Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: 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 access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 1: Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an amazing show
Speaker 1: for everybody today. Do we live for the pound or no?
Speaker 1: All right, we live people live for the pound. There
Speaker 1: we go. I still get to say it.
Speaker 4: We're fermenting a coup today.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we're frementing a coup here at Breaking Points. Emily
Speaker 3: is in for Crystal, who will be back tomorrow and
Speaker 3: on Thursday, so don't worry about that. But Emily, the
Speaker 3: people have cried out for an Emily and Saga show
Speaker 3: for a while. According to our records, it has been
Speaker 3: two years since.
Speaker 1: The last Embly and Saga show.
Speaker 4: What a gift to everyone in the audience.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the it is. It is a great gift
Speaker 1: that we do so people.
Speaker 3: People can't accuse us here of not of not giving
Speaker 3: in to our audience demands. Right, So the people demanded it,
Speaker 3: and the people are getting it by plebiscite.
Speaker 1: So there you go.
Speaker 5: I think that's last time we did. By the way,
Speaker 5: there was a brick wall behind us.
Speaker 1: Yes there was. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 3: That was before the new set and everything's. Oh yeah,
Speaker 3: look you can see how far we come.
Speaker 4: That's all right.
Speaker 3: What the hell are we covering today? This is the
Speaker 3: toughest part of the job setting all this up.
Speaker 1: Tariffs. All right, tariffs.
Speaker 3: We're gonna talk about Tariff's the a worst April for
Speaker 3: the Dow Jones since the Great Depression. Uh, not exactly
Speaker 3: a great headline there for the administration. We're going to
Speaker 3: talk about some of the movements in the stock market,
Speaker 3: big dumpy yesterday of major stock indusses, as well as
Speaker 3: some major movements by China warning other countries not to
Speaker 3: team up with the United States. We're going to continue
Speaker 3: the coverage of Pete Hegseeth saga.
Speaker 1: There is just insanity going on.
Speaker 3: Pete Hagsath knifing his own own staff in the back
Speaker 3: who recently were fired.
Speaker 1: From the Pentagon.
Speaker 3: We also have one of those former staffers, Stan Caldwell,
Speaker 3: speaking out on the Tucker Carlson Show, really giving us
Speaker 3: some insight into the knife fights that are happening in
Speaker 3: the administration over war with Iran.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about Kirsty Nome.
Speaker 3: She apparently got her purse stolen despite having been surrounded
Speaker 3: by Secret Service agents.
Speaker 1: She had three thousand dollars in cash on her.
Speaker 3: Just some very weird stuff that's going on, and obviously
Speaker 3: also an insight into one of the top law enforcement
Speaker 3: officers in the United States. This is a topic I
Speaker 3: selected specifically because Emily is here with me. We're going
Speaker 3: to talk about the Trump administration's efforts to boost birth
Speaker 3: rates here in the United States, focused specifically on motherhood
Speaker 3: tax breaks for new moms, medals for mothers that have
Speaker 3: more than several children. So we're going to break some
Speaker 3: of that down. We're going to talk about that fight
Speaker 3: with Harvard between the Trump administration and Harvard, a major
Speaker 3: escalating legal battle between the two it stems from that
Speaker 3: quote anti semitism fight, but it's actually become much bigger
Speaker 3: than that. And then we're very excited to be joined
Speaker 3: by Fire, the president of Fire, who is going to
Speaker 3: break down some of the free speech attacks from by.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration.
Speaker 3: Fire Emily probably the single best organization that's been consistent
Speaker 3: and principled on these matters over the years. Really, we
Speaker 3: always look to them for guidance. They've spoken up on
Speaker 3: very unpopular issues, popular issues they don't care literally at Also,
Speaker 3: we're excited to speak with them.
Speaker 1: And then also, I guess people are also getting their wish.
Speaker 3: Here in AMA with Emily and I for our premium subscribers,
Speaker 3: So don't forget. You can support us at Breakingpoints dot com.
Speaker 3: You can participate in these live amas and more, and
Speaker 3: also see Emily every Friday on the Emily Show or
Speaker 3: on the Friday Show.
Speaker 1: Sorry, I guess we could call it. We should should
Speaker 1: we call?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 6: I like it.
Speaker 1: I like it all right, don't forget.
Speaker 3: If you can't support us right now and all of
Speaker 3: the new expansions that we're doing here, it's totally fine.
Speaker 3: Just make sure that you like and subscribe to this
Speaker 3: video and if you're listening to us on a podcast,
Speaker 3: just go ahead, give us a five star review and
Speaker 3: send the episode to a friend. That is the single
Speaker 3: best thing that you can do for us. You can
Speaker 3: even pick your favorite episode, Emily. You know what's fascinating
Speaker 3: in our podcast downloads is that there are hundreds of
Speaker 3: thousands of people who listen to these like at the end.
Speaker 1: Of the week, like like they don't listen to them daily.
Speaker 3: There we have a huge spike and Fridays and Saturdays.
Speaker 3: I don't get I'll be honest, I don't get it,
Speaker 3: but I guess it kind of makes sense.
Speaker 1: It's like cats up on the news.
Speaker 4: In any particular episode.
Speaker 3: Like yeah, like a Monday episode will boom on like
Speaker 3: a Friday.
Speaker 1: I'm like, I just I don't get it.
Speaker 3: YouTube is much more like regular, you know, like after
Speaker 3: forty eight hours or so, like most of the people
Speaker 3: have watched something, are gonna watch it. There are a
Speaker 3: few evergreen topics, but yeah, these podcast listeners, man, I've
Speaker 3: been trying to understand these.
Speaker 1: People for four years. I'll never get it. But it's okay,
Speaker 1: that's very interesting. Yeah, we love you anyway.
Speaker 4: So if you're listening to this.
Speaker 1: Four days from now.
Speaker 3: If you're listening to this four or five days from now,
Speaker 3: go ahead and follow your instructions.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to the tariff. So massive sell
Speaker 1: off in.
Speaker 3: The stock market yesterday, not one particular thing that seems
Speaker 3: to have set things off, but just still real signs
Speaker 3: of danger. Here's CNBC right around the close. Let's take
Speaker 3: a listen.
Speaker 4: Look at the markets.
Speaker 7: Which are very unwelcome on this Monday afternoon. The Dow
Speaker 7: is down twelve hundred and seventy points right now, so
Speaker 7: we're at session lows and if we close here, it
Speaker 7: will be the eleventh thousand point drop in the Dow's history,
Speaker 7: and it's the fourth this month. Now, the SMP broad market,
Speaker 7: here's what you need to know, down three percent and
Speaker 7: down sixteen percent from the fifty two week high. We're
Speaker 7: about two hundred points above the intry day low of forty.
Speaker 4: Nine ten on April eighth.
Speaker 7: Keep these in mind as people look for a retest,
Speaker 7: and is that an entry point. The Nasdaq is the
Speaker 7: worst of the major averages, led lower.
Speaker 4: By Nvidia and Tesla.
Speaker 7: Tesla down seven percent ahead of its earnings tomorrow, and
Speaker 7: of course, check the yield on the tenure because unlike
Speaker 7: many most previous stock sell offs, where you at least
Speaker 7: get some cushion here, Nope, not getting it today four forty.
Speaker 7: This time, treasuries are being sold as investors sell stocks
Speaker 7: as well, Dollars down, yields are higher.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and actually the yield is spiked even more since then.
Speaker 3: We're going to get to that in a little bit.
Speaker 3: But let's go ahead and put this up there on
Speaker 3: the screen that Dow is currently headed for the worst
Speaker 3: April since nineteen thirty two as investors are sending no
Speaker 3: confidence signals. Quote few think the administration's negotiation with trade
Speaker 3: partners will yield results soon enough to ease the strain.
Speaker 3: And Emily, that really seems to be a big thing
Speaker 3: that was donned on the market yesterday and a lot
Speaker 3: of these investors is the fact that the Japanese talks
Speaker 3: went so badly and that the Japanese Prime minister and
Speaker 3: their team left Washington with no deal. And then, honestly,
Speaker 3: the worst signal was not just them leaving, it was
Speaker 3: the Japanese Prime minister going to Parliament and declaring, we
Speaker 3: will not concede to all of the demands of the
Speaker 3: United States. They are actively counter signaling the Trump administration
Speaker 3: at home and by the way, too great popularity. Actually,
Speaker 3: the Japanese people not very happy about the way that
Speaker 3: they have been treated throughout this process. There's been ongoing
Speaker 3: to time there with China and with South Korea something.
Speaker 3: You know, Trump historically has made three countries which absolutely
Speaker 3: hate each other's guts to at least move in some
Speaker 3: solid direction as a result of the tariffs. And so
Speaker 3: I think as this begins to dawn on the investors
Speaker 3: and on the market, they're seeing that Japan, which was
Speaker 3: supposed to be the check mark, like that was supposed
Speaker 3: to be the easiest one to be done, and they're like, holy,
Speaker 3: we have seventy more of these trade deals that are
Speaker 3: supposed to happen in ninety days. They're like, this is
Speaker 3: just not going to happen, Like this is not reality.
Speaker 3: And then no signal yet from the Trump administration around
Speaker 3: any sort of cave. The more that starts to set in,
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, everybody celebrated that stock market bump
Speaker 3: after the ninety day pause. We are just a few
Speaker 3: maybe two three percent or something like that away from
Speaker 3: being right back to where we started even before the
Speaker 3: ninety day pause where they initially wanted the bonds. Obviously
Speaker 3: we'll get to in a little bit, but this is
Speaker 3: this is not a good sign.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, this is maybe the worst sign because
Speaker 5: there's a counterfactual here. Trump actually is signing and inking
Speaker 5: all of these like really good deals, and that sounds
Speaker 5: a little bit ridiculous. But it's possible, right that he
Speaker 5: could be coming away from this with actually some significant
Speaker 5: progress in these negotiations with Japan, with places like Vietnam.
Speaker 5: It's entirely within the realm of possibility, but it's also
Speaker 5: the predicate for his entire strategy. The strategy hinges on
Speaker 5: being able to seal these deals, to seal them quickly,
Speaker 5: and to get good ones. And again, I think it's,
Speaker 5: you know, more likely than not. It's always been more
Speaker 5: likely than not that wouldn't happen, but it was always
Speaker 5: a possibility.
Speaker 4: It was always a possibility.
Speaker 3: What's interesting too, is Charles Gasparino over a Fox Business
Speaker 3: just said today quote about ten days ago, Scott Besson
Speaker 3: was telling Wall Street executives that he was making progress
Speaker 3: cutting trade deals with India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia,
Speaker 3: some of the largest trading partners quote, then nothing happened
Speaker 3: in the market's tank. So there's been a combination of
Speaker 3: a couple of facts. It's not only the lack of
Speaker 3: trade deals. There's also been Trump's escalating attacks on the
Speaker 3: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. And look, I mean, I
Speaker 3: don't think Trump is empirically incorrect that we do need
Speaker 3: a rate cut, but it's really more about the signal
Speaker 3: that he himself would take like some of unitary executive
Speaker 3: power over the central Bank, which would mean that there
Speaker 3: would be an escalating fight and most importantly uncertainty. So
Speaker 3: it's not the fact that investors don't want a rate cut.
Speaker 3: They would be absolutely happy to do so, as we've
Speaker 3: already seen the European Central Bank is cut rates. There's
Speaker 3: been numerous other countries that have done so as well.
Speaker 3: The dollar right now, by the way, is a disaster.
Speaker 3: The dollar is down, to believe, almost every currency except
Speaker 3: for the Turkish lira all time highs, or not all
Speaker 3: time highs, but near all time highs, with the euro,
Speaker 3: the Japanese yen, and a few other currencies which traditionally
Speaker 3: actually were quite down. This is very difficult because even
Speaker 3: without tariffs that means that these foreign goods are going
Speaker 3: to be more expensive for United States investors and importers
Speaker 3: that are able to afford this. That is not to
Speaker 3: even mention, you know, the other stuff that's happening right
Speaker 3: now in the markets. Let's put a two please up
Speaker 3: on the screen, because this really actually underscores a lot
Speaker 3: of what I'm talking about here about the dollar weakness.
Speaker 3: Quote Trump trade offensive threatens America's financial primacy, and the
Speaker 3: rising volatility in the dollar weakness is raising fears for
Speaker 3: a financial realignment away from US shores. And so this
Speaker 3: is the big fear right now, the move away from
Speaker 3: the United States dollar as a reserve currency. Traditionally, as
Speaker 3: they were talking about on CNBC, you see bond deals
Speaker 3: start to go down, which obviously has major pressure in
Speaker 3: terms of interest rates the Federal reserve, but we don't
Speaker 3: see that. And so really what we're seeing is both
Speaker 3: a fleeing from US markets and from the US dollar.
Speaker 3: And so when you have massive uncertainty on those two things,
Speaker 3: as well as this massive pressure in the bond markets,
Speaker 3: you basically have financial uncertainty and pressure at all levels.
Speaker 1: At the consumer level, at the equities level, at the
Speaker 1: bond level, and now at a currency level.
Speaker 3: In fact, I was just reading today that one of
Speaker 3: the largest foreign exchange of traders, like of currencies, has
Speaker 3: been margin called and has the heart basically halt like
Speaker 3: all trading. And so there's you know, I mean, look,
Speaker 3: I'm not shedding.
Speaker 1: Tears here for four X traders. It's like oh boo hoo.
Speaker 3: But it's a signal obviously that the uncertainty and the
Speaker 3: like basically shocked to the overall dollar is causing fundamental
Speaker 3: questions to be asked across the world. And I think
Speaker 3: it always just returns to why. It's like, if that's
Speaker 3: a result of a war, if it's that's the result
Speaker 3: of you know, outside pressure, if that's a result of
Speaker 3: a hyper intentional policy for d dollarization across the world
Speaker 3: to make US goods more competitive for genuinely good trade deals,
Speaker 3: a lot of people be fine with it, you know.
Speaker 3: But the point is that within this vacuum of chaos
Speaker 3: where there seems to be no policy agenda, everything is
Speaker 3: basically at the whims of whether Peter Navarro is on
Speaker 3: the right building in the White House complex or not.
Speaker 3: That's when everybody is just like, yeah, I'm done, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm hording cash if you're lucky enough to have some
Speaker 3: taken out debt, or if you're a company, I'm buying
Speaker 3: nothing for the next ninety days. And you know the
Speaker 3: freight drop that's coming from China. It just still has
Speaker 3: not set in for people because you're not ready for
Speaker 3: like the price increase at Costco. You're not ready to
Speaker 3: go there and to see stuff that you normally would
Speaker 3: that's just not on the shelf. It takes a couple
Speaker 3: of months to see that happen. I mean, don't forget.
Speaker 3: The peak of inflation in the COVID era was twenty
Speaker 3: twenty two. Even though twenty twenty one was marked by
Speaker 3: all of those increases, it was really after the invasion
Speaker 3: of Russia where we saw massive shock to the financial system,
Speaker 3: massive shock to the energy market, and basically a year
Speaker 3: of unchecked inflation that the government allowed to basically just happen,
Speaker 3: where all of those things culminated where people were like,
Speaker 3: I am done with Joe Biden, and you know, I'm
Speaker 3: really done with the overall US economy, and they really
Speaker 3: never forgave him for that, and I think that they're
Speaker 3: really on track.
Speaker 4: You know, you know this as well, as I do.
Speaker 5: But a lot of people in the White House right now, specifically,
Speaker 5: are looking back to nineteen eighty one and they say,
Speaker 5: Ronald Reagan weathered a temporary recession. The short term pain
Speaker 5: paid off for him. He was able to muster the
Speaker 5: he was able to mobilize voters and have a very
Speaker 5: successful return to the presidency. This is very different from
Speaker 5: that in a couple of different ways. But just one
Speaker 5: important way that you alluded to. It's not about price.
Speaker 5: This is not just about price increases. This is about
Speaker 5: the availability of goods. This is about scarcity. This is
Speaker 5: about things changing. This is about the shelves changing, not
Speaker 5: just the prices going up. And I think to your point,
Speaker 5: not only has that not stunk in for consumers, I
Speaker 5: don't think that that has sunk in for the administration.
Speaker 5: And the uncertainty as leverage was always again, if this
Speaker 5: deal were to if this entire strategy were to play
Speaker 5: out successfully, that had to be very temporary. Yeah, because
Speaker 5: it was good leverage.
Speaker 3: But let's talk about the nineteen eighty one recession, because
Speaker 3: that's a very important point. But why did Reagan get
Speaker 3: forgiven for the nineteen eighty one recession? Because it was
Speaker 3: a hangover a vulgar monetary policy, and thus people forgave
Speaker 3: Reagan because they didn't think it was his fault. And also,
Speaker 3: Reagan was a really good politician at the height of
Speaker 3: his literally probably at the height of his rhetorical powers
Speaker 3: in nineteen eighty one, where he's like, oh, you know,
Speaker 3: the happy optimism, the jelly beans and all that, and
Speaker 3: he's like, look, you know, He's like, we're going to
Speaker 3: get through this together. He was an excellent communicator, and
Speaker 3: he was actually able to use that recession to eventually
Speaker 3: push a lot of major legislation. Now we can debate
Speaker 3: the effects in all of that, but that was a
Speaker 3: hyper competent in my opinion, team, regardless of whether you
Speaker 3: think that what they did was good or not. But
Speaker 3: most importantly, they were able to blame Carter and Vulgar
Speaker 3: for much of what transpired from eighty one and in
Speaker 3: eighty two. The Trump administration does not have that luxury already.
Speaker 3: America is like Biden, who They're like, who is that?
Speaker 1: And what we were talking about?
Speaker 5: They're also asking the public to significantly renegotiate its relationship
Speaker 5: with consumer goods.
Speaker 3: Yes, and not just I would say beyond consumer goods.
Speaker 3: I would say, they're asking them to renegotiate like the
Speaker 3: very terms of which they understood their economic life, and
Speaker 3: like that is again you know, you don't there's America
Speaker 3: if we look back, like they're really only going to
Speaker 3: tolerate that in a time of war, like and even
Speaker 3: then people are gonna get pissed.
Speaker 4: Which is also where Igan was successful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true, because it's the cool we had.
Speaker 3: The Cold War a very good point and I was
Speaker 3: reading I think there was a during World War Two
Speaker 3: there was like a national speed limit of like thirty
Speaker 3: five miles per hour to serve get people.
Speaker 1: I hated it.
Speaker 3: But they were able to tolerate it because they're like, Okay,
Speaker 3: you know, we're in the middle of a war. But
Speaker 3: basically like the moment that I think the Japanese surrendered,
Speaker 3: they're like, yeah, we're driving fifty miles an hour now, okay,
Speaker 3: like the shit's over, Like where's my goods? I need
Speaker 3: some I need some serious return for four years of
Speaker 3: lack of food and of driving super slow, even though
Speaker 3: we didn't even have any highways or anything back in
Speaker 3: that time.
Speaker 1: So you know, America's always kind I'm.
Speaker 4: In that way you're full of fun facts.
Speaker 1: It's always fun times, you know.
Speaker 8: Over here.
Speaker 3: All right, let's go to the next one, shall we.
Speaker 3: This is about the bond markets. So to resurrect the
Speaker 3: Joe Wisenthal term, the bond market is the real deep
Speaker 3: state A three please. And what you're watching there is
Speaker 3: that the long term bond yields are absolutely blowing out
Speaker 3: right now. And so look, obviously these things are variable,
Speaker 3: but as of this morning, we saw a four point
Speaker 3: nine you know, yield on bonds, which is like on
Speaker 3: the thirty year bond at four point nine. The Again,
Speaker 3: let's let's remember why this is important, which is that
Speaker 3: this means that debt servicing, interest rates and all of
Speaker 3: that are going to be more expensive for the government.
Speaker 3: It also means that there is a either sell off
Speaker 3: or lack of demand for the United States dollar and
Speaker 3: for our bond. The very credibility of the United States
Speaker 3: financial system and of the United States, Like I don't
Speaker 3: even really know how to describe it because it is
Speaker 3: so consequential. Remember it's the bond market that was took
Speaker 3: down Liz Trusts as the Prime minister. But it's important
Speaker 3: just to remember that when you see that happening. It
Speaker 3: is a direct contradiction of the stated goal of the
Speaker 3: Trump administration because one of the ways a Secretary Pston
Speaker 3: was giving people a lot of cope is he was like, yeah,
Speaker 3: the equities markets they go up, they go down, etc.
Speaker 3: But the bond market, if we're able to do that,
Speaker 3: because traditionally that's usually what happens during a downturn, well
Speaker 3: that will be overall more beneficial to US consumers, to
Speaker 3: our financial system, for the US Treasury. But instead they've
Speaker 3: had the exact opposite, which definitely indicates foreign basically fleeing
Speaker 3: of the dollar and of lack of confidence in overall
Speaker 3: US markets. So that's what a lot of US are
Speaker 3: looking at.
Speaker 4: Again, uncertainty.
Speaker 5: And I think fluctuations we see yesterday were because of
Speaker 5: the I mean, I would argue that a lot of
Speaker 5: it was a reaction to the tripling down of the
Speaker 5: attacks on Powell, just because it creates certain.
Speaker 3: Of course, I mean, and that's I was talking with
Speaker 3: some people yesterday, go why yes, because you know we
Speaker 3: saw it like a three something percent drop in the
Speaker 3: S and P five hundred and there was I mean,
Speaker 3: by the way, that's the funny thing. Somebody said They're like,
Speaker 3: we're so desensitized that a single three percent drop is like, eh, whatever,
Speaker 3: I'm like, no, that's actually a lot. They look over
Speaker 3: the you know, if you look over the traditional time horizon,
Speaker 3: like this amount of complete like up and down, you know,
Speaker 3: in a single day without any market react, without like
Speaker 3: an announcement of bad earnings or a major policy announcement,
Speaker 3: and everybody's kind of just collectively like, hmm, this doesn't
Speaker 3: seem to be going that well. That's actually a really
Speaker 3: bad sign because it means that the slide can just continue.
Speaker 3: Keep in mind or recording this earlier in the morning,
Speaker 3: So let me take a look at the futures. Yeah,
Speaker 3: s and P is up by zero point seven percent. Great,
Speaker 3: it was like, you know, still down obviously from where
Speaker 3: we were whenever we began, even on Monday. And actually,
Speaker 3: you know, Joe Wisenthal again flagged something which I thought
Speaker 3: was absolutely harrowing for the private markets. Let's go ahead
Speaker 3: and put a four up there on the screen. He says, quote,
Speaker 3: Blackstone is now down forty percent from its November highs
Speaker 3: and is now right back at its post Liberation day lows. Remember,
Speaker 3: this is probably the best run manager of private assets
Speaker 3: in the world. So just consider how your run of
Speaker 3: the mill private equity or VC shop is looking right now.
Speaker 3: You know why I found that so important is I'll
Speaker 3: never forget. So the very first person I ever spoke
Speaker 3: to who told me that there was going to be
Speaker 3: major economic problems was actually David Sachs, and it was
Speaker 3: an interview I think I did it with him back
Speaker 3: in early twenty twenty two, before even the invasion of Ukraine,
Speaker 3: and I remember him telling me, he goes, you know,
Speaker 3: VC evaluations are down massively, and because this is the
Speaker 3: bleeding edge of.
Speaker 1: The financial system.
Speaker 3: When we're watching like lack of liquidity and overall just
Speaker 3: like lack of investment and VC evaluations and all the stuff
Speaker 3: start to go down, that's usually an indication where the
Speaker 3: private markets are or where the public markets will head soon.
Speaker 3: And I would say maybe within three or four months.
Speaker 3: Everything that he said ended up correct, and I was like, wow,
Speaker 3: So they gave me a lot of respect for some
Speaker 3: of the insight of where these private market entities can
Speaker 3: tell us about not only valuations, but also what future
Speaker 3: behavior will look like. So you know, if you're Blackstone,
Speaker 3: you're down forty percent, you have to start selling stuff
Speaker 3: like soon. You know, you're getting pretty close where if
Speaker 3: you're going to half your value from November, like, you're
Speaker 3: gonna have some serious pressure from your investors. And these people, unfortunately,
Speaker 3: again I don't want it to be this way. They
Speaker 3: control a lot of stuff, and so if they offload,
Speaker 3: you know, single family houses, that could have a major
Speaker 3: impact that they offload, you know, I mean they control
Speaker 3: so many major companies or stakes in companies or this.
Speaker 1: Is the worst possible outcome.
Speaker 3: What do these private equity goons always do whenever there
Speaker 3: is a downturn? They fire people. Yeah, well yeah, that too. Actually, no,
Speaker 3: they're not doing cocaine, can afford it anymore, that's right. No,
Speaker 3: So they're doing what's the legal cocaine now these days,
Speaker 3: I don't know, celsius. They're drinking tons of celsius. But
Speaker 3: the problem that we see for them is when they
Speaker 3: have to offload, and then they come in and they
Speaker 3: just gut these companies. And again you see tiny little
Speaker 3: signs of this Southwest getting rid of seating right, jacking
Speaker 3: up its rates, trying to add first class.
Speaker 1: You see already. You know, the airlines are.
Speaker 3: Always a classic example of recession indicators We're going to
Speaker 3: see many other businesses which Blackstone again unfortunately does control
Speaker 3: along with a lot of KKR, all of these major shops.
Speaker 1: They run massive businesses.
Speaker 3: That employ millions of people across America or they own
Speaker 3: stakes in them, and as investors, they're going to put
Speaker 3: pressure on them to probably reduce headcounts so that they
Speaker 3: increase their overall share price. So I actually thought that
Speaker 3: was one of the more important ones. And also you
Speaker 3: know the indication they're on venture capital and on private
Speaker 3: equity like that. When that stuff starts to dry up again,
Speaker 3: we saw major problems in our markets in twenty twenty
Speaker 3: two and in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 4: Before we move on that underscores.
Speaker 5: I mean, that's why I think again this question of
Speaker 5: certainty and strategy, and you've been making this point all along,
Speaker 5: but like there was to your point about David Sachs
Speaker 5: having these insights literally years ago, there's a pretty optimistic
Speaker 5: I think I was more optimistic than you when Liberation
Speaker 5: Day was being teased and rolled out because this is
Speaker 5: actually based on some very accurate and unpopular I think
Speaker 5: understandings of the United States economy. Sure, and so there
Speaker 5: was a way that with a strategy, with coherence and
Speaker 5: with a sense of purpose and certainty, everyone looks like
Speaker 5: they're walking in step. This would have actually done something
Speaker 5: pretty interesting. There definitely would have always been short.
Speaker 1: Well, let me clarify, I was never not optimistic.
Speaker 6: I was.
Speaker 3: I had a baseline level of optimism until that chart
Speaker 3: came out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and when I.
Speaker 3: Saw that chart, I was like, that's it, but I
Speaker 3: knew I will never forget it. And I was like,
Speaker 3: holy shit, well looking at that, seeing what the fifth
Speaker 3: percent whatever tariff on Vietnam, I was like, yeah, this
Speaker 3: is over.
Speaker 1: And I mean and that's and then.
Speaker 5: Learning about could have recovered from that, right, like they
Speaker 5: could I think they could have. They could have easily
Speaker 5: come out the next day and said we'd talked to
Speaker 5: Vietnam overnight and came but they.
Speaker 3: I think for me, it was that, you know, within
Speaker 3: hours we learned the way that the trade, that the
Speaker 3: actual calculation happened. And then when you learn that that
Speaker 3: level of care went into the stewardship of the global economy,
Speaker 3: that's when I was like, self, you know, it's like
Speaker 3: the biggest cell signal I've ever seen. I was like,
Speaker 3: nothing that these people do really they may stumble into
Speaker 3: something good, but intentionality or planning behind it.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, no, And.
Speaker 3: I think that's really I mean, that's why the market's
Speaker 3: tanked as well, you know, a ten percent uh universal terror. Again,
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't think it's a terrible policy. We
Speaker 3: could we could talk about it all day long. It's
Speaker 3: one of those where if it had happened, there definitely
Speaker 3: would have been obviously a market correction of some kind,
Speaker 3: But I genuinely don't believe it would have been similar
Speaker 3: to today where we have wild swings of up and down.
Speaker 3: And I can tell you this, ten percent is still
Speaker 3: even if you think that that's crazy, that ten percent
Speaker 3: is still much more certain than the bullshit that we're
Speaker 3: dealing with right now.
Speaker 4: Exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And that's the problem, Yes, where they face. We're
Speaker 3: watching this all play out, and I mean, really, the
Speaker 3: signal to me, it's not just about China, which we're
Speaker 3: about to talk about a lot and the level of
Speaker 3: care that they're able to put into the stewardship of
Speaker 3: their economy. It's watching the other countries have to deal
Speaker 3: with this, the US allies, the people that we genuinely
Speaker 3: do need, like the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Vietnamese,
Speaker 3: and to watch She Shehingping get heralded on the streets
Speaker 3: of Vietnam. You know, again a country which is basically
Speaker 3: in a conflict with China over the South China Sea,
Speaker 3: which doesn't necessarily like you know, they have complicated relationships
Speaker 3: with them and complicated relationship with us, but broadly a
Speaker 3: population of people which love the United States even though
Speaker 3: we destroyed their entire country.
Speaker 1: It's kind of amazing actually.
Speaker 3: And then to see them immediately host She and She
Speaker 3: going to Vietnam and then giving us beach about aligning
Speaker 3: which and then watching same in Singapore and many of
Speaker 3: these other countries, which these are very important to the
Speaker 3: future of the globe because fifty percent of global GDP
Speaker 3: will be there just in five years. And they feel
Speaker 3: deeply abandoned. I mean from the jat that all the
Speaker 3: stories coming from the Japanese are insane. They show up
Speaker 3: here in Washington and good faith and they're like, so
Speaker 3: what do you want And they're like, well, what are
Speaker 3: you offering? They're like, but we literally don't know what
Speaker 3: you want. And you know, you know, not just the
Speaker 3: even culturally for them, they're like this is a clown show.
Speaker 3: You know in Japan, you know, in their business culture
Speaker 3: and all that, when we just think about respect and
Speaker 3: certainty and consensus and who to trust, like they have
Speaker 3: very well and clear defined avenues through which decisions are made.
Speaker 1: They along with US, have no idea if they can even.
Speaker 3: Trust Secretary Beston or if they can trust this or
Speaker 3: the US Trade Representative. And then they watch the US
Speaker 3: Trade Representative learn about the nine A pause when he's
Speaker 3: giving a testimony before Congress. So if that guy's sitting
Speaker 3: across from me, I go, you don't know anything.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking to you. I just want to talk
Speaker 1: to Trump. And then Trump makes him.
Speaker 3: Wear a Maga hat that he signs in the oval
Speaker 3: and put it on for a photo opportunities.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know if I feel for them, I
Speaker 3: really do. And it's not a joke, right, because it's
Speaker 3: the fag future of their economies, the future of our.
Speaker 5: Cost I was gonna say that changes their own political calculations,
Speaker 5: which is already happening.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a decent.
Speaker 5: Argument being made by Eric Kaufman, Matt Cottenenny and others
Speaker 5: that what's happening is actually the undermining of global populism
Speaker 5: which Donald Trump has tried to fuel, has actually like
Speaker 5: sought to build up and because people are now responsive
Speaker 5: to their own economic needs at home.
Speaker 4: Of course, Canada is a really good example of this.
Speaker 5: With polyev you have to come out swinging against Trump
Speaker 5: and so it completely changes the incentive structure.
Speaker 1: That's a great point.
Speaker 3: I hadn't thought about that, but it's exactly right where
Speaker 3: you know, you're actually empowering more establishment forces in the
Speaker 3: European u SA, in Japan in I mean, even Javier
Speaker 3: Malay is counter signaling Trump on the teriffs, like you know,
Speaker 3: you've lost the lost right now. I mean, this guy
Speaker 3: is like what probably the most maga that there is
Speaker 3: in Latin America.
Speaker 1: All right, last part here, this is just this is
Speaker 1: too much.
Speaker 3: At the very same time this is all happening for
Speaker 3: US Secretary Beston, for some reason that will remain completely
Speaker 3: unknown to me, decided to put out a lecture on
Speaker 3: his Twitter account of financial literacy and savings for Americans.
Speaker 1: Let's take a list.
Speaker 8: Everyone should care about financial literacy, whether you are a
Speaker 8: student with a summer job or a part time job
Speaker 8: during school, whether you're in college, whether you're starting your
Speaker 8: career or whether you are at the end of your career,
Speaker 8: making good financial choices creates economic security. And look, it's fun.
Speaker 8: You learn about the markets, you learn how to properly
Speaker 8: allocate resources, and there's a big payoff over the long
Speaker 8: term for something you can do early in your career.
Speaker 3: I couldn't believe that, you know, the tone deafness of
Speaker 3: this near billionaire Secretary of the Treasury at a time
Speaker 3: of financial stress trying to tell people about savings and
Speaker 3: financial literacy.
Speaker 1: It's like, why don't we leave that to Dave Ramsey? Okay,
Speaker 1: It's like, maybe.
Speaker 5: Maybe they should have just had Dave.
Speaker 1: Should have just had Dave coming yes and listen. At
Speaker 1: least guys consistently stay in that at all the time.
Speaker 4: Dave Ramsey is the best.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, look, you know, Dave.
Speaker 3: Is the goat as a longtime watchers know, at least
Speaker 3: from my perspective. But I just thought it was unbelievable,
Speaker 3: like to put that out as and it's just this
Speaker 3: lecturing and this hectoring about savings. It's like, listen, he's
Speaker 3: not wrong about the benefit of saving or learning financial
Speaker 3: literacy or any of that. And I totally support it,
Speaker 3: but now is not the time to be putting out
Speaker 3: these types of public messages basically trying to signal like
Speaker 3: everything is for you, like you need to learn public markets. Meanwhile,
Speaker 3: I'm one of the most powerful, you know, individuals in
Speaker 3: all of American finance, and I'm like screwing with the
Speaker 3: bond markets and all the nuking your four oh one
Speaker 3: K or your five twenty nine plan.
Speaker 5: That's a good point, so best says like I can
Speaker 5: nuke your four o K with a single word.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 5: Meanwhile, you better get your financial literacy in shape, which
Speaker 5: is because like it's not wrong, it's like he is right,
Speaker 5: because our market is so convoluted and ridiculous and built
Speaker 5: on this house of cards. Then yes, you should absolutely
Speaker 5: be very You should basically go full Ted Kaczinski and
Speaker 5: build a cabin in the woods because they can tank.
Speaker 4: Whatever you say for decades with a word.
Speaker 5: But rather than fixing that structure, you should just call
Speaker 5: it gold.
Speaker 3: In the words of Dave, dead is dumb and cash
Speaker 3: is king. All right, let's get over to the Chinese
Speaker 3: segment here. This is actually really interesting and does give
Speaker 3: us some indications about some thinking inside the Chinese, pull
Speaker 3: up bureau, let's put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: So there were two.
Speaker 3: Kinds of theories of the way that China would react
Speaker 3: to the Trump trade war. One was after the ninety
Speaker 3: day pause the Chinese, the Trump administration said that China
Speaker 3: has shown itself to be a bad actor. They said
Speaker 3: that their goal is to use the ninety day pause
Speaker 3: to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements with other countries to isolate
Speaker 3: the Chinese, and they specifically instructed the Chinese not to retaliate.
Speaker 1: Instead, what immediately happened.
Speaker 3: The Chinese were like, we'll match you dollar for dollar
Speaker 3: for every tariff. We'll cap it around eighty percent or whatever.
Speaker 3: We're going to stay there, even though that eighty percent
Speaker 3: is basically a se session of trade between our two countries.
Speaker 3: And in the interim, instead of maintaining any trade negotiation,
Speaker 3: there's been no high level talks currently beyond anything routine.
Speaker 3: The Chinese are instead actually going around the world and
Speaker 3: instruction their foreign ministry to tell countries do not team
Speaker 3: up with the United States against us, or you will
Speaker 3: suffer the consequences. So this actually was a statement from
Speaker 3: the Chinese Ministry of Commerce just yesterday quote responding to
Speaker 3: foreign media reports that Trump administration was trying to pressure
Speaker 3: other countries on their trade with China. They said appeasement
Speaker 3: will not bring peace, compromise will not earn respect. Seeking
Speaker 3: so called exemptions by harming the interests of others for
Speaker 3: one's own, selfish and short sighted gains is like negotiating
Speaker 3: with a tiger for its skin. In the end, it
Speaker 3: will only lead to a lose lose situation. China firmly
Speaker 3: opposes any party reaching a deal at the expense of
Speaker 3: China's interests, It's said, adding that China would resolutely take
Speaker 3: countermeasures against any country which decided to do so. So
Speaker 3: what we are basically watching then, is this like Teta
Speaker 3: tet where the Chinese are very willing to exert their
Speaker 3: own economic might, let's say over Japan, South Korea and
Speaker 3: other countries do it in a much more targeted and
Speaker 3: intelligent I mean already watching the way that they have
Speaker 3: worked on the United States, it's honestly amazing, Like you
Speaker 3: just have to respect competence. They're like, okay, where do
Speaker 3: we have the most like the single most leverage consumer electronics,
Speaker 3: so rare earth minerals, semiconductors and on consumer goods broadly.
Speaker 1: So what are we going to do.
Speaker 3: We're going to prop up our consumer manufacturers to make
Speaker 3: sure that they remain whole. We're going to pump money
Speaker 3: into all of our companies that we control. We're going
Speaker 3: to rally the entire population around our flag because it's
Speaker 3: an externally declared trade war. At the very same time,
Speaker 3: we will use maximum pain leverage on any country which
Speaker 3: decides to go behind the back of the Chinese State ministry.
Speaker 3: And we're watching countries that have to choose, So Vietnam,
Speaker 3: for example, Vietnam immediately cave to the Trump administration. They're like,
Speaker 3: find no tariffs, nothing, don't worry about it. We still
Speaker 3: hit them with the tariff.
Speaker 1: What are they supposed to think? What are they supposed
Speaker 1: to do? But nobody knows.
Speaker 10: Well.
Speaker 5: Our strategy is based on this idea that we had
Speaker 5: so much leverage that people would just come to us.
Speaker 5: And we saw that like explicitly expressed by members of
Speaker 5: the Trump administration. They articulated that that was basically their belief.
Speaker 5: People will come to us because we have so much leverage.
Speaker 5: Then like Japan, they can tell us what they're thinking
Speaker 5: and we'll let them know if it's up or down,
Speaker 5: good or bad, like the Gladiator thumb move. But China,
Speaker 5: on the other hand, I think has handled this and
Speaker 5: it pains me to say with cohesion and strategy, and
Speaker 5: that's sort of the mirror image of the same noise
Speaker 5: like rather than them saying, because we have so much leverage,
Speaker 5: we're gonna let the chips fall where they may, which
Speaker 5: is basically our strategy. And again it's true, we do
Speaker 5: have a lot of leverage, and the uncertainty to some
Speaker 5: extent at first at least was I think a sort
Speaker 5: of clever use of the leverage, but trying to approach
Speaker 5: it with the exact opposite strategy, which is, we're going
Speaker 5: to be extremely strategic and extremely cohesive in our approach
Speaker 5: to these different countries. And what they've seen, whether it's
Speaker 5: with Greenland, the you or your point about Asia, it's
Speaker 5: just obviously.
Speaker 3: Working and you know, even watching some of the things
Speaker 3: that they're doing right now. So for example, I previously
Speaker 3: talked about the Joe Wisenthal piece on private equity. Well
Speaker 3: let's go and put a seven pleas up on the screen.
Speaker 3: Don't forget that the Chinese are major investors in US markets. Now,
Speaker 3: do I think that that should have been the case. No,
Speaker 3: but you know it is the case of our debt. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and so quote. China is now pulling back from US
Speaker 3: private equity investments. Industry executives report a change of approach
Speaker 3: as Beijing is bearing the brunt of Trump's tariffs. So
Speaker 3: Chinese state backed funds are quote cutting off all new
Speaker 3: investment in US private equity in the latest salvo against Trump.
Speaker 3: State backed funds have been pulling back from investing in
Speaker 3: US private headquartered private capital firms in recent weeks. The
Speaker 3: moves come for pressure from the Chinese government. Some of
Speaker 3: the Chinese funds are also seeking to be excluded from
Speaker 3: private equity investments in any US based company. Trump has
Speaker 3: imposed tariffs obviously of one hundred and forty five percent
Speaker 3: on Chinese sports. Multiple buy out executives said that Chinese
Speaker 3: investors have changed their approach since the very beginning of
Speaker 3: the trade war, and they will make no new commitments
Speaker 3: to US firms. China's Investment Corporation, which is among the
Speaker 3: state backed firms that is pulling back, said that they
Speaker 3: were ceasing all investment.
Speaker 6: Quote.
Speaker 1: Other Chinese funds have retreated.
Speaker 3: And this is the Chinese Sovereign Wealth Fund, don't forget,
Speaker 3: which has massive shares of Blackstone, of TPG and of
Speaker 3: Carlisle Group, which means that look, this is where the
Speaker 3: difficulty of stating this is that on the one hand, yeah,
Speaker 3: it's good, you know, we don't really want these people
Speaker 3: to be investing in all of our private companies. Why
Speaker 3: should they have so much leverage private equity firms and
Speaker 3: all these Clearly they've been a tool of the Chinese
Speaker 3: ministry and all them for years. But you know, if
Speaker 3: there's no commits serate, like if there's no you know,
Speaker 3: like change from the US in terms of policy to
Speaker 3: make sure that all that capital that no longer come
Speaker 3: in our markets doesn't cause the men's pain, then what
Speaker 3: do you think that the net effect of all of
Speaker 3: this is going to be?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 5: And this is again like what we were talking about
Speaker 5: earlier with the David Sachs observation back.
Speaker 4: In twenty twenty two when you interviewed him.
Speaker 5: I mean, there's this entire strategy is based on, i
Speaker 5: think really accurate and again unpopular understandings of the United
Speaker 5: States economy, the structural flaws in the US economy, and
Speaker 5: part of that is because so much of Wall Street
Speaker 5: was beholden to China and intentionally set themselves up that way,
Speaker 5: and the governments are went along with the American elites
Speaker 5: set the country up on this path. So it was
Speaker 5: always going to be painful to disentangle it. And so
Speaker 5: it's sort of for the average American and damned if
Speaker 5: you do, damned if you don't. Right, they're in this
Speaker 5: they're caught in this catch twenty two where elites set
Speaker 5: up a system where at one point where it was
Speaker 5: going to come to a head with China, and because
Speaker 5: of that, you either have to stay completely entangled with
Speaker 5: China and completely behold into China or disentangle a bit
Speaker 5: from China for the consumer either way, and elites will
Speaker 5: probably still be fine. They'll probably lose a little bit,
Speaker 5: but they'll still be fine, or maybe some of them
Speaker 5: will make lots of money, who knows. But it's such
Speaker 5: a shitty situation for the average consumer. And it's not
Speaker 5: even being now that the distent tangling is happening from
Speaker 5: people who are right that there needed to be a disentangling.
Speaker 5: The normal person is just getting completely screwed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and you know, even right now, this just came
Speaker 3: across my radar. Maybe actually we can put it in
Speaker 3: in post. I'll just go ahead and read from some
Speaker 3: of it. But Cambodia is you know, I wouldn't say
Speaker 3: it's like a vital us ally, but we actually did
Speaker 3: produce a decent amount of textiles in Cambodia.
Speaker 1: Yes, literally, just now, I mean across the wire.
Speaker 3: Trump's tariffs quote risk pushing Cambodia further into China's embrace
Speaker 3: quote A massive canal highlights Beijing's now deep investment in
Speaker 3: Cambodia just as the US is pulling back, so at
Speaker 3: the same time that Cambodia is getting hit with tariffs.
Speaker 3: And by the way, again, Vietnam and Cambodia the destination
Speaker 3: for many textile manufacturers who were told in twenty eighteen to.
Speaker 1: Get out of China.
Speaker 3: Did the Chinese take advantage of this and use this
Speaker 3: transhipping for control. Yes, let's be very clear, Yes, malfeasan's
Speaker 3: absolutely across the board. But those governments are still a
Speaker 3: lot more friendly to the United States of America than
Speaker 3: the Chinese. And while they are quote controlled or they
Speaker 3: have some investment from China, it's not the same thing
Speaker 3: as literally being controlled by the Chinese directly like they
Speaker 3: were previously. Well at the very same time that we're
Speaker 3: hitting them with tariffs, what are they doing? The Chinese
Speaker 3: are like here, here's one point two billion dollars. Ye, right,
Speaker 3: here's a brand new canal that will go ahead and
Speaker 3: we'll build you basically trying to fill in the space
Speaker 3: from the United States.
Speaker 1: So anyway, just the last thing.
Speaker 4: The OG canal builders.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true of the OG canal builders.
Speaker 5: Before we Runzager quick take on JD in India, I
Speaker 5: don't really have a take.
Speaker 3: I mean to be honest, like, look, first of all,
Speaker 3: he's for he's the only he's just the vice president,
Speaker 3: which is like I don't want to be two denigrated
Speaker 3: nor like you know, he doesn't speak for the administration
Speaker 3: in the same way. And there is just mostly like
Speaker 3: platitudes about working with India and the Prime Minister apparently
Speaker 3: they're going to talk about tariffs, but the Indians drive
Speaker 3: and this will not surprise and want a very hard bargain.
Speaker 3: This is one of the most protectionist global economy or
Speaker 3: large economies in the world. It's actually difficult for people
Speaker 3: to understand. They like take protection.
Speaker 1: They invented protectionism, like they take it to a whole
Speaker 1: other level.
Speaker 3: And for them, like they're not going to be reducing
Speaker 3: a lot of non tariff barriers. The Indians are much
Speaker 3: smarter than us in some respects because what they do
Speaker 3: is they'll do things which they know will cost them
Speaker 3: foreign direct investment.
Speaker 1: They just don't care.
Speaker 3: They're like, fine, as long as we control and have
Speaker 3: a total say over our government and our technology.
Speaker 1: We'll just do it.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, but guess what, they have a population which is
Speaker 3: okay with that, and they at least have a financial
Speaker 3: system right now, which, because this is kind of baked
Speaker 3: in from the very beginning, is not going to cause
Speaker 3: as much turmoil. I mean, the TikTok thing is a
Speaker 3: perfect example. They were like, it's not a discussion, it's
Speaker 3: getting banned. Just ban it, and nobody really cared. Then
Speaker 3: they use alternatives now. I think YouTube shorts is big
Speaker 3: in the country. The idea that any Chinese like major
Speaker 3: global and manufacturer something is going to have as much
Speaker 3: of a say.
Speaker 1: Over their affairs.
Speaker 3: They're like, it's it will never happen, right, Well, our
Speaker 3: own industrialists will run it.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of corruption and stuff like that behind it,
Speaker 3: but they have a much more autocic model than basically
Speaker 3: any other major economy in the world, and they have
Speaker 3: the population to be able to sustain it. So look, yeah,
Speaker 3: isn't nice. Sure it's great that JD and all that
Speaker 3: is over there. Do I think that Mody is going
Speaker 3: to immediately come out and say, sure, we're going to
Speaker 3: lower all these non terra No, it will never happens.
Speaker 3: That's like foundational to their entire country and to their ethos. Economically,
Speaker 3: they will welcome some foreign investment, but like the Chinese,
Speaker 3: they demand control. Remember this is a country that ban
Speaker 3: bitcoin and crypto because they want control over their own
Speaker 3: financial system. Try doing business in India. It's not so
Speaker 3: easy if you're a US investor, and that's why a
Speaker 3: lot of them don't do it. But like I said,
Speaker 3: the Indians just don't care. They have enough population, they're
Speaker 3: not as supermarket, they're not as wealthy. But broadly, you know,
Speaker 3: they see it as their fate to control and to
Speaker 3: really have a say over the industries in their country.
Speaker 3: I mean, you know, who can't help but respect that.
Speaker 3: So the speech I was looking at it today, Yeah,
Speaker 3: it's good, But I mean, do I think it will
Speaker 3: usher in like a big change in US relations? Like
Speaker 3: not really, that's US and India relations. I don't think so,
Speaker 3: at least right now. At the same time, Emily are
Speaker 3: now going to take a look at Pete Hegseth where again,
Speaker 3: you know, there is a meltdown happening inside of the building.
Speaker 3: We've had a full scale purge of many of hegxat's
Speaker 3: top advisors. There's now some floating out reports that maybe
Speaker 3: the White House is looking to replace some of the
Speaker 3: Pete Hegseth and some of the people around him, which
Speaker 3: would be an extraordinary move. Hegset is trying to save
Speaker 3: his job, basically putting all the blame for the purge
Speaker 3: on the people who were fired themselves, even though many
Speaker 3: of them are literally some of the most loyal people
Speaker 3: who have been around him for years. So he was
Speaker 3: asked about it yesterday at the White House at the
Speaker 3: East Drag role. Let's take a listen Conson Crest.
Speaker 9: You know what a big surprise that a bunch of
Speaker 9: a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of
Speaker 9: hit pieces come out from the same media that pedaled
Speaker 9: the Russia hopes won't get.
Speaker 6: Back their Pulitzers.
Speaker 11: They got Poltzers for a bunch of lies, Pultzers for
Speaker 11: a bunch of lies, and on hoaxes time and time
Speaker 11: and time again.
Speaker 9: And as they pedal those lies, no one ever calls
Speaker 9: them on it.
Speaker 6: See, this is what the media does.
Speaker 9: They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees and then.
Speaker 6: They try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations.
Speaker 9: Not going to work with me because we're changing the
Speaker 9: Defense Department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of
Speaker 9: war fighters, and anonymous smears from disgruntled former employe he's
Speaker 9: on old news doesn't matter.
Speaker 6: So I'm happy to be here at the Easter egg roll.
Speaker 9: With my dad and my kids because you know, this
Speaker 9: is what we're doing it for these kids right here.
Speaker 9: This is why we're fighting the fake news media. This
Speaker 9: is why we're fighting slash and burn democrats. This is
Speaker 9: why we're fighting posters, posters.
Speaker 11: This group, no, no, no, this group right here full of hoasters,
Speaker 11: the pedal anonymous sources from leakers with access to grind,
Speaker 11: and then you put it all together as.
Speaker 6: If it's some news story and what we know it.
Speaker 6: We know exactly what it is.
Speaker 9: So I'm really proud of what we're doing for the president,
Speaker 9: fighting hard across the board. And I'm gonna go roll
Speaker 9: some Easter eggs with my kids, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: That's rough.
Speaker 4: That needs to be on Broadway. Yeah, performance, I'm gonna
Speaker 4: go roll some Easter egg.
Speaker 1: I don't know. That sounds like an off Broadway performance
Speaker 1: to me.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Wow, there's a lot going on there.
Speaker 3: So Yeah, first of all, he's talking there as if
Speaker 3: it's a hoax, whether he shared this information in a
Speaker 3: group chat with his wife or not.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not a hoax. It's just a reality.
Speaker 1: It's a fact.
Speaker 3: It's something also that you previously had said, Oh, I
Speaker 3: never shared any classider information, right, you know long once
Speaker 3: upon a time Signal Gate was actually a story. But
Speaker 3: you know, beyond that, what I find extraordinary about this
Speaker 3: is how he is just guns blazing against again top
Speaker 3: aids to him in the Defense Department who were the
Speaker 3: most loyal to Pete Hegseth, who worked for him probably
Speaker 3: for over a decade now at this point, like actually
Speaker 3: like his actual close friends, and he fires these people
Speaker 3: on a dime. Now people are saying that, Oh, then
Speaker 3: he must have caught them leaking or any of that. Look,
Speaker 3: there is no evidence to support that from the department itself.
Speaker 3: And also, even if you're going to fire somebody based
Speaker 3: on a suspicion, you better have some damn good suspicion
Speaker 3: or they could sue you for wrongful termination. All of
Speaker 3: the indication right now from this of those three never polygraphed,
Speaker 3: never presented with any reason or story for why they
Speaker 3: were fired, unceremoniously marched out of the building. I think
Speaker 3: Hegsath is in some like bunker mentality, Like clearly he
Speaker 3: believes that he's just like massively under attack, taking it
Speaker 3: out on some of the people most loyal to him.
Speaker 3: His own chief of staff, who I guess is leaving
Speaker 3: but is technically still going to keep working for him,
Speaker 3: is a person he'd never even met before before all
Speaker 3: of this, who was like installed, nobody even really knows
Speaker 3: by whom. Apparently he's been causing a lot of drama
Speaker 3: in the office.
Speaker 1: Around all that.
Speaker 3: But my point is just like this is not how
Speaker 3: the Defense Department can be run.
Speaker 1: Like again, we're talking about the tariffs.
Speaker 3: How can the entire world, you know, look to the
Speaker 3: stewardship of the largest military force in the history of
Speaker 3: mankind and be like, yeah, this is exactly the way
Speaker 3: that this is all supposed to be happening right now.
Speaker 1: So I mean, it's just chaos.
Speaker 5: Well, it's against the backdrop of tensions with Iran mounting,
Speaker 5: and so the question then becomes whether that had anything
Speaker 5: to do with high Seth of professional divorce from people
Speaker 5: who have been loyal, who have been around him for years,
Speaker 5: going back to when he was at Concerned Vets, And
Speaker 5: that's I think where the fault line could be significant
Speaker 5: for HeiG Seth. I still don't really I mean, I
Speaker 5: could be proven wrong by Donald Trump at any moment
Speaker 5: of the day, but I still don't really think Hegseth
Speaker 5: is actually going to leave.
Speaker 4: I think, you know, Mike Waltz was able to.
Speaker 5: Keep his job after we heard report after report that
Speaker 5: his departure was imminent and that never happened.
Speaker 4: And he's less important to the administration than Pete.
Speaker 5: Heigseth is, frankly is that had of the Pentagon, even
Speaker 5: though he you know, is acting very heavily in the
Speaker 5: spokesperson role.
Speaker 4: He's the head of the Pentagon.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I mean at the same time, if his
Speaker 5: relationships with people who, for example, Donald Trump Junior is
Speaker 5: close with Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson just had Dan Caldwell,
Speaker 5: We're going to talk about this later in the show
Speaker 5: on his program for basically an emergency podcast to go
Speaker 5: over what the hell is happening at the Pentagon and
Speaker 5: asked Dan, did you leak pint blank? And Dan said no,
Speaker 5: So does that cause tensions? That become a legitimate problem
Speaker 5: for Pete hag Seth as opposed to like a fake
Speaker 5: media story. That's why you saw him, I think, leading
Speaker 5: very heavily into the idea that this was a fake
Speaker 5: media story when he was talking to reporters at the
Speaker 5: Easter Egg role yesterday. So that's messaging to Donald Trump, right,
Speaker 5: that's straight going straight to the president and signaling to him.
Speaker 4: Pete Hexath knows this. He was on Fox and Friends forever.
Speaker 5: He knows how to communicate through the TV with Donald Trump,
Speaker 5: and that's what he was trying to say, mister President,
Speaker 5: this is fake news, right.
Speaker 3: And we actually got even more from hag Seth where
Speaker 3: again he's just going guns blazing against his own staff.
Speaker 3: People who worked for him were loyal to him, basically
Speaker 3: calling them liars.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen.
Speaker 6: Over the last few days.
Speaker 12: You're senior Advisor Dan Caldwell, Darren Selnick, Colin Carroll, who
Speaker 12: is chief of Staff, Deputy Secretary of Defense. The other one,
Speaker 12: Darren is now former deputy chief of staff.
Speaker 6: Will let go? Did you let them go?
Speaker 9: It was a result of an investigation ongoing at the
Speaker 9: Pentagon where we identified there was a sufficient evidence potentially again,
Speaker 9: there's an investigation ongoing that will have to complete itself
Speaker 9: sufficient evidence to.
Speaker 6: Believe that they or others near.
Speaker 9: Them were party to leaking, and then I have a
Speaker 9: statutory responsibility, Brian, if I believe that's the case, to
Speaker 9: ultimately ensure they're no longer have access to that and
Speaker 9: that the investigation commences.
Speaker 6: There are a lot of ways to communicate in this building.
Speaker 6: I do it every day. I was just doing it
Speaker 6: this morning.
Speaker 9: Official channels by which we communicate classified information.
Speaker 6: If you want to do it and do it the
Speaker 6: right way, you should.
Speaker 9: If we think you are leaking to the press, that's
Speaker 9: a very real problem. We take that very seriously at
Speaker 9: the Pentagon. I'm here to do one job, one job
Speaker 9: for the President and the American people, secure the country.
Speaker 9: America first, peace through strength. I don't have time for leakers.
Speaker 9: I don't have time for the hoax press that pedals
Speaker 9: old stories from disgruntled employees. We should be talking about
Speaker 9: the decimation of the huthis, how we're pushing back to Chinese,
Speaker 9: how we have a new defense area of the southern border. Instead,
Speaker 9: disgruntled former employees are peddling things.
Speaker 6: To try to save their ass. Did you, And ultimately
Speaker 6: it's not going to work.
Speaker 3: I mean again, I mean it's unhinged to be honest,
Speaker 3: the way that he's reacting to this. But clearly there
Speaker 3: is some stuff going on inside of the White House.
Speaker 1: Right now.
Speaker 3: President Trump is standing behind Pete Heggsath, even though apparently
Speaker 3: he's not very happy about the latest signal story. Here
Speaker 3: was Caroline Levitt, the Press secretary, talking about the Secretary.
Speaker 13: The President stands strongly behind Secretary heg Seth, who is
Speaker 13: doing a phenomenal job leading the Pentagon. And this is
Speaker 13: what happens when the entire Pentagon is working against you
Speaker 13: and working against the monumental change that you are trying
Speaker 13: to implement. Secretary Hegswifth. Heg Seth was nominated for this
Speaker 13: position because he is standing up for the war fighter,
Speaker 13: the men and women in uniform who are putting their
Speaker 13: lives on the line to protect our country and our homeland.
Speaker 13: And unfortunately, there have been people at that building who
Speaker 13: don't like the change the secretary is trying to, so
Speaker 13: they are leaking and they are lying to the mainstream media.
Speaker 13: We've seen this game played before. The Secretary is doing
Speaker 13: a tremendous job, and the President stands strongly behind him.
Speaker 1: Presidents stands strongly behind him.
Speaker 3: And yet at the very same time, let's go ahead
Speaker 3: and put B three please up on the screen. Emily,
Speaker 3: what do you make of this? So from NPR, they're
Speaker 3: really the only story to report it so far, so
Speaker 3: you know, you could take it only so far. The
Speaker 3: White House is looking to replace Pete Hegseth as the
Speaker 3: Defense Secretary. They don't have a ton of detail. It
Speaker 3: just says that it's something the process of looking for
Speaker 3: a new leader at the Pentagon to replace him if.
Speaker 1: They need to.
Speaker 3: The quote source said that Hegseth used signal messaging app
Speaker 3: on his personal smartphone. That's apparently what kind of set
Speaker 3: Trump off. But of course heg Seth and the White
Speaker 3: House saying that that's completely fake news and that they're
Speaker 3: not trying to replace him. I'm just not so sure,
Speaker 3: because when you see a complete collapse of your entire
Speaker 3: front office, you also find yourself mired in this controversy
Speaker 3: about not only sharing information. But look, I mean, just
Speaker 3: look at the way that he is speaking here publicly,
Speaker 3: like this is not somebody who feels secure, right. He
Speaker 3: feels as if you have to go on the offense
Speaker 3: survivability the people around him. Obviously, he doesn't even have
Speaker 3: any real advisors or any of that point who he
Speaker 3: could probably trust.
Speaker 1: He seems to be a man on an island. And
Speaker 1: good point.
Speaker 3: It's just it's just a weird thing to watch because
Speaker 3: not only does this secretary of Defense, but we're watching
Speaker 3: this at the height of tensions with Iran, and a
Speaker 3: lot of.
Speaker 1: These people who are just fired are people.
Speaker 3: Who I think are being framed and who were trying
Speaker 3: at least to push the administration and develop options and
Speaker 3: policy which would not lead to a direct confrontation. And
Speaker 3: things genuinely seem to be sizzling to a boiling point
Speaker 3: where the pro Iran war lobby again is more frothing
Speaker 3: at the mouth than I probably have ever seen them.
Speaker 3: I talked to yesterday about Mark Levin demanding that Tulsi
Speaker 3: Gabbard fix US intelligence like that's that's that's crazy shit,
Speaker 3: Like that's again, that's Iraq level stuff going in, doctoring
Speaker 3: intelligence reports to back up what you want so that
Speaker 3: you can bomb them. The purge here is happening. Ryan
Speaker 3: and I did our story yesterday about it. Israeli Ministry
Speaker 3: Defense official running the damn Israel and Iran portfolio on
Speaker 3: the NSC.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just crazy. And Mike Waltz gets to stay.
Speaker 3: The guy wants to push for Iran, so heg seth
Speaker 3: if he stays or goes. I don't even know what
Speaker 3: this guy believes. Honestly, at this point when you turn
Speaker 3: on the people around you, he was one of only
Speaker 3: three voices to speak up against a strike on Iran.
Speaker 3: Maybe that's one of three gone right. Turns out pretty
Speaker 3: well for these Raelies.
Speaker 5: Well and Dan and Tucker flesh this out in his
Speaker 5: conversation with him. But Dan is a deep skeptic of
Speaker 5: the Iron Hawks, and so there actually is probably something
Speaker 5: legitimate to the I guess there's probably something legitimate to
Speaker 5: the argument that Pete haig Seth is under enormous pressure
Speaker 5: and from people who want to go to a war
Speaker 5: with Iran, who are upset that he brought people like
Speaker 5: Dan into the group. Go back to Signal Gate. Who
Speaker 5: did Pete Heigsas say should be the principal communicator brought
Speaker 5: in or the principle brought into the signal Gate chat
Speaker 5: he sent to Mike Waltz.
Speaker 4: That's the signal Gate chat.
Speaker 5: Was created because Mike Waltz was asking all of these
Speaker 5: guys who should be the point person for your department?
Speaker 4: Pete Heggsas said Dan Caldwell.
Speaker 5: And now Dan is out, So maybe there was some
Speaker 5: funny business going on. I mean, I think there's a
Speaker 5: non implausible theory that Pete Hegsath was getting rid of
Speaker 5: these guys in order to protect them from an investigation
Speaker 5: that seems to have been blown up by Pete Heggsas's
Speaker 5: own account of what's happened, and Dan coming out point
Speaker 5: blank and saying no, I never leaked, and going on
Speaker 5: Tucker Carlson's show. That doesn't sound like a guy who's
Speaker 5: being protected by a friend. It looks like someone who
Speaker 5: is genuinely feels burned by all of this and the
Speaker 5: other thing. Donald Trump Junior to go back to him.
Speaker 5: He posted, you remember when John Ulliot got some headlines
Speaker 5: for being for resigning. Well, Don Junior, remember he said,
Speaker 5: this guy is not America first, I've been here for years,
Speaker 5: that he works his ass off to subvert my father's agenda.
Speaker 5: That ends today he's officially exiled from our movement. Well
Speaker 5: what does that say. He's not the only one in
Speaker 5: the Pentagon who is working to subvert, as Donald Trump
Speaker 5: puts it, my father's agenda quote my father's agenda.
Speaker 4: There the other guys. He's one example, he's a high
Speaker 4: profile scalp.
Speaker 5: There are other guys still in the Pentagon who don't
Speaker 5: like the Dan Caldwell approach and don't want him to
Speaker 5: influence Pete hegsa's decision making. And so yes, they were
Speaker 5: probably doing from the moment the administration started and Hegsas
Speaker 5: surrounded himself by guys from places like concerned FATS. They
Speaker 5: have probably been trying to catch those guys doing something
Speaker 5: wrong or set those guys up.
Speaker 1: Nobody knows.
Speaker 4: For weeks they've probably been trying to do that.
Speaker 5: And so yes, I think it is likely that some
Speaker 5: of the stems from exactly that. But bad motivations don't
Speaker 5: mean that people are blameless, that people are pure and
Speaker 5: haven't done anything wrong, So those are not mutually exclusive.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Look, is it theoretically possibly are leaking.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess, but I mean, you know, at the
Speaker 3: same time, like half few people are leakers. Anyway, that
Speaker 3: huge did sir Pete Hegseth never leaked anything.
Speaker 5: Right, Well, that Hexeth was, to your point, disloyal to
Speaker 5: his good friends. I mean, they're the pressure is going
Speaker 5: to make him do things or could make him do
Speaker 5: things that are bad. Yeah, whether or not he's inclined
Speaker 5: to do something actually anti Neocon and smart.
Speaker 4: When it comes to these mounting.
Speaker 5: Tensions with Lebron Donald Trump is resisting pressures from the
Speaker 5: Neocon so far, we'll see how that goes. And his
Speaker 5: sending Steve Whitcoff to continue these negotiations, and the way
Speaker 5: that he's approaching it, which is freaking everybody out. I mean,
Speaker 5: it's freaking the Nikki Halees of the world out beyond,
Speaker 5: like your point, beyond where.
Speaker 4: They thought they could go.
Speaker 3: Let's put B four up there on the screen. So
Speaker 3: I you know, this is interesting. I rarely see this
Speaker 3: actually happen, but you have a representative Don Bacon here
Speaker 3: actually calling for Hegsath to go. He said that he
Speaker 3: has concerns about him from the get go. Now tell
Speaker 3: me about Bacon. I don't know much about the guy,
Speaker 3: but I did. I didn't realize. I mean, this is
Speaker 3: a hask person, the first sitting GOP lawmaker to suggest
Speaker 3: that he should even fire Hexath. Clary's got a little
Speaker 3: bit of an independent streak? Is this in his general
Speaker 3: m O? What's up with this?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 5: I mean, so he's had a close he's had close elections.
Speaker 5: He's been so he he won his last election fifty
Speaker 5: one percent to forty nine percent in Nebraska. Yeah, so
Speaker 5: he's like Omaha area and it's basically like one of
Speaker 5: the it's it's a tough race for him.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: And I'm sure there's also a lot of weapons or no,
Speaker 5: I shouldn't say weapons manufacturing, but I'm sure there's a
Speaker 5: lot of Pentagon business. Okay, that matters to dun Bacon
Speaker 5: in Nebraska.
Speaker 4: All right, Well, lots of lots of nuclear business.
Speaker 3: Oh that's right, Oh yeah, stract Com, that's right. Stract
Speaker 3: COM's Yeah, I always forgot about.
Speaker 5: So that they're sort of economically tethered to the military
Speaker 5: industrial complex and in a district that is like a
Speaker 5: bit more urban and everything affluent.
Speaker 3: That's that Nebraska would be so reliant on the nuclear
Speaker 3: weapons destriction.
Speaker 5: It is true, true nuclear It comes out and talks
Speaker 5: about how she's obsessed with nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, that's because what is it. That's where the
Speaker 3: mountain is with the bunker and everything. I think Bush
Speaker 3: went there on nine to eleven. All right, anyway, this
Speaker 3: is that whole separate podcast. Let's get over to Dan
Speaker 3: caldwell appearance on Tucker Carlson. Dan Caldwell, as we said,
Speaker 3: was one of the individuals who was fired from the
Speaker 3: Trump administration. Pete Heggsath, his former boss, basically calling him
Speaker 3: a leaker, even though Dan literally worked for Pete heg
Speaker 3: Sath and was one of the biggest supporters of his
Speaker 3: secretary of becoming the Secretary of Defense. Well, here's what
Speaker 3: Caldwell had to say, as point blank, did you ever
Speaker 3: leak any classified information like what is being alleged from
Speaker 3: the secretary and what is behind your firing?
Speaker 1: So let's take a listen.
Speaker 14: It seems like the fastest way to derail the whole project.
Speaker 14: The Trump administration in the United States of America is
Speaker 14: a war with Iran. And that's why I've just been
Speaker 14: watching it as carefully as i can, because I feel like, again,
Speaker 14: if you hated Donald Trump and you hated what the
Speaker 14: administration is doing on immigration, trade, anti woke US whatever,
Speaker 14: and you wanted to stop it, the first thing you
Speaker 14: would do is apply pressure to have the US military
Speaker 14: engage in a war with a run I mean that,
Speaker 14: that's my perspective on it, anyway.
Speaker 10: I think that, and also continuing to do what we've
Speaker 10: been doing previously in brush.
Speaker 14: You youth, Oh for sure, for sure, though it I
Speaker 14: don't know why. Well, I'm going to ask you all
Speaker 14: about this, but it feels like wi cough is is
Speaker 14: helping a lot there.
Speaker 10: God he's I mean, I've already said he's a godsend.
Speaker 14: God blessed Steve wo Cough. I couldn't agree more. People
Speaker 14: knew that you weren't fully on board with the regime
Speaker 14: change program. Is that fair to say?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 10: I was very open about it. I was very on
Speaker 10: the record about it, and most of the time when
Speaker 10: I was saying that we shouldn't do this. It was
Speaker 10: actually in support of, you know, the president's stated preferences,
Speaker 10: Like the president clearly doesn't want this. In the first term,
Speaker 10: there were people in his administration that wanted it, he
Speaker 10: didn't clearly, he clearly didn't want it, and so it
Speaker 10: was supporting people who didn't want the war. And so
Speaker 10: I was essential what.
Speaker 14: Donald Trump had said, has said, and now his actions
Speaker 14: make perfectly clear he would strongly prefer diplomatic solution.
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 10: I don't want to speak for the president, but it's
Speaker 10: fairly obvious that that's what he wants.
Speaker 14: Well, he said it. I mean, he said it again
Speaker 14: and he ran on it.
Speaker 3: So look you can see that Caldwell was talking about
Speaker 3: Steve Wickcoff. He's talking about war with Iran, about the
Speaker 3: preference for Trump for a diplomatic solution. But look, we
Speaker 3: can all do the math. Who's the person who got
Speaker 3: fired here? You know, who's the person who's on the
Speaker 3: app Is it policy? I have no idea, to be honest.
Speaker 3: You know, basically, there's so much chaos that anybody can
Speaker 3: read so much of what we like, anybody can read
Speaker 3: any intention into what's happening. But it just seems as
Speaker 3: if the collapse of the Pentagon Front Office, whether it
Speaker 3: is policy motivated or not, is one where Mike Waltz
Speaker 3: gets to keep his job. The neocons in the NS
Speaker 3: you get to keep their job. Steve Wikoff is basically
Speaker 3: safe for now. You have no idea if he'll make
Speaker 3: it or not anytime, you know, in the future, because
Speaker 3: you know, like with the Goaza thing, he could be
Speaker 3: sidelined or it could be sent to Moscow with Putin,
Speaker 3: you know, tomorrow. We have no idea what the progress
Speaker 3: of those talks is going to look like. And the
Speaker 3: forces within the White House and the Administration who want
Speaker 3: more war with Iran are now counter signaling to protect Pete.
Speaker 3: Heggsth for example, Tom Cotton and others are some of
Speaker 3: his biggest defenders right now.
Speaker 1: So that's not a good sign, not a good sign
Speaker 1: to me.
Speaker 5: But again, both of these things can be true that
Speaker 5: this was driven fueled by ideological differences, sharp idiological differences,
Speaker 5: and you have Neo CON's foreign policy blob coming hard
Speaker 5: after people like Dan and then that pressure could have
Speaker 5: forced Hegsath to do something that probably was like in
Speaker 5: response to it and not good. So I feel like
Speaker 5: both of that I don't know. I think you're right,
Speaker 5: like we genuinely don't know what's happening behind closed doors
Speaker 5: at the Pentagon right now. It sounds like Dan actually
Speaker 5: did not do anything wrong because I think, you know,
Speaker 5: you wouldn't go out aggressively in media and answer these questions.
Speaker 4: Point Blake, talk to Tucker if that were the case.
Speaker 5: And I think, you know, maybe Pete Hegseth fired these
Speaker 5: guys to protect himself. Yes, that's these things don't have
Speaker 5: to be mutually exclusive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, look, it's certainly possible. I just don't know.
Speaker 3: I do know, of course, though, that with the absence
Speaker 3: of people like this that you know power, you know,
Speaker 3: it fills a vacuum, and so we're nowhere that's going
Speaker 3: to happen. He was also pressed specifically on leaking.
Speaker 1: Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 14: So I just want to be totally direct with you.
Speaker 14: Did you leak classified information against the wishes of your
Speaker 14: superiors to media?
Speaker 10: Well, let's absolutely not.
Speaker 14: Did you photograph classified material and then text pictures of
Speaker 14: that material to an NBC News reporter?
Speaker 10: Absolutely not? And I have not spoken to an NBC
Speaker 10: reporter while at the Pentagon.
Speaker 14: Are you do you know what you've been accused of?
Speaker 10: No, I I don't sitting here right now, myself and
Speaker 10: Darren Selnick and Colin Carroll, the other two individuals that
Speaker 10: were escorted out of the Pentagon, initially placed on leave
Speaker 10: and then fired on Friday, we have not been told
Speaker 10: as of this recording. One is there what we were
Speaker 10: being investigated for? Two? Is there still an investigation? In Three?
Speaker 10: Was there even a real investigation? Because there's a lot
Speaker 10: of evidence that there there is not a real investigation.
Speaker 3: So you could see specifically didn't leak classified information and
Speaker 3: that was that. People were like, oh, well he didn't
Speaker 3: say he didn't leak at all. It's like, well, PETEXS
Speaker 3: just said you lead classified information. He said he didn't.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: You know, maybe, but no polygraph tasks Mark san Sierramoski
Speaker 3: out of the building. Doesn't know if it's investigations, I
Speaker 3: don't even know if it's an investigation. Has been cleared
Speaker 3: of investigation, no result of investigation, you still just get
Speaker 3: walked out. I mean he was talking about how up
Speaker 3: until the minute before he was told to leave the building,
Speaker 3: that he had access to classified information, which is not
Speaker 3: the way that this all usually goes down, and let's
Speaker 3: take it outside of Caldwell, those other two. I've gotten
Speaker 3: to know some people who know them, and they're saying
Speaker 3: it's preposterous that like Darren Miller.
Speaker 1: In particular would be leaky.
Speaker 3: He's like, he didn't even want to work at the
Speaker 3: cell Selnick sorry, apparently he didn't even be wanting to
Speaker 3: work at the Patagon did so out of loyalty to
Speaker 3: Pete heggsat and now getting frog marks out of the building.
Speaker 1: So again you can take that.
Speaker 3: For what you will, but clearly, the chaos inside of
Speaker 3: all of this, it's going to have a long standing effect,
Speaker 3: that's all I know.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and we're gonna, i mean, whatever anybody thinks they
Speaker 5: know right now, we will probably find out that either
Speaker 5: it's much more nuanced or that it totally wasn't true
Speaker 5: because there's so much going on behind closed stores. But
Speaker 5: it does sound very clearly, at the very least, it
Speaker 5: sounds like these guys got burned by a friend, not
Speaker 5: just colleague, but a friend.
Speaker 1: That's exactly right,