that and you can't appease Putin

1041
00:55:57,640 --> 00:56:02,200
Speaker 1: because he's got his mindset on their territorial expansion, and

1042
00:56:02,239 --> 00:56:04,360
Speaker 1: so then you have a situation where it would be

1043
00:56:04,440 --> 00:56:07,200
Speaker 1: fair to call everybody who is pushing most aggressively for

1044
00:56:07,239 --> 00:56:10,160
Speaker 1: peace nevill Chamberlain, and it's like, you guys are naive.

1045
00:56:10,400 --> 00:56:12,440
Speaker 1: Look at what you did. You made a deal with

1046
00:56:12,480 --> 00:56:14,680
Speaker 1: the devil, and then now the devil is doing what

1047
00:56:14,719 --> 00:56:19,440
Speaker 1: the devil does. And so that's the only critique I

1048
00:56:19,440 --> 00:56:23,680
Speaker 1: could see of Chomsky that is actually sound, in the

1049
00:56:23,719 --> 00:56:28,400
Speaker 1: sense that you are accepting all of the contours and

1050
00:56:28,440 --> 00:56:31,800
Speaker 1: nuances of his argument, and you accurately represent his position

1051
00:56:31,880 --> 00:56:33,799
Speaker 1: and then you respond to it. Now, this is not

1052
00:56:33,920 --> 00:56:36,680
Speaker 1: the critique I see coming against Chompsky. People are not

1053
00:56:36,760 --> 00:56:39,400
Speaker 1: making that critique, but That is a theoretical critique you

1054
00:56:39,440 --> 00:56:43,520
Speaker 1: could make if you disagree with him. But my position

1055
00:56:43,560 --> 00:56:47,319
Speaker 1: on it is, you got to take the chance, like

1056
00:56:47,320 --> 00:56:50,400
Speaker 1: you got to give Piece a chance. You have to

1057
00:56:50,440 --> 00:56:52,680
Speaker 1: try to get some sort of settlement here. And again,

1058
00:56:52,680 --> 00:56:57,279
Speaker 1: it's not gonna make anybody happy, but it's doable, and

1059
00:56:57,320 --> 00:56:59,880
Speaker 1: it's the least bad of all bad options. But I

1060
00:57:00,080 --> 00:57:03,480
Speaker 1: will say it's not Look, it's not my decision to

1061
00:57:03,520 --> 00:57:07,160
Speaker 1: make right now. The US our negative role in this

1062
00:57:07,280 --> 00:57:09,440
Speaker 1: is that we don't appear to be offering an off ramp.

1063
00:57:10,120 --> 00:57:12,840
Speaker 1: We don't appear to be wanting a diplomatic settlement. But

1064
00:57:12,880 --> 00:57:14,839
Speaker 1: you could argue, you know, Putin doesn't want it either

1065
00:57:14,960 --> 00:57:17,000
Speaker 1: right or else he would have already made it if

1066
00:57:17,280 --> 00:57:20,880
Speaker 1: some of those things were actually on the table. But

1067
00:57:21,560 --> 00:57:23,680
Speaker 1: my take is you have to try. You have to

1068
00:57:23,680 --> 00:57:26,600
Speaker 1: try to give Piece a chance, because the other options

1069
00:57:26,680 --> 00:57:30,160
Speaker 1: are just significantly worse. And look, if we get to

1070
00:57:30,200 --> 00:57:32,520
Speaker 1: the point where we make a deal, we think the

1071
00:57:32,560 --> 00:57:35,400
Speaker 1: deal's enforced, and then within a year, you know, Putin

1072
00:57:35,440 --> 00:57:40,000
Speaker 1: tries to do more territorial expansion, well then the argument

1073
00:57:40,000 --> 00:57:43,760
Speaker 1: that he was unappeasable is perhaps totally legitimate, and we'll

1074
00:57:43,760 --> 00:57:46,520
Speaker 1: have to reevaluate at the time. But where we are

1075
00:57:46,600 --> 00:57:49,560
Speaker 1: right now, you know, I don't think we can make

1076
00:57:49,600 --> 00:57:52,480
Speaker 1: that we can come to that conclusion definitively, and so

1077
00:57:53,280 --> 00:57:57,280
Speaker 1: we really have no other options. So ultimately, what I

1078
00:57:57,280 --> 00:58:00,160
Speaker 1: would say is, you know, I largely agree with Chomsky here.

1079
00:58:00,280 --> 00:58:03,960
Speaker 1: I largely agree with Chomsky. It is up to the Ukrainians,

1080
00:58:04,440 --> 00:58:08,120
Speaker 1: and here's what I think will happen. Hopefully, at some

1081
00:58:08,280 --> 00:58:12,000
Speaker 1: point they will make some sort of a deal, you know,

1082
00:58:12,120 --> 00:58:16,160
Speaker 1: and that could come relatively soon, which would be positive

1083
00:58:16,160 --> 00:58:20,000
Speaker 1: because fewer people would die, or maybe the fighting drags

1084
00:58:20,000 --> 00:58:25,080
Speaker 1: on for years, and then after years, everybody's appetite for

1085
00:58:25,160 --> 00:58:27,960
Speaker 1: war subsides and they're in like a permanent stalemate to

1086
00:58:27,960 --> 00:58:31,440
Speaker 1: some extent, and then you get that piece deal. So

1087
00:58:31,680 --> 00:58:34,600
Speaker 1: but again what I favor is not really as relevant

1088
00:58:34,760 --> 00:58:37,800
Speaker 1: as what the people on the ground in Ukraine favor,

1089
00:58:38,320 --> 00:58:40,360
Speaker 1: and so you just sort of have to let the

1090
00:58:40,400 --> 00:58:43,720
Speaker 1: peace process run its course and see where it leads.

1091
00:58:44,520 --> 00:58:47,120
Speaker 1: I could understand why people would say, hey, you know, Chomsky,

1092
00:58:47,280 --> 00:58:48,720
Speaker 1: you know, who are you to make this choice. If

1093
00:58:48,800 --> 00:58:50,920
Speaker 1: Ukraine wants to, if they want to fight to the

1094
00:58:51,000 --> 00:58:53,880
Speaker 1: last Ukrainian, that's their prerogative. But I think He's coming

1095
00:58:53,880 --> 00:58:55,600
Speaker 1: at this from the perspective he wants to see less

1096
00:58:55,640 --> 00:59:00,360
Speaker 1: death and less destruction, and I understand that. So yes,

1097
00:59:00,400 --> 00:59:02,480
Speaker 1: that first comment. There are some criticisms that I think

1098
00:59:02,480 --> 00:59:05,800
Speaker 1: are fair, but when he flushes out his entire position,

1099
00:59:05,840 --> 00:59:08,120
Speaker 1: I really don't see much wrong with his position at all,

1100
00:59:08,400 --> 00:59:12,360
Speaker 1: because he says he has he supports Ukraine's effort to

1101
00:59:12,360 --> 00:59:14,880
Speaker 1: defend itself, and arming them to some extent is legitimate,

1102
00:59:14,880 --> 00:59:17,880
Speaker 1: but it has to be you know, proportionate or proportional,

1103
00:59:17,920 --> 00:59:23,120
Speaker 1: whatever the word is. Sanctions against the aggressor Russia are appropriate,

1104
00:59:23,160 --> 00:59:24,880
Speaker 1: as it was against the US when we did Iraq,

1105
00:59:25,200 --> 00:59:27,160
Speaker 1: although I would say don't go too far where we

1106
00:59:27,240 --> 00:59:31,800
Speaker 1: heard civilians. And again he wants a negotiated settlement because

1107
00:59:32,800 --> 00:59:36,120
Speaker 1: what are other options. Drag the war out for years

1108
00:59:36,120 --> 00:59:38,400
Speaker 1: and years and years, or escalate towards World War three?

1109
00:59:38,480 --> 00:59:44,160
Speaker 1: Those are unthinkable. So again, the weird part of it

1110
00:59:44,200 --> 00:59:49,640
Speaker 1: is Zelensky. Previously there was reporting he did put the

1111
00:59:49,680 --> 00:59:52,040
Speaker 1: Donbass region on the table for some sort of a deal,

1112
00:59:52,080 --> 00:59:53,720
Speaker 1: he did put Crimea on the table for some sort

1113
00:59:53,720 --> 00:59:56,320
Speaker 1: of a deal, and he's already conceded on neutralization. The

1114
00:59:56,400 --> 00:59:58,160
Speaker 1: only thing he's not backing off of is you have

1115
00:59:58,240 --> 00:59:59,840
Speaker 1: you must disarm, which he's right to not back off.

1116
01:00:00,080 --> 01:00:02,720
Speaker 1: That was the previous reporting. Now the new reporting is

1117
01:00:02,760 --> 01:00:04,920
Speaker 1: those things are actually off the table, or certain of

1118
01:00:04,920 --> 01:00:06,800
Speaker 1: those are off the table. So I don't know where

1119
01:00:06,800 --> 01:00:09,120
Speaker 1: we're at in the peace process, and I know that

1120
01:00:09,160 --> 01:00:11,200
Speaker 1: the US is really not interested too much in peace

1121
01:00:11,240 --> 01:00:13,480
Speaker 1: because we're not providing an off ram for Putin, and

1122
01:00:13,840 --> 01:00:15,880
Speaker 1: arguably Putin's not at all interested in piece right now

1123
01:00:15,880 --> 01:00:19,440
Speaker 1: either because uh, if he wants it, he could just withdraw,

1124
01:00:19,840 --> 01:00:22,920
Speaker 1: but he's not doing that because he still has, you know,

1125
01:00:23,040 --> 01:00:26,760
Speaker 1: some long term goals here. He's there is reporting he's

1126
01:00:26,760 --> 01:00:28,880
Speaker 1: backed off of Keev in particular. I mean, guess they

1127
01:00:28,880 --> 01:00:31,440
Speaker 1: got bogged down there. They they couldn't capture like they

1128
01:00:31,440 --> 01:00:34,400
Speaker 1: wanted to capture it, So now they're settling for less,

1129
01:00:34,520 --> 01:00:39,160
Speaker 1: namely probably something involving Don bosson CRIMEA. But anyway, there

1130
01:00:39,200 --> 01:00:41,880
Speaker 1: you have it. Those are Chomsky's comments. There was a

1131
01:00:41,920 --> 01:00:44,360
Speaker 1: big backlash and a dog pile. But when you look

1132
01:00:44,400 --> 01:00:46,160
Speaker 1: at when you listen to his full fleshed out position.

1133
01:00:46,480 --> 01:00:48,280
Speaker 1: While I have little disagreements with it here and there,

1134
01:00:48,320 --> 01:00:49,880
Speaker 1: I think it's largely reasonable