Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of this show.
Speaker 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: Become a member today and you'll get access to our.
Speaker 2: Full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for
Speaker 2: you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and move over to some
Speaker 2: of the latest things that are happening with regard to
Speaker 2: immigration and deportations.
Speaker 3: We touched on the.
Speaker 2: Increasing unpopularity of what Trump is doing and how he
Speaker 2: really has already lost public trust with regard to his
Speaker 2: immigration agenda. Let's go and put this latest event upon
Speaker 2: the screen. So, a judge in Wisconsin was arrested by
Speaker 2: the FBI after she had allegedly directed an an undocumented
Speaker 2: immigrant out of a side door that is usually used
Speaker 2: for jury members, and she was upset that ICE agents
Speaker 2: had been coming to the courthouse, coming to you know,
Speaker 2: her courtroom and waiting for immigrants to finish their hearings
Speaker 2: and then sweeping them up and arresting them. She was
Speaker 2: upset about that, reportedly, and so she directed this one
Speaker 2: immigrant and his lawyer to go out a side door.
Speaker 2: Now the side door apparently led into a public hallway,
Speaker 2: and he was ultimately arrested anyway, But Ryan, they have
Speaker 2: now arrested her and charged her for you know, their
Speaker 2: claiming that she obstructed their ability to arrest this particular immigrant.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and this happened to come, or I don't think
Speaker 4: I wouldn't say habit to come. It did come shortly
Speaker 4: after another judge in New Mexico was also arrested, and
Speaker 4: so it created this this feeling of like, okay, there's
Speaker 4: a crackdown now on judges. The other one, though, was
Speaker 4: a this this utterly bizarre case. This is a magistrate
Speaker 4: judge who had actually stepped down because of this scandal
Speaker 4: that he ended up getting arrested. For magistrate judge in
Speaker 4: the county means like you're you're handling like very low
Speaker 4: level disorderly conduct cases and stuff like this.
Speaker 5: This is not somebody who has you know.
Speaker 4: Is out there like stopping ice busses from deporting people.
Speaker 5: So it's completely separate.
Speaker 4: This guy's judge, Judge Jose luise Cano, and his bizarre
Speaker 4: case was he had three guys living in his guesthouse
Speaker 4: in Mexico who were like handymen, like he met him
Speaker 4: as handymen for his his property and they late they
Speaker 4: in February, there was a raid and it was claimed
Speaker 4: that the three men and they say they have lots
Speaker 4: of evidence beyond like oh, he was wearing a Chicago
Speaker 4: Bulls cap, like actual evidence that they were Trend de
Speaker 4: Aragua members, and so they were, and then they arrest
Speaker 4: the guy and his wife for hiding these men that
Speaker 4: Trump had, you know, declared a member of a group
Speaker 4: that are now that Trump declared them a terror group
Speaker 4: while he's in office, so like after they've kind of
Speaker 4: moved into his little guest house. So his defense was
Speaker 4: I had no idea, there's just handymen like okay, And
Speaker 4: he even said, like I've got grandkids who come over
Speaker 4: here and played with those guys. If I was told
Speaker 4: that they were gang members, I wouldn't have let my
Speaker 4: grandkids play with them.
Speaker 5: What they were arrested for was tampering with evidence.
Speaker 4: We don't know exactly what evidence they tampered with, you know,
Speaker 4: judges and innocent till proven guilty. But in general, like
Speaker 4: some people when they find themselves in trouble, they quickly
Speaker 4: are like deleting all of their text messages or something,
Speaker 4: and that's easy to see or whatever. You know, who
Speaker 4: knows what if anything they did. But they didn't even
Speaker 4: charge them. It seems like with like housing them. But anyway,
Speaker 4: and then the second the first case, since you know,
Speaker 4: we don't have soager emily here when you normally have
Speaker 4: somebody trying to defend the case, let me try.
Speaker 5: Let me see if I can make the best case.
Speaker 4: The best argument for the fact that she committed a
Speaker 4: crime is that she was quite hostile with the ICE agents.
Speaker 4: Didn't absolutely did not like them in her courthouse, Yeah,
Speaker 4: and was like whispering in the.
Speaker 5: Court room like hey, come here, make a murmory, like
Speaker 5: go out this.
Speaker 4: Way in a way that suggests like some consciousness of
Speaker 4: trying to like usher them out. Now your point like
Speaker 4: that that that led to some that led to a
Speaker 4: public hallway anyway, Like the argument would be she was
Speaker 4: trying even if she didn't succeed, and there is a
Speaker 4: federal law, whether that law should be constitutional or not,
Speaker 4: I think is open to question. I don't think it
Speaker 4: should be because I think you should be able to
Speaker 4: I think if if like it's called basically it's like
Speaker 4: a harboring and immigration fugitive. And I guess, you know,
Speaker 4: on one level, if there's like if there's a murderer
Speaker 4: running around and you're like hiding the murderer and you
Speaker 4: know they're a murderer, Okay, I guess that should be
Speaker 4: a crime. But you there's another case. I don't think
Speaker 4: we have it in here. It's going on Tennessee. Did
Speaker 4: you see this one where no, maybe it was in
Speaker 4: Virginia actually in Charlottesville, Yes, yes, yes, yes, you want
Speaker 4: to talk about that one where they're trying to prosecute
Speaker 4: like a couple activists who are like, we just, oh,
Speaker 4: we do have a deal because you've got these plane
Speaker 4: closed kind of thugs who were just grabbing people, and
Speaker 4: you have a prosecutor. And then you have a couple
Speaker 4: of activists who are saying, let me see your warrant,
Speaker 4: let me see some ID.
Speaker 2: Who are you, show me your badge right, because there's
Speaker 2: I wish we had grabbed the video, but we showed
Speaker 2: it previously. We played it because it's it's quite chilling.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's no law that prevents ice from making
Speaker 2: these arrusts in courthouses.
Speaker 3: But it used to be like.
Speaker 2: You don't do that, right, right, And now that has
Speaker 2: been explicitly like there was I think a memo that
Speaker 2: went out for the Trump administration like nope, you can
Speaker 2: go to the schools, you can go to the courthouses,
Speaker 2: you can go to the churches, et cetera. And so
Speaker 2: you see these plane clothes individuals, one of them completely masked,
Speaker 2: who come in and are kind of aggressively arresting this guy.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I assume his lawyers and these activists are saying,
Speaker 2: where's your warrant, where's your badge number?
Speaker 3: Who are you with?
Speaker 2: And they're just you know, being stonewalled on nearly all
Speaker 2: of these questions. And so now they're charging these individuals
Speaker 2: who were just saying, hey, what is going on?
Speaker 3: Like are you just kidnapping this words? Like what is
Speaker 3: happening here?
Speaker 4: They haven't charged the activists yet, but they're investigating them.
Speaker 2: Right, Oh okay, yeah, yeah, so in any case, you know,
Speaker 2: this is threatening to This comes amid also it's important
Speaker 2: the context. You obviously have the Republicans constantly said we're
Speaker 2: going to impeach the judges. What was Steven Miller, We
Speaker 2: got to get these communists judges out of here, like
Speaker 2: Trump asserting that, you know, he is effectively the personal
Speaker 2: representative of the will of the people, and so if
Speaker 2: core are disagreeing with his lawless actions, then they are
Speaker 2: thwarting the will of the people and they are therefore illegitimate.
Speaker 2: We see this administration obviously like outright defying court orders,
Speaker 2: whether it's turning the planes around or refusing to facilitate
Speaker 2: kill mar Abrego Garcia's return even though the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: said you have to do that. So it's amidst that
Speaker 2: climate that you now see this. You know, look, I'm
Speaker 2: not a legal expert. I want to talk to Pisco
Speaker 2: or someone else about the strength of this case, but
Speaker 2: to my reading, the very weak case leading to the
Speaker 2: arrest of this judge. And they also did it in
Speaker 2: a very provocative public way where you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: no one thinks this judge is like a threat to
Speaker 2: public safety or whatever. You could have if you wanted
Speaker 2: to charge her, you could have had her voluntarily surrender
Speaker 2: and not have the images of the handcuffs and all
Speaker 2: this sort of stuff.
Speaker 3: So there's no doubt.
Speaker 2: I think there is no doubt that this is an
Speaker 2: intentional signal that is being sent to the judiciary, to
Speaker 2: anyone who may try to defend the rights of immigrants.
Speaker 2: I recall also Tom Homan going on TV and saying
Speaker 2: they might charge AOC because she had done one of
Speaker 2: these like know your Rights type of seminars, which is
Speaker 2: something that other members of Congress you know, have done,
Speaker 2: which is just about skating people. Pay Literally, here are
Speaker 2: your rights, here's what you can do, and here's what
Speaker 2: you can't do, et cetera. So I and Ken Clippenstein
Speaker 2: has reported on how sab Gorka, who is the Counter
Speaker 2: Terrors are as a significant position within the administration, saying
Speaker 2: that he believes that people who protest the Trump deportation
Speaker 2: policy may be aiding and embedding providing.
Speaker 3: Material support to a terrorist.
Speaker 2: Group, which would also, you know, indicate criminal potential charges
Speaker 2: against you know, activists or others who would resist the
Speaker 2: direction that Trump administration has gone in.
Speaker 4: Yes, if you ever read any journalism or history about
Speaker 4: any authoritarian government throughout history for hundreds of years. As
Speaker 4: soon as the idea of terrorism became a thing, authoritarian
Speaker 4: governments seized on terrorism as the reason that they were
Speaker 4: cracking down on particular on their on their enemies and
Speaker 4: right and saying, okay, this is, this is and so
Speaker 4: here the case would be, okay, it's it's whether it's
Speaker 4: trend awuagua or let's say Hamas, like, okay, you are
Speaker 4: protesting Israel's genocide and Gaza that is supportive of Hamas. Therefore,
Speaker 4: anybody involved in any of that can be surveilled. And
Speaker 4: by the way, the Democrats deserve of an enormous amount
Speaker 4: of criticism for this, for expanding surveillance authorities to which
Speaker 4: allows uh, the NSA to basically collect information and communications
Speaker 4: of people who were here on student visas or green
Speaker 4: card green card holders.
Speaker 6: UH.
Speaker 4: And so they're they're they're basically able to surveil every
Speaker 4: WhatsApp group, every you know, every you know. If this
Speaker 4: is assuming they can get through whatever the encryption is
Speaker 4: onto your phone, and then if their American city on there,
Speaker 4: and then they're reading their stuff too, and they're all
Speaker 4: and they're doing it all in the name of fighting terrorism. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and it's exactly what Steve Miller said, We're gonna get
Speaker 4: these terrorists off your off your streets, right when that's
Speaker 4: not actually what how people understand uh immigration, even even
Speaker 4: mass immigration or even mass deportation. They I think people
Speaker 4: understand it as these people came here illegally and we're going.
Speaker 5: To deport them.
Speaker 4: Like those the supporters of Trump's immigration, they don't think
Speaker 4: they're terrorists.
Speaker 2: One of the innovations of the Trump two point zero
Speaker 2: campaign is previously even you know, I would say Trump
Speaker 2: one point oh, there was a mixture of this, but
Speaker 2: Trump two point zero was more of the pure embodiment. Previously,
Speaker 2: the conversation about immigration was like they're taking your jobs
Speaker 2: and Jade van Zutaro, they're causing the cost of housing
Speaker 2: to go up, et cetera. Trump talks about immigrants almost
Speaker 2: exclusively as criminals, right, and so you know, they really
Speaker 2: sought to betray this group, even though we all know
Speaker 2: the data that undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate
Speaker 2: than the native born population, and documented immigrants have an
Speaker 2: even lower crime rate than the native born population. But
Speaker 2: he really sought to portray every immigrant and you see
Speaker 2: this in this administration very clearly as a criminal and
Speaker 2: a terrorist, and you know that is I think in
Speaker 2: real time people are realizing that was not accurate, because
Speaker 2: if that was accurate, you wouldn't have trouble.
Speaker 3: You wouldn't be having to round up.
Speaker 2: You know, andre the gay makeup artists who had a
Speaker 2: mom and dad tattoo, or the autism awareness guy and
Speaker 2: throw them in an El Salvador dungeon, hoping that no
Speaker 2: one would be able to figure out who these people are,
Speaker 2: and actually dig into the fact that they have no
Speaker 2: criminal records, they are not gang members.
Speaker 3: They had They're the only thing.
Speaker 2: And some of them actually had followed the government process
Speaker 2: and were in the midst of seeking asylument, had done
Speaker 2: everything right that they were supposed to be doing in
Speaker 2: that process. If there were you know, if we were
Speaker 2: overrun with millions of minal gang member terrorists, it wouldn't
Speaker 2: be so hard to find two hundred of them to
Speaker 2: be able to ship off. And even though you know,
Speaker 2: on a principal ground you should still not support anyone
Speaker 2: even if they did have criminal charges, being sentenced with
Speaker 2: no due process for life to this torture dungeon I'm
Speaker 2: not under no illusion that the public would really object
Speaker 2: too strenuously to that having been done. So, I think
Speaker 2: it exposes the lie upon which they built this whole
Speaker 2: anti immigrant hysteria. And you know, so in addition to
Speaker 2: your point about the way that this is being used
Speaker 2: to erode everyone's rights, and they really make no secret
Speaker 2: of this, especially with Trump, make the connection to hey,
Speaker 2: this has happening for immigrants. Now homegrowns quote unquote are next.
Speaker 2: And the crackdown on universities that already directly impacts US
Speaker 2: citizens their ability to pursue a degree, their ability to
Speaker 2: marry the people that they want to marry without having
Speaker 2: them shipped off or you know, arrested and kidnapped in
Speaker 2: the middle of the night, or you know, on the
Speaker 2: broad daylight with multiple ICE agents, et cetera. Put C
Speaker 2: three up on the screen. It is this administration's position
Speaker 2: that if an ICE agent believes that they are, you know,
Speaker 2: they are pursuing a quote unquote alien enemy. So it
Speaker 2: doesn't require any sort of process or anything like that.
Speaker 2: If they believe they're pursuing an alien enemy, they can
Speaker 2: go in your house without a warrant to look for migrants.
Speaker 2: So that is an extraordine I think. I mean, to me,
Speaker 2: it's blatantly unconstitutional. But as we all know, it takes
Speaker 2: time for these challenges.
Speaker 3: To make their way through the courts, et cetera.
Speaker 2: But you know, if you don't think that this applies
Speaker 2: to everyone, then I would beg you to consider what
Speaker 2: we've already learned about the way that they have gone
Speaker 2: about this policy and the way that they will. You know,
Speaker 2: they'll snatch up anyone what we've got, you know, US
Speaker 2: citizen kids who are being deported now with little to
Speaker 2: no due process, et cetera. Two, we can put this
Speaker 2: up on the screen. One of them has cancer. Another
Speaker 2: one judge is already saying, I think with the I
Speaker 2: think with there was a four year old.
Speaker 3: The judges the four year old I think has cancer.
Speaker 2: The two year old, I think is the one that
Speaker 2: dad was, you know, in the process of arguing no,
Speaker 2: this child should stay here in the US and not
Speaker 2: to be deported alongside her Honduran mother and sister. So
Speaker 2: uh so, yeah, I mean this this has implications not
Speaker 2: just for the immigrant population, which in my opinion, you
Speaker 2: should care about, but certainly has implications for the entire
Speaker 2: population here and I feel.
Speaker 4: Kind of just stupid, like saying like, is you know,
Speaker 4: couldn't you do your like far right wing policy without
Speaker 4: doing this?
Speaker 5: It's like, I guess you can't like this.
Speaker 4: It's kind of the you know, the the cliche during
Speaker 4: Trump one was the cruelty is the point, and it's like,
Speaker 4: you you can't if you can't do this mass deportation policy.
Speaker 4: I it's not even mass actually, it's just spectacular deportation policy.
Speaker 4: Because mass would you're not reaching anywhere near the numbers
Speaker 4: like you've you've got dhs celebrating, you know, if they
Speaker 4: get over like a few dozen deportations. If you can't
Speaker 4: do it without deporting a four year old with cancer or.
Speaker 5: I don't I don't know the details if it was
Speaker 5: the four year old or the mother or.
Speaker 4: Somebody like, but if you but if you can't, if
Speaker 4: if this and if this makes up like a significant
Speaker 4: portion of your deportations, right then.
Speaker 5: Then yeah, you sold it wrong. And that's and that's
Speaker 5: the key point.
Speaker 4: Like he sold it based on a lie, which is
Speaker 4: that these are all criminals, right therefore you have to
Speaker 4: apply a kind of criminal justice standard to it. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and it doesn't work, And so you have to then,
Speaker 4: you know, put cuffs on a four.
Speaker 2: Year old, right and yeah, and vanish them before anyone
Speaker 2: can have a chance to look into the veracity of
Speaker 2: your claims.
Speaker 5: Right, Well, that's shame they're in Honduras.
Speaker 3: Now, yeah, there, what can you do, It's not in
Speaker 3: our problem anymore.
Speaker 2: Just to reiterate your point about the use of terrorism
Speaker 2: designations to claim power and authoritarian regimes. I mean we
Speaker 2: already see this with you know, multiple groups, not just
Speaker 2: obviously immigrants. That's really clear cut, with supporters of Palestine
Speaker 2: with the hands off protesters according to Ken Klippenstein reporting, also,
Speaker 2: you know they're looking at hands off protesters. So basically,
Speaker 2: any resistance to Trump as being you know, as being terrorist,
Speaker 2: domestic terrorists. You're you know, the anyone who would oppose
Speaker 2: the deportation policy, anyone who harbors ill feelings about Tesla,
Speaker 2: anyone who's on there Luigi posting. These are all groups
Speaker 2: that this administration is beginning to view as domestic terrorists.
Speaker 2: And we also have seen the way that they have
Speaker 2: used basically emergency or national security powers to consolidate power
Speaker 2: in the executive Alien Enemies Act. Perfect example of that.
Speaker 2: You're supposed to be at war. Right, It's only been
Speaker 2: used three times. All three were very clearly We're of
Speaker 2: eighteen twelve, World War one, world War two. Those are
Speaker 2: the three times the Alien Enemies Act has been invoked
Speaker 2: prior to this.
Speaker 5: And we declared war then, yes, Congress declared war.
Speaker 2: Yes, And they're making this preposterous claim that we're at
Speaker 2: war with Venezuela because they had trend to Arragua invade US.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's I hope and expect that this will
Speaker 2: likely eventually be shruck down by the courts. You never know,
Speaker 2: with the Supreme Court, you know, stacked as it is,
Speaker 2: but I expect that will be the case. But not
Speaker 2: only that, the tariff powers are also claimed through a
Speaker 2: national emergency. And you know, I think this is this
Speaker 2: is the playbook for Trump two point zero, is that
Speaker 2: they use these supposed terrorism or national security or national
Speaker 2: emergency assertions, which courts have previously granted presidents broad discretion
Speaker 2: to be able to invoke. They're using these assertions to
Speaker 2: be able to circumvent due process, to be able to
Speaker 2: grab powers for the executive that are really clearly delegating
Speaker 2: the case of terrorists to Congress and be able to
Speaker 2: sort of unilaterally effectuate their agendas. So that has been
Speaker 2: the playbook for Trump two point zero, and it goes
Speaker 2: far beyond you know what's happening with the immigration system.
Speaker 4: Senator Alyssa Slockin had told Bernie Sanders and AOC to
Speaker 4: stop using the word oligarchy because they're confusing our simple,
Speaker 4: little American public. Bernie Sanders was asked about that on
Speaker 4: Meet the Press.
Speaker 5: Let's Roll.
Speaker 7: His response, Democrats should stop using the term oligarchy because
Speaker 7: it's a phrase that doesn't resonate with all Americans. Are
Speaker 7: you missing a chance to speak to a wider audience.
Speaker 8: Senator, Well, jeez, we had thirty six thousand people out
Speaker 8: of Los Angeles, thirty four thousand people in Colorado. We
Speaker 8: had thirty thousand people in Fulsome, California, which is kind
Speaker 8: of a rural area. I think the American people are
Speaker 8: not quite as dumb as Mislocked and thinks they are.
Speaker 9: Are.
Speaker 8: They they understand very well when the top one percent
Speaker 8: owns more wealth than the bottom ninety percent, when big
Speaker 8: money interests they're able to control both political parties, they
Speaker 8: are living in an oligarchy. And these are precisely the
Speaker 8: issues that have got to be talked about. Are you
Speaker 8: living in a democracy when mister Musk can spend two
Speaker 8: hundred and seventy million dollars to elect Trump and then
Speaker 8: becomes the most important person in government or an apac
Speaker 8: and other super PACs have enormous power over democratic candidates.
Speaker 8: Those are issues that we have got to talk about.
Speaker 8: That is the reality of American society today. The very
Speaker 8: rich getting richer, working class people are struggling, eight hundred
Speaker 8: thousand people sleeping out on the streets. If we don't
Speaker 8: address that issue, the American people will continue to turn
Speaker 8: their backs on democracy because they're looking around them and
Speaker 8: they're saying, does anybody understand what I am going through?
Speaker 4: Response, and we can put up D two here was
Speaker 4: simply to put up the dictionary definition of oligarchy for
Speaker 4: anybody who.
Speaker 5: Needed although surveys showed that actually people don't need it.
Speaker 4: That people were asked if they could define it, and
Speaker 4: they basically could.
Speaker 5: It's it's not that it's.
Speaker 4: Not that complicated word like a bunch of billionaires running
Speaker 4: everything well.
Speaker 2: And Alyssa Slotkin many pointed out, had no problem using
Speaker 2: the word oligarchy when she was applying it to Russia.
Speaker 2: Oh yes, they were all sorts of opposed to her
Speaker 2: talking about Russian oligarchs and oligarchy or whatever. It's only
Speaker 2: when it's being applied here at home that the former
Speaker 2: CIA spook has a problem.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so, yeah, you know, I'm always on the lookout
Speaker 4: for the left of adopting some faculty lounge language that
Speaker 4: might be that might be a kind of off putting.
Speaker 4: I don't think that's what's happening here, but I'm curious
Speaker 4: for your take. But for me, if it works in
Speaker 4: two different ways, because it works for independents who you know,
Speaker 4: feel like the system is rigged and is control old
Speaker 4: by billionaires. It works for people on the left who
Speaker 4: buy into the entire thing. But it also works with
Speaker 4: kind of resistance libs who have been really energized around
Speaker 4: defending democracy and the left and some others kind of
Speaker 4: scoff at that this whole like, oh, democracy, that's not real.
Speaker 4: It's a distraction from you know, fighting for the working
Speaker 4: class and for improving people's material conditions. But oligarchy is
Speaker 4: a frame that covers that. Right, Like, if you are
Speaker 4: somebody who is worried about our democracy eroding, Yeah, who's
Speaker 4: the one doing Who's the one eroding it, right, it's
Speaker 4: the oligarchs. So you capture everybody under that's under that umbrella.
Speaker 2: I think that's really well put. And the proof is
Speaker 2: in the pudding. Like we know who is turning up
Speaker 2: to those Bernie AOC rallies. It's not just quote unquote
Speaker 2: you know Bernie Brows from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: It is a lot and we talked to Dave Wigel
Speaker 3: about this.
Speaker 2: It is a lot of normy Democrats, which is why
Speaker 2: AOC is shooting up in the polls in terms of
Speaker 2: who is the leader of the Democratic Party. And so yeah,
Speaker 2: I think it's an incredibly helpful frame. As you said
Speaker 2: when we were talking about this on Friday, I think
Speaker 2: voters actually appreciate being treated as adults who are capable
Speaker 2: of understanding concepts that like oligarchy, which I think we
Speaker 2: are all getting a rapid lesson in how that takes
Speaker 2: shape and what it means.
Speaker 3: For all of us.
Speaker 2: So, you know, political consultants have been trying to come
Speaker 2: up with this like sort of focused, grouped language about
Speaker 2: how do we connect the fight for democracy with like
Speaker 2: people's you know, with the price of eggs, or whatever,
Speaker 2: and usually that ends up in a very torture direction
Speaker 2: where you're not really making a good case either about
Speaker 2: the material circumstances or about the genuine threat to democracy.
Speaker 2: And I think the framing of oligarchy really does serve
Speaker 2: those ends incredibly effectively, incredibly effectively, Like you can see
Speaker 2: the no one else in the Democratic Party has the level,
Speaker 2: has garnered the level of energy, attention and excitement as
Speaker 2: AOC and Bernie have you know, I would I guess next,
Speaker 2: I would put like Chris van Holland taking a genuinely
Speaker 2: I would say, courageous action going down to Solvador, like
Speaker 2: actually doing something out in the real world. I will
Speaker 2: say a lot of liberals are very excited about Corey
Speaker 2: Booker's speech. That one didn't speak to me personally as much,
Speaker 2: but I do want to say a lot of people
Speaker 2: were really excited about.
Speaker 3: That because it at least showed some fight.
Speaker 2: But you know, viewing what is happening in the Trump
Speaker 2: administration through this lens of oligarchy, I think really does
Speaker 2: unify the left the liberals and creates this sort of
Speaker 2: powerful coalition that is also somewhat oppositional to the like
Speaker 2: think tank driven abundance conversation that Alyssa Slotkin. I don't know,
Speaker 2: she like calls herself like an abundance person, but she
Speaker 2: would be more in line with that. And the last
Speaker 2: thing I'll say about it is AOC and you you
Speaker 2: could speak to this better than anyone. She has really
Speaker 2: positioned herself previously as being one to work within the
Speaker 2: boundaries of the Democratic Party and not wanting to get
Speaker 2: too crosswise with leadership, et cetera. The fact that she
Speaker 2: and Bernie are both taking a much more directly adversarial
Speaker 2: position vis a the Alyssa Slotkin firing back, I think
Speaker 2: is also kind of a sign of the times and
Speaker 2: the sign they feel that the public is on their side.
Speaker 4: Yeah, a lot of times in the past, the party
Speaker 4: establishment or Slotkin types would fire at Bernie or AOC
Speaker 4: people in the squad and they wouldn't even fire back,
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 5: They would just take the arrows yep as.
Speaker 4: And be like, we're being part of a team, not
Speaker 4: as a kind of team is this it's just constantly
Speaker 4: shooting at you. But now they're feeling better, like they're
Speaker 4: feeling their oaths and they're ready to fire back on
Speaker 4: that front. We have news out this morning that Justice
Speaker 4: Democrats is making its first endorsement not just of the
Speaker 4: twenty twenty six cycle, but even of the twenty twenty
Speaker 4: four cycle.
Speaker 5: Well, not that they didn't.
Speaker 4: Endorse anybody in the twenty twenty four cycle, but they
Speaker 4: didn't recruit anybody to challenge sitting incumbents because they put
Speaker 4: all of their energy into protecting the squad, four of
Speaker 4: whom they you know, survived, two of whom, famously Corey
Speaker 4: Bush and Jamal Bowman, after tens of millions were spent,
Speaker 4: did not. So this is the first time that they're
Speaker 4: going back on offense. And it's Donovan McKinney, who is
Speaker 4: a state rep in Detroit who's running against Shri Thanadar,
Speaker 4: who we'll talk about in a moment and is quite
Speaker 4: a fun, fun guy.
Speaker 5: To his characters. He's he's quite quite a character.
Speaker 4: So this would give you two Justice Democrats in Detroit,
Speaker 4: because Rashida Talib is there as well. He's a former
Speaker 4: climate activist, grew up working class in Detroit, and he
Speaker 4: talks about that in his biography, which let's let's roll
Speaker 4: his launch video which is which is rolling out this morning,
Speaker 4: just to get a sense of you know where kind
Speaker 4: of the justice Democrats left is in in thinking about
Speaker 4: their positioning again against an incombent Democrat.
Speaker 5: So let's roll this opening ad.
Speaker 10: People across this country and even the world, no Detroit,
Speaker 10: or they think they do.
Speaker 6: They know our music, our sports, our struggling.
Speaker 10: But what people always forget as none of this is
Speaker 10: possible without our people.
Speaker 6: This district is.
Speaker 10: One of the poorest places in America. But the ninety
Speaker 10: thirteenth knows hard work better than anyone is the people
Speaker 10: who clock in generation after generation, shift after shift that
Speaker 10: get forgotten first. Somewhere along the way, we got convinced
Speaker 10: we should settle for less from the people we elect
Speaker 10: to represent. Us are running for Congress because we deserve better.
Speaker 10: We deserve a Democratic party that leads the fight against
Speaker 10: the billionaires robinus blocs, that stands up it's a corporate packs.
Speaker 10: Our country and our children can afford nothing less. People
Speaker 10: like our congressmen, Sita at our are the problems. A
Speaker 10: long time millionaire who spent millions to Bia Sea to Conye,
Speaker 10: who has more in common with Donald Trump and Eli
Speaker 10: Munk than people like us. I was born next to smokestacks.
Speaker 10: We moved thirteen times as a kid. Sometimes it was
Speaker 10: an apartment, sometimes it was a family member's house. Sometimes
Speaker 10: it was even our own car. But wherever it was,
Speaker 10: my mom and Grandma made sure it felt like home.
Speaker 10: I spent my life trying to give back to help
Speaker 10: the place and.
Speaker 6: People I love.
Speaker 10: I've never forgotten my roots or the two purpose of
Speaker 10: why I served, so always put the people first. When
Speaker 10: things are darkest, it's when you fight the hardest. I'm
Speaker 10: running for my wife, mother and grandmother and all women
Speaker 10: who deserve Congress that fights for the rights. I'm running
Speaker 10: for my baby boys because the block you live on
Speaker 10: shouldn't determine how far you'll go. I'm running for you because,
Speaker 10: like all of you, I know we deserve better. This
Speaker 10: is my home, this is our community, this is our future,
Speaker 10: and the choice is our I'm Donovan McKinney, and I'm
Speaker 10: running for Congress to take back this seat for us,
Speaker 10: always with the people.
Speaker 5: So what do you make of that messaging?
Speaker 4: I mean the touch, the vocabulary, new deal Medicare for all,
Speaker 4: like that type of stuff that was stuck in twenty
Speaker 4: eighteen wasn't really in there.
Speaker 5: But what do you think of the messaging, Yeah, it's.
Speaker 2: A class raming. This guy's on a touch. She's in there.
Speaker 2: He has more in touch with Donald Trump and Elon
Speaker 2: Musk than he does with you and me. I'm going
Speaker 2: to you know, I'm connected to this community and I'm
Speaker 2: going to be the one who's there to actually.
Speaker 3: Fight for you.
Speaker 5: Now, the funny thing is who he's running against.
Speaker 4: You just can't make this guy up so well the
Speaker 4: next elements. Zed Jalani busted this guy in absolutely hilarious
Speaker 4: fashion in twenty eighteen when he was running for governor
Speaker 4: of Michigan. He was actually the front runner for governor
Speaker 4: ahead of Whitmer when Zed wrote this story, and the
Speaker 4: story was that he met with a bunch of consultants
Speaker 4: ahead of the race, both Republican and Democratic, and they
Speaker 4: asked him like, tell us about yourself, like we're going
Speaker 4: to if we're going to represent you, what what party
Speaker 4: are you going to run? Ass Like are you a
Speaker 4: republic your Demmer? He's like you tell me, oh my god,
Speaker 4: it's like I want to be governor.
Speaker 5: Tell me what I need lane? What's the lane? And
Speaker 5: tell me what I need to say? Like he was
Speaker 5: like confused, Like wait a minute, I'm going to tell
Speaker 5: you this. You're the consultant. Oh my god, you tell
Speaker 5: me what I think.
Speaker 4: And the one thing that was consistent in his conversations
Speaker 4: with these consultants was that he had a visceral disdain
Speaker 4: for Bernie. But Bernie was hot then, so he ended
Speaker 4: up running as Bernie. He was going to do Medicare
Speaker 4: for all for Michigan, and like, he did a whole
Speaker 4: Bernie campaign and was spending his own money and as
Speaker 4: a result, was at the very top. And then this
Speaker 4: came out as like and then other things like he
Speaker 4: was just just a complete mess.
Speaker 5: So then in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 3: So the Bernie brand initially actually was, it was working, it.
Speaker 4: Was actually working for him, and then he faded and
Speaker 4: Whittmer wins. Then in twenty twenty two he runs for
Speaker 4: Congress and spends millions of his own money as a
Speaker 4: leftist again. Oh first he I guess was twenty twenty.
Speaker 4: He wons like a state rep seat or something, So
Speaker 4: he buys a house in the legislature. Okay, then he
Speaker 4: runs for Congress. When he was in the legislature, he
Speaker 4: signed on to resolutions that called Israel an apartheid state
Speaker 4: and said that it should not get any US funding.
Speaker 4: So because it's a common popular position in Detroit, he
Speaker 4: runs for Congress saying similar things. Apak spent like four
Speaker 4: or five million dollars in twenty twenty two trying to
Speaker 4: beat him, and he overcame it because he spent so
Speaker 4: much of his own money. So he's then elected to Congress.
Speaker 4: After he's elected to Congress, Apak takes him and his
Speaker 4: family on a trip to Israel. He comes back, he's reformed,
Speaker 4: does a complete one eighty, so that in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 4: activists in Detroit recruit somebody to run against him, and
Speaker 4: Apax spends millions defending Street then because now he's a
Speaker 4: full on pro Israel guy.
Speaker 2: That's so funny though that he had already defeated them
Speaker 2: and then completely it's like, you know, the move is
Speaker 2: to be John Fetterman and just be like, I don't.
Speaker 3: Want you in my race. Let me.
Speaker 5: So Apak has now is it from the jump?
Speaker 4: They have now spent like ten million dollars on him,
Speaker 4: half of it against him, half of it for him.
Speaker 4: His opponent, her name was Mary Waters. She raised only
Speaker 4: about two hundred thousand dollars, So what she didn't really run.
Speaker 5: She was serious, but she didn't have the money to compete, gotcha.
Speaker 2: So what you're telling me is Donovan is going to
Speaker 2: be facing millions of dollars.
Speaker 5: In He's definitely gonna be facing millions. But he has already.
Speaker 4: The other thing that makes this a much different Justice
Speaker 4: Democrats race is that he already has the support of
Speaker 4: like a ton of like establishment Democrats. Interesting, just because
Speaker 4: Street Thanner is just a ridiculous figure. Interesting, it's so
Speaker 4: it's so weird to them, and it's just it does
Speaker 4: not helpful to them to have a member of Congress
Speaker 4: who you you can't you can't trust, you don't know
Speaker 4: like what he's going to believe a week later.
Speaker 5: So even if you're just a machine politician, that's not
Speaker 5: helpful for you.
Speaker 3: It's almost like the George Santos of the left.
Speaker 4: He's he's yes, like it, and and there are allegations
Speaker 4: of fraud which you can find like it.
Speaker 5: It's a real Santos of the left kind of situation.
Speaker 4: And so even regular Democrats, and I think sources in
Speaker 4: Detroit say that this could be the first JD candidate
Speaker 4: out of the gate to actually have like organized labor.
Speaker 5: Support, which is like that's the that's the coalition that
Speaker 5: you need.
Speaker 4: You need the kind of DSA or whatever you call it,
Speaker 4: you know, plus organized labor you know, get uh to
Speaker 4: like actually take over the party.
Speaker 2: So how much offense is just as Democrats, it's in
Speaker 2: a position to go on a cycle.
Speaker 5: Not a ton.
Speaker 4: And they've never pad their spots and they've never really
Speaker 4: you know that the first year when they did AOC
Speaker 4: and Corey Bush and set Leave Milanalm or all the
Speaker 4: others they endorsed like one hundred plus people. They've never
Speaker 4: done that since then because they couldn't. All they could
Speaker 4: do is endorse right, they could only really go in
Speaker 4: on a couple.
Speaker 5: So we'll we'll stay now.
Speaker 4: If they if they team up with our guy, what's
Speaker 4: his name, the d n C vice president, Oh, David, Yeah,
Speaker 4: David Hogg, who's you know talking about spending millions of
Speaker 4: dollars going after.
Speaker 3: Bernie's recruiting candidates as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and if and if you know, they're threatened to
Speaker 4: kick him out of the d NC for doing this,
Speaker 4: which he's got to leave the DNC, right like if
Speaker 4: you if he capitulates and walks back from that that's
Speaker 4: the end.
Speaker 2: Of him, right in my opinion, I guess it wouldn't
Speaker 2: be The name of him is like, you know.
Speaker 4: Party functioning. It could be a party functionary that doesn't
Speaker 4: seem to be.
Speaker 5: What he wants to be.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he has enough of his own profile he
Speaker 2: doesn't need the DMC.
Speaker 5: Right, Yeah, that's what I would think as well, DNC
Speaker 5: vice president vice chair. What is that done? Even gets
Speaker 5: paid for that?
Speaker 3: I have no idea. Yeah, I have no idea.
Speaker 2: It gets you like, you know, you get into the
Speaker 2: suites with the fancy corporate boxes and whatever.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I guess you.
Speaker 5: Get some boxes.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So Donald McKinney taken on Street Danadar. It'd be interesting
Speaker 5: if he knocks him off.
Speaker 4: But in some ways it would not be like when
Speaker 4: AOC took out Joe Crowley.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that was a blow to the structure of the
Speaker 5: Democratic Party.
Speaker 4: Now they replaced him as caucus chair with the King Jeffries,
Speaker 4: so the structure restructured itself. But taking out Street danad
Speaker 4: Art nice.
Speaker 5: But it's like.
Speaker 2: There's plenty of establishment Democrats who would be on board
Speaker 2: with that as well. Gotcha, Okay, all right, we wanted
Speaker 2: to make sure to cover what is unfolding in Indian Pakistan?
Speaker 2: Because you know, these are two nuclear powers always at
Speaker 2: odds with one another, but tension has ramped up significantly
Speaker 2: after a horrific terrorist attack last week.
Speaker 3: So let's go ahead and get to our guest.
Speaker 4: Indian Pakistan continue to be at the break of all
Speaker 4: out war, it feels like, and joining us to discuss
Speaker 4: it is drop Site. New South Asia correspondent said, Darth
Speaker 4: you Roy joining us from are you you?
Speaker 5: And Deli now said yep, I'm in Duddie. Well, thank
Speaker 5: you so much for joining us.
Speaker 4: I want to start with this Donald Trump clip on
Speaker 4: Air Force one where he was asked about the rising tensions.
Speaker 5: Let's roll this, well, any message for that?
Speaker 9: I mean, you're going to be talking today.
Speaker 12: The earth close to India and I'm very close to
Speaker 12: Pakistan as you know. And they've had that fight for
Speaker 12: a thousand years in Kashmir. Kashmir has been going on
Speaker 12: for a thousand years, probably.
Speaker 9: Longer than that. And it was a bad one yesterday though,
Speaker 9: that was a bad one.
Speaker 12: Over thirty people that you concerned, and there's now tensions
Speaker 12: on the border between them that you concerned them?
Speaker 9: How are you concerned?
Speaker 13: You about one of their.
Speaker 12: Are pretensions on that border for one thousand, five hundred years,
Speaker 12: so you know, the same as a spin.
Speaker 9: But they'll get it figured out one way or the other.
Speaker 9: Appeture that is, I know both leaders.
Speaker 12: There's a great tension between Pakistan and India, but there
Speaker 12: always has.
Speaker 4: Been, so not sure about Trump's history lesson there. But
Speaker 4: the approximate cause of the tensions is a brutal terrorist
Speaker 4: attack that was carried out last week which killed.
Speaker 5: I believe twenty five.
Speaker 4: Twenty twenty six, almost all Hindu tourists, aists, all Hindo tourists,
Speaker 4: and the details of the attack are absolutely.
Speaker 5: Absolutely chilling.
Speaker 4: Gunmen going person to person asking are you know, basically
Speaker 4: are you Muslim? Are you are you Hindu? And if
Speaker 4: they find Muslim, just executing them on the spot, including
Speaker 4: one Christian as well, who you know was killed after
Speaker 4: some mention of Gaza apparently as well, like so absolutely horrific.
Speaker 4: Being my understanding is in India they're talking about it
Speaker 4: as kind of our October seventh and we know what
Speaker 4: happened in Israel after October seventh. So you said from
Speaker 4: you're saying, are we going to get war here?
Speaker 11: I hope not. I hope you're not.
Speaker 14: India Pakistan decided better than to go into war with
Speaker 14: each other because these aren't This is not an Israt
Speaker 14: Balasagin conflict. This is a conflict between two nations who
Speaker 14: are pretty much armed to the teeth with nuclear stockpile.
Speaker 14: So a war if it breaks out between these two countries,
Speaker 14: the escalation will go to really bad places. But it's
Speaker 14: not just hope that I'm counting on. It's also history,
Speaker 14: it's also reality of today. A direct war doesn't really
Speaker 14: help either the ruling dispensation of India or that of Pakistan.
Speaker 14: These formats of attacks, you know, what they call proxy
Speaker 14: war in these parts. This has been happening for quite
Speaker 14: a while, and usually we see a pattern that there
Speaker 14: is some terror attack as they call it. Then the
Speaker 14: victim country, the leadership there, starts making big statements that
Speaker 14: we're going to go to war, We're going to do this,
Speaker 14: We're going to do that. Completely diverts or deflects attention
Speaker 14: from the fact that there has been a massive intel failure,
Speaker 14: a massive security failure on their site. And then it
Speaker 14: goes through this dangerous greame of brinkmanship and they start
Speaker 14: pulling out the piling up their forces and tanks and everything.
Speaker 14: But we haven't really seen a full on escalation. And
Speaker 14: may I mention here that India sent out its navy
Speaker 14: towards it's big warship towards Pakistan day before yesterday, but
Speaker 14: that ship is not back in the dogs. So no,
Speaker 14: I don't think there is an immated chance of escalation.
Speaker 2: Let's go and put E three up on the screen. Guys,
Speaker 2: you wrote an incredibly prescient piece for drop site saying
Speaker 2: Mody's Hindu nationalist project in Jamu and Kashmir has become
Speaker 2: a nightmare for Hindus, really sadly Prussian effectively predicting some
Speaker 2: sort of horrific terrorist attack as the one that we
Speaker 2: just witnessed last week.
Speaker 3: Perhaps you can explain a.
Speaker 2: Little bit of the recent if you want the longer
Speaker 2: term history, you can give President Trump here a little
Speaker 2: bit of an education on where the tensions actually originally
Speaker 2: stem from, not one thousand or fifteen hundred years in
Speaker 2: the past, as he seemed as he asserted there. But
Speaker 2: what is the different approach that Mody has taken with
Speaker 2: regard to this region and what have some of the
Speaker 2: consequences been. Why were you able to predict that we
Speaker 2: would see something as horrible as what we did just see.
Speaker 14: Unlike Trump, who or for that matter, mister Modi or
Speaker 14: General Laseimonair, some of US journalists actually spend time in
Speaker 14: Kashmir and trying to understand what's happening on the ground.
Speaker 14: That's why we are able to see certain patterns. The
Speaker 14: principal thing that Modi did was he scrapped a very
Speaker 14: important part of the Indian Constitution which granted a very
Speaker 14: large amount of autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Speaker 14: When he scrapped that, he made a sweeping declaration that
Speaker 14: there's scrapping of, as they call it, the apbrogation of
Speaker 14: Article three seventy. It would usher in a need of
Speaker 14: absolute peace and terrorism would finish once and for all,
Speaker 14: very much like what we keep hearing President Trump saying
Speaker 14: every once in a while. Instead, what happened is that
Speaker 14: the abrogation led to the suspension of the elected civilian
Speaker 14: government the state of German in Kashmir.
Speaker 12: And.
Speaker 14: It became completely controlled by New Delhi, which in turn
Speaker 14: meant that the intel networks, the ground level human intelligence networks,
Speaker 14: which actually worked to feed information preemptive measures were taken
Speaker 14: basis that information.
Speaker 11: They died out slowly.
Speaker 14: Principle among them is it's not spoken about very widely,
Speaker 14: but one of the biggest sources of intelligence for the
Speaker 14: New Delhi government are the political parties who work on
Speaker 14: the ground in Kashmir. When you have suspended elections, when
Speaker 14: you have effectively debarred them, taken away their franchise, they
Speaker 14: do not want to cooperate. And that's what happened here. Last,
Speaker 14: but not the least, we have to understand what sort
Speaker 14: of politics Mesumodi espouses. It's one which is unbriddled hatred
Speaker 14: against the muslimp even if he may not say it
Speaker 14: in as many words anymore. His teams are out there abusing, demeaning,
Speaker 14: defaming Indian Muslims all the time. How does he expect
Speaker 14: the local population to cooperate and give him intelligence of
Speaker 14: these sorts. That's what we spoke about in our story,
Speaker 14: in our investigation, and I wish it wasn't this way,
Speaker 14: but yes, we did tell the world so.
Speaker 4: And can you talk a little bit about the group
Speaker 4: that initially claimed credit for the attack but then very
Speaker 4: oddly kind of backed off of that a few days later.
Speaker 4: And what is understood in India to be the.
Speaker 5: Backing of this attack.
Speaker 14: So the group is called the Resistance Front. The Resistance
Speaker 14: Front appears to be from all our sources, from government records,
Speaker 14: nothing but a rebranding of the of the lashkar At
Speaker 14: taiba one of the largest militant and terrorist organizations in
Speaker 14: the world, which is based out of Pakistan primarily and
Speaker 14: is focused on secessionist activities in Kashmir. What we saw
Speaker 14: not only in this attack, even in the previous attack
Speaker 14: which we've mentioned in our report rac I think it
Speaker 14: was where the TRF claimed responsibility and then I.
Speaker 11: Don't know, it wasn't us.
Speaker 14: But that doesn't really matter that that that's not something
Speaker 14: we need to look into too much because if the
Speaker 14: TRF is merely the lashkar At Taibad, then they've been
Speaker 14: around for a while. The Indians technically speaking, have not
Speaker 14: given any proof on the table showing direct involvement of Pakistan,
Speaker 14: but even a cursory history, a look at history of
Speaker 14: how the LIT operates. I mean, the chief is sitting
Speaker 14: and alive and under the project of the Pakistani government
Speaker 14: though he's under several international sanctions. This is the all
Speaker 14: roads kind of lead back to Pakistan, and the Indian
Speaker 14: population is quite convinced, and interestingly enough, even the most
Speaker 14: bitter opponents of Masumodi across parties, they have voiced their
Speaker 14: anger and condemnation against Pakistan for enacting this attack, and
Speaker 14: they've likened it to the twenty six to eleven attacks
Speaker 14: in Mumbai.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's it's an interesting dynamic because on the one hand,
Speaker 4: like you said, there's no evidence that's been presented that
Speaker 4: Pakistan had any.
Speaker 5: Direct role in this particular attack.
Speaker 4: But of course the fact that the organization exists, is armed,
Speaker 4: and is so strong can't be separated from its relationship
Speaker 4: with Pakistan.
Speaker 11: So I.
Speaker 4: Asked Wakasakman, who was drop sized Pakistan correspondent, you know,
Speaker 4: for his take from the Pakistani side on what the
Speaker 4: role of the Pakistan government was in this and he had,
Speaker 4: I thought, a pretty nuanced and interesting response, and we
Speaker 4: recorded this as a pre interview. So let me roll
Speaker 4: a little bit of this and then get your response
Speaker 4: to his analysis.
Speaker 15: So far, India has not presented any official evidence that
Speaker 15: Pakistan may have backed this terror attack, but interestingly, the
Speaker 15: Pakistani Interior Minister called for a neutral inquiry into this attack.
Speaker 15: And the Pakistani Defense minister called on Russia, China or
Speaker 15: a Western country to be a part of these investigations.
Speaker 15: And that's not normal. Pakistan had actually been trying to
Speaker 15: get closer to India for the.
Speaker 5: Past few years.
Speaker 15: Pakistan had been abiding by the ceasefire agreement broken by
Speaker 15: General Bajwara in twenty twenty and as you also reported
Speaker 15: that Pakistan had been looking the other way as Indian
Speaker 15: intelligence carried out a string of assassinations inside Pakistan targeting
Speaker 15: former Kashmiri militants and sick Acti activists. So it seems
Speaker 15: unlike that Pakistani military will break the ceasefire for nothing.
Speaker 15: That brings us to the more interesting question, why is
Speaker 15: the Pakistani military the primary suspect whenever something happens in India?
Speaker 15: And that's the core of this issue. There's this dynamic
Speaker 15: that has existed between Pakistan and India for a long time.
Speaker 15: India and Pakistan have used proxy war as a strategy
Speaker 15: against each other, so automatically, whenever there's an attack in
Speaker 15: one country, the other country is blamed. And this is
Speaker 15: a knee jerk reaction at this point. So every time
Speaker 15: this happens, there's a threat of escalation between these two countries.
Speaker 15: The problem with this particular conflict is that the escalation
Speaker 15: ladder goes as far up as nuclear. Hence, the only
Speaker 15: way out of this issue, this threat, this danger to
Speaker 15: the world is this long standing unresolved dynamic between these
Speaker 15: two countries must be resolved. But with the far right,
Speaker 15: borderline fascist go arnment in India, with Prime Minister Moodi
Speaker 15: and this totalitarian military regime in Pakistan, it seems impossible
Speaker 15: that either side has the will or the imagination to
Speaker 15: resolve this issue once and for all.
Speaker 4: So said an interesting point there that on the one hand,
Speaker 4: Pakistan doesn't immediately it kind of clashes with Pakistan's more
Speaker 4: recent kind of conciliatory approach to India. Yet at the
Speaker 4: same time they have been funding these proxy funding and
Speaker 4: backing these proxy groups for many years. So of course
Speaker 4: at the top suspect, what's your.
Speaker 5: Response to what you heard from Okas?
Speaker 6: There?
Speaker 14: workAs is absolutely on point in what he is saying
Speaker 14: is and I agree that India has technically not put
Speaker 14: any evidence.
Speaker 11: On the table.
Speaker 14: But if you note that the ministers from the Pakistan
Speaker 14: side of Kashmid, the Pakistani occupied side of Kashmid. They
Speaker 14: did a press conference right after the Pelgam incident and
Speaker 14: in that you can hear the ministers are on record
Speaker 14: saying that you can't be funding anti Pakistan activities in
Speaker 14: Balotastan and then expect your civilians to be safe. For
Speaker 14: every civilian you kill here, we will make sure we
Speaker 14: kill Indian civilians. So this very well could be a
Speaker 14: tit for tat and may I add here with due
Speaker 14: question because this is only preliminary in both we are getting.
Speaker 14: Two of our sources in Pakistan have mentioned that this
Speaker 14: was this attack was in retaliation of the Jaafar Express
Speaker 14: hijacking that had happened recently, just a couple of weeks
Speaker 14: backs in Pakistan. So this is very much true that
Speaker 14: this proxy war or tit for tat a thing between
Speaker 14: India and Pakistan.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's like they want to have it both both ways.
Speaker 5: Sid Roy, thanks so much for joining us.
Speaker 4: I encourage O go read his piece for drops and
Speaker 4: it's just Google drop site news and kind of cash
Speaker 4: bere and I think his piece will come up and
Speaker 4: you'll have a good sense and if you would have
Speaker 4: read it when it came out, you would not be
Speaker 4: surprised that this had just happened, said, thanks so much
Speaker 4: for your reporting and for joining us.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Canadians are headed to the polls today and what has
Speaker 2: turned out to be an absolutely extraordinary election, which has
Speaker 2: a lot to do with our own president and his
Speaker 2: trade war and what's going on there. So to break
Speaker 2: it all down for us, very happy to be joined
Speaker 2: by David Dole, who is host of The Rational National.
Speaker 2: His YouTube channel is absolutely blowing up and it's great
Speaker 2: to see you, David.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 6: Great to be here.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Yeah, of course.
Speaker 2: So let's go and throw this first element up on
Speaker 2: the screen that just shows the polling trends between the
Speaker 2: Conservative and Liberal party.
Speaker 3: Here you can see the Liberals really.
Speaker 2: Were down and out and then suddenly Trump launches this
Speaker 2: insane trade war and their fortunes changed significantly. So now
Speaker 2: they go into an election day at least somewhat as
Speaker 2: the favorite. Here, just break down for us the contours,
Speaker 2: who's running, what are the dynamics, what accounts for this
Speaker 2: dramatic shift.
Speaker 16: Yeah, So the Liberals have been in power since twenty
Speaker 16: fifteen under Trudeau's Liberals overtaking a Conservative government at the time,
Speaker 16: came in with a majority government have been in power
Speaker 16: for nine years and then up until you know, a
Speaker 16: couple of years ago, Poling really began to shift post
Speaker 16: COVID due to the affordability crisis and I think largely
Speaker 16: as well due to people just being tired of having
Speaker 16: the same people in power seeing Trudeau every day. And
Speaker 16: then it got to a point where in December it
Speaker 16: was like they were down and out, and Christia Freelan,
Speaker 16: essentially Trudeau's second in command, decided to come out against
Speaker 16: him and resign from her post as there was about
Speaker 16: to be a cabinet shuffle and she didn't want to
Speaker 16: change her position, so that was sort of the first
Speaker 16: thing to drop. And then after the new year, Trudeau
Speaker 16: decided to step down and have a leadership race, So
Speaker 16: there was a race between Christian Freelan, Mark Carney, and
Speaker 16: a few others. Kartie ended up winning that and ever since.
Speaker 16: So it was a combination of both Trudeau stepping down
Speaker 16: and people being tired of him, as well as Trump
Speaker 16: and just the ongoing threats, the threats of annexation, the
Speaker 16: fifty first state governor, Trudeau, all this garbage. So that
Speaker 16: combination led to this dramatic shift which you know, I'm
Speaker 16: reading the analysis of the history of Canada and these
Speaker 16: sorts of elections. There has never been a shift like
Speaker 16: this this quickly in our history.
Speaker 4: And how much of this is the trade war and
Speaker 4: how much of this is Trump's fifty first state barbs?
Speaker 5: Where at first you're like.
Speaker 4: Ha ha, that's kind of funny, right, you're joking, right,
Speaker 4: this is this is a gag, and it's like, oh, wait,
Speaker 4: I'm not so sure this is a joke anymore. Like so, yeah,
Speaker 4: because if you look at that polling collapse, it predates
Speaker 4: him even being sworn in. It dates back to him
Speaker 4: making all of his fifty first state jabs.
Speaker 5: So what's been the response there?
Speaker 4: And if you had to wait the two things the tariff,
Speaker 4: the tariffs in the trade war and the fifty first
Speaker 4: state stuff, which is kind of more significant, and obviously
Speaker 4: they blend together in some.
Speaker 16: Ways, it's really more of the fifty first state stuff,
Speaker 16: the annexation stuff that, like the trade war is an issue,
Speaker 16: but I don't think people are really necessarily feeling it
Speaker 16: right now.
Speaker 6: Essentially.
Speaker 16: I mean, you know, there's been so much back and
Speaker 16: forth on the tariff that it's hard to even know
Speaker 16: where things currently stand with that, but it's the threats
Speaker 16: for sure that where it was just like, you know,
Speaker 16: even people that didn't already or didn't like Trump already
Speaker 16: were sort of surprised, myself included, like, there wasn't a
Speaker 16: whole lot of talk of Canada in the US election
Speaker 16: that prior to Trump whitting and all of a sudden,
Speaker 16: you know, there was I think there was a comment
Speaker 16: or two about potential tariffs, but there wasn't much about
Speaker 16: you know, fifty first state Governor Trudeau any of this stuff.
Speaker 16: So that I think really led to this sort of
Speaker 16: defense mechanism in Canadians where there's all this national pride
Speaker 16: that we didn't know we had before that has come
Speaker 16: out and we're sort of banding together and deciding that no,
Speaker 16: we don't want this and we want somebody in power
Speaker 16: who's going to be stable. You know, Pierre Poliev the
Speaker 16: leader of the Conservative Party. For the past two years,
Speaker 16: as he's been leader, he's been running essentially against Trudeau,
Speaker 16: and once Trudeau left, he was sort of left scrambling
Speaker 16: to try to apply his prior arguments against Mark Karney,
Speaker 16: who's a completely different person, isn't even currently an MP,
Speaker 16: and it's hard to make the same arguments against him
Speaker 16: when they when Trudeau and Carney are different leaders. So
Speaker 16: Pierre Pouliev's inability to really find a coherent message, in
Speaker 16: addition to the fact that he has like he is,
Speaker 16: you know, far right in terms of Canada, has been
Speaker 16: endorsed by people like Elon Musk. So when you have
Speaker 16: those sorts of connections to a Trump administration that is
Speaker 16: so deeply disliked, it hasn't helped this case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sure you get the Elon Musk endorsement. At
Speaker 2: this point, you're like, thanks, Mark. To that point, I
Speaker 2: pulled a Carney ad and I pulled a Poliev ad.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and start with the Poliev ad. What
Speaker 2: was no about this is that he actually doesn't appear
Speaker 2: in it. So I want to get your reaction to
Speaker 2: that and the way that he has had to quickly
Speaker 2: scramble and reorient himself in his campaign. This is f
Speaker 2: three guys, Go ahead and play it.
Speaker 13: How's your son, David, Well.
Speaker 11: It's been a tough few years for him.
Speaker 10: It just can't seem to get ahead.
Speaker 13: Yeah, we had to pay for Sarah's down payment last year.
Speaker 13: Things are tough for her too.
Speaker 5: You know what Mark Karney says.
Speaker 13: Come on, do you already think that a fourth Liberal
Speaker 13: term is going to change anything?
Speaker 9: You know, I've been thinking the same thing.
Speaker 13: Are we really going to give these clowns a fourth term?
Speaker 13: I'm voting at servative.
Speaker 9: There you go, Yeah, for a.
Speaker 3: Change your reaction to that particular ad.
Speaker 16: They have purposely taken Pierre Polyev out of their ads.
Speaker 16: So this is you know, not often explored, but even
Speaker 16: while Trudeau was unpopular, even while the Liberals really really unpopular,
Speaker 16: if you look at Pier Polyev's actual numbers, just the
Speaker 16: approval of him and power people, how people felt about him,
Speaker 16: they were not he was not doing well. He was
Speaker 16: still underwater. So the the the Liberal the lack of
Speaker 16: Liberal support before Karne came in was largely really due
Speaker 16: to the combination of the affordability crisis and people being
Speaker 16: tired of Trudeau. It wasn't because people loved Peer Polyev.
Speaker 16: So when that became even more clear during this election, uh,
Speaker 16: you know, essential the last week, last couple weeks of
Speaker 16: the election, the Conservatives have put out three new ads,
Speaker 16: all of them not featuring Peer Polyev either his face
Speaker 16: or his voice. So that's the one ad you saw
Speaker 16: there with the golfing. Another one is former Prime Minister
Speaker 16: Stephen Harper, you know, saying I worked with both Karne
Speaker 16: and Pierre Polyev, and I support Pierre Poulyev, which of
Speaker 16: course he is. He's the former prime minister as a Conservative,
Speaker 16: so like that. And then another one's you know, a
Speaker 16: few people discussing how how how terrible things are, but
Speaker 16: Peer Polyev was so unliked that they had to completely
Speaker 16: remove him from their advertising. And it's just like, it
Speaker 16: goes to how how inauthentic Peer Polyev is. This is
Speaker 16: an other element that people often you know, aren't attuned to,
Speaker 16: is just the fact that Mark Carney is oddly authentic
Speaker 16: even you know, he's former governor of the Bank of Canada.
Speaker 16: He's a central banker, but he's authentic to that. He's
Speaker 16: not pretending to be anybody else. He's running as.
Speaker 3: Like technocratic liberal, yes banker.
Speaker 16: He's running as a guy that led Canada through the
Speaker 16: o White financial crisis and then went to the UK
Speaker 16: to help the UK through breaks it. He's running as
Speaker 16: that guy. Whereas Peer Polyev has a twenty year record
Speaker 16: in parliament. He's been a parliament for twenty years, twenty
Speaker 16: year record of fighting against the working class, fighting against labor,
Speaker 16: and now he's coming out to pretend that he cares
Speaker 16: about the working class and he's going to make life
Speaker 16: more affordable, Like where were you.
Speaker 6: The past twenty years?
Speaker 16: It comes off as so fake that people, even if
Speaker 16: they don't realize what peer Polypf's record is, you can
Speaker 16: feel it in his speeches and the way he comes
Speaker 16: up that he's not an authentic individual, whereas Mark Karney
Speaker 16: is who he.
Speaker 2: Is, does Gulf code different in Canada, Like I can't
Speaker 2: imagine who's trying to like position themselves this pro working
Speaker 2: class being like you know where I need to go
Speaker 2: the driving room.
Speaker 5: Semp who love golf, wouldn't put that in his head.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's it is odd like that.
Speaker 16: I think that message there is they're they're afraid of
Speaker 16: losing the older vote, which they are. Like what's kind
Speaker 16: of been surprising with the election is if you look
Speaker 16: at the breakdown by age sixty five plus is well
Speaker 16: in support of the Liberals, like it's not even really close,
Speaker 16: whereas it's really under thirty five that has that where
Speaker 16: the Conservatives have a slight edge. And again that's really
Speaker 16: I think due to last ten years of affordability and
Speaker 16: millennials and gen Z really being hit by that and
Speaker 16: not really knowing where to put the blame there, But
Speaker 16: everybody over thirty five big support for the Liberals. So
Speaker 16: the attempt there, I think was really to connect to
Speaker 16: older voters who have kids who are struggling and people
Speaker 16: that you know can relate to that and think that yeah,
Speaker 16: we need change, but like good change or what sort
Speaker 16: of change will be talking about here, becausef we're looking
Speaker 16: at actual platforms. Mark Carney has the I would argue,
Speaker 16: the best housing platform out of all of the parties,
Speaker 16: even to the NDP, which you know are have no
Speaker 16: chance at all of forming government. But Mark Karney has
Speaker 16: has a plan to make or build five hundred thousand
Speaker 16: homes per year, essentially start a Crown Corp to overlook
Speaker 16: all of the the building of the housing, and and
Speaker 16: doing it in a way where he is focusing on
Speaker 16: both affordability and prefab housing to essentially be able to
Speaker 16: build houses at a faster rate, also focusing on you know,
Speaker 16: Canadian lumber and Canadian jobs. So there has been a
Speaker 16: real focus on investment from the Liberals, which I think
Speaker 16: benefits them in terms of the NDP vote. As the
Speaker 16: NDP the floor has completely dropped out of the NDP
Speaker 16: and a lot of those voters have moved to the Liberals,
Speaker 16: seeing as both a rejection of the Conservatives but also
Speaker 16: a you know, supporting what Mark Karney is arguing. In
Speaker 16: addition to the fact that I think Mark Carney comes
Speaker 16: up as somebody who is a stable leader as opposed
Speaker 16: to you know here.
Speaker 4: And it's an interesting point because if a central banker
Speaker 4: told me that he's got a plan to build five
Speaker 4: hundred thousand no houses a year, and here he's going
Speaker 4: to do it.
Speaker 5: Here's the labor supply, here's the wood supply.
Speaker 4: And here he's sketched out of be like, okay, actually,
Speaker 4: you know, I trust you could actually probably pull that off.
Speaker 5: This is you're not trying.
Speaker 4: To like do something like that that out of the ordinary.
Speaker 4: Here it's like building houses, and you should be able
Speaker 4: to do it. On the authenticity point, the funniest thing
Speaker 4: I think I saw in this race was Pierre Poliev
Speaker 4: getting out and having a press conference right after Trump
Speaker 4: started going after us a I d he Ald.
Speaker 5: I don't know if you remember this.
Speaker 4: He held a press Conference saying that he was going
Speaker 4: to end all of Canada's foreign aid. It's like, come on, you,
Speaker 4: Like the US is barely doing anything when it comes
Speaker 4: to foreign aid relative to our spending.
Speaker 5: Canada stop and now it's half.
Speaker 16: I guess he's cut that to now we're going to
Speaker 16: cut half of US or half of aid, which is like, again,
Speaker 16: there's so many cues from Republicans that Peer Polyeff has
Speaker 16: taken that you know, have added up to the point
Speaker 16: where it doesn't it hasn't benefited him. Like if nothing
Speaker 16: had changed in terms of the in terms of the
Speaker 16: liberal leadership and Trudeau was still running, I think it's
Speaker 16: very likely you'd be looking at still a conservative majority,
Speaker 16: maybe at worst a conservative minority. But you have a
Speaker 16: like a situation where Peer pauliev has has spent years
Speaker 16: aligning himself to MAGA and now you know, the chickens
Speaker 16: are coming home to roost, and you have a situation
Speaker 16: where people really do not want Trump style politics in
Speaker 16: Canada and he is the face of it. So it's
Speaker 16: it's not worked out well for him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would have to think at this point, with
Speaker 2: the trade war being so important too, the fact that
Speaker 2: he's a central banker, and you know, has some deep
Speaker 2: understanding of the bond markets and their impact is affirmative
Speaker 2: benefit for him as well. But I mean, how do
Speaker 2: you handicap the race? D I saw the polls have
Speaker 2: titaned some coming down the stretch, you know, giving Conservatives
Speaker 2: some hope that they may be able to prevail. How
Speaker 2: what do you think is going to play on or
Speaker 2: what are the odds of what's going to play on?
Speaker 16: Based on everything I'm reading, it's it's really appearing to
Speaker 16: be a liberal majority at worst a liberal minority. And
Speaker 16: it's important to note that even if the Conservatives had
Speaker 16: a slight lead in the overall vote in polling, they
Speaker 16: still likely would not be able to win a minority
Speaker 16: government just the way that the seats play out and
Speaker 16: how the Conservative vote tends to be concentrated. So the
Speaker 16: consent would really need, you know, several point advantage in
Speaker 16: polls to be able to be in a situation where
Speaker 16: they're going to form government, and they're just not anywhere
Speaker 16: near that right now. Now, of course, we've seen polling
Speaker 16: be a little off in the past, but Canadian polling
Speaker 16: tends to be fairly accurate, so I'm really it'll be
Speaker 16: curious to see how it holds up this time. As
Speaker 16: you know, you could argue maybe there's sort of this
Speaker 16: hidden conservative vote that we've seen in the US, and
Speaker 16: maybe that's going to come out, you know, this time
Speaker 16: in Canada.
Speaker 6: But the way things look right now.
Speaker 16: It's liberals should be pretty confident that they're going to
Speaker 16: be able to form government.
Speaker 4: Let's finish with a Mark Carneiyad to see, you know,
Speaker 4: kind of what his message is.
Speaker 5: Let's roll that here.
Speaker 17: No people are anxious right now. President Trump has created
Speaker 17: a crisis.
Speaker 1: He news from walls, pressures, react to the sweeping tariffs.
Speaker 17: Well, I've led people through crises my entire career. I've
Speaker 17: worked with prime minister from both parties to solve big
Speaker 17: problems for Canadians, and right now we're facing the biggest
Speaker 17: crisis of our lifetimes and we need serious leadership and
Speaker 17: a real plan.
Speaker 4: Is that pretty representative of what his approach has been
Speaker 4: throughout this short campaign.
Speaker 6: Yeah, stability leadership.
Speaker 16: And he's been benefited as well by you know, people
Speaker 16: like Premier Doug Ford in Ontario, who is a is
Speaker 16: a conservative, I mean he's head of the Progressive Conservatives.
Speaker 16: I know that's a confusing term for Americans to hear.
Speaker 16: But he is a conservve and you know Calvis scandals.
Speaker 16: I've done many videos about how terrible Doug Ford is.
Speaker 16: But he's somebody who is able to read the room. Yeah,
Speaker 16: and has been very forward and being very you know
Speaker 16: against Trump. It's been on all you know, US networks
Speaker 16: discussed here. Yeah, yeah, his approach. So he's not endorsed Polyev.
Speaker 16: He's kind of stayed out of the race. He's he's
Speaker 16: somebody who you know, Him and Polyp don't really have
Speaker 16: much of a relationship. So the fact that Ontario is
Speaker 16: so important in the election and he doesn't have the
Speaker 16: support of Doug Ford in any capacity, I think has
Speaker 16: hurt him as well.
Speaker 3: Interesting.
Speaker 2: All right, David Dole, Everybody go subscribe to David's channel
Speaker 2: and I'm sure you'll be covering whatever happens with the
Speaker 2: Canadian elections today. So thanks so much for breaking it
Speaker 2: all down for us.
Speaker 6: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: All right, guys, thank you so much for watching.
Speaker 2: We are going to do an AMA Live for premium subscriber,
Speaker 2: So if you want to be part of that Breakingpoints
Speaker 2: dot com If you cannot subscribe me, tocome a premium
Speaker 2: member right now. Just make sure like, share, subscribe, All
Speaker 2: those things really really help us out a lot. Thank
Speaker 2: you guys so much for watching. We'll see you back here,
Speaker 2: but with the bud Pat