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. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com.
Speaker 2: Morning, everybody, Happy Friday, Emily and Ryan, I see you guys.
Speaker 3: Great to see you guys.
Speaker 2: How you doing doing good? Thanks Emily for jumping in
Speaker 2: for me yesterday. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3: Oh, no problem, No problem.
Speaker 2: And I guess we've had counterpoints this week, but we've
Speaker 2: decided it's not really counterpoints anymore.
Speaker 3: So I just like that we work it out in
Speaker 3: front of everyone. The reality TV we thanks to have
Speaker 3: our meetings right here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's transparent, so there's a lot going on. I
Speaker 2: want to get to you this Morre. We'll see how much
Speaker 2: of this we get through. Right, We've got a massive
Speaker 2: ground evasion happening in Gaza and things not looking very
Speaker 2: good on the ceasefirefront in general. We've got some other
Speaker 2: foreign policy thinks, some very interesting comments from General Stanley
Speaker 2: McCrystal that I want to get you guys reaction to.
Speaker 2: And also some discouraging movement or lack of movement in
Speaker 2: the Ukraine. Talks that are supposed to happen in Istanbul
Speaker 2: as well, so get to that. See if we get
Speaker 2: to some of this Republican tax build the latest in
Speaker 2: terms of potential compromises and roadblocks there. We've got some
Speaker 2: economic news. We've got some significant developments on the migration front.
Speaker 2: There was a hearing Supreme Court with regard to Trump's
Speaker 2: ending birthright executive order that has implications not only for
Speaker 2: that but also for the ability of district judges to
Speaker 2: issue nationwide injunctions. So that is definitely worth taking into
Speaker 2: and wanted to tackle. I wanted to dig a little
Speaker 2: bit into the abundant debate Sam Ceter and Ezra Cline,
Speaker 2: a lot of clips flying around. I know, I watched
Speaker 2: the whole thing and I thought it was pretty interesting.
Speaker 4: I watched too.
Speaker 2: Do you watch the whole thing too? I did awesome. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so I pulled a couple of time codes and we
Speaker 2: can just take a look at that as well. That
Speaker 2: part it'll probably be in the premium half. So if
Speaker 2: you guys want access to the full thing, make sure
Speaker 2: you subscribe at Breakingpoints dot com. Thank you to everyone
Speaker 2: who has who has made these Friday shows possible. Anything
Speaker 2: else you guys got on your mind before we jump in.
Speaker 3: Well, I was gonna say Sager did post yesterday, so
Speaker 3: we can. Okay, he did, Yes, he posted, So Sager
Speaker 3: is official.
Speaker 5: Yep.
Speaker 2: Hold on, did he post a picture?
Speaker 3: He? Yes, he did, he posted. I believe they call
Speaker 3: it a carousel.
Speaker 4: Let me, let's pull this sucker up.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm looking for it. Hold on, I did not know.
Speaker 2: Sometimes I avoid Sager's Twitter.
Speaker 3: It's on Instagram.
Speaker 2: It Oh, it's on Instagram. Okay, yeah, all right, hold on, hold.
Speaker 4: On, Yeah, you know, I always I'm much more willing
Speaker 4: to air stuff on like Instagram.
Speaker 2: Instagram is much kinder than Twitter. People are just assholes,
Speaker 2: you know.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I don't need people on Twitter have seen my kids
Speaker 4: or anything like that. Yeah, it's just feels different.
Speaker 2: Here we go, Okay, here we go, here we go.
Speaker 2: All right, now it's making me log in.
Speaker 4: Oh my god, really I would probably have to log
Speaker 4: into Instagram too, I'm like never.
Speaker 2: All right, well, anyway, go look at Soccers. It's Jillian
Speaker 2: and the baby doesn't say the baby's name, Am I
Speaker 2: allowed to reveal that? I don't know? Beautiful? Beautiful, beautiful,
Speaker 2: very excited.
Speaker 4: It was a very pretty name.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I love that. Mixed between that his heritage and
Speaker 2: her it's very beautiful.
Speaker 3: And yeah, they were in the nick you for a
Speaker 3: little bit, so it was I'm sure Soccer really appreciates.
Speaker 3: He mentioned that in the Instagram post and I just
Speaker 3: had an outpouring of support from you guys, and I'm
Speaker 3: sure that he is incredibly grateful for it.
Speaker 4: So and I'm looking forward to his monologue after he
Speaker 4: gets to nick you Bill like that those can put
Speaker 4: you into seven figures.
Speaker 2: True, he's gonna be Luigi posting before we know it.
Speaker 3: He's been Luigi posting for years.
Speaker 2: All right, let's go ahead and get to the news
Speaker 2: with regard to Gaza. Let me pull this up on
Speaker 2: the screen. It's actually your reporting. Well, Jeremy's reporting technically
Speaker 2: from from drop site, saying that you know, as these
Speaker 2: talks are going on right now, somewhat pessimistic that there's
Speaker 2: going to be any progress on a ceasefire. And I mean, Ryan,
Speaker 2: this always comes down to, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: like the US could make this stop whenever we want to.
Speaker 2: Biden could have, Trump could And there's this always learned
Speaker 2: helplessness of like, oh, well, they're a sovereign nation and
Speaker 2: they can do what they want, but we know the
Speaker 2: reality is that they can't do what they want without
Speaker 2: us backstopping what they want.
Speaker 4: Right What a superpower means if it doesn't mean you
Speaker 4: can have influence over your client states. A Haaretz reporter
Speaker 4: posted some news this morning that is kind of a
Speaker 4: mirror version of Jeremies, where she writes Israel's position is
Speaker 4: this is a quote from an Israeli source. Israel's position
Speaker 4: is rigid. Hamas hasn't folded, the Americans have lost interest.
Speaker 4: Trump is on his way home, and Witkoff is not
Speaker 4: currently dealing with this matter. He left it to us.
Speaker 4: The source added that Whitcough quote doesn't have a plan
Speaker 4: of his own and is waiting to hear what Israel
Speaker 4: wants quote, and since we don't want anything, he has
Speaker 4: nothing left to do. And so this marries neatly with
Speaker 4: Hamas's analysis, which is that they don't have confidence that
Speaker 4: Witkoff is going to be able to or going to
Speaker 4: be willing to know pressure Israel enough to get them
Speaker 4: to a place they don't want to go to. What
Speaker 4: we've since learned about the release of Eton Alexander is
Speaker 4: that the private assurance that Hamas got in order to
Speaker 4: engage in that good faith transaction getting getting really nothing
Speaker 4: in return on paper, was that the Americans would agree
Speaker 4: to kind of finally put some pressure on the Israelis.
Speaker 4: How the Americans interpret what it means to put pressure
Speaker 4: on them remains to be seen.
Speaker 2: Sort of like the facilitating the release yeah yeah, Rightia.
Speaker 4: And one of the fears among both Palestinians and the
Speaker 4: families of the of the hostages who captives who remain
Speaker 4: in Gaza is that Witcough and Bowler, having succeeded in
Speaker 4: freeing the last living American hostage captive, would move on,
Speaker 4: would kind of lose interest in it, and then would
Speaker 4: and would pivot to focusing on Iran and other things
Speaker 4: and just let and let things just go to hell,
Speaker 4: go further to hell. And you know, that appears to
Speaker 4: be a possibility. There are material constraints though that exist.
Speaker 4: You know, Israel doesn't like to recognize such things because
Speaker 4: they never they've never been had, They've never had to
Speaker 4: because the warehouses just keep getting magically stocked by new
Speaker 4: flights of weapons from the United States. But their reservists
Speaker 4: aren't showing up in the rates that they want them
Speaker 4: to show up. They're exhausted. All of this is discussed
Speaker 4: openly in the Israeli media. So what actual capacity they
Speaker 4: have to continue to pursue this massive invasion that they're
Speaker 4: trying to launch from the north down. No remains to
Speaker 4: be seen. And if they start, you know, taking you know,
Speaker 4: significant casualties, do they continue to push forward. It seems
Speaker 4: like that's the only thing that's going to be holding
Speaker 4: them back at this point. That wit coough because Hamas
Speaker 4: is saying, we want an end to the war. We
Speaker 4: will exchange all the hostages, all the captives. Done, end
Speaker 4: of the war. Israel withdraws more over, and a technocratic
Speaker 4: Palestinian administration with whatever Western relationships you want, you know,
Speaker 4: kind of takes control of Gaza, like that's what Hamas wants.
Speaker 4: Israel wants to keep the war going. Those are irreconcilable positions. Yeah,
Speaker 4: and so only only the US can reconcile them by
Speaker 4: insisting that the war end. And so far the indications
Speaker 4: are that would Coffs not going to do that.
Speaker 2: There was a piece in Heratz let me get your
Speaker 2: reaction to all of this. Emily Ryan was mentioning the
Speaker 2: hostage family concerns, and Haratz was also writing about that.
Speaker 2: They said, they're concerned over there's a massive ground invasion
Speaker 2: right now. I'll show you some of the images in
Speaker 2: just a minute, but hostage families are deeply concerned. They
Speaker 2: say the next hours are going to determine Hostage's fate.
Speaker 2: And I was struck by this quote here the families
Speaker 2: called on net Nyahu and President Trump to reach a
Speaker 2: breakthrough in the negotiations in Doha, sang, these are dramatic
Speaker 2: hours that will decide the fate of our loved ones
Speaker 2: and the future of Israeli society.
Speaker 3: They're absolutely right about that. I mean, they should be
Speaker 3: terrified right now. I think everyone understands what's so terrifying
Speaker 3: about that at this moment, especially I mean the the
Speaker 3: strategic approach or the the I guess see, here's the
Speaker 3: huge problem for them over and over again, is what's
Speaker 3: the end at this point? What is the end goal?
Speaker 3: What is the you know what, what is the clear
Speaker 3: outcome that Netanyahu thinks that this can is achievable at
Speaker 3: the end of this And I don't think anybody agrees
Speaker 3: that it's to the satisfaction of the hostage families of
Speaker 3: the Israeli public. And that's because he's of course himself
Speaker 3: being torn in different directions and consistently giving more.
Speaker 2: To the Israeli right.
Speaker 3: So it's it's an incredibly bleak situation for the hostage
Speaker 3: families right now. I understand why they would feel.
Speaker 4: Terrified and just real quickly the reason I keep switching
Speaker 4: back and forth between hostages and captives because we're always
Speaker 4: told but we're now down to the down to a
Speaker 4: place where everybody who's being held was in combat like
Speaker 4: these these are soldiers, so that makes them captives. And
Speaker 4: you know, the international laws of war say you're not
Speaker 4: supposed to trade prisoners of war for military concessions, but
Speaker 4: you can trade them for other prisoners of war, and
Speaker 4: it's normal that you release them when the hostilities are over.
Speaker 4: This argument that Israel is making that they should release
Speaker 4: the prisoners of war and then immediately continue the war
Speaker 4: would be outside of this the like pattern of how
Speaker 4: that goes like, that's no, no, no countries would do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that language is important because the Israelis always
Speaker 2: refer to everyone they're holding as prisoners and everyone regardless
Speaker 2: of whether they're IDF or not, held by hamas as hostages.
Speaker 2: And that language is very intentional and.
Speaker 3: Well everyone is hamas or combatant correct.
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly, and you know, is often echoed by by
Speaker 2: the press, so that that note is very important. And
Speaker 2: just to get to the the invasion you know that
Speaker 2: we're seeing right now, We've got numerous accounts from the ground.
Speaker 2: These are you know, we're all compiled, We're being eliminated.
Speaker 2: People saying it's hell tonight, our families are in danger,
Speaker 2: intense escalation, We're being eliminated. Now, we'll never forgive you.
Speaker 2: The bombing never stops. They've gone crazy. You know, some
Speaker 2: people are reporting that these are some of the most
Speaker 2: intense bombings that they've experienced during this entire onslaught, which
Speaker 2: is hard to imagine. We also have some some images
Speaker 2: coming out here that you can see of you know,
Speaker 2: the rubble being bombed. You know, there's there's nothing left
Speaker 2: here that's still standing, but yet it's still being bombed.
Speaker 2: We have this reporting Ryan from you guys over at
Speaker 2: drop site from yesterday evening starting saying during the last
Speaker 2: ten minutes, Israeli forces launched a new raid west of
Speaker 2: Baile Lahia is that right north of got as a
Speaker 2: an Israeli airstrike on the shu Jai neighborhood east of
Speaker 2: Gaza City. This Israeli forces bomb a house in Beer
Speaker 2: al na Jah west of Jabalia Camp north of Gaza.
Speaker 2: Injuries as a result of Israeli bombing of a house,
Speaker 2: Martyrs and injuries as a result of the Israeli bombing
Speaker 2: a home. So you know, huge indications here that this
Speaker 2: is a quite large scale ground invasion. We also had
Speaker 2: this heavy reinforcemance in the Gaza borders and gearing up
Speaker 2: for what's expected to be a brutal slaughterhouse like invasion,
Speaker 2: and you know we're already seeing some of the aftermaths
Speaker 2: of that. At this point.
Speaker 4: The IDF soldiers keep posting their positions. It's an incredible
Speaker 4: lack of discipline.
Speaker 3: I think they got them. I think Kamas is finally
Speaker 3: about to be over forever.
Speaker 4: This this will do it. Yeah, that's what that was.
Speaker 4: Unus to Raleigh, who's as soon as anybody uh in
Speaker 4: the IDF posts anything, he seems to be like immediately
Speaker 4: on it. And yeah, so they're like giving away their positioning.
Speaker 3: Any the things are more depressing than watching what should
Speaker 3: be the end stages of a conflict and seeing people
Speaker 3: die and seeing further destruction when there are potential negotiations
Speaker 3: on the table. I mean, if you look at Ukraine
Speaker 3: right now, people feel similarly, and they should. It's just
Speaker 3: the most bleak and upsetting thing to watch play out.
Speaker 2: And Ran, what is the significance of the timing here?
Speaker 2: It's not an accident. This invasion is happening, and this,
Speaker 2: you know, massive escalation in the violence is happening as
Speaker 2: these talks are unfolding, as President drum is wrapping up
Speaker 2: his trip to the Middle East. You know, what's the
Speaker 2: significance of this time?
Speaker 4: Originally, what they were saying in Israel that they were
Speaker 4: going to give the talks in Doha time to work
Speaker 4: themselves out and see if they could come to some
Speaker 4: type of resolution and they would wait until Trump had
Speaker 4: left the region before they would launch their massive assault,
Speaker 4: assuming that the talks failed. Uh, it now seems like
Speaker 4: they're pushing that ahead of schedule. It's kind of a
Speaker 4: slap in the face to Trump.
Speaker 3: Is it a run related at all?
Speaker 4: So I I could you could imagine that, you know,
Speaker 4: the work the the worst things get in Gaza, then
Speaker 4: the more difficult Israel believes it becomes for the US
Speaker 4: to strike a deal with Iran. Uh, that might not
Speaker 4: be the case. Like you're seeing, you're seeing you saw
Speaker 4: Syria do this, You've seen you saw Yemen do that,
Speaker 4: the who thies do this. You're seeing people, you know,
Speaker 4: decouple agreements with the United States from agreements with Israel
Speaker 4: in a way that we haven't really seen in the
Speaker 4: past because a lot of these groups are encouraging the
Speaker 4: isolation of Israel. So it may it may be a miscalculation,
Speaker 4: you know, the kind of it's weird to call it
Speaker 4: a hope, but the hope among people was that this
Speaker 4: was the kind of murderous death rattle of this conflict,
Speaker 4: that that they were just going to you know, do
Speaker 4: as much killing of people that they were aiming for
Speaker 4: Mohammed Sinwar. Some others adjourn A lot of journalists have
Speaker 4: been killed in the last week because they think the
Speaker 4: window is closing for the killing. Uh, that that may
Speaker 4: end up not being true, and we may just get
Speaker 4: this mass murder spree plus then the continuation, plus this
Speaker 4: this imminent starvation. You know, this, this humanitarian crisis is
Speaker 4: reaching levels where even the IDF is acknowledging this, uh
Speaker 4: and and even kind of create and creating tensions even
Speaker 4: inside the IDF.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And lastly, before we get to miss Rachel and
Speaker 2: all of that, there was Ryan. My understanding was Israel
Speaker 2: was pushing various humanitarian organizations to participate in basically creating
Speaker 2: a quote unquote aid program that would be used as
Speaker 2: a weapon of war, and those those humanitarian agencies said, no, thanks,
Speaker 2: We're not taking part in your war crimes. And Israel
Speaker 2: has now announced this partnership with the US to implement
Speaker 2: this this quote unquote humanitarian aid program that would require
Speaker 2: you know, would have very few distribution points, would have
Speaker 2: very limited calories, would likely force civilians to have to
Speaker 2: traverse you know, active war zones in order to you know,
Speaker 2: get the nutrition. They need to survive. What do we
Speaker 2: know about what's going on there?
Speaker 4: And even that hasn't been agreed to. And we could
Speaker 4: go back to this Hawaretz reporter earlier who spoke with
Speaker 4: an Israeli source, So she adds, this is Eliza Roskovsky.
Speaker 4: She adds, Israel has not yet approved the entry of
Speaker 4: humanitarian aid via a US backed relief fund. The source added,
Speaker 4: even if it does, the aid would be symbolic, symbolic. Quote,
Speaker 4: maybe five trucks here, ten there nothing meaningful for two
Speaker 4: million people, the source.
Speaker 2: Said, Jesus.
Speaker 4: So even there, like even this carved up, you know,
Speaker 4: trimmed down, cynical, exploitative version of humanitarian aid, they haven't
Speaker 4: even agreed agreed to, and if they do would be
Speaker 4: just just just for the images of a few trucks
Speaker 4: going in, so that all of the pro Israel accounts
Speaker 4: can then post these images of these trucks and be like, look,
Speaker 4: see what are you complaining about?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 2: Can you imagine any other nation sending food to their adversaries? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 2: I think we all know who the real villain though,
Speaker 2: is in all of this, guys, and that's miss Rachel.
Speaker 2: Let's all agree on that has something we can all
Speaker 2: unite behind who has dared to actually care about the
Speaker 2: children who are being starved and murdered and maimed.
Speaker 3: Really, that's right. It's extra ridiculous about this controversy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's exactly right. And so the New York Times
Speaker 2: wrote this piece, why tat celebrity Miss Rachel waded into
Speaker 2: the gaza debate? I mean, first of all, the framing
Speaker 2: of this is insane, right, wading into the gods of debate.
Speaker 2: She is caring about children who are being starved, like
Speaker 2: and you know, who have had their limbs blown off
Speaker 2: and are now amputees, and whose families can't provide for them.
Speaker 2: In what world is there? I mean, unfortunately it is
Speaker 2: a debate, But in what world is this properly framed
Speaker 2: as any sort of a debate? And then Metti is
Speaker 2: pointing out here, I'm embarrassed. In the New York Times,
Speaker 2: they publish this piece on Miss Rachel, in which they
Speaker 2: cite a ridiculous anonymous right wing website Stop Anti Semitism,
Speaker 2: while indulging the mad mad claims she may be funded
Speaker 2: by Hamas The New York Times put this in their piece.
Speaker 2: The allegation that she was funded by Hamas. I mean,
Speaker 2: what can you even say about this?
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's an anonymous troll account makes a lurid, absurd claim,
Speaker 4: which is that's what trolls do now blaming the trolls,
Speaker 4: and then the New York Times grabs that claim and
Speaker 4: slaps it into their article and makes her respond to it.
Speaker 2: She had to issue a statement like, what in the
Speaker 2: world are you talking about it?
Speaker 4: She's not getting paid to do this. NBC News managed
Speaker 4: to have an even more absurd framing. Their headline was
Speaker 4: Miss Rachel doubles down on support for children in Gaza.
Speaker 4: Doubles down is for anybody who's new to this, idiom
Speaker 4: means you're in trouble and you're doing something deeply controversial,
Speaker 4: and you're, you know, facing cancelation, and yet even in
Speaker 4: the face of all of this criticism of your reckless actions,
Speaker 4: you double down. The headline doubles down on.
Speaker 2: The claim that Haitian migrants are eating the cats and dogs, Right,
Speaker 2: Miss Rachel.
Speaker 4: Maybe I can pull this up. Miss Rachel doubles down
Speaker 4: on support for children in Gaza. Yeah. Here it is, like,
Speaker 4: just in case you think I'm making this up, this
Speaker 4: is the headline. Oh my god, Rachel.
Speaker 3: You'll read her quote there. It's sad that people try
Speaker 3: to make it controversial when you speak up for children
Speaker 3: that are facing immeasurable suffering. Why is this an article?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, if you're going to do an article
Speaker 2: about it, you have to frame it in terms of
Speaker 2: the insanity of the people who are attacking her for this,
Speaker 2: Like that's the only appropriate framing. So yeah, okay, you
Speaker 2: can quote anti semitism, stop anti semitism, account trolling account
Speaker 2: as like example number one of the wild and insane
Speaker 2: and baseless claims that are being made about this in
Speaker 2: the way she's being demonized for supporting children. Here's the
Speaker 2: Fox News version radical nursery rhymes. Missus Rachel just went
Speaker 2: from nursery rhymes to hammas tied headlines headlines.
Speaker 3: See that's interesting. It's a meta they're using the meta
Speaker 3: framing or the meta media framing to do guilt by association.
Speaker 2: Yes, defending Gaza stats on an anti Israel platform. I
Speaker 2: presume they're talking about Zete over there right with Mehdi
Speaker 2: while skimming over October seventh. If you're a parent, will
Speaker 2: that change whether you allow your child to watch her?
Speaker 3: So?
Speaker 2: Yeah, they use the fact that the New York Times
Speaker 2: and NBC News and everybody else covered this to accuse
Speaker 2: her of being affiliated with Hammas tied headlines.
Speaker 3: It's ridiculous.
Speaker 4: And when people think that they're being reasonable, they will say,
Speaker 4: but why is she singling out Israel's killing of all
Speaker 4: of these children? And to Emily's point, A, she doesn't.
Speaker 4: She speaks up for children all over the world when
Speaker 4: they're suffering.
Speaker 3: Yeah, also particularly Israelly kids.
Speaker 4: So she's yes, and she'll speak up for Israeli kids absolutely,
Speaker 4: But b there have been more than seventeen thousand children
Speaker 4: killed in a year and a half in Gaza. If
Speaker 4: you add up Sudan, India, Pakistan, Ukraine, other conflicts, there
Speaker 4: have not been. They would they don't add up to
Speaker 4: that many children being killed, and not only that, right now,
Speaker 4: there are about a million children in Gaza, a million
Speaker 4: who have very little to eat and very little to
Speaker 4: drink and no medical care. Like there is not a
Speaker 4: child in Gaza immediately to write as we speak, who's
Speaker 4: not suffering. So why wouldn't she speak out specifically for them? Yeah,
Speaker 4: that's important, Like why do you single us out? Well,
Speaker 4: it's singularly horrific.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is singularly horrific, and it's being done with
Speaker 2: our tax dollars also, and that too, as a US citizen,
Speaker 2: done with our tax dollars. One more note on this.
Speaker 2: I don't have that pulled, but there was a student
Speaker 2: what at NYU who in his speech mentioned the atrocities
Speaker 2: in Gaza, and they're pulling his diploma simply for one
Speaker 2: mention of this because they say, oh, well, you didn't
Speaker 2: tell us you were going to say that, so we're
Speaker 2: stripping you off. You're a diploma. I was just just insane,
Speaker 2: just absolutely insane. I wanted to running out to you know,
Speaker 2: Middle East, and Trump's very friendly meeting with the new
Speaker 2: head of Syria, which is very interesting in and of itself.
Speaker 3: He's very attractive, very strong, very tough past.
Speaker 2: Yes, very strong, very strong past, tough guy, tough guy, yeah, attractive,
Speaker 2: just unbelievable. Stanley mc crystal made some really interesting comments
Speaker 2: here that were clipped by Ken Clippenstein that I wanted
Speaker 2: to only let me get your reaction to this, because
Speaker 2: I just think this is extraordinary. Hold and I probably
Speaker 2: have this on two point. Now, let me change it.
Speaker 3: There we go.
Speaker 5: Okay, The reality is people who are enemies often evolve
Speaker 5: into not being a ry bees, and people who were
Speaker 5: terrorists evolve into something else. MONOCOLM Began was a terrorist
Speaker 5: in his early days. Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist.
Speaker 5: And so many people who feel very strongly about something
Speaker 5: actually exhibit a force of will and then they can
Speaker 5: mature and evolve into being more.
Speaker 2: I'm so, uh, what do you what do you make
Speaker 2: of that?
Speaker 3: Sounds like someone who fought uh in the decades after
Speaker 3: the United States armed the mujah Hadeen and after and
Speaker 3: you guys were like in media during the Crystal period
Speaker 3: of the Afghanistan War. But holy smokes, is that some
Speaker 3: cope man?
Speaker 4: I mean, also, it's true like that, let's get the
Speaker 4: no lies detected gift out for that one, Like it's accurate.
Speaker 2: Like and uh mentioned a baggon was interesting to me too,
Speaker 2: because that never gets admitted. I don't think I've ever
Speaker 2: heard that mentioned on Western TV.
Speaker 3: They had to drag My Crystal out to talk to
Speaker 3: Katelyn Collins to get that out in the open. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and for for people like don't know that you
Speaker 4: can look look that up. This this was, you know,
Speaker 4: one of the founders of the state of Israel and
Speaker 4: it was it was founded you know, by you know,
Speaker 4: terrorist organizations who drove the British out with bombings of civilian.
Speaker 2: Some of them self described as terrorists.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely they were. They were not you're goon and
Speaker 4: the others they were not. They were not afraid of
Speaker 4: the label terrorist like they embraced it. And yeah, Nelson
Speaker 4: Mandela and you know, he was involved in violent resistance
Speaker 4: to apartheid, but before he was jailed. Like, that's very true.
Speaker 4: And what's amazing that Joelanni or al Shara, whatever you
Speaker 4: want to call him now, has actually made this exact
Speaker 4: same point because when he was asked, hey, weren't you
Speaker 4: like in al Qaeda and the two thousands and and
Speaker 4: killing a bunch of Americans And he was like, look,
Speaker 4: I was young and hot headed and I thought the
Speaker 4: American invasion was an atrocity. And you're like, okay, this
Speaker 4: is true.
Speaker 3: This is true.
Speaker 4: It was like it was, it was really bad. And
Speaker 4: he's like, but you know some of our tactics, you know,
Speaker 4: I regret, but you know, I'm no longer young and
Speaker 4: hot headed, and it's.
Speaker 2: In the past. Ryan, This is true.
Speaker 4: People are different in their twenties and their forties. It's
Speaker 4: usually not an Al Qaeda or an Ice terrorist that
Speaker 4: we're hearing it from who's now shaking hands with Macron
Speaker 4: and Trump.
Speaker 2: And it's wild to hear the crystal talk about terrorists like,
Speaker 2: you know, they're they're young, they're idealistic, they're really passionate
Speaker 2: about a particular cause and that.
Speaker 4: But if we're serious about, you know, we want to
Speaker 4: win hearts and minds and de radicalize, then what do
Speaker 4: you think it means?
Speaker 2: The other thing is it just exposes how fake and
Speaker 2: political the word the label terrorists is. And I don't
Speaker 2: think that's ever been probably more on display domestically than
Speaker 2: it is right now, when you know, miss Rachel is
Speaker 2: being labeled basically like a domestic terrorist and.
Speaker 4: The actual Al Qaeda guy is we're taking hands.
Speaker 2: With Trump and they still have what a ten million
Speaker 2: dollar bounty on his head. Technically they took that off,
Speaker 2: they did take it out, Okay, well there you go.
Speaker 2: Recently had a ten million dollar bounty on his head.
Speaker 3: I mean Syria in general, it has just been the
Speaker 3: best example of that period, Like over the course of
Speaker 3: a decade, it's just been funding all sides. But then
Speaker 3: it's all terror. It's just a completely ridiculous situation.
Speaker 5: That it was.
Speaker 3: I think it was maz Ryan who posted He's like,
Speaker 3: this is the perfect coda to the war on terror.
Speaker 3: Watching the former al Qaeda head of al Qaeda in
Speaker 3: Syria shaking the hand of the United States president.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, what a summit.
Speaker 2: Incredible and of course, you know, very nice for Israel
Speaker 2: that this guy is ready to just you know, hand
Speaker 2: over the goal on heights effectively. Ben Norton had a
Speaker 2: good summation here. Let me put this up on the
Speaker 2: screen and read off his his commentary about what unfolded here.
Speaker 2: The US helped overthrow Siria's independent government. Now it's unelected
Speaker 2: president is the former leader of al Qaeda. Trump had
Speaker 2: a form a friendly meeting with this al Qaeda extremist
Speaker 2: and praise him is great. Trump said, he's young, attractive guy,
Speaker 2: tough guy, strong past, very strong past fighter. Trump vows
Speaker 2: remove the suffocating US sanctions. That's good to collapse the
Speaker 2: previous Syrian state. The rebranded al Qaeda leader promise Aeria
Speaker 2: will normalize relations with the colonial Israeli regime is committing
Speaker 2: genocide against Palestine and people. He also pledged to give
Speaker 2: US corporations control over serious natural resources. I think Ryan
Speaker 2: you said on a previous show. You know, the people
Speaker 2: who said this was all a CIA plot, I don't
Speaker 2: know that it was, but you know it would add up,
Speaker 2: it would add up.
Speaker 4: Little, yes, indeed, but a little ridiculous there though, to
Speaker 4: say that al Shara is unelected, but then to call
Speaker 4: Asad quote independent, Yeah, ok, yes election? Sure what election
Speaker 4: did did Asad's dictator's son.
Speaker 3: Win?
Speaker 4: And how independent exactly was he? But yes, like the
Speaker 4: people who said that this was just a giant you know,
Speaker 4: deep state plot are are looking pretty good right now.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's also the new Trump dichotomy. It's not new,
Speaker 3: but he crystallized it in his rid speech this week
Speaker 3: where he was talking about commerce versus chaos, as though
Speaker 3: this is a dichotomy and commerce itself will head off chaos,
Speaker 3: which again so a lot like Tom Friedman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the McDonald's like, we'll spread our you know, this
Speaker 2: is how we'll spread democracy around the world. Now it's like,
Speaker 2: how what will spread our ability to conquest everywhere? And
Speaker 2: you know, for on behalf of Elon Musk and other
Speaker 2: oligarchs everywhere.
Speaker 3: Well, and Jelani has apparently been pitching Trump and Trump's
Speaker 3: team openly on having Trump towered Damascus, like it was
Speaker 3: within a part, intentional part of the strategy that he's
Speaker 3: approached these negotiations with. And it, I mean, the sanctions
Speaker 3: are gone. So something worked. And it wouldn't surprise me
Speaker 3: if that was it, because it's worked in other golfs.
Speaker 3: It's worked in golf states where there's Trump construction happening
Speaker 3: all over the region. So this is it's not new, obviously,
Speaker 3: but I think Trump is this week has just said
Speaker 3: we are mirroring. Now the Trump family is like mirroring
Speaker 3: the way business is done in some of these golf states.
Speaker 2: And yeah, well it actually ties in with this story
Speaker 2: Pro Publica published about the Trump administration leaned on African
Speaker 2: countries the Goal Camp business for Elon muss. This is
Speaker 2: an expansion of the reporting that Jeff Stein had already
Speaker 2: done over at the Washington Post about the way the
Speaker 2: State Department is pushing countries to you know allow and
Speaker 2: starlink and partner with Starlink and you know, aggressively doing so.
Speaker 2: And they really went deep on some of the I
Speaker 2: mean just like mob boss tactics that are used here
Speaker 2: and the tariffs fit into it. So you've got the
Speaker 2: stripping of USAID, you know. And so the the basic
Speaker 2: dissolution of that agency and subsuming an under the State
Speaker 2: Department means that Marco Rubio and the people who are
Speaker 2: under him can go directly to a country and say
Speaker 2: we're going to take your funding if you don't if
Speaker 2: you don't partner with starlink. The tariffs mean, like in
Speaker 2: the case of Lesotho, that you can go in and say, hey,
Speaker 2: we're going to smack you with these fifty percent tariffs
Speaker 2: and you're going to be economically dead if you don't
Speaker 2: take up us A starlink license. This has worked in
Speaker 2: numerous cases where countries have basically folded and said okay, fine.
Speaker 2: And so you know, I was thinking, Ryan, how with
Speaker 2: the destruction of USA, I d you know there the
Speaker 2: principle was, Okay, we're going to give you some healthcare
Speaker 2: and we're going to be able to get things that
Speaker 2: are in US interests, whether it's securing raw earth minerals
Speaker 2: or whatever it is, putting pressure on their government, whatever
Speaker 2: it is. With the idea, this would be in quote
Speaker 2: US imperial interests. Now, the idea is we're going to
Speaker 2: use those same levers except to the sort of like
Speaker 2: sol and exchoolsive benefit of Elon and the Trump family,
Speaker 2: and we're going to operate it directly from the State Department.
Speaker 2: We're going to couple it with this terif regime so
Speaker 2: that we can truly go and get whatever we want
Speaker 2: for our personal business interests around the world.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's that's basically what's going on here. Elon has
Speaker 4: been very very quiet lately. I've noticed, Yeah, and I'm
Speaker 4: not sure.
Speaker 2: Grock not so much, but Elon, yes'.
Speaker 4: Crock been quite loud. Grock not so much. I mean,
Speaker 4: Starlink is a good product, but it's got yesterday.
Speaker 2: There did you you got it set up yet?
Speaker 3: Now I'm doing that today.
Speaker 2: It's not too hard, and it's it is, I admit it's.
Speaker 3: Face in the middle of the day.
Speaker 4: It shouldn't really, it shouldn't need the hammer of the
Speaker 4: the US foreign policy apparatus.
Speaker 2: Apparently Bezos is launching a competitor product product and other
Speaker 2: companies are as well, and so Elon feels under pressure
Speaker 2: to basically lock in create a lock in a sort
Speaker 2: of like global monopoly, and especially interested in Africa because
Speaker 2: that's the fastest growing population in the world.
Speaker 3: In order to secure Starling's future. It's not just a
Speaker 3: residential product. It has massive commercial and defense uh business. Absolutely,
Speaker 3: It's not just sort of like another Amazon device or
Speaker 3: even Tesla. It's it's such a significant defense. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's been completely part of the world and the conflict
Speaker 3: in Ukraine, that's part of the conflict in Gaza.
Speaker 2: So it allows Elon to conduct his own foreign policy effectively. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and we saw that with Ukraine, like, regardless of how
Speaker 2: you feel about the decisions he made there. First the
Speaker 2: providing of Starlink to Ukraine was very critical, and then
Speaker 2: he you know, did not allow its use I think
Speaker 2: in Crimea like there were decisions that were made that
Speaker 2: were meant to coerce Zelensky and the Ukrainians in terms
Speaker 2: of the tactics that they were allowed to deploy. So
Speaker 2: he was using Starlink as a tool to you know,
Speaker 2: coerce the Ukrainians. And again, regardless of whether you agree
Speaker 2: with what Elon thought about those things or not having
Speaker 2: that much power in one unelected billionaire to be able
Speaker 2: to conduct his own foreign policy and coerce nations as
Speaker 2: he sees fit. Is not something that I think any
Speaker 2: of us should be signing up for.
Speaker 4: Yeah, from a national security perspective, you would think the
Speaker 4: government would want competitors out there. If one guy controls
Speaker 4: the communication apparatus for your military, yeah, and he controls you.
Speaker 2: That's that is exactly right. I also wanted to just
Speaker 2: mentioned Ukraine. Let me play for you. So these negotiations
Speaker 2: are going down in Istanbul. You know, there's originally, I
Speaker 2: think some decent hopes that there might be some progress
Speaker 2: made here between Ukraine and Russia. But then we learned
Speaker 2: Trump is not going and Putin is also not going.
Speaker 2: I think the expectations have been significantly diminished. Here's Trump
Speaker 2: getting asked about Putin not showing in Turkey. Take a listen.
Speaker 2: Oh hold on, it helps if I share it. Here
Speaker 2: we go.
Speaker 6: Uh No, I didn't anticipate. I actually said, why would
Speaker 6: he go if I'm not going? Because I wasn't to go.
Speaker 6: I wasn't planning to you I would go, but I
Speaker 6: wasn't planning to go. And I said, I don't think
Speaker 6: he's going to go if I don't go. And then
Speaker 6: that's turned out to be right. But we have people there, Marco,
Speaker 6: as you know, he's doing a fantastic yet Marco's there
Speaker 6: Secretary of State, and we have people there.
Speaker 3: But I.
Speaker 6: Didn't think it was possible for Putin to go if
Speaker 6: I'm not there, Jennifer, So.
Speaker 2: He's saying, he, you know, I'm not disappointed. I didn't
Speaker 2: expect them to go. As I mentioned, I think Rubio
Speaker 2: and others have been downplaying expectations for what can be
Speaker 2: accomplished there. And for Zelenski, Emily, you know, he really
Speaker 2: wanted to have some sort of a ceasefire in place
Speaker 2: before these talks even unfolded. He was not able to
Speaker 2: achieve that. And now I think what I read this
Speaker 2: morning is that he was on his way there and
Speaker 2: then when it was revealed, Okay, Putin's not going, he
Speaker 2: also sent a delegation instead of himself going. So that's
Speaker 2: kind of where we are there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that sounds right, and it sounds like now Trump
Speaker 3: is leaving this big trip. Actually not much closer to
Speaker 3: an end in Gozla. We're in Russia Ukraine in that
Speaker 3: conflict either. And he started the week and I think
Speaker 3: Trump World had very high expectations for kind of moving
Speaker 3: by leaps and bounds over the course of the week
Speaker 3: and is now leaving. And it's interesting because we talked
Speaker 3: about this a good bit when we were discussing Israel earlier.
Speaker 3: But Witkoff, it did not seem to have the magic
Speaker 3: touch this week for some reason or another, because it
Speaker 3: actually did feel like leading up to this week, the
Speaker 3: momentum in both directions was significant. They got the minerals
Speaker 3: deal with Ukraine, they had really started putting pressure on Yahoo,
Speaker 3: and then over the course of the week it all fizzled.
Speaker 2: I also ran, is this rift with Netanyahu thing? How real?
Speaker 2: How real is this? Or is this more? Biden had
Speaker 2: very strong words and very strong things to net nya
Speaker 2: who leads to the press. I just I can't really tell.
Speaker 4: We'll find out, And you're right, I think to point to,
Speaker 4: you know, Biden's constant leaking to the press of how
Speaker 4: frustrated he was and how what mean things he said
Speaker 4: to Yaho on the phone, and then the gap between
Speaker 4: that and what was happening in the real world, you know,
Speaker 4: showed his fecklessness. And I think that the exact same
Speaker 4: formula has to apply to Trump. And so whether Trump
Speaker 4: can get the ceasefire that he says he wants, and
Speaker 4: whether he can get the Iran deal that he says
Speaker 4: he wants and get the regional stability that he claims
Speaker 4: is his goal. Will then determine whether or not this
Speaker 4: split is real or not. And I think that's the
Speaker 4: only way you can figure that out.
Speaker 3: It was obviously a heavy lift that he would come
Speaker 3: out of this week with leaps and bounds and significant
Speaker 3: steps forward. But so I don't want to say, like, oh,
Speaker 3: what a loss he didn't solve to like he didn't
Speaker 3: bring peace to the world, you know, on the course
Speaker 3: of his Middle East trip, But you think expectations were
Speaker 3: higher than what happened this week.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just I also feel it seems like he
Speaker 2: still hasn't learned the lesson that should have been learned
Speaker 2: from decades, but specifically from his first administration, that there
Speaker 2: is no full moving forward and renewal in the Middle
Speaker 2: East without Palestinians have some having some sort of a
Speaker 2: just resolution. And you know, the Abraham Accords were premised
Speaker 2: on the idea that we can just kind of like
Speaker 2: pretend Palestinians don't exist and create these relationships. And you know,
Speaker 2: according to Jeremy's and others discussions with leaders of from
Speaker 2: US and other you know, uh, Palestinian armed resistance factions.
Speaker 2: That sense that there was an attempt to move on
Speaker 2: without addressing some sort of resolution for Palestinians is part
Speaker 2: of what sparked the the planning and the execution of
Speaker 2: October seventh. So, you know, at the end of this trip,
Speaker 2: it seems to me very much like Trump still thinks
Speaker 2: that you can just go around the Middle East, get
Speaker 2: the deals that he can get for his own personal family,
Speaker 2: get his fourner million dollar jet from Qatar and whatever.
Speaker 2: And you know, if Israel is going to just keep
Speaker 2: genociding Palestinians, then you know, maybe in the future he
Speaker 2: can get a real estate deal there as well, which
Speaker 2: seems to be his ultimate end goal.
Speaker 3: Commerce over chaos. Yeah, exactly to those two never come
Speaker 3: at the same time, as we know that they're never intertwined.
Speaker 2: All right, let's talk a little bit about this the
Speaker 2: latest of the GOP tax bill, Emily, I wanted to
Speaker 2: hear your view from the right on how things are
Speaker 2: shaking down here. First of all, we got an estimate
Speaker 2: that the tax bills on track to add more than
Speaker 2: two and a half trillion dollars in the US deficit
Speaker 2: for the people who you know. This is from Jeff Stein.
Speaker 2: Republican tax reprosal emerging in the House of Reps would
Speaker 2: add more than two and a half trillion to the
Speaker 2: federal budget deficit, according to nonpartisan but experts. That fiscal
Speaker 2: hit has trigger criticism from House Conservatives, who have at
Speaker 2: times vowed to vote against legislation that as the national
Speaker 2: debt already over thirty six trillion, House Speaker Mike Johnson
Speaker 2: may have trouble reducing the bill's price tag, as that
Speaker 2: would require either making fewer tax cuts or steeper spending
Speaker 2: cuts in ways unpalatable to his conference. What is your
Speaker 2: son's emily of how important this number is, and this
Speaker 2: no matter how you slice it, given the things they
Speaker 2: want to accomplish, specifically the giant tax cuts for the rich, Like,
Speaker 2: as long as that's in this bill, it's going to
Speaker 2: be a giant budget buster, and you aren't going to
Speaker 2: be able to cut really enough even from the you know,
Speaker 2: relatively significant cuts they want to make to medicaid in
Speaker 2: order to make up the difference. So on the other hand,
Speaker 2: conservatives like to do this math like, oh yes, but
Speaker 2: the tax cuts will magical themselves, and this analysis surely
Speaker 2: doesn't take into account all of the economic glory that
Speaker 2: is going to be achieved by, you know, further cutting
Speaker 2: the taxes of the richest people and corporations in the country.
Speaker 2: So how how's the right kind of reacting to this news.
Speaker 3: I would expect there to be significant fights with the
Speaker 3: Congressional Budget Office in the days ahead. And the Congressional
Speaker 3: Budget Office does kind of suck in some respects. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's not like it has an easy job, but there's
Speaker 3: some funny math that gets done when you're trying to
Speaker 3: say how much stuff this will cost. So I think
Speaker 3: some of that will be coped. I think some of
Speaker 3: it will be legitimate. I think that number is extremely important,
Speaker 3: and I think it's why right now you have Chip
Speaker 3: Roy basically are ready laying the groundwork and preparing people
Speaker 3: for his internal resistance, and a lot of Freedom Caucus
Speaker 3: members are going to be with him. On the Senate side.
Speaker 3: Ron Johnson penned a Wall Street Journal op ed this week,
Speaker 3: saying basically that the bill is the Titanic and that
Speaker 3: it's going to be sunk because of the spending levels.
Speaker 3: On the other hand, you have the Salt Conference whining
Speaker 3: that their salt deduction isn't quadrupled rather than merely tripled.
Speaker 3: If not more, they would of course go higher than that.
Speaker 3: So the number is just going to be a red
Speaker 3: line for people like chip Roy. Tim Burchett is raising
Speaker 3: issues already now about increased pentagon spending. So again, like,
Speaker 3: you can do this if you have a thirty vote margin,
Speaker 3: and you can allow people to take their little comfortable
Speaker 3: protest votes and sprinkle some pork in to get other
Speaker 3: people on the side that you need them to be,
Speaker 3: and you can do these deals. But the deals that
Speaker 3: they're going to have to get done to overcome this problem,
Speaker 3: and that I would say, I mean, it's obvious in
Speaker 3: the House, but it'll also be a problem in the
Speaker 3: Senate because you now have people who have stuck their
Speaker 3: necks out for DOGE. You have people who have come
Speaker 3: out when it's extremely difficult. There are bureaucrats on the
Speaker 3: sidewalk with their cardboard boxes and the ferns, and people
Speaker 3: have stuck their neck out and VA cuts for example,
Speaker 3: and said no, this is important. And then you're asking
Speaker 3: them to vote on a a budget bill or a
Speaker 3: budget busting bill that they then have to go home
Speaker 3: and answer for blowing up the debt and then while
Speaker 3: doing that, taxes for the rich and cuts to medicaid.
Speaker 3: And this is maga. It's not the Republican Party. I mean,
Speaker 3: I would argue they didn't understand it quite well enough
Speaker 3: in two thousand and nine either. But it's not the
Speaker 3: Republican Party of nineteen ninety nine. It is completely different.
Speaker 3: And so if you have to go home and you're
Speaker 3: Josh Hawley, who's also saying no touching Medicaid, these are
Speaker 3: two maga Republicans Josh haller Ron Johnson Josh Holly saying
Speaker 3: don't touch Medicaid, Ron Johnson saying this bill is not
Speaker 3: brave enough and it's not making cuts that will make
Speaker 3: me support it. So this, this problem imperils everything for them.
Speaker 3: So on the one hunt, on the one hand, that
Speaker 3: makes it easier for them to pass because if it's like, listen,
Speaker 3: the President is doing these tariffs no matter what, and
Speaker 3: you know your constituents are going to be screwed. If
Speaker 3: the tariffs don't come with tax cuts and incentives for
Speaker 3: on shoring, then maybe you can it's easier to muscle
Speaker 3: people on board. On the other hand, if you're spending
Speaker 3: more on the Pentagon, and people have stuck their necks
Speaker 3: out on Pentagon cuts over the last ten I mean,
Speaker 3: it's just completely is it is more of a mess
Speaker 3: than people realize.
Speaker 2: Rand Paul had had this to say to your point,
Speaker 2: Emily about the Doge piece. He says, it indicates this
Speaker 2: year the deficit will be over two trillion dollars, but
Speaker 2: it means they're anticipating close to three trillion for the
Speaker 2: next year. It's really a slap in the face at
Speaker 2: those of us who are excited about Elon Musk and
Speaker 2: Doge and all the cuts. Where are the cuts? If
Speaker 2: the cuts are real, why are we going to borrow
Speaker 2: five trillion? So what I proposed was this, he says
Speaker 2: he wanted to. I put for a proposal. We voted
Speaker 2: on it to raise the debt sailing for three months.
Speaker 5: Why.
Speaker 2: Because I think we should vote on the debt sailing
Speaker 2: every three or four months to see if they're doing
Speaker 2: their job, if they promise us cuts and spending, not
Speaker 2: just the administration, I'm talking about congressional leaders as well.
Speaker 2: If the promises are real' vote to raise it every
Speaker 2: three months. So I put forward that amendment. Unfortunately, I
Speaker 2: only got a handful of votes. But you know, I
Speaker 2: mean he's saying some version of what you said. First
Speaker 2: of all, the Doge cuts obviously are fake. They're actually
Speaker 2: costing the government more money than their quote unquote saving in.
Speaker 3: Some sense because people have lost their jobs and districts.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly that's exactly correct, and causing all sorts
Speaker 2: of you know, problems for states across the country. And
Speaker 2: then you're asking people to further explode. And this is
Speaker 2: something we've been saying from the beginning, like, you know,
Speaker 2: they're not serious about Doge and about being so worried
Speaker 2: about the debt and the deficit, because if they were,
Speaker 2: they wouldn't be also proposing this like four trillion dollar
Speaker 2: tax cut on the road that's just several months away.
Speaker 2: You know, Ryan, early in the Trump administration, I Trump
Speaker 2: Trump has so much power within the Republican Party. I mean, really,
Speaker 2: that's unquestioned. However, previously, what made them him and Elon
Speaker 2: so able to just effectuate whatever result they wanted with
Speaker 2: congressional Republicans was that one two punch of you of
Speaker 2: Trump with the political power, and you had Elon with
Speaker 2: the power of the purse, so to speak, where he
Speaker 2: was threatening everybody who would get crosswise with him with
Speaker 2: funding their primaries. I think both of their power is
Speaker 2: somewhat diminished now because Trump is less popular than he
Speaker 2: was at that time, and you know, you're getting closer
Speaker 2: to midterms. Some of these Republicans have to face voters
Speaker 2: here shortly. And Elon was so embarrassed in that Supreme
Speaker 2: Court race that his political power obviously is vastly diminished.
Speaker 2: So even though I don't want to, you know, overstate
Speaker 2: the declined Trump's influencer or whatever, he still has a tremendous,
Speaker 2: unbelievable group on the Republican Party. I don't think he
Speaker 2: quite has as much power with them as he did
Speaker 2: going in because he's also lost that you know, the
Speaker 2: punch of Elon feeling like such a juggernaut as well.
Speaker 3: Ryan, that was true. But I'll just say quickly, like
Speaker 3: Chip Roy, Donald Trump has already fought with Chip Roy,
Speaker 3: and Tip Roy has prevailed. He has been fine. And
Speaker 3: that's like there are people right now when you have
Speaker 3: a big margin, it doesn't matter. You have the Thomas Massey's,
Speaker 3: you have the chip Roys who are going to make
Speaker 3: a big deal and say I'm just not doing it.
Speaker 3: But there are so many of those people right now.
Speaker 3: For Trump, I think Chip Roy would rather lose an
Speaker 3: election than vote for a bill that explodes the budget
Speaker 3: and if he doesn't feel like it's a reasonable compromise,
Speaker 3: and he's in that point right now, because he was
Speaker 3: already posting this week saying there's going to be an
Speaker 3: enormous pressure campaign pretty implicitly from the President, because the
Speaker 3: President was meanwhile tweeting it's a great bill. So yeah,
Speaker 3: it's huge. It is such a mess for the economy,
Speaker 3: It is such a mess for the Republican Party.
Speaker 2: The NBC is Ryan's reporting that Republicans are floating this
Speaker 2: compromise of faster Medicaid cuts, so I guess, you know,
Speaker 2: effectuating the same amount of cuts but in a quicker
Speaker 2: timeline and a larger salt deduction to try to strike
Speaker 2: some balance between what they describe as blue state Republicans
Speaker 2: and conservative hardliners on this bill.
Speaker 4: And the reason they're pushing those faster Medicaid cuts is
Speaker 4: because they you know, what politicians in Washington always do
Speaker 4: is anything that's difficult politically difficult, they push that out
Speaker 4: into the back end of the ten year ten year
Speaker 4: window and they'll say, look, over ten years, this cuts
Speaker 4: eight hundred billion dollars out of Medicaid. And then you
Speaker 4: look at the details and it cuts zero for the
Speaker 4: first eight years, and then it cuts four hundred each
Speaker 4: year of the ninth and tenth. And now that's not
Speaker 4: the exact structure of this one. It's a little bit
Speaker 4: closer in. But the idea then is that you tell
Speaker 4: your base you're doing a thing and then you don't
Speaker 4: actually do it. That's this is you know, Democrats have
Speaker 4: their own version of this. This is how Republicans you know, uh,
Speaker 4: do it to their base. And but fundamentally Republicans are
Speaker 4: in a jam between their rhetoric and reality because they
Speaker 4: have been for years, you know, been telling their base
Speaker 4: that they can save trillions of dollars. Uh. Elon Musk said,
Speaker 4: two trillion, right by basically cutting crazy research that funds
Speaker 4: you know, transgender mice and finding and finding waste fraud
Speaker 4: and abuse right in the government. Yes, And minority friends
Speaker 4: who were watching DOSEE you know, go through the government
Speaker 4: were very hopeful that like awesome, like we're finally we
Speaker 4: finally got somebody who's rich enough he doesn't care, he's
Speaker 4: going to go in there. He's going to find all
Speaker 4: the absurd spending, all the waste, fraud and abuse, and
Speaker 4: we're going to get our government under control. And it's
Speaker 4: not going to hurt me, it's not going to hurt
Speaker 4: the economy. It's not going to make the government actually
Speaker 4: less effective. It'll make the government more effective. The problem
Speaker 4: is that this was always a lie. Like the government
Speaker 4: does have some inefficiencies, but it would take a serious,
Speaker 4: like collective effort to go in and reform those processes.
Speaker 4: You can't just go in and with a wrecking ball
Speaker 4: and fire everybody on probation and find trillions of dollars
Speaker 4: in transgender mice research like that that just doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: There are trillion dollars of woke to cut down the
Speaker 2: federal pun exactly.
Speaker 4: And the fraud is is weapons makers, uh, you know,
Speaker 4: health insurance companies, it's health providers. It's like these private
Speaker 4: equity owned doctor facilities that are ripping off Medicare and Medicaid,
Speaker 4: like those are the places that you're going to find
Speaker 4: the fraud. But guess what, they have power. They make contributions,
Speaker 4: so they're not going after those.
Speaker 3: Football So their stuff is small wall compared to that
Speaker 3: exactly found.
Speaker 2: Out that like you can, you can cut the Reuters
Speaker 2: subscription sane, like Politico pro subscription no no, no no
Speaker 2: no no.
Speaker 3: Punch Bowl yeah yes, the yeah, the White House can
Speaker 3: cut it, can make these agencies cut their punch Bowl
Speaker 3: subscriptions or cut you know, the dumb contracts that they
Speaker 3: have with maybe Rivian or Tesla or something like that.
Speaker 2: But well between between Ryan saving the government that money
Speaker 2: for that fake Tesla contract or for a million dollars
Speaker 2: or whatever, plus what we're saving the government for the
Speaker 2: punch Bowl subscriptions, I mean, this is the real dog
Speaker 2: right here.
Speaker 4: That's right. Efficiency, that's great, the.
Speaker 2: Grim efficiency gotten way more done than Elon. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 2: we didn't even have to hack the Social Security database
Speaker 2: to do it. Isn't that incredible?
Speaker 3: We didn't have to know.
Speaker 4: It's almost it's almost as if he wanted all that
Speaker 4: data for something else.
Speaker 2: Interesting. Yeah, maybe interesting, very interesting, so that he can
Speaker 2: feed it to Grock so that Greg can tell us
Speaker 2: more about the kill the Bores song and White.
Speaker 3: Aside, last thought, some of these Republicans know that they
Speaker 3: have to outlast Donald Trump. So like there are people
Speaker 3: in the Senate who are up after Donald Trump's presidential
Speaker 3: term is over. And if you're that's not a Chip Roy,
Speaker 3: but again like to keep using Chip Roy as an
Speaker 3: example or Ron Johnson actually as an example who's just
Speaker 3: re elected. You know that you have political ambitions that
Speaker 3: are not just going to be whatever Trump says in
Speaker 3: when is Trump's after twenty twenty eight? And so you're
Speaker 3: gonna have to answer to voters after Donald Trump is
Speaker 3: no longer president. And you don't know if Donald Trump
Speaker 3: is going to maintain his hold on the Republican Party.
Speaker 3: He probably will, but you have no idea what's going
Speaker 3: to happen and if you're going to get hammered for
Speaker 3: being mister doge, mister balanced budget and voting for a
Speaker 3: piece of garbage bill. So the incentives are not where
Speaker 3: Mike Johnson and Trump need them to be.
Speaker 2: I got to get you guys to weigh in on
Speaker 2: this James Comey situation. Seriously, what in the I don't
Speaker 2: know what's going on. I genuinely don't know what's going
Speaker 2: on here. So Camy posted this picture on Instagram.
Speaker 3: What a deeply weird person, truly, truly.
Speaker 2: It says eighty six forty seven and his his caption
Speaker 2: is cool shell formation on my beachwalk. And then he
Speaker 2: you know, people were like, Okay, you're calling for the
Speaker 2: president to be killed? Is that what we're doing? Is
Speaker 2: that what's going on here? And you know they're apparently
Speaker 2: now like investigating him for this as well. But anyway,
Speaker 2: he posted this, he deleted the post, and he says,
Speaker 2: I posted earlier picture of some shells I saw today
Speaker 2: on a beach walk, which I assumed were a political message.
Speaker 2: I didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence.
Speaker 2: It never occurred to me, but I posed violence of
Speaker 2: any kind, so I took the post down.
Speaker 3: He was the US Attorney for the Southern District of
Speaker 3: New York in addition to being the head of the FBI.
Speaker 3: He is damn he damn sure knows that eighty six.
Speaker 3: He knows exactly what it means, and he knows exactly
Speaker 3: what he's doing when he juxtapo is it with forty seven?
Speaker 3: Such a bizarre person.
Speaker 4: I mean, as far as I know this, the only
Speaker 4: place I know this is from restaurants where you say like, okay,
Speaker 4: we're out of we're out of something. You know, eighty
Speaker 4: six chicken. We did once and a mayor. Everybody laughed,
Speaker 4: eighty six chicken? Like, kind of manager are you? How
Speaker 4: do we run out of chicken? So you just announced
Speaker 4: it to the step eighty six checking is off the menu. Uh,
Speaker 4: you can also impeach the president, like that's the way
Speaker 4: to eighty six. The guy also, yeah, so it doesn't.
Speaker 3: Of course, but it's a euphemism for like, is it
Speaker 3: has it become?
Speaker 2: I mean, don't. I don't honestly have a take, like
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess my only take is I think
Speaker 2: the Republicans are very hypocritical melting down over this, given
Speaker 2: like the level of the type of rhetoric that we
Speaker 2: hear from them all the time, and they'll suppose it
Speaker 2: like rejection of cancel culture blah blah blah. But I
Speaker 2: don't know, guys, maybe I'm naive, and maybe it's just
Speaker 2: because I'm like, if I saw those shells, I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that I would really put it together or think
Speaker 2: that this was like a call for an assassination. I
Speaker 2: think he maybe like boomer brained enough and whatever to
Speaker 2: just be like, oh, this is kind of interesting. I
Speaker 2: don't know, Maybe I genuinely think that's a possibility.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, maybe I don't think it should be well, but yeah,
Speaker 3: he's the FBI, he's a former FBI director. The idea
Speaker 3: that you're just tossing these shells up on social media,
Speaker 3: even if you just think it's like kind of interesting,
Speaker 3: like oh, it's.
Speaker 2: Idiot code to decode here, I don't know. That's kind
Speaker 2: of the vibe I got from it. It's just on
Speaker 2: a character because he's such a like cautious person in
Speaker 2: a lot of way.
Speaker 3: Remember when he was social media posting from the woods
Speaker 3: of Iowa.
Speaker 4: He's so weird.
Speaker 3: It's it's genuinely disturbing to me that that man had
Speaker 3: as much power as he did over the course of
Speaker 3: so many years. Used it first with Martha Stewart, which
Speaker 3: was when we all should have film on the line
Speaker 3: there and real ones dead now. But then James Comy
Speaker 3: continued to ascend the ranks, a prize there, and we
Speaker 3: know how his power was abused when he was overseeing
Speaker 3: trying to take shortcuts to get Trump out of office.
Speaker 3: And so it's just like, what are you doing, bro,
Speaker 3: Like just retire, you sold a bunch of books.
Speaker 2: Good put the phone.
Speaker 3: Lord.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess that's it. It's a commentary on how
Speaker 2: even when you're at the beach, you still cannot resist,
Speaker 2: you know, posting in some way that's gonna it's going
Speaker 2: to get you in trouble.
Speaker 3: That is so true. And the only thing I'm going
Speaker 3: to add to this is the fact that he deleted
Speaker 3: it and said he didn't know. It's also just like, dude,
Speaker 3: then why are you post it? Like if if this
Speaker 3: is truly innocent, lave it up like who cares? But
Speaker 3: what are you? He's just so he's a muss.
Speaker 2: Well, that's where the boomer mindset comes in, is he
Speaker 2: didn't realize that the cardinal rule of social media is
Speaker 2: never delete, never apologize, be like miss Rachel and double down.
Speaker 2: Learn nothing from Donald Trump or Miss Rachel. Apparently. Yes, yes,
Speaker 2: all right, I wanted to. I wanted to get to
Speaker 2: this abundance debate with Sam Theeter and as Recline, And
Speaker 2: so we'll go ahead this part. We're going to transition
Speaker 2: to the premium show for for these reactions, and we
Speaker 2: have a couple other stories I want to get to
Speaker 2: as well, the migration hearing as well. So if you
Speaker 2: want to get the full show, just governsubscribe Breakingpoints dot
Speaker 2: Com for this bonus section that we're going to get
Speaker 2: to here as well.
Speaker 5: And Ryan